|
Just found out about the new prices. I found a thread that would have been good to place this in but it was locked from new posts.
The refund for the Amulet of Mighty Fists is not for Monks only is it? I don't play a monk but would love the 4K refund on my +1 attack & 1d6 acid damage amulet.
Also, can anyone confirm, does the amulet, if at least +1, bypass DR magic? Not everyone who bought this is a monk with ki strike magic or may have taken less than 4 levels in it. What about an amulet +3, does that bypass DR cold iron/silver like a +3 weapon? Same for the +4/5 working in whatever the adamantine/alignment magic weapon DR penetrations work?
|
Although I had asked in another thread if the gloves stacked with an AoMF in this same example (for my Tengu) and the general consensus was "No".
I'd think that if you had an amulet with corrosive they would not stack, but if you had the gloves and an amulet with flaming they would. But 2x corrosive doesn't stack.
The wording of that item is a little weird. It says your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 acid whereas weapons held with the gloves gain the Corrosive weapon special ability.
Why doesn't it use "Corrosive weapon special ability" to describe both uses?
Sloppy or intentional. Hardly seems intentional.
|
The wording of that item is a little weird. It says your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 acid whereas weapons held with the gloves gain the Corrosive weapon special ability.
Why doesn't it use "Corrosive weapon special ability" to describe both uses?
Sloppy or intentional. Hardly seems intentional.
Unless there is a mechanical difference, does it matter?
As best I can tell, there isn’t a mechanical difference between corrosive or “does 1d6 acid damage.”
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The wording of that item is a little weird. It says your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 acid whereas weapons held with the gloves gain the Corrosive weapon special ability.
Why doesn't it use "Corrosive weapon special ability" to describe both uses?
Sloppy or intentional. Hardly seems intentional.
Actually, that's not what it says.
The wearer’s melee touch attacks with that hand deal 1d6 points of acid damage. If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.
So weapons, including unarmed strikes and natural attacks, gain the corrosive property, so it won't stack if you have the same enchantment on an AoMF.
The wording of that item is a little weird. It says your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 acid whereas weapons held with the gloves gain the Corrosive weapon special ability.
Why doesn't it use "Corrosive weapon special ability" to describe both uses?
Sloppy or intentional. Hardly seems intentional.
Actually, that's not what it says.
The wearer’s melee touch attacks with that hand deal 1d6 points of acid damage. If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.So weapons, including unarmed strikes and natural attacks, gain the corrosive property, so it won't stack if you have the same enchantment on an AoMF.
Sorry I didn't know the UE was in the PRD otherwise I would have quoted the whole thing proper.
