Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fanged Fremont 07-12-05, 09:56 AM	Quick question. Gloves of dextery with a spiked gauntlet, can you do it and still retain the dex bonus from the gloves. What if it was a +1 spiked gauntlet?
Greyman 07-12-05, 10:08 AM	You may only wear one glove, one pair of gloves, or one pair of gauntlets on the hands.MAGIC ITEMS ON THE BODY Many magic items need to be donned by a character who wants to employ them or benefit from their abilities. It’s possible for a creature with a humanoid-shaped body to wear as many as twelve magic items at the same time. However, each of those items must be worn on (or over) a particular part of the body. A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which place on the body the item is worn. • One headband, hat, helmet, or phylactery on the head • One pair of eye lenses or goggles on or over the eyes • One amulet, brooch, medallion, necklace, periapt, or scarab around the neck • One vest, vestment, or shirt on the torso • One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt) • One belt around the waist (over a robe or suit of armor) • One cloak, cape, or mantle around the shoulders (over a robe or suit of armor) • One pair of bracers or bracelets on the arms or wrists • One glove, pair of gloves, or pair of gauntlets on the hands • One ring on each hand (or two rings on one hand) • One pair of boots or shoes on the feet Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those listed above have no effect. Some items can be worn or carried without taking up space on a character’s body. The description of an item indicates when an item has this property.
JadeSpider9643 07-12-05, 10:30 AM	Note that's for MAGIC items, you can wear as many items as you can fit on your body, but you only benefit from 1 MAGIC item for each of those slots. So yes you can wear gloves of dex +2 and non-magical spiked gauntlets and benefit from both, but not if both items are magical.
tarkin 07-12-05, 10:36 AM	I would allow the only if the gloves were specifically made extra thin. Or I might give a circumstance penalty of -2 for any task requiring fine motor control of the hands.
the artful dodger 07-12-05, 10:38 AM	That seems to be a pretty literalist approach. Gauntlets are weapons, not wondrous items in the same vein as gloves. Weapons shouldn't count towards body slots. If you enhance the gauntlets as wondrous items, that'd be something else, but not if they are only of use as a weapon. I wouldn't allow a character to benefit from gauntlets of Dex +4 and gloves of lockpicking +5 at the same time, but gloves of Dex +4 and a +1 Thundering spiked gauntlet? No problem. If you ask me, gauntlets aren't that great as weapons go that, unlike any other weapon, a character would have to give up a body slot for them.
jaelis 07-12-05, 10:42 AM	Note that's for MAGIC items, you can wear as many items as you can fit on your body, but you only benefit from 1 MAGIC item for each of those slots. So yes you can wear gloves of dex +2 and non-magical spiked gauntlets and benefit from both, but not if both items are magical. I wouldn't agree with that. I don't think there's a rule that you can wear as many nonmagical items as you want. It would be up the DM. I probably wouldn't allow it unless you got items that were specifically designed to work together, like Tarkin suggested. For instance, I wouldn't allow a player to wear a chain shirt underneath their plate mail (to sleep in, for instance), unless the pair were custom designed to work together.
jaelis 07-12-05, 10:46 AM	That seems to be a pretty literalist approach. Gauntlets are weapons, not wondrous items in the same vein as gloves. Weapons shouldn't count towards body slots. If you enhance the gauntlets as wondrous items, that'd be something else, but not if they are only of use as a weapon. I wouldn't allow a character to benefit from gauntlets of Dex +4 and gloves of lockpicking +5 at the same time, but gloves of Dex +4 and a +1 Thundering spiked gauntlet? No problem. If you ask me, gauntlets aren't that great as weapons go that, unlike any other weapon, a character would have to give up a body slot for them. By that reasoning, a character holding a rod of ruling in one hand and wand of fireballs in the other should be able to use their non-magical sword at the same time. Spiked gauntlets are nice because they occupy a different body slot (namely, the glove/gauntlet slot) than other weapons (the handheld slots). That's not the same as being slotless.
Puca 07-12-05, 02:26 PM	I think I will have to agree with the dodger. A weapon is a weapon. They cannot take up slots. Many armors automatically are assumed to include gauntlets, banded mail, chain, plate, scale and slpint. There is no reason why you could not wear gloves of dexterity with any of these. Therefor there should be no reason you cannot wear gloves with any other gauntlets. Gauntlets of ogre power and spiked gauntlets at the same time, no, but gloves should be no problem. As for the sizing, I was under the impression that magical items sized themselves to fit the user, so there shouldnt be a problem there, unless that re-sizing rule is from another era. Gauntlets as a weapon should not take up a slot. Theyre weapons, not not wondrous items, no other weapons are slotted, it would unfairly penalize those who have chosen to specialize in gauntlets (rare and silly as that is). Also, game wise, what's it going to hurt?
the artful dodger 07-12-05, 03:12 PM	Spiked gauntlets are nice because they occupy a different body slot (namely, the glove/gauntlet slot) than other weapons (the handheld slots). That's not the same as being slotless. How is that nice, other than being available without drawing/sheatheing? That's a benefit of course, but IMO not worth giving up a slot for a wondrous item for.
Tony Vargas 07-12-05, 03:31 PM	I'd have to rule that a guantlet or spiked gauntlet takes up the same slot as a magical glove or gauntlet. The descriptions of armor specifically state that you can replace the helm or gauntlets with magical versions (even if radically different, like gloves or circlets) without impairing the effectiveness of the armor, but there's no such notation for gauntlets or spiked gauntlets. However, I wouldn't hold one to the /one/ magical glove or gauntlet thing. I'd see no problem with wearing a Gauntlet of Rust or Glove of Storing on one hand, and a spiked gauntlet on the other, for instance, even if the spiked gauntlet were a magical weapon. Of course, a gauntlet could /also/ be a magic item (Gauntlets of Ogre Power are still Gauntlets), and you could presumably even enchant one to have both a magic weapon, and a wonderous-item function...
DragonWatcher 07-12-05, 03:36 PM	A weapon is a weapon. They cannot take up slots. So by this logic you could wield 3 longswords in one hand... after all, they're all weapons and don't take up slots. Sorry, but the logic isn't sound here... there are plenty of examples in the game where you have to make a choice between weapons and other items. You can't wield a weapon in an offhand that is holding a shield... you can't wield a wand in the same hand with a weapon. This is another choice, gloves or gauntlets, by the RAW (and IMO common sense) you can't have both. As for the sizing, I was under the impression that magical items sized themselves to fit the user, so there shouldnt be a problem there, unless that re-sizing rule is from another era. I could be wrong on this, but I don't believe that magic items automatically re-size themselves anymore in 3.5. In many published sources I have seen treasure such as "small chain shirt" or "medium breastplate". Even if that isn't the case, I would still argue that re-sizing doesn't re-size to fit over other equipment. Gauntlets are made up of jointed plates over a set of heavy (usually leather) gloves. These do not leave much room for wearing anything else under them, since if they did you would not be able to retain a good grip on your weapon. Furthermore, even if you could wear a pair of gloves underneath them, the layers of material would be so rigid that you wouldn't be able to close your hand properly. If you want an answer by the RAW... Greyman is right. If you want to houserule it, you can... but it's a houserule. Happy gaming. :)
the artful dodger 07-12-05, 03:40 PM	So by this logic you could wield 3 longswords in one hand... after all, they're all weapons and don't take up slots. That logic isn't sound because it's based on a faulty premisse. Wielding weapons (or) shields) isn't based on body slots.
Fanged Fremont 07-12-05, 03:43 PM	consider the question void. I asked because I was making an npc who used the auto reloading crossbow from A&E but I wanted him to still be able to use some kind of simple offhand weapon fro AoO's. My two options were punching daggers and spike gauntlets, and I thought the gauntlet did more damage, which is not the case so he'll go with the punching dagger That is if there isn't any objections against using a punching dagger and gloves of dex at the same time.
Tony Vargas 07-12-05, 03:48 PM	I asked because I was making an npc who used the auto reloading crossbow from A&E but I wanted him to still be able to use some kind of simple offhand weapon fro AoO's.That's a whole 'nuther can of worms. According to the FAQ, for instance, you'll be taking TWF penalties when you do that, even if you're making a standard attack with the (presumably usable one-handed) crossbow, or never actually attack with the melee weapon durring a full attack.
Erple2 07-12-05, 03:54 PM	I think I will have to agree with the dodger. A weapon is a weapon. They cannot take up slots. Many armors automatically are assumed to include gauntlets, banded mail, chain, plate, scale and slpint. There is no reason why you could not wear gloves of dexterity with any of these. Therefor there should be no reason you cannot wear gloves with any other gauntlets. Gauntlets of ogre power and spiked gauntlets at the same time, no, but gloves should be no problem. That seems arbitrary. I think that I'd allow gloves with gauntlets, but only one magical one functions at a time. Weapons MUST take up some sort of slot, otherwise, you could wield any number of weapons at once. I'd say that the spiked gauntlets have a few bennies: always ready, and impossible to disarm As for the sizing, I was under the impression that magical items sized themselves to fit the user, so there shouldnt be a problem there, unless that re-sizing rule is from another era. Gauntlets as a weapon should not take up a slot. Theyre weapons, not not wondrous items, no other weapons are slotted, it would unfairly penalize those who have chosen to specialize in gauntlets (rare and silly as that is). Also, game wise, what's it going to hurt? Beats me, but makes it too hard to adjucate :) I'd still say that gauntlets should take up the "gauntlet" slot, but will function as normal (masterwork?) weapons if worn with gloves. Or, I'd just say "no".
Puca 07-12-05, 04:11 PM	So by this logic you could wield 3 longswords in one hand... after all, they're all weapons and don't take up slots. 1) That’s a gross mischaracterization of what I said and it is twisting the definition of the word slot. 2) By your logic I could not wear a magical gauntlet and weild a sword I could be wrong on this, but I don't believe that magic items automatically re-size themselves anymore in 3.5. In many published sources I have seen treasure such as "small chain shirt" or "medium breastplate". Even if that isn't the case, I would still argue that re-sizing doesn't re-size to fit over other equipment. Size And Magic Items When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn’t be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items. There may be rare exceptions, especially with racial specific items. Also, look at some of these descriptions: Gloves of Arrow Snaring Once snugly worn, these gloves seem to meld with the hands, becoming almost invisible.Gloves of Dexterity These thin leather gloves are very flexible and allow for delicate manipulation. These couldn't fit snugly under a metal glove? In fact, were I asked to wear a metal glove, I think I'd actually want to have something between my skin and the metal? In real life, I don't wear a lot of armor, but I have worn thick woolen gloves under leather work gloves (military issue? anyone else?) and while I'd have had a hard time picking up a dime from a linoleum floor, I think I could have held a sword, even if the leather had had some metal plates on it.
Fanged Fremont 07-12-05, 05:14 PM	[QUOTE=Fanged Fremont] I asked because I was making an npc who used the auto reloading crossbow from A&E but I wanted him to still be able to use some kind of simple offhand weapon fro AoO's.QUOTE]That's a whole 'nuther can of worms. According to the FAQ, for instance, you'll be taking TWF penalties when you do that, even if you're making a standard attack with the (presumably usable one-handed) crossbow, or never actually attack with the melee weapon durring a full attack. I didn't want him to use it one handed. I would think you could handle a repeating crossbow with both hands if one hand had a gauntlet or punching dagger attached. I just wanted him to be able to make an AoO in his threatened area, threatend because he have the glove or dagger so he could use combat reflexes since he has a good dex score, made all the better from the dex gloves. Couldn't he let go of the crossbow with his punch dagger hand, and use it for the AoO?
jaelis 07-12-05, 05:20 PM	If that's the kind of thing you want to do, I'll suggest looking at my Expanded Two-Weapon Fighting (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=440018) thread, which actually suggests some rules for all these things. The core rules are murky, but basically no, if you've been attacking with your crossbow you probably can't make an AoO with another weapon. But that is based more off some replies from Customer Service I've seen than anything else.
Tony Vargas 07-12-05, 05:30 PM	[QUOTE=Tony Vargas] I didn't want him to use it one handed. I would think you could handle a repeating crossbow with both hands if one hand had a gauntlet or punching dagger attached. A punch dagger is still held, so, no, you couldn't use a hand holding it to help handle a crossbow. While you could use a spike-gauntleted hand to do so, you couldn't threaten with it in the same round. Armor Spikes would be a better option, but they're Martial. I just wanted him to be able to make an AoO in his threatened area, Couldn't he let go of the crossbow with his punch dagger hand, and use it for the AoO? You're not supposed to threaten while using a crossbow, and, if you're not threatening, you don't get AoOs. While there may well be 'legal' dodges that would allow you to do so, as a DM, it's probably better not to introduce them (and indeed, may want to house-rule them away, even if you accept thier legality). As much as they might help out that specific NPC, they could be a real headache for you if the PCs pick them up. That said, a spiked gauntlet could be a good thing for a crossbow-wielding character to have. It doesn't need to be drawn, and doesn't interfere with using the crossbow. Similarly, wearing a buckler doesn't penalize using a crossbow. You could equip your NPC with both, allowing him to switch from ranged to melee (extra AC for the buckler, spiked gauntlet ready to use) instantly, just by dropping or stowing his crossbow.
the artful dodger 07-12-05, 05:42 PM	While you could use a spike-gauntleted hand to do so, you couldn't threaten with it in the same round. ... You're not supposed to threaten while using a crossbow, and, if you're not threatening, you don't get AoOs. While there may well be 'legal' dodges that would allow you to do so, as a DM, it's probably better not to introduce them (and indeed, may want to house-rule them away, even if you accept thier legality). That's the thing. You're not supposed to be able to do so, but there are ways around that if you look at the rules the right way. You could make your primary attacks with a longspear and in the same round make off-hand attacks with a spiked gauntlet. As a result, you'd threaten at both ranges for the round. Make that crossbow instead of longspear and you should get a similar result (aside from the crossbow not threatening). I absolutely agree that such things should be houseruled to avoid problems, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Vahenir 07-12-05, 05:43 PM	2) By your logic I could not wear a magical gauntlet and weild a sword Actually, just to clarify, by his logic a gauntlet takes up the "glove/gauntlet" body slot, while a weapon or shield, or rod, or whatever, takes up the "hand held" 'slot.' Which means you can wear a glove and wield a weapon (different 'slots') but not wear two gloves or gauntlets. I tend to agree. I wouldn't let a player wear a glove of Dex with a spiked gauntlet anymore than I'd let him benefit from wearing two spiked gauntlets with different enhancements on them. These thin leather gloves are very flexible and allow for delicate manipulation. Since you quoted it - explain to me how you can retain the ability of delicate manipulation if you're wearing these UNDER a set of thick metal gauntlets that don't even allow full range of movement in the hand, and certainly are anti-thetical to delicate manipulation. It makes no sense anyway. In fact, were I asked to wear a metal glove, I think I'd actually want to have something between my skin and the metal? It's a non-issue. Gauntlets would OBVIOUSLY have a leather and cloth interior. It's ludicrous to presume otherwise. That doesn't, however, mean you'd gain any benefit besides comfort from the inner layer separating your hand from the metal of the gauntlets. In real life, I don't wear a lot of armor, but I have worn thick woolen gloves under leather work gloves (military issue? anyone else?) and while I'd have had a hard time picking up a dime from a linoleum floor, I think I could have held a sword, even if the leather had had some metal plates on it. Oh good, you have military experience (I have experience with military-issue gloves as well). Consider this then: You put on a pair of those isotone (or whatever) super-thin thinsulate gloves that allow for the utmost manipulation for your hand. Now put on two pairs of your thick military issue gloves over the thinsulate gloves. Now explain to me how, besides warmth and comfort, you're benefitting from the fine manipulation your thinsulate gloves give you.
Tony Vargas 07-12-05, 05:54 PM	That's the thing. You're not supposed to be able to do so, but there are ways around that if you look at the rules the right way. Or the wrong way, depending on you look at looking at rules... :confused: ...something like that... :P You could make your primary attacks with a longspear and in the same round make off-hand attacks with a spiked gauntlet. As a result, you'd threaten at both ranges for the round. You're probably thinking of armor spikes. With a longspear and spiked gauntlet, you could probably choose which you're threatening with at the end of the round, just be either letting go of or grasping the longspear with the spiked-gauntleted-hand. With armor spikes, the theory (backed up by the FAQ) is that you don't need to let go of the longspear to use the spikes, so could do both simultaneously - albeit, with manditory TWF penalties. Make that crossbow instead of longspear and you should get a similar result (aside from the crossbow not threatening). Maybe. Ranged weapons start to make the whole thing wierd. A bow or crossbow is a two-handed weapon, so using another hand for melee while wielding it is pretty iffy. While your actions are resolved on your initiative, you're actually spending the whole round doing them. In some cases, like when you drop your crossbow at the end of your action, you've clearly switched from melee to ranged, but the idea that you can 'let go of the crossbow' to threaten between your action (basicaly for a whole round), then also spend that whole round loading and firing a crossbow with the same hand... it's a bit off. I absolutely agree that such things should be houseruled to avoid problems, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.I honestly don't think you can pull this off with a spiked gauntlet without stretching the rules at least a bit. Unarmed Strikes and Armor Spikes are another matter, of course. A DM definitely needs to decide which interpretation he wants to go with. If the OP, as the DM, doesn't have a problem with many missle-users (and almost all PC missle users), threatening all the time, he can rule for, if not, he can rule against. If he wants to open up the possibility in a way more customized to the feel of his campaign, he can house-rule away.
the artful dodger 07-12-05, 06:50 PM	Maybe. Ranged weapons start to make the whole thing wierd. A bow or crossbow is a two-handed weapon, so using another hand for melee while wielding it is pretty iffy. While your actions are resolved on your initiative, you're actually spending the whole round doing them. In some cases, like when you drop your crossbow at the end of your action, you've clearly switched from melee to ranged, but the idea that you can 'let go of the crossbow' to threaten between your action (basicaly for a whole round), then also spend that whole round loading and firing a crossbow with the same hand... it's a bit off. This the the basic issue, yes, but it's not confined to just ranged (two-handed) weapons. It's combining any kind of two-handed weapon with something else. And if that something else is a spiked gauntlet, it just gets more dodgy. Like you say, whatever you do on your turn is supposedly going on for the entire round. If I've been wielding a weapon on my turn and after my attacks drop it and quickdraw a sword, why would my AoOs be based on what I can do with that sword? I haven't really done anything with it during my turn, and logically I've only drawn it at the end of the round. If I do the longspear + spiked gauntlet combo why am I restricted to whichever weapon of the two I choose to threaten with at the end of my turn, while I used both during that turn? The ever-popular 'balance' is always a possible answer, but something that would make simple, logical sense would be much more satisfying. Unarmed Strikes and Armor Spikes are another matter, of course. I don't actually see much reason why they'd be another matter, to be honest. Because technically, you should be able to attack simultaneously with those and with a two-handed weapon while you couldn't really do that with a spiked gauntlet and a two-hander? That doesn't seem like much of an argument, especially since it's a mere technicality. And one that's questionable to boot (I don't see how you could attack with for instance a longspear and armour spikes at the exact same time without suffering a whole lot more in the way of penalties than a simple -2 to hit, but that's probably just me overthinking the whole issue).
Tony Vargas 07-12-05, 06:58 PM	Like you say, whatever you do on your turn is supposedly going on for the entire round. If I've been wielding a weapon on my turn and after my attacks drop it and quickdraw a sword, why would my AoOs be based on what I can do with that sword? I haven't really done anything with it during my turn, and logically I've only drawn it at the end of the round. That's an excellent question. IMHO, the key is that the actions you perform on your initiative are all resolved by the end of your action. In theory, you've been doing them the whole round up until that point. If you end your round by dropping a weapon and quickdrawing a new one (or just going to the use of one that doesn't need to be drawn), then it's pretty fair to say you're using that weapon next round. OTOH, if you're firing a bow, say, and 'let go of it' to threaten between actions, take an AoO, then shoot the bow again on your initiative, you've been /both/ fighting with the gauntlet /and/ firing the bow, for most of the round. So, I think switching weapons needs to be fairly definitive to change what you're threating (or unable to threaten) with between actions. But that's just the rationale I'd use, as a DM, if I were explaining my ruling to a player. If I do the longspear + spiked gauntlet combo why am I restricted to whichever weapon of the two I choose to threaten with at the end of my turn, while I used both during that turn? Well, you can't use both /simultaneously/. If your 'using both' durring the course of the round, then there will be times you're not threating with the longspear, and those are the times when enemies will close with you... OTOH, if you're using a pair of weapons you /can/ use simultaneously (armor spikes instead of a spiked gauntlet, for instance)...
bjorntfh 07-12-05, 07:18 PM	I tend to agree. I wouldn't let a player wear a glove of Dex with a spiked gauntlet anymore than I'd let him benefit from wearing two spiked gauntlets with different enhancements on them. By that faulty logic you shouldn't allow TWF. A spiked gauntlet covers ONE hand. If you want to TWF with two different gauntlets more power to you. There's no reason not to allow a spiked gauntlet WEAPON to be worn over magic gloves. You can't wear Gauntlets of Ogre Power over gloves (and have them work) but you can wield a sword. A spiked gauntlet is a weapon and if you are using it only as a weapon (as opposed to as say spiked gauntlets of ogre power) there's no reason to prevent it from working. It's no more unbalanced than saying you can wear gloves of Dex with your mithral full plate gauntlets.
Vahenir 07-12-05, 07:24 PM	By that faulty logic you shouldn't allow TWF. A spiked gauntlet covers ONE hand. If you want to TWF with two different gauntlets more power to you. There's no reason not to allow a spiked gauntlet WEAPON to be worn over magic gloves. You can't wear Gauntlets of Ogre Power over gloves (and have them work) but you can wield a sword. A spiked gauntlet is a weapon and if you are using it only as a weapon (as opposed to as say spiked gauntlets of ogre power) there's no reason to prevent it from working. It's no more unbalanced than saying you can wear gloves of Dex with your mithral full plate gauntlets. I think you misunderstood me. I meant that I wouldn't allow a player to benefit from wearing two gauntlets with different enhancements - on the same hand -. Sorry if that wasn't more clear. As for the rest, I already pointedly demonstrated why wearing gloves of Dex underneath a gauntlet should not function. And the reason stated has yet to be refuted, so...
jaelis 07-12-05, 07:47 PM	... There's no reason not to allow a spiked gauntlet WEAPON to be worn over magic gloves. You can't wear Gauntlets of Ogre Power over gloves (and have them work) but you can wield a sword. A spiked gauntlet is a weapon and if you are using it only as a weapon (as opposed to as say spiked gauntlets of ogre power) there's no reason to prevent it from working. It's no more unbalanced than saying you can wear gloves of Dex with your mithral full plate gauntlets. But a spiked gauntlet is a weapon you wear ON your hand. Because of that, you can do things like hold a sword in the same hand that has the gauntlet. Holding a sword in your hand when you're wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power is not the same as wearing a spiked gauntlet over your GOPs. If I understand what you're saying, I guess you wouldn't allow a character wearing a spiked gauntlet to hold a sword. After all, he then has two weapons in his hand! And I don't think you can wear gloves of Dex with mithral full plate gauntlets. Would you allow someone to wear bladeboots along with their Boots of Speed?
the artful dodger 07-12-05, 07:50 PM	Well, you can't use both /simultaneously/. If your 'using both' durring the course of the round, then there will be times you're not threating with the longspear, and those are the times when enemies will close with you... OTOH, if you're using a pair of weapons you /can/ use simultaneously (armor spikes instead of a spiked gauntlet, for instance)... That's a nice enough rationale, but logically extending it that means that during a round in which I use both a longspear and a spiked gauntlet on my turn, there'll be times I'll be threatening with the longspear but not the gauntlet and the rest of the time it'll be the orther way around. If my opponents will use the latter to close or otherwise perform actions I'd need the longspear for to react to with an AoO, why wouldn't they use the former to do those things I need the gauntlet for? All of a sudden it's like I'm not threatening at all anymore... :D
the artful dodger 07-12-05, 07:55 PM	Now explain to me how, besides warmth and comfort, you're benefitting from the fine manipulation your thinsulate gloves give you. These non-magical gloves don't give you fine manipulation, they allow it. While wearing them, you'll be able to manipulate as finely as when not wearing them. No more, no less. Magical Gloves of Dex actually increase your manipulation. That's something else. And they increase other things as well; your initiative and your reflexes, to name the most obvious ones. While I agree wearing heavy gauntlets isn't going to help your lockpicking or pickpocketing skills any, quite the contrary, they shouldn't impede your ref save or your initiative.
Puca 07-13-05, 10:04 AM	I am a bit confused. Several people seem to think that number of hands = a weapon slot. But RAW, there is no such thing as a weapon slot. Creatures have a number of hands, period. This is a silly complication. You can wear a spiked gauntlet and wield a weapon right? Isnt that two weapons in one slot? No, because there is no such thing as a “weapon slot.” Theres just common sense about how many things a creature with two hands can hold, and no rules to that effect at all because no one needs a rule, or a FAQ to tell them that a guy with two arms cant wield three longswords. Since you quoted it - explain to me how you can retain the ability of delicate manipulation if you're wearing these UNDER a set of thick metal gauntlets that don't even allow full range of movement in the hand, and certainly are anti-thetical to delicate manipulation. It makes no sense anyway. Yeah, I don’t really need to, because I never claimed you could. I claimed that you could wear a thin, flexible, so-form-fitting-that-they-still-allow-for delicate-manipulation glove under another glove (that is a gauntlet). It was in response to this: Gauntlets are made up of jointed plates over a set of heavy (usually leather) gloves. These do not leave much room for wearing anything else under them, since if they did you would not be able to retain a good grip on your weapon. Furthermore, even if you could wear a pair of gloves underneath them, the layers of material would be so rigid that you wouldn't be able to close your hand properly. You (Vahenir) have tried to make the same point: You put on a pair of those isotone (or whatever) super-thin thinsulate gloves that allow for the utmost manipulation for your hand. Now put on two pairs of your thick military issue gloves over the thinsulate gloves. Why two pairs? It is the layers that make things hard? But since you mentioned it, I have worn military issue woolen gloves under issue leather gloves under the “gauntlets” youre required to wear when working with concertina wire (Like a razor covered slinky used as a barrier.) I was still able to use a pair of pliers. Somehow, I think I could wear a magically thin, flexible, sized glove under a pair of gauntlets and still somehow manage to hold a sword.
Cloud Clone 07-13-05, 11:18 AM	Oh good, you have military experience (I have experience with military-issue gloves as well). Consider this then: You put on a pair of those isotone (or whatever) super-thin thinsulate gloves that allow for the utmost manipulation for your hand. Now put on two pairs of your thick military issue gloves over the thinsulate gloves. Now explain to me how, besides warmth and comfort, you're benefitting from the fine manipulation your thinsulate gloves give you. Those isotone gloves sure are nice, but are they...magical? If not, then it's an unfair comparison. Despite the description given in the book, gloves of dex provide benefits to more than just the hands, lending to better agility and coordination throughout the entire body. Seriously, how are your uber-thin nazi gloves going to help you do sommersaults or balance on a tightrope? They won't. If they were magical fairy gloves of happiness though, they just might. And that's how babies are made.
Tony Vargas 07-13-05, 11:49 AM	That's a nice enough rationale, but logically extending it ... If my opponents will use the latter to close or otherwise perform actions I'd need the longspear for to react to with an AoO, why wouldn't they use the former to do those things I need the gauntlet for? All of a sudden it's like I'm not threatening at all anymore... :D I almost went into that, but thought it would be redundant. Yes, if you're trying to threaten with two weapons that you can't really use simultaneously, it might well be possible for opponents to take advantage of the times you try to use one weapon with actions for which the other would be more apropriate. There may also be scenarios in which you could reasonably picture having the right weapon threatening at the right time. The game, though, can't model that variability as part of the ordinary initiative sequence, as a matter of course anytime you happen to be wearing a spiked gauntlet (then 'spiked gauntlet entry would be a lot longer if it tried). However, the system can still handle it, if the player works at it a little. For instance, if you're using a longspear and spiked gauntlet, and facing some medium, normal-reach, melee types, you can start your round with the longspear held in both hands, and Ready an action (letting go of the longspear and striking with the spiked gauntlet). The action might be triggered by an enemy successfully closing with you, or by your running out of AoOs, or by an enemy closing and attempting an AoO-provoking action - whatever seems good for the situation and seems like a reasonable trigger condition to the DM. If the Ready isn't triggered, you spend the whole round wielding the longspear. If it is, you spend the balance of it threatening with the gauntlet. Heck, the DM might even let you Ready to attack with the spiked gauntlet, then grip the longspear again (changing grips is generally a free action, but you'd be doing it twice and the DM arbitrates how many free actions you can take), allowing you to threaten with the longspear the whole round, while also getting in one attack with the spiked gauntlet.
Tony Vargas 07-13-05, 11:59 AM	And I don't think you can wear gloves of Dex with mithral full plate gauntlets. IIRC, the rules state that you can /replace/ the guantlets of a suit of armor (like mithral full plate), with any sort of magical gloves or gauntlets or whatever, without affecting the game-mechanical attributes of the armor. Same with helmets - you can ditch your full plate helm for a circlet of persuasion or hat of disguise and suffer no loss of AC, and no loss of any magical functions of the armor. (however, I can't find that rule in the SRD. It may only be in the PH, or it may have disapeared in 3.5....)
DevilishIdiot 07-13-05, 12:43 PM	You are allowed to wear multiple magic items in the same slot. For example, two rings on one hand. However, only the first one you put on will retain its functionality. Since Gloves of Dexterity are so thin, I would expect that you would physically be able to wear any other hand-slot item over them (even another pair of Gloves of Dex), except any magical quality associated with the second pair would be nullified. So there is no reason you can't wear Gloves of Dex under Spiked Gauntlets and make attacks with the gauntlets. Also, IIRC, nowhere does it state that (besides Armor Check Penalties) your equipment interferes with skills or attacks. In other words, you don't need to take off your Gauntlets of Ogre Power to shoot a bow or open a lock, even if common sense tells you that it would be harder with them on.
jaelis 07-13-05, 01:51 PM	IIRC, the rules state that you can /replace/ the guantlets of a suit of armor (like mithral full plate), with any sort of magical gloves or gauntlets or whatever, without affecting the game-mechanical attributes of the armor. Same with helmets - you can ditch your full plate helm for a circlet of persuasion or hat of disguise and suffer no loss of AC, and no loss of any magical functions of the armor. (however, I can't find that rule in the SRD. It may only be in the PH, or it may have disapeared in 3.5....) Sure, but I wouldn't let you claim at the same time the both the benefit of the Gloves of Dexterity and that of the regular gauntlets (ie, getting to deal lethal damage with your unarmed strike). I think you're right that there's a rule saying you can switch out gauntlets without affecting your armor qualities, but that's a different thing.
Tony Vargas 07-13-05, 02:24 PM	It's not /that/ different - the gauntlets that come with armor are the same thing as the 'gauntlet' simple weapon. Besides, from a DM's PoV, it's generally better to retain/enforce trade-offs then to let players have something both ways with little effort.
jaelis 07-13-05, 04:15 PM	Tony, I think we're trying to say the same thing... So you buy some armor. It comes with gauntlets. You now deal lethal damage with your unarmed strike. Cool. Later, you buy some spiked gauntlets. These replace your regular gauntlets, and you can use them as a weapon. Your armor bonus is unchanged. Later still, you buy some +2 Gloves of Dexterity. The way I would rule it, these replace the spiked gauntlests. So now you have +2 DEX, but you're back to a regular unarmed strikes dealing nonlethal damage. Your armor bonus is still unaffected. I think this is what you would also say?
Tony Vargas 07-13-05, 05:10 PM	That's what I'd have to go with, yes.
mvincent 07-13-05, 05:29 PM	Weapons do not take up slots (i.e. you can use multiple magic weapons without worrying about slot overlap). Think of it this way: one can (for example) wear to two necklaces, but you would only gain the benefit of one (due to slot overlap). The same would apply to two wonderous gloves (assuming you could somehow fit them on). However, in the case of a weapon gauntlet, the magic isn't enhancing you, it's enhancing the weapon... although it fits on your hands, it's not keyed to your hands. The only concern is the physical interference: Physically, gauntlets can go over gloves just fine (many are designed that way). However, I'd guess that they could not physically go over the "gauntlets of ogre strength", because that wonderous item is likely too bulky.
jaelis 07-13-05, 06:22 PM	There's no rule saying you can wear two necklaces. Of course, I would allow it as a DM, but I'd be within my rights to disallow it as well. That was my original point: these things are up to the DM. For instance, I wouldn't let a character wear two pairs of boots, or two hats, or two sets of armor, or two shields on the same arm, or two pairs of goggles. Or, in general, two pairs of gloves. Saying "but the spiked gauntlet is a weapon!" doesn't change the fact that it is also still a glove.
Tony Vargas 07-13-05, 06:28 PM	However, in the case of a weapon gauntlet, the magic isn't enhancing you, it's enhancing the weapon... although it fits on your hands, it's not keyed to your hands. Nod. I don't think of it as a magic-interference problem. I'd have no problem with a character wearing, say, a Gauntlet of Rust on one hand and a magical spiked gauntlet on the other - one's a wonderous item, one's a magic weapon, they shouldn't interfere. The only concern is the physical interference: Physically, gauntlets can go over gloves just fine (many are designed that way). However, I'd guess that they could not physically go over the "gauntlets of ogre strength", because that wonderous item is likely too bulky. You could go into that level of detail, if you wanted to, but it would grant a definite advantage to gloves over gauntlets as a 'form factor' for such items - if you want the advantages of a gauntlet, you could just wear a normal one over the gloves. Making what is essentially a cosmetic difference that critical doesn't strike me as a good idea.
mvincent 07-13-05, 06:42 PM	There's no rule saying you can wear two necklaces. Of course, I would allow it as a DM, but I'd be within my rights to disallow it as well. That was my original point: these things are up to the DM.A DM can change the rules, but such a case is inapplicable to our rules discussion. The rules say that you can wear two necklaces, but that you only get the benefit of the first one because they are "keyed" to a specific body part (this is also why people don't wear 10+ magical rings) Saying "but the spiked gauntlet is a weapon!" doesn't change the fact that it is also still a glove. A gauntlet is often a piece of armor that can fit over a glove (depending on the design and armor worn). Or not, as you decide. Either way: as a weapon, it isn't "keyed" to your hands. Also, gauntlet spikes (even magical ones) could be added to gloves/gauntlets just like armor spikes (even magical ones) can be added to regular armor (or even magical armor).
mvincent 07-13-05, 06:54 PM	You could go into that level of detail, if you wanted to, but it would grant a definite advantage to gloves over gauntlets as a 'form factor' for such items - if you want the advantages of a gauntlet, you could just wear a normal one over the gloves. Making what is essentially a cosmetic difference that critical doesn't strike me as a good idea.That's not what we were debating though. If a PC knew enough about armor and described how he was doing it (and the DM was ok with it) it's still possible within the rules. This seems to be what was being asked in the original question: "Gloves of dextery with a spiked gauntlet, can you do it and still retain the dex bonus from the gloves. What if it was a +1 spiked gauntlet?" The question seemed to be strictly about slotting/keying. Besides, one could always create the two items as one, or have "strap-on" gauntlet spikes. ;)
Tony Vargas 07-13-05, 07:02 PM	The idea of 'slots' for magic items is not really born of any sort of magical physics that prevent, say, a third magical ring from working. It's a convenient way to forstall players from festooning themselves with silly numbers of items, in the hopes of gaining an inapropriate advantage from doing so. It's hard to argue that you can't wear two knecklaces, or that you can't wear a suit of heavy armor over light - it's easier just to make doing so worthless (armor bonuses don't stack, a second item in the same 'slot' doesn't function magically). But, the point is still to keep players from layering items, and instead get them to make choices. It's good for game balance, and it helps keep the game from getting too silly. It's not any better for the game to let characters wear Gloves of Dexterity under thier +5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets then it is to let them wear them under thier Gauntlets of Ogre Power.
bjorntfh 07-13-05, 07:18 PM	The problem with that analogy is that it's inaccurate. Using +5 Defending spiked gauntlets (aside from the entier mess with defending) as weapons is no in any way similar to wearing gauntles of ogre power. It's similar to holding a long sword. Using gauntlets of ogre power and gloves of dexterity is trying to use two items from the same slot for similar benefits (stat increases.) You are mixing apples and oranges here is the problem. Spiked gauntlets fall under the Weapon category. If you use them as weapons, yuo don't count them against your glove slot, you count them as a weapon.
mvincent 07-13-05, 07:23 PM	The idea of 'slots' for magic items is not really born of any sort of magical physics that prevent, say, a third magical ring from working. I don't disagree with you at all on how the odd physics of D&D might've come into being, but that's how they work now... they actually now are a sort of magical physics that prevent, say, a third magical ring from working. As I said in my original post (which you seem to agree with): it's not the "slots" that are a concern, so much as the physical part. The rules really only address the former (and that also seemed to be what the initial question was about). It's not any better for the game to let characters wear Gloves of Dexterity under thier +5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets then it is to let them wear them under thier Gauntlets of Ogre Power.I think it's better, but that doesn't matter. D&D rules-wise, there is a difference.
jaelis 07-13-05, 08:21 PM	mvincent- Just to be clear, you would rule using Gloves of Dexterity in conjunction with +5 Spiked Gauntlets is legal? If you were doing that, could you at the same time hold a +1 longsword in your hand? What about a Wand of Fireball? jaelis
bjorntfh 07-13-05, 08:59 PM	Okay, let's simplify the question: Is it legal to have gloves of dexterity +4 on and wield a long sword? Is it legal to hold a longsword in the same hand as a spiked gauntlet? Since a spiked gauntlet is classified as a weapon (not armor, not a slotted item, but a weapon) what reason is there for it to be disallowed from being worn with gloves? Since the body location chart does not include weapons and weapons don't count against slots (they occupy a hand, you usually get only two) why would an item that is in the equivalet of the hands take up a different slot?
jaelis 07-13-05, 09:29 PM	Okay, let's simplify the question: Is it legal to have gloves of dexterity +4 on and wield a long sword? Of course. Is it legal to hold a longsword in the same hand as a spiked gauntlet? I would say so, myself, but... Since a spiked gauntlet is classified as a weapon (not armor, not a slotted item, but a weapon) what reason is there for it to be disallowed from being worn with gloves? Well if we're talking about magic spiked gauntlets and magic gloves, I would point to the listing in the DMG where it says you can wear "One glove, pair of gloves, or pair of gauntlets on the hands." Your argument seems to be that spiked gauntlets are, in fact, not gauntlets at all, but weapons. That seems a little facile to me, but I'll admit it is a possible interpretation. However, if you want to reason that way, then what is your basis for saying that you can hold a sword in the same hand with a spiked gauntlet? Nowhere in the spiked gauntlet description does it say that you can hold something else in your hand while wearing a spiked gauntlet. If it is a weapon like any other, then it should occupy whatever hand is being used. (Unless you want to say that you can always hold as many weapons in your hand as you want.) Now, if you're thinking about nonmagical items, that is a different situation. But I'd rather get the magic item question settled first.
bjorntfh 07-13-05, 10:29 PM	(Unless you want to say that you can always hold as many weapons in your hand as you want.) Hey, there's nothing wrong with the Swiss Army Polearm! Sorry, bad Munchkin reference (the game, not the term.)
mvincent 07-14-05, 12:06 AM	mvincent- Just to be clear, you would rule using Gloves of Dexterity in conjunction with +5 Spiked Gauntlets is legal?Yes. Slot-wise, it is legal. could you at the same time hold a +1 longsword in your hand? Yes. You could hold a +1 longsword with either a +1 gauntlet or gloves of dex. What about a Wand of Fireball?Not sure what combination of items your are refering to in this example... all of them? While you could theoretically hold multiple items in your hand, they would not necessarily be useable. Not because of slot/keying, but because of freedom of use (different topic though)
Vahenir 07-14-05, 03:01 AM	It's not any better for the game to let characters wear Gloves of Dexterity under thier +5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets then it is to let them wear them under thier Gauntlets of Ogre Power. That's basically what it comes down to. On the weapon/glove thing: I always thought it was pretty clear that a spiked gauntlet takes up the -glove- slot. It's as simple as this: The glove slot takes up the "hand covering." The -weapon- "slot" (for lack of a better term) takes up the inside of the hand. - It is held. The spiked gauntlet is a piece of ARMOUR that can be used to basically have a better unarmed attack. It acts as a weapon. But it IS a glove. That's what a gauntlet is. This is further evidenced by the fact that you can hold and use a longsword in the hand with the spiked gauntlet. A longsword takes up the 'in the hand' slot, while the gauntlet takes up the 'hand covering' slot. You cannot use two longswords in the same hand. You cannot use a longsword and a wand of fireball - they are both hand-held objects. You CAN use both of those items (individually) if you're wearing spiked gauntlets. That means somewhere wearing spiked gauntlets can benefit from any item that is held, but not one that takes up the 'hand covering' slot - because the hand is already covered by the gauntlet in the same way the inside of the hand is already occupied when holding a sword and therefore cannot benefit from a wand of fireball.
jaelis 07-14-05, 07:19 AM	Yes. Slot-wise, it is legal. OK, so you are indeed saying that a spiked gauntlet is not a gauntlet. Because the rules are quite specific that you can only wear one pair of magic gloves or gauntlets. I would hestitate to make a claim like that myself, but fine. Yes. You could hold a +1 longsword with either a +1 gauntlet or gloves of dex. While you could theoretically hold multiple items in your hand, they would not necessarily be useable. Not because of slot/keying, but because of freedom of use (different topic though) So what is this "spiked gauntlet" thing? If it is not a gauntlet, then I would guess it is just a poorly named weapon that you hold in your hand. But as you noted, you can't generally use two handheld objects at the same time. I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too here.
the artful dodger 07-14-05, 07:34 AM	However, the system can still handle it, if the player works at it a little. For instance, if you're using a longspear and spiked gauntlet, and facing some medium, normal-reach, melee types, you can start your round with the longspear held in both hands, and Ready an action (letting go of the longspear and striking with the spiked gauntlet). The action might be triggered by an enemy successfully closing with you, or by your running out of AoOs, or by an enemy closing and attempting an AoO-provoking action - whatever seems good for the situation and seems like a reasonable trigger condition to the DM. If the Ready isn't triggered, you spend the whole round wielding the longspear. If it is, you spend the balance of it threatening with the gauntlet. Heck, the DM might even let you Ready to attack with the spiked gauntlet, then grip the longspear again (changing grips is generally a free action, but you'd be doing it twice and the DM arbitrates how many free actions you can take), allowing you to threaten with the longspear the whole round, while also getting in one attack with the spiked gauntlet. It seems a bit presumptious to make the player go out of his way to accomodate the system by limiting himself. When doing what you describe, chances are that while the character is considered to be wielding the longspear for a whole round, he doesn't actually get to do anything with it (if no AoOs are provoked and the readied action isn't triggered - and that wouldn't be unusual). ;)
the artful dodger 07-14-05, 07:41 AM	It's not any better for the game to let characters wear Gloves of Dexterity under thier +5 Defending Spiked Gauntlets then it is to let them wear them under thier Gauntlets of Ogre Power. That depends on what you think is 'better'. I think it's better to treat all weapons on equal footing: if you can combine Gloves of Dex with a magical longsword, you should be able to combine them with all other magical weapons. You think it's better to treat magical weapons that sit in the same body slot as wondrous items on equal footing with those wondrous items: both count towards the limit on magical items you can benefit from in a particular body slot. I can understand your point of view, but I wouldn't say it's any better (or worse) than mine.
jaelis 07-14-05, 08:42 AM	So what is this "spiked gauntlet" thing? If it is not a gauntlet, then I would guess it is just a poorly named weapon that you hold in your hand. But as you noted, you can't generally use two handheld objects at the same time. I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too here. Actually, I think I finally figured out what you all are getting at. Would you say that: - A spiked gauntlet is a "gauntlet". It is also a "weapon". - A +5 spiked gauntlet is "magic" and it is a "gauntlet", but it is not a "magic gauntlet", it is a "magic weapon". - It therefore does not occupy the "magic gauntlet" slot, and doesn't interfere with your Gloves of Dexterity. - But because it is still a "gauntlet", you can also use that hand to hold a sword. Not that I share this point of view, but does it accurately state your position?
the artful dodger 07-14-05, 08:46 AM	It therefore does not occupy the "magic gauntlet" slot, and doesn't interfere with your Gloves of Dexterity. That's pretty much my line of thought at least. I prefer to make a distinction between wondrous items and weapons for the purpose of body slots for magical items.
bjorntfh 07-14-05, 11:15 AM	That's my point of view as well. It's not a "magical gauntlet" unless enchanted as a wonderous item. If enchanted as a weapon, it doesn't count against your wonderous item slot.
mvincent 07-14-05, 11:56 AM	OK, so you are indeed saying that a spiked gauntlet is not a gauntlet. Because the rules are quite specific that you can only wear one pair of magic gloves or gauntlets. I would hestitate to make a claim like that myself, but fine.Hey, play as makes ya happy. No sweat to me. Heck, your interpretation is even a valid one, RAW-wise. I'm just clarifying the odd physics of D&D: and that is that +1 gauntlets aren't "keyed" to your hands like other wonderous items. If that concept is alien to you, there's a chance you're not yet grasping some basic D&D concepts. For instance: it's been noted that you could add non-magical spikes to a wonderous gauntlet. There is just no 'game physics' reason why you then couldn't enchant them to +1. This is already commonly done with armor spikes and shield spikes.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 12:11 PM	It seems a bit presumptious to make the player go out of his way to accomodate the system by limiting himself. Not at all. The system is supposed to provide the player with options. Those options aren't supposed to be exactly equal all the time, but, they are supposed to be real choices, with trade-offs involved. Thus, the game remains balanced, interesting, and in-play decisions matter (not just optimization choices at chargen). When doing what you describe, chances are that while the character is considered to be wielding the longspear for a whole round, he doesn't actually get to do anything with it (if no AoOs are provoked and the readied action isn't triggered - and that wouldn't be unusual). ;) True. That's actually rather the point. If you want to try to work around the threatened area disadvantage of a longspear or similar weapon, you need to pay for it. It can be a feat for EWP:spiked chain, or a highly situational tactic like the one I describe - it shouldn't be simply plunking down a few gp for a spiked gauntlet, or a few more for armor spikes.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 12:16 PM	For instance: it's been noted that you could add non-magical spikes to a wonderous gauntlet. Actually, I don't think you could. You could presumably enchant a spiked gauntlet, though it's affinity might not be exactly the same as a non-spiked one or a glove. It'd cost a little more, since the MW component of a weapon is different from that of armor or a simple hand covering. But spikes aren't an 'add on' for gauntlets the way they are for shields or armor (and, even then, adding them onto existing, enchanted armor or shields might be questionable). There is just no 'game physics' reason why you then couldn't enchant them to +1. This is already commonly done with armor spikes and shield spikes. It's established for them, but that's sheilds and armor - not wonderous items.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 12:19 PM	That's pretty much my line of thought at least. I prefer to make a distinction between wondrous items and weapons for the purpose of body slots for magical items. That's understandible, but, to my mind, the Spiked Guantlet isn't like other weapons. It doesn't need to be drawn or dropped and can't be disarmed; it's worn like a glove, instead of carried like other weapons. In other words, it's a weapon that takes up a worn-item 'slot' instead of requiring draw/sheath/drop actions. That strikes me as a legitimate trade-off. OTOH, I partially agree with you - it's still not a wonderous item, and, I don't see why wearing a normal (or even enchanted-as-a-weapon) spiked gauntlet on one hand would preclude a wonderous item glove or gauntlet on the other from working. Though, even that may be a tad permisive.
jaelis 07-14-05, 12:35 PM	Hey, play as makes ya happy. No sweat to me. Heck, your interpretation is even a valid one, RAW-wise. I'm just clarifying the odd physics of D&D: and that is that +1 gauntlets aren't "keyed" to your hands like other wonderous items. If that concept is alien to you, there's a chance you're not yet grasping some basic D&D concepts. Now, be nice. Just because I happen to think that spiked gauntlets actually are gauntlets doesn't mean I fail to grasp basic D&D concepts. For instance: it's been noted that you could add non-magical spikes to a wonderous gauntlet. Noted by some, disputed by others. Like Tony said, just because there are rules for doing it with armor and shields doesn't mean you can do it with gauntlets. This aspect of it is up to the DM to decide. So, I think I understand the argument now. Let me ask a few more questions: - Would you let a character wear spiked boots and Boots of Speed at the same time? I imagine you'll say no, because it's not physically possible to wear two pairs of boots. If so, then I just want to point out that that is the same objection I have to wearing gloves and gauntlets. - Would you let a character wear (and benefit from) a Robe of Stars and (nonmagical) mithral full plate armor? Not sure what you'd say here. I'd say no.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 12:44 PM	- Would you let a character wear (and benefit from) a Robe of Stars and (nonmagical) mithral full plate armor? Not sure what you'd say here. I'd say no. I'd agree. But, I have to acknowledge that it'd be very easy to go the other way, since the discussion of 'slots' is so focused on /magic/ items. Most normal items in 'slots' would have such a trivial effect in-game that they can be ignored. Boots (because of caltrops), gauntlets, and armor are the only exceptions I can think of - and armor is a very significant exception, indeed.
bjorntfh 07-14-05, 12:46 PM	If the robe of stars gave an armor bonus that was less than the mithral full plate you'd use the higher bonus (they wouldn't stack) but there's no reason not to allow it since you're not trying to stack multiple wonderous items/magic armors in the same slot. One is magical, one is not. If it were mithral plate +1 then you'd have to pick one to be "active" but if the plate wasn't magical, well more power to you. And personally I'd allow someone to have spikes attatched to boots of speed, no reason you can't modify the item by strapping spikes to the outside.
jaelis 07-14-05, 12:53 PM	If the robe of stars gave an armor bonus that was less than the mithral full plate you'd use the higher bonus (they wouldn't stack) but there's no reason not to allow it since you're not trying to stack multiple wonderous items/magic armors in the same slot. One is magical, one is not. If it were mithral plate +1 then you'd have to pick one to be "active" but if the plate wasn't magical, well more power to you. And personally I'd allow someone to have spikes attatched to boots of speed, no reason you can't modify the item by strapping spikes to the outside. Guess I should have said, the Robe of Stars is a wondrous item that lets you travel to the astral plane and provides you with magical shuriken you're automatically proficient with. It doesn't have anything to do with armor. As for the spikes, that's a different question, whether you would allow a nonmagical item "boot spikes" that attach to boots. I'm saying, if you have an item "spiked boots", could you wear them at the same time as some other boots? Actually, when I asked this, I was really thinking of bladed boots, which I believe is a statted item in the Arms and Equipment guide.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 01:03 PM	As for the spikes, that's a different question, whether you would allow a nonmagical item "boot spikes" that attach to boots. I'm saying, if you have an item "spiked boots", could you wear them at the same time as some other boots?It's essentially the same thing - whether it's achieved by doubling up a slot or modifying an existing magic item, the mechanical effect is the same. You get the benefit of two items while using up only one item 'slot.'
bjorntfh 07-14-05, 01:16 PM	So what you're saying Tony is that you wouldn't let a player enchant a pair of bladed boots into boots of speed?
jaelis 07-14-05, 01:17 PM	Tony- Yes, but if there were a "boot spikes" item in the PHB that explained how you could attach it to boots, I would accept that you could attach it to magic boots too. Just like with armor and shield spikes now. But if there were a "spiked boot" item in the PHB, I would not use that to conclude that you can put spikes on magic boots. The fact that there is no "boot spikes" item, but that there are bladed boots at least allows me the illusion that WoTC agrees with my point of view.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 01:34 PM	So what you're saying Tony is that you wouldn't let a player enchant a pair of bladed boots into boots of speed? I'd never let something as silly as bladed boots into my game in the first place. However, to answer the question, I'd probably rule that thier affinity is different from normal boots. IIRC, you can pay extra to override an affinity. Similarly, if they were enchanted as both boots and weapons, I'd charge the extra cost for combining two unrelated functions into a single slotted item. So, while I would certainly let players do it, it wouldn't be a cheap trick equivalent to wearing boots over boots.
jaerad 07-14-05, 01:36 PM	I like to use a shield as an example, because it's a lot clearer. You could have a shield that had an AC enchantment bonus and had weapon enchantments. It would be priced like 2 seperate items. Now, I would also allow said shield to be wonderous and confer stats boosts (or some such). This would be priced as a third item (and an off-slot item probably). Not of this deals with slots. We're not talking about 3 shields, we're talking about enchanting the shield for different purposes. For instance, look at the Caster's Shield. I think it would be more than reasonable to either a) use this as an example of how to price a scroll attached to a shield, b) enchant the shield further as a shield, and/or c) add spikes and enchant it as a weapon. Whereas I don't think one could put spikes on a Lion's Shield - because it seems like the face of the shield would need to remain clear. In the descriptions of armor spikes and shield spikes, it mentions that they can be added to a suit of armor. Unless you think that magical items can no longer be improved, you should be able to craft spikes onto your shield. Adding spikes to guantlets may be different, since guantlets have a lot less space to work with and the spikes may not really be add-on-able. Although, well strapped on brass knuckles with spikes would work just fine - and I think it would be fair to stat them like spiked guantlets. Would it be resonable for a master armorsmith to be able to replace the inner lining of plate guantlets with a new lining? Wouldn't said lining be a lot like a thin leather glove? If you can do such a thing, couldn't said armorer be able to fasten the plates onto an existing glove? Now, said glove being magical and confering wonderous bonuses in no way should interfere with the guantlets being enchanted as a weapon - at least not any more than a shield would. This is also how one could add metal plates (and by extension bladed metal plates) to already existing boots. And if you don't allow that, I'm sure you could strap on some spikes/blades. I really do not agree that this is a slot problem. Guantlets of Ogre Power + Gloves of Dex? Slot problem. Guantlets of Rust + Gloves of Dex? Sticky, maybe. +5 Guantlets of Booty Slappin' + Gloves of Dex? Sure, they function differently. One is a weapon, and the other takes up the "magical glove" slot. Oh ya, Robe + Mithral Armor. If you allow Robes to work like Cloaks, then sure. But Robes generally take up the body slot - which means that while I might allow you to strap armor spikes onto it (like those cool football pads with spikes that those wresters from the 80's wore), you can't gain AC from armor and have a magic robe on. Unless you were to let it work like a cloak and be worn over armor. I wouldn't though, because I think Robes are mage armor, they fit in such a way that they couldn't really go under or over a suit of armor. I might stat out a magic robe as a magic cloak, but I'd probably throw in an off-slot adjustment just for fun. Just because I let gloves > guantlets work like vestment > body armor, doesn't mean that I would automatically allow other slot mixings.
bjorntfh 07-14-05, 01:42 PM	Tony, is there a reason hobnailed boots are disallowed in your games? Personally I've seen them used to devistating effect on people (I work at a hospital) so I'm not sure where they can be described as "silly." Mean, underhanded, painful, yes. Silly, no.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 01:54 PM	Tony, is there a reason hobnailed boots are disallowed in your games? You asked about bladed boots - a different, and much silliler piece of equipment.
DevilishIdiot 07-14-05, 03:06 PM	- Would you let a character wear spiked boots and Boots of Speed at the same time? I imagine you'll say no, because it's not physically possible to wear two pairs of boots. If so, then I just want to point out that that is the same objection I have to wearing gloves and gauntlets. Several people, including myself, have said that it would be physically possible to wear Gloves of Dex under gauntlets. These particular gloves are very thin, so I don't see how that can be argued. I don't think anyone is going to say that wearing two pairs of boots should be legal, however I don't see your point. A more appropriate question would be to ask if you can wear Socks of Speed (for the sake of argument...) under spiked boots.
jaelis 07-14-05, 03:13 PM	Several people, including myself, have said that it would be physically possible to wear Gloves of Dex under gauntlets. And I completely respect your right, as a DM, to say that. All I'm saying is that the rules don't indicate one way or another, so it is up to the DM's discretion. The boots argument is relevant because the rules have exactly the same thing to say about them.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 03:18 PM	Several people, including myself, have said that it would be physically possible to wear Gloves of Dex under gauntlets. These particular gloves are very thin, so I don't see how that can be argued. Nod. It's always possible to point out a way, in out-of-game terms, that something might be accomplished. A knowledgeable fencer, for instance, could describe exactly how his character could perform a riposte. But the game just doesn't have a mechanic for it, nor would introducing the ability to parry-and-attack between your actions be a good thing in terms of balance or consistency. Yes, one could certainly wear a thin pair of gloves under a heavier set of protective gauntlets. The game however, presents characters with the choice of wearing either gloves or guantlets in a meaningful way (explicitly, with regard to magic items), not both. It also allows them to swap helmets and gauntlest that come with armor for magical items that take the same slot, without degrading the armor's efficacy. That's a fairly clear and consistent implication (though not an explicit rule) that you really get to use the 'hands' slot for only one mechanically-significant item. (And, as the discussion continues, I'm starting to talk myself out of my earlier feeling that it'd be OK to benefit from a single-glove/guantlet magic item on one hand, and wear/use a spiked gauntlet on the other.) :rolleyes: I don't think anyone is going to say that wearing two pairs of boots should be legal, however I don't see your point. A more appropriate question would be to ask if you can wear Socks of Speed (for the sake of argument...) under spiked boots. That was jaelis's point. My point is that changing what amounts to a cosmetic attribute of a magic item (sock, slipper, or boot, an item takes up the 'boot' slot; glove(s) or gauntlet(s), it takes up the hand slot), shouldn't change the way it functions mechanically. Actually, I think he was trying to make basically the same point. While you can argue realistically that any number of potentially abusive tricks might be physically possible, they're inconsistent with the existing rules (even where they're not outright contradicted), and bad for game play & balance. That's why I say I'd have to rule against the combination, if I were DM'ing when someone suggested it.
bjorntfh 07-14-05, 03:19 PM	Tony let me just give a perfect real world example of bladed boots: crampons. If those aren't a realistic example of something sharp and spiny you strap on to normal boots, I'm not sure what other examples would work for you.
Vestigial_Thumb 07-14-05, 03:22 PM	Several people, including myself, have said that it would be physically possible to wear Gloves of Dex under gauntlets. Yeah. I know this personally (showed up in a costume party as a knight(before I discovered D&D :) )). You should be allowed to wear gloves under your gauntlets. Otherwise your hands get sore (really sore). Not sure about the game effect but I'm really not going anywhere with this... bye!
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 03:25 PM	Tony let me just give a perfect real world example of bladed boots: crampons. If those aren't a realistic example of something sharp and spiny you strap on to normal boots, I'm not sure what other examples would work for you. They're not just a real-world example. Something like them is in the climbing kit (I think the description and/or the illo). The effect is not to be able to make attacks with them, though, but to add to climbing checks. I'd have no problem with a climbing kit being used in conjunction with magical boots.
bjorntfh 07-14-05, 03:46 PM	In earlier editions you were allowed to stomp on things with crampons, please explain how they're any different than a set of spikes you strap to your feet for stepping on/into things.
jaelis 07-14-05, 03:47 PM	That was jaelis's point. My point is that changing what amounts to a cosmetic attribute of a magic item (sock, slipper, or boot, an item takes up the 'boot' slot; glove(s) or gauntlet(s), it takes up the hand slot), shouldn't change the way it functions mechanically. Actually, I think he was trying to make basically the same point. The extra aspect I was sort of trying to get at is that, even aside from issues about magic items, the DM needs to make decisions about what nonmagical things can be worn together. And that is a judgement call. I wouldn't allow two boots, I would allow two belts. As it occurs, I wouldn't allow two gloves. IMO, it is perfectly clear that you can't wear +5 spiked gauntlets along with Gloves of Dex. It is not perfectly clear whether you can wear nonmagical spiked gauntlets along with your Gloves of Dex, I'd say it's a DM's call. I keep getting the impression that some people's point of view is that, by the rules, you can.
mvincent 07-14-05, 03:49 PM	Now, be nice.I was not trying to be derisive. Rather I was trying to point out that the "keying" concept is integral to D&D, but not everyone understands the logic (or "pseudo-physics") of it. - Would you let a character wear spiked boots and Boots of Speed at the same time?Again, there would not be a slot/keying obstruction to this (even for your interpretation, assuming the spiked boots aren't magical in this example). As for the 'physical' considerations, that is a separate issue (and isn't really a point I've been arguing). Perhaps a PC wants a spiked solleret (i.e. plate-mail that can fit over a boot) or somesuch. That's up the DM to resolve, but it is not governed by the slot/keying rules. - I imagine you'll say no, because it's not physically possible to wear two pairs of boots. - I suppose If the spiked boots were made for a larger sized creature, it would be possible, but you'd have a whole host of other physical problems ;) - Would you let a character wear (and benefit from) a Robe of Stars and (nonmagical) mithral full plate armor?There might be physical problems associated with that, but some robes are designed to be worn over armor. Either way, it's not hindered by the slot/keying rules (which is what we're discussing). Certainly, items in the magic vest/robe/vestment/shirt slot can work with armor because the rules even say so: "Vestment, Druid’s: This light garment is worn over normal clothing or armor. "
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 03:50 PM	In earlier editions you were allowed to stomp on things with crampons, please explain how they're any different than a set of spikes you strap to your feet for stepping on/into things. Unlike spiked gauntlets or armor spikes, they're not given any stats as weapons.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 03:56 PM	I was not trying to be derisive. Rather I was trying to point out that the "keying" concept is integral to D&D, but not everyone understands the logic (or "pseudo-physics") of it. I think the logic behind it is fairly obviously to keep players from 'layering' similar items in the hopes of gaining the benefits of two items that happen to have identical drawbacks - in other words, to avoid giving 'something for nothing.' And, I think that logic clearly goes beyond just magical items, to any piece of equipment with a meaningful mechanical effect that would take up a 'slot' otherwise available for a magic item (it's just that there are vanishingly few such normal items). There might be physical problems associated with that, but some robes are designed to be worn over armor. [I]"Vestment, Druid’s: This light garment is worn over normal clothing or armor. "[/ Armor and Robes take up the same slot. Which is sepparate from the vest/vestment slot (which has, IIRC, more limitted affinities than robes).
mvincent 07-14-05, 04:15 PM	I think that logic clearly goes beyond just magical items, to any piece of equipment with a meaningful mechanical effect that would take up a 'slot' otherwise available for a magic item That's not how the slot rules read though. They say: "A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which place on the body the item is worn." "Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those listed above have no effect. " It's already well known that you can wear multiples of many of these items (magical or non), but only the first one (assuming it's a magical-slotted item) has an effect.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 04:22 PM	That's not how the slot rules read though. We were talking abou the logic behind those rules. What they litterally say is not much of an issue. What's the point of having them in the first place, and, as a DM, choosing not ignore or house-rule them, get's into 'understanding the logic of it.' And, that understanding is certainly helpful in ruling on a closely related issue that isn't directly covered by the rules at all.
mvincent 07-14-05, 04:42 PM	We were talking abou the logic behind those rules.I'm actually talking about the "pseudo-physics" of those rules. In the D&D universe, the 'magic' of certain items often correspond to a 'body slot affinity'... and that 'magic' can conflict. That's just how they defined it. It's not like I'm making this stuff up here. I'm not talking about game balance, merely the rules (as they define D&D's 'reality). Do as you wish with game balance or physical limitations, but those things aren't covered by the rules we're discussing.
Tony Vargas 07-14-05, 05:02 PM	I'm actually talking about the "pseudo-physics" of those rules. In the D&D universe, the 'magic' of certain items often correspond to a 'body slot affinity'... and that 'magic' can conflict. That's just how they defined it. It's not like I'm making this stuff up here. Nod. That's the rationale, sure, but it's 'just' so much flavor text. I'm not for ignoring flavor text out of hand, but I think it's a less important consideration than balance or playability - or even sticking to the 'spirit' of what rules you do have to work with. The rules & thier rationale do help to forstall a lot of attempts to 'stack' items. Absent such a rationale, the rules might seem 'arbitrary.' With them, it's much easier to deny ideas like wearing magic rings on toes or in piercings or whatever - or wearing 'thin gloves of dex' under 'heavy gauntlets of ogre power' - without getting into long discussions like this one. I'm not talking about game balance, merely the rules (as they define D&D's 'reality). Do as you wish with game balance or physical limitations, but those things aren't covered by the rules we're discussing. The original question isn't exactly covered by those rules, either - that's why you need to extrapolate from them a bit and make a ruling, as a DM.
jaerad 07-15-05, 04:17 AM	Aww. I was speaking in a vacuum.
Tony Vargas 07-15-05, 12:43 PM	You could have a shield that had an AC enchantment bonus and had weapon enchantments. It would be priced like 2 seperate items. Now, I would also allow said shield to be wonderous and confer stats boosts (or some such). This would be priced as a third item (and an off-slot item probably). Not of this deals with slots. We're not talking about 3 shields, we're talking about enchanting the shield for different purposes. Though it doesn't get into magic-item slots, most shields do take up a 'hand' in some sense, and even a buckler slightly impairs the hand it's on (-1 attacks). Aside from that, what you describe is fine: the rules explicitly allow shields to be enchanted as both shield and weapon, and you can always add additional functionality to an item at the slotless cost. In the descriptions of armor spikes and shield spikes, it mentions that they can be added to a suit of armor. Unless you think that magical items can no longer be improved, you should be able to craft spikes onto your shield. Ruling that you can't physically change a magic item while retaining it's magical properties isn't unreasonable. Magic items lose thier properties if broken, and even powerful magic like Polymorph Any Object, can't change thier shape or composition. The description of armor spikes, though, speaks of 'adding' them to your armor, which could be taken to imply that they can be added at any time, can be of different materials, etc. Adding spikes to guantlets may be different It's certainly different in the rules, since there's no implication of physically 'adding' spikes to gauntlets like there is spikes to armor. Would it be resonable for a master armorsmith to be able to replace the inner lining of plate guantlets with a new lining? Wouldn't said lining be a lot like a thin leather glove? If you can do such a thing, couldn't said armorer be able to fasten the plates onto an existing glove? While such might be reasonable in a physical sense, it still may not work with magic (since magic can work prettymuch however the DM decides it should, and, as the slotting issue demonstrates, can be pretty finicky), and might not be a good thing for a DM to allow, if it's used to pry open loopholes in the rules and gain unwarranted advantage. I really do not agree that this is a slot problem. One is a weapon, and the other takes up the "magical glove" slot. I agree that it's not an issue of magical-item stacking. It's not exactly a 'slot' problem in the sense of combinining magical functions - the original question also asked about a non-magical spiked gauntlet over magical gloves. But, by extension from the rules on magic-item 'slotting,' it's reasonable (maybe a bit conservative) to rule that you can't put any two mechanically-significant items in the same slot, even if one isn't magical. Oh ya, Robe + Mithral Armor. If you allow Robes to work like Cloaks, then sure. But Robes generally take up the body slot - which means that while I might allow you to strap armor spikes onto it (like those cool football pads with spikes that those wresters from the 80's wore), you can't gain AC from armor and have a magic robe on. That's an interesting take, especially the spiked robe bit. I can't picture that (of course, it's hard to picture most spiked light armor too). But, aside from that it seems reasonable.
Andrew_980 07-15-05, 03:16 PM	this whole arguement is silly. not being able to wear spiked guantlets(weapon not wonderous) over the ultrathin gloves of dex(using the wonderous gloves slot) is a lot like giving the pc "socks of agility" and telling him that takes up the boot slot so he can never again wear his heavy plate boots he loves to kick stuff with(that will fit over socks and is not a wonderous item)
Tony Vargas 07-15-05, 03:19 PM	I agree that a discussion like this can get a little silly (it gets into game balance vs realism issues, and those often look silly), though I find things like PCs wanting to make 'boot' items into 'socks' in the hopes they'll be able to combine magical (or magical & non-magical) benefits to be the silly part...
Andrew_980 07-15-05, 03:25 PM	I agree that a discussion like this can get a little silly (it gets into game balance vs realism issues, and those often look silly), though I find things like PCs wanting to make 'boot' items into 'socks' in the hopes they'll be able to combine magical (or magical & non-magical) benefits to be the silly part... Just take it case-by-case. if he wants boots over his magic socks because it would hurt to step on rocks without them, no problem. or if he always kicks in combat for 1d4 because of his heavy boots and doesn't want to give up that style, cool. if he wants magic boots over magic socks not cool
MysterYvil 07-15-05, 04:06 PM	..According to the FAQ, for instance, you'll be taking TWF penalties when you do that, even if you're making a standard attack with the (presumably usable one-handed) crossbow, or never actually attack with the melee weapon durring a full attack.I keep seeing references to this interpretation on the boards, but I can't find this statement or description in the FAQ--can you give the page number in the FAQ?
jaelis 07-15-05, 04:21 PM	Just take it case-by-case. if he wants boots over his magic socks because it would hurt to step on rocks without them, no problem. or if he always kicks in combat for 1d4 because of his heavy boots and doesn't want to give up that style, cool. if he wants magic boots over magic socks not cool First, kicking in combat does 1d3 unless you're a monk. The only difference heavy boots should make is whether it's lethal or nonlethal damage.** Second, there are no magic socks. If a player of mine wanted to create magic socks that were designed to be worn under nonmagical boots, I would probably let him, but I'd make them cost a wee bit extra. Similarly, if a player wanted to make special gloves that could be worn underneath nonmagical spiked gauntlets, I would probably also allow that, though it would depend a bit more on the effect and the extra cost might be more than a wee. ** Actually, I suppose that by a strict interpretation, your kicks do lethal damage only if you're wearing a gauntlet. But that would be silly :)
jaerad 07-15-05, 09:38 PM	I've decided to go with making it a slotless item. If you want to add in some flava and describe it as Socks of Agility instead of a Pin of Agility - awesome. Same with Gloves of Whathaveyou, charge for slotless. I might grant a bit of a break on some items if it doesn't seem worth double. Otherwise, I don't think you should be able to get magic items at a reduced cost (since you wouldn't have to pay for slotless). At least, in the case of magic items. I'm not sure I'd charge someone double for spiked guantlets over magic gloves. Maybe just make them combine the items or pay the difference to get the gloves slotlessized. Oh ya, Tony... Good point about Spiked Padded armor. Not sure that makes any sense. I'll have to think about what to do about that, because spikes would have to be mounted on something and that something should have some kind of rigidity. :shrug:
jaerad 07-18-05, 11:52 AM	:bump: ?
xver 07-19-05, 04:54 AM	I think we may have stumbled apon a new holy war. As the DM I'd see it this way: Gloves of Dex +6 under +5 Spiked Gauntlents work fine. It's a reasonable interpretation of the rules and, most importantly in my book, not broken. (If you think it is, please explain how.) I undestand the reasoning behind the other viewpoint (especially given armor uses the robe slot), but I don't agree. Similarly, Sox of Speed under +3 Flaming Spiked Boots (they have a better name, but it's against the ToU), sure. Why not? Mostly these rulings are based on what I see as the spirit of the rules, how I thing the metaphysics works, and the fact that I don't think it'd create a balance issue. I prefer to err on the side of fun. Oh and physically, you can wear two pairs of gloves just fine. In the winter I work with wool gloves under leather ones. It does limit the range of motion in the hand, but only a spellcaster and fine skill use like Open Lock would realisticly be penalized.
jaerad 07-19-05, 10:29 AM	If you think it is, please explain how. I think the problem is like getting 2 magic items on one slot. IE, Gloves of Dex + Guantlets of Ogre Power. And, I think that logic clearly goes beyond just magical items, to any piece of equipment with a meaningful mechanical effect that would take up a 'slot' otherwise available for a magic item Tony maintains that this is not meaningfully different than Gloves of Dex + Spiked Guantlets. I think he's right. This is why my solution is 1) force player to combine the items into one thing, or 2) charge slotless prices for doubling up like that. Paying the slotless price for it makes it balanced. If your slotless item is a Ioun Stone, pin, luckstone, socks, ring, earring, nosering, gold tooth, whatever - I don't care. That's just flavor.
bjorntfh 07-19-05, 10:40 PM	The problem with Tony's position is that it takes what is supposed to be the spirit of what types of magic items can be combined and then compared them to a different combonation of items. Spiked gauntlets (even +5 ones) are not the same things as gauntlets of ogre power. It's the difference between a headband of intellect and a spikey helmet of headbutting. One is a weapon, the other is a wonderous item.
jaelis 07-19-05, 11:04 PM	It's the difference between a headband of intellect and a spikey helmet of headbutting. One is a weapon, the other is a wonderous item. That's one point of view. The other is that they're both magic items that go on your head. You make the call.
mvincent 07-20-05, 01:10 AM	That's one point of view. The other is that they're both magic items that go on your head. You make the call.Note: the spikey helmet is possibly non-magical. I see nothing in the rules that would regulate this if it were the case.
Tony Vargas 07-20-05, 05:23 PM	The problem with Tony's position is that it takes what is supposed to be the spirit of what types of magic items can be combined and then compared them to a different combonation of items. That's also the whole point of my opinion. Most slotted items don't have a mechanically meaningful mundane function, while all magic items do. When a non-magical version of such an item has a substantial mechanical function, it makes some sense to aply the 'spirit' of those rules to it. Spiked gauntlets (even +5 ones) are not the same things as gauntlets of ogre power. It's the difference between a headband of intellect and a spikey helmet of headbutting. One is a weapon, the other is a wonderous item. Gloves of Swimming & Climbing aren't the same thing as Gauntlets of Ogre Power, either - one set are gloves, the other are guantlets, one set adds to skill checks, the other gives an enhancement bonus to STR - but, you don't get to use both. They may be different, but they're also similar. Both are useful, both are magical, and both are worn on the hands. They share those similarities with +5 spiked gauntlets - and two-outta-three with regular spiked gauntlets. That's close enough for me, as a DM, to give the combo a spiked-gauntleted-thumbs down.
Andrew_980 07-21-05, 07:04 AM	Gloves of Swimming & Climbing aren't the same thing as Gauntlets of Ogre Power, either - one set are gloves, the other are guantlets, one set adds to skill checks, the other gives an enhancement bonus to STR - but, you don't get to use both. They may be different, but they're also similar. Both are useful, both are magical, and both are worn on the hands. They share those similarities with +5 spiked gauntlets Guantlets of ogre power are described as heavy, studded gloves. these i don't see working under a spiked guantlet (SG from here out) but gloves of dex are described as slim, light gloves. they are like socks under boots to a SG. Also the two gloves desribed above are both wonderous items specificly described to fit the glove slot, SG is a weapon so it is inherantly differant. Like i said before, case by case. You cannot were mundane boots over heavy slippers, but you can socks. you cannot were heavy studded gloves under steel armored guantlets, but a pair of light slim gloves could make it more comfortable. It's just common sense. So long as the SG is not a wonderous item what really is the problem? It looks like you just want to punish a PC for his choice of favorite weapon
jaelis 07-21-05, 08:15 AM	No one is punishing the PC. We're just enforcing the consequences of their choice. There are some real advantages to using a spiked glove as a weapon, and some real disadvantages. Just like any other weapon. I shouldn't reopen this, but you all do remember that the description of body slots on page 214 doesn't say a thing about weapons or wondrous items? It refers exclusively to the general term "magic items." I still can't get over the fact that you don't think a +5 spiked gauntlet is a magic item worn on the hands.
kingpocky 07-21-05, 10:11 AM	Here's an idea, just try adding spikes right onto the gloves of dexterity. I can't see how it'd interfere with the magic, and it's not overpowered anyway. Spiked gauntlets are no more useful than anything else you could use the hand for, and they're mostly an image thing anyway.