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


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sczarni

Quandary wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
They have precisely zero impact on playing the game, because they are not rules for how a character interacts with the game world.
They just issued a FAQ based on those secret un-written rules, over-riding the RAW.

Not sure I would agree with this. The FAQ only helps you to understand the RAW more fully.

Dark Archive

I'm fine with armour spikes requiring a free hand, because I always pictured them as something you have to push or pull someone onto. However, this ruling has implications for other builds that up to now seemed okay.

Can a build with a two-handed reach weapon and Improved Unarmed Strike still threaten with unarmed strike while wielding his reach weapon? He's spent a feat, so I think it's fair that he can.

Can a character with a barbazu beard or dwarven boulder helmet threaten with it while wielding a similar reach weapon? Likewise, the feat spent makes me think it's fair that threatening is possible.

Now that's a little different from two-weapon fighting, but your ruling sets a precedent that is going to make it hard to adjudicate exactly who is wielding what and when.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not allowed to disagree?

Why must I find this overwriting of RAW totally agreeable?

When change comes, must I never question it?

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am not allowed to disagree?

Why must I find this overwriting of RAW totally agreeable?

When change comes, must I never question it?

Sure you can disagree, but you've gone beyond simple disagreement. I would argue that your point has been made.

You don't have to find it agreeable, disagree if you want to. In fact, you already have disagreed. If you want to houserule differently, you should do that. I have a list of houserules down to my toes that I actively employ at my table.

You should question it as it relates to you creating the best possible gaming atmosphere at your table. Once you've been given an answer, you should move your discussion about the rules as you would have them to the homebrew section. I post there all the time.


Mergy wrote:

I'm fine with armour spikes requiring a free hand, because I always pictured them as something you have to push or pull someone onto. However, this ruling has implications for other builds that up to now seemed okay.

Can a build with a two-handed reach weapon and Improved Unarmed Strike still threaten with unarmed strike while wielding his reach weapon? He's spent a feat, so I think it's fair that he can.

Can a character with a barbazu beard or dwarven boulder helmet threaten with it while wielding a similar reach weapon? Likewise, the feat spent makes me think it's fair that threatening is possible.

Now that's a little different from two-weapon fighting, but your ruling sets a precedent that is going to make it hard to adjudicate exactly who is wielding what and when.

There's no reason you should not threaten with all of your weapons even if you can't use them all in a Full-round action. At least according to the non-secret rules.

Gosh, that's going to haunt SKR for a long time.

My main concern with such rulings is that at times I am not sure they are always based on a sound mathematical analysis.* Though, to be fair, I suppose that's true of a number of things in the game already.

I'm sure everyone has probably made or seen a decision that they thought was a slam-dunk on what was balanced. Then later math showed them to be wrong. Or maybe I'm over-estimating the amount of game math people get exposed to. My point is that this is an easy trap to fall in. It's especially easy when something seems cool/good and is unexpected -- some DMs want to put their foot down and stop it even if they can't articulate any good reason why it would be a problem.

*At least when it is possible without needing calculus/game theory/etc. I'm not going to expect advanced mathemtics from the devs...though it would be cool if they did some.

Abadar wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am not allowed to disagree?

Why must I find this overwriting of RAW totally agreeable?

When change comes, must I never question it?

Sure you can disagree, but you've gone beyond simple disagreement. I would argue that your point has been made.

You don't have to find it agreeable, disagree if you want to. In fact, you already have disagreed. If you want to houserule differently, you should do that. I have a list of houserules down to my toes that I actively employ at my table.

You should question it as it relates to you creating the best possible gaming atmosphere at your table. Once you've been given an answer, you should move your discussion about the rules as you would have them to the homebrew section. I post there all the time.

Which brings the question:

If a FAQ disagrees with the RAW and Errata, does that make it a Paizo house rule? Sometimes it is on a 3.5 item and we can know it disagrees with the RAI.

I much preferred the 3.5 system, where was clear that the FAQ was not RAW or even rules. It was attempted explanation of the rules, but if it contradicted the rules then it was wrong.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If no one disagreed, and explained the reasons behind said disagreement, and a valid reason for change, would the Prone Shooter feat ever do anything?

It has a function now, but before, it did nothing.


If there's a rule you don't like, just houserule it.

You'll be happier.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I may.

This has no effect on PFS.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If no one disagreed, and explained the reasons behind said disagreement, and a valid reason for change, would the Prone Shooter feat ever do anything?

It has a function now, but before, it did nothing.

You're confusing real errors with deliberate design.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If it was deliberate design, then why was it different in 3.5?

Why was it unwritten?


Perhaps I missed it, but SKR's "explanation" didn't actually answer the stated question.

He explained his thought process ("These unwritten rules that drive our game design philosophy that you don't know about"), but he never really explained how this concept was broken either thematically or mechanically.

But whatevah. I've resigned myself to the fact that some dev rulings/FAQs/Erratas will always baffle and mildly irritate me.

Especially the blood drinking thing.

I can't get over the blood drinking thing.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Since 2003, when I played 3.5, no one, ever, even suggested, there was a restriction to one-handed and light weapons whilst two weapon fighting.

Were all these people fools?

Have I had the misfortune of only ever meeting, and gaming with people of the most dull of minds, unable to see something so obvious?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
If it was deliberate design, then why was it different in 3.5?

Why are there Rogue Talents? Why do Clerics Channel now instead of having Turn or Rebuke Undead? Why are there so many things that are different between Pathfinder and 3.5? If you want play with 3.5 rules, play 3.5.

Quote:
Why was it unwritten?

Most likely because they didn't think that it needed to be written down, just like how they didn't define what "cackling" is.


Vod Canockers wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
If it was deliberate design, then why was it different in 3.5?

Why are there Rogue Talents? Why do Clerics Channel now instead of having Turn or Rebuke Undead? Why are there so many things that are different between Pathfinder and 3.5? If you want play with 3.5 rules, play 3.5.

Quote:
Why was it unwritten?
Most likely because they didn't think that it needed to be written down, just like how they didn't define what "cackling" is.

These are mutually incompatible or just insane put together when you are dealing with a case of rules copied over from 3.5 word for word (or nearly so with no significant deviations).

Edit: To be clear, this is a criticism of the two ideas you've put forth here, not you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You cannot compare something that did not exist before, to something that did, and functioned the same.

Also, with identical wording.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

If it was deliberate design, then why was it different in 3.5?

Why was it unwritten?

It was my understanding that 3.5 went back and forth on this.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

If it was deliberate design, then why was it different in 3.5?

Why was it unwritten?

It was my understanding that 3.5 went back and forth on this.

I don't believe the rules ever went back and forth. People debated it a lot in the forums. The rules were known to be unclear, as they remain unclear in Pathfinder. This is actually a perfect example where unclear rules need ERRATA. Main-hand, off-hand...how does that apply to a boot knife or armor spikes? It is simply not clear -- there are many reasonable interpretations from many different gaming viewpoints.

This is, in fact, an opportunity to make the rules clear and allow creativity and combat options while maintaining balance.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm something of a rules junkie. I'd love to have a written copy of the meta-rules. I suspect, though, that they'd take up more space than the PRD does, when what they boil down to is "compare to existing rules, and apply common sense: new rules and options should not be more powerful than core rules and options without additional cost".

We are all free to interpret the PRD however we want. The FAQ is there to allow the PDT to tell us what they mean by the rules. Edge cases must be looked at case-by-case. If in doubt, go for the weaker interpretation. If still in doubt, FAQ it.

I see a lot of people on here bandying forth an interpretation of the Rules As Written that is either incredibly in-depth examination of the written word to reach a conclusion, or is an interpretation of the wording of the rule with what seems to be a single aim: to make something "better" than other options of the same mechanical cost (feats and class abilities) (recent case-in-point: the Large Bastard Sword in two hands is martial debate, which makes the bastard sword better than the long sword if they're large weapons being used by a medium creature).

I half think there should be a rule for this sub forum that goes something along the lines of: if you think you've found a rule or combination of rules that seems too good to be true... it is too good to be true.


I honestly find the whole thing fascinating. The FAQ seems perfectly clear to me. No two-handed fighting while two-weapon fighting. I guess you would say I'm not passionate about the rules per se so all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is beyond me.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You cannot compare something that did not exist before, to something that did, and functioned the same.

Also, with identical wording.

I've been playing AD&D, D&D, Pathfinder and such since the early '80s. 3.0 and 3.5 when they came out, and never in my mind did I ever consider that when fighting with a two handed weapon, could you also fight with two weapons. The rules say that "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand," since when you are wielding a weapon in two hands, you don't have an off hand, you can't be wielding a second weapon.


And yet, there is clear precedent for allowing TWF-ing with weapons that aren't even in your hands at all.

Pretty sure someone could whip up a TWF-ing build someone could use for a character with NO hands (Armor spikes + Boot Blades?).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Or Unarmed Strike and Boot Blades, or a Kobold with a tail weapon and unarmed strike. One could even have one's hands full carrying something like this.

And this raises questions about what does it mean now to have a hand free? Something things require it. Does this mean having armor spikes on a Magus impairs his ability to use Spell Combat? His "off hand" is no longer empty in a real sense. Or does this not count as an off-hand unless you try to use it? Can weapons that aren't in a hand count as a main hand weapon then?

What about Dervish Dance? Do armor spikes stop it from working? If not, does a buckler you don't use that round stop it from working?

This really just raises further questions.


I don't think it's that complicated.
The underlying logic is you should not be able to simultaneously use a two-handed weapon or use a weapon with two hands to gain the STR benefit, AND gain an attack from another source/weapon/unarmed attack/boot knife/armor spikes, etc, aside from iterative attacks. You can either fight with 2 weapons (it's not called two handed fighting after all), or with one using 2 hands.

Or even more simply, you don't 'just get' a free attack because you have spikes on your armor, or a pointy thing in your boot when full attacking with a weapon 2 handed or with a weapon requiring 2 hands to wield, unless your BAB supports an extra attack.

These kinds of things are usually called out for being 'cheese' until it's clarified. Well, it's been clarified.


You have a primary hand and an off hand.

These are mechanical terms.

They do not necessarily refer to your physical hands.

You can use your off hand to wield weapons that don't require physical hands (armor spikes, unarmed strikes, etc.), the same is true for your primary hand.

All it means to have a hand free is that you must have not used your off hand.

Using a two handed weapon uses both of your hands. That means your primary hand and off hand.

Silver Crusade

Kryzbyn wrote:
Or even more simply, you don't 'just get' a free attack because you have spikes on your armor, or a pointy thing in your boot when full attacking with a weapon 2 handed or with a weapon requiring 2 hands to wield, unless your BAB supports an extra attack.

No-one is trying to get a 'free' attack, just using the non-secret actually-written-down TWF rules to get that extra attack!


The TWF rules, but not the weapon wielding rules.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Or even more simply, you don't 'just get' a free attack because you have spikes on your armor, or a pointy thing in your boot when full attacking with a weapon 2 handed or with a weapon requiring 2 hands to wield, unless your BAB supports an extra attack.
No-one is trying to get a 'free' attack, just using the non-secret actually-written-down TWF rules to get that extra attack!

Sure. But as this clarification shows, if your off-hand attack was devoted to wielding a two-handed weapon, you don't get to make an extra attack. The off-hand has already been used.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
The FAQ seems perfectly clear to me. No two-handed fighting while two-weapon fighting.

It would be clear if the rule 'no two-handed fighting while two-weapon fighting' was, y'know', actually a rule!

A written down rule, in the actual rulebook.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Two weapon requires using a weapon in your off hand and a separate weapon in your primary hand

Two handed fighting uses both hands on one weapon.

It was unwritten for a reason.

Liberty's Edge

^ this. Though, others said otherwise because "there is no rule that says this or prevents this", I can understand why people might think you could TWF with a 2HW. If you look at it from an intuitive perspective (ie-two hands available for use), what SKR said is not outside the realm of understanding.


I personally don't have a problem with the ruling, though I don't think it was necessary and can understand why people are arguing against it. The damage potential was there, but the feat and stat investment meant you were giving up significant resources that could be used to make your character better at other things (such as not being dominated - Iron Will, I'm looking at you!)

I follow Crash_00's logic, but it is not the way things have been understood for the longest time, so this is clearly a change (sorry ciretose) to the interpretation of the Pathfinder community as a whole...

But this whole thing takes me back to my underlying concern about the way Paizo has been using FAQs to change basic understandings about the game that have stood for a long time - SLA change, this one, and many more... At least they back peddled on the Power Attack and two handed weapon being wielded in one handed weapon thing, though I think they need to remove the previous FAQ about Power Attack in One hand, unless they intend to allow it for a lance, specifically, which is IMO, a bad idea as it's a somewhat direct contradiction to the more recent FAQ...

Changing the game via FAQs often creates more issues than existed before the ruling. SLAs were a prime example of this and now there's this one, though with an arguably more limited effect. I REALLY don't feel like you should have to follow the forums on a weekly basis to stay up to date on rules that have been in place for over a decade...

EDIT: It also gives the impression that Paizo's developers are not taking a long term approach to the game, which is troubling as well...


Does this ruling imply that, when using an ability that requires a "free hand" such as Dervish Dance, Crane Style, Turtle Style, Free-hand Fighter abilities, Duelist abilities, etc., you aren't even allowed to make off-hand attacks with Armor Spikes, et. al.?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can appreciate that MechE, but you're begging the question to some degree.

Some of these rules issues may have been standard for some gamers. People argued that very idea ("you're changing how people have been playing it for years") in the Bastard Sword et al. threads. However, that ignores the very large chunk of gamers who didn't play it that way. There's an assumption that because a lot of people played it that way, it necessarily must be the correct or the prevailing method of doing it. That's not necessarily the case.

Views were pretty split on all of these, so whichever way it came down, your argument would hold value. That's why I don't think it's necessarily a good argument to change how the FAQs operate, though I certainly understand the position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dislike FAQs changing rules as well. It's actually a pet peeve of mine for companies. I feel like FAQs should be for answering ambiguous parts of the rules and that errata should be issued for actually changing any rules.

That said. This rule was/is in the category that would best be described as ambiguous. It isn't actually changing a rule, but clarifying what the rules mean. It only contradicts an older FAQ from a different game that used a previous version of the same system.

Keep in mind as well that the 3.5 FAQ wasn't actually considered RAW and the devs disagreed on it. Most regions did not allow it for organized play (Living Greyhawk).


fretgod99 wrote:

I can appreciate that MechE, but you're begging the question to some degree.

Some of these rules issues may have been standard for some gamers. People argued that very idea ("you're changing how people have been playing it for years") in the Bastard Sword et al. threads. However, that ignores the very large chunk of gamers who didn't play it that way. There's an assumption that because a lot of people played it that way, it necessarily must be the correct or the prevailing method of doing it. That's not necessarily the case.

Views were pretty split on all of these, so whichever way it came down, your argument would hold value. That's why I don't think it's necessarily a good argument to change how the FAQs operate, though I certainly understand the position.

This was not the case with the SLA change, was it? How many people thought SLAs qualified you for prestige classes or feats even before they started the SLA FAQs a few months back? Everyone I've talked to (~10 players) all felt that they did not, so this one is a change. Also, with this one, there was strong rules precedent set that when no Paizo ruling existed, revert back to 3.5e rulings - Paizo's own developers have said this before. This was what people were doing for two-handed weapons and armor spikes being used in TWF...


Kazaan wrote:
Does this ruling imply that, when using an ability that requires a "free hand" such as Dervish Dance, Crane Style, Turtle Style, Free-hand Fighter abilities, Duelist abilities, etc., you aren't even allowed to make off-hand attacks with Armor Spikes, et. al.?

Yes, I said it raises these questions above. It goes further.

Does it mean that you can't two-weapon fight with a Longsword and Armor Spikes while using a shield? How does it impact people with multiple arms? Since SKR indicated there are exceptions for some races, what other exceptions are there?

There are actually a lot of questions this raises, since it is based on secret rules we can't see and are just hinted at.

Honestly, I view this as another nail in the coffin of the practical use of the FAQ. It just changes the rules and raises further questions far too often.


My problem with this ruling is that it unnecessarily removes a balanced option from the game. Why do that?

Having more options is always preferable to having less of them. It encourages creativity and innovation, both of which are great to attract new players and keep veterans interested.

I could understand if it were an incredibly powerful combo, but it isn't. It's about as effective as TWFing with 2 equal weapons, and that's not even the most powerful combat style in the game (single 2-handend weapon and archery still overshadow all sorts of TWF).

IMHO, "this combo is slightly more effective than an incredibly weak combat styçe (TWFing with 2 different weapons)" is a terrible reason to nerf/ban something.

2-Handed + Armor Spikes has been possible ever since 3.5. Or at the very least, I've never seen a gaming group that thought otherwise. It's very flavorful and it's completely balanced, so why ban it?

Sean explained the logic behind this ruling, but he didn't really explain why this ruling was made.

Character customization is one of the greatest strengths of pen-and-paper RPGs, so I'm always sad to lose balanced options.

Liberty's Edge

Kazaan wrote:
Does this ruling imply that, when using an ability that requires a "free hand" such as Dervish Dance, Crane Style, Turtle Style, Free-hand Fighter abilities, Duelist abilities, etc., you aren't even allowed to make off-hand attacks with Armor Spikes, et. al.?

What do you think a free hand means?

Liberty's Edge

Abadar wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
They have precisely zero impact on playing the game, because they are not rules for how a character interacts with the game world.
They just issued a FAQ based on those secret un-written rules, over-riding the RAW.
Not sure I would agree with this. The FAQ only helps you to understand the RAW more fully.

Or the RAW has always been clear, if you don't add things to it that aren't there...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This really shouldn't come as a surprise, guys. I know a lot of you have seen this post from two years ago.

Looks like Jason, et al finally got around to looking into the issue more.

At PaizoCon, I learned that when it comes to the FAQs, Jason is much more interested in answering how the rules work given the rules, and prefers to keep changes to a minimum so that more people are playing 'the same game'. This is opposed by the idea of changing the rules to reflect what they had meant, since that slightly fractures the community.

This revelation shines a new light on this FAQ, as it means that my knowledge of the rules was incomplete if Mr. Jason "I'm The Lead Designer Of Pathfinder" Buhlman says something that I'm not seeing. And I love learning new things about the system. It'll help me adjuciate ambiguous situations in the future (but not how to spell that damn word), and it'll help me grow as a designer.

Me? I'm loving reading about all these unwritten rules of the game. It means that they are Sort Of Written now, and if people wonder, I can show them what the designers are thinking. So, many thanks for that, Sean.

For others wondering, here are some other unwritten rules, in a thread surprisingly a lot like this one.

And another one is that items over 200,000 gp are artifacts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing keeps you from using Armor Spike and Two Handed Weapons. You are prevented from Two weapon fighting with armor spikes and two handed weapons.

Two weapon fighting with two handed weapons is not balanced. You get a higher damage die for the weapon and you get an extra .5 Str damage.

This is clearly superior to every other form of two weapon fighting. How is that balanced?

The only time those other two weapon fighting styles have a chance to catch up is later in levels when plenty of feats and options have allowed them to capitalize on using two of the same weapon (or two weapons from the same weapon group at least).

However, that reasoning completely ignores the fact that they balance at starting levels first.

I'm in the opposite boat. I've never seen a group that does allow it. My entire region in LG was banned from using it despite the FAQ claim, because the FAQ changed the rules.


ciretose wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Does this ruling imply that, when using an ability that requires a "free hand" such as Dervish Dance, Crane Style, Turtle Style, Free-hand Fighter abilities, Duelist abilities, etc., you aren't even allowed to make off-hand attacks with Armor Spikes, et. al.?
What do you think a free hand means?

Well, I would normally think a free hand means just what it says on the tin. But if you can't fight with Armor Spikes that aren't wielded in hands along with a 2-h weapon which occupies both your hands, that has certain ramifications if the mere act of using an off-hand weapon "occupies" your otherwise free hand in a mechanical fashion for the sake of balance. What I think a free hand means doesn't have much bearing on the question I'm asking; I'm asking what the PDT thinks a free hand means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crash_00 wrote:

Nothing keeps you from using Armor Spike and Two Handed Weapons. You are prevented from Two weapon fighting with armor spikes and two handed weapons.

Two weapon fighting with two handed weapons is not balanced. You get a higher damage die for the weapon and you get an extra .5 Str damage.

This is clearly superior to every other form of two weapon fighting. How is that balanced?

The only time those other two weapon fighting styles have a chance to catch up is later in levels when plenty of feats and options have allowed them to capitalize on using two of the same weapon (or two weapons from the same weapon group at least).

However, that reasoning completely ignores the fact that they balance at starting levels first.

- At 1st level, the difference is 1~2 points of damage. Even less, if the guy TWFing with 2 shortswords grabs Weapon Focus. That's hardly overpowering.

- Armor Spikes only deal piercing damage (which is the least useful type of melee damage) and are tied to an specific armor. Found a +2 armor without armor spikes? Tough luck. You either give up your loot or your TWF feats.
- At 1st level, when cash is tight, Greatsword + Armor Spikes costs 100gp, while 2 shortswords cost 20gp. Beyond first level, weapon specific feats and class features (such as Improved Critical, Weapon Specialization and Weapon Training) more than balance the 0.5 Str advantage.
- Weapon Specific feats only apply to half of your attacks.
- A single 2-handed weapon is still superior to all forms of TWF (including 2-handed + armor spikes and TWFing with 2 similar weapons) and it requires less feats and lower Dex scores. Should we ban 2-handed weapons as well?
- It's a flavorful combo, and any numerical advantage it might have over any other TWF is minimal. TWF is a weak combat style, why ban something that is barely better than its weakest combination?
- Having more options is better than having less options.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It means that a standard race has two "Hands".

If you use both of them to attack, you can add 1.5 strength.

If you use both of them to attack, you take a penalty on both attacks, and one becomes an off hand and counts for only .5 strength, which adds up to...you guessed it, 1.5 being strength being added.

If you use one to attack and one to hold a shield, one attacks and one holds a shield.

And if you have a free hand, you don't use one of your hands.

Hands are not actually your hands. If I decide to kick you twice, or kick you once and then headbutt you, etc...I don't have two additional attacks with my actual hands.

People thought they found a way around this. Now people are made because they are being told that is a loophole, not an intended use.

Which anyone who thought about double weapons not getting two-handed bonus despite being used with two hands, should have realized.

If you think something gives you a bonus with no penalty or trade off, you are probably reading it wrong.

Liberty's Edge

@Lemmy - You still have the options. The options just aren't better than other options.

Armor spikes allow you to use a reach weapon and still threaten or attack next to you.


ciretose wrote:

@Lemmy - You still have the options. The options just aren't better than other options.

Armor spikes allow you to use a reach weapon and still threaten or attack next to you.

An option that sucks is not really an option.


ciretose wrote:

@Lemmy - You still have the options. The options just aren't better than other options.

Armor spikes allow you to use a reach weapon and still threaten or attack next to you.

I have one less option than I had before. I never said this FAQ removed all options from the game.

And why do I have one less option? Because it was better than TWFing with a longsword and a shortsword? If that's the reason, pretty much every combat style ever should be banned as well.


Cheapy wrote:

This really shouldn't come as a surprise, guys. I know a lot of you have seen this post from two years ago.

WOW!!

So the longspear + armor spikes is out too, that would really be terrible for martials.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Lemmy - You still have the options. The options just aren't better than other options.

Armor spikes allow you to use a reach weapon and still threaten or attack next to you.

An option that sucks is not really an option.

It doesn't suck. It can't be disarmed, gives attacks in grapple without and it covers a gap in a reach weapon build.

It just isn't able to be used in a way unlike anything else in the game, which doesn't mean it isn't still useful.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Lemmy - You still have the options. The options just aren't better than other options.

Armor spikes allow you to use a reach weapon and still threaten or attack next to you.

I have one less option than I had before. I never said this FAQ removed all options from the game.

And why do I have one less option? Because it was better than TWFing with a longsword and a shortsword? If that's the reason, pretty much every combat style ever should be banned as well.

No you have the same options.

One of those options, however, is no longer acting differently than every other item in the game, providing a bonus that no other option permits.

It was a rather ridiculous option to start with, to be honest. I swing my sword with two hands then chest bump...

151 to 200 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