| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the words "unarmed strike" and/or "unarmed attack" should be removed since unarmed strikes are also made with other body parts. It would also prevent someone trying to say their knees do lethal damage, even though they are only wearing gauntlets. Now I know common sense dictates that metal on your hands won't help your knees but a lot of posters here like to be intentionally obtuse. "Oh, but RAW says..."
It would also prevent people trying to argue that a weapon mentioning unarmed strike or unarmed attack allows for a monk's damage to override. Yeah I think it is silly to since there is no raw to take the monk's damage can overtake the weapon's damage, but that is neither here nor there.
The other idea is have a specify that the monk's unarmed strike damage does not override the weapon's listed damage.
Please hit the FAQ button.
What would you like the replacement to be?
That's for the developers to decide.
I do think the intent of the weapons is to allow someone to use unarmed strikes lethally so the idea of removing the unarmed strike langauge probably was not a good idea.
Having language stating that weapons listing unarmed strikes or unarmed attacks are not to be modified with regard to base damage and/or a statement saying the purpose or the weapons is to change nonlethal damage to lethal damage in a general area would work, and not require a rewrite of every weapon
Example:
Some weapons such as the gauntlets or brass knuckles mention unarmed strikes or unarmed attacks. Their main purpose is to allow unarmed strike damage to become lethal. The base damage of such weapons can not be overridden by any unarmed strike damage the creature may normally be capable of inflicting since you are using the weapon itself and it does its own damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps something like this:
Gauntlet (Light Melee Weapon, Simple)
Cost: 2 gp
Dmg (S): 1d2
Dmg (M): 1d3
Critical: x2
Range: N/A
Weight: 1 lb.
Type: B
Special: N/A
This metal glove allows you to deal lethal damage with a punch. 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. Attacking an armed opponent with a gauntlet provokes an attack of opportunity unless you also possess the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
Does that work? Took me two minutes, by the way.
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the brass knuckles.
Brass Knuckles (Light Melee Weapon, Simple)
Cost: 1 gp
Dmg (S): 1d2
Dmg (M): 1d3
Critical: x2
Range: N/A
Weight: 1 lb.
Type: B
Special: Monk
When worn on one fist, this close-combat weapon allows you to deal lethal damage with a punch. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of a set of brass knuckles. Attacking an armed opponent with a set of brass knuckles provokes an attack of opportunity unless you also possess the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. While wielding a set of brass knuckles, you cannot deal non-lethal damage with your punch, even if you take a -4 penalty to do so. While wearing a set of brass knuckles, you may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in your hand. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing a set of brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level fo the spell you are casting). Monks are considered proficient with brass knuckles.
I don't think they should actually be classed as Simple weapons, because everyone is proficient in Unarmed Strike - the way you have them written there, a Wizard wouldn't be able to use gauntlets without suffering a non-proficiency penalty.
However, other than that, specifically pointing out that attacking with them does lethal damage would satisfy everyone except the occasional idiot who tries to claim "but I'm wearing my gauntlets on my feet!"
Perhaps something like this:
Gauntlet (Light Melee Weapon, Simple)
Cost: 2 gp
Dmg (S): 1d2
Dmg (M): 1d3
Critical: x2
Range: N/A
Weight: 1 lb.
Type: B
Special: N/AThis metal glove allows you to deal lethal damage with a punch. 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. Attacking an armed opponent with a gauntlet provokes an attack of opportunity unless you also possess the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
Does that work? Took me two minutes, by the way.
MA
The idea behind the gauntlets is to not provoke IIRC, since the reason unarmed attacks provoke is because they are not lethal. Of course that brings up the question of why would I spend a feat if I can buy some 2gp gauntlets to get the same affect.
The idea behind the gauntlets is to not provoke IIRC, since the reason unarmed attacks provoke is because they are not lethal. Of course that brings up the question of why would I spend a feat if I can buy some 2gp gauntlets to get the same affect.Perhaps something like this:
Gauntlet (Light Melee Weapon, Simple)
Cost: 2 gp
Dmg (S): 1d2
Dmg (M): 1d3
Critical: x2
Range: N/A
Weight: 1 lb.
Type: B
Special: N/AThis metal glove allows you to deal lethal damage with a punch. 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. Attacking an armed opponent with a gauntlet provokes an attack of opportunity unless you also possess the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
Does that work? Took me two minutes, by the way.
MA
Because everyone likes naked combat.
The idea behind the gauntlets is to not provoke IIRC, since the reason unarmed attacks provoke is because they are not lethal. Of course that brings up the question of why would I spend a feat if I can buy some 2gp gauntlets to get the same affect.
Don't they? They do lethal damage, but are still considered an unarmed strike (an armed unarmed strike, right?). I figure unless you have the feat, you still provoke. I could be wrong.
MA
The idea behind the gauntlets is to not provoke IIRC, since the reason unarmed attacks provoke is because they are not lethal. Of course that brings up the question of why would I spend a feat if I can buy some 2gp gauntlets to get the same affect.Don't they? They do lethal damage, but are still considered an unarmed strike (an armed unarmed strike, right?). I figure unless you have the feat, you still provoke. I could be wrong.
MA
Normal gauntlets are not 'armed unarmed' attacks, they simply deal lethal damage. Spiked Gauntlets are considered armed attacks though. They only cost 5 gp. Pretty cheap Feat huh?
The idea behind the gauntlets is to not provoke IIRC, since the reason unarmed attacks provoke is because they are not lethal. Of course that brings up the question of why would I spend a feat if I can buy some 2gp gauntlets to get the same affect.Don't they? They do lethal damage, but are still considered an unarmed strike (an armed unarmed strike, right?). I figure unless you have the feat, you still provoke. I could be wrong.
MA
I was only partially correct. An unarmed strike provokes because you are not considered to be armed. As a gauntlet is a weapon it also takes care of that issue.
|
The idea behind the gauntlets is to not provoke IIRC, since the reason unarmed attacks provoke is because they are not lethal. Of course that brings up the question of why would I spend a feat if I can buy some 2gp gauntlets to get the same affect.Don't they? They do lethal damage, but are still considered an unarmed strike (an armed unarmed strike, right?). I figure unless you have the feat, you still provoke. I could be wrong.
MA
You are correct. Gauntlets, even though they do lethal damage, are still considered unarmed strikes (CRB, pg. 146).
|
What exactly is this trying to accomplish? I'm not really understanding what's going on here.
The game doesn't care how you deliver your unarmed strike. It doesn't differentiate between a punch, a kick or a headbutt. Everything is just in one category by the system.
If you and/or your group is that ridiculous about it just buy iron knee pads at the same cost as the gauntlets. Something similar to that would be an easy fix.
Or better yet, just use a weapon and stop trying to punch things all the time. We've got like 10 kinds of pole-arms alone! ;)
You are correct. Gauntlets, even though they do lethal damage, are still considered unarmed strikes (CRB, pg. 146).The idea behind the gauntlets is to not provoke IIRC, since the reason unarmed attacks provoke is because they are not lethal. Of course that brings up the question of why would I spend a feat if I can buy some 2gp gauntlets to get the same affect.Don't they? They do lethal damage, but are still considered an unarmed strike (an armed unarmed strike, right?). I figure unless you have the feat, you still provoke. I could be wrong.
MA
They have been moved to the light weapon category, and taken out of the unarmed strikes cateogory per Ultimate Equipment, but the text did not change. It seem Paizo thought that moving them would be enough to get the message across. That is why I think they should just add a general rule that shows intent so they don't have to errata each weapon individually. They are giving the average gamer too much credit. I think a lot of it has to do with them thinking that just because they know what they mean everyone else will.
Ah, that would explain it as I don't have ultimate equipment. What did they think was broken that necessitated this change?
Several factors: if gauntlets are unarmed strikes and not weapons, then the monk should get their increased damage with unarmed strikes instead of 1d3 damage they want. You could apply Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike) instead of having to take both of these for the gauntlet. And, it would provide a much cheaper means of enhancing unarmed strikes than an amulet of mighty fists; and they don't want to obsolete a core rulebook item.
They did the same thing with cestus and brass knuckles and all of the other 'unarmed weapons'.
MA