|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Fair warning, this is a wall of text. My apologies in advance, and thank you to anyone who has the patience to read it.
So I'm working on building a Dragon Disciple character, and naturally, the topic of what I should put on my Amulet of Mighty Fists came up after a couple hours of creating theoretical builds. For reference,
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
My question stems from research I have done on two potential Amulet of Mighty Fists enhancements, Furyborn and Spell Storing. These abilities have each had prior discussion in the rules forum as they relate to the Amulet, and I found that the rulings most people resort to to balance these enhancements contradict each other.
First, Furyborn.
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A furyborn weapon draws power from the anger and frustration the wielder feels when battling foes that refuse to die. Each time the wielder damages an opponent with the weapon, its enhancement bonus increases by +1 when making attacks against that opponent (to a maximum total enhancement bonus of +5). This extra enhancement bonus goes away if the opponent dies, the wielder uses the weapon to attack a different creature, or 1 hour passes.
The arguments essentially boiled down to whether or not the Amulet of Mighty Fists counted as a singular weapon being enhanced with each strike or if it simply gave each of the natural attacks the Furyborn quality individually. Most people seemed to side with the latter, as it was the weaker option and more on par with the weapon enhancement as it appears on manufactured weapons.
Now, Spell Storing.
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance of having a spell stored in it already. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
That said, the two rulings begin to contradict each other. If Furyborn is given to each of the wearer's natural attacks individually, then the should hold true for Spell Storing, allowing each of a creature's natural attacks to hold a Shocking Grasp individually. Likewise, if the Spell Storing enchantment is constrained to the Amulet, then the Furyborn enchantment should likewise stack for each individual Natural Weapon hit.
My question is, simply put, which one is it? Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists grant its ability individually to each of the affected weapons, or does it rather allow each of the affected weapons to proc the ability from the Amulet of Mighty Fists itself?
I'm partial to the latter ruling, as it seems to make more sense that Furyborn, as the weaker effect housed within a +2 enhancement bonus, should receive the increased power over the superior Spell Storing buff, but I wanted to receive official clarification on this matter before bringing it to a game day, PFS or otherwise.
It's not an all or nothing.
It's a worst case scenario for both because the opposite conclusions are unbalancing.
|
|
It's not an all or nothing.
It's a worst case scenario for both because the opposite conclusions are unbalancing.
If that is the case, then we'd need an errata on one of the two enhancements, as otherwise it doesn't make sense from a rules perspective. Its impossible to justify the weaker option in both cases if those cases contradict each other within the context of the item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it depends how the amulet of mighty fists is used.
If the amulet is on a creature with multiple natural weapons (claws, horns, bite etc.) then each is in effect a separate weapon. The effect of the AoMF on such a creature is like that of multiple castings of greater magic fang on each natural weapon. So for furyborn each weapon hit accrues independently; however, spell-storing could release on any of the attacks, as the spell is stored in the amulet, not the "weapon" - so it can still only be used once, though it could be triggered by any of the attacks (it's like several spell-storing weapons, but all sharing the same single spell).
If the amulet is on a monk, the monk's unarmed strike is considered a single weapon (there was the whole furore over single weapon flurries that clarified it as such) even though attacks are made with different body-parts. Mechanically, it makes no difference as the monk could in theory make his flurry of blows with just one fist. So this version gets the best of furyborn, but spell-storing you only get to use once, as above.
If the amulet is on a brawler or other unarmed class, then if they are using TWF or the brawler's flurry (which is explicitly TWF) in order to make multiple unarmed attacks, then they in effect have two weapons. Each has furyborn separately like the animal with multiple attacks, and once again the spell-storing is shared because having two spells go off from one casting makes no sense.
For an unarmed character not using TWF, their unarmed strike is a single weapon for furyborn and spell-storing.
That's my best guess, but I may be influenced by my desire not to give the monk the sh*t end of the stick which is what the monk usually gets from any item or power ruling.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table 15–9 for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
|
I can't tell if something was supposed to be bolded or emphasised, but nothing in the AoMF description allows it to circumvent the specifically called out rules in both Spell-Storing and Furyborn of "This can only be placed on a melee weapon."Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table 15–9 for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
Are you saying that unarmed strikes/natural weapons are not melee weapons? Are they then ranged?
Weapons are broken down on a base level as melee or ranged.
Per the PRD: "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."
a light weapons are melee weapons.
|
|
"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."
This is typically read to fix the issue you're describing, as a UAS counts as a light Melee weapon.
@Dabbler I agree that that is likely how it works in regards to the monk, as they are effectively using the same attack multiple times in the round. However, as stated in my original post, it seems to me that if Furyborn from an AoMF worked the way you described for natural attacks, then it would follow that same logic that each Natural Attack would be also count as a separate weapon capable of holding a spell. Therein lies the issue with the ability rulings.
I'd like it if we could get a ruling akin to the one the FAQ team did for the Speed enhancement, personally.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9oaf
I can't tell if something was supposed to be bolded or emphasised, but nothing in the AoMF description allows it to circumvent the specifically called out rules in both Spell-Storing and Furyborn of "This can only be placed on a melee weapon."Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table 15–9 for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
Oh, I thought you just were not familiar with the above. I really had no idea that you didn't understand that it meant that you can put enchantments on it that affect melee weapons and not those that only affect ranged weapons.
For instance, it can't have Seeking, but it could have Vicious.
I don't think you are reading the important part of this discussion. You cannot put those enchantments on the amulet in the first place. It is not a matter of how it transfers to your fists.
Imagine a Venn Diagram, with one section labeled "Melee Weapons", and one labeled "Not Melee Weapons".
They do not touch.
Unarmed strikes are in the melee weapon circle.
The Amulet of Mighty Fists is in the "Not Melee Weapons" circle.
When you look at the Enchantments, they specify "Can only be placed on melee weapons."
This means they can only enchant items inside the "Melee Weapons" circle.
The Amulet is not in that circle, therefore is unable to be enchanted with those abilities.
Unless there is a rule or ruling that grants the AoMF the ability to ignore limitations imposed by the enchantments.
I am not sure if you noticed, but all the melee magic weapon abilities that can't be used on ranged weapons state that. It is the universal disclaimer, not a special limiter to the AoMF. Anything with that line is basically verifying it CAN be used with the amulet.
|
|
I don't think you are reading the important part of this discussion. You cannot put those enchantments on the amulet in the first place. It is not a matter of how it transfers to your fists.
Imagine a Venn Diagram, with one section labeled "Melee Weapons", and one labeled "Not Melee Weapons".
They do not touch.
Unarmed strikes are in the melee weapon circle.
The Amulet of Mighty Fists is in the "Not Melee Weapons" circle.
When you look at the Enchantments, they specify "Can only be placed on melee weapons."
This means they can only enchant items inside the "Melee Weapons" circle.
The Amulet is not in that circle, therefore is unable to be enchanted with those abilities.
Unless there is a rule or ruling that grants the AoMF the ability to ignore limitations imposed by the enchantments.
Sorry, I'm responding to this on a phone, so by the time you had clarified your previous statement I had been typing my post for ten minutes and hadn't noticed your reply.
In regards to the Light Armor/Bracers ruling, there is nothing in the Bracers description saying that they grant Light Armor enhancements. That would make it an equivalent ruling to the AoMF if it were the case, but since it only gives untyped Armor Bonuses, it cannot be considered analogous in this regard. The AoMF specifically clarifies that it grants Melee Weapon special abilities, so it would allow for abilities such as Furyborn and Spell Storing, while the Bracers of Armor would only allow for untyped Armor Enhancements.
|
|
I am not sure if you noticed, but all the melee magic weapon abilities that can't be used on ranged weapons state that. It is the universal disclaimer, not a special limiter to the AoMF. Anything with that line is basically verifying it CAN be used with the amulet.This is very much not true. There are more enchantments which do not have the 'This can only be applied to melee weapons' restriction, than those that do.
The limitation to melee weapons only is a restriction on the enchantment, one that the AoMF does not, by RAW, override.
Interestingly enough, this list of 'doesn't have the restriction' includes the newly added Answering quality, so this issue is not a matter of previous language not being up to par with current language.
Komoda is simply stating that the disclaimer is only a disclaimer relating to the inability to place the enhancement on Ranged Weapons. They are still a Melee Weapon Enhancement, and can be placed on an AoMF accordingly.
Also, as stated in my previous post, the Bracers ruling is not analogous to the AoMF, as there is nothing in the Bracers description that classifies them as allowing Light Armor Enhancements while the AoMF explicitly allows Melee Weapon enhancements.
I'm still looking for an answer or ruling that can be applied to the original topic, or, in absence of existing rulings, nominations for the Weapon/Weapon Enhancer or Spell Storing/Furyborn questions to be FAQ candidates.
|
|
For further clarification, the original ruling you cited was to disallow the Brawling enhancement for BoA. Brawling was disallowed because it can only be applied to light armor, not because it could only be applied to Armor. There is nothing in the BoA description allowing it to grant Light Armor enhancements. AoMF allows for Melee Weapon Enhancements, which Furyborn and Spell Storing are, so it is legal for an AoMF to be enchanted with these effects.
Below are all the Magic Weapon Special Abilities from the CRB.
All of these enchantment say, "Only melee weapons can ...":
Brilliant Energy (and thrown and ammo)
Disruption (bludgeoning only)
Keen (slashing or piercing)
Ki Focus
Mighty Cleaving
Throwing
Vicious
All of these weapons say, "Only Ranged Weapons can...:"
Distance
Returning (thrown)
Seeking
All of these are silent on the matter but still refer to a "weapon":
Anarchic
Axiomatic
Bane
Dancing
Defending
Flaming
Flaming Burst
Frost
Ghost Touch
Holy
Icy Burst
Ki Focus
Merciful
Shock
Shocking Burst
Speed
Spell Storing
Thundering
Unholy
Vorpal
Wounding
Is it really your opinion that only the ones that are silent on the matter can be used with the AoMF?
Are you saying that none of the above can be used? If not, what can be used with the AoMF?
No, it isn't. If it is a melee weapon enchantment, unless for some reason it calls out a specific type of melee weapon, it qualifies. There is literally nothing in the rules that even suggests otherwise.
|
|
For further clarification, the original ruling you cited was to disallow the Brawling enhancement for BoA. Brawling was disallowed because it can only be applied to light armor, not because it could only be applied to Armor. There is nothing in the BoA description allowing it to grant Light Armor enhancements. AoMF allows for Melee Weapon Enhancements, which Furyborn and Spell Storing are, so it is legal for an AoMF to be enchanted with these effects.
The phrase "Only Melee Weapons" is only meant to suggest that Ranged Weapons do not qualify for receiving those enhancements. They are still Melee Weapon enhancements, and are still viable for AoMF. The ruling you are trying to use to discredit this point does not relate to this, as pointed out in my previous post, quoted here for convenience. Reread the ruling your argument is based on, read the posts before it in that thread which frame the context of the question, and then read the above quote.
Even so, this thread was not created to debate this point. It was created to debate the original post, which has been ignored largely because you began to derail the discussion with a ruling that does not apply to this situation. I believe I have given sound reasoning to refute your claim, proving that this is in fact a potential rules issue. As such, I would appreciate it if we could lay this false claim aside and return to the point presented in the OP, which is as follows:
If Furyborn is given to each of the wearer's natural attacks individually, then the should hold true for Spell Storing, allowing each of a creature's natural attacks to hold a Shocking Grasp individually. Likewise, if the Spell Storing enchantment is constrained to the Amulet, then the Furyborn enchantment should likewise stack for each individual Natural Weapon hit.
My question is, simply put, which one is it? Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists grant its ability individually to each of the affected weapons, or does it rather allow each of the affected weapons to proc the ability from the Amulet of Mighty Fists itself?[/quote=Falgaia]
And, if both abilities are intended to work as summarized in previous debates discussed in the OP, can we get an official errata to one of the two offending abilities in order to make this clear?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Speed enchantment affects the whole body as a single entity with any attack able to be used as the extra attack, then by extension Furyborn should allow every attack to stack into a single pool, and Spell Storing should store a single spell which any attack should be able to discharge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's commented before that the entire body is treated as Unarmed Strike, so in that regard 1 Amulet gives its melee enhancements to all Unarmed attacks made in a Round.
Natural Attacks are basically treated in the same way, although Natural Attacks have their own damage dice depending on the type of Attack and its source.
However, bear in mind that the Amulet itself holds the enhancements, NOT the body.
Let's put it in a simple way:
You are making Attacks, regardless of whether they're Natural or Unarmed - they are simply Attacks made with your body.
When you have Flaming on a weapon, all Attacks made with that weapon deal +1d6 Fire damage.
When you have a Speed weapon, you gain an Extra Attack via a Haste-like effect (and since those effects don't stack with one another, 2 Speed Weapons, one of those weapons like Ze Goggles, do nothing).
Furyborn activates whenever you make a successful Attack with the enhanced Weapon, gaining +1 on all Attacks made with that weapon, up to +5.
Regardless of the number Attacks you make, once you have used a Spell Storing weapon to fire off a Spell after a successful hit, you must Recharge that spell.
SO:
Flaming/Shock/Vicious, etc. all apply their damage to each Attack you make in a Round, regardless of if it's Natural or Unarmed.
Furyborn ticks up for every successful Attack you make, regardless of if it's Natural or Unarmed, and applies it's value to all attacks made as it ticks up.
Spell Storing can only be used ONCE, because once you've successfully Attacked and released the Stored Spell, like any weapon, you need to recharge the Spell Storing enhancement.
Speed, just like normal, doesn't give a damn - you get ONE extra Haste-like effect, even if you have an Amulet of Mighty Fists for your Gore Attack, two +1 Speed Shortswords, Righteous Might, and Haste active.
Uh, it can be enchanted with Keen, if you can apply it to unarmed attacks, which, if your unarmed attacks are slashing/piercing....
|
|
The phrase "Only Melee Weapons" is only meant to suggest that Ranged Weapons do not qualify for receiving those enhancements. They are still Melee Weapon enhancements, and are still viable for AoMF.This is, almost literally, Rules As Intended, not Rules As Written. By claiming what the rules 'suggest,' you make a leap of logic not everyone will, or should, follow.
Instead, what I have done is read the words as given. I am not saying I agree with them, or stake claim to know what the Devs wanted, but this is what is written.
One of the things that keeps coming up is the idea that the phrase "this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks" suddenly says "This amulet counts as a melee weapon for the purposes of melee weapon special abilities."
Melee Weapon Special Abilites is a set list of enchantments, as shown in the table given in the item's description.
Now, all that has to happen to solve this is for some FAQ to say "Can the AoMF be enchanted with abilities limited to only melee weapons? Yes."
By this logic, the set list of enhancements that are viable for an AoMF should include all of the enhancements listed on the Random Melee Weapon Special Abilities table in the Ultimate Equipment book. Vicious, an enhancement on this random table, has the offending text. By extension, Furyborn can also be seen as an analogous Melee weapon special ability, and can thus be placed on a AoMF. Look it up.
Changing tactics, lets look at a few things: If the 'requirements' of enchantments on AoMF is based on how they will be applied (to unarmed attacks, natural attacks, etc), why couldn't the Amulet be enchanted with Keen? I mean, Natural Weapons (Bite, etc) can be slashing and peircing, as can Unarmed Strike with the right feats. If AoMF takes into acount the end use of the enchantment, then there should be no restrictions on what enchantments can be applied.
And there are ways to make a UAS count as Piercing/Slashing. And again, that is beside the point, as this is a thread about how Furyborn and Spell Storing interact with an Amulet of Mighty Fists, not the Keen ability. I am not here to argue this point. Stop trying to derail the thread with irrelevant issues.
@Horselord and chbgraphicarts, thank you for your replies. They are reasonable conclusions that were achieved using established precedent, and makes the most sense in the context of the question. Unless Paizo raises further FAQ errata for this question, that is how I'll assume in the future that these abilities interact.
|
|
By this logic, the set list of enhancements that are viable for an AoMF should include all of the enhancements listed on the Random Melee Weapon Special Abilities table in the Ultimate Equipment book. Vicious, an enhancement on this random table, has the offending text. By extension, Furyborn can also be seen as an analogous Melee weapon special ability, and can thus be placed on a AoMF. Look it up.Except, as I keep saying, there are restrictions. Like the "Only Melee Weapons" limitation on some enchantments.
Its as if you had a Fighter who could weild One-handed weapons. And then you had a one-handed weapon that said "Can only be weilded by Clerics". Just because one over arching generalization makes one claim does not mean you ignore more specific restrictions.
And there are ways to make a UAS count as Piercing/Slashing. And again, that is beside the point, as this is a thread about how Furyborn and Spell Storing interact with an Amulet of Mighty Fists, not the Keen ability. I am not here to argue this point. Stop trying to derail the thread with irrelevant issues.Furyborn and Spell Storing interact with Amulet of Mighty Fists not at all. Anything beyond that is an 'irrelevant issue,' unless you have decided to ignore that simple aspect of the rules.
You are putting emphasis where none exists. They are Melee Weapon Special Abilities, plain and simple. These are enchantments that can be placed on Unarmed Strikes, so they can be placed on an AoMF. There are multiple threads that have discussed issues with Spell Storing and Furyborn in the past, and the general consensus among the playerbase is that you can put these abilities on an AoMF. This thread even goes as far as to show that, with 8/9 posters acknowledging it can be done. I have tried my hardest to explain why your interpretation is incorrect, but you refuse to listen to my arguments. As such, all I can say at this point is to feel free to interpret the rules as you wish, but good luck getting it to fly at a PFS table, or any other for that matter. If you do, then more power to you.
I have received two logical answers to my question based on existing precedent that are framed with reasoning that is sound enough to fly at most tables. I don't see any further reason to argue a question I did not ask and already knew the answer to, as there is no longer a discussion to be de-railed. If you are concerned that the rules with the AoMF are unfair or misinterpreted by the community at large, I recommend you voice your concerns in a new thread in the hopes that Paizo will address them, much like I did here.
You are putting emphasis where none exists. They are Melee Weapon Special Abilities, plain and simple. These are enchantments that can be placed on Unarmed Strikes, so they can be placed on an AoMF. There are multiple threads that have discussed issues with Spell Storing and Furyborn in the past, and the general consensus among the playerbase is that you can put these abilities on an AoMF. This thread even goes as far as to show that, with 8/9 posters acknowledging it can be done. I have tried my hardest to explain why your interpretation is incorrect, but you refuse to listen to my arguments. As such, all I can say at this point is to feel free to...By this logic, the set list of enhancements that are viable for an AoMF should include all of the enhancements listed on the Random Melee Weapon Special Abilities table in the Ultimate Equipment book. Vicious, an enhancement on this random table, has the offending text. By extension, Furyborn can also be seen as an analogous Melee weapon special ability, and can thus be placed on a AoMF. Look it up.Except, as I keep saying, there are restrictions. Like the "Only Melee Weapons" limitation on some enchantments.
Its as if you had a Fighter who could weild One-handed weapons. And then you had a one-handed weapon that said "Can only be weilded by Clerics". Just because one over arching generalization makes one claim does not mean you ignore more specific restrictions.
And there are ways to make a UAS count as Piercing/Slashing. And again, that is beside the point, as this is a thread about how Furyborn and Spell Storing interact with an Amulet of Mighty Fists, not the Keen ability. I am not here to argue this point. Stop trying to derail the thread with irrelevant issues.Furyborn and Spell Storing interact with Amulet of Mighty Fists not at all. Anything beyond that is an 'irrelevant issue,' unless you have decided to ignore that simple aspect of the rules.
Falgaia, I agree with you that Aydin is incorrect in his understanding of the rule. That does not mean his comment is "irrelevant" or meant to "de-rail" the thread. If he was correct, which he thinks he is, he would both be relevant and very much on topic.
I don't know that we can convince him of the error in his ways, but chastising him for coming to a different conclusion isn't going to help him or anyone else.
|
|
Falgaia, I agree with you that Aydin is incorrect in his understanding of the rule. That does not mean his comment is "irrelevant" or meant to "de-rail" the thread. If he was correct, which he thinks he is, he would both be relevant and very much on topic.
I don't know that we can convince him of the error in his ways, but chastising him for coming to a different conclusion isn't going to help him or anyone else.
I get that, but all it ends up doing is distracting from the point at large. He may not have meant to de-rail the thread, but as the person trying to get a question answered, coming back to a thread you created after a few hours to find the discussion going in a direction that does not help to answer the question is somewhat disheartening, as it makes it less likely that newcomers reading the thread will end up answering your question. As such, I made it a point to try to explain how the text of the rules worked so as to refocus the discussion. I never wanted the thread to turn into a discussion of whether or not Furyborn and SS were legal on an AoMF because that goes without saying where I'm from. I stand by my statement that if he feels it is an issue worthy of further discussion, then he should make his own thread about it in order to create a focused, structured environment in which to argue his case. That is all. If it came off as chastisement, then I apologize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to add a small point to the debate an ability such as "Throwing" probably can't be placed on an Amulet of Mighty Fists because however flavorful you can't really imagine how to allow unarmed strikes to have a range of 10 as a thrown weapon.
And likewise it is probably just the Amulet not the wearer who would get the "immunity to cold effects" from an enhancement such as Thawing (though such an enhancement is a pretty flavorful one for a monk)
Clockwork Prosthetic Arm + Throwing + Returning =
ROCKET PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNCH!!!
|
|
to add a small point to the debate an ability such as "Throwing" probably can't be placed on an Amulet of Mighty Fists because however flavorful you can't really imagine how to allow unarmed strikes to have a range of 10 as a thrown weapon.
But what about a midget with an AoMF (throwing)? If we also put returning on it the barbarian could hurl the midget without penalty and the midget would come back!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to add a small point to the debate an ability such as "Throwing" probably can't be placed on an Amulet of Mighty Fists because however flavorful you can't really imagine how to allow unarmed strikes to have a range of 10 as a thrown weapon.But what about a midget with an AoMF (throwing)? If we also put returning on it the barbarian could hurl the midget without penalty and the midget would come back!
Then that Dwarf himself better be a Barbarian with Lesser Draconic Bloodline so he has Claws that SNIKT when he starts Raging, and other had better be an Oread Invulnerable Rager with a thick Russian Accent, and they'd better both shout "FASTBALL SPECIAL!!!" while doing so.