Is this legal using RAW to have this?
Would you let it fly?
Is it too strong?
it's completely raw. any enchantment can go on a melee weapon can go on an amulet of mighty fists.
the problem being a +1 vicious amulet is 20k gold .
it's completely raw. any enchantment can go on a melee weapon can go on an amulet of mighty fists.
the problem being a +1 vicious amulet is 20k gold .
Actually a +1 amulet is only 5k.
really? I guess I just assumed it followed the dame rules as weapon enchntments.
Is this legal using RAW to have this?
Would you let it fly?
Is it too strong?
Not how I read it.
On Page 496 AoNA states:-
"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks"
On Page 472 Vicious states:-
"only melee weapons can have vicious"
Unarmed attacks are seperated from melee attacks on page 182
It is the amulet that you would be adding vicious to not your unarmed attacks.
|
Is this legal using RAW to have this?
Would you let it fly?
Is it too strong?
Not how I read it.
On Page 496 AoNA states:-
"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks"On Page 472 Vicious states:-
"only melee weapons can have vicious"
Unarmed attacks are seperated from melee attacks on page 182It is the amulet that you would be adding vicious to not your unarmed attacks.
What is an unarmed strike? Ranged? Throwing punches is only a metaphor... :P
Anyway, the monk's ability states:
"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."
So it would qualify no matter how you look at it.
What is an unarmed strike? Ranged? Throwing punches is only a metaphor...
So why are they listed seperately in the equipment charts and on page 182?
|
What is an unarmed strike? Ranged? Throwing punches is only a metaphor...So why are they listed seperately in the equipment charts and on page 182?
The monk's special abilities is separate from the generic listing in the tables, it's an exception which is why there is special wording in the class description.
The monk's special abilities is separate from the generic listing in the tables, it's an exception which is why there is special wording in the class description.
What is an unarmed strike? Ranged? Throwing punches is only a metaphor...So why are they listed seperately in the equipment charts and on page 182?
Quite true, but you are not applying vicious to the monk, it is being applied to the amulet! A character without the improved unarmed strike could not benefit so the application of vicious on the amulet would fail.
I'd allow it my games because, really, it's the spellcasters that you need to watch out for, not the poor underpowered melee classes. Afterall, all they get to do is hit stuff!
What is an unarmed strike? Ranged? Throwing punches is only a metaphor...So why are they listed seperately in the equipment charts and on page 182?
They are listed as Simple Weapons, along with daggers, etc....
As I said, if they are not melee and not ranged, what are they?
+1
What is an unarmed strike? Ranged? Throwing punches is only a metaphor...So why are they listed seperately in the equipment charts and on page 182?
They are listed as Simple Weapons, along with daggers, etc....
As I said, if they are not melee and not ranged, what are they?
Simple weapons yes, but not melee.
Unarmed attacks ?Light melee ?
One-handed melee ?
Two-handed melee ?
|
|
Quite true, but you are not applying vicious to the monk, it is being applied to the amulet! A character without the improved unarmed strike could not benefit so the application of vicious on the amulet would fail.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. The whole point of the amulet of mighty fists is to allow the monk to enhance his attacks... thus the name "Mighty Fists".
Was anyone talking about using the amulet without either the feat or the monk's ability?
Quite true, but you are not applying vicious to the monk, it is being applied to the amulet! A character without the improved unarmed strike could not benefit so the application of vicious on the amulet would fail.
The amulet allows the Monk to get those abilities, that's why it exists, and why it specifically states that Monk's unarmed attacks are covered by both possibilities.
The AoMF is already horribly expensive making it very difficult to improve on whatever +1 ability you pick first. And lets not forget the 1d6 damage to you [vicious] on every attack!
Vicious has always been a +1 ability because it is balanced.
Was anyone talking about using the amulet without either the feat or the monk's ability?
Perhaps you missed my previous post :-
you are not applying vicious to the monk, it is being applied to the amulet! A character without the improved unarmed strike could not benefit so the application of vicious on the amulet would fail.
...Maybe you should take a minute and read the Amulet of Mighty Fists, "melee weapon special abilities" is pretty clearly spelled out in the item.
So long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks!
|
|
Quite true, but you are not applying vicious to the monk, it is being applied to the amulet! A character without the improved unarmed strike could not benefit so the application of vicious on the amulet would fail.The monk's special abilities is separate from the generic listing in the tables, it's an exception which is why there is special wording in the class description.
What is an unarmed strike? Ranged? Throwing punches is only a metaphor...So why are they listed seperately in the equipment charts and on page 182?
Then any + would fail, since you cannot apply +1 weapon enhancements to fists without the monk wording, you need magic fang for that.
I still need convincing that an unarmed strike is a "weapon" as opposed to just hitting. Otherwise why not list as light melee weapon.
|
On Page 496 AoNA states:-
"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks"On Page 472 Vicious states:-
"only melee weapons can have vicious"
Unarmed attacks are seperated from melee attacks on page 182Anyway, the monk's ability states:
"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."
Even defining a melee attack as a hit with a manufactured weapon - the monk's ability clearly states that it can be enhanced or improved by spells and effects that improve manufactured weapons. Ergo, Vicious can be applied through the AoMF.
Just restating what others have said though.
Even defining a melee attack as a hit with a manufactured weapon - the monk's ability clearly states that it can be enhanced or improved by spells and effects that improve manufactured weapons. Ergo, Vicious can be applied through the AoMF.
In that case why is it not applied directly to the monks fists?
Then any + would fail, since you cannot apply +1 weapon enhancements to fists without the monk wording, you need magic fang for that.
Not quite true.
AoMF says "an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons"
Look guys,
Just playing devils advocate here.
It seems that some players optimise to the point of absurdity - where's the role playing in that!
If you think of it logically, applying vicious to a monks unarmed strikes would mean he would be in constant agony as just about every part of his body can be used as a weapon. Probably taking damage just walking (feet striking the ground)!
|
|
Look guys,
Just playing devils advocate here.
It seems that some players optimise to the point of absurdity - where's the role playing in that!
If you think of it logically, applying vicious to a monks unarmed strikes would mean he would be in constant agony as just about every part of his body can be used as a weapon. Probably taking damage just walking (feet striking the ground)!
So a flaming aomf would make a monk burst into flames by your logic. Or frost would make them constantly slip and lose limbs to frostbite.
Its ok by RAW, RAI, and any other acronym you throw at it
|
|
Look guys,
Just playing devils advocate here.
It seems that some players optimise to the point of absurdity - where's the role playing in that!
If you think of it logically, applying vicious to a monks unarmed strikes would mean he would be in constant agony as just about every part of his body can be used as a weapon. Probably taking damage just walking (feet striking the ground)!
Yeah, it's a big problem with Flaming Amulets of Mighty Fists when monks walk into wooden buildings and leave flaming footprints. Frosty amulet wearers get frozen to the floor if they stand still too long and corrosive amulet wearers have to keep moving or wind us slowly sinking into the ground as their acidic feet melt the rock under their feet.
This is a huge problem.
|
Turkina_B,
You are correct, an Amulet of Mighty Fists can only be enhanced with enchantments that can effect a melee attack.
Merriam-Webster defines MELEE as, "a confused struggle; especially : a hand-to-hand fight among several people."
Ergo, a fist, when used to strike someone or something, is a melee weapon. The fact that is listed under simple weapons in the equipment section of the core rulebook is simply a comment on the weapon's ease of use: ie, anyone can throw a punch.
Indeed.
Yeah, it's a big problem with Flaming Amulets of Mighty Fists when monks walk into wooden buildings and leave flaming footprints. Frosty amulet wearers get frozen to the floor if they stand still too long and corrosive amulet wearers have to keep moving or wind us slowly sinking into the ground as their acidic feet melt the rock under their feet.
This is a huge problem.
Now there's an idea or two!
Never can the monk with a thundering AoMF sneak up on something :)
Never mind, what about "dancing" enhancement?
I can come up with some fantastic descriptions for Dancing Fists. In fact, I think I've seen those in a kung fu movie somewhere.
Wow, I'm seriously inspired to draw up an NPC around that now. What a fantastic idea.
does that mean that every step you take you need to roll a to hit to see if your foot lands on the ground? :)
Heh, this just keeps getting better. Probably an easy target though. Hmm wonder what happens when he misses, or even fumbles.
I'll have to work on that one.Keep up the ideas people.
I can come up with some fantastic descriptions for Dancing Fists. In fact, I think I've seen those in a kung fu movie somewhere.
Wow, I'm seriously inspired to draw up an NPC around that now. What a fantastic idea.
Indeed you could as it applies to melee weapons. And from what has been said here, it obviously can be applied to an AoMF.
Yar!
*cracks knuckles*
Remember, rules text trumps table info.
This quote is from the first 2 paragraphs of the Weapons section in the Equipment section. Not that all weapons must be either (melee) or (ranged). There is no mysterious third category for unarmed strikes. Thus, unarmed strikes must be either (melee) or (ranged).
This following quote is from the description of Melee Weapons.
PRD & SRD]This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
One-Handed: A...
This is the actual description of Unarmed Strikes (able to be used by anyone, regardless of having a feat or class feature).
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A Monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purpose of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed Strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).
The combat section (page 182) also states that "...Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on)..."
This is now taking too much time. Take it or leave it, but by RAW, Unarmed Strikes are melee weapons. You can choose to rule otherwise (making them their own category of non-melee melee weapons), but understand that that would be a house-rule.
~P
yar.
Look guys,
Just playing devils advocate here.
It seems that some players optimise to the point of absurdity - where's the role playing in that!
If you think of it logically, applying vicious to a monks unarmed strikes would mean he would be in constant agony as just about every part of his body can be used as a weapon. Probably taking damage just walking (feet striking the ground)!
well f~&*, I thought you actually could not comprehend that an Unarmed Strike was in fact a melee weapon, and thus you could not enchant an AoMF with something like vicious because it specifically calls out it must be applied to a melee weapon.
argh.
Edit: ...at least it's not as fun an image as the Brilliant Energy AoMF Monk falling through the earth.
...still, f#%@.
For fun lets consider a natural Were Giant Octopus in hybrid form.
It gains a bite and 8 tentacle attacks from its base animal.
It equips a Spell Storing Amulet of Mighty Fists.
Are each of its natural attacks now considered to have the spell storing special ability? That is, could it be storing 9 spells?
Hama, Reefwood I find your reasoning a bit weird. I agree that a spell storing weapon can only holds one spell.
The text reads: "this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities"
I read this as "this amulet adds the special ability to the melee weapon". If as you say it's the amulet that has the spell storing special ability you would have to hit enemies with the amulet.
If the Woctopus instead was equipping a Flaming Amulet of Mighty Fists would you agree that each of its natural attacks would deal +1d6 fire damage? If so the amulet must have granted the flaming special ability to each natural weapon since they are different weapons.
|
Then, i guess that you cannot put the spell storing special ability on the amulet of mighty fists because it is, in fact, not a weapon, but an amulet. True, the amulet bestows enhancement bonuses and weapon special abilities to the wearers natural weapons, but, only bestows. It doesn't permanently turn claws or teeth into a e.g. +3 flaming weapon. They are just treated as such as long as the amulet is worn around the neck of the creature.
I was going to say that unarmed strikes are NOT weapons...
...but then Pirate posted.
Thanks for clarifying!
Yar.
I was going to say that unarmed strikes are NOT weapons...
...but then Pirate posted.
Thanks for clarifying!
You're welcome!
I should also apologize for swearing earlier (even though I knew the filter would block it).
I have no issues with people playing devils advocate, or arguing for the sake of discussion, when the posters say that that is what they are doing. This kinda felt like a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. There often are legitimate confusions about rules, and a lot of posters post here with legitimate concerns and misconceptions about the rules. Many times, it is a single passage that gets glossed over... something easily missed. Hence why I go through such a detailed process when I make my case, and I normally have no qualms about doing so (it is in the name of helping others understand a massive and complex set of rules, where small details can make all the difference yet can be easily overlooked). Sometimes I'm even proven wrong (either by the text I find, or a dev post, another poster, or all of the above) and I happily concede when that happens.
I was upset in this case because I was led on (some people would call it trolling) to believe that there was a genuine belief in what the RAW was and how it works. Immediately after posting, I felt like I had wasted 40 minutes of my life for no reason. Good rules clarifications are never a waste, because you never know who may need that particular gem of information, but that is how I felt at the time.
Anyways, glad I could be of help. ^_^
~P
I am still trying to figure out how a Monk with an "Dancing" Amulet of Mighty Fists would work...
I think my brain just exploded.
I am still trying to figure out how a Monk with an "Dancing" Amulet of Mighty Fists would work...
I think my brain just exploded.
Also add Ghost Touch, and ghostly fists erupt from his normal fists and continue to punch enemies while the Monk does other things, like throw shuriken or drink beer or play the flute.