I just noticed that you can use Chakrams in melee instead of throwing them, though there are penalties involved. I have a few questions about that.
1. Do they count as light weapons or one-handed weapons? I'm guessing light because they only weigh 1 pound, but it doesn't actually say.
2. You can hurt yourself using them as melee weapons, unless you are wearing heavy armour or make a DC 15 reflex save. Does wearing gauntlets or spiked gauntlets satisfy the heavy armour requirement? It seems like it ought to, but again it doesn't say.
Edit: this question is for PFS play so hopefully someone can give me an "offical" ruling.
Does wearing gauntlets or spiked gauntlets satisfy the heavy armour requirement?
Gauntlets are weapons. They come for free with some (medium and heavy) armors, but they are not armor. And they certainly are not heavy armor.
Barbarians monks and sorcerers can all use gauntlets with no penalties. (Well, the monk is not proficient, so he takes a -4 penalty to attacks with it, but he doesn't lose AC/fast movement/flurry)
What piece of armour protects the hands?
I think the logical conclusion for the RAI is that gauntlets would suffice but iirc the RAW just states that you must wear heavy armor. So if you're playing PFS heavy armor or nothing I guess, but most home game DMs would probably let you slide with gauntlets.
What exactly are the options to prevent the damage?
Chakram: "You do not need to make this save if wearing heavy armor."
Surely, something can be put upon your hands to prevent the damage, without requiring you to wear Fullplate.
Other options are splint mail, banded mail, half-plate, or any other heavy armor. Not that any of those have anything to do with hands, but neither does the chakram.
Gauntlets are not armor.
Or isn't inventing rules about where you cut yourself and what kinds of weapons might prevent that.
"How could I cut the palm of my hand when I'm holding a shield there! Anyone who says a shield isn't heavy armor is a robot!"
They're exotic weapons, correct? I imagine part of that training is wielding these things without evsicerating yourself. They manage to do okay on TRON after all.
Per the rules yep. Obviously it's kind of silly but that's how it goes.
Yes they are. Most any definition of gauntlet makes this clear. They are literally meant to function as one of the many pieces of a suit of armor. They are just as much armor as is a helmet. They protect one's hands just as the helmet protects the head. They are even mentioned several times in the armor section of the Equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook. Why you think it can't be both a form of armor and a weapon is beyond me.
In any case, the rule clearly exists to emulate how a chakram can hurt you if used improperly. Saying a gauntlet can't protect your hand (with or without the rest of the armor) is like saying people can't see the sun due to the range penalties involved. It's patently ridiculous and nobody in their right mind, in home games or Pathfinder Society, would ever truly play that way!
Is it ridiculous? Absolutely. Is that RAW? Without question. The writers could just have easily have said "You do not need to make this save if wearing gauntlets." They chose to say heavy armor, for whatever inexplicable reason, and so that's the RAW.
Now, in my home games, I'll definitely be houseruling that gauntlets prevent the check. But at a PFS table, I can't really do that. The OP asked in regards to PFS, so the answer was given.
They are just as much armor as is a helmet.
A helmet is not armor, either. There's no entry in the armor tables for a helmet. If armor includes a helmet, and you remove it, your armored state does not change. A Helm of Comprehend Languages and Read Magic does not grant you any protection against attacks, nor does it cause a monk or druid or barbarian to lose class features, nor does it interfere with arcane spellcasting.
Gauntlets and helmets and boots and silk shirts are not armor, despite occasionally being included with a purchase of armor.
They protect one's hands just as the helmet protects the head.
Neither of those items provide any protection.
They are even mentioned several times in the armor section of the Equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook.
Yes, gauntlets are included with some armor. If those armors came with a free shortsword, that wouldn't mean a shortsword is armor and it gives you AC and means a chakram can't hurt you.
In any case, the rule clearly exists to emulate how a chakram can hurt you if used improperly.
And that rule clearly states Heavy Armor. Not weapons, not accessories, not medium armor that includes weapon accessories, just heavy armor.
It's patently ridiculous and nobody in their right mind, in home games or Pathfinder Society, would ever truly play that way!
You, of all people, should understand how insulting people who disagree with you is not productive.
Argh. *head desk*
Clearly, you guys believe the game designers meant Heavy Armor, as in that found in the Equipment chapter of the core rulebook, whereas I really and truly believe they were referring to heavy armor, per the normal English usage (a MUCH broader definition).
Your interpretation makes NO sense whatsoever, and leads to all kinds of weird problems and scenarios that totally break the game's verisimilitude. I think I prefer my own, which makes this whole situation a complete non-issue.
Go about playing it in ridiculous fashion if you wish. Your game, your prerogative.
Not in my games. If you don't have heavy armor protecting your hands (or whatever appendage you use to wield the chakram) you risk getting cut.
Clearly, you guys believe the game designers meant Heavy Armor, as in that found in the Equipment chapter of the core rulebook
Since that's what they wrote, yeah. Heavy armor only has one definition in game.
whereas I really and truly believe they were referring to heavy armor, per the normal English usage.
You apply this interpretation to the ranger, too, yes? How heavy does it have to be? Four-Mirror armor is 45 lbs. Does that count? That's a lot heavier than Banded mail (35 lbs). If the ranger wears Chainmail, that includes gauntlets, and since you say they're heavy armor, no more combat style feats?
Well, chakrams are martial weapons according to the rules, but I can see the logic behind allowing an exotic proficiency to allow them to be used risk-free. Would the exotic proficiency get rid of the -1 penalty to hit as well?
The problem is that I'm going to be the player in this game, not the GM, and I have thought about making a character build using chakrams. They seem to be a good weapon but at 1st level I won't be able to afford heavy armor. So I have to be able to convince PFS GMs to allow it. Without an official ruling I may not be able to do that.
It's not necessarily a big deal until I get Weapon Focus/Specialization which won't start until WF at 3rd level with my planned build. But once that hits, for the idea I have I need to be able to use them in melee safely. I also kind of want to stick to an agile breastplate until I can afford mithral agile full plate, which won't be for a while.
Yes, but not nearly as well. The range is only 20 feet instead of 30 and the die type is 1d4 instead of 1d8. Also I prefer slashing to piercing for my main weapon. I can live with the -1 to hit that comes with using the chakrams in melee.
If you're looking for a proper rebuttal, perhaps you should come up with something better than a straw man?
You know I'm referring only in the context of the discussion, specifically the chakram. Please try and be more respectful of others' views. Pretty sure that's a rule around here.
I prefer using one weapon for both, since weapon focus and specialization will apply in both cases. My build requires me to get weapon focus so I might as well go with it and get specialization as well. But the ideal circumstance would be to have those feats apply to weapons you could use at range or in melee.
RD you should understand that he's completely right when the game tells you heavy armor does something it always means the technical term for heavy armor. This is why you don't include arbitrary terminology in the game it devalues and complicates the system and that's why you can almost never assume that they're referring to an indefinite definition when making a rule.
Yes, getting the belt is a part of the plan. But using them in melee allows a sneak attack bonus for flanking, which is part of the plan.
Wow. And I thought I was strict in my interpretation of RAW. Just another example that common sense is not so common.
1) If you're wearing gauntlets in melee combat, you're likely wearing heavy armor.
2) If you're wearing gauntlets in melee combat and are NOT wearing heavy armor, you are probably taking penalties. ESPECIALLY if you don't have heavy armor proficiency. Gauntlets are not the same as gloves. They're bulkier, and definitely handle differently with every type of weapon you could possibly hold.
3) If you're wielding Chakram as a melee weapon (I'd agree it's a light weapon, like a Starknife, as interpreted by JJ), you need to have some type of metal coverings on your hands or risk getting cut because you cannot avoid gripping the business end of the weapon.
4) Since the most common metal hand covering would be gauntlets, and gauntlets are most commonly associated with heavy armor, the developers used those semantics.
5) There are rules for piecemeal armor. You do not need an entire suit to utilize some of the benefits.
I know this isn't for a homegame; homegames can make rules for wearing gauntlets.
If you're playing PFS, you need to wear heavy armour to wear heavy armour. It's not wearing gauntlets that prevents the chakrams from damaging you by the rules, it's the wearing of heavy armour. If there was heavy armour that only covered my eyebrows, I still wouldn't be hurt while using chakrams.
As for size, it's either light or one-handed. Probably light, because I find it hard to imagine holding it in two-hands, as you can do with a one-handed weapon.
2) Is patently false Barry, there are 0 penalties for wearing gauntlets mechanically. In the real world maybe although then you'd have to differentiate between mitten type gauntlets which have chain on the insides versus everyday plate gauntlets which would be leather liner over plate and almost always have open space on the inside since you aren't supposed to be getting cut there.
4) the gauntlet was already out there if they had intended it to work as you suggest they could have just as easily said gauntlet or similar hand covering.
5) Piecemeal armor is a specific variation of armor and still falls into the light medium and heavy categories.
Again in a home game I'd definitely allow it but per the rules as they are written it isn't possible and therefore in PFS it isn't possible.
Remind me to never play a PFS game then. RAW is not end-all. Sometimes the rules are incorrect or conflicting. That's why there are DMs.
And, I hope you don't actually subscribe to what you just said, because it's absolutely lacking in common sense. It was simply an exaggerated example to make your point, right?
I'm with Ravingdork on this one. If you're wearing some kind of gauntlets or metal hand coverings, you're good.
Barry Armstrong wrote:
PFS and organized play in general needs rules. Of course my point was an exaggeration: there's no eyebrow armour in Pathfinder. GMs are around to arbitrate for issues where there are no rules, but in the chakram's case the rules are clear. Merely wearing gauntlets is not enough, you need splint mail or better.
Interestingly enough, scale mail (a medium armour) includes gauntlets. Banded mail (a heavy armour) does not. Therefore it's not the gauntlets protecting the wearer necessarily.