| 18 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.
Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)
Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.
The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.
Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."
Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.
Do you mean that they are supposed to not deal unarmed strike damage or that they are being errata'ed to not do so?
Monks use their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles...
For my own games, I appreciate the input and thoughts of designers without feeling like I have to ask about every little thing to see if I am running my game "correctly."
But for PFS, I don't feel I really have the luxury of saying doing that as much. Right now I'm thinking about how to tell the PFS player that I was wrong to tell him what I did about brass knuckles.
I understand that this happens and don't really blame you, but gah! I am going feel like an ass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.
Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)
Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.
The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.
Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."
So, in reference to Gauntlets, does that mean that a monk wearing a pair who makes a "regular" (non FoB) attack would do his or her increased damage? Or a flat 1d3?
So, in reference to Gauntlets, does that mean that a monk wearing a pair who makes a "regular" (non FoB) attack would do his or her increased damage? Or a flat 1d3?
...
Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. ...
That means they just do the flat 1d3. (emphasis mine)
| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).
A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).
A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
Okay, seriously not trying to be dense here, but... "these three weapons" refers to brass knuckles, cestus, and rope gauntlets, right? They have a set damage that is not affected by the Monk's improved unarmed damage. Nor would a Spiked Gauntlet, for that matter.
But what about a plain gauntlet? Not eligible for FoB, obviously, but would, say, a Monk1/Fighter1 who used a gauntlet as a back up weapon do 1d3 as per the Gauntlet listing? Or 1d6 as per the increased damage for an unarmed attack?
In 3.5 the answer was 1d6, so I'm just trying to figure out if this was a deliberate change/reinterpretation.
This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).
Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.
But what about a plain gauntlet? Not eligible for FoB, obviously, but would, say, a Monk1/Fighter1 who used a gauntlet as a back up weapon do 1d3 as per the Gauntlet listing? Or 1d6 as per the increased damage for an unarmed attack?In 3.5 the answer was 1d6, so I'm just trying to figure out if this was a deliberate change/reinterpretation.
...
Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. ...
While in parenthesis, gauntlets are explicitly mentioned by Sean in his original answer. They just do 1d3. (emphasis mine)
Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.
While I understand your predicament, all players should know that navigating the grey zones of the rules is at the risk of having the rules interpretation changed. If your players character concept is toppled by this, then it is his/her own fault. If not the player should be greatfull for having gotten away with it this far.
|
Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.While I understand your predicament, all players should know that navigating the grey zones of the rules is at the risk of having the rules interpretation changed. If your players character concept is toppled by this, then it is his/her own fault. If not the player should be greatfull for having gotten away with it this far.
Maybe you missed it but further up-thread Blazej asked for clarification and Sean had said differently. So it wasn't a grey area, it was an area that was clarified and then later changed.
Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.While I understand your predicament, all players should know that navigating the grey zones of the rules is at the risk of having the rules interpretation changed. If your players character concept is toppled by this, then it is his/her own fault. If not the player should be greatfull for having gotten away with it this far.
To be fair though, as Ogre notes, I had asked the question before because it did seem the answer could be one way or another. Maybe it is nit-picky , but answer I got back didn't seem to be gray at all. If it had any bit of doubt in it, I would have passed that on as well and this would feel much less like an unfortunate surprise.
As far what the player has gotten away with... well... he bought it about two sessions ago and hasn't had a chance to use it yet... so... yep, he will be certainly grateful that he got away with spending that money for an item that he probably will never use now. So darn lucky.
Again, I don't begrudge the fact that rulings might change or that a single ruling might be in error. I feel like crap for having to tell the player that was it worked one way was misinformed, but I'm not pushing that onto Sean. I would just favor a bit of warning in areas it is more likely to happen.
Maybe you missed it but further up-thread Blazej asked for clarification and Sean had said differently. So it wasn't a grey area, it was an area that was clarified and then later changed.Whether or not it goes into an errata file or FAQ file, it still feels like errata as the answer to how much damage brass knuckles do changed over a month. And now I get to inform a player of the changes to his PFS monk because I confirmed for him that it worked one way, which it apparently does not.While I understand your predicament, all players should know that navigating the grey zones of the rules is at the risk of having the rules interpretation changed. If your players character concept is toppled by this, then it is his/her own fault. If not the player should be greatfull for having gotten away with it this far.
I never read that (its on another thread altogether). That answer was in itself not very clear either. While he stated that the monks used their UAD with knuckles he subsequently stated that the only advantage was the ability to do lethal damage, which they allready have.
But now at least I understand where Blazej is coming from. Thanks.
As far what the player has gotten away with... well... he bought it about two sessions ago and hasn't had a chance to use it yet... so... yep, he will be certainly grateful that he got away with spending that money for an item that he probably will never use now. So darn lucky.
That sucks, for sure.
If the character has never actually used them and you have been the only GM since the purchase, I would allow the character to "never have bought them" in the first place. Since the error stems from an honest misunderstanding and the player never intended to cheat I don't think he should be punished for it.I can only guess, but I don't think Joshua would think it was cheating, though he might never actually tell you that.
As far what the player has gotten away with... well... he bought it about two sessions ago and hasn't had a chance to use it yet... so... yep, he will be certainly grateful that he got away with spending that money for an item that he probably will never use now. So darn lucky.
That sucks, for sure.
If the character has never actually used them and you have been the only GM since the purchase, I would allow the character to "never have bought them" in the first place. Since the error stems from an honest misunderstanding and the player never intended to cheat I don't think he should be punished for it.
I can only guess, but I don't think Joshua would think it was cheating, though he might never actually tell you that.
Yeah.
That is probably what I will end up doing unless Frost jumps in and starts beating me with a +2 axiomatic cudgel. It could certainly have gone worse than it has and I am thankful for that.
Thank you.
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the answer changed... because Jason and I discussed the precedent it sets for the Core Rulebook and vice versa.
Treating brass knuckles, gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cesti, and rope gauntlets as "unarmed attacks" doesn't make a lot of sense (because you're not unarmed, you have metal/leather/rope/etc. there).
It also brings up weird questions like
If I have +5 flaming brass knuckles/gauntlets/spiked gauntlets, am I doing unarmed strike damage, the listed weapon damage, or both?
How do the magical properties on those weapons interact with my monk unarmed damage? Does this make the ki focus properly useless on these types of weapons?
Am I doing monk unarmed damage plus enhancement bonus plus 1d6 fire?
How does this interact with an amulet of mighty fists?
How does this interact with properties like brilliant energy?
What about creatures that harm attackers who hit them, am I considered armed and safe or unarmed and not safe?
Making all of these weapons act 100% like weapons and not refer to unarmed attacks at all means these questions go away.
@ Sean:
A couple of things:
1. I'm all for simplification. The fewer clarifications/caveats needed to use an item or weapon, the better.
2. A little praise: Not having weapons that allow a monk to stack his/her increased unarmed damage with weapon enhancements and flurry, all three at the same time, is a better way to go. I am sure that others will disagree, but I fully support that change/clarification.
3. A little criticism: Not having weapons that allow all three things (see #2) was the standard in 3.5 and in the Core Rules. The Adventurer's Armory, however, was worded in such a way to change that. You guys really should have caught that.
4. Paizo still rocks!
@ Sean:
A couple of things:
1. I'm all for simplification. The fewer clarifications/caveats needed to use an item or weapon, the better.
2. A little praise: Not having weapons that allow a monk to stack his/her increased unarmed damage with weapon enhancements and flurry, all three at the same time, is a better way to go. I am sure that others will disagree, but I fully support that change/clarification.
3. A little criticism: Not having weapons that allow all three things (see #2) was the standard in 3.5 and in the Core Rules. The Adventurer's Armory, however, was worded in such a way to change that. You guys really should have caught that.
4. Paizo still rocks!
4X+1
Hey, hate to necro this thread, but I can't help but notice the PRD still clearly says "monks can use their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles." SKR's answers above seems to indicate that should change and monks using brass knuckles just do brass knuckle damage. Does that still hold or did it get rules on differently later, and if it's the case when will the PRD be updated?
Hey, hate to necro this thread, but I can't help but notice the PRD still clearly says "monks can use their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles." SKR's answers above seems to indicate that should change and monks using brass knuckles just do brass knuckle damage. Does that still hold or did it get rules on differently later, and if it's the case when will the PRD be updated?
Advanced Player's Guide, Chapter 4
"And lo the developers did Decree that a Monk shalt use their unarmed Weapon damage With the Brass Knuckles so they might Flurry their Foes into Paste."
In other words... the book that came out after the AA changed it.
Hey, hate to necro this thread, but I can't help but notice the PRD still clearly says "monks can use their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles." SKR's answers above seems to indicate that should change and monks using brass knuckles just do brass knuckle damage. Does that still hold or did it get rules on differently later, and if it's the case when will the PRD be updated?Advanced Player's Guide, Chapter 4
"And lo the developers did Decree that a Monk shalt use their unarmed Weapon damage With the Brass Knuckles so they might Flurry their Foes into Paste."
In other words... the book that came out after the AA changed it.
No, the AA and the APG say the same thing - monks can flurry with brass knuckles. But Sean says the opposite above, he says upon reflection that was an error. And he says it in May, after the APG was well off to print.
So I think it's justified to ask Paizo for a "last word" ruling on it... We all have opinions which aren't entirely relevant.
I just FAQ'd the OP's post so that it can be officially changed. I do hate to see this thread since I thought I had bypassed the amulet of mighty fist issue.
Since this ruling is based on the desire to make the rules easier to read than a balance issue I hope they come out with a replacement. I will at least make a change for my own campaign. I just don't know what it will be.
Usually, for me, once a Dev has posted, that's it for me as far as RAW goes.
However, this is a special case. A dev spoke, backtracked, spoke again, then the company published the original pre-dev speaking text unaltered.
I really wish Paizo would just bite the bullet and have someone spend an hour or two putting something in the FAQ (and yes, I did FAQ the thread).
Don't get me wrong, they're usually very good about getting the errata fixed, but this seems to be either a case of someone dropping the ball, or else there's a bunch of arguing going back and forth in-house over the issue and it's affecting the published books and needs to be addressed once and for all by whoever can make a final decision.
|
Hey, hate to necro this thread, but I can't help but notice the PRD still clearly says "monks can use their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles." SKR's answers above seems to indicate that should change and monks using brass knuckles just do brass knuckle damage. Does that still hold or did it get rules on differently later, and if it's the case when will the PRD be updated?Wondering this myself. Thread faq'd
As far as I am concerned the APG, which was came out after that post, is the RAW.
Per the PRD:
Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.
Either that, or we have to go back to Alpha stage PF and start questioning all the rules/posts..
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).
A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
APG pg 176.
"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them".Quite clear, monks can use unarmed attack damage with brass knuckles. This is not an unarmed attack, so they can't add bonuses from necklace of mighty fists, nor use stunning fist or similar abilities.
Nowhere do the rules state that monk unarmed damage supercedes the normal weapon damage of any weapon the monk wields.Correct.
Except, it says explicitly in the rules two things:
1. Gauntlets deal unarmed strike damage. They are unarmed strikes that deal lethal damage.
2. Monks deal more unarmed strike damage than the normal listed (1d3 for medium).
The combination of the two does indeed yield a monk wearing gauntlets dealing his normal monk damage.
With the following drawbacks:
1. Without feat/multiclass the monk is non-proficient.
2. The monk ALWAYS does lethal damage with gauntlets (unless they take -4 to hit)
3. The monk cannot flurry with gauntlets.-James
2 of those 3 drawbacks don't exist.
everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes, gauntlets count as unarmed strikes, thus everyone (including monks) is proficient with them.
because gauntlets are technically unarmed strikes, and monks can flurry with unarmed strikes, a monk can flurry with gauntlets.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The recent changes to the rules are bringing this up again.
Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.
Is this exception still true?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What's the latest on this? Paizo's online rules still describe gauntlets as unarmed strikes, whereas brass knuckle and cestus entries have been appropriately changed. Any updates? Has this old issue now been clarified in a FAQ? And I'll confess I'm not a wizard at tracking down faqs and rule changes, so any help would be appreciated.
GAUNTLET
Price 2 gp
Type simple
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 breastplates) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
(emphasis mine)
To me, it makes sense that Gauntlets would be distinguished from brass knuckles. With one you're not armed, and with one you are. With one you don't threaten AOOs, and with one you do. You can wield other weapons with one, but not the other. Is there some special ruling that gauntlet attacks are unarmed attacks, and yet monks cannot use them with their unarmed attacks, but use the as separate weapon attacks?Or are the guantlets getting a major power boost, in order to prevent monks from using them?
And what exactly are the rules or precedent by which we'd consider Sean's statements in this thread? Because frankly, I don't like them, don't agree with them, and the RAW (in my book and on the website) flatly states otherwise. So I want to ignore them when it comes to the humble gauntlet, unless I'm informed that this thread counts as an official ruling, or there are power-curve considerations for why monks should not do unarmed damage with gauntlets.
IMHO, this would all go away if the gauntlet entry was changed to encompass
"You are not considered armed when wielding a gauntlet in that you do not threaten attacks of opportunity. You also provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking, if your unarmed strikes would also provoke. You may hold other items when wielding a gauntlet, but may not make attacks with that gauntlet when doing so."
