|
So I know the fervent rants regarding the brass knuckles and, by association, the cestus are all the rage these days. I'm of course talking about the changes made to the adventurer's armory where brass knuckles were moved to the "light weapon" category and the text about monks dealing their special unarmed strike damage taken out of the description. The cestus didn't have either of these issues but its mention of "unarmed attacks" in its description was confusing and unnecessary.
Sean K Reynolds has stated the reasoning behind the update, and fouls cried a'plenty aside, he also mentioned that he thinks the gauntlet should also be a light weapon, in his opinion.
I think, though, that the gauntlet needs to remain in that weird "unarmed weapon" category for the sole reason that I don't think a weapon-less person wearing heavy (or most medium) armor should be able to make attacks of opportunity simply because they have gauntlets on.
Ok, if that's the case, then why should it suddenly work when it's got a couple little spikes on it? That dichotomy is the dumbest part of the whole situation in my opinion.
I'll refrain from restarting any arguments about the brass knuckles.
EDIT: Could you point me to the thread where Mr. Reynolds explained the change? I never saw it.
|
I think they simply need to be consistent. Either wrapping something around your knuckles is still an unarmed strike, or it isn't. Gauntlet established the precedent that it should be unarmed strike, then they challenged that with the errata to cestus.
The whole spikes/no-spikes thing clouds the issue a bit, of course.
It really isn't that much of a gamechanger one way or another in my opinion.
I believe it all comes down to WHO is using it. A character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat should absolutely get an AoO with a gauntlet on, while a character without it should not. They are trained to fight with their fists and so are prepared to use them.
|
|
I believe it all comes down to WHO is using it. A character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat should absolutely get an AoO with a gauntlet on, while a character without it should not. They are trained to fight with their fists and so are prepared to use them.
This is currently true with the gauntlet, but not true with the cestus or spiked gauntlet.
For the former it says "do lethal, but otherwise treat as unarmed." The latter two they are treated as completely independent weapons and thus do not provoke when used to attack (regardless of training), but never use unarmed strike damage (no matter how much better it is).
I don't think it matters either way, balance-wise. I just want it to be consistent. Either gauntlets should be made a light weapon, or cestus and spiked gauntlets should be made unarmed weapons (with slightly more benefits than "do lethal", possibly increasing damage by one step).
On the other hand, perhaps you should try this on for size (and yes, puns were intended!):
There is a also a large thread devoted to this dicussion here: shouldn't monks have gauntlet proficiency?
Master Arminas
EDIT: Fixed! Thanks, Shadrayl.
MA
On the other hand, perhaps you should try this on for size (and yes, puns were intended!):
There is a also a large thread devoted to this dicussion here: shouldn't monks have gauntlet proficiency?
Master Arminas
You posted the same link twice there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm in a fight against a knight, I might not even realize he is wearing one of these. So when he tries to punch me with it, I treat him like I treat anyone else who just tried to punch me. In most cases, I would happily trade a punch to the jaw for a thrust into his heart.
However, if he has one of these, I darn well take notice. After that, I will be more on my guard and won't take excessive risks when he swings at me with it in the hopes that I might get an extra swing in.