|
I want to agree with Brain in a Jar as well, but that doesn't make it so. I don't think it's clearly worded either way, and would be a GM call. I like to err on the side of lower-power play, so in my game, I will err on the side of "does not bypass DR." That said, if there's ever an FAQ/errata on this, it would make things a lot easier.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you have a magic weapon, let's say a +3 longsword, anyone can pick it up and use it to bypass cold iron or silver DR. Why? It doesn't grant it bonuses to something on your person, it is crafted and made to be what it is.
The Amulet of the Mighty Fists is different. It doesn't make your unarmed strikes or natural attack magic weapons . . . it gives them an enhancement bonus, sure, but the bonus is inherent to the AoMF, not the unarmed strike or natural attack. There is a second difference: actual magic weapons do not require a spell in their creation, just Craft Magic Arms and Armor and a sufficiently high caster level. The AoMF does not require CMA&A, but does require a specific spell as well. It is not a weapon.
Now, under DR, only magic weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or higher get to bypass certain types of DR. So the question is, do enhancement bonuses bestowed by an item or spell grant the ability to bypass DR as a weapon. We already see that neither greater magic fang nor greater magic weapon do so.
That is why I am hoping that some developer comes in here and settles this once and for all.
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a magic weapon, let's say a +3 longsword, anyone can pick it up and use it to bypass cold iron or silver DR. Why? It doesn't grant it bonuses to something on your person, it is crafted and made to be what it is.
The Amulet of the Mighty Fists is different. It doesn't make your unarmed strikes or natural attack magic weapons . . . it gives them an enhancement bonus, sure, but the bonus is inherent to the AoMF, not the unarmed strike or natural attack. There is a second difference: actual magic weapons do not require a spell in their creation, just Craft Magic Arms and Armor and a sufficiently high caster level. The AoMF does not require CMA&A, but does require a specific spell as well. It is not a weapon.
Now, under DR, only magic weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or higher get to bypass certain types of DR. So the question is, do enhancement bonuses bestowed by an item or spell grant the ability to bypass DR as a weapon. We already see that neither greater magic fang nor greater magic weapon do so.
That is why I am hoping that some developer comes in here and settles this once and for all.
MA
How about we not change the wording under Damage Reduction.
"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."
It never says Magic Weapon. It only asks for Enhancement which the Amulet provides.
Now, under DR, only magic weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or higher get to bypass certain types of DR. So the question is, do enhancement bonuses bestowed by an item or spell grant the ability to bypass DR as a weapon. We already see that neither greater magic fang nor greater magic weapon do so.
That is why I am hoping that some developer comes in here and settles this once and for all.
MA
How about we not change the wording under Damage Reduction.
"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."
It never says Magic Weapon. It only asks for Enhancement which the Amulet provides.
A
While there is not a deffinative answer, Brain in a Jar has the most logical argument that doesn't require lots of inference about underlying spells and is just a simpler straight forward interpretation which usually is the correct one. The devs may clarify things differently, but until they do I think Brain in a Jar has the right take. Referencing that a spell used to create a magic item means the item is limited by the effects of the spell when the item does not cast that spell is not supported by the rules at all, so referencing that as support for your point of view weakens your argument. Would be nice of the devs have time to clarify, but It would also be nice to have more new content.
If you have a magic weapon, let's say a +3 longsword, anyone can pick it up and use it to bypass cold iron or silver DR. Why? It doesn't grant it bonuses to something on your person, it is crafted and made to be what it is.
The Amulet of the Mighty Fists is different. It doesn't make your unarmed strikes or natural attack magic weapons . . . it gives them an enhancement bonus, sure, but the bonus is inherent to the AoMF, not the unarmed strike or natural attack. There is a second difference: actual magic weapons do not require a spell in their creation, just Craft Magic Arms and Armor and a sufficiently high caster level. The AoMF does not require CMA&A, but does require a specific spell as well. It is not a weapon.
Now, under DR, only magic weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or higher get to bypass certain types of DR. So the question is, do enhancement bonuses bestowed by an item or spell grant the ability to bypass DR as a weapon. We already see that neither greater magic fang nor greater magic weapon do so.
That is why I am hoping that some developer comes in here and settles this once and for all.
MA
How about we not change the wording under Damage Reduction.
"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."
It never says Magic Weapon. It only asks for Enhancement which the Amulet provides.
How else, pray tell, does a manufactured weapon gain a +3 or higher enhancement bonus if it is not magical? GMW doesn't apply, it says so specifically in the spell description.
MA
If you have a magic weapon, let's say a +3 longsword, anyone can pick it up and use it to bypass cold iron or silver DR. Why? It doesn't grant it bonuses to something on your person, it is crafted and made to be what it is.
The Amulet of the Mighty Fists is different. It doesn't make your unarmed strikes or natural attack magic weapons . . . it gives them an enhancement bonus, sure, but the bonus is inherent to the AoMF, not the unarmed strike or natural attack. There is a second difference: actual magic weapons do not require a spell in their creation, just Craft Magic Arms and Armor and a sufficiently high caster level. The AoMF does not require CMA&A, but does require a specific spell as well. It is not a weapon.
Now, under DR, only magic weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or higher get to bypass certain types of DR. So the question is, do enhancement bonuses bestowed by an item or spell grant the ability to bypass DR as a weapon. We already see that neither greater magic fang nor greater magic weapon do so.
That is why I am hoping that some developer comes in here and settles this once and for all.
MA
How about we not change the wording under Damage Reduction.
"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."
It never says Magic Weapon. It only asks for Enhancement which the Amulet provides.
How else, pray tell, does a manufactured weapon gain a +3 or higher enhancement bonus if it is not magical? GMW doesn't apply, it says so specifically in the spell description.
MA
I didn't say that. I just wanted to clarify what Damage Reduction actually said since you were attempting to twist the words to leave the Amulet from working.
The fact that Greater Magic Weapon specifically calls out that the enhancement bonus does not count for DR penetration actually makes it more likely that the AoMF does penetrate. Unarmed attacks are weapons, the AoMF gives it an enhancement bonus therefore they penetrate. The example of GMW shows that there needs to be special wording for it not to penetrate, and the AoMF does not have this wording and the fact that the spell required to create it does not transfer that limitation to the item (that is something you are inferring for some reason).
Your insistence in adding the magic prefix makes it appear that you have an agenda other than figuring out the correct ruling. For someone who claims to love monks you sure are trying to make them as bad as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would be nice of the devs have time to clarify, but It would also be nice to have more new content.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather they clarify some issues, than keep on pushing out new content. I know new content makes them money, and they need money to stay in business, but sometimes, clarification is needed.
Constantly pushing out new content without revising old stuff creates problems. Look at the Prone Shooter Feat, it's "new content" but does absolutely nothing in the long run. One of my biggest issues of 3.5 was the constant New Content. It creates bloat, and issues with conflicting rules or unintentional power creep.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be nice of the devs have time to clarify, but It would also be nice to have more new content.Call me crazy, but I'd rather they clarify some issues, than keep on pushing out new content. I know new content makes them money, and they need money to stay in business, but sometimes, clarification is needed.
Constantly pushing out new content without revising old stuff creates problems. Look at the Prone Shooter Feat, it's "new content" but does absolutely nothing in the long run. One of my biggest issues of 3.5 was the constant New Content. It creates bloat, and issues with conflicting rules or unintentional power creep.
Agreed, Tels. I'd rather see six months with nothing but adventure modules and work on putting all the issues with the current game right than more new rules.
But that is just me.
MA
The fact that Greater Magic Weapon specifically calls out that the enhancement bonus does not count for DR penetration actually makes it more likely that the AoMF does penetrate. Unarmed attacks are weapons, the AoMF gives it an enhancement bonus therefore they penetrate. The example of GMW shows that there needs to be special wording for it not to penetrate, and the AoMF does not have this wording and the fact that the spell required to create it does not transfer that limitation to the item (that is something you are inferring for some reason).
Your insistence in adding the magic prefix makes it appear that you have an agenda other than figuring out the correct ruling. For someone who claims to love monks you sure are trying to make them as bad as possible.
Unarmed attacks are weapons . . . but you are not crafting the weapons. You are crafting the amulet. Look it is the same as the magus arcane pool: I am of the opinion that enhancements granted to a non-magical weapon wielded by the magus that gains an enhancement bonus because he is spending arcane pool points does not bypass DR automatically like regular magic weapons.
Nothing else in the game that adds an enhancement bonus to weapons, unarmed strikes, or natural attacks gives you the ability to bypass damage reduction based on enhancement bonus. No spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability. Only weapons that have a +3 or greater enhancement bonus . . . and the only way weapons get that as inherent to their nature is be magically crafted.
I could be wrong. I hope that I am wrong. But I would still like someone in authority to speak out on this subject and settle it. Shouldn't take five minutes. Is that too much to ask?
MA
The fact that Greater Magic Weapon specifically calls out that the enhancement bonus does not count for DR penetration actually makes it more likely that the AoMF does penetrate. Unarmed attacks are weapons, the AoMF gives it an enhancement bonus therefore they penetrate. The example of GMW shows that there needs to be special wording for it not to penetrate, and the AoMF does not have this wording and the fact that the spell required to create it does not transfer that limitation to the item (that is something you are inferring for some reason).
Your insistence in adding the magic prefix makes it appear that you have an agenda other than figuring out the correct ruling. For someone who claims to love monks you sure are trying to make them as bad as possible.
Unarmed attacks are weapons . . . but you are not crafting the weapons. You are crafting the amulet. Look it is the same as the magus arcane pool: I am of the opinion that enhancements granted to a non-magical weapon wielded by the magus that gains an enhancement bonus because he is spending arcane pool points does not bypass DR automatically like regular magic weapons.
Nothing else in the game that adds an enhancement bonus to weapons, unarmed strikes, or natural attacks gives you the ability to bypass damage reduction based on enhancement bonus. No spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability. Only weapons that have a +3 or greater enhancement bonus . . . and the only way weapons get that as inherent to their nature is be magically crafted.
I could be wrong. I hope that I am wrong. But I would still like someone in authority to speak out on this subject and settle it. Shouldn't take five minutes. Is that too much to ask?
MA
Those are called opinions. The fact is no where in all of the rules can you actually post why the Amulet doesn't work. All i've seen are opinions and "interpretations" of certain rules, like Greater Magic Fang making it not work.
By RAW the Amulet of Mighty Fists can bypass DR just the same as any other enhancement bonus. Unless it states otherwise.
Greater Magic Fang/Weapon grants enhancement but directly states it doesn't bypass DR.
The Magus Arcane Pool grants enhancement bonus. This would bypass.
Magic Weapons grant enhancement bonus. This would bypass.
AoMF grants enhancement bonus. This would bypass.
If your going to say i'm wrong. THEN PROVE IT.
I have direct quotes from the rules that clearly state i am correct. Prove otherwise or accept it.
Like I said previously it would be nice if they would clarify it, but I am sure it is more complicated than you make it out to be as they are a company and have to make money.
Maybe they feel the answer is already right there in the rules and that a certain faction of forum goers is hell bent on proving that monks suck and that desire is twisting their perceptions and they don't want to waste time or money dealing with these people due to their warped perceptions making them unreasonable?
Maybe they feel that due to their warped perceptions nothing they can say will mollify this group so it is better to say nothing at all?
Maybe they are working on several clarifications at once and they want to release all the fixes at the same time so they are in the same place and not scattered over the millions of threads?
Maybe they are afraid that something they say will get taken out of context and use to fuel additional flame wars so they don't want to "just take 5 minutes" to answer something that could just make things worse.
Maybe the Monk isn't fixable until a Pathfinder 2.0 due to backward compatibility issues, but they haven't arrived at that stance yet internally due to a business having certain procedures for that sort of thing and given that these fixes aren't paying the bills they don't have time to do it properly currently?
Maybe because they made mistakes when doing past fixes they are spending lots of time to make sure they can really fix it this time?
Maybe we should just wait for the monk clarifications and see what those say, that is really the only thing that is going to happen anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And where, oh where, brain-in-a-jar, does it say that wondrous items which grant enhancement bonuses bypass DR as magic weapons? The whole point of this thread, and the 63 people who have to date FAQed it (include James Jacobs, I might remind you) is to get the word directly from the horse's mouth.
There is no proof of any of this in the rules as written. There is only supposition: mine and yours alike. Interpretation, if you will. I am seeking an official answer so that I do not have to interpret any longer.
Prove it? What is this? A debate? When we are discussing how the rules can be interpreted by individual DMs and awaiting an official answer?
Get over yourself, why don't you? You have not the right to demand anything from me, B-in-a-J, except civility. I have not said that you are wrong . . . if you will note my post, I even said that I hope that I am wrong.
And as far me as accepting that you are right in this instance, I fear you are sadly mistaken. Your quotes have, to use your own words, proven nothing except that magic weapons with a +3 or higher enhancement bonus can bypass damage reduction. There are two examples from the Core Rulebook, however, where enhancement bonuses that are not inherent to the weapon itself fail to do so. So why do you insist that I see things your way or the highway?
Is it that you fear that the ruling might come down and show you to be wrong?
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get over himself? Sorry but you are the one that needs to get over your campaign to prove that the pathfinder developers hate monks!
Yes both your position and Brains are interpretations, because as pointed out the rules do not explicitly state it. However Brain's interpretation is superior because he actually cites relevant rules that directly support his interpretation. Your points do not and are supported by your zealous desire to prove the developers wrong, not actually clarify this issue.
My opinion, having read many of your posts, is the reason you won't agree with Brain's reasonable interpretation is that you have far too much invested in the argument that monks suck and the lack of DR penetration is one of two reasons you give to support that. Take away the DR penetration because the AoMF works and your attack base is weakened. I site your post history as evidence of this supposition.
|
It seems to me that the Amulet bypasses, but I went ahead and FAQ'd it for you.
If you look at the rules, the CRB says "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."
Next, we look at the monk's fist: "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 now we know that the monk's fist is a weapon, and weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of DR.
So now we look at the rules text for AoMF: "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
Compare this to Greater Magic Fang: "This spell functions like magic fang, except that the enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic."
This rules text is important because when we read a rule, we have to assume that the text is intentional and that differences are intentional. Here, Greater Magic Fang specifically says that the enhancement bonus does not pierce anything but DR magic. That rules text is absent from the AoMF, and therefore we must assume that this was intentional when we apply that rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And where, oh where, brain-in-a-jar, does it say that wondrous items which grant enhancement bonuses bypass DR as magic weapons? The whole point of this thread, and the 63 people who have to date FAQed it (include James Jacobs, I might remind you) is to get the word directly from the horse's mouth.
There is no proof of any of this in the rules as written. There is only supposition: mine and yours alike. Interpretation, if you will. I am seeking an official answer so that I do not have to interpret any longer.
Prove it? What is this? A debate? When we are discussing how the rules can be interpreted by individual DMs and awaiting an official answer?
Get over yourself, why don't you? You have not the right to demand anything from me, B-in-a-J, except civility. I have not said that you are wrong . . . if you will note my post, I even said that I hope that I am wrong.
And as far me as accepting that you are right in this instance, I fear you are sadly mistaken. Your quotes have, to use your own words, proven nothing except that magic weapons with a +3 or higher enhancement bonus can bypass damage reduction. There are two examples from the Core Rulebook, however, where enhancement bonuses that are not inherent to the weapon itself fail to do so. So why do you insist that I see things your way or the highway?
Is it that you fear that the ruling might come down and show you to be wrong?
MA
"Overcoming DR
Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).
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."
This is the only thing that matters. This is the rule that determines what can bypass DR.
It even states what a Magic Weapon is; "magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality)" So after reading this it seems that all you need is a weapon and an Enhancement bonus of +3 or higher.
If the source of the Enhancement bonus doesn't allow it to bypass DR it specifically says so. As per Greater Magic Fang and Weapon spells.
If it doesn't state as such by RAW it bypasses DR. The Amulet gives a weapon a +1 to +5 Enhancement bonus. So by RAW a +3 Amulet would allow your weapon(Unarmed Strike) to bypass DR.
I'm not "interpreting" anything. I've posted the rule that concerns this and it says exactly how to bypass DR. You and others are fishing around with your opinions on why it doesn't work.
Saying that since the Amulet is made with Greater Magic Fang it works like the spell. (No evidence to support it.)
Saying it requires Magic Weapons(meaning manufactured swords etc.)to bypass DR. (Even though the rule says nothing of that.)
As for fearing i might be wrong. I don't care about "me" being right and wrong. I want the RAW to be correct not some persons opinion on RAW. I try my best to stick to RAW and only post logical ways to prove or disprove something. I like evidence not hearsay.
I also don't care how many people FAQ this thread or who in particular has FAQed it. It means nothing to me.
The rule is the rule. It right there. Read Damage Reduction. Read the Amulet. It works. So far everything else i've seen has nothing but opinion to prove it. I'm asking for anyone who thinks i'm wrong to actually post a link, a quote, some speck of the rules to justify your stance.
If that were the case, Paizo could show me as being wrong right now by coming here and posting on this thread an official answer stating that the AoMF bypasses DR based on its enhancement bonus.
I hope that they do. I have no problem with acknowledging when I am wrong . . . but so far they have not. If, if, the AoMF is able to bypass DR based on enhancement bonus, that would strengthen the Pathfinder monk and make getting through DR slightly easier for those who play the class.
Now, as to your statement that I believe that Paizo hates monks: I have never said that. Nor have I said that monks suck. I play monks using the Pathfinder rules; I run games for monks using the Pathfinder rules. I have said, time and again, that it is very easy for a novice to fall into a trap with the monk class and that many of the monk's class abilities are at odds with each other. That the monk is a martial character that cannot keep pace with a paladin fighting neutral critters or a range in combat against someone not a favored enemy. Heck, they can be outdone in combat by a Dex-oriented Rogue! Not to mention Bards and Magi.
I would love to see official clarification that supports Brain-in-a-Jar's position. That would make monks so much easier to play and make the folks who play them happier while doing so.
But you know what? I am only one of sixty-plus people who have clicked that FAQ button on this issue. That means there are a lot of people out there besides me who would like an answer on this.
So how about you quit telling me what I think, BiggDawg. Quit putting other peoples words in my mouth. And ascribing motives to me not borne out by the evidence of my posts.
How about it?
MA
If that were the case, Paizo could show me as being wrong right now by coming here and posting on this thread an official answer stating that the AoMF bypasses DR based on its enhancement bonus.
I hope that they do. I have no problem with acknowledging when I am wrong . . . but so far they have not. If, if[/b], the AoMF is able to bypass DR based on enhancement bonus, that would [i]strengthen the Pathfinder monk and make getting through DR slightly easier for those who play the class.
Now, as you to your statement that I believe that Paizo hates monks: I have never said that. Nor have I said that monks suck. I play monks using the Pathfinder rules; I run games for monks using the Pathfinder rules. I have said, time and again, that it is very easy for a novice to fall into a trap with the monk class and that many of the monk's class abilities are at odds with each other. That the monk is a martial character that cannot keep pace with a paladin fighting neutral critters or a range in combat against someone not a favored enemy. Heck, they can be outdone in combat by a Dex-oriented Rogue! Not to mention Bards and Magi.
I would love to see official clarification that supports Brain-in-a-Jar's position. That would make monks so much easier to play and make the folks who play them happier while doing so.
But you know what? I am only one of sixty-plus people who have clicked that FAQ button on this issue. That means there are a lot of people out there besides me who would like an answer on this.
So how about you quit telling me what I think, BiggDawg. Quit putting other peoples words in my mouth. And ascribing motives to me not borne out by the evidence of my posts.
How about it?
MA
First off, i'm not trying to come of as hostile during any of this Master Arminas. I know i have been in the past but this has been civil so far and i'd like to keep it that why.
I really do understand where you're coming from. If they post it there is no refuting it and some people that play this game can and will interpret even something as simple as Common Terms of the game and then argue.
I just don't see why anyone is confused. I mean the only place i've seen mention bypassing DR is in the Damage Reduction section or when it states that it specifically doesn't bypass it.
Hell, even the Magic Weapons section under Magic Items doesn't even mention as far as i've seen.
@MA
My opinion of your position is 100% developed from reading your posts. It is entirely subjective, but it is one developed from reading what you have posted of your own free will. It may not be the position that you have in your mind about yourself, but that is how you come across to me.
Brain in a Jar has the support of the rules and I agree with him that it is the RAW interpretation. The arguments against it seem to be coming from an intense desire for the AoMF not to work, as Brain has very reasonably pointed out the relevant rules while you do not have such support. This forces me to question why you seek to support what appears to be an unreasonable position. I very well could be wrong, but from what I read that is my perception of events.
BiggDawg, maybe you don't understand the concept of debating very well. Granted, I am no master speaker, I'm just a guy that took Debate in high school, so take of my post what you will.
Part of debating is being able to argue for a subject you don't agree with. Sometimes, you don't get to choose which side of a debate you're on. I believe Master Arminas wants the AoMF to work like Brain in a Jar says, I do as well. The problem comes from the fact there is legitimate room for either side of the debate.
For instance, I myself am fervently against Abortion, but one of the topics I had to debate was Abortion and I had been put on the side that was advocating Pro-Choice. I am morally opposed to it, but I still had to do my best to argue 'my side' of the debate. I didn't like it, but life isn't fair. I think it's the same case here.
Master Arminas posed one side, and Brain in a Jar is countering Master Arminas, whether or not Master Arminas wants BiaJ's side to win doesn't change the fact that Master Arminas must still explain why it's possible that the AoMF doesn't overcome DR.
====================================
Consider this, words in this game carry weight beyond just their meaning. Using a game term can change how something words beyond how something was intended. That means, typically, when the rules for something is expanded upon, the Developers try to only use rules lingo when they mean to.
Now, when speaking in reference to magic weapons, Enhancement bonus does what, exactly?
- It provides a numerical bonus on attack rolls equal to the indicated number referred to as +x
- If the weapon is used as part of a Maneuver, it provides a numerical bonus to that Maneuvers roll equal to the attack bonus
- It provides a numerical bonus on damage rolls equal to the indicated number referred to as +x
- Every +1 of Enhancement increases the items Hardness by 2 and it's HP by 10
- Sufficiently high Enhancement bonuses overcome certain Damage Reduction types
Now that's all off the top of my head, I also recall that Weapon Enhancement bonuses also add to the CMD of to resist things like Disarm, but I think that's a house rule of ours so I didn't include it. Anyway, all of the above is included when something gains a straight +x Enhancement to attack rolls, unless it is specifically mentioned otherwise.
That's a key thing right there. Masterwork weapons give a +1 to attack, but they don't increase the hardness by 2 or extra HP or a +1 on damage.
The Amulet of Mighty Fist says:
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
This changes things. Unlike a straight Enhancement Bonus which already gives +x to attack and damage rolls the AoMF Enhancement Bonus is specifically called out to give the bonus to attack and damage.
What does that mean? It's not a normal Enhancement Bonus that weapons can get. It doesn't give a +2 to Hardness or extra 10 HP per bonus. It doesn't overcome DR at higher numbers, because the Enhancement Bonus is specifically called out as giving the bonus to attack and damage.
Now, personally, I think this might have just been a mistake in the lingo department of Paizo. I doubt it was the intention to essentially give a permanent Greater Magic Fang spell, instead of true Enhancement that weapons get. But I could be wrong, and I dearly hope I am not wrong, otherwise the Amulet of Might Fist is basically worthless at higher levels when everything and it's grandmother has DR.
I've seen a lot of rules being quoted, but I think people are forgetting that the words used in those rules carry as much, or more, weight than the rule itself.
If the Amulet of Might Fist simply gave +x Enhancement bonus on Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes, there really wouldn't be that much room to argue. Instead, the Enhancement Bonus is modifier to only give the bonus to Attack and Damage Rolls, meaning it's not a true bonus.
Funny thing, because of the wording that modifies the Enhancement Bonus, the Amulet of Mighty Fist doesn't even overcome DR/Magic.
[Edit] Fixed some accidentally deleted words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tels if you think this forum discussion has anything to do with a real debate then I don't know what to tell you. Debates have structure, which this does not, in any real debate MA arguments would get denied as he has no evidence from the rules, all he has is inferences and word games. Brain clearly quoted the rules which are pretty straight forward, and all that comes in reply are if this word means that or this word could indicate that. In debate the reasonable argument wins, it is not enough to have a position you need to have one supported by facts. The side that isn't relying heavily on interpreting words to fit their argument is the most reasonable one.
I agree that the rules are not clear as you have to pull information from many different places, but it is clear that weapons with an enhancement bonus (it doesn't say anything about what or how, like requiring the enhancement bonus to be "true" which is another inference on your part further supported that specific spells which don't grant DR penetration explicitly say that) can penetrate DR, monks unarmed attacks are weapons (class ability) and that the AoMF gives an enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks. Your entire argument is based on inferring additional meaning from the words instead of accepting them at face value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This changes things. Unlike a straight Enhancement Bonus which already gives +x to attack and damage rolls the AoMF Enhancement Bonus is specifically called out to give the bonus to attack and damage.
"A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls."
Actually even the Magic Weapons section says that they add the Enhancement bonus to attack and damage.
While the Amulet says;
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
The only real difference between them seems to be "This Amulet grants" and "Magic weapons have"
Tels if you think this forum discussion has anything to do with a real debate then I don't know what to tell you. Debates have structure, which this does not, in any real debate MA arguments would get denied as he has no evidence from the rules, all he has is inferences and word games. Brain clearly quoted the rules which are pretty straight forward, and all that comes in reply are if this word means that or this word could indicate that. In debate the reasonable argument wins, it is not enough to have a position you need to have one supported by facts. The side that isn't relying heavily on interpreting words to fit their argument is the most reasonable one.60+ people obviously think it is important enough to get some clarification on. Interpreting words is generally what people do you know, when they read something. You either think it is worthy of a FAQ or it's not. I honestly think at the moment, AOMF does not grant the ability to overcome DR.
While i agree an FAQ will not hurt anyone i just want to know why people think that way. I enjoy a good debate.
So why do you think it doesn't work?
Tels if you think this forum discussion has anything to do with a real debate then I don't know what to tell you. Debates have structure, which this does not, in any real debate MA arguments would get denied as he has no evidence from the rules, all he has is inferences and word games. Brain clearly quoted the rules which are pretty straight forward, and all that comes in reply are if this word means that or this word could indicate that. In debate the reasonable argument wins, it is not enough to have a position you need to have one supported by facts. The side that isn't relying heavily on interpreting words to fit their argument is the most reasonable one.60+ people obviously think it is important enough to get some clarification on. Interpreting words is generally what people do you know, when they read something. You either think it is worthy of a FAQ or it's not. I honestly think at the moment, AOMF does not grant the ability to overcome DR.
I never said people shouldn't FAQ this question. I was merely posting my opinion on the subject and the arguments contained in this discussion. In fact several times I have agreed that it isn't explicit and if people want an explicit answer then the FAQ button is were they should go. However just because 60 people FAQ'd it doesn't mean it's going to be replied to anytime soon. While we are waiting other new players may come to the Rules forum looking for answers and I feel that people that choose to participate in the Rules forum should argue reasonably in an attempt to clarify the issue using the rules as much as possible. While it is true that everything is interpretation at some level, not every interpretation is as valid as another.
Constantly pushing out new content without revising old stuff creates problems. Look at the Prone Shooter Feat, it's "new content" but does absolutely nothing in the long run. One of my biggest issues of 3.5 was the constant New Content. It creates bloat, and issues with conflicting rules or unintentional power creep.
Preach it, brother!
This changes things. Unlike a straight Enhancement Bonus which already gives +x to attack and damage rolls the AoMF Enhancement Bonus is specifically called out to give the bonus to attack and damage."A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls."
Actually even the Magic Weapons section says that they add the Enhancement bonus to attack and damage.
While the Amulet says;
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
The only real difference between them seems to be "This Amulet grants" and "Magic weapons have"
Here's the thing, a Monk, or Fighter, or Commoner wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists does not treat his Unarmed Strike as a Magic Weapon. Only a Magic Weapon is a Magic Weapon. Also, Unarmed Strikes cannot be Masterwork even if you try and use a spell like Masterwork Transformation because Unarmed Strikes do not have a Masterwork equivalent.
An Amulet of Mighty Fists grants an Enhancement Bonus to Attack and Damage rolls, but does not grant a true Magical Enhancement Bonus. A True Bonus increase Hardness by 2 and adds 10 HP to the weapon, per bonus. It also overcomes DR at higher levels.
This will come off as a Strawman Argument, but a Hydra's heads are considered separate weapons for the purpose of severing them. They have Hardness 0 and HP equal to the Hydra's HD. If the Amulet of Might Fists granted a true Enhancement Bonus, then putting a +5 Amulet on a Hydra would give the Hydra Hardness 5 and a bonus of 50 HP. This isn't the case because an Amulet is restricted to enhancing Attack and Damage Rolls only.
@BiggDawg
I don't think I communicated my point very well. I meant that, like in a Debate, sometimes you have to argue the case for subjects you don't agree with. I don't think Master Arminas actually supports the Amulet being denied from overcoming DR, I think he's merely defending his side of the case, much as he probably doesn't want to.
I know forums aren't an actual Debate, I was simply using a Debate as an example, nothing more.
If you had a masterwork weapon and later improved it to +3, would it not overcome additional DR because it wasn't crafted as a magical weapon?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing, a Monk, or Fighter, or Commoner wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists does not treat his Unarmed Strike as a Magic Weapon. Only a Magic Weapon is a Magic Weapon. Also, Unarmed Strikes cannot be Masterwork even if you try and use a spell like Masterwork Transformation because Unarmed Strikes do not have a Masterwork equivalent.
"Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment."
That is from Special Abilities, Damage Reduction. It states what a Magic Weapon is; "magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus," there are cases where a "Magic Weapon" doesn't have to be Masterwork. So someone using Unarmed Strike(which is a weapon) can make it "Magic" with Enhancement bonuses.
A Paladin or Magus can use Arcane Pool and Divine Bond respectively to make a weapon(masterwork or not) into a "Magic Weapon" that can bypass DR.
An Amulet of Mighty Fists grants an Enhancement Bonus to Attack and Damage rolls, but does not grant a true Magical Enhancement Bonus. A True Bonus increase Hardness by 2 and adds 10 HP to the weapon, per bonus. It also overcomes DR at higher levels.
I'd say for the most part this wouldn't even come up, since you can't Sunder Unarmed Strikes, Claws, Bites.
I will admit the Hydra question is interesting. I would think it would work the way you said increasing it's Hardness and HP. Though i will admit that this isn't something i would be sure about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing, a Monk, or Fighter, or Commoner wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists does not treat his Unarmed Strike as a Magic Weapon. Only a Magic Weapon is a Magic Weapon. Also, Unarmed Strikes cannot be Masterwork even if you try and use a spell like Masterwork Transformation because Unarmed Strikes do not have a Masterwork equivalent."Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment."
That is from Special Abilities, Damage Reduction. It states what a Magic Weapon is; "magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus," there are cases where a "Magic Weapon" doesn't have to be Masterwork. So someone using Unarmed Strike(which is a weapon) can make it "Magic" with Enhancement bonuses.
Wow, seriously? Maybe I'm being very confusing or something, but you're not getting the fact that the Amulet only enhances the attack and damage of unarmed strikes and natural weapons/. Unlike the Enhancement Bonus that a true Magic Weapon gets, such as a +1 Longsword created via the Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat, the +1 - +5 of the Amulet DOES NOT grant the ability to overcome Damage Reduction BECAUSE it is specifically calls out the fact that it ONLY Enhances the Attack and Damage rolls.
I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, but you seem to be having difficulty doing so. All you are doing is quoting text that doesn't apply to the Amulet.
Enhancement, as a game term, is used a lot in Pathfinder. Just because it Enhances Attack and Damage, DOES NOT MEAN IT WORKS IN ALL WAYS AS A MAGIC WEAPON.
The Amulet says Enhances Attack Rolls and Damage Rolls. It does not say it 'Works in all ways like a Magic Weapon'.
+1 to hit and damage means exactly that, +1 to hit and a damage. It doesn't mean the Hardness increases by 2. It doesn't mean it gains a further +10 HP. It doesn't mean it overcomes Damage Reduction.
As Written, the Amulet of Mighty Fist does not overcome Damage Reduction of any time, even DR/Magic.
A Masterwork Weapon has an enhancement bonus of +1. Does this mean that the Hardness increases by +2? Does it mean that the weapons HP is increased by 10? Does it mean that it overcomes DR/Magic?
No. No it doesn't. Why? Because Masterwork has the text that says:
Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.
It specifies that the Enhancement bonus applies to Attack Rolls. The text "on attack rolls" modifies the Game Term 'Enhancement Bonus'.
Amulet of Mighty Fist has the text "on attack and damage rolls" which modifies the Game Term 'Enhancement Bonus'.
The Amulet is restricted to modifying Attack and Damage rolls because of the text in the item description. Because of that text, the Amulet DOES NOT overcome DR.
Quoting text from the MAGIC WEAPONS section of the book does not apply to the WONDROUS ITEM section of the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, seriously? Maybe I'm being very confusing or something, but you're not getting the fact that the Amulet only enhances the attack and damage of unarmed strikes and natural weapons/. Unlike the Enhancement Bonus that a true Magic Weapon gets, such as a +1 Longsword created via the Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat, the +1 - +5 of the Amulet DOES NOT grant the ability to overcome Damage Reduction BECAUSE it is specifically calls out the fact that it ONLY Enhances the Attack and Damage rolls.
"A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls."
Even the Magic Weapons section says that magic weapons get those bonuses to attack and damage. So why does that even matter?
Also no where in the Amulet of Mighty Fists does it say "ONLY Enhances the Attack and Damage rolls."
The Amulet says Enhances Attack Rolls and Damage Rolls. It does not say it 'Works in all ways like a Magic Weapon'.
+1 to hit and damage means exactly that, +1 to hit and a damage. It doesn't mean the Hardness increases by 2. It doesn't mean it gains a further +10 HP. It doesn't mean it overcomes Damage Reduction.
As Written, the Amulet of Mighty Fist does not overcome Damage Reduction of any time, even DR/Magic.
Why would the Amulet have to say works in all ways like a magic weapon when;
"magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality),"(This a a quote from Damage Reduction.)
An Amulet of Mighty Fists(+3) grants a weapon(Unarmed Strike)with a +3 Enhancement bonus. Thus an Unarmed Strike that has been granted an Enhancement bonus fits the description given for a magic weapon that bypasses DR. It says so right in the Damage Reduction section.
A Masterwork Weapon has an enhancement bonus of +1. Does this mean that the Hardness increases by +2? Does it mean that the weapons HP is increased by 10? Does it mean that it overcomes DR/Magic?
Now you're being silly. A Masterwork Weapon doesn't fit the correct term to gain those bonuses.
"1 Add +2 for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items.
2 The hp value given is for Medium armor, weapons, and shields. Divide by 2 for each size category of the item smaller than Medium, or multiply it by 2 for each size category larger than Medium.
3 Add 10 hp for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items.
4 Varies by material; see Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points."
Also as you can see it's not Magic Weapons that gain +2 Hardness and +10 HP it is magic ITEMS.
So yes Masterwork is an Enhancement bonus but it doesn't count for the +2 Hardness/+10 HP. It also has no meaning for gaining an Enhancement bonus to count as a Magic Weapon for purposes of bypassing DR.
"magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality),"
It even specifically calls out Masterwork as not counting.
Oh and here again is the Damage Reduction quote;
Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).
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.
This is what i have been quoting. This is the rule for bypassing DR. This is what matters the most since it is the only place in the rules that states how to bypass it and what is needed to do so. Meet these requirements and you can bypass DR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay i'm going to break this down as simply as i can.
Here is the rules concerning Overcoming DR.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).
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.
From this you can gather how to bypass DR.
1. Special Materials (Cold Iron, Adamantine, etc.)
2. Magic Weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality)
3. Certain types of weapons (Slashing, Piercing, etc.)
4. Weapons imbued with alignment (Good, Evil, etc.)
Here is the rule for Unarmed Strike from the Weapon table.
From this you can gather that an Unarmed Strike is a light weapon.
Here is the rules for the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
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.
From this you can gather than it grants an Enhancement bonus to Unarmed attacks or Natural weapons. An Unarmed attack uses Unarmed Strike.
Okay now that we have all of the rules needed i can break it down.
Step One: Unarmed Strike is a weapon.
Step Two: The Amulet of Mighty Fists grants an Unarmed Strike an Enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 to an Unarmed Strike.
Step Three: A magic weapon(any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality) can bypass DR.
Conclusion: A Unarmed Strike that has been granted an Enhancement bonus from an Amulet of Mighty Fists can bypass DR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
But clearly the wording of the regenerate spell means that monks aren't immune to disarming or sundering at all! [/silly] :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will stick with this...very straight forward.
Okay i'm going to break this down as simply as i can.
Here is the rules concerning Overcoming DR.
** spoiler omitted **
From this you can gather how to bypass DR.
1. Special Materials (Cold Iron, Adamantine, etc.)
2. Magic Weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality)
3. Certain types of weapons (Slashing, Piercing, etc.)
4. Weapons imbued with alignment (Good, Evil, etc.)Here is the rule for Unarmed Strike from the Weapon table.
** spoiler omitted **
From this you can gather that an Unarmed Strike is a light weapon.
Here is the rules for the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
** spoiler omitted **...
I think that most people would consider that anything with a enhancement bonus is considered magic as a general rule.
There are many examples of text within the core book where terminology changes and until we get a definitive answer from the game designers we'll all continue to interpret the rules in our own ways. Arguing the toss about it isn't going to change that, although it can be entertaining!
House rule it and move on.
|
|
To me, it still seems by RAW that the amulet doesn't allow strikes to bypass DR. Nowhere in the description does it say that it grants unarmed/natural weapons an enhancement bonus. It gives a bonus to hit and damage, which is different wording. A masterwork weapon gives an enhancement bonus to hit, but clearly doesn't bypass magic DR.
If the amulet treated unarmed/natural attacks with an overall enhancement bonus, it seems to me that it would be worded that way, but it isn't. Either way, for now I guess it's GM's interpretation until there's an official clarification.
Brain, I see your arguments, but you're making assumptions about what the amulet grants. It's not about proving you wrong, it's that neither interpretation seems to be 100% backed by the rules.
I think both sides of this argument are making assumptions, and both have points, and I'll make one myself: that if the AoMF was NOT meant to bypass DR as a magic weapon, then like the spells GMW and GMF it would SAY SO. That's just my own opinion, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, it still seems by RAW that the amulet doesn't allow strikes to bypass DR. Nowhere in the description does it say that it grants unarmed/natural weapons an enhancement bonus. It gives a bonus to hit and damage, which is different wording.
Yeah except when it says; "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
How is that any different than this; " Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat."
That's from the Magic Weapons, Magic Items section.
They both state they add it to attack and damage. It doesn't make it not an Enhancement bonus.
A masterwork weapon gives an enhancement bonus to hit, but clearly doesn't bypass magic DR.
Yeah a Masterwork weapon's Enhancement bonus doesn't bypass DR since it specifically says it doesn't count. "magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality"
If the amulet treated unarmed/natural attacks with an overall enhancement bonus, it seems to me that it would be worded that way, but it isn't. Either way, for now I guess it's GM's interpretation until there's an official clarification.
Except it does. In plain words it says "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
If it wasn't meant to be used for bypassing DR then it would specifically call it out like it does for every other Enhancement bonus that doesn't work.(Masterwork, Greater Magic Fang, Greater Magic Weapon)
Brain, I see your arguments, but you're making assumptions about what the amulet grants. It's not about proving you wrong, it's that neither interpretation seems to be 100% backed by the rules.
I'm not making any assumptions or interpreting anything.
The rule for bypassing DR gives four options for bypassing. It even states exactly what a magic weapon is for that purpose.
The Amulet gives an Enhancement bonus, there is only one type of Enhancement bonus, it doesn't matter what kind it is as long as it says Enhancement. Specific cases mention how they don't work for that purpose. The Amulet does not mention that.
If this is true;
"Unarmed Strike is a light weapon."
and this is true;
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
and this is true;
" Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment."
Then how doesn't it work?
|
|
Yeah except when it says; "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
How is that any different than this; " Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat."
If you can't see how those two things are worded differently, then I don't think I can/need say anything else.
When charging, a character gets a +2 to hit. When flanking, a character gets +2 to hit. Does flanking count as charging? Just because the net result is the same doesn't mean the effects are identical.
Yeah except when it says; "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons."
How is that any different than this; " Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat."
If you can't see how those two things are worded differently, then I don't think I can/need say anything else.
When charging, a character gets a +2 to hit. When flanking, a character gets +2 to hit. Does flanking count as charging? Just because the net result is the same doesn't mean the effects are identical.
Yeah the wording is slightly different that's plain to see they haven't been worded exactly the same.
Regardless of that they both are an Enhancement bonus. All that is required to bypass DR is an Enhancement bonus and a weapon.
Are they both an Enhancement bonus? Yes or No.
|
|
Yes AND no. :)
One is an enhancement bonus, which provides an enhancement bonus to hit and damage, and the other is just an enhancement bonus to hit and damage. The amulet doesn't have the weapon enhancement bonus, which is what seems to be required to overcome DR.
It might be deliberate, or it might be confusing syntax. Won't know for sure until someone with authority makes a call.
Yes AND no. :)
One is an enhancement bonus, which provides an enhancement bonus to hit and damage, and the other is just an enhancement bonus to hit and damage. The amulet doesn't have the weapon enhancement bonus, which is what seems to be required to overcome DR.
It might be deliberate, or it might be confusing syntax. Won't know for sure until someone with authority makes a call.
There is no such term as "weapon enhancement bonus".
"Bonus (Enhancement)
An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks."
All Enhancement bonuses state what they add the enhancement to, Some add to attack, some to attack and damage, others to natural armor.
So how are they different?
The bypassing DR rule only asks for an Enhancement bonus and a weapon.
|
|
There is no such term as "weapon enhancement bonus".
"Bonus (Enhancement)
An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks."
All Enhancement bonuses state what they add the enhancement to, Some add to attack, some to attack and damage, others to natural armor.
So how are they different?
The bypassing DR rule only asks for an Enhancement bonus and a weapon.
But there is! It mentions it in the DR rules that you keep quoting.
"any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality"
It doesn't say "any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus to attack" or "damage" or anything. Just says enhancement bonus.
A belt of giant strength provides an enhancement bonus to Strength - if I hit someone with it, does it penetrate DR?
There is no such term as "weapon enhancement bonus".
"Bonus (Enhancement)
An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks."
All Enhancement bonuses state what they add the enhancement to, Some add to attack, some to attack and damage, others to natural armor.
So how are they different?
The bypassing DR rule only asks for an Enhancement bonus and a weapon.
But there is! It mentions it in the DR rules that you keep quoting.
"any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality"
It doesn't say "any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus to attack" or "damage" or anything. Just says enhancement bonus.
A belt of giant strength provides an enhancement bonus to Strength - if I hit someone with it, does it penetrate DR?
Nice try. Is a Belt of Giant Strength a weapon?
Is the Amulet of Mighty Fists a weapon?
Nice try. Is a Belt of Giant Strength a weapon?
No. But the unarmed attacks and natural weapons it grants the enhancement bonus to definitely are.