|
I'm not bothered what the rule ends up being, but it needs to be clear and consistent in an organised play campaign. The whole point of OP is that everyone plays by the same rules and can play their characters in any game without modification. If one of your primary attack methods changes completely at random depending on who's read what message board, or remembers this or that FAQ, then it starts to become disorganised play instead. It can also seriously affect the enjoyment of a player who never knows what he can or can't do. Do we really want to start every game with a list of "How do you rule X? How do you rule Y? Have you read the messageboard about Z?" I don't want to be in that position as either a player or a GM. I just want one set of unambiguous rules so we can get on with the game.
I want world peace too, but I'm starting small... :-)
In a board game, like say Axis and Allies, or Thurn & Taxes, there are hard and fast rules. Board games have finite rule sets, strategies, options, et. al. You can do X to get Y or Z to get Q and if you don't do M you might have R happen.
In a roleplaying game, you have an infinite set of options with a rapidly expanding rule set. There is absolutely zero way that a OP guide can cover every single base. Its impossible. Even with an OP guide as big as the core book.
There will be variation from table to table, because there is room for interpretation of the rules. Removing the need for interpreting in some cases would ruin the ability to be creative.
But in all cases, if the players would use a little common sense, instead of trying to find loopholes to "beat the system", then we wouldn't need all these clarifications anyways.
Yes, using a long spear to threaten at 10' and armor spikes to simultaneously threaten at 5' is a "gaming the game" mechanic. Common sense should tell you this isn't possible. When all other equipment options for threatening both 5' and 10' have been removed from the game for being unbalanced, what makes you think that spending an extra few GP would change that?
I'm not at all frustrated about the way rules are handed down or the way the guide presents the campaign specific options. I think it is just fine.
I'm actually frustrated at the players who try to game the system to get an advantage that they know is pushing the boundaries.
|
|
EDITED: However shoulder (armor) spikes seem very usable while holding a 2-handed weapon to me (despite the "ruling" above). As I said above, if the Armor Spikes require a "free hand" aren't they technically the same weapon as Spiked Gauntlets? Gauntlets are cheaper and do a damage-die less... I guess making the gauntlets more versitile? *shrug*
I honestly don't have this problem or any intention of creating it with any future characters. Also armor spikes don't have to be on HEAVY armor, they can be on LIGHT armor all the same.
Have you ever tried using your shoulder or elbow or chest/back as a weapon?
Most people haven't. I made the analogy to MMA and Tito Ortiz who was one of the first and probably still the best at using his shoulder to attack with while in another's guard (ground-n-pound). What's he doing with his hands?
You can't punch someone, let alone wield a two handed spear while also successfully using your shoulder to attack with. It isn't physically possible for anyone other than maybe Mr. Fantastic.
|
|
There will be variation from table to table, because there is room for interpretation of the rules. Removing the need for interpreting in some cases would ruin the ability to be creative.
And every effort should be made to reduce table variation for their organized play environment, as it makes for issues with organized play in general.
Yes, using a long spear to threaten at 10' and armor spikes to simultaneously threaten at 5' is a "gaming the game" mechanic. Common sense should tell you this isn't possible. When all other equipment options for threatening both 5' and 10' have been removed from the game for being...
It is not "gaming the game', it is simply one variation, out of many that still remain legal, for handling an all-too-common situation if you use a reach weapon, where a simple 5' step negates your weapon.
Still legal ways around the issue:
Polearm Master's immediate action to shorten the grip
Improved Unarmed Strike
One level of Monk
Boot knife
Barb. beard
Quick Draw another weapon
Personally, I don't want to say anything about a "ruling" which negates an expensive option to deal with an issue that always causes table variation to begin with (spiked gauntlets, I'm looking at you), but it should be fairly obvious that spiked armor has spikes on more than just the gauntlets, and that many of the non-hand-based attack options explicitly listed in Improved Unarmed Strike would be usable with armor spikes...
|
|
And interesting change from 3.5 where it was explicitly allowed without needing a hand free.. much like unarmed strikes.
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.
Exactly, and sans any rule explicitly written to the contrary, expect the Guild of Tank Fighters to play up to their character art.
|
|
That's great and all.. but as PF was made to be backward compatible and nothing has changed here... why try to ADD confusion?
Backwards compatible doesn't mean that everyone advances forward.
If you are still playing a 3.5 campaign, it is easy enough to insert Pathfinder stuff. If you are playing a Pathfinder game, it is easy enough to insert a 3.5 class or prestige class or feat or whatever.
But backwards compatible doesn't mean that a different company's FAQ should be considered RAW.
This, as with many other issues, is up to GM interpretation...My experience as a player, just AVOID anything in PFS that involves THAT phrase. You'll save yourself and your friends a lot of grief.
+1
Unfortunately it's a phrase that seems to be occurring more and more often in PFS.
|
|
This, as with many other issues, is up to GM interpretation...My experience as a player, just AVOID anything in PFS that involves THAT phrase. You'll save yourself and your friends a lot of grief.+1
Unfortunately it's a phrase that seems to be occurring more and more often in PFS.
Only because more people are trying to get away with wacky stuff.
|
As a GM I'll most likely will question characters with reach + armor spikes, citing that is has been claimed a dubious tactic by the lead designer. Thus relying on such tactic might come to an abrupt end if said lead designer chooses to modify armor spikes' rules.
Fortunately I don't see two-weapon fighters trying to get away with two-handed weapons and bladeboot/armor spikes. That's a stretch.
If you are wielding two one-handed or smaller weapons, however, I'd allow the character to use armor spikes as an off-"hand" weapon. This would, of course, deny the character the chance to use the 'real' off-hand weapon.
Oh, and regarding Miller's question about two-handed weapons... it's a free action to switch 2H to 1H, and another free action to wielding it again.
No matter how much people may want "official" rulings on any number of issues, there is no way we can ever cover every rules element in the game. This, as with many other issues, is up to GM interpretation unless Jason or someone else on the design team decides it's a large enough issue that it needs to be errata'd in a future printing of the core rules or clarified in an official FAQ.
I agree 100%, and I would have preferred this answer to your earlier comment saying "no, I talked to Jason and you need a free hand".
Only because more people are trying to get away with wacky stuff.This, as with many other issues, is up to GM interpretation...My experience as a player, just AVOID anything in PFS that involves THAT phrase. You'll save yourself and your friends a lot of grief.+1
Unfortunately it's a phrase that seems to be occurring more and more often in PFS.
I don't think that's true at all. Most of the things I've seen discussed are perfectly reasonable. If a monk is allowed to use a pole arm and still threaten at 5' because his whole body is a weapon, then why not a fighter covered in spikes? These guys are trained in combat and know how to use them, just as a monk knows how to kick someone.
Pathfinder is a complex system and the more rules they bring out the more complex it will get. In addition the more rules there are, the less chance there is of any one GM knowing the rule in question, at which point any answer they give will be pretty much arbitrary. I don't like gunslingers and will probably never read the rules for them. When I'm GMing if one of my players asks me how something works for his gunslinger because he was told it was left to the GMs discretion, what am I supposed to say? Do I just make up some random answer? Toss a coin? Waste 30 minutes of game time reading the rules in order to be fair to the player? It's Paizo's job to come up with the rules. It's my job to run the game. I have enough to deal with remembering people's names if we haven't played together before. Although that may just be my memory going...
Only because more people are trying to get away with wacky stuff.This, as with many other issues, is up to GM interpretation...My experience as a player, just AVOID anything in PFS that involves THAT phrase. You'll save yourself and your friends a lot of grief.+1
Unfortunately it's a phrase that seems to be occurring more and more often in PFS.
"Wacky" doesn't always translate to "getting away with stuff" (or "broken") either. Wacky, unique and motivated players/characters are a lot more fun to join than (speaking from 3.5E LG experience) Chain Fighter #34, Paladin with 2-handed weapon #12, Vow of Poverty Monk #800 and Cleric of Pelor #2,000,001... again. I haven't played PFS, but I'd be willing to bet it endures or will eventually, the same "flavor of the month" issue largely in part due to people being afraid of "GM Interpretation" from one table to the next.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of game balance, what's the problem? Spiked armour is nowhere near as effective as threatening both 5' and 10' with the same weapon. 1d6 damage and x2 crit is worse than every two-handed reach weapon but the mancatcher, and feats like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical won't apply to both your reach weapon and your spikes at once. Plus, later on you'll need to spend extra money enchanting the spikes separately from your main weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and regarding Miller's question about two-handed weapons... it's a free action to switch 2H to 1H, and another free action to wielding it again.
That's what I've always heard. Everyone can see how this would be the same as attacking with armor spikes, right?
|
|
Oh, and regarding Miller's question about two-handed weapons... it's a free action to switch 2H to 1H, and another free action to wielding it again.That's what I've always heard. Everyone can see how this would be the same as attacking with armor spikes, right?
I think people are mistaking a “free action” for switching hands on their pole arm, for interrupting an on-going action. As far as I’m aware, the only action that can interrupt an ongoing or starting action is a readied action (maybe immediate, but not sure about that).
While you can take a free action at a specific time as defined by the specific action or anytime if it isn’t defined, you cannot interrupt an action.
Therefore, you must declare whether you are threatening 10’ or 5’ for purposes of this argument. So someone passing through a zone that you could threaten at 10’ would not provoke an AoO if you declare you are wielding your armor spikes. And the same would apply if you declare you are wielding the spear, if someone passes through a zone that you could threaten at 5’, they would not provoke an AoO.
I am not sure if the Pathfinder rules support a Free/Standard combo for a readied action.
|
|
This would not be correct. One certainly can threaten squares that are both 10' away and 5' away in a myriad of ways, several of which have been delineated in this very thread.
Agreed. The primary way would be to have a natural attack (such as the Half-Orc bite attack).
One also does not declare 'I'm wielding one weapon and not another' rather one threatens with all weapons with which they are capable of making an attack at the moment.
And what I’m saying is, if you must take a free action to attack with one of the two weapons, you are not capable of making an attack at the moment when it is not your turn. Free action does not equal interruption.
A PC could have a sword in their right hand, a dagger in the left, be wearing armor spikes, a barbazu beard, have a boot knife out and have the improved unarmed strike feat. They do not need to declare that they are wielding any of these weapons, rather the fact that they are able to make an armed attack with any of them into an adjacent square is sufficient for them to threaten that square with each and every one of those weapons. Should someone provoke an AOO in an adjacent square such a character could decide to make the AOO (assuming he/she still had one available, the provoker didn't have full concealment, etc) with any of the above mentioned attacks.
But if wielding one weapon prohibits the use of another weapon (i.e. wielding a two handed long spear and you have armor spikes), then you have to determine what weapon you are threatening with.
Also the 'someone passes through a zone' provokes AOOs regardless. It is a question of what characters threaten those squares and with which weapons. This distinction gets lost on some people and leads to confusion on the issue.
The distinction is not lost on me, and I am not confused on the issue. If you can’t wield both weapons simultaneously, which is the case with the spear and armor spikes, then you must determine which zone you are threatening. Since a free action does not interrupt, then moving through your 5’ area is not considered moving through your threatened zone, thus does not provoke an attack of opportunity, should you choose to be threatening 10’ with the spear in lieu of 5’ with the armor spikes.
Now it is true that you cannot take free actions outside of your own turn (baring readying one as a standard action), but it is not true that you cannot do free actions during the course of other 'on-going actions'. One can, for example, perform a great number of free actions during the course of making a full round attack action as well as taking a 5' step during that period. It's another area that people confuse or don't think through properly.
This is not germane to what I was talking about. A free action, as a general rule (I’m sure there is some feat somewhere that can change things), cannot interrupt someone ELSE’S action on THEIR turn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
But you don't need a hand to use armor spikes.
Here is the fallacy of your entire point. I suppose unless it is officially errated or shows up on the PFS guide, it is up to interpretation.
But Mark Moreland already posted about what the intent was, and was agreed on the point with Jason. That Armor Spikes need a free hand to use.
So at my table, that is how I choose to interpret things.
Now as to what that really means...
It doesn't mean you have to actually USE your hand to wield armor spikes. But what it does mean, if you are using both of your hands to do something else, like wield a spear, then you can't use the armor spikes, because that "arm" is being used.
And a monk with improved unarmed attack doesn't necessarily threaten at 5' if using a reach weapon.
Either you are using improved unarmed attack, or you are using a weapon, not both.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Mark Moreland already posted about what the intent was, and was agreed on the point with Jason. That Armor Spikes need a free hand to use.
And a monk with improved unarmed attack doesn't necessarily threaten at 5' if using a reach weapon.
Either you are using improved unarmed attack, or you are using a weapon, not both.
1) So, armor spikes are only on the arms of your armor? Bogus. How about a hip check? Kick? Head butt?
2) Huh? How do you justify not allowing someone who threatens with their body to not threaten when wielding a reach weapon? Does wielding a reach weapon mean your feet are stuck to the ground, since Monks can attack with kicks?
3) Do you have a rules citation for this?
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
You are correct Callarek, I think the spiked armor issue has gotten a bit confused when compared to the monk's unarmed strike, at least for Andrew. *shrug*
Monk wielding a polearm and a monk wielding a bow are still perfectly capable (after gaining said weapon proficiency) of threatening 5' AND flurrying with 'unarmed strikes' aka while having their hands full.
Armor spikes... Since our group rarely uses them (when I did it was solely for bullrushing), I think I'll wait until the situation actually occurs, bring up this thread and then let the group make their own judgement as I find it silly to rationalize that the armor spikes are only on your arms aka needing a free hand. I think it's a rule fabricated specifically for PFS to prevent "flavor of the month" and I personally will choose to vote against it in my home games.
|
|
But Mark Moreland already posted about what the intent was, and was agreed on the point with Jason. That Armor Spikes need a free hand to use.
And a monk with improved unarmed attack doesn't necessarily threaten at 5' if using a reach weapon.
Either you are using improved unarmed attack, or you are using a weapon, not both.
1) So, armor spikes are only on the arms of your armor? Bogus. How about a hip check? Kick? Head butt?
2) Huh? How do you justify not allowing someone who threatens with their body to not threaten when wielding a reach weapon? Does wielding a reach weapon mean your feet are stuck to the ground, since Monks can attack with kicks?
3) Do you have a rules citation for this?
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
I stand corrected on the Monk thing. I believe 3.0 made the distinction.
As for the armor spikes, because Mark and Jason clarified how they would rule it, I don't need to justify why I would, although if you read further up in the thread you'll see plenty of my justification. Additionally, I would add that someone wearing armor spikes is not necessarily skilled with kneeing or kicking, and as such, they would not be able to threaten with just legs.
James, it is clear in other threads, and this one, that Mark and Hyrum expect there to be table variation with rules such as these, and that the GM has final say at their table.
|
|
I think it's a rule fabricated specifically for PFS to prevent "flavor of the month" and I personally will choose to vote against it in my home games.
Except it isn't a PFS specific rule.
It is a suggestion for how to rule by both Mark (PFS coordinator) and Jason (not a PFS coordinator).
It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to rule at their table that this is ok.
As such, it is also perfectly acceptable for a GM to rule at their table that it is not.
|
|
I think it's a rule fabricated specifically for PFS to prevent "flavor of the month" and I personally will choose to vote against it in my home games.Except it isn't a PFS specific rule.
It is a suggestion for how to rule by both Mark (PFS coordinator) and Jason (not a PFS coordinator).
It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to rule at their table that this is ok.
As such, it is also perfectly acceptable for a GM to rule at their table that it is not.
An Organized Play campaign is supposed to be doing everything it can to have a consistent environment, not relying on the old chestnut, which sours enjoyment, of "Expect Table Variation."
ETV is bad.
Now, since Mark has made this {comment elided} decision that Armor Spikes won't be usable to threaten adjacent while using a polearm/reach wepaon, does my character (and any other character, as well) who has a reach weapon and armor spikes get to sell back the armor spikes for 100% refund?
|
|
Now, since Mark has made this {comment elided} decision that Armor Spikes won't be usable to threaten adjacent while using a polearm/reach wepaon, does my character (and any other character, as well) who has a reach weapon and armor spikes get to sell back the armor spikes for 100% refund?
Until it is in the PFS guide, it is not a PFS rule.
It is simply a suggestion.
So to answer your question, no.
Besides, armor spikes aren't all that expensive.
|
|
James, it is clear in other threads, and this one, that Mark and Hyrum expect there to be table variation with rules such as these, and that the GM has final say at their table.Sorry, but table variation is not a good thing. It can be inevitable, but should never be encouraged or pandered to.
As to 'I don't need to justify' why you want to go with a house rule.. shame on you.
I don't like the idea of ninjas or gunslingers in my fantasy game. Does that give me license to 'interpret' what I will now call 'grey' areas of the rules when I judge a PFS game that includes them?
No. And if I did then shame on me.
Armor spikes, while VERY goofy, have been in the game for far too long to be thought of as a 'fringe' weapon. That they don't need a hand to use was clear from the start and reinforced through-out. The fact that some people don't like them doesn't mean that they should be making up house rules in PFS.
Now if Mark or Jason, people who can change the rules of PFS and even Pathfinder itself, want to change the rules to reflect that they suddenly want armor spikes to be held in hand.. they can do so.
Until they do change those rules, armor spikes don't need to be held in hand to be used. And if judges let their house rules into organized play then shame on them.
-James
It isn't a house rule when a suggestion validates said interpretation. It is merely an acceptable interpretation of the rules by said GM.
|
|
Now, since Mark has made this {comment elided} decision that Armor Spikes won't be usable to threaten adjacent while using a polearm/reach wepaon, does my character (and any other character, as well) who has a reach weapon and armor spikes get to sell back the armor spikes for 100% refund?
Until it is in the PFS guide, it is not a PFS rule.
It is simply a suggestion.
So to answer your question, no.
Besides, armor spikes aren't all that expensive.
Masterwork silversheen armor spikes aren't all that cheap.
And, if the suggestion causes armor spikes to no longer work the way they did when my character bought them, and he wouldn't have bought them if they work as the suggestion says, why should my character have to bear the expense for somettyhing he never would have bought to begin with?
I think it's a rule fabricated specifically for PFS to prevent "flavor of the month" and I personally will choose to vote against it in my home games.Except it isn't a PFS specific rule.
It is a suggestion for how to rule by both Mark (PFS coordinator) and Jason (not a PFS coordinator).
It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to rule at their table that this is ok.
As such, it is also perfectly acceptable for a GM to rule at their table that it is not.
I'm choosing to view it as a 'PFS specific rule', having never played PFS (only at GenCon 08 for CORE release), it really doesn't mean much to me.
As I said, should the situation occur, I will mention it, but I'm certain that our group of 3.5E vets will vote against such a ruling.
Should I eventually get lucky enough or have time to join a PFS game, I'll definitely be avoiding this amoungst other things in "the grey area" known as "GM interpretation".
|
|
Now, since Mark has made this {comment elided} decision that Armor Spikes won't be usable to threaten adjacent while using a polearm/reach wepaon, does my character (and any other character, as well) who has a reach weapon and armor spikes get to sell back the armor spikes for 100% refund?
Until it is in the PFS guide, it is not a PFS rule.
It is simply a suggestion.
So to answer your question, no.
Besides, armor spikes aren't all that expensive.
Masterwork silversheen armor spikes aren't all that cheap.
And, if the suggestion causes armor spikes to no longer work the way they did when my character bought them, and he wouldn't have bought them if they work as the suggestion says, why should my character have to bear the expense for somettyhing he never would have bought to begin with?
Many changes in PFS work that way. Not everyone gets to totally recon their character and character choices when changes are made. Just when certain things essentially become illegal or obsolete. Your armor spikes can still be used as armor spikes, so my guess, should this actually become a PFS rule, that you would not be able to get a refund.
That being said, it is thus far a suggestion, and based on comments from Mark above subsequent to his suggestion, this will not become a PFS rule unless Jason decides to turn it into Pathfinder errata.
|
|
It isn't a house rule when a suggestion validates said interpretation. It is merely an acceptable interpretation of the rules by said GM.No, it is a house rule. Plain and simple.
And if you cause PFS players trouble over it then shame on you. If Mark approves of you doing so then shame on him.
I'll take Mark, Hyrum's and Jasons word on this over your opinion of what their word is worth sans an official change.
We will have to agree to disagree on this.
Does allowing table variation really mean I can tell the gunslingers their guns don't work and to go buy a proper weapon? Awesome!
More seriously, table variation in organised play is the eqivalent to playing a home game where the GM changes the rules every week. One minute you thought you could do something, the next week you can't, and then you can, and then you can't...
Its at its worst when in week 1 you know you can do X, so in week 2 you rush into a risky situation relying on X to keep you alive and then the GM says "I changed my mind, you can't do X any more. Now my 20 mooks get to go..."
I don't really care what the rules are (gunslingers notwithstanding), but they need to be consistent.
|
|
There is a huge difference in interpreting something at a table based on a suggestion on these boards, and "interpreting" something out of the game that has been explicitly allowed.
In Alternate Resources, they explicitly say the Gunslinger and guns are legal for play. Therefore you interpreting gunpowder out of the game would actually not be an interpretation, but an invalid choice as GM.
In a thread on these boards (don't have time to look it up) where Hyrum and Mark explained how they would make clarifications on the boards, they indicated that any clarification that shows up on the boards is just a suggestion and may be interpreted as each player or GM wishes, and that the GM's interpretation takes precedence at the table.
In this case, there is a clarification and suggestion on armor spikes, by not just the PFS coordinators, but by a developer or Pathfinder RPG. As such, it is a completely valid, and allowed, interpretation to make at my table.
There is a huge difference in interpreting something at a table based on a suggestion on these boards, and "interpreting" something out of the game that has been explicitly allowed.
In Alternate Resources, they explicitly say the Gunslinger and guns are legal for play. Therefore you interpreting gunpowder out of the game would actually not be an interpretation, but an invalid choice as GM.
In a thread on these boards (don't have time to look it up) where Hyrum and Mark explained how they would make clarifications on the boards, they indicated that any clarification that shows up on the boards is just a suggestion and may be interpreted as each player or GM wishes, and that the GM's interpretation takes precedence at the table.
In this case, there is a clarification and suggestion on armor spikes, by not just the PFS coordinators, but by a developer or Pathfinder RPG. As such, it is a completely valid, and allowed, interpretation to make at my table.
I was joking about gunslingers, but how do either of us know that Hyrum or Mark haven't posted that gunslingers are subject to GM discretion? Maybe we both just missed it. What happes if the GM believes he saw that gunslingers were subject to GM discretion and rules on that basis. Who is to tell him he's wrong? He just thinks he saw it in a thread somewhere and they haven't got around to updating the campaign guide yet. The GM is always right, so you don't get to play your gunslinger.
|
I was joking about gunslingers, but how do either of us know that Hyrum or Mark haven't posted that gunslingers are subject to GM discretion? Maybe we both just missed it. What happes if the GM believes he saw that gunslingers were subject to GM discretion and rules on that basis. Who is to tell him he's wrong? He just thinks he saw it in a thread somewhere and they haven't got around to updating the campaign guide yet. The GM is always right, so you don't get to play your gunslinger.
If you have an issue with your gms call then you go to the coordinator. If he still disagrees and/or there isn't anyone to take your issue to you either accept the rules call or you can decide to leave the table.
Having as many consistant rules as possible is ideal, though it is the nature of the game. Andrew as a former campaign admin knows this as much as anyone. But he, like I, will take the word of Mark/Jason/James/Hyrum/anyone who works on the design team over many of the other people on the boards, including James Maisson.
That said, for regular posters, I believe that James generally has a VERY good understanding of the rules and is one of the posters whose rules opinion I value when I need one.
In this case, James is pretty passionate about what he believes the rules to be. Andrew and I (and many others I'm sure) can respect his opinion even as we decide to use Mark/Jasons. If you want to raise the issue on the rules forum, I (and I'm sure Andrew) will be more than willing to FAQ tag it so that an official Pathfinder answer can be made.
Until then, we aren't wrong and merely disagree. This is by far one of the smallest issues of which there are multiple interpretations. It's going to happen, get used to it. Bringing things like the gunslinger into it are patently rediculous.
With all due respect,
Clint
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Let's assume that Larry the Wizard has a reach weapon in his hands and does not threaten adjacent squares. He casts fire shield. Now does he threaten adjacent squares?
It seems that the passage "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.)" helps Mark's case. Why should bumping into somebody with your spiky butt keep you from using that off-hand short-sword?
I think the intention is as follows:
If you have one weapon you get one attack.
If you have TWF and two weapons you get two attacks.
If you have TWF, two weapons, and armour spikes then you don't get a third attack. You can either use the spikes or the second weapon as the T in TWF.
I'm not counting iteratives etc of course. It just means you don't get free attacks with armour spikes on top of all your normal attacks. You still threaten with them at 5', even when holding a reach weapon, but using the spikes replaces your normal weapon for the AoO if it's within 5'.
But that's IMHO obviously, and that's how I'd rule it as a PFS GM.
|
|
James, I don’t doubt your expertise on the rules. You probably have a better overall understanding of 3.5 rules than I do, and because of that, a better understanding of Pathfinder rules.
However, to assume that all 3.5 rules, especially the FAQ written by a WotC person holds true in Pathfinder is patently wrong.
Your suggestion of something holds (and I’m not trying to be a jerk, just making a point) absolutely zero weight insofar as other GM’s being able to use it as an interpretational tool. The only two people who’s suggestions have that kind of power is Mark and Hyrum.
When Mark and/or Hyrum (and if Mark was not intending to post his suggestion as a PFS coordinator, then he probably shouldn’t make a suggestion) make a suggestion, it is as a coordinator, because that is what they are. To assume he isn’t making his suggestion as a coordinator is ridiculous.
Just to follow up my own post - it gets a bit more complex:
I would say if you're attacking just with a reach weapon and not taking TWF penalties then you get the one attack on your own turn with that weapon, but can still use armour spikes at 5' for AoOs.
Where I'm not certain and would have to re-read the rules is where someone wants to attack with both a 2h reach weapon and armour spikes using TWF to get 1.5x strength with the reach and 0.5x strength on the armour spikes. This is where it starts to get iffy...!
|
|
There is a huge difference in interpreting something at a table based on a suggestion on these boards, and "interpreting" something out of the game that has been explicitly allowed.
Right, and I've 'suggested' that gunpowder doesn't work right on these boards...
Is this correct in the rules? No... but I made the suggestion.
You are also not someone with any amount of authority in the Pathfinder system. Therefore your words do not carry any weight
And again this combination was explicitly spelled out in 3.5 as working as intended. PF has yet to change this besides random judges making ruling mistakes.
You can cite 3.5 rules all day. They don't make much of a difference in Pathfinder. You are also explicitly ignoring that Mark took this question to Jason (the Lead Designer for Pathfinder, and as close to a PFRPG rules guru as you can get) and he agreed with Mark's ruling.
Mark was also expressly making this 'suggestion' just as another DM, and not as the PFS coordinator. So hiding behind 'well he's the coordinator I'll take his suggestion' is fooling yourself. What it really means is 'I don't like X in the game and this is a good excuse to get rid of it'. And that brings me to random gunslinger 'suggestions' as perhaps I don't like them...
I love the argument that somehow you know me better than I do James. You don't get to tell me why I have my opinions. I respect the opinions of Mark and Jason as judges, plain and simple. I have no real bone in whether or not these things provoke. But somehow, I'm ignoring everything to get MY interpretation. *eye roll* The only person doing that here is you James. And good for you, because you can. Because when you run your games thats exactly the point. Its your perogative. I get to run them my way. My way follows what I hear directly from the designers at top and then from knowledgable people after that (including you). In this case, that's not you. I'm more than willing to accept that Mark and Jason and anyone can make mistakes. And if they come out and say that this is a mistake, thats fine too, I'll follow that ruling then.
So removing Mark's position as PFS from the equation.. does his suggestion of how the rules work have merit? No. His reasoning is flawed, it goes against how the rules that were copied verbatim from 3.5 worked and flies against common sense.With all that said, I'll respectfully say that this other PFS DM that posted is wrong here. His reasons don't hold up to scrutiny and it flies in the face of how it has been ruled as working for the past decade.
Removing Mark's PFS position, he's still a game designer for Paizo, and I still will take his opinion with more salt than yours.
And last I checked, PFS wasn't a decade old.
I'll say it again: Assuming things work like they did in 3.5 is usually the first step in being wrong.
|
|
Just to follow up my own post - it gets a bit more complex:
I would say if you're attacking just with a reach weapon and not taking TWF penalties then you get the one attack on your own turn with that weapon, but can still use armour spikes at 5' for AoOs.
Where I'm not certain and would have to re-read the rules is where someone wants to attack with both a 2h reach weapon and armour spikes using TWF to get 1.5x strength with the reach and 0.5x strength on the armour spikes. This is where it starts to get iffy...!
It doesn't get iffy at all. If you are using a two-handed weapon, you don't get to use armor spikes at all during your normal progression of attacks. TWF refers to using a weapon in your off-hand. Not using your leg or shoulder.
I would agree about the normal progression (although that's more of an opinion than a rules thing), but it depends on your definition of off-hand attack otherwise. I don't see any reason why you couldn't kick someone.
Blade Boot: "You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon"
But we're covering old ground now.
|
|
I would agree about the normal progression (although that's more of an opinion than a rules thing), but it depends on your definition of off-hand attack otherwise. I don't see any reason why you couldn't kick someone.
Blade Boot: "You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon"
But we're covering old ground now.
Armor Spikes are specifically called out as a light weapon when used to attack someone (and not grappling) Whether your using it as a main or off-hand, it would seem that only with a one-handed reach weapon would you threaten both.
Can't find the boot blade in the PRD :(
Nor can I find the bearded axe james mentioned.
|
|
It doesn't get iffy at all. If you are using a two-handed weapon, you don't get to use armor spikes at all during your normal progression of attacks. TWF refers to using a weapon in your off-hand. Not using your leg or shoulder.Again you're wrong as to the rules.
There are many weapons that we've detailed over and over in this thread that don't require an actual hand to use. You know them by now. Please look them up.
But you're saying that to use say a boot blade you need to put in in your hand... I mean that IS what you're saying, right?
That if a PC had both their hands full that they couldn't attack with a boot blade because it is a light weapon and has to be used with a hand like all light weapons...
You seem like a nice person, but your grasp on the rules is not as solid as it might be. If you are so inclined I think you might want to peruse a few of the rules forums and go over some of the rule books.
-James
I don't think we are talking about actual 'hands' when we talk about these things. A boot blade counts as an off-hand weapon. Obviously not in your hand.
I think what we are talking about comes down to is which weapons are active. I can agree that you can have a weapon in each hand and a boot blade, but only that you could have two of those weapons 'active'.
And James, I'm not trying to come off as a jerk above, so if I have, my apologies.