TWF with glaive and armor spikes

[blargney the second]

I've got a half-orc barbarian/ranger who just got TWF and Combat Reflexes at 3rd level. The intent is that he'll be TWFing with a glaive and armor spikes most of the time, and I have a few questions about how it will all work together.

1) As I understand it, it is possible to TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. Is that correct?
2) If so, is it possible to 5' step between the glaive attack and the armor spikes?
3) While TWFing, can I make AoOs at -2 from 10' away and 5' away with the glaive and spikes respectively?
4) If I don't TWF and simply attack with one weapon or the other, can I make AoOs without penalty at both 10' and 5'?
5) Are there any other things I should know about the combination of these effects?

Thanks!
-blarg

 

[Runestar]

1) As I understand it, it is possible to TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. Is that correct?

Yes.

2) If so, is it possible to 5' step between the glaive attack and the armor spikes?

Yes.

3) While TWFing, can I make AoOs at -2 from 10' away and 5' away with the glaive and spikes respectively?

The penalties from TWFing apply only when using the TWF option. When you make AoOs outside of your attack phase, you don't suffer the penalties for TWFing (so no to-hit penalties).

4) If I don't TWF and simply attack with one weapon or the other, can I make AoOs without penalty at both 10' and 5'?

Yes. But see (3) to see if it covers your situation first.

5) Are there any other things I should know about the combination of these effects?

Remember that you still get 1.5 str mod to damage with your glaive. Your armour spikes can count as non-offhand weapons (so str mod to damage) if you are making an AoO with it.

Pretty much the only things that come to mind.

 

[akbearfoot]

wait...

So the 2-weapon fighting rules actually make it more effective to NOT fight with 2 weapons? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I thought the TwF feat gives you 1 extra attack with an 'off hand weapon'? How can you have an off hand if that other hand is grabbing a glaive?

 

[glass]

The answers to some of these are disputed, but I don't want to get into a multipage argument so I'll just give you my take:

1) As I understand it, it is possible to TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. Is that correct?

Yes.

2) If so, is it possible to 5' step between the glaive attack and the armor spikes?

IDNHMBIFM, but I am pretty sure you can 5ft step in the middle of a full attack, and this is no different.

3) While TWFing, can I make AoOs at -2 from 10' away and 5' away with the glaive and spikes respectively?

Yes.

4) If I don't TWF and simply attack with one weapon or the other, can I make AoOs without penalty at both 10' and 5'?

No. If you choose not to wield one or other of the weapons you do not take TWF penalties, but cannot attack with and do not threaten one one you are not wielding. If you elect to wield both penalties you can attack with either (or both if you Full Attack), but you take TWF penalties to any and all attacks you make until the start of you next turn.

5) Are there any other things I should know about the combination of these effects?

The above advice applies equally to Improved Unarmed Strike+reach weapon.



glass.

 

[blargney the second]

Thanks for the quick replies! I'm playing this character tonight and your input is really appreciated.

So the contentious part appears to be questions 3 & 4 relating to AoOs and what areas are threatened in which conditions. I'll do some poking around the SRD to see what I can find to elucidate the issue, then I'll post my findings.
-blarg

 

[blargney the second]

By my reckoning, the problem can be boiled down to a few questions.

Without TWF:
1) What area do I threaten if I didn't TWF during my turn?
2) What are my attack and damage on AoOs?

After TWFing:
3) What area do I threaten after TWFing?
4) What are my attack and damage on AoOs?


Here are the most relevant bits in the SRD on the various elements:
AoOs on threatened area: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.
AoOs on attack bonus: You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round.

On armor spikes: You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon.

Special attacks on TWF: 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.


Taking those elements into consideration, here are my conclusions.
1) Without TWF you threaten 10' away with the glaive and 5' away with the armor spikes. Reason: you can make an AoO with any regular melee attack.

2) Without TWF an AoO with the glaive would be at no penalty and strength x1.5 damage, as normal. An AoO with the armor spikes would be at no penalty and strength x1 to damage because it's a light weapon that's not being wielded as an off-hand weapon.

3) After TWFing you threaten 10' and 5', as above.

4) This one is a greyer area than the others, and could be understood to go either way. The contentious part is the "when you fight this way", which is annoyingly unclear.

4 - Interpolation A) After TWFing your attacks and damage are the same as above: no penalty. AoOs say that you attack at your full bonus, even if you've already attacked that round. Beyond that, other attack-modifying feats like power attack and combat expertise are very explicit that their penalties last until your next turn, while TWF says no such thing.

4 - Extrapolation B) After TWFing an AoO with the glaive would be at a -2 penalty and strength x1.5 damage. An AoO with the armor spikes would be at -2 and strength x0.5 damage because it's being wielded as an off-hand weapon. The extrapolation is that because power attack and combat expertise apply for a whole round, the TWF penalties do too.


Ultimately it's a good for the goose/gander situation and I'd be fine either way. My preference as both a player and a DM would be for option A.
-blarg

 

[Runestar]

wait...

So the 2-weapon fighting rules actually make it more effective to NOT fight with 2 weapons? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I thought the TwF feat gives you 1 extra attack with an 'off hand weapon'? How can you have an off hand if that other hand is grabbing a glaive?

Your off-hand attack is your armour spikes, which can be used to attack since you don't have to wield them in your hands. It is the same concept as TWFing with your unarmed strike (you can make a main-hand attack with a 2-handed weapon, then follow up with an unarmed strike using any part of your body, such as a kick or head-butt, as an off-hand).

Throw in animated shields and you are 2HFing, 2WFing and sword+board all at the same time!

It isn't all that great, IMO, since later on, you need to spend more money to upgrade 2 sets of weapons, not to mention the 15dex for TWFing feat. Personally, I would just go spiked chain and power attack for 2.

No. If you choose not to wield one or other of the weapons you do not take TWF penalties, but cannot attack with and do not threaten one one you are not wielding. If you elect to wield both penalties you can attack with either (or both if you Full Attack), but you take TWF penalties to any and all attacks you make until the start of you next turn.

IMO, there is no such thing as wielding or not wielding. You are holding onto the glaive and armour spikes, and so can attack with either of them as and when you wish. This is because the concept of an off-hand is not really defined in the game (as mentioned in Waterdeep), and seems to exist only when TWFing (supposedly to balance out the benefits). Thus, all characters can effectively be treated as ambidexterous.

To give an example, lets say a fighter6 is holding a longsword in his right hand and a rapier in the other. He threatens with both weapons. When a foe provokes an AoO, he can attack with either weapon without suffering any penalties. When TWFing, he can freely designate either hand as his main hand (and so the other hand will become the off-hand), and change which hands are his main/off hands freely every turn.

So he could do the following.
Round1: Use TWFing option: Longsword as main-hand (str mod damage), rapier as off-hand (0.5 str mod damage).
Round2: TWFing option: Rapier as main-hand, longsword as off-hand
Round3: Attack with longsword for 1st attack at +6, then with rapier for his 2nd attack at +1. Neither attack suffers a penalty for off-handedness.
Round4: Reversal of round3. Again, no penalties.

 

[pawsplay]

In fact, switching from merely holding a weapon to wielding it isn't defined, and appears to be "not an action." Hence it is possible to cast a spell while holding a glaive, provided you can hold it one hand, and then declare you are now wielding it again. The action chart clearly specifies that readying a weapon from a sheathe or drawing it is a move action; nothing is specified for merely deciding to "wield" a weapon.

Overall, there is slightly advantageous for low level fighters who have TWF, but quickly degrades as an option as soon as you either decide to upgrade to masterwork gear or to focus on a specific weapon. There are two distinct disadvantages. First, you have to give up your 5' step each round just to make a full attack. Aside from the loss if tactical options and letting your opponent lead you, you will not be able to employ your spikes against any opponent with reach. Second, this combo will not work with any of the feats for attacking with two weapons as an AoO or standard action because you cannot step during someone else's turn or when you move.

 

[irdeggman]

This is because the concept of an off-hand is not really defined in the game (as mentioned in Waterdeep), and seems to exist only when TWFing (supposedly to balance out the benefits). Thus, all characters can effectively be treated as ambidexterous.

To give an example, lets say a fighter6 is holding a longsword in his right hand and a rapier in the other. He threatens with both weapons. When a foe provokes an AoO, he can attack with either weapon without suffering any penalties. When TWFing, he can freely designate either hand as his main hand (and so the other hand will become the off-hand), and change which hands are his main/off hands freely every turn.

PHB pg 311

off hand: A character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage rolls dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

PHB pg 110

Under Looks

Your character can be right- or left-handed.

So technically you are supposed to designate whether your character is right or left handed during the creation process, this then determines which hand is the weaker or less dextrous one.

The two weapon fighting feat reduces the penalties it doesn't make the character ambidextrous. In 3.0 they had ambidextrous feat which made a character ambidextrous ("You are neither left-handed nor right-handed"). In 3.5 they decided that the only real game mechanic use for this was for fighting with a weapon in the off hand and that could be handled with one feat and not two. But they did not eliminate the designation of being left or right handed (basically no one is ambidextrous in 3.5 - not that everyone is ambidextrous).

 

[blargney the second]

I used him tonight, and it worked out fairly well. I love reach weapons!
-blarg