I would say, if they want to use the gauntlets, they have to drop (or sheath) the weapon they are using (free/standard action i think). And if they want to return to the weapon, they have to pick it back up (standard, provokes AOO).
|
Gotta disagree here. You can bash someone in the face while holding a spear or bow just as well as you can on it's own (maybe more effective because of the added mass). Vampires don't have to drop their greatswords to slam attack. Anakin didn't have to drop his lightsabre to punch Obewan in the face etc...
It's never been codified as a free or non action to take your hand off a two handed weapon (eg for casting a spell) and readying it again, so I don't think it's reasonable to require that you drop what you're holding in order to use a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet.
Vampires don't have to drop their greatswords to slam attack.
Actually... I believe they do.
Properly weilding a weapon (natural or manufactured) assumes that you are focusing on weilding that weapon. If something interferes with it in any way, you're at least subject to a penalty. This is exactly why a greataxe weilding troll can still bite when he full attacks with his greataxe, but not get his claw attacks. The same kind of idea applies to not being able to two-hand weapons while holding a shield. In theory, you would be able to swing a two-handed weapon with a shield (hold the shield strap and the greatsword at the same time), but you cannot do it properly.
Though, this is getting nitpicky about the rules. As a DM, I would give the following advice about this:
If there isn't a problem in your game regarding abuse of spiked gauntlets, than just continue allowing it (remember, the point of the game is to have fun!). If you wanted to be conservative, impose a -2 or -4 penalty to attacks made with it if you want to keep your longspear in hand. If this situation is disrupting the game however, a DM would be justified in disallowing it without use of rule 0.
Along these lines, I had a greatsword wielding cleric who wore a spiked gauntlet for the sole purpose of having a light weapon "in hand" in case of grappling.
-Skeld
Heh, which is very smart. =)
A lot like how it makes little sense for an arcane caster not to invest in a mithril buckler. I never understood why people neglect to do that...
Hey all,
Spiked gauntlets are used extensively in my gaming group, especially in conjunction with a held reach weapon, such as a longspear. While I don’t mind this versatility, is it the intent of PFRPG to allow characters with spiked gauntlets holding another weapon to be able to use them freely?
I can see why you'd want a clarification, but not necessarily, specific rules for such tactics.
As for nerfing this combo, it would be a slap in the face to melee characters, if something similar were not done to spell casters holding a weapon in hand and casting a spell with a somatic component. In fact, a caster can wield a 2-handed weapon in one hand and still cast freely, as they need only one hand to do so (p. 160 in PRPG).
Hey all,
Spiked gauntlets are used extensively in my gaming group, especially in conjunction with a held reach weapon, such as a longspear. While I don’t mind this versatility, is it the intent of PFRPG to allow characters with spiked gauntlets holding another weapon to be able to use them freely?
I can see why you'd want a clarification, but not necessarily, specific rules for such tactics.
As for nerfing this combo, it would be a slap in the face to melee characters, if something similar were not done to spell casters holding a weapon in hand and casting a spell with a somatic component. In fact, a caster can wield a 2-handed weapon in one hand and still cast freely, as they need only one hand to do so (p. 160 in PRPG).
Hmmm. Interesting. I would retract what I said than earlier and rule (if it were my game :D) that they could do it, pending any abuse. This would allow for attacks with the primary hand while holding the weapon in the off. Of course some people will abuse, but that might just be their thing.
|
Along these lines, I had a greatsword wielding cleric who wore a spiked gauntlet for the sole purpose of having a light weapon "in hand" in case of grappling.
-Skeld
SON OF A B!T$ Why did I not realize that before! *kicks self repeatedly*
I would definitely allow a gauntlet to be used to punch with a weapon in its grip. See no reason not to.
In fact to be honest I would allow the main weapon attack and the gauntlet punch as an "off-hand" attack in the same round using Full Attack
...
In fact to be honest I would allow the main weapon attack and the gauntlet punch as an "off-hand" attack in the same round using Full Attack
You can also have the same tactic with spiked armor and a nice "off-hand" boot-stump combined in a 2-handed-weapon full-attack.
|
|
You can also have the same tactic with spiked armor and a nice "off-hand" boot-stump combined in a 2-handed-weapon full-attack....
In fact to be honest I would allow the main weapon attack and the gauntlet punch as an "off-hand" attack in the same round using Full Attack
That would be cool.
A LONG LONG LONG time ago there was a debate on these boards about allowing regular melee attacks and off-hand attacks in addition. I was long and hard against using them- essentially giving free attacks. Someone found an Errata which clarified off-hand attacks. To my dismay it actually specifically said that you can make your regular attacks, then throw a punch, a kick and a head butt as part of off-hand attacks all in one round. I considered this to basically be grappling but it was not listed as so.
Wish I could find that thread now.