gauntlets as weapons


Rules Questions

101 to 146 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Ashiel wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?

Yes.

Quote:
Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?

Yes.

Quote:
Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?

Yes.

Quote:
Do Gauntlets threaten without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?

No.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

The first part doesn't make sense; you can't use your Unarmed Strike's damage over the item you have equipped, that's like saying I have a Cestus and a Longsword in the same hand (which, by the way, is certainly possible), I go to make an attack with the Cestus, and then say "Oh, I'm dealing damage with my Longsword instead; they occupy the same limb, so it's cool." Not only can you not do that in regular rules, the rules regarding Monks don't allow that sort of post-hoc decision choice, especially if you take into consideration that those attacks have differing attack bonuses, which can cause a hit or miss on a given roll.

Additionally, the Unarmed Strike benefits, including the damage dice benefits cited in the Monk class feature specifically call out Unarmed Strikes, a specific type of attack, and not Unarmed Attacks, which attacks made with Gauntlets otherwise function as. Lastly, gauntlets do have a specified damage dice in the weapon table, meaning making attacks with the Gauntlet versus making attacks with your Unarmed Strike would apply the appropriate damage dice; even if the damage dice ends up being the same, that doesn't mean the attacks themselves are made with the same weapon.

Monks can only use Flurry of Blows with Unarmed Strikes and weapons with the Monk special quality. Unless the Gauntlet has or is somehow given the Monk special quality, it is not possible for the Monk to use Flurry of Blows with the equipped gauntlet (and therefore, the equipped hand).

This depends on the parameters of what Weapon Focus can be exclusively applicable to. Since the book specifically cites Unarmed Strike as an example, and not simply Unarmed, it's safe to say that if you have Weapon Focus (Gauntlet), the benefits of that feat do not apply to any Unarmed Strikes you make. The reverse is also true; if you have Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), it does not apply to attacks you make with an equipped Gauntlet.

The Improved Unarmed Strike feat does not specify Unarmed Strikes in these cases, merely that you threaten even while unarmed, and that you do not provoke when making unarmed attacks. However, when making an attack with a Gauntlet, you would still suffer a -4 penalty to try and deal Nonlethal damage, since this ability specifically calls Unarmed Strikes to do that.

There is no internal inconsistency, Gauntlet attacks and Unarmed Strikes are different subjects.

As a side note, why the hell would a Monk, who always gets Improved Unarmed Strike for free, need Gauntlets, when he can always change his method of attack without penalty in the first place?


Darksol wrote:
As a side note, why the hell would a Monk, who always gets Improved Unarmed Strike for free, need Gauntlets, when he can always change his method of attack without penalty in the first place?

He was trying to use the monk as an argument of how gauntlets are not weapons by saying he could use them since they are considered unarmed attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The first part doesn't make sense; you can't use your Unarmed Strike's damage over the item you have equipped, that's like saying I have a Cestus and a Longsword in the same hand (which, by the way, is certainly possible), I go to make an attack with the Cestus, and then say "Oh, I'm dealing damage with my Longsword instead; they occupy the same limb, so it's cool." Not only can you not do that in regular rules, the rules regarding Monks don't allow that sort of post-hoc decision choice, especially if you take into consideration that those attacks have differing attack bonuses, which can cause a hit or miss on a given roll.

A cestus uses its own rules so your talking about it in this case is as pointless as talking about magic missile. You declare if you're using your gauntlet prior to your attack, just like you do with any attack, be it an unarmed strike, shooting your bow, swinging your sword, or using a touch attack. If you use your gauntlet, it is an unarmed strike that deals lethal damage (you could take a -4 to deal nonlethal though).

Here's the actual mechanics of the gauntlet in the core rules with added emphasis so certain bits are easier to notice.

Quote:
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. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Parsing this from one sentence to the next.

1. Gauntlets let your deal lethal damage with your unarmed strikes. It modifies your unarmed strike. The damage is per your unarmed strike except it is lethal. So monks + gauntlet = higher lethal damage.

2. The strike with the gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. This is important because you still do not threaten with a gauntlet without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, whereas when wielding a melee weapon you threaten.

3. The cost and weight are for a single gauntlet. Simple enough.

4. Ff you bought some chainmail at 1st level, congrats, you get 2 free gauntlets.

5. Your opponents cannot disarm you of the gauntlets.

It's not complicated. A gauntlet is a tool that enhances your unarmed strikes to make them more dangerous. Most people have to take a -4 penalty to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes (which is useless vs say, an undead skeleton). The gauntlet could also be enhanced as a magical weapon (providing the usual benefits on attacks made with the gauntlet).

There's nothing about a gauntlet that prevents you from making non-gauntlet unarmed strikes either, merely that attacks with gauntlets are unarmed strikes that are modified. But they are still unarmed strikes and thus benefit from anything that affects unarmed strikes. If you decide to punch a monster and it says "hitting this monster with an unarmed strike makes your liver explode and your mom catch on fire" then you better be looking for regenerate and reincarnate spells if you plan on boxing with the monster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
As a side note, why the hell would a Monk, who always gets Improved Unarmed Strike for free, need Gauntlets, when he can always change his method of attack without penalty in the first place?

Because you can't make your fists masterwork, or enhance them. The infamous amulet has never been a suitable replacement for magical weapons. It has and will continue to be a magic item for monsters and casters (druids, dragons, eidolons, animal companions, etc) based on its very design (it viciously overpriced and underpowered for a single weapon, the unarmed strike, which unlike natural attacks you cannot make one strike for every spot of your body that could have been used in the attack).

When the Ranger is getting his masterwork sword, the monk can buy a masterwork gauntlet.


Ashiel wrote:
Because you can't make your fists masterwork, or enhance them.

Clockwork Prosthesis lets you do just that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Because you can't make your fists masterwork, or enhance them.
Clockwork Prosthesis lets you do just that.

I'm not familiar with what that is, but I'm 99.997% certain it's not in the default game. :P


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/clock work-prosthesis

Seems legit

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So instead of complaining about the AoMF costing a figurative arm and leg, it now literally costs an arm and leg to get a magic unarmed strike.


Ashiel wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Because you can't make your fists masterwork, or enhance them.
Clockwork Prosthesis lets you do just that.
I'm not familiar with what that is, but I'm 99.997% certain it's not in the default game. :P

The book I'm looking at says pathfinder and is made by Paizo. Seems 100% default/official. Now if you wish to limit options to certain books, have at it. Did you happen to mean core?


That book is a suplimental. So it's not up on the main paizo site. I forget which one it is in.. but d20's website has citations.
If your gm is one like one of mine and only likes stuff on the official paizo website. you can sometimes get more if you buy the actual pdf so they can have real acccess to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Because you can't make your fists masterwork, or enhance them.
Clockwork Prosthesis lets you do just that.
I'm not familiar with what that is, but I'm 99.997% certain it's not in the default game. :P
The book I'm looking at says pathfinder and is made by Paizo. Seems 100% default/official. Now if you wish to limit options to certain books, have at it. Did you happen to mean core?

I actually didn't mean core, but more fringe than usual splat material. For example, Magus isn't core, but it's from a major publication that is available on the official PRD, so while not core you can probably expect it as an option in most groups.

I wasn't dismissing clockwork prosthesis or somehow suggesting it was "impure" or anything. Merely noting that such things aren't something that you would automatically expect, whereas the gauntlet has been around pretty much forever and has been a source of reasonable enhancement for monks and other characters all of that time. It also fits into more games that cyperpunk/magepunk-style prosthetic arms (mind you, such things would fit into my games just fine, so again, please understand I'm not being dismissive).

Liberty's Edge

Where can I find the clockwork prosthesis?


Ashiel wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The first part doesn't make sense; you can't use your Unarmed Strike's damage over the item you have equipped, that's like saying I have a Cestus and a Longsword in the same hand (which, by the way, is certainly possible), I go to make an attack with the Cestus, and then say "Oh, I'm dealing damage with my Longsword instead; they occupy the same limb, so it's cool." Not only can you not do that in regular rules, the rules regarding Monks don't allow that sort of post-hoc decision choice, especially if you take into consideration that those attacks have differing attack bonuses, which can cause a hit or miss on a given roll.

A cestus uses its own rules so your talking about it in this case is as pointless as talking about magic missile. You declare if you're using your gauntlet prior to your attack, just like you do with any attack, be it an unarmed strike, shooting your bow, swinging your sword, or using a touch attack. If you use your gauntlet, it is an unarmed strike that deals lethal damage (you could take a -4 to deal nonlethal though).

Here's the actual mechanics of the gauntlet in the core rules with added emphasis so certain bits are easier to notice.

Quote:
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. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Parsing this from one sentence to the next.

1. Gauntlets let your deal lethal damage with your unarmed strikes. It modifies your unarmed strike. The damage is per your unarmed strike except it is lethal. So monks + gauntlet = higher lethal damage.

You make it seem though as if I glossed over it without noticing. I read that sentence, and I also read the sentences afterward. The first sentence only explains that it lets you deal lethal damage normally instead of the inverse. That's all the Gauntlet says it associates with unarmed strikes; the other sentences aren't relevant to unarmed strikes. If anything, by RAW I could have a gauntlet equipped, make an unarmed strike via kicking, and because I have the gauntlet equipped, that kick automatically defers to dealing lethal damage without penalty instead. (But I'm not going to support something that ridiculous; that's for another thread.)

The point is that it only affects one thing in relation to unarmed strikes, and that alteration doesn't even apply or relate to the actual gauntlet in the first place, since by the rules, you make an unarmed attack with the gauntlet, and not an unarmed strike. So the first sentence isn't relevant to attacks made with the gauntlet, since it's actually an unarmed attack made with a manufactured weapon, and becomes supported by the fact that Paizo decided to make Unarmed Strike and Unarmed Attack their own, separate game terms. (Of course, without the gauntlet, what else would be considered an unarmed attack apart from unarmed strikes?) Additionally, since the Monk class feature specifically alters Unarmed Strike damage dice, and not Unarmed Attack damage dice, a Monk still deals 1D3 damage with the Gauntlet, versus his base 1D6 or higher damage dice.

The reason a Gauntlet doesn't otherwise return to dealing non-lethal damage is because A. it's listed in the weapon table, and B. it doesn't have the non-lethal weapon quality, meaning it defers to dealing lethal damage normally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Combat wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.


HangarFlying wrote:
Where can I find the clockwork prosthesis?

Magical Marketplace, pg #23.

Ashiel wrote:

I actually didn't mean core, but more fringe than usual splat material. For example, Magus isn't core, but it's from a major publication that is available on the official PRD, so while not core you can probably expect it as an option in most groups.

I wasn't dismissing clockwork prosthesis or somehow suggesting it was "impure" or anything. Merely noting that such things aren't something that you would automatically expect, whereas the gauntlet has been around pretty much forever and has been a source of reasonable enhancement for monks and other characters all of that time. It also fits into more games that cyperpunk/magepunk-style prosthetic arms (mind you, such things would fit into my games just fine, so again, please understand I'm not being dismissive).

that's cool. I was unsure what you meant by 'default game' as that often means many different thing depending on who you ask. For myself, it means all official Paizo books.

As to it fitting, it's from the City of Smog(Alkenstar City) where magical healing is non-existent and unpracticed doctors are the only way for many citizens. There is a permanent pocket of antimagic in the city that makes clockwork and guns much more useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
As to it fitting, it's from the City of Smog(Alkenstar City) where magical healing is non-existent and unpracticed doctors are the only way for many citizens. There is a permanent pocket of antimagic in the city that makes clockwork and guns much more useful.

So...the "nonmagical" thing is found in the magic markets book? :P

They have magical nonmagical cybernetic prosthetics but the height of their technological weapon advancement in a world where your neighbors will eat you is ****y weapons that are worse than slings in almost every way?

...Seems legit. :P


Unarmed attack = Unarmed Strike. They are 2 terms for the exact same thing, as illustrated in the unarmed attack description from Ashiel.

I would rule a monk wearing gauntlets uses their Monk unarmed attack die, with the added benefit of now causing lethal damage with the unarmed strikes due to the gauntlets.

As for whether you are considered "armed" I would say that no, gauntlets on their own do not make your "armed" just more dangerous. Your class and your feats or some sort of magic stuff making you an armed when not wielding a weapon. Specifically weaponized hand coverings being worn like spikes or brass knuckles or cestus or something may make your armed for the case of for and against AoO opportunities.


Clockwork prosthetics are magic items, which means they shut off and stop working in antimagic fields. The clockwork aspect of them is also pretty superficial.


HangarFlying wrote:
Where can I find the clockwork prosthesis?

Clockwork Prosthesis. It's originally found in Pathfinder Player Companion: Magical Marketplace.

Grand Lodge

The reason I brought up the Favored Weapon, is to show the Gauntlet is a weapon in it's own right, and not just a modification to an existing weapon, the unarmed strike.

Being a weapon in it's own right, means it would function, as a weapon.

I don't find this simultaneous function of being a weapon, and not being a weapon, to be the true mechanical function of a Gauntlet.

I see no reason for it to not function exactly like a Spiked Gauntlet.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I see no reason for it to not function exactly like a Spiked Gauntlet.
gauntlet wrote:
Benefit: 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. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
spiked gauntlet wrote:
Benefit: An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.

I'm honestly confused as to what more reason than "the rules explicitly say they do not function like each other" we're looking for here. Detailing exactly how the gauntlet works? Sure, debatable. Contending that it works identically to a Spiked Gauntlet? Requires willfully ignoring the rules of both weapons, as quoted above.


Aratrok wrote:
Clockwork prosthetics are magic items, which means they shut off and stop working in antimagic fields. The clockwork aspect of them is also pretty superficial.

They use primal magic which doesn't have to follow the rules by default. From the way it's written, they should at least work in the City of Smog(Alkenstar City) antimagic. As to other antimagic fields? Personally, I'd treat them as tech 'magic items' instead of normal magic items.

Grand Lodge

kestral287 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I see no reason for it to not function exactly like a Spiked Gauntlet.
gauntlet wrote:
Benefit: 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. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
spiked gauntlet wrote:
Benefit: An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.
I'm honestly confused as to what more reason than "the rules explicitly say they do not function like each other" we're looking for here. Detailing exactly how the gauntlet works? Sure, debatable. Contending that it works identically to a Spiked Gauntlet? Requires willfully ignoring the rules of both weapons, as quoted above.

Are you willfully ignorant of the context of this statement?;)

It would appear that, as a weapon, both Spiked, and normal Gauntlets, are things that one could be proficient with, threaten with, and not provoke whilst attacking with.

I don't really find the "otherwise considered an unarmed attack" line to dispute this.


So, what does that line mean to you, exactly?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
So, what does that line mean to you, exactly?

In totality? A FAQ is likely in order.

Do you think a Gauntlet is immune to Sunder?

Do you think the Brawling enchantment adds damage to attacks with Gauntlets?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Why would a gauntlet be immune to sunder? It is an item.

RAW, the Brawling enchantment gives a bonus on attack and damage rolls with gauntlets, but it does not make them count as magic for overcoming damage reduction.


blackbloodtroll, it says that a strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack, not that the gauntlet is your fist. You can't sunder an unarmed strike (I assume) because it's not an object.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

1)Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?

2)Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?

3)Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?

4)Do Gauntlets threaten without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?

5)Would feats and abilities that apply to both Gauntlet attacks, and Unarmed Strikes, such as Weapon Focus, stack?

Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?

Bold mine, for my own convenience.

1) It's treated as an unarmed strike, so yes. It gives redundant abilities (dealing lethal damage) for a monk, though. Can you enchant it as a weapon? I would think so.

2) I assume yes. They work like unarmed strikes.

3) I assume not. Like an unarmed strike.

4) They can't stack, but this is pretty weird. I wonder if you can take weapon focus: gauntlet at all... And I wonder what happens if a Wizard attacks with a gauntlet; do they take a -4 non-proficiency penalty?

5) The answers to these questions aren't different. The answer is always "just like an unarmed strike" (for the first 3 at least. 4 is weird for other reasons). So the answer to 3 is no for a gauntlet because it's no for an unarmed strike. Maybe I missed something?

I haven't read every post in this thread, so sorry if this is partially redundant.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
So, what does that line mean to you, exactly?

In totality? A FAQ is likely in order.

Do you think a Gauntlet is immune to Sunder?

Do you think the Brawling enchantment adds damage to attacks with Gauntlets?

... I suppose I wasn't clear. What's your position on what "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack" means? Or do you simply not have any sort of contention beyond "it's unclear" and possess a desire to state that basic point repeatedly?


Cyrus, remember, they don't count as unarmed strikes, which are a specific weapon, rather they count as unarmed attacks.


Just because a gauntlet is a weapon it doesn't mean it works like most other weapons, allowing you to threaten with it.

A whip is a weapon.

You don't threaten any squares with a whip.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I see no reason for a gauntlet to not function exactly like a Spiked Gauntlet.

I see more reason for a spiked gauntlet to functionn like a gauntlet, beeing treated as unarmed, than the other way around, but that's just me.

Grand Lodge

I threaten with Brass Knuckles, and a Spiked Gauntlet.

I can be proficient with both.

I don't provoke with either.

I have a hard time seeing Gauntlets, being practically the same weapon, and never being proficient with them, threatening with them, or being unable to not provoke with them, no matter what feats/abilities/etc that I have.

Mentioning the Whip?

I can be proficient with the Whip, and have ways of threatening, and avoiding AoOs.

I have a hard time with a simple weapon, being this complicated, and behaving like no other weapon.


Gauntlet rules are extremely unclear, and anyone who thinks otherwize is fooling themselves.

I see three possibilities
1) They have no weapon attack of there own, and are simply an item that modifies unarmed strikes to be lethal. In this case they can't be made magical, because they aren't used as a weapon.
2) There text is nothing but flavor text, and thus they are simply a weapon.
3) They are a weapon of there own, and can be enchanted. But they also grant the benefit of making unarmed strikes lethal.

Option 1 makes little sense as why are they listed in weapons if they are not weapons.
Options 2 and 3 also make as little sense because they are in the weapons list under unarmed (so what do they count as as a weapon?). Are they light, one handed, two handed? they aren't listed under any of those options so they can't be right?


There's also Option 4) They are an unarmed attack that delivers lethal damage, but is not an unarmed strike. They are a weapon and can be modified as such (as they are listed as weapons and are clearly distinct from unarmed strikes, which cannot be enchanted/made of adamantine), but their attacks are considered unarmed (as their rules text explicitly states).

Option 1 simply doesn't make sense as a statement. Option 2 makes zero sense because it outright ignores rules text. Option 3 is valid, so long as you recognize that you are still considered unarmed with a +10 gauntlet.

Grand Lodge

How can it be treated as an unarmed attack, in regards to threatening, and provoking, and yet nothing else that applies to unarmed attacks, applies to Gauntlet attacks?

I find this contradiction troubling.

I also don't find there to be RAW that supports these array of exceptions, and pick and choose applications of rules.


Who said nothing else that applies to unarmed attacks applies to Gauntlets? I certainly never did. In fact, I can quote myself in this thread saying the opposite.

Now, I did say that I don't think anything that applies to unarmed strikes applies to a Gauntlet, but these are not the same thing. I draw this conclusion because the weapons chart clearly has Unarmed Strike as a subset of Unarmed Attack, and Gauntlet next to Unarmed Strike-- hence distinct from a Strike, but not from an Unarmed Attack.

Thus: if it is a benefit or penalty applied to all unarmed attacks, it applies to a gauntlet. If it is a benefit or penalty applied to unarmed strikes, it does not apply to a gauntlet. This does not appear to be any sort of "array of exemptions" but rather drawing a distinction between two things that the rules draw a distinction between but players, it seems, do not always see differently (probably because nobody uses a Gauntlet).

*Shrug* To me at least, the chart combined with their rules text clarifies almost every question I've seen presented. The only one not answered is what type of attack they are (I'd call them Light but this is not stated anywhere) and what exactly we consider their line about making unarmed strikes deal lethal damage to mean. Personally I feel that the "unarmed strike" portion is a line of descriptive text rather than strict rules text stemming from the fact that most people only identify unarmed attacks in one way, and thus it explains how one physically uses a Gauntlet. But that is debatable.


blackbloodtroll:
Gauntlets are considered unarmed attacks, because the rules say they are.
Gauntlets are not considered unarmed strikes, because they are a different weapon.

You don't really need to try to reason out the purpose, just look at the rules and apply them.


The purpose seems to be rooted in meta rules rather than game logic. In world it makes almost zero sense that adding spikes makes such a dramatic shift in how you punch somebody.

But in the meta rules, I suspect that it comes from the free gauntlets with most armors. There's an assumption inherent here in my thinking-- but one that I've always at least thought to be commonly held-- that if the armor is of a special material, so is the gauntlet.

Between that and the other qualities inherent in them (can't be disarmed, never have to be removed), without some drawback they would make for very fine weapons. A lot of builds would make use of them heavily-- reach builds, for an obvious example. My theory is that Pazio is willing to support one of these two (a non-disarmable weapon that never has to be removed or a weapon that can be given expensive materials for free), but not both.

This is, as noted, all conjecture, but it at least seems to flow logically in my mind.


Gauntlet-Spiked Gauntlet
Punching somebody-Punching somebody with knives coming out of my hands


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Gauntlet-Spiked Gauntlet

Punching somebody-Punching somebody with knives coming out of my hands

Gauntlets-brass knuckles. The bigger 'weapon' that covers the whole hand is an unarmed attack but the smaller one that JUST covers the knuckles is a weapon attack...

Best not to think about this logically.


kestral287 wrote:

There's also Option 4) They are an unarmed attack that delivers lethal damage, but is not an unarmed strike. They are a weapon and can be modified as such (as they are listed as weapons and are clearly distinct from unarmed strikes, which cannot be enchanted/made of adamantine), but their attacks are considered unarmed (as their rules text explicitly states).

Option 1 simply doesn't make sense as a statement. Option 2 makes zero sense because it outright ignores rules text. Option 3 is valid, so long as you recognize that you are still considered unarmed with a +10 gauntlet.

But option 4) makes even less sense because it throws out half the rules and selectively uses the other half.

Gauntlet wrote:

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.

How can you possibly use the rules entry for Gauntlets and get it's not an unarmed strike?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The gauntlet is the greatest weapon if you set the Infinity Gems into it.


NikolaiJuno wrote:
How can you possibly use the rules entry for Gauntlets and get it's not an unarmed strike?

Because the two are listed as separate things in every other instance? I even explained this five posts above yours.


I could help with insightfull information, but let's just face it, this thread is beyound hopeless by now.

Make up your mind on what you think is the right ruling and be done with it, because some people here will clearly never submit to the other opinion.


Kchaka wrote:

I could help with insightfull information, but let's just face it, this thread is beyound hopeless by now.

Make up your mind on what you think is the right ruling and be done with it, because some people here will clearly never submit to the other opinion.

Realistically a gauntlet is nothing more than a metal skin for your hand. It makes perfect sense that striking with it is considered an unarmed attack, its just your fist with something hard on it, it doesn't have pokey bits, you don't hold it, etc. Why would it stop a monk from flurrying? A cestus doesn't, its a monk weapon and the most advanced form of combat gauntlet. Why does a gauntlet provoke and a cestus does not? Because a cestus has bits designed for parrying, a gauntlet is just a metal glove. If you're going to ask this kind of question then ask why can't I slash with my shortsword or stab with my longsword? Both have sharp edges and sharp points.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be ruled as read, an attack with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Otherwise being as in "other than it does lethal damage". I would rule that a monk can use a gauntlet to flurry, its damage does scale with his unarmed attack, etc. however he cannot do non-lethal damage with it unless he takes the appropriate penalty.

A monk with his hands tied behind his back can use his unarmed strike normally, but he wouldn't be able to use his gauntlets to make those strikes as his fists are unavailable.

Grand Lodge

Just a metal glove?

A Metal Glove is an actual item. It could be used as an improvised weapon. This would not provoke.

Make the gauntlet out of rope? That is a Rope Gauntlet, and it doesn't provoke when used.

There is literally nothing else you could strap to your hand, attack with, and somehow never threaten with and always provoke when attacking.

Comparisons to other weapons are meaningless, as nothing works, as supposedly, the gauntlet works.


To be fair, the Metal Glove linked is explicitly different from armor, sacrificing mobility for superior protection. You might just be able to not care about protecting your hand (and thus opening yourself to an AoO) while you deck somebody. I find the Rope Gauntlet hilarious though, myself.

But seriously. The gauntlet is what it is because of a meta construct. It doesn't make sense in universe. We all know this.

101 to 146 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / gauntlets as weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.