Keeping in mind that even Jason thinks that the intent isn't so clear from the rules will probably be useful here :)
|
I think the key point in regards to the armor spikes ruling from over a year ago is Jiggy's new thread (he posted it on the first page). He brought up the post in the light of 4.2 rules and this time Mark punted it to the Devs and the normal FAQ. The fact that Mark took time to say "Ask the Devs" instead of "My original post stands" is telling.
|
The bolded language is why a ruling is being made that you can’t attack with armor spikes if you don’t have a free hand to do so.The bolded section to me just says no off off hand attacks: You can't left hand right hand armor spike.
Using a two handed weapon and armor spikes was explicitely allowed at one point though, which is why people don't think of them as occupying a hand.
That's not at all what it says BNW.
Re-read it.
It says:
"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."
see that "vice versa" part?
And your offhand is considered making an attack if you use a two-handed weapon. It is occupied.
I don’t recall it ever being explicitly allowed. In 3.5 or earlier iteration it may have been less clear, or more explicitly allowed, I don’t know. And it may be that Josh Frost allowed it at one time (although I don’t know if he did or didn’t.)
But the way the language that I bolded above is written, I don’t see how anyone could assume they could threaten an area or make an off-hand attack, if their off-hand is otherwise occupied.
It very explicitly says, that to make a melee attack, you do so as an off-hand attack as though it were a light weapon, and that you basically can’t have done anything else with that off-hand.
So, now, you are claiming that armor spikes, even when used by someone proficient with them, will have at least a -2 to their attack, as though they were an off-hand weapon being used as part of a two-weapon attack?
And, to me, make an attack is different than make an attack of opportunity, but YMMV.
How is ”make an attack of opportunity” different than “make an attack”? An attack of opportunity is an attack.
This entire rules set is predicated on building one rule off of another. You can’t ignore one rule, because it makes it inconvenient for how you have or want to interpret another one. You have to interpret things considering the entire rules set.
You start combat with defining what an attack is, and what threatening means. Then you add other factors like cover, concealment, charging, line of sight, line of effect, ranged vs. melee, etc.
Then you talk about Attacks of Opportunity, which are an attack that you take on someone else’s turn, because they do something that gives you an opening.
But it still has to be based on the rules of what constitutes an attack.
As for the wording that says it can be used as an offhand attack, you do realize that if you hold a sword and dagger, and you only attack with the dagger, you do not take the penalty for attacking with your offhand right? Additionally, the only penalty an offhand attack gets when it is still defined as offhand vs. primary hand, is the one-half strength damage, vs. full or even 1-1/2 strength damage. You don’t actually take the -2 to attack with an offhand weapon, unless you actually attack with both weapons.
So essentially, what the rule is saying, is that you take an attack and add one-half strength mod in damage. Which makes sense based on precedent of other attacks considered secondary or offhand.
And if the offhand is otherwise occupied (i.e. holding onto a two-handed weapon to provide a threat to squares 10’ out) you cannot use it to make an attack. If you can’t use your weapon to make an attack, you can’t threaten with it. If you can’t threaten with it, you can’t take an attack of opportunity with it.
Interpreting it differently is just warping the rules to mean what you want them to mean.
Telling of what?
|
How is ”make an attack of opportunity” different than “make an attack”? An attack of opportunity is an attack.
Incredibly different. Its not an offhand attack when its an attack of opportunity. The rules in that bolded party assume you'll be using (or TRYING to use, since that section is a kybosh on it) the spikes as an offhand weapon. Its the same problem with the shield: you CAN use them as a main hand or even two handed weapon but the rules are written assuming that they're an offhand. (captain Andor's here hair blowing in the breeze...)
|
|
How is ”make an attack of opportunity” different than “make an attack”? An attack of opportunity is an attack.Incredibly different. Its not an offhand attack when its an attack of opportunity. The rules in that bolded party assume you'll be using (or TRYING to use, since that section is a kybosh on it) the spikes as an offhand weapon. Its the same problem with the shield: you CAN use them as a main hand or even two handed weapon but the rules are written assuming that they're an offhand. (captain Andor's here hair blowing in the breeze...)
If the attack is considered offhand or secondary (and there are other attacks that are considered such), it doesn’t matter how you take it. You still only get one-half your strength with that attack, whether it is as an attack of opportunity or a regular attack by itself, as part of a full attack action, or what have you. In this case, they are saying you only get one-half your strength damage with armor spikes and you don’t ever get your full strength damage with armor spikes. You assuming they are assuming its being used as a secondary attack is invalid. You have to read it for exactly what it says, not assume what you want it to say.
As for the wording that says it can be used as an offhand attack, you do realize that if you hold a sword and dagger, and you only attack with the dagger, you do not take the penalty for attacking with your offhand right?
And you do realize that the only time an off-hand exists is when using the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style to gain an extra attack?
I can attack with a longsword in one hand, then make a second iterative attack with a dagger in my other hand. Neither of them are primary hands, neither of them are off-hands, neither of them take any TWF penalties, and I get my full strength bonus to damage with both of them.
That means your bolded parenthesis only applies when two-weapon fighting.
Telling of what?That he may not want his original statement made over a year ago (when statements were not binding) to be binding to PFS.
I think that's reading a bit much into his statements.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Re-posting for those who missed it but really need to see it:
If you wield a 2-handed weapon you no longer "wield" spiked armor, unarmed strikes, blade boots, barbazu beards, and boulder helmetsI actually started a thread to try and clarify whether Mark really meant that every single light weapon ever required a free hand.
His response makes it, in my opinion, pretty safe to continue ruling that helmets and boots do NOT require a free hand to use.
|
|
If the attack is considered offhand or secondary (and there are other attacks that are considered such)
There is no such thing as an offhand attack on an attack of opportunity.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes , and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes- So the spikes clearly can be used as a main attack. They do not HAVE to be an off hand attack. I am not assuming that the spikes are being talked about as an offhanded weapon, its clear from the context of the one sentence you're analysing that thats whats happening.
|
|
As for the wording that says it can be used as an offhand attack, you do realize that if you hold a sword and dagger, and you only attack with the dagger, you do not take the penalty for attacking with your offhand right?And you do realize that the only time an off-hand exists is when using the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style to gain an extra attack?
I can attack with a longsword in one hand, then make a second iterative attack with a dagger in my other hand. Neither of them are primary hands, neither of them are off-hands, neither of them take any TWF penalties, and I get my full strength bonus to damage with both of them.
That means your bolded parenthesis only applies when two-weapon fighting.
I am not disputing that you can do as you suggested. There is no “handedness” in this rules system.
However, if an attack is declared a secondary or offhand attack, it always only gets the one-half strength damage. Some attacks like a bite, that are always considered secondary, even though you don’t always take the -5 to hit, if it’s the only attack you do. You just always get the one-half strength damage.
Armor Spikes are considered offhand attacks, regardless what else you do or do not do in your turn.
Regardless of all this semantics, the language clearly says, that if you attack with that limb, or with the armor spikes, you cannot then attack with the armor spikes, or the weapon on the same turn. That definitely indicates you need to have a free hand to make an armor spike attack. If both of your hands are occupied, then neither can be used to make an armor spike attack.
|
|
Some attacks like a bite, that are always considered secondary, even though you don’t always take the -5 to hit, if it’s the only attack you do
Bite 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6 B/S/P Primary
Bites are primary unless stated otherwise.
Armored spikes can clearly and explicitly be used to make main hand attacks. "You can also make a regular melee attack OR an offhand attack "
(such as a longspear) and wearing spiked armor
threatening all squares within 10 feet? Assuming he has
Combat Reflexes, can he make an attack of opportunity
with his longspear and then with his armor spikes in the
same round?
A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares
within his normal reach (5 feet away). If he also wields a
longspear, he would also threaten all squares 10 feet away.
Any time a character wielding more than one weapon is
allowed an attack of opportunity, he can use any weapon that
threatens the opponent who has provoked the attack. In this
case, imagine an enemy who charged the character and then
tried to disarm him. The charge attack would provoke an attack
of opportunity from the longspear as the enemy moved out of a
threatened square (in order to move adjacent to the character
and deliver the charge attack). Then, the disarm attempt would
provoke another attack of opportunity (assuming the enemy
didn’t have Improved Disarm). This attack of opportunity could
be made only with the armor spikes, since the longspear
doesn’t threaten an adjacent enemy.
You can try to argue that pathfinder is a different game etc. but its hard to argue that the words clearly carry some different meaning from edition to edition.
|
|
Hmm… yes I will admit, seems I misread the part where it said, “as a regular melee attack (or an offhand attack)” as “as an offhand attack.”
But what I’m saying is still valid, just doesn’t have that bit more to back up what I’m saying.
If using an off-hand weapon means you can’t make an armor spike attack, or if using armor spikes means you can’t make an off-hand weapon attack, what makes you think you could make an armor spike attack if both hands are tied up using a two-handed weapon? The point is, you gotta have a free hand (one that isn’t otherwise occupied) to make an armor spike attack.
And if you can’t make an attack with a weapon, you can’t threaten with it. If you can’t threaten with it, you can’t make an attack of opportunity with it.
Therefore, if both hands are being used to attack with a two-handed weapon, and you end your turn still holding onto it so that you threaten at 10’, you cannot make an attack (or attack of opportunity) with your armor spikes.
This is pure linear progression logic here.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Armor Spikes are considered offhand attacks, regardless what else you do or do not do in your turn.
Incorrect.
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.
They can be a regular attack OR an off-hand attack. They are not always an off-hand attack.
The only time an off-hand attack even exists is when you TWF. Whenever you either make a single attack, or take your iterative attacks without any extras, or take an AoO, your attacks are NEVER considered off-hand for any purposes, regardless of which or how many weapons you're using.
EDIT: Quadruple-ninja'd. I blame my cold.
|
|
Some attacks like a bite, that are always considered secondary, even though you don’t always take the -5 to hit, if it’s the only attack you doBite 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6 B/S/P Primary
Bites are primary unless stated otherwise.
Armored spikes can clearly and explicitly be used to make main hand attacks. "You can also make a regular melee attack OR an offhand attack "
** spoiler omitted **
You can try to argue that pathfinder is a different game etc. but its hard to argue that the words clearly carry some different meaning from edition to edition.
Seriously, you are using 3.5 rules FAQ to justify your stance in Pathfinder? There are so many subtle changes between the rules system, that you can't use any FAQ from 3.5 to justify anything in Pathfinder.
|
|
If using an off-hand weapon means you can’t make an armor spike attack, or if using armor spikes means you can’t make an off-hand weapon attack, what makes you think you could make an armor spike attack if both hands are tied up using a two-handed weapon?
Because the context of that statement is during the course of your attack routine on your turn. It is to prevent someone from using the armor spikes to gain an extra attack.
Otherwise, if you want to be really strict, you could say "I'm sorry bob you can't hit anyone with your armor spikes, you hit someone with your left handed dagger 6 rounds ago"
|
|
Armor Spikes are considered offhand attacks, regardless what else you do or do not do in your turn.Incorrect.
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.They can be a regular attack OR an off-hand attack. They are not always an off-hand attack.
The only time an off-hand attack even exists is when you TWF. Whenever you either make a single attack, or take your iterative attacks without any extras, or take an AoO, your attacks are NEVER considered off-hand for any purposes, regardless of which or how many weapons you're using.
EDIT: Quadruple-ninja'd. I blame my cold.
You know, rather than latching onto that one mistake I made, which really isn’t the crux of my argument (just something I misread and was trying to use to help back up my argument), read the actual argument please.
The point isn’t whether it is considered offhand always or not.
The point is, that an armor spike attack and an offhand attack are mutually exclusive.
If they are mutually exclusive, how can you justify being able to make an armor spike attack while both your hands are occupied with something else?
|
|
Seriously, you are using 3.5 rules FAQ to justify your stance in Pathfinder? There are so many subtle changes between the rules system, that you can't use any FAQ from 3.5 to justify anything in Pathfinder.
This section is taken word for word. Its kind of odd that you're arguing that the same words clearly have a different meaning than the people that wrote them intended.
|
|
If using an off-hand weapon means you can’t make an armor spike attack, or if using armor spikes means you can’t make an off-hand weapon attack, what makes you think you could make an armor spike attack if both hands are tied up using a two-handed weapon?Because the context of that statement is during the course of your attack routine on your turn. It is to prevent someone from using the armor spikes to gain an extra attack.
Otherwise, if you want to be really strict, you could say "I'm sorry bob you can't hit anyone with your armor spikes, you hit someone with your left handed dagger 6 rounds ago"
No you couldn’t. Because if you don’t attack with both hands, or with one hand and an armor spike, both hands haven’t done something.
You still haven’t answered my question.
FWIW, I'm generally distrustful of the words "off-hand attacks" in most cases they're used, in the same way I'm distrustful of "free action". It causes a red flag to pop up that bears the phrase "Here be dragons!".
|
|
Seriously, you are using 3.5 rules FAQ to justify your stance in Pathfinder? There are so many subtle changes between the rules system, that you can't use any FAQ from 3.5 to justify anything in Pathfinder.This section is taken word for word. Its kind of odd that you're arguing that the same words clearly have a different meaning than the people that wrote them intended.
I didn't read the 3.5 FAQ. I refuse to read anything regarding 3.5 when talking Pathfinder, because there are enough changes, that doing so only ends up getting folks confused.
Find something within a Pathfinder document, or read my follow up post where I admitted my one reading comprehension error.
Then answer my question.
|
|
No you couldn’t. Because if you don’t attack with both hands, or with one hand and an armor spike, both hands haven’t done something.
You still haven’t answered my question.
Yes, I did. I'm arguing that you're reading it wrong by ignoring the context.
[Context]During your attack routine[/context]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.
Otherwise the second Someone uses Long sword dagger you're saying they can NEVER take an attack with the spiked armor, like say during their next round.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: You people are typing too fast! You're asking questions I'm already in the process of addressing! ;)
If using an off-hand weapon means you can’t make an armor spike attack, or if using armor spikes means you can’t make an off-hand weapon attack, what makes you think you could make an armor spike attack if both hands are tied up using a two-handed weapon?
Because "off-hand" does not necessarily refer to one or both of your hands. "Off-hand" doesn't even exist unless you TWF.
For instance, a 6th level fighter (BAB +6/+1) could attack at +6 with his polearm and +1 with his armor spikes. As he would not be TWFing, he has no off-hand, and therefore attacking with both the polearm and armor spikes does not violate the rule prohibiting "spikes + another off hand weapon". He can attack with spikes even though both his physical hands are wielding the polearm because neither weapon is "off-hand".
In the same way, if the fighter moves up to someone, and attacks once with his armor spikes as a standard action, there has been no off-hand. If the target then tries to move away, the fighter can take an AoO with his polearm and still not violate that rule because there has still been no off-hand.
|
"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."
This quote just says that you can't use armor spikes if you use an off-hand weapon, and you can't use an off-hand weapon if you use armor spikes. That's it.
Andrew, are you explicitly saying that a two-handed weapon is an offhand weapon (taking into account that offhand weapons only exist when two-weapon fighting, and that's entirely possible to two-weapon fight with a two handed weapon and something else (boot-blade, for example))?
Wise decision Mike!
So, who plans on making the question over in the Rules forums so we can FAQ this?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just always assumed that if one has multiple weapons at their disposal, they simply have to declare which they are threatening with. That the real issue isn't offhand vs. on-hand, but the conscious choice to threaten with a specific weapon.
This means a character with armor spikes and a lucerne hammer simply states, "I'm threatening with the blunt side of my hammer out 10'" or "I'm threatening with my armor spikes out 5'"
My assumption was predicated on "threatening" being a state of readiness to thump any enemy who leaves themselves open to attack. It seems only logical that one can only prepare to do so with one specific weapon at hand.
This would be my preferred way of doing things, I'm just not sure I have a solid basis for it in the rules (that I've found, at least).
|
|
Actually you can still two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes.
Step 1: Attack with 2-handed weapon (with appropriate two-weapon fighting penalties).
Step 2: Free action to remove one hand from 2-handed weapon; you now have 1 free hand and are no longer "wielding" your 2-handed weapon.
Step 3: Make attack with your armor spikes (with appropriate two-weapon fighting penalties) (and assuming you're using the armor spikes as your "offhand" weapon, offhand penalties).
Note that the "offhand" of the attacks does not matter; if you wanted to, you could 1) Attack with armor spikes (with two-weapon fighting penalties, keep in mind your "offhand" weapon is a 2-handed, not a light weapon); 2) Free action to put your free-hand back on your two-handed weapon; 3) "offhand" attack with 2-handed weapon (with two-weapon fighting penalties, note that "offhand" isn't a light weapon).
Essentially, what I'm getting at is that 1) there is "handed-ness" in the sense that you declare what is your "primary hand" and what is your "offhand" (you can change it turn-to-turn) and 2) Armor spikes are not "offhand" unless you're making attacks using two-weapon fighting to get extra attacks (regardless of whether you have the two-weapon fighting feat to reduce the penalties).
A fighter with +6/+1 BAB has to do the SAME THING under this ruling to make his two attacks if he wants to make one with his two-handed reach weapon and one with his armor spikes.
Remember that the whole reason this came up is because people with 2-handed reach weapons want to make attacks of opportunity inside the reach of their reach weapon. Attacks of opportunity with armor spikes are not "offhand" attacks because there are no "offhand" attacks for AoOs; you only get 1 attack regardless, and it is done at your highest BAB, and the only penalties you'll suffer are from things like Power Attack and Combat Reflexes which are "on" until the start of your next turn, or conditions like sickened or prone or whatever. The issue that crops up is: the fighter cannot threaten BOTH at reach and next to himself with armor spikes (because either he isn't "wielding" the 2-hander, just holding it, or he isn't "wielding" the armor spikes, just wearing them) and he can't change from holding/wearing to wielding with a free action because it isn't his turn (only free action you can do out of turn is talking). He CAN do exactly the above with a blade boot (that doesn't take any additional proficiency like the beard or the helmet) and THAT doesn't make very much sense.
Summary: Characters must give up 1) their boot slot (I'm making an assumption here about Blade Boot, it's technically a weapon and so maybe it's "slotless?"), or 2) a feat (exotic weapon proficiency beard/helmet), or 3) have an "extra arm" (so for example an alchemist with the extra arm discovery can wield his 2-hander and his armor spikes at the same time! No "extra" attacks, but he's getting to do something a straight fighter CAN'T!)
EDIT: This is based on a my recollections of a many-post discussion of changing how you hold stuff, and probably a James Jacobs ruling on how that works, so if it's completely wrong, then sorry. Also noted that the AoO issue is because one cannot take free actions out of turn except speaking)
So, who plans on making the question over in the Rules forums so we can FAQ this?
You could FAQ Jason's post where he says he hopes to get a FAQ on the issue soon.
Did that awhile ago.
|
|
Oh for goodness sakes!
How can you people not follow the obvious logic?
Why do you keep getting stuck on the term off-hand, and them discount it when two-handed is used?
I’m not saying a two-handed weapon attack is considered off-hand.
But there are two things to look at.
Are both arms/limbs/hands being used in a two-weapon attack (one that uses an off-hand)? Yes
Are both arms/limbs/hands being used in a two-handed weapon attack? Yes
Are making an offhand attack and armor spike attack mutually exclusive? Yes
So why is it so hard to infer that you can’t use armor spikes when both hands are otherwise occupied?
Note that the "offhand" of the attacks does not matter; if you wanted to, you could 1) Attack with armor spikes (with two-weapon fighting penalties, keep in mind your "offhand" weapon is a 2-handed, not a light weapon); 2) Free action to put your free-hand back on your two-handed weapon; 3) "offhand" attack with 2-handed weapon (with two-weapon fighting penalties, note that "offhand" isn't a light weapon).
You can't also make an attack with an off-hand weapon if you have already made an attack with armor spikes. (This is the vice versa from the armor spikes rules)
It's pretty clearly a crusty holdover from when armor spikes were considered off-hand weapons, since every other weapon in the game can be used as a primary weapon when two-weapon fighting.
Why do you keep getting stuck on the term off-hand, and them discount it when two-handed is used?
You're using a restriction that only applies when TWF to justify how many limbs it uses. And that makes no sense.
Armor Spikes can't be primary weapons when TWF. This is equally true when paired with a dagger (one hand!) a greatsword (two hands!) or a barbazu beard (zero hands!)
|
|
Oh for goodness sakes!
How can you people not follow the obvious logic?
Your argument so far isn't remotely good enough to justify insulting the thinking abilities of others
Are both arms/limbs/hands being used in a two-weapon attack (one that uses an off-hand)? Yes
This is the crux of the issue: You're assuming that the spiked armor NEEDS to even use a hand, which is something that isn't clear from the description. A rule against off off handed fighting doesn't carry over. If the spikes are on your legs and shoulders then using a two handed weapon and then shoulder spike is no different from a two hander and a bite.
Are both arms/limbs/hands being used in a two-handed weapon attack? Yes
Are making an offhand attack and armor spike attack mutually exclusive? Yes
No. They are only exclusive for your attack routine. The next time you can make an attack they're available.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I’m not saying a two-handed weapon attack is considered off-hand.
Then why do you keep treating it like it "uses up" your off-hand?
So why is it so hard to infer that you can’t use armor spikes when both hands are otherwise occupied?
The "off-hand" is not necessarily one of your hands. This seems to be where you're getting tripped up. Using up both hands does not "use up" your off-hand, and is not mutually exclusive with it.
You could have both arms cut off, TWF with a pair of boot blades, and you would be using an off-hand attack with your leg.
Having your physical hands occupied has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you can make a so-called "off-hand" attack. As people have tried to point out to you, "off-hand" has nothing to do with actual usage of hands. It just means "the extra attack granted by the TWF mechanic".
If you go back to your earlier posts and replace all instances of "off hand" with "attack granted by TWF", you'll find your stance doesn't make a lot of sense.
Yes, "off-hand" is a bit of a misnomer. It's a shame. But that's how it is: it doesn't actually need a hand. So all your talk about using up your off hand when both hands are on a polearm is nonsense.
To reiterate for emphasis: There is no direct correlation between "off-hand" and the usage of your actual hands. That's simply not how it works. It doesn't matter if your hands are busy wielding a longspear, a pair of shortswords, tied behind your back, or have been cut off. That doesn't affect whether you can use armor spikes.
The prohibition on armor spikes is that you can't use them along with "another off-hand weapon". If you've been paying attention to what "off-hand" means, this translates to saying that you can't use armor spikes along with "another extra attack granted by TWF".
When you stop getting hung up on the use of the word "hand" like you've been doing, and substitute in the actual meaning of "off-hand", it becomes pretty obvious that having your physical hands occupied has absolutely no bearing on that armor spike text whatsoever.
That's why people keep trying to explain to you what "off-hand" means - because you're erroneously stuck on the idea that it must refer to a hand, and you've built your entire position on that (faulty) premise.
|
|
Oh for goodness sakes!
How can you people not follow the obvious logic?
Why do you keep getting stuck on the term off-hand, and them discount it when two-handed is used?
I’m not saying a two-handed weapon attack is considered off-hand.
But there are two things to look at.
Are both arms/limbs/hands being used in a two-weapon attack (one that uses an off-hand)? Yes
Are both arms/limbs/hands being used in a two-handed weapon attack? Yes
Are making an offhand attack and armor spike attack mutually exclusive? Yes
I think you're too tied up on literally translating "off-hand" to require a hand. Offhand weapons can be anything from an elbow or knee (unarmed strike), to a foot (boot blade), to the rest of your body (armor spikes).
|
|
I think you're too tied up on literally translating "off-hand" to require a hand. Offhand weapons can be anything from an elbow or knee (unarmed strike), to a foot (boot blade), to the rest of your body (armor spikes).Oh for goodness sakes!
How can you people not follow the obvious logic?
Why do you keep getting stuck on the term off-hand, and them discount it when two-handed is used?
I’m not saying a two-handed weapon attack is considered off-hand.
But there are two things to look at.
Are both arms/limbs/hands being used in a two-weapon attack (one that uses an off-hand)? Yes
Are both arms/limbs/hands being used in a two-handed weapon attack? Yes
Are making an offhand attack and armor spike attack mutually exclusive? Yes
But do you agree that you cannot make an offhand attack if you make a two-handed weapon attack since a two-handed weapon attack precludes two-weapon fighting in the strictest sense of the rules?
But do you agree that you cannot make an offhand attack if you make a two-handed weapon attack since a two-handed weapon attack precludes two-weapon fighting in the strictest sense of the rules?
Absolutely not.
A greatsword (primary) and barbazu beard (off-hand) is perfectly rules legal.
|
|
But do you agree that you cannot make an offhand attack if you make a two-handed weapon attack since a two-handed weapon attack precludes two-weapon fighting in the strictest sense of the rules?
It doesn't say anywhere that you can't two-weapon fight if you're using a two-handed weapon. In fact, there was a topic about this precise style of fighting (using armor spikes, no less) and that it was still worse than two-handed fighting by itself due to the feat investment and to-hit penalties.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Let's say I'm a half-orc with big pointy teeth.
Could I weild a greatsword and also bite? Either as two-weapon system, or iterative attacks, or taking two attacks of opportunity with Combat Reflexes?
That's actually a totally separate situation. When mixing manufactured weapons and natural attacks, you make your weapon attacks as normal and then your natural attacks become secondary (-5 to hit and only half STR mod damage).
So in your case (let's say level 1, with 18 STR), you would attack with your greatsword at +5 for 2d6+6 and your bite at +0 for 1dX+2.
At 6th level, this becomes greatsword at +10/+5 for 2d6+6 each and bite once at +5 for 1dX+2.
In either case, TWF is not involved.
In the case of an AoO, you could use either your sword or your bite, and if the bite was chosen, it would be at full BAB as a primary attack.
|
|
Lets say for a moment you're right about not being able to greatsword/ Armored spikes as two weapon fighting.
A first level character can Right hand longsword, left hand short sword, and then for their attack of opportunity EITHER long sword or shortsword : Even though the limb has already been used in that round to make a regular attack the attack of opportunity opens another venue for attacking with any weapon at the characters disposal, whether its been used or not.