On Monks and Gauntlets

[Kaelik]

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.

No, those other things are called reading.

See, how gauntlet is listed as an unarmed attack but different from an unarmed strike?

And see how monk increases unarmed strike damage but not unarmed attack damage?

And see how you are so stupid you keep conflating those two different things?

[spongeknight]

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.

No, you dishonest asshole, let's put those rule quotations in full shall we?

Gauntlet: This metal glove protects your hands and lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

A strike with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike. The term "unarmed strike" is a subsection of unarmed attacks listed in the quote you fucking put up. They are separate things, and there is no motherfucking rule in the entire third edition of dungeons and dragons that states you can substitute the unarmed damage of your gauntlets with the unarmed strike damage from your monk class.

[ACOS]

And see how you are so stupid you keep conflating those two different things?

See how you are so stupid you keep making the wrong distinctions an willfully ignoring parts that are inconvenient for you?

No, you dishonest asshole, let's put those rule quotations in full shall we?

Gauntlet: This metal glove protects your hands and lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

A strike with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike. The term "unarmed strike" is a subsection of unarmed attacks listed in the quote you fucking put up. They are separate things, and there is no motherfucking rule in the entire third edition of dungeons and dragons that states you can substitute the unarmed damage of your gauntlets with the unarmed strike damage from your monk class.

No, you dishonest asshole, you bolded the wrong part:
"lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes"
Meaning that you use gauntlets to make unarmed strikes.

[Kaelik]

and there is no motherfucking rule in the entire third edition of dungeons and dragons that states you can substitute the unarmed damage of your gauntlets with the unarmed strike damage from your monk class.

It wouldn't even have to say monk class, it could literally just say that you do the same damage with your gauntlet that you would with your unarmed strike. It wouldn't even be that hard.

And see how you are so stupid you keep conflating those two different things?

See how you are so stupid you keep making the wrong distinctions an willfully ignoring parts that are inconvenient for you?

Oh for fucks sake, you started this by quoting the unarmed attack sentence and excluding the unarmed strike sentence because I already addressed the unarmed strike sentence before you posted.

Then you switched to quoting a different sentence once you realized you were completely wrong and full of shit. You don't get to get mad at me for addressing the arguments you were making.

But since you are switching to a different argument:

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.

[ACOS]

Oh for fucks sake, you started this by quoting the unarmed attack sentence and excluding the unarmed strike sentence because I already addressed the unarmed strike sentence before you posted.

Then you switched to quoting a different sentence once you realized you were completely wrong and full of shit. You don't get to get mad at me for addressing the arguments you were making.

I truncated for brevity, thinking that you weren't so stupid that I needed the whole thing. I added it after I realized that you were to stupid to understand the most obvious part.

[Kaelik]

Oh for fucks sake, you started this by quoting the unarmed attack sentence and excluding the unarmed strike sentence because I already addressed the unarmed strike sentence before you posted.

Then you switched to quoting a different sentence once you realized you were completely wrong and full of shit. You don't get to get mad at me for addressing the arguments you were making.

I truncated for brevity, thinking that you weren't so stupid that I needed the whole thing. I added it after I realized that you were to stupid to understand the most obvious part.

Bullshit you liar. Don't be Zak S. You included a sentence that is literally 100% irrelevant, and only that sentence, and you didn't include the sentence you are now citing.

You were wrong. You were relying on a completely different sentence to justify your argument before. You realized it was wrong and switched to a completely different sentence. That is fine, because your new argument is less dumb. But you were still hyper wrong before, and you still need to just grow the fuck up and admit that you were in fact using the wrong argument before and your new argument is new.

[ishy]

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.

Oh my.

[DSMatticus]

I'm not actually sure where everyone is in this argument, so let's start at square one. Here are the three sentences of rules text we care about (I'm ignoring tables entirely, because text trumps table and the only parts we need to talk about are the text):
1. This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.
2. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
3. A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would...

1 and 3 are fairly straightforward. 1 says you can make an unarmed strikes with a gauntlet, and they have their behavior modified in a particular way by the gauntlet. The thing you're doing is still an unarmed strike. 3 says monks do more damage with their unarmed strikes. If that was all the text said, it would be the end of the discussion. A level 1 monk using a gauntlet would deal 1d6 damage.

2 is the problem. 2 says "a[n unarmed] strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." So, what does that actually fucking mean? Unarmed attacks are a category of attacks, of which unarmed strikes are a member. Unarmed attacks have the properties defined here, under [standard actions -> attack -> unarmed attacks]. Monk benefits don't apply to all unarmed attacks, only to unarmed strikes, so the question of whether or not the thing you do with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike or an unarmed attack is actually a meaningful distinction.

Except it doesn't matter. Remember, an unarmed attack is a category of which an unarmed strike is a member. Telling me something is an unarmed attack does not mean it isn't also an unarmed strike. Here, have an example: my pet bird Bob is a parrot with zebra stripes. Otherwise, Bob is a bird. Is Bob a parrot or not?

[Kaelik]

Here are the three sentences of rules text we care about (I'm ignoring tables entirely, because text trumps table and the only parts we need to talk about are the text):?

Quick, tell me how much damage a short sword does without using the table.

Hint: Text trumps table where they contradict. Since no text anywhere at any point at all tells you how much damage any weapon does, when it comes to weapons, tables are kinda fucking important.

I mean, you literally came into this thread with "I refuse to read or understand any of the arguments before hand but..." and, completely unsurprisingly, you said something that was covered two pages ago. Catch up to two pages ago, and then maybe you can have an opinion.

Then you covered the unarmed attack thing, and you are in fact so far behind that even the people who originally used that as a point in their favor now understand what that actually means.

[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.

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.

Ah, I thought you had forgotten what hotpants are called and just stuck in a placeholder for a moment.

[DSMatticus]

Quick, tell me how much damage a short sword does without using the table.

Hint: Text trumps table where they contradict. Since no text anywhere at any point at all tells you how much damage any weapon does, when it comes to weapons, tables are kinda fucking important.

The damage of an unarmed strike is described in text twice, here (under [standard actions -> attacks -> unarmed attacks -> unarmed strike damage]) and here. If your argument is that the damage for an unarmed strike doesn't appear anywhere except the tables and therefore we have to use the tables, this is quite possibly the only case in the entire SRD you would be wrong. That's like finding the needle in the haystack with your eye.

But also: even if we had to use a table to determine unarmed strike damage, you would still be wrong. The gauntlet rules text tells you that when you make unarmed strikes you may modify them in a particular way. Unarmed strikes have a table entry, and when you make an unarmed strike you use the table entry for unarmed strikes, and then if you happen to be using a pair of gauntlets you have the option to modify that unarmed strike in a particular way. But the gauntlet text says unarmed strike, which is a very specific kind of attack with an entry on the table and there would still be no reason to give a fuck what the table says for the damage of gauntlets.

[Kaelik]

The damage of an unarmed strike is described in text twice, here (under [standard actions -> attacks -> unarmed attacks -> unarmed strike damage]) and here. If your argument is that the damage for an unarmed strike doesn't appear anywhere except the tables and therefore we have to use the tables, this is quite possibly the only case in the entire SRD you would be wrong. That's like finding the needle in the haystack with your eye.

Congratulations on your ability to prove me wrong about things I didn't say. I don't suppose you could point to the non table location of shortsword damage then? Or perhaps gauntlet damage?

The gauntlet rules text tells you that when you make unarmed strikes you may modify them in a particular way.

...

there would still be no reason to give a fuck what the table says for the damage of gauntlets.

I appreciate the fact that you have decided to argue for the weirdest and dumbest interpretation of the rules possible in this case, but that might actually be arguably correct. I like that your argument is that you aren't using the gauntlet as a weapon so you can ignore the rules that very specifically tell you how much damage a gauntlet used as a weapon does argument.

It has two flaws, one general, and one specific to you. The general one is that if you aren't using the gauntlet as a weapon there is no reason to assume you get its magical weapon properties.

The specific to you one is that it still doesn't justify your absolutely bullshit claim that you can figure out weapon damage without looking at the table.

[Red_Rob]

The gauntlet rules text tells you that when you make unarmed strikes you may modify them in a particular way.

Actually, it doesn't. Imagine there is a weapon entry for 'Torch' that deals D3 Bludgeoning damage. Below it is an entry 'Flaming Torch' that deals D2 Fire damage. The text for the Torch weapon reads 'A torch may be lit. This allows a strike with a Torch to deal Fire damage.' Does this mean the Flaming Torch now deals D3 Fire damage?

[DSMatticus]

Congratulations on your ability to prove me wrong about things I didn't say. I don't suppose you could point to the non table location of shortsword damage then? Or perhaps gauntlet damage?

Wat? Okay, look: you very obviously did not bring up short swords because you wanted to make a point about short swords (the thing we aren't arguing about). You brought up short swords because you wanted to make a point about gauntlets (the thing we are arguing about). And what that point was is not some great mystery: "hey, you can't determine what short sword damage is without looking up the short sword table entry." But that point doesn't port over to gauntlets, because gauntlets have a special bit of rules text that refers to performing unarmed strikes, which 1: have their own table entry, and it is not the gauntlet table entry, and 2: in a hilarious double fuck, have their damage described in the text repeatedly. Explaining to you why the rhetorical challenge you issued is actually completely irrelevant is not the sort of thing on which you get to call foul.

And now that you apparently understand what my argument is, you should be able to tell that the short sword line of inquiry is a non-sequitur, so... why the fuck are you still pushing it?! No, really, I do not understand. It doesn't go anywhere. There's no goal where you're trying to kick that ball to.

I appreciate the fact that you have decided to argue for the weirdest and dumbest interpretation of the rules possible in this case, but that might actually be arguably correct. I like that your argument is that you aren't using the gauntlet as a weapon so you can ignore the rules that very specifically tell you how much damage a gauntlet used as a weapon does argument.

I don't think it's obviously weird and dumb at all. It's entirely possible that the gauntlet was lumped in with the weapons because that is the equipment section in which it fits best, and they put it on the table for the sake of completeness and accessibility - complete with redundant information copied from unarmed strike. Note that spiked gauntlets are not just a copy of unarmed strike, and do not have a note in their rules text about performing unarmed strikes. That's not conclusive or anything, but if it's your intention to make a gauntlet weapon with fixed damage there's already an example of what that looks like in the SRD and the gauntlet does not match it.

The general one is that if you aren't using the gauntlet as a weapon there is no reason to assume you get its magical weapon properties.

There isn't and there is. Would you say that an unarmed strike being modified by the special feature of a gauntlet is an instance of a gauntlet being "used in combat?" ("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 that's how it's meant to be read. I think used in combat refers to the specific game mechanical action of "making a longsword attack," and since you don't make gauntlet attacks you wouldn't get that bonus ever. But it is the case that making an unarmed strike modified by a gauntlet involves an attack roll, a damage roll, and a gauntlet being used as part of the attack's mechanics.

But either way, neither of those is a position I set out to defend. Only that you make unarmed strikes "with" a gauntlet.

The specific to you one is that it still doesn't justify your absolutely bullshit claim that you can figure out weapon damage without looking at the table.

GOD DAMNIT

The gauntlet rules text tells you that when you make unarmed strikes you may modify them in a particular way.

Actually, it doesn't. Imagine there is a weapon entry for 'Torch' that deals D3 Bludgeoning damage. Below it is an entry 'Flaming Torch' that deals D2 Fire damage. The text for the Torch weapon reads 'A torch may be lit. This allows a strike with a Torch to deal Fire damage.' Does this mean the Flaming Torch now deals D3 Fire damage?

In your example, the table entries are distinct in a way that implies intent, and that calls the meaning behind the (deliberately poorly worded) text into question. You've set up an example where the "correct" mindcaulk is obvious so it feels less like mindcaulk. In the actual example being discussed, the table entries are identical in a way that implies nothing, and there is no reason to doubt the intent behind the (not quite as poorly worded) text, so not only is there no obvious need for mindcaulk, it's not obvious what the correct mindcaulk would be.

[spongeknight]

And see how you are so stupid you keep conflating those two different things?

See how you are so stupid you keep making the wrong distinctions an willfully ignoring parts that are inconvenient for you?

No, you dishonest asshole, let's put those rule quotations in full shall we?

Gauntlet: This metal glove protects your hands and lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

A strike with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike. The term "unarmed strike" is a subsection of unarmed attacks listed in the quote you fucking put up. They are separate things, and there is no motherfucking rule in the entire third edition of dungeons and dragons that states you can substitute the unarmed damage of your gauntlets with the unarmed strike damage from your monk class.

No, you dishonest asshole, you bolded the wrong part:
"lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes"
Meaning that you use gauntlets to make unarmed strikes.

Once again: NO PART OF THAT STATES THAT YOU MAY OVERRIDE THE ACTUAL GAUNTLET DAMAGE WITH IMPROVED DAMAGE FROM YOUR INCREASED UNARMED STRIKE. It says you may make an unarmed strike with lethal damage as a special gauntlet rule, but the damage from that will be 1d3 damage because that is what a gauntlet does for damage. Unless you are claiming that a gauntlet is not a weapon at all when used to modify your unarmed strikes and just an attached piece of equipment like an Amulet of Mighty Fists or whatever, but as Kaelik pointed out you would therefor not get to use its weapon enhancements when attacking because you're not actually attacking with it, it's just equipment which modifies your unarmed strike in a single way.

Once again: this entire argument boils down to the fact that the gauntlet has a listed damage and no rule about substituting that damage with an increased unarmed strike damage, even if you use its specific property to modify an unarmed strike to deal lethal damage.

[ACOS]

Gauntlets provide an exception to the unarmed strike rule.
Monk provides an exception to the unarmed strike rule.
There is nothing about those 2 exceptions that are mutually exclusive. Nothing.

[Ancient History]

...there's also nothing about them that says they stack. So what's your point?

[Kaelik]

Gauntlets provide an exception to the unarmed strike rule.
Monk provides an exception to the unarmed strike rule.
There is nothing about those 2 exceptions that are mutually exclusive. Nothing.

Are you attacking with the gauntlet as a weapon or not.

If yes, then you cannot use monk damage, because gauntlet damage applies.

If no, then you cannot use magic item enhancements.

Wat? Okay, look: you very obviously did not bring up short swords because you wanted to make a point about short swords (the thing we aren't arguing about). You brought up short swords because you wanted to make a point about gauntlets (the thing we are arguing about). And what that point was is not some great mystery: "hey, you can't determine what short sword damage is without looking up the short sword table entry." But that point doesn't port over to gauntlets, because gauntlets have a special bit of rules text that refers to performing unarmed strikes, which 1: have their own table entry, and it is not the gauntlet table entry, and 2: in a hilarious double fuck, have their damage described in the text repeatedly. Explaining to you why the rhetorical challenge you issued is actually completely irrelevant is not the sort of thing on which you get to call foul.

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

If you had agreed that I was correct about short swords but said that the same thing doesn't apply to gauntlets because [really stupid argument about the text of gauntlets] then you would have not been lying and strawmanning, and I could have addressed just your argument instead of your lying strawmanning and also your argument.

There isn't and there is. Would you say that an unarmed strike being modified by the special feature of a gauntlet is an instance of a gauntlet being "used in combat?" ("Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.")

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 confess, I was not prepared for you to devolve this far into self parody.

But either way, neither of those is a position I set out to defend. Only that you make unarmed strikes "with" a gauntlet.

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.

In your example, the table entries are distinct in a way that implies intent, and that calls the meaning behind the (deliberately poorly worded) text into question. You've set up an example where the "correct" mindcaulk is obvious so it feels less like mindcaulk. In the actual example being discussed, the table entries are identical in a way that implies nothing, and there is no reason to doubt the intent behind the (not quite as poorly worded) text, so not only is there no obvious need for mindcaulk, it's not obvious what the correct mindcaulk would be.

Summary: I'm pretty sure in the gauntlet example I can discern an intent different than the rules, and I think this intent changes the rules, so now the rules are this new thing.

[ACOS]

...there's also nothing about them that says they stack. So what's your point?

Gauntlets talk about modifying unarmed strikes in a particular way; and, thus, talk about unarmed strikes within the context of how they are normally implemented.
Monk talks about modifying unarmed strikes in a particular way; and talk about unarmed strikes within the specific context of how they are implemented by the monk.
While stacking isn't specifically called out either way, the way the rules (at large) mesh together, stacking is allowed for. Furthermore, IUS (which monks get for free) largely makes gauntlets redundant as to their basic purpose.

Why doesn't the gauntlet entry go on to talk about the specific monk exception? Because that would be a waste of page space - the monk class already pours a lot of ink talking about their specific unarmed strike exception. Also, it is not listed on the monk's weapons list; but, nor does it need to be (RE: redundant).
Why doesn't the monk entry talk about gauntlet use? Because it is not specifically listed on the monk's weapons list - at least, not directly. That kind of gets covered by getting IUS as a bonus feat. Again, redundancy.

And I know that I just left myself open to something, so I'll go ahead and cover that as well:
"Monks aren't proficient in gauntlets, because reasons", right? No.
They are proficient with unarmed strikes, and gauntlets simply modify a single basic aspect of unarmed strikes.
But then we're back at the table. True, there are other weapons that deal 1d3 damage; so that, in itself doesn't really mean anything. However, both gauntlets and unarmed strikes are listed as subsets of unarmed attacks (there are others, but they're irrelevant for this discussion). So, if I'm crafting a table of weapon stats, wherein gauntlets and unarmed strikes are the same thing but for one single aspect, does it make more sense to add yet another function call and specific single-use footnote nomenclature, or do I just copy-paste the damage block and make the text entry as simple as possible?

We can even go the route of "the rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do" route:
The rules tell you that you can use a gauntlet to modify the damage from an unarmed strike such that it is lethal instead of non-lethal. The rules tell you that a monk gets a larger damage die for his unarmed strikes. These do not conflict with each other.
The fact that a monk gets IUS for free largely obviates the need for gauntlets. The monk also further modifies IUS in a way that is class-specific; and at later levels, does so in a way that largely obviates the need for gauntlets (eventually). But none of that does anything to restrict gauntlet use, nor do gauntlets restrict the manner in which monks modify unarmed strikes.

And all of this is fully consistent with the expressed "ivory tower" design of 3.x.

---

@Kaelik
It was late, I was tired, I got lazy. In that laziness, I decided to truncate the text so that I could shorten my response. I didn't think that I needed to explain that "unarmed strike = unarmed strike"; and in that tired laziness, I chose brevity over completeness. It's is just that simple.
I'm absolutely certain that I know my own mind better than you do. So, when I say that my intent was "x", then my intent was indeed "x". Full stop. Much to what I am sure is your very deep disappointment, not everybody who disagrees with you is a dishonest, disingenuous, stupid fuck. Just because you happen to be the resident rage monster around here (a distinction in which you seem to wallow) does not entitle you to unilaterally dictate what my intentions are. You can point out how I might be wrongheaded in my logic; you can say that I communicated poorly; but you can't tell me what my intent is. I stated my intent, and that was my intent.
But no, you want to attack my imagined intent, because that is cheap and easy (there's a joke to be made there about your mom, but I'll refrain), and allows you to distract from the matter at hand; because you'd rather strawman and ad hominem than to even entertain the thought of possibly rethinking your position. Because that would be too hard for you. Because you're an egohead who wouldn't know what to do with yourself if didn't have an excuse to be a rage monster at all the stupid fucks that surround you.

[Kaelik]

We can even go the route of "the rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do" route:
The rules tell you that you can use a gauntlet to modify the damage from an unarmed strike such that it is lethal instead of non-lethal. The rules tell you that a monk gets a larger damage die for his unarmed strikes. These do not conflict with each other.

The rules tell you that gauntlets do 1d3 damage when used as a weapon. This does contradict. Your ability to not type the rules that directly contradict your point does not make them disappear.

It was late, I was tired, I got lazy. In that laziness, I decided to truncate the text so that I could shorten my response. I didn't think that I needed to explain that "unarmed strike = unarmed strike"; and in that tired laziness, I chose brevity over completeness. It's is just that simple.
I'm absolutely certain that I know my own mind better than you do. So, when I say that my intent was "x", then my intent was indeed "x". Full stop. Much to what I am sure is your very deep disappointment, not everybody who disagrees with you is a dishonest, disingenuous, stupid fuck. Just because you happen to be the resident rage monster around here (a distinction in which you seem to wallow) does not entitle you to unilaterally dictate what my intentions are. You can point out how I might be wrongheaded in my logic; you can say that I communicated poorly; but you can't tell me what my intent is. I stated my intent, and that was my intent.

You are lying about your intent because you don't want to admit you are wrong. That is really easy to see. Here:

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?

You were not truncating. You literally typed only the sentence about unarmed attack as your example of the text of Gauntlet. You did that because you thought it was the relevant part of the rules, even though it is irrelevant. You lying and saying you totally just "shortened" your quote by deleting all the rules that are relevant, but including all the rules that are irrelevant is just you clearly lying.

This is really easy Zak S. Just admit you were fucking wrong about one thing that you were obviously wrong about and stop lying about how you "shortened" the post to only include something irrelevant by copy pasting slightly less.

[deaddmwalking]

I was never sure what was intended, but after reading the weapon descriptions of both gauntlets and unarmed strikes, it is clear to me that a gauntlet does your unarmed strike damage. The table lists 1d3 for the damage for unarmed strike (which is the default for medium creatures) but this was probably unwise.

It would be a pretty obvious and 'common sense' house rule, but based on the descriptive text, that's not even necessary. The 'table' is wrong because it lists a damage for unarmed strike which can be modified by things like 'being a monk' or 'improved natural attack'. 'Extra damage' with other weapons doesn't work the same way - making gauntlets and unarmed strikes very different from the other weapons on the table...

As for whether the designers wanted monks to use gauntlets, I'd say no. It doesn't fit any of the wuxia examples - but I also don't think the designers wanted monks to suck so badly. Letting them use special material gauntlets is a 'spot fix' for a system issue.

[Kaelik]

it is clear to me that a gauntlet does your unarmed strike damage.

People keep stating that. but for some reason neglect to give any actual reason for it, and the gone on to extrapolate a bunch of things as if anyone contests that if that were true other things would be true. Hint, instead of 3 paragraphs assuming this is true, you should have had three paragraphs arguing this is true.

[deaddmwalking]

Gauntlet

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

The italicized text is a redirect to the unarmed strike description. The description of unarmed strike mentions the damage of 1d3 for medium creatures in the text description. There is no reference to increased damage in the Unarmed Strike description. However, since we know that Unarmed Strike damage can increase , the description of unarmed strikes is not exhaustive.

A gauntlet let's you do your Unarmed Strike damage. The table assumes your unarmed strike damage is normal for a creature of your size. This is a stupid assumption , and both the Unarmed Strike and Gauntlet damage work off this assumption. That's probably the worst possible way to do it, since just about anyone interested in gauntlet damage is likely to have higher than standard unarmed strike damage.

[Kaelik]

Gauntlet

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

The italicized text is a redirect to the unarmed strike description. The description of unarmed strike mentions the damage of 1d3 for medium creatures in the text description. There is no reference to increased damage in the Unarmed Strike description. However, since we know that Unarmed Strike damage can increase , the description of unarmed strikes is not exhaustive.

A gauntlet let's you do your Unarmed Strike damage. The table assumes your unarmed strike damage is normal for a creature of your size. This is a stupid assumption , and both the Unarmed Strike and Gauntlet damage work off this assumption. That's probably the worst possible way to do it, since just about anyone interested in gauntlet damage is likely to have higher than standard unarmed strike damage.

Are you DSM? Is there a reason you refuse to read the things people have previously said before you start talking?

[deaddmwalking]

I've read everything. Three times now.

There's a damage listed for Unarmed Strike, is there not?

Why did they list a specific damage when there are so many obvious exceptions? That was stupid of them, but that's what they did.

The gauntlet text has a call function to Unarmed Strike. It pulls the Unarmed Strike damage. The Unarmed Strike Damage is 1d3, so it pulls 1d3.

If the damage were not 1d3, would it pull the correct value?

Since it is a call function, it would. The gauntlet pulls the 1d3 damage only because that is the only value that is considered in the Unarmed Strike description in the weapon chapter.

Again, stupid as that might have been, it is not unclear.