|
@james_maisson
"Armor spikes 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."
The spikes are separate item from the armor, they are enhanced separately, similar to shield spikes.
"Benefit: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
The spike in and of itself is added to the shield or the armor. It isn't effected by the armor enhancement or vice versa.
So that "benefit" is no benefit at all.
So either the person who wrote it made the single most useless weapon in the game, or they thought being able to THF and TWF at the same time was a big enough benefit to offset all the penalties that come with the item.
What reasons?and I can't think of any reason the writer would a) Add a significant penalty or b) give a detailed explanation of how this item allows you to TWF with is UNLESS he thought doing so was not normal.Good luck you don't have to think of any reasons then, how lucky you are people have told you them several times over so you don't have to.
a) because it fit the flavor of the item. Also, it's cheaper than armor spikes (a reason I think is crappy but one you yourself used when discussing club vs light mace, and here the difference is nearly double in gp).
b) to clarify a rule some people might have missed (same reason as for repeating the rules on dodge bonuses in the dodge feat and light rules in the darkness spell).Now you have reasons (assuming you didn't read the posts that have been made on the item, where exactly those reasons have been stated several times - if you had actually read them you wouldn't have asked "what reasons?") so quite posing like there are no valid reasons.
|
|
It is written clear as day, for that item. Which is why it had to be spelled out for that item, and why that item has significant penalties added to offset the benefit of that item. They had to add the benefits and description for one, very simple reason.
Because that item works differently than normal.
If it didn't you wouldn't need any of the words after "requires no hands to use."
None of them. Not the description, not the penalty. Nothing after "requires no hands to use" makes any sense to include in the description or add to the item UNLESS the item is doing something that was a benefit that needed to be compensated for with a penalty.
Without the words after that, if your reading is correct, the item works perfectly and is well balanced (frankly still inferior) relative to the core armor spikes.
It would be "Description: A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use."
And what else would you need?
Because it works that way for one item in a splat book, as spelled out in the description of that specific item, doesn't mean it works that way for all items.
|
It is written clear as day, for that item. Which is why it had to be spelled out for that item, and why that item has significant penalties added to offset the benefit of that item. They had to add the benefits and description for one, very simple reason.
Because that item works differently than normal.
If it didn't you wouldn't need any of the words after "requires no hands to use."
None of them. Not the description, not the penalty. Nothing after "requires no hands to use" makes any sense to include in the description or add to the item UNLESS the item is doing something that was a benefit that needed to be compensated for with a penalty.
Without the words after that, if your reading is correct, the item works perfectly and is well balanced (frankly still inferior) relative to the core armor spikes.
It would be "Description: A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use."
And what else would you need?
Because it works that way for one item in a splat book, as spelled out in the description of that specific item, doesn't mean it works that way for all items.
Agreed.
When something falls outside the norm then entries will be made for something that is specifically tied to it and in this instance, it is an item.
They do not normally bother taking the time to spell out something unless there would be an uncertainty about it because it's not normally covered in the rules.
They do not normally bother taking the time to spell out something unless there would be an uncertainty about it because it's not normally covered in the rules.
So why does the Dodge feat say the bonus is lost when denied dex to AC? Does that imply that you normally get to keep dodge bonuses when denied dex to AC?
So it is the idea of greatswording, then armour spike chest bumping with kneeing and kicking?
Interesting.
Seems a bit op, very much steps away from the twf with what is in your hand idea.
I think Jiggy's version is pretty well stated.
I've got no dog in this fight. From a pure balance perspective I would tend to think that allowing two-handed weapons unaltered plus using an unhanded "off-hand" weapon runs the risk of being unbalanced.
If I were pressed on this matter as a GM I'd probably rule that if you do this, you lose the 1.5x str damage on the 2 handed attack at least.
Thinking about it, I agree. The 1.5x str, becomes 1x, a lot of strength is going into the off hand body spike attack so you aren't cutting as deep as someone doing a full with a two hander. You are doing the many cuts, not purely two handering.
HA! Someone would complain if they ruled that water was wet.Well good then, if the Devs rule against it, nobody will complain then.I'd think it probably wouldn't be much different than it is now. In addition to taking that -2 penalty to all your attacks, you need to sink feats into it, and you end up having to effectively enchant another weapon.
The cost for this is quite high for very little gain, in my opinion.
Seen it! Players got extremely wet once, and I pointed out their cloth and armour padding was now heavier because it had soaked up water. Complained.
Errr, that is how it goes, you swim in a gambeson it becomes a sopping mess. Lol.
So encumberance went up a bit and they needed to find a safe place to dry out.
|
|
They do not normally bother taking the time to spell out something unless there would be an uncertainty about it because it's not normally covered in the rules.So why does the Dodge feat say the bonus is lost when denied dex to AC? Does that imply that you normally get to keep dodge bonuses when denied dex to AC?
Because the rules under being flat footed and being denied your dex say nothing directly about losing your "Dodge" bonus if you are denied your dex. Having that entry in the feat specifies what the rules entry is missing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the rules under being flat footed and being denied your dex say nothing directly about losing your "Dodge" bonus if you are denied your dex. Having that entry in the feat specifies what the rules entry is missing.They do not normally bother taking the time to spell out something unless there would be an uncertainty about it because it's not normally covered in the rules.So why does the Dodge feat say the bonus is lost when denied dex to AC? Does that imply that you normally get to keep dodge bonuses when denied dex to AC?
The rules on _dodge bonuses_ do.
