FAQ on Monks + Gauntlets

[Klaus]

From the new FAQ:

Can a monk treat an attack with a gauntlet as an
unarmed strike?
A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed
strike (since the Player’s Handbook says that “a strike with a
gauntlet is . . . considered an unarmed attack”), although the
damage dealt by the gauntlet would always be considered lethal
damage (as noted in the gauntlet entry) and the monk would
suffer a nonproficiency penalty (since the gauntlet is a simple
weapon). The monk could even use gauntlet attacks as part of a
flurry of blows.

So a monk can benefit from magical gauntlets to improve his attack and damage, and flurry with them, by just spending 1 feat on Simple Weapon Proficiency.

 

[Deset Gled]

From the new FAQ:



So a monk can benefit from magical gauntlets to improve his attack and damage, and flurry with them, by just spending 1 feat on Simple Weapon Proficiency.

I'm calling shenanigangs on the FAQ. Gauntlets are not a special monk weapon, therefor monks cannot flurry with them.

I also think that the damage would be the same as a normal unarmed strike, unmodified by the monks higher damage. Of course, this part will probably turn into a long arguement about whether a gauntlet is an "effect" or not, which I don't really care to get into that the moment. Best to just ignore the FAQ ruling on this one altogether.

Between the constant errors in the FAQ and RotG articles, I'm toying with the idea of just never visiting the WotC website again.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

deleted

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I'm calling shenanigangs on the FAQ. Gauntlets are not a special monk weapon, therefor monks cannot flurry with them.

If gauntlets = unarmed strike, as is indeed defined by the PH, then monks CAN flurry with them.

I also think that the damage would be the same as a normal unarmed strike, unmodified by the monks higher damage.

I disagree with both you and the FAQ on that. If gauntlet = unarmed strike then the ONLY change to a monks unarmed strike when wearing gauntlets AND flurrying should be that you cannot do non-lethal damage which would normally be an option. This is, of course, the very description of the guantlet - it's only change is to make damage from unarmed attacks lethal rather than non-lethal. Since the remainder of the rules do not make any further accomodations in rules for unarmed strikes for wearing gauntlets I would submit that this should be their ONLY effect. AFAIK, it has not been errata'd to read any different, though IMO it is then an error to include a damage listing on the weapon tables for gauntlets since their description DEFINES their attack form and results as NOT being a weapon attack. Damage for unarmed strikes is listed under the description of unarmed attacks and is based on creature size (as it should be).

The FAQ also errs in talking about a non-proficiency penalty since by definition gauntlets = unarmed strike. EVERYONE has proficiency with unarmed strike. Only if you treat the gauntlet as an ACTUAL weapon should the question of proficiency or a damage listing come into play, but the description makes it clear that they do not apply.

Between the constant errors in the FAQ and RotG articles, I'm toying with the idea of just never visiting the WotC website again.

The FAQ, whatever its supposed level of "officiality" is, should be treated as little better than informed advice, not unalterable law graven in stone. Ditto for Sage Advice, RotG columns, etc. Use your own best judgement and save any arguments about genuinely OFFICIAL rules for tournament play. THAT should be an unalterable law graven in stone.

 

[hazmat]

Gauntlets allow unarmed strikes to count as lethal damage. But any attack you make with your gaunlet covered fist is considered an unarmed strike.

They shouldn't suffer a non-prof penalty. They should be able to flurry because they are unarmed strikes.

 

[Sejs]

Gauntlets allow unarmed strikes to count as lethal damage.

Unless I miss my math, my understand is that an unarmed strike with a gauntlet is always lethal, and then by extension if you want to make it non-lethal again you have to suck up the normal -4 to hit penalty, just as you would with any other lethal weapon such as a sword.

 

[Deset Gled]

For reference:

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.

Flurry of Blows (Ex): When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a –2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to –1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.
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 x 1-1/2 or x1/2) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.

...

If gauntlets = unarmed strike, as is indeed defined by the PH, then monks CAN flurry with them.

By a strick reading of the gauntlet text, I guess you are correct**. However, I find it hard to believe that this was the original intent. What's the point of the Bracers of Striking (Faerun) or the Amulet of Might Fists if a monk can just get enchanted gauntlets?

** Edit: I'm going to backpedal on this statement. See my post below. "Unarmed attack" and "unarmed strike" are not equivalent statements.

The FAQ also errs in talking about a non-proficiency penalty since by definition gauntlets = unarmed strike. EVERYONE has proficiency with unarmed strike. Only if you treat the gauntlet as an ACTUAL weapon should the question of proficiency or a damage listing come into play, but the description makes it clear that they do not apply.

Going by a strict reading of the rules, this is not true. Gauntlets and unarmed strikes are both listed as simple weapons. But monks are not proficient with simple weapons. Going by a strict reading, then, not only are monks not proficient with gauntlets, they aren't proficient with unarmed strikes! Poor monks, not only do they have a crappy BAB progression, they also get a -4 to all attacks made unarmed. Wizards also have this problem.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If gauntlets = unarmed strike, as is indeed defined by the PH, then monks CAN flurry with them.

The equivalency you are going for is gauntlets == unarmed attack, via the sentence: "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." Even if true, it does not equate the unarmed strike to a gauntlet. And, monks do not get to Flurry with unarmed attacks, nor do they get to Flurry with non-monk weapons. Monks only get to Flurry with a specific type of unarmed attack: the unarmed strike.

This may sound like a lot of rhetoric, but it's important to understand the real problem in this question. Namely, what happens when a monk wearing gauntlets makes an unarmed strike as part of a Flurry of blows? Keep in mind two things when thinking about this:

1. A monk can use any part of his body to make an unarmed strike. He need not use his fists.

2. Is the gauntlet a weapon that the character needs to choose to use?

Based on #1 and the wording on gauntlet, a monk could use a headbutt and still apply the (e.g.) +1 damage bonus from +1 gauntlets. If you don't agree with this, then you must answer 'yes' to #2 and, more importantly, resolve the paradox that allows a monk to use any part of his body as an unarmed strike. And, if you answer 'yes' to #2, then you'd be saying that a monk using a gauntlet is using a weapon he is not proficient in.

Someone please poke holes in this.

 

[hazmat]

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.

From the Flurry of Blows description
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.

From Improved Unarmed Strike
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.


Based on the above I see a monk being able to flurry of blows with his guantleted fists based on the SRD at no penalty. To get any benefit from enchanted gauntlets the player would need to choose to make an unarmed strike using his fist while wearing the gauntlet.

 

[Deset Gled]

Based on the above I see a monk being able to flurry of blows with his guantleted fists based on the SRD at no penalty.

Ignoring the proficiency problem (which is a big one), your arument is hinged on the fact that "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack" are equivalent statements. They are not. An unarmed stike is specifically defined term in the monks description. An unarmed attack is simply an attack without using a melee weapon. You cannot interchange these terms.