The 2WF rules refer to main-HAND (singular) and off-HAND (singular).
Unless dealing with a special case that allows functioning as main-hand somehow, I don't see how a weapon held with two hands can qualify as a singular main hand for 2WF. That's 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?
Well for one, most TWFing builds are focused around Dex instead of Strength so as to qualify for the TWFing feats, meaning you are stuck with the curved blade in order to finesse a two handed weapon. And unless you are an elf, this means having to spend yet another feat in an already feat hefty build. (And if you do go elf, that means less Con for soaking up damage when you do get hit; yet another tradeoff).
But more importantly, there would be no synergy between feats for your two weapons. Most TWFing builds will use two of the same weapon (or a double weapon) so that things like Imp Crit or Weapon Focus will apply to both attacks. So thats a trade off you have to make. And most TWFing builds revolve around a particular concept, usually focusing on criticals (for extra damage or adding conditions through critical feats), extra damage from special sources (favored enemy, smite evil), or extra sneak attack damage. So does the THW plus armor spikes help achieve those goals?
For crit-focused builds this can be a bit painful. Some crit-focus builds are built around adding extra damage from say Smite Evil or Favored Enemy. So such a character will have to either take extra feats to do it with both weapons, or just suck it up and figure on not doing it very often with the offhand weapon. And in the case of not worrying about it with the offhand, the extra -2 to hit to all attacks means less crits with the main hand. Probably better off not even worrying about the offhand in such a case. Plus armor spikes only crit on natural 20s and only get x2 critical; theres lots of better weapons to choose from for that.
For base damage output builds, it means having to dump more feats into the offhand weapon. High level fighters especially will suffer here, as they have some really good feats that are built around the weapon focus tree (e.g. Penetrating Strike).
For sneak attack builds, its all about attack bonuses. Thus, it probably won't matter what your main attack is, since you will be dex based (unless you went Str and Dex for your rogue, which is just silly). And again, your stuck trying to finesse a THW. Plus, you aren't going to be power attacking, thanks to the medium BAB; you want to hit to deal sneak attack damage, not take penalties in order to up base damage.
So there is a huge incentive to use either two of the same weapon, or a double weapon, in a TWFing build.
Using the THW plus armor spikes incurs a big tradeoff. Yes, you'll do more base damage with your main hand. But to make the offhand attack effective, you need to invest in more feats. And that feat investment has to equal or exceed the benefit of doing something else with those feats, IN ADDITION to compensating for the -2 to hit with your much stronger main attack.
Consider say a 9th lvl fighter with two iterative attacks, using a Greatsword and armor spikes. Now clearly the Greatsword will do much more damage than the armor spikes will, possibly 3 to 4 times the damage overall. He can make two attacks at +9/+4 with the Greatsword, or he can make three attacks at +7/+2/+7, with the second +7 being with the armor spikes. Now, if choosing to attack with three attacks rather than the two means he hits with the first Greatsword attack and the armor spikes but misses with his second Greatsword attack, whereas if he had just used the Greatsword he would have hit with both, then he has chosen poorly, and has done much less damage than he would have otherwise.
This disparity gets more amplified at higher levels, as his Greatsword damage will start to far outpace his armor spike damage (thanks to Power Attack, better enhancements on the Greatsword, etc.).
Finally, you can't overlook the one-handed weapon/spiked shield combo. Is the character better using that or a THW/armor spikes? Base damage will likely be more with the THW, but the shield guy gets better AC and can shield slam, which can be really huge if it works (you get full attack then bullrush the guy away, he can't take a full attack in response). And the shield guy can eventually negate the TWFing penalties to his offhand attack with Shield Mastery. Shield guy ends up having to dump feats into shield feats, but THW/armor spikes guy needs to dump more feats into offhand weapon feats, so that works out about the same feat wise.
|
The 2WF rules refer to main-HAND (singular) and off-HAND (singular).
Unless dealing with a special case that allows functioning as main-hand somehow, I don't see how a weapon held with two hands can qualify as a singular main hand for 2WF. That's it.
Refer back to the same issue with the Light Shield. It shows that you can make an Off Handed atack while both literal hands are occupied and being used. It is also a bit irrelevent what Two Weapon Fighting says, because Armor Spikes are not hand held weapons. :)
Additionally, a Naga Monk, who has no hands/arms can stil fully Flurry of Blows, which works just like TWF, because just like Armor Spikes, Unarmed Strikes do not require hands in any way. In fact it is impossible to use hands with Spiked Armor, because Spiked Gauntlets are a different weapon. Likewise a Warhorse can still use Spiked Armor even though it's "hands" are occupied holding the horse up.
Also, as I tried to insinuate, if your ruling that you can't fight with a Great Sword when your off hand is occupied or vice versa, all Medium and Heavy armors except Breastplate come with Gauntlets, which would mean it is impossible to use any weapons without the TWF tree while in Medium or Heavy Armor (according to the generic "your" argument), and using a Two Handed Weapon is strictly impossible, (sorry your hands are already occupied).
The 2WF rules refer to main-HAND (singular) and off-HAND (singular).
Actually, the term in the rules is "primary hand", but I understand your point.
Unless dealing with a special case that allows functioning as main-hand somehow, I don't see how a weapon held with two hands can qualify as a singular main hand for 2WF. That's it.
Ah, so you're one of the people who doesn't believe that D&D 3.5 FAQ plus wordings that are identical to D&D 3.5 wordings plus no inkling whatsoever that the Pathfinder creators intended a change is insufficient reason to believe that this build is allowed?
Let me make sure I've stated the argument quite explicitly so you can evaluate it:1) This build is affirmatively and clearly allowed in D&D 3.5.
2) The Pathfinder creators did not change any of the relevant language in any way that would cause a change to whether or not this build is allowed.
3) The Pathfinder creators have given no indication at all that they intended to make any rules change to disallow this build.
In any case where 1, 2, and 3 are all true, I find it unreasonable to continue to act like the rules don't allow a build. They clearly do.
|
The 2WF rules refer to main-HAND (singular) and off-HAND (singular).
Unless dealing with a special case that allows functioning as main-hand somehow, I don't see how a weapon held with two hands can qualify as a singular main hand for 2WF. That's it.
I really don't get this argument. By that logic, you couldn't use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon at *all* since they never take up a 'hand'.
It was legal in 3.5, as shown in the FAQ in one of my earlier posts, and the language didn't change in Pathfinder. I could see making it illegal if it was a phenomenal option, but it isn't. It's rather sub-par.
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.
36 point buy?
The 2WF rules refer to main-HAND (singular) and off-HAND (singular).Actually, the term in the rules is "primary hand", but I understand your point.
Unless dealing with a special case that allows functioning as main-hand somehow, I don't see how a weapon held with two hands can qualify as a singular main hand for 2WF. That's it.Ah, so you're one of the people who doesn't believe that D&D 3.5 FAQ plus wordings that are identical to D&D 3.5 wordings plus no inkling whatsoever that the Pathfinder creators intended a change is insufficient reason to believe that this build is allowed?
Let me make sure I've stated the argument quite explicitly so you can evaluate it:
1) This build is affirmatively and clearly allowed in D&D 3.5.
2) The Pathfinder creators did not change any of the relevant language in any way that would cause a change to whether or not this build is allowed.
3) The Pathfinder creators have given no indication at all that they intended to make any rules change to disallow this build.
In any case where 1, 2, and 3 are all true, I find it unreasonable to continue to act like the rules don't allow a build. They clearly do.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spikedarmor” on Table 6–4) on a successful grapple attack. The
spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient
with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when
you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee
attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count
as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an
attack with armor spikes if you have already made an
attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An
enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve
the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into
magic weapons in their own right.
The two-handed weapon uses the off-hand. Rules trump FAQ's(opinions).
|
|
That text hasn't changed since 3.5, and the FAQ clarified that. What it means is you can't make an attack with the armor spikes if you're already dual-wielding with two other weapons, like a longsword and a shortsword. Having a greatsword in two hands does not count as having a weapon in the primary hand and the off-hand. Key bit being 'another off-hand weapon', which implies you are dual-wielding in some other way that doesn't involve the armor spikes. You aren't constantly making primary and off-hand attacks when attacking with one weapon.
I think the confusion is coming from the wording. "Hand" is not necessarily meant to imply that you literally have something in that hand, rather it should mean "primary weapon" and "off-hand weapon". This is backed up by the fact that you can make off-hand attacks with shield bashes and armor spikes at all, despite the fact that you don't use a hand for either of those (shields are strapped to your arm, armor is, well, worn).
The two-handed weapon uses the off-hand. Rules trump FAQ's.
Two-handed weapon isn't an off-hand weapon -- if you think it is, your Power Attack damage must suck.
Official explanations of the rules given by the people who wrote them trump your reading of them.
The two-handed weapon uses the off-hand. Rules trump FAQ's.Two-handed weapon isn't an off-hand weapon -- if you think it is, your Power Attack damage must suck.
Official explanations of the rules given by the people who wrote them trump your reading of them.
I did not say it was. I said it uses the off-hand. This is proven by the buckler. The armor spike section itself says that if the offhand has been used to wield a weapon the spikes can't be used.
Breakdown:
1. The buckler section supports the fact that the offhand is used to wield a two-handed weapon.
2. The armor spikes section says that spikes can't be used if the offhand has been used to wield another weapon.
I don't think either one of these can be refuted since they are typed, plain as day.
2. The armor spikes section says that spikes can't be used if the offhand has been used to wield another weapon.
No it doesn't.
|
|
No it doesn't.
2. The armor spikes section says that spikes can't be used if the offhand has been used to wield another weapon.
Exactly. What it says is if you've made an ATTACK with another off-hand weapon. Unless you're counting the greatsword as an off-hand weapon, which it is not, then that doesn't work.
Again, the point you're missing is that the designers of that area came forward and said how it was supposed to work in the FAQ. The text hasn't changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, so the meaning hasn't changed. At least until Paizo decides to put out their own FAQ for said questions. :)
The armor spikes section says that spikes can't be used if the offhand has been used to wield another weapon.
Nope. It says the spikes can't be used if you have wielded another off-hand weapon. Which is clearly not the case if the only other weapon you've wielded was a "primary" weapon, in this case weilded two-handed.
I don't think either one of these can be refuted since they are typed, plain as day.
... except when they were refuted by the very people who actually wrote the text originally?
Can you point to the change between the 3.5 and Pathfinder entries that you think should cause them to be interpreted differently?
No it doesn't.
2. The armor spikes section says that spikes can't be used if the offhand has been used to wield another weapon.Exactly. What it says is if you've made an ATTACK with another off-hand weapon. Unless you're counting the greatsword as an off-hand weapon, which it is not, then that doesn't work.
Again, the point you're missing is that the designers of that area came forward and said how it was supposed to work in the FAQ. The text hasn't changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, so the meaning hasn't changed. At least until Paizo decides to put out their own FAQ for said questions. :)
Text trumps FAQ. Once again I will state that I don't think it's broken. I just don't think it was intended to work that way.
Either your off-hand got used or it didn't. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
No it doesn't.
2. The armor spikes section says that spikes can't be used if the offhand has been used to wield another weapon.Exactly. What it says is if you've made an ATTACK with another off-hand weapon. Unless you're counting the greatsword as an off-hand weapon, which it is not, then that doesn't work.
Again, the point you're missing is that the designers of that area came forward and said how it was supposed to work in the FAQ. The text hasn't changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, so the meaning hasn't changed. At least until Paizo decides to put out their own FAQ for said questions. :)
Text trumps FAQ. Once again I will state that I don't think it's broken. I just don't think it was intended to work that way.
Either your off-hand got used or it didn't. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
? The text was the same when the FAQ was written, by the same people that wrote the text. Also, the only time you 'use' your off-hand is when you wield an off-hand weapon, as in two-weapon fighting. Even without the FAQ it's clear to see that your 'off-hand' isn't always a hand, as is the entire case with armor spikes at all.
Text trumps FAQ.
Actual text trumps your incorrect reading of the text.
FAQ trumps your incorrect reading of the text.Actual text, plus FAQ, definitely trumps your incorrect reading of the text.
I'm still amazed that such a terrible idea has this much bickering.
|
|
I'm still amazed that such a terrible idea has this much bickering.
I'll agree with you there. I won't say it's a *horrible* idea, I mean if the Fighter has a lot of feats and a decent dex then maybe one TWF is worth it (their attack roll at higher levels is insane, after all). But beyond that? Meh.
Although some concepts kind of make me happy, like a certain dwarf from the Drizzt series of books that liked to jump and grapple his enemies, 'shaking' on them so his razor-armor would cut them to pieces. ^_^
? The text was the same when the FAQ was written, by the same people that wrote the text. Also, the only time you 'use' your off-hand is when you wield an off-hand weapon, as in two-weapon fighting. Even without the FAQ it's clear to see that your 'off-hand' isn't always a hand, as is the entire case with armor spikes at all.No it doesn't.
2. The armor spikes section says that spikes can't be used if the offhand has been used to wield another weapon.Exactly. What it says is if you've made an ATTACK with another off-hand weapon. Unless you're counting the greatsword as an off-hand weapon, which it is not, then that doesn't work.
Again, the point you're missing is that the designers of that area came forward and said how it was supposed to work in the FAQ. The text hasn't changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, so the meaning hasn't changed. At least until Paizo decides to put out their own FAQ for said questions. :)
Text trumps FAQ. Once again I will state that I don't think it's broken. I just don't think it was intended to work that way.
Either your off-hand got used or it didn't. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
The offhand not being a hand was cleared up earlier. I agree with that. If offhand only means "random other attack" then it should be worded that way, and the buckler text should be changed, but so far it has not. As the rules are written you dont get infinite offhands. They could have said primary hand, secondary hand(referring to your physical hand), and had the term offhand for any attack made that does not use your hand, but they did not.
Text trumps FAQ.Actual text trumps your incorrect reading of the text.
FAQ trumps your incorrect reading of the text.
Actual text, plus FAQ, definitely trumps your incorrect reading of the text.
I printed the actual text. Do you have actual text that says otherwise?
I'm still amazed that such a terrible idea has this much bickering.
I have nothing else to do. Maybe we can get some errata out of the situation also, then one of my players can fall into the trap and try it.
I'm still amazed that such a terrible idea has this much bickering.I have nothing else to do. Maybe we can get some errata out of the situation also, then one of my players can fall into the trap and try it.
(You can’t also make an
attack with armor spikes if you have already made anattack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)
Another off-hand weapon. Not a weapon using your off-hand. A greatsword swing is not an attack with an off-hand weapon.
I'm still amazed that such a terrible idea has this much bickering.I have nothing else to do. Maybe we can get some errata out of the situation also, then one of my players can fall into the trap and try it.(You can’t also make an
attack with armor spikes if you have already made an
attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)Another off-hand weapon. Not a weapon using your off-hand. A greatsword swing is not an attack with an off-hand weapon.
So I can swing a two handed weapon, use quick draw to pull a dagger, and attack with the dagger also, drop the dagger, swing with the two handed weapon again?
Quickdrawing is a free action, and is dropping a weapon.
|
|
I'm still amazed that such a terrible idea has this much bickering.I have nothing else to do. Maybe we can get some errata out of the situation also, then one of my players can fall into the trap and try it.(You can’t also make an
attack with armor spikes if you have already made an
attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)Another off-hand weapon. Not a weapon using your off-hand. A greatsword swing is not an attack with an off-hand weapon.
So I can swing a two handed weapon, use quick draw to pull a dagger, and attack with the dagger also, drop the dagger, swing with the two handed weapon again?
Quickdrawing is a free action, and is dropping a weapon.
Yup! Assuming you have three iterative attacks from a high BAB, or two iterative attacks and the two-weapon fighting feat (and take the -2 penalty to all three attacks).
After all, you have been able to just *hold* a two-handed weapon in one hand for a while, otherwise clerics with two-handed weapons would have to sheathe/drop their weapon to cast.
So I can swing a two handed weapon, use quick draw to pull a dagger, and attack with the dagger also, drop the dagger, swing with the two handed weapon again?
Quickdrawing is a free action, and is dropping a weapon.
Yup! Assuming you have three iterative attacks from a high BAB, or two iterative attacks and the two-weapon fighting feat (and take the -2 penalty to all three attacks).
After all, you have been able to just *hold* a two-handed weapon in one hand for a while, otherwise clerics with two-handed weapons would have to sheathe/drop their weapon to cast.
So you could also technically attack with the primary end of a double weapon two-handed, (using it as a two-handed weapon and gaining the requisite benefit of such), and then use the off-hand attack to attack with the other end.
|
|
So you could also technically attack with the primary end of a double weapon two-handed, (using it as a two-handed weapon and gaining the requisite benefit of such), and then use the off-hand attack to attack with the other end.
Double weapons actually work a bit differently in this regard, and are called out as such (see below). You can indeed just use one end as a two-handed weapon like normal, but if you wish to 'dual-wield' it then you use one end as a one-handed weapon and the other end (off-hand) as a light-weapon.
Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
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.
I'm basing it on -2 TH for both builds. It's the only way you can make a comparison.
The measley 1d6+3 SCALES with other additive dmg effectives. It's no punier then having a shortsword in the offhand.
At higher base dmg, PA becomes WORSE for the TH fighter...missing more does not make up for the increased dmg. At -4 and -5 TH, Mr. Greatsword's DOT probably goes down unless he's fighting squishies.
Also there's nothing in PA that says you can't choose to take LESS of a penalty for lesser effect. Be kind of silly if you couldn't.
A +2 Dex mod to pick up the feat is easy enough to do at the time you want it.
Fixed bonuses benefit the off-hand attack more then increased Str. This includes Fighter class benefits, weapon enhancements, GMW, bonus dmg from any source, and the like.
The unseen cost is the feat cost...the Dex cost is a handwaver, if you want to go the route, you'll get the 19 Dex. Actually, you'll eventually get the 19 dex even if you don't go the route...Dex is important!
==
The whole argument about the 'hand' and 'spikes don't use a hand' is a handwaver. Neither does UA. You still have to have the hand free. This dovetails perfectly with 'can't use another light weapon', meaning you can't even swap iteratives with an off-hand weapon with the spikes! Clearly, it takes some focus to employ the things.
==Aelryinth
@ Karui Kage: Don't you find it rather dubious however that you can legally two-weapon fight using one end of the double weapon two handed for your first attack, let go with one hand (as a free action) and punch with say your gauntleted fist, for your second attack, then regrip your double weapon with two hands again (as a free action) for your final attack; but you cannot legally do this if you fight with both ends of a double weapon? That makes no sense. Regardless of RAW or RAI, or its overpowerdness or lack thereof, there is clearly a disconnect with TWF and Two-handedness depending on the weapon combos in play.
I haven't posted much in this thread, but have taken great interest in it to the point that I'e tried several TWF combos and one 2-handed combo to see if 2-h weapon + Armor Spikes is overpowered. Although I do think that it may be better than any other TWF build if made properly as far as pure damage goes, it does indeed come at a high feat cost (but not any more ability cost than a normal TWFer), to the point that you lose a lot of versatility. This drawback IMO doesn't overshadow other TWF builds. Also making a 2-handed fighter for comparison, the 2-handed fighter seems the superior choice for pure damage + room to do other things as well.
I can see however the potential for the 2-handed weapon + armor spikes fighter being over-powered compared to other builds IF you roll for scores (and get two very high ones), or if you build PCs starting with a very high point buy, as these approaches allow the potential to get the high Dex requirements for TWF without investing, which in turn, allows one to focus solely on increasing Strength.
EDIT: I can see why Xum sees this as potentially OP: 36 point buy? That's a lot! I've been using Standard 15 point buy for my comparisons.
|
|
To be honest, I'm not sure. In regards to two-handed weapon + armor spikes, I know that works. The FAQ clearly answered it in 3.5, it fits the wording, and doesn't seem at all broken. To the contrary, it seems rather an underpowered option.
As for what you suggested, make an attack with one end of the double weapon as 2H and then punch with a gauntlet? From the old FAQ, that sounds fine, and in truth still seems like a sub-par option. The main benefit in using the double weapon is the same benefit you get from using two different weapons of the same kind. They both benefit from one weapon focus, one weapon spec, or other things that apply to a single weapon. That, and a gauntlet doesn't do that much damage compared to other light weapons anyhow. 1d3 vs. 1d6 or so.
The other consideration is ability scores. Assuming point buy or some kind of average roll (some high rolls, some low rolls, etc.) anyone that does TWF is going to need that 15 Dex just for the first feat, and their str (or other scores) will take a hit. 1.5x str on a 2-handed weapon is only really great if you have the high strength to back it up. 14-17 is just an extra 1 point of damage. Power attack can help and scale too, but the penalties on top of two-weapon fighting make the misses much more costly than the extra damage.
In any case, it may seem like an iffy way to get around certain things, but all things considered it seems to be a lesser option. At best you might equal a regular two-weapon fighter's output.
In any case, I'll try an experiment tomorrow. I'll make three Fighters, we'll say level 10, with 20 point buy. One normal two-weapon fighter with a couple short swords, one guy that uses a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, and another that swaps between a two-handed weapon and a gauntlet (I won't bother with the quick-draw route and a separate light weapon since you have to drop the sucker just to get your last two-handed attack in).
To be honest, I'm not sure. In regards to two-handed weapon + armor spikes, I know that works. The FAQ clearly answered it in 3.5, it fits the wording, and doesn't seem at all broken. To the contrary, it seems rather an underpowered option.
As for what you suggested, make an attack with one end of the double weapon as 2H and then punch with a gauntlet? From the old FAQ, that sounds fine, and in truth still seems like a sub-par option. The main benefit in using the double weapon is the same benefit you get from using two different weapons of the same kind. They both benefit from one weapon focus, one weapon spec, or other things that apply to a single weapon. That, and a gauntlet doesn't do that much damage compared to other light weapons anyhow. 1d3 vs. 1d6 or so.
...
In any case, I'll try an experiment tomorrow. I'll make three Fighters, we'll say level 10, with 20 point buy. One normal two-weapon fighter with a couple short swords, one guy that uses a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, and another that swaps between a two-handed weapon and a gauntlet (I won't bother with the quick-draw route and a separate light weapon since you have to drop the sucker just to get your last two-handed attack in).
At this point, I'm not debating the legality of it nor whether or not it is OP, as my own investigating different builds leads me to believe that it doesn't seem overpowering. What I question is the "strangeness" there seems to be in the rules themselves: that a guy using both his hands to wield a greatsword can use armor spikes just fine and yet a guy who uses both hands his to wield two weapons somehow can't, even though the armor spikes may be on the legs in both cases for instance.
I actually built five different fighters: A TWF two-bladed sword user, A TWF dual short sword user, A TWF greatsword + armor spikes user, a TWF dual kukri user, and a 2-handed greatsword user; all with 15 point buy. I did not give them magic items however, which may or may not skew things.
In pure damage taking into account standard attacks I'd rank them:
1) 2-handed greatsword
2&3) toss-up ATM: dual kukri user or greatsword + armor spikes
4) dual short sword user
5) 2-bladed sword user
I found #s 2&3 still quite potent when you factor in open feats that they aren't devoted to spending on TWF to keeping up damage on two different types of weapons. The greatsword + armor spikes user can mitigate his feat lag somewhat by switching out previously taken feats
at 8th and 12th levels (for instance when reaching 8th level, he can actually get Greater Weapon Focus for both the Greatsword and Armor Spikes by sacrificing a feat taken earlier that doesn't relate to TWF) to stay relevant in pure damage. I also found the 2-bladed sword user particularly lackluster due to the fact that he needs a high dex or TWF, yet can't Weapon Finesse his chosen weapon to take advantage of its higher base damage. Comparatively, an Elven Curve blade + Armor Spike user is clearly better. Still, that is not to say the weapon is completely useless. In actual play, our group rolls for scores, so I could see the 2-Bladed Sword seeing potential use if someone happened to roll 2 very high scores along with decent scores overall and they really liked the weapon.
|
|
What I question is the "strangeness" there seems to be in the rules themselves: that a guy using both his hands to wield a greatsword can use armor spikes just fine and yet a guy who uses both hands his to wield two weapons somehow can't, even though the armor spikes may be on the legs in both cases for instance.
It is to prevent someone from getting infinite extra attacks. It would be the exact same thing as someone two weapon fighting and wanting a free second extra attack with the off handed weapon, then a third, . . . because it grants an extra attack.
Or better yet, to prevent something like a character two weapon fighting with a dagger, a longsword, also wielding a spiked shield, spiked armor, spiked boots of kicking, a spiked headband of Headbutting, and wanting an extra attack from each of them. Heck, imagine if the Shield, Armor, Boots, Headband where all +1 Speed Magical Weapons and stacked.
That is what Spiked Armor is trying to prevent, nothing to do with hands being occupied.
@ Karui Kage: Don't you find it rather dubious however that you can legally two-weapon fight using one end of the double weapon two handed for your first attack, let go with one hand (as a free action) and punch with say your gauntleted fist, for your second attack, then regrip your double weapon with two hands again (as a free action) for your final attack; but you cannot legally do this if you fight with both ends of a double weapon? That makes no sense. Regardless of RAW or RAI, or its overpowerdness or lack thereof, there is clearly a disconnect with TWF and Two-handedness depending on the weapon combos in play.
I haven't posted much in this thread, but have taken great interest in it to the point that I'e tried several TWF combos and one 2-handed combo to see if 2-h weapon + Armor Spikes is overpowered. Although I do think that it may be better than any other TWF build if made properly as far as pure damage goes, it does indeed come at a high feat cost (but not any more ability cost than a normal TWFer), to the point that you lose a lot of versatility. This drawback IMO doesn't overshadow other TWF builds. Also making a 2-handed fighter for comparison, the 2-handed fighter seems the superior choice for pure damage + room to do other things as well.
I can see however the potential for the 2-handed weapon + armor spikes fighter being over-powered compared to other builds IF you roll for scores (and get two very high ones), or if you build PCs starting with a very high point buy, as these approaches allow the potential to get the high Dex requirements for TWF without investing, which in turn, allows one to focus solely on increasing Strength.
EDIT: I can see why Xum sees this as potentially OP: 36 point buy? That's a lot! I've been using Standard 15 point buy for my comparisons.
I think a 15-20 point by should be used. 36 point buy is ridiculous.
I think a 15-20 point by should be used. 36 point buy is ridiculous.@ Karui Kage: Don't you find it rather dubious however that you can legally two-weapon fight using one end of the double weapon two handed for your first attack, let go with one hand (as a free action) and punch with say your gauntleted fist, for your second attack, then regrip your double weapon with two hands again (as a free action) for your final attack; but you cannot legally do this if you fight with both ends of a double weapon? That makes no sense. Regardless of RAW or RAI, or its overpowerdness or lack thereof, there is clearly a disconnect with TWF and Two-handedness depending on the weapon combos in play.
I haven't posted much in this thread, but have taken great interest in it to the point that I'e tried several TWF combos and one 2-handed combo to see if 2-h weapon + Armor Spikes is overpowered. Although I do think that it may be better than any other TWF build if made properly as far as pure damage goes, it does indeed come at a high feat cost (but not any more ability cost than a normal TWFer), to the point that you lose a lot of versatility. This drawback IMO doesn't overshadow other TWF builds. Also making a 2-handed fighter for comparison, the 2-handed fighter seems the superior choice for pure damage + room to do other things as well.
I can see however the potential for the 2-handed weapon + armor spikes fighter being over-powered compared to other builds IF you roll for scores (and get two very high ones), or if you build PCs starting with a very high point buy, as these approaches allow the potential to get the high Dex requirements for TWF without investing, which in turn, allows one to focus solely on increasing Strength.
EDIT: I can see why Xum sees this as potentially OP: 36 point buy? That's a lot! I've been using Standard 15 point buy for my comparisons.
Point buy is ridiculous :) Joking to each his own. I've seen it all really, even a guy rolling 18, 18, 18, 16, 15, 14 ... so. I'm in several high ability score groups, so I can see this being a real problem. And it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me, using a two-handed and anything else really. According to what James said about double weapons I do believe it's not RAI.
I understand ALL that you are saying. But saying it's subpar is ludicrous. MAYBE a fighter with 2 equal REALLY GOOD weapons (that are not out yet) can deal as much damage, ONLY because of the critical feats, otherwise, I don't see ANY 2-weapon tree outdamaging this one. I tried using Téjon thing but I FAILED, will try again soon. Through really simple math considering 18 str and PA I don't see how another 2 weapon build can compare really, at any level. And until I see some numbers there is little to convince me.
Putting the damage together from both is 3d6+10 without power attack at level 1 with 2 feats. It's not OMG OP! But can ANY other build compare to that? And that's at REALLY low level, when you get to level 4 I see it as 3d6+12 (spec 2-handed) and with PA it goes to 3d6+20 ... with PA and increased Strength things can scalate a lot. That 2.5 Str mod and x4 power attack can be a real pain.
Now it has been stated that this is not gamebreaking, concur. But it's ludicrous to me that you can do this, hell, you could fire all your arrows and STILL attack with armor spikes... leading to 10 attacks in a very feat expensive build.
All philosophy of rules aside, there is little there that can convince me that this is possible, until a FAQ comes out or something of the like. IF it was as clear as day, this discussion wouldn't be happening, there are rules I don't agree with, but they are really clear, so I don't discuss it, hell, nobody does. If there is confusion, means it isn't clear.
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.
You can use TWF with just unarmed strike so while it is the same weapon it has multiple ends, that are enchant-able at the same time. Thus the huge cost per enhancement + for the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
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.
This isn't right. PHB page 150, Armor Spikes description : "You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice-versa)"
In Concerro's example, no, in a single turn you would have to choose between your off-hand dagger or your armor spikes. RAW.
The improved unarmed strike is using the body as a weapon. Those are just parts of the body.
Improved unarmed strike only allows for someone to avoid AoO while fighting unarmed. The ability to fight with other body parts (elbows, knees, feet) is monk exclusive. And his flurry of blows ability only works with special monk weapons. So the monk's appearance in the argumentation is irrelevant for the needs of the original post (ArmorSpikes and Greatsword)
|
|
WHICH IT IS and it does. the reason? When you attack with a greatsword you are using BOTH the main and off hand to attack, as both are needed to wield the weapon. Essentially two handed weapons are main and off hand weapons simultaneously.
Exactly. What it says is if you've made an ATTACK with another off-hand weapon. Unless you're counting the greatsword as an off-hand weapon, which it is not, then that doesn't work.
Sigh. Again, no, you are not. As I said above, the terms 'main hand' and 'off hand' are references to Two-Weapon Fighting *only*. And in fact, they don't even literally mean a hand since you can fight with armor spikes, something you wear, in your off-hand.
A greatsword is a two-handed weapon, and for the purpose of two-weapon fighting, it is a weapon in your 'main hand', while armor spikes can be used in your 'off hand'. You'll note that no where in the book it says that a two-handed weapon uses 'both your main and off hand'. The language has been called up before concerning that 'well your main hand is one hand and your off hand is another' but that doesn't work.
As has been stated numerous times before, it does not literally mean your hand. If it did, you could *never* attack with armor spikes since they *never* use a (literal) hand. Clearly, you *can* use armor spikes as an 'off hand' attack despite this, so it's pretty obvious that the hand thing is not meant to be taken so literally all the time.
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.This isn't right. PHB page 150, Armor Spikes description : "You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice-versa)"
In Concerro's example, no, in a single turn you would have to choose between your off-hand dagger or your armor spikes. RAW
???? I am sorry, I don't think I was contradicting this statement.
Improved unarmed strike only allows for someone to avoid AoO while fighting unarmed. The ability to fight with other body parts (elbows, knees, feet) is monk exclusive. And his flurry of blows ability only works with special monk weapons. So the monk's appearance in the argumentation is irrelevant for the needs of the original post (ArmorSpikes and Greatsword)
The improved unarmed strike is using the body as a weapon. Those are just parts of the body.
I was incorrect, as I said "a monk with improved unarmed strike", as it should have said a monk, or someone with improved unarmed strike. Why would unarmed strike be restricted to just punches? There are kicks elbows, headbutting, etc.
Improved unarmed strike only allows for someone to avoid AoO while fighting unarmed. The ability to fight with other body parts (elbows, knees, feet) is monk exclusive.
I disagree. The "attacking unarmed" language in the combat section mentions punches, kicks, and headbutts. It seems that having one's hands free should not stop one from making unarmed attacks.
I would allow any character to take the TWF penalties to attack with a double weapon and make an unarmed attack as the off-hand attack.
36 point buy?
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.
Bah. I dumbed that up. 38 point buy. Thats the system one of my other friends use. Works rather well, as dumping something down to seven feels wrong unless its for the character concept. We never, ever do that just to do more damage. But in interest of testing this. I did roll up three level 12 human fighters (Not three Rangers with favored enemy- Human mind you).
One focused on a greatsword/Armor spikes combo. One focused on TWF with two scimitars. Focused in strength of course with just enough dex to get the greater version of the feat. And the final one, and my favorite, the Two Handed Greatsword fighter.
I'll post these later. But I found that if you took Criticals out of the equation and assumed you hit with all attacks. The Greatsword/Armor spikes combo has the greatest potential for damage. But, once you add in criticals, the Scimitars EASILY have a chance for far greater damage. The Two-handed idea... Well. Its damage is in the middle, but, it didn't need as many feats to work as well, so you had far more options than Full attack. Full attack, and full attack. The Two-handed technique. Well. I had about 6 open slots for feats. What -I- did. Was grab Toughness, Intimidating Prowess. The Improved sunder/greater sunder tree, and two of the Vital Strike tree. AS well as the cleave tree. It just had, far more options in combat.
I personally find the greatsword/armor spike idea to be rather level with the other two really. If not a little under. Though, later I will post my builds, and people can apply their own math.
As I said above, the terms 'main hand' and 'off hand' are references to Two-Weapon Fighting *only*. And in fact, they don't even literally mean a hand...
I just wanted to emphasize this simple truth.
I'll post these later. But I found that if you took Criticals out of the equation and assumed you hit with all attacks.
Now try it factoring in the misses due to hit penalties...
Circumstances___________________________________________Primary__Off
Normal penalties________________________________________–6_______–10
Off-hand weapon is light__________________________________–4_______–8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat_________________________________–4_______–4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat_________–2_______–2
The 'hand' argument is smoke. The rule is that it must be available for use, even if you are not going to use it.
In other words, the POTENTIAL to use the UA/Spikes with your offhand must be there, even if you are going to knee him.
Which, makes perfect sense and fits with ALL the rules out there.
Your offhand is NOT available with a THW...that's also in the rules. Ergo, it doesn't satisfy the conditions.
==
When making DOT comparisons, the DOT is actually more dependent on hit chance then on raw dmg, Viktor, especially as you get higher level. The only reason that TWF doesn't stomp THW's into the ground all over the place is because of that -2 TH. -10% cumulative per attack adds up to a lot of missed dmg over many attacks, and is the reason TWF falls behind.
Without that -2, TWF does the same or more dmg then a Greatsword, hands down. It does have to keep up with the feats to stay ahead, which is a secondary cost.
--Aelryinth
"As has been stated numerous times before, it does not literally mean your hand. If it did, you could *never* attack with armor spikes since they *never* use a (literal) hand. Clearly, you *can* use armor spikes as an 'off hand' attack despite this, so it's pretty obvious that the hand thing is not meant to be taken so literally all the time."
I think I would rule that you need a limb free to attack with the spikes if you are using them as a light weapon. This would make being able to use your normal reach make more sense. (Do the rules support this - maybe not.)
Seems to me that the best part of using the spikes would be a Ranger build that used a reach weapon and the armor spikes. Other then a monk, it would seem that there is no other way to threaten both at reach and adjacent. Chug a potion of Enlarge Person, and destroy every favored enemy within 20'! Uber? Not really. Gimped? Not really.
Note: I interpret the language in the monk section as being an exception to the normal rules about unarmed attacks and offhand weapons and such. This also fits in with the rules for natural weapons in the monsters section. Humanoids don't use their legs to attack unless they are a monk.
Your offhand is NOT available with a THW...that's also in the rules. Ergo, it doesn't satisfy the conditions.
The people who wrote the rules disagree with you. What rule did you see that they missed?
The 'hand' argument is smoke. The rule is that it must be available for use, even if you are not going to use it.
In other words, the POTENTIAL to use the UA/Spikes with your offhand must be there, even if you are going to knee him.
Which, makes perfect sense and fits with ALL the rules out there.
Your offhand is NOT available with a THW...that's also in the rules. Ergo, it doesn't satisfy the conditions.
So a fighter with a longsword, a light shield, and armor spikes, couldn't attack with the longsword as the primary weapon and armor spikes as the secondary weapon, because their "off-hand" is occupied with a shield, even though they never attacked with the shield?
|
The 'hand' argument is smoke. The rule is that it must be available for use, even if you are not going to use it.
The "smoke" part of this argument is disregarding the previous rules FAQ rulings/clarifications (written by the same people who, you know, designed the rules we are talking about) simply because this is "Pathfinder" and not "3.5". The Paizo folk have repeatedly stated that the Pathfinder rules are meant to be backwards compatible with 3.5. Unless the Pathfinder rules explicitly spell out a change to previous rules (grappling for example) it is entirely absurd to think that the Paizo folk intended to change previously established and explicit rules by making minute alterations to tangentially related text in the hopes that people would notice and change accordingly.
Paizo staffers aren't the writers of Lost, they are game designers whose goal is to create an easy to understand rule set that is an extension/evolution of an already existing game. If they intended to change the way armor spikes work and interact with TWF and THW fighting, I'm pretty sure they could have come up with a better way of signalling their intent (as opposed to the way some posters are inferring they have). As they have not changed the relevant wording, it is entirely reasonable to assume they had no such intent. This, or course, could change in the future.
Until then, armor spikes work exactly like they did in 3.5, corroborated by the FAQ, UNTIL Pazio decides to say otherwise (via a new FAQ or somesuch).
We get it. You don't like it. And until something changes? Tough. Deal with it (or house rule it as you see fit).
The question of whether the rules regarding armor spikes SHOULD change is an entirely different discussion from whether they DID change.
This thread should have died 200 some odd posts ago, and another asking "Should armor spikes work like they do?" should have been started in it's place.
Cheers