This is a question about a FAQ thread that confused me:
Specifically: Can a fighter with a polearm and spiked gauntlets that has "combat reflexes" use both for AoOs on the same round? The mook makes it past the bardiche but instead of stopping to engage, tries to run past to hit the squishies. He gets a punch in the snoot for his trouble.
My understanding of the thread was that the designers said "no". You pick your weapon and that's your AoO for the round. If the Goblins get inside that polearm, they can dance around you like a maypole. My GM says that's silly: Taking a hand off your weapon is a free action so punch the little bastards to your heart's content. At worst, he says, maybe it costs you two AoOs to punch him.
I'm happy with his interpretation, but I just want to know if I misunderstood the thread. What is the official rule?
Thanks.
Indeed. The combat reflexes gives multiple AoOs and I was concerned with opponents that try to move past - thus exiting more than one threatened square. Of course adjacent squares aren't actually threatened by the polearm, so the "maypole effect" comes into play. My interpretation - from what I read - is that you can't change your threatened squares in mid-round; even with a free action. My GM disagrees, arguing from both a "reality check" standpoint as well as pointing out that combat reflexes needs to have some redeeming feature to make it worth taking, and that seems like a fair one.
Emotionally, I totally agree with him, I just wondered what the Rule interpretation was in case I play with more of a rule-lawyer GM in the future.
Blackbloodtroll: I had not considered the "slots" thing. I come to Pathfinder from 2nd edition and spiked gauntlets were an industry standard. Everybody wears gauntlets to fight - at least everybody who wants to fight more than once - so wield some spikes on the knuckles. It gives you a back up weapon if you get disarmed, and looks cool as hell on your character picture. I didn't even think about how they do slots now. Thank you for clarifying that.
Excellent Answer, Isil-zha. Thank you. It looks like "Armor Spikes" are the way the system represents the old-style spiked gauntlets; it just doesn't define where the spikes are - hands, elbows, belly button, or buttocks (awkward). They seem even more useful, too. As the zombie advances on me, he triggers an AoO with my bardiche for moving from a threatened square to adjacent to me. He generates no more, no matter how many threatened squares he moves through (this represents my quick swipe at him as he runs in). If, however, he tries to grapple me, that provokes a second AoO from my spiked cod-piece (Since I have 4 AoOs from Combat reflexes). Unfortunately, that counts as a secondary weapon and I take the penalties for that. When my turn to act comes, I can use the spikes on my bottom to attack while grappled - presumably bouncing up and down vigorously. ;)
Do I understand these rules correctly?
I think you are correct but a recent ruling made clear that you can NOT use armor spikes with a two handed weapon when you take advantage of two weapon fighting if you are right that is is a secondary weapon then that might mean that you could not take that AoO.
Personally I would allow the AoO but then as GM I tend to put armor spikes on all of my NPCs.
As far as I'm aware it's only about using armor spikes and trying to get additional attacks while using a two-handed weapon. I.e. you can't twf with a two-handed weapon ever is the way I understand. However, in regards to AoO you will threaten with both a two-handed weapon and armor spike and can attack with either, even if the two-handed weapon has reach. That reach just affects the range at which you threaten.
|
I disagree with Crash here, but not for the usual reasons. : )
In order to threaten with a weapon, you have to be wielding that weapon.
This is not the case. In order to threaten with a weapon, you must be able to use that weapon to attack into that square, without taking any actions (even free actions) between the provocation and the attack of opportunity.
To use a weapon ('use' means 'attack with') you need to have the required number of hands holding it (if it requires any) at the moment you execute an attack.
The problem with the polearm/spiked gauntlet combo is that you have to let go of the polearm with your gauntlet hand in order to use it to attack. This is a free action, and since you can't attack with it without taking that free action you don't threaten with it and therefore can't take an AoO with it.
Don't forget that you can't take free actions outside your own turn anyway (apart from speaking and Snap Shot).
Armour spikes would work as they don't require you to free a hand in order to use them.
|
|
SKR defined wield as "able to make an attack with."
To threaten you have to be "able to make an attack with" it into the square.
Yes, threatening requires the weapon to be wielded by SKR definition of wield.
Mark's comment's imply extremely heavily that wielding (and thus threatening) is considered to be using a weapon (you only require hands to use the weapon).
You can say that use means attack with, but the rules never define use, and it can be taken to mean use in any manner just as easily. If use is defined as "to attack with" please point out the rules source for it.
Actually, it's p141. : )
Regardless, per the original posters question, no you don't get 2 AoO for someone moving past you. However, take improved trip with combat reflexes and just trip the mooks as they try and run past you. Problem solved.
|
|
There is no rule that says you have to 'wield' in order to threaten. The rule is that you have to be able to attack with that weapon into that square.
Granted, usually there's no difference. But being able to attack is the rule, 'wielding' is just logistics. If you can find a way to attack with a weapon without 'wielding' it then you do threaten. That's the difference.
As to the question of 'use' versus 'wield', this is where you have to use your thinky bits. Of course you could 'use' a greatsword to prop up the ceiling of a collapsing mine tunnel, and that wouldn't require any hands at all! But you know as well as I that this section is talking about 'using' it to attack.
If there were other ways to use a weapon as a weapon in the rules, like if parrying were part of the combat system, that would also fall under the 'use' umbrella, and you'd need the required number of hands on the weapon at the moment you parry.
Making a combat manoeuvre with a weapon is technically an attack roll, so 'use' meaning 'attack with' is covered there.
What is beyond doubt is that making an AoO is an attack roll!
There is no 'using' of weapons outside of attacking; between attacks you are just 'holding'.
'Wield', though, can mean different things in different contexts. 'Hold', 'attack with', 'be ready to attack with', and others. The SKR quote you posted was specifically about what 'wielding' means in the context of being able to get the AC bonus from a defending weapon, and he answered that question by saying what 'wielding' means in that context.
|
I am not sure how holding a weapon, like a Greatsword in hand, is related to wielding, and being able to attack with Armor Spikes, or other non-hand weapons.You can wield a Greatsword using two hands, but if you hold it only using 1 hand, you're no longer wielding it since it requires 2 hands to wield.
That's true, but still, it has nothing to do with Armor Spikes, or other non-hand weapons.
|
What about people with more than two hands? Like eidolons, summoners using some evolution points on themselves for extra arms, Alchemists with vestigial arms, the using the ARG to buy extra arms as your race.
Can they wield a reach weapon in one set and a adjacent weapon in another pair and use either set as needed?
|
|
Heck if anybody knows now.
It's one of those things that may, or may not, change the game, depending on who you talk to, and depending on when.
Some will gladly strut on in to tell you how crystal clear it is, and it's always been, but others will note that evidence points otherwise.
So, it may depend how many hands you have, or metaphysical hands, or points of effort, or whatever a DM feels like at the time.
You might even need a free hand to kick, or not.
Bloody haze, and no seems to agree.
I think the Clarifications should be able to help us houserule any inconsistencies. Thank you to everyone for your help. I think my GM is inclined to a lienient interpretation. He has indicated that he feels "armor spikes" are "wielded" by wearing the armor and thus threatens all the squares adjacent all the time without requiring hands. Kicking, kneeing, elbowing, and doing the hula with hip-spikes would all be included in the description of "attacking" with the armor spikes. Thus I could use one AoO to hip-check a goblin that provokes an AoO next to me as well as use my Bardiche against another that tries to move up. As long as I don't use more AoOs than my Combat Reflexes give me (4 in this case) I can use any "wielded" weapon without penalty - just not more than 1 at any time against any opponent - and no opponent can be attacked more than once for moving. If, however, a Goblin ran up to me and tried to trip me he could be attacked by the reach weapon as he moved up and then be attacked with the groin-spike as he tries to trip me, since those are separate "provocations".
Again, thanks for your help, everyone.