Ha, flurry of pain.
I dont think so, for one your fist cannot obtain the broken conditin.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This came up when I ran Bonekeep for PFS. Lots of Monks and Animal Companions felt the hurt, especially the ones that rolled all of their attack dice at once.
The damage to a weapon is in no way an enhancement or improvement, so you totally ran that wrong.
Sunder attempts and Shatter Weapon effects have no effect on the owner of the Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapon, only things like Fire Shield or other effects that say "the attacker takes damage" type effects.
|
|
what's the hardness of a monk's fist ? or an animal companion's tooth?
none are given.
so the caryatid's 3d6 vs. the hardness to bestow the broken condition doesn't have a way to apply it to natural attacks and unarmed strikes. nor slams from other creatures. they get a pass from this particular ability.
in a home game, i'd love to give them the broken condition on that natural weapon / unarmed strike until they get healing. heh.
|
It has nothing to do with attempting to apply real world physics to game mechanics. The game mechanic is that when a weapon strikes the magicaly amplified column that it applies the "Shatter Weapons" special ability to it. I see no reason a fist should get off scot free but a war hammer should crumble to dust.
Notice I even pointed out that regular stone doesn't have the "Shatter Weapon" property and said fist or sword can punch it all day with no real worry... the MAGICAL COLUMN is differing, because it's magic. Now, tell me where I am applying Real World physics to that?
And the rules do not make allowances for applying damage to unarmed strikes or natural weapons.
A monk, animal companion or eidolon can attack a Caryatid Column all day long without taking damage from hitting it.
Which is about how long it will take any of those to actually kill one.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
tabletop RPG's are not computer games coded with 1's and 0's.
How about I rephrase.
If you are running a PFS scenario, you shouldn't be blatantly breaking the rules by adding new rules like this. The "Creative Solutions" language in the GtPFS 5.0 doesn't say anything similar to "If you are GMing and the rules don't hinder them in some way you would like to hinder them then by all means hinder them, it is after all GM vs Players right?"
|
Shatter Weapons (Ex): Whenever a character strikes a caryatid column with a weapon (magical or nonmagical), the weapon takes 3d6 points of damage. Apply the weapon's hardness normally. Weapons that take any amount of damage in excess of their hardness gain the broken quality.
Unarmed strikes and natural attacks are both classified as melee weapons in Pathfinder. The idea that only beneficial weapon or natural attack effects apply is ridiculous. If that were true, you would not benefit from feats like Crane Wing or Snake Style when fighting a Monk, or any of the other myriad spells or abilities that have a negative effect against "weapons".
An unarmed strike doesn't have hardness, so a Monk takes 3d6 damage upon each successful strike. If the Monk had DR, it would apply, since Shatter Weapons is an (Ex) ability. Obviously his fists cannot gain the broken condition. The amount of mental acrobatics that is going on here to argue that a Monk remains unharmed is laughable.
|
|
An unarmed strike doesn't have hardness, so a Monk takes 3d6 damage upon each successful strike. If the Monk had DR, it would apply, since Shatter Weapons is an (Ex) ability. Obviously his fists cannot gain the broken condition. The amount of mental acrobatics that is going on here to argue that a Monk remains unharmed is laughable.
You can feel free to house rule this, but it is not RAW.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
An unarmed strike doesn't have hardness, so a Monk takes 3d6 damage upon each successful strike.You can feel free to house rule this, but it is not RAW.
@Nefreet: There is no rule that says when applying damage to a non-weapon (Unarmed Strike) then apply that damage to a PC/NPC instead. The amount of mental acrobatics to make a house rule sound reasonable is pretty entertaining.
Any way you look at it, the concept of having Shatter Weapon damage an unarmed strike or natural weapon is wrong. Unless you can find a rule that says a Monk takes damage equal to all damage dealt with his Unarmed Strike then I could argue your side.
Source?
You don't have a source for your interpretation, so I don't know why you are asking for a source.
|
|
Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?
As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account.
(emphasis mine)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
(emphasis mine)
Irrelevant, as it doesn't say "damage to Unarmed Strike is converted to HP loss on the PC/NPC"
And you cannot argue that unarmed strikes and natural attacks aren't considered "melee weapons", either.
I don't need to, as has been said without a rule to convert the damage there is no reasonable method without a house rule for you to apply damage to the PC/NPC.
|
|
GM: "The Monk charges you, and attempts an unarmed strike." (rolls dice) "That's a 19 on the die."
PC: "That would hit, so I'll use Crane Wing to deflect it."
GM: "I'm sorry, you can't." (rolls dice) "Only beneficial effects apply to unarmed strikes. That's RAW. It's not considered a weapon otherwise. You take 8 damage."
PC: "Wha...?"
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Only beneficial effects apply to unarmed strikes. That's RAW. It's not considered a weapon otherwise. You take 8 damage.
Which doesn't prove anything at all since it doesn't matter whether or not the effect is beneficial or not.
Again, you have no grounds to apply the damage to the PC without a rule saying you may convert damage dealt to Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapons to the owner of said weapons.
|
I have to agree with Nefreet and others on this thread who say the monk or AC would take the damage. True, there is no hardness listed for an unarmed strike. There is also no hardness listed in the CRB for bone. By the argument made there is no hardness given for unarmed strike, one should be able to have a femur in hand and beat the Carytid Column to rubble with the bone as it has no hardness to overcome and therefore would not take the damage. There are countless materials which do not have a listed hardness value, but this does not mean that they could all be used as effective means of attacking a creature with the Shatter Weapons ability.
Additionally, as unarmed strikes and natural attacks are both considered weapons by PF, and since they do not have hardness (which would then be reasonable to assume an effective hardness 0), the damage would go to the weapon, which in this case is the creature itself.
And, since it is NOT clear as far as RAW goes, any debate as to what is proper for PFS becomes a matter of table variation subject to GM judgement call. As a matter of record, I have run scenarios in PFS where Caryatid Columns have appeared and were attacked by a monk. The monk did take the damage from the Shatter Weapons ability in that case.
|
|
Additionally:
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
...
Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually
5 feet).
Since both of these types of attacks are indeed listed as weapons within the CRB, both of them should be subject to the Shatter Weapon ability and take damage accordingly (and would make it RAW for them to take the damage).
|
|
Seems pretty clear to me.Seems pretty clear to me too, so we are at an impasse.
And, since it is NOT clear as far as RAW goesWhich would remind me to not play in games you run again, just like I avoid the games of GM's that break other rules in their games.
And how, exactly am I breaking rules when both unarmed attacks and natural attacks are defined as weapons by the CRB? If anything I am not softballing an encounter to the benefit of on or more PCs.
EDIT: Also, I have to say, that was a pretty rude response on your part. Making a thinly veiled accusation of disregard for the rules in response to a debate over a rules question is in rather poor form.
|
|
would make it RAW for them to take the damage).Not without a rule that says damage to Unarmed Strike is applied to the controller of the weapon.
The person or creature making the attack is the weapon. Since the weapon and controller are one and the same, and the damage is applied to the weapon, I would counter that there would need to be a rule clarifying it does not apply to unarmed strikes or natural attacks, otherwise, yes, you are taking the damage.
EDIT: HOWEVER, since this is in the general RPG section and not PFS specific, houseruling it to run the way you describe is fine and I say run with it. Just know it does not fit with RAW (and most likely RAI).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are silly.
The "your version is a house rule" thing is really silly. Stop flinging mud at each other.
The truth is, there's no RAW on this. Why? Because RAW means "rules as WRITTEN."
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, there are no rules written to cover this case. There's nothing in the books about it. There's no rule about sundering unarmed strikes. There's no rule telling you the hardness or hp of an unarmed strike. There's no rule on how to use the "break an object" action against a human body. And there's certainly no rule about this particular corner case. So there's no RAW, by definition.
James has a good point: by his argument, an infinite amount of damage can accumulate to the "unarmed strike" weapon, but absent any rule that says "your unarmed strike and you share a single pool of hitpoints", none of that damage will ever get applied to the "wielder" of the unarmed strike. This is logically consistent, and not in contravention of any of the rules in the book. It's as good a ruling as any. A little silly by a strict verisimilitude standard, sure, but so are a lot of things in DnD.
Nefreet and co. also have a good argument. They are making the logical assumption that because an unarmed strike is made with the body, and a PC's hitpoints represent the ability of his body to absorb damage, therefore any damage that might be inflicted on the PC's unarmed strike should instead be redirected to the PC's pool of hitpoints. This argument is also logically consistent, and can be supported by making an inference based on the above reference FAQ entry.
Basically, BOTH of your arguments are sound. The difference is, that you're both making different ASSUMPTIONS. Nefreet and co. are making certain assumptions about the designer's intent and the degree to which the rules are supposed to model real world physics. James has made his own set of assumptions about the degree to which inferences should be made, absent an explicit rule.
So at the end of the day, you're all right, there is no RAW, and everyone keep playing the game and having fun. There's no winning this argument, so stop trying.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Basically, BOTH of your arguments are sound.
Actually, that is a good point. I can get behind the concept that absent an authoritative rule neither side can claim their position is technically RAW.
Let me restate the original question:
If I Sunder an Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapon is the damage applied to the owner of the weapon? Does Shatter Weapon from Caryatid Column work similarly?
This would become a major problem as every monster has Unarmed Strike. You can easily build a 7th level PC that can Sunder every CR 10 and below monster in B1/B2/B3 on a 2. You can't build a 7th level PC that can hit every AC on a 2. Why bother attacking anyone with AC, just Sunder their Unarmed Strike weapon.
|
|
Did some more digging, and HERE's James Jacobs' take on the matter.
The caryatid column's shatter weapons defense only works against manufactured weapons. It doesn't hurt unarmed strikes or natural attacks.
|
|
In PFS we are told to listen to SKR and not JJ for official rules clarifications, but I feel his explanation of intent is a strong piece of evidence favoring one side of the debate.
I'm not going to run off and post a thread in all caps asking for an official clarification from the most important and best-looking member of the design team to finalize it all (although I realize someone in the future may do just that).
|
|
"Whenever a character strikes a caryatid column with a weapon (magical or nonmagical), the weapon takes 3d6 points of damage"
Seems pretty clear to me.
when quoting. quote the whole source. not just the parts you like , or want to omit.
Shatter Weapons (Ex) Whenever a character strikes a caryatid column with a weapon (magical or nonmagical), the weapon takes 3d6 points of damage. Apply the weapon's hardness normally. Weapons that take any amount of damage in excess of their hardness gain the broken quality.
so most weapons won't even get broken. metal weapons need to beat a hardness 10 most of the time on 3d6. more if the weapon is magical.
again, since humans, dwarves, wolves and bears don't have a Hardness , as thats a property of OBJECTS in pathfinder rpg, there's nothing to overcome, and no way to break or damage the attacker or their particular unarmed attack / bite / tooth / claw.
Note this is an Extraordinary ability, not a magical ability, that they're tough enough to break some weapons that strike them. in this instance it is referring to the actual physical object: a weapon. not the magical target: one weapon ( a monk's fist counts as a weapon in that case ).
if the result of the 3d6 is greater than the hardness of the weapon, the weapon gets the broken condition.
even when damaging weapons,the weapons themselves do not actually take much damage if any. the 3d6 only determines whether the weapon gains the broken condition from striking the column. but any amount over their hardness means the weapon is "broken".
parts of your body, natural attacks, can't get the "broken" condition in pathfinder. if this was the intent, the Shatter Weapons ability would have had something included about damaging creatures that attack it, similar to Elementals with the Burn ability, or some Demons with corrosive slime. As that wording is lacking, don't feel free to add it and interpret it how you want Nefreet.