The way he seems to want it to work, it would never actually change the unarmed strike, but simply add another weapon.
You have a "Dagger hand", but still have the rest of you body to make unarmed strikes.
Also, you create a situation in which you have "Dagger hands", "Dagger feet" "Dagger knees", "Dagger elbows" and a "Dagger head", all at the same time.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Add the Speed enchantment, and get 8 or more extra attacks, as you body is covered in multiple Speed Daggers.
Now, turn all those into Natural weapons, and who needs the Speed enchantment, when you have 9 or more Natural Attacks.
"Nope, that doesn't work."
That's the great thing about being a GM and deciding what to allow or not to allow in home games: slippery slopes aren't actually slippery if you don't want them to be slippery.
So he get a weapon that can't be disarmed or sundered, but allow him to avoid the problems of using his fists against some target. Neat.
For the price of a +1 bonus (on the AoMF, so that's more limiting than an ordinary +1 bonus), and with the amulet itself still vulnerable to being broken or stolen? Doesn't seem even remotely overpowered.
So you are saying make it count as a +1 enchantment bonus? Not the flat cost?
Oops, misremembered the price. Regardless, the flat cost also seems reasonable.
It's not even very good mechanically. It's just really cool.
Like I said for simplicity I will simply make it alter the damage type of Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strike.
Hmm, it might be a good way just to fluff my Touhou Furai based Monk as having a Magical Slashing attack using his bare hands.
And wow... I need to lay off the manga for a while...
I asked a similar question some time ago about Dueling on the AoMF...
Is the current discussion soley the applicablility of transformative to unarmed strikes (which I think is cool fluff and clearly not game breaking)?
Seems like adding a flat-cost ability to the AoMF is not an issue, isn´t it?
|
Seriously, just nab a Transfomative Wizard Hook, and turn your Hook Hand into any Light weapon, and be automatically proficient with it as well.
Flavor achieved.
Why did I just think of Gobber from How to train your Dragon...
Thanks BBT as if I didn't have enough Character Concepts...
You sure love the Grasp don't you?
"If you want that flavor why don't you start by chopping off your own hand?"
How about no.
|
|
Now some will want a Quenching AoMF to make them immune to Fire, or a Neutralizing AoMF to make them immune to acid.
Hell, why not have a Impervious AoMF give you Hardness and extra hit points?
Does an Anchoring AoMF make you function as an Immovable Rod?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does an Anchoring AoMF make you function as an Immovable Rod?
You keep coming up with these wonderful ideas and then inexplicably acting as though they're bad for some reason.
|
|
Does an Anchoring AoMF make you function as an Immovable Rod?You keep coming up with these wonderful ideas and then inexplicably acting as though they're bad for some reason.
Well, if that one works, then all you need to make yourself completely immovable, is punch yourself.
I may have been on the rules forum too long. Every time I have an awesome idea, I am told I have done something bad, and I should feel bad.
I do apologize if any of my posts have been offensive.
I should heed these words of wisdom, "Let it be".
Hmm...
If allowed to make an AoMF Slotless via the Tattoo feat or reslot the AoMF into say a RoMF or BoMF would you be able to benefit from 2 of them if they were in different slots and only one provided a +5 bonus while the other added abilities such as Holy, Flaming, Frost, etc?
I would say yes. BTW if you can get the AoMF at crafting cost it is actually the same cost as buying a Magical Weapon. Seems fairly economical to me in the grand scheme.
That is assuming your GM uses WBL like most I know do.
Okay, then jump, and when you begin to fall, activate.Questionable if you can perform a swift action in the duration of a jump(would have to be a high jump)You wouldn't have to punch yourself. Its a swift action to fix the weapon in space.So, jump, activate, and stay immovable in the air?
Could you use it to reduce/negate Falling Damage?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unarmed attacks are always considered a light weapon, 'tis true. But daggers, etc. are light melee weapons. Unarmed attack is not a melee weapon even though you can make attacks against adjacent creatures with them. It is a separate category, just as the Table: Weapons shows. "Unarmed strike" is a weapon in the Unarmed Attacks category. I think a more appropriate name for the category would be Light Unarmed Attacks, but it's pointless since no One-Handed or Two-Handed Unarmed Attacks exist.
In short, your unarmed strike cannot become "any other melee weapon of the same general shape and handedness" because it's not a melee weapon to begin with. As the AoMF description says, it can grant melee weapon special abilities (overriding the "This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons" clause), but it most certainly doesn't make your unarmed strikes melee weapons for any purpose.
However, for the reasons that Roberta Yang mentioned, there's no reason not to allow it if it makes the game fun for everyone involved. It's a good houserule for people who like this sort of things. :)
|
|
If we want to get pedantic, an unarmed strike isn't any collection of body parts. It's the act of using a body part to hit something else. The "weapon" is formed in the action and the intent.
The example given in the ability description is of a longsword taking on the shape of "any other Medium one-handed melee weapon." A flail or trident isn't anything like the general shape of a longsword, but they're given as valid options for transformation. Transforming whatever body part you use to do the striking into any other properly-sized light weapon seems to be perfectly reasonable to me.
All body parts capable of striking would need to become one singular weapon.
Really, because the Vivisectionist Alchemist Barbarian might disagree.
Did you need something from me? Man, if Alchy Amy wasn't already here lurking around I would totally alias up AM ALCHEMIST.
Hmm, maybe make it to where your Unarmed Strike assumes the form of Natural Attacks. Like Claws, Slams, Gores, etc.
Great now I am imagining making a Prototype-based Character.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.Sure, Transformative doesn't let you treat your unarmed strike as a manufactured melee weapon, but the Monk unarmed strike ability sure does.
Yes, absolutely correct. The monk's unarmed strike counts both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon. Which is great because you can use magic fang and magic weapon.
So, you've got a manufactured unarmed attack/strike. But how's that relevant? The transformative quality doesnt't say anything about manufactured or natural weapons. The unarmed strike still isn't a melee weapon.
It is a Melee weapon it just isn't a Light, One-Handed, or Two-Handed.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It is a Melee weapon it just isn't a Light, One-Handed, or Two-Handed.
Oh, but they are always considered a light weapon (if you meant the unarmed strike). However, where is it said that it is a melee weapon? [b]Quote the SRD or it doesn't exist.[b] =P
I can show you quotes that strongly imply the unarmed strike / unarmed attacks are not melee weapons.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attack
"Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:"
I think it's pretty clear that "much like attacking with a melee weapon" means that you're not using a melee weapon. It only means that you can use unarmed attacks in the same way as melee attacks with the noted exceptions. I know that monks can ignore some of these exceptions, but see below:
""Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)."
Here it's evident that even if your unarmed strike is "armed", it's still an unarmed attack. Nothing here says it becomes a melee weapon.
Can you point me to a part of the SRD that says unarmed attacks / strikes are/become melee weapons somehow? (And please, no more quotes about manufactured weapons which are a different category.) If not, I'll say the above evidence is conclusive enough to say this case is closed.
But as I said before, it's not a bad houserule to allow it. Dancing and throwing might also be fun. :)
The fact that it has an entry in weapons. It is classified as a Simple Weapon.
If it wasn't a weapon it would be in a separate section apart from Weapons. Sort of like it was in older editions.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The fact that it has an entry in weapons. It is classified as a Simple Weapon.
If it wasn't a weapon it would be in a separate section apart from Weapons. Sort of like it was in older editions.
Yes, it's a weapon... I never said it's not a weapon. And yes it's a simple weapon. Neither of these facts contradicts what I said above.
The point is, it's not listed under melee weapons. The title of the category doesn't have "melee anything" in it. Unlike the actual melee weapons. "Light Melee Weapons", "One-Handed Melee Weapons" and "Two-Handed Weapons". The category the unarmed strike belongs to is not called "Unarmed Melee Weapons". It's called "Unarmed Attacks".
So, the part of the SRD you quoted actually only further proves my point.
Am I the only that thought of the guy from One Piece that ate a Devil fruit which allowed him to turn his hands, feet (and whole body) into metal blades?
I think this would be an awesome character concept, using AoMF with transformative to emulate the metal fruit :3
Am I the only that thought of the guy from One Piece that ate a Devil fruit which allowed him to turn his hands, feet (and whole body) into metal blades?
I think this would be an awesome character concept, using AoMF with transformative to emulate the metal fruit :3
I can't believe I missed One Piece...
Alternatively, go with blackbloodtroll's transformative wizard hook suggestion and play Edward Elric from Fullmetal Alchemist.
Alternatively, go with blackbloodtroll's transformative wizard hook suggestion and play Edward Elric from Fullmetal Alchemist.
That is 2 Anime Concepts I failed to think of...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Are you unaware of what melee means? As a noun it means people fighting at close range. As an adjective it means, of a weapon, not ranged. Are you claiming that unarmed strike is a ranged weapon? Do you use dex for attack rolls with it and give the same range without regard to size category? Does it work out to five range increments like a thrown weapon or ten like a launcher? Can you use named bullet with it? Since it's the determinator of validity of an enchantment on an amulet of mighty fists does that mean you can put seeking on?
I didn't think so. It's about as far from being a ranged weapon as you can get. The weapon part is more disputable than the melee part. Unless you're a lawyer.
Now you're attacking a straw man. I never said or even implied it's a ranged weapon. And yes, I'm very much aware of what "melee" generally means in the English language.
But I'm talking about the specific meaning of "melee weapon" in the Pathfinder RPG. Games have game terms, and sometimes they don't match your expectations based on the meanings of words in other contexts.
Have a look here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attack
Melee Attacks and Unarmed Attacks are two separate categories.
And as I've pointed out, in the Weapons chapter, they are also separate categories. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons)
Unarmed Attacks, Light Melee Weapons, One-Handed Melee Weapons, Two-Handed Melee Weapons, Ammunition. See where it says melee weapons are where it doesn't.
You can always argue that the designers didn't intend it to be understood that way. But then there are numerous references to melee weapons, natural weapons and unarmed attacks that make it evident that they're treated as separate categories, for example:
"Creatures striking a remorhaz with natural attacks or unarmed strikes are subject to this damage, but creatures striking with melee weapons are not."
So, no need to attack me (or straw men). It's in the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's obvious that you can put melee weapon enchantments on the amulet because its description specifically allows it. And yes it imbues your unarmed attacks with any enchantments that it has.
The problem is that the transformative enchantment can change your weapon into any other melee weapon of the same "handedness" category (and of similar shape). The unarmed strike is not a melee weapon (even though you can make attacks with it at melee range), and thus it is impossible to change it into another weapon in the same melee weapon category because it does not belong to any melee weapon category.
Of course you can assume this to mean that it then applies to the Unarmed Attacks category, well, congratulations, you can change your unarmed strike into a gauntlet (whatever turning a "strike" into a gauntlet means...)
Or maybe, just maybe, this is one of the enchantments why the "...so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks" clause was included.
Anyway, I've already covered all this in previous posts, quoted the parts of the SRD that prove my point, so I'm done here. Feel free to ignore the "RAW" if you can enjoy the game more that way. As long as everyone's having fun, houserules are fine.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oh and if the unarmed strike is a melee weapon, how do you explain this:
"Creatures striking a remorhaz with natural attacks or unarmed strikes are subject to this damage, but creatures striking with melee weapons are not."
There are many similar instances in the rules. They wouldn't make sense at all if you were right about the unarmed strike = melee weapon issue.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No it doesn't. It allows you to put melee weapon special abilities " so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks". If unarmed strikes aren't melee weapons, then none of the properties can be applied to unarmed attacks.
It'd be completely redundant if it only meant that. If you could replace the words "unarmed attacks" with "melee weapons", you'd get "can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to melee weapons." Why mention the same thing twice if unarmed attack = melee weapon?
I can only assume it to be a logic check. I.e. does it make sense to put that enchantment on the amulet? Does it do anything meaningful? Turning your unarmed strike into a gauntlet doesn't make sense to me. :D
Serpent, I agree 100% with everything you're saying and gave this exact same justification at the very beginning of the thread. The handedness and category (Unarmed strike specifically being in it's own category) is what 100% by RAW excludes transformative from functioning on an amulet of mighty fists the way johnlocke90 wants it to work. However, that answer has not satsfied him and I got tired of hearing that "an unarmed strike is considered as light weapon", so I gave up. Just wanted to point all that out.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Serpant, I agree 100% with everything you're saying and gave this exact same justification at the very beginning of the thread. The handedness and category (Unarmed strike specifically being in it's own category) is what 100% by RAW excludes transformative from functioning on an amulet of mighty fists the way johnlocke90 wants it to work. However, that answer has not satsfied him and hence, I gave up. Just wanted to point all that out.
Yea I'm also getting the feeling that this is going nowhere.. I've already said what I wanted to say and quoted the relevant passages in the SRD, so I'll follow your example and let them play the game the way they want.
Serpant, I agree 100% with everything you're saying and gave this exact same justification at the very beginning of the thread. The handedness and category (Unarmed strike specifically being in it's own category) is what 100% by RAW excludes transformative from functioning on an amulet of mighty fists the way johnlocke90 wants it to work. However, that answer has not satsfied him and hence, I gave up. Just wanted to point all that out.Yea I'm also getting the feeling that this is going nowhere.. I've already said what I wanted to say and quoted the relevant passages in the SRD, so I'll follow your example and let them play the game the way they want.
There's nothing wrong with that either - playing the game you want to play. I could see a house rule that allows this to function in the way he wants it to. (Not sure I'd allow it, but hey, that's his perogative.) It is, however, just that - a house rule.