maquille oneal's page

except it is armor, your wizard is not proficient with it, neither is your monk. Also you just try fine manipulation of your hands wearing gauntlets. It's kinda like wearing thick heavy insulated gloves. You will not be doing much spell casting in em.

I am sorry but this is loophole rule abusing at it's finest. Common sense still has a place in the game. Gauntlets are armor, they are not gloves, . They are on the weapon list for people who want to punch someone while wearing armor that's it, same as shield bash.

what about gauntlets being listed in the weapon _descriptions_ as well as the weapon charts. ie - armor & your shield example are both listed.

I agree with Hydro's assessment in this one. Ki and Medusa's Wrath are not Haste-derived and therefore stack.

me three

After much consideration of the wording regarding gauntlets and the possible impact of various changes I'm looking at making the following changes to clear up any ambiguity:

Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed attack (no -4 penalty). An attack 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. A gauntlet is treated as having a weapon in hand with regard to somatic components for characters subject to arcane spell failure. A gauntlet is always considered a light weapon.

Thats what i figured would come out of this, a change of the rules to split gauntlets off. It sounds there pretty official, can this be deemed come from some voice of authority?

and if so, did this gauntlet question really not come up in all the play testing??? from a balance point of view, i see the point. but as mentioned by most of the comments above, monks using brass knuckles or something is not really TOO crazy is it?? saying monks dont belong or this and that kind of monk doesnt belong in the game system calls into question why they are there at all.

now within the pathfinder game world, sure. as an optional class or something whatever, but they are presented as a core class to go in ALL settings that use pathfinder rules. Monks choose from; at this point a very VERY limited set of weapons as is. With their less than four pages of description (including the picture) monks are already nearly omitted as a class.

i dunno.
imho the real imbalance threat is getting LARGE monks with gauntlets that are considered unarmed. not whether they take a proficiency to use, or anything else. its that a 4d8 can be then turned into a brilliant or whatever weapon.. (check monk's robe for base damage tastiness).

so saying they are weapons and not suitable for that damage increase or crosssover with the amulet of the fist is one thing. but your take on it as stated above i think is a bit too restrictive as it rules out the flurry, with just a simple +1 or whatever. (which has to be paid for each hand).

so you have -
monk base attack bonus - no gauntletted hands.
flurry - only monk weapons - gauntlet is a monk weapon under proposal.

just add the "monk" and/or "double" specifier to the weapon and at least you have come to a compromise ... ? regardless as written the rules are ambiguous, so yes maybe an errata. or this all becomes a house rule.

imho, it just seems that monks were handled coarsely and as an afterthought. something like - "give em BaB of fighters in the flurry and the base powers of 3.5, a pretty picture of a campaign specific weapon and thats that."

and to compensate for this error in approach to completely reign in all "enabling" interpretations seems to be a good example of a the word nerf.

Rather than rethinking their role within or quite possibly rightfully OMITTING them from the rule system all together if their place cant be mapped along with the other character classes.

Does this mean you could have +5 guantlets of flaming/flameburst/whatever up to 5 points worth + the amulet with say holy/bane/whatever not duplicating the gaunlets powers up to again +5. Effectly you have +15 weapons with a cap on the enchantment bonus of 5 but with lots of extra powers.

Yes, it does imply that unarmed strikes can be cross enchanted going all the way to +15. Its the phrase "unarmed strike" that gets repeated.

Now combine that potential with enlargement for base damage / and the standard fighter BaB when flurrying and you have a very deadly monk class at higher levels.

maquille oneal wrote:

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.

coupled with the flurry description i quoted above, says unarmed strikes.

it looks as if most people take your stance that gauntlets are useless to monks (mostly cus the editor-in-chief has chimed in) ...

my point is not that one interpretation or another is the "best" just that it is open to interpretation and not clearly defined in the rules.

And technically... the monk is still not proficient with it as I quoted from the PRD. If you look at what weapons and armor the monk is proficient with you'll see that "simple weapons" is not included and neither are unarmed attacks or gauntlets. His class feature that gives him improved unarmed strike is technically the only reason he can punch, knee, elbow strike, or kick at all. :)

lol

ok, so a monk can use gauntlets (at -4 for non prof) in a flurry? ????

again, i say its not clear and subject to interpretation.

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.

coupled with the flurry description i quoted above, says unarmed strikes.

it looks as if most people take your stance that gauntlets are useless to monks (mostly cus the editor-in-chief has chimed in) ...

my point is not that one interpretation or another is the "best" just that it is open to interpretation and not clearly defined in the rules.

here is another point.

since the definition "monk weapons" only really applies to the flurry which weapons can be used, etc..

would it be a possible "interpretation" to say that gauntlets as listed automatically get the monk, and double classification . albeit not listed in the weapon chart.

they are listed as unarmed strikes (hence , "monk" classification), and if you say for instance non enchanted gauntlets would actually be worn on both hands, they are double weapons.
edit: they are specified as cost and weight for ONE gauntlet so not double...

OR

in the case of magic gloves of say arrow snaring, etc.. the rules mention the gauntlets take the place of gauntlets provided in for instance full plate +1. so these "gloves" dont add to your damage cuz they arent "gauntlets" nor do they take away from you armor.. etc..

it all doesnt seem to be clearly defined in the book.

imho the only way this really comes into focus is with enlarged monks and the base damage. then you can get into some crazy damage / attacks / etc... which probably are not what was intended, but appear to be a possible valid interpretation.

Gauntlets have to be enchanted individually?

So i know it mentions in manufacturing magic weapons you have to pay double to add enchantments to each side of the weapon, but for instance you use a quarterstaff+1.. as a monk to flurry.

only half your attacks get the +1??

it does say gauntlets in the plural so i would guess gauntlets +1 mean this goes on both sides.

stacking the amulet of might fists with them is excessive, but it appears within the scope of the interpretation of the rules? it certainly doesnt appear clearly stated either way..

none of this monkliness unarmed strike came up in play testing to include clarification in the rules??

argument that gauntlets can be used for flurry:

A monk cannot use any
weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk
weapon as part of a flurry of blows.

gauntlets are unarmed strikes (see above)

OR

what about base damage then? gauntlets improve as monk gains level in base damage?

OR

gauntlets ARENT armor , see gauntlet of rust, in wondrous items.

my take is gauntlets are heavy gloves. in
that dont give you armor or add to your damage,

in general they only allow you to deliver lethal damage and no penalty to attack roll. monks do this anyway.

maquille oneal wrote:

here is the description

Speed: When making a full-attack action, the wielder of
speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack
uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifier
appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative
with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

Exactly. Let me pseudo-code that for you:

For every weapon I wield:
__Is this weapon a speed weapon?
____If yes, have I already received a hasted attack this round?
______If yes, break
______If no, attack an extra time
____If no, break

Let me walk you through that for a person dual-wielding +1 daggers of speed with both active.

1. Make my standard full attack sequence.
2. Check my first dagger: is it a speed weapon?
3. Yes it is. Have I already received a hasted attack this round?
4. No I havn't. Make an extra attack at my highest attack bonus with this dagger.
5. Check my second dagger: is it a speed weapon?
6. Yes it is. have I already received a hasted attack this round?
7. Yes I have. No more extra attacks for me because hasted attacks don't stack.

Again it isn't the weapon that gets to make the extra attack, it's the character. It's also the character who has the limit on extra attacks per round from haste-like spells and abilities. Doesn't matter how many hastes you stack on yourself, you only get one extra hasted attack.

lol

i think thats how its gonna go down, but i still consider it interpretive.

again its the grammar. imho

the pseduo code assumes you have an object of "self" loaded to reference. ;)

no one seems to go for the extra attack deal on each weapon.

and i do see your point.
with the dancing daggers.

so THEY cant have extra attacks on themselves, etc..

maquille oneal wrote:

but what of weapon quality of speed. now logically this is all under the haste umbrella but what it says is that it grants +1 attack to the weapon. and it doesnt stack with other haste effects.

so say you had TWO daggers +1 speed. each would get one attack, and that would not be stacking cuz YOU arent getting an extra attack the weapons individually are?

Unless those daggers of speed are actually dancing daggers of speed, they have no attacks in and of themselves (and if they are, they cannot activate the speed quality by themselves unless they're also intelligent weapons with the ability to activate their own command words, which is getting rather out of scope of this discussion). Speed weapons grant extra attacks to the user that are only usable with the speed weapon. Since we already know speed is a haste-like effect and thus doesn't stack with any other haste-like effects, including itself, we therefore conclude that the only benefits to wielding two speed weapons are more total duration and the ability to choose which weapon you want to use your extra attack with.

lol

here is the description

Speed: When making a full-attack action, the wielder of
speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack
uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifier
appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative
with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

ZappoHisbane wrote:

My reasoning on the rest is already explained.

Not really. You say it's because it's a "similar" effect, but you give no real reasoning for that. Haste is pretty specific when it refers to a similar effect -- it uses a speed weapon as an example. Speed weapons specifically refer to haste. In other words, that example is saying "haste doesn't stack with anything that gives you an extra haste attack". They don't use those exact words because then they'd have to define "haste attacks".

By the way, I'd like to point out that your interpretation prevents Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting from functioning. Your interpretation adds the "does not stack with haste-like effects" clause to every feat, class ability, spell, etc that grants extra attacks -- including Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, which don't explicitly state that they stack with each other.

On another front, it's very, very obvious that haste only grants one extra attack. It doesn't say "When making a full attack action, a creature may make one extra attack with each weapon he is holding". It says "When making a full attack action, a creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding". The difference between "each" and "any" is vast, in this context. So, that aspect of your argument is moot (and Hydro is wrong).

good point - two weapon feats are full attack actions, and not basic attacks. so by both qualifiers, and similar to rapid shot say they wouldnt work with haste at all (let alone twice) :)

but the common consensus is there is no problem with granting one attack no problem

re: haste - two weapons
the each/any wording can be interpreted either way.
its a grammar thing i think,

but what of weapon quality of speed. now logically this is all under the haste umbrella but what it says is that it grants +1 attack to the weapon. and it doesnt stack with other haste effects.

so say you had TWO daggers +1 speed. each would get one attack, and that would not be stacking cuz YOU arent getting an extra attack the weapons individually are?

????

the editors could have and i think would have been very precise about stuff, especially considering haste is a very common effect for folks to want to get at mid levels and the controversy / clarifications in 3.5 WotC. etc...

i think it becomes a house rule to interpretation outside how it its defined explicitly...

Same thing that happens if your opponent gains a condition that lets you sneak attack in the middle of your full attack (for example one of your hits stuns him) you get the extra attacks (damage).

i agree. the medusas wrath goes off as soon as the opponent is disadvantaged.

so how about if you greater feint the baddie??

i know it doesnt mention "lose dex bonus" but is that considered the same as "flat footed" so medusas wrath would go off??

Zurai wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

Again, what this boils down to is what constitutes a similar effect? My belief is that it's anything that gives you an extra or additional attack on a Full-Attack action.

So haste doesn't stack with Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, or Greater Two-Weapon Fighting?

I'm glad I don't play in your games.

Manyshot would in fact work just fine because it doesn't add an extra attack, just an additional arrow on the first attack of your Full Attack action. My reasoning on the rest is already explained.

see to me thats drawing lines. i am not good with rangers and the ranged attack thing, but full attack action? haste spell? no extra arrow as per your logic???

i dont see the difference in adding "an additional arrow" in your first attack. like that is the same as an extra attack with a bow no?

ummm..
should we maybe start a new thread?
that doesnt talk about monks but mentions haste in the title and draw in a bigger crowd maybe???

i think for sure the two weapon haste thing is going to get tromped on. ive seen references all over to how in 3.5 they said no to that and unless the new core rules specifically over rules that, its gonna go down democratically against that idea i am pretty sure.

myself, i am just curious about the monk / flurry of blows / with speed. ;)

maquille oneal wrote:

how is the spell in the above example giving 6 attacks? you would get 3 to start. ? no??? maybe 4 with improved two weapon. so its granting, 2 extra attacks. not 6 more attacks. 6the level fighter can attack four times anyways.. no???

A 6th level TWF Fighter with Hydro's interpretation of Haste:

Primary attack at +6 for BAB
Primary attack at +1 for BAB
Offhand attack at +6 from TWF
Offhand attack at +1 from ITWF
Primary attack at +6 from Haste
Offhand attack at +6 from Haste

A Marilith (a six-armed demon) with Hydro's interpretation of Haste (using 3.5 SRD since we don't have a Bestiary yet):
Primary longsword at +25
5 Longswords at +25 from Multiattack
Primary longsword at +25 from Haste
5 more Longswords at +25 from Haste
and a Tail Slap +22 just in case you're not dead yet.

oh, a monster with 6 attacks. for sure. it hastes all 6. im guessing this thing actually has 6 swords, right? or is it one sword multiattacked already 6 times. then in that case, only +1 more.

haste +1 attack per weapon.
imopinion. :)

only 2 for the fighter though... PC like.

Hydro wrote:

(Side note: Haste says you get an extra attack with any weapon you're holding. I've always read that as granting two extra attacks to duel-wielders (which is about as good as granting one extra attack to a two-hander).)

Alas, that's not the only way it could be read (as you implied by saying that how you've always read it), because it leaves the word "weapon" singular in that sentence and the one following. Thus it could also be read as saying it allows an extra attack with any one weapon you're holding. The language is ambiguous. Note that it excludes natural weapons since you have to be "holding" the weapon.

Because of the ambiguity, I would prefer to err on the low side. Haste is only a 3rd level spell, which means a 6th level party could have a wizard buffing the TWF Fighter or Ranger for +6/+6/+6/+6/+1/+1, less TWF penalties, plus stat bonuses. Why 4 +6's? Because Haste states the extra attack is granted at the full Base Attack bonus, so your extra off-hand attack actually gains a +5 to hit. This seems wrong. Not to mention, what happens when a Marilith uses Haste? No way a 3rd level spell should be giving any creature 6 more attacks.

youre right. all three points. in my case the "monk level BaB does grant an extra attack. i misquoted it.

and the haste spell on two weapons, and vis a vis the two speed enhaced weapons, it is interpretative, but any weapon is not any ONE weapon.

how is the spell in the above example giving 6 attacks? you would get 3 to start. ? no??? maybe 4 with improved two weapon. so its granting, 2 extra attacks. not 6 more attacks. 6the level fighter can attack four times anyways.. no???

i do think these are grey areas, and the whole deal is covered by interpretation of the rules. its all "haste-like" or similar or grammar or whatever.

i think paizo had a year to get their grammar down, and lots of game tests.. so if they wanted to clarify a rule or effect that was vague, i think it would be very clear. especially in this example. the full attack action means you cant move and attack with haste or any of this. monks flurry, or whatever. what i mean to say is that in all cases, you arent ALWAYS getting an extra attack, youve got to go toe to toe.

so we are all agreeing this requires at least some interpretation of the "similiar" phrase.

i would go with either-

any extra attacks have to be nixed all together, and not pick and choosing though. saying one is from speed, and one is from whatever else is totally subjective.

OR

any enhancements that grant extra attacks dont stack. that covers the definitions of the boots, the spell and the weapons, as well as any other "similiar" magic that might come up.

maquille oneal wrote:

... enchancement ...

For some reason this perfectly-innocent typo (I assume?) made me laugh out loud.

I think I'm just going to start saying "enchance" all the time, to avoid the whole enchant/enhance technical debacle.

Almost as good as the crocodile totem warrior I read that granted a "+2 enchcrocodilement bonus to strength" (which I assume came from writing an "ant totem warrior" then doing a find-and-replace).

lol

(Side note: Haste says you get an extra attack with any weapon you're holding. I've always read that as granting two extra attacks to duel-wielders (which is about as good as granting one extra attack to a two-hander).)

And dove tails nicely with the way weapon of speed quality is written, allowing the extra attack in each hand. btw .. ;)

Haste - transmutation pg 294 core
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than
normal. This extra speed has several efects.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make
one extra attack with any weapon he is holding.

AND

would say boots of speed in fact does grant two attacks two two weapon fighting, cuz it affects any weapon just like haste .

Speed:pg 472 core
When making a full-attack action, the
wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra
attack with it. ...(This benefit is not
cumulative with similar effects, such as
a haste spell.)

Boots of speed pg 503 core
As a free action, the wearer can click her heels together,
letting her act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 10
rounds each day.

the key to the original post topic, is whether all extra attacks are a "similar effect" to haste, (ignoring its other effects) and thus cant stack with haste, themselves and any ability that grants additional attacks.

Hydro wrote:

I don't for an instant believe that haste was intended to supercede Rappid Shot, Flurry of Blows, Two-weapon Fighting, Cleave, iterative attacks, natural attacks, and the whole shebang.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, easy there. :) I am certainly not saying that iterative and natural attacks are out. I don't think they count as 'extra' since they're built into the base mechanic for full attacks. They're not "similar" at all.

Cleave is out because it's a standard action now (despite it containing one or more attacks). Speed and Haste both need a Full-Attack action.

Two-Weapon Fighting is debatable. If your primary weapon is a Speed weapon, ... under a Haste spell I can wave a sword in one hand really fast, why can't I wave the other fast too?

Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows and spending a Ki Point all give you an additional attack because you're moving faster than the norm. To me, that's a "Similar" effect, even though the source of that effect vary wildly.

i guess i dont see how you can draw a line with say cleave, because its a standard action.(the spell specifically mentions stacking base move altering enchancements)

lets look at the other effects of Haste..

A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge
bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose
your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose
dodge bonuses.

so would for instance, a Weapon Focus stack, cuz it gives a +1 bonus to attack rolls?? Is that "haste like"/ The Armor and Reflex +1 would clearly NOT stack with other dodge bonus's enhancement or other wise., but is a +1 dodge bonus "haste - like"??

Also, you get a base movement bonus (which you DO get with the boots of speed, but not the weapon quality of speed). but you ALSO wouldnt get it in combination with boots of striding. because it is clearly labeled an enhancement bonus there as well.

it seems the lines are drawn specifically to granting attacks. as far as something becoming "haste-like" or not??

the concern and attention makes sense from a mechanics point of view. Clearly boots of speed dont stack with haste, and the designers took pains to point that out clearly.

however, they did not mention stacking in the feat descriptions, or class abilities. And there are quite a few non obvious was to grant extra attacks with feats, etc.. I know for sure monks flurry grants +2BaB for instance(which could grant an extra attack say), and i think a few other classes (Barbarian Rage?? any others??) and for sure some feats grant additional attacks in certain circumstances

anyways, my take is that these feats, class abilities, all can grant extra attcks... these are NOT haste or similar abilities because they dont come from haste, and dont mention it in the description.. anything else is interpretation and not part of the core rules for sure.

but i REALLY think youve gotta disqualify all of the "extra attack" gimmicks either as "haste or similar effect" based solely on the extra attack, or grant the stacking to all of them....

and by that logic, it doesnt make sense to, for instance; grant rapid shot, but not ki strike the ability to stack with a weapon of speed/haste/etc... or say a monk can use medusa's strike, and a flurry of blows but not ki strike with or without haste etc.. etc..

The extra attack from the Ki Pool doesn't say that it doesn't stack with other extra attacks, nor does it have a type. Likewise for Medusa's Wrath. The Haste spell, Speed weapon enhancement and the Boots of Speed all state specifically that they stack with any other extra attacks.

the speed weapon enchancement refers to haste like effects, thats where the issue is coming up. i think cuz ki and medusas wrath are both non typed they do stack with haste. the phrase used is a haste like effect. note it doesnt say "any other attacks" its says.....

(This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)pg 472 core

good point about the monks speed though, it is an enhancement bonus.. :(

So because Medusa Wrath is a "feat" and or because it gives TWO attacks, it is exempt from being considered hastelike? that doesnt make sense. does it.

feats seem to trump everything?? ki strike is supernatural ability, so not like a spell. where is the line between class abilities/feats/ and even granted feats AS class abilities. either way.

the thing with boots of speed or weapons or whatever is that they need the haste spell to work, and of course that wouldnt stack. haste-efect seems to need the haste spell, there is no precedent for anything else being considered a "haste effect" just because it makes you go faster or move further or whatever. (effects of the haste spell)..

this could be said even for the monks base move bonus also. it wouldnt stack with boots of speed. cuz its "haste".. ????

so just to be clear as this is an issue in a current game :)

how does that work with medusas wrath? a bonus feat specifically granted to high level monks. it doesnt seem fair to nerf ki strike as they are both boons to monks. and i dont see how you can ignore ki strike, but allow medusas wrath. i think because neither ki strike or medusas wrath are described as haste effects that they shouldnt be included in the restrictions. i realize one is a feat of circumstance, but they are both "haste effects" by the logic above?? no???

additionally and this might be covered in the boards elsewhere, but what if you are using two weapons that are individually have speed on them. so if i am not mistaken this is an example of how haste COULD stack that is not specific to monks, or feats... i think.

so would a monk lose out on the ability to have boots of speed, a monk weapon of speed, and/or the ki focus and/or the medusas wrath feat just to avoid challenging fighters combat prowess??

needless to say i am pro monk.. ;)