Do Gauntlets use the monks unarmed strike damage or the default value? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Do Gauntlets use the monks unarmed strike damage or the default value? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Halworth
05-28-07, 12:11 PM Do Gauntlets use the monks unarmed strike damage or the default value?

I wanted to answer this on the original thread but that thread is long, and specifically dealling with another topic at the moment.

Yes I believe Monks DO do normal unarmed strike damage when wearing a gauntlet, and here is why.

Per the PHB p.40.

Gauntlet: This metal glove protects you 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.

Another way to says this is

1) An attack with a guantlet is considered to be an unarmed attack, EXCEPT is does lethal damage.

2) A guantlet attack is treated in all ways like an unarmed attack, EXCEPT it deals lethal damage.

3) Other than the lethal damage a gauntlet attack is treated just like an unarmed attack.

4) The ONLY difference between a gauntlet atack and an unarmed attack is the fact that a gauntlet attack does lethal damage.

To recap, how many differences are there between a gauntlet attack and an unarmed attack?. Just one. And what is it? the amount of damage done? No. The type: lethal.

So when your monk(or any other creature/PC) makes an unarmed attack with a guantlet, which aspect if that attack is altered? The amount of damage or the type of damage. [Correct answer is the type, not the amount]

Lets also look at the first statment:
"This metal glove protects you hands and lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. "

The PHB uses the term unarmed strikes in the description of the guantlet. And then describe them as having only ONE difference.

To recap: you can make unarmed attacks/unarmed strikes with a Gauntlets and there is only ONE difference when you use a gauntlet. And that is that the damage is lethal. Is says nothing about altering the damage.
_metz_
05-28-07, 12:39 PM Yes - but a gauntlet does have an assigned damage value.

Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 x2 — 1 lb. Bludgeoning

From Srd:

Unarmed Strike:

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.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

The distinction is that the gauntlet is a weapon which annoys me

It is 'otherwise' - not 'it is' seems to be the clincher here. It means that it is NOT exactly the same.

Also there is the fact that the table refers to it as 'unarmed damage' not 'unarmed strike' and seeing as gauntlets are not 'unarmed' but are instead 'otherwise treated as unarmed' there is still a Grey area.

Otherwise there is no incentive to NOT wear gauntlets, which I believe goes against the spirit of the rules and monk weapons. (Gauntlets would be monk weapons in that case)

We definitely need a FAQ on this, as otherwise, by your logic:

At 16th level, her unarmed attacks are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction and bypassing hardness.

One gets their gauntlets to also become free adamantine at 16th level. as they are an 'unarmed' strike.

I just feel it goes against the spirit of the rules, but that you have a strong RAW arguement. I just feel that like Fire resistance 1 = immunity to Lava, there is a case of badly written RAW. And I would give you dirty looks for trying it, but would be obliged to allow it at my table.
magebeast
05-28-07, 02:19 PM I don't know why everyone keeps emphasizing that otherwise means different. The difference has already been covered in the text itself.

In any case, the gauntlet description reads "unarmed attack" not "unarmed strike" which may or may not be significant.
Umbra_Kaitou
05-28-07, 02:50 PM I've made a rather long post about it in the other thread, but here are a couple comments:

Metz, just below the Gauntlet line you just quoted lies one for Unarmed Strike, it has a set Damage and critical too...conveniently has the exact same damage and crit.

Same argument being that Unarmed Strike has a set value and thus the monk ability already buffs that. It is my firm opinion that the gauntlet's damage is decided only because that is the base unarmed strike damage, and if ones unarmed damage would go up, so would it if dealt through a gauntlet.

Second, to contribute to the battle of grammar and semantics:

The Gauntlet description does SPECIFICALLY mention Unarmed Strikes, as per Halworth's qoute at the start of this thread.

"This metal glove protects you hands and lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes"

but also,

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

The line the entire debate pretty much rests on, does contain the word strike in it. To say ""A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed strike"" would be rather weird with the flow of the words, and thus I'd contend the author easily could have been merely writing a better sounding sentence than for some shrouded distinction.
clannagh
05-28-07, 07:19 PM monks are below the curve so any boost they get cannot hurt

but seeming as they probably take up a glove slot ("Gauntlet: This metal glove protects your hands" someone want to confirm that??) you are going to be losing a stat boost item to wear them, I don't really think monks over level one or two would wear them often
Halworth
05-28-07, 10:58 PM Can you imagine an attack with a gauntlet that was not an unarmed strike/unarmed attack?

i.e. a 1st level bard dons a gauntlet and then attacks a monster with it. No AOO? He now threatens with his unarmed attacks[Gauntlet]?

Of course not.

And why not?
because the ONLY difference between an unarmed attack and a gauntlet attack is that a when using a gauntlet, you can only do lethal damage. It does not allow you reach, or for you to threaten with an unarmed strike or anything else.

What exaclty is a guantlet? It's a metal glove, you are still punching away the same way you would with your bare fist.

What is the difference between and unarmed attack and an unarmed strike? I looked and could not find any separate definition. Has anyone else? if so please post a specific reference.

I say there is no difference between and "unarmed attack and an unarmed strike"

PHB p.139
'unarmed strikes' and 'unarmed attacks' are used interchangeably.

PHB p. 41 .
'unarmed strikes' and 'unarmed attacks' used interchangeably.

PHB p.96
'unarmed strikes' and 'unarmed attacks' used interchangeably.
Timlagor
05-29-07, 12:32 PM Gauntlets do not occupy the glove slot (unles syou are referring to guantlets of Ogre Power which are a holdover frmo previous versions and are generally just treated as gloves in all ways)

They are weapons and go in a notional "weapon slot". Note that they don't provide any benefit to the character directly so they could be put on after magic gloves without losing any benefit.
_metz_
05-29-07, 12:46 PM From other post.

A gauntlet is a WEAPON that is OTHERWISE treated as an unarmed strike.

So: it is a set weapon, with set damage and properties, (has to be made of something, takes up a slot, etc) and uses ('otherwise') the unarmed strike rules.

It at no point says it is an unarmed strike SUBSTITUTE. It says to me that it is a weapon that USES the unarmed strike rules for when one can attack, etc.

If its a weapon its damage is set.

That is where the opposing arguement is coming from Halworth.

If you say there ARE NO OTHER DIFFERENCES then you can't upgrade your gauntlets to flaming or anything.

Logical progression:

Cos they are an unarmed strike.

And only weapons can be upgraded.

Therefore no upgrades, ONLY DIFFERENCE IS ITS LETHAL

See the semantics trap you have dug yourself into?

It is a named weapon that does named LETHAL damage that 'otherwise' is treated (as in, rules for attacking, provoking etc) as an unarmed strike.

If all it was meant to do was make attacks lethal it would say that. But then it wouldn't be a weapon would it?

The reason you can flurry:

As it is OTHERWISE treated as an unarmed strike (weapon that uses unarmed strike rules) then it can be used in a flurry (as a monk can flurry with an unarmed strike)

However - the monk's unarmed DAMAGE applies to 'her' unarmed strikes. A weapon that acts like an unarmed strike is still not 'her' unarmed strike. It just acts like it.

(not that flurry is with ALL unarmed strikes, damage bonus is with 'her' unarmed strikes)

Named weapon that uses unarmed strike rules, NOT an unarmed strike.

Thats the meaning of the otherwise imo.
KarmaInferno
05-29-07, 08:25 PM I see no reason why a gauntlet attack can't be considered both a weapon strike AND an unarmed strike at the same time.

You are striking with a metal object, yet you are doing so by punching.

It is a weapon that is treated as an unarmed strike for all other purposes except in regards to the lethal/non-lethal issue.

It's an odd corner case, and really only useful to a handful of characters that are generally underpowered class-wise to begin with.

-karma
Halworth
05-30-07, 12:52 AM Check PHB p.116 table 7-5

Unarmed strike AND Gauntlet are both listed as weapons under the heading of Unarmed attacks.

They are both weapons, both with set damage.

Unarmed strike even has a superscript #3 that states
"The weapon deals nonlethal damage rather than lethal damage".

Where Gauntlet says:
"..you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes."

Like two sides of a coin, both item descriptions say they do/or don't do lethal damage.

They are the same thing only one does lethal and one does nonlethal.

So once again the ONLY difference is that Gauntlets do lethal damage.

So why two entrys?
Becuase one does lethal and one does nonlethal. Both item decriptions go to great length to make that clear, one does lethal the other nonlethal.

Do you think a punch from 20th level monk, goes from 2d10 to 1d3 because she dons a metal glove?

KarmaInferno I see no reason why a gauntlet attack can't be considered both a weapon strike AND an unarmed strike at the same time.

Karma I like your take on things.

With your permision I will agrue your cause as if it were my own.
Munkwunk
05-30-07, 02:18 PM So once again the ONLY difference is that Gauntlets do lethal damage.
There is one other key difference: a gauntlet is a manufactured weapon, which means it can be enchanted as a weapon and not a natural attack.

Otherwise, you are correct. The gauntlet entry only lists "1d3" for damage because that is the damage a normal, non-monk character deals with an unarmed attack. Monks go above and beyond this limitation. Note, nay-sayers, that the "Unarmed Strike" entry ALSO has a "set" damage of 1d3.
GrahamWills
06-05-07, 02:07 PM Do you think a punch from 20th level monk, goes from 2d10 to 1d3 because she dons a metal glove?

Absolutely. She has never been trained in using it and all her moves are now not working as well. Her side knife attacks, ridge knife attack, palm break, backhand, spear finger and other variations of punches are all nerfed because the glove doesn't give the way her hands do. Not to mention her weight and balance is all screwed.

I [Graham] can easily break a 3/4 inch pine board with a side knife break. With a thick lump of metal that doesn't accelerate as fast and has a wider impact area, I seriously think I'd be worse off. With a virtually godlike creature that has hands that do as much damage as a magic, holy, adamantine glaive, yes, I'd say that wrapping that weapon in a coating of cheap metal will screw them up big time.

Ask your GM what damage a +2 holy adamantine greatsword does against a golem when you put the blade in a platemail leg-piece and then swing it against the golem. Then transfer that look of incredulity on to your 20th level monk when you suggest the same thing to her.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Halworth 05-28-07, 12:11 PM	Do Gauntlets use the monks unarmed strike damage or the default value? I wanted to answer this on the original thread but that thread is long, and specifically dealling with another topic at the moment. Yes I believe Monks DO do normal unarmed strike damage when wearing a gauntlet, and here is why. Per the PHB p.40. Gauntlet: This metal glove protects you 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. Another way to says this is 1) An attack with a guantlet is considered to be an unarmed attack, EXCEPT is does lethal damage. 2) A guantlet attack is treated in all ways like an unarmed attack, EXCEPT it deals lethal damage. 3) Other than the lethal damage a gauntlet attack is treated just like an unarmed attack. 4) The ONLY difference between a gauntlet atack and an unarmed attack is the fact that a gauntlet attack does lethal damage. To recap, how many differences are there between a gauntlet attack and an unarmed attack?. Just one. And what is it? the amount of damage done? No. The type: lethal. So when your monk(or any other creature/PC) makes an unarmed attack with a guantlet, which aspect if that attack is altered? The amount of damage or the type of damage. [Correct answer is the type, not the amount] Lets also look at the first statment: "This metal glove protects you hands and lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. " The PHB uses the term unarmed strikes in the description of the guantlet. And then describe them as having only ONE difference. To recap: you can make unarmed attacks/unarmed strikes with a Gauntlets and there is only ONE difference when you use a gauntlet. And that is that the damage is lethal. Is says nothing about altering the damage.
_metz_ 05-28-07, 12:39 PM	Yes - but a gauntlet does have an assigned damage value. Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 x2 — 1 lb. Bludgeoning From Srd: Unarmed Strike: 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. A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage. The distinction is that the gauntlet is a weapon which annoys me It is 'otherwise' - not 'it is' seems to be the clincher here. It means that it is NOT exactly the same. Also there is the fact that the table refers to it as 'unarmed damage' not 'unarmed strike' and seeing as gauntlets are not 'unarmed' but are instead 'otherwise treated as unarmed' there is still a Grey area. Otherwise there is no incentive to NOT wear gauntlets, which I believe goes against the spirit of the rules and monk weapons. (Gauntlets would be monk weapons in that case) We definitely need a FAQ on this, as otherwise, by your logic: At 16th level, her unarmed attacks are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction and bypassing hardness. One gets their gauntlets to also become free adamantine at 16th level. as they are an 'unarmed' strike. I just feel it goes against the spirit of the rules, but that you have a strong RAW arguement. I just feel that like Fire resistance 1 = immunity to Lava, there is a case of badly written RAW. And I would give you dirty looks for trying it, but would be obliged to allow it at my table.
magebeast 05-28-07, 02:19 PM	I don't know why everyone keeps emphasizing that otherwise means different. The difference has already been covered in the text itself. In any case, the gauntlet description reads "unarmed attack" not "unarmed strike" which may or may not be significant.
Umbra_Kaitou 05-28-07, 02:50 PM	I've made a rather long post about it in the other thread, but here are a couple comments: Metz, just below the Gauntlet line you just quoted lies one for Unarmed Strike, it has a set Damage and critical too...conveniently has the exact same damage and crit. Same argument being that Unarmed Strike has a set value and thus the monk ability already buffs that. It is my firm opinion that the gauntlet's damage is decided only because that is the base unarmed strike damage, and if ones unarmed damage would go up, so would it if dealt through a gauntlet. Second, to contribute to the battle of grammar and semantics: The Gauntlet description does SPECIFICALLY mention Unarmed Strikes, as per Halworth's qoute at the start of this thread. "This metal glove protects you hands and lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes" but also, "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack" The line the entire debate pretty much rests on, does contain the word strike in it. To say ""A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed strike"" would be rather weird with the flow of the words, and thus I'd contend the author easily could have been merely writing a better sounding sentence than for some shrouded distinction.
clannagh 05-28-07, 07:19 PM	monks are below the curve so any boost they get cannot hurt but seeming as they probably take up a glove slot ("Gauntlet: This metal glove protects your hands" someone want to confirm that??) you are going to be losing a stat boost item to wear them, I don't really think monks over level one or two would wear them often
Halworth 05-28-07, 10:58 PM	Can you imagine an attack with a gauntlet that was not an unarmed strike/unarmed attack? i.e. a 1st level bard dons a gauntlet and then attacks a monster with it. No AOO? He now threatens with his unarmed attacks[Gauntlet]? Of course not. And why not? because the ONLY difference between an unarmed attack and a gauntlet attack is that a when using a gauntlet, you can only do lethal damage. It does not allow you reach, or for you to threaten with an unarmed strike or anything else. What exaclty is a guantlet? It's a metal glove, you are still punching away the same way you would with your bare fist. What is the difference between and unarmed attack and an unarmed strike? I looked and could not find any separate definition. Has anyone else? if so please post a specific reference. I say there is no difference between and "unarmed attack and an unarmed strike" PHB p.139 'unarmed strikes' and 'unarmed attacks' are used interchangeably. PHB p. 41 . 'unarmed strikes' and 'unarmed attacks' used interchangeably. PHB p.96 'unarmed strikes' and 'unarmed attacks' used interchangeably.
Timlagor 05-29-07, 12:32 PM	Gauntlets do not occupy the glove slot (unles syou are referring to guantlets of Ogre Power which are a holdover frmo previous versions and are generally just treated as gloves in all ways) They are weapons and go in a notional "weapon slot". Note that they don't provide any benefit to the character directly so they could be put on after magic gloves without losing any benefit.
_metz_ 05-29-07, 12:46 PM	From other post. A gauntlet is a WEAPON that is OTHERWISE treated as an unarmed strike. So: it is a set weapon, with set damage and properties, (has to be made of something, takes up a slot, etc) and uses ('otherwise') the unarmed strike rules. It at no point says it is an unarmed strike SUBSTITUTE. It says to me that it is a weapon that USES the unarmed strike rules for when one can attack, etc. If its a weapon its damage is set. That is where the opposing arguement is coming from Halworth. If you say there ARE NO OTHER DIFFERENCES then you can't upgrade your gauntlets to flaming or anything. Logical progression: Cos they are an unarmed strike. And only weapons can be upgraded. Therefore no upgrades, ONLY DIFFERENCE IS ITS LETHAL See the semantics trap you have dug yourself into? It is a named weapon that does named LETHAL damage that 'otherwise' is treated (as in, rules for attacking, provoking etc) as an unarmed strike. If all it was meant to do was make attacks lethal it would say that. But then it wouldn't be a weapon would it? The reason you can flurry: As it is OTHERWISE treated as an unarmed strike (weapon that uses unarmed strike rules) then it can be used in a flurry (as a monk can flurry with an unarmed strike) However - the monk's unarmed DAMAGE applies to 'her' unarmed strikes. A weapon that acts like an unarmed strike is still not 'her' unarmed strike. It just acts like it. (not that flurry is with ALL unarmed strikes, damage bonus is with 'her' unarmed strikes) Named weapon that uses unarmed strike rules, NOT an unarmed strike. Thats the meaning of the otherwise imo.
KarmaInferno 05-29-07, 08:25 PM	I see no reason why a gauntlet attack can't be considered both a weapon strike AND an unarmed strike at the same time. You are striking with a metal object, yet you are doing so by punching. It is a weapon that is treated as an unarmed strike for all other purposes except in regards to the lethal/non-lethal issue. It's an odd corner case, and really only useful to a handful of characters that are generally underpowered class-wise to begin with. -karma
Halworth 05-30-07, 12:52 AM	Check PHB p.116 table 7-5 Unarmed strike AND Gauntlet are both listed as weapons under the heading of Unarmed attacks. They are both weapons, both with set damage. Unarmed strike even has a superscript #3 that states "The weapon deals nonlethal damage rather than lethal damage". Where Gauntlet says: "..you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes." Like two sides of a coin, both item descriptions say they do/or don't do lethal damage. They are the same thing only one does lethal and one does nonlethal. So once again the ONLY difference is that Gauntlets do lethal damage. So why two entrys? Becuase one does lethal and one does nonlethal. Both item decriptions go to great length to make that clear, one does lethal the other nonlethal. Do you think a punch from 20th level monk, goes from 2d10 to 1d3 because she dons a metal glove? KarmaInferno I see no reason why a gauntlet attack can't be considered both a weapon strike AND an unarmed strike at the same time. Karma I like your take on things. With your permision I will agrue your cause as if it were my own.
Munkwunk 05-30-07, 02:18 PM	So once again the ONLY difference is that Gauntlets do lethal damage. There is one other key difference: a gauntlet is a manufactured weapon, which means it can be enchanted as a weapon and not a natural attack. Otherwise, you are correct. The gauntlet entry only lists "1d3" for damage because that is the damage a normal, non-monk character deals with an unarmed attack. Monks go above and beyond this limitation. Note, nay-sayers, that the "Unarmed Strike" entry ALSO has a "set" damage of 1d3.
GrahamWills 06-05-07, 02:07 PM	Do you think a punch from 20th level monk, goes from 2d10 to 1d3 because she dons a metal glove? Absolutely. She has never been trained in using it and all her moves are now not working as well. Her side knife attacks, ridge knife attack, palm break, backhand, spear finger and other variations of punches are all nerfed because the glove doesn't give the way her hands do. Not to mention her weight and balance is all screwed. I [Graham] can easily break a 3/4 inch pine board with a side knife break. With a thick lump of metal that doesn't accelerate as fast and has a wider impact area, I seriously think I'd be worse off. With a virtually godlike creature that has hands that do as much damage as a magic, holy, adamantine glaive, yes, I'd say that wrapping that weapon in a coating of cheap metal will screw them up big time. Ask your GM what damage a +2 holy adamantine greatsword does against a golem when you put the blade in a platemail leg-piece and then swing it against the golem. Then transfer that look of incredulity on to your 20th level monk when you suggest the same thing to her.