Attack of opportunity with the armor spikes?


Rules Questions

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

This is exhausting.

The rules say that while holding objects, you can make unarmed attacks. These attacks include, and are not limited to, your fist, knees, legs, feet, and elbows.

When you apply a cestus, your unarmed attacks are now considered armed.

Object held + cestus = hitting with your fist.

This is really obnoxious to explain the same thing over and over.

This HAS rules supporting it, so mocking the arguments with being silly is a waste of time, and annoying. Yes, I'm aware I asked for proof with things that don't exist, but that's when someone is insisting that something is a fact, when it's absolutely not.

Respectfully, keep your arguments rational, and don't ignore the facts. If you have a legitimate position, then make it.

Silver Crusade

Rational. Weapon descriptions which include game rules are for attacks with the weapon it describes.

When the cestus entry says that it modifies your unarmed attacks, it de facto is saying that it modifies the unarmed attacks made with the cestus.

The cestus threatens, the rest of your unarmed attacks don't.


I think that it's reasonable that the weapon is what matters, but by RAW it's stated that your unarmed strikes are now armed. This can't be argued, because it's clearly written.

With you saying the cestus threatens you're admitting that an unarmed attack is now armed and threatening, which means while holding objects you can make unarmed attacks, which means you can use your fist, and hand to make such attacks/threaten.

It's always going to come down to the same thing. Does anyone have anything they can offer that says otherwise?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

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?

Pathfinder doesn't differentiate where unarmed attacks come from, and say they can be any part of the body really. The cestus operates by modifying your unarmed attacks, period.

Yes, visually, it is on your arm. Mechanically, RAW, it modifies the category of attack 'unarmed'. As we know, unarmed attacks can be made while your hands are full.

Quote:
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.

You don't attack with a cestus, interestingly enough. The cestus modifies your unarmed attacks. You attack. If you just happen to be wearing a cestus you're considered armed for the purpose of your unarmed attacks, and your unarmed attacks do lethal damage.

Unarmed attacks, mechanically, by the rules, are not some infinitely large category of attack types. It is one thing. Fluff wise, any part of your body is used, kick, punch, jab, knee, chest bump, back hand, whatever. You can imagine it as your dude beating people up with his little toe if it makes you happy. But... there isn't a 'punch attack’ or a 'kick attack' or a 'headbutt attack'...

There is only an 'unarmed attack'.

The cestus changes that type of attack's mechanics. It now threatens, and deals lethal damage.

You can make unarmed attacks with your hands occupied. Thus you threaten to your natural reach with your unarmed strikes, and if you are holding a reach weapon, also threaten with that weapon from the end of your natural reach to 2x your natural reach.

Thems the RAW.

If you want to picture the fluff in your head as an attack from the glove, feel free to.

But do everyone a favor and stop trying to divide unarmed attacks into some made up subcategories that simply don't exist by RAW. An unarmed attack is a whole indivisible unit.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Rational. Weapon descriptions which include game rules are for attacks with the weapon it describes.

When the cestus entry says that it modifies your unarmed attacks, it de facto is saying that it modifies the unarmed attacks made with the cestus.

The cestus threatens, the rest of your unarmed attacks don't.

You don't attack with a cestus dude.

You attack with unarmed attacks. Your unarmed attacks are simply modified while you are wearing a cestus.

I don't know, maybe you 'can' attack 'with' a cestus. It is considered a weapon after all. But you certainly aren't required to, and can just as well make an unarmed attack (Which while wearing a cestus is considered armed, and lethal).


Remy Balster wrote:


Unarmed attacks, mechanically, by the rules, are not some infinitely large category of attack types. It is one thing. Fluff wise, any part of your body is used, kick, punch, jab, knee, chest bump, back hand, whatever. . You can imagine it as your dude beating people up with his little toe if it makes you happy. But... there isn't a 'punch attack’ or a 'kick attack' or a 'headbutt attack'...

There is only an 'unarmed attack'.

This is wrong.

In the "Attacks" section of the combat chapter, "Unarmed attack" is a category along with "Natural Attack", "Ranged Attack", and "Melee Attack". On the equipment table Unarmed attack is used as a category along with light melee, one handed melee, two handed melee and ranged. Also on the equipment table there is two different listings under unarmed attack:
1) unarmed strike
2) gauntlet

By your logic wearing a gauntlet attack would affect a "little toe attack".

This is wrong.


Fergie wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


Unarmed attacks, mechanically, by the rules, are not some infinitely large category of attack types. It is one thing. Fluff wise, any part of your body is used, kick, punch, jab, knee, chest bump, back hand, whatever. . You can imagine it as your dude beating people up with his little toe if it makes you happy. But... there isn't a 'punch attack’ or a 'kick attack' or a 'headbutt attack'...

There is only an 'unarmed attack'.

This is wrong.

In the "Attacks" section of the combat chapter, "Unarmed attack" is a category along with "Natural Attack", "Ranged Attack", and "Melee Attack". On the equipment table Unarmed attack is used as a category along with light melee, one handed melee, two handed melee and ranged. Also on the equipment table there is two different listings under unarmed attack:
1) unarmed strike
2) gauntlet

By your logic wearing a gauntlet attack would affect a "little toe attack".

This is wrong.

By my logic there is no such thing as a 'little toe attack'.

Look, you can picture whatever you like in your head, nothing here or in the book holds dominion over what is up in tha nugget. But by game rules, there are unarmed attacks. Or ‘unarmed strikes’ if you like that term better, they are used interchangeably.

Quote:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.

Gauntlets are attacked with by making an 'unarmed strike'.

And my logic is actual logic.

For what it is worth, in the future, if you feel that something is wrong it is extremely helpful if you know precisely what it is that you feel is wrong. Copying an entire block of text and then seemingly arguing that it is correct while saying it is wrong is just weird.


Fergie wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


Unarmed attacks, mechanically, by the rules, are not some infinitely large category of attack types. It is one thing. Fluff wise, any part of your body is used, kick, punch, jab, knee, chest bump, back hand, whatever. . You can imagine it as your dude beating people up with his little toe if it makes you happy. But... there isn't a 'punch attack’ or a 'kick attack' or a 'headbutt attack'...

There is only an 'unarmed attack'.

This is wrong.

In the "Attacks" section of the combat chapter, "Unarmed attack" is a category along with "Natural Attack", "Ranged Attack", and "Melee Attack". On the equipment table Unarmed attack is used as a category along with light melee, one handed melee, two handed melee and ranged. Also on the equipment table there is two different listings under unarmed attack:
1) unarmed strike
2) gauntlet

By your logic wearing a gauntlet attack would affect a "little toe attack".

This is wrong.

I don't understand what you're point is. He explicitly explained his logic and it makes complete sense, and his logic is saying that and he clearly states it.

The sections things are in don't really concern anything here. Read what unarmed attacks are, and his point is infinitely better articulated than how I was trying to put it. You don't say, "I attack with (specific body part)" but rather "I use an unarmed attack". However you want to imagine it is up to you. Your little toe, your ear, or even your nose...

Read the unarmed attack rules, and read the weapons rules. I don't see how this isn't case closed with people. The rules exist completely, and this isn't a case of air bud logic.


I apologize for not being more clear in my quoting and responses.

The idea that an unarmed attack/strike operates the same regardless of what limb(s), equipment, or situational limitations is incorrect. For example, if your hands are otherwise occupied, you can't benefit from your gauntlets, and deal lethal damage.

If you are two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, you would need a gauntlet on each hand to deal lethal damage with both. If you cast Magic Fang, you must select which hand to have it cast on, and it only affects that hand.

These things are not "just fluff". They matter for various situations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpTNYWJzEuE


Finally we get an interesting argument, and I thank you for this.

Magic fang stated that you choose one natural attack or unarmed strike. It's not saying one specific unarmed strike, but for you to specify the natural attack, because natural attacks do have specifics in that aspect. Different natural attack damage and other factors come from the specific natural attack, and that is why you must choose one.


Fergie wrote:

I apologize for not being more clear in my quoting and responses.

The idea that an unarmed attack/strike operates the same regardless of what limb(s), equipment, or situational limitations is incorrect. For example, if your hands are otherwise occupied, you can't benefit from your gauntlets, and deal lethal damage.

If you are two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, you would need a gauntlet on each hand to deal lethal damage with both. If you cast Magic Fang, you must select which hand to have it cast on, and it only affects that hand.

These things are not "just fluff". They matter for various situations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpTNYWJzEuE

None of this is found in the rules anywhere.

There are no body part limitations or specifications for making an unarmed strike. You just do it.

What part of the body you use and how you do it is the very essence of 'fluff'. Spinning crane kick? Right hook? Haymaker? All fluff.

You can freely dress up your mechanics (unarmed strike) with whatever fluff you like (part used and how).

You can do similar with melee attacks with weapons. Similar, not identical. See, weapon attacks don't spell out what techniques you use or anything... did you slash a dude's arm, an overhand chop to his shoulder? Maybe a quick succession of thrusts which finally caught his thigh. A leaping downward spearing to the gut? Maybe a quick slash to his back when he was too distracted by one of your allies?

Fluff fluff fluff all day.

Fluff is good, it is great. It adds a whole level to the game that is cool and interesting and dynamic.

But... no matter what kind of attack moves you got going, your longsword is a melee attack, and does a d8 damage. That is the mechanics of it.

The mechanics of 'unarmed strikes' is that this option is always available to you, assuming you are capable of attacking in any way (Not unconscious, dead, paralyzed etc) and within reach.

The cestus modifies this very basic default attack option, and allows it to threaten and deal lethal damage. The feat Improved Unarmed Strike does similarly.

Mechanically there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. Here, compare them...

Quote:
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Quote:
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.

Anything beyond that is 100% in the realm of fluffyville.

Two of your three examples are the gauntlet we are discussing, so I am going to ignore them. You cannot expect to use the questioned item in defense of your position for why those examples work. That is ridiculous.

Ugh… anyway, the spell magic fang allows you to target a single creature, and one of its natural weapons or unarmed strike is given a +1 bonus. I’m not sure where you go from this to the idea that unarmed strikes have multitudes of unwritten RAW mini-weapons all over people. So... you choose, you get a claw, or a bite, or a gore, or an unarmed strike... or a whatever else you might have... I really don't see your point here. Yes yes, there are many types of natural weapons, if that is what you mean?

You wanna blur the lines between what is fluff and what is the combat mechanics? Make people announce what kind of body part they are using whenever they declare an unarmed strike? Use whatever they say as a new classification of the category ‘unarmed strikes’ and force mechanics and new homerules on it to get it all working right? That is fine for your games. But that most certainly isn’t ‘the rules’.

The rules don’t make us decide, determine, or even announce what part of the body is being used. You just make an unarmed strike. That is it.

The cestus and the gauntlet change how unarmed strikes work. That is it.

It really is that simple.


Remy Balster wrote:


The rules don’t make us decide, determine, or even announce what part of the body is being used. You just make an unarmed strike. That is it.

Yes, the is probably the most common use of unarmed strike. However, once you start adding things like two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes (thus making one of your unarmed strikes an offhand weapon), enchanting unarmed strikes (with magic fang or otherwise) or situations where logic would dictate that you can't use a gauntlet or cestus to make the attack, a different understanding of the rules is required.

PS "Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands."

Again, the default assumption is that if you are a normal humanoid and you want to attack a guy using some unarmed strikes, you do it with both hands.


Nefreet wrote:
By the rules, a 16th level Gunslinger can fire a muzzle-loaded double barrel musket 12 times in 6 seconds.

It's actually a bit worse than that. A full round with everyone going is 6 seconds.

I can build a character that (at level 16) can fire a musket 19+ times every 6 seconds. With the vast majority of them *completely accurate.*


I am with the side that would like to see a "no action to change grip" argument.

That said, the idea that you can do a lethal kick because you are wearing a cestus doesn't work for me.

That is almost like saying you get 1d8 to punch with your main hand because you are holding a longsword in your off hand.

It might say that 100%, but I am really sure it doesn't mean that.


Fergie wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:


The rules don’t make us decide, determine, or even announce what part of the body is being used. You just make an unarmed strike. That is it.

Yes, the is probably the most common use of unarmed strike. However, once you start adding things like two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes (thus making one of your unarmed strikes an offhand weapon), enchanting unarmed strikes (with magic fang or otherwise) or situations where logic would dictate that you can't use a gauntlet or cestus to make the attack, a different understanding of the rules is required.

PS "Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands."

Again, the default assumption is that if you are a normal humanoid and you want to attack a guy using some unarmed strikes, you do it with both hands.

Unless you've never seen any martial arts movie or ever been in a real fight.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:


Unless you've never seen any martial arts movie or ever been in a real fight.

Don't get me wrong, I know the rules specifically list punches, kicks, and head butts as unarmed attacks. If you want to take a feat like improved unarmed strike or exotic weapon proficiency iron boot and go around kicking people while playing an accordion, that sounds great. Just don't tell me it gets some bonus from your cestus while you do it.

Grand Lodge

At convention earlier. Let me clarify a few things.

When I said there seems be an obsession with the Polearm Spiked/Gauntlet combo, I meant that it comes up a lot, amongst a number of posters, who fight tooth and nail, to have the combo work.

I was curious if this was from some popular character somewhere.

Second, I am really only trying to let it be known that you cannot threaten with two different weapons, that utilize the same hand.

So, you could not have one single hand, that threatens with a Dagger, a Gauntlet, and a Claw, all at the same time.

Silver Crusade

The individual weapon descriptions are talking about using that weapon. When the cestus and gauntlet talk about modifying unarmed strikes, they have no need to say 'unarmed strikes with this weapon', but that's what it means.

Believing otherwise shows a disconnect with reality that could be diagnosed...!

251 to 268 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.