PDA

View Full Version : Monks and Gauntlets (That Old Chestnut)



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.

Swordguy
2007-02-26, 02:58 PM
What's not clear about it? WotC has mutually conflicting answers, thus allowing the DM to chose which one they'd prefer.

Brilliant!

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-02-26, 06:29 PM
It looks like the first entry is based solely on the Table, while the second one actually considers the description of the Gauntlet also:


Gauntlet: 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. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

The Gauntlet's (only) function is to turn non-lethal damage from unarmed strikes into lethal.

Gamebird
2007-02-26, 07:14 PM
Although the inconsistency is irritating, it rarely comes up outside of theoretical discussion and materials-based-damage considerations.

A monk's unarmed damage soon outstrips the damage of a gauntlet, so there's little point to wearing the gauntlet (other than bypassing aforementioned damage resistance).

Clementx
2007-02-26, 07:24 PM
Considering you need a different proficiency to use gauntlets, only WotC would think they are the same thing. It's to be expected- after all, they didn't give monks proficiency in unarmed strikes.

Matthew
2007-02-26, 07:35 PM
Although the inconsistency is irritating, it rarely comes up outside of theoretical discussion and materials-based-damage considerations.

A monk's unarmed damage soon outstrips the damage of a gauntlet, so there's little point to wearing the gauntlet (other than bypassing aforementioned damage resistance).

Quite true, but I think in the second case the FAQ is suggesting that the only difference between Unarmed Strike and Gauntleted Unarmed Strike is the proficiency and conversion to lethal damage. If the Monk is treating it as an Unarmed Strike, then he's getting his increased Unarmed Strike Damage. I am *not* saying this *is* the case, just that the second interpretation seems to be geared towards a very open interpretation. How that interacts with the Amulet of Mighty Fists is another question.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-26, 07:44 PM
I bypass the whole debate and allow ki focus weapons to deal the monk's unarmed damage.

Aximili
2007-02-26, 08:24 PM
Following a similar line, does an attack with a gauntlet provoque AoO if you do not have the IUS feat?

Jack Mann
2007-02-26, 08:33 PM
Main reason you'd want to use the gauntlet is to be able to enchant it, which is worth a lot more than the monk's unarmed damage.

Clementx
2007-02-26, 08:38 PM
Following a similar line, does an attack with a gauntlet provoque AoO if you do not have the IUS feat?

Yep. But it is mostly irrelevant because almost anyone that would have occasion to take a swing at an enemy would have martial proficiencies, therefore use the spiked gauntlet, which is a real weapon. Provoking almost destroys the tactical value of having it as a desperation weapon.

TimeWizard
2007-02-27, 12:40 AM
However, it is stated in the monk description that a monk's US is her whole body, and not just her hands (you can flurry while holding a torch IIRC). Do gauntlets effect your knees? can you choose which damage you want? etc..

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-27, 08:24 AM
Do gauntlets effect your knees?
No.


can you choose which damage you want?
Yes. If you are wearing gauntlets and wish to do gauntlet damage, you punch your opponent. If you wish to do normal unarmed strike damage, you kick, knee, elbow, headbutt, or do anything else that is not a punch.

[hr]As to the conflict in the FAQ, the second entry Matthew points out should be considered correct, since it actually takes into account the rules in their entirety rather than just picking out the table entry.

[hr]On a side note:

There is at least one other direct contradiction between two entries in the FAQ. This regards the point at which one is considered Epic. One entry erroneously claims ECL 21+ is enough to qualify for the Epic Attack and Save progressions, while the other correctly states that one must have 21 Hit Dice to be considered epic.

I sent an e-mail to Wizards Customer Service about the contradiction in November. In theory that problem is under review. Maybe we should do the same with this problem.