On Monks and Gauntlets

[Kaelik]

I've read everything. Three times now.

Oh, then you should try understanding it next. Because I'm pretty sure I just said, "man it sure is weird how people assert the controversial premise as true, and then go through a bunch of stuff that everyone agrees would be true if the controversial premise was true, but then never justifies the controversial premise."

And then you did exactly that again. You asserted that "The gauntlet text has a call function to Unarmed Strike." Even though that is literally the one thing that is being objected to. And several people have given several arguments about how that is not the case, and you addressed none of them.

[ACOS]

You are lying about your intent
[...]
This is really easy Zak S.

Protip: unless you actively enjoy wasting your time by shouting at empty space, you should probably stop that shit right here and now.

I already told you, if you want to refute my logic, go ahead. If you want to critique my communication efficacy, you might have a point. But what you are doing here, where you're trying to impugn my motives because reasons, is flat-out stupid bullshit for the sake of stupid bullshit, from the keyboard of a stupid bullshitter. You're currently in the midst of pulling a PhoneLobster, and you look really stupid doing it. I thought you were better than that.
I don't even care if you want to tell me that you are going to rape and murder my whole family; but DO NOT equate me with Shitmuffin.


As to the matter at hand - my last post dedicated 485 words to explaining. and deaddmwalking further explained the function call. if you still want to argue about it, I'm out. I can't argue with contrarian stupidity.

[deaddmwalking]

Those people are being stupid. You can make an Unarmed Strike with a gauntlet per the weapon description. The 'A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack' is a reference to the fact that a gauntlet is not considered a weapon for the purposes of avoiding an attack of opportunity and threatening an area.

It's true that gauntlets don't work exactly like other weapons, but they make that pretty clear by having it a separate section of the table (unarmed attacks) and including a call function in the rules text to the Unarmed Strike description.

[Ancient History]

Let's be even less stupid. The people that wrote these rules never clarified the issue with unarmed strike, improved unarmed strike, and gauntlets.

Of course, spiked gauntlets are a completely different matter.

[ACOS]

Let's be even less stupid. The people that wrote these rules never clarified the issue with unarmed strike, improved unarmed strike, and gauntlets.

Of course, spiked gauntlets are a completely different matter.

Oh, now you want to distract us with spiked gauntlets. Nice way to dodge the issue.
[/sarcasm]

[Prak]

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.

Sorry, this was a bit poorly worded on my part. My intent was to invoke the reasonable person standard from law in interpreting rules. I know that going into interpretations is not exactly ideal, but when a rule is ambiguous, or unclarified, is it really so problematic to say "a reasonable person would understand [x] based on the fact the rules say [y] and [z], this does not create problems, such as [p], and avoids problem [P], thus it's a valid way to interpret this unclear bit of rules"?

[Kaelik]

DO NOT equate me with Shitmuffin.

Then don't act like him.

By the way, actually gauntlets clearly do non lethal damage, see:

Any attack at less than this distance is not penalized for range.

As to the matter at hand - my last post dedicated 485 words to explaining. and deaddmwalking further explained the function call. if you still want to argue about it, I'm out. I can't argue with contrarian stupidity.

No, both of you have asserted the function call, neither one of you has done even the slightest bit to argue why you believe the text is a function call. Neither one of you at any point addressed the arguments made 3 pages ago as to why it is not a function call in your assertions.

You can make an Unarmed Strike with a gauntlet per the weapon description. The 'A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack' is a reference to the fact that a gauntlet is not considered a weapon for the purposes of avoiding an attack of opportunity and threatening an area.

Wait. What? You think that because a strike with a gauntlet does provoke an attack of opportunity it isn't actually a weapon at all?

Okay great so +5 gauntlets can't exist, because gauntlets aren't weapons.

and including a call function in the rules text to the Unarmed Strike description.

You keep asserting that without presenting an argument. Over and over. and Over. and Over.

[Kaelik]

Sorry, this was a bit poorly worded on my part. My intent was to invoke the reasonable person standard from law in interpreting rules. I know that going into interpretations is not exactly ideal, but when a rule is ambiguous, or unclarified, is it really so problematic to say "a reasonable person would understand [x] based on the fact the rules say [y] and [z], this does not create problems, such as [p], and avoids problem [P], thus it's a valid way to interpret this unclear bit of rules"?

The reasonable person standard applies to a person's understanding of the facts, not the law. It doesn't matter whether a reasonable person would have understood the law or not, if they performed the acts that resulted in them violating the law they still did so.

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

[ACOS]

Reasonable Person has to do with adjudicating liability.

A more fitting comparison would be Common Law vs. Black-letter Law.
Regardless, Prak's point was made.

[Prak]

Reasonable Person has to do with adjudicating liability.

A more fitting comparison would be Common Law vs. Black-letter Law.
Regardless, Prak's point was made.

Fair enough. I'm a journalism student, not a law student, so my legal knowledge tends to be narrow, and a bit spotty (given that I've not written any articles where the law really comes up)

[ACOS]

Reasonable Person has to do with adjudicating liability.

A more fitting comparison would be Common Law vs. Black-letter Law.
Regardless, Prak's point was made.

Fair enough. I'm a journalism student, not a law student, so my legal knowledge tends to be narrow, and a bit spotty (given that I've not written any articles where the law really comes up)

Like I said, your point was made ... at least, to anyone who was actually trying to pay attention.
(either that, or we are both the same brand of stupid )

[Prak]

Oh, I'm sure Kaelik-senpai thinks so, but I'm far past giving any shits what some obstinate troll on the internet thinks about me.

[deaddmwalking]

No, both of you have asserted the function call, neither one of you has done even the slightest bit to argue why you believe the text is a function call. Neither one of you at any point addressed the arguments made 3 pages ago as to why it is not a function call in your assertions.

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

The term Unarmed Strike in the quoted sentence is a game term. In the Hypertext SRD, it links to the text under the Unarmed Strike in the weapon descriptions. There's nothing in that description that says an unarmed strike can be anything other than 1d3. It is a 'call function' because it uses a term, and that term is defined elsewhere.

Earlier, when you said:

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.

The table also explicitly says that Unarmed Strikes do 1d3 damage. Specifically, all medium Unarmed Strikes do 1d3 because the table specifically says so. Further, there is NOTHING in the description of Unarmed Strikes in the weapons chapter that indicates they can do MORE than 1d3 damage. You seem to be willing to admit (I presume) that Unarmed Strikes (without gauntlets) can do more than 1d3 damage, despite their listing on the table, but somehow gauntlets (which are described as making your Unarmed Strikes count as lethal damage instead of non-lethal do not use Unarmed Strike damage) are fixed, unalterable and unable to change.

It would also strike me as strange that they grouped two weapons together that have very different rules - when all of their other categories use the same general rules for that category of weapon.

You can make an Unarmed Strike with a gauntlet per the weapon description. The 'A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack' is a reference to the fact that a gauntlet is not considered a weapon for the purposes of avoiding an attack of opportunity and threatening an area.

Wait. What? You think that because a strike with a gauntlet does provoke an attack of opportunity it isn't actually a weapon at all?

No. I also didn't say that. I specifically referred to it as a 'weapon description' when discussing that specific text. Clearly, they are a weapon, but they're different from every other weapon (outside of the Unarmed Strike that is listed with it in the table). Gauntlets and Unarmed Strikes are special weapons in that, unlike ALL OTHER WEAPONS ON THE TABLE, you don't automatically threaten if you're wearing gauntlets. They're clearly a 'special weapon' that work differently from other weapons in the game. The reason they work differently is because they're treated as 'Unarmed Attacks' in most respects - you have to take a Feat (Improved Unarmed Strike) or otherwise gain an ability to threaten with your Unarmed Strikes to use them when making Attacks of Opportunity.

Okay great so +5 gauntlets can't exist, because gauntlets aren't weapons.

Not only is this not something I've claimed, this is clearly false. A gauntlet is a weapon, it just uses special rules (because it is used in conjunction with Unarmed Strikes which also involve special rules). Gauntlets can be magical, and are included on the Uncommon Weapons table in the DMG (2% of all uncommon magical weapons you find are gauntlets. So why don't you work on your reading comprehension and respond to what people are saying, rather than what the voices in your head are telling you they're saying.

and including a call function in the rules text to the Unarmed Strike description.

You keep asserting that without presenting an argument. Over and over. and Over. and Over.

I keep quoting where it does exactly that. Perhaps you'd like to provide the alternative meaning to the sentence:

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

Unarmed Strikes are an attack (they're listed on the table right under Gauntlets). They have a damage value (usually 1d3, but it can vary depending on Feat selection). If you have an attack that deals 1d4 damage with an Unarmed Strike, your gauntlet would then allow you to do Lethal Damage with your Unarmed Strike. While there is no in-game JUSTIFICATION for why it would do less, the rules are simply saying that your Unarmed Strikes can be LETHAL DAMAGE. The only reason the table has a value for Gauntlet Damage is because it has a value listed for Unarmed Strike Damage. Again, I agree that's stupid, but it doesn't CHANGE anything.

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.

A number of reasonable people disagree with you here. Again, the only reason there is any contention is the section that the Gauntlet rules refer to is the one that says OVER AND OVER that your Unarmed Strike damage is 1d3 - to find text that says otherwise, you have to refer to other chapters.

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

Which ends up becoming a pretty lame argument. You're saying they wrote something that 65% of reasonable people take to mean one thing, and if you take it that way, things are 'mostly good', but that 35% of people take it to mean another thing, which works out to being 'fucking retarded'.

I don't really care what they INTENDED, but again, I think the rule is clear. If it turned out that they were not using a call function and did things the fucking retarded way, then yes, I would change the rule for my game. If I were discussing it with my players, the fact that nobody would have a problem with it (because it is not the fucking retarded interpretation) is a bonus. Again, I would surely agree that including the various other text around Unarmed Strike damage would have been appropriate; and then they could have put a footnote on the chart saying something like 'or your unarmed strike damage if different'.

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.

And you haven't responded to the fact that Unarmed Strike does 1d3 damage (per the table) and nothing in the text indicates that you can ever do more than 1d3 damage.

For your benefit, the SRD text has the following information on Unarmed Strikes:

Unarmed Strike
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

OH MY GOD. It says that a MONK may deal lethal or non-lethal damage, but it doesn't say that a monk can ever deal more than 1d3 damage! I guess the chart that says 1d3 (combined with this text) would override the description of Improved Natural Attack or the Monk's Unarmed Damage progression. Oh wait, it doesn't work like that.

The weapon damage listed for the Gauntlet (and the Unarmed Strike) are 'general'. Any specific adjustments to your unarmed strike damage trump the general rule.

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.

I think the proper response to this is:

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.

[Kaelik]

The term Unarmed Strike in the quoted sentence is a game term. In the Hypertext SRD, it links to the text under the Unarmed Strike in the weapon descriptions.

Which is relevant why? Links added by a random person who is in know way affiliated with WotC isn't particularly relevant.

It is a 'call function' because it uses a term, and that term is defined elsewhere.

So if disarming gauntlets said "This gauntlet modifies your short spear to be harder to disarm" then disarming gauntlets are actually spears?

Just using a term in the description does not make X into a call function to Y, it makes only the specific words into a call function. The other words do not say "attacking with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike" so attacking with a gauntlet is not a call function to an unarmed strike.

The table also explicitly says that Unarmed Strikes do 1d3 damage. Specifically, all medium Unarmed Strikes do 1d3 because the table specifically says so. Further, there is NOTHING in the description of Unarmed Strikes in the weapons chapter that indicates they can do MORE than 1d3 damage. You seem to be willing to admit (I presume) that Unarmed Strikes (without gauntlets) can do more than 1d3 damage, despite their listing on the table, but somehow gauntlets [lies ommitted] are fixed, unalterable and unable to change.

They could totally be changed if you had a class ability to do more damage with gauntlets. Since the Monk does not have that class ability, he cannot do additional damage with a gauntlet.

(which are described as making your Unarmed Strikes count as lethal damage instead of non-lethal do not use Unarmed Strike damage)

See this, where you try to squeeze 100% of the contention into a parenthetical as if this weren't 100% of the actual contention. That is annoying. An honest attempt would have begun the paragraph with this claim and continued "if you accept that as true" and then included all the meaningless drivel you blathered out about how unarmed strikes change damage because of a specific Monk ability.

It would also strike me as strange that they grouped two weapons together that have very different rules - when all of their other categories use the same general rules for that category of weapon.

Crossbows and bows use different rules. Glaives and Greatswords use different rules. All the items are different items with different rules. Unarmed Strikes and Gauntlets both provoke attacks of opportunity. They are both finessable. It does not follow that they do the same amount of damage in all circumstances, just like Glaives and Greatswords.

No. I also didn't say that. I specifically referred to it as a 'weapon description' when discussing that specific text. Clearly, they are a weapon, but they're different from every other weapon (outside of the Unarmed Strike that is listed with it in the table).

Again with the parenthetical bullshit. They are different from every other weapon. Because they are different weapons. But the point was very obvious. You claimed that because they provoke AoO they therefore automatically do the same damage as unarmed strikes. That makes no fucking sense. The fact that they provoke AoOs are completely irrelevant to the damage they do.

Not only is this not something I've claimed, this is clearly false. A gauntlet is a weapon, it just uses special rules (because it is used in conjunction with Unarmed Strikes which also involve special rules).

Oh for fucks sake. If this weren't the same goddam post I'd think you were doing this just to troll me. Are you allergic to putting the contested part of your claims outside parentheticals? Do you think Parentheses are magical argument deflectors that force people to agree? Why is the part that is wrong always inside parentheses.

I keep quoting where it does exactly that. Perhaps you'd like to provide the alternative meaning to the sentence:

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

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 number of reasonable people disagree with you here. Again, the only reason there is any contention is the section that the Gauntlet rules refer to is the one that says OVER AND OVER that your Unarmed Strike damage is 1d3 - to find text that says otherwise, you have to refer to other chapters.

No the reason there is contention is because the gauntlet table says you do 1d3 damage when attacking with a gauntlet, and that no rules anywhere give you more damage when attacking with a gauntlet.

Which ends up becoming a pretty lame argument. You're saying they wrote something that 65% of reasonable people take to mean one thing, and if you take it that way, things are 'mostly good', but that 35% of people take it to mean another thing, which works out to being 'fucking retarded'.

1) You pulled those numbers out of your ass, so it isn't even true that most people agree with you, nor would that make it true.
2) You are wrong. Both rules are fucking retarded. Your ruling is equally fucking retarded. So again, the rules being fucking retarded does not mean those aren't the rules, but your rules aren't even better.

And you haven't responded to the fact that Unarmed Strike does 1d3 damage (per the table) and nothing in the text indicates that you can ever do more than 1d3 damage.

That is because everyone besides you was smart enough not to make this stupid claim.

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

See this would be a case where the specific rules for monk unarmed strikes trump the general rule for unarmed strikes. This would not be a case where the specific rule for Monk unarmed strikes trump the general rule for gauntlets, because those are different things.

The weapon damage listed for the Gauntlet (and the Unarmed Strike) are 'general'. Any specific adjustments to your unarmed strike damage trump the general rule.

Any specific adjustments to your unarmed strike damage would change your unarmed strike damage. Any specific adjustments to your gauntlet damage would adjust your gauntlet damage. The fact of rules generality does not allow them to be trumped by unrelated rules. So specific rules that change your unarmed strike damage would not change your gauntlet damage.

[deaddmwalking]

So if disarming gauntlets said "This gauntlet modifies your short spear to be harder to disarm" then disarming gauntlets are actually spears?

No.

A gauntlet modifies your unarmed strikes. Specifically, it changes the damage from non-lethal to lethal damage.

The only source of damage that is discussed in the Gauntlet description comes from the Unarmed Strike description included with the weapon table. The assumption for Unarmed Strike is that you do 1d3 damage because you are a medium creature with no other modifiers to the base damage.

For the same reason that Unarmed Strike damage is listed as 1d3 in the table, Gauntlet damage is also listed as 1d3 - the primary reason is that no modifications to base Unarmed Strike damage are considered in this chapter.

While you may continue to disagree (and I see why), I'm not buying what you're selling.

Regarding 'retarded results', what, exactly, do you consider to be a retarded result that comes from dealing 1d20 base damage with an unarmed strike and dealing the same amount of damage with a gauntlet over your fist versus a reduction in your normal unarmed strike damage from 1d20 to 1d3 because of an additional layer of metal?

Edit:

Which ends up becoming a pretty lame argument. You're saying they wrote something that 65% of reasonable people take to mean one thing, and if you take it that way, things are 'mostly good', but that 35% of people take it to mean another thing, which works out to being 'fucking retarded'.

1) You pulled those numbers out of your ass, so it isn't even true that most people agree with you, nor would that make it true.

Since I felt like responding to this, I counted the following people falling into each of the various camps.

1d3
Frank Trollman
Kaelik
Spongeknight
Red_Rob
Ancient History

Unarmed Strike Damage
Count Arioch the 28th
erik
Prak_Anima
Nockermensch
ACOS
darkmaster
DSMatticus
deaddmwalking

That works out to 8/13 (assuming I haven't mischaracterized anyone's position) or 61.53%. Close enough to 65% for eyeballing it.

But I agree that a majority opinion would not make one position or the other 'true'. I just believe that your position is wrong. I understand why you believe otherwise, but I don't agree that your position is so beyond reproach to justify any insults you've hurled in this particular discussion. I was not trying to show that my position is correct because it is popular, but rather, it is reasonable in part because other reasonable people interpret it the same way I do.

A significant minority interpret it the way you do. That makes you 'not an idiot' for believing what you do, but it means that we don't agree. I interpret the references to 'Unarmed Strike in the gauntlet description to mean a modification of that attack (keeping the same damage but making it lethal instead of non-lethal). My personal supposition is that the designers thought that there'd be no reason for a monk to want adamantine gauntlets, because they failed to forsee a lot of things, and the primary benefit they forsaw was being able to deal lethal damage. Since monks don't benefit from gauntlets for that reason, I don't think they conceived of any other reasons a monk would benefit from gauntlets.

[Kaelik]

The only source of damage that is discussed in the Gauntlet description comes from the Unarmed Strike description included with the weapon table.

That is not a source of damage in the Gauntlet description. There are no sources of damage in the gauntlet description at all, just like there are no sources of damage in the longsword description (which doesn't even exist). Because descriptions do not tell you how much damage a weapon does. The table does. And the table does tell you that a Gauntlet does 1d3. Not that it does the same amount as unarmed strike, but that it does 1d3. Since there are no specific rules that change that, gauntlets, when used as a weapon, still do 1d3 damage.

This is my problem with DSM writ again. You don't get to declare the table is not a valid source of rules, because if that is true then longswords do -d- damage. The table is a valid source for damage numbers, and so that uncontradicted rule stands. Your belief that they meant for it do the same as unarmed strike in all circumstances may be correct, it may be incorrect, but in neither case is it relevant.

Regarding 'retarded results', what, exactly, do you consider to be a retarded result that comes from dealing 1d20 base damage with an unarmed strike and dealing the same amount of damage with a gauntlet over your fist versus a reduction in your normal unarmed strike damage from 1d20 to 1d3 because of an additional layer of metal?

Enter stage right, the guy in a weird pants suit who absolutely refuses to wear armor of any kind. Except the gauntlets he always wears. Because protection on his arms is completely unimportant, but magic armor helps him punch harder at a cheaper cost than a magic necklace. Suddenly he launches into a flurry of kicks, knees, elbows, and punches. No wait, only ever punches. Because by the action of describing himself as kicking someone, as a trained martial artist, who could totally kick some guy, he would do less damage than describing himself as just throwing more punches with his armored arms.

Since a Monk can just get someone to cast Magic Fang or Magic Weapon on him anyway, your mandatory gauntlets for everyone rule is just as bad as a slight nerf to monks, except not really a nerf at all, because he can be just as strong or stronger if you give him magic items that don't damage his fluff, like a Necklace that enchants all his attacks, or a pearl of power 4th level that he gives to the Druid in exchange for Greater Magic Fang every day.

[Kaelik]

Since I felt like responding to this, I counted the following people falling into each of the various camps.

1d3
Frank Trollman
Kaelik
Spongeknight
Red_Rob
Ancient History

Unarmed Strike Damage
Count Arioch the 28th
erik
Prak_Anima
Nockermensch
ACOS
darkmaster
DSMatticus
deaddmwalking

1) I reject on principle anything that at any point represents Prak as reasonable.
2) I have nocker on ignore, so probably the same thing applies to him, but I don't know.
3) I don't know darkmaster or spongeknight or ACOS well enough to say for sure either way. But since ACOS is in the middle of pretending he totally didn't say the things he said, I'm not particularly high on him either.
4) erik specifically said that he agreed with me about it as his last post on the subject. So once again, I'm going to have to refer you to a 4th grade reading assignment.
5) Did Count actually say anything about this at any point? Like, I don't even have him on ignore and I don't know where the fuck you got his opinion from.
6) On principle, any analysis that assumes that people still believe what they said before any arguments were presented is a stupid fucking analysis.

[Prak]

Kaelik, I'm just going to cherish the fact that you obsess over me to the point where you will reject something just because I agree with it. People who I would be fucking if not for bad timing and intervening distances don't even care about me that much.

...however I think that is the argument style of my parents, so, you know, you're not alone, Kaelik, you just care about me as much as my parents. How sweet.

[ACOS]

This is hilarious. Last night the thought occurred to me to write a mock parody of Kaelik, wherein his real motivation for being such an obstinate broken-record prick was that he secretly just didn't want to deal with the perceived nightmare of adjudication Flurry of Blows when a monk showed up with Keen Gauntlets of Thundering or some shit.
But now I don't have to bother. Thank you Kaelik.

Also, I'm not pretending that I didn't say anything. I openly admitted that I lazily cut short a single post ... and I then went on to finish fleshing out the thought. Stop your lying, you lying liar.

Just pathetic.

[Stubbazubba]

Sorry, this was a bit poorly worded on my part. My intent was to invoke the reasonable person standard from law in interpreting rules. I know that going into interpretations is not exactly ideal, but when a rule is ambiguous, or unclarified, is it really so problematic to say "a reasonable person would understand [x] based on the fact the rules say [y] and [z], this does not create problems, such as [p], and avoids problem [P], thus it's a valid way to interpret this unclear bit of rules"?

As has been pointed out, the reasonable person standard is not what you're going for.

That being said, what you are going for is precisely what judges do all the time on the law: making inferences about what legislators had in mind when they wrote X words and ruling consistently with that constructed intent, not according to what the words say.

Other judges disagree of course. From Kaelik's position, it seems he would be an ardent textualist. In addition to his unwillingness to interpret a gray area in elf-game rules at all, he completely ignored what you meant (which was obvious) and attacked you for using the wrong words.

[ACOS]

In addition to his unwillingness to interpret a gray area in elf-game rules at all, he completely ignored what you meant (which was obvious) and attacked you for using the wrong words.

Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

[deaddmwalking]

Enter stage right, the guy in a weird pants suit who absolutely refuses to wear armor of any kind. Except the gauntlets he always wears. Because protection on his arms is completely unimportant, but magic armor helps him punch harder at a cheaper cost than a magic necklace. Suddenly he launches into a flurry of kicks, knees, elbows, and punches. No wait, only ever punches. Because by the action of describing himself as kicking someone, as a trained martial artist, who could totally kick some guy, he would do less damage than describing himself as just throwing more punches with his armored arms.

That would be absurd. Or awesome.

Since a Monk can just get someone to cast Magic Fang or Magic Weapon on him anyway, your mandatory gauntlets for everyone rule is just as bad as a slight nerf to monks, except not really a nerf at all, because he can be just as strong or stronger if you give him magic items that don't damage his fluff, like a Necklace that enchants all his attacks, or a pearl of power 4th level that he gives to the Druid in exchange for Greater Magic Fang every day.

The main benefit of gauntlets, as I see it, is Special Material DR.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Kaelik, I'm just going to cherish the fact that you obsess over me to the point where you will reject something just because I agree with it. People who I would be fucking if not for bad timing and intervening distances don't even care about me that much.

...however I think that is the argument style of my parents, so, you know, you're not alone, Kaelik, you just care about me as much as my parents. How sweet.

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.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik, I'm just going to cherish the fact that you obsess over me to the point where you will reject something just because I agree with it.

See like this. Would a rational person read a statement about someone not being rational as a claim that I disagree because they said it? Especially since I posted before you.

Other judges disagree of course. From Kaelik's position, it seems he would be an ardent textualist. In addition to his unwillingness to interpret a gray area in elf-game rules at all, he completely ignored what you meant (which was obvious) and attacked you for using the wrong words.

No. A judge is a DM. They make binding judgments on people with actual effects. They should be slightly less loosey goosey with the rules as I advocate DMs be, and I advocate that DMs just rip the whole thing up and throw it away in this case. But I can distinguish between what the rule says, and what you should do about it.

In fact, there is an entire legal school of thought that realizes that what congress people intended is most of the time non existent, always impossible to quantify, and should never be recognized, but still respects the spirit and intent of laws.

I did not attack Prak for anything in that post, I told him he shouldn't apply the reasonable person standard to rules as an analogy to the law, because it isn't applied to the laws in the law. This is pretty much right along the very same line by which I criticized Zak S for prior restraint and Occluded Sun for everything he ever said about the law. People should not make incorrect analogies to the law. But if you think that post counts as an attack, I have no idea how you still post here.

That would be absurd. Or awesome.

It could be either, but you are making not doing that a fucking mechanical inferiority. So maybe just don't do that, and let people play Armored Fist Punchers and martial artists. Or hell, Just rewrite the monk class to have a slam attack. Or don't, because it has already been done.

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.

Oh look, Count is making allegations that I don't believe the thing I am saying, or care about winning internet arguments too much. Great times. Hey Count, how long are you going to keep sniping at me all the time and then complaining about how it's unfair for me to respond every time I do?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

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.

EDIT: To be fair, I do owe you a debt of gratitude. I never realized how annoying it was to deal with a screaming idiot that gets offended for the slightest provocation then bombards the other person with nonsensical arguments and foul language until I saw it from the outside. Kind of like how seeing MRA's on the internet made me realize what a shitstain I used to sound like.