Where did you get that definition from? I dont see it in the core rulebook.
It's in the Core Rulebook written in the Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat) feat description.
It's also in the PRD listed here: Two-Weapon Fighting
Note the exact text of RAW. "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands." It further goes on to define both primary and off hands.
Armor Spikes are not wielded in your hands.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Armor Spikes are a favorite for being picked on, let me note that Armor Spikes are not the only weapon that can be wielded without a hand.
Examples include: Blade boot, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade, Barbazu Beard, and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
In fact, you need not hands, or even arms, to two weapon fight.
A Naga can two-weapon fight with Unarmed strikes and Armor Spikes.
As Armor Spikes are a favorite for being picked on, let me note that Armor Spikes are not the only weapon that can be wielded without a hand.
Examples include: Blade boot, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade, Barbazu Beard, and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
In fact, you need not hands, or even arms, to two weapon fight.
A Naga can two-weapon fight with Unarmed strikes and Armor Spikes.
Absolutely true. I think Armor Spikes are simply the iconic one because they're popular, and it says in the description that it can be used as an off-hand attack.
You're also right that you can, indeed, fight with both of these things. For instance, smashing someone in the face with a two-handed sword, and then piercing them with your elbow that has an armor spike on the follow-through.
HOWEVER, to be clear, you cannot, by RAW, use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat because of the semantic limitations. You must accept the penalties for normal two-weapon fighting unless you have a weapon wielded in each hand.
So, in short, as it says in the second or third response here, Two-Weapon Fighting is not the same as fighting with two weapons.
|
Well that's what off-hand says, but two-handed weapons says 1.5x STR and unlike light and one-handed weapons makes NO allowance for the change if wielded as an off-hand weapon.
The bonus from power attack would be normal, as BOTH the addition AND the subtraction would occur.
-James
That's not strictly true.
Your off-hand weapon while dual-wielding strikes with greater power.
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon.
Normal: You normally add only half of your Strength modifier to damage rolls made with a weapon wielded in your off-hand.
It doesn't specify a weapon type, only that it be a weapon wielded in your off hand.
Also:
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Again, doesn't care about weapon type, just notes that the base bonus is halved for a weapon wielded in your off-hand.
I would say as long as it's your off-hand weapon, it takes the normal off-hand penalty, which doesn't designate a weapon type.
|
|
As Armor Spikes are a favorite for being picked on, let me note that Armor Spikes are not the only weapon that can be wielded without a hand.
Examples include: Blade boot, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade, Barbazu Beard, and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
In fact, you need not hands, or even arms, to two weapon fight.
A Naga can two-weapon fight with Unarmed strikes and Armor Spikes.
Absolutely true. I think Armor Spikes are simply the iconic one because they're popular, and it says in the description that it can be used as an off-hand attack.
You're also right that you can, indeed, fight with both of these things. For instance, smashing someone in the face with a two-handed sword, and then piercing them with your elbow that has an armor spike on the follow-through.
HOWEVER, to be clear, you cannot, by RAW, use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat because of the semantic limitations. You must accept the penalties for normal two-weapon fighting.
So, in short, as it says in the second or third response here, Two-Weapon Fighting is not the same as fighting with two weapons.
SKR's quote made it very clear earlier in the thread that the phrase off-hand weapon is used specifically in conjunction with TWo-Weapon Fighting. Most of the weapons quoted also designate that they can be used as off-hand weapons even though they're not actually wielded in a hand, so your attempt at semantics is really invalid since that's already been accounted for, as BBT and others have been trying to point out.
SKR's quote made it very clear earlier in the thread that the phrase off-hand weapon is used specifically in conjunction with TWo-Weapon Fighting. Most of the weapons quoted also designate that they can be used as off-hand weapons even though they're not actually wielded in a hand, so your attempt at semantics is really invalid since that's already been accounted for, as BBT and others have been trying to point out.
I'm not the one arguing semantics to make my build or mechanic work. I am simply listing the exact wording of RAW and that the feat specifies it needs hands.
If you can point me to SKR's quote on an official thread instead of loosely hinting that one exists, I would be happy to back off and agree on that as official change from the book or errata.
But until I see that, I stick by what the rulebook states.
|
|
SKR's quote made it very clear earlier in the thread that the phrase off-hand weapon is used specifically in conjunction with TWo-Weapon Fighting. Most of the weapons quoted also designate that they can be used as off-hand weapons even though they're not actually wielded in a hand, so your attempt at semantics is really invalid since that's already been accounted for, as BBT and others have been trying to point out.I'm not the one arguing semantics to make my build or mechanic work. I am simply listing the exact wording of RAW and that the feat specifies it needs hands.
If you can point me to SKR's quote on an official thread instead of loosely hinting that one exists, I would be happy to back off and agree on that as official change from the book or errata.
But until I see that, I stick by what the rulebook states.
I didn't "loosely hint" anything, I explicitly stated. But since you don't seem capable of using the search function yourself, here's Sean Reynolds specifically stating that the phrase off-hand is used specifically to talk about Two-Weapon Fighting. As in "the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarven Boulder Helmet!
That quote is talking about fighting with two weapons and EXPLICITLY mentions the combat option in Chapter 8 of fighting with two weapons. I don't see any mention of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat whatsoever.
Here's my long and short: You can two-weapon fight with whatever you want. But, according to RAW (and SKR's quote), you will take penalties if you "try to get an extra attack per round". Such as, gee, I don't know, with the TWF feat chain.
However, the TWF feat chain specifically mentions a weapon in each hand. So using things like a 2-handed weapon and Armor spikes DO NOT QUALIFY, and SKR does not refute this at all. Explicitly or implicity.
BOTTOM LINE: My argument is based on the feat. Not the combat option in Chapter 8 of the CRB. That's what SKR's quote and his post, AND his FAQ entry are talking about.
SKR's exact words in quotes/bold. Emphasis mine.
|
|
That quote is talking about fighting with two weapons and EXPLICITLY mentions the combat option of fighting with two hands. I don't see any mention of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat whatsoever.
As a matter of fact, the way he's wording it, specifically mentioning the "twf combat option", not the TWF feat.
Here's my long and short: You can two-weapon fight with whatever you want. But, according to RAW (and SKR's quote), you will take penalties if you "try to get an extra attack per round". Such as, gee, I don't know, with the TWF feat chain.
BOTTOM LINE: RAW and backed up by SKR's own words. Thanks for the quote. I'm multitasking and I am, indeed, search engine challenged.
SKR's exact words in quotes/bold. Emphasis mine.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
SKR clearly states:"That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter."Two-Weapon Fighting states: " Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat."
Armor Spikes state: "You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes".
Are you somehow trying to imply that the flavor text in the Two-Weapon Fighting feat means it doesn't work with all off-hand weapons? That's as ridiculous as saying a fighter would suddenly gain the ability to cast spells while standing still if he took the Still Spell feat because the flavor text of that feat says "You can cast spells without moving".
At this point you're just trolling and not contributing to the conversation.
|
It would help rub his face in it...er...I mean...it would help show the designer's intent if someone more skilful then I were to either provide a link or to copy & paste the weapon requiring no hands (I forget which one) that not only mentions it can be used in TWF, but also uses a greatsword as the other weapon in that TWF sequence it uses as an example.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I knew it.
That damn "hands" crap would come back. Some assh*le would try to make that damn case again, and no matter the erratas, FAQ, or Developer comments you use to refute this idiotic stance, they will sit there, fingers in their ears, and scream "HAAAAAAAAAAANNNDSSSSS!!!"
|
|
It would help rub his face in it...er...I mean...it would help show the designer's intent if someone more skilful then I were to either provide a link or to copy & paste the weapon requiring no hands (I forget which one) that not only mentions it can be used in TWF, but also uses a greatsword as the other weapon in that TWF sequence it uses as an example.
Couldn't find a weapon that specifically mentions it, but the Thunderstriker archetype uses a buckler and THW to fight.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
At this point you're just trolling and not contributing to the conversation.
Not being deliberately obtuse, or trolling. Deliberately obtuse or trolling would be if I said something like "since you don't seem capable of using the search function yourself". I believe those were your words, sir, not mine.
The points that were made so far I have been able to prove with the direct words in the book, and even disprove your own quote's applicability. I'd say that's plenty useful input.
However, I will bow to this exact post above, because you've finally offered valuable input of your own that I cannot refute and actually agree with.
Flavor text differentiates from the Benefit: and Normal: and Exception: lines of a feat/ability that outline actual mechanical changes.
Based on that interpretation, I retract my argument.
And, yes, Jiggy, I am aware that the TWF feat doesn't grant you extra attacks until ITWF and GTWF. Which is why I edited my post to say the feat chain as opposed to just the feat. Ninja edit mine.
BBT, if the TWF feat didn't mention hands at all, it wouldn't have been an issue.
|
|
Okay Barry, by your "hands" stance, the following weapons can never be used as an off-hand attack:
Armor Spikes, Blade boot, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade, Barbazu Beard, and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
In fact, you can't even kick without wielding your foot, in your hand.
You know, even in 3.5, you could two-weapon fight with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes.
Okay Barry, by your "hands" stance, the following weapons can never be used as an off-hand attack:
Armor Spikes, Blade boot, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade, Barbazu Beard, and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
In fact, you can't even kick without wielding your foot, in your hand.
You know, even in 3.5, you could two-weapon fight with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes.
Unarmed attacks like kicking have special rules and considerations.
Although I understand your point, what you don't understand is that I wasn't arguing the fighting with two weapons wasn't possible. I was arguing that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat mentioned specifically the words "weapon in each hand" and I specifically thought you wouldn't receive the benefit to penalty reduction. That's all.
And even that stance I reversed, above, when Ssalarn pointed out that it was flavor text and not actual mechanical rules applications.
Trust me, I'm well aware of what 3.5 and below offered. I've been playing D&D and now Pathfinder longer than many people on these boards have been alive.
Okay, so where exactly do you stand?
Sorry, I have this debate before. Many involve others taking the flavor text up to 11, and declaring it RAW, and all sorts of madness.
This debate went so bad before, I have a bit of PTSD involving the subject.Are you the next Mr.Hands?
I was, but I do not consider flavor text to be a "rule". So it doesn't qualify as Rules As Written (RAW).
The RULE (RAW) contained in a feat description are the lines that say:
Benefit:
Normal:
Special:
Some feats don't have flavor text or those designators because their effect is obvious. A description of a feat is not a rule pertaining to that feat until specified as such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add more fuel to this fire, I'd like to point out that the Thunderstriker Archetype is specifically geared to employ a two handed weapon and a buckler as an off-hand weapon.
This means that whichever designer wrote it (and all the folks above them that approved it) believed that two-handed weapons could be employed with two-weapon fighting, and that removing a hand from (or adding a hand to) a weapon is a free action (to touch on another recent forum hot-button issue).
Note that the Thunderstriker doesn't create special rules to do these things. It just makes a person better at doing things that are options for everyone. The only thing it can do that others cant is Shield Bash with a Buckler.
Are you the next Mr.Hands?That sounds... wrong...Well, I not talking about that Mr.Hands...
** spoiler omitted **
Holy ****. (o_o)
Holy ****. (o_o)Are you the next Mr.Hands?That sounds... wrong...Well, I not talking about that Mr.Hands...
** spoiler omitted **
You were warned.
Unfortunately, the man gives Washington a bad name. I mean, come on, we brought WotC, Paizo, Jimi Hendrix, Microsoft, and then, this guy.
While I'm not flagging it or anything (since you did warn), you might want to edit it to note that you'll need a dose of brain-bleach, and probably some sort of warning explaining what "NSFW" means to the uninitiated. Just...wow. XD
Do you suppose he asked for a pony as a child?
EDIT: Humorously it reminds me of a certain thread about druids not too long ago. :P
Just for the lulz, I did some maths on class balance. I was somewhat surprised at one of the results, but whatever. For those interested, here it is:
...
Well, that has convinced me that the greatsword/spikes combo isn't necessarily unbalanced. That's a build with a hefty investment in Dex though. I wonder how much of a difference it makes to have a more Str-focused build, for instance when using a ranger.
Also, I wonder how a double weapon TWF build stacks up to this, since it does benefit from focus et al. on one weapon. It seems a more optimal choice than greatsword/spikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "RAW or not" argument is a bit too technical for me too take a stance on, but as I just love the idea of one of my players doing cool stuff like smashing an enemy with a greatsword while armour spike kneeing opponents in the groin that it'd take a pretty definitive "no" argument, backed up with unarguable proof that it'd be broken (which I think our original poster has debunked) for me to disallow it.
That wasn't very helpful or instructive, I know...
|
|
As Armor Spikes are a favorite for being picked on, let me note that Armor Spikes are not the only weapon that can be wielded without a hand.
Examples include: Blade boot, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade, Barbazu Beard, and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
In fact, you need not hands, or even arms, to two weapon fight.
A Naga can two-weapon fight with Unarmed strikes and Armor Spikes.
That's what the feat multiattack is for.
That's what the feat multiattack is for.As Armor Spikes are a favorite for being picked on, let me note that Armor Spikes are not the only weapon that can be wielded without a hand.
Examples include: Blade boot, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade, Barbazu Beard, and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
In fact, you need not hands, or even arms, to two weapon fight.
A Naga can two-weapon fight with Unarmed strikes and Armor Spikes.
........ Umm multiattack covers natural weapons it doesn't even affect attacks with manufactured ones. And before you say multiweapon-fighting that's for attacks with more than 2 limbs. So neither is applicable in thus case.
In real life terms, you could imagine being able to use armour spikes and a weapon in each hand in much the same way you could imagine using armour spikes with a two handed weapon. As you can't use them if you attack with another off hand weapon I would imagine you can't use them with a two handed weapon.
The only restriction on armor spikes is that you can't use them as your main-hand attack while TWF.
"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."
Since off-hand only exists while TWF, that sentence only applies while TWF.
If you made an attack with another off-hand weapon, you can't also make an attack with armor spikes. Since you're "locked in" to a main and off-hand weapon with TWF, that means armor spikes cannot be a main-hand weapon. This means the only way to use armor spikes with TWF is by using them as an off-hand weapon.
It's worded very poorly, and it's probably a leftover from when they changed the wording in errata to specifically allow normal weapon attacks.
So you can't Two-Weapon fight with armor spikes (main) and blade boot (off-hand), but you can two-weapon fight with blade boot (main) and armor spikes (off-hand). Both combination uses zero actual hands.
I think the game is set up to work that you have two weapons to TWF or a two handed weapon.
But a two-handed weapon is a weapon. A greatsword and armor spike are two weapons. If you had four arms, two greatswords would be two weapons. There's nothing that makes them mutually exclusive except for whatever hand requirements the specific weapons have.
Just to add more fuel to this fire, I'd like to point out that the Thunderstriker Archetype is specifically geared to employ a two handed weapon and a buckler as an off-hand weapon.
This means that whichever designer wrote it (and all the folks above them that approved it) believed that two-handed weapons could be employed with two-weapon fighting, and that removing a hand from (or adding a hand to) a weapon is a free action (to touch on another recent forum hot-button issue).
Note that the Thunderstriker doesn't create special rules to do these things. It just makes a person better at doing things that are options for everyone. The only thing it can do that others cant is Shield Bash with a Buckler.
I'm not seeing anything in the thunderstriker archetype that justifies this. Am I missing something?
All I see is
3rd level, wearing a buckler no longer penalizes your two handed attack rolls - nothing about being able to TWF with TH weapon and buckler.
7th level, can use a buckler to make shield bashes - again nothing about this opening up the TWF option with a TH weapon.
13th level, only suffer half penalties for using buckler off hand - again nothing implies use of a TH weapon for main hand with buckler off hand attacks.
15th level, gets a partial AC bonus from buckler even when THF.
17th level, no penalties to off hand buckler attack, but again no mention of this being able to be done with a TH weapon.
19th level, gets to keep his buckler AC bonus if choosing THF.
To me the class looks much more about being able to choose each round to:
TH fight with a one handed weapon like a long sword without penalties normally applied by the buckler
or
TWF with one handed weapon and buckler shield bash.
|
|
Just to add more fuel to this fire, I'd like to point out that the Thunderstriker Archetype is specifically geared to employ a two handed weapon and a buckler as an off-hand weapon.
This means that whichever designer wrote it (and all the folks above them that approved it) believed that two-handed weapons could be employed with two-weapon fighting, and that removing a hand from (or adding a hand to) a weapon is a free action (to touch on another recent forum hot-button issue).
Note that the Thunderstriker doesn't create special rules to do these things. It just makes a person better at doing things that are options for everyone. The only thing it can do that others cant is Shield Bash with a Buckler.
I'm not seeing anything in the thunderstriker archetype that justifies this. Am I missing something?
All I see is
3rd level, wearing a buckler no longer penalizes your two handed attack rolls - nothing about being able to TWF with TH weapon and buckler.
7th level, can use a buckler to make shield bashes - again nothing about this opening up the TWF option with a TH weapon.
13th level, only suffer half penalties for using buckler off hand - again nothing implies use of a TH weapon for main hand with buckler off hand attacks.
15th level, gets a partial AC bonus from buckler even when THF.
17th level, no penalties to off hand buckler attack, but again no mention of this being able to be done with a TH weapon.
19th level, gets to keep his buckler AC bonus if choosing THF.To me the class looks much more about being able to choose each round to:
TH fight with a one handed weapon like a long sword without penalties normally applied by the buckler
or
TWF with one handed weapon and buckler shield bash.
I grant you, this is flavor text, but: Thunderstriker (Archetype)
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler, lashing out with the shield with surprising speed and power.Seems pretty clear the intent is to fight with both a THW and buckler, particularly given the abilities in the archetype.
|
|
........ Umm multiattack covers natural weapons it doesn't even affect attacks with manufactured ones. And before you say multiweapon-fighting that's for attacks with more than 2 limbs. So neither is applicable in thus case.That's what the feat multiattack is for.As Armor Spikes are a favorite for being picked on, let me note that Armor Spikes are not the only weapon that can be wielded without a hand.
Examples include: Blade boot, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade, Barbazu Beard, and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
In fact, you need not hands, or even arms, to two weapon fight.
A Naga can two-weapon fight with Unarmed strikes and Armor Spikes.
I was talking about natural attacks because the Naga was mentioned.
I'm not sure that is clear in the intent. It looks more like the Thunderstriker switches from a 2H to sword & board style, gradually eliminating all the penalties associated with doing so.
That said, I have no problem with TWF'ing with 2H + 0H weapons. I ask myself:
1. Does it unbalance the game? No.
2. Does it break verisimilitude? I can easily picture my Dwarf Stonelord dropping the hammer and a headbutt with his boulder helmet on an enemy. (I probably won't do this, as it's feat heavy. But, still...) No problem there.
3. Does it explicitly prohibit it in the rules? Not that I can see.
Why would you ever try to restrict a player's options when you don't need to?
|
|
2. Does it break verisimilitude? I can easily picture my Dwarf Stonelord dropping the hammer and a headbutt with his boulder helmet on an enemy. (I probably won't do this, as it's feat heavy. But, still...) No problem there.
My friend actually loves this combo, and thinks it's super flavorful. Which I totally agree with.
The intent of the thunderstriker is to be a "two-handed/bucklet switch guy", based on the authors' posts.
|
I'm not sure that is clear in the intent. It looks more like the Thunderstriker switches from a 2H to sword & board style, gradually eliminating all the penalties associated with doing so.
That said, I have no problem with TWF'ing with 2H + 0H weapons. I ask myself:
1. Does it unbalance the game? No.
2. Does it break verisimilitude? I can easily picture my Dwarf Stonelord dropping the hammer and a headbutt with his boulder helmet on an enemy. (I probably won't do this, as it's feat heavy. But, still...) No problem there.
3. Does it explicitly prohibit it in the rules? Not that I can see.Why would you ever try to restrict a player's options when you don't need to?
That was my reading as well. Although, if the intent is that Archetype can do that because of the trade offs, it seems that could work as well. It is ambiguous.
As to your questions.
1. If it is better than the core options, which one of the proponents actually showed mathmatically it is. So at minimum I would argue it would be power creep. And power creep breaks the game in increments.
2. I can easily see my character punching with both hands and then kicking in the 6 seconds alloted. But by rule, I can't. Because I can visualize it doesn't mean it works.
3. It doesn't explicitly say dead players can't move either.
Either you believe that THF and TWF are separate attack options, or you don't.
And what any of us believes is second to what the Devs intended. If it turns out they did mean for this option, I would be surprised considering how concerned they were about making flurry work with one weapon.
Then again, looking at the numbers on that debate may have been why they reversed.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why would you ever try to restrict a player's options when you don't need to?
Most of us don't. But one poster has demonstrated in three different threads recently that he believes someone asking whether they can do something is usually deliberately trying to get away with an exploit, and insisted that anyone (other than himself) who didn't take the time to make this thread for him was clearly being dishonest. (i.e., If you think you're right, why not seek confirmation? If you're not seeking confirmation, it's because you know you're probably wrong and don't want to be proven so.)
So the short answer to your question is, "Certain parties' default assumption is that players who ask questions are trying to get away with something."
|
|
Hi, I believe am that poster. Or I'm so vain, I thought that post was about me.
You restrict options that are unintended loopholes. If you aren't sure if it is an unintended loophole, it probably is one.
If you are really not sure, that is when you create a thread on the messageboard and FAQ it.
If you have been debating this question for over a year with various people and claim it is clear as day to everyone and you don't have time to post an FAQ on something so obvious, you are full of crap.
Easy, folks.
1. If it is better than the core options, which one of the proponents actually showed mathmatically it is. So at minimum I would argue it would be power creep. And power creep breaks the game in increments.
The evidence I have seen is that it is not substantially better. In fact, it seems to be roughly on par with standard TWF, and a substantial loss from 2HF.
2. I can easily see my character punching with both hands and then kicking in the 6 seconds alloted. But by rule, I can't. Because I can visualize it doesn't mean it works.
Yes, I understand that. That's why I asked #3.
3. It doesn't explicitly say dead players can't move either.
Yes, but if it hasn't passed #1 and #2, then the point is moot. And unless there is a necromancer hiding nearby, this definitely breaks verisimilitude.
Either you believe that THF and TWF are separate attack options, or you don't.
You're welcome to feel that people shouldn't do that, just like you can feel that barbarians shouldn't be able to speak, or clerics should never wear armor, but that doesn't mean you should go around telling people that's what the rules say.
And to bring it back to the start, due to Jason Bulmahn's-by-way-of-mark's statement that using two-handed weapons would preclude the ability to "wield" armor spikes, and Jason's later characterization of said statement as "off the cuff", let's all hit the FAQ button and go back to arguing about whether the paladin should fall.
|
|
And to bring it back to the start, due to Jason Bulmahn's-by-way-of-mark's statement that using two-handed weapons would preclude the ability to "wield" armor spikes, and Jason's later characterization of said statement as "off the cuff", let's all hit the FAQ button and go back to arguing about whether the paladin should fall.
But Cheapy.... The poor Paladin has been so happy lately. He hasn't been dragged through the muck for nearly 3 months now....
For using a THW and armor spikes yeah he falls hard I mean Armor spikes are clearly evil items.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For using a THW and armor spikes yeah he falls hard I mean Armor spikes are clearly evil items.
Obviously. I mean, look at the Lord of the Rings movies: whose armor had spikes? The bad guys! Did any of those elves have spiky armor? Nope. Heck, Gandalf didn't even HAVE armor.
Yeah, if you're using armor spikes, your PC may as well be a demon lord.