+1I don't see why they can't just write the rules they intend to write.
I'm sure they do write the rules they intend to write. We just read them in the best light possible. We read extra features, power, and benefits they didn't write.
If they closed all these routes off, the rule books would be double the page count.
If we can't or won't understand this fact, then we shouldn't complain when they tell us something written doesn't mean what we dreamed it meant.
Some rules are that simple, others aren't. This one is of the former, as evidenced by my proposed change.
Also, your bolded part makes no sense, especially considering how it actually is written, compared to how the rules were supposed to be intended. Take a good look at it for a moment:
In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).
As this is written, taken directly from the book as-is, it doesn't matter if the Morale Bonus goes only to Saves, because it affects any kind of Morale Bonus. It also doesn't matter what source the Morale Bonus comes from (as long as it's not the Morale Bonus to Saves V.S. Fear granted from the weapon), if it's a Morale Bonus, it's increased. No questions asked. How would anyone in their right mind interpret it to mean any other thing; just because they're skeptical? I'm skeptical of Rogues and Fighters even being important in the game, as well as many other people, but nonetheless, they're in the game.
The intent change, as I've shown, is quite easy to implement, and hardly changes the wording size of the entry in question. So why is it not FAQ'd or Errata'd to accommodate the desired effect, if it is really that big of a deal?
+1I don't see why they can't just write the rules they intend to write.
I'm sure they do write the rules they intend to write. We just read them in the best light possible. We read extra features, power, and benefits they didn't write.
If they closed all these routes off, the rule books would be double the page count.
If we can't or won't understand this fact, then we shouldn't complain when they tell us something written doesn't mean what we dreamed it meant.
Not even remotely true. I read the rules as they write them. Not in the best light, not in the worst light, but in the light that they are written. It is after all impossible to determine better or worse powers/feats/abilities/spells, unless you compare them all neutrally. Trying to read bonuses into one that aren't there is as unhelpful to this task as is assuming penalties that don't exist. Again, if they wanted to write Courageous so it only added to fear effects, then they need new writers, because that is not even close to what is written.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Not even remotely true. I read the rules as they write them. Not in the best light
They write a rule that helps saves vs fear. They extend it to help all morale bonuses to saves (not just fear) and you read it to help all morale bonuses to everything under the sun without so much as any text to say so?
You don't see that as extending the rule to benefits they didn't write? No you don't. Which is why we have so many of these incidents. We will always have these incidents. Until they either start answering more FAQ, people start to read the rules in more conservative lights without the need to extend to unwritten benefits, or they start writing the books double the size to close all the extra benefits.
They don't appear to want to write more FAQ.
We don't appear to want to agree to read in a conservative light.
And they have said if they did write the rules double the size more people would be confused about what the rule says.
So at lass we are at an impasse. There is no good solution to these types of problems.
why is it not FAQ'd or Errata'd to accommodate the desired effect, if it is really that big of a deal?
I'm assuming this is a honest question. So I'll give you an answer.
To answer FAQ requires time. They must read, comprehend, and understand the question fully to give the best answer. Off the cuff answers only confuse matters. This takes time. Time they have not been granted to do. So either they do much of it on off hours instead of having dinner with their family. Or they don't answer anything but the most pestered questions. The questions with the most number of people asking to be answered.
This isn't a top level question. There are not enough people demanding an answer.
Some people take any silence on an answer to mean that Paizo supports their view of a rule. We shouldn't. They haven't answered the pimpliest questions on how Overrun works. There is little or no agreement on how it works. Yet it remains unanswered.
Not even remotely true. I read the rules as they write them. Not in the best lightThey write a rule that helps saves vs fear. They extend it to help all morale bonuses to saves (not just fear) and you read it to help all morale bonuses to everything under the sun without so much as any text to say so?
You don't see that as extending the rule to benefits they didn't write? No you don't. Which is why we have so many of these incidents. We will always have these incidents. Until they either start answering more FAQ, people start to read the rules in more conservative lights without the need to extend to unwritten benefits, or they start writing the books double the size to close all the extra benefits.
They don't appear to want to write more FAQ.
We don't appear to want to agree to read in a conservative light.
And they have said if they did write the rules double the size more people would be confused about what the rule says.So at lass we are at an impasse. There is no good solution to these types of problems.
We are at impasse, because evidently "any morale" "from any source" is somehow only supposed to apply to fear in your reading despite literally 0 reason to interpret that so. I'm honestly not sure how you can even pretend that is the case. Seriously, it must be very difficult for you to evaluate the rules if you are reading things in that aren't there. I'm not sure someone who is reading positive or negative benefits into rules like yourself, are well qualified to discuss what the rules actually say.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
We are at impasse, because evidently "any morale" "from any source" is somehow only supposed to apply to fear in your reading
Well, all saves, not just fear saves. But I'm not alone, a former member of the rules development team agrees with my reading.
One could ask about an ability that enhances your chance of ignoring fearful saves somehow makes you stronger? Or gives you a bonus to perform (sing) if you happen to have a morale bonus to skill checks? Really? You think that makes sense?
It is a matter of context. You are reading it out of context and assuming the context doesn't matter. Because this allows extra benefits you would prefer to have.
That is not what is says. Even in context what it says is "any morale" "from any source". It's very straightforward really.
"In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."
It says any morale bonus, from any other source. Where is this context you speak of? If it was intended to be only to saves like you seem to suggest, they need better writers, because that is not even remotely what is written.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is this context you speak of?
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder’s courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon’s enhancement bonus
To ignore context, one must not ignore these two sentences.
To read it your way, would lead to it fortifying the wearer's ability to sing and his ability to cook potatoes like a morale bonus to Craft (cooking) for example.
All this is a moot point. We have an official answer to the Herolab team on how the rule works. You choose to ignore it. That is fine. But please at least admit this:
You know it is unlikely to be put in official FAQ/Errata and by choosing to only change the way you interpret the text until then you get to intentionally interpret the rule incorrectly for that much longer?
Or do you just not care what the words mean if there is a way you can assert they mean something else?
You are missing the words, "In addition" then. As in, it does this plus this. Seriously. This is very straightforward. And we do not have official errata/FAQ. Just SKR. So unless we want another Flurry of Blows discussion... I'll wait for one of those.
You are only concerned with twisting the very plain meaning of the second sentence to avoid being wrong on the internet though evidently.
|
Just to be clear, the FULL wording of the ability is as follows:
This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon. A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You are only concerned with twisting the very plain meaning of the second sentence to avoid being wrong on the internet though evidently.
I am? Seriously?
You honestly believe that?
I'm the guy that more often recognizes what is happening. That there are potentially two ways to read an ability.
I'm the one who pointed out that SKR already spoke on the matter, by officially clarifying to Herolab how the ability should be implemented to follow the rules.
Yet you want to see a direct comment from him. Do you believe the Herolab staff forged the reply to avoid being wrong?
Ah but the rules are vague enough that it could go either way.
I agree with you, the rules are vague.
I agree with you, we need common sense sometimes to read those rules.I agree with you, martials lack stuffs. It's less fun.
I'm okay with you saying that this stuff should work, and even that it works if you provide constructive quotes. I'm even ready to talk about RAI.
But don't insult me of subjectivity against martials. Rules are vague, as I even reported it in my first post: What I hoped to find to bring some light on the subject wasn't in the rules.
I want to play by the rules, and I would like them to be clearer on numerous topics. And some bonus for martials too, indeed.
There are only one question I'm interested in from that thread:
Does special abilities on a gauntlet work when you wield another weapon with that hand?
-> Nothing in the rules support a "shutdown" with multiple weapons wielded (There is no "weapon slot"), but with the lack of wording on "wielding" and because of previous rulings, I'd like some dev's opinion to double-check.
In the end, it should even be "what is wielding a weapon ?", because that question come back often and creates some threads like this one.
I hope it will be a "yes" to link it to my players (and even for myself) for future use.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"what is wielding a weapon ?", because that question come back often and creates some threads like this one.
Didn't this get answered int he FAQ on Defending Weapon?
Actually, I don't think he wants a direct reply from SKR. Anyone, but SKR. Doubly so because he doesn't work for Paizo any more.
SKR replied to 2700 message posts. SRMF replied to almost 800. JB to less than 300. PDT (combined trio) to much less than that.
Isn't calling for "anyone but SKR" basically the same as "that way I won't get a reply! Yay!"?
Plus the reply happened before he left Paizo, while he was still on the PDT.
I guess the question is this. Does a weapon enchzntment on spiked gauntlets get treated like a wonderous item rather than a weapon even applying its bonuses when another weapon is being used. More specifically if that other weapon is beinc wieldez two handed and the gauntlets no longer threaten.
My guess as far as rai goes is no the buff curageous provides as several people interpet it is far better than a +1 enhancement.
Think about this people are insisting that a raging barbarian under the effects of bard song while wearing a +1 curageous spikes gauntlet and attacking with a greatsword would add +2 str +2 hit/dam/savea vz fear.
It doesn't make sense if it really was intended to work that way whoever designed the ability was drunk. I mean every martial char I have would put it on an amf with curageous.
Or we can assume it works like skr said in which case its still strong but not wtfbbq strong.
They write a rule that helps saves vs fear. They extend it to help all morale bonuses to saves (not just fear) and you read it to help all morale bonuses to everything under the sun without so much as any text to say so?
This bolded part makes no sense. FrodoOf9Fingers quoted the entire Courageous entry, and if you noticed, the "help all morale bonuses" is its own sentence, involving an entirely different subject, verb, predicate, etc. There is no "extension" involved. Although the words "In addition" may express that point, it's fairly obvious the intent is that following sentence is to be done in conjunction with the first point, hence its wording.
I'll also point out that the sentence you claim we are exaggerating upon makes zero mention of saving throws. How are we to extrapolate that it involves only saving throws when there is no language present to simulate that point? And you're the one saying we're exaggerating the ability's listed benefits? I suggest you check and see if you're a pot or not, because calling the kettle black so far isn't really doing you any favors.
@ Mojorat: It's only overpowered if you're dealing with Morale bonuses; for some characters, such as the Barbarian, or a group that has a Bard with Inspire Courage (which, ironically enough, has a noun similar to that of the property being used), this is going to be really good for a +1, but compare it to another +1 Weapon Enhancement; it normally gives +1 to Hit and Damage, and since it only increases based off of half of the weapon's Enhancement Bonus, in the lower levels it will increase by this same amount, and until you're reaching a +4 Enhancement weapon, it'll stay that way, which won't be for quite a while.
And remember, for others who don't have Morale Bonuses, this ability is crap. I sure wouldn't use it as a Fighter if I didn't have a Bard in my Party, especially if I have the Bravery feature (which sucks anyway, since everyone knows gaining Fear Immunity is a very common thing).
This property is about as fickle as, say, the Fate's Favored trait from UCamp; for characters who have little to no Luck Bonuses, it's crap. For those who have a lot, it's practically the best Trait in the game. It all depends on who your character is.
@HectorVivis: Wielding a weapon, as far as I'm concerned, means it's in hand and you're able to make attacks with it. In the case of the Spiked Gauntlet, it's worn and you're able to make attacks with it.
Certain abilities do require attack rolls to function (Guardian, Defending properties, for example), but they are listed exceptions to an otherwise general rule, since most people believed they didn't have to make attack rolls from these properties in order to get their benefits, while some people did, hence why there is a FAQ to clarify how those properties are supposed to be ran.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, you really read that to give half the enhancement bonus of the weapon to ALL morale bonuses? The weapon property is called courageous, I think its pretty damn obvious that its sole purpose is to boost saves vs fear. It's only a +1 property afterall.
--Vrock & Awe
Considering it says that it gives half the weapons enhancement bonus to all morale bonuses, yes I believe it says what it says. And why wouldn't being Courageous pump *all* your morale bonuses? I mean morale is morale is morale and having more of it makes you better at it.
Because it's only a +1 ability. Your reading of the second sentance, independant of the first gives the ability far too much power for its cost.
--School of Vrock
Considering the power of other items, spells, and other features and the fact that the enchantment itself offers absolutely no clarification on whether it only applies to just saves and instead says ALL morale bonuses from ANY source gee I wonder why theres a discussion.
Your reading into it "It's only a +1 ability". If you want to be able to do an accurate assessment I suggest you stop doing that (though if you don't want to be accurate feel free to continue reading in things that aren't there). The second line is independent of the first sentence because otherwise it would make no sense, since courageous gives the weapons FULL enhancement bonus as a morale bonus to saves against fear. Then it says "ANY OTHER" (which means we're not talking about that previous thing anymore) morale bonus the wielder gains from "ANY OTHER" source. Seriously... read the ability.
Who cares that it's "far to much power for it's cost" it does what it does. And that "far to much power" is mighty subjective since it requires +2 enhancement bonus (so a +3 weapon) do anything at all. Oh man a +3 weapons giving a +1 bonus to morale effects... so op... much wow.
|
|
No what its saying is if you get a morale bonus to saves vs fear that's higher than the one your weapon provides, you get half the weapon's enhancement bonus on TOP of the other morale bonus to saves vs fear.
So you could get both the bard's morale bonus from inspire courage and half your enhancement bonus, or the morale bonus from heroe's feast or the Fighter's bravery bonus and still get half your weapon on top of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that is in fact not what it says. It says any other morale bonus. Not morale bonus against fear saves from any sources. Any other morale bonus, from any other source. Thus as written Courageous is absolutely intended to pump all morale bonuses by half the weapons enhancement modifier. And if that wasn't what was intended, Paizo needs new writers.
|
|
#1 the ability is called Courageous.
#2 The first sentance describing the effect in game mechanics says what it does. It gives the enhancement bonus of the weapon as a morale bonus to saves vs fear.
#3 The second sentance describing the game mechanics says "in addition" (referring to the first sentance) if you get another morale bonus to saves vs fear from another source that happens to be higher you get to add half the enhancement bonus of the weapon instead of having them overlap as is normal for stacking bonuses.
You are reading the second sentance of the ability out of context. Its a good, focused weapon ability when you focus on its theme; courage/fear.
Wow, you really read that to give half the enhancement bonus of the weapon to ALL morale bonuses? The weapon property is called courageous, I think its pretty damn obvious that its sole purpose is to boost saves vs fear. It's only a +1 property afterall.
How else is there to read it? The first sentence says it fortifies courage and morale in battle; flavor text, not important. The second sentence says it gives its enhancement bonus on saves versus fear effects as a Morale Bonus. That's all we gather from this sentence.
The third sentence says it gives half of its enhancement bonus to any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source.
That's the RAW of it. It's been shown so many times on this thread, I don't know how you miss it; or better yet, it just proves your ignorance. I mean, if you're this ridiculous when it comes to this property, imagine how stupid you would be when you come across players at your table who take Fate's Favored.
There's a bunch of low cost stuff that accomplishes a lot, and you're not comparing it to other +1 properties, or even the +1 Enhancement Bonus itself that the player could've otherwise gotten, and at the lower levels it's equal in power. By the time you're hitting +4 or higher Enhancement Bonus weapons, the increased powerscaling from that property won't make a huge difference, so I don't see the problem. It's like the Crane Wing feat all over again...
No what its saying is if you get a morale bonus to saves vs fear that's higher than the one your weapon provides, you get half the weapon's enhancement bonus on TOP of the other morale bonus to saves vs fear.
So you could get both the bard's morale bonus from inspire courage and half your enhancement bonus, or the morale bonus from heroe's feast or the Fighter's bravery bonus and still get half your weapon on top of it.
Show me where in the RAW, or even a FAQ/Errata, that the bolded part exists. Until you can show me where it is, instead of imposing , you'll just have to deal with the little powercreep that Martials (the ones that technically don't even need it) are getting.
I'd also like to point out that the Fighter's Bravery feature is not a Morale Bonus, and therefore is not increased by a Courageous weapon. Are you sure you know the weapon special ability the way you claim to?
#1 the ability is called Courageous.
#2 The first sentance describing the effect in game mechanics says what it does. It gives the enhancement bonus of the weapon as a morale bonus to saves vs fear.
#3 The second sentance describing the game mechanics says "in addition" (referring to the first sentance) if you get another morale bonus to saves vs fear from another source that happens to be higher you get to add half the enhancement bonus of the weapon instead of having them overlap as is normal for stacking bonuses.You are reading the second sentance of the ability out of context. Its a good, focused weapon ability when you focus on its theme; courage/fear.
It does not refer to the first sentence. Isn't "addition," something that, you know, add on to? As in the product does more than just the first part, it does the second part too?
Let's take a pencil. It has lead. It can write on paper. In addition, it has an eraser. What can you tell me about the pencil?
-It has lead.
-It can write on paper.
-It has an eraser.
Let's do the same thing with the Courageous property:
It fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. It gives a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus. What can you tell me about the Courageous property?
-It fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle.
-It gives a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus.
-Any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus.
Being Courageous doesn't equate to simply being brave enough to go up and fight, it also involves being powerful enough to rise to the challenge, and succeed, the biggest difference between a true warrior and a blind fool.
Rage about martials not getting nice stuff all you want, you're still reading it out of context.
Not my fault you'd gimp your Martials so bad in your games.
You still haven't shown me the RAW that says the morale bonus from other sources increase only affects saves, and you never will, because it doesn't exist.
At this point, the thread is hijacked thanks to the Courageous property discrepancy, so I will make a thread specific to this.
Rage about martials not getting nice stuff all you want, you're still reading it out of context.
When you create your own context instead of looking at what's clearly written on paper, I can see where you're coming from.
Is that a valid argument? Not really.
This has nothing to do with martials having nice things. If it didn't have tht last line as soon as the party bard casts heroism or inspires courage your weapon would stop helping.
On the martials thing if it worked the way some people are insisting an amf with couragous on an amf woukd be the neck item for every pc I have.
Because it basically makee it the most cost efficient wonderous item for benefits in the game. It breaks muktiple game ruled badly.
Or it can add a small bonus to saves vs fear.
This has nothing to do with martials having nice things. If it didn't have tht last line as soon as the party bard casts heroism or inspires courage your weapon would stop helping.
On the martials thing if it worked the way some people are insisting an amf with couragous on an amf woukd be the neck item for every pc I have.
Because it basically makee it the most cost efficient wonderous item for benefits in the game. It breaks muktiple game ruled badly.
Or it can add a small bonus to saves vs fear.
It does seem powerful, but look at this clause:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.
The Courageous property can not conceivably be applicable to unarmed attacks, so it is not eligible to put on it.
I would also ask that you go to the official FAQ thread I made regarding the Courageous property, as this thread is about discussing whether a weapon you aren't actively using (but drawn/worn and ready to use) grants you its benefits.
This has nothing to do with martials having nice things. If it didn't have tht last line as soon as the party bard casts heroism or inspires courage your weapon would stop helping.
On the martials thing if it worked the way some people are insisting an amf with couragous on an amf woukd be the neck item for every pc I have.
Because it basically makee it the most cost efficient wonderous item for benefits in the game. It breaks muktiple game ruled badly.
Or it can add a small bonus to saves vs fear.
It does seem powerful, but look at this clause:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.]The Courageous property can not conceivably be applicable to unarmed attacks, so it is not eligible to put on it.
I would also ask that you go to the official FAQ thread I made regarding the Courageous property, as this thread is about discussing whether a weapon you aren't actively using (but drawn/worn and ready to use) grants you its benefits.
If courageous does what some say, and adds a bonus to every single morale bonus imaginable... then it most certainly is applicable to unarmed attacks.
That can be a + hit/ +damage bonus right there... unarmed attacks benefit from those, surly.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ~Inigo
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Rage about martials not getting nice stuff all you want, you're still reading it out of context.
+1
Not to mention we have a reply from SKR when he was one of three of the rules team on precisely how this works. This reply was given to the HeroLab team to properly follow the rules in HL.
The fact that this "makes martials not have nice things" apparently is the reason why everyone who wants it to work in the broken way just reject reality and insert their "until it gets Errata I'll keep using the known incorrect interpretation thank you very much."
Not to mention we have a reply from SKR when he was one of three of the rules team on precisely how this works. This reply was given to the HeroLab team to properly follow the rules in HL.
Okay, yes, whining "Whaa, martials don't get nice things" doesn't help.
But we have someone on the herolab team who said that they got an email from SKR to this effect. This could not be found anywhere else. We do not have an official FAQ or Errata on the subject. We don't even have a post on the Paizo forums with an official post on the subject.
Perhaps my life in college and on wikipedia has led me astray, but [CITATION REQUIRED]
If vague, it is always best to go with the more conservative reading of the text. In this case, that agrees with SKR."Always".
Hm. How nice for you.
SKR has made TONS of errors in his rules adjudication. I take his words with a grain of salt now.
I always saw it less as a case of SKR making errors, and more as a case of him holding out for a different way of thinking about the rules then the attitude that is in vogue.
There's a disconnect between the way people like SKR expect the rules to be used and the way a segment of the player base expect them to perform.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
FYI, just like with posting FAQs, any rulings sent to Lone Wolf for HeroLab first required a discussion with all three members of the design team, or (if all three weren't available) at least a verification from Jason how the rule was supposed to work. In other words, none of them are me responding "off the cuff" with just *my* opinion of how the rule is supposed to work.
And FYI, the attitudes of some people in this thread are really jerkish. It makes me glad I don't have to deal with such people any more. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often think of the debacle with the masterwork backpack.
Going from memory, there was a case being made about wearing multiple masterwork backpacks to increase your effective strength score for the purposes of carrying capacity. On the one hand, sure you could "prove" that a character with enough masterwork backpacks could bench-press a mountain or whatever it was, by applying rules of formal logic to a hyper-literal reading of the rules. The thing is, is that the game you want to play? I guess for some people yes, but for others, the rules are more of a means to an end rather then a be-all and end-all.
Sure things are more codified now then the early days, but it's not as if the game is meant to work without a GM now. Pathfinder still has a strong connection to it's heritage from a lineage of games where the rules systems were always more like guidelines and possible resolution mechanisms for determining outcomes. As far as I can tell, no edition of D&D ever tried to codify things to the extent that the rules could hold up to the kind of scrutiny a legal document or a piece of computer programming code should.
Pathfinder isn't any different. Added consistency, sure, that's an improvement, it's progress, but... the spirit is still the same. The GM is still assumed to be there to adjudicate things, and the rules are there as an aid to support him/her in that role. It's still about rulings, not just rules.
That's a long tangent, but what I'm saying is... if you look at a masterwork backpack and start by accepting that this is just a well made pack that distributes weight efficiently and helps you carry a bit more inside, you won't ever go down the road of equipping your character with 50 MW backpacks and trying to bench press a mountain. That only happens if you look at it as "strength 1 higher than normal when calculating your carrying capacity".
You don't have to be a narrativist or simulationist to look at it that way. You can be a pure gamist, and still play nice and read the rules of the game you are playing in the spirit in which they were written. It has worked that way for a long time.
|
|
I know it's been 5 days after the fact, but I thought to "return and report".
We talked as a group about it, and felt that it is a little cheesy. We decided he can the bonuses as long as he doesn't have his spiked guantlet hand on the weapon. If he wanted to sell the gauntlet back for full price, that's perfectly fine to. His character had a bad experience with armor spikes, so that won't be an issue with this game.
He decided to sell it back (He wanted to be able to 2-h the spear, and then take a hand off for the benefits of the spiked gauntlets).
At the end of the day, I really didn't expect this to explode into several threads... My GM is amazed at how much confusion there is about wielding, in his words "Just go with what makes sense..."
But then again, this is the rules forum, where everything needs to be defined precisely :)