|
1) What makes you think that? Amulet of Mighty Fists clearly says it grants the bonuses to unarmed and natural attacks. There is no indication that it's either or. In fact, it's price is double that of normal weapon enchants, indicating that it was intentionally designed to function with more than one kind of attack. So the Agile enchantment would give Dex to damage on both unarmed and claw attacks.
The agile enchantment would apply to everything, but not with full benefit. With natural attacks only, at a dex of 20, all of them would get +5 to damage.
With unarmed attacks & nat attacks, the main hand's agile bonus would be +5 damage, everything else would be at +2 damage. (1/2 bonus - just like for offhand strength damage.)
"Agile weapons are unusually well balanced and responsive. A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons."
Your talking about if all attacks hit? On a build that combines two-weapon fighting and natural attacks?
The whole reason everyone doesn't do that is because all attacks won't hit.
And the whole reason everyone doesn't focus on lances with charging steeds is that the one situation where it will actually work never happens either. Especially when anything with a decent intelligence score is going to take one look at the murder machine with a lance and the horse with 19 lousy hitpoints and just kill the horse before you even get in range.
So yeah, I think if you want to use an extremely unlikely scenario to demonstrate your one trick pony fighter (heh, pun only half intended), its only fair game to give the ninja an equally unlikely scenario.
Difference with the Ninja and all those sneak attacks though is that Pressure Points means you can do substantial amounts of Dexterity damage to anything you are hitting to permanently lower their AC (well, permanently as far as a single combat goes).
Meanwhile, he wants to be a Demon Ninja from Hell. That's cool.
Nah, Demons come from the Abyss. ;P
I gotta admit that I'm grooving on the idea of using Adopted for the Fetchling trait. Tieflings come from human/demon interbreeding, and Fetchlings are basically humans that spent too many generations in the Shadow Plane.
Kinda liking the idea of him being a Fetchling Tiefling.
No, I still don't agree with your interpretation, I just don't see any reason to debate semantics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your argument is wrong, no matter how many threads you bring it up in. You predicate it on this change in the language from 3.5 to PF, claiming it shows a change in intent because you flat out admit it doesn't work according to 3.5 rules. But you ignore that the PF language is straight up copied from the open source documents. I've asked you to explain that in like three different threads, but you never have.
Combining natural weapons with unarmed strikes, even a monk's, renders the natural weapon a secondary attack. There's no indication otherwise.
Can I use the claws with iterative attacks from high BAB? How do two claws interact with TWF?
Natural attacks do not get iteratives, and if you are exclusively attacking with natural weapons then TWF does not apply.
You can only use one claw attack as a standard action, but can make all your natural attacks as a full round action.
Basically I'm grooving on the idea of the shadowy demon ninja that kills with his bare claws, I'm just not 100% up on what all would be required for a good mauling.
Usually aiming for three natural attacks is a good idea. A Tengu for example can get three natural attacks out of the gate. If you wanted a way to add a third to a tiefling ninja might I recommend Skill focus and eldritch heritage for the sorcerer's Serpentine bloodline.
Additionaly, I know I can enhance base claw damage with Improved Natural Weapons monstrous feat, but I assume that just like a monk the only way I could enchant my claws is with the amulet of mighty fists?
Typically one would use an amulet of mighty fists, but it's not the only way. Getting someone to cast Magic Fang for example, or acquiring an oil of it. There is also the Body Wrap of Mighty Strikes. There may be other examples as well, however the Amulet is likely your best bet for long term investment.
There has been a lot of discussion of mixing natural attacks with unarmed strikes and i would like to clarify how this would work
Let us take a level 8 ninja, weapon finesse, 18 dex, with a +1 agile amulet of mighty fists. Your attack bonus would be at +11 with everything mentioned.
If you just do a full attack of natural attacks of Claw/Claw/Bite
Each one would taken at your full bonus of +11 with a damage bonus of +5 (and Sneak Attack if applicable).
Lets say you wanted to throw in Unarmed Strikes (as kicks or whatever) here is how that would look -
Unarmed Strike +11/+6
Damage bonus +5
Claw/Claw/Bite all at +6
Damage bonus +3
My argument is based on the rules. I have used the rules to demonstrate my point. I'd like to hear your grounds for disagreeing with my interpretation.
You've told me I'm wrong, now show me. If you can't prove I'm wrong, but it still somehow makes you feel uncomfortable, that's okay, too, but it's less than okay to ignore it. My point was made to give you the advice you asked for.
You are pretty clearly taking the answer you want to have, and then twisting wordings and phrases into things that vaguely support the answer you wanted to have, and calling it RAI.
You twist the wording on "counts as X for things that improve them" and try to make it retroactively change the definition for the attack as a whole, instead of what the RAW very clearly spelled out, that the attacks count as these two things when requirements for enhancement are in play.
To support this, you try to take a vague semantic redefinition of the word "effect" that clearly has nothing to do with how it is used in the rules.
I was trying to avoid this because its rude to flat out tell somebody "You are wrong, I think you know you are wrong, and you are just trying to tie the rules up in knots to get your own way", but if you insist on it, there it is.
Strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and libelous remarks? Lulz. Pray tell, what such remarks have I made?
Go ahead. I'll wait.
And again, you entire "rules based" argument is that PF's entry doesn't contain the same examples as the 3.5 entry. But you're ignoring the fact that Paizo didn't make the change - they simply copied what was contained in the open source documents.
It's not that I ran out of things to say, it's that there was no point in continuing the discussion if you refuse to address the posts where I completely undercut the basis for your position.
Your position is fundamentally flawed, not the least reason for which is that you know it isn't intended to function the way you claim.
Do you have a real counter argument, or is throwing insults all you have left?
Just because you dismiss the correct answer does not mean we have to come up with another one.
Rules make it quite clear that the entire basis of your position is wrong, a simple "counts as X and Y for enhancement purposes" does not retroactively mean "counts as X and Y for anything imaginable".
Your viewpoint and advice have been acknowledged and I appreciate you taking the time to provide your input, but I will not be acting upon it.
I'm observing what the rules say. I'm not making assumptions about what the rules aught to mean based on suppositions of what the author meant, never mind that the author didn't even write that rule for the game we're talking about.
Yes you are. You have stated that your idea wouldn't work in 3.5 because of author intent. You believe it wiuld work in PF because you believe that by removing the "self-reflective examples" (whatever that means) from the Monk's US entry, PF clearly intended for the entry to be read differently. So yes, you are speculating as to author's intent.
However, the point you keep ignoring, no matter how many times I draw it to your attention, is that Pathfinder did not remove the examples from the language. Pathfinder simply copied the Open Game content, which was released by the 3.5 developers. The Open Game content itself does not contain the examples you are referring to when trying to discern Pathfinder intent.
How can Pathfinder evince a different intent simply by copying the language made available to it by the very people who drafted the language that you yourself admit does not allow for your idea to work? Did the 3.5 developers simultaneously intend for this to work and also not work? They're the ones who changed the language, not Pathfinder.
The entire basis for your position is this change in the language. That change in language had nothing to do with PF. You are simply incorrect. You have no rukes basis for your position. I have brought this to your attention multiple times. Every single time, you have failed to respond to the point.
Your position relies entirely upon the removal of what you deem to be "self-reflexive examples". You have been arguing in favor of this for months.
[qoute="Scott Wilhelm"][The 3.5] version of the rule much more clearly limits the application the way you describe, but when Paizo eliminated what was in the parentheses, they also changed the meaning of the rule by removing the self-reflective text. Now they rewrote it so the door swings both ways: not just the beneficiary anymore, but also the benefactor.
You even restated it in this thread. And yes, the supposed change in intent is integral to your position because you have said yourself that you wouldn't be able to do in 3.5 what you are trying to do in PF. Literally the only difference in the language is they flipped around "both" and "as" and they no longer have the explicit mention of the spells as examples of effects that augment US. That is literally the only difference. From this, you argue there is a clear change in intent and function of the rules. What couldn't be done before now can be done. But the only difference is this slight change in language.
That is all there is to it. It is absolutely specious. And you've never addressed this before. I have brought it up in multiple threads and you always ducked it. It's hard to talk in circles when you never actually address the point.That's hardly countering anything comprehensively by showing that the rules support you at all. Saying the rules support you doesn't mean they actually do, particularly when the basis for your position is the removal from the language examples that had to be removed because PF didn't have the right to include them.
Seriously, you explicitly state that the removal of those examples is important, but you respond by saying that a discussion of why the examples were removed is completely meaningless. If the words hadn't been changed, would you still be making this argument? If not, how can you claim that the discussion is nothing more than academic.
And ultimately, if you think you've proven anything by citing rules, all you've been doing is begging the question. The rules only lead to your conclusion if you're assuming the interpretation of the language you prefer in the first place. Nothing in the rules supports you, unless you assume that the rules read the way you want. And even then, you have to ignore intent to get there. Your position has no basis in the rules. Period. It never has. You've shown nothing to date, in any of these threads, that actually supports your premise, you've always simply assumed it is so.
Well, I stand corrected. I guess others are interested in maintaining the debate.
I suppose I wouldn't press it if he wouldn't duck the issue every single time it's presented and then show up here and say things like I am a "bully" who resorted to "strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and libelous remarks", which is patently offensive and untrue. Undercutting the basis of one's position does not a bully make.
As for the tread question and the mechanics of combining Natural Attacks and Manufactured Weapons (even using Monk's US and FCT), Edymnion you appear to have the right of it.
Natural weapons get treated as secondary when combined with manufactured weapons (including a Monk's US). They do not suffer from TWF penalties. If you want to get Multiattack to increase the impact of your natural weapons when combined with manufactured weapons, you need 3.
Easy ways to get three: Take Maw (rather than Claw) and dip either 2 levels in Barb (Lesser Beast Totem) or 2 levels in Ranger (Natural Weapon), both will grant you claws, but the Barb's won't be permanent. However, the benefit to going the Barbarian route is that when you aren't raging, you'll only have one natural weapon, meaning your bite will do 1.5 STR and could benefit from Power Attack better (if you're going STR).
AoMF augments all your attacks. If you're not going STR, you can add agility to an AoMF to get DEX to damage without having to enchant the Amulet to +1 first. In that event, you might want to consider taking Eldritch Claws to have your natural weapons considered magic for DR and Incorporeality purposes (you can always retrain down the road once you have more money to put to your Amulet to make it +1 Agile).
One thing I will say in Scott's favor is that he appears to have backed off his previous claims that you can make iterative attacks with natural weapons via FCT. You cannot make iterative attacks with natural weapons, ever. You can flurry with them, if you're a Monk, but that's a separate matter. Natural Weapons are either at Full BAB or BAB - 5 (or BAB - 2 with Multiattack).
Your position relies entirely upon the removal of what you deem to be "self-reflexive examples". You have been arguing in favor of this for months.I'm not saying I didn't say it. But it's outrageous to declare my whole point hinges on it.
Nonsense.
My argument stands on its own with no mystic suppositions about the imagined intent of the writers.
That's more like what your argument does.
My argument relies on RAW. But since I am capable of addressing RAI-based arguments, I have.
So, what about the Monk entry from PF allows what you are doing here that didn't allow it in 3.5? Because the entries are nigh identical.
If the only difference is the removal of the language, and you admit that what you are trying to do wasn't possible befor the removal of the language, then the entire position is now allowable because of the removal of the language. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is how it works.
Your argument does not rely on RAW; your argument relies on presuming an intent based on language removal. And since the removal of the language had nothing to do with PF, you have no leg to stand on. None of the other points you're trying to make matter because you're supporting every single one of them on a faulty premise.
Meanwhile, he has made 4 more posts after the OP has implicitly asked for the topic to be dropped. Don't take my word for it: follow that thread and other threads with him and me. Look at how I have been treated and how I'm being treated now, and ask yourself seriously how you would feel if you were being treated like that for making rules-based arguments to support your ideas.
I honestly am curious about this.
The OP said he considered your position and rejected it here. You pressed him to respond to you right after that. He made another post saying he thinks you're wrong here. You respond to that one as well, furthering the discussion. He rejects your position one more time here. You respond to that as well. Then, somebody else tells you to drop it here. And when I respond to your spurious claims yet again, you act like you were nobly prepared to let the subject lie. And now you're calling me out for continuing the conversation when the OP implicitly asked that the topic be dropped.
Interesting. Are you under the impression that Avoron is the OP, or are you ignoring the three posts you made pressing the issue after Edymnion told you he thought you were wrong and wasn't interested in getting into a semantic debate?
But sure, we can happily drop the debate. You're not going to admit that the entire foundation of your position is faulty. You will likely simply continue to make laughable accusations about libel and strawmen.
*shrug*
Cheers!
Please back off of this, Avoron. Everything I have said about his behavior is true. In the process of defending my positions with rules-based arguments in threads with him, I have been strawmanned ad nauseum, accused of spamming, accused of cheating, accused of intentionally misleading people with bad advice, and as for libellous--an attempt to damage someone's reputation--the words "Scott Wilhelm has a bad reputation" were actually used!
Sorry, last one, I promise. One more thing I'm legitimately curious about.
How many of these accusations you're bandying about are actually applicable to me? Obviously, you'll count strawmanning. I'll happily ignore that because I've become convinced that you don't know how that actually applies. But as to spamming, cheating, and being libelous, when did I say any of those things? I'm not the person who commented on your reputation. I'm not the person who called you a cheater. Nor am I the person who called you a troll or spammer. I do think you're misleading people with bad advice (though I don't think I ever accused you of doing so "intentionally", as in knowing it was bad advice). You're simply incorrect about this.
So honestly, why are you directing this ire at me when I've been responsible for none of it?