| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?No. But the unarmed attacks and natural weapons it grants the enhancement bonus to definitely are.Is the Amulet of Mighty Fists a weapon?
Nice try. Is a Belt of Giant Strength a weapon?
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.
Nice try. Is a Belt of Giant Strength a weapon?Sure, it's an improvised one - with an enhancement bonus that goes to +6! It's an epic weapon!
That's interesting. I'll need some time to search the rules for how improvised weapons work. I'm not familiar with them.
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?
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.
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 many 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.
If your speaking of James Jacobs that doesn't mean anything official. He even said as such. Right at the beginning of this thread.
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.
"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."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.
Enhancement bonus to strength. Not to your weapon. And what kind of bonus does strength provide to your weapon?
The major quote from the rules that is being discussed is as follows:
Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.
At the moment, I am seeing three types being mentioned as points in this debate.
1) Enhancement bonus to Strength
2) Enhancement bonus to attack and damage
3) Enhancement bonus to a weapon
Now, an enhancement bonus to strength affects your attack roll, but it also changes your carrying capacity and skills. I would attest that an enhancement bonus to strength is in no way considered applying an enhancement bonus to your weapon. Being stronger is not a property of the weapon.
Obviously number three would bypass damage reduction, as it is a direct quote of the rules.
This leaves us with the wording of number two. A clear reading of this would indicate to me that it is a different enhancement bonus and does not count. However, it is slightly more complicated than this. The Amulet of Mighty Fists specifically points out that it is applied to a weapon (unarmed strikes).
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
This would suggest that the Enhancement bonus to attack rolls is specifically a property of these weapons, as it does not apply to all attack and damage rolls.
I generally would rule that the Amulet can allow damage reduction to be bypassed, but with all the facts in hand I think there is no clear resolution. Both sides have RAW that backs up their claims.
I know, it just makes the issue even more murky.
No it doesn't. We are talking RAW. James Jacobs as much as i like him isn't the voice of RAW and said so himself. He stated an opinion in his thread of what he would do in his game. A House Rule.
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.
I'm simply stating the rules. Damage Reduction asks for; "Magic Weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality)"
The Amulet grants an Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons. Both of which are weapons. Voila. They should be able to bypass DR since they meet the restriction.
Does an improvised weapon with an enhancement bonus penetrate DR?
This is one very specific thing i don't want to answer because i'm not certain. I'm not all knowing and i don't know how Improvised Weapons work when in that situation.
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?Enhancement bonus to strength. Not to your weapon. And what kind of bonus does strength provide to your weapon?"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."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.
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.
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?Enhancement bonus to strength. Not to your weapon. And what kind of bonus does strength provide to your weapon?"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."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.
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? 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. 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.
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.
|
The belt of giant strength wasn't a serious example, it was used rhetorically, in order to further illustrate how unclear the rules around this are. A belt of giant strength obviously is not intended to penetrate DR. I simply used it because it has an enhancement bonus.
DR is asking for a weapon with an enhancement bonus. A +1 longsword has a an enhancement bonus of +1, which means that it bypasses DR X/magic, and also confers an enhancement bonus of +1 to attack and damage rolls. The amulet simply confers the enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. The amulet does not say the wearer's unarmed/natural attacks are treated as if they were +X weapons, which seems to mean that they don't penetrate DR.
An "enhancement bonus" is different than an "enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls", just as an "enhancement bonus to Strength" is different from an "enhancement bonus to natural armor." Enhancement is a bonus type, and not all enhancement bonuses are equal.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
Aye. The section on DR states that it has to be a weapon with an enhancement bonus. Now a weapon with an enhancement bonus is the same to a weapon with GMW cast on it as the unarmed strike with an AoMF is to an Unarmed strike with GMF cast on it, so I would say the AoMF would count - I can see why some would disagree, but it would be a dick move to nerf the AoMF when it costs as much as it does.We are talking about disarm immunity though. Do you even understand how powerful that is? Everyone else needs to buy a weapon cord or a locked gauntlet, but not the monk!
Disarm. Immunity.
Technically, you can disarm a monk. He can still kick you, though.
Technically, you can disarm a monk. He can still kick you, though.Aye. The section on DR states that it has to be a weapon with an enhancement bonus. Now a weapon with an enhancement bonus is the same to a weapon with GMW cast on it as the unarmed strike with an AoMF is to an Unarmed strike with GMF cast on it, so I would say the AoMF would count - I can see why some would disagree, but it would be a dick move to nerf the AoMF when it costs as much as it does.We are talking about disarm immunity though. Do you even understand how powerful that is? Everyone else needs to buy a weapon cord or a locked gauntlet, but not the monk!
Disarm. Immunity.
You can only disarm a monk if he's carrying something. If he's got a sword, dagger, wand, staff etc, you can disarm him. But if he's only using unarmed strikes, you can't disarm him at all.
Cutting his limbs off is still an option though, but then he'd head but you. So you cut his head off, and if he's still alive, he slaps you with his torso. So you cut that off, then he hits you with his butt....
The Monk is like the Black Knight form Monty Python, completely ineffectual in combat, but never unarmed and always combat ready.
Brain in a Jar >> I think the point of contention is that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not necessarily the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon.
This is exemplified by the fact that an Enhancement bonus to a weapon also increases Hardness and Hit Points of the weapon.
However, if the attack and damage subset properties of the weapon being enhanced is applicable to saying it is an enhancement to the weapon, this is unknown. It's a matter of inclusive sets in wordage.
Taking a slight detour here, but going to the Magus and his arcane pool: does spending an arcane pool point to give a weapon an enhancement bonus apply only to attack rolls and damage rolls, or does it increase the hardness and hitpoints of the weapon?
I am not sure, which is why I ask.
MA
|
|
Taking a slight detour here, but going to the Magus and his arcane pool: does spending an arcane pool point to give a weapon an enhancement bonus apply only to attack rolls and damage rolls, or does it increase the hardness and hitpoints of the weapon?
I am not sure, which is why I ask.
MA
It says it increases the enhancement bonus of the weapon, so yes.
I'm an avid reader of the Ask James thread and he's said on a couple occasions that he dislikes the Enhancement bonus bypassing DR and has even said that he argued against it when Pathfinder is still in development and that he obviously lost that argument.
It says it increases the enhancement bonus of the weapon, so yes.Taking a slight detour here, but going to the Magus and his arcane pool: does spending an arcane pool point to give a weapon an enhancement bonus apply only to attack rolls and damage rolls, or does it increase the hardness and hitpoints of the weapon?
I am not sure, which is why I ask.
MA
So, both the Magus arcane pool and Paladin divine bond class features state that you gain an enhancement bonus to your selected weapon, correct? Not an enhancement bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls, but just an enhancement bonus.
The amulet of mighty fists, however, as has been stated before, differs in the wording and grants only an enhancement bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls with unarmed strikes and natural attacks. Is that not correct?
I fall in the camp that words have meaning. Why would the designers add five extraneous words to AoMF if they wanted the AoMF to bestow the same enhancement bonus of standard magic weapons and the class features of these two classes? If the description had said "this amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on unarmed attacks and natural weapons" there would be no cause for a question here.
But it doesn't.
So, do enhancement bonuses to attack rolls and damage rolls equal enhancement bonuses (with no qualifiers)? Do they do exactly the same thing in all particulars? If they do, then why were those words added?
I don't have answers here. I am just asking the questions.
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brain in a Jar >> I think the point of contention is that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not necessarily the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon.
This is exemplified by the fact that an Enhancement bonus to a weapon also increases Hardness and Hit Points of the weapon.
However, if the attack and damage subset properties of the weapon being enhanced is applicable to saying it is an enhancement to the weapon, this is unknown. It's a matter of inclusive sets in wordage.
Where in the rules does it say that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon in reference to penetrating damage reduction? There is no such distinction in the rules, you have to add that interpretation. An enhancement bonus to attack and damage doesn't add to hardness or hit points, but where does it say that is the needed quality to be able to penetrate damage reduction? Again it doesn't ever say that, you add that part. The rules are pretty consistent about calling out things specifically when they don't apply. Following Brain's example you don't need to make these leaps in logic, the ruling naturally follows from reading the rules at face value (in my opinion).
The monks fist is a weapon, the amulet grants it an enhancement bonus, it penetrates damage reduction. The belt is a silly attempt to cloud the issue because their is no direct rules to support the other sides arguments, just supposition. Just like a +4 shield cannot penetrate damage reduction (without feats or being enchanted like a weapon), because it is not a weapon even when used to bash and the enhancement bonus is to armor the belts is to strength not attack or damage like a weapon. Although you probably could enchant a belt like a weapon to give it an enhancement bonus so it could penetrate DR just like you can on a shield, but that is a separate magical property from the strength boost and uses the table for magic weapons for pricing.
As to why the developers would add the extraneous only to attack and damage to the AoMF probably because they didn't want people reading too far into the rules and trying to claim that the amulet of mighty fists gives their monk hardness and extra hit points.
In summation, whether or not the rules are clear to some and not others it is obvious that there is a lot of contention over the wording of this item and the Community needs the FAQ to settle the question.
I fall in the camp that words have meaning. Why would the designers add five extraneous words to AoMF if they wanted the AoMF to bestow the same enhancement bonus of standard magic weapons and the class features of these two classes? If the description had said "this amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on unarmed attacks and natural weapons" there would be no cause for a question here.
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).
3.5 version: Amulet of Mighty Fists
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#amuletofMightyFists
Pathfinder:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/amule t-of-mighty-fists
So they aren't identical...they added stuff to AoMF.
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?
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.
A belt of giant strength provides an enhancement bonus to strength - and would not stack with the spell bull's strength for example.
Strength in turn provides an ability modifier bonus (or penalty as the case may be) to melee weapon attack and damage rolls. Ability modifier bonuses do not qualify for by passing DR, only enhancement bonuses do. The extra attack/damage from wearing a belt of giant strength is not an enhancement bonus from the belt. The extra attack/damage comes from the secondary effect of having your strength enhanced.
Where in the rules does it say that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon in reference to penetrating damage reduction? There is no such distinction in the rules, you have to add that interpretation. An enhancement bonus to attack and damage doesn't add to hardness or hit points, but where does it say that is the needed quality to be able to penetrate damage reduction? Again it doesn't ever say that, you add that part. The rules are pretty consistent about calling out things specifically when they don't apply. Following Brain's example you don't need to make these leaps in logic, the ruling naturally follows from reading the rules at face value (in my opinion).
What? You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I did not say. I never took a stance or made an interpretation. I, in fact, agree with Brain in a Jar as I stated earlier.
My choice of words were specifically to point out where interpretations came from and why there is confusion. I specifically said "I think the point of contention is" and "This is exemplified by" and chose these words for a reason. This does not dictate my interpretation or stance.
Unless, of course, I am misunderstanding your pronouns. If you mean "you" as a collective instead of directed at me, I apologize for the confusion.
I use the Devil's Advocate approach specifically to spread awareness of perspectives. In fact, to continue this trend:
Where in the rules does it say that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon in reference to penetrating damage reduction? There is no such distinction in the rules, you have to add that interpretation.
Where in the rules does it say that they are? There is no distinction in the rules, and you have to add that interpretation as well.
Both interpretations are just that, interpretations. They each have logical validity depending upon wordage. I happen to agree with Brain in a Jar, however it seemed like the points being addressed by others were vague. I tried to clarify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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:
- AoMF grants an enhancement bonus to attack and damage for unarmed and natural attacks.
- Weapons with an enhancement bonus can bypass certain types of DR.
- Unarmed strikes are weapons, at least for monks.
- I'd say this carries over even for non-monks, due to the amulet, but I have less support for this argument.
Well, that's all you actually need, but here are more points:
- Greater Magic Fang has no impact on how AoMF performs. It is merely a spell prerequisite. You don't usually need to know how a spell prerequisite works for a wondrous item before using the item. There are exceptions, e.g. Boots of Teleportation, but you can note that said item refers to the spell specifically in the text (not just prereqs), so you need to look up the range and failure chances. AoMF does not mention "as though the spell Greater Magic Fang were cast", not to mention that it does things that spell cannot do.
- It's true that the very fact that GMF and GMW mention that the enhancement bonus doesn't bypass DR doesn't necessarily mean that the default assumption is that unarmed strikes and natural attacks would normally bypass DR if they had enhancement bonuses. However, it is a very strong implication. The rules occasionally have redundant statements, but I believe this is not one of them.
- AoMF being a wondrous item is only beneficial (effect-wise, that is -- it is a disadvantage in that it takes up a slot, but I'm talking about effect). It doesn't have the enhancement bonus, it grants a property to the wearer - which means it can be worn rather than wielded. Advantage. Also, it being a wondrous item means it has its own rules, as I mentioned earlier. It is quite strong (though costly), considering. Advantage.
Edit: forgot something: language "having an enhancement bonus" and "being granted an enhancement bonus", and similar forms, are equivalent. Even if "to rolls" is in there. Things do not need to have the exact same language everywhere to be the same thing.
Where in the rules does it say that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon in reference to penetrating damage reduction? There is no such distinction in the rules, you have to add that interpretation. An enhancement bonus to attack and damage doesn't add to hardness or hit points, but where does it say that is the needed quality to be able to penetrate damage reduction? Again it doesn't ever say that, you add that part. The rules are pretty consistent about calling out things specifically when they don't apply. Following Brain's example you don't need to make these leaps in logic, the ruling naturally follows from reading the rules at face value (in my opinion).What? You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I did not say. I never took a stance or made an interpretation. I, in fact, agree with Brain in a Jar as I stated earlier.
My choice of words were specifically to point out where interpretations came from and why there is confusion. I specifically said "I think the point of contention is" and "This is exemplified by" and chose these words for a reason. This does not dictate my interpretation or stance.
Unless, of course, I am misunderstanding your pronouns. If you mean "you" as a collective instead of directed at me, I apologize for the confusion.
I use the Devil's Advocate approach specifically to spread awareness of perspectives. In fact, to continue this trend:
Where in the rules does it say that an Enhancement bonus to attack and damage of a weapon is not the same thing as an Enhancement bonus to a weapon in reference to penetrating damage reduction? There is no such distinction in the rules, you have to add that interpretation.Where in the rules does it say that they are? There is no distinction in the rules, and you have to add that interpretation as well.
Both interpretations are just that, interpretations. They each have logical validity...
Sorry the you was referring to the argument not that you had presented it, you had just clarified it and I was responding to the clarified idea not you.
"Where in the rules does it say that they are?"
Under the Damage Reduction penetration rules it references enhancement bonus, that's where it mentions it. Adding a qualification to that rule is not necessary, reading the rule as presented and not adding anything gives Brain's ruling which is the more logical presentation. The rule says what it says you don't need to add additional meaning, the rules are pretty good at calling out exceptions when they are meant to (like GMW), you don't have to invent ones. If you try hard enough you can twist the meaning of almost any statement, that doesn't make it a valid interpretation. If there truly was a void as far as the rules go Brain couldn't quote all the rules that he does and it would really be up to interpretation, but there are rules in place and sure you can try to stretch those rules to fit different meanings, but the farther you stretch them the less valid the interpretation (in terms of RAW).
Again not directing the above at your Gren but at the argument that you clarified. While I don't agree with the logic of the side that thinks it doesn't penetrate, I do respect that it is what they believe and that the only way to settle the issue for the Community is to have an official ruling via the FAQ. Until that time this is a gray area for the Community.
Where are all these Enhancement bonuses coming from? Seriously, where?
They seem to be able to do all sorts of wonderful things...
They can increase your ability scores
They can increase your saving throws
They can increase your skills
They can increase your attack & damage
Surely they are all coming from MAGIC.
So why wouldn't it follow that an attack from any source classified as a weapon with an enhancement bonus would be magical.
To make the Amulet of Might Fists you need to be able to create Wondrous Items - which are magical things.
An AoMF with the shocking ability has clearly been made magical and therefore by-passes DR/Magic.
So why wouldn't it follow that an attack from any source classified as a weapon with an enhancement bonus would be magical.
The distinction is that there are some who have reasonable doubt for it qualifying as a weapon with an enhancement bonus.
The standpoint is that it is an attack roll and a damage roll with an enhancement bonus, not a weapon with an enhancement bonus. Weapons with enhancement bonuses receive more than just bonuses to attack and damage rolls.
Though this is perfectly valid logic, I see it as stretching the intent, which is why I am in the same mind as Brain in a Jar.
So why wouldn't it follow that an attack from any source classified as a weapon with an enhancement bonus would be magical.The distinction is that there are some who have reasonable doubt for it qualifying as a weapon with an enhancement bonus.
The standpoint is that it is an attack roll and a damage roll with an enhancement bonus, not a weapon with an enhancement bonus. Weapons with enhancement bonuses receive more than just bonuses to attack and damage rolls.
Though this is perfectly valid logic, I see it as stretching the intent, which is why I am in the same mind as Brain in a Jar.
Well if the damage is coming from an unarmed/natural source it's a weapon and if the damage is enhanced, it's magical and if it's magical, it by-passes.
The damage has been magically altered, it must be magical damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
|
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.
Precisely!
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.
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.
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.
If they have improved unarmed strike though, which if a fighter was planning on fighting this way, they wouldn't provoke AoO.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.
Absolutely :-)
However, I was under the impression that the question aimed at just using gauntlets. Otherwise I do not understand why one should choose to wear those gauntlets (other than for enchanting or special materials).
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any official word yet? Come on, Paizo guys, this is a simple question: either yes, they do, or no, they don't. Can't we get an answer?
MA
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Okay, another question for you folks: if the AoMF does bypass DR (as a magic weapon), then does a monk (or druid or animal companion or brawler or what-have-you) wearing the amulet consider his natural attacks or unarmed strike as a magic weapon for purposes of incorporeal creatures? I.e., 50% damage as opposed to complete immunity for non-magical weapons?
And why are we still waiting on this . . . why? Yes or no? Come on, people, it either does or doesn't, there isn't a middle ground.
MA
Okay, another question for you folks: if the AoMF does bypass DR (as a magic weapon), then does a monk (or druid or animal companion or brawler or what-have-you) wearing the amulet consider his natural attacks or unarmed strike as a magic weapon for purposes of incorporeal creatures? I.e., 50% miss chance as opposed to complete immunity for non-magical weapons?
And why are we still waiting on this . . . why? Yes or no? Come on, people, it either does or doesn't, there isn't a middle ground.
MA
Incorporeal: yes, the amulet would allow to affect them :-)
Any official word yet? Come on, Paizo guys, this is a simple question: either yes, they do, or no, they don't. Can't we get an answer?
MA
Just wait this will probably be convered when/if we the get the monk coverage.
I am not sure if the question has been asked already: Does an AoMF make an attack automatically magical? Or would it need the +1 enhancement modifier on it?
For example, let's say you have a creature with DR 10/magic, and you attack it with a flaming amulet of mighty fists. Do you ignore the DR or not?
Another example - which triggered this thought - if you have a ghost touch AoMF, again with no enhancement modifiers. You then attack an incorporeal creature: Ghost touch should make you affect them 100%, and the "regardless of its bonus" language in the ability seems to imply that as well. On the other hand, incorporeal creatures are immune to nonmagical weapon damage...
So again, regardless of the ability or enhancement modifier of an AoMF, does it make the attacks magical?