gauntlet and monk unarmed damage


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Vigilant Seal

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

does a monk get their damage bonus when using a gauntlet to strike an enemy?

Gauntlet
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.

Note: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.
Weapon Feature(s): cannot be disarmed

(Simple)
Unarmed Attack Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Special
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 x2 — 1 lb. B —


no, it deals 1d3 damage.
With it you can either
use an unarmed strike that can now deal lethal instead of only non-lethal.
Or
use the gauntlet to attack.


Monks only get bonus damage with actual unarmed strikes.

This is mainly to prevent double enchanting with Gauntlets and Wondrous Item whose slot I forgot of Mighty Fist.

Vigilant Seal

SorrySleeping wrote:

Monks only get bonus damage with actual unarmed strikes.

This is mainly to prevent double enchanting with Gauntlets and Wondrous Item whose slot I forgot of Mighty Fist.

is this listed somewhere specifically? I've got a player who's arguing this and I'd like to point him toward an errata or FAQ. I agree with his point as written based on the description above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would it be different? A gauntlet is not an unarmed strike, it is a gauntlet. They are two separate lines on the weapon table.

Like they don't write rules saying stuff you can't do, they write saying what you can. So unless you can find a rule that would let you, you can't.

it's kinda like, "Can you show where it lists specifically where it says humans don't have 10 hands and 3 heads" or "can you show where it lists specifically that you need a fly speed to fly?" you can show the rules that say what you can do. But you're not going to find rules that say you can't do stuff that doesn't follow what you can do.


If need outland I can dig up a few post from developers nothing that is official but it is the intent.

Vigilant Seal

Talonhawke wrote:
If need outland I can dig up a few post from developers nothing that is official but it is the intent.

if you have them handy that would help yes.

Chess Pwn wrote:
"clipped for space"

trying not to be rude. but you've effectively said nothing. I get that logic could interpret the rules this way but you've cited nothing that would negate the line in the gauntlet rules that states " strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."

the interpretation here is that it is considered an unarmed attack when using a gauntlet, therefore any effect related to an unarmed strike would apply. it's not a chose to attack unarmed or chose to attack as a manufactured weapon, it's a special property of the weapon.

to counter your point, a staff is not two weapons, however it's description states you can attack with it using two weapon fighting and treat each head as a separate weapon.


The subject of Brawlers/Monks using Gauntlets has been a hotly debated issue for years now. Unfortunately there is a great deal of misinformation floating around the boards (mostly the result of certain developers posting their unofficial opinions, and said opinions being cited as if they were official rulings). Although this topic comes up fairly frequently, the development team has yet to release an official ruling on the subject.

After reading every single bit of relevant rules text, and arguing with posters here in the boards numerous times, my personal opinion can be summarized by the following example:
If a 3rd level Brawler/Monk attacks an enemy with a +1 Gauntlet, said Brawler/Monk is making an Unarmed Strike with said +1 Gauntlet. Therefore they receive the +1 Enhancement Bonus to Attack and Damage rolls from the +1 Gauntlet, and may use the favorable damage progression table granted by their Unarmed Strike class feature.

A summery of my reasoning is as follows:
The description of the Gauntlet makes it perfectly clear to me that an attack with one is treated just like any other form of Unarmed Strike, except that the attacker may choose to cause Lethal damage without penalty, and that it is considered an Unarmed Attack. The Brawler/Monk Unarmed Strike class allows you to use its favorable damage progression with any Unarmed Strike (which an attack with a Gauntlet is), and features no prohibition against using a gauntlet specifically.

It is my personal opinion, that the only legitimate reason for Gauntlets to exist mechanically is for Brawlers/Monks to be able acquire Enhancement Bonuses for their Unarmed Strike just like any other martial can for their weapon of choice.

Some will argue that you flat out cannot Enchant a gauntlet. The RAW does not support their opinions. That belief is spawned by an unofficial ruling a developer sent to Hero Labs and not substantiated by the RAW at all. You can buy masterwork gauntlets, and said gauntlets can be made into magical weapons, just like any other manufactured weapon which you can purchase. In fact, there are numerous published examples of magical items explicitly defined as being +1 gauntlets to prove it.

Others will argue in open defiance of the RAW that a gauntlet isn't an Unarmed Strike, or an Unarmed Attack. Instead they believe it is a regular weapon (like a longsword) that just happens to provoke attacks of opportunity if the wielder does not have Improved Unarmed Strike (therefore a Brawler/Monk would only do the damage listed by the weapon itself, and not the favorable damage progression granted by their Unarmed Strike class feature). This belief is spawned by the unofficial opinions posted by certain developers onto the boards a number of years ago, and once again, is not substantiated by the RAW (which says the exact opposite) or by any official FAQ ruling posted by the PDT.


Dev quote wall of text:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.

Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)

Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.

The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.

Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."

SKR wrote:

What's especially ironic (to me, at least) is the timeline goes like this:

* At the time Adventurer's Armory and the APG were being developed, I was the developer on the Player Companions line, and the sole developer of the AA
* back then, Jason was the only person on the design "team"
* the original brass knuckles that appeared the Adventurer's Armory didn't explicitly say whether a monk got his special unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles
* AA went to print
* Paizo needed additional equipment content for the APG, and decided to pick up a bunch of stuff from the AA
* the brass knuckles were one of the items they picked up for the APG
* AA lands in the hands of customers
* customers with AA started asking whether a monk could use his better unarmed damage with BK
* I said in this post, "Monks use their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles" (Edit: link corrected)
* someone (I honestly don't know who, could have been me, could have been someone else) made changes to the BK text for the APG, clarifying that "[monks] can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with [brass knuckles]"
* the APG went to print
* Jason and I had a discussion about BK in the AA; I'm sure that discussion included Jason being concerned about how monk unarmed strikes could kicks or elbows or whatever, and allowing monks to use BK with their increased monk damage, even when the attack might be from a body part other than the hands would be really strange (obviously this is long before the 2013 errata allowing monks to flurry with one body part instead of multiple ones)
* in that discussion, Jason either convinced me we shouldn't allow monks to get their increased unarmed damage with BK, or he decided that's how he wanted it to work in PF
* as a result of that discussion, BK in the AA errata were changed to what they are now (moving them out of the unarmed category, not mentioning unarmed strikes, still not calling out that monks should get unarmed strike damage with them, because not getting that is the default for any weapon)
* because the APG had already gone to the printer, that book still had different wording for BK (which, as far as I can tell, is the same in the 1st and 2nd APG printings, "[monks] an use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them").
* years later, Ultimate Equipment went into development
* knowing the change to BK in AA, I (the developer for the weapons section of UE) updated the BK text as per the years-old discussion with Jason, so the BK entry doesn't include the APG text allowing monks to use their unarmed damage with BK
* UE went to print, APG still has the old text, controversy ensues

Everyone assumes I hate monks and don't think monks should get their unarmed strike damage with brass knuckles. But I linked above a 2010 post where I said they should get their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles. And although I argue against unarmed+BK in later discussions, I also say things like "the monk needs a revision, not a bandage to fix its problems, and brass knuckles are a bandage, not a revision." Would allowing monks to use unarmed damage with BKs help monks become competitive? Yes. Is it the best solution? No, because the monk really needs a fix, not a patch-with-equipment.*

Looking back from today's perspective, and knowing that I'm much more liberal in my rule interpretations**, and perhaps influenced by my time playing World of Warcraft and seeing its monk class in action***, I think monks should get their unarmed damage with brass knuckles. And given the FAQ/errata to the core rules about monks being able to use a single weapon for all of their flurry attacks, there are other questions about BK that should be addressed (like if flaming on brass knuckles should add to your monk unarmed strike damage).

So perhaps the question isn't, "Hey, design team, can you post an official FAQ/errata about the conflicting brass knuckles rules text between APG and UE?," it's "Hey, design team, with errata changes to flurry of blows and using one body part for making a flurry, do you still want monks to not get their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles?"

But I don't know if the second question is something players are interested in.
And, in any case, I am no longer on the design team, so my opinion probably doesn't carry any weight in this.

* Even though we did it again with the bodywraps in Ultimate Equipment... ah, well.
** Even though that's not what you're used to seeing from me in many rules discussions about the FAQs, which come about as a group decision by the design team with lead designer Jason having the option of overruling SRM and SKR.
*** They can equip weapons, but when they make unarmed attacks the weapons aren't visible in the animations, and any special abilities the weapons have (like flaming) simply apply to their unarmed attacks. In other words, what weapon they have equipped is purely for stats, magic, and flavor; WOW monks are still as unarmed as they want to be, and as effective as a weapon-armed character.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Good job guys at breaking that one useful Monk weapon there. Any rationale behind the nerf?

Treating brass knuckles, gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cesti, and rope gauntlets as "unarmed attacks" doesn't make a lot of sense (because you're not unarmed, you have metal/leather/rope/etc. there).

It also brings up weird questions like

* If I have +5 flaming brass knuckles/gauntlets/spiked gauntlets, am I doing unarmed strike damage, the listed weapon damage, or both?

* How do the magical properties on those weapons interact with my monk unarmed damage? Does this make the ki focus properly useless on these types of weapons?

* Am I doing monk unarmed damage plus enhancement bonus plus 1d6 fire?

* How does this interact with an amulet of mighty fists?

* How does this interact with properties like brilliant energy?

* What about creatures that harm attackers who hit them, am I considered armed and safe or unarmed and not safe?

Making all of these weapons act 100% like weapons and not refer to unarmed attacks at all means these questions go away.


Thank you for collecting all of that information into one post Talonhawke! Even though I call those unofficial opinions unsubstantiated by the RAW, think the logic therein is absurd, and would house-rule otherwise if said opinion ever became the official ruling through Errata/FAQ... I really do appreciate you gathering said information so that others can make their own informed decisions.


no problem keep in mind most of the issue comes from monks using their whole body and unless we are going to turn weapons into stat sticks where your flaming Gauntlets make your kicks burn things then the whole system needs an overhaul.


True, I am probably the most permissive Pathfinder GM I know, and I wouldn't let a Brawler/Monk to apply the benefits of their +1 Flaming Gauntlet to a Kick (or any other attack with a limb other than the one wearing the Gauntlet). That would be absurd.
But I did also write up Sabatons as items that function like Gauntlets but do not occupy a hand (or require a "hand of effort" to wield) because they are worn on the feet... so in my games a Brawler/Monk could have a +1 Flaming Sabaton instead to make Kicks with if they so chose.

Vigilant Seal

Thanks Talonhawke for the wall of info.

now, after reading it I agree with Cantriped on it being unusable from a rules perspective. the key word in Sean's writing is "should". until the rules are officially changed, all of his writing is a houserule at best.

I also dont understand his confusion with how a gauntlet and an amulet of MF would interact. there's a general rule that states "similar bonuses granted from different sources do not stack unless explictly stated". so it's the same instance as using a ring of protection with
the mage armor spell. basically pick the "highest" and use that. however it would get confusing if you have a flaming gauntlet with a shocking amulet.

personally I would allow it as Monks are underpowered as written anyway. losing that weapon enchantment slot is pretty rough.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Several facts are not being highlighted:

  • Brass Knuckles used monk unarmed in AA, in APG. Errata issued for AA. UE used errata version of AA that doesn't allow monk unarmed. APG has not yet got the Brass Knuckle errata, but will.
  • All the "no monk unarmed" developer posts are official as they were prior to the charge debate where SRM said "no posts are official".
  • Allowing monk unarmed allows double dipping bonuses (which is a major reason they are not allowed). If allowed you enhance the gauntlet as a +5 and you enhance your amulet of mighty fists as flaming, brilliant and your gauntlet is a +5 flaming brilliant energy weapon.
  • Paizo officially responded to Herolab how to program it to match the official rules and doesn't have monk unarmed dice.
  • None of the weapons say they grant monk unarmed (except the "not yet errata" version of APG.)
  • Unarmed Strike is an Unarmed Attacks, but not all Unarmed Attacks are Unarmed Strike. For example, gauntlet isn't an unarmed strike.
  • Gauntlets let people who don't have IUS deal lethal, and provoke. It is a cheap upgrade for a non-monk/brawler.

I'm fine with anyone using gauntlets how ever they like. It's wrong to assert they provide monk unarmed damage, when we have overwhelming advice to the contrary.


James Risner wrote:

Several facts are not being highlighted:

  • Brass Knuckles used monk unarmed in AA, in APG. Errata issued for AA. UE used errata version of AA that doesn't allow monk unarmed. APG has not yet got the Brass Knuckle errata, but will.
  • All the "no monk unarmed" developer posts are official as they were prior to the charge debate where SRM said "no posts are official".
  • Allowing monk unarmed allows double dipping bonuses (which is a major reason they are not allowed). If allowed you enhance the gauntlet as a +5 and you enhance your amulet of mighty fists as flaming, brilliant and your gauntlet is a +5 flaming brilliant energy weapon.
  • Paizo officially responded to Herolab how to program it to match the official rules and doesn't have monk unarmed dice.
  • None of the weapons say they grant monk unarmed (except the "not yet errata" version of APG.)
  • Unarmed Strike is an Unarmed Attacks, but not all Unarmed Attacks are Unarmed Strike. For example, gauntlet isn't an unarmed strike.
  • Gauntlets let people who don't have IUS deal lethal, and provoke. It is a cheap upgrade for a non-monk/brawler.

I'm fine with anyone using gauntlets how ever they like. It's wrong to assert they provide monk unarmed damage, when we have overwhelming advice to the contrary.

Yep I I tried to dig up what i could on it as best as I could but there is a lot out there to sift through.


Outland King wrote:

Thanks Talonhawke for the wall of info.

now, after reading it I agree with Cantriped on it being unusable from a rules perspective. the key word in Sean's writing is "should". until the rules are officially changed, all of his writing is a houserule at best.

I also dont understand his confusion with how a gauntlet and an amulet of MF would interact. there's a general rule that states "similar bonuses granted from different sources do not stack unless explictly stated". so it's the same instance as using a ring of protection with
the mage armor spell. basically pick the "highest" and use that. however it would get confusing if you have a flaming gauntlet with a shocking amulet.

personally I would allow it as Monks are underpowered as written anyway. losing that weapon enchantment slot is pretty rough.

You enchant them differently. Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't need to be a +1 before applying effects, meaning you can have +5 speed flaming burst guanlet and a icy burst, acid burst, keen amulet of mighty fist.

Which does add a while lot of questions that do both even stack, or do you have to pick, can use a gauntlet for one attack and the mighty fist for another?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) I have no comment on this because I'm talking about Gauntlets, not Brass Knuckles.

2) No posts are official means previous posts are invalidated as well.

3) Double Dipping Bonuses isn't a legitimate issue, both are Enhancement Bonuses (even the special abilities are Enhancement Bonus Equivalents), and therefore don't stack. I would only allow a player to use one such source at a time, so either the Gauntlet or the Amulet of Mighty Fists, but not both. Best case scenario a GM might allow them to stack up to +10 worth, at fairly significant discount I suppose, but the cost of an important slot that would otherwise have provided much needed AC boosts.

4) Paizo's "official response" as you put it, was not substantiated by the RAW, and is therefore irrelevant (also I did indeed highlight it above).

5) Gauntlets do not have too include such a clause, because their description clearly defines that their function is to modify an Unarmed Strike. Therefore they function as an Unarmed Strike unless otherwise noted, such as when they note that you deal Lethal Damage.

6) A Gauntlet modifies an Unarmed Strike, and is considered an Unarmed Attack.

7) Yes, it lets people who don't have IUS deal lethal damage... with Unarmed Strikes! The fact that an attack with a gauntlet still provokes (as per the rules for Unarmed Attacks, and never explicitly stated in the description of the Gauntlet itself) is why they are only viable for the purposes of enchanting a Brawler/Monks Unarmed Strikes. I've been playing D&D since before 3rd edition and I've never, ever seen anyone use a Gauntlet in armed combat.

~8) It is not wrong to follow the RAW, The development team has had years, literally years, to release an Errata/FAQ clarifying their position. Until they do so the RAW stands. You are of course free to House Rule otherwise in your own Campaigns.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cantriped wrote:

3) "allow them to stack up to +10 worth"

4) "not substantiated by the RAW"
5) "their description clearly defines that their function is to modify an Unarmed Strike"
6) "A Gauntlet modifies an Unarmed Strike, and is considered an Unarmed Attack."
7) "people who don't have IUS deal lethal damage... with Unarmed Strikes!"
8) "You are of course free to House Rule otherwise in your own Campaigns."

3) yes

4) no, as your version of RAW isn't right.

5) modify but are not Unarmed Strikes.

6) Ding Ding Ding, yes

7) yes, but that is attacking with unarmed strikes not gauntlets.

8) I'm fine with your version of the RAW in your game. It's disruptive to use your version of the RAW on here where we have overwhelming advice your version isn't correct. It's better to not call the other RAW a house rule.


Cantriped wrote:

1) I have no comment on this because I'm talking about Gauntlets, not Brass Knuckles.

2) No posts are official means previous posts are invalidated as well.

3) Double Dipping Bonuses isn't a legitimate issue, both are Enhancement Bonuses (even the special abilities are Enhancement Bonus Equivalents), and therefore don't stack. I would only allow a player to use one such source at a time, so either the Gauntlet or the Amulet of Mighty Fists, but not both. Best case scenario a GM might allow them to stack up to +10 worth, at fairly significant discount I suppose, but the cost of an important slot that would otherwise have provided much needed AC boosts.

4) Paizo's "official response" as you put it, was not substantiated by the RAW, and is therefore irrelevant (also I did indeed highlight it above).

5) Gauntlets do not have too include such a clause, because their description clearly defines that their function is to modify an Unarmed Strike. Therefore they function as an Unarmed Strike unless otherwise noted, such as when they note that you deal Lethal Damage.

6) A Gauntlet modifies an Unarmed Strike, and is considered an Unarmed Attack.

7) Yes, it lets people who don't have IUS deal lethal damage... with Unarmed Strikes! The fact that an attack with a gauntlet still provokes (as per the rules for Unarmed Attacks, and never explicitly stated in the description of the Gauntlet itself) is why they are only viable for the purposes of enchanting a Brawler/Monks Unarmed Strikes. I've been playing D&D since before 3rd edition and I've never, ever seen anyone use a Gauntlet in armed combat.

~8) It is not wrong to follow the RAW, The development team has had years, literally years, to release an Errata/FAQ clarifying their position. Until they do so the RAW stands. You are of course free to House Rule otherwise in your own Campaigns.

1. Check the third quote they are all being talked about as one.

2. No previous rulings didn't suddenly get invalidated by that statement.
3. Enhancement sure but the real issue is special qualities.
4. They did as my post show change the language.
5. See the last quote again.
6. ""
7. ""
8. They have errated the things that called out monk specifically the other has been said to be in the works on a FAQ/Errata for about a year. But we only get a handle of FAQs a year sadly so it really falls less on them not wanting it changed compared to having other higher priority issues.


As I've said before James. We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic. You cannot persuade me you're correct, and I cannot persuade you that I am correct; we are destined to do this forever. We both have access to the same information, and neither of us is stupid, yet have come to very different conclusions. The only logical conclusion is that the rules were so poorly written that a consensus is impossible.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cantriped wrote:
As I've said before James. We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic. You cannot persuade me you're correct, and I cannot persuade you that I am correct; we are destined to do this forever.

+1

So neither of us are using a "house rule".

That is right. When one of us starts calling the other interpretation a "house rule", that is wrong.


It is an issue of perspective. Either of us could be accurately said to be using house rules from the perspective of the other, and a third party could accurately say both of us are using house rules.
Currently any ruling on Gauntlets is the Schrodinger's Cat of Pathfinder Rules, existing in a state of House-Rule Indeterminability until the PDT opens the box (by releasing an Official Errata/FAQ).

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You're BOTH house ruling! ;)


See!
BTW, please hit FAQ on the OP, even if you're sure your interpretation (whatever it may be) is correct. Perhaps if we flood the PDT with enough versions of this question they will actually get up off their collective asses can make an official ruling *boundless optimism strikes again*.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Previous long thread about this

Basically, I still disagree with James.

Every version of Gauntlet (and similar wording in most similar weapons) says

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. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

You are using the gauntlet to make unarmed strikes. No just an unarmed attack, but specifically an unarmed strike.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I think the best link from that thread is SKR post of 'People also need to get over using "well it's just Sean's opinion, not a FAQ, so it's not official" as a rebuttal.'

It is sort of abusing the process by continuing to willfully disagree with the stated way the rules work until they get down to directly addressing one individual via errata by changing a line that 99% of people can accept a forum post to settle.


James Risner wrote:

I think the best link from that thread is SKR post of 'People also need to get over using "well it's just Sean's opinion, not a FAQ, so it's not official" as a rebuttal.'

It is sort of abusing the process by continuing to willfully disagree with the rules until they get down to directly addressing one individual via errata by changing a line that 99% of people can accept a forum post to settle.

Throwing unprovable statistics into your argument really hurts your credibility here James; especially when you are using them to assault to credibility of your opponents by implying that anyone who disagrees with you is in the minority (and therefore most likely wrong).

Also, that quoted post doesn't help your argument. It is the complaint of a disenfranchised former employee who was upset that his unofficial, unsubstantiated opinions weren't being given the weight he thought they deserved.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cantriped wrote:
unofficial, unsubstantiated opinions weren't being given the weight he thought they deserved.

Coincidentally, his unofficial unsubstantiated opinions match your view. Monks should be able to use brass knuckles/gauntlets for unarmed strike damage. But that isn't what is the design goal for the system and it isn't his call to change it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cantriped wrote:
Throwing unprovable statistics

As for the stats, no I can't prove them. But I've got nearly 500 games of play and I don't remember a single player using gauntlets or brass knuckles in PFS for unarmed strike damage. So I think 99% is accurate from my PaizoCon/Origins/DragonCon/Con-on-the-Cob/ShadowCon/NeonCon/Lexicon and Gencon perspective. But I don't know. I've probably only played with 3000 players, so my sample rate is low.

I will say that on here, it's probably 50% saying it works. Which I think is common for internet rules debates.


James Risner wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Throwing unprovable statistics

As for the stats, no I can't prove them. But I've got nearly 500 games of play and I don't remember a single player using gauntlets or brass knuckles in PFS for unarmed strike damage. So I think 99% is accurate from my PaizoCon/Origns/DragonCon/Con-on-the-Cob/ShadowCon/NeonCon/Lexicon and Gencon perspective. But I don't know. I've probably only played with 3000 players, so my sample rate is low.

I will say that on here, it's probably 50% saying it works. Which I think is common for internet rules debates.

I think a lot of people assume that developer intent is the same as RAW.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

nicholas storm wrote:
I think a lot of people assume that developer intent is the same as RAW.

I do.

PFS assumes that.
Most people I play together do also.

Paizo would like us to do that, then they wouldn't need to make FAQ/Errata as much.

Half if not more of the errata/faq is to fix a line that can be read to match intent, but some read it to disagree with intent and ignore dev posts. So I guess we "need to post a FAQ to fix".

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

If we can get 40 to 60 FAQ clicks on this, we can likely settle a 8 year old FAQ. So I'd recommend if you are passionate about this that you FAQ and you solicit your friends to FAQ also.


James Risner wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
I think a lot of people assume that developer intent is the same as RAW.

I do.

PFS assumes that.
Most people I play together do also.

Paizo would like us to do that, then they wouldn't need to make FAQ/Errata as much.

Half if not more of the errata/faq is to fix a line that can be read to match intent, but some read it to disagree with intent and ignore dev posts. So I guess we "need to post a FAQ to fix".

I do too, that's why I figure this doesn't really need a FAQ to fix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
No previous rulings didn't suddenly get invalidated by that statement.

I have to agree with Cantriped here. One of the given reasons for the change was that people shouldn't have to dig through the boards to find rulings. Why would they want to keep old post rulings that would continue to force people to do that? Isn't that why we have sections for official rules changes/clarifications? Any post that doesn't not have 'this is an official post/change', like the one in the playtest, IMO is unofficial.

James Risner wrote:

I think the best link from that thread is SKR post of 'People also need to get over using "well it's just Sean's opinion, not a FAQ, so it's not official" as a rebuttal.'

It is sort of abusing the process by continuing to willfully disagree with the stated way the rules work until they get down to directly addressing one individual via errata by changing a line that 99% of people can accept a forum post to settle.

Until something sees an ACTUAL FAQ/errata/blog, it IS just an unofficial post. Before that official notice, something can change and opinions can be swayed. Even FAQ's have changed [monk flurry, SLA count as casting, ect] so WHY would I assume that a dev post is written in stone and count it as official?

IMO it's "abusing the process" to do otherwise. To reply to the link, yes it WAS his opinion until it saw print. No matter how informed his opinion was, it wasn't a sure thing that it would match an official ruling when it finally comes. Even official rulings get overturned and what is perceived as right today may not be tomorrow.

nicholas storm wrote:
I think a lot of people assume that developer intent is the same as RAW.

Intent is mutable and varies. What was intended by the author may not be that of some of the dev's and may change over time. It's not a sure thing until it sees print and even then it could change.


James Risner wrote:

As for the stats, no I can't prove them. But I've got nearly 500 games of play and I don't remember a single player using gauntlets or brass knuckles in PFS for unarmed strike damage. So I think 99% is accurate from my PaizoCon/Origins/DragonCon/Con-on-the-Cob/ShadowCon/NeonCon/Lexicon and Gencon perspective. But I don't know. I've probably only played with 3000 players, so my sample rate is low.

I will say that on here, it's probably 50% saying it works. Which I think is common for internet rules debates.

James Risner wrote:

I do.

PFS assumes that.
Most people I play together do also.

Paizo would like us to do that, then they wouldn't need to make FAQ/Errata as much.
Half if not more of the errata/faq is to fix a line that can be read to match intent, but some read it to disagree with intent and ignore dev posts. So I guess we "need to post a FAQ to fix".

I don't have your game count or player count James, but likewise I've never seen a single player using Gauntlets, for Monk/Brawler Damage or otherwise. PFS players are also usually smart enough to avoid vague or heavily disputed rules subject to a high degree of Table Variance. Because who wants their character to suddenly suck just because they came to the wrong table. But by the same token, I doubt you actually sampled said ~3,000 players for their opinions on this specific topic, so the statistic, while impressive, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

As for RAI being treated as RAW, I don't give a single spoon what Paizo wants. If I am paying money for a ruleset, I expect said ruleset to be professionally written and appropriately play tested. If their rules are unclear, then I expect them to use errata to clarify the rules so that RAW matches RAI.

Finally, your statement that PFS assumes Developer Intent is RAW is just plain untrue. I haven't played very much PFS, but the rules for it make quite clear that in PFS RAW is King of the Mountain. So much so that they must release Official Clarification Documents for things Paizo normally doesn't errata, and maintain a long Blacklist of unavailable RAW content.
SKR's posts are not included in the list of Additional Resources for PFS. As a PFS GM you would be violating your Code of Conduct by using his posts instead of the actual RAW when making a ruling (and therefore be stricken of your Paizo-granted class features; as per the Ex-Game Master section of your Class entry).


Quote:
As for RAI being treated as RAW, I don't give a single spoon what Paizo wants. If I am paying money for a ruleset, I expect said ruleset to be professionally written and appropriately play tested. If their rules are unclear, then I expect them to use errata to clarify the rules so that RAW matches RAI.

I imagine you are going to be disappointed by most rulesets I'm afraid.


Indeed I frequently am. Thankfully there is at least one good system for fantasy role playing, with 6 and a half editions worth of revision and refinement and a history nearly as long as D&Ds. Unfortunately most gamers don't even know it exists, but it will always be my favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the lasting success of pathfinder has more to do with the abundance of scenarios available than the ruleset.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cantriped wrote:

PFS assumes Developer Intent is RAW is just plain untrue. I haven't played very much PFS ... PFS RAW is King of the Mountain.

SKR's posts are not included in the list of Additional Resources for PFS. As a PFS GM you would be violating your Code of Conduct by using his posts instead of the actual RAW when making a ruling

Pretty much your entire paragraph isn't correct.

PFS RAW means:

  • Don't change encounters.
  • Don't rule 0 away Summoners.
  • Don't make longswords deal 1d10 damage in the hands of humans.
  • Do pay attention to developer posts where they tell you how rules work.
  • Campaign Clarifications often restate how the rules work before errata/FAQ are published and are good indicators of how the future errata/FAQ will look.


Cantriped wrote:
Indeed I frequently am. Thankfully there is at least one good system for fantasy role playing, with 6 and a half editions worth of revision and refinement and a history nearly as long as D&Ds. Unfortunately most gamers don't even know it exists, but it will always be my favorite.

I know it exists and like it more than Pathfinder. But that system is the most abuseable system I have ever seen and takes a great deal of restraint on the players not to build completely over-powered characters and to keep every player's character in roughly the same power category.


James Risner wrote:
Do pay attention to developer posts where they tell you how rules work.

Nope. Not mentioned anywhere in the Pathfinder Society Guild Guide. What is mentioned though is:

Pathfinder Society Guild Guide, page 12 wrote:
As a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.

Note that the phrases "Developer Posts" or "Official Forum Post" (or any permutations thereof) are not included in that paragraph, or anywhere else in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide. Nor are any "Official Forum Posts" included in the Additional Resources document, or the Campaign Clarifications Document.

As a PFS Player or GM, you have to play by the rules as they are actually written. Not the rules as some developer can be quoted in a forum post to think they are intended to be adjudicated. Any forum post you can cite which states otherwise in irrelevant and impermissible as a ruling within the bounds of the Pathfinder Society Guild Guide as it is currently written.


Pink Dragon wrote:
I know it exists and like it more than Pathfinder. But that system is the most abuseable system I have ever seen and takes a great deal of restraint on the players not to build completely over-powered characters and to keep every player's character in roughly the same power category.

Oh it is indeed very one of the most abusible systems ever written, however it's lack of absolute effects limits the actual scope of its abusibility. Any abuse you can imagine a GM can easily counter. The system also expects a greater degree of GM oversight than other systems usually do.

Anyway, it isn't as though RAW Pathfinder is free of abuse either, it has Wish Factories and DPR Champions that can one-shot Anything within 3 CRs of itself, and any number of other forms of shenanigans.


Cantriped wrote:
The system also expects a greater degree of GM oversight than other systems usually do.

Which is why it is not a good system for organized play.


Indeed, you'd have to strip it down so far for Organized Play that it wouldn't be the same system anymore. Although I must admit I'm considering running a PBP Hero Game here on the Paizo Boards. I've already made sure the dice rollers can handle it, I just have to consider how I'd manage a combat given how actions and aborting works in Hero.

But I digress... again.


I've considered running an organized play "campaign" using Hero Game rules where each game is a 4 hour scenario with an upfront goal that the characters must achieve.

Scenarios would not necessarily depend on combat for success. Perqs would be disallowed in character construction and any powers/talents having a stop sign or yield sign would be disallowed.

I am still not sure whether this would even out the success potential for all characters. It would take careful scenario design to ensure that combat heavy characters and one-trick ponies would not always succeed.

I digress too.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

Nope. Not mentioned anywhere in the Pathfinder Society Guild Guide. What is mentioned though is:

Pathfinder Society Guild Guide, page 12 wrote:
within the rules
As a PFS Player or GM, you have to play by the rules as they are actually written.

What you are refusing to admit is a GM running the rules as he interprets them is doing exactly that. Using the rules written within the rules.

Vigilant Seal

James Risner wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

Nope. Not mentioned anywhere in the Pathfinder Society Guild Guide. What is mentioned though is:

Pathfinder Society Guild Guide, page 12 wrote:
within the rules
As a PFS Player or GM, you have to play by the rules as they are actually written.
What you are refusing to admit is a GM running the rules as he interprets them is doing exactly that. Using the rules written within the rules.

what does that even mean? the point of this before it gets bogged down in symantics is that per PFS documentation, anything posted in a forum is not admissable, regardless of the intent behind it.

until an official errata or FAQ is published, the rules are as written. If the rule "should" be interpreted a specific way, make it official using the official channels outlined by Paizo themselves. Anything outside of that is personal opinion and subject to different readings."

this is to avoid scenarios where a single developer makes a post that is not vetted by his/her peers and (hopefully) put through playtesting.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

That is grossly oversimplified or incorrect.

PFS "RAW" has been explained to be:

  • Don't change encounters.
  • Don't ban classes.
  • Don't change how rules are know to work (long swords deal 2d12).

What they have said is the GM is free to interpret the rules as they see them. There is no concept of having to use some group think of the most awkward interpretations. They have said if you know intent, use it.

Basically the whole concept of RAW as pushed by a minority here is incongruent with the use by PFS.

PFS grants the GM the power given to them by the core rule book to interpret the meaning of the rules. It doesn't restrict them to some pet interpretations by players that gives them unlimited power to wreck games.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

James is right. The PFS GMs are supposed to rules the game as they feel the rules work. PFS GMs are very much able to read rules thread to decide how they'd rule something.

PFS GMs are free to rule in whatever manner they see fit barring official sources overriding/clarifying the rule.

So if a PFS GM says that you can't mounted charge since you have reach and your mount doesn't it's rules for that table. And since I highly doubt you can provide official source that says otherwise it's the GM's right to be able to rule that way since that's how he feels the written rules work.

If a GM says or does something and there's an official clarification on that matter then he must follow that clarification. But for things not clarified, which is most things, the GM is supposed to rule as he feels the rules are. Meaning that prior to the official clarification a PFS GM had complete power and legality ruling that shield master only negated TWF penalties.

guide to PFS wrote:

WHAT IS A GAME MASTER?

A GM’s duty is to provide a fair and fun game.

YOUR DUTIES AS GAME MASTER
Run the scenario as written and within the time constraints of the event.

page 5 resources
While GMs are not required to read every post on the forums, they need to keep abreast of clarifications. At no time may a GM ignore rules clarifications. Any clarification made in a forum thread will be added to the FAQ, campaign clarifications, or Roleplaying Guild Guide as soon as possible.

So yeah. Not seeing where it says GMs are forced to follow the rules as you see them.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Chess Pwn rocks!

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / gauntlet and monk unarmed damage All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.