On Monks and Gauntlets

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

You Lost Me wrote:Trip attacks are melee touch attacks. Looking at the entry for melee touch attacks, you can see they are attack rolls. Looking at attack rolls, you notice they use an attack bonus, which is includes the enhancement bonus of the weapon you are using to attack.
You are kind of being a dumbass.

Your argument is that because you are using the scythe to perform the trip attack, you get the scythe's enhancement bonus to your trip attack's melee attack roll. You know, exactly what I fucking said to you, except I had quotations and citations for why the rules work that way. Thank you for regurgitating my own words all over my shoes correcting me just shut up please just shut up.

The question I posed to you was whether or not performing a modified unarmed strike with a gauntlet is in the same class of things as performing a trip attempt with a scythe, and why or why not. Here are the criteria for when a magic enhancement bonus applies: "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." A trip attack made with a scythe very clearly involves 'the use of a scythe' in a way that satisfies the criteria. Does an unarmed strike made with a gauntlet involve the use of a gauntlet in a way that satisfies the same criteria? Why not? Note that trip attacks are exactly as separate from scythes as unarmed strikes are from gauntlets; they're just special kinds of attacks that get referenced in the weapon entries. They get referenced in different ways with different wordings, which is something you might read meaning into and make an argument from - whatever.
Kaelik wrote:You lying little piece of shit. My second post on the subject, before the discussion on gauntlets even took off, unsurprisingly, did not lay out a comprehensive theory on gauntlets or the rules there of. Instead it was a limited response to what erik just said. So no, you don't get to quote me not making an argument at all, and then claim that was my argument. Only once it became clear that we were actually going to have the gauntlet conversation did I articulate an actual argument.
Are you fucking serious? Do you realize that at the bottom of that very same page, you repeat the exact same argument to Prak? And on the very next page, you quote the exact post you directed at erik to ACOS? This wasn't a one-off slip of the tongue that happened before you realized the nature and extent of the debate: it was your actual goddamn position, and when people pointed to the rules text mentioning performing lethal unarmed strikes you repeatedly claimed "yeah, but they only do 1d3 damage, because table." That's not a minor inconsequential flub. That is a glaringly obvious divergence from the model of events you are putting forward now.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

Just to confirm, Kaelik, you agree that a 20th level monk wearing gauntlets can do an Unarmed Strike with the gauntlet and do 2d10 damage?

However, at this point, you still believe that if the gauntlet is a +2 flaming gauntlet, the monk would not receive the +2 to attack and 1d6+2 damage?

I would certainly prefer to confirm your position before I attack a strawman.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

deaddmwalking wrote:Just to confirm, Kaelik, you agree that a 20th level monk wearing gauntlets can do an Unarmed Strike with the gauntlet and do 2d10 damage?

However, at this point, you still believe that if the gauntlet is a +2 flaming gauntlet, the monk would not receive the +2 to attack and 1d6+2 damage?
I did believe that right up until this post:
DSMatticus wrote:Here are the criteria for when a magic enhancement bonus applies: "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." A trip attack made with a scythe very clearly involves 'the use of a scythe' in a way that satisfies the criteria. Does an unarmed strike made with a gauntlet involve the use of a gauntlet in a way that satisfies the same criteria?
DSMs second part is wrong, but in ways that annoy me when I start typing, but this part I think is sufficient to say that I don't know.

If someone told me that you can't get weapon enhancement bonuses on a trip attack, I'd believe that. But if they told me that they could, I'd believe that too.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
zugschef
Knight-Baron
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

Post by zugschef »

Is there even sufficient evidence that a gauntlet even can be a weapon?

Since "Unarmed Strike" is listed under "Unarmed Attacks", as well as the gauntlet, the table obviously isn't sufficient evidence. In the gauntlet's specifice entry it states that "a strike with [it] otherwise considered an unarmed attack."

Wouldn't that mean that a gauntlet actually can't be enchanted because you can only enchant masterwork weapons?
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Longswords don't have any rules text at all; they're just a table entry. Scythes have rules text that describes being used to perform a special attack, yet their table entry still applies. Any claim that gauntlets are a unique exception and their table entry doesn't apply would need to be substantiated, and I don't see how you'd do that. It's probably true (the gauntlet is just an unarmed strike with cost and weight), and the authors probably only ever meant for you to do one thing with gauntlets, but that's not really what get written down. Whether or not there is such a thing as a gauntlet weapon attack doesn't really matter though, because you can absolutely make unarmed strikes with a gauntlet that deal 1d6 lethal damage as a level 1 monk.

And yes, gauntlets are definitely a weapon. They're a piece of equipment on the weapon table. If you wanted to have an obviously wrong but kind of annoying to rebut argument about what is and isn't a weapon, you'd claim unarmed strikes are like quarterstaffs except weightless and are actually weapons.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

zugschef wrote:Wouldn't that mean that a gauntlet actually can't be enchanted because you can only enchant masterwork weapons?
No. They're like shields in this respect. You can enchant a shield as armor or as a weapon (or both) but they're totally separate categories.

If you're wearing +5 Plate Mail, your gauntlets don't count as magical (or even Masterwork) for the purposes of attack bonus. If you swap out (or otherwise enchant the existing gauntlets) as magical weapons, those bonuses would apply to attacks made with the gauntlets.
...You Lost Me
Duke
Posts: 1854
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am

Post by ...You Lost Me »

DSMatticus wrote:
You Lost Me wrote:Trip attacks are melee touch attacks. Looking at the entry for melee touch attacks, you can see they are attack rolls. Looking at attack rolls, you notice they use an attack bonus, which is includes the enhancement bonus of the weapon you are using to attack.
You are kind of being a dumbass.

Your argument is that because you are using the scythe to perform the trip attack, you get the scythe's enhancement bonus to your trip attack's melee attack roll. You know, exactly what I fucking said to you, except I had quotations and citations for why the rules work that way. Thank you for regurgitating my own words all over my shoes correcting me just shut up please just shut up.

The question I posed to you was whether or not performing a modified unarmed strike with a gauntlet is in the same class of things as performing a trip attempt with a scythe, and why or why not. Here are the criteria for when a magic enhancement bonus applies: "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." A trip attack made with a scythe very clearly involves 'the use of a scythe' in a way that satisfies the criteria. Does an unarmed strike made with a gauntlet involve the use of a gauntlet in a way that satisfies the same criteria? Why not? Note that trip attacks are exactly as separate from scythes as unarmed strikes are from gauntlets; they're just special kinds of attacks that get referenced in the weapon entries. They get referenced in different ways with different wordings, which is something you might read meaning into and make an argument from - whatever.
I know reading is hard, DSM, but you have to try. Because I can't tell what piece of information you're ignoring, I'm going to literally copy what I just said from my last post, but I'm going to write it slowly with lots of explanation for you.

Weapons can have special properties. These apply to the attacks you make with those weapons. So if you carried around a flaming scythe and made unarmed strikes, your fists would not be on fire. Does that make sense? Let me repeat it again: weapon properties only apply to attacks with that specific weapon. I hope that was easier to grasp.

Weapons can also be used to make attack rolls. This is what weapons are normally used for in D&D 3e, and it involves rolling a d20 and adding your attack bonus. The enhancement bonus from a magic weapon increases your attack bonus if and only if you are attacking with the magic weapon, because it is a specific property of that weapon. So one more time for you: enhancement bonuses only apply to attacks with that specific weapon.

Now you can see why this shows the difference between gauntlets modifying attacks and unarmed strikes dealing lethal damage. Because gauntlets can either be used to make your unarmed strike deal lethal damage or they can be used as a weapon that deals 1d3 damage. The first is an attack with an "unarmed strike" so enhancements on the gauntlet do not apply. The second is an attack with a "gauntlet" so enhancements on the unarmed strike do not apply.

So let's show you why the trip argument still doesn't work. When you make a trip attack, you make a melee touch attack. You make this melee touch attack with a weapon. If that weapon is a scythe, you apply the special properties of the scythe (paragraph one), specifically the enhancement bonuses on the attack roll (paragraph two). This does not conflict the way gauntlets/strikes (paragraph three) do because a scythe is a weapon, and a trip is not.

Does that make sense? Do you need pictures?
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
zugschef
Knight-Baron
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

Post by zugschef »

...You Lost Me wrote:Does that make sense? Do you need pictures?
I'd looove pictures! Very good explanation, btw.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

The issue is that a gauntlet unlike every other weapon on the table enhances an existing attack. More to the point, it is used in conjunction with another weapon (Unarmed Strike). As such, it has some similarities to arrows and bows (or, as I mentioned earlier, an Atlatl and a Spear).

If you take off your gauntlet, and you slap someone across the face with it, I'd buy that it counts as a weapon that deals 1d3 bludgeoning damage.

But if you wear your gauntlet and you punch someone with it, it does your Unarmed Strike damage (usually 1d3) along with whatever enhancements you stupidly placed on your gauntlets.

That said, I've been tempted to stat up a gestalt monk/wizard based on this classic song line:
Sixteen Tons wrote: If you see me coming, better step aside
A lot of men didn't, a lot of men died.
I have one first of iron, the other is steel
If my right one don't get you then my left one will
The idea would be to stack touch attacks with gauntlets of spell storing and decent 'unarmed strike' damage to potentially be effective (as far as a character dealing hit point damage can hope to be effective).
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Okay, YLM, you are insufferable and insufferably stupid, but I am apparently exactly the sort of masochist who will run headfirst into the brick wall you call your skull until I get through, so here's one more go:

A trip attack is a special attack. It has an attack roll (but no damage roll).

An unarmed strike is a special attack. It has an attack roll and a damage roll.

A scythe is a weapon. Weapons can have enhancement bonuses. Enhancement bonuses apply a bonus to attack and damage rolls "when used in combat." You believe that using a scythe to perform a trip attack (which is allowed by the scythe's rules text) is "using a scythe in combat," and therefore receives the benefits of the scythe's enhancement bonus.

A gauntlet is a weapon. Weapons can have enhancement bonuses. Enhancement bonuses apply a bonus to attack and damage rolls "when used in combat." You believe that using a gauntlet to perform a modified unarmed strike (which is allowed by the gauntlet's rules text) is not "using a gauntlet in combat," and therefore does not receive the benefits of the gauntlet's enhancement bonus.

Notice how those situations are incredibly fucking analogous, and yet you believe the outcomes are different. That is exactly the fucking point. If you want to make an argument that is worth a damn, you are going to have to find the distinction between tripping with a scythe (which involves an attack roll and a weapon that can have an enhancement) and unarmed striking with a gauntlet (which involves an attack roll and a weapon that can have an enhancement). Note: the ability of a scythe to perform trip attacks is described in a different way with different wording than the ability of a gauntlet to perform modified unarmed strikes. You actually could make an argument by dissecting the wording and/or injecting meaning into it. I don't see a compelling argument there, but maybe there is and I just haven't noticed it. But your current argument of "no, you see, allow me to repeat everything you just said back to you condescendingly with 'no, because reasons' appended to the end" is not a helpful or interesting contribution (read: SHUT UP YOU MORON).
zugschef
Knight-Baron
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

Post by zugschef »

The point is though, that you don't use the gauntlet as a weapon if you inflict unarmed strike damage.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

zugschef wrote:The point is though, that you don't use the gauntlet as a weapon if you inflict unarmed strike damage.
But you do. The gauntlet enhances your attack. In the basic sense, it turns your non-lethal damage to lethal damage, but essentially, gauntlets are applying a special property to your attack.

If your gauntlets have additional special properties, they add that too.

Now, this has been confirmed by a FAQ ruling, so there's no argument about how it actually works. The only question is whether the FAQ is supported by the PHB (and/or SRD) or if it was developed without reference to the existing rules.

My contention is that the FAQ is absolutely supported by the first sentence of the gauntlet description. An attack with a gauntlet is an attack with a weapon that uses your Unarmed Strike damage.

There is no argument based on game rule information that indicates a gauntlet is not a weapon (and plenty of eveidence to the contrary). The only possible basis of disagreement is whether an unarmed strike with a gauntlet does 1d3 or your unarmed strike damage.

Since I think even Kaelik agrees that a gauntlet does your unarmed strike damage, it looks like our conversation has wandered into crazy town.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

deaddmwalking wrote:Now, this has been confirmed by a FAQ ruling, so there's no argument about how it actually works.
Please retire from the gaming den.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

zugschef wrote:The point is though, that you don't use the gauntlet as a weapon if you inflict unarmed strike damage.
A trip attack is an attack separate from the scythe. An unarmed strike is an attack separate from the gauntlet. Both attacks can be made separately from the weapons in question. A scythe allows you to make a trip attack, and provides special rules for what happens when you trip with a scythe. A gauntlet allows you to make unarmed strikes (or rather, you can always make unarmed strikes), and provides special rules for what happens when you unarmed strike with a gauntlet. The text of each is worded differently:

"This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes."
vs
"A scythe can be used to make trip attacks."

But the argument that the latter qualifies for an enhancement bonus while the former doesn't is non-trivial.

You could focus in on the absence/presence of the word "used," but I don't find that particularly compelling because those are obviously plain English descriptions and not keyword-based descriptions so there's a good chance you're fabricating the distinction.

You could argue that the text implies some structural difference in the way the abilities are resolved/applied that excludes the former but not the latter, and while I can see the beginning of such an argument I don't really see it going anywhere and I don't think you'd ever find the silver bullet that proves the structure you're inferring to be valid. The problem with layering rigorous structure over casual English descriptions of a system is that it's very difficult to be sure the structure you've chosen is "the one." About all you can hope is to demonstrate that it doesn't not fit, and demonstrate that the suggested alternatives fail to don't not fit. Makes great fuel for pointless internet arguments, but an exceptionally bad way to tackle lacking documentation. But we can't really change the documentation anyway, so... pointless internet arguments it is.

You could declare that trip attacks made with a scythe don't get the scythe's enhancement bonus. That is not nearly as outrageous as it might initially seem.

You could do something else I haven't thought of or noticed. But it is a claim in need of a defense.
Last edited by DSMatticus on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TiaC
Knight-Baron
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:09 am

Post by TiaC »

Kaelik wrote:
deaddmwalking wrote:Just to confirm, Kaelik, you agree that a 20th level monk wearing gauntlets can do an Unarmed Strike with the gauntlet and do 2d10 damage?

However, at this point, you still believe that if the gauntlet is a +2 flaming gauntlet, the monk would not receive the +2 to attack and 1d6+2 damage?
I did believe that right up until this post:
DSMatticus wrote:Here are the criteria for when a magic enhancement bonus applies: "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." A trip attack made with a scythe very clearly involves 'the use of a scythe' in a way that satisfies the criteria. Does an unarmed strike made with a gauntlet involve the use of a gauntlet in a way that satisfies the same criteria?
DSMs second part is wrong, but in ways that annoy me when I start typing, but this part I think is sufficient to say that I don't know.

If someone told me that you can't get weapon enhancement bonuses on a trip attack, I'd believe that. But if they told me that they could, I'd believe that too.
This post is a great response to all the people who claim that the Den's vitriol forces people to stick to a position. Kaelik is the first poster I think of when I think about the Den's combative attitude. If he is willing to consider an argument after 200+ posts...
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

The scythe specifically says it can be used to make trip attacks. The section on trip attacks has wording that tells you what changes when you use a weapon to make them.

Trip attacks still follow the formula for making trip attacks. Including the section on Tripping with a Weapon where it specifies that your weapon only applies to the touch attack, making it armed and avoiding the AoO. The formula for the opposed roll remains Str vs Str/Dex.

Nothing like that applies to Gauntlets. At all. It should, it's a fine house rule, it's conceptually weird that when you punch someone with your gauntletted hand there's two outcomes depending on which attack you're declaring. But really, there's also more outcomes depending if you power attack or use defensive fighting or two weapon fighting or flurry or expertise or whatever combination of those. Your declarations matter and your kung-fu crazy-tiger hammer-fist strikes for 2d10 are just different to a simple gauntlet punch for 1d3, even if you're wearing gauntlets.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

Bullshit. You're pretending the table is the final word when it obviously isn't. The gauntlet description says it modifies your Unarmed Strikes. The table for Unarmed Strike only lists the 'standard damage'. Gauntlets, too, list the 'standard damage'. You can't pretend that the text doesn't exist, or worse, that the text cannot clarify the table.

But try this one... Imagine that I am right and you are wrong. What differences would you expect to see on the table?
-This space intentionally left blank
John Magnum
Knight-Baron
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:49 am

Post by John Magnum »

An asterisk, and a text entry stating that an attack made with the gauntlet deals however much damage the Unarmed Strike would otherwise do plus applicable gauntlet enhancements.

I certainly wouldn't expect them to put "1d3" and expect everyone to intuit that what they really meant is "A pointer to the Unarmed Strike cell, which itself is secretly a function dependent on many things not mentioned here."
-JM
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Exactly- in the same way that the entire size chart and special circumstances aren't referenced for every other weapon. The default assumption is always a standard medium critter.
deaddmwalking wrote:Bullshit. You're pretending the table is the final word when it obviously isn't. The gauntlet description says it modifies your Unarmed Strikes.
Yes. By making them lethal. There isn't any ghost text that says (or even implies) anything else.
SRD wrote:This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.
You do lethal damage (instead of nonlethal)
next sentence wrote:A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
Other than making it lethal, it in all ways operates as a normal unarmed attack. (AoOs, damage, etc)
Last edited by Voss on Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
TiaC
Knight-Baron
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:09 am

Post by TiaC »

Voss wrote:
next sentence wrote:A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
Other than making it lethal, it in all ways operates as a normal unarmed attack. (AoOs, damage, etc)
So, If I attack with the 1d3 damage weapon option of a gauntlet rather than the lethal unarmed strike option, do I provoke an AoO?
User avatar
ACOS
Knight
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:15 pm

Post by ACOS »

deaddmwalking wrote: But try this one... Imagine that I am right and you are wrong. What differences would you expect to see on the table?
Despite the fact that I agree with you (and what follows can legitimately used as part of the counterargument), I must admit that I would have liked to seen gauntlet damage be "-", such as with crossbow bolts, sling bullets, and arrows.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

ACOS wrote:(and what follows can legitimately used as part of the counterargument)
You are definitely wrong about that. There is a literal infinity of possible things that could be the case for gauntlet damage with the exact same table. Saying the table would be no different doesn't matter. The table would be no different if gauntlets did 42d42 damage, if the text said so, because text trumps table. Arguing that you have a version of the rules in which the the table says 1d3 but gauntlets don't do 1d3 damage is less than meaningless.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
fectin
Prince
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

Post by fectin »

See also: Rainbow Servant
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
User avatar
ACOS
Knight
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:15 pm

Post by ACOS »

Kaelik wrote:
ACOS wrote:(and what follows can legitimately used as part of the counterargument)
You are definitely wrong about that. There is a literal infinity of possible things that could be the case for gauntlet damage with the exact same table. Saying the table would be no different doesn't matter. The table would be no different if gauntlets did 42d42 damage, if the text said so, because text trumps table. Arguing that you have a version of the rules in which the the table says 1d3 but gauntlets don't do 1d3 damage is less than meaningless.
I'm not even sure what you're point here is; nor do I understand what you're quarrel is with that particular parenthetical.
What I meant by that was that someone on your side of the gauntlet argument might be able to reasonably argue by example/comparison the bow-arrow part of the table by making the appropriate analogy.
I'm not saying that this is enough for me to concede the argument; just that the point is there to be made.
How is that wrong?
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

ACOS wrote:I'm not even sure what you're point here is; nor do I understand what you're quarrel is with that particular parenthetical.
I read it as "(... counterargument)" please direct comments about how stupid the argument is back towards deaddm for his stupid argument, since you didn't agree with it.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Post Reply