armor spikes

[nute]

If you feel that having your combat play out more like Soul Calibur, cool. Nothing wrong with that.

Reach is 10'. According to pg 113 of the PHB, you cannot attack an adjacent square with a reach weapon, like the glaive/guisarme/etc.

Trying to find it in the rules, but the glaive being a 2hand weapon, and the issue of the spiked gauntlet...

Basically, the glaive protects you at reach. Puts you at a disadvantage when someone moves adjacent. At which point, you would/could use the spiked gauntlet, but you would no longer 'threaten' 10' out; you're holding the polearm in one hand, and fighting close up.

Thank you, that was what I was trying to say.

With regards to Defending armor spikes, or any other weapon with Defending - if you are not using the weapon in that round, then you do not get the bonus. Plainly stated in the SRD. Hence why armor spikes are a bad idea to put the bonus on, because they are a substandard attack weapon (not a substandard addition to armor, but a bad weapon when there are so many better ones).

 

[Moon-Lancer]

but thats just it, their are no rules that say this.Thier is also not a clear deffinition of how wielding a weapon works, and how one switches between what wielded, and ones not. Becuse thier are no rules, I tend to think that if one can hold it or use it, then its wielded and armed. So in my opinion one alwayse threatens with guantlets and spiked armor, unless one uses two shields (with guantlets), then it gets alittle iffy.

Thank you, that was what I was trying to say.

With regards to Defending armor spikes, or any other weapon with Defending - if you are not using the weapon in that round, then you do not get the bonus. Plainly stated in the SRD. Hence why armor spikes are a bad idea to put the bonus on, because they are a substandard attack weapon (not a substandard addition to armor, but a bad weapon when there are so many better ones).

I also know what you were trying to say, but with a great lacking in the rules department, my view is not swayed. With no rules to support your idea, I must hold true to my cinimatic justice

*edit*

Ps: sorry to d-rail the thread.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

as well

"As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn."

This does not state you need to use the weapon or attack with the weapon, it says you cant attack with your weapon and then at the end of your round, turn on the weapons defending property thereby negating the penalty.

if you use defending before attacking with the weapon Whats stopping you from not attacking? I dont know of many rules were the first action is reliant on a future action for the first action to occur or be usable. it breaks the sequence of events.

I think your grasping for straws.

 

[nute]

as well

"As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn."

This does not state you need to use the weapon or attack with the weapon, it says you cant attack with your weapon and then at the end of your round, turn on the weapons defending property thereby negating the penalty.

if you use defending before attacking with the weapon Whats stopping you from not attacking? I dont know of many rules were the first action is reliant on a future action for the first action to occur or be usable. it breaks the sequence of events.

I think your grasping for straws.

Yes, it does.

"...before using the weapon"

You use a weapon to attack. Thus, if you do not attack with it, you are not using the weapon.

 

[mvincent]

Yes, it does.

"...before using the weapon"

You use a weapon to attack. Thus, if you do not attack with it, you are not using the weapon.

That phrase can be interpreted two ways. Do you genuinely not see that?

 

[Jack Simth]

Hmm... Core, how many weapons can a human wield at once?

Let's see... Fighter-20 (just for laughs)

Armor Spikes
Animated Bashing Shield, enchanted as a weapon, possibly Spiked
Two one-handed weapons.

That'd be four, assumin an Animated Shield can attack as an off-hand weapon.

So if we make them all +1 Defending and get the freindly party primary caster to put Greater Magic Weapon on them all.... and the friendly party cleric to put Magic Vestments on both armor and shield.... and it's full plate, and a Large shield.... my, you can get a lot of AC that way.

 

[mvincent]

So if we make them all +1 Defending and get the freindly party primary caster to put Greater Magic Weapon on them all.... and the friendly party cleric to put Magic Vestments on both armor and shield.... and it's full plate, and a Large shield.... my, you can get a lot of AC that way.

Defending does not stack with itself.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

one could say simply though, that they are from the same source (defending weapons) but assumeing that they all stack, it would be 32 thousand for a +4. A ring of protection +4 is the same price. Does defending improve touch attack. if not, then a ring of protection is a better investment? I can see though the benifit of 4 weapons with defending if all other armor bonus types have been exhasted.

 

[Darklone]

Hmm... Core, how many weapons can a human wield at once?

Let's see... Fighter-20 (just for laughs)

Armor Spikes
Animated Bashing Shield, enchanted as a weapon, possibly Spiked
Two one-handed weapons.

That'd be four, assumin an Animated Shield can attack as an off-hand weapon.

So if we make them all +1 Defending and get the freindly party primary caster to put Greater Magic Weapon on them all.... and the friendly party cleric to put Magic Vestments on both armor and shield.... and it's full plate, and a Large shield.... my, you can get a lot of AC that way.

You forgot dancing weapons.

 

[Felon]

If you feel that having your combat play out more like Soul Calibur, cool. Nothing wrong with that. Reach is 10'. According to pg 113 of the PHB, you cannot attack an adjacent square with a reach weapon, like the glaive/guisarme/etc.

Trying to find it in the rules, but the glaive being a 2hand weapon, and the issue of the spiked gauntlet...Basically, the glaive protects you at reach. Puts you at a disadvantage when someone moves adjacent. At which point, you would/could use the spiked gauntlet, but you would no longer 'threaten' 10' out; you're holding the polearm in one hand, and fighting close up.

So, do we have rules that dictate when a person gets to decide where his hands are? Or limits the number of times he can switch between holding a weapon with one or two hands? Or the kind of action it takes to switch?

Punch with the gauntlet, gesture to cast a spell, or give someone the finger. Then put your hand right back on your glaive. Is there a rule that says that once you take hand off a two-handed weapon, you can't freely grasp it again?