Amulet of Mighty Fists - how does one detach limbs?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

The rules allow one to use an AoMF to place melee weapon abilities on unarmed attacks. This would include the Throwing ability. How does one use a thrown unarmed attack? Does the fist or foot detach from the body, fly out, then return? Does it automatically reattach itself, or does one need a regeneration spell?

Sczarni

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I would say the enchantment is unable to be used for the very reason you're rationalizing. You can't just rip your arms off and throw them at someone. The enchantment simply doesn't apply.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Rocket Punch, FTW! (Shogun Warriors would be proud)

Or if you don't want to visualize it detaching,
Dhalsim-esq strechy limbs.

Grand Lodge

Ms.Fortune?

Anyways, this doesn't work.

Maybe you can nab a Throwing Gauntlet for a similar effect?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Anyways, this doesn't work.

Sadly true,

Here are the relevant rules that disallow it.

AoMF Entry wrote:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks
Throwing Entry wrote:
This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon.


See, that's what I would have thought, except that...

PRD wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

For a monk, an unarmed attack IS a melee weapon.


I don't see anywhere in the Natural Attack description that says it's classified as a melee weapon.

And a manufactured weapon isn't necessarily a melee weapon either.

And an Amulet still isn't a melee weapon regardless.


Derek Vande Brake wrote:

See, that's what I would have thought, except that...

PRD wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
For a monk, an unarmed attack IS a melee weapon.

And the enchantment would be placed on the amulet (not a melee weapon) not on the monks fists. The enchantments that are allowable on the amulet are then granted to the monks unarmed strikes.


I suspect Throwing would probably work with a Manticore's tail spikes. If you're not a manticore (or half-manticore Lamia, Sphinx, or Chimera) it's not terribly useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a thought, but then realized that any DM worth his salt would rule OTHER PEOPLE'S LIMBS to be clubs without batting an eyelash. (but an eyelash is a tiny whip and has no reach).

Grand Lodge

I still like the idea of Throwing Armor Spikes.


bbangerter wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:

See, that's what I would have thought, except that...

PRD wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
For a monk, an unarmed attack IS a melee weapon.
And the enchantment would be placed on the amulet (not a melee weapon) not on the monks fists. The enchantments that are allowable on the amulet are then granted to the monks unarmed strikes.

The amulet doesn't say weapon properties are placed on it. It simply says it grants properties to the unarmed strikes.

Rynjin wrote:

I don't see anywhere in the Natural Attack description that says it's classified as a melee weapon.

And a manufactured weapon isn't necessarily a melee weapon either.

And an Amulet still isn't a melee weapon regardless.

Actually, on further research the monk's special manufactured weapon rule doesn't even need to be here. Under equipment: "Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks..." and "...the weapon's usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons)..."

So if all weapons are either melee or ranged, then the only way an unarmed strike would NOT be a melee weapon is if it isn't a weapon. And yet, it is listed as a simple weapon on the weapons table. So it's a weapon, thus a melee weapon, thus eligible for the throwing property. And since the amulet grants properties, rather than holding the properties themselves, you can, RAW, put throwing on unarmed strikes with the amulet.

OTOH, if you instead hold that the properties are on the amulet, then all the wording about granting weapon properties is superfluous, since it also couldn't hold flaming, frost, disrupting, holy, etc, as those are weapon properties as well.


Agile can also only be placed on melee weapons. Surely you're not going to say that Agile Amulets of Mighty Fists don't exist now?

This isn't a tournament game. Not everything is a legal document worded precisely to interact perfectly with every other ability. If an interaction between between two effects creates a weird corner case, you're allowed to call it a weird corner case. You don't need to try to claim bizarre subtle wording secretly gives you the answer you want, especially when your argument is something absurd like "This thing that accepts melee weapon enhancements doesn't accept this enhancement because it's a melee weapon enhancement".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole point was that it was a bizarre and stupid argument.

Just like it's bizarre and stupid to have Throwing Fists.

Bizarre because...what?

And stupid because you damn sure better hope they're also Returning Fists or you're gonna be in a real pickle.


To Derek Vande Brake,

Pretty much this. The enhancement bonus of the aomf is only on the amulet. The ability of the amulet is that it beefs unarmed attack and damage. Enchanting magical weapon properties on an object is possible only if the the base object is a weapon. This is why you don't have characters walking around with +1 flaming burst rings and doing double the fire damage when they go full round attack.


The equalizer wrote:


To Derek Vande Brake,

Pretty much this. The enhancement bonus of the aomf is only on the amulet. The ability of the amulet is that it beefs unarmed attack and damage. Enchanting magical weapon properties on an object is possible only if the the base object is a weapon. This is why you don't have characters walking around with +1 flaming burst rings and doing double the fire damage when they go full round attack.

Which implies all of this: "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." is pointless text?


I think you have to go with the idea that, RAW yes you can put throwing on an amulet of mighty fists...

but it would be as effective as putting flaming on the same amulet, then going on an adventure to the plane of fire.

It's just not going to do anything.

You can't throw an arm, you can physically throw a sword... but you can't throw your arms.

because you are physically capable of throwing a sword, you gain the benefits. the only benefit of the throwing ability is that you gain a range increment of 10 feet, and you are counted as proficient with it. Basically it removes the "improvised throwing weapon" from the equation.

your own arms/body cannot be improvised throwing weapons, unless someone else is throwing you. you're not one of their natural weapons so the amulet won't grant them any proficiency, or the range increment of 10 feet.

So, we can summarize by saying:

Sure you can put throwing on an amulet of mighty fists, but it's not recommended because it's as useless as the NHL players and managers talking right now...


The question I'm asking isn't whether throwing can be applied to fists using an AoMF. RAW it is clear that it can. The question is, what happens when you do so?

I'm reminded of the skit from Life of Brian, where Stan (Loretta) insisted that he/she could have babies. When Reg declared he/she couldn't, Stan insisted Reg was being oppressive. It was eventually decided that Stan had the *right* to have babies, even if he couldn't physically do so. So would you say that the fists can have the Throwing ability, but lacking the ability to detach, can't physically be thrown? Would you rule that they come off, but you have basically removed the hand permanently barring regeneration? Or do you rule that upon recovery, perhaps with the Returning ability, the hand can be reattached easily?

EDIT: Ninja'd by kantas, at least for the first interpretation.


Again, sure it can be applied to fists... but how are you going to throw them?? they are attached to you...

that's the issue. Sure they have a range increment of 10 feet, but HOW do you throw them to take advantage of that?

Grand Lodge

Well, even if you could detach a limb, then the Amulet would no longer effect the limb, as it is no longer part of the body that the Amulet is effecting.


Make the dwarf wear it so you can throw them more easily.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Make the dwarf wear it so you can throw them more easily.

The dwarf isn't one of your natural weapons... so the amulet wouldn't apply to the dwarf...

however, that wouldn't preclude a nasty caster from creating an amulet of dwarf tossing...


Construct monk with detachable rocket-propelled fists.

Grand Lodge

In fact, even if you have an Amulet of Mighty Fists with an appropriate enchantment like Flaming, it will not effect a detached limb.

You cannot cut off your leg, and wield it with two hands, and have a Flaming weapon that deal x1.5 strength to damage.

Limbs must be attached to be effected by an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

Liberty's Edge

As above, the second you detach a part from your body and use at as a weapon, it becomes an improvised weapon and no longer part of your body. The whole scenario is irrelevant.

You start this as a joke it seems like, but want to defend it like it is some kinds rule you should be allowed to do.


Maybe you can throw away the amulet, and... it comes back!


Much like Hawkeye in The Ultimates, you rip out your fingernails and throw them at the enemy, killing them. Only in this case they then magically return to you so you can throw them again.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want the Dancing enchantment on my AoMF. Then I'll run around kicking people while my arms do their thing.


You need a Mech Custom Race with the Rocket Punch racial feat for this to work.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
I want the Dancing enchantment on my AoMF. Then I'll run around kicking people while my arms do their thing.

Dancing AND Throwing. So you can send your arms to beat up one opponent, while you're kicking another.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way, but it's funny.


Hadouken.

Lantern Lodge

Rayman...


I think the tarresque would be able to get some benefit out of the amulet for the spines it can shoot. Remember, the Amulet of Mighty Fists is not primairily intended to enhance the monk's unarmed strike, but instead is intended for animal companions and as a way for creatures with natural weapons to enhance their attacks with magical effects. I think there are several creatures that can shoot spines or make some other throwing type attack with their natural weapons.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."

It doesn't say it can grant any melee weapon special abilities. Why on earth would you think Throwing is an ability applicable to unarmed attacks?


Serpent wrote:

"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."

It doesn't say it can grant any melee weapon special abilities. Why on earth would you think Throwing is an ability applicable to unarmed attacks?

Because throwing is an ability that is applicable to melee weapons and an unarmed attack is a melee weapon. Correct me if i'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the only weapon qualities that can be added to an AoMF are ones that specifically say "can be added to unarmed attacks" of which I am pretty sure there are zero. Therefore the AoMF would be absolutely useless save fro the +5 enhancement bonus.


What we're saying is that you can add the property but it serves no purpose since you can't effectively throw unarmed strikes. It would be little different from a ranged weapon such as a crossbow or firearm that requires a swift action to reload having the Speed enhancement on it. If you get 2 iterative attacks + 1 bonus from the Speed effect, that bonus attack is wasted because you have only 1 swift action with which to reload your weapon. Putting Throwing on an AoMF is permissible, but it gives you no benefit.

Liberty's Edge

Shinigaze wrote:
Serpent wrote:

"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."

It doesn't say it can grant any melee weapon special abilities. Why on earth would you think Throwing is an ability applicable to unarmed attacks?

Because throwing is an ability that is applicable to melee weapons and an unarmed attack is a melee weapon. Correct me if i'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the only weapon qualities that can be added to an AoMF are ones that specifically say "can be added to unarmed attacks" of which I am pretty sure there are zero. Therefore the AoMF would be absolutely useless save fro the +5 enhancement bonus.

You are wrong. Check the quote again where Serpent bolded it.

This is clearly a logic statement to check ("so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks"):

Can you throw an unarmed attack? If no, you cannot apply it to AoMF.

Can your unarmed attacks be on fire magically and that fire damage someone struck? yes. This can be applied to AoMF

Are your unarmed strikes piercing or slashing weapons? if so then keen can be added effectively, otherwise no.

It is a simple process to go through that any DM will be able to do.

And as to "Why on earth would you think Throwing is an ability applicable to unarmed attacks?", your guess is as good as mine. Some people get energized debating things, no matter how trivial or how much they actually believe what they are saying.


I actually did a double take on the "so long as it can be applied to unarmed attacks" and said to myself Crap there goes my vorpal claws / bite attacks...

then i thought about it more and said, you know... my claws are slashing, and they are my unarmed attack... so it should work out just fine...

However, because i'm a Sorcerer, i think a better enchantment would be Brilliant Energy, so that i'm hitting mostly a touch AC.

sadly, in my party, i'm a sorcerer / backup tank... I'm starting out in Dragon Disciple, and i have the second highest AC, and the second most HP. (thank you D12 HD!!)

Our Druid is also being a pain in the backside. it was like pulling teeth to get him to make potions of greater magic fang for me and his tiger... which eventually we'll use it to permanency on the tiger and myself.

On a side note, i don't really feel like adding a seperate thread when there's already an AoMF thread going...

If I add fire to an AoMF, then through the draconic bloodline i gain D6 fire damage to my claw / bite attacks... do they stack? or not? i can't recall exactly, and i'm a little lazy right now to look it up. My gut is telling me they don't stack. but I don't trust it here, cause it's a little different than an enhancement bonus to an attack...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Shinigaze wrote:
Serpent wrote:

"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."

It doesn't say it can grant any melee weapon special abilities. Why on earth would you think Throwing is an ability applicable to unarmed attacks?

Because throwing is an ability that is applicable to melee weapons and an unarmed attack is a melee weapon. Correct me if i'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the only weapon qualities that can be added to an AoMF are ones that specifically say "can be added to unarmed attacks" of which I am pretty sure there are zero. Therefore the AoMF would be absolutely useless save fro the +5 enhancement bonus.

In the SRD, Equipment > Weapons > Table: Weapons there are five categories of weapons: Unarmed Attacks, Light Melee Weapons, One-Handed Melee Weapons, Two-Handed Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons. While you can attack adjacent creatures with Unarmed Attacks, they're a category separate from the three melee weapon categories. See also Table: Actions in Combat and the relevant paragraphs of text. There's Melee Attacks, Unarmed Attacks and Ranged Attacks, all separate categories. The Unarmed Attacks section even says (emphasis mine): "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:"

"Much like" is not "the same as". And although monks don't provoke AoOs with their unarmed attacks, their fists still do not count as light melee weapons; they're still unarmed attacks. Much like Point-Blank Master doesn't make your ranged attacks melee attacks even though you no longer provoke.

I don't know if that's enough proof for you that unarmed attacks are not melee weapons, but that's not even relevant.

What's relevant is the little clause "so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks" in the amulet description. If the clause didn't exist, you could use any melee weapon enchantments. But it is there and it very strongly implies that some melee weapon enchantments are ok and some are not. Or do you disagree? Do you think those words mean nothing in this context? The CRB does not specify which melee weapon enchantments are ok, but "can be applied to" makes sense in the English language even without a rules construct to explain it. (EDIT: And Shar Tahl explained pretty well above what they mean.)

In all seriousness, --I know it's a fantasy game with dragons and fireballs-- but is it really necessary explain in a rulebook that you cannot throw your hands?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Bah! (Throws his hands up in the air)...


Shar Tahl wrote:

You are wrong. Check the quote again where Serpent bolded it.

This is clearly a logic statement to check ("so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks"):

Can you throw an unarmed attack? If no, you cannot apply it to AoMF.

Can your unarmed attacks be on fire magically and that fire damage someone struck? yes. This can be applied to AoMF

Are your unarmed strikes piercing or slashing weapons? if so then keen can be added effectively, otherwise no.

It is a simple process to go through that any DM will be able to do.

And as to "Why on earth would you think Throwing is an ability applicable to unarmed attacks?", your guess is as good as mine. Some people get energized debating things, no matter how trivial or how much they actually believe what they are saying.

I had this argument prepared about how I thought the "so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks" sentence was just to stop people from adding ranged weapon properties to the AoMF but then I read the description and it says you can only apply melee weapon properties so that wouldn't make any sense. So I can agree with your assesment of it being a logic check.

As to why people argue the rules on the rules forum, it's because some people have a hard time differentiationg between RAW and RAI and come on here shouting "you are wrong! you are stupid! how do you not see what I see!!!" and so we feel obligated to try and explain how some things, while unbalancing or dumb, are still perfectly within the rules to do.


Rynjin wrote:
An Amulet is not a melee weapon.

This is irrelevant. The weapon properties are not applied to the amulet, they are applied to natural attacks and unarmed strikes THROUGH the amulet. When you apply Flaming your fists catch fire, not the amulet.

Serpent wrote:
I don't know if that's enough proof for you that unarmed attacks are not melee weapons, but that's not even relevant.

If you are trying to prove that an AoMF cannot grant an ability because unarmed attacks are not a melee weapon, then you are invalidating every single enhancement possible. This is obviously not the case. By this logic, Flaming also would not work.

---------

By all counts of logic, I can see no rule or reason that you cannot apply this property to the AoMF. What does this mean as consequences however?

Your unarmed attacks receive a range increment of 10 feet.

Okay, fair enough. However, I see no reason that the magic would detach your unarmed attacks. There's certainly no mention of that part of the property anywhere. There's also no rules that clarify what happens when you are attached to your weapon, but I can surmise that you are not able to launch the rest of your body along with it. If you get magically attached to your throwing dagger, I'd say as a GM that you're not throwing that either.

Also, if your hand becomes detached, it would lose the magical property Throwing.

So, in short: The rules seem quite clear that you CAN enchant the amulet this way, however the rules show no signs of a single action you can take to take advantage of this.

I'd probably rule that your hands feel a little tingly and call it a day.


GrenMeera wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
An Amulet is not a melee weapon.
This is irrelevant. The weapon properties are not applied to the amulet, they are applied to natural attacks and unarmed strikes THROUGH the amulet. When you apply Flaming your fists catch fire, not the amulet.

Nope. You have to enchant the Amulet first.

Meaning you apply the property to the Amulet and it then passes on the property to the fists.

But the Amulet is not a melee weapon, therefore you cannot apply those properties in the first place.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shinigaze wrote:
Serpent wrote:

"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."

It doesn't say it can grant any melee weapon special abilities. Why on earth would you think Throwing is an ability applicable to unarmed attacks?

Because throwing is an ability that is applicable to melee weapons and an unarmed attack is a melee weapon. Correct me if i'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the only weapon qualities that can be added to an AoMF are ones that specifically say "can be added to unarmed attacks" of which I am pretty sure there are zero. Therefore the AoMF would be absolutely useless save fro the +5 enhancement bonus.

This is the perfect example of what I call a RAWYer. Someone who apparently lives to twist RAW text until RAI is bent over and screaming. Your circular logic is no longer worth a response, because I've seen this idiotic argument way too many times to bother pointing out it's fallacies again.

But I'll say this one more time. RAW text in and of itself is not sufficient proof of a statement especially if the conclusion can clearly be shown to be acting outside of the intent of the rules, and implies capabilities not found by raw otherwise.


Rynjin >> You're trying to tell me you cannot use an AoMF to apply Flaming? The amulet is not a weapon so obviously it cannot be Flaming, which is applied to melee weapons.

The AoMF has been used in pre-made campaigns and discussed numerous times in FAQs and Errata. I can tell you without a single doubt in my mind that you are wrong when you tell me I cannot have a Flaming AoMF.


If you detach your hand it loses the properties given by the AoMF, but what if you're undead and detach your head and neck?


Atarlost wrote:
If you detach your hand it loses the properties given by the AoMF, but what if you're undead and detach your head and neck?

I at first tried thinking along these lines as well, but after reading more into it, there's no CLEAR undead properties that really moderate detaching limbs.

I even tried reading up on the Homunculus, but it appears that Pathfinder Homunculi don't work close enough to the original myth either.

In the end, I still haven't found a CLEAR method to detach limbs to take advantage of this while maintaining a connection to the amulet. Even Flesh Golems would require a lot of GM arbitrating for how it can be fashioned.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Man what the

Come on, guys.
Seriously.


GrenMeera wrote:

Rynjin >> You're trying to tell me you cannot use an AoMF to apply Flaming? The amulet is not a weapon so obviously it cannot be Flaming, which is applied to melee weapons.

The AoMF has been used in pre-made campaigns and discussed numerous times in FAQs and Errata. I can tell you without a single doubt in my mind that you are wrong when you tell me I cannot have a Flaming AoMF.

Just sayin' if he wants to play that game I can too.

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Amulet of Mighty Fists - how does one detach limbs? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.