Armor spikes question

[king_ghidorah]

Ok....I guess I'm not following here. How would anything I just did not fall into the rules.

The description of armor spikes reads (from the SRD), my emphasis added:

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.)

This isn't an obscure hidden rule. This is from the description of armor spikes in the equipment section.

 

[Drakon66]

Thanks for posting the rules of "Armor Spikes" and "Two Weapon Fighting", but my question still stands. What fell outside of these two rules? In the action described in my first post, both my hands are on my two handed sword, so I'm not making an "off handed" attack. Second, I'm not attempting to grapple in any way so the grapple penelty does not apply. Third, if the spikes are attached to my armor and my armor is attached to me, such as it is, if I "FELL" into somebody would there be a possibility they would take damage from the spikes? If the answer is yes, then it would be possible to intentionally "Fall" into a target while weilding a weapon and cause damage with my spikes. If the answer is no, then I need a description of how physics changes from accidental impact to intentional impact. I'm not saying it is a free attack. An attack role would have to be made if the "Fall" was intentional or accidental, but I don't see that this fits either of these rules.

I fully believe in, and encourage, role playing combat to the highest degree possible. That is why I'm asking about these rules as they are. Have we found a loop hole? And how would you guys rule this if you were the DM?
I would seriously like to know. Have I missed something?

Thanks again to Argo and King Ghidorah for posting the specific rules.

Jeff

 

[argo]

Ok, lets try this again from a different angle.

You cannot "combine" the damage from two weapons into a single attack (where "attack" refers to the game mechanic of rolling to hit, not the description of what that action might look like in the real world). If you deal damage from two sources (in this case a sword and armor spikes) you have used two weapons this round. It does not matter that you are not holding one of those weapons in your hand as the term "off hand" does not actually refer to you hand (there is no mechanic for characters having dominant hands in 3.5) but rather is a term used to differentiate between your primary weapon and your second weapon. A kick is a "off hand" attack, so is a shield bash and so is an attack with armor spikes (or if you wished you could designate any of those as your primary attack and make your sword attack as your "off hand" attack, you could even change your mind about which is which from round to round!).

Intrestingly we are now straying close to another rules debate about wiether or not you have to take TWF penalties if you use a different weapon for your itterative attack than for your first attack but I don't want to start that discussion right now. The important thing here is that regardless of how you interpret the phrase "fight this way" if you use two weapons to deal damage then you need two attack rolls, one for each weapon. If you take that second attack roll at your highest BAB (thus gainning an extra attack) then you are using the TWF rules and the penalties apply.

Just remember, this doesn't prevent you from doing what you are trying to do. Combat in DND is abstract, a single attack roll could represent many parries and reposte's or a single mighty swing. The combat round is only 6 seconds long and it is assumed that everything is supposed to happen simeltaneously even though characters actually take their actions in turn. You described the fighter "droping his shoulder in at the same time thrusting the sword into him" don't you think that there should be a chance that even if the sword hits the shoulder-check misses or vice versa? Wouldnt' that chance be best represented mechanics-wise by a second attack roll? And you also admited that there should be penalties involved, how does a -2 to all attack rolls made that round sound to you? Why look! -2 is the penalty for TWF with a light off-hand weapon! The scene can look exactly as you want it to but as far as the mechanics are concerned it is TWF.

Makes sense now?

 

[dcollins]

Keep in mind I've not played much of the 3.x but have 15 years playing 1st and 2nd. And I don't have a book handy to check these things right now.

Well, that explains things.

Keep in mind that 3rd Ed. is perhaps a more technical game than previous rulesets. If you're used to making up rulings on the fly, that are nowhere in the book, then it's fair game for people to say "not in the rules" on you. For example, "a sword and shoulder-spikes attack counts as one attack" is not anywhere in the D&D rulebooks.

 

[king_ghidorah]

Thanks for posting the rules of "Armor Spikes" and "Two Weapon Fighting", but my question still stands. What fell outside of these two rules? In the action described in my first post, both my hands are on my two handed sword, so I'm not making an "off handed" attack. Second, I'm not attempting to grapple in any way so the grapple penelty does not apply. Third, if the spikes are attached to my armor and my armor is attached to me, such as it is, if I "FELL" into somebody would there be a possibility they would take damage from the spikes? If the answer is yes, then it would be possible to intentionally "Fall" into a target while weilding a weapon and cause damage with my spikes. If the answer is no, then I need a description of how physics changes from accidental impact to intentional impact. I'm not saying it is a free attack. An attack role would have to be made if the "Fall" was intentional or accidental, but I don't see that this fits either of these rules.

I fully believe in, and encourage, role playing combat to the highest degree possible. That is why I'm asking about these rules as they are. Have we found a loop hole? And how would you guys rule this if you were the DM?
I would seriously like to know. Have I missed something?

Thanks again to Argo and King Ghidorah for posting the specific rules.

Jeff

Jeff,

Your loophole doesn't exist. Your description is flavor. Read the rules. They state quite clearly that if you attack with armor spikes they are treated as a light weapon as either a main or off-hand attack. Simple if-then statement.

The description of shouldering into someone and hitting them with a weapon is clearly a description of a main attack and a secondary attack. The rules say that the secondary attack with the spiked armor is treated as an attack with a light weapon.

Incidental damage from the spikes is also covered in that they do damage if you grapple someone. But you can't just accidentally do damage with them, no more than the spiked shield on your back can do an extra attack if you describe yourself as stepping backwards into a foe while stabbing him.

The argument that you are not using a hand at best would be a good argument that the two-weapon fighting feat would not reduce the to-hit penalties to your two-weapon fighting, so you would have an even harder time hitting.

If you want to give someone the bonus attack (which would be silly IMHO), feel free. But it will be a house rule since it violates the rules as written.

 

[Darklone]

Argo, we don't discuss whether this is a valid tactic in real life. If that's the case, that does not make it balanced. Charges with two weapons in real life may easily be possible, in the game they are not.

The broken thing about a twohanded weapon and armor spikes is that it's much better in every regard than using TWF with anything else.

 

[argo]

Argo, we don't discuss whether this is a valid tactic in real life. If that's the case, that does not make it balanced. Charges with two weapons in real life may easily be possible, in the game they are not.

Oh I agree, what makes it balanced in game is the feat you spend for the privlege to take a -2 penalty to attack in exchange for an extra attack with a weapon at 1d6 + .5 Str which keeps him on par with a pure-THF (who turns that -2 into +4 damage or +8 on crit because he spent that feat on Imp Crit).

The broken thing about a twohanded weapon and armor spikes is that it's much better in every regard than using TWF with anything else.

Sure, that is slightly better than the guy fighting with longsword/shortsword (mostly because mr greatsword/spikes gets to use 1.5 Str on the greatsword and 2:1 PA) but there are some disadvantages too; he can't easily draw a throwing weapon or a weapon with alternate energy enhancements for his off hand, can't use TWD and can't benefit from paired weapons getting double duty out of weapon specific feats. Still by numbers you are right that the greatsword/spikes guy comes out ahead of the longsword/shortsword guy in average damage per round, but I dont' feel the disparity is significant enough to cry "broken" over. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of balance but there is a point of diminishing returns where the quest for equality starts shuting down cool game options and I would rather keep the cool game option than sweat bullets over a corner-case where the rules wobble a little bit. Its the same reason I still let keen and Imp Crit stack in my games no matter how many falchions I see.

YMMV

 

[Shallown]

It might sound broken but, I think, technically armor spikes can be used as a normal melee or Off hand attack only. So you can't really use a two handed weapon and armor spikes since they require an off hand attack. I know your armor is covered in spikes but this is a rules/balance versus reality situation.

I would probably allow someone to use a great sword and armor spikes with two weapon fighting just the great sword would not get the 1.5 str or double power attack etc. It would beheld and used in two hands without all teh benefits. Just becuase it sounds like a cool style to use. You could two hand when you want the big swing and two weapon when you want to for multiple attacks. Just like you can do with a quarter staff and other double weapons.

Sounds fair to me. Takes some house ruling but games often do.

later

 

[cordell]

I know this has been discussed a bit before on these boards. It's been beaten to death as far as I can tell, which is why some of the "big posters" are staying away.

In my opinion, the problem comes with the wording at the end "...if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa".

Again in my opinion, the spirit of this rule is that it should simply read "You can use Armor spikes in the place of an offhand weapon attack, whenever you are normally allowed to make such an attack. You can also attack with the Spikes in place of a primary weapon attack, whenever you are normally allowed to make such an attack."

If the rule were written that way, then a 6th level fighter, with the two-weapon fighting feat, could make the following attacks:

1) Two attacks (+6 bab and +1 bab) with a Two Handed sword at 1.5 STR. (or, two attacks with the spikes at normal STR).

2) One attack (+6 bab) with a Two handed sword at 1.5 x STR, and another attack (+1 bab) with the spikes at normal STR. (or, spikes at +6 bab, then the two handed sword at +1 bab).

3) Two attacks (+6 bab and -2 for TWF) with a long sword, and one attack (+1 bab and -2 for TWF) with the spikes. (Or, as you may have figured out, any combination thereof).

As you can see, the 6th level fighter, who usually gets two attacks per round, still gets only two attacks per round, unless he has the Two Weapon fighting feat, in which case he gets three attacks in a round, all at -2.

For me, it's clearly better if you play it that way. I would imagine that is what the game designers meant. It's a shame it has not been errata'd yet.

 

[Darklone]

Oh I agree, what makes it balanced in game is the feat you spend for the privlege to take a -2 penalty to attack in exchange for an extra attack with a weapon at 1d6 + .5 Str which keeps him on par with a pure-THF (who turns that -2 into +4 damage or +8 on crit because he spent that feat on Imp Crit).

That's not a balancing factor if you compare him with a TWF longsword/shortsword guy or someone with two shortswords... which was the point.

Compare a +4 to each attack with a twohanded weapon with some other possible attacks at 1d6+0.5str+enhancements. While maintaining the full advantage of a twohanded weapon for standard actions such as AoOs and charges. The guy with armor spikes needs more feats and better stats to be a better fighter than someone with a normal twohanded weapon fighting style, but he's not weaker. Now compare him to the TWF guy with light weapons... or even a double weapon. He's better.

Sure, that is slightly better than the guy fighting with longsword/shortsword (mostly because mr greatsword/spikes gets to use 1.5 Str on the greatsword and 2:1 PA) but there are some disadvantages too...

The same slightly better that a guy with a twohanded weapon is better now than a TWF fighter.