Disarming with a spiked gauntlet [Archive] - Wizards Community

Disarming with a spiked gauntlet [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Longarms
10-31-06, 04:28 PM If you disarm using a spike guantlet, does your enemies weapon end up in your hand?

DISARM RULE
"As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand."

Notice, you have to be unarmed to end up with the weapon in your hand.

SPIKED GAUNTLET RULE

"Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack."

Notice, an attack with the spiked gauntlet is only considered an armed attack. I guess that the word "considered" means that, while attacking with a spiked gauntlet shares *some* properties with an armed attack, such an attack does not share *all* properties. There is no explanation of what properties are and are not shared.

How would you rule? Note that if you allow this, there isn't much reason for a character who wants to take his opponents weapons to select the feat "unarmed combat."
tarkin
10-31-06, 05:01 PM Your english skills are lacking.

Considered means it IS an armed attack for all purposes except those mentioned. They don't mention any others, so it counts as an armed attack. In other words it is a word that means "almost identical" to, not "mostly like".

Examples of words that would mean what you thought 'considered' meant:

"apparent" (as in Apparent time in Time Stop)
"treated as" (as in Mithral being treated as one category lower - and even then the FAQ says it applies to everything).

Real world examples of use of Considered:

Mark Foley is considered to be the bigges hippocrit in the world, as he came out very Anti-Clinton for the Monica stuff but was caught sending erotic email messages to an underage male page.

Apple computers are considered to be of higher quality than Sony.

---------

Spiked Gauntlets are listed as a light melee weapon. This is on the same chart that lists regular gaunlets as a form of unarmed attacks, (just above unarmed strikes).

It takes a House Rule to make them count as 'unarmed' for anything, including disarmed.
mvincent
10-31-06, 05:55 PM "treated as" (as in Mithral being treated as one category lower - and even then the FAQ says it applies to everything).Note however that the description for mithral shirt does say "It is considered light armor" (same with Mithral Full Plate of Speed and Elven Chain made from mithral)

Your english skills are lacking.

Considered means it IS an armed attack for all purposes except those mentioned. That seems unduly harsh, especially since Nezkrul made the exact same mistake in this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10479053) while supporting your argument and you never even mentioned it.

Mark Foley is considered to be the bigges hippocrit in the world
draconic_swine
10-31-06, 08:25 PM Spiked Gauntlets are listed as a light melee weapon. This is on the same chart that lists regular gaunlets as a form of unarmed attacks, (just above unarmed strikes).

It takes a House Rule to make them count as 'unarmed' for anything, including disarmed.

Now you're just being an.al retentive about following the exact wording. I can't take any argument seriously that says someone wearing a spiked gauntlet can't take hold of the weapon they just disarmed.

P.S. Apparently you can't say an.al without it being censored.
mvincent
10-31-06, 08:38 PM I can't take any argument seriously that says someone wearing a spiked gauntlet can't take hold of the weapon they just disarmed.I'd say it was open to DM interpretation. "Realistically", with spiked gauntlets (unlike regular gauntlets), you are likely grabbing and twisting the weapon with the spikes themselves (similar to have a couple short daggers strapped to the back of your hand, which is effectively an improvised spiked gauntlet). This would be advantageous to the wearer for many reasons (avoiding an AoO), but would not actually allow for grabbing the weapon.
Saion2014
10-31-06, 10:02 PM ;The logic of the other posters seems reasonable, so...just use a regular gauntlet. It states in the PHB that all you do with it is unarmed strikes.;)
Azzy
10-31-06, 10:32 PM How would you rule? Note that if you allow this, there isn't much reason for a character who wants to take his opponents weapons to select the feat "unarmed combat."

If I was your DM, I would rule that if you successfully disarmed an opponent while wearing a spiked gauntlet (but not otherwise wielding a weapon, holding an object, etc) that the opponent's weapon does indeed end up in your hand.

The spirit of the rule, seems to me, to allow an empty-handed individual to take a disarmed opponent's weapon from him (if the disarm attempt is successful). Since wearing a spiked gauntlet does not interfere with one's capacity to hold a weapon, I see no reason to treat a character wearing a spiked gauntlet as not being empty-handed. Any other interpretation, IM(NS)HO, is just getting bogged down in semantics and not adding anything useful to the game as there seems to be no issue of game balance here.
Longarms
10-31-06, 10:59 PM "Your english skills are lacking."

You know what Tarkin, if you can't respond to my posts with respect, just don't reply to my posts from now on. From now on, let's go with the assumption that when I ask a question, I am implicitly asking everyone EXCEPT you.

You are really smart, but there are a bunch of people here just as smart as you but without the attitude. Let those people help me out. Thanks.

Also, when you slam someone for misunderstanding an english word, and then you cite your own complicated definition, you should probably cite an authority supporting your definition. When I look in the dictonary, I don't see the convoluted definition you posted, which makes me wonder where you got it from and if you just made it up.
jaelis
10-31-06, 11:22 PM I would not allow you to get the weapon. If you use the gauntlet, then you are using the spikes, not your hand. The spikes can't hold anything, so why should you get the weapon?

You could, however, make an unarmed disarm attempt while wearing spiked gauntlets. If you succeeded, you would get the weapon.
Azzy
11-01-06, 12:07 AM Interesting that you should bring that up. One would assume, given that stipulation, that any attempt to disarm while wearing a spiked gauntlet (and not otherwise wielding a weapon or carrying an item) would be made as an unarmed disarm attempt (considering there would be no mechanical difference--either way, you're taking the -4 penalty to the attempt).
Iver Gearsham
11-01-06, 04:24 AM You could just make it a +1 weapon an add the Disarm weapon power from A&EG that would severely level the playing field for you by removing most of your opponents weapon size advantage and 2 handed weapon bonuses.
draconic_swine
11-01-06, 09:01 AM To all those who suggested that disarming with a spiked gauntlet uses the spikes themselves instead of your actual hand: that's actually quite an interesting interpretation, even though nothing supports or suggests it in the rules. Then again, the way I handle disarming with spiked gauntlets isn't RAW, either.

I would've suggested being able to choose between disarming with the spikes an disarming with your open hand, but as Azzy pointed out, mechanically the penalty you take is the same, so the only real difference is that one prevents you from grabbing the weapon while the other doesn't, so nothing's resolved. I think I'll change my answer to the original question as: ask your DM.
mvincent
11-01-06, 12:33 PM To all those who suggested that disarming with a spiked gauntlet uses the spikes themselves instead of your actual hand: that's actually quite an interesting interpretation, even though nothing supports or suggests it in the rules.Actually (besides the fact that I've seen this done in real life), the rules say "An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack.". This means that you don't normally provoke and AoO when attacking with them, which implies that the business end of the spiked gauntlet is what is in contact with your opponent (or his weapon, if sundering or disarming). This is just safer for the wielder.

However, since disarming provokes an AoO even when armed, I would have to agree that it doesn't really make a difference, even though the rules say "If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.". So I'd certainly allow it, I was just providing information on how other DM's could legitimately feel otherwise, both from a mechanical and realistic viewpoint.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Longarms 10-31-06, 04:28 PM	If you disarm using a spike guantlet, does your enemies weapon end up in your hand? DISARM RULE "As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand." Notice, you have to be unarmed to end up with the weapon in your hand. SPIKED GAUNTLET RULE "Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack." Notice, an attack with the spiked gauntlet is only considered an armed attack. I guess that the word "considered" means that, while attacking with a spiked gauntlet shares some properties with an armed attack, such an attack does not share all properties. There is no explanation of what properties are and are not shared. How would you rule? Note that if you allow this, there isn't much reason for a character who wants to take his opponents weapons to select the feat "unarmed combat."
tarkin 10-31-06, 05:01 PM	Your english skills are lacking. Considered means it IS an armed attack for all purposes except those mentioned. They don't mention any others, so it counts as an armed attack. In other words it is a word that means "almost identical" to, not "mostly like". Examples of words that would mean what you thought 'considered' meant: "apparent" (as in Apparent time in Time Stop) "treated as" (as in Mithral being treated as one category lower - and even then the FAQ says it applies to everything). Real world examples of use of Considered: Mark Foley is considered to be the bigges hippocrit in the world, as he came out very Anti-Clinton for the Monica stuff but was caught sending erotic email messages to an underage male page. Apple computers are considered to be of higher quality than Sony. --------- Spiked Gauntlets are listed as a light melee weapon. This is on the same chart that lists regular gaunlets as a form of unarmed attacks, (just above unarmed strikes). It takes a House Rule to make them count as 'unarmed' for anything, including disarmed.
mvincent 10-31-06, 05:55 PM	"treated as" (as in Mithral being treated as one category lower - and even then the FAQ says it applies to everything).Note however that the description for mithral shirt does say "It is considered light armor" (same with Mithral Full Plate of Speed and Elven Chain made from mithral) Your english skills are lacking. Considered means it IS an armed attack for all purposes except those mentioned. That seems unduly harsh, especially since Nezkrul made the exact same mistake in this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10479053) while supporting your argument and you never even mentioned it. Mark Foley is considered to be the bigges hippocrit in the world
draconic_swine 10-31-06, 08:25 PM	Spiked Gauntlets are listed as a light melee weapon. This is on the same chart that lists regular gaunlets as a form of unarmed attacks, (just above unarmed strikes). It takes a House Rule to make them count as 'unarmed' for anything, including disarmed. Now you're just being an.al retentive about following the exact wording. I can't take any argument seriously that says someone wearing a spiked gauntlet can't take hold of the weapon they just disarmed. P.S. Apparently you can't say an.al without it being censored.
mvincent 10-31-06, 08:38 PM	I can't take any argument seriously that says someone wearing a spiked gauntlet can't take hold of the weapon they just disarmed.I'd say it was open to DM interpretation. "Realistically", with spiked gauntlets (unlike regular gauntlets), you are likely grabbing and twisting the weapon with the spikes themselves (similar to have a couple short daggers strapped to the back of your hand, which is effectively an improvised spiked gauntlet). This would be advantageous to the wearer for many reasons (avoiding an AoO), but would not actually allow for grabbing the weapon.
Saion2014 10-31-06, 10:02 PM	;The logic of the other posters seems reasonable, so...just use a regular gauntlet. It states in the PHB that all you do with it is unarmed strikes.;)
Azzy 10-31-06, 10:32 PM	How would you rule? Note that if you allow this, there isn't much reason for a character who wants to take his opponents weapons to select the feat "unarmed combat." If I was your DM, I would rule that if you successfully disarmed an opponent while wearing a spiked gauntlet (but not otherwise wielding a weapon, holding an object, etc) that the opponent's weapon does indeed end up in your hand. The spirit of the rule, seems to me, to allow an empty-handed individual to take a disarmed opponent's weapon from him (if the disarm attempt is successful). Since wearing a spiked gauntlet does not interfere with one's capacity to hold a weapon, I see no reason to treat a character wearing a spiked gauntlet as not being empty-handed. Any other interpretation, IM(NS)HO, is just getting bogged down in semantics and not adding anything useful to the game as there seems to be no issue of game balance here.
Longarms 10-31-06, 10:59 PM	"Your english skills are lacking." You know what Tarkin, if you can't respond to my posts with respect, just don't reply to my posts from now on. From now on, let's go with the assumption that when I ask a question, I am implicitly asking everyone EXCEPT you. You are really smart, but there are a bunch of people here just as smart as you but without the attitude. Let those people help me out. Thanks. Also, when you slam someone for misunderstanding an english word, and then you cite your own complicated definition, you should probably cite an authority supporting your definition. When I look in the dictonary, I don't see the convoluted definition you posted, which makes me wonder where you got it from and if you just made it up.
jaelis 10-31-06, 11:22 PM	I would not allow you to get the weapon. If you use the gauntlet, then you are using the spikes, not your hand. The spikes can't hold anything, so why should you get the weapon? You could, however, make an unarmed disarm attempt while wearing spiked gauntlets. If you succeeded, you would get the weapon.
Azzy 11-01-06, 12:07 AM	Interesting that you should bring that up. One would assume, given that stipulation, that any attempt to disarm while wearing a spiked gauntlet (and not otherwise wielding a weapon or carrying an item) would be made as an unarmed disarm attempt (considering there would be no mechanical difference--either way, you're taking the -4 penalty to the attempt).
Iver Gearsham 11-01-06, 04:24 AM	You could just make it a +1 weapon an add the Disarm weapon power from A&EG that would severely level the playing field for you by removing most of your opponents weapon size advantage and 2 handed weapon bonuses.
draconic_swine 11-01-06, 09:01 AM	To all those who suggested that disarming with a spiked gauntlet uses the spikes themselves instead of your actual hand: that's actually quite an interesting interpretation, even though nothing supports or suggests it in the rules. Then again, the way I handle disarming with spiked gauntlets isn't RAW, either. I would've suggested being able to choose between disarming with the spikes an disarming with your open hand, but as Azzy pointed out, mechanically the penalty you take is the same, so the only real difference is that one prevents you from grabbing the weapon while the other doesn't, so nothing's resolved. I think I'll change my answer to the original question as: ask your DM.
mvincent 11-01-06, 12:33 PM	To all those who suggested that disarming with a spiked gauntlet uses the spikes themselves instead of your actual hand: that's actually quite an interesting interpretation, even though nothing supports or suggests it in the rules.Actually (besides the fact that I've seen this done in real life), the rules say "An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack.". This means that you don't normally provoke and AoO when attacking with them, which implies that the business end of the spiked gauntlet is what is in contact with your opponent (or his weapon, if sundering or disarming). This is just safer for the wielder. However, since disarming provokes an AoO even when armed, I would have to agree that it doesn't really make a difference, even though the rules say "If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.". So I'd certainly allow it, I was just providing information on how other DM's could legitimately feel otherwise, both from a mechanical and realistic viewpoint.