Matthew
2007-02-26, 02:32 PM
So, I was just looking through the newest version of the D&D 3.5 FAQ, when this caught my attention on page 14:
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.
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.
Talk about unclear... It looks like its been there since at least December, but I don't recall anybody mentioning it in the last round of debates.
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.
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.
Talk about unclear... It looks like its been there since at least December, but I don't recall anybody mentioning it in the last round of debates.