On Monks and Gauntlets

[Kaelik]

So why not do the easy thing and just rule in favor of game balance? One interpretation nerfs a weak class and the other interpretation buffs that class. Since I don't think anyone here thinks the monk deserves a nerf, this seems like a no-brainer to me.

Because neither ruling is in favor of game balance. Any ruling which pretends for even a second that Monk with DR and enhancements would actually be viable is ruining game balance just by that pretension.

More fundamentally, no one is talking about what you should do in a game. What you should do in a game is rewrite the Monk class or give them a super powerful artifact that effectively rewrites them. We are talking about what the rules actually do. When you are talking about what the rules actually do you don't make up new ones for "balance."

[deaddmwalking]

In a related issue, apparently arrows don't do any damage. The Composite Shortbow does 1d6, but nothing in the description indicates that you need to fire an arrow.

[Kaelik]

In a related issue, apparently arrows don't do any damage. The Composite Shortbow does 1d6, but nothing in the description indicates that you need to fire an arrow.

"Ammunition
Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), or sling bullets (for slings). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading. Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while normal ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost."

[deaddmwalking]

But when I read the desciption of 'Composite Shortbow', there was nothing in the weapon description that directed me to read up on ammunition. And ammunition doesn't do damage anyway (it has a dash on the table). Who's to say that there's a call function to another weapon description?

And obviously I understand and agree that arrows do damage based on the bow that fires it; this requires reviewing multiple sections of the rules and pulling information that is not directly referenced in other places.

But here's an analogy that I think you will accept...

The shortbow is listed as doing '1d6 damage'. The shortbow assumes you are using the 'default arrow'. There are ALTERNATE sources of ammunition that have a different damage value than the default. By insisting 'table trumps text', you would necessarily be claiming that a non-standard arrow does 1d6 damage; the shortbow does 1d6 damage when it fires any ammunition, rather than the 'default' ammunition.

[Username17]

Ddmw, shut up. Just: shut up. Everything you've said for the past several posts has been garbled bullshit. Go home, you are drunk.

-Username17

[radthemad4]

Magical arrows work sort of like sneak attack (in that they have an extra effect that has nothing to do with the size of the base weapon) based on a quick look at the pfsrd (don't have my 3.5 stuff with me at the moment).

[Kaelik]

But here's an analogy that I think you will accept...

The shortbow is listed as doing '1d6 damage'. The shortbow assumes you are using the 'default arrow'. There are ALTERNATE sources of ammunition that have a different damage value than the default. By insisting 'table trumps text', you would necessarily be claiming that a non-standard arrow does 1d6 damage; the shortbow does 1d6 damage when it fires any ammunition, rather than the 'default' ammunition.

You are an idiot. No one has ever claimed that the table trumps the text. We have repeatedly pointed out that the table exists and gives a damage number, and that the text does not give a damage number. Over and over. And over. And over.

[JigokuBosatsu]

While I think it is ridiculous that anyone would think that a gauntlet is a weapon to be used outside of covering your fist therefore to punch, I did recall this little number....

[deaddmwalking]

From the beginning.

The table lists a damage for Unarmed Strike (1d3). The table also lists a damage for Gauntlet (1d3). The numbers are the same. There are two possible reasons for this.

1) The values are completely unrelated any more than the damage value of a spear or a morningstar are related. The fact that they're the same is a consequence of other factors, easily summed up as 'coincidence'.

2) The values are the same because the value for the Gauntlet damage is derived from the Unarmed Strike Damage.

If you subscribe to the second interpretation (as I do), there needs to be a basis in the rules for doing so (which there is). I think it's important to stress that the Unarmed Strike damage does not include any information in the Weapons Chapter about how that value might vary (depending on feats). In fact, the Weapon Description of Unarmed Strike confirms the damage value listed on the table (1d3 for Medium creatures). If there were various damage values listed (or notes that a monk specifically might have a different value), you might expect them to be copy/pasta into the Gauntlet description. Since there IS NO DISCUSSION of variable damage for Unarmed Strike, you wouldn't expect it to be included in the Gauntlet description.

So, what does the Gauntlet say?

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.

To my way of thinking, this is a call function indicating that the gauntlet modifies your existing Unarmed Strikes. Under standard rules, your unarmed strike does non-lethal damage only, and the damage is 1d3.

If you have an Unarmed Strike that does a different value than 1d3 (because you are not 'standard'), it would follow that the gauntlet would return that alternate value.

Under interpretation number 2, the values are linked by the descriptive text. As has been pointed out, this is also confirmed by the FAQ.

[...You Lost Me]

No one is arguing that gauntlets don't make your unarmed strikes deal lethal damage. We are arguing that gauntlet-specific enhancement bonuses are not applied to your unarmed strike damage. If you want the enhancement bonus, you need to use gauntlets as an attack (dealing 1d3 damage) and if you want your improved unarmed damage you need to use the gauntlets as a modifier (not gaining the enhancement bonuses).

[deaddmwalking]

Second edit, since I pulled open the 3.0 FAQ instead.

This is what the 3.5 FAQ says about monks and gauntlets:

"Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack,
gaining all of her class benefits as well as the +5 bonus on
attack rolls and damage rolls from the gauntlet?
Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon
not listed as a special monk weapon, she does not gain her
better attack rate. She would, however, gain the increased
damage for unarmed attacks."

It seems to me that they meant for you to use your superior unarmed damage when using gauntlets if I'm reading that correctly.

[Kaelik]

The table lists a damage for Unarmed Strike (1d3). The table also lists a damage for Gauntlet (1d3). The numbers are the same. There are two possible reasons for this.

1) The values are completely unrelated any more than the damage value of a spear or a morningstar are related. The fact that they're the same is a consequence of other factors, easily summed up as 'coincidence'.

2) The values are the same because the value for the Gauntlet damage is derived from the Unarmed Strike Damage.

False dichotomy much? The numbers could be the same based on relation without being derived. See, it could be that they decided that gauntlets need to do less damage than daggers, and that unarmed strikes need to equal to or less than gauntlets, but they didn't want small creatures to not be rolling dice, so they had to keep it the same.

Your belief that you are the one true telepath with the ability to discern the whys that two numbers are the same, and that for that reason you can tell that they meant something different than what they wrote... is full of shit.

EDIT: Hey Deaddm, do you know how FAQs are written? Here, let me explain the process.

Step 1: Jim writes rules.
Step 2: John writes other rules.
Step 3: Someone decides they don't get how Jim and John's rules interact.
Step 4: That someone writes in a question to WotC.
Step 5: William then reads the question and writes down an answer without talking to Jim or John.

Like, first off, what Jim and John meant is irrelevant, because it isn't what they said. Second off, Jim and John probably never thought about this case, and they might now have different opinions. Third off, William doesn't know what either of them thought.

Your attempt to derive what Jim and John meant by relying on William's FAQ answer is fucking absurd.

[nockermensch]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Kaelik and Arioch, take the non-monk related shit to PM.

And comparing anyone to Zak S is forbidden.
[/TGFBS]

14/07/2014 - the day we discover a non-racist, non-sexist insult that's too extreme for the Den.

[Krusk]

I love that this debate is not happening in 2003 when it would be less embarrassing.

Kaelik is obviously right by virtue of literacy.

[nockermensch]

I love that this debate is not happening in 2003 when it would be less embarrassing.

Kaelik is obviously right by virtue of literacy.

He's right for a completely useless value of right, in that the words the designers actually put on paper can be construed to support his view. But since deaddmwalking and Prak already posted FAQs / Sage rules clarification showing that the designers' actual intent was that the gauntlet base damage is whatever you deal with your unarmed attacks, the discussion is moot.

[Krusk]

Since when does designer intent matter? THe words say what they say. They can't be construed to mean anything but dealing 1d3 damage.

[deaddmwalking]

The table lists a damage for Unarmed Strike (1d3). The table also lists a damage for Gauntlet (1d3). The numbers are the same. There are two possible reasons for this.

1) The values are completely unrelated any more than the damage value of a spear or a morningstar are related. The fact that they're the same is a consequence of other factors, easily summed up as 'coincidence'.

2) The values are the same because the value for the Gauntlet damage is derived from the Unarmed Strike Damage.

False dichotomy much? The numbers could be the same based on relation without being derived. See, it could be that they decided that gauntlets need to do less damage than daggers, and that unarmed strikes need to equal to or less than gauntlets, but they didn't want small creatures to not be rolling dice, so they had to keep it the same.

This is true. There are reasons that the two could have the same damage listed due to being similar. I was going to dive right into the 'other factors' I mentioned, but decided it wasn't particularly relevant. Ultimately, in the first case, their is no direct relationship, and any similarity is due to 'other factors'. But thank you for expanding the point I already made.

Your belief that you are the one true telepath with the ability to discern the whys that two numbers are the same, and that for that reason you can tell that they meant something different than what they wrote... is full of shit.

Pot...Kettle.

I've arrived at my conclusion by referring to the text. A gauntlet modifies your Unarmed Strikes. You don't think the text means that. I do. I'm not alone in my thinking, and no telepathy is required. I am reading and interpreting the text.

Now, I didn't post the FAQ in defense of my rules analysis. If anything, FAQs are wrong as often as they're right (or right for the wrong reasons) so if anything, it likely undermines my point. The reason I posted it was because someone (sorry - posting from my phone, otherwise I would refer to the specific poster by name) mentioned this whole discussion was about whether a monk gets Special Weapon Properties to their Unarmed Strikes while wearing gauntlets. Since that was already addressed, I referenced that discussion.

EDIT: Hey Deaddm, do you know how FAQs are written? Here, let me explain the process.

Step 1: Jim writes rules.
Step 2: John writes other rules.
Step 3: Someone decides they don't get how Jim and John's rules interact.
Step 4: That someone writes in a question to WotC.
Step 5: William then reads the question and writes down an answer without talking to Jim or John.

Like, first off, what Jim and John meant is irrelevant, because it isn't what they said. Second off, Jim and John probably never thought about this case, and they might now have different opinions. Third off, William doesn't know what either of them thought.

Your attempt to derive what Jim and John meant by relying on William's FAQ answer is fucking absurd.

I know how FAQs are written. Even if the voice of God spoke to you and said 'Deaddmwalking is right about the designer intent', I have every confidence that you would continue to insist it wasn't what they wrote .

That is where I disagree with you. I understand the description of the gauntlet to be a modification of your existing Unarmed Strike (including adjustments for damage). Honestly, I don't imagine that the designers conceived of monks wearing gauntlets (largely because they can already deal lethal damage with their Unarmed Strikes). The 'corner case' I see is someone with Improved Natural Attack. Not that I have a problem with monks wearing gauntlets - but neither do I see it as a 'buff' to address systemic weaknesses built into the monk class.

I just see it as the interpretation of the rules that most people who understand plain English would arrive at. Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't see it my way and doubly so that you cannot see why I understand the text the way I do. Before I read the description of the gauntlet, I had half - written a reply agreeing with your interpretation. I see why you believe you're right. I believe you're wrong. Since I'm familiar with your 'evidence', outside of new information I don't expect anyone to be convinced to change their view. I refuse to be dragged into a shouting match on the subject - I've posted what I think is reasonable support for my conclusion and even if you disagree you should be willing to grant that a non - idiot could come to the same conclusion.

That is to say, I don't mind you calling me an idiot, I just think using this specific instance reflects very poorly on you.

[TOZ]

WHY THE FUCK DO WE CARE ABOUT THIS?

[sarcasmoverdose]

WHY THE FUCK DO WE CARE ABOUT THIS?

You're asking why there's a pointless argument in the den?

[TOZ]

No, I'm asking why the fuck we're arguing about monks and gauntlets again.

[fbmf]

Someone asked. There was disagreement in the answer.

Game On,
fbmf

[Kaelik]

Pot...Kettle.

For the love of god, does no one know what that phrase means? I am accusing you believing the intent matters. That may be true, it may be false. I base it on the fact that you have said multiple things like

The table lists a damage for Unarmed Strike (1d3). The table also lists a damage for Gauntlet (1d3). The numbers are the same. There are two possible reasons for this.

1) The values are completely unrelated any more than the damage value of a spear or a morningstar are related. The fact that they're the same is a consequence of other factors, easily summed up as 'coincidence'.

2) The values are the same because the value for the Gauntlet damage is derived from the Unarmed Strike Damage.

Which since you are explicitly talking about why the table says 1d3, sure sounds like you think why it says 1d3 matters. But regardless of whether or not the accusation is correct, POT KETTLE IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE. Because nothing I have said at any point implies that I give even one iota of a shit what the intent was. So Pot Kettle, implying I have made the same mistake that I am accusing you of, is obviously painfully 100% wrong.

The reason I posted it was because someone (sorry - posting from my phone, otherwise I would refer to the specific poster by name) mentioned this whole discussion was about whether a monk gets Special Weapon Properties to their Unarmed Strikes while wearing gauntlets. Since that was already addressed, I referenced that discussion.

No you didn't you repeated the FAQ response like you thought it was an argument. You didn't reference the discussion at all, because you said nothing that even remotely hints at the actual discussion.

I just see it as the interpretation of the rules that most people who understand plain English would arrive at. Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't see it my way and doubly so that you cannot see why I understand the text the way I do. Before I read the description of the gauntlet, I had half - written a reply agreeing with your interpretation. I see why you believe you're right. I believe you're wrong. Since I'm familiar with your 'evidence', outside of new information I don't expect anyone to be convinced to change their view. I refuse to be dragged into a shouting match on the subject - I've posted what I think is reasonable support for my conclusion and even if you disagree you should be willing to grant that a non - idiot could come to the same conclusion.

That is to say, I don't mind you calling me an idiot, I just think using this specific instance reflects very poorly on you.

You are an idiot. You are not an idiot because you incorrectly understand what the rules dictate. Plenty of people do that. I understand perfectly why you believe that. You are making a stupid interpretation of the text, and you believe that the table has no rules value at all. You are wrong, but even that is not why I am calling you an idiot.

I am calling you an idiot because again, still, after several pages, you still don't understand the actual argument Frank and I are making. That is why you are an idiot. And I know you don't understand it, protestations to the contrary aside, because you keep saying stupid things like this over and over:

A gauntlet modifies your Unarmed Strikes. You don't think the text means that.

Every time you say this, over and over, you prove once again that you don't understand the our arguments. You Lost Me just tried to explain the argument to you as well, but because you have no idea what the actual argument is, you somehow confused his trying to explain what you are missing as a circumstance where you could enlighten him by reposting an FAQ response. Because you have absolutely no idea what our argument actually is. Because you are an idiot.

EDIT: You are also an idiot because you used the pot/kettle analogy without knowing what it means, and/or applied it in a context that you yourself admitted it doesn't apply.

[Cyberzombie]

Since when does designer intent matter? THe words say what they say.

I've never understood this mentality. Since when didn't designer intent matter? Why the hell wouldn't it?

The rules are nothing more than an attempt by the designers to convey to you how the game is supposed to be played according to their vision. The intent is the actual design goal behind what they wanted the rules to do, and that's more important than some typo or bad wording. Assuming you respect the opinion of the designer at all, I'd assume you'd want to go by what they actually wanted. And if you don't respect the designer's opinion, it begs the question why you care what his rules say in the first place...

You can go beyond the written page, you don't have to be a mindless rules robot. Even the Terminator was capable of learning new things.

[Kaelik]

Since when does designer intent matter? THe words say what they say.

I've never understood this mentality. Since when didn't designer intent matter? Why the hell wouldn't it?

The rules are nothing more than an attempt by the designers to convey to you how the game is supposed to be played according to their vision. The intent is the actual design goal behind what they wanted the rules to do, and that's more important than some typo or bad wording. Assuming you respect the opinion of the designer at all, I'd assume you'd want to go by what they actually wanted. And if you don't respect the designer's opinion, it begs the question why you care what his rules say in the first place...

You can go beyond the written page, you don't have to be a mindless rules robot. Even the Terminator was capable of learning new things.

The rules say what the actually say, even if the designers intended something different. There is a value in not lying to yourself.

More specifically the thing I care about is that most of the time designer intent doesn't exist. With laws and cases I have to deal with that way more than most people, but it is still an issue that plagues designer intent in RPGs all the time, and is the most likely scenario in this case.

Additionally, you might actually respect some or most of the rules of a game more than the designers, and therefore be a sane human being who can differentiate between the good consequences of some of their rules, and the designers themselves, and only respect the rules and not the designers.

But bottom line, just like every other time you said this, we aren't talking about what you should do in a game. What you should do in a game is shoot in the leg anyone who wants to play a Monk, and then with the gun pointed at their other leg ask them if they might want to reconsider their class choice.

It is not that we can't go beyond the rules on the page. It is that we believe that if you are going to go beyond the rules on the page you should both:

A) Admit you are doing that, and
B) Go beyond pointless attempts to guess what the designer(s) would have intended if they had thought about it and instead focus on what is best for the game.

[MGuy]

From what I understand people are saying that the gauntlet can be used either as a weapon 'itself' or as a replacer for an unarmed strike vs other people saying all it ever does is become a replacer for an unarmed strike. I've always ran it as the latter but after this discussion I read it a couple more times. I'm thinking the second sentence:

A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

suggests that it is, in fact, it's own weapon. As in you can slap someone with these things to make an attack with them type deal. Now this IS stupid in my opinion and I do think that it was probably intended to just be an unarmed attack replacer, I really do. I don't know why Frank or really anyone, is suggesting that it being that is really hard to believe but if I were to go strictly by what is written I'd say that yes, the rules suggest that it is a weapon in its own right and, by the rules, should be treated as one. I believe that the unarmed attacker replacer thing is just that, a special effect it just so happens to have. Because it is its own weapon, the bonus it gets would then not apply to a monk's unarmed strike because while its replacer effect stands (and stacks) it is effectively meaningless because the monk already does lethal damage and any bonus 'thing' it gets would just apply to the weapon itself and not the unarmed strikes it can change.

Again, I think it's stupid but another interpretation is not really that big of a leap.