|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I know this is an old question, but there has never been an official ruling.
If a Monk with UMD casts Lead Blades, does it effect their Unarmed Strike.
Some have said no because it says it effects Carried weapons, claiming that a Monk does not Carry their unarmed strike.
Personally, I say, if I'm not carrying my fists, then how are they getting anywhere? Do they Hover?
IMO one Carries oneself and therefore it would work.
Before people start saying use Strong Jaw it's better anyway, it's level 4, Lead Blades is Level 1. That makes for a VERY large difference in price. (Though Strong Jaw could be made into an Oil and not need UMD.)
Edit, Strong Jaw can't be made into an Oil because it is 4th level.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I can carry a tune, then I can cast Lead Blades and beat up my enemies with a killer song?
If I carry carry on a conversation with someone while I cast Lead Blades, can I talk him to death?
I mean, I'm carrying stuff, right?
Don't be silly. Your arms, hands, elbows, feet, etc are attached to your body. They are part of YOU. Now, if you want to cut off your hand and bludgeon someone with it, maybe you will have something to work with, but that would be an improvised weapon then, wouldn't it?
By the spirit of the rules sure.
Monks get to count their weapons as manufactured, which is really what lead blades is trying to get at. They are melee weapons.. they fit the spell.
Go for it.
Also, with UMD and a wand you can use strong jaw. Wands go up to 4th.
(Pricey though)
|
|
So if I can carry a tune, then I can cast Lead Blades and beat up my enemies with a killer song?
If I carry carry on a conversation with someone while I cast Lead Blades, can I talk him to death?
I mean, I'm carrying stuff, right?
Don't be silly. Your arms, hands, elbows, feet, etc are attached to your body. They are part of YOU. Now, if you want to cut off your hand and bludgeon someone with it, maybe you will have something to work with, but that would be an improvised weapon then, wouldn't it?
Neither your Tune nor your Conversation is a Melee Weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Monk's unarmed strike explicitly calls out that it is treated as a manufactured weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve manufactured weapons. All manufactured weapons must be 'carried' in order to be used; it's a simple concept, in order to use a manufactured weapon you have to be carrying it.
Therefore, a Monk's unarmed strike would be considered 'carried' for the purposes of Lead Blades.
And I think the RAI for the spell description is intended to show that the spell is affecting the targeted weapon wielder, not one of their weapons. The idea being that they can switch to a different carried weapon and still make use of the spell's conferred abilities. Otherwise it would have targeted one of the weapons carried meaning a weapon swap would no longer confer the benefit.
|
|
Neither your Tune nor your Conversation is a Melee Weapon.So if I can carry a tune, then I can cast Lead Blades and beat up my enemies with a killer song?
If I carry carry on a conversation with someone while I cast Lead Blades, can I talk him to death?
I mean, I'm carrying stuff, right?
Don't be silly. Your arms, hands, elbows, feet, etc are attached to your body. They are part of YOU. Now, if you want to cut off your hand and bludgeon someone with it, maybe you will have something to work with, but that would be an improvised weapon then, wouldn't it?
They are improvised weapons. After all, I am carrying them, aren't I? If I am carrying them, then I must be able to use them as a weapon. What, that logic sounds skewed to you, you say? hmmmm....
And I think the RAI for the spell description is intended to show that the spell is affecting the targeted weapon wielder, not one of their weapons. The idea being that they can switch to a different carried weapon and still make use of the spell's conferred abilities. Otherwise it would have targeted one of the weapons carried meaning a weapon swap would no longer confer the benefit.
Agreed. It explicitly states that it affects all weapons being carried. Note that 'carried' =/= 'wielded', meaning that if the caster had a sheathed sword, it would be affected as well once he drew it and attacked with it.
And again, it would affect a Monk's unarmed strike because it is called out as behaving as a manufactured weapon (which must be carried - therefore, for the purposes of the spell, you are 'carrying' your unarmed strike).
They are improvised weapons. After all, I am carrying them, aren't I? If I am carrying them, then I must be able to use them as a weapon. What, that logic sounds skewed to you, you say? hmmmm....
No logic involved. 'Carry' has multiple valid definitions and contextual meanings; you are using an alternate definition of the word when referring to conversations and weapons, and so the argument is invalid from the get-go.
Just to respond in a manner equally flippant to the argument, if you were a Bard, then your songs and your words are your weapons (or can be).
But the actual logic here is clear:
-Manufactured weapons must be carried to be affected
-A Monk's unarmed strike is explicitly called out to function as a manufactured weapon for the purposes of spells that enhance those weapons
-Therefore, for the purposes of this spell, a Monk's unarmed strike is a manufactured weapon, is being 'carried', and would be affected
|
|
They are improvised weapons. After all, I am carrying them, aren't I? If I am carrying them, then I must be able to use them as a weapon. What, that logic sounds skewed to you, you say? hmmmm....Neither your Tune nor your Conversation is a Melee Weapon.So if I can carry a tune, then I can cast Lead Blades and beat up my enemies with a killer song?
If I carry carry on a conversation with someone while I cast Lead Blades, can I talk him to death?
I mean, I'm carrying stuff, right?
Don't be silly. Your arms, hands, elbows, feet, etc are attached to your body. They are part of YOU. Now, if you want to cut off your hand and bludgeon someone with it, maybe you will have something to work with, but that would be an improvised weapon then, wouldn't it?
You seem to be saying, that because I say an Apple is a Fruit, that all Fruit must be Apples.
I'll just ignore you now.
Neither your Tune nor your Conversation is a Melee Weapon.
I believe Bards may disagree.
I find this argument persuasive, and withdraw my objections.
This is entirely too reasonable for the internet. Well done.
I said they aren't Melee Weapons, I didn't say they aren't Weapons.Neither your Tune nor your Conversation is a Melee Weapon.I believe Bards may disagree.
...Point.
|
|
You seem to be saying, that because I say an Apple is a Fruit, that all Fruit must be Apples.
I'll just ignore you now.
What...wait...you don't like illogical arguments, you say?
How can you honestly make an argument that Lead Blades should affect unarmed strikes because a person 'carries himself'? You do realize that the phrase 'to carry oneself' refers to the manner in which someone behaves...
What I am saying with my spam is that your justification in allowing it to work has no relation to the context of the spell. It makes very little sense.
Now, I am not saying that the devs intended for Lead Blades to NOT affect unarmed strikes or TO affect unarmed strikes. I personally think that they intended for it to affect weapons carried on the body, but not the body itself. I could be wrong. I could be right.
Doesn't count as "carried" for purposes of game rules, because if it did your weight would affect your encumbrance.
This potentially isn't true. I've always assumed that the amount that your carrying capacity was the amount you could carry on top of your own body weight.
That's how carrying capacity is measured in real life, after all: Someone who can dead lift 200 pounds is technically lifting 200 pounds plus their own body weight; a truck that's rated for 2 tons is indicated to be able to carry 2 tons plus the truck's own weight. But linguistically we don't include the body weight in the amount they're lifting.
The Monk's unarmed strike explicitly calls out that it is treated as a manufactured weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve manufactured weapons. All manufactured weapons must be 'carried' in order to be used; it's a simple concept, in order to use a manufactured weapon you have to be carrying it.
Therefore, a Monk's unarmed strike would be considered 'carried' for the purposes of Lead Blades.
Drake had some... questionable logic in his OP, but still had the right answer.
Xaratherus seems to have the right RAW answer with the right RAW (and RAI) reason, unless anyone can quote a more specific rule/ruling (not personal opinion) otherwise.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Xaratherus seems to have the right RAW answer with the right RAW (and RAI) reason, unless anyone can quote a more specific rule/ruling (not personal opinion) otherwise.
This spell does at a lower level what other spells can do at higher levels.
I believe the language was written referring to "carried" weapons as a way to prevent it from being used by a Monk Unarmed Strike.
YMWV, expect table variance.
|
|
Xaratherus seems to have the right RAW answer with the right RAW (and RAI) reason, unless anyone can quote a more specific rule/ruling (not personal opinion) otherwise.This spell does at a lower level what other spells can do at higher levels.
I believe the language was written referring to "carried" weapons as a way to prevent it from being used by a Monk Unarmed Strike.
YMWV, expect table variance.
Actually, this spell Does NOT do at lower levels what other spells can do it higher levels. This spell increases the weapon damage by 1 size category. The next nearest spell is for natural attacks only and increases it by 2 size categories. and is level 3 for Rangers, 4 for Druids.
Another close spell is Enlarge Person which increases the size of the recipient by 1 size category (among other effects) and is also level 1.
|
Strong Jaw does not affect Unarmed Strikes. Strong Jaw enhances natural weapons, and Unarmed Strikes are not natural weapons.
I would say that Lead Blades' use of the term "carrying" is semantics, and it simply is included to allow you to affect all the weapons you possess (rather than the spell affecting a single weapon). This is a grey area, and is impossible to come to a definitive conclusion on - it's always going to be up to interpretation.
Lead blades makes a few interesting points in it's notes.
Lead blades increases the momentum and density of your melee weapons just as they strike a foe.
Having your fists or feet suddenly increase in density before you hit would completely ruin your attack. Nor does it make any sense for living tissue to "double in density" while still maintaining the dexterity required to land an attack (or any other moves).
Only you can benefit from this spell. If anyone else uses one of your weapons to make an attack it deals damage as normal for its size. If anyone else uses one of your weapons to make an attack it deals damage as normal for its size.
The description makes the point to mention nobody else can use your weapons. Why is that important? It implies that weapons affected by lead blades can be given to others and ineffective. A monk can't give his unarmed attacks to anyone else to use.
Finally the complete lack of reference to unarmed attacks seals the deal for me. I know maybe not damning evidence but logically doubling the weight of someone's unarmed attacks to increase damage just doesn't work for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the language was written referring to "carried" weapons as a way to prevent it from being used by a Monk Unarmed Strike.
Here's the actual spell text:
Lead blades increases the momentum and density of your melee weapons just as they strike a foe. All melee weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are. For instance, a Medium longsword normally deals 1d8 points of damage, but it would instead deal 2d6 points of damage if benefiting from lead blades (see table below). Only you can benefit from this spell. If anyone else uses one of your weapons to make an attack it deals damage as normal for its size.
The word carrying is not being included to exclude unarmed strikes. It's being included so that the spell does not enhance random weapons you pick up after the spell is first cast - it's included to indicate that it affects the weapons on your person when you cast the spell, not the random sword you pick up off the ground 6 seconds later.
Strong Jaw does not affect Unarmed Strikes. Strong Jaw enhances natural weapons, and Unarmed Strikes are not natural weapons.
It does, actually. Monks' unarmed strikes are unusual in that the text states they are treated as both manufactured weapons and natural attacks. I just haven't been quoting that latter part because it's irrelevant to Lead Blades.
That said, there is no spell that does exactly what Lead Blades does; the other spell is a higher level and increases the damage factor more (and rightly so, since it's a much higher-level spell).
Lead blades makes a few interesting points in it's notes.
Lead blades increases the momentum and density of your melee weapons just as they strike a foe.
Having your fists or feet suddenly increase in density before you hit would completely ruin your attack. Nor does it make any sense for living tissue to "double in density" while still maintaining the dexterity required to land an attack (or any other moves).
It also is wholly unrealistic that a manufactured weapon would spontaneously double in density. And if doubling in density would ruin your attack with a fist, why would it not throw off your attack with a manufactured weapon as well? If nothing else, applying your argument equally to manufactured weapons would result in an imprecise hit and should theoretically cause Lead Blades to state that you'd lose precision damage from the attack.
Only you can benefit from this spell. If anyone else uses one of your weapons to make an attack it deals damage as normal for its size. If anyone else uses one of your weapons to make an attack it deals damage as normal for its size.
The description makes the point to mention nobody else can use your weapons. Why is that important? It implies that weapons affected by lead blades can be given to others and ineffective. A monk can't give his unarmed attacks to anyone else to use.
Just because the text includes that does not indicate it's not intended to be used on unarmed strike. A Magus can use his Arcane Pool ability to enhance his unarmed strike, yet that ability includes text that you can't pass the weapon to someone else and have it retain that enhancement.
Why? Not because they are meaning to imply it can't be used on unarmed strike, but so that it is restricted in exactly the manner it says: If they didn't include that text, then you could pass a manufactured weapon to someone else.
Finally the complete lack of reference to unarmed attacks seals the deal for me. I know maybe not damning evidence but logically doubling the weight of someone's unarmed attacks to increase damage just doesn't work for me.
Strong Jaw, the spell under discussion earlier, can with no dispute be applied to an unarmed strike. Why? Because it can be applied to natural attacks, and a monk's unarmed strike is explicitly said to be a natural attack for the purposes of spells that affect it. Yet Strong Jaw makes no mention of unarmed strike itself.
To be honest I'm curious why they. hose the wording they did. Does anyone even use the every weapon I own now does increased damage" feature? If the target had been one weapon wielded by the caster or somesuch it would have been easier. Ut they seemed to really want to avoid it somehow buffing others.
To be honest I'm curious why they. hose the wording they did. Does anyone even use the every weapon I own now does increased damage" feature? If the target had been one weapon wielded by the caster or somesuch it would have been easier. Ut they seemed to really want to avoid it somehow buffing others.
Yup. Let's say you're a Ranger and your primary weapon is a sword. You come up against a skeleton. What do you use? Not the sword - the skeleton takes more damage from bludgeoning. So you switch to your mace. Assuming that Lead Blades was up affecting your sword, it'll affect the mace as well, and you'll smash the skeletons that much more effectively.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. I had no idea Monk unarmed strikes had a qualifier that turned them into natural weapons. Neat!
In that case, Strong Jaw and Lead Blades both work on unarmed strikes - and they'd stack. They'd also stack with Enlarge Person.
Wow.
Nor does it make any sense for living tissue to "double in density" while still maintaining the dexterity required to land an attack (or any other moves).
I will say this slowly.
M
A
G
I
C
Also, this is the "rules discussion" forum, not the "theoretical musings on how difficult it would be to learn to utilize magical powers" forum. Rules are important here - random thoughts about how a spell seems "awkward to use" are irrelevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread was answered ages ago by the Monk Unarmed entry, they count as manufactured and natural weapons for spells. This is a done deal ladies and gentlemen, the monk class got a nice thing. Learn to live with it, enjoy it, revel in this fact.
@princedogwater III The fact that monks attacks count as manufactured or natural weapons was never in doubt. The main argument against the spell working is the fact that his hands are not a carried object. As i said in my previous post the wording of the spell seems un-necessarily complicated like they were trying to avoid some effects from the spell.
@The morphling, no they do not all stack. alot of the size increasing effects use the wording 'as if #sizes larger' this means they all reference the characters origonal size, or current size in the case of enlarge person. However, there are alot of other threads explaining this.
In general, I do not think lead blades works with monk un-armed damage. not because his fists are not treated as manufactured weapons, but because the spell seems deliberately designed to restrict itself to thinks that can be picked up dropped carried etc.
really do that many monks invest in UMD that this keeps comming up?
|
|
In general, I do not think lead blades works with monk un-armed damage. not because his fists are not treated as manufactured weapons, but because the spell seems deliberately designed to restrict itself to thinks that can be picked up dropped carried etc.
Way I read it, the spell is worded that way so that it applies to all melee weapons you are carrying (and not only those you are wielding) in case you need to swap weapons (for example to bypass DR).
Also I believe that a Monk is actually carrying his unarmed strikes ;-)
@princedogwater III The fact that monks attacks count as manufactured or natural weapons was never in doubt. The main argument against the spell working is the fact that his hands are not a carried object. As i said in my previous post the wording of the spell seems un-necessarily complicated like they were trying to avoid some effects from the spell.
@The morphling, no they do not all stack. alot of the size increasing effects use the wording 'as if #sizes larger' this means they all reference the characters origonal size, or current size in the case of enlarge person. However, there are alot of other threads explaining this.
In general, I do not think lead blades works with monk un-armed damage. not because his fists are not treated as manufactured weapons, but because the spell seems deliberately designed to restrict itself to thinks that can be picked up dropped carried etc.
really do that many monks invest in UMD that this keeps comming up?
I pointed out earlier in the thread why the word 'carrying' is used. It's not to restrict it to a type of weapon, but to restrict is to a 'category' of weapon (i.e., the ones that you are carrying at the time of casting) and so that it does not affect the weapons if anyone else wields them.
And the last three monks that I have run across have all focused primarily on unarmed damage (coupled with combat maneuvers). Their unarmed damage is stronger than many weapons they could wield, especially when you factor in that a monk's robe increases it by an effective 4 levels with a minimal gold cost.
This thread was answered ages ago by the Monk Unarmed entry, they count as manufactured and natural weapons for spells. This is a done deal ladies and gentlemen, the monk class got a nice thing. Learn to live with it, enjoy it, revel in this fact.do you have link?
Yup.
|
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
that doesn't address the "carried" verbiage. is the 'unarmed strike' considered the weapon, or the hands/head/whatever? it reads to me as 'unarmed strike' replaces a weapon. is it the entire monk that's getting the enhancement, or just the monk's attack?
I've gone through the forums, and there seems to be a pretty big split on this issue. I'm simply hesitant because it seems to not jive with RAI. without a definitive answer, is it simply GM decision?
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.that doesn't address the "carried" verbiage. is the 'unarmed strike' considered the weapon, or the hands/head/whatever? it reads to me as 'unarmed strike' replaces a weapon. is it the entire monk that's getting the enhancement, or just the monk's attack?
I've gone through the forums, and there seems to be a pretty big split on this issue. I'm simply hesitant because it seems to not jive with RAI. without a definitive answer, is it simply GM decision?
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.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.that doesn't address the "carried" verbiage. is the 'unarmed strike' considered the weapon, or the hands/head/whatever? it reads to me as 'unarmed strike' replaces a weapon. is it the entire monk that's getting the enhancement, or just the monk's attack?
I've gone through the forums, and there seems to be a pretty big split on this issue. I'm simply hesitant because it seems to not jive with RAI. without a definitive answer, is it simply GM decision?
There is a pretty big split.
The Lead Blades spell is not cast on a weapon. It's cast on the person. Any weapon the person is carrying at the time
Since an unarmed strike is any attack made with any part of the body (with the exception of natural weapons), if Lead Blades affects any unarmed strike it affects them all.
To restate a my position in another way: I take 'any weapon he is carrying' to be shorthand for 'any manufactured weapon in the caster's possession'. Since a Monk's unarmed strike is considered a manufactured weapon for the purposes of enhancing spells, it is therefore affected by the spell.
|
|
There is a pretty big split.The Lead Blades spell is not cast on a weapon. It's cast on the person. Any weapon the person is carrying at the time
Since an unarmed strike is any attack made with any part of the body (with the exception of natural weapons), if Lead Blades affects any unarmed strike it affects them all.
To restate a my position in another way: I take 'any weapon he is carrying' to be shorthand for 'any manufactured weapon in the caster's possession'. Since a Monk's unarmed strike is considered a manufactured weapon for the purposes of enhancing spells, it is therefore affected by the spell.
I understand the argument, and I see how with RAW it makes sense. but it doesn't feel right from a RAI standpoint, and that there is no ruling on it and several other people have voiced the same concerns is what worries me.
if a dev says it's legal, end of story. but right now, it may seem nit-picky, but I can't get over the physics, even knowing that I shouldn't even be considering them.
CLEARLY, the word "CARRY" was not used for anything more the semantical purposes.
Well, it did serve a purpose: It's meant to show that the spell affects weapons that were on your person at the time of casting, not any weapon you pick up off a table or the ground or an enemy body - while the spell happens to be in effect.
But otherwise I agree, its intent was the above, not to bar the spell from applying to unarmed strikes.
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.
This answers your hesitancy. It is from the FAQ and answers it beyond any question. It is directly from Paizo, and was quoted about 5 posts up from this one. There is no question.
