On Monks and Gauntlets

[Cyberzombie]

The rules are very clear.

If the rules were "very clear", this thread wouldn't be on page 7 with plenty of participants on both sides.

[deaddmwalking]

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

I might attempt a 'comprehensive' description of my position and the explanation for it, but in the meantime, does somebody want to address radthemad4's question?

It seems that, purely by RAW, a pixie sized arrow fired from a shortbow sized for a Medium creature would deal 1d6 (as listed on the table).

[momothefiddler]

It seems that, purely by RAW, there's no such thing as a pixie sized arrow. There are only Arrows.

On the other hand, it's odd that these Arrows get four lines in the table, as though there are separate ones for Longbows, Composite Longbows, Shortbows, and Composite Shortbows, all with exactly the same weight and cost (the only traits Arrows seem to have).

The idea that there are different kinds is held up by the fact that some Bolts(Crossbow) are 0.1lb/0.1gp and some are 0.2/0.2, but that seems to possibly include a case with every five, so maybe they are all the same.

[nockermensch]

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.

Do you realize that nobody is claiming that having gauntlets that deal d[your unarmed damage dice] fixes the monk, right? And that the amulet of mighty fists also proves nothing, because it's pretty clear from your own arguments that the game lacks a coherent vision. One designer could be thinking on power fist monks, another on mystical amulet monks and this is irrelevant right now, because the class sucks.

The point is that the gauntlets description is sufficiently unclear to provide two alternative readings.

[Voss]

Do you realize that nobody is claiming that having gauntlets that deal d[your unarmed damage dice] fixes the monk, right?

Uh... yeah. Never said it did, and its part of the reason the discussion doesn't matter.

I'm saying all the bullshit arguments are stupid, because it amounts to little more than a house rule, because absolutely nothing translates 'gauntlets do lethal damage' to mean anything other than 'gauntlets do lethal damage.' Not monks, not monks in plate mail, not special DM blow jobs. If you /want/ to house rule it, that is seriously fine, but have the decency to admit that is what you are doing. I doubt anyone would give two shits about the entire discussion if you did.

As is, the gauntlet text in the SRD is exactly as unclear as the shield text. Unless you want to argue that because shields don't have text saying they can reflect beholder eye beams, it is unclear if they can or not.

[Korwin]

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.

Nitpick time.
Actually they do 1d3 + Strength, so it does matter how hard you punch...

[radthemad4]

It seems that, purely by RAW, there's no such thing as a pixie sized arrow. There are only Arrows.

On the other hand, it's odd that these Arrows get four lines in the table, as though there are separate ones for Longbows, Composite Longbows, Shortbows, and Composite Shortbows, all with exactly the same weight and cost (the only traits Arrows seem to have).

The idea that there are different kinds is held up by the fact that some Bolts(Crossbow) are 0.1lb/0.1gp and some are 0.2/0.2, but that seems to possibly include a case with every five, so maybe they are all the same.

An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2).

This implies that there are different sized arrows. It also says large weapons cost twice as much as small or medium, which I'm guessing applies if you're using a large bow, crossbow or sling but no word on other sizes. I'm guessing large ammunition costs twice as much as well.

As for the bolts thing, I'm guessing either every different crossbow has its own bolts (which implies every bow has its own type of arrow which seems doubtful), or repeating crossbows use a different type of bolt that costs .2 GP (instead of .1 GP like everything else).

[ishy]

In 3.5 (this is no longer true in pathfinder) both enlarge and reduce person say something along the lines of: "projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them".

Thus if you used arrows that are sized differently from your bow, I'd rule that you'd still deal 'bow damage' but you have a -2 from using an inappropriate sized weapon.

[deaddmwalking]

In 3.5 (this is no longer true in pathfinder) both enlarge and reduce person say something along the lines of: "projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them".

Thus if you used arrows that are sized differently from your bow, I'd rule that you'd still deal 'bow damage' but you have a -2 from using an inappropriate sized weapon.

If you're a medium creature, using a medium sized bow, you are not using an 'inappropriately sized' weapon. You're only using inappropriately sized ammunition (unless you're stabbing someone with the arrow instead of firing it).

In any case, 20 (medium) arrows weigh 3 lbs. Small arrows would weigh 1.5 lbs. Assuming 1/2 of a 1/2 if 1/3 (the way x2 and x2 is x3), tiny arrows would weigh 1 lb. You could easily carry 3x more arrows without a weight concern.

It seems to me that folks who believe that a gauntlet does 1d3 damage assume that the Table is 'inviolate'. It says everything that you need to know, and therefore any suggestion it is incomplete is rejected automatically. It is tautological - because the table is complete and correct, anything not included on the table isn't worth consideration.

But what if the table isn't complete?

Arrow damage is a potential 'missing information' section. In 2nd edition, there were sheaf arrows and broad head arrows (if I recall correctly) dealing 1d6 and 1d8 damage, respectively. The 3.x table implies that a bow does damage based on the type of bow, not the type of arrow. Is that correct? NO. Bows actually do damage based on their ammunition. How do I know?. Stupid expansion material, such as 'bludgeoning arrows' turn the damage from a normal arrow into non-lethal bludgeoning damage. There is no information on the table that sometimes shortbows do non-lethal damage - in this specific example, the table does not have the required information to adjudicate the effect... If you use a non-standard arrow with a standard bow, you modify your damage... Information which is not reflected on the table.

Unarmed Strike damage is similarly missing information. The unarmed strike damage is usually 1d3 for a medium creature. There are exceptions that are not included in the table. Not just being a monk... There's also Improved Natural Attack. There are also PC races that are treated as 'large creatures' when advantageous, so presumably, despite being medium creatures, their unarmed strike damage would be 1d4. Again, the table clearly is missing information that affects the listed damage for Unarmed Strikes.

Any claim that the table is 'complete' is false. A truer reading of the table would indicate that the values listed apply to 'standard' situations. That, by itself, isn't enough to resolve the question of whether gauntlets do Unarmed Strike damage or their own value... But it is enough to reject any argument that is 'BUT THE TABLE SAYS...'. The table is not complete. There is information we know is not reflected on the table.

Argument By Way of Analogy
Other posters have pointed out that a Club and Shortspear do the same damage (1d6). If you had an ability that changed your club damage, it wouldn't apply to your Shortspear damage - they're different weapons!. But gauntlets aren't like other weapons. They're listed with 'unarmed attacks'. So what does that mean?

For the purpose of this analogy, the other weapons listed under 'One-Handed Weapons' and 'Two-Handed weapons' (etc) are like vibrators or dildos. They're manufactured for a specifc purpose. They are 'wielded' to achieve that purpose. An Unarmed Strike is like a penis - it is not manufactured; you were equipped with one at birth and can use it when and where appropriate. A gauntlet is like a condom. It goes over your existing equipment. Unlike a handaxe or a vibrator, you don't 'wield it'. I mean, we have seen people doff a gauntlet and strike someone across the face (in which it is being wielded as a weapon, and the damage value for the gauntlet would be the value to consider), but outside of that situation, the gauntlet is over the fist.

Argument by Way of Comparison
A gauntlet functionally covers a part of your anatomy (specifically, your fist). A helmet covers a part of your anatomy (specifically, your head). They are both armor, and as such would be an inconsistency if one were treated differently than the other. There's no reason you couldn't use a head-butt as part of an unarmed strike (unless you consider the example text of the Monk's Unarmed Strike text to be exhaustive in which case it is fists, elbows, knees, and feet). There is nothing to indicate that Monks would suffer reduced damage if they were covering other body parts with metal. As a result, to maintain consistency, we would expect that gauntlets work like armor over any other Unarmed Strike unless there was text to the contrary. There is not. There is only the table listing 1d3 damage (which we have already covered is not inclusive of everything).

Argument by Way of Textual Analysis
What does a gauntlet do? The first sentence says it lets you do lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. It doesn't say anything about changing the damage your unarmed strikes deal, nor is there any reason to presume that it WOULD. But let's compare the text to other similar weapons - say, a Spiked Gauntlet. The Spiked Gauntlet has no references to your Unarmed Strikes. Clearly, from the text, it is itself a weapon and unrelated to your Unarmed Strikes. This is also supported by the fact that it isn't listed on the Table under 'Unarmed Attacks'. Gauntlets are different fundamentally from Spiked Gauntlets.

Unarmed Strikes are discussed in various parts of the SRD. They're included under the monk description, under actions in combat, under feats (Improved Unarmed Strike) and under Weapons. The 'Actions in Combat' section confirms the damage from Unarmed Strikes for medium creatures is 1d3. The weapon description also confirms the damage is 1d3.

The only place that extra damage for Unarmed Strikes is talked about explicitly is the Monk description.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

If the table lists 1d3 damage for Unarmed Strikes (as if that is the only damage that is possible), the 1d3 listed for Gauntlets can either be because it is derived from Unarmed Strike damage (which is why they're the same), or it is derived independently (and it is effectively coincidence that it is the same). Arriving at the conclusion that Gauntlet damage is not derived means ignoring the first sentence of the description - or at least claiming that it doesn't mean what it says.

And that sounds like an argument for understand 'intent' much more than any claim I've made.

[momothefiddler]

This implies that there are different sized arrows.

Shit, you're right.

I'm guessing large ammunition costs twice as much as well.

That's plausible, but not definite.

As for the bolts thing

Don't forget the possibility that bolt 'magazines' are 0.5lb/0.5gp, so a mag of five costs the same as ten loose. Only the repeating ones are said to come in specific cases.

[tussock]

It seems to me that folks who believe that a gauntlet does 1d3 damage assume that the Table is 'inviolate'.

You're retarded, we get it. The argument is nothing in the game lets monks do more damage with gauntlet attacks, in the same way they can't do more damage with spear attacks (unless they take a feat which says they do).

Your ridiculous attempt at an argument is that because some things in a table have clearly stated exceptions, you can make up whatever changes to the numbers in a table you want. Which you can, as a sensible house rule that no one is complaining about.

Any claim that the table is 'complete' is false.

It's your strawman, son, and it's hilarious to see you beating yourself up with it.

They're listed with 'unarmed attacks'. So what does that mean?

It means you're not "armed" just because your armour has gauntlets on it. Armed being a term of art that indicates if characters threaten those around them and can take attacks of opportunity and so on. Attacks you can make while unarmed are here.

Argument by Way of Comparison

No one is arguing that Monks cannot make unarmed strikes just because you put gauntlets on their hands. The rule for Monks wearing armour does not lower their unarmed strike damage. People are arguing that a gauntlet attack is not an unarmed strike, it's a gauntlet attack. You fucking idiot.


A is an element of C.
B is an element of C.
Therefore A is an element of B. <- That's wrong. You're wrong. It's just that simple. There's endless fucking evidence that says monks don't shortcut all the bonus system by wearing gauntlets, like the magic items they get and their class features being the most obvious. Stop being retarded.


[quote="Cyberzombie]If the rules were "very clear", this thread wouldn't be on page 7 with plenty of participants on both sides.[/quote]An actual argumentum ad populum.

I don't even. It's like science is "debatable" because religious people don't like it. WTF?!

[momothefiddler]

It's like science is "debatable" because religious people don't like it. WTF?!

Teach the Controversy!

[deaddmwalking]

People are arguing that a gauntlet attack is not an unarmed strike, it's a gauntlet attack. You fucking idiot.

It is an unarmed strike, made with a gauntlet.

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.

[zugschef]

Attacking with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack. That much is perfectly true.

[Krusk]

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.

Nitpick time.
Actually they do 1d3 + Strength, so it does matter how hard you punch... :wink:

Good catch. this is more accurate. thanks.

[radthemad4]

Thus if you used arrows that are sized differently from your bow, I'd rule that you'd still deal 'bow damage' but you have a -2 from using an inappropriate sized weapon.

This sounds reasonable. I'll go with this for my games.

I'm guessing large ammunition costs twice as much as well.

That's plausible, but not definite.

I think I'll go with it unless there's a definite ruling about this sort of thing.

As for the bolts thing

Don't forget the possibility that bolt 'magazines' are 0.5lb/0.5gp, so a mag of five costs the same as ten loose. Only the repeating ones are said to come in specific cases.

Yeah, that could be it.

My own interpretation of the monk thing is that the Monk's Unarmed Strike ability doesn't override Default Unarmed Strike ability, but is a separate ability. And that anything that doesn't specifically refer to the monk's unarmed strike (like monk's belt) refers to the default unarmed strike.

Check out Gauntlets of the Talon from Complete Divine:

A character wearing gauntlets of the talon effectively has natural weapons that deal 1d8 points of slashing damage...

If a monk dons the gauntlets of the talon, she is treated as if she were five levels higher for purposes of AC, unarmed damage (which now counts as slashing)...

This is an item that explicitly and clearly modifies the monk's unarmed damage, unlike ordinary gauntlets, and I'd expect other items of a similar nature to follow suit.

[...You Lost Me]

People are arguing that a gauntlet attack is not an unarmed strike, it's a gauntlet attack. You fucking idiot.

It is an unarmed strike, made with a gauntlet.

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.

OH MY GOD PLEASE STOP.

There are two attacks you can make with a gauntlet. Do you understand the number two? Does that gel? Yes?

The first kind of attack is an unarmed strike that deals lethal damage. This is the monk's unarmed damage, but lethal. If you had an enchanted gauntlet, the enhancement bonus wouldn't apply because gauntlet enhancement bonuses only apply to gauntlet attacks and not unarmed strikes.

The second kind of attack is an attack with the gauntlet. As in using it as a weapon. This applies all bonuses related to gauntlet attacks, including Weapon Focus (Gauntlet) and gauntlet enhancement bonuses. If you were a monk, the bonus unarmed damage from your attack wouldn't apply because gauntlet enhancement bonuses only apply to gauntlet attacks and not unarmed strikes.

Christ.

[DSMatticus]

People are arguing that a gauntlet attack is not an unarmed strike, it's a gauntlet attack. You fucking idiot.

It is an unarmed strike, made with a gauntlet.

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.

OH MY GOD PLEASE STOP.

There are two attacks you can make with a gauntlet. Do you understand the number two? Does that gel? Yes?

The first kind of attack is an unarmed strike that deals lethal damage. This is the monk's unarmed damage, but lethal. If you had an enchanted gauntlet, the enhancement bonus wouldn't apply because gauntlet enhancement bonuses only apply to gauntlet attacks and not unarmed strikes.

The second kind of attack is an attack with the gauntlet. As in using it as a weapon. This applies all bonuses related to gauntlet attacks, including Weapon Focus (Gauntlet) and gauntlet enhancement bonuses. If you were a monk, the bonus unarmed damage from your attack wouldn't apply because gauntlet enhancement bonuses only apply to gauntlet attacks and not unarmed strikes.

Christ.

You obviously don't realize you're doing it, but you are actually mindcaulking Kaelik's argument into something more reasonable than it actually is. Or maybe he moved his goalposts somewhere and I missed it. Or maybe someone else made that argument and I missed it because they were tussock or cyberzombie.

Kaelik's argument is that while gauntlets clearly allow you to make lethal unarmed strikes, the text doesn't specify how much damage your lethal unarmed strikes do, and since the text doesn't specify a damage the text doesn't contradict the table's damage and the table's damage applies, so as a level 1 monk you can either deal 1d3 lethal damage or 1d6 nonlethal damage. The core of the argument is the denial that unarmed strikes already have their own damage (both in the text and on the table) that would contradict and trump the gauntlet table entry.

But a fun question for your argument: does the attack roll you make at the start of your trip attempt with a scythe include the scythe's enhancement bonus? While it is the case that they actually use the word 'use,' I think you'd have to have a non-trivial stick up your ass to make that a meaningful distinction. Use isn't a well-defined game term except in certain contexts (this is not one of them), and in this case is definitely just plain English description.

My own interpretation of the monk thing is that the Monk's Unarmed Strike ability doesn't override Default Unarmed Strike ability, but is a separate ability.

Their separate ability gives them the feat improved unarmed strike which only modifies the default unarmed strike. So... no. Definitely no.

This is an item that explicitly and clearly modifies the monk's unarmed damage, unlike ordinary gauntlets, and I'd expect other items of a similar nature to follow suit.

Gauntlets of the Talon modify a monk's unarmed strikes. Gauntlets modify everyone's unarmed strikes. Suggesting that gauntlets should look like the bolded section of gauntlets of the talon is weird, because fighters are supposed to be able to use gauntlets and get an effect out of them too. And that section begins with "if a monk," so... problematic.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik's argument is that while gauntlets clearly allow you to make lethal unarmed strikes, the text doesn't specify how much damage your lethal unarmed strikes do, and since the text doesn't specify a damage the text doesn't contradict the table's damage and the table's damage applies, so as a level 1 monk you can either deal 1d3 lethal damage or 1d6 nonlethal damage. The core of the argument is the denial that unarmed strikes already have their own damage (both in the text and on the table) that would contradict and trump the gauntlet table entry.

Unsurpringly from the guy who comes into the argument with "I refuse to read anything anyone has already said." you are wrong about my argument.

When you attack with a gauntlet you can do 1d3 lethal damage. Or when wearing a gauntlet you can do lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but that is not attacking with the gauntlet.

[radthemad4]

My own interpretation of the monk thing is that the Monk's Unarmed Strike ability doesn't override Default Unarmed Strike ability, but is a separate ability.

Their separate ability gives them the feat improved unarmed strike which only modifies the default unarmed strike. So... no. Definitely no.

It does more than that. Monk's unarmed strikes are never considered to be offhand and can be considered a manufactured weapon or natural weapon for enhancements. Improved Unarmed strike is merely part of the package.

This is an item that explicitly and clearly modifies the monk's unarmed damage, unlike ordinary gauntlets, and I'd expect other items of a similar nature to follow suit.

Gauntlets of the Talon modify a monk's unarmed strikes. Gauntlets modify everyone's unarmed strikes. Suggesting that gauntlets should look like the bolded section of gauntlets of the talon is weird, because fighters are supposed to be able to use gauntlets and get an effect out of them too. And that section begins with "if a monk," so... problematic.

It never says fighters can't use it (they're d8 slashing natural weapons for non monks). It has one sentence that only applies to monks' unarmed strike (5 levels higher and slashing).



Apparently there is an official position on this:

if a monk wears a spiked gauntlet, her unarmed attacks aren't enhanced in any way, but she could use the spiked gauntlet in a two-weapon attack.

[Kaelik]

Apparently there is an official position on this:

if a monk wears a spiked gauntlet, her unarmed attacks aren't enhanced in any way, but she could use the spiked gauntlet in a two-weapon attack.

Spiked Gauntlets are different from Gauntlets. WotC "official" position on gauntlets is that monks can't flurry with them but they do get unarmed damage. Which is both wrong, and also wrong. Either you use them as a weapon and you don't get damage, or you use them as unarmed strikes and you can flurry.

[...You Lost Me]

But a fun question for your argument: does the attack roll you make at the start of your trip attempt with a scythe include the scythe's enhancement bonus? While it is the case that they actually use the word 'use,' I think you'd have to have a non-trivial stick up your ass to make that a meaningful distinction. Use isn't a well-defined game term except in certain contexts (this is not one of them), and in this case is definitely just plain English description.

You are wrong about everything, but also wrong about this in particular. Your attack is an attack with a scythe, so bonuses relating to the scythe are applied. Your weapon is not a "Trip", because that's something you do with the scythe that you're using to attack.

Also "use [object] to [verb]" is a clear concept that is only obfuscated if you try to twist it the way you want. You use the object to perform the verb: You use [gauntlets] to [make your unarmed strike damage lethal]. You do not use [gauntlets] to [make your unarmed strike damage lethal, and then add the enhancement bonus from the gauntlet attack to the unarmed strike attack roll] because that is a different thing entirely.

[DSMatticus]

Kaelik's argument is that while gauntlets clearly allow you to make lethal unarmed strikes, the text doesn't specify how much damage your lethal unarmed strikes do, and since the text doesn't specify a damage the text doesn't contradict the table's damage and the table's damage applies, so as a level 1 monk you can either deal 1d3 lethal damage or 1d6 nonlethal damage. The core of the argument is the denial that unarmed strikes already have their own damage (both in the text and on the table) that would contradict and trump the gauntlet table entry.

Unsurpringly from the guy who comes into the argument with "I refuse to read anything anyone has already said." you are wrong about my argument.

When you attack with a gauntlet you can do 1d3 lethal damage. Or when wearing a gauntlet you can do lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but that is not attacking with the gauntlet.

A Gauntlet allows you to do lethal damage (1d3) instead of nonlethal damage(9999999d9999999) with your unarmed strike.

I am perfectly willing to concede that Kaelik on page 4 is arguing something entirely different from Kaelik on page 2. I am actually so willing to concede that if you would bother to read my posts half as well as I've read your's (instead of bitching about how I never bother to read your's despite apparently knowing them better than you do), you'd have seen me mention that exact possibility.

Your original argument was very clearly that gauntlets let your unarmed strikes do 1d3 lethal damage regardless of your unarmed strike's nonlethal damage. I certainly can't stop you from abandoning that ship, but moved goalposts are moved goalposts.

You are wrong about everything, but also wrong about this in particular. Your attack is an attack with a scythe, so bonuses relating to the scythe are applied. Your weapon is not a "Trip", because that's something you do with the scythe that you're using to attack.

Actually, trip is a special attack described here. The rules text for the scythe states that "A scythe can be used to make trip attacks." The attack you're performing is called a trip attack; not a scythe attack, not a scythe trip attack, not a scythe anything. It's a trip attack, and you use a scythe to perform it.

The questions then are:
1) Does performing a trip attack "using" a scythe imply you receive the scythe's enhancement bonus to your attack roll (trips don't have damage rolls)?
2) Does performing an unarmed strike modified by a gauntlet imply you are "using" a gauntlet in the way a trip attack made with the scythe "uses" a scythe?

The answer to 1 is obviously yes. Here's what the magic weapons section has to say about enhancement bonuses: "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." I don't think there's any doubt that the scythe's enhancement bonus would apply in that case.

The answer to 2 is... well, you yourself chose to describe what gauntlets do as "use [gauntlets] to [make your unarmed strike damage lethal]." I think people are comfortable describing modifying an unarmed strike through the gauntlet's rules text as "using" gauntlets. There's no reason to believe a keyword's being used here; it's just a plain English description.

It does more than that. Monk's unarmed strikes are never considered to be offhand and can be considered a manufactured weapon or natural weapon for enhancements. Improved Unarmed strike is merely part of the package.

I'm not sure you remember your own argument. You're claiming that the unarmed strike monks get has the same name, but is actually a totally distinct attack. The feat, improved unarmed strike, is a thing non-monks get to modify their unarmed strikes that monks also get to modify their unarmed strikes. It throws some serious doubt on your argument.

It has one sentence that only applies to monks' unarmed strike (5 levels higher and slashing).

Yeah, and that's the section you bolded. The other part obviously doesn't apply to gauntlets, because gauntlets are not meant to give natural weapons; natural weapons use completely different rules than unarmed attacks. You wouldn't have gauntlets just give a natural weapon.

[Kaelik]

I am perfectly willing to concede that Kaelik on page 4 is arguing something entirely different from Kaelik on page 2. I am actually so willing to concede that if you would bother to read my posts half as well as I've read your's (instead of bitching about how I never bother to read your's despite apparently knowing them better than you do), you'd have seen me mention that exact possibility.

Your original argument was very clearly that gauntlets let your unarmed strikes do 1d3 lethal damage regardless of your unarmed strike's nonlethal damage. I certainly can't stop you from abandoning that ship, but moved goalposts are moved goalposts.

You lying little piece of shit. My second post on the subject, before the discussion on gauntlets even took off, unsurprisingly, did not lay out a comprehensive theory on gauntlets or the rules there of. Instead it was a limited response to what erik just said. So no, you don't get to quote me not making an argument at all, and then claim that was my argument. Only once it became clear that we were actually going to have the gauntlet conversation did I articulate an actual argument.

For fuck's sake, here I am in 2007 saying that Gauntlets are weapons in their own right which do 1d3 damage (and that the modifying of unarmed strikes is different from use as a weapon).

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... -monk-help

[...You Lost Me]

Actually, trip is a special attack described here. The rules text for the scythe states that "A scythe can be used to make trip attacks." The attack you're performing is called a trip attack; not a scythe attack, not a scythe trip attack, not a scythe anything. It's a trip attack, and you use a scythe to perform it.

You are again demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about. Trip attacks are melee touch attacks. Looking at the entry for melee touch attacks, you can see they are attack rolls. Looking at attack rolls, you notice they use an attack bonus, which is includes the enhancement bonus of the weapon you are using to attack. In this case that would be a scythe. Or in the monk's case, it would be a toss-up between gauntlet and unarmed strike.

At least read the rules you linked before spouting a bunch of crazy nonsense. That way you might not trip over your feet as often.