Assuming they have the 5gp, of course. They seem to have no downside, can not be disarmed, and allow one to threaten squares. Even if you're not proficient in them, that just means -4 to hit, where not having them on could mean not being able to attack at all. So why not have them on in addition to whatever other weapons, just to never have to worry about ever being caught unarmed?
It doesn't suit your character?
Exactly, seems only reason not to do it is fashion. By RAW there isn't even a falling princess problem. Pragmatically, every humanoid PC or NPC that would wear any weapon should wear one. Seems broken.
I think the gauntlets are a bit 'too good' in that they are a must have item, on the other hand (/cough) the armour spikes are just plain out-of-this-world stupid broken though.
I think the gauntlets are a bit 'too good' in that they are a must have item, on the other hand (/cough) the armour spikes are just plain out-of-this-world stupid broken though.
Yea, exactly. The merits are so great only reason they're not universal equipment seems to be just the RP flavor decision to not take advantage of it.
Every village, every humanoid tribe camp you walk in, every npc should have spiked gauntlets on if they aren't so poor they can't afford a dagger. Armor spikes, at 50gp at least you can say they can't afford it.
Casters especially, no arcane fail, so no reason in the world every wizard out there shouldn't be doing his subtle finger gestures in big doofy spiked gauntlets.
If something silly like that counts as broken, then seems gauntlets are pretty broken.
Just wondering if there is some mechanical justification for not having everyone in the world wearing them, something other than just giving up a practical advantage for the sake of keeping things from getting silly.
5 gold is a fortune to a non adventurer.
Not really.
The unskilled wages would see you to a pair before long, and those with a profession would be able to pick up a pair quickly.
They'd also be issued to every militiaman anywhere as they are cheap to produce and only a fraction of the cost of the rest of their gear.
Happy days!
Ever since the utility of spiked gauntlets was discovered, the world has drastically improved. Everyone now can defend themselves. Of course, tavern brawls are universally deadly now, most people have slashes in their faces and their groins, usually unintentionally self inflicted, and the death toll is quite significant. Prostitution has just about ended as a concept. So has writing, music and other art. Interestingly, by slamming their gauntlets against logs and the like, people now make other kinds of music, and long hair is now no longer optional due to the danger of getting hurt when cutting it.
All very valid too.
Spiked armour and spiked gauntlets must be VERY spiky with huge blades - gauntlets are the same as 12" dagger stabs, the armour the same as being stabbed with a Short Sword.
Somehow this doesn't attract the weong kind of attention, and theres no hassle with climbing, riding horses, performing amateur dentistry...
Spiked armour and spiked gauntlets must be VERY spiky with huge blades - gauntlets are the same as 12" dagger stabs, the armour the same as being stabbed with a Short Sword.
As if weapon size and damage had anything that could be called "good correlation" in PF.....
Look at the starknife. ;)
And a 12" dagger blade? Wow, thats one loooong dagger.
And a 12" dagger blade? Wow, thats one loooong dagger.
I agree, however it was always the standard 'dagger size' in D&D2nd ed, smaller blades were only 'knives' doing 1D3 (with a few oddballs like Dirk and Stiletto)
Haven't checked PF to see if they define it differently.
And ummm yeah.... starknives... /coughbulls^7t
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is shocking! People who want to "threaten" can do so by wearing spiky gauntlets?
This is clearly a design mistake as it does not make sense in context. Why would someone with blades sticking out of their gauntlets be able to slash at people who leave clumsy, careless openings? Large spiky gauntlets were not intended to threaten anyone and should instead cost 2,000 gp per hand and have the "kitten bottle feeding" special quality.
But no, seriously, the rule works the way it is supposed to work in context and in reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
To answer the question posed by this thread, if you don't want to appear threatening, and you don't expect trouble, there is no reason to wear spiked gauntlets.
If you want to be able to say "I didn't do it, honest" when someone gets slashed, you use a dagger, you can hide that on your person with slight of hand. Its much harder to prove that you are not guilty of something if your cold, threatening metal spiked hands are dripping with gore.
Also, if you are going somewhere where you would be expected to take off or sheathe weapons, you may just flat out be asked to leave spiked armor or spiked gauntlets at the door.
If your spiked gauntlets aren't properly invested in, they are not even going to matter at higher levels when they can't punch through DR 5/cold iron, silver, magic, law, evil, let alone DR 10/anything, so at that point, they might as well not be on your character sheet.
Besides, as you can draw any weapon as part of a move action if you go more than 10 feet, the novelty of always being armed without having to draw a weapon will wear off fast when everyone else can do so as a part of an action where they are casting a spell, charging, moving to the side to flank and inspire courage, or do anything else involving moving 10 feet in a round anyway.
In addition to this, you could always say that you are carrying a dagger in one hand, and it is mechanically almost the same, save for not being disarm-proofed, except that you could always say that you drop or throw the dagger, while the spiked gauntlet takes more to get rid of.
A dagger is superior for wizards as wizards are proficient with daggers and can throw daggers if they find need to do so.
Clubs are free and thus are superior for druids for the above reason.
TL;DR: The rules work as intended and as written for spiked gauntlets.
If your spiked gauntlets aren't properly invested in, they are not even going to matter at higher levels when they can't punch through DR 5/cold iron, silver, magic, law, evil, let alone DR 10/anything, so at that point, they might as well not be on your character sheet.
Good thinking!
Cold Iron on the right hand and silver on the left!
Never get caught short again.
Pro tip: The spiked gauntlets kinda suck as weapons.
Better than daggers....
Spiked armour and spiked gauntlets must be VERY spiky with huge blades - gauntlets are the same as 12" dagger stabs, the armour the same as being stabbed with a Short Sword.
As if weapon size and damage had anything that could be called "good correlation" in PF.....
Look at the starknife. ;)
And a 12" dagger blade? Wow, thats one loooong dagger.
Shifty is right- 12" is a totally normal dagger blade. The general rule of thumb for a medieval combat dagger is that the blade should reach to about your elbow if held with the blade against your forearm in a reverse grip.
In answer to the OP's question: Because they're a monk?
|
If your spiked gauntlets aren't properly invested in, they are not even going to matter at higher levels when they can't punch through DR 5/cold iron, silver, magic, law, evil, let alone DR 10/anything, so at that point, they might as well not be on your character sheet.Good thinking!
Cold Iron on the right hand and silver on the left!
Never get caught short again.
Might as well just go with a not spiked gauntlet for the silver one. Slightly better average damage. (1d4-1 vs 1d3)
At lower levels, there's no reason not to wear them unless you're a druid. Otherwise, yeah, every town guard should have a pair, every pikeman, every archer on the ramparts.
Note that you don't have to have a blade on the side of the gauntlet causing issues. Most spiked gauntlets would have the spike at the knuckles, so in general, you weren't accidentally slicing anyone. They were piercing weapons you drove in behind your fist, like a punch dagger.
Those things aren't hurting anyone unless you put a hefty punch behind them. But if you do, they're going to hurt. The other version would have been studs on a wrist brace/glove. About 1 inch long, where you backhanded someone with them. Those were usually leather with steel spikes.
So yeah, no reason at all not to have them. Other than non-mechanical reasons like appearance, how annoying they are to wear catching on things, but you're not accidentally killing anyone by catching them while wearing them.
Might as well just go with a not spiked gauntlet for the silver one. Slightly better average damage. (1d4-1 vs 1d3)If your spiked gauntlets aren't properly invested in, they are not even going to matter at higher levels when they can't punch through DR 5/cold iron, silver, magic, law, evil, let alone DR 10/anything, so at that point, they might as well not be on your character sheet.Good thinking!
Cold Iron on the right hand and silver on the left!
Never get caught short again.
Gauntlets provoke attacks of opportunity, they're unarmed attacks.
Gauntlets provoke attacks of opportunity, they're unarmed attacks.Might as well just go with a not spiked gauntlet for the silver one. Slightly better average damage. (1d4-1 vs 1d3)If your spiked gauntlets aren't properly invested in, they are not even going to matter at higher levels when they can't punch through DR 5/cold iron, silver, magic, law, evil, let alone DR 10/anything, so at that point, they might as well not be on your character sheet.Good thinking!
Cold Iron on the right hand and silver on the left!
Never get caught short again.
I like to house rule them as weapons, personally.
Honestly, looking at the spiked gauntlets, the biggest issue you'd have wearing them is the firing squad that would shoot you after you accidentally brushed the princess's dress, caught it on the spikes, and ripped it off her at her birthday party.
Shifty is right- 12" is a totally normal dagger blade. The general rule of thumb for a medieval combat dagger is that the blade should reach to about your elbow if held with the blade against your forearm in a reverse grip.
12" blade length is on the very high end of what was considered a "dagger", even if you look at high-medieval war daggers. There certainly where much shorter daggers (look at the french poignard (BL ~5"), trench daggers in WWI, roman daggers ~8") around.
Modern day fighting daggers habe blade lengths of about 7".
Shifty is right- 12" is a totally normal dagger blade. The general rule of thumb for a medieval combat dagger is that the blade should reach to about your elbow if held with the blade against your forearm in a reverse grip.
12" blade length is on the very high end of what was considered a "dagger", even if you look at high-medieval war daggers. There certainly where much shorter daggers (look at the french poignard (BL ~5"), trench daggers in WWI, roman daggers ~8") around.
Modern day fighting daggers habe blade lengths of about 7".
The crb says daggers have about a one foot blade. :)
|
|
Gauntlets provoke attacks of opportunity, they're unarmed attacks.Might as well just go with a not spiked gauntlet for the silver one. Slightly better average damage. (1d4-1 vs 1d3)If your spiked gauntlets aren't properly invested in, they are not even going to matter at higher levels when they can't punch through DR 5/cold iron, silver, magic, law, evil, let alone DR 10/anything, so at that point, they might as well not be on your character sheet.Good thinking!
Cold Iron on the right hand and silver on the left!
Never get caught short again.
Heh, just noticed that. Lame.
The crb says daggers have about a one foot blade. :)
Yeah, but they could also have a half foot one, since the rules do not really distinguish between small and large daggers.
|
The rules cannot, and are not meant to, model every things perfectly. Spiked gauntlets are likely heavy, uncomfortable, take time to keep in good working order, clumsy when performing some tasks, and generally unnecessary for the day to day task of "normal" people.
Those are the reasons why every caravan guard, tavern bouncer or town watchman doesn't wear them - more hassle than they are worth. However because the rules do not model those problems it is up to the GM to apply some common sense / roleplaying choice to not have every NPC wearing them.
Shifty is right- 12" is a totally normal dagger blade. The general rule of thumb for a medieval combat dagger is that the blade should reach to about your elbow if held with the blade against your forearm in a reverse grip.
12" blade length is on the very high end of what was considered a "dagger", even if you look at high-medieval war daggers. There certainly where much shorter daggers (look at the french poignard (BL ~5"), trench daggers in WWI, roman daggers ~8") around.
Modern day fighting daggers habe blade lengths of about 7".
I don't want to get into it too much, since it's veering off-topic, but no, it's not on the very high end. There are numerous surviving examples of daggers in the 10-16" range for blade length, and the recommendation for selecting a dagger size is straight from medieval fighting masters. Daggers could sometimes have blades almost 20" long- see this thread for reference. (Warning: there's lots of medieval images of babies getting stabbed in there)
The size of modern daggers is irrelevant, although you are correct that 7" is now common- I've got one on my nightstand. Larger ones are becoming popular, though, such as CRKT's Hisshou at 13".
Daggers could sometimes have blades almost 20" long- see this thread for reference. (Warning: there's lots of medieval images of babies getting stabbed in there)
With 20" you are definitely a step over the (not clearly defined) threshold to the short sword (which also historically often was a stabbing weapon).
Weapons with 16" TOTAL length are sometimes referred to as short swords.
Daggers could sometimes have blades almost 20" long- see this thread for reference. (Warning: there's lots of medieval images of babies getting stabbed in there)
With 20" you are definitely a step over the (not clearly defined) threshold to the short sword (which also historically often was a stabbing weapon).
Weapons with 16" TOTAL length are sometimes referred to as short swords.
"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." Anything that looks like a dagger, and would be considered a dagger in period, is a dagger in my book. I was referencing RL facts, not game terms. Sometimes the difference between a sword and a dagger is more based on design than size.
Out of curiosity, which 16" weapons would you be referring to? (bronze age? kris? something else?)
Back on topic: For people who are worried about the damage dealt by a spiked gauntlet being too close to a dagger, what else could they do within the rules? A gauntlet is 1d3 lethal, and I doubt many people would argue that a spiked gauntlet shouldn't do more damage. A dagger will still average more damage thanks to it's threat range, and can be concealed, thrown, or poisoned and sheathed. I think that's good enough to offset the 'always ready' ability of the spiked gauntlet.
Gauntlets provoke attacks of opportunity, they're unarmed attacks.
Which is pretty stupid, when with just few spikes on them they suddenly become light weapons.
The rules cannot, and are not meant to, model every things perfectly. Spiked gauntlets are likely heavy, uncomfortable, take time to keep in good working order, clumsy when performing some tasks, and generally unnecessary for the day to day task of "normal" people.
Yet what I find irksome is they are happy to apply these modifiers/probelms elsewhere... I want some consistency dammit! :)
OT:
I was referring to a weapon that is called "Sax" in german (no idea what the english word is). Its basically an iron age short slashing sword, that spread from scandinavia through the frankish kingdoms and was around till early medieval times (it was used by german / frankish warriors roughly from 500-800).
Blade length was around 12" (later variants (Langsax) up to 19").
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sax_%28Waffe%29
OT:
I was referring to a weapon that we call "Sax" in germany (no idea what the englisch word is). Its basically an iron age short slashing sword, that spread from scandinavia through the frankish kingdoms and was around till early medieval times.
Blade length was around 12" (later variants (Langsax) up to 19").
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sax_%28Waffe%29
Ah, ok. We still call them sax in English (although usually preferring the Old English term seax). I believe we generally consider them daggers here, since they had swords at the same time which were much more 'sword-like'. And also the fact that they ranged from tiny knife to long dagger. (Or at least, there are many small knives made in the same style that are incorrectly getting called seax.) I should stop running on about it, though.
Ah, ok. We still call them sax in English (although usually preferring the Old English term seax). I believe we generally consider them daggers here, since they had swords at the same time which were much more 'sword-like'.
Further OT:
Which ones do you have in mind? The spatha? This was more a celtic weapon though - I am not sure if there were people who commonly used both spatha and sax. I also think that at least initially the spatha was considered a pure cavalry weapon.
And I think it is definietly wrong to call the sax a dagger, since it was not made for stabbing!
Ah, ok. We still call them sax in English (although usually preferring the Old English term seax). I believe we generally consider them daggers here, since they had swords at the same time which were much more 'sword-like'.
Further OT:
Which ones do you have in mind? The spatha? This was more a celtic weapon though - I am not sure if there were people who commonly used both spatha and sax. I also think that at least initially the spatha was considered a pure cavalry weapon.
And I think it is definietly wrong to call the sax a dagger, since it was not made for stabbing!
That would depend on time period. There were other swords around the time of the spatha, such as this one which demonstrate that the Germanic tribes were easily capable of making a larger sword. Later, there were the migration era swords, viking swords, etc.
We're simply going to have to disagree on the classification of the seax. If I makes you feel better, I could call it a knife instead. To say that they weren't made for thrusting seems rather silly to me, though. Every type of seax I've ever seen or heard of has a clearly defined point, some even being extremely pointed. They would be quite capable of thrusting, especially given the types and availability of defenses in the period in question. It seems that many types were also rather narrow and thick, which is not a good design for slashing. Besides these points, they also tended to fit in the size range of later daggers for the most part, and were much smaller than most swords of the same period that they could be compared against. It all adds up to say dagger to me for most seax. (Although there are certain cases where I would be fine with calling a specific example a sword.)
For a nice chart detailing the varieties of seax, check out this thread from swordforum. The charts should appear at the bottom of the 1st post.
EDIT: There seems to be evidence that spatha and seax were used side-by-side in the Netherlands.
They weigh 5lbs and you are already carrying a ton of other weapons.
Cant use a cestus and hold another weapon, but your spiky gloves are 100% legit :)
Cant use a cestus and hold another weapon, but your spiky gloves are 100% legit :)
Cestus was part of what got me thinking, not for the weapon holding, but for their -2 baby armor check penalty.
Yea, you can say it's a game so can't be totally simulationist on everything, but Pathfinder *is* a simulationist game, so seems should try to be believable where it can.
The reason why people don't wear metal gloves all the time is because they get in the way. Seems the game should model that, like they did with the cestus, and would probably make more sense than having iron gauntlets wear like velvet gloves.
Seems at the least, gauntlets should have an arcane fail chance, and the same skill check penalty as the cestus or the armor they're supposed to go with (not staking if the full armor is worn, of course), since they impede the didgets.
Easiest way to do that would be to put a rider on the Guantlets that says 'Gauntlets add a -2 circumstance penalty on all skill checks that require fine dexterity with the hands, such as Disable Device and Sleight of hand checks'. That would be sufficient for most purposes.