I would rule that you can wield another weapon and use it for tasks like climbing but you couldn't use a shield with it. The spikes on the gauntlet would get in the way of the shield and prevent you from either properly strapping on the shield or holding it correctly. However, I would allow for a custom masterwork shield to be made that would allow you to wear spiked gauntlets and wear the shield, for an added nominal cost.
I am reasonably certain the answer is yes to all of your questions. That is how we have always played it, and generally people weilding reach weapons have usually take an spike gauntlet.
May I ask why you would want to have a spiked gauntlet when wielding a reach weapon?
(I think I know why I just want clarification)
May I ask why you would want to have a spiked gauntlet when wielding a reach weapon?
(I think I know why I just want clarification)
Adjacent targets. Sometimes the enemy gets in close and you arent able to 5ft step back. Or dont want to.
And if you are willing shell out the GP for it. An adamantine spiked gauntlet and Improved Sunder make a nasty trick.
I like spiked gauntlets, too, but note that a spiked gauntlet does piercing damage and so it can't be used to sunder (according to the rules).
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
This leads to the follow up question then of if you can wear a spiked gauntlet and not have it interfere with other activities or weapons/sheilds, why would any proficient user not have one worn at all times?
If this is the case, no one's ever unarmed, no one worries about dropping their weapon when stunned, being disarmed of your primary weapon, not having a melee weapon to threaten with while using a bow, having a weapon useable in a grapple or while swallowed, etc.
That just doesn't seem reasonable, or everyone would have worn spiked gauntlets throughout history.
This leads to the follow up question then of if you can wear a spiked gauntlet and not have it interfere with other activities or weapons/sheilds, why would any proficient user not have one worn at all times?
If this is the case, no one's ever unarmed, no one worries about dropping their weapon when stunned, being disarmed of your primary weapon, not having a melee weapon to threaten with while using a bow, having a weapon useable in a grapple or while swallowed, etc.
That just doesn't seem reasonable, or everyone would have worn spiked gauntlets throughout history.
It is however not nearly as effective a weapon in the hands of most users as say a dagger would be. DnD is not great when it comes to representing the difference in fighting with different weapons. The difference between the effectiveness of a dagger and a longsword is not just about damage it can do. In fact it dramatically depends on what your opponent is wielding to determine the effectiveness of your weapon. If you are wearing a spiked gauntlet and your opponent has a greatsword, in reality you are not going to do well. But from a game perspective this just isnt practical. Each weapon would need its own rules for fighting each other kind of weapon. So things are simplified, and thus a spiked gauntlet, and even a dagger are both much more effective in dnd then they are in real life in most situations.
Yeah, what he said.
You can't base history on the rules of a tabletop Role-playing Game.
|
This leads to the follow up question then of if you can wear a spiked gauntlet and not have it interfere with other activities or weapons/sheilds, why would any proficient user not have one worn at all times?
If this is the case, no one's ever unarmed, no one worries about dropping their weapon when stunned, being disarmed of your primary weapon, not having a melee weapon to threaten with while using a bow, having a weapon useable in a grapple or while swallowed, etc.
That just doesn't seem reasonable, or everyone would have worn spiked gauntlets throughout history.
Not throughout history but in D&D just about every PC I make either uses a locking or spiked gauntlet just in case I get disarmed or something so I can still attack without drawing AoOs.
In the weapon descriptions section of the Equipment page of PRD:
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
Gauntlet, Spiked: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.
If the designers intended for a Spiked Gauntlet to render you unable to use your hand for other things (weapon/shield/climbing) it would likely have been mentioned here. Since it has not, I think the Gauntlet leaves you with fully functional mobility. As mentioned once above, realistically, a shield might be a bit of a challenge, but there is nothing in the rules that say the spikes interfere so you can't.
When using a spiked gauntlet, does it leave your hand free for other tasks? Can you use that hand to weild another weapon? Can you use a shield? What about other activities like climbing?
First, you have to define 'using'. Do you mean in combat? Or do you just mean 'wearing'?
If you are just wearing it, you can do anything with it you could do with a normal gauntlet on, which is all of the above.
If you want to have it available for FIGHTING...that's preparing and wielding a weapon for use. If you are using it for any other task then prepared for use as a weapon, then no, it's not ready for fighting, in the same way as a mage holding a dagger in one hand as he casts spells is not prepared to fight with the dagger. I'd probably let you get away with holding a knife in the gauntleted hand while you punch, and perhaps switching off...but that counts as wielding two weapons, even if in one hand!
Also, most of the people using the spiked gauntlet/reach weapon combo overlook the fact that they are now wielding two weapons, and have to take the TWF penalties. Furthermore, as soon as they detach a hand from their glaive (dropping is a free action), they have to spend a draw action to reacquire/ready it again. If you howl about it, kindly note that having two hands on a top heavy polearm does not mean the thing is in position, braced, and ready to be used...and you can't hold such a thing properly with one hand, without a feat to do so.
===Aelryinth
If you want to have it available for FIGHTING...that's preparing and wielding a weapon for use. If you are using it for any other task then prepared for use as a weapon, then no, it's not ready for fighting, in the same way as a mage holding a dagger in one hand as he casts spells is not prepared to fight with the dagger. I'd probably let you get away with holding a knife in the gauntleted hand while you punch, and perhaps switching off...but that counts as wielding two weapons, even if in one hand!
Could you cite the rules on this subject? I didn't find any that support any of these ideas.
Two Weapon Fighting specifically talks about holding a second weapon in your off hand. True this is a bit of a corner case and probably was not what the designers were thinking of when they wrote TWF, but there is nothing in the rules (that I have seen) to say or imply that you could not switch between a Spiked Gauntlet and a wielded weapon in the same hand without suffering TWF penalties. TWF specifies that it is for wielding a second weapon in the off hand; therefore the penalties are not from the number of weapons that you use, but instead stem from the difficulty of coordinating both hands in an attack.
The only action needed to ready a weapon is to draw it. As the gauntlet need not be drawn (in fact it cannot be disarmed) it takes no action at all to ready it for attack, you are essentially always armed and ready to punch. The only reason a Wizard with a dagger cannot attack during the casting of a spell is that the spell is a Standard Action. If the spell were a free action he could cast it then take a Full Attack with the dagger in his hand. He can also cast a Standard Action spell and then take an AoO if an enemy provokes, he need not "ready" the weapon; if it is in his hand, it is readied.
You only take penalties for TWF if you are using two weapons in the same turn. For instance a Fighter using a polearm of some kind and also armed with Spiked Gauntlets could attack with only the polarm in one turn and not gain penalties for TWF. He could then attack with only the Spiked Gauntlets the next turn and not gain penalties for TWF. Only if he attacked one enemy with the polearm and one enemy with the Spiked Gauntlet in the same turn would he gain the penalties for TWF.
Also it would not be impossible to hold the polearm with both hands and still punch effectively. You would not have to drop the polearm to punch. Think about it, could you hold a broom handle it two hands and still punch with enough force to injure someone’s face, yes. Would it be awkward, yes, but you have a spike on your fist so it isn't going to take that much power or precision to cause damage.
Also, most of the people using the spiked gauntlet/reach weapon combo overlook the fact that they are now wielding two weapons, and have to take the TWF penalties. Furthermore, as soon as they detach a hand from their glaive (dropping is a free action), they have to spend a draw action to reacquire/ready it again. If you howl about it, kindly note that having two hands on a top heavy polearm does not mean the thing is in position, braced, and ready to be used...and you can't hold such a thing properly with one hand, without a feat to do so.
Again, they are only TWF if they attack with both weapons in the same turn. They would not necessarily be forced to take a hand off the polearm, although I could see the argument for it. Even if they did drawing a weapon after +1 BAB is a Free Action as part of a Move Action. A polearm does not have to be "braced" to be ready for use. Bracing it is a specific special quality used to defend from a Charge; it has nothing to do with normal attacks made with the weapon.
By my understanding, you can only be "armed" with one weapon at a time, unless using the Two Weapon Fighting stuff. If you are standing there swinging a longspear around, then someone provokes an attack of opportunity in an adjacent square, you are armed with the longspear, not spiked gauntlets. On your turn, you could hold the longspear in your off hand, and attack without penality with the gauntlets, but you don't threaten with the longspear until you take some kind of (free?)action to put your other hand on it.
As for attacking with the gauntlets WHILE holding the polearm... No Way! In addition to the balance/ moment of impact stuff, the idea of having all of your fingers crushed in between a heavy hardwood pole and what you are striking is a bad idea!
By my understanding, you can only be "armed" with one weapon at a time, unless using the Two Weapon Fighting stuff. If you are standing there swinging a longspear around, then someone provokes an attack of opportunity in an adjacent square, you are armed with the longspear, not spiked gauntlets.
Again: Can you cite the rules on this?
On your turn, you could hold the longspear in your off hand, and attack without penality with the gauntlets, but you don't threaten with the longspear until you take some kind of (free?)action to put your other hand on it.
So, are you saying that you cannot let go of your spear with one hand to make an AoO? Letting go of something doesn’t seem like it would take much time/effort.
As for attacking with the gauntlets WHILE holding the polearm... No Way! In addition to the balance/ moment of impact stuff, the idea of having all of your fingers crushed in between a heavy hardwood pole and what you are striking is a bad idea!
I see your point and I would not argue a DM ruling that you had to let go, it is reasonable to assume. But there don't seem to be rules that force it and it is absolutely possible to make a forceful punching motion with a staff, or the like, in your hands. And your fingers would be fine; they are protected by the metal plate with spikes on it and a thick leather (or chain mail) glove. Also, like I said it would not take much accuracy or impact to cause extensive damage to someone's face with spikes.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
When using a spiked gauntlet, does it leave your hand free for other tasks?
1) Can you use that hand to weild another weapon?
2) Can you use a shield?
3) What about other activities like climbing?
1) Yes
2) Yes3) Ask your DM. For some things like spell casting, your DM is highly likely to reject allowing those things with Gauntlets.
A little common sense is required here. Check your Core Book under the definitions of Scale Mail, Half-Plate, and Full Plate Armor. They all include standard gauntlets. It is stated right in the equipment descriptions.
Bear with me.
So the bare bones concept of wearing gauntlets and wielding a weapon are already there in place. People have always been weilding weapons while wearing gauntlets.
Taking the next step, spiked gauntlets allow you to make an armed attack while being technically unarmed. (A concept noted on Page 182; i.e. the unarmed "armed" attack) That is, they do lethal damage normally, can be used to make AOO's, and are great in a grapple. They're an ever-present weapon option that can not be disarmed.
But a spiked gauntlet is still a gauntlet at the end of the day.
Spiked gauntlets add extra functionality to normal gauntlets, but at an additional cost.
They don't take away any existing functionality. You can certainly wield another weapon, and if you are disarmed or grappled.. you have a back-up weapon that can not be disarmed.
As an ancedotal point..
I have a fighter player in my group who actually paid for +1 Shocking Gauntlets to be crafted. All the other players called her insane, citing that she should have added those enchantments to her main weapon. That is until I started using the new and improved grapple rules, a lot. That fighter normally weilds a two-handed weapon. If it weren't for those spiked gauntlets, she would be screwed a couple times already. But now, she can take care of herself even if she does get grappled or disarmed.
When using a spiked gauntlet, does it leave your hand free for other tasks?
1) Can you use that hand to weild another weapon?
2) Can you use a shield?
3) What about other activities like climbing?1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Ask your DM. For some things like spell casting, your DM is highly likely to reject allowing those things with Gauntlets.
Speaking just about the spell casting..
Gauntlets don't provide any AC bonus in of themselves. They're a component of a larger set of armor; i.e. Scale Mail, Half-Plate, Full-Plate. So only divine spell casters would 'normally' being wearing gauntlets, unless it's a specialized wondrous item.
However, Arcane Spell Failure would still apply, just as always does when wearing armor. Particularly heavy armor.
If you're wearing a Gauntlet, you should be wearing armor and suffering whatever penalties may or may no apply according to traditional rules. With one exception..
Right now, there is only one magic Gauntlet in the Core Book (the Gauntlet of Rust), and that is built as a Wondrous Item. Because it is a Wondrous Item and not armor, I would not apply Arcane Spell Failure to it. (Yeah, that does bend common sense a little, but that happens sometimes in order to have a clear cut ruling)
If you're wearing a Gauntlet, you should be wearing armor and suffering whatever penalties may or may no apply according to traditional rules. With one exception.
Except that it is a simple weapon and like any other weapon can be purchased and used by anyone with proficiency. Yes it is an inherent part of some armor but that doesn't mean that it can only be used by those wearing those types of armor. If the weapon itself has no Acrane Spell Failure then it wouldn't affect a caster. It makes sense that it would, but there are no rules to say that.
Also, just because the description says it is a big metal glove with spikes on it, doesn't mean that HAS to be the only style available. It could just as easily be a thin leather glove with a thick leather pad on the backhand and the spikes affixed to the backhand and back of the knuckles of the glove rather than the front of the knuckles. (Like some anime Ninja type gloves)
EDIT: Or perhaps you could use the Spike Gauntlet mechanic to custom create a thick leather, spiked, strap that would fasten along your forearm or perhaps affix to a pair of bracers.
If you're wearing a Gauntlet, you should be wearing armor and suffering whatever penalties may or may no apply according to traditional rules. With one exception.Except that it is a simple weapon and like any other weapon can be purchased and used by anyone with proficiency. Yes it is an inherent part of some armor but that doesn't mean that it can only be used by those wearing those types of armor. If the weapon itself has no Acrane Spell Failure then it wouldn't affect a caster. It makes sense that it would, but there are no rules to say that.
Also, just because the description says it is a big metal glove with spikes on it, doesn't mean that HAS to be the only style available. It could just as easily be a thin leather glove with a thick leather pad on the backhand and the spikes affixed to the backhand and back of the knuckles of the glove rather than the front of the knuckles. (Like some anime Ninja type gloves)
EDIT: Or perhaps you could use the Spike Gauntlet mechanic to custom create a thick leather, spiked, strap that would fasten along your forearm or perhaps affix to a pair of bracers.
Okay.. That's a good point. I concede the spell casting issue based on that it is a simple weapon.
I stick to my earlier point about wielding a weapon while wearing a spiked gauntlet however.
Shadowlord:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.
Free action= on your own turn, not as part of an AoO.
Shadowlord:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.
Free action= on your own turn, not as part of an AoO.
I am aware of these. I was not arguing that it was possible to effectively wield a two-handed weapon with only one hand. As for "dropping" a weapon that is not what you are doing in this case. "Dropping" the weapon requires looking down to the ground, aiming, and tossing your weapon down in your square or an adjacent one (this requires thought, even if only an instant of thought). I am talking about a reflexive action that, in reality, would take zero time/effort/thought and would happen instinctively. And like I said before, I really don't even think it would be necessary to let go of the weapon.
...
On a separate note: Even if I did believe that this would fall under a Free Action. Personally I would find it ridiculous not to allow this as an inherent part of the attack. For a few reasons:
1) Free Actions take less effort than Immediate Actions and yet you are permitted one Immediate Action even when not your turn. (Yes I realize this is a special circumstance, but still it makes little sense.)
2) Speaking is also a Free Action, do you limit your players to only speak during their own turn? Speaking requires no effort and next to no concentration. Now I realize that the RAI is most likely thinking of lengthy dialogue when they call this a Free Action. But RAW prevents you from even shouting in exclamation as your enemies Fireball explodes in your face, it isn't your turn - you don't speak.
Now does that mean I am arguing that any and all Free Actions should be allowed outside the confines of one's turn? NO, the rules are in place for a reason and for the most part do a very good job. I am simply pointing out that in some cases the rules are a bit illogical and it seems ridiculous not to allow something.
EDIT: Let me pose this question: Drinking a Potion is a Standard Action, requiring a free hand. Do you also force your players to first take a Free Action to let go of their weapon and then force them to take another Free Action to grab it again? Or do you consider these part of the Standard Action?
I'm of the camp that Free actions should "probably" be able to be taken out of turn.
However, in the case of Speaking, if you read the full entry, it specifically says "a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn." So yeah, you can call out in pain out of turn, as per the RAW.
Same with the old version of Featherfall (before immediate and swift actions were created), it specifically said it could be used out of turn.
However.. I personally feel, and would/have adjudicate as DM, that "letting go" of something or "falling down" can be done out-of-turn.
I'm of the camp that Free actions should "probably" be able to be taken out of turn.
It definitely makes sense that some should be allowed. Especially considering: " Free Actions take less effort than Immediate Actions and yet you are permitted one Immediate Action even when not your turn."
However, in the case of Speaking, if you read the full entry, it specifically says "a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn." So yeah, you can call out in pain out of turn, as per the RAW.
I found the section you are talking about. I was unaware of that. While this does make one of the points in my above argument irrelevant it also proves my overall case that some Free Actions can be acceptable for use outside one's turn. Namely those Free Actions which typically require no effort or concentration and very little thought.
...
In truth something as simple as "letting go" of your weapon with one hand to make an AoO strikes me (pun intended) as more of a non-action taken as part of the attack. It is a reflexive/instinctive action, it takes no thought/concentration/effort.
Again I pose the question: Drinking a Potion is a Standard Action, requiring a free hand. Do you also force your players to first take a Free Action to let go of their weapon and then force them to take another Free Action to grab it again? Or do you consider these part of the Standard Action?
In this case, "letting go" of the weapon and "re-grasping" the weapon seems to be a non-action attached to the Standard Action being performed. In that spirit I believe "letting go" of a reach weapon and "re-grasping" it would be non-actions attached to the act of making an AoO with your Spiked Gauntlet.
Letting go of a polearm is a free action. Grabbing and getting your hands into position is the equivalent of drawing it again. It is NOT a free action.
Using your gauntlet instead of the weapon you are holding involves shifting your grip on your weapon and preparing/tensing to deliver blows very different then swinging a sword or thrusting with the dagger. it is preparing a different weapon, exactly as if you'd drawn it. You knife and sword fight very differently then you punch.
Having a spiked gauntlet or unarmed strike ready at the same time as you are using a polearm is having TWO WEAPONS READY. You cannot get around that. It's totally logical and transparent. So if you fight with two weapons ready, you take the penalty. If you want to invoke that only having two weapons in different hands invokes this, then I will then say that there is no way you can strike with a second weapon on your turn without quickdraw or some other effect that lets you get another weapon into play as a free action.
there is no rule that says it is a free action to use an unarmed strike while wielding another weapon. In such cases, it devolves to the default ruling of having a weapon ready, or 'drawing' it. I'd tilt to readiness. I might allow you to do a free action to prepare, if you hadn't already spent one releasing your polearm, and if this wasn't restricted to your hand, not the rest of your body. You HAVE to ready your fist here...UA assumes you can kick with your legs or headbutt them, if you must. WIth the gauntlet, you MUST use your hand.
==Aelryinth
Letting go of a polearm is a free action. Grabbing and getting your hands into position is the equivalent of drawing it again. It is NOT a free action.
Well firstly I would argue that simply "letting go" of a weapon is in fact a non-action. Note: It is not the same as "dropping a weapon into your square or an adjacent one."
Once again: Drinking a Potion is a Standard Action, requiring a free hand. Do you also force your players to first take a Free Action to let go of their weapon and then force them to take another Free Action to grab it again? Or do you consider these part of the Standard Action?
Secondly under your interpretation of each action requiring a cost taking a potion would in fact be more than a Full Round Action: Letting go of your weapon (Free Action), Retrieving potion (Retrieving a stored item is a Move Action), Drinking potion (Standard Action), Grasping your weapon again (Drawing a weapon is a Move Action/Free Action as part of a Move Action with a +1 BAB/or Free Action with Quick Draw).
Personally I assume that when it says taking a potion is a Standard Action that takes into account all the other actions needed to do so. Like letting go of a weapon, retrieving the potion, drinking the potion, letting go of the bottle, re-grasping your weapon. All of that is one Standard Action. Otherwise you are left with the idea that simply taking a vial and lifting it to your lips is as complicated as making an attack.
Using your gauntlet instead of the weapon you are holding involves shifting your grip on your weapon and preparing/tensing to deliver blows very different then swinging a sword or thrusting with the dagger. it is preparing a different weapon, exactly as if you'd drawn it. You knife and sword fight very differently then you punch.
Please cite the rules where shifting your grip require any action at all. If that is the case then each attack would require it as you often shift your grip mid flurry with a polearm, as well as many other weapons.
Please cite the rules where a Monk must first ready his weapon (draw his fist/preparing/tensing to deliver blows) before he may attack with it.
Having a spiked gauntlet or unarmed strike ready at the same time as you are using a polearm is having TWO WEAPONS READY. You cannot get around that. It's totally logical and transparent. So if you fight with two weapons ready, you take the penalty. If you want to invoke that only having two weapons in different hands invokes this, then I will then say that there is no way you can strike with a second weapon on your turn without quickdraw or some other effect that lets you get another weapon into play as a free action.
Yes, I think they have two weapons ready at once.
Yes, TWF says that to incur the penalties you must have a weapon in each hand and be attacking with both in the same turn.
Again I will ask you: Please cite the rules where readying an unarmed strike takes any action at all. More specifically, cite the rule that says preparing for an unarmed strike is equal to drawing a weapon.
there is no rule that says it is a free action to use an unarmed strike while wielding another weapon.
Nor have I said that using an unarmed strike would be. I said letting go of your weapon should be a non-action taken as part of the attack or AoO. I also happen to believe that re-grasping something that is already held in your other hand should also be a non-action. Otherwise would you kindly point me to the rule that says drawing a weapon that is already drawn and in your hand, switching grips, or changing something from one hand to the other requires an action.
In such cases, it devolves to the default ruling of having a weapon ready, or 'drawing' it. I'd tilt to readiness. I might allow you to do a free action to prepare, if you hadn't already spent one releasing your polearm, and if this wasn't restricted to your hand, not the rest of your body. You HAVE to ready your fist here...UA assumes you can kick with your legs or headbutt them, if you must. WIth the gauntlet, you MUST use your hand.
Again, please cite the rules that say it requires any action to ready an unarmed strike.
|
...I might allow you to do a free action to prepare, if you hadn't already spent one releasing your polearm, and if this wasn't restricted to your hand, not the rest of your body. You HAVE to ready your fist here...UA assumes you can kick with your legs or headbutt them, if you must. WIth the gauntlet, you MUST use your hand.
==Aelryinth
There are no hard and fast rules that state that the number of free actions one can perform in a round (not just on your turn only) beyond, "reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
In fact the definition of free actions states that, "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."
There is also no action specified by the RAW for getting your hands into position or readying an unarmed attack. Your assertion that it is the equivalent drawing a weapon seems a little much IMO.
If drawing multiple arrows from a quiver as part of attacking with a bow is considered "Not an Action" as per page 182, it is my opinion that changing your grip on a polearm would also similarly qualify.
As "Not an Action" represents the action type that requires the least amount of effort and time, even when compared to immediate and swift actions, then by that definition one can perform a multitude of "Not an Actions" (even when it isn't your turn).
YMMV
Cheers
Edit: Ninja'd by Shadowlord :)
Edit: Ninja'd by Shadowlord :)
Well, as a Shadowlord I am often quite shadowy and ninja-like.
|
As far as attacking with a spiked gauntlet that is holding another weapon, I'd say that while it may be possible, it's definitely not optimal. There really aren't any hard and fast rules covering this, but if a player wanted to do this in my game, I'd say that "spiked gauntlet holding a light weapon" is an exotic weapon that they aren't proficient with unless they take the appropriate feat.
Seriously? Go into your kitchen and grab a knife and an oven mitt. Put on the mitt, grab the knife and throw a punch... it's not brain surgery guys.
I'm also in the camp that moving your hands on the haft of a polearm is "not an action." I do however think you should lose the advantage of your Reach till your next turn, though it's still in your hands ready to go.
--Pop Vrocks & Cola!
Seriously? Go into your kitchen and grab a knife and an oven mitt. Put on the mitt, grab the knife and throw a punch... it's not brain surgery guys.
Agreed.
I definitely see it as a back up weapon for an armored fighter. They lose use of their weapon, and they can still do damage as an armed attack.
A previous poster correctly pointed out that they don't have to be worn with armor, but at the same time you can do a lot of crazy stuff if you're really determined.
If the idea of a "gauntlet" is a problem, then how about just getting armor spikes and hip checking an adjacent foe? You won't even have to let go of your twohanded weapon to do that.
They do more damage than a spiked gauntlet too.
They do cost 10x as much (50gp instead of 5gp), and require martial proficiency (even when used in a grapple). However, by 2nd or 3rd level, the cost shouldn't be a problem, and there's not many two-hander users that aren't already martial weapon trained.
Considering that option is available, I'd stop worrying about spiked gauntlets. If the character wants to use a lower damage weapon instead, then I say let em.
Seriously? Go into your kitchen and grab a knife and an oven mitt. Put on the mitt, grab the knife and throw a punch... it's not brain surgery guys.
And take a picture of you doing this -- and post it to failblog.
Perhaps under RP Fail.
Letting go of a polearm is a free action. Grabbing and getting your hands into position is the equivalent of drawing it again. It is NOT a free action.
Using your gauntlet instead of the weapon you are holding involves shifting your grip on your weapon and preparing/tensing to deliver blows very different then swinging a sword or thrusting with the dagger. it is preparing a different weapon, exactly as if you'd drawn it. You knife and sword fight very differently then you punch.
Having a spiked gauntlet or unarmed strike ready at the same time as you are using a polearm is having TWO WEAPONS READY. You cannot get around that. It's totally logical and transparent. So if you fight with two weapons ready, you take the penalty. If you want to invoke that only having two weapons in different hands invokes this, then I will then say that there is no way you can strike with a second weapon on your turn without quickdraw or some other effect that lets you get another weapon into play as a free action.
there is no rule that says it is a free action to use an unarmed strike while wielding another weapon. In such cases, it devolves to the default ruling of having a weapon ready, or 'drawing' it. I'd tilt to readiness. I might allow you to do a free action to prepare, if you hadn't already spent one releasing your polearm, and if this wasn't restricted to your hand, not the rest of your body. You HAVE to ready your fist here...UA assumes you can kick with your legs or headbutt them, if you must. WIth the gauntlet, you MUST use your hand.
==Aelryinth
Drawing, knocking and aiming an arrow are all free actions that can be done in the middle of an attack action. Are you saying that this is more complicated then shifting your grip on a two handed weapon?
As for two weapons, the rules imply that the penalty only occurs IF you use the off hand weapon. If not it is simply in your hand as a wand, potion or piece of candy could be. There is no rule to 'ready' a weapon that is already in your hand. If its in your hand its ready, the penalty only occurs if you use it.
|
|
There are actions to ready a shield though. I would let a player put a two handed weapon in one hand on their turn as a free action, to switch to using a gauntlet. I would not allow them to do so on an opponents turn as free actions may only be taken during your turn, and having a spiked gauntlet does not entitle the player to weapon swapping immediate actions IMO. (though I could easily see this taking a move action, but thats just not how I play it in my games. but I have played in games where this is the case)
As far as going back to wielding the two handed weapon, I would let them do that as a move action (just like readying a shield). I might even go so far as perhaps letting a player with the quick draw feat do so as a free action, so they could use their full attack action and then get back into stance afterwords.
I would not however allow weapon swapping during opponents turns. Whatever weapon they are wielding at the end of their turn, is the weapon that they threaten with, and the one they will make their AoOs with (if any are provoked).
Of course your own mileage may vary. By the RAW two handed weapons don't have any special properties that allow them to be readied and unreadied,it just is not an action (though it should be IMO. So I would not allow these actions in organized play, but in my home game...
Sure thing, as long as the bads can do it as well.
love,
malkav
There are actions to ready a shield though. I would let a player put a two handed weapon in one hand on their turn as a free action, to switch to using a gauntlet. I would not allow them to do so on an opponents turn as free actions may only be taken during your turn, and having a spiked gauntlet does not entitle the player to weapon swapping immediate actions IMO. (though I could easily see this taking a move action, but thats just not how I play it in my games. but I have played in games where this is the case)
As far as going back to wielding the two handed weapon, I would let them do that as a move action (just like readying a shield). I might even go so far as perhaps letting a player with the quick draw feat do so as a free action, so they could use their full attack action and then get back into stance afterwords.
I would not however allow weapon swapping during opponents turns. Whatever weapon they are wielding at the end of their turn, is the weapon that they threaten with, and the one they will make their AoOs with (if any are provoked).
Of course your own mileage may vary. By the RAW two handed weapons don't have any special properties that allow them to be readied and unreadied,it just is not an action (though it should be IMO. So I would not allow these actions in organized play, but in my home game...
Sure thing, as long as the bads can do it as well.
love,
malkav
The description for readying a shield specifically indicates the fact that it involves straping it to your arm. The action is more then simply griping it.
"Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action."
As far as attacking with a spiked gauntlet that is holding another weapon, I'd say that while it may be possible, it's definitely not optimal. There really aren't any hard and fast rules covering this, but if a player wanted to do this in my game, I'd say that "spiked gauntlet holding a light weapon" is an exotic weapon that they aren't proficient with unless they take the appropriate feat.
Seriously? Go into your kitchen and grab a knife and an oven mitt. Put on the mitt, grab the knife and throw a punch... it's not brain surgery guys.
I agree with KoV here. It isn’t that difficult to envision. It is a common occurrence in movies. A character is holding a longsword and too close to make an effective slash or stab with it so you see the character punch his enemy in the face, with longsword in hand. It was done on several occasions in the Lord of the Rings movies and those guys weren't even wearing gauntlets.
A previous poster correctly pointed out that they don't have to be worn with armor, but at the same time you can do a lot of crazy stuff if you're really determined.
I wouldn't describe it as doing something crazy, perhaps creative. I am simply separating the mechanic from the fluff and adding new fluff of my own design. The mechanic is that attached to your hand is a device that does 1d4 of lethal damage with an unarmed strike; this device is a simple weapon. Making it out of metal and saying it comes with all suits of medium or heavier armor, except plate, is fluff. You can just as easily say the device is made primarily of a thick leather glove with a thin metal strip inserted over the knuckles (like a steel toed boot) and the Spikes are attached to that thin metal strip. Alternately a thin metal plate could be inserted in the backhand of the glove and the spikes could be there. If you really wanted to be creative you could call it a thick leather forearm guard with a metal strip inserted and spikes protruding from your forearm. Mechanically it is transparent: You still do the same damage, it is still attached to the same body part (though I wouldn't hesitate to attach it to a boot or shin guard), and it is still an unarmed strike. You don't even have to change the weight of the glove (although I would make it lighter if it were primarily made of leather vs. steel).
There are actions to ready a shield though.
As pointed out already the term "ready a shield" in the combat section is referring to "donning or removing" a shield in the actual equipment section where it explains this in detail. Donning a shield (a Move Action) is assuming the shield is not already secured to your hand. You are strapping the shield to your arm.
In effect you just made the same argument as the poster above saying that it was a Move Action to draw a weapon that is already in hand. The act of drawing a weapon or donning a shield assume that they are not already in hand; if they did not then there would be two separate actions, one for drawing/donning and another for readying. And as I said to him: Where is the rule for that?
I would let a player put a two handed weapon in one hand on their turn as a free action, to switch to using a gauntlet. I would not allow them to do so on an opponents turn as free actions may only be taken during your turn, and having a spiked gauntlet does not entitle the player to weapon swapping immediate actions IMO. (though I could easily see this taking a move action, but thats just not how I play it in my games. but I have played in games where this is the case)
So you are saying that drawing an arrow from the quiver and nocking it in your bow is a non-action but simply letting go of a polearm with one hand is a Free Action that cannot be taken outside your turn? Again here I would ask you to point me to the RAW that supports this. You are making rulings based on your own view rather than any official rules, or even common sense.
As far as going back to wielding the two handed weapon, I would let them do that as a move action (just like readying a shield). I might even go so far as perhaps letting a player with the quick draw feat do so as a free action, so they could use their full attack action and then get back into stance afterwords.
Again there is NO ACTION attached to readying a weapon or a shield. It is a Move Action to draw a weapon or to don a shield. There is no action for readying a weapon or shield that is already in hand.
You are also forgetting that the action required for drawing a weapon or donning a shield change upon reaching +1 BAB. It then becomes part of a Move Action vs. requiring a move action. It changes again for weapons with the Quick Draw feat making drawing a weapon a Free Action.
So you are in essence saying that it takes an equal amount of time/effort for a character switch grip on a weapon that is already in hand as it does to strap on a shield or draw a weapon from its sheath. Again I would say this seems to lack common sense. It also lacks backing from RAW.
I would not however allow weapon swapping during opponents turns. Whatever weapon they are wielding at the end of their turn, is the weapon that they threaten with, and the one they will make their AoOs with (if any are provoked).
There is no weapon swapping. The PC in question would be attacking with a weapon that is already drawn/in hand. Since there is no action required to ready a weapon that is already drawn, the only question is if you think "letting go" of a polearm constitutes an action. In light of that again I ask: Do you honestly think that drawing an arrow from the quiver and nocking it are both non-actions but letting go of something constitutes a Free Action not to be taken outside your turn? Because that is dumb.
By the RAW two handed weapons don't have any special properties that allow them to be readied and unreadied,it just is not an action (though it should be IMO. So I would not allow these actions in organized play,
There is no action attached to readying any weapon. The only action is drawing it. Actually, a character who uses his polearm as a walking stick (Such as most Wizards with their staffs) would never have to spend a Move Action drawing their weapon because it is already drawn.
This is a perfect example of why I will probably never participate with much organized play. You just admitted you are aware that by RAW it is allowed and yet you would not allow it in an organized game based on your opinion.
but in my home game... Sure thing, as long as the bads can do it as well.
Why wouldn't the enemy be able to do it?
You seem to be under the common miss-assumption that an attack roll is the same as throwing one punch or swinging once with a sword, it is not. An attack roll represents several attempts at hitting your foe over a 6 second time frame, feints, parries, reposes, etc.
That is a fantastic opinion and perhaps even a quite cinematic way of looking at attacks, but it is not RAW.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
All the wording in this entry is singular not plural. It sounds like it is describing one attack per roll to me. That doesn't mean that you can't envision it in a more cinematic way, but there are no RAW applications for how something is envisioned. You are basing your argument on rules that aren't even there.
Sure you can hold a dagger and throw a punch, but there are a lot of combat situations I can think of that holding that dagger is going to limit your options.
Actually no, not at all, holding a dagger in a hand that is covered in a metal glove with spikes would actually make you a lot more dangerous and versatile than using either one by itself.
What if your opponent had blocked your first punch and now your arm is out wide, but if you could open your hand you might be able to turn it into a backhand and rake the spikes across his face, but you're holding a dagger and your hand and wrist aren't in a position to do this, so no go.
Again here you are basing your argument on rules that don't exist. One attack roll represents one attack. Meeting/Beating your opponent's AC is the only thing that determines success. How you want to interpret it cinematically has no bearing on RAW.
Furthermore if you wanted to apply a little reality to the situation (as apparently you do) if someone blocks the punch you throw you simply slice open their arm with the dagger that is in your hand. In fact in reality if you used a combination of weapons like that you would probably make a habit of punching someone in the face and slashing their face open with the dagger all in one fluid motion. The fight would be over in one hit since your opponent would likely be freaking out from all the damage his face just received, not to mention blinded by blood and possibly losing eyes from the spikes. Like I said it would make you more dangerous, not less.
Heck, maybe the extra pound of metal you're holding slows you down enough that your opponent can just barely get out of the way of your blows.
You are arguing that the same Fighter who routinely uses a 12 pound Halberd with no problem might be hindered by the 2 pound combination of a dagger and a spiked gauntlet?
I never said it would be impossible to do, just that it is in no way an optimal way to fight and bringing in the non-proficient penalties are a good way to represent this.
So, your stance is that it should take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to use a Simple Weapon in a way that as far as I can tell (and no one has produced applicable rules to disprove this) is perfectly acceptable by RAW?
|
|
I dunno if you will take this as an acceptable source, but WotC stated in a "rules of the game" that a spiked gauntlet could be wielded at the same time as a reach weapon to threaten either at 5 or 10 feet. And mentioned you could use 2 handed-weapons without trouble with a spiked gauntlet.
I guess there is no specific change to the mechanics of those weapons in PFRPG, so they should work as well...
I'll paste the whole section in the spoiler.
Adjacent Squares and Reach Weapons: There are some tricks you can use to threaten those adjacent squares when you're using a reach weapon. If you're a monk, your unarmed attacks continue to threaten the squares adjacent to you. Even if you're not a monk, you can use a smaller weapon to threaten the adjacent squares. You'll have to hold the reach weapon in one hand and wield the smaller weapon in the other hand. Since most reach weapons are two-handed weapons, you're only holding onto the reach weapon, not wielding it, and you don't threaten an area with it. Although the rules don't mention it, letting go of a two-handed weapon with one hand or putting a free hand back on the weapon is a free action for you. Drawing the smaller weapon requires an action, but if you have the Quick Draw feat, it's a free action. Note that you can take a free action only during your turn.
If you want to use this trick, you must draw the smaller weapon while it's still your turn. When you do so, you don't threaten any area with your larger weapon until you wield it in two hands again. To resume using the bigger weapon on your turn, you'll have to drop the smaller weapon (a free action) to free up your hand for the bigger weapon.
Weapons such as the spiked gauntlet or armor spikes are ready for use whenever you have a free hand, and you don't need to drop them to use your hand for something else.
Shadowlord is quite right. Really, this is pretty old-school 3.5. Every glaive-wielding fighter I played with through that edition wore a spiked gauntlet. There's nothing new or revolutionary about this tactic.
Nor is it unbalanced or unrealistic. There are better options (like spiked armour, as someone mentioned above) and there are much more finickety maneuevers that require nonactions (like drawing and notching arrows, as again stated).
I would say, though, that I dream of the day combat is more extensively codified into action types - and the action types themselves better defined. Recent examples that have caused controversy, and that such a workthrough could solve, include the whole Vital Strike brouhaha (...why they triggered it with 'an attack' I don't know, really: just call it a standard and be done).
I'd also like to know precisely what actions are used during full attack attacks, attacks of opportunity, charges, spring attacks, and shots on the run. Are any of those standards? (charge, maybe?) If not, what are they?
On topic again: spiked gauntlet and two-handed weapon is fine. If you want to attack with both in one round, you're two weapon fighting (edit: unless you eg attack with a glaive and then trigger an AoO with the spiked gauntlet: that's permissable). If you're shifting from one to the other and only attacking with one in each round, go for it. There is no action involved in such a shift. Anything else is a houserule.
Footnote: kosher old-school tactics like this do get queried sometimes on the boards, so apologies if I sound dismissive on the basis of it being one of those. Another recentish example was sneak-attacking with touch-attack spells. A load of posters said that wasn't possible, citing 'realistic' reasons why it wouldn't be possible - when in the game, of course, it's fine, and people have been sneak-scorching-raying for years.