|
Does any of this matter since you can just permanancy greater magic weapon to a monks unarmed strike now?
I assume you mean Greater Magic Fang?
So all you need is a 11th level Wizard, 1,125 for the scroll, 7,500 in diamonds and of course the 20th level Druid to get the +5 bonus. Unfortunately scrolls max out at 17th, so you'll have to find an actual caster. I can't find a rule on the cost the Druid will charge you, maybe someone can point me in the right direction? Use scroll cost??
An amulet of Mighty Fists +5 "only" needs a 15th level Druid.
I'd agree permanancy seems a very cheap option IF you can find the high level Druid.
Does any of this matter since you can just permancy greater magic weapon to a monks unarmed strike now?
In addition to the above noted reason, there's another. Fluff. This isn't necessarily a min/max thread, it's a flavor/fluff thread too.
Does any of this matter since you can just permanancy greater magic weapon to a monks unarmed strike now?I assume you mean Greater Magic Fang?
So all you need is a 11th level Wizard, 1,125 for the scroll, 7,500 in diamonds and of course the 20th level Druid to get the +5 bonus. Unfortunately scrolls max out at 17th, so you'll have to find an actual caster. I can't find a rule on the cost the Druid will charge you, maybe someone can point me in the right direction? Use scroll cost??
An amulet of Mighty Fists +5 "only" needs a 15th level Druid.
I'd agree permanancy seems a very cheap option IF you can find the high level Druid.
The cost to have a spell cast is in the equipment section. You can Greater magic fang or weapon a monk fist, so you could get a level 20 Wiz to do both spells for you..maybe give you a 10% off coupon.
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.
These are what my Monk has, with a pearl in the center of the palm, and my DM is ruling that I have to convert them into an Amulet of Mighty Fists.
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.
Gauntlet means "protective glove". It doesn't mean "big metal glove".
There are no rules for "Brass Knuckles" or anything like that, so why can't you just apply gauntlets to them? I'm very tired with the apparent need to print off thousands of splatbooks to create items and classes that could easily be represented in the stock 3.5 or PF ruleset.
The only valid argument in this thread so far has been "If Monks CAN do this, all Monks WILL do this." Gauntlets are going to become the de-facto Monk weapon. That said, unarmed attacks ARE the default Monk weapon.
There has to be some kind of penalty for using a gauntlet, or every Monk will. Losing the flurry ability seems fine to me.
Bottom lining it:
When a Monk attacks with his gauntlet, he loses his Flurry of Blows ability. He applies his full unarmed damage, plus whatever enchantment the gauntlet might have.
When a monk attacks with any other unarmed strike (head, feet, knees, elbows, etc) he can take the benefit of his Flurry of Blows as he wishes. Gauntlet attacks cannot be placed anywhere in a flurry of blows.
The end result of this would give Monks the ability to buy a cheap magic (or masterwork) weapon earlier on, and then trade up to an Amulet of Mighty Fists which would let them flurry with magic when they have more gold to spend. They'd pay for using the gauntlet with less attacks, but they would be more damaging. This might be particularly useful when fighting a well armored opponent, when you might want to flurry anyway, to save yourself the -2 Penalty.
It seems to me that a lot of the issues could be fixed by replacing the gauntlet's listed damage of 1d2 or 1d3 with an asterisk and an explanation that it deals lethal unarmed damage appropriate to the size of the creature wielding it.
|
|
The cost to have a spell cast is in the equipment section. You can Greater magic fang or weapon a monk fist, so you could get a level 20 Wiz to do both spells for you..maybe give you a 10% off coupon.
But Magic Fang is Druid or Ranger only. The easy bit is the permanency. The books suggestion of looking in a metropolis seems like a non-starter. Guess you'll need some serious skill points in knowledge nature to find a Druid.
|
|
Does any of this matter since you can just permancy greater magic weapon to a monks unarmed strike now?In addition to the above noted reason, there's another. Fluff. This isn't necessarily a min/max thread, it's a flavor/fluff thread too.
That's why I like the gloves option, it costs the same but your Monk has more flavour. It also seems a more logical place to put an unarmed attack enchantment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It seems to me that a lot of the issues could be fixed by replacing the gauntlet's listed damage of 1d2 or 1d3 with an asterisk and an explanation that it deals lethal unarmed damage appropriate to the size of the creature wielding it.
I would agree but word it to say it does whatever unarmed strike damage the creature normally does rather than limit the possible modifier to size only.
|
|
These are what my Monk has, with a pearl in the center of the palm, and my DM is ruling that I have to convert them into an Amulet of Mighty Fists.
I see no difference rules-wise, it's really just flavour.
There has to be some kind of penalty for using a gauntlet, or every Monk will. Losing the flurry ability seems fine to me.
As a Monk gains no advantage when wearing a gauntlet, I see no need to penalise him.
If it costs the same as an Amulet it's just flavour as is the description gauntlet/glove/bindings etc.
That's why I like the gloves option, it costs the same but your Monk has more flavour. It also seems a more logical place to put an unarmed attack enchantment.Does any of this matter since you can just permancy greater magic weapon to a monks unarmed strike now?In addition to the above noted reason, there's another. Fluff. This isn't necessarily a min/max thread, it's a flavor/fluff thread too.
Agreed, I especially prefer fingerless gloves (with studs) for unarmed martial specialists. Allows any special attacks like nerve strike, but is still on the hands. Wish they'd do rules for fistloads, etc.
|
|
Agreed, I especially prefer fingerless gloves (with studs) for unarmed martial specialists. Allows any special attacks like nerve strike, but is still on the hands. Wish they'd do rules for fistloads, etc.
For non-Monks the advantage is lethal damage. For Monks you need to have exotic materials or masterwork to get any advantage over bare fists. I'd suggest that's why beginning Monks don't use them. Nothing in OA on gloves but has some weapons that do unarmed damage, which is neat.
*SNIP*
Gauntlet means "protective glove". It doesn't mean "big metal glove".
*SNIP*
I've just been pointing out that for the purposes of the game rules "gauntlet" refers only to that "big metal glove".
Anything else is considered "just a glove" by RAW.
Now... exceptions exist. I'm all for exceptions. If there is a magic fingerless gauntlet out there that is designed specifically for a monk in mind, then I'm all for it.
Its just a matter of making the item and pricing it fairly.
There are no rules for "Brass Knuckles" or anything like that, so why can't you just apply gauntlets to them? I'm very tired with the apparent need to print off thousands of splatbooks to create items and classes that could easily be represented in the stock 3.5 or PF ruleset.
Unfortunately, this is a game and not real life. Thus, rules issues crop up. Having a fews lines in a book that describe an item that can do this or that is one of the ways to modify the rules to account for questions like the ones in this thread. I like having options. If you don't want the options, don't buy the books and don't allow them in your game. Simple.
I've just been pointing out that for the purposes of the game rules "gauntlet" refers only to that "big metal glove".
Incorrect. It just refers to a metal glove. Chainmail, for example, has gauntlets, but not "big metal gloves". They're going to be thin chain-link gloves, flexible and form-fitting.
I've just been pointing out that for the purposes of the game rules "gauntlet" refers only to that "big metal glove".Incorrect. It just refers to a metal glove. Chainmail, for example, has gauntlets, but not "big metal gloves". They're going to be thin chain-link gloves, flexible and form-fitting.
Notice that I was quoting "big metal glove". Not my words to begin with.
Not as form fitting as you think. Wearing chain on your hand with no padding would cause yourself some major grief. More than likely you'd have some sort of cloth or leather glove underneath the chain. In the end, the result is basically the same. Lots of material on your hands reducing your manual dexterity in you fingers.
Don't believe me? Ask anyone who works in a cold environment with any sort of warm padded gloves. The thicker and more protective the material, the less you can "easily" do with your fingers.
Unarmed Strikes do bludgeoning damage. They don't require manual dexterity.
It seems to me that a lot of the issues could be fixed by replacing the gauntlet's listed damage of 1d2 or 1d3 with an asterisk and an explanation that it deals lethal unarmed damage appropriate to the size of the creature wielding it.
I agree. I think its kinda silly that they put in a listed damage for a weapon that "effectively" is a unarmed strike. But I think they were trying to simplify it and ended up with the opposite result.
I've been playing devil's advocate for a bit here...
My personal opinion on the matter though is that I have no problem with a monk wearing a gauntlet. I'd personally rule that they could do their improved unarmed damage with it.
However, I also personally rule that they are not proficient with the gauntlet listed, and it is not a monk weapon.
So, if a monk in my game wants to use it, he can pick up simple weapons proficiency.
I personally can see why you might have difficulty performing a flurry of blows. You are effectively adding somewhat cumbersome metal weights at the ends of your arms which will slow your reflexes. Gauntlets cover your entire hand and wrist after all. They are also much heavier than a pair of padded gloves or boxing gloves.
There are benefits to having a weapon like a gauntlet that you can enchant, even if you cannot use it as a monk weapon in a flurry of blows. I'd stick with just making single attacks with it on a charge. I'd also make the weapon adamantine or mithral to bypass DR types.
A monk cannot make a flurry on a charge anyway. So having a weapon that you use on a charge is great against tough to damage, tough to hit opponents that you wouldn't want to take the penalties against on a flurry anyway.
If the weapon is made of adamantine, it lets you bypass most hardness as well. Give your monk a adamantine gauntlet and power attack. You can now smash objects quite well.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
gauntlet's listed damage of 1d2 or 1d3 with an asterisk and an explanation that it deals lethal unarmed damage appropriate to the size of the creature wielding it.I agree. I think its kinda silly that they put in a listed damage for a weapon that "effectively" is a unarmed strike. But I think they were trying to simplify it and ended up with the opposite result.
Saying it deals size appropriate wouldn't fix the issue, as 1d3 is size appropriate. It would need to explicitly say "monks deal more damage" otherwise you are back to 20th level Monks dealing 1d3 "size appropriate" damage.
Saying it deals size appropriate wouldn't fix the issue, as 1d3 is size appropriate. It would need to explicitly say "monks deal more damage" otherwise you are back to 20th level Monks dealing 1d3 "size appropriate" damage.gauntlet's listed damage of 1d2 or 1d3 with an asterisk and an explanation that it deals lethal unarmed damage appropriate to the size of the creature wielding it.I agree. I think its kinda silly that they put in a listed damage for a weapon that "effectively" is a unarmed strike. But I think they were trying to simplify it and ended up with the opposite result.
Well... the thought is a good one though. Just change the damage to an asterisk and then add a line of descriptive text as appropriate to solve the issue.
For example:
"Deals unarmed strike damage or advanced unarmed strike damage (such as that of a monk) as appropriate to creature size."
Slight thread-jack...
All of this talk on monks had me in the mood for martial arts flicks. That said, there is nothing like a good Jet-Li flick for hardcore martial arts action so I just finished watching Kiss of the Dragon.
(Monks >> D&D >> Dragons >> Kiss of the Dragon was my thought process)
There is one scene in Kiss of the Dragon where Jet-Li takes on a whole dojo of cops with clubs. This leads me to the point of this post...
Although they are proficient, why the heck don't monks treat clubs as monk weapons for a flurry of blows?!? Stick Fighting is a martial style that has been around nearly as long as man could pick up sticks.
... end thread-jack.
Slight thread-jack...
All of this talk on monks had me in the mood for martial arts flicks. That said, there is nothing like a good Jet-Li flick for hardcore martial arts action so I just finished watching Kiss of the Dragon.
(Monks >> D&D >> Dragons >> Kiss of the Dragon was my thought process)
There is one scene in Kiss of the Dragon where Jet-Li takes on a whole dojo of cops with clubs. This leads me to the point of this post...
Although they are proficient, why the heck don't monks treat clubs as monk weapons for a flurry of blows?!? Stick Fighting is a martial style that has been around nearly as long as man could pick up sticks.
... end thread-jack.
I guess in my mind it would depend on the club. If it's like a jo-stick, a short version of the bo, then it probably should be counted among the other weapons. However, "Club" is a very general term, and a three inch diameter at the end four-foot long barbarian type club doesn't seem to fit the flurry mold to well.
I guess in my mind it would depend on the club. If it's like a jo-stick, a short version of the bo, then it probably should be counted among the other weapons. However, "Club" is a very general term, and a three inch diameter at the end four-foot long barbarian type club doesn't seem to fit the flurry mold to well.Slight thread-jack...
All of this talk on monks had me in the mood for martial arts flicks. That said, there is nothing like a good Jet-Li flick for hardcore martial arts action so I just finished watching Kiss of the Dragon.
(Monks >> D&D >> Dragons >> Kiss of the Dragon was my thought process)
There is one scene in Kiss of the Dragon where Jet-Li takes on a whole dojo of cops with clubs. This leads me to the point of this post...
Although they are proficient, why the heck don't monks treat clubs as monk weapons for a flurry of blows?!? Stick Fighting is a martial style that has been around nearly as long as man could pick up sticks.
... end thread-jack.
A club is also something selected at the users preference. Considering the weapon is free... and is most likely a stick the user picks off the ground or cuts off a tree.
I can see a little work with a knife getting you some good stick-fighting sticks.
However, "Club" is a very general term, and a three inch diameter at the end four-foot long barbarian type club doesn't seem to fit the flurry mold to well.
A "four foot long barbarian type club" would be a greatclub, not a club.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
However, I also personally rule that they are not proficient with the gauntlet listed, and it is not a monk weapon.So, if a monk in my game wants to use it, he can pick up simple weapons proficiency.
That was my starting point, but further reading in PFRPG yielded the rules that gauntlets use unarmed strike and everyone, including monks, has that as a proficiency, therefore Monks are proficient with gauntlets when doing unarmed strikes.
If the weapon is made of adamantine, it lets you bypass most hardness as well. Give your monk a adamantine gauntlet and power attack. You can now smash objects quite well.
Exotic materials in your gloves can be useful.
Errata needs to tidy this up as you have to refer to 4 or 5 places to get all the interacting rules covered, see my earlier post.
So, to answer my own thread question, Monks don't need a proficiency because everyone is already proficient.
Can't help but chime in, even though the issue has been left alone for a couple of days.
1st, to the people looking hard at the drawing of the monk in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. Forget about the sword in the right hand; look at the left hand...look like some spiked knuckles to me. OMGWTFRULEBREAKDOWN.
2nd, to the people who insist an unarmed strike is not an unarmed attack or vice versa or something... I'm confused where you're reading this, and why you think it matters. When I read the gauntlet description I see it say, "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." That seems to cover both ends of it. I'm not seeing anything fancy in the monk class description or Flrry of Blows that makes a big distinction between the two in a way that makes it less clear.
3rd, to the people talking about how it has damage listed in the weapons table and thus doesn't scale with unarmed strike increases from the monk class ability. What about unarmed strike? This sounds absurd, but it's listed in exactly the same way just one line lower...same damage and everything. My reading of RAW says a gauntlet just changes the type of damage, and the damage is listed for convenience, just like with the entry for unarmed strike one line lower.
So, yeah. As I read this I see it as wearable unarmed attack weapon, effectively, enchantable as such. I'll allow full Flurry of Blows with them. Why not? Because in D&D 3.5 they FAQed it away? Monks get kind of screwed in the sweet magic item categories. They already pay more for less, and can hardly use anything anyway. To the stacking issue, I rule (this is a little wishy-washy) that the "use" of your fist cannot use-activate more than one magic item. There. No more stacking problem. To the cost difference between a magic guantlet and an Amulet of Mighty Fists I say feh. Who cares? The monk's just going to turn around and dump that gold/item slot into an Amulet of Natural Armor. Those things are plenty expensive at most levels. Besides, the Amulet of Mighty Fists isn't worthless, it just suddenly becomes more something for a Druid under Wild Shape or an animal companion or something. Maybe a Wizard's housecat familiar of doom. Whatevs.
As for flavor...in my mind, they're not likely to be plate mail gauntlets. Just simple leather handguards with metal plates. I'm not married to the idea of metal being a part of it, either, so if they want fancy hand wraps I don't need to jump into a splatbook. Whatever, it doesn't really matter. In most forms of martial arts fiction, you see miscellaneous hand wraps of various kinds. Ryu and Ken wore their little sparring hand guards. I'd almost (but won't) allow spiked guantlets to be treated as a variant of unarmed, but figure tearing flesh or some such might be just enough to ruin the whole flurry of blows bit. Yeah, every monk will just use gauntlets instead of going unarmed all the time? Again, who cares? You just have to have a drawback for some reason? Okay, everyone reacts to you like you've got weapons strapped to your arms and you're itching for a fight. Good enough? A fighter in full plate doesn't look armed...a monk wearing light clothes and weird gauntlet wrap things does. No, it's not a huge drawback, really, and if the villains tie you up, steal all your equipment, and throw you in a dungeon you're still a badass monk, which is more than you can say for the fighter.
In the campaign I just started I've got a player with a level 1 Goliath barbarian wielding a large greatsword doing 3d6+12 when he's raging *without* Power Attack. A monk using a gauntlet's the least of my problems. And really, that's my own fault.
I like the world to remain free for whatever the players want to accomplish and feel reasonably full of consequences. I'm definitely more concerned about making it at least an approximation of a simulation than a perfectly balanced game. If I wasn't, I'd have just moved on to 4E where they can explain to me what "Line of Sight" means as if it weren't whether or not you can see at least part of something. In my campaign world, the short answer to any question about "can I do this..." is usually "Yes, but..." which has gotten me into some trouble in the past, but abuses of that kind tend to balance out. You want a T-Rex for a mount? Sure, but first...and suddenly they're on a multi-tiered quest where they get an itemcrafter to make a Torc of Sustenance (so they don't blow all their money/time just feeding the damn thing), get a saddle made, find a wizard who can find a way accelerate the aging process (they don't want to wait a few years), find a badass animal trainer (oops, no one in the party can train anything), get some T-Rex eggs (They got lucky and didn't end up having to fight one, but oh, another party member wanted a Roc, so gotta fight some giant birds, though...), and then spend all the money and hope the trainer rolls well (He did. They ended up with extra mounts, which they couldn't afford to feed, really, so they sold them off for comparitively little, since there wasn't much of a market for them). Pretty expensive and time consuming, but awesome. And they still don't even fit in a dungeon.
At one point the party (which was totally evil, by the way, if the T-Rex mounts weren't a giveaway), pissed off a a pixie with some rogue levels (long story). The pixie knew it couldn't fight them straight up, but it laid a trap for them (a camp full of gnolls that ostensibly worshiped the party's minotaur leader...another long story...but was full of necklaces of fireballs for some suicide bomb attacks) and they all went to sleep and forgot to set a nightly watch. They got to make a couple of (fairly hard, given how stealthy a pixie with rogue levels can be) listen checks to wake up, everyone failed, and when they got up the pixie had sliced their bags of holding during the night, which even got the Wizard's spellbook. Yeah. It's cool, though, he summoned a demon who was nice and gave him a better one (a Blessed Book, albeit with some different spells) and then nearly cried (really) when he hadn't read the details of the summoning and didn't realize there was a cost to horrible sacrificial magic and that he owed a demon a favor. He was that paranoid of the consequences by that point (he nearly died in the necklace of fireball incident because he didn't trust the ring of fire resistance he was offerred).
So, to everyone who doesn't like gauntlets for monks, I applaud your commitment to what the 3rd edition designers apparently intended (based on the 3.5 FAQ), I guess, as long as it feels right for your campaign. I mean, that's really the most important thing. I nearly made a player cry because he owed a demon "something" but he still couldn't wait to come back the next week and continue. Otherwise, I just don't see what the big deal is. Monks aren't so awesome they're just going to win everything because they can save some money on more powerful attacks. I've always hated that monks pretty much get screwed on the cool item front, and the lack of description for a gauntlet saying it is anything other than unarmed strike works just fine for me. Like XP costs for crafting and the annoyance of having to choose between Spot and Listen for your meager 2+INT points each level as a Fighter, I'm perfectly content to let that stay in WotC's 3.5.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, to everyone who doesn't like gauntlets for monks, I applaud your commitment to what the 3rd edition designers apparently intended (based on the 3.5 FAQ)
It isn't a matter of like/dislike. It is a matter of rules interpretations and fairness.
RAW debated (with two views of how it reads):
1) Monk's can/can't make Gauntlet attacks while Flurry
2) 20th Human Monk's deals 2d10/1d3 damage with Gauntlet attacks
Fairness debated
20th Monk's gain +5 to attack/+5 damage from using a +5 Gauntlet (cost 25k) while dealing 2d10 without having to pay extra for +5 Amulet of Mighty Strikes (75k) or custom Scorpion Kama (30k) to deal Monk Unarmed Damage without using Unarmed Strike weapon.
That is what it comes down to the metal. Frankly, I have no problem with Gauntlets on a Monk but the rules (in my reading) prevent it and it isn't fair to allow the enhancement bonus to Gauntlets enhance Monk Unarmed Strikes for between 5k and 50k less than other items that do the same.
So, to everyone who doesn't like gauntlets for monks, I applaud your commitment to what the 3rd edition designers apparently intended (based on the 3.5 FAQ)It isn't a matter of like/dislike. It is a matter of rules interpretations and fairness.
RAW debated (with two views of how it reads):
1) Monk's can/can't make Gauntlet attacks while Flurry
2) 20th Human Monk's deals 2d10/1d3 damage with Gauntlet attacksFairness debated
20th Monk's gain +5 to attack/+5 damage from using a +5 Gauntlet (cost 25k) while dealing 2d10 without having to pay extra for +5 Amulet of Mighty Strikes (75k) or custom Scorpion Kama (30k) to deal Monk Unarmed Damage without using Unarmed Strike weapon.That is what it comes down to the metal. Frankly, I have no problem with Gauntlets on a Monk but the rules (in my reading) prevent it and it isn't fair to allow the enhancement bonus to Gauntlets enhance Monk Unarmed Strikes for between 5k and 50k less than other items that do the same.
Not to get into another argument with you, but if you're going to use fair, then that argument works against you.
A human fighter can buy a bastard sword and enchant it to do similar damage as the monk at 20th level (sans feats). It costs him a lot less to get that +5 than it does the monk (restricting them to amulet of mighty fists), and he's got 4 attacks with that great sword (not quite as good as Flurry, granted).
Another thing is, nobody is thinking about the fact that Gauntlets have to be purchased and bonused SEPARATELY (The descriptions say the stats are for one gauntlet). So, that's 100,000gp for both hands to be +5 gauntlets, if I'm reading that correctly, just like you'd need to enchant both a longsword and short sword separately. And they Monk doesn't get those bonus's on kicking/etc (IE: while grappling). The amulet of mighty fists gives you the +5 on all unarmed attacks.
Frankly, the gauntlets would really be more of a flavor thing, or perhaps adding special damage to punches. For example, wearing +1 Freezing Leather Gauntlets and a +4 Amulet of Mighty Fists. Getting the +4 for the Amulet and the +1d6 cold damage from the leather gauntlets.
It isn't a matter of like/dislike. It is a matter of rules interpretations and fairness.RAW debated (with two views of how it reads):
1) Monk's can/can't make Gauntlet attacks while Flurry
2) 20th Human Monk's deals 2d10/1d3 damage with Gauntlet attacks
True, true. It is a matter of rules. I more meant "like" as "Who do you like to win today?" where it's an informed judgment based on the available info. Too much time spent reading/viewing football analysis lately, I guess. But I do interpret the rules to say that gauntlets count as unarmed, and the only things I see going against that are vanilla 3.5, not Pathfinder. I also read the damage as unarmed strike damage (based on the text entry for gauntlet) for that size creature, replacing thr table's given value the same way as the generic unarmed strike is one line lower. Hopefully I was clear that those were literal rules lawyer-style interpretations, not just stuff I really wanted to be true.
Fairness debated
20th Monk's gain +5 to attack/+5 damage from using a +5 Gauntlet (cost 25k) while dealing 2d10 without having to pay extra for +5 Amulet of Mighty Strikes (75k) or custom Scorpion Kama (30k) to deal Monk Unarmed Damage without using Unarmed Strike weapon.
I see that, but I compare the fairness against other classes, not other monks. So it doesn't bother me in the slightest. You can still sunder a gauntlet without any weird metagaming (I think it's his amulet that makes his fists covered in fire and lightning...we should smash it!). I really feel like monks have been screwed, equipment-wise, for a long time, just like magic item crafters having to pay XP all these years. I don't read any specific intent to keep it up when gauntlets are defined as unarmed attacks, and as such don't intend to create the extra costs just because they've always been there. One of the things I really liked about Pathfinder from the get go (reading the conversion guide before I got the book) was how they threw away so many of the rules I'd felt were arbitrarily punitive and unnecessary (even if I still followed them anyway, like barbarian illiteracy). Another good example is the monk multiclass restrictions. Flavor shouldn't limit options without really good reasons. Not everyone plans every character level before play (I do, but I'm obsessive about stuff like that, which is why I run the campaign).
Also, I'm not sure what book has the Scorpion Kama, but I don't have any of my books with me and I don't see it in the Pathfinder Resource Document. Splatbook stuff tends to require a case-by-case look, especially across major revisions. Mercurial greatswords (3.0 melée splatbook, if I recall correctly) , platinum/gold weapons (Magic of Faerun), and whip-daggers (I think they made it into a 3.5 splatbook, maybe Complete Adventurer) are all good examples of weapons I'd need to look at again before making a ruling. If the Scorpion Kama just allows damage increased in line with monk unarmed, I might lower the cost and call it good.
Really, FoB only has to compare against the Two Weapon Fighting tree. I think it holds up well, and has some cool benefits. It's an (Ex) ability, so I don't feel like it needs some extra magic just to make a gauntlet flurry-able. Besides, gauntlets come in sets of one and if the player wants to make attacks with a gauntlet in the off hand (remember, it says "as if using the two-weapon fighting feat") then the monk has to pay for two, which gets rid of the cost discrepancy versus the amulet right there. There are plenty of weapons that I feel could legitimately make monk weapons, but if a player asked for them I'd say no and tell them to look at being a fighter, barbarian, or ranger instead, taking the two-weapon fighting feats along the way. Gauntlet, however, passes with a literal reading of the weapon being treated as an unarmed strike dealing lethal damage.
Also, if the monk wants the enhancement bonus to attack with a gauntlet, they pay weapon enhancement costs, so the +5 gauntlet in your example runs 50K (more if they want mithril or adamantine or something), not 25K, and the monk needs two of them, for a total of 100K. The monk would also not get the benefit using elbows/knees and the like if his hands were full. Suddenly the 75K for the amulet sounds like a bargain.
MDT, I'm right there with you, obviously, although as I put in my original post, I wouldn't let the gauntlets and amulet stack (with the "only one use-activated item is triggered by the use of a single attack" logic, which may be overreaching and breaking some really common item or set of items in some way that I can't think of right now, but feels less arbitrary than just saying "no.")
Also, while no one had mentioned it so far, in my discussion of the "off-hand" attack, it's worth pointing out that technically the monk's flurry has no off-hand, and they can make attacks with their fists even when their hands are full...but they still have only one gauntlet. I would not allow more attacks with the same hand than you could make with a primary weapon as if the monk were using two-weapon fighting feats.
MDT, I'm right there with you, obviously, although as I put in my original post, I wouldn't let the gauntlets and amulet stack (with the "only one use-activated item is triggered by the use of a single attack" logic, which may be overreaching and breaking some really common item or set of items in some way that I can't think of right now, but feels less arbitrary than just saying "no.")
I didn't say they'd stack. They don't. An Amulet of Mighty Fists gives a +N enhancement bonus. Therefore, the enhancement bonus doesn't stack. Special weapon abilities I would allow to stack as long as they aren't the same power.
For example.
+2 Flaming Leather Gauntlets combined with
+3 Shocking Amulet of Mighty Fists
When Punching with either gauntlet : +3 Flaming Shocking attack
When kicking : +3 Shocking attack
When headbutting : +3 Shocking attack
The reason the Amulet is so expensive is you get it on EVERY type of unarmed attack. A gauntlet would and should be cheaper since it is only on the fists (if you grapple you can't use them, but can still kick with the amulet and get it's bonus's).
If you had a +3 Shocking Amulet and +4 Shocking Gauntlets, then you'd only get +4 Shocking attack with your fists, and a +3 Shocking attack with kicks or headbutts.
It's not honestly, to me, unbalanced. The only iffy part is the flurry of blows. I'd personally rule that gauntlets that are leather that are made for Monk's are usable as Monk weapons with all their abilities, and enchantable (although you have to enchant each seperately, just like two nunchaku or two daggers).
You're technically correct (the best kind of correct...ah, Futurama). Stack is a specific technical term, but saying the effects don't stack or combine seemed needlessly excessive to me, although clearly that wasn't so. I do not intend to allow any players to combine the effects on a single attack. While it's not, on the face of it, crazy overpowered, it does swing to the side of an extra advantage over other weapons on a weird technicality. I prefer to rule that it doesn't work, nor will any similar technicalities regarding simultaneous use-activated items (which I still feel may break something important, but until I run into that it feels right and makes sense).
The reality is that no player would take enhancement bonuses because they wouldn't stack, instead adding in extra cheese powers. Enhancing a +5 gauntlet with +5 worth of extra fluff via an amulet would normally run 125,000 (if I recall my item formulae correctly) instead of the 200,000 that combining it all into a single gauntlet as an effective +10 for cost calculations would run (again, relying on memory). Hell, you could afford two +5 gauntlets and the amulut and it would still be only 175,000.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Gauntlets have to be purchased and bonused SEPARATELY
You only need one Gauntlet to make all your attacks (since you can't Flurry), but even if you could flurry with a Gauntlet you could still take all your attacks with the same hand.
In 3.5 the official stance was you could TWF with Unarmed Strikes and since Unarmed Strikes are all one weapon you could TWF with one finger on one hand with no need to use any other hand, foot, etc. I disagree with this stance, but that was the official response.
You still have this line of interpreting the rules in 3.p with the whole "no thing as an off-hand" language. If used to extract more meaning, you could insist that all flurry attacks can be made with the same part of the body.
I was clear that those were literal rules lawyer-style interpretations, not just stuff I really wanted to be true.
It was clear, but evidently I wasn't clear. You view of RAW is valid and acceptable. My view of RAW (which conflicts with yours) is also valid and acceptable. Both come from Lawyer style interpretations, if you will.
The point I am making is both my view and your view can be "proved" by going to the rules text. So every game has the DM judging between your view and my view which is the way the rules read for him. I use my view when judging and will continue to do so believing I am using the RAW until I find an official answer from Paizo on how it is official intended to work.
I really have no dog in this, honestly, if the official way is that Gauntlets are intended to be cheaper Scorpion Kama's and they save you the 4000 gp "tax" the Kama had, great. Awesome, Monk's are due a boost. But until I find an official answer, I don't see the need to "give Monk's a bone" by interpreting the rules counter to how I see them written.
In 3.5 the official stance was you could TWF with Unarmed Strikes and since Unarmed Strikes are all one weapon you could TWF with one finger on one hand with no need to use any other hand, foot, etc. I disagree with this stance, but that was the official response.
You still have this line of interpreting the rules in 3.p with the whole "no thing as an off-hand" language. If used to extract more meaning, you could insist that all flurry attacks can be made with the same part of the body.
...
I really have no dog in this, honestly, if the official way is that Gauntlets are intended to be cheaper Scorpion Kama's and they save you the 4000 gp "tax" the Kama had, great. Awesome, Monk's are due a boost. But until I find an official answer, I don't see the need to "give Monk's a bone" by interpreting the rules counter to how I see them written.
All good points. I definitely have made some total rule misinterpretations in the past (I was really thrown by the lack of duration on the paladin mount and thought it was an omission, now I'm just kind of bummed they get superior animal companions to the Druid, even if they get them later). As it stands, though, I'm going to just ignore the 3.5 FAQ wackiness/nonsense on monks/TWF/gauntlets until someone tells me otherwise, and then I might have to house rule it (which I am perpetually loathe to do).
What book is the Scorpion Kama from, though?
In 3.5 the official stance was you could TWF with Unarmed Strikes and since Unarmed Strikes are all one weapon you could TWF with one finger on one hand with no need to use any other hand, foot, etc. I disagree with this stance, but that was the official response.
You still have this line of interpreting the rules in 3.p with the whole "no thing as an off-hand" language. If used to extract more meaning, you could insist that all flurry attacks can be made with the same part of the body.
...
I really have no dog in this, honestly, if the official way is that Gauntlets are intended to be cheaper Scorpion Kama's and they save you the 4000 gp "tax" the Kama had, great. Awesome, Monk's are due a boost. But until I find an official answer, I don't see the need to "give Monk's a bone" by interpreting the rules counter to how I see them written.
All good points. I definitely have made some total rule misinterpretations in the past (I was really thrown by the lack of duration on the paladin mount and thought it was an omission, now I'm just kind of bummed they get superior animal companions to the Druid, even if they get them later). As it stands, though, I'm going to just ignore the 3.5 FAQ wackiness/nonsense on monks/TWF/gauntlets until someone tells me otherwise, and then I might have to house rule it (which I am perpetually loathe to do).
What book is the Scorpion Kama from, though?
Magic Item Compendium
Magic Item Compendium
Found it, thanks. Hadn't cracked it open in a good long time, apparently.
.... now I'm just kind of bummed they get superior animal companions to the Druid, even if they get them later).
Off-topic:
How so? I am playing druid now, and I dont see a paladins animal buddy even looking at mine.PS: I wish this board had PM's.
mdt wrote:
Gauntlets have to be purchased and bonused SEPARATELY
You only need one Gauntlet to make all your attacks (since you can't Flurry), but even if you could flurry with a Gauntlet you could still take all your attacks with the same hand.
In 3.5 the official stance was you could TWF with Unarmed Strikes and since Unarmed Strikes are all one weapon you could TWF with one finger on one hand with no need to use any other hand, foot, etc. I disagree with this stance, but that was the official response.
You still have this line of interpreting the rules in 3.p with the whole "no thing as an off-hand" language. If used to extract more meaning, you could insist that all flurry attacks can be made with the same part of the body.
Well,
I'm afraid I have to agree with you. The official stance is wrong. I have no problem with someone TWFing unarmed, but that means using at least two different 'weapons'. Two fists, fist + kick, kick + headbutt, fist + headbutt, etc.I've never actually seen the WoTC response (I'd love to hear Paizo's take on that, I'm hoping it's different), since I never had anyone want to play a monk in my games before. Probably because of stupid nonsense like this.
I get this image of Mr. Bean saying 'Die' over and over again while poking someone with his index finger over and over when I think of the paragraph above. :)
A good cinematic example of a pathfinder monk... might be Tifa from Final Fantasy: Advent Children. In one fight scene her opponent has a sort of shocking gauntlet. If we consider him sort of a monk/fighter you can basically see my vision of what a monk using a gauntlet might be like.
As both are fighting "unarmed" there is a good argument they can both be considered martial artists/monks.
Tifa moves fast and does allot of acrobatics and flurry of blows type attacks... the big guy (name escapes me) does more of a focused power attack punch and general power fighting style with bursts of speed.
A good cinematic example of a pathfinder monk... might be Tifa from Final Fantasy: Advent Children. In one fight scene her opponent has a sort of shocking gauntlet. If we consider him sort of a monk/fighter you can basically see my vision of what a monk using a gauntlet might be like.
As both are fighting "unarmed" there is a good argument they can both be considered martial artists/monks.
Tifa moves fast and does allot of acrobatics and flurry of blows type attacks... the big guy (name escapes me) does more of a focused power attack punch and general power fighting style with bursts of speed.
Yep, I remember that scene, great scene. I'd say Tifa is more of a monk, but the guy with the power glove is more of a Fighter focused on Gauntlet fighting. And, I believe if I remember correctly Tifa wore fingerless leather gloves.
Yep, I remember that scene, great scene. I'd say Tifa is more of a monk, but the guy with the power glove is more of a Fighter focused on Gauntlet fighting. And, I believe if I remember correctly Tifa wore fingerless leather gloves.A good cinematic example of a pathfinder monk... might be Tifa from Final Fantasy: Advent Children. In one fight scene her opponent has a sort of shocking gauntlet. If we consider him sort of a monk/fighter you can basically see my vision of what a monk using a gauntlet might be like.
As both are fighting "unarmed" there is a good argument they can both be considered martial artists/monks.
Tifa moves fast and does allot of acrobatics and flurry of blows type attacks... the big guy (name escapes me) does more of a focused power attack punch and general power fighting style with bursts of speed.
Though... the big guy did have a nice boost of speed. He flashed along and then appeared behind Tifa. You could flavor that towards a monk using a ki point for the extra movement boost as well. Kinda why I was thinking Monk/Fighter.
Correct. Fingerless gloves not gauntlets. Mostly as proof vs. minor abrasion I'd say.
Dang what a cool scene though.
Edit: Kinda begs the question... why couldn't a Monk in a grapple drag his opponent UP with him in a jump? Finish with a Tifa style body slam.
Yep, I remember that scene, great scene. I'd say Tifa is more of a monk, but the guy with the power glove is more of a Fighter focused on Gauntlet fighting. And, I believe if I remember correctly Tifa wore fingerless leather gloves.A good cinematic example of a pathfinder monk... might be Tifa from Final Fantasy: Advent Children. In one fight scene her opponent has a sort of shocking gauntlet. If we consider him sort of a monk/fighter you can basically see my vision of what a monk using a gauntlet might be like.
As both are fighting "unarmed" there is a good argument they can both be considered martial artists/monks.
Tifa moves fast and does allot of acrobatics and flurry of blows type attacks... the big guy (name escapes me) does more of a focused power attack punch and general power fighting style with bursts of speed.
Though... the big guy did have a nice boost of speed. He flashed along and then appeared behind Tifa. You could flavor that towards a monk using a ki point for the extra movement boost as well. Kinda why I was thinking Monk/Fighter.
Correct. Fingerless gloves not gauntlets. Mostly as proof vs. minor abrasion I'd say.
Dang what a cool scene though.
Edit: Kinda begs the question... why couldn't a Monk in a grapple drag his opponent UP with him in a jump? Finish with a Tifa style body slam.
question: why couldn't a Monk in a grapple drag his opponent UP with him in a jump? Finish with a Tifa style body slam.
Answer: $20, purchase strong bag from army surplus supply store. 2 80 lb bags of sand from rural king. strong plastic baggies, and some duct tape. Put sand in baggies, tape baggies or you will eat sand, put baggies in canvas bag. Pick up canvas bag. Jump.
*SNIP*
Answer: $20, purchase strong bag from army surplus supply store. 2 80 lb bags of sand from rural king. strong plastic baggies, and some duct tape. Put sand in baggies, tape baggies or you will eat sand, put baggies in canvas bag. Pick up canvas bag. Jump.
LOL :)
I didn't say "why couldn't my own 185 lb./maxbenchpress 150lb/5' 10"/highly un-athletic/ geek self" cannot do a Tifa style body slam.
I asked why couldn't a "stronger than your average athlete" D&D Monk pick up his opponent in a grapple and "move" his target upwards in a jump, A jump being just another type of movement, and finish with a Tifa style body slam.
A 20 STR character (achievable even at 1st level) being able to carry 400lbs as a heavy load would more than likely be able to lift your average knight in full plate. A 5th level monk being able to spend a ki point to gain a +20 bonus on his jump check as a swift action on top of already maxed ranks in acrobatics and bonuses to jump because of a higher than average movement speed.
*SNIP*
Answer: $20, purchase strong bag from army surplus supply store. 2 80 lb bags of sand from rural king. strong plastic baggies, and some duct tape. Put sand in baggies, tape baggies or you will eat sand, put baggies in canvas bag. Pick up canvas bag. Jump.
LOL :)
I didn't say "why couldn't my own 185 lb./maxbenchpress 150lb/5' 10"/highly un-athletic/ geek self" cannot do a Tifa style body slam.
I asked why couldn't a "stronger than your average athlete" D&D Monk pick up his opponent in a grapple and "move" his target upwards in a jump, A jump being just another type of movement, and finish with a Tifa style body slam.
A 20 STR character (achievable even at 1st level) being able to carry 400lbs as a heavy load would more than likely be able to lift your average knight in full plate. A 5th level monk being able to spend a ki point to gain a +20 bonus on his jump check as a swift action on top of already maxed ranks in acrobatics and bonuses to jump because of a higher than average movement speed.
Lift him, yes. Lift him and jump... I'm not seeing it. Now a character half your size, that would cut your jump in half I would think, but be doable.
Edit: possibly a feat..special training jumpin with heavy weights? I think the monk woul dhave knee trouble down the road if he did that with leg-weights. it could end his career
*SNIP*
Answer: $20, purchase strong bag from army surplus supply store. 2 80 lb bags of sand from rural king. strong plastic baggies, and some duct tape. Put sand in baggies, tape baggies or you will eat sand, put baggies in canvas bag. Pick up canvas bag. Jump.
LOL :)
I didn't say "why couldn't my own 185 lb./maxbenchpress 150lb/5' 10"/highly un-athletic/ geek self" cannot do a Tifa style body slam.
I asked why couldn't a "stronger than your average athlete" D&D Monk pick up his opponent in a grapple and "move" his target upwards in a jump, A jump being just another type of movement, and finish with a Tifa style body slam.
A 20 STR character (achievable even at 1st level) being able to carry 400lbs as a heavy load would more than likely be able to lift your average knight in full plate. A 5th level monk being able to spend a ki point to gain a +20 bonus on his jump check as a swift action on top of already maxed ranks in acrobatics and bonuses to jump because of a higher than average movement speed.
Lift him, yes. Lift him and jump... I'm not seeing it. Now a character half your size, that would cut your jump in half I would think, but be doable.
Edit: possibly a feat..special training jumpin with heavy weights? I think the monk woul dhave knee trouble down the road if he did that with leg-weights. it could end his career
In the case of a real life person... I'm in total agreement with you. The human body just isn't normally designed for that amount of stress. Just as Wuxia style martial arts is not "real" and requires wire-fu to pull off. But there are some very strange accounts of "super humans" doing some near impossible things.
Now in D&D however... magic abounds, and monks have harnessed inner energies to accomplish things on a regular basis that just isn't possible in real life. Instantly healing your own wounds, immunity to disease and poison, being able to teleport. Superhuman strength scores above 20 allow some pretty impressive things and a monk using ki energy to strengthen his legs to allow for impressive leaps could be combined for some interesting effects.
I agree though... perhaps you'd need a feat to pull it off, showing special training was involved to do a Tifa style body slam.
Okay okay okay... Enough beating around the bush. I don't care what other players think, what the semantics of the books say. RAW, it seems that monks can use gauntlets, but it doesn't make much sense that they wouldn't be able to flurry with what are essentially heavy gloves.
So, someone who made the rules, helped write the book, lay down the law. Real quick yes or no.
1) Can monks use gauntlets/brass knuckles/heavy leather gloves?
2) Can they flurry with gauntlets on?