| 27 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can one use elemental fist with a weapon? I see nothing saying one can't in the feat's description, but the Improved Unarmed Strike requirement and the name seem to imply it's for unarmed strikes only.
Design Manager
|
It would appear that Elemental Fist can be used with any attack. It seems like it could even be delivered via a ranged weapon attack.
RAW doesn't specify, but RAI clearly implies unarmed attacks, since it has IUS as a prerequisite.
This is one of those cases where it's fairly obvious that they didn't think they'd have to specify since you must have IUS to use a fist attack.
Common sense is supposed to override semantic pedantics at DM discretion.
|
Design Manager
|
RAW doesn't specify, but RAI clearly implies unarmed attacks, since it has IUS as a prerequisite.
I wouldn't try to derive too much out of perceived RAI. These feats were meant to be super easy for monks and unarmed fighters to access and much more difficult for everyone else, and IUS is one of the feat taxes in place to enforce that. Other Combat Styles very clearly spell out that they only work with unarmed strikes (see Boar Style, Dragon Style, etc.), and this one doesn't. I think assuming that that was unintentional is probably the wrong way to go.
Use Common Sense on this one. Elemental Fist.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use Common Sense on this one. Elemental Fist.
You're right, we should limit Crane Wing to creatures with wings as well. Better make sure races without fangs aren't using Snake Fang.... And we definitely don't want races without claws using Tiger Claws.
The name of a feat does not indicate its limitations.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Use Common Sense on this one. Elemental Fist.
Ah, but is that even the right name?
When you use Elemental Strike...
Whoops! Elemental Fist refers to itself as Elemental Strike in the very first sentence!
So did it start as Elemental Fist and get (incompletely) changed to Elemental Strike?
Did it start as Elemental Strike and get (incompletely) changed to Elemental Fist?
Did it have both names the whole time, from start to finish?
What does this mean about the author's original intent?
What does it mean about the developers' intent after the author made the turnover?
Could those two be different from each other?
Use Common Sense on this one. Elemental Fist.You're right, we should limit Crane Wing to creatures with wings as well. Better make sure races without fangs aren't using Snake Fang.... And we definitely don't want races without claws using Tiger Claws.
The name of a feat does not indicate its limitations.
Those are style feats, as in martial arts styles.
I'm not saying every feat name should be taken literally, but sometimes common sense should be applied. It seems clear to me what the intention is.
Stop trying to over reach with the feat. Do you really need a dev to come in and tell you no? I'm fairly certain that's how the ruling will fall and I will cede one honorary internet point to you if they do FAQ this with the opposite ruling.
|
Design Manager
|
Use Common Sense on this one. Elemental Fist.You're right, we should limit Crane Wing to creatures with wings as well. Better make sure races without fangs aren't using Snake Fang.... And we definitely don't want races without claws using Tiger Claws.
The name of a feat does not indicate its limitations.
Those are style feats, as in martial arts styles.
I'm not saying every feat name should be taken literally, but sometimes common sense should be applied. It seems clear to me what the intention is.
Stop trying to over reach with the feat. Do you really need a dev to come in and tell you no? I'm fairly certain that's how the ruling will fall and I will cede one honorary internet point to you if they do FAQ this with the opposite ruling.
Ooh, honorary internet points, love me some of those....
My original response did come off a little snarky, so I apologize if I offended you, but I really do think this feat does exactly what it says it does. As Jiggy pointed out, the original feat name wasn't even Elemental Fist!
The requirement for Improved Unarmed Strike is, to me, more a reflection of the fact that these are martial arts styles and require a certain and specific kind of training to be used, reflected by that feat tax. As I stated earlier, most feats that are limited to being used with unarmed attacks specifically say so, and this one doesn't. That, coupled with the fact that the Style feats were released as a way to give monks more power, not lock them into fewer choices, makes me believe that this feat can be used with weapons, both RAW and RAI.
Well, let's all FAQ it then.
Or look at the description in the chart in the book, which says unarmed strike...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or look at the description in the chart in the book, which says unarmed strike...
Oh, quite right. If you look on the chart on the PRD for elemental fist it does specifically say unarmed strike.
|
Design Manager
|
The snapshot description includes a qualifier not found anywhere in the text of the actual feat. That chart has no bearing on how the actual feat works. Vital Strike's snapshot says "Deal twice the normal damage on a single attack" but we all know that that is not an accurate description of the feat, nor a valid reference. Given that Ultimate Combat is infamous for being the worst edited book Paizo's ever released, it seems worth a FAQ.
Elemental fist is in the advanced players guide.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Claxon:Ah, but the feat description is more accurate then the chart. The chart is just a general description of the feat. It was clearly INTENDED to be used with unarmed strikes, but the feat doesn't tell you you HAVE to use it as intended. Let people play how they want to play. This feat leaves room for table variation, so if you are the GM and someone asks then say no.
To the OP:You can RAW use Elemental Fist with any attack. Ask your DM if he allows this as he may be like Claxon and say no. If this is PFS, look on the additional resources page and make sure there are no stipulations in this feat that say you can only use it with unarmed strikes, and for that matter, make sure the feat is legal. If so, go for it. If not, sorry.
You can say its more accurate all you want, but I think the chart makes the RAI clear even if the RAW doesn't explicitly state that its for unarmed strikes only.
|
Design Manager
|
You can say its more accurate all you want, but I think the chart makes the RAI clear even if the RAW doesn't explicitly state that its for unarmed strikes only.
Considering that chart is made by a different person than the one who wrote the feat, a feat that originally didn't even use the word "Fist", I would disagree, particularly with the "only" part. Obviously this is intended for use with unarmed strikes. That doesn't mean it isn't also intended to be compatible with other attack forms, like temple swords, shuriken, etc.
|
|
To Claxon:Ah, but the feat description is more accurate then the chart. The chart is just a general description of the feat. It was clearly INTENDED to be used with unarmed strikes, but the feat doesn't tell you you HAVE to use it as intended. Let people play how they want to play. This feat leaves room for table variation, so if you are the GM and someone asks then say no.
To the OP:You can RAW use Elemental Fist with any attack. Ask your DM if he allows this as he may be like Claxon and say no. If this is PFS, look on the additional resources page and make sure there are no stipulations in this feat that say you can only use it with unarmed strikes, and for that matter, make sure the feat is legal. If so, go for it. If not, sorry.
*repeats self hoping someone reads more then the first 2 sentences*
You can say its more accurate all you want, but I think the chart makes the RAI clear even if the RAW doesn't explicitly state that its for unarmed strikes only.Considering that chart is made by a different person than the one who wrote the feat, a feat that originally didn't even use the word "Fist", I would disagree.
So you're saying that since the feat was originally called Elemental Strike (like Unarmed Strike) that somehow still means it wasn't intended to work only with unarmed strikes?
Hit the FAQ.
|
Design Manager
|
You can say its more accurate all you want, but I think the chart makes the RAI clear even if the RAW doesn't explicitly state that its for unarmed strikes only.Considering that chart is made by a different person than the one who wrote the feat, a feat that originally didn't even use the word "Fist", I would disagree.So you're saying that since the feat was originally called Elemental Strike (like Unarmed Strike) that somehow still means it wasn't intended to work only with unarmed strikes?
Hit the FAQ.
I already did, so maybe rein in that bossy attitude a bit and keep it civil, eh?
In fact, I even stated it should be FAQ'd earlier, so your telling me to FAQ it is a lot like that e[pisode of Family Guy where Joe tells Quagmire never to call a phone sex operator when Quagmire already knows never to call a phone sex operator, and then explains such, at which point Joe tells him not to again. Have you seen that episode? It has some bearing.
You can say its more accurate all you want, but I think the chart makes the RAI clear even if the RAW doesn't explicitly state that its for unarmed strikes only.
You're right, and it demonstrates clear intent and written reference for citing precedent. So, at my table, it would be an unarmed strike only.
Unfortunately, you're dealing with semantic purists here who only go by the exact written text they like to hold to heart as RAW. RAI doesn't matter to them. And on this board, to be fair, it shouldn't. This is a rules question subforum. And RAW holds higher weight here than RAI.
For RAI, you need an FAQ or official Errata. RAI would hold more weight on perhaps the Advice or Homebrew boards, but here, the written word is law. Some of these Paizo All-Stars will also accept the word of the Dev Team as gospel (and some will not, citing that the guy that wrote the book didn't write it IN the book, so it's not legal or official).
At the end of the day, it's up to your DM. Not the rules lawyers here.
I mean honestly though, if you aren't playing PFS, just rule of cool.it and move on, I'm sure any dm would work with you and make it happen. I would, if a player really wanted it. There are ways for dms and player to balance it out and keep it from being exploited.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really dont see a problem with allowing this to work on non-unarmed strikes. Say your greatsword fighter wants it....
We're talking about a 2-feat investment with a high BAB requirement and a WIS requirement, for 1d6 elemental damage that you can use no more than 1/round, and only 5/day at 20th level. That's about the least broken thing I can possibly imagine. Let them take it.
If you're a monk you can use it more frequently, and its more powerful with Monk of the 4 winds... but if you want to play a monk of the 4 winds with Elemental Strike on your nunchaku.... I'm not going to tell you no. Again, it's only 1/round. I mean, do we really need to further limit the ability of monks to use anything other than an unarmed strike? I think not.
Rules subforum is a valid place to discuss both Rules as Written and Rules as Intended. However, in the hierarchy of things its seems that rules as intended should take precedent over some super strict verbatim reading of the rules.
|
RAI and RAW aside. Everyone on here is just going to argue how it should be worked since it is one of those weird conflicts/fuzzy lines of RAI/RAW. Talk to your DM in the meantime of FAQ'ing this. If he looks at you like you're a ****ing idiot, you deserve it. If he says "sure whatever" then HEY YOU WIN.
I'm pretty positive there are more important things on the forums than this. FAQ and move on guys >_>
I am actually really curious about this since it would ALSO go towards answering the question if ki weapons would allow you to use elemental fist. Either it already works with weapons so the point is mute or if it is only Unarmed then maybe the dev could also weight in on if ki weapons would allow you to use it.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reviving this FAQ in lieu of making a redundant thread. (Arise, thread! Thread, arise!)
Issue: Can you use Elemental Fist for attacks other than unarmed strikes? If so, what attacks qualify?
You empower your strike with elemental energy
Prerequisites: Con 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When you use pick one of the following energy types: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. On a successful hit, the attack deals damage normally plus 1d6 points of damage of the chosen type. You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). You may attempt an elemental fist attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (see Special), and no more than once per round.
Special: A monk of the four winds receives Elemental Fist as a bonus feat at 1st level, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. A monk may attempt an Elemental Fist attack a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk.
The text for Elemental Fist looks like it was copied from the 3.5 feat Elemental Strike and is missing the usual niceties such rules text usually contains. Since it's Core, I suspect it was overlooked in the rush.
Stances:
A. It doesn't specify, so you can use it with any attack. That means unarmed strike, melee weapon, ranged weapon, touch spell, ranged touch attack, heck, maybe even combat maneuver. Bestow curse with acid damage! Throw in Efreeti Style and taste the rainbow!
B. It only affects unarmed strikes. The feat itself is called "Elemental Fist". The table in the Feat chapter describes the feat as applying to unarmed strikes specifically, and while the table summary is often abridged and lacking in detail, it is rarely misleading.
C. It doesn't specify, so it applies to any weapon. It doesn't apply to spells because, well, come on, bestow curse with fire damage?
(Note: I've always thought it was B but have no real stance on this issue. I hadn't noticed the problem until a recent thread.)
Anyway, I've FAQ'd the first post in this thread because it's well-formed and concise.
Obviously it's not A, since it's says an attack roll is required. The feat summary on the chart, the name of the feat, it's pre-reqs, the fact that it synergizes better with monk levels in the same way Stunning Fist does...I'm lost as to how anyone can look at this and think it WASN'T intended for unarmed strikes only. Ergo, B. Also, FAQ'd.
Obviously it's not A, since it's says an attack roll is required. The feat summary on the chart, the name of the feat, it's pre-reqs, the fact that it synergizes better with monk levels in the same way Stunning Fist does...I'm lost as to how anyone can look at this and think it WASN'T intended for unarmed strikes only. Ergo, B. Also, FAQ'd.
What about monk weapons that can be used with Flurry of Blows? It would be silly if it didn't work with them. If it works with a quarterstaff or a kama or shuriken, why not any other weapon.
I do agree that it only works with attacks that require a to hit roll... but then, wouldn't it work with a touch attack? Especially one based off of a Qinggong monk ability?
I was the one who started this line of questioning that caused blahpers to hunt this up. I don't want assumptions based on preconceived notions or personal prejudices. I want the rules. I haven't been able to find a ruling in the FAQ off of this. I'm not super familiar with this website, I could simply be missing it.
Sorry if I'm coming off as rude, I don't mean to. It's really important to me that I know one way or the other before I present this to my GM, or at least that I have all the pertinent arguments(which I'd say that I have at this point). Still, anyone know if it's in the FAQ? I can't find it.
Well Zanathos, right now all the feat needs to work is an attack that requires an attack roll. Nothing more, nothing less. That's what's written (as in RAW). Now you can argue RAI all day long but that doesn't change how the feat is written. For it to be limited to an unarmed strike it would have to say that.
Look at Domain Strike. It says "If you make a successful unarmed strike", requiring it. Note the complete lack of such language in elemental fist.
Note that everything mentioned in A requires an attack roll with the technical exception of combat maneuvers.
I'll toss in another vote for the RAW saying it works with any attack, but the most likely RAI is that it's unarmed attacks only.
Also FAQed: when the rules on the page don't work they way they should, errata is called for.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I grew up watching chinese Wuxia tv shows. And the ideal of powerful swordmen able to channel an elemental energy through a weapon is pretty common in wuxia stories and well... cool.
Therefore, I personally would prefer that they stay working with any weapon for a more versatile feat. One that can be enjoyed by other classes other then just the monk, or other unarmed only archetypes/classes (example, brawler).
As written RAW, Elemental Fist allows the creation of characters with flavorful backgrounds like a Ifrit fighter swordsman with flaming sword strikes.
Or a wuxia style monk using a sword to channel frost or lightning.
Sure for non-monks it cost 2 feats to obtain and the uses per day for a non-monk is limited, but that only further serves to balance it.