|
I took a look, but with the great number of Monk based threads, I wasn't able to find an answer to this question.
My understanding is that my Monk would have at least three methods available for damaging incorporeal beings.
1) Wield a magic weapon, such as a +1 Kama.
2) Equip a +1 Amulet of Mighty Fists.
3) Equip an Amulet of Mighty Fists [Ghost Touch].
My question is, if I purchase an Amulet of Mighty Fists that only has a special property such as Shocking or Holy, will it still deal damage to Incorporeal creatures?
I'm not looking to start a discussion on whether or not Monks are good. I just want to make sure I have a method to hurt incorporeal creatures before I decide what type of Amulet to get.
Thanks.
It depends on your archetype (if any), but most monks rely on their innate ki strike to deal damage as if by a magical weapon. If you really want to be SURE that you can stomp on incorporeal creatures, you want a +1 ghost touch amulet of mighty fists.
Given that so long as you have at least 1 ki left, your unarmed strikes will still deal dmg against incorporeal creatures, but only 1/2dmg. To deal full dmg to them you will need the ghost touch property. A +1 enhancement might help you over come their AC, but won't affect the fact that you will still only deal 1/2 dmg.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I wasn't worried about dealing full versus half damage, just the possibility of none at all. I don't think Ki Strike covers this though.
At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Being incorporeal isn't a type of DR, so I need a magic item to deal any damage to them.
+1 ghost touch it is then :)
Well, incorporeal just specifies that the weapons need to be magic, so I'd rule, as I think the rest of my group would, that anything that overcomes dr/magic would meet this requirement. But that said, ghost touch would bypass the magic requirement by itself, so if you're still concerned that's the amulet I'd take.
I just ran into this question last night.
AoMF is unique in that it doesn't require any enhancement bonus before adding weapon special abilities...
So the question arose, if I were to only have something that doesn't add damage, but is still a +1 magical weapon ability (no +1 hit and dmg though), would this still allow a character to hurt incorporeal creatures?
It's still making them a "magic weapon" but one without an enhancement bonus <?> -- I've seen nothing that says that a weapon must have a +X enhancement bonus to be considered magic for DR/incorporeal, but it almost seems implied...
Thoughts? Any official word anyone's heard?
|
I agree this is conceptually confusing, but the answer is found in the Overcoming DR section of the Glossary:
Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
This.
The only thing that seems actually iffy here is whether a monk's ability to count their unarmed as a magic weapon sans +1 for DR applies to incoporeal targets as well. (I'd lean yes by the logic that incoporeal is simply a unique form of DR, but I don't have anything half as concrete as the above.)
I am thinking there was an FAQ about this that stated that even though incorporeality isn't DR that the monk's ability to bypass DR magic was sufficient to deal 1/2 damage but I cannot currently locate that FAQ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's in the Bestiary FAQ.
That seems like a silly place to put it to me. I would've put it in the core rule book.
Actually, I think the FAQ section of the website just needs to be redesigned. I know in theory it sounded like a good idea to separate it by books, but honestly with the "find" feature in web browsers it's probably much easier to put it all in one so we can search for a specific word/term/phrase.
It's in the Bestiary FAQ.That seems like a silly place to put it to me. I would've put it in the core rule book.
Actually, I think the FAQ section of the website just needs to be redesigned. I know in theory it sounded like a good idea to separate it by books, but honestly with the "find" feature in web browsers it's probably much easier to put it all in one so we can search for a specific word/term/phrase.
They kind of have to do it this way because so many of the FAQs are not clarifications, but errata. And errata is best done by book.
They kind of have to do it this way because so many of the FAQs are not clarifications, but errata. And errata is best done by book.It's in the Bestiary FAQ.That seems like a silly place to put it to me. I would've put it in the core rule book.
Actually, I think the FAQ section of the website just needs to be redesigned. I know in theory it sounded like a good idea to separate it by books, but honestly with the "find" feature in web browsers it's probably much easier to put it all in one so we can search for a specific word/term/phrase.
Let's not get into that technicality. If it's errata it belongs in the digital errata file. It is still simply easier to find anything that might be relevant to your topic by being able to search through all FAQs at once rather than having to look by each book.