+4 defending amulet of mighty fists?


Rules Questions


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If a druid with a +4 defending amulet of mighty fists polymorphs into a giant octopus, all of his natural attacks are treated as being +4 defending weapons, correct?

Now, can he allocate that +4 UNTYPED bonus from his 8 tentacles to his AC for a total +32 AC bonus?

Since it is all coming from different sources (the tentacles) I don't think there is anything in RAW to prevent this little bit of cheese.

I'm looking for people to poke holes in the theory. Good luck!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They are all coming from the same source. Bonuses from the same source don't stack. The tentacles themselves hold no magic, only the amulet does.
At least when this came up with two weapon fighting it the bonus could be claimed to come from two different weapons. Since the octopus is using one amulet he can't even try that, not that the two weapon idea was supported by the community either.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:

They are all coming from the same source. Bonuses from the same source don't stack. The tentacles themselves hold no magic, only the amulet does.

At least when this came up with two weapon fighting it the bonus could be claimed to come from two different weapons. Since the octopus is using one amulet he can't even try that, not that the two weapon idea was supported by the community either.

THIS

otherwise a monk claims +infinite bonus from it. (claiming EVERY SURFACE OF THEIR BODY AS A WEAPON)


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Name Violation wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

They are all coming from the same source. Bonuses from the same source don't stack. The tentacles themselves hold no magic, only the amulet does.

At least when this came up with two weapon fighting it the bonus could be claimed to come from two different weapons. Since the octopus is using one amulet he can't even try that, not that the two weapon idea was supported by the community either.

THIS

otherwise a monk claims +infinite bonus from it. (claiming EVERY SURFACE OF THEIR BODY AS A WEAPON)

Unarmed is 1 weapon by RAW.

Dark Archive

Personally I'd rule ALL attacks take the -x you transfer to defending with an AoMF.

RAW be damned.

But I've never seen anyone use one without intentions of Minmaxing TO THE EXTREME (PERSONAL EXPERIENCE ONLY. YMMV)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PRD wrote:

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

It says it stacks with other bonuses, not itself.


All attacks would take the penalty.

The amulet itself is the source of the bonuses so if you take -2 from it for defense it only give +2 to all the attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

if it were otherwise, than said druid/octopus with an AoMF with haste could say each arm had haste and he would get 16 attacks.

all the same source. no stackie.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Shar Tahl wrote:
PRD wrote:

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

It says it stacks with other bonuses, not itself.

All the tentacles are +4 defending weapons just as they would be +4 flaming weapons if I had a different property.

Therefore, they are all treated as different sources.

Or are you in the habit of telling the guy with the +4 flaming amulet of mighty fists that he only gets to add 1d6 fire damage to a SINGLE attack each round?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
PRD wrote:

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

It says it stacks with other bonuses, not itself.

All the tentacles are +4 defending weapons just as they would be +4 flaming weapons if I had a different property.

Therefore, they are all treated as different sources.

Or are you in the habit of telling the guy with the +4 flaming amulet of mighty fists that he only gets to add 1d6 fire damage to a SINGLE attack each round?

They are all from the "Defending" source. the ability itself says others


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ah. I see what you mean.

I'm not sure that there is any hard RAW supporting that, but it's likely enough for most GM's to rule on.

Thanks!

You guys were much quicker than I thought.


I would think that they would all be +X weapons, where X is equal to 4 minus the amount spent on AC.

comparing defending weapons to flaming weapons is a non sequitur, they do not work the same way, so comparisons are not valid.


Nonsequitur:
Once my friends and I made 20th level characters (under 3.5) for one-on-one arena combat. One of them made a fighter with two +5 defending gauntlets, +5 defending shield spikes, +5 defending armor spikes, and a +5 defending weapon. After much debate, we decided to let him play it as intended. When my monk fought him, it devolved to "Ok, I try to disarm his shield. Ok, I try to sunder his ring of protection. Ok, now the gauntlet..." I think he eventually wore me down before I could lower his AC to the hittable range.

So yea, yay for rules limiting defending's stacking.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I still don't see any evidence supporting the notion that lowering the enhancement bonus on one natural attack to add to your AC lowers the enhancement bonus on ALL your natural attacks.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Because your amulet is the weapon source for the defending property...the defending property says you subtract enh bonus to gain def bonus...that is done at the amulet level not the fists...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You still have to attack with them all to gain the bonus, as per errata.


Let's take a less extreme case.
2 tentacles/limbs/whatever...

If you divert the +4 from one attack as defending (for +4AC), would you penalize the other attack?
I've seen nothing to say that you would.

It's one thing to argue that all the defending sources are the same(the AMF) and as such don't stack, it's another to penalize all the attacks based on what 1 of them does.

I don't see any way to stop this, no matter how annoying.


Untyped bonus? I thought the plusses on weapons were enhancement bonuses.


The amulet is a +4 when you take 2 away it acts as a +2, just like if you had a weapon.

defending wrote:
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

In short that bolded area is saying you get to decide how much of that plus 4 is used for attacking or defense. If your original idea of having each tentacle count for its own AC worked then you would be correct, but everything feeds off of the amulet.

You either get a +4 defending amulet or you get an amulet that has tranferred part of that +4 to AC, and the rest adds to the attack. Each tenctacle does not get to act as its own +4 weapon as if it was equipped with its enhancer. If that was the case you could target a tentacle for dispel magic and turn off the +4 for a single tentacle, but you can't because the tentacle has no power. The source(amulet) is where everything is from so once you drop the amulet, not the tentacle down, to a +2 then every tentacle also becomes a +2, and the other +2 is added to AC.


How would this work with a dueling weapon? or conductive?

Sczarni

In this case, the "Weapon with the Enhancement" is the AOMF - Not his 8 Tentacles.

Also, due to the recent FAQ on Source stacking - It doesn't stack because even though it's Untyped - It is from the Same source. He gets a +4 to AC, that's it.

If he could wear TWO Defending AoMFs, he could potentially have +8AC. They would be from different sources at that point. Too bad he can only wear one AoMF.


Ravingdork wrote:
I still don't see any evidence supporting the notion that lowering the enhancement bonus on one natural attack to add to your AC lowers the enhancement bonus on ALL your natural attacks.

Okay, thought experiment:

You have an AoMF which is flaming and icy.

Can you turn each of those properties on separately per limb? My intution says "no, the amulet is the only enchanted thing, it's just sharing that enchantment with natural attacks".


there is a reason most ac bonus do not stack excpt for dodge.

- you can wield two large shields +2. you still get only +4 to the
shield ac.

-you can wear a full plate and bracers of protection +X. yo uwill only get the higher ac.

-you can weild 2 defending weapons +3 each. you will only get one +3 to your ac. so EVEN if we sa ythe amoulet if mighty fists is not the source of the obnus(tho it is sure is) it ownt stakc wit hthe same kind of bonus.

if it is not dodge. unless it specificly mantioned that it stack with it self- it doesnt.

-also. since the power of the amulet work like the weapon. if you would alucate some of the bonus to ac you lower it from the attack bonus of all attacks that much in that round.since that much is clear then it should be clear that the +4 to ac is the same bonus. otherwise ud like remove -4 from one attack and keep it for the other 7?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / +4 defending amulet of mighty fists? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.