On Monks and Gauntlets

[Kaelik]

I did not attack Prak for anything in that post, I told him he should apply the reasonable person standard to rules as an analogy to the law, because it isn't applied to the laws in the law.

Wait, what? You mean this:

You don't get to invoke the reasonable person standard.

...is a suggestion that he should apply the standard?

Typo, should be "shouldn't" fixed now, thanks.

Ever hear of growing some thicker skin? The fact that me not liking you makes you cry like a little bitch only encourages me to mention it.

Ever heard of not projecting your deep personal affront at every time I mention you onto me? You decided to say something dumb. I decided to call it dumb. In what way is that evidence of anything other than the fact that you like to say dumb things?

But sure, call me a crybaby, and I'll try to remember this in a couple days when you start begging me to please leave you alone because you can't stand me calling you mean names.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Ever heard of not projecting your deep personal affront at every time I mention you onto me? You decided to say something dumb. I decided to call it dumb. In what way is that evidence of anything other than the fact that you like to say dumb things?

But sure, call me a crybaby, and I'll try to remember this in a couple days when you start begging me to please leave you alone because you can't stand me calling you mean names.

Wouldn't miss it for the world, love. I'll pencil you in for next Thursday.

EDIT: Now if you'll excuse me, I'm sure the rest of the people in this thread would much rather discuss monks and gauntlets or possibly ask new question about gaming that they'd like answered. (And for the record, if you're going to flip out like this if I mention you or anything you say, I'll just stop addressing your points entirely) Good evening to you, sir.

[tussock]

You guys would lose so hard in court. Don't ever defend yourselves.

Logic:
X is a type of Z.
Some rules for X.
Y is a type of Z.
Some rules for Y.

Therefore: X uses the rules for Y. <- that bit is wrong. When rules call out Gauntlets as being "unarmed strikes" it means they use the general rules for unarmed strikes except as specified under the Gauntlet entry.

When the Monk attacks with "either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet" for extra damage with unarmed strikes, that also drags in the general rules for unarmed strikes, but it doesn't drag in other sections of the rules which modify unarmed strikes for their own purposes.

Like, you can, it doesn't hurt, but that's not what the rule says. Fix it by all means. Not that it matters in any way, shape, or form.

A Monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as magic fang and magic weapon spells).

Anything you need from a gauntlet you can just cast on the Monk. You can also just use those weapon silvering oils or whatever, if you want the DR piercing early.

Someone will no doubt argue that the Monk's unarmed strike counting for a bunch of stuff also makes it count for something else, but it doesn't. The opposite of that is true, the exception proves the rule.

[Kaelik]

EDIT: Now if you'll excuse me, I'm sure the rest of the people in this thread would much rather discuss monks and gauntlets or possibly ask new question about gaming that they'd like answered. (And for the record, if you're going to flip out like this if I mention you or anything you say, I'll just stop addressing your points entirely) Good evening to you, sir.

Don't promise what you can't deliver.

We are wasting our time. I am ceasing communications and putting you back on ignore.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

you do have me on that one <shrug>.

But I'm sure no one wants to see our bickering anymore, back to monks?

Also I had asked a question previously about which domains in Pathfinder were good for picking up for my tetori/qigong monk in a mythic game that I think got sidetracked with the gauntlet discussion, if anyone has an opinion on that, that would be great.

[ishy]

One thing is clear: a gauntlet attack is not a weapon attack because it specifically mentions it being an unarmed attack.

So a +1 bonus never does anything for a gauntlet since it is not a weapon attack?

---

Say I have a fighter who has:
weapon focus(gauntlet), weapon specialization(gauntlet), a +3 flaming gauntlet,
and weapon focus(unarmed strike), greater weapon focus(unarmed strike), a +5 AoMF
what kind of bonus do I get a with a gauntlet attack?

[...You Lost Me]

I read that the gauntlet can be used for a gauntlet attack, with whatever gauntlet-related bonuses you have and 1d3 base damage. Alternatively it can be used to make an unarmed strike deal lethal damage, but the unarmed strike has whatever unarmed-strike-related bonuses and none of the gauntlet ones.

That is the most reasonable interpretation given the rules, especially considering the only sentence going for the other side is on a term ("unarmed attack") that is not the same as what the monk's class feature actually augments ("unarmed strike").

This is the same as monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes, and rogues being able to hide behind a tower shield and thus hide a tower shield. It's a dumb rule that should be ignored, but it's still a rule.

[fbmf]

[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]

[name_here]

I'm going to support the "does unarmed strike damage" camp. The description says it causes your unarmed strikes to deal lethal damage, and so the attack is still an unarmed strike.

[Username17]

I personally do not understand why anyone would expend valuable mind caulk attempting to torture the wording of the phb gauntlet so that it allowed a monk to get their unarmed monk damage and a weapon enhancement bonus at the same time. It obviously doesn't fucking do that as written, and you wouldn't be able to use your unarmed attack rate with it anyway.

But more importantly, being able to buy yourself some flaming fists for eight grand would not be something that salvaged the monk class. Just using the kinds of gauntlets you could plausibly afford would be wildly inadequate to the task. Even if they did monk unarmed damage and provided their enhancement bonuses and counted as special monk weapons all at the same time. The artifact monk fist that actual players get as DM pity items are wildly more powerful than any normal item because they are DM pity items created for underperforming characters.

Who gives a shit that they break several rules for normal monk equipment use? They are a +3 adamantine weapon that does two extra dice of explosion damage or some shit and they are being given to a 7th level character. By the book, they'd cost more than all the equipment of all the other characters in the party. And no one fucking cares because the monk still doesn't outshine the fighter/ranger with a +1 shocking bow.

-Username17

[Prak]

Frank, I genuinely don't see where my interpretation (Gauntlets make unarmed strikes lethal, monks do more damage than normal with unarmed, thus a monk with a gauntlet deals their normal damage, with gauntlet enchantments but no flurry) is blatantly against the rules. It's not explicitly stated to be the case, but I also don't see the weapon table gauntlet damage as explicitly saying that it doesn't work that way.

Since Kaelik will just shriek at me and call me dumb, could you, Frank, explain your reasoning as to why the other side ("my side") is so explicitly blatantly wrong?

[Username17]

There are in fact lots of items that have enhancement bonuses when used as weapons which can be used to do other things (even offensive things). And universally and without exception their weapon enhancement bonus only applies when they are used as weapons. The most obvious and prominent of these are staves and spiked shields. A spiked shield does not provide its weapon enhancement bonus when used for defense and wouldn't even provide that bonus when used to fulfill the shield requirement of a tide of iron maneuver. A magic staff does not provide its weapon enhancement bonus when used to cast a spell, not even if that spell is a scorching ray that has an attack and damage roll.

If you want to use the weapon enhancement bonus, you have to use your item as a weapon, which among other things means that you use its fucking weapon stats. And anyone who says otherwise is at best deeply confused.

So basically there is no fucking way to get the weapon enhancement bonus of a gauntlet without also getting stuck with its bullshit damage and underwhelming critical multiplier without a fucktonne of wishful thinking. And if you're going to start spending wishes on improving the fucking phb monk, you should set your sights higher than a rusty ax and a can of Faygo. Because the ability to buy magic kamas that do a whole d8 of damage is not going to save that fucking worthless class.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

And comparing anyone to Zak S is forbidden.

Bwahahaha. That's not quite good enough to knock off Frank's quote from my sig, but, it's pretty close.

[deaddmwalking]

A gauntlet, unlike other weapons, doesn't have a damage of it's own. It uses the Unarmed Strike damage (and turns the damage from non-lethal to lethal). Unlike other weapons that you attack with DIRECTLY, the gauntlet isn't used as a 'normal weapon attack' - it is used in conjunction with your Unarmed Strike. It enhances an existing attack.

It's more like an Atlatl in play than a spear - it modifies another attack.

But yes, it's not worth considering as a way to 'fix' the monk. And that's not what this discussion is about. It's really a question of rules interpretation. Unarmed Strikes are 'strange weapons' for a number of reasons, not least among them that the damage is much more variable than for other standard weapons. Unfortunately, on the table, they did not say 'special', instead they listed the default value for a Medium Creature with no modifications to their damage roll.

From a 'in universe' perspective, how does putting a metal glove on REDUCE your damage, potentially from 2d10 down to 1d3? Not only is the result non-sensical, it is avoided by reading the gauntlet entry as calling for Unarmed Strike damage (when it states that it changes your Unarmed Strike damage from non-lethal to lethal).

As the 'primary benefit' of gauntlets, it isn't something monks would care about.

[Username17]

A gauntlet, unlike other weapons, doesn't have a damage of it's own.

I am going to stop you right there. Because a gauntlet does have a damage of its own. It's a d3, listed right next to all the other melee weapons. You can look this shit up and not embarrass yourself. If a monk uses a gauntlet as a weapon, they use the damage from the chart. Just like if they used a kama or nunchaku they would do a d6 of damage instead of their unarmed damage.

I am not going to go point by point with you when your first sentence is claiming that gauntlets don't appear on the weapon table when they blatantly do.

-Username17

[Prak]

"In Universe" I can totally see it, though. As a monk you are trained to be a weapon naked and standing in the rain. You're not quite at the point where you can drop acid bombs from little hatches in the base of your testicles or spray blinding organ-specific toxins from your nipples, or indeed, very good at your fists even, but the idea is that you kill fools by punching their skulls out of the back of their heads, or using a small number of inefficient weapons. By putting on a metal gauntlet, you are disgracing your masters and debasing your kung fu, and thus you lose your magic asian powers like a druid who uses metal armour.

edit: to revise my original first statement-- I would still interpret the d3 as a function call to unarmed damage, but I can understand other interpretations.

[virgil]

If a monk uses a gauntlet as a weapon, they use the damage from the chart. Just like if they used a kama or nunchaku they would do a d6 of damage instead of their unarmed damage.

But doesn't the text for the gauntlet specifically say that it's a modifier to your unarmed strike?

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.

Kamas aren't described as doing damage based on anything else. Monks don't have their enhanced unarmed strike damage overridden by the weapon table, and therefore a weapon that says it makes your unarmed attacks lethal will do damage of your enhanced unarmed strike. I can see the arguments that it's used as a weapon (with all of its enhancements), or as a weapon that will match the monk's enhanced damage but is still a separate weapon and thus doesn't gain the flurry benefit, or as a means of modifying your unarmed strike.

[Username17]

No you dumb fucks, a d3 is a d3. A Kama's d6 is not a function call to a monk's first level unarmed damage, it's a fucking d6. That's all it is. Stop trying to read this garbage with your inner eyes and start reading what's on the fucking page. It's just a d3, there is nothing special about it and it doesn't peel off and become something good no matter how hard you stare at it.

Virgil: if you use a special property of an item to do something other than make weapon attacks with it, even if you are still making an attack roll, you do not get to add any weapon enhancement bonuses it might have. While a gauntlet has the ability to modify your unarmed strikes in an entirely inconsequential way, you don't get to apply weapon enhancement bonuses of the gauntlet when you do that. Just like how a locking gauntlet can modify your sword attacks, but you don't get to add the weapon enhancement bonus of your locking gauntlet to your sword strikes.

-Username17

[Ancient History]

Question for the pro-gauntlet people: is it your understanding of the rules that small-sized gauntlets do d2 damage (commensurate with the unarmed attacks of small-sized humanoids)?

[virgil]

Virgil: if you use a special property of an item to do something other than make weapon attacks with it, even if you are still making an attack roll, you do not get to add any weapon enhancement bonuses it might have. While a gauntlet has the ability to modify your unarmed strikes in an entirely inconsequential way, you don't get to apply weapon enhancement bonuses of the gauntlet when you do that. Just like how a locking gauntlet can modify your sword attacks, but you don't get to add the weapon enhancement bonus of your locking gauntlet to your sword strikes.

So, from my list, Option A and Option C; a weapon that has the additional and separate property of enhancing your unarmed strike. I was suspecting to be the actual case, but wasn't certain because of the noise being generated with pages of debate.

[name_here]

Question for the pro-gauntlet people: is it your understanding of the rules that small-sized gauntlets do d2 damage (commensurate with the unarmed attacks of small-sized humanoids)?

Obviously, unless they're a monk and use the small monk unarmed strike damage table.

[radthemad4]

A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full.

Can gauntlets be worn on your feet, elbows or knees so you can use them when your hands are full? Seems to me like they're a weapon like any other, especially as they have damage die. Monk's belt and Gauntlets of the Talon increase unarmed strike by specifically noting that you strike as a monk of 5 levels higher.

[Cyberzombie]

I used to be for complete transparency on the 'net back in the day, but after spending some time on 4chan and seeing how they had all the great intellectual stuff that this board has on /tg/ with much less pointless drama, I have made a complete 180. I don't think Kaelik would be arguing this point anymore if the two things weren't true:

1. His name is on his assertions, giving him motivation to fight to the death because of his perceived reputation

2. If you and I weren't arguing the opposite.

The 'den used to get shit done. Now we get bogged down with pointless bickering at the drop of a hat. We're like old people in a nursing home that hate each other looking for stupid reasons to argue.

This is right on the money. I blame the insult-heavy dialogue, since it just leads to pointless adversarial arguments that aren't about finding the truth (or even just a good solution) and more about winning. Personally if anyone deserves insults, I would say it's the people that utterly refuse to admit they're wrong.

As for this debate itself: Seems like there's a bunch of evidence on both sides, so it's ambiguous. 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.

[deaddmwalking]

A gauntlet, unlike other weapons, doesn't have a damage of it's own.

I am going to stop you right there. Because a gauntlet does have a damage of its own. It's a d3, listed right next to all the other melee weapons.

And right below it on the table is 'Unarmed Strike', also with a damage listed as 1d3.

The text for Gauntlet presumes that you're using the Unarmed Strike that is also included on the table (and is listed as 1d3 damage). The text uses a call function to Unarmed Strike, and as a result, the correct interpretation of the text is that it uses your Unarmed Strike damage, whatever that happens to be.

[radthemad4]

As for this debate itself: Seems like there's a bunch of evidence on both sides, so it's ambiguous. 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.

Yes, this I'll agree with. However, I think it's important to understand what RAW is actually saying. You might end up in games outside the den, and you might need to discuss stuff like this when it comes up. At the very least you'd know to ask the MC, "How are you handling monks and gauntlets?" like we do with say, diplomacy.

The Den enjoys arguing, and I don't see the problem with that. If you don't feel like arguing about something that seems pointless to you, don't bother. That isn't an insult as I usually don't care enough to participate long in these things either. Stuff is still being made. The cultures thread is pretty sweet. IMOI gets new stuff every now and then, though it seems a bit short on feedback sometimes.