+5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets...and grappling. [Archive] - Wizards Community

+5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets...and grappling. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lord Psynister
02-05-05, 11:56 AM This is just something I stumbled into the other day while I was rolling up a grappling cohort for one of my characters. (dwarven monk1/ftr9/reaping mauler 5)

+5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets (one on each hand)

Since they're gauntlets, I can wear them and still grapple with no problem. Right so far?

Now, I'm rarely ever going to actually use them to hit somebody, so I figure I'll just set the Defending attribute on "Full" and enjoy that nice little +10 AC that I just got.

Now, I was planning on using this fellow to just grapple the crap out of people, wasn't really planning on doing much of anything as far punching people as I had a nice intelligent urgosh to give him when/if he ever needed an actual weapon.

But the question I've got here is: Is it within the rules to get the AC bonus from the gauntlets even though I'm technically not "using" them? They're equipped, and I'm wielding them, but I'm not attacking with them at all. Would I still get the AC bonus from them?

Since we've also got a couple of spare +5 Rings of Protection and a nice suit of +5 Elven Chain, I think this fellow's going to be somewhere near freakin' impossible to hit at the level that we're at right now (save for spells, of course).
Frank the Vandal
02-05-05, 12:00 PM You have to wield a defending weapon to get the AC bonus ("A defending weapon allows the wielder..."). Just wearing, carrying or having them isn't wielding.
I seem to remember this being in a FAQ somewhere... Not sure, though.
Lord Psynister
02-05-05, 01:04 PM Thanks Frank, I'll take a look and see what I can find out.

I had a feeling it was too good to be true...
Kyaran
02-05-05, 01:59 PM You could be wielding both spiked gauntlets (and taking all appropriate TWF penalties) and still make grapple checks.

Once in the grapple, you'd only be able to wield one of them, so you'd only get the bonus from that one (if you wanted it).

Wielding means that you have the weapon readied for use, and are complying with all rules of use, not that you actually have made attacks with it. Holding a greatsword in one hand is not wielding. Holding a dagger in your off-hand and making non-penalized attacks with your longsword is not wielding the dagger. Wearing two spiked gauntlets and making unarmed attacks is not wielding the gauntlets. Wearing two spiked gauntlets and taking TWF penalties on any appropriate attacks is wielding. Fortunately, from what I can tell, grapple checks don't suffer from TWF penalties.

I also couldn't find any questions on wielding in the FAQ.
Thorak
02-05-05, 03:51 PM Wielding isn't defined anywhere in D&D. English use of the term, however, if we're talking about handling an item like we are, is without exception an active use. You can be said to be wielding a shovel while you're digging a hole with it. You cannot be so described if you're taking a break and holding it as you do so.

In the absence of a specific D&D definition, we use the English one. Wielding is active use, so if you're not actively using (which doesn't necessarily mean attacking, just to be clear, but being ready to attack) them, you're not wielding them.

As I've pointed out in other threads, if it were just wearing or holding the item, my next character is going to have +5 Defending Gauntlets, Blade Boots, and Armor Spikes, so he can walk around with a cool +25 AC before we even start discussing armor and such.
Vaelan
02-05-05, 10:28 PM Wielding most certainly isn't defined, but there are some parts of the text that imply a particular meaning.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

This seems to suggest that wielding a weapon in your off hand is not the same as attacking with it.

However, the definition of "wield" is not the point at all. Take a look at the description of the Defending property. It says "As a free action, the wielder choosed how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..."

One could take this to mean that you are not allowed to take the AC bonus unless you plan on making an attack with the weapon, and thus take the TWF penalties. The theory of "No Free Lunch" would agree with the ruling, if not the reasoning.
Lord Psynister
02-06-05, 12:02 AM Thorak: Good point(s), thanks.

However, the definition of "wield" is not the point at all. Take a look at the description of the Defending property. It says "As a free action, the wielder choosed how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..."

One could take this to mean that you are not allowed to take the AC bonus unless you plan on making an attack with the weapon, and thus take the TWF penalties. The theory of "No Free Lunch" would agree with the ruling, if not the reasoning.

Though I agree now that it wouldn't work how I originally thought, I interpret the above definition of the Defending ability to mean that you can't use the full bonus for your attack and then use the free action to snag the AC bonus. Granted, it could mean both, but I think that line's actually there to prevent you from getting both a +X to your attack and your AC in the same round.

Thanks for the help there, guys.
Thorak
02-06-05, 02:42 PM Wielding most certainly isn't defined, but there are some parts of the text that imply a particular meaning.

This seems to suggest that wielding a weapon in your off hand is not the same as attacking with it.
Exactly, because in wielding it, you can make an extra attack. It doesn't say the attacking is a necessity.
However, the definition of "wield" is not the point at all. Take a look at the description of the Defending property. It says "As a free action, the wielder choosed how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..."

One could take this to mean that you are not allowed to take the AC bonus unless you plan on making an attack with the weapon, and thus take the TWF penalties. The theory of "No Free Lunch" would agree with the ruling, if not the reasoning.
I don't see how it could be taken that way, since it never once mentions making an attack. Just that the wielder choose how to allocate the bonus before using the weapon.

Note "the wielder", and "before using". And recall my earlier post, where I pointed out that wielding is active use. You don't have to use it to make an attack, but if you're wielding it, you're using it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord Psynister 02-05-05, 11:56 AM	This is just something I stumbled into the other day while I was rolling up a grappling cohort for one of my characters. (dwarven monk1/ftr9/reaping mauler 5) +5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets (one on each hand) Since they're gauntlets, I can wear them and still grapple with no problem. Right so far? Now, I'm rarely ever going to actually use them to hit somebody, so I figure I'll just set the Defending attribute on "Full" and enjoy that nice little +10 AC that I just got. Now, I was planning on using this fellow to just grapple the crap out of people, wasn't really planning on doing much of anything as far punching people as I had a nice intelligent urgosh to give him when/if he ever needed an actual weapon. But the question I've got here is: Is it within the rules to get the AC bonus from the gauntlets even though I'm technically not "using" them? They're equipped, and I'm wielding them, but I'm not attacking with them at all. Would I still get the AC bonus from them? Since we've also got a couple of spare +5 Rings of Protection and a nice suit of +5 Elven Chain, I think this fellow's going to be somewhere near freakin' impossible to hit at the level that we're at right now (save for spells, of course).
Frank the Vandal 02-05-05, 12:00 PM	You have to wield a defending weapon to get the AC bonus ("A defending weapon allows the wielder..."). Just wearing, carrying or having them isn't wielding. I seem to remember this being in a FAQ somewhere... Not sure, though.
Lord Psynister 02-05-05, 01:04 PM	Thanks Frank, I'll take a look and see what I can find out. I had a feeling it was too good to be true...
Kyaran 02-05-05, 01:59 PM	You could be wielding both spiked gauntlets (and taking all appropriate TWF penalties) and still make grapple checks. Once in the grapple, you'd only be able to wield one of them, so you'd only get the bonus from that one (if you wanted it). Wielding means that you have the weapon readied for use, and are complying with all rules of use, not that you actually have made attacks with it. Holding a greatsword in one hand is not wielding. Holding a dagger in your off-hand and making non-penalized attacks with your longsword is not wielding the dagger. Wearing two spiked gauntlets and making unarmed attacks is not wielding the gauntlets. Wearing two spiked gauntlets and taking TWF penalties on any appropriate attacks is wielding. Fortunately, from what I can tell, grapple checks don't suffer from TWF penalties. I also couldn't find any questions on wielding in the FAQ.
Thorak 02-05-05, 03:51 PM	Wielding isn't defined anywhere in D&D. English use of the term, however, if we're talking about handling an item like we are, is without exception an active use. You can be said to be wielding a shovel while you're digging a hole with it. You cannot be so described if you're taking a break and holding it as you do so. In the absence of a specific D&D definition, we use the English one. Wielding is active use, so if you're not actively using (which doesn't necessarily mean attacking, just to be clear, but being ready to attack) them, you're not wielding them. As I've pointed out in other threads, if it were just wearing or holding the item, my next character is going to have +5 Defending Gauntlets, Blade Boots, and Armor Spikes, so he can walk around with a cool +25 AC before we even start discussing armor and such.
Vaelan 02-05-05, 10:28 PM	Wielding most certainly isn't defined, but there are some parts of the text that imply a particular meaning. If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. This seems to suggest that wielding a weapon in your off hand is not the same as attacking with it. However, the definition of "wield" is not the point at all. Take a look at the description of the Defending property. It says "As a free action, the wielder choosed how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..." One could take this to mean that you are not allowed to take the AC bonus unless you plan on making an attack with the weapon, and thus take the TWF penalties. The theory of "No Free Lunch" would agree with the ruling, if not the reasoning.
Lord Psynister 02-06-05, 12:02 AM	Thorak: Good point(s), thanks. However, the definition of "wield" is not the point at all. Take a look at the description of the Defending property. It says "As a free action, the wielder choosed how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..." One could take this to mean that you are not allowed to take the AC bonus unless you plan on making an attack with the weapon, and thus take the TWF penalties. The theory of "No Free Lunch" would agree with the ruling, if not the reasoning. Though I agree now that it wouldn't work how I originally thought, I interpret the above definition of the Defending ability to mean that you can't use the full bonus for your attack and then use the free action to snag the AC bonus. Granted, it could mean both, but I think that line's actually there to prevent you from getting both a +X to your attack and your AC in the same round. Thanks for the help there, guys.
Thorak 02-06-05, 02:42 PM	Wielding most certainly isn't defined, but there are some parts of the text that imply a particular meaning. This seems to suggest that wielding a weapon in your off hand is not the same as attacking with it. Exactly, because in wielding it, you can make an extra attack. It doesn't say the attacking is a necessity. However, the definition of "wield" is not the point at all. Take a look at the description of the Defending property. It says "As a free action, the wielder choosed how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon..." One could take this to mean that you are not allowed to take the AC bonus unless you plan on making an attack with the weapon, and thus take the TWF penalties. The theory of "No Free Lunch" would agree with the ruling, if not the reasoning. I don't see how it could be taken that way, since it never once mentions making an attack. Just that the wielder choose how to allocate the bonus before using the weapon. Note "the wielder", and "before using". And recall my earlier post, where I pointed out that wielding is active use. You don't have to use it to make an attack, but if you're wielding it, you're using it.