Gauntlets say they work like unarmed strike.
Can a monk use gauntlets to flurry?
Will he use 1d3 or his monk damage?
If monk with Vow of Cleanliness flurries undead with gauntlets would he break the Vow?
A monk can only flurry with weapons with the monk property, which gauntlets don't have.
To my understanding, no. The gauntlet is its own separate kind of attack that deals a set amount of damage.
Gauntlet says "you can deal lethal damage with your unarmed strike", which to my understanding means that attacking with gauntlet is just making unarmed strike that deals lethal damage instead of non-lethal.
It's a metal glove that comes as part of Medium or Heavy Armour and weighs a pound per glove. "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack" does not equal a gauntlet is an unarmed strike. Brass knuckles have the same text but have the Monk property, a cestus is a very similar item but again has the Monk property. In Ultimate Equipment the Gauntlet is under Light Weapons rather than Unarmed Attacks
Not gauntlets again....
Why not the Brawler. The Gauntlet is the Close Weapon group so you could use Brawler's Flurry with Gauntlets.
I am GM, i just want consistency in the rules.
What about Cestus? It is monk weapon, but does it do 1d4 or
While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage.
what is that supposed to mean?
For your sanity, I'd suggest ignoring any mention of unarmed attacks in the descriptions of those weapons. Just let them only count as regular weapons.
For your sanity, I'd suggest ignoring any mention of unarmed attacks in the descriptions of those weapons. Just let them only count as regular weapons.
Yea, that is probably the easiest fix. Tho now wussy monk can apply unarmed strike damage to a weapon.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was to completely treat them as weapons, nothing more - a cestus or gauntlet being no different then a sword. Ignore the entire benefits sections of the cestus, and the benefits section except for the last sentence ("Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.") for the gauntlet.
If the Monk wants to apply the unarmed damage, he needs Ascetic Style.
Note that this is the easiest solution, not necessarily the best regarding balancing.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was to completely treat them as weapons, nothing more - a cestus or gauntlet being no different then a sword. Ignore the entire benefits sections of the cestus, and the benefits section except for the last sentence ("Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.") for the gauntlet.
If the Monk wants to apply the unarmed damage, he needs Ascetic Style.Note that this is the easiest solution, not necessarily the best regarding balancing.
I got you, i mistyped "can" instead of "can't" because i can't type, apparently.
I am GM, i just want consistency in the rules.
What about Cestus? It is monk weapon, but does it do 1d4 orWhile wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage.what is that supposed to mean?
Doesn't this just mean that while wearing a cestus, you can punch someone without provoking AoO, since a normal unarmed attack without Improve Unarmed Attack feat triggers AoO. But since you're considered armed, that's not the case anymore?
So for example we could wear a cestus and wield a sword, and we can either slash with the sword or backhand with the cestus without any AoO?
I am GM, i just want consistency in the rules.
What about Cestus? It is monk weapon, but does it do 1d4 orWhile wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage.what is that supposed to mean?Doesn't this just mean that while wearing a cestus, you can punch someone without provoking AoO, since a normal unarmed attack without Improve Unarmed Attack feat triggers AoO. But since you're considered armed, that's not the case anymore?
So for example we could wear a cestus and wield a sword, and we can either slash with the sword or backhand with the cestus without any AoO?
"considered armed" usually refers to whether you threaten your adjacent squares and if you generate an AoO for attacking a target. "Unarmed attacks deal normal damage" is kind of ambiguous. Considering a Cestus and "Unarmed Strike" have different records in the weapons tables and have different damage dice, I would argue that "Unarmed Strikes do their normal damage" means that performing an unarmed strike is modified to doing "lethal damage" which is considered "normal damage," but it can also mean that unarmed strikes do their "normal damage" which would be nonlethal.
Attacking with a Cestus (though it is not a "weapon") counts as being armed for attacking and being attacked.
The unarmed damage part is whatever you want to read it to be.
While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage.Doesn't this just mean that while wearing a cestus, you can punch someone without provoking AoO, since a normal unarmed attack without Improve Unarmed Attack feat triggers AoO. But since you're considered armed, that's not the case anymore?
The problem is that it's listed as a weapon. It's in the "weapons" section in UE, and shows up in the weapon table (which includes crit range and damage type that are unlike unarmed's). These things mean you can attack with it, and that it can be enchanted as normal for a weapon.
If it's really just "Improved Unarmed Strike in equipment form", it shouldn't be in the weapon section.
It's concievable to have it be a weapon with the secondary effect of making USs not provoke (and allow them to do piercing damage), but then you have the weird situation that you hit the enemy with only the cestus, but don't apply it's statistics or special material to the attack.