| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, me and my friend were discussing this topic after I saw someone had mentioned in another thread that Brass Knuckles require the Ki Focus enchantment to be placed on them in order for the monk to use Stunning Fist and his other abilities through them.
His argument is that because Brass Knuckles are listed under the 'Unarmed' section of the equipment table, they fall under the Stunning Fist description of an unarmed attack.
My argument is that Brass Knuckles are weapons, shown by the fact that they can be enchanted as weapons, and that the 'Unarmed' equipment section is designed to demonstrate how much space those weapons take up in the wielder's hands, not the type of attack.
Is there any concrete ruling on this that anyone knows about, or is it a case of RAI?
|
Weapons listed under Unarmed Attacks are, to my knowledge, not "true" weapons. Rather they are just modifiers to the existing Unarmed Strike attack. In the case of the Gauntlet it makes the damage lethal (though you still provoke)
Note how a spiked gauntlet is listed under "light" and is treated as a real weapon, but the regular gauntlet is not.
In this light I'd say you couldn't take Weapon Focus: Gauntlet or Weapon Focus: Brass Knuckle, because they aren't really weapons. You'd take Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike instead.
The main reason for the existence of these weapons is to give those who use unarmed strike a less than horridly expensive way of gaining magical bonuses.
In short: RAI.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Weapons listed under Unarmed Attacks are, to my knowledge, not "true" weapons.
couldn't take Weapon Focus: Brass Knuckle, because they aren't really weapons.
In short: RAI.
We differ both on RAW and RAI.
I view RAW that you can take WF Brass Knuckles, and WF Unarmed Strike/AoMF won't help your Brass Knuckles attacks.
I believe the RAI is matching my view, otherwise it is very exploitable situation.
This comes up nearly daily, since I just posted to another thread from a few days ago on this central issue. I wish they would settle it.
From PRD
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows (see Classes)
That is all a monk weapon does- it lets them flurry with it. A monk weapon still needs to be enchanted specially to let them stun with it or whatever.
Knuckles are weapons. They are in the weapon section and in the weapon chart. They are treated as weapons for any and all purposes except for where its description allows otherwise. the BK's allow a monk to use their unarmed damage with them, in addition to being a "monk weapon".
This means that they can flurry with it and use their unarmed strike damage with it. That is all it means. In order for it to do more, they would have to have added additional properties to the weapon in the listing.
-S
Right.
UAS isn´t a Monk Weapon. Knuckles are a Monk Weapon.
What does that tell you? (Knuckles are not UAS, they just share it`s damage value.)
so by your thinking you cant use your knuckles/fist as part of flurry of blows since they are part of an unarmed strike & therefore not a monk weapon but once you equip brass knuckles they can be?? come on
unarmed strike is a monks weapon otherwise they could not flurry
I think you're reading too far into the response.
From the PRD:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): 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....
You can flurry with a knuckle and a fist or two knuckles or two fists.
However, I must agree that the Knuckles are considered a Monk weapon, which is treated as one outside of the exception(s) noted in the weapon's description. Note how it says nothing about monk special abilities. It's like trying to stunning fist with a Kama/Sai/Nunchuck (from a rules perspective).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I believe that RAW the BKs are allowed to use unarmed attacks & any feats still work without Ki enhancement since they are monk weapons
That is fine, and there is significant RAW to refute your stance (which you choose to ignore.)
In other words, this is an "Ask your DM" question until Paizo gives us a FAQ/Errata.
I just fall on the opposite side of the question from you, I believe the more solid RAW is that BK can't be used with WF UAS nor Stunning Fist etc without the weapon enhancements.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I've addressed it in another post on Amulet of Mighty Blows and Brass Knuckles, according to the RAW, a Brass Knuckle is an Unarmed Attack (see Weapons Table).
A Stunning Fist isn't actually confined to unarmed strikes according to RAW:
"Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack..."
Therefore, based on RAW, Stunning Fist can be delivered via unarmed strike, gauntlets, and brass knuckles - the only unarmed attacks in RAW.
If they meant for Stunning Fist to only apply to unarmed strikes then they would have said it, or else it needs to be restrictively errated.
--edit--
Ki Pool description also references "unarmed attacks" for ki strike. The terminology is fairly widespread across monk feats and abilities.
--------
My argument is that Brass Knuckles are weapons, shown by the fact that they can be enchanted as weapons, the 'Unarmed' equipment section is designed to demonstrate how much space those weapons take up in the wielder's hands, not the type of attack
Disagreement on the section's categorical meaning aside, how do you derive a volumetric ruling from it? It only lists weight and not density.
My observation: That section covers lethality/non-lethality and eligibility of substituting monk unarmed damage. While listing the various weapons that are considered to be Unarmed Attacks.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weaponIf you can show me a RAW definition of 'weapon' that lists an ontological definition of 'weapon' as its capacity to be enchanted, then I will accept your argument. Otherwise, the core definition of weapon is:
"All weapons deal hit point damage." [http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons]
Based on existing RAW, you would need to spend a feat to gain Weapon Focus with Brass Knuckles, as presumably you would in order to gain such benefits for both Gauntlet and Spiked Gauntlet. If you want a two-for-one, then I'm afraid its either homebrew or Errata.
--edit--
Also, for what its worth, Brass Knuckles and Unarmed Strike are the only two monk weapons that do not require ki focus in order to deliver Stunning Blow, ki strike and quivering palm.
The magic weapon serves as a channel for the wielder's ki, allowing her to use her special ki attacks through the weapon as if they were unarmed attacks.
All other existing monk weapons are not unarmed attacks and so applicable for Ki Focus.
-------
As I've addressed it in another post on Amulet of Mighty Blows and Brass Knuckles, according to the RAW, a Brass Knuckle is an Unarmed Attack (see Weapons Table).
A Stunning Fist isn't actually confined to unarmed strikes according to RAW:
"Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack..."
I am confused, are you saying you can Stunning Fist with a gauntlet? As that is also filed under Unarmed Attack in the Core Rules equipment table.
As I've addressed it in another post on Amulet of Mighty Blows and Brass Knuckles, according to the RAW, a Brass Knuckle is an Unarmed Attack (see Weapons Table).
A Stunning Fist isn't actually confined to unarmed strikes according to RAW:
"Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack..."I am confused, are you saying you can Stunning Fist with a gauntlet? As that is also filed under Unarmed Attack in the Core Rules equipment table.
Based on the RAW a gauntlet does a (lethal) unarmed attack, so it is capable of delivering a stunning fist. So, yes.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
RAW: Brass Knuckle is an Unarmed Attack
I agree. But I also agree per RAW it is not an Unarmed Attack.
In other words, your "proof" is built on sand that could shift. You can't prove your position, and neither can I prove mine. Both require DM Adjudication as to which evidence is the more convincing.
So until Paizo rules one way or another, there is no RAW.
RAW: Brass Knuckle is an Unarmed AttackI agree. But I also agree per RAW it is not an Unarmed Attack.
In other words, your "proof" is built on sand that could shift. You can't prove your position, and neither can I prove mine. Both require DM Adjudication as to which evidence is the more convincing.
So until Paizo rules one way or another, there is no RAW.
Do not try and bend the RAW. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth... There is no RAW... Then you'll see it's not the RAW that bends, it is only yourself.[/matrix]
The Brass Knuckles are not the same as "an unarmed attack". if they were just that, then there would be no entry for them. No new item would be required- because there is already an unarmed attack.
By the description of the BK themselves, they are a 'close combat weapon'. it is a weapon. It is something external that the character is wearing.
Now it just so happens that *this particular* special weapon uses the unarmed damage of the wearer as its damage. it also happens that this particular weapon is a Monk weapon. This means that the weapon can be used as part of a flurry of blows, by a monk. It also happens that Monks are automatically proficient in this weapon- as per the weapon description.
In order for this weapon to ALSO let the monk channel special abilities, it would have to include a sentence to that effect *also*. Something like "this weapon also functions as though enchanted with Ki Focus effect from the GMG".
Specifically:
Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a monk; Price +1 bonus.
A weapon without that quality *can not* channel their special abilities through it.
It is important to note that the Gauntlet, from the GMG, is also listed as an Unarmed weapon type but it doesn't have the Monk quality, it also doesn't allow the Monk to use their special UA damage, and despite being "unarmed" it does not allow the user to channel their monk Ki abilities through it.
Now that isn't to say that the BK's are useless. They allow the Monk to do something very valuable. They allow them to get away from that damnably expensive necklace *and* use various materials to overcome DR. Very, very useful. I can't imagine a monk not carrying one if not two or three of these for that very purpose- in addition to one that they get enchanted to use "normally". Much as a fighter might have four longswords- their primary and a couple made of various metals for different DR.
The BK is far from useless. It is a very good addition to the game and one that has long been needed. It is Not, however, a Ki Focus weapon. At least- not until you enchant it as such.
-S
stuff
+1
Also note that there's nothing stopping you from using Stunning Fist in the same flurry as the Brass Knuckles. You can always start off with a Stunning [Elbow/Headbutt/Knee/Kick/GoombaStomp] and then follow up with the Brass Knuckles for the other attack(s). Just no Stunning with non-Ki Brass Knuckles.
|
Based on the RAW a gauntlet does a (lethal) unarmed attack, so it is capable of delivering a stunning fist. So, yes.As I've addressed it in another post on Amulet of Mighty Blows and Brass Knuckles, according to the RAW, a Brass Knuckle is an Unarmed Attack (see Weapons Table).
A Stunning Fist isn't actually confined to unarmed strikes according to RAW:
"Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack..."I am confused, are you saying you can Stunning Fist with a gauntlet? As that is also filed under Unarmed Attack in the Core Rules equipment table.
while I agree BKs can deliver stunning fist I have to disagree with gauntlets - gauntlets are not monk weapons so can not deliver stunning fist as this is a monk ability.
In other words, this is an "Ask your DM" question until Paizo gives us a FAQ/Errata.
Seconded, please clarify this issue for us Paizo!
gauntlets are not monk weapons so can not deliver stunning fist as this is a monk ability.
Actually, stunning fist isn't a monk-exclusive ability, anyone can purchase it if they meet the pre-reqs. Whether a monk should bother using a gauntlet is another thing, but an armored fighter with the Stunning Fist feat presumably wouldn't have to remove his gauntlets in order to stun someone with a punch to the nose or gut, etc.
A lot hangs on whether you consider Unarmed Attack to cover a sub-class of weapons that only includes gauntlets, BKs, and unarmed strikes, OR if you consider that when the rules say 'unarmed attack' what they really meant to write was 'unarmed strike', which is the more restrictive interpretation folks like James Risner and Selgard argue.
But what puts me in the other camp is the fact that the weapon descriptions for BKs and Gauntlets all reference 'unarmed attack' and the Gauntlet furthermore notes that besides lethality, "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack," which means that it should be run under the Unarmed Attack rules, except that it counts as lethal damage.
Furthermore, the Stunning Fist description references "unarmed attacks" as well, and not "unarmed strikes".
Now, if my position is wrong then the rules writers have committed a categorical error and it needs to be errated. Either way, the designers do need to step in and clarify what weapons an unarmed attack covers since there is so much debate about it.
---
A related matter also at issue in these debates is 'What is a weapon?'
By the description of the BK themselves, they are a 'close combat weapon'. it is a weapon. It is something external that the character is wearing.
If a weapon is defined as something external to the character, then unarmed strike needs to be removed from the Weapons table, because, as Selgard argues, it is not external to its wearing/wielder. This is one consequence of this line of argument.
The only fundamental, universal statement I can find in the rules about what a weapon is (i.e. what all weapons in the rules system share in common), is: "All weapons deal hit point damage." Found under "Weapon Rules" Link
Which is pretty elegant, but some spells deal hit point damage, too, as do some traps.
So, the designers need to answer these questions:
1. What is a weapon?
2. Is an unarmed strike a weapon?
3. What is an unarmed attack? Is it a category for unarmed strikes or are they one and the same thing (like Gandalf and Mithrandir)? Do the feats, abilities, items, etc. that reference 'unarmed attack' really mean 'unarmed strike'?
4. Do all the rules (including penalties) for unarmed attacks govern brass knuckles and gauntlets except the -4 lethal damage penalty?
I know it's called stunning Fist, but in my world you could stun with anything that can be used as an unarmed strike. Unarmed Strike doesn't mean just hands. You can unarmed strike with your feet, knees, head, elbow, etc. So wear two brass knuckles and "stunning fist" them with a headbutt or a swift kick across the face. Just a thought.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) A lot hangs on whether you consider Unarmed Attack to cover a sub-class of weapons that only includes gauntlets, BKs, and unarmed strikes, OR if you consider that when the rules say 'unarmed attack' what they really meant to write was 'unarmed strike', which is the more restrictive interpretation folks like James Risner and Selgard argue.
2) If a weapon is defined as something external to the character, then unarmed strike needs to be removed from the Weapons table
1) It may be more subtle than that. For instance, it could just be that they are separate listings on the weapon chart. Either way, both views have right to claim RAW. Which is why I reject any assertion that one or the other is "correct." Neither can be correct until Paizo make it clear which is RAW.
2) That line "is a close combat weapon" has only one purpose in my view, to reinforce that this weapon (BK) is not an Unarmed Strike and is a separate weapon.
2) That line "is a close combat weapon" has only one purpose in my view, to reinforce that this weapon (BK) is not an Unarmed Strike and is a separate weapon.
Um, where IS that line?
Brass Knuckles
These weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch.
Benefit: Brass knuckles allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks.
Drawback: 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).
Note: Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can you their Monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.
The only mention of 'close combat weapon' is in Selgard's post above, and not in the rules for Brass Knuckles as far as I can see.
Open the APG to the written description for the Brass Knuckles. The very first sentence says that it is a close combat weapon. At least- in my version it does. I did not make up that phrase.
Now, I don't go replacing my books if they change things or issue errata or all that.. books are just too expensive. If it has been altered in subsequent versions, I've not seen it.
Unarmed strike is striking unarmed. IF you are using a gauntlet or a brass knuckle it is no different than using a great sword except where the rules specifically alter that.
BK's alter it, and alot of "monk weapons" alter it. None of them give you stunning fist and all that though- because none of them state that they do. Instead- it is something that they have added an entire weapon enchantment for. It is what that enchantment does. It is all that it does. It's entire usefulness in the game is for that very purpose. I think it would be very silly for them to then go and give every monk weapon that special ability just by virtue of being a monk weapon.
BK's are a *very* nice upgrade to the Monk. I just do not see them *also* functioning as Ki Focus weapons. Not as they are currently written.
(still want to see a monk do a "goombastomp" though :) )
-S
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Um, where IS that line?
APG p176
"Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed"See, all this time I thought you just choose to ignore that sentence because you liked your interpretation of other sentences better.
Plus in another thread, SKR made a joke by stating (as a fact) that BK were weapons.
Um, where IS that line?APG p176
"Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed"See, all this time I thought you just choose to ignore that sentence because you liked your interpretation of other sentences better.
Plus in another thread, SKR made a joke by stating (as a fact) that BK were weapons.
Selgard and James, thanks for pointing out that reference. I guess this means the d20pfsrd isn't a reliable source of rules text. I've favoured using it as its quicker than flipping through multiple tomes.
And no, I'm not just gunning for one interpretation. I'm actually searching for answers because I'm trying to make my own monk as rules consistent as possible. I've already stripped out several rules breakers from it based on clarifications derived from these forums and exchanges with you (such as no Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike covering BK attacks).
And just to be clear. I have absolutely NO debate whether BK's are weapons or not. They ARE weapons. ...But so are unarmed strikes.
My questions have been around the categorical ambiguity of Pathfinder's terminology and organisation of unarmed attacks and whether the sole unarmed attack in the whole wide multiverse is the unarmed strike, or does it have two buddies in the form of gauntlet and BK?
Ki focus let's you do monk SA through a weapon, but can a weapon also be classified as an unarmed attack? And why is the term 'unarmed attack' used so frequently in the rules when 'unarmed strike' is less ambiguous?
This is what I would love someone to FAQ.
|
Um, where IS that line?APG p176
"Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed"See, all this time I thought you just choose to ignore that sentence because you liked your interpretation of other sentences better.
Plus in another thread, SKR made a joke by stating (as a fact) that BK were weapons.
Selgard and James, thanks for pointing out that reference. I guess this means the d20pfsrd isn't a reliable source of rules text. I've favoured using it as its quicker than flipping through multiple tomes.
And no, I'm not just gunning for one interpretation. I'm actually searching for answers because I'm trying to make my own monk as rules consistent as possible. I've already stripped out several rules breakers from it based on clarifications derived from these forums and exchanges with you (such as no Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike covering BK attacks).
And just to be clear. I have absolutely NO debate whether BK's are weapons or not. They ARE weapons. ...But so are unarmed strikes.
My questions have been around the categorical ambiguity of Pathfinder's terminology and organisation of unarmed attacks and whether the sole unarmed attack in the whole wide multiverse is the unarmed strike, or does it have two buddies in the form of gauntlet and BK?
Ki focus let's you do monk SA through a weapon, but can a weapon also be classified as an unarmed attack? And why is the term 'unarmed attack' used so frequently in the rules when 'unarmed strike' is less ambiguous?
This is what I would love someone to FAQ.
I agree with this view. Especially when you take in wording with stuff like Weapon Focus, which states:
"Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat."
So, when they refer to a single type of weapon, they call it "Unarmed Strike" but when they refer to the group as a whole, they call it "Unarmed Attack" (example generating AoO, and such). By that, all "weapons" marked as "Unarmed attacks" should be adjustable by any spell/feat/etc that states that it effects "Unarmed Attacks".
If they do not wish it that way, then they need to please errata that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is what I would love someone to FAQ.
Not likely, and I don't understand why. For example, James Jacobs seems to be hesitant to clarify rules interpretations because he believes it is the domain of the GM. I disagree with his stance.
During Pathfinder beta, I posted 20 (or was it 22) issues with 3.5 Monk and how there were many debates about what can and can not be rules interpretations of them. Some got incorporated in the release (whether he took my questions as a guidepost or independently decided they needed fix I don't know.
In other words, some of these issues (like this thread) seem to be below the threshold of "needs fixing" or something.
This is what I would love someone to FAQ.Not likely, and I don't understand why. For example, James Jacobs seems to be hesitant to clarify rules interpretations because he believes it is the domain of the GM. I disagree with his stance.
In other words, some of these issues (like this thread) seem to be below the threshold of "needs fixing" or something.
*sigh* Makes you long for the days of Sage Advice....
They refuse to "errata" or "FAQ" questions that seem self explanatory. They have said that the rules will *never* conform to a "lawyerese" reading of the rules. Rules that are clearly ambiguous or that are on their face contradictory are things they will look into.
This isn't really one of them. No offense meant to the OP, but the rules are fairly clear on the issue of how the BK's work. The confusing comes from super-nitpicking the rules and trying to squeeeze a bonus out of an item that the item clearly does not grant. You can click FAQ all you want, but this isn't really the kind of thing they are fixing. (I'm not against it if they come out and flat out state that you don't get Ki Focus for free- but I don't see it happening).
Given Sage Advice's tendency to rewrite raw and be flat out wrong a decent percentage of the time though, I'm glad Paizo is taking a much slower, more thoughtout pace to the project. I'd rather have slow-to-get, but well thought out FAQ than off the cuff but completely wrong answers.
-S
|
|
This is what I would love someone to FAQ.Not likely, and I don't understand why. For example, James Jacobs seems to be hesitant to clarify rules interpretations because he believes it is the domain of the GM. I disagree with his stance.
I actually agree with this stance. It's not the most optimal stance from the PFS point of view, but it is impossible to answer everything, and the GM+Group should make their own decisions when the rules fail to give them the answer easily.
Sure, if one can make a solid argument one way or the other that will likely sway the discussion, but when it comes down to a semantic argument over the meaning of the word "it", you've gone too far and just need the DM to put down the gauntlet and say "this is how it'll roll."
We're here to play a game. All else is secondary.
All that said, I'm not opposed to an "opinion" column of some sort that answers these questions from an official point of view, but without the promise of correctness. More of a discussion of what they were going for rather than what the rules say. This is essentially what the Sage Advice stuff was.
They refuse to "errata" or "FAQ" questions that seem self explanatory. They have said that the rules will *never* conform to a "lawyerese" reading of the rules. Rules that are clearly ambiguous or that are on their face contradictory are things they will look into.
This isn't really one of them. No offense meant to the OP, but the rules are fairly clear on the issue of how the BK's work. The confusing comes from super-nitpicking the rules and trying to squeeeze a bonus out of an item that the item clearly does not grant. You can click FAQ all you want, but this isn't really the kind of thing they are fixing. (I'm not against it if they come out and flat out state that you don't get Ki Focus for free- but I don't see it happening).
112 post relating to clarifying BKs with Ki Focus or with Amulet of Mighty Fists suggests that there is ambiguity. Both your side of the argument and the one I take can draw up text to substantiate both our positions, as well as argue about whether 'unarmed strike' and 'unarmed attack' form an exclusive identity (in the mathematical sense, I=I, I/=0). I and others see two different terms meaning two different (but related things). You see one. Two points of view makes the 'ambi' in ambiguity.
whether 'unarmed strike' and 'unarmed attack' form an exclusive identity (in the mathematical sense, I=I, I/=0). I and others see two different terms meaning two different (but related things). You see one. Two points of view makes the 'ambi' in ambiguity.
This has developed into the central issue IMO and it's an easy fix for the staff, its the change or clarification of the word in question. (Unarmed Attack vs Unarmed Strike)
This is not the first time such questions could have been avoided by maintaining consistency. I have another thread here in the Rules Forum that discusses the interaction of charge and overrun. It could have been avoided entirely with maintaining consistency when writing the rules. Here with Strike vs Attack, there between Charge and Combat Maneuvers. Sometimes a little foresight pays off.
Addressing this interaction immediately with the Gauntlet weapon would have provided everything we needed to further infer.
I wish they would address these types of issues that result from a hole that is present the rules rather than an incorrect/interpreted reading.
If you and I are standing side by side and you say the sun is up and I say it is down- the answer isn't ambiguous.
One of us is just wrong.
You can make *anything* into something to disagree about- it doesn't make it worth arguing over, and it doesn't force the need for "clarification". It just means that the rules are not written by or for lawyers and that folks need to quit trying to read that level of technicality into the rules.
They. Have. Said. that they will never write the rules for rules-lawyers to pick apart and examine. For that reason- you can not read them that way. It just doesn't work.
The rules about the BK are very clear. Folks choose to try and pencil in more than the rules give. That doesn't make it ambiguous. It just means that folks are trying to pencil in freebies and then argue about it.
The BK isn't alone in this. It happens all over the boards, regularly. Half the posts on the boards are flagged "FAQ" because folks are trying to legalize the rulebook as though we are lawyers reading a Code.
It just isn't going to happen.
(Not trying to blast the OP or anything-just saying that two folks in disagreement doesn't create ambiguity or make a thing "OMG must FAQ" worthy)
-S
So, when they refer to a single type of weapon, they call it "Unarmed Strike" but when they refer to the group as a whole, they call it "Unarmed Attack" (example generating AoO, and such). By that, all "weapons" marked as "Unarmed attacks" should be adjustable by any spell/feat/etc that states that it effects "Unarmed Attacks".
This is well summarized. I concur.. this is the way the rules are written in regards to an Unarmed Attack or an Unarmed Strike and their qualifiers. If you wish to interpret another way (sorry Selgard) then you're going outside the written rules.
When you read the rules as written, there is no other interpretation. They are very specific to mention Attack and not Strike. If this was NOT designed to work in the manner it is currently written then it should be changed.
|
|
If you and I are standing side by side and you say the sun is up and I say it is down- the answer isn't ambiguous.
One of us is just wrong.
Incorrect. Reality is innately subjective and the only thing one can say for sure is that they exist. They can't be sure anyone else actually exists, only themselves. They can't even be sure that their form is what they think it is.
You say the sun is up or down. I say up is a subjective term that loses it's meaning when the dominant gravitational force between point A and point B isn't constant. Maybe this is a valid point, maybe it isn't, and maybe the sun is actually a grilled cheese sandwich. (1 Cuil)
Either way, each side will make their argument and walk away believing what they want to believe. At least it's civil enough that a debate even occurs.
They. Have. Said. that they will never write the rules for rules-lawyers to pick apart and examine. For that reason- you can not read them that way. It just doesn't work.
I guess the counter-point to that would be Vital Strike / Attack Action... You know, where 95% of players (by my count, whatever by your count) took a completely different reading (per normal English) of the attack action distinction, counter to the RAI of the writer, who was relying on the valid RAW distinction of action types.
(well... valid enough if one ignores that the game doesn`t work if all the general attack info, e.g. melee/ranged/crits, is all subsumed to the attack action itself, i.e. isn´t valid for non-attack action attacks).Or Trip/Trip Weapon, where ONLY rules lawyers would rely on a tangential IMPLICATION in Trip Weapon quality to infer a restriction on Trips in general that isn´t stated in the Trip rules themself. Many players/GMs may never read the Trip Weapon quality, and if they never use a Trip Weapon, there is no reason they should need to... Except Paizo´s ´not written for rules lawyers´ (except when you DO need to be a rules lawyer) ruleset.
Paizo has indicated both of those issues, which are purely about rules lawyering specificity, will be addressed via FAQ/Errata (though to be fair, still has failed to do so). I don´t think there´s really so much rhyme or reason behind what has and hasn´t been FAQ´d/Errata´d (i.e. stuff Paizo SAID would be FAQ/Errata´d shortly after Core Rules release still isn´t, yet other minor stuff has been). Definitely there´s stuff in FAQ and Errata which is less problematic/controversial than this thread topic, for one.
I think it´s more just that they hasn´t been proper resources dedicated to Errata/FAQ resolution... Since Paizo´s hoping to hire somebody to work on Crunch and editing, we can just cross our fingers that that situation changes for the better. I don´t really see the point of beseeching other posters to NOT hit the FAQ button, or to imply that doing so is misguided or something.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is essentially what the Sage Advice stuff was.
I considered Sage Advice official stance on how the rule work, and didn't feel the need to extend implications of the rulings in SA to other rules. In short, I loved it. But it didn't solve any problems in 3.5 world because WotC didn't say "this is official errata" at the top of the document.
If you wish to interpret another way (sorry Selgard) then you're going outside the written rules.
The issue is you don't get to decide which lines of rules are more important than others. Your interpretation is built on some ground but ignores other counter arguments. Only Paizo has the right to say which way is correct. So while you are welcome to say "my way is RAW", I also have that right to say "my way is RAW." Only one of our ways can be the correct version.
The issue is you don't get to decide which lines of rules are more important than others. Your interpretation is built on some ground but ignores other counter arguments.
Hi James! I have seen you around the forums, good stuff! Usually we are in agreement. But, there are first times for everything... However, I think the spirit of what I was saying is lost. I'm for reading the rules and carrying what they say through.
I have a follow-up question for you though:
Is attacking with a gauntlet considered an armed attack?
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.
So, it deals lethal damage, but still provokes.
Gauntlets are filed under the "Unarmed Attack" section of the Equipment tables. So are Brass Knuckles. We can thus extrapolate they are weapons [enchantable], but when attacking they are still considered "unarmed attacks". You are not considered armed.
Further for Gauntlets to be considered an "armed" attack you would need to be using Spiked Gauntlets.
Gauntlet, Spiked: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack.
Brass knuckles do not say you are considered "armed" in their description.
Can you perform a Stunning Fist with an Unarmed Attack?
You know just where to strike to temporarily stun a foe.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack...
I am in perfect agreement with the argument that BKs are unarmed attacks and therefore combinable with both AoMF and stunning fist.
But, as it has been some time since there has been actual counter arguments to this stance, I would try a few.
1) Monks are proficient with BK
Doesn't this assume a fundamental difference between the unarmed strike and weapons? While unarmed strikes might be viewed as a weapon, given that it is a part of the weapons, a lawyeristic reading would suggest that monks take the non-proficiency penalty with unarmed strikes, as they are not proficient with simple weapons.
If we make the that every character is proficient with unarmed strikes, should we not expect this difference between unarmed strikes and weapons to take precedent in other disambiguity in the rules?
2) Is Amulet of Mighty Fists wording directly applicable to newer rules?
By the time AoMF was written, it wasn't too important to make a distinction between unarmed attacks and strikes, as brass knuckles wasn't in the picture. While Gauntlets still existed as an unarmed attack, it is properly only a few who has ever bought AoMF to enhance them.
But if we look at Magic Fang, which is the basis of AoMF, then the wording is different. The spell only grants a bonus to unarmed strikes and natural attacks. The BK is neither of this, and the monk's ability only allows his unarmed strike to be treated as natural attack or manufactured weapon.
While you might argue that the item has the wording changed deliberatly, I'd propose that doing so would have been a non-issue, as it would only affect gauntlets.
I am in perfect agreement with the argument that BKs are unarmed attacks and therefore combinable with both AoMF and stunning fist.
+1
While unarmed strikes might be viewed as a weapon, given that it is a part of the weapons, a lawyeristic reading would suggest that monks take the non-proficiency penalty with unarmed strikes, as they are not proficient with simple weapons.
No. Everyone gets proficiency with unarmed strikes.
Weapons
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons
...All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race.
2) Is Amulet of Mighty Fists wording directly applicable to newer rules?By the time AoMF was written, it wasn't too important to make a distinction between unarmed attacks and strikes, as brass knuckles wasn't in the picture.
Reasonable point, but...
But if we look at Magic Fang, which is the basis of AoMF
Is it? Magic Fang only grants +n enhancements to attack and damage. It doesn't include weapon special abilities, which AoMF does. I would think that the general weapon enchantment rules are the basis of AoMF since you are directed to them in the item description and have to pay on their per +1 bonus exchange rates.
a lawyeristic reading would suggest that monks take the non-proficiency penalty with unarmed strikes, as they are not proficient with simple weapons.
We are not in agreement here...
PRD - Equipment - Weapons - Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race.
Monks ARE proficient with BKs and not Gauntlets, however both of these are treated as if they are Unarmed Attacks.
Where does weapon category come into play? Why is this even written? The fact that an item is a weapon and an unarmed attack comes into play when considering Flurry of Blows. One CAN flurry with BKs, one CAN NOT flurry with a Gauntlet (in spite of it being used with stunning fist). This is because BKs have the Monk feature.
Flurry: When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon....
Since an attack with a Gauntlet is neither an Unarmed Strike nor a Monk weapon, this leaves it out of the equation.
And for old times sake, lets just go down the rabbit hole:
Ki Focus: The magic weapon serves as a channel for the wielder's ki, allowing her to use her special ki attacks through the weapon as if they were unarmed attacks. These attacks include the monk's ki strike, quivering palm, and the Stunning Fist feat (including any condition that the monk can apply using this feat).
We see the benefit of Ki Focus is that weapons with this ability can be treated as Unarmed Attacks (not Unarmed Strikes).
This leads me to conclude you can use Monk abilities through a weapon if that weapon is already considered an Unarmed Attack and that Ki Focus on Brass Knuckles would be redundant.
|
|
Further for Gauntlets to be considered an "armed" attack you would need to be using Spiked Gauntlets.
Gauntlet, Spiked: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack.
And, when you add spikes to a gauntlet, it moves it from the "Unarmed attack" group to the "Simple Light Melee Weapons" group, and thus un-enhanceable by anything that effects unarmed attacks.
Thanks Happler.. yes, I did forget to mention that... that was another point to make during my rant lol.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Hi James!
So are Brass Knuckles. We can thus extrapolate they are weapons [enchantable], but when attacking they are still considered "unarmed attacks". You are not considered armed.spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. [/i]
Brass knuckles do not say you are considered "armed" in their description.
Can you perform a Stunning Fist with an Unarmed Attack?
Hi back
The spike gauntlet has a rule in there saying it is armed because it can be read that gauntlets are still unarmed.
You have chosen the words you want to interpret and ignored the contrary words (by your extrapolation) to come to the conclusion about Brass Knuckles.
Brass Knuckles do not say "are still considered unarmed attacks" and they make it clear they are a weapon, so you are considered armed when wearing brass knuckles.
Neither Gauntlets or Brass Knuckles can be used with Stunning fist, but there is far more substantial argument for allowing gauntlets than for brass knuckles with Stunning Fist.
|
|
"armed" and "doesn't count as unarmed" are not actually the same thing.
Armed means that you threaten squares. Unarmed means that you are not using a weapon. You can be armed without a weapon by having Improved Unarmed Strike. So as contradictory as it sounds, you can be armed while unarmed.
The line about being considered armed or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Gauntlet and Brass Knuckle are classified as "Unarmed Attacks" by the relevant weapon charts, and Spiked Gauntlet is classified as "Light Weapon."
Since they are listed as "Unarmed Attack" and the Amulet of Might Fists clearly states "Unarmed Attack" rather than "Unarmed Strike," the amulet should (by RAW) function with both BK and gauntlets, and stack with weapon enchantments via overlap as any other stacking issue is resolved. Since Stunning Fist also uses the phrase "unarmed attack" the feat should function through these weapons as well.
Agree or not, the wording is there. If you don't agree then just don't run it that way. If this isn't as the developers intended then they will correct it at some point.
If you and I are standing side by side and you say the sun is up and I say it is down- the answer isn't ambiguous.
One of us is just wrong.
Incorrect. Reality is innately subjective and the only thing one can say for sure is that they exist. They can't be sure anyone else actually exists, only themselves. They can't even be sure that their form is what they think it is.
You say the sun is up or down. I say up is a subjective term that loses it's meaning when the dominant gravitational force between point A and point B isn't constant. Maybe this is a valid point, maybe it isn't, and maybe the sun is actually a grilled cheese sandwich. (1 Cuil)
Either way, each side will make their argument and walk away believing what they want to believe. At least it's civil enough that a debate even occurs.
You are just proving that you can in fact argue anything, whether or not its worth arguing or even in fact, a valid argument.. Thanks :)
-S
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Agree or not, the wording is there. If you don't agree then just don't run it that way.
Not that simple, no only do I not agree. I also have reason to say my view of the rules is RAW.
So it isn't "just don't run it that way" since there are two ways. Both valid. Both RAW. And Paizo is unlikely to step up to clarify which is correct, as they view the whole concept of stepping up to clarify is some how not appropriate for them to do.
It`s a religious thing. SKR believes every time a rule is clarified, a baby unicorn dies somewhere. And maybe he´s right. There´s nothing that proves that isn´t true... Are you really OK with the POSSIBILITY you could cause a baby unicorn to die? 8-P
Seriously, all I can say is that I -hope- the hiring of a new person to work on Crunch/Editing will improve the Errata situation.