Hate to tell ya but the 3.5 FAQ is kinda useless. Paizo has rule different on things more then once that the 3.5 FAQ ok's
3.5 FAQ was a different game by a different company that may and indeed do see things differently then paizo. You just can not assume the 3.5 FAQ is law.
Hate to tell ya but the 3.5 FAQ is kinda useless. Paizo has rule different on things more then once that the 3.5 FAQ ok's
3.5 FAQ was a different game by a different company that may and indeed do see things differently then paizo. You just can not assume the 3.5 FAQ is law.
THANK YOU! First time we agree I think :)
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.
And, except for a very unusual corner case, for the archer to be able to pull this off, s/he would have to be in melee to begin with and provoke an Attack of Opportunity with every arrow fired. I'm okay with that if they want to also use the armor spikes. Especially since they are reducing their effectiveness as an archer for even two weapon fighting with the armor spikes in the same round they are firing arrows.
And if you want to focus on the "realism" of being able to do it, I have to ask you - in all seriousness and not poking fun of you in anyway - "Have you ever really been in a physical fight of any kind?" It is becoming clear you haven't, and don't really have a leg to stand on in that argument.
3.5 FAQ was a different game by a different company that may and indeed do see things differently then paizo. You just can not assume the 3.5 FAQ is law.
And no one does assume it is law. But in the absence of anything from Paizo on the subject, where the rule wording is identical it is very reasonable to assume the 3.5 ruling is accurate.
THANK YOU! First time we agree I think :)
Heh most folks agree on something at some point man. But it is true the designers do not always agree with calls made by people at wotc so you can not just assume because it worked in a 3.5 FAQ it will do so in pathfinder.
And no one does assume it is law. But in the absence of anything from Paizo on the subject, where the rule wording is identical it is very reasonable to assume the 3.5 ruling is accurate.3.5 FAQ was a different game by a different company that may and indeed do see things differently then paizo. You just can not assume the 3.5 FAQ is law.
Wording was the same for monks and improved natural damage feat as well.If the rules do not come out and say it then ya can't just assume it will work because someone oked it in a 3.5 FAQ
But ya know if your GM ok's it then who cares what Paizo, WOTC or folks online says anyhow.
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.And, except for a very unusual corner case, for the archer to be able to pull this off, s/he would have to be in melee to begin with and provoke an Attack of Opportunity with every arrow fired. I'm okay with that if they want to also use the armor spikes. Especially since they are reducing their effectiveness as an archer for even two weapon fighting with the armor spikes in the same round they are firing arrows.
And if you want to focus on the "realism" of being able to do it, I have to ask you - in all seriousness and not poking fun of you in anyway - "Have you ever really been in a physical fight of any kind?" It is becoming clear you haven't, and don't really have a leg to stand on in that argument.
Brazizn Jiu-Jitsu for a year (dã I'm from Brasil),and Muay Thay for another 5, I've been in a fight or two. That's EXACTLY why I'm AGAINST 2 weapon fighting with armor spikes and a 2-handed weapons, it's nigh impossible.
Muay Thai? You mean the Muay Thai where they grab your head with both hands and then knee you in the face? You mean that Muay Thai?
Muay Thai? You mean the Muay Thai where they grab your head with both hands and then knee you in the face? You mean that Muay Thai?
Yeah, that one.
Edit: Errr, why?
Wording was the same for monks and improved natural damage feat as well.If the rules do not come out and say it then ya can't just assume it will work because someone oked it in a 3.5 FAQ
But ya know if your GM ok's it then who cares what Paizo, WOTC or folks online says anyhow.
No, that is the opposite situation.
You follow 3.5 ruling except when they contradict.It was the same ruling as 3.5 till they decided to gave the opposite ruling.
Till the writers give another opposite ruling 3.5 FAQ sums up exact situation. So yes, you can do armor strike TWFing with a 2 handed weapon. Till further notice.
Although, I doubt the writers will pop in and stay on way or other anytime soon.
Wording was the same for monks and improved natural damage feat as well.If the rules do not come out and say it then ya can't just assume it will work because someone oked it in a 3.5 FAQ
But ya know if your GM ok's it then who cares what Paizo, WOTC or folks online says anyhow.
No, that is the opposite situation.
You follow 3.5 ruling except when they contradict.
It was the same ruling as 3.5 till they decided to gave the opposite ruling.Till the writers give another opposite ruling 3.5 FAQ sums up exact situation. So yes, you can do armor strike TWFing with a 2 handed weapon. Till further notice.
Although, I doubt the writers will pop in and stay on way or other anytime soon.
That's YOUR opnion, and you can keep it. It's not mine nor of some people. FAQ from previous edition mean nothing to me, and to some people, and that's our opnion.
|
Hate to tell ya but the 3.5 FAQ is kinda useless. Paizo has rule different on things more then once that the 3.5 FAQ ok's
3.5 FAQ was a different game by a different company that may and indeed do see things differently then paizo. You just can not assume the 3.5 FAQ is law.
The 3.5 FAQ is hardly "useless". Pathfinder is not a different game, it goes by a different name, but it is the same game, with tweeks. Paizo is a different "company". I'll give you that, but a number of Paizo employees worked with or for WOTC so...
Did I say that Paizo has not changed rules covered in the FAQ? No I did not. What I said is that when they did, they did it in a fairly obvious way. Say like changing the relevant text involved (which they haven't done with regards to armor spikes). I believe I also said that Paizo may in fact make changes in the future, whether that be via forum posts (somewhat dubious), future errata or FAQs (expected).
More to the point, the FAQ is absolute proof of the original designer's intentions with regards to armor spikes. Many of the arguments put forth in this thread imply an understanding of Paizo's intentions without conclusive proof positive of their position. They say the RAW doesn't support either argument.
The intent of 3.5 armor spikes and their usage is clear and irrefutable. Anybody dispute that?
The intent of Pathfinder's rules regarding armor spikes are currently unknown, as agreed to by most of the posters in this thread, pending a new "Pathfinder" FAQ or errata.
The original question of this thread was:
I know that this combo was legal in 3.5, has anything changed in PFRPG to avoid it? I've looked around and have not found anything yet...
Seems like armor spikes can still be used as an off-hand weapon while leaving both hands free for any two-handed weapon...
My question remains, why post a response to this question, and then continue defending/arguing about it, that states for the most, "We have no proof, but we don't like it, so it isn't allowed cause you can't prove to us that it still works that way!"
midnight wasn't asking for your opinion (nor mine). He specifically wanted to know if anything had been changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder to specifically disallow this previously established rule.
I have yet to see such evidence.
Might Paizo change this ruling in the future? Absolutely, as I have already stated. It is their right and you won't here me argue. Why? Cause I can do whatever I want in my game, as can you.
In the end, in the absence of changes within the Pathfinder rulebook, the absence of "official" clarification on the message boards or in a future Pathfinder FAQ or errata, it is entirely reasonable to "assume the 3.5 FAQ is law" with regards to what the "intent" or "interpretation" of rules are.
|
|
That's YOUR opnion, and you can keep it. It's not mine nor of some people. FAQ from previous edition mean nothing to me, and to some people, and that's our opnion.
midnight wasn't asking for your opinion. He was asking for proof positive of a change to the rules, which you have never provided.
He wasn't asking for my opinion either. And I can't prove or disprove a change that didn't happen. I/we can merely state that we have found nothing that conclusively changes the way armor spikes worked previously.
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.
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.
What goalpost are you trying to reach here?
SPikes themselves say that if you use the shield as a weapon, you can't attack with the spikes. If you don't use it as a weapon, then your off-hand attack is available, is it not? Although you're going to lose your Shield bonus until your next turn, just like you would if you bashed with your off-hand attack...except Improved Shield Bash only lets you keep your Shield AC if you bash, not if you spike.The buckler rules clearly show that using two hands on a THW uses up the 'off-hand'. It isn't available.
Nothing in the armor spikes description frees it from being a light weapon, and needing that hand available to be used in TWF. Not a thing. Any other argument is just word-twisting and creative interpretation that is convuluting numerous rules.
I literally do not care that it isn't hugely efficient, and 'should be allowed because it's not that great.' That's a House Rule. By the overlapping rules of the game, it can't be done.
And don't go throwing the FAQ at me. It hasn't been updated in years, and the Sage has reversed himself more then once, and been proven wrong more then once.
Let the PF people issue a ruling if you want 'official', in the meantime, stick to the entirety of the rules that are there, not just a narrow band that 'might' allow what you want.
And PF even put in a weapon that takes Exotic to use while your off-hand is occupied. So, don't go holding your breath that this spike tactic is going to be ruled anything but cheese.
===Aelryinth
I find it extremelly odd that Paizo staff is dodging this bullet.
I find it extremelly odd that Paizo staff is dodging this bullet.
Or maybe they don't care because it's such an obscure corner case that really doesn't strongly effect a person's power.
¯\(°_o)/¯
|
|
I find it extremelly odd that Paizo staff is dodging this bullet.
There are a few explanations as to why someone from Paizo has not popped in here and put an end to the discussion once and for all.
1. They don't have the time or inclination to "officially" respond.
(This seems a likely explanation, given they have said this repeatedly in other threads regarding FAQ and future errata, that they are busy and they don't need to explain every rule ad naseum. "You are the GM! Rule how you want to!")
2. They haven't noticed this thread at all.
(Highly unlikely.)
3. There is no reason to respond. The rules were clearly understood in 3.5 and nothing has changed.
(Obviously some of us believe this is the reason :)
4. They have just now realized that their attempts to change the rules regarding armor spikes wasn't clear enough and are too lazy/embarrassed/stupid to admit they erred and come up with a fix.
(Again, highly unlikely :)
EDIT: Ninja'd by the Prof! :)
You can't seriously be that obtuse can you?Muay Thai? You mean the Muay Thai where they grab your head with both hands and then knee you in the face? You mean that Muay Thai?Yeah, that one.
Edit: Errr, why?
I still don't follow. I'm smart, I just get messed up in the head sometimes, come on.
The 3.5 FAQ is hardly "useless". Pathfinder is not a different game, it goes by a different name, but it is the same game, with tweeks. Paizo is a different "company". I'll give you that, but a number of Paizo employees worked with or for WOTC so...
Ok here is the issue however. The 3.5 FAQ are not rules. They are qrestions about rules asked to designers at wotc.
Now as that paizo is not wotc and does not have the same goal or mindset as WOTC, you really can not just blanket " well it was cleared up in the 3.5 FAQ"
Kinda like asking FORD a question about Cheavy. They are both cars after all.
Different company's have different ideals of how things should work and like it or not any ruling made by WOTC has as much standing now as one made by Moongoose or green roinin. Paizo may have the same ruling or totally disagree with the one WOTC made.
WOTC may have created 3.5 but they do not govern how things are used in pathfinder.
I still don't follow. I'm smart, I just get messed up in the head sometimes, come on.You can't seriously be that obtuse can you?Muay Thai? You mean the Muay Thai where they grab your head with both hands and then knee you in the face? You mean that Muay Thai?Yeah, that one.
Edit: Errr, why?
You are clearly attacking with both your hands and then somehow making a secondary attack...is what he's getting at, I believe.
Just wondering, would that not be unarmed strike and grapple however?
Brazizn Jiu-Jitsu for a year (dã I'm from Brasil),and Muay Thay for another 5, I've been in a fight or two. That's EXACTLY why I'm AGAINST 2 weapon fighting with armor spikes and a 2-handed weapons, it's nigh impossible.
So then you are an authority that the rules are perfectly reasonable that absolutely no one can get more than one attack with the same weapon (dagger, fist, two handed sword, whatever) in 6 seconds until at least 6th level?
If you have such background, I would figure you would be screaming from the mountaintops that limiting characters to only one attack a round until BAB +6 or higher would be ridiculous.
Just wondering, would that not be unarmed strike and grapple however?
Yes, but it is still an attack that could be considered off-hand without a free hand available.
Just wondering I am not sure I agree with that but I got no dog in this fight as I would not allow the whole TWF with a two handed weapon and spikes myself. Just kinda interesting to watch is all
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...
Explain to us how your point buy works to make sure we are on the same page. I am sure you are now using our version of 38 point buy. At least I hope not. If you are there is no way anyone should have a 7 even using 20 or 25 point by just to make a decent character.
I find it extremelly odd that Paizo staff is dodging this bullet.
Did anyone ask them to chime in on it. They dont come in on most post. At best maybe 10% of the time will you get an answer from them.
Brazizn Jiu-Jitsu for a year (dã I'm from Brasil),and Muay Thay for another 5, I've been in a fight or two. That's EXACTLY why I'm AGAINST 2 weapon fighting with armor spikes and a 2-handed weapons, it's nigh impossible.So then you are an authority that the rules are perfectly reasonable that absolutely no one can get more than one attack with the same weapon (dagger, fist, two handed sword, whatever) in 6 seconds until at least 6th level?
If you have such background, I would figure you would be screaming from the mountaintops that limiting characters to only one attack a round until BAB +6 or higher would be ridiculous.
Just wondering, would that not be unarmed strike and grapple however?Yes, but it is still an attack that could be considered off-hand without a free hand available.
I would scream, if this game tried to reenact real life completely. What I don't see is a guy waving a pretty have weapon that needs TWO hands AND kneeling and shouldering and headbutting with an armor that's really heavy too in six seconds.
BTW, Grappling and kneeling in Thay is not as easy as it seems, and yes, it would be a Grapple Maneuver if transported here. So, irrelevant to this argument.
I find it extremelly odd that Paizo staff is dodging this bullet.Did anyone ask them to chime in on it. They dont come in on most post. At best maybe 10% of the time will you get an answer from them.
I'm asking. Not that it will work, but worth a shot.
There could also be a case of them watching and talking it out in house before they make a ruling. As they have made a few here and there and then came back and said "nope I talked it over with the others and it works the other way...sorry was wrong"
So they could just be watching both sides and then ruling in house, be my guess anyhow
Then again it's such an off ball corner case that they simply think it's pointless to comment or already covered in the rules.
|
|
There could also be a case of them watching and talking it out in house before they make a ruling. As they have made a few here and there and then came back and said "nope I talked it over with the others and it works the other way...sorry was wrong"
So they could just be watching both sides and then ruling in house, be my guess anyhow
Then again it's such an off ball corner case that they simply think it's pointless to comment or already covered in the rules.
It most definitely could be they are re-evaluating the issue before they make an "official" answer, at which point they will have overruled the previous FAQ and we can go back to arguing something else. :)
... or they may never "officially" answer...
Time will tell.
Cheers
It most definitely could be they are re-evaluating the issue before they make an "official" answer, at which point they will have overruled the previous FAQ and we can go back to arguing something else. :)... or they may never "officially" answer...
Time will tell.
Cheers
Yeah I think they should think on it and look at it from all angles before giving an answer. As something ya just spout off the top of your head could have far reaching effects and cause more confusion when ya have to overrule your first ruling.
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.
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.
What goalpost are you trying to reach here?
SPikes themselves say that if you use the shield as a weapon, you can't attack with the spikes. If you don't use it as a weapon, then your off-hand attack is available, is it not? Although you're going to lose your Shield bonus until your next turn, just like you would if you bashed with your off-hand attack...except Improved Shield Bash only lets you keep your Shield AC if you bash, not if you spike.The buckler rules clearly show that using two hands on a THW uses up the 'off-hand'. It isn't available.
Nothing in the armor spikes description frees it from being a light weapon, and needing that hand available to be used in TWF. Not a thing. Any other argument is just word-twisting and creative interpretation that is convuluting numerous rules.
I find it interesting that you think I am "moving the goal posts" and then respond with a comment that a fighter loses their shield bonus for attacking with armor spikes (or an unarmed strike I would assume) and not their shield.
|
|
Ok here is the issue however. The 3.5 FAQ are not rules. They are qrestions about rules asked to designers at wotc.
Yes the FAQ are not technically rules, however, they are clarifications of specific rules, officially released, by the designers of said rules, that Paizo has seen fit to cut and paste large sections of, unaltered, into the Pathfinder rule set. As such, they clearly set a precedence, that at least I would expect, to be addressed with clear and concise language if Paizo intended to break with established rules. I have seen no such language in the Pathfinder rules to date.
Now as that paizo is not wotc and does not have the same goal or mindset as WOTC, you really can not just blanket " well it was cleared up in the 3.5 FAQ"Kinda like asking FORD a question about Cheavy. They are both cars after all.
They are most assuredly different companies with different goals. WOTC abandoned 3.5 for all intensive purposes, while Paizo has taken up the cause and decided to update the rules, making changes where they saw fit. In most cases they were attempting to fix and/or clear up sections of the rules that were lacking or confusing. If the Pathfinder rules are meant to reflect a change in direction for armor spikes, then it is poorly conceived and executed. I for one don't believe that the fine folks at Paizo would have dropped the ball this badly.
And it more like asking Ford a question about a Lincoln. :)
Different company's have different ideals of how things should work and like it or not any ruling made by WOTC has as much standing now as one made by Moongoose or green roinin. Paizo may have the same ruling or totally disagree with the one WOTC made.WOTC may have created 3.5 but they do not govern how things are used in pathfinder.
Absolutely. Different companies have different ideals. However, WOTC's 3.5 version of the rules are the common baseline that Paizo has evolved from. While WOTC has no direct influence on the direction Paizo wishes to take Pathfinder, Paizo has hitched it's ride to 3.5, so to speak, by committing to backwards compatibility and all the baggage that entails. Good, bad or otherwise.
If the Pathfinder rules discarded with backwards compatibility (something I am in favor of), and stood alone as a new and independent set of rules, then we would not be having this conversation.
As you say, I have no dog in this fight either. I have never played a character who used armor spikes. I have never GMed anyone who used them (in 30 years). I cannot even recall any published adventure that used them. I have no plans to use them, nor do any of my players. If they did? I have no idea what I would do honestly. It is largely irrelevant to my participation in this discussion.
The same goes for spiked gauntlets and the spiked chain (3.5 version included).
Anyhow, I believe I have flogged this topic to death, for me at least.
Cheers
EDIT: PS Are Green Ronin and Mongoose: 1)running competing versions of rules based on 3.5, 2) running non-specific rules adaptable to 3.5 and Pathfinder both, 3) gearing their products to use the Pathfinder rule set exclusively, or 4) something else?
Explain to us how your point buy works to make sure we are on the same page. I am sure you are now using our version of 38 point buy. At least I hope not. If you are there is no way anyone should have a 7 even using 20 or 25 point by just to make a decent character.
My apologies. I was merely explaining why my group used 38 point by is all. And its using the same point buy in the core rulebook.
I would do the mathmatics if my head wasn't currently disappointed with me.. But I see the style in question to not be supremely overpowered. In fact, its rather underpowered really.
Now. In terms of realism... The fighter is the most realistic of the classes, at least in my opinion, but in a world of fantasy, magic, and the unknown. The idea that perhaps an insane person came up with this fighting style that seems quite absurd would be interesting.
To all the people that say its not possible to THW and Spikes:
If you were to play 3.5 now, would you say that THW and Spikes are allowed or not?
To all the people that say its not possible to THW and Spikes:
If you were to play 3.5 now, would you say that THW and Spikes are allowed or not?
Sure.
It would be even less powerful in 3.5.
Still hilarious.
I'd do either a half-orc or a dwarf using that style. He would end up provoking alot of attacks of opportunity..
Kinda like asking FORD a question about Cheavy. They are both cars after all.
No. It's like taking your Toyota to Pimp-my-ride.
Then afterwards when all your friends are saying,"Dude, you have might have a defective accelerator, you should have your car checked out!"
Then your like,"No! XZibit pimped my car out, it's a completely different car. It doesn't work like a Toyota fool!"
"VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!"
"BANG!"
You Are Dead
Explain to us how your point buy works to make sure we are on the same page. I am sure you are now using our version of 38 point buy. At least I hope not. If you are there is no way anyone should have a 7 even using 20 or 25 point by just to make a decent character.My apologies. I was merely explaining why my group used 38 point by is all. And its using the same point buy in the core rulebook.
I would do the mathmatics if my head wasn't currently disappointed with me.. But I see the style in question to not be supremely overpowered. In fact, its rather underpowered really.
Now. In terms of realism... The fighter is the most realistic of the classes, at least in my opinion, but in a world of fantasy, magic, and the unknown. The idea that perhaps an insane person came up with this fighting style that seems quite absurd would be interesting.
With a 20 point buy the greatsword + armor spikes, which is about what most of us would use for point buy loses out. A 38 point buy can get you at least 2 18's which is not normal even for the best athletes or the smartest people. Most of the board members probably won't take your results seriously if you use such a high point buy. That is why I asked about it.
Thanks for the clarification though.
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
This.
/thread
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
Agreed. This is where the thread should have ended.
Explain to us how your point buy works to make sure we are on the same page. I am sure you are now using our version of 38 point buy. At least I hope not. If you are there is no way anyone should have a 7 even using 20 or 25 point by just to make a decent character.My apologies. I was merely explaining why my group used 38 point by is all. And its using the same point buy in the core rulebook.
I would do the mathmatics if my head wasn't currently disappointed with me.. But I see the style in question to not be supremely overpowered. In fact, its rather underpowered really.
Now. In terms of realism... The fighter is the most realistic of the classes, at least in my opinion, but in a world of fantasy, magic, and the unknown. The idea that perhaps an insane person came up with this fighting style that seems quite absurd would be interesting.
With a 20 point buy the greatsword + armor spikes, which is about what most of us would use for point buy loses out. A 38 point buy can get you at least 2 18's which is not normal even for the best athletes or the smartest people. Most of the board members probably won't take your results seriously if you use such a high point buy. That is why I asked about it.
Thanks for the clarification though.
Well. The way my group of friends look at it. Going for two 18s would really hurt most characters in terms of balance. Most of us tend to stat out characters after we have the concept. Also, putting a 17 in a stat is usually better in terms of progression. If you did go for two 18. Your other stats would be sorely lacking.
The character I did with this was a barbarian of a race my DM made. One that had access to powerful build, but only with a feat that was taken at first level. The character's name is Dregk. He possesses immense strength, but seems to be a bit different from most barbarians. His intelligence is better than most barbarians at a 14 currently. His wisdom is around the same. Charisma is the only real dump stat at 10. He is to be wise, intelligent, but perhaps lacking in social graces after spending many years in the forest. He had been exiled from his tribe for being weak as it were. His dexterity is also better than average. Because while he is focused in strength as well as constitution, the character itself didn't allow be to dump anything below a 10.
Also, the barbarian in question, while pathfinder, uses many variants. Such as Whirling frenzy as his rage. Because he focuses heavily on movement, and is in fact, going to be taking levels in dervish. I love barbarians, this will be the first time I've ever made an intelligent, quick, yet powerful and rather tough barbarian. Throughout the campaign, he has been forced to think things through better. Its, really been one of my favorite characters.
I find it interesting that you think I am "moving the goal posts" and then respond with a comment that a fighter loses their shield bonus for attacking with armor spikes (or an unarmed strike I would assume) and not their shield.
uh, what?
You can't use a weapon in the same hand you're using a shield and retain the shield bonus. The only time you can is if you spend a feat to do so, specifically...and then it only applies to bucklers, or bashing, from different directions.
Your shield is on that off hand. If you want it available to qualify for spiking, it's not available to use the shield. That applies to daggers, short swords, and fists, not just spikes. How is this strange?
===
As for that Muy Thai example, I missed it, too. You have a UA guy with both hands free, using his entire body for a technique...but specifically, his hands are free even if they aren't doing the. If his hands weren't free, he wouldn't be pulling that move off at all, drastically limiting his combat options simply because he can't use his ENTIRE body, but only part of it.
That move can be seen as grapple + UA...a flurry of blows where each successful hit increases the final dmg by forcing the head into the knee; TWF (note the off hand is available); and so forth. IN all cases, the off hand is free and the entire body is available for the attack, he's not wielding a two-meter peice of steel at the same time.
==Aelryinth
Viktor, the best way to make comparisons is with the Elite Array. That way everyone is on the same page, and the base numbers all match up.
Of course, then someone starts throwing other races, templates, and what have you into the mix, trying to prove their point by moving goalposts...
===Aelryinth
I find it interesting that you think I am "moving the goal posts" and then respond with a comment that a fighter loses their shield bonus for attacking with armor spikes (or an unarmed strike I would assume) and not their shield.
uh, what?
You can't use a weapon in the same hand you're using a shield and retain the shield bonus. The only time you can is if you spend a feat to do so, specifically...and then it only applies to bucklers, or bashing, from different directions.
Your shield is on that off hand. If you want it available to qualify for spiking, it's not available to use the shield. That applies to daggers, short swords, and fists, not just spikes. How is this strange?
It is strange because you could be using an entirely different limb for the armor spikes than the one the shield is on. This is a bit more difficult when dealing with items that must be held instead of worn.
I just find it interesting, I don't think I have ever heard that interpretation before. That using armor spikes as a secondary weapon means you can't use a shield at the same time. I'm not sure if I have ever heard anyone suggest using both simultaneously, so it might be why I have never heard the interpretation before.
In response to Xum saying no one would ever do any other two weapon fighting ideas ever again, is a Minmaximus statement. Meaning, that saying that. Assumes everyone wants to do maximum damage. Always...
If it's a "minmaxus statement" (what an odd term), it is one from someone who isn't very good at it.
I doubt that most experienced optimizers are going to conclude that taking -2 to hit with their primary weapon, plus the investment of escalating feats, (rather than using feats to improve use of that primary weapon), is worth a 1d6 off hand attack. Even more so when you consider the costs of enhancing those spikes as you level up.
The same character, if they were to focus on the primary 2H weapon (and not take TWF at all), would probably find their damage increased against most opponents on average.
It's poor Min/Maxing at best to think 2H + Armor Spikes with TWF is optimal, regardless of whether it is legal.
For the record, I do think it's legal by RAW (since although a 2H weapon uses the off-hand, the armor spike rules mention an off-hand weapon specifically, which the 2H weapon is not going to be), and since I don't think it's unbalanced (or even particularly good), I don't really see the point of a houserule banning it.
However, from an optimizers view, I might take armor spikes as a 5' weapon if my primary weapon was a reach weapon (so I could threaten adjacent squares) - but I would not be using a Greatsword and Armor Spikes with TWF for optimization reasons alone.
IMO.
What about Whirlwind Attack? Can you use armor spikes and a reach weapon to apply your Whirlwind Attack action to adjacent and reach foes both?
What about Whirlwind Attack? Can you use armor spikes and a reach weapon to apply your Whirlwind Attack action to adjacent and reach foes both?
Whirlwind attack specifies: "When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach."
So the question is by "one melee attack" do they mean all opponents must face the same melee attack, or simply that they are all attacked once, by the (switchable) weapon of the attackers choice?
I have to lean towards the former, which would not make it legal.
Note that whirlwind attacking with a reach weapon is still optimal though, since by increasing the circumference of the circle, more squares are technically threatened, and therefore more attacks can be potentially made.