Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[glass]

Hmm? I still have a different opinion of how a gauntlet affects a kick, but not if the text is read literally.

I think 'without implication' is a better description than 'literally'.

Anyway, WRT the whole gauntlet thing, what do eamon and Cameron think about masterwork thieves tools? Do you have to use them to add the bonus, or can you use ordinary thieves tools with the masterwork ones in your back pocket (or back at the inn)?
[SBLOCK=mwk thieves tools]Thieves’ Tools, Masterwork: This kit contains extra tools and tools of better make, which grant a +2 circumstance bonus on Disable Device and Open Lock checks.[/SBLOCK]


glass.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But note: the 3.0 monk explicitly said both that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" and "A monk [...] can make an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, but she suffers the standard penalties for TWF"

Notice that in the 3E version, the monk can only make an off-hand unarmed strike if he is using a weapon in his main hand. He can't make an unarmed strike as his primary attack, and then an unarmed strike as his off-hand attack, but he can make an attack with a kama as his primary attack, and an unarmed strike as his off-hand attack.

Which supports the premise we started with - 'unarmed strike' is a weapon, and you can't TWF with a single weapon... you need at least two.

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

Notice that in the 3E version, the monk can only make an off-hand unarmed strike if he is using a weapon in his main hand. He can't make an unarmed strike as his primary attack, and then an unarmed strike as his off-hand attack, but he can make an attack with a kama as his primary attack, and an unarmed strike as his off-hand attack.

Which supports the premise we started with - 'unarmed strike' is a weapon, and you can't TWF with a single weapon... you need at least two.

Which is an entirely different matter - I'm simply pointing out that a literal reading isn't intended.
As to the possibility of not being able to TWF with one weapon - that simply makes things needlessly complex (as you could indeed use a weapon for it), and in any case, is mostly irrelevant in the old rules system: The old flurry was mechanically identical to TWF, although no "improved" or "greater" variants existed, so the effect of TWF could be achieved using a different means. In 3.0, in any case, this limitation was actually mentioned, and in 3.5 it is not. The entire monk attack sequence was redesigned in 3.5 so although you are clearly correct that in 3.0 this was not possible, that's not so in 3.5. The 3.0 text merely illustrates the history of a phrase which you interpreted literally, and shows that this text was copied verbatim from a previous edition in which in was not intended literally.

The 3.0 texts are not mechanically relevant, so although they don't allow TWF with unarmed attacks that means little - after all, most of the text was changed. The 3.5 edition as part of that change, no longer explicitly bans TWF.

A TWF-using monk is the logical extrapolation of two rules which weren't written with each other in mind. There are no balance issues I know of, no flavor issues, and no simple reason to ban it. If a DM wants, he can ban it, but I see no obvious reason to do so.

 

[eamon]

Anyway, WRT the whole gauntlet thing, what do eamon and Cameron think about masterwork thieves tools? Do you have to use them to add the bonus, or can you use ordinary thieves tools with the masterwork ones in your back pocket (or back at the inn)?
[SBLOCK=mwk thieves tools]Thieves’ Tools, Masterwork: This kit contains extra tools and tools of better make, which grant a +2 circumstance bonus on Disable Device and Open Lock checks.[/SBLOCK]

You need to actually use them. Now I'm curious, how does this relate?

 

[Cameron]

Notice that in the 3E version, the monk can only make an off-hand unarmed strike if he is using a weapon in his main hand. He can't make an unarmed strike as his primary attack, and then an unarmed strike as his off-hand attack, but he can make an attack with a kama as his primary attack, and an unarmed strike as his off-hand attack.

Which supports the premise we started with - 'unarmed strike' is a weapon, and you can't TWF with a single weapon... you need at least two.

-Hyp.

And so we are back to the fact that you allow gauntlets to make your kicks lethal in your game *shrugs*

As I have already said, we'll let that one speak for itself.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You need to actually use them. Now I'm curious, how does this relate?

Because, according to Cameron, you can kick and still benefit from gauntlets.

In other words, you're reading an implied "When you use this item," in the description of MW Thieves' Tools.

Cameron is rejecting an implied "When you use this item," in the description of gauntlets (and therefore they confer a benefit even when you aren't "using" them, such as by kicking).

 

[Cameron]

Because, according to Cameron, you can kick and still benefit from gauntlets.

In other words, you're reading an implied "When you use this item," in the description of MW Thieves' Tools.

Cameron is rejecting an implied "When you use this item," in the description of gauntlets (and therefore they confer a benefit even when you aren't "using" them, such as by kicking).

Incorrect. I am using that as a rebuttal to *Hypersmurf's* claim. Note that I did *not* come up with that. Hypersmurf did with his insistence that US is one weapon. I just took it to the logical next step, which shows its patented absurdity.

It is rather funny how stances to which I am actually opposing gets attributed to me. Truly sarcasm is wasted on some.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And so we are back to the fact that you allow gauntlets to make your kicks lethal in your game *shrugs*

In my game? In my game, a gauntlet makes your unarmed strike deal lethal damage if you're using the gauntlet when you attack with unarmed strike. We've been over that.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Incorrect. I am using that as a rebuttal to *Hypersmurf's* claim. Note that I did *not* come up with that. Hypersmurf did with his insistence that US is one weapon. I just took it to the logical next step, which shows its patented absurdity.

US is one weapon.

And when you use that one weapon in conjunction with gauntlets, it deals lethal damage by default instead of nonlethal.

Disable Device is one skill.

And when you use that one skill in conjunction with MW Thieves' Tools, you get a circumstance bonus on your roll.

Kicking is no more "using US in conjunction with gauntlets" than disarming a trap with a hairpin is "using DD in conjunction with MW Thieves' Tools."

You keep saying absurd; I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Deset Gled]

Hypersmurf did with his insistence that US is one weapon. I just took it to the logical next step, which shows its patented absurdity.

1. US is one weapon.

2. Your step is not logical.

3. What you have shown is not absurd, but rather a common question of rules inferrence that comes up very often with multiclassed casters.