|
Yikes. That is one distasteful houserule at the top.A few reasons:
- Because I am the GM and feel that the spiked gauntlets count as a piece of armor and they should give a spell failure chance for Arcane users, probably in line with the failure chance given by light shields.
- because my magus need a free hand, and a hand wearing a weapon isn't free.
- because my druid don't wear metal gauntlets.
- because I have a hard time seeing weapon that were used as last resort used as a main weapon.
Houserule? Sure.
But metal gauntles are part of a medium or heavy armor. Saying that a wizard can wear a pair of metal gauntlets without a problem is a bit weird.If you look the piecemeal armor rules you will see this:
With the smallest area to protect, arm armor pieces tend to have the lowest armor value of all the piecemeal armor types, with light armor pieces offering little to no protection unless they are part of a complete suit. Because arm armor pieces tend to interfere with hand movements needed for somatic components, they offer the highest spell failure chance.
Almost all of the medium and heavy arm armor pieces include metal gauntlets, so the logic chain if fairly straightforward.
|
|
A few reasons:
- Because I am the GM and feel that the spiked gauntlets count as a piece of armor and they should give a spell failure chance for Arcane users, probably in line with the failure chance given by light shields.
- because my magus need a free hand, and a hand wearing a weapon isn't free.
- because my druid don't wear metal gauntlets.
- because I have a hard time seeing weapon that were used as last resort used as a main weapon.
Putting aside the houserule...
Spiked Gauntlets leave the hand free (Magus away), Druids can use metal weapons, just not armor (Druid away) and most people are indicating them as weapons of last resort, not main weapons. Note that the original post mentioned wearing them and using an axe.
Druid: they are a weapon but they are a piece of armor too. A druid can't pick up a metal shield and say "I will use ti as a weapon" without losing his powers for 24 hours.
Magus: True it is mostly my dislike for the item speaking.
Secondary weapon: not really, when people are arguing about regularly using them as the weapon they want to use for the AoO or to attack adjacent foes while wielding a reach weapon.
|
|
- Because I am the GM and feel that the spiked gauntlets count as a piece of armor and they should give a spell failure chance for Arcane users, probably in line with the failure chance given by light shields.Do you grant it an AC bonus like a light shield, too?
To reply to Claude: they would get a weapon that don't encumber their hands, isn't that good enough?
|
|
Why couldn't a Gauntlet, or Spiked Gauntlet, be fingerless?
Spiked gauntlet can be fingerless, as the spikes can be on the back of the hand and you can backhand someone with it, but for a regular metal gauntlet the striking surface is are the knuckles. If they aren't covered in metal to give a better striking surface, where is the reason to wear a gauntlet?
It like saying that you can use a bladeless sword.
now this beg the question.
If I punch the enemy (no unarmed strike feat) I draw an AoO
however... just by putting on a glove and performing the exact same motion somehow, that opening to be attacked just vanishes? where does it go? What could have possibly been done to change the whole dynamic of throwing a punch?
It's probably about the same difference as grabbing something you know is super duper hot from the microwave with your bare hands vs with oven mitts on.
There's that hesitation and the fact that the gauntleted fist will let you have that extra padding on your strike. Both in the manner in which the person can strike the fist hitting them (it's armored) and your own inherent hesitation/trepidation in attacking.
And if you say "but I can get really confident at striking", that'd be the Improved Unarmed Strike feat then. ;)
Oh, give it a break.
Regardless of how it actually reads in the RAW (and we all know that on occasion the RAW are poorly written), it is a matter of opinion whether weapons like cestus and spiked gauntlets are usable (to threaten for AoOs, etc) while equiping another item (often a reach weapon) in the same hand.
These weapons are still very useful when you drop your main weapon, are disarmed or have it sundered - allowing you to continue armed combat without a hitch. enchanting them or just having them made out of special materials can give additional utility.
Whether spiked gauntlets count as armor for purposes of arcane spellcasting failure... Diego Rossi had some convincing arguments, but this also is unclear as per the RAW.
But many of us draw the line on them being used to threaten adjacent whil wielding a reach weapon in the same hand. The RAW are unclear, and this point has been debated to death many times on these boards. It really comes down to a DM call.
So at the end of the day, all a guy can say is "expect table variation", and don't be surprised if a DM overrules simultaneously threatening at reach and adjacent targets.
But metal gauntles are part of a medium or heavy armor. Saying that a wizard can wear a pair of metal gauntlets without a problem is a bit weird.
If you look the piecemeal armor rules you will see this:
With the smallest area to protect, arm armor pieces tend to have the lowest armor value of all the piecemeal armor types, with light armor pieces offering little to no protection unless they are part of a complete suit. Because arm armor pieces tend to interfere with hand movements needed for somatic components, they offer the highest spell failure chance.Almost all of the medium and heavy arm armor pieces include metal gauntlets, so the logic chain if fairly straightforward.
But that mentions arms, not hands. There is a distinction between hand gestures (pointing, middle finger, "shooting gun" motion) and arm gestures (semaphore, waving at someone across the street, some countries version of the middle finger, etc).
Basically, what I'm getting at is that perhaps arcane spellfailure is less about this, and more about this. :D
This is how I see all wizards from now on, btw.
Another reason: that attack of opportunity might be delivered, say, by positioning their weapon between your fist and their body. The sharp bits. With a gauntlet, you now have a weapon that can block blows, parry, and so on.
It's not a perfect system, and it begins to fall apart when you look at it too closely, so stick to Bellisario's Maxim and flavor the result to your liking.
By Diego's reasoning, Bracers should interfere with casting as well.
Nah. They aren't big enough to restrict joints or heavy/lopsided enough to interfere appreciably with arm movements.
|
Nah. They aren't big enough to restrict joints or heavy/lopsided enough to interfere appreciably with arm movements.By Diego's reasoning, Bracers should interfere with casting as well.
Oh?
Are you sure that none do?
Why are they not all designed to be as restrictive as possible, as every Gauntlet and Spiked Gauntlet is?
No exceptions.
Also, Bracers are "armor", so Druids cannot wear them either, and neither can Monks.
No Bracers of Armor for Druids, Wizards, or Monks.
Nah. They aren't big enough to restrict joints or heavy/lopsided enough to interfere appreciably with arm movements.By Diego's reasoning, Bracers should interfere with casting as well.
Oh?
Are you sure that none do?
Why are they not all designed to be as restrictive as possible, as every Gauntlet and Spiked Gauntlet is?
No exceptions.
Also, Bracers are "armor", so Druids cannot wear them either, and neither can Monks.
No Bracers of Armor for Druids, Wizards, or Monks.
IIRC, magical bracers are an exception for many things. That might be my 2nd ed talking, though.
I'd buy druids not being able to use them if they are made out of metal.
Let's be fair, the idea of punching someone in the face with a gauntlet or cestus that happens to be holding a weapon at the time is totally physically plausible... and pretty badass when you get down to it. "HAHA! I'm inside your reach now, fool! What're you gon-" *SMACK*.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be fair, the idea of punching someone in the face with a gauntlet or cestus that happens to be holding a weapon at the time is totally physically plausible... and pretty badass when you get down to it. "HAHA! I'm inside your reach now, fool! What're you gon-" *SMACK*.
That's honestly the main reason why I would allow it and would prefer if the rules explicitly said that was normal procedure.
There's a number of thematically great, and physically plausible things that I think should be base-line, that the games either leaves too ambiguous or outright requires feats to "allow" or just downright denies access.
Badass should be baseline. Feats and class abilities should raise you to Awesomesauce.
|
|
But metal gauntles are part of a medium or heavy armor. Saying that a wizard can wear a pair of metal gauntlets without a problem is a bit weird.
If you look the piecemeal armor rules you will see this:
With the smallest area to protect, arm armor pieces tend to have the lowest armor value of all the piecemeal armor types, with light armor pieces offering little to no protection unless they are part of a complete suit. Because arm armor pieces tend to interfere with hand movements needed for somatic components, they offer the highest spell failure chance.Almost all of the medium and heavy arm armor pieces include metal gauntlets, so the logic chain if fairly straightforward.But that mentions arms, not hands. There is a distinction between hand gestures (pointing, middle finger, "shooting gun" motion) and arm gestures (semaphore, waving at someone across the street, some countries version of the middle finger, etc).
Basically, what I'm getting at is that perhaps arcane spellfailure is less about this, and more about this. :D
This is how I see all wizards from now on, btw.
Never played Ars Magica, I suppose.;-)
1) it is a houserule, never sad differently.
2) the chance of spell failure I would apply is way lower that that of the whole arm piece. I would apply a shield chance of failure, that is a 5% chance.
I mostly posted what I did there to imply that wizards were inflatable flailing arm tube men. :D
Why couldn't a Gauntlet, or Spiked Gauntlet, be fingerless?
Fingerless gloves work for him.
So, no metal codpiece for the Druid?
No metal boots?
Gives new meaning to the Ironwood spell...
While wearing even the thinnest of neoprene gloves, a person's sense of touch and their ability to grip fine objects is severely hampered. Sticking your naked hand into a pouch and retrieving items is a different story than retrieving things with a gloved hand. Jamming your bulky spiked gauntlet into that same pouch, if the gauntlet even fits, and selecting spell components is an almost insurmountable task in comparison.
How often does a welder dig through his pockets while wearing his welding gloves? Or sort through his wallet? Or take notes with either pen and paper or on the computer? Realistically, never, the gloves come off because they are big, bulky and get in the way of the fine motor manipulations he is attempting. The same could be said for most any other professional whose job normally involves wearing gloves of some sort. Sometimes the gloves come off because they are dirty but the main reason, IMHO, is that there's only so much that can be done to protect and, by logical extension, weaponize your hand and any measure taken to do either of those things buys its return to you at the cost of the hand's sensitivity and maneuverability.
It is reasonable to argue against ASF or other penalties being associated with gauntlets on the basis of RAW alone but Paizo's choice to exclude such complications does not make Diego's notions regarding the nature and limitations of armoured gauntlets scoff-worthy. His ideas are much more reflective of the reality of gloves and gauntlets than those of you suggesting such items have no effect on the wearer's ability to grasp and manipulate fine objects.
The spiked gauntlet is great for threatening. It is also great for PCs who use two handed weapons in case they get grappled or swallowed. The spiked gauntlet is also more convenient than most other weapons when you're trying to handling items such as potions, wands, and rods. Finally, even characters with Improved Unarmed Strike can benefit from wearing a spiked gauntlet since it allows them to do piercing damage. While piercing DR is pretty rare piercing damage will allow you to free yourself from being swallowed whole.
Clearly there are many advantages to wearing a spiked gauntlet, and barring house rules there are very few drawbacks. That said, most folks I play with won't consider having their PC wear a spiked gauntlet since I have recommended it in the past and pointed out situations where it would have been useful as they came up. Over the years the continued rejection of that advice and the trouble it has caused for my PC and others in terms of missed attacks, lost sneak attack damage, etc has become somewhat of a joke. The idea that refusing to wear a spiked gauntlet despite the tactical advantages might annoy me is definitely worth more to most players I know than the survival of their own PCs or the party's chances for victory.
Why couldn't a Gauntlet, or Spiked Gauntlet, be fingerless?
Because the cestus is specifically fingerless? And once they define a new glove-like weapon that leaves your fingers exposed, it implies that other glove-like-weapons do not--otherwise, why bother inventing this item at all?
Likewise, other glove-like weapons don't have a penalty on fine manipulation, which either implies a) that they are somehow less restrictive than glove-like weapons that specifically leave your fingers exposed or b) that they prevent you from doing any fine manipulation at all.
Expect table variation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
punch'n'slice scythe-cestus
Try saying that five times fast.
So, no metal codpiece for the Druid?
No metal boots?
nope.