How do unarmed monks deal extra damage types like weapons get for enchantments?

[eyebreaker7]

Do they enchant gloves and boots or something? Maybe a ring?

[Rynjin]

In Pathfinder, there's Elemental Fist, or an elemental damage enhancement on an Amulet of Mighty Fists or (if you're really desperate) Bodywraps of Striking.

In 3.5...my knowledge is shakier, but I think the little gemstones you can slot into weapons from the Magic Item Compendium are compatible with unarmed strikes?

[Venger]

Do they enchant gloves and boots or something? Maybe a ring?

Are you asking about like flaming burst and stuff to deal fire damage? You use a necklace of natural weapons and enchant that. It applies to your unarmed strike and any other natural attacks you may have. Don't bother with the amulet of mighty fists, it's massively overpriced for no reason. Weapon crystals unfortunately do not work naked on your fists, but can be slotted into a necklace of natural weapons no problem.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The go-to in 3e is the necklace of natural attacks from Savage Species. It's 600 gp plus the weapon enhancements' normal cost times the number of weapons to be affected.

In the case of a monk character with a +1 flaming unarmed strike, it'd be 18,600 gp. 600 + (1* ((1+2)*2000))

Where 600 is for the base, the total enhancement cost is as a +3 weapon because +1 and flaming is +2, and that enhancement cost is multiplied by 1 for the single unarmed strike weapon the monk will be using.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There are quite a few ways to add enhancements onto unarmed strikes. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?285801-Tippy-s-Terrifically-Terrible-Trial/page25&p=15474863#post15474863)

Note that the enhancement bonuses to attack and damage don't stack, but the special weapon abilities do.

[Noxangelo]

There are quite a few ways to add enhancements onto unarmed strikes. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?285801-Tippy-s-Terrifically-Terrible-Trial/page25&p=15474863#post15474863)

Note that the enhancement bonuses to attack and damage don't stack, but the special weapon abilities do.

lol, i know its not, but it really seems like that post is your answer to every problem :P

[MaxiDuRaritry]

lol, i know its not, but it really seems like that post is your answer to every problem :PPretty much anything involving monks, unarmed strikes, or making powerful and versatile martials in general, really.

There're reasons I like it.

[3Power]

Do they enchant gloves and boots or something? Maybe a ring?

In Neverwinter Nights they just used gauntlets. Actual D&D rules are a bit more complicated.

The FAQ says they can apply their improved unarmed damage to attacks with gauntlets, but can't flurry with them. Whether or not monks are proficient in gauntlets in the first place relies on interpretation of the phrase "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."

In addition, on the weapons chart, the gauntlet is both listed as a unarmed attack and a simple weapon, along with the unarmed strike. Monks don't have proficiency with simple weapons, but an unarmed strike is considered a simple weapon and they aren't given proficiency with that either, and I doubt anyone intends for the monk to have a -4 proficiency penalty on unarmed strikes.

[Eladrinblade]

Yeah, gauntlets. They need proficiency, and they can't flurry, but they do get their unarmed damage with them.

[nijineko]

Ki Straps (if your DM allows you to enchant them as weapons) or Insignia of the Claws work as well.

[Kitsuneymg]

In pathfinder, just use handwraps from the martial arts handbook. They wrap two fists and are enhanced as weapons , but apply their magic to your unarmed strikes.

It also helps TWF since in PF you an explicitly TWF with unarmed strikes.

[Gruftzwerg]

... and that enhancement cost is multiplied by 1 for the single unarmed strike weapon the monk will be using.

imho the best way is to enhance your unarmed strikes as "natural weapon: unarmed strike", since the monk unarmed strike allows it.

While it may look the same, by raw there is a lil difference. For regular unarmed strike (as martial weapon enhanced) you would have to designate either the limb you want to enhance or pay for each limb (weapon) seperate.
Natural Weapons instead are enhanced as categories (see claws, tentacles...) and thus you need to once to have all legal limbs enhanced.

Most of the time it won't make a difference, but if you want to twf or your primary hand is otherwise blocked from attacking, this gets priceless.

[Bohandas]

Magic gauntlets. See page 116-118 of the PHB. They're considered a weapon so they can be made into a magic weapon, but a strike with them is still considered an unarmed strike, so they can be used with flurry of blows even though they're not on the list of monk weapons

Relevant passages

"Gauntlet: This metal glove protects your 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." PHB pg117-118

"When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)" -PHB pg40

[CIDE]

Someone probably knows a pretty slick way to actually get it permanently or semi-permanently but if you can get Greater Mighty Wallop on this build with your unarmed strike that'd be pretty great.

[Blue Jay]

The go-to in 3e is the necklace of natural attacks from Savage Species. It's 600 gp plus the weapon enhancements' normal cost times the number of weapons to be affected.

In the case of a monk character with a +1 flaming unarmed strike, it'd be 18,600 gp. 600 + (1* ((1+2)*2000))

Where 600 is for the base, the total enhancement cost is as a +3 weapon because +1 and flaming is +2, and that enhancement cost is multiplied by 1 for the single unarmed strike weapon the monk will be using.

Flaming is only +1, so the cost should be 8600 gp for a necklace of natural weapons that gives +1 flaming to one weapon. Flaming burst is +2.

-----

The rules for the necklace of natural weapons were fairly unclear, but based on the example, the 600 gp base price also gets multiplied. It also isn't entirely clear whether a pair of natural weapons counts as 1 or 2 weapons for the price calculations, but I've always assumed that all your weapons of one type are enhanced as a single weapon. So, if you want it to grant a +1 bonus to a pair of claws, it's still 2600 gp.

It also doesn't really say that you can enhance your natural weapons in a modular fashion, but I always allow it that way. A +2 equivalent for 1 natural weapon costs 8600 gp, and for 2 weapons, it costs 17,200 gp. But, modularity means each weapon can have a different +2 equivalent. So, for example, if you've got a standard bite-and-claws setup, you can give your bite +1 keen and your claws +1 flaming (both +2 equivalents); or you can give both of them +1 keen for the same price. I don't think it technically allows that by RAW, but it seems only fair to me.

But, unarmed strikes with a necklace of natural weapons always make me nervous, because there are plenty of loopholes. Like, what do y'all think about unarmed strikes and two-weapon fighting? Normally, you'd have to pay separately to enhance two weapons; but can you just enhance your entire body as a single weapon, and dual wield it anyway? I feel like you'd always get some joker trying to do a "2 hands + 2 elbows + 2 feet + 2 knees + 1 headbutt" full attack with Multi-Weapon Fighting and/or Multiattack. That's probably one of the main reasons why 3.5e just has the amulet of mighty fists to apply a flat bonus to all natural attacks with a higher price tag.

[Gruftzwerg]

Flaming is only +1, so the cost should be 8600 gp for a necklace of natural weapons that gives +1 flaming to one weapon. Flaming burst is +2.

-----

The rules for the necklace of natural weapons were fairly unclear, but based on the example, the 600 gp base price also gets multiplied. It also isn't entirely clear whether a pair of natural weapons counts as 1 or 2 weapons for the price calculations, but I've always assumed that all your weapons of one type are enhanced as a single weapon. So, if you want it to grant a +1 bonus to a pair of claws, it's still 2600 gp.

It also doesn't really say that you can enhance your natural weapons in a modular fashion, but I always allow it that way. A +2 equivalent for 1 natural weapon costs 8600 gp, and for 2 weapons, it costs 17,200 gp. But, modularity means each weapon can have a different +2 equivalent. So, for example, if you've got a standard bite-and-claws setup, you can give your bite +1 keen and your claws +1 flaming (both +2 equivalents); or you can give both of them +1 keen for the same price. I don't think it technically allows that by RAW, but it seems only fair to me.

But, unarmed strikes with a necklace of natural weapons always make me nervous, because there are plenty of loopholes. Like, what do y'all think about unarmed strikes and two-weapon fighting? Normally, you'd have to pay separately to enhance two weapons; but can you just enhance your entire body as a single weapon, and dual wield it anyway? I feel like you'd always get some joker trying to do a "2 hands + 2 elbows + 2 feet + 2 knees + 1 headbutt" full attack with Multi-Weapon Fighting and/or Multiattack. That's probably one of the main reasons why 3.5e just has the amulet of mighty fists to apply a flat bonus to all natural attacks with a higher price tag.


"Claws" count as single "natural attack" (!= attack != attack action..., so don't get confused; this is referring to "natural attack types"). This is why you make 2 claw attacks at your highest BAB if you designate it as primary attack.
Claws are an exception in this regards.
This is all 3.5 wording issues with "Claws" , which is the plural from of the word, can be counted as singular (e.g. Claws can be your Primary Attack (singular)).

[nijineko]

There is a little known way to directly enchant the limbs of a creature in 3.5. The problem with direct body-enchanting is the issue of "masterwork" quality. creature's bodies are not considered masterwork, regardless of how well one takes care of it (ie: monks, who really should count as masterwork, as well as be proficient in unarmed strikes, seriously).

However, with Lifeshaping, one can make limbs masterwork quality. Once a limb is considered masterwork, then it is a valid target for direct enchanting.

Lifeshaped grafts, masterwork or not, have an upkeep cost in the form of expensive and artificial nutrients, and a lifespan much shorter than the host organism which would require eventual replacement... so this may not be ideal for everyone.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There is a little known way to directly enchant the limbs of a creature in 3.5. The problem with direct body-enchanting is the issue of "masterwork" quality. creature's bodies are not considered masterwork, regardless of how well one takes care of it (ie: monks, who really should count as masterwork, as well as be proficient in unarmed strikes, seriously).

However, with Lifeshaping, one can make limbs masterwork quality. Once a limb is considered masterwork, then it is a valid target for direct enchanting.

Lifeshaped grafts, masterwork or not, have an upkeep cost in the form of expensive and artificial nutrients, and a lifespan much shorter than the host organism which would require eventual replacement... so this may not be ideal for everyone.Well, you can explicitly enhance a warforged's body.

And spending 300 gp upon character creation to pay for a masterwork weapon/body should do it. Or, if your DM allows it, "reforging" (also known as "training") your body into a masterwork weapon would do it, too.

[Gruftzwerg]

There is a little known way to directly enchant the limbs of a creature in 3.5.

Kensai allows to enhance separate fists/limbs (for extra cost) for unarmed strike/natural attack.

[Nifft]

For one game, I homebrewed some elemental symbionts which granted effects like Flaming to unarmed strikes (or other natural attacks).

[Kelb_Panthera]

There is a little known way to directly enchant the limbs of a creature in 3.5. The problem with direct body-enchanting is the issue of "masterwork" quality. creature's bodies are not considered masterwork, regardless of how well one takes care of it (ie: monks, who really should count as masterwork, as well as be proficient in unarmed strikes, seriously).

However, with Lifeshaping, one can make limbs masterwork quality. Once a limb is considered masterwork, then it is a valid target for direct enchanting.

Lifeshaped grafts, masterwork or not, have an upkeep cost in the form of expensive and artificial nutrients, and a lifespan much shorter than the host organism which would require eventual replacement... so this may not be ideal for everyone.

Got a source for that?

[PhantasyPen]

In pathfinder, just use handwraps from the martial arts handbook. They wrap two fists and are enhanced as weapons , but apply their magic to your unarmed strikes.

It also helps TWF since in PF you an explicitly TWF with unarmed strikes.

In 3.5 you can TWF with anything, you just need enough hands to hold them, why do Unarmed Strikes need to be specifically called out?

[animewatcha]

There is a little known way to directly enchant the limbs of a creature in 3.5. The problem with direct body-enchanting is the issue of "masterwork" quality. creature's bodies are not considered masterwork, regardless of how well one takes care of it (ie: monks, who really should count as masterwork, as well as be proficient in unarmed strikes, seriously).

However, with Lifeshaping, one can make limbs masterwork quality. Once a limb is considered masterwork, then it is a valid target for direct enchanting.

Lifeshaped grafts, masterwork or not, have an upkeep cost in the form of expensive and artificial nutrients, and a lifespan much shorter than the host organism which would require eventual replacement... so this may not be ideal for everyone.

Where would lifeshaping be? only thing I can find on it would be third party.

[nijineko]

Where would lifeshaping be? only thing I can find on it would be third party.

Mini-history lesson for the benefit of all of GitP.

Back when 3.5 came out, WotC had an Other Worlds page on their site (on the internet archive if you want to check it out) which listed the Official Sites of 3.5 versions of campaign worlds they declined to do themselves. Most people mistakenly think these sites are 3rd party, but they are not.

The difference is that the license between these Official Sites for 3.5 is one of Co-Ownership, thus everything they produce is co-owned by WotC. No other 3rd Party company or group has this co-ownership clause in their license. Thus the Official Sites are in fact 1st party content as per WotC ownership. This unique Official Site license is still ongoing, and does not end unless a 3rd party licenses the specific setting (such as happened with Ravenloft when it was licensed by SSS, thus ending the special Official Site status and license for the Kargatane site), or unless WotC someday releases a statement cancelling the special 1st party status and Official Site License of the Official Sites.

***

Having covered all of that, the official co-owned site for Dark Sun, Athas.org has a Lifeshaping Handbook that is not only official, but also 1st party as per their special license.

***

Interestingly enough, even though WotC released a 4th ed version of Dark Sun, they did not cancel the Official Site status of Athas (probably because the Official Site License is only valid for 3rd edition material).

[Vaern]

You might be able to get away with asking your DM about enchanted gauntlets. There's an "official" FAQ out there that says they don't work, but that ruling seems largely arbitrary considering that the same FAQ says that touch abilities work through gauntlets as if you were bare-handed, the gauntlet is listed in the PHB on the weapons table as being an unarmed attack rather than an actual weapon, and the description of the gauntlet itself says it's treated for all intents and purposes as an unarmed attack. Some people seem to regard the FAQ as being on par with RAW errata, but many regard it as being as official as a DM advice column in a gaming magazine.
People also like to point out that it says "unarmed attack" and not "unarmed strike," but the glossary in the PHB simply defines an unarmed strike as the result of a successful unarmed attack and the two terms are used interchangeably - including the entry for the monk's unarmed strike, which says that monks deal increased damage with unarmed strikes and monks of different size categories adjust the damage of their unarmed attacks accordingly. An attack roll with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack; a successful attack roll with a gauntlet results in an unarmed strike. Everything in the core rules regarding unarmed attacks, unarmed strikes, and gauntlets points towards gauntlets functioning as enhanceable fists.

[skunk3]

Just strap on some gauntlets or ki/hand wraps and enchant as weapons. Done.

[Bohandas]

Just strap on some gauntlets or ki/hand wraps and enchant as weapons. Done.

This. Just use gauntlets. I'm not sure why everyone else is overthinking this.


Mini-history lesson for the benefit of all of GitP.

Back when 3.5 came out, WotC had an Other Worlds page on their site (on the internet archive if you want to check it out) which listed the Official Sites of 3.5 versions of campaign worlds they declined to do themselves. Most people mistakenly think these sites are 3rd party, but they are not.

The difference is that the license between these Official Sites for 3.5 is one of Co-Ownership, thus everything they produce is co-owned by WotC. No other 3rd Party company or group has this co-ownership clause in their license. Thus the Official Sites are in fact 1st party content as per WotC ownership. This unique Official Site license is still ongoing, and does not end unless a 3rd party licenses the specific setting (such as happened with Ravenloft when it was licensed by SSS, thus ending the special Official Site status and license for the Kargatane site), or unless WotC someday releases a statement cancelling the special 1st party status and Official Site License of the Official Sites.

***

Having covered all of that, the official co-owned site for Dark Sun, Athas.org has a Lifeshaping Handbook that is not only official, but also 1st party as per their special license.

***

Interestingly enough, even though WotC released a 4th ed version of Dark Sun, they did not cancel the Official Site status of Athas (probably because the Official Site License is only valid for 3rd edition material).
Link please

[Gruftzwerg]

This. Just use gauntlets. I'm not sure why everyone else is overthinking this.


Because you can't flurry with gauntlets unless you invest into feats/prc, that's why.

Gauntlets are Martial Weapons and not listed as monk weapon, even if you do unarmed dmg with them.

So, there are not the best option for an "unarmed monk" build. But I you would go with a Superior Unarmed Strike (feat) or Swordsage build (which both don't have flurry), you would be fine with enchanting your gloves.


Just strap on some gauntlets or ki/hand wraps and enchant as weapons. Done.

gauntlets see above.

what ki/hand wraps are you talking about?
I'm only aware of "Ki Straps"(MIC) and those are considered gloves only and don't count as weapon (and thus can't be enchanted as weapons). Are there any that I am missing?
So far I only know hand wrap weapons from 3.5 based PC games, but they ain't RAW in pen & paper 3.5.

Can you give me any source which wraps you mean?

[Vaern]

Because you can't flurry with gauntlets unless you invest into feats/prc, that's why.

Gauntlets are Martial Weapons and not listed as monk weapon, even if you do unarmed dmg with them.
They're not martial weapons. They're categorized as an unarmed attack on the simple weapons table, in a category consisting only of itself and unarmed strike. They aren't even classified as being light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons because you're still unarmed while using them. An attack with a gauntlet, as per its description, is considered an unarmed attack with the sole exception of being able to deal lethal damage without IUS. You're still not considered armed and provoke an AAO for attacking without IUS.
An attack with gauntlets is an unarmed attack. The result of a successful unarmed attack is an unarmed strike. The description of gauntlets even says, "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes," indicating that an attack with a gauntlet is still an unarmed strike. Flurry of blows doesn't say it works with the monk's bare fists and special monk weapons - it says the monk can only use unarmed strikes and special monk weapons. Flurry of blows works with unarmed strikes. An attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike. Therefore, flurry of blows must work with gauntlets.

[Gruftzwerg]

They're not martial weapons. They're categorized as an unarmed attack on the simple weapons table, in a category consisting only of itself and unarmed strike. They aren't even classified as being light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons because you're still unarmed while using them. An attack with a gauntlet, as per its description, is considered an unarmed attack with the sole exception of being able to deal lethal damage without IUS. You're still not considered armed and provoke an AAO for attacking without IUS.
An attack with gauntlets is an unarmed attack. The result of a successful unarmed attack is an unarmed strike. The description of gauntlets even says, "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes," indicating that an attack with a gauntlet is still an unarmed strike. Flurry of blows doesn't say it works with the monk's bare fists and special monk weapons - it says the monk can only use unarmed strikes and special monk weapons. Flurry of blows works with unarmed strikes. An attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike. Therefore, flurry of blows must work with gauntlets.

Ok, they are "Simple Weapons", point for you. But that doesn't change the outcome.

1. They are still listed as 2 separate weapons and the gauntlet is still not a monk weapon and thus can't be used with flurry. Each of them requires their own weapon related feats (e.g. Weapon Focus/Specialization).

2. When you attack and want to benefit from your gauntlets, you have to use your gauntlets as weapon for attack rolls and not your unarmed strike (which you still could use with any non glove part of your body, but wouldn't profit from the gauntlets anymore). And if you are using your gauntlets, you are not using a monk weapon.

3.
Gauntlet (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#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.

unarmed attack != unarmed strike

When you attack with gauntlets, you still have to deal with AoO when you attack some "armed", since you are still considered "unarmed". That's what the sentence is referring to and not unarmed strikes as you assumed.

a further indicator for this is that spiked gauntlets have the ability to let you count as "armed".

Gauntlet, Spiked (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#gauntletSpiked)

Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack.

__________________________

btw, another reason why gauntlets are considered bad are the price when you want to have 2 (one for each hand). Be it as fallback option when you mainhand is occupied/disabled/whatsoever or when you want to go the TWF route. For gauntlets you have to pay the full price for the 2nd while other options give you up to 1/2 off the price for the 2nd/3rd.

And as last, since your unarmed strikes may count as natural attacks for purposes of buffs/enchantments you can enchant em as entire category (like claws) as "natural weapon (unarmed strikes) and only pay once for any body-part you might wanna use.

[Vaern]

3.

unarmed attack != unarmed strike

When you attack with gauntlets, you still have to deal with AoO when you attack some "armed", since you are still considered "unarmed". That's what the sentence is referring to and not unarmed strikes as you assumed.I see you highlighted the part saying that an attack with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack while disregarding completely the first sentence saying that it lets you deal lethal damage with your unarmed strike. For the third time in this thread, I'll reiterate:
The PHB defines an unarmed attack as an attack roll without a weapon in hand.
The PHB defines an unarmed strike as the result of a successful attack without a weapon in hand.
An unarmed attack is a type of attack.
An unarmed strike is the result of an unarmed attack.
The two are used interchangeably throughout the rulebooks, including in the description of the monk's unarmed strike ability.
The only distinction between the two is whether your attack hits or not.
If an attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, the result must be an unarmed strike to be consistent with the game's own mechanics and terminology, hence the description saying that the gauntlet is an unarmed attack that lets you deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes.


And if you are using your gauntlets, you are not using a monk weapon.
It doesn't have to be a monk weapon. You're still using unarmed strikes, which work with flurry in addition to special monk weapons.

[Kitsuneymg]

In 3.5 you can TWF with anything, you just need enough hands to hold them, why do Unarmed Strikes need to be specifically called out?

There are some people who contend that each creature has only one unarmed strike weapon (your whole body) and thus you don’t have an off hand strike to attack with.

Even in Pathfinder with the explicit rule, my GM has a hard time allowing it without taking monk or brawler levels. e.e

[Gruftzwerg]

I see you highlighted the part saying that an attack with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack while disregarding completely the first sentence saying that it lets you deal lethal damage with your unarmed strike.

...

It doesn't have to be a monk weapon. You're still using unarmed strikes, which work with flurry in addition to special monk weapons.

I fully agree with the first sentence:

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.
The first sentence talks about:

a) the dmg type change from nonlethal to lethal

b) "with unarmed strikes" (with) "this metel glove". I rearranged the the text parts to make it more obvious.

"a" is a dmg type change, while "b" explains how the gloves can be used with unarmed strikes attacks, not that they are (considered) unarmed strikes.

[Gruftzwerg]

There are some people who contend that each creature has only one unarmed strike weapon (your whole body) and thus you don’t have an off hand strike to attack with.

Even in Pathfinder with the explicit rule, my GM has a hard time allowing it without taking monk or brawler levels. e.e

Imho it's about how your order the effects to each other.
By RAW it is not clear in which order you have to apply the monk's unarmed strike and TWF feat (!) rules. Because the problem is that both are "exceptions" to "specific" TWF rules (compared to "general" normal attack rules), but don't have any relationship given between themselves by the rules.

Thus IIRC, by RAW if no certain order is given for two or more interacting rules, the (re-)actor (player/DM) may chose the order of how the rules apply. In our chase the actor is the monk who wants to make use of TWF feats.
So the monk can declare that his TWF feat ruletext is more specific (or bigger exception) than the monk's unarmed strike ability (thus you have to deal with 1/2 str bonus with your offhand unarmed strikes if you want to TWF unarmed strikes, it's one or the other, you can't have both). Note that RAW doesn't demand that you stick with your choice of order forever, which means that you can re-decide the order on each occasion if for some reason it would be necessary.

edit: corrected a sentence and a typo..
edit2: sry mixed that up.. 1/2 str bonus for offhand attack is "specific" (regular TWF rules) while monk's unarmed strike is an exception and the TWF feats don't touch that part of the rule at all. I always get a headache from monk specific rules ... it's a total mess to gather all needed rules and get a clear outcome -.-

[Vaern]

I fully agree with the first sentence:

The first sentence talks about:

a) the dmg type change from nonlethal to lethal

b) "with unarmed strikes" (with) "this metel glove". I rearranged the the text parts to make it more obvious.

"a" is a dmg type change, while "b" explains how the gloves can be used with unarmed strikes attacks, not that they are (considered) unarmed strikes.
I don't see the point you're trying to make here. It doesn't matter how you word that line. Whether the glove is augmenting your unarmed strike or you're making an unarmed strike with the glove, it's still an unarmed strike. Any way you look at that line, it says that a hit with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike that deals lethal damage, regardless of whatever other details you're trying to emphasize to interpret the rules otherwise.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't see the point you're trying to make here. It doesn't matter how you word that line. Whether the glove is augmenting your unarmed strike or you're making an unarmed strike with the glove, it's still an unarmed strike. Any way you look at that line, it says that a hit with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike that deals lethal damage, regardless of whatever other details you're trying to emphasize to interpret the rules otherwise.

Sorry but this gets to silly.. How should I put it...

When you declare your attack, you choose with what you want to attack. Either you pick gauntlets (to profit from em) or unarmed strike (with a non gauntlet body part). And when you use your gauntlets to attack, you ain't using "unarmed strikes". On the contrary, if you use your "unarmed strike" you ain't using your gauntlets. "unarmed strike" is a defined term, and thus it always has to have a single definition and not two. If you say to your DM you want to attack with your "unarmed strike" there should be only 1 way to solve this (without gauntlets) and the DM shouldn't need to ask if you use your gauntlets or not. "Attacking with unarmed strike" and "attacking with gauntlets" are two separate things. You can't exchange em like you want. The rules for gauntlets never gave you permission to do so (count as unarmed strikes).

"gauntlets" are declared as weapons. If they where mere gloves that wouldn't count as weapon and just enhance your "unarmed strikes" you would be right. But they are declared as weapon that makes use of your unarmed strike. Nowhere it is mentioned that they may count as unarmed strikes.

[Bohandas]

They're also explicitly called out as unarmed

[Vaern]

The only part of that post that is correct is that "unarmed strike" is a defined game term, which I have shared at least three times now and is still consistent with my argument.
An unarmed strike is defined in the core rules as being the successful result of an unarmed attack. This is the one definition of unarmed strike as a mechanic that exists in the game.

The weapons table lists gauntlets as an unarmed attack.
The gauntlet description says it functions as an unarmed attack.
An unarmed strike is defined as the successful result of an unarmed attack.
Therefore, because the gauntlet is an unarmed attack and an unarmed strike is the result of an unarmed attack, an attack with a gauntlet results in an unarmed strike.
There is a clear, logical, and consistent through-line connecting point A to point B that you're either somehow missing. I'm literally just spelling out the rules as they're written, but you seem insistent on just ignoring them and pushing your own interpretation.

On the other hand, let's look at your argument that a gauntlet is not an unarmed strike and when wearing a gauntlet you must choose to either attack with the gauntlet or use some other part of your body to perform an unarmed strike. If an unarmed attack with a gauntlet somehow doesn't produce an unarmed strike when it lands, why does the gauntlet description need to specify that it allows you to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes? How are they "making use of" your unarmed strikes, as you say, if they aren't capable of performing unarmed strike? Are you suggesting that wearing metal gloves will somehow allow you to kick or elbow someone in a way that deals lethal damage instead of nonlethal?

[Gruftzwerg]

The only part of that post that is correct is that "unarmed strike" is a defined game term, which I have shared at least three times now and is still consistent with my argument.
An unarmed strike is defined in the core rules as being the successful result of an unarmed attack. This is the one definition of unarmed strike as a mechanic that exists in the game.

The weapons table lists gauntlets as an unarmed attack.
The gauntlet description says it functions as an unarmed attack.
An unarmed strike is defined as the successful result of an unarmed attack.
Therefore, because the gauntlet is an unarmed attack and an unarmed strike is the result of an unarmed attack, an attack with a gauntlet results in an unarmed strike.
There is a clear, logical, and consistent through-line connecting point A to point B that you're either somehow missing. I'm literally just spelling out the rules as they're written, but you seem insistent on just ignoring them and pushing your own interpretation.

Just because both "unarmed strike" and "gauntlets" are "unarmed attacks", doesn't turn both of em into unarmed strikes. You assume that every unarmed attack has to be a unarmed strike, but that is not the chase. No rule says that you may do that. it only work into one way not the other.
Like apples (unarmed strike) and oranges (gauntlets) are fruits (unarmed attacks), but that doesn't turn every fruit (unarmed attack) into apples (unarmed strike), got it?
Basic logical structure, nothing special.


On the other hand, let's look at your argument that a gauntlet is not an unarmed strike and when wearing a gauntlet you must choose to either attack with the gauntlet or use some other part of your body to perform an unarmed strike. If an unarmed attack with a gauntlet somehow doesn't produce an unarmed strike when it lands, why does the gauntlet description need to specify that it allows you to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes? How are they "making use of" your unarmed strikes, as you say, if they aren't capable of performing unarmed strike? Are you suggesting that wearing metal gloves will somehow allow you to kick or elbow someone in a way that deals lethal damage instead of nonlethal?

How do you tell your DM that you want to make use of your gauntlets? By declaring em as attacking weapon(s).
Now, is your declared weapon to attack a monk weapon? No, it just uses the damage stats of a legit monk weapon, but that doesn't turn it into a legal monk weapon.

Gauntlets give you the option to do lethal unarmed strikes damage with them. But the rules doesn't call em out to be "considered as unarmed strikes" (for the purpose of other things like flurry). If that lil text would be there, you could use em as monk weapons, but that is sadly (even imho) not the chase. Gauntlets only let you do unarmed strike dmg and nothing else. You can't even use Unarmed Strike weapon feats (weapon focus/specialization/imp crit...) cause gauntlets are separate listed weapons and not just mere gloves.

The first sentence of gauntlet rules only talk about how you can deal lethal unarmed strike damage (!) with your gauntlets.
The second sentence talks about if the attack is considered armed or not. See Spiked Gauntlets for reference which makes the opposite statement (that the spiked gauntlets are considered armed attacks).
Nothing says that "attacks with gauntlets are considered unarmed strikes". That's the missing part you want to have, but it's not there..

[Vaern]

You assume that every unarmed attack has to be a unarmed strike, but that is not the chase. No rule says that you may do that.
I'm not making assumptions. That is literally what the definitions of unarmed attack and unarmed strike say. That is what the rules say.

It doesn't say that it lets you "deal lethal unarmed strike damage." It says it lets you "deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes." There's a distinct difference between the way it's written and the way you're reading it that changes the meaning from being clear and functioning properly to making next to no sense at all. It is not possible to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike using a gauntlet if you can not usre an unarmed strike while wearing a gauntlet. Your interpretation is not consistent with the item's description, it is not consistent with the rules, and you seem insistent on ignoring the actual definition of what an unarmed strike actually is.
Unarmed strikes are not an unarmed attack. Unarmed strikes are the successful result of an unarmed attack. A more appropriate analogy would be that unarmed attacks are fruit, gauntlets are apples, and unarmed strikes are a pie. Unarmed attacks are a category of attacks, gauntlets are a specific example of something fitting into that category, and unarmed strikes are the successful result of using something from that category. You can make a pie out of a number of different fruits, but in this case it happens to be an iron-clad fist.

As far as the gauntlet "not giving permission to count as an unarmed strike," the general rules as written say that an unarmed attack results in an unarmed strike. It's not necessary for a specific exception to be listed in the gauntlet's description noting it as being an unarmed attack that results in an unarmed strike because it is not an exception - it is the rule. It would, however, be necessary for the description to specifically note that, despite being an unarmed attack, a successful attack with a gauntlet is not an unarmed strike, because that would be an exception to the general rule and a case of "specific trumps general." But, that is not the case, so the general rule of "unarmed attack results in unarmed strike" applies; gauntlets, being an unarmed attack, result in an unarmed strike.

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm not making assumptions. That is literally what the definitions of unarmed attack and unarmed strike say. That is what the rules say.

It doesn't say that it lets you "deal lethal unarmed strike damage." It says it lets you "deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes." There's a distinct difference between the way it's written and the way you're reading it that changes the meaning from being clear and functioning properly to making next to no sense at all. It is not possible to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike using a gauntlet if you can not usre an unarmed strike while wearing a gauntlet. Your interpretation is not consistent with the item's description, it is not consistent with the rules, and you seem insistent on ignoring the actual definition of what an unarmed strike actually is.
you are ignoring the beginning of the sentence in favor of your interpretation.

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.
"This metal glove" starts is the start of describing the properties of the "gauntlet"-weapon. And if you use that weapon, you aren't using unarmed strikes. It's just that that the gauntlets are still considered unarmed and thus rely on unarmed strike rules to function. But they are still different weapons... 2 separate entries in the weapon list and description.


Unarmed strikes are not an unarmed attack. Unarmed strikes are the successful result of an unarmed attack. A more appropriate analogy would be that unarmed attacks are fruit, gauntlets are apples, and unarmed strikes are a pie. Unarmed attacks are a category of attacks, gauntlets are a specific example of something fitting into that category, and unarmed strikes are the successful result of using something from that category. You can make a pie out of a number of different fruits, but in this case it happens to be an iron-clad fist.fine with that part. But I still fail to see why unarmed strikes should be the same weapon as "using Gauntlets". It's just that gauntlets are still considered unarmed and thus rely on unarmed strikes to do dmg. But that still doesn't turn em into real unarmed strikes for requirements like flurry. You designated a weapon that doesn't count as any of the monk weapons.


As far as the gauntlet "not giving permission to count as an unarmed strike," the general rules as written say that an unarmed attack results in an unarmed strike.
so what? It doesn't stop "other weapons" like Gauntlets to be exceptions. Gauntlets, which are a separate weapon (see list and descriptions..) are considered unarmed attacks and thus rely on unarmed strike rules. But that still doesn't let em count as unarmed strike for other rules/abilities.

__________________________
sorry, I fail to see any correct argument. You ignore that they are 2 separate weapons and the missing rules to let gauntlets count as unarmed strikes.

Yeah you can do unarmed strikes with gauntlets.
But if you wanna flurry, flurry ask which weapons do you wanna use to attack? And if you answer gauntlet , the returning answer is no, you can't flurry with gauntlets.. sry..