Good lord, is this still going?
You can use a two-hander and armour spikes RAW. If you don't like the RAW, ask for new RAW...don't claim the rules are otherwise. That just makes you a grumpy ostrich.
Light weapons:'A light weapon is used in one hand' is not an all-inclusive statement. Think about it. Can you think of any exceptions? Yeah, me too, and several of them. Therefore, the sentence quoted is generally descriptive; it is, clearly, not a requirement of all light weapons, since many are not used in one hand.
(Unless you visualise a monk as generally attacking with his knees clasped firmly in his fists)
I'll say this: the game definition of 'off hand' is rather unclear, and really quite unhelpful when it comes down to a discussion like this. But until a PF Faq is written, the game is backwards-compatible with the 3.5 Faq, and the faq are absolutely, 100% clear.
|
Fergie: My secondary reasoning is that the armor spikes are an exception to the rules. They really break every bit that has been quoted since you don't use a hand to hold them at all, you're 'wearing' your off-hand weapon. By the "you need a hand to hold your weapon" logic, you wouldn't be able to dual-wield armor spikes *ever*, even with a light weapon in your main hand. After all, you never do hold the armor spikes in a 'hand', you wear them.
Also, as porpentine has pointed out, there are other things treated as light weapons that you don't have to 'hold in a hand', including unarmed strikes. Heck, the hand language doesn't even work when you do 'shield bashing'. If you really want to get technical, the shield is strapped to your arm, not wielded in your 'hand'.
D&D is an exception based gameplay after all, and the armor spikes seem to be a perfect part of that.
My main reasoning goes back to 3.5. Typically, when the language between 3.5 and PRPG hasn't changed, I defer to official responses from back then. In this case:
Just how and when can you use armor spikes? If you’re using two weapons already, can you use armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack? What if you’re using a weapon and a shield? Can you use the armor spikes for an off-hand attack and still get a shield bonus to Armor Class from the shield? What if you use a two-handed weapon? Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an off-hand attack with the spikes? What are your options for using armor spikes in a grapple? Can you use them when pinned? If you have another light weapon, can you use that and your armor spikes when grappling?When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases, you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armor spikes.
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8–10 in the PH). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the offhand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand.
You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in Chapter 7 of the PH).
When grappling, you can damage your foe with your spikes by making a regular grapple check (opposed by your foe’s check). If you succeed, you deal piercing damage to your foe (see Table 7–5 in the PH) rather than the unarmed strike damage you’d normally deal when damaging your foe with a grapple check. Since you can use armor spikes as a light weapon, you can simply use them to attack your foe. You suffer a –4 penalty on your attack roll when attacking with a light weapon in a grapple (see page 156 in the PH), but if your foe is bigger or stronger than you, this might prove a better tactic than trying to deal damage through a grapple check because there is no opposed roll to make—you just have to hit your opponent’s Armor Class. You can’t attack with two weapons when grappling, even when one of those weapons is armor spikes (see the section on grappling in Chapter 8 of the PH).
You can’t attack and damage your foe if he has you pinned. If you break the pin and avoid being pinned again, you can go back to attacking your foe. If your attack bonus is high enough to allow multiple attacks, you might break the pin and then use your remaining attack to damage your foe. To accomplish this, you must first use an attack to break the pin. You can break a pin using the Escape Artist skill, but trying to do so is a standard action for you; once you use the standard action to attempt escape, you can’t make any more attacks during your turn.
Bolded emphasis in the response from me. So in 3.5, it was RAW. And as they didn't change the language in Pathfinder, I have to go with them intending to not have changed it.
Lastly, I have to ask: does it seem mechanically balanced? And in truth, it does. Yes, the TWFer gains the benefit of having a two-handed weapon as their primary attack. The armor spikes, however, aren't a great off-hand weapon. As I pointed out above, they're just a bit worse than a short sword. So the trade-off seems fine.
Also, you can't presume the RAI by Paizo to be automatically different from the RAI as explicitly stated in the 3.5 FAQ. They didn't change any of the language and never so much as hinted at a different intent.
Ok, I think I'm done trying to reason with you all.
If you cannot see the potential of munchkinism inherent in this after all that's been said, it gets complicated to say the least.
You haven't thought through a lot. The damage potential is the best possible in all instances. You could get to 10 attacks per round.
And so far no one gave me any good explanation as to why you can do this and not do this in combination with another weapon in your offhand. I would be ok with it, if it worked like the bearded devil thing, one extra attack per round, or something of the like, no biggie. But to me, 2-weapon fighting with a 2 handed and anything else is a BIG stretch of the rules and of RAI.
As to RAW, RAW, RAW. It's not Raw, if it's not explicit in PATHFINDER, you can say it all you like, it's not changing this fact. The rules may not support my claims, but for sure the PATHFINDER rules (and intent) do not suport yours either. It's to say the least, a stalemate between reason and loopholes.
Concero found a nice comparison. Considering THOSE rules we can all see that RAI is that Armor Spikes + 2 handed are not meant to go together.The buckler is worn on your arm and interfere's with your swinging the weapon. It has nothing to do with armor spikes. In fact nothing to do with armor spikes has anything to do with a free hand, so I don't know where this notion comes from. That's like saying you can't walk on your hands because your foot is broken.
Board ate my post sorry if it's here twice.
Greatsword-spike fighter
Pro's high damage output and high damage output
Con's High MAD, takes all feats available to get needed feats, penalties to hit, weak when can't full attack, extra expense of enchanting more weapons, harder time dealing with DR and fast healingGreatsword only fighter
Pro's High damage output, low stat dependency, better chance to hit, can make maximum use of feats like vital strike and cleave, Many free feats for things such as combat manuevers or improved iron will, that may keep you from killing your group when you roll that 1 on dominate person
Con's lower damage output than greatsword-spike fighter on full attacks.If someone wants to build a spike-greatsword fighter I would let them, but they should realize they will be frustrated any time they can't full attack because of using a greatsword with lower strength, and may spend a more time out of battle than other fighter builds due to failed saves.
Someone tried using the logic that offhand had nothing to do with hands. RAI with the buckler showed how the "offhand" is taken up by two-handed weapons. They had a valid argument with their definition of "offhand". Regardless of whether you agree with the logic of not the wording is against it, and we both know that balance often overrules logic when rules come into play. The keen and improved crit not stacking example shows this.
True, but two handed weapons takes up both hands. The physical one, and the metaphorical game ones.Dont agree.
That is why I don't think off handed attacks were meant to be used with two handed weapons.Wizards have stated that it was the intent to allow this. I get the feeling here that you guys are looking for ways to disallow this because you dont like it, not because it isnt RAW. (side note: Wizards designed this combat system that Paizo uses, so to say that you need a ruling from Paizo doesnt make sense, since nothing has changed with regard to TWF with Armor Spikes)
You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)That off hand refers to your free hand not the "off-hand" that means your secondary attack. You guys are constantly getting off hand the attack and the actual hand mixed up.
What bothers me is how technical you guys get about the terms but you fail to see that armor spikes is an off-hand attack. Doesnt that bother you?
Are you trying to tell me there is a primary hand, an "off-hand", and I get to use my physical secondary hand to wield a weapon, so if I can get two daggers, and armor spikes I can wield three weapons?
You should note that in TWF the second hand is noted as the "offhand"
Concero found a nice comparison. Considering THOSE rules we can all see that RAI is that Armor Spikes + 2 handed are not meant to go together.The buckler is worn on your arm and interfere's with your swinging the weapon. It has nothing to do with armor spikes. In fact nothing to do with armor spikes has anything to do with a free hand, so I don't know where this notion comes from. That's like saying you can't walk on your hands because your foot is broken.
Board ate my post sorry if it's here twice.
Greatsword-spike fighter
Pro's high damage output and high damage output
Con's High MAD, takes all feats available to get needed feats, penalties to hit, weak when can't full attack, extra expense of enchanting more weapons, harder time dealing with DR and fast healingGreatsword only fighter
Pro's High damage output, low stat dependency, better chance to hit, can make maximum use of feats like vital strike and cleave, Many free feats for things such as combat manuevers or improved iron will, that may keep you from killing your group when you roll that 1 on dominate person
Con's lower damage output than greatsword-spike fighter on full attacks.If someone wants to build a spike-greatsword fighter I would let them, but they should realize they will be frustrated any time they can't full attack because of using a greatsword with lower strength, and may spend a more time out of battle than other fighter builds due to failed saves.
It does mention off-hands, and that is what Xin was trying to argue. You can't say something works a certain way then conveniently ignore it you. Well you can, but it hurts your argument.
PS: "You" is a general statement
|
Problem is solved. PF Core pages 152-153
"Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to some spells and effects.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn.An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
This shows that you could in fact use a Light Shield, while holding, for example, two daggers as an "off handed" attack, even though the shield does not occupy your "hand", AND in fact, both hands are occupied.
Problem is solved. PF Core pages 152-153
"Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to some spells and effects.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn.An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
This shows that you could in fact use a Light Shield, while holding, for example, two daggers as an "off handed" attack, even though the shield does not occupy your "hand", AND in fact, both hands are occupied.
Are you saying that an offhand attack does not actually occupy a hand all the time? This post and Xin's other post does support this.
I think its reasonable to assume you only have one "offhand".
When you are wielding a two-handed weapon the "offhand" is being used to wield the weapon.
It seems the offhand can be the physical hand, but it is not always the physical hand. The key point is that if your "offhand" is used for one thing that it can not be used for something else.
So you can't hold a two handed weapon in your "offhand", and use armor spikes even though they don't logically interfere with the physical hand.
Edit: Removed questions from first writing of post.
Ok, I think I'm done trying to reason with you all.
If you cannot see the potential of munchkinism inherent in this after all that's been said, it gets complicated to say the least.
You haven't thought through a lot. The damage potential is the best possible in all instances. You could get to 10 attacks per round.
And so far no one gave me any good explanation as to why you can do this and not do this in combination with another weapon in your offhand. I would be ok with it, if it worked like the bearded devil thing, one extra attack per round, or something of the like, no biggie. But to me, 2-weapon fighting with a 2 handed and anything else is a BIG stretch of the rules and of RAI.As to RAW, RAW, RAW. It's not Raw, if it's not explicit in PATHFINDER, you can say it all you like, it's not changing this fact. The rules may not support my claims, but for sure the PATHFINDER rules (and intent) do not suport yours either. It's to say the least, a stalemate between reason and loopholes.
Man, you're thick.
There is no munchknism in this. You're letting the fighter make a quirky build that's utterly ineffective. He's giving up a feat, stat bonuses, taking a hit to his attack bonus, and probably even more feats after that all for an awesome 1d6 on a full attack. That's goddamn pathetic. That what you keep missing. It's not munchkinism, because there's no benefit.
Having whole lot of attacks is useless if those attacks don't do squat.
I agree with the professor about the effectiveness of the build. For those of you wanting to know why I am arguing against it, it's because I only address rules when I am on the rules board, and I don't think it is RAW or RAI. My opinion is that it's a gimp build. I am sure there is a way to cheese it, but for most players its not worth taking.
|
|
Problem is solved. PF Core pages 152-153
"Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to some spells and effects.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn.An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
This shows that you could in fact use a Light Shield, while holding, for example, two daggers as an "off handed" attack, even though the shield does not occupy your "hand", AND in fact, both hands are occupied.
Are you saying that an offhand attack does not actually occupy a hand all the time? This post and Xin's other post does support this.
Correct.
So you can't hold a two handed weapon in your "offhand", and use armor spikes even though they don't logically interfere with the physical hand.
I think its reasonable to assume you only have one "offhand".
When you are wielding a two-handed weapon the "offhand" is being used to wield the weapon.
It seems the offhand can be the physical hand, but it is not always the physical hand. The key point is that if your "offhand" is used for one thing that it can not be used for something else.
Except I have just shown that you can. The Light Shield says you can hold someting in that hand while using the Shield. For ease, lets say a Torch with the shield hand, and a Longsword. In this case, one hand is weilding the Longsword, the other is weilding a torch, (which can be a weapon), and also you are weilding a Spiked Shield. The Shield entry above confirms that this is allowed. It also confirms that you can attack with the shield, and the Longsword and Shield at the same time, as an offhanded attack. So the literal off hand is occupied, and this does not prohibit you from making an off handed attack. It is the same deal with Spiked Armor. So, one could make an AoO with either the Light Spiked Shield or the Longsword as desired.
Now if we apply the same logic to a Great Sword (2H) and Spiked Armor, we still have the same exact cituation, rules wise. If a character took Improved Unarmed Strike, and walked around weilding a Greatsword, they could decide to kick, headbutt, shoulder slam, knee, elbow, or whaever type of Unarmed Attack while both hands hold the Greatsword, with no penulty. They could also get an extra attack through two Weapon Fighting or other things, and use their kick, knee, headbutt, etc . . . as the "off handed" attack.
Also, on pg 182, under Natural Attacks, it talks about using various Natural Weapons as off handed attacks, as long as "other limbs are used", such as bite, tail, claws, hooves, etc. . .
Except I have just shown that you can. The Light Shield says you can hold someting in that hand while using the...
I worded that badly. I was saying you can't use your offhand to attack with two different weapons in the same round. The dagger and shield example supports that.
Also, on pg 182, under Natural Attacks, it talks about using various Natural Weapons as off handed attacks, as long as "other limbs are used", such as bite, tail, claws, hooves, etc. .
The natural attack rules don't follow BAB rules as far multiple attacks so that is not a valid comparison. For us normal bipeds we are limited by BAB. Monsters are limited by attack appendages(claws, bites, slams etc). A monster can have a BAB of 1, and still get 10 offhand attacks off if he had a 10 natural attacks.
Armor spikes are not an appendage. They are a secondary weapon that takes up the offhand slot, and but since two handed weapons occupy both slots for the sake of wielding weapons they can't TWF.
Random new thought: This goes against a previous ruling I made that you could threaten a 5ft and 10ft area if you had a reach weapon, and spiked armor though.
Random new thought: This goes against a previous ruling I made that you could threaten a 5ft and 10ft area if you had a reach weapon, and spiked armor though.
Does it? Because I can see how you rule 2HandedWeapon+ArmorSpikes "2WF" (Full Attack) doesn't work (single abstract 'off-hand' being used for 2nd hand needed to wield 2-Handed Polearm, thus barring application of abstract 'off-hand' to Armor Spikes), but you are not 2WF'ing when an AoO occurs. Even if you ARE wielding/holding a 2-Handed weapon with 2 hands off your turn (when an AoO occurs), you aren't necessarily 'activating' that second hand as your 'off-hand', thus I WOULD allow taking the AoO with the Armor Spikes as an off-hand weapon (w/ the half-STR penalty). Since there isn't 'handed-ness' in D&D anymore, this is really the only case where you WOULD apply the off-hand STR penalty to an AoO, since otherwise (held weapons) you would apply either 1-handed or (for double weapons) 2-handed STR bonus.
Incidentally, I see very similar logic here (i.e. 2WF's "offhand" being used to wield a 2Handed weapon, excluding other offhand weapon used via 2WF) as to when I brought up the fact that at least the main hand tip of a double weapon, if not also the off-hand tip, should benefit from the "2-handed" bonus - which most others seemed to disagree with, including James Jacobs. I personally disagree with that take on things (by straight reading of RAW, as well as it seems balanced), but you can see how the insistence on mutually incompatible "modes" (i.e. 2WF precludes getting 2-Handed damage bonus) also comes into play here.
You can do the double threaten with AoO because these work on ITERATIVE rules. You can swap an attack from longspear to spikes, no penalty. But if you try to do so simultaneously...TWF, no work.
The analogy would be you have two swords, one cold iron, one silver. Up charges the werewolf. You get an AoO...you can pick the weapon you hit it with, regardless of what you actually used that round, as long as the right weapon is in hand. This is because you can hit with left, then right, then left as iterative attacks, if you have a +11 BAB. TWF means you have to declare both are in play at the beginning of the round, and your 'offhand' has to be declared for using a light weapon.
The 'sucky fighting style' argument is a smokescreen. What this is doing is effectivly giving a TWF a better option then actually wielding two weapons, because he nets an extra d6+1/2Str over a normal TWF. Armor Spikes are exotic, and there's nothing in there that says they bend the TWF rule.
THe Barbazu beard is effectively a specialized armor spike on the head that is exotic and specifically states it doesn't require an off-hand to be ready. Armor spikes are NOT so ruled.
===Aelryinth
I can't find anything in the rules that says any of your attacks happen simultaneously when dual-wielding weapons. Seems like it is little more than an assumption used to support an argument rather than actual evidence to the contrary.
Are you trying to tell me there is a primary hand, an "off-hand", and I get to use my physical secondary hand to wield a weapon, so if I can get two daggers, and armor spikes I can wield three weapons?
Yes he is. A monk with improved unarmed strike is actually carrying over 9 weapons at any given moment; head, fists, feet, elbows, and knees, as well as any other creative concepts, such as the back, hip, and shoulder.
Yes he is. A monk with improved unarmed strike is actually carrying over 9 weapons at any given moment; head, fists, feet, elbows, and knees, as well as any other creative concepts, such as the back, hip, and shoulder.
Are you trying to tell me there is a primary hand, an "off-hand", and I get to use my physical secondary hand to wield a weapon, so if I can get two daggers, and armor spikes I can wield three weapons?
The improved unarmed strike is using the body as a weapon. Those are just parts of the body.
Umm... I wanted to edit this (I had mis-quoted certain rules, distracting from main point),
but dinner happened (timing out edit window), so here goes:
Random new thought: This goes against a previous ruling I made that you could threaten a 5ft and 10ft area if you had a reach weapon, and spiked armor though.
Does it? Because I can see how you rule 2HandedWeapon+ArmorSpikes "2WF" (Full Attack) doesn't work (single abstract 'off-hand' being used for 2nd hand needed to wield 2-Handed Polearm, thus barring application of abstract 'off-hand' to Armor Spikes during 2WF), but you are not (and CANNOT be) 2WF'ing when an AoO occurs. Even if you ARE wielding/holding a 2-Handed weapon with 2 hands off your turn (when an AoO occurs), you aren't necessarily 'activating' that second hand for your abstract 'off-hand' unless you use it to fight with (for the AoO), thus I WOULD allow taking the AoO with the Armor Spikes. Otherwise, you would be barred from EVER attacking with Armored Spikes as "a regular melee weapon" (Armor Spike description) if you are merely HOLDING a 2-Handed weapon or non-weapon item - I don't see why one couldn't do an all-Armor Spike Full Attack action while simply holding inert a 2-Handed Pole-arm (armed for AoO purposes), for example.
Incidentally, I see very similar logic here (i.e. 2WF's "offhand" being used to wield a 2Handed weapon, excluding other offhand weapon used via 2WF) as to when I brought up the fact that at least the main hand tip of a double weapon, if not also the off-hand tip, should benefit from the "2-handed" bonus (stacking with off-hand penalty for that tip) - which most others seemed to disagree with, including James Jacobs. I personally disagree with that take on things (by straight reading of RAW, as well as that it seems balanced), but you can see how the insistence on mutually incompatible "modes" (i.e. 2WF precludes getting 2-Handed damage bonus) also comes into play here.
But I don't see a problem making Armor Spike attacks as AoO (after attacking with 2-Hander on your turn, that you still hold), or mixing it in to your Iterative Attacks - you just can't use a 2-Handed Weapon as the 'main-hand' of 2WF while using the Armor Spikes as 'off-hand'.
|
|
Also, on pg 182, under Natural Attacks, it talks about using various Natural Weapons as off handed attacks, as long as "other limbs are used", such as bite, tail, claws, hooves, etc. .The natural attack rules don't follow BAB rules as far multiple attacks so that is not a valid comparison. For us normal bipeds we are limited by BAB. Monsters are limited by attack appendages(claws, bites, slams etc). A monster can have a BAB of 1, and still get 10 offhand attacks off if he had a 10 natural attacks.
Armor spikes are not an appendage. They are a secondary weapon that takes up the offhand slot, and but since two handed weapons occupy both slots for the sake of wielding weapons they can't TWF.
Random new thought: This goes against a previous ruling I made that you could threaten a 5ft and 10ft area if you had a reach weapon, and spiked armor though.
The specific part I was refering to was near the end, when it talks about using natural attacks with weapon attacks, as part of the BaB progression. There it talks about other attack forms besides an off handed, hand held weapon like claws. I just didn't want to quote it all and bold the relavent areas.
By this point, though, I think it is irrelevant. I feel I have given clear and disting proof in the rules to show tha it works, and others are still not accepting it, so I think it is to the point that nothing will convince them otherwise and there is no point for this thread now.
Ok, I think I'm done trying to reason with you all.
If you cannot see the potential of munchkinism inherent in this after all that's been said, it gets complicated to say the least.
You haven't thought through a lot. The damage potential is the best possible in all instances. You could get to 10 attacks per round.
And so far no one gave me any good explanation as to why you can do this and not do this in combination with another weapon in your offhand. I would be ok with it, if it worked like the bearded devil thing, one extra attack per round, or something of the like, no biggie. But to me, 2-weapon fighting with a 2 handed and anything else is a BIG stretch of the rules and of RAI.As to RAW, RAW, RAW. It's not Raw, if it's not explicit in PATHFINDER, you can say it all you like, it's not changing this fact. The rules may not support my claims, but for sure the PATHFINDER rules (and intent) do not suport yours either. It's to say the least, a stalemate between reason and loopholes.
Potential of munchkinism?
Hrm.Either I missed the post on that... but if now.
Explain how this is broken. Using math of course. Lets say.. At level ten. Good number. Using all the feats needed to make it be somewhat effective. Then, compare it to say, a two weapon fighter and/or a two handed fighter at the same level. Same amount of gear, and feats that would work best with them.
I doubt that such a request is absurd. As I'm presenting it in a manner that isn't offensive, or aggressive.
Also, on pg 182, under Natural Attacks, it talks about using various Natural Weapons as off handed attacks, as long as "other limbs are used", such as bite, tail, claws, hooves, etc. .The natural attack rules don't follow BAB rules as far multiple attacks so that is not a valid comparison. For us normal bipeds we are limited by BAB. Monsters are limited by attack appendages(claws, bites, slams etc). A monster can have a BAB of 1, and still get 10 offhand attacks off if he had a 10 natural attacks.
Armor spikes are not an appendage. They are a secondary weapon that takes up the offhand slot, and but since two handed weapons occupy both slots for the sake of wielding weapons they can't TWF.
Random new thought: This goes against a previous ruling I made that you could threaten a 5ft and 10ft area if you had a reach weapon, and spiked armor though.
The specific part I was refering to was near the end, when it talks about using natural attacks with weapon attacks, as part of the BaB progression. There it talks about other attack forms besides an off handed, hand held weapon like claws. I just didn't want to quote it all and bold the relavent areas.
By this point, though, I think it is irrelevant. I feel I have given clear and disting proof in the rules to show tha it works, and others are still not accepting it, so I think it is to the point that nothing will convince them otherwise and there is no point for this thread now.
The natural attacks accuracy goes off of the BAB, but BAB has no affect on whether you can use them or not. Am I misunderstanding you?
Ok, I think I'm done trying to reason with you all.
If you cannot see the potential of munchkinism inherent in this after all that's been said, it gets complicated to say the least.
You haven't thought through a lot. The damage potential is the best possible in all instances. You could get to 10 attacks per round.
And so far no one gave me any good explanation as to why you can do this and not do this in combination with another weapon in your offhand. I would be ok with it, if it worked like the bearded devil thing, one extra attack per round, or something of the like, no biggie. But to me, 2-weapon fighting with a 2 handed and anything else is a BIG stretch of the rules and of RAI.As to RAW, RAW, RAW. It's not Raw, if it's not explicit in PATHFINDER, you can say it all you like, it's not changing this fact. The rules may not support my claims, but for sure the PATHFINDER rules (and intent) do not suport yours either. It's to say the least, a stalemate between reason and loopholes.
Potential of munchkinism?
Hrm.Either I missed the post on that... but if now.
Explain how this is broken. Using math of course. Lets say.. At level ten. Good number. Using all the feats needed to make it be somewhat effective. Then, compare it to say, a two weapon fighter and/or a two handed fighter at the same level. Same amount of gear, and feats that would work best with them.
I doubt that such a request is absurd. As I'm presenting it in a manner that isn't offensive, or aggressive.
Nothing agressive about it. I could do it, but I won't cause I SUCK at math and DPR calculations, I may tru to look at DPR olympcs to do that. But level 10 is convenient, I'm doing it at level 12.
BTW how can you possibly believe that a Two-handed weapon can deal more damage than someone with a two-handed too AND extra damage?
By the way, if anyone from my side of the argument is interested in making a build I would apreciate that.
BTW how can you possibly believe that a Two-handed weapon can deal more damage than someone with a two-handed too AND extra damage?
It is because of the penalties to hit, and the reduced damage potential of the armor spikes compared to getting more hits with the two handed weapon.
If you want help, this thread might help you out with the math. The calculator seems a bit complex... But it should answer all of your questions - after you figure it out.
BTW how can you possibly believe that a Two-handed weapon can deal more damage than someone with a two-handed too AND extra damage?It is because of the penalties to hit, and the reduced damage potential of the armor spikes compared to getting more hits with the two handed weapon.
If you want help, this thread might help you out with the math. The calculator seems a bit complex... But it should answer all of your questions - after you figure it out.
But mate, you won't loose ANY 2-handed weapon attack, that's my beef with it, you get ALL 2 handed weapon attacks and on top of that you armor spike the guy in the nuts with your "fake" off-hand.
But mate, you won't loose ANY 2-handed weapon attack, that's my beef with it, you get ALL 2 handed weapon attacks and on top of that you armor spike the guy in the nuts with your "fake" off-hand.
You are confusing the ability to swing, with being able to hit. The penalties for two weapon fighting reduce your damage output. And what you are getting from the spikes doesn't make up for it, unless the target AC is so low that the character can't really miss.
EDIT:: A very basic example:
Average damage per hit with a two-handed sword is 7+strength modifier. For this example, I'm going to assume no strength modifier even though that is very unlikely.
Let us say that after you figure out total attack bonus, versus target AC, you hit 45% of the time.
Your "true average" (for lack of a better phrase) per basic swing is 7 * 0.45, or 3.15.
Now, when you add the penalties for two weapon fighting (I'm assuming the feat is taken), you only hit 35% of the time. This makes your "true average" with the two-handed sword only 2.45.
This is only a basic example, and doesn't take into account criticals.
To really boggle your mind, now try to imagine what the two-handed sword wielder could have done if s/he took power attack instead of the two weapon fighting feat, and you might be able to see why the two-hander + armor spikes isn't considered that great of a build.
/EDIT
But mate, you won't loose ANY 2-handed weapon attack, that's my beef with it, you get ALL 2 handed weapon attacks and on top of that you armor spike the guy in the nuts with your "fake" off-hand.BTW how can you possibly believe that a Two-handed weapon can deal more damage than someone with a two-handed too AND extra damage?It is because of the penalties to hit, and the reduced damage potential of the armor spikes compared to getting more hits with the two handed weapon.
If you want help, this thread might help you out with the math. The calculator seems a bit complex... But it should answer all of your questions - after you figure it out.
If you are TWF'ing you take a -2 to hit. The straight two-hander is power attacking and still hitting. I know the TWF+Two-hander can power attack too, but he has to deal with the power attack penalty and the TWF penalty, and IIRC light weapons can't power attack so the spiked armor is not helping him at all for extra damage, but he still has to deal with the power attack penalty.
Additionally, the TWF'er will have to invest points into Dex that the Two-Hander does not.
Two-Weapon Fighting Dex 15
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11
The Two-hander + Armor spike character has a MAD issue to deal with that will make him less capable in dealing/taking damage due to less strength/constitution loss or out of combat due to losses in Int/Wis/Chr.
Nothing agressive about it. I could do it, but I won't cause I SUCK at math and DPR calculations, I may tru to look at DPR olympcs to do that. But level 10 is convenient, I'm doing it at level 12.
BTW how can you possibly believe that a Two-handed weapon can deal more damage than someone with a two-handed too AND extra damage?
By the way, if anyone from my side of the argument is interested in making a build I would apreciate that.
I'll actually do that. Tomorrow after I get home from serious business. Well.. Nevermind. I'll do it while away on business. Can bring my core rulebook with me of course. Using core only, at level 12. Using the 36 point allocation my group uses. All three human. I'll get that to you tomorrow hopefully.
Since I love melee, I'm not going to lean either way regarding this.
Fortunately, I LOVE rolling up characters.
Nothing agressive about it. I could do it, but I won't cause I SUCK at math and DPR calculations,
You've made two arguments: about what the rules say, and about their effect on the game.
You're wrong about what the rules say.You've just admitted you don't actually know their effect on the game.
Based on that, the case for disallowing TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes is pretty much shot.
Nothing agressive about it. I could do it, but I won't cause I SUCK at math and DPR calculations,You've made two arguments: about what the rules say, and about their effect on the game.
You're wrong about what the rules say.
You've just admitted you don't actually know their effect on the game.
Based on that, the case for disallowing TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes is pretty much shot.
Shot? Yeah right. I know the numbers are way higher than they should be, just because I don't have the exact numbers doesn't mean I don't know.
BTW Two-hander will STILL use 1.5 Strength AND light weapons DO use Power attack.
Shot? Yeah right.
Yeah, that's right -- shot.
You can't make a numerical argument because, numerically, you're wrong.You can't make a RaW argument because, RaW, you're wrong.
You can't make an intent argument because, intent-wise, you're wrong.
It works. It's allowed. House-rule it away if you want; the rest of us will deal with it because it's neither broken nor cheese. It's just another option.
Nothing agressive about it. I could do it, but I won't cause I SUCK at math and DPR calculations,You've made two arguments: about what the rules say, and about their effect on the game.
You're wrong about what the rules say.
You've just admitted you don't actually know their effect on the game.
Based on that, the case for disallowing TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes is pretty much shot.Shot? Yeah right. I know the numbers are way higher than they should be, just because I don't have the exact numbers doesn't mean I don't know.
BTW Two-hander will STILL use 1.5 Strength AND light weapons DO use Power attack.
You need a 15 Dex to get TWF granting a SINGLE offhand attack with -2 to all attacks. A regular greatsword fighter doesn't need more than a 10 dex. That's 7 points of point-buy that could be spent in higher strength or con. So you're sacrificing either damage or hitpoints just in the Stat buy process. Then all your attacks are made at a -2 penalty to gain a single 1d6 + half your strength bonus.
If you want more offhand attacks you need to sacrifice even more points to Dex. That's not even considering the feat cost you're eating. A straight greatsword fighter will be able to specialize in his weapon, hit more often, have higher strength bonus damage, and be able to afford feats for versatility.
The GS and Armor spike build needs TWF feats, needs to spend twice the weapon specific feats, and is just all around stretched thin. The ONLY reason to play this build is for flavor. You can probably make a fairly effective build if you optimize it as much as possible, but you're going to be less effective to a straight two-hander build.
Also, Power attacking while eating the TWF penalties means you won't be hitting anything but mooks.
|
|
The GS and Armor spike build needs TWF feats, needs to spend twice the weapon specific feats, and is just all around stretched thin. The ONLY reason to play this build is for flavor. You can probably make a fairly effective build if you optimize it as much as possible, but you're going to be less effective to a straight two-hander build.
Also, Power attacking while eating the TWF penalties means you won't be hitting anything but mooks.
That's not entirely true. It can be a good idea to simply have the Spiked Armor, but not intend to use it constantly or TWF with it. Instead to threaten close range with a Reach Weapon, to assure a weapon while Grappled, and things like that. Such a character doesn't need to bumb Dex, go Two Weapon Fighting, and can focus on Great Sword Feats.
The Two-Weapon Fighting style with Spiked Armor, though, is a pretty bad choice, though there are a few ways to do it well. More the Spiked Shield and Spiked Armor route with things like Blood Soaked Charger, Pin Shield, Shield Charge stuff, but it can work.
As an extra point on why the THW + armor spikes isn't cheesy or overpowered: NOBODY DOES IT! Its been permitted by the rules since at least 3.5, and I've yet to see a PC or any NPC in a published adventure try to do this. (And I have played A LOT of 3.5/Pathfinder in the past several years.) It never appeared on the 3.5 Character Op board either, although one reason would be that fighters were generally not given much attention there in the first place.
If it was truly a more powerful option, then more people would do it. But nobody does it.
There are some good reasons why people don't do it too:
1) It takes a lot of feats.
2) It takes high scores in at least 2 attributes to do it.
3) It incurs a not-insignificant penalty to hit to do it.
4) It requires investments in wealth into the secondary weapon to make it effective.
Pathfinder certainly makes it easier to pull off than 3.5 did. The extra feats from HD in Pathfinder means that the feat investment isn't as costly. And the fact that PC races now get more ability boosts makes it easier to qualify for the feats (i.e. a human/half-elf/half-orc could put his floating +2 attribute bonus into dex to help achieve the requirements for TWFing feats.) Also, the Pathfinder Ranger can attempt to do this without having the necessary Dex to meet the TWFing feat requirements. And another boost that Pathfinder gives is to the Fighter being able to make use of a higher dex score due to his armor training ability. A 3.5 THW fighter with 19 dex is wasting his attribute points for the most part since he would generally be better off wearing Full Plate, and won't get the full benefit of that Dex, even with Mithral Full Plate. A Pathfinder fighter can at least add most if not all of that Dex to his AC due to his armor training ability.
Still, the opportunity costs needed to do this can not be overlooked. A Fighter who wants to do the THW/armor spikes thing needs the extra dex. For most THW fighters, dex becomes a tertiary stat, since they won't be carrying a shield they tend to rely on hitpoints for defense and generally will boost Con before Dex. Getting the higher dex, especially if looking for more off-hand attacks, will draw down his Str score as well, thereby further reducing his attack and damage on top of the TWF penalties.
The extra feat investment for a THF to get extra attacks will also draw down his overall effectiveness with the main weapon. He'll be taking THFing feats and will slow down his feat progression for things like Improved Crit and other Critical feats, or will not take things like Greater Weapon Focus or Weapon Spec. Or he'll skip over CMB feats like Imp Sunder or Imp Bullrush. Or he'll end up avoiding some feats like Iron Will or a Skill Focus that would help shore up weaknesses or round out his character.
Now a fighter who was planning on going TWFing in the first place, can probably do this decently. Say an Elf dex based/weapon finesse fighter using a Curved Blade and armor spikes. For him, it would make little difference if he was using a THW/armor spikes or two one handed weapons, except for the fact that he'd probably get more damage output overall using two of the same weapons since he can benefit more from feats that apply to particular weapons (Imp Crit, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec). And its a suboptimal build anyways as far as damage output; you're dex based fighter will not put out as much damage as a THW strength fighter even with the extra attacks.
A Ranger can probably pull this off easier, though. He can get the TWFing feats for free without having to invest in a high Dexterity. So if he was going TWFing in the first place, this won't hurt as much to do. He's still plagued by using different weapon types so that his weapon specific feats won't stack. And of course, everybody knows that TWFing Rangers suck in the first place; just ask Treantmonk!
A Paladin or a Rogue could also try to do the THW/armor spikes thing as well. But without any (Paladin) or many (Rogue) bonus feats it takes up a huge portion of their feat resources. The Rogue will often use TWFing to maximize sneak attack opportunities, but unless hes an elf or takes EWP curved blade theres no real point to him trying to use a THW since he'll need his attribute points in Dex. And if he takes Power Attack and puts points into Str then hes probably wasting his feats/abilities. He really does need everything in Dex just to keep his attack bonus high enough to even hit things; that medium BAB is a killer when stacked with the -2 for TWFing and Power Attack on top of it.
A Paladin can make use of this, especially with Smite Evil negating the attack penalties and upping the damage. But the Pally is already MAD needing to drop a significant number of points into Cha to truly be effective. And he gets no bonus feats, so he'll probably never end up taking Imp or Greater TWFing. So for him its probably a huge waste of resources to try and do this and be good at it.
Finally, we should consider whether the THW/armor spikes is superior to a one-handed weapon/spiked shield combo. For a character who doesn't have the Dex to take Imp or Grtr TWFing, he'll be better off with the shield that will up his AC, and he could also take Shield Slam to get the free bull rush with his attack (which IMO is much better than the extra damage from extra offhand attacks or from the THW bonuses). The shield can also be made to do more base damage than the spikes due to the bashing property, which will somewhat offset the bonus damage from using a THW.
Probably the best way to make use of the THW/armor spikes is for a fighter with a decent dex score. He's really just a THW fighter, but he drops a single feat into TWFing and throws some armor spikes on his armor (and maybe makes them +1). Then, if hes in a situation where he can make a full attack and hit with a high chance of success he can take the offhand attack to get a little extra damage output.
One person who can maybe make great use of armor spikes is the Duelist. Since it appears that TWFing with armor spikes won't preclude the duelist from benefiting from his class abilities, it might be a nice boost to his damage output. Reading the duelist class abilities literally, it looks like he can also get his precise strike damage with armor spikes as an offhand attack. However, hes stuck using a one-handed weapon as a main hand attack, so he won't be using a THW in the first place. Also, he already has a significant feat investment tied up in his prereq feats, so in he'll have to give up some things in order to make the off hand attacks with the armor spikes.
But overall, the extra damage from using armor spikes won't be much for most attackers unless they are benefitting from say Favored Enemy or Sneak Attack or Smite Evil, or something similar. An extra 1d6 +half strength +1/1 power attack ratio isn't a whole lot. And I know this from DMing and using a lot of creatures that get additional natural attacks. (A raksasha monk I used the other night was barely doing any extra damage with her extra natural attacks.) And against foes with DR that the armor spike attacks can't overcome, its really a waste to take the extra penalty to attacks when it won't do much damage at all, if any!
The feat cost for doing this with a Greatsword, if permitted, is One Feat. As long as the dmg you generate from that feat is higher then you could get from Power Attacking with just the sword, you are good to go.
The Dex requirement is 13, with a +2 Dex booster. You aren't going to be wearing heavy spiked armor until later in your career, anyways. The effective point cost is the same as any other fighter using the standard Array. If you're going to whine about not having points for TH/DMG, kindly note you'll have a higher AC. So, stats is not an argument.
The dmg here is 10% and 6 pts (-2 PA for 6 dmg). If your armor spikes can avg more then the difference in dmg, this is worthwhile.
Let's use a Str of 22. +6 is easier to cut in two. Let's also not forget that Fighters have class bonuses that would help this style out immensely.
Our friend the Greatsword guy is going to do 2-12 +9 STr +6 PA +6 various other bonuses (the only important dmg is PA). So, let's say 28. He is at -2 TH.
Our Friend the TWF user is going to do 2-12 +9 Str +6 Other, +1-6 +3 +1 other bonus. His dmg is 29.5. he is at -2 to hit.
Advantage, TWF.
Keep in mind that as the Armor Spikes go up in dmg (spell effects/bonuses, like GMW; Fighter class benefit, Str going up), they will out pace the +3 dmg from Power Attack.
Furthermore, every additional attack added is more and more dmg on the stack, that just -2 from Power Attack for +6 dmg is not going to adjudicate. Basically, as long as the TWF can add more bonuses to his spikes, he can easily keep pace with Power Attack. Adding more secondary attacks has hidden costs, but DOT, this form does stay ahead of PA if you are willing to spend the feats.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth, I think you're making a lot of assumptions in your calculations that I'm not comfortable with. For instance, since you're assuming that power attack is at -2, and that the fighter will only get one attack with the greatsword, this calculation is only valid for a level 4 or 5 Fighter.
Apparently this level 4 or 5 fighter has spent a large chunk of his gold (4k out of 6k or 10k) to get +2 to his Dex. This seems like a significant investment to me.
I think you'll find that if you actually crunch the full fighter numbers, the armor spikes simply aren't worth it.
The AoO part I agree with, completely. Now, not to derail this further. I would like to see some numbers behind that assumption that this build is not the most damage. I agree it's feat dependent, but it's no diferent than any 2 weapon fighting build. I know that there are many, many factors included about reliably full attacking and all that, but if a guy chooses to go 2 weapon fighting, I cannot comprehend how anything will beat Power attack x 4 and Strength x 2.5. Especialy when you hit 11th level and beyond.
OK, well did you look up the Curvy Camilla build I mentioned in the DPR thrad? (It's on about page 6-7, give or take)
Right next to it there is a build called "Chris Cuisinart" that is also Barb1/Fighter8, but using a 2-Bladed Sword, i.e. 2WF. You can see there that EVERY SINGLE FEAT must be spent towards this one goal (I think Iron Will is necessary to meet the minimum Will Save Requirement as well), to only ALMOST match Curvy Camilla's Full Attack DPS.Remember you aren't getting the benefit of Armor Training to the Armor Spikes, and Chris Cuisinart already uses EVERY SINGLE FEAT to do what he does, so there is no room for WF/WS/GWF that you aren't gaining the 'double dip' a double weapon allows.
In any case, it seems short-sighted to focus so much on hypothetical Full Attack DPR to the point that you aren't good at anything else - For example, even SOLELY by the metric of damage done, Curvy Camilla is doing equivalent damage to her Full Attack when Cleaving (two attacks), and +50% MORE when Great Cleaving three targets - AND she can take a full Move in those cases, while Full Attacks are limited to 5' so any opponent who is impressed by your 2WF Full Attack is just going to force you to move more than 5', wasting your ENTIRE 2WF Feat (and Stat) investment. For the very same reason (Full Attack is not the be-all end all, and in fact out-done by Great Cleave in some cases), I don't even think taking all but 1 level of Fighter is truly 'optimal' as it appears in the context of the DPR thread (comparing Full Attack DPR), since more Barbarian levels give further Rage Powers and increase Rage STR and HPs, and thus will have equal or better DPR for single attacks/Cleaves, besides other utility.
I would say that Cleave, Great Cleave (or Combat Reflexes), and some other Feat like Lunge or Improved Iron Will (or Grapple, ironically, given the Spiked Armor tie-in) is going to make Curvy Camilla a MUCH more effective COMBATANT than Chris Cuisinart or your stretching-the-rules ArmorSpike+2Hander build. Not to mention the 'organic character growth' is ALOT more straightforward, she pretty much is always optimized for what she is doing, not worrying about taking certain Feats at certain level just so at a later level it all fits together.
I think using Armor Spikes is a very legitimate tool for certain builds, in combination with a Pole-Arm and with Improved Grapple, for example, but the dedication of Feats and DEX Stat for 2WF just doesn't make it as appealing even if you ignore that 2-Handers aren't really meant to work as part of 2WF (unless double weapons).
I think it's been said before, but the amount of damage lost since you're now taking a -2 to hit with your greatsword is not made up by the measely 1d6+half str you get from the armor spikes.
Exactly, without benefit of Weapon Training, Weapon Focus/Spec, and Improved Crit Range of main weapon (Crits are what determine high average damage for Fighter types in the DPR thread). Power Attack isn't dial-able anymore, so you are taking full PA penalty on top of 2WF if you want to Power Attack AT ALL, and that has a disproportionate effect to a high-damage high-Crit 2-Hander weapon. Like I mentioned, Feats like Cleave and Great Cleave are EXTREMELY effective at damage-output copmared to Full Attacks, while allowing a Move Action (which is very commonly needed for melee combatants).
Aren't armor spikes martial, not exotic, weapons? It was not my understanding that any special feat was needed just to make a fighter proficient with them.
Aren't armor spikes martial, not exotic, weapons? It was not my understanding that any special feat was needed just to make a fighter proficient with them.
Yes, that's true, I don't know how I got that idea.
So, the question becomes, if I were putting together a TWF build anyway, why wouldn't I choose the greatsword/spikes route to do it?
So, the question becomes, if I were putting together a TWF build anyway, why wouldn't I choose the greatsword/spikes route to do it?
Your DM (like James Jacobs) doesn't fall for the 'using 2-Hander as main-hand of 2WF routine' trip? And/or you play PFS games?
|
|
So, the question becomes, if I were putting together a TWF build anyway, why wouldn't I choose the greatsword/spikes route to do it?
Because it's a crappy twf build?
As has been pointed out, there's a reason that it's been legal since 3.5 and hardly been done. It really is sub-par. The 'off-hand' weapon is 1d6/x2, you need to have a high dex when the guy with a two-handed weapon would rather have a high str, and the penalty means your 'heavy hitting attacks' are going to miss more often.
Simply put, it just isn't worth it.
So, the question becomes, if I were putting together a TWF build anyway, why wouldn't I choose the greatsword/spikes route to do it?Your DM (like James Jacobs) doesn't fall for the 'using 2-Hander as main-hand of 2WF routine' trip? And/or you play PFS games?
Or you want to reduce feat dependencies by focusing on the same weapon used twice?
Or you wish to increase the critical range on your weapons so you can also benefit nicely from the critical feats (assuming you have space)?
So, the question becomes, if I were putting together a TWF build anyway, why wouldn't I choose the greatsword/spikes route to do it?Your DM (like James Jacobs) doesn't fall for the 'using 2-Hander as main-hand of 2WF routine' trip? And/or you play PFS games?
I missed the post where James Jacobs or PFS indicated it wasn't allowed.
Are you asserting that if it is allowed, it's the optimal TWF build?
So, the question becomes, if I were putting together a TWF build anyway, why wouldn't I choose the greatsword/spikes route to do it?Your DM (like James Jacobs) doesn't fall for the 'using 2-Hander as main-hand of 2WF routine' trip? And/or you play PFS games?Or you want to reduce feat dependencies by focusing on the same weapon used twice?
Or you wish to increase the critical range on your weapons so you can also benefit nicely from the critical feats (assuming you have space)?
Or you want finesse-able weapons since you are already focusing on a high dexterity for the two weapon fighting feats?
Or you want finesse-able weapons since you are already focusing on a high dexterity for the two weapon fighting feats?
Armor spikes are light weapons, correct? I thought all light weapons could use weapon finesse.