The vicious weapon enchantment deals 2d6 extra damage on a hit, but also deals 1d6 damage to the wielder of the weapon.
The idea now is to animate the gloves of the hands that wield the weapon.
Then you commad the animated object to "wield" the weapon for you, while you still wear the glove and thus can use your swordarm to deliver the attacks.
Since the glove is now a creature with it's own HD, shouldn't it take the vicious damage for you?
What would you as GM say if a player would try something like this? Too much cheese? I welcome all arguments for and against this :)
One argument I found to foil this idea was: If the object "wields" the weapon for you and suffers the drawbacks for you, then you also have to use the object's BAB instead of your own (which is very low).
The object has to make the attack roll, on its turn, with its stats. You are holding the object, but it is the one wielding the weapon, unless you are wielding the weapon, in which case the weapon damages you.
|
The animate object spell says it does not work on objects worn.. so if you cast upon a glove then wore it, you'd end your own spell.
If you wanted the glove to deliver the attacks while not worn, there's nothing saying the glove would be even ABLE to wield the sword at all.. it doesn't gain the ability to hover.. has to propel itself around using fingers as 'legs' and whatnot.. an animated glove could only attack by walking up to something and grabbing and squeezing, pretty much. Can't even throw a punch, as it has no arm or leverage behind it.
The animate object spell says it does not work on objects worn.. so if you cast upon a glove then wore it, you'd end your own spell.
I believe that line was meant to stop you from animating a bugbear's axe as you fought it. I don't think the spell precludes animating a glove and then wearing it...
An adamantine gauntlet would solve the HP issue at least.
And I don't think Hardness would apply to the damage as it is untyped damage.
If the vicious damage would be blockable by DR or Hardness then every mid/high-level Barbarian would have a vicious weapon.
|
Look up animated object in the bestiary. A tiny object (glove) has 1d10 hd and 1 construction point. That construction point can be used for additional movement - fly (clumsy), or an extra attack.
The vicious bypasses any hardness.The vicious would destroy the glove in two-three hits, most likely.
as for walking and holding a sword- a pair of gloves connected like mittens can be animated - one walks and the other swings.
I would not allow a person to wear the glove and have the vicious not hurt the player. Then the player is wielding the sword, not the glove.
Hardness is different than DR. DR doesn't block magical sources, hardness does.
Hardness is different than DR. DR doesn't block magical sources, hardness does.
But then I could outfit all my permanent animated objects with vicious weapons and they don't suffer the drawback.
If you could afford to animate that many objects and give them all +1 vicious weapons then be my guest. Its not like they will be over powered :P
|
|
The animate object spell says it does not work on objects worn.. so if you cast upon a glove then wore it, you'd end your own spell.I believe that line was meant to stop you from animating a bugbear's axe as you fought it. I don't think the spell precludes animating a glove and then wearing it...
Maybe not, certainly doesn't make it so explicit as to that's what happens if you happen to animate clothing THEN don it.
But I'd say it's ambiguous enough to say the GM has room to say it DOES work that way if he has a mind to.
Certainly an option to prevent a player from avoiding the viciousness if the GM wants to use it.
The animate object spell says it does not work on objects worn.. so if you cast upon a glove then wore it, you'd end your own spell.I believe that line was meant to stop you from animating a bugbear's axe as you fought it. I don't think the spell precludes animating a glove and then wearing it...Maybe not, certainly doesn't make it so explicit as to that's what happens if you happen to animate clothing THEN don it.
But I'd say it's ambiguous enough to say the GM has room to say it DOES work that way if he has a mind to.
Certainly an option to prevent a player from avoiding the viciousness if the GM wants to use it.
The problem then becomes the easiest way to deactivate an animated object is by picking it up, thus carrying it. I don't think that the spell was meant to function that way :P
|
|
I don't see why one could equate the caster deliberately 'violating' the terms of his own spell and thus effectively causing it to end early with someone BESIDES the caster being able to do the same.
I suppose if spells follow rules of science (works same way under same circumstances every time, etc..) I can see the concern.. but magic is magic. 'real world' concerns can be neatly hand-waved with the excuse 'it's magic'.
I'll go ahead and be the first to derail the topic I guess.. but here's another example of what I'm saying. Even though Magic Missile unerringly hits the target every time, it's not allowed to target things like bow-strings or eyeballs. Sure it magically homes in on the caster's intended target, but the simple hand-waved 'it's Magic!' excuse explains why you can't target in such ways.
The terms of the spell are simple: "This spell cannot affect objects carried or worn by a creature." It says nothing about what happens if the object in question is unattended when the spell was cast and then is later picked up/worn, so there must have been no question in the writer's mind about it. The spell does what it says. If the object is carried or worn when the caster uses the spell, the spell fails. Once the spell has gone into effect, it lasts for the stated duration unless something that could end the spell prematurely happens. This spell doesn't have any terms for terminating the spell early, therefore it follows the regular rules as to how to end it, which do not include ending if wielded.
|
|
Well, if we're going into semantics, what denotes 'carried'?
If you were my player and tried to end the Animate Object by picking up the glove/chair/whatever by that rationale.. (not saying you would, just hypothetically here)
I'd say that despite having it your hands and up off the ground, you're still not 'carrying' it as it's fighting you. You're grappling instead. Spell goes on.
EDIT: Perhaps after grappling/pinning an animated glove, you want to shove your hand inside it and inarguably 'wear' it? I'd say that maybe that's some pretty darn creative thinking, but to keep it from being simple metagaming your char has to succeed on a spellcraft check for your character to have the same encyclopedic knowledge of the player who has the ability to read the spell description in the CRB. Why disallow it out of hand? it's a potentially creative way to deal with that very particular situation.
If the player were doing what the OP asked about (animate a glove in order to use its HP to avoid vicious damage) I'd consider it a perfectly suitable call to end his spell early. Either hand-wave 'the shenanigans caused your magic to fail' or make a formal rules stand that 'in the future, when you cast a spell with the intention to violate its terms, the spell just doesn't work in the first place'.
Such situations are the prime reason why Rule 0 exists..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animated objects aren't proficient with any weapons that aren't themselves. So it would have the -4 non-proficiency penalty on top of everything else.
Well, if we're going into semantics, what denotes 'carried'?
If you were my player and tried to end the Animate Object by picking up the glove/chair/whatever by that rationale.. (not saying you would, just hypothetically here)
I'd say that despite having it your hands and up off the ground, you're still not 'carrying' it as it's fighting you. You're grappling instead. Spell goes on.
EDIT: Perhaps after grappling/pinning an animated glove, you want to shove your hand inside it and inarguably 'wear' it? I'd say that maybe that's some pretty darn creative thinking, but to keep it from being simple metagaming your char has to succeed on a spellcraft check for your character to have the same encyclopedic knowledge of the player who has the ability to read the spell description in the CRB. Why disallow it out of hand? it's a potentially creative way to deal with that very particular situation.If the player were doing what the OP asked about (animate a glove in order to use its HP to avoid vicious damage) I'd consider it a perfectly suitable call to end his spell early. Either hand-wave 'the shenanigans caused your magic to fail' or make a formal rules stand that 'in the future, when you cast a spell with the intention to violate its terms, the spell just doesn't work in the first place'.
Such situations are the prime reason why Rule 0 exists..
Actually, I already addressed what would happen RAW-wise if he tried that. It would involve a diminutive animated object wielding a medium sized weapon, which would be pretty pitiful, and therefore not desirable.
|
|
Actually, I already addressed what would happen RAW-wise if he tried that. It would involve a diminutive animated object wielding a medium sized weapon, which would be pretty pitiful, and therefore not desirable.
That you did. But if we're going to argue, I'll get a 'me-first' in there. I said in my first post that the rather small glove laying on the floor, but animated, is not even going to be able to attack with a sword, even with nonproficiency penalties. ;)
To keep the argument going.. if the animated glove WERE to somehow be able to fly and get leverage from a ghostly arm powering the swings with the sword, I'd say the size penalties shouldn't apply. It's a glove for a medium sized humanoid (presumably) and the grip of the weapon is sized for the same size hand that the glove is! :)
Granted what I'm about to propose would cost significantly more and probably wouldn't be worth it, but why not just make it a viscous dancing weapon, because "while dancing...the person who activated it is not considered armed with the weapon." therefore, no hit point damage to the "wielder".
I recognize that the flavor text of the viscous ability would seem to imply no wielder then no extra damage but the functional part of the description never says a wielder taking damage is necessary for the opponent to receive damage.
Assuming that worked you could keep your BAB instead of the pitiful tiny animated glove's
Actually, I already addressed what would happen RAW-wise if he tried that. It would involve a diminutive animated object wielding a medium sized weapon, which would be pretty pitiful, and therefore not desirable.That you did. But if we're going to argue, I'll get a 'me-first' in there. I said in my first post that the rather small glove laying on the floor, but animated, is not even going to be able to attack with a sword, even with nonproficiency penalties. ;)
To keep the argument going.. if the animated glove WERE to somehow be able to fly and get leverage from a ghostly arm powering the swings with the sword, I'd say the size penalties shouldn't apply. It's a glove for a medium sized humanoid (presumably) and the grip of the weapon is sized for the same size hand that the glove is! :)
I did not take issue with your interpretation of it wielding a sword, just your interpretation of wearing said animated glove. In fact your description of sword-wielding gloves seems pretty sound, and I won't argue against it.
|
Well, you're attempting to find a hole in the RAW and exploit it, so don't try to poo poo other attempts to use RAW.
Regardless of intent (and my guess is the intent prevents you from having armor on that suddenly gains hardness and can walk for you), the RAW says it can't be worn, not "can't be worn by others".
So no, it doesn't work. At all. The rule is very clear on this.
If you upgrade the Glove/Gauntlet idea to the suit of fullplate you are wearing the animated object is a medium creature.
But then we the whole thing begins to look like at a Powersuit ;)
Maybe build an armor with a canon in one arm and a sword in the other. Since when it is part of the armor (not a separate weapon carried) the armor is proficient with it's use. Then step inside and let the animated object do the fighting for you.
But I'm digressing :P
Thanks for your replies. They have given me lots of neat ideas. Ideas that are legal and even better ;)
(For example: Craft tiny archer statues, place them in a portable hole on a platform, so they stand on level ground when you place the hole down. Each archer gets a little poison reservoir for his tiny arrows. Animate them as needed. Then you have your own army mob that can make volley shots.)