|
So... Honest question:
A Titan Mauler Barbarian in my group is using a glaive(a reach weapon), and a spiked gauntlet. He's been using the spiked gauntlet whenever people get too close for the reach weapon, and, because he's enlarged most of the time, uses his spiked gauntlet for AoO's (when conditions are right).
He just bought some magical spike gauntlets with the Furious and Courageous enchantments. With Greater Magic Weapon thrown into the mix, he essentially has +4 Furious Courageous spiked gauntlets, which becomes a +6 weapon while he's raging. With Courageous, he gets an extra 3 strength, constitution, will saves, and +3 to any other moral bonus gained, such as bless (which my familiar casts from a wand every fight, giving him +4 to attack rolls). It's really good, but it seems to be too good to be gaining the benefits of a weapon's enchantments that he doesn't use all that often, freeing up enchantment space on his main weapon.
Some of the other players think that it's against the rules, so the GM said he'd look into it. He's asked me to ask here if it's legal. So, here are the questions:
Do you need to be wielding a weapon to gain it's enchantments? (I'm pretty sure SKR said 'yes' to this, can't find it though)
How much do you need to be wielding a weapon to gain those benefits?
(If a normal sword had these enchantments and the wielder ran away, would he lose the benefits?)
Thanks guys!
|
The example that best fits is the defending weapon property. According to the FAQ you must actually attack with the weapon to gain the defensive abilities it grants, you can't just hold say a defending dagger in your off-hand.
Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.
--Schoolhouse Vrock
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He wields a glaive, which is a two-handed weapon. When he is wielding the glaive, both hands are being used, and so he is not wielding the spiked gauntlet. It is a free action to place or remove a hand from the glaive, and so change from wielding to not wielding it. The important part here is that a free action needs to be taken on your own turn, so you set yourself at the end of the turn as to which you are wielding. You don't have the glaive's reach if you are wielding the gauntlet, and you don't have the gauntlet's enchantments if you are wielding the glaive.
|
|
This is where the arguement came in, because he -is- attacking with the spiked gauntlet, occasionally, and since he's a titan mauler he -can- weild both the gauntlet and the glaive at the same time. In fact, at the end of every round, he makes it a point to say that he takes a hand off the glaive. He takes a -2 to attack rolls, but he threatens everything out to 20ft with either the glaive or the spiked gauntlet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The example that best fits is the defending weapon property. According to the FAQ you must actually attack with the weapon to gain the defensive abilities it grants, you can't just hold say a defending dagger in your off-hand.
Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.--Schoolhouse Vrock
Thanks for pointing me to what I thought was an SKR quote, I knew there was something somewhere, and that pretty much clears up the issue I think.
I'd like to add that the Defending property is not much of an honest, RAW precedent, given that there had to be a FAQ written to convey the proper intent of the ability. There are similar abilities with the same exact language, and these same abilities have the same flaw as the Defending property's RAW. The Defending property is a poor example to use for a precedent rule because of this.
In addition, I'd like to point out that the FAQ refers specifically to the Defending property requiring making attacks; not all properties are required to make attack rolls to function, and given the associated properties have little to no similarities with the Defending property, it's not in the rules to restrict it.
That being said, let's take a look at the properties themselves and see what they have to say:
This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon.
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).
As far as I can tell, the Courageous property doesn't have any language to support requiring attack rolls to function. As long as it's wielded (for the case of the Spiked Gauntlet, if it's equipped onto his hand), it grants the listed benefit. No attack rolls are required to add these benefits, meaning they should still function regardless.
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
A furious weapon serves as a focus for its wielder's anger. When the wielder is raging or under the effect of a rage spell, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than normal. If the wielder has a rage power that gives a skill bonus while raging (such as raging climber, raging leaper, or raging swimmer), the wielder gains an enhancement bonus to that skill whenever the weapon is wielded or held in her hand, even when she is not raging. This bonus is equal to the enhancement bonus of the weapon (and also includes the +2 if the wielder is raging.)
Again, no attack rolls required here. The only requisite for this ability to function is if it's A. placed on a melee weapon, B. the melee weapon is equipped and being wielded, and C. the wielder is raging (or under the effects of rage). Is a Spiked Gauntlet a melee weapon? Yes. It is equipped and being wielded (in this case, worn)? Yes. Is the wielder (or can the wielder start) raging? Yes. Ergo, this property works.
So by the RAW, your combination of properties works, and feel free to use it.
That being said, a lot of people are going to call it cheese, dismiss it as a method of metagaming/cheating the system, and ban you from their games for trying to make a semi-useless item only good for martial characters into something valuable, freeing up space for your main weapon, because it's not a spellcaster, or something usable by a spellcaster, the only nice things allowed in Pathfinder.
There has been some weirdness over the years about how these sorts of weapon properties work. In short, though, I would say that, in the end, defending works one way (requires attacks), while properties like menacing, courageous, and furious work differently (doesn't require attacks), after considering all the weirdness that would occur if the wielder had to attack with them.
Now here's a puzzler: How does bane interact with courageous when used by a barbarian?
-Matt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With courageous he still needs to make an attack with the weapon to gain the bonuses.
How does that work with Rage, Vrock? Do the barbarian's hit points, saves, etc. bounce up and down based on whether he is attacking? If so, when exactly does the barbarian stop attacking?
See the weirdness?
-Matt
Only the furious ability could be used when not making attacks because it specifically states how it works for skills affected by rage powers, but that's an example of the specific trumping general rule.
With courageous he still needs to make an attack with the weapon to gain the bonuses.
I want to bold this part, as according to your interpretation, only those skills are affected while raging, and nothing else. If he's not making attacks, his weapon actually functions as 2 enhancement bonus less, meaning it's actually even less durable when he's not swinging away. It doesn't really make much sense to require attack rolls for these effects to work, since they are predicated on him raging, not on him making attacks.
And on what grounds are attack rolls required for the Courageous property, other than your fear of martials actually having nice things for a change? It's not like the Defending property, where he has to allocate enhancement bonuses for the round, or that the effects take place only when he uses the weapon (to attack).
Let's take another property. Just about any property would do. What about the Defiant property in comparison to, say, the Guardian property?
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A defiant weapon helps its wielder stay alive in desperate conditions. It stays in its wielder's hand even if she is panicked, stunned, or unconscious. She adds the weapon's enhancement bonus as a bonus on checks to stabilize when dying and on saving throws to end ongoing conditions such as disease, poison, and hold person. If the wielder possesses Heroic Defiance, Heroic Recovery, Improved Great Fortitude, Improved Iron Will, or Improved Lightning Reflexes, she gains a number of additional daily uses equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus that can be used on any of these feats.
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A guardian weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his saving throws as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon. The bonus on saving throws lasts until his next turn. Only the weapon's own enhancement bonus can be sacrificed, not any enhancement bonus provided by other effects such as a greater magic weapon spell. However, the total of such effects is still diminished by the amount allocated to improving saving throws.
Notice the bolded part for the Guardian property, and how it has that same exact language for the Defending property. This phrase is clarified in the FAQ, meaning using a weapon requires attack rolls to be made. It's also important that I point out that the properties we are discussing about do not have that clause, ergo there is no attack roll requirements for utilizing their benefits.
Heres the thing, When you wield a weapon you threaten with it (thats the simplest definition i can use) When the PC is wielding the glaive the spiked gauntlets do not threaten, ergo he is not wielding them.
Or how about this as a distinction. He is wearing gloves with spikes on them and the spikes are enchanted. He is not wearing a wonderous item that provides its bonuses all the time.
Basically if hes wielding the glaive the gauntlets do not function unless he is using them.
However, i agree no attack roll is required.
Sorry a better analogy came up. When he attcks witht he glaive (and i do not mean holds it but is actually trying to kill something with it) how can he recieve the benefits of the spiked gauntlets.
Straight out as far as the game rules are concerned he cannot wield two weapons in the same attack roll short of a special power.
Heres the thing, When you wield a weapon you threaten with it (thats the simplest definition i can use) When the PC is wielding the glaive the spiked gauntlets do not threaten, ergo he is not wielding them.
Or how about this as a distinction. He is wearing gloves with spikes on them and the spikes are enchanted. He is not wearing a wonderous item that provides its bonuses all the time.
Basically if hes wielding the glaive the gauntlets do not function unless he is using them.
However, i agree no attack roll is required.
Sorry a better analogy came up. When he attcks witht he glaive (and i do not mean holds it but is actually trying to kill something with it) how can he recieve the benefits of the spiked gauntlets.
Straight out as far as the game rules are concerned he cannot wield two weapons in the same attack roll short of a special power.
But Gauntlets aren't like any typical weapons, where they are held in hand and stuck with like a standard object. They're designed to fit the pattern of a hand, and worn. Every other sort of weapon doesn't work that way, shields especially.
As far as I know, you can remove spikes from Armor or a Shield, but not a Gauntlet. If it's a Spiked Gauntlet, it's a spiked gauntlet, no questions asked. Regular Gauntlet costs 2 GP, Spiked Gauntlet costs 5 GP. Most removable/additional subjects have a special or +X GP, whereas these Gauntlets do not have that distinction.
Even so, he's still wearing the gauntlet, and he can still use the gauntlet to make attacks; he doesn't have to threaten to wield a weapon. By this logic, a person who is grappled can't ever be considered wielding a weapon because they do not threaten when grappled. I could even then argue that since it's a gauntlet that fits his hands, and not a weapon that he holds in his hands, its effects would take place regardless of that matter.
Heres the thing, When you wield a weapon you threaten with it (thats the simplest definition i can use) When the PC is wielding the glaive the spiked gauntlets do not threaten, ergo he is not wielding them.
Or how about this as a distinction. He is wearing gloves with spikes on them and the spikes are enchanted. He is not wearing a wonderous item that provides its bonuses all the time.
Basically if hes wielding the glaive the gauntlets do not function unless he is using them.
However, i agree no attack roll is required.
Sorry a better analogy came up. When he attcks witht he glaive (and i do not mean holds it but is actually trying to kill something with it) how can he recieve the benefits of the spiked gauntlets.
Straight out as far as the game rules are concerned he cannot wield two weapons in the same attack roll short of a special power.
But Gauntlets aren't like any typical weapons, where they are held in hand and stuck with like a standard object. They're designed to fit the pattern of a hand, and worn. Every other sort of weapon doesn't work that way, shields especially.
As far as I know, you can remove spikes from Armor or a Shield, but not a Gauntlet. If it's a Spiked Gauntlet, it's a spiked gauntlet, no questions asked. Regular Gauntlet costs 2 GP, Spiked Gauntlet costs 5 GP. Most removable/additional subjects have a special or +X GP, whereas these Gauntlets do not have that distinction.
Even so, he's still wearing the gauntlet, and he can still use the gauntlet to make attacks; he doesn't have to threaten to wield a weapon. By this logic, a person who is grappled can't ever be considered wielding a weapon because they do not threaten when grappled. I could even then argue that since it's a gauntlet that fits his hands, and not a weapon that he holds in his hands, its effects would take place regardless of that matter.
The game is really specific on how and when weapon bonuses are applied. Gauntlets can be worn but not wielded. When he is attacking with the glaive he is in no position to apply the gauntlets in any sense the game applies to wielding. He can free action after te attack and 'wield the gauntlets' but when the Glaive is being wielded he does not threaten with the gauntlets and cannot use them in /any/ way that the game considers a weapon to be ready to use.
Try this, figure out what he paid for the gauntlets, then see what the game says they would cost as an 'always on' magic item' you'll find his costs just skyrocketed.
Heres the thing, When you wield a weapon you threaten with it (thats the simplest definition i can use) When the PC is wielding the glaive the spiked gauntlets do not threaten, ergo he is not wielding them.
He's a Titan Mauler. He's wielding the Glaive in one hand and the gauntlet in the other. He's threatening with both.
If he had two weapon fighting (or just by using his last iterative attack) he could be attacking with both in the same round.
When it isn't his turn he's threatening at reach with the glaive and adjacent with the gauntlet.
Also, Furious and Courageous don't seem to need attack rolls to function anyway.
|
This is where the arguement came in, because he -is- attacking with the spiked gauntlet, occasionally, and since he's a titan mauler he -can- weild both the gauntlet and the glaive at the same time. In fact, at the end of every round, he makes it a point to say that he takes a hand off the glaive. He takes a -2 to attack rolls, but he threatens everything out to 20ft with either the glaive or the spiked gauntlet.
Very simple check:
He has attacked with the gauntlet during this turn? The gauntlet power is on as he is wielding it for this turn.He hasn't? He is not wielding it.
Basis for that:
Lacking a specific game definition of the two words, you fall back on the English definition of the words.
wield: to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
hold: to have or keep in the hand; keep fast; grasp: She held the purse in her right hand. He held the child's hand in his.
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.
Note that this will create a yo yo effect. Wielding/not wielding would reset at the start of each turn, so the character bonuses would change at the start of each turn.
The best homerule for that is to let the character benefit for the weapon bonus until he make the first attack, but keeping a tally of what happens in his turn before he attack. If he chose to attack first with the glaive the curageus bonus will disappear retroactively, and that could man that the character will lose some bonus to his saving throws and constitutions and possibly other bonuses, depending on his abilities. Taht can make him fail some saving throw retroactively.With courageous he still needs to make an attack with the weapon to gain the bonuses.How does that work with Rage, Vrock? Do the barbarian's hit points, saves, etc. bounce up and down based on whether he is attacking? If so, when exactly does the barbarian stop attacking?
See the weirdness?
-Matt
It is unwieldy but that is exactly how it work.
[weak pun intended]
Heres the thing, When you wield a weapon you threaten with it (thats the simplest definition i can use) When the PC is wielding the glaive the spiked gauntlets do not threaten, ergo he is not wielding them.He's a Titan Mauler. He's wielding the Glaive in one hand and the gauntlet in the other. He's threatening with both.
If he had two weapon fighting (or just by using his last iterative attack) he could be attacking with both in the same round.
When it isn't his turn he's threatening at reach with the glaive and adjacent with the gauntlet.
Also, Furious and Courageous don't seem to need attack rolls to function anyway.
I missed the wielding in 1 hand thing. And i fully agree they dont need attack rolls. The weapon just has to be wielded.
IF he uses 2 hands to wield he glaive then the gauntlet is no longer beng wielded. But if the Glaive is wielded 1 handed then it should all work.
Basically im saying as long as he threatens with the gauntlets the whole combo works in any situation where the gauntlets no longer threaten it doesnt.
|
|
Only the furious ability could be used when not making attacks because it specifically states how it works for skills affected by rage powers, but that's an example of the specific trumping general rule.
With courageous he still needs to make an attack with the weapon to gain the bonuses.
I want to bold this part, as according to your interpretation, only those skills are affected while raging, and nothing else. If he's not making attacks, his weapon actually functions as 2 enhancement bonus less, meaning it's actually even less durable when he's not swinging away. It doesn't really make much sense to require attack rolls for these effects to work, since they are predicated on him raging, not on him making attacks.
And on what grounds are attack rolls required for the Courageous property, other than your fear of martials actually having nice things for a change? It's not like the Defending property, where he has to allocate enhancement bonuses for the round, or that the effects take place only when he uses the weapon (to attack).
Let's take another property. Just about any property would do. What about the Defiant property in comparison to, say, the Guardian property?
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A defiant weapon helps its wielder stay alive in desperate conditions. It stays in its wielder's hand even if she is panicked, stunned, or unconscious. She adds the weapon's enhancement bonus as a bonus on checks to stabilize when dying and on saving throws to end ongoing conditions such as disease, poison, and hold person. If the wielder possesses Heroic Defiance, Heroic Recovery, Improved Great Fortitude, Improved Iron Will, or Improved Lightning Reflexes, she gains a number of additional daily uses equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus that can be used on any of these feats.Notice the bolded part for the Guardian property, and how it has that same exact language for the Defending property. This phrase is clarified in the FAQ, meaning using a weapon requires attack rolls to be made. It's also important that I point out that the properties we are discussing about do not have that clause, ergo there is no attack roll requirements for utilizing their benefits.
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A guardian weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his saving throws as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon. The bonus on saving throws lasts until his next turn. Only the weapon's own enhancement bonus can be sacrificed, not any enhancement bonus provided by other effects such as a greater magic weapon spell. However, the total of such effects is still diminished by the amount allocated to improving saving throws.
Your "fear" derail is very nice. Not.
Actually that kind of problem has been replied by Sean speaking about bane.
When you are attacking a creature affected by the bane power of your weapon it has more hit point and it is more more durable.
As soon as you switch targets the hit point and hardness of the weapon drop to the normal levels,
In the right condition that could mean that your weapon could status can change from fine to broken or even destroyed.
About the defiant and guardian part: contributors not using the game terms in a consistent way is a problem, but we have a official statement on what wield mean, so if a rule use wield with a different meaning, like defiant, we should assume that it was used improperly and it mean hold in your hand instead of use.
BTW: "before using the weapon" don't mean that you have to use the weapon this turn, only that you should decide how you assign the weapon bonuses at the start of the turn, not after having attacked someone.
|
|
Gauntlets can be worn but not wielded.
You may want to re-word that. Gauntlets are weapons in the Core Rule Book.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have thought that you were wielding a weapon as long as you were in a position to make an attack of opportunity. If the rule is that you are only considered to be 'wielding' a weapon in the round you make an attack with it, you'd find it somewhat hard to make an attack of opportunity with a reach weapon, and perhaps with any weapon at all.
Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature.
So basically he needs to be wearing armor spikes instead of a spiked gauntlet because of silly shenanigans where people can't seem to grasp that you could totally spiked fist someone while holding onto something in that hand. Ever hear of a pommel strike? Well ix nay that and just punch them with your spiked gauntlet.
Shoulder checking with Armor Spikes is legit however and you can totally do that to threaten adjacent spaces while at the same time threatening with a reach weapon.
Really it's just thematics and I think the OP should just blow off the naysayers.
Spiked Gauntlets and Armor Spikes are awesome martial tools to always have a weapon at the ready.
You can see the "Martials can't have nice options in combat" ooze from people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by wielding (attacking with) it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action). A character can activate the special abilities of 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, assuming each piece has identical abilities.
I don't know what to think about this problem.
Basically, I had on my mind you couldn't use the weapon propriety of a gauntlet while using another weapon (example: Using the glaive 2-handed), but you gained it back just after the attack (because how could you use multiple magic thrown weapon if it wasn't?).
And, surprise (madafaka)! The CRB says nothing about weapon slots, so no problem about stacking 2 weapons in one hand.
So again we're left only with the "usually your enhancement works when you're attacking" from the PRD, and the FAQ about defending weapons. Not very satisfying.
Just one thing:
The "stop bashing X because you think martials can't have nice things" just infuriates me. It's not about the power of something or how we want something to work, it's about rules. Blame the devs if something isn't as good as it could/should, or better, ask them to make a better support for martial classes. It's a rule forum.
I really want some better stuff for rogues or martials. But it's not our responsibility to change how the rules work on the "by the book" level. You can houserule if you want, rules 0 is here for that.
Stop denying us the right of objectivity while we report a potential flaw in the rules. It's insulting.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
+4 Furious Courageous spiked gauntlets, which becomes a +6 weapon while he's raging. With Courageous, he gets an extra 3 strength, constitution, will saves, and +3 to any other moral bonus gained
How much do you need to be wielding a weapon to gain those benefits?
(If a normal sword had these enchantments and the wielder ran away, would he lose the benefits?)
Reading it to enhance the Rage is too good for a +1 (courageous), so you will find a lot of GMs that only allow the "save vs fear" bonuses. Also morale bonuses don't stack, so take the higher. Which basically means it needs to be +3 or greater and you have Bless on you to gain the "other sources" bonus.
As to your second question, holding it isn't good enough. If you didn't TWF with it, you don't get the benefit of it.
|
|
If you have a weapon in each hand (worn for gauntlet, each can be used one-handed by you) then you threaten with both, even if you've never made an attack with either!
I don't think greater magic weapon would stack with the Furious' 'enhancement bonus is +2 higher', because that +2 from Furious applies to the enhancement bonus of the weapon itself, not the GMW spell.
If you wanted to simplify it, rule that as long as he has someone in the 5' square close to him, he is threatening with the gauntlet, and gets the bonuses (at that point he's *wielding* the weapon). If there isn't anyone threatened by the gauntlets, he doesn't get the bonus (at that point he isn't wielding them, only wearing them).
Otherwise it seems fair that the gauntlets would need to be priced with the always on abilities listed, rather than pricing them as a weapon, if that hasn't already been done.
In this way you're not in the "martials can't have nice things" camp, because when the martial is doing his thing, he'd get the benefits of the item.
Gauntlets can be worn but not wielded.You may want to re-word that. Gauntlets are weapons in the Core Rule Book.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have thought that you were wielding a weapon as long as you were in a position to make an attack of opportunity. If the rule is that you are only considered to be 'wielding' a weapon in the round you make an attack with it, you'd find it somewhat hard to make an attack of opportunity with a reach weapon, and perhaps with any weapon at all.Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature.
Meh the worn but not wielded bit was intended to reference there are periods when they are just gloves and not a weapon. I was trying to stress that in my opinion when he is attacking with the glaive 2 handed at that point the spiked gauntlets are just gloves.
However, im re thinking some of this and really he may need to twf to get the benefits of the gauntlets.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even without ever two-weapon fighting, you can have a longsword in one hand and a short sword in the other, and attack with either at +6 and either at +1 (assuming BAB+6); you can mix and match any way you want, you constantly threaten with both (even if no-one is in your threatened area), and this is not two-weapon fighting.
In the OP's case, he's got a glaive in one hand and a spiked gauntlet in/on the other, but beyond that the situation is the same.
|
|
I guess this boils down to a more fundamental question:
A barbarian with an awesome +4 furious courageous greatsword is nearly out of hit points, even though he's raging and getting the bonus from his furious weapon, decides to withdraw. Does he lose the bonus from his sword?
If so, he will fall unconscience, losing his rage, instantly killing the PC. When he should he die? When he decided to make the move? Or at the start of his next turn?
|
|
Back to sanity.
'Wield' is not a defined game term. Sometimes it's used to mean 'attack with', sometimes it means simply 'hold', and sometimes it means something in between.
We have to use our thinky bits to work out which sense of the word applies in each situation. For the Courageous and Furious special abilities it means 'held', and for a spiked gauntlet (or other worn weapon) it means 'worn, but the hand wearing it can't be holding a different weapon'.
The barbarian isn't going to have varying hit points based on whether he's attacking or thinking about attacking in the near future. He either has it in hand (or worn) or he doesn't.
|
|
The barbarian isn't going to have varying hit pointsI agree for a completely different reason. He isn't getting a bonus to STR/CON from Courageous. ;-)
Unlike 3.5 where they are untyped, in PF Rage gives morale bonuses to Str and Con.
In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus
Therefore, in PF a raging barbarian holding a courageous weapon has the bonus to Str and Con from raging increased by half the courageous weapon's current enhancement bonus. So if he drops the weapon he no longer gets that increase from the courageous ability, his Con drops and so do his hit points.
|
|
in PF Rage gives morale bonuses to Str and Con.I understand why you say it works. I just am not convinced it works RAW. I see RAW referring to save vs fear moral bonuses only.
Plus there is absolutely no way they intended it to work that way.
Oh! You mean you think the Courageous special ability only increases morale bonuses to fear saves, and not to any other morale bonus!
This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon.
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).
So:-
•The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus.
• In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).
Since bonuses of the same type to the same thing don't stack, then the morale bonus to fear saves from clause one would not stack with morale bonuses to fear saves from any other source, so clause two increasing the latter still wouldn't stack, rendering either clause one or clause two moot.
The 'any other morale bonus' referred to in clause two cannot be a bonus to fear saves. It must be any morale bonus other than a bonus to fear saves....like the bonuses to Str and Con from Rage.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 'any other morale bonus' referred to in clause two cannot be a bonus to fear saves. It must be any morale bonus other than a bonus to fear saves....like the bonuses to Str and Con from Rage.
I get the whole "until it hits a FAQ or Errata I didn't hear it" concept. I do.
But it has been clarified to only refer to saves:
Herolab got a reply from Paizo
|
|
The 'any other morale bonus' referred to in clause two cannot be a bonus to fear saves. It must be any morale bonus other than a bonus to fear saves....like the bonuses to Str and Con from Rage.I get the whole "until it hits a FAQ or Errata I didn't hear it" concept. I do.
But it has been clarified to only refer to saves:
Herolab got a reply from Paizo
Okay, I never heard about any of that, but SKR's word on PF's own creation is good enough for me. I don't have Herolab. I stand corrected. : )
It still doesn't let the fear save bonus from the sword stack with any other morale bonus to fear saves, so clause two must refer to morale bonuses to saves that aren't versus fear. Seems pretty limited to me.
Not useless, but I wouldn't waste a +1 power on it when there is so much more with which to enchant your weapon. : /
The 'any other morale bonus' referred to in clause two cannot be a bonus to fear saves. It must be any morale bonus other than a bonus to fear saves....like the bonuses to Str and Con from Rage.I get the whole "until it hits a FAQ or Errata I didn't hear it" concept. I do.
But it has been clarified to only refer to saves:
Herolab got a reply from Paizo
Well, considering the example SKR gave is wrong, I don't see how that helps anything, unless my book and the D20PFSRD and the Paizo PRD are wrong on what type of bonus the Fighter's Bravery ability is, so I am going to go with it going onto morale bonuses and not just morale bonuses for Saves VS. Fear.
the example SKR gave is wrongHe gave no example, he just replied to the example and question presented by HL staff:
The second part should only affect morale bonuses to saves (fear or otherwise).
Ah, if it was HL's example, it is my mistake then, but it still doesn't change that the Fighter's Bravery ability would not be affected by the Courageous weapon property.
Just one thing:
The "stop bashing X because you think martials can't have nice things" just infuriates me. It's not about the power of something or how we want something to work, it's about rules. Blame the devs if something isn't as good as it could/should, or better, ask them to make a better support for martial classes. It's a rule forum.I really want some better stuff for rogues or martials. But it's not our responsibility to change how the rules work on the "by the book" level. You can houserule if you want, rules 0 is here for that.
Stop denying us the right of objectivity while we report a potential flaw in the rules. It's insulting.
Ah but the rules are vague enough that it could go either way.
The CRB itself tells us to use common sense. Common sense would tell you that having a weapon ready would let you threaten with it, even if having it ready means being able to make an unarmed strike with your foot, boot blade, armor spikes or spiked gauntlet. Reading the Furious enchantment, none of it is indicative of needing to use it to hit something, only needing to be raging.
Martials have been kicked in the nuts far too many times from FAQs thank you very much. I'm here to say "This stuff is really vague, but I think it should be ruled in the martial's favor."
The RAW isn't perfectly clear and the RAI is incredibly vague and clunky. It's high time we've had this spelled out instead of incredibly vague FAQs that just tell you that you can't TWF with a 2handed weapon and armor spikes(Another dumb FAQ) but nothing about whether or not you can threaten with both.
I don't give a damn about objectivity. I give a damn about whether or not these errata are making the game more or less fun.
Martials having more options in combat FAQ'd away = Less fun.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Our reading of this is that the second part is referring to other morale bonuses to save vs. fear – for example, a fighter’s Bravery ability –
That was written by HL staff.
Ah but the rules are vague enough that it could go either way.
If vague, it is always best to go with the more conservative reading of the text. In this case, that agrees with SKR.
If vague, it is always best to go with the more conservative reading of the text. In this case, that agrees with SKR.
"Always".
Hm. How nice for you.
SKR has made TONS of errors in his rules adjudication. I take his words with a grain of salt now.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
SKR has made TONS of errors in his rules
I've yet to see a single one.
In every case there is a situation like this:
A) Interpretation A makes the rule obnoxiously powerful and has strange corner cases (like +3 bonuses to Abilities).
and
B) Interpretation B is reasonable and isn't overly powerful.
I understand the want, no need, to read the rule in the most liberal (or awkward) way. It makes for more power. More fun. More crushing. But it doesn't mean the rules mean what you are interpreting.
The 'any other morale bonus' referred to in clause two cannot be a bonus to fear saves. It must be any morale bonus other than a bonus to fear saves....like the bonuses to Str and Con from Rage.I get the whole "until it hits a FAQ or Errata I didn't hear it" concept. I do.
But it has been clarified to only refer to saves:
Herolab got a reply from Paizo
It doesn't really make sense to say it that way, and their example is very poor, especially considering it doesn't apply. As far as I'm concerned, the intent behind it still isn't very clear, nor is it really acceptable. (Yes, I'm saying this because it's yet another nice thing martials have that Paizo is taking away.)
For the Fighter's Bravery feature to be applicable, it must be a Morale Bonus. Since it is not, it doesn't apply in the example. If it were to apply, it would have to include modifiers outside of Morale, which the RAW does not specify, nor does it specify that it only affects Saves V.S. Fear.
To that end, an Errata is required, and here's how it should be written to get their proper intent across:
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's braveryand moralein battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any other bonus on saving throws against fear effects is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).
Keep in mind that I believe simply not allowing it to affect all other Morale Bonuses, even though the weapon is supposed to, according to RAW, fortify the wielder's morale, goes against the entire point of it being an increase to your Morale, meaning you simply do better at everything. If it's not designed to increase other Morale bonuses, then don't say it's designed to increase Morale. That's like saying there's an effect that makes you more perceptive about people, and it instead grants you a bonus on Knowledge (Local) checks in place of say, Perception or Sense Motive. False advertising is a lot of the reason why we have these quibbles, and the factor we're not getting what we're told to be getting is a farce on its own, and is precisely why people are up in arms about this supposed change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why they can't just write the rules they intend to write. If they really wanted only saving throw against fear effects to get the half weapon enhancement boost... why not write that. Instead of "any morale" from "any other source". I mean seriously that is literally written with the intent of "No really anything, go find anything, if it says morale you're good." And if it wasn't written with that intent, then they need new writers.
Also like Scavion says, it's SKR. Though forget grains of salt... better bring out point values for feats.
I don't see why they can't just write the rules they intend to write. If they really wanted only saving throw against fear effects to get the half weapon enhancement boost... why not write that. Instead of "any morale" from "any other source". I mean seriously that is literally written with the intent of "No really anything, go find anything, if it says morale you're good." And if it wasn't written with that intent, then they need new writers.
+1
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1I don't see why they can't just write the rules they intend to write.
I'm sure they do write the rules they intend to write. We just read them in the best light possible. We read extra features, power, and benefits they didn't write.
If they closed all these routes off, the rule books would be double the page count.
If we can't or won't understand this fact, then we shouldn't complain when they tell us something written doesn't mean what we dreamed it meant.