Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DroidTrooper 05-22-07, 07:15 PM	How do monks interact with guantlets: Do Gauntlets use the monks unarmed strike damage or the default value? Do MW (or otherwise enhanced +1,2,flaming etc.) gauntlets give you bonuses to unarmed attack (assuming the fist is not otherwise holding something)? Can you flurry with gauntlets (its not a monk weapon, but it is treated as an unarmed strike which is usable)?
King Kashue 05-22-07, 07:47 PM	Can you flurry with gauntlets (its not a monk weapon, but it is treated as an unarmed strike which is usable)? The FAQ says "no, monks cannot flurry with gauntlets"... And then in very next paragraph it says "yes, monks can flurry with gauntlets"... Gotta love the FAQ...:rolleyes: Personally, I rule that one cannot flurry with gauntlets, because the FAQ says "they're not monk weapons" twice, whereas it only says "they can be used in flurry of blows" once...2 > 1 :D
haferka 05-22-07, 11:59 PM	The FAQ created more questions in my mind... Personally.. I see a monk wearing guantlets.. using his standard Flurry/Unarmed Strike.. and gaining the Guantlets material qualities for defeating DR.. but NOT gaining any qualities of an enchanted guantlet... If the same Monk were to use the Guantlet .. as a weapon.. instead of Unarmed Strike.. he would NOT get his Monk Unarmed Strike damage.. but would get the magical qualities of the weapon.
clannagh 05-23-07, 12:17 AM	the difference is between: 1. A monk attacking with gauntlets. and 2. A monk attacking with gauntlets and electing to treat the attack as an unarmed strike. However i agree this FAQ has made the matter less clear not more clear.
Lupo 05-23-07, 05:34 AM	the difference is between: 1. A monk attacking with gauntlets. and 2. A monk attacking with gauntlets and electing to treat the attack as an unarmed strike. However i agree this FAQ has made the matter less clear not more clear. WOOOOOW after the zillionsth edition of the FAQ they have finally fixed it :) a quick search in the new FAQ (Version 3.5: Date Updated 05/18/07) finally yields only ONE of the two paragraphs on gauntlets: (page 20) Can a monk treat an attack with a gauntlet as an unarmed strike? A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed strike (since the Player’s Handbook says that “a strike with a gauntlet is . . . considered an unarmed attack”), although the damage dealt by the gauntlet would always be considered lethal damage (as noted in the gauntlet entry) and the monk would suffer a nonproficiency penalty (since the gauntlet is a simple weapon). The monk could even use gauntlet attacks as part of a flurry of blows. so from now on monks can flurry with gauntlets and are save from table variations :) ciao martin m.
_metz_ 05-23-07, 06:58 AM	About time really... Now monks can go buy silver gauntlets and cold iron gauntlets etc, and will be able to deal with DR for a nice change...
haferka 05-23-07, 08:53 AM	Would have been nice for this to be in "red" like all the other changes...
trollbill 05-23-07, 10:09 AM	About time really... Now monks can go buy silver gauntlets and cold iron gauntlets etc, and will be able to deal with DR for a nice change... Not to mention weapon enhancements. Monks starting with some level of fighter is common. It will be even more common now, just so they have simple weapon proficiency.
haferka 05-23-07, 10:31 AM	Sadly.. my sacred fist will not be allowed to use guantlets..
King Kashue 05-23-07, 10:47 PM	WOOOOOW after the zillionsth edition of the FAQ they have finally fixed it :) a quick search in the new FAQ (Version 3.5: Date Updated 05/18/07) finally yields only ONE of the two paragraphs on gauntlets: so from now on monks can flurry with gauntlets and are save from table variations :) ciao martin m. They didn't fix it all... Same page (p.20), second column: "No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes)." So close, yet so far...Well, it only took them two years to correct the first contradiction, hopefully it will only be one to fix this one :D
clik_ml 05-24-07, 02:04 AM	They didn't fix it all... Same page (p.20), second column: "No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes)." Dammit. What does that even mean? Ugh. The FAQ needs an overhaul. I'm going to assume it's not "the ideal answer" or "as versatile" in the sense that you can't deal subdual damage with it and suffer a non-proficiency penalty (per the entry on gauntlet flurries). I really enjoyed this gem. When I use flurry of blows, how many attacks do I get? A 6th-level monk gains one extra attack when using flurry of blows, and all her attacks take a –1 penalty. Thus, your character would have five attacks (+16/+16/+11/+6/+1, plus other modifiers). Hrm, I'm getting the feeling I only saw a fraction of the question... unless 6th level monks get five attacks at +16/+16/+11/+6/+1... plus other modifiers, of course. Rereading the FAQ is giving me insights I never noticed before. Like that monks fly faster than you. Does the monk's fast movement class feature apply to all forms of movement? Since the entry doesn’t limit the bonus to just the character’s land speed, it’s fair to apply it to all speeds the character possesses. So monks get to bump fly speeds up with their monk bonus. Awesome. Fast-burrowing awakened dire badger monks... even more awesome!
Lupo 05-24-07, 09:39 AM	They didn't fix it all... Same page (p.20), second column: "No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes)." So close, yet so far...Well, it only took them two years to correct the first contradiction, hopefully it will only be one to fix this one :D yes, i know, a monk still suffers a -4 (-3 if one buys them as masterwork or magic +1 version) for using a non-proficient weapon, but at least is allowed to flurry WITH those gauntlets. compare this to the at least -5 a monk had to sink into power attack to overcome the simplest DR, it is still a good deal :) ciao martin m.
trollbill 05-24-07, 11:08 AM	So by the current FAQ, would a gauntlet used as part of an Unarmed Strike by a monk do gauntlet damage or unarmed strike damage?
solbergb 05-24-07, 11:15 AM	How do monks interact with guantlets: Do Gauntlets use the monks unarmed strike damage or the default value? Do MW (or otherwise enhanced +1,2,flaming etc.) gauntlets give you bonuses to unarmed attack (assuming the fist is not otherwise holding something)? Can you flurry with gauntlets (its not a monk weapon, but it is treated as an unarmed strike which is usable)? 1. Default value per the weapon table at my table. Expect table variation as this isn't clear what is intended. My interpretation is that the contradictory FAQ entry means you get gauntlet damage, not monk unarmed strike damage. 2. Yes. It's a weapon, if you get MW gauntlets it can be enchanted. 3. Yes at my table (see FAQ - monks are explicitly allowed to flurry with gauntlets because it is "treated as unarmed strike" which is a monk weapon - but there are conflicting other entries) My monk doesn't use gauntlets. He uses a reach weapon and a foot with GMW cast on it by a friendly spellcaster....
King Kashue 05-24-07, 01:15 PM	yes, i know, a monk still suffers a -4 (-3 if one buys them as masterwork or magic +1 version) for using a non-proficient weapon, but at least is allowed to flurry WITH those gauntlets. It's not just that. The FAQ says "yes you can flurry", but the section I noted says "gauntlets are not monk weapons", couple that with the PHB that says "you can't flurry with anything but monk weapons" and you've still got contradiction. It explicitly says you can flurry, so you can, but the document itself still has issues :D
solbergb 05-24-07, 03:08 PM	You need to read the FAQ again for WHY you can flurry. It's similar to the ruling on improved natural attack. The sage took something a monk is allowed to do, saw a point where the rule said "this is similar to that" and ran with it. (with INA, it was treating a feat as an "effect" that was applied to monk unarmed strike as more useful of UA or nat weapon. With the gauntlet, he's using the "like unarmed strike" to say you can flurry wtih a gauntlet, because UA is a monk weapon, and gaunt is "enough like" it I guess)
King Kashue 05-24-07, 03:22 PM	You need to read the FAQ again for WHY you can flurry. No, I really don't... I've used so often it as an example of why the FAQ is bollocksed up that I can literally repeat it verbatim. It's similar to the ruling on improved natural attack. The sage took something a monk is allowed to do, saw a point where the rule said "this is similar to that" and ran with it. And the sage is wrong (obviously not for the campaign, but in the reading of the rules)... He says the text says a gauntlet is "considered an unarmed attack", which is true, but there a rather important piece of context right in front of that part...The word "otherwise". It's a weapon that makes your damage lethal, and it "is otherwise considered an unarmed attack"...Which means you don't threaten and you provoke AoOs, as per the rules. "Otherwise" indicates an exception, in this case, the exception is it's a weapon that makes your damage lethal... Nowhere does it say "you can choose to treat a gauntlet as an unarmed strike", which is what the sage says you can do. That's not taken from the rules, that's invented. His other ruling (the one that was unfortunately removed) is the correct one in my opinion (at the very least it's the one that doesn't require any 'wrangling' with the rules). It's a weapon, it's not a monk weapon, therefore no flurry. Simple and explicitly in agreement with the rules with no goofy outliers.
KShaver 05-24-07, 04:47 PM	So by the current FAQ, would a gauntlet used as part of an Unarmed Strike by a monk do gauntlet damage or unarmed strike damage? Normally I would argue that you are stuck with gauntlet damage, but looking over the wording for gauntlets, the wording for monks unarmed attacks, and the FAQ I can't say for certain that such is true. The only related item I can think of to base a ruling off of is the battlefist for warforged from Eberron. The battlefist is favorable in every way for a warforged monk in the same way that eveyone is hoping gauntlets will be for the rest of the monks out there.
Halworth 05-25-07, 12:47 AM	The thing to remmber with the FAQ is that each entry is superseded by the latest entry.( I do by the way download and save every FAQ) The latest entry is always in RED. On 06/21/06 this FAQ was posted (in red) Can a monk treat an attack with a gauntlet as an unarmed strike? A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed strike (since the Player’s Handbook says that “a strike with a gauntlet is . . . considered an unarmed attack”), although the damage dealt by the gauntlet would always be considered lethal damage (as noted in the gauntlet entry) and the monk would suffer a nonproficiency penalty (since the gauntlet is a simple weapon). The monk could even use gauntlet attacks as part of a flurry of blows. (My underline) It specifically states in the first sentence “A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed strike” A monk can flurry in two ways 1) Unarmed strike (or an unarmed strike while wearing a gauntlet BECAUSE “ A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed strike”) OR 2) Special Monk weapons. NO FAQ AFTER THE 06/21/07 FAQ DISPUTES A MONK CAN FLURRY WITH A GUANTLET. NONE. Some might point to the 11/22/06 FAQ Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as amagic weapon? No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes).The amulet of mighty fists (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 246) grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s unarmed strike. (My underline) CLEARLY it states GAUNTLETS are NOT monk WEAPONS, and they are not as VERSATILE as UNARMED STRIKES. But NO WHERE does it counter the claim from the previous FAQ that “THE MONK COULD EVEN USE GAUNTLET AS PART OF A FLURRY OF BLOWS” IT'S IN THE FAQ. The LGCS clearly states LG follows the FAQ. Everyone is LG follows the FAQ. USE IT OR DON"T, LIKE IT OR NOT, BUT THEM'S THE RULES. PER the rules a MONK CAN FLURRY with a GUANTLET.
King Kashue 05-25-07, 01:19 AM	CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME!!! :rolleyes: Interesting analysis...unnecessary, since as has been mentioned, the primary contradicting passage has been removed...but interesting... But this: CLEARLY it states GAUNTLETS are NOT monk WEAPONS, and they are not as VERSATILE as UNARMED STRIKES. But NO WHERE does it counter the claim from the previous FAQ that “THE MONK COULD EVEN USE GAUNTLET AS PART OF A FLURRY OF BLOWS” Isn't technically correct. The PHB says you can't use a non-monk weapon as part of a flurry, so it is still indeed contradictory with the other passage. However, since it is explicit in one passage, and implicit in the other, the sage's contradicting statements stand, and the ruling that forces rules twisting stands as official.
Halworth 05-25-07, 02:15 AM	Isn't technically correct. The PHB says you can't use a non-monk weapon as part of a flurry, so it is still indeed contradictory with the other passage. I don't want to get into a post war with you King. The PHB P.40 states: "When using a flurry of blows, a monk may attack with only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and singham)." (My underline) And since we have etablished (barefisted) Unarmed strike =(same)= (gauntleted) Unarmed strike It is pefectly consistant with the current FAQ AND the PHB. A monk can flurry with either a monk weapon or an unarmed strike, and a guantled strike is an unarmed strike, therefore it is consistant with the all previous statements. I am not saying monks can flurry with non-monk weapons, I am saying monks can fluryr with ALL unarmed strikes. Whenever a monk flurries it must satisfy either conditon, Monk weapon OR unarmed strke, not both a monk weapon AND unarmed strike. If it is a unarmed strike, then a monk can flurry with it. Gauntlet strike = unarmed strike. I think this is aFAQ passage you were refering to: This was originally posted before I started collecting FAQ, and yes it was later removed. Can a monk wear a gauntlet and still use her flurry of blows? Does she gain any other special abilities of the gauntlets with her unarmed strikes? Technically, a gauntlet isn’t an unarmed strike (it has a separate line on Table 7–5: Weapons in the Player’s Handbook), and thus can’t be used as part of a flurry of blows. A monk could wear gauntlets and still use flurry of blows, she just couldn’t attack with the gauntlets as part of the flurry (she’d be using her feet, elbows, knees, and so forth instead). If that’s too much hairsplitting for you, treat a gauntlet attack as effectively identical to an unarmed strike, except that it always deals lethal damage (even when worn by a monk). Many magic items called gauntlets aren’t necessarily using the same terminology. Gauntlets of ogre power, for example, aren’t always metal gloves. It’s conceivable that a monk might be wearing magic gauntlets that grant a special benefit on her unarmed strikes without those gauntlets also serving as weapons in their own right. In this case, the monk is making unarmed strike attacks, not gauntlet attacks. (My underline) I agree with you King, that this FAQ does not allow A monk to flurry with Guantlets, however it was superceded on 06/21/06, And this passage eventually removed because it was decided that it caused too much confusion about the flurry/gauntlet ruling. Even now with it removed, many people still bring it up.
King Kashue 05-25-07, 02:39 AM	I don't want to get into a post war with you King. :rolleyes: The PHB P.40 states: "When using a flurry of blows, a monk may attack with only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and singham)." (My underline) And since we have etablished (barefisted) Unarmed strike =(same)= (gauntleted) Unarmed strike It is pefectly consistant with the current FAQ AND the PHB. A monk can flurry with either a monk weapon or an unarmed strike, and a guantled strike is an unarmed strike, therefore it is consistant with the all previous statements. Not even the FAQ says Gauntlet = Unarmed strike, so no, it's not "established". A gauntlet is a weapon that does lethal damage, and "is otherwise treated as an unarmed strike". The PHB most certainly does not say "a gauntlet is an unarmed strike" and claiming that is false. The gauntlet is listed on Table 7-5 Weapons...The description of the item is in the section titled Weapon Descriptions, which begins "The weapons found on table 7-5:Weapons are described below." Heck, even the FAQ entry that allows flurries with it says it's a "simple weapon". The Sage based his ruling on the idea that monks can "treat gauntlets as unarmed strikes", except that's not actually what the PHB says. The PHB says it's a weapon that does lethal damage, that is otherwise treated as an unarmed strike. I.e., it's like an unarmed strike except it's lethal and it's a weapon. It's official, because it's in the FAQ. It's also wrong, because the sage evidently doesn't understand the syntactical function of the word "otherwise"...
magebeast 05-25-07, 03:31 AM	Well, but if it is lethal - while an unarmed strike can be lethal OR nonlethal assuming you have the feat - but is otherwise treated as an unarmed strike, can't you flurry? I mean, a monk can flurry with unarmed strikes. The quote is in this thread. So if it is treated in all respects like an unarmed strike - except that it deals lethal damage - what prevents it from being used in a flurry - presuming of course that it always deals lethal damage? EDIT: What I'm saying here is that making it do lethal damage but allowing it in flurries - isn't that following what's laid in the rules for gauntlets - because we're treating it like an unarmed strike - and the rules for flurrying because the monk is treating it as he would an unarmed strike and flurrying with it.
Halworth 05-25-07, 09:44 AM	:rolleyes: Not even the FAQ says Gauntlet = Unarmed strike, so no, it's not "established". A gauntlet is a weapon that does lethal damage, and "is otherwise treated as an unarmed strike". And I quote from the FAQ above " A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed strike " Meaning a monk could wear guantlet and treat it like an unarmed strike, where is the confusion? The PHB most certainly does not say "a gauntlet is an unarmed strike" and claiming that is false. Again I quote the PHB: 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. (My bold, my underline) Again where is the confusion? Unarmed attack = Unarmed strike = Strike with a gauntlet. Surely you admit some unarmed strikes cause lethal damage? Are you saying because an unarmed strike causes lethal damage it is not an unarmed strike? Maybe I misunderstand your agrument. I have heard you disagree with my argument. But why do you think a monk cannot flurry with a gauntlet? Maybe I should listen first.
The_Jester 05-25-07, 10:11 AM	Because a gauntlet is NOT an unarmed strike. Why does it say "otherwise"? Because that's how you resolve attack rolls for striking with a gauntlet and brings in other rule options such as AoO and feats such as weapon focus (unarmed). But it is still a weapon. In sense the rules are saying "when using this weapon that costs money and is listed on the weapon chart also use the rules for attacking unarmed." THAT's the confusion. It IS a weapon and thus falls under the weapon restrictions of the monk. The options are: 1) Flurry with gauntlets. But deal regular unarmed damage as you're striking with knees and jazz. 2) UA with the gauntlet. But take a -4 penalty. 3) Flurry with the non-weapon gauntlet. One of Ogre Power or the like, deal regular UA dmg. Expect table variation on the rest as monks are designed to be able to flurry with flaming burst gauntlets on.
haferka 05-25-07, 11:27 AM	This could all be solved by simply removing the weapon entry for Gauntlets in the PH.. or at least replace the (Dmg, Crit Range & Type) entries with "-" like amunition... and put it under "Unarmed Strike" similar to the way arrows are listed for bows. PETITION FOR THIS ERRATA.... Then the guantlet is simple.. It just allows you to apply magic/masterwork bonuses to unarmed strike... without actually being a weapon itself... it becomes "ammunition" that does not break.
King Kashue 05-25-07, 04:29 PM	And I quote from the FAQ above " A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed strike " Meaning a monk could wear guantlet and treat it like an unarmed strike, where is the confusion? Maybe I misunderstand your agrument. I have heard you disagree with my argument. But why do you think a monk cannot flurry with a gauntlet? Maybe I should listen first. Indeed, you are missing my argument in its entirety... As far as LG goes, monks can flurry because the FAQ says they can. As far as the basis of the FAQ entry itself, the Sage is wrong because the rules don't actually say what he says they do... Again I quote the PHB: 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. (My bold, my underline) Precisely. It's a weapon, it does lethal damage. Other than that, the mechanics are as an unarmed strike. Again where is the confusion? Unarmed attack = Unarmed strike = Strike with a gauntlet. No. If it was an unarmed strike, it would say so. It explicitly says it isn't. That's what the word "otherwise" means. If I'm talking about a car. And I say "the transmission is broken, otherwise it works perfectly", have I said "The car works perfectly"? Of course not. I'm making specific exceptions, and then summing up the remainder of it's characteristics. A gauntlet is a weapon that does lethal damage, otherwise it is treated as an unarmed strike. That means, it functions like an unarmed strike (i.e., you don't threaten, you provoke AoOs, etc) except for two characteristics. One, it's a weapon. Two, it does lethal damage. Those are the two ways in which it is not an unarmed strike. The issue is that one of those, it being a weapon that is not a monk weapon, also means that monks should not be able to flurry with it (as they can only flurry with monk weapons). The FAQ entry is based on the idea that "monks can treat a gauntlet as an unarmed strike", which is a concept which exists nowhere in the PHB. That is why I'm saying the FAQ is official, but it is also wrong.
Umbra_Kaitou 05-25-07, 05:59 PM	*shrugs* whether or not its wrong it is still official for now, so that leads me to be extremely curious about whether or not by that FAQ a monk deals his or her normal more powerful unarmed strike damage when fighting with a gauntlet?
Timlagor 05-25-07, 08:12 PM	I don't think you get your Monk Unarmed Strike damage with a gauntlet. Incidentally there is a difference between an Unarmed Attack and an Unarmed Strike ...and whoever wrote the rule inteh first place clearly wasn't paying attention.
The_Jester 05-27-07, 11:14 AM	Contradiction in the rules means it's up to individual table judges to tie break. Yay! We're useful! Monks attacking with weapons, including a gauntlet, deal weapon damage not their unarmed strike damage. And really, the *only* reason monks want gauntlets is so they can slap on weapon enchantments to them. And with the amount of money most monks have lying around that could be scary...
clik_ml 05-27-07, 12:44 PM	And with the amount of money most monks have lying around that could be scary... Scary, because monks are one of the poorest classes from level 1 on to retirement? They need more stat boosters than most any other class. They can't craft. If they care about AC then either they sink a lot of money in crappy bracers, or buy some pearls and hope to bum mage armor greater or otherwise. If a monk wants to deal weapon damage, then they can danged well use a monk weapon which does a whole lot better than a crappy gauntlet and can flurry without table variation. Heck, a quarterstaff can even take brambles or spikes. The only reason to use a gauntlet as a monk is if you are *both* allowed to flurry *and* allowed to use monk unarmed damage... and the rules aren't clear enough to allow that on a consistent basis (because as some note, the rules don't allow it, but the FAQ may).
Umbra_Kaitou 05-27-07, 03:01 PM	Yeah, there really is no point to gauntlets if the monk unarmed damage doesn't go through as there are, as the poster above me stated, other non-in question, weapons that can deal more damage than that. It just seems to me that, at least in a rather straightforward monk build, that a monks main base damage comes from his unarmed strike boost, as i don't think any monk weapons do better than a d6. However, with all the DR in LG, monks seem rather boned if they wanted to rely on their fists (and the only reason my monk doesn't go for sacred fist) cause they can't deal cold iron or silver in particular without lowering their damage output significantly at higher levels. Versatile Unarmed Strike feat out of PHB2 helped somewhat in that you could get past slashing and piercing then at least. I don't think a ruling in this favor would be a bad idea even if it wasn't originally intended in the PHB. Its just a small boost to monks who, imho could use it. It doesn't really seem to break anything. From a fluff/Roleplaying perspective I see it like this: A monk is specially trained to fight. IMO their damage in this increases not from that their hands are any larger than a normal persons, but from that they've been trained to know where tho hit a person to do more damage. Using a gauntlet, they'd still pretty much have that control and thus could deal their higher damage. A gauntlets damage 1d3 essentially because thats the standard unarmed damage of a normal person anyway, right? So why wouldn't that increase if a monk was wielding it. I think i might go and get a silver and cold iron gauntlet for my monk, and just leave myself in the DMs mercy if it should ever come up, since no matter where I ask, I have no idea where I could get an official answer. Theres no way I'm blowing money on masterwork though until I have one =/. ~Byaku Shirotora, Monk 3, Verbobonc
_metz_ 05-27-07, 11:33 PM	Well I would like to point out that allowing gauntlets as a monk weapon will ruin the look they appear to have gone for in the class - I would rather see a monk class feature that allows them to overcome DR better.Otherwise you'll have to stick with monk weapons... Allowing gauntlets at full value makes the grapple monks much better than the non grapple monks...
Umbra_Kaitou 05-28-07, 04:13 AM	I would rather see a monk class feature that allows them to overcome DR better... I would love such an option, but as such a thing does not exist (unless theres something in complete champion i missed >>) I'm hoping for the gauntlet ruling to help in its stead =/
Halworth 05-28-07, 11:17 AM	I have read and reread the posts above. I still don't get it. Per the PHB. 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) A strike ith a guantlet is considered to be an unarmed attack, EXCEPT is does lethal damage. 2) A guantlet strike is treated in all ways like and 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 guantlet atack and an unarmed attack is the fact that a guantlet attack does lethal damage. Please post if you disagree with these four statement. and if you do please explain why. If you agee to these statements please post you agree.(no explanation needed) Is it that fact that guantlet strikes deal lethal damage, or that gauntlets not monk weapons, that prevents you from thinking a monk can flurry with gauntlets?
_metz_ 05-28-07, 11:29 AM	Nobody is disagreeing with that. There is the question as to if the monk unarmed bonus on their strikes will apply to a gauntlet (I would say no). And you need to be proficient with them. Other than that no-one is disagreeing.
Mithreinmaethor 05-28-07, 06:45 PM	Biggest problem is is that the Monks attacks are not only just from his/her hands. It is using all the body parts. So there is no given that you are using the hands (gauntleted or otherwise) And there is no game mechanic to determine which body part of yours that you strike with. Gauntlets should be treated in all cases as a Weapon and then apply it to the Monks Unarmed Strike rules appropriately Just my 2 cents
King Kashue 05-29-07, 01:31 AM	4) The ONLY difference between a guantlet atack and an unarmed attack is the fact that a guantlet attack does lethal damage. No. The gauntlet is also a weapon. It's a weapon that using the rules for "unarmed attacks" (PHB p. 118), but it is still quite explicitly a weapon. Is it that fact that guantlet strikes deal lethal damage, or that gauntlets not monk weapons, that prevents you from thinking a monk can flurry with gauntlets? The latter. The gauntlet is a weapon. It is not a monk weapon. Therefore, monks cannot flurry with it by the rules. As for what "prevents me from thinking" a monk can flurry with gauntlets, that would be the explicit rules of the PHB. "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons" (PHB p. 40). Gauntlets are explicitly not unarmed strikes. They are weapons that use the rules for unarmed attacks. As to the FAQ entry, I recognize (and have never not recognized) that is official for LG. I am not disputing it, and will run all my tables in accordance with the ruling. However, in my opinion it is wrong, and at the very least it does contradict the explicit rules. Specifically, it justifies it's position with the reasoning that "Monks may treat gauntlets as unarmed strikes" a concept which is found. nowhere in the rules text. Of the previous two contradictory FAQ entries, the one they removed did not contradict any rules, and the one they kept does. In addition, another entry that remains implicitly contradicts the remaining entry. All in all, I'm glad they're rationalizing the document...I just wish they were doing a slightly better job ;)
King Kashue 05-29-07, 01:32 AM	Biggest problem is is that the Monks attacks are not only just from his/her hands. It is using all the body parts. So there is no given that you are using the hands (gauntleted or otherwise) And there is no game mechanic to determine which body part of yours that you strike with. Gauntlets should be treated in all cases as a Weapon and then apply it to the Monks Unarmed Strike rules appropriately Just my 2 cents That's not at issue though. If that was the ruling, it would be fine. However, the FAQ explicitly allows using the gauntlet as part of the flurry, which is an issue with the monk's rules set.
Halworth 05-29-07, 10:23 AM	The latter. The gauntlet is a weapon. It is not a monk weapon. Therefore, monks cannot flurry with it by the rules. I would disagree. As you stated: "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons" (PHB p. 40). There are TWO conditions which allow a monk to flurry. 1) Monk weapons. OR 2) Unarmed strikes. Both requirements DO NOT have to be fulfilled, only one. Example #1: A monk flurrys with a sai. She only fulfills condition #1 and not condition #2(A sai is not an unarmed strike.) Example #2: A monk flurrys with unarmed strikes. She only fufills condition #2, and not condition #1.(An unarmed strike is not a special monk weapon.) In fact I see NO WAY a monk could fulfill both conditions at the same time. It really is one or the other. The real question (in my mind) is whether or not a gauntlet is treated like an unarmed strike for the purposes of flurrying. And in my mind there is ONLY ONE difference between an unarmed strike and an attack with a guantlet, and that is a guantlet does lethal damage. THERE ARE NO OTHER DIFFERENCES. PERIOD. So I would conclude a monk could flurry with a gauntlet because a monk flurring with a gauntlet would satisfy condition #2. This is all PHB stuff, I think the FAQ only clarified the PHB rules.
_metz_ 05-29-07, 11:17 AM	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.
King Kashue 05-29-07, 05:55 PM	And in my mind there is ONLY ONE difference between an unarmed strike and an attack with a guantlet, and that is a guantlet does lethal damage. THERE ARE NO OTHER DIFFERENCES. PERIOD. And you can think that, except the PHB doesn't agree. It explicitly says it's a weapon.
KarmaInferno 05-29-07, 08:14 PM	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. I've always thought the word "otherwise" to mean "in all other respects" or "in all other circumstances". So it sets up a specific rule, letting you do lethal damage with a unarmed attack. Then the rule tells you in all other respects that striking with a gauntlet is the same as an unarmed attack. It seems to be a variation of "general rule + specific exception", except that it's ordered backwards (exception first, then general rule). Merely being in backwards order from the usual structure does not automatically invalidate it, however. Yes, it is a non-monk weapon. That is not disputable. But it can also be considered an unarmed strike at the same time. So there lies the disconnect. Which state takes precedence? The non-monk-weapon part, or the unarmed strike part? Me, I'd tend to allow the flurry and other monk abilities to allow the "unarmed strike" state to take precedence, as there's precious few other ways for monks to scale their damage up like the other melee classes can. Interestingly, the PHB entry does NOT forbid you from doing non-lethal damage with a gauntlet strike, despite what the FAQ says. "Lets you" implies a choice. -karma
King Kashue 05-30-07, 12:48 AM	I've always thought the word "otherwise" to mean "in all other respects" or "in all other circumstances". So it sets up a specific rule, letting you do lethal damage with a unarmed attack. Then the rule tells you in all other respects that striking with a gauntlet is the same as an unarmed attack. Except It's a weapon that lets you do lethal damage, it is "otherwise considered an unarmed attack"... Weapon...lethal damage...otherwise considered an unarmed attack... There is nothing that says in it's "otherwise considered an unarmed attack"-ness that it's not a weapon. "It is a weapon that is otherwise considered an unarmed attack"... "It does lethal damage and is otherwise considered an unarmed attack" Both are the case... The phrase "is otherwise considered an unarmed attack" does not imply that it ceases to be a weapon.
Halworth 05-30-07, 01:10 AM	Unarmed strike is a weapon, and not a monk weapon. [see PHB 116 table 7-5, plus superscript#3] Does that mean a monk cannot flurry with it? You can flurry with unarmed strikes, even though unarmed strike is a weapon and it is NOT a monk weapon, because it is unarmed strike. I say a gauntlet is a weapon and not a monk weapon and you can flurry it becuase it is ALSO an unarmed strike. I believe a gauntlet strike is an unarmed strike, save it does lethal damage. King/karma/_metz_ Thank you for the discourse I believe I understand understand your positions. I certainly understand my position better now. I think we have each expressed our positions.
King Kashue 05-30-07, 01:51 AM	Unarmed strike is a weapon, and not a monk weapon. [see PHB 116 table 7-5, plus superscript#3] Does that mean a monk cannot flurry with it? You can flurry with unarmed strikes, even though unarmed strike is a weapon and it is NOT a monk weapon, because it is unarmed strike. I say a gauntlet is a weapon and not a monk weapon and you can flurry it becuase it is ALSO an unarmed strike. A gauntlet is a gauntlet...again, the word "otherwise" is playing a very specific grammatical role that you are entirely ignoring... As I said earlier: "My car is running perfectly" "My car's transmission is broken, otherwise it's running perfectly" Are rather different statements...