Gauntlets are a weapon, not an unarmed strike. 1D3.
Now, if said fighter was using Brass Knuckles, then it would be the Monk damage. The question still lies in "Why is the fighter punching things instead of (Insert weapon damage here) with his (Insert weapon name here)?
Sadly they changed that the brass knuckles are still 1d3. see here:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/ brass-knuckles
|
Now, if said fighter was using Brass Knuckles, then it would be the Monk damage. The question still lies in "Why is the fighter punching things instead of (Insert weapon damage here) with his (Insert weapon name here)?Sadly they changed that the brass knuckles are still 1d3. see here:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/ brass-knuckles
My APG has lied to me!
No, sadly the devs nerfed the Brass Knuckles...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, sadly the devs nerfed the Brass Knuckles...Thank gawd!
that there is fighting words
|
|
that there is fighting words
From a game balance prospective I like this. However in a home campaign you can justify however you want. I know I let my monks prestige or feat into giving their monk strikes magical weapon qualities. It is a lil BS that the amulets are soooo expensive but that is the cost you have for having weapons that cannot be sundered/ disarmed
[fake threat]We'll find you, and Monk you to death. We'll Flurry, and you'll cry.[/fake threat]No, sadly the devs nerfed the Brass Knuckles...Thank gawd!
You can't do that any more, the Devs nerfed flurry.
is there any item/weapon that you can use with a monk and get the unarmed attack bonus di?
is there any item/weapon that you can use with a monk and get the unarmed attack bonus di?
Zen Archers can do it with their bows.
Ok here's the scenario: A fighter using gauntlets and a Robes of the Monk wondrous item. What is the unarmed strike damage when using the gauntlets 1D3 or 1D8?
Please explain your answer...
Thx!
Gauntlets deal damage as unarmed strike according to their item description. Thus a 20th level monk wearing gauntlets deals 2d10 damage with said gauntlets. Unfortunately, gauntlets are considered unarmed attacks but not unarmed strikes (similar to natural attacks); which means they cannot be used as part of a flurry of blows (just showing that the rules really hate monks).
Long story short, the fighter is wielding a weapon (gauntlet) as an unarmed attack (you may deliver touch spells through it if desired) that deals 1d8 damage, but cannot be used for a flurry of blows.
From a game balance prospective I like this. However in a home campaign you can justify however you want. I know I let my monks prestige or feat into giving their monk strikes magical weapon qualities. It is a lil BS that the amulets are soooo expensive but that is the cost you have for having weapons that cannot be sundered/ disarmedthat there is fighting words
Though that amulet can be destroyed or disarmed.
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
Incidentally, amulets tend to have poopy hardness and hit points. Sucks to be monks.
They also tend to require some lame standard actions to figure out that they're A) magical and B) amulets of mighty fists.
That is, of course, without metagaming.
They also tend to require some lame standard actions to figure out that they're A) magical and B) amulets of mighty fists.
That is, of course, without metagaming.
Arcane sight can be made permanent for 7,500 gp. No standard action required. Alternatively, the GM or player would need to determine how common amulets of mighty fists are, and if they regularly come in other varieties. If it's purely published material, then that means that the monk can't be wearing handwraps of mighty fists, or boots of mighty fists, or over the shoulder boulder holders of mighty fists; so there's a darn good chance that he's sporting an amulet of mighty fists if you've ever seen or heard of them before.
Wait you can use your full monk unarmed damage with gauntlets? i was under the impression you could not?
From a game balance prospective I like this. However in a home campaign you can justify however you want. I know I let my monks prestige or feat into giving their monk strikes magical weapon qualities. It is a lil BS that the amulets are soooo expensive but that is the cost you have for having weapons that cannot be sundered/ disarmedthat there is fighting words
Though that amulet can be destroyed or disarmed.
Incidentally, amulets tend to have poopy hardness and hit points. Sucks to be monks.Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
Bah. Make the whole thing, chain and all, out of adamantine.
Besides, we all know that GMs can't sunder PC equipment, because that would be mean. ; )
Bah. Make the whole thing, chain and all, out of adamantine.
*cough* shatter *cough* :P
Besides, we all know that GMs can't sunder PC equipment, because that would be mean. ; )
Of course it would! *rubs evil GM card* My preciousssss...
Don't be silly Lobo, that would be broken.
HUH? I am super confused?
Basically, if a weapon has a line about altering, or interacting with unarmed strikes, you should ignore it, as per errata.
Also, the flurry working exactly as two weapon fighting comment has been retracted by the developers, so ignore that as well.
Faith that the developers know their own rules is fading fast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they retracted the flurry two weapon fighting thing due to problems it caused, and stated that they would get back to the issue.
The "unarmed" weapons thing was changed due to problems it caused, like the interaction with amulet of mighty fists.
Interaction? Correct me if I'm wrong, but enhancement bonuses don't stack; so the best you could manage by "interaction" would be trying to stack enhancements; but since the amulet of mighty fists costs a truckload for anything you pay for, I'm failing to see the supposed balance issue here. I mean, wouldn't that put it pretty much in the realm of being like bows (which can stack bow + ammo enhancements if you want to pay out the pooper for overpriced ammo)?
Heck, monks might actually make attractive melee if you could do that. Amulet of Mighty Fists (Speed) and +3 knuckles? I could get down with that. Though I guess we can all be happy that monks can at least rocket punch with mighty fists. I mean, how funny is it for monks to initiate a flurry of blows with the throwing enhancement on their fists, aye? SHOOO-RYU-KEN! Ranged weapon fists! I guess that means the monk hurls himself at the opponent. Make it a returning throwing amulet and watch as the monk lunges forward, pummeling enemies, only to suddenly spring back to his original location on the following round with no AoOs. It's like spring attack only cooler.
Well, they retracted the flurry two weapon fighting thing due to problems it caused, and stated that they would get back to the issue.
The "unarmed" weapons thing was changed due to problems it caused, like the interaction with amulet of mighty fists.
The total BSery of the entire thing was astounding. They "retracted" it you say? After claiming that's how it worked all along from the start? Not cool man. That does not reflect well at all.
ME-DOKEN!
/sorry
|
The total BSery of the entire thing was astounding. They "retracted" it you say? After claiming that's how it worked all along from the start? Not cool man. That does not reflect well at all.Well, they retracted the flurry two weapon fighting thing due to problems it caused, and stated that they would get back to the issue.
The "unarmed" weapons thing was changed due to problems it caused, like the interaction with amulet of mighty fists.
Being as it was a choice made after listening to the player community, I actually applaud the decision to take time to consider different options. Listening to customers is a good thing for companies.
Don't be silly Lobo, that would be broken.
You really should use <sarcasm> tags. Too many people would write that and mean it. In fact, half your standard snark could easily be written people on this board. Yep, I highly recommend the some form of indicator.
Being as it was a choice made after listening to the player community, I actually applaud the decision to take time to consider different options. Listening to customers is a good thing for companies.The total BSery of the entire thing was astounding. They "retracted" it you say? After claiming that's how it worked all along from the start? Not cool man. That does not reflect well at all.Well, they retracted the flurry two weapon fighting thing due to problems it caused, and stated that they would get back to the issue.
The "unarmed" weapons thing was changed due to problems it caused, like the interaction with amulet of mighty fists.
It is, but the way the whole thing seemed to go down from this end looked like they got caught doing something they shouldn't have been; like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa, and then backed off after telling everyone that the mustache had totally been there the whole time! When the public wasn't buying it and was giving them the dirty looks, and citing that their entire history shows that that painting never had a mustache; they were like "Oh well, it was totally like that, but we'll wash the mustache off 'cause we're cool like that; 'cause we listen to what you want".
They still try to say you must be actively attacking with a weapon to be "wielding" it, preventing the Defending weapon property from being useful; despite the fact in the very same chapter the Holy weapon property clearly shows that holding and wielding a weapon are the same thing.
It bestows one permanent negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including by restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded.
If you went by their silly FAQ, holy weapons would only inflict negative levels as long as they were actively being used to attack. Pretty lame drawback, since the moment you stop attacking with it the negative level goes away as you'd no longer be "wielding it". But it clearly connects "in hand" and "wielding".
Either way you go on the gauntlet, by the RAW it's not a weapon a monk can flurry with. I actually wouldn't mind the interpretation of it giving scaling damage, but no flurry. Losing flurry should keep anyone reasonable from screaming about it being OP, and it provides a passable option for the monk archetypes that give up flurry or any non-monk unarmed combatant.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be silly Lobo, that would be broken.You really should use <sarcasm> tags. Too many people would write that and mean it. In fact, half your standard snark could easily be written people on this board. Yep, I highly recommend the some form of indicator.
That would ruin half the fun of my posts.
That would ruin half the fun of my posts.Don't be silly Lobo, that would be broken.You really should use <sarcasm> tags. Too many people would write that and mean it. In fact, half your standard snark could easily be written people on this board. Yep, I highly recommend the some form of indicator.
ROFL - understood
sooo you cant use the gauntlets with your unarmed strike damage? ....pretend I am not rules lawyer but a simple country robo chicken
Gauntlets do not get the monk's unarmed strike. Unlike the brass knuckles they never had a line that said they could use the monk's unarmed damage.
Line in question-->
Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.
SKR has said this will be errata'd. It already been done in the other book this item is in.
Gauntlets do not get the monk's unarmed strike. Unlike the brass knuckles they never had a line that said they could use the monk's unarmed damage.
Line in question-->
Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.SKR has said this will be errata'd. It already been done in the other book this item is in.
Directly contrary to what Wraithstrike has said (sorry dude ^-^"), monks get their unarmed strike damage in gauntlets because gauntlets say they do. They are not, however, considered unarmed strikes (only unarmed attacks) so while they specifically require Improved Unarmed Strike to use without provoking attacks, monks cannot flurry with them.
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.
The gauntlet has no damage of its own. It only modifies your existing unarmed strike damage. Incidentally, this makes me actually question if monks cannot flurry with them after all. It says it is otherwise considered an unarmed attack, but that it modifies your unarmed strike; so you are still making unarmed strikes even when you are wearing a gauntlet; only the gauntlet modifies your attacks...
Actually, nevermind. I'm convinced - again - that monks can also flurry with gauntlets, since attacking with them is still an unarmed strike (it notes that it modifies the damage of your unarmed strike, meaning you are using an unarmed strike) and that it is still considered an unarmed attack (thus you can channel touch spells through it).
EDIT: I'm sure they'll errata it though, eventually. Paizo seems to love crapping on monks.
The brass knuckles specifically call out "monk unarmed damage". The gauntlets do not. Even within the monk class description the term "monk's unarmed strike" is used to differentiate it from everyone else's unarmed strike.
After the phrase "monk's unarmed strike" is first used this comes up--> "A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes .
This along with the specific verbage in the soon to be errata'd brass knuckles shows intent also.
I do wish the monk had been allowed to keep the brass knuckles or the cestus though.
edit:What I am saying is that I wish the monk's unarmed damage still applied. Yeah I can houserule it, but I should not have to.
The question was......
Ok here's the scenario: A fighter using gauntlets and a Robes of the Monk wondrous item. The robes give you 5 levels of monk if you have no levels of monk and it's only the damage and ac bonus. What is the unarmed strike damage when using the gauntlets 1D3 or 1D8? I don't know how the topic got on to monks using gauntlets and flurry of blows.
1d8, because gauntlets only modify your unarmed strikes. The listed damage on the chart is the unarmed strike damage for creatures of small and medium size. If your unarmed strike damage is more, then the damage is more; as per the actual rules for gauntlets.
|
Basically, if a weapon has a line about altering, or interacting with unarmed strikes, you should ignore it, as per errata.
Also, the flurry working exactly as two weapon fighting comment has been retracted by the developers, so ignore that as well.
Huh. Not meaning to de-rail the thread, but if someone can post a link, I know I'd appreciate it.
I think Ashiel is using a very strict interpretation of RAW. Well I am also, but "monk's unarmed strike" is not a game term even though monk's unarmed strikes are given exceptions to the normal rules.
I am using those exceptions along with the first wording to the brass knuckles to state RAI.
In the end I think we both agree the monk needs help, and both of us would allow the cestus, brass knuckles, and gauntlet to work if a player wanted it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.
Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)
Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.
The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).
A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
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).
[...]
Making all of these weapons act 100% like weapons and not refer to unarmed attacks at all means these questions go away.
(that last ellipsis is mine)
Basically, if a weapon has a line about altering, or interacting with unarmed strikes, you should ignore it, as per errata.
Also, the flurry working exactly as two weapon fighting comment has been retracted by the developers, so ignore that as well.Huh. Not meaning to de-rail the thread, but if someone can post a link, I know I'd appreciate it.
Are you question the first or second sentence?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
There you have it. If you wrap your fists in anything, it means you are treated as being armed with a light weapon. The "brilliance" of these rule "clarifications" never ceases to amaze me. /sarcasm
Also, the flurry working exactly as two weapon fighting comment has been retracted by the developers, so ignore that as well.That's what I was hoping to have a link for.
I wouldn't say "retracted" but it's sort of under evaluation.
Jason Bulmahn explains here.
Are you question the first or second sentence?Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific.
Also, the flurry working exactly as two weapon fighting comment has been retracted by the developers, so ignore that as well.That's what I was hoping to have a link for.
I was looking for that one also, but I can't find it.
Thanks for the link Grick
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There you have it. If you wrap your fists in anything, it means you are treated as being armed with a light weapon. The "brilliance" of these rule "clarifications" never ceases to amaze me. /sarcasmTreating 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).
Unless it's a glove, then it's a hand slot item. Unless that glove is made of metal. Or something. ; )