|
I've gotten into a debate with my DM about this issue...
(in depth case: I've built an inflict-based oracle using a heavy shield and spiked gauntlets to flank with various summoned undead creatures.)
A. Can you cast spells with somatic components while wearing
1.) spiked gauntlets?
2.) locked gauntlets?
B. Do you (and summoned creatures in flanking position) get the flanking bonuses since you are "considered armed while wearing spiked gauntlets"?
My personal interpretation is
A. 1.) yes 2.) no (specifically states in entry, actually)
B. yes
Opinions, please? ;)
I concur.
A1) Yes
A2) No
B) Yes
|
|
He won't allow me to cast while using spiked gauntlets.
Only with normal gauntlets (you are not considered armed with those, so my flanking combo is broken)
And even that came as "yeah, look at those spikes, they look like YOU CAN'T cast with those on your hands. Normal gauntlets seem okay to me tho!"
By that logic, most paladins must remove their full plate's gauntlets every time they want to throw a CLW.
To me, it just seems like a random nerf to my already self-imposed subpar strategy. I'm like flanking CR 6/7+ demons or 7-8th lvl samurais with my zombies at level 7, ouch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get armor spikes. Problem solved.
Note you do not need to be proficient with a weapon to threaten with it.
I concur.
A1) Yes
A2) No
B) Yes
Ditto
Glammered armor. Do I still threaten?
"The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when it is so disguised."
Yes. The enemy perceiving a threat is not relevant to threatening. You being able to attack them is. Invisible enemies can threaten and flank, so you can with glamered armor spikes, as well.
This goes back to whether you're wielding the gauntlet to attack with or just wearing it and what action it takes to switch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you just wear one gauntlet, threaten with that hand, and cast using the other hand?
@Bearded Ben:
...using a heavy shield and spiked gauntlets...
The thing is they are outside of R.A.W. and are House-Ruling it.
By the GMs Logic a Cestus would make it impossible to cast.
opps missed that.
How about switching to a buckler? You only lose a point of AC, and it is far less restrictive.
My ruling is that you can use gauntlets to threaten if the hand is empty.
Missed the bit about the shield. Why not put shield spikes on it and threaten that way?
|
Missed the bit about the shield. Why not put shield spikes on it and threaten that way?
You only threaten with weapons you're proficient with (apparently, it's been said in this thread but I'm not familiar with that rule).
Spiked shields are a martial weapon, while spiked gauntlets are simple. And oracles don't get martial weapon proficiency unless they take the right revelation.
My solution is to get a weapon cord. If you want to cast a spell, drop your weapon (a free action), cast, then use your swift action at the end of your turn to retrieve your weapon. This has the added bonus of letting you use a stronger weapon than a spiked gauntlet.
I have a question related to this.
I would like my wizard to have a gaunlet enchanted with dualing while holding a wand. I want this just for the iniative bonus. I was told that this would be armor and disrupt my spell casting and would not allow me to use my wand(I do not know the ruling on that since his cleric does this).
Could I do that for the iniative bonus while hlding a wand in the gauntlet?
Gauntlets are weapons not Armour. It just so happens most Armours come with Gauntlets.
& from what I understand you can threaten with any weapon. It just determines whether or not you take the -4 Penalty.
If someone can provide a link to the PRD that states otherwise I would be surprised.
RAW, the GM has no grounds to argue against you. There is no RAW that says you cannot cast spells with those gauntlets, and the Spiked Gauntlets aren't that much different from regular gauntlets.
This is honestly not much different from a Paladin applying spikes to a light shield (and I recommend you pose this as an argument to your GM). Going by his logic, a Paladin using a spiked shield (or even an Anti-Paladin) cannot use Lay on Hands (or Touch of Corruption) because the spikes are obstructing his ability to use the class feature. The same can be said with spells, should the Paladin use a Cure (, or the Anti-Paladin using an Inflict). That sounds silly, doesn't it?
On a mechanics standpoint, the Gauntlets don't function any different from the example above (aside from the light shield being usable as protection and a weapon simultaneously, of course), and if the GM still won't allow it, then it's a houserule issue.
@ Finlanderboy: RAW, you can; the Gauntlets don't actually take up a hand, since they pretty much are the hand. Objects being in the hand that the Gauntlet is attached to have nothing to do with the properties of the weapon itself. If your other hand is full with some other object (like a Spellbook or some shield or whatever), then I would rule that you cannot cast spells or utilize the Wand for spells.
@ Azaelas: From what I can recall, almost everything threatens except Improvised Weapons (unless trained in them with feats and such) and regular Unarmed Strikes. Other than that, everything should threaten, but of course as you said, penalties do apply.
locked gauntlets should also allow you to cast if they aren't locked into a weapon...
I don't think so. Locked Gauntlets are shaped to have your hand around a weapon's hilt, and that's it. There is no wiggle-room for your fingers and hands to perform the proper gestures needed to complete spells, meaning unless you carry a Still Wand in the Locked Gauntlet hand (or apply the Still Metamagic feat), you aren't going to get any spells off anytime soon.
|
|
Gauntlet, Locked: This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense to keep from being disarmed in combat. Removing a weapon from a locked gauntlet or attaching a weapon to a locked gauntlet is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
The price given is for a single locked gauntlet. The weight given applies only if you're wearing a breastplate, light armor, or no armor. Otherwise, the locked gauntlet replaces a gauntlet you already have as part of the armor.
While the gauntlet is locked, you can't use the hand wearing it for casting spells or employing skills. (You can still cast spells with somatic components, provided that your other hand is free.)
Depends: If it was a Masterwork Locked Gauntlet (+50GP if you just want the ability to cast in it while unlocked.) A Standard would be a no go even if unlocked.
On Wands: It depends on how the Wands are activated. If it was where you just need to "Flick" it while speaking a certain phrase/word then I would say the Locked Gauntlet would allow it. If it was where you need to move it in a set pattern while speaking the phrase/word then I would say the Locked Gauntlet wouldn't allow it.
@Darksol: I thought so. & I love Catch Off-Guard, Throw Anything and the other such feats. Especially for my "Bar-Brawler" Build.
Wait, are we talking casting a spell from yourself or from a Wand?
& I don't think you read what I wrote Lantzkev...
Missed the bit about the shield. Why not put shield spikes on it and threaten that way?You only threaten with weapons you're proficient with (apparently, it's been said in this thread but I'm not familiar with that rule).
I actually said the opposite. You threaten even if non-proficient.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Nothing about proficiency is mentioned.
Hence, why I said "Houserules, Ho!". I swear people don't read.
But I have used 5 different types of Locked Gauntlets. If you need to move your hand in any precise manner it doesn't work. One was designed to where I could move my fingers enough to perfer some movements that could resemble spellcasting, but I could never pick a lock with it. A Locked Gauntlet I say should have a -5 Penalty and block out casting. Unless it is Masterwork then I would say it opens up your hand enough to Cast and Remove the penalty.
I only limit its spellcasting. Not anything else. A normal Gaunlet is superior in most cases to a Locking Gauntlet. A Locking Gauntlet is only superior certain cases. Mostly Dueling and maybe to strengthen your hold on a Shield. They, like most things in the game and in real life, are designed for a niche.
|
|
I'm not sure how a locking gauntlet isn't superior in EVERY way to a normal gauntlet.
You can always use it as a normal gauntlet if you want.
If you know you're going against someone who likes to disarm, or a critter that does that, you flick a few chains or clasps on and voila, now you're nearly impossible to disarm!
I'm not sure how something that's a normal gauntlet and also something better is beat out by a locking gauntlet.
-edit- forget what you know of some medieval locking gauntlets, these are not those. "This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon"
A Martial doesn't have to worry about the Tip of his Pinky Finger being a Millimeter to high during the third rotation of his wrist. They can survive with the Gauntlet restricting their minute movements.
The fact is that for a Locking Gauntlet to be effective without shattering the users hand they can't be as Flexible as a normal Gauntlet. It is their Rigidity that provides the power.
BUT a Gauntlet that is made with special Mechanisms might allow the Flexibility of a normal Gauntlet while also giving enough Rigidity when locked to function safely. Hence, Masterwork.
R.A.W. you can Cast with it unlocked.
If you actually want a reasonable representation of a Locked Gauntlet: The Motions needed for casting can't be done in a true Locking Gauntlet. Unless you could reasonably do them in a Full Forearm Cast or with a Prostethic Hand you can't in a Locking Gauntlet
I am saying this game is using real tech as a basis. The real locking gauntlet is horrible for fine motions.
And how do you know magic doesn't work? It could be Humanity lost the knowledge needed to make it usable. Remember we have lost knowledge of a lot of things throughout history.
The Romans figured out how to build buildings larger than the White House in just a few Days. They had working indoor plumbing. They even had working steam engines that could run small mills, water pumps, and a few other small everyday items. All of that knowledge was lost in the Great Fire of Rome.
It was only here recently when we stumbled upon the few remnants of the knowledge that this technology even existed. The only remaining information of some of it was via cultures they traded with.
R.A.W. you can Cast with it unlocked.
If you actually want a reasonable representation of a Locked Gauntlet: The Motions needed for casting can't be done in a true Locking Gauntlet. Unless you could reasonably do them in a Full Forearm Cast or with a Prostethic Hand you can't in a Locking Gauntlet
How do you know you can't cast in a full forearm cast?
How do you know you can't cast in a full forearm cast?R.A.W. you can Cast with it unlocked.
If you actually want a reasonable representation of a Locked Gauntlet: The Motions needed for casting can't be done in a true Locking Gauntlet. Unless you could reasonably do them in a Full Forearm Cast or with a Prostethic Hand you can't in a Locking Gauntlet
I highly doubt you can move your hands when they are immobilized by the cast. Unless the cast breaks or is removed, that hand isn't wiggling anytime soon, and is honestly how I see a Locked Gauntlet operating.
|
|
The knowledge of such things weren't lost the infrastructure that made it easier to acomplish was lost in the fire...
Your examples are flawed, but regardless, it's all things we know currently... there are stories of witches and magic, but there aren't any historical accounts of it. Even if you go on your theory "we can't know for sure magic can't happen" we're pretty damn sure about it.
You seem to require real world facts to support your views, but then resort to fantasy as a counter point readily...
Where do you think I am pulling from Fantasy?
The knowledge was lost. We could have lost a lot of knowledge. Heck, we might discover it some day.
|
For a thread in the Rules Questions forum, there are a lot of house rules and discussions of how magic might have worked in real-world Rome.
For the OP, the answers to your questions are, according the the core rule book:
1. You can cast spells with somatic components while wearing gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, or locked gauntlets (provide that at least one of your locked gauntlets is unlocked).
2. While wearing spiked gauntlets, you are considered armed and therefore threaten adjacent squares. Hence, you can flank an opponent and make attacks of opportunity. Regular gauntlets and locked gauntlets do not provide this benefit; they merely make your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage.
I would quote these for you, but I'm using a device that won't let me copy.
Look up gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, and locked gauntlets in the equipment chapter to see that with gauntlets you are still considered unarmed, but with spiked gauntlets you are armed.
The sections on flanking and attacks of opportunity in the combat chapter are clear that you must be armed.
I hope that is helpful.