| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
ok.
Gauntlets allow one to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. Such attacks are still treated as unarmed.
If I am reading this right...this means that you would still provoke an attack of opportunity without the "improved unarmed strike" feat, correct?
I think at some point I was under the impression that gauntlets essentially removed the need for the feat (at the expense of hand dexterity....for ranged weapons, locks, casting, climbing, etc).
In a related, but less strictly rules related, question does anyone feel that this would be broken?
I would assume personally that part of the reason we provoke AoOs with unarmed attacks is because we would hurt ourselves and would thus be more cautious. Gauntlets would definitely mitigate this to some extent.
I like the idea of the longspear wielder still being able to punch those that get within 10 feet.
thoughts?
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.
Gauntlet, Spiked: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.
Gauntlets provoke, spiked gauntlets do not. Either way I don't believe you can threaten with both at the same time. You would be better off with Improved Unarmed Strike.
Also there is this FAQ.
Interesting. I don't really see the difference between gauntlets and spiked gauntlets realistically as a means to get around attacks of opportunity, lol, but if thats the rule its the rule. All I can see is a difference in damage die and damage type. Hmm a home rule may be in store here.
I had seen that faq before, but I appreciate your linking it.
I personally am not a fan of it, you can essentially take catch off guard and use any weapon as an improvised weapon. I like that it allows one to essentially pommel-strike their opponents, but I think its too easily exploited.
I think punching with gauntlets is more interesting (also the look on a player's face, heh)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magda has worn spiked gauntlets through 11 PFs levels on the slow track. Thus about 50+ scenarios. She's a battle cleric who fights on the front line with a glaive. She got the spiked gauntlets in case a foe got in close, past her reach. In 50+ scenarios she has slugged things with her spiked gauntlets perhaps three times. There have been a couple (like, two) times when she failed to give an ally a +2 flanking bonus because she didn't threaten adjacent. Not even once has she missed an adjacent AoO because she didn't threaten adjacent.
Magda could easily choose to wear 50gp spiked armor, which threatens adjacent and totally solves all concerns on this topic, but she chooses not to because 'it looks silly'.
Takeaway lesson: have a plan for when things get inside your reach, but don't worry overly about the issue, and probably don't devote resources to it.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Gauntlets are weapons.
They don't count as unarmed strikes, do unarmed strike damage, or provoke.
Gauntlets do Gauntlet damage.
Improvements to unarmed strike damage, do not improve Gauntlet damage.
Many armors come with Gauntlets, for free.
Gauntlets threaten, as long as you are not wielding a weapon in the hand that wears the Gauntlet.
Gauntlet do restrict hand dexterity in any meaningful way, and do not impede any skill checks, or spell casting.
In many ways, a Gauntlet is basically functions like a Dagger that leaves your hand free.
Do unarmed attacks provoke?
don't most medium and heavy armors come with gauntlets for free?
Do unarmed attacks provoke?
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).
without some other ability, attacking with unarmed strikes provoke attacks of opportunity.
BBT you really can't escape the CRB saying:
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
Cestus, Spiked Gauntlets and Brass knuckles do not share that rule. Cestus and spiked gauntlet specifically call out that they you are treated as armed.
Gauntlets are clearly considered an unarmed attack for the purposes of provoking, but I believe that as they have their own separate damage in the weapon table that over-rides unarmed damage you'd otherwise have.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?
Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?
Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?
Do Gauntlets threaten without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?
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?
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?No, that only applies to unarmed strikes.
Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?No, it's not a monk weapon
Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?No, you would need weapon focus:gauntlet.
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?No, weapon focus doesn't stack with itself.
Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?Because of the rules.
It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's even fine if you're ignorant of the rules. None of that changes the actual rules.
|
|
Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?No, that only applies to unarmed strikes.
Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?No, it's not a monk weapon
Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?No, you would need weapon focus:gauntlet.
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?No, weapon focus doesn't stack with itself.
Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?Because of the rules.
It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's even fine if you're ignorant of the rules. None of that changes the actual rules.
You have proven my point.
All of these answers being no(other than the stacking question), must be so, because a Gauntlet, is not an unarmed strike.
See Sean K Reynolds opinion here.
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.
Unarmed Strike =/= Unarmed attack. Just saying.
Yep. The thing is they moved the gauntlet of the unarmed weapon chart and moved it to light weapon.
Lets look at everything the weapon says: "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes." This only affects unarmed strikes. That isn't gauntlet damage. Note that the weapon deals lethal damage as "All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage" but nothing is ever said about the gauntlets damage.
"A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.": Lets list what this might do.
No threaten/AoO: questionable with the existence of “Armed” Unarmed Attacks.
Damage: Only unarmed strikes are listed here as non-lethal.
Anything else?
Where is there any unarmed attack defined in the rules that isn't an unarmed strike, other than the gauntlet?
The core rulebook lists gauntlets as them. They changed that in ultimate equipment but left the text there.
|
|
They call them "unarmed attacks", and not "unarmed strikes".
Could this mean something else? I think so.
If a Gauntlet attack, is an Unarmed Strike, then anything that applies to Unarmed Strikes, applies to Gauntlet attacks.
I can find no evidence that they would be treated differently in some cases, but the same in others.
(stuff)
You have proven my point.All of these answers being no(other than the stacking question), must be so, because a Gauntlet, is not an unarmed strike.
See Sean K Reynolds opinion here.
No it is not an unarmed strike, but it is treated as one. Rules say so. Just because it falls foul of several other rules that it doesn't meet the criteria for, or comes with it's own baggage that interacts with the rules in a different way doesn't change the fact that the RULES clearly state it is treated as an unarmed strike.
In practice that seems to mean you don't count as armed.
With all due respect SKRs opinion is just that, opinion. He acknowledges that by saying 'should' rather than 'is'.
In practice that seems to mean you don't count as armed.
If that's what's meant it'd be much easier to come out and SAY that. Replace "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." with " A strike with a gauntlet is not an armed attack." Seems like an easy fix while they where moving it to a different area for UE.
|
|
Use a Cestus. Use Armor Spikes, or take a level in Monk.
Or brawler or sacred fist warpriest.
Brawler is full bab and has martial flexibility letting you give up a move action for most any combat feat you want for a minute. Warpriest isn't full bab, but at 1st lvl you get weapon focus so it basically is, and you get the ability to cast orisons/1st lvl spells/divine spell completion and still has flurry.
Monks give you a bonus feat arguably situationally better/worse than martial flexibility depending on situation.
Obviously all three give you unarmed strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?No, that only applies to unarmed strikes.
Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?No, it's not a monk weapon
Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?No, you would need weapon focus:gauntlet.
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?No, weapon focus doesn't stack with itself.
Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?Because of the rules.
It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's even fine if you're ignorant of the rules. None of that changes the actual rules.You have proven my point.
All of these answers being no(other than the stacking question), must be so, because a Gauntlet, is not an unarmed strike.
See Sean K Reynolds opinion here.
Just to be clear, BBT, are you saying a forum post by a former Dev trumps the rule in the book?
Just to be clear, BBT, are you saying a forum post by a former Dev trumps the rule in the book?Actually, upon review, I am merely showing a Developer(former) noting there are contradictions, and complications.
I hope you can see these as well.
This isn't the first time a Developer's "clarified intent" is otherwise stalemated, if not trumped by the rules cited in the book. Remember the Bodyguard feat with Jason Nelson, the developer who designed said feat? He clarified what the feat was supposed to do, but explicitly stated that it's not RAW, and it may not be RAI. Additionally, even if he was a Developer at the time he glossed at the issue presented, Developer statements do not count as official FAQ answers or errata, which is what is needed to be presented in order to clarify or overturn a previously-written rule in the books.
After all, the big man Jason Bulmahn himself seemed to have disagreed with SKR's 'intent' behind the unarmed attack rule regarding gauntlets, as that is what's published in the book, which does not reflect what SKR said it was supposed to be. It is not RAW, and judging by what's published and this not having been FAQ'd/Errata in the past 5 years, the RAI would disagree with that too. That's all SKR's statement is currently; his own, personal supposition.
They call them "unarmed attacks", and not "unarmed strikes".
Could this mean something else? I think so.
If a Gauntlet attack, is an Unarmed Strike, then anything that applies to Unarmed Strikes, applies to Gauntlet attacks.
I can find no evidence that they would be treated differently in some cases, but the same in others.
There's no doubt that the rules are muddled and that SKR muddled them further (in between his not unusual habit of insulting his customers). The rules to me seem to say that they're a weapon but when you wield them like a weapon they conform to the unarmed attack rules. So, no threatening and they provoke an attack of opportunity. To double-up, they're weapons that a monk isn't proficient with and aren't a monk weapon so they can't use them for any of their special stuff.
It does seem like dumb rules, though, but at least they have some uniqueness.
I suppose you could use the Gauntlet as an improvised weapon, and at least not provoke.
I mean, why would a Gauntlet only count as an Unarmed Strike, or not, when it would be least beneficial?
I don't think you can use a specific weapon as an improvised weapon just to get around that weapon's disadvantages. At the very least, you can't do it by wielding it exactly like you would if you were using it as that weapon - maybe if you took it off and slapped someone with it?
As to why - it's a game and has some absurd, irrational, arbitrary rules. We don't ask why.
normal gauntlets are fully unarmed. and work entirely as unarmed effects. and can enchant as an alternative to aomf and bandages of mighty something or other (basically it's a cheaper aomf with limited use). but instead of the other two it's restricted to soley punches.
Sounds good to me.
|
|
I don't see how they could be simple weapons, be proficient with them, and somehow, not only be not able to threaten with them, but provoke whilst attacking with them.
I also don't see how they could be considered unarmed strikes, for either of these purposes, but not benefit from any bonuses, or effects, that apply to unarmed strikes.
I am having a hard time seeing the Rules support this, and the evidence to prove it works both ways, but only when least beneficial.
|
You can use a weapon as an improvised weapon.
If you're using it in a manner for which it is not designed.
|
|
You can use a weapon as an improvised weapon.If you're using it in a manner for which it is not designed.
Like, as an improvised weapon?
Here, a barril with free Spiked Gauntlets for Everyone!
|
|
I think the question is more "how do you use a gauntlet as an improvised weapon?"
We have an example for the spear, using the butt or haft of the weapon. What are you doing with the gauntlet?
Maybe poking with the fingers, instead using the usual punching motion?
In the end, we have affirmation that a weapon, can be used as an improvised weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, as an improvised weapon?You can use a weapon as an improvised weapon.If you're using it in a manner for which it is not designed.
This is the only viable way a gauntlet can be used as an improvised weapon. Merely saying that you're using it in an improvised manner while you're wearing it doesn't cut it.
I think the question is more "how do you use a gauntlet as an improvised weapon?"
We have an example for the spear, using the butt or haft of the weapon. What are you doing with the gauntlet?
Pimp slap? Palm strike? Super finger poke? I don't think it's worth figuring out exactly what you have to do with each weapon. Even the spear doesn't make the least sense if you think about it. You hit someone with the butt of your spear and it's improvised. Unscrew the point and do the same attack, and instead of improvised it's a staff!
HangarFlying: If you have an issue with a gauntlet being an improvised weapon, then the Weapon Versatility feat is going to blow your mind, since you can wield that gauntlet to deal slashing and piercing damage but somehow you can't wrap your head around improvised.
|
|
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.
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.