Unarmed strike with Amulet of Mighty fists clarification

[redcapscorner]

There is a ruling in the FAQ that an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the Speed property doesn't grant an extra attack with every single natural wespon for creatures with multiple natural attacks. There's no rules justification. It just says it would be too powerful.

And I don't disagree. I also understand that unarmed strikes aren't natural attacks, but presumably this ruling extends to unarmed strikes where attacks are explicitly made with two different parts of the body (a'la two-weapon fighting). Is the intended reading of this ruling then that different natural or unarmed attacks don't count as different weapons? Wouldn't that prevent use of unarmed strikes as part of two-weapon fighting? Or is flurry of blows already the only legal use of multiple unarmed strikes as two-weapon fighting? I don't know because I never really play TWF characters. Anyway, I need to know because there's another property I want to put on an Amulet that still cares whether or not my fists are separate weapon from one another: spell storing.

I'm not trying to munchkin anything, and I don't care what the answer is because I'm not trying to use the ability to cast multiple spells per turn. I just want to make sure I understand my character. It seems to me that enhancement bonuses are intentionally way more expensive on an amulet because it assumes you're applying the benefits to a variety of different attacks, which implies that they're separate weapons. It would be nice to be able to load different spells into different fists, so I had choices when attacking an enemy and could attack them two rounds in a row without having to reload.

[Cheapy]

Unarmed Strikes, no matter what body part is used, be it your fists, your kicks, your pelvis, whatever, count as one weapon.

So you couldn't do that "different spells for different body parts" thing, although ask your GM about a custom item.

...and God speed to those about to take part in this thread.

[blackbloodtroll]

The Unarmed Strike is one weapon.

Ninja'd.

[prototype00]

So what does the Greater Brawler rage power do then?

Quote:

Prerequisite: Brawler rage power

Benefit: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks

So, yeah, I guess this rage power does nothing as you can't TWF with only one weapon.

prototype00

[redcapscorner]

The rules don't seem cut and dry on this one. To be fair, that rage power DOES do something if you assume that the barbarian is wielding a single weapon and using her unarmed strikes as her off-hand weapon. It just doesn't do what it reads like it does unless unarmed strikes can be multiple weapons. I guess I'll leave this one up to GM interpretation since the rules aren't clear.

Let's assume for a second, though, that all unarmed strikes do count collectively as a single weapon. What if I also have a natural attack? Is my natural attack one weapon, while my unarmed strikes are a separate weapon? What if I have two natural attacks and also use unarmed strikes? Am I up to three weapons?

I've been catching up on the other thread, and I can see using haste justifications to augment SKR's ruling on speed (though that justification is by no means cut and dry either) rather than the "your body is a single weapon" justification, but if that's the case the ruling certainly doesn't apply for spell storing with regard to natural weapons. You can absolutely wield two spell storing weapons simultaneously RAW, right?

[blackbloodtroll]

Oh my, I really hope I do not have to go through this again.

To sum it up, if you houserule the unarmed strike as multiple weapons, you create a hellish rules nightmare that no one should have to deal with.

[prototype00]

I was about to reply that the moment you use a single weapon, you lose the TWF feat by raw (as you have to be making Unarmed strikes), and so you can't TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes.

But I'll stop there as I don't want to subject blackbloodtroll to a hellish rules nightmare. :)

prototype00

[Gilfalas]

prototype00 wrote:

So what does the Greater Brawler rage power do then?

Quote:

Prerequisite: Brawler rage power

Benefit: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks

So, yeah, I guess this rage power does nothing as you can't TWF with only one weapon.

prototype00

I would assume that it allows you to make a single extra attack at your highest bonus, with all attacks made in that round at a -2, including the extra attack?

I thought the prohibition with TWF was in conjuntion with Flurry of Blows, which basically mimics it but is better in the end?

The way I read it, that rage power only requires to be making unarmed strikes to use it. Nowhere does it have a prohibition that I see that says your cannot ALSO use a manufactured weapon in combination with unarmed strikes.

Therefore you could use a small or one handed weapon and punch/kick/headbutt/slam/whatever someone at the same time while raging with that power.

Seems straight forward to me.

As for the speed property, it clearly states it gives only one extra attack a round and does not stack with itself or other maigcal abilities that increase attacks though it should work, if applicable, with Flurry, TWF, Rapid Shot and other non magical/'character skill' based/Extraordinary abilities.

[blackbloodtroll]

I would like to make a note about the Greater Brawler Rage Power:

Advanced Player's Guide wrote:

Brawler, Greater

Prerequisite: Brawler rage power

Benefit: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks.

The power does not say that you gain the effects of the feat when using only unarmed strike attacks. This means that at least one of the attacks used while two weapon fighting must be an unarmed strike, but not all.

[redcapscorner]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Oh my, I really hope I do not have to go through this again.

To sum it up, if you houserule the unarmed strike as multiple weapons, you create a hellish rules nightmare that no one should have to deal with.

I'm willing to accept that all unarmed strikes count as a single weapon, and I'm willing to accept that the reason speed doesn't affect multiple natural attacks is because it doesn't stack with itself. Neither are explicit in the rules, but I'm happy to accept those rulings as fact. Regardless, a creature with a spell storing amulet of mighty fists and multiple natural attacks should seem to be able to store multiple spells, right?

[blackbloodtroll]

redcapscorner wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Oh my, I really hope I do not have to go through this again.

To sum it up, if you houserule the unarmed strike as multiple weapons, you create a hellish rules nightmare that no one should have to deal with.

I'm willing to accept that all unarmed strikes count as a single weapon, and I'm willing to accept that the reason speed doesn't affect multiple natural attacks is because it doesn't stack with itself. Neither are explicit in the rules, but I'm happy to accept those rulings as fact. Regardless, a creature with a spell storing amulet of mighty fists and multiple natural attacks should seem to be able to store multiple spells, right?

In the case of spell storing, you must realize that though it effects multiple attacks, the Amulet is only a single item, thus it can only store one spell.

[Gilfalas]

redcapscorner wrote:

...and I'm willing to accept that the reason speed doesn't affect multiple natural attacks is because it doesn't stack with itself. Neither are explicit in the rules...

Actually the Speed/Haste restriction is quite explicit in both the Speed description and the Haste description. They both state they give ONE extra attack and they both state they do not stack with any other magical effect that grants additional attacks.

Speed: (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

Haste SPell: Multiple haste effects do not stack.

[redcapscorner]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

The power does not say that you gain the effects of the feat when using only unarmed strike attacks. This means that at least one of the attacks used while two weapon fighting must be an unarmed strike, but not all.

Actually, I see what he's saying. I was arguing the same thing as you, but technically the two attacks are not made at the same time, and as soon as you're making the attack with the manufactured weapon, you're no longer making an unarmed strike, and thus you no longer have two-weapon fighting, so you'll be making that attack without the feat (at -8 or whathaveyou). Weird.

[redcapscorner]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

In the case of spell storing, you must realize that though it effects multiple attacks, the Amulet is only a single item, thus it can only store one spell.

RAW the amulet doesn't hold the spell. It grants spell storing to each of the natural weapons. I don't think that's even debatable by the wording.

[redcapscorner]

Gilfalas wrote:

Actually the Speed/Haste restriction is quite explicit in both the Speed description and the Haste description. They both state they give ONE extra attack and they both state they do not stack with any other magical effect that grants additional attacks.

Speed: (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

Haste SPell: Multiple haste effects do not stack.

I understand that argument and I'm willing to accept it, but you must realize that isn't the only reading available. Although haste is the prerequisite spell for the weapon property, the weapon property explicitly states that the weapon itself is what's granting the extra attack with that weapon. I'll happily read that the way you'd like me to, but it is by no means cut and dry.

[Gilfalas]

redcapscorner wrote:

Actually, I see what he's saying. I was arguing the same thing as you, but technically the two attacks are not made at the same time, and as soon as you're making the attack with the manufactured weapon, you're no longer making an unarmed strike, and thus you no longer have two-weapon fighting, so you'll be making that attack without the feat (at -8 or whathaveyou). Weird.

I still think your not understanding this correctly. The rage power does not say that you stop receiving the powers benefit if you make any non Unarmed strikes. It just says you gain it's benefit when your raging. So even if you make only one unarmed strike in a round you have the TWF for the entre melee round and it would apply to non Unarmed strikes in the same round. All you need is to be raging for the power to be there and to make at least one unarmed strike to get TWF for the entire round.

[redcapscorner]

It seems there are two conditions for having the free two-weapon fighting:

A) You must be raging.
B) You must be making an unarmed strike.

The rules of the game say that conditional feats are lost when the condition isn't met. It doesn't say anything in the rage power's description about gaining TWF for the entire round when you make an unarmed strike. It says you have it WHEN you make an unarmed strike. So, RAW it seems to provide you the benefits of the feat for the unarmed strike but not for the primary weapon attack, leaving you with -4 (your following off-hand attack is with a light weapon but you don't have the feat) / -2 (you're making an attack with a light off-hand weapon and you have the feat) on your attacks. I'm 100% with you that the rules didn't mean for this to happen, but it does seem to be what's happening.

[master arminas]

Heh. Funny thought. Since SKR insists that gauntlets, brass knuckles, rope gauntlets, cesti, etc. are NOT unarmed strikes, but are instead light melee weapons, would that mean that a barbarian wearing a gauntlet on one hand and brass knuckles on other is no longer eligable to use the Greater Brawler rage power? After all, he no longer has an unarmed strike, just two light melee weapons?

And since the magus is the only class with the class feature that allows him to deliver touch spells through weapons, does that mean that sorcerer/wizard/witch/cleric/inquisitor/oracle/druid/paladin or ranger can no longer deliver a touch spell while wearing a gauntlet? Since the gauntlet isn't an unarmed strike, but instead is a light melee weapon?

Master Arminas

[blackbloodtroll]

redcapscorner wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

In the case of spell storing, you must realize that though it effects multiple attacks, the Amulet is only a single item, thus it can only store one spell.

RAW the amulet doesn't hold the spell. It grants spell storing to each of the natural weapons. I don't think that's even debatable by the wording.

I dare you to explain what happens when an AoMF with multiple stored spells is passed on to a creature with less natural attacks than the previous wearer of the Amulet.

[blackbloodtroll]

master arminas wrote:

Heh. Funny thought. Since SKR insists that gauntlets, brass knuckles, rope gauntlets, cesti, etc. are NOT unarmed strikes, but are instead light melee weapons, would that mean that a barbarian wearing a gauntlet on one hand and brass knuckles on other is no longer eligable to use the Greater Brawler rage power? After all, he no longer has an unarmed strike, just two light melee weapons?

And since the magus is the only class with the class feature that allows him to deliver touch spells through weapons, does that mean that sorcerer/wizard/witch/cleric/inquisitor/oracle/druid/paladin or ranger can no longer deliver a touch spell while wearing a gauntlet? Since the gauntlet isn't an unarmed strike, but instead is a light melee weapon?

Master Arminas

You do realize that unarmed strikes can be made with more than just a fist. This is true for all PCs, not just monks.

[redcapscorner]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I dare you to explain what happens when an AoMF with multiple stored spells is passed on to a creature with less natural attacks than the previous wearer of the Amulet.

Challenge accepted. It honestly seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm wearing a spell storing amulet of mighty fists. I store bestow curse in my bite. I store blindness/deafness in my left claws. I store hold person in my right claws. I then remove the amulet and hand it to my buddy who only has a tail slap. When I remove the amulet, each of my natural weapons loses the spell storing quality which means I wasted my bestow curse, blindness/deafness, and hold person spells, each of which is now no longer stored in my non-spell storing natural weapons. My buddy puts on the amulet and now his tail slap has spell storing but no spells stored in it. If he wishes he can now choose to store a spell in his tail.

Nothing is stored in the amulet, it's merely a vessel for bestowing a particular weapon property or enhancement bonus (or combination thereof) to natural attacks and unarmed strikes. It bestows spell storing, but it does not itself store spells.

[blackbloodtroll]

So, a AoMF of spell storing functions entirely different than any other spell storing weapon?

I find that quite the stretch.

[redcapscorner]

It's not a spell storing weapon. It's a vessel for the spell storing property to be applied to natural weapons. Let's say for a second that the magus could use her arcane pool to add spell storing as a property to her weapon (like she can with keen, frost, etc.). Those benefits last for 1 minute, right? So, what happens when the magus bestows her weapon with spell storing and stores shocking grasp in it, and then fails to hit and deal damage to any enemy for more than a minute? The weapon loses the spell storing quality, which causes the shocking grasp to be wasted. The amulet acts in exactly the same way. It doesn't have the weapon properties, it bestows them on natural weapons.

This is RAW as far as I can tell (unless natural attacks don't count as individual weapons).

[Gilfalas]

redcapscorner wrote:

Although haste is the prerequisite spell for the weapon property, the weapon property explicitly states that the weapon itself is what's granting the extra attack with that weapon. I'll happily read that the way you'd like me to, but it is by no means cut and dry.

I am not asking you to read it as I want you to. I am asking you to read it. The Speed weapon property explicitly states in it's description that is does not stack with other speed effects and even gives Haste as a specific example.

The lines I have above in my post relating to Speed and the Haste Spell are cut and pasted from the Speed description and the haste spell description. They are not my interpretation of anytning but literal quotes.

[redcapscorner]

I don't know why you're so determined to have this argument over again. Haven't you had enough of it from the other thread? I've conceded over and again that I'm happy to accept that interpretation, and it's irrelevant for the purposes of this thread anyway. If it's really so important to you that I indulge in willful ignorance of the other interpretation, then sure! There's no other way you could possibly read the speed property. It's clear as crystal. It's so clear it doesn't even need a FAQ entry that effectively says "this is obviously too good, so it just fails to work without further clarification."

[Gilfalas]

redcapscorner wrote:

I don't know why you're so determined to have this argument over again. Haven't you had enough of it from the other thread? I've conceded over and again that I'm happy to accept that interpretation, and it's irrelevant for the purposes of this thread anyway. If it's really so important to you that I indulge in willful ignorance of the other interpretation, then sure! There's no other way you could possibly read the speed property. It's clear as crystal. It's so clear it doesn't even need a FAQ entry that effectively says "this is obviously too good, so it just fails to work without further clarification."

Since I have no idea what your talking about 'another thread' or 'this argument over again' I will simply state that if you don't want your posts replied to, don't make them in the first place.

Otherwise, be prepared to have exchanges with people who may have a difference of opinion and try to be polite to them.

[Tom S 820]

It realy a simple fix Speed weapon enchanement is base off the Haste Spell. Just give it one extra attack of it choce at it highest Attack BaB just as if it where hasted and go on. Why is this even a big deal people.

Cause whith the line reasoning that you guys are useing you can not haste your Animal Companion lion, wich is lame.

Add as far as Spell storing goese you can only have is once not 5 times. but you can unleash the stored spell from any of natural attack that you have.

[redcapscorner]

Gilfalas wrote:

Since I have no idea what your talking about 'another thread' or 'this argument over again' I will simply state that if you don't want your posts replied to, don't make them in the first place.

Otherwise, be prepared to have exchanges with people who may have a difference of opinion and try to be polite to them.

I apologize for being snippy, but you're repeatedly bringing up an irrelevant point that I've long since accepted as likely and which is currently the topic of some debate in a completely different four-plus-page thread in the same forum section as this one. Of course I want my posts responded to, and I'll quite happily engage in polite discourse, but when I keep saying "sure, I accept what you're saying as correct" and you keep responding with "no, you don't understand, I'm really, really right on this one," I hope you can see why it looks like you're intentionally picking a fight, and arguing just to argue.

A difference of opinion is what I'm having with blackbloodtroll. With you, I'm having an opinion in common repeatedly reiterated with increasing aggressiveness.