What does an anchoring amulet of mighty fists do?

[prototype00]

So here is the anchoring weapon property:

Quote:

This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon or a thrown weapon. An anchoring weapon pins a target in place and prevents it from moving. As a swift action, the weapon can be fixed in place in a point in space, functioning as an immovable rod. This ability can also be used when the wielder hits a creature with a melee attack using an anchoring weapon. This anchors the target to the weapon, preventing it from moving away from the weapon. The target is not entangled or paralyzed; it simply cannot move from its location without first destroying the weapon or making a successful DC 30 Strength check as a full-round action to move with the weapon up to 10 feet. An anchoring weapon remains motionless and cannot be used to attack while it is anchoring a creature. An anchoring weapon has no effect on amorphous creatures, including elementals, oozes, and creatures in gaseous or liquid form. It also cannot anchor incorporeal creatures unless the weapon also has the ghost touch special ability.

What happens when a monk punches a foe with an "anchoring" unarmed strike? Can he then use his leg to kick or headbutt the now locked to one spot enemy?

prototype00

[Robert A Matthews]

I would say yes as long as you keep whatever limb you attacked with anchored to that point in space. That does bring amusing images to my mind of a monk repeatedly kicking the air to jump over mountains.

[partyrico]

How about throwing, or better yet, transformative! Fists that turn into weapons

[prototype00]

Robert A Matthews wrote:

I would say yes as long as you keep whatever limb you attacked with anchored to that point in space. That does bring amusing images to my mind of a monk repeatedly kicking the air to jump over mountains.

Considering that you can only use one swift action every 6 seconds, that's going to be a really slow climb.

prototype00

[seebs]

I would argue that the "it's all one weapon" thing would mean that you can't move at all while immobilized.

[blahpers]

"Yup, that's Immovable Rod. He got stuck that way trying to prove he could fly with his foot."

[prototype00]

Has it been stated before that unarmed strike is all one weapon?

prototype00

[blahpers]

It's been stated that the monk's entire body is the weapon used to perform unarmed strikes. It's also been stated that unarmed strikes require particular body parts, and which parts are valid seems to change depending on the argument.

[Speaker for the Dead]

If I were playing the monk I'd state that I stomped on the target creatures foot pinning it to the ground. It makes for a better visual and revisits a painful childhood memory all in one attack.

[Scavion]

Speaker for the Dead wrote:

If I were playing the monk I'd state that I stomped on the target creatures foot pinning it to the ground. It makes for a better visual and revisits a painful childhood memory all in one attack.

Jeez.

I imagine punching through someone, hooking your fist then anchoring it.

[prototype00]

blahpers wrote:

It's been stated that the monk's entire body is the weapon used to perform unarmed strikes. It's also been stated that unarmed strikes require particular body parts, and which parts are valid seems to change depending on the argument.

So not particularly then? I mean I'm fine with having the fist remain in place and the monk not being able to move from the spot, but to become paralyzed seems a bit much? Its not something I can derive from the RAW.

prototype00

[seebs]

Well, if you move the monk's body, that's not very immovable, is it?

I don't know about "paralyzed". The target clearly isn't, but it seems that if the weapon can move, it's not really immobilized.

Of course.

The description doesn't seem to say anything about how you un-immobilize the weapon...?

[Roger Quigley]

blahpers wrote:

It's been stated that the monk's entire body is the weapon used to perform unarmed strikes. It's also been stated that unarmed strikes require particular body parts, and which parts are valid seems to change depending on the argument.

I think when they say "his whole body is a weapon," that's more figurative than literal, reflecting his ability to use any part of his body as a weapon. So, it isn't that his whole body counts as a single weapon. Hence why flurry of blows functions as two-weapon fighting. Each fist or foot is technically a different weapon in that sense, because you cannot employ two-weapon fighting if you only have one weapon. The only place I can think of it saying that his whole body is a weapon is the description of the class, which has little bearing on the literal interpretation of what the monk can and cannot do.

[Ignipotens]

I would say you have 4 weapons, legs and arms and they would be anchored individually. But that would imply that you could have 2 anchors at once.

It's kind of funny that if they succeed the strength check they will be pulling you around. What is the Break DC for your leg? :p

What if you have two anchored with your feet and they both succeed the strength check and move 10 feet in opposite directions? Make a fort save or be ripped in half?