If a hand is wearing a spiked gauntlet and holding an item, can you still punch with that hand?

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Self-explanatory question.

Working on a Support Melee Bard with Arcane Duelist archetype, and this implication arose when I was fleshing out the build. (Before you say it, no, I am not dealing melee damage with this character, he's just a frontline support.) Basic equipment results in Mithril Medium Armor, Heavy Shield, Metamagic Rod, and Spiked Gauntlet as his Arcane Bond.

Now, with the rule of Arcane Bond regarding Arcane Duelists, I can use a Heavy Shield for protection, hold a Metamagic Rod in the same hand as my Arcane Bonded Spiked Gauntlet, and cast spells. But another implication arose when it came down to his other asset, which is being able to Aid Another constantly. The Spiked Gauntlet which I would use for Aid Another holds a Metamagic Rod.

But would simply holding the Metamagic Rod for spellcasting usage interfere with my ability to make Spiked Gauntlet attacks (or in this case, use it for Aid Another)?

[Scavion]

Common sense says "Yes." You can punch a dude with a spiked gauntlet while holding a stick.

Though people would love to claim otherwise.

You're dipping into the "invisible hands" argument here. Be wary.

[Mojorat]

I think it is not defined well. I would assume the gauntlet is occupied while holding the rod but I'm not sure there is any rule for or against your idea.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Mojorat wrote:

I think it is not defined well. I would assume the gauntlet is occupied while holding the rod but I'm not sure there is any rule for or against your idea.

It isn't, which is why I was hoping to get clarification. I mean, I get it could be awkward, so a penalty being imposed isn't a bad idea (-2 I'm guessing), but that falls into GM FIAT territory.

Other people would claim if I was, say, using that hand to hold a weapon besides the Spiked Gauntlet, that I couldn't make attacks. (I obviously couldn't if I was using that same hand to wield the other weapon, though that's not the debate.)

@ Scavion: I don't know anything about this "invisible hands" that you mentioned; care to explain?

And I'm not trying to munchkin the system, I just want to know if it's legal for me to fulfill the conditions of using Aid Another while using a Heavy Shield and an Arcane Bonded Spiked Gauntlet holding a Metamagic Rod, since I assume I have to be able to punch into a square if I want to make use of a +X Allying Spiked Gauntlet to give a fellow frontliner an extra 2+X to his lowest BAB attack.

[Talcrion]

depends what your holding, a rock, well sure.... the rail of a ship, probably not ^_^

[Scavion]

Basically, the invisible hands shtick is primarily about how some weapons dont really require you to "wield" them like spiked gauntlets or armor spikes but some folks like to argue that such weapons take up one of your "hands" regardless.

Someone else could probably put this more eloquently.

[Bwang]

Tabled ruled this as a 'yes', then applied a -4 due to it being an improvised weapon and the gal was holding a javelin. This was in a weird grapple mess of a fight.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Scavion wrote:

Basically, the invisible hands shtick is primarily about how some weapons dont really require you to "wield" them like spiked gauntlets or armor spikes but some folks like to argue that such weapons take up one of your "hands" regardless.

Someone else could probably put this more eloquently.

You mean that argument we had with +X Courageous Spiked Gauntlet that spawned whether or not the Courageous property affected all Morale Bonuses or just Fear effects?

To a point, I understand that the rules are ambiguous and undefined, but by that same token real-life physics would take effect. In other words, if I held onto something with the shape and thickness of a rod (good thing Lamontius isn't here to make a joke about that sentence...), and tried throwing punches, how much does it interfere with my ability to punch? Is it even possible to effectively punch while holding that rod with my fist? etc. etc.

It is also those people who would say that Full Plate would take up your Feet, Head, Hands, Body, and Chest slots, which is obviously not the intent of those rules, so they are quite obviously wrong on that stance. While most weapons require hands to properly wield the weapon, Armor Spikes and (Spiked) Gauntlets are about as handey as, say, an Unarmed Strike attack, especially with Armor Spikes since Unarmed Strikes can be any part of your body, whereas Armor Spikes would be any part of your armor. (Spiked) Gauntlets I find would be much more restricting, in that you would be using your hands (and only those hands) to execute the attack.

But there are rules that cover those sorts of situations, such as the Unarmed Strike combined with, say Deliquescent Gloves, and I think that would be a conservative precedence to assume that Spiked Gauntlets would follow.

For those who don't know what Deliquescent Gloves do, here's the description:

Deliquescent Gloves wrote:

The wearer’s melee touch attacks with that hand deal 1d6 points of acid damage. If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.

The wearer’s gloved hand is protected from the acid ability of oozes, allowing him to use that hand to attack oozes with unarmed strike or natural attack without risk of harm from contact with the ooze. These unarmed strikes and natural attacks never cause an ooze to split.

The text refers to the gloves as a singular item, or gloves, whereas the name of the item itself calls out the plural noun form, meaning that either this only covers a single hand (but the entire hand slot) or the description was taken from some 3.X material and wasn't proofread fully to accomodate the hand slot covering both hands. YMMV.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Bwang wrote:

Tabled ruled this as a 'yes', then applied a -4 due to it being an improvised weapon and the gal was holding a javelin. This was in a weird grapple mess of a fight.

I know Javelins have a -4 penalty when used in a melee attack, so I'm not sure if this is simulated in that penalty or a GM FIAT penalty. In either case, that's pretty bad, since that doesn't also include a -2 penalty to attack rolls not involving grapples, plus an extra -4 Dexterity penalty (equating to another -2 if using Weapon Finesse), meaning making attacks or even trying to break out with Agile Maneuvers or Escape Artist becomes an impossible idea. The only other -4 I can come up with is if you don't initiate the grapple with both hands free, but that doesn't apply to someone who gets grappled, as in your scenario.

Even as a Bard with 3/4 BAB, trying to hit AC 10 with Aid Another when I am Fighting Defensively (-4) and using Combat Expertise later down the road (-1 to -6) becomes a very difficult experience, reliant purely on the roll itself, not to mention Strength penalties for my character. (With Weapon Finesse, it reduces the issue a fair bit, but still hefty penalties there.)

[RedDogMT]

Bwang wrote:

Tabled ruled this as a 'yes', then applied a -4 due to it being an improvised weapon and the gal was holding a javelin. This was in a weird grapple mess of a fight.

I would also call it an improvised weapon as well. It is just not a normal style of fighting to do it that way.

[TGMaxMaxer]

Well.. at least you don't have to worry about Str penalties with the Aid Another using a spiked gauntlet. If you have weapon finesse, as it is a light weapon, for any purpose that you make attack rolls (which Aid Another is an attack roll vs AC 10) you would be using Dex.

With a Bard, even with the -4 fighting defensively, just your self buffs should make it a pretty good chance so long as you take weapon finesse.

Spiked gauntlets are normal gauntlets, with spikes or blades on them per the Equipment entry.

Would anyone not allow you to hold another weapon or item while wearing gauntlets, (which come on all medium armors other than a breastplate)?

Rods only have to be held, not wielded. So, you should be fine.

Just in case, use the Cestus instead. Avoid the argument entirely.

UE Cestus entry:

The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm. The close combat weapon is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and often lined with wicked spikes along the backs of the hands and wrists. While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, you can have your unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus. When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks). A cestus can't be disarmed.

And is also a Simple weapon, so bards are proficient in it.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

...I can't believe I never saw the Cestus before...that solves the issue, and it's just a better overall weapon; for the same price, too!

Thanks much for that. The flavor for that character just got a lot cooler...