Gauntlets, Spiked Gauntlets and Cesti...

[Tetsubo]

I'm confused about gauntlets and spiked gauntlets. Wearing a pair of metal gauntlets
and punching someone earns you an AoO. But if you wear a pair of spiked gauntlets it doesn't earn you an AoO. A pair of spiked gauntlets are pretty much normal gauntlets fused with a pair of cesti. So why does the addition of short spikes or blades turn a metal pair of gauntlets into a weapon that doesn't earn an AoO? Does using a pair of cesti earn an AoO? If I punch a person with my fists that's simple assault. But if I had on a pair of spiked gauntlets or even sap gloves it would be assault with a deadly weapon. I'm just not seeing the distinction. It's just too fine a difference to my mind.

Any thoughts?

 

[Tylias]

I agree. It's ridiculous. But if Spiked Gauntlets weren't 'real' weapons, they would almost never get used - and they're such good flavor items, it would be a shame if nobody used them. Not counting them as real weapons would certainly go a long way toward discouraging their use.

The whole monk unarmed attack/normal unarmed attack/gauntlet/spiked gauntlet thing is an enormous mess.

Oh well. Small rule, impact: minimal. I put up with it.

If you wanted to rationalize it, I suppose you could say that spiked gauntlets cover more of the forearm and are really covered with lots of spikes, making certain defenses less useful than before. If someone punched at me, either unarmed or wearing a glove or gauntlet, I could try a hard block, a soft block, use a shield, dodge, etc. If someone punched at me wearing a gauntlet covered with sharp spiked - I would leave the hard block and maybe the soft block out as viable defenses, since I wouldn't want to chance impaling my own forearm on one of those spikes, or use a grasp/deflect against the attacking hand. This makes a difference if you're fighting unarmed against someone with spiked gauntlets; but the argument doesn't go nearly as far if you're armed with a sword and shield.

 

[Crothian]

They had to draw the line somewhere. I think they see a spiked Gauntlet as a weapon and a reagular gauntlet as not. That's what I think they did.

 

[Ysgarran]

I can see the line being drawn somewhere what I don't really agree with is the Monk losing his unarmed attack damage when using a Gauntlet.

Every description by the sage of Monks includes the fact the monk is using his whole body for unarmed attacks: elbows, knees, kicks, etc. yet when they start wearing gauntlets their unarmed attack damage is supposed to drop to 1d3? Now that doesn't make sense to me.

It will probably become a house rule for me to change that particular aspect...

 

[Tylias]

re: Monks and Gauntlets

Yeah. Smells like a kludge, doesn't it? There was a pretty long thread on this a while back.

As far as I know, all the official responses have said that this is a matter of game balance; no other way to deal with a 1d20 base damage. One of the rationalizations is that if you're going to concentrate on using the magic gauntlets for punching, you're not putting the gestalt of knees, feet, elbows, headbutts, body blocks, joint locks, throws etc. to proper use (thus, not utilizing your whole body). But that only holds a certain amount of water; it's not so bad when you scale back to 1d3 base from 1d6 base, but it all falls apart at high levels.

I'm of the opinion that the Monk Unarmed Damage is ridiculous and nonsensical, myself. I'd have been happier if the damage stayed low, with enhancement bonuses added as the monk gains levels.

Personally, I'd let monks use magic gauntlets, but scale back their unarmed damage progression to 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10.

 

[Crothian]

you really can't have gauntlets do the same as monks unarmed damaage, or else there would be no reason for a monk to not have a gauntlet and then make that gauntlet magical.

 

[Tylias]

There would be a reason if monks had inherent (but non-stacking) enhancement bonuses

But you're right, in the sense that this would definitely discourage them from using 'monkish' *blech* weapons.

 

[Ysgarran]

you really can't have gauntlets do the same as monks unarmed damaage, or else there would be no reason for a monk to not have a gauntlet and then make that gauntlet magical.

I'm usually very willing to make rules for game balance, but I guess I get hung up on internal consistency. Keeps the rules consistent keeps the rule a bit easier to maintain.

The way I would handle it would probably introduce some complication. If a monk can attack while holding a torch in one hand by giving up one attack then I would rule that only two attacks of the monks attacks would be at 1d3 damage, the rest would be at the normal full unarmed attack damage.

The trade off would be more complication in exchange for staying consistent with how the monk attacks when he is carrying things in his hands.

Ysgarran.