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


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:


I have one less option than I had before.

Technically you still have the same number of options. From what I've read this has always been against the rules in Pathfinder (or at least for the last two years).

And you still have the option to do it your way. You've lost nothing. We've all gained clarity.


At this rate the game for martial would be called falchions and longbows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


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

More like a big 2H swing and then a quick shoulder rush follow up, because last I checked it doesn't give armor spikes a concrete location they must be put on the armor.

Something that, again, is a fairly common move in fiction.

It's only silly if you make it silly.


Note that Sean expanded a bit on this ruling in the other thread. This limitation is really only for the purposes of balance for low-level characters. Once you get to mid-level and begin to get iterative attacks, you're welcome to do a 2-handed attack and then chest bump with your spiked pasties.


Xaratherus wrote:
Note that Sean expanded a bit on this ruling in the other thread. This limitation is really only for the purposes of balance for low-level characters. Once you get to mid-level and begin to get iterative attacks, you're welcome to do a 2-handed attack and then chest bump with your spiked pasties.

This is your interpretation, not the rules as they stand given the FAQ.

EDIT: And an interpretation that will NEVER be supported by the Development Team, at that.

Liberty's Edge

This FAQ is strictly a TWF deal, not an iterative attack issue. You can alternate between a 2HW and armored spikes for your iterative attacks.

My pasties twirl, will that affect my ability to use them for AoO?

EDIT: edited out SKR considering it wasn't relevant since the FAQ question is specifically about TWF.


Lemmy wrote:


- 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.

-Really depends on the build of the character. Take a human with 18 Str. Sure, he's only doing +6 base with his greatsword and a +2 base with his armor spikes compared to the +4 and +2 of a standard two weapon fighter (he's 2 points ahead right now), but let's look at his feats. Hmm...well it's mostly fighters doing this, so he'll probably have three. Two weapon fighting is a must have, so that leaves two more. What's next. Power Attack? Alright, so now he's taking a -3/-3 to hit, but he's getting a +3 and +1 on damage (compared to +2 and +1, he's now 3 points ahead). Now look at his actual weapon damage. A 2D6 weapon has an average damage of 7 compared to the 1D8 weapon's average of 4.5, now he's up 5.5 points per round.

Not a big deal really. Well let's look at it, average dual wielder with longsword and shortsword in the same boat is doing an average of 3.5+4.5+4+2+2+1=17 points if he hits with both attacks.

The fighter in this example is instead doing 7 + 3.5 + 6 + 2 + 3 + 1 = 22.5 points if he hits with both attacks. That's a 32% increase over the 17 points of damage. That's quite a bit actually.

-Or have a smith add them to the armor? Piercing isn't enough of a drawback to negate the gain. After all, Archers are considered one of the best damage dealers in the game and they deal...piercing. You can't be disarmed of them, and you get a nice little benefit when grappled.

-They really don't. On top of that, the extra .5 Str increases in value as you gain magic items and level bumps to your strength. The dex is only a major drawback if you don't roll high enough to get easily. If your have rolled high enough to get it, it's not a drawback at all. You don't need to keep pumping it past the point to get your feats. The fact that you are a MAD character is no worse that the normal two weapon fighters MAD issue. Fighters have plenty of feats. Having the option to take a -2 to gain an extra attack or two is not an issue for the normal two handed fighter.

- At low levels, rolling more dice (attacks) tends to be more beneficial than rolling one die at a slightly higher bonus. If not, the why does every archer make use of Rapid Shot?

-32% is not a minimal advantage. Likewise, it's good for THF at low levels just to get an extra attack. Extra attacks are good. Extra attacks are useful. It's so useful at low levels that, as was already said. it's a penalty to not use this style. There isn't a cost to using this style either compared to normal two weapon fighting. You get something for nothing which is generally a no go in gaming.

On that note you haven't lost a style of play. It was never a valid style of play to begin with. If your group was already using it, just house rule it in and everything is fine.


You ignore what stats he has to drop to get the huge Dex needed to have both high Dex and Str (you'd need to start with a 15, and get up to at least a 19 for GTWFing), and then the extra cash he must spend on weapons and the Str/Dex belt they'll require (if, as you say, the Str is growing) that won't go into other things (AC boosting items, Cloak of Resistances, and so on...).

This 32% extra damage, if it's to be at all possible, comes at a great cost.


At first first level, it's 32% for the price of a feat as long as you have a dex of 15. With fighters getting armor training in Pathfinder, there is no reason for them not to have a dex of 15. As far as belts of dex/str, gain that dex is also likely improving your AC with armor training. It's also improving your reflex save.

Will that 32% be maintained? Not likely. But it will still be a decent bonus up into the mid levels. It only becomes minimal once you get to the GTWF level, but at that point many people don't even bother with GTWF since it's chance to hit is so low anyway.

No, the cost is not that great. That's the reason people used it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crash_00 wrote:

At first first level, it's 32% for the price of a feat as long as you have a dex of 15. With fighters getting armor training in Pathfinder, there is no reason for them not to have a dex of 15. As far as belts of dex/str, gain that dex is also likely improving your AC with armor training. It's also improving your reflex save.

Will that 32% be maintained? Not likely. But it will still be a decent bonus up into the mid levels. It only becomes minimal once you get to the GTWF level, but at that point many people don't even bother with GTWF since it's chance to hit is so low anyway.

No, the cost is not that great. That's the reason people used it.

An 18 strength and a 15 dexterity is already 17 points spent. Since it's assumed that a level 1 character has been made using a 15 point buy, he has definitely sacrificed something big in order to have the stats you have set out.

It's ignorant and hasty statblocks like the one you have delivered that make rulings so incomprehensible to people who have actually seen a build like this in action.

It's not overpowered. It's actually suboptimal.


Crash_00 wrote:

At first first level, it's 32% for the price of a feat as long as you have a dex of 15. With fighters getting armor training in Pathfinder, there is no reason for them not to have a dex of 15. As far as belts of dex/str, gain that dex is also likely improving your AC with armor training. It's also improving your reflex save.

As a fighter that means several things. First that you have to really dump Cha if you want to have the high str, the dex and the constituion. it also means your skill points suffers or your will save suffers.

For example a 20 PB human fighter would have
18,15,14, 10(12),12(10), 7.

If you do not want taht then your str suffers and you are not doing more damage than the plain THF guy.


20 PB, Dex 15 required at 1st level.

Str: 16 (10)
Dex: 15 (7)
Con: 12 (2)
Int: 10 (0)
Wis: 12 (2)
Cha: 7 (-4)

That's for your 18 Str at 1st level scenario.

Low Con, 2 skills per level, no Cha. You could drop your Int to 7 if you want for some more points, but most DMs I know frown on having 2 dump stats.

The low Con alone is the major reason for not having a Dex of 15 at 1st level.

As well, the comparison will fall unfavorably at higher levels as compared to a solely Str focused 2H user, which is what is in question. Yes, 2H plus Armor Spikes is better than TWFing with 2 small weapons. But that's a pretty bad fighting style to begin with.

Dark Archive

Rynjin wrote:

20 PB, Dex 15 required at 1st level.

Str: 16 (10)
Dex: 15 (7)
Con: 12 (2)
Int: 10 (0)
Wis: 12 (2)
Cha: 7 (-4)

That's for your 18 Str at 1st level scenario.

Low Con, 2 skills per level, no Cha. You could drop your Int to 7 if you want for some more points, but most DMs I know frown on having 2 dump stats.

The low Con alone is the major reason for not having a Dex of 15 at 1st level.

As well, the comparison will fall unfavorably at higher levels as compared to a solely Str focused 2H user, which is what is in question. Yes, 2H plus Armor Spikes is better than TWFing with 2 small weapons. But that's a pretty bad fighting style to begin with.

I'd actually disagree with the part I have bolded, at least for fighters. Having to put twice as many feats into weapons just for 1.5x strength to your mainhand is not worth it. A fighter with two kukris will outdamage, in the long-term, a fighter with a greatsword and armour spikes.

Of course, it's a moot point with this FAQ. I just hope that fighters with Improved Unarmed Strike can still headbutt as AoOs while holding a two-handed weapon. This FAQ sets a precedent that I do not like.


This "32%" damage increase does not account for taking a -2 to both attack rolls. If you assume a 65% chance to hit (need an 8 or higher) for the two handed fighter, this drops to a 55% chance (need a 10 or higher) to hit. Taking this into consideration, you've just dropped that "damage increase" to 12%... Add in the fact that you spent a feat on TWF instead of say Weapon Focus, which would have raised your damage by 7% and you now have a 5% net increase in damage provided that you've got the required Dex...

Add in the fact that raising your Dex will cost you Str or Con (probably) and you're looking at either dealing less damage (lower Str) or being less capable of taking a hit (lower Con). Of course, the Dex isn't wasted, as Dex is a good stat, but there is a cost there.

All in all, I don't have a problem with it personally, but I also don't think the change was necessary.


MechE_ wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Note that Sean expanded a bit on this ruling in the other thread. This limitation is really only for the purposes of balance for low-level characters. Once you get to mid-level and begin to get iterative attacks, you're welcome to do a 2-handed attack and then chest bump with your spiked pasties.

This is your interpretation, not the rules as they stand given the FAQ.

EDIT: And an interpretation that will NEVER be supported by the Development Team, at that.

What exactly are you talking about? I'm not interpreting anything, I'm relaying what Sean said. See where I said "Note that Sean expanded a bit..."?

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.

Would you like to rethink that whole "NEVER be supported by the Development Team" thing?


I think we should ban TWF with 2 light weapons. You get too much of an advantage over TWF with 2 different weapons. It's OP.

Martial characters should either be using falchions or longbows. All other options should be inferior and any attempt to make them slightly better unbalances the game.

That's some awesome game balance and verisimilitude for you.


Xaratherus wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Note that Sean expanded a bit on this ruling in the other thread. This limitation is really only for the purposes of balance for low-level characters. Once you get to mid-level and begin to get iterative attacks, you're welcome to do a 2-handed attack and then chest bump with your spiked pasties.

This is your interpretation, not the rules as they stand given the FAQ.

EDIT: And an interpretation that will NEVER be supported by the Development Team, at that.

What exactly are you talking about? I'm not interpreting anything, I'm relaying what Sean said. See where I said "Note that Sean expanded a bit..."?

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.
Would you like to rethink that whole "NEVER be supported by the Development Team" thing?

Sean is not the entire Paizo Development team. He was expressing his own personal opinion in that post, which he is free to do, but the point of FAQs and the "Paizo Development Team" poster account is that developers statements are their own opinion and are NOT FAQs or Errata. My point was that the Paizo Development Team is NOT going to put out an FAQ ruling that says "You can't TWF with armor spikes unless you have a BAB of +6 or higher..." And if they do, I will be COMPLETELY stunned as that would be the silliest thing I've seen them do yet, and mind you I'm a VERY vocal critic of the recent SLA change.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
ciretose wrote:


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

More like a big 2H swing and then a quick shoulder rush follow up, because last I checked it doesn't give armor spikes a concrete location they must be put on the armor.

Something that, again, is a fairly common move in fiction.

It's only silly if you make it silly.

And you can still do that. Once your BaB reaches +6/+1


Attack fisrt with your main weapon and then use your iterative to attack with your armor spikes/unarmed strike is like a joke. Yeah, you can do that, you will suck horribly, but you can do that.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I think we should ban TWF with 2 light weapons. You get too much of an advantage over TWF with 2 different weapons. It's OP.

Martial characters should either be using falchions or longbows. All other options should be inferior and any attempt to make them slightly better unbalances the game.

That's some awesome game balance and verisimilitude for you.

I think we should ban hyperbole and sky is falling mentality from people who have loopholes closed...


Lemmy wrote:

I think we should ban TWF with 2 light weapons. You get too much of an advantage over TWF with 2 different weapons. It's OP.

Martial characters should either be using falchions or longbows. All other options should be inferior and any attempt to make them slightly better unbalances the game.

That's some awesome game balance and verisimilitude for you.

COMPOSITE longbows.


MechE_ wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Note that Sean expanded a bit on this ruling in the other thread. This limitation is really only for the purposes of balance for low-level characters. Once you get to mid-level and begin to get iterative attacks, you're welcome to do a 2-handed attack and then chest bump with your spiked pasties.

This is your interpretation, not the rules as they stand given the FAQ.

EDIT: And an interpretation that will NEVER be supported by the Development Team, at that.

What exactly are you talking about? I'm not interpreting anything, I'm relaying what Sean said. See where I said "Note that Sean expanded a bit..."?

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.
Would you like to rethink that whole "NEVER be supported by the Development Team" thing?
Sean is not the entire Paizo Development team. My point was that the Paizo Development team is NOT going to put out an FAQ ruling that says "You can't TWF with armor spikes unless you have a BAB of +6 or higher..."

Since that's not what I said, or what Sean said, I really don't know what your issue is.

They did put out an FAQ that you cannot TWF with an armor spike after wielding a weapon two-handed. That's the topic of the thread, that's what I responded to.

It is an option once you gain iteratives from BAB; until that point, you cannot wield a weapon 2-handed and make an off-hand attack with armor spikes - or in fact anything else - using TWF.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
Attack fisrt with your main weapon and then use your iterative to attack with your armor spikes/unarmed strike is like a joke. Yeah, you can do that, you will suck horribly, but you can do that.

Then don't do it. Unless your first attack with a reach weapon killed the enemy and you want to deal with the guy next to you...

You would think that the iconic martial build was a porcupine...


Xaratherus wrote:


It is an option once you gain iteratives from BAB.

Play Paladin who dump Cha and attack with unarmed strikes without Improved unarmed strikes is an option too. A terrible option like the one you describe.

Flase option is the name.

Liberty's Edge

A character who fights without an actual weapon is a bad option.

Oh noes!


ciretose wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Attack fisrt with your main weapon and then use your iterative to attack with your armor spikes/unarmed strike is like a joke. Yeah, you can do that, you will suck horribly, but you can do that.

Then don't do it. Unless your first attack with a reach weapon killed the enemy and you want to deal with the guy next to you...

You would think that the iconic martial build was a porcupine...

Of course I would not do it, that is the point an option was cut from the game. A pretty non Op option.

Present things as option when in fact they suck really hard is..., i really do not have nice word for it.


Nicos wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:


It is an option once you gain iteratives from BAB.

Play Paladin who dump Cha and attack with unarmed strikes without Improved unarmed strikes is an option too. A terrible option like the one you describe.

Flase option is the name.

I'm not commenting on the viability of doing so. I'm pointing out that:

1. An FAQ was issued yesterday that when you wield a weapon two-handed, a normal, two-handed creature without iterative attacks cannot use two-weapon fighting to also attack with an armor spike.

2. SKR expanded on this later to state that it is still an option at higher levels, once you gain iteratives from BAB, to make one of your iterative attacks with your armor spikes after having wielded a weapon two-handed.

Liberty's Edge

Many things are options in the game. Having someone walk around without a weapon in spiked armor not be a great option causes me no concern at all.

Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon fighting are separate options in a given attack sequence that are mutually exclusive (barring some feat to be named later...)

If you think either, or both are under powered fine. That is a separate discussion.


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


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

More like a big 2H swing and then a quick shoulder rush follow up, because last I checked it doesn't give armor spikes a concrete location they must be put on the armor.

Something that, again, is a fairly common move in fiction.

It's only silly if you make it silly.

And you can still do that. Once your BaB reaches +6/+1

You can also go dueling with a club. Terrible options are not really options.

You can't use armor spikes to threaten adjacent squares and you can use them to TWF with a Greatsword... Why am I using armor spikes again? They can't be disarmed? Oh, right... So how are they not totally inferior to gauntlets and cestus again?

I fail to see how removing a flavorful and balanced option makes PF a better game. Why is "1st level character with +0 BAB" the baseline for what a martial character should be able to do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Terrible options are not really options.

And yet people still play monks...

Sorry, totally being facetious there.


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.

I don't quite see a direct link from that FAQ to this most recent one.

This new FAQ doesn't anywhere state that you need a free hand to use the Armor Spikes.
Some people have gone off about how that is obvious and logical, etc, but it's still not stated.
You could very well be carrying a hill-giant size suitcase in each hand, and be able to attack with Armor Spikes. Still.
That post of Mark Moreland's also doesn't speak to being able to 2WF with a 2H weapon and e.g. Kicks (UAS).

As I see it, the FAQ is mixing up issues. The Gauntlet issue is really a distinct issue, that the hands wielding a weapon can't also make separate 2WF attacks. The Armor Spike issue is separate. It never says they require a free hand, but the ruling seems to be being made on the basis of some secret rule about 2WF itself (or the 'fundamental concepts of the game, but functionally about 2WF). Although it's not really clear how Paizo gets from it's proposed secret rule governing the maximum # of attacks/total of STR damage to it's ruling, since 'forcing' 1xSTR damage on the main-hand achieves compliance with that. That would in fact still be in line with the 3.5 FAQ on the subject, since it never discussed STR modifier for the main-hand. (that would still be a secret rule outside the RAW, though, although it would also make a solid basis for how people seem to be certain that double weapon main-hand damage works) But maybe there's ANOTHER secret rule they haven't told us about yet.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So...

Just take Martial Artist Monk dip. TWF with your great sword and unarmed strike. Eventually get a monk's robe (or is it belt now, can never remember) and have boosted kick damage. Same effect, totally legit in the rules. You even get the TWF for free (as a flurry) with no loss of BAB.

Liberty's Edge

mdt wrote:

So...

Just take Martial Artist Monk dip. TWF with your great sword and unarmed strike. Eventually get a monk's robe (or is it belt now, can never remember) and have boosted kick damage. Same effect, totally legit in the rules. You even get the TWF for free (as a flurry) with no loss of BAB.

Actually, you couldn't flurry with the greatsword, but you could do normal TWF with it and unarmed strikes (albeit at a lower BAB).


I would like it clarified whether Armor Spikes requires a free hand to use.
Mark Moreland's post did say he had spoken to Jason about it and they were on the same page.
If that's true, it means, outside of 2WF, that you can't wield a Pole-Arm and simultaneously threaten with Armor Spikes, for example
Which is something that's important to know if that's true.
Now it seems like Paizo is also making a ruling that goes beyond Armor Spikes to also cover 2WF with 2H weapon + non-hand UAS, although that isn't even in the FAQ at all
(which focuses on examples that could explained by 'hand' requirements of the weapons themselves, not any secret 2WF rules)


HangarFlying wrote:
Actually, you couldn't flurry with the greatsword, but you could do normal TWF with it and unarmed strikes (albeit at a lower BAB).

How so? I take it you believe that the Monk exception expressed in the Flurry FAQ is due to an exception for the Monk in general, as opposed to Flurry?

I would assume it's down to Flurry, since that's the topic of the Monk FAQ, but really there's no proof either way,
since Paizo didn't make clear what RAW was being over-ridden or what new secret rules were being added to the Monk.
That could use some clarification as well, if it's possible that simply having 1 Monk level changes how non-Flurry 2WF works.

Dark Archive

Are we sure that you can TWF with unarmed strike and a greatsword?

While I would love the answer to be yes, I am not sure at the moment.

Liberty's Edge

Quandary wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Actually, you couldn't flurry with the greatsword, but you could do normal TWF with it and unarmed strikes (albeit at a lower BAB).

How so? I take it you believe that the Monk exception expressed in the Flurry FAQ is due to an exception for the Monk in general, as opposed to Flurry?

I would assume it's down to Flurry, since that's the topic of the Monk FAQ, but really there's no proof either way,
since Paizo didn't make clear what RAW was being over-ridden or what new secret rules were being added to the Monk.
That could use some clarification as well, if it's possible that simply having 1 Monk level changes how non-Flurry 2WF works.

A monk can't use a great sword to flurry because the greatsword isn't a monk weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:


You can't use armor spikes to threaten adjacent squares and you can use them to TWF with a Greatsword...

They never said that. They still threaten, you can still make AoOs with them, you can use in a full attack in conjunction with a two-handed weapon at the same time. The only thing they said was no two-handed fighting and two-weapon fighting at the same time, that's it. You don't need a free hand to attack with armor spikes but you can't attack with them if you have already used up your "off-hand."


HangarFlying wrote:
Quandary wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Actually, you couldn't flurry with the greatsword, but you could do normal TWF with it and unarmed strikes (albeit at a lower BAB).
How so? I take it you believe that the Monk exception expressed in the Flurry FAQ is due to an exception for the Monk in general, as opposed to Flurry?
A monk can't use a great sword to flurry because the greatsword isn't a monk weapon.

Yes, I realize that, my question was to the "but you could do normal TWF with it and unarmed strikes (albeit at a lower BAB). " part. As implicit to my post, if it is just Flurry giving the exception, that doesn't change normal 2WF for Monks. Or are you're saying that ANYBODY could 2WF with Greatsword + UAS (since that isn't explicitly barred by the current FAQ, albeit it seems to be by SKR's posted 'secret un-written rule')? Like I wrote, whether the un-stated Monk exception is a change to Flurry only or to Monks in general is central to whether Monks could use normal 2WF + Greatswords.

I see how you could be reading the Monk UAS wording as to enable this in general " 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.", but that isn't really clear to me: the FAQ on Armor Spikes (and SKR's post on the 'secret unstated rule') don't ever mention or depend on how you are using your 'hands'. Given that the Flurry FAQ only touched on Flurry and didn't mention anything else, it seems plausible that the Monk exception is only for Flurry. Since the FAQ and the 'secret un-written rule' have no mention of the importance of 'hands', I don't see why non-Monks can't also make UAS attacks while holding suitcases in their hands, there is simply no restriction suggesting they can't. Yes, that means the Monk wording is slightly superfluous, but the rules are superfluous all the time. The Monk wording is also very weird by adding knees and elbows, but not mentioning head-butts at all. But the 2WF+2H FAQ is not dependent on whether your hands are full (although the Gauntlet example does seem to stray into that territory, blurring the issues). As I wrote, it would be nice if Paizo clarified what actual RAW of the Monk is being changed, which determines whether or not the Monk exception applies only to Flurry or in general (i.e. non-Flurry 2WF).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Furthermore, attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an AOO, so it's not equivalent to using armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet: you're balancing a positive (ability to use it with a two-handed weapon in the same round) with a negative (doing so provokes an AOO).

That just makes it equivalent to kicking someone if your PC doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike. But by the explanations about unwritten rules, it appears that description of fighting with the barbazu beard (explicitly allowing it to be used as an off-hand weapon even if the wielder has a two-handed weapon) and the kick as an off-hand weapon using TWF along with a 2-handed weapon are against the rules.

I note that none of that explanation are in the FAQ yet, thus the FAQ doesn't really address them, just the armored spikes and gauntlet (the latter of which is a much more obvious, common sense ruling - how should you be able to attack with the hand on the weapon and yet with that hand also? Obviously, you can't.). But the text in there for armored spikes really doesn't enable any one to generalize the ruling to other two-handed weapon + two-weapon fighting situations (mainly involving weapons that don't require actual hands).

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:


You can also go dueling with a club. Terrible options are not really options.

You can't use armor spikes to threaten adjacent squares and you can use them to TWF with a Greatsword... Why am I using armor spikes again? They can't be disarmed? Oh, right... So how are they not totally inferior to gauntlets and cestus again?

I fail to see how removing a flavorful and balanced option makes PF a better game. Why is "1st level character with +0 BAB" the baseline for what a martial character should be able to do?

If you only have a club, it is a better option than no club.

Armor spikes can deal damage as a separate attack in a grapple,

Gauntlets are 1d3. Cestus are 1d4. Armor spikes are 1d6...

Dude, it was a loophole most of us didn't use. Now it is closed.

You don't get bonuses without trade offs. If you think you do, you are going to have a bad time with FAQs.

I like you and Nicos, but you are acting like someone took swords out of the game...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Just because the rule isn't printed in the book doesn't mean there aren't rules that guide and limit what characters and monsters can and can't do.

For example, the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary has a table of Monster Statistics By CR. Before the existence of that book, there was no printed rule that said "a CR 1 monster shouldn't have 500 hit points." But if someone wrote a 500 hp CR 1 monster for an adventure or monster book, it would get changed or deleted long before it saw print—because some rules aren't in the printed books, but they're still real rules, and are there for the good of the game.

Are these "unwritten rules" really rules for us as players and GMs, or are they really for designer to use in designing the game? If the rule is mainly used to catch errant designs in the review and editing phase of production, then it's not really a rule for us users, is it? I suppose you could argue that the unwritten rule making a 500 hp into a CR 1 creature is somewhat discoverable by us users because it's fairly obvious 500 hp is at least an order of magnitude more than your average 1st level party's hit points, combined.

But how many other "unwritten rules" are there that aren't discoverable by us users? Would a 1.5x Strength bonus per round at first level limit (except for monks) actually be discoverable by us if it weren't explicit? I don't think so. In fact, given that some fighting styles don't even reach that limit (one-handed weapon, sword and shield) and at least one exceeds it (monk flurry), I have to question whether it was an explicit unwritten rule when the core rules were actually adapted from 3.5 (where it appears that unwritten rule didn't exist or if it did it didn't get handed down to whomever wrote the FAQs). It sounds more like an ad hoc justification.

Frankly, I'm a bit mystified and would like to see a clarification along these lines: Do you actually have to have a hand free to actually make an off-hand attack even if the weapon you want to use doesn't involve a hand?

Liberty's Edge

Bill Dunn wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Furthermore, attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an AOO, so it's not equivalent to using armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet: you're balancing a positive (ability to use it with a two-handed weapon in the same round) with a negative (doing so provokes an AOO).

That just makes it equivalent to kicking someone if your PC doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike. But by the explanations about unwritten rules, it appears that description of fighting with the barbazu beard (explicitly allowing it to be used as an off-hand weapon even if the wielder has a two-handed weapon) and the kick as an off-hand weapon using TWF along with a 2-handed weapon are against the rules.

I note that none of that explanation are in the FAQ yet, thus the FAQ doesn't really address them, just the armored spikes and gauntlet (the latter of which is a much more obvious, common sense ruling - how should you be able to attack with the hand on the weapon and yet with that hand also? Obviously, you can't.). But the text in there for armored spikes really doesn't enable any one to generalize the ruling to other two-handed weapon + two-weapon fighting situations (mainly involving weapons that don't require actual hands).

Two handed fighting and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive.

You have a primary "hand" and an off "hand".

If you use one each to attack with two weapons, you get two attacks which add up to 1.5 strength (1 from primary, .5 from off)

If you use both to attack with a single weapon, you get one attack with a 1.5 strength bonus.

If you use one to attack and one for something else (shield, free hand, etc...) you get strength bonus (1) and the .5 is lost in exchange for whatever you are doing with the other hand.

The beard is an exception to the rule, which is why, as a trade off, it provokes an AoO.

There is always a trade off.


ciretose wrote:


Dude, it was a loophole most of us didn't use. Now it is closed.

You don't get bonuses without trade offs. If you think you do, you are going to have a bad time with FAQs.

I like you and Nicos, but you are acting like someone took swords out of the game...

I just dislike when an option is out of the game without a very good reason.

You don't get bonuses without trade offs in this situation, you have to have lower str in order to have the high Dex, you have to split the money you pay to enhace your weapons, and feats like weapon focus would not be that useful.

Trust me, A dual kurkri fighter would just do more damage.

It was a loophole? maybe. It was OP? hardly. It was flavorful? at least for me yes.

I do not see any reason to ban this option.

Liberty's Edge

It was never in the game.

It was in your game.

If you want it to be in your game *poof* it still is.


Nicos wrote:
At this rate the game for martial would be called falchions and longbows.

I suppose that is the silver lining. Whenever paizo nerfs something, it's almost always something weak and horrible that few bothered to use anyway, so the impact is minimal. Monks, two weapon fighting, thrown weapons, slings... Meh. I've long since accepted that many classes, builds, or combat styles are outright pointless in PF. So long as I can still find 3E games on occasion, I'll still be able to play the stuff PF turns from weak to worthless.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
mdt wrote:

So...

Just take Martial Artist Monk dip. TWF with your great sword and unarmed strike. Eventually get a monk's robe (or is it belt now, can never remember) and have boosted kick damage. Same effect, totally legit in the rules. You even get the TWF for free (as a flurry) with no loss of BAB.

Actually, you couldn't flurry with the greatsword, but you could do normal TWF with it and unarmed strikes (albeit at a lower BAB).

Level dip in cleric, take crusader's flurry, pick a god with a great sword.


ciretose wrote:

It was never in the game.

It was in your game.

If you want it to be in your game *poof* it still is.

Of course They are still in my games (at east when i DM), it is still a bad rule though.


Sure MDT, but a Cleric/Monk dip + Special Feat wasn't being discussed, just a Monk dip was being discussed.
Crusader's Flurry is great, but doesn't help illuminate the general rules issue being discussed.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
ciretose wrote:


Two handed fighting and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive.

You have a primary "hand" and an off "hand".

If you use one each to attack with two weapons, you get two attacks which add up to 1.5 strength (1 from primary, .5 from off)

If you use both to attack with a single weapon, you get one attack with a 1.5 strength bonus.

If you use one to attack and one for something else (shield, free hand, etc...) you get strength bonus (1) and the .5 is lost in exchange for whatever you are doing with the other hand.

The beard is an exception to the rule, which is why, as a trade off, it provokes an AoO.

There is always a trade off.

There already were trade-offs. You use a two-handed weapon, you do without a shield. You use two-weapon fighting, you do without a shield and suffer penalties on all attacks.

So, why is there an AoO for attacking with a barbazu beard? Was it to be a trade-off because you were breaking the exclusivity of the two-handed/two-weapon relationship (a relationship that was never explicit in publication)? Or because the barbazu beard was expected to be a bit awkward to fight with? I note that making any attack with the barbazu beard provokes an AoO, thus it doesn't appear to be an intentional trade-off for breaking the two-handed/two-weapon exclusivity. So I think that reasoning doesn't fit the case.

201 to 250 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