Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Night_Knight 06-27-05, 06:24 PM	I have a couple questions about armor spikes as a weapon... Ok some of these will be statements to make sure I understand what I read correctly... 1. Armor spikes are light martial melee weapons and do not provoke attacks of opportunity when used to attack. (not talking about grappling) 2. When armor spikes are used as a secondary weapon with two weapon fighting do they get full or half Str. damage adjustment? 3. When armor spikes are used as a secondary weapon with two weapon fighting and the primary weapon is a two-handed weapon the Str. adjustment to damage is still 1.5 for the two-handed weapon. 4. As a full round action (full attack) you could use a reach weapon(10') take a five foot step and then use your armor spikes for a second attack. 5. Armor spikes connot be disarmed. 6. Could you sunder the armor spikes seperately, or would you have to sunder the armor? Thanks for any comments. I think most of these are pretty obvious, but I have a DM that doesn't value MY opinion. He thinks I abuse the rules too much... :schemes: I think he is just jealous... :rofl:
Tytalus 06-27-05, 06:51 PM	1. Yes. 2. Half, as all off-hand weapons 3. Yes. 4. Yup. 5. True. 6. You can sunder them separately.
Maerdash 06-28-05, 12:22 AM	1: yes 2: 1/2 3: yes 4: yes 5: right 6: You sunder them seperatly.
footdownatgreen 06-28-05, 10:30 AM	the spikes allow you to weild reach weapon and still threaten right next to you. So for two differnt attack type you can threaten like a spiked chain.
20goingon1232 07-02-05, 09:40 PM	So, you can actually use, say, a Greatsword AND Armour Spikes together in TWF? Giving you at level 1 (Ftr-type) the following attacks and damage (before Str mods)? -1/-1: 2d6/1d6
Calibron 07-03-05, 12:21 AM	You mean -2/-2 2d6+1.5 Str/1d6+0.5 Str? Yup.
20goingon1232 07-03-05, 12:52 AM	Umm.... Fighters start with 1 BAB, which makes it -1/-1..... Hmmm..... Well, blow me down.... Looks like someone was lying to me.... again! Why am I NOT surprised that the players with the cheesed out, uber-twinked, class-dipping characters would lie to me when I thinking of going the same way. I mean, Mystic Theurge is totally broken. Really, it is! So is 3.5 Psionics. And Practiced Spellcaster. I mean, it is something that you need 10 PrC levels (Red Wizard) to get that you can get in 1 feat! And why do I keep believing them???? :banghead:
Calibron 07-03-05, 01:51 AM	Ah...yes, I didn't add the BAB. Oh well.
Timlagor 07-03-05, 04:38 AM	There has been some discusson about some of these. If you use Armour Spikes as your primary weapon you probably get 1x Strength. Some people claim that you can't use different weapons for your primary attack (ie you couldn't take the 5'step and use the spikes without TWF penalties -which is probably what you intended anyway). Goingon -you should play a Druid.
Aeromus 07-03-05, 06:56 AM	No... omgwtfbbq If you have a two handed weapon, and don't have more then two hands you can't attack with the armor spikes. If you are weilding a reach weapon (aka a two handed weapon) and have armor spikes, you do NOT threaten. 1 - This is true 2 - half, as a light weapon. 3 - You can't use a two handed weapon, and then use a one handed weapon as well. Kinda like you can't use a great sword, and buckler at the same time. (Assuming you don't have the monkey grip feat from 3.0) 4 - Yes if you drop the reach weapon before the second attack. 5 - correct, kinda. 6 - seperately
Otto the Bugbear 07-03-05, 07:25 AM	No... omgwtfbbq If you have a two handed weapon, and don't have more then two hands you can't attack with the armor spikes. If you are weilding a reach weapon (aka a two handed weapon) and have armor spikes, you do NOT threaten. 3 - You can't use a two handed weapon, and then use a one handed weapon as well. Kinda like you can't use a great sword, and buckler at the same time. (Assuming you don't have the monkey grip feat from 3.0) 4 - Yes if you drop the reach weapon before the second attack. Explain this with more clarity. Specifically for #3: Are armor spikes a one handed weapon? Do you need to hold them in your hand to use them? How does this reasoning work with blade boots? Do you need to wield the blade boots in your hand, as you seem to indicate you do with armor spikes? What about using the armor spikes with elbow smashese, knee strikes, shoulder blocks? Why is this such a stretch to imagine or allow? free your mind Do you think the monks can use TWF with Flurry of Blows? Specifically for #4: Can you hold a larger weapon (such as a spiked chain, or halberd) in one hand and make attacks with the other hand? Can you point to a specific rule that disallows characters to hold something in one hand, while making attacks with the other hand? beware all sword-and-board wielders Thanks for taking to time to answer my questions. For the record, I agree with the first to responses to the OP's questions. It's obvious some people don't, but I can't understand why? At lower levels, the fighter-types reign supreme. Even without greatsword+TWF, a low level fighter-type already has a leg up on his casting brethren. One higher levels start coming around, the casters rule the roost. Is it such a stretch to think that the fighter could have a unique combat style while the casters are unleashing devastating, earth shattering magics? "OMG!!! That's to much!!! Nerf those fighter-types!!!" :rolleyes: Cheers Otto :)
Greyman 07-03-05, 07:51 AM	If you have a two handed weapon, and don't have more then two hands you can't attack with the armor spikes. 3 - You can't use a two handed weapon, and then use a one handed weapon as well. Kinda like you can't use a great sword, and buckler at the same time. (Assuming you don't have the monkey grip feat from 3.0)Invalid argument. Unlike a buckler, or shield bash, armor spikes do not require a free hand in order to be wielded as a light off-hand weapon. You can totally take normal two-weapon fighting penalties to use armor spikes also while wielding a two-handed melee weapon. 4. As a full round action (full attack) you could use a reach weapon(10') take a five foot step and then use your armor spikes for a second attack.If you are weilding a reach weapon (aka a two handed weapon) and have armor spikes, you do NOT threaten. 4 - Yes if you drop the reach weapon before the second attack.Once again, bad call. If you have a melee weapon that does not require a free hand in order to wield (eg: armor spikes, or improved unarmed strikes), then you threaten the spaces around you even when wielding a reach weapon in two hands. Once again, you do not have to drop the two handed weapon in order to use the armor spikes (or make an unarmed strike). You can take a 5' step before, during, or after a full round action, so it is feasable to strike with a two-handed reach weapon, step, and strike with the spikes. If your opponent does not move you can also act in reverse order (spike, step, reach attacks) in the next round. In a two-weapon-fighting full-attack, you can attack with your secondary melee weapon before, between, after the primary melee weapon iterative attacks.
20goingon1232 07-03-05, 05:38 PM	There has been some discusson about some of these. If you use Armour Spikes as your primary weapon you probably get 1x Strength. Some people claim that you can't use different weapons for your primary attack (ie you couldn't take the 5'step and use the spikes without TWF penalties -which is probably what you intended anyway). Goingon -you should play a Druid. I don't particularly like Druids, mainly due to the summon spells. They slow the game to a CRAWL...! One of the twinkers IS a Druid, with a 1 level dip in Fighter to get him Heavy Armour and Lance Profficiencies (and he uses the animal companion light horse with horseshoes of speed.... do the math... :() I am thinking of abusing the hell out of the Monk's Belt by playing an Aasimar Sorceror, though :D No... omgwtfbbq If you have a two handed weapon, and don't have more then two hands you can't attack with the armor spikes. If you are weilding a reach weapon (aka a two handed weapon) and have armor spikes, you do NOT threaten. 1 - This is true 2 - half, as a light weapon. 3 - You can't use a two handed weapon, and then use a one handed weapon as well. Kinda like you can't use a great sword, and buckler at the same time. (Assuming you don't have the monkey grip feat from 3.0) 4 - Yes if you drop the reach weapon before the second attack. 5 - correct, kinda. 6 - seperately. Incorrect. I took a look after replying to this thread earlier. Please point out where it states that you CANNOT have an off-hand attack without a hand free. In fact, I believe that there was a passage that specifically stated that armour spikes CAN be used with your hands full, as you are using your elbow, knees and boots to hit someone.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-03-05, 07:44 PM	The D&D FAQ s[pecifically states that you can use armor spikes and a two handed weapon at the same time (You are assumed to be striking with a knee or an elbow spike.)
20goingon1232 07-03-05, 07:56 PM	*waits for the "the DnD FAQ is useless, OUR interpretation is KING!" lot to show up* :D
Count Arioch the 28th 07-03-05, 08:02 PM	you won't see that very often. Most likely, you'll see people who found conflicting FAQ comments to justify their views, and will lead us back to square 1. I may have backed off on the sage-hate in recent years, but mistakes have been made in the past, and will be made in the future, that's human nature.
20goingon1232 07-03-05, 08:27 PM	:D Start an unarmed monk thread and ask about number of attacks a round a 16th level Centaur monk gets with TWF. :D
Aeromus 07-03-05, 11:40 PM	The D&D FAQ s[pecifically states that you can use armor spikes and a two handed weapon at the same time (You are assumed to be striking with a knee or an elbow spike.) Hmmm, interesting, looking into this further.
Thorak 07-04-05, 01:43 AM	No... omgwtfbbq If you have a two handed weapon, and don't have more then two hands you can't attack with the armor spikes. If you are weilding a reach weapon (aka a two handed weapon) and have armor spikes, you do NOT threaten. Prove it. Show me any rule that requires you to have an actual free hand to make an off-hand attack. Especially for weapons like armor spikes and unarmed strikes that don't need a free hand to be used. 3 - You can't use a two handed weapon, and then use a one handed weapon as well. Kinda like you can't use a great sword, and buckler at the same time. (Assuming you don't have the monkey grip feat from 3.0) The difference being that you lose the buckler's AC bonus because you attack with the arm it's on. You don't use an arm, necessarily, to attack with armor spikes. While I criticize the FAQ in some posts, here it's correct, and there's no contradiction with anything else to raise an issue. Armor spikes aren't wielded in a hand to begin with. So it doesn't matter that both hands are busy wielding a greatsword. Ask yourself, if you can knee someone with armor spikes, why can't you use your actual off-hand for something? It's not wielding the off-hand weapon, so it's available for other purposes.
Timlagor 07-04-05, 02:47 AM	*waits for the "the DnD FAQ is useless, OUR interpretation is KING!" lot to show up* :D The FAQ is pretty darned bad but happens to make sense and not contradict the RAW in this case.
VirgilCaine 07-04-05, 03:57 AM	I don't particularly like Druids, mainly due to the summon spells. They slow the game to a CRAWL...! One of the twinkers IS a Druid, with a 1 level dip in Fighter to get him Heavy Armour and Lance Profficiencies (and he uses the animal companion light horse with horseshoes of speed.... do the math... :() I'd like to see him get wooden armor and a wooden lance without Ironwood. :rolleyes: or even use the lance without screwing up his druid abilties for that matter. And besides, if you don't have the stats, you don't get the monster, IMO.
20goingon1232 07-04-05, 06:40 AM	I'd like to see him get wooden armor and a wooden lance without Ironwood. :rolleyes: or even use the lance without screwing up his druid abilties for that matter. And besides, if you don't have the stats, you don't get the monster, IMO. He doesn't wear the armour.... yet (he is gearing for Dragon Platemail later). But he can use the Lance. There is nothing in the Druid entry against using weapons not in the Druid list. Just metal armours. I am confused to what you mean by "don't get the stats"?
Zemyla 07-04-05, 06:25 PM	If a large creature wears armor spikes, is their reach with it 10 feet?
20goingon1232 07-04-05, 08:33 PM	As far as I know, "yes, assuming their reach is 10ft to begin with". The qualifier is there because there are certain large creatures that don't have a 10ft reach (eg., Centaur).
Helmed Horror 07-04-05, 08:50 PM	large (tall) would have 10ft reach with armor spikes. (imagine being kicked by a spiky boot the size of shaq's foot.) the large armor would make the spikes 1d8 as well.
Maerdash 07-04-05, 10:07 PM	Umm.... Fighters start with 1 BAB, which makes it -1/-1..... Hmmm..... Well, blow me down.... Looks like someone was lying to me.... again! Why am I NOT surprised that the players with the cheesed out, uber-twinked, class-dipping characters would lie to me when I thinking of going the same way. I mean, Mystic Theurge is totally broken. Really, it is! So is 3.5 Psionics. And Practiced Spellcaster. I mean, it is something that you need 10 PrC levels (Red Wizard) to get that you can get in 1 feat! And why do I keep believing them???? :banghead: I like you 20goingon1232 so I'm going to point something out that they also may be lying to you about. But first mystic Theurge isn't broken, it's underpowered. That said alot of cheese that you can do with it IS broken but that mainly involves classes like the Ur-priest...so #.5 psionics CAN be broken, mainly when you consider the number of encounters a day 1 encounter/day = A VERY big problem as the psion can blow most any enemy away when they can burn all their Pp, 5 encounters/day and the psion is pretty close to a sorceror. The above two statements are a matter of opinion and lose all validity when applied to munchkins. Practiced spell caster increases caster level by 4 this increase can't increase your caster level higher than your HD . Also later in the text it states This feat does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It increases your caster level only. so its really only good for damage dice, range, spell penetration, etc. Don't know if that helps, but I've seen way to many players try to get away with having 4 levels of fighter and still casting as if they where a full caster. Thought I'd point out the text just in case.
20goingon1232 07-04-05, 11:33 PM	I did an analysis of this before. A Wizard whose spellslots at level 20 has been converted to PP equivalents get 324 PPs. This does not include Level 0 spells and does NOT take into account the automatic scaling that wizards get on their spells (ie., a Fireball will always do 5d6 damage regardless of Wizard levels). A specialist Wizard gets 405. A Sorceror gets 486. The Psion gets 343 at the same level. They are closer to a Wizard in that respect and closer to a specialist Wizard (because of their specialities) than a Sorceror, although the argument can go either way. Where the Psion wins is versatility and speed. Like Sorcerors, they spontaneous cast, only they do it with a built-in Silence and Still factor. Like Sorcerors, they have a restricted spells known list, only theirs is far less than a Sorceror. Unlike Sorcerors, they do not have the staying power. Even in straight total d6 damage calculations, Psions lag behind Wizards and Sorcerors simply because of spells autoscaling. Where Psions get hit is the lack of staying power. Sure, you can do 20d6 damage every time, but a base Psion will burn that out in 17 castings, less if he has to do other things like buffing and/or control powers. 6 Disintegrates will cover more than 2/3 of that and you still have every other spell level free. This is a huge disadvantage to the new player, a trap that can get them killed. I find the mere threat of multiple encounters severely curtail extravagant displays of power tossing by Psions. Then again, I ran a level 16 Sorceror out of spells before..... :D Now, on to other stuff: I know MT ain't broken, and we play Core only, so we can't make those uber builds. However, that chap goes berserk at the thought of MT. I am also aware that the Practiced Spellcaster affects caster level only and only up to your HD. Again, the chap berserk at the mere mention of PraCast. (rant) I am of the distinct impression that said chap does not want anyone else to have a character that can outshine his in any way. He gives no thought to making a Spiked Chaingun Tripper/Disarmer Bard (with 18 Str and 13/14 Cha for a Bard!!!) by dipping Brb and Ftr but if you try to class dip, he goes nuts and accuses you of powergaming and munchkinism and things like that. Because of that, I have left a game that he was DM-ing. He was punishing me in-game because of his impressions as stated above and because I called him out by telling him to make me a character if he is going to block everything I come up with (I spent 2 weeks coming up with ideas with him shooting each one down and I got tired of thinking up backgrounds; 2 weeks that I would like back). I am also seriously considering walking from another game where he is a player (Spiked Chain Bard.... mentioned) because of his in-game antics and the fact that the DM is too inexperienced to catch him before he made the character and too much of a nice guy to strip him of that charcter when it became apparent how he is abusing it. A Wis 9 entitles him to grab all the loot first because he is "curious" and for him to activate every magical wand and staff without identifying them and right in the middle of the party, despite several warnings from my character not to do that. I am just waiting for the DM to put in a Staff of Circle of Death and for him to nuke the entire party with his "experiments". I won't even go into the way he acts whenever we meet an NPC.... (/rant) Bah. Enough of that. Next character I make in a game with that lot that is a Fighter-type will abuse the Armour Spikes rule for all its worth. Just because I can.
Aeromus 07-04-05, 11:57 PM	Quoted from the SRD You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) In the case of using a TWO handed weapon your "OFF HAND" is holding the weapon and contributing .5 str bonus to the attacks damage roll. THEREFORE you CAN NOT use armor spikes AND a two handed weapon in the same round. RAW just proved this whole thread, and all the posters wrong. Thank you... Have a nice day.
20goingon1232 07-05-05, 12:17 AM	A greatsword is not an off-hand weapon. Try again. The FAQ supports our interpretation of the rules, even specifically states that it is allowed AND explained the mechanics of how it is allowed. Double try again. You just twisted RAW to suit your needs. Please state where it says that a greatsword counts as an off-hand weapon. Triple try again. The next time, an admission fee of $5 will apply. Thank YOU for coming.
Aeromus 07-05-05, 12:22 AM	A greatsword is not an off-hand weapon. Try again. The FAQ supports our interpretation of the rules, even specifically states that it is allowed AND explained the mechanics of how it is allowed. Double try again. You just twisted RAW to suit your needs. Please state where it says that a greatsword counts as an off-hand weapon. Triple try again. The next time, an admission fee of $5 will apply. Thank YOU for coming. Dude for god's sake. You are wrong, just admit it. You CAN NOT make an off hand attack if weilding a two handed weapon. Therefore, you can NOT make an off handed attack with armor spikes. I didn't twist the rules, I quoted them for truth. You QUOTE TO ME, the rules that say you CAN make an off handed attack with armor spikes, while attacking/weilding a two handed weapon. And, the FAQ doesn't trump the RAW. The RAW trumps the poorly assembled FAQ.
20goingon1232 07-05-05, 12:37 AM	Of course I can. I just don't have to use a hand. You seem to have mixed up the NOUN "hand" with the ADJECTIVE "hand". Oh yeah: "*waits for the "the DnD FAQ is useless, OUR interpretation is KING!" lot to show up*" Dang, I love it when my predictions come true.
Thorak 07-05-05, 12:45 AM	Before I go any further, I will mention that I used to be the poster-boy for Aeromus' argument, and we had a 20+ page thread on it. I was proven soundly wrong in the end, the FAQ entry notwithstanding. And for those of you who've debated with me, you know I don't let go of an argument easily. In the case of using a TWO handed weapon your "OFF HAND" is holding the weapon and contributing .5 str bonus to the attacks damage roll. This is irrelevant. We've already determined that armor spikes don't need to be in a hand to be wielded as a weapon. And there's absolutely no evidence that an off-hand attack must be made with the physical off hand. Nor that a two-handed weapon counts as both a primary and an off-hand attack. Heck, if that last were true, like you suggest, you could make an argument that a two-handed weapon counts as TWF. THEREFORE you CAN NOT use armor spikes AND a two handed weapon in the same round. RAW just proved this whole thread, and all the posters wrong. Thank you... Have a nice day. Well, not really. But you didn't stop here. Dude for god's sake. You are wrong, just admit it. You CAN NOT make an off hand attack if weilding a two handed weapon. Cite me the rule, please. You're claiming this, but you haven't backed it up. Therefore, you can NOT make an off handed attack with armor spikes. I didn't twist the rules, I quoted them for truth. No, you made a completely unfounded assumption, and then declared yourself to be correct. It's the equivalent of saying "I'm not lying, because I'm telling the truth". It doesn't prove a darn thing. You QUOTE TO ME, the rules that say you CAN make an off handed attack with armor spikes, while attacking/weilding a two handed weapon. Bits bolded for emphasis, all quoted from the SRD; "Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)" Here, the only way you can have "another off-hand weapon" is if you can be wielding two off-hand weapons simultaneously, armor spikes and whatever's in your off hand. So, you can attack with armor spikes as long as you haven't attacked with "another off-hand weapon". Is a two-handed weapon an off-hand weapon? No, it's not. It's the primary weapon. Sure, the off-hand is wielding it, but that's irrelevant, because we've already seen that you can use armor spikes while the off-hand is wielding another weapon. You just can't attack with another off-hand weapon. To prove your assertion, you will have to prove that a two-handed weapon is an off-hand weapon. Believe me, I have wrung every single angle that's possible to try and accomplish that. And, the FAQ doesn't trump the RAW. The RAW trumps the poorly assembled FAQ. Except that the RAW supports the FAQ here. You have yet to quote any RAW that supports your claim that a two-handed weapon counts as an off-hand weapon. Prove that, and your point is made. Good luck, you'll need it.
Maerdash 07-05-05, 01:16 AM	Dude for god's sake. You are wrong, just admit it. You CAN NOT make an off hand attack if weilding a two handed weapon. Therefore, you can NOT make an off handed attack with armor spikes. I didn't twist the rules, I quoted them for truth. You QUOTE TO ME, the rules that say you CAN make an off handed attack with armor spikes, while attacking/weilding a two handed weapon. And, the FAQ doesn't trump the RAW. The RAW trumps the poorly assembled FAQ. OH now I LOVE this....WTF!?! I have not seen you quote one rule that says you can't use armor spikes as an off hand weapon when wielding a two handed weapon. So what the monk can use unarmed attacks when wielding a staff but a fighter in spiked armor can't do what is exactly the same? Or maybe the mummy who can make a slam attack when wielding a great sword can't do that either because he's not using his "off-hand" The rules support using armor spikes and a great sword at the same time, as long as you have not made an off hand attack. For your interpretation of the rule to be considered valid, you will need to show some evidence, like somewhere that it says using a two handed weapon constitutes both a primary and off hand attack. 20goingon1232: My apologies, I assumed you meant that you thought the classes were broken. Edit: And no Thorak you don't give up easily, that must be why so many of us here on the boards respect you. :D
20goingon1232 07-05-05, 03:01 AM	No apologies neccessary. It happens :) I am a proponent of Psionic classes being the most balanced of the spellcasting classes. I also think that Monk Flurry and TWF stack according to RAW, but immediately House Ruled it to "no way in Hell!!!" :D .
Aeromus 07-05-05, 03:07 AM	Ok quoting more, since we had to bring up monks. Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes. Let us see... with this you can substitute elbows, knees ect... But, does the entry for armor spikes say anything like that? NOPE. It says and I quote. Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack [u](or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) Nope, doesn't even remotely look like the monk unarmed strike entry does it? I still wait for RAW proof that you can use a two handed weapon, and armor spikes with two weapon fighting. So you can't use armor spikes from any part except the hands.... according to the RAW that is. In fact let us look at the SRD for the feat two weapon fighting. TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL] You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon. Prerequisite: Dex 15. Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) Special: A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor. A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. [GENERAL] IN EACH HAND EH? Since the spikes can't possibly be in your HAND due to weilding a great sword... this feat is useless to you anyway. Slightly conflicting yes? Since this says a weapon in each hand.. you can NEVER apply it to a two handed weapon. More Two weapon fighting quotes.. TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways: •If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) •The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors. Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand Normal penalties -6 -10 Off-hand weapon is light -4 -8 Two-Weapon Fighting feat -4 -4 Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat -2 -2 Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon. Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon. NOTE, that this quote covers not only double weapons, but, THROWN weapons as well. Yet it doesn't cover trying to be silly and two weapon fight with a great sword (two handed) and armor spikes. Why doesn't it cover this you ask? Because the writers of the book ASSUMED noone would be stupid enough to try and two weapon fight while weilding a weapon with BOTH FREAKING HANDS. also.. I am not saying you can't use armor spikes if you have a ONE handed weapon... The RAW says you can do that. But, you can NOT use them in the same round you wield a two handed weapon, with the TWO WEAPON combat rules. I did not spell check this... so... yeah.
Aeromus 07-05-05, 03:12 AM	No apologies neccessary. It happens :) I am a proponent of Psionic classes being the most balanced of the spellcasting classes. I also think that Monk Flurry and TWF stack according to RAW, but immediately House Ruled it to "no way in Hell!!!" :D . I'll help you out on that = P Cause I'm such a NICE guy and all. Flurry of Blows (Ex): When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows. When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x1/2) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her flurry of blows routine to do so. When a monk reaches 11th level, her flurry of blows ability improves. In addition to the standard single extra attack she gets from flurry of blows, she gets a second extra attack at her full base attack bonus. Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes. So I am assuming by this that "yes" a Monk can Two weapon fight, an flurry at the same time. However the flurry attack has to be unarmed. So at level 1 with a str of 14 a monk could make 3 attacks at a -2/-2/-2 And, all three attacks would do (if unarmed) 1d6+2 damage.
Aeromus 07-05-05, 03:22 AM	OH now I LOVE this....WTF!?! I have not seen you quote one rule that says you can't use armor spikes as an off hand weapon when wielding a two handed weapon. So what the monk can use unarmed attacks when wielding a staff but a fighter in spiked armor can't do what is exactly the same? Or maybe the mummy who can make a slam attack when wielding a great sword can't do that either because he's not using his "off-hand" The rules support using armor spikes and a great sword at the same time, as long as you have not made an off hand attack. For your interpretation of the rule to be considered valid, you will need to show some evidence, like somewhere that it says using a two handed weapon constitutes both a primary and off hand attack. Monk part addressed above. The mummy thing. Let me enlighten you grasshopper. If the Mummy uses the Sword attack, it doesn't ALSO get a slam. Like-wise if it chooses to slam, it can't atttack with the two handed weapon. Unless of course it has multiple attacks and wants to switch it up. Which I'm not argueing. But the Mummy can't TWO WEAPON FIGHT with the two handed sword and the slam. The rules DO NOT support armor spikes and a two handed weapon together as part of the two weapon fighting feat/two weapon combat rules. You can interchange them.. as in 6th level fighter with a 14 str... equipped with a greatsword, and armor spikes could do this. Make an attack with his greatsword at +8 to hit, and then make his second attack for the round with armor spikes at +3 to hit. But, he can't two weapon them for a Greatsword +6, Greatsword + 1, armor spike + 6 attack. He could do that if he was using a ONE HANDED weapon though.
Greyman 07-05-05, 04:30 AM	The mummy thing. Let me enlighten you grasshopper. If the Mummy uses the Sword attack, it doesn't ALSO get a slam. Like-wise if it chooses to slam, it can't atttack with the two handed weapon. Unless of course it has multiple attacks and wants to switch it up. Which I'm not argueing. But the Mummy can't TWO WEAPON FIGHT with the two handed sword and the slam.The standard mummy does not come equiped with manufactured weapons listed in their attack sequence, however their is nothing actually prohibiting one from using them. If the bandaged, mummified hands are capable of handling material components and performing somatic guestures (as the Mummy Lord's preparation of animate dead and other spells would indicate), then they are quite capable of wielding weapons. However, they are not automatically proficient with weapons unless they also have a Class. Now, a mummy's slam attack is normally considered to be made with her arms, which would preclude the ability to wield a weapon at the same time. However, a slam attack is defined as "a creature batters opponents with an appendage dealing bludeoning damage" and it is not actually specified which appendage(s) a mummy needs to use to make the slam. If you accept that a leg counts as a slammable appendage then there is no rule stating that a mummy cannot make a slam attack in conjunction with a full attack by a two handed sword. The only qualifier is "if you accept that a leg can make a slam attack". Some don't, which is an reasonable ruling, but it's the only ruling that prevents a mummy from combining it's slam attack with a great sword in a full attack."Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual –5 penalty (or –2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon." The rules DO NOT support armor spikes and a two handed weapon together as part of the two weapon fighting feat/two weapon combat rules.Please cite "the rules" that support your argument. Quotes from relevant sections of the rules have been supplied by previous posters to support our statements that armor spikes are an manufactured weapon that do not require having a hand free to wield them as an offhand attack. The rules only prevent you from attacking with another off-hand weapon in the same round. The rules totaly support it. Please cite actual evidence to the contrary rather than a mere beligerant repitition of your stance.
20goingon1232 07-05-05, 04:51 AM	Ok quoting more, since we had to bring up monks. Let us see... with this you can substitute elbows, knees ect... But, does the entry for armor spikes say anything like that? NOPE. It says and I quote. Nope, doesn't even remotely look like the monk unarmed strike entry does it? I still wait for RAW proof that you can use a two handed weapon, and armor spikes with two weapon fighting. So you can't use armor spikes from any part except the hands.... according to the RAW that is. In fact let us look at the SRD for the feat two weapon fighting. IN EACH HAND EH? Since the spikes can't possibly be in your HAND due to weilding a great sword... this feat is useless to you anyway. Slightly conflicting yes? Since this says a weapon in each hand.. you can NEVER apply it to a two handed weapon. More Two weapon fighting quotes.. NOTE, that this quote covers not only double weapons, but, THROWN weapons as well. Yet it doesn't cover trying to be silly and two weapon fight with a great sword (two handed) and armor spikes. Why doesn't it cover this you ask? Because the writers of the book ASSUMED noone would be stupid enough to try and two weapon fight while weilding a weapon with BOTH FREAKING HANDS. also.. I am not saying you can't use armor spikes if you have a ONE handed weapon... The RAW says you can do that. But, you can NOT use them in the same round you wield a two handed weapon, with the TWO WEAPON combat rules. I did not spell check this... so... yeah. You need a hand to knee someone in the groin? Or kick someone in the shins? I don't know which planet you think you are from, but here on Earth, we don't need a hand to do either. Just good balance.
20goingon1232 07-05-05, 04:55 AM	I'll help you out on that = P Cause I'm such a NICE guy and all. So I am assuming by this that "yes" a Monk can Two weapon fight, an flurry at the same time. However the flurry attack has to be unarmed. And the reply to that is that Flurry is a FULL ROUND ATTACK, and you cannot have TWO full round actions a turn (which is what TWF is). It is also incorrect. But since you are such a smart lad, I'll let you figure out why this is incorrect on your own (and it has nothing to do with the other thing I said in this post; this is your freebie clue).
Maerdash 07-05-05, 05:28 AM	Well since the mummy has a slam as a natural attack and natural weapons can be used in a full attack action as a secondary attack at a -5 i would assume.......
Count Arioch the 28th 07-05-05, 05:41 AM	Oh yeah: "*waits for the "the DnD FAQ is useless, OUR interpretation is KING!" lot to show up*" Dang, I love it when my predictions come true. You called it, dude.
Helmed Horror 07-05-05, 07:14 AM	you cannot due to the little paragraph of (in the off-hand) part of the SRD description. A two-handed weapon wielder doesn't have an usable off-hand to count for the armor spikes.
Thorak 07-05-05, 07:33 AM	Let us see... with this you can substitute elbows, knees ect... But, does the entry for armor spikes say anything like that? NOPE. It says and I quote. It doesn't need to. It is spikes on your armor. If it were spikes on your hand, it would be a spiked gauntlet, an entirely separate weapon. Suggesting you need to use your physical off-hand to wield armor spikes is as inane as saying you need to use your physical off-hand to kick someone. IN EACH HAND EH? Since the spikes can't possibly be in your HAND due to weilding a great sword... this feat is useless to you anyway. Slightly conflicting yes? Since this says a weapon in each hand.. you can NEVER apply it to a two handed weapon. Okay, so what if it's a longsword and armor spikes? The armor spikes aren't in your hand, obviously. If they were, they'd be a spiked gauntlet. So are you honestly claiming you can't use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, despite the RAW explicitly saying you can, to the point of saying you can wield another off-hand weapon at the exact same time? Why doesn't it cover this you ask? Because the writers of the book ASSUMED noone would be stupid enough to try and two weapon fight while weilding a weapon with BOTH FREAKING HANDS. Or, perhaps, because in most cases, you need a physical hand to wield a weapon. So you can't wield two, generally, unless it's one in each. This doesn't mean that certain weapons which are explicit exceptions to this general rule can't avoid the general TWF wording too. also.. I am not saying you can't use armor spikes if you have a ONE handed weapon... The RAW says you can do that. But, you can NOT use them in the same round you wield a two handed weapon, with the TWO WEAPON combat rules. Oh, so you're a hypocrite? Ok, got it. Because yes, you're claiming that you need to use a physical hand to wield armor spikes, which isn't remotely true. To put this another way; I can wield two longswords, and as long as I don't attack with the one in my off-hand, I can still attack with my armor spikes. I'm wielding three weapons, but attacking with two. Now, make the two longswords a greatsword. Same number of hands used. Still a primary and an off hand weapon. Still no second off-hand weapon being used that would void the armor spikes being used. Again, like I said before, you need to find a rule that shows that a two-handed weapon is an off-hand weapon. We're still waiting for that. you cannot due to the little paragraph of (in the off-hand) part of the SRD description. A two-handed weapon wielder doesn't have an usable off-hand to count for the armor spikes. Then explain to me how you can have "another off-hand weapon" that you could attack with instead of armor spikes without using up the useable off-hand in wielding it. And you explicitly can do so, the armor spikes section says so quite clearly. Nowhere does it state that you need to use a physical hand to wield a weapon. Especially for those weapons it makes absolutely no sense for. Try again.
Helmed Horror 07-05-05, 07:39 AM	The only way I see possible is by somehow attacking with a Two handed weapon that initiates a grapple. One can attack seemingly attack with them endlessly in a grapple... By the SRD definition of armor spikes, it says you may melee attack with them as a martial weapon for 1d6 as an off-hand attack. You have no off-hand to make this attack if you are weilding a greatsword. It is like saying "why can't i wield a greatsword and a shortsword at the same time??? (without monkey grip etc.) I hope this clears up my previous post. -HH
Thorak 07-05-05, 09:41 AM	By the SRD definition of armor spikes, it says you may melee attack with them as a martial weapon for 1d6 as an off-hand attack. You have no off-hand to make this attack if you are weilding a greatsword. Prove it. Where does it state that wielding a greatsword counts as both a primary and an off-hand attack? It is like saying "why can't i wield a greatsword and a shortsword at the same time??? (without monkey grip etc.) No, it's not. Because those weapons require hands to wield them, and you have a limited supply. You don't need a free hand to wield armor spikes, as the RAW makes explicitly clear (you can't have "another off-hand weapon" with a free hand, after all). That's the point.
Helmed Horror 07-05-05, 10:00 AM	A greatsword is a large two-handed (for medium sized characters) martial melee weapon. _____ straight from the SRD: emphasized some parts. Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right. ______ Attacking with armor spikes when you have already attacked with a weapon in your primary hand is treated as an off-hand attack. When you are wielding a 2 handed weapon, you have no off-hand to attack. (ala my analogy to trying to attack with a greatsword and a shortsword.) The shortsword, spiked armor, no difference, they would be considered off-hand attacks therefore unusable in the current situation. You are going against your sig i might add. you are tackling this problem in a lateral sense instead of the RAW. :P Real life?? oh yea. Go through the motions with a baseball bat. After swinging, you can easily use your primary hand's elbow as a spike on the upward thrust. Not to mention a nast kick. RAW wise? cant be done.
Aeromus 07-05-05, 11:08 AM	Helmed Horror, just give it up man. I've sited every rule that applies. These people are making crap up to appear correct... They know we are right, and just refuse to let it die. You need a hand to knee someone in the groin? Or kick someone in the shins? I don't know which planet you think you are from, but here on Earth, we don't need a hand to do either. Just good balance. The rules for doing this is "IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE" not, armor spikes. Okay, so what if it's a longsword and armor spikes? The entry under armor spikes covers the use of them with a one handed weapon... can't you read? So are you honestly claiming you can't use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, despite the RAW explicitly saying you can, to the point of saying you can wield another off-hand weapon at the exact same time? I never said this. I said... you can't make an off hand attack with them, while using a greatsword. (aka two handed weapon) Please stop trying to change what I say to make your uber cheesey crap work. Because yes, you're claiming that you need to use a physical hand to wield armor spikes, which isn't remotely true. Dude D&D is NOT real life. In the abstract world that is combat in this game.. the RAW assumes and clearly states you DO need one. To put this another way; I can wield two longswords, and as long as I don't attack with the one in my off-hand, I can still attack with my armor spikes. I'm wielding three weapons, but attacking with two. Did I say you couldn't do this? No I didn't. Hell you can "hold" a greatsword.. and use armor spikes instead.. But, you can't use both, at the same time. As I pointed out above.
Thorak 07-05-05, 11:36 AM	A greatsword is a large two-handed (for medium sized characters) martial melee weapon. Attacking with armor spikes when you have already attacked with a weapon in your primary hand is treated as an off-hand attack. When you are wielding a 2 handed weapon, you have no off-hand to attack. (ala my analogy to trying to attack with a greatsword and a shortsword.) The shortsword, spiked armor, no difference, they would be considered off-hand attacks therefore unusable in the current situation. The portion I bolded above is the bit you guys have yet to prove. I keep asking you to do so, and you keep avoiding the issue. Unless you can prove that, your argument has absolutely no ground to stand on. You are going against your sig i might add. you are tackling this problem in a lateral sense instead of the RAW. :P Hardly. I'm being exactly as my sig says; you prove to me that an attack with a two-handed weapon is an attack with an off-hand weapon. I've asked three times now, and am still waiting for the proof. Helmed Horror, just give it up man. I've sited every rule that applies. These people are making crap up to appear correct... They know we are right, and just refuse to let it die. Hardly. Try proving that an attack with a two-handed weapon is in any way an attack with an off-hand weapon. I've asked three times, and neither you nor Helmed Horror have provided any evidence for that fact. Considering that, without it, your argument is completely null and void, you'd think you'd cite that rule, rather than all the irrelevant stuff you've been citing. Unless it doesn't exist, and you're just avoiding having to admit the fact and trying to confuse the issue. I never said this. I said... you can't make an off hand attack with them, while using a greatsword. (aka two handed weapon) Please stop trying to change what I say to make your uber cheesey crap work. Why can't I use them when wielding a greatsword? It says, clearly, that I can use them unless I've made an attack with "another off-hand weapon". A greatsword is not my off-hand weapon; it's my primary weapon. And you've consistently failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Dude D&D is NOT real life. In the abstract world that is combat in this game.. the RAW assumes and clearly states you DO need one. Really? Where? Cite it for me. You haven't yet, and I can tell you right now the rule you claim doesn't exist. Did I say you couldn't do this? No I didn't. Hell you can "hold" a greatsword.. and use armor spikes instead.. But, you can't use both, at the same time. As I pointed out above. Thanks, I understand. You're a hypocrite. On the one hand, you're claiming that you can't wield a greatsword and armor spikes together because you don't have a free off-hand for the armor spikes. On the other, you're claiming that I can wield two longswords and armor spikes together, even though I don't have free off hand any more than I did before. Hypocrisy does not a good argument make. To sum up; prove that a two-handed weapon counts as an off-hand weapon. That's what you need to prove to be right. Stop avoiding the issue. Either admit that the rules you're talking about don't exist anywhere but in your head, or quote them. One or the other.
Aeromus 07-05-05, 12:07 PM	Dude listen clearly. The monk unarmed ability says you can substitute elbows ect... The armor spikes entry DOES NOT say you can do that. You can't use an OFF HAND weapon if you have no OFF HAND to use al-la weilding a two handed sword. Two Handed: Two hands are required to use a two handed melee weapon effectively. Apply one and a half times the character's strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such weapons. Quoted from page 113 of 3.5 PHB That quote proves you HAVE to use both hands on a great sword. The post for armor spikes DOES NOT say you can sub elbows or other parts of the body to make attacks. Therefore, you NEED a "free" (by free I mean hand not being used for something else) "OFF HAND" to use armor spikes as part of the TWO WEAPON FIGHTING (feat or rules) THere is no better proof then that. To sum up; prove that a two-handed weapon counts as an off-hand weapon. That's what you need to prove to be right. Stop avoiding the issue. Either admit that the rules you're talking about don't exist anywhere but in your head, or quote them. One or the other. YOU FIRST show me in RAW where it says "You can weild a two handed weapon and armor spikes using the two weapon fighting feat/combat options. You can't because all the other stuff pertaining to those topics all contradict what you say it doesn't.
Thorak 07-05-05, 12:53 PM	Dude listen clearly. The monk unarmed ability says you can substitute elbows ect... The armor spikes entry DOES NOT say you can do that. And? It's absolutely obvious you're not using your hand to wield armor spikes. If you were, the spikes would be on a gauntlet, and it would be a spiked gauntlet. It doesn't have to say you can substitute squat when it's absolutely clear you're not even able to use a hand. You can't use an OFF HAND weapon if you have no OFF HAND to use al-la weilding a two handed sword. Prove it. This is the fourth time I have asked you to cite a rule that says this. Quoted from page 113 of 3.5 PHB That quote proves you HAVE to use both hands on a great sword. The post for armor spikes DOES NOT say you can sub elbows or other parts of the body to make attacks. Therefore, you NEED a "free" (by free I mean hand not being used for something else) "OFF HAND" to use armor spikes as part of the TWO WEAPON FIGHTING (feat or rules) THere is no better proof then that. That you have to use both hands on a two-handed weapon is irrelevant. Armor spikes don't have to say you can "sub" parts of the body because it's obvious you can't use your hands in the first place. And you have yet to provide any support for the claim that you need a free hand. YOU FIRST show me in RAW where it says "You can weild a two handed weapon and armor spikes using the two weapon fighting feat/combat options. "You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa." Is your primary weapon "another off-hand weapon"? No. So the restriction on armor spikes doesn't kick in. You can make off-hand attacks with them when wielding the greatsword, because it isn't "another off-hand weapon". Proven by the RAW. You can't because all the other stuff pertaining to those topics all contradict what you say it doesn't. I just did. I'm still waiting for you to provide any actual rule quotes that support your claims that you need a free hand to wield any weapon, or that a two-handed weapon counts as an off-hand weapon. As it stands, I've proven my case. We're waiting to see if there's anything but bluster to yours. Put up or shut up.
Qual 07-05-05, 01:41 PM	Hi there. Now, I know that you're both quoating the Rules as written, and I'm really hesitant to even interject here, but I just wanted to show something. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG124_WEB.jpg The far right is the illustration for spiked armour. Notice the spikes (Oooo! Spikey! :D ) They're everywhere. Not just the hand (off-hand or not), but on the shoulders, knees, forearms etc. In a round the fighter is assumed to be dodging, weaving, feighting and such, and the attack role made is simply the best opportunity that is presented for them to hit their opponent. If the fighter is weildling a two handed weapon, is it not possible they could shoulder/knee/rake with their spiked armour? (With whatever penalties that they would incur) This goes back the Thorak's "If the spikes were on the off-hand, it would be called a Spiked Gauntlet". The trouble is that the Spiked Armour makes an exception with reference to the off-handed weapon, so that you can't have TWO off-handed attacks. Is a two-handed attack considered both primary AND off-handed attacks? The +.5 str damage for two handed weapons seem to indicate that you're using your off hand attack to add extra damage (along with the extra damage of a larger weapon) (no, this is not from any books, I'm just suggesting an explaination). For this double attack to work you would have to consider "Off-Hand Attack" like a slot, not actually anything to do with a "hand" per-se . Common sense would say that if the other hand is occupied that you can't use that hand (as in a two handed weapon), but since Spiked Armour isn't in the hand, the logic gets kind of fuzzy. As a DM, I'm not sure which way I'd rule. Depends on how broken it is. If the Spiked armour attack was at severe penalties and little str bonus (which seems to be the case) then maybe I'd test it out to see how silly the damage gets. Chances are I'm just adding fuel to the fire. Backing out slowly. -Qual
Maerdash 07-05-05, 01:44 PM	Helmed Horror, just give it up man. I've sited every rule that applies. These people are making crap up to appear correct... They know we are right, and just refuse to let it die. That is the most inane thing you've said since this started and doesn't even deserve an answer. The rules for doing this is "IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE" not, armor spikes. No the rules for this are the unarmed strike rules, imp unarmed gets rid of the AoO but you can still do it "untrained" The entry under armor spikes covers the use of them with a one handed weapon... can't you read? Why yes I believe we can read and I think thats a fairly pathetic question when the evidence of our litteracy is right in front of you. And as to the one handed weapon no where does it say that you can't use a two handed weapon, it doesn't even say you can't wield a second weapon in your off hand you just can't attack with it. Now if your right there should be a rule that you can quote that says a two handed weapon uses an off hand attack. The FAQ says you can do it so I kind of doubt you actually have a rule that even IMPLIES what your saying. I never said this. I said... you can't make an off hand attack with them, while using a greatsword. (aka two handed weapon) Oh so you can hold a greatsword and knee someone in the groin but you can't swing a great sword then knee someone in the groin? :rolleyes: Dude D&D is NOT real life. In the abstract world that is combat in this game.. the RAW assumes and clearly states you DO need one. Once again your not looking to good with this one, what you have posted has been rules interpretation same as me. If the RAW clearly stated that you do need one we wouldn't be having this discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong and your right, but you have in no way proven that you are correct, you have yet to cite one rule thats relevant to your position.
Maerdash 07-05-05, 01:48 PM	A greatsword is a large two-handed (for medium sized characters) martial melee weapon. _____ straight from the SRD: emphasized some parts. Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right. ______ Attacking with armor spikes when you have already attacked with a weapon in your primary hand is treated as an off-hand attack. When you are wielding a 2 handed weapon, you have no off-hand to attack. (ala my analogy to trying to attack with a greatsword and a shortsword.) The shortsword, spiked armor, no difference, they would be considered off-hand attacks therefore unusable in the current situation. You are going against your sig i might add. you are tackling this problem in a lateral sense instead of the RAW. :P Real life?? oh yea. Go through the motions with a baseball bat. After swinging, you can easily use your primary hand's elbow as a spike on the upward thrust. Not to mention a nast kick. RAW wise? cant be done. What's your point, our arguments entire basis is that a greatsword is a primary weapon and it doesn't constitute an off hand attack, if you can prove it does, then you win we're wrong, but you can't prove it because the rules don't support what your saying. Don't get me wrong I understand where your coming from I just don't agree with your interpretation of the rules.
Thorak 07-05-05, 01:48 PM	The trouble is that the Spiked Armour makes an exception with reference to the off-handed weapon, so that you can't have TWO off-handed attacks. Is a two-handed attack considered both primary AND off-handed attacks? That's my point. Find my any rule that says as much. There aren't any, because that statement isn't true. For this double attack to work you would have to consider "Off-Hand Attack" like a slot, not actually anything to do with a "hand" per-se . Which it is, of course. If I can kick as an off-hand attack, which I can, then I'm clearly not using my hand to do so. An attack usually involves a hand, but it's not a necessity. As a DM, I'm not sure which way I'd rule. Depends on how broken it is. If the Spiked armour attack was at severe penalties and little str bonus (which seems to be the case) then maybe I'd test it out to see how silly the damage gets. It's hardly broken. First, to get the TWF feats, you need a high Dex. To get the most out of a two-hander, you need a high Strength. A dedicated character for either will have fewer feats needed, and fewer ability requirements, and generally do better than someone trying to dual-wield a greatsword and armor spikes. We've done comparisons power-wise, and it doesn't come out much ahead of two-handers alone. Considering the extra feat cost, it's really not worth it. Don't get me wrong I understand where your coming from I just don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. Like I said early on, about a year ago I was the lone champion of the "no you can't" argument in a 20+ page thread. I'm being vehement about it now because I was soundly proven wrong then, and I had better support for my arguments than Aeromus does. And know exactly the flaws to that support, since it was pointed out in detail in that thread.
Maerdash 07-05-05, 01:53 PM	Hi there. Now, I know that you're both quoating the Rules as written, and I'm really hesitant to even interject here, but I just wanted to show something. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG124_WEB.jpg The far right is the illustration for spiked armour. Notice the spikes (Oooo! Spikey! :D ) They're everywhere. Not just the hand (off-hand or not), but on the shoulders, knees, forearms etc. In a round the fighter is assumed to be dodging, weaving, feighting and such, and the attack role made is simply the best opportunity that is presented for them to hit their opponent. If the fighter is weildling a two handed weapon, is it not possible they could shoulder/knee/rake with their spiked armour? (With whatever penalties that they would incur) This goes back the Thorak's "If the spikes were on the off-hand, it would be called a Spiked Gauntlet". The trouble is that the Spiked Armour makes an exception with reference to the off-handed weapon, so that you can't have TWO off-handed attacks. Is a two-handed attack considered both primary AND off-handed attacks? The +.5 str damage for two handed weapons seem to indicate that you're using your off hand attack to add extra damage (along with the extra damage of a larger weapon) (no, this is not from any books, I'm just suggesting an explaination). For this double attack to work you would have to consider "Off-Hand Attack" like a slot, not actually anything to do with a "hand" per-se . Common sense would say that if the other hand is occupied that you can't use that hand (as in a two handed weapon), but since Spiked Armour isn't in the hand, the logic gets kind of fuzzy. As a DM, I'm not sure which way I'd rule. Depends on how broken it is. If the Spiked armour attack was at severe penalties and little str bonus (which seems to be the case) then maybe I'd test it out to see how silly the damage gets. Chances are I'm just adding fuel to the fire. Backing out slowly. -Qual No need to back away from the fire mate its warm in here nice and toasty. Anyway thats a very good argument and I understand where your coming from, the problem I have with it personally is that an off hand attack is a seperate attack made with your off hand, granted your using both hands to add extra punch when you swing a great sword, but is that a off hand attack? I don't think so and the official FAQ agrees with me so......draw your own conclusions. Edit: I would like to add that I found your post to be very polite and that kept my brain out of flame mode long enough for me to consider your thoughts before posting.
Maerdash 07-05-05, 02:01 PM	We've done comparisons power-wise, and it doesn't come out much ahead of two-handers alone. Considering the extra feat cost, it's really not worth it. Yeah I wouldn't bother with it unless it was character concept its just not worth it if you ask me. Which you didn't :D Like I said early on, about a year ago I was the lone champion of the "no you can't" argument in a 20+ page thread. I'm being vehement about it now because I was soundly proven wrong then, and I had better support for my arguments than Aeromus does. And know exactly the flaws to that support, since it was pointed out in detail in that thread. You wouldn't happen to have it stickied would you it would certainly make this thread shorter. :D Trust me people anything Thorak has given up defending because he couldn't support his position has some serious flaws. Thorak knows his stuff.
Aeromus 07-05-05, 06:16 PM	The FaQ is wrong. But, I'm done with this arguement. Down the stairs, for real.
Otto the Bugbear 07-05-05, 10:00 PM	It's hardly broken. First, to get the TWF feats, you need a high Dex. To get the most out of a two-hander, you need a high Strength. A dedicated character for either will have fewer feats needed, and fewer ability requirements, and generally do better than someone trying to dual-wield a greatsword and armor spikes. We've done comparisons power-wise, and it doesn't come out much ahead of two-handers alone. Considering the extra feat cost, it's really not worth it. This is especially true once you factor in one of the big advantages of wieldign a two-handed weapon: Power Attack. As a light weapon, armor spikes will only get a penalty to hit (no bonus damage) when any character tries to take advantage of the more generous return that power attack gives the two-handed weapons. And that's on top of the -2 to hit for TWF. Seems like they (WotC) needs new vernacular for this exact reason. Instead of main-hand/off-hand, a change to primary attack/secondary attack would be a good thing. Back to the arguement part. I think you guys are going about this all wrong (we in support of T-H weapon + spikey armor). Small words, short questions. 1. Is a greatsword a primary weapon? Yes or No Then, after this is answered, ask the next question. Keep them short and sweet. :cool: I realize that will add significantly to the post count, but perhaps your request for them to prove a two-hander is an off-hand weapon gets lost in all the long winded posts. Cheers Otto :)
Helmed Horror 07-05-05, 11:47 PM	THE SRD RULED ATTACKING WITH ARMOR SPIKES IS MADE AS AN OFF-HAND ATTACK. --- You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) --- That is the proof, your regular melee attack = greatsword right? You cannot make an off-hand attack with a two handed weapon. latter on the srd says you can attack with the spikes in a grapple... so if you could attack with a greatsword, start a grapple, then attack with the spikes.... im not sure... I also included in my previous post god yes you can attack with them in real life with a greatsword, but in DnD, it cant be done gameplay wise without a houseruling. end of story.
Maerdash 07-05-05, 11:57 PM	THE SRD RULED ATTACKING WITH ARMOR SPIKES IS MADE AS AN OFF-HAND ATTACK. --- You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) --- That is the proof, your regular melee attack = greatsword right? You cannot make an off-hand attack with a two handed weapon. latter on the srd says you can attack with the spikes in a grapple... so if you could attack with a greatsword, start a grapple, then attack with the spikes.... im not sure... I also included in my previous post god yes you can attack with them in real life with a greatsword, but in DnD, it cant be done gameplay wise without a houseruling. end of story. You know I'm not even going to bother arguing anymore since you cant show proof that attacking with a two handed weapon is the same as attacking with your off hand. Monks can do it, creatures with natural attacks can do it as a secondary attack, etc.
Qual 07-06-05, 12:44 AM	Hi again. I have no idea why I'm stepping back in here, but I think there's room for some clarification: THE SRD RULED ATTACKING WITH ARMOR SPIKES IS MADE AS AN OFF-HAND ATTACK. You are absolutly right. I think that everyone here would agree with you. Attacking with Spikes = Off-Hand Attack That is the proof, your regular melee attack = greatsword right? You cannot make an off-hand attack with a two handed weapon. It's the "Cannot make an off-hand attack with a two handed weapon" that has yet to be proven in this thread. It makes sense that if both hands are occupied (as they would be with a Great Sword) that an "off-hand" attack would seem impossible. But Thorak pointed out that Off-Hand attacks doesn't necessarily means "hand", but also "kick" (as in Monk), or "Shoulder" or "Knee". In this case, "Off-hand" attack in reality means "That extra attack from two weapon fighting", seen more as a slot to be used. So, to see if I've got this right, I will state it simply: Long sword and Spikes: Main Attack (LS) + Off Hand (Spikes!) Long Sword, Short Sword and Spikes: Main attack (LS) and either SS or Spikes as my off hand. (But not both, since the SS would take up the Off-hand attack) Great Sword and Spikes = Main attack (GS) and off hand (Even though I don't have a spare hand, I still haven't used my off-hand attack, and since the spikes aren't in my hand *aka NOT a spiked gauntlet* I am free to Spike the nearest bad guy with my knee/shoulder/helm) What this boils down to is that an off-hand attack doesn't necessarily have to be with your hand, and that nothing in the rules states that an attack with a two-handed weapon uses up the off-hand attack as well as the main attack. If you want to say that the off-hand attack goes into making the one hit stronger (the extra +.5 str and the greater damage of two handed weapons), I'm sure that makes a certain amount of sense, and in general people would accept that. But there's nothing in the rules to support it that I can see. To tell you the truth, this is simply going in circles. When I asked how broken it was, Thorak (who would know a lot more than I would) said that it wasn't really worth it, especially since you're using a feat for it. I, for one, believe him. So if someone wants to do it... for character concept, flavour or simply the urge to munchkin, chances are it wouldn't hurt the game at all. If you're not convinced... don't use it. I play D&D to have fun, and I'm pretty sure that this thread has all the fun sucked right out of it. -Qual
Count Arioch the 28th 07-06-05, 01:07 AM	Well, the FAQ is saying something else. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as primary light or an off hand-light weapon, even if you are using a shield or using a two handed weapon. In these latter two cases, you are assumed to be kneeing or kicking your foe with your armor spikes. Disagree with it or not, but there is reason to believe that it does work that way.
Thorak 07-06-05, 01:19 AM	The FaQ is wrong. But, I'm done with this arguement. Down the stairs, for real. What, you have an argument? Looks to me like you have an opinion you've never provided any evidence to support. Despite me asking four times for the evidence you claimed you had. I could ask you to be mature and admit defeat instead of being sooky and blind to reason, but you've made your choice, apparently. THE SRD RULED ATTACKING WITH ARMOR SPIKES IS MADE AS AN OFF-HAND ATTACK. Of course it is. Says so in the PHB, too. Nobody claimed otherwise. It could also be a primary attack, too. But we're not discussing that situation. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) --- That is the proof, your regular melee attack = greatsword right? You cannot make an off-hand attack with a two handed weapon. That doesn't even remotely follow. It says you can make a regular melee attack with the spikes. It's not talking about regular melee attacks with anything else. It's not a proof of anything, except that armor spikes can be used as a primary weapon. Which is irrelevant to the debate. latter on the srd says you can attack with the spikes in a grapple... so if you could attack with a greatsword, start a grapple, then attack with the spikes.... im not sure... Why not? You could do it with a longsword. I also included in my previous post god yes you can attack with them in real life with a greatsword, but in DnD, it cant be done gameplay wise without a houseruling. Yes, we know you've claimed that. Now either admit that you're making it up, or provide evidence to support the claim. The evidence you need is proof that a two-handed weapon counts as an off-hand weapon. I've told you what you need to prove. 5 times. I'm perfectly aware you can't, because I searched and searched myself, a year ago. Since a two-handed weapon is not an off-hand weapon, there's absolutely no reason you can't wield armor spikes and attack with them as an off-hand weapon in addition to a greatsword primary weapon. Because it's not "another off-hand weapon". Good god, you two. I've even told you what you need to find to prove your argument. If you can't find it, admit that you can't prove it. But stop claiming there's evidence when you can't bloody quote it for the rest of us to see.
allenchan 07-06-05, 01:31 AM	Armor spikes? Bah! Its all about Armor Razors, people! ( found in the Underdark book). Exactly like spikes except slashing damage. Might not seem like much, but when you've got a Dervish finnessing an Elven Courtblade and Armor Razors... Eeep!
20goingon1232 07-06-05, 01:53 AM	THE SRD RULED ATTACKING WITH ARMOR SPIKES IS MADE AS AN OFF-HAND ATTACK. --- You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) --- That is the proof, your regular melee attack = greatsword right? You cannot make an off-hand attack with a two handed weapon. latter on the srd says you can attack with the spikes in a grapple... so if you could attack with a greatsword, start a grapple, then attack with the spikes.... im not sure... I also included in my previous post god yes you can attack with them in real life with a greatsword, but in DnD, it cant be done gameplay wise without a houseruling. end of story. Incorrect. You cannot make an off-hand attack when wielding a two-handed weapon because you are not WIELDING a second weapon. Armour spikes circumvent this as you are not wielding it with a hand but with a foot (or shoulder or knee or....). Consider the Thri-Kreen. It has four arms, but is still Medium sized. It CAN TWF two greatswords. This example alone blows your argument out of the water. Have a nice day.
pres_man 07-06-05, 09:20 AM	How does armor spikes + two-handed weapon compare to a double weapon being used two-handed? Why is it that if you use a double weapon two-handed that you can no longer make off-hand attacks with the other end? Yet you could make attacks with your armor?
Drachasor 07-06-05, 09:56 AM	How does armor spikes + two-handed weapon compare to a double weapon being used two-handed? Why is it that if you use a double weapon two-handed that you can no longer make off-hand attacks with the other end? Yet you could make attacks with your armor? You get one off-hand attack, which can either be the other end of your double weapon *or* your armor spikes. -Drachasor
Greyman 07-06-05, 10:14 AM	How does armor spikes + two-handed weapon compare to a double weapon being used two-handed? Why is it that if you use a double weapon two-handed that you can no longer make off-hand attacks with the other end? Yet you could make attacks with your armor?A double weapon has only three attack options. When wielded one way, it is considered a two-handed weapon (gaining 1+1/2 times strength bonus to damage, et cetera). When wielded an other way, it is treated as two-weapon fighting with a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. When wielded the third way, it is held in one hand (and thus treated as a one handed weapon) leaving the other hand free. That's the mechanics; it's just the way they work. The rationalisation is that it's all in the way you grip the weapon. Once you've committed to holding it one way at the start of your turn, you cannot shift to the other mode half way in the middle of that round. When gripping a double weapon to use it like a two-handed weapon, your hands are not in possition to make an off-hand attack with the other end. However, you do not need a free hand to make an off-hand attack with armor spikes. ---- Comparrison wise, the only non-exotic double weapon in the PHB is the quarter staff, with 1d6/1d6 medium damage. Most exotic double weapons deal either 1d8/1d8 or 1d8/1d6, and require a feat to use proficiently. Spiked armor deals 1d6 medium damage. While fighting with one end of a double weapon and armor spikes may deal slightly more damage than fighting with both ends of a double weapon (depending on your strength bonus), this generally deals less damage than fighting with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon. On the other hand, wielding a double weapon means that you can hold it in one hand and still use it, if you suddenly need to use a hand to do something else. Versitility is their advantage.
Thorak 07-06-05, 10:54 AM	How does armor spikes + two-handed weapon compare to a double weapon being used two-handed? Why is it that if you use a double weapon two-handed that you can no longer make off-hand attacks with the other end? Yet you could make attacks with your armor? The only reason is that the PHB explicitly says; "A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon." If you fight with both ends, you treat them as a one-handed and a light. If it didn't explicitly say so, then you in theory could two-hand the primary and still wield the off-hand. But it does explicitly say so. It does not explicitly say, or even suggest, that fighting with a two-handed weapon, however, counts as or "takes up" your off-hand attack. That's the difference. I can wield a longsword, wear a shield in my off-hand, and wield armor spikes as my off-hand weapon. There's no debate with this one; it's perfectly legal. Both hands are busy using things. In fact, two different things. So why isn't using both to wield the same thing reasonable?
Maerdash 07-06-05, 02:15 PM	Ok I'm going to ask this, if your wielding a double weapon and only use the primary attack (that is you don't two-weapon fight with it) and not the off hand attack could you then use armor spikes? The logic of the extra .5 damage from the off-hand goes right out the window there and your STILL using a weapon in two hands just not your off hand attack.
Drachasor 07-06-05, 02:39 PM	Ok I'm going to ask this, if your wielding a double weapon and only use the primary attack (that is you don't two-weapon fight with it) and not the off hand attack could you then use armor spikes? The logic of the extra .5 damage from the off-hand goes right out the window there and your STILL using a weapon in two hands just not your off hand attack. If you don't make an "off-hand" attack, then you can't use the armor spikes after a primary attack. What is in your hands doesn't matter. They could be empty, you could be holding a sword in one hand and a bag of wheat in the other, or you could be using a flail whilst petting a dog. An "off-hand" attack doesn't really mean you are using your "off-hand", it just is a secondary attack you make make with a different weapon. As for the strength, call it lack of focus given the use of two weapons or whatever else you want, the .5 is primarily there for balance reasons to tone down damage. -Drachasor
Maerdash 07-06-05, 03:01 PM	oh I know that Drachasor I want one of the (person) people that have been argiuing that you can't use a two handed weapon and armor spikes to explain to me why you can use a two headed weapon in the very way they say you can't use a two-handed weapon.
Drachasor 07-06-05, 05:14 PM	oh I know that Drachasor I want one of the (person) people that have been argiuing that you can't use a two handed weapon and armor spikes to explain to me why you can use a two headed weapon in the very way they say you can't use a two-handed weapon. They can't generalize the "off-hand" term as Wizard and we do. They are focused on the idea the second weapon *must* be associated with a hand. That's how they can see the double-headed weapon working, but not see the two-hander + spikes working; a failure to generalize. -Drachasor