What does it mean to "use" a Cestus?


Rules Questions

51 to 69 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ultimately I see little point in arguing over this too much when armor spikes will accomplsih the same thing as a cestus does when combined with a two handed weapon, and there is nothing to argue over with the latter combination.


Elbedor wrote:
PRD wrote:
Cestus: 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 normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may 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).

Bold mine. But what does "using" mean in this sentence?

Wearing? If so, why doesn't it just say "When wearing a cestus..."?

Wielding? Other rules seem clear that when you can or cannot "use" something, it is referring to performing the function of that item. You must "use" a shield in order to get the AC bonus from it. Also when wearing a Light Shield, you can carry but not "use" weapons in that hand.

Does this mean I can wield a Cestus while wielding a dagger in the same hand such that any attack or AoO that I make can be done with either weapon? (Note, I didn't say both weapons).

An example would be punching a target with the Cestus on my turn and discovering that the target has DR/slashing. Then when he provokes an AoO on his turn, I elect to slash with the dagger.

In this sentence I think using means wearing.

I do not think you can wield another weapon or hold an item in the hand with a cestus and threaten with the cestus at the same time, though.

Visually I don't see the cestus as working with anything in the hand at the same time. Same with a gauntlet or punches. Its like picturing Wolverine wielding a samurai sword, he won't be threatening with both claws and sword from the same hand at the same time and looks visually silly if he has both going at the same time.

I think this is just inconsistent use of language in the rules here for "using" "wearing" and "wielding".

I don't think you can use a cestus to threaten both near and far with a reach weapon, the same as with gauntlets or punching with that fist.

I think the real problem sentence here is the one saying "While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage."


@ ClaxonAny need of argument would be due to proficiency. Armor Spikes are martial. A Cestus is simple.

But beyond that, I agree there is nothing to argue over concerning Armor Spikes.

Then again, thins like a Ring of Rat Fang (amongst other options) make the whole point moot.

@Voadam I agree the problem sentence might be "While wearing a cestus..." Because of that sentence, we already have a section of the description that talks about wearing the item and what it means. This leads me to believe that "When using..." must then mean something else. Otherwise why not just mention those details along with the 'wearing'.

Plus again, whenever a person uses something, the common English understanding is that they're doing something with it. But that's just repeating myself.

Based on the responses so far, it would appear that "using" is rather an ambiguous term. Perhaps a fair candidate for a FAQ.


Is everyone ignoring the part of, "While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage."

Simply by wearing it, you can now make unarmed attacks as armed and lethal damage. No need to "use" the cestus at all.


Tarantula wrote:

Is everyone ignoring the part of, "While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage."

Simply by wearing it, you can now make unarmed attacks as armed and lethal damage. No need to "use" the cestus at all.

Technically, yes. That is a good point. The cestus basically gives you IUS for free. And with that, you can use unarmed strike to kick your opponent or use limbs that isn't your arm with the cestus.

As a GM, I would rule it only applies to that specific limb, but with the way it's worded it does function such that you can make an unarmed strike (and do so with any limb).

Scarab Sages

This is a point where RAW is in complete opposition to common sense. If you are wearing a cestus on one hand, your kicks, headbutts, and punches with the other hand are not augmented at all.


I would agree. I believe the unspoken assumption is that the "armed" unarmed strike is with the hand wearing the cestus and not with just any part of the body. Not sure of a GM who would rule otherwise, but what do I know? :p


Well, now things are getting a little silly- my headbutt deals piercing damage because I am wearing a glove? Anyway, if we want to get really technical, even armor spikes shouldn't work...

"Reach Weapons: A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away."

The wielder of such a weapon cannot attack a creature in an adjacent square, period. There is no mention of being unable to do so specifically with the reach weapon. Also, when wielding a glaive or what have you, your armor spikes technically threaten at 10', which of course is total nonsense.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Cestus wrote:
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.

Just to reiterate. Cestus makes your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage and considers them to be armed. Since unarmed attacks don't take a "hand" then by wearing a cestus you have effectively given yourself IUS. The cestus doesn't say you must attack with the cestus, merely wearing it is enough. So, I say you could have a 2-hand weapon, and threaten with unarmed strikes via wearing a cestus without having to let go of the 2-hand weapon in the first place.

I don't know where that stands with PFS, but that's how I read the RAW.

That's how you creatively misread the RAW you mean. The cestus is a glove... it doesn't magically give you unarmed strike capability with body parts other than the hand that wears it. If the hand is busy wielding a reach weapon, then it's committed whether it's wearing a cestus or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Cestus wrote:
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.

Just to reiterate. Cestus makes your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage and considers them to be armed. Since unarmed attacks don't take a "hand" then by wearing a cestus you have effectively given yourself IUS. The cestus doesn't say you must attack with the cestus, merely wearing it is enough. So, I say you could have a 2-hand weapon, and threaten with unarmed strikes via wearing a cestus without having to let go of the 2-hand weapon in the first place.

I don't know where that stands with PFS, but that's how I read the RAW.

That's how you creatively misread the RAW you mean. The cestus is a glove... it doesn't magically give you unarmed strike capability with body parts other than the hand that wears it. If the hand is busy wielding a reach weapon, then it's committed whether it's wearing a cestus or not.

That is exactly what it days though. Its part of the larger problem of weapons modifying unarmed strike instead of being their own weapon. The cestus is poorly worded, but the RAW does say that when wearing your unarmed strikes deal lethal damage and are considered armed. The fact that it can give you piercing headbutts and that makes no sense doesn't change the words they used for the cestus.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

I think the general understanding that most people have is that wielding a two handed weapon will prevent you from using any other weapon associated with those hands. Try this, hold a pencil or stick in two hands. Now try to throw a punch with just one of them. Hows that working out?

It has nothing to do with hands of effort or two weapon fighting rules, it's simply that there are certain things you can't physically do while using a weapon two handed.

if we're bringing up the physical things stopping this from working, well he can just let go and punch and then grab it again. mechanically he's never dropped the weapon or swapped it to one hand.

basically, you can't use the double standard, you're either using pure mechanics, which supports the Cestus, or physics flavored mechanics which still favor the Cestus.

Cestus wielding does not require a free-hand.


This FAQ covers how to shift grips. So when outside your turn, you would be unable to remove and/or return your hand to the weapon. This means in most cases if I wanted to be able to attack something with my hand outside my turn while holding a reach weapon, I would have to end my turn by removing a hand so it's free to use. But then I'm not threatening with the reach weapon until my next turn when I can grab it again. So the common case is Either/Or.

The discussion here revolves around whether the specific rules of the Cestus break that or not.

I've also started a thread here to gather FAQ requests to see if we can get a response from the Devs. There have been a few threads concerning this issue over the past few years.


I could just as easily read the Cestus description as meaning that while you can wield and use items while wearing them, it doesn't indicate anywhere that you can attack with the cestus while doing so.

There are plenty of precedents for when a weapon can be in existence and be unable to be used. A creature with Grab for instance. If it uses its Grab with its Bite attack and takes -20 it can effectively grapple with that body part but not be grappled itself (and thus threaten with a reach weapon for instance.) Normally its bite attack would allow it to strike adjacent foes (which it can't with the reach weapon) but even though it still possesses its mouth, and its bite attack, it can't use it because the activity and current use precludes a different use (while still allowing other uses, such as a breath weapon to be used on a snatched creature held in the mouth.)

You can get as silly as want with how the words can be read. It's already been pointed out that, by a certain interpretation, the description could mean that simply wearing one cestus might allow you to deal lethal damage even if you don't use the cestus-clad appendage for the attack (elbow, headbutt, etc.) It just says your unarmed attacks can now do it, not that you have to attack with the cestus.

We could also just read each sentence individually with no context and assume the sentence, 'If you are proficient with a cestus, you can have your unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning or piercing damage,' applies to anyone with cestus proficiency whether they have a cestus or not. After all maybe Cestii were put into the game after the normal rules for everything else and they're just errata that clarifies that any class skilled enough to use a spiked glove (well, not just any spiked glove of course, just the cestus) is skilled enough to swap damage types. Look, then it points out that monks are proficient with Cestii.

If your hand is too busy to make an attack normally, then you can't attack with it. I don't read the Cestus as changing that, only that you can hold or wield a weapon while wearing it.

As an aside, I think by actual wording, any attack that might involve inflicting 'precision-damage' can also be considered a 'precision task.' After all, you need a steady hand and aim to strike so precisely. So now anyone with sneak attack and other such abilities take a -2 to their attacks, but only if they would cause precision damage, like when flanking or attacking someone unawares...
(I am actually serious about that last part, RAW-wise. I think we can't neglect to to include it in the example with opening locks and other tasks.)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Elbedor wrote:

This FAQ covers how to shift grips. So when outside your turn, you would be unable to remove and/or return your hand to the weapon. This means in most cases if I wanted to be able to attack something with my hand outside my turn while holding a reach weapon, I would have to end my turn by removing a hand so it's free to use. But then I'm not threatening with the reach weapon until my next turn when I can grab it again. So the common case is Either/Or.

except mechanically you did not shift grips, just as the story element. the main point it seems by other's is they can't imagine how it happens, because the rules say you can't let go of your 2-hander outside of your turn. Well, mechanically you do not need to have a free hand to attack with your Cestus if it wielded, and vice versa wielding a two-hander does not limit your attacks except for TWF.

@ above, those are all specifically listed, there is nothing saying that you cannot wield multiple weapons on the same hand/Arm.

also, a weapon's benefit section, only applies when you are wielding the weapon, so you don't gain the benefit of other damage types by simply being proficient.

basically, i don't see, "unable to shift grips and thus unable to attack because your hand is being used" as a good excuse, since it tries to on one side be realistic and on the other do RAW. you can't really do both at the same time.


Bandw2 wrote:
also, a weapon's benefit section, only applies when you are wielding the weapon, so you don't gain the benefit of other damage types by simply being proficient.

Then let me ask you? Is it currently listed anywhere other than the benefits section for Cestus that monks are proficient with Cestii?

If not, then by your ruling, Monks aren't proficient with Cestii unless they are actively wielding a Cestus, at least until they specifically errata that into a different section.

Certainly that wouldn't seem to be a problem in most cases; don't usually need to be proficient with a weapon until you need to use it, but for the purposes of feats like Weapon Focus and such then a monk couldn't qualify unless he were actively wielding a Cestus and thus gain the benefit listed therein.

Obviously I don't believe that to be true It doesn't make any sense to me and I hope it doesn't to you. Unfortunately, using your interpretation of the rules, that would be the logical conclusion until it was errata'd to specifically grant monks proficiency elsewhere.

The point I'm making is, people can see the same rules and interpret them differently and that blind 'adherence' to every word phrasing without rational thought or context can lead to some pretty absurd situations


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Pizza Lord wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
also, a weapon's benefit section, only applies when you are wielding the weapon, so you don't gain the benefit of other damage types by simply being proficient.

Then let me ask you? Is it currently listed anywhere other than the benefits section for Cestus that monks are proficient with Cestii?

If not, then by your ruling, Monks aren't proficient with Cestii unless they are actively wielding a Cestus, at least until they specifically errata that into a different section.

Certainly that wouldn't seem to be a problem in most cases; don't usually need to be proficient with a weapon until you need to use it, but for the purposes of feats like Weapon Focus and such then a monk couldn't qualify unless he were actively wielding a Cestus and thus gain the benefit listed therein.

Obviously I don't believe that to be true It doesn't make any sense to me and I hope it doesn't to you. Unfortunately, using your interpretation of the rules, that would be the logical conclusion until it was errata'd to specifically grant monks proficiency elsewhere.

The point I'm making is, people can see the same rules and interpret them differently and that blind 'adherence' to every word phrasing without rational thought or context can lead to some pretty absurd situations

you gain proficiency from the monk class, not the cestus.

and yes for me, the monk class says they're proficient with them.

you then equip a cestus

you not gain the benefits that a cestus gives for beign proficient.

you are still proficient when you take it off, but when it is off you can't do the special damage types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elbedor wrote:

So what if you have a dagger in each hand and a cestus worn on one? Can you punch as an AoO? You seem to think that would be ok. And yet both of your hands are occupied just as they are with a two-handed weapon.

A two-handed weapon does not occupy your right hand any more than a dagger occupies your right hand. It also doesn't occupy your left hand any more than a dagger in your left hand does. There are no differing grades of "occupy". Either a given hand is occupied or it isn't.

Punching with a cestus as an AoO with a dagger in your hand is just as possible by the rules as punching with a cestus as an AoO with a greatsword in that hand.

Take an object which is roughly the size of a sword pommel, and hold it in both hands. Now throw a punch with one hand without letting go of it.

There is a certain amount of "we assume the players consider how the physical actions would work" implied by the rules.


Sorry, this is the thread where wrapping a leather strap around your hand makes your feet do piercing damage. Take your rational thought to the homebrew forum! ; D


If I can wrap my fingers around a pommel and strike you with that pommel for nonlethal damage, why can't I strike you with my steel covered/spiked knuckles for lethal instead? They're all right there on the same hand. Convenient really. :)

I mean if Captain Kirk can perform a two-handed unarmed strike...

Anyway, not everything in the game makes sense in the real world. I'd be repeating myself if I pointed out how "halflings pinning giants" is doable in a game like this....as is something like falling over 200 feet, slamming into the ground, and getting up and walking away without anything more than 2 move actions (1 to stand back up and one to walk).

It is a fantasy game. If a weapon's description says you can use it while also using something else in that same hand at the same time, then that's what you can do.

Be happy. Something is working in your favor. :)

51 to 69 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What does it mean to "use" a Cestus? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.