One of my players insists that magic fang applies to all natural weapons of one type: in particular, he would like to use it on his druid's tiger to get both claws +1 with a single instance of the spell.
Now, I thought that he was joking, but it turned out that not only he believes this is correct, but he also says that many guides suggest to cast the spell on claws instead of bite because you gain double the benefit.
Since he seems to be so sure I thought I'd ask you guys about it. So, who is right and who is wrong?
I would have to say it will only affect one.
Quote: Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. It's basically like making a natural weapon... well, magic, as per an enhancement bonus. Claws may usually come in pairs, but they act as two separate weapons, otherwise you wouldn't have two attacks from them. So magic fang only effects one of those 'weapons.'
At least, that seems to be the way it works in my opinion. I could be wrong about it though.
Improved Natural Attack works on both claws at once, but Magic Fang only works on 1.
I'm not sure it's so cut and dried. You can cast Magic Fang on a monk and his flurry would gain the +1, yet the text explicitly states that a monk's flurry can include punches, kicks, elbows, etc.
Defoliant wrote: I'm not sure it's so cut and dried. You can cast Magic Fang on a monk and his flurry would gain the +1, yet the text explicitly states that a monk's flurry can include punches, kicks, elbows, etc. Those are all parts of one weapon, the unarmed strike.
Each claw is a separate natural attack.
The Magic Weapon spell doesn't work on all weapons of a type (e.g. Swords, hammers, flails) I always considered Magic Fang to be equivalent but for animals and monks. Otherwise for the cost of a level 1 spell a player gets two or more magic weapons, albeit briefly.
I think the easiest way to say "no" to the player is to point them to the Greater Magic Fang spell...
The bolded portion of the spoiler emphasises the issue, and should help clarify what he's asking to do. with a little italicized text to get a bit of an extra point across. It specifies one fist, which can be extrapolated to indicate just one arm, which would be one claw.
The stipulation on "fist" could be argued as a possible nerf to a monk, but as BBT said, it's affecting the "unarmed strike" weapon which is the monks entire body.
In short, I feel that your player is attempting to be a little power gamey, and you should mention that Dragons don't like extra gamey meat, it's too chewy.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
yeah, magic fang only works on one individual claw attack per casting.
greater magic fang can make all of its natural attacks +1.
the debate over whether unarmed strike is the whole body or the not can continue elsewhere.
Can you use magic fang with gouging claw?
Gouging Claw appears to be a 2nd edition spell, this here is the first edition forum. You should ask in the right forum.
I disagree with the consensus here. You guys have a good grip on the wording of the spell but you all need to double check the wording of a monks unarmed strike. Specifically "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon..." the key word being "a". "A monk's unarmed strike" "a manufactured weapon" "a natural weapon" if it was considered multiple weapons it called strikes and weapons. If a monk hits you once with the leg, fist, knee, elbow, or head what do call it? An unarmed strike. All with the same attack and damage and damage type. If you have a humanoid creature like a doppelganger, it says it attacks with its fists specifically and it is listed as a slam attack, not an unarmed attack. As well as all kinds of hints that unarmed attacks are just different i.e. a natural weapon can't hold something and be used but an unarmed attack can. And if a creature has 2 claws it lists 2 claws. It doesn't count every thing a monk can strike with.
Unarmed strike is a special case where you can enchant the entire body as a single weapon and then proceed to use Two-Weapon Fighting feats with it. It is not to be looked upon as a precedent for regular natural weapons.
Beep beep tick tock wrote: I disagree with the consensus here. You guys have a good grip on the wording of the spell but you all need to double check the wording of a monks unarmed strike. Specifically "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon..." the key word being "a". "A monk's unarmed strike" "a manufactured weapon" "a natural weapon" if it was considered multiple weapons it called strikes and weapons. If a monk hits you once with the leg, fist, knee, elbow, or head what do call it? An unarmed strike. All with the same attack and damage and damage type. If you have a humanoid creature like a doppelganger, it says it attacks with its fists specifically and it is listed as a slam attack, not an unarmed attack. As well as all kinds of hints that unarmed attacks are just different i.e. a natural weapon can't hold something and be used but an unarmed attack can. And if a creature has 2 claws it lists 2 claws. It doesn't count every thing a monk can strike with. Who are you disagreeing with? You seem to be saying that a monk's unarmed strike is a single weapon in games terms even if it encompasses attacks with multiple body parts...which is correct but not news to anyone in the thread AFAICT. Am I misunderstanding you?
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
