After all they spend all their time punching, surely they must use some hand protection?
Seems odd they have to take a full Simple Weapon proficiency just to get gauntlets when all other fighter types get it free.
Gauntlets are classically part of armor which is kind of out of place on a monk.
Besides gauntlets are a poor choice for monk because gauntlets do a fixed amount of damage (1d2/ 1d3) and monks unarmed strike scales with level. Monks also couldn't flurry with gauntlets.
About the only advantage gauntlets have is they would be cheaper to enchant than getting an amulet of mighty fists.
After all they spend all their time punching, surely they must use some hand protection?
Seems odd they have to take a full Simple Weapon proficiency just to get gauntlets when all other fighter types get it free.
Rule-wise... it does not really do anything for them. As they already deal lethal damage and are treated as "armed" at all times. I can see why "flavor-wise" you might say so. I've often been curious why there is no form of "brass knuckles".
After all they spend all their time punching, surely they must use some hand protection?
Seems odd they have to take a full Simple Weapon proficiency just to get gauntlets when all other fighter types get it free.Gauntlets are classically part of armor which is kind of out of place on a monk.
Besides gauntlets are a poor choice for monk because gauntlets do a fixed amount of damage (1d2/ 1d3) and monks unarmed strike scales with level. Monks also couldn't flurry with gauntlets.
About the only advantage gauntlets have is they would be cheaper to enchant than getting an amulet of mighty fists.
Actually gauntlets have no damage listed. They are the same as "unarmed".
I will say this much for them... you'd most likely be hampered by wearing them... as they are not monk special weapons. So, no flurry for you!
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
There is no gauntlet proficiency, because there is no nonproficiency penalty for unarmed attacks. But note that gauntlets don't even allow you to attack without provoking AoO if you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike!
By extension, all special rules which apply to a monk's unarmed strikes can be used with gauntlets, including flurry and increased damage dice. There is one exception: gauntlets explicitly deal lethal damage, which means the monk would take a -4 penalty to deal nonlethal damage with them. The monk can use other body parts to strike, but would not gain any magical or special material qualities of the gauntlets.
"Korean finger board"
"Find a nail"
I'm not so sure about that, I leave the rules lawyering to others. I wonder why monks would bother with the much more expensive Amulet of Mighty Fists though if they could just enhance a pair of gauntlets.
My feeling is that gauntlets do not count for monks unarmed strike
I wonder why monks would bother with the much more expensive Amulet of Mighty Fists though if they could just enhance a pair of gauntlets.
Good question. This is something that PFRPG broke, though... the new amulet would have been a bargain for the old monk.
Under the 3.5 rules, the supplied quarterstaff example made it clear that every attack had to be with a different weapon; in a flurry routine, you could have used each gauntlet once and only once (and note that a "pair of gauntlets" is not a single weapon for any purpose; each one has to be separately enchanted). Meanwhile, there were no limitations on which body part was used for an "unarmed strike," giving the monk virtually infinite "weapons" in that regard. With five available strikes you could use two sianghams and three random body parts.
With 3.P, we see two changes. First, the monk is inexplicably limited to hands, feet, knees and elbows, which makes the idea of "unlimited virtual weapons" a little less tenable. But more importantly, Flurry of Blows is now a virtual feat chain which explicitly provides the benefits of two-weapon fighting... meaning that yes, you can just go back and forth with two gauntlets. The amulet still has the option of skipping a +1 and going straight for special properties, which is attractive; and if you've got a reliable source of Greater Magic Fang it's still more cost-effective than two gauntlets with the same properties... so even with this rules interpretation, gauntlets don't make the amulet pointless.
Personally I'd just ignore the text about emulating two-weapon fighting and use the old flurry/unarmed rules with the new attack progression.
Edit: Also I should point out that they can stack. Two +1 gauntlets and a Flaming amulet is 11k, as opposed to 16k for two +1 flaming gauntlets. Honestly I think that's an even bigger argument for reinstating the old "one strike per weapon" rule.
Or clarifying that gauntlets are not unarmed strikes for the purposes of anything monk-related. I'd accept that too, but it's not what I'm reading and IMO it makes no sense (gauntlet = brass knuckles has always been my assumption).
|
This was what I was looking for, the unarmed damage with flurry, the other weapons explicitly don't allow that.
I think the spirit of the rule still requires Simple Weapon proficiency, hence the question.
Alternatively Improved Unarmed strike could give a free proficiency with Gauntlets.
My other option is to add a feat for Monks to allow them to use unarmed damage instead of weapon damage when attacking. Is that unbalancing?
I can see spells that temporarily enchant weapons working on a Monk but not actual magic item manufacture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no clue where people are getting the "in 3.5, each attack in a flurry of blows must come from a different weapon" silliness. No such rule exists.
You know... this is interesting. I never really studied this in depth. Yet, looking at the chart and at the equipment section info on simple weapons, I've realized that wizards, druids, sorcerer and monks are technically not proficient in unarmed attacks and should suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty when throwing a punch.
The monk gets around this because they get unarmed attacks as a class feature.
Unarmed Attacks are classified as simple weapons if the equipment info and chart in the 3.5 Players hand book is to be used as written.
Checking the PRPG nets me the same result. To quote the PRD:
Weapons
From the common longsword to the exotic dwarven urgrosh, weapons come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes.All weapons deal hit point damage. This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon. When the result of the die roll to make an attack is a natural 20 (that is, the die actually shows a 20), this is known as a critical threat (although some weapons can score a critical threat on a roll of less than 20). If a critical threat is scored, another attack roll is made, using the same modifiers as the original attack roll. If this second attack roll exceeds the target's AC, the hit becomes a critical hit, dealing additional damage.
Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon's use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon's usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
argument that gauntlets can be used for flurry:
A monk cannot use any
weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk
weapon as part of a flurry of blows.
gauntlets are unarmed strikes (see above)
OR
what about base damage then? gauntlets improve as monk gains level in base damage?
OR
gauntlets ARENT armor , see gauntlet of rust, in wondrous items.
my take is gauntlets are heavy gloves. in
that dont give you armor or add to your damage,
in general they only allow you to deliver lethal damage and no penalty to attack roll. monks do this anyway.
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu.
I agree whole-heartedly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu.
Actually it appears that, according to the Pathfinder rules (since you guys changed gauntlets from doing fixed damage to doing unarmed strike damage), gauntlets are great for monks. They're classified as unarmed strikes, so they do unarmed strike damage and are usable with flurry of blows, they can be enchanted at normal weapon prices, and they aren't classified as armor so they don't interfere with other monk abilities.
As far as the image is concerned, boxing gloves are essentially gauntlets, really (just padded ones that do nonlethal damage).
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu.Actually it appears that, according to the Pathfinder rules (since you guys changed gauntlets from doing fixed damage to doing unarmed strike damage), gauntlets are great for monks. They're classified as unarmed strikes, so they do unarmed strike damage and are usable with flurry of blows, they can be enchanted at normal weapon prices, and they aren't classified as armor so they don't interfere with other monk abilities.
As far as the image is concerned, boxing gloves are essentially gauntlets, really (just padded ones that do nonlethal damage).
Well... there is still damage listed in the PRPG under gauntlets. This is the same damage listed in the PHB. That damage listed is the damage for a normal unarmed strike.
If that is considered "set" or not would all depend on the DM. If you have a class feature that improves your damage for a unarmed strike, I myself would say it would be silly to say you do less damage while wearing a gauntlet.
Gauntlets have to be enchanted individually?
So i know it mentions in manufacturing magic weapons you have to pay double to add enchantments to each side of the weapon, but for instance you use a quarterstaff+1.. as a monk to flurry.
only half your attacks get the +1??
it does say gauntlets in the plural so i would guess gauntlets +1 mean this goes on both sides.
stacking the amulet of might fists with them is excessive, but it appears within the scope of the interpretation of the rules? it certainly doesnt appear clearly stated either way..
none of this monkliness unarmed strike came up in play testing to include clarification in the rules??
I have no clue where people are getting the "in 3.5, each attack in a flurry of blows must come from a different weapon" silliness. No such rule exists.
In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her flurry of blows routine to do so.
If no such rule existed, neither would this text.
You know... this is interesting. I never really studied this in depth. Yet, looking at the chart and at the equipment section info on simple weapons, I've realized that wizards, druids, sorcerer and monks are technically not proficient in unarmed attacks and should suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty when throwing a punch.
The monk gets around this because they get unarmed attacks as a class feature.
That's... interesting. :)
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu.
Only in America...
Gauntlets have to be enchanted individually?
So i know it mentions in manufacturing magic weapons you have to pay double to add enchantments to each side of the weapon, but for instance you use a quarterstaff+1.. as a monk to flurry.
only half your attacks get the +1??
it does say gauntlets in the plural so i would guess gauntlets +1 mean this goes on both sides.
stacking the amulet of might fists with them is excessive, but it appears within the scope of the interpretation of the rules? it certainly doesnt appear clearly stated either way..
none of this monkliness unarmed strike came up in play testing to include clarification in the rules??
Fighting with a staff is effectively fighting with two weapons. So yes only the "half" the attacks made with the staff would get the +1 if you had only spent enough to enhance one end. You'd have to decide if that is your primary or "off" hand that get the +1.
The info on the gauntlet states that pricing listed is for one gauntlet. So yes you'd need to purchase and enchant each gauntlet as a single weapon.
here is another point.
since the definition "monk weapons" only really applies to the flurry which weapons can be used, etc..
would it be a possible "interpretation" to say that gauntlets as listed automatically get the monk, and double classification . albeit not listed in the weapon chart.
they are listed as unarmed strikes (hence , "monk" classification), and if you say for instance non enchanted gauntlets would actually be worn on both hands, they are double weapons.
edit: they are specified as cost and weight for ONE gauntlet so not double...
OR
in the case of magic gloves of say arrow snaring, etc.. the rules mention the gauntlets take the place of gauntlets provided in for instance full plate +1. so these "gloves" dont add to your damage cuz they arent "gauntlets" nor do they take away from you armor.. etc..
it all doesnt seem to be clearly defined in the book.
imho the only way this really comes into focus is with enlarged monks and the base damage. then you can get into some crazy damage / attacks / etc... which probably are not what was intended, but appear to be a possible valid interpretation.
here is another point.
since the definition "monk weapons" only really applies to the flurry which weapons can be used, etc..
would it be a possible "interpretation" to say that gauntlets as listed automatically get the monk, and double classification . albeit not listed in the weapon chart.
they are listed as unarmed strikes (hence , "monk" classification), and if you say for instance non enchanted gauntlets would actually be worn on both hands, they are double weapons.
OR
in the case of magic gloves of say arrow snaring, etc.. the rules mention the gauntlets take the place of gauntlets provided in for instance full plate +1. so these "gloves" dont add to your damage cuz they arent "gauntlets" nor do they take away from you armor.. etc..
it all doesnt seem to be clearly defined in the book.
imho the only way this really comes into focus is with enlarged monks and the base damage. then you can get into some crazy damage / attacks / etc... which probably are not what was intended, but appear to be a possible valid interpretation.
Unarmed strike is listed as its own entry on the chart. Gauntlet would be listed as "Monk weapon" if it could be used as such.
Question is... in the case of suits of armor that come with a pair of gauntlets, would making a masterwork set of armor also leave you with masterwork gauntlets?
|
|
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu.
RAW make it better for a monk to do unarmed damage at higher levels but make it difficult to add enchantments to the attack that all other fighting characters can use. Gauntlets get round this.
Not carrying weapons is more of a social rule, which gives a monk an advantage if everyone is limited in weapons (Japanese style).
Practically, if a monk is trained (proficient) in certain weapons, the fighting style will incorporate the weapon. Maybe your trainee monks will start unarmed until they show a degree of competence. This opens up the possibility of certain monk schools being known by their weapon style (Crouching Tiger style anyone?).
The gauntlet rules need clarification, however I rather like a feat addition to cover this (PH2 perhaps?), something like:
Armed Combat
Prerequisite: Monk unarmed damage, proficient in weapon, BAB +6
May substitute unarmed damage for weapon damage when wielding a weapon.
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage
rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A
strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed
attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet.
coupled with the flurry description i quoted above, says unarmed strikes.
it looks as if most people take your stance that gauntlets are useless to monks (mostly cus the editor-in-chief has chimed in) ...
my point is not that one interpretation or another is the "best" just that it is open to interpretation and not clearly defined in the rules.
I have no clue where people are getting the "in 3.5, each attack in a flurry of blows must come from a different weapon" silliness. No such rule exists.In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her flurry of blows routine to do so.If no such rule existed, neither would this text.
That text doesn't say anything about having to make each attack in a flurry with a separate weapon.
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage
rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A
strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed
attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet.coupled with the flurry description i quoted above, says unarmed strikes.
it looks as if most people take your stance that gauntlets are useless to monks (mostly cus the editor-in-chief has chimed in) ...
my point is not that one interpretation or another is the "best" just that it is open to interpretation and not clearly defined in the rules.
And technically... the monk is still not proficient with it as I quoted from the PRD. If you look at what weapons and armor the monk is proficient with you'll see that "simple weapons" is not included and neither are unarmed attacks or gauntlets. His class feature that gives him improved unarmed strike is technically the only reason he can punch, knee, elbow strike, or kick at all. :)
That text doesn't say anything about having to make each attack in a flurry with a separate weapon.I have no clue where people are getting the "in 3.5, each attack in a flurry of blows must come from a different weapon" silliness. No such rule exists.In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her flurry of blows routine to do so.If no such rule existed, neither would this text.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook does go on to say in great detail under Flurry of blows what kind of attacks you can make and in what mix with a quarterstaff.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook does go on to say in great detail under Flurry of blows what kind of attacks you can make and in what mix with a quarterstaff.
That's an example (and a confusing one). No rule anywhere in the game says you have to attack with a different weapon with each flurry iterative.
EDIT: And, as a matter of fact, if it DID say such a thing, you wouldn't even be able to flurry of blows ever with just an unarmed attack, because by rules unarmed strikes are a single weapon regardless of which part of your body you use to make the attack.
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage
rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A
strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed
attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet.coupled with the flurry description i quoted above, says unarmed strikes.
it looks as if most people take your stance that gauntlets are useless to monks (mostly cus the editor-in-chief has chimed in) ...
my point is not that one interpretation or another is the "best" just that it is open to interpretation and not clearly defined in the rules.
And technically... the monk is still not proficient with it as I quoted from the PRD. If you look at what weapons and armor the monk is proficient with you'll see that "simple weapons" is not included and neither are unarmed attacks or gauntlets. His class feature that gives him improved unarmed strike is technically the only reason he can punch, knee, elbow strike, or kick at all. :)
lol
ok, so a monk can use gauntlets (at -4 for non prof) in a flurry? ????
again, i say its not clear and subject to interpretation.
|
|
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu...and the illustration of the Monk in the PFRPG shows him holding a weapon.
Bruce Lee looked a lot more lethal when wielding nunchuks in Enter the Dragon.
I know these are cinematic examples but they're archetypes too.
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu...and the illustration of the Monk in the PFRPG shows him holding a weapon.
Bruce Lee looked a lot more lethal when wielding nunchuks in Enter the Dragon.
I know these are cinematic examples but they're archetypes too.
Well... giving Bruce Lee as an example is just lethal looking period. You looked at him and seriously did not want to be hit anyway. More so once his shirt came off and you saw how muscled he really was.
Nunchuks are just one of those ICONIC martial arts weapons because of movies. Movie makers love them as they are extremely flashy weapons. Also a monk weapon to boot.
The sword the iconic monk is wielding is a temple blade from the Pathfinder Campaign setting book. Also a monk weapon.
Edit: I cannot think off the top of my head of a example of a monk using metal gauntlets though.
I rule that, in this case, Gauntlets are a part of armor which enhances your unarmed attacks to lethal damage. I don't even consider them weapons anymore. Thus, they cannot be enchanted as such.
Done and done.
When everyone is talking in this thread about "Gauntlets", they are thinking of the heavy metal, probably spiked, variety. The debate in the thread so far has been if these should be monk weapons, and the exact wording of the rules. I find myself on the sides that reads the RAW in PF. It's been quoted several times, but:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
So sure, I believe that a monk should be able to strap one of these on, and make unarmed attacks with it.
Are you armed with gauntlets normally? No.
Do you threaten with gauntlets normally? No.
If you did, then any player in Medium or Heavy armor would be armed and threatening all the time.
Gauntlets are not a weapon, per se, in the RAW in PF. They were in 3.5, and they could be enchanted there as weapons. The real question in my eyes is "Can you enchant gauntlets as a weapon"?
I say yes, but then again I'm playing a Monk with a gauntlet.
What if a monk had a +1 Firey Gauntlet, and a +1 Vicious Amulet of Mighty Fists? Would he get +2 to hit and damage? Do those magical bonuses not stack? What about damage? Does he deal 1d6 fire and 2d6 vicious?
All valid questions that will make munchkins cream their pants and DMs shake their heads.
As I hinted at earlier, a heavy metal glove is not the only definition of "Gauntlet". Gauntlets in PF in the RAW are those, but gauntlets are just general terms for gloves you wear with armor. They can be made of anything, a rogue can have leather gauntlets to protect their hands. Certainly, these are not weapons, and won't convey lethal damage, but they still occupy the hand slot.
My monk, Jyron, has a magical gauntlet. It's a fingerless leather glove with a pearl set into the palm, and it's a +1 vicious gauntlet. I talked it over with my DM back in the alpha/beta rules, before the Amulet of Mighty Fists new concept was revealed. I deal my monk's unarmed damage, plus 2d6+1 from the magic.
It's featured prominently in my role playing, and is an iconic part of my character's image.
I like this idea a lot. I understand the amulet of mighty fists essentially the same thing, but I think that monks using gauntlets isn't a bad idea at all.
What about a monk's feet? A monk can make an unarmed attack with any part of their body, so could they have magic boots enchanted like a weapon? Could I have firey gauntlets and shocking boots?
What if a low level monk is fighting something that has DR that needs cold iron? Why can't he put on a metal glove, or a leather one with small cold iron balls or spikes on the knuckles?
I'm not going to speak on the proficiency issue but here's a question on a related topic that was posted on Wizards D&D Q&A section 05/28/2008
Q: Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack, gaining all of his class benefits as well as the +5 bonus to hit and damage from the gauntlet?
A: Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon not listed as a special monk weapon, he does not gain his better attack rate. He would, however, gain the increased damage for unarmed attacks.
I'm not going to speak on the proficiency issue but here's a question on a related topic that was posted on Wizards D&D Q&A section 05/28/2008
Q: Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack, gaining all of his class benefits as well as the +5 bonus to hit and damage from the gauntlet?
A: Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon not listed as a special monk weapon, he does not gain his better attack rate. He would, however, gain the increased damage for unarmed attacks.
oh
And technically... the monk is still not proficient with it as I quoted from the PRD. If you look at what weapons and armor the monk is proficient with you'll see that "simple weapons" is not included and neither are unarmed attacks or gauntlets. His class feature that gives him improved unarmed strike is technically the only reason he can punch, knee, elbow strike, or kick at all. :)But I'll happily agree that monks are not proficient with gauntlets.
... All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. ...
Eyes just sort of skipped over that part. Thats what I get for posting tired.
What if a monk had a +1 Firey Gauntlet, and a +1 Vicious Amulet of Mighty Fists? Would he get +2 to hit and damage? Do those magical bonuses not stack? What about damage? Does he deal 1d6 fire and 2d6 vicious?
All valid questions that will make munchkins cream their pants and DMs shake their heads.
Err... shaking my head right now because at least part of this is an RTFM question. No, you don't get to stack two +1 bonuses when they are both Enhancement bonuses, and Enhancement bonuses do not stack.
Earlier I would have said (err, did say) that you'd be getting both the Vicious and Flaming benefits. However, according to the above-quoted FAQ statement (which I accept) that would be incorrect; the gauntlet uses the rules for unarmed strikes, but it is considered a manufactured weapon (no Mighty Fists) and not a monk weapon (no flurry). I don't like that they don't want you to flurry with it (again, knuckledusters make sense to me) but the intent is pretty clear now, and actually makes sense.
A gauntlet is a manufactured weapon that counts as an unarmed strike. It can be enchanted, and anyone wearing an enchanted gauntlet can make attacks with it according to the same rules with which they make unarmed strikes.
Monks are proficient in unarmed strikes and can make a Flurry of Blows with them, thus they are proficient in gauntlets and can make a Flurry of Blows with them.
Gauntlets, however, are not natural weapons, and thus cannot benefit from any effect which enhances natural weapons. A Monk wearing enchanted gauntlets and an amulet of mighty fists and making an "unarmed strike" flurry of blows can make any individual attack with either his gauntlet, gaining the bonuses of the gauntlet, or with another part of his body, gaining the bonuses of the amulet.
If a Monk wanted to be particularly clever and had a ridiculous amount of money to spend, he could wear two (separately) enchanted gauntlets and an amulet of mighty fists and have his choice of three different attack forms, all while striking "unarmed".
For best value, one gauntlet would be mithril and the other cold iron.
Considering Monks when fighting are using his whole body and not only his fists makes gauntlets kind of useless.
This could be said for monk weapons as well, but I consider a monk wielding those being able to use its moves in addition to whatever he does as he has been training for that. He has not been training for gauntlets. But it would be logical to allow the monk to get additional monk weapons through a custom feat. Afterall in movies we often see kung-fu experts using swords as well but monk in D&D cannot. I do not see a problem letting monks get a longsword added to its special monk weapons with a feat. Afterall, it is only 1 extra damage on average when compared to other weapons.
The bigger problem would be that monks do not know how to use longswords in the first place :D
Considering Monks when fighting are using his whole body and not only his fists makes gauntlets kind of useless.
Not necessarily true. A monk can choose to strike with parts of his body other than his fists, but he isn't forced to. He can be a pure pugilist if he wants to and both hands aren't otherwise occupied.
Considering Monks when fighting are using his whole body and not only his fists makes gauntlets kind of useless.Not necessarily true. A monk can choose to strike with parts of his body other than his fists, but he isn't forced to. He can be a pure pugilist if he wants to and both hands aren't otherwise occupied.
But than that is boxing not martial arts :D
There's no mention of martial arts anywhere in the Monk description or rules ;) In fact, the monk description specifically mentions "self-taught brawlers".
There's no mention of martial arts anywhere in the Monk description or rules ;) In fact, the monk description specifically mentions "self-taught brawlers".
Lol, didn't notice that. Interesting...
There's no mention of martial arts anywhere in the Monk description or rules ;) In fact, the monk description specifically mentions "self-taught brawlers".
This. This right here. I think everybody is confusing whatever bunch of van-damme/Segal/Bruce Lee movies they saw with RAW and everyone has their own opinion on what a "Monk" is. IMO, Zurai hit the nail on the head. Just as the "Fighter" class can be any of a number of possible training background, a "Monk" doesn't have to be trained from a temple in an Asian-style setting. The monk in my game trained himself in a forest, and mostly uses his hands out of pure flavor and not number crunching. Boxing can be perfectly accepted as a form of "unarmed combat".
After reading the responses on both sides of the fence, I'm going to say in my game that Monks can use gauntlets and enchant them as such such, but takes a penalty to make non-lethal attacks. Done and done.
Speaking of archetypes, anybody played any good fighting games lately? Lots and lots of gauntlet-wearing unarmed brawlers(Cammy from SF, 3/4 of MK's rosters...Soul Calibur anyone?).
|
Whenever I see a corner case like this, I think of the rule of cool.
Does the image of a martial artist wearing spikey metal gauntlets 'work' for me? Sure, Temugin from Agents of Atlas, Han from Enter the Dragon, I can work with that sort of visual.
Even if I wanted to come down on the 'no' side of the argument, I'd allow a Monk PC to take a Trait and do it anyway.
There's no mention of martial arts anywhere in the Monk description or rules ;) In fact, the monk description specifically mentions "self-taught brawlers".Boxing can be perfectly accepted as a form of "unarmed combat".
In the real world, yes. In a fantasy world where you are supposed to box with heavy armored guys wielding swords that can cleave you in half?
Against magical barriers that can push out a 200 pound man?Against HUGE dragons whose scales resist even the biggest non-magical swords?
Boxing? Really?
|
|
In the real world, yes. In a fantasy world where you are supposed to box with heavy armored guys wielding swords that can cleave you in half?
Against magical barriers that can push out a 200 pound man?
Against HUGE dragons whose scales resist even the biggest non-magical swords?
Boxing? Really?
Using Boxing or Pankration against these things is no more or less ludicrous than Wing Chun-ing them. If the Bruce Lee inspired fellow can slap the dragon silly with his hands, the Mohammed Ali inspired one should be similarly accomodated.