|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I looked and found a few older threads about this, and there seems to be varying opinions. I'm looking for RAW answers for PFS.
I'm not trying to add the spiked gauntlet damage to the touch spell. If I wanted to do stuff like that, I'd play a magus. I'm asking for a "bad touch" cleric who will be walking up to enemies and touching them with various melee touch spells and spell-like abilities.
What I'd like to do is walk around with a heavy shield in one hand and a spiked gauntlet on the other. This would let me get the AC from the best possible shield, while doing all casting with the gauntlet hand. The spiked gauntlet is so I'm still threatening adjacent enemies to help give flanks and deliver AoOs by punching people with a spike to the face. I'm pretty sure that all works, though proof of that in case a GM questions it would be good to have.
The questions come up when I try to deliver a touch spell and miss. Or cast it before approaching an enemy and don't have a chance to even try to deliver it yet.
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Can the charge be held while still threatening with the spiked gauntlet? Apparently, some people say the spell would be discharged by the act of "touching" the gauntlet, which leads me to wonder why that wouldn't happen every time the spell is cast, before ever getting the charge to its target. I disagree with this interpretation, but I'd like RAW proof to back me up on this.
But assuming I can hold the charge, what happens if an adjacent enemy provokes an AoO, and I punch them with the spiked gauntlet? Does that discharge the spell into the person I punched, thus "going magus" with the spiked gauntlet damage and spell effect? Do I only do the spiked gauntlet damage and lose the spell? That doesn't make much sense to me, since the discharge of the spell should go into whoever I touched that caused it to discharge. Or can I take the AoO by trying to make a touch attack to discharge the spell, instead of punching with the gauntlet? If that's an option, I'd probably go with that more often than not, just to target touch AC and hit them with my spell.
Again, I'm looking for definite RAW proof that I can show a GM in PFS when any of these questions come up, even the first few that I already know the answers to:
1. Can I cast spells with a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet?
2. Can I deliver touch attacks with a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet?
3. If I've cast a spell with the gauntlet hand on my turn, do I still threaten adjacent squares with the spiked gauntlet until my next turn?
4. Can I hold the charge on a touch spell that I fail to discharge with my gauntlet hand?
5. What happens when I make an attack of opportunity while holding the charge from a touch spell?
Given the nature of the character (cleric specializing in melee touch attacks), I would expect these questions to come up regularly, so I want to be prepared in advance.
1) I can't find any rules which specifically disallow this. Other items (like heavy shields) do have rules which specifically disallow that hand to be used in spell casting or anything else for that matter. So in the absence of such a rule under gauntlets or spiked gauntlets I would allow spell casting with a gauntlet-ed hand. Gauntlet'd hands can still pick up weapons and spell pouches. If a GM has a problem with it, use a cestus instead.
2) Yes. Just because you are wearing iron spiked gloves does not mean you can't touch people with them.
3) Yes. There are no special "switch off" rules for gauntlets.
4) Yes. As normal.
5) You can choose to do a touch attack with the held spell charge or attack with the gauntlet. If you attack with the gauntlet only the gauntlet does damage and the charge remains.
1. Yes, otherwise you wouldn't be able to equip hand slot magic items and still deliver touch spells
2. Yes, though you cannot attack with the gauntlet spikes to deliver the spell unless you had spellstrike or some other effect that specifically allows you to.
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Like #2 you wouldn't discharge the spell on a successful AoO
That is my interpretation.
Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell
in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the
charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch
attacks round after round. If you touch anything or
anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the
spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell
dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action
or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively,
you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with
a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case,
you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of
opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed
attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke
attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the
attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed
attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the
attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Spiked gauntlets, brass knuckles, regular gauntlets, etc are considered light melee weapons and not unarmed attacks due to a forum clarification that is contrary to what is printed in the CRB:
Sean Reynolds post clarifying unarmed attacks
The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)
Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.
The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.
Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
1. Can I cast spells with a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet?
You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
The next question seems to be "Is a spiked-gauntlet-wearing hand considered 'free'?"
Near as I can tell, the answer is not (explicitly) given. On the one hand, the entry for a spiked gauntlet doesn't say anything about prohibiting spellcasting with that hand. However, neither do any other light melee weapons, yet hands wielding them are not considered "free". A spiked gauntlet is listed as a light melee weapon, so I see no basis in the rules to treat a spiked gauntlet any differently than all the other light melee weapons.Then again, so many people act like it's a given that it doesn't interfere with spellcasting that I wonder if there's evidence outside the rules that I'm missing? Maybe developer commentary or something? But if not, then it looks like spellcasting with a spiked gauntlet (or any other light weapon, such as a cestus) wielded with that hand is a no-go.
2. Can I deliver touch attacks with a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet?
Hrm, might have to come back to this one.
3. If I've cast a spell with the gauntlet hand on my turn, do I still threaten adjacent squares with the spiked gauntlet until my next turn?
Normally, you threaten with a light weapon you're wielding. I am not aware of any rules that would cause this to change due to having just cast a spell.
4. Can I hold the charge on a touch spell that I fail to discharge with my gauntlet hand?
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Seems to me that you have to be a magus with Spellstrike in order to touch a weapon with the charged hand without accidentally discharging the spell. Which I guess gives you your answer for #2 as well.
5. What happens when I make an attack of opportunity while holding the charge from a touch spell?
As has already been referenced, the rules for touch spells say that an unarmed attack or natural weapon can discharge a touch spell. Thus, by implication, other attacks do not. This also further supports my answer to #4.
The next question seems to be "Is a spiked-gauntlet-wearing hand considered 'free'?"
Near as I can tell, the answer is not (explicitly) given. On the one hand, the entry for a spiked gauntlet doesn't say anything about prohibiting spellcasting with that hand. However, neither do any other light melee weapons, yet hands wielding them are not considered "free". A spiked gauntlet is listed as a light melee weapon, so I see no basis in the rules to treat a spiked gauntlet any differently than all the other light melee weapons.
It comes from a few things...
"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.)
Like a normal gauntlet, a locked gauntlet lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike."
This implies non-locked gauntlets do not affect your ability to cast spells.
"Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets."
If gauntlets occupied your hands, then you could not wield a weapon in a hand with a gauntlet equipped. Making everyone wearing medium/heavy armor unable to use anything in their hands at all.
|
|
Ok, so related question. Let's say someone without gloves or gauntlets casts a touch spell and misses the touch attack. They're holding the charge. If they have no other weapons, are they considered to be threatening adjacent allies? Can they flank? Take attacks of opportunity to try and deliver the spell?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There's nothing in the Touch Spell rules (unless I missed it) stating that your status of threatening/not-threatening changes when you have a held charge. On the contrary, it even states that if you *do* use an unarmed strike to deliver a held charge, you'll still provoke (unless you normally wouldn't, such as by the Improved Unarmed Strike feat). So it looks like if you normally wouldn't threaten, having a held charge changes nothing.
|
There are two questions here:
1. Can I cast wearing gauntlets: Yes. Not really a point of contention.
2. Does wearing gauntlets affect touch spells and held charges: more difficult.
If the gauntlet is classified as a weapon, your in trouble. Touching a weapon discharges your touch spell unless you have spellstrike. This is fairly clearly defined.
Wearing gauntlets not classified as a weapon would technically discharge a held charge. You ARE touching them. I don't know any GM's that would enforce this.
The problem I see is, the OP is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to have a free hand for delivering touch spells while having that hand simultaneously count as armed.
Solution: improved shield bash. Your shield is a weapon, use it to threaten without sacrificing AC.
There's nothing in the Touch Spell rules (unless I missed it) stating that your status of threatening/not-threatening changes when you have a held charge. On the contrary, it even states that if you *do* use an unarmed strike to deliver a held charge, you'll still provoke (unless you normally wouldn't, such as by the Improved Unarmed Strike feat). So it looks like if you normally wouldn't threaten, having a held charge changes nothing.
You gotta dig around for this, but it's in the CRB:
Under the Attacks of Opportunity section it says:
"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."
And under the Unarmed Attacks section it says:
"'Armed' Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)."
And
"Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)."
Therefore, holding a charge lets you flank and lets you make an AoO.
|
|
There's nothing in the Touch Spell rules (unless I missed it) stating that your status of threatening/not-threatening changes when you have a held charge. On the contrary, it even states that if you *do* use an unarmed strike to deliver a held charge, you'll still provoke (unless you normally wouldn't, such as by the Improved Unarmed Strike feat). So it looks like if you normally wouldn't threaten, having a held charge changes nothing.You gotta dig around for this, but it's in the CRB:
Under the Attacks of Opportunity section it says:
"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."
And under the Unarmed Attacks section it says:
"'Armed' Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)."
And
"Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)."
Therefore, holding a charge lets you flank and lets you make an AoO.
Also, from the section on touch attacks:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Emphasis mine.
There are two questions here:
1. Can I cast wearing gauntlets: Yes. Not really a point of contention.
2. Does wearing gauntlets affect touch spells and held charges: more difficult.
If the gauntlet is classified as a weapon, your in trouble. Touching a weapon discharges your touch spell unless you have spellstrike. This is fairly clearly defined.
Wearing gauntlets not classified as a weapon would technically discharge a held charge. You ARE touching them. I don't know any GM's that would enforce this.
The problem I see is, the OP is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to have a free hand for delivering touch spells while having that hand simultaneously count as armed.
It seems to me that the strictest reading of the CRB says that Armor comes with gauntlets and this clearly doesn't impede spellcasting, but it also doesn't let you make armed attacks. These gauntlets are really just "fluff" at this point - you know you have them, you can show them to your friends, but you can't hurt anyone with them (take them off or leave them on, your unarmed attacks are exactly the same), they don't impact the game in any way.
Spiked and Locked gauntlets do not come with standard armor. They are separate and have separate rules. For spiked gauntlets, they are treated as light weapons. As stated, touching light weapons will discharge your held charges.
Unless there's a FAQ or Errata somewhere, it looks like holding a charge with normal "fluff" gauntlets is fine, but holding a charge is impossible with light-weapon spiked gauntlets.
(Spellstrike is an exception, of course).
Blake, there is the fact that in the equipment section the gauntlet states:
"Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets."
Except, with forums clarifications, we know it is treated a a light weapon, and delete all the nonsense about unarmed strikes.
So, if you armor comes with gauntlets, and you are wearing the armor; you have the Gauntlet light weapon available for attacks at all times (can't be disarmed). Gauntlet itself is also a light weapon, equal to an unarmed strike, but able to do lethal damage.
|
|
So, if you armor comes with gauntlets, and you are wearing the armor; you have the Gauntlet light weapon available for attacks at all times (can't be disarmed). Gauntlet itself is also a light weapon, equal to an unarmed strike, but able to do lethal damage.
And the rules for touching a light weapon while holding a charge are clearly defined.
You're arguing clerics into a very difficult position.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You're more likely to get a FAQ response if there is a single, concise question in the post. A long preamble followed by five questions is probably just going to get tossed out of the FAQ queue instead of addressed. I suggest making a new thread with a carefully-worded question.
Only thing I am concerned with is if you rule that wearing a gauntlet counts as touching something for the purposes of discharging a spell, you would have to rip off your magic hand slot magic items before casting a touch spell. Not sure how I feel about that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's not like you couldn't take the gauntlets off of your armor if you like to poke people.I agree.
I also think he could just threaten with shield bashes instead of trying to twist rules.
I'll disagree on both counts.
First, the AC associated with any particular armor type would seem to be dependent on wearing all of the armor. How could you take off pieces of armor that make up part of your protection and expect the same level of protection?
Second, clerics aren't proficient with shields as weapons, only as armor. There have been previous threads on that, and it was answered decisively by Paizo staff. So shield bash would require burning a feat on a martial weapon proficiency.
And third, who's trying to twist the rules? We all seem to agree that casting spells in gauntlets works fine. The rules state outright that wearing spiked gauntlets counts as being armed. The only issue is what to do about held charges.
And frankly, the clarification that I could take an AoO specifically to try to discharge the spell works fine for me. I'm perfectly happy doing that instead of using the spikes on the gauntlets for AoOs when that situation comes up, since that will usually be the more powerful attack, and easier to hit on touch AC.
I just want to make sure that's all legal, and I have the evidence to back it up if a GM asks, since it's for PFS, where I'll be playing with different GMs every time.
So, if you armor comes with gauntlets, and you are wearing the armor; you have the Gauntlet light weapon available for attacks at all times (can't be disarmed). Gauntlet itself is also a light weapon, equal to an unarmed strike, but able to do lethal damage.And the rules for touching a light weapon while holding a charge are clearly defined.
You're arguing clerics into a very difficult position.
Thats why a gauntlet was originally an unarmed strike modifier. Then it wasn't a "weapon" and only make your unarmed strike count as armed. Therefore, nothing was wielded and hands were free.
The clarification that no weapons modified unarmed strike screwed clerics in that regard. There is this little tidbit in the magic armor section:
"Armor is always created so that if the type of armor comes with a pair of boots, a helm, or a set of gauntlets, these pieces can be switched for other magic boots, helms, or gauntlets."
So, in theory, you could switch out the gauntlets without affecting your armor at all. Another question, does having gauntlets on prevent you from using the magic item Hands slot?
I'll disagree on both counts.
First, the AC associated with any particular armor type would seem to be dependent on wearing all of the armor. How could you take off pieces of armor that make up part of your protection and expect the same level of protection?
Well, magic armor is covered by this line under magic armor:
" "Armor is always created so that if the type of armor comes with a pair of boots, a helm, or a set of gauntlets, these pieces can be switched for other magic boots, helms, or gauntlets.""Second, clerics aren't proficient with shields as weapons, only as armor. There have been previous threads on that, and it was answered decisively by Paizo staff. So shield bash would require burning a feat on a martial weapon proficiency.
You are definitely correct here.
And third, who's trying to twist the rules? We all seem to agree that casting spells in gauntlets works fine. The rules state outright that wearing spiked gauntlets counts as being armed. The only issue is what to do about held charges.
And frankly, the clarification that I could take an AoO specifically to try to discharge the spell works fine for me. I'm perfectly happy doing that instead of using the spikes on the gauntlets for AoOs when that situation comes up, since that will usually be the more powerful attack, and easier to hit on touch AC.
I just want to make sure that's all legal, and I have the evidence to back it up if a GM asks, since it's for PFS, where I'll be playing with different GMs every time.
Wearing non-spiked normal gauntlets counts as being armed as well. Yes, you can make the AoO with the touch attack instead of whatever other weapons you threaten with at the time. If you had IUS you could do an unarmed strike which would deal its damage AND deliver the spell(albeit vs normal AC not touch AC).
"If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge."|
|
You're more likely to get a FAQ response if there is a single, concise question in the post. A long preamble followed by five questions is probably just going to get tossed out of the FAQ queue instead of addressed. I suggest making a new thread with a carefully-worded question.
Probably true. Can we all agree on what question should be asked?
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Does wearing a gauntlet interfere with casting and delivering melee touch spells with that hand, or prevent holding the charge if the initial touch fails to connect with the target?"
Probably true. Can we all agree on what question should be asked?
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Does wearing a gauntlet interfere with casting and delivering melee touch spells with that hand, or prevent holding the charge if the initial touch fails to connect with the target?"
Could we include spiked gauntlet as well? That's the one people will continue to argue about if it isn't addressed.
|
|
You're more likely to get a FAQ response if there is a single, concise question in the post. A long preamble followed by five questions is probably just going to get tossed out of the FAQ queue instead of addressed. I suggest making a new thread with a carefully-worded question.Probably true. Can we all agree on what question should be asked?
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Does wearing a gauntlet interfere with casting and delivering melee touch spells with that hand, or prevent holding the charge if the initial touch fails to connect with the target?"
Spiked gauntlets (or gauntlets as a light weapon) should probably be explicitly mentioned. We don't don't want confusion over the role being played by the gauntlets.
I don't know of anybody who has an issue with delivering touch attacks while using the gauntlets that come with your armor or while using hand slot magic items.
The contention comes when the gauntlet is being used as a light weapon.
Which all means we're getting into dangerous gray areas. Dangerous because one DM might allow it and another DM might disallow it.
The gray area is that holding a weapon discharges held touches, gauntlets are weapons so they should discharge held touches, but clerics are automatically proficient in armors that include gauntlets and assumed to be able to use touch spells just fine in their proficient armor without having specific text to allow it (like the magus Spellstrike text).
The error in there, if there is one, is the word "assumed". That's where a lawyer would pick this apart.
The first part is given, holding a weapon discharges held touches. The second part is given, that gauntlets are errata'd to be light weapons. Those two givens, put together, create a derived given that gauntlets discharge held touches. All given.
Then we get to an assumption that clerics should be able to make unrestricted touch spells wearing gauntlets. Maybe this is untrue. Maybe nobody ever intended for this to be allowed. The rest of the givens clearly disallow this. Without a FAQ or Errata to allow it, it would seem that we've been operating on a faulty assumption and that we should correct this fault.
Note that this only affects held charges of Touch spells as they're the only thing "discharged" by touching a weapon (etc.) so the initial touch when casting a spell is unaffected here. So for example, a cleric in gauntlets could still cast Cure Light Wounds and touch his ally just fine.
So, by RAW, are clerics required to take off at least one of their gauntlets if they want to hold a charge?
It seems so.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we all agree on what question should be asked?
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Does wearing a gauntlet interfere with casting and delivering melee touch spells with that hand, or prevent holding the charge if the initial touch fails to connect with the target?"
How about:
"Does wearing a glove-like weapon (such as a gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, cestus, etc) count as 'touching' for purposes of accidentally discharging a held touch spell?"
|
|
Can we all agree on what question should be asked?
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Does wearing a gauntlet interfere with casting and delivering melee touch spells with that hand, or prevent holding the charge if the initial touch fails to connect with the target?"
How about:
"Does wearing a glove-like weapon (such as a gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, cestus, etc) count as 'touching' for purposes of accidentally discharging a held touch spell?"
Post that question and I will click for a FAQ request.
He did post it. A question doesn't have to be the OP to get a FAQ response.
|
|
Wearing clothes, even gloves, does not discharge a held touch spell. Nor does wearing armour, even gauntlets. Nor does wearing jewellery, even rings.
Most weapons are held, but some are worn. A held weapon will discharge a held touch spell (unless you have Spellstrike), but a worn weapon will not.
If you are wearing a spiked gauntlet but miss your attack, the charge is held. You threaten with both the spell and the spiked gauntlets. If you take an AoO, you can take it with any weapon with which you threaten the target.
You may use a touch attack (even with the hand wearing the spiked gauntlet) as your AoO to discharge your held spell, without doing weapon damage. You may also attack with your spiked gauntlet (against a presumably higher AC) to do normal damage, and the spell will also be discharged if you hit, whether you like it or not.
You may use a touch attack (even with the hand wearing the spiked gauntlet) as your AoO to discharge your held spell, without doing weapon damage. You may also attack with your spiked gauntlet (against a presumably higher AC) to do normal damage, and the spell will also be discharged if you hit, whether you like it or not.
This is the only part I disagree with.
""Only unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks can deliver a touch spell and do damage (except for spellstrike).
|
|
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
This, combined with:-
If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
...means your armed attack with the spiked gauntlet also discharges the spell, like it or not.
This next part:-
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack.
This applies to unarmed/natural attacks, not to armed attacks like a spiked gauntlet.
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.This, combined with:-
If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges....means your armed attack with the spiked gauntlet also discharges the spell, like it or not.
You are allowed to make touch attacks. Those do not get the bonus damage of the spiked gauntlet, and are resolved against touch AC.
If you make a weapon attack, you did not touch them, the weapon did. Therefore, you did not deliver the touch spell.
Exceptions are made only for unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and spellstrike.
|
|
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.This, combined with:-
If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges....means your armed attack with the spiked gauntlet also discharges the spell, like it or not.You are allowed to make touch attacks. Those do not get the bonus damage of the spiked gauntlet, and are resolved against touch AC.
If you make a weapon attack, you did not touch them, the weapon did. Therefore, you did not deliver the touch spell.
Exceptions are made only for unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and spellstrike.
You don't need to make skin-to-skin contact in order to affect an opponent with a touch spell. You could both be wearing full plate and your worn armour will not stop the spell from discharging. Even touch AC does not include armour!
If you punch someone in the face (even if they wear a full helm) with your spiked gauntlet, you have fulfilled the condition:-
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
The section on unarmed/natural attacks is not about limiting your armed attacks from discharging a spell, but making clear that a non-touch attack doesn't count as armed (unless it would anyway), even though a touch spell counts as armed. The spell won't turn a non-armed attack into an armed attack.
The problem with your interpretation is that if you can discharge a spell through a spiked gauntlet while attacking with it, then what is stopping you from discharging it through, say, a punching dagger? The rules as they are written do not allow discharging a spell through a weapon which a gauntlet/spiked gauntlet is. This is what spawned the FAQ request further up the thread.
|
|
The problem with your interpretation is that if you can discharge a spell through a spiked gauntlet while attacking with it, then what is stopping you from discharging it through, say, a punching dagger? The rules as they are written do not allow discharging a spell through a weapon which a gauntlet/spiked gauntlet is. This is what spawned the FAQ request further up the thread.
The answer to this is that wearing something (like a gauntlet-spiked or not) doesn't discharge a spell, but holding something (like a held-as opposed to a worn-weapon) does.
So (not including Spellstrike) it's not that a touch spell can't be discharged through a weapon, but the act of holding a weapon discharges the spell before you get a chance to attack with it. A problem neatly rendered moot by wearing a weapon instead of holding it.
The answer to this is that wearing something (like a gauntlet-spiked or not) doesn't discharge a spell, but holding something (like a held-as opposed to a worn-weapon) does.
So (not including Spellstrike) it's not that a touch spell can't be discharged through a weapon, but the act of holding a weapon discharges the spell before you get a chance to attack with it. A problem neatly rendered moot by wearing a weapon instead of holding it.
"If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge."
There is no text which states the spell discharges if you hit with a weapon attack. Only if you make a unarmed/natural attack or a touch attack. You can interpret it just as easily that you touched your gauntlet and the spell discharges into the gauntlet instead, therefore, you have to take gauntlets off to deliver touch attacks. That is why we requested the FAQ. Lets agree to disagree until the FAQ request is answered.
|
|
'Agree to disagree'....hmmmm....
From what I understand about your interpretation, it seems that you feel that it is impossible to cast a touch spell while wearing gloves or gauntlets.
I feel that the wearing of gloves or gauntlets does not interfere with touch spells, nor with holding a charge. Touching someone or something discharges the held spell (like it or not), with the exception of items that the caster wears.
If I can touch someone while wearing a gauntlet (spiked or not) and discharge the spell, then if I touch them really hard the spell is still going to discharge.
Have I understood your position correctly?
|
I would rule that yes, you can hold the charge while wearing a (spiked) gauntlet, as well as gloves, or other worn items. If you rule that the gauntlet (including spiked) would discharge the spell, than that opens a huge can of worms in relation to thing like a Paladin's Lay on Hands ability, (similar enough of an issue to the Cleric's). For the most part, you could go even further down that path and say that because the caster with the held spell is automatically touching air, it gets discharged, which is obviously ridiculous, but a literal interpretation of what it says, and was probably intended to mean more along the lines of drawing a weapon while holding the spell, issues with being Grappled, and accidentally hitting say an invisible creature rather than your intended target.
As far as the spell strike-like attack, I would go with the 3.5 ruling, that the gauntlet (and a few similar "worn" weapons that work like/with unarmed strikes) can be used with a touch attack spell. Both in that you can be equipped with the gauntlet and still make a normal touch attack, or that you can instead make a (not touch attack) strike with the gauntlet, and if it hits normal AC, deals the normal gauntlet damage and discharges the spell. A miss means nothing, but you still are holding the charge. The downsides to it, in my opinion, are much worse than the benefits.
A.) it's not a touch attack, so your trading a lot worse chance to hit for 1-3+str damage.
B.) on a crit, it is the Guantlet, NOT the spell that gets multiplied. Also regardless of any special bonuses the spell might offer, you will use the gauntlet's crit range and multiplier.
C.) any special bonuses from the spell, such as Shocking Grasp's bonus to hit against metal armor, do not apply.
D.) the damage types for the spell and the gauntlet strike are separate, for purposes like DR, Energy Resistance, and SR, so you are much more likely to not even really do damage in the end. The touch attack spell wouldn't need to worry about being either magic or a special material for DR, for example, or an alignment.
E.) add to that the cost for needing to purchase a magical guantlet likely as a secondary main weapon, in addition to another magic weapon and also magical armor for it to really be viable, and it's just not that great an idea. Even though your obviously a caster that can cast greater Magic Weapon, that doesn't really help you at all with how Pathfinder made those spells work against DR.
Your really not getting nearly the benefit as you would from spell strike/storing like items, but have a lot of downsides, so I really don't see a reason to move away from the earlier ruling, including not really having any true change in the base rules, as others have mentioned.
|
|
Shocking Grasp: Do I get the +3 on the attack roll if I'm delivering the spell with something other than a touch attack, such as a natural weapon?
Yes. The +3 bonus is not dependent on using a melee touch attack to deliver the jolt. For example, a magus using spellstrike to deliver shocking grasp through his weapon would get the +3 bonus on the attack roll.—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/10/13
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's also my understanding that SKR's ruling on Brass Knuckles/Unarmed Strikes/etc. . . was officially overturned with the Ult Equipement coming out and NO including his opinion on the items. Being the most recent ruling, wouldn't Ult Equipment be correct, (unless I missed a more recent errata on it)?
In Ultimate Equipment, all of the "worn" weapons (brass knuckles, cestus, gauntlet, spiked gauntlet) are listed as light melee weapons rather than under the "unarmed strikes" section of the table (where some of them appeared in other books).
On the other hand, the text for everything but the spiked gauntlet still references unarmed strikes. So, blech.
|
|
'Agree to disagree'....hmmmm....
From what I understand about your interpretation, it seems that you feel that it is impossible to cast a touch spell while wearing gloves or gauntlets.
I feel that the wearing of gloves or gauntlets does not interfere with touch spells, nor with holding a charge. Touching someone or something discharges the held spell (like it or not), with the exception of items that the caster wears.
If I can touch someone while wearing a gauntlet (spiked or not) and discharge the spell, then if I touch them really hard the spell is still going to discharge.
Have I understood your position correctly?
The position is, if you are touching anything with your hand, your held charge discharges into the item.
This is made very explicit for weapons, where spellstrike provides the specific ability to touch a weapon without discharging spells cast from the magi's spell list.
Spiked gauntlets, held or worn, are classified as light weapons and are touching the caster's hand.
'Agree to disagree'....hmmmm....
From what I understand about your interpretation, it seems that you feel that it is impossible to cast a touch spell while wearing gloves or gauntlets.
I feel that the wearing of gloves or gauntlets does not interfere with touch spells, nor with holding a charge. Touching someone or something discharges the held spell (like it or not), with the exception of items that the caster wears.
If I can touch someone while wearing a gauntlet (spiked or not) and discharge the spell, then if I touch them really hard the spell is still going to discharge.
Have I understood your position correctly?
My position:
- If you have a weapon in hand, available for use, you cannot use that hand to deliver touch spells.
- Gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cestus, brass knuckles, and all other "unarmed" weapons were errataed to be considered light weapons.
- Because all of those are light weapons, if you have one on a hand, that hand cannot be used to hold a touch spell, as it will discharge into the weapon.
- Gloves are not weapons, and do not interfere with casting or delivery of a touch spell (unless they specifically state so).
How do I run it in my games? You can cast and deliver with gauntlets on, no problem. If you punch with the gauntlet, you do not get to deliver the spell. If you make a touch attack, you get to deliver the spell. If you make an unarmed or natural attack, you get deal attack damage and deliver the spell.
|
|
It's also my understanding that SKR's ruling on Brass Knuckles/Unarmed Strikes/etc. . . was officially overturned with the Ult Equipement coming out and NO including his opinion on the items. Being the most recent ruling, wouldn't Ult Equipment be correct, (unless I missed a more recent errata on it)?In Ultimate Equipment, all of the "worn" weapons (brass knuckles, cestus, gauntlet, spiked gauntlet) are listed as light melee weapons rather than under the "unarmed strikes" section of the table (where some of them appeared in other books).
On the other hand, the text for everything but the spiked gauntlet still references unarmed strikes. So, blech.
In the Core book, Guantlet and Unarmed Strike, (which itself is considered a Light Simple Weapon) are listed under Simple Weapons, (not Simple Unarmed Strike Weapons). So my understanding of SKR's ruling was not what types of weapons they where, but specifically that the worked with Unarmed Strike. So for example a Monk could buy a +2 Flaming Cold Iron Brass Knuckles, and use it to deal Monk's Unarmed Strike Damage, +2, +1d6 Fire, and overcome DR/ Cold Iron, rather than SKR's view that you could either do Monk's Unarmed Strike or the magic/fire/cold iron damage, but not both at the same time. Essentially said monk would be choosing between either wielding their fist or wielding the Brass Knuckles, and totally making the Brass Knuckles pointless as an item in all ways.
The other issue is that it was clarified that to deliver a touch attack, (and slightly off topic to a point an Unarmed Strike) you don't actually have to use your hand to do so. Granted this was an online ruling from probably years ago, but it was basically stated that the Paladin needs the free hand to activate the ability (Lay on Hands), such as by grasping their holy symbol, but essentially any contact with anything else would discharge the effect.
|
|
*If you have a weapon in hand, available for use, you cannot use that hand to deliver touch spells.
Paizo has also ruled that <a Cleric> using a Light Shield can use the shield hand to make touch attacks as well as the casting tactic of switching weapon to shield hand, cast spell, switch weapon back to other hand.
Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
On the other hand, that does seem to contradict both points of view. :)
Side issue (a bit):
a gauntlet ... wasn't a "weapon" and only make your unarmed strike count as armed.
...
Wearing non-spiked normal gauntlets counts as being armed as well.
These statements are not correct. Gauntlets make you deal lethal damage, not count as armed. {Been running this wrong until quite recently myself}.
Works for punching skeletons, not for avoiding AoOs.
On topic:
Is there anything that specifically says you can cast while wearing a spiked gauntlet? Gauntlets, I agree, no problem.
Artanthos: If I recall, Spellstrike was specifically clarified to not discharge a held-charge into a weapon, and particularly even when dropped and picked up. I do not believe it called this out as exceptions, particularly not in the case of discharging into an *already-held* weapon.
*If you have a weapon in hand, available for use, you cannot use that hand to deliver touch spells.Paizo has also ruled that <a Cleric> using a Light Shield can use the shield hand to make touch attacks as well as the casting tactic of switching weapon to shield hand, cast spell, switch weapon back to other hand.
Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
On the other hand, that does seem to contradict both points of view. :)
Unless you are trying to shield bash and make a touch attack with the shield in the same round, I have no problem with allowing someone to "let go" of the shield to make a touch then regrip afterwards. If they touch attack missed, they would lose their shield AC unless they wanted to regrip (which would discharge the spell into the shield).