It should work. The ability didn't say it turns off if you have another weapon fight with, but they could mean you have that weapon set as the primary weapon to use when combat began, which would also make sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I believe that while the hand wearing the spiked gauntlet can be used to wield the two-handed weapon, it is not also wielding the spiked gauntlet while doing so (although it remains wearing the spiked gauntlet). Even though the action to switch is a free action, it is still something one must actively do.
YMMV, consult your GM.
It should work. The ability didn't say it turns off if you have another weapon fight with, but they could mean you have that weapon set as the primary weapon to use when combat began, which would also make sense.
There is no such weapon mechanic in the game as Primary.
In fact the opposite, the rule state, that in between iterative attacks you have the option of choosing which weapon you are attacking with so long as they are drawn and in hand.
EDIT: Primary could mean main hand I suppose, but a Dueling Weapon doesn't have to be a main hand weapon, it just has to be in hand when you make the initiative check.
So is a Gauntlet on your hand also in hand, for this purpose?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "in hand" for the purposes of the weapon enchantments means "ready to use for combat".
SlimGauge is incorrect (sorry).
It is a common tactic to use a spiked gauntlet while using a polearm so that you threaten at 5' and 10'. It is in several guides on this site. You are very much considered wielding the spiked gauntlet. You don't get to use a free action to switch hands to AoO with it but you are still able to do so.
The initiative bonus should work fine, but the bonuses to feint and disarm would only work when it was the gauntlet being used for the maneuver.
Saffora: Why? Is the weapon not "drawn and in hand"?
|
It is a common tactic to use a spiked gauntlet while using a polearm so that you threaten at 5' and 10'. It is in several guides on this site.
Many pieces of advice on this site are incorrect, including this one.
If your gauntleted hand is wielding another weapon (whether it's a one-handed or two-handed weapon does not matter), the gauntlet is unavailable to attack with.
Armor spikes would work, as would any other weapon that didn't use that hand.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Many pieces of advice on this site are incorrect, including this one.
I find most guides have rules interpretations that haven't been vetted by many different GM and tables. It's refreshing to see s guide author that acknowledges things in their guide subject to table variance ;-)
Is he using a Spiked Gauntlet? The OP just said Gauntlet.
If your gauntleted hand is wielding another weapon (whether it's a one-handed or two-handed weapon does not matter), the gauntlet is unavailable to attack with.
Proof?
BTW, this ability only requires the Gauntlet (spiked or otherwise, not that it really matters for the question at hand) to be "drawn and in hand", not wielded. Nonetheless I disagree with your perspective on this.
This FAQ on defending weapons shows that the intent is that you wouldn't get the benefit.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o3r
There is a bit of a workaround. If making a normal full attack with iteratives, you could just have your last low accuracy attack be with one of these weapons.
Lets look at that FAQ, shall we?
Magic Items, Wearers, and Durations: If a magic item grants an effect with a duration to the wearer, can I put it on, activate the effect, take it off, and keep the effect active?
No, as soon as you remove an item that grants an effect to the wearer, you are no longer the wearer, so any remaining duration immediately expires. The same is true if the item affects the owner, wielder, and so on. If the item's effect does not specify the recipient as the wearer (or owner, wielder, etc), then unless it says otherwise, it remains when the item is removed.
It would stand to reason that as long as you wield the weapon that you retain the bonus. So the question comes down to whether you are wielding the weapon.
The FAQ also has this bit on armor spikes.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
It doesn't define "wielded". It says that your hand is unavailable to make any attacks which isn't what the dueling weapon ability requires. In fact, it doesn't even require it to be wielded. It only requires it to be "drawn and in hand" which certainly it qualifies for.
Regarding the ability to attack with a spiked gauntlet at 5' and a polearm at 10', I stand by my original statement. You do not have to "switch hands" to do this as a free action any more than you would have to do so with armor spikes. As an example if an opponent moved up to you during their turn (provoking an attack by moving through your threatened square) and then proceeded to cast a spell while standing 5' away from you they would still provoke and you would still be able to attack them.
Note: I am NOT suggesting that you would be able to do a full attack with your longspear at -2 and then complete your off hand attacks with with your spiked gauntlet just because you have Two-Weapon Fighting. I am in fact not even talking about Two-Weapon Fighting.
The dueling weapon does require wielding as it constantly refers to "the wielder".
Lets look at the difference between the topic of this FAQ question and Dueling.
Defending says:
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC 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, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn. This ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
So Defending says that you have to use the weapon. The FAQ supports this saying that "Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient."
And I agree with that.
The text in Dueling is different. It says that the Dueling weapon only needs to be "drawn and in hand". Whether this is accidentally different language or purposefully different language is moot. The fact is that the rules state that you only need to have the weapon "drawn and in hand" for it to work with Dueling while the rules for Defending say "Merely holding" it is not enough. These two things are not the same.
I do not believe that the FAQ on Defending is meant to be a blanket statement to apply to all weapon and armor abilities regardless of their wording. Dueling is clearly worded to allow anyone who has the weapon "drawn and in hand". Someone could just as easily be talking about a dagger in your offhand that you never attack with.
For example if someone were, I dunno... what would be applicable here? *taps chin* Oh, I know... how about a Duelist. A Duelist has this nifty ability called Precise Strike. It has a clause in it that states, "When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield."
Does it say that you can't have a weapon in your other hand and not attack with it? No. So that weapon in your other hand could be a Dueling dagger. You could hold it simply to gain the benefits from it. Think of it as a hand ornament.
Does the FAQ on Defending apply to this? No. The verbiage in the weapon ability is different. It says that you only have to have it "drawn and in hand". And since "drawn and in hand" does not compete with "attack with a weapon in her other hand" you are good. And you are still free to enchant your Rapier with Keen, Flaming Burst and Defending if you'd like.
From the defending FAQ:
"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."
So the real argument is what qualifies as "unless otherwise specified". Do note that the part of the property that specifies "drawn and in hand" is only referring to the bonus to initiative. This ability must still function as it is unreasonable to expect to use a weapon as a weapon before combat has even started. The other bonuses are more generic and would fall under the rule quoted above.
...The text in Dueling is different. It says that the Dueling weapon only needs to be "drawn and in hand". Whether this is accidentally different language or purposefully different language is moot. The fact is that the rules state that you only need to have the weapon "drawn and in hand" for it to work with Dueling while the rules for Defending say "Merely holding" it is not enough. These two things are not the same.
I agree. Having the weapon drawn and in hand is sufficient. If they meant to require you to wield it they could have just said so. (Of course wielding the weapon would require it to be drawn and in hand, so the language about drawing and having it in hand wouldn't even be necessary.)
I do not believe that the FAQ on Defending is meant to be a blanket statement to apply to all weapon and armor abilities regardless of their wording.And the Design Team has warned against that sort of blanket interpretation of FAQs.
That doesn't really apply this this quote, because it is a statement that clearly goes outside the bounds of the defending property.
"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."
That quote is clearly supposed to encompass more than just a weapon property, as it refers to "and so on".
I do not believe that the FAQ on Defending is meant to be a blanket statement to apply to all weapon and armor abilities regardless of their wording.And the Design Team has warned against that sort of blanket interpretation of FAQs.That doesn't really apply this this quote, because it is a statement that clearly goes outside the bounds of the defending property.
"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."
That quote is clearly supposed to encompass more than just a weapon property, as it refers to "so on".
Yes. We cross-posted earlier and I removed that part of my post as soon as I read your post. :)
However, I am of the opinion that the wording for Dueling is a case of "otherwise specifying."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works. It's also not gamebreaking, because that's a lot of money you gotta spend to do that; money which can be better spent elsewhere.
If it didn't work, you could never enhance Gauntlets or similar items beyond being a +5 Enhancement Weapon, which is clearly not intended. Gauntlets can be +10 Weapons the same as everything else, and saying otherwise is contrary to what the rules should allow them to be.
Also, quit citing the Defending property FAQ. The rules for the Defending property don't apply to the Dueling property. They're not the same, they're not similar in any way, so it's about as relevant as Tacos in a Cake discussion.
My ultimate conclusion is that the initiative bonus works as it "specifies otherwise", but the rest of the bonuses have the same limitation as from the defending weapon FAQ.
It works. It's also not gamebreaking, because that's a lot of money you gotta spend to do that; money which can be better spent elsewhere.
If it didn't work, you could never enhance Gauntlets or similar items beyond being a +5 Enhancement Weapon, which is clearly not intended. Gauntlets can be +10 Weapons the same as everything else, and saying otherwise is contrary to what the rules should allow them to be.
Also, quit citing the Defending property FAQ. The rules for the Defending property don't apply to the Dueling property. They're not the same, they're not similar in any way, so it's about as relevant as Tacos in a Cake discussion.
This is a bit of a pointless rules dispute for most characters, anyway. It's easy enough to carry the two handed weapon in one hand until combat starts, benefit from your Faux-Improved-Initiative bonus, and then switch to two hands and start swinging. Unless you want to take AoOs before your turn rolls up, there is basically no difference between that and starting with your two handed weapon in two hands.
Also, quit citing the Defending property FAQ. The rules for the Defending property don't apply to the Dueling property. They're not the same, they're not similar in any way, so it's about as relevant as Tacos in a Cake discussion.
Unlike some FAQ items, the Defending property FAQ goes out of its way to be more broad and wide reaching. I've already quoted the pertinent text twice, so I'm not going to do it again, but if you actually read it, it's clear that part of the FAQ applies in this case. It is also fairly clear that the initiative bonus sidesteps this limitation by "specifying otherwise"
It is a common tactic to use a spiked gauntlet while using a polearm so that you threaten at 5' and 10'. It is in several guides on this site. You are very much considered wielding the spiked gauntlet. You don't get to use a free action to switch hands to AoO with it but you are still able to do so.
Then these guides are wrong with this tip! Guides are not official documents. They have a strong variety in their quality. Because they are basically just what some dude wrote down as his thoughts and tips are on some manner. And sometimes the wish is the father of the thought, not what you can really do within the rules.
When you use your hand to wield a 2handed weapon it is unavailable to make an AOO with it. Because it is currently being sued to wield the 2handed weapon.
You need a non-hands based weapon to threaten into the 5ft-reach-area. There are Armor Spikes, Spiked Boots, Hamatula Beared, Boulder Helmet, Helm of the Mammoth Lord, having a Bite Attack or taking Improved Unarmed Strike as a feat to get this effect.
I wouldn't allow it, and I think the PDT would make the same ruling.
I wouldn't allow it, and I think the PDT would make the same ruling.
With regards to the initiative bonus, it creates a lot of problems to rule that it doesn't apply. Because at the point you are rolling for initiative, it is impossible to know what weapon you will be "wielding" by the time you get your turn. It's very possible you could get disarmed before getting your turn and actually be using your gauntlet.
There is also the counter example, where you have no other weapon equipped when initiative is determined. But as part of your turn, you draw and attack with another weapon. Would you decide that the character suddenly loses his initiative bonus?
Saffora: Why? Is the weapon not "drawn and in hand"?
The weapon is drawn and in hand, that is why I think the bonus to initiative works.
The bonus to disarm and feint would only work if that was the weapon used for the maneuver. You couldn't expect enchanting your gauntlets with 1d6 fire damage to add that damage when you attack with a greatsword. Same deal with the disarm and feint. Sure your gauntlet has a bonus to disarm opponents making you good at using the gauntlet to disarm. That skill at disarm doesn't transfer to the huge piece of metal you are swinging around.
Guru-Meditation: Everything you said is wrong. You can hold many different things in your hand while still wielding and attacking with a Spiked Gauntlet. Just like a Monk could hold onto a Longspear that a Banner of Ancient Kings is attached to firmly with two hands (as that is what is required for the item to function) and still be able to use those hands to attack with. Not even just his metaphorical hands but his actual hands. Is he wielding the item? Yes, he is. Is he using the item? Yes. Is he actually using the item to attack with thus taking up his hand? No.
This works. If a ruling on this were to change then there are a lot of PFS characters using this and combos like this that are going to be ruled out of existence.
I am NOT suggesting that you would be able to do a full attack with your longspear at -2 and then complete your off hand attacks with with your spiked gauntlet just because you have Two-Weapon Fighting. I am in fact not even talking about Two-Weapon Fighting. (I said this very thing further upthread)
As far as your argument for using Armor Spikes goes that was covered in the FAQ and the relevant text was actually quoted above.
Now... here is something I am confused by...
It should work.
I wouldn't allow it...
...so, uhm... what?
Guru-Meditation: Everything you said is wrong. You can hold many different things in your hand while still wielding and attacking with a Spiked Gauntlet. Just like a Monk could hold onto a Longspear that a Banner of Ancient Kings is attached to firmly with two hands (as that is what is required for the item to function) and still be able to use those hands to attack with. Not even just his metaphorical hands but his actual hands. Is he wielding the item? Yes, he is. Is he using the item? Yes. Is he actually using the item to attack with thus taking up his hand? No.
This works. If a ruling on this were to change then there are a lot of PFS characters using this and combos like this that are going to be ruled out of existence.
I am NOT suggesting that you would be able to do a full attack with your longspear at -2 and then complete your off hand attacks with with your spiked gauntlet just because you have Two-Weapon Fighting. I am in fact not even talking about Two-Weapon Fighting. (I said this very thing further upthread)
As far as your argument for using Armor Spikes goes that was covered in the FAQ and the relevant text was actually quoted above.
Now... here is something I am confused by...
It should work.I wouldn't allow it......so, uhm... what?
I started to chang my mind halfway through my first post. That is why I said
..but they could mean you have that weapon set as the primary weapon to use when combat began, which would also make sense.
By "primary weapon" I meant it has to be the weapon you are going to attack with.
After having some time to think about it I came to the conclusion that not using the gauntlet was not RAI for allowing that ability to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine! You are off the Taco Cake bandwagon! ;)
Guru-Meditation: Everything you said is wrong. You can hold many different things in your hand while still wielding and attacking with a Spiked Gauntlet. Just like a Monk could hold onto a Longspear that a Banner of Ancient Kings is attached to firmly with two hands (as that is what is required for the item to function) and still be able to use those hands to attack with. Not even just his metaphorical hands but his actual hands. Is he wielding the item? Yes, he is. Is he using the item? Yes. Is he actually using the item to attack with thus taking up his hand? No.
This works. If a ruling on this were to change then there are a lot of PFS characters using this and combos like this that are going to be ruled out of existence.
I am NOT suggesting that you would be able to do a full attack with your longspear at -2 and then complete your off hand attacks with with your spiked gauntlet just because you have Two-Weapon Fighting. I am in fact not even talking about Two-Weapon Fighting. (I said this very thing further upthread)
As far as your argument for using Armor Spikes goes that was covered in the FAQ and the relevant text was actually quoted above.
Now... here is something I am confused by...
It should work.I wouldn't allow it......so, uhm... what?I started to chang my mind halfway through my first post. That is why I said
..but they could mean you have that weapon set as the primary weapon to use when combat began, which would also make sense.By "primary weapon" I meant it has to be the weapon you are going to attack with.
After having some time to think about it I came to the conclusion that not using the gauntlet was not RAI for allowing that ability to work.
Explain how a weapon being your go-to over any other weapon is a requirement for it to function. Because as it stands, you're trying to apply the rules of Weapon Focus/Specialization (which require using a specific type of weapon to function) to Weapon Properties (which, unless specified, apply to any weapon), and that's just blatantly false.
Explain how a weapon being your go-to over any other weapon is a requirement for it to function. Because as it...Guru-Meditation: Everything you said is wrong. You can hold many different things in your hand while still wielding and attacking with a Spiked Gauntlet. Just like a Monk could hold onto a Longspear that a Banner of Ancient Kings is attached to firmly with two hands (as that is what is required for the item to function) and still be able to use those hands to attack with. Not even just his metaphorical hands but his actual hands. Is he wielding the item? Yes, he is. Is he using the item? Yes. Is he actually using the item to attack with thus taking up his hand? No.
This works. If a ruling on this were to change then there are a lot of PFS characters using this and combos like this that are going to be ruled out of existence.
I am NOT suggesting that you would be able to do a full attack with your longspear at -2 and then complete your off hand attacks with with your spiked gauntlet just because you have Two-Weapon Fighting. I am in fact not even talking about Two-Weapon Fighting. (I said this very thing further upthread)
As far as your argument for using Armor Spikes goes that was covered in the FAQ and the relevant text was actually quoted above.
Now... here is something I am confused by...
It should work.I wouldn't allow it......so, uhm... what?I started to chang my mind halfway through my first post. That is why I said
..but they could mean you have that weapon set as the primary weapon to use when combat began, which would also make sense.By "primary weapon" I meant it has to be the weapon you are going to attack with.
After having some time to think about it I came to the conclusion that not using the gauntlet was not RAI for allowing that ability to work.
See the "defending weapon" FAQ for precedence. I know it is not the exact same thing, but the common idea is that the intent to use the weapon should be there.
Do the rules say that? No
Do I think the PDT would rule that way? Yes
edit: I said nothing about how feats functioned, and if a weapon with which you have weapon focus is not being used the feat does not matter anyway, so that is a poor comparison.
Defending Weapon doesn't apply since it has specific circumstances (not all properties share that rule), and just as well, the initiatve part of Dueling supersedes any general idea that may exist.
And yes, you effectively did. (Metaphorically speaking.) You're telling me the Devs would say that my Weapon Focus feat doesn't function for my Spiked Gauntlet because the hand that has a Spiked Gauntlet is wielding a Two-Handed Weapon.
Defending Weapon doesn't apply since it has specific circumstances (not all properties share that rule), and just as well, the initiatve part of Dueling supersedes any general idea that may exist.
And yes, you effectively did. (Metaphorically speaking.) You're telling me the Devs would say that my Weapon Focus feat doesn't function for my Spiked Gauntlet because the hand that has a Spiked Gauntlet is wielding a Two-Handed Weapon.
Well, you wouldn't be attacking with the Spiked Gauntlet, so having Weapon Focus (Spiked Gauntlet) wouldn't do anything. It only really does anything when you're actually attacking with that weapon. So while wielding a THW, WF(SG) does nothing for you at that time. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
If it didn't work, you could never enhance Gauntlets or similar items beyond being a +5 Enhancement Weapon, which is clearly not intended. Gauntlets can be +10 Weapons the same as everything else, and saying otherwise is contrary to what the rules should allow them to be.
Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Why does saying you can't benefit from Dueling on a Spiked Gauntlet mean you can't enhance a Spiked Gauntlet over +5? The only claim being made is that to benefit from abilities enchanting the Spiked Gauntlet, you have to actually be attacking with the Spiked Gauntlet, or have it out and available (meaning, you're not wielding a Greatsword, for example) when combat begins.
Despite your protestations, the Defending FAQ does seem at least somewhat relevant. They both do reference wielders, which is at best a nebulous term in PF, but in this sort of context tends to mean "person actively using the weapon".
Let's say I'm a Reach wielder, I got a guy within 10 feet of me, and a guy adjacent to me. If I make one attack with my Reach Weapon, and then another attack with my Spiked Gauntlet, not incurring TWF, he's telling me I wouldn't benefit from Weapon Focus because I'm using that hand to make attacks with a Two-handed Weapon.
I'm saying if the requirement of "Wield" entails that you must hold the weapon in your hand, then you can't enhance Gauntlets with special properties, since Gauntlets aren't held in hand, they are your hand.
I'll also point out as to how you can not benefit from the Initiative Bonus with it being drawn and in hand, when at the time you can benefit from it, you are in no position or ability to make any form of attacks. So it does nothing. I highly doubt it's intended for an ability to not function for the sole purpose it was designed to function for.
This thread is fun.
And absolute garbage. Claiming weapon needs to be physically in your hand is pure semantics. Consider weapons that aren't held in a hand, boot spikes, armor spikes, kobold tail attachments, and even weapons like claws or whatever you call batmans arm spikes. Invalidating those weapons' abilities to have this enchantment is more than likely not the intention of the rules.
As a DM, you can choose to and not to allow anything as you see fit. But in the rules forum you cannot assert anything other than what the rules say.
Re: Defending Gauntlets
Whether you like it or not the rules allow you to switch what weapons you are using in between iterative attacks. It is 100% doable to spend the money on a +5 defending, dueling gauntlet (spiked or otherwise) and simply waste your bottom iterative attack on triggering your Defending ability for extra AC.
SlimGauge is incorrect (sorry).
I was addressing the post immediately above mine.
... does the CMD bonus apply if foes try to disarm the two handed weapon ?
The relevant part is "It provides a +2 bonus on disarm checks and feint
checks, a +2 bonus to CMD to resist disarm attempts, and a +2 to the DC to perform a feint against the wielder."I contended (and still do) that a worn gauntlet is only considered wielded if that hand is not also wielding something else or otherwise occupied (as it is not ready to make an attack). It is certainly not wielded for the purposes of use-activated magic like "Defending" if it is not actually USED to attack with.
If you had a one-handed weapon in one hand and your +1 dueling gauntlet in you other, you could be simultaneously wielding both and in that case would get the +2 bonus if your enemy attempted to disarm your one-handed weapon.
However, if you had a two-handed weapon wielded in both hands, your +1 dueling gauntlet is not currently being wielded (as it is not ready to make an attack).
If you had a two-handed weapon wielded in both hands while wearing a +1 dueling defending gauntlet, with iterative attacks you could attack two-handed, then shift grip and attack with your gauntlet allowing you to use the defending property. If the person you attacked two-handed had something like Parry-and-Riposte, they could conceivably disarm your two-handed weapon before you wield the gauntlet (and would not benefit from the +2 vs disarm in that case).
Let's say I'm a Reach wielder, I got a guy within 10 feet of me, and a guy adjacent to me. If I make one attack with my Reach Weapon, and then another attack with my Spiked Gauntlet, not incurring TWF, he's telling me I wouldn't benefit from Weapon Focus because I'm using that hand to make attacks with a Two-handed Weapon.
I'm saying if the requirement of "Wield" entails that you must hold the weapon in your hand, then you can't enhance Gauntlets with special properties, since Gauntlets aren't held in hand, they are your hand.
The question was about making AoOs, not if and how you can switch around between weapons used on your turn.
The actions you can take out of your trun are severly limited!
There is a cutting differnce between both, and that is that on your turn you can use the free action to let one hand go of the wielded 2-handed Longspear, to reduce it to being merely held with one hand (and thus not threatening with it any more), and use your now freed up PHYSICAL hand to punch with the gauntlet. And then using another free action to grasp the 2handed Longspear again, reestablishing your thretened are with it again.
BUT when it is not your turn you cant take the necessary free actions to switch between how you are using your PHYSICAL hands. When you end your turn you can either wield thee Longspear 2handed and thus threten at 10ft, but not 5ft, OR you hold the Longspear in one hand, and have the other free to punch, thus thretening at 5ft, but not 10ft.
It is only a free action, but an action nontheless. And you cant take it because it is not your turn.
I honestly do not see the real issue her. Just use Armor Spikes to get exactly the combat-result of thretening at 5ft you want to have, and dont need to change your grip on your Longspear.
Let's say I'm a Reach wielder, I got a guy within 10 feet of me, and a guy adjacent to me. If I make one attack with my Reach Weapon, and then another attack with my Spiked Gauntlet, not incurring TWF, he's telling me I wouldn't benefit from Weapon Focus because I'm using that hand to make attacks with a Two-handed Weapon.
That's not really what he's saying though. If you make a legitimate attack with the Gauntlets, you're using them as would be required. So there's no issue.
I'm saying if the requirement of "Wield" entails that you must hold the weapon in your hand, then you can't enhance Gauntlets with special properties, since Gauntlets aren't held in hand, they are your hand.
I don't think Wraith ever mentioned holding things in one's hand. Regardless, I think the point you're trying to make here is based off of a too-literal reading of something that wasn't likely intended to be taken strictly literally.
If your position is one that states that holding a weapon in one's hand constitutes wielding it, then wearing a Gauntlet over your hand is obviously analogous. If your position requires active using of the weapon, then simply having it in your hand (or over in the case of the Gauntlet) is not sufficient.
I'll also point out as to how you can not benefit from the Initiative Bonus with it being drawn and in hand, when at the time you can benefit from it, you are in no position or ability to make any form of attacks. So it does nothing. I highly doubt it's intended for an ability to not function for the sole purpose it was designed to function for.
The question is whether the weapon must be out and available for use. So wearing the Gauntlet while swinging around your Longspear would imply that the Gauntlet might not be out and available for use.
Regardless, I think a fair reading (and one that seems to at least have some support here) is that wearing the Gauntlet confers the initiative bonus, but the more specific bonuses are conferred when the weapon is actually used.
This thread is fun.
And absolute garbage. Claiming weapon needs to be physically in your hand is pure semantics. Consider weapons that aren't held in a hand, boot spikes, armor spikes, kobold tail attachments, and even weapons like claws or whatever you call batmans arm spikes. Invalidating those weapons' abilities to have this enchantment is more than likely not the intention of the rules.
As a DM, you can choose to and not to allow anything as you see fit. But in the rules forum you cannot assert anything other than what the rules say.
Nobody is claiming armor spikes need to literally be in a person's hands to be used. Those aren't quite the same as a spiked gauntlet, however. Just like you couldn't use an AoMF to enhance your claw attacks and use them in the same round you use the hand those claws are attached to to make an attack with a wielded weapon, you shouldn't be able to use a spiked gauntlet if you've used up all your attacks by using that hand to help wield a Guisarme.
Unless I've missed something, I'm honestly not sure where the idea that "You must have a weapon in your hand otherwise you can't put abilities on it or make use of those abilities" came from. But more importantly, not all weapons are treated exactly the same. The one's you've referenced obviously have slightly different treatment in the rules because they are not wielded as weapons ordinarily are.
Obviously, the Dueling property literally tells you that the weapon must be in hand. But I don't know that people would be really strict on that reading insofar as a Boot Blade is concerned, for instance. However, the BB would have to be extended. For Armor Spikes, those are always out and available. No reason to think you'd need to be holding them. Really, the "in hand" bit is a question for the Dueling property alone, but that's because that phrase is actually used in that property.
Re: Defending Gauntlets
Whether you like it or not the rules allow you to switch what weapons you are using in between iterative attacks. It is 100% doable to spend the money on a +5 defending, dueling gauntlet (spiked or otherwise) and simply waste your bottom iterative attack on triggering your Defending ability for extra AC.
I don't think anybody in this thread has expressed any disagreement with this tactic. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. All you have to do is make an attack with a Defending weapon to make use of its abilities, which is precisely what you'd be doing here.
Perhaps I misread the tone then?
The ruling with claw attacks prevents you from using the same claw for two different claw attacks at the sane iterative.
The ruling with claw attacks prevents you from using the same claw for two different claw attacks at the sane iterative.
Are you talking about natural weapon claws or like claw blades and other manufactured weapons that act like claws?
Because you can't make a (natural weapon) claw attack at all if you've used that hand to make a weapon attack. And iteratives are never a consideration for natural weapon attacks.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.