A masterwork hand...
How does such a thing exist? Do you get rid of imposable thumbs so you don't break em when you punch someone?
That isn't... how you punch.
Your thumbs go other the other fingers not under. If you put them under you break them, but this isn't how you are supposed to punch.
This is a clear contender for Rule of Cool status and also qualifies for the FCaOP rider, and that proviso states if it helps anything less than a full caster a majority of the time without breaking the game it's A-okay.It looks like "FCaOP" is something about "Full Caster" and "Over-Powered", but I'm not certain what the "a" stands for.
Perhaps "are"?
Exactly!
But, yeah, as I said above, I think RAW and RAI are pretty clear on this.
If you get Paizo to comment on it, I'd assume, the likeliest response will be a flat out no and, maybe if you're lucky, they'll just dismiss the concept with a charitable "That would make a fine house rule, if you choose to do so." The latter being my opinion, as the most likely beneficiary of this would be a class where a little help on their attack rolls wouldn't hurt.
Cheesy? Sure, but hardly dual-wielding lances from horseback sort of cheese.
I think you may have forgotten to read the most important rule below where we type??
But to answer your question (with the attempted facetiousness ignored), I would allow the player's request to use masterwork transformation on their character's body because I think it's a pretty cool idea and has a great feel to it, in my opinion. I'd also suggest to the player that this doesn't necessarily mean they'll be able to start enchanting their limbs as magical weapons!
However, if the player decided further down the line that as their limbs are now masterwork that they should be able to enchant them and tried to rules lawyer their way into getting the ok I'd ask them nicely if they were sure they thought it was a good idea. The player would have to roleplay getting access to someone able to do it, and because it's such an unusual procedure, I'd tell the player that there's no taking 10 on the rolls (it's too difficult for the caster). The caster's Spellcraft check DC would have a huge modifier to it because the enchanter is effectively enchanting multiple weapons at once. And a failed result would be played. Of course it would.
That's not "twisting the request of the player", it's applying consequences to the player and their character. I very rarely say "no" to players, I find it much more entertaining for everyone (especially the players) to say "yes, but…" Obviously that's not "manly" enough for you.
Oh well (shrug).
The problem here is that your "Yes, but..." is applying extra restrictions and more probable (effectively irremovable without becoming a stumpy torso) downsides.
On the surface you are saying "Yes, but..." but based on what you've said reading between the lines easily uncovers "I don't really WANT you to do this, hence all the restrictions, but if you really want to I'll give you the option FINE."
It's all or nothing on this kind of thing. You're acting as if the player is trying to "Rules Lawyer" his way to something that is nothing more than a LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY ALLOWED and punishing him for it on the sly.
Yes, giving him the same downsides as other people have when enchanting their weapons (with the unfortunate downside that "cursed limbs" would really suck) but slapping all this other stuff like adding a "huge modifier" to the roll AND disallowing the caster from Taking 10 because it's "too hard" (even though the only way that would make sense is if the caster needed a 10 or higher anyway, giving your player a 50/50 shot of becoming cursed) is really doing what I've said you're doing: Passive aggressively saying Yes, when you really mean "No you Rules Lawyering munchkin I hope you choke on it!".
The problem here is that your "Yes, but..." is applying extra restrictions and more probable (effectively irremovable without becoming a stumpy torso) downsides.
Stumpy torso... That's really funny! Nice one.
But there are risks if you want to try stuff that's never been done before, like altering your own flesh with magic. There's all sorts of flesh warped mutants wandering Golarion, and a lot of them are the result of magical experimentation. By going down this path, the player is basically waiving the warranty on their character.
And I'd make sure they knew that before they tried to push one allowable concession (allowed because it's a bit of cool flavour to add to the game) into, how did you put it... "a logical extents of what you've already allowed" (quoted without the rude shouty upper case).
Btw, a player claiming the above "logical extension etc etc" at me immediately gets slotted in the "rules lawyer" box in my mind, but maybe I'm being a bit harsh.
You say I'd be applying "restrictions", I call them consequences. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, eh?
I seriously do love the stumpy torso comment though..
Yes, giving him the same downsides as other people have when enchanting their weapons (with the unfortunate downside that "cursed limbs" would really suck)
If the player doesn't want to risk cursed limbs, then they shouldn't be risking cursed limbs by having their character's limbs enchanted. End of story, really.
but slapping all this other stuff like adding a "huge modifier" to the roll AND disallowing the caster from Taking 10 because it's "too hard" (even though the only way that would make sense is if the caster needed a 10 or higher anyway, giving your player a 50/50 shot of becoming cursed)
The player is asking for something that's not in the game, for something pretty unique. There would be no standard way of doing it. Enchanting a magical weapon is straightforward painting by numbers compared to this, so damn right I'd apply penalties to the enchanters roll! If it was easy and totally risk free, everyone would be doing it, and every adult dragon in Golarion would be sporting +5 keen vorpal claws and teeth. Now there's a thought..
is really doing what I've said you're doing: Passive aggressively saying Yes, when you really mean "No you Rules Lawyering munchkin I hope you choke on it!".
I have GM'ed for "rules lawyering munchkins" as you call them. They usually tone it down a bit after a few sessions. Can't think why. ;-)
I thought this forum was supposed to be a bit more … polite than this?? If I wanted to be insulted I'd post on rpg.net.
I still love the stumpy torso line though.
Well I doubt it would be 50/50, I haven't done the math, and it would depend how far the player wanted to go.
It would be easier to say no to all these little odd requests players come up with, but those odd requests can result in some really memorable situations. I've had players recall stuff like this over a decade after it happened, and it still gets a laugh and a smile. And I'm including the guy who gets messed up in the smilers.
Another reason I wouldn't say no, is that it's a cool idea and secretly, I'd want the player to get away with it (so long as it doesn't impact on everyone else's fun, and doesn't make my life too hard). But the player will still have to work to get their new toy, and things may go belly up for them. I thought I'd said that I'd warn the player there's a chance of mishap, if not i apologise cos I certainly would warn them they were trying something risky. Would I give them the exact risk? No, because the character wouldn't know the exact risk either.
The characters quest to get this done would probably make a nice side plot, hopefully one everyone would enjoy, and then everyone wins, success or not.
|
That makes absolutely no sense. Oh well.Said quotes are here, here, and here.Both are not usable with unarmed strikes. There is a SKR quote about that, but now I haven't the time to search for that.The OP leads to the path of "enchanting oneself as armor and weapon", which, while rife with possibilities, is not well supported by RAW.
KISS: apply the spell to weapons useable with unarmed strikes, such as gauntlets or brass knuckles. Problem solved without breaking RAW and RAI.
I am not a expert in martial arts, but I don't know any unarmed martial art style that use metal gauntlets or brass knuckles and the monk unarmed damage is unarmed damage.
When a monk use a armed combat style he use the weapon damage dices, not his unarmed damage dices.
While I think the idea sounds cool, I think that the can of worms that gets opened with this is way larger than anyone would think.
Without even looking forward at someone wanting to enchant themselves, lets see what else you could ask for.
What about masterwork claws or fangs? Those are natural weapons and similar to unarmed strikes (I know they are different but for this argument I think they are the same).
What about masterwork eyes to get a bonus on perception?
What about masterwork fingers to get a bonus on sleight of hand?
What about masterwork legs to get a bonus on acrobatics?
How about a half-orc with masterwork tusks to get a bonus on intimidate?
How about a woman with masterwork breasts for diplomacy?
Thematically, it kind of works but there is a wide margin for abuse. This spell obviously is meant to eliminate the need to craft a new item to gain a masterwork version. Think about if the character has a favorite weapon from level one and then gets this spell cast on it to upgrade it before getting it enchanted. There are so many options that a monk has to make his attacks better (lets not forget that they do more potential damage than most enchanted weapons), why do they need to gain the benefit on something that was obviously not intended for them to benefit from?
Could you perhaps PM me the reason for that one being removed? It contained an apology for a previous post and what I thought was a very calm explanation of what I thought about the scenario.
Well I doubt it would be 50/50, I haven't done the math, and it would depend how far the player wanted to go.
If it's impossible to Take 10, that generally means it takes a roll HIGHER than 10 to achieve. So it would actually start at a 55% chance of there being a curse and go up from there.
It would be easier to say no to all these little odd requests players come up with, but those odd requests can result in some really memorable situations. I've had players recall stuff like this over a decade after it happened, and it still gets a laugh and a smile. And I'm including the guy who gets messed up in the smilers.
I honestly wouldn't be smiling at this. I just don't see a reason to impose so many extra restrictions on a character, especially when a mishap makes the character effectively unplayable with no hope of recovery (nothing can break a curse on a cursed item, that I know of).
The process already inherently carries an extra downside (if a cursed item IS produced you may as well kill yourself, with the added bonus that Mage's Disjunction can outright destroy you now).
There's no real in-story reason (magic can do all sorts of things, and magic tattoos/enchantments already exist. You can get Wondrous Item tattoos that raise your stats or let you do any number of things for chrissake) and there's no game balance reason since it's really just a correction of an imbalance that already exists for Monks.
While I think the idea sounds cool, I think that the can of worms that gets opened with this is way larger than anyone would think.
Without even looking forward at someone wanting to enchant themselves, lets see what else you could ask for.
What about masterwork claws or fangs? Those are natural weapons and similar to unarmed strikes (I know they are different but for this argument I think they are the same).
What about masterwork eyes to get a bonus on perception?
What about masterwork fingers to get a bonus on sleight of hand?
What about masterwork legs to get a bonus on acrobatics?
How about a half-orc with masterwork tusks to get a bonus on intimidate?
How about a woman with masterwork breasts for diplomacy?
Thematically, it kind of works but there is a wide margin for abuse. This spell obviously is meant to eliminate the need to craft a new item to gain a masterwork version. Think about if the character has a favorite weapon from level one and then gets this spell cast on it to upgrade it before getting it enchanted. There are so many options that a monk has to make his attacks better (lets not forget that they do more potential damage than most enchanted weapons), why do they need to gain the benefit on something that was obviously not intended for them to benefit from?
I agree with everything except the last sentence. The monk's unarmed strike is not a very good weapon, the largest factors in a weapon dealing decent damage are in order off importance: Accuracy to hit, static bonus to damage, threat range, and size of the damage dice. The monk's accuracy is sub-par, he has few static bonuses, the threat range is the smallest - only the damage dice is good at higher level.
The reason that this question keeps coming up is the lack of enhancement available on the monk's unarmed strike. Paizo have reduced the cost of the AoMF, but it still caps at +5 total for properties and enhancements. People want to enchant the monk's unarmed strikes to the same extent as a normal weapon to make it as effective as a normal weapon.