On Monks and Gauntlets

[erik]

I thought text trumped tables in which case where unarmed damage is greater than 1d3 then a gauntlet would turn that damage into lethal instead of subdual damage and otherwise considered an unarmed attack, tables be damned.

[Kaelik]

I thought text trumped tables in which case where unarmed damage is greater than 1d3 then a gauntlet would turn that damage into lethal instead of subdual damage and otherwise considered an unarmed attack, tables be damned.

Text trumps table where they contradict.

Does anything about the text you quoted in any way contradict the following statement:

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

If the text and table don't contradict, then they both are true, and Guantlets let your unarmed strike do 1d3 lethal damage.

[Prak]

No, it works

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.

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.

A Gauntlet makes an unarmed strike deal lethal instead of nonlethal damage. Usually this will be 1d3, because normally a person does 1d3 damage with an unarmed strike.

A monk's unarmed strike does more damage than normal.

A normal person wearing a gauntlet does their normal unarmed damage, 1d3, it's just made lethal because their fist is clad in metal.
A monk wearing a gauntlet does unarmed damage as normal, it's just that their normal is much more damage.

---

Interestingly, it's actually theoretically possible for a monk to just straight up enchant their hands as weapons, albeit at more cost.

1. Have a mage cast Silvered Weapon on hands/fists/head/cock, whatever you use to make unarmed attacks. This works because a monk's unarmed attack is considered a manufactured weapon, so Silvered Claws is unnecessary.
2. Have Silvered Weapon Permanencied. Unarmed strikes are now metal.
3. Have a friendly mage cast Adamantine Weapon on your unarmed strikes. They are now adamantine instead of silver, and are considered Masterwork Manufactured Weapons. Argue with your DM about Permanencying spells which do not explicitly say they can be made permanent.
4. Take your masterwork adamantine fists/feet/head/cock to a mage and pay for them to be enchanted.
5. Rock out with your flaming adamantine masterwork cock out.

[nockermensch]

Which doesn't matter, because Gauntlets do not allow you to do lethal damage in the amount you otherwise would have, because that is not a rule that exists anywhere, the rule is 1d3.

So, you're claiming that's a mere coincidence that the gauntlet deals exactly the same amount of damage as a normal unarmed strike.

[Prak]

Specific overrules general, fucker. Generally, gauntlets deal 1d3 because a normal person's unarmed attack deals 1d3 and the gauntlet just makes it lethal. Specifically, a monk's unarmed attack deals greater damage, and thus a gauntlet does not magically make them hit softer.

[Kaelik]

Which doesn't matter, because Gauntlets do not allow you to do lethal damage in the amount you otherwise would have, because that is not a rule that exists anywhere, the rule is 1d3.

So, you're claiming that's a mere coincidence that the gauntlet deals exactly the same amount of damage as a normal unarmed strike.

No, I am claiming that the rule states that it does 1d3 damage. And if you want to make up a reason, the reason that they think 1d3 damage is the appropriate balance for damage from both unarmed strikes and gauntlets is just as plausible as anything you can come up with.

Your belief that they really meant for gauntlets to do the same amount of damage as your unarmed strike in all possible situations even though they didn't say that does not actually make it a rule.

[Kaelik]

Specific overrules general, fucker. Generally, gauntlets deal 1d3 because a normal person's unarmed attack deals 1d3 and the gauntlet just makes it lethal. Specifically, a monk's unarmed attack deals greater damage, and thus a gauntlet does not magically make them hit softer.

You do not know what any of those words mean. Specifically all medium gauntlets do 1d3 because a table specifically says so. Specifically, the damage done by a Monk with unarmed strike using a gauntlet instead of his unarmed strike does 1d3 damaged. Because specifically you look up the rules for gauntlets, and the text doesn't tell you how much damage they do, but the table does, so you specifically use the table.

If you don't understand the argument that someone is making, don't argue against it until you do. Hint: You obviously do not get the argument.

[ACOS]

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

damage = 1d3

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk.

Notice that the damage for a gauntlet and an unarmed strike do the same damage?
Can we please stop inventing new ways to fuck over the monk?

[darkmaster]

For the love of fuck Kaelik, this isn't hard, no the rules don't specifically say anything about monks dealing more damage with gauntlets, but they do say that Gauntlets are in every way identical to unarmed strikes except that they change the damage to lethal damage and the later table references the exact same damage as a normal unarmed strike. It can then be extrapolated that the intent was that if you deal more unarmed damage that that damage is just changed into lethal damage.

[Prak]

If you don't understand the argument that someone is making, don't argue against it until you do. Hint: You obviously do not get the argument.

[erik]

Fair enough. On a literal reading, yes, the table and text do not contradict. Even though it seems apparent that gauntlet damage is obviously mirroring unarmed damage, for all we know that is not the case.

Better writing could have for gauntlet damage instead of 1d3 using "as unarmed damage" to keep it nice and clean. So, yes, gauntlets do 1d3 regardless of unarmed damage in a most literal reading absent anything indicating that the reason for the 1d3 damage was just that that was standard unarmed damage. I will yield to Kaelik there.

That said, this kind of situation where there is confusion even without outright contradiction is something that FAQs are supposed to address. I would not laugh that FAQ ruling out of the room. I feel with the FAQ in hand there is sufficient reason to be justified in calling the 1d3 a stand-in for standard unarmed damage.

[Kaelik]

That said, this kind of situation where there is confusion even without outright contradiction is something that FAQs are supposed to address.

Places where a bunch of dumb idiots are confused is a place to state the actual rule in a FAQ. Or to change the rule in errata. Not a place to attempt to change the rule to something else and pretend it was that all along. Which is what this is. Because they realized they wrote a rule that with a slight change could be better in their minds, so they thought they would just change it in a FAQ.

[The rules] do say that Gauntlets are in every way identical to unarmed strikes except that they change the damage to lethal damage.

No they don't. Learn to read.

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

Strike[/b]]
damage = 1d3

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk.

Notice that the damage for a gauntlet and an unarmed strike do the same damage?
Can we please stop inventing new ways to fuck over the monk?

Emphasis mine. I'm not inventing new ways, this is the actual rule. It is not a particularly good rule, if you were stupid enough to allow a monk without rewriting the class, you could change it if you want, but custom loot of amulet of mighty strikes would be a better solution even than that. Still not a new way to fuck monks. Still just the actual rules.

I'm really dumb

Hey dumb shit. I did understand your argument, which is why I pointed out that it was wrong by pointing to the specific rules for unarmed strike of monks, not the general rules of unarmed strike in my direct counter. I perfectly understood your stupid wrong argument. The reason I still disagree is because your argument is stupid and wrong. But by even saying specific trumps general, you prove that you did not understand my argument at all. I suspect it is because you are dumb.

Sidenote: I'm pretty sure I had this exact same argument on this forum before, up to and including the part where people couldn't tell the difference between unarmed attack and unarmed strike.

[Prak]

No, I get it. An unarmed attack is an action. An unarmed strike is a weapon.

And, sure, maybe my argument isn't precisely a case of specific vrs general, more "general and less general," but you're pretty much flat fucking wrong, and just trolling. Or stupid, I'm really not sure at this point, because when you're trolling, you come off as more smarmy and less actually angry that people are saying you're wrong.

A person wearing a gauntlet makes an unarmed attack, which is in all ways identical to an unarmed attack, except it deals lethal damage. A normal person's unarmed strike deals 1d3 damage, thus when they make an unarmed attack while wearing a gauntlet, they deal 1d3 lethal damage. A monk's unarmed strike deals more damage, so when they make an unarmed attack while wearing a gauntlet, in addition to making what is actually an armed attack because they're a monk, they deal their normal monk unarmed strike damage for their level, and it's lethal, and it carries whatever effects the gauntlet is under, such as flaming.

Whether or not the rules explicitly state that is the way it works, it's perfectly reasonable to say that it works that way, thus it should be considered a valid interpretation of rules which do not outright explicitly say otherwise. Protip: if they'd intended for monks to suck even fucking harder, they'd have explicitly said that monks magically dealt less damage by wrapping metal around their fist.

[ACOS]

For fuck's sakes

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.

Emphasis mine.
Clearly, the "otherwise considered an unarmed attack" is referencing the fact that you still (normally) provoke AoO - i.e., you're not considered "armed".

[Kaelik]

A person wearing a gauntlet makes an unarmed attack, which is in all ways identical to an unarmed attack, except it deals lethal damage. A normal person's unarmed strike deals 1d3 damage, thus when they make an unarmed attack while wearing a gauntlet, they deal 1d3 lethal damage.

A=X.
B=Y.
Thus B=X.

See if you can spot the flaw. Now see how that it literally your argument.

[Kaelik]

For fuck's sakes

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.

Emphasis mine.
Clearly, the "otherwise considered an unarmed attack" is referencing the fact that you still (normally) provoke AoO - i.e., you're not considered "armed".

Yes, clearly the unarmed attack part, the part that you just quoted as support for your claim that it did the same damage as an unarmed strike, clearly means that it provokes.

Just as clearly, the part that says "lets you deal lethal damage" does not mean that it lets you deal lethal damage equal to what your unarmed strike would do without wearing a gauntlet instead of equal to the amount of damage you would do with a gauntlet, which is 1d3.

[Prak]

No, sorry, if you want to be this willfully fucking stupid, or troll this goddamned hard, you have to put in the effort. Explain to me, in detail, why I'm wrong, rather than just "DA CHART SAYS 1D3 FUCKTARD!!!"

If you think I'm that fucking wrong, then there must be an argument beyond three characters and a lack of a footnote. I want to see your reasoning. Because if that's your reasoning, then you have no argument. You have three characters and authorial/editorial oversight.

[Username17]

Prak, do you insist that a tiny shorts word counts as an unarmed attack? If not, then shut up. If yes, shut up even harder.

-Username17

[spongeknight]

No, sorry, if you want to be this willfully fucking stupid, or troll this goddamned hard, you have to put in the effort. Explain to me, in detail, why I'm wrong, rather than just "DA CHART SAYS 1D3 FUCKTARD!!!"

If you think I'm that fucking wrong, then there must be an argument beyond three characters and a lack of a footnote. I want to see your reasoning. Because if that's your reasoning, then you have no argument. You have three characters and authorial/editorial oversight.

I hate to agree with Kaelik on, well, anything, but he is correct and you are wrong. The thing you seem to be missing is that there is no rule anywhere that states that a gauntlet increases in damage according to an increase in a character's unarmed strike damage. That rule does not exist. While it may be a sensible thing to house-rule based on what the intent of the designers quite obviously is, it's still not a real rule. The only rule ever given for a gauntlet's damage is in the table of weapons which lists its damage as a flat 1d3.

Rules as Written produces strange results sometimes. This is obviously a case of the designers simply not presenting something correctly, but the end result is that monks lose their unarmed strike damage when using a gauntlet.

[ACOS]

Just as clearly, the part that says "lets you deal lethal damage" does not mean that it lets you deal lethal damage equal to what your unarmed strike would do without wearing a gauntlet instead of equal to the amount of damage you would do with a gauntlet, which is 1d3.

So OBVIOUSLY the whole "1d3 = 1d3" thing is just a silly coincidence. Because reasons.

[ACOS]

The thing you seem to be missing is that there is no rule anywhere that states that a gauntlet increases in damage according to an increase in a character's unarmed strike damage.

"=unarmed strike" is "=unarmed strike".

[Kaelik]

No, sorry, if you want to be this willfully fucking stupid, or troll this goddamned hard, you have to put in the effort. Explain to me, in detail, why I'm wrong, rather than just "DA CHART SAYS 1D3 FUCKTARD!!!"

If you think I'm that fucking wrong, then there must be an argument beyond three characters and a lack of a footnote. I want to see your reasoning. Because if that's your reasoning, then you have no argument. You have three characters and authorial/editorial oversight.

I have repeatedly explained this. Over and over. If the problem is you are incapable of reading, or too stupid to understand, me retyping the exact same arguments is probably not going to help. If your argument is that irrespective of what the rules actually say, you think they meant X, pls stop posting on TGD, because that is the kind of dumb shit that I expect from someone on another forum, but even the dumbest person here should be able to grasp the distinction between what the rules say, and what the designers "meant." (Where "meant" always and without fail means "what I think the rules should be, because I can't actually read minds, but am super sure the designers thought of this specific edge case when writing the rule and decided the solution was what I think is best.")

Now, here is For Prak's version of this argument.

1) Characters in D&D make attack roles with weapons.
2) An unarmed strike is a weapon.
3) An unarmed attack is a kind of attack that provokes, but is not an unarmed strike.
4) A gauntlet is a weapon.
5) As a weapon, listed in the weapons sections of equipment, a Gauntlet has all the effects that it says it has in both it's text and table provided they do not contradict.
6) The text of gauntlet says that it allows you to do lethal damage with your unarmed strike.
7) The text does not tell you how much damage that lethal damage is.
8) The table that tells you how much damage each weapon does tells you that gauntlets, a weapon in that table, do 1d3 damage.
9) Because the text does not contradict the table, the table is an actual rule that applies to the game.
10) If you quote the sentence "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. " at me as if it was in any way relevant, I will punch you in the mouth.
11) If you say "The designers meant X when your unarmed attack is greater or less than 1d3 for medium creatures" you are fucking wrong. I don't care what X is. You are wrong. The designers did not think about this case. They wrote the rule without thinking for even a second about the possibility that a Monk might want to use gauntlets to enchant their fist, because they are dumb people who are even dumber than you Prak, which is a goddam miracle, but still true. So when you talk about what they meant for the rule to mean, you are wrong. And also that is not what I am talking about.

So OBVIOUSLY the whole "1d3 = 1d3" thing is just a silly coincidence. Because reasons.

WHO FUCKING CARES?

If the designers deliberately made gauntlets do 1d3 damage because it was the same as unarmed strikes and for no other reason at all, that still would not magically change the rules they actually wrote, which do not say that gauntlets do the same damage as your unarmed strike.

It doesn't matter what the designers thought, because they didn't write what they thought, they wrote this.

[TiaC]

Prak, do you insist that a tiny shorts word counts as an unarmed attack? If not, then shut up. If yes, shut up even harder.

-Username17

I'm rather curious as to what you meant to say here.

[Username17]

Prak, do you insist that a tiny shorts word counts as an unarmed attack? If not, then shut up. If yes, shut up even harder.

-Username17

I'm rather curious as to what you meant to say here.

That is autocorrect hilarity. I wrote 'short swords' and then I got fucked.

Point is, a lot of fucking weapons do damage that is the same as unarmed damage, and that doesn't make them substitutable in either direction.

[ACOS]

Unarmed Attacks

• Gaunlet
  Unarmed Strike

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

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk.

Therefore, monk damage applies to plain ol' gauntlets.
Anything else is just distraction and asinine mental gymnastics.