Aye. The section on DR states that it has to be a weapon with an enhancement bonus. Now a weapon with an enhancement bonus is the same to a weapon with GMW cast on it as the unarmed strike with an AoMF is to an Unarmed strike with GMF cast on it, so I would say the AoMF would count - I can see why some would disagree, but it would be a dick move to nerf the AoMF when it costs as much as it does.We are talking about disarm immunity though. Do you even understand how powerful that is? Everyone else needs to buy a weapon cord or a locked gauntlet, but not the monk!
Disarm. Immunity.
Now tell me how many monsters have Improved Disarm as a feat, or use disarming as a tactic.
Gosh, yes, that many.
I don't know, maybe your games are full of humanoids with class levels who love the disarm maneuver, but it's never happened to me. In fact I can think of only one game in the last five years when any for used Improved Sunder all of once, and none where a non-PC tried a disarm.
In any event, if it was a common tactic, locking gauntlets are easily affordable to anyone of 2nd level onwards. Gosh, the monk's unarmed strike is worth a chunk of mundane gear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are talking about disarm immunity though. Do you even understand how powerful that is? Everyone else needs to buy a weapon cord or a locked gauntlet, but not the monk!
Disarm. Immunity.
You do realize that this isn't actually true? Otherwise... what is regeneration for? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect mergy was being completely serious.
Completely. Serious.
Aye. The section on DR states that it has to be a weapon with an enhancement bonus. Now a weapon with an enhancement bonus is the same to a weapon with GMW cast on it as the unarmed strike with an AoMF is to an Unarmed strike with GMF cast on it, so I would say the AoMF would count - I can see why some would disagree, but it would be a dick move to nerf the AoMF when it costs as much as it does.We are talking about disarm immunity though. Do you even understand how powerful that is? Everyone else needs to buy a weapon cord or a locked gauntlet, but not the monk!
Disarm. Immunity.
A locked gaunlet costs 8 gp. 8. Gold. Pieces. And does exactly the same thing . . . makes the character immune to disarm attempts.
And note that you can disarm a character wearing an amulet of mighty fists. Or you can sunder it. Or you can steal it. Really, that leaves the monk with his base unarmed strikes, just like everyone else. True, the monk's does more damage: but that is part and parcel of playing a monk and has been since 1st edition.
Get over it.
MA
Mergy is being sarcastic.
The core of the question is better answered by this:
Does Greater Magic Fang allow you to bypass DR other than DR/Magic?
Nope.
MA
Gosh, yes, that many.I don't know, maybe your games are full of humanoids with class levels who love the disarm maneuver, but it's never happened to me. In fact I can think of only one game in the last five years when any for used Improved Sunder all of once, and none where a non-PC tried a disarm.
In any event, if it was a common tactic, locking gauntlets are easily affordable to anyone of 2nd level onwards. Gosh, the monk's unarmed strike is worth a chunk of mundane gear.
What about every spellcaster who can cast Grease? Grease disarms without worrying about CMD. Each round I'll note.
Just had it happen in a game. DC 13 Reflex, the level 5 dude failed (granted Fighting types barring Ranger don't usualy have good Reflexes)
Then neither does Amulet of Mighty Fists, as that's the spell used in creation, and the point of reference to answer this question.Mergy is being sarcastic.
The core of the question is better answered by this:
Does Greater Magic Fang allow you to bypass DR other than DR/Magic?
Nope.
MA
Ah, but neither does greater magic weapon which is the spell used in creation of magic weapons. My question is, as a wondrous item, do unarmed strikes and natural weapons enhanced by the AoMF bypass DR as magic weapons do? You can't go by the spell used to create it; because the magic item isn't the spell. For example, the AoMF enhances ALL natural attacks equally at its enhancement bonus . . . greater magic fang does that to one natural weapon.
MA
Ah, but neither does greater magic weapon which is the spell used in creation of magic weapons.
That's not the case; you don't need greater magic weapon or any spell to make a magic weapon with just an enhancement bonus to attack and damage.
That's not the case; you don't need greater magic weapon or any spell to make a magic weapon with just an enhancement bonus to attack and damage.
Ah, but neither does greater magic weapon which is the spell used in creation of magic weapons.
Wow. I stand corrected, I thought that you did.
MA
It happens - a few weeks ago I discovered, after playing for years, that incorporeal now reduces damage by 50% rather than having a 50% miss chance.
Haha, same thing just happened to me when my party went up against shadows.
We are talking about disarm immunity though. Do you even understand how powerful that is? Everyone else needs to buy a weapon cord or a locked gauntlet, but not the monk!
But can't they just disarm/sunder the amulet? Sure they can still attack without it, but flurry of misses isn't very threatening.
But can't they just disarm/sunder the amulet? Sure they can still attack without it, but flurry of misses isn't very threatening.
Doesn't Vorpal "dis-arm" a monk?
Or just behead.
It happens - a few weeks ago I discovered, after playing for years, that incorporeal now reduces damage by 50% rather than having a 50% miss chance.Haha, same thing just happened to me when my party went up against shadows.
We are talking about disarm immunity though. Do you even understand how powerful that is? Everyone else needs to buy a weapon cord or a locked gauntlet, but not the monk!But can't they just disarm/sunder the amulet? Sure they can still attack without it, but flurry of misses isn't very threatening.
You can sunder the amulet, but you can't disarm it. Only items held in the hands can be disarmed. If you want to remove the amulet, you must use the Steal combat maneuver.
so because monks are too op my feral gnasher can't have his bite attack overcome DR?
You can bypass DR/magic with the amulet.
It isn't because monks are 'too op,' as matter of fact it's because of multiple natural attack creatures (and now builds) that the AoMF is priced the way it is. Toss in most creatures who have DR count as being able to bypass the DR as well, it basically comes down to 'it sucks to be a PC without those options' in reality.
There are a few feats and items that will allow you to bypass DRs. Eldritch Claws for magic, the frost/flame gauntlets for cold iron and adamantine, etc.
In short, it has nothing to do with the monk, but your choice to play a class that focused on a natural attack without any of the perks of playing a race that allows you to bypass DR naturally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So many jokes to be had here. So many. "Home for PC Monks who thought a huge number of small attacks was good for bypassing DR."
You mean the graveyard?
ou can sunder the amulet, but you can't disarm it. Only items held in the hands can be disarmed. If you want to remove the amulet, you must use the Steal combat maneuver.
Okay, they steal instead of disarm. The only difference then is which feat do they use to get the bonus on it and stop it from being an AoO. And they can still sunder it.
Wow it just hit me that sundering the AoMF would just devastate monks.
It's even worse than a fighter getting his weapon sundered, and it is easier to do.
So I guess now sundering a monk's AoMF is a dick GM move too.
I've only seen a DM use Sunder once, to be honest. But if you are up against a sundering opponent, it's what they will try and do and I don;t see why they would treat the monk any differently. Of course the monk usually has good CMD so it won't be that easy...
I've only seen a DM use Sunder once, to be honest. But if you are up against a sundering opponent, it's what they will try and do and I don;t see why they would treat the monk any differently. Of course the monk usually has good CMD so it won't be that easy...
I don't use them often, but I use them enough. Cause honestly I'm pretty liberal with giving out magic items in the party... so I sometimes feel it can be appropriate to take some back every now and then, much to the horror of my players after they're so attached to their stuff.
Only problem is, to get over the magic on the item, you need a weapon at a higher bonus... So that can be a problem if it's not cursed lol.
I've only seen a DM use Sunder once, to be honest. But if you are up against a sundering opponent, it's what they will try and do and I don;t see why they would treat the monk any differently. Of course the monk usually has good CMD so it won't be that easy...I don't use them often, but I use them enough. Cause honestly I'm pretty liberal with giving out magic items in the party... so I sometimes feel it can be appropriate to take some back every now and then, much to the horror of my players after they're so attached to their stuff.
Only problem is, to get over the magic on the item, you need a weapon at a higher bonus... So that can be a problem if it's not cursed lol.
Not necessarily, I believe you need greater hardness. So an adamantine weapon with a minor enhancement will overcome a steel weapon with considerably more enhancement in a sunder attempt.
Or you could use a weapon enhanced by a magus or by a spell to a greater enhancement bonus than it normally has...
"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction."
Okay this is the quote from Special Abilities regarding DR and enhancement bonuses. +3 negates Cold Iron/Silver, +4 negates Adamantine, and +5 negates Alignment-based.
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability."
And this is the quote of the Amulet of Mighty Fists. So it gives an Enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 to Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks.
If both of those are correct then a person wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists(+3) and using an Unarmed Strike would bypass Cold Iron/Silver, since it grants a +3 Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes.
"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 Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls."
Here is a quote from the Unarmed Strike entry on the weapon table. It's clear that it counts as a weapon.
Your Bracers of Armor example isn't the same situation. The property Brawling clearly calls out for Light Armor which Bracers are not. The Amulet itself isn't being used as a weapon it grants an Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes which are a weapon.
The only thing Greater Magic Fang has to do with the Amulet is that its a preq to crafting it with Craft Wondrous Item. Its text has no meaning for the use of the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
"Frost
Aura moderate evocation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chill metal or ice storm; Price +1 bonus.
DESCRIPTION
Upon command, a frost weapon is sheathed in icy cold that deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. The cold does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given."
A Frost Weapon requires a Chill Metal or Ice Storm yet its effect has nothing to do with either. Most magic items are as such, so why does it matter all of a sudden for the Amulet of Mighty Fists?
As for there containing no specific text confirming or denying the possibility of bypassing DR in the text for the Amulet the same could be said for the Magic Weapons listing. No where does it state that a weapon can bypass DR with enhancement, yet it works without any problems.
That rule is stated in the Special Abilities section under Damage Reduction. A specific rule that works for Enhancement bonuses. So anytime you have an Enhancement bonus on a weapon that's +3 or higher you can bypass certain DR, unless specific text says otherwise like in Greater Magic Fang/Weapon spells where it is called out.
So in conclusion there is nothing stating that the Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't allow an Unarmed Strike enhanced by it to bypass DR.
|
From my interpretation, I don't believe AoMF can overcome DR, at least by RAW. An AoMF requires greater magic fang for creation, which doesn't bypass DR. A regular magic weapon that bypasses DR doesn't require greater magic weapon in its creation - just requires a certain caster level.
I'd be pleased as punch if it were the other way around, as I'm playing a feral alchemist in my next campaign, but I think the best way to overcome DR right now with natural attacks is use of versatile weapon.
From my interpretation, I don't believe AoMF can overcome DR, at least by RAW. An AoMF requires greater magic fang for creation, which doesn't bypass DR. A regular magic weapon that bypasses DR doesn't require greater magic weapon in its creation - just requires a certain caster level.
I'd be pleased as punch if it were the other way around, as I'm playing a feral alchemist in my next campaign, but I think the best way to overcome DR right now with natural attacks is use of versatile weapon.
That makes no sense.
So if AoMF must work exactly like Greater Magic Fang, then explain why other magic items don't.
Flaming
Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.
DESCRIPTION
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
I mean CLEARLY it was meant to allow a +1 Flaming Longsword to be able to use either Flame Blade, Flame Strike, and Fireball. You know since they are required to create the item.
Check out Magic Items many of them have spells required that have nothing to do with the effect of the item.
|
|
That makes no sense.So if AoMF must work exactly like Greater Magic Fang, then explain why other magic items don't.
Flaming
Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.
DESCRIPTION
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
I mean CLEARLY it was meant to allow a +1 Flaming Longsword to be able to use either Flame Blade, Flame Strike, and Fireball. You know since they are required to create the item.
Check out Magic Items many of them have spells required that have nothing to do with the effect of the item.
Hostile much?
If the rules were clear, there wouldn't be a discussion. Since they aren't, there is a discussion about it - which, as you may come to realize, may contain different views and opinions.
A flaming weapon obviously doesn't cast fireball, but requires a fire spell to create the effect. I'm saying that a regular magic weapon and AoMF are different, as one requires a spell (that doesn't bypass DR), and one doesn't. By my interpretation, the amulet doesn't allow natural weapons to bypass DR.
That makes no sense.So if AoMF must work exactly like Greater Magic Fang, then explain why other magic items don't.
Flaming
Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.
DESCRIPTION
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
I mean CLEARLY it was meant to allow a +1 Flaming Longsword to be able to use either Flame Blade, Flame Strike, and Fireball. You know since they are required to create the item.
Check out Magic Items many of them have spells required that have nothing to do with the effect of the item.
Hostile much?
If the rules were clear, there wouldn't be a discussion. Since they aren't, there is a discussion about it - which, as you may come to realize, may contain different views and opinions.
A flaming weapon obviously doesn't cast fireball, but requires a fire spell to create the effect. I'm saying that a regular magic weapon and AoMF are different, as one requires a spell (that doesn't bypass DR), and one doesn't. By my interpretation, the amulet doesn't allow natural weapons to bypass DR.
First off, sorry i'm not trying to be hostile.
So answer me this. Why is an AoMF different from every other Magic Item that has a listed spell that has nothing to do with the effect of the item?
Where does it say in the rules that just for this one specific AoMF item that the spell required dictates anything about it's mechanics?
|
|
First off, sorry i'm not trying to be hostile.
So answer me this. Why is an AoMF different from every other Magic Item that has a listed spell that has nothing to do with the effect of the item?
Where does it say in the rules that just for this one specific AoMF item that the spell required dictates anything about it's mechanics?
As far as I know, it's not actually listed anywhere, which is where these interpretations are coming from.
Additionally, AoMF says it grants an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, which is technically different from a weapon with an enhancement bonus (which is what penetrates DR). If the amulet said it treated unarmed/natural attacks as +X weapons, then it might penetrate DR.
I see two sections of rules that support the fact that the amulet doesn't allow you to penetrate DR, and nothing off hand to suggest that it would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AoMF says it grants an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, which is technically different from a weapon with an enhancement bonus (which is what penetrates DR).
It is a (slightly) different wording, but why does that entail a different effect? The spells Greater Magic Fang and Greater Magic Weapon both specifically call out that they are exceptions to the rule bypassing DR, so you could expect any other exceptions to be similarly called out, and in the case of the AoMF there is nothing.
You don't need a higher enhancement bonus, as I recall. Wasn't that a 3.5 rule?
Upon further review, seems to me that you're correct. Must have been an old 3.5 rule that got stuck in my head. Adamantine weapons for sundering it is!
First off, sorry i'm not trying to be hostile.
So answer me this. Why is an AoMF different from every other Magic Item that has a listed spell that has nothing to do with the effect of the item?
Where does it say in the rules that just for this one specific AoMF item that the spell required dictates anything about it's mechanics?
As far as I know, it's not actually listed anywhere, which is where these interpretations are coming from.
Additionally, AoMF says it grants an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, which is technically different from a weapon with an enhancement bonus (which is what penetrates DR). If the amulet said it treated unarmed/natural attacks as +X weapons, then it might penetrate DR.
I see two sections of rules that support the fact that the amulet doesn't allow you to penetrate DR, and nothing off hand to suggest that it would.
Alright then. So unless someone can post the location in the rule that says otherwise, Greater Magic Fang has nothing to do with AoMF mechanics.
"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction."
Here is the only section in the rules that states what can bypass DR. It is under Special Abilities, Damage Reduction.
It makes no mention of where you get the Enhancement bonus.
Only two things truly matter:
1. Requires a Weapon
2. Enhancement bonus of +3 or higher
Those are the ONLY requirements to bypass DR.
So now are both of these statements true?
1. Unarmed Strikes are weapons.
2. AoMF(+3) grants a +3 Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes.
If 1 and 2 are both true then the following is true:
Using an AoMF allows the bypassing of DR.
|
|
AoMF doesn't give your natural attacks an enhancement bonus, it simply provides an enhancement bonus to hit and damage. While functionally the same, the wording is different. Does that matter? I don't know.
It doesn't seem to be clear-cut either way, but I'd personally err on the side of AoMF not penetrating DR. If my GM says different, I'll believe him, but in my campaign, the amulet doesn't penetrate DR (for now).
AoMF doesn't give your natural attacks an enhancement bonus, it simply provides an enhancement bonus to hit and damage. While functionally the same, the wording is different. Does that matter? I don't know.
It doesn't seem to be clear-cut either way, but I'd personally err on the side of AoMF not penetrating DR. If my GM says different, I'll believe him, but in my campaign, the amulet doesn't penetrate DR (for now).
It fairly clear cut in that there is plenty of actually rules that make it work.
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
Here is the quote from the Amulet. See how it says: "grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5" that's what matters.
"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction."
Here is the quote again from Damage Reduction. It doesn't matter from where you get it. The only thing that matters is ENHANCEMENT BONUS of +3 or higher.
Does the AoMF give a Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes?
Does the Damage Reduction section state an Enhancement bonus of +3 or higher bypass DR?
If both are Yes then you can use AoMF to bypass DR. There is no need for interpretation when it is stated how it works.
Here is the quote again from Damage Reduction. It doesn't matter from where you get it. The only thing that matters is ENHANCEMENT BONUS of +3 or higher.
Does the AoMF give a Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes?
Does the Damage Reduction section state an Enhancement bonus of +3 or higher bypass DR?
If both are Yes then you can use AoMF to bypass DR. There is no need for interpretation when it is stated how it works.
Except it does matter.
GMF and GMW don't allow bypassing DR.This is kind of Pathfineder's fault for changing the rules without thinking about the consquences.
All of these questions are logical sequences: if only actual weapon enhancement counts, why would AoMF work? It is based on spells that don't work. It isn't an actual enhancement for weapons, but a wonderous item.
How did they miss that?
Here is the quote again from Damage Reduction. It doesn't matter from where you get it. The only thing that matters is ENHANCEMENT BONUS of +3 or higher.
Does the AoMF give a Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes?
Does the Damage Reduction section state an Enhancement bonus of +3 or higher bypass DR?
If both are Yes then you can use AoMF to bypass DR. There is no need for interpretation when it is stated how it works.
Except it does matter.
GMF and GMW don't allow bypassing DR.
This is kind of Pathfineder's fault for changing the rules without thinking about the consquences.All of these questions are logical sequences: if only actual weapon enhancement counts, why would AoMF work? It is based on spells that don't work. It isn't an actual enhancement for weapons, but a wonderous item.
How did they miss that?
GMF and GMW have nothing to do with it. Both spells specifically state they don't work for bypassing DR. The Amulet doesn't.
No where does it state that ONLY actual weapon enhancement counts. It states:
"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction."
No where does it state that it has to be from a Weapon only or that Wondrous Items don't work. It asks for a weapon that has an enhancement bonus. An Unarmed Strike is a weapon and the Amulet gives the Unarmed Strike the Enhancement. Where is the problem?
Also Greater Magic Fang HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AMULET other than being needed to craft it. The spells needed to craft an item don't alter any of it's mechanics.
|
|
I disagree there; GMF is the spell that's granting the amulet its power. Does that mean that it also passes along the inability to penetrate DR? Maybe. We don't know.
Also, just because it has an enhancement bonus to attack and damage doesn't mean it is a weapon with an enhancement bonus. They're worded differently, and therefore possibly act differently. For example, a masterwork weapon confers a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Does that mean it overcomes DR X/magic? Nope.
I disagree there; GMF is the spell that's granting the amulet its power. Does that mean that it also passes along the inability to penetrate DR? Maybe. We don't know.
Also, just because it has an enhancement bonus to attack and damage doesn't mean it is a weapon with an enhancement bonus. They're worded differently, and therefore possibly act differently. For example, a masterwork weapon confers a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Does that mean it overcomes DR X/magic? Nope.
Okay.
Quote the rules that backs up your assumption that GMF does anything to the mechanics of AoMF.
"Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat."
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
So the only difference between them is one is created that way and the other grants the SAME bonus to the wearers unarmed strikes or natural attacks.
Either way: "Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction."
They both apply to this rule.
I agree with Brain in a Jar, he has the best rules supported argument. The counter argument relies on too much interpretation and reading into the rules.
I want to agree with Brain in a Jar. It's just that I've seen so many things the Devs have ruled on that I honestly don't know if they would say a Wonderous Item bestows the ability to bypass DR like a Magic Weapon does.
So many things.
I want to agree with Brain in a Jar. It's just that I've seen so many things the Devs have ruled on that I honestly don't know if they would say a Wonderous Item bestows the ability to bypass DR like a Magic Weapon does.
So many things.
I just mean the current wording for how it works. If they do an Errata that counters what i've been saying that would change what i thought about it.
But as far as i know they haven't said anything about the Amulet in any official manner or even hinted at it changing.
Also going to agree with Brain in a Jar.
It appears to be well established that the spells needed to create magic items were selected to be thematically aligned with the effect granted. As pointed out, Fireball can be used to create a Flaming Sword, but it only grants the Flaming quality, it doesn't grant the ability to cast Fireballs.
Thematically, GMW (and the other spells which can be used to create AoMF) thematically align with the concept of granting an enhancement bonus. The precise effect is not the same, but it has simply been stipulated that this spell is used to create this effect.
Moreover, the text of AoMF indicates it grants bonuses to both unarmed and natural attacks. Although the text stipulates it grants "Melee Weapon Special Abilities" to weapons, monk attacks are specifically indicated as being treated as weapons and therefore ought to be covered.
If anything, the ability to use crafting feats to give enhancement bonuses to weapons without the use of a spell per se ought to be considered a special case out of line with every other magical crafting feat, specifically to allow non-casters to create magical weapons and armor without needing to take caster levels.
|
The text of AoMF indicates it grants bonuses to both unarmed and natural attacks. Although the text stipulates it grants "Melee Weapon Special Abilities" to weapons, monk attacks are specifically indicated as being treated as weapons and therefore ought to be covered.
Not just a monk. From the general section on weapons:
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
A monk just gets Improved Unarmed Strike for free, and is able to do lethal damage unarmed (and also does not provoke when using an unarmed attack).