Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2741719" data-attributes="member: 31734">The choice of punching your opponent or headbutting him is purely flavor.&nbsp; It would be like describing your sword strike as overhand vs. sideways vs. stabbing.&nbsp; Do you give +2 on damage for an overhand strike (sans any feats I'm unaware of)?&nbsp; No, of course not.&nbsp; Thus, there's no advantage to the person describing an &quot;unarmed strike&quot; as anything specific.&nbsp; What I'm saying is that if the monk wants to attack using the gauntlets, he must specifically attack with the gauntlets, not with his monk's unarmed strike, which is not so limited.&nbsp; Just because attacking with the gauntlets is otherwise an unarmed attack does not mean the monk can use a different damage die when attacking with the gauntlets.(warning: argument to reason logical fallacy ahead <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) If your interpretation of the gauntlet use was per the rules, then wouldn't that make an amulet of mighty fists a waste of money?&nbsp; The only benefit would be to allow attacks with non-fists, but it's at such a higher price as to make that option utterly stupid.&nbsp; Not only that, but it really hoses monks from races without hands (no gauntlet slot) because gauntlets are clearly not just the best way, but the only way to go to enhance your unarmed strike.&nbsp;I stop in there from time to time, but if you post it I'll happily comment on it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2741719, member: 31734"] The choice of punching your opponent or headbutting him is purely flavor. It would be like describing your sword strike as overhand vs. sideways vs. stabbing. Do you give +2 on damage for an overhand strike (sans any feats I'm unaware of)? No, of course not. Thus, there's no advantage to the person describing an "unarmed strike" as anything specific. What I'm saying is that if the monk wants to attack using the gauntlets, he must specifically [I]attack with the gauntlets[/I], not with his monk's unarmed strike, which is not so limited. Just because attacking with the gauntlets is otherwise an unarmed attack does not mean the monk can use a different damage die when attacking with the gauntlets. (warning: argument to reason logical fallacy ahead :)) If your interpretation of the gauntlet use was per the rules, then wouldn't that make an amulet of mighty fists a waste of money? The only benefit would be to allow attacks with non-fists, but it's at such a higher price as to make that option utterly stupid. Not only that, but it really hoses monks from races without hands (no gauntlet slot) because gauntlets are clearly not just the best way, but the only way to go to enhance your unarmed strike. I stop in there from time to time, but if you post it I'll happily comment on it. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification