The FAQ on armor spikes states that if you cannot attack with a two-handed weapon and another, off-hand weapon in the same round. Whether or not this applies here (because bows may or may not count) is up in the air, but the scond part of your post is incorrect.

The OP is asking about threatening, not making attacks with both weapons at once, which is the topic on the FAQ item you mentioned. Unless he edits his question to specify he is talking about attacking, i will assume he is asking about how to threaten adjacent squares while holding a bow.

You should edit your answer with a note about how while you can technically threaten, you may not he able to attack then, otherwise it's a bit deceptive, given the use of threatening with weapons

Its there: However, if you are using your two-handed weapon, you cannot use your off-hand weapon (a gauntlet) on attacks of opportunity before first spending a free action to release it.

It's not a question of releasing it. The FAQ states that you cannot make the attacks in the same round, period.

I don't know what to tell you, i think we have a communication problem here.

I am inclined to agree with ShadowKras after reading both FAQs, and with the specified clause that he just commented on. Mainly because if a wizard can cast insert name of OP spell here and then also threaten with 1d6. Then a ranger should be able to shot 1d6 arrow and also threaten 1d4. @ForrestFire I believe the FAQ you cited dealt with making multiple attacks on your turn AND NOT about AoO.

This answer addresses the question and is seemingly correct. Why the downvotes?

@Forrestfire You shouldn't generally argue in the comments. If you have different opinion on how one should answer the question you probably should just answer it by yourself.

@Forrestfire check my last edit to see if its clarified now.

it is not

the answer is, in my opinion, actively disingenuous by selectively quoting some FAQs and not others that throw a wrench in your interpretation

@MikeQ The question's unclear on whether it means during the turn on which the archer is using the bow or between turns when the archer can't use his bow anyway. Likewise, the rules say that a bow is a projectile weapon that requires two hands to use and this is sometimes conflated with a bow being functionally a two-handed weapon. I think ShadowKras's answer is caught in a 4-way crossfire.

the FAQ @Forrestfire mentions is colossally, monumentally stupid, but it does exist and pretending it doesn't is just not an appropriate way to answer the question

@KRyan if the OP is asking about attacking with both at the same time, then i would agree with you.

the FAQ clearly says that once you have used both hands to attack with a weapon, you cannot use those hands again to attack with other weapons for the rest of the round

The FAQ item is clear that you cannot attack with a spiked gauntlet while using that hand to wield another weapon.

But removing your hand from a weapon is a free action.

if you used both hands to attack with the bow (which you must), you cannot use it to attack with the spiked gauntlet, no matter how free it is to do so narratively, until your next turn

And you can hold, but not wield, two-handed weapons with one hand.

the FAQ uses "round"

it says you cannot use the hand again for the "round"

that's until your next turn

not to the end of your turn or until you change up how you're holding things

The question asks round, the answer doesnt mention it. That interpretation means the other FAQ about the wizard is wrong and would be impossible to cast spells while wielding a staff.

yeah, unfortunately

stranger things have happened

The interpretation i posted does not disqualify any of the faqs, as they apply to different situations.

the interpretation you posted is also flatly inaccurate

JJ's comment on spiked gaunlet + sword also agrees with both faqs.

it just ignores aspects of the FAQ you find inconvenient

Paizo is allowed to contradict themselves; they do it all the time

Im not ignoring it.

you are though, it doesn't get mentioned in your answer at all

I did say you cannot use both weapons at once.

yes but Paizo has defined "at once" here as being "the same round"

I didn't mention the FAQ initially because another answer already had. But the idea behind the FAQ is in the answer.

no, the idea you want to see behind the FAQ after you ignore part of it is in the answer

look, Paizo made a colossally stupid FAQ entry

they have done that many, many times before

it is either extremely negligent in how it approaches the question, answering a slightly different question from what was asked without actually stating that this is what it's doing

I am more inclined to believe the question should say "turn" instead of "round" than that they would give an example of casting spells and swaping hands to be wrong.

or it was made without seriously considering the ramifications of the statement, including the contradiction with the previous FAQ

But i will research futher.

unfortunately, Paizo adamantly insists that its FAQ entries and random one-off developer forum posts are official rules that are supposed to be followed

which means we must address it, stupid as it is

How is it different from the faq about using a spear as improved blunt weapon to threaten adjancet squares?

it's an awful answer, it should be completely ignored by everyone—but we, as a site, should be telling readers about it and that they should ignore it, not just leaving it out as if it didn't exist

@ShadowKras sure, but it doesn't and if the FAQ was going to address the question as if it was asking about a turn rather than a round, it should say that but it doesn't

@ShadowKras for one thing, you skip massive attack roll penalties

You could never use armor spikes if you ever make any attack then.

@ShadowKras well, technically, you could if you had a hand you hadn't used to make some other attack

i.e. attack with a one-handed weapon, then you have another "unused" hand for the armor spikes

which is blitheringly stupid

but it is nonetheless what the FAQ says

I feel the original intent of : Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon? was to use two-handed weapon in a duel wielding scenario

not the intent of my question

@chewbapoclypse that may easily be so, but whatever was meant it is not what was actually asked

and if Paizo was making the same assumption you are (which they may well have), they should have said that

as-is, though, they didn't

and the question used "round"

and Paizo is adamant that this is the official rule

look, I hate that FAQ; it's easily among my most hated FAQs, and that's quite a competitive field

I am in no way advocating for anyone to actually follow that FAQ

but I think a proper answer here does need to address it, even if just to say it's stupid and bad and should be ignored

For now, @chewbapoclypse, your solution is to wear a Dwarven Boulder Helmet.

@ShadowKras ah yes, I was going to suggest that

forgot about it while discussing the stupid FAQ

The helmet ignores hands completely.

yeah, the dwarven boulder helmet eliminates the concern entirely, making the FAQ that much dumber since you can trivially circumvent it

AI

Er

Wait a sec... OP's question refers to the practice of wearing a spiked gauntlet and wielding a 2-handed (melee) weapon, then releasing as a free action, and then being able to make AOOs with the gauntlet. Does the FAQ say that this is invalid?

So do armor spikes though

@MikeQ yes, it does

as-written, it says that any hand used to make an attack during the round is "unavailable" for the rest of the round

With a different weapon, right?

@MikeQ its for a bow

not a melee

so if you use the hand to draw the bowstring and shoot an arrow, it is "unavailable" to make spiked gauntlet attacks until the next round

@MikeQ presumably, though really the FAQ doesn't qualify it

it just says that once you used it for the two-handed weapon, it "is unavailable to make any attacks"

more reason the FAQ is stupid

Ah, okay. The hand is unavailable.

gah

That is quite bizarre, but rules are rules I guess.

This exact discussion can be seen on several threads at paizo.com

im simply hitting the FAQ button on all of them

@MikeQ I strongly encourage you to not blindly follow the rules

Paizo is not good at making them

as this whole fiasco shows

bows say they need two hands to use and not wield

@chewbapoclypse yes, exactly how bows fit into this is a little unclear

I believe that's why @Forrestfire deleted her answer

me too

If you are a ranged thrower, you cannot make more than one attack with each weapon either.

because bows using two hands but not technically being "two-handed weapons" is a really confusing complication that she wanted to consider more fully

@ShadowKras well, I mean, yeah? after you've thrown it, the weapon is over there. Kinda hard to attack with it again

but blinkback belt allows you to do it (explicitly, IIRC)

Kryan i mean using quickdrawn -> throw

ah

hah, sigh

that faq really seems to mean turn, not round.

yes, that would be an apparent conclusion from that FAQ

@ShadowKras even turn would be flat-out wrong in the thrown weapon Quick Draw case

check this post from SKR.

@ShadowKras hah, except that he's clearly wrong

sigh again I say, sigh

so what I'm gathering is

lol

the only way to make any sense of this is that the FAQ is referring not to a round (the term actually used) or a turn (as suggested)

because even a turn is too long; SKR's post would be incorrect if it was for the turn

it seems to be more like...

basically it seems to me that what they wanted to say is that two-handed weapons are incompatible with TWF

if you choose to use a two-handed weapon, you cannot then choose to pair that attack with an off-hand attack (unless you have three or more hands, ignoring that)

that seems to be what they wanted the result to be

but instead of saying that, they made some cockamamie justification for why it is that way

even if we stipulate to this (and thus make SKR's post work), it's still I would argue wrong though

then why do one handed weapons get AoO if they had already attacked in a round?

@chewbapoclypse presumably because the FAQ meant "unavailable [to be used for other weapons]" rather than "unavailable to make another attack"

because yes, if we take the FAQ literally

it makes it impossible to make more attacks in a round than you have hands

every hand only ever gets one attack

which clearly makes absolutely no sense with all the various ways to very explicitly get more attacks

including iteratives, bonus attacks, and AoOs

yeah, ya know what?

I don't think there is any merit whatsoever in making any attempt to make sense of that FAQ entry

it just

doesn't make sense and cannot be made to make sense

unfortunately I do still think a complete answer to the question still has to address it, even if just to say "this makes no sense and contradicts huge portions of the game's rules, so just ignore it."

SKR, if I remember correctly, really despised the idea of PCs getting more than 1½x their Strength bonus during a turn—to such a degree that he made that ruling and, for some reason, it got stuck in the FAQ despite it being weird and requiring mental and grammatical yoga to have it make sense. I think his idea may have been to encourage fighting with two weapons, one in each hand,—like God intended or whatever—rather than a greatsword and shoulder block which is obviously stupid. :)

@KRyan i agree

That FAQ probably meant you cannot use a spiked gauntlet without releasing the hand with a free action first.

Holy shit this FAQ is a pandora's box

thats what i liked about your answer shadow'

(I suspect SKR is not a hockey fan.)

So if an adjacent enemy provokes, you cannot make an attack of opportunity with a spiked gauntlet while using that hand to hold a two-handed reach weapon.

@HeyICanChan yeah, that seems consistent with various statements that were made, but as usual Paizo does the infuriating thing where they try (and fail) to explain how the rules "always said" what they wanted them to mean, instead of just changing them to match what they want

and in the process cause huge cascading ramifications for the rest of the system

@Forrestfire yea I laughed when it exploded

@ShadowKras yeah, that would be entirely reasonable, and easily explained by just saying that spiked gauntlets can't be used while holding something (and reminding folks that free actions can only be used during your turn)

its like declaring that you cast on the defensive

you reward a player for being vigilant and aware, and punish them for being reckless

I am so sorry for starting this

XD

@Forrestfire eh, it's important to cover all our bases

@KRyan Indeed: "This is how we at Pathfinder HQ have always played. What? You peons have been playing it differently? And, by the way, we have always been at war with Eastasia."

I mean, god forbid someone finds that FAQ on their own, decides RPG SE is wrong and the FAQ is right, and not only implements it but also has that much less faith in this site's ability to answer questions: that'd be pretty awful all around!

@HeyICanChan ...wow, yeah that is an accurate description

@chewbapoclypse I am... not quite seeing the comparison?

@KRyan i updated it, though im still not satisfied with the result.

@ShadowKras yeah, it's good but somehow not satisfying

but then I think

there probably is no neat, satisfying answer to this

anyway, I'm not sure I buy your conclusion

I don't think that's what the FAQ meant to say, since it really seems to be responding to something about TWF-ing a two-hander and armor spikes or spiked gauntlet

I don't think AoOs were really considered at all (despite "round" in the question)

I think it's better to not try to make sense of the FAQ

i see

I think it's better to just say it's bad nonsense and to just ignore it

but that might just be me

Hah

Can a paladin can Lay on Headbutt?

@ShadowKras seems to me they could, yeah

you mean to damage undead more?

some guy asked that on one of those threads.

@ShadowKras ah

Behold, the Holy Forehead!

this is also useful: Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

@ShadowKras I'm not really seeing the significance of this

drawing an item isn't an attack and wouldn't interact with the FAQ

also not really sure now what "this" in "My interpretation of this is..." in the paragraph after that refers to

Yeah i was reading it again, your offhand is unavailable for attacks, but you could do anything else with that hand, which is weird.

if it's still talking about the FAQ, you're kind of contradicting yourself, since the previous paragraph said that the FAQ is talking only about TWF

Like, you could swift action draw and drink a potion (potion gluton) while holding a two-handed weapon.

yup

yeah, it's clearly a pure gamist thing

I mean, they talk about hands necessary for spiked armor

hah

everytime i read that i chuckle

I don't, but maybe I should

i visualize the fighter instantly removing his armor and using it as a club

maybe if I laughed at it would bother me less

@ShadowKras hah!

i mean, how else would you require a hand to hit someone with spikes on your chest/back/shoulders?

> My interpretation here is that the developers probably meant you cannot use a spiked gauntlet without releasing the hand with a free action first. So if an adjacent enemy provokes, you cannot make an attack of opportunity with a spiked gauntlet while using that hand to hold a two-handed reach weapon, because that hand is not free.

still seems to not really fit with the statements just prior about how to understand the FAQ?

oh i have to fix that

I still dislike that FAQ entry even just for TWF but that's not really relevant here

so you have finally earned your upvote from me; isn't that exciting? (gotta be among the hardest-won upvotes we've seen around here, sorry for that)

Its weird because a monk can clearly ignore that FAQ

as they technically have 8+ free hands when using unarmed strikes.

@ShadowKras oh don't even get me started on the monk here

the whole TWF Flurry thing is just

head, punch, punch, elbow, elbow, knee, knee, kick, kick

hah, the original "pretending the rules always said what we wanted them to say with an absurd 'interpretation' that has enormous ramifications and fallout on the rest of the rules"

im glad few people ever tried to mix TFW, monks and natural attacks on my table.

worse case was an four-armed alchemist with a bite attack.

@ShadowKras yech, yeah that's bad

@ShadowKras they actually have two free hands

It's just that they can deliver the attacks with one of those eight spots

(Non-monks have more spots they can use to attack. It's silly but true)