Cestus wielding Magus: Can I cast?

[Matt Stich]

If you are wearing a pair of cesti, can you still cast? It says,

Quote:

When using a cestus, your

fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry
items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at
your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based
tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).

but does that mean you can't cast at all, or just a slight penalty on skill checks?

I know that I could wear one and be done with it, but this is a thematic thing I'm looking for.

[Jiggy]

Matt Stich wrote:

If you are wearing a pair of cesti, can you still cast? It says,

Quote:

When using a cestus, your

fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry
items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at
your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based
tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).

but does that mean you can't cast at all, or just a slight penalty on skill checks?

I know that I could wear one and be done with it, but this is a thematic thing I'm looking for.

There's nothing saying you couldn't cast (or would even be inhibited in doing so).

[SlimGauge]

AS A HOUSERULE: A -2 penalty on skills is about 10% (assuming the usual d20). If the spell you're trying to cast has somatic components, give it a 10% ASF (stacks with any other ASF from other sources).

RAW: page 184 says "To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand."

However "gesture freely" is subject to interpretation. The restriction on precision tasks implies that your fingers are not completely free.

[Happler]

I agree with Jiggy. There is nothing in the rules saying that it imposes any arcane failure chance.

But, that being said, I find it funny that they effect you doing precision-based tasks by hand, more then say, a breastplate, yet do not have any arcane failure built into them.

[Matt Stich]

Happler wrote:

I agree with Jiggy. There is nothing in the rules saying that it imposes any arcane failure chance.

But, that being said, I find it funny that they effect you doing precision-based tasks by hand, more then say, a breastplate, yet do not have any arcane failure built into them.

This is kind of what confused me as well. Why would a breastplate mess up your hand gestures more than something actually on your hand? I would think the cestus would have a note about that, but apparently not.

[Jiggy]

Happler wrote:

But, that being said, I find it funny that they effect you doing precision-based tasks by hand, more then say, a breastplate, yet do not have any arcane failure built into them.

Yeah, it's a little weird.

If you're going "by the book", there's no interference. But it's a prime houseruling candidate (for either adding ASF, or just removing the penalty altogether).

[Jiggy]

Matt Stich wrote:

Happler wrote:

I agree with Jiggy. There is nothing in the rules saying that it imposes any arcane failure chance.

But, that being said, I find it funny that they effect you doing precision-based tasks by hand, more then say, a breastplate, yet do not have any arcane failure built into them.

This is kind of what confused me as well. Why would a breastplate mess up your hand gestures more than something actually on your hand? I would think the cestus would have a note about that, but apparently not.

To be fair, a lot of the problem here is actually ASF in general. Most armors really shouldn't interfere with hand gestures. I basically look at ASF as an enforcement of the classic trope of the robe-wearing wizard despite it not really making much sense. As a result, I really don't mind when something else encroaches on ASF. :P

[harzerkatze]

A related question: What exactly is affected by the penalty to "precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks"?

For example, my character uses one cestus on his off-hand and sometimes has a polearm in his hands. Does he get the -2 to attacks with said polearm? What is irritating to me is that the example is picking locks. When designing rules for weapons, I would expect that the effects of something on attacks comes to mind first. So is the omission of attacks and the example of a purely manual skill check a sign that attacks are unaffected, or is an attack one of said tasks?

Is the term "task" defined ruleswise anywhere?

[Saint Caleth]

Jiggy wrote:

Matt Stich wrote:

Happler wrote:

I agree with Jiggy. There is nothing in the rules saying that it imposes any arcane failure chance.

But, that being said, I find it funny that they effect you doing precision-based tasks by hand, more then say, a breastplate, yet do not have any arcane failure built into them.

This is kind of what confused me as well. Why would a breastplate mess up your hand gestures more than something actually on your hand? I would think the cestus would have a note about that, but apparently not.

To be fair, a lot of the problem here is actually ASF in general. Most armors really shouldn't interfere with hand gestures. I basically look at ASF as an enforcement of the classic trope of the robe-wearing wizard despite it not really making much sense. As a result, I really don't mind when something else encroaches on ASF. :P

I have always assumed basically the opposite, that somatic components are more than just hand gestures. They are somatic after all and not just manual.

If you have to basically do tai-chi to cast spells armor is certainly going to trip you up.

[Kazaan]

Saint Caleth wrote:

I have always assumed basically the opposite, that somatic components are more than just hand gestures. They are somatic after all and not just manual.

If you have to basically do tai-chi to cast spells armor is certainly going to trip you up.

That's the way I've basically seen it. It's movements involving an arm all the way up to the shoulder and possibly some torso or hip movement as well. I'd say that even so far as intricate hand gestures go, it isn't just about moving your fingers; you've got to be able to get some wrist action in there, too. A Cestus would certainly prevent that so I'd say, flat out, a Cestus blocks that hand from using somatic components. You may still use that "hand" for a spell lacking somatic components, though.

[The Todd]

What about spiked gauntlets? Is there any restrictions with those?

[Gwen Smith]

harzerkatze wrote:

A related question: What exactly is affected by the penalty to "precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks"?

For example, my character uses one cestus on his off-hand and sometimes has a polearm in his hands. Does he get the -2 to attacks with said polearm? What is irritating to me is that the example is picking locks. When designing rules for weapons, I would expect that the effects of something on attacks comes to mind first. So is the omission of attacks and the example of a purely manual skill check a sign that attacks are unaffected, or is an attack one of said tasks?

Is the term "task" defined ruleswise anywhere?

I think the idea was that any tasks that don't require fine manipulation are not affected; picking a lock is probably the most finger-intensive task in the game. (Where would mixing an alchemical potion come in?) Holding a weapon doesn't require all five fingers, so I wouldn't penalize any attacks for wearing a cestus.

I would also assume that other types of gauntlets prevent you from doing fine manipulation. So a spiked gauntlet or armor gauntlets would theoretically preclude you from picking a lock.