The idea that Gauntlets cannot be Enchanted is just plain untrue. Gauntlets are on the Weapon list, and you can purchase Masterwork Gauntlets, therefore they qualify to become Magical Weapons. As evidence there are numerous items explicitly defined as +1 Gauntlets.
The fact that you make Unarmed Strikes with a gauntlet is irrelevant to their ability to be enchanted. Unarmed Strikes could also be enchanted if you could somehow acquire a Masterwork Unarmed Strike.
Personally, the only purpose I can see for the existence of Gauntlets is to have a method for that Monks and Brawlers to acquire Enhancement Bonuses to their Unarmed Strikes. So I allow them to be used as such in my campaigns, and I would continue to allow them to be used as such even if a FAQ did later prohibit it.
However, as it currently stands my opinion is that the RAW supports that you receive your Monk/Brawler damage progression with Gauntlets because you make Unarmed Strikes with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unarmed Strikes could also be enchanted if you could somehow acquire a Masterwork Unarmed Strike.
By strict RAW, a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon and is a valid target for Masterwork Transformation.
Not that I would recommend trying it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. Risner's review of his admirable record for prediction of the eventual rulings, overlaid with my regular (if mostly silent) disagreement with his opinions, have created to my eye a moire, a vision, perhaps fever dream, perhaps fingerprint.
Bet on whatever ruling claws back whatever ability you thought you had, or thought you could get. Because they can't sell you a book full of things you can't do, only things you 'can now' do. Which might be pretty similar to what you used-to-could-do, before it was clawed back.
More charitably, maybe it's the review of bad(OP?) rules that inspires and informs new(?P, but $) rules, and that review, quite apart from that inspiration, occasions claw-back rulings. Maybe.
But that doesn't change how it feels to see the runway model with the new-design leather purse, and wonder if we're imagining that faint scar in the leather, from an old beloved mount.
Not clear enough? (I do that, sometimes)
Every time any new splat cribs a power that was clawed back from an old splat, a thousand ghostly cranes raise one wing.
But, like Hamlet's dad, that should only bother the guilty.
Unarmed Strikes could also be enchanted if you could somehow acquire a Masterwork Unarmed Strike.By strict RAW, a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon and is a valid target for Masterwork Transformation.
Not that I would recommend trying it.
Nonsense! It is perfectly logical to be an adamantine masterwork human!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that Gauntlets cannot be Enchanted is just plain untrue.
Shielded Gauntlet Master strongly suggests that they can be as well ("In addition, you add your gauntlet’s enhancement bonus to the shield bonus"), which I think is the genesis of the FAQ we've been waiting for since last summer.
|
Unarmed Strikes could also be enchanted if you could somehow acquire a Masterwork Unarmed Strike.By strict RAW, a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon and is a valid target for Masterwork Transformation.
Not that I would recommend trying it.
That's because it doesn't do anything.
If the target object has no masterwork equivalent, the spell has no effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unarmed Strikes could also be enchanted if you could somehow acquire a Masterwork Unarmed Strike.By strict RAW, a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon and is a valid target for Masterwork Transformation.
Not that I would recommend trying it.
That's because it doesn't do anything.
If the target object has no masterwork equivalent, the spell has no effect.
There is no guidance on what does and does not have a masterwork equivalent.
Improvised weapons, for example.
Your "example" is poor as that isn't something that can have a masterwork weapon equivalent.
So, your position is that certain weapons appearing on the martial weapon table cannot be masterwork?
Because the martial weapons table does include weapons with the improvised property. and there are published improvised weapons with enhancement bonuses.
Where then do you draw the line, and do you have RAW backing your postion?
My position is, if improvised weapons can appear on the weapons tables and/or qualify for enhancement bonuses in published works, they can be made masterwork the same as any other weapon, baring specific RAW to the contrary.
There's a reason why this feat isn't PFS legal. It's a mess and needs rewritten. Specifically, the second sentence is ambiguous. It's written to say you can wield a glaive with one hand (which would be unusually powerful for a feat with low prerequisites), but the feat's intent seems to be simply letting a swashbuckler use glaives for their class features.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Personally, the only purpose I can see for the existence of Gauntlets is to have a method for that Monks and Brawlers to acquire Enhancement Bonuses to their Unarmed Strikes.
That is the one thing about Gauntlets, Cestus, Brass Knuckles, and other similar items we explicitly know is false. We've been told time and time again that monks get monk unarmed with Unarmed Strike only and never Gauntlet's, etc.
Personally, the only purpose I can see for the existence of Gauntlets is to have a method for that Monks and Brawlers to acquire Enhancement Bonuses to their Unarmed Strikes.That is the one thing about Gauntlets, Cestus, Brass Knuckles, and other similar items we explicitly know is false. We've been told time and time again that monks get monk unarmed with Unarmed Strike only and never Gauntlet's, etc.
Do we actually have RAW or a FAQ explicitly stating that a Monk/Brawler's Unarmed Damage Progression doesn't apply to Unarmed Strikes made with a Gauntlet (or similar weapons that explicitly define the character as making unarmed strikes with)? If there is one I am unable to find it, and if there isn't one, than we do not in fact "explicitly know [it] is false".
|
|
Unarmed Strikes could also be enchanted if you could somehow acquire a Masterwork Unarmed Strike.By strict RAW, a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon and is a valid target for Masterwork Transformation.
Not that I would recommend trying it.
That's because it doesn't do anything.
If the target object has no masterwork equivalent, the spell has no effect.There is no guidance on what does and does not have a masterwork equivalent.
Improvised weapons, for example.
Improvised weapons are not the topic I was discussing. There is no such thing as a masterwork unarmed strike, thus nothing happens if you cast masterwork transformation on a monk's unarmed strike.
Do we actually have RAW or a FAQ explicitly stating that a Monk/Brawler's Unarmed Damage Progression doesn't apply to Unarmed Strikes made with a Gauntlet (or similar weapons that explicitly define the character as making unarmed strikes with)? If there is one I am unable to find it, and if there isn't one, than we do not in fact "explicitly know [it] is false".Personally, the only purpose I can see for the existence of Gauntlets is to have a method for that Monks and Brawlers to acquire Enhancement Bonuses to their Unarmed Strikes.That is the one thing about Gauntlets, Cestus, Brass Knuckles, and other similar items we explicitly know is false. We've been told time and time again that monks get monk unarmed with Unarmed Strike only and never Gauntlet's, etc.
We have multiple developers on record saying it doesn't pre-PDT account.
And that they have their own weapon damage die, and nothing in them says to use your Unarmed strike damage (anymore)
So the clearest sign of it's official is them removing the line that said it did from them as they errata'd the core book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reason why this feat isn't PFS legal.
Because PFS tends to kneejerk ban sometimes? Especially for weird/interesting/nonstandard options?
It's written to say you can wield a glaive with one hand
The feat doesn't actually say that though.
Maybe this is why we get so many FAQs that just restate already printed rules.
If we want to get really nit-picky, the reason that Masterwork Transformation doesn't work on Unarmed Strikes isn't that they don't have a Masterwork Weapon permutation.
Any "Weapon" (usually interpreted to mean "Manufactured Weapon" in this case) can have a Masterwork permutation in theory, and Monks do treat their Unarmed Strikes as Manufactured Weapons. The rules for Masterwork Weapons themselves are fairly sparse, and the only rule they contain truly excluding Unarmed Strikes is the clause stating you cannot make a weapon (such as an unarmed strike) Masterwork after it is created (I.E, after you are born). So until we see a Craft (Alchemy) DC for "Human" that exception is pretty ironclad.
The real nit-picky RAW reason you cannot use Masterwork Transformation on your Unarmed Strike is because it isn't an Item (it's a Creature), and the first line of the spell reads: "You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent."
We have multiple developers on record saying it doesn't pre-PDT account.
So we know what several developer's opinions on the subject are, that is nice, but irrelevant to my previous question.
In both the most recent printings of the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment attacks with Gauntlets are explicitly defined as being unarmed strikes, and being considered an unarmed attack (CRB 146, UE 28).Until such time as an Errata or FAQ says otherwise, the RAW supports my argument.
We have multiple developers on record saying it doesn't pre-PDT account.So we know what several developer's opinions on the subject are, that is nice, but irrelevant to my previous question.
In both the most recent printings of the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment attacks with Gauntlets are explicitly defined as being unarmed strikes, and being considered an unarmed attack (CRB 146, UE 28).
Until such time as an Errata or FAQ says otherwise, the RAW supports my argument.
RAW might but RAW ceases to matter when you have clear intent spelled out. When the people who make the rulings clearly say(and keep in mind a lot of this was before an official rules account) the same thing on a rule that's the intent of the rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW might but RAW ceases to matter when you have clear intent spelled out. When the people who make the rulings clearly say(and keep in mind a lot of this was before an official rules account) the same thing on a rule that's the intent of the rule.We have multiple developers on record saying it doesn't pre-PDT account.So we know what several developer's opinions on the subject are, that is nice, but irrelevant to my previous question.
In both the most recent printings of the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment attacks with Gauntlets are explicitly defined as being unarmed strikes, and being considered an unarmed attack (CRB 146, UE 28).
Until such time as an Errata or FAQ says otherwise, the RAW supports my argument.
And them officially taking out the wording that allowed it via errata they've done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improvised weapons are not the topic I was discussing. There is no such thing as a masterwork unarmed strike, thus nothing happens if you cast masterwork transformation on a monk's unarmed strike.Unarmed Strikes could also be enchanted if you could somehow acquire a Masterwork Unarmed Strike.By strict RAW, a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon and is a valid target for Masterwork Transformation.
Not that I would recommend trying it.
That's because it doesn't do anything.
If the target object has no masterwork equivalent, the spell has no effect.There is no guidance on what does and does not have a masterwork equivalent.
Improvised weapons, for example.
Clockwork Prosthesis: "a clockwork arm allows its bearer to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike and provides a +10 bonus to its bearer’s CMD against attempts to disarm a weapon held in that hand. For the appropriate price, a clockwork arm can be enchanted with any weapon special ability so long as the ability can be applied to unarmed attacks."
Since something has to be master-crafted to be enchanted, they seem to the the closest thing we have to mastercrafted unarmed strikes.
And them officially taking out the wording that allowed it via errata they've done.
Which errata is that? You've mentioned it twice now and I'm seriously curious. It certainly wasn't the 6th printing of the Core Rulebook, or the 2nd printing of Ultimate Equipment, nor the current PRD entries for either of those books (Yes I'm aware that UE's PRD entry is outdated, I checked the PDF errata to be sure).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In both the most recent printings of the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment attacks with Gauntlets are explicitly defined as being unarmed strikes, and being considered an unarmed attack (CRB 146, UE 28).
Until such time as an Errata or FAQ says otherwise, the RAW supports my argument.
Unarmed Strike != Unarmed Attack
If you are trying to say that an "Unarmed Strike" is not an "Unarmed Attack". Chapter 8 of the Core Rulebook (page 182) disagrees with you there James. Unarmed Strike Damage is described under the rules for Unarmed Attacks. All Unarmed Strikes are Unarmed Attacks, unless noted otherwise by a more specific rule.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless, If you are a 3rd level Brawler or Unchained Monk attacking an enemy with a +1 Gauntlet: You are making an Unarmed Strike with said Gauntlet, so you receive the +1 Enhancement Bonus to Attack and Damage rolls. In addition, because you are making an Unarmed Strike you may use the favorable damage progression table granted by your Unarmed Strike class feature (dealing 1d6+1 points of damage, plus Strength Modifier, etc).
Except when it is, such as is the case with the Gauntlet, which specifically states that you make Unarmed Strikes with it, and that it is considered an Unarmed Attack (because otherwise it would simply be considered an attack with a manufactured weapon like a Spiked Gauntlet or Longsword).
Perhaps one day the PDT will release an Errata or FAQ that actually supports your opinion. But until then I will continue to maintain that I am correct in this instance.
Anyway, we had this argument almost year ago too, and we were unable to convince the other they were incorrect then either. So I guess we will just have to continue to agree to disagree.
I've read it and reread it...
"This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes."
Means that you are making an unarmed strike. Ergo, Brawler/Monk Damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unarmed Strikes are unarmed attacks but not all unarmed attacks are unarmed strikes.
I actually agree with you on the RAW, but honestly all the stuff about unarmed attacks being different than unarmed strikes and gauntlets vs fists vs brass knuckles vs etc. seems like another pretty good example of the 'read the rules conversationally, not legalistically' doctrine getting tossed out the window, at least to me.
That simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
It modifies any attacks with unarmed strike to be lethal.
But if you attack with the gauntlet you deal 1d3 gauntlet damage always.
I have read the text over and over again, and it simply doesn't support your opinion. You are reading prohibitions into the text which are not there, and trying to argue that the rules do not mean what they literally say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reading literally 20 or maybe as many as a hundred dev posts confirming.
If you're reading 20-100 dev posts on one subject, IMO, that seems like something that people KEEP misunderstanding, that the subject has been unsatisfactorily covered/conveyed and that should have an actual official FAQ/errata/blog post...
I'm reading provisions that are there.
I'm reading literally 20 or maybe as many as a hundred dev posts confirming.
I'm reading the intent of the rules to not conflate these different terms.
In other words, you are reading the unsubstantiated, unofficial opinions of others, and then parroting them back as though these opinions were credible evidence in and of themselves.
If the Devs did not intend for the rules to mean what they currently say, than they need to release an errata which clarifies the subject. That is literally one of the purposes of an errata. Barring that, they need to release a FAQ supporting their opinions. Obscure half-decade (or older) forum posts by those who may or may not actually know what they are talking about are not credible evidence.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
KEEP misunderstanding
I see it more like:
- If the rule boosts your character, then people push strongly to get a published FAQ.
- If the rule reduces power, then people can say "it's not official until FAQ".
Misunderstood things get on the radar based on FAQ clicks. People don't FAQ click gauntlets like they do the other things, so it's unanswered.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If the Devs did not intend for the rules to mean what they currently say
You are misreading it. It doesn't say, suggest, or hint at what you say. Short of adding a unnecessary line in there saying "this doesn't grant Monk unarmed strike" there isn't any more clear way to write the rules.
Plus we have less than a year old forum posts by one of the three dev members involved in crafting the reply to herolab to instruct them how to implement the gauntlet rules in their rules app isn't decade old forum posts. You just don't like the implications of their answer.
I wonder how many versions of "How the F**k do Gauntlets Work!?" need to get 1-2 FAQ clicks before the PDT will actually consider the question "frequently asked".
IIRC they've said before that number of FAQ clicks isn't the only determiner for whether or not they answer a question.
I'm pretty sure they cherry pick some posts not based on how many clicks that specific post has gotten, but based on how easy it is to parse out the bit they are willing to answer from the post others like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure they cherry pick some posts not based on how many clicks that specific post has gotten, but based on how easy it is to parse out the bit they are willing to answer from the post others like it.
We've gotten a pretty large number of FAQs recently that basically just restate something already printed in the book, so that argument may not be without merit.
In any event, if you think you can rally 40 to 60 FAQ clicks for gauntlet, I'll create a FAQ to get the clicks. It may accelerate the FAQ for them. But considering how strongly you desire this to be monk unarmed strike, I have a feeling you won't like the resulting FAQ.
I might not. You cannot win every battle, even if your cause is just. Sometimes they are going to release FAQs and Errata I don't like, and I can accept that.
If I am GMing I'm free to make house rules. I said above, I would do so if the FAQ/Errata prohibited Monk/Brawlers from using Gauntlets effectively.If I am playing in a campaign where the GM follows said FAQ, or simply doesn't rule in my favor (as I'm certain you would not James)... I simply wouldn't play a Monk/Brawler that planned to use magic gauntlets in that campaign. There are plenty of other classes/combinations I haven't tried that I can play instead, it isn't the end of the world to lose access to one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if you are wearing gauntlets, you have two options:
1 - Attack with your unarmed strike, in which case you deal normal you unarmed strike damage, but it can be lethal.
2 - Or attack with the gauntlet as a weapon, but the weapon base damage is 1d3.
Am I understanding that correctly, James? If so, then what would be the point? If you can do more than 1d3 damage with unarmed strikes, then you are already doing lethal damage (as the only ways to increase the base damage are the improved unarmed strike feat, or increasing your size). If you don't have that level of training, then you might as well attack with the gauntlet as a weapon (which would do the same damage even if you increased size).
No, there's gotta be more to it than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
KEEP misunderstandingI see it more like:
- If the rule boosts your character, then people push strongly to get a published FAQ.
- If the rule reduces power, then people can say "it's not official until FAQ".
Misunderstood things get on the radar based on FAQ clicks. People don't FAQ click gauntlets like they do the other things, so it's unanswered.
Not really.
There are many things that people demand FAQs for that don't get an answer. Some of them are very trivial and fairly obvious. Some of them have multiple interpretations based on the wording (such as wielding a weapon in one hand V.S. using a weapon as a one-handed weapon). Others still would require an entire overhaul or a case-by-case basis (such as "wielding" and the Overrun rules). Even more still are things that are clearly disputed and have tens (or even hundreds) of FAQ hits, and don't get an answer, mostly because Paizo would rather leave such answers up to the GM instead of making a blanket ruling.
Hell; in this case, maybe people didn't bother to FAQ Gauntlets because they waited on Jason to actually get together with the PDT for over a year and got nothing out of it except maybe Jason reinforcing yet another unwritten rule that we, as players, have no idea about until one of the other developers (possibly Mark, since SKR isn't with us) chimes in and says "Well, we have it function as X because Y," and then we're informed with yet another unwritten rule that should be written (even though, for no sensible reason, it's not).
The fact of the matter is that the FAQ hits being a factor in determining whether a question gets answered are about as arbitrary as determining what question gets answered. There's also the matter of whether the question in question (question-ception?) even has a straight-forward answer, or if there will be complications that require deliberation (or if they can even be deliberated at all). This is something that the FAQ Request Sticky Post even elaborates on, meaning that them not answering hot-topic issues like the failure that is the Overrun rules, the Gauntlet Enhancement issues, or even the age-old "Dead Condition doesn't mean I can't act," argument, is typical to the PDT's M.O.
So if you are wearing gauntlets, you have two options:
1 - Attack with your unarmed strike, in which case you deal normal you armed strike damage, but it can be lethal.
2 - Or attack with the gauntlet as a weapon, but the weapon base damage is 1d3.
Am I understanding that correctly, James?
According to his interpretation, yes. That is correct.
(Assuming you meant "unarmed strike damage", in the second part of Point #1 and not "armed strike damage".)
So if you are wearing gauntlets, you have two options:
1 - Attack with your unarmed strike, in which case you deal normal you armed strike damage, but it can be lethal.
2 - Or attack with the gauntlet as a weapon, but the weapon base damage is 1d3.
Am I understanding that correctly, James?
Nope, he'd rule it as you attack as an unarmed strike and deal 1D3 Lethal Damage instead of your standard unarmed Non-lethal Damage.
In other words, the Gauntlet is an override to unarmed strikes made with your hand.
So... Why did this thread about Bladed Brush get sidelined into yet another gauntlet argument?
Stop it.
That would be almost entirely my fault!
I apologize, I frequently digress...
Now back to our regularly scheduled chaos?