Post/Author/DateTime	Post
PantherFern 10-17-07, 11:58 PM	I've never used a reach weapon or played with anybody that did so I'm not real clear on how they work exactly. But since I'm DM'ing now I figure I probably ought to know this stuff for when it comes up. So if Player has a polearm (glaive for instance) with a 10ft. reach, are they considered flanking if there is a square between them and the opponent, or do they still need to be directly next to the opponent (in which case they can't actually hit) to be flanking? If it's the former, then wouldn't it make sense for an archer to be considered flanking if in direct line within their range? If it's the latter, then what's the point of reach weapons if you can't attack next to you AND essentially lose all flanking ability?
calronmoonflower 10-18-07, 01:59 AM	You can only flank when you can hit the target with a melee weapon, reach or not. That would be 10 feet for most reach weapons.
Salla 10-18-07, 02:05 AM	I've never used a reach weapon or played with anybody that did so I'm not real clear on how they work exactly. But since I'm DM'ing now I figure I probably ought to know this stuff for when it comes up. So if Player has a polearm (glaive for instance) with a 10ft. reach, are they considered flanking if there is a square between them and the opponent, or do they still need to be directly next to the opponent (in which case they can't actually hit) to be flanking? If it's the former, then wouldn't it make sense for an archer to be considered flanking if in direct line within their range? If it's the latter, then what's the point of reach weapons if you can't attack next to you AND essentially lose all flanking ability? Something like this: A-MB With A using the polearm, - being an empty square, M being the monster, and B being the teammate, is a flank. The reason archers do not flank is because they do not threaten any squares, whereas the polearm user does (that 'ring' of squares into which they can reach with their polearm). I'm about to go into excessive detail here, so you may want to skip. I won't be offended if you do. :) The reason that melee characters threaten is because they are assumed to be constantly throwing feints and checked swings into all squares that they can reach with their weapon at all times. Since they are constantly harassing an enemy, they can serve as a distraction for flanking. You cannot consistently fill a zone with arrows unless you're a big fan of wasting ammunition (plus drawing an arrow is a free action, which can only be taken on your turn, so thus you have no ability to produce an arrow any time other than your own turn).
Colmarr 10-18-07, 03:19 AM	When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked. The important text is in bold, and Salla has given the correct answer. The second paragraph is mostly used when the flanking creatures are of different sizes and are off centre to each other. In the following situation: GGGG GGGG GGGG--A-B GGGG Where: G is a huge Giant friendly to B - is an empty square A is the target; and B is the attacker using a reach weapon B would get the flanking bonus as a line from the centre of B's square to the centre of the Giant's area passes through opposite sides of A's square.
Nom 10-18-07, 04:03 AM	The second paragraph is mostly used when the flanking creatures are of different sizes and are off centre to each other.Not quite. There's a separate rule for that, which is that the attackers flank if any square/s they occupy would count as flanking. Rather, the rule applies if A and B were on opposite sides of the giant and off centre. They don't have to rule a line through the centre of the giant, just any pair of opposite sides or corners. In case it comes up, note that (non-total) cover will prevent attacks of opportunity but not flanking. You cannot make an AoO against a creature with cover relative to you, but you still threaten them and can still flank. Obviously, total cover blocks threatening and thus flanking.
eamon 10-18-07, 11:07 AM	In short, you flank if it's possible to draw a line from the center of any square occupied by you to the center of any square of any threatening ally such that the resulting line passes through opposing sides or corners of the region inhabited by the opponent. Reach doesn't actually matter - it just makes the line a little longer. If any creature is between you and your opponent, then the opponent has soft-cover, and you can't take AoO's (and the opponent gains +4 AC, but not the normal ref. save bonus).
PantherFern 10-18-07, 11:33 AM	Something like this: A-MB With A using the polearm, - being an empty square, M being the monster, and B being the teammate, is a flank. The reason archers do not flank is because they do not threaten any squares, whereas the polearm user does (that 'ring' of squares into which they can reach with their polearm). Got it. Thanks I'm about to go into excessive detail here, so you may want to skip. I won't be offended if you do. :) Detail is great. I like in-depth explanations :) The reason that melee characters threaten is because they are assumed to be constantly throwing feints and checked swings into all squares that they can reach with their weapon at all times. Since they are constantly harassing an enemy, they can serve as a distraction for flanking. You cannot consistently fill a zone with arrows unless you're a big fan of wasting ammunition (plus drawing an arrow is a free action, which can only be taken on your turn, so thus you have no ability to produce an arrow any time other than your own turn). This makes sense. It does, however, bring up another question for me. Does this mean that a PC wielding a bow cannot be considered to be flanking anybody? So that in your example: A-MB if B has a bow in hand, M is no longer flanked? If that's the case, I'm going to have to keep better track of what weapons my players have out in combat as I've so far ruled that if an opponent PC's on opposite sides, he is flanked. I suppose my reasoning is that being hemmed in cut his ability to duck & dodge. This is wrong then? Thanks everybody else for the responses too. So what if the scene looks like: AMB where A has a reach weapon? Is M still flanked or no? I imagine not based on your responses because it's not a threatened square for A. It just seems wrong though - it appears that taking a reach weapon gains zero benefits and screws the rest of your party out of a lot of flanking opportunities. I don't know . . . maybe I'm just looking at it wrong.
Merestil Haye 10-18-07, 01:04 PM	It does, however, bring up another question for me. Does this mean that a PC wielding a bow cannot be considered to be flanking anybody? So that in your example: A-MB if B has a bow in hand, M is no longer flanked? If that's the case, I'm going to have to keep better track of what weapons my players have out in combat as I've so far ruled that if an opponent PC's on opposite sides, he is flanked. I suppose my reasoning is that being hemmed in cut his ability to duck & dodge. This is wrong then?In order to grant a flanking bonus, the character must threaten the enemy. He threatens any square into which he can make an armed melee attack. Ranged weapons do not allow the wielder to make melee attacks. Therefore the bow-armed character cannot normally threaten.
Salla 10-18-07, 01:20 PM	In order to grant a flanking bonus, the character must threaten the enemy. He threatens any square into which he can make an armed melee attack. Ranged weapons do not allow the wielder to make melee attacks. Therefore the bow-armed character cannot normally threaten. Correct. This is why the spiked gauntlet is an archer's friend. :) I think there's some elven bow somewhere that is actually reinforced to the degree where you can effectively bludgeon people with it, but since I'm not a fan of elves, I didn't commit the source to memory.
Merestil Haye 10-18-07, 02:44 PM	Correct. This is why the spiked gauntlet is an archer's friend. :) I think there's some elven bow somewhere that is actually reinforced to the degree where you can effectively bludgeon people with it, but since I'm not a fan of elves, I didn't commit the source to memory.Races of the Wild. Just so you do know. :)
PantherFern 10-18-07, 04:44 PM	Correct. This is why the spiked gauntlet is an archer's friend. :) I think there's some elven bow somewhere that is actually reinforced to the degree where you can effectively bludgeon people with it, but since I'm not a fan of elves, I didn't commit the source to memory. Wait . . . what? Could you clarify this for me please? Are you saying that if one is wearing a spiked gauntlet whilst wielding a bow, that gives them a credible threat range from the gauntlet and they can therefore makes AoO attacks with said gauntlet? If that's the case, why couldn't they just hit with their fists to begin with? Oh yeah, that's right - unarmed doesn't count as an AoO threat except for monks huh. The gauntlet doesn't give any sort of negatives to bow use? Doesn't it count as armor of whatever weight class it is thereby undermining DEX and armor-restricted abilities (ranger's two-weapon fighting for example) or, say, a rouge's lack of armor proficiency? It almost sounds like anybody can wear a spiked gauntlet with absolutely no drawbacks that serves as 1) a weapon that doesn't actually count as a weapon 2) using unarmed strike that doesn't count as unarmed strike 3) no armor restrictions or armor check penalty or spell failure chance that I can see. Why doesn't everybody wear these things then? (Or do they and I'm just hopelessly out of the loop?)
Salla 10-18-07, 08:12 PM	Wait . . . what? Could you clarify this for me please? Are you saying that if one is wearing a spiked gauntlet whilst wielding a bow, that gives them a credible threat range from the gauntlet and they can therefore makes AoO attacks with said gauntlet? Exactly. If that's the case, why couldn't they just hit with their fists to begin with? Oh yeah, that's right - unarmed doesn't count as an AoO threat except for monks huh. The gauntlet doesn't give any sort of negatives to bow use? None I'm aware of. Doesn't it count as armor of whatever weight class it is thereby undermining DEX and armor-restricted abilities (ranger's two-weapon fighting for example) or, say, a rouge's lack of armor proficiency? The spiked gauntlets are on the weapon chart, not the armor chart. They aren't armor. It almost sounds like anybody can wear a spiked gauntlet with absolutely no drawbacks that serves as 1) a weapon that doesn't actually count as a weapon 2) using unarmed strike that doesn't count as unarmed strike 3) no armor restrictions or armor check penalty or spell failure chance that I can see. Why doesn't everybody wear these things then? (Or do they and I'm just hopelessly out of the loop?) Not everybody needs to. If you're wielding a non-reach melee weapon, you already threaten more effectively than you do the gauntlet. A wizard or other spellcaster only needs one hand free to cast spells, so they can easily hold a one-handed weapon in one hand and cast with the other. If you're using a shield, you can shield-bash.
PantherFern 10-18-07, 09:36 PM	Exactly. None I'm aware of. So a buckler interferes with archers but not a spiked, metal gauntlet? I can't imagine firing a bow with a massive steel glove on, but hey. If that's RAW, I guess. The spiked gauntlets are on the weapon chart, not the armor chart. They aren't armor. True. But they come as part of a set of armor as well. Not everybody needs to. If you're wielding a non-reach melee weapon, you already threaten more effectively than you do the gauntlet. A wizard or other spellcaster only needs one hand free to cast spells, so they can easily hold a one-handed weapon in one hand and cast with the other. If you're using a shield, you can shield-bash. So then the archer is technically armed and wielding two weapons simultaneously? No drawing or sheathing needed? I mean, if that's the rules, fine, but the whole thing still smells funny to me. I take it then that the same loophole would apply to ranged weapon wielders wearing spiked gauntlets? They would similarly be able to threaten both 5' and 10' squares around them without any penalties and without drawing/sheathing actions? Spikey gauntlets for all!
Salla 10-18-07, 10:32 PM	So a buckler interferes with archers but not a spiked, metal gauntlet? I can't imagine firing a bow with a massive steel glove on, but hey. If that's RAW, I guess. One pound isn't particularly massive, and it's on your hand (probably the one holding the bow). The buckler is 5 pounds and strapped to your forearm; considerably heavier and in a worse position than the gauntlet. True. But they come as part of a set of armor as well. But not wearing them doesn't lower your AC, and wearing them doesn't increase your AC, so whether or not they're included with your armor is a personal choice. So then the archer is technically armed and wielding two weapons simultaneously? No drawing or sheathing needed? I mean, if that's the rules, fine, but the whole thing still smells funny to me. If you're referring to two-weapon fighting, that only matters when you're using the feat to get an extra attack. If you have two attacks a round from BAB +6 and a weapon in each hand, you can attack once with each and not suffer penalties. I take it then that the same loophole would apply to ranged weapon wielders wearing spiked gauntlets? They would similarly be able to threaten both 5' and 10' squares around them without any penalties and without drawing/sheathing actions? Spikey gauntlets for all! Yep. The spiked gauntlet (or spiked armor) is a staple for reach weapon builds that aren't using spiked chains.
PantherFern 10-19-07, 12:34 PM	If you're referring to two-weapon fighting, that only matters when you're using the feat to get an extra attack. If you have two attacks a round from BAB +6 and a weapon in each hand, you can attack once with each and not suffer penalties. No, I was noting that the spiked gauntlet appears to just be sort of a freebie item that doesn't really count as anything, has no drawbacks, and basically gives free attacks. Say a ranger has their bow out in combat but also has a longsword and probably a dagger on them as well. If an enemy runs by them, they can't take an AoO because their bow is out even though they have the other weapons on them. You're saying that with the gauntlet, they can make that attack even though they're still holding the bow - essentially getting a free attack that they couldn't get with any other weapon because the gauntlets are considered to be wielded and threatening at all times without having to draw or sheath anything ever. Where does the bow go while they're doing this? As you mentioned earlier, it would probably make sense that the gauntlet is on the bow hand rather than the nocking hand so are they just punching with the bow still in hand? Would I need to keep track of which hand the gauntlet is on as far as offhand attack penalties? The polearms I can more easily see really. I work with these sorts of things almost daily, often with thick, heavy gloves and I can quite easily see letting go with one hand to take a swing with a fist and then re-controlling the weapon. Okay, so all the nitpicky technicalities aside, it seems a character with a spiked gauntlet on threatens directly adjacent to them like most other melee weapons do. Therefore, an archer could be threatening/flanking their adjacent squares and a spiked gauntlet & polearm wielder would be threatening/flanking both the 5' adjacent squares AND the 10' ring outside of that? Add in those bladed gauntlets from Sword & Fist and you got yourself some cool stuff.
Salla 10-19-07, 01:19 PM	No, I was noting that the spiked gauntlet appears to just be sort of a freebie item that doesn't really count as anything, has no drawbacks, and basically gives free attacks. Say a ranger has their bow out in combat but also has a longsword and probably a dagger on them as well. If an enemy runs by them, they can't take an AoO because their bow is out even though they have the other weapons on them. You're saying that with the gauntlet, they can make that attack even though they're still holding the bow - essentially getting a free attack that they couldn't get with any other weapon because the gauntlets are considered to be wielded and threatening at all times without having to draw or sheath anything ever. Where does the bow go while they're doing this? As you mentioned earlier, it would probably make sense that the gauntlet is on the bow hand rather than the nocking hand so are they just punching with the bow still in hand? Exactly. It'd be a lot like slugging someone while holding a roll of quarters. Would I need to keep track of which hand the gauntlet is on as far as offhand attack penalties? What attack penalties? You aren't two-weapon fighting, the only weapon you're using is the gauntlet. Offhand attack penalties only matter when two-weapon fighting. D&D does not track right- or left-handedness. You can have a weapon in each hand, and if you don't claim extra attacks via two-weapon fighting, you take no penalties, regardless of which hand it is. If, on your turn, you were claiming extra attacks via TWF with bow and gauntlet, then you'd have to worry about it, but you could decide from round to round which weapon is your 'off-hand' weapon. The polearms I can more easily see really. I work with these sorts of things almost daily, often with thick, heavy gloves and I can quite easily see letting go with one hand to take a swing with a fist and then re-controlling the weapon. Okay, so all the nitpicky technicalities aside, it seems a character with a spiked gauntlet on threatens directly adjacent to them like most other melee weapons do. Therefore, an archer could be threatening/flanking their adjacent squares and a spiked gauntlet & polearm wielder would be threatening/flanking both the 5' adjacent squares AND the 10' ring outside of that? Add in those bladed gauntlets from Sword & Fist and you got yourself some cool stuff. Make sure you check the errata ... they don't have a 17-20 threat range, it's 19-20. :)
PantherFern 10-19-07, 04:35 PM	What attack penalties? You aren't two-weapon fighting, the only weapon you're using is the gauntlet. Offhand attack penalties only matter when two-weapon fighting. D&D does not track right- or left-handedness. You can have a weapon in each hand, and if you don't claim extra attacks via two-weapon fighting, you take no penalties, regardless of which hand it is. If, on your turn, you were claiming extra attacks via TWF with bow and gauntlet, then you'd have to worry about it, but you could decide from round to round which weapon is your 'off-hand' weapon. Since this is how the rules are written, I'll go with it, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you can attack equally well from either hand, then why is there an "offhand penalty" in the first place or the need to take ambidexterity as a feat? If you can use either hand equally well, you already are ambidextrous. Make sure you check the errata ... they don't have a 17-20 threat range, it's 19-20. :) Errata? No idea where that is. And, truthfully, I probably wouldn't use it anyway as we have no access to that during the game. We use what is in the books we have as it is printed unless it is a case of some egregious error or obvious typo. While a 17-20 threat range is comparatively powerful (especially with keen or improved crit), it's only a d6 and a x2 so it's not going to be that broken that it's going be a make-or-break item. Well, I suppose it could be because about half the time you would basically have a 4 lb. greatsword . . . It would make some day-to-day living extremely hazardous though if they forget to take it off :D Looking over the PhB weapons, I'd probably set it at 1d6 (18-20) x2 which would be in line with the rapier, scimitar and kukri since it seems to be basically a kukri blade with the maneuverability of a rapier.
Jhulae 10-19-07, 05:18 PM	Since this is how the rules are written, I'll go with it, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you can attack equally well from either hand, then why is there an "offhand penalty" in the first place or the need to take ambidexterity as a feat? If you can use either hand equally well, you already are ambidextrous. There's an 'offhand penalty' when Two Weapon Fighting. That is, using both weapons in the same round for the express purpose of getting an extra attack or attacks. As long as your character isn't using both hands *at the same time* during the round (via TWF), the game just assumes for simplicity that your character is fairly capable enough to not take a penalty because the character is only focusing on attacking with one hand, not with both.
Kernath 10-20-07, 05:33 PM	Since this is how the rules are written, I'll go with it, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you can attack equally well from either hand, then why is there an "offhand penalty" in the first place or the need to take ambidexterity as a feat? If you can use either hand equally well, you already are ambidextrous. Ambidexterity doesn't exist in 3.5, and the "offhand penalty" is due to focusing more on one weapon than the other, not simply being left handed. Honestly, if you've trained your whole life to use every weapon known to man (or elf), you'd damn well better be able to swing with both hands. Show me a basketball player whose percentages are significantly different depending upon which hand they're using, and I'll lay dollars to donuts that player is NOT in the NBA. Errata? No idea where that is. And, truthfully, I probably wouldn't use it anyway as we have no access to that during the game. We use what is in the books we have as it is printed unless it is a case of some egregious error or obvious typo. While a 17-20 threat range is comparatively powerful (especially with keen or improved crit), it's only a d6 and a x2 so it's not going to be that broken that it's going be a make-or-break item. Well, I suppose it could be because about half the time you would basically have a 4 lb. greatsword . . . An accidentally doubled threat range is pretty egregious. The errata can be found rather easily from the front page (Resources -> Errata), but I'm feeling nice, so here's a direct link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata). If you're using a book, print out the errata and stick it in the front cover. It would make some day-to-day living extremely hazardous though if they forget to take it off :D That's like making wizards make Wis checks to remember what page of their spellbooks a particular spell is on. The accidents that occur in the Real World are due to people getting their hands on stuff they really can't handle (guns, kitchen knives, cars, etc). It's not much harder to avoid poking your eye out with a spiked gauntlet than with a sword. Looking over the PhB weapons, I'd probably set it at 1d6 (18-20) x2 which would be in line with the rapier, scimitar and kukri since it seems to be basically a kukri blade with the maneuverability of a rapier. Except, as you've said, a gauntlet-type weapon is significantly more powerful than a held one. Spiked gauntlets are numerically weaker than held and punching daggers because they're more useful. The errata's fine.
Cifer 10-22-07, 05:36 PM	Since this is how the rules are written, I'll go with it, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you can attack equally well from either hand, then why is there an "offhand penalty" in the first place or the need to take ambidexterity as a feat? If you can use either hand equally well, you already are ambidextrous. Write something with your left hand. If you concentrate and train just a little, it'll be readable. Now write something with both hands at the same time - I doubt you'll manage it. While a 17-20 threat range is comparatively powerful (especially with keen or improved crit), it's only a d6 and a x2 so it's not going to be that broken that it's going be a make-or-break item. Well, I suppose it could be because about half the time you would basically have a 4 lb. greatsword . . . "It's only a d6 and a x2" is correct - as long as you're still in the low levels where you don't have ways to boost your damage. Later, you get stuff like Telling Blow (get Sneak Attack damage for every single crit you make) or Necrocarnum Weapon (get a bonus to your incarnum pool for every crit). If you look around a little, you can get pretty powerful abilities that depend on a critical hit, making weapons with threat ranges such as the one you mention quite powerful. Further, you already discovered the main benefit of the gauntlets: They're essentially slotless, meaning that if you gave them rapier stats, they'd be more powerful that said rapier. By the way, reach weapons have another benefit - you can flank from more squares with them. Consider this scenario: _._C.M R._._._ _._C.M R= Reach guy; C= Creature; M= Melee guy Reach guy flanks both creatures since the line drawn from his upper/lower right corner passes through the left and the right border of the creatures to the meleers.