| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi all,
I have a question and would like to hear some opinions:
Is it possible to put the Dueling ability on an Amulet of Mighty Fists?
Source: Advanced Player's Guide
Aura Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and armor, cat’s grace; Price +14,000 gp.
Description
This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon.
A dueling weapon (which must be a weapon that can be used with the Weapon Finesse feat) gives the wielder a +4 enhancement bonus on initiative checks, provided the weapon is drawn and in hand when the Initiative check is made. It provides a +2 bonus on disarm checks and feint checks, a +2 bonus to CMD to resist disarm attempts, and a +2 to the DC to perform a feint against the wielder.
Aura faint evocation; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 5,000 gp (+1), 20,000 gp (+2), 45,000 gp (+3), 80,000 gp (+4), 125,000 gp (+5); Weight —
Description
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as Additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
AoMF may grant melee weapon special abilities if they can be applied to unarmed strikes. Dueling must be applied to melee weapons that can be used with weapon finess - so unarmed strikes would qualify. Seems too good to be true for a Monk: +14K GM instead of a valuable +1 bonus as cost for AoMF giving an ongoing +4 to initiative and +2 to feint/disarm....mhhh.
Thanks and best regards
unless you read it strictly but we won't do that ;)
unless you read it strictly but we won't do that ;)
Because this is the Rules forum and RAW is the default here, I just want to point out that when you write "strictly" I believe you meant;
"The GM thinks it is too cheesy and HouseRules that it does not work at their table".
|
There's an argument to be made about whether an unarmed weapon can be "drawn" at all.
Also about whether an unarmed strike can be "in hand" when it is the hand.
I would lean towards not allowing the feat to apply due to both of these reasons, but at the same time point out that it can be applied to brass knuckles.
There's an argument to be made about whether an unarmed weapon can be "drawn" at all.
Also about whether an unarmed strike can be "in hand" when it is the hand.
I would lean towards not allowing the feat to apply due to both of these reasons, but at the same time point out that it can be applied to brass knuckles.
this is what I meant by strictly.......
That is not "strict" that is <insert fittingly insulting expletive without violating the forum rules, if it does, then you picked a word too insulting!>!
The wording is clearly meant to refer to the weapon must be "wielded" and "at the ready", two conditions that an empty hand fulfills.
Catering to the argument, just for fun, a hand can be "drawn" out of your pocket.
Alternatively, only bladed weapons with proper sheaths can ever qualify.
Sticking your mace in a loop in your belt would not qualify.
Magicdealer you be trolling.
That is not "strict" that is <insert fittingly insulting expletive without violating the forum rules, if it does, then you picked a word too insulting!>!
The wording is clearly meant to refer to the weapon must be "wielded" and "at the ready", two conditions that an empty hand fulfills.
Catering to the argument, just for fun, a hand can be "drawn" out of your pocket.
Alternatively, only bladed weapons with proper sheaths can ever qualify.
Sticking your mace in a loop in your belt would not qualify.
Magicdealer you be trolling.
to be fair you did ask for RAW, and it was given to you. Personally I thought of using one arm to pull the other out of your robe sleeve and wielding it by the wrist. :P
By RAW, no. The amulet allows an enchantment such as Dueling to be placed on it, but the enchantment won't allow itself to be placed on an object such as the amulet, because the amulet is not a weapon.
By RAW, no. The amulet allows an enchantment such as Dueling to be placed on it, but the enchantment won't allow itself to be placed on an object such as the amulet, because the amulet is not a weapon.
Huh? AoMF isn't a weapon, but smacking someone over the head with it doesn't activate its abilities either. It gives all your natural weapons whatever enchantments are on it. So it'd give dueling to all your natural weapons.
|
Yet another wrinkle: while I realize that Amulet of Mighty Fists does not make any mention of "non-Plus" properties, Bracers of Armor specifically state that they cannot be applied. Given the byzantine pricing scale used by the Amulet of Mighty Fists, I'm thinking they might have left this line out on accident.
Also, Amulet of Mighty Fists states that it only works for enhancements that can be applied to unarmed attacks; the "dueling" property is not clear in this regard.
Yet another wrinkle: while I realize that Amulet of Mighty Fists does not make any mention of "non-Plus" properties, Bracers of Armor specifically state that they cannot be applied. Given the byzantine pricing scale used by the Amulet of Mighty Fists, I'm thinking they might have left this line out on accident.
Also, Amulet of Mighty Fists states that it only works for enhancements that can be applied to unarmed attacks; the "dueling" property is not clear in this regard.
This is my reading of it too.
Also, in regards to the line about the pricing being left out on accident, to be fair there were no weapon enhancements in the core rulebook that were anything BUT a +X equivalent enhancement. It might be a good thing to add back in to clear up HOW such items should be treated, if permitted at all.
|
|
Magicdealer you be trolling.
Really.
I didn't realize that "trolling" was characterized by explicitly analyzing potential points of interpretative conflict and offering an opinion on how those interpretations should be resolved. Especially when the OP asks for opinions.
Catering to your argument about drawing a hand out of a pocket, let's actually look at the rules regarding drawing a weapon. Page 187 Core rulebook.
"Drawing a weapon so you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand is a move action." Since you can't put your unarmed strike away in a pocket, there is no drawing. It's always ready to attack with. Hand in your pocket? Use your forehead, your feet, your knees, ect. Or pull your hand out of your pocket and use it. Is that considered drawing a weapon? In my opinion no since you were never unable to make an unarmed strike.
You can't exactly disarm a monk, right? Even if you actually remove the arms.
Additionally, *in hand* implies that the weapon in question is *in* your *hand*. A monk can use a fist *as* a weapon, but can he wrap one hand around the other one and attack with it normally?
The wording does not clearly refer to "wielded" and "at the ready", because it does not use those terms. Certainly, that is one way to interpret them. It is by no means the only way, and not necessarily the correct way.
Perhaps you should try to prove your point using the rulebook instead of pointing fingers and name calling?
While our definition of trolling may or may not be in accord, by my definition an overly long argumentative post for no apparent reason but to continue a pointless derailing of the OP's question is indeed trolling. I'll stop feeding you now so go ahead and get the last word. :-)
Breaking RAW down to the level of detail you seem determined to do would probably make the game so contradictive that it would be unplayable.
Breaking RAW down to the level of detail you seem determined to do would probably make the game so contradictive that it would be unplayable.
^ this is what the rules forum is for (as you kindly pointed out earlier by stating that RAW is the default) and discussions more often then not involve reading into the meaning of each term.
Trolling is defined as not having an argumentative base and saying what is obviously known for causing conflict.
By RAW, no. The amulet allows an enchantment such as Dueling to be placed on it, but the enchantment won't allow itself to be placed on an object such as the amulet, because the amulet is not a weapon.Huh? AoMF isn't a weapon, but smacking someone over the head with it doesn't activate its abilities either. It gives all your natural weapons whatever enchantments are on it. So it'd give dueling to all your natural weapons.
Which is why it's silly, but that's what I'm reading.
By raw I do not think so, the only conceivable problem is that the cost of the amulet is balanced differently than a normal weapon per plus.
The reason for this is probably since you effectively get the enhancement on every single natural weapon you have. The bonus on disarm might be considered slightly more powerful, since you can get more attacks on your highest bonus, but the rest doesnt really seem to be a problem. If I had to houserule it I'd be making it a bit more expensive 24k seems decent.
|
|
Troubleshooter, consider this:
Ignoring for now whether an unarmed strike is a valid target, the general rules state that melee enchantments can only be places on melee weapons.
However, the amulet has a specific overriding line that supersedes the general rule. In quotes:
"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."
Again, the wording here becomes important. The amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities. It says nothing about actually being enchanted with them itself. Since it isn't actually being enchanted with the ability, the restriction doesn't come into play, and it can continue to grant any ability.
One way to think of it is like a spell-storing item. The item storing the spell doesn't have to be a valid target for the spell, it merely holds the spell and releases it on command.
|
|
Magicdealer, what are you even arguing? It appears that you're supporting the counter argument to your original post.
If this bonus can be applied to brass knuckles, which use unarmed strike, then this bonus would function with amulet of the mighty fists. You just pointed out that it is dependent upon being compatible with unarmed strikes, which your original post supported.
Honestly the only potential issue is whether or not you would increase the cost of the enhancement because it affects all natural attacks and unarmed strikes, which is a perfectly valid approach to applying this to multiple attacks.
I'm pretty sure all the bonuses can be applied to any attack, be it manufactured, natural, or unarmed, unless it specifically states that it is not compatible - like Vorpal Blade.
I guess you missed the line in the post where I said "Ignoring for now whether an unarmed strike is a valid target..."
There are two elements to this question. In my first post, I talked about whether an unarmed strike was a valid target for the enchantment. Then I tabled that in a later post, and addressed the question about whether the AMULET is a valid target to have a melee enchantment on it.
That was in reference to the post by troubleshooter about "the enchantment won't allow itself to be placed on an object such as the amulet, because the amulet is not a weapon"
The second question, from the comment by troubleshooter, is one that potentially applies to any melee enchantment. Thus, I can address that one while temporarily tabling the specific question about the dueling enchantment.