Clockwork Prosthesis and Weapon Enhancements

[chbgraphicarts]

Clockwork Prosthetic Arm from the Magical Marketplace says "For the appropriate price, a clockwork arm can be enchanted with any weapon special ability so long as the ability can be applied to unarmed attacks."

I'm kinda wondering about a few things:

Can it only be enchanted with ONE Special Ability, or any number (per the normal rules, so up to a total +10), for the appropriate price?

Also, can it be granted numeric +1-+5 bonuses in addition to abilities like Flaming, or is it restricted to JUST Abilities?

[christos gurd]

Any, its enchanted as a weapon. Get your +4 flaming, impact, flacon punch.

[Bob Bob Bob]

I'm guessing the goal is to treat the arm as a weapon that can be enchanted like any other weapon. The exact text seems to imply that you can only apply special abilities, not flat +X enhancements. This comes into conflict with the language of magic weapons that says you need at least a +1 bonus and the arm doesn't have specific language (like Amulet of Mighty Fists) to contradict that.

Magic Weapons wrote:

"A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once."

The arm doesn't say only one special ability, so you should be able to keep enchanting it with more abilities.

The arm doesn't say you don't need a +1 enhancement before applying abilities, so you better be able to apply +1-+5 bonuses or the line about giving it special abilities doesn't work.

Short answer, assume it's a weapon and treat it as such.

[graystone]

Also notice that it enhances unarmed attacks, NOT attacks with the arm. Nothing stops you from kicking someone with all the enhancements from the arm.

[Rhatahema]

graystone wrote:

Also notice that it enhances unarmed attacks, NOT attacks with the arm. Nothing stops you from kicking someone with all the enhancements from the arm.

It allows you to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal with any unarmed strike, but it never says the weapon special ability is actually applied to your unarmed attacks. It only states that the arm can be enchanted with weapon special abilities so long as the ability can be applied to unarmed attacks. Also, you need to "enchant" your clockwork arm to apply those properties, which is tricky since weapons are usually "enhanced" with magic...

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't written with the utmost precision. Going off the text, I'd say the intent is that the ability to deal lethal damage applies only to unarmed strikes made with the arm, that the weapon enhancements apply only to unarmed strikes made with the arm, and that the enhancement process is identical to other magic weapons (including the prerequisite +1 bonus). If the weapon enhancements applied to all your unarmed strikes, you'd be getting a big discount compared to an amulet of mighty fists when two-weapon fighting (assuming no flurry). And it just makes thematic sense. The flaming clockwork arm shouldn't set your feet on fire. Though it would be nice if the legs could be similarly enhanced.

[Bob Bob Bob]

graystone wrote:

Also notice that it enhances unarmed attacks, NOT attacks with the arm. Nothing stops you from kicking someone with all the enhancements from the arm.

That is not what it says at all. What it says is "a clockwork arm can be enchanted with any weapon special ability so long as the ability can be applied to unarmed attacks". That means the arm is what's enchanted, and it can only take special abilities you could also use on unarmed strikes. It's a restriction, that's all.

[graystone]

RAI MAY be that it requires a strike with the arm, but the RAW is that it's any unarmed strike.

To Bob Bob Bob, the arm allows your you to deal lethal damage with any of your unarmed attacks. If enchanted, it would affect attacks that the arm effects (unarmed). It's missing any kind of 'with this arm' text to limit it to unarmed attacks with that limb.

Rhatahema: It may be a bargain for monks buy lets face it, they get robbed with a amulet of mighty fists. Flurry only needs ONE weapon so the amulet in reality is overpriced for them. For druids and natural attack builds it's priced right.

[Rhatahema]

It might be missing any kind of "with this arm" text, but if you want to fixate on the rules as written, it only states that the arm can be enhanced with weapon properties applicable to unarmed strikes, not that those weapon properties apply to your unarmed strikes. The rules for dealing lethal damage with unarmed strikes aren't linked to the enhancement at all. Again, not my read of it, but if you have to make an interpretation for it to function, you should interpret according to intent.

As far as the Amulet of Mighty fists goes, sure, I agree with that. But my point is that Paizo wouldn't write the clockwork arm in such a way as to make the AoMF obsolete (they've stated as much). And if you interpret it as I think it's intended, which is to apply the enhancements only to unarmed strikes made with the arm, it accomplishes the balance you're looking for; you're getting a single magic unarmed strike priced as a single magic weapon (minus the relatively minor cost of the arm itself).

[Bob Bob Bob]

We're in the Rules Forum, not Advice. By the rules, the arm is the only thing enchanted. Only attacks with an enchanted weapon can get the bonuses, so while you can make any unarmed strike you want only ones using the arm can ever possibly benefit from the special abilities.

[chbgraphicarts]

graystone wrote:

RAI MAY be that it requires a strike with the arm, but the RAW is that it's any unarmed strike.

I gotta say I never did, don't, and won't go with the idea that it's akin to an AoMF and grants effects to all unarmed attacks. I understood from the get-go, even RAW, that all enhancements only applied to the Arm.

"So long as it can be applied to unarmed attacks" is read as a similar restricting clause as "so long as it can be applied to ranged attacks" or "so long as it can be applied to bludgeoning weapons", etc.; it's a clause saying that you can't, for instance, apply Throwing to it, or subsequently Returning, since those abilities can't be applied to Unarmed Strike. Any other interpretation is just going past optimization and right into the deepest parts of Rules Lawyer territory.

I was only concerned with how many enhancements could be added, and whether that included +1, +2, +3, +4, or +5, or if I could only add named effects like Keen.

[graystone]

I think what everyone missed is what an un-enchanted arm does. "clockwork arm allows its bearer to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike". The item doesn't JUST work on your arm, it works on your unarmed strike. Unarmed strike doesn't equal arm. As far as I can tell, it's magic that changed unarmed damage to lethal since it doesn't require a hit from the arm.

As far as the enchantment, just ask yourself this. If you cast a magic fang, it affects your whole unarmed strike. Why would an item that effects unarmed attacks work differently than the spell that enhances unarmed attacks? And this isn't a magic weapon but a Wondrous Item, like a Amulet of Mighty fists. You don't punch someone with the amulet either.

Bottom line, it never says it works like a weapon and you have to hit with the actual arm. It is in fact a Wondrous Item that effects your unarmed attacks. Feel free to put more restrictions on the item if you wish, but there aren't any in the actual rules (RAW).

As far as how it's enchanted, that's 'ask your DM' territory. It's not a weapon and it's never mentioned that you treat it as such. I tend to go with the +10 worth of enchantments on it but it's really up to the DM.

[christos gurd]

In fact this is what i reflavor as the baseline for a mystical enhancement ceremony used by monks. I made a feat to replace the necessary craft feat and made the requisite skill heal.

[graystone]

christos gurd wrote:

In fact this is what i reflavor as the baseline for a mystical enhancement ceremony used by monks. I made a feat to replace the necessary craft feat and made the requisite skill heal.

Yep, it works well for that.

[Bob Bob Bob]

graystone wrote:

As far as the enchantment, just ask yourself this. If you cast a magic fang, it affects your whole unarmed strike. Why would an item that effects unarmed attacks work differently than the spell that enhances unarmed attacks? And this isn't a magic weapon but a Wondrous Item, like a Amulet of Mighty fists. You don't punch someone with the amulet either.

This is a terrible example. What the prosthesis actually says is "a clockwork arm can be enchanted with any weapon special ability so long as the ability can be applied to unarmed attacks." It doesn't say these are added to your unarmed attacks, just that you can enchant the arm with special abilities that would work on unarmed attacks. This is a restriction on what you can add, nothing more.

Amulet of Mighty Fists says "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." Very clearly this applies to unarmed attacks. If you can show me anywhere in the text of the prosthesis where it says the special abilities are applied to unarmed attacks I'd be very surprised. It says you can enchant the arm like a weapon with special abilities, never that they apply to anything but the arm. If we use your logic that it's a wondrous item and not a weapon, then the special abilities never apply to anything.

Claiming your position is RAW doesn't make it any more true, especially if you can't provide textual evidence (you know, the Written part of RAW). You make a clear leap of logic from "it makes all unarmed attacks lethal" to "therefore everything about the arm applies to all unarmed attacks", making it your interpretation, not fact.

[graystone]

You are treating it as a weapon. However, nowhere is it call out as such. It is in fact a wondrous item, making it closer to an Amulet of Mighty Fists than a magic sword.

Note I am taking NOTHING from the unarmed restriction on enchants. 0%. I'm taking the actual text of what the un-enchanted item does. It effects unarmed attacks.

Now lets look at it your way. We assume it's a weapon. What's it's damage base then? It's crit? Seems like you have to make an even bigger "leap of logic" with no "textual evidence". If we can't assume it's an unarmed strike like you told me I can't do, then what is it? Where is the text? Just where IS that text that states it's a weapon and how you treat it as such?

[Rhatahema]

graystone wrote:

You are treating it as a weapon. However, nowhere is it call out as such. It is in fact a wondrous item, making it closer to an Amulet of Mighty Fists than a magic sword.

Note I am taking NOTHING from the unarmed restriction on enchants. 0%. I'm taking the actual text of what the un-enchanted item does. It effects unarmed attacks.

Now lets look at it your way. We assume it's a weapon. What's it's damage base then? It's crit? Seems like you have to make an even bigger "leap of logic" with no "textual evidence". If we can't assume it's an unarmed strike like you told me I can't do, then what is it? Where is the text? Just where IS that text that states it's a weapon and how you treat it as such?

This is all true, it has no properties as a mundane weapon. The point is that nothing tells you how to apply the magic weapon enhancements placed on the arm as written, so in that regard they're unusable. I've argued this not because I think it's the correct interpretation, but to point out that for the item to work, you need to make some leap in logic. It's an argument against proclamations that your interpretation is RAW.

Here's where I actually disagree with your interpretation, which starts with your view on lethal damage: The arm isn't magically enhancing all of your limbs with the ability to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes. The clockwork arm is a physical object made of metal. It is allowing you to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage because you're hitting someone with a metal fist, not because it's magically hardening the rest of your limbs. The rules logic is identical to the gauntlet, and worded similarly.

[chbgraphicarts]

Graystone, aside from yourself, you'll be hard-pressed to find any DM who would rule that this functions similarly to an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

It's evident from the context of having a METAL ARM attached to your body that THAT arm alone can deal lethal damage without Improved Unarmed Strike, since it's made of METAL. It's also clearly evident that only attacks made with THAT arm get any of the weapon enhancement bonuses or special abilities placed onto it.

This is basically a case of just Grade-A rules-mongering on your part, Graystone. You can keep saying "but RAW" all you want - everyone else has read it over and over and agrees that RAW and RAI are both "that arm only".

[graystone]

Rhatahema wrote:

It's an argument against proclamations that your interpretation is RAW.

my "proclamations that [my] interpretation is RAW" is to take the item's abilities and use JUST that to make my determination on it's affects.

Rhatahema wrote:

Here's where I actually disagree with your interpretation, which starts with your view on lethal damage: The arm isn't magically enhancing all of your limbs with the ability to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes. The clockwork arm is a physical object made of metal. It is allowing you to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage because you're hitting someone with a metal fist, not because it's magically hardening the rest of your limbs. The rules logic is identical to the gauntlet, and worded similarly.

That's more RAI than RAW. The weapons that affect unarmed attacks are all poorly worded. By the wording on the gauntlet, it too affects all unarmed attacks and not just ones with the weapon. Also also states that "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." and that's untrue (see FAQ, no monk damage as it's a weapon and not an unarmed strike.)

The arm has the addition of being a magic item and not just a mundane item so even the normal RAI you used with the gauntlet doesn't have to apply. In fact I'd say the RAI falls on my side for the simple fact that the clockwork legs do NOT affect unarmed strikes. Somehow you're saying "hitting someone with a metal fist" makes sense but kicking someone with a metal foot deal non-lethal? The only reason IMO for this difference is that it's magic.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

Graystone, aside from yourself, you'll be hard-pressed to find any DM who would rule that this functions similarly to an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

It's evident from the context of having a METAL ARM attached to your body that THAT arm alone can deal lethal damage without Improved Unarmed Strike, since it's made of METAL. It's also clearly evident that only attacks made with THAT arm get any of the weapon enhancement bonuses or special abilities placed onto it.

This is basically a case of just Grade-A rules-mongering on your part, Graystone. You can keep saying "but RAW" all you want - everyone else has read it over and over and agrees that RAW and RAI are both "that arm only".

As I said to Rhatahema, the legs don't fit your "context". Why is it a METAL LEG attached to your body can't deal lethal damage without Improved Unarmed Strike when it's made of METAL too? "This is basically a case of just Grade-A rules-mongering on your part" by ignoring the other items and claiming a context that's not supported.

So less name calling please. Try looking at the whole picture once and explain why the arm works as a weapon but the leg doesn't. IMO, magic makes more sense than 'metal arms hurt but metal legs don't'.

[chbgraphicarts]

Because in Pathfinder "Unarmed Strike" generally mean "punch".

A Monk's Flurry of Blows specifically says otherwise: "At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."

The fact that a Monk's Flurry needs to mention these methods of attack means that this is the exception, not the rule. Legs are typically assumed to not even be secondary attacks, because they're needed for things like standing. In other words, your typical Unarmed combatant is fighting like a boxer.

If you work it out with your DM that you kick a lot, or primarily (such as a Savate fighter), then it isn't absurd at all to think that the leg would also gain the "this can deal lethal damage" quality.

The reason it needs to be Magical at all is that the intention of the arm is to be a replacement with such precision that you aren't suffering penalties for having a Prosthetic - something we're still probably a decade away from even with extremely-fast computers and nanometer-precise robotics available today.

[graystone]

chbgraphicarts wrote:

Because in Pathfinder "Unarmed Strike" generally mean "punch".

PRD: Unarmed Strike, simple weapon "An unarmed strike is an attack such as a punch or a kick where the attacker is not using a weapon to make the attack." UE, pg39

You are 100% incorrect to say "in Pathfinder "Unarmed Strike" generally mean "punch"."

chbgraphicarts wrote:

A Monk's Flurry of Blows specifically says otherwise: "At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."

The fact that a Monk's Flurry needs to mention these methods of attack means that this is the exception, not the rule. Legs are typically assumed to not even be secondary attacks, because they're needed for things like standing. In other words, your typical Unarmed combatant is fighting like a boxer."

Again, totally wrong. Legs are in NO way assumed to be secondary attacks. The monk just reinstates what anyone can do. Make unarmed attacks with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

If you work it out with your DM that you kick a lot, or primarily (such as a Savate fighter), then it isn't absurd at all to think that the leg would also gain the "this can deal lethal damage" quality.

You're into house rule territory here. For your assumption that the physical arm is giving you the 'deal lethal', then the legs must also do the same as BOTH are equally usable in an unarmed attack. Having only arms do that puts a serious dent in your RAI argument.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

The reason it needs to be Magical at all is that the intention of the arm is to be a replacement with such precision that you aren't suffering penalties for having a Prosthetic - something we're still probably a decade away from even with extremely-fast computers and nanometer-precise robotics available today.

All I know is that it's magic. You assume it's one way and I say that way doesn't make logical sense because the legs can't do the same thing. Hence my saying the damage part makes more sense as a magic ability.

[Rhatahema]

I'd guess that the clockwork leg lacks a similar function because the author just didn't think it was appealing enough to players to warrant the word count. Not saying that the legs should therefor allow it, just that I don't see it as a meaningful point of comparison.

The RAW thing is just a pet peeve of mine. Like you, I'm using the item's abilities to determine the effects. It's a "miraculous metallic extremity...attached to the area where a limb once was". It's not deviating from the rules that are written to use my understanding of what the object is to determine absent rules. And yes, the rules are absent. Nothing explicitly states "you may apply these weapon special abilities to your unarmed strikes". If it did, it would be RAW and you could quote it and we'd be done.

At any rate, I think we more or less understand each others' points and just disagree about it. Probably not much else to say about it.

On another subject, I don't know much about Primal Magic or Alkenstar (which is where this item originates), except that Alkenstar is a dead magic area. Does primal magic resist suppression? If the arm functions like a conventional magic item, then it could go limp from being suppressed, which is a major risk.

[chbgraphicarts]

That's it - I'm done. I got my answer: you can enchant the Arm with up to a +5 Enhancement Bonus, and up to a +10 Adjusted Enhancement Bonus for determining Special Abilities.

Gray, continue on saying "RAW!" til the cows come home and still have no-one listen to you if you like. Everyone else understands completely what we've said about the enhancements being localized to the arm. If you want to spend hours trying to convince people otherwise, go ahead, but you're better off trying to convince people that the Sun is purple.

[graystone]

I think this item might have got a word count 'cut', and somewhere along the way we lost some important info. Either that or the author just made some assumptions on how it works and how it would somehow be obvious how it worked. Either way, this item's a bit of a fix'er upper.

It's fine to say it just works with the arm. I was just pointing out above in my first post here that the item itself doesn't actually limit you to just that. And for the record, I've had more DM's than myself side with the 'enhancing unarmed attacks' view of the item. More than a few use it that way because they don't agree monks should get the shaft on enchantments, Amulet of Mighty Fists, just because druids throw everything out of whack. ;)

As far as Primal Magic and/or Alkenstar: Sorry, I'm not up on these. I assume the arm goes dead in anti-magic but it's just an educated guess. If I come across anything, I'll post it.

chbgraphicarts: We don't agree, and that's fine. No reason to be an ass about it.