Armor Spike and Reach Weapon > Threaten 5 and 10 feet?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

No.

You need no special training to kick, or to kick whilst holding something in your hands.

The Monk reminder is meaningless, to non-Monk characters, who fall under the default unarmed strike rules, which explicitly allow one to kick or headbutt enemies.
...

You haven't actually answered any of my points or given any rule examples to prove yours in your post. It is merely a collection of Ad Hominem attacks and no it doesn'ts.

Apart (sort of) from the above so: Rule that says you don't?

Never argued against headbutt etc being unarmed strikes.

Monk rule (reminder?) is there to make Flurry work as stated

CRB wrote:
"These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon"

.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh look, another rules debate because of this atrociously written FAQ. How many of these do we have to have before they change this thing?


@CountofUndolpho
Actually, I would say you never offered any rule that says a non-monk can't use unarmed strike with his hands full. At best you have a circumstantial evidence that monks are explicitly reminded they can do this. What you are asking for is a citation of a Rule as UnWritten, which is impossible.

Now the thing about Rules as UnWritten is that you can't use RAW to back them up, so you have to use common sense. And the common sense in this situation is that a person with their hands full can still kick or headbutt someone.


Seranov wrote:


Armor spikes are not on your hands. Thus, you don't need a physical hand to use them. You need a metaphorical hand to use them for Two Weapon Fighting (in which case you need a 1H weapon to pair with them) but Attacks of Opportunity share exactly zero rules overlap with Two Weapon Fighting.

Again you are stating what armour spikes are without quoting anything, perhaps they are only on your forearms. Hence being equated with a gauntlet in the TWF FAQ.

It is the ability to use two weapons simultaneously that AoO shares with TWF; when using multiple weapons and wanting to use either weapon at will for AoO that is. How can you threaten with both at the same time if you can't use them both at the same time?


CountofUndolpho wrote:
How can you threaten with both at the same time if you can't use them both at the same time?

As we just got done explaining, you are not using them both at the same time during an AoO, which operates outside the normal flow of combat by definition.


CountofUndolpho wrote:


It is the ability to use two weapons simultaneously that AoO shares with TWF; when using multiple weapons and wanting to use either weapon at will for AoO that is. How can you threaten with both at the same time if you can't use them both at the same time?

Actually, you can use both at the same time, just not as part of the Two Weapon Fighting special action. If you have two iterative attacks, you can make one attack with the spikes and the other attack with the two-hander. If you have three iterative attacks you can make an armor spike, two-handed and headbutt all in the same round.

This FAQ tells you that the rules associated with TWF are only used for TWF:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9onf


CountofUndolpho wrote:


Apart (sort of) from the above so: Rule that says you don't?

Please, stop reading and posting here and go search on youtube for a basic explanation of explicit vs. implicit meaning in text. Then come back and continue the discussion. Your entire argument is based on you not understanding the concept of implied information in a written document.

PRD wrote:
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

The two words "this means" denotes that the following information is the logical implication of what was just stated. So being able to attack with fists, elbows, knees and feet implies the ability to make attacks with your hands full.

They are not making a new rule stating that monks, specifically, can attack with their hands full they are merely explaining that the fact that they can use their fists, elbows, knees and feet already implies that is the case.

Which brings us to the general rules for unarmed strikes.

PRD wrote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Just because they did not bother to explain the implication a second time in this text does not mean that the implication ceases to exist. The implication is still that attacking with punches (fists) and feet (Kicks) allows you to attack with your hands full.


Melkiador wrote:

@CountofUndolpho

Actually, I would say you never offered any rule that says a non-monk can't use unarmed strike with his hands full. At best you have a circumstantial evidence that monks are explicitly reminded they can do this. What you are asking for is a citation of a Rule as UnWritten, which is impossible.

Now the thing about Rules as UnWritten is that you can't use RAW to back them up, so you have to use common sense. And the common sense in this situation is that a person with their hands full can still kick or headbutt someone.

Eh? That's a very dodgy path go down "It doesn't say I can't so I can" think about it.

As a different way of looking at it what to you makes it just a reminder? Especially considering the wording of Flurry?


CountofUndolpho wrote:


Eh? That's a very dodgy path go down "It doesn't say I can't so I can" think about it.

It's not dodgy at all. It's exactly the way the rules are supposed to be interpreted.

*) Does the rule explicitly say I can or can't do something?
*) If the rule doesn't explicitly say, then do what makes the most sense.

Quote:
As a different way of looking at it what to you makes it just a reminder? Especially considering the wording of Flurry?

I've previously demonstrated that the monks Unarmed Strike already contains reminder/redundant text that can be found in the Unarmed Strike section of the Combat chapter. What wording from flurry of blows are you referring to?


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:


Apart (sort of) from the above so: Rule that says you don't?

Please, stop reading and posting here and go search on youtube for a basic explanation of explicit vs. implicit meaning in text. Then come back and continue the discussion. Your entire argument is based on you not understanding the concept of implied information in a written document.

PRD wrote:
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

The two words "this means" denotes that the following information is the logical implication of what was just stated. So being able to attack with fists, elbows, knees and feet implies the ability to make attacks with your hands full.

They are not making a new rule stating that monks, specifically, can attack with their hands full they are merely explaining that the fact that they can use their fists, elbows, knees and feet already implies that is the case.

Which brings us to the general rules for unarmed strikes.

PRD wrote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Just because they did not bother to explain the implication a second time in this text does not mean that the implication ceases to exist. The implication is still that attacking with punches (fists) and feet (Kicks) allows you to attack with your hands full.

Whilst rude you actually make a point. What about the section in Flurry is that just another reminder?


Melkiador wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:


It is the ability to use two weapons simultaneously that AoO shares with TWF; when using multiple weapons and wanting to use either weapon at will for AoO that is. How can you threaten with both at the same time if you can't use them both at the same time?

Actually, you can use both at the same time, just not as part of the Two Weapon Fighting special action. If you have two iterative attacks, you can make one attack with the spikes and the other attack with the two-hander. If you have three iterative attacks you can make an armor spike, two-handed and headbutt all in the same round.

This FAQ tells you that the rules associated with TWF are only used for TWF:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9onf

Iterative attacks follow on from each other and are not simultaneous, you can take a free action etc between iterative attacks. For example you can strike with a Long spear take a free action to remove your hand and then strike with a spiked gauntlet. For AoO if you were threatening at 10' you couldn't threaten with the gauntlet at 5' and vice versa.

Scarab Sages

CountofUndolpho wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:


It is the ability to use two weapons simultaneously that AoO shares with TWF; when using multiple weapons and wanting to use either weapon at will for AoO that is. How can you threaten with both at the same time if you can't use them both at the same time?

Actually, you can use both at the same time, just not as part of the Two Weapon Fighting special action. If you have two iterative attacks, you can make one attack with the spikes and the other attack with the two-hander. If you have three iterative attacks you can make an armor spike, two-handed and headbutt all in the same round.

This FAQ tells you that the rules associated with TWF are only used for TWF:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9onf

Iterative attacks follow on from each other and are not simultaneous, you can take a free action etc between iterative attacks. For example you can strike with a Long spear take a free action to remove your hand and then strike with a spiked gauntlet. For AoO if you were threatening at 10' you couldn't threaten with the gauntlet at 5' and vice versa.

Yes, but armor spikes are not gauntlets and do not use a hand.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Iterative attacks follow on from each other and are not simultaneous, you can take a free action etc between iterative attacks. For example you can strike with a Long spear take a free action to remove your hand and then strike with a spiked gauntlet. For AoO if you were threatening at 10' you couldn't threaten with the gauntlet at 5' and vice versa.

There is nothing to suggest that attacks made using TWF are any more "simultaneous" than other methods of multiple attacks. You can perform free actions while using the TWF action, because nothing says you can't.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Okay - but that's not actually a valid argument. Nowhere do the rules call out 'unarmed strikes' as being only a punch.

You need to actually have rules backing you up to make valid statements on a rules forum.

Anything else is just a house-rule. (Which is fine - do what you want - just don't pretend it's an actual rule.)

Show me the rule that says anyone other than a Monk can Unarmed Strike with their hands full and I'll happily say "Ok I thought it was about balance in the game to stop TWF with kick and 2H weapon but I'm obviously wrong sorry" and play it the way you do.

1. I don't actually need to. Basic logic dictates that you can do all sorts of unarmed strikes, and Pathfinder is a permissive system. But if you insist...

2.

SRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Edit: Semi-ninja'd

Er...that doesn't say anyone can use unarmed strikes with their hands full soo...? It also implies that you need to unarmed to use such attacks I must admit I thought that was the point of the Monks Unarmed Strikes/Flurry that they can use them in any combination weapons(inc. 2H) or unarmed strikes. That's why the entries are different. Why would they include a reminder under a class that uses unarmed strikes differently from everyone else?

Actually, it does. What was quoted to you was the description of Unarmed Strikes in the Combat Section of the Core Rulebook. That means 2 things: that it applies to ALL unarmed strikes, not just Monks, and that you don't need any hands free, or any hands at all, to do it.

It doesn't give you any extra actions. You can't attack with a Greatsword and then make an unarmed off-hand attack. You used your off hand to swing the greatsword. But if you were using a long sword, an a shield, you could totally attack with your long sword and your unarmed strike as an off hand attack, even though your hands were full.


You don't need to actually have made an attack with a weapon in order to threaten with it. If I double-move on my turn, I can still threaten with my wielded weapon. However, if I were under some condition that would prevent me even the option of attacking with a wielded weapon (ie. Hold Person), that prevents me from threatening. Attacking with a 2-h reach weapon doesn't mean you didn't have the option to, instead, attack with your armor spikes because you had the option to split them between iterative attacks. Thus, even if you attack with a 2-h reach weapon, you still threaten with armor spikes. No rules, neither explicit nor implied, nor any FAQ or errata contradicts this; anyone stating the contrary either doesn't understand the rules or is deliberately spreading disinformation and should probably have their posts removed to preserve the integrity of the community.


Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Seranov wrote:
Can you have a Longspear and Armor Spikes and threaten both 5 and 10 feet? Absolutely. You're not TWF'ing with them, you're simply wielding both.
Does that work for you with spiked Gauntlet and Long Spear?

No because if you're wielding the long spear your hands are used and can't use the spiked Gauntlet.

About the Monk, it's the use of the word "Thus" in the block that means it's not something special to the monk. 'A monk can attack with [list of body parts] for unarmed attacks, THUS they can attack with hands full.' But we know that that list isn't comprehensive, and there's overlap with the generic Unarmed attack list. THUS anyone that can kick can attack with hands full.

Yes, it does. Releasing the spear with 1 hand to punch somebody is a Free action. A wizard can use spells with material and somatic components even when he is using his quarterstaff. This has been FAQ'd.

You can't make Claw Attacks as part of the same Full Attack along with using a Greatsword, but there's no problem with making both Claw attacks while you are HOLDING a Greatsword.

Sovereign Court

Curious - why are we still arguing when everyone and their kid brother agrees that it's ruling A and have multiple implicit rules to back them up, and one stubborn guy says that it's ruling B and is demanding explicit rules?

You can lead a horse to water...


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Seranov wrote:
No. But the armor spikes aren't on your hands. They're on your chest, shoulders, arms, legs, etc. Unless you are implying that you need to unscrew the armor spikes and stab someone with them like a dagger (hint: you don't), in which case I don't have any reason to reply to you willfully misinterpreting the rules.

I was unaware that the position of armour spikes was specified anywhere can you quote the reference? I wonder why they don't give automatic damage when you Bull Rush? Also if that were the case why wouldn't you be able to TWF with them?

Perhaps, also, you could point out which rule I am wilfully misinterpreting?

You do automatic damage with armor spikes when you Grapple. I guess the designers felt that Bull Rushing wasn't sufficiently intimate for inflicting automatic damage from the armor spikes.

You can take the Feat Spiked Destroyer which lets you make an Armor Spike Attack as as a Swift Action following a successful Bull Rush. There was a 3.5 version of Spiked Destroyer, too.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:


Apart (sort of) from the above so: Rule that says you don't?

Please, stop reading and posting here and go search on youtube for a basic explanation of explicit vs. implicit meaning in text. Then come back and continue the discussion. Your entire argument is based on you not understanding the concept of implied information in a written document.

PRD wrote:
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

The two words "this means" denotes that the following information is the logical implication of what was just stated. So being able to attack with fists, elbows, knees and feet implies the ability to make attacks with your hands full.

They are not making a new rule stating that monks, specifically, can attack with their hands full they are merely explaining that the fact that they can use their fists, elbows, knees and feet already implies that is the case.

Which brings us to the general rules for unarmed strikes.

PRD wrote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Just because they did not bother to explain the implication a second time in this text does not mean that the implication ceases to exist. The implication is still that attacking with punches (fists) and feet (Kicks) allows you to attack with your hands full.

Whilst rude you actually make a point. What about the section in Flurry is that just another reminder?

To which part of Flurry of Blows are you referring?

PRD wrote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make on additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

I don't see anything in there that is relevant to the discussion of whether or not you can use an unarmed strike with your hands full.

Grand Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Seranov wrote:
No. But the armor spikes aren't on your hands. They're on your chest, shoulders, arms, legs, etc. Unless you are implying that you need to unscrew the armor spikes and stab someone with them like a dagger (hint: you don't), in which case I don't have any reason to reply to you willfully misinterpreting the rules.

I was unaware that the position of armour spikes was specified anywhere can you quote the reference? I wonder why they don't give automatic damage when you Bull Rush? Also if that were the case why wouldn't you be able to TWF with them?

Perhaps, also, you could point out which rule I am wilfully misinterpreting?
You do automatic damage with armor spikes when you Grapple.

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that after you successfully maintain you use your action to deal damage instead of a light or one-handed weapon. What makes you think it's "automatic damage when you grapple"?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Seranov wrote:
No. But the armor spikes aren't on your hands. They're on your chest, shoulders, arms, legs, etc. Unless you are implying that you need to unscrew the armor spikes and stab someone with them like a dagger (hint: you don't), in which case I don't have any reason to reply to you willfully misinterpreting the rules.

I was unaware that the position of armour spikes was specified anywhere can you quote the reference? I wonder why they don't give automatic damage when you Bull Rush? Also if that were the case why wouldn't you be able to TWF with them?

Perhaps, also, you could point out which rule I am wilfully misinterpreting?
You do automatic damage with armor spikes when you Grapple.
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that after you successfully maintain you use your action to deal damage instead of a light or one-handed weapon. What makes you think it's "automatic damage when you grapple"?

Because it's specifically stated in the description of armor spikes:

CRB Equpipment wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Seranov wrote:
No. But the armor spikes aren't on your hands. They're on your chest, shoulders, arms, legs, etc. Unless you are implying that you need to unscrew the armor spikes and stab someone with them like a dagger (hint: you don't), in which case I don't have any reason to reply to you willfully misinterpreting the rules.

I was unaware that the position of armour spikes was specified anywhere can you quote the reference? I wonder why they don't give automatic damage when you Bull Rush? Also if that were the case why wouldn't you be able to TWF with them?

Perhaps, also, you could point out which rule I am wilfully misinterpreting?
You do automatic damage with armor spikes when you Grapple.
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that after you successfully maintain you use your action to deal damage instead of a light or one-handed weapon. What makes you think it's "automatic damage when you grapple"?

Because it's specifically stated in the description of armor spikes:

CRB Equpipment wrote:

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.

While the header says damage (under grapple), it's my understanding that that's what it's referring to.

It's ambiguous enough that it could be interpreted either way. I don't feel it's within the spirit of the game that it's supposed to be free damage on initiating a grapple.

I guess it comes down to is "grapple attack" initiating a grapple (which is still an attack) or is it the "damage header" where you are attacking with a weapon after successfully maintaining a grapple?

Scarab Sages

I actually think it's intended to be damage on any grapple check, like constrict. It's the main combat style of Thippledorf Pwent, which is about the time armor spikes were added to the game.


claudekennilol wrote:


I guess it comes down to is "grapple attack" initiating a grapple (which is still an attack) or is it the "damage header" where you are attacking with a weapon after successfully maintaining a grapple?

The nonproficiency penalty applies to grapple checks. I therefore read it as the damage applying to any successful grapple check.


Seranov wrote:


Armor spikes do not require the use of your hands. They require the use of one of your 'metaphorical hands', and this is only in regards to Two Weapon Fighting. Any weapon you can make an attack with, you may take Attacks of Opportunity with.

_________________________________________________________________

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.
_____________________________________________________________________

Pathfinder is much stricter than 3.5 is about having weapons threaten at range and right next to you. You can still do it, but it takes a species bite, an exotic weapon (dwarven boulder helmet) or a feat to pull off.

Quote:
Can you Armor Spikes/Claw/Claw? Yes. Armor Spikes would be at Full BAB, both claws would be at -5, as they'd become secondary natural attacks.

Unknown. Armor spikes weren't a thing in the real world, so we don't know how they "really" work.

Grand Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:
I actually think it's intended to be damage on any grapple check, like constrict. It's the main combat style of Thippledorf Pwent, which is about the time armor spikes were added to the game.

Can you point me to something that says that's how he attacks? I'm not familiar with any previous iconics (or any system that isn't strictly pathfinder) so I'd be interested in seeing anything that backs up what you're saying (a quick google makes it kind of obvious from the picture, but I'd still like something in writing to reiterate what you're saying).


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Armor spikes weren't a thing in the real world, so we don't know how they "really" work.

I'm pretty sure you can get armor spikes on types of armor that don't cover your arms, which suggests that you don't need hands to use them.

It may be RAI that they need a free 'hand' to use, but that isn't RAW until there's a new FAQ.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand.

You can get Armor Spikes on a Breastplate which doesn't even have arms or legs.

Core Rulebook, Combat, Attacks of Opportunity, Threatened Squares wrote:
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).

Even if you are right that you for some reason need a free hand to use the armor spikes on my Breastplate, It's a Free Action to let go of something in order to perform some other kind of action. There just isn't a problem with Threatening with your Armor Spikes or your Unarmed Strikes even if you are holding a 2 handed reach weapon.

FAQ, Core Rulebook, General, posted March 2013 wrote:

What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

Are you saying that characters who have used their Full Attack Action cannot Threaten squares in order to make attacks of opportunity? That sounds like a consequence of what you are saying.

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Seranov wrote:


Armor spikes do not require the use of your hands. They require the use of one of your 'metaphorical hands', and this is only in regards to Two Weapon Fighting. Any weapon you can make an attack with, you may take Attacks of Opportunity with.

_________________________________________________________________

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.
_____________________________________________________________________

Pathfinder is much stricter than 3.5 is about having weapons threaten at range and right next to you. You can still do it, but it takes a species bite, an exotic weapon (dwarven boulder helmet) or a feat to pull off.

Quote:
Can you Armor Spikes/Claw/Claw? Yes. Armor Spikes would be at Full BAB, both claws would be at -5, as they'd become secondary natural attacks.

Unknown. Armor spikes weren't a thing in the real world, so we don't know how they "really" work.

3.5's rules only apply to 3.5. In Pathfinder, you may take an Attack of Opportunity with any weapon you are wielding. When you are wearing a suit of armor with armor spikes on it, and you are proficient with the armor spikes, you count as wielding the armor spikes, in addition to any other weapon you may be wielding.

You can be a dwarven aegis and have

  • A longsword in your right hand
  • A shortsword in your left hand
  • Cesti on your other two hands
  • A dwarven boulder helmet on your noggin
  • Armor spikes on your armor

And you threaten with each of those weapons. You obviously have to choose which of the six weapons you want to make the Attack of Opportunity with, but you COULD take an AoO with any of them. TWF rules and metaphorical hands rulings have absolutely nothing to do with this.

Additionally, you absolutely can Armor Spikes/Claw/Claw. It's a light weapon, and there are no rules that say you can't combine light weapons with natural attacks. It requires a metaphorical hand of effort, but not a physical one. It's the same as Boulder Helmet/Claw/Claw.

Double additionally, developer posts on the forums are not RAW. Until an errata states otherwise, it is absolutely not specifically how the rules work.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:


You can get Armor Spikes on a Breastplate which doesn't even have arms or legs.

That was me quoting one of the developers.

Quote:
Even if you are right that you for some reason need a free hand to use the armor spikes on my Breastplate, It's a Free Action to let go of something in order to perform some other kind of action. There just isn't a problem with Threatening with your Armor Spikes or your Unarmed Strikes even if you are holding a 2 handed reach weapon.

You cannot take free actions like letting go of the pole arm when it isn't your turn.

Quote:
Are you saying that characters who have used their Full Attack Action cannot Threaten squares in order to make attacks of opportunity? That sounds like a consequence of what you are saying.

I do not see your thought process there, at all.


Seranov wrote:
Additionally, you absolutely can Armor Spikes/Claw/Claw. It's a light weapon, and there are no rules that say you can't combine light weapons with natural attacks. It requires a metaphorical hand of effort, but not a physical one. It's the same as Boulder Helmet/Claw/Claw.

You cannot do that if, as the post indicates, armored spikes occupy an actual hand when they're used.

Quote:
3.5's rules only apply to 3.5

If they still applied the issue would be solved and you could both attack with a two handed weapon and two weapon fight with spiked armor.

edited to make the meaning more obvious.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
3.5's rules only apply to 3.5
If they still applied the issue would be solved and you could both attack and two weapon fight with spiked armor.

Except that the FAQ would supercede that.

Edit: Actually you can already two-weapon fight with spiked armor. You just can't use a two-handed weapon while doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You cannot take free actions like letting go of the pole arm when it isn't your turn.

But you can make attacks of opportunity when it isn't your turn. You threaten to make attacks of opportunity against adjacent squares when you are wearing Armor Spikes. You also might be Flanking your opponents even when it isn't your turn.

Having your hands full doesn't prevent you from using armor spikes.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
That was me quoting one of the developers.

And I was quoting the Core Rulebook. Were your Jason and Mark making official rules posts in your quotes? Were they making FAQs? Were they quoting errata that they officially published?

Because I was quoting the rules.


The problem with this question is that the wording of the FAQ is ambiguous about whether you need your actual physical 'offhand' free to use armor spikes, or whether you need a conceptual TWF 'offhand' to do it. It's another terribly conceived FAQ, where instead of one of two simple, clear and general statements - either "you can't TWF if both hands are on a weapon" or "Armor Spikes require a free hand to use" - they just sort of babble ambiguously.

Personally if I had to guess, I would say that it was simply intended to say you need an actual hand free to use armor spikes; it makes a direct analogy between armor spikes and a gauntlet and is an FAQ specifically about armor spikes. However, "you can't TWF with a two-handed weapon ever" was furiously argued as the implication of the armor spikes FAQ - not least by people who for whatever reason always obviously loathed the fact that you could - and it has become 'common knowledge' by repetition and inertia. This entire argument is just harvesting the ambiguity again.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Having your hands full doesn't prevent you from using armor spikes.

And I was quoting the Core Rulebook. Were your Jason and Mark making official rules posts in your quotes? Were they making FAQs? Were they quoting errata that they officially published?

Because I was quoting the rules.

You are doing more than quoting the rule book. You are taking your rather reasonable position that the armor spikes can be used with a shoulder block or belly bump or hip check and going from there.

That rather reasonable position however is not explicitly spelled out in the rules and is not one that the design team shares. They apparently expect you to punch with armored spikes. That occupies your actual hands , and you can't use the free action to switch grips when its not your turn.

Grand Lodge

Outside of the full-round action, to two-weapon fight, none of the two-weapon fighting rules, or FAQs apply.

How the hell is this not apparent?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
How the hell is this not apparent?

If you interpret the Armor Spikes FAQ to mean that you need an actual free hand to use Armor Spikes. See my previous post...


BadBird wrote:
The problem with this question is that the wording of the FAQ is ambiguous about whether you need your actual physical 'offhand' free to use armor spikes, or whether you need a conceptual TWF 'offhand' to do it.

No, that's not the problem at all, since the TWF (and therefore the conceptual TWF 'offhand') literally don't apply to questions of attacks of opportunity.

This is a fatuous exercise in irrelevance. We're discussing where the best pizza in town is, and you tell me that there's a new taco place that opened up at the mall which we have to take into account.... No, we don't, unless that place also serves pizza.


BadBird wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
How the hell is this not apparent?
If you interpret the Armor Spikes FAQ to mean that you need an actual free hand to use Armor Spikes.

Which Armor Spikes FAQ are you talking about? Because if it's the one that goes

Quote:


Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

... then it's literally not relevant to the question of whether you can make an attack of opportunity. It's about using TWF, which you're not doing.


Orfamay Quest wrote:


... then it's literally not relevant to the question of whether you can make an attack of opportunity. It's about using TWF, which you're not doing.

It MIGHT be.

If you can't two weapon fight with armor spikes and a greatsword only because of virtual hands of actions then its not relevant.

If you can't two weapon fight with armor spikes and a greatsword because the spikes require your actual physical hands then its relevant.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


... then it's literally not relevant to the question of whether you can make an attack of opportunity. It's about using TWF, which you're not doing.

It MIGHT be.

If you can't two weapon fight with armor spikes and a greatsword only because of virtual hands of actions then its not relevant.

If you can't two weapon fight with armor spikes and a greatsword because the spikes require your actual physical hands then its relevant.

The spikes can't require a physical hand because there is armor that does not have anything to do with hands that can have spikes.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


... then it's literally not relevant to the question of whether you can make an attack of opportunity. It's about using TWF, which you're not doing.

It MIGHT be.

Nope. It's only relevant to the question asked -- "Can I use two weapon fighting...." As cited above, "the design team has explicitly stated that FAQs aren't meant to be used to state anything more than they explicitly do."


claudekennilol wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


... then it's literally not relevant to the question of whether you can make an attack of opportunity. It's about using TWF, which you're not doing.

It MIGHT be.

If you can't two weapon fight with armor spikes and a greatsword only because of virtual hands of actions then its not relevant.

If you can't two weapon fight with armor spikes and a greatsword because the spikes require your actual physical hands then its relevant.

The spikes can't require a physical hand because there is armor that does not have anything to do with hands that can have spikes.

Spiked Haramaki...


Orfamay Quest wrote:
... then it's literally not relevant to the question of whether you can make an attack of opportunity. It's about using TWF, which you're not doing.

You're absolutely correct in that what the FAQ specifically, actually says is that you can't use armor spikes to make a TWF attack if using a two-handed weapon. The problem comes from the fact that as to why, it implies one of two possible things - and one of those possible implications is that you need an actual hand free to make an attack with armor spikes.


BadBird wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
... then it's literally not relevant to the question of whether you can make an attack of opportunity. It's about using TWF, which you're not doing.
You're absolutely correct in that what the FAQ specifically, actually says is that you can't use armor spikes to make a TWF attack if using a two-handed weapon. The problem comes from the fact that as to why, it implies one of two possible things - and one of those possible implications is that you need an actual hand free to make an attack with armor spikes.

Asking why goes against "the design team has explicitly stated that FAQs aren't meant to be used to state anything more than they explicitly do." You aren't meant to extrapolate anything as it isn't relevant presumably. It's why I'm only sure a few feats actually work with rays as the rest may or may not be 'weapon' enough to work/not work.

Grand Lodge

Oh?

We are moving on to extrapolations from the one FAQ, and what hidden rules it implies?

I have seen this one FAQ, be used as reasons for a maddening number of unrelated ruling.

To the point, that not only do they require a large amount of unwritten rules to be referenced, but ones that directly contradict written rules.

Don't.

A FAQ about two-weapon fighting, applies to two-weapon fighting.

Not threatening, wielding, or AoOs.


graystone wrote:
Asking why goes against "the design team has explicitly stated that FAQs aren't meant to be used to state anything more than they explicitly do." You aren't meant to extrapolate anything as it isn't relevant presumably. It's why I'm only sure a few feats actually work with rays as the rest may or may not be 'weapon' enough to work/not work.

Out of curiosity, do you have a link to that? I don't remember seeing it, and it's potentially a very useful statement. Among other things, it would mean that 2H/TWF is legal so long as it isn't with armor spikes.

As it is, it's difficult to avoid implied consequences...

"Can we go shoot pool at your house?"
"No. My house burned down."
"...can we go play ping pong at your house?"


blackbloodtroll wrote:
A FAQ about two-weapon fighting, applies to two-weapon fighting.

Or for that matter, a FAQ about limitations on two-weapon fighting with armor spikes...

Grand Lodge

I can live with that.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


... then it's literally not relevant to the question of whether you can make an attack of opportunity. It's about using TWF, which you're not doing.

It MIGHT be.

Nope. It's only relevant to the question asked -- "Can I use two weapon fighting...." As cited above, "the design team has explicitly stated that FAQs aren't meant to be used to state anything more than they explicitly do."

The FAQs might not, but overtly stated developer intent is.

101 to 150 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Armor Spike and Reach Weapon > Threaten 5 and 10 feet? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.