Greetings Pathfinders
I'm currently DM'ing my first Pathfinder group and one of the characters has asked me if he could use various gauntlets of special materials to overcome damage reduction and maybe enchant them later.
My initial take on this is that if you decide to attack with an unarmed attack, you either use:
Your Monk special training to inflict serious damage to your foes.
OR
You attack with the gauntlet and deal damage as in the charts 1d3
My concern is that if I allow it, he then later will enchant them, a +1 weapon is 2000 + MWK + item price.
The wondrous item Amulet of Mighty Fist that does the exact same thing except the price is twice as expensive, 5000g.
Please help
Well, it is a little vague, but I think you could allow gauntlets as unarmed strike.
"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.
So you could say that you are delivering an 'unarmed strike' while wearing a gauntlet. It would deliver the monks damage, and could be used with a flurry. It is a little wonky, but I feel that it helps the monk stay a decent melee combatant. You would need a free hand, (and according to some interpretations of flurry - you must alternate attacks).
|
as Shar Tahl says monks can use all their body to attack but they dont have to - the amulet of mighty fists enhances all attacks - I personally would like to see this as available in a different slot
you could allow the player to use the gauntlets with monk damage since it is the monk skill in unarmed martial arts that allows him to do the damage not what he uses otherwise why would a fist do more damage than a metal clad fist which is what a gauntlet is ??
the player must understand though that the gauntlet ONLY enhances the fists & not other parts so he can not hold weapons & flurry of blows & gain the gauntlet bonuses - it would have to be fists only
also an advantage of monks compared to other classes is that even with their hands bound they can still attack at full amount with their feet - obviously gauntlets would not help with this
Gauntlets aren't monk weapons so they can't be used with a Flurry of Blows in any capacity.
That being said, you could consider a compromise. The rules don't allow for the use the enhancement bonus from enchanted gauntlets with an FoB, but you could allow him to use his/her monk unarmed damage in conjunction with the enhanced gauntlets as a normal weapon attack. The gauntlets, after all, don't actually do damage normally. They just convert nonlethal into lethal.
To illustrate, monk could either use flurry of blows normally (using the higher BAB and number of attacks), or attack with a gauntlet (using lower BAB plus whatever the enhancements on the gauntlet) for his unarmed attack damage. This damage would have to be lethal, however.
|
|
I know gauntlets are not listed as a monk weapon - concede point there but as a DM I would allow them to be used in unarmed attacks & FOB as they dont restrict movement greatly in combat terms (they do for fine work though) & since an armed attack with your hand/fist is hitting something adding a gauntlet would not alter that - the main advantage of a gauntlet to most characters is changing from nonlethal to lethal in my opinion - monks already do this so dont gain anything
just my opinion
Actually, I think we pretty much agree on the major points. I just don't think that gauntlets and FoB should interact at all in order to avoid the question of adding weapon enhancements to a flurry. Otherwise I agree. Let the character do full unarmed damage with gauntlets, inc. enhancements. Just not with FoB.
The designers of 3.0, 3.5, and PF have all written the game so that Monks get either increased unarmed damage or weapon damage, but not both. Since I've enjoyed playing all those games, including playing monks, I'll defer to their judgment. You don't want to play that way? Then don't play that way.
In the Magic Item compendium there was a ring of Adamatine touch, in which you're attacks are treated as adminatine. Which means +4 in overcoming DR.
The designers of 3.0, 3.5, and PF have all written the game so that Monks get either increased unarmed damage or weapon damage, but not both. Since I've enjoyed playing all those games, including playing monks, I'll defer to their judgment. You don't want to play that way? Then don't play that way.Sorry, I wasn't trying to be antagonistic. Just as a long time monk player and student of the rules and their applications, it saddens me the way monks get shafted. They got a little bit of a boost in PF, but they still don't stand up and compete how they should.
Again, I didn't mean to make things hostile. Sorry Jake.
No problemo Kyrt. No offense taken. I've really enjoyed reading your takes on a lot of different topics.
It says in the discription for gauntlet that other than it applying leathal damage instead of non leathal damage it counts as an umarmed attack. If it counts as an unarmed attack it would gain all feats and class abilities that would apply to such an attack.
I would also like to point out it says gauntlet in the sigular so the monk would only be able to make attacks with one of his limbs. I could see it ruled that since FoBs is attacking "as if using TWF" more than one limb would have to be involved in a flury. This would even out the prices more for the AoMF and having to have 2 gauntlets enhanced. If you want AoMF+5 125k if 2 gauntlets+5 100k. the extra 25k gold could be worth it if a monk would want to gain the bonus to his kicks and elbows.
I also don't see why the AoMF can't go higher than +5.
I will put my thread jackish type comment in a spoiler(in the hopes that somehow will make it better):P.
Gauntlets aren't monk weapons so they can't be used with a Flurry of Blows in any capacity.
The Gauntlet is right next to Unarmed Strike in the Equipment/Weapons/Unarmed Attacks section. In the list of monk weapons, I don't see "Gauntlets", but I don't see "Unarmed Strike" either. Should they be barred from fighting barehanded? My interpretation of this is that you can use unarmed attacks the way you want: with or without gauntlets.
Additionally, I don't see why you would do less damage if your fist was covered with metal. For me, a monk striking with his gauntlet-covered fist would do lethal damage according to his monk damage progression.
The next bit is more house-rule than interpretation of the Word. In my mind, the spiked gauntlet is like a gauntlet with a size-like enhancement to damage. I'd rule that a monk could flurry with them for their monk damage, enhanced as if they were one size larger.
I personally would like to see this as available in a different slot
Me too. It is possible, for a raise in price. It is even possible to put such an enchantment on a non-slot item, for an even higher price (twice the item cost - which is really tough for an already expensive AoMF). Should a player want this, I could make a side quest for the sole reason of getting the item.
Actually, I think we pretty much agree on the major points. I just don't think that gauntlets and FoB should interact at all in order to avoid the question of adding weapon enhancements to a flurry. Otherwise I agree. Let the character do full unarmed damage with gauntlets, inc. enhancements. Just not with FoB.Why? What do so many people seem to see as SO imbalancing about that?
The designers of 3.0, 3.5, and PF have all written the game so that Monks get either increased unarmed damage or weapon damage, but not both. Since I've enjoyed playing all those games, including playing monks, I'll defer to their judgment. You don't want to play that way? Then don't play that way.
I agree with you on the "weapon" front. But are gauntlets "weapons" or merely a way to strike unarmed with a different flavor? Is Unarmed Strike a "weapon" because it is in the Weapons section? If you answer "yes" then, according to the quote above, the poor unarmed monk will do 1d3 all his pitiful life... and no FoB.
I don't think that the inconsistencies of a game were intented. Some were corrected over the years. Some weren't because there was equal footing either way. Besides, the rules were written by humans. Humans are imperfect. QED
Gauntlets occupy a unique niche. They are like a weapon, but not really. They have no damage of their own, instead just converting nonlethal to lethal. Wearing one, or a pair, doesn't even make you "armed" in regards to attacks of opportunity. One assumes that they can be enchanted, tho.
If you want a Monk in your game to be able to flurry with enchanted gauntlets, then by all means, go ahead. But it isn't supported by the rules. Whatever their faults, multiply design teams have decided on this limitation, and I'll defer to their judgment.
Spiked gauntlets, on the other hand, clearly are a weapon. They do a set amount of damage just like any other weapon, a character is considered armed when wielding (wearing) them, and have a listing on the weapons table like every other weapon. If you are going to include them on the monk's list of weapons, they should do their own damage, tho, not their damage + enhancements + monk's unarmed damage. There aren't any other weapons that do that, after all.
Ninja'ed... sort of.
It says in the discription for gauntlet that other than it applying leathal damage instead of non leathal damage it counts as an umarmed attack. If it counts as an unarmed attack it would gain all feats and class abilities that would apply to such an attack.
I would also like to point out it says gauntlet in the sigular so the monk would only be able to make attacks with one of his limbs.
LOL... didn't think of that: do "gauntlets" exist for feet? Knees? Head? If I have an adamantine cap, knee-wraps, and boots, do they count as gauntlets for the corresponding limb?
I could see it ruled that since FoBs is attacking "as if using TWF" more than one limb would have to be involved in a flury.
I could see it too, but it seems to be an interpretation, not the strictest RAW.
I would like to point out I posted a while ago that I think weapon focus unarmed strike should apply to all natural attacks seeing as they are unarmed strikes. I was basicly told no which I am sure I will be told again. But a monk or any other PC can headbut or kick or use any other part of their body and use their weapon focus unarmed strike but a Tiger can't do the same with their natural attacks(claw and bite).
I don't know if that was the case in 3.5, but Pathfinder's rules about natural vs. unarmed attacks leave me wanting for a big clearifying overhaul. They may seem logic, but they are much too complex for something that could have been resolved with "natural attacks and unarmed attacks are exactly the same thing".
If anyone has used the previous italicized sentence as a house-rule and found that it opened cases for brokenness, can you tell me (us) in which cases? Thanks.
Greetings Pathfinders
I'm currently DM'ing my first Pathfinder group and one of the characters has asked me if he could use various gauntlets of special materials to overcome damage reduction and maybe enchant them later.
My initial take on this is that if you decide to attack with an unarmed attack, you either use:
Your Monk special training to inflict serious damage to your foes.
OR
You attack with the gauntlet and deal damage as in the charts 1d3My concern is that if I allow it, he then later will enchant them, a +1 weapon is 2000 + MWK + item price.
The wondrous item Amulet of Mighty Fist that does the exact same thing except the price is twice as expensive, 5000g.
Please help
Let's look at this realistically. We practice punching things til it does damage like getting hit with an earthbreaker bare knuckles.
We put on reinforced leather or metal gloves. We punch things with the same power as Bob the bookworm wearing the same gloves. Let the boy wear his gloves. As other's have said, the amulet of mighty fist is a very restrictive item that is overpriced and maxes out at +5 instead of +10 like other weapons and doesn't let you overcome damage reductions other than magic.If nothing else make him custom magic item like the scorpion kama to let him do his unarmed damage and overcome different DR's.
You might just want make up a new magic items... say like a (Ring of Silver Body).... say it takes 1 week to get in tune with the ring before its effects start and if you take it off it takes another week to re-attune.
While wearing the ring you physical or natural attacks are consider to be of the type the ring is made off. ((physical attack in this case means using your hands, feet, head = NOT any Hand held Weapons / Gauntlets / Range weapons / etc..))
The rings can be found made of:
Siliver = Silver
Mitheral = Overcome Magic &/or Silver
Cold Iron = Overcome Cold Iron
Adamentine = Overcome Adamantine
Gold = Overcome evil
Bone = Overcome good
Some rings can even be of two types twisted together like Cold Iron/Gold ring.
Mainly Monks and Druids will want these rings.
Cost = have no idea = But you could add it as a specail trasure to a game if you keep throwing a favorite critter of yours at the group.
anyway just an idea.
If it grants a magical enhancement bonus (mighty fist)
then he does bypass DR +3 I believe counts as Silver
+4 Adamantine (without bypassing hardness)
and +5 is alignment.
|
As a hopeless addict to playing monks, I think the wraps/gloves/gauntlets serve a meaningful place in making a monk a viable melee combatant. It always ends up that this type of item gets houseruled in when I play a monk anyway, and Ive never started to outdamage the fighters because of it. After reading some insight as to why the Amulet of Mighty Fists was priced as is, I can accept the fact of paying more to enchant your ENTIRE body. Im cool with that, as it also caters to druids in addition to monks for shapeshifting.
I fail, however, to see the issue with allowing some sort of enchantable wrap/gloves and that retain the BASE damage of the unarmed strike (1d3 for non-monks and as determined by level for a monk) and be more in line with normal magic weapon prices. Also, the AMF only allows up for a +5 equivalent enchantment at a cost of 125,000g. The benefit would be specifically limited to the hands (in cases of gloves) or whatever section of your body you decided to use the wraps one (boot slot for feet, gloves for hands) AND take up said item slot in addition.
Ive yet to see a single solid argument as to HOW this would be game breaking where this couldnt be an included option in RAW, and not have to be homebrewed in. Is there math im missing somewhere? Im sorry, but the argument "the designers said so" just isn't enough for me. If there was some math, theoretical as it may be, that would show this would allow the monk to out damage a fighter I could understand, (I dont want to outfight a fighter) its just Ive never seen such math before. I understand that the fear is the monk would start out damaging the fighter/barb/melee focused class, but from all Ive seen the monk is already a decent chunk behind what a fighter/barb/melee can dish out, this would allow them to close the gap somewhat. I dunno, maybe Im just to stuck in my monk love :)
I think SWSE did it better, wherein combat gloves, shockboxing gloves, stun gauntlets, etc, directly effected your unarmed damage. Much less confusion that way.
As a hopeless addict to playing monks, I think the wraps/gloves/gauntlets serve a meaningful place in making a monk a viable melee combatant. It always ends up that this type of item gets houseruled in when I play a monk anyway, and Ive never started to outdamage the fighters because of it. After reading some insight as to why the Amulet of Mighty Fists was priced as is, I can accept the fact of paying more to enchant your ENTIRE body. Im cool with that, as it also caters to druids in addition to monks for shapeshifting.
I fail, however, to see the issue with allowing some sort of enchantable wrap/gloves and that retain the BASE damage of the unarmed strike (1d3 for non-monks and as determined by level for a monk) and be more in line with normal magic weapon prices. Also, the AMF only allows up for a +5 equivalent enchantment at a cost of 125,000g. The benefit would be specifically limited to the hands (in cases of gloves) or whatever section of your body you decided to use the wraps one (boot slot for feet, gloves for hands) AND take up said item slot in addition.
Ive yet to see a single solid argument as to HOW this would be game breaking where this couldnt be an included option in RAW, and not have to be homebrewed in. Is there math im missing somewhere? Im sorry, but the argument "the designers said so" just isn't enough for me. If there was some math, theoretical as it may be, that would show this would allow the monk to out damage a fighter I could understand, (I dont want to outfight a fighter) its just Ive never seen such math before. I understand that the fear is the monk would start out damaging the fighter/barb/melee focused class, but from all Ive seen the monk is already a decent chunk behind what a fighter/barb/melee can dish out, this would allow them to close the gap somewhat. I dunno, maybe Im just to stuck in my monk love :)
I pretty much always offer this to someone playing a monk in my game. You can have wraps that can go around the hands only, and make it so your hands are not considered free (wraps make it difficult to properly hold most things). In addition to that, you can get wraps for 25% more then the typical cost of a magic item that can go around any part of the body. I do this because there is a significant advantage to leaving your hands free, which monks can do regularly.
The Amulet of Mighty Fists is priced that way because it enhances ALL natural attack(feet, hands, head, knee, elbow), not just the fists. So a monk with bound hands can still flurry of blows and get the amulet bonus.
Very situational benefit for a brutal price increase.
I personally say that a gauntlet modifies an unarmed strike and that's it.
The Amulet of Mighty Fists is priced that way because it enhances ALL natural attack(feet, hands, head, knee, elbow), not just the fists. So a monk with bound hands can still flurry of blows and get the amulet bonus.
QFT.
If things seem unbalanced, make him pay the enhancement for each gauntlet separately. Otherwise, it is technically an unarmed attack and I would allow it, and I have seen it done.
|
|
Well, the reason that unarmed attacks and natural attacks are treated differently is so a monk can't play a monster race and get a bunch of extra attacks to tack onto the monk flurry.
The reason why gauntlets aren't supposed to keep the base unarmed damage makes sense to me for the following reasons:
First, part of the reason a monks base damage increases, imo, isn't about how much strength they're putting into their blows. It's about proper positioning of the musculature when hitting an opponent. Gauntlets would restrict the flexibility of the hand, wrist, and arm, making it more difficult or even impossible to create the proper alignment with the arms.
Second, the design of the monk class tends to rely on multiple attacks dealing damage versus one or two attacks (or more, depending on the level) that are more likely to hit and deal better damage. Also on moving into combat, dealing damage, and moving back out. By adding in an easily enchant-able substitute for the more expensive amulet of natural armor, you're giving the monk the opportunity to improve their to-hit chance up to par with the fighter, whilst leaving them their multiple attacks and ability to move back out of melee range with their opponent. This provides a substantial boost, since you can't just compare how much damage monk vs fighter does, but also the extra special abilities of the class. For example, the chance-to-hit with a stunning fist. In comparison, you're letting your fighter enchant his weapon for the cost of enchanting his armor.
Thirdly, it feels like it runs contrary to the flavor of the monk class. Images of martial artists that immediately pop into my head when I think of "monk" can include metal bracers, but never do I picture them with gauntlets.
That being said, if your game is running a combat-heavy, spellcaster-low world, then the monk will seem weaker than a fighter. Especially if you don't do many reflex saves. It might make sense here to boost the monks ability to deal damage by allowing the enchant-able gauntlets. But don't forget the poor fighter, who keeps sucking down those fireballs because his reflex is terrible. Let each class shine in it's niche.
My two copper pieces
If it grants a magical enhancement bonus (mighty fist)
then he does bypass DR +3 I believe counts as Silver
+4 Adamantine (without bypassing hardness)
and +5 is alignment.
unfortunately not Greater Magic Fang is the spell in effect here and it specifically states it does not count for purposes of overcoming damage reduction except for dr/magic. a +5 kama would be a different story.
Well, the reason that unarmed attacks and natural attacks are treated differently is so a monk can't play a monster race and get a bunch of extra attacks to tack onto the monk flurry.
You can make a round of natural attacks or a round of iterative attacks (including flurry of blows). You can't do both in the same round.
|
|
I don't entirely agree with you there. It depends on what books/feats/abilities/items you have access to. There are x number of abilities that improve unarmed damage. Some are available for anyone willing to take the feat. Some function better for an actual monk than for a fighter who's taken unarmed strike.
I'll agree that level per level, monk focusing on monkly stuff, and fighter focusing on fighter stuff, the fighter will outdamage a monk.
However, I think that a monk would outdo a fighter if both of them are focusing in unarmed combat.
Hmm... do I want to spend the time putting together a straight monk for dmg comparison? ;(
Oh, also an important comparison is the stat generation method. In games I've actually played in, it's usually either 4d6, drop the lowest, six times. Or one of two ability arrays 18 16 14 12 10 8, or 18 16 14 10 10 10.
Also makes a difference :p
Look at the situation carefully, and consider whether you feel the amulet of mighty fists is appropriately priced (remember it ALSO sucks up the neck slot, so no amulet of natural armor for the poor monk either) and make what you feel is a balanced decision.
Eh? If ye have the spare gold, and can find a crafter of wondrous items, you could pay for having the natural armor integrated with you r mighty fists as well.. so 2 in 1... Just saying... :)
First, part of the reason a monks base damage increases, imo, isn't about how much strength they're putting into their blows. It's about
... his strength bonus. Which is based off his strength.
They they go and let monks use wisdom for attacks and damage, I'll accept that explanation.
I know gauntlets are not listed as a monk weapon - concede point there but as a DM I would allow them to be used in unarmed attacks & FOB as they dont restrict movement greatly in combat terms (they do for fine work though)
Gauntlets are armor. Monks in armor cannot do FOB. In my opinion, that is pretty clear in the rules.
Gauntlets are listed on the weapon charts as weapons, but they are also in the descriptions of the heavy and medium armors (chainmail, banded mail, full-plate, half-plate, scalemail, etc.). Additionally, locked gauntlets are listed as an armor modification. So it seems abundantly clear to me that gauntlets must be considered as armor, and at least medium armor at that. Otherwise, there is no grounds for a penalty for even a rogue using lockpicking or disable device while wearing a pair of spiked gauntlets (since no armor check penalty is ever listed separately and specifically for gauntlets). That does not seem consistent with the designer's intent (at least I hope not).
|
|
First, part of the reason a monks *base damage increases*, imo, isn't about how much strength they're putting into their blows. It's about
... his strength bonus. Which is based off his strength.
They they go and let monks use wisdom for attacks and damage, I'll accept that explanation.
Obviously their strength bonus is added, but ^ is *my* explanation for why the unarmed damage dice increase as they level. Hence why I specificd BASE DAMAGE INCREASE.
Anyhow, here's the lvl 10 monk build I came up with.
15 14 13 12 10 8
Human
Str 23 (15base +2racian +2 Bracers of Giant Strength +2 size increase+2levels)
Dex 11 (13 base, -2 size)
Con 12
Int 10
Wis14
Cha 8
HP 10d8+20 = 60
Saving Throws:
Fort 9 = 7 base + 2 con
Ref 7 = 7 base + 0 dex
Will 9 = 7 base + 2 wis
AC: Don’t care
Attacks:
Base - Unarmed +8/+8/+3/+3/ 1d10 + 4
Total - Unarmed +16/+16/+11/+11
Total Unarmed Damage: 4d8 + 9
Bonuses to attacks:
Flurry BAB +8
Str +6
Greater Magic Fang +3
Large size -1
Class abilities:
Ki Pool 6 points *important for extra attacks*
More stuff I don’t care about
Bab: +7 (+10 with FOB)
Equipment:
Starting with 49000
Gauntlets of the Talon 20000 +5 monk levels unarmed damage
Monk’s belt 13000 +5 monk lvls unarmed dmg
Permancy Enlarge Person 2500 Size increase
Permancy Magic Fang, Greater 7500 +3
Bracers of Giant Strength +2 4000
Leaves 2000g for whatever.
Feats:
Iron Will
Lady’s Gambit: Once per round as a Free Action, you may sacrifice up to your Character Level in hit-points (treat this as
lethal damage that bypasses Damage Reduction). For the 1 round, you receive +N bonus on Attack and
Damage, where N equals (hp sacrificed / 2).
Snap Kick Extra attack -2 to attacks
True Believer
Fists of Iron (1d6 dmg, uses stunning fist attempt, 10 stunning fist uses/day)
Power Attack
So combat generally goes like this:
For a standard round of combat, you’ll attack for:
16/+16/+11/+11, dealing 4d8 + 9 on each successful hit.
Using all the nice extra abilities all at once gives you the following bonuses:
+5 to hit and damage, +1d6 damage each attack, -2 to hit, another -2 to hit, an additional attack.
If you use power attack, you gain an additional penalty of -3 to hit, and a bonus of 6 to damage.
This would look something like: +14 +14 +14 +9 +9, dealing 4d8 + 1d6 + 20 damage.
Lets *try* to run those calculations. If I mess them up, I’m sick so it’s not my fault at the moment :p
h(d+s)+tchg = DPR
H = chance to hit as a percentage
D = damage per hit as an average
S = precision damage per hit, or other damage
T = change to roll a critical as a percentage
C = critical hit bonus damage x2 = 1 x3 = 2 x4 = 3
vs. ac 24
So, for standard combat you get :
66.66%(25) +5%*1= 16.5 + .05
66.66%(25) +5%*1= 16.5 + .05
45.8%(25) + 5%*1 = 11.45 + .05
45.8%(25) + 5%*1 = 11.45 + .05
Total DPR = 56.1
For the totally maxed-out single round combat, you get:
58.33%(39) + .05= 22.7989
58.33%(39) + .05= 22.7989
58.33%(39) + .05= 22.7989
58.33%(39) + .05= 22.7989
37.5%(39) + .05 = 14.675
37.5%(39) + .05 = 14.675
Total DPR = 120.5456
Alternatively, if we go for the highest attack bonus boost, that gives us:
+21/+21/+16/+16
Which is:
87.5%(30) + .05 = 26.3
87.5%(30) + .05 = 26.3
66.6%(30) + .05= 20.03
66.6%(30) + .05= 20.03
Total DPR = 92.96
So we see that, in this case, the multiple attacks do provide a better damage total. But not that even without the feat fun, the average round damage is still 56.1, and jumps up to 60.515 by subbing a feat out for Weapon Focus (see below).
70.83(25) + .05 =17.7075
70.83(25)+ .05 = 17.7075
50%(25) + .05 = 12.55
50%(25) +.05 = 12.55
Total DPR =60.515
|
|
Gauntlets are armor. Monks in armor cannot do FOB. In my opinion, that is pretty clear in the rules.Gauntlets are listed on the weapon charts as weapons, but they are also in the descriptions of the heavy and medium armors (chainmail, banded mail, full-plate, half-plate, scalemail, etc.). Additionally, locked gauntlets are listed as an armor modification. So it seems abundantly clear to me that gauntlets must be considered as armor, and at least medium armor at that. Otherwise, there is no grounds for a penalty for even a rogue using lockpicking or disable device while wearing a pair of spiked gauntlets (since no armor check penalty is ever listed separately and specifically for gauntlets). That does not seem consistent with the designer's intent (at least I hope not).
According to pathfinder, you can find entries for specific gauntlet types in both the weapons section and the armor section.
It seems to me that since regular and spiked gauntlets are listed under weapons, while locked gauntlet is listed under armor, that gauntlets are not defaulted as armor. Each different variation is classed as weapon or armor, depending on its major function. Thus, I would assume that since the default gauntlet is classified as a weapon, its major function isn't to protect the lower part of the arms and hand as much as it gives the wearer a fallback weapon if they get disarmed.
So, then, the issue that occurs is that a gauntlet isn't listed as a monk weapon.
"So, then, the issue that occurs is that a gauntlet isn't listed as a monk weapon."
- Gauntlets are worn when attacking with an unarmed strike.
"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."
|
|
Well, I didn't see any restrictions on what feats or abilities were usable. If you wanted me to restrict my usage, you should have mentioned it. Note that I did mention using any source.
The Ki monk ability can be used 10 times a day to add an additional attack.
Fists of Iron use a Stunning Fist use to deal an extra 1d6 damage on an attack.
Gauntlets of the Talon are from Complete Divine, I think, and work for non-monks as well as monks. Non monks get an unarmed attack better than the default, and I think a few other things. Monks get a bonus of +5 to monk level for determining unarmed strike. Note that they require a feat, or sacrificing a spell slot to use.
Though I did build a bit around doing the most damage possible in a single round. After all, the comparison page for DPR doesn't take into account the value of debuffs and ect...
If you'll refer to my earlier post, I mention that while I wouldn't let a monk enchant gauntlets like that, depending on the status of your game, it might make sense for you to houserule it in.
It depends on the DM's style, and the other players. In my campaign, the player monks get to do enough already with tumbling, stunning fist attacks, flurrying down the lower ac mobs, ect., that if they had any extra combat bonuses, they'd start taking over the fighter's niche, and making the game less fun for the two fighters. In your campaign, your mileage may vary.
To answer your question, would it be easier, probably. But that has nothing at all to do with whether it makes sense for the monk. Heck, it'd be easier to roll a d20 for damage, save yourself from having to switch dice, but that doesn't make sense either. You *if you're the dm*, or your dm, is the one to decide if it makes sense to them to houserule it in.
Another way to look at it is to compare the monk to the two-weapon fighting rogue. In exchange for sneak attack damage, the monk gets a bunch of special abilities. The rogue has to enchant two weapons if he wants to keep his damage current. The monk doesn't even have to use his hands to deal damage, so why shouldn't he have to pay a bit more for the advantage? Say... 2.5x the cost of enchanting a single weapon. (I think that's the formula that the amulets use)
Hmmm... possibly a formula in there somewhere.
Oh, and since it was asked earlier, this is where I see the monk in his niche:
Tumbling into the center of a group of lower ac baddies, flurrying and killing them all, and moving on while the fighter takes on the high ac mob.
Also, tumbling in to the spellcaster, stunning fist'ing them, and pummeling to death.
Since they *don't* have prime attack bonus, pitting them directly against the high ac guy is usually not the most effective use of their skills.
Greetings Pathfinders
I'm currently DM'ing my first Pathfinder group and one of the characters has asked me if he could use various gauntlets of special materials to overcome damage reduction and maybe enchant them later.
My initial take on this is that if you decide to attack with an unarmed attack, you either use:
Your Monk special training to inflict serious damage to your foes.
OR
You attack with the gauntlet and deal damage as in the charts 1d3My concern is that if I allow it, he then later will enchant them, a +1 weapon is 2000 + MWK + item price.
The wondrous item Amulet of Mighty Fist that does the exact same thing except the price is twice as expensive, 5000g.
Please help
My interpretation: if he wants to enchant the gauntlet as a weapon, then he's using it [u]as a weapon[/u], and thus cannot use any Monk abilities with it unless he springs for the Ki Focus enchantment, which still won't allow him to deal Monk unarmed damage because, again, he's using it as a weapon.
However, all that stuff is for future concerns. What you say he wants to do right now is put magical materials between his fists and the enemy to take advantage of special weaknesses, which strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I would allow that part unless enemies with DR is a critical part of your plans for the future.
It seems to me that since regular and spiked gauntlets are listed under weapons, while locked gauntlet is listed under armor, that gauntlets are not defaulted as armor. Each different variation is classed as weapon or armor, depending on its major function. Thus, I would assume that since the default gauntlet is classified as a weapon, its major function isn't to protect the lower part of the arms and hand as much as it gives the wearer a fallback weapon if they get disarmed.
Then why is it specifically noted for the medium and heavy armors, and not the light ones? And if you get a locked gauntlet, does it no longer function as a "weapon"? Spiked shields are listed on the "weapon" charts but not the armor charts, too; does that mean they are not armor, so that a Monk could use one without impact to his monk abilities? Does that mean spiked shields do not provide an AC bonus since there is no AC bonus listed for them on the armor chart?
Calling gauntlets weapons and not armor is simply ignoring common sense, reality and every conceivable aspect of the spirit of the game and class design. Again, if gauntlets are not armor, would a rogue be able to perform a disable device check without penalty while wearing a pair of spiked gauntlets? What about arcane spell failure? The metal buckles of padded armor have the potential to interfere with arcane spellcasting, but encasing both hands is metal gauntlets with huge spikes sticking out of them isn't even a potential risk?
Clearly the only sensible answers to these questions is that the gauntlets would interfere with the disable device as well as provide a risk to arcane spellcasting. The question then becomes how to determine the exact penalties. The only reference then would be to the actual armor descriptions where gauntlets are classified: you can be wearing full-plate gauntlets and get the full-plate penalties, or be wearing chainmail gauntlets and get chainmail penalties, etc. I can't conceive of any other interpretation making sense (short of adding specific armor listings for gauntlets, which would necessitate adding a specific target area feature to combat, opening a ridiculously huge can of worms).
Of course, I'm not the GM of your campaign, so there's no reason to care what I think is sensible. If it were me, though, I'd just look into a pair of gloves with zero combat effect, and see about placing enchantments on them.
I decided to look into the subject here. I found gauntlets do not work with Flurry of Blows. It is very clear in the wording.
"When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."
"Unarmed Attacks
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. B —
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethal"
If gauntlets were supposed to be used it would have stated Unarmed Attacks, not unarmed strike.
Seems clear for RAW and RAI now, however I don't think allowing it really breaks the game so long as they use the same damage chart for damage.