Do you need simple weapon proficiency in order to attack with either a gauntlet or a spiked gauntlet without incurring the -4 attack penalty?
I think so.
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: "A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls."
A wizard (for example) can make a normal unarmed strike with a kick, punch, or headbutt, without the penalty (he is proficient).
If he equips a gauntlet, and uses it as a weapon to alter his unarmed strike, he is using the weapon, and will take the penalty (assuming he is not proficient).
(This is not the case if he is delivering a touch spell, as he's not using the gauntlet. Thread here if you're interested. -edit- which I now realize you also started.)
This passage seems to imply that the character, when he attacks wearing a gauntlet, is still making an unarmed strike. As all characters are proficient with unarmed strikes...
He is, and they are, but if you use a weapon to perform the strike, you still need proficiency with that weapon. Similar to Brass Knuckles and Cestus. If there was no proficiency for making an unarmed strike with a weapon, those weapons would not have proficiency notes.
Pg. 146 - Gauntlet, Spiked:...An attack with a spiked gauntlet is
considered an armed attack.This passage seems to imply that a strike with a spiked gauntlet is still an unarmed strike, but it counts as an armed attack for all purposes. Otherwise, there would be little reason to include this note.
The difference between a gauntlet and a spiked gauntlet is the spiked gauntlet attack is considered armed, and has larger damage dice. (Also P instead of B, and cost)
Armed and Proficient are not the same.
Lack of proficiency is a -4 penalty to attack.
Striking unarmed provokes an AoO.
Wizard headbutt: No penalty, provokes.
Wizard Gauntlet strike: Penalty, provokes.
Wizard Spiked Gauntlet strike: Penalty, doesn't provoke. (Also threatens squares for AoOs and flanking)
Weapons Table lists the Spiked Gaunlet as a Simple Light Melee Weapon.
"Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff, but not with any type of armor or shield."
So those with proficiency in all simple weapons are good for using a Spiked Gaunlet, but Wizards are not.
Gauntlets are unarmed strikes, so it is probable that wizards are proficient. Spiked Gauntlets are Light Simple weapons and the wizard is not proficient.
Remember that Unarmed Strikes, which include strikes with (Non-spiked) gauntlets provoke attacks of opportunity. (Unless the wizard has Improved Unarmed Strike.)
|
Wizard headbutt: No penalty, provokes.
Wizard Gauntlet strike: Penalty, provokes.
Wizard Spiked Gauntlet strike: Penalty, doesn't provoke. (Also threatens squares for AoOs and flanking)
I would disagree a little.
- Wizard headbutt: No penalty, provokes. nonlethal damage (standard unarmed strike)
- Wizard Gauntlet strike: No Penalty, provokes. lethal damage (Blunt) (other then lethal damage, consider the gauntlet an unarmed strike)
- Wizard Spiked Gauntlet strike: Penalty, doesn't provoke. lethal Damage (pierce) (Also threatens squares for AoOs and flanking) (Standard armed strike with a non-proficient weapon).
Since the gauntlet is treated as an unarmed strike, except that it does lethal damage instead or nonlethal damage. The Wizard should be proficient with it, but is still considered unarmed.
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."
There's more in that thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's more in that thread.
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."
I am not going by the table but the description of the gauntlet itself:
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
Also, if you go by the rest of that thread, your table is still wrong.
Wizard Gauntlet strike: Penalty, provokes.
should say:
Wizard Gauntlet strike: Penalty, does not provoke.
Since Sean was taking about removing the "unarmed attacks" reference from both Brass knuckles and gauntlets.
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).
The most recent post I can find is from Jul 26, 2011 where SKR mentions how the book printing got all messed up.
So what we can assume is that, RAI, they are simple light melee weapons. Wizards are not proficient, and will take a penalty. They are armed attacks, so they threaten and do not provoke.
Looks like wizards cannot useGauntlets, no great loss.
There is a strange interplay in the definition of Sean's above statement: An Unarmed Strike is a strike that is unfettered by metal/leather/rope. That definition means that the Monk class's Unarmed damage progression is no longer available for kicks if the Monk wears shoes.
For our own house rules simple gauntlets are allowed to everyone as an extension of unarmed strike proficiency. The definition of gauntlet is wider though (stout gloves that extend over the wrist often reinforced with metal plates) not just gloves made of metal. Also monk damage works with simple gauntlets ,important in this context since a wizard with a bonded gauntlet may want to dip 1lvl of monk.
Looks like wizards cannot useGauntlets, no great loss.
They can use them, they're just not proficient with them (unless they spend a feat, trait, or multiclass)
Looks like wizards cannot useGauntlets, no great loss.They can use them, they're just not proficient with them (unless they spend a feat, trait, or multiclass)
So then weapon focus in unarmed strike...doesn't help if you wear a gauntlet, eh?
So then weapon focus in unarmed strike...doesn't help if you wear a gauntlet, eh?
According to the Developer decision, yes. They're just normal weapons that still allow you to use your hand for other things.
One nice part is every cleric with banded or chainmail or heavy armor is now armed, even if they're keeping hands free for casting or whatever.
I find many of the conclusions in this thread difficult to believe.
If all humanoids are proficient in unarmed strikes, and attacking with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed strike, then you are considered proficient when attacking with a gauntlet. No penalty. However unarmed attacks provoke unless you have IUS.
So attacking with a gauntlet incurs NO penalty, but provokes AoO.
Spiked gauntlets make the wielder be considered armed. This stops you from provoking AoO, but unless you are proficient, you take a penalty.
How did this get overlooked or misquoted when rules were cited so many times already?
|
|
So then weapon focus in unarmed strike...doesn't help if you wear a gauntlet, eh?According to the Developer decision, yes. They're just normal weapons that still allow you to use your hand for other things.
One nice part is every cleric with banded or chainmail or heavy armor is now armed, even if they're keeping hands free for casting or whatever.
Yep, anyone in Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate), are considered to always be threatening the 5' squares around them for people who Provoke attacks of opportunity. This is since they are always armed with gauntlets, a light weapon.
This also changes how disarm works while wearing the above armors. It changes the two following, bolded, rules:
Disarm
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
a) you are not disarming while unarmed , so no penalty (you have gauntlets after all)
b) Since you are using a weapon (gauntlets) you cannot automatically pick up the item dropped.
a) you are not disarming while unarmed , so no penalty (you have gauntlets after all)
b) Since you are using a weapon (gauntlets) you cannot automatically pick up the item dropped.
A) Yep!
B) Only if you used the gauntlet to make the disarm attempt.Disarm a guy with an unarmed strike (kick). You're wearing gauntlets (light melee weapon) so you're armed. You disarmed him without using a weapon, so you can snag the item. Though, if you have Weapon Focus (gauntlet) or +2 Gauntlets or something, those bonuses will not apply if you don't use the gauntlet in the disarm attempt.
a) you are not disarming while unarmed , so no penalty (you have gauntlets after all)
b) Since you are using a weapon (gauntlets) you cannot automatically pick up the item dropped.A) Yep!
B) Only if you used the gauntlet to make the disarm attempt.Disarm a guy with an unarmed strike (kick). You're wearing gauntlets (light melee weapon) so you're armed. You disarmed him without using a weapon, so you can snag the item. Though, if you have Weapon Focus (gauntlet) or +2 Gauntlets or something, those bonuses will not apply if you don't use the gauntlet in the disarm attempt.
It seems like IUAS is pretty much not work taking if you're going to use a gauntlet.
a) you are not disarming while unarmed , so no penalty (you have gauntlets after all)
b) Since you are using a weapon (gauntlets) you cannot automatically pick up the item dropped.
Wow... ... RAW FTL. That sounds stupid.
Gauntlets are treated as unarmed strikes.
Spiked Gauntlets are treated as armed strikes
So Improved Unarmed Strike is still useful if you are wearing Gauntlets, not if you are wearing Spiked Gauntlets. There is a proficiency difference and armor doesn't auto include Spiked Gauntlets.
|
|
Gauntlets are treated as unarmed strikes.
Spiked Gauntlets are treated as armed strikes
So Improved Unarmed Strike is still useful if you are wearing Gauntlets, not if you are wearing Spiked Gauntlets. There is a proficiency difference and armor doesn't auto include Spiked Gauntlets.
Except that there is some talk from the devs of removing the "unarmed strike" comments from the description:
The gauntlet is a weapon, you need proficiency. All characters are automatically proficient with Unarmed Strikes. All characters are not automatically proficient with Gauntlets.
The gauntlet is a weapon, you need proficiency. All characters are automatically proficient with Unarmed Strikes. All characters are not automatically proficient with Gauntlets.
Except that gauntlets come with most medium and heavy armor as previously stated and are technically nothing but reinforced gloves. You mean to tell me that despite the text under "gauntlet" stating that attacks with gauntlets are treated as UNARMED strikes that they are actually treated as attacking with a weapon?
Because by logical extension, you're saying that I am no longer proficient in making a closed fist and swinging on someone. The only difference is that with a gauntlet, it's going to hurt someone a lot more.
RAW doesn't support your claim. RAI , may be different, but the rules explicitly state that attacking with a gauntlet is treated as an unarmed strike, which, barring racial corner cases, you are likely proficient in.
RAW doesn't support your claim. RAI , may be different, but the rules explicitly state that attacking with a gauntlet is treated as an unarmed strike, which, barring racial corner cases, you are likely proficient in.
This is not a correct conclusion to draw. Being treated as if it were something does not make it something else. Else they would just say a gauntlet *is* an unarmed strike.
If it were an unarmed strike, monk unarmed strike would scale through a gauntlet and it would not have its own base damage. This is not the case.
Yes, a gauntlet is actually a weapon. Just like an Unarmed Strike is actually a weapon. Yes, they are two distinct weapons.
Because by logical extension, you're saying that I am no longer proficient in making a closed fist and swinging on someone. The only difference is that with a gauntlet, it's going to hurt someone a lot more.
Err... as I said in my post before, all characters are proficient with Unarmed Strikes.
All characters are not proficient with a Gauntlet. In PF a gauntlet does not hurt someone more (as it does the same damage), rather it allows a character to deal leathal damage (because it's a weapon) as opposed to non lethal. This is a specific benefit of the weapon: Gauntlet.
To be clear: Gauntlets, Cestus & Brass Knuckles all modify Unarmed Strikes. They are all weapons and they all require Simple Weapon Proficiency or Specific Proficiencies. Which is why they are listed as separate entries in the Simple Weapons categories.
Do you think that proficiency with Gauntlets, Cestus and Brass Knuckles should be automoatically gained by characters? (Because they all modify Unarmed Strikes?) That is not how the rules work I'm afraid.
Example: A Rogue is proficient with the Shortbow. He knows how to shoot a bow shouldn't he also know how to use a Longbow? They are both bows right?
A wizard is Proficient with Unarmed Strikes. A gauntlet is just a weaponized Unarmed Strike right? Shouldn't he know how to use a gauntlet properly, since it's just like an unarmed strike?
The answer in both cases is no. A shortbow is an entirey different weapon from a longbow and an unarmed strike is an entirely different weapon from a gauntlet/cestus/brass knuckle.
Gauntlets are treated as unarmed strikes.
Spiked Gauntlets are treated as armed strikes
So Improved Unarmed Strike is still useful if you are wearing Gauntlets, not if you are wearing Spiked Gauntlets. There is a proficiency difference and armor doesn't auto include Spiked Gauntlets.
Except that there is some talk from the devs of removing the "unarmed strike" comments from the description:
Which is fine even though its an attempt to fix the Monk UA damage plus enhanced gloves issue which every monk player is begging for.
Im not sure about the notion that a gauntlet, even a fully metal vambrace, is a credible threat that does not provoke an AoO from an opponent that is actually armed.
Example: A Rogue is proficient with the Shortbow. He knows how to shoot a bow shouldn't he also know how to use a Longbow? They are both bows right?
Shortbows and longbows require different body mechanics and calibrations in perception. A closed fist is a closed fist, whether it's covered in metal or not.
A closed fist is a closed fist, whether it's covered in metal or not.
The equipment rules differ with you on this, as I explained above.
Why is a spiked gauntlet so different than a gauntlet? It's just a closed fist, covered in metal with little spikes right? Yet it is treated an entirely different weapon, just like a gauntlet and an unarmed strike.