Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.
So, a masterwork gauntlet dose not gets the +1 enhancement to attack.
Except gauntlets aren't armor, they're weapons.
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.So, a masterwork gauntlet dose not gets the +1 enhancement to attack.
Except gauntlets aren't armor, they're weapons.
Yes, they are both.
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.So, a masterwork gauntlet dose not gets the +1 enhancement to attack.Except gauntlets aren't armor, they're weapons.Yes, they are both.
It is most simply resolved this way.
Did you spent 150 gp to make that Gauntlet masterwork? Then it doesn't get a +1 to attack.
Did you spend 300 gp to make that Gauntlet masterwork? Then it does get the +1 to attack.
Did you make that armor with a special property? Then the gauntlet is just a non-masterwork special property gauntlet.
Did you make that weapon with a special property? Then that gauntlet is that material and is masterwork if that material is always masterwork.
Simple.
It's really not very difficult and I can't honestly believe that there is anybody who truly believes that crafting masterwork armour and paying 150GP extra/using special materials grants them a masterwork weapon. Those that are following that line of argument are just trying to con their GM - and that really is a dick move.
Let's add more chaos.
Remember: only breastplates lack gauntlets out of medium armours. Buy a suit of chainmail or kikko, gauntlets. This also includes the best armour for the budget barbarian, or the druid who wants to tank ... HIDE.
So ... yeah. Hide gauntlets, by the rules, are a thing. And when you get punched with them, it's a gauntlet attack.
My personal opinion on the main question?
-If you just want masterwork punching gauntlets, that's the 300 if it's not special material.
-If you want your adamantine full plate to also punch as adamantine ... knock yourself out. Too much of a pain in the cuirass to track separately once you're springing for mithral or adamantine.
(Although this may be slightly self-correcting. Most medium armour users are aiming eventually at either mithral breastplate or mithral agile breastplate. No gauntlets for you!)
|
Of course, leather, steel, bronze, bone, wood, etc... don't have this assumption built in.
Regarding Primitive Materials, they price by weight, and the gauntlet (and locked gauntlet) only has weight when not part of a suit of armor. So it becomes even more ambiguous when dealing in primitive material Gauntlets (if they aren't assumed to be the same material as the armored suit).
|
|
And when you get punched with them, it's a gauntlet attack.
That is actually debatable. As described in both the Core and Ultimate Equipment, Gauntlet attacks are consider Unarmed Strikes. Though they are listed in the table of weapons (just like shields and unarmed strikes).
As described, Gauntlets do provoke attacks of opportunity for being unarmed strikes. Though, if you ignore the description and just look at the table, then they are weapons and not subject to AoO.
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.So, a masterwork gauntlet dose not gets the +1 enhancement to attack.Except gauntlets aren't armor, they're weapons.Yes, they are both.
No, they are not. They are weapons. They have nothing to do with the function of armor. Not all heavy armors even come with them. They are weapons, and always have been.
@Murdock: Check the description a little more closely. Gauntlets specifically say they count as Armed attacks, meaning they don't provoke an AoO. Only true Unarmed attacks provoke. That's why casters don't provoke for trying to deliver a melee touch spell they've cast. Combat section about Armed Unarmed Attacks is the relevant text.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
Gauntlet attacks are consider Unarmed
Gauntlets do provoke attacks of opportunity for being unarmedStrikesattacks.strikesattacks.
Fixed that for you.
Gauntlets are a lot like brass knuckles.
|
|
No, they are not. They are weapons. They have nothing to do with the function of armor. Not all heavy armors even come with them. They are weapons, and always have been.
@Murdock: Check the description a little more closely. Gauntlets specifically say they count as Armed attacks, meaning they don't provoke an AoO. Only true Unarmed attacks provoke. That's why casters don't provoke for trying to deliver a melee touch spell they've cast. Combat section about Armed Unarmed Attacks is the relevant text.
Please re-read.
Core Rulebook:
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.
Gauntlet, Locked: This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense to keep from being disarmed in combat. Removing a weapon from a locked gauntlet or attaching a weapon to a locked gauntlet is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
The price given is for a single locked gauntlet. The weight given applies only if you're wearing a breastplate, light armor, or no armor. Otherwise, the locked gauntlet replaces a gauntlet you already have as part of the armor.
While the gauntlet is locked, you can't use the hand wearing it for casting spells or employing skills. (You can still cast spells with somatic components, provided that your other hand is free.)
Like a normal gauntlet, a locked gauntlet lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike.
Seems pretty clear that these are considered Unarmed Strikes.
Perhaps you are thinking of "Spiked Gauntlets"
Gauntlet, Spiked: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.
Now here, these are specifically mentioned as armed attacks. This is also the Core rulebook, so for contrast if the normal gauntlet is supposed to be an armed attack, this is how they would word it.
Now, regarding "true" unarmed strikes and AoO.
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
The spiked gauntlet describes itself as armed, but the normal gauntlet does not. Just says it allows lethal damage with an unarmed strike.
And regarding lethal damage unarmed:
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
Pretty sure the intention of the basic gauntlet is to bypass the -4 penalty for dealing lethal damage with unarmed strikes.
Though you'd still provoke, unless you were a monk, a character with improved unarmed strike, or if the character you are attacking is also unarmed.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
Seems pretty clear that these are considered Unarmed Strikes.
Gauntlets are absolutely not Unarmed Strikes, that has been covered with developer after developer post.
Gauntlets can change your Unarmed Strike weapon to allow Lethal to be dealt when making an Unarmed Strike.
If you choose to attack with the Gauntlet, it is an unarmed attack, and deals damage as a Gauntlet listed.
|
|
Seems pretty clear that these are considered Unarmed Strikes.Gauntlets are absolutely not Unarmed Strikes, that has been covered with developer after developer post.
Gauntlets can change your Unarmed Strike weapon to allow Lethal to be dealt when making an Unarmed Strike.
If you choose to attack with the Gauntlet, it is an unarmed attack, and deals damage as a Gauntlet listed.
<Scratches head>
So you do think it allows unarmed strike to deal lethal damage, but the attack isn't an unarmed strike?Or are you suggesting that the description regarding lethal unarmed strikes is intended in addition to the list weapon profile? I'll admit, I hadn't considered this angle. Hmm...
<Scratches head>
So you do think it allows unarmed strike to deal lethal damage, but the attack isn't an unarmed strike?Or are you suggesting that the description regarding lethal unarmed strikes is intended in addition to the list weapon profile? I'll admit, I hadn't considered this angle. Hmm...
The distinction you're missing here is:
Unarmed STRIKEUnarmed ATTACK
I'm not actually sure what the difference is rules-wise (there may be none, this may have been an unintentional difference not picked up in editing).
As far as I recall, Unarmed strikes (and attacks?) provoke AoO's without some kind of training (feat/class feature etc), but I can't find where it says that so I could be miss-remembering that.
Unarmed Attacks don't threaten any squares.
If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
There are also probably a bunch of class features/feats/etc that specifically call out "Unarmed Strike" as opposed to "unarmed attacks".
For example: A Monk's Flurry of Blows calls out Unarmed Strike, but Stunning Fist calls out Unarmed Attack.
(A monk has very little reason to wear gauntlets since his/her Unarmed Strike does more damage and s/he starts with Improved Unarmed Strike, but still).
OS_Dirk, the only problem you have is that you think you are the one who gets to dictate the meaning of a rule and what the RAW interpretation should be. You are not.
In analogy, I can't get out of a speeding ticket by telling the officer "Sorry, but my interpretation is that the speed limit signs are in miles per hour and not kilometers per hour."
I'm not trying to set myself up as the absolute authority, and I do realize that not every interpretation that I make will be the absolute correct one.
However, I do expect that a direct quote from an authoritative source (IE: The Pathfinder Core Rulebook) carries more weight than an arbitrary statement to the effect that "I operate under a completely different set of rules/interpretation" without further elaboration or sourcing.
I genuinely want to understand your rationale here. As far as I can tell, your interpretation would lead to a pricing situation somewhere along these lines:
1,500 GP - Full Plate (Gauntlets Included)
15,000 GP - Upgrade from Steel to Adamantine (Heavy Armor)
150 GP - Masterwork Component (Armor)
2 GP - Additional Gauntlets
3,000 GP - Upgrade from Steel to Adamantine (Weapon)
300 GP - Masterwork Component (Weapon)
---------
19,952 GP - Adamantine Full Plate & Additional Adamantine Gauntlets
I'm having trouble, here, finding where the rationale is for this when the words in the Core Rulebook are rather specific. It's a straightforward logical progression:
A set of gauntlets are included as part of a suit of full plate. A set price upgrades the material in the armor from steel to adamantine. Prices for adamantine weapons and armor automatically include masterwork at no extra cost. Therefore the set price of adamantine already includes the price of masterwork.
In which case, the total price for adamantine full plate, with gauntlets (that are also masterwork) shouldn't be in excess of 16,500 GP.
I completely agree if wasn't explicitly stated (as with steel, bone, bronze, etc) that the price of masterworking would have to be paid separately for both armor and weapon.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
Or are you suggesting that the description regarding lethal unarmed strikes is intended in addition to the list weapon profile? I'll admit, I hadn't considered this angle. Hmm...
Exactly. The enhancement of your Unarmed Strike weapon is in addition to the use of the Gauntlet as it's own weapon, which is an unarmed attack.
It has been made abundantly clear over and over again that Gauntlets, Cestus, Brass Knuckles, etc are not Unarmed Strikes. If they were you'd use Monk's enhanced damage dice. That is the role filled by Amulet of Mighty Fists and they have no intention of diminishing that role.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm not trying to set myself up as the absolute authority, and I do realize that not every interpretation that I make will be the absolute correct one.
However, I do expect that a direct quote from an authoritative source (IE: The Pathfinder Core Rulebook) carries more weigh
In your example, the GM is the cop. He sets the rules. He chooses the interpretation. He can even decide to use alternate rules like Longsword deals 1d12 damage.
Your quote from the rulebook caries weight. The issue is we have different interpretations of the meaning.
To be fair, that is how they worked ORIGINALLY, and the text reflects that mode of thinking before the rule was changed (in the UE errata, as I recall?).
Your quote from the rulebook caries weight. The issue is we have different interpretations of the meaning.
In this case, established 'case law', AKA core is rather specific. - Where is there truly room for interpretation? And assuming that there is room for interpretation: What, exactly, is your basis for this interpretation?
I've explained (admittedly, probably over-explained) my interpretation of the available text, and fail to see how it can lead to any other conclusion.
How, specifically, is your conclusion derived? If there is no basis other than "I disagree", the conclusion is unsubstantiated and I cannot see how it carries weight.
Your RAW, not my RAW. Plus you don't have a rule saying that a masterwork armor conveys the masterwork property to the Gauntlets when used as a weapon instead of as armor.
Agreed. However, there is a rule that explicitly states that adamantine armor and adamantine (and mithril, and blood crystal, and other specified materials) weapons are automatically of masterwork quality by virtue of their construction.
The burden is on you, to show a rules quote that elevates something beyond the default.
I have met this burden. (Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment) Where is the corresponding citation of rules on the differing interpretation. - As far as I can tell, you have not yet met your own criteria.
Yow! This thread is still going on?
OS_Dirk, the only problem you have is that you think you are the one who gets to dictate the meaning of a rule and what the RAW interpretation should be. You are not.(...)
I genuinely want to understand your rationale here. As far as I can tell, your interpretation would lead to a pricing situation somewhere along these lines:1,500 GP - Full Plate (Gauntlets Included)
15,000 GP - Upgrade from Steel to Adamantine (Heavy Armor)
150 GP - Masterwork Component (Armor)
2 GP - Additional Gauntlets
3,000 GP - Upgrade from Steel to Adamantine (Weapon)
300 GP - Masterwork Component (Weapon)
---------
19,952 GP - Adamantine Full Plate & Additional Adamantine GauntletsI'm having trouble, here, finding where the rationale is for this when the words in the Core Rulebook are rather specific. It's a straightforward logical progression:
A set of gauntlets are included as part of a suit of full plate. A set price upgrades the material in the armor from steel to adamantine. Prices for adamantine weapons and armor automatically include masterwork at no extra cost. Therefore the set price of adamantine already includes the price of masterwork.
In which case, the total price for adamantine full plate, with gauntlets (that are also masterwork) shouldn't be in excess of 16,500 GP.
I completely agree if wasn't explicitly stated (as with...
OS_Dirk has the most plausible explanation. Adamantine "includes" the price of masterworking, and full plate (as many types of armor) "includes" gauntlets. In the absence of a RAW answer to this enigma, y'all have got to admit that a 16,500gp suit of masterworked full plate "includes" gauntlets that are also now made out of adamantine (and hence masterworked), for all intents and purposes.
It doesn't matter whether gauntlets are defined as weapons, as armor, or both.
Please could someone who supports the gauntlets can be masterwork weapons argument point out which types of armour, other than gauntlets on medium and heavy armour, can be used as weapons.
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. However, you can create masterwork armor spikes and shield spikes, which do confer their enhancement bonus on attack rolls to attacks made with the spikes.
The absence of any examples would strongly suggest that the designers were referring to the gauntlets included in a suit of armour when stating they can be used as weapons.
Personally, I would allow a spiked gauntlet to be double masterworked, which would be consistent with allowing shield and armour spikes to be masterwork weapons on masterwork shields and armour respectively, but that is not RAW as quoted above. I also do not see the harm in allowing double masterworked gauntlets, but there would be an additional cost (even if it is a special material) and again it is houserule territory.
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls.
Thank you, by the way, for finding something that supports the opposite side of the argument from within the rules text. I can finally see where James Risner might derive his position from. - And, more importantly, now that I am armed with this knowledge can make a decent effort at refuting that stance. :)
Please could someone who supports the gauntlets can be masterwork weapons argument point out which types of armour, other than gauntlets on medium and heavy armour, can be used as weapons.
Shield bash attack, of course, would be the most obvious choice but would appear to be prohibited per cited stricture.
The next one, that would be a workable example would still be with a shield but with the "throwing" special enhancement from Adventurer's Armorer. - It causes the shield to be considered as full-fledged throwing weapon, Captain America style.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon... Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
All magic armors and shields are automatically considered to be of masterwork quality.
To create a magic weapon, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the weapon or the pieces of the weapon to be assembled. Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon,...
Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well.
Adamantine is so costly that weapons and
armor made from it are always of masterwork quality
Allright, here is where I am going to switch from staunch defender of my position to devil's advocate.
An extremely strict re-read or the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment, there is not an absolute guarantee that included set of gauntlets will, in any way, actually match the suit of armor that you are purchasing.
Further, as gauntlets are in the 'weapon' category within the Core Rulebook, and are not listed in the 'armor' category, there is no conflict in status between weapon and armor. The presence of gauntlets is merely a gimmick.
In other words: Your local armorer is well within his rights to choose to supply the druid with steel gauntlets to accessorize her suit of dragon scale. - He is equally well within his rights to provide the lordly person who can afford a 16,500 GP price tag to accessorize the suit of adamantine full plate with a set of non-masterwork gauntlets made out of rat hide. (EDIT: In which case, the only way to guarantee functional gauntlets is to spend the extra cost, bringing the price tag to 19,952 GP)
1) Piecemeal armor rules are not part of core (unless your table has adopted piecemeal armor rules from Ultimate Combat) and therefore non-matching armor sets cannot work as armor. (EDIT: A strict interpretation, and likely needlessly so, but mentioned in response to the expected strict interpretation above)
2) There are ample examples (cited above) where the core states that a masterwork armor or shield can be made into a weapon "in its own right". Unfortunately, it is absolutely impossible to create a magic weapon without the weapon being masterwork. If the shield or armor cannot be considered to be a masterwork weapon, then it can never be crafted to be a magical weapon in the first place.
3) As it stands to reason that adamantine armor includes adamantine gauntlets (otherwise it would anger the lord who is misspending his tax revenues) and that dragon scale armor comes with dragon scale gauntlets (otherwise there would be a whole lot of druids needing to atone), gauntlets would fall into a 'grey area' as both armor and weapon at the same time, and therefore certain special materials would automatically be masterwork as both.
(EDIT, 4) The stricture against having a shield or armor being both enhanced as masterwork for an armor and being masterwork as an weapon states that "some" types of armor and weapons cannot be both, but fails to state both explicitly. There are more than enough examples in other sections that indicate a shield can be a weapon in its own right, or is considered to be a bludgeoning weapon for the purpose of an attack.
---
In the 'expanded' argument, I rely on a 'preponderance of the evidence' so to speak, as the majority of excerpts (after taking, quite honestly, a fine-tooth comb approach) lean in the direction of it being possible to make such things "in their own right", while the major argument against imples an unspecified list of "some types" where this may not be true.
So..., unfortunately, the jury is (probably) going to have be deadlocked on this one unless and until a specific FAQ is made on this one. (Not that this is, necessarily, important enough for a full-fledged FAQ)
Thanks again to Hugo Rune for providing me the fodder that I needed to see the other side of the argument and make an attempt at refuting it properly.
Also, thanks to James Risner for giving me a logical argument to puzzle through. I appreciate a worthy adversary on the other side of the debate table.
@OS_Dirk - your two examples, were both of shields. The rulebook text I cited was for armour and shields and I asked for armour examples, not shield examples.
To repeat my previous request, please provide an example of a piece of armour, i.e. not a shield, other than a gauntlet, that can be used as a weapon.
With your example of a shield, you are absolutely correct in so far as a shield can be a +1/+1 piece of magic armour and magic weapon. The magic weapon +1 part does not stack with the masterwork +1 to hit. A magical shield cannot also be a non-magical masterwork weapon. But an enchanted shield can also be made into a magical weapon, as you have referenced. As a houserule, I would have no issue extending that argument to gauntlets.
@OS_Dirk - your two examples, were both of shields. The rulebook text I cited was for armour and shields and I asked for armour examples, not shield examples.
As your primary citation against allowing a gauntlet to be masterwork as a weapon while simultaneously being masterwork as armory, mentions both armor and shields, all that is necessary to refute that position is to cite one or the other.
There are plenty of examples cited where a masterwork shield becomes, in its own right, a masterwork or magical weapon. - Therefore, armor goes along for the ride. They are grouped within the same category.
(EDIT)
If you want an extreme armor example, there is always the rule on dropping heavy objects onto people from above. Though, somehow, I think that is one where would all unanimously agree that there is no way in the Hells that a masterwork bonus should be applied to attack rolls from that. :)
@OS_Dirk - your two examples, were both of shields. The rulebook text I cited was for armour and shields and I asked for armour examples, not shield examples.As your primary citation against allowing a gauntlet to be masterwork as a weapon while simultaneously being masterwork as armory, mentions both armor and shields, all that is necessary to refute that position is to cite one or the other.
There are plenty of examples cited where a masterwork shield becomes, in its own right, a masterwork or magical weapon. - Therefore, armor goes along for the ride. They are grouped within the same category.
In other words, you have no examples to back up your position.
You are actually arguing that the word armour is superfluous; as by your definition there are no cases of armour being used as a weapon and it is only included as a category grouping. I suggest that isn't the case and it certainly isn't the RAW and so your argument of what the RAW states is terminally flawed - sorry.
@Hugo - You cite: "Even though some types of armor and shields". The terminal flaw, here, is the reference you are using to argue against the group.
You are arguing from a class that includes both armor and shields, therefore an example of one or the other is all that is required to refute your position. It your own argument that is terminally flawed, unless you can cite a specific example somewhere that delineates which (specifically) types of 'some types' of armor cannot also be enhanced as a masterwork weapon.
Yes. In this case, the word 'armor' in the cited quote is entirely superfluous.
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls.
Basically, you're acknowledging that a gauntlet is an example of an armor that is also a weapon, then citing a rule that cites armor and shields of being within the same class. Therefore a shield example would work equally well.
(EDIT)
Example: A doctor states that neither measles nor mumps exist as diseases with a specific region. As soon as someone proves that one of those diseases exists in that region, the doctor is proven wrong in his statement. - Works equally well here.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls.Thank you, by the way, for finding something that supports the opposite side of the argument from within the rules text. I can finally see where James Risner might derive his position from. - And, more importantly, now that I am armed with this knowledge can make a decent effort at refuting that stance. :)
Post 18 in this thread also copied that text.
You still can't say anything to counter it, as you don't have any rules text saying armor (even masterwork armor) conveys masterwork property to weapons that are part of the armor.
You still can't say anything to counter it, as you don't have any rules text saying armor (even masterwork armor) conveys masterwork property to weapons that are part of the armor
Agreed. That one comes along for the ride with the an absolute strict interpretation that the gauntlets don't even have necessarily have to be of the same material, be designed for a specific race, be functional enough to actually wear, be of anything resembling the appropriate size, etc.
I would still argue in favor of a market where people expect armor pieces to actually be made of the material in question, however... if you operate from a strict interpretation that causes the market to always error on the side of shysters as armorers... I have no absolute argument against this.
However, there are plenty of citations where shields become weapons and vice versa. - As the central argument against rests on a quote that groups both of these things into the same category, then both of these things are of the same category. If it works for a shield, it would work for an armor too.
That being said, if by virtue you have a pair of gauntlets that [I]are, in fact[/b] made out of mithral or adamantine (maybe your armorer has more integrity thena modern-day stereotypical used car salesman) then the quotes from CRB and UE do force them to absolutely be masterwork on both counts, because they are a component of the armor you are wearing (and therefore armor) and because they are also (per book) a weapon.
At this point, everywhere we turn there is a hole that creates more room for doubt, but doesn't absolutely put the matter to bed.
|
|
Or are you suggesting that the description regarding lethal unarmed strikes is intended in addition to the list weapon profile? I'll admit, I hadn't considered this angle. Hmm...Exactly. The enhancement of your Unarmed Strike weapon is in addition to the use of the Gauntlet as it's own weapon, which is an unarmed attack.
It has been made abundantly clear over and over again that Gauntlets, Cestus, Brass Knuckles, etc are not Unarmed Strikes. If they were you'd use Monk's enhanced damage dice. That is the role filled by Amulet of Mighty Fists and they have no intention of diminishing that role.
Interesting. That seems reasonable, though why it took me so long to see it, unclear. Must be one of those blind spots. I do think the rules are easier if they aren't weapons, but looks like you were right on this one.
Still, Full Plate definitely both includes and requires gauntlets. If the gauntlets aren't armor, and are weapons, then it definitely complicates things.
Okay, so gauntlets are weapons, but also both required for armor and sold with armor.
Back to crafting related issues.
So, first, if I want to craft mundane full plate, are the gauntlets a separate craft check?
I would argue no, since they come with full plate, so you can't create full plate without gauntlets.
Or are you suggesting that the description regarding lethal unarmed strikes is intended in addition to the list weapon profile? I'll admit, I hadn't considered this angle. Hmm...Exactly. The enhancement of your Unarmed Strike weapon is in addition to the use of the Gauntlet as it's own weapon, which is an unarmed attack.
It has been made abundantly clear over and over again that Gauntlets, Cestus, Brass Knuckles, etc are not Unarmed Strikes. If they were you'd use Monk's enhanced damage dice. That is the role filled by Amulet of Mighty Fists and they have no intention of diminishing that role.
Interesting. That seems reasonable, though why it took me so long to see it, unclear. Must be one of those blind spots. I do think the rules are easier if they aren't weapons, but looks like you were right on this one.
Still, Full Plate definitely both includes and requires gauntlets. If the gauntlets aren't armor, and are weapons, then it definitely complicates things.
Okay, so gauntlets are weapons, but also both required for armor and sold with armor.
Back to crafting related issues.
So, first, if I want to craft mundane full plate, are the gauntlets a separate craft check?
I would argue no, since they come with full plate, so you can't create full plate without gauntlets.
Part of me wishes a monk could use magic gauntlets with unarmed attack dice, but then you end up having to sort out how to deal with headbutts -- enchant a helmet? Amulet of Mighty Fists is probably designed that way to avoid such issues. (I hope.)
And I'd say crafting gauntlets that are part of a suit is part of that Craft (armour) check. Of course, now I wonder whether it's Craft (armour) or (weapon) to make a gauntlet for Clem the Cleric in his breastplate ...
Part of me wishes a monk could use magic gauntlets with unarmed attack dice, but then you end up having to sort out how to deal with headbutts -- enchant a helmet?
Same way you sort out how Boots of Speed speed up your whole body instead of just your feet.
It's magic.
Seems pretty clear that these are considered Unarmed Strikes.Gauntlets are absolutely not Unarmed Strikes, that has been covered with developer after developer post.
Gauntlets can change your Unarmed Strike weapon to allow Lethal to be dealt when making an Unarmed Strike.
If you choose to attack with the Gauntlet, it is an unarmed attack, and deals damage as a Gauntlet listed.
Many, many unofficial posts on these boards, and yet not one FAQ or errata to actually remove that line in....what...six re-printings of the Core rulebook.
Murdock, don't feel bad, it's easy to read that Gauntlet attacks are Unarmed Strikes because, well, that's what that sentence says.
"This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes" requires that you A) be attacking with the Gauntlet AND B) be attacking with an Unarmed Strike to make sense.
The same way "A rain coat keeps you from getting wet in the rain" requires that A) you are wearing the rain coat and B) you are standing in the rain is required to actually make sense.
The insistence that isn't what they meant, and yet refusal to change it given multiple opportunities is baffling.
And why should Monks not be able to have an enchantable weapon they can use their unarmed damage with? Are Monks so over powered? They have to rely on overpriced (amulet) or overly limited (body wrap) items to give them bonuses to keep them in line?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
If the gauntlets aren't armor, and are weapons, then it definitely complicates things.
Okay, so gauntlets are weapons, but also both required for armor and sold with armor.
Back to crafting related issues.
So, first, if I want to craft mundane full plate, are the gauntlets a separate craft check?
I would argue no, since they come with full plate, so you can't create full plate without gauntlets
Gauntlets are weapons, but when making full plate you need removeable gauntlets included. If you make your armor masterwork (by +150 GP or Adamantine) then your gauntlets are masterwork armor parts, but non-masterwork weapon. Because you paid the armor masterwork cost.
If you also pay the weapon special material cost, then the gauntlets would be masterwork. You just don't get it for free as has been suggested.