Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team?


Rules Questions

901 to 950 of 1,428 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, at least holding(not attacking) a two handed weapon does not prevent two weapon fighting.

That has not changed, correct?


Crash_00 wrote:


The only two hands referenced in light, one handed, and two handed weapons are Primary Hand and Off Hand. In addition, the buckler description clarifies that the off hand is used when wielding a two handed weapon. So, yes, yes it is used according to the rules.

Otherwise, I can attack with a longsword in my main hand, drop it, then draw a greatsword and swing it as my off hand. After all,...

Yes, in 3.5 you can do this (Note: same written rules as Pathfinder for this, only there intent is different as FAQ indicates).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am also completely confused by the "3 attacks" that some posters, and Devs have been using as examples.

There is nothing to suggest that this has anything, at all, to do with the current FAQ.

It is an example that confuses the issue, and has no bearing on the on what is being discussed.


ciretose wrote:


Again, it isn't just a comparison of 2H +TWF, it is also comparison of 1H + TWF.

This takes makes the One-Handed weapon out. Why go with a one handed option when you can get all the pluses of two-handed without the minus of losing any option to TWF.

I am like 80% certain that this fighting style is worse than anything besides TWFing with 2 different weapons (like Longsword + Shortsword), which I think is what you may be talking about.

But I'm saying is, that fighting style is already terrible. It's inferior to any other option I can think of off the top of my head. So one option being better than THAT doesn't have much bearing in a balance discussion.

Which is why I think the comparison should focus on just 2H, as well as TWFing with 2 of the same weapon (like the dual Kukris example)

But I agree, it should wait until morning if we're gonna be doing full builds. For simplicity's sake, I think the class should be Warrior. For the simple reason that it's a full BaB class with nothing else interacting with it to skew the results. It comes out as purely 1 fighting style vs another instead of 1 fighting style vs another + these class specific features, like the fact that with 2 different weapons you have to split your Weapon Focus/Specialization bonus, or free no prerequisite Feats, or anything else.

Otherwise, 20 PB, Fighters, 10th level. No traits, average WBL.

Post 'em in the build thread?


Just make armor spikes deal passive damage with a grapple, no more attacking with them because they're unwieldy. Ta-da.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Simply limiting the strength bonus to Primary attacks is a better solution.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am also completely confused by the "3 attacks" that some posters, and Devs have been using as examples.

There is nothing to suggest that this has anything, at all, to do with the current FAQ.

It is an example that confuses the issue, and has no bearing on the on what is being discussed.

It was brought up, in part at least, because the rationale that seemed to be presented was this: If I have a two-handed weapon wielded in two hands, I should be able to two-weapon fight because I have a foot free to attack with - implication, that all that's necessary to be able to make an attack is to have a limb free to do so.

The three-attack thing was pointing out that by an extreme extension of that rationale (I should be able to attack as long as the limb is not otherwise occupied), you could two-weapon fight with two swords and kick because at least one of your legs is unoccupied.

Note: While I understand the rationale, I also don't think it was the greatest counterargument, for the very confusion it introduced.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am also completely confused by the "3 attacks" that some posters, and Devs have been using as examples.

There is nothing to suggest that this has anything, at all, to do with the current FAQ.

It is an example that confuses the issue, and has no bearing on the on what is being discussed.

If I understand what you're referring to, I believe that it isn't "3 attacks" per se, but that wielding a two-handed weapon uses up "two attacks" (primary and off-hand) and if another attack were made (kick, armor spikes, spiked gauntlet, etc.) that that would be a third "attack".

It's all a jumbled mess, so I might be getting your reference wrong.

EDIT: ninja'd


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Simply limiting the strength bonus to Primary attacks is a better solution.

It is.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

How many situations will wielding a two-handed weapon use up "two attacks", and how will we determine when it does?

Nothing before suggested that wielding a two-handed weapon uses up "two attacks", and only these "unwritten rules" were used as a reason that they do.

Is it wielding a two-handed weapon that uses up "two attacks", or just attacking with the two handed weapon.

If the two handed weapon is used during an AoO during a two weapon fighting full attack, will the attack end?

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

How many situations will wielding a two-handed weapon use up "two attacks", and how will we determine when it does?

Nothing before suggested that wielding a two-handed weapon uses up "two attacks", and only these "unwritten rules" were used as a reason that they do.

Is it wielding a two-handed weapon that uses up "two attacks", or just attacking with the two handed weapon.

If the two handed weapon is used during an AoO during a two weapon fighting full attack, will the attack end?

Saying that it uses up "two attacks" isn't really the best way to put it, I agree, I was just trying to think of how to define it within your question...but Xaratherus actually answered your question more precisely than I did.

I believe what the developers were trying to say with "three attacks" was that as a normal 1st level human, you have two arms with which to do something (again, not saying that the arms have to be the appendages to make the attack, but the arms are what define the action economy).

Wielding a greatsword or a longsword and short sword each use the same action economy (as one big attack or as two smaller attacks). To that end, allowing attacks with a greatsword and a kick is tantamount to allowing attacks with a longsword, short sword, and a kick.

I know you don't agree with, but did I at least explain it well enough?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

In a sense.

That is still fixed in a more practical manner with limiting the damage to Primary attacks.

No limiting the combination of weapons, or confusing the line between off hand attacks, and actual hands.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Now, the FAQ notes that the two handed weapon eats up an off hand attack.

Could one with multiple off hand attacks, use one up to two hand a weapon?

Say, one with the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, choose to trade in the extra off hand attack to make one less attack, but include a two handed weapon attack.

That would fall in line with the intent of this restriction.


Just so I'm clear...

Two-handed fighting, combined with two-weapon fighting, is weaker than two-weapon fighting with the same weapon. So anyone using this combination is only using it for the flavor.

But...

Attacking with a two-handed weapon and using armor spikes (etc..) for extra attacks gained from a high BAB is too weak to even be an option. Despite all that cool flavor.

Is that the long and short of it?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Just so I'm clear...

Two-handed fighting, combined with two-weapon fighting, is weaker than two-weapon fighting with the same weapon. So anyone using this combination is only using it for the flavor.

But...

Attacking with a two-handed weapon and using armor spikes (etc..) for extra attacks gained from a high BAB is too weak to even be an option. Despite all that cool flavor.

Is that the long and short of it?

Saying that an option isn't OP at 1st level and that later it gets weaker has nothing inconsistent about it.

My math on it hasn't turned up anything to be worried about. I wish I could posts graphs on here.

Edit: Oh, you mean using say a +6 BAB to make a Greatsword attack at +6 and then an attack with Spiked Armor/Boot-Blade/Unarmed Strike at +1? Yes, that's is just flat-out horrible.

There are many ways to horribly implement good flavor. This is one of them.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Just so I'm clear...

Two-handed fighting, combined with two-weapon fighting, is weaker than two-weapon fighting with the same weapon. So anyone using this combination is only using it for the flavor.

But...

Attacking with a two-handed weapon and using armor spikes (etc..) for extra attacks gained from a high BAB is too weak to even be an option. Despite all that cool flavor.

Is that the long and short of it?

it is not the strongest option but it is a good and viable option. The Iterative thing is just Awful.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Just so I'm clear...

Two-handed fighting, combined with two-weapon fighting, is weaker than two-weapon fighting with the same weapon. So anyone using this combination is only using it for the flavor.

But...

Attacking with a two-handed weapon and using armor spikes (etc..) for extra attacks gained from a high BAB is too weak to even be an option. Despite all that cool flavor.

Is that the long and short of it?

Something that doesn't come into play, despite investment, until 6th level, is not helping with flavor.


So even though you can get the same flavor, you don't want to because its not powerful?

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

In a sense.

That is still fixed in a more practical manner with limiting the damage to Primary attacks.

No limiting the combination of weapons, or confusing the line between off hand attacks, and actual hands.

Hmmm...I'm not really sold on your idea. To me, your suggestion is the same as saying: I'm going to only apply half of my STR modifier to my melee damage, or I'm only going to apply +1 of my +3 INT modifier to my Knowledge (whatever) checks, or I'm not going to apply my DEX modifier to my AC.

I think it's safe to say that, although the rules don't explicitly say so, you can't willingly choose to reduce your scores, BAB, save modifiers, etc. that goes into calculating whatever stat it is that's being calculated. In the same vein, I don't think you can just willingly decide to reduce your STR modifier while wielding a 2HW because that modifier is predicated on the fact that you are holding it with two hands, not making some conscious decision to swing it harder. So, going with 1.0 STR instead of 1.5 STR is tantamount to wielding a 2HW with one hand.

Now, that being said, I think your suggestion would make a good feat or archetype ability (1.0 STR with a 2HW to gain an off-hand attack), just not something that should be a fundamental mechanic (regardless if you think that is an inferred mechanic or a "secret" mechanic).


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So even though you can get the same flavor, you don't want to because its not powerful?

Being effective matters in the game. It isn't a fashion show. Your characters go into situations where their lives are in danger, where their friends are in danger, where others are in danger, where they must accomplish goals against great challenges.

It might be very flavorful to dress up as a clown and use Create Water to soak your enemies. This will not help you overcome challenges the game is designed to set before you.

Further, a really crappy combat decision is something that's definitely knowable by a character. Using a weak kick/spikes instead of another Greatsword attack (when that's an option) is definitely something they'd know to be a bad technique.

So I guess it works if you are trying to play a warrior that isn't very good at what he does. The game rather assumes the opposite, however.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, one of the reasons of limiting the combination is expended effort.

So, if some of the effort(damage) is put into an extra attack, it balances itself out.

I suggested as an alternative FAQ/Errata, but I see that it likely will never happen.

I do like your idea of an archetype.

That would at least satisfy, somewhat, the desire to create this type of flavor in a build.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, the FAQ notes that the two handed weapon eats up an off hand attack.

Could one with multiple off hand attacks, use one up to two hand a weapon?

Say, one with the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, choose to trade in the extra off hand attack to make one less attack, but include a two handed weapon attack.

That would fall in line with the intent of this restriction.

I think that idea certainly goes against the intent of TWF though. Both Imp & Greater TWF are based on extra off-hand attacks for the weapon that made the off-hand attack. So, in a literal sense, you couldn't do it because there was never an off-hand attack to get extra attacks of. Eh, I think you'll know what I'm trying to say.

Regardless, I think the moral of the story is, given the action economy of a standard PC race, you have to choose between either TWF or 2HW, and can't mix the two (barring specific exceptions, of course).


Drachasor wrote:


Further, a really crappy combat decision is something that's definitely knowable by a character. Using a weak kick/spikes instead of another Greatsword attack (when that's an option) is definitely something they'd know to be a bad technique.

So I guess it works if you are trying to play a warrior that isn't very good at what he does. The game rather assumes the opposite, however.

Wait, so the character in the game knows the difference between two-weapon fighting and alternating attacks?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why would a PC not realize that his combat style is ineffective?

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, one of the reasons of limiting the combination is expended effort.

So, if some of the effort(damage) is put into an extra attack, it balances itself out.

Sure, but I look at it as similar to Power Attack: reduce the attack to get extra damage, but it's not something you can normally do unless you have the feat to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So even though you can get the same flavor, you don't want to because its not powerful?

The TWF+2H option is viable, but not the best option out there.

The Greatsword primary, Armor Spike iterative combo is non-viable. It won't work in any game with a semblance of difficulty.

Giving up the best option for a flavorful option that is still viable is fine. Giving up all viability for flavor is not.

You probably won't have any fun with it, being terrible at what you want to do, and your party will be angry at you for sucking so much. It's a lose-lose.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Drachasor wrote:


Further, a really crappy combat decision is something that's definitely knowable by a character. Using a weak kick/spikes instead of another Greatsword attack (when that's an option) is definitely something they'd know to be a bad technique.

So I guess it works if you are trying to play a warrior that isn't very good at what he does. The game rather assumes the opposite, however.

Wait, so the character in the game knows the difference between two-weapon fighting and alternating attacks?

Of course he does. How do you think he wouldn't? There's a measurable difference between the quality AND quantity of those attacks within the given time-frame.

How could you not notice someone making twice as many attacks in the same amount of time? How could you not notice someone who is just as accurate with one attack as with the other verses someone who is far more accurate with one attack than the other? Heck, the same person can demonstrate these variances.

Are you saying practitioners of the art of combat aren't even aware of what works or not? That they can't tell the difference between doing things one way and doing them another?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You know, I could find this FAQ a bit more acceptable with the news of a future archetype that allows this fighting style.

Also, the end of the mockery by some of the sore "winners" would help.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You know, I could find this FAQ a bit more acceptable with the news of a future archetype that allows this fighting style.

Also, the end of the mockery by some of the sore "winners" would help.

Given that you needs feats for it anyhow, and that the math doesn't support the idea it is more powerful than other options...I just don't see why they would change things this way.

(And yeah, it is a change if they change the intent behind the rules from what was in 3.5 since the text itself hasn't changed. That's one way to have secret rules to begin with).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am also not fond of the change deniers.

Things have changed.

Even if it didn't change in your home game, it changed for many others.

Also, there is no need for the rooster strut, and outright claim of superiority, as a free thinker, gamer, and person.

It is ugly, and helps nothing.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:


I do like your idea of an archetype.

That would at least satisfy, somewhat, the desire to create this type of flavor in a build.

Something just popped in my mind: if it were an archetype, only the archetype of that class could benefit from it, but if it were a feat, anyone who qualified for the feat could get it. Some people might bemoan the feat tax, but I think it would be more universally accessible as a feat than an archetype.

I'm sure it would have some prereqs: +1 BAB and a STR requirement (15?)
So it would allow you to TWF with a 2HW and non-handed weapon (kick, armor spike, boot blade, etc) with a 1.0 STR to the 2HW. If power attacking, it would power attack as a one-handed weapon (-1/+2).

Then there could be an improved version that allows you to get the 1.5 STR and power attack as a two-handed weapon.

Doesn't sound too shabby, really.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I see that as a decent compromise.

I swear there is a "Design an Archetype" and "Design a feat" thread around here.


Drachasor wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Drachasor wrote:


Further, a really crappy combat decision is something that's definitely knowable by a character. Using a weak kick/spikes instead of another Greatsword attack (when that's an option) is definitely something they'd know to be a bad technique.

So I guess it works if you are trying to play a warrior that isn't very good at what he does. The game rather assumes the opposite, however.

Wait, so the character in the game knows the difference between two-weapon fighting and alternating attacks?

Of course he does. How do you think he wouldn't? There's a measurable difference between the quality AND quantity of those attacks within the given time-frame.

How could you not notice someone making twice as many attacks in the same amount of time? How could you not notice someone who is just as accurate with one attack as with the other verses someone who is far more accurate with one attack than the other? Heck, the same person can demonstrate these variances.

Are you saying practitioners of the art of combat aren't even aware of what works or not? That they can't tell the difference between doing things one way and doing them another?

Again, the character in the game, knows the difference between someone attacking with a two-handed sword and armor spikes and someone attacking with a two-handed weapon and then armor spikes? He knows the number of attacks he gets before he has to wait his turn in next round?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I see that as a decent compromise.

I swear there is a "Design an Archetype" and "Design a feat" thread around here.

I'd much prefer just going with general rules. Like TWF is +Strength on one attack and +.5 Strength on the other. That's easy enough.

They need to errata the hand-thing anyhow. We had someone in this thread (just before the Devs pop in) saying that you don't have a left and right hand!

And we have the Buckler text being misread as the shield arm being an off-hand or primary hand when that's not what it is saying at all -- perhaps in part because some people don't believe in physical hands or something. I don't know. This is all very odd to me.

In the end though, I'd rather they have mathematical analysis and answer the FAQ with some sentences and a graph or three.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

He knows how many times he can attack in a span of six seconds.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am also not fond of the change deniers.

Things have changed.

Even if it didn't change in your home game, it changed for many others.

Then change was inevitable. If they ruled the other way, those people would have had their games changed.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Drachasor wrote:


Further, a really crappy combat decision is something that's definitely knowable by a character. Using a weak kick/spikes instead of another Greatsword attack (when that's an option) is definitely something they'd know to be a bad technique.

So I guess it works if you are trying to play a warrior that isn't very good at what he does. The game rather assumes the opposite, however.

Wait, so the character in the game knows the difference between two-weapon fighting and alternating attacks?

Of course he does. How do you think he wouldn't? There's a measurable difference between the quality AND quantity of those attacks within the given time-frame.

How could you not notice someone making twice as many attacks in the same amount of time? How could you not notice someone who is just as accurate with one attack as with the other verses someone who is far more accurate with one attack than the other? Heck, the same person can demonstrate these variances.

Are you saying practitioners of the art of combat aren't even aware of what works or not? That they can't tell the difference between doing things one way and doing them another?

Again, the character in the game, knows the difference between someone attacking with a two-handed sword and armor spikes and someone attacking with a two-handed weapon and then armor spikes? He knows the number of attacks he gets before he has to wait his turn in next round?

Roughly speaking, of course he bloody does. He certainly knows if he can make 50% more attacks than the junior warrior over there. He certainly knows if he is making an attack that he's really inaccurate with.

Are you saying he has no reasonable idea how skilled he is with his attacks or how quickly he can make them?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am also not fond of the change deniers.

Things have changed.

Even if it didn't change in your home game, it changed for many others.

Then change was inevitable. If they ruled the other way, those people would have had their games changed.

Saying it was inevitable is a bit much. Remember the 3.5 FAQ.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am also not fond of the change deniers.

Things have changed.

Even if it didn't change in your home game, it changed for many others.

Then change was inevitable. If they ruled the other way, those people would have had their games changed.

Sure. But let's be fair and remember there are many, many, many rules that are clear and need no FAQ. I think we can all agree that the primary hand/off-hand thing in general is not written clearly. Further confused by the fact those hands don't have to match up with your physical hands (or even use a single physical hand). Add to that how some weapon sizes talk about using them in a hand and some don't and it gets worse.

This is one of the clearest examples of something needing errata. We should all be asking the Devs to take a couple weeks, do so mathematical graphs, even talk to the community, and then errata what talks about this.

Heck, I volunteer to help with the math and graphing.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am also not fond of the change deniers.

Things have changed.

Even if it didn't change in your home game, it changed for many others.

Then change was inevitable. If they ruled the other way, those people would have had their games changed.
Saying it was inevitable is a bit much. Remember the 3.5 FAQ.

I meant that either way they ruled would be a change to some people. So complainly that it changed seems odd.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am also not fond of the change deniers.

Things have changed.

Even if it didn't change in your home game, it changed for many others.

Then change was inevitable. If they ruled the other way, those people would have had their games changed.
Saying it was inevitable is a bit much. Remember the 3.5 FAQ.
I meant that either way they ruled would be a change to some people. So complainly that it changed seems odd.

You could say that about any FAQ...

Except that since PF inherits the 3.5 text, the intent of that text should be inherited. Changing the "intent" behind the scenes is at least more than a little weird. Odder still to change it when there are no balance concerns. So this is certainly a far more unusual case than normal and is worthy of note.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

As the wording, and function, of two weapon fighting, did not change, it was assumed to stay that way for Pathfinder.

It is truly disingenuous to dismiss this knowledge.

It is an unwritten rule that Pathfinder altered this allowance.

It makes many upset, as the FAQ was based on these unwritten changes.

Their upset is justified, and the insults tossed to them is unwarranted.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


No...not really. While we have all played and worked on that game at various times during our career, and I worked at Wizards when that FAQ was released (and remember some gnashing of teeth internally and in the organized play program regarding it), the D&D FAQ does not contain Open Game Content, is the property of Wizards of the Coast, and not something we feel like we can use when making our decisions about the Pathfinder RPG.

The FAQ from 3.5 was not even agreed upon by all the devs at that time people. There was a lot of flak over it within the company even.

It's not a change, it's that this time the dev team actually decided to follow the rules as written. The FAQ is around to clarify the rules, not change them.

As for the balance issue. I've already posted the damage difference between Greatsword and Armor Spikes compared to a Longsword and Shortsword wielder. It's 5.5 pts at first level, which is when Sean said they balance for.

The only counter I've seen is that the style has a lower to hit. How? Both are two weapon fighting with a light weapon. They have the same to hit assuming both use power attack. Even without power attack, the damage is still higher:
1D8+1D6+4+2 =14 avg.
2D6+1D6+6+2 = 18.5 avg.
It's roughly the same percentage of extra damage (around a third).

There is no reason not to choose a two handed weapon to dual wield at first level if you are two weapon fighting.

As to the "limit the strength" option. You still leave this open to the fact that A.) the two handed weapon does more damage and B.) feats grant benefits for a two handed weapon instead of a one handed weapon.

You're still looking at:
1D8+1D6+4+2=14 avg.
2D6+1D6+4+2=16.5 avg.
Still a 17% increase just for grabbing a two handed weapon.

So my proposal is, sure you can two weapon fight with a two handed weapon and armor spikes. Lower your damage by a step as though the weapon were a size smaller and treat it as being wielded in one hand for strength damage and all feats/abilities.

Then you arrive at the same place. That of course is way way out of the realm of the FAQ and firmly in house rules territory though.


Because the Greatsword+AS is still TWFing with 2 different weapons. Yes, it's better than Longsword + Shortsword. That's because said fighting style is horribad.

TWFing with the same weapon is better since effects like Weapon Focus/Specialization/Training, Improved Critical, and so on that are commonly used to increase DPR apply to BOTH weapons, meaning either the to-hit will be higher, or the GS+AS TWFer will be spending twice as many Feats to keep up.

It's a tradeoff, and a hefty one.

And it's still not nearly as good as just swinging a GS alone, as I showed above.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crash_00 wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


No...not really. While we have all played and worked on that game at various times during our career, and I worked at Wizards when that FAQ was released (and remember some gnashing of teeth internally and in the organized play program regarding it), the D&D FAQ does not contain Open Game Content, is the property of Wizards of the Coast, and not something we feel like we can use when making our decisions about the Pathfinder RPG.

The FAQ from 3.5 was not even agreed upon by all the devs at that time people. There was a lot of flak over it within the company even.

It's not a change, it's that this time the dev team actually decided to follow the rules as written. The FAQ is around to clarify the rules, not change them.

As explicitly confirmed by SKR, they are following their rules as NOT WRITTEN.

Trying to pretend 3.5 didn't explicitly allow this is silly. It was allowed and it was usable. Just because some people at WotC didn't like it doesn't change this fact. And they even determined that the rules DID allow this, hence the FAQ. The 3.5 people were well-aware that they could disagree with the official rules for the game. Many, if not all, used house rules in their games. They were quite good at distinguishing between one and the other.

Crash_00 wrote:

The only counter I've seen is that the style has a lower to hit. How? Both are two weapon fighting with a light weapon. They have the same to hit assuming both use power attack. Even without power attack, the damage is still higher:

1D8+1D6+4+2 =14 avg.
2D6+1D6+6+2 = 18.5 avg.
It's roughly the same percentage of extra damage (around a third).

It's not going to be the same to-hit. WF gives BOTH Short Swords a +1. The fact you can focus on dex more with Short Swords, since the TWF needs it, will help as well. Later you can get the Agile enchantment and turn Strength into something that's not much needed.

Further, Short Swords have a higher crit chance. Also consider who is likely to use this fighting style, and you'll be tossing in additional bonuses like Sneak Attack or the like.

Consider WF, 18 Dex, 14 strength, TWF, Weapon Finesse, and SA. This beats the Greatsword+Spikes after AC 17, and is only 1.5 damage behind even when you consider AC 10. The difference is negligible.

The guy with two Short Swords is just going to get better as levels improve since the SS is just a better weapon, so it benefits from improved crit more, and all weapon-specific feats work on both weapons. Agile cannot be applied to Greatswords either, meaning the guy using TWF and focusing on Dex is going to end up ahead in many ways.

And none of these beat the guy that just uses the Greatsword.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The desire to overblow this "loophole" simply look to justify FAQ.

It simply never was the problem many have made it out to be.

It was an underused style that was made an even poorer option as they leveled.

I still find it a FAQ that should not have happened.

Worse, the gross accusations put upon those who disagree are bordering on the level of nauseating.

It fixes a problem that never really was.


Mahtobedis wrote:

Back in 2011 the question was asked if you could use a weapon with two hands and then make an off hand attack using spikes.

At the time Mark (of whom I am a big fan) said that it was against the intent.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mg61?Ok-need-some-help-trying-to-find-a-weapon -that#24

That same week Jason Bulmahn (whom I am also a big fan of) said they were looking at getting an FAQ on this.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mg61&page=3?Ok-need-some-help-trying-to-fi nd-a-weapon-that#109

I am wondering if such a FAQ was ever made ,or what Paizo's official position is on 2H+Armor Spikes. I ask because I am planning a TWF build with a sword and shield where I hit with my sword two handed and then quickdraw a quickdraw shield (from Ultimate Equipment) to bash with. I know that strictly rules as written it seems to work. But the above posts make me question if Paizo intended for it to work.

Normally I would assume Mark's original comment was the end of the story, but when he was asked the question again in 2012 he kicked to the design team, and the original post by Mark on this subject is not included in the PFS clarification compilations.

Has the design team come to any additional conclusion during the past two years on this despite your busy busy jobs doing a fantastic job making Pathfinder a fun and exiting game to play?

that´s why Dirty Fight Feat (3.0 not 3.5 nor pf) was made... im still wondering otherwhise look like munchking player to me.

Two handed and a kick, armor spike, shoulder ram and so. That was a feat which was made to cover this purpose... maybe now its in the cmb/cmd rules

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Juda de Kerioth wrote:

that´s why Dirty Fight Feat (3.0 not 3.5 nor pf) was made... im still wondering otherwhise look like munchking player to me.

Two handed and a kick, armor spike, shoulder ram and so. That was a feat which was made to cover this purpose... maybe now its in the cmb/cmd rules

I am not sure what you are saying, or what you are referring to.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

The desire to overblow this "loophole" simply look to justify FAQ.

It simply never was the problem many have made it out to be.

It was an underused style that was made an even poorer option as they leveled.

I still find it a FAQ that should not have happened.

Worse, the gross accusations put upon those who disagree are bordering on the level of nauseating.

It fixes a problem that never really was.

Doesn't the fact there were many FAQ requests suggest there was a problem? (Or at least the perception of one?)

I agree there's no need to attack people on the other side of a rules debate. Pretending to be elves doesn't become any more important just because they've got spikes on their imaginary armour.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

As I understand it, this isn't an errata. This is an answer to a frequently asked question. Doesn't it just clarify RAI?

901 to 950 of 1,428 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team? All Messageboards