Attack of opportunity with the armor spikes?


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Weilding a 2 handed reach weapon while wearing gauntlets-do i threat with the gauntlets?
Im gonna say its situational.
If u are weilding a reach weapon rdy to atk or have attacked and u still have ur gauntlet hand on the weapon, im gonna say no because the gauntlet hand is already occupied with holding a weapon.
If u are weilding a 2 handed reach weapon and have announced u have taken ur gauntlet hand off the weapon, then yes u threaten with gauntlet but now u no longer threaten with the reach weapon because u dont have both hands on the weapon.

Hows that?


Redneckdevil wrote:

Weilding a 2 handed reach weapon while wearing gauntlets-do i threat with the gauntlets?

Im gonna say its situational.
If u are weilding a reach weapon rdy to atk or have attacked and u still have ur gauntlet hand on the weapon, im gonna say no because the gauntlet hand is already occupied with holding a weapon.
If u are weilding a 2 handed reach weapon and have announced u have taken ur gauntlet hand off the weapon, then yes u threaten with gauntlet but now u no longer threaten with the reach weapon because u dont have both hands on the weapon.

Hows that?

We're not interested in opinions, but rather rules in support of the other position, which are none. Read through the posts to see how the gauntlet is not being held onto, but attached, and that it gives UNARMED STRIKES threatening capabilities. You're wielding both weapons when you're holding a two handed weapon.

Scarab Sages

Zweihanders, using unarmed strikes, pommel strikes, and grappling, while still keeping hold of their weapons.


Rapanuii wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

Weilding a 2 handed reach weapon while wearing gauntlets-do i threat with the gauntlets?

Im gonna say its situational.
If u are weilding a reach weapon rdy to atk or have attacked and u still have ur gauntlet hand on the weapon, im gonna say no because the gauntlet hand is already occupied with holding a weapon.
If u are weilding a 2 handed reach weapon and have announced u have taken ur gauntlet hand off the weapon, then yes u threaten with gauntlet but now u no longer threaten with the reach weapon because u dont have both hands on the weapon.

Hows that?

We're not interested in opinions, but rather rules in support of the other position, which are none. Read through the posts to see how the gauntlet is not being held onto, but attached, and that it gives UNARMED STRIKES threatening capabilities. You're wielding both weapons when you're holding a two handed weapon.

U threaten by weilding something. UE states that weilding something is attacking with it. When ur holding a weapon with ur gauntlets, ur not threatening because ur not purposely attacking with the gauntlets, u are merely holding something with the gauntlets. Ur gauntlets are occupied with the purpose of holding and using a weapon and are not free with the purpose to attack something with it. Hence why i said it was situational because holding something with the gauntlets, u are not threatening with them, u are merely wearing them. When u free the gauntlet from holding a weapon, ur purpose is now no longer just wearing them, but to attack with them so u threaten.


Nefreet wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
@Nefreet, you missed the point of his question, and that's if you're holding a feather in your hand, can you still threaten with the cestus. He isn't asking if you can threaten WITH the feather. I believe you have told me before that you wouldn't, but I don't recall you having an argument as to why.

It was in this comment, HERE.

(which I thought was a good little speech, myself)

I was laughing my friends about that speech last night. 20 years ago, we were online (AOL) discussing the game owned by TSR and browsing those boards looking for stuff and comparing how the game was played at different tables.

There is no "new thinking" there is only a much faster connectivity.

The point is, the rules don't match with the rules. That is the point on this issue. Not that "it can be done in real life."

Rapanuii's post about 4 PCs and AoO's REALLY sheds light on the absurdity. Even if he is flat out incorrect with the current interpretation, I feel he is so correct in thought that the current "common sense*" interpretation is ridiculous and needs to be changed, not that Rapanuii needs to be brought into the fold.

*In all my life, common sense has shown to be a stupid standard that often includes the face value with no thought applied to the situation whatsoever. Furthermore, what is common sense is always seen differently by two different people.


Redneckdevil wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

Weilding a 2 handed reach weapon while wearing gauntlets-do i threat with the gauntlets?

Im gonna say its situational.
If u are weilding a reach weapon rdy to atk or have attacked and u still have ur gauntlet hand on the weapon, im gonna say no because the gauntlet hand is already occupied with holding a weapon.
If u are weilding a 2 handed reach weapon and have announced u have taken ur gauntlet hand off the weapon, then yes u threaten with gauntlet but now u no longer threaten with the reach weapon because u dont have both hands on the weapon.

Hows that?

We're not interested in opinions, but rather rules in support of the other position, which are none. Read through the posts to see how the gauntlet is not being held onto, but attached, and that it gives UNARMED STRIKES threatening capabilities. You're wielding both weapons when you're holding a two handed weapon.
U threaten by weilding something. UE states that weilding something is attacking with it. When ur holding a weapon with ur gauntlets, ur not threatening because ur not purposely attacking with the gauntlets, u are merely holding something with the gauntlets. Ur gauntlets are occupied with the purpose of holding and using a weapon and are not free with the purpose to attack something with it. Hence why i said it was situational because holding something with the gauntlets, u are not threatening with them, u are merely wearing them. When u free the gauntlet from holding a weapon, ur purpose is now no longer just wearing them, but to attack with them so u threaten.

I'm pretty confused by your post.

The logic dictated with

threaten=wielding
wielding=attacking

Then unless you make an attack, then you don't wield, and if you don't wield then you don't threaten. How do you attack into squares that you don't threaten, and how do you take your AoO's that the rules say you should take when you're always threatening if this is true?

Please review what you wrote, because it is incorrect.

Scarab Sages

Indeed, because if

'threaten=wielding'

and

'wielding=attacking'

then no combats could ever begin.

You can only attack into squares you threaten, so if you do not threaten any squares until you make your first attack, you cannot make your first attack.
And neither can your opponent.
So you just stare at each other, until one of you concedes.


Maximum hardness, metapod!

Scarab Sages

Kakuna uses Hardness!


Rapanuii wrote:


@BigNorseWolf, the evidence says that I threaten with my Unarmed strikes

You have an argument to that effect, which is vastly different than evidence or proof. That argument relies on the idea that you ALWAYS threaten when you hold a weapon, which isn't the case. You can be blinded, stunned, have cover, be manacled to the wall, flat footed held, etc.

Quote:
and there is no evidence that says an object occupying my hand(s) will negate this. Punching while holding an object is fine.

Common sense and dozens of developer statements are against your argument here. If you are holding a giant barrel, you're not swinging a two handed sword. You can hold a feather in your hand and swing your fist with no problem (except crushing the feather). Somewhere between those two extremes is holding onto an awkwardly balanced 12 foot long ash pole with a 5 pound metal head on the end and trying to punch.


Bnw, HUH!?

This attached weapon is of course subjected to extenuating circumstances that normally affect weapons, because they're all doing the same thing. The exception is in that it makes your unarmed strike lethal, and it's attached.

Where is this giant barrel and two handed sword coming from? You couldn't hold both at the same time.

I'm real confused with how you're interpreting what I'm writing, especially from this and a few previous replies to me.


As I said before. While no rule exists to connect it a lot of people seem to follow the logic of natural attacks I used ealier which specifically precludes attacking while the limb with the na is occupied.


Natural attacks don't apply here too.

The rules do exist but they're not specific. Attached weapon is not held, and threatens via unarmed strike. Welcome to threaten city.


Right except with no rules covering what you want it is the only thing we have to suggedt intent.


How aren't the rules covering what I'm suggesting? Saying otherwise doesn't have the proof to dispute.

Where are these elaborate hand holding rules that get mentioned? You could normally not threaten both, because you couldn't hold the weapons. You're not holding this weapon.

So, what is being confused by this? Take these things and deconstruct what there is an issue with. Acknowledge it, and explain what's up. Things are very difficult when things that have been stated seem to be ignored either intentionally, or perhaps it's due to not reading properly. If I'm at fault for misunderstanding, then please, help me to understand.


Rapanuii wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

Weilding a 2 handed reach weapon while wearing gauntlets-do i threat with the gauntlets?

Im gonna say its situational.
If u are weilding a reach weapon rdy to atk or have attacked and u still have ur gauntlet hand on the weapon, im gonna say no because the gauntlet hand is already occupied with holding a weapon.
If u are weilding a 2 handed reach weapon and have announced u have taken ur gauntlet hand off the weapon, then yes u threaten with gauntlet but now u no longer threaten with the reach weapon because u dont have both hands on the weapon.

Hows that?

We're not interested in opinions, but rather rules in support of the other position, which are none. Read through the posts to see how the gauntlet is not being held onto, but attached, and that it gives UNARMED STRIKES threatening capabilities. You're wielding both weapons when you're holding a two handed weapon.
U threaten by weilding something. UE states that weilding something is attacking with it. When ur holding a weapon with ur gauntlets, ur not threatening because ur not purposely attacking with the gauntlets, u are merely holding something with the gauntlets. Ur gauntlets are occupied with the purpose of holding and using a weapon and are not free with the purpose to attack something with it. Hence why i said it was situational because holding something with the gauntlets, u are not threatening with them, u are merely wearing them. When u free the gauntlet from holding a weapon, ur purpose is now no longer just wearing them, but to attack with them so u threaten.

I'm pretty confused by your post.

The logic dictated with

threaten=wielding
wielding=attacking

Then unless you make an attack, then you don't wield, and if you don't wield then you don't threaten. How do you attack into squares that you don't threaten, and how do you take your AoO's that the rules say you should take when you're always threatening if this is true?

Please...

I have a question for you. Are u threatening with a sword thats on ur hip? Can u AoO when u dont have a weapon drawn? Thats the case here that im trying to make.

just because u have a gauntlet equiped doesnt automatically mean u threaten or weild it. Ue says weilding is "attacking with it". Now due to SkRs post, to weild the gauntlet u are in a position to attack with it. While swinging and attacking with a 2handed reach weapon, u are not "weilding" the gauntlet because u are not in a position to attack with it because u are using it to grip and attack with another weapon. While attacking with a 2 handed weapon u are merely "wearing" the gauntlet and not in a position to attack with it at that very moment because u have to first let go of the 2 handed weapon.
Its like shields. They give a + to AC, BUT if u attack with them you normally lose ur AC bonus they give. Why? You are still wearing it right? But u lose the ac because u are no longer using it as a defence, u are using it as a weapon instead. Same with the gauntlets, when u are using them to weild a weapon other than the gauntlets, u are losing the "weilding" because u are not using the gauntlets as a weapon but basically "wearing" them like gloves.

Now again i amybe wrong but im going under that to AoO u have to be threatening (aka weilding) a weapon thats ready and if thats correct u are not threatening with the gauntlets because ur using them for something other than to attack directly with them.


Again, we're back to this not making sense. Your logic means that if I don't attack, then I don't wield, which means I don't threaten. To attack you first need to threaten, so no one can ever attack with any weapon.

No offense, but asking me about a sword on your hip is complete nonsense, and makes me believe you're not reading this thread correctly, or at all. The weapon that is attached to your hand which is legal by the rules causes you to have your unarmed strike be lethal and threaten your reach. A sword must be HELD. Do you see the argument now?

I'm not going to discuss shield bonus' and other goobble gobble, unless it makes sense, and the arguments being presented here are properly understood for what they are.

Edit: you can make an aoo if you are threatening somehow, so if it's with a drawn weapon or whatever, you just need to be in combat, or have uncanny dodge/combat reflexes if you're not yet in the initiative order. Also, for bnw, if you're suffering from some condition or effect that otherwise says no to this stuff, then obviously that's an exception.

Silver Crusade

Two-Handed Weapons wrote:
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.

If you are holding a two-handed weapon in two otherwise free hands, then you can make attacks with it and therefore threaten with it. Those two hands are occupied with this weapon. They are not free to do other things (attack, hold, use skills, cast a spell with a somatic component, etc.).

Locked Gauntlets wrote:
While the gauntlet is locked, you can't use the hand wearing it for casting spells or employing skills. (You can still cast spells with somatic components, provided that your other hand is free.)

This shows that in order to use a hand for anything, it must be 'free', meaning it must be holding nothing apart from the thing being used.

Although a spiked gauntlet doesn't need to be held (just worn) to be used, as soon as that hand holds another weapon then that hand is no longer free to do anything except use the weapon it is holding, and that means that it can't attack with those spiked gauntlets while it is holding another weapon.


Oh wierd, I never thought to look at the handnedness of weapons. And honestly, i feel kind of silly now.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Two-Handed Weapons wrote:
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.

If you are holding a two-handed weapon in two otherwise free hands, then you can make attacks with it and therefore threaten with it. Those two hands are occupied with this weapon. They are not free to do other things (attack, hold, use skills, cast a spell with a somatic component, etc.).

Locked Gauntlets wrote:
While the gauntlet is locked, you can't use the hand wearing it for casting spells or employing skills. (You can still cast spells with somatic components, provided that your other hand is free.)

This shows that in order to use a hand for anything, it must be 'free', meaning it must be holding nothing apart from the thing being used.

Although a spiked gauntlet doesn't need to be held (just worn) to be used, as soon as that hand holds another weapon then that hand is no longer free to do anything except use the weapon it is holding, and that means that it can't attack with those spiked gauntlets while it is holding another weapon.

you're quoting of the hands is saying nothing that hasn't been said already. This isn't an issue about holding the cestus, spiked gauntlet etc.

Locked gauntlet applies with these attacks, and what you're writing is not an argument against my camp. Locked gauntlet is reflecting that while locked your hand is closed, thus no grabbing or dropping things, nor can you do sleight of hand/disable device with that hand. Nothing at all is saying anything about threatening or in relation to threatening other than what a cestus and the other weapons do that all support my camp. Nothing has changed.


Additionally, I would love to know how you came to your conclusions in interpreting these rules you mentioned. The interpretation of you explaining the locked gauntlet I don't understand where you got it from at all, and it's very incorrect.

Edit: the definition for "anything" in pathfinder cannot possibly be casting spells or employing skills. That is completely absurd.


The wielding definition fails many tests. If you have a weapon in each hand, but move, move into position, are you really trying to say you don't threaten with either for the whole round?

Silver Crusade

Rapanuii wrote:

Additionally, I would love to know how you came to your conclusions in interpreting these rules you mentioned. The interpretation of you explaining the locked gauntlet I don't understand where you got it from at all, and it's very incorrect.

Edit: the definition for "anything" in pathfinder cannot possibly be casting spells or employing skills. That is completely absurd.

If two hands are required to do something, then they are not available to do something else until they stop doing the first thing.

The locked gauntlet quote is not a rule but an example. It illustrates that when a hand is doing one thing it can't do another.

In fact, the rules have to tell you when this is not the case. Shields are worn on the arm, but does wearing a shield stop you using that hand? Well, it depends. Bucklers let you use a hand, but you attack at a penalty and if you do then you can't also use the buckler for AC. A light shield lets you hold something in that hand but you cannot use weapons. A heavy shield stops you using that hand for anything else.

You can't use your right hand if your right arm is strapped up behind your back. Why? Where does it say that in the rules? It doesn't need to say that in the rules, any more than it needs to say you can't take actions when you're dead.

If I'm holding a longsword in my right hand, can I use my right hand to draw another weapon, or help use the bow held by my left hand? No, because it's not available, not free, to do other stuff because it's holding the sword. In order to use that hand for anything other than using the sword it's holding I need to drop it, which is a free action I can only take on my own turn. Where does it say that in the rules? Where does it say that I can't use my right hand to help shoot my bow while it holds my sword? Well, it doesn't need to write all that, it just needs to write that, 'You need two hands to use a bow.' It doesn't need to say that both hands must be free to do so!

The devs have clarified that you can't use the same limb to attack with a held weapon and a natural weapon if you still hold the weapon. Although the rules don't say it in so many words, they don't need to. Every example assumes that a hand can only do one thing at a time, unless it gives you permission to do so (like with shields).

When the rules say that a hand or hands is required to do something, this means that the hand is not free to do anything else. If your spiked gauntleted hand is holding a spear then it's not free to do anything except attack with the spear, and that precludes attacking with the spiked gauntlet.


Cestus wrote:
While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

Doesn't this guy solve all of the reach weapon issues?

While wearing
Considered armed with unarmed attacks and they deal normal damage.

Doesn't say you need to wield it for these benefits, you just need to wear them for these benefits. You can wear them while fighting with a 2hnd reach weapon, certainly. And your unarmed strikes are considered armed (ie you threaten with unarmed strikes).

Seems perfectly legit to me.


Malachi, why are we taking about hands here? Everyone is obsessed with hands in relation to this issue and having an argument, and so far it doesn't apply.

Yes, if your limb is tied up and not able to be mobile, I think it's reasonable that you can't used said attached weapon. The description makes your unarmed strikes lethal, but being reasonable, we're taking about the limb it's attached to it. Still, unarmed strikes become lethal now with said items.

You need me to research the two handed ranged weapon for you to inform you that you need two hands? Rules in regards to cross bows will inform you that you can use them one handed with penalty, and holding a shield doesn't stop you from wearing the gauntlet, but has issue with holding things if heavy, and holding weapons if light.

Locked gauntlet example doesn't help here.

EDIT: I can simultaneously threaten with my gauntlet and my longbow using snap shot. Once I put a feather into my hand, that's when people tell me of the impossibilities of using my unarmed strikes that don't involve holding anything, even though the rules say I threaten even while hands are holding objects.

Silver Crusade

Are you suggesting that the mere fact that you wear a gauntlet on your right hand makes your kicks lethal, RAW?

Although you can shoot a loaded crossbow in one hand, that was not my example. I talked about a longbow, which requires two hands to shoot. Two free hands, not one hand holding the stave of the bow and the other hand holding a sword.

I agree that if you hold a longbow in your left hand, wear a spiked gauntlet on your right hand, and have a quiver full of arrows in easy reach, then you threaten with both bow and gauntlet if you have the Snap Shot feat. But if you draw a sword in your gauntlet hand then you no longer threaten with the gauntlet because that hand is not free to attack with anything other than the sword it holds, and you no longer threaten with the bow because you don't have a hand free to either draw an arrow or two hands free to operate the bow. You threaten with the sword though. : )


Remy Balster wrote:
Cestus wrote:
While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

Doesn't this guy solve all of the reach weapon issues?

While wearing
Considered armed with unarmed attacks and they deal normal damage.

Doesn't say you need to wield it for these benefits, you just need to wear them for these benefits. You can wear them while fighting with a 2hnd reach weapon, certainly. And your unarmed strikes are considered armed (ie you threaten with unarmed strikes).

Seems perfectly legit to me.

They are a poorly worded item because it doesn't really imply you need th cestus at all to threaten or attack. I belive they have also been erratad but I don't have that habdy.

Rapanuiis assumption is that th cestus holding the greatsword still threatens.

Really were getting into some core wield assumptions that seem to be implied don't work but are not explicitly denied. He's ssentially suggesting a lot of th statements about handedness for weapons don't have any bearng on threaening.

As I've said before in some ways he's right th game doednt say he's wrong. It mainly clashes with how pkayers are accustomed to playing th game. UAS far as far as th games intent goes I believe th accustomed playstyle of th majority of players is correct. But this is only supported by implied rules.

@rapanuii
At the end of th day I'm not sure what were trying to achieve. Without explicit rules this view will simply result in argunents at a PFS table.
If your goal is to threaten at reach and close spiked armour. Th rules support this.

As I finish this I want to stress I do see your point but short of explicit rules conventional assumptions will prevail.


I mentioned the cross bow to just make sure we didn't go to that next, and not that you were mentioning it. I can go on with the crossbow, especially now, but let's not.

So you will admit that I can use a longbow, and the cestus. So, we have gotten through that the cestus is being worn, and not held. I like this. Now, the longsword is being held, and thus your requirements to use the bow are negated as we've pointed out. So, the signification difference is that you don't use your hands to hold the cestus. You just said you need 2 hands to use the longbow, so how could I possibly use the cestus too with the argument being presented against mine?

Am I suggesting it does? Not at all, I'm pointing out that it does. The rules state that when you apply worn weapon your unarmed strikes then become lethal and threaten. That's RAW. Keep in mind though, I am not focused on that aspect though, and find that it's reasonable to assume you need the limb it's attached to in order to make use of it, and using your behind isn't now lethal because you strapped on a spiked gauntlet around a part of your arm.

An argument within the rules need to be provided. Weapon is attached- weapon causes unarmed strike to threaten- unarmed strike threatens your reach- unarmed strike doesn't care about objects held in hands- hands full you still threaten with those limbs= you threaten with a reach weapon/two handed weapon.


Mojorat, no, going to a table, and having a GM tell you this is wrong isn't correct by them, unless it's a house rule. We're having a rules discussion, and the rules reflect that these judgements are from people who assume the wrong thing. I have not based the threatening with a weapon argument off of assumption, but have supported it by the rules.

Again, this isn't a matter of going, "I see where you're coming from, but it's too bad you can't prove it" but rather "Oh, well there you go. You do threaten with these objects. How about that. So strange how people will just tell me about rules that exist that don't exist at all. Maybe I should tell those people that they need to not assert facts with absolutely no basis, other than someone else did it to them."

Silver Crusade

Rapanuii wrote:
So you will admit that I can use a longbow, and the cestus. So, we have gotten through that the cestus is being worn, and not held. I like this. Now, the longsword is being held, and thus your requirements to use the bow are negated as we've pointed out. So, the signification difference is that you don't use your hands to hold the cestus. You just said you need 2 hands to use the longbow, so how could I possibly use the cestus too with the argument being presented against mine?

You can use either the bow or the spiked gauntlet, but not both simultaneously. For example, if you stated thet you had an arrow knocked and drawn then you couldn't use your gauntlet to attack without letting go of the bow string (which would require an attack and the appropriate action, or a free action). And if you can't attack with it, you don't threaten with it.

Although spiked gauntlets are worn instead of held, that arm still needs to be free to make an attack with the worn gauntlet. If that hand is holding another weapon, then it's not free.

Quote:
Weapon is attached- weapon causes unarmed strike to threaten- unarmed strike threatens your reach- unarmed strike doesn't care about objects held in hands- hands full you still threaten with those limbs= you threaten with a reach weapon/two handed weapon.

This chain of logic is only correct if the wearing of a gauntlet changes unarmed strikes not made with that hand into lethal damage, which you say is not your position.


Where in the rules does it say otherwise against the rules that say you can attack with unarmed strikes with your hands full, that you can't attack with your hands full. Yes, specifically with your fists.

To make things clearer for you in regards to the bow. Are you agreeing that I threaten both with the bow and the cestus at the same time (given snap shot), because if so, then that is contrary to your argument.

Silver Crusade

Rapanuii wrote:
Where in the rules does it say otherwise against the rules that say you can attack with unarmed strikes with your hands full, that you can't attack with your hands full. Yes, specifically with your fists.

Unarmed strikes can be made with your hands full because you can headbutt, kick or whatever to execute an unarmed strike. This doesn't mean that you can make an unarmed strike with your fist if that fist is full, it means that you can attack without using that fist!

BTW, if your unarmed attacks don't threaten then wearing a gauntlet doesn't change that, it just let's you deal lethal damage.

Quote:
To make things clearer for you in regards to the bow. Are you agreeing that I threaten both with the bow and the cestus at the same time (given snap shot), because if so, then that is contrary to your argument.

To attack with a bow you need two free hands. If a hand is wearing a gauntlet but holding nothing then it is free to use the bow, and it is also free to attack with the gauntlet. If that hand is holding a weapon then it's not free to use a bow or attack with the gauntlet, only to attack with the weapon it's holding.


Your unarmed attacks when not being considered armed don't threaten. You apply gauntlet, and now you are considered armed, thus you threaten. You can still grapple into squares within reach, just like you can use not armed unarmed attacks, but that leaves you not threatening squares for purposes of AoO's and such.

The rules inform you that your entire body is pretty much a weapon and causes you to threaten when you look at something like improved unarmed strike. The feat allows you to now consider your unarmed as an armed attack. Spiked gauntlet does this too. No where does it say that your fist is unable to be used when your hands are full, but let's say you don't even have fists, then the rules are clarifying that you can use other parts of your body. I like to imagine an ol' tymey boxer seeing Bruce Lee do a kick, and is like, "WHAT!? ARE YOU A WIZARD!? at the disbelieve you could do attacks beyond your fists.

Your wording on the free hands I can forgive for how you say you need two free hands to use it. You need absolutely to hold the bow with one hand, and another to have the option to manipulate it. So, the contradiction with your position is that I don't have to choose ahead of time if I want to exclusively threaten with just the bow or the cestus, but I can do both at the same time. The bow NEEDS me to have both hands invested into it to use, so what's up when we apply your argument about hands being places, and things being free or else they can't do stuff? You're threatening with both, because you're not holding the cestus, and the bow can be used because you're not holding anything in your other hand.

WE JUST ESTABLISHED YOU CAN USE THIS WEAPON WHILE ALSO USING ANOTHER WEAPON, IN THE SAME HAND, RIGHT? We're going to argue that the cestus hand isn't holding the bow, but you're okay to have both options though!?

Rules state once again:
Apply cestus= Unarmed strikes are now lethal
Unarmed strikes being lethal= you threaten your natural reach, and can do so with any part of your body regardless of objects held in your hands
Reach weapon and Cestus work.


So your saying with a cestus worn your whole body does bludgeoning and piercing damage? I just read it in the prd... what a horribly written weapon.


Mojorat wrote:
So your saying with a cestus worn your whole body does bludgeoning and piercing damage? I just read it in the prd... what a horribly written weapon.

THEY'RE ALL written like that...

Again, being reasonable, we'll talk about that limb, and still I am correct, regardless of you going, "But the rules say my all my unarmed strikes are good to threaten!"

Silver Crusade

A spiked gauntlet is a weapon, not a modification to your unarmed strike.

In the CRB a gauntlet was an unarmed strike which did lethal damage, but the Ulimate Equipment changed it to a weapon on the tables, but still had the same description saying it was an unarmed strike.... : /

Anyway, if a gauntlet changes your unarmed strike to lethal, you must use that gauntlet to make the attack in order to benefit from it....unless you're saying that your kicks become lethal because you wear a gauntlet!

So wearing a gauntlet doesn't make all of your unarmed strikes lethal, only the unarmed strikes you make with the gauntletted hand....and attacking with that requires that hand to be free.

Imagine you're wearing a spiked gauntlet on your right hand, and hold a longbow in your left. Your right hand is free to operate the bow OR make a spiked gauntlet attack.

Now, imagine that you switch the bow to your right hand, the one wearing the gauntlet. Your left hand is free to operate the bow, but your right hand is not free to make gauntlet attacks, because it is holding the bow.


Imagination land doesn't apply to our imagination game that is based around rules. I don't like imagination land of how reality works with these games, because most times, it's irrelevant.

You don't need a free hand to use unarmed strikes, and again, by RAW it's saying you can go crazy, and I think that's dumb, because it's covering your hand/fist. That's what the rules say, and not me. I being reasonable and backing away from those rules am just talking about the hand/fist, and I have the support I need in the argument. It will still be controversial to others, because they'll just not be reasonable and will make up rules that don't exist.

I can't really keep responding to you to just re-explain what I've already explained, because it's frankly a waste of my time. You have no proof that a free hand is needed and it negates the rules I've already pointing out where it says you don't.

You're missing the point on where YOUR position is flawed when it comes to the bow. The rules state that you need two hands to use the bow, so by this idea that you need to choose where your free hand is when it's not your turn will mean you must be holding the bow with two hands for AoO's to trigger using Snap Shot. I disagree that you need to declare both your hands like this, just like you're saying, but you've stated that I can't threaten simultaneously with the cestus while holding a weapon, so how do I threaten with the bow using snap shot during an AoO and threaten with the cestus? Do you understand why these arguments are not correct?


The problem is my playstle is mostly supported by most people doing it the same way that I do. I honestly don't need any burden of proof. You insist the rules for this are clear. I however contend they are not and without that clarity I'm left using th model most of the people appear to play with. Ie undefined rules that most people seem to understand.

The people you actually nees to convince are the ones you play wity.

My goal is to attend pfs games conflict free. If I want to use something unclear I get a consensus if I csnnot I don't use it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll use separate posts for clarity.

The act of shooting an arrow from a longbow requires two hands to be free to do so. This doesn't mean that both hands are glued to the bow during the entire process!

The left hand holds the bow. When it is, and when your right hand is free, you may use your right hand to draw an arrow from a quiver, nock the arrow to the bow, during which your right hand goes from 'not holding the bow-string' to 'holding the bow string' which is not an action but part of the attack:-

CRB wrote:
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

The bow string+arrow are drawn back with the right hand, then released as part of the attack.

Re-gripping and letting-go of the bow-string in this way are not actions (even free actions!), they are part of the attack. This means that you don't have to be holding the bow in two hands in order to threaten with Snap Shot, just hold it in one hand with the other hand free. You threaten because you don't need to expend any actions in order to attack, and the Snap Shot FAQ allows you to draw arrows outside your own turn despite the fact that most free actions aren't allowed outside your own turn.

I wish the devs hadn't defined changing grip as a free action. I wish they had defined it as 'not an action, but part of the attack'. The consequence of that ruling is that you can't change grip outside your own turn, which means you don't threaten if you must change grip in order to attack (without a written exception, such as Snao Shot).


The conflict in PFS comes from people using incorrect rules assuming they're the correct rules. It is clear this works, but I need to ignore the rules and adapt to incorrect rules, because it's popular? If someone wants conflict to not happen, then they can accept that I'm playing by the rules and not confront me with their wrongful opinions. PFS is designed to have an expectation to play with the rules, and I'll play with them.

The bow needs you to invest both your hands into using it. The grabbing of the arrows is a free action, while the manipulation of the bow like pulling back and letting go of the string isn't an action, because it's part of the attack assuming you're investing your hands into using the bow.

Your argument says that if your hands are invested outside of your turn, then you're SOL to do the other option, because hands aren't free. Your argument says that before your turn is over, you need to establish were your hands are being placed. This is silly stuff, and I don't think you are applying what you've been saying properly across the board, because if you read what I'm pointing out in regards, I think you'll realize this too.

You're admitting your other hand is free with the cestus to use the bow, which the bow needs two hands, so they can both threaten. Why is it an issue if a weapon other than the bow is investing in the cestus? The fact this is a bow and in thinking about real life and how bows work doesn't matter. You need two hands to manipulate the bow.

The cestus can be used while holding onto objects. If anyone wants to be unreasonable with silly arguments they can't prove (like at a pfs game I'm attending, and not a home game necessarily), and be COMPLETELY ABSURD and say I can't prove my position, or that it's too complex to even bother. I welcome you to read that when you apply the attached weapon to you, that your unarmed strikes are lethal. I'm sure everyone will love those RAW, but I'll be completely correct, and a cestus will make all my unarmed strikes whereever they come from my body deal 1d4 (medium damage) p/b damage.

Silver Crusade

Let me see if I understand your position. Let our human warrior not have any unarmed combat feats. Therefore he can make unarmed strikes with his head, hands, elbows, knees, feet, whatever. Unarmed attacks don't threaten, and do non-lethal damage.

Let him don a single gauntlet on his right hand. This changes his unarmed strike made with that hand to lethal damage.

You contend that he threatens with the gauntlet. I disagree, but since that's a different argument I'll let it slide here. Let's say that the gauntlet threatens.

Is it your position that because gauntlets threaten, and gauntlets modify unarmed strikes made with them, that wearing a gauntlet let's you threaten with your other, naked, hand? With your feet? With your head? Is that your position?


Malachi, RAW says they do, and that is silly, but it does. Go read the wording on these weapons. Don't read what I've written and think I'm a crazy person, but go read the weapon. I think you'll read it and be a bit disappointed in the wording of the weapon too.

So, from the absolute RAW, I would like to focus on the fist/hand being the threatening factor, and since you're wearing the fist/hand attached weapon, you may threaten/attack with it as long as the limb that said hand/fist is attached to is free to do so.


Cross post from another thread:
Armor Spikes are listed on the weapons table as a light weapon.
If we look up light weapons, we find out, "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand." Unless someone can point me to another rule, I would say that it couldn't possibly be more obvious that they require a hand to attack with.
Just thought that might settle some debate...
But it probably won't.


Rapanuii wrote:

Malachi, RAW says they do, and that is silly, but it does. Go read the wording on these weapons. Don't read what I've written and think I'm a crazy person, but go read the weapon. I think you'll read it and be a bit disappointed in the wording of the weapon too.

So, from the absolute RAW, I would like to focus on the fist/hand being the threatening factor, and since you're wearing the fist/hand attached weapon, you may threaten/attack with it as long as the limb that said hand/fist is attached to is free to do so.

Ok not being sarcastic but needing some clearing up. One a fighter with no feats can make a lethal unarmed strike at a -4 penalty right? Even if they are taking the penalty to do lethal damage they still arent considered threatening because they dont have imp unarmed strike right? The gauntlets then basically let the fighter do lethal damage without the penalty but is still considered not threatening because they dont have the feat right? So all the gauntlets do is let someone who doesnt have imp unarmed strike doblethal damage without the penalty, but that penalty isnt what let them threatened anyways because it says someone who doesnt have the feat doesnt threaten right?

Im getting what ur saying but i think (and ive been wrong before) that the gauntlets simply let u do lethal damage instead of being able to do it without the penalty but doesnt state that it changes ur unarmed strike that before woukdnt threaten now it does...
another thing is imp unarmed strikes let u do lethal or nonlethal without any penaltys, the gauntlet lets u do lethal with no penalties but i think now to do nonlethal there is a penalty now...sigh im confused

Edit-nvm i can totally see how gauntlets will threaten. After reading though i dont see how the gauntlets make all ur limbs threaten though because it even calls out the attacks made with the gauntlets do lethal damage. Doesnt say all ur unarmed attacks do lethal, only teh attack made with the gauntlet.
Sigh i wish the whole using all urblimbs for unarmed strikes stayed with the monk instead of applying for everyone lol


Redneckdevil, I will try and help you understand things.

The gauntlet counts your unarmed attacks as armed. That is exactly what IUS does, but IUS is a feat, and it used for other pre-reqs, and doesn't get to do B and P damage. Also, IUS doesn't give you the damage dice change. So because you are now armed, you now threaten. Those are the rules for threatening, and that is how you explain to someone they can't kick and punch anyone that walks by them, even if they have improved trip, but still lacking a weapon to threaten with.

The Monk has redundant rules. What that means is, when someone plays a Monk, the book lets them know what's up right there in the monk section, and people get confused and think it's all some exclusive monk thing. It's ironic because the purpose is to help people NOT get confused. So look at unarmed attacks, and you'll see you can go to town with whole body, all the time. The thing is, you are not armed, and if you on your own personal turn, want to attack something with your unarmed attack, you can do so by attacking a square within your natural reach, and you'll provoke an attack of opportunity/deal non-lethal damage/choose to take a -4 to attack roll for lethal damage.

Wielding is a debatable thing, and what you wrote before was some weird stuff that I feel you are just misinformed, or confused with what you read. Commonly people look into the defending enhancement for weapons, and it causes a stir of debate for how wielding is defined. For all intense and purporses, let's forget about their wielding word here, because it isn't subjected to those things like I just mentioned. The weapon is arming your unarmed attacks, thus you're threatening. When you hold a weapon, you threaten with it. Discussing if you're "wielding" is not important here as long as we can come to terms with the simplicity of those rules.


Rapanuii wrote:

Redneckdevil, I will try and help you understand things.

The gauntlet counts your unarmed attacks as armed.

While it is logical to say, "able to deal lethal damage = armed", check the description of gauntlets:

Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. ...

Unarmed attacks:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

I always played that gauntlets allowed a character to be "armed" I suspect it is more of a house rule, and by the book, it is still an "unarmed" unarmed strike.


As I was writing specifically about the gauntlet, I felt weird with not going to the exact weapon and double checking, so I apologize.

Here is what a cestus does:

"Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus."

Also, a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack.

Light weapon definition is interesting, but then you have blade boot, tail weapons, and stuff like that categorized under light weapons, and even an unarmed attack is considered an light weapon, and you can use other limbs for that, but it isn't subject to being always held in hand. I think it would be fun to argue using a blade boot in hand as a weapon, and have to have your movement hampered too. Cause a creature somehow to hold the weapon, and then argue that since it's in hand that the monster is using the weapon and has to suffer the movement effects, haha.

Silver Crusade

So gauntlets modify your unarmed strike to be lethal, but they don't threaten:-

Quote:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

You'd have to squint sideways to understand the gauntlet modifying your kicks!

The cestus has advantages and disadvantages compared to a gauntlet, the advantage being you count as armed, and therefore threaten, unlike gauntlets. The disadvantage being a -2 penalty to some stuff. However, you'd have to squint just as hard to read it as modifying your kicks!


Squint to realize what it says correctly? Sure, if that's what you have to do.

I read it and cringe at the stupidity of how badly worded it is, because it makes your ear lethal and armed.

That's RAW

Silver Crusade

I don't agree. When the equipment section describes a weapon, it's talking about that weapon. If it says that this weapon affects your attacks, it's talking about attacks with that weapon!

Next, if you're holding a heavy barrel of beer in both hands, can you make attacks using those hands that aren't with the barrel? Why? Why not? Where does it say in the rules that you can or you can't?

It's in the same place that it says that you can't take actions when you're dead. It doesn't need to say the obvious.

If you hold a feather, does that mean you can't punch with that hand? Where does it say yes or no? You might say you can punch, and in this corner case the DM has to rule.

But the case we're talking about is not holding a feather, nor a barrel. It's about holding a reach weapon, and that is not an obscure corner case. Every example we have is that a hand can only do one thing at a time.

Can you hold both a sword and an axe in the same hand? Sure! Can you attack with either? No. Where does it say that? The same place it tells you that you can't take actions when you're dead.

201 to 250 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Attack of opportunity with the armor spikes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.