Hoplophobia's page

Yes, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Run by students, dedicated (explicitly) to exploring the conservative and libertarian side of legal issues. What an incredibly balanced article you've found. Kates and Mauser represent a tiny minority viewpoint on the subject - the journal they chose to publish in (or the journal which chose to publish them) is telling. Don Kates used to teach and conduct research at The Independent Institute, a conservative think-tank. He now works as a civil rights lawyer representing complaints against gun control. Mauser's academic pedigree is a little more balanced, but that may just be my own bias speaking. He and I are products of the same Criminology department at UCI.

What's important is that the academic community has come to a clear consensus on the subject. The fact that four or five researchers (with obvious ties to overall conservative ideology) disagree doesn't change anything.

So, not even bothering to read it, or to point out flaws in their arguments. Just throw a little mud, since they believe differently from you any evidence they quote must be wrong, and not worthy of review or consideration.

No, what is important is that you've neglected to refute anything, or to bring a substantial burden of actual proof in arguing for an abridgement of rights. Instead it's dismissing any proof, be it Switzerland, the studies of murder rates in European countries cited in that review, or anywhere that a position held dear *might* possibly be wrong.

I keep telling myself I have to stop posting on these forums. It's not worth the time or the effort. Have a good day everyone.

They're not "A few trained men with rusty AK's, and minimal supplies". They're a few experienced men with a good deal of support from the local population, in their native countries, with a good supply network from outside. The AKs are almost incidental. The main weapons are IEDs, mortars, SAM and similar toys. The AKs are for terrorizing civilians.

And in both Vietnam and Afghanistan, they weren't just civilians who took up arms. In one case they were a nationalist anti-colonial revolutionary army that had been fighting for decades before the US was directly involved and controlled half the country. In Afghanistan they were, against both the US and the USSR, the remnants of the former government forces.

But keep playing your Red Dawn fantasies. I'm sure you'll save us all from tyranny one of these days.

My "Red Dawn" fantasies are nothing of the sort, it would be a nightmare of a struggle. Nobody sane wants a civil war, it would be an ugly affair, as it has always been.

Oh yes, Afghanistan had plenty of "former government forces." The Afghan army fell apart the moment the soviet invasion happened. The central government infact requested soviet support to deal with the guerrillas inside of the country. Only when the Soviets believed that the central government was doing such a bad job, did they invade. Most of the regular afghan army stayed loyal initially. But hey, that's okay. No need to know any history. It wasn't the clan loyalties, or the poorly equipped religious fundamentalists that flooded into Afghanistan to fight the godless soviets.

And how exactly did the Vietnamese come to control half the country, and force the French withdrawal and American intervention? I'm sure a regular North Vietnamese army just appeared, fully equipped and ready to fight and well trained. Not to mention we'll just ignore the completely irregular Viet Cong. Mortars and Improvised Explosive Devices can be manufactured rather easily, that is why of course, guerrillas love to use them. IED's having the word "improvised" right in them.

EDIT: Here is the Free Syrian Army, a Guerrilla outfit, manufacturing their own Mortars and Shells in a small garage:

http://www.military.com/video/guns/mortars/fsa-mortar-manufacturing-plant/2 101216796001/

Tell us about it.

I think you're the one arguing for an abridgement of rights. So you're going to have to bring some real evidence, and not just name some studies and provide an interpretation of them for us, and not give us access to these studies you are positing as proof for denial of rights.

For instance, it might do you good to actually read an entire scholarly article and not just quote the splashy byline that is on Brady webpage. For instance, actually reading say...the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.p df

Is a real good start.

Switzerland is very different from the US, and trying to claim that they are the same is rediculous.

1. They are not paranoid with their militia. They give training through mandatory service to the military for use of their firearms, and are not an unorganized citizen mob, like it would be in the US.

2. The citizens are considered an active part of the national defense. The US has a national defense force in its standing military. Switzerland's neighbors could realisticly field enough forces to attack them, and an armed mobilizable infantry would be useful.
In the US, first none of our neighbors can field a significant threat to our military. In fact, it would take a combined global effort with years of manufacturing to do so. If a hostile nation invested enough resources to do so, the US would notice and be able to mobilize its active military, and if necessary recruit into its active military, long before any threat that a citizen militia could influence could actually surface.

Next, you bring in the argument that an armed citizenry could do anything against a government that has stepped out of bounds. Short of assassinating leaders, which would only justify the anti-gun laws to most people and solidfy the government's power grab, no, we cannot. The only hope we have to prevent such a power grab would be if the military itself defects away from the government, as has happened in pretty much every revolution in the past 100 years. If they don't, any armed citizen wouldn't stand a chance. It is delusional to think that citizens armed with the trivial weaponry that they can afford would be able to be much more than a speed bump to the modern military.

Finally, you bring in the rediculous slippery slope argument. In case you haven't noticed, having gun rights hasn't prevented bad things like indefinete detentions or warrantless surveillance. The government is proceeding with ever encroaching powers in other areas regardless of if you have guns. Those are different battles, and ones I will gladly be on your side for, but we do not need guns, nor do they help, in arguing for those rights.

Are you kidding me? "They are not paranoid with their militia?" What does that even mean? That somehow if a person owns a firearm they are paranoid somehow?

A few trained men with rusty AK's, and minimal supplies have and continue to play merry hell with the American military. This has happened since Vietnam. The Afghans forced the Soviet army to retreat with minimal supplies and weapons, often using WW1 era weapons versus an enemy who routinely employed advanced technology and chemical weapons.

The lack of appreciation and understanding for history is astonishing.

Reading this thread makes me think that government could press for any restriction of freedom after a "crisis" and people would just go along with it regardless of whatever facts, and historical precedent is brought as evidence.

It's depressing to see people so ready to throw away liberty at the illusion of "safety", let alone the reality of it.

The "rediculous" slippery slope argument. That is funny, because how have your legal and political options done so far on that front either? Just as ineffective. A popular revolution is not something that would happen at a moment's notice. Right now, such abridgments of rights are "selectively" applied to certain persons, but nobody can guarantee that it will remain that way. Force is not something to be used at the drop of a hat, but as an absolute last resort against a regime that has lost it's legitimacy and is acting abusively.

I'm not some camo wearing frothing at the mouth anti-governmental type. I'm worried about the direction of things over the last decade, the excessive concentration of power in the executive and lack of respect for the constitution's restrictions on such power.

It's not a "different" battle. It's the exact same thing. Where one man or woman's rights are ignored or abused, my own rights are diminished. Especially when it is done with hysteria, and quickly and without thought. For it is far too easy for such laws to have unintended consequences.

Hoplophobia wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Hoplophobia wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?

That actually already exists, my friend. Many many states bar persons found to be some degree of mentally ill from firearm purchases. The exact wording depends on your state, but many are for a person who has been admitted to a mental health institution, willingly or unwillingly. However the detection and preventative mental health measures are awful.

Often, a person goes untreated for so long and self medicates with things like drugs or alcohol, which only makes the problem worse. So when it finally boils over it is much more likely to be a catastrophic event than something that can be treated and dealt with.

And many states don't send records to the national database. And the NRA fought long and hard to keep those checks as weak as possible. Though, in the wake of Newton, they're pushing it as a panacea, probably to forestall any more serious measures.

And of course, private sales are excluded. And no records are allowed to be kept.

No, you are wrong. NICS is reported to when a person is adjudicated as mentally defective, or has been committed to a mental institution. Psychologists and Hospitals as well as other state agencies call into NICS all the time to report a person.

My first job was selling firearms, and more than once I've had NICS not give authorization to sell the person a weapon.

How does your argument that your state laws on firearm sales in whatever 1 state you are from negate his argument that many states do not require background checks for firearms? Because many states have no significant laws on firearm sales, especially when not...

It's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people don't even know the facts and make wild statements about the NRA and other people. NICS gets calls from Psychologists, Law Enforcement, Hospitals, all the time in ALL states. ANYBODY can call into NICS and present a case to deny a person the purchase of a firearm.

This frequently happens on an emergency basis. The person who then wishes to purchase a firearm must file an appeal, to get the NICS ban overturned and to purchase their firearm.

"In addition to local, state, tribal, and federal agencies voluntarily contributing information to the NICS Index, the NICS Section receives telephone calls from mental health institutions, psychiatrists, police departments, and family members requesting placement of individuals into the NICS Index. Frequently, these are emergency situations and require immediate attention. Any documentation justifying a valid entry into the NICS Index must be available to the originating agencies. "

From the FBI NICS page.

Hoplophobia wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?

That actually already exists, my friend. Many many states bar persons found to be some degree of mentally ill from firearm purchases. The exact wording depends on your state, but many are for a person who has been admitted to a mental health institution, willingly or unwillingly. However the detection and preventative mental health measures are awful.

Often, a person goes untreated for so long and self medicates with things like drugs or alcohol, which only makes the problem worse. So when it finally boils over it is much more likely to be a catastrophic event than something that can be treated and dealt with.

And many states don't send records to the national database. And the NRA fought long and hard to keep those checks as weak as possible. Though, in the wake of Newton, they're pushing it as a panacea, probably to forestall any more serious measures.

And of course, private sales are excluded. And no records are allowed to be kept.

No, you are wrong. NICS is reported to when a person is adjudicated as mentally defective, or has been committed to a mental institution. Psychologists and Hospitals as well as other state agencies call into NICS all the time to report a person.

My first job was selling firearms, and more than once I've had NICS not give authorization to sell the person a weapon.

And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?

That actually already exists, my friend. Many many states bar persons found to be some degree of mentally ill from firearm purchases. The exact wording depends on your state, but many are for a person who has been admitted to a mental health institution, willingly or unwillingly. However the detection and preventative mental health measures are awful.

Often, a person goes untreated for so long and self medicates with things like drugs or alcohol, which only makes the problem worse. So when it finally boils over it is much more likely to be a catastrophic event than something that can be treated and dealt with.

Hoplophobia,

So you're basic argument is that Americans are just more violent and bloodthirsty than the Swiss which is why your crime stats are so much worse, even thoughthey also have guns. So it's not the guns that are the problems, it's that Americans have them. Ok, I can go along with that but I don't think it's helping your case that much.

No. My argument would be that we have a mental health system in this country that is downright abhorrent (One of my friends went through it) and the only reason he has anything like a normal life now is because his mother refused to give up on him for five years of therapy and meds and of course, his family was rich. He now lives as a normal, well-adjusted person while on his particular cocktail of medications.

He fears however, telling anybody about it because of the stigma associated with mental health.

That's an irrelevant question. However the militia got it's weapons the key phrase here is "well regulated" which means a militia that's policed with rules regarding usage and conduct. Something other than a gun toting lynch mob.

Interesting. So people who own firearms are immediately part of some racist mob? That's fascinating. Please, tell me more.

Hoplophobia wrote:

And of course, we all known that Switzerland which lets young men carry home fully automatic assault rifles, subsidizes the sale of ammunition to the civilian populace and sponsors gun clubs, the gun murder rate in Switzerland is off the charts! Bern is even worse than Chicago!

Oh wait...except, it isn't. Strange that.

And on this day, Hoplophobia single-handedly dismantled the gun control movement by mentioning Switzerland, which had definitely never been done before!

Globally, lax gun control and widespread firearm ownership are positively correlated with levels of violent crime.

Oh yeah! Gosh darn those inconvenient facts getting in the way of my anti-gun arguments! We'll just ignore those, and anything else that complicates the issue. A nation with a strong gun culture of ownership, with that 'paranoid' militia concept that seems to be despised so much by Caineach.

And then we'll make a definitive statement with no sort of evidence to back it up, about those evil black folding stock barrel shroud assault banana clip weapons do evil evil things, and nothing bad would ever happen to anybody if we just gave a little more of our rights to the government to deal with this one *emergency*.

And then, for the next *emergency* well, then we'll have to have permanent detention without trial in a place like Guantanamo. And then maybe we'll have warrantless surveillance, or extrajudicial drone killings of US citizens without trial.

I mean, the government would never abuse the power it's been given, obviously. That's never happened before in human history, or say within the last ten years. Nope.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Youre right, one's usuage of one's rights is limited. One cant yell "fire', just like one cant murder people. What we dont do is straight up ban certain words from ever being spoken

Actually we can and do... in public spaces, such as media. ergo the Seven Forbidden Words for TV and Radio.

And again, the Second Amendment does not address bacon, and I really don't care to address strawman hypotheticals. This is the text of the Second Amendment.

As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In both versions the right to bear arms is specifically defined as being justified in the keeping of a "well regulated militia". You can't selectively ignore that part of the Amendment. The Amendment was never written with private ownership and carriage being it's primary target.

Then pray tell, where was the Militia supposed to get their arms and equipment? A militia is meant to muster with it's equipment and arms at a moment's notice to respond to threats, foreign and domestic. The whole reason of having a militia is to have a reserve of equipped men or fighting age that are not in the regular army. Militia units routinely provided their own equipment, even including more expensive items like horses in some cases.

The Militia in Switzerland has all members keep their weapons at home, for obvious reasons.

And of course, we all known that Switzerland which lets young men carry home fully automatic assault rifles, subsidizes the sale of ammunition to the civilian populace and sponsors gun clubs, the gun murder rate in Switzerland is off the charts! Bern is even worse than Chicago!

Oh wait...except, it isn't. Strange that. Or that the anti-gun paradise that was the Soviet Union with it's all powerful secret police had one of the highest murder rates ever seen, despite it's ban on evil black assault clip folding stock baby killing dum-dum rounds.

That is because both of those fears are not valid or reasonable.

Caineach, Tuvia Bielski would like to disagree.

Hi there, I'm looking for anybody who has suggestions for a good riding donkey mini, or perhaps another mount for a small character? Perhaps a small pony that I could pass off?

The pathos!

Oh, okay Cheapy. I was just wondering if a Dev somewhere had actually said they were for NPC's or something. But you are right, it really does not make sense.

Yeah, that is what I saw blackblood, I may just stick with Gozreh.

NPC Focused? Does somebody actually spend the time rolling out what an NPC Alchemist Shopkeeper would be able to produce in X time?

Also. Are the mundane alchemical item crafting rules really as bad as they appear to be? Like taking ages to craft basic alchemical stuff while spellcasters are cranking out potions and scrolls all over the place?

Neutral Good. Nethys is an interesting idea. Hrm. Thanks for that link, Cheapy.

I need some help. I am currently playing a Ratfolk Alchemist and can't decide on a god for him. Which god would you think would appeal to an Alchemist more? Right now I'm on Gozreh, but open to suggestions. Is there somebody obvious I am missing?

For instance, there are plenty of light Monk weapons that the Monk is already proficient with that either have a bigger damage die, or have other abilities. Such as the Nunchaku, Siangham, etc.

It's just an odd design choice. It's like somebody thought that a monk being able to TWF with short swords would be OP, so they had to make a nerfed monk shortsword. But then made a bunch of other weapons that are just as good as a short sword.

It's not so much it not making sense to the actual weapon. But more than it occupies a niche that seems to serve no logical purpose that even more than that, requires the one class that might use it to spend a feat on it.

Oh, sure enough. My bad on that. Still...I don't understand the point of these weapons. The only thing still going for them over the bog standard dagger is the monk quality. And the monk would have to blow a feat on them just to be proficient with them.

All Pathfinders are required to be Vegans?

While the OP was unnecessarily confrontational, they do sorta raise a good point. Why even bother making stats for this weapon and naming it when anybody with good sense would just use a dagger or a short sword and call it a "butterfly sword."

It is literally worse in almost every single way to a dagger. It costs 20gp to the dagger's 2gp, it does only slashing, while the dagger does piercing and slashing and can be thrown. The dagger is a simple weapon, and the butterfly sword martial.

The single thing it has is the monk quality, and something about being able to separate them as a free action. What is even the point of this thing? Does anybody even use them? If so, why?

Also: The Butterfly Sword isn't a light weapon. So you can't even TWF with something that seems to be implied to be used in pairs.

I've already addressed these questions with the Devs, and they are all in agreement: any natural attack provided from magic items (helm, ring, cloak, or whatever) would all gain the benefits of the amulet of mighty fists.

Really? I would greatly appreciate a link. Mostly because I am hoping this might shed light on the AOMF and bypassing DR with natural weapons, etc.

master arminas wrote:

Quote:

Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists allow unarmed strikes and natural attacks to bypass DR based on its enhancement bonus like magic weapons do?

One word. Three or two letters. That is all it would take to put this to bed.

Ha. Yeah, that's all it will take.

That is all it would take here too. My DM currently does not allow AOMF to overcome DR because there is no yes or no answer and the one dev comments that it does not. So I have to put my monks and more importantly natural weapon fighters on the shelf and go back to playing what PF wants me to play. A guy with high strength wielding a weapon in two hands with power attack.

This comment makes me happy ;)

Shock I know, STR Ranger made a guide that is not about TWF.
But in my defense Magai kinda do it via slash/slash+spell.

I'm glad. People who do guides are a big help to those of us who are optimizationaly challenged.

Magus is basically the ultimate TWF fighter, just in a different way. That build dipping White Haired Witch from Mathwei is very interesting for sure.

Me and Mathwei did a hexcrafter guide. Check it out and you'll see why

Reading this now. Why isn't this on Guide to the Guides? You've been holding out on me, Str Ranger! My TWF Ranger would never of worked without your help.

This is good stuff about the Magus that I hadn't considered. I always thought the Black Blade was weaker, but in looking at it...it may not.

Is the dervish dancing dex based scimitar Magus still the best choice?

Jessica Price wrote:

That won't ease the pain of last night.

Greenbay fan?

I'm a fan of the game of Football and last night hurt. It was a joke, an insult to the players that put their bodies on the line every single week. To put them at risk like that after the constant trumpeting about player safety to now have things like incompetent refs missing call after call after call when it comes to things like late hits.

Refs blatantly missed cheap shots in that Hawks/Greenbay game. Chop blocking was going on all over the field and in other games. It's an embarrassment

Even more of an embarrassment is the way the NFL pretends like we're too stupid to know what really happened on that play. That statement about "yeah it was pass interference, but other than that the call was a-okay" was a joke. We love the NFL but eventually, a breaking point will come.

If you put money on these games, it might of already come.

Sangalor wrote:

You can use gauntlets for that, yes. However, you cause attacks of opportunity because you are still making an "unarmed" attack, it's just that you can cause lethal damage with them.

Otherwise you need to use spiked gauntlets, brass knuckles or such.

If they have improved unarmed strike though, which if a fighter was planning on fighting this way, they wouldn't provoke AoO.

It's all very, very silly.

So, can we get a sample build that uses all three of these feats? Let's see if we can make a 20 level fighter with NOTHING but the worst feats in the game...

Make it so, number one.

Wow. All I can say about this is....wow.

I'm a bit curious on the issue of sunder etc, can't gauntlets be used by fighters and achieve the same effect (just not the increased dmg die) and they aren't disarmable, and you can sunder a necklace just like anything else right?

I believe so, yes.

Have you taken a look at the Book of River Nations? I am considering using that for the kingdom building part because I have heard the original AP rules are a bit of a mess.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy8kgr?Book-of-the-River-Nations-Complete-Playe rs-Reference-for-Kingdom-Building

In the end, my group stopped playing Jade Regent with this book. It wasn't this book's fault primarily, but my players wanted nothing to do with the Forest of Spirits. They wanted to charter a boat around the coast because they (rightly) realized the direct route to Minkai would be a battle. Or they wanted to go west and then charter a boat east across the sea to Minkai directly.

I had been putting in pretty heavy rails the whole time during this AP to try and keep the players on some sort of track and they were starting to cry foul and I was feeling terrible about doing it because it was pretty transparent and the players were coming up with great ideas and I had to keep shooting them down because the progress of events is so tight in JR, and their ideas were reasonable and understandable. (They also wanted to try and find support in other nations for a coup in Minkai.)

I tried to make what was going on clear at the beginning of the adventure, about the necessity of rails and this being a caravan, but after tromping across the ice they wanted nothing more to do with the AP's rails. The other problem was the importance of the NPC's which got harder and harder to stomach as they usually ended up being the ones who tried to keep things on the rails.

My advice is...even if you talk it out with your group beforehand, it is not enough. The rails are so tight here that unless your party is the type to be lead by the nose they will have real problems. Generally most will put up with it for awhile but the entirety of late book 2 to book 3 to book 4 is a choo-choo. Be absolutely sure of what you are getting into.

For those of you who think that yellow is a badwrong color for Tengu to be, what colors would be allowed by RAW in your opinion?

I'm just curious because this whole thread is a sign that the reskin policing that goes on around here has gone completley overboard. Reminds me of the DM who objected to the fact that I had "reskinned" my dinosaur familiar to have feathers.

Wow, really? I'm not sure how I would respond to that. Probably just by packing up and leaving the table.

Actually, I'd like to put this another way.

There is a reasonable and clear distinction that can be made between a weapon with an enhancement bonus and a weapon that applies an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls.

The difficulty: Is there a REASON to make this distinction? Without developer intent of the interpretation of the wordage, one side is jumping to a conclusion while the other is correct.

This is why the topic does, in fact, deserve a FAQ. There is a valid lack of clarity of intent.

That is a much more concise and elegant way to say what I was struggling to. There is just too much grey area here, and it really needs just a quick FAQ answer. So I'd encourage anybody who has not already to hit that button!

I just want Brain in a Jar to know that right here is one more person who appreciates his/her efforts.

I would rule that a character wearing AoMF can bypass DR based on the enhancement bonus. Here is the reasoning, most of which Brain in a Jar has already covered, but in abbreviated form:

I don't think anybody on the side saying not, least of all me, thinks that there are not reasons to say that it does bypass DR. I REALLY REALLY hope it does.

The problem is when it is said that people who question DR penetration have no leg to stand on here. There is plenty on both sides where a reasonable party could see that clarification is needed, if only in the way of a single word.

But what type of bonus to attack and damage? A magical weapon provides an enhancement bonus. AoMF provides an enhancement bonus. Enhancement bonus is not a generic term in the rules that is used to cover any and all bonuses regardless of source. Enhancement is a specific type of bonus. Enhancement bonuses (generally) do not stack with each other. Just like if you have multiple items providing a luck bonus those bonuses do not stack with each other. Or morale, or any of the other specific types of bonuses.

So, we have several different things that are Enhancement Bonuses, all using the same term but meaning different things. We have the fact that the source spell for the AOMF , Greater Magic Fang specifically says it does not penetrate DR. We are not sure if an improvised magic weapon penetrates DR or not.

AOMF was not copy and pasted from 3.5, there was text added. So it wasn't overlooked. All we really need here is a yes or no, and the fact that it has not gotten one is worrying. Either it always penetrated DR or it has not. I'm not trying to be rude here and I know the Dev team is probably busy with a bunch of things, and that is understandable. I'm not asking for a write up or an explanation of anything.

I'm really starting to worry that we have not heard anything because this is tied up in what is going on with the Monk and Flurry of Blows and all of that.

To be Asmodeus's advocate, Amulet of Mighty Fist could have been copy pasted from 3.5 (when GMF and GMW worked exactly like any magic weapon).

If they hadn't changed how those spells worked, this wouldn't be as confusing as it is. I really, really wish they hadn't.

What other things does enhancement bonuses to weapons provide? If I recall correctly, hardness and HP. Now, how can you give your fist hardness and HP? And why would you do is since you can't sunder an unarmed attack?

Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists provide extra hardness and HP?

From what I can tell, that is the only difference between the generic "weapon enhancement bonus" and the "enhancement bonus to attack and damage". I think at the root, someone was trying to be a bit to clever writing the AoMF rules, and was more specific than necessary.

If anything, they were far too general and not nearly specific enough.

As a result of this people are picking it apart and analyzing it more than is necessary. I think Brain has a more solid logical base than the naysayers, as he is not picking apart the text trying to find exceptions and wording differences and whatnot, he is taking it at face value.

I disagree, as have others but there is no real way to dissuade you from that.

Also for the record, I believe JJ's stance was more of a "I don't like enhancement bonuses bypassing DR ever, so no". At least that is the impression that I got. Using his statement as the "AoMF is the exeception" is not strong, because if JJ had his way (again, as I interpreted his comment, I apologize if I am twisting his words), it would not be the exception and the enhancement bonuses to bypass DR rules would be tossed.

Right, but it is really the only scrap of information we have for clarification on this. This isn't really a brand new issue, I've been wondering about this with my natural weapon fighters for ages. I actually used to be in the camp that just assumed it did penetrate DR and have played that way, but now with the issues others have brought up I know am actually unsure. It could go either way.

Really all we need here is a quick yes or no.

No. That's wrong.

Yes the Belt has an Enhancement bonus. But it is to Strength not attack and damage. If used as an Improvised Weapon if wouldn't add +6 attack and damage.(I'm not certain if it bypasses DR when being used as such.)

When worn it would add a +6 enhancement to strength.
When used as a weapon it would not.

So...it's enhancement bonus is different from the Amulet of Mighty Fists because it does not apply to attack and damage when used as a weapon, or because it is not weapon itself?

Even though it provides the bonus to attack and damage that the AOMF provides and uses the same term, and is a wondrous item like the AOMF and not a weapon itself.

The source spell for AOMF does not allow you to penetrate DR.

So, we have a weapon that is not really a weapon, that uses a bonus term that other wondrous items use but does not grant them the ability to bypass DR, the item itself is based on a spell that does not allow one to bypass DR.

And...there is no possible way that somebody could think that the AOMF does not penetrate DR?

Hoplophobia wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

No, you are applying an ability modifier bonus - a strength bonus in this scenario. Which is not the same as a morale bonus, a luck bonus, a typeless bonus, or a enhancement bonus.

"This belt is a thick leather affair, often decorated with huge metal buckles. The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Strength of +2, +4, or +6."

Enhancement bonus to strength. Not to your weapon. And what kind of bonus does strength provide to your weapon?

Attack and Damage. Exactly what the Amulet of Mighty Fists provides. Does nobody else see how this muddles the whole interpretation of Enhancement bonuses when it comes to DR?

If your speaking of James Jacobs that doesn't mean anything official. He even said as such. Right at the beginning of this thread.

I know, it just makes the issue even more murky.

This isn't what i would call a compelling case. You've found one thing that i'm not exactly sure of how it works with Improvised Weapon.

I can only assume that using a Belt of Giant Strength(+6) as a improvised weapon wouldn't grant bypassing DR. But i can say for sure that the Belt wouldn't add any bonus to attack and damage, besides the bonus from +6 strength.

So...the foundation for why the Amulet of Mighty Fists penetrates DR is because is gives an Enhancement bonus, right? Is that what you are saying? But other things that give an Enhancement bonus do not, despite using the same exact term? If that is not what you are saying than maybe I am just confused here.

Amulet of Mighty Fists is not listed as a weapon, it is listed as a wonderous item.

Does an improvised weapon with an enhancement bonus penetrate DR?

No, you are applying an ability modifier bonus - a strength bonus in this scenario. Which is not the same as a morale bonus, a luck bonus, a typeless bonus, or a enhancement bonus.

"This belt is a thick leather affair, often decorated with huge metal buckles. The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Strength of +2, +4, or +6."

Seriously. The Belt isn't enhancing the weapons it enhances you.

Also is this seriously the main argument now for The Amulet not bypassing DR.

Come on man. This is so murky and gray we have no idea how this is supposed to work. All we have is the word of one Paizo employee saying how it shouldn't bypass DR.

The improvised weapon thing is even more hilarious example of how this just does not make any sense. There are so many exceptions, duplications of the same term for two different items but do not give the same benefits the term "Enhancement Bonus" means several different things.

There is a compelling case to be made on both sides of the argument. The Amulet of Mighty Fists also enhances you, because it improves your unarmed attacks and your natural attacks, not exactly something you can hand to somebody else to use or buy on the street.

Hoplophobia wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Nice try. Is a Belt of Giant Strength a weapon?

Is the Amulet of Mighty Fists a weapon?

No. But the unarmed attacks and natural weapons it grants the enhancement bonus to definitely are.

If I use my unarmed attack or natural weapons with a belt of giant strength, are they not getting the enhancement bonus of the belt to attack and damage?

Nice try. Is a Belt of Giant Strength a weapon?

Is the Amulet of Mighty Fists a weapon?

Eben: Spot on!

My party makes it possible for me to tank indeed, while I was kinda hoping I wouldn't have to and we'd have a dedicated tank in our party to fill up that spot. Lacking that they usually prop me in front, buffing me and screaming: "Go tank, ya Monk!" Hehe.

I see what you are trying to say and understand it: You're discussing something waaaaaay more in depth then just a 1 time experience I had with my Monk. As such, continue your discussion so I can learn from it :)

Yeah, you've done a great job really working with what you have been given to do a good job for what your party needs you to do with a little help from your friends.

The problem is, as somebody pointed out above with the same buffing and help that the other 3/4ths BAB classes outshine him at his own game. That is really all that is being said. I think everybody here wants the Monk to be an awesome kung-fu master, not an anchor that the party has to drag along.

I too would like to thank Valiant for posting his build. It's not perfect, but it does show us where he's comming from. It doesn't change our opinions, as Dabbler and others have pointed out it sacrifices a lot to do what it does compared to other martial classes and relies on circumstancal equipment and buffs; but that doesn't make it a less valid opinion then our own, just a differing one.

It took balls to put up with our criticism when so many others have simply said, "I'm not going to do the work for you". So again, I tip my hat sir. Carry on.

Sure. I appreciate the attempt...but I think he just proves the point even more so that the Monk is always a bottle half full of water. Just turning the bottle upside down and standing it on the lid does not now mean it is full, just that the water has gone to a different place.

Meanwhile a Fighter is a 12oz lukewarm beer and the Wizard is a frosty keg.