That's just, like, your opinion, man. :)
Anyways, with a little imagination, I am sure that there is a number of ways to use a Gauntlet as an improvised weapon.
The point is, one shouldn't need to do so, just to avoid an AoO.
I don't see how one could be proficient with a weapon, not threaten, and provoke whilst attacking with it, without wording that specifically notes it as an exception, like a Whip.
... or like gauntlet.
|
... or like gauntlet.That's just, like, your opinion, man. :)
Anyways, with a little imagination, I am sure that there is a number of ways to use a Gauntlet as an improvised weapon.
The point is, one shouldn't need to do so, just to avoid an AoO.
I don't see how one could be proficient with a weapon, not threaten, and provoke whilst attacking with it, without wording that specifically notes it as an exception, like a Whip.
There is no specific wording that notes a Gauntlet does not threaten, or provokes when used. A Whip does.
... or like gauntlet.That's just, like, your opinion, man. :)
Anyways, with a little imagination, I am sure that there is a number of ways to use a Gauntlet as an improvised weapon.
The point is, one shouldn't need to do so, just to avoid an AoO.
I don't see how one could be proficient with a weapon, not threaten, and provoke whilst attacking with it, without wording that specifically notes it as an exception, like a Whip.
If only. If it did, you'd have a lot less disagreements on how it worked. The gauntlet is somewhere between a weapon and an unarmed attack but who knows exactly how that works.
|
|
You can use a weapon as an improvised weapon.That says "You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon." It's specifically calling out one weapon, not all of them. Even if you want to extrapolate it to the general case, the biggest difference is that it's not using the weapon in its normal fashion - it's using it in a different way. It doesn't seem like using a weapon in the normal fashion in the exact same way it is normally used as a weapon would be able to bypass the inherent disadvantages of that weapon.
Are you really saying that this is Longspear exclusive?
You hold a Gauntlet, and smack someone, it somehow does nothing?
Yeah. That.
"A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."
"Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed."
"An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity."I'm not sure how you can get more specific than that.
Unarmed Strike and Unarmed Attack are not the same thing.
An attack with a gauntlet counts as an unarmed attack. It says so right in the rules.
Now add that weapon attacks are normally armed and there are things called "armed" unarmed attacks. So just because an attack is an unarmed one doesn't mean it MUST not threaten or provoke. If anything would make an unarmed attack "armed", IMO it would be to use a weapon...
You can use a weapon as an improvised weapon.That says "You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon." It's specifically calling out one weapon, not all of them. Even if you want to extrapolate it to the general case, the biggest difference is that it's not using the weapon in its normal fashion - it's using it in a different way. It doesn't seem like using a weapon in the normal fashion in the exact same way it is normally used as a weapon would be able to bypass the inherent disadvantages of that weapon.Are you really saying that this is Longspear exclusive?
You hold a Gauntlet, and smack someone, it somehow does nothing?
If you want to say that holding a gauntlet and smacking someone counts as an improvised weapon - sure. I can go with that. If you want to say that wearing it and somehow flailing in a way other than the technique a trained striker would use it to deliver an effective punch and doing so would eliminate the disadvantage that's explicitly and clearly written into the rules - no. That's ridiculous.
That's ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as hitting someone with a running chainsaw for non-lethal damage? Because THAT'S clearly in the rules...
|
How can one say it counts as an Unarmed Strike, for the purposes of threatening, and provoking, but not for feats and abilities?
What rules evidence notes it counts as one in certain cases, but not in others?
Where does the gauntlet say that it's an unarmed strike? It doesn't. So stop arguing the straw man. The description says that it lets unarmed strikes do lethal damage. In the very next sentence, it says that a strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
|
|
Now add that weapon attacks are normally armed and there are things called "armed" unarmed attacks. So just because an attack is an unarmed one doesn't mean it MUST not threaten or provoke. If anything would make an unarmed attack "armed", IMO it would be to use a weapon...Yeah. That.
"A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."
"Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed."
"An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity."I'm not sure how you can get more specific than that.
Unarmed Strike and Unarmed Attack are not the same thing.
An attack with a gauntlet counts as an unarmed attack. It says so right in the rules.
The exceptions provided for in the Combat chapter under "armed" unarmed attacks, while certainly not a definitive list, very strongly indicate that gauntlets do not fall under this category.
EDIT
|
|
If you want to say that holding a gauntlet and smacking someone counts as an improvised weapon - sure. I can go with that. If you want to say that wearing it and somehow flailing in a way other than the technique a trained striker would use it to deliver an effective punch and doing so would eliminate the disadvantage that's explicitly and clearly written into the rules - no. That's ridiculous.
I don't have a problem with them wearing the gauntlets and using them in an improvised manner in order to get slashing damage...but they're still going to suck that AoO.
so... do gauntlets come free with some armors or not?
|
|
Where does the gauntlet say that it's an unarmed strike? It doesn't. So stop arguing the straw man. The description says that it lets unarmed strikes do lethal damage. In the very next sentence, it says that a strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.How can one say it counts as an Unarmed Strike, for the purposes of threatening, and provoking, but not for feats and abilities?
What rules evidence notes it counts as one in certain cases, but not in others?
I am saying it's a weapon attack. Others say otherwise.
What straw man?
It is specifically being argued that at sometimes, it is treated as an unarmed strike, and sometimes not.
I am asking how, and when, does it count as an unarmed strike, and what rules support it doing so?
so... do gauntlets come free with some armors or not?Yes. Any Medium armor, any Heavy armor, excepting Breastplates.
Whether or not you'd get the special materials is more debatable.
then I think it was originally intended to make heavier armed people's attacks into lethal damage, but at some point that changed.
|
|
If "unarmed attack" is different from "unarmed strike", then why would they have same disadvantages, but not the same advantages?
How would these two different, but the same, attacks function with a player with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat? Would the Gauntlet attack still not threaten, and provoke, as the feat only effects unarmed strikes, and not other "unarmed attacks"?
Also, the false "straw man" accusations don't give you a free "I win" button, and it just sort of makes you sound like an arrogant ass.
That might not be the intent, but it sure comes off that way.
Guys, who gives a crap if the gauntlet is "armed" or "unarmed" if almost everyone who can use a gauntlet can also use a spiked gauntlet that solves the problem and does more damage? You guys are just arguing because you like to.
IMO, the original Dev's didn't want players to threaten adjacent squares with simple gauntlets, spiked gauntlets or spears, they wanted players to actually hold a non-reach weapon in hand in order to threaten or to have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. If anyone can threaten by just holding a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet it makes disarm alot weaker.
With a little imagination and the gift of words you can make anything reasonable. I can picture how someone using a metal fist can be considered armed just as how I can picture how just because someone is using a gauntlet doesn't make him a pugilist. Discussing our collective ignorance of gauntlet combat and it's multiple interpretations will get nowhere.
|
|
Guys, who gives a crap if the gauntlet is "armed" or "unarmed" if almost everyone who can use a gauntlet can also use a spiked gauntlet that solves the problem and does more damage? You guys are just arguing because you like to.
IMO, the original Dev's didn't want players to threaten adjacent squares with simple gauntlets, spiked gauntlets or spears, they wanted players to actually hold a non-reach weapon in hand in order to threaten or to have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. If anyone can threaten by just holding a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet it makes disarm alot weaker.
With a little imagination and the gift of words you can make anything reasonable. I can picture how someone using a metal fist can be considered armed just as how I can picture how just because someone is using a gauntlet doesn't make him a pugilist. Discussing our collective ignorance of gauntlet combat and it's multiple interpretations will get nowhere.
There are gods with the Gauntlet as a favored weapon.
Unlike Spiked Gauntlets, an Alchemical Silver Gauntlet has no penalty to damage.
Gauntlets deal Bludgeoning, whilst Spiked Gauntlets deal Piercing damage.
There many other reasons to use one, over the other.
People are here, in the Rules Forum, discussing how the rules work with the Gauntlet.
If does not matter to you, then that's fine.
|
|
Where does the gauntlet say that it's an unarmed strike? It doesn't. So stop arguing the straw man. The description says that it lets unarmed strikes do lethal damage. In the very next sentence, it says that a strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.How can one say it counts as an Unarmed Strike, for the purposes of threatening, and provoking, but not for feats and abilities?
What rules evidence notes it counts as one in certain cases, but not in others?
I am saying it's a weapon attack. Others say otherwise.
What straw man?
It is specifically being argued that at sometimes, it is treated as an unarmed strike, and sometimes not.
I am asking how, and when, does it count as an unarmed strike, and what rules support it doing so?
Ah, I missed that particular argument in this thread. Being treated as an unarmed strike does not mean that it is an unarmed strike.
The fact that the description of the gauntlet says that it is considered an unarmed attack and that the combat chapter tells you what unarmed attacks do and cannot do—coincidentally, it works very similar to how unarmed strikes work. So, no, it's not a real stretch to say that gauntlets are pretty much unarmed strikes that do lethal damage. And while it may not be technically correct, in real world usage, it works good enough.
Is it possible that gauntlets are "armed" unarmed attacks? Certainly, but given the list of examples in the CRB of what definitely constitutes "armed" unarmed attacks, I think that it's a very slim chance that that is the case.
|
|
By taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.If the Gauntlet is always an "Unarmed Attack", and never a "Unarmed Strike", thus unaffected by things like Weapon Focus, or Improved Unarmed Strike, then how does anyone ever threaten, or not provoke, when attacking with a Gauntlet?
So, feats that apply to Unarmed Strikes, apply to Gauntlet attacks?
|
|
So, feats that apply to Unarmed Strikes, apply to Gauntlet attacks?By taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.If the Gauntlet is always an "Unarmed Attack", and never a "Unarmed Strike", thus unaffected by things like Weapon Focus, or Improved Unarmed Strike, then how does anyone ever threaten, or not provoke, when attacking with a Gauntlet?
I encourage you to reread the feat and pay close attention to the wording used.
|
who is prof in medium/heavy armour but not with simple weapons out of curiousity?
cause i figure that they require it since they're listed as simple weapons..originally i htought shield prof gave you prof in shield bashing but as ws pointed out in other things, they're listed in simple and martial categories so you techincally could have prof but not attack prof. so i guess its possible to know how to wear gaunts but not know how to punch with them in a way that is effective.
Druids are proficient in medium armor but not all simple weapons.
|
|
Druids are proficient in medium armor but not all simple weapons.who is prof in medium/heavy armour but not with simple weapons out of curiousity?
cause i figure that they require it since they're listed as simple weapons..originally i htought shield prof gave you prof in shield bashing but as ws pointed out in other things, they're listed in simple and martial categories so you techincally could have prof but not attack prof. so i guess its possible to know how to wear gaunts but not know how to punch with them in a way that is effective.
Is there non-metal armor with gauntlets?
Is there non-metal armor with gauntlets?Druids are proficient in medium armor but not all simple weapons.who is prof in medium/heavy armour but not with simple weapons out of curiousity?
cause i figure that they require it since they're listed as simple weapons..originally i htought shield prof gave you prof in shield bashing but as ws pointed out in other things, they're listed in simple and martial categories so you techincally could have prof but not attack prof. so i guess its possible to know how to wear gaunts but not know how to punch with them in a way that is effective.
Medium is Hide and Lamellar (horn). heavy is Stone Plate.
|
|
Medium is Hide and Lamellar (horn). heavy is Stone Plate.Is there non-metal armor with gauntlets?Druids are proficient in medium armor but not all simple weapons.who is prof in medium/heavy armour but not with simple weapons out of curiousity?
cause i figure that they require it since they're listed as simple weapons..originally i htought shield prof gave you prof in shield bashing but as ws pointed out in other things, they're listed in simple and martial categories so you techincally could have prof but not attack prof. so i guess its possible to know how to wear gaunts but not know how to punch with them in a way that is effective.
Those armors do not come with gauntlets. I originally thought that all medium and heavy armor come with gauntlets as well, but there is no blanket statement saying so. Those armors that come with gauntlets are stated as such in the description for each armor. Those armors you listed are not described as coming with gauntlets.
|
|
Medium is Hide and Lamellar (horn). heavy is Stone Plate.Those armors do not come with gauntlets. I originally thought that all medium and heavy armor come with gauntlets as well, but there is no blanket statement saying so. Those armors that come with gauntlets are stated as such in the description for each armor. Those armors you listed are not described as coming with gauntlets.
Actually, they do. The weapon description for Gauntlets state "Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets."
This means all medium/heavy armor except the breastplate has gauntlets regardless of if it is specifically listed on the armor description.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?
Yes.
Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?
Yes.
Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?
Yes.
Do Gauntlets threaten without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?
No.
Would feats and abilities that apply to both Gauntlet attacks, and Unarmed Strikes, such as Weapon Focus, stack?
Bonuses from the same source don't stack, but there is no "Weapon Focus (Gauntlet)" because according the gauntlet's special rules the gauntlet itself isn't really a weapon so much as it modifies your existing unarmed strike.
Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?
They wouldn't. Gauntlets in the PRD are internally consistent. Wearing gauntlets modifies your existing unarmed strikes to deal lethal damage (nothing more, nothing less). You're still treated as being unarmed. The gauntlet doesn't care what your unarmed damage is (so monks), only that it is now lethal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about deities with the Gauntlet listed as their favored weapon, such as Ng?
What about it?