| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
To my understanding, and I phrase it this way as I've never made a character who wore anything heavier than light armor, if you but a suit of heavier armor it essentially comes with a gauntlet, like the simple weapon punching gauntlet, right? So if I buy say an adamantine suit of armor, is the gauntlet that is I'm assuming meant to be a part of that armor also made of adamantine?
Nope. You do not get free adamantine weapons wit your armor. That would be a free 6,000 extra of equipment right there. IE- half the cost of making the armor adamantine in the first place.
And many medium armors have gauntlets too- that would be the majority of the price of an adamantine chainshirt.
Chain shirts are light armor, and so don't come with gauntlets.
Medium armors (except breastplate) and heavy armors come with gauntlets.
Since the price of the armor includes the price of the gauntlets, it would make sense that the cost of making the armor adamantine includes the cost of making the gauntlets adamantine too.
However, that seems like too much of a good thing.
I guess what's really absurd is the fact that an Adamantine dagger and Adamantine greataxe have roughly the same cost, despite the greataxe being 12x more massive than the dagger.
True, but then again it avoids all the arguments mithral inspires.
I guess what's really absurd is the fact that an Adamantine dagger and Adamantine greataxe have roughly the same cost, despite the greataxe being 12x more massive than the dagger.
You're really going to break your brain when you compare the cost of an adamantine chain shirt for a pixie and an adamantine chain shirt for a storm giant.
I guess what's really absurd is the fact that an Adamantine dagger and Adamantine greataxe have roughly the same cost, despite the greataxe being 12x more massive than the dagger.You're really going to break your brain when you compare the cost of an adamantine chain shirt for a pixie and an adamantine chain shirt for a storm giant.
Diving into extrapolated DnD economy never fails to result in the brain hurts.
- Torger
|
I guess what's really absurd is the fact that an Adamantine dagger and Adamantine greataxe have roughly the same cost, despite the greataxe being 12x more massive than the dagger.You're really going to break your brain when you compare the cost of an adamantine chain shirt for a pixie and an adamantine chain shirt for a storm giant.
|
Yes the gauntlets are adamantine.
No, you can not enchant them as weapons. even with tricks such as magus acane pool, magic weapon, or Paladin divine bond.
So your 1d3 plus str damage can get through dr/adamantine. That's exactly what you get.
I'm curious why they can't be enchanted?
Gauntlets are weapons. Even if you rule, for whatever reason, that they're not masterwork, wouldn't the spell Masterwork Transformation fix that?
Chain shirts are light armor, and so don't come with gauntlets.
Medium armors (except breastplate) and heavy armors come with gauntlets.
Since the price of the armor includes the price of the gauntlets, it would make sense that the cost of making the armor adamantine includes the cost of making the gauntlets adamantine too.
However, that seems like too much of a good thing.
Ah, chain MAIL. Yes. Always conflict the difference in names for those two.
My general point stands. Giving a free pair of adamantine weapons that cost almost the same as the armor itself seems...odd, and somewhat imbalanced.
If you subtract the gauntlets from the cost of adamantine chainmail, it would cost less than an adamantine chain shirt (10,000-6,000=4,000<5,000). Despite giving more AC and more DR.
The Amulet doesn't augment Unarmed Strikes made with Gauntlets.The Gauntlet is labeled as an "Unarmed Attack" on the table.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.Bolding mine. Explain what I'm missing?
The countless number of threads on that topic that basically boil down to Paizo deciding just to make them weapons with the monk property instead.
You are not going to be light on a reading list if you just put in gauntlets and unarmed strikes into the search bar of this rules forum.
As a general word of advice- there is a VERY extensive list of rules and practices that come from this source. For the most part, the majority of the dozens of FAQs for the various books come from this part of the forum. And that is for the things which Paizo felt they needed to make official FAQs or errata- there are tons of topics where there has been official comments, but it was not deemed major enough to post in a larger collection. So there is always a risk of stepping on some land mine like this. I am just going to step back from this particular topic and watch as things explode and flames rage.
|
|
The Amulet doesn't augment Unarmed Strikes made with Gauntlets.The Gauntlet is labeled as an "Unarmed Attack" on the table.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.Bolding mine. Explain what I'm missing?The countless number of threads on that topic that basically boil down to Paizo deciding just to make them weapons with the monk property instead.
You are not going to be light on a reading list if you just put in gauntlets and unarmed strikes into the search bar of this rules forum.
Indeed.
They're just their own weapon. Monks don't get their unarmed damage with them, either.
Just going to chime in with the opposite point of view. Gauntlets state attacking with them is an unarmed strike.
Either way (weapon or unarmed strike enhancer), I see no reason you couldn't enchant them.
The Amulet doesn't augment Unarmed Strikes made with Gauntlets.The Gauntlet is labeled as an "Unarmed Attack" on the table.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.Bolding mine. Explain what I'm missing?
In UE, they changed them from "Unarmed Attack" table to light melee weapon table.
I will just leave This here. I should cover all the pro and con arguments pretty well.