because if what you say is true, then that is a direct contradiction of how gauntlets are described.Where exactly are gauntlets described as not being armor? Shields appear on the weapon list, too, but they are clearly armor. Why would you suspect that gauntlets -- which are specifically described as parts of armor -- are not armor? Would a monk be allowed to wear a plate helm without penalty? Greaves? Sollerets? Backplate?
I'd have to look for the source, but im 95% certain that gauntlets have been officially ruled as NOT being able to be used for monk stuff. That's the entire issue behind threads like these, that monk wraps, gauntlets, etc have to be house-ruled in to work for monks.could you please look? because if what you say is true, then that is a direct contradiction of how gauntlets are described.
I agree that the description of how gauntlets work is misleading. It lets you use unarmed strikes to deal lethal damage. However, unarmed strikes is a separate weapon as written in the tables. Do gauntlets change how another weapon works? What about feet, head, knees, etc? All of those are valid ways to use unarmed strike. And what about the amulet of mighty fists? If that were to work with unarmed strike, would there be a stacking or overwriting rule for enhancement bonuses? In that case, why even price amulets of mighty fists differently from normal weapons?
I think the intent was to let gauntlet damage scale with unarmed strike damage. But it's still a weapon that is separate from unarmed strike -- it's tied to unarmed strike, but not the same as unarmed strike. . . if that makes sense. If you take a feat to buff gauntlets, it buffs gauntlets--not attacks from your knees/feet/unarmed strike. If you take a feat to buff unarmed strike, should it buff gauntlet usage? Why would it work one way but not another?
No one would argue that the description of gauntlets can be interpreted in different ways. But it's just too ridiculous to assume that a gauntlet is both a different weapon and the same thing as another weapon. They're two different weapons. They're not the same thing.
So is the argument that it isn't a weapon?
In the equipment section, under weapons, there's a table. It's called Table: Weapons. Under that table, there's text:
Weapons found on Table: Weapons are described below.
And what is described below?
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
It is clearly a weapon.
|
So haven't had any luck on the issue as it relates to Pathfinder, but I have found some tidbits from 3.5. The first bit is from a series of articles Skip Williams did on Unarmed Strikes. On this page here, in the section entitled Monks and Manufactured Weapons, he writes at the very end:
For example, if a monk wears a spiked gauntlet, her unarmed attacks aren't enhanced in any way, but she could use the spiked gauntlet in a two-weapon attack.
(Emphasis mine)
In the official 3.5 Rules FAQ, located here, there are a few questions in the Monk section that ask:
Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a magic weapon?
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes. The amulet of mighty fists (DMG 246) grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s unarmed strike.
This one seems to state that while they could get the gauntlets enchanted, it wouldn't be helpful as they are not specifically listed as monk weapons, so no FoB.
Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack, gaining all of her class benefits as well as the +5 bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls from the gauntlet?
Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon
not listed as a special monk weapon, she does not gain her
better attack rate. She would, however, gain the increased
damage for unarmed attacks.
This one seems more relevant. As I read this, and bare in mind Im generally HORRIBLE at interpreting things, that a monk can use the gauntlets, but the only benefit she would receive would be the +5 damage. Im not sure if the "gain the increased damage for unarmed attacks" refers to the +5 from the gauntlet, or to the monk's unarmed damage progression. None the less is seems pretty clear they would NOT be usable in a FoB.
So all this is pretty much useless for the discussion as it stands, as this is all 3.5, but I think its an interesting view. Never-the-less Ill return to attempting to find the Pathfinder clarification, granted it actually exists and Im not just making up things in my mind again.
|
|
So 2 some hours of searching and nothing. I must have made this up :) That being said, my interpretation of the rules would have it stand that the gauntlet wold NOT be usable with FoB, nor would it allow the monk's altered unarmed damage to be used. That is why Im so strongly in favor of wraps that allow enchanting as per weapons (priced the same, maybe slightly higher than normal magic weaponry, up to +10 total enchantment etc) and allowing the monk to use their BASE unarmed damage at the cost of an item slot (gloves). Since its technically a glove slot item imbuing the enhancement, the monk would still be considered to using and unarmed strike and thus use class features. And yes I do know about AoMF, and yes its nice that that item effects your ENTIRE body not just hands, but wraps would allow for some customization and have enough drawbacks (glove slot, limited to unarmed arm attacks etc) to not make it game breaking. It would allow for monks to use that neck slot item for an amulet of natural armor to help with their AC as well, which can be lacking. Im just really hoping to see some monk love in the Advanced Players Guide.
*edit* oops, this was supposed to be an edit of my last post, sorry for the triple bump >.<
|
Where exactly are gauntlets described as not being armor? Shields appear on the weapon list, too, but they are clearly armor. Why would you suspect that gauntlets -- which are specifically described as parts of armor -- are not armor? Would a monk be allowed to wear a plate helm without penalty? Greaves? Sollerets? Backplate?monks can flurry in armor, RAW. they just lose fast movement and AC bonus.
From the PRD:
When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.
Since a gauntlet is listed in both armor and weapons, I view it as getting all the bonuses and minuses of both. So for a monk, it is armor. If a monk wants to bypass DR, or have other odd weapon qualities, but does not want an amulet of mighty fists, let them have a magic quarter-staff, or any of the other monk weapons.
Also, since it is armor, you can not put weapon enhancements on armor, but you can put it on armor spikes...
|
well, it was in the rules of the thread i linked you to, i believe, since the purpose of that thread is to get a baseline idea of damage for the core pf classes.
Doublechecked it, no restrictions on sources. It did mention that most classes would have +2 or 3 weapon, +4 belt.. but most is not *all*.
keep in mind this only applies on a full attack, so is highly situational.
Note that the DPR thread that I built the character for was for a full round attack... so, in this case, not situational but guaranteed.
well, it does by showing the value of additional +1's to hit and damage on total DPR, so you can see who benefits more from buffs/debuffs.
The formula does not allow for effects that functon on hit, such as status debuffs, nor does it account in any way for stuff that denies the target some sort of action. That is obviously beyond the scope of what was meant to be compared, but nonetheless lends itself for damage characters over debuff ones. Thus, it makes sense to build for damage, not battlefield control, ect.
while i'll grant you that enchanting gauntlets might not be RAW (though if you can enchant a shield with an attack bonus it would make sense), flurrying with them definitely is. they are in all ways considered an unarmed strike. if you don't have improved unarmed strike, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you punch someone. they are not a weapon, and you are not considered armed by wearing them.
If flurrying with them was raw, there wouldn't be a discussion about it in this thread. And they don't count as an unarmed strike. They count as an unarmed attack.
Here's where the real issue occurs for me.
Under the weapons table, there is a category of Unarmed Attacks. Within this category, you have unarmed Strike and Gauntlet.
Now, in the monk entry, the monk gets an Unarmed Strike, and the damage increase from leveling specifically affects the Unarmed Strike.
The Gauntlet is an unarmed attack, NOT an unarmed Strike. In fact, under the gauntlet description, it says In all other ways, it is treated as an unarmed attack. NOT as an unarmed strike. Under the entry for flurry of blows, it specifies that it can be used with unarmed strikes and/or any monk weapons.
Again, an unarmed strike is not an unarmed attack. So you can't flurry with your gauntlets, or use monk fist damage with them.
To ignore ^ is to attempt to twist the rules into something they do not say. There's no need to do that. If you want to use gauntlets in this way, ask you dm. You can't do it by the rules, but the DM changes the rules as he sees fit.
The effect of allowing it is as follows: Monks pay less to improve their attacks. The amulet that monks would otherwise use is 2.5x more expensive than enchanting the gauntlets. It also restricts them to using their hands to make attacks with. If you think this is too powerful, don't allow it. If you think it's fine, then go ahead.
you do realize that enchanted gauntlets would be exactly equivalent to your permanent magic fang, right? wouldn't be any more of a bonus than that. more expensive actually to enchant the gauntlets.
that's the damage output for a level 10 fighter with no equipment but a +3 falchion and a +4 str belt. notice the damage is over 50% greater on a single attack (and actually i forgot to adjust your monk's single attack total to reflect the lower BAB when not flurrying). also, with an extra attack, like from haste, the fighter sees a better damage boost than the monk. not to mention better AC and more available combat feats (like lunge, step up, etc). your noncore monk does better on a flurry, but has less ability to take a return hit.
i'm wondering if what you said about players styles is what's really at issue here. it sounds as if your fighter players maybe just aren't that great at building fighters.
Aside from the drawback of the magic fang... dispel removes it, not just supresses it. you can't resell it, you can't loan it to a friend, it only affects natural weapons and unarmed strikes., ect. Which is why it's cheaper.
Obviously, a fighter will do more damage than a monk when the fighter uses regular weapons and the monk uses unarmed damage. If you'll recall, I mentioned that right above where I mentioned that I thought a monk would deal more damage than a fighter focused in unarmed. Of course, the monk should be focusing on lower ac targets, right?
If my players enjoy playing their characters, then they built them just fine. Remember the game isn't about max damage, but the entertainment factor for the players. What does it matter if one fighter deals 40 points per round(which one does), and the other one deals 120(which one does)? As long as they're both happy, and having fun, then their characters are well made. If you enjoy number crunching, like I do, then good for you. But just because one character doesn't deal as much damage as another one doesn't make his character any worse. And attacking my players without knowing anything about them is just... petty.
you should really have a look at the DPR thread again. look at the TWF rogue on the first page, and then the two hand fighting rogue on the second. TWF rogues aren't particularly superior. click here for a thread with some thoughts on this. the rogue not only doesn't need TWF, it's actually somewhat of a disadvantage in many campaigns.
Actually, the comparison was about the cost of enchanting a twf rogue versus that of a monk. damage done and DPR never came into it, and has no bearing on the comparison of costs.
well, a fighter can easily cover those niches too if built properly, though i think the monk has a huge advantage in the saving throw department, which helps attacking spell casters. even there though the fighter can often catch up because the monk has to spend so much more money on equipment.
Yes, and a monk could probably cover the fighter's niche too if built properly. Granted, it wouldn't be a straight monk. But if the fighter goes and ignores the high ac target to take out the low ac ones, and the monks go up against the high ac one, then the group is losing out on synergy.
If you understand economics, think about it like this. Fighters have a comparative and an absolute advantage in going up against the high ac targets. Monks have a comparative advantage going up against low ac targets. If the fighter goes up against the low ac targets, then the group is losing the benefits of the fighter and the monks advantages.
King Joey, note that game rules don't always run with common sense (which isn't so common). Armor provides an armor class. How much ac do gauntlets give you? Note that under the armor descriptions, they specifically mention that the armor includes gauntlets, padding, and helms. None of these items provide an armor bonus. These items aren't the armor themselves, but merely items that you get when you buy the armor. It doesn't classify them as armor or weapons. Leave that to the tables.
|
|
The Gauntlet is an unarmed attack, NOT an unarmed Strike.
I realize this is, again, drawing from 3.5, but unarmed strike and unarmed attack as per Skip Williams' Rules of the Game:Unarmed Attacks(Part One), are the same thing.
Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked
In what way is it NOT an unarmed strike? You are making an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon. Fits the description. The issue with the gauntlets is that they are not listed as a monk weapon, that's why they can't be flurried with.
Again, I realize this is for 3.5 and not Pathfinder, but until there is sufficient clarification from the powers on high for their system, I think its worth stating.
If a monk can make an unarmed flurry with a quarterstaff, he can sure as hell make one with a gauntlet.
|
|
If a monk can make an unarmed flurry with a quarterstaff, he can sure as hell make one with a gauntlet.
If you want to houserule it that way, sure.
Pathfinder doesn't exchange unarmed strike and unarmed attack like 3.5 does. Unarmed strike benefits from the monks bonus damage, is used with flurry. Unarmed attack doesn't benefit from either.
Unarmed attack and Gauntlet are separated as two distinct attack types in the weapons table.
Gauntlet could easily have been worded to allow for monk use. It wasn't. Perhaps when pathfinder comes out with its errata, we'll see it added in.
|
|
Pathfinder doesn't exchange unarmed strike and unarmed attack like 3.5 does. Unarmed strike benefits from the monks bonus damage, is used with flurry. Unarmed attack doesn't benefit from either.
Unarmed attack and Gauntlet are separated as two distinct attack types in the weapons table.
Gauntlet could easily have been worded to allow for monk use. It wasn't. Perhaps when pathfinder comes out with its errata, we'll see it added in.
The Weapons table, for Unarmed Attack, is set up the EXACT same in the Pathfinder equipment section. Yet in 3.5, an unarmed strike and an unarmed attack are considered the same thing. You are correct in saying that it does mention a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack, but again I reiterate that is NOT the reason I feel it cant be used in FoB, its because its not listed as a monk weapon, as unarmed strike and attack are the same thing. However, an unarmed strike with a gauntlet is not the same as an unarmed strike without one (although the difference is minuscule in my mind) and in its in this instance where I look to the part about it not being listed as a monk weapon. The conceptual reasoning I go with is that little extra weight on the hands slows the monk down just enough where he cant furry, or messes with the harmonious balance of his ki or something similar. I would still argue that even if he couldn't flurry with said gauntlet, he should still be able to use his unarmed attack damage with it instead of the base 1d3, as hes still punching with normal hands, just with some metal gloves on.
The problem seems to be in poor wording choices, as well as using the terms unarmed strike and unarmed attack with no official distinction between them, if there even is any. I agree an official rules clarification would be swell, even something as simple as "A gauntlet is not considered a monk weapon, and as such may not be used in a flurry of blows." This is also why Id like to see a glove slot item monk wraps/gloves/something, specifically stated to be a monk weapon for the purpose of FoB and allowing enchantment as per normal weapons, at the cost of a glove slot for the monk. And we've come full circle to the concept of "monk gloves".
This is similar to the ridiculous 3.5 situation where, because the monk wasn't listed as being proficient with unarmed attacks, he was clearly getting -4 whenever he did so. At some point, you just invoke common sense and call shenanigans on people who insist on RAW, rather than common sense.
|
|
The problem with common sense is that people disagree on what common sense is. For me, it's common sense that a gauntlet doesn't allow flurry, or keep the monks unarmed damage, especially since there's a magical item specifically for monks to increase their unarmed damage with magical bonuses.
For others, the reverse, or some version of the reverse, is true.
Since I haven't seen any section where unarmed strike and unarmed attack is used interchangeably, I see no reason to assume that it is interchangeable. And I don't see the bearing of a 3.5 ruling on a 3.5 phb to the pathfinder book. For me, it's no different than trying to use a 3.0 rule instead of the 3.5 counterpart in a 3.5 game. It just doesn't work for me.
If there's a section in the pathfinder book where they use the two terms interchangeably, then I'll change my evaluation. I haven't found it yet, though if someone else finds it, please list the page number.
BTW, that's also why calling shenanigans based off of common sense so rarely solves anything. It's the equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say so". At this point, the information is out there and barring any new information on the subject we're not going to get a consensus on it either way.
In other words, point your dm here, and let him/her evaluate :p
|
|
dude, i so wasn't attacking anyone. people are welcome to build whatever they want that's fun for them, but you implied that enchanted gauntlets for monks could somehow suck away the enjoyment for your fighter players. only way i could see that happening is if the fighters are just built to be really bad at fighting, or maybe the monks just have way better stats.my most recent character was actually a 3.5 monk with 1 level of rogue and a higher dex than str for background reasons (and no weapon finesse) so obviously damage output isn't my major concern in playing a character, but i also can't see how i could be upset if other characters outshined me in combat. what else should i expect?
Alrighty, I misinterpreted you then. I apologize for that. My implication was that, *in my campaign*, I feel that boosting the monks by giving them the enchant-able gauntlets would work to displace them further into the fighters area of shining on the high-ac enemy. They already shine in cleaning up the *trash* mobs and the spellcasters. Since they're happy with things as-is, I don't see any reason to upset the balance. Mileage may vary.
ummm, well, it does have bearing, because rogues don't need TWF. it's not much, if any, advantage for them, and there's no reason a rogue HAS to go that route. monks are pretty much stuck with it. if someone chooses to go a suboptimal route, that's fine with me, but it has no bearing on the mechanics of the matter at hand.
It still doesn't have bearing because it wasn't a debate over whether or not rogues needed twf, but a price comparison between an imaginary rogue WITH twf, and a monk.
As for the table not classifying them... well:
Table 6-4 Weapons:
Simple Weapons:
Unarmed attacks:
Gauntlet:
Unarmed strike:
Right there, Unarmed Strike is listed as a simple weapon. The entry under description refers to damage being counted *as* weapon damage for effects which grant a bonus to that. It neither contradicts, nor negates, the fact that the Unarmed Strike is listed as a simple weapon.
The entry for unarmed strike specifies that the Damage is considered weapon damage. It also says " An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon." No ambiguities there. Consider it a light weapon. Not just for this and that, but for everything.
Further evidence includes the feat weapon specialization: "You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike
Align weapon says You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
Page 191 says: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage,
including an unarmed strike... ect
Two Weapon Defense: "When wielding a double weapon or two weapons
(not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes"
Under the rogue entry for sneak attack: "With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike"
Perhaps the most telling evidence lies with the Fighter class. One of the listed weapon groups for weapon training is Natural, which includes unarmed strikes. It's also listed under monk and close.
On a bit of a side note, 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.
It seems to me that any combination would include using the same monk weapon, or attack from a single limb.
Any time you have to make a judgment call from RAW (rules as written), then you're moving into (RAI) rules as intended territory. So any time there's a discussion about how something works, it's not longer RAW, it's RAI. *sadly, this turns a lot of stuff into RAI* :p
Anyhow, cold's still got me down :( I'll check back later for updates.
Good call on gauntlets as armor and weapons both. Never would have looked at it that way myself.
|
|
BTW, that's also why calling shenanigans based off of common sense so rarely solves anything. It's the equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say so". At this point, the information is out there and barring any new information on the subject we're not going to get a consensus on it either way.
I think you are misunderstanding me here. Im not disagreeing with you here, I'm not trying to call shenanigans either. And I am CERTAINLY not trying to tell you "Im right, you're wrong". This is house rule territory for sure without an further clarification from Paizo. I merely trying to explain my view on what is common sense. And yes, you are correct, there is obviously a disagreement. I have a different
And for what its worth, I at no time said that "oh its this way in 3.5, so it must be in Pathfinder!", I stated it was merely a reference point, as we have no official Paizo stance as near as I can tell. Thought you would think with as often as these threads show up, there would have been some by now :)
King Joey, note that game rules don't always run with common sense (which isn't so common). Armor provides an armor class. How much ac do gauntlets give you?
Depends on what kind. Full plate gauntlets give you +9 AC, Chainmail gauntlets give +6 (I think) AC; because they are part of the armor that gives those bonuses. If you wear them without the rest of the armor then the armor does not work because you have not equipped it properly, just as if you strapped on the backplate and greaves but nothing else; they would not give you the AC bonus of the armor, but that does not mean they are not armor.
Note that under the armor descriptions, they specifically mention that the armor includes gauntlets, padding, and helms. None of these items provide an armor bonus. These items aren't the armor themselves, but merely items that you get when you buy the armor. It doesn't classify them as armor or weapons. Leave that to the tables.
So padding, helms, backplates, sollerets, etc., aren't "armor"? So exactly how many pieces of a full-plate suit would a wizard be able to wear before incurring an arcane spell failure penalty? Or a rogue be able to wear before incurring an armor check penalty?
Or think of it another way; if a gauntlet is just a weapon and has absolutely nothing to do with armor, then why would it be the only weapon listed as coming with suits of armor? Why would a suit of full plate include something that functions solely as a weapon? If it did, why would it not come with a better weapon, like a longsword or battleaxe?
And if gauntlets are not armor, why is the modification "locked gauntlet" on the armor list, rather than the weapon list? That alone is absolutely conclusive that gauntlets are indeed armor in the core rules.
The notion that gauntlets are somehow not armor is as baseless as the suggestion that a boot knife or atlatl is not a weapon because there's no listing for it on the weapons chart.
Nevermind; saw the explanation of "RAW" above; thanks!
Good call on gauntlets as armor and weapons both. Never would have looked at it that way myself.
I'm just curious, but did you understand my position to be any different than this?
Here's hope that there is an errata item to close this topic.
Either:
- unarmed strikes are strikes made with a humanoid body (to differentiate from natural attacks... although Giants could apply), and they can be enhanced by various equipment, like brass knuckles, boot blades, knee pads, elbow spikes, etc... (to appear in the APG?) ; in this vein, "gauntlets" are merely another piece of equipment aiding unarmed strikes. These weapon-LIKE pieces of equipment will make the attacks lethal and enhance the character's unarmed damage (damage increased as if larger size).
Or:
- unarmed strikes are only made with "naked" (or merely clothed) parts of the body, and using weapons only yield that weapon's listed damage.
We can also stop quoting various parts of the pathfinder "bible" because, like said book, there are many things written therein which can be interpreted both ways.
About pieces of armor: you can wear parts of a full-plate armor. Historically, the layer underneath the plates is chain mail. Or you wear only its breastplate. You can easily guess these parts' AC bonus... :-)
Hey, I have another noobish question regarding these "rules questions" threads; is there a thread or board or anything where "official" answers or clarifications are actually given and spelled out?
I decided to look into the subject here. I found gauntlets do not work with Flurry of Blows. It is very clear in the wording.
"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) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."
"Unarmed Attacks
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. B —
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethal"If gauntlets were supposed to be used it would have stated Unarmed Attacks, not unarmed strike.
Seems clear for RAW and RAI now, however I don't think allowing it really breaks the game so long as they use the same damage chart for damage.
i can't quite tell if you're serious here. but
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.emphasis mine. let's put it in math terms. saying
a=b
a=c
is not contradictory. gauntlets are unarmed strikes. gauntlets are unarmed attacks. unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks. all of these statments are true.I'd have to look for the source, but im 95% certain that gauntlets have been officially ruled as NOT being able to be used for monk stuff. That's the entire issue behind threads like these, that monk wraps, gauntlets, etc have to be house-ruled in to work for monks.could you please look? because if what you say is true, then that is a direct contradiction of how gauntlets are described.
You are trying to find something that IS NOT there. It specifically states unarmed strikes, gauntlets are no where listed as unarmed strikes in game mechanics. Unarmed strikes are listed, clear as day, as unarmed strikes.
Keep digging, but they are not there last I checked.
If the Monk class stated "Unarmed Attacks", yeah I would say RAW and RAI gauntlets would count.
|
|
You are trying to find something that IS NOT there. It specifically states unarmed strikes, gauntlets are no where listed as unarmed strikes in game mechanics. Unarmed strikes are listed, clear as day, as unarmed strikes.
Keep digging, but they are not there last I checked.
If the Monk class stated "Unarmed Attacks", yeah I would say RAW and RAI gauntlets would count.
And here when get into the territory, again, of what is the difference between an unarmed strike and and unarmed attack. I mean, really? This is where RAI is open to the whims of "common sense" and "interpretation", which everyone is going to do differently. NO WHERE is there a suitable differentiation stated between an unarmed strike and an unarmed attack. They just use one term or the other when, in MY mind and in MY common sense understanding of the terms, is they mean the same thing. I even still think RAW supports the notion that gauntlets would allow a monk their base unarmed damage, and certainly would argue it RAI. Thats why, again, Id like to see an item SPECIFICALLY worded this way in the APG, monks wraps/gloves. Its a common enough house rule, it would be nice to see something official. You could always disallow it in your games if you didnt like it, same argument we get when we say it should be in the game and told you can house rule it in.
And here when get into the territory, again, of what is the difference between an unarmed strike and and unarmed attack.Personally, I don't think this issue can reasonably be interpreted any way other than to say that a punch with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack and an unarmed strike; it provokes an attack of opportunity, it is listed under unarmed attacks with the exact combat stats of an unarmed strike (except for damage type), and it is specifically described as modifying the damage type of an "unarmed strike" in the description text. The weapon chart listing can only be read as a description of the stats for an unarmed strike made while wearing a gauntlet. For all purposes relating to unarmed attacks or strikes, gauntlets would have to reasonably be included. Spiked gauntlets are a different matter, as they are treated as armed attacks, are listed under light melee weapons rather than unarmed attacks, and have a different damage amount (rather than just a different type) than unarmed attacks; clearly they are contemplated as being substantially different in both technique and result than just punching with something hard on your fist (like gauntlets).
The only problem with monks using gauntlets is that in addition to being "weapons" (in the same sense that unarmed strikes are weapons), gauntlets are clearly also armor, which eliminates many of the monks special abilities, including the Flurry of Blows ability.
I even still think RAW supports the notion that gauntlets would allow a monk their base unarmed damage, and certainly would argue it RAI.I would agree here, since armor does not deny them their special unarmed damage, but what would the result be? The only effect of gauntlets on unarmed attacks is to make the damage lethal, which a monk's already is. And you can't enchant armor to add weapon enhancements, so they wouldn't boost attack or damage rolls. And if you went with spiked gauntlets to enchant the spikes, then the question is moot because the monk would have to choose to either perform an unarmed strike with his monk based unarmed damage, OR make an armed attack with the light melee weapon Spiked Gauntlet.
|
|
I would agree here, since armor does not deny them their special unarmed damage, but what would the result be? The only effect of gauntlets on unarmed attacks is to make the damage lethal, which a monk's already is. And you can't enchant armor to add weapon enhancements, so they wouldn't boost attack or damage rolls.
Merely using this as a jumping off point for some sort of monk wraps/gloves that would basically function as a cheaper, more limited version of an Amulet of Mighty Fists. Basically costs less than the amulet, but comes with more restrictions. Really it all comes down to freeing up that neck slot for the amulet of natural armor, which a monk could surely use as their AC can lag behind at higher levels.
Hey, I have another noobish question regarding these "rules questions" threads; is there a thread or board or anything where "official" answers or clarifications are actually given and spelled out?
Many questions are answered directly by the devs. Most of them are compiled here.
Hey, I have another noobish question regarding these "rules questions" threads; is there a thread or board or anything where "official" answers or clarifications are actually given and spelled out?Many questions are answered directly by the devs. Most of them are compiled here.
THANKS! That is PRECISELY what I was looking for!
|
|
why doesn't unarmed strike work with magic weapon? why is unarmed strike the only "weapon" that uses that language? under long sword, it doesn't say longsword damage is considered weapon damage. it doesn't say rapier is considered a one handed weapon.by your logic, since there's a table with damage for improvised weapons, i should be able to cast magic weapon on a couch and get the bonus to hit and damage.
Actually, if you read the entry under magic weapon, you see that it says at the very last sentence "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."
It seems to me that there is a separation between a monk's unarmed strike, and a regular unarmed strike, as evidenced by the magic weapon spell.
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity). Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
So it seems to me that the disambiguation here is that there are Unarmed Strikes, and there are Monk Unarmed Strikes. Which is why you see that effects are specified to just the monk's unarmed strike.
*Is* there a rule saying that an improvised weapon doesn't get the benefits of a spell-like magic weapon?
ok, fine, i'll ask again. does weapon focus unarmed strike give a bonus to a fighter punching with a gauntlet? does weapon training bonuses for monk weapons apply to a fighter punchng with a gauntlet?
No different than a Fighter who takes weapon focus: Longsword and attacks with a short sword. Its a very different thing to punch someone barehanded, and to punch them with a pound of metal wrapped around your hand.
A gauntlet is used differently than an unarmed strike for best effect. Thus, no, the fighter wouldn't get weapon focus for his gauntlet, and the monk wouldn't get to use his monk unarmed damage OR his flurry.
The weapon table lists them as two different weapons. I don't see why one would override the other, when in the text of the entries it doesn't.
of course, the part you left out is "as if using the two weapon fighting feat". i'm not saying i'd enforce that if i were running a game, but that language seems pretty clearly to require two weapons, since if you were using two weapon fighting i'm pretty sure you need two weapons (or a double weapon, but both ends have to be enchanted separately anyway). i'd even say that's RAW and doesn't require any RAI.
Well crap, I missed that. It does seem to insinuate that the attacks have to come from two different sources.
|
|
of course, the part you left out is "as if using the two weapon fighting feat". i'm not saying i'd enforce that if i were running a game, but that language seems pretty clearly to require two weapons, since if you were using two weapon fighting i'm pretty sure you need two weapons (or a double weapon, but both ends have to be enchanted separately anyway). i'd even say that's RAW and doesn't require any RAI.
Again, I have a different interpretation of this. I feel that is in there as a mechanical equivalent to quickly explain how flurry works, not that it requires two weapons. IE the mechanics behind the attack works like two-weapon fighting as it would be wasted space to describe how flurry works, only to realize after half a page of explanation you have just rewritten the section on TWF, sans traditional weapons.
I would agree that it would be nice to get clarification on this issue as well.
Fluff-wise, I get an image in my head of the monk using a quick, short range series of strikes with one fist, or a series of quick snap kicks. Similar to a swordsman with a rapier might make a series of short, quick thrusts and jab at a person, or a boxer might make a series of quick jabs with one hand.
However, I can also see how the wording might lead one to think this requires two weapons, and can understand that position, and quite honestly it could go either way.
Again, as magic has pointed out, it really shows the different methods different people have in their thinking, as the different "common sense" interpretations come out. My 2cp.
Greetings Pathfinders
I'm currently DM'ing my first Pathfinder group and one of the characters has asked me if he could use various gauntlets of special materials to overcome damage reduction and maybe enchant them later.
My initial take on this is that if you decide to attack with an unarmed attack, you either use:
Your Monk special training to inflict serious damage to your foes.
OR
You attack with the gauntlet and deal damage as in the charts 1d3My concern is that if I allow it, he then later will enchant them, a +1 weapon is 2000 + MWK + item price.
The wondrous item Amulet of Mighty Fist that does the exact same thing except the price is twice as expensive, 5000g.
Please help
My take would be this:
There is little reason not to allow a player to use a gauntlet/cestus/battle-glove/hand-wrap. Mechanically, there is very little difference, and it allows the player to have something somewhat unique for his character. It also lets the PC have a way to match other characters in the game, when it comes to damage reduction.
Rules-wise, the PC has determined that he is fighting with his hands, so just keep that in mind in case his is carrying a ming vase in the middle of a combat and wants to attack someone.
I'd even let a PC use spiked gauntlets and house rule that it uses his unarmed damage, and adds a +1 to damage for the spikes.
In the end, the game is going to suddenly break because a monk is doing his normal damage with gloves on.
"The weapon table lists them as two different weapons. I don't see why one would override the other, when in the text of the entries it doesn't."
"Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes"
So let me get this straight... Somehow you are NOT making an unarmed strike with the gauntlet? If it said 'unarmed attacks', you might have something, but if you are attacking with gauntlets, you are making unarmed strikes. If anyone can explain how they are not making an unarmed strike with a gauntlet, I would love to hear it.
Boots, helms, gauntlets, etc. are items. Just because they are often part of armor, does not mean you are wearing armor while wearing a Gauntlet of Rust, or Helm of Brilliance. Just as you could take off the helm that came with your plate mail and throw on a Hat of Disguise, without loosing AC.
Boots, helms, gauntlets, etc. are items. Just because they are often part of armor, does not mean you are wearing armor while wearing a Gauntlet of Rust, or Helm of Brilliance. Just as you could take off the helm that came with your plate mail and throw on a Hat of Disguise, without loosing AC.
So how much of your full-plate can you ditch and still be wearing the armor? The sleeves? The leggings? The boots? The backpiece? Do you really mean that you don't have to actually wear the armor to get the benefit of it? Or just that you can substitute other armor pieces (e.g., other helms, gauntlets, etc.) for the ones that came with the suit?
And if gauntlets are not armor, then why is the modification "locked gauntlet" listed on the armor table, rather than the weapons table or items table?
Gauntlets are not simply gloves. Armorsmiths never made or designed gauntlets for the purpose of enhancing offensive capabilities; they were always created and used for protection, just like the rest of the armor. The benefit they add to punching is simply a side-effect of wrapping a part of your body in steel.
See the "Magic Items on the Body" section of the rules for what goes where. Armor takes up the armor slot, gauntlets take up the hand slot.
Armor: suits of armor.
Hands: gauntlets and gloves.
See the "Magic Items on the Body" section of the rules for what goes where. Armor takes up the armor slot, gauntlets take up the hand slot.
Armor: suits of armor.
Hands: gauntlets and gloves.
And you think that means gauntlets are not armor? Then what exactly makes "locked gauntlets" an armor modification? And do you believe that a wizard wearing a pair of spiked gauntlets would suffer no penalty or risk to spellcasting? Or a rogue to his disable device?
Consider this, from Merriam-Webster.com:
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
(emphasis added)
The rules say plainly that gauntlets are armor (both in the descriptions and the armor chart, listing "locked gauntlet" as an armor modification). The actual meaning of the word "gauntlet" is a piece of armor. There is nothing anywhere to suggest that it would be considered anything but armor, any less than the leggings or sleeves of platemail would be considered armor.
I'm well aware of how Merriam-Webster defines the word gauntlet, but that doesn't change how D&D defines it. Nowhere in the rules does it say that gauntlets are armor. It mentions armor including gauntlets. On the table 'locking gauntlet' is not listed as armor, but rather as an 'Extra' in between two items that are defined as weapons.
The rules list gauntlets as simple weapons, unarmed attacks, and the basis for wondrous items.
And you think that means gauntlets are not armor? Then what exactly makes "locked gauntlets" an armor modification? And do you believe that a wizard wearing a pair of spiked gauntlets would suffer no penalty or risk to spellcasting? Or a rogue to his disable device?
According to the rules, that is exactly the case. There is no penalty for wearing gauntlets. None. Not for Rogues, not for Wizards. And there never has been.
NO WHERE is there a suitable differentiation stated between an unarmed strike and an unarmed attack.
Are you blind?
It states right in the book;
"Unarmed Attacks
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. B —
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethal"
See, Unarmed Attacks are Guantlet and Unarmed Strike. Monks use unarmed strike to perform their monk abilities, guanlets are a weapon that are not listed as monk special weapons.
There is no interpretation here. It is clearly stated in the chart.
Show me evidence to your claim that anywhere in the listing of the guantlet that would make it count as an Unarmed Strike, and we will see.
"This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets."
Yes I know the names are similar, but it is clear in the listings of their attacks, and as weapons. There is similar poor and obscure wordings with things that take up an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
I would agree here, since armor does not deny them their special unarmed damage, but what would the result be? The only effect of gauntlets on unarmed attacks is to make the damage lethal, which a monk's already is. And you can't enchant armor to add weapon enhancements, so they wouldn't boost attack or damage rolls.Merely using this as a jumping off point for some sort of monk wraps/gloves that would basically function as a cheaper, more limited version of an Amulet of Mighty Fists. Basically costs less than the amulet, but comes with more restrictions. Really it all comes down to freeing up that neck slot for the amulet of natural armor, which a monk could surely use as their AC can lag behind at higher levels.
I have no problem with this, as I personally would house rule this in my game; however, this is not RAI or RAW.
|
|
Are you blind?It states right in the book;
"Unarmed Attacks
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. B —
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethal"
Nope, not blind, Ive seen that chart. Im just saying its not as obvious or clear cut as you think it is, because I think this tells me nothing.
See, Unarmed Attacks are Guantlet and Unarmed Strike. Monks use unarmed strike to perform their monk abilities, guanlets are a weapon that are not listed as monk special weapons.There is no interpretation here. It is clearly stated in the chart.
There is plenty of room for interpretation, obviously, or this wouldn't be such a common issue of discussion.
Show me evidence to your claim that anywhere in the listing of the guantlet that would make it count as an Unarmed Strike, and we will see.
So I throw back at you, show me anywhere in the rule book where it states explicitly, in english, what the difference between an unarmed attack and an unarmed strike is? And in regards to a gauntlet being used as an unarmed strike, its right in the description itself...
"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.
It lets you deal lethal, instead of nonlethal, damage with an UNARMED STRIKE. What does that next sentence mean then you will ask. I dont know, because my interpretation is unarmed attack and unarmed strike are the same thing. There is no clear differentiation rules wise as the difference between an unarmed strike and attack, and an entry in a chart that can obviously be read in different ways isn't proof.
*Edit* In fact, there is difference I can tell between the two, based on the Imp Unarmed Strike feat. An unarmed strike is considered armed, and doesnt provoke AoO, and an unarmed attack is considered unarmed, and therefore DOES provoke AoO. So that second sentence means you aren't considered armed when using a gauntlet, you would provoke an AoO when attacking but you would be dealing lethal damage.
Since gauntlets let you deal lethal damage with your unarmed attacks/strikes, the feat Imp Unarmed Strike lets you not need gauntlets to have your unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, and also would make not provoke AoOs when attacking. TO ME, IN MY OPINION, this clearly means you can get your unarmed strike/attack damage while wearing gauntlets. You cant flurry because its not a special monk weapon, that's ALL I claim is supported by raw. It should be able to be enchanted like a weapon then, since its technically a weapon right? This leads me back again to my whole point in this thread, that monks need some sort of enchantable, useable-in-FoB hand wraps, that is CLEARLY defined for this purpose, not this ambiguous mess that gauntlets are. Its pretty obvious its not clear enough, that these multiple interpretations are common.
I have no problem with this, as I personally would house rule this in my game; however, this is not RAI or RAW.
You cannot say its not RAI, as RAI is way to dependent on opinions. Not trying to argue, just pointing out its impossible to say for a fact what RAI is, unless you get it from the developers' mouths themselves, as only they know what they actually intended. Basically, the only ones who know RAI are the authors of the rules themselves.
And here we keep coming back to the same problem that Magic pointed out. We are reading the same things, and "common sense" tells us different things, and its these interpretations that are causing these differnces of opinion.
|
|
Ok, please forgive the lack of quoting in this post. I just can't seem to drag out the urge to do so right now.
First, lets try a slightly different way of going about this.
The weapons entry for Unarmed Strike lists its damage as 1d3 nonlethal damage.
The gauntlet entry lists the damage as 1d3 lethal damage.
Now, under the text entry for the gauntlet, it says the following: 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.
First, with a gauntlet, you deal lethal rather than nonlethal damage for unarmed strikes.
Second, a strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
An unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike. So it is not an unarmed strike. So monk abilities that improve unarmed strikes do not function with it, as it is not an unarmed strike.
Which, actually, is really hokey, as an unarmed attack is a category of attacks, not a specific attack type in itself. I can see what it's trying to say *I think*, but...
This ^ makes it apparent to me that there is a problem with the text right here. :( Maybe we can bribe Joshua to swing by and give us a ruling? *sigh*
*I can already see the counter-argument* as in, if a strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack, and an unarmed strike is an unarmed attack, then it should still count* But I feel that it doesn't go further down the chain to a particular attack. It functions as an unarmed attack, possibly provoking attacks of opportunity, ect, whatever lol.
I have actually hit someone before. Both barehanded and with various types of gloves/hand protection on. When you hit someone bare-handed, you generally aim for the first two knuckles to impact at the same time, lending your arm and hip a very specific pivot angle in order to maximize effect while minimizing the chance of damaging yourself.
Now, you add something onto your hand, and suddenly your impact point is another half-inch to an inch out from your hand, and you don't shoot for the two-knuckle approach in order to maximize damage. Since you can now hit with any part of your hand, you instead focus on the best angling for impact. Note that the extra distance to hit changes where you should be standing in relation to your target as well. Two very different types of attack, in my opinion. Like wielding a rapier and a longsword. Similar types of weapons, but execution is vastly different.
Not that ^ is all that relevant to the discussion, but since you asked... :p
Angryscrub, I was actually asking if there was a rule on improvised weapons one way or the other. As for shoes and rings... I'd imagine that since the monk can use any part of his body for an attack, he could easily avoid using the shoes and rings as part of his attack.
King Joey, the armor is listed under the armor table. For example, fullplate armor. Fullplate armor doesn't include the extra entries under the description to function as fullplate armor. Just like buying an expensive car, the armorer is going to throw in a few extras to keep you coming back. For fullplate, the extras include gauntlets, heavy
leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor.
However, you may feel it's entirely appropriate in your campaign to rule that you must be wearing all the extras to get the armor bonus. If you choose to do this, don't forget to account for the fact that the fighters will lose out on magical headpieces, magical gloves, and magical boots, and adjust the difficulty accordingly.
Page 182 defines unarmed attack. It is an attack type that functions the same as melee attack except for certain, listed differences.
Page 149 defines unarmed strike. Unarmed Strike is a type of unarmed attack, like a longsword is a type of melee attack.
The issue I see with the table is that the gauntlets have their own listed damage, and are separated from unarmed strike as a weapon type. If the entry in the gauntlets included a snippet about dealing the same damage as the unarmed strike that powers it, I'd be fine.
Heck, if this was supposed to just modify an unarmed strike, then it should have found its way to an "extras" section like the locked gauntlet did on the armor table. To me, that would make perfect sense if all it was doing was changing the unarmed strike damage from nonlethal to lethal.
But it's listed as a separate weapon type entirely, with its own stats.
Oh, I may have just noticed something important... or maybe just another error. *sigh*
So, there is on page 144-145 a description of *special* entries. One of these categories listed is Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows (see Chapter 3).
Neither Unarmed Strike, or Gauntlet have this special entry. *Obviously, Unarmed strike should have it, but in chapter three, it's specifically mentioned. Now, gauntlet is neither mentioned in chapter three, or anywhere else as working with flurry... Well, this went nowhere, but that's obviously an error that needs to be fixed in the next edition of the book.
After noticing that, I went and checked the specific entries for the listed monk weapons. None of them actually mention in their description that they are monk weapons...
I fear we cannot use the actual item descriptions to determine if something is a monk weapon.
As for the reason they put two-weapon fighting into the monk flurry description... I personally assumed they added it because so many folks tried to use twf with flurry :p Maybe if we beg enough, Joshua will sense a disturbance in the force and hit the thread :D
Fergie, the problem lies with the sentence immediately under the one you referenced. It is otherwise treated as an unarmed attack.
Sentence one seems to denote the attack as an unarmed strike, while sentence two seems to denote the attack as an unarmed attack. Hence problem.
Anyhow, this last book perusal has just made me feel sicker, so it's time to wrap this post up :D
*edited to remove a duplicate word.
|
|
Magic, I was able to follow you without quotes :) Im not gonna use any here myself, because I am to tired at this point and Im writing this instead of going to bed. But anyways, I see where you were going with all of that, and yes, you found a lot of the issues I found with it, and your reasonings and responses to these issues just differ from mine. I think this just shows how wanky the descriptions are in regards for this, and an official ruling would be WONDEFUL!
I think if anything, we have at least established that a gauntlet cant be used in Flurry of Blows, but then again I dont think this was ever an issue :) Right now, the only difference I can really ascertain from the book perusal on the difference between an unarmed attack and strike is on is considered armed and the other isn't.
I really think thats the issue in the gauntlet description, and why the gauntlet has its own listing: using a gauntlet as is provokes AoOs and you are considered unarmed, just as an unarmed attack, but you deal lethal damage. Its a special case, and thus requires a separate listing.
To be honest, rereading this is leaving me a headache, as more and more it seems the term "unarmed attack" is nothing more than a category, not an actual term that can be used. Unarmed strikes are the base, nonlethal and considered unarmed (provoking AoO) by default. Then a gauntlet that is unarmed (again, i mean provoking AoO), but dealing lethal damage. Then via the Imp Unarmed Strike, the IUA which is both armed and lethal (or nonlethal if chosen) damage.
Another thing, in the description of Unarmed Attack on page 182, in the middle of describing what an unarmed attack is, it changes terminology to use unarmed strike. I would read this as meaning they meant the same thing.
I just seems more and more that im getting confused heh. I will certainly agree with you that all these re-readings might be making me rethink my whole position, but for completely different reasons than you guys are having for arriving at the same conclusion. Talk about nutty.
Briefly, as its coming to me (and ill need to sleep on this a marinate on it to solidify this), it seems more along the lines of not being considered armed that this wouldn't work for allowing enchantment and base unarmed damage.
However I feel someone who takes the Imp Unarmed Strike, or possibly Exotic Weapon Proficiancy(gauntlet) would then be considered armed, and thus negating the "Otherwise considered an unarmed attack" (IE unarmed and provoke AoOs), allowing to use the creatures base unarmed damage? I KNOW EWP wasn't designed to work that way, and this point im probably making no sense.
Im gonna cut this post off here as I marinate on this. Im really torn, and reading to much into this is starting to make it hard to see the forest through the trees if you will. Ill back off for now before my head explodes and come back on this tomorrow.
Regardless the result of all this, it doesn't curb my desire to see an item SPECIFICALLY designed and stated in the APG to be considered a monk weapon for flurry, take up a glove slot, or foot slot if you wanna kick things, and be enchantable as per a normal weapon. Maybe with a 25-50% increase in price, I could live with that as long as its not the crazy AoMF price, as im going for a more focused in terms of enhancing merely a specific part of the monks body (hands/feet), taking up said item slot and being cheaper priced than the AoMF. Another option for monks who want to stay unarmed and enchant their damage, but still free up that valuable neck slot to help with their sub-par ACs with an amulet of natural armor.
I'm well aware of how Merriam-Webster defines the word gauntlet, but that doesn't change how D&D defines it. Nowhere in the rules does it say that gauntlets are armor. It mentions armor including gauntlets. On the table 'locking gauntlet' is not listed as armor, but rather as an 'Extra' in between two items that are defined as weapons.
Pg. 151, Table 6-6, is identified as "Armor and Shields." Locked gauntlets are listed there, between armor spikes and shield spikes. Why would list it between a modification to armor (which is clearly armor) and a modification to shields (which are clearly shields) if it was only a weapon and there was already an entire table devoted to weapons (Table 6-4)?
The rules list gauntlets as simple weapons, unarmed attacks, and the basis for wondrous items.
The rules also list spiked shield, light, as a light martial weapon; does that somehow suggest it is no longer considered in the armor/shield category?
Given that the clear and unambiguous meaning of the word "gauntlet" is a piece of armor, it would take a specific refutation of that meaning to suggest that it is intended to be suspended for purposes of this game. The fact that the rules do not define the terms "add" or "plus" does not somehow suggest that they mean something other than their ordinary meanings, either. So why should it be different with the term "gauntlet"?
Again, would the lack of a specific listing under the weapons table somehow lead you to conclude that a boot knife or atlatl were somehow not intended to be considered weapons?
At any rate, it does not matter to me. Y'all can run your games any way you see fit, and if you want to change the rules to treat gauntlets as not being armor then go right ahead; that's the great thing about these games. If it works for your groups and you all have fun, then more power to you. Enjoy!
...snip...
Yes I know the names are similar, but it is clear in the listings of their attacks, and as weapons. There is similar poor and obscure wordings with things that take up an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
sigh. i'll ask you too, though i'm pretty sure i can tell your answer.
does weapon focus unarmed strike give the +1 bonus to hit to a dwarf fighter in platemail punching something with his gauntlets on?
Sense it says Unarmed strike, no.
I'm of the opinion that the Pathfinder rules do NOT want this to be a default option.
That said, you need to have a happy player and a working campaign, and we sometimes bend the rules for that.
What about allowing it, but pointing out that monks are not proficient with gauntlets. That gives the choice to the player of ignoring the idea, taking the penalty, or spending a precious feat on gauntlet proficiency.
You may also want to point out to the player that he's not supposed to be equally good against all kinds of opponents. That's why you have teammates, and need to work together. Sometimes the fighter has to switch to ranged weapons, or the wizard faces a creature with SR.
You can also point out some of the options that he DOES have, like using a silver kama or grappling vs. werewolves, using alchemist's fire against swarms, etc. Many creatures with DR can still be tripped, stunned, disarmed, etc.
Finally, DR is not the same as invulnerability, people forget that. Feats like Power Attack and Vital Stike can help you punch through DR. The fight just takes longer, that's all. As long as you're still able to do some damage, you're fine.