Gauntlets and being considered armed! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Gauntlets and being considered armed! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Raiden1012
09-24-04, 07:44 PM Greetings everyone,

During our campaign last night our cleric decided to try and surprise our fighter so that he could cure the disease the fighter was inflicted with. After the Cleric got off his cure (He was invisible before he casted so our dm gave him surprise over the fighter) the fighter decided that he wanted to slug the cleric for surprising him like that. I pointed out that since the fighter was unarmed that the cleric would get an aoo unless the fighter had improved unarmed strike. (btw, our dm is ok with us pointing these things out so please dont criticize me on this point) Another player immedeately jumped in and said that since the fighter was wearing gauntlets he was considered armed. Now these "gauntlets" that the fighter is wearing are only there because of the armor he was wearing, they were not a special pair of gauntlets. The DM made her decision and the campaign continued. Following the session i looked up unarmed attacks and found nothing that referred to gauntlets making you armed. Does anyone know if i am missing something?

Thanks
Heron_Marked_Blade
09-24-04, 07:50 PM Only a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Normal gauntlets are considered unarmed attacks (and therefore provoke an AoO unless the character has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat). The only thing a normal gauntlet allows you to do is deal lethal damage on an attack rather than nonlethal damage. The Fighter would have provoked an Attack of Opportunity by swinging at the Cleric.

See the Gauntlet entry, PHB p. 117.
Raiden1012
09-24-04, 07:53 PM Thanks Heron for the quick reply, i checked the armor section but never thought to look in the weapons, my own fault. Thanks again.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Raiden1012 09-24-04, 07:44 PM	Greetings everyone, During our campaign last night our cleric decided to try and surprise our fighter so that he could cure the disease the fighter was inflicted with. After the Cleric got off his cure (He was invisible before he casted so our dm gave him surprise over the fighter) the fighter decided that he wanted to slug the cleric for surprising him like that. I pointed out that since the fighter was unarmed that the cleric would get an aoo unless the fighter had improved unarmed strike. (btw, our dm is ok with us pointing these things out so please dont criticize me on this point) Another player immedeately jumped in and said that since the fighter was wearing gauntlets he was considered armed. Now these "gauntlets" that the fighter is wearing are only there because of the armor he was wearing, they were not a special pair of gauntlets. The DM made her decision and the campaign continued. Following the session i looked up unarmed attacks and found nothing that referred to gauntlets making you armed. Does anyone know if i am missing something? Thanks
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-24-04, 07:50 PM	Only a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Normal gauntlets are considered unarmed attacks (and therefore provoke an AoO unless the character has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat). The only thing a normal gauntlet allows you to do is deal lethal damage on an attack rather than nonlethal damage. The Fighter would have provoked an Attack of Opportunity by swinging at the Cleric. See the Gauntlet entry, PHB p. 117.
Raiden1012 09-24-04, 07:53 PM	Thanks Heron for the quick reply, i checked the armor section but never thought to look in the weapons, my own fault. Thanks again.