I'm no expert, but...
Melee attack is listed as a standard action in the "Actions in Combat" table.
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack...Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.That would lead me to believe that you can use a free action as part of your attack of opportunity to adjust your grip and stance because an attack of opportunity is an action.
That with the fact that spiked armor is always being "wielded" and you can easily shoulder check someone moving past you, kick at a spell casters shin, etc. I would allow it if I was the DM.
No, you have to threaten with the weapon to take the AoO. If you don't threaten with the weapon (spiked gauntlet while wielding a two-handed weapon for example), you don't threaten, and you don't get an AoO, and you don't get to take free actions to qualify for the AoO.
On the other hand, armor spikes work fine for this. They are available to attack despite the arms being taken up.
In other words, on your action, with a BAB of +6, you could make a polearm attack followed by an armor spike attack legally, with your two iterative attacks, and not requiring a free action. This means you can AoO with both weapons.
I, at no point mentioned Spiked Gauntlets as they would not apply. I merely stated that an Attack of Opportunity is an action and can be used with free actions and armor spikes are always considered being wielded, giving examples of such.
Edit: I can see how my example for the free action might allude something else, I was just using a prior example I had read in the thread.
Melee Attack is one of the many choices you have for Standard Actions - that does not make all melee attacks Standard Actions.
I also never said that all melee attacks are standard actions, I just showed my reasoning how a AoO was considered an action by listing a similar action.
Fair enough. We're in agreement. :)
EDIT : Edited due to Edit of post responded to.
Uhm,
I did not make the second statement you attribute to me. For the first though, fair enough. We're in agreement. :)
Oops, edited. Sorry about that.
|
Nicos, in response to your most recent post:
I'm disagreeing that you could potentially be making an attack with it as my point. Saying that wearing armor spikes is wielding armor spikes is ridiculous, because just because you wear them doesn't mean you can wield them (by SKR's definition). The same rule applies to spiked gauntlet, which we've generally agreed wouldn't be available to threaten if the hand itself is being used for the polearm. Wearing armor spikes = wielding them is like saying that holding a sword = wielding it. What if I'm holding it by the blade? What if I'm holding it by the scabbard? See my point?
To those saying that you can use the Polearm +6/Armor Spike +1 maneuver without free actions, where does it say there are no free actions there? Your cited example uses two one-handed weapons. Personally, I would think that to get the necessary reach, you would need to extend the limb fully. If your hand is on your glaive (which you just used), how far can your elbow go? Not terribly far.
If you're ready to attack with your glaive, think about what you look like. What stance you are in. How far can your elbow/shoulder go? How quickly can you change posture to be able to kick?
And I agree with MDT's logic that you can't use a free action to qualify for an action not on your turn. If you need to take a free action to free your hand for a melee attack, you don't threaten with that hand until you've done so, and so can't AoO with it unless you do so at the end of your actual turn. It's like saying you can take a 5-foot step to make the AoO, which is a non-action. Feats let you do it, but you can't normally.
|
So this question was raised recently in a game that I'm running. A new character is coming in, and the player is fairly certain that if a character is using a two-handed reach polearm (such as a glaive) and has armor spikes or a spike gauntlet, he threatens both at reach and adjacent for purposes of Attacks of Opportunity. At present, given what I know of the Two-Hander/Armor Spike ruling, I'm inclined to say no, he has to choose which he threatens with at the end of each turn. Am I wrong on this one, or is my interpretation correct given the present rulings with regards to two-handers and armor spikes?
Alright bear with me on this one, I quoted a lot of things. Not trying to argue for or against anything. I just totally think it is possible by RAW. However I would say that there is certain penalties depending on the route which YOU allow.
There also used to be a feat that I think was called short haft in 3.5 was trying to find it to see how that worked but I stopped searching for now.
Also I would ask is there anything else your player is trying to accomplish by this? As some sort of gimmick move that would compound an ability or damage? Or is it a just incase this situation occurs... I have an option?
Alright here we go.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
That rule above is important because it states two hands are need to USE to handed weapons. It is also the one you could use have him state what area does he want to threaten by the end of his turn. However I took it as IF your going to use your two-hander you need both hands. So optional if he has other options, which I believe he does.
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.
What can he threaten? He can threaten with his reach weapon, for sure.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
Spiked Gauntlet
This is a gauntlet of thick leather or metal with blades or spikes protruding from above the knuckles, allowing the wearer to stab with the force of a punch. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot disarm you of spiked gauntlets.
I wasn't too sure which one was being referred to, but either way I posted that up. Alright so if s/he COULD make a melee attack he could use armor spikes to make that attack. I would however say that if the character is trying to get an attack extra in while using a two-hander, I would VETO that or penalize it ( I would lean towards allowing, with a penalty. Say flat-footed added to penalty of non-proficiency?)
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Remember that the combat round is 6 seconds. What could he do in 6 seconds? Could he say Stop holding the handle of his two hander and punch out? Sure I'd allow it... nothing says that when you drop something it has to be from both hands. Next round he would need a move action to pick the other side back up, unless he has quick draw feat. I'd take away the penalty of provoking an AoO for that scenario though. That is of course if you go that route.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: [B]If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.[/b]
You could also allow him to make a punch with that spiked gauntlet without dropping the weapon. At a two-weapon fighting penalty. (Again not as to give him the ability to get extra attacks in his turn, but to allow the option of being able to threaten the nearby squares.)
Why would allow such a thing? Well there is already a weapon in which you can wield another weapon with and it is a fist/hand weapon. So what is really the difference?
Cestus
The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm. The close combat weapon is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and often lined with wicked spikes along the backs of the hands and wrists. While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, you can have your unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus. When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks). A cestus can't be disarmed.
As you see it comes with a penalty as well. So add that to the other ones.
Alright so in summary, I hope the guidance I have given helps YOU make the decision you need to make. Ultimately it's what you allow him to do. Personally could he do it? Sure. But for him to make it a powerful concept he would need to invest in a good amounts of feats. If he is just looking to threaten a nearby square? Sure IF he actually attacks, he would most likely miss anyways. No harm there. IF he actually hits... that's cool points for the player and the game. Hence cool points for you!
|
|
- The same Devs that wrote the FAQ about THF/spiked armor is telling us that the FAQ do not affect Polearm/spiked armor, and that you still threated with both weapons.
There is a difference between saying "I don't think it has any effect" and "it doesn't have any effect." It means he wasn't focusing on that issue, he was focusing on something else. That said, can you point me t where that quote was from? I'd like to read more context around it.
And Yure, it's already been stated that you can't TWF with two-handers and armor spikes. It's also been agreed on that free actions happen on your turn, and all your actions for the round happen on your turn (with the exception of AoOs, Immediate Actions, and other things granted by feats such as Step Up), thus the free action to drop the weapon couldn't happen by necessity.
SKR's quote (which mdt restated earlier in the thread) really answers this question pretty succinctly, in my opinion. It does not mention spiked armor explicitly, but it does mention unarmed strike (which essentially means that your entire body is available for an AoO in that case).
I see no difference between kneeing someone with an armor spike and kicking them or elbowing them without one, even while wielding a reach weapon.
[edit]
There is a difference between saying "I don't think it has any effect" and "it doesn't have any effect.
k - and I promise I don't mean this to sound snarky - I don't know why we're discussing the matter. It seems like your intent here is to get an official FAQ or designer response on topic, because the designer most active in the FAQ discussion that spawned this one offered up an opinion on it (even if it was phrased in a non-committal manner).
So is that what you're looking for? If it is, I'd just ask for it outright.
|
|
Honestly, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the difference in wording, especially when they've gone back on wordings exactly like that one before, and where PDT disagreed with SKR.
And as far as Dev ruling, that is probably the closest I would get if I asked. But I was more looking for a convincing argument that the same standard that applies to TWF does not apply here. The metarule about hands applies to armor spikes and unarmed strikes, so I'm looking for the limit of the metarule. Since you can't TWF with polearm and unarmed strike/armor spikes, why would both threaten for AoOs was my reasoning. Why one without the other?
Anyway, I'd like to take a look for more context in whatever thread that came from.
And as far as Dev ruling, that is probably the closest I would get if I asked. But I was more looking for a convincing argument that the same standard that applies to TWF does not apply here. The metarule about hands applies to armor spikes and unarmed strikes, so I'm looking for the limit of the metarule. Since you can't TWF with polearm and unarmed strike/armor spikes, why would both threaten for AoOs was my reasoning. Why one without the other?
The metarule was that a 1st level 'normal' character (2 hands, no feats or class abilities taken into account) should be able to get 1.5 times his STR in bonus damage using his one attack granted by BAB. He was meant to do this one of two ways:
-Wield a weapon in two hands and gain 1.5 times his STR on that attack
-Wield a weapon in each hand and gain 1 times his STR with his main weapon and .5 his STR with the other
Now, the reason that this can't play into an AoO is because an AoO is always an extra attack beyond the one he can normally make due to his BAB. In both of the above examples, taking an AoO would always break that metarule - being able to make a single AoO is granting you 3 times your STR bonus for the round (1.5 from your normal attack and 1.5 from your AoO). So that indicates (at least to me) that the metarule was never intended to cover, or restrict, AoOs.
With all that has been said I see not reason to disallow the AoO. It is not game breaking, and the other weapon is being wielded.
|
|
And Yure, it's already been stated that you can't TWF with two-handers and armor spikes. It's also been agreed on that free actions happen on your turn, and all your actions for the round happen on your turn (with the exception of AoOs, Immediate Actions, and other things granted by feats such as Step Up), thus the free action to drop the weapon couldn't happen by necessity.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Special Attacks
This section discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as a attack of opportunity.
AoO Does not fall under special attack. Hence I'd consider it a normal action. Now if YOU want to interpret it as such or not, by all means go ahead.
You right on the not being able to TWF with two-handers and armor spikes because you need the attack of armor spikes need to be a regular melee or off-hand, but both hands are being used so he can't. But if the player is using his modification to his armor to make his gauntlet spiky. There is nothing that says that YOU can't allow him to use the weapon as if it were a dual weapon.
As to the point of does he threaten? Sure by RAW he does. Look let me show you.
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.
Spiked armor falls under Martial Light Weapons.
Spiked Armor: You can outfit your armor with spikes, which can deal damage in a grapple or as a separate attack. See Armor, below, for details.
Also
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed.
So it is an obvious weapon (he is armed) he can threaten with. It doesn't matter if it is a spike on his chest, his shoulder, his knee, his foot... as long as he can make an attack and is not unarmed... he threatens. Period.
|
|
you mean turn right? round is a reference to a full initative pass =D (poking fun because of other people nitpicking over round or turn)I commented before reading that nitpicking, but here we are:
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)Squished the nitpickers.and now you see the problem...
** spoiler omitted **n getting started we have some terms defined for us
Quote:Round: Combat is measured in rounds. During an individual round, all creatures have a chance to take a turn to act, in order of initiative. A round represents 6 seconds in the game world.
Lol, and this is a perfect example of why we can't have nice things.... or why you can't use language precisely in this game and must look at intent of what is written often.
Turn: In a round, a creature receives one turn, during which it can perform a wide variety of actions. Generally in the course of one turn, a character can perform one standard action, one move action, one swift action, and a number of free actions. Less-common combinations of actions are permissible as well, see Combat for more details.
And where what you posted invalidates the simple thing that you will have to take all your actions during your turn?
A free action is an action, you perform all your actions for the turn during your turn in the round )barring specific exceptions). So, if you perform all your actions for the round during your turn the direct consequence is that you don't take actions outside your turn.|
|
You can take a free action at any time you can take any other kind of action. Including AoO.
AoO aren't actions.
They are free attacks, not free actions or any form of cation.
Attacks of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
If not, then a Zen Archer could not make Attacks of Opportunity with a bow, which they can (once they get that ability). So the free action is moot if you're taking an AoO.
Specific exception.
Specific exception.
Nothing in it says it's an exception to free action usage.
Nothing in it says it's an exception to free action usage.
Specific exception.I do not remember where, but the Devs actually say that it is an exception to draw an arrow and shot with it. Maybe in a FAQ for snap shot.
By the way, free actions are not required to use a polearm and attack with a spiked armor.
That came up in the recent discussion following the now revised free action FAQ. It was suggested that it *may* have been preferable to define drawing an arrow as a no-action. This was never official and only offered as a "suggestion" in an attempt to diffuse tensions about a different "suggestion" that has since been redacted.
Back to OP topic: the restriction of on two-handed weapon plus armor spikes TWF, was based on a metaphysical limit of 1.5x STR of effort that can be applied per full-attack routine per iterative granted by BAB. AoO's are not part of a full-attack action and therefore rules made limiting full-attack actions have no bearing on AoO's. Squares both adjacent and at reach are both threatened by equipped/wielded weapons so any actions which provoke in those squares will entitle the PC to an AoO.
|
|
At this point, I don't strictly see a reason to disallow the threatened area for armor spikes and unarmed strikes. Other things that would fall into that category, though (cestus, un/spiked gauntlet, etc), I don't see a reason to restrict based on the metarule. The hands are occupied, and you have to choose which way they are occupied.
Now, to other points.
Xaratherus: I don't strictly agree with you on the metarule not applying outside of TWF. If your hands are full, your hands are full. The fact that it was only discussed in relation to TWF doesn't mean that's the only area where it can be applied. If you're using a glaive, and you can't use armor spikes to TWF, I don't really see why that would mean that as soon as your turn is over, you suddenly ignore the fact that you couldn't use both at the same time.
Nicos: if it were 100% true in all cases that you don't need free actions to fight with a polearm and armor spikes, then there would be no reason to disallow TWF with them, because the fact that your hands were occupied would be completely irrelevant.
Yure: you still seem to be missing what I'm getting at. My initial point was a disagreement that you can make the attack at all. If you can't make an attack with a weapon, you don't threaten with it. You're stepping past my question and assuming that the way you interpret it is the right answer, and then answering what you think is my question with that assumption in place. My initial disagreement was with the assumption that you can make the attack when it isn't clear that you can.
BigDTBone: Please refer to the point I made to Xaratherus. I'm looking to see where the limit of the metarule is, because there isn't a good reason to assume that it only applies in the one area it has been discussed and doesn't apply elsewhere. I'm taking a reasonable next step past the ruling that exists and trying to see where the reasonable limits of the ruling end. I don't see my initial interpretation as unreasonable at all.
My apologies to all if my statements addressed to you were rude. Typing quickly, and not terribly carefully at the moment.
At the moment, the only person who seems to truly get where I'm coming from is Diego Rossi. Anyway, I'm off to try and hunt down context on those two things referenced by Nicos.
You can fight with both weapons, you just can't use two weapon fighting with them. If you have more than one attack, say from high BAB, you can attack with one and then the other. So why would you not be able to use either one for AoO?
Xaratherus: I don't strictly agree with you on the metarule not applying outside of TWF. If your hands are full, your hands are full. The fact that it was only discussed in relation to TWF doesn't mean that's the only area where it can be applied. If you're using a glaive, and you can't use armor spikes to TWF, I don't really see why that would mean that as soon as your turn is over, you suddenly ignore the fact that you couldn't use both at the same time.BigDTBone: Please refer to the point I made to Xaratherus. I'm looking to see where the limit of the metarule is, because there isn't a good reason to assume that it only applies in the one area it has been discussed and doesn't apply elsewhere. I'm taking a reasonable next step past the ruling that exists and trying to see where the reasonable limits of the ruling end. I don't see my initial interpretation as unreasonable at all.
The reason the idea of "metaphysical" hands even comes up is because the TWF rule. The devs told us that it isn't about your actual hands holding something but the amount of damaging effort you can make. This has absolutely no corollary to a reach/not reach question, even taking AoO out of the picture.
Question: Would you allow a player who used both hands to attack with a longsword make an attack of opportunity with that same longsword in the same round?
If you say yes (which you should) then you agree that AoO's are not limited by the "metaphysical" effort restriction. So now the question comes into play about reach/not reach.
Question: Would you allow a player with a +6 BAB to make their first iterative attack with a spear, and their second iterative attack with armor spikes without removing a hand from the spear?
If you say yes (which you should) then you agree that changing between reach/not reach weapons is allowable at any given time, and that for each new legal attack the player may chose what equipped weapon to use.
If you said yes to both of these questions then you should be convinced that a player may make an AoO with armor spikes after attacking with a spear on their last turn.
Question: Would you allow a player who used both hands to attack with a longsword make an attack of opportunity with that same longsword in the same round?
If you say yes (which you should) then you agree that AoO's are not limited by the "metaphysical" effort restriction. So now the question comes into play about reach/not reach.
Question: Would you allow a player with a +6 BAB to make their first iterative attack with a spear, and their second iterative attack with armor spikes without removing a hand from the spear?
If you say yes (which you should) then you agree that changing between reach/not reach weapons is allowable at any given time, and that for each new legal attack the player may chose what equipped weapon to use.
f you said yes to both of these questions then you should be convinced that a player may make an AoO with armor spikes after attacking with a spear on their last turn.
^^
This.|
|
Out of curiosity, I just wanted to throw something out there for consideration. Has anything specifically overridden this ruling/opinion by Mark Moreland and Jason Bulmahn?
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.Spiked armor is also a good option for threatening adjacent spaces.You know this never made sense to me. Why do your spikes which are attached to your armor threaten. I always thought these were for when you were grappled or attacked by natural weapons. While I knwo gaming mechanics don't always take into account physics, this one is just silly. I have worn armor with spikes before and it never prevented my opponent from moving away, that's what my sword was for. Too further make the point My elemental wizard has the ability to cover himself in fire. The fire doesn't threaten, I can't throw it, it is personal only. Hmmmm allot like wearing spikes on armor. Alas never will understand this cheat.
|
|
Out of curiosity, I just wanted to throw something out there for consideration. Has anything specifically overridden this ruling/opinion by Mark Moreland and Jason Bulmahn?
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.
This is how I see it, and run it in my games, while you may use free actions to switch from a two handed grip to a single grip to split up your iterative attacks during your turn, you must decide your "position" at the end of your turn, either both hands on the pole arm or one hand free, and it stays that way until the start of your next turn. That choice determines what weapon you threaten with and what feats you may use outside of your turn. You cannot wield and threaten with a polearm with only one hand, and without a hand free, you cannot threaten with the armor spikes.
I do this because to me, the intent is clear that they would not have given the limitation of threatened area with a reach weapon if it were meant to be so easily overcome. Too many people seem to want to have every benefit without any of the intended drawbacks.
and without a hand free, you cannot threaten with the armor spikes.
I can understand that with the Spiked Gauntlet, but if my armor is "covered" in spikes and I kick you with my spiked boot, I'm not threatening you?
You think its unreasonable/cheese that I shoulder check you with my spiked pauldrons as you try to quickly move past me while I'm holding my spear?
Why would I be able to have the skill to, under 6 seconds, stab someone with my spear and then shoulder check the guy next to me with my spike armor in the same turn, but I cant just shoulder check you because you decide you going to walk up and cast a spell right next to me?
|
|
and without a hand free, you cannot threaten with the armor spikes.I can understand that with the Spiked Gauntlet, but if my armor is "covered" in spikes and I kick you with my spiked boot, I'm not threatening you?
You think its unreasonable/cheese that I shoulder check you with my spiked pauldrons as you try to quickly move past me while I'm holding my spear?
Why would I be able to have the skill to, under 6 seconds, stab someone with my spear and then shoulder check the guy next to me with my spike armor in the same turn, but I cant just shoulder check you because you decide you going to walk up and cast a spell right next to me?
Because everything is happening in that seconds, your actions and everyone elses, so it is even faster. And if you are focusing on your spear and the area it covers, you are not focusing on what you can hit with your spiked pauldron.
And really, if you can understand why the limitation would be there with your spiked gauntlet, it should stand to reason that it IS cheese to try to work around it with your armor spikes or even your foot (unless you are a monk). There is a drawback built into reach weapons, it is there to balance out the benefits, but like most questions of this sort it seems that people want to have their cake and eat it too.
|
if it were 100% true in all cases that you don't need free actions to fight with a polearm and armor spikes, then there would be no reason to disallow TWF with them, because the fact that your hands were occupied would be completely irrelevant.
Move along! Nothing to see here! We have always been at war with Australasia!
and without a hand free, you cannot threaten with the armor spikes.I can understand that with the Spiked Gauntlet, but if my armor is "covered" in spikes and I kick you with my spiked boot, I'm not threatening you?
You think its unreasonable/cheese that I shoulder check you with my spiked pauldrons as you try to quickly move past me while I'm holding my spear?
Why would I be able to have the skill to, under 6 seconds, stab someone with my spear and then shoulder check the guy next to me with my spike armor in the same turn, but I cant just shoulder check you because you decide you going to walk up and cast a spell right next to me?
Because everything is happening in that seconds, your actions and everyone elses, so it is even faster. And if you are focusing on your spear and the area it covers, you are not focusing on what you can hit with your spiked pauldron.
And really, if you can understand why the limitation would be there with your spiked gauntlet, it should stand to reason that it IS cheese to try to work around it with your armor spikes or even your foot (unless you are a monk). There is a drawback built into reach weapons, it is there to balance out the benefits, but like most questions of this sort it seems that people want to have their cake and eat it too.
I don't see it as cheese, and there are no rule against it. The FAQ ruling only applies with TWF.
By your reasoning, if I'm so focused on using my spear with my full attack attack then I would not be able to use any other legal weapon with my other irative attacks such as armor spikes.
But that's not the case. According to RAW, you can use different weapons you are "wielding" with your irative attacks. One of those weapons, in the Armor Spike TWF thread (i would quote it but I don't care enough anymore, you can search for it as easily as me if you care), it was confirmed if your NOT TWF you can use armor spikes with a THW if you have irative attacks.
Man I said irative a lot... irative... irative. Yep lost all meaning and sounds weird when I say it out loud.
What it boils down to is its legal by RAW, if you don't like it don't allow it at your table.
|
|
By your reasoning, if I'm so focused on using my spear with my full attack attack then I would not be able to use any other legal weapon with my other irative attacks such as armor spikes.But that's not the case. According to RAW, you can use different weapons you are "wielding" with your irative attacks. One of those weapons, in the Armor Spike TWF thread (i would quote it but I don't care enough anymore, you can search for it as easily as me if you care), it was confirmed if your NOT TWF you can use armor spikes with a THW if you have...
I clearly stated that I am OK with using (reasonable) free actions to switch back and forth during YOUR TURN, but at the end of your turn you decide on which stance you are in, two handed to wield the pole arm, or hand free to use the armor spike. But not both.
I clearly stated that I am OK with using (reasonable) free actions to switch back and forth during YOUR TURN, but at the end of your turn you decide on which stance you are in, two handed to wield the pole arm, or hand free to use the armor spike. But not both.
By your reasoning, if I'm so focused on using my spear with my full attack attack then I would not be able to use any other legal weapon with my other irative attacks such as armor spikes.But that's not the case. According to RAW, you can use different weapons you are "wielding" with your irative attacks. One of those weapons, in the Armor Spike TWF thread (i would quote it but I don't care enough anymore, you can search for it as easily as me if you care), it was confirmed if your NOT TWF you can use armor spikes with a THW if you have...
Again where is this free action your talking about coming from?
If I have 2 longswords, one in each hand. I can use both if I have irative attacks without using TWF. That does not require a free action to do. They are already being wielded. Just like if I have a Shield strapped to my arm its being wielded. Just like if I have my armor donned properly and it has spikes, the spikes are being wielded.
No where in the rules is it cited that a free action is required to switch between currently "wielded" weapons. the only time a free action comes into play is when I have quick draw or need to pull ammo.
Edit: Just to clarify, I am NOT talking about spiked gauntlets when I'm talking about armor spikes. They are not the same thing. I agree completely that it would cost a free action to release your grip on a THW in order to hit with Spiked Gauntlets. So you cant threaten with those while holding a THW.
It is a free action to take a hand off of, or regrip a two handed weapon.
Again, read the above post. Not talking about Spiked Gauntlets. Talking about Armor Spikes. Different weapons.
Edit: Check out Spiked Armor on the PRD.
|
|
Read the linked quote above where they express that their intent was that they are a light weapon just like spiked gauntlets. It doesn't always have to be "hands" so much as readiness and focus. Again, reach weapons have a limitation for a reason, and even an archtype with an ability to overcome that limitation with a drawback, using workarounds to circumvent those limitations is cheesy and is not the intent. Be they spikes or gauntlets or knives on your boots.
(and forgive my typing/syntax... it is very late here and I am on pain killers after getting a pair of root canals done this weekend :P)
Read the linked quote above where they express that their intent was that they are a light weapon just like spiked gauntlets. It doesn't always have to be "hands" so much as readiness and focus. Again, reach weapons have a limitation for a reason, and even an archtype with an ability to overcome that limitation with a drawback, using workarounds to circumvent those limitations is cheesy and is not the intent. Be they spikes or gauntlets or knives on your boots.
(and forgive my typing/syntax... it is very late here and I am on pain killers after getting a pair of root canals done this weekend :P)
Read further down
The rule hasn't changed. Until there's a change to the Core Rulebook, the PFRPG FAQ, or the Pathfinder Society rules documentation, this is just me posting on the messageboards.
It might have been the intent of PF to not allow that. But it wasn't with 3.5, it was ruled in 3.5 that it was the intent to allow it. Again, as the RAW is now, its legal with AoO.
Hope your face feels better, root canals are no joke.
i would not allow it
this FAQ states that "as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks"
polearms are two-handed weapon. it takes 2 hands
you NEED hand to attack with armor spikes (i assume you attack with spikes on your bracers or something) rules say so. You can attack with armor spikes as primary weapon. You can use them for TWF. You CANT if you have two-hander or already TWF with 2 swords. By rules you need free limb, so unless you have more than 2 arms you cant.
You threaten sqares in wich you can attack. Unless you can make free action for some reason you cant drop your polearm to start threatening with spikes.
in short they work just like spiked gauntlet, you cant jump onto someone and pierce them with your spiked belly.
Would like to hear arguments that proves opposite tho.
First of, let me start by saying that i think reach + armor spikes IMO let you threaten at 5ft and at reach.
But just for the sake of argument, what if instead of armor spikes you take the feat "improved unarmed attack".
This let you make attacks with all parts of your body (e.g. kicks with your feet and head-butts). Would you allow this to work with a reach-weapon?
Also, i guess armor-spikes are not only an our gauntlet (a weapon on its own already btw) but more likely on your knees, shoes, elbow and shoulder.
|
|
I think you would be able to make AOOs with your unarmed strikes in this case. The important thing is to not violate action economy, which you do not when "armed" with spikes or IUS. The advantage of the spikes as a weapon (in exchange for lower stats than other light martial weapons) is that they cannot be disarmed and you do not need to use a hand to hold them (but you do need "limb" economy to use them).
Fixed that for you.
@ Rhatahema: It's not so much that I'm looking for a reason to interpret it that way. But I was looking for something that was actually talking about the complete opposite being true, and I stumbled across that during my search. It seemed relevant, so I wanted to throw it into the ring for consideration in this discussion. I've stated the way my opinion currently stands up-thread, if you noticed.
I do disagree with that ruling, though, and house-rule it in my games to the more realistic "penalties apply when fighting with two weapons simultaneously." Having done it in real life, it's bloody difficult coordinating both. .... I personally disagree with when that ruling in the first place, and so house-rule it in my own games back to the 3.X interpretation. ...
The purpose of this thread is to determine if one can threaten with both a two-handed reach weapon and a light/unarmed weapon such as armor spikes or a spiked/gauntlet. My gut says no...
I sounds like if you don't like the answer you get from folks here, you’re just going to houserule that you can’t threaten with both armor spikes and a two-handed reach weapon, so why not skip this intermediary step and rule the way you’re going to anyway?
I’ve done lots of western armed martial arts, and there’s plenty of chances to plant a knee or elbow in someone if they get inside your guard, so using armor spikes for attacks of opportunity while you have a two-handed weapon seems perfectly reasonable to me. It’s not so much a case of attacking with both the weapon and spikes at once (as you do when using the two-weapon fighting full round attack action) as choosing which weapon you have at the ready to attack with (as when you use different weapons for different iterative attacks).
(The unrealistic thing to me is that this game doesn’t let you use reach weapons on someone less than 5’ away...I mean, maybe that’s a problem with a pike, but with a halberd it’s not going to be an issue.)
|
|
Could someone with a better search-fu than me please post the 3.5 FAQ concerning armour spikes?
Even though PF has decided not to allow 2H weapons in TWF, the description includes the designers' intent on how armour spikes should be used, and this hasn't changed in PF.
Also, the reason why PF won't allow 2H weapons in TWF has absolutely nothing to do with hands, or any mythical free action to mentally switch to which weapon you really mean to threaten with.
|
|
Could someone with a better search-fu than me please post the 3.5 FAQ concerning armour spikes?
Even though PF has decided not to allow 2H weapons in TWF, the description includes the designers' intent on how armour spikes should be used, and this hasn't changed in PF.
Also, the reason why PF won't allow 2H weapons in TWF has absolutely nothing to do with hands, or any mythical free action to mentally switch to which weapon you really mean to threaten with.
Well, it does have to do with hands, but in an indirect way. Though the FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Well, it does have to do with hands, but in an indirect way. Though the FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.Could someone with a better search-fu than me please post the 3.5 FAQ concerning armour spikes?
Even though PF has decided not to allow 2H weapons in TWF, the description includes the designers' intent on how armour spikes should be used, and this hasn't changed in PF.
Also, the reason why PF won't allow 2H weapons in TWF has absolutely nothing to do with hands, or any mythical free action to mentally switch to which weapon you really mean to threaten with.
It does have something to do with this thread, it had contributed greatly to the misconceptions regarding the rules on this thread. In the THF/TWF FAQ they should have said "effort" rather than "hand" and this could have all been avoided.
i would not allow it
this FAQ states that "as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks"polearms are two-handed weapon. it takes 2 hands
you NEED hand to attack with armor spikes (i assume you attack with spikes on your bracers or something) rules say so. You can attack with armor spikes as primary weapon. You can use them for TWF. You CANT if you have two-hander or already TWF with 2 swords. By rules you need free limb, so unless you have more than 2 arms you cant.You threaten sqares in wich you can attack. Unless you can make free action for some reason you cant drop your polearm to start threatening with spikes.
in short they work just like spiked gauntlet, you cant jump onto someone and pierce them with your spiked belly.
Would like to hear arguments that proves opposite tho.
You don't need a free hand to use armor spikes, you need an "off-hand" to use two-weapon fighting. Using a two handed weapon uses your primary hand and your off hand, so you cannot use two weapon fighting with them. However, AoOs are not two-weapon fighting, assuming you haven't used your two handed weapon to make the AoO, then your "off-hand" is not used up. Therefore, you still threaten and can still attack with armor spikes.
|
|
Man I said irative a lot... irative... irative. Yep lost all meaning and sounds weird when I say it out loud.
It is iterative.
(The unrealistic thing to me is that this game doesn’t let you use reach weapons on someone less than 5’ away...I mean, maybe that’s a problem with a pike, but with a halberd it’s not going to be an issue.)
An halberd isn't a reach weapon in Pathfinder.
The list of reach weapons is fairly short, especially if you limit yourself to the CRB:Longspear - a long pole with a point at the end
Lance - another long pole with a point at the end
Glaive - long pole with a blade
Guisarme - long pole with a blade
whip - well, a whip
With the first two weapon it would be very difficult to attack someone that has gotten under your guard.
With the third and fourth you could attack someone close, but you would lose a lot of momentum, as the weapon is badly balanced for close work.
The whip follow special rules and can be used against opponents at any range.
So we have 4 weapons that would require you to completely change your grip to use them at close range and would have problems when used at close range (those 3-4 feet of shaft sticking out behind you will probably stick into something and limit your range of movements). Some specific archetype allow you to do that, i.e. you can do that with specific training, other people will have to step back and get in a position where they can use the businesses end of the weapon.
Seem reasonable when you remember that Pathfinder try to be a game, not only a simulation of reality.
|
|
Well, it does have to do with hands, but in an indirect way. Though the FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.Could someone with a better search-fu than me please post the 3.5 FAQ concerning armour spikes?
Even though PF has decided not to allow 2H weapons in TWF, the description includes the designers' intent on how armour spikes should be used, and this hasn't changed in PF.
Also, the reason why PF won't allow 2H weapons in TWF has absolutely nothing to do with hands, or any mythical free action to mentally switch to which weapon you really mean to threaten with.
Not trying to dispute the new TWF ruling with that 3.5 FAQ in this thread, but that FAQ makes clear that attacks with armour spikes represent knees/elbows/shoulders/feet/etc., and so a free hand is not a requirement to use armour spikes.