So, by RAW, is there a ruling on in the Amulet of Mighty Fists works on natural attacks generated by magical items? Examples are: Helm of the Mammoth Lord, Ring of Rat Fangs, Tentacle Cloak, etc.
Also the same question but in reference to Improve Natural attack?
If there is nothing by RAW what do people simply think of the two options? Please state if its just your opinion or if you are actually quoting something...
|
By Amulet of Natural Attacks, are you referring to the Amulet of Mighty Fists? I've not found the Amulet of Natural Attacks anywhere, including the SRD.
If so, then the answer to your first question is yes. Even though magical in nature, claws, bites, etc. are still natural weapons and qualify for the benefits from the amulet.
As for improved natural attack, however, not so much. Temporary magical benefits do not qualify you for bonuses and feats. Much like a potion of cat's grace will not qualify you for a feat with a dexterity score pre-requisite. You, personally, must possess all the pre-requisites for the feat before you're able to take it.
Even if your GM would allow it I, personally, see it as too big a risk. If you're granted a tentacle attack by a cloak, activate it's magic to take advantage of the tentacle attack, take improved natural attack (tentacle) then in the future you lose the cloak for some reason you do not get the refund of the feat. You're just stuck with a feat you cannot use (and technically no longer qualify for).
By Amulet of Natural Attacks, are you referring to the Amulet of Mighty Fists? I've not found the Amulet of Natural Attacks anywhere, including the SRD.
Fixed that....Can not believe I wrote it wrong twice!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The second part... A character who has access to something via magic is in fact capable of taking feats with that prereq (magical STR bonus from a belt to get Power Attack is valid after wearing it for 24 hours for example). If they lose the bonus (let us say Dispel Magic goes off), the character loses access to the feat until the prereq is fulfilled.
RAW, the only thing that is stated is that to use the feat, you need to have the prereqs at the time of usage. There is nothing in RAW that states that you need to have permanent claws to take weapon focus, it rubs some peoples sensibilities the wrong way and they argue against it, but there isn't anything in RAW to back it up. Heck if that were the case several archtypes and classes that grant natural attacks on a regular basis would be exempt from taking weapon focus (like barbarians, druids, sorcerers, synth summoners, wizards etc.)
Now making a build that relies on using a magical item to qualify for feats, isn't usually a 'good idea'. A dispel magic or the like, ruins your day. The item radiates magic and can be stolen, sundered or otherwise rendered inert/useless, which ruins your day. Once it's gone, you've invested in something that you are no longer able to use. Not to say don't do it, just realize what you're getting yourself into if you do pursue it.
I've already addressed these questions with the Devs, and they are all in agreement: any natural attack provided from magic items (helm, ring, cloak, or whatever) would all gain the benefits of the amulet of mighty fists.
Also, for what its worth, there is NO RULE that states that the amulet of mighty fists can't be used to overcome DR. So, by giving it a +5 enhancement bonus, yes...you do overcome all the DR that any other +5 weapon could overcome.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Also, for what its worth, there is NO RULE that states that the amulet of mighty fists can't be used to overcome DR. So, by giving it a +5 enhancement bonus, yes...you do overcome all the DR that any other +5 weapon could overcome.
Hi Duskblade,
For the benefit of all of us, can you post your links to the exact post, instead of the page or the thread in general? The way to do this is to right click on the time stamp of the post and hit "copy link address". An example here gets me directly to Skylancer's post earlier in this thread:EXAMPLE.
Thanks for that, it makes things much easier. Consequently, I couldn't find anything in the thread you linked about natural attacks from items working with AoMF, though I agree with you that they should.
Edit: Found the post he was talking about: James stating that gore attacks from items work with the AoMF
I must say there's a difference between ALL devs agreeing on something and James Jacobs saying something.
And AFAIK the AoMF bypassing DR is still ambiguous.
lol, sorry about that :( Like I said, I'm not really good with technology *cue the trumpets of irony*
meh...certain items give you natural attacks...and amulet of mighty fists enhance your natural attacks (seems clear enough to me). Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that enhancement bonuses work differently for the AoMF. I've heard it stated that because the Magic Fang spell is used to create the AoMF, then it stands that enhancement bonuses wouldn't work the same way.
This, by itself, is a very weak conclusion.
Just because an item used a certain spell in its construction doesn't meant that it is still limited by the parameters of the original spell. After all, I've never seen a spell of Greater Magic Fang that grants me the ability to put flaming, frosting, or shocking on my unarmed strikes or natural attack...but somehow, that's what AoMF does.
The reason?
It's not the same thing as the Greater Magic Fang spell. It functions with all the same parameters of any other weapon, and any exception to the contrary is already listed in the items description.
I think the reason why it shouldn't work is because the "weapons with bonus X bypass DR" is under the magic weapons magical items section, and AoMF isn't a magic weapon per se.
I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm not into that debate enough, just saying that it's still a debated topic that AFAIK doesn't have a crystal clear solution yet.
EDIT: Not to derail this thread further I'll just edit this post once more. Feel free to have the last word. There are many occacions where "weapon" is used in a more specific way and one has to take context into account. I'm not saying it's this way or that way - I'm saying it's generally seen as bad form to come into a thread and say "this is the way it is. Period." on a rules issue without acknowledging that there is an ongoing rules debate on the matter where very reasonable people have differing opinions (just like it's kind of bad form to say "all devs agree" on a topic without providing evidence of more than one person, which isn't even among the main rules guys).
tis a good thing natural attacks and unarmed strikes are weapons (and are enhanced through AoMF). I get what you're saying of course, but I've always found the argument of AoMF not bypassing DR to be a really silly one.