1) I do not believe Cesti or Gauntlets are considered armor. They do not provide any sort of armor bonus or armor benefit. I know Cesti aren't even listed as armor - I think gauntlets might appear, but that's mostly for the locked gauntlets feature.
2) You should never pick Two-Weapon Fighting feats as a Brawler. Flurry allows you to use unarmed strikes/close weapons/monk weapons as if you already had those feats (though you actually don't).
Cestus, Gauntlets, and Brass Knuckles are weapons in the Close Weapons group. Anything that applies to that group applies to them.
Gauntlets are listed under armor because several suits of armor include gauntlets at no extra cost.
|
Yeah, unfortunately if you had a set of light armor with the Brawling enhancement it wouldn't effect anything from the close fighter group/monk weapons. The Brawling enhancement specifically states it only effects Unarmed Strikes.
Brawler's Flurry doesn't count your attacks with close/monk weapons as unarmed strikes, it merely lets you mix them up with unarmed strikes while flurrying.
My reading of Brawler's Flurry suggests that you only count as having Two Weapon Fighting in so far as negating the penalties you would incur while flurrying if you didn't have it. At no point does Brawler's Flurry state that it counts towards feat prerequisites in the way Swashbuckler's Finesse does towards Weapon Finesse.
|
Only Unarmed Strikes are Unarmed Strikes. Count any and all other weapons as their own unique weapon types. Cestus are Cestus, Gauntlets are Gauntlets, Brass Knuckles are Brass Knuckles, and none of them are nor count as Unarmed Strikes. Omit any verbiage for a particular weapon that designates it as changing or benefiting Unarmed Strike in any manner. You wield a Cestus, Gauntlet, Spiked Gauntlet, Brass Knuckles, etc. in the same exact manner that you'd wield a Longsword, Dagger, or any other manufactured weapon. So Brawling, in no manner, interacts with any weapon other than Unarmed Strike and only Unarmed Strike, not any other weapon, counts as Unarmed Strike.
incorrect. It is always important to read weapon descriptions:
Cestus:
Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.
regardless of what piece of knuckle jewelry you are using, an unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. so yes you may gain the benefits of the brawling enhancement while wearing a cestus, rope ghauntlet, or brass knuckles.
|
|
Only Unarmed Strikes are Unarmed Strikes. Count any and all other weapons as their own unique weapon types. Cestus are Cestus, Gauntlets are Gauntlets, Brass Knuckles are Brass Knuckles, and none of them are nor count as Unarmed Strikes. Omit any verbiage for a particular weapon that designates it as changing or benefiting Unarmed Strike in any manner. You wield a Cestus, Gauntlet, Spiked Gauntlet, Brass Knuckles, etc. in the same exact manner that you'd wield a Longsword, Dagger, or any other manufactured weapon. So Brawling, in no manner, interacts with any weapon other than Unarmed Strike and only Unarmed Strike, not any other weapon, counts as Unarmed Strike.incorrect. It is always important to read weapon descriptions:
Cestus:
Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.regardless of what piece of knuckle jewelry you are using, an unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. so yes you may gain the benefits of the brawling enhancement while wearing a cestus, rope ghauntlet, or brass knuckles.
It's more important to actually read what you're replying to. The devs have weighed in by saying that those terms were vestigial and weapons don't change how unarmed strikes work and they should be disregarded.
...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
While easily confused Sean may think that, there is no FAQ/Errata on the cestus to back that up. Until such time, cestuses, brass knucks, and wrist gauntlets modify unarmed strikes.
|
|
While easily confused Sean may think that, there is no FAQ/Errata on the cestus to back that up. Until such time, cestuses, brass knucks, and wrist gauntlets modify unarmed strikes.You may not have known this, but SKR, until recently, was one of the developers of the game. His interpretation carries significant weight on what correct parsing and interpretation of the rules is. He even stated, in a later post, that he discussed it with JB (the head rules developer) who agreed; the use of "unarmed strike" to refer to an attack with the Cestus was illustrative rather than a means to connect the mechanics of Unarmed Strikes to the weapon of the Cestus. In other words, you have Unarmed Strike which is a mechanical term referring to making an attack without use of a manufactured weapon and "unarmed strike" talking more about the act of punching (either bare-handed or with a "hand-worn" weapon like gauntlet or cestus). Punching with a cestus or gauntlet is a non-mechanical "unarmed strike", but it isn't supposed to be considered a mechanical Unarmed Strike. The line "your unarmed attacks deal normal damage" is simply a very poor way of saying "when you punch someone, you're using this weapon instead of your unarmed strike".
I will refer back again to the fact that a forum post IS NOT an FAQ or ERRATA, which is how Paizo changes previously released rules. Further more, I refer you to Ultimate Equipment, released 2 years after Adventure's Armory, where the Cestus entry is unchanged. JB and SKR may agree on how they think it should work, but the rules don't.
|
|
To make things even more "fun" with this "debate" is another item introduced in Ultimate Equipment, the Exotic Weapon the Emei Piercer.
It is obviously a weapon at 8 to 10 inches long, but it specifically states "The ring prevents the wielder from being disarmed and
turns unarmed strikes into piercing attacks."
From what I'm getting from reading actual rules, these kinds of weapons can modify the damage type of an unarmed strike, they are not modifying the damage itself. The listed damage is if used as a Weapon Attack instead of an Unarmed Attack.
|
Right, so my plan is gonna be: use brawling armor with unarmed strikes until I can get a +2 cestus and close weapon mastery, with a monks robe I can use my unarmed die from one level higher and still keep the 19/20 crit range, wich becomes 18/20 with improved critical.
Just a nitpick, Improved Critical (Cestus) makes them 17-20/x2. :)
|
I think that,
You think wrong. Holding a metamagic rod of extend spell does not allow you to treat yourself as possessing said feat for the purposes of prerequisites. Using Brawler's Flurry similarly does not in any way grant you the feat it imitates, nor does it let you take feats which require it as a prerequisite.
That's going to be a contentious interpretation though, and not something I'd take to PFS before it's cleared up through an FAQ.
They don't clarify obvious and clear-cut rules with FAQs. I wouldn't hold my breath.
I will refer back again to the fact that a forum post IS NOT an FAQ or ERRATA, which is how Paizo changes previously released rules. Further more, I refer you to Ultimate Equipment, released 2 years after Adventure's Armory, where the Cestus entry is unchanged. JB and SKR may agree on how they think it should work, but the rules don't.While easily confused Sean may think that, there is no FAQ/Errata on the cestus to back that up. Until such time, cestuses, brass knucks, and wrist gauntlets modify unarmed strikes.You may not have known this, but SKR, until recently, was one of the developers of the game. His interpretation carries significant weight on what correct parsing and interpretation of the rules is. He even stated, in a later post, that he discussed it with JB (the head rules developer) who agreed; the use of "unarmed strike" to refer to an attack with the Cestus was illustrative rather than a means to connect the mechanics of Unarmed Strikes to the weapon of the Cestus. In other words, you have Unarmed Strike which is a mechanical term referring to making an attack without use of a manufactured weapon and "unarmed strike" talking more about the act of punching (either bare-handed or with a "hand-worn" weapon like gauntlet or cestus). Punching with a cestus or gauntlet is a non-mechanical "unarmed strike", but it isn't supposed to be considered a mechanical Unarmed Strike. The line "your unarmed attacks deal normal damage" is simply a very poor way of saying "when you punch someone, you're using this weapon instead of your unarmed strike".
Yeah, the Devs have been very firm in the past about saying that only FAQ and errata have official RAW weight. Forum posts are useful for rules clarification and knowing how the devs would like to see the rules interpreted, but they don't have any weight as official rules.
One would assume this is for two reasons: 1) The Devs might not carefully go over all the possible rules implications of every single post they make on the forum. 2) Because official rules changes belong in the FAQ/Errata section where they're easily accessed by everyone, not buried under thousands of other forum posts, where only a few denizens of the boards can find them.
Hey! Just thought I'd pop back in after stumbling on a post made by Jason Bulmahn back during the playtest. The relevant bit:
• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).So there you go! The intent matches what's written. You possess those feats while using brawler's flurry.
Good spot there.