Precisely, but that's my way of taking a rules example (as Rapanuii has been requesting) to prove that one cannot make an AoO with Cestus or some other gauntlet while both of your hands are busy using a two-handed weapon. Multi-weapon fighting, while unrelated to using a two-handed weapon, or Cestus, or AoOs says one thing right in its prerequisites that it takes a sufficient number of hands to wield your weapons. Wearing a pair of Cestus does not make you able to punch with them while carrying a Glaive, you must first release the Glaive, then when you have a free hand, you may use it to strike using the Cestus.
What about armor spikes on my knees/shoulder/foot?
If you're a monk, yes (though an armored monk is a sad monk). From the Monk's Unarmed Strike description:
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
This designation is missing from even Improved Unarmed Strike, making this a uniquely monk thing per the RAW. Only monks are mentioned as being able to make attacks with non-hand appendages. Personally, as a GM, I'd allow it, not much point in armor spikes if I can't use them with my hands full if you ask me. But as far as I can tell, this would be a house-rule, not a rule rule.
There's also the problem of "wielding" defending armored spikes in addition to your real weapon.
Wielding is not defined yet. SO why bring that in here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This really hardcore obsession, with the Polearm and Spiked/Gauntlet combo seems to be pretty prevalent.
I have no idea why.
Where does it come from?
BBT, I don't like to be sarcastic, but rather upfront. I do tend to be over sensitive in others eyes, but I feel I am giving the benefit of the doubt and considerate when I do what I'm about to do.
I read things you write to me and detect you being sarcastic, and insulting, like what I quoted. Doesn't mean you actually are, and it could be a misunderstanding. Fact remains that I see it that way, so if you want to clear it up, that would be appreciated, but you certainly don't owe me anything.
Anyways, your question just seems absurd to me, but I'll answer it, and do not feel like I'm being condescending, because my answer will definitely seem that way.
We're on a rules discussion forum, and I am someone that enjoys Pathfinder, and Pathfinder society. I want to have a clear understanding of things, so when I play PF or PFS and don't have access to RAW (or if RAW doesn't exists and it's only interpretation), or even the forums to reference something, I can have a well rounded and well thought out argument to give to my GM. I feel everyone benefits that uses the search feature too, so for posterity, exploring all sorts of questions, and reasonably sticking to your position is a great thing.
So I detect you're annoyed. I can sympathize because I too in my life have also felt this emotion. Well, consider how I feel when I ask others, and you in particular to give me an elaboration for how you come to your conclusions for WHAT IS, and WHAT IS NOT, and get no citation, but a continuation of asserting facts that to me, might not be at all. I have what I feel and others do too, to be a reasonable position, so for the sake of a discussion, please, refrain from showing your annoyance through what I feel very well to be sarcastic and insulting posts. If you have a good argument especially with rules that exist to back it up, then I will be more than happy to consider it and possibly adjust my position.
So, for anyone that has rules to reference, I would very much appreciate them. To me, it seems people conveniently interpret the rules to be some way, either from a rules forum they read before, or maybe they're personally bias against having this be an option. I personally would like this to be a thing, but if it is as a fact not, or I'm convinced it's not, then I'm not going to use it, and I'm sure others will follow in doing so too.
I hate writing things like this.
I think making presumptions on why they did stuff isn't going to be accurate.It wouldn't be. Which is why I'm not doing that.
If you want i can try to track down something relevant to your more specific statements, but I'm pretty sure they've said that threatening at 5 feet was a good use for improved unarmed strike and some of the exotic weapons. Its entirely possible that that memory is from the same part of the brain that imagined Patrick Stewart as the titular role in the squirrel girl musical, but isn't.
Not to be a jerk, and I don't wish to elaborate on this stuff, but you're making a presumption with what I previously quoted and replied to about presuming, because you spoke about specifics and not just in general about the spiked chain like that's within that post. I'll just say I trust there are more detailed posts and move on. No offense to you on my part with that previous statement though, so we're good and clear.
You still owe me that BBQ lobster pizza.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't wield a Dagger clenched between your butt-cheeks, and you can't wield two weapons with the same hand.
No one should have to go to great lengths to have to prove why you can't do either.
Where do you get this impression that you can't have a dagger in your hand, and have a cestus on that hand/arm and be able to freely punch/backhand/chop with the cestus, and also slash with the dagger with separate attacks, while holding both? Why should this be a great lengths matter to prove this, unless if it doesn't exist at all and that's an excuse?
I'm skeptical, and maybe it does exist, but just saying pretty much "you're wrong, and this is how this works, just because..." isn't helpful to me, or to a rules discussion.
|
Yes, but the feat's requirement shows a precedent. A hand cannot wield two weapons at the same time. A hand can only wield one weapon at a time, that's all I'm using the feat for, it's an example of the RAI that you're arguing for BBT.I understand.
It just should not be something that anyone should have to prove you can't do.
You can't wield a Dagger clenched between your butt-cheeks, and you can't wield two weapons with the same hand.
No one should have to go to great lengths to have to prove why you can't do either.
So, I can't use my highest iterative to attack with the dagger, then my second iterative to attack with the cestus, when they're both in the same hand?
@Serum, I don't get it either, and I don't understand where in the rules it says that you are prevented from doing it. He adamantly believes this, and I would rather not endlessly discuss something that exists saying what I'm proposing is wrong, and rather have the rules. By what I gather, he is saying you need to drop the dagger on your turn to make the 2nd attack with the cestus.
@Duderlybob, I haven't been ignoring you, but I've been trying to figure out what exactly you're expressing to me. I don't understand your point, and in a way feel embarrassed right now. I'll go back and re-read things to attempt to understand, because maybe my mind wasn't focused enough with what I was doing, but feel free to explain it to me step by step.
EDIT: I just read irrelevant off-hand attacks involving twf/mfw and don't get the purpose of you writing it. Is it in relation to the FAQ, because I have no idea if they have any consideration for mwf in that ruling, and I don't care to really explore that. Mwf is that you're able to make 2 different off-hand attacks apart from your main attack, and we're not taking about off-hand attacks here. You'll need to explain your point to me, or someone if they please could.
EDIT 2: I added something I intended in the first paragraph
I think your approaching this wrong. Pathfinder is a permission based game. You need to show where permission is given. The rules are complicated with msny working parts written by people who are not always aware of the other parts.
To add ro this there are a lot of game paradigm that are assumes by people through common knowledge but not written anywhere.
When a rule is not covered your left either extrapolating from other rules or assuming common sense. However In a game with fireballs common sense does not always appply and many explicit rules defy common sense.
So here's some things we do know. 1) the game assumes pc either have reach and do not threaten up close or have no reach and do. There are ways around this but
thats a core assumption bignorse woof cited thiz earlier.
Free action release regrip etc with 2h weapons may not have existed as a design idea when the rules were written. This is a player concept that was extrapolates from the rules by players. Its been explicitlt supported by the devs but permission to do it does not exist in the rules.
Finally we know from the rules involving natural attacks that with natural weapons you csnt use the same limb for more thsn one weapon.
Now before you say "but nothing says thst idea applies to manufactured weapons" your right. But its an implied paradim that seems reflected in other rules.
Basically if your playing a home game you can come to an agreement with your dm on how this all works. For pfs assume any idea that appears to push the commonly undersrood group paradgm of the game and relies on grey area or unclear rules will result in conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your approaching this wrong. Pathfinder is a permission based game. You need to show where permission is given. The rules are complicated with msny working parts written by people who are not always aware of the other parts.
To add ro this there are a lot of game paradigm that are assumes by people through common knowledge but not written anywhere.
When a rule is not covered your left either extrapolating from other rules or assuming common sense. However In a game with fireballs common sense does not always appply and many explicit rules defy common sense.
So here's some things we do know. 1) the game assumes pc either have reach and do not threaten up close or have no reach and do. There are ways around this but
thats a core assumption bignorse woof cited thiz earlier.Free action release regrip etc with 2h weapons may not have existed as a design idea when the rules were written. This is a player concept that was extrapolates from the rules by players. Its been explicitlt supported by the devs but permission to do it does not exist in the rules.
Finally we know from the rules involving natural attacks that with natural weapons you csnt use the same limb for more thsn one weapon.
Now before you say "but nothing says thst idea applies to manufactured weapons" your right. But its an implied paradim that seems reflected in other rules.
Basically if your playing a home game you can come to an agreement with your dm on how this all works. For pfs assume any idea that appears to push the commonly undersrood group paradgm of the game and relies on grey area or unclear rules will result in conflict.
So, you're in agreement that armor spikes, as long as they aren't on hands, can be used to threaten?
@Rapanuii Well, I'll admit I'm a bit confused as to what exactly your argument is myself, which is probably why my response has been less than clear at times. I'm going to try breaking what I believe to be your possible arguments, and my thoughts on each.
The arguments that I've perceive are:
A. That one can use Cestus to take advantage of Attacks of Opportunity against adjacent foes, even when wielding a two-handed reach weapon, by taking a free action to switch to holding the polearm in one hand, and strike with the Cestus, then taking another free action to grip the polearm in two hands again and return to a normal threat-range/weapon usage.
B. That one can use Cestus to take advantage of an Attack of Opportunity without even releasing your grip on a two-handed reach weapon. Basically, punching with the haft of the polearm in hand.
C. Something else entirely and I've just been really confused this whole time.
So, for my opinions, split up into sections, let's try some spoiler text to break this up, shall we? Note that all italicized sections are direct copy-pastes from the PRD.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
By this, we learn a lot when we look at the definition of an Attack of Opportunity:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack.
Now normally, this is an innocuous term, but in the world of Rules discussion, this is worth looking at with the question, "What is a single melee attack?"
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.
By this, we can determine a very important fact: That an Attack of Opportunity is a "free" Standard Action. And now that an Attack of Opportunity has this vital distinction, we can come back to an important point in Free Actions, namely you can perform one or more free actions while taking another action. So now with this, we're able to freely release grip, hold the polearm in one hand, take the AoO with the Cestus in the other, and regrip the polearm at the end in a perfectly rule satisfactorily way. The only thing that's slightly hinky about this definition is that you may need to release your grip to start the AoO and get your hand free to punch with, but if you can draw an arrow to use Snap Shot (drawing ammunition being defined as a free action) then you can use this same rule to release the grip on your polearm.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
Now this makes the first important distinction. If this bared mentioning, it means that most people cannot make an unarmed strike with their hands full. Thus, you cannot attack with your Cestus when you've got a polearm in your hands. This is mentioned for the monk because it is an exception to the rule.
The second rule is found in Multiweapon Fighting. Now, the main thing to note here is that nothing, and I repeat NOTHING I say has anything to do with the effect of Multiweapon Fighting. This feat is mentioned solely for its Prerequisites.
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Now, note the three or more hands bit, and ask "why is that important?" Well, let's say that I've only got two arms, because I'm a human. This disqualifies me from the feat, even though with a polearm and a pair of Cestus, I do fulfill three striking implements. But why? After all, I've got multiweapons, so why not Multiweapon Fighting? This comes down to this concept that BBT has mostly been touting, and it's basically that you get one weapon, per hand to use. Yes, I can wear Cestus and wield a polearm, but I am not allowed to wield them both simultaneously in the RAW. This is why Multiweapon Fighting requires "three or more hands," these hands are necessary because you cannot use two weapons in one hand, be they Cestus or no.
I'll admit that sometimes this really doesn't make sense in real life, as Serum pointed out, the combination of Cestus and Daggers makes perfect sense, it's basically the idea behind trench knives. So as a GM, I'd allow a lot of this stuff, but the RAW don't technically permit for it, as pointed out by the two rules I pointed out above.
Again, my mentioning Multiweapon Fighting isn't for the off-hand attacks or anything that it actually DOES, but it makes the point that you get one attack, per hand, not per weapon, so even if you've got three weapons in the two Cestus and a Polearm, you're limited to picking which one you're using as each hand has to be dedicated to wielding the weapon in hand.
But yes, in the end, though it fails to make perfect logical sense, holding a feather does prevent you from using that hand to punch with the Cestus, you'll need to drop that feather, if it's an important feather, get a weapon cord for it.
If neither arguments above satisfy your argument, please break your argument down for me, as I'm totally lost! :P
|
You can't wield a Dagger clenched between your butt-cheeks, and you can't wield two weapons with the same hand.
No one should have to go to great lengths to have to prove why you can't do either.
Where do you get this impression that you can't have a dagger in your hand, and have a cestus on that hand/arm and be able to freely punch/backhand/chop with the cestus, and also slash with the dagger with separate attacks, while holding both? Why should this be a great lengths matter to prove this, unless if it doesn't exist at all and that's an excuse?
I'm skeptical, and maybe it does exist, but just saying pretty much "you're wrong, and this is how this works, just because..." isn't helpful to me, or to a rules discussion.
The description of the cestus leads me to believe that while you can carry a dagger in that hand, you wouldn't be able to attack with it.
So, you're in agreement that armor spikes, as long as they aren't on hands, can be used to threaten?
I think as long as you are not doing TWF nothing in the rules prevents a polearm and threatening with armor spikes. I also see nothing wrong with Free action release close in punch. As long as you decide which your doing before your turn ends (ie release or dont)
I do think that people appear to be confusing the TWF armor spike stuff and that is a totally separate issue from the AOO stuff.
spoilerng this to avoid distracting from the main topic or trying to confuse it from a rule. When i first started playing 3.0 years and yeaaars ago my assumption with armor spikes was they were really intended as an anti grappling measure or a means to ensure people who mght have trouble dealing with grappling could do so.
So i more or less at that time, never thought of using them for AOO etc.
Now This view was probly wrong and in PF it certainly is. But that origonal concept fit within the view that 'you threaten at range with reach' and that there is 'no way to attack in close' after all whats the point in making a big deal about this if everyone can just put spikes on their armor?.
And i think for alot of people this pushes alot of understood paradgm, this was made worse with the whole TWF Armor spikes thing.
But alot of this is a case of some actual clear rules mixed with alot of unclear rules and as blackbloodedtroll said earlier i think for some reason a lot of players seem to want to push this as a concept and it appears to clash with alot of players perceptions.
Anyhow a bit of a tangent there.
@Mojorat, I assume you're addressing me, and by asking people to justify what they feel is fact by showing me facts shouldn't be a wrongful method to go about things in my opinion, but perhaps you see things another way obviously.
So, I myself have taken from other rules in the game to point out what I have issue with, and as well I've tried to explore the issues presented originally in this thread. I don't understand why you're pointing out the obvious with expectations from the game, especially in context to when clear rules aren't around, but I suppose those who aren't aware could benefit from them. I just feel you have an impression of me that I really don't feel I've given from reading your post.
I don't know much about natural attacks, but when you take your additional attacks using a natural attack, aren't you taking them as offhand weapons, or rather, secondary attacks? So, you're going to compare the cestus with natural attacks, and no matter what when making iterative attacks with the cestus as my primary attack, I will be treating it as a secondary attack with half str damage? That doesn't sound correct to me.
To just wrap what you wrote up quickly, I don't understand why you would tell me to just accept things in PFS because something is commonly accepted. I want to discuss the rules in the rules forum, but in terms of going to PFS, I am going to argue my point, and hopefully someone will be reasonable enough to at least admit that the position saying otherwise isn't indeed a factual one, but an interpretation based off of really not much at all.
The one limb, one weapon rule is not a rule. If you have +6 BAB and quick draw you can fight with a long sword, drop it and draw a dagger and attack with it, all while the other arm is strapped to a shield.
The rule is, 1 ATTACK per limb, not 1 WEAPON per limb. No one is looking to gain extra attacks here, only weapon options.
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).
Forgoing the attack does not mean they no longer threaten or have the ability to attack with the original weapon.
Some creatures only have 1 slam but have 2 limbs with hands. Are you saying that if they carry a weapon in one hand they cannot slam with the other?
Before it comes up, I am NOT saying they could do both. The limit is on the number of attacks/round, not the options per round.
Some creatures only have 1 slam but have 2 limbs with hands.
Captain Kirk Double-Fisted Punch!
Good point Komoda, but I'd still stick to what I said. In your example, you explicitly say that you drop the long sword to use the dagger, in your example, you're still maintaining the precedent I suggested of one weapon per hand. Yes you can switch that weapon, but you're still not going to have two combat-ready weapons in that hand.
But regardless, the main point I'll refer to is simply to the Monk's entry, a Monk is special in that it can make unarmed strikes while its hands are full. Attacks with Cestus are counted as unarmed strikes per their description, therefore unless you're a monk, no dice on holding a polearm and punching with the Cestus.
EDIT: And no, I'm not saying that. There's still a free hand with which to perform the slam, ergo the weapon holding hand doesn't need to be participating in it.
EDIT 2: Unless I'm mistaken and Slam attacks are in fact two-handers. In which case, I'd say yes. Unless whatever is holding the weapon drops it, it no longer has the necessary free hands to perform said slam attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mojorat, I assume you're addressing me, and by asking people to justify what they feel is fact by showing me facts shouldn't be a wrongful method to go about things in my opinion, but perhaps you see things another way obviously.
So, I myself have taken from other rules in the game to point out what I have issue with, and as well I've tried to explore the issues presented originally in this thread. I don't understand why you're pointing out the obvious with expectations from the game, especially in context to when clear rules aren't around, but I suppose those who aren't aware could benefit from them. I just feel you have an impression of me that I really don't feel I've given from reading your post.
I don't know much about natural attacks, but when you take your additional attacks using a natural attack, aren't you taking them as offhand weapons, or rather, secondary attacks? So, you're going to compare the cestus with natural attacks, and no matter what when making iterative attacks with the cestus as my primary attack, I will be treating it as a secondary attack with half str damage? That doesn't sound correct to me.
To just wrap what you wrote up quickly, I don't understand why you would tell me to just accept things in PFS because something is commonly accepted. I want to discuss the rules in the rules forum, but in terms of going to PFS, I am going to argue my point, and hopefully someone will be reasonable enough to at least admit that the position saying otherwise isn't indeed a factual one, but an interpretation based off of really not much at all.
The natural attack rules work like this when used with manufactured weapons. 1) Any natural attacks made with manufactured weapons are secondary attacks. and 2) You cannot use a limb that is occupied with doing something else such as holding a sword with a natural attack.
So for example, a Troll with a greatsword can do one of the following.
1) Claw Claw Bite (presumably the sword is sheathed) Or 2) Greatsword + Bite.
If he does greatsword + bite his hands are occupied with the sword, he does not threaten with his claws. IF he does not release one hand from the greatsword then he does not threaten with his claws. He cant make AOO with them They may as well not exist until his turn comes around again.
Most people will logically extrapolate the rules above.
What i was trying to say is that, Pathfinder is a permission based Game. You do things because you are given permission to do something.
So its not a matter of asking "Show me where it says i cant do X?" its a matter of saying "Show me where i can do X"
The other issue and honestly i actually see a bit of what your saying is that Certain abilities are given permission to do things as a free action. And you rightfully point out just letting go of your weapon is way easier than Whats happening in snap shot. I agree with you..
What i was trying to emphasize earlier is that I dont think the core system mechanics of the d20 system were ever written with free action release in mind. This is a player assumption as part of the evolution of the game.
Why is this important? For two reasons 1) the core mechanics were never updated to account for it and 2) Other abilities were explicitly given permission to contravene some of the rules about free actions outside your turn.
The current game paradigm is, that you can only wield 1 weapon at a time and spiked gauntlets are no exception. the majority of the people you play with will likely assume that if your character has a cestus and is also gripping the shaft of a reach weapon that he does not threaten with the cestus. The core rules that most people seem to work with is that if you have a 2 handed weapon and you want to do anything else with it you have to free action release. Since free action release is not in the rules at all, there are also no exceptions for it.
The TLDR answer for all this is that, i think you are well within your rights to use a polearm and threaten both with reach and near with spiked armor. As long as you avoid TWF your solidly within the rules.
If you use a cestus or spiked gauntlet and you do not state 'i release my polearm' The common concensus from experience is everone will assume you do not threaten.
At the end of the day, If the rules are clear on something You should insist They are correct. If the rules are Fuzzy or unclear, you need to show where permission is given for what you want to do.
The game involves alot of unwritten group concensuss and understanding the concensuss of the group you play with will help things alot.
Sorry if this was long again. I really should edit stuff more before posting it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Duderlybob, I think you're confused with the monk and how they write redundant rules. They're just saying since they threaten with unarmed attacks (have improved unarmed strike), that even with their hands full (holding objects) then can make unarmed attacks (threaten/deal lethal damage). You can always make unarmed attacks with hands full, but you'll provoke, not threaten, and do non-lethal unless you take the penalty to deal lethal. If you take Improved Unarmed Strike, then you can attack with unarmed attacks, even with your hands full.
Slams are 1.5 Strength bonus to damage, but have nothing to do with limbs. Creatures without limbs have slams.
Right, my explicit example disproved the explicit "fact" that 1 limb = 1 weapon. I had to use something we both know is true to do so.
Monks are not the only characters that can unarmed strike with legs etc. Any character with Improved Unarmed Strike can use it during any time their hands are full.
I admit there is an unwritten rule that says you can't do what Rapanuii is talking about. But as he has pointed out, it is unwritten and totally does not jive with Snap Shot or a lot of other abilities, as he has shown.
He may be wrong, but he is not crazy.
Mojorat, you are confusing the issue.
The issue is, could the troll use the greatsword during his turn and then, when it is not his turn, still threaten with it and his claws?
No extra attacks. No use limb, don't use limb involved. Only, can he let go and claw you?
@Mojorat, your point about "So its not a matter of asking "Show me where it says i cant do X?" its a matter of saying "Show me where i can do X"" works both ways, and what I'm arguing isn't unreasonable like someone going, "show me where it doesn't say I can't be superman if I eat three carrots." Again, me asking for rules to others is because people are asserting AS FACT that things do things a certain way, or don't do things a certain way, with no burden of proof. I've stated many times that it seems open to interpretation, and I see it as in my favor thus far.
Are natural attacks unarmed attacks, because I don't think they are. We're talking about a weapon attached to you that gives you the ability to do an unarmed attack. You're not holding this weapon, and your example with the bite, claw, and greatsword don't apply. With the rules as I see them, if you did your first attack with the great sword, or even with the claws for that matter at your highest BAB, then took your 2nd attack you would be always suffering the claw attack as a secondary attack resulting in half str damage. These things don't equal up. Also, in the case of the AoO, and people having the can't release grip, you have a claw in this situation, a natural attack claw, and not a lethal unarmed attack weapon you're wielding.
I can't address everything you wrote because I feel like I'm missing stuff, but one of the last lines about showing things and proving it because they're unclear. Do I need to find the rules about sitting down in a chair? Just because a rule doesn't exist doesn't mean it goes one way or the other, but yes, I feel people are entitled to a well thought out argument due to the ambiguity of it not existing, and thus we're here discussing things.
I dont think any natural attack is inherently 1.5str (other than a dragons bite i mean) however, alot of the creatures with a slam only have 1 slam. The other natural attack rules then make it 1.5str.
I am however going by memory on an area i dont deal with alot.
Thing is Komoda is we have no written rules saying he can do it, and we have specific written rules that allow other rules to be broken with say snap shot.
in regards to UAS, the default description of Unarmed strike in the PRD disagrees with kicking being monks only.
However, Parts of the book have been edited dozens of times by different people. If it were a computer Hard drive it would b ebadly in need of defragging.
Mojorat, you are confusing the issue.
The issue is, could the troll use the greatsword during his turn and then, when it is not his turn, still threaten with it and his claws?
No extra attacks. No use limb, don't use limb involved. Only, can he let go and claw you?
Like Komoda writes here, and others and myself have stated, the issue keeps getting confused into arguing other things. I've stated the 2 things being discussed which are the free actions being an exception during an AoO, and if glove weapons threaten.
The TLDR then, is Polarm in hand, Spiked armor. You threaten.
There are no rules covering, Anything else you want to do but there are Faq supported un-written rules that say you need to release grip to use cestus or spiked gauntlets.
So with un-written rules, Polarm in hand, release after use you threaten your imediate surroundings. If you dont release you dont.
To do anything in pathfinder, you need explicit permission, or an un-written rule everyone understands. (yes i know this second clause is lame but thats really the case)
In the absense of rules, and nothing to extrapolate from other rules it falls to the Dm to say if you can or cannot do something.
Finally, one feat (snap shot) that provides an exception to an unwritten rule and is wholly unconnected to melee attacks is not a good basis for a rule.
That said, unwritten rules are a bad basis for rules also.
My argument is wrong because of unwritten laws that don't exist say I'm wrong? You justify with no proof that you'd need to let go of a polearm to use a cestus because of a rule that doesn't exist, and that is popular amongst people, most likely in my opinion, because people insist that is the actual factual rule. The earth is flat I suppose, and you lost me.
Saying my connection as a whole with snap shot existing and how it shows certain free actions were always legal to do, and not because of snap shot, as not a good basis makes me also confused too.
I can appreciate as I've started before how things aren't exactly clear, and how in the game we make assumptions that the vast majority agree upon. When you're given the unconscious condition, we agree you fall prone, even though by raw, nothing says you do. I get it, but deciding on you letting go, or holding onto, or threatening with a glove seems to be parallel I don't accept.
I would appreciate it if proper arguments could be presented so discussion could continue rather that distractions about how rule etiquette works, and irrelevant things that have been pointed out to not apply, and this is a general statement.
I understand that most likely people will be hard headed about this when I goto pfs especially, because again, I feel enough people just have asserted as fact that my position is wrong, and if I manipulate enough people for a majority to believe the earth is flat doesn't make it flat.
|
You should be able to punch someone while holding a weapon in the same hand, because numerous real life examples exist, of combatants punching someone while holding a weapon in the same hand.
That's why spiked basket hilts, and knuckleduster finger guards exist.
They exist in real life, because they were used in real life, to punch opponents while holding onto your weapon.
These aren't the magic rules, where everything is fictitious, everything is made of wooooooo, and gamist compromises have to be made to balance the different flavours of irresistable handwavium, versus unbreakable unobtanium.
When discussing what martial characters can do, the first step is to consider what is provably possible in real life, as the minimum.
If rules contradict what is provably real, then the rule is garbage, and should be thrown in the dumpster.
If the rules are silent, or unclear, then assumptions must be made as to intent, and the assumption must always side with provable reality.
You should then add higher level abilities and feats that add to that minimum baseline, not restrict martial characters to a crippled version of reality, then demand they spend all their resources buying back abilities they should never have been denied in the first place.
Alright ill make one last go at this. First I didn't say you were wrong. I said in a permission based system you need to show where. It say you can do x. I looked over the combat section and hadn't realized how much of it was poorly defined. I can actually see why you feel it works this way.
However pathfinder is a social game that for legacy reasons is horribly complex. It has lots of vague or even undefined rules. Many of these gaps of information get filled in by either explicit statements of understanding or implicit ones.
The problem is what you want to do runs up against a predefined paradigm of how people expect it to be done. Free action release is a tactic players figured out. Its explained no where in the rules but is now the accepted norm.
Ill try this in a small town everyone keeps their dog leashed katana all times. There is a national law that says you can unleash your dog katana a park. Howeverin smalltown everyone learns how it is done. There's no rule or law or signs they just know. Bob comes from th big city letting his dog off at th park. Bob would get yelled at for breaking the unwriten rule.
Anyhow I know I use paradgm a lot but its a big part of the social aspect of the game. On a final note talk to someone about th rules for monopoly then actualy read them. You'll probably find most families are probay using 50% of th actual rules and are not aware of it.
Until enough people from the big town make the people from the small town know that the unwritten rule is silly and it gets changed.
I just feel somewhat insulted that you feel the need to explain obvious things to me and it's annoying. I'm not trying to be offensive, but that's how I feel.
Your unwritten rule example is flawed. It isn't law, so good luck yelling at me over your personal preference or misunderstanding. Just because it's popular opinion doesn't make it correct, and doesn't mean I should lay down my beliefs.
It's ridiculous that we can can admit there is nothing addressing these issues specifically, yet your protective is that I'm on the side of needing clearly defined rules for the ability to do this. The weapon is wielded no matter what anyone says, because the rules say when you apply the weapon you're good, and NO WHERE do the rules say ANYTHING otherwise. It's absolutely a matter of others justifying their opinion, and anyone who wants to love glove should be able to friendship secret handshake.
Secondary/off hand/twf doesn't have any relevancy here, at all, and I don't want to go into the details of why and have idiotic examples of real life to game of how mechanics should work to justify positions, because they ultimately don't matter in regards to the rules.
I do like your presence on the forums, and bbt as well, but please try and be more considerate about how you're coming off through your posts. I want to discuss rules, not get the introductory lecture about how these games work. I hope your can appreciate my annoyance, and I'm glad you appreciate my position for the most part it seems on these matters, which I'm thankful for
Well thank you for appreciating my presence. Really parrs of the rules are a mess. I'd forgotten how much of a mess. I also realize that the issue of "you need permission" but the unwritten expectation clashes with what isn't written is contradictory.
As far as the rules go I think armor spikes and a pokeRm have no real amiguity. For what you want to do they have a strong rules foundation for working.
For everything else we unfortunately get into the subjective areas.
Anyhow I didn't intend to push at you and I'm glad you appreciate my presence. Unfortunately I realized we've covered what the rules say and I'm now waxing tooo much philosifical.
Duderlybob, I think you're confused with the monk and how they write redundant rules. They're just saying since they threaten with unarmed attacks (have improved unarmed strike), that even with their hands full (holding objects) then can make unarmed attacks (threaten/deal lethal damage). You can always make unarmed attacks with hands full, but you'll provoke, not threaten, and do non-lethal unless you take the penalty to deal lethal. If you take Improved Unarmed Strike, then you can attack with unarmed attacks, even with your hands full.
I know where you're coming from on this Rapanuii, but tell me where this is restated. I've checked the section on unarmed strikes in the combat rules, it's not there. I've checked the description of Improved Unarmed Strike, and it's not there either.
Understand, that where I'm coming from, I agree with you 100% that this is the way it should be, history has shown through spiked basket hilts, metal pommels, trench knives, etc. that this is a valid fighting style. But I find no example in the rules that says that you make can unarmed strikes with your hands full outside of the Monk's description.
I'm going to ask you to cite to me where it says this, because though what you say makes sense I find absolutely nothing in the rules that claims that you can do this normally, making the Monk's description an exception, not a restatement.
What does 2 weapon fighting have to do with this?Heres a few things that have changed since 3.5 and pathfinder
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.In 3.5 armored spikes were all over: you could hit someone with a shoulder, elbow, knee etc so you COULD two weapon fight with a greatsword and your armored spikes. In pathfinder you need to whack someone with your fist to use the armored spikes as a weapon if you're not grappling.
AHAH.. found it Linky
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent. -Mark Moreland.
And yes, the threaten the area with the bow feat messed up free action and non actions. A lot of rules do.
It was clarified by a designer that unless made in a FAQ all/his comment means nothing outside of PFS.
If someone can justify their argument about threatening with your glove whole holding a thw, then that would be great, but otherwise we're by the rules that do exist doing secret handshake.
You have weapon equipped, then you're threatening with it, unless noted otherwise.The glove is equipped regardless of what I choose to additionally hold in that limbs hands that it occupies.
My argument is wrong because of unwritten laws that don't exist say I'm wrong?
Yes actually.
The game has a LOT of unwritten rules. "Virtual hands" being one of them, the sort of thing that doesn't crop up till you start riding the edge of the intended rules, the devs say "this is how we intended it to work" and then people go ".. wtf?"
I would appreciate it if proper arguments could be presented so discussion could continue rather that distractions about how rule etiquette works, and irrelevant things that have been pointed out to not apply, and this is a general statement.
The meta argument matters here, because the argument you're presenting is "If you can't prove I can't then I can"- which isn't how anything works. Its the gaming equivalent of "you can't disprove my deity"
You justify with no proof that you'd need to let go of a polearm to use a cestus because of a rule that doesn't exist
-Ain't no rule against it- is the wrong standard of evidence to go into any discussion with. The rules don't say that my fighter can't turn into a gargantuan purple dragon. They also don't say that he can poop. So the question is "what is the evidence for and against this position
Against:
-Its more than a little unwieldy. If you try to punch someone while holding a pole saw your range of motion is a little limited to say the least. That isn't a puny little 6 foot halberd you're holding there, its 5 pounds of steel dragging against you with 10 feet of leverage.
-The easiest and most realistic thing to do would be to let go and punch, something you can do in the blink of an eye, yet the developers don't want you to do that. Why? They specifically made letting go and grabbing a weapon a free action rather than a non action. The only conceivable reason i can think of for that ruling is to prevent you from doing exactly what you're trying to do.
-The head of PFS, consulting with the guy in charge of the game, says it doesn't work. Developer intent tends to win out against the raw in "clarification".
For:
-Its not less realistic than a lot of other combat in this game
-Punch to the face while holding a weapon is a common cinematic visual.
My argument is wrong because of unwritten laws that don't exist say I'm wrong?Yes actually.
The game has a LOT of unwritten rules. "Virtual hands" being one of them, the sort of thing that doesn't crop up till you start riding the edge of the intended rules, the devs say "this is how we intended it to work" and then people go ".. wtf?"
So, we have unwritten law/rules and then we have interpretations/opinions. So, my specific argument is said to be wrong because of an opinion. That's not how things work. Again, we can all just accept reasonable things like there being no rule with falling prone when unconscious, and sitting in a chair. Some argument that comes from fairy land trumps over an argument that actually has things to back it up is absurd.
I would appreciate it if proper arguments could be presented so discussion could continue rather that distractions about how rule etiquette works, and irrelevant things that have been pointed out to not apply, and this is a general statement.The meta argument matters here, because the argument you're presenting is "If you can't prove I can't then I can"- which isn't how anything works. Its the gaming equivalent of "you can't disprove my deity"
Nope, that isn't my argument at all, but rather other peoples position it seems. The rules support my position on threatening and such, but there aren't specifics. These made up arguments of creativity are what are subjective, and objectively wielding the attached weapon threatens until someone can support their made up explanation for why it doesn't.
You justify with no proof that you'd need to let go of a polearm to use a cestus because of a rule that doesn't exist-Ain't no rule against it- is the wrong standard of evidence to go into any discussion with. The rules don't say that my fighter can't turn into a gargantuan purple dragon. They also don't say that he can poop. So the question is "what is the evidence for and against this position
I completely agree with faulty arguments, and it's ironic that it's being used to trump an argument that actually has rules to support it. I also mentioned the silliness of this method by asking if I eat 3 carrots if I turn into superman. We're not in fantasy land with these glove arguments, but rather the other side is.
Against:
-Its more than a little unwieldy. If you try to punch someone while holding a pruning saw your range of motion is a little limited to say the least. That isn't a puny little 6 foot halberd you're holding there, its 5 pounds of steel dragging against you with 10 feet of leverage.
-The easiest and most realistic thing to do would be to let go and punch, something you can do in the blink of an eye, yet the developers don't want you to do that. Why? They specifically made letting go and grabbing a weapon a free action rather than a non action. The only conceivable reason i can think of for that ruling is to prevent you from doing exactly what you're trying to do.
-The head of PFS, consulting with the guy in charge of the game, says it doesn't...
These things are irrelevant when it comes to game mechaics, because we're not applying real life science and stuff, but applying rules. Yes, we do apply common sense to things, but that doesn't make your use of common sense trump every argument that ever comes out. The world is not flat, and if it was once considered common sense that it was, and someone had a strong argument against it, you don't just say, "Hey, there is one of you, and 10 of us. Sorry pal, the unwritten rule says you'll always be wrong."
Also, you mentioning people who hold positions in PF... My wiggle room before expresses the boundaries of what they publicly express. I don't reject their wisdom, but just as explicitly written, the rules are the rules until otherwise noted. Please keep in mind that what they were discussing isn't especially covering this specific issue.
So, again, the rules allow you to attach this weapon to you, and make your unarmed attacks lethal, and you can make unarmed attacks originally from anywhere on the body, but now you are now armed, and threatening instead of unarmed and not threatening. You're not holding this weapon, thus other objects can be held. There are no rules stating that doing this negates other options from that limb, unless you look specifically at making more attacks on your base additional attacks as off-hand weapons (which isn't relevant to this). So, we're left with you threatening with the glove weapon regardless of what is held, be it a feather, a peach, a receipt for bbq lobster pizza, a hand axe that is threatening etc.
With that, PROOF is needed to say otherwise. Just because this situation is "prove that I can't" doesn't really mean anything beyond that like people are suggesting and seeing it negatively. If someone tells me that I can't move 30 ft on a move action, and there is absolutely nothing preventing this, by this logic I am expected to concede that asking "Prove that I can't" is unacceptable.
Your specific argument seems to be either that putting a glove on your hand lets you kick better, which is patently absurd, or that you can punch with it while holding a pole arm, which is unevidenced. Unevidenced doesn't default to your position.
|
|
A barrel isn't exactly designed for fighting with, especially if it's full.
I'd say it was an improvised weapon at best, with extra penalties to hit for encumbrance.
More importantly, a barrel is usually not something one could hold one-handed, therefore, letting go with one of your hands would result in dropping the barrel, possibly on your own foot.
A long spear or pole weapon can be held temporarily in one hand, then gripped again in both hands.
@Nefreet, I have specifically mentioned that conditions where you cannot freely move the limb would constitute you not being able to use it. Holding onto an elephant that can't move will not allow you to get down to funky town obviously, but by RAW the glove weapon says your unarmed strikes are now lethal and threatening, so it's you being reasonable that it's indeed the limb of where you put it being what's needed to threaten, and not a weapon that makes any unarmed strike option available.
@BigNorseWolf, the evidence says that I threaten with my Unarmed strikes, and there is no evidence that says an object occupying my hand(s) will negate this. It's not necessarily absurd that any of your unarmed strikes are optional via the glove due to RAW, but it is more reasonable to keep it specific to the glove above any unarmed strike. Punching while holding an object is fine.
Can you punch if your are holding a:
Scroll
Stick
Hat
Feather
Potion
Wand
Thieves Tools
Healing Salve
Shirt
Piece of Paper
Belt
Rope
Ink Pen
Scarf
etc.?
Would you not threaten if you were holding any of those items?
Could your really not drop any one of them to attack?
Based on all the other free actions you can add to an attack as part of an AoO, it seems strange to me that this would be such a limiting factor.
|
Can you punch if your are holding a:
Scroll
Stick
Hat
Feather
Potion
Wand
Thieves Tools
Healing Salve
Shirt
Piece of Paper
Belt
Rope
Ink Pen
Scarf
etc.?Would you not threaten if you were holding any of those items?
If you were a Monk of the Empty Hand, who can actually use an Ink Pen as a weapon, then you could threaten with any of those.
If you were a Scroll Master, you could threaten with a Scroll.If the Wand already had a held charge, you would threaten with that as well.
Otherwise, no. You need special training to threaten with improvised weapons.
Could your really not drop any one of them to attack?
On your turn, you can.
Based on all the other free actions you can add to an attack as part of an AoO, it seems strange to me that this would be such a limiting factor.
Taking a free action outside of your turn is allowed when that free action is a part of another action.
So, if a Wolf makes a Bite as an AoO, and hits, it gets an attempt to Trip. The attempt to Trip is a free action made as part of its Bite.
Same thing with a Giant Octopus and its Grab, or an Archer with Snap Shot loading an arrow.
But, generally, no. A 1st level character does not have many options to pull this off.
|
|
Can we take a step back from cesti and spiked gloves for a moment, and answer the question;
"What stops a pike wielder, when an opponent gets inside the pike's reach, from kneeing them in the groin?"
"What stops a pike wielder, when an opponent gets inside the pike's reach, from headbutting them in the face?"
"What stops a pike wielder, when an opponent gets inside the pike's reach, from kicking them in the shins?"
"What stops a pike wielder, when an opponent gets inside the pike's reach, from stamping on their ankle?"
"What stops a pike wielder, when an opponent gets inside the pike's reach, from shoulder barging them?"
"What stops a pike wielder, when an opponent gets inside the pike's reach, from tripping them?"
"What stops a pike wielder, when an opponent gets inside the pike's reach, from [insert unarmed technique of your choice]?"
The only reason that makes any sense is 'hatred, disdain and contempt for martial characters'.
Because it takes a lot of assumptions about rule intent, and a lot of wilful blindness to observable reality, from so many people, making so much effort, to deny martial characters the opportunity to react to someone who stands right next to them, rummaging through their pockets, performing precise hand gestures, entering into a trance, or whatever other lack of awareness should provoke a free attack.
All this, just to deny them a mere d3 damage.
Don't want them martial characters getting above themselves, now, do we?
@Komoda, I've brought that point up, and asked for explanations too, but got nothing thus far.
Another question I'll again is, if I am holding a spiked gauntlet, and a dagger, do they negate one another? People have argued that you can't wield 2 weapons at once, and thus couldn't alternate attacks even on iterative attacks. Wouldn't this logically make all weapons in your hand cancel out? Wouldn't this make a two handed weapon not be able to threaten when holding it with two hands, because you have the spiked gauntlet on?
@Nefreet, you missed the point of his question, and that's if you're holding a feather in your hand, can you still threaten with the cestus. He isn't asking if you can threaten WITH the feather. I believe you have told me before that you wouldn't, but I don't recall you having an argument as to why.
|
|
Can we take a step back from cesti and spiked gloves for a moment, and answer the question;
"What stops a pike wielder, when an opponent gets inside the pike's reach, from kneeing them in the groin / headbutting them in the face / kicking them in the shins / stamping on their ankle / shoulder barging them / tripping them / [insert unarmed technique of your choice]?"
Nothing, assuming the pike wielder has Improved Unarmed Strike.
The only reason that makes any sense is 'hatred, disdain and contempt for martial characters'.
I don't see that written into the rules anywhere.
Don't want them martial characters getting above themselves, now, do we?
I think it's more that, if you want to be able to do the above things, you need the proper training (i.e., take Improved Unarmed Strike).
|
|
@Nefreet, you missed the point of his question, and that's if you're holding a feather in your hand, can you still threaten with the cestus. He isn't asking if you can threaten WITH the feather. I believe you have told me before that you wouldn't, but I don't recall you having an argument as to why.
It was in this comment, HERE.
(which I thought was a good little speech, myself)
|
|
Can you punch if your are holding a:
Scroll
Stick
Hat
Feather
Potion
Wand
Thieves Tools
Healing Salve
Shirt
Piece of Paper
Belt
Rope
Ink Pen
Scarf
etc.?
Yes, to all.
You can quite clearly punch someone, while holding any of the above, and some would even aid you. See self-defence techniques where a pen, pencil, a set of keys, or other object can be used as improvised knuckledusters/punch dagger, to inflict greater damage than the empty fist alone.
Would you not threaten if you were holding any of those items?
Could your really not drop any one of them to attack?
Why would you need to drop any of them? They don't prevent you punching.
They therefore wouldn't prevent you threatening.
@Nefreet, you missed the point of his question, and that's if you're holding a feather in your hand, can you still threaten with the cestus. He isn't asking if you can threaten WITH the feather. I believe you have told me before that you wouldn't, but I don't recall you having an argument as to why.It was in this comment, HERE.
(which I thought was a good little speech, myself)
Yes, and I ask you to explain your reasoning with the feather being held. Why does it negate the fact you have a weapon attached to your person?