What exactly ARE monks, then?
They aren't archers.
They definitely aren't tanks.
They aren't party support.
That pretty much leaves melee damage. Their class abilities also support this, especially flurry of blows and their bonus feats.
1. They're not archers, but they can thrown a mean shuriken. An 8th level monk can throw shuriken in a flurry, using a ki point for +6/+6/+6/+1/+1, plus whatever their DEX is, and deal 1d2+STR with each. Now, imagine they're flaming. that's 5d2+STR + 5d6 Fire. You can take ranged feats as well, Point Blank Shot gives you +1 to hit and damage. Deadly Aim lets you use Power Attack with them. Far Shot will make you better at throwing farther than 10', you can take a -2 to throw them 30'. You're not "an archer", but you can destroy something from 30' away fairly easily.
2. My Halfling Monk is a tank. With +4 DEX, Bracers of Armor +2, +3 AC from WIS, +2 from Monk Levels (currently level 8), +1 Size bonus, and +1 from Dodge, I'm sitting at a 23 AC. I took Toughness, and with Favored Class Monk I now have 59 HP, and that's with a +0 to CON. With a Full Defense, I hit 29 AC, and I currently don't have any Rings that give me a dodge bonus. I've held the line more than once against Ogres.
3. They are indeed party support. For one, my monk has insane Acrobatics checks. I can tumble through combat effortlessly, and smack the spellcaster with a stunning fist. I can set up flanks for Rogues or Fighters. I can jump down a cliffside and take no damage at all. I can soak up an Ogre's bull rush or overrun, laughing the whole time.
My Monk is a DEX-based finesse fighter. I kind of missed the boat on offensive combat maneuvers with my low STR, but I easily fill various roles our party needs. I've tanked, I've disrupted casters, I've snuck in places, I've tumbled around or through foes, I've jumped around like an idiot from tree to tree, and I've beat giant beasts to death in a flurry of tiny fists.
And I've done well at all of them.
You don't have to be the best at something to have it be your "role". There are several jack-of-all-trades classes that have different aesthetics and strengths, and Monks are one of them.
I like what Paizo has done with the Monk class. If there was one thing I would change, it would be to make the Monk's flurry weaker, but give them bonuses to OFFENSIVE combat maneuvers. That, combined with the bonus feats, give a flavor of a finesse fighter that excels at tripping, pushing, disarming and wrestling their enemies.
But I'm happy with what we've got.
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.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
By extension, all special rules which apply to a monk's unarmed strikes can be used with gauntlets, including flurry and increased damage dice.
I disagree with your reading (both in 3.5 and 3.p) I read the RAW to say:
1) Monks are not proficient, so would take -4 to hit.2) Monks can't flurry with Gauntlets.
3) Monks deal size based damage from Gauntlets at 20th instead of 2d10.
Oh, balls. I just realized my previous post ended up in the wrong thread. Urg.
No you didn't bring up powergaming, I did.
I just don't see the issue about having gauntlets as a monk weapon. As you put it using gauntlets as a "safety valve" if people are that hung up on it use a kama which you can enchant and still keep your flurry attacks.
And please don't come out with sarcastic comments when people are trying to help or express an opinion.
You misread my statement. I said gauntlets could use a "safety valve", not be used as one. IE, allow them to use the monks unarmed damage, but prevent them from flurrying with them. Would definitely need some playtesting. As for my sarcasm, perhaps I misread your statement. You seemed a little snarky yourself, with your "fancy pants" and "Dont get hung up" comments. Maybe I like magic items. I tend to play in high magic settings. I'll get as hung up as I please.
|
Lots of useful advice from folks that have played Monks, thanks.
I'd like to see some errata and maybe some rearrangement of rules text or cross-references around unarmed combat.
I'd like it to go from the general to the specific, to exceptions, thusly:
General
All characters are proficient in unarmed attacks (p141)
Provokes AOO from armed chars (p182), unless treated as armed
Does non-leathal bludgeoning damage based on size (table?) + Str mod.
Option to leathal damage at -4 to hit, exception Improved Unarmed Combat
Counts as unarmed when wearing any kind of hand or foot covering (p459).
Certain coverings may alter damage dice, damage type, bonuses, or change to leathal (example p146). Additional limitations may be imposed by coverings.
Any magical attack bonuses to coverings have the same costs and limitations as an Amulet of Mighty Fists (p496).
Normal bonus stacking rule applies to attack bonuses in multiple slots.
Monks
May use their unarmed damage in place of any covering that provides damage.
May use any attack powers or bonuses granted by these types of item.
May override any leathal or non-leathal restrictions imposed by coverings (p58).
Additional
Ki power allows Monk to choose the damage type overriding any item type restriction.
I'm assuming the amulet has the greater cost compared to normal weapon attack bonuses due to its usefulness to a Monk using unarmed attacks.
The extension to other items/slots covers the various hand bindings/gloves/boots etc that can provide more flavour to monk concepts.
A couple of new feats would really make a monk more versatile by allowing a monk to use unarmed damage in place of (monk) weapon damage and allowing a monk to add additional weapons to the monk list.
Some GM advice on customising the monk weapon list for campaigns without breaking game balance would be welcome in the Paizo GM book.
I see monks as really useful combatants in pathfinder, but where they really shine is combat maneuvers. Getting Trip line of feats makes the monk crazily good. There are not many opponents that will be able to stay on their feat and falling down removes tactical movement in combat as well as lowering their AC by 4 while giving them a -4 penalty on melee attacks. For the cost of one of the many attacks in the flurry this is crazily powerful. No debuff spell is as useful for such a small cost. And unless he is fighting a dwarf or a creature with more then 2 legs trips will have a huge success rate.
I have not read all of this thread but has anyone brought up the fact that gauntlets are armor? I mean monks would technically loose any ability that they loose while having armor on while using gauntlets
I have not read all of this thread but has anyone brought up the fact that gauntlets are armor? I mean monks would technically loose any ability that they loose while having armor on while using gauntlets
Gauntlets by themselves provide no ac boost even though they come with some suits of heavier armor.
Gauntlets are weapons on the weapon list.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have not read all of this thread but has anyone brought up the fact that gauntlets are armor?
No AC for Gauntlets, so not technically armour.
The key points against the monk and Gauntlets are:
1) Not listed on Monk weapon choices.
2) Gauntlets are a weapon that allows you to deal Lethal unarmed instead of NonLethal.
3) Gauntlets are listed as dealing 1d3 at Medium and deal size based damage (not monk enhanced based damage.)
Its kinda funny... but if we stick to the damage listed for the Gauntlet (same damage as your average unarmed attack) you can use them as slightly lethal metal boxing gloves for a monk.
I find it funny that what is essentially a metal glove would actually deal less damage on a monks fist... but there you have it.
|
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu.
But, they wouldn't fly in the face of a Pugilist unarmed fighter...a Boxer that uses unarmed gauntlets...
Unfortunately the way the current monk is written, that's what it lends itself to, not to a boxer, or a dwarven grappler.
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu.But, they wouldn't fly in the face of a Pugilist unarmed fighter...a Boxer that uses unarmed gauntlets...
Unfortunately the way the current monk is written, that's what it lends itself to, not to a boxer, or a dwarven grappler.
Created a fighter like that once. Gave him an admantine gauntlet. Twas sweet...
Perhaps I should re-create him now with the PF Fighter some day. I gotta admit, the weapon training class feature at 5th level stacking with weapon specialization and a high strength score would give you a fairly scary pugilist.
EDIT: And there is nothing stopping you from tossing power attack into the mix and gaining that +4 to damage at 4th level.
You are talking about kung fu in the movies then.. If we are basing Monks in DND on Chinese Budhist or Daoist monks, then they should really be proficient with staffs, spears, knives, swords(longswords and broadswords), polearms, shields, and several exotic weapons.. three section staff, flying guilletine, etc. They would also need to be able to deal slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage with unarmed strikes.
Gauntlets are pretty pointless for a monk to use, and they also kind of fly in the face of the idea of an unarmed guy or gal who does bare-handed kung fu.I agree whole-heartedly.
*wants to play a monk/druid who shapechanges into a monkey and then uses dazzling displays to intimidate foes with nunchaku*
I have not read all of this thread but has anyone brought up the fact that gauntlets are armor? I mean monks would technically loose any ability that they loose while having armor on while using gauntletsGauntlets by themselves provide no ac boost even though they come with some suits of heavier armor.
Gauntlets are weapons on the weapon list.
shields are also on that list. Are they armor? Gauntlets are armor. They are part of heavy and medium armor, same as helms and are part of the AC granted by such armor's. So yes they count as armor
Also I think you guys are looking to deep at this, they are used like an unarmed strike for how you attack. But are not an unarmed strike. So if ya use one ya drawl an AoO.
But, the monk is not proficient, it's armor and it's not a monk weapon. Hell it's not really a weapon at all, but i listed same as the shield
I have not read all of this thread but has anyone brought up the fact that gauntlets are armor?No AC for Gauntlets, so not technically armour.
The key points against the monk and Gauntlets are:
1) Not listed on Monk weapon choices.
2) Gauntlets are a weapon that allows you to deal Lethal unarmed instead of NonLethal.
3) Gauntlets are listed as dealing 1d3 at Medium and deal size based damage (not monk enhanced based damage.)
I agree with all your points however. Gauntlets are part of medium and heavy armor, same as helms, so they are counted in that armors AC. They are a part of it, like a chest peace, greaves and such. So yes they are armor, part of the suit,So yes it is armor, just not enough for a full +1, but it would protect his hands so it would count as armor even if it does not grant AC
I am wondering how do you see shields as they are on that weapons list as well? are they no longer armor?
I have not read all of this thread but has anyone brought up the fact that gauntlets are armor?No AC for Gauntlets, so not technically armour.
The key points against the monk and Gauntlets are:
1) Not listed on Monk weapon choices.
2) Gauntlets are a weapon that allows you to deal Lethal unarmed instead of NonLethal.
3) Gauntlets are listed as dealing 1d3 at Medium and deal size based damage (not monk enhanced based damage.)
I agree with all your points however. Gauntlets are part of medium and heavy armor, same as helms, so they are counted in that armors AC. They are a part of it, like a chest peace, greaves and such. So yes they are armor, part of the suit,So yes it is armor, just not enough for a full +1, but it would protect his hands so it would count as armor even if it does not grant AC
I am wondering how do you see shields as they are on that weapons list as well? are they no longer armor?
The problem with calling a gauntlet armor with no armor bonus is that then I can make it 0 AC +5 enhancement bonus to armor, wear it for 0 spell failure then use robes of the archmagi of doom on my wizard? yes, gauntlets on a suit of platemail should protect your hands, but I think you can see the problem with calling it armor. It becomes the armored kilt for non-scottish mages.
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.
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.
But it is not by it's self a weapon, it is just often used as such. It is in fact armor
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.
The gauntlets come with armor, but they are weapons. There however is not loophole since RAW states what the monk can use when flurrying. He can even use headbutts. I cant call them armor without an AC bonus, and making them into armor would be an abusive situation all its own.
call em what ya want they are armor. And monks may not use them without loosing ability besides it would not work with FoB anyhow as they are not a monk weapon
call em what ya want they are armor. And monks may not use them without loosing ability besides it would not work with FoB anyhow as they are not a monk weapon
Since we agree on the non-FoB half and that is the focus of the thread I am calling for a truce.
Agreed. I do think the wording needs a look at , it comes off to me as not an unarmed strike but resolved as such
To me as well they are just another weapon a monk cannot use with flurry or his own attacks. He would do 1d4 with spiked gauntlets, not something any monk would want.
|
|
FWIW I agree with seeker, they are armor, even though they don't provide an armor bonus, that doesn't mean they aren't also weapons, they are just both at the same time, like shields, the only reason they aren't on the armor chart is that they don't have a bonus to AC.
For those who say they aren't armor, does that mean helmets aren't armor?
And I also agree that they can't be used as monk weapons for flurry, that's what AoMF is for.
My thoughts :
Gauntlets/Gloves : Armor and weapon simultaneously. They are special case armor that can't be enchanted separately (otherwise you get people wearing +5 Gauntlets and a +5 robe and getting +10 AC). If you use them to punch a spiked target and avoid damage, they are armor and weapon (protecting you from spikes and doing damage). I would be ok with them having separate weapon enhancements (Just as you can enchant a shield with weapon echantments if it's spiked).
Monk using Gloves : Honestly, I don't have a problem with them using leather straps or gloves. I agree that Monk is associated with eastern settings, but a pugilistic background is fine to. I do have to preface that by saying that I do treat them as MONKS if they are from an eastern setting (staffs, three-section-staffs, hook swords, etc, all monk weapons). I usually use the weapon group rules from UE though, so that makes the point moot since the Monks get Simple and Monk weapons that way (usually), so gauntlets would be proficiency for them.
Feats : I would, as a GM, allow a monk using the core rules to take a feat to add a weapon to his list of monk weapons, provided it is similar enough to a classical monk weapon (gloves, chain and spike, hook sword, katana).
What I'd Like : I'd LOVE (in the new advanced players guide) alternate builds for monks. Pugilist, Zen Archery Master (Flurry of Arrows?).
I am wondering how do you see shields as they are on that weapons list as well? are they no longer armor?
Shields are not armor. They are shields.
"Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields."
"These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load."
Monks are clearly not proficient with shields, and there are clearly defined rules for Monks when it comes to using them.
Gauntlets are not purely armor, and are definitely not shields.
I am wondering how do you see shields as they are on that weapons list as well? are they no longer armor?Shields are not armor. They are shields.
"Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields."
"These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load."
Monks are clearly not proficient with shields, and there are clearly defined rules for Monks when it comes to using them.
Gauntlets are not purely armor, and are definitely not shields.
Heh, ya know what I mean, shields are a type of armor, Saying they are not shields just because they are on the weapon chart is silly. And yes Gauntlets are armor. They can be used as a weapon but the book marks them as armor as they are part of the AC of all medium and heavy armors save breastplate. They do not grant an AC , just as helms do not yet no one is saying helms are not armor.
Heh, ya know what I mean, shields are a type of armor, Saying they are not shields just because they are on the weapon chart is silly. And yes Gauntlets are armor. They can be used as a weapon but the book marks them as armor as they are part of the AC of all medium and heavy armors save breastplate. They do not grant an AC , just as helms do not yet no one is saying helms are not armor.
So you would allow a potion of magic vestment to give them an AC bonus? It works on clothes and they are nowhere on the armor list.
Here is my take on it. Gauntlets are part of a suit of armor. Being a part of something does not make you something. A tire or battery is not a car for example.
You ever saw a gauntlet?? The are indeed armor. A helm is not armor I guess, nore is a cod peace or grieves or ya know leggings or any thing, they do not grant AC but are a part of the armor, silly me thinking they were armor as they are a part of it and are counted in the AC of armor
Sorry man spin it any way you like gauntlets are armor, they may not be enchanted by themselves(same as ya can't a cod piece} as they are 1 part of a suit of armor same as the helm, that's just how 3.x and pathfinder does it but they are in fact armor
Here is my take on it. Gauntlets are part of a suit of armor. Being a part of something does not make you something. A tire or battery is not a car for example.
Ye mean the door or hood? I mean that's the same scale as gauntlet. A car door, a finder, a hood, not a tire is the same part of the car as a gauntlet is to armor, you would never say a car door is not part of a car would you?
And just to show from the merriam-webster dictionary
* Main Entry: 1gaunt·let
* Variant(s): also gant·let \ˈgȯnt-lət, ˈgänt-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French gantelet, diminutive of gant glove, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Middle Dutch want glove, Old Norse vǫttr
* Date: 15th century
1 : a glove worn with medieval armor to protect the hand
2 : any of various protective gloves used especially in industry
3 : an open challenge (as to combat) —used in phrases like throw down the gauntlet
4 : a dress glove extending above the wrist
Now we can count out 4 as a dressing glove , everything else marks it as protective gear and as such armor
Here is my take on it. Gauntlets are part of a suit of armor. Being a part of something does not make you something. A tire or battery is not a car for example.Ye mean the door or hood? I mean that's the same scale as gauntlet. A car door, a finder, a hood, not a tire is the same part of the car as a gauntlet is to armor, you would never say a car door is not part of a car would you?
And just to show from the merriam-webster dictionary
* Main Entry: 1gaunt·let
* Variant(s): also gant·let \ˈgȯnt-lət, ˈgänt-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French gantelet, diminutive of gant glove, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Middle Dutch want glove, Old Norse vǫttr
* Date: 15th century1 : a glove worn with medieval armor to protect the hand
2 : any of various protective gloves used especially in industry
3 : an open challenge (as to combat) —used in phrases like throw down the gauntlet
4 : a dress glove extending above the wristNow we can count out 4 as a dressing glove , everything else marks it as protective gear and as such armor
Fine its valid for magic vestment.
if it worn as part of the whole armor then yes, alone then no. If the spell works on one shoe, or a shirt then it would. However the spell needs the whole outfit, meaning you would need the full suit of armor for it. Not just a part of it.
The spell is clear you need a full outfit so no gauntlets alone do not count
|
|
I have not read all of this thread but has anyone brought up the fact that gauntlets are armor?No AC for Gauntlets, so not technically armour.
The key points against the monk and Gauntlets are:
1) Not listed on Monk weapon choices.
2) Gauntlets are a weapon that allows you to deal Lethal unarmed instead of NonLethal.
3) Gauntlets are listed as dealing 1d3 at Medium and deal size based damage (not monk enhanced based damage.)
But under Gauntlets it specifies that "a strike with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack", therefore a monk can use unarmed attack damage.
Likewise if it's unarmed, a flurry is fine.Since everyone is proficient in unarmed attacks, everyone must be proficient with a gauntlet - including Monks.
Damage is an interesting point, other hand covering don't have a damage amount. Either Monks do their normal unarmed damage or they do gauntlet damage. My view is that I do not see how a gauntlet reduces damage, therefore I allow the Monk to choose which damage they'd like.
|
|
Feats : I would, as a GM, allow a monk using the core rules to take a feat to add a weapon to his list of monk weapons, provided it is similar enough to a classical monk weapon (gloves, chain and spike, hook sword, katana).
What I'd Like : I'd LOVE (in the new advanced players guide) alternate builds for monks. Pugilist, Zen Archery Master (Flurry of Arrows?).
I'd like to see this also as new options for Monks, I am wary of unbalancing the class by just changing the weapons around.
|
|
They would also need to be able to deal slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage with unarmed strikes.
*wants to play a monk/druid who shapechanges into a monkey and then uses dazzling displays to intimidate foes with nunchaku*
I agree with having the ability to change damage types, houseruling this to be included as Ki ability at 4th. Seems better than carrying a golf bag of weapons around.
I agree with having the ability to change damage types, houseruling this to be included as Ki ability at 4th. Seems better than carrying a golf bag of weapons around.They would also need to be able to deal slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage with unarmed strikes.
*wants to play a monk/druid who shapechanges into a monkey and then uses dazzling displays to intimidate foes with nunchaku*
Until then you can pick up a feat from the PHB2 that lets you swap out your damage type on a round for round basis.
EDIT: It may be me... but I just have trouble imagining a monk using some of their monk abilities while wearing THESE .
|
|
I agree with having the ability to change damage types, houseruling this to be included as Ki ability at 4th. Seems better than carrying a golf bag of weapons around.They would also need to be able to deal slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage with unarmed strikes.
*wants to play a monk/druid who shapechanges into a monkey and then uses dazzling displays to intimidate foes with nunchaku*
Until then you can pick up a feat from the PHB2 that lets you swap out your damage type on a round for round basis.
That works too.
I agree with having the ability to change damage types, houseruling this to be included as Ki ability at 4th. Seems better than carrying a golf bag of weapons around.They would also need to be able to deal slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage with unarmed strikes.
*wants to play a monk/druid who shapechanges into a monkey and then uses dazzling displays to intimidate foes with nunchaku*
Until then you can pick up a feat from the PHB2 that lets you swap out your damage type on a round for round basis.
EDIT: It may be me... but I just have trouble imagining a monk using some of their monk abilities while wearing THESE .
Uhm,
How about These?Or perhaps These?
Or perhaps These?
Or especially These?
I agree with having the ability to change damage types, houseruling this to be included as Ki ability at 4th. Seems better than carrying a golf bag of weapons around.They would also need to be able to deal slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage with unarmed strikes.
*wants to play a monk/druid who shapechanges into a monkey and then uses dazzling displays to intimidate foes with nunchaku*
Until then you can pick up a feat from the PHB2 that lets you swap out your damage type on a round for round basis.
EDIT: It may be me... but I just have trouble imagining a monk using some of their monk abilities while wearing THESE .
Uhm,
How about These?Or perhaps These?
Or perhaps These?
Or especially These?
The first ones are a gauntlet in name only... those are basically just gloves.
The chain "gauntlets" give just about as much as a pair of gloves and you'd likely hurt your hand if you punched something wearing those. I've worn metal chain cutting gloves... and they just are not meant for that.
I could not speak as to the drawing... but those seem to be cestus which is different all together and more like brass knuckles really.
The 4th example seems to have the most promise for something that a monk might be able to wear. Being fingerless it'd let them perform nerve strikes and what-not for their stunning blow and would perhaps work.
Its just that the example I gave... is the medieval gauntlet that would most likely be what would come with a set of armor. Thus... is the gauntlet mentioned and listed in the PFRPG.
The first ones are a gauntlet in name only... those are basically just gloves.The chain "gauntlets" give just about as much as a pair of gloves and you'd likely hurt your hand if you punched something wearing those. I've worn metal chain cutting gloves... and they just are not meant for that.
I could not speak as to the drawing... but those seem to be cestus which is different all together and more like brass knuckles really.
The 4th example seems to have the most promise for something that a monk might be able to wear. Being fingerless it'd let them perform nerve strikes and what-not for their stunning blow and would perhaps work.
Its just that the example I gave... is...
1) All sets of armor that are complete sets (IE: Not breastplate or hide) are considered to come with : Helmet, Gauntlets/Gloves, and Boots. Studded Leather Gauntlets are just as valid as Metal Gauntlets. Again, we are discussing the RAW, not just semantics. They group everything under Gauntlets, but Studded Leather armor comes with studded leather gloves that function the same as metal gauntlets (IE: Attack=lethal, treated as unarmed).
2) The cestus is a different weapon I agree, but, unless you use the Arms and Equipment guide from WoTC, Cestus's get lumped into Gauntlets as well. I do agree they are closer to brass knuckles (which I would absolutely let a Monk use, fist loads were often used in martial arts, although usually it was weights held in the palm).
3) The chain gloves were designed to be worn over a pair of thinner leather or cloth gloves (to avoid hurting yourself as you stated). Wearing cloth or leather under them you could very easily punch things and whatever you punched felt it (the chain has enough weight to really add some oomph to it).
4) I agree, these are the ones I'd go with for Monks, honestly. The studded leather fingerless combat gloves. Put a strip of metal down the back of the hand and another on the arm and you get a nice parrying surface too (fluff of course). But such gloves would be what I would give to monks, or any other unarmed expert, and allow them to enchant them as weapons.
The first ones are a gauntlet in name only... those are basically just gloves.The chain "gauntlets" give just about as much as a pair of gloves and you'd likely hurt your hand if you punched something wearing those. I've worn metal chain cutting gloves... and they just are not meant for that.
I could not speak as to the drawing... but those seem to be cestus which is different all together and more like brass knuckles really.
The 4th example seems to have the most promise for something that a monk might be able to wear. Being fingerless it'd let them perform nerve strikes and what-not for their stunning blow and would perhaps work.
Its just that the example I gave... is...
1) All sets of armor that are complete sets (IE: Not breastplate or hide) are considered to come with : Helmet, Gauntlets/Gloves, and Boots. Studded Leather Gauntlets are just as valid as Metal Gauntlets. Again, we are discussing the RAW, not just semantics. They group everything under Gauntlets, but Studded Leather armor comes with studded leather gloves that function the same as metal gauntlets (IE: Attack=lethal, treated as unarmed).
2) The cestus is a different weapon I agree, but, unless you use the Arms and Equipment guide from WoTC, Cestus's get lumped into Gauntlets as well. I do agree they are closer to brass knuckles (which I would absolutely let a Monk use, fist loads were often used in martial arts, although usually it was weights held in the palm).
3) The chain gloves were designed to be worn over a pair of thinner leather or cloth gloves (to avoid hurting yourself as you stated). Wearing cloth or leather under them you could very easily punch things and whatever you punched felt it (the chain has enough weight to really add some oomph to it).
4) I agree, these are the ones I'd go with for Monks, honestly. The studded leather fingerless combat gloves. Put a strip of metal down the back of the hand and another on the arm and you get a nice parrying surface too (fluff of...
1) For the purposes of RAW, only specific sets of medium or heavy armor came with gauntlets and helmet. As light armor studded leather does not come with gauntlets as per RAW. Gauntlets are also specifically classified as a "metal glove" as per its descriptive text.
2) Agreed... in real life chain would have some sort of arming coat or what have you underneath to prevent chaffing and pinching. I'd agree this would fall to the hands as well. Yet... in that case you loose so much manual dexterity in the fingers that I would personally have to rule them out as any sort of monk weapon.
3) Agreed
4) Agreed... I'd be even more open to something in the lines of thick leather straps with metal studs or reinforcement. In the Magic Item Compendium there is a pair of Ki Straps specifically designed to increase the save DC on a monks stunning blow. I'd be open to something like that as a monk item.
1) For the purposes of RAW, only specific sets of medium or heavy armor came with gauntlets and helmet. As light armor studded leather does not come with gauntlets as per RAW. Gauntlets are also specifically classified as a "metal glove" as per its descriptive text.
I keep forgetting that it's Medium and Heavy (save breast plate). Of course, that's because of the pictures in the WoTC PHB. If you look at the illustrations from it, it shows studded and leather armors coming with heavy gloves.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
But under Gauntlets it specifies that "a strike with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack", therefore a monk can use unarmed attack damage
"an unarmed attack" doesn't mean "Unarmed Strike"
Noting it is an unarmed attack that deal lethal damage is there to make it clear you provoke attacks if you attack without Improved Unarmed Strike and nothing more than that.
|
|
But under Gauntlets it specifies that "a strike with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack", therefore a monk can use unarmed attack damage"an unarmed attack" doesn't mean "Unarmed Strike"
Noting it is an unarmed attack that deal lethal damage is there to make it clear you provoke attacks if you attack without Improved Unarmed Strike and nothing more than that.
A gauntlet lets you do lethal damage with an unarmed strike instead of non-lethal. A Monks unarmed damage does more damage when doing an unarmed strike. There's nothing that prevents you combining the two.
I would agree it needs better wording.
I too prefer other types of gloves noted by others, but the RAW allow gauntlets with unarmed strike.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A gauntlet lets you do lethal damage with an unarmed strike instead of non-lethal. A Monks unarmed damage does more damage when doing an unarmed strike. There's nothing that prevents you combining the two.
Except a Monk does Unarmed Strike for 2d10, but a Monk using a Gauntlet (for instance to gain the Gauntlet's +5 to hit and damage) would be using a weapon to deal damage, specifically a weapon that deals damage of 1d3 for Medium sized attacks.
There is nothing in the RAW to allow +5 to Monk Unarmed Strike and +5 damage on Monk Unarmed Strike when used with a Gauntlet and there shouldn't be anyway (since items that allow this type of magical enhancement have a 4,000 gp tax applied such as the Scorpion Kama weapon.)
In essence, you want a Scorpion Kama without paying the 4,000 more.
|
|
4) Agreed... I'd be even more open to something in the lines of thick leather straps with metal studs or reinforcement. In the Magic Item Compendium there is a pair of Ki Straps specifically designed to increase the save DC on a monks stunning blow. I'd be open to something like that as a monk item.
Absolutely. Half the problem seems to be knowing where to look in all the 3e books for what you need.
I'd also allow bonus to attacks at amulet prices and adding metal pieces as suggested by someone, to overcome DR.
Any of that would be welcome in PF2.