Had a thought while looking through the PHB tonight
Bill Beasley
Ranger (or fighter with Ambi/TWF feats)
Greatsword
Armor with Armor spikes.
The phb description of Armor spikes says: "You can also make a regular melee
attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light
weapon." (105) In addition, they're considered a martial weapon, so any
class that has all martial profs can use them. They do 1d6, x2 crit damage.
Now, can the Ranger packing his Greatsword make an off hand attack with his
armor spike (a shoulder block or something, or a back-hand I'd imagine), as
per the fighting with two weapons rules? I can't seem to find anything
specifically prohibiting it, and the description of the item does say it
allows an off hand attack.
Is it cheesy? No doubt. But is it *legal*? That's what I'm wondering.
Opinions? Counter-quotes disproving this? Rude comments?
Piotr Kapis
> Check me to see if this is 'legal' under the core rules:
> Ranger (or fighter with Ambi/TWF feats)
> Greatsword
> Armor with Armor spikes.
> The phb description of Armor spikes says: "You can also make a
regular melee
> attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a
light
> weapon." (105) In addition, they're considered a martial weapon, so
any
> class that has all martial profs can use them. They do 1d6, x2 crit
damage.
>
> Now, can the Ranger packing his Greatsword make an off hand attack
with his
> armor spike (a shoulder block or something, or a back-hand I'd
imagine), as
> per the fighting with two weapons rules? I can't seem to find
anything
> specifically prohibiting it, and the description of the item does
say it
> allows an off hand attack.
I don't quite understand it. Do you want to use Greatsword and Armour
Spikes both at the same time? Then the answer is no, you can't. You
should treat Armour Spikes as another weapon wielded in offhand if you
want to use them that way. You can fight with Longsword and AS, or
with AS and AS (good one, isn't it?), but if you use Greatsword you
are using that weapon two-handed, which doesn't allow any additional
offhand attack. Unless you are Large, or have Monkey Grip feat nad use
it one-handed.
--
Codiac
http://strony.wp.pl/wp/pkapis/
Bill Beasley
"Piotr Kapis" <pka...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:3c886ef3$2...@news.vogel.pl...
> Bill Beasley <kristin...@verizon.net> wrote
>
> I don't quite understand it. Do you want to use Greatsword and Armour
> Spikes both at the same time?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking.
Then the answer is no, you can't. You
> should treat Armour Spikes as another weapon wielded in offhand if you
> want to use them that way.
I can't seem to find this anywhere in the rules. Can you point me to where
it says that?
You can fight with Longsword and AS, or
> with AS and AS (good one, isn't it?), but if you use Greatsword you
> are using that weapon two-handed, which doesn't allow any additional
> offhand attack. Unless you are Large, or have Monkey Grip feat nad use
> it one-handed.
>
I can see your point, and it's a common sense thing, but I'm looking for
page-cites and such that disallow this. I know it's cheesy as hell. But I
can't find anything that directly prohibits it.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Check me to see if this is 'legal' under the core rules:
>Ranger (or fighter with Ambi/TWF feats)
>Greatsword
>Armor with Armor spikes.
>The phb description of Armor spikes says: "You can also make a regular melee
>attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light
>weapon." (105) In addition, they're considered a martial weapon, so any
>class that has all martial profs can use them. They do 1d6, x2 crit damage.
>
>Now, can the Ranger packing his Greatsword make an off hand attack with his
>armor spike (a shoulder block or something, or a back-hand I'd imagine), as
>per the fighting with two weapons rules? I can't seem to find anything
>specifically prohibiting it, and the description of the item does say it
>allows an off hand attack.
>
>Is it cheesy? No doubt.
Cheesy? Only a bit, and I think it's stylish enough to override any cheese
factor.
>But is it *legal*? That's what I'm wondering.
>Opinions?
I like it. I like it alot.
>Counter-quotes disproving this?
Move along, nothing to see here.
>Rude comments?
You SUCK!
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Piotr Kapis
> > should treat Armour Spikes as another weapon wielded in offhand if
you
> > want to use them that way.
>
> I can't seem to find this anywhere in the rules. Can you point me
to where
> it says that?
Maybe penalties for fighting with two weapons? They say you must wield
one-handed weapon in main hand and one in offhand. You want to wield
Greatsword which is two-handed weapon, and IMO this disallows using
offhand for anything else.
Also the description of Armour Spikes says: "A regular melee attack
(or off-hand attack) can be made with the spikes, and they count as a
light weapon in this case." When you are using Greatsword you cannot
make any additional off-hand attack with your fist, can you? I see it
like this. When you are fighting with two-handed weapon (and you using
Full Attack action, which is necessery to get any additional attacks),
you must keep both hands on the weapon. So you just have no time to
make a blow with one of them, because you would loose a grip.
> I can see your point, and it's a common sense thing, but I'm looking
for
> page-cites and such that disallow this. I know it's cheesy as hell.
But I
> can't find anything that directly prohibits it.
I can point you only to the rules for two-weapon fightnig, and
fighting with two-handed weapons. But you can always ask Wizards. They
answered one of my letters, though they didn't actually say anything i
wouldn't already know ;-)
--
Codiac
http://strony.wp.pl/wp/pkapis/
Bill Beasley
what he says. I can't decide whether or not the 'regular melee attack (or
off hand attack) line means he has to have a hand free, or whether he can
'shoulder bash' you, or something similar. Alternatively, do you think it's
possible to have Armor spikes, a shield, and a Longsword (for example), and
be able to retain your AC bonus, and TW fight with the spikes and the sword?
Or even with just the spikes in general (melee attack *and* and off hand
attack)? If so, doesn't this negate the necessity for the Shield Expert
feat from S&F?
It's 2:30 in the morning, maybe that's why my brain is thinking like this, I
don't know.
Piotr Kapis
>
> > I can point you only to the rules for two-weapon fightnig, and
> > fighting with two-handed weapons. But you can always ask Wizards.
They
> > answered one of my letters, though they didn't actually say
anything i
> > wouldn't already know ;-)
> >
> I did fire off an email to the Sage, asking for his POV on this.
We'll see
> what he says. I can't decide whether or not the 'regular melee
attack (or
> off hand attack) line means he has to have a hand free, or whether
he can
> 'shoulder bash' you, or something similar. Alternatively, do you
think it's
It might be possible but for me Greatsword just needs more space. When
you bash someone you must touch him, and then you are standing a
little to close to use Greatsword effectively. But that's just my
opinion.
> possible to have Armor spikes, a shield, and a Longsword (for
example), and
> be able to retain your AC bonus, and TW fight with the spikes and
the sword?
Reading the rules as they are, and without applying common sense, yes.
I believe one could also make two attacks with Armour Spikes, any
attacks he can with Longsword, and Bash with a Shield at the same
time.
> Or even with just the spikes in general (melee attack *and* and off
hand
> attack)? If so, doesn't this negate the necessity for the Shield
Expert
> feat from S&F?
>
> It's 2:30 in the morning, maybe that's why my brain is thinking like
this, I
> don't know.
Funny. It's 9:50 at my watch. :-)
--
Codiac
http://strony.wp.pl/wp/pkapis/
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Mere moments before death, Bill Beasley hastily scrawled:
>>
>>Is it cheesy? No doubt.
>
>Cheesy? Only a bit, and I think it's stylish enough to override any cheese
>factor.
And all those people were pooh-poohing armour spikes when 3E first came
out.
--
Hong Ooi | "Hermione will get plenty."
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | -- Sls
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Canberra, Australia |
Ed Chauvin IV
>what he says. I can't decide whether or not the 'regular melee attack (or
>off hand attack) line means he has to have a hand free, or whether he can
>'shoulder bash' you, or something similar. Alternatively, do you think it's
>possible to have Armor spikes, a shield, and a Longsword (for example), and
>be able to retain your AC bonus, and TW fight with the spikes and the sword?
>Or even with just the spikes in general (melee attack *and* and off hand
>attack)? If so, doesn't this negate the necessity for the Shield Expert
>feat from S&F?
No, the Shield Expert feat lets you make a shield bash and retain the AC bonus
from your shield. If you use your armor spikes, you're not making a shield
bash, so you're just circumventing that aspect of the rules. The fact that
you're carrying a shield doesn't affect on your ability to TWF with a longsword
and armor spikes.
The way I see it, armor spikes count as a light weapon which can be "wielded" in
your off-hand if you also wield another weapon. I put wielded in quotes, since
you don't necessarily have spikes only on your gauntlets, otherwise why would
armor spikes be something different from a spiked gauntlet?
Ed Chauvin IV
>Bill Beasley <kristin...@verizon.net> wrote
>>
>> "Piotr Kapis" <pka...@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:3c886ef3$2...@news.vogel.pl...
>>
>>
>> Then the answer is no, you can't. You
>> > should treat Armour Spikes as another weapon wielded in offhand if
>you
>> > want to use them that way.
>>
>> I can't seem to find this anywhere in the rules. Can you point me
>to where
>> it says that?
>
>Maybe penalties for fighting with two weapons? They say you must wield
>one-handed weapon in main hand
The TWF rules do not say this.
>and one in offhand. You want to wield
>Greatsword which is two-handed weapon, and IMO this disallows using
>offhand for anything else.
>Also the description of Armour Spikes says: "A regular melee attack
>(or off-hand attack) can be made with the spikes, and they count as a
>light weapon in this case." When you are using Greatsword you cannot
>make any additional off-hand attack with your fist, can you?
Who said all the spikes were on your fist? The Armor Spikes allow an off-hand
attack, that's plain as day.
>I see it
>like this. When you are fighting with two-handed weapon (and you using
>Full Attack action, which is necessery to get any additional attacks),
>you must keep both hands on the weapon. So you just have no time to
>make a blow with one of them, because you would loose a grip.
I think the TWF penalties cover this aspect quite well.
Brad Prentice
> off hand attack) line means he has to have a hand free, or whether he can
> 'shoulder bash' you, or something similar. Alternatively, do you think
it's
> possible to have Armor spikes, a shield, and a Longsword (for example),
and
> be able to retain your AC bonus, and TW fight with the spikes and the
sword?
> Or even with just the spikes in general (melee attack *and* and off hand
> attack)? If so, doesn't this negate the necessity for the Shield Expert
> feat from S&F?
>
thought was -- negatory.
Right now, unarmed attacks don't require you have a hand free (you can kick,
shoulder bash, whatever), but I certainly don't think you can use them with
TWF wielding a Greatsword and a knee to the groin. Two weapon fighting is
about one weapon in each hand ... with double-weapons acting as an
exception.
No rules cites available on this ... just my extending of the system as I
see it.
Brad P
Bill Beasley
"Brad Prentice" <bpre...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote in message
news:a6ak1o$7es$1...@panther.uwo.ca...
> I'm surprised at all the positive replies on this question! My immediate
> thought was -- negatory.
>
> Right now, unarmed attacks don't require you have a hand free (you can
kick,
> shoulder bash, whatever), but I certainly don't think you can use them
with
> TWF wielding a Greatsword and a knee to the groin. Two weapon fighting is
> about one weapon in each hand ... with double-weapons acting as an
> exception.
>
> No rules cites available on this ... just my extending of the system as I
> see it.
I can certainly see the point here, and it does seem to be a logical
extension of the TWF rules to disallow this.
However, assume, instead, you're using a Bow, or other ranged weapon that
doesn't threaten your immediate surroundings. Do you threaten with your
armor spikes? Common sense says yes. But do the rules support this?
GreatLich
Sorry, couldn't resist...
GreatLich
Isaac
occupied. If your DM would normally allow you to attack with, say, an
additional kick doing subdual damage every round then fair enough, but I
don't know any that would.
However it is a cool idea.
Maybe require the fighter to take multiattack as well as/instead of TWF and
that way you can hit with your greatsword and still follow up with an elbow,
foot or knee. Definately cool, my armour spiked fighter shall request this
of the DM tonight...
Bear in mind your Rangers, Monks and Rogues (at the very least) will all
want to attack with two weapons and a kick too.
Isaac
"Bill Beasley" <kristin...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6GYh8.299$Fa....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Bill Beasley
"Isaac" <is...@joininthechant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6an5o$6nf$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I would say no, as a human normally attacks with hands and both are
> occupied. If your DM would normally allow you to attack with, say, an
> additional kick doing subdual damage every round then fair enough, but I
> don't know any that would.
>
> However it is a cool idea.
>
> Maybe require the fighter to take multiattack as well as/instead of TWF
and
> that way you can hit with your greatsword and still follow up with an
elbow,
> foot or knee. Definately cool, my armour spiked fighter shall request
this
> of the DM tonight...
>
> Bear in mind your Rangers, Monks and Rogues (at the very least) will all
> want to attack with two weapons and a kick too.
>
> Isaac
>
attack, and not an attack in addition to TWF. I do see what you mean abut
multiattack. Perhaps Multiattack and Multidexterity, instead of Ambi and
TWF?
Fumblor
> Now, can the Ranger packing his Greatsword make an off hand attack with his
> armor spike (a shoulder block or something, or a back-hand I'd imagine), as
> per the fighting with two weapons rules? I can't seem to find anything
> specifically prohibiting it, and the description of the item does say it
> allows an off hand attack.
I remember some creature in the monstrous manual or compendium or whatever the
hell they call the monster book these days. It had a name like xill or some
such, and it featured a picture of a creature with four arms and four daggers.
If that thing had three off hands, I don't see why you can't use your body
as an extra off hand for the purpose of armor spikes. The penalties might be
harsh, but such is the price of being a fashion pioneer.
Cheesy? No, cheesy is using great cleave with armor spikes. I can see mr tough
fighter man bodysurfing a horde of orcs. <Shudders> I'm gonna have nightmares
tonight.
-Fumblor
Isaac
I think that's closer the mark. I can't remember what they both do exactly
(no books right now), but for two feats I think that's fair enough. If it
was done in addition to TWF that would probably mean a total -4 penalty as
well so it's not outrageous. I would assume at most half strength damage as
per an off-hand attack, if any strength bonus at all.
Isaac
Thom Jeffries
> Sorry, couldn't resist...
*boggle*
What the dickens are you talking about?
--
Thom Jeffries
GreatLich
"Thom Jeffries" <Thom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d1ec611.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "GreatLich" wrote ...
> > Sorry, couldn't resist...
>
> *boggle*
>
> What the dickens are you talking about?
>
I replied to a post with the subject line "had a thought while looking
through the PHB tonight". So I replied with the subject line "Did it hurt?"
It looks funny on my screen...
GreatLich
ScarLip
wrote:
It didn't show up as a reply, your message is by itself without any
quote from any other message. Check the setting for your newsreader
ScarLip
tar...@imap2.asu.edu
It threads on my newsreader.
Ben B.
Anivair
>with AS and AS (good one, isn't it?), but if you use Greatsword you
>are using that weapon two-handed, which doesn't allow any additional
>offhand attack
But why? That's his point. It doesn't say you can't do it. the book just
assumes that you can't because you'll have your hands full.
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
tar...@imap2.asu.edu
You can kick for an unarmed attack; it doesn't have to be a fist. I would
say yes, you can make an spiked armor attack as "off-hand" or an unarmed
attack as off-hand while wielding a weapon in two hands. It probably
won't be a stunning advantage unless you have a fairly high hit probablilty,
because penalties on the greatsword attack bonus, which also has 1.5x
Str bonus, have a strong tendency offset the extra damage from d6+Str, 2x
crit spikes. If it really bothers you, drop an extra -2 attack penalty on it
for
being a little unwieldy.
Ben B.
Zarchery
> Sorry, couldn't resist...
>
> GreatLich
That might've been funny if it'd been attached to some other message.
Newsreader error?
-----Zarchery-----
C. Baize
> "GreatLich" wrote ...
> > Sorry, couldn't resist...
>
> *boggle*
>
> What the dickens are you talking about?
Person A: "So... I had a thought...."
Person B: "Really? Did it hurt?"
It's an old smart-alec reply to that statement.... Unlike many old
smart-alec replies... that one is still amusing...
C. Baize
Marco Ender
wrote:
it worked fine here, i guess you should check yours ;)
Marco
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Justisaur
Bill Beasley wrote:
>
> Check me to see if this is 'legal' under the core rules:
> Ranger (or fighter with Ambi/TWF feats)
> Greatsword
> Armor with Armor spikes.
> The phb description of Armor spikes says: "You can also make a regular melee
> attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light
> weapon." (105) In addition, they're considered a martial weapon, so any
> class that has all martial profs can use them. They do 1d6, x2 crit damage.
>
> Now, can the Ranger packing his Greatsword make an off hand attack with his
> armor spike (a shoulder block or something, or a back-hand I'd imagine), as
> per the fighting with two weapons rules? I can't seem to find anything
> specifically prohibiting it, and the description of the item does say it
> allows an off hand attack.
>
> Is it cheesy? No doubt. But is it *legal*? That's what I'm wondering.
> Opinions? Counter-quotes disproving this? Rude comments?
I'm tempted to just toss armor spikes in my campaign and avoid the
question altogether. What the hell use *are* they supposed to be if you
can't do this, or use them say when using a bow (to threaten). Weird,
really weird.
--
- Justisaur -
"When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often,
that individual is crazy." - Dave Barry
Joseph Michael Bay
>On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 02:53:30 -0500, Ed Chauvin IV <edc...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>>Mere moments before death, Bill Beasley hastily scrawled:
>>Cheesy? Only a bit, and I think it's stylish enough to override any cheese
>>factor.
>And all those people were pooh-poohing armour spikes when 3E first came
>out.
Ewww. Like armor pungee spikes?
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
t3H quIc/< 6roWn Ph0x0r jUmP3D ovER T3h 14zY do9
Do you like http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay gladiator movies?
tar...@imap2.asu.edu
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:13:41 GMT, Sca...@nevertell.com (ScarLip)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 19:54:21 +0100, "GreatLich" <grea...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Thom Jeffries" <Thom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:6d1ec611.02030...@posting.google.com...
> >>> "GreatLich" wrote ...
> >>> > Sorry, couldn't resist...
> >>>
> >>> *boggle*
> >>>
> >>> What the dickens are you talking about?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I replied to a post with the subject line "had a thought while looking
> >>through the PHB tonight". So I replied with the subject line "Did it hurt?"
> >>
> >>It looks funny on my screen...
> >>
> >>GreatLich
> >
> >It didn't show up as a reply, your message is by itself without any
> >quote from any other message. Check the setting for your newsreader
> it worked fine here, i guess you should check yours ;)
I'm guessing that some newsreaders thread by Subject: rather than
Reference:.
Ben B.
Sir Bob
He's probably using Google. Google has some rather serious threading
issues - the reason being that it determines what's part of a given
thread solely by the text of the subject line. This means (among
other things) that altering the subject line by even one character
will cause Google to display that subset of messages as a separate
thread with no connection to the original or indication of what it's a
response to, or that if a common subject line should happen to recur
in a given newsgroup, it will just get appended to any previous thread
with the same subject line - with the result that you could get
messages from 1994 and 2002 mixed together in the same thread.
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
GreatLich
"C. Baize" <ba...@netptc.net> wrote in message
news:3C8934BB...@netptc.net...
GreatLich
GreatLich
"Zarchery" <stabosz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a858fa41.02030...@posting.google.com...
a reply to another post without the same subjectline. The subjectlines
combine to form the joke. your newsreader threads by subjectline rather than
by reference. Newsreader error? ;-)
GreatLich
Justisaur
figure them out, but the thread brought this to the forefront of my
mind.
Passage from SRD: "Armor Spikes: Spikes can be added to armor. They deal
1d6 points of piercing damage (X2 crit) with a successful grapple
attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If a character is not
proficient with them, the character suffers a -4 penalty on grapple
checks when trying to use them. A regular melee attack (or off-hand
attack) can be made with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in
this case."
1) Are you considered "armed" when grappling to use armor spikes? I.e.
no attack of opportunity? what about when making an "unarmed attack?"
2) The passage seems to contradict itself, it first says you have to
make a grapple to use them, but then also says you can make a regular
mele attack, can you do both? at the same time?
3) Can you take armor spikes off a suit of armor and put them on
another?
4) Can armor spikes be disarmed? sundered? if sundering do you have to
sunder the armor, or is it a separate part of the armor?
5) If you can make "regular" mele attacks with them can you do so when
carying or using something else in both hands such as instruments, bows
ect. Can you make attacks of opportunity with them in this case. I.e.
are you considered armed, even though you may have no weapons in your
hands, or your hands are full.
6) Does enhancing armor spikes count as a seperate item? in other
words, if you enhance your armor to +5 are you then restricted from
enhancing your armor spikes because you've already got +5 in powers on
the armor? Is it considered a secondary power to enhance armor spikes
making you incurr double the cost. etc? (I'm a little fuzzy yet on
magic items too, so forgive me if I've got this all wrong)
7) What's the actual intent of armor spikes, some examples please?
Jeff Wilder
| Passage from SRD: "Armor Spikes: Spikes can be added to
| armor. They deal 1d6 points of piercing damage (X2 crit)
| with a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a
| martial weapon. If a character is not proficient with them,
| the character suffers a -4 penalty on grapple checks when
| trying to use them. A regular melee attack (or off-hand
| attack) can be made with the spikes, and they count as a
| light weapon in this case."
I'll start by stating my opinion on the earlier thread: armor
spikes do not allow an additional attack. They can be used as a
"regular melee attack (or off-hand attack)," not an additional
one. In effect and in part, armor spikes operate as a weapon you
needn't hold on to and can't drop.
| 1) Are you considered "armed" when grappling to use armor
| spikes? I.e. no attack of opportunity? what about when
| making an "unarmed attack?"
I don't think so, as to the first. I think this function of
armor spikes is passive, not active. It's something that happens
when you grapple while wearing them; they're not weapons you're
actively bringing to bear. An analog might be a spell that made
your body red-hot to the touch, such that you did damage while
grappling. You still wouldn't be "armed."
As to the second, if you're actually making an unarmed attack,
you're attacking unarmed. You provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
If you're actually attacking with the armor spikes (but otherwise
"unarmed,") you're not actually attacking unarmed at all, and
don't provoke an AoO.
| 2) The passage seems to contradict itself, it first says you
| have to make a grapple to use them, but then also says you
| can make a regular mele attack, can you do both? at the
| same time?
There's no contradiction, because the rule doesn't state that you
have to use a grapple to use armor spikes; the rule says, "Here's
what happens when you perform a grapple while wearing armor
spikes."
And yes, you can use a light weapon while grappling, so you can
attack with armor spikes, which count as a light weapon. They
seem pretty effective for grappling.
| 3) Can you take armor spikes off a suit of armor and put
| them on another?
You mean quickly? Not in my opinion. Spikes sturdy enough to do
serious damage have to be at least somewhat structurally
integrated with the underlying armor. If a player really wanted
to remove them and put them on another suit of armor, I'd
probably allow it, but it would cost in time and money, and it
would destroy any masterwork or magical quality of the armor and
spikes. It would be more effective to just be-spike the other
armor suit with its own set.
| 4) Can armor spikes be disarmed? sundered? if sundering
| do you have to sunder the armor, or is it a separate part of
| the armor?
Disarmed, no. Sundered is a special case, because I'd say
individual armor spikes could certainly be sundered. The thing
is, crunch all you want, I've got more.
You could rule something like, "Each successful sundering (as
against a dagger) subtracts 1 from any attack or damage rolls
made with the armor spikes. After six successful sunderings, the
armor spikes are detroyed." I might do something like this, and
also rule that SSS (six successful sunderings) ruined any
masterwork or magical enchantment on the underlying armor, as
well. But I might not, because at some level I do think the
armor spikes and armor are capable of bearing separate
enchantments.
In practice, this is likely to work out the same as saying "You
can't effectively sunder armor spikes," because few characters
are going to spend the time to make SSS.
| 5) If you can make "regular" mele attacks with them can you
| do so when carying or using something else in both hands
| such as instruments, bows ect. Can you make attacks of
| opportunity with them in this case. I.e. are you considered
| armed, even though you may have no weapons in your
| hands, or your hands are full.
Yes. Along with grappling, this seems to be the major benefit of
armor spikes.
| 6) Does enhancing armor spikes count as a seperate item? in
| other words, if you enhance your armor to +5 are you then
| restricted from enhancing your armor spikes because you've
| already got +5 in powers on the armor? Is it considered a
| secondary power to enhance armor spikes making you incurr
| double the cost. etc? (I'm a little fuzzy yet on magic items
| too, so forgive me if I've got this all wrong)
I think this is a little tricky, too. Yes, I think they can be
(and must be) enchanted separately; I don't think either counts
against the +10 total enhancements limitation for the other. On
the other hand, as I indicated above, I also think they are
structurally linked, such that the destruction of one in terms of
masterwork or magical effect also means the destruction of the
other.
This isn't a hard idea to grasp or use, but it is an additional
rule. On the other hand, it would also be an additional rule to
say that armor spikes and armor are part and parcel of the same
item, or to say that they're handled completely separately. I'm
comfortable with my model.
| 7) What's the actual intent of armor spikes, some examples
| please?
To look wicked and intimidating. To convince graspy monsters
that it'd be lots more fun (and lots less painful) to grapple the
wizard or the rogue. To do extra damage while grappling. To do
lethal damage while grappling. To have a useable attack, even
with your hands full.
I never gave armor spikes a second glance, 'til now. They're
actually kinda cool, in that Kull the Conqueror cheesy sorta way.
--
Jeff Wilder wild...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com San Francisco, CA
* Delete the REMOVETHIS in the email address to reply. *
"I'm so evil, and so skanky. And I think I'm kinda gay." - Willow
Ed Chauvin IV
>>through the PHB tonight". So I replied with the subject line "Did it hurt?"
>>
>>It looks funny on my screen...
>
>quote from any other message. Check the setting for your newsreader
You've got the "Start a New thread when a follow-up subject changes" option
enabled. It's found on the Message List tab of your General Preferences dialog.
Not that that's a bad thing, mind you.
C. Baize
We still use it a lot around the gaming table... :)
C. Baize
Justisaur
Jeff Wilder wrote:
>
> | 1) Are you considered "armed" when grappling to use armor
> | spikes? I.e. no attack of opportunity? what about when
> | making an "unarmed attack?"
>
> I don't think so, as to the first. I think this function of
> armor spikes is passive, not active. It's something that happens
> when you grapple while wearing them; they're not weapons you're
> actively bringing to bear. An analog might be a spell that made
> your body red-hot to the touch, such that you did damage while
> grappling. You still wouldn't be "armed."
>
*snip*
> | 7) What's the actual intent of armor spikes, some examples
> | please?
>
> To look wicked and intimidating. To convince graspy monsters
> that it'd be lots more fun (and lots less painful) to grapple the
> wizard or the rogue. To do extra damage while grappling. To do
> lethal damage while grappling. To have a useable attack, even
> with your hands full.
>
The description says you have to actually make a successful grapple
*attack* with them, so I don't think this would be much of a deterrant
to grabby monsters. I thought this was odd also. Also not quite like
having a body red-hot to the touch.
> I never gave armor spikes a second glance, 'til now. They're
> actually kinda cool, in that Kull the Conqueror cheesy sorta way.
>
I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw that movie :).
I thourougly enjoyed your post.
After these threads I'm having nightmares of legeons of armor spike dual
wielding fighters throwing themselves on their enemies - *shudder*
One other question. Do you think all the abilities of armor spikes
(light weapon that does d6, I can't remember any others off hand with
that much damage. undisarmable, almost unsunderable, usable in a
grapple) makes them a bit overpowered?
Jeff Wilder
| The description says you have to actually make a successful
| grapple *attack* with them, so I don't think this would be much
| of a deterrant to grabby monsters.
I agree, from a game-mechanical standpoint. (And I think it
would be too powerful to allow otherwise.) I was thinking more
along the lines of a flavor effect: if a monster grappled the
armor-spiked PC, but the PC escaped the grapple, I'd probably
have the monster choose someone else next time.
| I thought this was odd also. Also not quite like having a body
| red-hot to the touch.
No, not exactly.
| One other question. Do you think all the abilities of armor
spikes
| (light weapon that does d6, I can't remember any others off
| hand with that much damage. undisarmable, almost unsunderable,
| usable in a grapple) makes them a bit overpowered?
I dunno. Lots of light weapons do 1d6 damage, though.
Speaking personally, I wouldn't automatically take it for my
armored fighters, but that doesn't mean much -- I'm not much of a
power-gamer.
As DM, you could balance out the benefits somewhat by playing up
the appearance ... whether he's one or not, a fighter in armor
with spikes isn't going to get credit for being a paladin, for
instance.
Jeff
john v verkuilen
>I replied to a post with the subject line "had a thought while looking
>through the PHB tonight". So I replied with the subject line "Did it hurt?"
>It looks funny on my screen...
Sorry, it just looks stupid here--the thread doesn't show up.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
Dissertation pages written: 110; RIP Stuart Adamson, 1958-2001.
Andras Otto Schneider
In article <3C897587...@surewest.net>,
Justisau...@netscape.nospam.net wrote:
> After these threads I'm having nightmares of legeons of armor spike
> dual wielding fighters throwing themselves on their enemies -
> *shudder*
Ok, after reading this, I was remnded of a thread from May, 2001 that
I saved.
Begin Quotes, I dont know who made the last post in it
Peter Newman <pne...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:3A9E2CAB...@gci.net...
> Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> >
> > "Certic" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > >> Peter Newman wrote:
> >
> > >> > The rules for creating two headed magic weapons say that
> > >> > you have to enchant each head separately. Does this mean that
> > >> > you can create an intelligent two headed weapon with two
> > >> > minds?
> >
> > >> So it would seem. You can also enchant armor spikes, so could place
> > >> intelligent spikes on a suit of intelligent armor.
> >
> > >...and have them different alignments. Naturally you'd want them to be
able
> > >to speak as well, so that the armour, the spikes and the two ends of
the
> > >weapon would be constantly shouting at each other!
> >
> > A dire suit indeed.
>
> I've got a better idea. How about if we take an Etiin Ranger
> who wields one two handed two minded talking weapon in each hand,
> while wearing intelligent talking armor with intelligent talking
> spikes and intelligent talking boots. One of the Ettin's heads
> has worn a Helm of Alignment changing. This way we will have
> representatives of all 9 alignments at work. Four weapon
> heads, two ettin heads, armor, spikes, and boots. :)
> > Thank you. To make it really interesting lets run this Ettin
> > into a 'Mirror of Opposition'. ;)
>
> *A* Mirror of Opposition? Why not two Mirrors, set up facing each
> other, for maximum duplication?
--------
Then you'd have hundreds of Ettins, each one slightly smaller than the
last,
until the last one was just the size of a Grig or a Kilmoulis. And the
voices of his heads and all the weapons would be really high pitched.
That
would be cool.
--
AOS
"Those blast points are far too accurate
for Imperial Stormtroopers. Only Imperial
Special Effects Technicians are so precise"
Robert Baldwin
<hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
<snip>
>And all those people were pooh-poohing armour spikes when 3E first came
>out.
Seriously? Pooh-poohing armour spikes would *hurt*.
:-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"So here we are going into battle, butt freaking naked.
What's wrong with this picture?"
Nene Romanova
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Zarchery
> He's probably using Google. Google has some rather serious threading
> issues - the reason being that it determines what's part of a given
> thread solely by the text of the subject line. This means (among
> other things) that altering the subject line by even one character
> will cause Google to display that subset of messages as a separate
> thread with no connection to the original or indication of what it's a
> response to, or that if a common subject line should happen to recur
> in a given newsgroup, it will just get appended to any previous thread
> with the same subject line - with the result that you could get
> messages from 1994 and 2002 mixed together in the same thread.
That would explain it. I keep seeing threads from YEARS ago popping
up. I was wondering why people were responding to messages posted in
the 90's. That's weird.
-----Zarchery-----
Michael Scott Brown
news:3C893C16...@surewest.net...
> I'm tempted to just toss armor spikes in my campaign and avoid the
> question altogether. What the hell use *are* they supposed to be if you
> can't do this, or use them say when using a bow (to threaten). Weird,
> really weird.
You suggestion that you could "use armor spikes to threaten" while
PERFORMING ARCHERY indicates that the only weird thinking individual in this
conversation is you. If you're firing a bow, you aren't parrying and you
aren't counterattacking and you sure as hell aren't putting your bow down
and re-setting your body so that you could deliver a decent body slam or
kick in the middle of a barrage of fire.
-Michael
Jeff Wilder
[ "Threaten with armor spikes while using a bow?" ]
| If you're firing a bow, you aren't parrying and you
| aren't counterattacking and you sure as hell aren't
| putting your bow down and re-setting your body so that
| you could deliver a decent body slam or kick in the
| middle of a barrage of fire.
Well, this is true, but consider an armed wizard casting a
full-round spell. If I've got my one requisite hand free to
cast, and the other hand holds a long sword, I'm still
threatening adjacent squares while performing magic. I'm not
"counterattacking," "parrying," or "re-setting" my body for the
potential AoO; I'm casting a spell. Or, to be more precise,
maybe I AM doing all those things, but in that case why can't the
archery guy? Because he doesn't have a hand free? Armor spikes
don't REQUIRE a hand free.
This is one of those areas where D&D cyclical rounds makes things
weird. Sure, it's a LITTLE strange to allow an armor-spiked
archer to threaten, but (IMO) it's less weird than allowing the
wizard to threaten, and the wizard clearly does so under the
rules. If you say the wizard doesn't, and (by the way) neither
does the spikey archer, that's fine ... but the first is a house
rule, and the second is an "Ambiguity Ruling" BASED on a house
rule.
Personally, I just shrug and accept a little weirdness as the
norm in D&D combat.
Bill Beasley
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:97Hi8.3478$P4.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> You suggestion that you could "use armor spikes to threaten" while
> PERFORMING ARCHERY indicates that the only weird thinking individual in
this
> conversation is you. If you're firing a bow, you aren't parrying and you
> aren't counterattacking and you sure as hell aren't putting your bow down
> and re-setting your body so that you could deliver a decent body slam or
> kick in the middle of a barrage of fire.
Michael, I don't disagree with you on this. In concept, it's kooky.
However, is it rules-written legal?
On the concept side, is the bow wielder focusing on firing his bow 'the
entire round'? Or is he able to fire, then 'reset' or whatever, with the
spikes (for AoO purposes)? The archer can do otherings before and/or after
firing the bow, and the Archery rules seem to be less abstracted than the
Melee combat rules (i.e. one arrow per 'attack', unlike the assumed multiple
swings per 'attack' in melee combat).
Just some kooky ideas, figured I'd toss them around here, since I respect
the opinions of some of the folks on this group (you included, though I
don't always agree with you).
Anivair
>PERFORMING ARCHERY indicates that the only weird thinking individual in this
>conversation is you. If you're firing a bow, you aren't parrying and you
>aren't counterattacking and you sure as hell aren't putting your bow down
>and re-setting your body so that you could deliver a decent body slam or
>kick in the middle of a barrage of fire.
Are you sating you can't kick someone with a bow in your hands? That's silly.
I agree that you can't kick someone while *firing* a bow, but that's not what
threatning is. All removal of abstreaction aside, you are basically throwing
an attack out at someone because they were dumb enough to do somehting that
provokes an AoO in your area. When this occurs, you're not doing anything else
of consequence. and why not be able to punch someone with your draw hand with a
bow? It's not doing anything when it's not firing arrows?
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
Talen
<kristin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Check me to see if this is 'legal' under the core rules:
>Ranger (or fighter with Ambi/TWF feats)
>Greatsword
>Armor with Armor spikes.
>The phb description of Armor spikes says: "You can also make a regular melee
>attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light
>weapon." (105) In addition, they're considered a martial weapon, so any
>class that has all martial profs can use them. They do 1d6, x2 crit damage.
>
>Now, can the Ranger packing his Greatsword make an off hand attack with his
>armor spike (a shoulder block or something, or a back-hand I'd imagine), as
>per the fighting with two weapons rules? I can't seem to find anything
>specifically prohibiting it, and the description of the item does say it
>allows an off hand attack.
>
>Is it cheesy? No doubt. But is it *legal*? That's what I'm wondering.
>Opinions? Counter-quotes disproving this? Rude comments?
Legal, yes, at leasy by the best of my memory.
Fact of the matter is, you're looking at, using a fourth level human
fighter:
Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
Weapon Focus (Armour Spike)
Weapon Specialisation (Greatsword)
Weapon Specialisation (Armour Spike)
Two-Weapon Fighting
Ambidexterity
(Good grief, they lay down the feats, don't they?)
At that level, a MW Breastplate, MW Armour Spikes, and a MW Greatsword
are pocket-change. So, with a strength of 18:
To Hit:
Greatsword = 4 (BAB) + 4 (STR) + 1 (focus) + 1 (MW) - 6 (Heavy Weapon)
Spike = 4 (BAB) + 4 (STR) + 1 (focus) + 1 (MW) - 2 (Light Weapon)
To Damage:
Greatsword = 2d6 + 6 (1.5 * STR) + 2 (specialisation)
Spike = 1d6 + 2 (0.5 * STR) + 2 (specialisation)
So the greatsword comes out of it with a damage range of 10 - 20 and
the spikes getting a 5 - 10, giving you a total potential damage range
of 15-30. Pretty goddamn nice.
HOWEVER, you're also looking at having a paltry +4 to hit with the
Greatsword and a +8 to hit with the Armour spikes.
Now, look at it from the level of a first-level Ranger, ignoring MW,
whose only contribution to the numbers was to spend his feats on
Weapon Focus in the two weapons.
Greatsword = 1 (BAB) + 4 (STR) + 1 (focus) - 6 (Heavy Weapon)
Spike = 1 (BAB) + 4 (STR) + 1 (focus) - 2 (Light Weapon)
To Damage:
Greatsword = 2d6 + 6 (1.5 * STR)
Spike = 1d6 + 2 (0.5 * STR)
This gives us a totality of a +0 to hit with the greatsword and a
range of 8-18 damage, and a +4 to hit with the spikes and a damage
range of 3-8.
So, you get a bigass damage range, and with the multiple attacks at
low levels are good versus mooks, and you have to spend no less than
six feats really getting there. You could switch fairly easily between
GS and Spikes, not provoking attacks of opportunity, and range between
the Damage King (and hope the mage has True Strike) and a solid
front-line fighter (utilising a +10 to hit for a damage range of
10-20).
I don't see it as imbalancing, and it strikes me as very cool indeed.
Plus, it gives me a chuckle to visualise. I quite like it indeed. As
it stands, all it gives the character is versatility - burning two
feats to bring the spikes up to snuff is a bit much. And hey - it
makes you the ultimate support executioner. The enemy prone, flanked,
and stunned? Then bring the full force to bear. Otherwhise, just hit
him normally, fercrissakes.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
<gilmae> we were toying with the idea of a pressie for Pre
<gilmae> we were in Spotlight, and we saw a pattern for a gi
<gilmae> and, you see, we had all this pink leopard print
fabric
The Gurus love you
Anivair
>fighter:
>
>Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
>Weapon Focus (Armour Spike)
>Weapon Specialisation (Greatsword)
>Weapon Specialisation (Armour Spike)
>Two-Weapon Fighting
>Ambidexterity
Nope. Fighter can't specialize till fourth level and they only get one feat
that level, so a fourth level fighter can't be specialized in both.
>To Hit:
>Greatsword = 4 (BAB) + 4 (STR) + 1 (focus) + 1 (MW) - 6 (Heavy Weapon)
> Spike = 4 (BAB) + 4 (STR) + 1 (focus) + 1 (MW) - 2 (Light Weapon)
Where is this -6 heavy weapon penalty coming from? I don't see this.
>To Damage:
> Greatsword = 2d6 + 6 (1.5 * STR) + 2 (specialisation)
> Spike = 1d6 + 2 (0.5 * STR) + 2 (specialisation)
Correct here and this ends up being an awful lot of damage.
>HOWEVER, you're also looking at having a paltry +4 to hit with the
>Greatsword and a +8 to hit with the Armour spikes.
I think this is wrong. I think you're looking at a totally different thing. I
think you're looking at +6 and +8. While I do think that the additional -2 is
a nice extrapolation from the TWF rules, I don't remember having seen it
anywhere. Anyone else see this?
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
Talen
wrote:
>>Fact of the matter is, you're looking at, using a fourth level human
>>fighter:
>>
>>Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
>>Weapon Focus (Armour Spike)
>>Weapon Specialisation (Greatsword)
>>Weapon Specialisation (Armour Spike)
>>Two-Weapon Fighting
>>Ambidexterity
>
>Nope. Fighter can't specialize till fourth level and they only get one feat
>that level, so a fourth level fighter can't be specialized in both.
Silly me, too used to the Postpone rule we use. ^^;
>>To Hit:
>>Greatsword = 4 (BAB) + 4 (STR) + 1 (focus) + 1 (MW) - 6 (Heavy Weapon)
>> Spike = 4 (BAB) + 4 (STR) + 1 (focus) + 1 (MW) - 2 (Light Weapon)
>
>Where is this -6 heavy weapon penalty coming from? I don't see this.
At last check, a light weapon was a -2 penalty, a medium weapon was
-4, so I was going off the logical progression. It's -6 or -8.
>>HOWEVER, you're also looking at having a paltry +4 to hit with the
>>Greatsword and a +8 to hit with the Armour spikes.
>
>I think this is wrong. I think you're looking at a totally different thing. I
>think you're looking at +6 and +8. While I do think that the additional -2 is
>a nice extrapolation from the TWF rules, I don't remember having seen it
>anywhere. Anyone else see this?
Well, there doesn't exist a rule for wielding a _heavy_ weapon as your
main one.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.australians.dropbears
- Newsgroup available on Optusnet
The Gurus love you
Anivair
>-4, so I was going off the logical progression. It's -6 or -8.
That is a logical progression. then again, this may not be so logical. Say
you're wielding the greatsword two handed and you have the spiked on your
elbows. You cut, heave past and slam the baddie with your meaty elbow spike.
Under standard two weapon fighting it's assumed that you use a weapon in each
hand under the rules, so having less of alenalty for having a light weapon
makes sense. Having a -6 penalty with your greatsword just because you slam
someone with your elbow after making the same attack you were going to make
anyway doesn't really make that much sense.
In fact, the primary rules don't provide a penalty for having a bit weapon in
your primary hand. it's just off hand weapons that have to be light.
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
Jeff Wilder
| >At last check, a light weapon was a -2 penalty, a
| >medium weapon was -4, so I was going off the logical
| >progression. It's -6 or -8.
| That is a logical progression.
No, it's not, because for the purposes of TWF "light" isn't a
size, except by comparison with the wielder (not with other
weapons).
Jeff
ElfBard
> And all those people were pooh-poohing armour spikes when 3E first came
> out.
I still think they suck. Of course I have bad GW memories......
Michael Scott Brown
news:20020310115716...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> >conversation is you. If you're firing a bow, you aren't parrying and you
> >aren't counterattacking and you sure as hell aren't putting your bow down
> >and re-setting your body so that you could deliver a decent body slam or
> >kick in the middle of a barrage of fire.
>
> Are you sating you can't kick someone with a bow in your hands? That's
silly.
> I agree that you can't kick someone while *firing* a bow, but that's not
what
> threatning is.
That's very much what threatening is - and that's why archers *don't*
even if they're remarkably talented martial artists. Choosing to be
shooting is choosing to forgo the kicking for a little while.
> All removal of abstreaction aside, you are basically throwing
> an attack out at someone because they were dumb enough to do somehting
that
> provokes an AoO in your area. When this occurs, you're not doing anything
else
> of consequence.
? "Not doing anything else of consequence"? Each character conducts his
actions simultaneously (just in slightly different phases) with all other
actors; they're not picking their noses between turns. The archer is
drawing an arrow, nocking, drawing, aiming, releasing - his hands are full
and he's sure as hell not in position to take advantage of local *melee*
openings; quite the contrary - *he's* the one who is intensely vulnerable in
3E's freewheeling 360'-combat model.
> and why not be able to punch someone with your draw hand with a
> bow? It's not doing anything when it's not firing arrows?
Oh, please. After spouting martial mojo on the hit point thread, are
you really going to try and suggest that all it takes to make a credible
attack is a free *hand*?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:iJKi8.5901
> Michael, I don't disagree with you on this. In concept, it's kooky.
> However, is it rules-written legal?
Missile-weapon users don't threaten, and therefore it is not.
> On the concept side, is the bow wielder focusing on firing his bow 'the
> entire round'? Or is he able to fire, then 'reset' or whatever, with the
> spikes (for AoO purposes)?
The round is six seconds long. It takes about that long for an
unspecialized archer to lead and shoot a moving target once - to attack
2x/round requires three seconds per shot. Think about just what that
requires of the archer's movements and how little room there is for stopping
everything for some manner of "opportunity kick". Further, the *archer* is
the vulnerable one here; if someone is in his melee reach radius (were he
able to threaten) then that means the _archer_ is threatened by the other -
and is therefore subjected to extra attack!
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:tBHi8.2320
> Well, this is true, but consider an armed wizard casting a
> full-round spell. If I've got my one requisite hand free to
> cast, and the other hand holds a long sword, I'm still
> threatening adjacent squares while performing magic.
I don't buy the idea that full-round casting wizards threaten while they
play. After all, if one could take an AoO without interrupting one's spell
at all, then one should be able to make a regular melee attack as well, as
clearly fighting with the sword has no impact on concentrating on magic!
The sword-in-hand theory works just fine for 1-action casting wizards, since
their spell is brief, but full-round casting must negate the wizard's threat
radius just like full-round archery or absurdity ensues. My books are still
in their boxes (nobody comes out until the bookcases arrive this Saturday)
so I can't check on this, but this observation is so incredibly sensible
that I'd be surprised to find it unsupported (or is this a loophole waiting
for errata?).
> maybe I AM doing all those things, but in that case why can't the
> archery guy? Because he doesn't have a hand free? Armor spikes
> don't REQUIRE a hand free.
The situation doesn't really depend on the spikes; spike or no spike, a
humanoid has legs and could therefore kick things, so why can't archers kick
things when they shoot? The problem is more fundamental than armor spikage.
Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are whole body
affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow, further, unless you want to
postulate, say, some forward facing spikes on the shins, the real "kick"
from armorspikes is going to be a *knee*, which is a close-fighting
technique, not a 5-radius striking method.
I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but I don't have the
impression that someone who is in spiked armor suddenly threatens squares
with his unarmed attacks. He's in a weird category of having "unarmed
attacks" that don't provoke AoO because they're
hard-and-crunchy-pointy-nasty with built in daggers, as opposed to be
"armed" in the usual sense. This last paragraph is IIRC, though.
-Michael
Neil Cerutti
>"Jeff Wilder" <wild...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tBHi8.2320
>while they play. After all, if one could take an AoO without
>interrupting one's spell at all, then one should be able to make
>a regular melee attack as well, as clearly fighting with the
>sword has no impact on concentrating on magic! The sword-in-hand
>theory works just fine for 1-action casting wizards, since their
>spell is brief, but full-round casting must negate the wizard's
>threat radius just like full-round archery or absurdity ensues.
>My books are still in their boxes (nobody comes out until the
>bookcases arrive this Saturday) so I can't check on this, but
>this observation is so incredibly sensible that I'd be surprised
>to find it unsupported (or is this a loophole waiting for
>errata?).
Your argument makes a heck of a lot of sense, but I haven't found
backup for it in the rules yet. You may need to rule-0 it for
your campaign. It might be interesting to allow the caster
to take AoO while casting if they are "casting defensively".
While casting a spell with a full round casting time, a caster is
allowed to take free actions. That seems to allow for him/her
taking any AoO that is provoked.
In practice, it won't happen that often, and besides, who cares
about suffering an AoO from most spellcasters? ;-)
>> maybe I AM doing all those things, but in that case why can't
>> the archery guy? Because he doesn't have a hand free? Armor
>> spikes don't REQUIRE a hand free.
>
>The situation doesn't really depend on the spikes; spike or no
>spike, a humanoid has legs and could therefore kick things, so
>why can't archers kick things when they shoot? The problem is
>more fundamental than armor spikage.
>
>Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are whole body
>affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow,
Not if you know what the hell you are doing. But I agree with
your arguments nonetheless.
>further, unless you want to postulate, say, some forward facing
>spikes on the shins, the real "kick" from armorspikes is going
>to be a *knee*, which is a close-fighting technique, not a
>5-radius striking method.
>
>I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but I don't
>have the impression that someone who is in spiked armor suddenly
>threatens squares with his unarmed attacks.
According to the rules, they count as light weapons for purposes
of making a melee attack. But what does that even mean?
The rules for armor spikes are quite incomplete. It looks like
DMs will need to instatiate some house rules for them. I agree
with much of your thinking on the subject.
Here's some thoughts:
The shortspear sized spikes the rules discuss would seem to me to
be quite hazardous to the wearer as to well as to her victims! A
person in spiked armor who falls down is going to need to
make a Reflex Save to avoid taking some subdual damage.
They are very likely to become broken, but I can't think of a
game mechanic with any precedent for this. Any thoughts?
They will make the armor less effective -- running up against a
spike can "guide" your weapon like a guardrail right to the its
wearer. There is -1 penalty to the armor's armor bonus per spike.
Spiked armor is a lot more unwieldy then normal armor. There is a
-1 skill check penalty assessed per spike.
These penalties can be negated by affixing smaller spikes that
do only 1-2 damage.
Finally, only spikes on the lower arms and legs can possibly
threaten outside of your own area.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Jeff Wilder
> I don't buy the idea that full-round casting
> wizards threaten while they play.
By the book, they do.
> After all, if one could take an AoO without interrupting
> one's spell at all, then one should be able to make a
> regular melee attack as well, as clearly fighting with
> the sword has no impact on concentrating on magic!
This is a perfectly reasonable justification for a house rule. But it
WILL be a house rule.
> Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective
> kicks are whole body affairs that would totally
> disrupt use of a bow
I'm not disputing your realism argument, Michael. I'm saying that in
this particular case, your views of realism and the rules don't mesh.
> I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but
> I don't have the impression that someone who is in spiked
> armor suddenly threatens squares with his unarmed attacks.
I'm likewise unsure, but under the opposite impression. Or, more
precisely, I'm under the impression that when wearing armor spikes,
his attacks are no longer "unarmed," and that he therefore threatens
AoOs. I could be wrong about this, because I'm going by what's been
quoted previously, not by my own look at armor spikes.
Jeff
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Bill Beasley" <kristin...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:iJKi8.5901
>> Michael, I don't disagree with you on this. In concept, it's kooky.
>> However, is it rules-written legal?
>
> Missile-weapon users don't threaten, and therefore it is not.
That's not true. Missile weapons don't threaten, however, wielders of missile
weapons that are also able to wield another weapon that threatens do threaten.
>> On the concept side, is the bow wielder focusing on firing his bow 'the
>> entire round'? Or is he able to fire, then 'reset' or whatever, with the
>> spikes (for AoO purposes)?
>
> The round is six seconds long. It takes about that long for an
>unspecialized archer to lead and shoot a moving target once - to attack
Are you really suggesting that the archer holds his bow drawn for nearly the
entire round?
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:tBHi8.2320
>> Well, this is true, but consider an armed wizard casting a
>> full-round spell. If I've got my one requisite hand free to
>> cast, and the other hand holds a long sword, I'm still
>> threatening adjacent squares while performing magic.
>
> I don't buy the idea that full-round casting wizards threaten while they
>play. After all, if one could take an AoO without interrupting one's spell
>at all, then one should be able to make a regular melee attack as well, as
>clearly fighting with the sword has no impact on concentrating on magic!
Making an AoO isn't the same as a regular melee attack Michael. You of all
people should see this. AoOs are when someone does something stupid and you
stick your sword out and remind them how stupid they're being. You don't have
to parry, dodge, block, thrust etc until you get an opening because it's already
there.
>The sword-in-hand theory works just fine for 1-action casting wizards, since
>their spell is brief, but full-round casting must negate the wizard's threat
>radius just like full-round archery or absurdity ensues.
Sorry, but full-round archery does not negate a threat range. Ordinary folks
with only 2 arms can't usually wield a weapon and fire a bow, since the bow
takes 2 hands. Remember the hand crossbow? You can fire it with one hand and
still threaten with a longsword.
>My books are still
>in their boxes (nobody comes out until the bookcases arrive this Saturday)
>so I can't check on this, but this observation is so incredibly sensible
>that I'd be surprised to find it unsupported (or is this a loophole waiting
>for errata?).
>
>> maybe I AM doing all those things, but in that case why can't the
>> archery guy? Because he doesn't have a hand free? Armor spikes
>> don't REQUIRE a hand free.
>
> The situation doesn't really depend on the spikes; spike or no spike, a
>humanoid has legs and could therefore kick things, so why can't archers kick
>things when they shoot? The problem is more fundamental than armor spikage.
No really Michael, it's a matter of the non-spikey archer not wielding a weapon
with which to threaten, whereas the spiky archer does. It's just that simple.
> Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are whole body
>affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow, further, unless you want to
>postulate, say, some forward facing spikes on the shins, the real "kick"
>from armorspikes is going to be a *knee*, which is a close-fighting
>technique, not a 5-radius striking method.
Methinks you're over thinking this. Why wouldn't the armor spikes be placed
where they'd be most useful? Hell, why stop there? Armor spikes should be all
over the armor. Helmet, shoulders, arms, body (front AND back), elbows, knees,
boots and yes, even the shins. And when one looks in the book for a picture,
that's exactly what one finds.
In fact, I don't see an armor spike being a single thing you can place on your
armor. Rather, it's a set item. Your armor is spiky, or it's not. If it's
spiky, then it's all spiky.
> I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but I don't have the
>impression that someone who is in spiked armor suddenly threatens squares
>with his unarmed attacks. He's in a weird category of having "unarmed
>attacks" that don't provoke AoO because they're
>hard-and-crunchy-pointy-nasty with built in daggers, as opposed to be
>"armed" in the usual sense. This last paragraph is IIRC, though.
There's nothing weird about armor spikes. They are light weapons that can be
used to make regular or offhand melee attacks. They also have some special
rules about grappling, but that's irrelevant just now. Surely you wouldn't deny
a Xill wielding a bow and two daggers his AoO? Why the human wielding a bow and
armor spikes?
Michael Scott Brown
news:nanp8u43gbvurm0vo...@enews.newsguy.com...
> > Missile-weapon users don't threaten, and therefore it is not.
>
> That's not true. Missile weapons don't threaten, however, wielders of
missile
> weapons that are also able to wield another weapon that threatens do
threaten.
I am using imprecise language - in my head "missile weapon" is
projectile-shooter gizmo; crossbow, bow, sling, etc.. I think it's possibly
reasonable to argue that someone who is using a weapon that can be *thrown*
can threaten squares with it between lobs, but I don't see any provision in
the game for "also weilding another weapon" while making attacks with a bow.
Missile-weapon-users that are *Archers* don't threaten. This is reinforced
by discussions (in the supplements, possibly the PhB) of how effective it is
to make a Sundering attack against a bow; in addition to the weapon being
relatively fragile, the archer *doesn't get to take the AoO*. Likewise
unarmed attacks to grab the bow, or to close to a grapple with the archer,
etc. The archer does *not* get to respond with unarmed attacks as a
"backup" even if he's a monk in these situations.
> > The round is six seconds long. It takes about that long for an
> >unspecialized archer to lead and shoot a moving target once - to attack
>
> Are you really suggesting that the archer holds his bow drawn for nearly
the
> entire round?
I think that a "basically trained" archer (ie; BAB 1-5 & no relevant
feats) will spend 1-2 seconds or more preparing the weapon and 3-4 with the
draw-aim-release sequence. Progressively better archers load more smoothly
and will have much better instincts about "snap" shooting, until you reach
the sort of madness we see in certain horse-archery experts or the Legolas
Standard of recent fame.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > I don't buy the idea that full-round casting wizards threaten while
they
> >play. After all, if one could take an AoO without interrupting one's
spell
> >at all, then one should be able to make a regular melee attack as well,
as
> >clearly fighting with the sword has no impact on concentrating on magic!
>
> Making an AoO isn't the same as a regular melee attack Michael. You of
all
> people should see this. AoOs are when someone does something stupid and
you
> stick your sword out and remind them how stupid they're being. You don't
have
> to parry, dodge, block, thrust etc until you get an opening because it's
already
> there.
"Stick your sword out", my ass! AoOs are still *attacks* with
*weapons*. Attacks require dedication of the entire body; you can't make a
credible strike with a medeival weapon (or a martial art) using just your
arm or simply "sticking out" your weapon - your little footsies and your
hips have to be involved. But that aside - the point is this: the 3E combat
model presumes that the hero is effectively "in melee" with *everyone*
surrounding him in his threat radius - and that's why AoOs are feasible; you
can exploit momentarily lowered defenses because you are *fighting* these
people. An attack sequence or swing that you are essentially "already
making" against your target that would normally have to deal with being
parried instead carries through.
However, some fool trying to do archery in the midst of a swordfight is
_not_ "engaged" in this fashion with those around him; in fact, he's on the
wrong end of the sticks - they're more intensely attacking _him_ (AoOs) and
all he can do is try to dodge, as long as he's trying to shoot that bow he
cannot respond in kind, he doesn't have other melee weapons in the dance,
he's not pressing his attacks against them, he's sure as hell not prepred to
kick anyone! He'd have to "change weapons".
> >The sword-in-hand theory works just fine for 1-action casting wizards,
since
> >their spell is brief, but full-round casting must negate the wizard's
threat
> >radius just like full-round archery or absurdity ensues.
>
> Sorry, but full-round archery does not negate a threat range.
Ahem. Bows don't threaten. *That's* what negates threatening! Taking a
single shot leaves time to change weapons, you see (shoot,
move-and-draw-another), but that's not the case with the full-attack option
unless you throw in some fast-draw.
> Ordinary folks
> with only 2 arms can't usually wield a weapon and fire a bow, since the
bow
> takes 2 hands. Remember the hand crossbow? You can fire it with one hand
and
> still threaten with a longsword.
Wasn't thinking on the level of those little jobbers, as should be clear
from my initial nomenclature improvement - but this observation is agreeable
enough. But - won't you only threaten if you use "two weapons fighting"
penalties?
> > The situation doesn't really depend on the spikes; spike or no
spike, a
> >humanoid has legs and could therefore kick things, so why can't archers
kick
> >things when they shoot? The problem is more fundamental than armor
spikage.
>
> No really Michael, it's a matter of the non-spikey archer not wielding a
weapon
> with which to threaten, whereas the spiky archer does. It's just that
simple.
I find the postulate that an archer with pointy bits on his shins
suddenly becomes equipped with a "threatening backup weapon" that he can
rely upon with impunity while shooting his bow . . . utterly absurd. The
spikes enhance his unarmed attacks, but if he's using a bow he isn't making
any.
> > Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are whole
body
> >affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow, further, unless you want
to
> >postulate, say, some forward facing spikes on the shins, the real "kick"
> >from armorspikes is going to be a *knee*, which is a close-fighting
> >technique, not a 5-radius striking method.
>
> Methinks you're over thinking this. Why wouldn't the armor spikes be
placed
> where they'd be most useful? Hell, why stop there? Armor spikes should
be all
> over the armor. Helmet, shoulders, arms, body (front AND back), elbows,
knees,
> boots and yes, even the shins. And when one looks in the book for a
picture,
> that's exactly what one finds.
Tsk. Spikes are bad for your armor, they guide weapons in rather than
deflecting; this means that an intelligent armorer will place spikes in the
*minimum* of places possible that still provides the relevant offensive
utility. The knee is "ok"; the shins are not so good. Hmm. I wonder if
it's even sensible to launch a martial kick while in heavy armor; I'm having
trouble seeing Lancelot launch a roundhouse kick.
> >with his unarmed attacks. He's in a weird category of having "unarmed
> >attacks" that don't provoke AoO because they're
> >hard-and-crunchy-pointy-nasty with built in daggers, as opposed to be
> >"armed" in the usual sense. This last paragraph is IIRC, though.
>
> There's nothing weird about armor spikes. They are light weapons that can
be
> used to make regular or offhand melee attacks.
They make your unarmed attacks be *treated* as if armed-with-a-light
weapon in some cases. It's not clear at all that someone whose armor is
spiked suddenly threatens the world with his unarmed attacks the way he does
if armed with a dagger.
> rules about grappling, but that's irrelevant just now. Surely you
wouldn't deny
> a Xill wielding a bow and two daggers his AoO? Why the human wielding a
bow and
> armor spikes?
Your comparison is a pathetic farce, and you should be ashamed for
making it.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:13aa8ce8.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > I don't buy the idea that full-round casting
> > wizards threaten while they play.
>
> By the book, they do.
Via the "any free actions" option? Hmm. By the book, the GM is justified
in suppressing "free actions" when it is appropriate . . .
> > Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective
> > kicks are whole body affairs that would totally
> > disrupt use of a bow
>
> I'm not disputing your realism argument, Michael. I'm saying that in
> this particular case, your views of realism and the rules don't mesh.
The rules, as I recall, operate under the presumption that "unarmed
combat" involves the *hands* for anyone other than a monk, and thus the
issue is trebly moot for the archer!
> > I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but
> > I don't have the impression that someone who is in spiked
> > armor suddenly threatens squares with his unarmed attacks.
>
> I'm likewise unsure, but under the opposite impression. Or, more
> precisely, I'm under the impression that when wearing armor spikes,
> his attacks are no longer "unarmed," and that he therefore threatens
> AoOs. I could be wrong about this, because I'm going by what's been
> quoted previously, not by my own look at armor spikes.
It all comes down to just how much like an "armed" person adding spikes
to the affair makes you - is the person indistinguishable from "equipped
with a dagger" or is he simply "safe" when making pummeling strikes? Realism
and sensibility suggests that latter - particularly when it's impossible for
an archer (presuming standard-issue humanoids) to *also* be equipped with a
threatening dagger!
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:slrna8pgqn...@fiad06.norwich.edu...
> Your argument makes a heck of a lot of sense, but I haven't found
> backup for it in the rules yet. You may need to rule-0 it for
> your campaign. It might be interesting to allow the caster
> to take AoO while casting if they are "casting defensively".
Interesting idea.
> While casting a spell with a full round casting time, a caster is
> allowed to take free actions. That seems to allow for him/her
> taking any AoO that is provoked.
Appropriate free actions are subject to a touch of judgement.
> >Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are whole body
> >affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow,
>
> Not if you know what the hell you are doing.
Bah.
> The rules for armor spikes are quite incomplete. It looks like
> DMs will need to instatiate some house rules for them.
Well, there's always the chance the Sage will have a functioning neuron
when he answers a question on the matter.
> Here's some thoughts:
> The shortspear sized spikes the rules discuss would seem to me to
> be quite hazardous to the wearer as to well as to her victims! A
> person in spiked armor who falls down is going to need to
> make a Reflex Save to avoid taking some subdual damage.
You're trying to model limbs-askew impacts and self-injury? I don't
think well designed armor spikes have much risk of that, but perhaps a
Reflex save to avoid having to make a +[missed amount] BAB (or +1/10 feet)
attack against oneself? How do spike pits work with respect to BAB?
> They are very likely to become broken, but I can't think of a
> game mechanic with any precedent for this. Any thoughts?
Breakage would be key- if you make 'em long enough to do d6 damage
they're going to be easily sundered and could quite possibly snap when
falled upon. Perhaps your reflex save above would be better invested in
preventing spike breakage?
> They will make the armor less effective -- running up against a
> spike can "guide" your weapon like a guardrail right to the its
> wearer. There is -1 penalty to the armor's armor bonus per spike.
Per spike is no good; spiked armor is a general state; you'd put some on
the elbows and knees and rear-facing flanges on the forearms and something
clever on the shoulders that wouldn't guide things into the neck, plus some
helmet chaos. But penalizing the armor by 1-2 points to reflect the
guiderail issue is a good idea. Turning your armor into a weapon should
come at a cost in defensive utility.
> Spiked armor is a lot more unwieldy then normal armor. There is a
> -1 skill check penalty assessed per spike.
Same issues above, but raising the armor check penalty is another good
idea in principle; the spiked armor guy has to be more careful about where
his limbs can go.
> These penalties can be negated by affixing smaller spikes that
> do only 1-2 damage.
Hmm. There's an interesting idea here; a "range" of spikiness ... 1-2
damage spikes is probably too small (daggers do d4, after all, and bare
punches to d3 subdual), but d6 damage spikes that have a 2-point penalty to
AC and to armor check, vrs. d3 damage spikes that have a 1-point penalties
might be interesting.
-Michael
Neil Cerutti
>"Neil Cerutti" <cer...@trans-video.net> wrote in message
>news:slrna8pgqn...@fiad06.norwich.edu...
>> Your argument makes a heck of a lot of sense, but I haven't
>> found backup for it in the rules yet. You may need to rule-0
>> it for your campaign. It might be interesting to allow the
>> caster to take AoO while casting if they are "casting
>> defensively".
>
> Interesting idea.
>
>> While casting a spell with a full round casting time, a caster
>> is allowed to take free actions. That seems to allow for
>> him/her taking any AoO that is provoked.
>
> Appropriate free actions are subject to a touch of judgement.
Of course. Do what you want. I'm actually surprised the rules
disagree with you.
>> >Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are
>> >whole body affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow,
>>
>> Not if you know what the hell you are doing.
>
> Bah.
Whatever. It's possible to stand in a "horse" stance, for
instance, enabling you to carry out any action you want to with
your upper body while still being able to deliver a powerful kick
and a moments notice, in any direction. On the other hand, in 3E,
it seems only Monks are allowed to do this.
>> The rules for armor spikes are quite incomplete. It looks like
>> DMs will need to instatiate some house rules for them.
>
>Well, there's always the chance the Sage will have a functioning
>neuron when he answers a question on the matter.
One would hope.
>> Here's some thoughts:
>> The shortspear sized spikes the rules discuss would seem to me to
>> be quite hazardous to the wearer as to well as to her victims! A
>> person in spiked armor who falls down is going to need to
>> make a Reflex Save to avoid taking some subdual damage.
>
>You're trying to model limbs-askew impacts and self-injury?
No, my thought was that, if you fall on, e.g., a spiked
breastplate, the spikes focus the damage into a small enough area
to hurt you.
>> They are very likely to become broken, but I can't think of a
>> game mechanic with any precedent for this. Any thoughts?
>
>Breakage would be key- if you make 'em long enough to do d6
>damage they're going to be easily sundered and could quite
>possibly snap when falled upon. Perhaps your reflex save above
>would be better invested in preventing spike breakage?
That's a good idea.
>> They will make the armor less effective -- running up against a
>> spike can "guide" your weapon like a guardrail right to the its
>> wearer. There is -1 penalty to the armor's armor bonus per spike.
>
>Per spike is no good; spiked armor is a general state; you'd put some on
>the elbows and knees and rear-facing flanges on the forearms and something
>clever on the shoulders that wouldn't guide things into the neck, plus some
>helmet chaos.
Ugh.
I guess this is all moot then, because armor that ridiculous will
never be allowed in my campaign. It's useless and dangerous
ceremonial crap. No wonder they didn't bother writing many rules
for it.
In my humple opinion.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Michael Scott Brown
> >> >Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are
> >> >whole body affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow,
> >>
> >> Not if you know what the hell you are doing.
> >
> > Bah.
>
> Whatever. It's possible to stand in a "horse" stance, for
> instance, enabling you to carry out any action you want to with
> your upper body while still being able to deliver a powerful kick
> and a moments notice, in any direction.
At which point, you have engaged in a whole-body affair which totally
disrupts the use of a bow. Kicking for effect is just a *bit* more involved
than simply waving your leg in the offending direction, and your apparent
desire to insist otherwise indicates ignorance. Shame on you. Kindly
review martial arts films footage of side kicks and roundhouses and back
kicks and crescents and pay close attention to the orientation of the hands
and torsos of the participants.
Further, your claim of "any action you want" is hogwash - horse stance
is inappropriate for archery and for general combat.
Horse stance is for exercising thigh muscles and making pretty kung fu
handwaves; a fighting man goes *through* the stance to deliver certain
attacks but does not park himself there unless there is some reason that
being able to move is no longer desirable.
> >You're trying to model limbs-askew impacts and self-injury?
>
> No, my thought was that, if you fall on, e.g., a spiked
> breastplate, the spikes focus the damage into a small enough area
> to hurt you.
Incorrect thinking. The spike is attached to the *breastplate* and the
result is no different than the breasplate hitting the ground itself. That's
what the breasplate is for . . .
> >Per spike is no good; spiked armor is a general state; you'd put some on
> >the elbows and knees and rear-facing flanges on the forearms and
something
> >clever on the shoulders that wouldn't guide things into the neck, plus
some
> >helmet chaos.
>
> Ugh.
> I guess this is all moot then, because armor that ridiculous will
> never be allowed in my campaign. It's useless and dangerous
> ceremonial crap. No wonder they didn't bother writing many rules
> for it.
History's record doesn't offer much by way of hugely successful types of
spiked armor for a reason - however, in a fantasy campaign, there are
different threats. Nobody tries to *eat* real world knights, after all, and
there are a lot more confrontations with "natural" weapons and nasty
tentacles rather than men with cold steel. In a different threat
environment, it's not so absurd that a different approach to defense might
flourish. Spiked armor is for fighting monsters, and for terrorizing
peasantry - it's not for fighting armies of Men. But for someone who does a
lot of monster-hunting, a weaker defense against swords for improved
survival against toothy nasties is a fair trade.
-Michael
Jeff Wilder
| "Jeff Wilder":
| > > I don't buy the idea that full-round casting
| > > wizards threaten while they play.
| > By the book, they do.
| Via the "any free actions" option?
No ... via the entire rules section on Attacks of Opportunity, as
uncontradicted by the rules dealing with spellcasting.
Attacks of Opportunity are distinct from free actions in the
rules.
| It all comes down to just how much like an "armed"
| person adding spikes to the affair makes you
Agreed. And, as I said, I'm not aware of the answer under the
rules. As they've been quoted earlier in the thread, armor
spikes DO make you "armed," but there could be important context
or other rules not quoted.
| Realism and sensibility
Frankly, I'm not all that concerned with "realism" in this case.
Realistically, spikes on armor are stupid all the way around.
But they seem a natural for a fantasy game -- especially for a
villain -- so I can move past the realism issue.
My concern in this case is more of a power issue. (Which might
be part of what you call "sensibility," I'm not sure.) I think
armor spikes that serve as real weapons in all respects might
simply be too powerful. Two of the drawbacks of two-handed
projectile weapon use are (1) drawing AoOs and (2) inability to
dish out AoOs. It's a fairly major thing to get rid of one of
those drawbacks. Major enough to actually matter? I dunno. But
major enough to make me a little uncomfortable.
Michael Scott Brown
> | Via the "any free actions" option?
>
> No ... via the entire rules section on Attacks of Opportunity, as
> uncontradicted by the rules dealing with spellcasting.
> Attacks of Opportunity are distinct from free actions in the
> rules.
Hrmm. . . they're classified as free actions; I hardly think that is
"distinct from" as much as a "distinct type" that is used often and thus
subject to the most clarification.
> My concern in this case is more of a power issue. (Which might
> be part of what you call "sensibility," I'm not sure.) I think
> armor spikes that serve as real weapons in all respects might
> simply be too powerful. Two of the drawbacks of two-handed
> projectile weapon use are (1) drawing AoOs and (2) inability to
> dish out AoOs. It's a fairly major thing to get rid of one of
> those drawbacks. Major enough to actually matter? I dunno. But
> major enough to make me a little uncomfortable.
Total agreement; a simple change in one's armor suddenly serving to
eliminate all these disadvantages is more than a little ludicrous and
munch-munchy.
-Michael
Neil Cerutti
>"Neil Cerutti" <cer...@trans-video.net> wrote in message
>news:slrna8q9ae...@fiad06.norwich.edu...
>> >> >Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are
>> >> >whole body affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow,
>> >>
>> >> Not if you know what the hell you are doing.
>> >
>> > Bah.
>>
>> Whatever. It's possible to stand in a "horse" stance, for
>> instance, enabling you to carry out any action you want to with
>> your upper body while still being able to deliver a powerful kick
>> and a moments notice, in any direction.
>
>At which point, you have engaged in a whole-body affair which
>totally disrupts the use of a bow. Kicking for effect is just a
>*bit* more involved than simply waving your leg in the offending
>direction, and your apparent desire to insist otherwise
>indicates ignorance. Shame on you. Kindly review martial arts
>films footage of side kicks and roundhouses and back kicks and
>crescents and pay close attention to the orientation of the
>hands and torsos of the participants.
Review martial arts film footage? A correctly done kick takes
mere moments to transpire from stance to a return stance.
They don't film kicks like this in movies for an obvious
reason... the audience wants to *see* it.
But the average D&D character is not a martial artist, so except
for monks, a kick as an AoO would be impossible while performing
a full-round action. In my humble opinion.
>> No, my thought was that, if you fall on, e.g., a spiked
>> breastplate, the spikes focus the damage into a small enough
>> area to hurt you.
>
>Incorrect thinking. The spike is attached to the *breastplate*
>and the result is no different than the breasplate hitting the
>ground itself. That's what the breasplate is for . . .
In my opinion, the breastplate works by deflecting the impact off
to the side, though. A direct hit that isn't deflected will kick
your ass, even in a breastplate. A spike attached to a
breastplate will not deflect any force if you fall on it -- it
will, in fact, focus power, and possibly punch that spike right
through your armor.
On the other hand, if you could have enough spikes so that you
always land on 8 to 10 of them, it would ameliorate the effect.
Or, you could have 6-foot spikes sticking out in all directions
from your ankles that perhaps prevent you from ever falling down.
;-)
>> Ugh.
>> I guess this is all moot then, because armor that ridiculous
>> will never be allowed in my campaign. It's useless and
>> dangerous ceremonial crap. No wonder they didn't bother
>> writing many rules for it.
>
>History's record doesn't offer much by way of hugely successful
>types of spiked armor for a reason - however, in a fantasy
>campaign, there are different threats. Nobody tries to *eat*
>real world knights, after all, and there are a lot more
>confrontations with "natural" weapons and nasty tentacles rather
>than men with cold steel. In a different threat environment,
>it's not so absurd that a different approach to defense might
>flourish. Spiked armor is for fighting monsters, and for
>terrorizing peasantry - it's not for fighting armies of Men.
>But for someone who does a lot of monster-hunting, a weaker
>defense against swords for improved survival against toothy
>nasties is a fair trade.
That sounds pretty good, I guess. It's hard to imagine a campaign
where anybody other than a party-neutral NPC could get away with
wearing it very much, though... unless it were magical! Hmmm...
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Jeff Wilder
[ Attacks of Opportunity. ]
| Hrmm. . . they're classified as free actions
Where? I've scoured the sections on Types of Actions and Attacks
of Opportunity and don't see AoOs classified as "free actions"
anywhere. Which isn't to say I didn't overlook it.
This is actually a fairly major change from my understanding of
the rules, so if you have a page number, I'd really appreciate
it.
Jeff
Helge Moulding
> Michael Scott Brown,
> [ Attacks of Opportunity. ]
> | Hrmm. . . they're classified as free actions
> This is actually a fairly major change from my understanding of
Especially since a free action is something you specifically do
on your own turn, while an AoO happens anytime in the round. You
cannot do a free action out of your own turn, I think. Also, you
can perform any number of free actions (within reason, as judged
by the DM) during your turn, while you get just one AoO per round,
or some limited number if you have the Combat Reflexes feat. Even
with CR you get just one AoO per opponent - there's no such limit
to free actions.
AoO are *like* a free action in the sense that they do not replace
the actions you get for your turn. In every other sense that I can
think of, AoO are very different from free actions.
That's not to say there aren't special free actions that have
their own limitations. For example, a character may use a Quickened
spell or spell-like ability, which is in fact classified as a free
action, only once per round. So it's just possible that AoO are
free actions with a pile of special rules. But I don't see where
calling them free actions is at all helpful, since they seem to
be more unlike free actions than like free actions.
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:oadj8.4625
>> be part of what you call "sensibility," I'm not sure.) I think
>> armor spikes that serve as real weapons in all respects might
>> simply be too powerful. Two of the drawbacks of two-handed
>> projectile weapon use are (1) drawing AoOs and (2) inability to
>> dish out AoOs. It's a fairly major thing to get rid of one of
>> those drawbacks. Major enough to actually matter? I dunno. But
>> major enough to make me a little uncomfortable.
>
> Total agreement; a simple change in one's armor suddenly serving to
>eliminate all these disadvantages is more than a little ludicrous and
>munch-munchy.
Pay attention Michael. Spikes don't affect an archer drawing AoOs. They only
eliminate *one* of these disadvantages.
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:13aa8ce8.02031...@posting.google.com...
>> > I don't buy the idea that full-round casting
>> > wizards threaten while they play.
>>
>> By the book, they do.
>
> Via the "any free actions" option? Hmm. By the book, the GM is justified
>in suppressing "free actions" when it is appropriate . . .
No, by the fact that what you're doing has nothing to do with whether you
threaten the spaces around you. It's all about whether or not you are wielding
an appropriate weapon.
Now, you could pick nits and Rule-0 that a wizard that is casting a full round
spell while holding a dagger isn't "wielding" said dagger so much as he's just
holding it, but strictly by the rules he threatens neighboring spaces.
>> > Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective
>> > kicks are whole body affairs that would totally
>> > disrupt use of a bow
>>
>> I'm not disputing your realism argument, Michael. I'm saying that in
>> this particular case, your views of realism and the rules don't mesh.
>
> The rules, as I recall, operate under the presumption that "unarmed
>combat" involves the *hands* for anyone other than a monk, and thus the
>issue is trebly moot for the archer!
Nope, sorry. The rules presume no such thing.
PHB p103:
"Strike, Unarmed: A Medium-size character deals 1d3 points of subdual damage
with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of
attack."
>> > I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but
>> > I don't have the impression that someone who is in spiked
>> > armor suddenly threatens squares with his unarmed attacks.
>>
>> I'm likewise unsure, but under the opposite impression. Or, more
>> precisely, I'm under the impression that when wearing armor spikes,
>> his attacks are no longer "unarmed," and that he therefore threatens
>> AoOs. I could be wrong about this, because I'm going by what's been
>> quoted previously, not by my own look at armor spikes.
>
> It all comes down to just how much like an "armed" person adding spikes
>to the affair makes you - is the person indistinguishable from "equipped
>with a dagger" or is he simply "safe" when making pummeling strikes? Realism
>and sensibility suggests that latter - particularly when it's impossible for
>an archer (presuming standard-issue humanoids) to *also* be equipped with a
>threatening dagger!
Bah. Think Michael. That's only because "standard issue humanoids" have only
two hands with which to wield weapons and it takes both of them to operate a
bow.
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:2llp8ucl14t53citk...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> > I don't buy the idea that full-round casting wizards threaten while
>they
>> >play. After all, if one could take an AoO without interrupting one's
>spell
>> >at all, then one should be able to make a regular melee attack as well,
>as
>> >clearly fighting with the sword has no impact on concentrating on magic!
>>
>> Making an AoO isn't the same as a regular melee attack Michael. You of
>all
>> people should see this. AoOs are when someone does something stupid and
>you
>> stick your sword out and remind them how stupid they're being. You don't
>have
>> to parry, dodge, block, thrust etc until you get an opening because it's
>already
>> there.
>
> "Stick your sword out", my ass! AoOs are still *attacks* with
>*weapons*.
Yeah? And if I'm standing ready with my longsword and some dumbass comes
running by me 5' away trying to get past me, all I've got to do is stick the
sword point in his path and he's going to run himself through. Why can't you
see this?
>Attacks require dedication of the entire body; you can't make a
>credible strike with a medeival weapon (or a martial art) using just your
>arm or simply "sticking out" your weapon - your little footsies and your
>hips have to be involved. But that aside - the point is this: the 3E combat
>model presumes that the hero is effectively "in melee" with *everyone*
>surrounding him in his threat radius - and that's why AoOs are feasible; you
>can exploit momentarily lowered defenses because you are *fighting* these
>people. An attack sequence or swing that you are essentially "already
>making" against your target that would normally have to deal with being
>parried instead carries through.
And this applies to someone who runs through your threatened area outside of
your turn, how exactly?
> However, some fool trying to do archery in the midst of a swordfight is
>_not_ "engaged" in this fashion with those around him; in fact, he's on the
>wrong end of the sticks - they're more intensely attacking _him_ (AoOs) and
>all he can do is try to dodge, as long as he's trying to shoot that bow he
>cannot respond in kind,
>he doesn't have other melee weapons in the dance,
He does if he's wearing armor spikes or has extra hands.
>he's not pressing his attacks against them, he's sure as hell not prepred to
>kick anyone! He'd have to "change weapons".
Not if he could wield another weapon *and* fire his bow.
>> >The sword-in-hand theory works just fine for 1-action casting wizards,
>since
>> >their spell is brief, but full-round casting must negate the wizard's
>threat
>> >radius just like full-round archery or absurdity ensues.
>>
>> Sorry, but full-round archery does not negate a threat range.
>
> Ahem. Bows don't threaten. *That's* what negates threatening!
No Michael, bows not threatening don't "negate" threatening. They simply don't
threaten. They don't prevent other weapons from threatening.
>Taking a
>single shot leaves time to change weapons, you see (shoot,
>move-and-draw-another), but that's not the case with the full-attack option
>unless you throw in some fast-draw.
>
>> Ordinary folks
>> with only 2 arms can't usually wield a weapon and fire a bow, since the
>bow
>> takes 2 hands. Remember the hand crossbow? You can fire it with one hand
>and
>> still threaten with a longsword.
>
> Wasn't thinking on the level of those little jobbers, as should be clear
>from my initial nomenclature improvement - but this observation is agreeable
>enough. But - won't you only threaten if you use "two weapons fighting"
>penalties?
Agreed. I think it'd be entirely appropriate to deny threatening with offhand
weapons (or primary if firing the hand xbow offhanded) if the player didn't want
to take the TWF penalties.
>> > The situation doesn't really depend on the spikes; spike or no
>spike, a
>> >humanoid has legs and could therefore kick things, so why can't archers
>kick
>> >things when they shoot? The problem is more fundamental than armor
>spikage.
>>
>> No really Michael, it's a matter of the non-spikey archer not wielding a
>weapon
>> with which to threaten, whereas the spiky archer does. It's just that
>simple.
>
> I find the postulate that an archer with pointy bits on his shins
>suddenly becomes equipped with a "threatening backup weapon" that he can
>rely upon with impunity while shooting his bow . . . utterly absurd. The
>spikes enhance his unarmed attacks, but if he's using a bow he isn't making
>any.
It's not something he can "rely upon with impunity". There are, as you pointed
out, the TWF penalties to consider.
>> > Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are whole
>body
>> >affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow, further, unless you want
>to
>> >postulate, say, some forward facing spikes on the shins, the real "kick"
>> >from armorspikes is going to be a *knee*, which is a close-fighting
>> >technique, not a 5-radius striking method.
>>
>> Methinks you're over thinking this. Why wouldn't the armor spikes be
>placed
>> where they'd be most useful? Hell, why stop there? Armor spikes should
>be all
>> over the armor. Helmet, shoulders, arms, body (front AND back), elbows,
>knees,
>> boots and yes, even the shins. And when one looks in the book for a
>picture,
>> that's exactly what one finds.
>
> Tsk. Spikes are bad for your armor,
Not in D&D they aren't.
>they guide weapons in rather than
>deflecting; this means that an intelligent armorer will place spikes in the
>*minimum* of places possible that still provides the relevant offensive
>utility. The knee is "ok"; the shins are not so good.
I don't see the shins being a place that spikes would be "bad", unless you just
mean that they're not so effective.
>Hmm. I wonder if
>it's even sensible to launch a martial kick while in heavy armor; I'm having
>trouble seeing Lancelot launch a roundhouse kick.
How about a body check? Could you envision that? What's your fetish with
roundhouse kicks anyway?
>> >with his unarmed attacks. He's in a weird category of having "unarmed
>> >attacks" that don't provoke AoO because they're
>> >hard-and-crunchy-pointy-nasty with built in daggers, as opposed to be
>> >"armed" in the usual sense. This last paragraph is IIRC, though.
>>
>> There's nothing weird about armor spikes. They are light weapons that can
>be
>> used to make regular or offhand melee attacks.
>
> They make your unarmed attacks be *treated* as if armed-with-a-light
>weapon in some cases. It's not clear at all that someone whose armor is
>spiked suddenly threatens the world with his unarmed attacks the way he does
>if armed with a dagger.
"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."
Looks pretty clear to me. You seem to be confusing armor spikes with the
gauntlet. (although why a gauntlet changes one's unarmed-strike damage, and the
rest of their armor doesn't, even though unarmed-strikes don't need to be
punches, is beyond me)
>> rules about grappling, but that's irrelevant just now. Surely you
>wouldn't deny
>> a Xill wielding a bow and two daggers his AoO? Why the human wielding a
>bow and
>> armor spikes?
>
> Your comparison is a pathetic farce, and you should be ashamed for
>making it.
Hello? It's exactly the same thing. A bow wielder who is *also* wielding a
threatening weapon. It demonstrates that bows don't somehow "negate"
threatening as you postulate. Your decision to ignore this point of my argument
is dishonest, and I know you know better.
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:nanp8u43gbvurm0vo...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> > Missile-weapon users don't threaten, and therefore it is not.
>>
>> That's not true. Missile weapons don't threaten, however, wielders of
>missile
>> weapons that are also able to wield another weapon that threatens do
>threaten.
>
> I am using imprecise language - in my head "missile weapon" is
>projectile-shooter gizmo; crossbow, bow, sling, etc.. I think it's possibly
>reasonable to argue that someone who is using a weapon that can be *thrown*
>can threaten squares with it between lobs, but I don't see any provision in
>the game for "also weilding another weapon" while making attacks with a bow.
You're not looking closely enough.
>Missile-weapon-users that are *Archers* don't threaten.
Stop saying that. It's not true.
>This is reinforced
>by discussions (in the supplements, possibly the PhB) of how effective it is
>to make a Sundering attack against a bow; in addition to the weapon being
>relatively fragile, the archer *doesn't get to take the AoO*. Likewise
>unarmed attacks to grab the bow, or to close to a grapple with the archer,
>etc. The archer does *not* get to respond with unarmed attacks as a
>"backup" even if he's a monk in these situations.
Hello! Michael! Are you awake?
The rules also don't go into multi-attacking 4 armed Xill. Not in the PHB. The
combat rules simply *assume* everyone has 2 arms and can't wield a bow and
another weapon. The fact that a normal standard issue humanoid doesn't threaten
is simply because he isn't wielding a melee weapon.
Your threatened area is defined as the area into which you can make an armed
melee attack. It's fairly obvious that under most circumstances a human firing
a longbow isn't going to be able to somehow also be wielding a sword.
>> > The round is six seconds long. It takes about that long for an
>> >unspecialized archer to lead and shoot a moving target once - to attack
>>
>> Are you really suggesting that the archer holds his bow drawn for nearly
>the
>> entire round?
>
> I think that a "basically trained" archer (ie; BAB 1-5 & no relevant
>feats) will spend 1-2 seconds or more preparing the weapon and 3-4 with the
>draw-aim-release sequence. Progressively better archers load more smoothly
>and will have much better instincts about "snap" shooting, until you reach
>the sort of madness we see in certain horse-archery experts or the Legolas
>Standard of recent fame.
And I think you're overthinking the entire affair.
Justin Bacon
> breastplate, the spikes focus the damage into a small enough area
> to hurt you.
I have this problem all the time. I pick up a knife by the handle and attempt
to cut meat with it, but the knife focuses the damage into a small enough area
of my hand to cut me.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
(Warning: This post may have contained heavy sarcasm.)
Neil Cerutti
>"Neil Cerutti" <cer...@trans-video.net> wrote in message
>news:slrna8q9ae...@fiad06.norwich.edu...
>> No, my thought was that, if you fall on, e.g., a spiked
>> breastplate, the spikes focus the damage into a small enough
>> area to hurt you.
>
>I have this problem all the time. I pick up a knife by the
>handle and attempt to cut meat with it, but the knife focuses
>the damage into a small enough area of my hand to cut me.
>
Did you try falling on the knife handle?
PS Don't really try this.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Justin Bacon
If the handle were as broad as my chest (ie, if the handle was a breastplate) I
wouldn't hesitate.
Unsurprisingly, I think you've missed the point of the analogy.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Neil Cerutti
>Neil Cerutti wrote:
>>Justin Bacon posted:
>>>"Neil Cerutti" <cer...@trans-video.net> wrote in message
>>>news:slrna8q9ae...@fiad06.norwich.edu...
>>>> No, my thought was that, if you fall on, e.g., a spiked
>>>> breastplate, the spikes focus the damage into a small enough
>>>> area to hurt you.
>>>
>>>I have this problem all the time. I pick up a knife by the
>>>handle and attempt to cut meat with it, but the knife focuses
>>>the damage into a small enough area of my hand to cut me.
>>>
>>>(Warning: This post may have contained heavy sarcasm.)
>>
>>Did you try falling on the knife handle?
>>
>>PS Don't really try this.
>
>If the handle were as broad as my chest (ie, if the handle was a
>breastplate) I wouldn't hesitate.
Of course not. If Armor Spike were significantly wider at the
base than at the top, you would have no worries.
But they aren't, are they? The pinpoint of force being applied
at the tip of the spike is being spread just a bit by the
widening of the spike where it attaches to the armor. At this
point, your are relying completely on the strength of your armor
plate to absorb around 180 poinds of force focused into a square
inch (guess your weight over the internet... cool huh?).
Is your armor plate strong enough? If it is, then fine, end of
argument. My claim is: maybe it's not.
It could depend on what you fall on, too. Sometimes your spikes
would just impale the dirt, or the peasant, or whatever it was
you fell on.
In addition, if your armor has a preponderance of spikes, then
the effect would again be spread out over the breastplate.
My problem coming into this discussion was thinking that each
armor spike was a 10lb dagger sized thing capable of doing 1d6
damage. I didn't realize that what was meant by the rules was
actually a plethora of small spikes sticking out all over the
place. So yes, I *am* an idiot, but not in the way that you
think.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Kitsune
<kristin...@verizon.net> tippy tapped:
<snip main query for the example>
>Now, can the Ranger packing his Greatsword make an off hand attack with his
>armor spike (a shoulder block or something, or a back-hand I'd imagine), as
>per the fighting with two weapons rules? I can't seem to find anything
>specifically prohibiting it, and the description of the item does say it
>allows an off hand attack.
its kinda similar to the ranger/monk model isn't it (or the monk with
ambidexterity and two weapon fighting)
as a monk's unarmed attack is never treated as an off-hand weapon
(cause it doesn't have to be a punch) could you then use it as your
second attack?
I don't see why not... with a knee or headbut or even a shoulder as
the secondary attack...
logically, it just means you have to get a lot closer and most of
those large weapons really don't allow it (due to how they work - ie
you can't really use a halberd properly at that close a range)
>Is it cheesy? No doubt. But is it *legal*? That's what I'm wondering.
>Opinions? Counter-quotes disproving this? Rude comments?
Cheesy, yep.
Legal? depends on your DM...
Opinions? I like it lots... (then again, I'm not quite happy with the
unarmed fighting rules, but that's just me)
Kitsune, as they say, if you don't like a rule, change em.
--
- Quis Hanc Felem Exhaurit -
Kitsune: My brain is like a walnut
Barbarella: Wot brown and crinkly and good in cakes?
Michael Scott Brown
> >totally disrupts the use of a bow. Kicking for effect is just a
> >*bit* more involved than simply waving your leg in the offending
> >direction, and your apparent desire to insist otherwise
> >indicates ignorance. Shame on you. Kindly review martial arts
> >films footage of side kicks and roundhouses and back kicks and
> >crescents and pay close attention to the orientation of the
> >hands and torsos of the participants.
>
> Review martial arts film footage? A correctly done kick takes
> mere moments to transpire from stance to a return stance.
> They don't film kicks like this in movies for an obvious
> reason... the audience wants to *see* it.
<shakes head sadly> It's not the *speed* of the attack, you thickheaded
fool, it's *what the martial artist has to do to deliver it*. Which TOTALLY
DISRUPTS THE USE OF A BOW.
> >> No, my thought was that, if you fall on, e.g., a spiked
> >> breastplate, the spikes focus the damage into a small enough
> >> area to hurt you.
> >
> >Incorrect thinking. The spike is attached to the *breastplate*
> >and the result is no different than the breasplate hitting the
> >ground itself. That's what the breasplate is for . . .
>
> In my opinion, the breastplate works by deflecting the impact off
> to the side, though.
Your "opinion" on the matter is irrelevant, as this is a matter of
facts. The *fact* of the matter is that for plates of armor, the force of
an impact on one side is *DISTRIBUTED* across the entire area of the face,
whether that impact is delivered by a fist, a spear, or a reaction force
transmitted through an attached spike. The plates work essentially as
"inverse wedges", lowering the force per unit area. This effect is in
*addition* to deflection, which enhances the usefulness of this defense
technique by reducing the amount of energy that projects into the target.
> A direct hit that isn't deflected will kick
> your ass, even in a breastplate.
If the hit isn't deflected, then the force of the blow will transmit
through the breastplate to you and you will still be *pushed* the same
amount - but the breastplate generates a diffuse impact rather than a
concentrated one and so you will be *less injured* by the blow than you
would be without it.
This might come as a shock, but that stuff called "protective gear" used
in sports actually allows you to take hits . . . .
> A spike attached to a
> breastplate will not deflect any force if you fall on it -- it
> will, in fact, focus power, and possibly punch that spike right
> through your armor.
Backwards, no less! You really need to study some mechanics before you
discuss this matter again. I direct you to an invention called the
"thumbtack" as a start for your case study, which is apparently just as
dangerous to step onto with the point down as it is up. Who knew?
You should also examine eulerian instability, energy dissipation through
plastic deformation, the yield strengths of dirt and stone vrs. metal . . .
you'll find that your suggestion is really quite ludicrous. Falling on your
spikes will punch the spike into the ground and *bend the spike* well before
it will somehow drive the spike backwards through its base.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> No, by the fact that what you're doing has nothing to do with whether you
> threaten the spaces around you. It's all about whether or not you are
wielding
> an appropriate weapon.
>
> Now, you could pick nits and Rule-0 that a wizard that is casting a full
round
> spell while holding a dagger isn't "wielding" said dagger so much as he's
just
> holding it, but strictly by the rules he threatens neighboring spaces.
Ahem. You've hit the nail on the head and then promptly ignored the
implications. A wizard who is *concentrating* on a spell is _not_
well-described as someone who is weilding a weapon at that time. You might
recall, he provokes attacks of opportunity - which is the hallmark of an
individual who is *not defending himself*. If he's not defending himself,
how on earth is he somehow also being the gatekeeper for
safe-combat-practices for all these people around him? If his concentration
is interrupted by *being* attacked, and by "violent motion", why isn't it
interrupted by *attacking*? Can a spellcasting wizard use melee combat feats
like Expertise? Can he conduct combat manouvers? Can he Fight Defensively?
Can he Aid Another?
Is he weilding that weapon or not? I think - particularly given the
"hand(s) free required" nature of spellcasting, that it's rather ludicrous
to suggest that "one hand" is fighting with the weapon while the "other
hand" is casting the spell. One is either spellcasting and holding a
weapon, or one is fighting with a weapon- one is not doing *both*
simultaneously.
> > The rules, as I recall, operate under the presumption that "unarmed
> >combat" involves the *hands* for anyone other than a monk, and thus the
> >issue is trebly moot for the archer!
>
> Nope, sorry. The rules presume no such thing.
Then why does the Monk class description . . . ahh, it's an "off-hand is
meangless" discussion, not the "monks use their feet and others don't"
discussion.
> > It all comes down to just how much like an "armed" person adding
spikes
> >to the affair makes you - is the person indistinguishable from "equipped
> >with a dagger" or is he simply "safe" when making pummeling strikes?
Realism
> >and sensibility suggests that latter - particularly when it's impossible
for
> >an archer (presuming standard-issue humanoids) to *also* be equipped with
a
> >threatening dagger!
>
> Bah. Think Michael. That's only because "standard issue humanoids" have
only
> two hands with which to wield weapons and it takes both of them to operate
a
> bow.
<yawn> Your retreat to the Xill as the only way to prop up your position
is noted, and continues to be condemned as a farce due to utter lack of
relevance.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Of course not. If Armor Spike were significantly wider at the
> base than at the top, you would have no worries.
>
> But they aren't, are they? The pinpoint of force being applied
> at the tip of the spike is being spread just a bit by the
> widening of the spike where it attaches to the armor.
At which point, the force is spread BY THE ARMOR.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > "Stick your sword out", my ass! AoOs are still *attacks* with
> >*weapons*.
>
> Yeah? And if I'm standing ready with my longsword and some dumbass comes
> running by me 5' away trying to get past me, all I've got to do is stick
the
> sword point in his path and he's going to run himself through. Why can't
you
> see this?
<shakes head sadly> Go, go now and learn something about how to use a
sword. If you want him to run himself through, you have to not only put the
sword point in his path, you have to put *YOU* in his path, so as to get
your body behind the line of the sword to brace it. Otherwise the sword and
your arm will just bend with the collision and do little more than scratch
him. Further, in an 'attack of opportunity' situation where you're
"dueling" with one or more other people, someone running past you is better
dealt with by a slash as he goes by, rather than abandoning you commitments
to your other dance partners by shifting over.
> >Attacks require dedication of the entire body; you can't make a
> >credible strike with a medeival weapon (or a martial art) using just your
> >arm or simply "sticking out" your weapon - your little footsies and your
> >hips have to be involved. But that aside - the point is this: the 3E
combat
> >model presumes that the hero is effectively "in melee" with *everyone*
> >surrounding him in his threat radius - and that's why AoOs are feasible;
you
> >can exploit momentarily lowered defenses because you are *fighting* these
> >people. An attack sequence or swing that you are essentially "already
> >making" against your target that would normally have to deal with being
> >parried instead carries through.
>
> And this applies to someone who runs through your threatened area outside
of
> your turn, how exactly?
He enters the dance, you redirect an attack.
> > However, some fool trying to do archery in the midst of a swordfight
is
> >_not_ "engaged" in this fashion with those around him; in fact, he's on
the
> >wrong end of the sticks - they're more intensely attacking _him_ (AoOs)
and
> >all he can do is try to dodge, as long as he's trying to shoot that bow
he
> >cannot respond in kind,
> >he doesn't have other melee weapons in the dance,
>
> He does if he's wearing armor spikes or has extra hands.
You might do well to contemplate why gauntlets don't provide this
opportunity, and compare it to your rather absurd contentions about armor
spikes.
> >he's not pressing his attacks against them, he's sure as hell not prepred
to
> >kick anyone! He'd have to "change weapons".
>
> Not if he could wield another weapon *and* fire his bow.
For the humanoids in question, this is *not an option*.
> > Ahem. Bows don't threaten. *That's* what negates threatening!
>
> No Michael, bows not threatening don't "negate" threatening. They simply
don't
> threaten. They don't prevent other weapons from threatening.
Using the bow = *not using other weapons*.
> > I find the postulate that an archer with pointy bits on his shins
> >suddenly becomes equipped with a "threatening backup weapon" that he can
> >rely upon with impunity while shooting his bow . . . utterly absurd. The
> >spikes enhance his unarmed attacks, but if he's using a bow he isn't
making
> >any.
>
> It's not something he can "rely upon with impunity". There are, as you
pointed
> out, the TWF penalties to consider.
You are sitting here, in public, suggesting that it is possible to use
the two-weapons fighting penalties to allow an archer to *fire his bow*
at -X AND take an "extra kick attack".
> >they guide weapons in rather than
> >deflecting; this means that an intelligent armorer will place spikes in
the
> >*minimum* of places possible that still provides the relevant offensive
> >utility. The knee is "ok"; the shins are not so good.
>
> I don't see the shins being a place that spikes would be "bad", unless you
just
> mean that they're not so effective.
To spike up the shins so that a kick would deliver them into the target
they have to be angled up (because shins are swung on arcs) which means that
they're a recipie for getting your leg cut off due to the "waveguide" they
provide. A spike on the knee deflects attacks that hit it to the side which
then hits the angled joint-guard and away - decent place, as long as you
don't do somersaults - and you can rear-angle forearm spikes and still use
them with reverses. But the shins . . . I'm leery.
> >Hmm. I wonder if
> >it's even sensible to launch a martial kick while in heavy armor; I'm
having
> >trouble seeing Lancelot launch a roundhouse kick.
>
> How about a body check? Could you envision that? What's your fetish with
> roundhouse kicks anyway?
If you want to threaten a radius, you need to do so with an attack
technique that offers greater range than your fists. Range comes from the
long kicks; roundhouses, sides, etc.- not punches and certainly not kicks to
the shins. The "body check" you envision, further, is a close combat
manouver; you'd have to be in the same square to attack someone that way
(it's basically a bull-rush).
> > They make your unarmed attacks be *treated* as if armed-with-a-light
> >weapon in some cases. It's not clear at all that someone whose armor is
> >spiked suddenly threatens the world with his unarmed attacks the way he
does
> >if armed with a dagger.
>
> "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."
Psst. "Regular melee attack" ... "IN THIS CASE". Ie; the spikes count
as a light weapon if making *regular* melee attacks.
-Michael
Justisaur
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> "Jeff Wilder" <wild...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tBHi8.2320
> > Well, this is true, but consider an armed wizard casting a
> > full-round spell. If I've got my one requisite hand free to
> > cast, and the other hand holds a long sword, I'm still
> > threatening adjacent squares while performing magic.
>
> I don't buy the idea that full-round casting wizards threaten while they
> play. After all, if one could take an AoO without interrupting one's spell
> at all, then one should be able to make a regular melee attack as well, as
> clearly fighting with the sword has no impact on concentrating on magic!
> The sword-in-hand theory works just fine for 1-action casting wizards, since
> their spell is brief, but full-round casting must negate the wizard's threat
> radius just like full-round archery or absurdity ensues. My books are still
> in their boxes (nobody comes out until the bookcases arrive this Saturday)
> so I can't check on this, but this observation is so incredibly sensible
> that I'd be surprised to find it unsupported (or is this a loophole waiting
> for errata?).
>
If this were so, then fighters, etc would ruin their attack routine by
taking an AOO, IMHO.
> > maybe I AM doing all those things, but in that case why can't the
> > archery guy? Because he doesn't have a hand free? Armor spikes
> > don't REQUIRE a hand free.
>
> The situation doesn't really depend on the spikes; spike or no spike, a
> humanoid has legs and could therefore kick things, so why can't archers kick
> things when they shoot? The problem is more fundamental than armor spikage.
> Further, consider touch-of-realism-101; effective kicks are whole body
> affairs that would totally disrupt use of a bow, further, unless you want to
> postulate, say, some forward facing spikes on the shins, the real "kick"
> from armorspikes is going to be a *knee*, which is a close-fighting
> technique, not a 5-radius striking method.
> I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but I don't have the
> impression that someone who is in spiked armor suddenly threatens squares
> with his unarmed attacks. He's in a weird category of having "unarmed
> attacks" that don't provoke AoO because they're
> hard-and-crunchy-pointy-nasty with built in daggers, as opposed to be
> "armed" in the usual sense. This last paragraph is IIRC, though.
>
They are not actually unarmed attacks by the rules though unless used in
a grappling attack.
--
- Justisaur -
"When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often,
that individual is crazy." - Dave Barry
Michael Scott Brown
news:3C8E9C6B...@surewest.net...
> > play. After all, if one could take an AoO without interrupting one's
spell
> > at all, then one should be able to make a regular melee attack as well,
as
> > clearly fighting with the sword has no impact on concentrating on magic!
>
> taking an AOO, IMHO.
That is a remarkably stupid conclusion to draw. Redirecting one of many
swings with your sword to the guy whose guard is down rightnow somehow
interferes with swinging your sword at one or more people that might already
include him anyway? Bah.
I'm glad you recognize that your opinion should be 'humble' on this
point.
-Michael
Justin Bacon
>> But they aren't, are they? The pinpoint of force being applied
>> at the tip of the spike is being spread just a bit by the
>> widening of the spike where it attaches to the armor.
>
> At which point, the force is spread BY THE ARMOR.
Neil's argument basically boils down to this: If you apply enough force to the
spike so that it punches right through your armor, you're in trouble.
Which is definitely true. If you've applied enough force to the base of that
spike to make it punch through tanned leather (let alone a solid plate of
steel) my skin and internal organs are in serious jeopardy.
Neil, however, is still vastly underestimating the amount of force required to
do that, though. Falling down isn't going to do it. Falling off a 200 ft. cliff
onto granite might do it, if I somehow managed to hit just one particular spike
and put the entire force of my fall on it. Of course, if I've fallen off a 200
ft. cliff the *least* of my worries is that some freak accident is going to
cause one individual spike to hit the ground ahead of all the others.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justisaur
> >further, unless you want to postulate, say, some forward facing
> >spikes on the shins, the real "kick" from armorspikes is going
> >to be a *knee*, which is a close-fighting technique, not a
> >5-radius striking method.
> >
> >I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but I don't
> >have the impression that someone who is in spiked armor suddenly
> >threatens squares with his unarmed attacks.
>
It's not unarmed though. And as far as I can tell (from the books and
previous threads) you can do an AOO with an unarmed attack anyway
> According to the rules, they count as light weapons for purposes
> of making a melee attack. But what does that even mean?
>
> The rules for armor spikes are quite incomplete. It looks like
> DMs will need to instatiate some house rules for them. I agree
> with much of your thinking on the subject.
I agree the rules are woefully incomplete.
>
> Here's some thoughts:
>
> The shortspear sized spikes the rules discuss would seem to me to
> be quite hazardous to the wearer as to well as to her victims! A
> person in spiked armor who falls down is going to need to
> make a Reflex Save to avoid taking some subdual damage.
>
It's not shortspear sized I would assume any more than morningstars have
spear length spikes. I'd assume that's for multiple short, maybe knife
sized (maybe smaller) spikes all over, and assuming 1-3 (or more if they
are smaller) actually hit.
Justisaur
> History's record doesn't offer much by way of hugely successful types of
> spiked armor for a reason - however, in a fantasy campaign, there are
> different threats. Nobody tries to *eat* real world knights, after all, and
> there are a lot more confrontations with "natural" weapons and nasty
> tentacles rather than men with cold steel. In a different threat
> environment, it's not so absurd that a different approach to defense might
> flourish. Spiked armor is for fighting monsters, and for terrorizing
> peasantry - it's not for fighting armies of Men. But for someone who does a
> lot of monster-hunting, a weaker defense against swords for improved
> survival against toothy nasties is a fair trade.
>
This is part of the problem, the game mechanics do not substansiate that
it's for fighting monsters. You have to make a successful *attack* when
grappling to apply the damage, which is fairly unlikey, and also usually
counterproductive (escaping usually being a better option if you have a
successful grapple attack in these circumstances).
Michael Scott Brown
> > flourish. Spiked armor is for fighting monsters, and for terrorizing
> > peasantry - it's not for fighting armies of Men. But for someone who
does a
> > lot of monster-hunting, a weaker defense against swords for improved
> > survival against toothy nasties is a fair trade.
> >
>
> This is part of the problem, the game mechanics do not substansiate that
> it's for fighting monsters. You have to make a successful *attack* when
> grappling to apply the damage, which is fairly unlikey, and also usually
> counterproductive (escaping usually being a better option if you have a
> successful grapple attack in these circumstances).
I am under the impression that the damage is also delivered to anyone
making a grappling attack against the individual; is this untrue?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > >I haven't double checked the notes on this issue, but I don't
> > >have the impression that someone who is in spiked armor suddenly
> > >threatens squares with his unarmed attacks.
>
> It's not unarmed though. And as far as I can tell (from the books and
> previous threads) you can do an AOO with an unarmed attack anyway
You can certainly use an unarmed attack for your AoO when someone does a
combat manouver that gives *its target* one; that is, a Disarm or Sunder and
the like (of course, that creates an opportunity for them). That's not a
threat radius issue to me the way it is in the situation where someone is
"provoking AoOs" in general (due to lowered defenses) such that *anyone who
threatens him* can take a free whack. Do your unarmed attacks actually
threaten squares but are just foolish to use because attacking with them
gets you attacked in most cases and thus one usually doesn't *use* them even
if one could, or do they simply not offer a threat radius at all? Bugger.
Hrmm. Rummaging around the woodwork of the SRD, threat radius there is
defined as "any square into which you can make a melee attack", which would
include unarmed attacks even in the general case. By that strict
interpretation, armor spikes don't "add" a threat radius so much as make it
easier to exploit it (no more counterattacks when you attack)... but that's
not really the issue. The issue is: does an archer threaten the squares
around him with his unarmed attacks?
-Michael
Jeff Wilder
| Rummaging around the woodwork of the SRD, threat
| radius there is defined as "any square into which you
| can make a melee attack", which would include unarmed
| attacks even in the general case.
No, because unarmed attacks are a special case. They don't
threaten "in the general case." Threatening with unarmed attacks
is the point of the Improved Unarmed feat.
| The issue is: does an archer threaten the squares
| around him with his unarmed attacks?
IMO, you summed up the issue in an earlier post: "Are armored
spikes a weapon for the purpose of threatening?" Having looked
at the rules (finally), which explicitly state that armored
spikes CAN be used to make attacks as a weapon, I can find no
rule saying that they don't threaten.
It'd be a fine house rule to make -- as a player, I'd accept
it -- but it would be a house rule.
To be completely clear: under the rules, an archer with armored
spikes DOES THREATEN the squares around him. This is a rules
argument; it's not a realism argument or a game-balance argument.
Under those, the outcome is probably different.
Michael Scott Brown
> "Michael Scott Brown":
>
> | Rummaging around the woodwork of the SRD, threat
> | radius there is defined as "any square into which you
> | can make a melee attack", which would include unarmed
> | attacks even in the general case.
>
> No, because unarmed attacks are a special case. They don't
> threaten "in the general case." Threatening with unarmed attacks
> is the point of the Improved Unarmed feat.
The SRD is terse on this issue - does the full PhB state clearly that
non-monk fists don't threaten *at all*? Or are we just assuming this? I
certainly had it in my head for some reason, which suggests that I've read
it - but the SRD's legalese (at least on threatening, I can't find a
discussion of unarmed combat in general) leaves the possibility open, and
now I'm properly confused.
If the default condition is "unarmed=no threatening" then we're back to
the usual objections about the spikes adding a threat radius where there
wasn't one before, of course. You can either reach your enemies or you
can't, and spikes on your armor aren't going to change that. Seeing as we
probably should allow two *unarmed* people to threaten one another in
combat, it stands to reason that there actually is an unarmed threat radius
when you're in a position to use such, no?
Poking through the woodwork on gauntlets by the way, we see some
interesting splitting of hairs. A gauntlet allows the attack to do real
damage, but it is *still* otherwise treated as an unarmed attack; so using
the gauntlet provokes attacks of opportunity. Improved unarmed fighting (as
per the SRD, at least), *only* treats the character as armed for the
purposes of *not being attacked in turn* when making unarmed attacks; it
doesn't mean "the character is armed in general" and would neccesarily
benefit from all the relevant perks. Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, but
their damage is treated as "weapon damage" for the purposes of augmenting
such. There are very specific negations of the unarmed penalties going on
here.
> | The issue is: does an archer threaten the squares
> | around him with his unarmed attacks?
>
> IMO, you summed up the issue in an earlier post: "Are armored
> spikes a weapon for the purpose of threatening?" Having looked
> at the rules (finally), which explicitly state that armored
> spikes CAN be used to make attacks as a weapon, I can find no
> rule saying that they don't threaten.
But look carefully at how that's phrased - can *make attacks* _as_ if
using a light weapon; which says to me (a) treat it like a "light weapon"
for two weapons fighting purposes or whenever else it matters and (b) the
individual is treated *as if* armed and therefore doesn't provoke attacks of
opportunity. But "making (unarmed) attacks" as if armed is not the same as
being armed, if you see what I'm saying - when you attack, you do so safely
doesn't neccessarily also mean "you have a threat radius" (unless you
already had one).
Further, I think it's very important to figure out whether or not it is
officially ludicrous to even contemplate the archer having unarmed attacks
available to him for the purpose of threatening the world in the first
place. I just do *not* buy that an archer would be able to kick people
while using his bow in the first place, and I find particularly
objectionable the logic of the suggestion that, if he couldn't before his
armor grew spikes (ie; no threatening at all unarmed), he should be able to
now that his armor does - he doesn't have any more reach than he did before.
> To be completely clear: under the rules, an archer with armored
> spikes DOES THREATEN the squares around him.
Bah. :)
IMO, as long as he's armed with a bow there is no melee attacking for
Jose. He can't possibly even begin to threaten the squares around him until
he changes to melee weapons, which might be his armor (ie; drop bow).
-Michael
Jeff Wilder
| > No, because unarmed attacks are a special case.
| The SRD is terse on this issue - does the full PhB state
| clearly that non-monk fists don't threaten *at all*?
Actually, no. The confusing wording on page 140 of the PHB thrw
me, and so far as I can find otherwise, an unarmed opponent DOES
threaten. The wording led to me screwing up Improved Unarmed
Strike, too, the point of which isn't to threaten, but rather to
prevent others from gaining AoOs on YOU.
| I certainly had it in my head for some reason, which
| suggests that I've read it
That's exactly my feeling. But now I can't find it, and, as you
said, now I'm confused. I feel strongly enough that normal
unarmed attacks can't threaten that I'd almost be willing to bet
on it ... but I can't FIND it.
Maybe it has to do with the Subdual Damage rules?
Dammit.
Isn't there a feat in "Sword and Fist" that does something like
make a monk look like a normal, non-threatening HTH combatant?
Jeff
Ed Chauvin IV
<yawn> Your retreat to the wizard as the only way to prop up your position
is noted, and continues to be condemned as a farce due to utter lack of
relevance.
Ed Chauvin IV
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:a5es8uop01nj71rei...@enews.newsguy.com...
>
>> > "Stick your sword out", my ass! AoOs are still *attacks* with
>> >*weapons*.
>>
>> Yeah? And if I'm standing ready with my longsword and some dumbass comes
>> running by me 5' away trying to get past me, all I've got to do is stick
>the
>> sword point in his path and he's going to run himself through. Why can't
>you
>> see this?
>
> <shakes head sadly> Go, go now and learn something about how to use a
>sword. If you want him to run himself through, you have to not only put the
>sword point in his path, you have to put *YOU* in his path, so as to get
>your body behind the line of the sword to brace it. Otherwise the sword and
>your arm will just bend with the collision and do little more than scratch
>him. Further, in an 'attack of opportunity' situation where you're
>"dueling" with one or more other people, someone running past you is better
>dealt with by a slash as he goes by, rather than abandoning you commitments
>to your other dance partners by shifting over.
Thank you for the enlightenment Michael, now explain to me why slashing someone
who's running by you is really much different than sticking your sword out and
reminding them how stupid it is to run past someone with a 5' sharpened steel
bar?
>> >Attacks require dedication of the entire body; you can't make a
>> >credible strike with a medeival weapon (or a martial art) using just your
>> >arm or simply "sticking out" your weapon - your little footsies and your
>> >hips have to be involved. But that aside - the point is this: the 3E
>combat
>> >model presumes that the hero is effectively "in melee" with *everyone*
>> >surrounding him in his threat radius - and that's why AoOs are feasible;
>you
>> >can exploit momentarily lowered defenses because you are *fighting* these
>> >people. An attack sequence or swing that you are essentially "already
>> >making" against your target that would normally have to deal with being
>> >parried instead carries through.
>>
>> And this applies to someone who runs through your threatened area outside
>of
>> your turn, how exactly?
>
> He enters the dance, you redirect an attack.
What? He's not dancing, he's running by. He doesn't even have to pay any
attention to you. If he's within 5', and you've got AoOs left, you get to smack
him.
>> > However, some fool trying to do archery in the midst of a swordfight
>is
>> >_not_ "engaged" in this fashion with those around him; in fact, he's on
>the
>> >wrong end of the sticks - they're more intensely attacking _him_ (AoOs)
>and
>> >all he can do is try to dodge, as long as he's trying to shoot that bow
>he
>> >cannot respond in kind,
>> >he doesn't have other melee weapons in the dance,
>>
>> He does if he's wearing armor spikes or has extra hands.
>
> You might do well to contemplate why gauntlets don't provide this
>opportunity, and compare it to your rather absurd contentions about armor
>spikes.
It's been brought to my attention that weapons aren't required to threaten, so
what's your point?
>> >he's not pressing his attacks against them, he's sure as hell not prepred
>to
>> >kick anyone! He'd have to "change weapons".
>>
>> Not if he could wield another weapon *and* fire his bow.
>
> For the humanoids in question, this is *not an option*.
>
>> > Ahem. Bows don't threaten. *That's* what negates threatening!
>>
>> No Michael, bows not threatening don't "negate" threatening. They simply
>don't
>> threaten. They don't prevent other weapons from threatening.
>
> Using the bow = *not using other weapons*.
Irrelevant. Even a non-spikey archer threatens the areas around him if he's
willing to accept TWF penalties.
>> > I find the postulate that an archer with pointy bits on his shins
>> >suddenly becomes equipped with a "threatening backup weapon" that he can
>> >rely upon with impunity while shooting his bow . . . utterly absurd. The
>> >spikes enhance his unarmed attacks, but if he's using a bow he isn't
>making
>> >any.
>>
>> It's not something he can "rely upon with impunity". There are, as you
>pointed
>> out, the TWF penalties to consider.
>
> You are sitting here, in public, suggesting that it is possible to use
>the two-weapons fighting penalties to allow an archer to *fire his bow*
>at -X AND take an "extra kick attack".
And you're saying it's not. The rules, however, agree with me.
>> >they guide weapons in rather than
>> >deflecting; this means that an intelligent armorer will place spikes in
>the
>> >*minimum* of places possible that still provides the relevant offensive
>> >utility. The knee is "ok"; the shins are not so good.
>>
>> I don't see the shins being a place that spikes would be "bad", unless you
>just
>> mean that they're not so effective.
>
> To spike up the shins so that a kick would deliver them into the target
>they have to be angled up (because shins are swung on arcs) which means that
>they're a recipie for getting your leg cut off due to the "waveguide" they
>provide. A spike on the knee deflects attacks that hit it to the side which
>then hits the angled joint-guard and away - decent place, as long as you
>don't do somersaults - and you can rear-angle forearm spikes and still use
>them with reverses. But the shins . . . I'm leery.
I think you're only considering a very few types of kicks when you think about
this. Why couldn't the spikes be relatively short and placed at right angles to
the shin?
>> >Hmm. I wonder if
>> >it's even sensible to launch a martial kick while in heavy armor; I'm
>having
>> >trouble seeing Lancelot launch a roundhouse kick.
>>
>> How about a body check? Could you envision that? What's your fetish with
>> roundhouse kicks anyway?
>
> If you want to threaten a radius, you need to do so with an attack
>technique that offers greater range than your fists. Range comes from the
>long kicks; roundhouses, sides, etc.- not punches and certainly not kicks to
>the shins. The "body check" you envision, further, is a close combat
>manouver; you'd have to be in the same square to attack someone that way
>(it's basically a bull-rush).
Are you going to now suggest that a Bull Rush is not something one could do as
an AoO?
>> > They make your unarmed attacks be *treated* as if armed-with-a-light
>> >weapon in some cases. It's not clear at all that someone whose armor is
>> >spiked suddenly threatens the world with his unarmed attacks the way he
>does
>> >if armed with a dagger.
>>
>> "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."
>
> Psst. "Regular melee attack" ... "IN THIS CASE". Ie; the spikes count
>as a light weapon if making *regular* melee attacks.
I'll just reiterate here that wielding a weapon isn't something that's required
in order to make an AoO.
Ed Chauvin IV
No.
Well, OK, it's not that simple.
The spikes can be used when you are grappling and make a successful grapple
check. Fortunately for our spiked friend who just got grappled by that
shambling mound, both combatants are considered to be grappling and can attempt
to damage their opponent.
So, no you don't just automatically take d6 from a spiked armor wearer that you
grapple (it's assumed that you try to put your hands (and the rest of you) in
safe places I suppose), but you do run the risk of him opting to try to do it
anyway.
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Michael Scott Brown":
>
>| Rummaging around the woodwork of the SRD, threat
>| radius there is defined as "any square into which you
>| can make a melee attack", which would include unarmed
>| attacks even in the general case.
>
>No, because unarmed attacks are a special case. They don't
>threaten "in the general case." Threatening with unarmed attacks
>is the point of the Improved Unarmed feat.
There is nothing special about IUS that suddenly "allows" an unarmed combatant
to threaten the area around him. Anyone who can make a melee attack (armed or
not) threatens, it's just not as smart for most unarmed fighters to take
advantage of the AoOs they're entitled to.
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:qtcs8u80t1uduj2ml...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> No, by the fact that what you're doing has nothing to do with whether you
>> threaten the spaces around you. It's all about whether or not you are
>wielding
>> an appropriate weapon.
>>
>> Now, you could pick nits and Rule-0 that a wizard that is casting a full
>round
>> spell while holding a dagger isn't "wielding" said dagger so much as he's
>just
>> holding it, but strictly by the rules he threatens neighboring spaces.
>
> Ahem. You've hit the nail on the head and then promptly ignored the
>implications. A wizard who is *concentrating* on a spell is _not_
>well-described as someone who is weilding a weapon at that time. You might
>recall, he provokes attacks of opportunity - which is the hallmark of an
>individual who is *not defending himself*. If he's not defending himself,
>how on earth is he somehow also being the gatekeeper for
>safe-combat-practices for all these people around him? If his concentration
>is interrupted by *being* attacked, and by "violent motion", why isn't it
>interrupted by *attacking*?
Who said there wouldn't be a concentration check called for?
>Can a spellcasting wizard use melee combat feats
>like Expertise? Can he conduct combat manouvers? Can he Fight Defensively?
>Can he Aid Another?
Of course not Michael, he's not able to break the rules of how many actions are
allowed in a round. Of course, he could certainly use Dodge, Deflect Arrows,
Improved Critical, Improved Disarm, Improved Initiative, Improved Trip, Improved
TWF, Improved US, Lightning Reflexes... And yes, even Combat Reflexes.
> Is he weilding that weapon or not? I think - particularly given the
>"hand(s) free required" nature of spellcasting, that it's rather ludicrous
>to suggest that "one hand" is fighting with the weapon while the "other
>hand" is casting the spell. One is either spellcasting and holding a
>weapon, or one is fighting with a weapon- one is not doing *both*
>simultaneously.
I think you're over thinking here again. All the wizard has to do is hold the
weapon in a menacing fashion and wait for some dumb putz to try doing something
stupid close to him.
>> > It all comes down to just how much like an "armed" person adding
>spikes
>> >to the affair makes you - is the person indistinguishable from "equipped
>> >with a dagger" or is he simply "safe" when making pummeling strikes?
>Realism
>> >and sensibility suggests that latter - particularly when it's impossible
>for
>> >an archer (presuming standard-issue humanoids) to *also* be equipped with
>a
>> >threatening dagger!
>>
>> Bah. Think Michael. That's only because "standard issue humanoids" have
>only
>> two hands with which to wield weapons and it takes both of them to operate
>a
>> bow.
>
> <yawn> Your retreat to the Xill as the only way to prop up your position
Hold on now, that's hardly a "retreat to the only way." Michael. Let's at least
try to keep the appearance of being gentlemanly here.
>is noted, and continues to be condemned as a farce due to utter lack of
>relevance.
You know, you may be right. Though I'm still not entirely convinced the Xill
are totally irrelevant. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to the example's
irrelevant qualities?
After reading some of these passages in the rules, I'm starting to see the issue
a bit differently. But this is really just a matter of whether an archer is
allowed to threaten or not. I don't see any support in the rules for
disallowing archers from making AoOs just because they're shooting a bow. TWF
penalties if they use one, yes. Not allowed to make the AoO? There's just
nothing there.
Douglas Bailey
> "Michael Scott Brown":
> | The SRD is terse on this issue - does the full PhB state
> | clearly that non-monk fists don't threaten *at all*?
>
> ...so far as I can find...an unarmed opponent DOES threaten...now
> I'm confused. I feel strongly enough that normal unarmed attacks
> can't threaten that I'd almost be willing to bet on it ... but I
> can't FIND it.
I think unarmed attacks *must* be intended to threaten by the rules
writers: wasn't there a discussion in which someone at WotC agreed that
an unarmed person making an AoO would in turn *provoke* an AoO from
armed combatants threatening it?
If that's the case, it means that unarmed combatants *can* make AoO (or
the condition would never arise). And if that's true, they must be able
threaten.
In any event, the updated PHB Glossary on the WotC site
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Glossary.pdf) says -- under the
definition for "threaten" -- that "Creatures threaten all areas into
which they can make melee attacks." And it lists an "unarmed attack" as
"a melee attack made with no weapon in hand." That sounds pretty
conclusive to me, but I'm open to the possibility of having missed
something.
doug
--
---------------douglas bailey (trys...@world.std.com)---------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Jeff Wilder
> If the default condition is "unarmed=no threatening" then
> we're back to the usual objections about the spikes adding
> a threat radius where there wasn't one before, of course.
The problem with your model of "threat-radius" in Attacks of
Opportunities is that it's not consistent. A monk and another PC have
the same size and reach, yet the other PC doesn't threaten bare-handed
and the monk does. (Again, as you specified, this assumes
"Non-Improved Unarmed means No Threat.") Barring arguments such as
"monks can kick further" -- arguments that aren't supported in the
rules -- the difference in whether each combatant threatens MUST be
something other than "threat-radius." Under the same assumption, a
halfling with a dagger threatens, while a half-orc unarmed doesn't?
Again, "threat-radius" doesn't work.
One possibility is "damage type" -- i.e., subdual or normal -- but
this doesn't fit for various reasons that are fairly obvious. Another
possibility is whether the combatant is "armed" or "treated as armed."
IF "Non-Improved Unarmed means No Threat," this possibility is the
one that fits best. And this possibility means that armor spikes
threaten.
Note that I think "threat-radius" works fine if unarmed combatants CAN
threaten. But in that case, obviously so can the guy with armor
spikes.
It sure would be nice if we knew for certain whether or not unarmed
combatants can threaten, huh?
> Seeing as we probably should allow two *unarmed* people to
> threaten one another in combat, it stands to reason that
> there actually is an unarmed threat radius when you're in
> a position to use such, no?
In at least one instance, this is not true. See page 140 of the PHB:
an unarmed person attacking another unarmed person DOES NOT provoke an
AoO from the target. (Or from anyone else standing around.) Granted,
this is a special case.
I'm not sure about whether two unarmed people threaten each other in
other instances. I could live with it either way.
> > IMO, you summed up the issue in an earlier post: "Are armored spikes
> > weapons?"
> But look carefully at how that's phrased - can *make attacks*
> _as_ if using a light weapon; which says to me (a) treat it
> like a "light weapon" for two weapons fighting purposes or
> whenever else it matters and (b) the individual is treated
> *as if* armed and therefore doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Or it can be read as "can make attacks with the spikes as a weapon,
which will be treated as light for any purposes that need a
distinction." I know you well enough to know that you'll probably
resist even the idea that the language is ambiguous that way (though
hope spring eternal), but it is.
> But "making (unarmed) attacks" as if armed is not the same as
> being armed, if you see what I'm saying.
I do see this, and I agree. Which is why I think the true question is
whether armor spikes ARE a weapon or just TREATED as a weapon for very
narrow purposes. IMO, the rules (though ambiguous) are more clearly
on the side of "armor spikes ARE a weapon." On the other hand, as you
keep pointing out, realism would lead to the other conclusion.
> Further, I think it's very important to figure out whether
> or not it is officially ludicrous to even contemplate the
> archer having unarmed attacks available to him for the purpose
> of threatening the world in the first place. I just do *not*
> buy that an archer would be able to kick people while using his
> bow in the first place
This is the realism argument again. I don't necessarily disagree with
it, but I'm SERIOUSLY not concerned with it. There's enough in D&D
combat that is "ludicrous" (read "heroic" or "pulpy") that this one
thing just doesn't bother me.
The balance argument -- that armor spikes that threaten while the
wearer uses his longbow are too powerful -- is much more compelling.
> and I find particularly objectionable the logic of the
> suggestion that, if he couldn't before his armor grew spikes
> (ie; no threatening at all unarmed), he should be able to
> now that his armor does - he doesn't have any more reach than
> he did before.
As I discussed above, "reach" is only one of the possible explanations
for the Attacks of Opportunities system. The actual system could be
built on other things, or things (including reach) in combination.
Again, a monk doesn't have any greater "reach" than another PC, but we
do agree that even in a no-weapon-no-threaten world a monk threatens
when another unarmed combatant doesn't. Don't we? So
> IMO, as long as he's armed with a bow there is no melee
> attacking for Jose.
You're making an assertion without rules support. If Jose has four
arms and is armed with a bow, are you saying he can't attack in melee?
> He can't possibly even begin to threaten the squares around
> him until he changes to melee weapons, which might be his
> armor (ie; drop bow).
So now you're saying that his hands actually have to be EMPTY?
You need to give this a serious rethink, Michael.
Jeff