TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Weslocke wrote:

It is better than normal TWF because your shield (including potential magical enhancement bonuses) can be supplying you with a +2-7 bonus to AC.

That is a big edge. A whole extra layer of cake, so-to-speak.

I cannot honestly speak to PFS play. I will never play at one of those tables. I am considered to be one of the best GM's in my city of 250,000 people. Players put their names on a list and literally wait years to play in my campaigns and I even have one friend who flies in over 300 miles 4 times per year just so he does not miss my Call of Cthulu games.
My regular players all say that I am the best GM that they have ever played with and they trust me to adjudicate the rules fairly even on spot notice with an unfamiliar option. And to me the effortless shield seems over-the-top.

But obviously, a +2-7 bonus to AC can be granted just by using Shield Spikes or IUS, because it's called out in those weapon descriptions, right?

I mean, it's not like it's a totally unique effect that takes a feat or class ability to acquire otherwise. And the bonus is pitiful, right? And I can just invoke it by saying I don't attack with the spikes on my shield arm, or always use kicks instead of my whole body being available for attacks.

Yeah, that's totally not trying to redefine what shields do.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Personally, I really don't see what makes TWF with armor spikes and a shield scarier than just shield bashing with the appropriate feats. Armor spikes have the exactly same damage profile as a bashing light shield, after all.

But this way, you don't have to spend a feat!

Feats is precious to TWF'ers, after all.

And if you're a brawler, you don't even have to spend the TWF feats, you can get the shield AC for NOTHING. Woot!

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

blackbloodtroll wrote:

To further discuss these "unwritten rules", "hands of effort", let's look at a comment, directly from the prior Dev who brought forth such ideas:

Seen here:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

But it would be legal to attack with a two-handed weapon, with a one handed weapon and use a shield, right? I ask because I have an alchemist in my kingmaker group who does that.

If you mean "use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield," then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :p

That is from the Alchemist Vestigial Arm thread. Please note that the Vestigial Arm does not grant additional off-hand attacks, and thus, would not grant additional "hands of effort". Now, using a two-handed weapon, which, per "unwritten rules", uses both of your "hands effort", and yet, has no mentioned loss of a shield bonus to AC. It is noted as a legal combination.

Kindly note that's an opinon, and not FAQ.

By strict definition of Vestigial Arm, since the weapon can't be used in an attack, it can't be readied, and shields being weapons, its an unreadied shield and thus wouldn't contribute to AC. So, either you ready the shield so it can be used, which means making the choice for AC or Attack, and uses up the off-hand, or you're just holding onto an unreadied shield.

If it can contribute Shield AC while being unable to attack with it, it would be specifically called out as an ability and exception to the rules. It's not, therefore, it doesn't apply.

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

Still waiting on that rule or rules you are quoting.

The buckler's specific rule involves only using an item in the hand of the arm the buckler's attached to. Considering you don't unscrew the armor spikes and stab somebody with them like that, you're not using that hand to make attacks with armor spikes. You're using the metaphorical hand, not the physical one, and the buckler only mentions the physical one.

And EVEN IF the buckler specifically disallows this (which it doesn't), a normal shield (light or heavy) wouldn't be effected because the buckler's specific rule only involves the buckler.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh?

Are not your applications of unwritten rules, and "hands of effort", and your interpretation of how they apply to things that are not attacks "just an opinion"? Not a FAQ.

Is not your application of the specific Buckler rules, to other shields, "just an opinion"? Not a FAQ.

Is not the rather expansive extrapolation, of the written, and "unwritten rules", "just an opinion"? Not a FAQ.

Is not your interpretation that one loses their bonus to AC, from a Buckler, from any off-hand attack, and not just an attack that utilizes the arm the Buckler is strapped to, as RAW states, "just an opinion"? Not a FAQ.

Are not every other instance of the application of any "unwritten rules", outside of the very specific situation of FAQ, "just an opinion"?

Is not every single accusation, of "munchkinism", or "unbalancing", "just an opinion"? Not a FAQ.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Hell, the entire argument against keeping the Shield Bonus to AC, is being argued with opinions, excessive extrapolation, and quotes of other people's opinions?


Aelryinth wrote:
stuff.

Let's try a simple approach:

1. Quote me the the rules that tell me what I need to do to get a shield bonus.

2. Quote me all the rules that deny me my shield bonus.

Don't give me any opinions, just quote straight text. You'll note, that nothing that applies to buckler's applies to light shields. There is no buckler rule that has any applicability to light shields. So if you quote me something from buckler's you've failed the test.

If you can't do #1 and #2 then your opinion on the rules is unsubstantiated.


So...just to muddy the waters a bit. As per Aelryinth's interpretation of the rules- If I use an Animated shield, and during the 4 rounds it's active, I decide to Two-Weapon Fight, would I lose the shield's bonus to AC?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There are no written rules to dispute it.

There are no Dev comments to dispute it.

There is no FAQ to dispute it.

All arguments against it, therefore, must be extrapolation.

I see nothing that supports any of this extrapolation.

It appears to be argued on emotion, and opinion alone.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I must add, that this is the first I have heard of this ridiculous interpretation of these rules.

Even some of the few posters here supporting this absurd conclusion, have made no allusions to anything like this before, and have, in fact, seemingly put forth the opinion that without an attack with a shield, there is no loss of AC.

No one has access to these "unwritten rules".

There is viable way to judge, interpret, or determine all aspects of their application.

Outside of the very specific FAQ, regarding a very specific situation, "unwritten rules" should never come into any discussion, about any other rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This, is just another reason, on a long list, of why I hate these "unwritten rules".

If they want to change the rules, then change them. Issue errata. Change the words in the next printing of the CRB.

Anyone can interpret laws differently. Nobody gets arrested for breaking "unwritten laws".

This debate is a fools errand, and I am ashamed that I cannot simply dismiss it.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hell, the entire argument against keeping the Shield Bonus to AC, is being argued with opinions, excessive extrapolation, and quotes of other people's opinions?

I thought the OP was about being entitled to make a off-hand attack with spikes while using a weapon to attack and a shield to get AC.

I was unaware that the debate had diverted to this new avenue.

I hope my recent posts (which dealt with the OP's question and not the Keeping the shield bonus to AC argument) have not muddied the waters even further :-/

I apologize for any inconvenience there, which I really did not intend.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
The black raven wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hell, the entire argument against keeping the Shield Bonus to AC, is being argued with opinions, excessive extrapolation, and quotes of other people's opinions?

I thought the OP was about being entitled to make a off-hand attack with spikes while using a weapon to attack and a shield to get AC.

I was unaware that the debate had diverted to this new avenue.

I hope my recent posts (which dealt with the OP's question and not the Keeping the shield bonus to AC argument) have not muddied the waters even further :-/

I apologize for any inconvenience there, which I really did not intend.

No. This is still that debate. It has expanded, a bit.

So far, the things I mentioned, have been the only evidence against the OP's legal combo.

No need to apologize.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Perhaps I am just sad, to see these "unwritten rules" being used to try to argue another rules debate.

Even rules debates that should not make mention of them.

Liberty's Edge

Well, way I see it, the OP's combo is not legal because the FAQ says that you cannot make a off-hand spike attack when all your hands are in use.

And I believe that you actually need to use your hand to wield your Shield to get its AC bonus.

I do not remember anything in the RAW that goes counter to this and the only exception might be the buckler (not sure about its wording though, so I might be mistaken).

Do note, that, without the FAQ, I would have no problem with the OP's combo, or with someone making an off-hand spike attack after making a 2-handed attack. I really dislike that FAQ, but since we are in the Rules section, I have to take it into account.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Do you "wield" a Buckler?

Liberty's Edge

I do believe you need to wield the Buckler (i.e. use your hand) to get the AC bonus but I may be mistaken (I do not have the text around at the moment).


The black raven wrote:
I do believe you need to wield the Buckler (i.e. use your hand) to get the AC bonus but I may be mistaken (I do not have the text around at the moment).

Aside that the buckler works under a different set of rules specific to it compared to the other shields, there is a difference between holding something in the hand and making an attack.

If I hold the shield with my hand and attack using my feet (Boot Blade or simply Unarmed Strikes), the rules allow me to keep my shield bonus, as the only instance in which the bonus ceases to apply is when I use the shield itself for a bash attack.

And even the buckler ceases to work only when I use the hand for attacking.


We've provided rules that say you can.
You CAN don a shield on your arm for AC.
You CAN attack with your feet or head.
You CAN keep your AC with a shield unless you bash with it.
You CAN keep your AC with a buckler unless you attack with a weapon in that hand.
Nothing else says you lose your AC.
Nothing says you need an attack hand to have a shield give you AC.
So the rules say it's allowed because of the things it says you can do and the things it says that remove shield AC.

Grand Lodge

I think this question is always going to come down to a GM ruling. I TWF with double armor spikes and a Ring of force shield. The GM ruled I could not use a normal heavy shield. His reasoning for this was, Hero Lab would not allow me to use the off-hand weapon with a heavy shield. With the ring it didn't present any errors.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Largo Niggle wrote:
I think this question is always going to come down to a GM ruling. I TWF with double armor spikes and a Ring of force shield. The GM ruled I could not use a normal heavy shield. His reasoning for this was, Hero Lab would not allow me to use the off-hand weapon with a heavy shield. With the ring it didn't present any errors.

Basing rulings on Hero Lab is not always a great idea as it has some errors compared to the actual rules.

Grand Lodge

Entryhazard wrote:
Largo Niggle wrote:
I think this question is always going to come down to a GM ruling. I TWF with double armor spikes and a Ring of force shield. The GM ruled I could not use a normal heavy shield. His reasoning for this was, Hero Lab would not allow me to use the off-hand weapon with a heavy shield. With the ring it didn't present any errors.
Basing rulings on Hero Lab is not always a great idea as it has some errors compared to the actual rules.

I agree personally if I was GMing I would allow it. A former Gm had no problem with it, he just stated my off-hand attack had to be a kick or elbow strike.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
Largo Niggle wrote:
I think this question is always going to come down to a GM ruling. I TWF with double armor spikes and a Ring of force shield. The GM ruled I could not use a normal heavy shield. His reasoning for this was, Hero Lab would not allow me to use the off-hand weapon with a heavy shield. With the ring it didn't present any errors.
Basing rulings on Hero Lab is not always a great idea as it has some errors compared to the actual rules.

The moment I heard that the developers of HeroLab make their own rules based on what they assume is Paizo's intention (but is actually just their own reading of the rules) was the moment I was sure I'd never spend a dime on their product.

It's NOT a rules source and should not be treated as one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I attempt to not specifically call anyone out, unless I need to.

For the most part, I assume those who I am addressing, know who they are.

Also, I know what it is to be ganged up on.

The difference, is that they specifically use my name, and usually resort to personal attacks.

Moving on...

No equipment need be "wielded" to gain an AC bonus.

Nobody "wields" their Fullplate.

That's just silly, and unsupported.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Also, you can still wield a weapon, and not attack with it.

In the OP's Longsword/Armor Spikes example, you could replace the shield, with say, a Dagger, and you would still be wielding it.

As a shield is also a weapon, you can still wield a shield, even if you do not attack with it, attack with another weapon, or even two weapon fight with two other weapons.

So, the "wielding to gain AC" logic actually works against the argument for loss of AC.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If the Buckler is not an exception, than the following can be done with any Shield:

1) Use your shield arm to wield a weapon, including two-handed weapons.

2) Use a bow or crossbow without penalty.

3) Cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Also, Longspears don't threaten, and provoke when used, because, you know, Whip.

Longbows require a move action to reload, because, you know, Crossbows.


Look, I don't agree with Aelryinth's deduction but his reasoning is not stupid.

It is the fault of the game. When someone tries to apply logic equally across the rules of the game, it fails. It happens more often now that we are years into parsing the rules and the rulings go both ways on RAW.

We all know that hands that aren't hands matters. Aelryinth is just applying that same exact logic to using hands of effort with the shield.

Again, I think he is wrong, but his logic does fit with the FAQ on two weapon fighting and hands that are not hands.

I liken it to how I came down on the wrong side of the Shadow Dancer's HiPS. Most people, and apparently the DEVS, ignore Darkvision and Low Light Vision when using the HiPS feature. This is true even though, by RAW, Dim Light is a variable determined by the viewer, not the person attempting to hide, or a static space on a map.

Heck, maybe he will help those of us that think the whole "hands of effort" thing is pointless. Maybe this is a way to show the DEVs that there is a spot where using the "hands of effort" logic causes more problems and they will finally reverse it (crosses fingers).

The problem is, both camps can use the logic of the game as support. But neither can prove it, as so much nowadays is at the whim of the DEV team rather than an evenly applied logical process.

Recognize that at least half of the heated debates on these boards are a failure of the logic of the game and not the logic of your opposition and you can work for more meaningful change and clarifications.

Like that jumping thread at hundreds of posts... I know what was right, but the skill has two different, irreconcilable rules in the same paragraph. Most of the debate was about which one was correct without any give to the fact that both friggin versions were right there, for YEARS!


Komoda, I could agree with you if he had an actual rule to stand behind. Instead he has some idea cobbled together with an FAQ on a different subject and a ruling on a different kind of item.

So we aren't disagreeing over how a rule reads, it's literally between how the actual rules and how Aelryinth thinks they should be. We've asked MANY times for proof. He keep recycling the some old quotes that have no direct bearing on the question at hand.

Nowhere is it mentioned or inferred that a shield takes a hand of effort. There just isn't. The section on bucklers is, I know this is shocking, but JUST on bucklers. The Armor Spikes FAQ makes NO mention of shields. Then we have DEV posts that say THW and shields should be legal. I fail to see where he has a leg to stand on. Hands of effort only matter for TWF. Holding a shield isn't that. Armor Spikes FAQ then has nothing to add.

On 'hands of effort', I'll just say the whole thing is pretty blanked up. It's made the game more complicated and has no redeeming qualities. It's just awful to base rulings on 'unwritten' rules. It's bad enough for the DEV's to use them. However, no one else should attempt to delve further into them than what's explicitly FAQ'd. Bottom line, no matter how awful I think that FAQ is, it doesn't allow for the leap of 'logic' he made to come up with his 'rule'. IMO, I feels like it's more about him not liking it (he likes referring to it as munchkin) and trying to find some reason to disallow it than an honest debate. If it IS one, he should have some actual on point rules to post and so far he hasn't done that.

SO to review the 'proof' on his side.
Bucklers rules have NO bearing on shield rules anymore than whips prove how a long-spear works.
The Armor Spikes FAQ only proves what weapons can be used in TWF and the shield in this case ISN'T used as a weapon. Again, no bearing on the question.
When asked for actual proof, he ask us to prove an exception the rule he can't prove.
If this is a 'hands' issue, it's with his reaching WAY too far in an effort to get this to not work.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Yeah, because bucklers aren't a type of shield, and whips are a type of longspear (did you know you can set them against a charge?), and soccer is the same game as football if you're an American.

No, your examples, aren't.

Your arguments are all colored by your starting premise, which is in error.

All weapons DO default to losing your shield AC when used by the off-hand (assuming your shield is off-hand, of course). Your argument is that the default is that you KEEP it.
The buckler rule confirms and clarifies it...no, you don't. Choose between shield AC and weapon. Even when you are holding an excess weapon in that hand, you don't get both.
The Shield bash rule confirms and clarifies it. No, even though the shield is a weapon, you still have to make the choice.
The Improved SHield Bash feat offers the only exception where you get both at once.
The Armor Spikes FAQ confirms that you have to use the off-hand for spikes, which means you don't get to use it for the shield, following the default rule.

There's no weapon that defaults to keeping shield AC when used in the off-hand. Descriptive combat flavor announcements do not affect this.

So, you can keep arguing, but with your basic premise flawed, you're just interpreting the rules to fit something that is not there, and 100% definitely isn't supposed to be there.

It's 100% three-hand munchkinism, and a classic (15 years old+!) example of it.

So, you can keep repeating your arguments, which basically interpret stuff backwards. I can also repeat mine that are quite straightforwards.

I agree that it needs a FAQ to further stop this silliness. But that hardly means you get everything in the meantime.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth

The unchained monk needs to do attacks with "Kicks" for some of it's class features opposed to "punches" or other limbs. Thus we see that while Unarmed Attacks consider your entire body as a weapon, you only use 1 part of it to make an attack. Thus you don't need any part of the body but the part your using available to make the attack with that limb. So it's not just descriptive flavor but the actual attack.

0) Where is your rule that if you use the 'off-hand' that you lose the AC to the shield?
1) none of us are saying that you use your off-hand to make the attack, but that you use your 'off-hand' by kicking or the like. Thus since you're not using your off-hand (the one the shield is in) you don't lose the AC
2) We're not making an attack with the hand that the buckler is in
3) Nope, if you make an attack with the shield then you lose AC if you use it as your main hand or your off hand, but we're not attacking with the shield, nor the arm that has donned the shield anyways
4) No where does it say that a shield needs your 'off-hand' to get the shield bonus to AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:

Look, I don't agree with Aelryinth's deduction but his reasoning is not stupid.

It is the fault of the game. When someone tries to apply logic equally across the rules of the game, it fails. It happens more often now that we are years into parsing the rules and the rulings go both ways on RAW.

We all know that hands that aren't hands matters. Aelryinth is just applying that same exact logic to using hands of effort with the shield.

Again, I think he is wrong, but his logic does fit with the FAQ on two weapon fighting and hands that are not hands.

I liken it to how I came down on the wrong side of the Shadow Dancer's HiPS. Most people, and apparently the DEVS, ignore Darkvision and Low Light Vision when using the HiPS feature. This is true even though, by RAW, Dim Light is a variable determined by the viewer, not the person attempting to hide, or a static space on a map.

Heck, maybe he will help those of us that think the whole "hands of effort" thing is pointless. Maybe this is a way to show the DEVs that there is a spot where using the "hands of effort" logic causes more problems and they will finally reverse it (crosses fingers).

The problem is, both camps can use the logic of the game as support. But neither can prove it, as so much nowadays is at the whim of the DEV team rather than an evenly applied logical process.

Recognize that at least half of the heated debates on these boards are a failure of the logic of the game and not the logic of your opposition and you can work for more meaningful change and clarifications.

Like that jumping thread at hundreds of posts... I know what was right, but the skill has two different, irreconcilable rules in the same paragraph. Most of the debate was about which one was correct without any give to the fact that both friggin versions were right there, for YEARS!

I disagree with this in part and nearly in whole.

First off, Aerly isn't using reasoning, he is willfully misinterpreting the rules to support an emotional predisposition on the rules. This is evident by his repeatedly using terms like "munchkinism" and "exploit." He also completely fails to acknowledge that hands of effort has nothing to do with physical hands.

At best, he's arguing that it should require a hand of effort to use a shield, but that's not what the rules say and that's technically not what he's arguing. He's arguing something that isn't there. Telling us that the buckler rules are a "clarification" on how light shields work is just simply false, on all kinds of levels. Aelry's logic fails and he has resorted to arguing by assertion. Numerous people have pointed out the logic of the rules and anyone who continue's to believe Aelry is correct probably has clinically diagnosable reasoning deficiencies. Aelry's position is seriously like someone insisting 1+1 = 3.

The recent thread on jumping is fundamentally different. Nefreet simply failed to parse the paragraph correctly. Nefreet did not accuse those who disagreed with him as guilty of munchkinism and trying to exploit the game. While I am still at a loss to understand how Nefreet came to his interpretation, I do not believe it was born from some emotional predisposition.

Quote:
When someone tries to apply logic equally across the rules of the game, it fails.

I completely agree with this. The devs do a terrible job of keeping the game internally consistent because this is about art not math or science, and worse, the vision for that art shifts over time. The most recent ruling on T10 is a 180 on the previous philosophy.

But applying logic equally across the game is not what Alery is doing. There is no game logic that he's applying. As others have suggested, he's trying to link two things that are not linked. It's black and white, the only thing that causes you to lose your shield AC is shield bashing. That's it. Even his attempt to invoke the buckler rules is nonsensical. Someone coined it earlier, he's throwing anything he can against the wall and hoping something sticks and the name-calling anyone who disagrees with him.


Items that give you a shield bonus:-

Shields: Shield bonus is lost when you attack
Bucklers: Shield bonus lost when you use the arm it is strapped to
Scizores: Shield bonus lost when you attack with it
Klar: Acts as a "spiked shield" so bonus lost when you attack
Boar Spear: Shield bonus granted against attacker when set against it's charge.
Bill: Shield bonus granted when fighting defensively or in full defense
Meteor Hammer: Shield bonus granted in meteor mode in which only one 'end' can be used to attack.
Two Weapon Defense: Not an item but bonus granted when fighting with two weapons. N.B. this excludes UA and natural weapons.

Illustration of RAI?
From Ultimate combat under Armour as Damage Reduction sub heading Defense.

Defense represents how easy or difficult it is to hit a creature. The shield bonus is added because a creature is considered to be actively blocking attacks with its shield whenever it can, which is whenever it would gain its Dexterity bonus to AC and not be flat-footed

More here Armour as Damage Reduction

All of which would seem to indicate that you must be actively using an item to get it's shield bonus. Which side of the argument this helps will presumably depend on interpretation.

In the mean time I have some magic beans that I'll swap for a good Milch Cow.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am still at a loss how attacking with something other than the held shield, or something wielded using the same arm as the the, makes you lose the the Shield bonus to AC.

Nothing, has supported this loss.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

@CountofUndolpho: Are you, supporting the maintained AC Bonus? I thought you hated shields, and would find any cause to destroy their usefulness.


12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, here's your question to get FAQ'd:

When Two-Weapon Fighting while wielding a shield, but not using the shield as a weapon for one of your attacks, do you lose the shield's shield bonus to AC until your next turn?

Hit that FAQ button, people.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
@CountofUndolpho: Are you, supporting the maintained AC Bonus? I thought you hated shields, and would find any cause to destroy their usefulness.

Sorry you are correct I hate shields and am finding any cause to destroy their usefulness.

So IMHO if you take extra attacks via TWF in the round I think you should lose the Shield Bonus. As all rules re: shield bonus imply it takes 'effort' to get said bonus. If you use the effort for an attack there is none left for the bonus. I accept it isn't spelt out in a completely clear cut fashion but to me it is clearly implied.

Again, to me, this seems to be dropping back to the removal of the term 'off-hand' from shield bash. If the shield isn't occupying your off-hand then an argument can be made that it doesn't take up a 'hands worth of effort' which I believe is your point?

I see how you have arrived at your opinion but I disagree with it. It seems perfectly logical to me that in order for you to get extra attacks to your iterative attacks you lose the ability to get a shield bonus (unless you shield bash with the appropriate feat).

Meteor Hammer seems a good illustration of the point.

Also I think you are having too much fun with this thread and it offends my door Yorkshire sensibilities so I'm reporting you to the internet pixies!

251 to 300 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield All Messageboards