| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello,
Moot point as I believe the free hand requirement as already been accepted as working with a spiket gauntlet for feats such as dueling parry, but still:
In the Laughing Shadow Magus entry you can read:
While in Arcane Cascade stance, you gain a +5-foot status bonus to your Speeds, or a +10-foot bonus if you're unarmored. If you have a free hand while in the stance and are attacking a flat-footed creature, you increase the extra damage to 3, to 5 if you have weapon specialization, or to 7 if you have greater weapon specialization. You must have your other hand completely free; the extra damage doesn't apply if you have a free-hand weapon or other item in that hand, even if you would normally be able to use the hand for other things.
It stands to logic then that, unless errataed, any text that does not contain this clarification can be assumed to work with free hand weapons.
As Guntermench has pointed out, this is indeed the case, as Free-Hand mentions it allows for the use of abilities that require you to have a hand free, which is why they needed to add that clarification on the end of the Laughing Shadow Magus entry.
However, the logic in the original statement is flawed. Just because an additional restrictive clarification is given doesn't mean that without that clarification it would work differently. If the Free-Hand trait already included this kind of language, then the fact that an ability reminds players how Free-Hand works wouldn't make it stop working that way for everything else that doesn't go out of it's way to remind people.
Ultimately, we still have to go back to the ability in question. In pf2 looking up a completely separate ability that references something similar and using that to try and understand the wording of an ability in general, much less one in a completely different book, is probably not a great idea.
Perhaps,
I just saw a couple of posts in another thread about Exo's gnome flickmace build saying that the spiked gauntlet shouldn't work.
I thought this would be more of an argument to put the final nail in the coffin of that debate.
I agree with you on principle and application, but there are also people who very much read the rules as a codex of law.
Having ''jurisprudence'' here is a nice little tidbit to add, even if inconclusive by itself.
|
Gauntlets are a worn item, so you would always be wielding it, in the same way you're always "wielding" an unarmed attack. You don't have to spend an action to draw it or get it ready for use, you can just use it whenever you need to. Just like how you don't "hold" an unarmed attack, you don't "hold" a gauntlet.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gauntlets are a worn item, so you would always be wielding it, in the same way you're always "wielding" an unarmed attack. You don't have to spend an action to draw it or get it ready for use, you can just use it whenever you need to. Just like how you don't "hold" an unarmed attack, you don't "hold" a gauntlet.I've always read the rules as "you aren't wielding a free-hand weapon if you are using that hand for anything else" (This becomes important if you are using a runed gauntlet with Doubling Rings):
Core Rulebook pg. 282 2.0 This weapon doesn't take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can't be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can't attack with a free-hand weapon if you're wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you're not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.Source
Core Rulebook pg. 272 2.0 Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you're not just carrying it around—you're ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, to be holding it, or simply to have it.Source
Basically, I'd argue that if you are holding/wearing an item in a way that doesn't actually allow you to use it (like holding a flail by the base of its chain, or wearing a gauntlet while using that hand for something else), you aren't actually wielding it.
|
Source[/b] Core Rulebook pg. 272 2.0
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you're not just carrying it around—you're ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, to be holding it, or simply to have it.
Doesn't that mean that if you are considered wielding, you are considered "holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively", as that is an established prerequisite of wielding?
|
|
When you're not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand.It reads like you aren't wielding it, as you are wearing it, but you can basically act like you are.
A good point.