|
So - the Allying weapon lets you shift the enchantment of the weapon to a weapon of an ally. Can that ally be you?
I was initially looking at it at least partially as fluff. I'm going to have a dwarf monk - he went monk due to him not being able to save his son (think the Slayers from Warhammer Fantasy) and carry around his son's axe in remembrence - not using it. I thought it'd be cool if the axe eventually helped him.
However - if allying can work on himself - he can easily get far cheaper upgrades on the axe than on an AoMF. In fact - the two would stack. So he could use the axe for pure enhancement - and then get Agile/Flaming etc on the amulet.
Is there a reason that this wouldn't work? Is there a FAQ I'm missing?
By the rules, you are your own ally.
However, this isn't all that practical since allying requires you to be wielding the allying weapon and allocate it each turn. The activation says 'before using the weapon' which may imply that if you don't use the weapon (or are using a different weapon, in this case unarmed attacks) you can't activate the ability. Indeed the English definition of wielding included using.
So depending on how you parse things it might be legal, but there is some interpretation involved. Most likely the intent is to be something similar to fighting defensively, you have to be attacking with the weapon to give some of its bonus to someone else, just like you can't get the fighting defensively AC bonus if you don't attack, however the wording is a bit unclear.
In my games, I would not allow the enhancement bonus to go to someone else (or yourself) unless you attacked with the weapon.
|
|
Actually - the full quote is " As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon" - I saw that - I just read it that it's making sure that you can't use the weapon's enhantment bonus and give it away.
Sort of a 'you can't have your cake and eat it too'.
Though I can see an argument that it means you need to be attacking with it in the same turn. (I disagree that's what it means - but it's a valid argument.)
I do diagree on the wielding portion.
Wield:to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it
Of note: Unarmed monks and brawlers are the only characters I can see benefiting from using it so. So I don't see it being game-breaking.
I don't think that "before using her weapon" is a restriction that you must be using your weapon - you simply cannot use the Allying bonus later in your turn or after using the weapon.
I also don't think the Amulet of Mighty Fists is a weapon, and since the Allying property must transfer its bonus to a weapon, not to an amulet, it seems to be unable to transfer from an axe to an amulet.
Oxford dictionary says: Hold and use (a weapon or tool)
Many other dictionaries have similar definitions. Clearly though, anyone understands that 'wield' has a far different flavor that 'hold'.
However, you are correct at least in that wield is not specifically defined as a game term in pathfinder as far as I am aware. It is eluded to many times, but doesn't have a technical definition of what is required to be considered 'wielding'. Whether that works for or against you will probably be up to your GM.
And I don't know that game-breaking is the standard to apply. Many rules could be different and not be game breaking. But GMs tend to frown on things that either a) game the system (in this case, effectively getting your discount AMF) or b) don't seem to fit the flavor they think things should have (definitely a possibility here.)
|
|
I also don't think the Amulet of Mighty Fists is a weapon, and since the Allying property must transfer its bonus to a weapon, not to an amulet, it seems to be unable to transfer from an axe to an amulet.
Right - it would go to their fist or foot. That's why I mentioned the combo would only work for monks/brawlers (and most brawlers just wield close weapons). It wouldn't work for TWF unarmed fighters well or for nat weapon users at all.
As to game-breaking: it has nothing to do with RAW, but it does have some to do with RAI.
I don't doubt the definition of "wield".
However, I don't think you MUST wield your Allying weapon to use the Allying ability. You simply must "activate" the ability.
Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by wielding (attacking with) it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action). A character can activate the special abilities of 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, assuming each piece has identical abilities.
That first sentence says usually the benefits of a magical weapon are gained by wielding the weapon. This is certainly true of weapons that get bonus to hit or damage - they don't do anything for you unless you wield them. But it does say "usually" which leaves wiggle room that there may be magical weapons that can work without having to wield them.
After that, it just says you have to utter a command word to activate weapon special abilities - nothing about also having to wield it to do this. In fact, it says you can activate ammunition items with a command word, and since those are pretty much always in a quiver, it seems fairly clear that you can utter your command word and have it affect magic weapons that are not in your hand.