Armor Spikes : How many weapons?

[D+1]

A spiked gauntlet is a weapon in your offhand. Armour spikes not.

The description of armor spikes disagrees with you. They MAY be used as an off-hand attack and count as a light weapon when doing so.

 

[Darklone]

See above. Offhand attack is not the same as getting additional attacks while fighting with two weapons.

It may be silly putting so much emphasis on words, but the greatsword TWF dude with armor spikes is more silly.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The description of armor spikes disagrees with you. They MAY be used as an off-hand attack and count as a light weapon when doing so.

They can be used as a primary attack or an off-hand attack.

Using them for both in the same round is not supported by the description.

-Hyp.

 

[D+1]

They can be used as a primary attack or an off-hand attack.

Using them for both in the same round is not supported by the description.

?

Sure it is. It doesn't say, "But not both."

"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 last phrase meaning that if you've already made an off-hand attack with another weapon, you can't make an off-hand attack with armor spikes. There's nothing in there about not being able to use your armor spikes as both a primary melee and off-hand weapon. The restrictions spelled out in the description are for preventing confusion about being able to make attacks with armor spikes as a further bonus attack regardless of whatever else you're doing - like attacking with two other different weapons in the same round.

Armor spikes are treated very much like any other weapon. It just has a few additional notations because you don't hold armor spikes in your hands, but they otherwise conform to all the other rules about fighting with two weapons.

The phrase "make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack)" is a PERMISSION to use it as either, not a prohibition that you can't use it for both.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure it is. It doesn't say, "But not both."

Hmm?

Glyph of Warding. Target or Area: Object touched or up to 5 sq. ft./level.

It doesn't say "But not both" - can I use the spell on an object and and area at the same time?

-Hyp.

 

[Starglim]

Hmm?

Glyph of Warding. Target or Area: Object touched or up to 5 sq. ft./level.

It doesn't say "But not both" - can I use the spell on an object and and area at the same time?

Of course. You just have to cast two Glyphs. With armour spikes, you just have to take two attacks.

I have to say that I disagree with allowing armour spikes to be used as attacks with the listed damage, because it conflicts with the description of the spiked gauntlet. I would add a sentence: ".. and they count as a light weapon in this case. Armour spikes used as a regular or off-hand attack have the same statistics as a spiked gauntlet." That way, spiked armour is as good as a spiked gauntlet plus additional effect in a grapple, but is not better.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course. You just have to cast two Glyphs.

Right.

And I wouldn't allow someone to use the same spiked armor for both primary and off-hand attack.

If they've had +3 flaming spiked armor crafted, it's either a primary weapon or an off-hand weapon, not both at the same time.

If you want +3 flaming on both ends of your urgrosh, you pay for it twice.

-Hyp.

 

[D+1]

Right.

And I wouldn't allow someone to use the same spiked armor for both primary and off-hand attack.

If they've had +3 flaming spiked armor crafted, it's either a primary weapon or an off-hand weapon, not both at the same time.

If you want +3 flaming on both ends of your urgrosh, you pay for it twice.

I'd file this under armor spikes being a special case, not unlike monk unarmed attacks. Armor spikes are all over. You can use a knee, elbow, forearm, shoulder, whatever as a particular AS attack. But unlike monks you still have two-weapon penalites for making more attacks with it beyond your iterative attacks. But then monks substitute Flurry for "off-hand" unarmed attacks.

Would you allow multiple attacks with AS as a primary weapon up to your number of iterative attacks? If so, why not also as a secondary weapon? Surely you're not assuming that every AS attack is with the same part of the armor every time. It can be a knee to the groin as easily as a forearm smash. It effectively is both multiple weapons and a single weapon.

Is your primary objection that it's an inaccurate interpretation of the rules, that it's unbalanced, that you just don't like the concept, or what? I mean, it certainly works mechanically without problems if you allow it as both primary and off-hand. It's definitely not in danger of being considered overpowering or unbalanced. I can see where it might be objectionable to some just as a matter of style, although it obviously doesn't bother me any.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But then monks substitute Flurry for "off-hand" unarmed attacks.

No, they don't. Flurry is an entirely separate mechanic to off-hand attacks, as seen by the fact that they can be stacked.

However, if the Monk only had one Magic Fang spell running, he'd only get the enhancement bonus to his primary (Flurry) attacks, not to his off-hand attacks.

Would you allow multiple attacks with AS as a primary weapon up to your number of iterative attacks?

Yes, just as I'd allow multiple attacks with one head of an Urgrosh up to the number of iterative attacks.

But any off-hand attacks would have to be with the other end, and if that other end is not enchanted, tough luck.

Off-hand attacks are explicitly performed with "a second weapon".

Is your primary objection that it's an inaccurate interpretation of the rules, that it's unbalanced, that you just don't like the concept, or what?

Consistency.

If you want magic on both Primary and Secondary attacks, you pay for two weapons.

(Hence "If you are wielding a second weapon...")

-Hyp.