|
Okay so a gauntlet operates the exact same as an unarmed attack, but a spiked gauntlet operates as an armed attack? I understand the rules behind it, but I don't understand the logic. How long are these f-ing spikes, when you were attacking with just the gauntlet you left yourself open to an AoO, but adding some spikes suddenly you're a trained pugilist?
For my games I have houseruled armor spikes to have a reach of 0 and spiked gauntlets to function just as regular gauntlets, that at least makes sense to me.
Get improved unarmed strike and you can use spiked gauntlets for the increased damage.
Anyone have this disconnect when dealing with spikes?
|
Well, I think you're right.
But then again, I gave monks gauntlets so they can enchant them and still use their unarmed strike bonuses and Flurry with them (making them enchant both guantlets seperately, I might add).
However, spikes DO add more of a lethal punch than normal gauntlets, simply because of the force behind them (your fist).
And, just to play the devil's advocate, I'd say the reasoning behind the ruling was because gauntlet=unarmed, spikes=armed.
As far as I know, being armed threatens 5'.
|
|
Well, I think you're right.
But then again, I gave monks gauntlets so they can enchant them and still use their unarmed strike bonuses and Flurry with them (making them enchant both guantlets seperately, I might add).
However, spikes DO add more of a lethal punch than normal gauntlets, simply because of the force behind them (your fist).
And, just to play the devil's advocate, I'd say the reasoning behind the ruling was because gauntlet=unarmed, spikes=armed.
As far as I know, being armed threatens 5'.
Yeah, that's how it works alright, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.
As for the do more damage, they do, that's why they do d4 instead of d3, I didn't change the damage, that's the advantage of having spiked gauntlets, I just changed it so that they don't suddenly magically take away your AoO, because punching with a spiked gauntlet is the exact same as punching with a gauntlet is the exact same as punching with your bare fist, the only difference is the amount of damage done when the punch connects. If one provokes an AoO all of them should.
Okay so a gauntlet operates the exact same as an unarmed attack, but a spiked gauntlet operates as an armed attack? I understand the rules behind it, but I don't understand the logic. How long are these f-ing spikes, when you were attacking with just the gauntlet you left yourself open to an AoO, but adding some spikes suddenly you're a trained pugilist?
For my games I have houseruled armor spikes to have a reach of 0 and spiked gauntlets to function just as regular gauntlets, that at least makes sense to me.
Get improved unarmed strike and you can use spiked gauntlets for the increased damage.
Anyone have this disconnect when dealing with spikes?
Check out this episode of Deadliest Warrior, specifically the clip featuring the cestus wielded by none other than Chuck Liddell (starts at roughly 12 minutes in). They give the science of why a set of spikes on a punching weapon are far more serious a threat than a simple punch. Most people regardless of strength cant break a rib with a punch, add the spikes and it becomes considerably easier to not only break ribs but other surface bones (skull for one).
I know its not specifically an iron gauntlet, but the gauntlet while reinforcing the punch wouldnt necessarily focus the impact to a fine crushing point, a spike WILL do that which is what makes it far more of a threat.
|
|
Okay so a gauntlet operates the exact same as an unarmed attack, but a spiked gauntlet operates as an armed attack? I understand the rules behind it, but I don't understand the logic. How long are these f-ing spikes, when you were attacking with just the gauntlet you left yourself open to an AoO, but adding some spikes suddenly you're a trained pugilist?
For my games I have houseruled armor spikes to have a reach of 0 and spiked gauntlets to function just as regular gauntlets, that at least makes sense to me.
Get improved unarmed strike and you can use spiked gauntlets for the increased damage.
Anyone have this disconnect when dealing with spikes?
Check out this episode of Deadliest Warrior, specifically the clip featuring the cestus wielded by none other than Chuck Liddell (starts at roughly 12 minutes in). They give the science of why a set of spikes on a punching weapon are far more serious a threat than a simple punch. Most people regardless of strength cant break a rib with a punch, add the spikes and it becomes considerably easier to not only break ribs but other surface bones (skull for one).
I know its not specifically an iron gauntlet, but the gauntlet while reinforcing the punch wouldnt necessarily focus the impact to a fine crushing point, a spike WILL do that which is what makes it far more of a threat.
which is why it does more damage, my question is why does a gauntlet and a fist provoke an AoO but add spikes and suddenly you don't.
Because now you're threatening injuries (broken bones, bruised organs) and not just bigger surface bruises. The weapon is now a threat to life and limb whereas before it did not.
|
|
Because now you're threatening injuries (broken bones, bruised organs) and not just bigger surface bruises. The weapon is now a threat to life and limb whereas before it did not.
um so the reason a punch provokes an AoO is because the person on the receiving end isn't afraid to take a punch? that seems to be your arguement. which would then translate to it doesn't matter what training you have, if you attack with a fist unarmed you take an AoO.
What I'd also like to point out is the man who they got to fight with it is a trained unarmed combatant, they didn't pull a guy off the street and say, put this on and test it.
Additionally, D&D always used gauntlet to mean glove that came to the elbow. By definition, a gauntlet does not have to be a weapon; simply a gloved hand (it may be reinforced but not by definition) a spiked gauntlet is a weapon.
That is my take anyway.
|
|
Additionally, D&D always used gauntlet to mean glove that came to the elbow. By definition, a gauntlet does not have to be a weapon; simply a gloved hand (it may be reinforced but not by definition) a spiked gauntlet is a weapon.
That is my take anyway.
I agree its a weapon, I just don't understand why a spiked gauntlet doesn't provoke an AoO when a fist does. that's what I can't figure out.
However, I do think you should threaten an area and be considered armed, so having it operate the exact same as a gauntlet and function as an unarmed attack doesn't work.
So instead of saying it functions as an unarmed attack I'll just say that unless you have the IUS feat you provoke an AoO if you attack with a spiked gauntlet.
Because now you're threatening injuries (broken bones, bruised organs) and not just bigger surface bruises. The weapon is now a threat to life and limb whereas before it did not.um so the reason a punch provokes an AoO is because the person on the receiving end isn't afraid to take a punch? that seems to be your arguement. which would then translate to it doesn't matter what training you have, if you attack with a fist unarmed you take an AoO.
What I'd also like to point out is the man who they got to fight with it is a trained unarmed combatant, they didn't pull a guy off the street and say, put this on and test it.
Brass knuckles have the same effect and are outlawed in most civilized places for the same reasons, you dont need a knowledgeable combatant to create the injuries, just a fist and the capacity to throw haymakers. I'd equate Liddell with a fighter or monk type certainly, but that doesnt negate the fact that the extra injury is being created by the physics of the spikes.
|
|
Brass knuckles have the same effect and are outlawed in most civilized places for the same reasons, you dont need a knowledgeable combatant to create the injuries, just a fist and the capacity to throw haymakers. I'd equate Liddell with a fighter or monk type certainly, but that doesnt negate the fact that the extra injury is being created by the physics of the spikes.Because now you're threatening injuries (broken bones, bruised organs) and not just bigger surface bruises. The weapon is now a threat to life and limb whereas before it did not.um so the reason a punch provokes an AoO is because the person on the receiving end isn't afraid to take a punch? that seems to be your arguement. which would then translate to it doesn't matter what training you have, if you attack with a fist unarmed you take an AoO.
What I'd also like to point out is the man who they got to fight with it is a trained unarmed combatant, they didn't pull a guy off the street and say, put this on and test it.
I'm not arguing that, they do more damage. That's what extra injury means, more damage I'd also expect brass knuckles to increase your damage.
My question is why doesn't the attack provoke when the same attack without does.
Eloquently put. That is what I meant to say.
um so the reason a punch provokes an AoO is because the person on the receiving end isn't afraid to take a punch? that seems to be your arguement. which would then translate to it doesn't matter what training you have, if you attack with a fist unarmed you take an AoO.
That's not the argument I'm making, that's the argument the rules are making. Also the second part of that translated by the rules means that if you have a spiked gauntlet, are a monk, or have improved unarmed strike then training/equipment do in fact matter.
However, it also seems you've made up your mind about the rule and don't wish to be convinced otherwise, so I'll cease my arguments.
|
|
A gauntlet is a glove, you provoke because wearing a glove isn't really changing anything from having a fist. A spiked gauntlet has a blade attached to it, it may only be a few inches but it's a blade. Saying it provokes is the same as saying a dagger provokes, it doesn't provoke just because it is small.
You have to realize spikes, on gauntlets and armor, are not studs. They didn't go buy this stuff at Hot Topic. They are strategically placed blades in the armor that can be used to cause cuts and wounds.
You cannot swing armor spikes around, however you can swing your gauntlets around. (and yes spiked gauntlets would include cestus type weapons,as well as punching daggers unless you want to add different rules for those for flavor)
Punching daggers actually are a seperate weapon entry, and one I didn't have as much problem with.
And the cestus in the video linked to is actually what I see as about the same as spikes on a spiked gauntlet. About an inch in size. Yes you can swing them around slightly easier.
I guess another way to look at it is remove the gauntlet and the spiked gauntlet from the equation,
When you punch without IUS what is it that makes you provoke an AoO?
why does that immeadiately go away by putting spikes on the gauntlet.
I always saw it as when punching without you leave openings your opponent could strike at, which adding spikes wouldn't change, you'd still leave the same oppenings
the other poster says that the increased threat of damage is what makes the opponent not take an AoO which I can see, but then why would a monk or someone with the feat not provoke before they hit with their first strike.
And yes I have my mind made up before I posted, but I can be swayed by arguments. this one being one of the most convincing, but it merely has me on the fence, not convinced.
It's more about the threat they represent than the size of the blades. A dagger isn't going to reach much further than the gauntlet. For that matter claws, either the natural ones or the sorcerer ones would have about the same reach as a spiked gauntlet and they threaten also for exactly the same reason, because the threat they represent.
Sure, it is a bit arbitrary. This isn't the only thing in the system that is arbitrary though.
It's more about the threat they represent than the size of the blades. A dagger isn't going to reach much further than the gauntlet. For that matter claws, either the natural ones or the sorcerer ones would have about the same reach as a spiked gauntlet and they threaten also for exactly the same reason, because the threat they represent.
Sure, it is a bit arbitrary. This isn't the only thing in the system that is arbitrary though.
That would be my take on this as well. There is a certain psychological factor:
"So he's got gauntlet. Woopty-doo! I'll just... WHOA! there are spikes on that thing! Let's be more careful."
|
|
If your willingness to suspend disbelief stops at this particular juncture, I fear for your sanity when you try to get people to justify how sickly men in dresses can fly and shoot fireballs out of their nostrils.
You know, that's is really a dumb annoying and rude argument and I'm sick and tired of people using that when folks like me and others who prefer a more simulationist game with an exception for magic make a point. Hell, you know what, you don't need any rules applicable if old men can fly and shoot lightning bolts out their arses, so Why don't I just play and have my hangnail deal 5000 damage per hit, it's equally believable right? such a jackass throwaway comment and rudely dismissive.
And you know what really bothers me about it is it has the opposite effect, I was pretty much convinced, but then some asshat comes in and makes a comment like that and it gets under your skin and suddenly the people who were making reasonable points that were swaying me get forgotten because of some idiot who says this. And if I didn't see it in thread after thread after thread maybe it wouldn't bother me so much but some troll always has to come in and use the same lame ass statement.
so monks and guys with IUS *look* more threatening than any other guy throwing a punch lol.
well, perhaps I'm a coward, but if somebody is threatening me and OBVIOUSLY looks likes a ninja, I'd be more intimidated than if it was just an average looking joe.
Appearance are deceiving and given my size and lack of self-defense technique, I'd probably end-up dead in either case, but the monk / tattooed sailor would scare me more.
so monks and guys with IUS *look* more threatening than any other guy throwing a punch lol.
Maybe they are just trained to avoid the sort of common attacks people make when attacking unarmed people.
For example: Feint with the fist and when he swings at my arm kick him in the balls.
Or maybe it's those weird Kung-Fu pre-strike arm motions that makes them look scary.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
so monks and guys with IUS *look* more threatening than any other guy throwing a punch lol.
I don't think it has anything to do with their appearance. It's the fact that they actually do pose an unarmed threat. They're trained to fight with fists and can take advantage of an adjacent enemy's weaknesses because of this training.
|
Lots of insults.
The entire basis of my argument is neither dumb, rude, annoying, "jackass", or throwaway. I'd say it was thought-provoking, as it works off the same logic as trying to figure out how putting spikes on a glove changes the dynamic of said glove withing the game rules.
The fact of the matter is that if you want a realistic game you'll pick up a realistic system - or as close to realistic as you can possibly get, Cthulu, WFRP & Dark Heresy come to mind in terms of sheer "real" when violence is the order of the day - otherwise you find yourself trying to fix what isn't broken (or starting thread wherein you challenge the world to explain what cannot possibly be explained with any real logic outside of "it hurts more now" - and then refute those who respond at every turn) in an otherwise excellent system.
AC, HP, hell, even the damage you deal in a d20 game are all representative of several different (sometimes mutually exclusive in reality) forces at work, all which help reach the end result. None of them are quantifiable as "... the way it works this way in the real world." And no sane person would attempt to take the system and make them quantifiable. That's everything from Magic, to adding little two-inch spikes to your gloves.
Savvy?
Lots of insults.The entire basis of my argument is neither dumb, rude, annoying, "jackass", or throwaway. I'd say it was thought-provoking, as it works off the same logic as trying to figure out how putting spikes on a glove changes the dynamic of said glove withing the game rules.
If your willingness to suspend disbelief stops at this particular juncture, I fear for your sanity when you try to get people to justify how sickly men in dresses can fly and shoot fireballs out of their nostrils.
I would say deep sarcasm and telling someone you fear for their sanity is both rude and jackass.
... just sayin'.
|
|
I would say deep sarcasm and telling someone you fear for their sanity is both rude and jackass.
... just sayin'.
Text, once again, has defeated my ability to make a jest. I bet you laughed at George Carlin's jokes. Maybe I should put a [joke][/joke] tag in front of jokes in the future.
Edit: And really - how could being sarcastic about how you would explain magic in a real-world setting be construed as insulting? Come on. I would fear for my sanity, too. As it stands, my overall point has yet to be addressed, I'd prefer it we returned to that aspect of this discussion now. Please and thank you.
I always interpreted weapons as having the capabiltiy to attack and defend and therefore did not provide an attack of opportunity (unless it presented a specific vunlerability as part of the attack). In theory you can defend with an unarmed strike, but the risk is much greater. Therefore you need improved unarmed strike. The same could be stated for gauntlets.
The difference with spike gauntlets is projections or blades are present to better defend, and in theory the guantlet is re-inforced to hold the blade when making attacks.
Brass knuckles have the same effect and are outlawed in most civilized places for the same reasons, you dont need a knowledgeable combatant to create the injuries, just a fist and the capacity to throw haymakers. I'd equate Liddell with a fighter or monk type certainly, but that doesnt negate the fact that the extra injury is being created by the physics of the spikes.Because now you're threatening injuries (broken bones, bruised organs) and not just bigger surface bruises. The weapon is now a threat to life and limb whereas before it did not.um so the reason a punch provokes an AoO is because the person on the receiving end isn't afraid to take a punch? that seems to be your arguement. which would then translate to it doesn't matter what training you have, if you attack with a fist unarmed you take an AoO.
What I'd also like to point out is the man who they got to fight with it is a trained unarmed combatant, they didn't pull a guy off the street and say, put this on and test it.
I'm not arguing that, they do more damage. That's what extra injury means, more damage I'd also expect brass knuckles to increase your damage.
My question is why doesn't the attack provoke when the same attack without does.
I'd say because you can block a blow with a spiked gauntlet. I'd wonder why regular gauntlets provoke and attack of opportunity. If they soft leather I suppose I can see why but if they are metal which is how I picture a spike gauntlet that is why they don't provoke the attack of opportunity.
Okay so a gauntlet operates the exact same as an unarmed attack, but a spiked gauntlet operates as an armed attack? I understand the rules behind it, but I don't understand the logic. How long are these f-ing spikes, when you were attacking with just the gauntlet you left yourself open to an AoO, but adding some spikes suddenly you're a trained pugilist?
For my games I have houseruled armor spikes to have a reach of 0 and spiked gauntlets to function just as regular gauntlets, that at least makes sense to me.
Get improved unarmed strike and you can use spiked gauntlets for the increased damage.
Anyone have this disconnect when dealing with spikes?
I'll offer you a coule possible solutions on this.
I am assuming for example one that improved unarmed strike is not simply knowing where to hit, but all aspects of unarmed combat, including evasion, grappling(not necessarily what D&D grappling rules call grappling).
Having some martial art training I will consider myself in this example to have "improved unarmed strike". Me, standing around minding my own business is suddenly attacked or threatened with a longsword. The first thing I'm doing is running or getting my own weapon. If that isn't an option the first thing I'm doing is trying to get control of that weapon. Without inserting grappling rules, if I can force that arm down into the opponent's body(denying him any attack of opportunity with that weapon), I can trip, disarm/sunder "stomp on the flat of the blade", or pummel the opponent's head, body, and legs with my free hand, knees, headbutt, elbows, etc. If I had no clue what I was doing fighting unarmed, there's no chance of pulling that off.
Scenario two. I have spiked gauntlets on and am attacked by a swordsman. He attacks, I evade and slice/punch his inside wrist or elbow with my blade on the gauntlet. He thinks twice about countering my attacks and puts more focus on getting out of the way of that blade, again denying him an attack of opportunity.
|
|
I always interpreted weapons as having the capabiltiy to attack and defend and therefore did not provide an attack of opportunity (unless it presented a specific vunlerability as part of the attack). In theory you can defend with an unarmed strike, but the risk is much greater. Therefore you need improved unarmed strike. The same could be stated for gauntlets.
The difference with spike gauntlets is projections or blades are present to better defend, and in theory the guantlet is re-inforced to hold the blade when making attacks.
now that, is a damned good arguement, then the question becomes why not regular gauntlets why are spiked gauntlets so much better suited to defense then regular gauntlets?
|
|
I would say deep sarcasm and telling someone you fear for their sanity is both rude and jackass.
... just sayin'.
Text, once again, has defeated my ability to make a jest. I bet you laughed at George Carlin's jokes. Maybe I should put a [joke][/joke] tag in front of jokes in the future.
Edit: And really - how could being sarcastic about how you would explain magic in a real-world setting be construed as insulting? Come on. I would fear for my sanity, too. As it stands, my overall point has yet to be addressed, I'd prefer it we returned to that aspect of this discussion now. Please and thank you.
okay, maybe you weren't trying to be dismissive, I apologize for throwing you in with every other person who has used that line, but none-the-less, a lot of people prefer to attempt a more simulationist feel to their games when playing and I see some version of that same line being used over and over again. Just because we prefer to have a more realistic feel and explanations doesn't mean that we have to throw it out because we play a game with magic. Maybe your right and other systems do it better, but I don't have a ton of money to invest in other systems, and for what it's worth I enjoy DnD, but when you made that statement, it got under my skin because I've seen it used again and again, not just against me but other posters as well, and whether you intend it or not, it basically dismisses our point of view. it says, nope theres magic you can't be a simulationist.
For the record I love Carlin.
It is up to the DM to make the base assumption on whether spiked gauntlets are easier to defend with, provide better armor (re-enforced to hold the spikes or blade) or do not offer a specific vulnerability when attacking. But I tend to leave rules as they are, because different types of weapons offer different choices on game play, and I like variety.
This also offers you the opportunity to introduce hybrid items, like special guantlet that does not provoke an attack of opportunity as a special quality due to its armor, or other factors.
This creates unique items for players without having to resort to magical enhancements.
When I first started playing back in the 80s a combat round was always described as being a series of attacks and blocks. You only roll once, but your character might attack or be attacked unsuccessfully a number of times during that six second period. In my estimation, an AOO is simply one of those unspoken attacks that gets a second chance for whatever reason.
Keeping that in mind, a bare fist or glove is not an appropriate weapon to parry an opponent with (without training of course), thus it is less likely to block one of those unspoken strikes.
,Matt
Edit: And really - how could being sarcastic about how you would explain magic in a real-world setting be construed as insulting? Come on. I would fear for my sanity, too. As it stands, my overall point has yet to be addressed, I'd prefer it we returned to that aspect of this discussion now. Please and thank you.
I understand, I've been known to use some similar turns of phrases. So I know jackass when I see it ;)
As for the topic at hand. Yes, I think a lot of people like to see wizards be the magic guys and monks be super extraordinary people. I'm kind of in-between. I think it would help if the class were labeled in such a way to make you think it was a bit more mystical and less like the very real martial artists. "Psionic Warrior" you expect is going to be doing some stuff that involves magic. Monk makes me think of Kung-Fu and David Carradine.
When I first started playing back in the 80s a combat round was always described as being a series of attacks and blocks. You only roll once, but your character might attack or be attacked unsuccessfully a number of times during that six second period. In my estimation, an AOO is simply one of those unspoken attacks that gets a second chance for whatever reason.
Keeping that in mind, a bare fist or glove is not an appropriate weapon to parry an opponent with (without training of course), thus it is less likely to block one of those unspoken strikes.
Yep... I specifically recall 2nd Edition calling this out quite clearly, and I'm sure 1st did too. When you watch two fencers you'll see a lot of parry and riposte, most of which has no chance of doing anything because both parties are, y'know, paying attention. The attack roll represents the one good lunge which could connect, and will at least come close. The 3.0 move to the standard vs. full-round action model brought in the idea that a single attack is a single attack, and to be honest this isn't the only place in the rules where I think it's done more harm than good.
But hey, it's what we've got. :)
|
|
now that, is a damned good arguement, then the question becomes why not regular gauntlets why are spiked gauntlets so much better suited to defense then regular gauntlets?I always interpreted weapons as having the capabiltiy to attack and defend and therefore did not provide an attack of opportunity (unless it presented a specific vunlerability as part of the attack). In theory you can defend with an unarmed strike, but the risk is much greater. Therefore you need improved unarmed strike. The same could be stated for gauntlets.
The difference with spike gauntlets is projections or blades are present to better defend, and in theory the guantlet is re-inforced to hold the blade when making attacks.
Because spiked gauntlets people are less likely to take the momentary focus off you to get their hit in.
Think of it like this, a guy throws a punch at you, and you are thinking of ways to get around said punch to throw your own. If its just a gauntlet you aren't necessarily as scared of taking a hit in return than if it was bladed. You knwo its going to hurt, but you can reflexively treat it as if there was no gauntlet.
Where as on the other hand, add a blade in the equation and instinct kicks in, making that attack of opportunity fail, because you freeze up. You realize that gauntlet has a fing blade attached and you better concentrate on dodging or you're going to get a lunch punctured.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned this yet:
Take a dorky, bookworm, 90-pound weakling wizard and have him punch you, and it provokes. Have that same wizard cast Chill Touch on his hand and now it doesn't provoke.
Why?
Because in the first case, he was no threat. Even if he hits you, it's a bruise for a couple points of non-lethal damage.
But with a spell going, now he's a force to be reckoned with. He sitll doesn't know jack about actually fighting and landing that punch, but if he manages to get one in anyway (and in this case, a mere brushing contact will suffice) then you will take real damage. Painful damage. Life-threatening damage (if you're low level or otherwise wounded and near death yourself).
So, the difference here is whether the damage is relatively meaningless, or significantly meaningful.
If it's meaningless, you are willing to break out of your defensive stance (figuratively speaking - I am not referring to fighting defensively here) and take a quick shot at the guy punching you. Worst that can happen is you miss and he hits, and now you have a bruise.
But if it's lethal damage, you stay in your defensive stance and protect yourself from the very real threat of being killed.
(yes, I know that making an AoO doesn't actually weaken your defense, but to the guy making the AoO, it would seem like it, since suddenly your weapon is over there by the attacker rather than over here defending you, and you're leaning toward him instead of away, and your footwork takes you toward him, rather than stepping away from his blow, etc.)
(side note: Interesting house rule idea: what if making an AoO actually did have a defensive impact, like say, -2 to your AC until your next turn... It would seem to fit mechanically with the way the game describes AoOs).
Now for the gauntlets.
I think Paizo (and maybe 3.5e as well, I'm too lazy to look it up) did make a mistake here, but the mistake is that both kinds of gauntlets shouldn't provoke.
Spikes or no spikes, all gauntlets deal lethal damage. Just like a dagger. Just like claws on a bear or tiger. Just like a magic spell. Suddenly the hands of the person in question go from inflicting minor bruises to possibly dealing life-threatening lethal damage.
So, by my reckoning, all gauntlets should allow "armed" strikes that don't provoke AoOs.
|
|
.
.
.
.
.
(side note: Interesting house rule idea: what if making an AoO actually did have a defensive impact, like say, -2 to your AC until your next turn... It would seem to fit mechanically with the way the game describes AoOs).
I like this.
So, by my reckoning, all gauntlets should allow "armed" strikes that don't provoke AoOs.
I would agree with this.
EDIT: Or both should provoke AoO. Chalk it up to extremely short range of the strike (compared with most weapons) coupled with the added exposure created by trying to hit something hard enough with your hand to damage it (in comparison to the relatively smaller effort required when using the mechanical/manufactured benefit from using a weapon).
Cheers
|
|
Because spiked gauntlets people are less likely to take the momentary focus off you to get their hit in.Think of it like this, a guy throws a punch at you, and you are thinking of ways to get around said punch to throw your own. If its just a gauntlet you aren't necessarily as scared of taking a hit in return than if it was bladed. You knwo its going to hurt, but you can reflexively treat it as if there was no gauntlet.
Where as on the other hand, add a blade in the equation and instinct kicks in, making that attack of opportunity fail, because you freeze up. You realize that gauntlet has a fing blade attached and you better concentrate on dodging or you're going to get a lunch punctured.
Here is a counter point.
Who are you more "scared" of (read likely to do significant damage to you)? The obviously strong and experienced fighter type wearing a regular gauntlet or the obviously weak looking inexperienced commoner wearing a spiked gauntlet? Which guy would you lower your guard against in order to get your AoO against?
So then why does the strong guy with the regular gauntlet provoke an AoO and the commoner doesn't? Because one guy has pointy things on his gloves?
I'll take the punch from Urkel with the spiked gauntlet before I let Chuck Liddell hit me with a regular gauntlet thank you very much! :)
Cheers
|
|
Ok. While we are on the topic of spiked gauntlets...
(my apologies in advance for the slight thread jack)
What are people's thoughts on mixing a spiked gauntlet with a reach weapon, say a glaive for example.
Do you threaten ALL squares within 10' of you (assuming medium sized creature with normal reach)?
Therefore can you make AoO with either weapon depending on the opportunity that presents itself?
What if you have Combat Reflexes? Can you make one AoO with the gauntlet and then another with the glaive? Against the same opponent as part of his move? Against different opponents who both trigger AoO on their turns respectively?
It would seem to me the answer according to the RAW is yes to all the above.
Now, can you use two-weapon fighting to mix (multi) attacks on a full attack? Some with the glaive and some with the gauntlet?
Again, I would think the answer is yes according to RAW. At the very least there isn't anything in the RAW that I can find that specifically prohibits this.
There aren't any rules regarding switching grips. I would think that these would be free actions. (ie. glaive + glaive + free action remove one hand from glaive + gauntlet)
Keep in mind that you do not have to declare a full attack. You can make a single attack and then decide if you want to continue with your additional attacks or take another action (move or equivalent). Reference pg 187. If you are allowed to see the result of your first attack and then make a decision based on the results, I would find it hard not to allow players to "switch grips" in mid full attack.
Cheers
PS Now add in Stand Still, Lunge, Step Up, Mobility and Spring Attack. Good lord!
Ok. While we are on the topic of spiked gauntlets...
(my apologies in advance for the slight thread jack)
What are people's thoughts on mixing a spiked gauntlet with a reach weapon, say a glaive for example.
Do you threaten ALL squares within 10' of you (assuming medium sized creature with normal reach)?
Therefore can you make AoO with either weapon depending on the opportunity that presents itself?
What if you have Combat Reflexes? Can you make one AoO with the gauntlet and then another with the glaive? Against the same opponent as part of his move? Against different opponents who both trigger AoO on their turns respectively?
It would seem to me the answer according to the RAW is yes to all the above.
Now, can you use two-weapon fighting to mix (multi) attacks on a full attack? Some with the glaive and some with the gauntlet?
Again, I would think the answer is yes according to RAW. At the very least there isn't anything in the RAW that I can find that specifically prohibits this.
There aren't any rules regarding switching grips. I would think that these would be free actions. (ie. glaive + glaive + free action remove one hand from glaive + gauntlet)
Keep in mind that you do not have to declare a full attack. You can make a single attack and then decide if you want to continue with your additional attacks or take another action (move or equivalent). Reference pg 187. If you are allowed to see the result of your first attack and then make a decision based on the results, I would find it hard not to allow players to "switch grips" in mid full attack.
Cheers
PS Now add in Stand Still, Lunge, Step Up, Mobility and Spring Attack. Good lord!
The glaive is a two handed melee weapon. You need both hands to use it. I'd say no using gauntlets (spiked or otherwise) while attacking with the glaive or holding it. If your holding the glaive and using it, no threatening with the gauntlets either -- or you could threaten just by having a weapon on your person. In short you only threaten with the weapon you're actively using. If you have multiple attacks and you want to drop the glaive to free your hands on a subsequent attack, go for it. If you wanted to hold onto the glaive with one hand and attack with the gauntlet in another I'd say it was penalty time. Having a large / unwieldy polearm (7' iirc) in one hand would interfere with your ability to use your spiked gauntlet effectively. As for what RAW would allow, that's why we have DMs. Common sense, something rules don't always reflect. My 2 cp.
*edit* Oh, as for making it a two weapon attack, I'd say since the glaive requires two hands and the gauntlet one, you're short a hand...
The glaive is a two handed melee weapon. You need both hands to use it. I'd say no using gauntlets (spiked or otherwise) while attacking with the glaive or holding it.
I've always ruled the other way on the bolded part. You can hold a two-handed weapon in just one hand. However, you are either holding it or wielding it each round, and must declare which weapon you're using. Attack with the gauntlet and you can't AoO with the glaive, and vice versa. (Likewise, and the primary reason for this ruling: you can free a hand to cast a spell; but then you don't threaten with the glaive.)
If you have Quick Draw I'll let you cast a spell or attack with the gauntlet, and then (on your turn) declare that you're back to the glaive to threaten. Still no alternating between them for AoO's, tho.
What about a monk using a Glaive? Does he threaten at 5'? I can see a monk holding a polearm in both hands while front kicking a orc in the chest. Or even planting the polearm and using it as leverage to get in a more powerful kick.
Back to the debate about who is more threatening. What about high damage reduction? If I have DR 30/+5 is anyone with a normal weapon really going to be a threat to me? Shouldn't I get an AOO on him too?
|
|
I am surprised nobody has mentioned this yet:
Take a dorky, bookworm, 90-pound weakling wizard and have him punch you, and it provokes. Have that same wizard cast Chill Touch on his hand and now it doesn't provoke.
Why?
Because in the first case, he was no threat. Even if he hits you, it's a bruise for a couple points of non-lethal damage.
Okay, but that ninety pound weakling could have taken IUS and somehow you know that or not before he ever throws a punch?
|
|
.
.EDIT: Or both should provoke AoO. Chalk it up to extremely short range of the strike (compared with most weapons) coupled with the added exposure created by trying to hit something hard enough with your hand to damage it (in comparison to the relatively smaller effort required when using the mechanical/manufactured benefit from using a weapon).Cheers
Which is how I've always seen it, hence the houserule I proposed.
although there have been good arguments for the other way of seeing it.
The glaive is a two handed melee weapon. You need both hands to use it. I'd say no using gauntlets (spiked or otherwise) while attacking with the glaive or holding it.I've always ruled the other way on the bolded part. You can hold a two-handed weapon in just one hand. However, you are either holding it or wielding it each round, and must declare which weapon you're using. Attack with the gauntlet and you can't AoO with the glaive, and vice versa. (Likewise, and the primary reason for this ruling: you can free a hand to cast a spell; but then you don't threaten with the glaive.)
If you have Quick Draw I'll let you cast a spell or attack with the gauntlet, and then (on your turn) declare that you're back to the glaive to threaten. Still no alternating between them for AoO's, tho.
I agree with you one the you can either threaten with a glaive or the spiked gauntlets, but do not on the spellcasting part.
Spellcasting starts and ends on your initiative and has almost nothing to do with what happens outside your initiative.
So I see no problem in holding the weapon in one hand while casting your spell and then after that gripping the weapon again in two hands. After all, after casting the spell you can use your move action to move 30feet (or 20 in medium/heavy armor), why cannot you grip the weapon in two hands as well?
If you cast a touch attack spell and do not use it on anyone then gripping a two handed weapon will let you threaten with that weapon and not your touch attack spell.
|
|
Ok. While we are on the topic of spiked gauntlets...
(my apologies in advance for the slight thread jack)
What are people's thoughts on mixing a spiked gauntlet with a reach weapon, say a glaive for example.
it's the whole reason I started this thread in the first place was players using that combo. Which made me look at gauntlet rules and spiked gauntlet rules.
Do you threaten ALL squares within 10' of you (assuming medium sized creature with normal reach)?
Here's what I've decided, if you want to threaten all squares while weilding a reach weapon you are two weapon fighting. which means you take the penalties for two weapon fighting.
Therefore can you make AoO with either weapon depending on the opportunity that presents itself?
yup, once again as long as you are taking the two weapon fighting.
What if you have Combat Reflexes? Can you make one AoO with the gauntlet and then another with the glaive?
as long as you are taking the two weapon fighting penalties I'd say yes.
Against the same opponent as part of his move?
no actually, the rules specifically state that even with combat reflexes a person only provokes a single AoO from a given move action.
Against different opponents who both trigger AoO on their turns respectively?
Again yes as long as you are taking the two weapon fighting penalties. If you aren't taking those penalties then you either threaten with one or the other.
Now, can you use two-weapon fighting to mix (multi) attacks on a full attack? Some with the glaive and some with the gauntlet?
this is where it gets trickier, I would say no since you aren't allowed to two weapon fight with a two handed weapon.