|
| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are wielding a reach weapon (e.g. glaive, long spear, lance, etc.) and area also wearing armor spikes (or spiked gaunltets), do you simultaneously threaten at 10’ and 5’ for the purposes of making AoO’s?
In light of THIS FAQ answer, I'd say no. But I thought it was worth asking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you do threaten both at reach and adjacent, based on this FAQ.
What's the difference?
The FAQ you quoted is talking about simultaneously using gauntlets or armored spikes to make simultaneous two-weapon-fighting style attacks with a two-handed weapon and with their armor.
The FAQ I quoted is talking about sequentially making your attacks in your round with your reach weapon (or other two-handed weapon) and then being able to change grips after your attack(s) so that you can use armor spikes and spiked gauntlets to make Attacks of Opportunity.
That seems to directly contradict the FAQ.
I will follow the official FAQ - if the rules ever get to the point that playing this game requires reading and memorizing hundreds of thousands of Forum threads and worse, some of those threads directly contradict official FAQ rules, well, then it's time to find a new hobby. Until then, the official FAQ is enough for me.
|
|
If you must use two hands to wield the reach weapon then you cannot threaten with the spiked armor because you can't "wield" both the spikes and the weapon.And that is no where stated in the book.
But in the FAQ I linked above, it says that you can't do TWF with armor spikes because you don't have an off-hand while wielding a two-handed weapon.
How would that be any different for the rest of the round when it isn't your turn?
If you are threatening with a two-handed weapon, you are using two-hands to wield it. If you are using two-hands to wield it, where is your off-hand to use or threaten with armor spikes?
The FAQ that DM Blake linked doesn't apply, because not being able to use armor spikes when it isn't your turn to threaten, isn't a penalty. Its a function of using a two-handed weapon and not having an off-hand.
|
|
In other words, the precedent has been set:
You need an off-hand (or any hand) available to wield armor spikes.
If you wield a two-handed weapon, you don't have an off-hand.
Therefore, you must pick which one you threaten with and it would require an immediate action (not free) to make the change in interrupt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, the precedent has been set:
You need an off-hand (or any hand) available to wield armor spikes.
If you wield a two-handed weapon, you don't have an off-hand.
Therefore, you must pick which one you threaten with and it would require an immediate action (not free) to make the change in interrupt.
Therefore, Armor Spikes are completely useless and reach weapons just got a huge and unnecessary nerf... Which is why I hate this FAQ.
I can understand the "No 2H + Armor Spike TWF" thing. I don't agree, but i can understand it... But "You need a free hand to wield Armor Spikes" is a pointless restriction...
In other words, the precedent has been set:
You need an off-hand (or any hand) available to wield armor spikes.
If you wield a two-handed weapon, you don't have an off-hand.
Therefore, you must pick which one you threaten with and it would require an immediate action (not free) to make the change in interrupt.
I'm not convinced the precedent, if it is one, applies to AoO. Primary hands and off-hands, when it comes to AoO, aren't particularly important. For example, a PC could, if wielding two-weapons, attack with either as his AoO without worrying about primary or off-hand penalties. The AoO is outside the context in which those distinctions apply.
Basically, the fuzziness of this question flows from the lack of artfulness in the armor spikes FAQ and surrounding discussion. The whole issue would have been better resolved by Paizo saying that Two-handed weapons are incompatible with Two-Weapon fighting style (except, apparently, for flurrying monks) and you must use one or the other if the question comes up.
|
|
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.
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.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.
By the FAQ you can't use either hand required to wield a two handed weapon to make a melee attack. By Core, you only threaten squares into which you can make a melee attack with a wielded weapon.
Basically, you can't wield two weapons in one hand.
Mind you, that's the way I read it. I reserve the right to be wrong.
Yup, so do I, which is why I created this FAQ.
|
|
In other words, the precedent has been set:
You need an off-hand (or any hand) available to wield armor spikes.
If you wield a two-handed weapon, you don't have an off-hand.
Therefore, you must pick which one you threaten with and it would require an immediate action (not free) to make the change in interrupt.
Therefore, Armor Spikes are completely useless and reach weapons just got a huge and unnecessary nerf... Which is why I hate this FAQ.
I can understand the "No 2H + Armor Spike TWF" thing. I don't agree, but i can understand it... But "You need a free hand to wield Armor Spikes" is a pointless restriction...
I don't understand your point.
Armor Spikes were never intended to mitigate the penalties of using a reach weapon.
If you get disarmed, you still have a weapon.
If you are grappled, you still have a weapon.
If you are swallowed, you still have a weapon.
If something bites you, they can take damage because you are spiky.
NOTE: I don’t consider the use of a Bow as applicable here, even though it is a two-handed weapon. Unless you specifically are wielding it outside of your turn (for feats like Snap Shot), then you don’t need to be holding it in two hands.
NOTE2: The “off-hand” comment made in the FAQ is just another function of the abstract that is this combat system. Consider in real life how difficult it would be to be considered threatening with a spike on your knee or thigh when you have your stance set to be threatening with a two-handed reach weapon. The weight distribution is completely wrong for lashing out reactively with your knee or thigh.
|
|
But we're not talking about two weapon fighting - we're talking about whether you have the choice of which weapon to use to attack.
Do you have the choice to use the reach weapon or the armor spikes/spiked guantlet at the time of the potential AoO, or do you have to make the choice at the end of your turn (and hence that choice would be applicable for any AoO opportunities that could arise)?
As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the rules that gives a clear indication either way. This FAQ implies that you can make the choice at the time of the AoO opportunity, since it's a free action to free a hand so you can use armor spikes/spiked guantlet. That's the way I'd rule it, but that's just my interpretation.
No, my FAQ question implies the opposite of what you are saying.
a Free action cannot be done in response. And if you are wielding one weapon over the other, how would making a free action suddenly change which weapon you are wielding for the purposes of an AoO?
By the FAQ you can't use either hand required to wield a two handed weapon to make a melee attack. By Core, you only threaten squares into which you can make a melee attack with a wielded weapon.
Basically, you can't wield two weapons in one hand.
Mind you, that's the way I read it. I reserve the right to be wrong.
I agree with all parts of this - including reserving the right to be wrong.
In addition to this, it has been ruled that changing weapon grips is a free action. It has also been ruled that free actions (such as quick drawing a weapon) cannot be done off your turn (with the exception of speaking). In my mind, this removes the ability to threaten with both spiked gauntlets and with a two handed weapon.
Again, I reserve the right to be wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, the precedent has been set:
You need an off-hand (or any hand) available to wield armor spikes.
If you wield a two-handed weapon, you don't have an off-hand.
Therefore, you must pick which one you threaten with and it would require an immediate action (not free) to make the change in interrupt.
Therefore, Armor Spikes are completely useless and reach weapons just got a huge and unnecessary nerf... Which is why I hate this FAQ.
I can understand the "No 2H + Armor Spike TWF" thing. I don't agree, but i can understand it... But "You need a free hand to wield Armor Spikes" is a pointless restriction...
I don't understand your point.
Armor Spikes were never intended to mitigate the penalties of using a reach weapon.
If you get disarmed, you still have a weapon.
If you are grappled, you still have a weapon.
If you are swallowed, you still have a weapon.
If something bites you, they can take damage because you are spiky.
NOTE: I don’t consider the use of a Bow as applicable here, even though it is a two-handed weapon. Unless you specifically are wielding it outside of your turn (for feats like Snap Shot), then you don’t need to be holding it in two hands.
NOTE2: The “off-hand” comment made in the FAQ is just another function of the abstract that is this combat system. Consider in real life how difficult it would be to be considered threatening with a spike on your knee or thigh when you have your stance set to be threatening with a two-handed reach weapon. The weight distribution is completely wrong for lashing out reactively with your knee or thigh.
Or, you could just buy a Spiked Gauntlet or Cestus and have a much better weapon... And not have to buy a new one whenever you buy/loot/find new armor...
If you need a free hand to wield Armor Spikes (which makes no sense), they are nothing but a weaker version of Spiked Gauntlet...
And "real life difficulty" is a not a good argument. Even if we give magic a free pass, there are all sorts of mundane stuff that make no sense whatsoever...
As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the rules that gives a clear indication either way. This FAQ implies that you can make the choice at the time of the AoO opportunity, since it's a free action to free a hand so you can use armor spikes/spiked guantlet. That's the way I'd rule it, but that's just my interpretation.
The issue with this is that free actions can only be taken on your turn unless otherwise specified (as with speaking). That means whatever you had wielded at the end of your turn determines the area you threaten.
Don't get me wrong, I think this entire "off-hand" issue is a poor ruling by the PF devs along the lines of the Great Monk Flurrying Fiasco of 2012 [tm]. I can understand their motivations however, and it seems like the only use they intend for armor spikes is as a solo weapon or part of an iterative attack (since you can effectively take free actions on your turn to switch what is wielded if you're not drawing any new weapons).
For reach weapon combatants, the way around this is via a bite, gore or other natural weapon not on a limb occupied with a wielded weapon. Since natural weapons can be tacked on to the attack routine as secondary attacks regardless of what is being wielded, they are immune in this regard to the recently-clarified "handedness" limitation.
WRoy, I understand what you're saying, but let's look at AoO again. You can get an AoO if a foe leaves a square that you threaten
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.If you have armor spikes/spiked gauntlet with a reach weapon, you can make a melee attack at 5' because of the FAQ I linked to. That means you threaten that square, and that means you can make an Attack of Opportunity.
A little convoluted, but it appears to be RAW to me. The free action required to release the hand on the two-handed weapon is enough to allow you to threaten that square, because the threat is determined by what were you are able to make a melee attack, not by whether or not it is your turn.
I agree with you 100%, but am just referencing Mark Moreland's quote (ostensibly from a discussion with Jason Buhlman) that Nicos posted above and trying to extrapolate precisely what use the devs see for armor spikes.
On that note, does anyone know where that quote from Mark came from? A link would be nice... the threads spawned from the ruling about two-handed weapons and armor spikes being illegal for two-weapon fighting are all over the place. It's challenging to keep track of the discussion(s).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of Mike Moreland's off-hand comment, nothing prevents threatening with both.
No RAW, and no other Dev, say otherwise.
You either take to heart Mike Moreland's comment, which defies RAW, and recent FAQs, or you don't.
Trust me, this one comment is a favorite of those who like to confuse the issue.
Two-Handed Weapons prohibiting the use of other weapons is relevant for Two-Weapon Fighting only. Holding a weapon in two-hands doesn't prohibit the use of a different weapon. Using said Two-Handed Weapon could. Just standing there with a Polearm doesn't mean you can't attack with your Armor Spikes anymore than standing there with Armor Spikes doesn't mean you can't attack with a Polearm.
Two-Handed Weapons don't take priority just because they're being held. A person can hold a Two-Handed Weapon but not use it, choosing instead to make all of his or her iterative attacks with Armor Spikes. The only thing that means is that person is then prohibited from using said Two-Handed Weapon from gaining an extra attack via TWF.
How, exactly, do you "wield" armor spikes, anyways? I'm with MM on this one. It's not like you take off your armor and smack someone with it.
The thought of wielding armor spikes as an offhand weapon for normal attacks or even AoOs is crossing the river into munchkinland.
I wonder how they get away with it, anyways, since the entry in the PRD clearly says they only do damage with successful grapple attacks.
So, if you're thinking you threaten with them, I'd say sure, if you're already in a grapple. Otherwise, they do not threaten for normal AoO since the qualifier for them doing damage necessitates a grapple.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor Spikes are no more restricted by things held in hand, than a Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Barbazu Beard, Boot Blade, Sea Knife, Kobold Tail Attachment, Ratfolk Tailblade, or just a simple kick(unarmed strike).
So, the "derp, munchkin" comments are just unhelpful, mean, and unjustified.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thought of wielding armor spikes as an offhand weapon for normal attacks or even AoOs is crossing the river into munchkinland.
Really? That's munchkinland??? A guy threatening adjacent squares with Armor Spikes?
Those are some low standards for what is considered power gaming...
Actually, they are restricted. They only do damage on a grapple check. The other weapons you listed don't have that restriction. And I don't think anyone will argue that you cannot make an AoO on someone while in a grapple.
I'd say the attempt to use Armor Spikes outside those specific boundaries set in the rules is definitive justification for Munchkin comments. That's what a munchkin is.
Yes, it's unhelpful. Yes, it's mean. But it's also truth. The fact that it's been FAQ'd and still argued about lends further credence.
Houserule it or live with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, they are restricted. They only do damage on a grapple check. The other weapons you listed don't have that restriction. And I don't think anyone will argue that you cannot make an AoO on someone while in a grapple.
Nope, they automatically deal damage during a grapple, but they are not limited to being used only during grapples.
I'd say the attempt to use Armor Spikes outside those specific boundaries set in the rules is definitive justification for Munchkin comments. That's what a munchkin is.
I'd say an attempt to justify a nerf to an underpowered option is detrimental to the game.
Yes, it's unhelpful. Yes, it's mean. But it's also truth. The fact that it's been FAQ'd and still argued about lends further credence.
Houserule it or live with it.
I don't think it's true, actually...
EDIT: Nicos ninja'd me too... Sneak Attack and all...
I never said the rules didn't allow for it, I said the thought makes me think of crossing into munchkinland. So I could say:
"Why do people not read the commentary before responding with rules"?
Right back to you.
And I stand by my words. Some things are just silly, in my opinion. If you're offended by it, I'm sorry. But it won't change my mind.
Now point to the section that shows me saying "they cannot be used to make normal or off-hand attacks", instead of quoting something I was saying to someone else about how they are restricted during grapples and taking it out of context.
At any rate, I'm done. It's FAQ'd, and I agree with the FAQ. Houserule it to not exist if you want to.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a really weird, and unjustified qualification for "powergaming".
You really have go out of your way, to create conditions, rules, circumstances, imagination restrictions, and statistical evidence that likely don't exist to come to that conclusion.
Note: iThat's just my opinion, and I realize others may differ.
That is a really weird, and unjustified qualification for "powergaming".
You really have go out of your way, to create conditions, rules, circumstances, imagination restrictions, and statistical evidence that likely don't exist to come to that conclusion.
I'm going to assume your sentence should have read either "you really have gone out of your way"...
And respond to that with "things that take rulesets and bend them outside of normal, believable boundaries stink of munchkin to me".
Or that it should have read "you really have to go out of your way..."
And respond to that with "It's not that far of a stretch to me to think attacking with armor spikes is a bit far-fetched".
I don't know why spiked gauntlets, cestus, or shield spikes seem different to me, but they do. Perhaps in my gaming history, spiked armor and those other kinds of super close attacks worked separately.
*shrug* It's an opinion. It can't be refuted. It's just how I feel. Just like yours, on the opposite side of this "fence".
I still love your face, BBT, I just don't like Armor Spikes as a useable, wieldable weapon. Unless you're a Dwarven Battlerager (TM)
(Side note: Is there a class for that in Pathfinder?)
One thing is to say that some option break the verisimilitude
for you, that would be fine. Accusing someone of munchkin for attack with armor spikes when the book explicitly allowed is not fine.
This, I cannot disagree with. Blatant Munchkin Label officially redacted. Can we all hug now (hopefully without armor spikes)?
I guess my issue is the length of the spikes vs. the practicality of the armor vs. the distance possible within two adjacent 5' squares.
Given, a monster is always considered as occupying the center of his squares, but still. The length of the spikes would have to be quite significant to be able to attack in the manner written.
That's going to make all kinds of other problems with the armored spike wearer, if it in fact manifests in joints and shoulders and such, from a verisimilitude standpoint. Can you really fit through that crack if you have 6" spikes on your elbows, knees, and shoulders? Perhaps not.
Hanging from a rope while armored? Hopefully those spikes don't get in your way, get caught up, puncture your rope, etc...
I would also reference the weird method of bending limbs to be able to hit with them, but that's covered under having the necessary proficiency.
I've never really been asked to dissect the origin of my opinion, so I took some time to chew on this one a bit. I will answer, since I showed my arse, stuck my foot in my mouth, and offered insult where it shouldn't have been struck. As long as the resulting posts aren't all "your opinion is wrong and here's why", I'm good with peeling back the layers.
For length, it's about effectivity. Too short, and you might as well be using an unarmed attack. Too long, and the spikes themselves are rendered ineffectual and unwieldy. I'd peg the "optimum" length at 3-6 inches, and I'll tell you why. Distance to enemy. One of the best uses of armor there is. Kinda like empty air being the best insulator there is.
As far as believability for me, I think it's about the placement of the weapons. The ones you listed utilize a limb as the "delivery vehicle". The weapons, for the most part (with some exceptions. There's always exceptions) are at the end of the limb, where the impact is greatest due to either strength, inertia, speed, or precision of attack.
Armor spikes strike me as being at odd places. Shoulders. Elbows. Knees. Helmet. With the exception of the helmet, these are not generally at the end of their respective limbs. And, even if you say "well, at the point of impact they are", it's true, but the point of impact being at the end requires you to be in some awfully unbalanced or compromising positions to where the effectivity of having armor on in the first place would be in question. Again, due to proximity of your enemy.
So using something that strikes me as a "last ditch effort" for protection as a primary weapon starts smelling of cheese. Such is the nature of my opinion.
EDIT: Sidenote: While researching the topic, I noted that bucklers and tower shields cannot have spikes affixed. I wonder if this is simply a mechanics thing or an actual shield type and usage thing. Could be as simple as they cannot be used to shield slam or bash, I dunno. Just struck me as a bit odd...
Primary attacks with armor spikes seem to give off the air of offering both attack and defense, without sacrifice to anything but a few points of damage. Perhaps that's the attraction of the powergame crowd. And perhaps the proclivity of use BY the powergame crowd colors my opinion with bias.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Armor spikes strike me as being at odd places. Shoulders. Elbows. Knees. Helmet. With the exception of the helmet, these are not generally at the end of their respective limbs. And, even if you say "well, at the point of impact they are", it's true, but the point of impact being at the end requires you to be in some awfully unbalanced or compromising positions to where the effectivity of having armor on in the first place would be in question. Again, due to proximity of your enemy.
Several martial arts use those "odd places" to attack. Having a small spike there wouldn't get in the way if you're trained to use it (i.e.: weapon proficiency).
I've seen movie/video-games/animation/literature characters attack with a two-handed weapon then make a quick follow up with a quick shoulder slam or knee-to-the-groin...
"But this use of Armor Spikes would require IUS". Well... Yeah, but the game doesn't work that way...
Isn't it odd how punches provoke AoO and can't threaten adjacent squares without a feat, but they suddenly work nice and dandy when you use a Gauntlet? Isn't it bizarre how you can bite someone without provoking an AoO, but if you have really sharp teeth (i.e.: A bite attack) you can do it despite having no snout?
No weapon requires Improved Unarmed Strike to function, even when logic says that'd be the case. (Personally, I'd make it so Unarmed Strikes didn't provoke AoO, but that's me...)
PCs are elite warriors, not your everyday person holding a knife. We might not understand how they do it simple because we're not as skilled as them. Characters do impossible stuff all the time. They can grapple dragons and kill giants by stabbing them in their toes (and no one has any problem with the toe-stabbing combat style!).
Even those lowly first-level Commoners are close to characters in action movies than real people under effect of real-world physics. By 6th level they're already beyond what real humans can do. By 10th level, they can kick Hercules' ass.
It's not unreasonable to think that fighting with impractical weapons is not beyond what such characters can do...
On a different note, I wasn't offended by anything you said, Barry. I strongly disagree with it, but I wasn't offended... IMHO, people get offended far too easily these days. We should all grow thicker skin... Especially those who plan to use the internet.