Reach and Gauntlets


Rules Questions

101 to 139 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, what do you find? What's your verdict?

Can they attack with a claw, whilst the same limb(hand) wields a weapon?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My 'verdict' is that the normal animal or demon claw is at the fingertips, thus, clutching to a spear puts them in a horrible position to slash at people.

Fortunately, spiked gauntlets have the spikes at the knuckles, meaning that clenching tightly to a spear has your hands in the correct position to employ the spiked gauntlets.

So, average animal or demon, no, holding onto something puts your claws out of easy use, requiring the dropping of the item to get a good claw in.

Spiked gauntlets, yes, because your hand could be sovereign glued to the item(s) and you could still claw people.

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:
Nocking the arrow is not an action, but drawing the arrow in order to nock it is a free action, and thus can only be done on your turn (unless you have snap shot).
Cheapy wrote:

There are two ways of interpreting the FAQ post, and both ways have their merits.

In one way, the FAQ is specifically referring to snap shot and the ranged AoOs it allows for.

The other way is that they're saying that since you can do it as a free action, you can tag it on to the AoO.

Hence my "fuel onto the fire" comment.

Actually, there's a third way which says that this FAQ is irrelevant since you could just say something, a free action able to be taken out of turn, and tag on whatever free action you want to do to the free action to talk, since the rules allow you to do free actions while taking other actions normally. But this is pretty silly, so we should ignore it.

I'm not the only one who thinks that the FAQ in question may be understood in more than one way.

Shadow Lodge

When are you going to come across a situation where you can reload your projectile weapon as part of an AoO and have it matter before the start of your next turn, without using Snap Shot?

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
* You cannot attack with a two-handed weapon unles you have two hands available to grip the weapon as you attack
While this is sort of true, you not only need to have two hands available, you have to actually use both of them.

True.

Quote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
* This means you only need to use two hands on the weapon as you execute the attack, not before or after
This agrees that you must use both hands in order to attack. Which means being able to attack is dependent on using both hands. Not just being able to use both of them, but actually using them. If you do not actually use both hands, you cannot attack.

True.

Quote:
This means that you must put your 2nd hand on the weapon before you can attack with it.

False. There is no requirement to have both hands on the weapon before the attack.

Quote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
* This means that you do threaten if you have both hands available to grip the weapon, even if only one hand is holding it
This is incorrect. Since you must put your 2nd hand on the weapon before you can attack with it, you do not threaten until you've put your 2nd hand on the weapon.

With no requirement to hold it in two hands except when executing an attack, and with the free hand gripping the weapon as part of the attack, then you may make an attack without consuming any game action except the AoO itself, therefore you do threaten.

Silver Crusade

Serum wrote:

When are you going to come across a situation where you can reload your projectile weapon as part of an AoO and have it matter before the start of your next turn, without using Snap Shot?

You can't, with the rule-set as it stands.

This is why the FAQ can be legitimately read both ways; it doesn't resolve the issue, even though that issue is moot for the reason you mentioned.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nuku wrote:

My 'verdict' is that the normal animal or demon claw is at the fingertips, thus, clutching to a spear puts them in a horrible position to slash at people.

Fortunately, spiked gauntlets have the spikes at the knuckles, meaning that clenching tightly to a spear has your hands in the correct position to employ the spiked gauntlets.

So, average animal or demon, no, holding onto something puts your claws out of easy use, requiring the dropping of the item to get a good claw in.

Spiked gauntlets, yes, because your hand could be sovereign glued to the item(s) and you could still claw people.

Okay. So, does it depend on the weapon wielded? Can I attack with a Spiked Gauntlet, and a Heavy Shield, wielded with the same hand?

How do you determine which weapon can? Is there a RAW wording that allows for some weapons, but not others?

What about the Rapier? It has a basket hilt, but if we follow your line, that doesn't matter.

How do you draw that line? If it's DM adjudication, then the fight for RAW falls apart.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The spiked gauntlets, by raw, do not require a hand free.

Claws, by raw, are 'often' hindered by held weapons.

DMs must adjucate for claws, because RAW is not yes or no.

DMs do not need to adjucate on knuckles, because RAW says it works.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Where within RAW are Spiked Gauntlets noted as not requiring a free hand to attack with them.

Only opinion has been presented, and the "prove me wrong" comments.

Why would it differ from any other weapon wield in the hand?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
If you do not actually use both hands, you cannot attack.

True.

Quote:
This means that you must put your 2nd hand on the weapon before you can attack with it.
False. There is no requirement to have both hands on the weapon before the attack.

Since using two hands is a requirement for attacking with a two-handed weapon, that means if you don't use two hands, you cannot attack with it. If your hand is free, you're not using it to wield the weapon. This means you're not eligible to attack with that weapon.

You cannot make an attack with it until your 2nd hand is using the weapon.

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:
If your hand is free, you're not using it to wield the weapon. This means you're not eligible to attack with that weapon.

There's that nasty word again!

Let's substitute it for less contentious words:-

* If your hand is free, you're not using it to hold the weapon. This means you're not eligible to attack with that weapon.

No, you can certainly hold the weapon in one hand between attacks, you just need to use two hands as you execute the attack.

* If your hand is free, you're not using it to attack with the weapon. This means you're not eligible to attack with that weapon.

But when we execute the attack we are using two hands, as the free hand grips the weapon as part of the attack.

* If your hand is free, you're not using it to be able to attack with the weapon. This means you're not eligible to attack with that weapon.

Oh, the free hand will definately be there during the execution of the attack!

In order to threaten with any particular weapon, the only requirement is that you are able to attack with that weapon. You are still considered to be threatening even if you have used your one and only AoO, you just can't take advantage of the opportunity.

'Able to attack' means that you are able to attack, in response to provocation, as your very first game action! This means that if 're-gripping' were to ever be defined as a free action then you would not threaten if you held a greatsword in one hand when the other hand is free.

But with the rule-set as written, there is no seperate game action associated with 're-gripping'; it is done as part of the attack. That means that, when holding a greatsword in one hand while the other hand is free, that the very first game action you take is that AoO, with the free hand gripping the weapon as part of that attack.

Since you therefore can attack as your very first game action, this means that you do threaten, by definition.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Where within RAW are Spiked Gauntlets noted as not requiring a free hand to attack with them.

Only opinion has been presented, and the "prove me wrong" comments.

Why would it differ from any other weapon wield in the hand?

Tossing the onus back your way. The gauntlets are worn, all other worn weapons are slotless(helmet, armor spikes, funky beard, tail spike, etc). Where in RAW does it say it -does- require a free hand, unlike every other worn weapon? What makes this the exception?

If it did take up a hand, why does it not prevent the wielding of things in that hand?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
you just need to use two hands as you execute the attack.

Which means if you don't use two hands, you can't attack.

And since you can't attack without using two hands, you don't threaten without using two hands.

Shadow Lodge

Malachi's saying that he has the ability to put two hands on his weapon at any time, though.


Serum wrote:
Malachi's saying that he has the ability to put two hands on his weapon at any time, though.

He's saying he can put his hand on the weapon as part of an attack which he does not get to make since his hand is not on the weapon.

If he can do so at any time, and if he does choose to do so before the creature takes whatever action it is that would provoke, then he would threaten, the foe would provoke, and he could take an AoO.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nuku wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Where within RAW are Spiked Gauntlets noted as not requiring a free hand to attack with them.

Only opinion has been presented, and the "prove me wrong" comments.

Why would it differ from any other weapon wield in the hand?

Tossing the onus back your way. The gauntlets are worn, all other worn weapons are slotless(helmet, armor spikes, funky beard, tail spike, etc). Where in RAW does it say it -does- require a free hand, unlike every other worn weapon? What makes this the exception?

If it did take up a hand, why does it not prevent the wielding of things in that hand?

Please rephrase the first part of your question, as I do not fully understand what you are asking.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Tossing the onus back your way means I'm asking you to prove your side. All worn weapons don't take up a hand unless they say they do. Spiked knuckles do not, so they don't.

On the other hand, the axe knuckles, which are VERY SIMILIAR to the spiked knuckles?

They explicitly take up a hand and prevent the use of other weapons in the same hand that's wearing them. They spell it out, it's not left to wonder.

Heavy shields, they take up the hand and are explicitly noted for this property.

Worn weapons do not, normally, take up a hand. When they do, it is called out, because it is the exception, not the rule. Unless you can find text that says spiked knuckles are an exception, they work like every other non specified worn weapon in the game, and do not require an unoccupied hand to use.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not saying the create the inability to wield other weapons, or hold items.

I am saying that the hand must be empty, to effectively attack with them.

There is a difference.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This verbiage does not exist anywhere in RAW.

Citation required.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nuku wrote:

This verbiage does not exist anywhere in RAW.

Citation required.

I sure you will dismiss this.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

RAI is pretty firmly established there.

They should make an errata or faq, since RAW is still entirely wonked.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This seems a bit silly to fight for.

There are already weapons that work with two-handed weapons, and some are better weapons.

What is the reasoning behind the desire of combining these two weapons?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You are implying I am 'fighting' for something I 'want'.

I don't. I do enjoy clear rules, however. I will 'fight' for those. If the axe knuckles are kind enough to explicitly state they can't be used while the hand is using a weapon, the spiked knuckles should as well, if that's what they want, or this question will crop up again later by someone else.

I already moved over to a boulder helmet for my fighter build, back on page 1.


Grick wrote:
FlorianF wrote:
Anyways... spiked gauntlets are a light weapon.
All the fist-type weapons are light weapons. Gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cestus, etc.

Well, no. Look at the PRD. The (plain) gauntlets are "unarmed attacks" and the spiked gauntlets are a "light weapon".

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html

Sczarni

@Grick: I admire your patience. I would have lashed out by now.

It seems clear to me that you need two hands to attack with a two-handed weapon, so it goes without saying that you need two hands to threaten with a two-handed weapon.

If you're using two hands to threaten/attack with a two-handed weapon you cannot at the same time use one (of those) hands to threaten or make attacks. (As BBT has pointed out numerous times there are better ways to do this that are expressly permitted within the rules).

In the case of a polearm and spiked gauntlet I believe it is an "either/or" situation. You either threaten/attack adjacent with spiked gauntlet, or threaten/attack at reach with polearm.

Can I find a citation that says this clearly & concisely in the CRB or SRD? No, but to quote Carl Sagan: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm sorry this debate is so troubling.

By RAW, we have a hole. The hole should be filled. I am no longer arguing RAI, since the designer has stated their intention pretty bluntly.

This is what FAQs and Erratas are for. Is there something wrong in desiring this?


Is this the thread where we are using James' statements as ammunition despite his distinct requests not to? It's always fun to track those down.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oh? I had not known that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Is this the thread where we are using James' statements as ammunition despite his distinct requests not to? It's always fun to track those down.

I had not realized he asked that.

I know he is not a "Rules Guy", but I respect his opinion.

Silver Crusade

Inspired by BBT, I asked James my own question. I can't link it, but if you follow the link provided by BBT and scroll down you'll find it. Here's a copy & paste:-

Quote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If you are wearing a spiked gauntlet on your right hand, and also holding a light or one-handed weapon in the same hand, can you attack with the spiked gauntlet?

Why or why not?

James replied:-

You can't because you're using the hand with the spiked gauntlet to attack with the sword. If you want to make a spiked gauntlet attack as a secondary attack... put it on the other hand.

If you want to attack with that spiked gauntlet while you're holding a sword INSTEAD of attacking with the sword... I would charge you a –2 penalty on the attack roll due to the awkwardness of having that hand full at the time. I might even rule you can't attack; you'd have to switch that sword to the other hand (which is a free action so why not?) before you attack.

You can tell by the way he answered (is it 'no' or 'yes but at -2'?) that James is saying how he might rule it at his table.

He's doing this because the RAW is silent on the issue. We all have to make our own ruling at our own table.

A question was asked earlier about the spiked gauntlet being useable to attack while holding another weapon, and examples like sword, rapier (basket hilt), shield (entirely covers hand), etc.

Your DM will have to make a judgement call on a weapon by weapon basis, because there are no rules that speak to this question.

BTW, a few posts later on James' thread he was asked about the spiked gauntlet/longspear combo, and do you threaten with both. His answer? 'That we be a good question for the rules column'.

Although I'm fond of a thread which allows us to ask rules questions, I must admit that I would prefer a thread which would provide rules answers! : )


Ok, so by the same logic that releasing the grip on a two-handed weapon is a non-action, you could threaten with your meteor hammer in fortress mode (gaining reach and +1 shield bonus) and in case of an attack use Deflect Arrow or Crane Wing since the hand is still free when released???

Sounds cheesy...

To gain a benefit like threatening an area, the item should be "ready to use" at the end of your turn. Without an appropiate handling, like occupying two hands, it is not. Therefore I think you either need to have the two-handed weapon "ready to use" or the spiked gauntlet. Otherwise the whole system using item slots does not function (what stops me of using a Defending-Gauntlet bonus in addition to a two-handed weapon - the hand is "free" to defend me in case of an attack). RAW may not clearly describe this explicit detail of releasing and reattaching the grip, but RAI seems clear to me that you need to decide at the end of your action, which items you want to use with your two hand-item-slots.


related:

concerning a Longspear and an Improved Unarmed Strike: given sufficient opportunities, may my reach cleric make opportunity attacks with either/both because he threatens both adjacent and reach squares simultaneously?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Unarmed Strikes do not need to be made with hands.

You do not need to be a Monk to do this either.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Gauntlets(not spiked version) allows unarmed attacks to be lethal damage.

Does this stop working at certain times? Which times?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Gauntlets(not spiked version) are a bit in the milky grey zone of rules.

If you wish to discuss them, please do so on a separate thread.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Unarmed Strikes do not need to be made with hands.

You do not need to be a Monk to do this either.

i agree.

on the char sheet, it is written "roundhouse +5 1d4+2 x20" and "longspear +5 1d8+3 x3"...

(a roundhouse is a kick)

but anyhow, how sure are you sure yer sure?

(after all, 'double-threatening' is pretty cool)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Let's use the Longspear example.

You threaten with it 10ft. away, but not adjacent.

Now, all you need is something like, a Bite, a Gore, Tail Slap, Armor Spikes, Improved Unarmed Strike, Boot Blade, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Kobold Tail Attachment, Ratfolk Tailblade, or Barbazu Beard, to threaten adjacent opponents.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Let's use the Longspear example.

You threaten with it 10ft. away, but not adjacent.

Now, all you need is something like, a Bite, a Gore, Tail Slap, Armor Spikes, Improved Unarmed Strike, Boot Blade, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Kobold Tail Attachment, Ratfolk Tailblade, or Barbazu Beard, to threaten adjacent opponents.

sounds legit.

but how are you sure?

i mean, you can literally cover about 24 squares!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You threaten any square you can attack into.

101 to 139 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Reach and Gauntlets All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.