Monk handwraps

[Uhtred]

I recall some sort of handwraps that would help a monk deal better damage. Anyone recall what book they're in, or if I'm misremembering?

[Siosilvar]

I don't recall any books that they could be in, but it's a common enough houserule that you might have seen it in several places and thought it was in some book.

[eggs]

Gauntlets of the talon from CDiv/Magic Item Compendium increase monk damage by a step or two.

Enhancing unarmed strikes like weapons via handwraps is a pretty common houserule. Otherwise, the Necklace of Natural attacks from Savage species (also here, with some scrolling) does weapon enhancements similarly.

There was also a thread recently that involved a poorly-defined dandwiki homebrew that's probably not worth your time.

[Darrin]

I recall some sort of handwraps that would help a monk deal better damage. Anyone recall what book they're in, or if I'm misremembering?

Could it be Ki Straps from Sword & Fist? But they don't really increase unarmed damage, all they do is add a +5 enhancement bonus to the save DC for Stunning Fist.

[Prime32]

Enhancing unarmed strikes like weapons via handwraps is a pretty common houserule. Otherwise, the Necklace of Natural attacks from Savage species (also here, with some scrolling) does weapon enhancements similarly.In Core the Amulet of Mighty Fists does it for all natural attacks, but is way more expensive than just enchanting a weapon. The Necklace of Natural Attacks (one natural attack only) is cheaper, but still more expensive than normal. There's also the Battlefist, but it's warforged-only.

Almost every D&D-based videogame seems to include handwraps that cost as much as normal magic weapons, because giving extra penalties to what's already one of the weakest classes in the game is dumb.

[BowStreetRunner]

Almost every D&D-based videogame seems to include handwraps that cost as much as normal magic weapons, because giving extra penalties to what's already one of the weakest classes in the game is dumb.

As a matter of fact, Monk handwraps are used in D&D Online.

[Flickerdart]

There's Scorpion Kamas which let a Monk deal his unarmed damage through weapons, but that's probably not what you're after.

[legomaster00156]

While it does make more sense than a necklace boosting unarmed accuracy and damage, I've always seen it as an ironic houserule that padding your fists with handwraps makes you deal MORE lethal damage.

[vasharanpaladin]

While it does make more sense than a necklace boosting unarmed accuracy and damage, I've always seen it as an ironic houserule that padding your fists with handwraps makes you deal MORE lethal damage.

Because human hands AREN'T meant for hitting things like that. Boxers wear handwraps and padded gloves because then they can punch all-out without hurting themselves.

[Siosilvar]

You should be able to use gauntlets to enhance your unarmed strikes without any houserules whatsoever, since they are "considered an unarmed attack", but are valid magic weapons.

[mattie_p]

You should be able to use gauntlets to enhance your unarmed strikes without any houserules whatsoever, since they are "considered an unarmed attack", but are valid magic weapons.

This works great, except for the fact that monks are not proficient with gauntlets (or, for that matter, their unarmed strikes, although this has been house-ruled everywhere that I can find)

[LTwerewolf]

Because human hands AREN'T meant for hitting things like that. Boxers wear handwraps and padded gloves because then they can punch all-out without hurting themselves.

Martial artists/boxers wear gloves to protect the other person from their fists. It dampens the blow, effectively weakening it. The human hand, especially after conditioning (read: hitting things a lot so the bone hardens), can be an incredibly effective weapon in its own right. As far as this martial artist type of monk is concerned, their hands could very easily be made into lethal weapons.

There are however gloves and fist weapons like the cestus that were intended to increase the damage of a punch. These weapons were based off the principle of focusing the energy of the hit onto a few very small surface areas, so the weight of the blow was not dampened by the larger surface area of the fist. The fast that some of these weapons (like the cestus) acually had spikes on them was largely superfluous, as the sharpness added little to the effect (outside of making things more messy as to be a better spectacle).

[Zombulian]

Battle-fist *on top* of a Mighty Arms graft. Mighty Arms lets ya use Warforged only weapon components. So that's cool.

[Siosilvar]

This works great, except for the fact that monks are not proficient with gauntlets

Isn't it a good thing, then, that gauntlets count as unarmed strikes?


(or, for that matter, their unarmed strikes, although this has been house-ruled everywhere that I can find) That's true, though I've also yet to find a group that doesn't use that houserule.

[mattie_p]

Isn't it a good thing, then, that gauntlets count as unarmed strikes?

Actually, this hurts gauntlet users even more, because even though they can do lethal damage, they provoke Attacks of Opportunity unless they also have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. A strike with a gauntlet counts as an unarmed strike (meaning you do not even threaten within your reach without that feat) but it is a simple weapon, meaning you must have proficiency with it, or with all simple weapons, in order to use it effectively. Yeah, gauntlets. Yeah, monks.

[sdream]

Actually, this hurts gauntlet users even more, because even though they can do lethal damage, they provoke Attacks of Opportunity unless they also have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. A strike with a gauntlet counts as an unarmed strike (meaning you do not even threaten within your reach without that feat) but it is a simple weapon, meaning you must have proficiency with it, or with all simple weapons, in order to use it effectively. Yeah, gauntlets. Yeah, monks.

Good thing all monks get improved unarmed strike as a bonus feat at lvl1.

Furthermore, when a weapon is treated as another weapon that means you can use it as that other weapon. See butterfly knives and daggers.

[mattie_p]

Good thing all monks get improved unarmed strike as a bonus feat at lvl1.

Furthermore, when a weapon is treated as another weapon that means you can use it as that other weapon. See butterfly knives and daggers.

Except monks are not proficient in unarmed strikes or gauntlets at any level, per literal RAW, and other characters who might be proficient in unarmed strike or gauntlets (as simple weapons) do not get IUS as a bonus feat. So... there's that too. Either way, any character must spend a feat per RAW to do what they want to do.

[sdream]

Strict RAW is a good restriction for powergaming... but no GM or player anywhere is going to declare Monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes.

There's probably a rule written somewhere that creatures are always proficient with their natural attacks.

I think Monk unarmed strikes are their natural attacks which they are automatically proficient with, gauntlets are treated as unarmed attacks (and thus still proficient for monks everyone), and Monks get free "treated as armed" for purposes of threatening others and not provoking with their proficient "unarmed" gauntlet attacks via their free IUS.

[TuggyNE]

There's probably a rule written somewhere that creatures are always proficient with their natural attacks.

If there were, that would be enough. However, to my knowledge, there specifically isn't. Most creature types get proficiency with either "all simple weapons", "their natural weapons", or "any weapon mentioned in their entry" (or some combination of the above); all of those are sufficient to give proficiency with their natural weapons. Humanoids are unique in that they get proficiency "with all simple weapons, or by character class". Therefore, a Humanoid with RHD would be proficient with natural weapons and unarmed strikes, but very few Humanoid PC races ever have RHD (when was the last time you played a trog?). Monks fail to list unarmed strike in their proficiency entry, so... nothing!

[Sponson]

Except monks are not proficient in unarmed strikes or gauntlets at any level, per literal RAW, and other characters who might be proficient in unarmed strike or gauntlets (as simple weapons) do not get IUS as a bonus feat. So... there's that too. Either way, any character must spend a feat per RAW to do what they want to do.

I can't find a single class in the PHB that is proficient with unarmed strikes. Would that mean that any class that takes IUS later in levels also suffers the same fate monks do?

[dextercorvia]

I can't find a single class in the PHB that is proficient with unarmed strikes. Would that mean that any class that takes IUS later in levels also suffers the same fate monks do?

Unarmed Strike is a Simple Weapon. So, Rogues, Fighters, and Sorcerers are all proficient with UAS.

[sdream]

I can't find a single class in the PHB that is proficient with unarmed strikes. Would that mean that any class that takes IUS later in levels also suffers the same fate monks do?

Their argument is that because almost all classes get proficiency in all simple weapons, and unarmed strikes show up in the simple weapons part of the chart, the monk lacking that general proficiency is not proficient.

It is an amusing oversight in the literal text of the book, along with several creature types with natural attacks who are not explicitly granted proficiency with them.

Just like no-one should try to reverse engineer a -4 to tons of monster's stat blocks, no-one seriously tries to argue that the monk, unparalleled master of fist and foot should be horribly worse at punching than a non-magical wizard.

It's just one of those silly edges between the rules which try to spell out all the circumstances.

[animewatcha]

Unarmed strikes count as a simple weapon, no?

[Siosilvar]

Unarmed strikes count as a simple weapon, no?

Monks aren't proficient with simple weapons. They and wizards are thus not proficient with unarmed strikes, which several people above have provided the logic for. It's dumb and nobody (not even Curmudgeon, who is fairly famous on these forums for his strict interpretation of RAW) plays that way, but it's what a strict reading gets you.

[TuggyNE]

It is an amusing oversight in the literal text of the book, along with several creature types with natural attacks who are not explicitly granted proficiency with them.

Do you have specific examples? I would say that proficiency in "any weapons mentioned in its entry" should good enough; by that metric, I believe only Humanoids lack natural weapon proficiency (and then only if they lack RHD). Also, there aren't too many creatures with natural weapons whose types don't specifically give them natural weapon proficiency as well; in fact, I can't think of any off-hand that would even need to fall back on "any weapons mentioned in [their] entry".


no-one seriously tries to argue that the monk, unparalleled master of fist and foot should be horribly worse at punching than a non-magical wizard.

Should be? No, not at all. Is? Yes, technically. (As usual: the existence of a flaw in the rules should be answered by fixing the flaw, not whitewashing it away.)

[Ruut]

Martial artists/boxers wear gloves to protect the other person from their fists. It dampens the blow, effectively weakening it. The human hand, especially after conditioning (read: hitting things a lot so the bone hardens), can be an incredibly effective weapon in its own right. As far as this martial artist type of monk is concerned, their hands could very easily be made into lethal weapons.

There are however gloves and fist weapons like the cestus that were intended to increase the damage of a punch. These weapons were based off the principle of focusing the energy of the hit onto a few very small surface areas, so the weight of the blow was not dampened by the larger surface area of the fist. The fast that some of these weapons (like the cestus) acually had spikes on them was largely superfluous, as the sharpness added little to the effect (outside of making things more messy as to be a better spectacle).

Boxer's do not wear handwraps to protect the other person. They wear them to protect thier own hands. The handwraps keep their wrist straight and in line with their bone structure, and also keep their fists in a punching position.

That is the only reason bare-knuckle boxing went the way of the do-do bird. A boxer would inevitably break their fingers and/or wrists because of no tape, and accidentle eye-gouges were also a main concern.

Gloves do offer some protection to the other person, but mainly from abrasions and cuts from handwraps and bare-knuckles. But gloves offer very little protection from the blunt force trauma of the fist itself.

[Ruut]

Do you have specific examples? I would say that proficiency in "any weapons mentioned in its entry" should good enough; by that metric, I believe only Humanoids lack natural weapon proficiency (and then only if they lack RHD). Also, there aren't too many creatures with natural weapons whose types don't specifically give them natural weapon proficiency as well; in fact, I can't think of any off-hand that would even need to fall back on "any weapons mentioned in [their] entry".



Should be? No, not at all. Is? Yes, technically. (As usual: the existence of a flaw in the rules should be answered by fixing the flaw, not whitewashing it away.)

All humanoids are proficient with Simple Weapons. Unarmed Strikes, Gauntlets and Spiked Gauntlets are simple weapons.

Monks treat Unarmed Strikes as Manufactured Weapons and Natural Weapons for the purposes of feats and magic effects.

A monk, for example, can take the feat, Improved Natural Attack for his Unarmed Strike, whereas a 3rd Level Commoner that took Improved Unarmed Strike at first level, could not - an Unarmed Strike that is not from a monk, is not a Natural Attack.

A monk can also enchant his fists with magic, because they count as manufactured light weapons, and with magic fang, because they count as natural weapons. That 3rd level commoner, no matter how much of a barroom brawler he is, can do neither. He would have to spend his life savings on enchanting some masterwork gauntlets.

[Ruut]

Do you have specific examples? I would say that proficiency in "any weapons mentioned in its entry" should good enough; by that metric, I believe only Humanoids lack natural weapon proficiency (and then only if they lack RHD). Also, there aren't too many creatures with natural weapons whose types don't specifically give them natural weapon proficiency as well; in fact, I can't think of any off-hand that would even need to fall back on "any weapons mentioned in [their] entry".



Should be? No, not at all. Is? Yes, technically. (As usual: the existence of a flaw in the rules should be answered by fixing the flaw, not whitewashing it away.)

All creatures are proficient in any Natural Attack they have. An unarmed strike, although not a natural attack, except from a monk, is still a simple weapon, and all humanoids are proficient with simple weapons.

[Ruut]

Monks aren't proficient with simple weapons. They and wizards are thus not proficient with unarmed strikes, which several people above have provided the logic for. It's dumb and nobody (not even Curmudgeon, who is fairly famous on these forums for his strict interpretation of RAW) plays that way, but it's what a strict reading gets you.

A monk, will without a doubt be some sort of humanoid, and is therefore proficient with all simple weapons; racially.