RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Because the bracers of armor ARE effectively a replacement for a signle suit of armor, and therefore priced similarly.
The amulet, on the other hand, is effectively 2 or more magic weapons. For a monk that is using flurry of blows it's effectively enchanting 2 weapons, since flurry acts similar to two weapon fighting. For a druid wildshaped into a lion for instance, it's acting a 3 magic weapons, (or 5 with pounce and rake attacks.) Throw one of these amulets on a dragon or a hydra and you suddenly are getting a lot more bang for your buck with all of those natural attacks.
|
I was once wondering the same thing. Frankly the pricing is very very stupid.
Amulet of Mighty Fists +1 cost 5000gp. How do you get that much? Well, +1 enhancement bonus for two weapons is 2000 gp each, and +1 armor bonus is 1000 gp. Considering that an Amulet of Mighty Fists +2 costs a whopping 20000 gp, the pricing is similar. 8000 gp for two weapons and 4000 gp for +2 armor enhancement bonus.
Why the amulet is priced so stupidly I don't know. Frankly I'd replace the pricing as 4000gp -> 16000 gp -> 36000 gp and so on.
Monks are a money-sink.
I was once wondering the same thing. Frankly the pricing is very very stupid.
Amulet of Mighty Fists +1 cost 5000gp. How do you get that much? Well, +1 enhancement bonus for two weapons is 2000 gp each, and +1 armor bonus is 1000 gp. Considering that an Amulet of Mighty Fists +2 costs a whopping 20000 gp, the pricing is similar. 8000 gp for two weapons and 4000 gp for +2 armor enhancement bonus.
Why the amulet is priced so stupidly I don't know. Frankly I'd replace the pricing as 4000gp -> 16000 gp -> 36000 gp and so on.
Monks are a money-sink.
My 3.5 monk paid for a greater magic fang, permanency and wandered about with a ring of counterspells with a dispel magic tucked away in it.
I've been looking at these 2 items and wondering. They're essentially the same thing, one being for weapon bonus's and properties, the other for armor bonus's and properties.
Why do Bracers of armor cost the same as enhancing armor the same way but The amulet of mighty fists cost waaaaaayyyy more than enhancing a weapon?
The pricing of an Amulet of Mighty Fists isn't a mystery; it's 2.5x the cost of a magic weapon of the same strength. I guess the assumption is that the average creature has about 2.5 natural weapons.
HOWEVER, note that you can enhance an Amulet of Mighty Fists without a minimum +1 enhancement bonus. So you can buy a +0 Flaming Amulet of Mighty Fists for 5K gp, but a Flaming longsword would cost at least 8K gp. So it's not always more expensive, in a way.
Spot the rules exploit, everyone! :)
A very good reason for druids to stick with the actual spell greater magic fang for a good while, and if they do get one then stick with Flaming or what not because 45000g for speed is crazy. I can get a +2 Wild dragonplate armor for less. For the sake of your monk who is actualy looking for a +magic bonus to their fist attacks I would hope you could or your DM would let you increase the bonus on your AMF much like a weapon can be re-enchanted because I would hate to have to pay again for another more powerful one.
Spot the rules exploit, everyone! :)
If you are refering to greater magic fang, etc. then yes.
As far as I could work out every class could get themselves a magic weapon but the monk can't. The best he could have is the amulet of mighty fists which is way overpriced IMO.It ain't much fun punching critters when the fighter/cleric/rogue whips out their +2 Flaming Whatnot. The playing field isn't level in that respect.
Could I have made +2 Hand wraps, dunno. Nothing says I can't but again nothing says I can either so using a "rules exploit" was the only way I could think of to address the balance. The result is the same, a bonus to hit and damage.
Crying "rules exploit" for that is like saying its wrong for fighters to wear plate and use a shield. They do it because it is the best type of protection for a fighter not to exploit rules. It is exactly what a wise, intelligent character would do.
Monks fairly suck in combat when it comes to large parties, as the DM is very wont to throw up high AC to increase the livability of his monsters.
There is, however, a similar item in Savage Species, which is more reasonably priced.
You pay some 200 gold for the necklace. Then you enchant the necklace like a weapon, but in so doing, you pay for exactly one body part to get that enhancement. Left fist. Right fist. Tail. Tongue. Whatever. Furthermore, you could enchant it to provide said bonus(es) to other parts, and you don't pay the 1.5 penalty.
Thus, a necklace +1/+1/+1 would cost 6.2k.
Spot the rules exploit, everyone! :)If you are refering to greater magic fang, etc. then yes.
As far as I could work out every class could get themselves a magic weapon but the monk can't. The best he could have is the amulet of mighty fists which is way overpriced IMO.
It ain't much fun punching critters when the fighter/cleric/rogue whips out their +2 Flaming Whatnot. The playing field isn't level in that respect.
Could I have made +2 Hand wraps, dunno. Nothing says I can't but again nothing says I can either so using a "rules exploit" was the only way I could think of to address the balance. The result is the same, a bonus to hit and damage.
Crying "rules exploit" for that is like saying its wrong for fighters to wear plate and use a shield. They do it because it is the best type of protection for a fighter not to exploit rules. It is exactly what a wise, intelligent character would do.
Monks can get magic weapons: Gauntlets, Kama, Nunchuks, Quarterstaves, etc. The difference is that they don't have their damage scale. Enchanting a monk's fists is better than enchanting a sword because a sword will never do 2d10 damage.
Sure you can. Just get a bigger sword. Yes, you take minuses to your attack, but so does a monk. And you can just come up with other bonuses to come up with to make up for this fact.
Sure you can. Just get a bigger sword. Yes, you take minuses to your attack, but so does a monk. And you can just come up with other bonuses to come up with to make up for this fact.
I think the Full-Blade, the largest sword a medium sized character can wield, only does 2d6.
I think the Full-Blade, the largest sword a medium sized character can wield, only does 2d6.
A medium-sized fullblade (or greatsword; same difference if the fullblade is also 2d6), yes. However, a medium-sized character could actually wield a huge-sized fullblade, which would deal something like 4d6 damage. For the record, Goliath (or any other M-sized creature with Powerful Build) with the Monkey Grip feat can use Huge-sized weapons. Even a human with Monkey Grip can wield a Large-sized greatsword, which deals 3d6 damage, which is only 0.5 less damage, on average, than 2d10 (10.5 vs 11).
I think the Full-Blade, the largest sword a medium sized character can wield, only does 2d6.A medium-sized fullblade (or greatsword; same difference if the fullblade is also 2d6), yes. However, a medium-sized character could actually wield a huge-sized fullblade, which would deal something like 4d6 damage. For the record, Goliath (or any other M-sized creature with Powerful Build) with the Monkey Grip feat can use Huge-sized weapons. Even a human with Monkey Grip can wield a Large-sized greatsword, which deals 3d6 damage, which is only 0.5 less damage, on average, than 2d10 (10.5 vs 11).
A full blade is already a huge-sized weapon.
Also Powerful Build and Monkey Grip dont stack.Edit: The full blade does 2d8.
Edit2: A fullblade is not a huge-sized weapon. It is just difficult to wield. Even large creatures take a penalty when trying to use it. I did not correct the prior paragraph because someone may already be responding to it.
Edit3: This is the final one. I think is off-topic since the monk would have to take to many feats to be able to wield the very large weapon regardless of whether it does 2d6, 2d8 or anything greater. If would be cheaper to multiclass for one level of fighter to avoid the penalties.
A full blade is already a huge-sized weapon.
Also Powerful Build and Monkey Grip dont stack.Edit: The full blade does 2d8.
Edit2: A fullblade is not a huge-sized weapon. It is just difficult to wield. Even large creatures take a penalty when trying to use it. I did not correct the prior paragraph because someone may already be responding to it.Edit3: This is the final one. I think is off-topic since the monk would have to take to many feats to be able to wield the very large weapon regardless of whether it does 2d6, 2d8 or anything greater. If would be cheaper to multiclass for one level of fighter to avoid the penalties.
Exactly.
A Full-Blade (think Cloud's Buster Sword from FFVII, or Guts' Dragon Slayer from the Manga Berserk) is a weapon from Sword and Fist/ Arms and Equipment (which were both 3.0); hence, the old 'Huge weapon' denomination.
To convert it in 3.5 and Pathfinder, it is a special weapon made for Large creatures which can also be used by Medium-sized creatures with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.
A Large creature can use the Full-Blade as a Martial two-handed weapon without the feat, or an Exotic One-handed weapon with the feat (basically, it's a Large Bastard Sword - even the damage is the same 1d10 ->2d8, as per size conversion). However, the grip is made in such a way that even a Medium character can wield it, but he would need the feat, and even with the feat he could wield it only two-handed (without the feat, it could easily considered a 'three-handed weapon', if you want...).
Powerful Build and Monkey Grip do not stack; the Official 3,5 FAQ says:
"Do effects that allow you to use larger than normal weapons, such as the Monkey Grip feat or the Powerful Build racial trait, stack with each other?
These effects do not stack with each other. If you have an effect that allows you to use a weapon one size category larger than you and then gain the same benefit from another source, you are still limited to weapons one size category larger than you."
Basically, a creature with the Powerful Build racial trait has a 'virtual' Monkey Grip feat without the -2 penalty the feat gives when wielding oversized weapons.
The highest damage a Medium creature can deal with a weapon is 3d8 per attack - Fullblade made for Large creatures (which Huge creatures could wield two-handed as a Martial weapon, etc. etc.) with either Monkey Grip or Powerful Build.
The highest damage a Medium Monk can deal is 4d8 per attack (20th level, Improved Natural Attack; each 1d10 becomes 2d8 -> 4d8). The monk burns 1 feat, the weapon wielder 2 (or 1 feat and 1 specific race). Also, a Monk would have only his regular BaB (3/4 HD, as Cleric) when making attacks with such a weapon, and could't use Flurry of Blows with it (not being a Monk's special weapon).
Basically, a Monk should buy an Amulet of Mighty Fists as soon as possible (his AC being already quite good - the Bracers should be a secondary choice).
Just my 2c.
The amulet as two effects.
+1 enhancement for Unarmed attacks, 2000.
+1 enhancement for Natural attacks, 3000 (1.5 x 2000 for the second enchantment).
Can you point out an effect anywhere in the book which applies to natural attacks but not unarmed attacks? As far as I'm aware an unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon, which makes the above breakdown nonsensical. You are not automatically proficient with an unarmed strike, and can make iterative attacks with it; I read these as special rules which supercede the normal natural weapon rules.
The amulet costs so much because it's so disgustingly good, not because it's a combination of effects.
Yes the rationale for making the amulet of mighty FISTS so expensive is that it applies to all your unarmed strikes, open hand fist knee elbow etc. Bad reason to rob a trod upon class of being able to meaningfully participate in combat. Make two separate items, one for unarmed strike damage and another for natural attacks (claw, bite, etc) if you're worried about druids taking advantage of the item.
Paizo really should have fixed this.
Nothing to fix. It's that powerful already, the monk is no more beaten up than the fighter is (if fact in a lot of ways the monk is much, much, MUCH better than the fighter -- actually in almost all ways possible) and if the monk wants magical weapons he can either use that +2/+2 quarter staff, or he can take the feats to be able to make magical arms and armor, and craft his fists. Might be difficult turning his fist to masterwork but if you can get past that little difficulty (not a huge one, the money went to training and surgery to reshape your fists to be better than the average persons) then you can enchant them just like any other weapon since they count as both manufactured and natural.
Nothing to fix. It's that powerful already, the monk is no more beaten up than the fighter is (if fact in a lot of ways the monk is much, much, MUCH better than the fighter -- actually in almost all ways possible) and if the monk wants magical weapons he can either use that +2/+2 quarter staff, or he can take the feats to be able to make magical arms and armor, and craft his fists. Might be difficult turning his fist to masterwork but if you can get past that little difficulty (not a huge one, the money went to training and surgery to reshape your fists to be better than the average persons) then you can enchant them just like any other weapon since they count as both manufactured and natural.
um...better than the fighter? no. the monk is a weird class with a zillion special rules, but when it comes to dealing damage (and taking it) you can't beat the fighter. your argument is silly, if the monk wants a magic weapon make him use a quarterstaff (or other monk weapon) which almost certainly won't do as much damage as his unarmed strike.
pathfinder fixed monks so that their flurry pretends they have a warrior BAB...but made their flurry worse getting more poor iterative attacks rather than several at their best bonus.
why do you want to PUNISH people for playing monk? aside from class abilities PCs scale with gear and in this instance a monk scales more slowly than other classes and I don't see the logic behind it personally. honestly I could see a rules argument for it costing double since you're effectively getting two weapons enchanted, but still at the cost of a body slot *shrug*.
I don't know, I guess I just don't get where you're coming from. Your argument seems to be "if a player doesn't like a plainly stupid rule, he can take an otherwise worthless feat to counteract it".
Last a checked, a 15th level Monk's Flurry had him attacking at 13/13/8 (comparable to a fighter's 15/10/5, if not better) and then an additional 8/3/3.
Dealing the same damage as a Greatsword does on each hit.
All the monk has to do is get a 15th level caster to create a custom amulet that is +5 Hit and damage to "Unarmed strikes" as compared to "unarmed strikes" AND "natural Attacks".
The cost would be the same as for a weapon.
The reason teh Amulet costs more is it is base cost for "unarmed strikes" and 1.5 base cost for "natural Weapons", thus 2.5x cost for stacking.
Saying it twice doesn't make it true. An unarmed strike is a natural attack; the same bonus applies to both, there aren't two enchantments on the amulet.
It looks like the "wrong item slot" rules didn't make the final printing, but that doesn't mean they weren't a consideration (and they should be). Furthermore:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth.
Just because you don't want to pay what the item is worth and your DM is a cream puff, doesn't mean the item isn't worth that much.
Saying it twice doesn't make it true. An unarmed strike is a natural attack; the same bonus applies to both, there aren't two enchantments on the amulet.
There's some confusion on this though... not all rules support what you are saying. In fact...
Strike, Unarmed: ...
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).
That seems to be in direct conflict with what you said.
Natural weapons have a hard-coded sequence, in that they have a primary attack and secondary attacks. They can be added to an attack routine with weapons and unarmed strikes by treating all of them as secondary attacks.
This, by definition, places natural weapons as something different than unarmed strikes.
Note that the spell Magic Fang (and thus Greater), specifically mentions "natural weapons and unarmed strikes", as two separate things that can be chosen by the spell.
.
There is a discrepancy in the language, however, when you get to Magic Weapon (and Greater), in that they say: "You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike".
However, this is in direct conflict with the wording in every other instance.
Considering the wording was changed for Pathfinder specifically in the Equipment entry, but the Magic Weapon entry was copy-pasted, it stands to reason that at least in Pathfinder, the intention is that natural weapons and unarmed strikes are two separate beasts.
.
Overall, I'd say that making an item that enhanced unarmed strikes only with weapon enhancements would be balanced at the base price. You still don't do lethal damage without the feat, and are limited to a +5 worth of enhancements (if you go by the amulet restrictions).
There is a discrepancy in the language, however, when you get to Magic Weapon (and Greater), in that they say: "You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike".
However, this is in direct conflict with the wording in every other instance.
I can't really speak for the designers, but in this particular case, I would take "natural weapon" to mean any weapon that is not manufactured; in other words, it should have said, "You may only cast this spell on a manufactured weapon."
That's certainly how I'll be handling it, especially since the spell description explicitly states that a monk's unarmed strikes count as weapons.
Why do Bracers of armor cost the same as enhancing armor the same way but The amulet of mighty fists cost waaaaaayyyy more than enhancing a weapon?
A Monk's body counts as two weapons because of flurry of blows.
A Lizardman receives the benefit of three weapons.
Thri-Kreen gets five.
Psychic Warrior/Flayerspawn Psychic with six tentacles (courtesy of Illithid Grapple and Deepspawn) is receiving the benefit of six magical weapons. Seven if he switches to Fighter after getting all of his tentacles and picks up Improved Unarmed Strike, Supreme Unarmed Strike, and Snap Kick. Unlike the previous examples, he's also probably quite capable of making a full attack action on a charge that doesn't have to be in a straight line.
Grell Swashbuckler or a Druid wild shaped into a Giant Squid gets ten.
There is a discrepancy in the language, however, when you get to Magic Weapon (and Greater), in that they say: "You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike".
However, this is in direct conflict with the wording in every other instance.
I can't really speak for the designers, but in this particular case, I would take "natural weapon" to mean any weapon that is not manufactured; in other words, it should have said, "You may only cast this spell on a manufactured weapon."
That's certainly how I'll be handling it, especially since the spell description explicitly states that a monk's unarmed strikes count as weapons.
Like I said at the beginning of this thread, if you want to do extra damage and have pluses to hit get a Greater Magic Fang cast on the Monk, then ask a wizard nicely to cast Permanency and get a Ring of Counterspells with a Dispel Magic in it.
Magic Weapon doesn't work because a fist isn't a "weapon".
A Monk when using FOB can use any of his Monk weapons as part of the Flurry (if he wishes) but only uses the weapon damage not Unarmed Strike damage.
If using a staff or sai, etc during the flurry the Monk doesn't get any TWF penalties or THW bonuses as its not classed as TWF or THW fighting.
|
Last a checked, a 15th level Monk's Flurry had him attacking at 13/13/8 (comparable to a fighter's 15/10/5, if not better) and then an additional 8/3/3.
Dealing the same damage as a Greatsword does on each hit.
A 15th level fighter doesn't have 15/10/5. Unless you want to presume the fighter didn't take Greater Weapon Focus and made nonsensical choices for Weapon Training, he'll probably have 19/14/9.
With a Monk's Robe and Improved Natural Attack, each of the monk's attacks will deal a base damage of 4d8 which is rather impressive. But on the other hand, a fighter 15 would gain +7 on damage rolls through his exclusive feats and class features. If he uses a two-handed weapon, he'll probably deal more damage than the monk by using power attack.The monk has many interesting abilities, but in fighting prowess, the fighter is much better.
... especially since the spell description explicitly states that a monk's unarmed strikes count as weapons.Magic Weapon doesn't work because a fist isn't a "weapon".
You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon ... A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.
Emphasis mine.
It is, however, accurate that you cannot use magic weapon and permanency, so if you wanted to go that route, using magic fang is how to do it.
Magic Weapon doesn't work because a fist isn't a "weapon".
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Greater Magic Weapon works just as well for a Monk as Greater Magic Fang. Better, if he's wearing gauntlets.
Dunno why this seems new, adding armor special properties to Bracers of Armor has existed since Arms&Equipment Guide, and the Bracers of Striking granted the ability to enhance it as a magic weapon, but it applies to unarmed strikes.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The amulet of mighty fists cost waaaaaayyyy more than enhancing a weapon?
It works for ALL natural and unarmed attacks. You need to pay more because it is waaaaaayyyyy more powerful than you understand.
A monster with Monk levels and 2 Claws, a Bite, 2 Talons, and a Tentacle would get +1 to Unarmed, Claws, Bites, Talons and Tentacles.
Could I have made +2 Hand wraps, dunno. Nothing says I can't
Nothing says I can't is like "nothing says dead people can't take actions."
You can't get a +2 Hand Wraps for several reasons:
1) There is no Hand Wrap item to give rules for how it would help.
2) The existing items that enhance unarmed all cost $$ (Scorpion Kama etc.)
An unarmed strike is a natural attack
No, Natural != Unarmed in WotC 3.5 and PRGP 3.75.
Could I have made +2 Hand wraps, dunno. Nothing says I can'tNothing says I can't is like "nothing says dead people can't take actions."
You can't get a +2 Hand Wraps for several reasons:
1) There is no Hand Wrap item to give rules for how it would help.
2) The existing items that enhance unarmed all cost $$ (Scorpion Kama etc.)
I also said in the full quote that nothing says you can and that is why I went down the route which was explained in the rules.
You *could* use Rule0 and apply normal weapon enchanting to a masterworked glove but that just seemed a cop-out. If there are no magical gloves, etc. in the rules there must be a valid reason for it and I think that reason is it is not needed, monks can do fine without them.
The problem with gloves or handwraps is they should not apply to feet.
And an amulet should? Why? It's a strip of leather wrapped around your neck. Handwraps are strips of leather wrapped around your hands. Why should one affect your feet and the other not, when neither are located on your feet?
Actually, the amulet needs Craft Arms and Armor as well, because it requires "any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities", which includes Craft Arms and Armor.
So, they're both weapons according to the crafting rules.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, they're both weapons according to the crafting rules.
The Amulet isn't a magic weapon, it is a wondrous item that enchants YOU the character.
Magic Handwraps would be useless, since they would then be a form of Gauntlets (which a Monk isn't proficient) and would then default the monk back to 3/4 BAB and no Flurry.
HOWEVER, note that you can enhance an Amulet of Mighty Fists without a minimum +1 enhancement bonus. So you can buy a +0 Flaming Amulet of Mighty Fists for 5K gp, but a Flaming longsword would cost at least 8K gp. So it's not always more expensive, in a way.
Flaming? Bah, a sissy enhancement. Go for a +0 vicious amulet of mighty fists. :)
Magic Handwraps would be useless, since they would then be a form of Gauntlets (which a Monk isn't proficient) and would then default the monk back to 3/4 BAB and no Flurry.
Wrong. Read the gauntlets entry. They are treated exactly as unarmed strikes except that they always deal lethal damage. That means monks are proficient with them and can flurry with them.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Magic Handwraps would be useless, since they would then be a form of Gauntlets (which a Monk isn't proficient) and would then default the monk back to 3/4 BAB and no Flurry.Wrong. Read the gauntlets entry. They are treated exactly as unarmed strikes except that they always deal lethal damage. That means monks are proficient with them and can flurry with them.
Unless the Monk says "Gauntlet" in their Weapon Proficiencies, they are not proficient, they can't flurry with a Gauntlet and they can't gain +5 atk/dmg from wearing a Gauntlet.
Unless the Monk says "Gauntlet" in their Weapon Proficiencies, they are not proficient, they can't flurry with a Gauntlet and they can't gain +5 atk/dmg from wearing a 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 strike."
I don't see how you can possibly state that a gauntlet is anything but an unarmed strike. Other than dealing lethal damage, they're the same, by rule.
Read the gauntlets entry. They are treated exactly as unarmed strikes except that they always deal lethal damage. That means monks are proficient with them and can flurry with them.
Whether this has changed in 3.p has yet to be stated, but (from the Shouldn't Monks have Gauntlet Proficiency thread):
Q: Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack, gaining all of his class benefits as well as the +5 bonus to hit and damage from the gauntlet?
A: Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon not listed as a special monk weapon, he does not gain his better attack rate. He would, however, gain the increased damage for unarmed attacks.
Bleh. Somehow, this response ended up at the end of the thread I was quoting, rather than here, where I intended it. Too bad I didn't notice that sooner.
The 3.5 FAQs frequently blatantly contradict both each other and the rules as written. I put almost no stock in them.
Unless the Monk says "Gauntlet" in their Weapon Proficiencies, they are not proficient, they can't flurry with a Gauntlet and they can't gain +5 atk/dmg from wearing a 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 strike."
I don't see how you can possibly state that a gauntlet is anything but an unarmed strike. Other than dealing lethal damage, they're the same, by rule.
They both follow the unarmed strike rules, but they are still different weapons.
The monk has a very specific weapon list, and the gauntlet is not mentioned. If the gauntlet was a monk weapon the complaints about monks not being able to have weapons enhanced that do monk IUS damage would never have risen. This problem is one of the main strikes against the monk.
They both follow the unarmed strike rules, but they are still different weapons.
Not according to the text. Other than always dealing lethal instead of always dealing nonlethal, a gauntlet IS an unarmed strike.
They both follow the unarmed strike rules, but they are still different weapons.Not according to the text. Other than always dealing lethal instead of always dealing nonlethal, a gauntlet IS an unarmed strike.
According to the monk text he can only use the weapons that are specifically listed, and there is no gauntlet there. I dont think it makes sense, but the I do think the monk's proficiency text would overrule the gauntlet text since specific overrules general.