I have a magus, themed to look like Death, only good (and white-robed rather than black).
As such he wields a scythe. The scythe, being a two-handed weapon, is not ideal for a magus. Therefore, I am also equipping my magus with a spiked gauntlet.
My question is this: Can you attack someone with a spiked gauntlet whilst also holding a weapon in the same hand (using the other free hand to cast spells via spell combat)? What if it's a two-handed weapon, such as the aforementioned scythe, being held in the one hand?
You can not attack someone with the gauntlet if the hand is holding your weapon or any other item that has to be carried. The hand is occupied. If that were the case monsters that have claws and slams would not have their attacks taken away for using the "holding appendage" to hold on to an item.
Even if a lizardfolk(example monster) were to hold a longsword as example, and not use it(longsword) he would still lose that claw attack.
Another example, and a better one are the xills since they can't use claw attacks with the hand that is holding a shield.
if you let go sure but your GM may be picky about this and make you declare at the start of the round which your doing.
Maybe two levels in Alchemist for an extra arm? or a weapon cord for the scythe(if that even works)?
|
Here you go... PF SRD
Lighten Weapon (Combat)
You can balance heavy weapons, making them easier to wield.
Prerequisite: Str 13, BAB +3.
Benefit: Choose one type of weapon. When using a weapon of that type you may reduce the effort required to wield it by one step but suffer a −2 penalty to hit with that weapon. This allows you to wield a weapon 1 size category larger as if it were your own size, use a two-handed weapon in one hand, or a one-handed as a light weapons.
Normal: Weapons 1 size category larger increase the effort required to wield them by one step: light becoming one-handed, one-handed becoming two-handed, and two-handed becoming un-wieldable. Two-handed weapons may not be used one-handed. Using a one-handed weapon in your off hand results in a −2 penalty to all of your attacks (in addition to other off-hand penalties that may apply).
Special: The effect of this feat does not stack with other feats that alter wielding effort or weapon size. You may take this feat multiple times, each time choosing a different type of weapon.
Example: Rogar the human fighter takes Lighten Weapon and chooses greatsword. He can now use a Medium greatsword in one hand with a −2 penalty to hit, gaining 1 x Strength bonus to damage. He can also wield a Large greatsword in two hands with a −2 penalty to hit and adding 1.5 x Strength bonus to damage.
That is 3pp, and not official content though, but if RD's group allows it, it will work.
That gives me Ideas. Also Titam mauler would let you do it for two class levels down depending if you have them to spare.
Why not use armor spikes?
Why not use armor spikes?
This is the leading reason I believe it to be possible.
If armor spikes can do it, why not a spiked gauntlet?
Why not use armor spikes?This is the leading reason I believe it to be possible.
If armor spikes can do it, why not a spiked gauntlet?
I picture him standing there holding his scythe, and just punching forward to hit with the fist instead of swinging the scythe. I can understand someone losing a claw attack in this instance as the claws are wrapped around the scythe holding it, but that wouldn't seem to hold for a fist attack.
Why not use armor spikes?This is the leading reason I believe it to be possible.
If armor spikes can do it, why not a spiked gauntlet?
While armored spikes are an off-hand attack they are not being held.
As an example I can use have two daggers in my hand, and still use the armor spikes. I can't use use spiked gauntlet, and stab with a dagger that is in the same hand.It is not just about it being an off-hand attack. You just can't use a hand that is occupied for other activities. If so why can't you hold a dagger and a torch in the same hand as the gauntlet, stab people and punch them with the gauntlet also, while also keeping that tunnel lit?
Hard to hold torch and dagger at same time with humanoid hands specially while poking people?
Arguing example not conclusion.
Scythe Magi would be cool and I would ask my dm to allow for a permutation of the quarterstaff master feat from the staff magus if I had my heart set on it.
Or more likely I would take a level or two in Alchemist.
I see the problem with allowing that kind of attack set up is that you have a nasty precedence in logic now that invariably someone will try to exploit.
I'm wondering if people are disallowing it because they have different impressions of what exactly a spiked gauntlet is.
Just to be clear, when I think of a spiked gauntlet, I think of this, NOT this (top left). The former can be still punched with despite holding something in your hand. Spiked gauntlets can be used with weapon in hand. Clawed gauntlets not so much.
I am saying no because the game would not allow you to make an unarmed strike, claw, or slam attack in the same situation. Putting that metal glove on your hand does not change the premise that you are trying to attack with an appendage that is holding something, and as for those pictures there is not much difference expect for the glove with the built in saw(?).
Mounting a scythe blade onto a rod is GM permission territory. Most GM would allow the 3PP feat upthread first.
I am saying no because the game would not allow you to make an unarmed strike, claw, or slam attack in the same situation. Putting that metal glove on your hand does not change the premise that you are trying to attack with an appendage that is holding something, and as for those pictures there is not much difference expect for the glove with the built in saw(?).
Um...you can make unarmed strikes even when your hands are full, can you not?
You can not make unarmed strike using your fist is what I was saying.
You can not make unarmed strike using your fist is what I was saying.
I see no evidence of that, only supposition.
I am saying no because the game would not allow you to make an unarmed strike, claw, or slam attack in the same situation. Putting that metal glove on your hand does not change the premise that you are trying to attack with an appendage that is holding something, and as for those pictures there is not much difference expect for the glove with the built in saw(?).Um...you can make unarmed strikes even when your hands are full, can you not?
Only monks can do that, as I read the rules. Only the monk's unarmed strike power specifically mentions the monk being able to attack with any part of the body and/or with full hands. The unarmed strike power also grants the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, but the feat text does not mention striking with any part of the body or with full hands. So as I interpret the rules, only monks can attack with full hands.
You can not make unarmed strike using your fist is what I was saying.I see no evidence of that, only supposition.
Since when do the rules allow you to use an appendage that is holding something to do manipulate another item?
A lot of things are not in the rules.Once again I will post a previous quote:"If so why can't you hold a dagger and a torch in the same hand as the gauntlet, stab people and punch them with the gauntlet also, while also keeping that tunnel lit?"
Now do rules don't say I can't do that, but good luck on getting a GM to allow it. I certainly can't find a rules quote that goes against it.
In short the "rules don't say I can't" is not a valid argument at certain points, but you already know that.
Only monks can do that, as I read the rules. Only the monk's unarmed strike power specifically mentions the monk being able to attack with any part of the body and/or with full hands. The unarmed strike power also grants the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, but the feat text does not mention striking with any part of the body or with full hands. So as I interpret the rules, only monks can attack with full hands.I am saying no because the game would not allow you to make an unarmed strike, claw, or slam attack in the same situation. Putting that metal glove on your hand does not change the premise that you are trying to attack with an appendage that is holding something, and as for those pictures there is not much difference expect for the glove with the built in saw(?).Um...you can make unarmed strikes even when your hands are full, can you not?
That is not true. The ability to strike with any part of your body has nothing to do with being able to use an already occupied appendage.
You can strike with your fist is not equal to "you can strike with your fist no matter what".
I will also add the monk does not say that you can strike with any part of your body so it gets no special exception.
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.
Not that it matters because this is about the Magus anyway.
Only monks can do that, as I read the rules. Only the monk's unarmed strike power specifically mentions the monk being able to attack with any part of the body and/or with full hands. The unarmed strike power also grants the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, but the feat text does not mention striking with any part of the body or with full hands. So as I interpret the rules, only monks can attack with full hands.That is not true. The ability to strike with any part of your body has nothing to do with being able to use an already occupied appendage.
You can strike with your fist is not equal to "you can strike with your fist no matter what".
No, but the monk rules do:
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.
That's what I meant earlier when I said that only a monk's unarmed strike mentions the monk being able to attack with full hands, because it does.
I will also add the monk does not say that you can strike with any part of your body so it gets no special exception.
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.
I'm sorry, I was using "any part of the body" as shorthand for "fists, elbows, knees, feet." I will not do so in the future, to avoid confusion.
Not that it matters because this is about the Magus anyway.
Yes, but I'm bringing up the fact that only the monk can attack with his hands full to make the point that no, according to the RAW, the magus cannot attack with a spiked gauntlet if his hands are full of scythe.
I apologize for my board coding being so poor. It's all fixed now.
No, but the monk rules do:
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.
That does not say only a monk can do it though. The reason a monk, and anyone else can make unarmed strike while holding an item is because they can attack with other body parts. At not point does it say a monk hold an item in his hand allows him to still use that hand. There is also no rule saying that your hands being occupied would affect your feet.
The monk section is basically reprinting what is in the combat chapter, not giving them a free pass.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Are you going to argue than anyone who is not a monk can not make a headbutt through unarmed attacks/unarmed strikes if they are not monks?
That's what I meant earlier when I said that only a monk's unarmed strike mentions the monk being able to attack with full hands, because it does.
The reason you are able to attack, which I never disputed is because you have other ways to use your unarmed attacks, not because you get to punch people even if your hands are full. That is why they mention the other body parts. If you could just punch people anyway there would be no reason to mention the other body parts in the monk or combat section.
I will also add the monk does not say that you can strike with any part of your body so it gets no special exception.
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.
It is just hard to get intent online. In a game I don't think a GM would mind you kneeing someone even if itis not listed.
Yes, but I'm bringing up the fact that only the monk can attack with his hands full to make the point that no, according to the RAW, the magus cannot attack with a spiked gauntlet if his hands are full of scythe.
RAW the rule is that monk can make use unarmed attacks while holding items. The RAW does not say he gets a special pass allowing him to use his hands. You can infer that the first sentence leads to allowing the second sentence, but that is not RAW, especially since anyone can do that(attack with their hands full with unarmed strikes) anyway.
edit:clarification
I've heard that the best backup melee weapon for an archer was a pair of spiked gauntlets. Why would people be saying this if you couldn't use them while holding the bow?
You can hold a bow in one hand since switching a weapon to one hand is a free action, and attack with the other hand. I would personally go with spiked armor in case the GM says you can't let go of a weapon to make attacks of opportunity.
Difference isn't about holding its about attacking in this case I believe most DM's wouldn't let you do both.
RoC and common sense i would let you thoough if you want more than your standard allotment of attacks you would want TWF feats.
Thats because i can see you swinging the scythe and punching with the lower hand on the scythe as you come back up. Same with an archer making a strike with his draw hand after a shot.
.
I didn't read the entire thread, so I am not sure if this matter was settled for the OP. However, this debate has come up before and that previous thread may be able to help the OP.
My thoughts based on the relevant RAW and FAQ in that thread.
|
This whole issue arose because the Magus in question wants to go for a Grim Reaper look, right?
Using a sickle or kama would solve this whole kerfuffle-- they're both one-handed weapons that evoke the harvest, and The Reaper has been depicted as wielding one-handed tools at times. Sickles are even sometimes referred to as "hand scythes".
I've heard that the best backup melee weapon for an archer was a pair of spiked gauntlets. Why would people be saying this if you couldn't use them while holding the bow?
Even if the DM is crazy and says you can't attack with the gauntlet while holding something, you're still only using both hands on the bow when making attacks with it. At the end of your turn, you only have one hand on the bow, the other hand (which was drawing arrows/pulling the string) is now free to punch folk who provoke.
I think the general consensus in other threads has been you can only threaten with the gauntlet, or the weapon the gauntlet is holding. (One is 'wielded' and one is 'carried') So since you can't use the scythe one-handed, it's no different from carrying any other non-weapon item in that hand. You threaten with the gauntlet, not the scythe.
Brass Knuckles are restrictive. They hamper spellcasting (Gauntlets don't), They disallow wielding a weapon in that hand (Gauntlets don't), but they do allow you to carry an item. So why wouldn't gauntlets do the same, since they're expressly made to do so?
The cestus hampers your fine movements (-2 penalty) but still allows you to wield or carry items. Why would gauntlets, without the penalty, not allow the same?