3.5 Weapon Style Feat: Tower of Thorns

[sengmeng]

This is my first and only Weapon Style feat, thought it should see the light of day... does the wording make sense, and would anyone consider taking this feat?

Tower of Thorns [weapon style]

Prerequisites: Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Focus: Armor Spikes, Two-weapon Fighting

This weapon style involves mastering the art of lashing out with a greatsword and one's entire body simultaneously when wearing spiked armor.

Benefit: When making a full attack with a greatsword and wearing spiked armor, you may make off-hand attacks with your armor spikes as if you were fighting with two weapons. Your attacks with your greatsword and your armor spikes only add half your strength bonus, and all attacks have the standard -2 penalty for fighting with two weapons. You still need both hands to wield your greatsword.

edited:

Tower of Thorns [weapon style feat]

Prerequisites: Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Armor Spikes

Benefit: When making a full attack with a two-handed weapon, you may also lash out with your armor spikes as if you had a free hand. Additionally, your armor spikes now count as a one-handed weapon for purposes of Power Attacks. All attacks carry a -2 penalty, although you do not need the Two-weapon Fighting feat.

Normal: You may not attack with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon in the same round, and armor spikes count as light weapons.

Special: Fighters may take Tower of Thorns as one of their fighter bonus feats. Tower of Thorns counts as Two-weapon Fighting for the purpose of acquiring feats in the Two-weapon Fighting chain. This means you may take Improved Two-weapon Fighting if you have Tower of Thorns, but you only gain a second off-hand attack at -5 when that offhand attack is made with armor spikes, and you only get the benefits of Two-weapon Defense if you are armed with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon, unless you also have Two-weapon Fighting.

[dragonsamurai77]

You already can do that with Armor Spikes, as long as you have TWF. The feat is entirely useless.

[Mulletmanalive]

You already can do that with Armor Spikes, as long as you have TWF. The feat is entirely useless.

No you can't, unless you have some mysterious ability to wield a Greatsword onehanded...

That said, with the docked power on my Greatsword, it seems like a loss to me. Keep the full bonus damage on the Greatsword and i'd think it worth it.

[dragonsamurai77]

No you can't, unless you have some mysterious ability to wield a Greatsword onehanded...

That said, with the docked power on my Greatsword, it seems like a loss to me. Keep the full bonus damage on the Greatsword and i'd think it worth it.

Since you don't need a hand to attack with Armor Spikes, it does work.

[Mulletmanalive]

Since you don't need a hand to attack with Armor Spikes, it does work.

As the SRD refers to it as an "Off-hand attack," I'm seeing nothing to support that hypothesis. It at no point states that you don't need hands to make the attack, whereas it does state categorically that you need two hands to wield that greatsword.

[sengmeng]

You already can do that with Armor Spikes, as long as you have TWF. The feat is entirely useless.

If you could, why would anyone do anything else?


Since you don't need a hand to attack with Armor Spikes, it does work.

That's the monk's unarmed attack you're thinking of.

Edited, you get 1.5 to greatsword, .5 to the armor spikes. thoughts?

[dragonsamurai77]

If you could, why would anyone do anything else?

It requires a feat (TWF), plus you take a -2 penalty on both attacks, and the damage is negligible.

[sengmeng]

The damage is negligible? most people have a light off-hand weapon if they have two-weapon fighting, which is typically a 1d6, same as armor spikes. So, you're saying that the standard two-weapon fighter is running around with the longsword/shortsword combo, 1d8 and 1d6 at a -2, but for no extra feats they could go with two-handed sword and armor spikes for 3d6 at -2? I'm beginning to wonder if you can do math.

[dragonsamurai77]

The damage is negligible? most people have a light off-hand weapon if they have two-weapon fighting, which is typically a 1d6, same as armor spikes. So, you're saying that the standard two-weapon fighter is running around with the longsword/shortsword combo, 1d8 and 1d6 at a -2, but for no extra feats they could go with two-handed sword and armor spikes for 3d6 at -2? I'm beginning to wonder if you can do math.

Mullet: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10733430&postcount=1216

1d8+1d6 averages (4.5+3.5), or 8 damage. 3d6 averages (3*3.5), or 10.5. The advantage is very small over regular TWF. As for compared to simply swinging a greatsword, 1d6+.5 Str isn't as much as it looks, especially considering that it gets no bonus from Power Attack. Unless you're abusing size shenanigans to get a Colossal 12d6 Greatsword, weapon damage means little in the long run.

[sengmeng]

Now you're just venting how you don't like TWF? Or weapons?

[Mulletmanalive]

I see nothing there that states it does not need hands, nor anything that allows it to be used with a two handed weapon.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Now you're just venting how you don't like TWF? Or weapons?

I'd be more than a little less dismissive if I were you.

TWF tends to be a very poor combat style unless you have some source of bonus damage (often Sneak Attack) because the bonuses from Power Attack and Strength, which are the main part of melee damage, are diminished whilst using it. This only gets worse if you don't have a way to full attack whilst moving (most people don't, but Power Attackers can at least get decent damage on their single attack and throw the +2 to hit into more bonus damage). It is provably inferior, and how much someone likes it or not has nothing to do with it.

Base weapon damage is puny compared to the amount of damage you need to be doing to keep up with hit point gain in increasingly powerful foes, and is quickly dwarfed by even the bonus damage from Strength with a decent (i.e. two-handed) weapon let alone the bonus damage from Power Attack. Again, nothing to do with how anyone feels about it, just the way the system works.

[sengmeng]

So the only way to make this feat feasible is to also fix TWF?

[Ziegander]

Can off-hand attacks be made when both of your hands are occupied with a weapon? No, so you can't use armor spikes + greatsword (normally).

This feat isn't worth it compared to other weapon styles though (or other feats in general) because of how little you're actually gaining from it.

Let's assume a Human Fighter 2 with Str 18 and this feat (his other feats are taken up by prerequisites).

He has a full attack that looks like this: Greatsword +5 to hit, 2d6+6 and Armor Spikes +5 to hit, 1d6+2. If both his attacks hit he deals an average of 18.5 damage or a maximum of 26 damage. Cool.

Another Human Fighter 2 with Str 18, Power Attack, and whatever other three feats he wants. He has a standard attack that looks like this: Greatsword +6 to hit, 2d6+6. If he Power Attacks for -1, putting his attack bonus at the same as the above Tower of Thorns Fighter, he gets +2 to damage. Without PA his average damage is 13 or a max of 18. With it his average damage is 15 and max is 20.

So, you see, in exchange for a THREE feats, you're seeing an average increase in 3.5 damage and a maximum increase in 6 damage. So if you think something like Weapon Specialization is a feat worth taking, then Tower of Thorns is probably just fine. However, if you don't, just add some extra benefits to the feat. Benefits making it worth the Fighter's time and feat investment.

[Fizban]

Throwing in here on the side of "you don't need a feat to do this" and "THF is better." That said, easy solution: downgrade it from tactical feat to a normal fighter feat, since it's not very tactical right now anyway. There's a feat that lets you TWF with a shield and weapon without having to take TWF, and you could do the same thing here. Agile Shield fighter costs two feats and no ability scores to take, and also lets you ignore the normal extra penalty for having a one handed weapon in your off-hand (since it says you just take a flat -2 on both attacks). So we do a similar thing here and find two feats that fit the style, then give out the benefit. Here's mine:

Tower of Thorns [Fighter]
Prerequisites: Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Armor Spikes
Benefit: when making an off-hand attack with your armor spikes as part of a full attack with a two handed weapon, you take a -2 penalty on each attack and may count your armor spikes as a one-handed weapon for determining strength bonus to damage and the use of your Power Attack feat. This replaces the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons and wielding a weapon in your off hand.

[sengmeng]

Throwing in here on the side of "you don't need a feat to do this" and "THF is better." That said, easy solution: downgrade it from tactical feat to a normal fighter feat, since it's not very tactical right now anyway. There's a feat that lets you TWF with a shield and weapon without having to take TWF, and you could do the same thing here. Agile Shield fighter costs two feats and no ability scores to take, and also lets you ignore the normal extra penalty for having a one handed weapon in your off-hand (since it says you just take a flat -2 on both attacks). So we do a similar thing here and find two feats that fit the style, then give out the benefit.

Okay, you've had the best suggestion so far, although it is full of mistakes. It is not possible to attack with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon. I'm making a feat that says "yes, you can." Taking TWF out as a prereq is a good idea though, and having the armor spike attack carry the PA bonus by counting as a one-handed weapon is probably the only thing that would attract two-handed fighters. I also designated it a weapon-style feat, not a tactical feat.

Edited.

[Jarian]

Fizban's post isn't full of mistakes so much as people have different opinions as to what an offhand attack is. If it's worth anything, you can make offhand attacks with boot blades (attached to a foot - definitely not a hand) or mouth picks (held in your mouth - wouldn't call that a hand either...), or, heck, even braidblades (blades attached to beard or hair braids. Hands? Not so much) as part of a full attack.

This isn't meant to reignite an argument, just to provide commentary that might change your opinion.

[sengmeng]

Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table 7–5: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)
An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

A "regular melee attack"

Not a kick, not an elbow, knee, headbutt, or body-block.

It is the monk who doesn't need his hands:


A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

If the armor spikes were supposed to be the same, it would have said so.

[Jarian]

By that logic, anyone who isn't a monk can't make an attack with a boot, elbow, knee, or sleeve blade, because they're "normal" attacks, but they aren't held in his hands. And, for that matter, the dwarf that uses some braidblades apparently bought them for decoration, because they aren't used by his hands either, and yet are resolved as melee attacks.

*shrug*

Like I said, I wasn't trying to start an argument. I'm merely pointing out that when your interpretation of the rules causes an entire line of weapons to become nothing more than ornaments, you might want to think about why it is you're interpreting them that way.

If, in the end, you decide that your interpretation is still correct, then play on! :smallsmile: This is really a very minor difference in opinion, and one that will not cause any serious issues.

[Sarco_Phage]

Knees, elbows, forearms, and heads are actually far more "normal" melee attacks IRL than a punch.

[sengmeng]

By that logic, anyone who isn't a monk can't make an attack with a boot, elbow, knee, or sleeve blade, because they're "normal" attacks, but they aren't held in his hands. And, for that matter, the dwarf that uses some braidblades apparently bought them for decoration, because they aren't used by his hands either, and yet are resolved as melee attacks.


You are basing the attacks off of the descriptions of those weapons, as am I. I saw nothing in the armor-spikes' description to indicate it didn't require a hand. By your logic, I should be able to head-butt with my head spikes, knee twice with my knee spikes, kick twice with my boot spikes, elbow twice with my elbow spikes, and fling myself bodily at my opponent all in the same round after attacking with a two-handed weapon, for nine total attacks. Or are you limiting it to once per limb? Or have you forgotten that humanoids can't get the multiattack feat? Why wouldn't a set of full-plate count the same, then? It'd be like a gauntlet for your whole body.

[Ziegander]

By that logic, anyone who isn't a monk can't make an attack with a boot, elbow, knee, or sleeve blade, because they're "normal" attacks, but they aren't held in his hands. And, for that matter, the dwarf that uses some braidblades apparently bought them for decoration, because they aren't used by his hands either, and yet are resolved as melee attacks.

*shrug*

No, no, nobody's trying to say that you can't make an attack with your armor spikes, or that you can't make off-hand attacks with boot blades, or any other esoteric weapons. What we're saying is, that because of the rules attached to off-hand attacks, and because the rules written for armor spikes specifically do NOT exempt them from normal off-hand attack rules, one cannot make an off-hand attack while wielding a two-handed weapon. Period.

It may not make any sense, but that's how the rules are written, and they are written that way in an attempt to keep two-handed weapons balanced against two-weapon fighting (despite the huge failure of the designers in other areas of that balance).

[dragonsamurai77]

No, no, nobody's trying to say that you can't make an attack with your armor spikes, or that you can't make off-hand attacks with boot blades, or any other esoteric weapons. What we're saying is, that because of the rules attached to off-hand attacks, and because the rules written for armor spikes specifically do NOT exempt them from normal off-hand attack rules, one cannot make an off-hand attack while wielding a two-handed weapon. Period.

It may not make any sense, but that's how the rules are written, and they are written that way in an attempt to keep two-handed weapons balanced against two-weapon fighting (despite the huge failure of the designers in other areas of that balance).

I believe, however, that it is a free action to take one hand off of a two-handed weapon, and thus that you can do it in the middle of a full attack. Since you do not need to spend an action drawing armor spikes, I must say to all of you: Check and mate.

[Ziegander]

I believe, however, that it is a free action to take one hand off of a two-handed weapon, and thus that you can do it in the middle of a full attack. Since you do not need to spend an action drawing armor spikes, I must say to all of you: Check and mate.

You could not be more wrong.

When you are wielding a two-handed weapon you cannot make off-hand attacks.

Those are the rules. It doesn't matter if you actually have a free hand for half a second. It doesn't matter if your off-hand attack doesn't require you to even hold the weapon in your hand. It doesn't matter if you don't need to draw your weapon. YOU CAN'T MAKE OFF-HAND ATTACKS WHEN WIELDING A TWO-HANDED WEAPON.

[dragonsamurai77]

Actually, forget that.

3.5 OFFICIAL Wizards FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)

Page 53 should resolve this debate once and for all.

[Ziegander]

Actually, forget that.

3.5 OFFICIAL Wizards FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)

Page 53 should resolve this debate once and for all.

Congratz. You found an FAQ in which Wizards contradicted their own rules so that Armor Spikes is actually better than two-weapon fighting in every possible conceivable way. Thank you for further proving to the internet how incompetent their designers are.

[dragonsamurai77]

Congratz. You found an FAQ in which Wizards contradicted their own rules so that Armor Spikes is actually better than two-weapon fighting in every possible conceivable way. Thank you for further proving to the internet how incompetent their designers are.

Regardless of how well- or poorly-thought out the decision was, that is the official rule.

That in mind, the edited version of the feat is decent enough, though I would put a clause that it counts as TWF for prerequisite purposes, so that you can still get Improved/Greater/(Perfect) TWF.

[sengmeng]

though I would put a clause that it counts as TWF for prerequisite purposes

done

now that the wording is I hope finalized, does it read right?

[Ziegander]

Regardless of how well- or poorly-thought out the decision was, that is the official rule.

You are correct of course. I was arguing in terms of the rules as written in the SRD, not including FAQs, because it isn't even always, or often, the original designers that answer these questions, nor are these answers considered by the editors of D&D to be official errata.

I am curious now to see if the Rules Compendium says anything about Armor Spikes.

EDIT: No, sadly, it doesn't.


done

now that the wording is I hope finalized, does it read right?

Yes, I believe so. Presumably, by the FAQs answer, the standard penalties for attacking with a Greatsword (primary) + Armor Spikes (secondary) would be -4/-8, reduced to -2/-2 with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. So, circumventing the Dex 13 requirement, your feat, for the price of needing to take the subpar Weapon Focus feat, grants the ability to Power Attack with the Armor Spikes. Seems fair.

Rather than forcing the user of this feat to take Improved TWF and Greater TWF, though, since they likely won't have or won't want to have the Dexterity required, it would be nice to make equivalent Tower of Thorns feats for those levels.