FAQ Errors

RigaMortus2 said:
I think the other reason a lot of people don't like the FAQ is because when it clarifies a rule, a lot of times it is not the answer the person was looking for. So it must be "wrong".

No, generally I don't like it because it: 1) makes up new rules, 2) gets existing rules wrong.

Not always, of course, and it does brilliant work a lot of the time, but the few sour apples really do taint the bushel.

Back to the OT. This one came up the other day:

FAQ said:
Q: Can a monk wear a gauntlet and still use her flurry of blows? Does she gain any other special abilities of the gauntlets with her unarmed strikes?

A:Technically, a gauntlet isn’t an unarmed strike (it has a separate line on Table 7–5: Weapons in the Player’s Handbook), and thus can’t be used as part of a flurry of blows. A monk could wear gauntlets and still use flurry of blows, she just couldn’t attack with the gauntlets as part of the flurry (she’d be using her feet, elbows, knees, and so forth instead).

If that’s too much hairsplitting for you, treat a gauntlet attack as effectively identical to an unarmed strike, except that it always deals lethal damage (even when worn by a monk).

Many magic items called gauntlets aren’t necessarily using the same terminology. Gauntlets of ogre power, for example, aren’t always metal gloves. It’s conceivable that a monk might be wearing magic gauntlets that grant a special benefit on her unarmed strikes without those gauntlets also serving as weapons in their own right. In this case, the monk is making unarmed strike attacks, not gauntlet attacks.

Q: Can a monk treat an attack with a gauntlet as an unarmed strike?

A: 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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The whole standard action/attack action thing for sunder was a debate long before the FAQ got involved, there are better FAQ points to put in this thread than that one, that one is still very much in debate.
 

Does it still contradict it self over whether sonic damage to objects is subject to hardness? It certainly used to.

Then there is the nonsense about a 1H weapon becoming a 2H weapon when used in 2 hands. Does it double its hit points, only to (potentially) break when you take a hand off it?


glass.
 

Felix said:
1. The FAQ states Sunder may be used multiple times in a full attack. (version 6/21/06)
  • Table 8-2 clearly shows that sunder is specifically a Standard Action and may not be used when iterative attacks are available by the lack of Footnote 7.
Actualy, the FAQ is correct. Read the Sunder description, which reads that it's a melee attack, just like a disarm or trip, which can also be used in itteritive attacks. The only limit is you have to be using a slashing or bludgeoning weapon.
 


Bront said:
Actualy, the FAQ is correct. Read the Sunder description, which reads that it's a melee attack, just like a disarm or trip, which can also be used in itteritive attacks. The only limit is you have to be using a slashing or bludgeoning weapon.
I think you may need to visit this thread.... :)
 

Ogrork the Mighty said:
So I'm supposed to doublethink that gauntlets may both be used in a flurry of blows and not in a flurry of blows? How is it not frustrating to get two contradictory answers one after the other? And besides, if you read on a little bit down that post:

RigaMortis2 said:
And those are valid complaints that should be noted.

Bingo. It's what this thread is trying to do.

---

Added Two-handed weapons problem.
 
Last edited:

Felix said:
4. The FAQ states that weapon categories (light, one-handed, two-handed) are dependent upon how the weapon is wielded. (version 6/21/06)

  • pp 26-27 states: "A medium character using a medium longsword in two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon." This means that a sword's HP and hardness change depenedent upon how many hands are upon the hilt.

With all due respect, this is just semantics. There is no doubt in my mind that the author did not intend this contradiction at all and was merely using it as a clarification of how to treat the weapon with regard to special effects which might or might not depend on how the weapon is being wielded. HP and hardness are qualities of an item that should be based upon how they are listed in Chapter 7 of the PH.
 

Felix said:
Bingo. It's what this thread is trying to do.

Right, but this post is very one-sided. And maybe that is what you are trying to do. To get people to go against the FAQ, when there are a lot of things the FAQ gets right.

Edit: Ok, I'll toss ya one anyway... Improved Natural Attack and the Monk...
 

airwalkrr said:
HP and hardness are qualities of an item that should be based upon how they are listed in Chapter 7 of the PH.

As written, so are bonuses to Sunder and Disarm... but the FAQ would have us believe otherwise...

-Hyp.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top