Gauntlet or Monk unarmed strike.


Rules Questions

51 to 56 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

blahpers wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Grick wrote:
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
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
Unless it's a glove, then it's a hand slot item. Unless that glove is made of metal. Or something. ; )

I love you, you cute little pig. ^.^


Me too, but I think I may have been the only one to catch the "ME-DOKEN!" reference. ;) Good strip, that.


I still think the best solution is to have a pair of gloves (not gauntlets), enchanted as wondrous items (not weapons) that provide a +1-+5 enhancement bonus to unarmed strikes. No damage on their own; they only modify the enhancement bonus of a character's unarmed strikes.

So a 5th level human paladin with +1 gloves does 1d3+1 points of nonlethal damage (lethal if he has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat), and a 5th level human monk with +1 gloves does 1d6+1 points of lethal or nonlethal damage, and can use stunning fist (w/o ki focus, since the gloves are not weapons). A 20th level human ranger with +5 gloves deals 1d3+5 of nonlethal (lethal with IUS), while a 20th level human monk with the same item will deal 2d10+5 lethal or nonlethal (and get to use stunning fist or quivering palm).

I know, I know, there are those arguments about 'you can't put weapon enhancements on wondrous items'. Really? What about the amulet of mighty fists? That is a wondrous item that provides an enhancement bonus to unarmed strikes and natural weapon attacks.

Since they take up the hands slot, let this item affect only unarmed strikes (NOT natural weapons), and price it at bonus x bonus x 3,000 gp. That would be +1 = 3,000 gp; +2 = 12,000 gp; +3 = 27,000 gp; +4 = 48,000 gp; and +5 = 75,000 gp. Cheaper than the amulet of mighty fists, but more expensive than a single weapon, which makes up for the character not being able to be disarmed, sundered, or have his weapon taken away by paranoid guards, or greedy thieves.

But hey, what do I know? I've only played monks since 1986 after all.

Master Arminas

The Exchange

Ashiel wrote:


The gauntlet has no damage of its own.

Incorrect.

There is a clearly listed damage quote of 1d2 /1d3 which just happens to be the damage someone with a bare fist would do. Where are you reading that Gauntlets allow you to do any amount of unarmed damage?

It's pretty clear that gauntlets are listed as an unarmed weapon with which everyone is proficient with that allows you to do 1d2/1d3 lethal damage with. Again I ask you where are you reading that it says you can do ANY amount of unarmed damage? If this was the case under damage it would say something to the effect of "does your unarmed damage"

You seem to be pretty pro Monk, given your posts in this thread, I have nothing against it I like playing them myself, but the spirit of monk unarmed strikes is that are done with any body part not just your fists. The amulet's cost (X2.5 times) is given that you can flurry and more importantly the object cannot be sundered. Broken condition does not factor in with rings and amulets and I would argue that these items are easily hidden/ hard to strike, the only place I have every heard of DMs targeting rings and amulets is in the RPGA in 3.5, its a low move and a weak argument. Gauntlets can be sundered, they are weapons, giving them ANY amount of unarmed damage is tantamount to an end runaround the Amulet of Mighty Fists. Bad form sir!

Dark Archive

Well the wording is in the description.

From the core rulebook
"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."

First sentence claiming that the glove alter unarmed strikes, second stating it is an unarmed attack.

Personally I have no problem with it as long as they don't try to stack it with a amulet of mighty fists. In the long run it isn't a whole lot cheaper and say good bye to the magic knee when your hands are full.

I do think letting a monk get their enhancements and dr bypassing ability of a two weapon fighter is fair. Just don't let an amulet of mighty fists work as well.

Master Arminas's solution works too... though I understand the want for cold iron or adamantine lol

Grand Lodge

Houserule as you please. There are no unarmed strike weapons other the unarmed strike as per RAW.

51 to 56 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Gauntlet or Monk unarmed strike. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
gaze vs sight