Dagger Boots [Archive] - Wizards Community

Dagger Boots [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Mean Eyed Cat
02-11-05, 03:30 AM Help! I'm trying to figure something out.

I'm running a FR campaign and recently the ranger in the group came across some dagger boots.

I got the idea for these boots from the 2nd edition Aurora's Whole Realms catalogue. I found a 3rd edition update of these boots online. Basically, the boots are considered tiny exotic weapons (requiring the exotic weapon feat), do 1d4 damage (crit 19-20/x2), and the heavy tread gives pursuers +2 circumstance bonus to Track skill.

Now the ranger in question has the two weapon combat style granted to rangers at 2nd level. If she gains the exotic weapon feat, could she use this with her two weapon combat style and gain two attacks each round (attacking with each boot)? If she were to gain the Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat, could she make another attack with her off hand (or boot)?

Also, in Aurora's Whole Realms catalogue, it states that these boots were made for climbing trees. Wouldn't that give them a circumstance bonus to Climb?

Any help is much appreciated
Santrilla
02-11-05, 06:54 AM I'd rule no. A monk's unarmed attack incorporates hands, feet and head, but they still only get one attack per round. Treat the dagger boots as a boost to unarmed attack.
SALDAR
02-11-05, 09:26 AM Now the ranger in question has the two weapon combat style granted to rangers at 2nd level. If she gains the exotic weapon feat, could she use this with her two weapon combat style and gain two attacks each round (attacking with each boot)?

Whether or not the ranger has proficiency with the weapon she could use it, just with a non-proficiency penalty. If the question you are asking is can she attack with both boots using TWF, the answer is yes as the boots are weapons. One boot would be the primary weapon and the other would be the off hand (foot?) weapon, penalties for TWF (and non-proficiency without the EWP feat) would apply. The boot attack could also be combined with attacks from another weapon. Longsword slash across the chest and a kick to the groin follow up. Sounds like fun.

If she were to gain the Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat, could she make another attack with her off hand (or boot)?

Yes. At 6th level she would have a BAB of +6/+1 and could attack twice with each boot if he wanted as ITWF grants you a second off hand attack.

Also, in Aurora's Whole Realms catalogue, it states that these boots were made for climbing trees. Wouldn't that give them a circumstance bonus to Climb?

As DM you could allow this, but since a climbing kit from the equipment section grants a +2 circumstance bonus I would go no more than a +1 circumstance bonus.
CaoSlayer
02-11-05, 09:33 AM ummm, I would treat the kick attack as like monster´s secondary weapons (like a minotaur´s gore or a bear bite), that means that always that the guy can do a full attack, can also attack with a -5 bonus to hit and half the str mod to damage.
A feat for being able to make that extra attack it is middly balanced...
althrought talking about balance, I would include something like a penalty to trip checks or/and a bonus to cimb.
SALDAR
02-11-05, 11:14 AM ummm, I would treat the kick attack as like monster´s secondary weapons (like a minotaur´s gore or a bear bite), that means that always that the guy can do a full attack, can also attack with a -5 bonus to hit and half the str mod to damage.

A monster's weapons are natural weapons. Nonmonster races do not have natural weapons so their weapons must follow the weapon rules when attacking.
Vharuck
02-11-05, 11:20 AM But think of this way: a ranger Two Weapon Fighting with a Longsword and a dagger boot. This leaves his other hand open for a shield. So, for the low, low, LOW cost of the dagger boot (negated if he found/was given it) and EWP with the boot, he can get a heavy metal shield with all its bonuses. Way broken, but allowable if you let this happen.
Giver_of_Rings
02-11-05, 11:23 AM You could use the boot as an of-hand attack, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's still just a knife. Hell, I have a hard time justifying using a light hammer though I use it all the time, for style.

Anyway, bladed boots shouldn't give a bonus to climb checks. I mean seriously, that thin wedge of metal would snap off way too easy.

But here I am using real world knowledge for a DM decision.

In summation, you can use one boot and one boot only as an off-hand attack, and one boot and one boot boot only as a primary attack.
CaoSlayer
02-11-05, 11:48 AM A monster's weapons are natural weapons. Nonmonster races do not have natural weapons so their weapons must follow the weapon rules when attacking.

I know, I know, but you have to agreed that putting a knife in your feet it is like adding claws.

as I use to say: adapt the rules to your game, not your game to the rules.
SALDAR
02-11-05, 11:54 AM But think of this way: a ranger Two Weapon Fighting with a Longsword and a dagger boot. This leaves his other hand open for a shield. So, for the low, low, LOW cost of the dagger boot (negated if he found/was given it) and EWP with the boot, he can get a heavy metal shield with all its bonuses. Way broken, but allowable if you let this happen.

Oh yeah, a +2 AC bonus and a -2 armor check penalty really breaks the game for a character that is limited to light or no armor to gain the benefits of TWF.
CaoSlayer
02-11-05, 11:59 AM Oh yeah, a +2 AC bonus and a -2 armor check penalty really breaks the game for a character that is limited to light or no armor to gain the benefits of TWF.

umm, then add a bit of mithril for no penalty and then add enchantment for up to a +7 AC and some special stuff, shields arent just a +2 to AC
SALDAR
02-11-05, 12:07 PM umm, then add a bit of mithril for no penalty and then add enchantment for up to a +7 AC and some special stuff, shields arent just a +2 to AC

True, but neither is armor. Full Plate +5 is still better than a chain shirt +5, by about 4 points of AC bonus.
CaoSlayer
02-11-05, 12:15 PM Regarding pure armor AC you are right, but remember about the dex AC bonus, remember the check penalty, remember being unnable to use the weapon style and remember the lesser movement.

ever if a ranger would be able to use the style in heavier armor, he would be still better in light armor because the skills like hide/move silently and how important it is a good movement when playing an archer and/or good dex when using two light weapons.
jaelis
02-11-05, 01:06 PM But think of this way: a ranger Two Weapon Fighting with a Longsword and a dagger boot. This leaves his other hand open for a shield. So, for the low, low, LOW cost of the dagger boot (negated if he found/was given it) and EWP with the boot, he can get a heavy metal shield with all its bonuses. Way broken, but allowable if you let this happen.

Couldn't he take Improved Shield Bash and do this anyway for the same feat cost? (and you don't have to buy the boot!)

jaelis
Mean Eyed Cat
02-11-05, 01:19 PM But think of this way: a ranger Two Weapon Fighting with a Longsword and a dagger boot. This leaves his other hand open for a shield. So, for the low, low, LOW cost of the dagger boot (negated if he found/was given it) and EWP with the boot, he can get a heavy metal shield with all its bonuses. Way broken, but allowable if you let this happen.

I don't have all my books in front of me, but would a heavy shield interfer with the Ranger's two weapon combat style (like heavier armor)?

You could use the boot as an of-hand attack, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's still just a knife. Hell, I have a hard time justifying using a light hammer though I use it all the time, for style.

Anyway, bladed boots shouldn't give a bonus to climb checks. I mean seriously, that thin wedge of metal would snap off way too easy.

Actually, in Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue they show a picture. The blades appear to be pretty thick and the boots look reinforced where the blades are attached. They are also slightly turned up so that they do not interfere with movement.

And your right, I don't know that the blades would be too terribly effective in combat, but they might add some style to the atmosphere of the game :cool:

As DM you could allow this, but since a climbing kit from the equipment section grants a +2 circumstance bonus I would go no more than a +1 circumstance bonus.

That sounds about right to me too. Thanks.

And thank you to everybody who has answered this thread. Ya'll have been really helpful. :D
Vharuck
02-11-05, 01:28 PM Nope, checked the SRD and it does not mention shields as being prohibitive to the ranger's combat style.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

With TWF using my example of a Long Sword and Dagger Boot while carrying a shield, you would keep the AC bonus of the shield. If you use a shield as a bashing weapon, you lose its AC bonus for that round.
Vharuck
02-11-05, 01:31 PM Now that I think of it, I would allow my example. However, due to using a foot to attack and being unbalanced with the sword, shield, and heavy boot, I would rule that all opponents receive a +2 or +4 situational bonus to trip or overrun you. Also, if you are hit, you must make some kind of balance check that scales with damage (though probably not as harsh as 1 to 1) to keep from going prone.

Yet this brings up the question of a monk. I mean, they kick without these penalties. I don't know. This is an example of something the rules assumed wouldn't happen.
SALDAR
02-11-05, 02:21 PM Any character can kick an opponent, not just a monk. It is considered an unarmed attack, which brings its own penalties (provoking an AoO, doesn’t threaten squares, etc) and has nothing to do with balance, penalties to resist a trip attempt, etc. Just because you kick someone on your turn does not mean you are standing there with your foot in the air until your next turn.

The blade boot is a weapon in which you can become proficient using the EWP feat in the same manner as using a longsword requires the martial weapon proficiency feat. Without the necessary weapon proficiency feat you are still attacking with a weapon, although with nonproficiency penalties.

Any weapon can be used with TWF as long as you apply the necessary penalties, which are already defined within the game. Using a sword and blade boot to attack while using a shield to defend is not so far out there as to be unbalancing or game breaking. Just think of it as a spiked gauntlet for your foot.
Purkake
02-11-05, 02:22 PM They are just like armor spikes for boots, that don't add extra grapple bonus. I think there is nothing game-breaking and that it is a cool idea.

You COULD make any single thing overpowered and unbalanced, just look in the CO forums.
Mean Eyed Cat
02-11-05, 06:01 PM Any character can kick an opponent, not just a monk. It is considered an unarmed attack, which brings its own penalties (provoking an AoO, doesn’t threaten squares, etc) and has nothing to do with balance, penalties to resist a trip attempt, etc. Just because you kick someone on your turn does not mean you are standing there with your foot in the air until your next turn.

The blade boot is a weapon in which you can become proficient using the EWP feat in the same manner as using a longsword requires the martial weapon proficiency feat. Without the necessary weapon proficiency feat you are still attacking with a weapon, although with nonproficiency penalties.

Any weapon can be used with TWF as long as you apply the necessary penalties, which are already defined within the game. Using a sword and blade boot to attack while using a shield to defend is not so far out there as to be unbalancing or game breaking. Just think of it as a spiked gauntlet for your foot.

So if I treated it like a spiked gauntlet (for the foot), it would become an armed attack and not an unarmed attack (like a regular metal guantlet). Correct?
SALDAR
02-13-05, 08:24 PM So if I treated it like a spiked gauntlet (for the foot), it would become an armed attack and not an unarmed attack (like a regular metal guantlet). Correct?

Correct. A dagger boot is a weapon, with or without a proficiency. Kicking with a boot would be an unarmed attack and would do unarmed strike damage while kicking with a dagger boot would be an armed attack doing weapon damage.
hallet
02-13-05, 09:02 PM Is it just me, or would a character be cooler, though it would make no sense in the real world, nor deal decent damage, to twf with two dagger boots? That, and any feats (weapon focus etc) would apply to both boots. Frankly, it's just a cool mental image.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mean Eyed Cat 02-11-05, 03:30 AM	Help! I'm trying to figure something out. I'm running a FR campaign and recently the ranger in the group came across some dagger boots. I got the idea for these boots from the 2nd edition Aurora's Whole Realms catalogue. I found a 3rd edition update of these boots online. Basically, the boots are considered tiny exotic weapons (requiring the exotic weapon feat), do 1d4 damage (crit 19-20/x2), and the heavy tread gives pursuers +2 circumstance bonus to Track skill. Now the ranger in question has the two weapon combat style granted to rangers at 2nd level. If she gains the exotic weapon feat, could she use this with her two weapon combat style and gain two attacks each round (attacking with each boot)? If she were to gain the Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat, could she make another attack with her off hand (or boot)? Also, in Aurora's Whole Realms catalogue, it states that these boots were made for climbing trees. Wouldn't that give them a circumstance bonus to Climb? Any help is much appreciated
Santrilla 02-11-05, 06:54 AM	I'd rule no. A monk's unarmed attack incorporates hands, feet and head, but they still only get one attack per round. Treat the dagger boots as a boost to unarmed attack.
SALDAR 02-11-05, 09:26 AM	Now the ranger in question has the two weapon combat style granted to rangers at 2nd level. If she gains the exotic weapon feat, could she use this with her two weapon combat style and gain two attacks each round (attacking with each boot)? Whether or not the ranger has proficiency with the weapon she could use it, just with a non-proficiency penalty. If the question you are asking is can she attack with both boots using TWF, the answer is yes as the boots are weapons. One boot would be the primary weapon and the other would be the off hand (foot?) weapon, penalties for TWF (and non-proficiency without the EWP feat) would apply. The boot attack could also be combined with attacks from another weapon. Longsword slash across the chest and a kick to the groin follow up. Sounds like fun. If she were to gain the Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat, could she make another attack with her off hand (or boot)? Yes. At 6th level she would have a BAB of +6/+1 and could attack twice with each boot if he wanted as ITWF grants you a second off hand attack. Also, in Aurora's Whole Realms catalogue, it states that these boots were made for climbing trees. Wouldn't that give them a circumstance bonus to Climb? As DM you could allow this, but since a climbing kit from the equipment section grants a +2 circumstance bonus I would go no more than a +1 circumstance bonus.
CaoSlayer 02-11-05, 09:33 AM	ummm, I would treat the kick attack as like monster´s secondary weapons (like a minotaur´s gore or a bear bite), that means that always that the guy can do a full attack, can also attack with a -5 bonus to hit and half the str mod to damage. A feat for being able to make that extra attack it is middly balanced... althrought talking about balance, I would include something like a penalty to trip checks or/and a bonus to cimb.
SALDAR 02-11-05, 11:14 AM	ummm, I would treat the kick attack as like monster´s secondary weapons (like a minotaur´s gore or a bear bite), that means that always that the guy can do a full attack, can also attack with a -5 bonus to hit and half the str mod to damage. A monster's weapons are natural weapons. Nonmonster races do not have natural weapons so their weapons must follow the weapon rules when attacking.
Vharuck 02-11-05, 11:20 AM	But think of this way: a ranger Two Weapon Fighting with a Longsword and a dagger boot. This leaves his other hand open for a shield. So, for the low, low, LOW cost of the dagger boot (negated if he found/was given it) and EWP with the boot, he can get a heavy metal shield with all its bonuses. Way broken, but allowable if you let this happen.
Giver_of_Rings 02-11-05, 11:23 AM	You could use the boot as an of-hand attack, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's still just a knife. Hell, I have a hard time justifying using a light hammer though I use it all the time, for style. Anyway, bladed boots shouldn't give a bonus to climb checks. I mean seriously, that thin wedge of metal would snap off way too easy. But here I am using real world knowledge for a DM decision. In summation, you can use one boot and one boot only as an off-hand attack, and one boot and one boot boot only as a primary attack.
CaoSlayer 02-11-05, 11:48 AM	A monster's weapons are natural weapons. Nonmonster races do not have natural weapons so their weapons must follow the weapon rules when attacking. I know, I know, but you have to agreed that putting a knife in your feet it is like adding claws. as I use to say: adapt the rules to your game, not your game to the rules.
SALDAR 02-11-05, 11:54 AM	But think of this way: a ranger Two Weapon Fighting with a Longsword and a dagger boot. This leaves his other hand open for a shield. So, for the low, low, LOW cost of the dagger boot (negated if he found/was given it) and EWP with the boot, he can get a heavy metal shield with all its bonuses. Way broken, but allowable if you let this happen. Oh yeah, a +2 AC bonus and a -2 armor check penalty really breaks the game for a character that is limited to light or no armor to gain the benefits of TWF.
CaoSlayer 02-11-05, 11:59 AM	Oh yeah, a +2 AC bonus and a -2 armor check penalty really breaks the game for a character that is limited to light or no armor to gain the benefits of TWF. umm, then add a bit of mithril for no penalty and then add enchantment for up to a +7 AC and some special stuff, shields arent just a +2 to AC
SALDAR 02-11-05, 12:07 PM	umm, then add a bit of mithril for no penalty and then add enchantment for up to a +7 AC and some special stuff, shields arent just a +2 to AC True, but neither is armor. Full Plate +5 is still better than a chain shirt +5, by about 4 points of AC bonus.
CaoSlayer 02-11-05, 12:15 PM	Regarding pure armor AC you are right, but remember about the dex AC bonus, remember the check penalty, remember being unnable to use the weapon style and remember the lesser movement. ever if a ranger would be able to use the style in heavier armor, he would be still better in light armor because the skills like hide/move silently and how important it is a good movement when playing an archer and/or good dex when using two light weapons.
jaelis 02-11-05, 01:06 PM	But think of this way: a ranger Two Weapon Fighting with a Longsword and a dagger boot. This leaves his other hand open for a shield. So, for the low, low, LOW cost of the dagger boot (negated if he found/was given it) and EWP with the boot, he can get a heavy metal shield with all its bonuses. Way broken, but allowable if you let this happen. Couldn't he take Improved Shield Bash and do this anyway for the same feat cost? (and you don't have to buy the boot!) jaelis
Mean Eyed Cat 02-11-05, 01:19 PM	But think of this way: a ranger Two Weapon Fighting with a Longsword and a dagger boot. This leaves his other hand open for a shield. So, for the low, low, LOW cost of the dagger boot (negated if he found/was given it) and EWP with the boot, he can get a heavy metal shield with all its bonuses. Way broken, but allowable if you let this happen. I don't have all my books in front of me, but would a heavy shield interfer with the Ranger's two weapon combat style (like heavier armor)? You could use the boot as an of-hand attack, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's still just a knife. Hell, I have a hard time justifying using a light hammer though I use it all the time, for style. Anyway, bladed boots shouldn't give a bonus to climb checks. I mean seriously, that thin wedge of metal would snap off way too easy. Actually, in Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue they show a picture. The blades appear to be pretty thick and the boots look reinforced where the blades are attached. They are also slightly turned up so that they do not interfere with movement. And your right, I don't know that the blades would be too terribly effective in combat, but they might add some style to the atmosphere of the game :cool: As DM you could allow this, but since a climbing kit from the equipment section grants a +2 circumstance bonus I would go no more than a +1 circumstance bonus. That sounds about right to me too. Thanks. And thank you to everybody who has answered this thread. Ya'll have been really helpful. :D
Vharuck 02-11-05, 01:28 PM	Nope, checked the SRD and it does not mention shields as being prohibitive to the ranger's combat style. Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right. With TWF using my example of a Long Sword and Dagger Boot while carrying a shield, you would keep the AC bonus of the shield. If you use a shield as a bashing weapon, you lose its AC bonus for that round.
Vharuck 02-11-05, 01:31 PM	Now that I think of it, I would allow my example. However, due to using a foot to attack and being unbalanced with the sword, shield, and heavy boot, I would rule that all opponents receive a +2 or +4 situational bonus to trip or overrun you. Also, if you are hit, you must make some kind of balance check that scales with damage (though probably not as harsh as 1 to 1) to keep from going prone. Yet this brings up the question of a monk. I mean, they kick without these penalties. I don't know. This is an example of something the rules assumed wouldn't happen.
SALDAR 02-11-05, 02:21 PM	Any character can kick an opponent, not just a monk. It is considered an unarmed attack, which brings its own penalties (provoking an AoO, doesn’t threaten squares, etc) and has nothing to do with balance, penalties to resist a trip attempt, etc. Just because you kick someone on your turn does not mean you are standing there with your foot in the air until your next turn. The blade boot is a weapon in which you can become proficient using the EWP feat in the same manner as using a longsword requires the martial weapon proficiency feat. Without the necessary weapon proficiency feat you are still attacking with a weapon, although with nonproficiency penalties. Any weapon can be used with TWF as long as you apply the necessary penalties, which are already defined within the game. Using a sword and blade boot to attack while using a shield to defend is not so far out there as to be unbalancing or game breaking. Just think of it as a spiked gauntlet for your foot.
Purkake 02-11-05, 02:22 PM	They are just like armor spikes for boots, that don't add extra grapple bonus. I think there is nothing game-breaking and that it is a cool idea. You COULD make any single thing overpowered and unbalanced, just look in the CO forums.
Mean Eyed Cat 02-11-05, 06:01 PM	Any character can kick an opponent, not just a monk. It is considered an unarmed attack, which brings its own penalties (provoking an AoO, doesn’t threaten squares, etc) and has nothing to do with balance, penalties to resist a trip attempt, etc. Just because you kick someone on your turn does not mean you are standing there with your foot in the air until your next turn. The blade boot is a weapon in which you can become proficient using the EWP feat in the same manner as using a longsword requires the martial weapon proficiency feat. Without the necessary weapon proficiency feat you are still attacking with a weapon, although with nonproficiency penalties. Any weapon can be used with TWF as long as you apply the necessary penalties, which are already defined within the game. Using a sword and blade boot to attack while using a shield to defend is not so far out there as to be unbalancing or game breaking. Just think of it as a spiked gauntlet for your foot. So if I treated it like a spiked gauntlet (for the foot), it would become an armed attack and not an unarmed attack (like a regular metal guantlet). Correct?
SALDAR 02-13-05, 08:24 PM	So if I treated it like a spiked gauntlet (for the foot), it would become an armed attack and not an unarmed attack (like a regular metal guantlet). Correct? Correct. A dagger boot is a weapon, with or without a proficiency. Kicking with a boot would be an unarmed attack and would do unarmed strike damage while kicking with a dagger boot would be an armed attack doing weapon damage.
hallet 02-13-05, 09:02 PM	Is it just me, or would a character be cooler, though it would make no sense in the real world, nor deal decent damage, to twf with two dagger boots? That, and any feats (weapon focus etc) would apply to both boots. Frankly, it's just a cool mental image.