'Balance' is not an issue. 'Overpowered' it is not. Thinking it's 'clearly superior' is a knee-jerk reaction which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You are assuming it was about balance. I dont think thats the case here. I think its more a case of what was a commonly attempted end run around the rules. Two weapon fighting is read as fighting with 2 weapons one in each hand. There are then a set of exceptions to that (double weapons, thrown weapons, monks flurry).
Unless I see a dev quote that says otherwise, this ruling is about closing a loophole in the rules that many people used, and not about removing an overpowered option. Great sword and armor spikes are not 'overpowered' they are just contrary to the intended behavior of two weapon fighting as originally written.
For me at least the statistics arent important, the rational application of rules in the game world are. Using a 2 handed weapon and armor spikes to two weapon fight is to me at least a very gamist idea that disrupts the basic limitations put on a basic style of combat(two weapon fighting). I am glad the loophole is closed personally.
Edit: I had a look at the other gigantic thread about this topic and Jason Explains here and a couple other places that this ruling wasnt about armor spikes being over powered, but that there was a clear intent in the rules to provide general restrictions on the ways you can two weapon fight, and that armor spikes (and unarmed strikes) sit in a sort of mirky zone in the rules because they dont occupy hands, hence the confusion. This is purely clearing up confusion in the rules, and not about nerfing an over powered option.
Of course you're allowed your own rulings, but I believe there is a rule, or ruling, somewhere the specifically says you threaten with any and all weapons you wield. Since you would be wielding armor (with spikes) then you can make opportunity attacks with it.Not in my world, you can threaten with one but not the other - unless you can threaten with a sheathed weapon and quick-draw? Removing your hand/drawing your weapon with QD are both free actions not immediate ones.Edit - I do want to point out that the usefulness of spikes is still there, for instance you can still threaten within 5 feet if you have them equipped and are also using a reach weapon, just as if you're using an unarmed strike with improved unarmed.
If you are holding a reach weapon with 2H you are wielding that weapon and not the spikes. You would need to remove a hand from the 2H weapon to use the spikes/ready them for use, which is a free action. If, on the other hand, you are only holding the reach weapon one handed you can have the spikes readied but not the reach weapon - which would need two hands.
As per the FAQ if you can't use spikes for an attack whilst using both hands how then can they be counted as being wielded for an AoO?
False.
The restriction is only for two weapon fighting, a full attack action.
That is it.
There is currently no other restriction.
Troll there is nothing to respond to there. No restriction was implied merely the interaction of existing rules.
Yes I did.
I made a comment implying that you can't use armour spikes as a Martial weapon if you are already using a weapon that in itself precludes using an off-hand weapon. Which is not quite the same thing.
Sorry I realised you would take that "free hand" literally and thought I should clarify.
Why do you think that?
For a simple example - Grappling would preclude the use of the two of them together.
I repeat why do you think that? I can find nothing in the rules that says you can use them with your hands full let alone whilst wielding a readied weapon in said hands. Unlike the Barbazu beard that people have been quoting or even the less popular Sea-knife which specifically state they can be used with your hands full. Or even a Monk's unarmed attacks which also state they can be used with your hands full.
Yes but that doesn't answer my point.
"A shield uses up a hand, but it might or might not use up a "primary" or "off" hand, depending on whether or not it is used to attack"
Yet to wield a 2H weapon takes up a "primary" and an "off" hand, so to be ready to take an AoO you have to be wielding a weapon and the weapon takes a "primary" and an "off" hand to wield - how do you then wield another weapon?
You're doing that whole real hand/game mechanic hand thing again.
So why did you use it as an example?
The point being made was you have to be wielding a weapon to use it as an AoO. The mention of Primary and off was merely to illustrate that you couldn't be wielding both weapons at once.
How so?
As in can you explain your reasoning rather than just saying "Oh yes you can!".
If you're holding a long sword and a short sword in your hands, but on your turn take all of your iterative attacks with your long sword, that does not mean that you cannot make any attacks of opportunity with the short sword.
Similarly, if you're wielding a reach weapon and armor spikes, that does not mean that you cannot threaten or attack with the armor spikes. You could make all your iterative attacks with your armor spikes, if you so desire, but doing so means you cannot make any attacks (even if TWF) with your two-handed reach weapon (extra abilities aside, of course).
Attacks of opportunity fall outside of your normal action cycle. They're not limited by this FAQ, which applies to TWF, not simply wielding (or even using) a two-handed weapon. If wielding the two-handed weapon prohibited the use of armor spikes, you wouldn't be able to use armor spikes even for iterative attacks in the same round that you use the two-handed weapon. We know this to be false; you specifically can use two-handed weapons and armor spikes in the same round, so long as you're doing so with iterative attacks only.
I wasn't talking about the original debate but how it applies to the use of spikes and a 2H weapon on AoO's.
Whilst you have both tried to answer rather than saying "just cos". You seem to have missed my point.
In order to threaten you must be able to use the weapon(s) in question. If you have a long sword and a short sword in your hands, whether you have used all your iterative attacks or not, you are wielding them both. And so they can be used as AoO as they threaten. With me so far?
If on the other hand you are using a 2H weapon and spikes you are either wielding the spikes or the 2H. If we were talking about a Barbezu beard it says in it's description you can use it for offhand attacks whilst using a 2H, same with Sea-Knife so I'd say fair enough, though you'd use the off hand penalties. I wouldn't like it but hey ho they are pretty obscure.
So barring those exceptions; to threaten with two weapons you need to have the option of a primary and an off hand available (I know you are not TWF in an AoO). Otherwise how can you wield them both?
Iterative attacks are a different matter, there is a mechanic already stated for that.
I'm not so tight I go for "able to attack with immediately" for wielding.
Shields are an odd one because if readied they can be used for either protection or attack immediately, no extra prep needed. So in the Troll's find above you could get an AoO with either the Long sword, the Armour spikes or the shield. If you used the shield though you'd lose the shield bonus to AC.
I'm not so tight I go for "able to attack with immediately" for wielding.
Unless it's for a cursed/aligned etc. weapon then I'd go for the making an attack/CMB roll with it.
EDIT:Having said that
The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded.
Do you have any wording to show me to prove your interpretation?
I have at least pointed out the only two weapons that state they can be used for off hand attacks whilst wielding a 2H weapon.
AoO says you threaten any square you can make an attack into, I am asking how do you define what can make an attack? Any weapon you have on your person or...?
Also can you point out where the bit that says you can use Armour Spikes with both hands on a Polearm is?
You will also note that I have given an example of three weapons able to threaten simultaneously 3 posts up.
Now you are overinterpreting the ruling. You dont need hands to use the spikes. You just cant be USING your hands for other things. Switching which weapon you are weilding is free, the reason the ruling exists is because two weapon fighting explicately mentions the use of hands. Thats it. If you are not two weapon fighting, you can attack with whichever weapon you want. If you have 11 bab, you can do your +11 with a one handed weapon weilded in 2 hands, your +6 with the weapon in one hand and your +1 with armor spikes switching between them as a free action. The Handedness of weapons only matters when you are trying to gain more attacks then your bab normally grants you, such as through two weapon fighting.
I wasn't talking about the original debate but how it applies to the use of spikes and a 2H weapon on AoO's.
Whilst you have both tried to answer rather than saying "just cos". You seem to have missed my point.
In order to threaten you must be able to use the weapon(s) in question. If you have a long sword and a short sword in your hands, whether you have used all your iterative attacks or not, you are wielding them both. And so they can be used as AoO as they threaten. With me so far?If on the other hand you are using a 2H weapon and spikes you are either wielding the spikes or the 2H. If we were talking about a Barbezu beard it says in it's description you can use it for offhand attacks whilst using a 2H, same with Sea-Knife so I'd say fair enough, though you'd use the off hand penalties. I wouldn't like it but hey ho they are pretty obscure.
So barring those exceptions; to threaten with two weapons you need to have the option of a primary and an off hand available (I know you are not TWF in an AoO). Otherwise how can you wield them both?
Iterative attacks are a different matter, there is a mechanic already stated for that.
I didn't miss the point, I'm saying you're trying to create a distinction without a difference.
The question is can you "wield" another weapon when, for all intents and purposes, your available "attacks" have been used up. Attacks of Opportunity are necessarily different because they occur outside of your normal turn.
For instance, if you can only make 2 attacks during your turn (including TWF and whatever else you've got going on), you are not barred from making an AoO if you've already made two attacks. Similarly, if you normally could not attack with armor spikes because you've "used up" all your attacks during your turn by making all of your iteratives with a two-handed weapon, that has no impact whatsoever on how you may make your AoO. It is separate and distinct, just like iteratives are separate and distinct. How do you accept that you can make different iterative attacks with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, but you cannot choose which one to make your AoO with?
If you're limited to a standard action and are wielding a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, are you prohibited from choosing to use the armor spikes? If so, you're going to have to explain that one to me. If not, why should an AoO be any different?
It's not "just 'cause" (and if that's what you got, then you missed my point). The only thing that this FAQ is relevant to is Two-Weapon Fighting. Two-Weapon Fighting is not relevant to Attacks of Opportunity, so the prohibition on using armor spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon is irrelevant. Two-Weapon Fighting penalties don't extend beyond your turn, so it stands to reason that other restrictions associated therewith do not, either.
So you guys are saying that you don't need to wield a weapon to be able to threaten with it? Is that your contention or am I misunderstanding your points?
switching between them as a free action
So I could threaten with a sheathed weapon and quick draw?
I'm trying to think of a less evocative example than the spikes to get my point across but I'm only snatching minutes to look & post.
In order to threaten with a Boot Blade you would need to deploy it or is it ok to threaten with something that needs a swift action to prepare? Which is longer than the free action for quick draw.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you guys are saying that you don't need to wield a weapon to be able to threaten with it? Is that your contention or am I misunderstanding your points?
switching between them as a free actionSo I could threaten with a sheathed weapon and quick draw?
I'm trying to think of a less evocative example than the spikes to get my point across but I'm only snatching minutes to look & post.
You do not threaten with sheathed weapons, even with Quick Draw, because in order to threaten with a weapon you must be able to attack with that weapon without needing to take extra actions between the provocation and the AoO. Quick Draw requires a free action, and you can't attack with a sheathed weapon until it is unsheathed, by taking that free action.
Therefore, sheathed weapons do not threaten.
You can't make an AoO with a sheathed weapon because it's a free action to quick draw, which must be done on your turn. Armor Spikes are out. It's just like if you were wielding two swords.
If an Alchemist with one vestigial arm has a Greatsword in two hands and a Longsword in the third, the Alchemist cannot attack with both weapons in the same round via TWF, though s/he could attack with both via iteratives. However, the Alchemist could make an AoO with either weapon. It's the same with a regular character and a Greatsword and Armor Spikes/Boot Blade/Talons/Bite/etc.
You still have the Armor Spikes out and available to make an attack with. You are prohibited from attacking with Armor Spikes at the same time (i.e., Two-Weapon Fighting) as you attack with a Greatsword. Similarly, you are prohibited from attacking with a Greatsword if you've opted to attack with the Armor Spikes.
EDIT: When I say Boot Blade, I mean one that's already been deployed and is ready to attack.
Fretgod99 so your contention is that the armour spikes are just always ready no matter what as far as AoOs are concerned, they need no "hands" and in fact you can be doing/using anything else with your multitude of limbs and they would still be available?
If you read back up by the way you will see I'm not making a point about iterative attacks, neither do I have a point about weapons held in different hands as your Alchemist is.
My point is if you are wielding an item that can only be wielded with 2 hands are you able to swap to another different item at will with no cost ..and back again, similarly with no cost? And does anyone have anything other than "cos for"/"it was in 3.5"/"we've always played it that way" to backup that contention?
As an extra on the spikes front they have a specific addendum to say they can't be used before or after another secondary weapon. So would appear to take at least a little effort to use.
|
|
As an extra on the spikes front they have a specific addendum to say they can't be used before or after another secondary weapon. So would appear to take at least a little effort to use.
That text in the description of armour spikes simply re-iterates that you can only have one designated 'off hand' weapon in any single full attack in TWF.
My point is if you are wielding an item that can only be wielded with 2 hands are you able to swap to another different item at will with no cost ..and back again, similarly with no cost? And does anyone have anything other than "cos for"/"it was in 3.5"/"we've always played it that way" to backup that contention?
You're trying to disassociate iteratives but this is why they're specifically relevant. This is why the Alchemist example was also specifically relevant. It's literally the same situation as Armor Spikes, except it's actual weapons so it's more difficult to dismiss.
Do you need an kind of effort to switch between attacks solely for iteratives? In the above example, would you have any issue with the Alchemist making the AoO with either of the two weapons in his/her hands? Why should the case for Armor Spikes be treated differently? You can't hand wave and say "I'm not talking about iteratives". You have to tell me why analogizing to iteratives isn't relevant or appropriate.
More over, how do you adjudicate which weapon is currently "being wielded"? If the character spent their entire last round attacking solely with the Armor Spikes (even while holding a two-handed weapon), would you deny the ability to make the AoO with Armor Spikes? What about with the two-handed weapon?
Once again, this isn't "just 'cause" (And please, if you're going to try to attribute the idea that I actually am making such a flippant response - which I'm not - could you at least spell it correctly? Your way is even more dismissive.). I'm analogizing the Armor Spikes situation to other situations for which the objection seems less apt. It's a sound method of logical argumentation. At no point have I ever said, "just 'cause", "that's how it was in 3.5", or "this is how I've always played it".
The way I've seen this ruling work usually, fretgod, is that either the last weapon you attacked with is the one that you are "wielding" unless you spend your free actions to "readjust your grip" and wield another weapon. No matter which way you go, you're stuck with it until your next action where you get to go through all you actions again then choose what you are wielding with your "hands" (Primary and Off) until your next turn.
You can shift as much as you want during your turn (for iterative attacks and the like), but that choice at the end of you turn is important.
For a simple example, take a character wielding a longsword for example:
At the end of the turn the character has to decide between wielding his sword in one hand or two hands. He's stuck with that choice until his next action.It's the same concept pretty much, and probably how the RAW should work in my opinion given recent rulings.
*shrug* I can see that. Seems reasonable. If that's strictly construed it would make that whole question about reordering attacks for TWF rather important.
On the other hand, I wouldn't tell someone that they couldn't shield bash someone for an AoO if they hadn't in the turn before or, if they'd been limited to a standard attack but had two weapons out, I wouldn't limit which could be the attack (or two weapons out but took all their iteratives with one), and if a person intermixed their iteratives between Armor Spikes and a Greatsword, I wouldn't restrict which weapon they could make the AoO with. I know all those cases aren't precisely on point, but the logic seems to follow well enough to me. It's undoubtedly a grey area, I think.
It's not really going to hurt my feelings either way it would come down, though.
So you guys are saying that you don't need to wield a weapon to be able to threaten with it? Is that your contention or am I misunderstanding your points?
switching between them as a free actionSo I could threaten with a sheathed weapon and quick draw?
I'm trying to think of a less evocative example than the spikes to get my point across but I'm only snatching minutes to look & post.
No as others have said, the weapon has to be drawn. However, if you threatened with say an unarmed strike, you could as part of your attack of opportunity draw the weapon. But that is besides the point.
I dont disagree with you about the end result (you cant threaten with both at the same time), I simply do not think it is a matter of 'handedness' of the weapons, its about what it means to 'wield' a weapon, which is very commonly used but not clearly defined in the rules. Both armor spikes and unarmed strikes make this one complicated.
@fretgod99 I agree with the shield bash after all you are wielding the shield whether or not you attacked with it. Similarly if you are using two weapons use whichever whether you attacked on your turn with one or both.
@crash00 You put that very well, better than I did by a fair way.
@Kolokotroni I was really using that as an example so we'd all consider how wielding worked, rather than because I thought quickdraw worked that way.
@Malachi I think the "vice versa" changes that interpretation
At the end of the day the armour spikes + 2H (edit) AoO argument is just about being able to threaten 10' and 5' at the same time, no one is going to hit with spikes over a 2H weapon by choice.
The whole definition of wielded is what makes it contentious which is at least an easy FAQ to do'
I think personally I would make all non-handed attacks should be counted as unarmed strikes either "armed" or not, I don't see why that should apply to gauntlets for punching but not Boulder Helmets for headbutting, for kicks but not boot knifes. It would solve the debate on AoO's at a stroke.
Thanks for bearing with me and debating the point!