| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a Fighter were to use a +1 Striking gauntlet (Cinderclaw Gauntlet) on his main hand and wield a sword in his off hand, the sword would be +1 striking thanks to the Doubling Rings.
If that Fighter were to perform a Dual-Handed Assault, I am believing that by RAW the Doubling Rings would not provide their function during that strike, as "the benefit doesn’t apply ... if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it", which would apply to the gauntlets during a two-handed swing.
Is that correct?
If a Fighter were to use a +1 Striking gauntlet (Cinderclaw Gauntlet) on his main hand and wield a sword in his off hand, the sword would be +1 striking thanks to the Doubling Rings.
I believe that is correct, yes.
If that Fighter were to perform a Dual-Handed Assault, I am believing that by RAW the Doubling Rings would not provide their function during that strike, as "the benefit doesn’t apply ... if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it", which would apply to the gauntlets during a two-handed swing.
Hmm... That's interesting.
Free-Hand trait only says that you can't make attacks with the weapon while you are otherwise using the hand. But I am not sure if you would still be considered to be wielding the free-hand weapon at the same time or not.
I probably wouldn't make you lose the Doubling Rings effect for Dual-Handed Assault since it is so temporary. I'm a bit on the fence about if it would work when actually changing to a 2-handed wield of the sword.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a Fighter were to use a +1 Striking gauntlet (Cinderclaw Gauntlet) on his main hand and wield a sword in his off hand, the sword would be +1 striking thanks to the Doubling Rings.
Yep. Gotta love those gold-saving rings.
If that Fighter were to perform a Dual-Handed Assault, I am believing that by RAW the Doubling Rings would not provide their function during that strike, as "the benefit doesn’t apply ... if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it", which would apply to the gauntlets during a two-handed swing.
Is that correct?
I'd say, yes. In order to be wielding a gauntlet as a weapon you must be able to use it as a weapon.
Wielding Items
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.
But the free-hand trait tells us that you can't use a gauntlet as a weapon if you are holding anything in it.
You can't attack with a free-hand weapon if you're wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand.
When you are making the strike you are wielding the sword in the gauntleted hand and so aren't capable of attacking with the gauntlet. If you can't attack with the gauntlet then you aren't wielding it, and the rings shut off.
-----
Things work better if you switch the runes to the sword. Then the sword is still a +1 striking weapon when using two hands and the rings will duplicate those runes to the gauntlet when you are using both weapons.
You could even pick up, say, a main-gauche in your gauntleted hand, and the rings would duplicate the sword's runes onto the main-gauche instead of the now unwielded gauntlet. It's a pretty versatile setup.
When you are making the strike you are wielding the sword in the gauntleted hand and so aren't capable of attacking with the gauntlet. If you can't attack with the gauntlet then you aren't wielding it, and the rings shut off.
Pedantic Counterpoint: While you are making a 1-handed Strike with a sword you also aren't capable of attacking with the gauntlet during that Strike action (because any Strike action can only be made with one weapon).
So why would the rings shut off for Dual Handed Assault, but not for a normal Strike with a sword?
When you are making the strike you are wielding the sword in the gauntleted hand and so aren't capable of attacking with the gauntlet. If you can't attack with the gauntlet then you aren't wielding it, and the rings shut off.Pedantic Counterpoint: While you are making a 1-handed Strike with a sword you also aren't capable of attacking with the gauntlet during that Strike action (because any Strike action can only be made with one weapon).
So why would the rings shut off for Dual Handed Assault, but not for a normal Strike with a sword?
There are hypothetical (as in contrived) situations where while making a Strike w/ one hand that an enemy's Reaction might trigger an AoO in which case the PC could Strike w/ either the main weapon or the gauntlet. So yes, that gauntlet is available for use. I wouldn't say this is true when using Dual Handed Assault, as the gauntlet's not available for that.
Plus the temporary nature of DHA has no bearing (except for Stances & Fighter feats as noted); the PC's wielding one weapon w/ both hands so it seems obvious at that time, during that Strike, that Doubling Rings do not apply.
I'm not sure that you are understanding my point.
During the action while you are making a Strike with the sword, you can't also make an attack with the gauntlet. Immediately after the Strike action is resolved, the gauntlet becomes available for making attacks again - including a second Strike action, or a reaction attack.
But it works the same way with Dual Handed Assault. During DHA the gauntlet cannot be used for attacks. But immediately afterwards, it can - including for a second Strike, or a reaction attack.
Things work better if you switch the runes to the sword. Then the sword is still a +1 striking weapon when using two hands and the rings will duplicate those runes to the gauntlet when you are using both weapons.
You could even pick up, say, a main-gauche in your gauntleted hand, and the rings would duplicate the sword's runes onto the main-gauche instead of the now unwielded gauntlet. It's a pretty versatile setup.
Of course. But in this particular case, the gauntlet in question is the Cinderclaw Gauntlet from the Age of Ashes campaign. While it is possible to transfer the fundamental runes by RAW, just not property runes, the PC in question simply does not want to, err, 'defile this artefact of draconic might'.
So yeah, gotta get creative. So Gauntlet on right hand, bow in left hand + Blazons of Shared power = +1 Striking bow.
Dual-Handed Assault on a bastard sword is just another way to get the most out of the +2 accuracy to (swords) a Fighter gets. Like a Combat Grab can be performed as part of a sword strike, just as long as your other hand is free or only wielding a Free Hand weapon, like a (spiked) gauntlet.
But hey, once he can afford to put runes on the sword too, he will be good to go.
Thanks for all your answers, that is something to work with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that you are understanding my point.
During the action while you are making a Strike with the sword, you can't also make an attack with the gauntlet. Immediately after the Strike action is resolved, the gauntlet becomes available for making attacks again - including a second Strike action, or a reaction attack.
But it works the same way with Dual Handed Assault. During DHA the gauntlet cannot be used for attacks. But immediately afterwards, it can - including for a second Strike, or a reaction attack.
I don't think you're understanding my point in that yes, that gauntlet is available for Strikes while striking with a weapon in the other hand, but not while striking with a weapon in both hands.
It's the availability that matters, not whether concurrent Strikes are possible.Also, say you Strike and it sparks a Reaction from the target and that Reaction in turn triggers a Reaction-Strike from you all phrased in such a way that it's while making the original Strike. If using a one-handed weapon, you could choose to use either the weapon or the gauntlet for your Reaction-Strike, but if in the middle of a Dual Handed Assault, you wouldn't have access to the gauntlet. Yes, it's contrived and order of operations could get messy, but the main point is that during the Dual Handed Assault that gauntlet is unavailable and when attacking with a one-handed weapon the gauntlet is available albeit very difficult to actually use.
Of course. But in this particular case, the gauntlet in question is the Cinderclaw Gauntlet from the Age of Ashes campaign. While it is possible to transfer the fundamental runes by RAW, just not property runes, the PC in question simply does not want to, err, 'defile this artefact of draconic might'.Things work better if you switch the runes to the sword. Then the sword is still a +1 striking weapon when using two hands and the rings will duplicate those runes to the gauntlet when you are using both weapons.
You could even pick up, say, a main-gauche in your gauntleted hand, and the rings would duplicate the sword's runes onto the main-gauche instead of the now unwielded gauntlet. It's a pretty versatile setup.
That makes sense. I'm not familiar with that particular item.
So yeah, gotta get creative. So Gauntlet on right hand, bow in left hand + Blazons of Shared power = +1 Striking bow.
Can you use Blazons of Shared Power with a bow? I thought they could only be applied to one-handed weapons, and bows are 1+ handed weapons.
Wait, wait! There are technicalities even more technical here!
The replication functions only if you wear both rings, and it ends as soon as you cease wielding a melee weapon in one of your hands. Consequently, the benefit doesn’t apply to thrown attacks or if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it (such as holding in one hand a weapon that requires two hands to wield).
let's see...
* wearing both rings: check* both hands are wielding a melee weapon: check
* not thrown attacks: check.
* not (holding a weapon but not wielding it): check?
After all, wearing the gauntlet while holding something else is not at all the same as holding the gauntlet in your hand. The fact that you're holding something else in the hand is, indeed, the entire problem.
...okay, so if we read the first paragraph, it doesn't actually *do* much (You're wielding the same weapon in both hands. It's fundamental runes are thus both duplicated onto itself and suppressed. The claw doesn't enter into it.) Still, it's not because of the "holding" clause.
Actually, the funny bit is what happens if you *do* put runes on the sword. When you're two-handing the thing with the rings on (and thus both duplicating and suppressing the same runes) does it function as normal, or do your rings get all confused and deny you even the runes that are there already? I mean, I know what the "sane GM" answer is, but past that point?
Really, for me, this sounds like a great time for GM adjudication regardless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, gotta get creative. So Gauntlet on right hand, bow in left hand + Blazons of Shared power = +1 Striking bow.Can you use Blazons of Shared Power with a bow? I thought they could only be applied to one-handed weapons, and bows are 1+ handed weapons.
It is clearly intended for firearms, not bows (or blowguns ft that matter), but seeing that wielding a pistol and a gauntlet would work and also leave you with a free hand for reloading, our GM ruled that he'll allow it.
All of these shenanigans would not even be a thing if we were playing with Automatic Bonus Progression, but alas...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that you are understanding my point.
During the action while you are making a Strike with the sword, you can't also make an attack with the gauntlet. Immediately after the Strike action is resolved, the gauntlet becomes available for making attacks again - including a second Strike action, or a reaction attack.
But it works the same way with Dual Handed Assault. During DHA the gauntlet cannot be used for attacks. But immediately afterwards, it can - including for a second Strike, or a reaction attack.
I don't think you're understanding my point in that yes, that gauntlet is available for Strikes while striking with a weapon in the other hand, but not while striking with a weapon in both hands.
It's the availability that matters, not whether concurrent Strikes are possible.
The entire point of Dual Handed Assault is to be able to make an attack with a weapon as though you were using it two-handed, but not have any of the drawbacks of actually switching your grip. No action cost, no loss of stances that require free-hand or one-hand weapons only, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire point of Dual Handed Assault is to be able to make an attack with a weapon as though you were using it two-handed, but not have any of the drawbacks of actually switching your grip. No action cost, no loss of stances that require free-hand or one-hand weapons only, etc.I'm not sure that you are understanding my point.
During the action while you are making a Strike with the sword, you can't also make an attack with the gauntlet. Immediately after the Strike action is resolved, the gauntlet becomes available for making attacks again - including a second Strike action, or a reaction attack.
But it works the same way with Dual Handed Assault. During DHA the gauntlet cannot be used for attacks. But immediately afterwards, it can - including for a second Strike, or a reaction attack.
I don't think you're understanding my point in that yes, that gauntlet is available for Strikes while striking with a weapon in the other hand, but not while striking with a weapon in both hands.
It's the availability that matters, not whether concurrent Strikes are possible.It's not that you don't have drawbacks:
Being flourish, gives your a wider move ( strike + interact to grip with just one action, and a little extra damage), and as an extra, you don't end any stance which requires you to have a free hand.
But the moment you have your grip on your weapon with both hands, you lose the doubling ring benefits.
Reason why it's the bastard sword and not the gauntlet the one which has to get the runes on it ( otherwise you'll be swinging that two-handed strike with just a non magical weapon).
Right. All of the feat's benefits are listed; the action savings (at the cost of being one's Flourish that round) and not losing Stances or Fighter feats tied to using a one-handed weapon. That's it.
It's not a blanket "continues to count as one-handed for all purposes".And as noted, it's hardly a hindrance since one can put the enchantment on the weapon instead.
And as noted, it's hardly a hindrance since one can put the enchantment on the weapon instead.
So why? Why forbid it for Dual Handed Assault then? What balance problem does it cause?
And again, like in another thread, I tend to err on the side of reading a list of interactions being examples of type rather than an exhaustive list. More of an RAI thing.
And as noted, it's hardly a hindrance since one can put the enchantment on the weapon instead.So why? Why forbid it for Dual Handed Assault then? What balance problem does it cause?
And again, like in another thread, I tend to err on the side of reading a list of interactions being examples of type rather than an exhaustive list. More of an RAI thing.
It's not forbidding. That's weighted language.
It's seeing no issues which require overriding the rules.Since Doubling Rings existed and the language of the feat is so specific, I think my reading does follow RAI. Paizo could've used more permissive language with those as examples, but they didn't. Those "examples" are all the feat does.
And as for Doubling Rings, I'd say their RAI would suggest disallowing this since they're obviously made to ease the budget issues for dual wielders w/ their lesser weapons, not power up swapping out 2-handed weapons (which the feat temporarily makes them).
Wait, wait! There are technicalities even more technical here!
let's see...
* wearing both rings: check
* both hands are wielding a melee weapon: check
* not thrown attacks: check.
* not (holding a weapon but not wielding it): check?
It's an odd case but I agree with this, you are still wielding a weapon with each hand..... it just happens to be the same weapon.
So then the rings would make that weapon benefit from the runes that are already on it. Which is another way to say it would do nothing.
So then the rings would make that weapon benefit from the runes that are already on it. Which is another way to say it would do nothing.
Yeah for some reason my head had it that if the rings shut off they were off till you used an action. I was thinking about ways to keep it "active"
You snap your free hand over to grip your weapon just long enough to add momentum and deliver a more powerful blow to your opponent. Make a Strike with the required
weapon. You quickly switch your grip during the Strike in order to make the attack with two hands. If the weapon doesn’t normally have the two-hand trait, increase its weapon damage die by one step for this attack. (Rules on increasing die size appear on page 279.) If the weapon has the two-hand trait, you gain the benefit of that trait and
a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the weapon’s number of damage dice. When the Strike is complete, you resume gripping the weapon with only one hand. This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free.
...When you wield a melee weapon in the hand wearing the golden ring, the weapon’s fundamental runes are replicated onto any melee weapon you wield in the hand wearing the iron ring... The replication functions only if you wear both rings, and it ends as soon as you cease wielding a melee weapon in one of your hands.
In a situation where you have a +1 gauntlet of striking worn/wielded on one hand and a plain sword wielded in the other, then you use Dual-Handed Assault with the sword, it seems the question becomes: Does the gauntlet ever cease to be wielded? If so, when? And if so, does that mean the sword is actually wielded in both hands? Because you could parse this as true, "You haven't ceased wielding a melee weapon in one of your hands, because the sword is wielded in both," you never ceased wielding a weapon in any hand.
Personally, I have to say I don't see a problem with letting the rings work with the feat. It's a feat designed to help you make a big swing while still qualifying as a one-hander + free-hand style fighter. It's not a big deal, and it would suck as a player to lose the feat availability over a technicality like this.
That said, you could parse it a few ways:
1) You don't grip the sword long enough to lose the benefit. WORKS
2) By changing your grip just long enough to activate the feat, the gauntlet ceases to be wielded, so the ring stops working. DOESN'T WORK
3) Because the ring's condition for ending its effect says, "it ends as soon as you cease wielding a melee weapon in one of your hands," you don't actually meet that condition, because both hands maintained the condition of wielding a weapon through all actions. WORKS
I'm biased. I let it work. I can see the other side, I just don't think that side is as much fun.