|
| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is the damage from a monks unarmed strike handled when say wielding a +5 gauntlet of flaming pain and its ilk.
I've read multiple posts by the Sean K Reynolds fellow, and it seems he doesn't think they apply despite all official wordings to the contrary.
So in PFS, what is the offical rule? I plan on starting a monk in the near future and I'd rather not show up to the table looking silly.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Welcome to PFS organized play. It's great to have you.
Which "official wording" are you referring to?
Generally speaking, gauntlets are weapons, and someone punching foes with gauntlets is not using "unarmed attacks."
The Pathfinder Society rules aren't any different from the general Pathfinder RPG rules. If they were, there would be an exception called out in the free Guide to the Pathfinder Society or the Additional Resources page.
How is the damage from a monks unarmed strike handled when say wielding a +5 gauntlet of flaming pain and its ilk.
A gauntlet is a light weapon, you either hit with the gauntlet (1d3 damage, +5 flaming etc), or you hit with your unarmed strike.
Only they have now reclassified it under light weapons in the ultimate equipment guide, to prevent 'confusion'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the whole point of the CRB gauntlet is to allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, I have to wonder how it "prevents confusion" to reclassify it.
Especially since the UE description of the gauntlet is exactly the same as the CRB description of the gauntlet, which quite clearly states that gauntlets are unarmed strikes:
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.
Just like a monk uses his own unarmed strike damage dice in place of the normal unarmed strike damage (1d3), he'll also use his own damage dice in place of the normal gauntlet damage (also 1d3). Why? Because a gauntlet attack is an unarmed strike.
So, the monk will get all the benefits of both his own damage dice, and of the gauntlet's enhancement bonus.
Except the gauntlet specifically states that's what it is. The only thing a gauntlet does is to let you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.
If it's a weapon, it's not an unarmed strike. The official ruling is that it does not work the way posted in the OP. Gauntlets are classified as Light Weapons, not Unarmed Attacks. The text in the CRB was not clear on this, but UE has fixed the issue by clearly placing them in the Light Weapons category, rather than the Unarmed Attack category where they were previously. It was never the intention for gauntlets to be used in the way described in the original post.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
blackbloodtroll: If SKR wants the gauntlet to do something else than what it says it does, then why didn't he change the description for the gauntlet in the brand-new book Ultimate Equipment? Instead, the description of the item is the exact same as I posted above.
And quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, Paizo is making many strange choices in terms of how they alter existing rules.
If SKR wants the gauntlet to do something else than what it says it does, then why didn't he change the description for the gauntlet in the brand-new book Ultimate Equipment?
Presumably for the same reasons he hasn't (yet) changed the description for Brass Knuckles (which still says monks can use their unarmed damage with them), or wizard arcane bond still saying "wielded." Because they're not perfect, and they don't really seem to care that much when a rule is broken because the GM can use common sense to fix it.
Cheapy: A quote from 2010 makes very little difference when the item was printed with the exact same description in a book from 2012. The item being listed in a different category in the table doesn't change the fact that the description of the item (descriptions usually have more weight than tables) says it is an unarmed attack.
By the way, Ultimate Equipment also changed the description of "Unarmed Strike" to say it always counts as a light weapon.
To be clear: If Paizo wants gauntlets to not have anything to do with unarmed strikes, that's fine by me. But if they want it to work that way, they should actually change the description of the item rather than pretending that reclassifying it in a table fixes the (perceived) issue.
UE moved the Brass Knuckles from the Unarmed Attack category to the Light Weapons category and removed the explicit mention that monks may use their monk unarmed damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not allowed monks weilding magic gauntlets to use their monk unarmed damage with the gauntlets' dwoemers.
But I have to say, taken at face value, Are has a valid point. A current official rules book ought to trump a post by Sean from two years' ago. Ultimate Equipment was supposed to clarify and resolve conflicts between various Adventurers' Armory and Advanced Players' Guide editions. And this was certainly a contentious item on their RADAR. The development team seems to have deliberately retreated from Sean's posts.
If a player came to my table with magic gauntlets today, I think I'd have to let him use them with unarmed strikes.
blackbloodtroll: If SKR wants the gauntlet to do something else than what it says it does, then why didn't he change the description for the gauntlet in the brand-new book Ultimate Equipment? Instead, the description of the item is the exact same as I posted above.
And quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, Paizo is making many strange choices in terms of how they alter existing rules.
This is even more confusing, because they did move it from the "unarmed strikes" list to the "light weapon" list.
I think that this combination means you now provoke for attacking with gauntlets and spiked gauntlets unless you have improved unarmed strike.
Unarmed Strikes have always counted as light weapons.
The intent is known. It is unfortunate that they thought just changing the weapon's classification would clear this up, but as is, these are weapons and thus the monk using one as a weapon does not count as unarmed for his special class abilities.
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.
In any event, the devs will eventually come by again to answer one of these questions, they'll reaffirm that gauntlets aren't unarmed attacks, and then this question will just keep on happening because people don't want to accept it.
We also have this post by Jason, from about a month ago, reiterating that there will be no weapon that monks can use to get the same bonuses to hit and damage with the same cost as a magical weapon. That sentence is really freaking weird if that weapon already exists.
Officially released products always trumps two-year-old forum posts.
Specific weapon description details always trump table placement.
Starting to worry more and more about this game with each release that doesn't fix problems.
The funny thing is that it would be extremely easy to rewrite the gauntlet, if the goal was to eliminate its usage alongside unarmed strikes:
Gauntlet: This metal glove is a weapon worn on one hand. 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.
If it was written like that, noone could claim it had anything to do with an unarmed strike (since it no longer mentions unarmed strike).
Sigh. It was the perfect chance to errata these weapons. I wish they would have done the extra thirty minutes of work to make it happen. But, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, eh?
MA
Fine. Everyone please hit the FAQ button at the top of the original post.
We already know, from a month ago, that it is the design team's intent to not have a weapon that lets monks get the same bonuses at the same cost as a magic weapon. Which is exactly what would be happening if this were the case.
The post was after UE had already gone to the printers and people already had it, btw.
In any event, the devs will eventually come by again to answer one of these questions, they'll reaffirm that gauntlets aren't unarmed attacks, and then this question will just keep on happening because people don't want to accept it.
I actually don't care one way or the other if gauntlets and brass knuckles work alongside unarmed strikes. But as the items are currently written, that's how it does work.
As a GM, the only time I would go searching for developer posts on an issue would be if the rules themselves were unclear. I answered the question as I would if one of my players presented this question to me, and in this case the rules didn't seem unclear at all to me.
It has nothing to do with acceptance. I've never used gauntlets on any character (and I likely never will with a monk, since gauntlets don't fit my vision of that class), and neither has any of my players. But if one of my players does, then they'll be able to use the monk's unarmed strike damage with them.
|
Yep.
Get enough FAQ hits, and we will get the "no response needed" slapped on it.Seriously, why would they release the Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes, if you could do better with a pair of gauntlets?
For the same reason you can do better with a greater hat of disguise than any of the available items that directly grant darkvision.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think we should ask them to just remove the "unarmed strike" phrasing since unarmed strikes are also made with other body parts it would also prevent someone trying to say their knees do lethal damage, even though they are only wearing gauntlets. Now I know common sense dictates that metal on your hands won't help your knees but a lot of posters here like to be intentionally obtuse. "Oh, but RAW says..."
The other idea is have a specify that the monk's unarmed strike damage does not override the weapon's listed damage.
Yes, I suggested that above. Rewriting the items to remove all references to unarmed strikes would do the job.
One of Sean's posts in the thread that was linked to above also says the references to unarmed strike should be removed, because those references confuse the issue, but for whatever reason that obviously didn't happen.
|
|
And the because those are mentioned when you read the monks unarmed strike ability, it's very easy to see them getting the improved damage table.
Also the whole argument SKR made, was that you cannot disarm them, and do a host of other things. (it's not really that big a deal but what ever) and that you're getting multiple weapons. It's not that monks can't get a weapon to do flurry with it's just that they can't do it cheaper than an amulet of mighty fists.
His issue as I read it, is not to do with using it as its read but more that it breaks their design idea behind costs monks should spend for weapons.
I'm surprised this got moved, because I specifically asked for pathfinder societies rulings on it. SKR when asked about it said "PFS probably uses the latest wording and FAQ" which doesn't support his point of view really at the time it was said.
|
|
I should also clarify, specifically when you look at how he talks about TWF and the interactions with flurry, it would seem clear to me that to do the full flurry of blows, you would need to infact buy two brass knuckles, or two gauntlets, etc even though they come as pairs...
If we're going by what appears to be his intent of things.
Of course what's been written and published a year past his "clarifications" are still just as vague as before. The only thing they've cleared up is that you don't provoke attacks of opportunities with them.
I should also clarify, specifically when you look at how he talks about TWF and the interactions with flurry, it would seem clear to me that to do the full flurry of blows, you would need to infact buy two brass knuckles, or two gauntlets, etc even though they come as pairs...
If we're going by what appears to be his intent of things.
Of course what's been written and published a year past his "clarifications" are still just as vague as before. The only thing they've cleared up is that you don't provoke attacks of opportunities with them.
They don't come in pairs, well not when purchased as a weapon anyway. AS for when you get them with armor the wording is still plural.
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 breastplates) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
edit:You can only flurry with monk weapons. Not every weapon a monk is proficient with is a monk weapon.
|
|
I'm pretty sure most people read
Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons
I've always treated it as plural brass knuckles, but regardless it's immaterial to the conversation.
Monks are proficient with brass knuckles
Monks are proficient with the cestus
And they are also listed as monk weapons. Admittedly the gauntlet is not.