Reach Weapons and Threatening both close and far, 3.P

[Diarmuid]

My group plays a mix of 3.5 and PF, generally finding a happy medium between the rules. I was reading through an old Paizo forum thread about TWF and using multiple weapons to take iteratives and the end of it SKR posted a link from their FAQ stating that if you're not gaining extra attacks then you're not engaging the TWF rules and you dont take any penalties for using separate weapons to make your iterative attacks.

This got me thinking about a character I played that used a Guisarme and did a lot of tripping. When people got close, I had armor spikes to fall back on. I'm seeing that I could attack someone at range with the guisarme, and if they died or I decided not to keep attacking them I could use the armor spikes to attack someone who had gotten close with my iterative attack.

There is an entry in the PF FAQ that says you can't TWF with Armor Spikes if you're using a two-handed wepaon, but again that just means you cant take an extra attack per the first FAQ entry.

So this would lead me to think that the character would threaten with both the guisarme and the armor spikes at the same time and would be able to make an AoO with whichever weapon threatened the area the foe provoked in.

This seems a bit...at odds with the intended limitations for fighting with reach weapons and if correct then anyone who ever used a reach weapon should always have armor spikes added to any armor they might be wearing. Am I missing something here?

[Necroticplague]

Nope, you're not missing anything. It also works it you have any matter of natural weapon (that doesn't use your hand, if PF rules are in place), have Improved Unarmed Strike, or use armor razors.

[Diarmuid]

So basically anyone using a reach weapon who doesnt have armor spikes, boot blade, or anything else that would threaten within 5' is "doing it wrong" from a strictly effectiveness/optimization stand-point.

This seems like far too easy a skirting of what's obviously intended to be a limitation for being able to attack people at reach vs adjacent.

[BowStreetRunner]

So basically anyone using a reach weapon who doesnt have armor spikes, boot blade, or anything else that would threaten within 5' is "doing it wrong" from a strictly effectiveness/optimization stand-point.

This seems like far too easy a skirting of what's obviously intended to be a limitation for being able to attack people at reach vs adjacent.

The difference is you can't use that weapon at both reach and close. So you need to invest in two weapons - feats, enhancements, etc. - to be equally lethal at both.

[The Viscount]

Unless you're using Dragon Compendiums Duom, which affects both.
Granted, it's 1d8 and piercing only, so you'd want something else, since slashing is in far more demand.

[Darrin]

There is an entry in the PF FAQ that says you can't TWF with Armor Spikes if you're using a two-handed wepaon, but again that just means you cant take an extra attack per the first FAQ entry.


The PF designers have stuck their head up their posteriors when it comes to "handedness" and armor spikes. I think someone got really bent out of shape when they saw a PC taking advantage of two-handed Power Attack shenanigans and also getting offhand attacks with armor spikes... but this is *explicitly how armor spikes were designed to work in 3.5*. There are actually three "offhand" weapons in the core rules that don't involve using your hands: armor spikes, shield bash, and unarmed strikes. All of these should be allowed even when both of your hands are gripping something else.

Oddly enough, the PF FAQ does allow you to TWF with two unarmed strikes, so they apparently adhere to the "multiple striking surfaces" faction.



This seems a bit...at odds with the intended limitations for fighting with reach weapons and if correct then anyone who ever used a reach weapon should always have armor spikes added to any armor they might be wearing. Am I missing something here?

The Pathfinder designers want to insist that using a two-handed weapon means you are using your "offhand" to grip your primary weapon. Their thinking is most likely that in order to take advantage of the increased damage of a two-handed weapon, you need to "sacrifice" or "pay a penalty" to offset the advantage of having an offhand attack. However, using the TWF rules already incurs an attack penalty, so you "pay" for that advantage by hitting less often. There is no need to compound the disadvantages to using an offhand weapon for the sake of "game balance". I would advise ignoring this little bit of idiocy.

[Psyren]

There are actually three "offhand" weapons in the core rules that don't involve using your hands: armor spikes, shield bash, and unarmed strikes. All of these should be allowed even when both of your hands are gripping something else.

You can use all of those while two-handing - just not while getting the extra bonus attacks from TWF. If you have BAB +6, you can stab a reach target with your longspear (+6) and then shoulder-check an adjacent target with your armor spikes (+1) just fine, on those two separate iteratives.

In other words, what they're saying is that the special ability TWF gives you to attack more often (faster?) in a single full-attack sequence just doesn't apply when you're mixing weapon types like these. The technique TWF lets you use to bonus stab with your main-hand and offhand daggers, is not the same one you'd use to shoulder-check with an armor spike while also wielding a spear.

[Darrin]

You can use all of those while two-handing - just not while getting the extra bonus attacks from TWF. If you have BAB +6, you can stab a reach target with your longspear (+6) and then shoulder-check an adjacent target with your armor spikes (+1) just fine, on those two separate iteratives.

In other words, what they're saying is that the special ability TWF gives you to attack more often (faster?) in a single full-attack sequence just doesn't apply when you're mixing weapon types like these. The technique TWF lets you use to bonus stab with your main-hand and offhand daggers, is not the same one you'd use to shoulder-check with an armor spike while also wielding a spear.

That's not what the FAQ says:



Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.


As I understand it, what they are saying is if you use both hands to make a two-handed attack, then both your primary and "offhand" hands are too busy to do anything else. Note that they end with "any attacks", so this would also preclude switching from a two-handed weapon for your first iterative to a gauntlet/spike/unarmed on the second iterative, because that "hand" was too busy attacking with a two-handed weapon that round.

And you could probably say, "No, they were just talking about gaining extra attacks with TWF, you could still switch primary weapons between attacks", but I would point out that seems silly to me, because now you're arguing that while that hand could let go after the first iterative to switch to a different weapon on the second iterative, but it's not available to let go to make an offhand attack. I disagree. If you can let go to attack with a different weapon on your iteratives, you should be able to let go on the offhand as well. Also, the armor spikes do not require a hand to attack, so I don't see how gripping or not gripping the two-handed weapon is really an issue here.

In other words, I would advise you to ignore the Pathfinder FAQ with regards to armor spikes and proceed with whatever works best for your game.

[Psyren]

That's not what the FAQ says:

Going to stop you right there as you're reading my post wrong. You can't use them to make an "off-hand" attack - that term is specific to Two-Weapon Fighting. I'm not proposing that you use Two-Weapon Fighting, I'm proposing using different "main-hand" weapons for your different iteratives. This is specifically allowed per the FAQ. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9onf)

To quote specifically from that FAQ: "You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties. " No TWF, no off-hand.

[Darrin]

Going to stop you right there as you're reading my post wrong. You can't use them to make an "off-hand" attack - that term is specific to Two-Weapon Fighting. I'm not proposing that you use Two-Weapon Fighting, I'm proposing using different "main-hand" weapons for your different iteratives. This is specifically allowed per the FAQ. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9onf)


That portion of the FAQ isn't all that relevant, as it only discusses switching between one-handed weapons. It never mentions two-handed weapons or armor spikes.

The FAQ entry for armor spikes can be read at least two different ways, and one of them precludes using your other hand for any attack, iterative or offhand or otherwise. And this also assumes you are ignoring the idiocy of requiring a "hand" to be free to attack with a weapon that doesn't require any hands to use.

From what I can see on the Paizo boards, the Devs were trying to explain that when you attack with a two-handed weapon, you are using your "offhand" along with your primary hand to attack with the weapon, and thus your offhand cannot be used for anything else. There's a clause in the armor spikes description that says you can't use armor spikes if you've already attacked with an offhand weapon. The Devs are trying to say attacking with a two-handed weapon means that you are also using your offhand for that attack. So regardless of whether you are trying to use the TWF rules or not, you cannot use armor spikes (and presumably any other offhand weapon) after you have attacked with a two-handed weapon. Even if that weapon doesn't require any hands to attack with it.

So I maintain my position: the designers are idiots and don't know how their own rules work.

[Psyren]

That portion of the FAQ isn't all that relevant, as it only discusses switching between one-handed weapons. It never mentions two-handed weapons or armor spikes.

The FAQ I linked says nothing about being specific to 1H weapons or the size/handedness of the weapon at all. It only asks whether you're wielding multiple weapons, which you are. In fact, by your logic, neither FAQ would apply to a Titan Mauler Barbarian, a 4-armed creature like a Kasatha, or any other character designed to be able to wield multiple weapons regardless of size.



The FAQ entry for armor spikes can be read at least two different ways, and one of them precludes using your other hand for any attack, iterative or offhand or otherwise. And this also assumes you are ignoring the idiocy of requiring a "hand" to be free to attack with a weapon that doesn't require any hands to use. So I maintain my position: the designers are idiots and don't know how their own rules work.

If you wilfully choose to read something in a way that makes it idiotic, then of course it will be idiotic. But that choice is on you, not anyone else. The actual rule is quite clear - off-hand attacks only exist when using the two-weapon fighting rule.

[Darrin]

If you wilfully choose to read something in a way that makes it idiotic, then of course it will be idiotic. But that choice is on you, not anyone else. The actual rule is quite clear - off-hand attacks only exist when using the two-weapon fighting rule.

Nope. According to the Devs, when you attack with a two-handed weapon, you are "attacking" with your "offhand", even if you aren't trying to use the TWF rules.

They've been arguing about it since 2013:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q0dv&page=1?The-Offhand

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sd0e?Petition-to-ChangeClarify-the-Armor-Spikes-FAQ

[CharonsHelper]

Psyren is right.

Darrin is wrong.

Darrin - you seem to be confused as to what "offhand" means in Pathfinder. There is absolutely nothing in the rules to keep someone with a BAB of +16 from using their +16 attack with a greatsword, their +11 attack with armor spikes, their +6 attack with a gauntlet, and their +1 attack on an unarmed attack. (It would be foolish - but totally allowed. Actually - burning the last iterative with Defending armor spikes is a pretty common high level trick to get Defending to work since the iterative at -15 will nearly always miss anyway.)

All the FAQ says is that they can't use TWF to gain a 5th (or 6th & 7th with ITWF & GTWF respectively) attack(s) after using any of their normal attacks with the greatsword, because their offhand is being used to help make two-handed attacks with said greatsword.

[CharonsHelper]

At OP - yes, everyone who has a reach weapon should have armor spikes. (Actually - everyone with armor should have armor spikes has a back-up anyway.) It lets them threaten at both reach and close, but their reach attacks will be far and away superior to their reach attacks. Someone with a reach weapon is more likely to spend the gold to masterwork and enchant their armor spikes before a standard build would for this reason.

[HolyDraconus]

Psyren is right.

Darrin is wrong.

Darrin - you seem to be confused as to what "offhand" means in Pathfinder. There is absolutely nothing in the rules to keep someone with a BAB of +16 from using their +16 attack with a greatsword, their +11 attack with armor spikes, their +6 attack with a gauntlet, and their +1 attack on an unarmed attack. (It would be foolish - but totally allowed. Actually - burning the last iterative with Defending armor spikes is a pretty common high level trick to get Defending to work since the iterative at -15 will nearly always miss anyway.)

All the FAQ says is that they can't use TWF to gain a 5th (or 6th & 7th with ITWF & GTWF respectively) attack(s) after using any of their normal attacks with the greatsword, because their offhand is being used to help make two-handed attacks with said greatsword.
That.... sounds stupid. And it goes with what Darrin said earlier: pf is arguing that attacking with a 2h weapon makes you use offhand as well... even if the "offhand" attack doesn't require any hands. Im sticking with 3.e on this one.

[CharonsHelper]

That.... sounds stupid. And it goes with what Darrin said earlier: pf is arguing that attacking with a 2h weapon makes you use offhand as well... even if the "offhand" attack doesn't require any hands. Im sticking with 3.e on this one.

It's a bit confusing to wrap your mind around, but it's the rule for solid balance reasons.

In 3.x the most powerful combat style was greatsword & armor spikes TWF because you got 2x STR damage rather than 1.5x STR damage with normal TWF. Does anyone really want that?

(Not to mention also using an Animated shield - which PF also did away with.)

[Psyren]

Nope. According to the Devs, when you attack with a two-handed weapon, you are "attacking" with your "offhand", even if you aren't trying to use the TWF rules.

They've been arguing about it since 2013:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q0dv&page=1?The-Offhand

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sd0e?Petition-to-ChangeClarify-the-Armor-Spikes-FAQ

I saw no devs in either of your links; If I somehow missed them, you can link to their exact posts using the date field found on top of said post. But in their absence, pointing to other random forumgoers who are similarly confused about the ruling doesn't change what the rules say.

Rather, the actual FAQ from the actual designers states the actual ruling multiple times:



"You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties. "
...
"As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting. "
...
"The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting."

And to top it off, Armor Spikes specifically state they can be used for regular attacks or off-hand attacks. It really could not be any clearer.

[HolyDraconus]

It's a bit confusing to wrap your mind around, but it's the rule for solid balance reasons.

In 3.x the most powerful combat style was greatsword & armor spikes TWF because you got 2x STR damage rather than 1.5x STR damage with normal TWF. Does anyone really want that?

(Not to mention also using an Animated shield - which PF also did away with.)
The most powerful combat style has and will always be wizard saying "die... no save, just die". Since you can survive unoptimized from damage. Death though, there's no degrees of dead, compared to % of remaining hp.

[CharonsHelper]

The most powerful combat style has and will always be wizard saying "die... no save, just die". Since you can survive unoptimized from damage. Death though, there's no degrees of dead, compared to % of remaining hp.

That's magic, which is an entirely different can of worms.

But - just because C/M disparity exists doesn't mean that you should toss internal martial balance out the window.

[HolyDraconus]

That's magic, which is an entirely different can of worms.

But - just because C/M disparity exists doesn't mean that you should toss internal martial balance out the window.

What martial balance? To be at all effective in martial requires one of two things: character build devoted to it or ToB. Of those two, one is supernatural atleast, which pushes it outside extraordinary, or the guy at the gym mentality. Guy at the gym can wear armor spikes, use a polearm, and attack with both, provided he trains. Guy at gym can't balance in the sky, create fireballs or heal on attacking.
Since those are the cases, then spike and 2h isnt op, since there are worse, even in what is supposed to be just martial.

[Darrin]

I saw no devs in either of your links; If I somehow missed them, you can link to their exact posts using the date field found on top of said post.

Sorry about that. I was having trouble finding the exact post. Here it is:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2phbw&page=22?Two-Handed-Weapon-and-Armor-Spikes-Resolved#1100

Essentially the devs said when you attack with a two-handed weapon, you have to use both your "primary" and "off" hand (either physically or conceptually). This means if you attack with a two-handed weapon, you *CANNOT* make an offhand attack, or any other attack with your non-primary hand, even IF you are NOT using the TWF rules. So even if you have a high enough BAB for multiple attacks, you cannot switch your primary weapon to something else because both your primary and off hand are busy doing something else: attacking with your two-handed weapon. So if you fight two-handed, anything attack that involves your physical or conceptual "off" hand just can't be done, because you gave up that option by attacking with a two-handed weapon. Even if the other weapon doesn't require hands.

Some of the forum folks then pointed out that this "feature" of two-handed weapons was not written or mentioned anywhere in the 3.5/Pathfinder rules. And it still isn't. It's in a very poorly worded FAQ entry that they are still arguing about three years later.

[CharonsHelper]

Sorry about that. I was having trouble finding the exact post. Here it is:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2phbw&page=22?Two-Handed-Weapon-and-Armor-Spikes-Resolved#1100

I don't think that was in reference to AOOs, but rather how you can't TWF with a greatsword & armor spikes etc.

[jjcrpntr]

I played a glaive cleric for awhile in 3.5. The DM I had (briefly) had a houserule where I could shorten my grip and attack adjacent targets at a -5 to my roll and it was always blunt dmg. Seemed to work fine. I rarely ever used it.

[Psyren]

Sorry about that. I was having trouble finding the exact post. Here it is:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2phbw&page=22?Two-Handed-Weapon-and-Armor-Spikes-Resolved#1100

"This is not a FAQ, nor is it a final ruling."

Stopped reading there.



It's in a very poorly worded FAQ entry that they are still arguing about three years later.

What folks who can't parse rulings choose to argue about years later is none of my concern. I've provided the relevant quotes.