|
Otherwise, you WILL get that PC who wields two spiked gauntlets and 2 daggers each made of different special materials and each with different enchantments to effectively wield 4 readied weapons at once; or the PC who insists that if Fighter A can do it with daggers then his fighter, who is stronger, can do it with shortswords.
Actually, I have no problem with this. It's a little insurance if someone gets too close, and is good for dirty fighting.
Bashing an opponent with your gauntlet or basket hilt isn't that big a deal IMO. If I wasn't so colossally lazy today, I'm sure I could find period fighting manuals that illustrate that very thing.
... This is a gray area in the RAW, basically a PC who has managed to have 2 readied weapons in one hand....Otherwise, you WILL get that PC who wields two spiked gauntlets and 2 daggers each made of different special materials and each with different enchantments to effectively wield 4 readied weapons at once...
I see nothing in the rules to stop this exactly from happening. The enforced rule would be TWF so he could only get one primary attack and one secondary attack (without higher BAB or feats). The character could choose the weapon for the primary attack (dagger or gauntlet) and the same for the off-hand. He would not get four attacks
The only thing this saves a character from is drawing a different weapon and in this case a weapon that only does 1d4 damage. To pull this off effectively the character needs a Dex 15, at least one feat, and thousands of gold worth of material for his four weapons. Even if we add oversized-TWF (complete adventure) and exotic Bastard sword we are still looking at only 1d10 damage with two separate weapons and only 1d4 for the gauntlets. Plus the cost of special materials and magic cost for 4 separate weapons.
I am still more concerned with the two-handed fighters or barbarian that have focused their feats like power attack and gold into one big weapon. Let the other character have his fun little trick as its a weapon that does only 1d4 damage. While its nice it still comes no where near the what a decent two-handed warrior damage output is. Which also means most times they won't even care if a creature has DR as they are doing so much damage they cut right through.
|
Sounds like you need to get more familiar with the RAW then. From the PHB p.139 "An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. rather it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly."
While you are correct in how combat is envisioned using DnD rules, I don't see how this actually helps your argument that someone shouldn't be allowed to wield both a polearm and a spiked gauntlet at the same time.
The mechanics are that a character can only attack with a weapon they have in hand. If they wish to attack with a second weapon in the same action, they use two-weapon fighting rules. So, a character could attack with both a two-handed weapon and a spiked gauntlet (both of which are in hand) with either being his off-hand weapon (as DnD does not define the "handedness" of a character and allows you to choose your "main hand" and "off hand" on any given attack.)
Given your quote of the rules it seems easy to envision a character swinging a two-handed weapon to attempt to connect with their enemy and letting go with one hand for a moment or two to strike them with his fist. Or perhaps the character doesn't even release his weapon to strike, but attempts to punch through his opponents defenses with his hand still on the haft of the weapon.
With all that said, this doesn't even come up when he's not attacking with both weapons at the same time, such as when you want to determine whether a character threatens certain squares. A character with a reach weapon and a spiked gauntlet can threaten both the ranged squares with the reach weapon and the adjacent squares. The reason being that he has a weapon equipped that can threaten both areas. At any given time (since a round of action is made up of a bunch of movement, striking, and perhaps eventually connecting) the character may have his weapon in both hands or one, but the character never needs to drop the two handed weapon despite the possibility that they held it in one hand for a moment or two during the round. They only need to have it in both hands to use it, not to carry it around.
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 am not familiar with "rules of the game" is that a forum, FAQ, or publication? I tried to look it up but couldn't access it from my work PC, it seems like a forum.
Personally I do accept and use things from 3.5 and WotC publications as RAW in the absence of superseding PF rules. However, I am hesitant sometimes to accept forum posts from WotC as RAW based on several accounts of their FAQ posts having different answers for the same question. If those rules ever made it to WotC publication then it would most certainly be RAW unless something in PF came out dealing with the same rules in which case those would supersede.
If these rules do satisfy any particular individual's standards for RAW then they do answer virtually every question/example posted in this thread and according to them I am wrong on several counts.
It does not 100% satisfy my personal standards for RAW as many things answered in WotC forums are not from designers or are simply the opinion of that particular WotC worker on that particular day. Even things printed in Dragon/Dungeon magazine got changed fairly often when published in WotC books. So, with acknowledgment to this post and that it may bring closure to some participating in the discussion I do intend to continue debating my position.
Personally I think that if drawing an arrow and nocking it are non-actions then letting go of a weapon should be as well. It takes far less effort and coordination to let go of something and to re-grasp it than it does to draw/nock and arrow. Also, I personally think it is rather ridiculous that having a weapon in your hand should interfere with making a punching motion to your opponent's face with spiked gauntlets.
However, thank you for the rule post midknight.
Sounds like you need to get more familiar with the RAW then. From the PHB p.139 "An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. rather it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly."
That's great and as soon as you can show me where that text from 3.5 materials made it into the PF PRD (which is where my quote came from) I would be more than happy to concede the point. Until then I reiterate:
"That is a fantastic opinion and perhaps even a quite cinematic way of looking at attacks, but it is not RAW." I will even caveat this by saying that is how it may have worked in the 3.5 PHB but in PF, which is what we are discussing here, PRD says:
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.
Perhaps, but you can't attack with two weapons at once, and in a combat situation, having more options is not always best, having one weapon and and knowing exactly what you can do with it allows you to focus. If you looking for openings to attack with a gauntlet at the same time as openings to attack with a dagger, you are once again, not fighting optimally.
If that were true then Monks would be eternally confused. They are constantly looking for openings to strike with fists, back-fists, long-fists, palm strikes, elbows, fingertips, balls of feet, heels, shins, knees, and head butts. That's just accounting for their basic weapons; they also have to look for openings in multiple angles of attack with which to use several different angles/strikes/weapons to make contact. Not to mention the various exotic weapons they use.
And even if the above were not the case it wouldn't matter because the fact is there is nothing in PF or published 3.5 materials to support what you are saying.
Again here your poor understanding of the rules is causing you to look foolish, I've already pointed out how your one attack roll = one swing theory is wrong.
Or, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the changes between PHB and PRD before you make such accusations. If the language has been changed between PHB and PRD I would assume it was intentional; I would also assume that, since this is a PF forum, PRD supersedes PHB where the two differ. So again I will say:
"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." And I will add that even in the PHB, where the attack roll represented multiple attempts, my overall point is still valid; cinematic vision does not affect the FACT that an attack roll's success is based on ONE thing: Meet/Beat target AC.
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?
No, I don't believe I'm arguing that at all, in fact, I never even mentioned Halberds. My point is, as it always was, the 2 pound combination of a dagger and a spiked gauntlet is less efficient than the 1 pound spiked gauntlet on its own.
And what that, in effect, is saying is: The weight of the weapon can greatly affect the success or failure of an attack. If that is the case then a Fighter who uses a 4lb Longsword should be far faster and more accurate than a Fighter who uses a 12lb Halberd. And a Fighter who uses a 2lb combo Dagger/Spiked Gauntlet would be even further ahead with speed and accuracy. In that case, yes a 1lb Dagger or 1lb Spiked Gauntlet by itself would indeed be more optimal.
However, there are no rules that say the weight of a weapon, or weapon combo, affects attack rolls at all. The only rules that apply are Proficiency, BAB, Attack Bonus, and in some cases TWF rules.
Again, no, you seem to like putting words into my mouth (or my posts as the case may be). This is a gray area in the RAW, basically a PC who has managed to have 2 readied weapons in one hand. I'm fine with somebody doing that, but there are going to be penalties for it when they go to attack, the same as there would be if a PC said that they have large hands and could easily hold two daggers pommel to pommel. I think a simple feat to overcome these penalties is actually being rather generous. Otherwise, you WILL get that PC who wields two spiked gauntlets and 2 daggers each made of different special materials and each with different enchantments to effectively wield 4 readied weapons at once; or the PC who insists that if Fighter A can do it with daggers then his fighter, who is stronger, can do it with shortswords. This gray area is exactly what Rule 0 was intended to resolve, and I merely gave my opinion on how I would resolve it.
Which is a longwinded way of saying that your stance (opinion) is that it should take an exotic weapon proficiency for players to use a combo of two weapons they are already proficient with in a manner that is not restricted by RAW.
They are already proficient with the weapons in question. They are not doing anything that RAW prevents. Weight and Strength have zero bearing on using weapons other than carrying capacity. In other words you are charging them a feat for something they can already do.
.....
My stance (opinion) is:
1) A spiked gauntlet should always be ready for use.
2) Letting go of a weapon and re-grasping it should be non-actions.
3) Punching, using a spiked gauntlet, should be possible while holding a one handed weapon.
(Really I think it should be an option even when holding a two handed weapon.)
@ midknight:
Do you know if the rules you posted made it into the 3.5 Rules Compendium?
It is stated that the characters are not just standing and swing. The game is an abstraction, and that spreads out to HP, saves, attacks and so forth. The quote from the PHB is not a rule however, its just a way to make things make sense from a realistic point of view.
Spell casters that hold a two-handed weapon can free one hand to cast a spell and then bring their hand back to that weapon to make an attack of opportunity. This makes it seem to be a free action to remove your hand and put it back on the weapon.
It is stated that the characters are not just standing and swing. The game is an abstraction, and that spreads out to HP, saves, attacks and so forth. The quote from the PHB is not a rule however, its just a way to make things make sense from a realistic point of view.
Really it can be as abstract or as literal as you want, it is up to the players and DM to visualize the action in any way that makes sense to them. The overall point I was making was that even if you chose to view it abstractly, or even if the book tells you it is abstract, that still has no actual effect on the RAW and mechanics.
Spell casters that hold a two-handed weapon can free one hand to cast a spell and then bring their hand back to that weapon to make an attack of opportunity. This makes it seem to be a free action to remove your hand and put it back on the weapon.
That is a big part of the debate: Free Action vs. Non-action.
It is at most a free action. However, I think it seems to fit more along the lines of a non-action seeing as how some other actions which are far more complicated and require far more coordination are counted as non-actions.
For instance: Drawing an arrow from the quiver and nocking the arrow are both non-actions.
At a high BAB an archer may fire four, five, or more arrows in one turn. Each of those attacks requires him to first draw and nock the arrow. All those add up to nothing because they are non-actions. So, a 16th level Fighter can draw and nock four arrows in one turn all as non-actions but if that same Fighter tries to simply "let go" of a two handed weapon with one hand is a free action? That = Stupid IMO.
It is stated that the characters are not just standing and swing. The game is an abstraction, and that spreads out to HP, saves, attacks and so forth. The quote from the PHB is not a rule however, its just a way to make things make sense from a realistic point of view.Really it can be as abstract or as literal as you want, it is up to the players and DM to visualize the action in any way that makes sense to them. The overall point I was making was that even if you chose to view it abstractly, or even if the book tells you it is abstract, that still has no actual effect on the RAW and mechanics.
I can tell if you are agreeing with me or not, but I agree with you.
Spell casters that hold a two-handed weapon can free one hand to cast a spell and then bring their hand back to that weapon to make an attack of opportunity. This makes it seem to be a free action to remove your hand and put it back on the weapon.That is a big part of the debate: Free Action vs. Non-action.
It is at most a free action. However, I think it seems to fit more along the lines of a non-action seeing as how some other actions which are far more complicated and require far more coordination are counted as non-actions.
For instance: Drawing an arrow from the quiver and nocking the arrow are both non-actions.
At a high BAB an archer may fire four, five, or more arrows in one turn. Each of those attacks requires him to first draw and nock the arrow. All those add up to nothing because they are non-actions. So, a 16th level Fighter can draw and nock four arrows in one turn all as non-actions but if that same Fighter tries to simply "let go" of a two handed weapon with one hand is a free action? That = Stupid IMO.
It does not make real life sense, but a lot of things dont make real life sense in the game. By the way the game has been played removing your hand and putting it back has never taken an action. I dont consider D&D/Pathfinder to be a simulation, its just an abstraction of sorts. The buckler as an example is not even close to the way it's supposed to work. You hold a buckler the same way you hold a weapon. It's not attached to your wrist in real life. That is a lot more abusive than reattaching your hand as a free action. I would probably more likely consider the letting go and regripping the weapon a non-action, but regardless it should not take up any actions that matter. IMHO.
|
|
@ midknight:
Do you know if the rules you posted made it into the 3.5 Rules Compendium?
Sorry for late answering. Those were articles posted in WotC's site, explaining in detail complicated aspects of the rules, there were lots of them and I guess one could consider them official ruling in 3.5
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg
The one I quoted (I thought I had pasted the link, but I didn't, sorry):
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a
It's under the heading "Adjacent Squares and Reach Weapons".
I don't know if that made it into the rules compendium...
Some more obscure reference to using spiked gauntlets + reach/ranged weapons is also on the WotC site here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050425a
I can tell if you are agreeing with me or not, but I agree with you.
I was agreeing with you as well and at the same time taking the opportunity to further explain my argument.
It does not make real life sense, but a lot of things dont make real life sense in the game. By the way the game has been played removing your hand and putting it back has never taken an action. I dont consider D&D/Pathfinder to be a simulation, its just an abstraction of sorts. The buckler as an example is not even close to the way it's supposed to work. You hold a buckler the same way you hold a weapon. It's not attached to your wrist in real life. That is a lot more abusive than reattaching your hand as a free action. I would probably more likely consider the letting go and regripping the weapon a non-action, but regardless it should not take up any actions that matter. IMHO.
That is what I thought too - especially with nothing in the rules to say it takes any measurable action. But apparently there are many who disagree.
The issue is, if it is a free action then you cannot let go of your two handed weapon outside your turn. Meaning a character with a halberd and spiked gauntlet could not use the spiked gauntlet for AoO because he can't let go of his halberd to make it. That seems stupid to me.
If however it is a non-action then the fighter can let go of his halberd to make an AoO with the spiked gauntlet. Which apparently seems stupid/overpowered to some others posting here.
Another issue is, can you effectively make a punching motion using a spiked gauntlet with something in your hand, such as a one handed or even two handed weapon. My opinion is, yes you can.
@ midknight
Alright, thanks again for the information.
It seems there is general agreement that on your own turn, you can use a spiked gauntlet and other weapon interchangeably.
However once your turn is over, you threaten an area based on what you are wielding. If you want reach, it takes two hands. If you want close, it takes a different weapon. You can't wield "both". It is one OR the other.
As for attacking with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon in the same hand - no way. A spiked gauntlet is a light weapon.
"Light: A light weapon is used in one hand." There is nothing in the spiked gauntlet description that suggests an exception to this. By the rules, a spiked gauntlet is treated the same as a short sword, light pick, light mace, or any other light weapon.
As someone else said, the combat system isn't a simulation. There are many examples of inconsistency (e.g. a 5 foot step is also a non-action) In the end however, we follow the rules because they make a more playable game then attempting to simulate a "real" sword and magic fight.
Fergie -
(1) PFSRD: 'An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon'. By your (to my mind over-strict) definition, a monk has to wield his head in his hands to attack with it. Ditto his feet. A standard gauntlet also makes unarmed attacks, and so, by your definition, cannot be worn - must be 'in' one hand, not 'on' it; the only way to attack with it is presumably to slap someone across both cheeks with it, swashbuckler-challenge-style.
To avoid that nonsense, you have to read the definition of 'light weapon' less literally, and more reasonably. ie. 'A light weapon is used in one hand' is not the same as 'A light weapon is always used in one hand.'
(2) PFSRD: 'You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack'. If it's a nonaction to take one hand on or off a two-handed weapon, then a fighter with a glaive and a spiked gauntlet can make Attacks of Opportunity at 5' or 10'. Ditto a monk with a glaive. Ditto a paladin with glaive and spiked armour.
If it's *not* a nonaction, and you want to follow the rules strictly at every turn, then you need a rule that cites the action type. If there's no rule to cite, and you want to make a judgement call, do so - but you can't then claim to be following the rules as writ.
My understanding has always been that putting a spiked-gauntleted hand on or off a two-handed weapon is a nonaction.
Note that f you rule against this, you've still got the case of spiked armour and a glaive. The spiked armour requires no hands, so absolutely threatens at 5', while the glaive threatens at 10'...which makes house-nerfing the (lower damage) spiked gauntlet a bit pointless, really (except that the spiked gauntlet is a simple weapon, of course).
Off-Topic Footnote:
I hadn't noticed that the 5' step is now a nonaction...that's very interesting. Deserves a thread of its own, if there hasn't been one already (I haven't seen one).
I quite like it in theory, actually. It breaks up the slight line-dancing feel that rigid initiative orders can provoke. It is problematic as written, however, since you could declare it at any time - eg. just as your foe is about to strike. And since it's a nonaction that you can take 'before your action', you could...step back from a swordswing while flatfooted? Very strange.
Another example of why the rules have to be read with a reasonable head on, at any rate.
|
Off-Topic Footnote:
I hadn't noticed that the 5' step is now a nonaction...that's very interesting. Deserves a thread of its own, if there hasn't been one already (I haven't seen one).
I quite like it in theory, actually. It breaks up the slight line-dancing feel that rigid initiative orders can provoke. It is problematic as written, however, since you could declare it at any time - eg. just as your foe is about to strike. And since it's a nonaction that you can take 'before your action', you could...step back from a swordswing while flatfooted? Very strange.
Another example of why the rules have to be read with a reasonable head on, at any rate.
I think that "no action" and "not an action" are different. "No action" is the complete lack of any type of action (ie delay). "Not and action" is something that you can do coupled with a regular action (ie the often mentioned drawing and nocking of arrows).
IMO you still cannot take a 5' step on anyone else's turn in the round save your own, unless you have the Step Up feat, otherwise it would be listed as an immediate action with the caveat that you cannot have moved any distance this round. 5' step is a listed exception to the regular action types.
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?
As long as you aren't trying to use the gauntlet to attack you can do anything you can normally do. What you can't do is use your hand to attack with your spiked gauntlet while doing any of those other things.
It seems there is general agreement that on your own turn, you can use a spiked gauntlet and other weapon interchangeably.
It doesn't seem to me that there is a general agreement at all. There are two main camps: those who think letting go of a two handed weapon is a free action and those who would classify it as a non-action.
I am among the Non-action camp because it seems stupid IMO that letting go should take a free action when drawing/nocking an arrow are non-actions. Also you could wear Armor Spikes and make an AoO without needing to let go of your two handed weapon at all. So it seems asinine to disallow the use of a Spiked Gauntlet for AoO when it does less damage than Armor Spikes. All that restriction is doing is limiting the tactic to those who have Martial Weapon proficiency.
In defense of the Free Action camp there are 3.5 WotC forum rulings that call it a free action. However, (as far as anyone in this thread is aware) none of those rulings made it into any WotC published books and it certainly didn't make it into PF Core Rules.
You can't wield "both". It is one OR the other.
If there is published RAW that agrees with you I would love to see it.
As for attacking with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon in the same hand - no way. A spiked gauntlet is a light weapon. "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand." There is nothing in the spiked gauntlet description that suggests an exception to this. By the rules, a spiked gauntlet is treated the same as a short sword, light pick, light mace, or any other light weapon.
Well firstly there is a difference; the spiked gauntlet is a glove. It may be a light weapon but you don't have to hold it, it is attached to your hand and still allows you to hold other objects. Secondly the section you are quoting from is addressing a separate set of issues. It is telling you that only one hand is needed vs. two. It is also telling you that if you use both hands with a light weapon it doesn't increase damage whereas if you use both hands on a one-handed or two-handed weapon it does. Finally it is telling you that you may use light weapons while grappling. I do not believe this section was meant to deal with the corner case of spiked gauntlets in the manner you are applying it. If you adhere to such strict interpretation that a light weapon must be "held in the hand" then as posted above all a monks attacks would first have to be held in one hand or the other (which doesn't even make sense) and when a spiked gauntlet were equipped (not in use mind you, just simply equipped/worn) you would not be able to hold anything else at all because you are already holding onto the gauntlet.
Off-Topic Footnote:
I hadn't noticed that the 5' step is now a nonaction...that's very interesting. Deserves a thread of its own, if there hasn't been one already (I haven't seen one).
I think, as stated above, No Action and Not an Action (which I personally refer to as non-actions, I hope that doesn't confuse anyone) are two different things. If you will notice in the chart under No Action drawing/nocking arrows is not mentioned. Then if you go over to the Not an Action description, Delaying and 5-foot step are not mentioned. I believe that to be because these are two different sets of things. I think if the No Action on the chart was meant to describe those things that are Not an Action then the heading would have been Not an Action instead and the list in the chart would have been identical to the list in the description.
Furthermore, in the diagram just above the chart in question a 5-foot step is referred to as a free action. So from that we can determine that it is in fact a free action of sorts even though it is not specified as such in the chart below or in the TAKE 5-FOOT STEP section. In the TAKE 5-FOOT STEP section it is revealed that you can only do this maneuver once per round. So now we have it as a free action that can only be performed once per round (it has other movement restrictions as well but those don't apply here). Go to the Step Up feat and you read that a 5-foot step can be taken as an immediate action (which would be pointless if it could already be taken outside your turn, but makes perfect sense if normally it is a free action).
Why 5-foot step is included in the No Action portion of the chart instead of free action portion I have no idea. Perhaps it is to show that a 5-foot step isn't a "normal" free action (which can be taken any number of times during your turn, within reason - DM approval). Or perhaps it is there because there is no defined action to perfectly describe the maneuver: It is a bit like a free action, but can only be taken once per turn and has its own set of rules and restrictions to say when it can and can't be taken; what it never says is "can be taken during another character's turn" and that would likely have been specified if it were the intended use for 5-foot steps. What is certain though is that a 5-foot step being in the No Action box does not make it the same thing as Not An Action.
As long as you aren't trying to use the gauntlet to attack you can do anything you can normally do. What you can't do is use your hand to attack with your spiked gauntlet while doing any of those other things.
Quite a few people are saying that, but where are the rules specifying that in published 3.5 or PF materials?
You can't attack with a Shield in your hand but that is not because the gauntlet restricts you it is because holding the shield restricts you.
You can in fact use spiked gauntlets to make attacks while climbing. When climbing you can cling to the wall with one hand and use the other to perform tasks that don't require both hands like casting a spell, or say, punching with a spiked gauntlet if your target is close enough.
There don't seem to be any published rules specifying that you cannot attack with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon. It simply says the spiked gauntlet allows you to make unarmed attacks as if armed. It doesn't say "cannot be used to make attacks when holding something else."
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In defense of the Free Action camp there are 3.5 WotC forum rulings that call it a free action.
Actually, the FAQ said it was a Free Action but only because it wasn't quite a Move Action.
Quite a few people are saying that, but where are the rules specifying that in published 3.5 or PF materials?
I think they refer to the 3.p MM page 302 rule about not allowing use of a sword and a claw from the same limb. This rule existed in 3.5 rules set also.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I agree that by RAW, there's nothing that prevents use of a spiked gauntlet and using a two handed weapon (or one handed weapon and shield, etc.) However, should this be the case? It still rubs me as a cheesy way to have immunity to disarming or sundering of your main weapon, and not having to draw a new one. At the very least, if someone disarms you, there should be the slight penalty of not getting a full attack the next round.
I have no problem if you have the improved unarmed strike feat to get around that, since there's an investment there. The spiked gauntlet just seems like too easy of a way to defeat 2 of the combat maneuvers.
Actually, the FAQ said it was a Free Action but only because it wasn't quite a Move Action.
You're talking about WotC FAQ right? I didn't see anything in PF SRD FAQ when I looked the other day. If there is would you link it?
Unfortunately, from everything I have heard on several accounts, WotC forum answers were not always reliable or consistent and I don't believe those rules ever made it into publication. So, while it is a good set of rules to build a case on, it is not IMO definitive RAW. More of a WotC suggested house rule.
I think they refer to the 3.p MM page 302 rule about not allowing use of a sword and a claw from the same limb. This rule existed in 3.5 rules set also.
Using a claw attack with a weapon in hand is quite different from using a spiked gauntlet with a weapon in hand. A creature must have an open hand to use claws for the simple reason that claws are located on the finger tips and is therefore not capable of holding a weapon.
It still rubs me as a cheesy way to have immunity to disarming or sundering of your main weapon, and not having to draw a new one.
That is 100% the design intent of this weapon.
I have no problem if you have the improved unarmed strike feat to get around that, since there's an investment there.
The spiked gauntlet description states it allows you to make unarmed attacks as if armed. Basically the same language used in the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. That wasn't an accident/oversight, the whole purpose of this weapon is to be a back up weapon that doesn't need to be drawn and cannot be disarmed. You would be charging your players a feat for something the game rules intended them to be capable of.
The spiked gauntlet just seems like too easy of a way to defeat 2 of the combat maneuvers.
Not at all: If you are merely disarmed then this would be an emergency backup weapon, it only does a d4 of damage which is probably not going to be anyone’s first choice in combat. Meanwhile the guy who disarmed you still has his primary weapon and is likely smashing you with it and causing far more damage than 1d4. If your primary weapon is sundered then you won't be comforted at all by the fact that you still have a spiked gauntlet. Players sink thousands of gold into their primary weapons. It could cost them everything they are saving to replace their primary weapon, they might have to sell of other magic items to replace it, or they may not have any way of making enough money to replace it at all. The fact that you are wearing a spiked gauntlet is not going to help that one bit. And on top of that they are still facing the enemy who is still in possession of his primary weapon which is most likely doing more than the d4 your spiked gauntlet is dishing out.
I agree that by RAW, there's nothing that prevents use of a spiked gauntlet and using a two handed weapon (or one handed weapon and shield, etc.) However, should this be the case? It still rubs me as a cheesy way to have immunity to disarming or sundering of your main weapon, and not having to draw a new one. At the very least, if someone disarms you, there should be the slight penalty of not getting a full attack the next round.
I have no problem if you have the improved unarmed strike feat to get around that, since there's an investment there. The spiked gauntlet just seems like too easy of a way to defeat 2 of the combat maneuvers.
The spiked armor still gets around the issue.
Locked gauntlets also make attempting a disarm basically pointless.
Using a claw attack with a weapon in hand is quite different from using a spiked gauntlet with a weapon in hand. A creature must have an open hand to use claws for the simple reason that claws are located on the finger tips and is therefore not capable of holding a weapon.
Slam attacks work the same way. Fingernails have nothing to do with it. The gauntlet also follows that same rule. If you fight a creature that has a gauntlet, slam, or claw it threatens the reach range and the standard range, however none of these creatures can attack with their reach weapons and their gauntlet/claws/slams as part of a full attack action if using the same appendage that is grasping the weapon in question.
In short it is not the nails, it just the fact that your weapon holding appendage can never be used to make an attack with the manufactured weapon and the natural attack itself as part of a full round action.
Slam attacks work the same way. Fingernails have nothing to do with it. The gauntlet also follows that same rule. If you fight a creature that has a gauntlet, slam, or claw it threatens the reach range and the standard range, however none of these creatures can attack with their reach weapons and their gauntlet/claws/slams as part of a full attack action if using the same appendage that is grasping the weapon in question.
In short it is not the nails, it just the fact that your weapon holding appendage can never be used to make an attack with the manufactured weapon and the natural attack itself as part of a full round action.
Thank you for pointing that out. That will teach me to reply to someone's post before I study the rule in question for myself. Sometimes what is posted doesn't include all the detail of the actual rule; I did not realize this rule applied to slams (and all other natural attacks) as well. I haven't been through much of the monster material on PRD but, after looking it up, it does seem that this rule answers, with RAW, one of the debates on this thread. It would seem by RAW you cannot attack with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon. You must first let go to free your hand for the attack. Tue it doesn't explicitly speak of the spiked gauntlet corner case, but it is close enough to translate.
"That is a fantastic opinion and perhaps even a quite cinematic way of looking at attacks, but it is not RAW." I will even caveat this by saying that is how it may have worked in the 3.5 PHB but in PF, which is what we are discussing here, PRD says:
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.
6 seconds of mortal combat is a lot of action. Notice the phrasing in the rule you quote, which all but states that an attack is not simply one swipe:
"If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit AND [emphasis mine] deal damage."
Since this is specified, the clear assumption is that you and your opponent can and do 'hit' one another during melee, probably often, without dealing damage. It is assumed that melee involves you and your opponent nicking or smacking each other without great effect, landing numerous glancing blows, etc.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You're talking about WotC FAQ right? Unfortunately, from everything I have heard on several accounts, WotC forum answers were not always reliable or consistent
Using a claw attack with a weapon in hand is quite different from using a spiked gauntlet with a weapon in hand.
WotC FAQ yes, but I have no idea what you mean by forum answers. WotC never answered questions in forums like Paizo does.
As for the FAQ, many complain about it but I rarely found their answers deviated from RAW. That doesn't mean those folk that ignore one official interpretation of RAW for the "cool! dead people can take actions" interpretation of RAW that they like better.
As for your claw != spiked, I'd like to point out that it only says limb and the spiked gauntlet is on the same limb, so by my reading of RAW you can't claw or spiked gauntlet someone with the same limb as another weapon.
Firstly the point of Thoran's argument was that you couldn’t effectively attack with a spiked gauntlet while holding a dagger. The actual argument was the idea that it is impossible to attack with a spiked gauntlet while a dagger is in your hand because an attack roll represented multiple swings and one of those phantom/RP swings might be blocked in such a way as to make a successful attack impossible regardless of the attack roll. His argument was wrong because RP representation and approximations don't affect actual mechanics in the least.
Secondly it doesn't matter either way; even if the book explicitly stated that one roll represents an average of 5 attempts to strike your opponent and it would change nothing. That approximation has absolutely zero affect on the attack roll itself or the outcome, it is just a visualization. The whole point of my argument is: The only thing that determines the success of an attack roll (whether it represents a single attack or 5 attack attempts) is meeting or beating the target's AC. How you visualize it or how the book tells you to visualize it means nothing in regards to the mechanics.
Now, it does seem that attacking with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon is impossible but that has nothing to do with RP representations and approximations. It has to do with the RAW for Natural Attacks in the monsters section of PRD as pointed out by James Risner and wraithstrike.
.....
However, since you are bringing Attack Roll representations/approximations back up:
6 seconds of mortal combat is a lot of action.
Let’s pretend for a moment that each attack roll represented 5 attempts to strike. That would mean that a level 1 Fighter could potentially swing a Greatsword 5 times in 6 seconds the first day he ever touches a sword, true only one of them makes contact but that is still impressive. That same Fighter at level 20 can swing his sword an average of 20 times in 6 seconds and make contact an average of 4 times. I am not sure whether to be amazed or disgusted by that visualization. It is amazing, even inhuman; to be capable of swinging a Greatsword around for 20 attempted attacks in 6 seconds. But when I think of a professional soldier, who has spent his entire 20 level career in battle, swinging 20 times and only hitting maybe 4 times it seems a little pathetic to me, not to mention unrealistic. Even if you scale that back to 3 swings per attack roll that still means the Fighter on his first day can swing the Greatsword around 3 times in 6 seconds and at level 20 he can swing it 12 times in 6 seconds. That also seems unrealistic to me; I prefer to think that on day one a level 1 Fighter can muster enough strength and accuracy to swing his Greatsword one good time in 6 seconds and 4 great times when he is level 20.
Lets apply that same formula (5 swings/1 roll) to the Monk. At level 1, on his first day in class, a Monk can flurry and it represents 10 attacks in 6 seconds; do you realize that some people who have been in martial arts all their lives can't do that. Scale it back to 3 swings per 1 attack roll and it is still 6 attacks in 6 seconds, something it would take years for a martial artist to develop the speed to accomplish. At level 20 with the 5/1 ratio using Flurry of Blows represents a Monk throwing 35 attacks in 6 seconds with only 7 of those having the possibility to make contact and deal damage. If you scale it back to 3/1 it represents 21 attacks in 6 seconds with a possibility of 7 being successful. I find that to be a little obscene; I thought I was playing PF/D&D not DBZ. I think it is a lot more realistic and acceptable to say that at level 1 a Monk can throw 1 attack in 6 seconds, 2 if he flurries, and at level 20 he can throw 3 attacks in 6 seconds, 7 if he flurries.
Even if we scale it back all the way to saying that each attack roll represented an average of 2 attempts to strike an opponent that leaves us trying to visualize a Fighter at level 20 (who while quite amazing is still supposed to be a human being... or elf or whatever, you know what I mean) swinging his Greatsword an average of 8 times in 6 seconds. A Monk of 20th level with the 2/1 ratio can flurry for an average of 14 attacks in 6 seconds.
Sorry, but I prefer to envision that one attack roll more or less represents one attack preceded by the occasional feint, bob, weave, etc.
.....
Notice the phrasing in the rule you quote, which all but states that an attack is not simply one swipe:
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.
What I notice is that the entry is singular not plural.
"If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit AND [emphasis mine] deal damage."
That doesn’t change the fact that the preceding sentence is singular. And it could just as easily represent this idea: If you meet or beat the target’s AC you hit and deal damage. If you fail to meet or beat the target's AC it represents making contact but not hitting solidly enough to cause damage or possibly missing completely. The presence of an "AND" in the sentence is not definitive proof of anything.
Since this is specified, the clear assumption is that you and your opponent can and do 'hit' one another during melee, probably often, without dealing damage.
Actually, the clear assumption, since the entry is singular, would be that one attack roll represents one attempt to strike.
It is assumed that melee involves you and your opponent nicking or smacking each other without great effect, landing numerous glancing blows, etc.
And an attack roll that fails to meet or beat the target's AC is a fantastic way to represent those near misses and glancing blows.
.....
One attack roll = One attempt to strike. Now, how you explain/envision that attempt to strike is entirely up to you. If you want your attempt to represent five swings only one of which made contact, go for it. If I want my attempt to represent that I bob once, weave twice, swing my sword once and hit you, that's fine too. If the DM wants his Dragon's attempt to represent that it snarls at you and then bites you in half with one lunge, he is welcome to tell the story in just that way. The ultimate point of this is you can envision it any way you want, it still doesn't make one bit of difference when it comes down to the actual mechanics of the attack, which is: Rolling 1d20 = 1 attack/chance to deal damage. Meet/beat target AC = Hit. Fail to meet/beet target AC = miss.
WotC FAQ yes, but I have no idea what you mean by forum answers. WotC never answered questions in forums like Paizo does.
As for the FAQ, many complain about it but I rarely found their answers deviated from RAW. That doesn't mean those folk that ignore one official interpretation of RAW for the "cool! dead people can take actions" interpretation of RAW that they like better.
Fair enough. Personally I never participated in WotC forums or used the FAQ. I have heard several people say that FAQ would sometimes say one thing and later published RAW would say another. I have also seen on these boards and participated in threads where the posting of poorly written answers from WotC FAQ were used to support PF debates and ended up causing as many problems as it solved. That being the case, as a personal preference, I would rather have published RAW than an answer from WotC FAQ.
I was not talking about extreme cases of people taking advantages of poorly written RAW to say, for instance: "This power from TOB-Bo9S allows me to eclipse the sun." I was talking about clear instances of contradiction between WotC FAQ and published RAW.
As for your claw != spiked, I'd like to point out that it only says limb and the spiked gauntlet is on the same limb, so by my reading of RAW you can't claw or spiked gauntlet someone with the same limb as another weapon.
I am aware. I looked up the rule and it seems to prove me wrong. As I posted above, that rule proves, with RAW, that you can't attack with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon in the same hand. I concede that point.
As long as you aren't trying to use the gauntlet to attack you can do anything you can normally do. What you can't do is use your hand to attack with your spiked gauntlet while doing any of those other things.Quite a few people are saying that, but where are the rules specifying that in published 3.5 or PF materials?
You can't attack with a Shield in your hand but that is not because the gauntlet restricts you it is because holding the shield restricts you.
You can in fact use spiked gauntlets to make attacks while climbing. When climbing you can cling to the wall with one hand and use the other to perform tasks that don't require both hands like casting a spell, or say, punching with a spiked gauntlet if your target is close enough.
There don't seem to be any published rules specifying that you cannot attack with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon. It simply says the spiked gauntlet allows you to make unarmed attacks as if armed. It doesn't say "cannot be used to make attacks when holding something else."
Ok, so you can carry 50 gallon barrels of oil and attack with spiked gauntlets Wheee!!
The rules don't cover every contingency.
You can run your game how you want but at my table you have the choice of holding something in your hand or using the gauntlet.
I also generally don't let people do things outside their turn other than immediate actions and speech, so no juggling weapons to get reach and near attacks either.
As long as you aren't trying to use the gauntlet to attack you can do anything you can normally do. What you can't do is use your hand to attack with your spiked gauntlet while doing any of those other things.Quite a few people are saying that, but where are the rules specifying that in published 3.5 or PF materials?
You can't attack with a Shield in your hand but that is not because the gauntlet restricts you it is because holding the shield restricts you.
You can in fact use spiked gauntlets to make attacks while climbing. When climbing you can cling to the wall with one hand and use the other to perform tasks that don't require both hands like casting a spell, or say, punching with a spiked gauntlet if your target is close enough.
There don't seem to be any published rules specifying that you cannot attack with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon. It simply says the spiked gauntlet allows you to make unarmed attacks as if armed. It doesn't say "cannot be used to make attacks when holding something else."
Ok, so you can carry 50 gallon barrels of oil and attack with spiked gauntlets Wheee!!
The rules don't cover every contingency.
You can run your game how you want but at my table you have the choice of holding something in your hand or using the gauntlet.
I also generally don't let people do things outside their turn other than immediate actions and speech, so no juggling weapons to get reach and near attacks either.
He already knows how it works now. It was a misunderstanding.
Ok, so you can carry 50 gallon barrels of oil and attack with spiked gauntlets Wheee!!
The rules don't cover every contingency.
Your sarcasm is noted, however, not necessary as someone has in fact found RAW that would apply here. Incidentally, you can still cling to a wall with one hand and take actions, such as attacks, with the other.
You can run your game how you want but at my table you have the choice of holding something in your hand or using the gauntlet.
And all I was asking for were the printed rules to back that up.
I also generally don't let people do things outside their turn other than immediate actions and speech, so no juggling weapons to get reach and near attacks either.
As you say: You can run your game how you want.
However, without RAW it is a house-rule and your house-rule is no more valid than anyone else’s. Only one person has been able to find written answers to what action it is to "let go" of a two handed weapon to strike with a spiked gauntlet and that was from WotC FAQ, unfortunately it doesn't seem to have made it into publication.
I also generally don't let people do things outside their turn other than immediate actions and speech, so no juggling weapons to get reach and near attacks either.As you say: You can run your game how you want.
However, without RAW it is a house-rule and your house-rule is no more valid than anyone else’s. Only one person has been able to find written answers to what action it is to "let go" of a two handed weapon to strike with a spiked gauntlet and that was from WotC FAQ, unfortunately it doesn't seem to have made it into publication.
Actually, Dennis is the one within RAW, in this case. By RAW, only immediate actions and one specific free action (speaking) can be used when it isn't your turn.
|
|
This debate has gone round and round. In this thread and in other threads long before it. It has been argued here by new people and by some who have participated before.
The spiked gauntlet is an exception to the normal weapon rules (at least that is what some are arguing).
Seeing as there are legitimate ways for the two-handed reach weapon wielders to accomplish the same result: mixing reach and adjacent attacks while threatening AoO at 5' and 10' (through the use of armor spikes or Improved Unarmed Strike).
Most everyone agrees that striking a foe with a spiked gauntlet is far from optimal (1d4 damage), and considering that the Lunge feat has now given reach capabilities (albeit with penalties), my question is...
What are the possibilities of abuse if you allow spiked gauntlets to be used in the manner that some are proposing?
I have asked this same question in many of these threads, and no one has yet put forth a scenario.... anyone care to at this point?
Cheers
By RAW, only immediate actions and one specific free action (speaking) can be used when it isn't your turn.
That was never in question in the statement you quoted. The question was: What action is required to "let go" of a two handed weapon to strike with a spiked gauntlet?
The reason for that being in question is: If it is a Free Action then you may not take an AoO with a spiked gauntlet while wielding a two handed weapon. However, if it is instead Not An Action (and can be done as part of the attack, much like drawing/nocking arrows) then you can take an AoO with the spiked gauntlet while wielding a two handed weapon.
The answer to that question, as I stated, has only been produced by one person and it came from WotC FAQ, unfortunately having never made it to publication.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I was talking about clear instances of contradiction between WotC FAQ and published RAW.
I was saying this is a myth and rarely happened, if it ever happened. I'm aware of many instances where people assert that the WotC FAQ contradicts RAW, but in most of those cases the person saying it is in conflict is using a "dead people can take actions" interpretation of RAW instead of the FAQ supported "correct" interpretation of RAW.
This is why I hated the WotC FAQ for not making it clear that the interpretations in the FAQ are the only valid interpretation of RAW.
However, without RAW it is a house-rule and your house-rule is no more valid than anyone else’s. Only one person has been able to find written answers to what action it is to "let go" of a two handed weapon to strike with a spiked gauntlet and that was from WotC FAQ, unfortunately it doesn't seem to have made it into publication.
Sorry if I'm not super excited about producing quotes for arguments that keep repeating themselves.
As for it not making it into publication, read the section on actions. Outside your turn you can talk, make immediate actions, and attacks of opportunities. That's it, juggling weapons is not one of those three things.
I was talking about clear instances of contradiction between WotC FAQ and published RAW.I was saying this is a myth and rarely happened, if it ever happened. I'm aware of many instances where people assert that the WotC FAQ contradicts RAW, but in most of those cases the person saying it is in conflict is using a "dead people can take actions" interpretation of RAW instead of the FAQ supported "correct" interpretation of RAW.
This is why I hated the WotC FAQ for not making it clear that the interpretations in the FAQ are the only valid interpretation of RAW.
If that was your experience and opinion of WotC FAQ then that's fine for you. I have seen quote WotC FAQ that stated when a Rogue was hidden he is considered to be invisible for the purpose of rendering his opponent flat-footed and dealing sneak attack damage. That’s all fine and good but that has confused people into saying that invisible creatures render you flat-footed to their attacks, which they don't. It has also lead to misinterpretation of how a Rogue's uncanny dodge functions against invisible creatures in PF. That coupled with the other accounts of FAQ contradictions lead me to my personal preference, which is: I would rather have it in published books.
As for it not making it into publication, read the section on actions. Outside your turn you can talk, make immediate actions, and attacks of opportunities. That's it, juggling weapons is not one of those three things.
Again, that does not specify what action "letting go" of a two handed weapon with one hand would take. If it takes a Free Action, as WotC FAQ stated, then you are quite right. In that case PCs intending to use reach weapons should get Armor Spikes instead of spiked gauntlets and shoulder-check opponents for an AoO doing 1d6 damage instead and not having to "let go" of their two handed reach weapon. If, however, it is Not An Action (an inherent part of the attack, much like drawing/nocking arrows) then you can take an AoO with the spiked gauntlet while wielding a two handed weapon because at that point the "letting go" is not an action itself but is an inherent part of the attack you are making.
As for it not making it into publication, read the section on actions. Outside your turn you can talk, make immediate actions, and attacks of opportunities. That's it, juggling weapons is not one of those three things.Again, that does not specify what action "letting go" of a two handed weapon with one hand would take. If it takes a Free Action, as WotC FAQ stated, then you are quite right. In that case PCs intending to use reach weapons should get Armor Spikes instead of spiked gauntlets and shoulder-check opponents for an AoO doing 1d6 damage instead and not having to "let go" of their two handed reach weapon. If, however, it is Not An Action (an inherent part of the attack, much like drawing/nocking arrows) then you can take an AoO with the spiked gauntlet while wielding a two handed weapon because at that point the "letting go" is not an action itself but is an inherent part of the attack you are making.
Is it talking? No
Is it an Attack of Opportunity? NoIs it an Immediate Action? No
Hmm that wasn't so hard.
Is it talking? No
Is it an Attack of Opportunity? No
Is it an Immediate Action? NoHmm that wasn't so hard.
If memory serves (I could be wrong here, I don’t remember it exactly and don't have access to my 3.5 stuff) there was a 3.5 feat that allowed you to threaten with a bow. That being the case it would allow you to make AoO with a bow setting the precedent that things which are Not An Action can be done outside your turn, since in order to make the attack you must first draw and nock an arrow.
Is it talking? No
Is it an Attack of Opportunity? No
Is it an Immediate Action? NoHmm that wasn't so hard.
If memory serves (I could be wrong here, I don’t remember it exactly and don't have access to my 3.5 stuff) there was a 3.5 feat that allowed you to threaten with a bow. That being the case it would allow you to make AoO with a bow setting the precedent that things which are Not An Action can be done outside your turn, since in order to make the attack you must first draw and nock an arrow.
I like to keep thing simple so I don't bring legal concepts like precedence into my games. Even if I own the older sources I use the core book as da rules unless there is some hole (like sneak attack with spells).
This is why I said "In my game". Every table has different ways they apply the rules, they have different sourcebooks they accept and even different assumptions about how they read the core rules.
As for it not making it into publication, read the section on actions. Outside your turn you can talk, make immediate actions, and attacks of opportunities. That's it, juggling weapons is not one of those three things.Again, that does not specify what action "letting go" of a two handed weapon with one hand would take. If it takes a Free Action, as WotC FAQ stated, then you are quite right. In that case PCs intending to use reach weapons should get Armor Spikes instead of spiked gauntlets and shoulder-check opponents for an AoO doing 1d6 damage instead and not having to "let go" of their two handed reach weapon. If, however, it is Not An Action (an inherent part of the attack, much like drawing/nocking arrows) then you can take an AoO with the spiked gauntlet while wielding a two handed weapon because at that point the "letting go" is not an action itself but is an inherent part of the attack you are making.
Is it talking? No
Is it an Attack of Opportunity? No
Is it an Immediate Action? NoHmm that wasn't so hard.
I believe that it may fall under: Is it an Attack of Opportunity? Yes!
If someone can make AoO all around them, then they are "juggling" their weapon to bring it in line to make the attack.
Thank you for pointing that out. That will teach me to reply to someone's post before I study the rule in question for myself. Sometimes what is posted doesn't include all the detail of the actual rule; I did not realize this rule applied to slams (and all other natural attacks) as well. I haven't been through much of the monster material on PRD but, after looking it up, it does seem that this rule answers, with RAW, one of the debates on this thread. It would seem by RAW you cannot attack with a spiked gauntlet while holding another weapon. You must first let go to free your hand for the attack. Tue it doesn't explicitly speak of the spiked gauntlet corner case, but it is close enough to translate.
You may have missed part of the rule
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
To me, this means that the natural attack can be used at times even when that limb is holding something else.
A bit off topic, but possibly relevant.
I am not sure how many on these forums have done any actual sword fighting. I am an amateur at it but I am progressing. I am using what is often refered to as a German Longsword (30"-36" blade with a hilt long enough for two hands and a bit)
My hands move on the hilt often, shortening a grip, adjusting for better lever action, etc.
I know that there have been times when I have had a hand leave the sword and punch an opponent when they have left themselves open to that (sounds a bit like and AoO doesn't it?). I have also punched with the crossguard of the sword and with the pummel.
Speaking of the pummel, it is not only used as a counter weight and to stop your hand from sliding off the end, but also to attack and if I am not mistaken, it is the origin of the the term "pummeling".
In some of the dagger work, I have punched with the hand holding the dagger at opportune times.
A bit off topic, but possibly relevant.
I am not sure how many on these forums have done any actual sword fighting. I am an amateur at it but I am progressing. I am using what is often refered to as a German Longsword (30"-36" blade with a hilt long enough for two hands and a bit)
My hands move on the hilt often, shortening a grip, adjusting for better lever action, etc.
I know that there have been times when I have had a hand leave the sword and punch an opponent when they have left themselves open to that (sounds a bit like and AoO doesn't it?). I have also punched with the crossguard of the sword and with the pummel.
Speaking of the pummel, it is not only used as a counter weight and to stop your hand from sliding off the end, but also to attack and if I am not mistaken, it is the origin of the the term "pummeling".
In some of the dagger work, I have punched with the hand holding the dagger at opportune times.
Nitpick: The knob at the bottom of the sword is a Pommel, but you are indeed correct that it is the root of the verb pummel. :)