Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Adventurer's Armory Questions


Rules Questions

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Contributor

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite.

The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.

Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)

Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.

The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.

Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.

Do you mean that they are supposed to not deal unarmed strike damage or that they are being errata'ed to not do so?

Next quote from

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Monks use their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles...

For my own games, I appreciate the input and thoughts of designers without feeling like I have to ask about every little thing to see if I am running my game "correctly."

But for PFS, I don't feel I really have the luxury of saying doing that as much. Right now I'm thinking about how to tell the PFS player that I was wrong to tell him what I did about brass knuckles.

I understand that this happens and don't really blame you, but gah! I am going feel like an ass.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.

Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)

Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.

The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.

Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."

So, in reference to Gauntlets, does that mean that a monk wearing a pair who makes a "regular" (non FoB) attack would do his or her increased damage? Or a flat 1d3?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mynameisjake wrote:
So, in reference to Gauntlets, does that mean that a monk wearing a pair who makes a "regular" (non FoB) attack would do his or her increased damage? Or a flat 1d3?
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

...

Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)

Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. ...

That means they just do the flat 1d3. (emphasis mine)

Contributor

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).

A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).

A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.

Okay, seriously not trying to be dense here, but... "these three weapons" refers to brass knuckles, cestus, and rope gauntlets, right? They have a set damage that is not affected by the Monk's improved unarmed damage. Nor would a Spiked Gauntlet, for that matter.

But what about a plain gauntlet? Not eligible for FoB, obviously, but would, say, a Monk1/Fighter1 who used a gauntlet as a back up weapon do 1d3 as per the Gauntlet listing? Or 1d6 as per the increased damage for an unarmed attack?

In 3.5 the answer was 1d6, so I'm just trying to figure out if this was a deliberate change/reinterpretation.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).

Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mynameisjake wrote:


But what about a plain gauntlet? Not eligible for FoB, obviously, but would, say, a Monk1/Fighter1 who used a gauntlet as a back up weapon do 1d3 as per the Gauntlet listing? Or 1d6 as per the increased damage for an unarmed attack?

In 3.5 the answer was 1d6, so I'm just trying to figure out if this was a deliberate change/reinterpretation.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

...

Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)

Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. ...

While in parenthesis, gauntlets are explicitly mentioned by Sean in his original answer. They just do 1d3. (emphasis mine)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Blazej wrote:
Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.

While I understand your predicament, all players should know that navigating the grey zones of the rules is at the risk of having the rules interpretation changed. If your players character concept is toppled by this, then it is his/her own fault. If not the player should be greatfull for having gotten away with it this far.

Shadow Lodge

The Grandfather wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.
While I understand your predicament, all players should know that navigating the grey zones of the rules is at the risk of having the rules interpretation changed. If your players character concept is toppled by this, then it is his/her own fault. If not the player should be greatfull for having gotten away with it this far.

Maybe you missed it but further up-thread Blazej asked for clarification and Sean had said differently. So it wasn't a grey area, it was an area that was clarified and then later changed.


The Grandfather wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.
While I understand your predicament, all players should know that navigating the grey zones of the rules is at the risk of having the rules interpretation changed. If your players character concept is toppled by this, then it is his/her own fault. If not the player should be greatfull for having gotten away with it this far.

To be fair though, as Ogre notes, I had asked the question before because it did seem the answer could be one way or another. Maybe it is nit-picky , but answer I got back didn't seem to be gray at all. If it had any bit of doubt in it, I would have passed that on as well and this would feel much less like an unfortunate surprise.

As far what the player has gotten away with... well... he bought it about two sessions ago and hasn't had a chance to use it yet... so... yep, he will be certainly grateful that he got away with spending that money for an item that he probably will never use now. So darn lucky.

Again, I don't begrudge the fact that rulings might change or that a single ruling might be in error. I feel like crap for having to tell the player that was it worked one way was misinformed, but I'm not pushing that onto Sean. I would just favor a bit of warning in areas it is more likely to happen.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
0gre wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.
While I understand your predicament, all players should know that navigating the grey zones of the rules is at the risk of having the rules interpretation changed. If your players character concept is toppled by this, then it is his/her own fault. If not the player should be greatfull for having gotten away with it this far.
Maybe you missed it but further up-thread Blazej asked for clarification and Sean had said differently. So it wasn't a grey area, it was an area that was clarified and then later changed.

I never read that (its on another thread altogether). That answer was in itself not very clear either. While he stated that the monks used their UAD with knuckles he subsequently stated that the only advantage was the ability to do lethal damage, which they allready have.

But now at least I understand where Blazej is coming from. Thanks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Blazej wrote:

As far what the player has gotten away with... well... he bought it about two sessions ago and hasn't had a chance to use it yet... so... yep, he will be certainly grateful that he got away with spending that money for an item that he probably will never use now. So darn lucky.

That sucks, for sure.

If the character has never actually used them and you have been the only GM since the purchase, I would allow the character to "never have bought them" in the first place. Since the error stems from an honest misunderstanding and the player never intended to cheat I don't think he should be punished for it.
I can only guess, but I don't think Joshua would think it was cheating, though he might never actually tell you that.


The Grandfather wrote:
Blazej wrote:

As far what the player has gotten away with... well... he bought it about two sessions ago and hasn't had a chance to use it yet... so... yep, he will be certainly grateful that he got away with spending that money for an item that he probably will never use now. So darn lucky.

That sucks, for sure.

If the character has never actually used them and you have been the only GM since the purchase, I would allow the character to "never have bought them" in the first place. Since the error stems from an honest misunderstanding and the player never intended to cheat I don't think he should be punished for it.
I can only guess, but I don't think Joshua would think it was cheating, though he might never actually tell you that.

Yeah.

That is probably what I will end up doing unless Frost jumps in and starts beating me with a +2 axiomatic cudgel. It could certainly have gone worse than it has and I am thankful for that.

Thank you.

Contributor

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.

Yes, the answer changed... because Jason and I discussed the precedent it sets for the Core Rulebook and vice versa.

Treating brass knuckles, gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cesti, and rope gauntlets as "unarmed attacks" doesn't make a lot of sense (because you're not unarmed, you have metal/leather/rope/etc. there).

It also brings up weird questions like

If I have +5 flaming brass knuckles/gauntlets/spiked gauntlets, am I doing unarmed strike damage, the listed weapon damage, or both?

How do the magical properties on those weapons interact with my monk unarmed damage? Does this make the ki focus properly useless on these types of weapons?

Am I doing monk unarmed damage plus enhancement bonus plus 1d6 fire?

How does this interact with an amulet of mighty fists?

How does this interact with properties like brilliant energy?

What about creatures that harm attackers who hit them, am I considered armed and safe or unarmed and not safe?

Making all of these weapons act 100% like weapons and not refer to unarmed attacks at all means these questions go away.


Most of these questions seem very easy to answer:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


It also brings up weird questions like

If I have +5 flaming brass knuckles/gauntlets/spiked gauntlets, am I doing unarmed strike damage, the listed weapon damage, or both?

The listed damage (1d3 medium) is replaced with what the monk replaces the listed unarmed strike damage (1d3 medium).

Spiked gauntlets being different, if you want to make them unarmed strikes as well then I would assume you would wish to include verbiage to support a size increase.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


How do the magical properties on those weapons interact with my monk unarmed damage?

The same way that such properties on an amulet of mighty fists would do so.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Am I doing monk unarmed damage plus enhancement bonus plus 1d6 fire?

Of course you would be.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


How does this interact with an amulet of mighty fists?

It would overlap just as if you had a +1 flaming frost holy longsword with a Greater Magic Weapon spell on it at CL 20 making it a +5 weapon.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


How does this interact with properties like brilliant energy?

The same way it would interact as if you had an amulet of mighty fists with brilliant energy on it?

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


What about creatures that harm attackers who hit them, am I considered armed and safe or unarmed and not safe?

It would depend upon the weapon and the designation. It would seem easy enough to specify rules on this, in as much as you already need to do so.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Making all of these weapons act 100% like weapons and not refer to unarmed attacks at all means these questions go away.

Removing unarmed attacks from the game also does this. Likewise there's little need to have cesti when you have spiked gauntlets in the game. If the point is versatility then it should be embraced, and it would not be difficult to do so here.

Weapons that augment unarmed attacks would just need to specify certain things: kind of damage (lethal/non), armed/not, etc. Which honestly many already do, and standardizing the wording for them all would just be helpful in any event.

-James


@ Sean:

A couple of things:

1. I'm all for simplification. The fewer clarifications/caveats needed to use an item or weapon, the better.

2. A little praise: Not having weapons that allow a monk to stack his/her increased unarmed damage with weapon enhancements and flurry, all three at the same time, is a better way to go. I am sure that others will disagree, but I fully support that change/clarification.

3. A little criticism: Not having weapons that allow all three things (see #2) was the standard in 3.5 and in the Core Rules. The Adventurer's Armory, however, was worded in such a way to change that. You guys really should have caught that.

4. Paizo still rocks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mynameisjake wrote:

@ Sean:

A couple of things:

1. I'm all for simplification. The fewer clarifications/caveats needed to use an item or weapon, the better.

2. A little praise: Not having weapons that allow a monk to stack his/her increased unarmed damage with weapon enhancements and flurry, all three at the same time, is a better way to go. I am sure that others will disagree, but I fully support that change/clarification.

3. A little criticism: Not having weapons that allow all three things (see #2) was the standard in 3.5 and in the Core Rules. The Adventurer's Armory, however, was worded in such a way to change that. You guys really should have caught that.

4. Paizo still rocks!

4X+1

Osirion

Mynameisjake wrote:

@ Sean:

A couple of things:

1. I'm all for simplification.

2. A little praise:

3. A little criticism:

Praiticismifcation.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Hey, hate to necro this thread, but I can't help but notice the PRD still clearly says "monks can use their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles." SKR's answers above seems to indicate that should change and monks using brass knuckles just do brass knuckle damage. Does that still hold or did it get rules on differently later, and if it's the case when will the PRD be updated?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ernest Mueller wrote:
Hey, hate to necro this thread, but I can't help but notice the PRD still clearly says "monks can use their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles." SKR's answers above seems to indicate that should change and monks using brass knuckles just do brass knuckle damage. Does that still hold or did it get rules on differently later, and if it's the case when will the PRD be updated?

Advanced Player's Guide, Chapter 4

"And lo the developers did Decree that a Monk shalt use their unarmed Weapon damage With the Brass Knuckles so they might Flurry their Foes into Paste."

In other words... the book that came out after the AA changed it.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Talynonyx wrote:
Ernest Mueller wrote:
Hey, hate to necro this thread, but I can't help but notice the PRD still clearly says "monks can use their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles." SKR's answers above seems to indicate that should change and monks using brass knuckles just do brass knuckle damage. Does that still hold or did it get rules on differently later, and if it's the case when will the PRD be updated?

Advanced Player's Guide, Chapter 4

"And lo the developers did Decree that a Monk shalt use their unarmed Weapon damage With the Brass Knuckles so they might Flurry their Foes into Paste."

In other words... the book that came out after the AA changed it.

No, the AA and the APG say the same thing - monks can flurry with brass knuckles. But Sean says the opposite above, he says upon reflection that was an error. And he says it in May, after the APG was well off to print.

So I think it's justified to ask Paizo for a "last word" ruling on it... We all have opinions which aren't entirely relevant.


I just FAQ'd the OP's post so that it can be officially changed. I do hate to see this thread since I thought I had bypassed the amulet of mighty fist issue.

Since this ruling is based on the desire to make the rules easier to read than a balance issue I hope they come out with a replacement. I will at least make a change for my own campaign. I just don't know what it will be.


I am also all for rules simplifying but why do all these simplifications have to kick monks in the unmentionables.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Usually, for me, once a Dev has posted, that's it for me as far as RAW goes.

However, this is a special case. A dev spoke, backtracked, spoke again, then the company published the original pre-dev speaking text unaltered.

I really wish Paizo would just bite the bullet and have someone spend an hour or two putting something in the FAQ (and yes, I did FAQ the thread).

Don't get me wrong, they're usually very good about getting the errata fixed, but this seems to be either a case of someone dropping the ball, or else there's a bunch of arguing going back and forth in-house over the issue and it's affecting the published books and needs to be addressed once and for all by whoever can make a final decision.

Cheliax

Poor Wandering One wrote:
Ernest Mueller wrote:
Hey, hate to necro this thread, but I can't help but notice the PRD still clearly says "monks can use their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles." SKR's answers above seems to indicate that should change and monks using brass knuckles just do brass knuckle damage. Does that still hold or did it get rules on differently later, and if it's the case when will the PRD be updated?
Wondering this myself. Thread faq'd

As far as I am concerned the APG, which was came out after that post, is the RAW.

Per the PRD:

Quote:
Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.

Either that, or we have to go back to Alpha stage PF and start questioning all the rules/posts..


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).

A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.

APG pg 176.

"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them".

Quite clear, monks can use unarmed attack damage with brass knuckles. This is not an unarmed attack, so they can't add bonuses from necklace of mighty fists, nor use stunning fist or similar abilities.


james maissen wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:


Nowhere do the rules state that monk unarmed damage supercedes the normal weapon damage of any weapon the monk wields.

Correct.

Except, it says explicitly in the rules two things:

1. Gauntlets deal unarmed strike damage. They are unarmed strikes that deal lethal damage.

2. Monks deal more unarmed strike damage than the normal listed (1d3 for medium).

The combination of the two does indeed yield a monk wearing gauntlets dealing his normal monk damage.

With the following drawbacks:
1. Without feat/multiclass the monk is non-proficient.
2. The monk ALWAYS does lethal damage with gauntlets (unless they take -4 to hit)
3. The monk cannot flurry with gauntlets.

-James

2 of those 3 drawbacks don't exist.

everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes, gauntlets count as unarmed strikes, thus everyone (including monks) is proficient with them.

because gauntlets are technically unarmed strikes, and monks can flurry with unarmed strikes, a monk can flurry with gauntlets.


The recent changes to the rules are bringing this up again.

Quote:
Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.

Is this exception still true?

Kingmaker (AP 32 pg 32):
I change the 'broken +2 fey bane bastard sword' that was in The Lonely Barrow to a 'broken +2 fey bane brass knuckles' because the closest thing to a fighter I had at the time was a monk. If the brass knuckles don't work anymore then I'll be significantly nerfing my monk player.

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Adventurer's Armory Questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.