Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[The Blow Leprechaun]

You can't have the properties of one weapon and two weapons on the same weapon. That is like saying 1 = 2. Doesn't wash.

I think this is exactly his point about the dagger, though - it has two different modes of function.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can't have the properties of one weapon and two weapons on the same weapon. That is like saying 1 = 2. Doesn't wash.

The property of the unarmed strike is 'deals non-lethal damage'.

The property of the gauntlet is 'causes unarmed strike to deal lethal damage'.

If I'm making an unarmed strike but not using the gauntlet, the default property of the unarmed strike - non-lethal damage - applies.

If I'm making an unarmed strike and using the gauntlet, the default property of the unarmed strike - non-lethal damage - is overridden, and lethal damage applies.

In either case, the weapon I'm using is unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I think this is exactly his point about the dagger, though - it has two different modes of function.

Two different modes, yes, but that is an innate property of the weapon. It is still one weapon.

However, the gauntlet specifically says that your unarmed strikes become lethal. He just had a long and very vehement post about how it doesn't matter whether you punch or kick or headbutt, it is all *one* weapon, and thus has only one effect.

In other words, he got caught out with his generalisation, but he is not admitting that the rules are not and cannot be subject to the kind of generalisations that he is using in order to prove his stance on a monk's unarmed strikes. If you are not from NZ, it might be a bit hard for you to understand the kind of silly generalisation and hard-headed stances you get down here. I mean, they actually think they are doing the right thing for condemning an electricity company for cutting off the power to someone who didn't pay their bills after numerous warnings!

That is why I am still waiting for Hyp to say that he was wrong in his generalisations, and am still doggedly after him even though he has changed the goalposts so many times.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, the gauntlet specifically says that your unarmed strikes become lethal.

It does, which is why I noted that I consider there to be an implicit 'when using the gauntlet' in there - just as there's an implicit 'with the whip' for the 'don't threaten' clause.

That is why I am still waiting for Hyp to say that he was wrong in his generalisations, and am still doggedly after him even though he has changed the goalposts so many times.

You keep using that phrase, but I'm not sure which goalposts I've moved. When using flurry of blows, you can only attack with unarmed strike or special monk weapons; unarmed strike is one weapon; a gauntlet changes an unarmed strike's damage type to lethal if you use it.

I don't think I've changed my answers to any of those?

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

It does, which is why I noted that I consider there to be an implicit 'when using the gauntlet' in there - just as there's an implicit 'with the whip' for the 'don't threaten' clause.

-Hyp.

You don't threaten with the whip. You threaten with the sword you are holding in the other hand. Two weapons.

You are saying one weapon both threaten and don't threaten at the say time, which is patently wrong. You aren't even comparing apples with apples here.

 

[Caliban]

That is why I am still waiting for Hyp to say that he was wrong in his generalisations, and am still doggedly after him even though he has changed the goalposts so many times.

Good luck with that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You don't threaten with the whip. You threaten with the sword you are holding in the other hand. Two weapons.

You are saying one weapon both threaten and don't threaten at the say time, which is patently wrong. You aren't even comparing apples with apples here.

The comparison I'm making is not the one weapon/two weapon comparison you're rejecting.

The whip was an example to indicate that a statement not explicitly qualified may still be implicitly qualified. In the case of the whip, the statement is "You don't threaten". The implicit qualifier is "with the whip".

In the case of the gauntlet, the statement is "Your unarmed strike deals lethal damage". The implicit qualifier I see is "with the gauntlet".

My unarmed strike is one weapon. When I attack with that weapon, I can use the gauntlet (for example, a punch), or I can not-use the gauntlet (for example, the kick). If I use the gauntlet when I attack with the weapon 'unarmed strike', the unarmed strike deals lethal damage. If I don't use the gauntlet when I attack with the weapon 'unarmed strike', the text of the gauntlet is inapplicable, and the unarmed strike does not deal lethal damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

The comparison I'm making is not the one weapon/two weapon comparison you're rejecting.

The whip was an example to indicate that a statement not explicitly qualified may still be implicitly qualified. In the case of the whip, the statement is "You don't threaten". The implicit qualifier is "with the whip".

In the case of the gauntlet, the statement is "Your unarmed strike deals lethal damage". The implicit qualifier I see is "with the gauntlet".

My unarmed strike is one weapon. When I attack with that weapon, I can use the gauntlet (for example, a punch), or I can not-use the gauntlet (for example, the kick). If I use the gauntlet when I attack with the weapon 'unarmed strike', the unarmed strike deals lethal damage. If I don't use the gauntlet when I attack with the weapon 'unarmed strike', the text of the gauntlet is inapplicable, and the unarmed strike does not deal lethal damage.

-Hyp.

No. Just no. Unless your short sword allowed the *whip* to threaten, you are not comparing apples with apples.

This is where your assertion that an unarmed strike can only ever be one weapon falls over. You are not attacking with a gauntlet. You are attacking with an unarmed strike (per your claim that unarmed strike is the weapon, not the series of possible weapons grouped under it).

These are your own words, Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You are not attacking with a gauntlet. You are attacking with an unarmed strike (per your claim that unarmed strike is the weapon, not the series of possible weapons grouped under it).

I'm attacking with an unarmed strike. Whether I'm using the gauntlet at the time depends on whether I'm punching or kicking/butting when I do so.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I'm attacking with an unarmed strike. Whether I'm using the gauntlet at the time depends on whether I'm punching or kicking/butting when I do so.

-Hyp.

How does that relate to the whip, since youa re not attacking with the whip on an aoo?

As I said, apples and oranges.