On Monks and Gauntlets

[ishy]

Back to the topic, I think it is interesting that some people claim that the text This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes think that means This metal glove lets you deal a maximum of 1d3 lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.

Who is saying that? Where did they say that? Are you just willfully misreading people?

you can still choose to make a gauntlet attack for 1d3, because it's still not the same thing as your unarmed strike. Even though it's an unarmed attack and references the unarmed strike rules.

So your answer is yes, you're willfully misreading people?

[Stahlseele]

So, did you guys come to a conclusion yet?
I am kind of interested in a solution, because Shadowrun has a similar Problem if i understood all that correctly . .

[MGuy]

Well I think the majority believes that it doesn't work for monks to get ench bonuses from gauntlets while a not insignificant minority believes that they do. There's a comparison somewhere within about how it should depending on how you feel about scythes getting an ench bonus on trip attacks. That's where we are and I believe that's where its gonna stay.

[ACOS]

I know that I'm several pages behind with this, but the thought just now happened to have occurred to me:

Suddenly he launches into a flurry of kicks, knees, elbows, and punches. No wait, only ever punches. Because by the action of describing himself as kicking someone, as a trained martial artist, who could totally kick some guy, he would do less damage than describing himself as just throwing more punches with his armored arms.

And then I think of this:

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). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus × 1½ or ×½) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands.

So, Kaelik, et.al., have an aneurism and go in to apoplexy over the idea of adjudicating Flurry of Blows when Power Gauntlets get introduced in to the mix. But from that perspective, the same "problem" already explicitly existed with Special Monk Weapons. Because you can enchant a kama and use it in a Flurry. Presumably, I could have a single +5 Keen Kama of Speed, and Flurry 6 +5 attacks that all threaten on 19-20. And "but kicks and elbows ..." can kiss my ass. How far down this rabbit hole of stupidity can someone really want to go?

But then the paragraph ends with this:

The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.

This sentence clearly contradicts the first sentence, because the monk is technically not proficient with unarmed strikes nor is it on the list of "special monk weapons". So, flurry doesn't even work as described? Who knew?
But seriously, it really just goes back to:

This argument begins and ends with explaining why the thing I'm doing with my gauntlet isn't an unarmed strike.

[Kaelik]

So, Kaelik, et.al., have an aneurism and go in to apoplexy over the idea of adjudicating Flurry of Blows when Power Gauntlets get introduced in to the mix. But from that perspective, the same "problem" already explicitly existed with Special Monk Weapons. Because you can enchant a kama and use it in a Flurry. Presumably, I could have a single +5 Keen Kama of Speed, and Flurry 6 +5 attacks that all threaten on 19-20. And "but kicks and elbows ..." can kiss my ass. How far down this rabbit hole of stupidity can someone really want to go

You are a fucking idiot. It would be easy to adjudicate. It would be piss simple. Any time the Monk uses the gauntlet (IE a punch) he does 2d6+15+2d6 damage. Every time he uses anything that isn't the gauntlet, he does 2d6+10 damage. No one ever uses special Monk weapons in a flurry, not because it is hard to adjudicate, but because it is less damage. And the same thing applies with this rule, you rule out all attacks that aren't the most damage.

See how one of those is bigger than the other. See how that means that every time a Monk says they kick, or elbow, or knee, or anything else, they do less damage. See how that means that everyone will just describe themselves as punching all the time for that bonus. See how that sucks dick.

[ACOS]

See how one of those is bigger than the other. See how that means that every time a Monk says they kick, or elbow, or knee, or anything else, they do less damage. See how that means that everyone will just describe themselves as punching all the time for that bonus. See how that sucks dick.

I don't think that anyone has disputed the idea that this is indeed a boring narrative. Nor can they.
But that has fuck all to do with what the text says. When you first brought this up, you were trying to debate with deaddmwalking over what constituted "retarded results". My point to you is that "boring" does not necessarily equate to "retarded". Sure, in a more general sense, slogging through a game/scene/etc that you happen to find boring just simply for the sake of slogging through it may be subjectively labeled as "retarded". But that is a very different thing than a particular interpretation of a game mechanic producing an objectively stupid - i.e. "retarded" - output.

I was making fun of you for using "boring" (and conflating it with "retarded") as if that was some kind of objective measure by which to interpret the black-letter rule(s).

[Kaelik]

I was making fun of you for using "boring" (and conflating it with "retarded") as if that was some kind of objective measure by which to interpret the black-letter rule(s).

Dead DM cast the result of monks with gauntlets doing less damage as retarded. Presumably because he doesn't think it makes sense, for realism reasons. Retarded clearly in that context just means literally any results that are bad for the game. The results of the alternative scheme that forces only punches are equally retarded.

But this does make the second time you have lied about what you were always arguing. Because you very clearly twice over were criticizing me for thinking it was hard to adjudicate, not for conflating boring with retarded, something that obviously does conflate.

So since you are incapable of ever admitting fault of any kind, even the most trivial and meaningless, but yet obvious. I am going to put you on ignore.

[ACOS]

Dead DM cast the result of monks with gauntlets doing less damage as retarded. Presumably because he doesn't think it makes sense, for realism reasons. Retarded clearly in that context just means literally any results that are bad for the gamein direct opposition with the fiction. The results of the alternative scheme that forces only punches are equally retardedboring.

FTFY.
Seriously guy, I think you missed "reading comprehension" day.

you have lied about what you were always arguing.

So since you are incapable of ever admitting fault of any kind, even the most trivial and meaningless, but yet obvious.

protip: repeatedly pulling this card does not make the above picture any less relevant.
Is this your new go-to whenever someone happens to not agree with you? Coming from you, this has gone from simply being funny to just plain sad.

I am going to put you on ignore.

You're my hero.