That description is saying that you can't make a free extra attack. If I have Improved Two Weapon fighting I most definitely can make my first offhand attack with a dagger and make my second offhand attack with armor spikes.
Is it? it doesn't actually say that though and why would anyone think you'd get a free extra offhand attack?
|
That description is saying that you can't make a free extra attack. If I have Improved Two Weapon fighting I most definitely can make my first offhand attack with a dagger and make my second offhand attack with armor spikes.Is it? it doesn't actually say that though and why would anyone think you'd get a free extra offhand attack?
For clarity, I'm guessing. I don't know the decision behind it. There examples of other armor adding natural attacks (that dwarven helmet, that tentacle vest) so this is clarifying that it's not a natural attack.
@claudekennilol As per RAW that's not what it says I took it to be to stop the routine you mention, as in - being able to attack with three different weapons in a round. But if you are right do you think it was because they thought people would use the "attack without using a hand" as an exploit to get an unfair /unintended advantage?
@Nicos Not if you have used a 2HW for all your attacks in a round. Then you are using that weapon and can't AoO with a different one.
That's the point we're "discussing". If you just say "yes you can" and I say "no you can't" then that's a pantomime routine not a discussion. If we actually give each other the reasons why we believe we are correct, we can discuss them and perhaps reach agreement.
Or at least be better informed and and have an enjoyable exchange of information.
Edited to make more sense
|
Going back to Jason Buhlman's example. If the fighter with Longsword, Shield, and armor spikes was 11th level and had three iterative attacks, he could make an attack with his longsword at full bab, attack with armor spikes at bab-5, and attack with a shield bash at bab-10.
He is not making an off-hand attack with any of them, as "off-hand" ONLY applies when using two weapon fighting feats. Even if you did use TWF feats, per the FAQ, the penalties only apply until the end of your turn, not the beginning of your next turn.
Either way, you can make an AoO with any weapon you are wielding.
Going back to Jason Buhlman's example. If the fighter with Longsword, Shield, and armor spikes was 11th level and had three iterative attacks, he could make an attack with his longsword at full bab, attack with armor spikes at bab-5, and attack with a shield bash at bab-10.
He is not making an off-hand attack with any of them, as "off-hand" ONLY applies when using two weapon fighting feats. Even if you did use TWF feats, per the FAQ, the penalties only apply until the end of your turn, not the beginning of your next turn.
Either way, you can make an AoO with any weapon you are wielding.
Switching between weapons during your turn does not mean you can switch weapons for an AoO. Free actions are allowed during your turn, free actions are not allowed during AoO.
Switching between weapons during your turn does not mean you can switch weapons for an AoO. Free actions are allowed during your turn, free actions are not allowed during AoO.Going back to Jason Buhlman's example. If the fighter with Longsword, Shield, and armor spikes was 11th level and had three iterative attacks, he could make an attack with his longsword at full bab, attack with armor spikes at bab-5, and attack with a shield bash at bab-10.
He is not making an off-hand attack with any of them, as "off-hand" ONLY applies when using two weapon fighting feats. Even if you did use TWF feats, per the FAQ, the penalties only apply until the end of your turn, not the beginning of your next turn.
Either way, you can make an AoO with any weapon you are wielding.
You do not need to switch between weapons to use armor spikes, a shield bash, and a longsword.
You do not need to switch between weapons to use armor spikes, a shield bash, and a longsword.Switching between weapons during your turn does not mean you can switch weapons for an AoO. Free actions are allowed during your turn, free actions are not allowed during AoO.Going back to Jason Buhlman's example. If the fighter with Longsword, Shield, and armor spikes was 11th level and had three iterative attacks, he could make an attack with his longsword at full bab, attack with armor spikes at bab-5, and attack with a shield bash at bab-10.
He is not making an off-hand attack with any of them, as "off-hand" ONLY applies when using two weapon fighting feats. Even if you did use TWF feats, per the FAQ, the penalties only apply until the end of your turn, not the beginning of your next turn.
Either way, you can make an AoO with any weapon you are wielding.
I was referring to switching from a two-handed reach weapon to armour spikes. This thread is covering a lot of issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was referring to switching from a two-handed reach weapon to armour spikes. This thread is covering a lot of issues.You do not need to switch between weapons to use armor spikes, a shield bash, and a longsword.Switching between weapons during your turn does not mean you can switch weapons for an AoO. Free actions are allowed during your turn, free actions are not allowed during AoO.Going back to Jason Buhlman's example. If the fighter with Longsword, Shield, and armor spikes was 11th level and had three iterative attacks, he could make an attack with his longsword at full bab, attack with armor spikes at bab-5, and attack with a shield bash at bab-10.
He is not making an off-hand attack with any of them, as "off-hand" ONLY applies when using two weapon fighting feats. Even if you did use TWF feats, per the FAQ, the penalties only apply until the end of your turn, not the beginning of your next turn.
Either way, you can make an AoO with any weapon you are wielding.
You still don't need an action to be wielding a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. Armor spikes don't require a physical hand to actively wield.
@Bacondale That's how we've always played it e.g. if you go from using your bow as a ranged weapon to using the arrow you were about to fire as an improvised weapon, it would be a free action to change usage. Pretty much anything like that which is a switch of focus usually has a cost in Pathfinder(D&D).
You still don't need an action to be wielding a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. Armor spikes don't require a physical hand to actively wield.
Of course you do, they might not need physical hands but they do need effort. You have to change your stance (drastically) to make the attack with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You still don't need an action to be wielding a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. Armor spikes don't require a physical hand to actively wield.Of course you do, they might not need physical hands but they do need effort. You have to change your stance (drastically) to make the attack with them.
You can use that as a house rule if you like, but it's not a part of the actual rules. Making an attack does require a "hands" worth of effort. That is why you can't two weapon fight with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. But outside of two weapon fighting there isn't a primary hand and an off-hand. When it's not you're turn you are not using the two weapon fighting full attack action. You're prepared to make attacks of opportunity, but you're not forced to make them based upon what you did during your turn, only what you can wield at that time. There is nothing in the rules about stances or how your body has to move to be able to attack. Especially not for attacks of opportunity. If you are wielding the weapon you are capable of making an attack with it. Armor spikes require no hands to use and as such are always available. By the rules that is how it works.
If you do not care for the rule you are free to change it for your home games. However, please do not insist that is the normal function of the rules.
Making an attack does require a "hands" worth of effort. That is why you can't two weapon fight with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. But outside of two weapon fighting there isn't a primary hand and an off-hand.
You have confounded what I think of as two separate issues there. The effort it takes to wield/attack with a weapon designated as light, one-handed and two handed with the rules for 2WF which uses the terms off-hand and primary hand.
If you have two "hands" worth of effort tied up in a weapon how can you then use a another hands worth of effort on something else? PFRPG is very Binary on the effort front.
I mean You can use that as a house rule if you like, but it's not a part of the actual rules. At least not for any of the DMs I've played with.
The only Developer post (which is not a FAQ and was ages ago etc. and therefore can be ignored) agreed with my view.
If you are wielding the weapon you are capable of making an attack with it.
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
an AoO is still an attack and your turn as far as effects go lasts until just before your next turn.
This is another reason why I think they take some effort - if not why can't you use them as alternate off-hand attacks.
actually incorrect.
for instance you can only perform free actions during your turn. your turn ends when you end it. this is the difference between actions that take a full round and actions that require 1 round(or a duration).
when you end your turn and give up agency, all things that last until the end of your turn, end immediately. anything that lasts 1 round, lasts until the beginning of your next turn. AoO and immediate actions are the only things you can do when it is not your turn. your turn and your round are two very different things that both simply start at the same time.
so, shield still doesn't interfere with armor spikes.
@Bandw2 NOW HEAR THIS THE FAQ DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING FOR ME I HAD NEVER PLAYED 2WF USING A 2HW AND ARMOUR SPIKES. I HAVE NEVER PLAYED IT WAS POSSIBLE IN ANY ITERATION OF D&D, IN ANY CAMPAIGN SINCE I GOT THE BLUE AND SILVER BASIC BOOK IN THE POST. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH "ALWAYS ON ARMOUR SPIKES" BECAUSE OF THAT FAQ. IT JUST ADDED TO MY BELIEF IT WAS WRONG.
It's quite cathartic all that shouty capitals business isn't it ;). I hope I have cleared that up any way.
except for me it seems to indicate that it is less likely, as they would have mentioned it if it was an issue they thought needed fixing, they obviously were aware of the issue and chose to say nothing.
You still don't need an action to be wielding a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. Armor spikes don't require a physical hand to actively wield.Of course you do, they might not need physical hands but they do need effort. You have to change your stance (drastically) to make the attack with them.
no you don't, as mentioned (and never replied to) the rules never say you have to choose which weapon you are wielding until the moment of attack.
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.
no where else in the rules does it even mention if you need to choose which weapon to attack with or not. any indication that it takes an action to wield a equipped object is a house rule.
If you have two "hands" worth of effort tied up in a weapon how can you then use a another hands worth of effort on something else? PFRPG is very Binary on the effort front.
because you do not choose where your hands of effort are used UNTIL you attack. you do not use those terms during any other point of time.
|
|
Just in case it's a special hatred of Armor Spikes, specifically, then let us use the unarmed strike.
Anyone can make an unarmed strike, and it will not require a hand to do it.
The Monk with Quarterstaff, can use either the Quarterstaff, or an unarmed strike during an AoO, as he is fully capable of wielding, and threatening, with both, at the same time.
Indeed, lets replace armored spikes with unarmed strikes (which anyone can make with any part of their body). Assuming you have Improved Unarmed Strike so you threaten with your Unarmed Strikes, are you saying that you suddenly cannot make an unarmed strike just because you happen to also wield a two-handed weapon?
Cause I can tell you you're absolutely wrong?
Armor Spikes essentially function as unarmed strikes in that they do not require a specific body part to wield them. In this same way you can attack with either.
You have confounded what I think of as two separate issues there. The effort it takes to wield/attack with a weapon designated as light, one-handed and two handed with the rules for 2WF which uses the terms off-hand and primary hand.
If you have two "hands" worth of effort tied up in a weapon how can you then use a another hands worth of effort on something else? PFRPG is very Binary on the effort front.
I mean You can use that as a house rule if you like, but it's not a part of the actual rules. At least not for any of the DMs I've played with.
The only Developer post (which is not a FAQ and was ages ago etc. and therefore can be ignored) agreed with my view.
If you are wielding the weapon you are capable of making an attack with it.Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground
The effort used is only relevant to attacks made during your turn. And only to two weapon fighting. That is what we have been trying to tell you. You have combined two separate situations into one thing, and that is the problem.
Just because you and GMs you've played with haven't run the game with the correct understanding doesn't mean you're right. It happens often that people don't understand the rules. In fact it's quite easy to misunderstand them, but that's part of why we have the rules section here to help explain them.
And by the way, nothing of SKR's post about how he defines "wielding" contradicts anything I've said. Consider this, a character has two weapons in his hands. On his turn he moves and can make only 1 attack with 1 weapon. According to your idea he is only wielding one. And so he couldn't make an attack of opportunity with the weapon he didn't attack with. Further, a different character has a blade boot, a dwarven boulder helmet, and two weapons in hand. If he has a high enough BAB that he has 4 attacks (BAB 16) then on his turn he can attack with all 4 of them. And then he is suddenly wielding all 4, which doesn't seem to match with your idea of how things work either.
|
|
Let me ask a question,
Let's say you have 2 Weapon Fighting. you are equipped with a Long Sword, a Large Shield, and Armor Spikes.
As a Full Attack Action, you make a Long Sword Attack and an Armor Spike Attack.
Do you get your Shield Bonus for your AC?
Please cite the relevant rules that you know to justify your answer.
You do know, that was exactly the example Jason Bulhamn used, right?
Re-found this post.
I have become a usual suspect.
Time to take it down a notch.
I had a quick scan to see if this had come up in the thread but didn't find it and so
Quandary wrote:
Here´s what I found:
Mark Moreland wrote:
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.
Jason Bulmahn later followed that up (after much b+@!&ing in the thread) with:Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Hey there Everybody,
Alright everybody. Lets just take it down a notch. I got a few quick points.
- 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.
- The thing to remember here, that I want to stress, is that generally speaking, the only places where a PFS judge is required to follow rulings is the rulebooks, updates, FAQ posts, and PFS rules documents. Everything else is left to judge discretion at the table. There is no way around this. We cannot ask our judges to be familiar with every ruling or thought from every messageboard post, even if it comes from a staff member.
- For you home game, you don't even have to pay attention to the above sources. Its your game after all.
I hope to get a FAQ on this issue soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That's from 2011 and I don't see a FAQ on it? I also note that many of the same faces appear in each thread that touches upon this.So I'll take the same view as Jason and Mark (which is easy as I agree with it) and until a definitive FAQ appears that's how I'll play it, when I GM. I won't spend long arguing the toss about it when a player, as it causes bad blood.
Been an informative thread though and most entertaining.
i can't tell what is and isn't quote. but as i have said many times before the in-ability to TWF with armor spikes and two-handed weapons is what they decided on this matter.
|
|
First: the description of armor spikes states that they do damage whenever you make a successful grappling attack, and the description of Combat Maneuvers in the Core Rulebook specifies that Combat Maneuver Check like a Grapple is an attack roll, including the first check to initiate the grapple. So when you have armor spikes, you start doing damage on the first check.
Second: The description of the Strength in the Core Rulebook specifies that you get to add your strength bonus to your damage when you "use a weapon," not when you use an attack action on your round to make a melee attack with the weapon. When you are grappling, and you are using armor spikes, you get to use your apply your Strength Bonus to your Armor Spikes.
Third: Neither Armor Spikes nor Constrict require attack rolls. They are extra damage from 2 different sources when you grapple. It's the Grapple that is the attack, not the Spikes, not the Constrict.
I'm not sure if it was you or someone else I answered above, but this has already been addressed. You don't freely start doing damage with armor spikes as soon as you grapple. A "grapple attack" is a specific action that you do after you have already successfully grappled someone. Yes, when you attempt to "grapple" someone you make an "attack roll" with your CMB, that doesn't make it a "grapple attack".
This one also might be of interest:
Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:
• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.
• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.• While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.
There is a hard (but not-explicity-stated-in-the-rules) limit to what a standard-race PC should be able to do in one round of combat. Even though it's not stated in the rules, it is a real limit (in the same way that there's no printed rule that says "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than +3 to one skill for a 1st-level character," or "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than a +1 to attack rolls with one type of weapon," but it's still a rule we follow), and you shouldn't be allowed to break that limit.
Sometimes we have to not take advantage of flaws in design
"...gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design."
And yes I know this is in reference to 2WF for the most part but note all weapons that allowed you to threaten 5' and 10' have been removed from PFRPG.
It is up to you to decide whether you are rules mongering for a mechanics advantage or fighting for an accurate reading of the rules of the game. I am assuming we all feel we are doing the latter.
May the road rise up to meet you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
CountofUndolpho, all of those quotes are nifty and all but they have no affect on RAW. The FAQ only effects Two Weapon Fighting. In 'normal' fighting we don't have to worry about the 'unwritten rules' that Mark Moreland was talking about.
I find using another weapon to allow threatening at 5' with a reach weapon the opposite of rules mongering for a mechanics advantage or fighting for an accurate reading of the rules of the game. Paizo themselves put SEVERAL weapons that didn't require physical hands to use. What is 'rules mongering' about using them? AoO don't care about how you attacked in the round, just that you where able to attack with that weapon during your last round.
I don't find no-hand weapons a 'flaws in design' but a deliberate addition the game. What reason do they have if not to attack with them and threaten with them?
|
|
It is up to you to decide whether you are rules mongering for a mechanics advantage or fighting for an accurate reading of the rules of the game. I am assuming we all feel we are doing the latter./QUOTE]
No one hear is rules mongering. Everyone here (except you) is in agreement on simultaneously threatening with a 2h weapon and armor spikes. We're just trying to convince you of the rules because you seem to be focused on other things.
It's not really rules mongering. It's a back up plan. Your main weapon will be a reach weapon. In the event that someone gets inside your reach you need a plan to defend yourself. So you have armor spikes to allow you to attack them on AoO or on your turn you forgo your reach weapon to make a full attack or whatever you decide to do. But whatever action you take is at the expense of what you could have done otherwise. Unless you enhance your armor spikes they will have less ability to hit and do less damage. If you do enhance them equally you are paying twice as much gold (as you are maintaining two weapons instead of 1) and the overall capabilities of either suffer.
tbph, nothing in pathfinder is labeled a grappling attack, so it's probably mislabeled (and should be grapple check/maneuver or grapple damage check/maneuver) and any further discussion is pointless.
|
|
It might be mislabeled, but it isn't the thing to insist that "any further discussion is pointless." Somebody might have useful insight into the game. Certitude that you know everything and no further discussion is necessary is just arrogance.
At the same time, Pathfinder is just a game, and it's all pointless. Some people say life itself is pointless.
It's also pointless to keep making the same arguments back and forth. Thus, it's already been addressed.