Post/Author/DateTime	Post
grashii 01-04-05, 04:47 PM	Ok, to preface this, I've tried running this thread on my Living Greyhawk yahoo message board and ended up with a flame war running both ways. Some say yes, some say no, some are just flaming anyone in sight. My triad looked at the arguments on both sides and decided this was a subject that wasn't covered by their duty description and left it in the hands of the GM's. Rather then waste a lot of money on an item only some of the judges would accept and allow without an official ruling from WoTC, I've decided to come here to see if I can get further guidance and possibly get it put into the next installation of FAQ's. I've just copied my first post and attached it here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I need clarification/validation on using a gauntlet as a monk weapon. Before discounting this out of hand, please take the time to read and think about all of my arguments before answering. I appologize before hand about how long it is and thank you for your time in reading it. 1) Monks can use unarmed attacks with a seperate damage table from other classes. "A monk's attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." "A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes then a normal person would." "Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling." 2) According to the description in the PHB, "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." 3) Because of statements 1 and 2, I believe it fair to say monks are proficient in using gauntlets to attack with because they are technically unarmed strikes. Monks are trained in unarked attacks, and a worn guantlet is a type of unarmed attack. This doesn't mean a monk has to use a guantlet if he is wearing one to attack, but it also means he shouldn't take a penalty to attack if he decides to wear one because he is proficient with it. 4) The damage shown for a guantlet in the PHB is the exact same as the unarmed strike for a non-monk. By taking statement 2, we are able to see that all a guantlet does is convert non-lethal damage to lethal damage without incuring an additional penalty while attacking unarmed, nor does it change the unarmed damage value of the individual attacking. Normally, as is shown in statement 1, a monk can choose to do lethal or non-lethal damage without penalty. While wearing a guantlet, a monk would automatically deal lethal damage while attacking with the guantleted hand (but only with a guantleted hand), and would take a -4 penalty to attack if attempting to deal non-lethal damage with the gauntleted hand. 5) Grappling damage is not the same as an unarmed strike (even though they do the same damage), so if a monk's gauntlet had special properties (like silver, cold iron, holy, shocking, etc.), they would not apply if dealing damage while grappling. The only exception would be if you make an attack using a light weapon (your gauntleted fist), which would incur the normal -4 penalty to attack while weilding a light weapon in a grapple. 5) While guantlets come as an accessory to heavy armors, they are in and of themselves not armor, they are gloves made out of either metal, bone, or some other material, and are interchangable (although most magic gloves/guantlets come paired). As such, the wearing of guantlets should not cause a penalty to monks, who are not proficient in the wear of armor, but can wear gloves, just like anyone else with an intelligence above 3. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I would like any feedback or supporting arguments for my case that I didn't think of that you might be able to provide. If WoTC or the Circle has already published a ruling on this, I would appreciate it if someone posted the link to that information. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I would rather have everyone agree with my view point and interpretation, I realize that won't happen. So let the suggestions, feedback, and flames begin, and hopefully WoTC will see this and decide to either provide feedback or at least put it in their FAQ one way or the other.
primemover003 01-04-05, 04:54 PM	By the RAW Gauntlets are not monk weapons. So these are the only relvant quotes you need... From the SRD: Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling. Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities. When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).
Pinky's brain 01-04-05, 05:21 PM	IMO the gauntlet isnt a weapon in and of itself ... but an item which modifies the unarmed strike which follows most but not all the rules of weapons, just like a warforged Battlefist in Eberron. I think it is the common sense answer, but because the gauntlet is described as a weapon these discussions will not end till it is in the official FAQ, since the rules contradict themselves. The gauntlet is listed as a weapon, and yet the description says : This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.Which doesnt make sense, since you cant use two weapons in the same attack. Either it really is a weapon, or you dont use unarmed strikes. To make the "it is a weapon and you need proficiency" arguement cut and dry it should say the following :This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed attacks.Personally I think that would be stupid though. Stuff like the bracers of striking are just a fugly solution compared to just letting monks use enchanted gauntlets ... it already has plenty of downsides (they can no longer do unarmed strikes with their hands full for instance).
primemover003 01-04-05, 06:23 PM	Amonk doesn't need to use gauntlets... they have plenty of other weapons to choose from. Gauntlets wouldn't increase in damage when a Monk's unarmed damage goes up either.
Kyaran 01-04-05, 06:47 PM	My position on what the rules state: Gauntlets are usable by monks in conjunction with the Flurry of Blows ability. For me, the whole key is that the gauntlet is listed under Unarmed Attacks in the weapons table. The only other Unarmed Attack weapon is an unarmed strike, and the gauntlet specifically states that it modifies unarmed strikes. Let me distinguish clearly between "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack." The Unarmed Attack is an action; more precisely, a standard action listed as Attack (unarmed). It is an attack, made with an unarmed strike. It provokes an attack of opportunity, except in the cases of natural weapons, touch spells, and Improved (via the feat) unarmed strikes. The Unarmed Strike is a weapon, "which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack." Using it counts as an unarmed attack. The RAW says that an attack made with a gauntlet is a normal unarmed strike, with the single exception of dealing lethal damage.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.The gauntlet is not a discrete weapon, but a spiked gauntlet is. Monks gain Unarmed Strike as a class ability at 1st level. This gives them the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, as well as some other less-relevant tidbits. The class ability does several things: • Make possible unarmed strikes that deal lethal damage with no penalty to attack • Cause unarmed strikes to not provoke AoOs • Allow unarmed strikes with hands full (using knees, elbows, etc.) • Remove off-hand penalties for all unarmed strikes • Change unarmed strike damage from the base 1d3 nonlethal The gauntlet duplicates the lethal damage option. It does not give any other benefit/property of being a weapon, including counting as armed or having its own damage rating. (It uses the damage of the unarmed strike it is modifying.) It also does not count as a special monk weapon, but it does count as an unarmed strike. The only drawback to using gauntlets on a monk is that unarmed strikes may not be made with the gauntlets while carrying items. In conclusion: Gauntlets (which only modify the lethality of unarmed strike damage) are usable by monks (who are proficient with unarmed strikes) in conjunction with the Flurry of Blows ability (because it can be made with unarmed strikes).
tiluvias99 01-04-05, 07:38 PM	I highly suggest reading the debate on monks and gauntlets in my sig. It may provide some insight.
vudumumu 01-04-05, 07:53 PM	I do know that there are some cool Gauntlets in the Complete Divine that kick butt if you happen to be a monk and wearing them=)
TyraaloftheFist 01-04-05, 08:42 PM	Well, the way we've been playing it, the gauntlets add their damage to my monk's unarmed strike damage. Spiked gauntlets, essentially, add a size category to a monk's punches, and you could probably even make spiked boots that do the same thing with kick attacks, and spiked whatevers to make yourself able to, pretty much, do everything but bellyflop onto the enemy and hurt them with spikes. Anyway, I think that they add their damage to the unarmed strike damage, are treated as unarmed strikes in ALL ways except that you count as armed, possibly, and cost money. Not a lot of money, but money all the same. :cool:
Pinky's brain 01-04-05, 08:42 PM	Amonk doesn't need to use gauntlets... they have plenty of other weapons to choose from. Gauntlets wouldn't increase in damage when a Monk's unarmed damage goes up either. Well spell effects might work on monks unarmed strikes, but getting permanent enchantments put on the monk with craft magic arms&armor is a little ridiculous. The amulet of mighty fist is rather expensive, it has to be because it also effects natural weapons, and wont let you put other types of enchantments on unarmed strikes. Also gauntlets can be silver/adamantium/etc. We have the battlefist and gauntlet of the talon (special monk features, and functions as ghost touch) in official sources. IMO any DM which allows those items, but disallows monks the use of homegrown enchanted gauntlets is a bad DM.
Addi83 01-04-05, 08:52 PM	I don't think it's cool to get something like +3 holy adamantine gauntlets to get through DR, but I'd let a monk use something like gloves of dexterity or gauntlets of Ogre power without any penalty.
primemover003 01-04-05, 08:52 PM	Even the FAQ said Gauntlets aren't Monk weapons and thus can't be used to flurry. It was the 3.0 FAQ, but since there is no contridiction in the 3.5 FAQ it still stands.
Edymnion 01-04-05, 08:56 PM	Yup, guantlets are not monk weapons. Don't get caught up in thinking that a monk is only punching. They're also kicking, kneeing, elbowing, headbutting, and everything else you can think of. They can do that, OR they can use the guantlet, which severely limits what they can do, hence no monk abilities. Although, I'm sure the real reason this keeps coming up has nothing to do with the guantlet, but the fact you can enchant the guantlet with all the nifty magic abilities cheaper than you can get that monk amulet.
Nephlite 01-04-05, 08:57 PM	Well, the way we've been playing it, the gauntlets add their damage to my monk's unarmed strike damage. Spiked gauntlets, essentially, add a size category to a monk's punches, and you could probably even make spiked boots that do the same thing with kick attacks, and spiked whatevers to make yourself able to, pretty much, do everything but bellyflop onto the enemy and hurt them with spikes. Anyway, I think that they add their damage to the unarmed strike damage, are treated as unarmed strikes in ALL ways except that you count as armed, possibly, and cost money. Not a lot of money, but money all the same. :cool: Sure you can use them, but you can't Flurry with them. Its not a monk special weapon sadly. I like the idea behind Spiked guantlets letting as one step higher because they do for shields when spiked. But guantlets not spiked don't do anything I think besides keep unarmed damage(so monk still does good), not count as piercing so you affect skeletons, and allow enchantments.
Pinky's brain 01-04-05, 09:29 PM	They can do that, OR they can use the guantlet, which severely limits what they can do, hence no monk abilities.Except if you are a warforged of course ... I just dont see how any DM could justify allowing the battlefist and the gauntlets of the Talon in his campaign, but not allow simular gauntlets to be made ... even though it is all magic doesnt mean consistency should go out of the window. BTW Endymion if it is all so cut and dry, which weapon is used when you attack with gauntlets? Is it the unarmed strike or is it the gauntlets?
Kyaran 01-04-05, 10:31 PM	Sadly (because it gives no help at all), the 3.0 PHB has basically the same text as the 3.5 PHB. I know what the 3.0 FAQ said, and I think it's CRP. Based on the text in the PHB, there's no basis for counting gauntlets as weapons that doesn't also make an unarmed strike into a weapon. To me, that makes the clarification into a change, and therefore invalid. Sue me. ;) A monk can flurry with a 'special monk weapon' in each hand, so why does an unarmed strike have to use all appendages to be flurried with?
Wil Harvey 01-04-05, 10:38 PM	There should be no debate about this. Gauntlets are not monk weapons. Monk weapons are explicitly stated as kamas, nunchakus, quarterstaffs, sais, shuriken, and sianghams. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Should gauntlets be monk weapons? Yeah. Are they, by the rules as written? No, not at all. The only other conclusion that can be drawn with respect to the rules as written is if they are being interpreted by someone who already has their answer figured out, and is just searching for the right questions to lead to that answer. The rules as written are clear. A little bit nonsensical, sure, but clear nonetheless.
Nimrud 01-04-05, 10:45 PM	I'm just trying to get my head around the concept that you can be "unarmed" while using a weapon. The gauntlet is either a weapon, in which case you should be considered armed, or it is not a weapon, in which case there shouldn't be a problem with a monk wearing it while fighting unarmed. On the other hand, if the gauntlet is not a weapon, I don't think you should be allowed to enchant a gauntlet as a weapon, nor use gauntlets made with special materials as a means of bypassing DR. I guess you can't have it both ways.
Edymnion 01-04-05, 10:49 PM	Except if you are a warforged of course ...Nope, its the same with a Warforged as anybody else. They can make unarmed attacks that deal nonlethal damage, or they can make their slam attack. They are not the same thing, and the WF can pick and choose which to make. Heck, as a natural attack, they can make a full attack and STILL finish it up with a slam.BTW Endymion if it is all so cut and dry, which weapon is used when you attack with gauntlets? Is it the unarmed strike or is it the gauntlets?If you're only wearing one guantlet (which we'll assume you are since they don't come in pairs as weapons), you choose whichever one you want. You can make an unarmed attack with the other hand, or kick, or headbutt. Or, you can choose to attack with the guantlet, which deals 1d3 x2 bludgeoning damage. 3.5 PHB, page 116. Its clearly listed on the weapons table, with damage listed just like any other weapon. If you attack with an unarmed attack, you do your unarmed attack damage. If you attack with the weapon, you deal weapon damage. I fail to see the confusion here.
Kyaran 01-04-05, 10:58 PM	There should be no debate about this. Gauntlets are not monk weapons.200% agreement. They simply modify unarmed strikes, so attacks with them are unarmed strikes. The entire purpose (and only effect) of the 'weapon' is to make unarmed strikes deal lethal damage. The 3.0 PHB doesn't even list damage for them, since they use the normal unarmed strike damage. In the 3.5 book, they listed the unarmed strike damage, just without the nonlethal note. Gauntlets are definitely weapons, just like an unarmed strike. The only reason you can't enchant an unarmed strike is that you can't masterwork yourself. (There may be some debate when using polymorph and some sort of Craft and/or Knowledge check, but hey...) Gauntlets are listed in the DMG in the table of weapons that may have enhancements/enchantments placed on them, or I would be asking about that. Just so people don't think I'm all biased, I do think this is overpowered and would prefer that there was a specific statement disallowing this in either the monk or gauntlet entry.
Pinky's brain 01-04-05, 11:11 PM	Nope, its the same with a Warforged as anybody else. They can make unarmed attacks that deal nonlethal damage, or they can make their slam attack.The battlefist adds the enhancement bonus to a monk's unarmed attacks.If you're only wearing one guantlet (which we'll assume you are since they don't come in pairs as weapons), you choose whichever one you want.Can't do that, the PHB says gauntlets are used with unarmed strikes ... you cant attack with just gauntlets by the RAW. Well unless you dont put them on and use them as improvised weapons :)
Kulthos 01-04-05, 11:28 PM	I have no problem with a monk using gauntlets as long as they don't have a problem not being able to flurry with them (not being on the small list of monk weapons) and only do 1d3 damage. What, exactly, is the benifit of using gauntlets anyway? Why would a monk choose do do so much less damage? I have seen some interesting questions about monks and weapons (i.e. can a monk make an off hand attack using the TWF feat the same round as a two-handed sword attack? What is the str bonus for these attacks?). This debate is not one of them. I was wondering about the gauntlet thing over gauntlets of ogre power, but you get around them in 3.5 by kicking :-)
Shadow_Burn 01-05-05, 09:38 AM	ive got the perfect soloution to this. y not use martial gloves as mentioned in sword and fist. this isnt in exact terms a weapon being that it doesnt deal any damage on its own(so it would still be d3 subdual) but for a monk it would allow him to get enchantments such as my +1 vampiric martial gloves
tarkin 01-05-05, 10:47 AM	Or you could stop being a fool and do what the monk is SUPPOSED to do: Buy an Amulet of Mighty Fists. You want weapon enchantments besides +1? Fine - use the same pricing +1 Flaming fists = same as +2, just like a weapon. Yes it is more expensive than a normal magic weapon - the amulet enchants all your body attacks, not just one, and it can stack with other, similar items.
grashii 01-05-05, 11:28 AM	The reason the debate rages is because monks would like to be able to bypass DR using their unarmed damage, as well as getting magical enhancements on their unarmed strikes. Ghost Touch is the one I've been drooling over for a while because I play Living Greyhawk and I'm at the level where all the writers love to throw in incorporeal and etherial creatures. Because Kensei is a forbidden class and at level 7 my unarmed damage is better then any monk weapon (and it will improve yet again at 8), I would like to be able to use special materials and enchant at least one of my unarmed attacks with Ghost Touch. The guantlets of the talon are not allowed in Living Greyhawk and probably never will be, so we are stuck with choosing between dealing minimal damage with an enchanted monk weapon, or dealing minimal damage because we can't bypass the DR or miss due to 50% miss chance on incorporeal creatures. Personally, I think they should either reintroduce the Ward Cestus into 3.5 (no access in Living Greyhawk and SaF is going away for LG very soon anyway), or have guantlets modify unarmed attacks/strikes like the ward cestus does. If need be, I would be willing to eat a feat to get simple weapon proficieny to be able to use it with out a penalty (don't think I should have to because monks are by definition skilled at unarmed combat, but still willing too). A monk wearing a guantlet should be able to do his/her unarmed damage (not sure I agree with extra damage/size catagory, but that is another matter intirely) and should be able to flurry, but not be able to do any of the other monk special abilities such as Ki Strike, stunning fist, or quivering palm without the Ki Focus ability added to the weapon. The question would come down to this: am I willing to give up the use of a wonderous item in my hand slot for this guantlet (gloves of dex, gloves of swimming and climbing, guantlets of ogre power, etc.). As for the amulet of mighty fist being so expensive, it also modifies natural attacks, not just unarmed attacks, so monsters (and warforged) can actually get as much, if not more benefit from it then a standard monk can (even though most people automatically assume it is ment solely for monks). If you could enchant it to grant the monk special ehancements, like ghost touch, flaming, holy, etc. then it would be cool and I could see paying the 6k*(enh bonus ^2). As it is, an amulet of mighty fist is over priced and an animal companion would probably get as much, if not more use out of it then my monk would. Besides, there is a 4+page thread on this very subject I found last night after I posted this one on another forumn. Here is the link: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=330775.
Tony Vargas 01-05-05, 03:31 PM	AFAIKT, there are two possible interpretations. 1) Gauntlets are weapons, because they're listed in the weapon tables, for pete's sake. They're not monk weapons, because they're not listed as monk weapons (or even monk weapons of proficiency) under the monk class. So, a gauntlet could be enchanted like any other weapon, but a monk wouldn't be able to do any special monk stuff with one while using it as a weapon. 2) Gauntlets aren't weapons, since all they do is allow you to inflict lethal damage with your unarmed strike - the unarmed strike is the 'weapon.' So, anyone proficient with unarmed strikes (which is everyone), can use em, and anyone who has improved unarmed strike doesn't need 'em. Therefor, you wouldn't enchant a guantlet as a weapon (with enhancement bonuses and weapon enchantments), but as a wonderous item (like Gauntlets of Rust or Ogre Power). A monk could certainly wear gauntlets and do his full monkly unarmed combat stuff with them - but, he won't be benefiting from any weapon enhancement bonuses or enchantments when doing so. The possibility exists, of course, for a wonderous item that gives enhancement bonuses and even weapon enchantments to unarmed strikes, and a guantlet is a perfectly reasonable form for such an item - which would be designed just like the Amulet of Mighty Fists. I think it should be painfully obvious that the Monk's special unarmed combat damage is not meant to easily stack with weapon enhancement bonuses or enchantments. That's why monks get to flurry with special monk weapons - so they can take advantage of magic weapons, to an extent. And, that's why the amulet of mighty fists is so expensive: because monks aren't supposed to be able to casually combine the advantages of magic weapons with thier unarmed combat abilities.
mvincent 01-05-05, 04:25 PM	200% agreement. They simply modify unarmed strikes, so attacks with them are unarmed strikes. The entire purpose (and only effect) of the 'weapon' is to make unarmed strikes deal lethal damage.I think that is the point though; a monk is attacking with unarmed strikes. If something modifies his unarmed strike (example: weapon specialization, weapon focus, etc.), it generally applies during his flurry. The rules say: "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." and: "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons" So while I wouldn't let monks use gauntlets that way, I can certainly see how one would believe it's allowable according to the rules.
Kyaran 01-05-05, 05:26 PM	Both of those interpretations are correct. Sorta. :) 1) Gauntlets are weapons, because they're listed in the weapon tables, for pete's sake. They're not monk weapons, because they're not listed as monk weapons (or even monk weapons of proficiency) under the monk class.Gauntlets are weapons. So are unarmed strikes. They are both listed on the Weapons table in the Unarmed Attacks section under the Simple Weapons category. The gauntlet is a weapon whose sole purpose is to modify an unarmed strike (by making the damage lethal), just like shield spikes are weapons whose sole purpose is to modify a shield bash (by making the damage piercing and 1 size category larger). Performing a shield bash with a spiked shield is still a shield bash. Performing an unarmed strike with a gauntleted fist is still an unarmed strike. 2) Gauntlets aren't weapons, since all they do is allow you to inflict lethal damage with your unarmed strike - the unarmed strike is the 'weapon.' ... Therefor, you wouldn't enchant a guantlet as a weapon (with enhancement bonuses and weapon enchantments), but as a wonderous item (like Gauntlets of Rust or Ogre Power).Gauntlets are listed in the DMG table of weapons that can be enchanted, but are also used as wondrous items. I think it should be painfully obvious that the Monk's special unarmed combat damage is not meant to easily stack with weapon enhancement bonuses or enchantments. That's why monks get to flurry with special monk weapons - so they can take advantage of magic weapons, to an extent. And, that's why the amulet of mighty fists is so expensive: because monks aren't supposed to be able to casually combine the advantages of magic weapons with thier unarmed combat abilities.I would agree that it is obvious that the monk is not meant to simply slap on some magic gloves and go to town with +2 shocking, flaming, ghost touch 2d6 punches.
Mad M. 01-05-05, 05:40 PM	I think it is painfully obvious that the original design of the 3.0 Monk was that they would kick-butt barehanded, not needing enhancement bonuses at all, and actually incapable of recieving any(outside of a temporary boost from magic fang, a possibly unintentional benefit) I also think it's painfully obvious that Wizards (and most Monk players) have found this to be extremely unsatisfactory, and so have become progressively more lenient in allowing (encouraging even) enhancement bonuses for monk's unarmed strikes. That original damage progression was modeled so that Monks unarmed strikes would do, on average, the same damage as a 1d6, +whatever weapon, up until they got the d20 and had a small advantage. They also didn't get Ki Strike until 10th level, making it near useless. The Medium BaB, combined with MAD issues, meant that forgoing enhancement bonuses to hit, along with little DR penetrating power made unarmed strikes, frankly, crap. The all together low-hittingness of the unarmed 3.0 monk even made flurry-of-blows a bad choice the majority of the time. Oh, and the silly Unarmed BaB really killed multiclassing. A lot of this was changed in the 3.5 upgrade. DR penetration was made better and availible earlier. Flurry was re-worked to be actually useful, as well as multi-classing friendly. Unarmed damage was smoothed out at higher levels, reducing randomness, among other things. Unarmed and Speed progression was tweaked so that small monks didn't get shafted so bad. In other words, the Monk was a cool, but flawed class. I like it a lot (especially with 3.5), but it still has it's kinks, and unarmed damage weirdness is one of them. It's not a good idea to go around relying on unarmed strikes at high-levels without securing some sort of enhancement bonus, it just isn't. Unarmed damage is no better (often worse) than an enchanted weapon, and the attack bonus hit is just too much for a Monk to take. Wizards has known this for a long time, which is why they have, typically for them, offered up a hode-podge of solutions. None of these undercut weapon use, which are useful for a number of reasons (DR penetration, Damage type, don't take up an important body slot, using two-handed, two-weapon fighting, bonuses to disarm, ect) Solution #1 was the Amulet of Mighty Blows, first printed in Sword and Fist. Seemingly still operating under a "Unarmed Strikes are uber" mindset, the price was set to triple. The price is beyound steep, it's hopelessly ineffecient. Serious Monk players don't even bother with the durned thing, because you can buy almost anything else with the heap of cash required and come out ahead. Seriously, I've tried. The price is actually completely appropriate for Monsters and critters with natural attacks though, since it enhance all of them. Great for animal companions, Dragons, and 6 armed fiendish Gorillas, bad for monks. The next major item published was FR's Bracers of Striking, which cost double and allow for full range of enhancement bonuses. Still steep, but good enough to consider getting. Both of these were put out prior to the 3.5 revision, although the Amulet of Mighty Blows made it into the DMG, although not without criticism. One of the Designers pointed out at this time, (rightly) that an item that enhances unarmed strikes should cost more than a normal weapon, somehow or other, but wasn't very dogmatic at what that cost should be. Anyhow, with 3.5 books rolling in, I've noticed 2 more Monk options: 1. The Kensai Prc, which allows Fists to be enchanted at a slightly higher(120-130% IIRC) XP cost rather than double or triple. I found this interesting, and wondered if it was a trend. 2. The Warforged Battlefist, which among other things, allows a Warforged Monk to add the weapons enhancement bonus to all attack and damage rolls, while doing normal (increased even) unarmed damage for their level . Cost is again, about 130% of a normal weapon. I haven't seen this Glove of the Talon someone mentioned earlier, but I imagine it is quite similar to the other two in effect and cost. Basically, I think 130% is about what value Wotc thinks enhanced unarmed strikes are worth these days, and probably a decent guideline for DMs to consider when creating similar, house-ruled items. Note, I am not saying Gauntlets should simply work normally for Monks, because this is not only unbalanced, but relies on rule loopholes that can lead to worse things. Rather, Gauntlet like Magic Items similar to those that exist in other Wizards products can be created, if DM and player are looking for a way to make Monks unarmed strikes a little more appealing. Personally, if my only option was the Amulet of Mighty Blows, I'd just stick with a weapon.
Mad M. 01-05-05, 06:28 PM	On a more theoritical note, I don't really like the Monk unarmed damge progression as it stands. It doesn't mesh well with the rest of the system, and thats a bad thing, in my book. I'd much rather see monks with a more limited progression, ending at 1d10 or so, and either receive basic enhancement bonuses as a class ability, or be able to enchant their fists easily and at the normal going rate. Although I do think the unarmed damge is wildly overated, as it stands with all the triple cost suggestions. The difference between d6 and 2d10 averages out to the monk receiving about a +7 damage bonus on unarmed strikes, and at the worst critical hit rating (x2). Compared to a "good" weapon like the Longsword, (d8, 19-20x2) it's more like the monk getting superior weapon specialization with unarmed strikes. Nice, but not the end of the world.
TyraaloftheFist 01-05-05, 07:42 PM	Well, I'll always play hand-covering things like ward cestuses(cesti?) as monk weapons due to similar styles of use. When punch daggers come into the spotlight, I'll do the same thing. In the end, it all depends on the DM and what they will allow. On a side note...Amulets of Mighty Fists are costly, but they probably make great rewards for quests. Unfortunately, Tyraal, who is probably getting stoned(with pot) at the entrance to the Mystaran underdark due to DM meanness,is 11th level but still only has an AoMF+1. And doesn't even use his gauntlets any more because the DM hasn't decided to use the 3.5 equipment slot system of gauntlets and gloves take the same slot, and bracers are separate.
Tony Vargas 01-05-05, 09:09 PM	Both of those interpretations are correct. Sorta. :) Yep. IMHO, the first is more technically correct, and the second makes more sense. :shrug: The gauntlet is a weapon whose sole purpose is to modify an unarmed strike (by making the damage lethal), just like shield spikes are weapons whose sole purpose is to modify a shield bash (by making the damage piercing and 1 size category larger). 'Shield bash' isn't a single weapon, though - light or heavy, spiked or not: that's 4 sepparate weapons. If you take gauntlets to be weapons, they're still not on the monks list... ...but, gauntlets are under the heading 'unarmed attacks' - which certainly implies they aren't anymore weapons than an unarmed strike - which supports the second idea, except... Gauntlets are listed in the DMG table of weapons that can be enchanted, but are also used as wondrous items. And that's the kicker for a purist. While it makes sense not to count gauntlets as weapons, and let monks do thier full damage while wearing them (the gauntlet, of course, making no difference, since /all/ it does is make the damage lethal, and the monk can already do that), the fact they can be enchanted /as weapons/ would have to be rule-0'd if you did that. I would agree that it is obvious that the monk is not meant to simply slap on some magic gloves and go to town with +2 shocking, flaming, ghost touch 2d6 punches. Yep, the only question is which way you prefer to shoot it down.
Nephlite 01-05-05, 09:27 PM	Well, I'll always play hand-covering things like ward cestuses(cesti?) as monk weapons due to similar styles of use. When punch daggers come into the spotlight, I'll do the same thing. In the end, it all depends on the DM and what they will allow. On a side note...Amulets of Mighty Fists are costly, but they probably make great rewards for quests. Unfortunately, Tyraal, who is probably getting stoned(with pot) at the entrance to the Mystaran underdark due to DM meanness,is 11th level but still only has an AoMF+1. And doesn't even use his gauntlets any more because the DM hasn't decided to use the 3.5 equipment slot system of gauntlets and gloves take the same slot, and bracers are separate. Cesti's are good but are exotic weapon. Add +1 to Ac when fighting defensively or Total Defense action.(or is it +2 at Totsl defense) Can't one enchant Cesti's? The one I read is the one in the Book Sword and Fist.
Mad M. 01-05-05, 10:14 PM	I don't see a simple resolution to this problem, so we're probably stuck with it for a long time now. Wotc needs to close up the gauntlet issue while also reworking the monk class so that they have a simple, balanced, option for enhancing unarmed strikes and don't need to waste time looking for obscure magic items and loopholes. At this point, I think re-writing the class to nerf the unarmed damge progression and giving them a Samurai/Kensai like enhancement ability is the best solution. I don't see any wide-spread agreement on what is balanced for their oddball damage progression as it is.
Frozen Yakman 01-05-05, 10:41 PM	This is one of those areas where RAW and OFFICIAL really DON'T matter. Have your DM make a ruling and live with it.
TyraaloftheFist 01-05-05, 11:48 PM	Cesti's are good but are exotic weapon. Add +1 to Ac when fighting defensively or Total Defense action.(or is it +2 at Total defense) Can't one enchant Cesti's? The one I read is the one in the Book Sword and Fist. Yes, you probably can if they're masterwork. I think they're also in Complete Warrior or the Arms and Equipment Guide. I don't remember all the stats, but I think it was something like that. I just remembered someone saying that a monk being nonproficient with ward cesti is like a boxer being nonproficient with boxing gloves, and I just realized: Ward cesti are fingerless boxing gloves!
Kulthos 01-05-05, 11:57 PM	For home games an easy solution is to let monks do their unarmed damage with monk weapons. For living campaigns, don't play monks.
Mad M. 01-06-05, 09:58 AM	Nah....it's not that monks are really underpowered or anything. It's just that the unarmed combat aspect of the class breaks down at higher levels. There's a variety of ways to enhance unarmed strikes, but they aren't easy, consistant, or balanced with each other. For example, a high-level spellcaster can use Greater Magic Weapon/Fang to give you an enhancement bonus every day, at virtually no cost. But no one likes being beholden to the party spellcaster for something so basic, so they look for more self-sufficient options. On the other end of the spectrum, you have stuff like the Amulet of Mighty Blows, which gives you the same benefit as the basic spell...for an absurd amount of money. No weapon abilities as written, either, which is a downer for some people. There's a lot of other stuff, like the Kensai Prc, the Vow of Poverty, (wouldn't be half as attractive to monks if not for the weapon enhancements) Permanency Spells, ect. Not consistant, not balanced with each other, and never straightforward. If it wasn't for this void, the gauntlet question wouldn't even be an issue.
mvincent 01-06-05, 12:00 PM	Here are some thoughts based on research and play: - According to the rules, a monk can technically use a gauntlet just fine. - If a monk selects the two weapon fighting feat for his unarmed attack (yes, it's allowed, and very useful for a monk), it seems reasonable that he could make that extra attack with an enchanted gauntlet (on his off-hand), using any applicable modifiers (weapon specialization, weapon focus, monk unarmed damage increase, etc.), just like anyone else. - If a monk made only one attack with an enchanted gauntlet, it also seems reasonable that he would make it with any applicable modifiers (just like anyone else). - If a monk paid for two enchanted gauntlets (one for each hand), it seems reasonable that he could use them as primary and off-hand (again, just like anyone else). It would be costly though. - I have a problem with a monk flurrying with a single gauntlet. I would rule that the extra FoB attack comes from another part of the body. - Allowing a monk to use gauntlets this way doesn't seem too unbalancing. It cost extra gp (i.e. twice as much), doesn't stack with AoMB, Magic Fang or Greater Magic fang (which most monks will want to have permanently on themselves), and it occupies one/both of his hands (which could instead be used for say, holding a reach weapon). - It seems in line with fantasy, and makes logical (as opposed to meta-game) sense.
Kulthos 01-06-05, 03:16 PM	In reality, Monks should get an enchanted monk weapon and forget about the unarmed damage. A decent +2 flaming burst sai is going to hit harder and more often than all but a 20th level monk. A flurrying monk can hit with the same weapon every time, so they get more use out of magic items than two-weapon fighters.
Mad M. 01-06-05, 03:27 PM	In general, you're right. Monks can fight just fine with a magic weapon just like anyone else. Fighting unarmed is a big part of the class though, and trying to do so effectively is really more of a hassle than it ought to be.
Tony Vargas 01-06-05, 04:00 PM	The Monk was born out of the impressions americans had of martial arts in the 70's - particularly things like the old 'Kung Fu' TV show (really, the 1E PH Monk was straight out of that show). The primary aspect that sank in was the unarmed combat bits. So the monk is set up to be effective in unarmed combat - really unarmed, he can even get by without magic items thanks to his ability to penetrate DR. It's completely nonsensical to do /even/ more damage with your bare hands than you can do with a weapon, but, to make a mode of combat prefered in D&D, it has to be very competative, or better yet, superior, damage-wise. Thus, the monk does more damage with his bare hands than with his special monk weapons, and can flurry with either, but not the big bad weapons other characters will be using, like greatswords and the like. That may be whacky, but it's how the monk can be used to model a character that's competative with his bare hands alongside armored warriors swinging magic swords, while retaining a semblance of game balance. Combining the monks unarmed combat damage with the kinds of enchantments that go on weapons would 'break' that balance, and destroy the (probably misguided, but entrenched) flavor of the monk as the Quae Chang Caine of D&D.
Mad M. 01-06-05, 06:34 PM	I'm almost with you this, seriously. But unrealistic or not, the barehanded monk is supposed to be a viable option, and it's not, unless you're willing to jump through hoops. Like I said, I don't like the Unarmed damage progression, because it indirectly shafts the monk. Obviously, the fist of a 20th level Monk is better than any Non-Magical Weapon , but far, far, worse than any equivelent Enchanted Weapon This leaves the Monk in somewhat of a grey zone at higher-levels. Without enchantments, his unarmed attacks are nothing more than a sissy desperation weapon. With enchantments, they're argueably overpowered, being far better than any of his normal monk weapons. Although honestly, his normal weapons suck, and the unarmed strikes wouldn't look nearly as good compared to say, a greatsword or spiked chain. (and they don't require 20 class levels to use) I'd prefer to see the unarmed combat either: A. Buffed but more less impossible to enhance. This gives the Monk a reasonably good weapon as he levels up, and fits closest to the original intent behind the unarmed damage rules. The enhancement bonus to attack is much more important than any damage buff. B. Nerfed but easy to enhance. As it is, balancing the unarmed strikes is going to remain nebulous, but I do see plenty of evidence that Wotc is moving towards making enchantments easier to get, but still more costly than normal weapons. (and using up an item slot is a cost in itself)
Mad M. 01-06-05, 06:34 PM	It is of course possible to argue that the Monks unarmed damage is mostly flavor, and isn't supposed to be equal to using weapons, but I don't think that works out too well in practice. It seems to me that most people who play Monks do so paticularly because they want to play an unarmed martial artist, and are disappointed if they can't do so. Heck, I used to go around advising monk players to just use weapons and not worry about unarmed damage. Don't recall anyone really liking that suggestion. ;)
Shadow_Burn 01-07-05, 07:31 AM	i just wanna think of the physics of it for a second. if say a 18th lv monk punches a guy it does d20 damage but if he puts on martial gloves, cestus or even gauntlets then his damage is reduced to d3? i dont get why he would be hurting them so much less even though hes hitting as hard as he normally does?
mvincent 01-07-05, 11:54 AM	i just wanna think of the physics of it for a second. if say a 18th lv monk punches a guy it does d20 damage but if he puts on martial gloves, cestus or even gauntlets then his damage is reduced to d3?As noted earlier, the actual rules imply no such thing. But (for those that wish to house rule it in), here might be a hypothetical explanation: A monk attacking with an unarmed strike is doing more than just hitting someone with a regular punch. At 18th level, he's probably doing some wicked neck-snap, eye-gouge, pull-your-heart-out-while-it's-still-beating type maneuvers... none of which would likely take advantage of an enchanted gauntlet (which is intended for regular punches).
Tony Vargas 01-07-05, 12:41 PM	I'm almost with you this, seriously. But unrealistic or not, the barehanded monk is supposed to be a viable option, and it's not, unless you're willing to jump through hoops. Oh, it's certainly a viable option - a monk depending primarily on his unarmed combat ability will do very well in a lot of encounters. Even distance encounters aren't too much of a problem with high movement or d-door to close quickly. There will be a few instances where DR or other factors will make a weapon preferable, but monks do have weapons they can flurry with, for such occassions, and, the idea is that the weapons should be a second choice. A 'weapon' that directly stacked with the monk's unarmed combat (anything that could give the monk's unarmed attacks weapon-like advantages), would undo that. Such a weapon would become a first choice, and the monk's 'flavor' (nonsensical though it may be) as a primary-unarmed combatant would be lost. There is a difference between 'viable' and 'overpowered.' A monk flurrying away with his full unarmed damage and a stack of weapon enchantments would be 'overpowered.' A legal monk does not fail to be 'viable' because he doesn't equal the kind of damage throughput that such a theoretical monk might be able to dish out. Nor does he fall short of 'viable' because some other optimized combat-heavy build might be able to match it... i just wanna think of the physics of it for a second. if say a 18th lv monk punches a guy it does d20 damage but if he puts on martial gloves, cestus or even gauntlets then his damage is reduced to d3? i dont get why he would be hurting them so much less even though hes hitting as hard as he normally does? Hey, if he hits you just as hard with a greatclub, it's reduced to d10. If you want to insist that gauntlets are 'weapons' (and suitable for enchanting as such, as some of the rules imply), then, yes, you have to go with the physics-defying fact that the monk will do less base damage with them (or any other normal weapon) than with his bare fists, feet, elbows, forehead, fingertips, etc... You can rationalize it by going into 'chi' and saying that the monk can't channel said mystical energy through anything but his own body (well, and non-core 'ki straps' or whatever). Of course, the traditions the monk is loosely based on /do/ insist they channel 'chi' through weapons, so even that tenuous level of 'realism' is less than perfect. You can also just accept that the Monk is presented as a way of letting a bare-fisted martial artist be a viable character - without also making the same character wildly overpowered as soon as he picks up a weapon. If you /want/ Qae Chang Kane mucking about your medieval fantasy setting, you'll just have to go with it. Of course, you can just go the other way and claim that gauntlets aren't weapons at all. That works fine - for gauntlets, but you still have the same physics problem with the greatclub - and any other weapon, including the monk's special weapons...
Mad M. 01-07-05, 02:02 PM	I had a much longer post here, but something caught my eye, and I'm going to a more extended analysis of something. Later. :)
Tony Vargas 01-07-05, 02:32 PM	Monk B also fights barehanded, and uses the Amulet of Mighty Blows(150,000 Gp, and takes up neck slot) He flurrys at +25/+25/+25/+20/+15, and does 2d10+10 per hit. (Average 21) Monk C uses a Quarterstaff+9 (162,000 Gp, No slot) I'm no expert in Weapon Min-maxing, so I'll just choose Shock, Ki Focus, and Holy. Monk C can flurrys at +25/+25/+25/+20/+15 for 13.5-24. I don't see how doing a fairly consistent 21 avg damage is 'not viable' compared to dishing out avg damage that ranges from 13.5 (7.5 less) to 24 (3 more) depending on the opponent's energy resistances. The amulet is expensive, and a magical monk weapon 'throws away' the monks high unarmed combat damage. A high-level monk that goes with his basic unarmed combat damage, and puts his six-figure budget into less pricey, better-synergizing items would also be 'viable,' even with a 'mere' +20/+20/+20/+15/+10 2d10+5 flurry... (for 150k you can instead get +6 STR, DEX, CON /and/ WIS boosters all four of which benefit the monk greatly). And, that same monk (A,B, or C) stripped of all magic (as can happen at the highest levels, via anti-magic or MDjs) will be weighing in well above merely 'viable' compared to other melee types (heavily magical-armed fighters, self-buffing clerices, shapechanign druids, etc) in the same situation. 2. Unarmed Strikes are better than normal weapons, and opening up enchantments is potentially unbalancing. :clap: It really is. The many weapon enchantments that add dice of damage really disproportionately benefit characters making many full attacks, and monks are the kings of full attacks.
Mad M. 01-07-05, 04:02 PM	I'll admit my comparison was a little different then I expected. The last time I spent much time comparing builds for Monks was using the 3.0 rules, which differed in a number of ways. (Among other things, the new Flurry rules were a huge boon for the class) As far as investing money in Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, ect instead of magical weapons or the Amulet, that's true to an extent, but at very-high levels, the cost of most of these items is trivial, and finding stacking bonuses is most important. That +5 Enhancement bonus to attack can't be duplicated and is extremely valuable. I still think the Amulet of Mighty Blows is overpriced for Monks, because it only pays off when you've already bought everything else and have money to burn, but I am leery about giving them actual weapon enhancements. Just lowering the price of the thing is enough to sastisfy me. (I still think unarmed combat could be done better next time)
Tony Vargas 01-07-05, 04:12 PM	When you think about it, a high level monk dishes out damage like a weapon with several 'burst' type enchantments on it, already. Average damage of 11, that's affected by crits. That's similar to, say, a heavy mace with two burst enchantments layered on it, or about a +4. Obviously, at lower levels, it's not as bad, but, clearly, to retain a semblance of balance (when used by a monk) the Amulet of Mighty fists needs to be priced higher than a regular enchanted weapon. Maybe not +4 higher, but probably at least +2 higher. I don't know exactly how they came up with the price of the thing, but your example above really tells me that it's priced right, at the higher end, anyway. As far as the cost of +6 stat boosters being trivial, well, maybe one, but, the other side of the 'MAD' coin is that the monk can benefit, substantially, from 4 of them - and that adds up to very non-trivial cost that rivals the +5 Amulet (and look at what the monk gets: +3 att, +3 dam (full STR damage with the extra flurry att), +6 AC, +3 to already stellar all-good saves, and +60 hps @ 20th level) - compared to a +5 hit/dam, that's not too bad. As far as stacking, while, you could go with the amulet and get 4 stat-boosting spells thrown on you, every combat, and only get a +4 from each, or you could go with the booters, and get one high-level Greater Magic Weapon/Fang per day, for the full +5 (again, at very high level). Of course, if you have 300k or more, you could always get both.
Pinky's brain 01-07-05, 04:34 PM	If magic falls away he can always switch to unarmed strikes regardless. How close would the monk get with quarterstaff+5, belt of giant strength+6 putting the extra +3 into powerattack?
Mad M. 01-07-05, 04:35 PM	Right. I'm not saying the Amulet should cost pennies, but as it is now, it's not worth even thinking about purchasing until late into your career. 150,000 is manageble(though steep) if you're over 15th level, but at lower levels....yeesh. Compare the +1 model, (6000), to gauntlets of Ogre power (4,000). There's a tough choice...not. And as an amulet, it's directly competing with stuff like the Amulet of natural Armor (+1 for 2000, or +2 for 8,000...hmm) +2 is even worse at 24,000 gp. For that much dough, I could buy myself a Belt of Strength +4 (16,000), and an amulet of natural armor+2. Baaaad value. I don't know what price model they use, but if you take an equivelent magic weapon cost and triple it, you'll get the same price. Edit. Pinky: I'd assume both monks would have maximum strength boosters at that level, but you have a point. The advantage of the quarterstaff is the two-handed bonus to strength damage when not flurrying, as well as Power Attack. This makes the staff an invaluable tool for high-strength monks, or for spring-attacking. It also nets a large bonus to disarm. Hmmm...how about two 10th level monks with no magic? Give them both 18 Strength.... Unarmed Monk +11/+6 or +11/+11/+6 1d10+4 (9.5) Staff Monk Same attack bonus, damage is 1d6+6 (9.5) on normal attack, 1d6+4 (7.5) on flurry. Without a Higher Strength bonus, even spring-attack isn't going to give the staff guy an edge. Still, he's using an inferior weapon, so just evening things up is an accomplishment. Let say both are power-attacking at -2... Unarmed Guy +9/+4, or +9/+9/+4 Damage is 1d10+6 (11.5) Staff Guy No-Flurry Damage 1d6+10 (13.5) Flurry Damage 1d6+6 (9.5) The Staff Monk is fighting an uphill battle here, but if he's willing to invest in higher Strength, Power-attack often, and avoid full-attacks, he's not that bad. Fortunately, with Monk mobility, that's not really an awful approach to combat. And he can always match the other monk in a stand-up fight by dropping the stick, anyway. :cool: Unarmed Monk
grashii 01-08-05, 06:14 PM	For home games, you have some options to play around with. In Living Greyhawk, your choices are a lot more limited, and contrary to Kulthos's opinion, I'm not going to give up my monk just because I'm playing a Living Campaign. Everything comes down to access in Living Greyhawk, and I'm just trying to determine if attempting to burn alot of access and money is worthwhile with my guy. Because only about half the DM's I play with would accept monks wearing guantlets prior to an errata or FAQ coming out on it, I'm going to have to wait. Hopefully some of the game developers spend time reading these boards and will take the time to look at this (and the multitude of other monk w/ guantlet threads) and finally let this dead horse rest. Until then, lets keep it alive. :P
Kyaran 01-11-05, 08:48 PM	OK, this kinda died down (again), but I just had to throw this in here: Rules of the Game: Making Magic Items (Part Six) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050111a) Based on Skippy's analysis, one can read/infer: • The Amulet of Mighty Fists is priced for an uncustomary slot • Gauntlets are monk-compatible magic weapons • Base monk-unarmed-enchanting prices are 2x those of regular magic weapons DISCUSS! And let's not simply say "Faugh! This article from Skip Williams is as useless as Customer Service replies!" That's just... rude. :)
Tony Vargas 01-11-05, 09:26 PM	Well, not the middle, one, but the other two. Thanks for the link, that clears up the mysterious pricing of the amulet, for me, anyway. ;) Still a little wierd that 'guantlets of mighty fists +1' would be nearly indistinguishable from a pair of +1 gauntlets, to a non-monk (same cost, but one pair only works together and lets you do magically-enhanced kicks and headbuts). Ah, I get it. The monk has a bizarre advantage in his flurry attack, in that he gets extra attacks like TWF, but doesn't have to buy two (magicked up) weapons to take full advantage of it - you can flurry with a single kama, for instance. So the monk can either take advantage of his high unarmed damage, or the high damage of a single highly-magicked monk weapon, while flurrying, but can't highly-magic his 'unarmed' damage and pull the same trick. But, he can pay the usual cost of a pair of magical weapons - like a conventional TWFer, and flurry away with an enhancement bonus and his unarmed damage. Makes a twisted sort of sense.
ashcat_lt 01-11-05, 09:45 PM	this was a question i had when Po Lidran Blackcrest was 1st and 2nd level, but i couldn't find a good answer, so I gave up. Now that I've read the FAQ, I have the answer but it really doesn't make any difference. Today he's dual-classed over to psychic warrior, and he's making 4 attacks per round doing 1d10+8. He get's 2d6 extra every once in a while from psionic fist. Combine that with stunning fist, improved trip, that sun school feat from CW, and his functional AC 32, and he's pretty capable of holding his own. And if you consider he moves 60, and his tumble skill totals +30, he is pretty good at getting behind enemy lines and stopping spell-casters dead! The dwarf fighter still averages more damage in a round, but whatcha gonna do? where do i find this battlefist thing that several people have discussed? And the gauntlet of the talon?
Mad M. 01-12-05, 12:43 AM	Very useful link, thanks for that. :cool: Double cost sounds appropriate to me as well. And I agree with Tony in regards to the advantages of Flurry--effectively two-weapon fighting with a single weapon is a handy monk trick, and one that helps him retain melee parity with, say, a ranger, despite their other disadvantages. Normal cost weapon vs double cost unarmed strikes sounds fair to me, once you factor in the use of a body slot for the unarmed strikes, and the higher, (+10) cap and greater versatility of weapon enchantments. The Battlefist is found in the Eberron campaign sourcebook, and can only be used by Warforged, a race of living constructs. Warforged Monks are an odd breed. They aren't well suited to the Monk class at first glance--Wisdom penalty, halfed benefit from all healing spells, and overlapping immunities (Warforged already get poison and disease immunity, for example) On the other hand, they save money on gear. Their shells can be enchanted as normal (leather) armor without hindering monk abilities, and the Battlefist is an extremely potent weapon. (Basically, an enormous spiked gauntlet fitted to one hand that is only marginally more expensive than a normal weapon) Warforged our also campaign specific, and generally excell in all fighting classes, when played properly. Their strengths and weaknesses both tend to be larger than other LA 0 races.