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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

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

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

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

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

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

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


There is nothing prohibiting it by RAW.

Are you asking specifically for how they rule in PFS? Because PFS has a TON of their own houserules that people on here seem to constantly confuse for "RAW."


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not asking how it rules in PFS. That question has already been asked. The answer was to ask the design team.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is no requirement for a free hand to use Armor Spikes.

You do not even need arms at all.

A Naga could two-weapon fight with an Unarmed Strike, or Dwarven Boulder Helmet, and Armors Spikes.

So, whether your hands are wielding a two-handed weapon, or you don't have hands, you can fight with Armor Spikes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You can use a 2-hander weapon and armor spikes, as armor spikes don't use a specific limb.

A 2-hander weapon and a shield has at least 1 problem:

PRD wrote:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

So you can't get all your iterative attacks using your sword with two hands and then all your iterative attacks with the shield.

You need to do shield or sword at your higher bonus, and then the weapon in your other hands at your higher bonus; followed by the attacks at yous next higher bonus and so on.

RAI, from what I have seen in the posts of the Devs around the board, if you have attacked with a limb at a specific bonus, you can't use the same limb to make another attack at the same bonus with a different weapon (barring special abilities explicitly mentioned by the rules).

I.e. if you have used your two arms in your first iterative attack, you can't use one of those arms to make another attack using the first iterative attack bonus.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no requirement for a free hand to use Armor Spikes.

You do not even need arms at all.

A Naga could two-weapon fight with an Unarmed Strike, or Dwarven Boulder Helmet, and Armors Spikes.

So, whether your hands are wielding a two-handed weapon, or you don't have hands, you can fight with Armor Spikes.

The OP real question isn't about using armor spikes, but about this:

Mahtobedis wrote:
I am planning a TWF build with a sword and shield where I hit with my sword two handed and then quickdraw a quickdraw shield (from Ultimate Equipment) to bash with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As gm, I would slap anyone who suggested using a 2-hander and armor spikes at the same time.
That is Elastic Tape Measure Award territory in my opinion.
As I read them, the armor spike rules forbid it anyway

I would perhaps allow the suggested idea (attack with a 1 hander in 2 hands then quick draw the shield) per Rule of Cool.


It all goes back to the core issue of "expected available attacks". If you're Bab +6 and wielding a 2-hander, you get 2 "expected available attacks"; one at +6, the other at +1. If you're at Bab +6 and wielding two weapons with the TWF feat and light offhand, you get 3 "eaa", +4/+4/-1. The expectation is that you get one attack per arm, but you can replace an arm with an alternative form of attack (ie. kick, boot blade, barbados beard, bolder helm, armour spikes, etc). You're still limited by the number of arms you have according to, iirc, JB. So if both your hands are occupied wielding a 2-h weapon, you're not supposed to get any off-hand attacks, barring exceptional circumstances. The problem is that there's no RAW to support this; at least not yet. Furthermore, it doesn't really make any sense. Wielding a 2-h sword shouldn't interfere with an "off-hand" kick or boot-blade swipe any more than a 1-h sword should.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just faq it and move on.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

It depends on 'is' Diego. The part that gets me is: "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest." This is a seperate sentence than "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first."

So the question is "Can I go +11/+6/+1 with my sword, then quickdraw the shield for a +11 attack." It can be read either way. Sentence one saying "You can't go +6/+11/+1" doesn't invalidate "Choose a weapon to go first, attack with it, then use your second weapon."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

It depends on 'is' Diego. The part that gets me is: "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest." This is a seperate sentence than "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first."

So the question is "Can I go +11/+6/+1 with my sword, then quickdraw the shield for a +11 attack." It can be read either way. Sentence one saying "You can't go +6/+11/+1" doesn't invalidate "Choose a weapon to go first, attack with it, then use your second weapon."

I don't think it's a stretch to believe that the "bonus" referred to in "highest bonus to lowest" is the base attack bonus, as mentioned earlier in the sentence. If that's the case, then the TWF sentence is an extension of that, effectively saying "if you have more than one attack at the same base attack bonus, you can choose which attack you make first". The first rule still stands, though, that you must make your attacks from highest BAB to lowest, so it is NOT possible to go +11/+6/+1 (greatsword) followed by +11 (shield). There is absolutely nothing stopping someone going +11 (shield) +11/+6/+1 (greatsword) or even +11 (greatsword) +11/+6/+1 (shield)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"It depends on the definition of the word 'is'." -Pres. Bill Clinton.

Strictly speaking, the rule, "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the [aforementioned] attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest." TWF isn't giving you extra attacks based on your BaB so the extra attack you get from TWF isn't limited by this rule on where it falls in the sequence. So, the question becomes is there a rule stating that extra attacks from TWF are limited in how they sequence with normal Bab attacks? Even the wording for the Improved TWF and Greater TWF feats lacks any specifics limiting the order in which you take your bonus TWF attacks so, presumably, you could take your lowest-bab TWF attack from Greater first and the highest-bab standard TWF attack last since they are granted by standard abilities and feats rather than straight through Bab. Honestly, I don't find anything in the rules that strictly limits when and where you put your off-hand attacks in iterative sequence. It says you can use either weapon first (ie. you could make an off-hand attack first followed by a main-hand attack) so, it stands to reason you could make all your off-hand attacks before your main iterative attacks, or vica-versa. With that in mind, and hand-waving the issue regarding off-hand attack/two-handed weapon compliance, it shouldn't be a problem to make all your 2-handed weapon attacks first, quickdraw your shield, then make your shield bash off-hand attacks after. The only limitation is that you won't threaten with the 2-h weapon for AoOs since you don't have 2 free hands to wield it after your shield attacks (unless you drop the shield and re-grip the weapon).


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It is actually rather moot whether you can do all of your off hand attacks at the same time because the quick draw shield can be put away as a free action if you have the quickdraw feat.

Which brings me to the original question. Can you attack with a 2handed weapon and then attack with an offhand (such as armor spikes). I do hope the wonderful development team has time to weigh in on this.

Silver Crusade

Kazaan wrote:
So, the question becomes is there a rule stating that extra attacks from TWF are limited in how they sequence with normal Bab attacks? Even the wording for the Improved TWF and Greater TWF feats lacks any specifics limiting the order in which you take your bonus TWF attacks so, presumably, you could take your lowest-bab TWF attack from Greater first and the highest-bab standard TWF attack last since they are granted by standard abilities and feats rather than straight through Bab.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it

...indicating that, of all your off-hand attacks, the one granted by this feat is taken second.

Greater Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon

...indicating that, of all your off-hand attacks, the one granted by this feat is taken third.


oynaz wrote:
As gm, I would slap anyone who suggested using a 2-hander and armor spikes at the same time.

I don't really think that gms should be physically striking their players... it doesn't seem like a good way to DM.

Neither does confusing your house rules with RAW.

There's nothing wrong with striking with a two-handed sword and then striking with armor spikes. You don't need a free hand to attack with armor spikes.

Similarly one could TWF using a two-handed weapon and unarmed strikes (e.g. kicking). There's nothing wrong with this.

Likewise Paizo has embraced this idea and made many weapons like it. One example is the Barbazu beard that expressly spells out what you consider so heinous.

People tend to get bent out of shape over armor spikes. Those people should simply ban them entirely from their campaign and be done with it. The issue really is with the weapon rather than how it is used.

-James


@Malachi: Good catch. So disregard the portion on TWF extra attacks being, relative to themselves, shuffle-able. But it still doesn't seem that the extra TWF attacks have a dictated sequence relative to normal Bab iteratives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:

Likewise Paizo has embraced this idea and made many weapons like it. One example is the Barbazu beard that expressly spells out what you consider so heinous.

-James

Intersting, I had to look up the Barbazu Beard and I think you missed an important part of that weapon. The fact that the Barbazu Beard provokes attacks of opportunity with each attack that you make. I'd say this put the Barbazu Beard solidly behind the armor spikes option, essentially removing it from competition.

This said, 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 level 11 or so. Also, you have to keep pumping dex to keep two weapon fighting relevent 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.

*HOUSE RULE ALERT* In my own games, I consider armor spikes to be a martial weapon when used in a grapple and an exotic weapon used any other way. Between that and realizing the opportunity cost of feats (with the extra EWP added), my mind is at ease.


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

As you correctly linked in your post, the last we heard on this was that Jason said that "wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes." and that "We are currently looking into the whole armor spike/misc non-hand weapons and how they threaten. This was a slightly bigger issue than I first thought when I gave an off the cuff opinion." Nothing has changed since that post, although it's possible that they just lost track of their intent to look into it.

Silver Crusade

Kazaan wrote:
@Malachi: Good catch. So disregard the portion on TWF extra attacks being, relative to themselves, shuffle-able. But it still doesn't seem that the extra TWF attacks have a dictated sequence relative to normal Bab iteratives.

As is, we have to rule (because RAW could be understood either way) either:-

* all iterative attacks in order, followed by all TWF attacks in order

OR

* the highest attack with one weapon, followed by the highest attack with the other, followed by the second highest attack with the first weapon, and so on, interlacing the attacks

I rule in favour of the latter. This is because it obeys the 'highest to lowest' BAB rule, and the ImpTWF and GrtTWF feats have a requirement of BAB 6+ and BAB 11+, therefore are only gained because your BAB is high enough! Thus still satisfying the condition that attacks gained from a high enough BAB must be taken in order.

We've played it this way since the last millenium, and I never thought there was any other school of thought until I came on these threads. That said, if I sat down at your table and you ruled the other way, I'd have to agree that the RAW could be read your way.

Basically, pick a lane!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not necessarily. There's a third option where you basically queue up your main-hand and off-hand attacks in proper order, but separate. Then you perform either a main-hand or off-hand attack at any given opportunity. Say, for the sake of example, you have +6/+1 Bab and Improved TWF at -2/-2. You could do the following combinations (main-hand attacks in bold):

+4/+4/-1/-1
+4/+4/-1/-1
+4/-1/+4/-1
+4/+4/-1/-1
+4/+4/-1/-1
+4/-1/+4/-1

It still follows all applicable rules; Iterative attacks are ordered highest to lowest, off-hand granted by ITWF is the second off-hand attack used, and either weapon can be used first.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Diego Rossi wrote:


A 2-hander weapon and a shield has at least 1 problem:

PRD wrote:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

So you can't get all your iterative attacks using your sword with two hands and then all your iterative attacks with the shield.

You need to do shield or sword at your higher bonus, and then the weapon in your other hands at your higher bonus; followed by the attacks at yous next higher bonus and so on.

This actually incorrect. There is a FAQ covering how TWF is done:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

"Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):

(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MechE_ wrote:
james maissen wrote:

Likewise Paizo has embraced this idea and made many weapons like it. One example is the Barbazu beard that expressly spells out what you consider so heinous.

-James

Intersting, I had to look up the Barbazu Beard and I think you missed an important part of that weapon. The fact that the Barbazu Beard provokes attacks of opportunity with each attack that you make. I'd say this put the Barbazu Beard solidly behind the armor spikes option, essentially removing it from competition.

MechE,

I'm not asserting that the Barbazu beard is a worthwhile weapon.. it's not. It's a flavor weapon and a bit of a joke.

However, it expressly spells out the general rule there.

It's not a question about what is optimal as frankly, none of these are optimal. As you note the DEX and Feat investment make TWFing a poor choice in general without something like sneak attack or significant extra damage per attack behind it.

Rather it is a question about what the core rules are. And armor spikes bother people to the extent that many allow their vision of the RAW to become clouded and confused on this subject.

-James


Serum wrote:
This is so weird. The PFS devs have said that this question needs to be answered on the Rules board, and yet, the answer seems so obvious that I doubt the devs would even bother doing anything but saying "no answer required".

Wait, so what is the answer then if you think there is "no answer required." Because...

Cheapy wrote:
The last we heard on this was that Jason said that "wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes." and that "We are currently looking into the whole armor spike/misc non-hand weapons and how they threaten. This was a slightly bigger issue than I first thought when I gave an off the cuff opinion." Nothing has changed since that post, although it's possible that they just lost track of their intent to look into it.

So it seems like the answer currently is that it works by RAW, but is under review. Thus an answer to this thread would likely be to clarify this up with the a FAQ on what is and is not allowed.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 12 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon.

That FAQ is just clarifying that you can choose either 2 attacks with the sword and 1 with the mace or 2 with the mace and 1 with the sword—it wasn't implying anything about the order in which you had to take them.

The "do them in order highest to lowest" rule only applies to attacks with that hand. In other words, if you're +11/+6/+1, you have to do +11 before you do +6, and have to do +6 before you do +1.

The rules don't actually state or care whether you start with your main hand or your offhand, just as long as each hand's "in order highest to lowest" rule is followed.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon.

That FAQ is just clarifying that you can choose either 2 attacks with the sword and 1 with the mace or 2 with the mace and 1 with the sword—it wasn't implying anything about the order in which you had to take them.

The "do them in order highest to lowest" rule only applies to attacks with that hand. In other words, if you're +11/+6/+1, you have to do +11 before you do +6, and have to do +6 before you do +1.

The rules don't actually state or care whether you start with your main hand or your offhand, just as long as each hand's "in order highest to lowest" rule is followed.

Sean, to clarify, Are you saying that an attack sequence of 11M/11Off/6M/6Off/1M is actually valid?

My understanding was that it would have to be
11M/6M/1M and then 11off/6off.

I'm just trying to verify that maybe I wasn't making one point and you misunderstood me to be making another. Obviously which weapon is your main and which your off doesn't matter, since you could choose either weapon to start your attack routine unless something stated otherwise.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Could we maybe take this thread back to original topic? While learning the order which I can make my attacks while TWF is very educational, I would still really like to know if the design team has an official stance on making off hand attacks if you are also fighting with a 2 handed weapon. Such as if you are using armor spikes and a great axe.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Sean, to clarify, Are you saying that an attack sequence of 11M/11Off/6M/6Off/1M is actually valid?

There's nothing in the rules that says "you have to take all your main hand attacks, then all your offhand attacks," so yes, that's a valid attack sequence.


Mahtobedis wrote:
Could we maybe take this thread back to original topic? While learning the order which I can make my attacks while TWF is very educational, I would still really like to know if the design team has an official stance on making off hand attacks if you are also fighting with a 2 handed weapon. Such as if you are using armor spikes and a great axe.

I too would like to know this, as my glaive wielding fighter has just obtained a set of spiked armor. I have yet to use it in a session and should probably know how to do it right...

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This post is a smidge dated (though armor spikes were an established thing and nothing has changed in that regard), but it seems to indicate that they do not intend for you to be able to TWF with a two-handed weapon:

Jason Buhlman wrote:

This is kinda like asking for a character that can use Two-Weapon Fighting, but one of the weapons needs to be a two handed weapon.

Not going to happen right now.. lets stay on course for the time being.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

For what it's worth.


Nothing stopping my +6/+1 fighter from smashing someone 10' away with his glaive, then 5' stepping closer and using the iterative attack with his spiked armor though correct?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BuzzardB wrote:
Nothing stopping my +6/+1 fighter from smashing someone 10' away with his glaive, then 5' stepping closer and using the iterative attack with his spiked armor though correct?

You can totally do that.

Also, nothing actually prevents you from full on two weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon, and Armor Spikes.

They have already created a number of handless weapons, and anyone can make an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack.

Of all that is available, picking on Armor Spikes just seems silly.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
BuzzardB wrote:
Nothing stopping my +6/+1 fighter from smashing someone 10' away with his glaive, then 5' stepping closer and using the iterative attack with his spiked armor though correct?

You can totally do that.

Good, this will be oodles of fun.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Of all that is available, picking on Armor Spikes just seems silly.

What you got in mind? Also, what do you dislike about armor spikes?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

BuzzardB wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
BuzzardB wrote:
Nothing stopping my +6/+1 fighter from smashing someone 10' away with his glaive, then 5' stepping closer and using the iterative attack with his spiked armor though correct?

You can totally do that.

Good, this will be oodles of fun.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Of all that is available, picking on Armor Spikes just seems silly.

What you got in mind? Also, what do you dislike about armor spikes?

He's saying that he believes that there are other weapons which can be used to fight in conjunction with a Two-Handed Weapon (the Barbazu Beard, for example, specifically says it can be, but it is also a terrible weapon), and Armor Spikes shouldn't be singled out as not working.

There was a thread about a mile long not terribly long ago where people went back and forth about whether or not you could TWF while wielding a two-handed weapon, but nothing ever really came of it. I think the post I linked in is the closest thing to a dev comment on the subject anyone's gotten.


Ssalarn wrote:
BuzzardB wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
BuzzardB wrote:
Nothing stopping my +6/+1 fighter from smashing someone 10' away with his glaive, then 5' stepping closer and using the iterative attack with his spiked armor though correct?

You can totally do that.

Good, this will be oodles of fun.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Of all that is available, picking on Armor Spikes just seems silly.

What you got in mind? Also, what do you dislike about armor spikes?

He's saying that he believes that there are other weapons which can be used to fight in conjunction with a Two-Handed Weapon (the Barbazu Beard, for example, specifically says it can be, but it is also a terrible weapon), and Armor Spikes shouldn't be singled out as not working.

There was a thread about a mile long not terribly long ago where people went back and forth about whether or not you could TWF while wielding a two-handed weapon, but nothing ever really came of it. I think the post I linked in is the closest thing to a dev comment on the subject anyone's gotten.

Oh I see, gotcha. I missed the "on" part. Thought he was telling me that picking armor spikes was silly.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I love Armor Spikes.

An Armored Kilt with Armor Spikes is one of my favorites.

That's right, a steel enforced kilt with a spiked codpiece.

Totally Metal.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I love Armor Spikes.

An Armored Kilt with Armor Spikes is one of my favorites.

That's right, a steel enforced kilt with a spiked codpiece.

Totally Metal.

Kinda reminds of the tiefling character from the Pathfinder books by Dave Gross. He wears a spike codpiece in case anyone tries to knee him in the jewels.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Now, you can imagine a swing with the sword, with a thrust with the Spikes.

Fits RAW, and thematically.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, you can imagine a swing with the sword, with a thrust with the Spikes.

Fits RAW, and thematically.

*shudders* I'm concerned about what your theme is in game where lewd pelvic thrusts with a metal phallus guard as part of your standard attack routine is "thematic".

Liberty's Edge

Ssalarn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, you can imagine a swing with the sword, with a thrust with the Spikes.

Fits RAW, and thematically.

*shudders* I'm concerned about what your theme is in game where lewd pelvic thrusts with a metal phallus guard as part of your standard attack routine is "thematic".

Perhaps some themes more than others.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

ciretose wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, you can imagine a swing with the sword, with a thrust with the Spikes.

Fits RAW, and thematically.

*shudders* I'm concerned about what your theme is in game where lewd pelvic thrusts with a metal phallus guard as part of your standard attack routine is "thematic".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBHONx9vTtI.

I refuse to click any link posted as a response to what I said in that post.

j/k

Liberty's Edge

Ssalarn wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, you can imagine a swing with the sword, with a thrust with the Spikes.

Fits RAW, and thematically.

*shudders* I'm concerned about what your theme is in game where lewd pelvic thrusts with a metal phallus guard as part of your standard attack routine is "thematic".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBHONx9vTtI.

I refuse to click any link posted as a response to what I said in that post.

j/k

But I finally fixed it! :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, you can imagine a swing with the sword, with a thrust with the Spikes.

Fits RAW, and thematically.

*shudders* I'm concerned about what your theme is in game where lewd pelvic thrusts with a metal phallus guard as part of your standard attack routine is "thematic".

There are quite a number of 16th century Armors with very pronounced codpieces, some quite pointy.

Henry VII had a suit of armor with such a codpiece.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, you can imagine a swing with the sword, with a thrust with the Spikes.

Fits RAW, and thematically.

*shudders* I'm concerned about what your theme is in game where lewd pelvic thrusts with a metal phallus guard as part of your standard attack routine is "thematic".

There are quite a number of 16th century Armors with very pronounced codpieces, some quite pointy.

Henry VII had a suit of armor with such a codpiece.

On the other hand, there has been much discussion about the true implication of the Fisher Kings groin wound that would not heal...

Silver Crusade

'Is that a barbezu codpiece, or are you just pleased to see me?'

'Dammit, Janet!'

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

22 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qv3

Armor Spikes: 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.
Edit: Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.


Thanks!

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why?

How?

What?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Wow. It would have been helpful to have some rationale behind that, otherwise it's hard to generalize from "No". For example, if my character has a long spear, can he use TWF to jab with the spear at someone 10' away and kick some guy next to him? Can a barbarian with a two-handed sword use TWF to headbutt the guy he's fighting? None of those attacks involve armor spikes. Is the "No" just for armor spikes or any application of TWF and a two-handed weapon?


I can offer an explanation - at least, based on the line of thought that immediately came into my mind:

Two-handed weapons tend to be heavier or more unwieldy. In order to accurately swing the weapon with both force and aim, it requires 'putting your torso into it' - meaning that said 'limb' (your torso) is occupied.

Or...

...it could purely be a kludge for balance purposes.


But it never suggested a 'limb' association for Armor Spikes. There still isn't one.
They are just saying you can't 2WF with it and a 2H weapon simultaneously
(but could still use normal iteratives for different weapons, including a 2H weapon and armor spikes).

If the ruling is meant to be broader, e.g. also for UAS, or anything else (?) it should say so.


7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.

So, new FAQ is needed, then?

Question: Do you need a free hand to attack with armor spikes?

Spoiler:
Follow-up question: If yes, WHY?! Why the **** would you need a hand to attack with ARMOR SPIKES?!! What's wrong with you people?!

I guess?

What's going on? PF Design Team's making really horrible rulings today... They're usually pretty good, today is just...wtf? Especially this one, it utterly defies RAW. Armor Spikes don't need a hand to be used.

1 to 50 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