Armor Spikes and Two Weapon... Defense?


Rules Questions


I have been reading up on Armor Spikes in the forum recently and they bring up many questions...

Is there any reason to believe a player could not use the Two Weapon Defense feat to act with Armor Spikes? You would take Two Weapon Fighting to use them optimally...

For example: My main weapon would be a Great Axe and my offhand weapon would be an Armor Spike.

As another tangential question: Would you still be able to attack with your Armor Spikes in a turn if you made a bite attack (as in the Barbarian's Animal Fury?). It says you can't use them in conjunction with an off-hand attack, but a bite comes from a head and is a secondary natural attack... is that considered offhand?

Example: Great Axe Attack, Bite Attack, Armor Spike Attack?

Thank you for your consideration


Stynkk wrote:

I have been reading up on Armor Spikes in the forum recently and they bring up many questions...

Is there any reason to believe a player could not use the Two Weapon Defense feat to act with Armor Spikes? You would take Two Weapon Fighting to use them optimally...

No reason. Many people tend to dislike armor spikes, but rather than disallow the weapon they make many house rules against them. But RAW there's no reason that Armor Spikes should be treated differently here.

In general though, the feat for +1 shield bonus to AC is a poor choice on which to spend a feat. The TWF fighting tree already uses up too many feats as it is.

Stynkk wrote:


As another tangential question: Would you still be able to attack with your Armor Spikes in a turn if you made a bite attack (as in the Barbarian's Animal Fury?). It says you can't use them in conjunction with an off-hand attack, but a bite comes from a head and is a secondary natural attack... is that considered offhand?

You can TWF with armor spikes even if you have natural secondary attacks. So a troll with a short sword in hand wearing armor spikes could attack with the short sword, the armor spikes and then a claw and bite as secondary natural attacks. Penalties on the short sword and armor spikes would depend upon whether or not the troll had the TWF feat.

The intent of the 'rule' is to try to avoid confusion when you have a PC with a weapon in each hand wearing armor spikes trying, erroneously, to claim that TWF would give him TWO extra attacks rather than ONE.

-James

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Stynkk wrote:

I have been reading up on Armor Spikes in the forum recently and they bring up many questions...

Is there any reason to believe a player could not use the Two Weapon Defense feat to act with Armor Spikes? You would take Two Weapon Fighting to use them optimally...

For example: My main weapon would be a Great Axe and my offhand weapon would be an Armor Spike.

As another tangential question: Would you still be able to attack with your Armor Spikes in a turn if you made a bite attack (as in the Barbarian's Animal Fury?). It says you can't use them in conjunction with an off-hand attack, but a bite comes from a head and is a secondary natural attack... is that considered offhand?

Example: Great Axe Attack, Bite Attack, Armor Spike Attack?

Thank you for your consideration

There is no off-hand weapon as you are using Two hands to wield your Greataxe.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two handed melee weapon effectively.

Someone using a 1 handed weapon could use an armor spike as their off hand normally I would imagine (something like an elbow smash with the spikes).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with Riatin. This came up years ago on the WotC sage forums, and if IIRC, the ruling was a two-handed weapon precludes using two-weapon fighting.


I agree with you James, it wouldn't be that beneficial to take TWD, but squeaking out extra AC, might not be that bad.

riatin wrote:


There is no off-hand weapon as you are using Two hands to wield your Greataxe.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two handed melee weapon effectively.

Someone using a 1 handed weapon could use an armor spike as their off hand normally I would imagine (something like an elbow smash with the spikes).

It is my understanding that Armor Spikes don't require a free hand to wield so 2h weapon + spikes would not be precluded. I also have heard that this was a possible weapon configuration in D&D 3.5.

Let us say for this example I have spikes on my shoulders and use them to ram the opponent after the Axe slash.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Stynkk wrote:

I agree with you James, it wouldn't be that beneficial to take TWD, but squeaking out extra AC, might not be that bad.

riatin wrote:


There is no off-hand weapon as you are using Two hands to wield your Greataxe.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two handed melee weapon effectively.

Someone using a 1 handed weapon could use an armor spike as their off hand normally I would imagine (something like an elbow smash with the spikes).

It is my understanding that Armor Spikes don't require a free hand to wield so 2h weapon + spikes would not be precluded. I also have heard that this was a possible weapon configuration in D&D 3.5.

Let us say for this example I have spikes on my shoulders and use them to ram the opponent after the Axe slash.

Core rulebook pg 202: Two Weapon Fighting: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Seems pretty cut and dried that a second weapon in your hand is required. Whatever loophole was used for 3.5 allowed for considerable cheese.

Liberty's Edge

The 'loop' in 3.5 was that it was a direct question in the 3.5 FAQs, and it was official that 2-handed weapon + armor spikes were allowed (even encouraged when using a 2 handed reach weapon).


Armor Spikes p.150 <br /><br /> You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked
armor” 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.)

So, since an armor spike is not wielded in one's hand therefore it can't be used by TWF? Armor spikes do not require a hand... But, it's descriptor clearly says it can be used to make an offhanded attack.


riatin wrote:


Core rulebook pg 202: Two Weapon Fighting: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Seems pretty cut and dried that a second weapon in your hand is required. Whatever loophole was used for 3.5 allowed for considerable cheese.

As I said, many people don't like Armor Spikes.

Note that his argument can be extended to disallow attacking with Armor Spikes at all.. as they are not in hand and thus not wielded.

waltero wrote:


I agree with Riatin. This came up years ago on the WotC sage forums, and if IIRC, the ruling was a two-handed weapon precludes using two-weapon fighting.

Funny I recall the opposite... that armor spikes were completely valid to use in TWF. In fact, if memory serves their was a fighting style feat from Races of Stone based upon this..

Regardless.. as I said people take a dim view on armor spikes as a weapon in its own right and then look to curtail other aspects of it rather than simply removing it in their game outright.

There's nothing wrong with TWF with armor spikes as they are a weapon. They are a light weapon so your penalties are not higher than usual. And yes you can use a two-handed weapon (or a smaller weapon in both hands) and still use armor spikes. In fact you could have both hands full carrying things and make primary attacks with armor spikes.

-James

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

I dont disagree with armor spikes in the least, I think they're a perfectly fine weapon for either a primary attack or off hand attack. Not needing a hand simply makes them a special case in that you can use them without them physically being in your hand, without that rule they're pretty useless.

The FAQ isn't official errata, and the game is Pathfinder and not 3.5, my guess that the RAW would preclude their use as an offhand weapon while using them with a Two handed weapon. One of the beautiful things of the game is your DM can rule it however he likes, but the obvious extrapolation from ruling for it is that any character regardless of feats gets a free offhand attack if they're wearing armor spikes, there's probably quite a few big metal cacti wondering around a world like that. Cheese.


Well, there is the TWF penalties. Most people probably don't want to have -4 to their primary attack and a -8 to those offhand armor spikes, just to have an extra attack that does 1d6 + 1/2 Str damage.

-4 to the Greataxe (or whatever's in the primary) is likely to be enough of a deterrent in most situations.
Plus, the -8 to attack with the spikes means it'll rarely come up anyways.

.

Now, if someone is already investing in two weapon fighting, that's different. But that's likely not the average person walking around anyways.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
riatin wrote:
there's probably quite a few big metal cacti wondering around a world like that. Cheese.

Yes, everyone is wearing spiked armor for the free attack and not the defensive value and intimidation factor. :/


The more I think about it, the more it seems that armor spikes should be treated as a natural attack. i.e. can be used without penalty by itself, or to supplement a "real" full-attack, but at a -5 penalty.


Kaisoku wrote:

Well, there is the TWF penalties. Most people probably don't want to have -4 to their primary attack and a -8 to those offhand armor spikes, just to have an extra attack that does 1d6 + 1/2 Str damage.

-4 to the Greataxe (or whatever's in the primary) is likely to be enough of a deterrent in most situations.
Plus, the -8 to attack with the spikes means it'll rarely come up anyways.

.

Now, if someone is already investing in two weapon fighting, that's different. But that's likely not the average person walking around anyways.

Also as I recall there was a ruling that the great axe did not do 1.5 times strength damage either if you attack with an off-hand weapon, making it alot less desirable. especially if you extrapolate this to power attack.


So what are the attack penalties when using a two-handed weapon with armor spikes? Is it -2/-2 or would it be -4/-2 since the two-handed weapon is large and not medium?

I have an NPC that weilds a glaive and has spiny armor (for use with the lunge feat). Inquirering minds want to know.


LoreKeeper wrote:

The more I think about it, the more it seems that armor spikes should be treated as a natural attack. i.e. can be used without penalty by itself, or to supplement a "real" full-attack, but at a -5 penalty.

This essentially gives free attacks. I am not going to allow free attacks it seems just so extremely muinchkinism ish, common sense says it would be silly and calls for a rewrite to disallow it, so I save myself the trouble waiting for a rewrite.


Hexcaliber wrote:

So what are the attack penalties when using a two-handed weapon with armor spikes? Is it -2/-2 or would it be -4/-2 since the two-handed weapon is large and not medium?

I have an NPC that weilds a glaive and has spiny armor (for use with the lunge feat). Inquirering minds want to know.

I am not thinking PRPG supports it at all, so it be hard to get an official ruling on it.


Ugh! Not this issue again!!!

Untill such time as an official ruling (can we have one, PLEASE?), individual opinions will vary.

My own opinion is that you CAN use armor spikes with a Two-handed weapon. My reasoing...

1) The specific rule trumps the more general rule. This is the custom for both CCGs and Roleplaying games, and is well recognized, even within the Pathfinder system (I could cite dozens of examples). In this case the more-specific rule is the armor spikes rule, as it ONLY applies to armor spikes, whereas the TWF rule applies to ALL weapons.

2) This was allowed in 3.5. Since the first page of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook acknowledges that this system was based on the 3.5 rules, AND says that those rules are compatable with the Pathfinder rules, AND nothing in Pathfinder has changed the existing rule, there is no reason to assume that you cannot use this combo.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It's already been mathematically proven that a big two-handed weapon being dual-wielded with armor spikes is an INFERIOR option to most other basic combat builds.

Seeing as that is the case, why are people calling it "broken" or "cheese?"


Ravingdork wrote:

It's already been mathematically proven that a big two-handed weapon being dual-wielded with armor spikes is an INFERIOR option to most other basic combat builds.

Seeing as that is the case, why are people calling it "broken" or "cheese?"

Because that is a typical knee-jerk reaction to most anything out of the ordinary. Some people are predisposed to labeling any mechanic thay are unfamiliar with as "broken" or "cheese", just as they automatically label players who try to use parts of the rules that they are unfamiliar with as "munchkins".


Jason Rice wrote:

Ugh! Not this issue again!!!

Untill such time as an official ruling (can we have one, PLEASE?), individual opinions will vary.

My own opinion is that you CAN use armor spikes with a Two-handed weapon. My reasoing...

1) The specific rule trumps the more general rule. This is the custom for both CCGs and Roleplaying games, and is well recognized, even within the Pathfinder system (I could cite dozens of examples). In this case the more-specific rule is the armor spikes rule, as it ONLY applies to armor spikes, whereas the TWF rule applies to ALL weapons.

2) This was allowed in 3.5. Since the first page of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook acknowledges that this system was based on the 3.5 rules, AND says that those rules are compatable with the Pathfinder rules, AND nothing in Pathfinder has changed the existing rule, there is no reason to assume that you cannot use this combo.

1) the specific rule does not mention two-handed weapons, it just mentions armor spikes to be allowed as off-hand weapons among other uses. So that is a moot point.

2) It is backwards compatible, basically meaning you have little trouble importing from 3.5 into pathfinder whatever you like, but that doesn't make it official, claiming that it was allowed in the old set of rules that was specifically marked for improvement is not a very good argument either.

Hence I say that it will be hard to get an official ruling, feel free to use all the splat from 3.5 without weighing it's credibility and break it all over again.


Moro wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It's already been mathematically proven that a big two-handed weapon being dual-wielded with armor spikes is an INFERIOR option to most other basic combat builds.

Seeing as that is the case, why are people calling it "broken" or "cheese?"

Because that is a typical knee-jerk reaction to most anything out of the ordinary. Some people are predisposed to labeling any mechanic thay are unfamiliar with as "broken" or "cheese", just as they automatically label players who try to use parts of the rules that they are unfamiliar with as "munchkins".

Quoted for truthiness.

As I've stated in the past, once someone gains an advantage or seems overlly powerful it's the book that gets blamed, not the player.

Is gaining this extra attack over the top? No, not even nearly.


Ravingdork wrote:

It's already been mathematically proven that a big two-handed weapon being dual-wielded with armor spikes is an INFERIOR option to most other basic combat builds.

Seeing as that is the case, why are people calling it "broken" or "cheese?"

Broken, well I don't know.. but it is cheese, at the very least it should be an unusual style, creating a ruleset that makes every fighter adding spikes to his armor just for the extra + makes it undesirable for msot games, even in 3.5 I think there was a complete warrior or races of stone feat specifically allowing this style. for an additional attack with a -5 penalty.


Stynkk wrote:

I agree with you James, it wouldn't be that beneficial to take TWD, but squeaking out extra AC, might not be that bad.

riatin wrote:


There is no off-hand weapon as you are using Two hands to wield your Greataxe.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two handed melee weapon effectively.

Someone using a 1 handed weapon could use an armor spike as their off hand normally I would imagine (something like an elbow smash with the spikes).

It is my understanding that Armor Spikes don't require a free hand to wield so 2h weapon + spikes would not be precluded. I also have heard that this was a possible weapon configuration in D&D 3.5.

Let us say for this example I have spikes on my shoulders and use them to ram the opponent after the Axe slash.

Like I said I think there was a specific feat allowing it, not two-weapon fighting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Remco Sommeling wrote:
creating a ruleset that makes every fighter adding spikes to his armor just for the extra + makes it undesirable for msot games

Only it doesn't. It just makes that one fighter what fights like a madman, swinging his axe and throwing his body at people. All the other fighters in the world look at him and think 'he has a deathwish'.

Just because a PC does it thanks to his player realizing he can get an extra attack a round with it does not mean all the NPCs are going to jump on the bandwagon.

Scarab Sages

Ugh. This again. It has come up time and again that 'off hand means you need to use an actual HAND' or some BS. This is not true. You can clearly make off-hand attacks with a Shield Bash, Armor Spikes, heck, you even mimic it with the monk's flurry of blows, and they could make them with their head or feet!

Off-Hand, while *usually* meaning a second hand, is not always the case.

Armor spikes + two-handed weapon is very possible, and you could definitely use two weapon defense with this.

And really, it's not even a very powerful combination. It's cool, sure, I like the idea of a dwarf hitting something with his greataxe and then kicking them with a spiked boot, but it's really no more powerful than a billion other combos out there.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Moro wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It's already been mathematically proven that a big two-handed weapon being dual-wielded with armor spikes is an INFERIOR option to most other basic combat builds.

Seeing as that is the case, why are people calling it "broken" or "cheese?"

Because that is a typical knee-jerk reaction to most anything out of the ordinary. Some people are predisposed to labeling any mechanic thay are unfamiliar with as "broken" or "cheese", just as they automatically label players who try to use parts of the rules that they are unfamiliar with as "munchkins".

There's no knee jerk reaction nor did I call it broken. I did call it cheese however. This is due to the use of intentionally misreading a rule in order to gain a mechanical benefit. It may not be a huge benefit, but obviously he's invested feats into the Two Weapon Fighting tree to reduce the penalties and possibly gain AC. The rules say you can get a Regular attack (ie an attack that fits along the BAB attack track) or you can use it as an Off-hand attack, at no point do the rules make the leap to saying that this grants you an extra attack. If you follow that logic, there's no reason you couldn't run with it to conclude that you can kick with a blade boot, or pierce with a helmet spike or any other body part you wish to lash a blade to. Simply wearing X pieces of clothing with weapons attached shouldn't award me with X number of extra attacks regardless of penalties. Tell me the guy that attacks 3 times with his Greataxe, twice with his bootblades, once with armor spikes, twice with knee spikes, and once with a spiked helmet isn't cheese even if the character in question misses with every single attack.


Remco Sommeling wrote:


2) It is backwards compatible, basically meaning you have little trouble importing from 3.5 into pathfinder whatever you like, but that doesn't make it official, claiming that it was allowed in the old set of rules that was specifically marked for improvement is not a very good argument either.
riatin wrote:


The FAQ isn't official errata, and the game is Pathfinder and not 3.5,

With pathfinder, it's generally assumed that unless something is noted as a change, it is the same. If the wording of an ability has changed drastically though not being clear what it means, it might need clearing up. Still, if a rule hasn't been specifically changed, and the wording hasn't gone through drastic changes, we assume that the 3.5 rule is still valid.

And the FAQ isn't an errata because it doesn't deal with changing errors. It explains the rules. You don't need to change something that is correct to begin with.

---------------

Anyway, they're underpowered compared to other TWF options. Either you could go weapon + shield and get the bonuses from shield master, or you could go twin weapons and get double the bonus from feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.


Are we arguing this again? Really?

Two possibilities:
1) You accept that two-handed weapon plus armor spikes is valid. If so, the OP question has been correctly answered -- you can take two-weapon fighting penalties to use this option and also use your natural attacks as part of the same attack action.
2) You don't accept that two-handed weapon plus armor spikes is valid. In which case, the very premise upon which the OP questions asks is wrong; link him to one of the threads where the arguments are made not to allow this build and be done with it.


People. Please. Let's not start this war up again.

Scarab Sages

"We didn't start the flame war! It's always been going since the very first posting!*

/dances

Generally I go by this rule.

2-handed weapon offers no off-hand attacks.
1-handed or light and you can get offhand attacks.

So for the armor spike...

You can use it if you're wielding 1-hand or light weapon. With a 2-handed weapon, you just can't seem to work it into play.

Of course, I also allow feats like monkey grip, so with a -2 to all attacks, the player could wield a 2-handed weapon in one hand.


Does anyone know if there's a PFS ruling on this?

Edit: I mean the two handed weapon + armor spikes part.


Dear mother of God...


Suddenly I want to build a fighter who uses a Large Bastard Sword and wears Armor Spikes. Mechanically INFERIOR, but amusing none the less.


Thanks for the input everyone, there are some follow-up points that have come to light.

#1 does an offhand attack need to be made from a "hand"?

I'm not sure about this one anymore.. since you could then argue that every character would get an unarmed Kick attack... although at ridiculous penalties. EDIT: In the Core Rule Book I see only evidence where Monks may make normal attacks with Head/Elbow/Feet. So multi-classing would have to be done to make this kind of extra attack available to all combat characters, even so they would only gain a 1d3 attack.

#2 If you TWF with a Great Axe/Sword etc and Armor Spikes does it get a 1.0x STR modifier or a 1.5x STR modifier (since you are really using two hands...? And a two handed weapon can't be wielded in one hand without other feats)

#3 If you use this combination, would the penalties not be -2 for Primary and -2 for Offhand In the rule book it makes no mention of the size of the Primary weapon on p.202. Instead penalties are reduced for the offhand being light (-2,-2 armor spike is light) and taking the TWF feat (-2, -6)

The desired effect of this on my proposed character is not to be the most powerful, it is to be a Barbarian with reckless abandon (Axe, Spike, Bite)

As far as balancing would go, this would only one extra attack no matter how many weapons would be on the body of the character. Armor spikes can't be used if you already used another offhand..


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Stynkk wrote:

Thanks for the input everyone, there are some follow-up points that have come to light.

#1 does an offhand attack need to be made from a "hand"? I'm not sure about this one anymore.. since you could then argue that every character would get an unarmed Kick attack... although at ridiculous penalties.

Unarmed strike never has required a free hand to use. Thus yes you can kick if you so desire to do your d3 nonlethal.

raitan wrote:


If you follow that logic, there's no reason you couldn't run with it to conclude that you can kick with a blade boot, or pierce with a helmet spike or any other body part you wish to lash a blade to. Simply wearing X pieces of clothing with weapons attached shouldn't award me with X number of extra attacks regardless of penalties. Tell me the guy that attacks 3 times with his Greataxe, twice with his bootblades, once with armor spikes, twice with knee spikes, and once with a spiked helmet isn't cheese even if the character in question misses with every single attack.

And you don't think Paizo just printed the Boot Blade in their adventurers armory with the same text that you can use it as an off hand weapon. And I really dont think they intend you to take off your boot to use it.

Wearing the weapon what ever or where ever it is located does not give you an extra attack. Anyone can make an extra attack using two weapon fighting. If you have 9,000 weapons you get your primary attacks and one off hand attack. You only get more off hand attacks if you have feats that allow you to have more than one.


Stynkk wrote:

Thanks for the input everyone, there are some follow-up points that have come to light.

#1 does an offhand attack need to be made from a "hand"?

No, armor spikes specifically mention that they can be used as 'offhand' attacks.

You could also elect to TWF using unarmed strikes as your secondary weapon..

Stynkk wrote:


#2 If you TWF with a Great Axe/Sword etc and Armor Spikes does it get a 1.0x STR modifier or a 1.5x STR modifier (since you are really using two hands...? And a two handed weapon can't be wielded in one hand without other feats)

You get 1.5x STR modifier for one-handed used in two hands and two-handed weapons used in two hands.

You are using a two handed weapon in two hands so you get 1.5x STR with it.

Stynkk wrote:


#3 If you use this combination, would the penalties not be -2 for Primary and -2 for light?

The penalty for TWF is based upon the category of the offhand weapon. Armor spikes are considered light weapons, so if you have the TWF feat then it would be -2/-2 as you surmise.

If you have older 3.5 material available I would suggest looking at Races of Stone as there is a combat style feat there that would let you take an offhand attack with armor spikes at -5 but without penalty for your primary weapon attacks. It requires the primary weapon to be an axe.. but that's already the case..

Anyway, happy gaming,

James


Thanks! That clears it up.


Remco Sommeling wrote:


1) the specific rule does not mention two-handed weapons, it just mentions armor spikes to be allowed as off-hand weapons among other uses. So that is a moot point.

Exactly! It specifically mentions armor spikes as being usable as an off hand weapon...EVEN THOUGH YOU DONT ACTUALLY USE A HAND TO ATTACK WITH THEM.

Remco Sommeling wrote:


2) It is backwards compatible, basically meaning you have little trouble importing from 3.5 into pathfinder whatever you like, but that doesn't make it official, claiming that it was allowed in the old set of rules that was specifically marked for improvement is not a very good argument either.

You conveniently ignored the part where I said that "nothing in Pathfinder has changed the existing rule."

Riatin wrote:


The rules say you can get a Regular attack (ie an attack that fits along the BAB attack track) or you can use it as an Off-hand attack, at no point do the rules make the leap to saying that this grants you an extra attack.

Explain to me why you would think someone would make an off-hand attack with armor spikes INSTEAD of a Regular attack. The ONLY mechanical reason to choose to use these as off-hand weapons is if you are ALSO making a regular attack with another weapon.

Riatin wrote:


If you follow that logic, there's no reason you couldn't run with it to conclude that you can kick with a blade boot, or pierce with a helmet spike or any other body part you wish to lash a blade to.

As long as the weapon can be used as an off-hand attack, you are right. There is no reason you couldn't do those things instead. You also have the option to use an unarmed attack, although you would provoke an attack of opportunity if you didn't have Improved Unarmed Strike feat (or a level of monk). Since an unarmed attack is not limited to a punch, but includes knees, elbows, kicks, and headbuts, I'm not certain why you would think "lashing a blade" to said body parts suddenly makes you unable to attack with them.

Riatin wrote:


Simply wearing X pieces of clothing with weapons attached shouldn't award me with X number of extra attacks regardless of penalties. Tell me the guy that attacks 3 times with his Greataxe, twice with his bootblades, once with armor spikes, twice with knee spikes, and once with a spiked helmet isn't cheese even if the character in question misses with every single attack.

That's not how two-weapon fighting works. It doesn't matter how many weapons (or iterative attacks) you have. With two-weapon fighting, you get ONE additional attack, unless you have the feats (greater two weapon fighting, etc.) to allow you to have more.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Armor Spikes and Two Weapon... Defense? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.