Drawing / Storing a Wand & Spiked Gauntlets Threatening


Rules Questions


Hi All,

We had two questions come up yesterday in a PFS game.

Can you draw a wand without an AOO?

GM said, "No, not without being stored in a sheath or equivalent (ex: bandoleer). And all of those things are from Ultimate Equipment."

This was resolved in game by asking the GM the next morning specifically what I needed and shopped for it. I own Ultimate Equipment. I took a couple of AOOs for drawing wands in an initial encounter, but no big deal as the scenario did allow for near instant shopping.

However, this precludes a PFS Core Wizard from drawing a wand without an AOO. A PFS Core Wizard should be able to draw a wand without an AOO somehow, because it is in the Core rules to do so. How?

To my understanding, an Adventurer's Outfit should be all that is required at most. Is this wrong?

Do Spiked Gauntlets threaten... ever?

Gm said, "no, never" but would research it and get back later.

So, do spiked gauntlets threaten at all, ever?

The exact scenario was that my sorcerer simply moved into flank position for a rogue to help give a sneak attack. I was surprised that I was considered not flanking.

Thanks All!


A Wand is a weapon like object and as such drawing it does not provoke. If it was packed away in a backpack then you would need to use retrieve a stored item and it would provoke. There is nothing to say that you cant just have a wand attached to a belt or similar. Weapons are not required to be held in a sheath. See HERE for details.

Spiked Gauntlets are ordinary simple weapons and there is nothing about them that suggests you cannot threaten with them.

Scarab Sages

Spiked Gauntlets do threaten always..

" An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets."

"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

You would have provided flanking for the rogue.

Scarab Sages

Andreww a wand is not weapon like..
I have not figured out how to link to a post but wands have been called out as not weapons for use with the quickdraw feat.

"Paizo Employee James Jacobs Creative Director Apr 16, 2010, 08:51 pm.
Quick Draw is meant to be used with weapons. Thrown rocks are weapons, but wands are not—they're magic items that cast spells. And since most spells have more significant effects that most weapons, it can get a bit overwhelming. And furthermore, the way weapon attacks work, it's often very important to be able to use a full attack action. Wands generally work fine with just a standard action (after you move action to draw it), so it's not really as important for a wand user to get his weapon out ASAP. And finally, the theme and feel of someone quickdrawing a weapon (be it a gun or a sword or whatever) is something that's well-established in history and lore, but quickdraw wand removal is not as well supported by stories... so purely flavor-wise, one could argue that Quick Draw works for weapons and not other stuff.

Feel free to houserule Quick Draw, of course, but it is the way it is in the core rules for a reason. Several reasons, as outlined above."

They have to be gotten with a move ation.. probably retrieve item which does provoke.

You can buy wrist sheaths that will allow faster access but that will limit you to two wands..

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wands are not weapons, but they are explicitly listed as "Weapon-like objects" in the Draw / Sheath section.

Also, isn't J.J. the one who is always "My posts are not meant to be rules calls, just how I would run it in my game"

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon wrote:

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands.

You can even draw them as part of a move if you have 1+ BAB.

(For clarity, you cannot quickdraw a wand, because it is called out in the quickdraw feat as not eligible)

Scarab Sages

True enough but is the "weapon" and "weapon like" equal for the draw as part of a move with +1BAB?

I have been told and played it as not.. You can not draw a wand of CLW, move over to the person, and activate the wand on them all in one turn without a spring loaded wrist sheath..

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Not PFS-specific questions, so I've flagged for the Rules Questions Forum, but the above posters have already answered them.

Wands are Weapon-like, and as such can be drawn on the move and without provoking (so long as they are within easy reach and not stored).

Edit: HERE is the FAQ on drawing Weapon-like items.

And Spiked Gauntlets threaten, so long as that hand isn't otherwise taken up (such as holding the aforementioned wand).

Scarab Sages

Yuri Sarreth wrote:

True enough but is the "weapon" and "weapon like" equal for the draw as part of a move with +1BAB?

I have been told and played it as not.. You can not draw a wand of CLW, move over to the person, and activate the wand on them all in one turn without a spring loaded wrist sheath..

There was a lot of confusion around this, because of the way the rule was worded. Some GMs were ruling like you describe. Others were ruling that it could be drawn as part of a move. So it got an FAQ, which Nefreet linked to. It's likely you GM is not aware of the FAQ. So, yes, you could draw a wand of CLW as part of a move, then activate it to heal someone once you reach them, provided you can reach them with a single move action and the wand is not stored in a backpack or other place that it would be considered a stored item.

Scarab Sages

Ah did not see the link before.. So that would mean I draw it as a weapon which does not provoke the AOO..


As long as it's in your belt or a bandolier or something like that, yes.


And that FAQ also lets you sheath a weapon or weapon-like item as part of a regular move action.

Grand Lodge

Gisher wrote:
And that FAQ also lets you sheath a weapon or weapon-like item as part of a regular move action.

No. It lets you combine the draw or sheathe action with a move action for weapon-like objects, using all the same rules as with weapons. It does not override the clause that says you can only use the draw part with a move.

That was clarified in the FAQ thread.


Jared Thaler wrote:
Gisher wrote:
And that FAQ also lets you sheath a weapon or weapon-like item as part of a regular move action.

No. It lets you combine the draw or sheathe action with a move action for weapon-like objects, using all the same rules as with weapons. It does not override the clause that says you can only use the draw part with a move.

That was clarified in the FAQ thread.

It was discussed in the FAQ thread, but the actual FAQ has not been changed. Discussion isn't official.


Gisher wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
Gisher wrote:
And that FAQ also lets you sheath a weapon or weapon-like item as part of a regular move action.

No. It lets you combine the draw or sheathe action with a move action for weapon-like objects, using all the same rules as with weapons. It does not override the clause that says you can only use the draw part with a move.

That was clarified in the FAQ thread.

It was discussed in the FAQ thread, but the actual FAQ has not been changed. Discussion isn't official.

It is when the discussion explains whats in the FAQ.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
Gisher wrote:
And that FAQ also lets you sheath a weapon or weapon-like item as part of a regular move action.

No. It lets you combine the draw or sheathe action with a move action for weapon-like objects, using all the same rules as with weapons. It does not override the clause that says you can only use the draw part with a move.

That was clarified in the FAQ thread.

It was discussed in the FAQ thread, but the actual FAQ has not been changed. Discussion isn't official.
It is when the discussion explains whats in the FAQ.

Oh, that's right. They updated their in-thread post, but apparently never got around to updating the FAQ page. As if having the FAQs split up among a dozen different pages isn't bad enough, now people are expected to search the forums for other, more current, versions of them as well. :(

Shadow Lodge

I'm still iffy about threatening with gauntlets or armor spikes while your hands are full(of polearm, for instance). Mostly in terms of AAO's. Something just irks me about shifting grip or releasing held items while it's not your turn.

Grand Lodge

Muser wrote:
I'm still iffy about threatening with gauntlets or armor spikes while your hands are full(of polearm, for instance). Mostly in terms of AAO's. Something just irks me about shifting grip or releasing held items while it's not your turn.

Gauntlets won't threaten if your hands are full, but armor spikes would, since they don't use actual hands.

The FAQ, IIRC, just specifies you can't TWF with a THW and anything else.

Grand Lodge

Thematically, a weapon wielder also wearing spiked gauntlets should still threaten. Historically gauntlets were used as much as a weapon for attacking in melee, but real life is not generally a basis for in game rules. Personally I think you should be able to wield a two-handed weapon while wearing gauntlets and still threaten with the gauntlets, but I've also seen players exploit that to an extreme that unbalances combat. Too bad since it is certainly "cool"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
Muser wrote:
I'm still iffy about threatening with gauntlets or armor spikes while your hands are full(of polearm, for instance). Mostly in terms of AAO's. Something just irks me about shifting grip or releasing held items while it's not your turn.

Gauntlets won't threaten if your hands are full, but armor spikes would, since they don't use actual hands.

The FAQ, IIRC, just specifies you can't TWF with a THW and anything else.

I don't see why you couldn't use a gauntlet while you're holding another weapon. The FAQ just says you can't use both the gauntlet and and the held weapon at the same time or as part of a full attack (e.g., like two-weapon fighting).

Using a cestus/gauntlet/improved unarmed strike/natural attack to threaten close in while you're wielding a reach weapon is a pretty common strategy in my area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Muser wrote:
I'm still iffy about threatening with gauntlets or armor spikes while your hands are full(of polearm, for instance). Mostly in terms of AAO's. Something just irks me about shifting grip or releasing held items while it's not your turn.

Gauntlets won't threaten if your hands are full, but armor spikes would, since they don't use actual hands.

The FAQ, IIRC, just specifies you can't TWF with a THW and anything else.

I don't see why you couldn't use a gauntlet while you're holding another weapon. The FAQ just says you can't use both the gauntlet and and the held weapon at the same time or as part of a full attack (e.g., like two-weapon fighting).

Using a cestus/gauntlet/improved unarmed strike/natural attack to threaten close in while you're wielding a reach weapon is a pretty common strategy in my area.

Some DMs look for reasons to say no to something. I agree with this ruling but when you play with enough people you need to build characters that DMs can not be adversarial about.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Muser wrote:
I'm still iffy about threatening with gauntlets or armor spikes while your hands are full(of polearm, for instance). Mostly in terms of AAO's. Something just irks me about shifting grip or releasing held items while it's not your turn.

Gauntlets won't threaten if your hands are full, but armor spikes would, since they don't use actual hands.

The FAQ, IIRC, just specifies you can't TWF with a THW and anything else.

I don't see why you couldn't use a gauntlet while you're holding another weapon. The FAQ just says you can't use both the gauntlet and and the held weapon at the same time or as part of a full attack (e.g., like two-weapon fighting).

Using a cestus/gauntlet/improved unarmed strike/natural attack to threaten close in while you're wielding a reach weapon is a pretty common strategy in my area.

Some DMs look for reasons to say no to something. I agree with this ruling but when you play with enough people you need to build characters that DMs can not be adversarial about.

Because then you are threatening with both. That is using them.

One of the big drawbacks of reach weapons is that they have a great big hole in the middle of their reach. There are a number of fairly expensive options to close that hole. Which are pretty much pointless if you can close it with a cestus.

Think of it this way, you can be in position to hit someone with your spear, or with your fist. But if you are in position to hit people with your spear, your fist isn't where you need it to be to bring it around fast. You can switch between those positions as a free action, but at the end of your turn, you are in one or the other.

Yes, historically, some pole arm wielders were trained to use the shaft of their weapon for close in defense. That's why there is a pole arm master archetype.


Jared Thaler wrote:


Because then you are threatening with both. That is using them.

One of the big drawbacks of reach weapons is that they have a great big hole in the middle of their reach. There are a number of fairly expensive options to close that hole. Which are pretty much pointless if you can close it with a cestus.

Think of it this way, you can be in position to hit someone with your spear, or with your fist. But if you are in position to hit people with your spear, your fist isn't where you need it to be to bring it around fast. You can switch between those positions as a free action, but at the end of your turn, you are in one or the other.

Yes, historically, some pole arm wielders were trained to use the shaft of their weapon for close in defense. That's why there is a pole arm master archetype.

So if I had spiked armor or imp. unarmed strike I threaten next to me then?

Silver Crusade

Finlanderboy wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:


Because then you are threatening with both. That is using them.

One of the big drawbacks of reach weapons is that they have a great big hole in the middle of their reach. There are a number of fairly expensive options to close that hole. Which are pretty much pointless if you can close it with a cestus.

Think of it this way, you can be in position to hit someone with your spear, or with your fist. But if you are in position to hit people with your spear, your fist isn't where you need it to be to bring it around fast. You can switch between those positions as a free action, but at the end of your turn, you are in one or the other.

Yes, historically, some pole arm wielders were trained to use the shaft of their weapon for close in defense. That's why there is a pole arm master archetype.

So if I had spiked armor or imp. unarmed strike I threaten next to me then?

Never with spiked armor, unarmed only if you're a monk or equivalent (threaten with feet).


GM Carla wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:


Because then you are threatening with both. That is using them.

One of the big drawbacks of reach weapons is that they have a great big hole in the middle of their reach. There are a number of fairly expensive options to close that hole. Which are pretty much pointless if you can close it with a cestus.

Think of it this way, you can be in position to hit someone with your spear, or with your fist. But if you are in position to hit people with your spear, your fist isn't where you need it to be to bring it around fast. You can switch between those positions as a free action, but at the end of your turn, you are in one or the other.

Yes, historically, some pole arm wielders were trained to use the shaft of their weapon for close in defense. That's why there is a pole arm master archetype.

So if I had spiked armor or imp. unarmed strike I threaten next to me then?
Never with spiked armor, unarmed only if you're a monk or equivalent (threaten with feet).

Why not spiked armor? and why only unarmed? My spiked boots from my armor does nto threaten by my bare foot does?


Finlanderboy wrote:


Why not spiked armor? and why only unarmed? My spiked boots from my armor does nto threaten by my bare foot does?

Spiked armor, in pathfinders interpretation , is used just like a spiked gauntlet, by punching with the hand. This is different from 3.5's interpretation where you could shoulder check someone with it.

Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

As for unarmed, no. Anyone can kick with unarmed strikes.

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:


As a follow up...

The GM (a VC) contacted the VC grape vine and they (PFS HQ actually) said that spiked gauntlets are not clear of intent (RAI) and to "expect table variation". The GM further said he read that SKR had posted that they threaten (paraphrased) and so the GM said that he'd run them as threatening in the future. The GM was pretty diligent and I'm extremely appreciative of that.

So, on Spiked Gauntlets threatening for PFS... expect table variation I guess.

Thank you all for the responses. Your responses match exactly how I run my own games (you can "draw a wand" without AOO and spiked gauntlets do threaten when the hand is not occupied). I'll continue to do so in the future.

Shadow Lodge

so I think I see where the confusion is (and Im going to have to remember this and remedy some PC's) .... the following is quoted from the PRD

PRD wrote:

Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Gauntlet, Spiked: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.

so According to that it appears that a Gauntlet does not threaten ... but a Spiked gauntlet does (Unarmed vs Armed ) since you dont threaten with unarmed strikes without Imp unarmed

as for AoP with a Wand - No ... however if there is a Held Charge then yes

Liberty's Edge

There is no ambiguity on whether a spiked gauntlet threatens.

There shouldn't be ambiguity on whether it threatens if you are holding something in that hand. I dorsnt, as the hand is otherwise occupied.

It is less clear about armor spikes if both hands are being used to threaten with a two handed or pair of weapons. I don't believe they do and believe the prepond er rance of rules and forum clarifications support that assumption.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Drawing / Storing a Wand & Spiked Gauntlets Threatening All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.