I'm in the "yes it would work crowd" both by RAW and RAI.
So a lizardfolk monk has haste cast on him. If he chooses to use his hand to make a claw attack he gets an extra attack. If he makes a fist with his hand, or in some other way does an unarmed strike with the same hand, all of a sudden haste doesn't work for him?
I never knew the spell was so smart. It can even tell if the monk is being sneaky and commences the attack with his claws out and then at the last moment curls his fist and punches his opponent. And then somehow stays the monk's hand so the strike does not occur.
What if the monk decides to do one punch and one claw attack. Does haste let him attack twice with one hand and not with the other? What if part way through the attack action the monk realises his foes has DR/Bludgeoning and switches over to claws does he suddenly get that extra attack?
What about someone with a sword in hand decides, part way through the bonus attack that haste grants, to punch their foe using hand hand wrapped around the pommel. Does that attack suddenly not occur?
Ashiel is correct by RAW. Haste does not enhance the weapon. It does not even target the weapon. It is cast on the person, and that person is given abilities. Nothing is given to the weapon it self. Making someone better at fighting is not the same as making the weapon better. As an example if a cleric cast divine favor it is not doing anything to the weapon he is holding.
So it apparently enhances the person. Therefore if the person is using a natural weapon it works, but if it enhances the person and they use the same limb to make an unarmed attack all of a sudden it doesn't work ..... How then is the natural attack considered part of the person, yet the unarmed strike isn't?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not about the spell being smart. The spell follows directions as given by the rules. Either those direction are being followed or they are not.
It does not matter what is a part of the person. The spell as written allows the affect creature to use a natural weapon or manufactured weapon with its benefits. An unarmed attack is neither.
It is as simple as checking the block
Haste affects A and B
Is an unarmed strike A or B?
Yes-Spell benefit is received.
No-It is not.
When arguing RAW you must use what the book says, not what is reasonable, because RAI allows for people to be reasonable, why RAW often doesn't.
Example: RAW=Dead people can take actions.
RAI=The GM is either laughing at you or giving you an evil look for trying to play the letter of the rule vs the spirit of the rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's go ahead and make your Lizardfolk example a 20th level Monk.
He still only gets the single claw attack with that one arm, but if he just closes those fingers and makes a fist, suddenly he can punch you SEVEN times.
Why can't he claw you seven times??
Once again, just like always, "common sense" is not a good argument when discussing game mechanics.
It doesn't work because the rules around "Natural Attacks" and "Unarmed Strikes" are totally different, and that's why it "makes sense."
It is not about the spell being smart. The spell follows directions as given by the rules. Either those direction are being followed or they are not.
It does not matter what is a part of the person. The spell as written allows the affect creature to use a natural weapon or manufactured weapon with its benefits. An unarmed attack is neither.
It is as simple as checking the block
Haste affects A and B
Is an unarmed strike A or B?
Yes-Spell benefit is received.
No-It is not.
When arguing RAW you must use what the book says, not what is reasonable, because RAI allows for people to be reasonable, why RAW often doesn't.
Example: RAW=Dead people can take actions.
RAI=The GM is either laughing at you or giving you an evil look for trying to play the letter of the rule vs the spirit of the rule.
The thing is what one person thinks is clearly RAW, another person doesn't. There are so many twists, permutations and exceptions to the rules, particularly on aspects of unarmed strikes v/ natural weapons, that either interpretation of the haste issue could be seen as correct.
Trying to claim that "what the book says" proves a point of view is pointless. This whole thread and so many others like it demonstrate that. If it was so straightforward then there would be no dispute/disagreement. Any written document is open to interpretation. You can use precedents and supporting information to argue a case but short of a ruling by the relevant dev, trying to say a particular interpretation is wrong is pointless - especially where both sides are using exactly the same source material to argue their case.
Let's go ahead and make your Lizardfolk example a 20th level Monk.
He still only gets the single claw attack with that one arm, but if he just closes those fingers and makes a fist, suddenly he can punch you SEVEN times.
Why can't he claw you seven times??Once again, just like always, "common sense" is not a good argument when discussing game mechanics.
It doesn't work because the rules around "Natural Attacks" and "Unarmed Strikes" are totally different, and that's why it "makes sense."
I don't disagree on your first point - the rules are clear about natural weapons and iterative attacks.
But it does illustrate inconsistencies in the rules. As you get better with your UAS you get more attacks. But as you get better with your natural attacks you don't get more attacks, just better with what you had at level 1. But all of a sudden someone chucks a haste on you and you do get an extra attack. Yet Mr Monk who has through experience progressively improved his UAS, both in terms of number of attacks and how well he uses them, can't get the same benefit from a haste.
i.e. Mr Monk has the natural skill and ability to effectively improve the speed of his attack through mundane means but can't benefit from magic. Mr Natural Attack can't improve the number of attacks through mundane means can benefit from magic.
Hmm. Even in 3.5 it's arguable that a monk can use unarmed strike with haste:
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding.
versus
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon.
A "held" weapon versus a manufactured weapon/natural weapon? I assume you always are holding an unarmed strike -- since it can't be disarmed? q:
The speed weapon property gives the same ability, yet it is clearly seen as an ability that enhances a weapon. It even mentions the haste spell as a similar effect. The distinction that a hasted character's weapon is not enhanced (the character is enhanced!) but a speed weapon is (the weapon is enhanced!) -- and they do the exact same thing -- is a bit of a stretch. Technically, any weapon held by a hasted character is effectively a speed weapon. If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck. . . . I get the argument, but it's a weak one.
Meh. I'd say it gives more usefulness to monk weapons, but it does appear to be an unnecessary nerf. I guess if you want the extra attack from haste, you'll need to get an amulet of mighty fists with the speed weapon property.
|
My apologies. It's just beginning to irritate me, because this is going on from another thread. Instead of actually backing up claims to the contrary, my opposition is bunkering down, stuffing their fingers in their ears and repeating the same thing over and over and over, despite the fact I already responded to that.
Or as I like to call it, creating a new thread so as not to derail the old thread, then posting an FAQ to get Dev guidance.
Also known as "Doing it right"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, just like always, "common sense" is not a good argument when discussing game mechanics.
I've always found this to be false. All game systems are based on common sense.
Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.
A game system like Pathfinder still requires sound and prudent judgement based on simple perception of the situation or facts.
By dismissing common sense, you're effectively saying good judgement is unimportant |:
This is a silly argument, but it appears to be true due to the way the text reads now. I have enough sound and prudent judgement to know it's a silly argument. I would heavily recommend that people ignore this rule in their games. But I'm not going to argue that the reasoning in the argument is invalid.
Maybe I'm just being daft. I see the arguments that RAW says haste doesn't affect unarmed attacks. However, the haste spell itself allows "one extra attack with one natural [weapon or one] manufactured weapon".
Coupling that with the monk's unarmed attacks being treated as natural weapons for spells and effects that "improve or enhance natural weapons", I see it as the following:
The haste spell grants a free-floating extra attack to one of the hosted character's attacks, provided that attack is made with a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon.
It specifically does not simply grant an extra attack with any "weapon" of the hasted character's choosing.
This means that the extra attack granted by haste is not being granted to the character, it is actually being granted to the weapon, but the hasted character chooses the weapon that is being affected. Unarmed strike cannot be the chosen weapon, because it does not meet the requirement that haste affect attacks made with a "natural or manufactured weapon", but the monk's unarmed strike is specifically called out as one.
Since haste, while targeting the character in question, is granting the extra attack to a single "weapon" of the target's choice, it meets the requirement of being an improvement to the weapon, and thus the monk DOES gain an extra attack when using unarmed strikes.
It specifically does not simply grant an extra attack with any "weapon" of the hasted character's choosing.This means that the extra attack granted by haste is not being granted to the character, it is actually being granted to the weapon, but the hasted character chooses the weapon that is being affected.
But then the argument becomes, "where in the text does it mention the weapon being targeted?" You pick the weapon, and with that weapon you can do an extra attack. But it's not like the weapon itself is subject to an effect. For instance, let's say there's an "anti-magic" weapon that cannot be subject to magical effects. In this case, haste would work with that weapon because there is no spell that targets it.
It would be easy if haste simply said any natural/manufactured weapon wielded by the hasted character gains the speed weapon property. But that's confusing to most people. . . so they word the spell to confuse rules lawyers (:
|
|
Did anyone throw out that a "Flurry of Blows" is a mechanic that happens to be a full round action. And would not be a valid mechanic to stack with haste as you only get 1 full round action per turn? No? OK put me in that camp.
You can either flurry as a full round action, or you can take 2 unarmed attacks at your highest BAB as a hasted full round action. Not both.
There's my 2 copper for this thread to spice it up a bit.
Though I do also agree with Ashiel's earlier posts, and also agree with the stance that haste wouldn't even qualify in the first place Haste does not enhance a weapon, it enhances the user. The spell says the target is a creature/s does it not? [it does] :)
|
|
Did anyone throw out that a "Flurry of Blows" is a mechanic that happens to be a full round action. And would not be a valid mechanic to stack with haste as you only get 1 full round action per turn? No? OK put me in that camp.
You can either flurry as a full round action, or you can take 2 unarmed attacks at your highest BAB as a hasted full round action. Not both.
No. Haste is not a full round action. Haste lets you make one extra attack when making a full attack action. Flurry of blows is a full attack action. Therefore you can use it with haste.
RAW, it works if you're using weapons for your flurry.
RAI, it works with unarmed attacks.
But if you are making a full attack action to get the extra hasted attack, you cannot then stack on another full attack action (flurry of blows) to get +1 attack on top of that.
That's more than 1 full attack action in a round isn't it?
Just theory-crafting on this: Even Assuming that haste doesn't work on unarmed strikes, even a monks, every one agrees it does still work if the monk is using a weapon. So if a monk is flurrying with a kama and an unarmed strike, haste would give him an extra attack with the kama.
However, "a monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full." So the monk can hold a weapon in one hand and still make a flurry of unarmed strikes. If hasted, can he then make his hasted attack with the weapon?
All of this by RAW of course. I'd let haste work for unarmed strikes unless it's clarified to make it clear that's not intended.
Actually, looking closely at flurry makes me think: A hasted attack is not part of a flurry, thus it uses his normal BAB, not the special full BAB he gets for the flurry. Or does it count since it's part of the same full attack action, even if it's not part of the flurry? Does a Haste attack take the -2 TWF penalty?
If you take the extra attack and choose to Flurry, then yes, it would take the -2 TWF penalty. If you choose to use your regular iterative attacks without Flurry, then it wouldn't.
What's really interesting is that if you're wielding a weapon, you can get an extra UAS with Haste, but you have to be wielding a weapon to do it. Case in point: Monks can swap out any weapon attack with an UAS, so take your extra weapon attack granted by the spell and swap it for a UAS. :P
My take is a little different.
A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves.
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.
Note that it says enhance or improve, not affects or targets.
Now, does haste enhance or improve a manufactured weapon or natural weapon? A +1 to attack rolls is an improvement. Therefore, the above monk text comes into play and his unarmed strike counts as both a natural and manufactured weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really glad I read this thread. This is one of those questions that seems simple and logical on the surface, but when you dig into it, it's worse than untangling Christmas tree lights.
It also reminds me to go buy presents for my terminology editors up at work... Their job seems easy until you really understand the implications of using one word over another.
You know, I actually made a thread about this last month, but I guess it got skipped over.
Per RAW, Haste doesn't grant an extra attack. If any GM tried to rule that way though, I'd leave the table and talk everyone else into leaving with me.
Just going to try a logic chain. As I start, I have no clue what my conclusion will be. I'd like it to be that monks gain an extra attack with haste. For this purpose, I am going to refer only to "natural weapon", with the explicit note that where appropriate I am consciously skipping references to manufactured weapons.
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.
Does the haste spell result in "a spell or effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon"?
Haste does not have an "Effect" line, so the following passage is relevant:
Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description includes “see text,” this is where the explanation is found.
The relevant portion of the haste spell is:
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon.
By equivalence, we know that a monk's unarmed strike is considered by the haste spell to be a natural weapon, which leaves only the question of whether the haste spell is "enhancing or improving a natural weapon".
Is the haste spell, for this specific effect, enhancing the monk overall? It would not be globally enhancing a non-monk, since we know that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. The rules of the spell itself does not care whether the target creature is using a natural weapon, but any natural weapon the target creature is using may be the subject of the extra attack granted by haste. Since this effect of the spell requires a natural weapon to function, this effect is selective based upon the weapon being used.
Does this constitute an effect that is improving the weapon, or an effect that is improving the character?
It is not improving the character, because if it were, it would not make a distinction regarding natural weapons, it could simply refer to attacks made.
The haste spell is therefore distinguishing between the weapon being used and the character using the weapon, when this effect matters. Thus, since this effect is enhancing or improving not the character as a whole, but instead the weapon the character is using, the monk's unarmed strike recognises haste as an effect that improves natural weapons, and is therefore improved by it.
Conclusion: Monks can get an extra attack from haste when using unarmed strike.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, these forums make me really appreciate the excellent technical writing editors we have at work, and make me wish similar people had a chance to edit the Pathfinder Rules. When building an instruction set you need to be careful with the language you use because all the words do have meaning and slight variations can convey entirely different meanings.
Particularly with loophole seeking rules lawyers who think derailing games makes them clever.
SKR weighed in on the RAI, we need a small clarification on a specific point.
Considering the size of the tomb and the number of rules, they do a damn good job.
If some of the people on here who lawyer were held to the same standards of consistency about posts they have made in the past...
Does this effect (an extra attack) work for the character as a whole? No. If it did, it would work on unarmed strikes, which it clearly does not because otherwise the only other types of weapon attacks wouldn't have been called out.
What is the differentiating factor? This effect works only on attacks made with natural or manufactured weapons.
Does this effect constitute an improvement or enhancement? Yes.
This effect is an improvement or enhancement that works only on attacks made with natural or manufactured weapons, as opposed to (specifically) unarmed strikes.
This effect meets the criteria for a monk's unarmed attack to work with it.
|
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.Does this effect constitute an improvement or enhancement [TO THE MONK'S UNARMED STRIKE]? No. It modifies the creature. The creature gains an extra attack with weapons that fall within the limitations specified, plus speed, plus an attack bonus, plus an AC bonus, plus a bonus to reflex saves. The monk's unarmed strikes were never affected by this spell at all.
We do not know why the spell was written with weapon caveats. We can surmise that the caveats were intentional since the original version of the spell limited it to attacks with 'held weapons' (as relayed earlier in the thread).
Twice you have disregarded the first line of the spell text in order to attempt to make your case. I believe my stance is the stronger of the two. If you believe otherwise, address the given (the spell affects the creature per the descriptive text, not the weapon) or we're just going to go around in circles until we get really dizzy.
I was going to just watch this thread but something interesting popped out to me. Your Quote: "The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects."
This means that the spell is broken up into several effects. Not one but 3 to be precise.
1. It grants an extra attack with the use of specific types of weapons
2. It grants a +1 to attack and AC
3. It grants a 30ft speed increase to all forms of movement.
The Monk ability in question says: "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.
My argument is that even though the spell as a whole targets the creature, the Effect of an extra attack is enhancing/improving the specific attacks listed. Thus the monk ability applies to that specific effect within the spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those that think the weapon itself is being enhanced or improved, you're wrong.
Why? Because any weapon that falls into the criteria for Haste, can be used to make an extra attack. If the weapon were being enhanced, then the weapon that was present at the time of casting would be the only ones that could make that attack.
Magic Weapon/Fang enhance a specific weapon.
Flame Arrow enhances a specific set of arrows.
Bless Weapon enhances a specific weapon.
If you cast Magic Weapon on your sword, giving it a +1 bonus to attack and damage, then draw out a longbow, the longbow does not gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage. Why? Because the sword was enhanced, not the bow.
If you cast Flame Arrow on a group of arrows, then draw out a Crossbow and fire crossbow bolts, those bolts aren't enhanced. Why? Because the arrows were enhanced.
If you cast Bless Weapon on a weapon, same deal as Magic Weapon.
If you cast Haste, each and every weapon you carry that fills the criteria, could be used to make an extra attack that round. If a 6th level fighter makes his +6/+1 attacks with his sword and kills his opponent, he could drop his sword, quickdraw his bow, and shoot the mage at a distance. Both weapons could potentially make that extra attack, because both meet the criteria. Why? Because Haste made the Fighter faster, not the weapon.
I mentioned this in the thread I linked to above. Protection from Alignment spells protect you from the Natural Weapons of those possessing the alignment that matches the spell. Unarmed Strikes aren't Natural Weapons. A Lizardman Monk with a claw attack would be unable to hit the warded creature with his claw, but he could kick him instead. Why? Because Unarmed Strikes aren't natural weapons, therefore, they can pass through the protective ward.
A Horizon Walker can overcome certain Alignment DRs with his manufactured or natural weapons. Unarmed Strikes are neither. So he could bite, claw, gore, slam stab, cut, bludgeon an enemy all day long, and overcome their DR, but as soon as he tried to kick that enemy, suddenly the DR is working again.
I don't think Haste is what needs to be clarified, I think Unarmed Strike needs to instead. However, fixing Unarmed Strike is a bigger job, as nearly every spell, feat, or ability refers to "Manufactured or Natural weapons, or Unarmed Strikes". There's only one exception that I know of, and that's Align Weapon, which I believe uses hold over text from 3.5 where Unarmed Strikes were natural weapons.
|
|
Hmm. I believe your argument has some merit, but unfortunately I am still convinced that it does not work after going back and reviewing the text.Specifically, 'the hasted creature may make one extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon' still indicates to me that the weapon is, in no way, the target of the effect. It's a limiting factor, not an effect target. In fact, it suggests to me that I was wrong earlier when I listed barstool as a valid weapon (improvised weapons are neither natural nor manufactured, I think).
That's a fair point, but allow me to show some precedents which blur this line:
Magic Fang: Target living creature touched
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.
This Spell targets the creature but effects the natural weapons in a very similar way to Haste. Even though the Spell calls out a creature the Effect is obviously enhancing the natural weapons and thus, even if it didn't include unarmed strikes, a monk's ability would still come into play.
Speed Weapon Enhancement: When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)
This ability uses the haste spell, and only has one of the three effects, the extra attack. It is on a weapon (or amulet of mighty fangs) but reads as effecting the wielder. This ability can be used with any unarmed strike if you have the amulet.
Two abilities that effect both the wielder and the weapon according to their descriptions that would both work for a monk. Why would these work and not the Haste spell (which again the speed ability is based on).
Another question: would the speed enhancement on an amulet of the mighty fists give a monk an extra attack when using unarmed strikes? The Core Rules says in the description of the AoMF
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed strikes.
So, is speed a property that can be applied to unarmed strikes? And if not, why?
MA
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
• Like it or not, anyone reading the RAW is trying to determine the RAI. When the RAW is written unambiguously this is an easy task. When the RAW is ambiguous we have to actually use or minds, as opposed to just being spoon-fed the answer
• RPGs, such as PF and it's D&D antecedents, have a GM, who is judge/referee amongst other things. One of his jobs is to interpret the RAW. This is not something he only has to do in corner, ambiguous cases; it is something he has to do for every single rule in the book. Sometimes it's easier because the RAW is clear and makes sense, sometimes it's harder because it isn't and/or it doesn't
• I discovered (in a documentary about the circumstances surrounding the prosecution of a famous porn-star's under-age career, of all things) that it is a principle in law that if a law is written in such a way that it can be interpreted in two ways, and one of those ways does not make sense and the other way does, then the law must be interpreted in the way that makes sense
• Many threads involve a debate about two different ways to interpret the same piece of RAW.
• In some, both sides have some things in common: both sides can present evidence to support their claim that their interpretation of the RAW is valid, AND both sides can present arguments that show that their case makes sense. As a recent example I cite the thread on sunder: can any attack be a sunder, or is an attempt to sunder a standard action? Both sides can present supporting evidence to show that the RAW can be interpreted to support their case, AND both sides can argue that their interpretation also makes sense. This is where a DM earns his corn, by actually using the mind he has to make a decision about how sunder works, instead of being spoon-fed the correct answer by clearly written RAW. BTW, in this case, spoon-feeding is good!
• In other threads there is a crucial difference; although both sides present evidence that their way of interpreting the RAW is consistent with the RAW, only ONE side can reasonably claim that their interpretation makes sense. I cite the recent thread about the duelist's Canny Defence. Both sides presented evidence that the way their side interpreted the RAW was consistent with the RAW, but one side's position didn't make sense, in that it resulted in worn armour limited the amount of intelligence useable to anticipate attacks! Thankfully for all concerned SKR himself weighed in on the side of sanity, for which both I and my duelist Sukie will be forever grateful
• This thread is of the second kind. One side presents evidence that the wording of Haste means that it targets a creature, not a creature's weapons, so the monk caveat does not apply. The other points out that the monk literally is a weapon, so anything enhancing his ability to use his own body to attack (such as a +1 to attack and one extra attack per round) by definition applies to his body
• While both sides can present evidence that their interpretation can be argued to match RAW, only ONE side's interpretation makes sense! One sure-fire indicator of this is when the side that doesn't make sense says that they'd rule it the other way in home games!
• Judges are expected to make judgements. Even in PFS. If you are either unable or unwilling to do so, then the only excuse for you to be behind a DM screen is to hide your face in shame
I see no reason why the speed property could not be applied to an amulet of mighty fists and work that way.
Speed: When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)
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.
All for the bargain-basement price of 45k (almost 4x the price of boots of speed)!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
High horse lecture.
You know, it really does get annoying when people come in trying to lecture one side of a debate as if though we are badwrong players out to ruin the game and nitpick/rulelawyer every word in the book.
I don't think anyone on this thread is actually advocating that Haste must be played according to the RAW that Unarmed Strikes can't be used to make the extra attack. I don't recall a single person saying that's how it should be played.
What I am seeing, is people simply debating both sides of the question. I think we all agree that Haste should apply to Unarmed Strikes, Monk or not, but we're simply debating which side is correct.
Why do we do so? Why to make the game better of course. Every time we get an ambiguous wording like Haste fixed, the Developers get that much better, and so less and less mistakes appear.
We're not going to tell you that you can't play a game in one way, we're simply telling you what we believe the rules are saying. We believe the rules are saying that Haste doesn't work with Unarmed Strikes. We've given our examples why, and it's all down to the wording, but all we can get from others is that "haste is a spell, therefore it works" even though it's ignoring the actual rules of the spell itself.
Technically speaking Haste and Unarmed Strikes don't work. Realistically speaking I doubt there's a person alive that would actually enforce the RAW and play it that way.
|
|
You know, it really does get annoying when people come in trying to lecture one side of a debate as if though we are badwrong players out to ruin the game and nitpick/rulelawyer every word in the book.
Are you coming over to my side?
Technically speaking Haste and Unarmed Strikes don't work. Realistically speaking I doubt there's a person alive that would actually enforce the RAW and play it that way.
Someone does...
"Enhance" and "improve" are not game-defined terms. RAW is therefore ambiguous; claims to the contrary are assuming the consequent. Can we let this go, please?
Spells like Magic Weapon, Keen Edge, Flame Arrow, Bless Weapon etc, "enhance or improve" the weapon. Haste "enhances or improves" the wielder of said weapons.
Anything that makes a weapon better is an enhancement or improvement.
Things that make the wielder better, are not enhancements, or improvements on the weapons. Otherwise, spells like Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Enlarge Person, Righteous Might, Divine Favor, Divine Power, Prayer, Good Hope, etc, etc, etc, would all count as "enhancing or improving" the weapons, when in fact, they "enhance or improve" the person.
Are you coming over to my side?
You know, it really does get annoying when people come in trying to lecture one side of a debate as if though we are badwrong players out to ruin the game and nitpick/rulelawyer every word in the book.
What side is that?
Someone does...
Technically speaking Haste and Unarmed Strikes don't work. Realistically speaking I doubt there's a person alive that would actually enforce the RAW and play it that way.
Who would that be?
Speed wouldn't work either, since by RAW, if you apply a Speed effect to the AOMF, you only get an extra attack using that Amulet (which is the "weapon" the effect is applied to), and not the Unarmed Strike.
Methinks Paizo's best bet is to just outright remove the Monk class, since all they get is screwed, screwed, and screwed. I'll never play one, and now I'll tell my brother to never play one because of Paizo's Anti-Monk rules.
|
|
"Enhance" and "improve" are not game-defined terms. RAW is therefore ambiguous; claims to the contrary are assuming the consequent. Can we let this go, please?Spells like Magic Weapon, Keen Edge, Flame Arrow, Bless Weapon etc, "enhance or improve" the weapon. Haste "enhances or improves" the wielder of said weapons.
Anything that makes a weapon better is an enhancement or improvement.
Things that make the wielder better, are not enhancements, or improvements on the weapons. Otherwise, spells like Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Enlarge Person, Righteous Might, Divine Favor, Divine Power, Prayer, Good Hope, etc, etc, etc, would all count as "enhancing or improving" the weapons, when in fact, they "enhance or improve" the person.
Sigh. I knew it was too much to hope for.
Speed wouldn't work either, since by RAW, if you apply a Speed effect to the AOMF, you only get an extra attack using that Amulet (which is the "weapon" the effect is applied to), and not the Unarmed Strike.
Methinks Paizo's best bet is to just outright remove the Monk class, since all they get is screwed, screwed, and screwed. I'll never play one, and now I'll tell my brother to never play one because of Paizo's Anti-Monk rules.
You don't apply the speed special ability to the Amulet of Mighty Fists. Amulet of Mighty Fists applies the speed special property to your unarmed strikes.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.