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


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I just noticed an Edit now. It seems like it's now suggesting something broader, about the 'main/off-hand' of 2WF in general.
That's not exactly clear how it would interact with, e.g. UAS kicks or headbutts that don't use hands per se.
The Edit wording seems based off the same paradigm as that barring natural weapons if their limb is wielding a weapon/object,
but that doesn't really lead to barring either UAS or (non-limb associated) Armor Spikes...
Unless they ARE meaning to institute a limb-association for Armor Spikes.
I'm not sure how that interacts with non humanoid-form creatures with armor spikes on their armor/barding.


The edit wording was already plainly obvious. It's the same as any other attempt to use the same hand for TWF or for naturals and manufactured. I don't mind it, but it wasn't really needed at all, and has nothing to do with armor spikes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

SKR just offered some clarification on this in the other related thread that was answered:

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

Nope. By putting two hands on your 1H or 2H weapon, you're giving up any extra attacks you'd get if you were using a 1H weapon and using two-weapon fighting. Doesn't matter if you're trying to make punches, kicks, headbutts, knees, or whatever, the game is giving you a choice:

• fully commit to one attack with two hands for extra damage, or
• make an extra attack with TWF at the cost of not getting the extra damage from using two hands on one attack.


What if you have three hands?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What if the two-handed weapon is the off-hand attack?

There is no "extra damage", but is it still disallowed?

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

What if the two-handed weapon is the off-hand attack?

There is no "extra damage", but is it still disallowed?

Then we're back to the reason TWF doesn't work for multi-weapon fighting.

-4 penalty to primary hand (or primary groin thrust in this case)
-4 penalty to your off hand
-10 penalty to your other off hand
Penalties from the same source don't stack, you just take the worst one
-4 to armour spikes, -10 to two-handed weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What about PCs with three, or more, hands?

Can they attack with a greatsword, then make an off-hand attack with Armor Spikes?

They have a free hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ruling never relied on limb association, and there's still no reason to think armor spikes are limb associated, so that wouldn't change anything.

I would like to know if this ruling is applicable in any way to Multi-Weapon Fighting.

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

What about PCs with three, or more, hands?

Can they attack with a greatsword, then make an off-hand attack with Armor Spikes?

They have a free hand.

I don't see that it interacts with this ruling. They can attack with armour spikes, or with any other weapon they can wield with their available off-hand, as they could before.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why are Armor Spikes different than a Boot Blade?

Do I need a free hand to use a Boot Blade?


Can I use armor spikes against a nearby enemy as an AoO if I am weilding a two handed weapon?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Can I use armor spikes against a nearby enemy as an AoO if I am weilding a two handed weapon?

Well, yes, that has nothing to do with two weapon fighting.


Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

Nope. By putting two hands on your 1H or 2H weapon, you're giving up any extra attacks you'd get if you were using a 1H weapon and using two-weapon fighting. Doesn't matter if you're trying to make punches, kicks, headbutts, knees, or whatever, the game is giving you a choice:

• fully commit to one attack with two hands for extra damage, or
• make an extra attack with TWF at the cost of not getting the extra damage from using two hands on one attack.

Unless you happen to be a monk...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, the restriction is not free hands?

How does one determine the restriction?

Liberty's Edge

Bearded Ben wrote:
Unless you happen to be a monk...

Thank you. Someone gets it.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe multi-weapon fighting is pertinent. How would it work if we answered thusly:

Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No, because you're using multi-weapon fighting. Your primary hand and off-hand are in use. Your attack with armour spikes is an additional off-hand attack.

This would make the armour spike attack possible and supported by the rules - just a very, very poor choice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why does the Monk have this exception to this new rule?


FAQ wrote:

Monk Flurry of Blows: When I use flurry of blows, can I make all of the attacks with just one weapon, or do I have to use two, as implied by the ability functioning similarly to Two-Weapon Fighting?

You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. This FAQ specifically changes a previous ruling made in the blog concerning this issue.

—Jason Bulmahn, 11/30/12

Hence, a monk (and apparently only a monk) can two-hand a temple sword and kick someone.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Why does the Monk have this exception to this new rule?
Monk, PRD wrote:
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

So, they can still make these extra attacks even though their "off-hand" is occupied.

Liberty's Edge

Starglim wrote:

Maybe multi-weapon fighting is pertinent. How would it work if we answered thusly:

Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No, because you're using multi-weapon fighting. Your primary hand and off-hand are in use. Your attack with armour spikes is an additional off-hand attack.

This would make the armour spike attack possible and supported by the rules - just a very, very poor choice.

Though, to multiweapon fight, you need to have three or more arms.

Grand Lodge

HangarFlying wrote:
Starglim wrote:

Maybe multi-weapon fighting is pertinent. How would it work if we answered thusly:

Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No, because you're using multi-weapon fighting. Your primary hand and off-hand are in use. Your attack with armour spikes is an additional off-hand attack.

This would make the armour spike attack possible and supported by the rules - just a very, very poor choice.

Though, to multiweapon fight, you need to have three or more arms.

You only need three or more hands (not arms, if you're a gug) to qualify for the Multiweapon Fighting feat. As with two-weapon fighting, you might be able to attempt more off-hand attacks simultaneously if you're wielding suitable weapons, but you have no way to mitigate the -10 penalty to each one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Would not any attack with a two handed weapon during flurry eat up two attacks?

So, a Monk could only make one attack with a two handed weapon during flurry.


Does this ruling apply to Blade Boots, Boulder Helm and the like?

Also, can you TWF with a 1hander/shield/armor spikes?

Liberty's Edge

PDT, just wanted to say thanks for the ruling!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If two weapon fighting requires hand use, then can any non-hand weapon be used during two weapon fighting?

Can you hold weapons in both hands, but only attack with one, and then a non-hand weapon, like Armor Spikes?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

PDT: how did you get from:-

Quote:

Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an off-hand attack with the spikes?

When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.

If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you're using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. ****In these latter two cases, you're assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armour spikes.****

Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8-10 in the Player's Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don't get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand. You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you're already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor
spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes.

...to your ruling today, based on exactly the same rules?

Liberty's Edge

Starglim wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Starglim wrote:

Maybe multi-weapon fighting is pertinent. How would it work if we answered thusly:

Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No, because you're using multi-weapon fighting. Your primary hand and off-hand are in use. Your attack with armour spikes is an additional off-hand attack.

This would make the armour spike attack possible and supported by the rules - just a very, very poor choice.

Though, to multiweapon fight, you need to have three or more arms.
You only need three or more hands (not arms, if you're a gug) to qualify for the Multiweapon Fighting feat. As with two-weapon fighting, you might be able to attempt more off-hand attacks simultaneously if you're wielding suitable weapons, but you have no way to mitigate the -10 penalty to each one.

The reason why a human can only get one off-hand attack is because it is predicated on them having only two arms (obviously there are exceptions for those guys who lost an arm...but generally speaking). They don't get extra off-hand attacks for their legs or head or whatever. Before BBT jumps in, I'm not saying the off-hand attacks HAVE to be made with the hands, the hands just tell us how many attacks they get.

A creature with three or more arms would be able to make one primary attack and then a number of off-hand attacks for the remaining number of arms. The multiweapon fighting feat merely reduces the penalties...it doesn't grant the ability. Much like two-weapon fighting feat only reduces the penalties not granting the ability.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is no current rules that support today's ruling.

Really, the altering of the strength to damage whilst two weapon fighting with two handed weapons would not drastically change things, and come from no where.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

PDT: how did you get from:-

Quote:

Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an off-hand attack with the spikes?

When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.

If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you're using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. ****In these latter two cases, you're assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armour spikes.****

Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8-10 in the Player's Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don't get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand. You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you're already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor
spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes.

...to your ruling today, based on exactly the same rules?

Malachi, what are you quoting? Is that from the FAQ? If so, is it still in the FAQ?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Is arms the qualifier, and limiter now?

Grand Lodge

HangarFlying wrote:
The reason why a human can only get one off-hand attack is because it is predicated on them having only two arms (obviously there are exceptions for those guys who lost an arm...but generally speaking).

But I think it's predicated on them wielding a weapon in their primary hand and another in their off-hand. If the same human has weapons ready to make more attacks (as he does, because he threatens with his armour spikes) the "Normal" condition for MWF applies:

Multiweapon Fighting wrote:
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

Dark Archive

Starfinder Superscriber

This ruling seems like it was made to just restrict what 'legal' characters can do with a 2 handed weapon and armored spikes. I've had characters in home campaigns for the last 13 years using a 2 handed weapon, wearing heavy armor, and using spiked armor for my extra attacks with 2 weapon fighting. This ruling today won't change that in my home group. It will make my PFS character I have illegal and I won't play him anymore.


Does anyone want to do DPR calcs to see if TWFing with a 2HW + Armor Spikes is as overpowered as SKR's comment seems to imply?

Liberty's Edge

Starglim wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
The reason why a human can only get one off-hand attack is because it is predicated on them having only two arms (obviously there are exceptions for those guys who lost an arm...but generally speaking).

But I think it's predicated on them wielding a weapon in their primary hand and another in their off-hand. If the same human has weapons ready to make more attacks (as he does, because he threatens with his armour spikes) the "Normal" condition for MWF applies:

Multiweapon Fighting wrote:
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

The number of off-hand attacks is predicated on how many hands he has. He could be armed with a longsword, short sword, and armor spikes, he only gets two attacks (one primary and one off-hand). He doesn't get three attacks (one primary and two off-hand).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, Pirates with a missing hand cannot two weapon fight, at all?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
There is no current rules that support today's ruling.

That is how a lot of the FAQs seem to work. Expect no errata.

Third response I've seen today that raises more questions than answers, actually.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Does this apply to ranged weapons?

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does this apply to ranged weapons?

Nothing in the Two-Weapon Fighting section specifies melee weapons. edit: However, the only two-handed ranged weapons are two-handed melee weapons that are thrown, so this FAQ applies to them only in .. limited circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The aim they seem to be going for should end thusly:

Main-hand and off-hand: Toss these terms out; they are stupid and confusing.

Primary Attack and Secondary Attack will be used instead.

A Primary Attack adds 1.5 strength to damage if utilizing a weapon that is held in both hands. If so, you cannot make a secondary attack.

Otherwise a Primary Attack adds your strength to damage, and a Secondary Attack adds half your strength to damage.

Normally these attacks made with weapons in your hands, but they need not be.

Ranged Weapons: Attacks with thrown weapons are treated normally. Attacks with projectile weapons (bows, crossbows, etc) do not normally add your strength to damage.

I am sure the language above could be cleaned up a bit.

Edit: A slight change to the above house rule (or what should be errata) would allow TWF with a two-handed weapon, but you'd only get a 1.0 strength bonus rather than 1.5.


Bearded Ben wrote:
Does anyone want to do DPR calcs to see if TWFing with a 2HW + Armor Spikes is as overpowered as SKR's comment seems to imply?

I actually did this many months back, when I made the following post:

MechE_ wrote:
...I don't think armor spikes and a two handed weapon breaks the game. You are taking a -2 to each and every attack that you make in order to get the extra attacks with an off handed weapon that get significantly less benefit from both your strength bonus and power attack. The strength bonus is made up eventually with double slice, but that's at later levels. Also, you have to keep pumping dex to keep two weapon fighting relevant and if you had instead put that into strength of Con, you'd generally have a better character. Based on the opportunity cost of two-weapon fighting, I tend to think that it's more of a trap than people realize when compared to grabbing a two hander, picking up power attack, and spending your feats on things to round out your fighter (iron will comes to mind). I do, however, love the flavor of the two-weapon fighter and think that the best way to pull it off is with a Ranger so that you can skip the dex pre-req requirements, but this makes you more of a glass cannon due to the lack of heavy armor and dex.

The result was that you do increase your DP when two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, but only by 15 to 20% or so (I don't still have the numbers as my computer died, sorry!) The thing is, it costs you 4 feats to actually be worthwhile (TWF, ITWF, Double Slice, Two-Weapon Rend) and you also have to spend extra money on the armor spikes compared to just a single two-handed weapon, not to mention the moderate dexterity investment required, though that isn't completely wasted. All in all, I think it's a bit of a trap personally as many other feats would give benefits that rounded your character out better. Devil's advocate to that statement - Fighters get lots of feats to throw around...

Personally, I'm not really for or against this one, but it did seem to come out of no where.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Altering the strength to damage during two weapon fighting would be a better solution.

Logically, and balance wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tsc... Why forbid this? It's a very flavorful combat style and not even close to being OP.

Why remove a cool and balanced option out of the game? Why impose unnecessary restrictions?

I'm honestly disappointed.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, Pirates with a missing hand cannot two weapon fight, at all?

I believe the Hook Hand is a light weapon.


Bearded Ben wrote:
Does anyone want to do DPR calcs to see if TWFing with a 2HW + Armor Spikes is as overpowered as SKR's comment seems to imply?

I did it before... The results are always the same:

2-Handed Weapon > TWF with 2 equal weapons (because of feats applying to all attacks instead of just half of them)> 2-Handed + Armor Spikes > TWF with different weapons.

I don't understand why the design team feels this combo to be too powerful. It's simply more effective than the weakest combat style in the game. Well, except for unarmed, because apparently, unarmed has to suck, otherwise, it wouldn't be "realistic".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, Pirates with a missing hand cannot two weapon fight, at all?

I believe the Hook Hand is a light weapon.

Not wielded with a hand, but replacing one.

Of course, this means they cannot even two weapon fight with a Cutlass, and a boot to the face.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, Pirates with a missing hand cannot two weapon fight, at all?

Seriously, you're deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying. It's getting old.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It's not all about you.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
It's not all about you.

Is your one-armed or no-armed pirate in response to me, or someone else?

It came right after my post, so I'm assuming that it is in response to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No.

It was something in the works for a long time.

51 to 100 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team? All Messageboards