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.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.
It doesn't need to be listed there, because a gauntlet is an unarmed strike and unarmed strike is listed there. It's like a fictional class that had proficiency with swords; everything that is_a_sword is covered. Similarly, everything that is_an_unarmed_strike is covered by the fact that every character is proficient with unarmed strikes. And, again, unarmed strikes are listed as a flurryable weapon, so everything that is_an_unarmed_strike is a flurryable weapon.
In the update thing to the left side of the screen it says Zurai responded, but its not showing up. I guess about 30 minutes from now I will be able to see the post. If I cant see it in the next 5 minutes I am calling it a night, and I will reply tomorrow.
It doesn't need to be listed there, because a gauntlet is an unarmed strike and unarmed strike is listed there. It's like a fictional class that had proficiency with swords; everything that is_a_sword is covered. Similarly, everything that is_an_unarmed_strike is covered by the fact that every character is proficient with unarmed strikes. And, again, unarmed strikes are listed as a flurryable weapon, so everything that is_an_unarmed_strike is a flurryable weapon.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.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.
Oh great, now it updates, but anyway RAW says the monk gets X. Teh gauntlet is not a part of X.
Raw says a gauntlet is an unarmed strike.
The gauntlet statement is a general one. The monk text is specific.
Specific always win. It has always been that way.
It has also always been argued that monks dont have any weapons that add their IUS damage, flurry, and can be enchanted. You are telling me that nobody ever caught that?
Why would any monk even buy the amulet of natural attacks or the scorpion kama if they can just get a gauntlet.
You can try to say a gauntlet is a monk weapon but since they are listed separately in the weapons chart they would also have to be called out separately in the monk text.
You are going to have to come up with a good argument to convince me that at least 90% of the D&D players have been doing it wrong for the past couple of years.
Edited: "monk weapon" added in above
The gauntlet statement is a general one. The monk text is specific.
Actually, both are specific statements, but that doesn't matter because they don't contradict. Again, gauntlets are unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes are valid for flurry of blows. Where's the contradiction?
As for the majority of D&D players doing it wrong, there's all kinds of things that the majority of D&D players play wrong. I'd bet that the majority of D&D players would tell you that you can't grapple an air elemental, for example.
Actually, I thought I was going to have to recant, because I slightly misquoted the gauntlet text above. It actually states "Otherwise, a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack" (emphasis mine). However, looking up "unarmed attack" in the handy-dandy Index (thank you, Paizo!), we find that unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes are the exact same thing. So, my point there stands.
The gauntlet statement is a general one. The monk text is specific.Actually, both are specific statements, but that doesn't matter because they don't contradict. Again, gauntlets are unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes are valid for flurry of blows. Where's the contradiction?
As for the majority of D&D players doing it wrong, there's all kinds of things that the majority of D&D players play wrong. I'd bet that the majority of D&D players would tell you that you can't grapple an air elemental, for example.
The gauntlet statement applies across the board to most classes, making it general. The monk statement concerns only the monk class making it specific.
Why would someone tell you they can't grapple an air elemental, and I can't think of anything the players as a majority don't know about. There are things that are ignored, but that is different than not understanding how they work.
Zurai, you're pedantic and abrasive and absolutely correct. ;) Wraithstrike, specific exceptions take precedence. No exception is called out. There is no such thing as gauntlet proficiency, because a gauntlet is an unarmed strike. Everyone is proficient with an unarmed strike. (Note that most characters still provoke attacks of opportunity when punching with a gauntlet, however.)
Wraithstrike, the reason a monk would use the amulet has been established rather solidly in another thread. You buy one amulet which applies to your whole body, rather than a separate gauntlet for each fist (and you're SOL if you wind up having to kick). Even if you're playing by the RAW-technical cheese interpretation that you can flurry with just one hand, and assume you'll always have that hand free, the amulet is cost-effective if you're more interested in special properties: 5k gold versus 8k to get Flaming, etc. Also, by RAW there's not even a compelling reason you can't have a +1 gauntlet and a +0 Flaming amulet.
Now, IMO reasonable GM interpretation can assert a couple of things without turning it into house rules. First, flurry is virtual two-weapon fighting so you must use at least two striking surfaces. Now you need two gauntlets, and the cost bridge narrows to the point where "what if I have to kick" is a meaningful consideration. Second, the amulet of mighty fists does not apply to gauntlet attacks because you are striking with a surface which is not part of your body. No more efficient stacking.
Beyond that, the rules are broken and not bent. For my own games, I don't see any need to push it further; the above describes exactly how I think gauntlets should work for a monk. (Note that the monk's gauntlets will probably be more like a knuckleduster than a piece of a plate armor set.)
The gauntlet statement applies across the board to most classes, making it general. The monk statement concerns only the monk class making it specific.
No, the gauntlet is a specific exception to the normal rule that you are considered armed when attacking with a weapon. You are considered to be making an unarmed attack when you attack with a gauntlet, meaning unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you provoke attacks of opportunity, and if you have anything that affects your unarmed attacks they also affect attacks with gauntlets.
Why would someone tell you they can't grapple an air elemental
Read the "can I entangle a swarm" thread in the rules section to find out.
The gauntlet statement is a general one. The monk text is specific.Actually, both are specific statements, but that doesn't matter because they don't contradict. Again, gauntlets are unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes are valid for flurry of blows. Where's the contradiction?
As for the majority of D&D players doing it wrong, there's all kinds of things that the majority of D&D players play wrong. I'd bet that the majority of D&D players would tell you that you can't grapple an air elemental, for example.
The gauntlet is not listed. If it is not specifically listed it is not a valid option. Round about references dont equal RAW.
The gauntlet statement applies across the board to most classes, making it general. The monk statement concerns only the monk class making it specific.No, the gauntlet is a specific exception to the normal rule that you are considered armed when attacking with a weapon. You are considered to be making an unarmed attack when you attack with a gauntlet, meaning unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you provoke attacks of opportunity, and if you have anything that affects your unarmed attacks they also affect attacks with gauntlets.
Why would someone tell you they can't grapple an air elementalRead the "can I entangle a swarm" thread in the rules section to find out.
Those players knew the rules did not support air elementals not being grappled. They said they had house rules that claimed otherwise. I dont think it makes sense either, but I know the rules support grappling them.
The gauntlet statement applies across the board to most classes, making it general. The monk statement concerns only the monk class making it specific.No, the gauntlet is a specific exception to the normal rule that you are considered armed when attacking with a weapon. You are considered to be making an unarmed attack when you attack with a gauntlet, meaning unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you provoke attacks of opportunity, and if you have anything that affects your unarmed attacks they also affect attacks with gauntlets.
Why would someone tell you they can't grapple an air elementalRead the "can I entangle a swarm" thread in the rules section to find out.
No the gauntlet was specifically designed to allow lethal attacks through an unarmed attack. The monk however is not proficient with gauntlets. No proficiency=no flurry.
From the PRD
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
The unarmed strike can not be made with gauntlets.
OK, let me approach this from a different angle, then, and make you a textual flow chart.
I'm a monk. I'm wearing a gauntlet. I want to attack with that gauntlet.
Gauntlet rules say that a gauntlet is the same thing as an unarmed attack except that it deals lethal damage.
Unarmed attack rules say that an unarmed attack is the same as an unarmed strike, and that monks have special rules related to them.
Monk rules say that unarmed strikes deal extra damage, don't provoke, and can be used as part of a flurry of blows.
Nothing in the monk rules says anything about "unarmed attacks (except gauntlets)".
Thus, my conclusion, by following from point A to point C through the rules, is that monks use gauntlets exactly as they would use their own hands.
---
And a third direction:
I'm a monk and I'm attacking you with a gauntlet. Would you say that I provoke an attack of opportunity from you for doing so?
OK, let me approach this from a different angle, then, and make you a textual flow chart.
I'm a monk. I'm wearing a gauntlet. I want to attack with that gauntlet.
Gauntlet rules say that a gauntlet is the same thing as an unarmed attack except that it deals lethal damage.
Unarmed attack rules say that an unarmed attack is the same as an unarmed strike, and that monks have special rules related to them.
Monk rules say that unarmed strikes deal extra damage, don't provoke, and can be used as part of a flurry of blows.
Nothing in the monk rules says anything about "unarmed attacks (except gauntlets)".
Thus, my conclusion, by following from point A to point C through the rules, is that monks use gauntlets exactly as they would use their own hands.
---
And a third direction:
I'm a monk and I'm attacking you with a gauntlet. Would you say that I provoke an attack of opportunity from you for doing so?
You dont provoke an attack of opportunity but you should take the penalty for not being proficient. My reply is in the above post your last one. I could not get it in before you got yours in.
The gauntlet statement applies across the board to most classes, making it general. The monk statement concerns only the monk class making it specific.No, the gauntlet is a specific exception to the normal rule that you are considered armed when attacking with a weapon. You are considered to be making an unarmed attack when you attack with a gauntlet, meaning unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you provoke attacks of opportunity, and if you have anything that affects your unarmed attacks they also affect attacks with gauntlets.
Why would someone tell you they can't grapple an air elementalRead the "can I entangle a swarm" thread in the rules section to find out.No the gauntlet was specifically designed to allow lethal attacks through an unarmed attack. The monk however is not proficient with gauntlets. No proficiency=no flurry.
From the PRD
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
The unarmed strike can not be made with gauntlets.
Note that it says a monk's unarmed attacks may be made with.......and list what may be used specifically to make that attack. This also falls into the flavor and intent of the monk class.
You dont provoke an attack of opportunity
Why not? EDIT: And is it also your ruling that monks cannot make headbutts, body slams, or shin kicks with unarmed strikes, since those are not listed in the monk class description (despite headbutt being listed as an unarmed attack on page 182)?
You dont provoke an attack of opportunityWhy not? EDIT: And is it also your ruling that monks cannot make headbutts, body slams, or shin kicks with unarmed strikes, since those are not listed in the monk class description (despite headbutt being listed as an unarmed attack on page 182)?
The reason for provoking an AoO during a normal unarmed attack is because you are unarmed. When you have the gauntlets you are making an armed, unarmed attack* so you dont provoke an AoO.
*armed unarmed attacks are more talked about in the PRD.
When you have the gauntlets you are making an armed, unarmed attack* so you dont provoke an AoO.
But I don't see gauntlets listed among the list of things that are armed unarmed attacks (monk's unarmed attacks, a character with IUS, a spellcaster delivering a touch spell, or a creature with natural weapons). There's no "such as" or "for example" in there; it's a list. Thus, gauntlets are not armed unarmed attacks by your rulings.
You dont provoke an attack of opportunityWhy not? EDIT: And is it also your ruling that monks cannot make headbutts, body slams, or shin kicks with unarmed strikes, since those are not listed in the monk class description (despite headbutt being listed as an unarmed attack on page 182)?The reason for provoking an AoO during a normal unarmed attack is because you are unarmed. When you have the gauntlets you are making an armed, unarmed attack* so you dont provoke an AoO.
*armed unarmed attacks are more talked about in the PRD.
Raw they dont get a headbutt, but since all the attacks do the same damage whether they kick or punch I would not penalize a player for being cinematic and saying he did a headbutt. A body slam would be more along the lines of a trip attack. Shin kicks are not different than a regular kicks.
When you have the gauntlets you are making an armed, unarmed attack* so you dont provoke an AoO.But I don't see gauntlets listed among the list of things that are armed unarmed attacks (monk's unarmed attacks, a character with IUS, a spellcaster delivering a touch spell, or a creature with natural weapons). There's no "such as" or "for example" in there; it's a list. Thus, gauntlets are not armed unarmed attacks by your rulings.
The monk is making an unarmed attack. Monks dont provoke on unarmed attacks, but they also are not proficient with weapons not specifically listed.
So I would not have the AoO, but the penalty would apply.
The gauntlet allows you to bypass the nonlethal damage rule with unarmed attacks, but it is still its own weapon. It just follows the same rules otherwise. You still get jabbed in the face for trying to use it if you dont have improved unarmed strike. If you were a fighter with improved unarmed strike you could bypass the penalty since its a simple weapon, meaning you are proficient with it, and you have the feat to avoid the AoO.
Flurrying was made to work with a very specific set of weapons, basically monk weapons, and the body itself. The rules and the flavor text show this.
PS: I am not saying it makes sense. I am just saying that is the letter and the intent of the rules.
You still get jabbed in the face for trying to use it if you dont have improved unarmed strike.
So you're agreeing with me that a gauntlet is not an armed unarmed attack. Good.
You're also agreeing with me that a gauntlet IS an unarmed attack (because only unarmed attacks and ranged attacks provoke). Also good.
We've now established an agreement that gauntlets are unarmed attacks.
Now, the monk can use an unarmed strike as part of his flurry of blows. This is specifically allowed by the Flurry of Blows entry in the monk class. We've already established that gauntlets are unarmed strikes. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that gauntlets are usable in a flurry of blows.
This makes sense both from a simulationist perspective (punching with your fist is the same regardless of whether your fist is covered in metal), from a gamist perspective (it balances out the magic item options for various classes), and from a literalist perspective (gauntlets are unarmed strikes, unarmed strikes are usable in a flurry of blows, thus gauntlets are usable in a flurry of blows).
*Sigh* This is just one of those things you'll never get a majority to agree on either way.
Probably so, but I'm a right stubborn bastard.
I'm a right stubborn bastard.
Ahh, the luxury of having nothing better to do. ;)
You still get jabbed in the face for trying to use it if you dont have improved unarmed strike.So you're agreeing with me that a gauntlet is not an armed unarmed attack. Good.
You're also agreeing with me that a gauntlet IS an unarmed attack (because only unarmed attacks and ranged attacks provoke). Also good.
We've now established an agreement that gauntlets are unarmed attacks.
Now, the monk can use an unarmed strike as part of his flurry of blows. This is specifically allowed by the Flurry of Blows entry in the monk class. We've already established that gauntlets are unarmed strikes. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that gauntlets are usable in a flurry of blows.
This makes sense both from a simulationist perspective (punching with your fist is the same regardless of whether your fist is covered in metal), from a gamist perspective (it balances out the magic item options for various classes), and from a literalist perspective (gauntlets are unarmed strikes, unarmed strikes are usable in a flurry of blows, thus gauntlets are usable in a flurry of blows).
Zurai you are arguing common sense. We both agree it should be allowed, but RAW says what can be used. It even says the specific ways in which a monk is allowed to use the unarmed attack. I am not arguing what should be, I am arguing what is. In my game you can use the guantlet. I am just saying by the way the monk was written it calls out certain weapons and the gauntlet it not one of them. The unarmed attacks themselves, under the monk description even call out the different ways you can and cant use it. A headbutt should definitely be usable, but by RAW its not.
Until there is a phrase allowing headbutts, and gauntlets neither one is usable with a flurry.
My logic says RAW means you have to read it literally. Literally these is no gauntlet mentioned, and there is no way you can spin it to say its allowed.
Another example of RAW nonsense is that you can use escape artist to take control of a grapple. The check should only be used to get away, not control a grapple, but thems the rules.
Zurai you are arguing common sense.
No. I'm arguing logic, in the dictionary sense of the word. You seem unwilling to see this. I never argue common sense. I may include common sense as an element of an argument, but it's never the crux. Not in a debate over rules. Common sense and rules are two entirely separate entities that only rarely intersect. One of my favorite slogans is "physics is a house rule".
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The 3.5 FAQs frequently blatantly contradict both each other and the rules as written. I put almost no stock in them.
The WotC 3.5 FAQ only contradict RAW and itself if you choose to misinterpret it.
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.
Gauntlets let you make lethal (instead of non-lethal) attacks, which as a monk you can already do. If you make a Gauntlet a +5 the +5 to hit and +5 to damage go for the 1d3 damage of sized based unarmed.
Monks deal more damage when striking Unarmed, but if a Monk uses a Gauntlet he is no longer "Unarmed Strike"-ing, he is using a Gauntlet.
Unless you have a line in the Monk writeup that says a Monk can use a Gauntlet to deal Monk Unarmed Strike damage, then you default to Unarmed Attacks which deal size based damage.
You may believe that Gauntlet -> "Lethal" Unarmed Attack -> Monk Unarmed Strike is a valid progression, but you don't have a rule to prove the Monk can use the enchantment bonus of the Gauntlet to improve his Monk's class Unarmed Strike ability.
Plus, you shouldn't for balance reasons. There are more than a few examples of Monk items that allow Unarmed Strike damage with magically enhanced items (Scorpion Kama is simply the latest) and every one of them had between a 2,000 gp and 6,000 gp "tax" on the "Deal Unarmed with Weapon" ability. You seek to give that ability away without a rule to do so.
Not to mention the official WotC stance is a +5 Gauntlet lets a 20th level Monk deal 1d3+5 damage at +5 to hit combined with the fact there were no substantial changes in the text between 3.5 and 3.p, the only reasonable interpretation (short of Jason or someone coming in here to confirm) is you can't combine the way you want.
Not to mention the official WotC stance is a +5 Gauntlet lets a 20th level Monk deal 1d3+5 damage at +5 to hit
Uh, no, it isn't. Go read the FAQ yourself. It's even linked in this thread. The official WotC stance is that monks using gauntlets still deal damage as if they were unarmed. It's a contradictory FAQ entry because it says to treat gauntlets like unarmed strikes for some things and not for others.
Another example of RAW nonsense is that you can use escape artist to take control of a grapple. The check should only be used to get away, not control a grapple, but thems the rules.
Makes perfect sense, actually. It's called a reversal in wrestling. I would suppose any wrestler worth his salt would have that skill.
The FAQ was written/compiled by Skip Williams, one man. One fallible man*. He also wrote the Sage Advice columns.
I don't know how many times I've heard the line "The Sage is wrong/contradicting RAW/made a mistake". He has made mistakes before, and had to correct it later. He's also said in a column before (if I'm remembering correctly) that the RAW was not the intended way of doing things, and that people "should" play it the way he "interpreted".
It's hard to say the FAQ is defacto RAW with things like that.
Since the FAQ is no longer being supported by WotC (as far as I know), any mistakes still in there won't ever be corrected. I wouldn't put my full trust into what's written there, and instead rely on the new people making the new rules changes to pipe in with their opinions.
While the FAQ was sometimes iffy, it was at least better than trying to email WotC for a rule explanation, though. You could send 3 different emails and get 3 different rulings on anything complicated or unclear.
.
* Nothing against the guy, I mean, the 3e rules system is HUGE. I'd probably have been wrong more often than he was, and in his columns he at least was open about it when he was interpreting instead of ruling by RAW.
The FAQ definitely could have been a lot worse than it was, and it's perfectly right a high percentage of the time (if not like 99% of the time).
Makes perfect sense, actually. It's called a reversal in wrestling. I would suppose any wrestler worth his salt would have that skill.
No, a reversal is doing it with a grapple check. Escape Artist isn't for that.
Makes perfect sense, actually. It's called a reversal in wrestling. I would suppose any wrestler worth his salt would have that skill.No, a reversal is doing it with a grapple check. Escape Artist isn't for that.
Yes, it is. You can use either a grapple or escape artist check to break a grapple and have the option instead to become the grappler. At least that's what is indicated on page 200 of the PFRPG Core book. To whit:
"If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt
to break the grapple as a standard action by making a
combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent’s CMD;
this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape
Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent’s CMD). If
you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally.
Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler,..."
Mmm, reading comprehension.
The 3.5 FAQs frequently blatantly contradict both each other and the rules as written. I put almost no stock in them.The WotC 3.5 FAQ only contradict RAW and itself if you choose to misinterpret it.
Zurai is right on this one. Their decisions in the FAQ have flip-flopped enough times that I take them with a grain of salt. If the FAQ cites a rule that supports a ruling I generally follow it, but many times I think the rules contradict each other, so The Sage gave his opinion, which is fine, but official rulings, and opinions should be clearly stated as such.
If a rule was badly written it should be rewritten, but if two rules contradict each other then errata should come out that get rid of or modifies one of them.
Another example of RAW nonsense is that you can use escape artist to take control of a grapple. The check should only be used to get away, not control a grapple, but thems the rules.Makes perfect sense, actually. It's called a reversal in wrestling. I would suppose any wrestler worth his salt would have that skill.
Escape Artist was meant to escape, or at least the is the fluff behind it. If they want to allow it to do other things the fluff should match the mechanics.
Escape Artist was meant to escape, or at least the is the fluff behind it. If they want to allow it to do other things the fluff should match the mechanics.
True, but those are the rules as written. Houseruling it out would make sense, but the idea of a reversal from an escape (whatever the means used) also makes sense. Given it's not a wrestling match with a referee, unorthodox / "illegal" tactics would be usable.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Uh, no, it isn't. Go read the FAQ yourself. It's even linked in this thread. The official WotC stance is that monks using gauntlets still deal damage as if they were unarmed. It's a contradictory FAQ entry because it says to treat gauntlets like unarmed strikes for some things and not for others.
I read it, it says what I say, that monks deal 1d3 at 20th level.
The PRPG book explicitly says (as does the 3.5 PHB) that Gauntlets deal 1d3 damage at medium.
The FAQ was written/compiled by Skip Williams,
He's also said in a column before that the RAW was not the intended way of doing things, and that people "should" play it the way he "interpreted".
First, it wasn't just Skip. There have been numerous and when it switched to 4.0 it was Andy Collins.
Second, he probably said that because RAW is used most commonly for "Rules as I can cheat by intentionally misinterpreting the meaning of the rules like a fine attorney would" or just RAW for short.
If people really did do RAW as Rules as Written, then RAW would have many meanings and it would be left up to the DM to pick which meaning was the one that he will use. Essentially, the DM is the Judge.
Zurai is right on this one.
I respectfully disagree. I've only found a few cases where I believe the FAQ/Sage disagrees with RAW (Versatile Spellcasting allowing higher level spells than you can cast being one of them.) 99% of the time their FAQ answer agrees with my interpretation of the RAW and I've never found the FAQ internally inconsistent (even when they removed a Gauntlet question once where people said it disagreed with another Gauntlet question in the same FAQ.)
It comes down to what words you wish to emphasis and the exact meaning from the possible meanings you wish to choose. The meaning that makes the most sense and requires the least amount of creative thinking is that gauntlets deal 1d3 damage at Monk 20 if used by a Monk.
I read it, it says what I say, that monks deal 1d3 at 20th level.
The PRPG book explicitly says (as does the 3.5 PHB) that Gauntlets deal 1d3 damage at medium.
Really? I suggest you read it again.
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.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Really? I suggest you read it again.
Yes really, especially since that question was asked by ME (as in that was my question they answered.)
The increased damage is the +5 to damage.
You choose to misinterpret them by reading the increased damage as something not asked in the question (namely 2d10 at 20th) and obtain an internally inconsistent answer that conflicts with previous answers to directed questions about gauntlets and monks.
The increased damage is the +5 to damage.
That's not what the context of the answer indicates. The context is monk class abilities. Otherwise he'd just have said "the monk deals damage as listed in the gauntlet entry". "The increased damage for unarmed attacks", when referring to a monk, is clearly referring to a monk's iconic ability.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
That's not what the context of the answer indicates.
So when I asked Andy what he meant at GenCon (when 4e came out a few months after that question was answered) by that answer, what do you think he said?
Do you think he said
1) "you know this item call Scorpion Kama that I (Andy) wrote has this 4,000 gp tax on weapons dealing Monk Unarmed damage with an enchantment bonus really should have been 4,000 gp cheaper because Gauntlets do it for free?"
or do you think he said
2) "Yea, I meant the +5 damage"?