| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure beguiling gift would work the way you want it to.
They would put on one locked gauntlet, find themselves physically unable to put on the other, and leave that hand free to provide somatic and material components.
Also locking a gauntlet is a full round action that provokes. Beguiling gift could make them put both gauntlets on, but not lock something into it. And then it would end. And then they would cast their spell.
Wearing the gauntlet doesn't actually do anything, it has to have a weapon locked in it.
Gauntlet, Locked: This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense to keep from being disarmed in combat. Removing a weapon from a locked gauntlet or attaching a weapon to a locked gauntlet is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
The price given is for a single locked gauntlet. The weight given applies only if you're wearing a breastplate, light armor, or no armor. Otherwise, the locked gauntlet replaces a gauntlet you already have as part of the armor.
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.)
|
I'm not sure beguiling gift would work the way you want it to.
They would put on one locked gauntlet, find themselves physically unable to put on the other, and leave that hand free to provide somatic and material components.
Also locking a gauntlet is a full round action that provokes. Beguiling gift could make them put both gauntlets on, but not lock something into it. And then it would end. And then they would cast their spell.
Wearing the gauntlet doesn't actually do anything, it has to have a weapon locked in it.
Gauntlet, Locked: This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense to keep from being disarmed in combat. Removing a weapon from a locked gauntlet or attaching a weapon to a locked gauntlet is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
The price given is for a single locked gauntlet. The weight given applies only if you're wearing a breastplate, light armor, or no armor. Otherwise, the locked gauntlet replaces a gauntlet you already have as part of the armor.
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.)
I didn't think about them not being able to equip the second. I don't see anything in the text that would imply that it can't be locked while there is no weapon in it.
But anyways, it doesn't look like it can be used offensively and I would just have to cow people into wearing it to prevent casting at a later point, instead.
Mostly just my point of view on it. It's not explicit one way or the other. Just my interpretation.
I would expect table variance about such a strategy working or not.
|
|
The type of action is most likely "wasteful"
That is definitely not a rules answer and is just mean. Just because one's ideas don't mesh with yours doesn't mean it's wasteful. I can think of dozens (if not hundreds) of situations where I wouldn't want someone casting spells at me... If all of your PCs have never encountered someone casting hostile spells or an opponent buffing themselves or summoning more critters to fight then I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I feel like putting a gauntlet on an unwilling person is an impossible action, similar to trying to use the Steal maneuver to remove a ring. If they close their hand into a fist, or even just bend one finger, that gauntlet isn't going to fit.
Now, if you've already captured them, forcing them to put on the gauntlets under threat of duress, and then locking the gauntlets to each other (a locked gauntlet is a weapon, after all) might be a decent bit of extra insurance, although I'm not sure if it would be any more effective than tying their hands with rope at that point.
|
|
Personally I feel like putting a gauntlet on an unwilling person is an impossible action, similar to trying to use the Steal maneuver to remove a ring. If they close their hand into a fist, or even just bend one finger, that gauntlet isn't going to fit.
Now, if you've already captured them, forcing them to put on the gauntlets under threat of duress, and then locking the gauntlets to each other (a locked gauntlet is a weapon, after all) might be a decent bit of extra insurance, although I'm not sure if it would be any more effective than tying their hands with rope at that point.
Yeah, that's basically the conclusion I came up with. Though if they're any good at escape artist they may still be able to get through the rope that's binding them.
While Escape Artist doesn't specifically mention locked gauntlets, I would assume most GMs would treat them akin to manacles at that point. Which might actually make them easier to escape from than rope, depending on the CMB of one tying the rope. You could probably at least justify throwing in a circumstance bonus (or rather penalty to their check) for using the gauntlets though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 'locked' of a locked gauntlet is obviously referring to being attached to another weapon. Although it doesn't specifically say, it is reasonable to conclude that only a weapon that is gripped in a hand would fit a locked gauntlet, so you probably couldn't really lock one gauntlet to another. However, any object with a similar grip would probably work.
Unlocking a gauntlet doesn't require a skill or a spell, so even someone who was wearing two of them could presumably do so. If they were further immobilized beyond just the gauntlet it might prevent that.
Manacles are designed to be restraints, and gauntlets not. Presumably the escape DC of gauntlets would be easier than manacles.
As for the original question of the action to force someone into gauntlets, I would probably rule it was at least a full round action, and could only be preformed if the person was willing or helpless.
Personally I feel like putting a gauntlet on an unwilling person is an impossible action, similar to trying to use the Steal maneuver to remove a ring. If they close their hand into a fist, or even just bend one finger, that gauntlet isn't going to fit.
I feel like that would be worse for them. You get the gauntlet, you can use the hand once it's off. If you bend one finger while someone is slamming a metal glove on your hand, that hand shouldn't be useful for somatic components until you get some healing. Hurts just to think about.
When I was a kid, in daycare, the rooms had those two panel doors, where the bottom and top halves swung separately. That way they could close the bottom part to keep us in a room, but leave the top open to see in when they walked by. One day another girl had her hands on top of the lower panel, and a boy who was a troublemaker thought it would be cute to slam the top shut to scare her. Her reaction time was not great. One of her fingers got caught, and it was peeled like a banana by the doors. She wore a finger cast all summer at least, and probably still has a terrible scar.
So... yeah there's no RAW for it, but while we're talking about personally, purposefully putting your fingers in the way of metal someone is shoving onto you forcefully ought to be a bad idea.
|
|
It is a little mean, but he's right. If you want to roflstomp a caster, there are better uses for your standard action. Like sundering their Spell Component Pouch.The type of action is most likely "wasteful"That is definitely not a rules answer and is just mean. Just because one's ideas don't mesh with yours doesn't mean it's wasteful. I can think of dozens (if not hundreds) of situations where I wouldn't want someone casting spells at me... If all of your PCs have never encountered someone casting hostile spells or an opponent buffing themselves or summoning more critters to fight then I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
He's not right, this is a role-playing game with endless possibilities. Just because my idea is outside if his purview or "good idea" (and apparently yours) doesn't mean it's a bad idea--it just means he hasn't broadened his thoughts yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's not right, this is a role-playing game with endless possibilities. Just because my idea is outside if his purview or "good idea" (and apparently yours) doesn't mean it's a bad idea--it just means he hasn't broadened his thoughts yet.
Well, you judge this to be a good idea. He judges this to be a bad idea. At least one of you is wrong --- but it's not necessarily him that needs to reconsider his position....
I agree with the people above that suggest it's not possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, if you can force a locked gauntlet onto someone, you can also probably just break all the fingers in their hands.
At least that's what I do with captured caster. Or cut off their hands. One is a temporary solution. The other is more permanent.