On Monks and Gauntlets

[Stubbazubba]

Meaning is always socially constructed. This is true in the law, in literature, and in game rules. It's even true in science. The designer's intent only matters if that's the intent that everyone playing with the rules believes is relevant. Even if designer intent doesn't exist, interpretation can extend beyond the text of the rule. It can extend to the circumstances in which the rule was written, taking cues from the rule's contemporary circumstances. It can extend to the circumstances in which the rule is presently situated, and infer back from that what the text itself means to say, even if that's not what it originally used to mean. The 'meaning' of any static text changes over time, to make it useful to the people reading and using it. Any insistence that there is an absolute way to understand every rule is simply replacing one source of inference with another.

[Username17]

There is no designer intent because there after multiple authors and editors. Any piece of text you see is a compromise between many sets of visions and opinions. If an author tells you they had an intent different from what is actually written, it generally means that they fucking lost an argument at some point. Which means you're reading something that is at best a minority report and quite likely the ramblings of buyer's remorse.

Example: I wrote some simple and elegant rules for the interaction of essence drain, cyberware, and upgrades. But by the time Augmentation actually went to print, some people had replaced that text with something that was both stupid and broken. What the fuck was 'intent?'

As for game balance, it's not an issue. The 'power fist' is wildly beyond wealth by level expectations, isn't a monk weapon, and isn't even something that monks have proficiency with. The question is merely whether the gloves of less monk sucking are illegal in four ways or only three.

-Username17

[tussock]

Meaning is always socially constructed.

No it isn't. Logic and science are actual things that really exist in a consistent fashion outside of your head. Other people are real and can in fact independently agree on how logic and science works. We can even make logic-processing machines to handle our data, you're using one now.

People disagreeing with how logic works, disagreeing with science, or relying on different axioms ("don't read what they wrote, read what they meant to write") can disagree. But again, people who get the logic and science wrong or rely on clearly false axioms, they are doing it wrong.

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

Because it's bullshit. It's you lying to yourself about the thing you love to make it seem OK that you love it. Like how the bible is a disgusting and hateful piece of ancient slaver morality, but believers argue the designer's intent was not that so it doesn't matter.

But it does matter. Reading the actual text usually tells you far more about the real-world "designers intent" than "asking the designer what their intent was" can ever do. Like 4e designers claimed to intend faster combats, when really, they didn't, the opposite of that is true, as you can see by the actual rules they wrote. "Designer intent" is just bullshit if you take it from anything other than the rules.

Not to mention seeking evidence outside a single fucking sentence. 3e artwork does not portray Monks using gauntlets, for instance. Presented monk characters do not use gauntlets. It doesn't suit any particular culture or mythos (well, pankration, perhaps).


Sometimes you get rules that don't actually have a function, and you'd think the intent of the rule mattered? You think there wasn't a massive disagreement in the design team about how that rule should work? That they didn't just give up and make you decide? Because I'm pretty sure weird little convoluted rules full of confusing sentences are were that's exactly what happened.

[DSMatticus]

So, my power went out for a day and then my computer wouldn't boot, so I'm a little behind.

1) My point does carry over, because your claim was that the table entry for gauntlet is irrelevant and that is false.

If the interpretation of the gauntlet rules text that allows you to make modified unarmed strikes is correct, then the table entry for gauntlet is irrelevant to the damage you deal with a gauntlet as a monk. Because my argument is that the text implies X, and text trumps whatever the table says. In order to claim that the table entry for gauntlet is relevant to my argument you must already assume my argument is incorrect. You should not assume your conclusion as a premise, because it's fucking useless.

2) The correct response when someone uses an analogy you don't like is to dispute the analogy, not lie about what they said and call them an idiot. You were wrong. Wrongy wrong wrong pants strawman user.

Wait, are you seriously offended because I insinuated you were a slightly different kind of dumbass than the kind of dumbass you actually are, and that despite the fact that the table is still totally irrelevant to my argument (it is), you thought it was relevant for some other reason than the ones I criticized you for? I guess that's a risk you'll just have to learn to accept if you plan on substituting snark for substance.

That said: you're actually just fucking wrong. "gauntlets refer to making unarmed strikes, here are the reasons your short sword analogy does not apply to unarmed strikes" is exactly the correct response.

So your new argument is that monks using magic shields with weapon enhancements get to apply the magical effects of their shield weapon to their unarmed strike because what does use really mean anyway.

I am quickly losing faith in your ability to have this discussion.

Magic shields do not allow you to make modified unarmed strikes. Assuming I am correct, gauntlets do. Are you seriously trying to argue that no definition of "used" might include "making an unarmed strike modified by X" but exclude "making an unarmed strike while X is somewhere nearby doing nothing related to the task whatsoever?"

inb4 Kaelik accuses me of strawmanning him by mocking the consequences of his stupid arguments.

More of the patented "I'm DSM and I get to argue stupid things and use my complete unwillingness to pay attention to the actual argument as some kind of defense." The fucking argument is about whether or not Monks can use the fucking gauntlets attack and damage bonses. If you don't have an opinion on that, then don't fucking start typing.

How are adamantine gauntlets not legal? Other than the fact monks aren't proficient in them and are not able to flurry with them, it seems that would let you get an enhancement to your unarmed damage...

They are a weapon, and would not get the benefit of monk unarmed damage. The damage from gauntlets is bullshit small, but it exists. Per the rules, a monk benefits no more from a powerrfist than they do from a powersword. It's just one more melee weapon they aren't proficientwith.

I just want to take a moment to thank you. It's very rare for someone to hand you such a colossal fuck-up on a silver platter, and the vitriol you've seasoned it with makes it all the sweeter to throw back in your face.

But just so we're clear:
Count is arguing that monks get their unarmed damage and the enhancement bonus. Frank is arguing that monks don't get their unarmed damage, but would get the enhancement bonus. And you are telling me to fuck off with my totally off-topic argument about how monks get their unarmed damage, but may or may not get the enhancement bonus. Because there's no way such a position could be relevant here.

Edit: and at the risk of being on point, this text still exists: "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes." Unarmed strike is a game mechanical term which it very clearly refers to. I've already given links to it. It's a special kind of attack that does 1d3 damage, and it's this special kind of attack that a monk's abilities modify. This argument begins and ends with explaining why the thing I'm doing with my gauntlet isn't an unarmed strike.

[ACOS]

This argument begins and ends with explaining why the thing I'm doing with my gauntlet isn't an unarmed strike.

We're 2 threads and umpteen pages in, and we still haven't seen a hint of that explanation. I'm skeptical.

---

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

I really hope that this isn't on my account:

I don't even care if you want to tell me that you are going to rape and murder my whole family; but DO NOT equate me with Shitmuffin.

because, seriously, this was just an attempt at humor.
(sure, it was spawned from a serious sentiment; but I was forealz just trying to have fun with it)

[Korwin]

Example: I wrote some simple and elegant rules for the interaction of essence drain, cyberware, and upgrades. But by the time Augmentation actually went to print, some people had replaced that text with something that was both stupid and broken. What the fuck was 'intent?'

-Username17

Is that one findable on the net?

[Cyberzombie]

There is no designer intent because there after multiple authors and editors. Any piece of text you see is a compromise between many sets of visions and opinions. If an author tells you they had an intent different from what is actually written, it generally means that they fucking lost an argument at some point. Which means you're reading something that is at best a minority report and quite likely the ramblings of buyer's remorse.

Well not necessarily. If you're talking about intent that directly contradicts a rule that's written, yes. But sometimes the intent is used as clarification when there's ambiguity, like in this case where there's roughly a 50/50 split on what people think the rule actually says as written.

Example: I wrote some simple and elegant rules for the interaction of essence drain, cyberware, and upgrades. But by the time Augmentation actually went to print, some people had replaced that text with something that was both stupid and broken. What the fuck was 'intent?'

That sounds to me like an argument for not going by the rule as written, since garbage sometimes gets written in the book.

As for game balance, it's not an issue. The 'power fist' is wildly beyond wealth by level expectations, isn't a monk weapon, and isn't even something that monks have proficiency with. The question is merely whether the gloves of less monk sucking are illegal in four ways or only three.

I don't know, I've honestly never played a monk. They suck and don't seem very fun. I kind of give the people arguing about it some credit in that I don't think they'd care that much about the ruling if the thing was illegal for other reasons. Probably their gauntlet=unarmed attack ruling covers that stuff that you're talking about, but I don't really know.

[Username17]

No. The FAQ ruling confirms that the gauntlet is not a monk weapon. It just also, and completely incoherently claims that you can use your special monk damage with the gauntlet in a way that implies that you could add the gauntlet's weapon enhancement bonus to your kicks and elbow thrusts. Which is not how weapon enhancement bonuses work in 3e, but is how they work in 4e.

And of course, you can't make one of these gauntlets that is even close to be being good enough to make a difference without breaking wbl in half.

It's all sophistry. People arguing that a commonly used artifact weapon that breaks four rules actually only breaks three rules because the text almost says that the fourth rule doesn't apply. Except you know, it fucking doesn't.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

Meaning is always socially constructed.

No it isn't. Logic and science are actual things that really exist in a consistent fashion outside of your head. Other people are real and can in fact independently agree on how logic and science works. We can even make logic-processing machines to handle our data, you're using one now.

People disagreeing with how logic works, disagreeing with science, or relying on different axioms ("don't read what they wrote, read what they meant to write") can disagree. But again, people who get the logic and science wrong or rely on clearly false axioms, they are doing it wrong.

That's not even what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the rhetoric of science, i.e. the school of Thomas Khun's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Richard Rorty, and other scholars from the scientific community who argue that popular notions of the absolute scientific method are just that: notions. It is one notion that has been so persuasively and successfully entrenched in the industry that it is taught and understood as an absolute, when the truth is that it is just the dominant rhetoric of the day, that the rhetoric of logic and science we now have is different from the rhetoric that actually gave birth to the theories that have survived to today. It's the idea that science and logic are still human endeavors and are therefore interpreted in human ways, even while the underlying science is technically unchanging.

That's not science denial, it's a meta-analysis of the use of rhetoric in the fields of logic and science. Rhetoric affects scientific interpretation, because interpretation isn't scientific, but we can't really extricate the science from the interpretive community that produces and publishes it. For the same reason the Declaration of Independence can un-ironically say "all men are created equal," scientists consistently interpreted the evidence that explained fission wrong for decades; the assumptions in the minds of those doing the interpretation were different from what we now have. Those baseline assumptions are socially determined; we don't rediscover scientific theories, we are taught what they are. Only very relatively few people really make scientific discoveries, the rest of us just learn the "correct" interpretation from sources we trust to give us that interpretation. When a socially-constructed theory is disproved, it takes a lot of energy and proof. Now, we have established rhetorical systems in which the discoverers can quickly disseminate the new interpretation to the community for further social education. Now yes, we try to be open to persuasion about this stuff, but it's just that, persuasion.

The same applies to game rules: our understanding of the rules is, by definition, dependent on our interpretation of the words on the page. There are no rules without interpretation. Now we just have to ask what we allow to interpret the rules. Using socially-determined linguistics and ignoring any other consideration is perfectly fine, and since the interpretive community is pretty small, it'll be pretty near uniform. But it's one option among many. It has its advantages, but it's not any more "correct" or "true" than another interpretation that allows different inferential sources.

[JigokuBosatsu]

Congratulations, guys, you have created a tulpa. This monk-strike-gauntlet thing has achieved physical reality, and it is now so far up my ass it can wiggle my ears.

[nockermensch]

Congratulations, guys, you have created a tulpa. This monk-strike-gauntlet thing has achieved physical reality, and it is now so far up my ass it can wiggle my ears.

The correct name for a shared tulpa is egregore.

[JigokuBosatsu]

You are correct, sir. I plead neurological deficiency.

[Krusk]

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?

lolwut?

How the fuck can you claim to know designer intent. These rules were written by like 5 dudes. The only way you know designer intent is if you personally are the dude who wrote the rule, won the debate about what goes to print, AND remember how you intended it to be used 10+ years later. If you can't know what it was, how can you use it as a basis for your debate.

Example:

You are a Fucking Moron.

My intent in that statement is to highlight your lack of intelligence, as shown by your claims of telepathy and general illiteracy. The end goal being that you are inspired to learn to read, and maybe doubt your telepathic abilities, in order to function in the outside world. You could construe that as an attempt to end the debate, but you would be incorrect. If I hadn't taken the time out of my day to explain this to you, you could only guess, and might guess wrong. As I am the author of that statement, and the time is the present, you can assume (but not be sure) I am accurate in my intent.

I'll be extremely generous and say 10 people in the world tops know the designer intent on that rule. Since no one else does, debating it is useless. Since the rules obviously say one thing, we have to assume that the words they wrote were the words they intended. Your arguement is basically the old standby of "its not a bad rule, the DM can just fix it".

If you are actually telepathic, and/or the actual designer I'll take your word for intent. But if you are the actual designer, I will ask why you didn't write what you intended, and instead wrote something else.

So I guess you've got 3 options. 1 - telepathic 2 - actual designer but also a Fucking Moron. 3 - A Fucking Moron who is wrong because he can't read, and tried to pretend he was psychic to get out of being wrong on a debate settled over a decade ago.

[tussock]

Meaning is always socially constructed.

No it isn't. Logic and science are actual things that really exist in a consistent fashion outside of your head. Other people are real and can in fact independently agree on how logic and science works. We can even make logic-processing machines to handle our data, you're using one now.

People disagreeing with how logic works, disagreeing with science, or relying on different axioms ("don't read what they wrote, read what they meant to write") can disagree. But again, people who get the logic and science wrong or rely on clearly false axioms, they are doing it wrong.

That's not even what I'm talking about.

Well then, this could be much more interesting that the thread topic.

I'm talking about the rhetoric of science, i.e. the school of Thomas Khun's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Richard Rorty, and other scholars from the scientific community who argue that popular notions of the absolute scientific method are just that: notions.

So, what you're saying is, the first rule of tautology is the first rule of tautology.

Or in this case, the things people say about rules are just things that people are saying about rules, and you can't ever know what the real underlying rules are because nihilism. Fuck nihilism, dude, it's wrong, there are truths. Some people can be wrong, like nihilists are, but that doesn't make everyone wrong all the time. There are valid tools for determining who is correct.


Words do in fact have agreed contextual meanings, we even have books which list them in case you're not sure. In the same way that people can disagree about what evolution "means", that doesn't matter, because there is a real and verifiable set of evolutionary effects in biology and people talking about other things are factually incorrect.

<snip: tautologies>

scientists consistently interpreted the evidence that explained fission wrong for decades; the assumptions in the minds of those doing the interpretation were different from what we now have.

You're actually making an argument that because someone was once wrong about one thing in a fairly unimportant way because they had no contradicting evidence yet, that no one can ever truly be right about anything. And you are incorrect both in general and in this case specifically.

This is not a situation where the book will turn out to have extra words hidden in the 39 3/7 page on the third Tuesday in September on a full moon. Really, we have all the evidence it is possible to have and we have examined it, truth can be determined with absolute certainty (even though people can still be wrong about it).

Those baseline assumptions are socially determined; we don't rediscover scientific theories, we are taught what they are. Only very relatively few people really make scientific discoveries, the rest of us just learn the "correct" interpretation from sources we trust to give us that interpretation. When a socially-constructed theory is disproved, it takes a lot of energy and proof. Now, we have established rhetorical systems in which the discoverers can quickly disseminate the new interpretation to the community for further social education. Now yes, we try to be open to persuasion about this stuff, but it's just that, persuasion.

Holy fucking shit. I finally saw someone use the argument that not seeing it first hand makes it not real. I am astounded. I thought that was an exaggeration for laughs, and there it is. Stubbazubba defines the accumulation of petabytes of data fitting the models as "persuasion", and then tautologically dismisses it on the grounds of the word he just used for it. Only using more syllables so he sounds educated and thus less insane.

Whoever the fuck you're reading, Stubba, stop it. It's making you an ignorant nihilist.

The same applies to game rules

Your mistakes about how science works, no matter where you found them, are bullshit. Complete codswallop. Piffle. Tosh. Junk. Apply them to game rules is just making you look stupid in public. For reals.

[deaddmwalking]

lolwut?

How the fuck can you claim to know designer intent.

There's no claim to designer intent. The interpretation is based on 'what words mean'.

When the gauntlet description says: "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.", some people (myself included) take that to mean 'This item uses your Unarmed Strike damage, and makes it Lethal Damage if it wasn't already'.

A = gauntlet damage
A is a function of (B)
B is Unarmed Strike damage
B is usually 1d3 (and listed as such on the Weapon Damage table)
A is usually 1d3 (and listed as such on the Weapon Damage table)

When B is not 1d3 (for example, having increased Unarmed Strike damage as a result of Monk levels), A is calculated based on the new damage.

Not only is this is a possible interpretation based on the words used, it is consistent with additional clarification provided by the FAQ. Additionally, it provides the least bad result for the game (unless accidentally encouraging people to play monks is considered really bad).

Even outside of equipping yourself with gauntlets as a regular part of the game, this could come up when you're infiltrating the Wicked Witch of the West's castle. When you don the Flying Monkey Armor, you don't want your fists to go from 2d10 to 1d3 damage. Wearing armor over your knee doesn't reduce your unarmed strike damage if you knee your opponent. Wearing armor over your foot doesn't reduce your unarmed strike damage if you kick your opponent. Wearing a helmet over your head doesn't reduce your unarmed strike damage if you headbutt your opponent. Why should wearing metal armor over your fist be the one case where your damage is reduced? Claiming that the damage listed on the table is THE ONLY INTERPRETATION is wrong and it leads to stupid results. We're just lucky that other metal bits you can wear over your body weren't exhaustively listed on the weapon table.

[Username17]

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

lolwut?

How the fuck can you claim to know designer intent.

There's no claim to designer intent.

deaddmwalking, please stop being such a lying shitbag. Kthnx.

-Username17

[radthemad4]

How do you handle atypical sized ammunition? e.g. large arrow with small bow, small bullet with large sling, etc.

[Cyberzombie]

How the fuck can you claim to know designer intent. These rules were written by like 5 dudes. The only way you know designer intent is if you personally are the dude who wrote the rule, won the debate about what goes to print, AND remember how you intended it to be used 10+ years later. If you can't know what it was, how can you use it as a basis for your debate.

Designers have these things called computers that they can use to put messages on this thing called the internet, much as you're typing on this forum. They can use this internet to clarify the things they wrote and tell you what their intent was. See, language sometimes leaves room for misinterpretation, so people can ask follow-up questions and give explanations to earlier things they said.

I can see where someone like you would have difficulty grasping the idea, because you feel the need to fill over half your post up with nothing but insults. Some people can use the internet to inform others rather than trying to play internet tough guy? You may want to try it sometime.

And in this case, people can't agree on what the written rule means, so it's useless anyway. So for all the desire to perform fellatio on the Player's Handbook as the one true Gospel of all things, it's useless in this discussion because people can't agree on what the actual rules say. So you need more clarification. I can't think of anyone better to give clarification than one of the designers who wrote it.

[Voss]

Off you pop then. Get on your internet machine and fetch a designer to give 'intent' for gauntlets.

It is clearly just that easy, so you should be back with a designer (or at least an answer) in 8 hours tops.

[Kaelik]

I can see where someone like you would have difficulty grasping the idea, because you feel the need to fill over half your post up with nothing but insults. Some people can use the internet to inform others rather than trying to play internet tough guy? You may want to try it sometime.

In this episode of Cyberzombie, Cyberzombie insults other people on the internet for the act of insulting people on the internet. Next time on Cyberzombie, Cyberzombie implies that people who insult people on the internet have no real life and live in their parents basement, and are fat neckbeards, and don't know what a girl is, and are virgins, and are sociopaths, and any other stereotypes from the early 90s he remembers.

How has this show been renewed for 4 seasons? It hasn't, he pays for it out of pocket because he thinks the world needs more Cyberzombie.

[Krusk]

Designers have these things called computers that they can use to put messages on this thing called the internet, much as you're typing on this forum. They can use this internet to clarify the things they wrote and tell you what their intent was. See, language sometimes leaves room for misinterpretation, so people can ask follow-up questions and give explanations to earlier things they said.

Cool. You'd think in the 11+ years of people interpreting it incorrectly one of them might have come forward and used one of them thar computer machines to explain the rule.

The reason half my post was insults is because your stance is insane. It doesn't deserve a reasoned well thought out response. Your stance hinges on your telepathic abilities. You don't debate people who claim telepathy. You mock them until they stop, or leave.

And in this case, people can't agree on what the written rule means, so it's useless anyway. So for all the desire to perform fellatio on the Player's Handbook as the one true Gospel of all things, it's useless in this discussion because people can't agree on what the actual rules say.

The rules are very clear. Gauntlets do 1d3 damage. Thats how much damage gauntlets do. I don't care that you punch really hard. If you use this weapon, you do 1d3.

So you need more clarification. I can't think of anyone better to give clarification than one of the designers who wrote it.

So why haven't they in the past 11 years? Basically what Voss said. Go get one. I'll assume you don't live behind your computer machine and give you 24 hours from his timestamp.

[Krusk]

How the fuck can you claim to know designer intent.

There's no claim to designer intent.

So just to be clear... The big argument for why they don't work how it was written is designer intent. But no one will claim to know what it was?

[Kaelik]

How the fuck can you claim to know designer intent.

There's no claim to designer intent.

So just to be clear... The big argument for why they don't work how it was written is designer intent. But no one will claim to know what it was?

No Krusk, deaddm believes that the table entry telling you how much damage a gauntlet does is a magic non rule suggestion. And that the text saying you can modify your unarmed strike is actually text telling you how much damage attacking with the gauntlet weapon does.

[deaddmwalking]

No Krusk, deaddm believes that the table entry telling you how much damage a gauntlet does is a magic non rule suggestion. And that the text saying you can modify your unarmed strike is actually text telling you how much damage attacking with the gauntlet weapon does.

That's close. I believe that the Table Entry that tells you how much damage your Unarmed Strikes do lists the damage as 1d3 (when in reality, that damage can be modified by a number of factors, for example, monk levels).

The Table Entry for Gauntlets uses the same value (1d3). There are two possible reasons - either it is supposed to be determined by your Unarmed Strike damage, or it is supposed to be independent of it. In the description of gauntlets, it provides the missing information.

It explains that the benefit of a gauntlet is transforming your unarmed strike damage from non-lethal (default) to lethal.

This reading of the gauntlet description is consistent with other bits of metal between your body parts and your opponent, and consequently the seemingly valid interpretation of the gauntlet descriptive text is supported.

[Voss]

Just so we're clear, the argument now includes plate mail wearing monks that don't deal reduced damage with knee strikes in order to justify changing the number in the table to a different number. Assuming that it is, on the off chance, actually any higher than normal.

Repeat after me:
"It says 1d3, but I'd totally house rule that if a) anyone wanted to play a monk, b) dug through the pile of shit to find some a shitty weapon to stack bonuses on, c) actually survived to a level where someone actually could stack bonuses on his shitty piece of kit, and d) actually complained until someone said fine, whatever, house rule.

Then, for being such an ass about the whole thing, I'd advise the DM to a) make sure he only punches things from then on and b) never drop an amulet of mighty fists in the game."

Since the chance of any of this is effectively mathematically indistinguishable from zero, we can now go back to mocking people for claiming design intent.