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


Rules Questions

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,428 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

ciretose wrote:

Yes. It's called choices. Choices imply you lose something and gain something with each option. Otherwise it isn't a choice.

Two handed weapons are inherently better at doing damage. The whole point of making them better is that they come with the problem of being two-handed weapons.

It is bad game design to include ways to get around what are intentional trade offs.

Using it one handed puts it about 1 to 1.5 damage per attack behind a two-handed weapon.

In exchange, you can use a one-handed weapon both for twf and THF.

1 to 1.5 damage is what you trade. It made zero sense to give a way to just avoid that trade off.

yes in this case you choose to not gain anything.

It is just not the 1 to 1.5 to put it behind the two kukris TWF but the losing of 1/3 power attack and the lower dice of the scimitar.

TWF kukris deals 7,6 less damage than THF with a Falchion, even when the TWF spend 2 extra feats in his DPR.

If you spend thosw extra two feats into Scimitar7armor spikes and do even less damage then the option is terrible to the point to be obsolete.

Liberty's Edge

I don't know, I'd have to do the math. You are also getting rid of the buckler penalties, adding the shield enhancement to attack and damage, halving the TWF-penalties...

It isn't like you don't get benefits with those trade offs. But like I said, I'd have to see the math and it is pushing 11 EST.


If it helps your calculations any, that "Shield Enhancement to Attack and Damage" is already a Feat. With a +11 BaB requirement, so you're not getting it any earlier.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Yes. It's called choices. Choices imply you lose something and gain something with each option. Otherwise it isn't a choice.

Two handed weapons are inherently better at doing damage. The whole point of making them better is that they come with the problem of being two-handed weapons.

It is bad game design to include ways to get around what are intentional trade offs.

Using it one handed puts it about 1 to 1.5 damage per attack behind a two-handed weapon.

In exchange, you can use a one-handed weapon both for twf and THF.

1 to 1.5 damage is what you trade. It made zero sense to give a way to just avoid that trade off.

yes in this case you choose to not gain anything.

It is just not the 1 to 1.5 to put it behind the two kukris TWF but the losing of 1/3 power attack and the lower dice of the scimitar.

TWF kukris deals 7,6 less damage than THF with a Falchion, even when the TWF spend 2 extra feats in his DPR.

If you spend thosw extra two feats into Scimitar7armor spikes and do even less damage then the option is terrible to the point to be obsolete.

Only if you overlook the fact that because you have a Scimitar you can Two-weapon attack when you move (or when it makes sense) while with the Kukri you can't.

You put your bonuses into the Scimitar, and the Kukri becomes your secondary. Now you have the option either way, depending on what you are fighting and which would be more useful in a given encounter.

That is the trade. Less damage when you TWF, more damage when you move.

As opposed to no THF with the Kukri guy, and no TWF with the Falcion guy.

Which is the entire point of the way the rule is intended. You have three separate paths, each with pluses and minuses.

Giving two-handed attacks access to TWF is like saying you can use Kukri's two-handed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, then using a two handed weapon, as an off hand weapon, is still allowed, as it only adds 0.5 strength to damage?

This falls in that reasoning.

I would think in that case you have already used up your primary hand, correct?

Is a Primary attack available needed to make an off-hand attack?

If so, why?

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
If it helps your calculations any, that "Shield Enhancement to Attack and Damage" is already a Feat. With a +11 BaB requirement, so you're not getting it any earlier.

You are getting it for free, however. And you can apply it to a buckler, which is not a normal option.

What the buckler gives you is greater versatility than a normal shield.


ciretose wrote:

So does using a one handed weapon.

Two-handed weapons do more damage and/or have special features like reach. This come in exchange for the limits of it being two-handed.

You take the bad with the good.

Titan Mauler can get reach with a Long spear used in one hand (treated as a one handed weapon but it does get reach) so not barrier.

So having reach isn't an issue.

Heck, a Titan Mauler can wield two meteor hammers getting reach with one hand and defense with other.


ciretose wrote:
Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Yes. It's called choices. Choices imply you lose something and gain something with each option. Otherwise it isn't a choice.

Two handed weapons are inherently better at doing damage. The whole point of making them better is that they come with the problem of being two-handed weapons.

It is bad game design to include ways to get around what are intentional trade offs.

Using it one handed puts it about 1 to 1.5 damage per attack behind a two-handed weapon.

In exchange, you can use a one-handed weapon both for twf and THF.

1 to 1.5 damage is what you trade. It made zero sense to give a way to just avoid that trade off.

yes in this case you choose to not gain anything.

It is just not the 1 to 1.5 to put it behind the two kukris TWF but the losing of 1/3 power attack and the lower dice of the scimitar.

TWF kukris deals 7,6 less damage than THF with a Falchion, even when the TWF spend 2 extra feats in his DPR.

If you spend thosw extra two feats into Scimitar7armor spikes and do even less damage then the option is terrible to the point to be obsolete.

Only if you overlook the fact that because you have a Scimitar you can Two-weapon attack when you move (or when it makes sense) while with the Kukri you can't.

You put your bonuses into the Scimitar, and the Kukri becomes your secondary. Now you have the option either way, depending on what you are fighting and which would be more useful in a given encounter.

That is the trade. Less damage when you TWF, more damage when you move.

As opposed to no THF with the Kukri guy, and no TWF with the Falcion guy.

Which is the entire point of the way the rule is intended. You have three separate paths, each with pluses and minuses.

Giving two-handed attacks access to TWF is like saying you can use Kukri's two-handed.

still less damage when you move or full attack compared to a falchion. Specially since the Enhacement bonus have to be split and the dex tax.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This new FAQ only restricts melee weapon attacks, or is there more unwritten rules?

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:
ciretose wrote:

So does using a one handed weapon.

Two-handed weapons do more damage and/or have special features like reach. This come in exchange for the limits of it being two-handed.

You take the bad with the good.

Titan Mauler can get reach with a Long spear used in one hand (treated as a one handed weapon but it does get reach) so not barrier.

So having reach isn't an issue.

Heck, a Titan Mauler can wield two meteor hammers getting reach with one hand and defense with other.

Yes, and a titan mauler takes a -2 to attack and loses most of the non-rage related Barbarian special abilities.

Liberty's Edge

@Nicos - Yes, and by this ruling you can't two-weapon fight with a Falcion.

So you lose that option. Which is the trade off.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Is this restriction still placed when using a two handed weapon to perform a Combat Maneuver?

There is no damage, to break the unwritten "1.5 Cap" rule.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Light weapons can TWF without penalties, but do low damage.

One-handed weapons can both TWF and One-handed fight, but not as well as either.

Two-handed weapons do more damage on a single attack, but can't TWF.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

This new FAQ only restricts melee weapon attacks, or is there more unwritten rules?

Depends what are you thinking about in particular.


ciretose wrote:

@Nicos - Yes, and by this ruling you can't two-weapon fight with a Falcion.

So you lose that option. Which is the trade off.

Simitar + spiked armor just sucks, more than TWF with scimitar and a kukri.

Well, i willnot say anythin more cause the big problem is TWF, that feat chain sucks.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Is this restriction still placed when using a two handed weapon to perform a Combat Maneuver?

There is no damage, to break the unwritten "1.5 Cap" rule.

What are you talking about.

And that light weapons do less damage than medium weapons is also a "secret unwritten rule"

It is also a secret unwritten rule that Full BaB classes generally are geared toward combat while 1/2 BaB classes are geared toward casting....

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Nicos - Yes, and by this ruling you can't two-weapon fight with a Falcion.

So you lose that option. Which is the trade off.

Simitar + spiked armor just sucks, more than TWF with scimitar and a kukri.

Well, i willnot say anythin more cause the big problem is TWF, that feat chain sucks.

Saves you taking quick draw.


I assume we're all agreed now that you can TWF with a one-handed weapon, armor spikes, and use any shield (including a Buckler) without any problem? We had some arguments about this maybe 10-15 pages ago.


I guess I have a general question about choices... Why is it bad that one fighting style or archetype or weapon is notas strong mechanically as other choices? Doesn't the cool flavor of using something different weigh into what you play? Do you only pick the mechanically best choice? Not trying to be rude at all, but genuinely want to know how people play. I love the rogue and enjoy playing him. There are a lot of things the rogue can do well, but it is not a terrific in combat. Still play one that TWFs throwing axes. Love the versatility and the flavor. The damage is not great, but good enough that I have fun.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, then using a two handed weapon, as an off hand weapon, is still allowed, as it only adds 0.5 strength to damage?

This falls in that reasoning.

I would think in that case you have already used up your primary hand, correct?

Is a Primary attack available needed to make an off-hand attack?

If so, why?

Your primary and off hand are required to wield a two-handed weapon. That's what this whole thing has been about.


Drachasor wrote:
I assume we're all agreed now that you can TWF with a one-handed weapon, armor spikes, and use any shield (including a Buckler) without any problem? We had some arguments about this maybe 10-15 pages ago.

Well this is true, this make TWF with a scimitar and armor spikes to be just better.

I am fine wih the style then, not htat much damage as scimitar/shield bash but it cost one less feat.


boldstar wrote:
I guess I have a general question about choices... Why is it bad that one fighting style or archetype or weapon is notas strong mechanically as other choices? Doesn't the cool flavor of using something different weigh into what you play? Do you only pick the mechanically best choice? Not trying to be rude at all, but genuinely want to know how people play. I love the rogue and enjoy playing him. There are a lot of things the rogue can do well, but it is not a terrific in combat. Still play one that TWFs throwing axes. Love the versatility and the flavor. The damage is not great, but good enough that I have fun.

More equally strong choices encourages variety in playstyles, which is generally a very good thing. That's why it matters.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, then using a two handed weapon, as an off hand weapon, is still allowed, as it only adds 0.5 strength to damage?

This falls in that reasoning.

I would think in that case you have already used up your primary hand, correct?

Is a Primary attack available needed to make an off-hand attack?

If so, why?

Your primary and off hand are required to wield a two-handed weapon. That's what this whole thing has been about.

Sort of.


Drachasor wrote:
boldstar wrote:
I guess I have a general question about choices... Why is it bad that one fighting style or archetype or weapon is notas strong mechanically as other choices? Doesn't the cool flavor of using something different weigh into what you play? Do you only pick the mechanically best choice? Not trying to be rude at all, but genuinely want to know how people play. I love the rogue and enjoy playing him. There are a lot of things the rogue can do well, but it is not a terrific in combat. Still play one that TWFs throwing axes. Love the versatility and the flavor. The damage is not great, but good enough that I have fun.
More equally strong choices encourages variety in playstyles, which is generally a very good thing. That's why it matters.

I can respect that opinion. I think that all the different choices must have something going for them though, cause there are a lot of people playing rogues, monks, cavaliers, and ninjas.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Outside of Two Weapon Fighting, there is no primary, or off hand.

So, iterative attacks are not effected.


CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
So just so I'm clear, does using a Two-Handed weapon use up just the off-hand or the off-hand attack as well?
As I understand it, a Two-handed weapon uses up both the primary and off hand attacks. There are certain weapons, feats and other rules that provide specific exceptions to this.

If that's so, how are iterative attacks with Two-Handed Weapons going to work? I'm only getting one off-hand attack a round unless I take Improved TWF/Greater TWF. Or does it just ignore it when my BAB is high enough?

Using a two handed weapon doesn't require you to have an "off hand" attack available, but uses one if you do. For iterative attacks you can continue to use your two handed weapon, but if you have Imp/Greater TWF those off hand attacks would not be available while you were two handed weapon fighting.

So you could while swinging a long sword with two hands, make a first attack at your highest BAB using two hands, this would use up both the primary and off hand attack at that BAB. You could then release one hand and make your iterative attack one handed, and an off hand attack using Improved TWF (with the TWF penalties).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
So just so I'm clear, does using a Two-Handed weapon use up just the off-hand or the off-hand attack as well?
As I understand it, a Two-handed weapon uses up both the primary and off hand attacks. There are certain weapons, feats and other rules that provide specific exceptions to this.

If that's so, how are iterative attacks with Two-Handed Weapons going to work? I'm only getting one off-hand attack a round unless I take Improved TWF/Greater TWF. Or does it just ignore it when my BAB is high enough?

Using a two handed weapon doesn't require you to have an "off hand" attack available, but uses one if you do. For iterative attacks you can continue to use your two handed weapon, but if you have Imp/Greater TWF those off hand attacks would not be available while you were two handed weapon fighting.

So you could while swinging a long sword with two hands, make a first attack at your highest BAB using two hands, this would use up both the primary and off hand attack at that BAB. You could then release one hand and make your iterative attack one handed, and an off hand attack using Improved TWF (with the TWF penalties).

This was one of the things I was asking about.

When you have multiple attacks, or extra off hand attacks, can the off hand attack, be used up, to two hand a weapon with one attack.

Meaning, two weapon fighting with two handed weapons is still an option, just requiring feats/BAB/class features to do so.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
So just so I'm clear, does using a Two-Handed weapon use up just the off-hand or the off-hand attack as well?
As I understand it, a Two-handed weapon uses up both the primary and off hand attacks. There are certain weapons, feats and other rules that provide specific exceptions to this.

If that's so, how are iterative attacks with Two-Handed Weapons going to work? I'm only getting one off-hand attack a round unless I take Improved TWF/Greater TWF. Or does it just ignore it when my BAB is high enough?

Using a two handed weapon doesn't require you to have an "off hand" attack available, but uses one if you do. For iterative attacks you can continue to use your two handed weapon, but if you have Imp/Greater TWF those off hand attacks would not be available while you were two handed weapon fighting.

So you could while swinging a long sword with two hands, make a first attack at your highest BAB using two hands, this would use up both the primary and off hand attack at that BAB. You could then release one hand and make your iterative attack one handed, and an off hand attack using Improved TWF (with the TWF penalties).

This was one of the things I was asking about.

When you have multiple attacks, or extra off hand attacks, can the off hand attack, be used up, to two hand a weapon with one attack.

Meaning, two weapon fighting with two handed weapons is still an option, just requiring feats/BAB/class features to do so.

By the unwritten rules of strength bonus to attacks, you need two off-hands to one-hand a weapon, and three off-hands to two-hand one. So, if I have TWF, ITWF, and GTWF, I should be able to use all of my off-hand attacks to make a single two-hand attack at a -10 penalty.

Aren't unwritten rules fun?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Or, for some, they are the totally written, unwritten rules that, are totally there, in completion, and just because they are not written, it doesn't make them unwritten.

Also, if you disagree, you are a doody head cheaty face.

This about all of the FAQ love/defense posts, right?


boldstar wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
boldstar wrote:
I guess I have a general question about choices... Why is it bad that one fighting style or archetype or weapon is notas strong mechanically as other choices? Doesn't the cool flavor of using something different weigh into what you play? Do you only pick the mechanically best choice? Not trying to be rude at all, but genuinely want to know how people play. I love the rogue and enjoy playing him. There are a lot of things the rogue can do well, but it is not a terrific in combat. Still play one that TWFs throwing axes. Love the versatility and the flavor. The damage is not great, but good enough that I have fun.
More equally strong choices encourages variety in playstyles, which is generally a very good thing. That's why it matters.
I can respect that opinion. I think that all the different choices must have something going for them though, cause there are a lot of people playing rogues, monks, cavaliers, and ninjas.

D&D has such an insane level of system mastery that it can be very hard for players and DMs to determine how effective something will be. That's a big part of it.


Hmm, anyone else have any ideas on how they should errata the terminology? I figure the following principles should ideally be met:

1. We need to replace "off-hand", "main hand", and "two-handed" terms with regards to weapon wielding. It might be a good idea to replace the "one-handed weapons" with something else, since not all one-handed weapons will necessarily be wielded in a hand (the same is true, potentially of two-handed weapons).

2. Avoid "Primary" and "Secondary" terminology, as that would encourage confusion with Natural Attacks.

3. No reference to "hands" in the terms, as that confuses the terms with actual hands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Or, for some, they are the totally written, unwritten rules that, are totally there, in completion, and just because they are not written, it doesn't make them unwritten.

Also, if you disagree, you are a doody head cheaty face.

What did you just call me?!?!

Grrrrr! Outrage! I would totally kick you if I weren't using both of my hands to type!

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cleaned up a few posts as they were getting a bit inflammatory.. again.

Doody head cheaty face however, is allowed.

Keep it civil folks. Most of the discussion here over the past few pages has been nice and constructive.

Jason


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Doody head cheaty face however, is allowed.

Lol.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Sorry, I was just trying to get the point across, that just because you are defending the FAQ, you don't get a free pass on bad behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Cleaned up a few posts as they were getting a bit inflammatory.. again.

Doody head cheaty face however, is allowed.

Now these unwritten rules are getting out of hand!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Cleaned up a few posts as they were getting a bit inflammatory.. again.

Doody head cheaty face however, is allowed.

Now these unwritten rules are getting out of hand!

Off-, main, right, or left hand?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Still, continuing to keep the "primary/off-hand" designation to the two weapon fighting full attack action is key here.

Outside of that instance, those two should continue to not exist.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Still, continuing to keep the "primary/off-hand" designation to the two weapon fighting full attack action is key here.

Outside of that instance, those two should continue to not exist.

I don't see how that's key.

If we have Major Attack, Minor Attack, and Total Attack (Main + Minor), then I think that handles things nicely.

If you attack with one weapon that is your size or smaller, then you make a Main Attack and add your strength.

You can attack with two weapons using TWF, in which case you make a Main Attack (+strength), and a minor attack (+.5 strength).

You can attack with a weapon one size larger than you with a Total Attack, which adds +1.5 strength and uses up your main and minor attack.

Something roughly like that -- the language above could be improved. And maybe the balance can be tweaked while we're at it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No one ever had to worry about any "primary/off-hand" issue, unless they chose to two weapon fight, as part of a full attack action, to gain an extra attack.

Until now.

It should remain that way.

No extra attacks, then no "primary/off-hand" business be even addressed.


Quandary wrote:
Hey Vod, this thread actually became productive recently, if you didn't notice.

All productivity just went out with the bathwater.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Hey Vod, this thread actually became productive recently, if you didn't notice.
All productivity just went out with the bathwater.

But the baby is still here?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

No one ever had to worry about any "primary/off-hand" issue, unless they chose to two weapon fight, as part of a full attack action, to gain an extra attack.

Until now.

It should remain that way.

No extra attacks, then no "primary/off-hand" business be even addressed.

Not so sure about that since we want to make the interaction 100% clear.

Hmm, you know....hmm.

If we REALLY wanted to balance things out, we'd modify weapon damage bonuses based on how the weapon is wielded. So a THW would deal 1.5x in static bonuses, off-hands would deal .5, etc, etc. But I guess that is something for a new edition since that changes a lot of and makes the TWF feats not-needed -- since you'd have an attack allow for major+minor attacks.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Hey Vod, this thread actually became productive recently, if you didn't notice.
All productivity just went out with the bathwater.
But the baby is still here?

Hey guys, let's try to be civil. I know I'm not a mod or anything special, but I'm sick and tired of the hostility (whether blatant and veiled) on these forums. And heck, I've only been on here like a month.

I know it is tempting to respond to baiting and sniping, but if you just ignore it and posts with it, then you won't escalate the problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drachasor wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Hey Vod, this thread actually became productive recently, if you didn't notice.
All productivity just went out with the bathwater.
But the baby is still here?

Hey guys, let's try to be civil. I know I'm not a mod or anything special, but I'm sick and tired of the hostility (whether blatant and veiled) on these forums. And heck, I've only been on here like a month.

I know it is tempting to respond to baiting and sniping, but if you just ignore it and posts with it, then you won't escalate the problem.

Actually, that was just a reference to a common saying.

"Throwing the baby out with the bathwater".


Just out of curiosity: How many of these questions about hands and off-hands and usage and wielding and archetypes and PrC's and beards and bucklers and shields and two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons and light weapons and non-handed weapons and double weapons and natural attacks and unarmed strikes and unwritten rules and overall design philosophies and ... and .... and ..... and ......

... would just go away if they just recanted this FAQ and issued one that said, "Hey! Make a reasonable determination about the number of hands actually required to wield the weapons you are trying to wield, and determine your attacks based on the number of attacks permitted by the rules, knuckleheads!"???

I'm betting it's, like, all of them.


ciretose wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
If it helps your calculations any, that "Shield Enhancement to Attack and Damage" is already a Feat. With a +11 BaB requirement, so you're not getting it any earlier.

You are getting it for free, however. And you can apply it to a buckler, which is not a normal option.

What the buckler gives you is greater versatility than a normal shield.

Buckler in this context = light shield. Light Shield can perform shield bashes.

Ok, so you might say: but you can fight with it in your hand if you wish or choose to use another weapon in that hand.
Well, with quickdraw, I can do that also via a Quickdraw shield.

So lets compare:
At level 3 you get an ability that lets you wield a weapon in two hands while wearing a buckler without the penalty. Sacrifice: Armor Training 1
A quickdraw shield +Quickdraw feat allows you to put the shield away and take it out again afterwards.

At level 7 you may make shield bash attacks with the buckler. Sacrifice: Armor Training 2.
A Small Quickdraw shield can do this already.

At level 11 you gain the enhancement bonus to attack/damage to your shield bash. Sacrifice: Armor Training 3.
The feat Shield Master does this and more

At level 13 you lose half of the TWF penalties when using a buckler. Sacrifice: Weapon Training 3.
A feat basically does this already: Shield Master.

At level 15 you retain part of your buckler's AC when TWFing or THFing. Sacrifice: Armor Training 4.
Hmmm, THFing is good but TWFing is not since a Shield already keeps it's bonus while shield bashing via the feat Improved Shield Bash.

At level 17 you lose all of the TWF penalties. Sacrifice: Weapon Training 4.
A feat basically does this already: Shield Master.

At level 19 you do not lose any of your buckler's shield bonus when TWFing or THFing. Sacrifice: Armor Mastery.
Hmmmm, THFing is good, but TWFing is not since a Shield already keeps its bonus while shield bashing as per the feat Improved Shield Bash.

Archetype vs Non-Archetype:
Archetype loses Armor Training 1-4 (which is a lot to lose), 2 levels of Weapon Training, and Armor Mastery. What does it gain that feats cannot reproduce? The ability to hold a shield while hitting someone with a weapon in two hands.

Can I basically do this without the Archetype? Yes
Quickdraw, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Slam, and Shield Master.

What about hitting someone while holding a weapon in two hands? Well, for that moment you have no shield BUT, you can quickdraw put it away, switch to 2handed, attack, switch to 1handed, then quickdraw take it out again. Of course, someone is probably going to come along and say that since you used a weapon in two hands you cannot use a shield in that hand.

Summary: Without this archetype I can build a guy that has almost all of the abilities, comes out with a higher AC (because he is not sacrificing Armor Training 1-4) and higher attack and damage (not sacrificing Weapon Training 3-4) via a 4 feats. Oh, and has better speed (Armor Training again).

Like I said before the only thing this archetype does well is to TWF using a weapon in two hands and a buckler as the off-hand weapon.

- Gauss

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,428 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team? All Messageboards