Monks and Gauntlets?

[rubycona]

I saw this addressed in the Q&A Raw thread, and was hoping for some clarification.

To me, it reads like monks should be able to equip gauntlets just fine.

If you look at the Table 7-5 Weapons page 116 of the PHB, you'll note that it has the category "Unarmed Attacks" with both Gauntlet and Unarmed Strike under it. Spiked Gauntlet, however, is in light melee weapons.

Obviously, unarmed strike is neither a weapon, nor does it require simple weapons proficiency (as I understand), but it's nonetheless listed in the Simple Weapons general category.

If you read the gauntlet, it says, "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."

A spiked gauntlet, however, is in the light melee weapons category. An important distinction between the two is that a spiked gauntlet says, "An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack."

A regular gauntlet doesn't have that distinction. Being as such, it really looks like an attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, and therefore qualifies for a monk. As for proficiency, a gauntlet is specifically categorized as an "unarmed attack," same as "unarmed strike" is.

Improved Unarmed Strike says, "Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed — that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you
still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option."

The phrasing is "attacking while unarmed," as opposed to "attacking with an unarmed strike." That lack of clarification suggests that improved unarmed strike applies to Any case of being unarmed... including gauntlets.


So, maybe it's an interpretation thing, but that's really how it reads to me. I could be missing something, though. If indeed gauntlets don't work with monks, would there be any theoretical way to add enhancement bonuses to unarmed attacks?

Thanks for your help :)

[Stupendous_Man]

Houserule and be done with it.

[AmberVael]

There have been lots and lots of arguments over this. I don't think you'll be getting a clear answer any time soon- or ever.
I agree with Stupendous- House Rule for the win, whether you actually think it is needed or not.

[starburst98]

gauntlets count as unarmed, even if they are enchanted (my DM says so anyway)

[Stupendous_Man]

Course, you're wielding a weapon that you're not proficient with...

[Kesnit]

Course, you're wielding a weapon that you're not proficient with...

Which comes back to "houserule and be done with it."

[Moriato]

As far as I know it doesn't work that way. I remember reading somewhere that you can't just throw on flaming or sonic or whatever gloves or gauntlets, because not all of a monks attacks are punches. They're also kicks, headbutts, knees, elbows, etc. So you'd have to have flaming gloves, flaming boots, flaming headband, flaming kneepads, flaming elbowpads, etc., etc., etc.

[Stupendous_Man]

As far as I know it doesn't work that way. I remember reading somewhere that you can't just throw on flaming or sonic or whatever gloves or gauntlets, because not all of a monks attacks are punches. They're also kicks, headbutts, knees, elbows, etc. So you'd have to have flaming gloves, flaming boots, flaming headband, flaming kneepads, flaming elbowpads, etc., etc., etc.

That sounds hot.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Gauntlets are a weapon that Monks are not proficient with and that is not listed under "Special Monk Weapons". Of course, they aren't proficient with Unarmed Strikes either, so...

[Kurald Galain]

They can always use gauntlets to store their partial wands in...

[Attilargh]

If indeed gauntlets don't work with monks, would there be any theoretical way to add enhancement bonuses to unarmed attacks?

The Kensai prestige class springs to mind. If I recall correctly, it can be found in Complete Warrior.

[Moriato]

That sounds hot.

On the "bright" side, with all that gear, you'd be impervious to ninjas, because as we know:

[Darrin]

To me, it reads like monks should be able to equip gauntlets just fine.

They can. It's just by RAW, they aren't proficient in them. Actually, by RAW, monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes. Any dip into a class other than wizard or druid usually fixes the problem (monochrome Monk-20s tend to be pretty rare).

You can also fix the proficiency problem by taking Simple Weapon proficiency, Militia, Otherworldly. However, by RAW you cannot flurry with a gauntlet.

Unorthodox Flurry (Dragon Compendium, p. 109) not only allows you to flurry with a chosen light weapon, it also grants proficiency in that weapon. This solves three nagging problems for the Monk: the proficiency problem, the flurry problem, and the weapon enchantment problem.

Houseruling that the monk is proficient with unarmed strikes (and sometimes gauntlets as well) is a popular fix, for those that are even aware of the proficiency problem.

[Kesnit]

As far as I know it doesn't work that way. I remember reading somewhere that you can't just throw on flaming or sonic or whatever gloves or gauntlets, because not all of a monks attacks are punches. They're also kicks, headbutts, knees, elbows, etc. So you'd have to have flaming gloves, flaming boots, flaming headband, flaming kneepads, flaming elbowpads, etc., etc., etc.

I see your point and am not belittling it. That said...

If a FGT has a sword that does 1d6 acid damage, it does that damage no matter where you hit - tip, halfway down the blade, just above the hilt. A Monk's body works the same way - all of it is the "weapon" and it works just like the FGT's sword - wherever it hits, it does the damage.

RAW, probably not. But it makes sense (to me anyway )

[rubycona]

There have been lots and lots of arguments over this. I don't think you'll be getting a clear answer any time soon- or ever.
I agree with Stupendous- House Rule for the win, whether you actually think it is needed or not.

Ahhh, ok. From the Q&A Raw thing, it looked like a standard answer, when to me, it looked really possible to interpret differently.

I don't even think it needs a house rule, per se; it is, after all, the DM's call on how to interpret existing rules, and I do think it's an entirely valid interpretation.

And really, it's way sucky for monks to not be able to get enhancement bonuses on their unarmed attacks. Without it, it seems the only viable option for monks is to use a special monk weapon. That alone makes me lean towards yes on the gauntlet thing.

Edit: A lot of posts since I posted this. A monk's technically not proficient with unarmed strikes, even with all the monk class blather about a monk being specifically trained and whatnot in unarmed attacks?

Yeah, I can see houseruling that in...

[AmberVael]

Ahhh, ok. From the Q&A Raw thing, it looked like a standard answer, when to me, it looked really possible to interpret differently.

I don't even think it needs a house rule, per se; it is, after all, the DM's call on how to interpret existing rules, and I do think it's an entirely valid interpretation.

Yeah, but if you get one of those annoying rule lawyer types, they'll argue with you about it to the death.
>.>
<.<
*Might possibly have done that kind of thing before*
Sometimes it is best just to say "this is the way it is" rather than "this is the way I think it is."

And really, it's way sucky for monks to not be able to get enhancement bonuses on their unarmed attacks. Without it, it seems the only viable option for monks is to use a special monk weapon. That alone makes me lean towards yes on the gauntlet thing.

I agree. There should be more options for the poor monk, and gauntlets help out, if only a little.

[Moriato]

I see your point and am not belittling it. That said...

If a FGT has a sword that does 1d6 acid damage, it does that damage no matter where you hit - tip, halfway down the blade, just above the hilt. A Monk's body works the same way - all of it is the "weapon" and it works just like the FGT's sword - wherever it hits, it does the damage.

RAW, probably not. But it makes sense (to me anyway )

I'm not saying that a monk shouldn't be able to get these enhancements, I absolutely think they should. Just that it's not so simple as throwing on a pair of gloves. There's the amulet of mighty fists, (I think that's the name?) that gives an enhancement bonus to all your natural attacks, I don't see why a person couldn't also throw some other properties on it.

[monty]

On the "bright" side, with all that gear, you'd be impervious to ninjas, because as we know:

The image is broken, or at least it is on my computer, but I assume it is referring to ninjas and their aversion to fire?

[rubycona]

Yeah, but if you get one of those annoying rule lawyer types, they'll argue with you about it to the death.
>.>
<.<
*Might possibly have done that kind of thing before*
Sometimes it is best just to say "this is the way it is" rather than "this is the way I think it is."



I agree. There should be more options for the poor monk, and gauntlets help out, if only a little.

Bah. I'm good at arguing.

But even still, I have a secret weapon. The DM fist of DEATH! Muhahaha.

Actually, I kind of already have a house rule on the subject: Realism beats rules. A monk isn't proficient with an unarmed strike? HA!

I once believed that the books were decently balanced... how cruelly does research rip open my eyes...

[kamikasei]

Edit: A lot of posts since I posted this. A monk's technically not proficient with unarmed strikes, even with all the monk class blather about a monk being specifically trained and whatnot in unarmed attacks?

There is actually disagreement about this, too.

Basically it goes: unarmed strike is listed as a simple weapon on the weapons table. However, in various other places (the weapon focus or weapon specialization feat, possibly weapon finesse - I'd have to go hunting for the last thread about this) it is mentioned separately from "all weapons" or "any weapon", which implies that it's not a weapon at all. Since monks are not proficient with all simple weapons, if unarmed strike is a simple weapon proper then they are not proficient in it (or gauntlets). If you consider (as I came around to doing) that they are not really weapons at all, then monks don't need to be proficient in them; they're just on the weapons table where they are for convenience (ironically).

You can then take the view that since gauntlets are on the weapons table in the same little nook as unarmed strikes, they are also not really weapons and don't require proficiency - they're just something that modifies the unarmed strike non-weapon. You can attack without penalty, flurry with them, etc.

The problem with this interpretation (and up to this point it is interpretation rather than houserule) is that if the gauntlets aren't really weapons... can you enchant them like weapons? To which the reasonable answer is "YES, bloody hell, monks have enough problems already and I have a headache now anyway". But YMMV.

[Moriato]

The image is broken, or at least it is on my computer, but I assume it is referring to ninjas and their aversion to fire?

Well damn, it worked earlier, fixed now

[theMycon]

Since a Monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for effects that enhance them... if he's not proficient with it, neither are any monsters with a natural attack. The rest of the party may be _very_ happy if the DM rules against the monk, but the intention of the rules is clear.

As for Gauntlets... Since they're an unarmed attack, he's clearly proficient if he's proficient unarmed. Whether he can flurry depends on whether you consider an "unarmed attack" the same as an "unarmed strike." On one hand the books use them interchangeably without any distinction whatsoever. On the other hand, it's never explicitly said they're the same thing.

All in all, the interpretation I like best is "He can flurry in Gauntlets, unless he's holding something. Then he has to kick. Remember, each gauntlet is its own weapon, so one for each hand costs twice as much."


*I.E., an effect of a natural weapon being proficiency.

[Kurald Galain]

Don't forget that the existence of the Amulet of Mighty Fists is an argument against RAI letting monks enchant their hands (or, as the case may be, gauntlets).

[NEO|Phyte]

Since a Monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for effects that enhance them... if he's not proficient with it, neither are any monsters with a natural attack. The rest of the party may be _very_ happy if the DM rules against the monk, but the intention of the rules is clear.
*I.E., an effect of a natural weapon being proficiency.

Which is all fine and dandy, until you notice that Humanoids are NOT proficient with natural weapons. Compare Fey to Humanoid.
"Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry."
"Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class."
If a fey happens to have a natural attack, it is proficient in it. Not so for a humanoid. So hey, the monk capstone IS useful, it gives them proficiency in their unarmed strike!

[RPGuru1331]

If a fey happens to have a natural attack, it is proficient in it. Not so for a humanoid. So hey, the monk capstone IS useful, it gives them proficiency in their unarmed strike!

Is it that unbelievable that the humanoid entry isn't proficient with weapons he not only doesn't have, but isn't going to get?

Psions must be pretty ticked with this entry too.

[Artanis]

That sounds hot.

*whaps you with a wiffle bat* That's so bad it isn't even punny.

*awaits his own wiffle-beating*

[Ixahinon]

Make a new 'weapon'

Handwraps:

This piece of flexible leather is normally used in pit brawl, or from streetfighters, but monestaries have often taken to using these wraps and extending their usefulness with the use of magic. When magical handwraps are used on a non-monk...the additonal damage does not apply to their natural attacks

handwraps are treated as clothing, but when put on the hands of a monk, actually works as an 'extention' to the monk's natural attack. (Unlike Gauntlets, which use a material hardness to improve attacks) For each +1 bonus to the weapon (Up to +5) infers upon the handwraps addional damage to their unarmed strike.

+1 = +1d2 Damage
+2 = +1d4 Damage
+3 = +1d6 Damage
+4 = +1d8 Damage
+5 = +2d4 Damage

Example: A monk with a Natural Attack of 2d10 damage wearing +3 Handwraps would do 2d10 + 1d6 damage to their attacks.

Additionally, added effects can be added to the handwraps, such as Holy, Axiomatic, Bane, and any other effect that does not exclude Bludgeoning damage (So you can't have Vorpal Handwraps)

Insintive for the Monk to continue using natural weapons (Hands, Feet, Head, etc) and not look like an idiot and wear free flowing clothes with restricting heavy gauntlets.

Works in my game pretty well.

[NEO|Phyte]

Is it that unbelievable that the humanoid entry isn't proficient with weapons he not only doesn't have, but isn't going to get?

Psions must be pretty ticked with this entry too.

Psions? Hardly. Now, psychic warriors...

[Darrin]

Since a Monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for effects that enhance them... if he's not proficient with it, neither are any monsters with a natural attack.

Humanoids do not automatically gain proficiency with natural weapons. Other monster types, such as animals and magical beasts, explicitly get proficiency with their natural weapons. Monstrous humanoids get automatic proficiency with any weapon mentioned in their stat block (which would include natural weapons).

The humanoid type gets either simple weapon proficiency or by character class. Really, probably just an oversight by the designers. Most people don't pay all that much attention to these weird little gaps in proficiency.

[Sir Giacomo]

Ahhh, ok. From the Q&A Raw thing, it looked like a standard answer, when to me, it looked really possible to interpret differently.

I don't even think it needs a house rule, per se; it is, after all, the DM's call on how to interpret existing rules, and I do think it's an entirely valid interpretation.

And really, it's way sucky for monks to not be able to get enhancement bonuses on their unarmed attacks. Without it, it seems the only viable option for monks is to use a special monk weapon. That alone makes me lean towards yes on the gauntlet thing.

Edit: A lot of posts since I posted this. A monk's technically not proficient with unarmed strikes, even with all the monk class blather about a monk being specifically trained and whatnot in unarmed attacks?

Yeah, I can see houseruling that in...

Agreed.
The thread again has shown now many different opinions there are even on this monk unarmed strike gauntlet thing.
In my view, it is fairly obvious to come to the interpretation you provided right away.
Some would like to have that deemed "houseruling" to support their opinion that monks are weak class,
but the consensus of most DMs likely is:
"go forth dear monk player with gauntlets enchantable as other weapons and with them flurry, do unarmed damage and be proficient - without any feats to spend."

Technically, even without gauntlets and the overly expensive amulets of mights fists (because they even use the wrong slot!) you can get enhancement bonuses to your fists with spell buffs, even in core:
- magic weapon/greater magic weapon
- magic fang / greater magic fang
- holy sword (the 4th level paladin spell)
When no casters are present to buff you (pc or npc), you can try it via the Use Magic Device skill and wands, or with rings of spell storing.

- Giacomo