Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nazzareth 10-01-04, 12:31 AM	Does attacking someone wearing armour spikes with a unarmed, grapples or natural weapon attacks damage the attacker.
Fixxxer 10-01-04, 12:33 AM	Not that I know of...though it probably should damage the attacker. As far as I know, armor spikes exist almost entirely to give a sort of automatic damage when you're grappling (on your turn).
Egres 10-01-04, 08:53 AM	Not that I know of...though it probably should damage the attacker. As far as I know, armor spikes exist almost entirely to give a sort of automatic damage when you're grappling (on your turn). Or to TWF while using a two-handed weapon. Or just to threaten the area adiacent to yourself while using a bow.
Sucineri 10-01-04, 09:40 AM	I houserule it as aggressive defense. Meaning there is a fighter standing there in armored spikes looking at the monk and saying "I dare you". :P
FitzNighteyes 10-01-04, 10:03 AM	Or to TWF while using a two-handed weapon. Or just to threaten the area adiacent to yourself while using a bow.Unfortunately.
Egres 10-01-04, 10:47 AM	Unfortunately. :confused: :mymy: :confused:
FitzNighteyes 10-01-04, 01:50 PM	IMO, you should not be able to gain additional attacks via TWF (or TWF at all) when attacking with a two-handed weapon. You also shouldn't be able to threaten when using a missile weapon, or threaten adjacent with a Reach only weapon. It's a balance thing, and using something to circumvent what I consider to be the spirit of the TWF and threatening rules seems cheap. So, very IMO, it is unfortunate that there is a way to do it built right into the system. Which indicates mostly that the designers had a totally different view from me of balance and spirit of the threatening rules. :D
Sucineri 10-01-04, 01:58 PM	Fitz - Everything you are saying makes complete sense to me. Armor spikes always seemed to be to be for grabbing someone and pushing them into you. When you have a two handed weapon..your arms get in the way of that and if anything you should be taking however much damage to your own arm for getting in the way! lol
Thorak 10-01-04, 03:21 PM	IMO, you should not be able to gain additional attacks via TWF (or TWF at all) when attacking with a two-handed weapon. You also shouldn't be able to threaten when using a missile weapon, or threaten adjacent with a Reach only weapon. It's a balance thing, and using something to circumvent what I consider to be the spirit of the TWF and threatening rules seems cheap. So, very IMO, it is unfortunate that there is a way to do it built right into the system. Which indicates mostly that the designers had a totally different view from me of balance and spirit of the threatening rules. :D Don't worry, the people who wrote the PHB agree with you. Or did, at some point, and nobody's bothered to Errata it to fit the FAQ's view. TWFing clearly talks about wielding a weapon in each hand. Can't do that if both are wielding a single weapon. Also, since the off hand is defined as a physical hand in the Glossary, you've already attacked with your off hand if you're wielding a two-handed weapon. By the PHB terminology and definitions, the FAQ is wrong. That said, I think the rules in question are 3.0 holdovers, and need to be struck. Especially the bits surrounding the off hand; it makes little sense that the only place those penalties would be mentioned is in the Glossary. I can easily see, at least, dual-wielding a two-handed melee weapon and armor spikes or unarmed strikes. Kick the guy in the head, follow up with the greatclub, etc. And if they removed the "hand" terms and instead used "primary weapon" and "secondary weapon", there'd be less confusion.
Nazzareth 10-02-04, 11:32 AM	I was thinking of adding a house rule that unarmed, grapples and natural weapon attacks provoke something like an Aoo (from the armour) if some one is wearing spiked armour.