| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your not missing anything. If you have a claw attack wearing a gauntlet doesn't negate that. You can also wear shoes if you have hooves! Just pretend everything is tailor made for you and it makes more sense. Its not a bad thing at all.
Well, assuming you bought it yourself/ custom ordered it/ got it off someone like you,/it's magical, then ya you would be able to use it and the rest of you body to its fullest.
(Though you have to choose between using claw damage or weapon/gauntlet damage)
If my players find a new set of armor and want to wear it, or if they want to buy new armor, I would inform them that the gauntlets prevent claw attacks, but that any blacksmith can modify the gauntlets, remove the gauntlet fingertips to let the claws stick out of the gauntlets, for a very small fee, say, 1/20th the price of the armor.
The character's starting armor would already have this modification at no charge.
Also, really, there is no rule that says they cannot just take the gauntlets off and leave them off. Unless you're playing with called shots or other similar houserules, there is no RAW game mechanic that penalizes them for leaving their hands/claws gauntlet-free.
So, common sense says, if you have a claw attack and are wearing a gauntlet (apparently included in all medium armor except the breastplate, and all heavy armor) that you would lose the claw attack and substitute the gauntlet's stats instead.
But I don't see anything stating that, either in armor/weapon descriptions, or in natural attacks.
Is this just something that has been overlooked? Or it is just assumed common sense will prevail? Or... am I missing something?
Because common sense would also say that any race that uses claw attacks would learn ways of wearing armor that didn't interfere with their claws?
Most kinds of plate gauntlets only protect the back of the hand, not the palm and are open at the fingertips, as well.
Chain gauntlets suck and offer scarce protection, so see above for plate gauntlets.
Chain gauntlets suck and offer scarce protection, so see above for plate gauntlets.
Care to elaborate on that?
Most that I've seen are like mittens with the thumb left exposed or glove like with thumb exposed. Seems like it would protect decently well against slashing weapons without interferring with finer movements too much.
Chain gauntlets suck and offer scarce protection, so see above for plate gauntlets.Care to elaborate on that?
Most that I've seen are like mittens with the thumb left exposed or glove like with thumb exposed. Seems like it would protect decently well against slashing weapons without interferring with finer movements too much.
They MIGHT protect against a dagger or similar. But any hit by something heavier (like a sword) would just break your fingers instead of cutting them off. Which doesn't really matter a lot during a fight. No fingers or broken fingers is more or less the same.
Disclaimer: I'm looking at this from the HMB (historic medieval battle) point of view. And no one taking part in those full contact swordsmanship tournaments would even think about fighting with anything less than plate gauntlets I guess.
My train of thought is that you're (hopefully) moving your hands enough that no one is going to land a solid blow from something that large on your hands, and more worried about an accidental glancing blow hitting your hand. Of course, I have no formal knowledge about medieval combat of any sort and this is just my guessing, which is why I asked.
I do agree, that broken fingers or cut off fingers are probably almost equally determental during a battle, save that you might be able to retreat and have your fingers fixed if they're only broken.