Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rondulin 04-01-05, 05:15 PM	With armor spikes you can make off-hand attacks. It does not say that your other hand has to be free (therefor you could use a two-handed weapon and make an off hand attack with your armor spikes). But then you could also use a shield a get its armor bonus. I'm munchkin, but that doesn't look right to me!
Tony Vargas 04-01-05, 05:34 PM	As you say, it "doesn't look right," and it wouldn't be a reasonable thing to allow. For one thing, it'd render pointless feats like Two-Weapon Defense and Improved Shield Bash. However, if you look at the rules litterally, you can almost always find some support for obscure, mildly abusive little tricks like that. The real challenge is convincing your DM. :P
Wyrd Bearer 04-01-05, 07:00 PM	As you say, it "doesn't look right," and it wouldn't be a reasonable thing to allow. For one thing, it'd render pointless feats like Two-Weapon Defense and Improved Shield Bash. However, if you look at the rules litterally, you can almost always find some support for obscure, mildly abusive little tricks like that. The real challenge is convincing your DM. :P Indeed. I reasoned with the DM that armour spikes are all over my armour, which includes the metal codpiece. It was a killer pelvic thrust.
Borris 04-01-05, 07:21 PM	The D&D FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a ) covers that question. Here's what you want to know. If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases, you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armor spikes. Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand. You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in Chapter 7 of the Player’s Handbook).
Thorak 04-01-05, 10:39 PM	As you say, it "doesn't look right," and it wouldn't be a reasonable thing to allow. For one thing, it'd render pointless feats like Two-Weapon Defense and Improved Shield Bash. However, if you look at the rules litterally, you can almost always find some support for obscure, mildly abusive little tricks like that. The real challenge is convincing your DM. :P Why isn't it reasonable? It's as reasonable as dual-wielding a greatsword and armor spikes, which the FAQ makes explicitly clear is allowed. Shields, in D&D, aren't actively used. You retain their AC bonus if you're lying on the ground unconscious. So there's little reason why you can't whack someone with your sword and ram your opposite shoulder, or knee them with the armor spikes, while still having a shield on your other arm. I agree that it hoses Improved Shield Bash from a mechanical perspective, but there are other advantages, namely the other shield feats, to using the shield instead.
glutton 04-02-05, 06:39 AM	Kind of of topic, but how does the damage of a armour spiked character of medium size with armor spikes look in a grapple? Is it 1D3 +3 +1d6 +3 , or is it 1D3 +3 +1D6, or 1D6+3 ? Just a fighter.
spyderfreek 04-02-05, 06:59 AM	I know that movies are not always a good basis for things but....... I just watch the last samauri and noticed something I didn't the first time through: Capt. Algren uses his body a lot in combat. He throws himself at the enemies to get them off balance to make a better strike, ie, bull rush. Combine bull rush with armor spikes and I see a deadly charger. Following the same train of thought, Spiking the armor and kicking, kneeing, elbowing, headbutting, or any other attack is just that, an attack. I do not see why you could not just block, swing, kick or combo that any other way and still be within the rules. Just take appropriate minuses.
Rondulin 04-02-05, 08:00 AM	Kind of of topic, but how does the damage of a armour spiked character of medium size with armor spikes look in a grapple? Is it 1D3 +3 +1d6 +3 , or is it 1D3 +3 +1D6, or 1D6+3 ? Just a fighter. It is 1d3 + str + 1d6. Why isn't it reasonable? It's as reasonable as dual-wielding a greatsword and armor spikes, which the FAQ makes explicitly clear is allowed. Shields, in D&D, aren't actively used. You retain their AC bonus if you're lying on the ground unconscious. So there's little reason why you can't whack someone with your sword and ram your opposite shoulder, or knee them with the armor spikes, while still having a shield on your other arm. I agree that it hoses Improved Shield Bash from a mechanical perspective, but there are other advantages, namely the other shield feats, to using the shield instead. TWF + shield bonus without any feat is just overpowered. Armor spikes deal as much damage as other light off-hand weapons like the shortsword and the spikes aren't even exotic. As someone before said it would render some other feats useless. I like to max my character :D , but that's really to much.
Tony Vargas 04-04-05, 04:39 PM	Why isn't it reasonable? It's as reasonable as dual-wielding a greatsword and armor spikes, which the FAQ makes explicitly clear is allowed. Did it /specifically/, or did it just imply it? I can never seem to find bits in the FAQ that get cited on the boards. Probably more the fault of Adobe than anything else... ;) But, yes I seem to remember something like that - and, while I find the /idea/ of being able to attack with armor spikes as well as a THW apealing, visually, I don't find actually using TWF that way to be at all balanced - and thus 'unreasonable.' I agree that it hoses Improved Shield Bash from a mechanical perspective, but there are other advantages, namely the other shield feats, to using the shield instead. Those other feats aren't core - and letting an ordinary martial weapon obviate a core feat doesn't strike me as a very good idea, even if there are non-core feats that take it as a preq (effectively, ISB becomes a 'penalty feat,' a worthless prerequisite that exists only to make the feats that require it cost more). Plus, it's prettymuch obviating TWD, as well. I have to agree with Rondulin on this one. Regardless of whether it's 'official' or 'RAW,' it's just a bad idea.
Rondulin 04-04-05, 04:51 PM	[QUOTE=I have to agree with Rondulin on this one. Regardless of whether it's 'official' or 'RAW,' it's just a bad idea.[/QUOTE] :eek: Hey, I'm innocent. I'm the same oppinion. Although the FAQ clearly states that you can use a shield while making your off-hand attack (which I think must be a mistake by the designers) I won't do it because it is completely off balance with the other TWF rules and feats.
Thorak 04-04-05, 09:31 PM	TWF + shield bonus without any feat is just overpowered. Armor spikes deal as much damage as other light off-hand weapons like the shortsword and the spikes aren't even exotic. As someone before said it would render some other feats useless. I like to max my character :D , but that's really to much. It doesn't render other feats useless. Sure, Improved Shield Bash, if that's all you're going for, is a worse option, but there's oodles of other feats that make shield bashing, and having a shield as a weapon, a better option. It just takes more investment. Did it /specifically/, or did it just imply it? I can never seem to find bits in the FAQ that get cited on the boards. Probably more the fault of Adobe than anything else... But, yes I seem to remember something like that - and, while I find the /idea/ of being able to attack with armor spikes as well as a THW apealing, visually, I don't find actually using TWF that way to be at all balanced - and thus 'unreasonable.' Explicitly, I'll cite the reference; "When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand." As for 'unreasonable', consider that to benefit from a two-handed weapon, you need a high Str. And to get the most out of TWF, you need a high Dex (or be a ranger). Plus, to truly get the most benefit out of it, you need to get both chains of feats, which is often too much for a single character, at the least, you're a one-trick pony, most likely. You're going to have to trade off, and probably not be as good at either as a dedicated THFer or TWFer would be, focusing on their individual style. It look overpowered on first glance, but I don't honestly think it ends up being so. Those other feats aren't core - and letting an ordinary martial weapon obviate a core feat doesn't strike me as a very good idea, even if there are non-core feats that take it as a preq (effectively, ISB becomes a 'penalty feat,' a worthless prerequisite that exists only to make the feats that require it cost more). Plus, it's prettymuch obviating TWD, as well. I have to agree with Rondulin on this one. Regardless of whether it's 'official' or 'RAW,' it's just a bad idea. Bad idea or not, I don't see anything in the RAW forbidding it. If anything, I'd say the flaw is with shields as weapons or TWF itself, rather than armor spikes.
Rondulin 04-05-05, 07:43 AM	It doesn't render other feats useless. Sure, Improved Shield Bash, if that's all you're going for, is a worse option, but there's oodles of other feats that make shield bashing, and having a shield as a weapon, a better option. It just takes more investment. What about Two-weapon defense which grants you +1 shield bonus. Why bother taking it if you can have a +2 shield bonus using armor spikes without taking any feat. If you can use your amror spikes to make off-hand attacks and still use your shield, you also should be able to use your shield with a shield bash without loosing its shield bonus. Otherwise these two options don't fit together in terms of balance.
Thorak 04-05-05, 09:04 AM	What about Two-weapon defense which grants you +1 shield bonus. Why bother taking it if you can have a +2 shield bonus using armor spikes without taking any feat. You wield a dagger in your off-hand so you can throw it if need be You want an off-hand weapon you can Trip with You're not proficient with shields You don't want to spend the money to enchant the shield both as a weapon and a shield, so you would rather use feats to get TWD, and use a normal weapon in the off-hand You would like an off-hand weapon you could use as your primary weapon, if need be (shield bashes being specifically defined as off-hand attacks) Roleplaying. Not every character takes the absolutely most beneficial option. That's 6 reasons, 5 of which are entirely mechanical. I could probably think of more, if you really want me to. If you can use your amror spikes to make off-hand attacks and still use your shield, you also should be able to use your shield with a shield bash without loosing its shield bonus. Otherwise these two options don't fit together in terms of balance. This is like saying a Fighter is more powerful in melee than a Cleric because he's got a higher BAB and HD. Sure, if you only look at things in that limited way, it seems unbalanced. There are other considerations, though. For instance, a shortsword has a better crit than spiked armor, and is otherwise the same statistically. That must mean it's a better weapon, and spiked armor is underpowered, right?
Rondulin 04-05-05, 09:51 AM	You wield a dagger in your off-hand so you can throw it if need be You want an off-hand weapon you can Trip with You're not proficient with shields You don't want to spend the money to enchant the shield both as a weapon and a shield, so you would rather use feats to get TWD, and use a normal weapon in the off-hand You would like an off-hand weapon you could use as your primary weapon, if need be (shield bashes being specifically defined as off-hand attacks) Roleplaying. Not every character takes the absolutely most beneficial option. So we compare to characters that are both using TWF. One with armorspikes and shield, the other with a normal off-hand weapon. The first one has a higher AC (+2 shield). Now you stated some reasons why it should be reasonable (in terms of game balance) for the second character to get TW-defense, which grants him +1 shield bonus (still worse than first character) 1. The possiblity to throw a dagger doesn't seem to be worth a feat. 2. Is there any off-hand (light) weapon you can trip with? I don't want to say there is not, but I do not know any. So if you would name some. 3. If you are not proficient with shields you could just take the proficiency feat instead of TWD or improved shield bash. 4. You do not save any money with TWF. The character using two weapons can enchant his off-hand weapon if he wishes so. The character using the armor spikes can enchant them as a weapon as well. But the latter also can improve his armorclass if he chooses to enchant the armor as well. Of course that would be more expensive. But it is an option the other character (with two weapons does not have). 5. I do not see any advantage in using you off hand weapon as primary weapon. Besides you can use your armor spikes as primary wepaons. 6. I'm just talking about game balance, not roleplaying. Of course you can always choose to take a weak feat or option IF you want to, but that's not the point. Yes, I would like to hear more reasons and perhaps more convincing ones for your point of view. This is like saying a Fighter is more powerful in melee than a Cleric because he's got a higher BAB and HD. Sure, if you only look at things in that limited way, it seems unbalanced. There are other considerations, though. I think I understand what you're trying to say. Feats like improve shield bash and TWD aren't underpowered, because they are prerequisites for other better feats. But it's rather depressing to have to buy a feat for something anyone can do without. For instance, a shortsword has a better crit than spiked armor, and is otherwise the same statistically. That must mean it's a better weapon, and spiked armor is underpowered, right? No, spiked armor has the advantage to be used as off-hand weapon without loosing the shield bonus. ;)
Thorak 04-05-05, 10:14 AM	So we compare to characters that are both using TWF. One with armorspikes and shield, the other with a normal off-hand weapon. The first one has a higher AC (+2 shield). Now you stated some reasons why it should be reasonable (in terms of game balance) for the second character to get TW-defense, which grants him +1 shield bonus (still worse than first character) 1. The possiblity to throw a dagger doesn't seem to be worth a feat. No, but tag it in with everything else. 2. Is there any off-hand (light) weapon you can trip with? I don't want to say there is not, but I do not know any. So if you would name some. The kusari-gama in the DMG The kama The sickle Those are the core ones. You could also toss in the Gnome Hooked hammer's off-hand when used as a double weapon. And that brings up another point; double weapons. 3. If you are not proficient with shields you could just take the proficiency feat instead of TWD or improved shield bash. Yes, but you don't have unlimited feats. And again, not every choice is going to be optimal. 4. You do not save any money with TWF. The character using two weapons can enchant his off-hand weapon if he wishes so. The character using the armor spikes can enchant them as a weapon as well. But the latter also can improve his armorclass if he chooses to enchant the armor as well. Of course that would be more expensive. But it is an option the other character (with two weapons does not have). If you're using two weapons, you do save money compared to a weapon-shield-armor spikes user. The latter enchants 4 items; primary weapon, armor as armor, armor spikes, and shield as shield. The former enchants 3; armor, and both weapons. 5. I do not see any advantage in using you off hand weapon as primary weapon. Besides you can use your armor spikes as primary wepaons. Advantage; you wield a light mace as your off-hand, to your longsword primary. You're fighting skeletons. The mace penetrates DR better. 6. I'm just talking about game balance, not roleplaying. Of course you can always choose to take a weak feat or option IF you want to, but that's not the point. Sure it is. Nothing says every possible option must be perfectly balanced with every other one. Yes, I would like to hear more reasons and perhaps more convincing ones for your point of view. Double weapons. Can't wield them with a shield. And they have advantages; they can be used as a two-handed weapon when it's helpful, like disarming. And finally; sure, armor spikes are a better off-hand weapon than a shield. So what? Where does it say that a shield must be just as good a weapon as anything else? Heck, look at bucklers. You lose their benefit if you attack with a weapon in the arm they're on. Improved Buckler Defense, IIRC, removes this penalty, but they still can't bash. And they force a -1. By all statistical analysis that you're making, they're even worse than light shields. I don't see anyone complaining about bucklers, though. Because some things just aren't as good as others. Using a shield as a weapon is sub-optimal. I think I understand what you're trying to say. Feats like improve shield bash and TWD aren't underpowered, because they are prerequisites for other better feats. But it's rather depressing to have to buy a feat for something anyone can do without. Why have Martial Weapon Proficiency, or Toughness, when a single level of Fighter solves both problems? Because you don't want the drawbacks of that choice. In this case, maybe you're not proficient with armor spikes, or maybe you don't want to wear armor for ACP or spell failure reasons, or maybe you just don't want your character using spiked armor. No, spiked armor has the advantage to be used as off-hand weapon without loosing the shield bonus. ;) And the shortsword can be put away and another weapon wielded in that hand, to better beat DR. Try swapping out your armor spikes or shield as quickly. What this comes down to is that yes, using armor spikes has advantages. It also has drawbacks. If you're using them to avoid taking ISB, then you can't change your off-hand weapon, because you've got your probably unenchanted (as a weapon) shield, or the armor spikes strapped to your body. If you're using them to supplement a two-handed weapon, you're going to need really good stats and a ton of feats. Everything has a price.
Rondulin 04-05-05, 10:47 AM	Yes, but you don't have unlimited feats. And again, not every choice is going to be optimal. The limit on feat is a reason why TWD/ISB is underpowered or fighting with armor spikes and shield is overpowered. I see that there are more advantages in wielding a off-hand weapon as I thought. But all the benefits aren't worth taking a feat and ending up with less the other guy has without any feat... Heck, look at bucklers. You lose their benefit if you attack with a weapon in the arm they're on. Improved Buckler Defense, IIRC, removes this penalty, but they still can't bash. And they force a -1. By all statistical analysis that you're making, they're even worse than light shields. I don't see anyone complaining about bucklers, though. You can use a weapon with a buckler, but you can not do the same with a light shield. Why have Martial Weapon Proficiency, or Toughness, when a single level of Fighter solves both problems? Actually that are two of the weakest feats I can think of. And yes that's why I always take a level as a fighter. What this comes down to is that yes, using armor spikes has advantages. It also has drawbacks. If you're using them to avoid taking ISB, then you can't change your off-hand weapon, because you've got your probably unenchanted (as a weapon) shield, or the armor spikes strapped to your body. If you're using them to supplement a two-handed weapon, you're going to need really good stats and a ton of feats. Everything has a price. I can not follow you there. Why do I need to have good stats or "tons of feats" to use a greataxe with armor spikes to attack. Actually that is what I wanted to do with my dwarven ranger/deepwarden/defender, when I heard that it is allowed. But for game balance reasons I decided not to do that because it would make me much stronger than other party members. If you're using two weapons, you do save money compared to a weapon-shield-armor spikes user. The latter enchants 4 items; primary weapon, armor as armor, armor spikes, and shield as shield. The former enchants 3; armor, and both weapons. Again: the two weapon fighter enchants both weapons at +5 and his armor +5 (rich guy). The armor spike + shield user enchant weapon +5, spikes +5 and his armor +5. Now both have spend the same money for the same benefits. The second guy has the option to enchant his shield to +5. This of course would then be more expensive than the two weapon fighter, but he also would have better AC. Conclusion: It's not cheaper to use two weapons.
chocobochicken 04-05-05, 12:54 PM	I'm with Thorak on this one. The official FAQ supports him, and the conceptual image of a fighter making off-hand stabs with his armor spikes in between sword thrusts is just too cool to nerf. Also, it has a realistic/historical appeal that makes perfect sense. Besides, arguing that a weapon/spike/shield setup overpowers a weapon/shield-bash setup is as flawed as arguing that two-handed fighting overpowers two-weapon fighting. All fighting styles are not perfectly balanced, nor were they meant to be. Some just work better than others, and what works best for you depends on your class skills and abilities.
Tony Vargas 04-05-05, 01:29 PM	You wield a dagger in your off-hand so you can throw it if need be Armor Spikes, buckler, and a dagger. As long as you don't throw the dagger, you keep the buckler AC. Same benefit as TWD, basically, but no feat. You want an off-hand weapon you can Trip with Buckler, Armor spikes, sickle. Same AC bonus, though you do lose it when you actually trip with the off hand. You're not proficient with shields MW, Darkwood or Mithral. No armor check penalty, no problem. You don't want to spend the money to enchant the shield both as a weapon and a shield, so you would rather use feats to get TWD, and use a normal weapon in the off-hand Don't see the point. TWD doesn't give you bonuses that a normal shield can't match, anyway. You would like an off-hand weapon you could use as your primary weapon, if need be (shield bashes being specifically defined as off-hand attacks) A technicality few DMs would even think of, and those who did would probably ignore. And, Armor spikes, /again/ let you do just that, since they /can/ be used as either off-hand or primary, making them /superior/ to a shield and ISB. Roleplaying. Not every character takes the absolutely most beneficial option. True. I'll grant you that one. I could probably think of more, if you really want me to.Go for it. Actually, I give you one: You don't have Martial Weapon Proficiency. At that point, it's actually a toss-up between spending a feat on TWD or MWP: Armor Spikes... Considering that the latter will /also/ let you weild a higher-damage, two-handed weapon as your primary, it may still be the better investement. ... Still looks like a pretty bad rule to me. Let's allow a single normal martial weapon to obviate Improved Shield Bash, Two-Weapon Defense, and, for that matter, Exotic Weapon Proficiency with an double-weapon. That sounds balanced! Hey, with this, and the ruling that you can get the Buckler AC while using a two-handed weapon with Improved Buckler Defense, you could have a shield AC, the damage of a two-handed weapon, /and/ the extra attack from TWF! Why worry about the relative effecitiveness of THF vs TWF vs S&B when you can have all three! :rolleyes:
Thorak 04-05-05, 02:25 PM	The limit on feat is a reason why TWD/ISB is underpowered or fighting with armor spikes and shield is overpowered. I see that there are more advantages in wielding a off-hand weapon as I thought. But all the benefits aren't worth taking a feat and ending up with less the other guy has without any feat... Nothing says every choice has to be equally powered. It just might be that sheild bashing isn't going to be optimal. You can use a weapon with a buckler, but you can not do the same with a light shield. The light shield is a weapon, which a buckler isn't. That was the point. Actually that are two of the weakest feats I can think of. And yes that's why I always take a level as a fighter. So now a feat's allowed to be weak, and you're just supposed to deal with it and work around it? This seems hypocritical. I can not follow you there. Why do I need to have good stats or "tons of feats" to use a greataxe with armor spikes to attack. Actually that is what I wanted to do with my dwarven ranger/deepwarden/defender, when I heard that it is allowed. But for game balance reasons I decided not to do that because it would make me much stronger than other party members. Unless you're getting at least 11 levels of Ranger, you need a 19 Dex to get all the TWF feats. And to get the most out of Power Attack and a two-handed weapon, you really need a 16 Str or higher. Your Con is going to be pretty low, unless you're playing an unusually high-powered campaign. As for feats; minimum 3 for TWF, and at least Power Attack on the other. That's 4 feats, out of a typical character's 6. And there's plenty of other things, like TWD and such, which most characters save Fighters won't have the feats to get into. It's OK for a ranger, but even given that, you're often better picking one and focusing, rather than trying to get both, power-wise. I did the stats a long time ago with a 32-point buy, and ended up dealing better damage with a greatsword-only Fighter than the greatsword-and-armor-spikes Fighter. With more hp, to boot. Again: the two weapon fighter enchants both weapons at +5 and his armor +5 (rich guy). The armor spike + shield user enchant weapon +5, spikes +5 and his armor +5. Now both have spend the same money for the same benefits. The second guy has the option to enchant his shield to +5. This of course would then be more expensive than the two weapon fighter, but he also would have better AC. Conclusion: It's not cheaper to use two weapons. Only if you're not enchanting your shield, and if you're not doing that, why are you bothering with a shield for 2 AC? It makes a difference at low levels, sure, but unless it's a tower shield, the AC pretty quickly becomes negligible. Don't see the point. TWD doesn't give you bonuses that a normal shield can't match, anyway. Money. If we're talking about optimal items at level 20, I just saved 100,000 gold I can spend elsewhere. If we're talking standard wealth, that's a significant chunk, over 1/8th. Of which your armor is another 1/8th, and your weapon 1/4. Still looks like a pretty bad rule to me. Let's allow a single normal martial weapon to obviate Improved Shield Bash, Two-Weapon Defense, and, for that matter, Exotic Weapon Proficiency with an double-weapon. That sounds balanced! It doesn't obviate any of them. I already listed plenty of core rules situations where armor spikes aren't ideal. Though, if pushed, I'd agree that armor spikes perhaps deal too much damage, dealing as much as a bleeping shortsword. I could handle them dealing 1d4 damage a lot easier, conceptually, and that might answer a lot of your issues by weakening them. Hey, with this, and the ruling that you can get the Buckler AC while using a two-handed weapon with Improved Buckler Defense, you could have a shield AC, the damage of a two-handed weapon, /and/ the extra attack from TWF! Why worry about the relative effecitiveness of THF vs TWF vs S&B when you can have all three! Sure, show me where it says that each of these is required to be entirely separate. They're not. People are making up artificial restrictions, and then arguing about how ignoring them is somehow broken. Heck, a thri-kreen, just by it's race, can even more easily do all of this, by wielding a greatsword, a shortsword, and wearing a heavy shield, all at the same time. Without needing any feats for the shield at all. And he gets a bite attack. THF, TWF, and S&B are not distinct styles. They are options. And there is nothing preventing a character from deciding to take all three options at the same time, if they meet the requirements.
Tony Vargas 04-05-05, 08:22 PM	Unless you're getting at least 11 levels of Ranger, you need a 19 Dex to get all the TWF feats. And to get the most out of Power Attack and a two-handed weapon, you really need a 16 Str or higher. Nod. It's the same quandry a fighter who wants to get the most out of a double-weapon faces. If you want to be awesome with a double-ax, for instance, you'll want to do TWFing, which requires the high DEX, but you'll also want to be able to take advantage of the fact it's a two-handed weapon when you don't get to full attack, by having a high STR and power-attacking. Getting the 19 DEX for Greater TWF isn't /that/ hard, since you have until fairly high level to come up with it, and, of course, DEX has it's own definite benefits. To feel the advantage of a two-handed weapon, you want a STR of at least 14, enough to squeeze out another +1 for the two-handedness and qualify for power attack. Like I said, that's true of an exotic double-weapon like an Urgosh or Double-sword or whatever. So it's a challenged faced by any character that wants to be able to both make impressive, single attacks two-handed, and get in extra attacks with TWF, and a double-weapon is the seamless way to do it. Armor Spikes + Greatsword completely owns the double-weapon, though. Not only do you avoid the cost of a feat to go exotic, you do 2d6 + 1.5x STR damage on your primary attack instead of a d8 + STR. Even with a mere 14 STR, that's a 4.5 gap. I did the stats a long time ago with a 32-point buy, and ended up dealing better damage with a greatsword-only Fighter than the greatsword-and-armor-spikes Fighter. Sure, you could probably do more damage with horrid wilting, too, it's just not as valid a comparison. The most valid comparison would be with another weapon or combo capable of doing all the same thing: attacking two-handed with the full STR and power-attack bonuses, full-attacking with the extra attacks of TWF, benefiting from TWD, etc. Examples would be: any double-weapon or a combo like long or bastard sword and spiked guantlet. Only if you're not enchanting your shield, and if you're not doing that, why are you bothering with a shield for 2 AC? It makes a difference at low levels, sure, but unless it's a tower shield, the AC pretty quickly becomes negligible. Money. If we're talking about optimal items at level 20, I just saved 100,000 gold I can spend elsewhere. Even the +2 AC for a relatively inexpensive heavy shield (or a slightly more expensive darkwood one) matches the shield bonus of TWD. Armor Spikes + Shield. Save the money, and the feat. It doesn't obviate any of them. I already listed plenty of core rules situations where armor spikes aren't ideal. I counted two valid ones: 1) Role-playing, which I consider perfectly valid 2) wanting to use your off-hand weapon to make a Trip attack while retaining a shield bonus to your AC. Though, if pushed, I'd agree that armor spikes perhaps deal too much damage, dealing as much as a bleeping shortsword. I could handle them dealing 1d4 damage a lot easier, conceptually, and that might answer a lot of your issues by weakening them.Going by the advantage in average damage given by feats like EWP: Bastard Sword, yes, giving up a point of average damage off the weapon would help justify the continuing existance of the feats it's competing with. A little. Currently, if we don't creadit all the crazy ideas surrounding armor spikes (threatening while using a bow or reach weapon, off-hand attacks while using shield or THW, simultaneous off-hand and primary attacks with the same weapon), they really are balanced, as a martial weapon, simply as an upgraded-damage equivalent of the spiked gauntlet. A weapon that doesn't need to be drawn, can't be disarmed, and doesn't keep you from using the hand it's on for something else. I'm serious, even if armor spikes were nothing but a spiked gauntlet with a bigger spike, they'd be OK. They're actually a little more, since they can also be used to increase your grapple damage, rather than just attacking while in a grapple. Making armor spikes into much more than that overpowers them as a martial weapon. If you only credit one of the 'crazy ideas' (some of which are 'official,' some of which really are crazy), then, sure, dropping them a die type or making them exotic would re-balanced them. If you buy two of those ideas, maybe both less damage and an EWP would be called for. If you accept all of them, I'm not sure they /could/ be balanced... Sure, show me where it says that each of these is required to be entirely separate. There are trade-offs inherent in each which seem to be the justification for at least some balance decisions. For instance, THF gets substantial damage bonuses from STR & Power Attack. That would seem to be balanced by giving up a shield bonus to AC (even at high level, an animated shield costs an extra +2 bonus - the equivalent of giving up the same +2 bonus declining a shield at 1st level did). Similarly, TWF grants an extra attack, but doesn't get that damage bonus or the shield bonus (without yet another feat in an already feat-intensive style). S&B doesn't get much damage compared to THF, but it does get AC. Where the game combines those styles without an apropriate price to pay (like feats, or an expensive enchantment), it really starts to break. Heck, even the 'price' paid is often a little too cheap... and we do see THF starting to dominate, for instance... THF, TWF, and S&B are not distinct styles. They are options. And there is nothing preventing a character from deciding to take all three options at the same time, if they meet the requirements. You say 'meet the requirement,' I might cynically put it as 'find the right loopholes.' I think combining, say TWF with S&B by meeting the requirements of TWF & TWD or TWF & shield proficiency and Improved Shield bash is probably reasonably balanced, and at worst, only skews things slightly towards making S&B the 'poor cousin' of fighting styles. I think combining the same two styles by paying 50gp to have spikes welded to your armor is a different story. Also, they are distinct styles, in the sense of how the character would be defined and visualized. It's nice to have a little variety, and encouraging that means having a variety of /balanced/ options. If specific options (exploits) are too effective, they can start to dominate, ruining that variety, and making characters less distinctive (and those that insist on being distinctive ineffectual by comparison).
Thorak 04-05-05, 09:27 PM	To stop going point-by-point, because I don't think it's helping things at this point, I'll just make a short post; I think the bulk of the problem is the damage on armor spikes, which I agree is too big, and the damage on shields, which I have always felt was too small. Shields, in D&D, simply don't make good weapons, at all. And the AC bonuses on shields are fairly piddly. You'd think a plate of metal big enough to cover most of your torso would provide better protection than leather armor. A quick houserule fix, IMHO, would be to rule that if you are actively using a shield, you double the AC bonus. In almost every case, you'd be actively using it, but this way you'd still retain some bonus from it just being there when you're flat-footed or paralyzed or some such. Basically, any time you retain your Dex bonus, you retain your extra shield AC. And maybe just another +2 for a tower shield used this way, so it tops out at +6. Tack on with armor spikes that deal 1d4 damage instead of 1d6, so they're more in line with daggers than short swords, and there's darn good reasons to use shields. This still leaves TWF as less than optimal, but IMHO that's fine; not every feat needs to be great, and if you really want a shield bonus without a shield, you shouldn't get as good an AC. After the 2nd feat, it counts as good as a light shield would, anyway. The biggest flaw with TWD is that it's not enchantable as a shield.
Willie the Duck 04-05-05, 10:48 PM	To stop going point-by-point, because I don't think it's helping things at this point, I'll just make a short post; I think the bulk of the problem is the damage on armor spikes, which I agree is too big, and the damage on shields, which I have always felt was too small. Shields, in D&D, simply don't make good weapons, at all. And the AC bonuses on shields are fairly piddly. You'd think a plate of metal big enough to cover most of your torso would provide better protection than leather armor. well, the primary advantage of shields is that they allow another 10 points of armor enchantments (pluses and abilities) on top of those you put on your body armor. Add to all this the mechanical tendency of D&D to favor high powered offensive melee characters to the defensive ones and I don't think there is a way to "fix" shields within the confines of the game.
allenchan 04-05-05, 10:55 PM	Sorry I didnt read all the responses. Its totally reasonable. The best of both words (actually, three worlds) is Armor Spikes + Greatsword + Improved buckler defense. You get TWF, THF power attack, and still get your +5 mithral buckler (for a measle -1).
chocobochicken 04-06-05, 09:27 AM	No one here is disagreeing with the RAW interpretation. No one is saying this combat style is infeasible. The only complaint I see here is balance. It's kind of like the infantry asking the cavalry to get off their horses because it's not fair. For a fighter with all options on the table, there is such a thing as a tactical advantage. With that said, other feats and styles aren't irrelevent just because a fighter can't min-max with them. A rogue without proficiencies in shields or armor spikes (and without need for the encumberence of either) will still find Two-Weapon Defense a very useful tool (especially if they make that off-hand weapon a defending weapon). An undead hunter may also find a bludgeoning shield bash more preferable to piercing armor spikes.
Nephlite 04-06-05, 01:53 PM	No one here is disagreeing with the RAW interpretation. No one is saying this combat style is infeasible. The only complaint I see here is balance. It's kind of like the infantry asking the cavalry to get off their horses because it's not fair. For a fighter with all options on the table, there is such a thing as a tactical advantage. With that said, other feats and styles aren't irrelevent just because a fighter can't min-max with them. A rogue without proficiencies in shields or armor spikes (and without need for the encumberence of either) will still find Two-Weapon Defense a very useful tool (especially if they make that off-hand weapon a defending weapon). An undead hunter may also find a bludgeoning shield bash more preferable to piercing armor spikes. I think WOTC should have Errata shields bashes so they aren't always offhand attack (using 1/2 str no matter what).
Thorak 04-06-05, 05:46 PM	I think WOTC should have Errata shields bashes so they aren't always offhand attack (using 1/2 str no matter what). That wouldn't really fix the problem, though. As another aside on possible houserules, I really think the "hands" system needs reworking. Chiefly because "primary hand" and "off hand" are misleading terms at times, since armor spikes aren't in either actual hand. This could also fix this problem. By rewording it such that shields, as much as weapons, must be "wielded" to gain their AC benefit, which makes sense IMHO. And everyone (with two hands) has two available "slots" for wielded items, whether they be weapons, shields, wands, rods, what have you. If you're wielding something not in an actual hand, then one of the items in your two hands isn't wieldable, though you can continue to hold it, just not gain any benefit from it or be able to use it that round. This fixes this problem, since you can't wield a shield, armor spikes, and a primary weapon. You could wear all three at once, but only use any two at any given time. Heck, toss in the "active use" shield AC stuff I talked about earlier as the effect of wielding, as opposed to holding, a shield, and that could work too. TWF would be reworded such that two wielded items triggers the penalties, for coordinating the two, save for shields you're only using defensively, which are an exception. This also, incidentally, fixes questions about Defending weapons and whether you need to attack with them or not to gain the bonus; you need to Wield them, since the bonus refers to the Wielder. A Defending shield, too, would need to be wielded as a weapon, not a shield, to gain Defending bonuses, since that's a weapon enchantment. I think this is a very workable system, one that would work quite well with the rest of the books as written with a minimum of fuss. It might differ slightly with people's current perceptions, but it works. And I am discussing houserules, after all.
Tony Vargas 04-06-05, 06:29 PM	I think TWF & S&B could do with being reworked in a less bipedocentric way. ;) Primary Attacks: A character able to attack (threatening) with at least one weapon can make a single standard attack or a series of itterative attacks at no penalty, with any of those weapons. Primary attacks take x1 the character's STR bonus to damage. Secondary Attacks: A character able to attack (threatening) with at least two different light or one-handed weapons can make a secondary attack. If he wishes to make a secondary attack he must use the full attack action, and all his attacks that round take a penalty (insert TWF penalties - characters with TWF take lower penalties, those with Improved versions may make more than one secondary attack). If either all of the character's secondary attacks, or all of his primary attacks (or both) are made with light weapons, the penalty is reduced by two. A secondary attack takes x1/2 the character's Strength bonus to damage. Two-Handed weapons: A weapon wielded in two hands can only be used to make primary attacks, and a character cannot make secondary attacks while threatening with one. A two-handed attack takes x1.5 the character's STR bonus to damage. Light weapons cannot be wielded in two hands in a meaningful way (there are no benefits or restrictions tied to doing so). Shields: A character wearing at least one shield can aply a shield bonus to his AC, but may not make a two-handed or secondary attack on a round in which he chooses to use that bonus. Some shields can also be used as weapons. When a primary attack is made with a shield, that shield cannot be used to gain an AC bonus that round. When a secondary or two-handed attack is made with a shield, no shield can be used to gain an AC bonus that round. Defending: A defending weapon allows the character using (threatening with) it to take a penalty to his AB with all attacks, and gain a like Dodge bonus to AC, just as if he had the Expertise feat. The maximum penalty/bonus is equal to the enhancement bonus of the defending weapon. Both the bonus and the penalty stack with the bonus and penalty from Expertise, or from other defending weapons.
Thorak 04-07-05, 12:03 AM	Let me rework my paradigm into more set-out terms then, since it's not bipedo-centric, really; Wielding and Holding A creature who wishes to use an item, whether it be a weapon, a shield, a magic item, or pretty much any other object, has two possible ways in which to be carrying the item. The first is Wielding, which is active use of the item; swinging a sword, zapping with a wand, or blocking with a shield. The second is Holding, passive use, which also covers all items that are worn (and not being currently wielded, like an armor's spikes being used as a weapon). This covers things like a torch held for light, a bag you're carrying in one hand, or armor that you're wearing. Generally, if you're actively using the item, you're Wielding, but if all you're doing is keeping a grip on it or wearing it, you're Holding. Wielding Limitations A character has a hard limit on how many items they can wield. At any given time, a character can only wield as many items as they have hands, or other similar limbs dextrous enough to handle items as efficiently as hands do. For most humanoids, this will be two, one for each hand. For creatures without any limbs like this, for instance a Wolf, they have one effective Wield slot, but it can only be used for items that do not need to be used in an actual hand/limb for some reason, such as armor spikes. Primary and Secondary attacks In combat, if two weapons are being wielded, one is considered to be the Primary attack, and all others are considered to be Secondary. A character wielding two weapons follows the Two-Weapon Fighting rules as printed in the PHB. I'm unsure what to do about the off-hand. You could either keep it as-is, and which weapon is primary is thus determined by which hand it's in, but I don't see any real advantage to that, and am tending towards abolishing the use of defined off hands completely. Shields Shields are a special case, in that they work slightly differently whether Wielded or Held. When Held, they function exactly like they do in the PHB. They can be Wielded, however, as either a weapon or a shield. If wielded as a weapon, they act as such in all ways, and lose their AC bonus. Taking the Improved Shield Bash feat allows the wielder to both Wield the shield and Wield it as a shield, and thus retaining the shield AC bonus for Wielding. This is still only wielding two items, though one item is being wielded in two ways simultaneously. Without Improved Shield Bash, the shield still provides it's normal AC for being Held, regardless of how many items are being Wielded. Wielding as a Shield, however, doubles the AC bonus of Light and Heavy Shields, to +2 and +4 respectively, and increasing the AC bonus of Tower Shields by +2, to a total of +6. A shield being wielded as a shield cannot be used as a weapon. Bucklers gain no bonus for being Wielded as a shield, but as stated in the PHB, can be worn while using a bow, crossbow, or melee weapon in the hand on which the Buckler is strapped. In this case, the buckler does not count as Held unless the wielder has the Improved Buckler Defense feat. Two-handed weapons and items Weapons or items that are two-handed, or wielded in two hands, do not take up both Wield slots, but do take up both of the limbs which can most easily wield items. As such, the only way to wield a secondary weapon or item is to have it wieldable without needing the use of a hand, such as armor spikes, or blade boots. The wielder is still limited to their normal number of wieldable items, so it is not possible, for instance, for a Human to attack with both a longsword, a shortsword, and armor spikes in the same round; they must select two of the three to wield. The third is considered to be Held. As another example, a character cannot Wield a primary weapon, a shield, and a secondary weapon, unless the secondary weapon is also the shield, and the character has the Improved Shield Bash feat. I like this system. It restores shields to being solid defensive items, a potentially major portion of any character's defense as even a heavy shield can now provide half the AC of Full Plate, while providing a distinct advantage to sword-and-board that's sorely needed, and in the process making Improved Shield Bash worthwhile over just using armor spikes.
Nom 04-07-05, 02:23 AM	I'm going to propose a completely different take: on armour spikes, the FAQ is in contradicion to the rules. The buckler rules on pg 124 clearly consider that an arm used to help wield a two-handed weapon is 'used', and thus forfeits the buckler AC and suffers a penatly to attack. The armour spike rules on pg 124 state that you can attack with the spikes as either a primary weapon or an off-hand weapon, but can't make an off-hand attack with the spikes if you've used another off-hand weapon. From the buckler rules, attacking with a two-handed weapon requires the off-hand to help wield the two-handed weapon (and is explicitly similar to using an off-hand weapon), and thus should be considered as using an off-hand attack for the purposes of armour spikes also. (Side comment: this seems to have happened a few times in the FAQ: "It would be cool to allow this" without actually checking whether this fits the same model that other rules are based on. Ad-hoc rulings are acceptable within a local group, but any non-obvious rules interpretation that goes in the FAQ really needs to be properly playtested.) Once we are clear that you actually need to use the "off-hand" for an off-hand attack (and can't just create a virtual off-hand), then the problem works out nicely. Armour spikes actually need to use one arm/hand or the other for their attack (except grappling), and don't just turn up for free. This is consistent with the buckler rules and works for any combination of primary and off-hand item you care to name. It also works for non-humanoids and the multi-weapon fighting rules (see MM). What about threatening? IMO, if you could have used a (IMO primary hand) attack with your weapons as currently wielded during your turn, then you threaten with it. A character using a longspear and armour spikes doesn't have a free (primary) hand with which to make the attack, and therefore does not threaten. A monk wielding a longspear can make attacks with his feat without needing to change his grip on the longspear, and thus does threaten. (I might consider someone suggesting that they could use an iterative attack with the spikes without needing to release the longspear, in which case I'd let them threaten.) Thorak raised an interesting point about shields. Thinking about this, I believe the shield bonus represents defense above and beyond what you can get with normal parrying with your weapon. Which does leave a bit of a quandry about attacking people who can't parry - perhaps they are assumed to be yielding ground instead and the AoO for an unarmed attack represents the lack of protection?
Thorak 04-07-05, 09:15 AM	Nom, before the FAQ included that answer, I was a staunch attacker of the concept, using some of the same arguments you're using. Frankly, they're really questionable at best, and given that both interpretations are possible, the FAQ put the debate to rest. What it comes down to is that you need to try and show that two-handed weapons are both primary weapons and off-hand weapons, by trying to show that a weapon in the off-hand is an off-hand weapon by definition, based on the Glossary definition of "off hand". It's just one of the many reasons why I like my rewrite, because it completely removes the possibility of that kind of question. As for parrying and shields; I hate the current parrying rules. A commoner trying not to get hit has a 10 AC. His twin brother, a 20th level Fighter without any magical items, probably has the same AC, despite being such a better trained warrior. I can't see an easy fix, though, because the ideas that spring to mind (adding half BAB to AC, for instance) change things so drastically. I can at least fix shields, though.
allenchan 04-07-05, 01:50 PM	A commoner trying not to get hit has a 10 AC. His twin brother, a 20th level Fighter without any magical items, probably has the same AC, despite being such a better trained warrior. I can't see an easy fix, though, because the ideas that spring to mind (adding half BAB to AC, for instance) change things so drastically. Trying not to get hit? The Commoner would be using the full defense action, his AC would be 14 The Fighter would be doing the same, but would be better trained and thus be fighting defensively (with tumble), Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, and Improved Combat Expertise, etc. His AC would be at LEAST 34. Unless your Fighetr 20 has no feats or skill ranks? :confused:
Tony Vargas 04-07-05, 04:33 PM	Wielding Limitations A character has a hard limit on how many items they can wield. At any given time, a character can only wield as many items as they have hands, or other similar limbs dextrous enough to handle items as efficiently as hands do. For most humanoids, this will be two, one for each hand. I don't think that having more hands should automatically allow you to actively wield more items. Hand-eye-coordination is also involved, for instance. It might be reasonable to assign higher penalties the more things you wield, or to have a 'primary' and a 'secondary' wield slot, with only unusual creatures, like ettins, hydras or mariliths possibly having more... (I'd picture an ettin having two 'primary' and no 'secondary' or a marilith have multiple extra 'secondaries,' FWIW). I'm unsure what to do about the off-hand. You could either keep it as-is, and which weapon is primary is thus determined by which hand it's in, but I don't see any real advantage to that, and am tending towards abolishing the use of defined off hands completely.I think simply aplying the off-hand penalties/reduced-bonus consistently to the secondary item being wielded, but allowing the wielder to decide which is which would be just fine. If wielded as a weapon, they act as such in all ways, and lose their AC bonus. Taking the Improved Shield Bash feat allows the wielder to both Wield the shield and Wield it as a shield, and thus retaining the shield AC bonus for Wielding. In addition to being a little hard to follow, I think it'd make more sense for ISB to allow you to wield the sheild as a weapon, while still getting the AC bonus for holding it... either that, or that should be the defualt - when shield bashing, you're still considered to be holding the shield, and get it's AC bonus, but with ISB you get to 'wield' it as weapon & shield simultaneously, attacking, and getting the enhanced AC bonus. Also, it seems like a buckler, by it's very nature, would always be held, even if you were using the hand to fight with it in some other way... Wielding as a Shield, however, doubles the AC bonus of Light and Heavy Shields, to +2 and +4 respectively, and increasing the AC bonus of Tower Shields by +2, to a total of +6. Might as well just add 2... or, it could add a number based on the skill of the wielder.... It is an interesting idea, though - and, it sorts out animated shields, which would, presumably, be self-holding, not self-wielding. Here's an interesting question, what about enhancement bonuses? Presumably, you don't double them. But, do you get them when wielding a shield, or when merely holding it? Two-handed weapons and items Weapons or items that are two-handed, or wielded in two hands, do not take up both Wield slots, but do take up both of the limbs which can most easily wield items. Frankly, I think this is a bad idea. Getting the bonuses (STR & Power Attack) of a two-handed weapon should involve more than just putting two hands on it - you should be putting your full effort behind every blow, precluding 'wielding' anything else.
Tony Vargas 04-07-05, 04:39 PM	The Fighter would be doing the same, but would be better trained and thus be fighting defensively (with tumble), Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, and Improved Combat Expertise, etc. His AC would be at LEAST 34. Well, in order to fight defensively & use expertise he'd have to attack, and, if unarmed, that'd provoke an AoO, though I suppose he could use an Improved Trip or Improved Unarmed Strike to make the attack. Improved Combat Expertise isn't core, and Mobility only aplies to movement-related AoOs, so... 2 for fighting defensively 1 more for tumble (it's only 5 ranks, not much, even cross classing for the high-level fighter), 1 for dodge, 5 for combat expertise: 19 AC. However, he could have generated the same AC at 7th level (the earliest he could cross class 5 ranks of tumble)
Nephlite 04-07-05, 06:05 PM	Well, in order to fight defensively & use expertise he'd have to attack, and, if unarmed, that'd provoke an AoO, though I suppose he could use an Improved Trip or Improved Unarmed Strike to make the attack. Improved Combat Expertise isn't core, and Mobility only aplies to movement-related AoOs, so... 2 for fighting defensively 1 more for tumble (it's only 5 ranks, not much, even cross classing for the high-level fighter), 1 for dodge, 5 for combat expertise: 19 AC. However, he could have generated the same AC at 7th level (the earliest he could cross class 5 ranks of tumble) Actually if you take a -4 penalty you unarmed strike is considered armed and you deal lethal damage.
Tony Vargas 04-07-05, 06:27 PM	As for parrying and shields; I hate the current parrying rules. ... I can't see an easy fix, though, because the ideas that spring to mind (adding half BAB to AC, for instance) change things so drastically. The version of parrying I came up with a while back gives an active defense, without just plopping a big bonus on AC. As with anything I came up with, though, it was overly complex. :rolleyes: The basic idea, though - lifted from Mounted Combat, of all things - was not to add to AC, but replace it. It's simple, when you want to parry, or use some similar active defense, you make a check, adding apropriate bonuses (your whole AB for a parry), and that check replaces your AC for the purpose of the attack you're parrying. If you're heavily armored in a high-magic game, that's not going to be that worth doing - but, if you're without such...
Thorak 04-07-05, 10:41 PM	I don't think that having more hands should automatically allow you to actively wield more items. Hand-eye-coordination is also involved, for instance. It might be reasonable to assign higher penalties the more things you wield, or to have a 'primary' and a 'secondary' wield slot, with only unusual creatures, like ettins, hydras or mariliths possibly having more... (I'd picture an ettin having two 'primary' and no 'secondary' or a marilith have multiple extra 'secondaries,' FWIW). The justification here is that, if you have multiple limbs, your brain will be wired to coordinate them. We humans have trouble because we've only got two hands, so that's all our brain can handle. A critter with 4 hands, though, almost certainly would have the brain capacity to coordinate all 4 just as easily. I think simply aplying the off-hand penalties/reduced-bonus consistently to the secondary item being wielded, but allowing the wielder to decide which is which would be just fine. I do too, I liked the realism of having a hand that wasn't as good as the other, but it just gets in the way too much, and IMHO simplicity's generally a good thing, especially since this isn't going to add anything to the game. In addition to being a little hard to follow, I think it'd make more sense for ISB to allow you to wield the sheild as a weapon, while still getting the AC bonus for holding it... either that, or that should be the defualt - when shield bashing, you're still considered to be holding the shield, and get it's AC bonus, but with ISB you get to 'wield' it as weapon & shield simultaneously, attacking, and getting the enhanced AC bonus. I'm loath to allow ISB only to count as holding the shield, because then armor spikes are a nicer option, which was one of the points I wanted to correct. I actually meant to change that to retaining the basic Holding AC bonus when wielded as a weapon, but I missed that one line in my rewriting, I suppose. Also, it seems like a buckler, by it's very nature, would always be held, even if you were using the hand to fight with it in some other way... Actually, I'm considering making Bucklers only Wieldable, not holdable for any benefit. They're such a tiny piece of gear that they're only really beneficial if you're actively interposing them. Improved Buckler Defense lets them count as wielded while using that arm for other stuff, in this case. Might as well just add 2... or, it could add a number based on the skill of the wielder.... It is an interesting idea, though - and, it sorts out animated shields, which would, presumably, be self-holding, not self-wielding. Right, animated would be Holding, putting themselves in the way but not being as good at blocking stuff as a character would. The only reason I don't just add 2 is that that would make heavy shields only 1 point better than light shields, wielded, I'd like a bigger difference. And it makes a nice progression; the shield ACs when wielded are +2, +4, +6. And +1, +2, +4 when held. The tower shield gets less benefit because it's too bulky to interpose as easily, and because I really can't see doubling it to +8 and making it the AC equivalent of full plate. Here's an interesting question, what about enhancement bonuses? Presumably, you don't double them. But, do you get them when wielding a shield, or when merely holding it? You'd get them when holding it, and they wouldn't double. I'm not trying to put ACs into the stratosphere, and I don't see why enhancing the shield's defensive abilities would work any less sitting there than being interposed. Though it also opens the door for new enchantments, like "Interposing", which would increase the shield's AC when wielded by +2, by helping to drag itself in the path of incoming blows. Frankly, I think this is a bad idea. Getting the bonuses (STR & Power Attack) of a two-handed weapon should involve more than just putting two hands on it - you should be putting your full effort behind every blow, precluding 'wielding' anything else. Here, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I see your point, but I also see the advantages rp-wise to allowing Conan-type combat, where the greataxe or greatsword slices are interspersed with kicks, elbows, and headbutts, or using body blocks and such to smash armor spikes into the opponent. I feel the fact that you're limited to weapons that don't require a hand is a significant enough restriction on this. Especially since, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I also think armor spikes' damage should be dropped to 1d4, since I have an easier time picturing dagger-length blades than shortsword-length ones.
Nom 04-08-05, 11:35 AM	Nom, before the FAQ included that answer, I was a staunch attacker of the concept, using some of the same arguments you're using. Frankly, they're really questionable at best, and given that both interpretations are possible, the FAQ put the debate to rest.As it happens, I accepted the FAQ answer until two days ago, when I discovered the finer points of the buckler text while discussing what happens to a shield bash when the shield is wielded on the primary hand/arm. Saying "The FAQ is wrong - you need to use a hand" avoids (IMO) all these cumbersome armour spike (and similar) questions. It also deals with the "more hands" issue. More hands does allow you to wield more items, but only one is fully effective (cf Multi-Weapon Fighting). I actually think it would be odd if this were not true, since otherwise we are claiming that creature with multiple true limbs doesn't have the corresponding mental capability to use them. "Mentally, I'm not a six-limbed creature. I'm a four-limbed creature with two spares." Currently, humans use four at once without too much difficulty, and musicians can even coordinate ten semi-independent fingers. That said, at some point you need to assume that all the limbs are performing roughly the same activity. Shooting a bow and arrow at a guy behind you while simultaneously using two swords to fight a guy in front of you is not a problem of coordinating limbs as much as coordinating attention. Most people could fire two handguns with a little training. Firing both simultaneously at targets 160 degrees apart is a different matter. As for parrying and shields; I hate the current parrying rules. A commoner trying not to get hit has a 10 AC. His twin brother, a 20th level Fighter without any magical items, probably has the same AC, despite being such a better trained warrior. I can't see an easy fix, though, because the ideas that spring to mind (adding half BAB to AC, for instance) change things so drastically. I can at least fix shields, though.Good points all round. As for your shield house rules, I assume the defensive bonus is fixed per shield (eg light adds +1, heavy adds +2) regardless of magic? Another variant would be to apply a +1 for light shields and +2 for heavy shields when fighting defensively, in much the same way as two-weapon defense works.
chocobochicken 04-08-05, 01:30 PM	I guess I fail to understand what bucklers have to do with armor spikes. Yeah, you lose the AC bonus from it when you swing a two-handed sword, but it's because you're forced to move the buckler out of the optimal defensive position where it could have blocked an opponent's attack -- not because you overexerted yourself during your swing. Besides, I don't see how you could logistically rule swinging a two-handed weapon as both a primary and off-hand attack for bucklers and armor spikes but not for two-weapon fighting penalties. On a conceptual note, it's not about how many appendages you move at once, it's how many rhythms you have to coordinate. Probably one of the dumbest classes I had to take as a Music minor in college was Eurythmics, the study of rhythm to body motions. We spent class periods running around a gym clapping our hands in three-beat rhythms while running our feet in two-beat rhythms. While I can't believe I paid tuition to do this, it actually applies to this situation pretty well. Swinging a sword with two hands is just as easy as swinging it with one hand -- a single rhythm. Swinging a sword with your right hand and kicking with your right foot is two rhythms -- a little more difficult than one attack, but no more so than making attacks with separate weapons in each hand. Similarly, it is no more difficult to coordinate the two motions even if you are using both hands to swing the sword while you kick or knee the opponent with your armor spikes. And if you use a one-handed weapon with a shield, you only have to hold your shield in place in the defensive position while you focus on coordinating the primary arm swing and kicking rhythms. If there's a conceptual argument that has grounds to hamper either of these combat styles, it's the issue of balance. While swinging a greatsword or holding a shield in place, you don't have that off-hand available to adjust your balance while you momentarily stand on one foot during you kick attack, and the momentum from that upper body swing will really throw you off. It is perfectly reasonable for a DM to impose Balance checks while fighting this way, and that's a hefty blow for a fighter with this is a cross-class skill. Edit: I first decided to replace "rhythm" with "motion," but changed it back since they're two different concepts and it confuses my point. Also, this is why a beginning musician learning to play the drums keeps hitting the high hat on the same beats his foot pushes down on the bass drum pedal. The brain confuses the multiple rhythms and initially tries to converge it to one, but it can be overcome with practice (ie, Two-Weapon Fighting feat). :)