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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Hey,

Was there ever a ruling about this? I've read a post and they said they were going to answer it, but I can't see anything on the FAQs.

So, if I attack with my Reach Weapon on my turn, afterwards do I threaten with both my Armor Spikes and my Reach Weapon?


Here is the relevant FAQ. (I think.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That FAQ is concerning something else.

Yes, you threaten adjacent to you with the armor spikes and further out with your reach weapon.


I don't think that's a relevant FAQ. You can't dual wield, i.e., make extra attacks with, spiked armor and a two-handed weapon, but you can definitely use both at the same time if you're not making bonus attacks.

Unless they say something more directly, you can threaten both at 5' and 10' with armor spikes and a reach weapon.

Dark Archive

It's the same thing as being able to make an AoO with either of your weapons when you're holding one in each hand; the difference is only that armor spikes aren't held in your hands.

Also works with other non-hand weapons (Barbazu Beard, Seaknife, etc.) because you can use any weapon you are wielding to make an AoO.


Well, that's cool! The idea is mostly being able to threaten while using my 2H weapon.

I guess during combat Ill be switching to either a Cestus or a 1H weapon.

I'm planning on playing a cleric with this sepc


The Phalanx Soldier Fighter Archetype gets an abiilty that lets it use a Pole Arm in 1 hand and a shield in the other, so you might get Shield Slam and Spiked Destroyer, getting a free Bull Rush when you Shield Bash, and then a Swift Action Armor Spike attack following your Bull Rush.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
The Phalanx Soldier Fighter Archetype gets an abiilty that lets it use a Pole Arm in 1 hand and a shield in the other, so you might get Shield Slam and Spiked Destroyer, getting a free Bull Rush when you Shield Bash, and then a Swift Action Armor Spike attack following your Bull Rush.

It's a great idea, but since I'll be playing a cleric I'm

1- Feat Starved
2- Will have to dip into fighter at least 3 levels
3- Using Polearm has 1H weapon will negate Power Attack x1.5 to STR


Letric wrote:


I guess during combat Ill be switching to either a Cestus or a 1H weapon.

A Cestus or a 1H weapon isn't going to help you, as you have to let go of the reach weapon to wield them. You don't have to let go of the reach weapon with armor spikes which is why it works with that weapon.


Then again, since armour spikes are martial in and of themselves, a cestus might not be a bad idea. You can still let go of the polearm to punch out something, anyway.


If you are using a two handed reach weapon both hands of effort are in use so you can't threaten with Armour Spikes. If you are using your Armour spikes you are using one hand's worth of effort so you don't threaten with a 2H reach weapon. That is where the faq is relevant Armour spikes don't give you an extra hand. Cake, eat it and all that.

If you have iteratives you can use either weapon BUT to me the last weapon you used is the one you threaten with as you can't take a free action (to change your grip) as part of a AoO.

This is how I and the other GMs and players I have played PFRPG with understand the rules. I point this out to show that you might find table variance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:

If you are using a two handed reach weapon both hands of effort are in use so you can't threaten with Armour Spikes. If you are using your Armour spikes you are using one hand's worth of effort so you don't threaten with a 2H reach weapon. That is where the faq is relevant Armour spikes don't give you an extra hand. Cake, eat it and all that.

If you have iteratives you can use either weapon BUT to me the last weapon you used is the one you threaten with as you can't take a free action (to change your grip) as part of a AoO.

This is how I and the other GMs and players I have played PFRPG with understand the rules. I point this out to show that you might find table variance.

Completely wrong.

The hands of effort 'rule' only applies to TWF. If you have a BAB of +6 you can attack once with the 2-hander and once with the armor spikes. Since you can attack with either one of them you threaten with both.


thorin001 wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

If you are using a two handed reach weapon both hands of effort are in use so you can't threaten with Armour Spikes. If you are using your Armour spikes you are using one hand's worth of effort so you don't threaten with a 2H reach weapon. That is where the faq is relevant Armour spikes don't give you an extra hand. Cake, eat it and all that.

If you have iteratives you can use either weapon BUT to me the last weapon you used is the one you threaten with as you can't take a free action (to change your grip) as part of a AoO.

This is how I and the other GMs and players I have played PFRPG with understand the rules. I point this out to show that you might find table variance.

Completely wrong.

The hands of effort 'rule' only applies to TWF. If you have a BAB of +6 you can attack once with the 2-hander and once with the armor spikes. Since you can attack with either one of them you threaten with both.

We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

There is a specific rule

Threatened Squares: wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

You are arbitrarily limiting which weapons your players can use. If the rule was that you only threaten squares using the last weapon you attacked with on your turn, the rules would say it. This is a permissive system.


Archaeik wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

There is a specific rule

Threatened Squares: wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
You are arbitrarily limiting which weapons your players can use. If the rule was that you only threaten squares using the last weapon you attacked with on your turn, the rules would say it. This is a permissive system.

We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

Pretty much only from you, who is misinterpreting the rules and twisting them to imply something they don't.


Archaeik wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.
Pretty much only from you, who is misinterpreting the rules and twisting them to imply something they don't.

That's why I asked this question. There was a whole thread back in 2010 discussing this.

I think it was Mark&Co that said that you needed a free hand to use Armor Spikes, which kinda didn't make sense at all when you consider Boot Knife, and the barbazu thing. Eventually they never replied again, leaving this all open to interpretation of the rules.

I fail to see how you wouldn't threaten both 5 and 10 ft squares with Reach Weapon/Armor Spikes


Letric wrote:


That's why I asked this question. There was a whole thread back in 2010 discussing this.
I think it was Mark&Co that said that you needed a free hand to use Armor Spikes, which kinda didn't make sense at all when you consider Boot Knife, and the barbazu thing. Eventually they never replied again, leaving this all open to interpretation of the rules.

I fail to see how you wouldn't threaten both 5 and 10 ft squares with Reach Weapon/Armor Spikes

Sea knife and Barbazu beard and a couple of other splat book weapons specifically state you can use them with your hands full in order to use them with a 2H weapon for TWF etc. You can therefore argue you wield both at the same time for AoO (bootknife doesn't have that description).

The closest FAQ I can find to explain my reasoning is the one for Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10 feet and 5 feet? I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the blunt end of my longspear resembles a club and use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?

I know it is not exactly the same thing! But you are changing what you are wielding so to me it should take a free action same as the grip change does in the FAQ - you are going from a one handed weapon to a 2H weapon or vice versa. I get the whole Armour Spikes don't take hands thing but the Armour Spikes TWF FAQ would seem to say differently and I agree with it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Letric wrote:


That's why I asked this question. There was a whole thread back in 2010 discussing this.
I think it was Mark&Co that said that you needed a free hand to use Armor Spikes, which kinda didn't make sense at all when you consider Boot Knife, and the barbazu thing. Eventually they never replied again, leaving this all open to interpretation of the rules.

I fail to see how you wouldn't threaten both 5 and 10 ft squares with Reach Weapon/Armor Spikes

Sea knife and Barbazu beard and a couple of other splat book weapons specifically state you can use them with your hands full in order to use them with a 2H weapon for TWF etc. You can therefore argue you wield both at the same time for AoO (bootknife doesn't have that description).

The closest FAQ I can find to explain my reasoning is the one for Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10 feet and 5 feet? I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the blunt end of my longspear resembles a club and use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?

I know it is not exactly the same thing! But you are changing what you are wielding so to me it should take a free action same as the grip change does in the FAQ - you are going from a one handed weapon to a 2H weapon or vice versa. I get the whole Armour Spikes don't take hands thing but the Armour Spikes TWF FAQ would seem to say differently and I agree with it.

But you're not changing what you're wielding. You're just reading more into it than what is printed.


claudekennilol wrote:


But you're not changing what you're wielding. You're just reading more into it than what is printed.

We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

Dark Archive

I feel it's very disrespectful to keep copy/pasting the same thing when people are trying to have a civil discussion, Count. You are no longer contributing to the conversation by saying the same thing again and again.

I feel that you do threaten with anything you are proficient in that you can reasonable attack with.

Unarmed Strike is a great example. If I have a reach weapon in two hands and someone provokes at the 5 foot range I am still able to kick them or headbutt them just fine. Requires no hands. I don't feel that just because I have my hands full I can no longer attack with weapons I have trained for years to use.

Saying that the above situation changes just because the weapon is built into your armor seems silly.


The issue is that by having Armor Spikes I'm already wielding them. I can't wield an Armor Spike on my hands, it's impossible.

Armor Spikes make are on every part of your armor and require no action to wield. If someone provokes an AoO you could easily hit them with your shoulder.

I agree with Keith, Unarmed Strikes, you can't wield an Unarmed Strikes, yet you are able to threaten at 5ft.


Keith Apperson wrote:


I feel that you do threaten with anything you are proficient in that you can reasonable attack with.

When did proficiency become a requirement for attacks of opportunity?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People aren't trying to have a civil discussion they are telling me I'm wrong. The civil/uncivil discussion has been done before. Letric was actually asking so I answered him.

If you were wielding and therefore threatening with both weapons at the same time you should be able to TWF with them. If you can't you aren't wielding them simultaneously, so you can't threaten with both simultaneously. To me it's obvious to many people on here it's nonsense. I'm not saying I am right and they are wrong, just that's how I and everyone I've ever played with* see it and play it. So without a FAQ expect table variance.

*It hasn't actually come up that much so I'm assuming there, I'll ask next time my present group play and let you know.


CountofUndolpho wrote:

People aren't trying to have a civil discussion they are telling me I'm wrong. The civil/uncivil discussion has been done before. Letric was actually asking so I answered him.

If you were wielding and therefore threatening with both weapons at the same time you should be able to TWF with them. If you can't you aren't wielding them simultaneously, so you can't threaten with both simultaneously. To me it's obvious to many people on here it's nonsense. I'm not saying I am right and they are wrong, just that's how I and everyone I've ever played with* see it and play it. So without a FAQ expect table variance.

*It hasn't actually come up that much so I'm assuming there, I'll ask next time my present group play and let you know.

From that point of view it does make sense what you're saying, I give you that.

But all that analysis will fail if I have the feat Unarmed Strike, am I right?

*Unarmed Attacks

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

Liberty's Edge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:


But you're not changing what you're wielding. You're just reading more into it than what is printed.
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

CountofUndolpho, I don't have a dog in this race, but what the others are saying is spot on. You are reading things into the rules regarding threatening that are not there and doing so is a disservice to your players.

The threat area is not based on the weapon you attacked with or the weapon you 'have at the ready'. It is solely based on what weapons the character has at his disposal at the time of the AOO. This FAQ is completely unrelated to this.


RAW only the Monk has the proviso they can unarmed attack with their hands full.


RedDogMT wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:


But you're not changing what you're wielding. You're just reading more into it than what is printed.
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

CountofUndolpho, I don't have a dog in this race, but what the others are saying is spot on. You are reading things into the rules regarding threatening that are not there and doing so is a disservice to your players.

The threat area is not based on the weapon you attacked with or the weapon you 'have at the ready'. It is solely based on what weapons the character has at his disposal at the time of the AOO. This FAQ is completely unrelated to this.

If you were wielding and therefore threatening with both weapons at the same time you should be able to TWF with them. If you can't you aren't wielding them simultaneously, so you can't threaten with both simultaneously. To me it's obvious to many people on here it's nonsense. I'm not saying I am right and they are wrong, just that's how I and everyone I've ever played with* see it and play it. So without a FAQ expect table variance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
RAW only the Monk has the proviso they can unarmed attack with their hands full.

I'm sorry, but Unarmed Strike clearly say that I can use my head to strike the enemy. Why would I need my hands free to make an attack with my head?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

There is a specific rule

Threatened Squares: wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
You are arbitrarily limiting which weapons your players can use. If the rule was that you only threaten squares using the last weapon you attacked with on your turn, the rules would say it. This is a permissive system.
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

Having consumed all the attack actions for your turn does not mean you do not threaten with any weapon you have deployed for use. Once you have attacked with your Horsechopper, you have used up your Full Attack and do not get to make an off-hand attack (unless you have some other special ability that lets you) with your armor spikes.

But Threatening the square means other things than having attacks left to make in your Full Attack Action. If someone without Improved Unarmed Strike adjacent to you makes an Unarmed Strike against you, then you can make an attack of opportunity with your Armor Spikes. If you have an ally opposite you from this opponent, that opponent is Flanked.

The quoted text is the specific rule that you say does not exist: you appear to be mistaken. It exists. It has been quoted to you. Furthermore, it outweighs the evidence you brought about Armor Spikes and 2 handed weapons, since the FAQ you quoted deals with the Full Attack Action in particular, and the Threatened Squares quote deals with Threatened Squares. And Threatened Squares is the topic of this thread.

Now it falls upon you to

Discredit the Threatened Squares evidence;

Quote more rules to outweigh the evidence that has been brought;

Explain some other context where what you said is right;

Admit you are wrong, or

Hold your peace.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:


But you're not changing what you're wielding. You're just reading more into it than what is printed.
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

CountofUndolpho, I don't have a dog in this race, but what the others are saying is spot on. You are reading things into the rules regarding threatening that are not there and doing so is a disservice to your players.

The threat area is not based on the weapon you attacked with or the weapon you 'have at the ready'. It is solely based on what weapons the character has at his disposal at the time of the AOO. This FAQ is completely unrelated to this.

If you were wielding and therefore threatening with both weapons at the same time you should be able to TWF with them. If you can't you aren't wielding them simultaneously, so you can't threaten with both simultaneously. To me it's obvious to many people on here it's nonsense. I'm not saying I am right and they are wrong, just that's how I and everyone I've ever played with* see it and play it. So without a FAQ expect table variance.

Nothing about TWF has to do with wielding or threatening outside of the TWF attack. being able to TWF isn't a prereq for threatening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Letric wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
RAW only the Monk has the proviso they can unarmed attack with their hands full.
I'm sorry, but Unarmed Strike clearly say that I can use my head to strike the enemy. Why would I need my hands free to make an attack with my head?

The monk text is more like reminder text as it never states that a non-monk cannot also do this.


I made a mistake: It was Gisher and not the Count who in this thread quoted the FAQ about Armor Spikes, 2 weapon fighting, and the Full Attack Action.


Melkiador wrote:
Letric wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
RAW only the Monk has the proviso they can unarmed attack with their hands full.
I'm sorry, but Unarmed Strike clearly say that I can use my head to strike the enemy. Why would I need my hands free to make an attack with my head?
The monk text is more like reminder text as it never states that a non-monk cannot also do this.

I have made that mistake in the past, myself.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Nothing about TWF has to do with wielding or threatening outside of the TWF attack. being able to TWF isn't a prereq for threatening.

Being able to attack with the said weapon is a prerequisite for threatening with it.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Nothing about TWF has to do with wielding or threatening outside of the TWF attack. being able to TWF isn't a prereq for threatening.
Being able to attack with the said weapon is a prerequisite for threatening with it.

You can attack with a bow, are able to do it, yet you do not threaten


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Nothing about TWF has to do with wielding or threatening outside of the TWF attack. being able to TWF isn't a prereq for threatening.
Being able to attack with the said weapon is a prerequisite for threatening with it.

True, but TWF is a special attack action with its own rules that go simply beyond how many weapons you are wielding. So, while you can wield any number of weapons, you can only TWF with a limited number.

Grand Lodge

I seem to recall there was a developer post somewhere that said the intent of the game was that threatening a reach and adjacent required a feat or some similar level of investment.


Melkiador wrote:
Letric wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
RAW only the Monk has the proviso they can unarmed attack with their hands full.
I'm sorry, but Unarmed Strike clearly say that I can use my head to strike the enemy. Why would I need my hands free to make an attack with my head?
The monk text is more like reminder text as it never states that a non-monk cannot also do this.
I disagree
CRB wrote:
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.

It's called out specifically only for Monk doesn't read like a reminder to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Nothing about TWF has to do with wielding or threatening outside of the TWF attack. being able to TWF isn't a prereq for threatening.
Being able to attack with the said weapon is a prerequisite for threatening with it.

I can attack with my reach weapon and I can attack with my armor spikes. Done, I threaten with them. Just because I can't attack with both at the same time in a full attack before level 6 doesn't mean I can't attack with each.


Wouldn't this all be moot if you just used an AoO at the intended 10' range? I understand wanting to cover as much territory as possible, but that's the point of a polearm, right? (Well, the point is the bit that does d8 damage if it's a longspear, but you know what I mean.) How often will you WANT to have someone within 5' when swinging that glaive around?


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Letric wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
RAW only the Monk has the proviso they can unarmed attack with their hands full.
I'm sorry, but Unarmed Strike clearly say that I can use my head to strike the enemy. Why would I need my hands free to make an attack with my head?
The monk text is more like reminder text as it never states that a non-monk cannot also do this.
I disagree
CRB wrote:
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.
It's called out specifically only for Monk doesn't read like a reminder to me.

*Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:*
So any character can make unarmed attacks with punches, kicks and head butts. Now the monk says it can use knees and elbow. Then says "This means" not that the part after that is a special ability but a reminder that being able to attack with feet means you can attack with hands full.

Also the monk's list can't be a complete list of what they can attack with, otherwise the Unchained Monk that requires a head butt can't be done as head butt is in the normal list and not the monk's list.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Letric wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
RAW only the Monk has the proviso they can unarmed attack with their hands full.
I'm sorry, but Unarmed Strike clearly say that I can use my head to strike the enemy. Why would I need my hands free to make an attack with my head?
The monk text is more like reminder text as it never states that a non-monk cannot also do this.
I disagree

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.)

Dark Archive

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Keith Apperson wrote:


I feel that you do threaten with anything you are proficient in that you can reasonable attack with.
When did proficiency become a requirement for attacks of opportunity?

Bad choice of wording I guess - I was not actually suggesting proficiency came into play.

The only exception would be unarmed strikes, but that's outside of my original intent.


Qaianna wrote:
Wouldn't this all be moot if you just used an AoO at the intended 10' range? I understand wanting to cover as much territory as possible, but that's the point of a polearm, right? (Well, the point is the bit that does d8 damage if it's a longspear, but you know what I mean.) How often will you WANT to have someone within 5' when swinging that glaive around?

Run up next to enemy magic user, since you threaten near and far they can't just 5' step to cast.


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.


Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Letric wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
RAW only the Monk has the proviso they can unarmed attack with their hands full.
I'm sorry, but Unarmed Strike clearly say that I can use my head to strike the enemy. Why would I need my hands free to make an attack with my head?
The monk text is more like reminder text as it never states that a non-monk cannot also do this.
I disagree
CRB wrote:
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.
It's called out specifically only for Monk doesn't read like a reminder to me.

*Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:*
So any character can make unarmed attacks with punches, kicks and head butts. Now the monk says it can use knees and elbow. Then says "This means" not that the part after that is a special ability but a reminder that being able to attack with feet means you can attack with hands full.

Also the monk's list can't be a complete list of what they can attack with, otherwise the Unchained Monk that requires a head butt can't be done as head butt is in the normal list and not the monk's list.

Chess Pwn,

I was looking for that very quote, but I was unable to find it. Would you please cite where you got it from and link to it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The monk's unarmed strike is full of reminder text, because the rules for unarmed strike are spread out:

Monk wrote:

Unarmed Strike: 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. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

From the combat section of the PRD:

Combat wrote:

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

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

So, as you can see, the Monk's unarmed Strike tells you lots of things that are just as true for non-monks as for monks.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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


Qaianna wrote:
Wouldn't this all be moot if you just used an AoO at the intended 10' range? I understand wanting to cover as much territory as possible, but that's the point of a polearm, right? (Well, the point is the bit that does d8 damage if it's a longspear, but you know what I mean.) How often will you WANT to have someone within 5' when swinging that glaive around?

I'm trying to cover as much ground as possible without having to use another weapon.

Buclker+Long Spear allows me just to put the LS on bucklers hand and attack at 5tf, grab LS and I can attack at 10 ft.

If I were to need, lets say a mace, Id have to make a free action to move LS to bucklers hand, then move while drawing my mace and attacking.

This can a little taxing on free actions.

Imagine the following:

Move LS to bucklers hand, then cast a spell, then move while drawing weapon. Some GMs might be a little unhappy about doing so many actions, and still I wouldn't be threatening adjacent squares

1 to 50 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.