You are kind of being a dumbass.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.
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.
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.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.