Very good note about the proficiency.
Also note that a gauntlet stands alone as a weapon, and you would need to enchant each separately too.
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.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Punching with a gauntlet is no different than punching without one. Hell, the weight isn't even that noticeable (and yes, I've actually done this). Striking with a gauntlet does not function any differently than striking without one.
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.
The problem being that these aren't really options. When you can do the kind of damage unarmed that a monk can, switching to a weapon that hampers your damage output (sometimes so severely that you're still better off being unable to bypass the DR), it's no longer an option.
I really wish some developers would get on this (and make something reasonable for monks to have enchanted attacks just like everybody else), as it's a problem from 3.5 that really should've been fixed/clarified.
On personal gameplay experience, I've played in multiple games where the monk could simply enchant his body (occasionally at a somewhat increased price, and had to be done as double weapons), and have had no game balance issues with it. He's still working with mid-BAB as a combat class, and even using FoB, he's not getting any more attacks than anyone else who wants to TWF. His base damage may be higher, but it really isn't enough higher to break the game compared to some of the tricks other classes have (especially if we consider the two major TWFing classes, the rogue and the ranger).
|
Very good note about the proficiency.
Also note that a gauntlet stands alone as a weapon, and you would need to enchant each separately too.
In my re-reading last nite, I came to this thought about proficiency as well, and noted it as such in my last post. As to the enchanting separately, I see the reasoning behind this, but feel a monk is a special case. Ill have to come up with a good foundation for my reasoning, as Im tired and its not coming together properly in my head at the moment.
Maybe the set of wraps propose can be at 1.5 times the cost of normal weapons, and still cover both hands. I think that's a fair compromise honestly. Still have to pay extra for the fact that you can use either hand, but at the same time not get the penalty for paying for two weapons when mechanically the monk is using an unarmed strike as a single weapon, I consider the monk's hands one weapon for all intents and purposes. If he punches with one hand or the other, I don't view that in the same light as a TWF using a different weapon in each hand, i see that as more akin to an ambidextrous fighter choosing which hand he wishes to wield a weapon. That certainly doesn't fall under TWF.
However I can see one possible scenario with enchanting each gauntlet, different enchants/materials for each hand :) But then you WOULD have to keep track of this like you had two weapons, and that could get tricky quickly.
I still keep coming back to a set of handwraps for a monk, allowing enchantment at 1.5 times normal weapon pricing, while still allowing base unarmed damage and be considered monk weapons for flurry. Ahh the dreams I have!
Sorry, but for the last 30+ years, D&D has used a definition closer to "glove" for the word gauntlet. See the #2 and especially #4 M-W definitions that you posted. Armor is not divided up into pieces in D&D, it just fills the "armor" slot, and everything else is assumed. You can mix and match boots, helmets, gloves, belts, etc. without affecting what armor you are wearing (or AC check, Spell failure, druid restrictions).
As you said, anyone can house rule anything, but Gauntlets are clearly defined as weapons or gloves in D&D.
All of my thinking about how Gauntlets are unarmed strikes is for naught since unarmed strikes are not applicable for Magic Weapon, unless you are a monk. I don't know what to believe anymore...
I would just make a plea for some kind of sanity in the form of a post from paizo saying either:
It is totally up to the DM (but, but, but... organized play!)
It works this way... (we are ALL wrong)
All will be revealed when the Advanced books come out.
What about silvered magic brass knuckles?
|
I dunno about the wrap pricing.
When the monk is using unarmed strike as a single weapon, he only needs to use one fist.
When he's flurrying, you've got the whole two-weapon-fighting thing going on there.
Of course after a certain point, he'll probably always be flurrying...
I think it'd be more reasonable to let him buy a wrap for each hand, and enchant them separately. Same cost if he flurries with the two-weapon stuff. If he doesn't flurry, he only needs to get one, as he's using one weapon.
Note that I'm pulling off of the *flurry twf must use two different damage sources here for this*
But making it cheaper for the monk to twf just monetarily doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, I understand that he's stuck with it, but the rogue is limited on his sneak attack, and the ranger by his favored enemy. *lets not get into the discussion about whether twf is optimal for them lol*
So I don't see that limiting factor as reason enough to discount the cost to less than what other twf-prone classes have to pay. Add in the fact that the monk will get his bonus damage from unarmed strike against everything that he hits, as opposed to the rogue and ranger who still have to create the right situation, and it just feels more like the monk should pay the cost for enchanting each wrap separately.
Of course, as wraps are a house-rule item *until and unless pathfinder adds them*, everyone can price them as they wish, and include them *or not* as desired.
Full body enchant :2.5x
Specific weapon enchant: 1x
King Joey, a Locked Gauntlet is not a Gauntlet or a Spiked Gauntlet.
And, actually, if you look under the weapons entry for the shield/spiked shield, it says that: You can bash with a shield instead
of using it for defense. See page 152 for details.
So yes, it doesn't function as a shield when you attack with it. It functions as a weapon, and does so until you stop bashing with it :p
Here's a paragraph about armor from the magical items section.
Armor is always created so that if the type of armor comes
with a pair of boots, a helm, or a set of gauntlets, these pieces
can be switched for other magic boots, helms, or gauntlets.
If a player attempted to use a weapon, and couldn't show me an entry for it, I'd either rule it to be an existing weapon in the book, or an improvised weapon, depending on how he described it. *This is my Masher! I took it out of mommas table before I left."
A rose by any other name still deals 1d4 piercing or slashing damage.
You know, if I were Jason or James, and I was trying to decide what to do for a particular ruling, I'd probably watch the debate until it slowed down a bit, review all the different arguments, and THEN come up with a ruling...
/hopes one is forthcoming!
And, actually, if you look under the weapons entry for the shield/spiked shield, it says that: You can bash with a shield instead
of using it for defense. See page 152 for details.So yes, it doesn't function as a shield when you attack with it. It functions as a weapon, and does so until you stop bashing with it :p
That's true. But if I were a monk player bashing someone with a spiked shield, would you still allow me my AC bonus? This is pretty much the point I was making, which is that it doesn't matter how you are using something; it still is what it is. If a monk were wearing banded mail as a disguise or as ballast to keep himself on the sea floor, it would still negate his move bonus and flurry ability because it is armor even though he isn't using it as "armor."
I guess a clarification from the devs might be necessary, though if they actually did not intend them to be treated as armor it would behoove them not to use a word that means a piece of armor. If some future Pathfinder publication were to offer "greaves of dancing" or describe the impact of pauldrons on lifting, it would logically follow that they intended those items to be considered armor. The same holds true for gauntlets.
Sorry, but for the last 30+ years, D&D has used a definition closer to "glove" for the word gauntlet. See the #2 and especially #4 M-W definitions that you posted.
Definition #2 is armor ("protective glove"). And as for #4, no one has ever made a "dress" glove out of metal that was not intended to be armor (at least decorative armor).
Gauntlet and glove are not synonymous. Gauntlets are a type of glove (a couple of different types, actually). And the type that is made out of sheets of metal wrapped around your hand is a piece of armor. And if it's not the type that is made out of sheets of metal wrapped around your hand, then it's not the "gauntlet" described on p. 146 in the weapons descriptions.
My concern is that if I allow it, he then later will enchant them
I looked back through this thread and realized that a significant amount of the debate involved the issue of monks potentially enchanting gauntlets for various purposes. However,
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
To me, enchanting magic items (according to the crafting magic items rules) would clearly fall within, "spells and effects that enhance or improve," manufactured weapons. Thus, it always seemed to me that monks could have their unarmed strikes enchanted just like any other weapon. Is there some other ruling or provision that would seem to suggest otherwise? Is that why considering gauntlets armor (or not) is such a big deal to people?
|
|
That's true. But if I were a monk player bashing someone with a spiked shield, would you still allow me my AC bonus? This is pretty much the point I was making, which is that it doesn't matter how you are using something; it still is what it is. If a monk were wearing banded mail as a disguise or as ballast to keep himself on the sea floor, it would still negate his move bonus and flurry ability because it is armor even though he isn't using it as "armor."I guess a clarification from the devs might be necessary, though if they actually did not intend them to be treated as armor it would behoove them not to use a word that means a piece of armor. If some future Pathfinder publication were to offer "greaves of dancing" or describe the impact of pauldrons on lifting, it would logically follow that they intended those items to be considered armor. The same holds true for gauntlets.
As far as attacking with the spiked shield, nope. But not for the reason you think. Under the monk ac bonus, he loses the bonus "when he carries a shield". Didn't matter if he attacked with it, or walked it over to toss in the fire. Since Spiked Shield includes "shield" in the name, I can only determine that he loses the bonus.
Oh, and about the glove thing... I'm pretty sure there are a few cases of tv shows creating tinfoil gloves to get that futuristic look. That's the bad thing about saying something was never done... :/
And after a quick google, there are apparently a few singers that wear *fashionable* metal gloves. I doubt that, for instance, Beyonce Knowles wears her metal glove in order to protect her hand :D Not that it doesn't look goofy, because it does. It really does.
But the question about gauntlets is about *what* it is.
As far as I'm concerned, Gauntlet, the default, the original to which spiked and locked is then added, is a weapon. It is in the weapons table.
It has a damage listed.
It has no ac listed.
It is included in the package deal when you purchase some types of armor. So is the under-padding for the armor. But that padding doesn't provide an armor bonus, and is not armor. It's padding. Previous posts have shown that removing the gauntlets/helm/shoes make no difference to the *Fullplate* armor class. They can be replaced with magical items made out of terrycloth with no effect on ac.
You cannot find "gauntlet" listed in the armor tables. You can only find "locked gauntlet", which has a text entry very similar to the entry for a spiked shield, which shows up in the weapons table.
Base item
Shield: detailed in armor table
Gauntlet: detailed in weapons table
Modified item:
Spiked shield: detailed in weapons table, which functions as a shield, and in addition allows you to attack with your shield.
Locked Gauntlet: detailed in armor table, which functions as a gauntlet, and in addition allows you to better resist disarms.
I think that's my best argument for it yet. It'll probably be the last one too, as I'm feeling tapped out on the subject.
A ruling would be nice :)
As for the monk getting himself enchanted... since his fists aren't masterwork, they can't be permanently enchanted except by the permanency spell.
Still, that could be a lot of fun with the cursed item with a dc missed by 5 or more.. *grins*
It is included in the package deal when you purchase some types of armor. So is the under-padding for the armor. But that padding doesn't provide an armor bonus, and is not armor.
Okay, question: a monk has a suit of full-plate armor. He is awakened in the night and begins donning his full-plate armor with help, which takes 4 minutes (40 rounds). If he is interrupted by an attack 39 rounds later, would you rule that he has zero armor bonus from the armor, zero armor check penalty, no max dex bonus, and can fully utilize all of his monk abilities? But somehow six seconds later he would have transformed from fully un-armored to fully armored?
I would hope that the answer would clearly be no, because the parts of armor -- even short of the full suit -- surely still exist inasmuch as they have mass and occupy space. But if parts of armor are not treated as even being armor unless they are specifically listed on the armor chart with AC Bonus, Max Dex Bonus, Armor Check Penalty, etc., stats, then the leggings, backplate, helmet, pauldrons, etc., would be considered to have zero impact.
And further along those lines, what if he started with the breastplate piece first? There is no listing for armor values for the breastplate part of full-plate armor, so would it be considered armor?
The fundamental point is that deeming things as armor or not based upon whether they have a stat listing on the armor chart does not make any sense to me. All armor pieces are armor; the chart is simply a reference for gauging the combat effects in terms of game mechanics. The padding layer of full plate is indeed armor, and would function similarly to padded armor. Similarly the breastplate piece of full plate armor would function similarly to a breastplate. Samurai kikou armor -- though lacking any armor stats on the armor and shields table -- would be treated as armor and function as armor. Why? Because it is armor. Would you really consider the fact that K-Mart sells a plastic samurai halloween costume justification for classifying kikou as "not armor"?
Gloves made out of metal (not foil-lined cloth or leather, but metal) are armor and are called "gauntlets." If you know any armorsmiths you can ask them, and they will tell you without equivocation that a glove made of metal is armor.
|
|
Okay, question: a monk has a suit of full-plate armor. He is awakened in the night and begins donning his full-plate armor with help, which takes 4 minutes (40 rounds). If he is interrupted by an attack 39 rounds later, would you rule that he has zero armor bonus from the armor, zero armor check penalty, no max dex bonus, and can fully utilize all of his monk abilities? But somehow six seconds later he would have transformed from fully un-armored to fully armored?
I would hope that the answer would clearly be no, because the parts of armor -- even short of the full suit -- surely still exist inasmuch as they have mass and occupy space. But if parts of armor are not treated as even being armor unless they are specifically listed on the armor chart with AC Bonus, Max Dex Bonus, Armor Check Penalty, etc., stats, then the leggings, backplate, helmet, pauldrons, etc., would be considered to have zero impact.
And further along those lines, what if he started with the breastplate piece first? There is no listing for armor values for the breastplate part of full-plate armor, so would it be considered armor?
The fundamental point is that deeming things as armor or not based upon whether they have a stat listing on the armor chart does not make any sense to me. All armor pieces are armor; the chart is simply a reference for gauging the combat effects in terms of game mechanics. The padding layer of full plate is indeed armor, and would function similarly to padded armor. Similarly the breastplate piece of full plate armor would function similarly to a breastplate. Samurai kikou armor -- though lacking any armor stats on the armor and shields table -- would be treated as armor and function as armor. Why? Because it is armor. Would you really consider the fact that K-Mart sells a plastic...
The fundamental point is that these rulings are based off of the game mechanics. Under full plate armor, it doesn't say anything about using a breastplate as part of the armor. So I don't assume that it does. I go by what the rules say.
They also don't say that your monk has to stop donning his armor because he was attacked. If he stops donning his armor, and starts fighting, I'd rule that the metal plates cascade off of him, since he didn't finish securing them. If he spent the last round completing the process, then he'd have his bonus to ac, and all the penalties associated with a monk wearing armor.
There is a separation between reality and game mechanics. While game mechanics, for the most part, attempt to mimic reality, they sacrifice much to try to simplify things.
Like how there's no breastplate in the fullplate. Like how you have to have the armor fully donned if you want the armor class.
And you're right. Items that aren't listed under armor have 0 impact. According to the pathfinder book, armor can be donned and removed. However, fullplate isn't made up of a breastplate with extra pieces tacked on for better coverage. Helms, leggings, gloves, boots provide no extra protection.
You're attempting to force qualities of real-world versions of these armors onto the armor tables, but that's not how the armor system is designed to work. It's designed to be more abstract, and easier to use, so that you don't have to calculate how much ac bonus you get after donning your fullplate for 31 rounds. You also don't have to worry about which pieces get dented, whether or not the straps start to fray, or how hard it is to stand up after getting knocked over.
Instead, you can walk all day long in fullplate, get knocked down and bound back up in less than six seconds, and wield a scythe that releases flames and acid when you hit someone just right.
While we would all like to be able to make things match up evenly and accurately, it seriously over-complicates the rules. You can houserule everything you want in your game, but it IS a house rule, and not the way the game mechanics function.
In the "Magic Item Compendium" there are various options for enchanting natural attacks, whatever the source.
As stated, An "Amulet Of Natural Attacks" is one generalised way of enhancing all natural attacks of the wearer of the item, though it is understandably expensive (after all you are paying for the priveledge of an attack form you cant be disarmed of)
A cheap alternative is a "Wyrmfang Amulet" (Magic Item Compendium, Page 148), at 1350 Gp, it allows all natural attacks and unarmed strikes to count as a magic weapon (but with no enhancement bonus to attack and damage, just the ability to bypass Magic DR) but this of course cant be upgraded.
Another alternative is to pursue "Augment Crystals" (Pages 64-66) but this has to be attatched to a weapon, namely Gauntlets or some Monk specific weapon, as a way to increase the weapons effects.
If you really want to be cheap, just have some potions or scrolls of "Magic Fang" or "Magic Weapon" on hand, since the Monks unarmed strikes count as natural and manufactured for the purposes of such spells.
And you're right. Items that aren't listed under armor have 0 impact. According to the pathfinder book, armor can be donned and removed. However, fullplate isn't made up of a breastplate with extra pieces tacked on for better coverage. Helms, leggings, gloves, boots provide no extra protection.
You're attempting to force qualities of real-world versions of these armors onto the armor tables, but that's not how the armor system is designed to work. It's designed to be more abstract, and easier to use, so that you don't have to calculate how much ac bonus you get after donning your fullplate for 31 rounds. You also don't have to worry about which pieces get dented, whether or not the straps start to fray, or how hard it is to stand up after getting knocked over.
Instead, you can walk all day long in fullplate, get knocked down and bound back up in less than six seconds, and wield a scythe that releases flames and acid when you hit someone just right.
While we would all like to be able to make things match up evenly and accurately, it seriously over-complicates the rules. You can houserule everything you want in your game, but it IS a house rule, and not the way the game mechanics function.
I guess you can call it "houseruling", but insisting that a shotgun is not a weapon simply because there's not weapon listing for it is not a question of "over-complicating" rules. Twisting simple basic reality into contortions of rules-lawyering (like, for example, Monks can use armor just so long as the specific piece isn't listed as armor on the armor chart) is much more complicating. I've played in games where reality was completely ignored in favor of any possible technical interpretation of the rules, which would result in wagons being drawn from backpacks (when there's no specific limit listed for a backpack's capacity) and a single character carrying dozens of suits of plate mail armor (when weight is the only factor in the game's encumbrance mechanics). Those games all sucked because they assume a complete erasure of reality and only the rules listed in the rulebooks exist. The fact that there is nothing specifically stated in the rules saying that two objects cannot normally occupy the same space does not mean that rule of physics is simply ignored.
In any successful game, the fundamental rules of reality have to be assumed to exist except where the game deigns otherwise (e.g., firebreathing dragons, magical teleportation, superhuman feats of strength and skill, etc.). No game can give actual game mechanics for all of them so they cover the most common and most applicable ones, and leave the rest to common sense and roleplay. That's why broadswords are still weapons and non-magical wagons can't be carried in non-magical backpacks, even though neither are specifically stated in the rules.
Again, anyone is free to house rule any way they like; but I would consider any game where there are no rules of the universe other than the text of the rulebook definitely to be house rules in a major and unfortunate way.
|
|
I guess you can call it "houseruling", but insisting that a shotgun is not a weapon simply because there's not weapon listing for it is not a question of "over-complicating" rules. Twisting simple basic reality into contortions of rules-lawyering (like, for example, Monks can use armor just so long as the specific piece isn't listed as armor on the armor chart) is much more complicating. I've played in games where reality was completely ignored in favor of any possible technical interpretation of the rules, which would result in wagons being drawn from backpacks (when there's no specific limit listed for a backpack's capacity) and a single character carrying dozens of suits of plate mail armor (when weight is the only factor in the game's encumbrance mechanics). Those games all sucked...
It's not *calling* it a house rule. That's what it is. Wikipedia has a pretty interesting definition of it btw.
As you put it: In any successful game, the fundamental rules of reality have to be assumed to exist except where the game deigns otherwise.
I agree. This includes where the game deigns that x are the available weapons, and y are the available armors and z is what happens while you don said armor. The game may change real world mechanics to make them easier, simpler, faster, or more entertaining to use in game. Such as a simple list of weapons and armor, and a simple interpretation of donning and removing armor.
Some folks enjoy playing as simply as possible, while other folks enjoy adding more rules, and items. Either is fine. Just don't try to pass off modifications as anything but modifications to how the game runs.
As DM's, we have to make evaluatory judgments based off of the rules and our general view of how the real world works. We need to be aware though, that our decisions aren't the Word of Pathfinder. They might be the Word of Law for our campaigns, but Pathfinder can always release an errata, or an additional book with extra items.
If my players wanted to incorporate firearms into the campaign, I personally would assign firearm-type names to the various bow entries and have my players use those stats. Another person might create an entirely new stat block, or modify the bow stats. Each option is equally good, equally valid. They're still all house rules, and I wouldn't claim that everyone should use bow stats for their firearms. If pathfinder released a book that included stats for firearms, I would then convert over to those. Other folks might not. For the most part, I prefer not to run house rules if I have another option. Too many house rules complicate the game beyond my tastes.
I've played in a campaign where the dm *reinterpreted* the rules, and house ruled everything as he saw fit. It turned into the dm trying to strongarm the players into acting, and reacting, how he wanted them to. I didn't find it very fun. I won't say that others wouldn't enjoy it.
But this is a good example of how our previous history colors our current views. I want to make clear here that my point of contention ISN'T over whether or not your house rules are good or bad. It's about whether or not they're the default rules provided in pathfinder. While I am open to discussing the merits of various house rules on pathfinder, I don't think that this is the right thread to do so.
|
ok, that's quite a bit of noncore stuff there. what the heck are gauntlets of the talon? do they work on non monks?...snipped monk build...
Relics of Bahamut, from complete divine, a lesser version is also in Magic Item Compendium. also The CD ones stack with belt of the monk(looks like CD verson was used.), MIC ones dont but only cost 4k and are slightly weaker.. You need the true believer feat or sacrifice a spell slot (of like 5th or 7th level or something). THey work for non monks, but i think you only deal a d6 unless you establish a connection (take a feat)
I always assumed that gauntlet was in the weapons table to reward some good ole' fashioned Ivory Tower game design. Ie, it's in the rules so that a clever wizard could enchant a gauntlet with +1 spell-storing and have their friend put a cure serious wounds into it. 1d3 damage dealt (likely, in most games I've played, 1d3-1) to yourself and 4d8+10 damage healed.
Or a +1 spell-storing spiked gauntlet so you could, say, punch someone to deliver an extra slay living every day.
Personally, if a monk wanted to flurry with gauntlets, I would be fine. I don't see much of a difference to +1 gauntlets than an amulet of mighty fists. At the same time, though, I make my amulets of mighty fists cost as much as two equal enhancement bonus weapons, and I wouldn't let the monk flurry with only one weapon. It counts as two-weapon fighting, and if you're not using another weapon (ie, your unenchanted unarmed strike or another gauntlet) you can't flurry of rabbit punches someone.
Most monks in my general consensus would take the +0 shocking amulet of mighty fists over the +1 gauntlet/+1 gauntlet anyhow.