Monk enchanting hand raps? Gloves? Gauntlets?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Can u give a monk something to take up the glove slot and enchant it to increase damage output or add effects also Anyway a unarmed strike can be poisoned?


Not by RAW. No such item exist.


wraithstrike wrote:

Not by RAW. No such item exist.

What is RAW?


Rules As Written.


You can poison an unarmed strike through the feat Adder Strike. Its in the UC.

Grand Lodge

All the weapons that counted as an unarmed strike no longer do so as per errata. I feel that like that simply creates a bunch of useless weapons, but it is not I who makes the rules.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
All the weapons that counted as an unarmed strike no longer do so as per errata. I feel that like that simply creates a bunch of useless weapons, but it is not I who makes the rules.

What errata is that?


also you may not enchant a glove as a weapon because it is not a weapon. otherwise I'd have a character with a +5 spell resistant, fortified monk's clothes for all of my monks


Taanyth Tuilinn wrote:
also you may not enchant a glove as a weapon because it is not a weapon. otherwise I'd have a character with a +5 spell resistant, fortified monk's clothes for all of my monks

Can I enchant a glove like armor? Boost AC and such?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Munkir wrote:
Can u give a monk something to take up the glove slot and enchant it to increase damage output or add effects also Anyway a unarmed strike can be poisoned?

Yes. Gauntlets, per RAW, state - as part of their special rules in their description - that they modify your unarmed strike damage and attacking with gauntlets is otherwise treated as an unarmed attack. Thus even if gauntlets allow you to deal lethal damage, you still need improved unarmed strike to avoid AoOs, but you are also auto-proficient because everything is proficient with unarmed strikes.

This does not apply to spiked gauntlets which have their own rules. Only normal gauntlets.

Also, it changes your unarmed damage to lethal if it would be nonlethal, so barring the merciful weapon enhancement, you will have to take a -4 penalty to inflict nonlethal damage when using your enhanced gauntlets.

EDIT: You can, to my knowledge, also poison your gauntlets. However, you suffer the normal drawbacks for using poisoned weapons unless you have the Poison Use ability.

EDIT 2: To be helpful, and to avoid you having to look it up manually, here is the rules for gauntlets strait from the book/PRD.

PRD-Equipment:Gauntlet wrote:
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.

Attacking with a gauntlet modifies your unarmed strike damage. It is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Hence it is entirely legal to enhance it as desired, and use it for flurries. Enjoy being a monk, for once.


Yeah that Errata (go here for some explanation: http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfin derCompanion/v5748btpy8dmf/discuss&page=12#550) completely destroyed my Brass Knuckle Monk build. It's all good though. I actually didn't find out about that errata until after the character was brutally torn apart by an enraged advanced Owlbear.


Ashiel wrote:
Attacking with a gauntlet modifies your unarmed strike damage.

And, just to be clear, in this case "modifies" means "replaces with 1d3 for medium creatures."

A medium monk using a gauntlet deals 1d3 damage with it, while without the gauntlet he deals 1d6-2d10 depending on level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GQSnowman wrote:
Yeah that Errata (go here for some explanation: http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfin derCompanion/v5748btpy8dmf/discuss&page=12#550) completely destroyed my Brass Knuckle Monk build. It's all good though. I actually didn't find out about that errata until after the character was brutally torn apart by an enraged advanced Owlbear.

Linkified

Sure i know the story but until they errata the core then the gauntlet is a valid choice. Sure they aren't as good as the pre-errata brass knuckles but it's still better than the overpriced for a monk amulet of mighty fists.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2crj&page=2?Adventurers-Armory-Questions#64

No more "unarmed weapons".


blackbloodtroll wrote:

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2crj&page=2?Adventurers-Armory-Questions#64

No more "unarmed weapons".

Yup. Gauntlets got caught up in the madness too.

Grand Lodge

For some crazy reason you can two weapon fight with only unarmed strikes no matter what class you are. Some rules are very strange.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2crj&page=2?Adventurers-Armory-Questions#64

No more "unarmed weapons".

Linkified

As long as it isn't in either the FAQ or the errata or the PRD then it isn't the rule, how hard is that to understand?
Anyway what's your problem with unarmed monks not paying the overpriced amulet of mighty fists? They would be better off with a melee weapon anyway.


leo1925 wrote:
As long as it isn't in either the FAQ or the errata or the PRD then it isn't the rule, how hard is that to understand?

Are you saying that because Brass Knuckles were changed in AA, but not (yet) in the APG, that they still work with monk unarmed strike damage?

Grand Lodge

I have no problem with monks getting a break, but thems the rules. Also, many rules questions are answered by devs but never seem to make it into a FAQ, at least, not for some time.


Grick wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Attacking with a gauntlet modifies your unarmed strike damage.

And, just to be clear, in this case "modifies" means "replaces with 1d3 for medium creatures."

A medium monk using a gauntlet deals 1d3 damage with it, while without the gauntlet he deals 1d6-2d10 depending on level.

Sorry no. Text trumps table every time. The rules specifically say it modifies your unarmed strike damage, not replaces it. You are adding stuff that is not there, and thus you are imposing a house rule, not RAW.

For what you are saying to be true, it would have to say "replaces your unarmed strike damage with damage appropriate to a gauntlet of your size. It is otherwise considered an unarmed attack", or something along those lines.

It does not. Monks can use gauntlets, and they DO get their unarmed strike damage with it, because their unarmed strike damage is simply higher than usual (the usual being 1d3 for medium humanoids).

Don't make up rules and try to pass them off as legit. It's not cool.

EDIT: Once again, for the kids at home!

PRD-Equipment: Gauntlet wrote:
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.
PRD-Monk: Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.
PRD-Monk: Flurry of Blows wrote:
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 (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

Thus an 8th level monk, as per the rules, deals 1d10 lethal damage when attacking with his gauntlets, while using flurry of blows.

EDIT 2: Which incidentally works out for monks because it gives them appropriate means for overcoming damage reductions. Wearing a silver and cold iron gauntlet helps the monk overcome unusual damage reductions. It also means that you don't get completely hosed compared to your martial friends in terms of weapon enhancements.

If you can prove otherwise, go ahead. But I demand some text supporting your position, since I have presented test debunking it.


Grick wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
As long as it isn't in either the FAQ or the errata or the PRD then it isn't the rule, how hard is that to understand?

Are you saying that because Brass Knuckles were changed in AA, but not (yet) in the APG, that they still work with monk unarmed strike damage?

No because the last errata of AA is more recent than the last errata of APG. If, when the APG errata comes, hasn't brass knuckles changed then that would mean that they change it back to the APG version.

Grand Lodge

When SKR calls it out, most people consider it RAW, but then what do developers know any way.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
When SKR calls it out, most people consider it RAW, but then what do developers know any way.

And they always put it somewhere where it is legit, like the PRD, FAQ, errata so UNLESS there isn't such a place (for some books there isn't a FAQ, aren't in the PRD and don't make 2nd printing in order to have errata) i wouldn't take something that nails the coffin for unarmed monks just because they found it too difficult to issue a few FAQ entries.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
When SKR calls it out, most people consider it RAW, but then what do developers know any way.

I consider RAW to be RAW. Maybe I'm funny like that. Sean K. Reynolds isn't at the gaming table, or in the book, further than the stuff printed in the book. When you go to the PRD, you see the RAW, not what Sean K. Reynolds decided he would do last week, or next week, or that one Tuesday when the Moon was doing that funny thing.

So if there's Errata, that's great (actually, it would be horrible, since it would just be Paizo pooping on the monk for no real reason than just to do so), but until then, it's not the rules.

Grand Lodge

I could be wrong. I am only saying that at least a large number consider it to be official, not that it is, or isn't.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I could be wrong. I am only saying that at least a large number consider it to be official, not that it is, or isn't.

Fair enough, good sir.


@Ashiel
Just to be clear, sometimes it takes some time to add either a new book or a new errata to the PRD.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On a side note, they did use fist wraps as an example weapon in the LoF AP.

to protect those who don't want details:

The weapon that you get in the first book that levels with you. It calls out being used as a scarf wrapped around your hands so that monks can benefit from it. Its an idea that designers have used a lot to improve options for monks in the past

and I see no reason why you couldn't just say the monk gets magical tattoos that enhance his unarmed strikes as if they were weapons, seems the same as a rune engraved sword to me :D


IMO, they should be weapons, not unarmed strikes. However their damage should be listed as equal to the unarmed strike damage of whoever is using them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Christopher Van Horn wrote:

On a side note, they did use fist wraps as an example weapon in the LoF AP.

** spoiler omitted **
and I see no reason why you couldn't just say the monk gets magical tattoos that enhance his unarmed strikes as if they were weapons, seems the same as a rune engraved sword to me :D

Inscribe Magical Tattoo. Love it.


If you're using a weapon (which monks aren't proficient in, btw) then you use the weapon damage. If you're not using the weapon, then you don't get any of the abilities the weapon bestows (lethal damage, Flaming, etc.)

You can make an unarmed strike, dealing monk unarmed damage, or you can attack with the gauntlet, which is a weapon, and deal gauntlet damage.

Attacking with the gauntlet is supposed to be like a normal unarmed strike, only with lethal damage.

That is why gauntlets were lumped in with the other weird unarmed-style weapons in AA Thread 1 and AA Thread 2.

Gauntlets are weapons

Monks are not proficient

Balance reasons

None of this will be good enough for the people who discount the developers posts when they disagree with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grick wrote:
If you're using a weapon (which monks aren't proficient in, btw) then you use the weapon damage. If you're not using the weapon, then you don't get any of the abilities the weapon bestows (lethal damage, Flaming, etc.)

Read the rules again, Grick. You are attacking with the weapon, which modifies your unarmed damage, and is otherwise treated as an unarmed strike. Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes as per the rules. Ergo everyone is proficient with gauntlets. Even wizards are proficient with gauntlets. Just proficiency with them means diddly beyond avoiding the -4 to hit since you provoke attacks without Improved Unarmed Strike.

I've posted the rules, what, twice now? If you want to tell me that it's wrong, then prove it.

EDIT: This is about as silly as the argument that monks are proficient with unarmed strikes because unarmed strikes are listed under the simple weapons heading in the equipment list, and monks lack simple weapon proficiency.

Just to further aid those who are unsure.

PRD-Equipment: Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons wrote:
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. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Since attacks with gauntlets are considered unarmed strikes beyond being weapons that modify your unarmed damage, yeah, that pretty much covers it.

Time for lunch, I believe.


@Malfus
If gauntlets were working the way you want to then they should have the monk tag or they would still be kinda useless for the monk.

@Grick
I can give you the monks aren't prof. with gauntlets, since they are a simple weapon but then again they are listed as unarmed strike which everyone is prof. with, so it's debatable (and the weapon's specific text which says that they are otherwise considered an unarmed strike gives weight to the opinion that they don't need prof.)
Those balance reasons aren't enough for several reasons:
1) The AoMF costs more than two weapons
2) It can't go higher than +5
3) It occupies the neck slot
4) TWFing with unarmed strikes isn't the same as TWFing with two weapons since most weapons are better than unarmed strike
5) Monks need to pay money for AC, and guess what? following the no gauntlets belief they don't have a neck slot

By the way i am more than happy with dealing the guantlet's damage when flurring with a gauntlet, it sure beats having to pay for an AoMF.

Grand Lodge

There is no need to be defensive, each poster is simply trying to give examples of how it could be ruled different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:

@Malfus

If gauntlets were working the way you want to then they should have the monk tag or they would still be kinda useless for the monk.

I was also referring to the cestus as well as brass knucks, which are monk weapons :P. But yes, monks would have to take proficiency for gauntlets at that point.


Malfus wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

@Malfus

If gauntlets were working the way you want to then they should have the monk tag or they would still be kinda useless for the monk.
I was also referring to the cestus as well as brass knucks, which are monk weapons :P. But yes, monks would have to take proficiency for gauntlets at that point.

See above. Gauntlet special property says attacking with them is treated as an unarmed attack. All characters are proficient in unarmed attacks. Monks, or in fact no one, need take gauntlet proficiency. Gauntlets are just pretty useless to anyone who doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike, so most non-monks would assuredly prefer Spiked Gauntlets, because those are basically daggers on your fist. :P


Ashiel wrote:
See above. Gauntlet special property says attacking with them is treated as an unarmed attack. All characters are proficient in unarmed attacks. Monks, or in fact no one, need take gauntlet proficiency. Gauntlets are just pretty useless to anyone who doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike, so most non-monks would assuredly prefer Spiked Gauntlets, because those are basically daggers on your fist. :P
We were talking about gauntlets in the terms that I laid out earlier.
Quote:
IMO, they should be weapons, not unarmed strikes. However their damage should be listed as equal to the unarmed strike damage of whoever is using them.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion :P


Malfus wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

@Malfus

If gauntlets were working the way you want to then they should have the monk tag or they would still be kinda useless for the monk.
I was also referring to the cestus as well as brass knucks, which are monk weapons :P. But yes, monks would have to take proficiency for gauntlets at that point.

The monk weapon tag doesn't mean that the monk is prof. with that weapon, only that he can use it in flurry. For example the are quite a few monk weapons in the UC and monks aren't prof. with them.

Let's say it all together now:
Monks aren't proficient with all monk weapons, unarmed fighters are

Grand Lodge

I really wish it worked that way, but at least as far as my DMs are concerned, they all just light weapons, as stated by a number of developers. Do hope that errata comes around though.


Sort of beside the point I was making because:

Quote:
Note: Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their Monk unarmed damage* when fighting with them.
Quote:
If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

Therefore, if you were just making a point to announce that monks are not automatically proficient with monk weapons, then I concede, I should have mentioned that they are proficient with those weapons specifically. But that doesn't change what I was saying :P


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I really wish it worked that way, but at least as far as my DMs are concerned, they all just light weapons, as stated by a number of developers. Do hope that errata comes around though.

Which is a sound house rule with the now rules.

Anyway as i said before the STR monks should be better with an one handed weapon holding it with two hands in order to take the -1/+3 power attack ratio.

Grand Lodge

Well, I have given the evidence, so you either believe, or not.
Happy gaming.


Malfus wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
See above. Gauntlet special property says attacking with them is treated as an unarmed attack. All characters are proficient in unarmed attacks. Monks, or in fact no one, need take gauntlet proficiency. Gauntlets are just pretty useless to anyone who doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike, so most non-monks would assuredly prefer Spiked Gauntlets, because those are basically daggers on your fist. :P
We were talking about gauntlets in the terms that I laid out earlier.

Oh, I may have missed that. Sorry if I responded unnecessarily.


Its no big.


Ashiel wrote:
See above. Gauntlet special property says attacking with them is treated as an unarmed attack. All characters are proficient in unarmed attacks. Monks, or in fact no one, need take gauntlet proficiency.

Actually, your own quotes disprove this.

Gauntlet: A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
Unarmed Attacks: All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes

Weapon Table wrote:

Unarmed Attacks

Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. B —
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethal

An unarmed strike is a specific type of unarmed attack. Gauntlets are another type. Therefore, you need to be proficient in gauntlets separately from the automatic proficiency with unarmed strikes.


Ashiel wrote:
You are attacking with the weapon, which modifies your unarmed damage, and is otherwise treated as an unarmed strike. Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes as per the rules. Ergo everyone is proficient with gauntlets.

You are proficient with unarmed strikes, not with the gauntlet. If you use a gauntlet (or rope gauntlet, or cestus, or brass knuckle) you are using the weapon (which you are not proficient in) to make the attack. It's treated as an unarmed attack, following the rules for unarmed attacks in Table: Actions in Combat and unarmed attacks which means it provokes, doesn't threaten, etc. (Rather than an “Armed” Unarmed Attack)

Ashiel wrote:
This is about as silly as the argument that monks are proficient with unarmed strikes because unarmed strikes are listed under the simple weapons heading in the equipment list, and monks lack simple weapon proficiency.

Red herring. Druids are proficient with the Sickle, which is a simple weapon, but not the Morningstar, which is a simple weapon.

Monks are proficient with unarmed strike, which is a simple weapon, but not the gauntlet, which is a simple weapon.

Since you are not interested in how the rules are (clearly and repeatedly) meant to be, there's no point in further discussion.


Bobson wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
See above. Gauntlet special property says attacking with them is treated as an unarmed attack. All characters are proficient in unarmed attacks. Monks, or in fact no one, need take gauntlet proficiency.

Actually, your own quotes disprove this.

Gauntlet: A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
Unarmed Attacks: All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes

Weapon Table wrote:

Unarmed Attacks

Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. B —
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethal
An unarmed strike is a specific type of unarmed attack. Gauntlets are another type. Therefore, you need to be proficient in gauntlets separately from the automatic proficiency with unarmed strikes.

Hm, interesting. Having went and referenced the combat section, IUS, and your notation between strike/attack, it seems that the monk gets to use his unarmed strike damage, is considered armed, but doesn't have proficiency. Good catch. Apparently the poor monk still has to burn a feat to benefit from gauntlets, but at least it's an option.

Meanwhile, I noticed something that is highly interesting. If you submit to the idea that you are not proficient with unarmed attacks, then the following becomes true:

  • Natural attacks require proficiency. Many, many, many bestiary entries are incorrect.
  • Sorcerers, barbarians, and other classes are not proficient in their natural weapons, because according to the combat rules they are treated as "armed" but they are not considered proficient.
  • Touch attack spells like shocking grasp are considered unarmed attacks as well, and while considered "armed" do not include proficiency.

    We arrive at an interesting place. Either people are proficient in unarmed attacks, or they are not. If they are not, then all of the above is true, and all should suffer a -4 penalty to their natural attacks. If it they are, then you do not suffer a proficiency penalty for using gauntlets.

    If true however, we can determine that only Aberrations, Animals, Constructs, Dragons, Magical Beasts, Oozes, Plants, Undead, and Vermin are actually proficient with their natural weapons (most of the above note that they are only proficient in their natural weapons, other creature types either mention under conditions or do not grant proficiency at all). Thus the following creatures are in error.

  • Almost all devils and demons.
  • All elementals.
  • All humanoids with natural attacks (such as trolls, lizardfolk, troglodytes, etc).
  • All monstrous humanoids with natural attacks (such as minotaur, centaur, etc).
  • Dragons when they are in humanoid form, even if they still have natural weapons in that form for some reason.
  • Sorcerers, alchemists, barbarians, some rangers, shapeshifted spellcasters, wild shaped druids, and so forth.

    All of the above must suffer a -4 penalty for making unarmed attacks they are not proficient with.


  • Ashiel wrote:


    Meanwhile, I noticed something that is highly interesting. If you submit to the idea that you are not proficient with unarmed attacks, then the following becomes true:
  • Natural attacks require proficiency. Many, many, many bestiary entries are incorrect.
  • Sorcerers, barbarians, and other classes are not proficient in their natural weapons, because according to the combat rules they are treated as "armed" but they are not considered proficient.
  • Touch attack spells like shocking grasp are considered unarmed attacks as well, and while considered "armed" do not include proficiency.
  • Quote:
    All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race.

    . That knocks off point 1.

    Weapons wrote:
    A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
    Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon)

    Natural attacks are not made with weapons, and you only take the -4 penalty on weapons you are not proficient with. Therefore, anyone who gains a natural attack even if they don't have it racially doesn't take the -4. That knocks off point 2.

    Likewise, held spells aren't weapons, so there's no non-proficiency penalty there. Even if they're called "weapon-like", that doesn't make them weapons. That's point 3.


    Bobson wrote:
    That knocks off point 1.

    I wonder why all the redundancy in the creature types then. Design oddity, I guess.

    Weapons wrote:
    A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
    Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon)

    Natural attacks are not made with weapons, and you only take the -4 penalty on weapons you are not proficient with. Therefore, anyone who gains a natural attack even if they don't have it racially doesn't take the -4. That knocks off point 2.

    Likewise, held spells aren't weapons, so there's no non-proficiency penalty there. Even if they're called "weapon-like", that doesn't make them weapons. That's point 3.

    Well by the Combat rules those spells are unarmed attacks. Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, so you don't need to be proficient in them, by your explanation, and yet you do have proficiency in them. So while I think it's goofy as heck, can you find a source saying you don't need proficiency? :P

    This is purely just to sate my curiosity at this point. ^-^"


    Taanyth Tuilinn wrote:
    also you may not enchant a glove as a weapon because it is not a weapon. otherwise I'd have a character with a +5 spell resistant, fortified monk's clothes for all of my monks

    You mean like the robes of the archmagi? That is one example of being able to put an armor bonus (and special properties, i.e. spell resistance) on a normal garment that isn't armor. So, yeah. You can enchant clothing for a monk.*

    *With your DMs permission, of course.

    Master Arminas

    1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Monk enchanting hand raps? Gloves? Gauntlets? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.