Ascetic Style and Stacking "effects that augment an unarmed strike"


Rules Questions

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Rynjin has the right of it.

The enhancement bonuses simply overlap. You take the higher of the two.

In the case of +1 and so forth abilities, you simply can't have a total, that exceeds +10.

That's it.

Blackbloodtroll, we all agree that the enhancement bonuses simply overlap and do not stack. What Rynjin is claiming is that the additional bonuses do not stack. So if you had a flaming amulet of mighty fists and a +1 frost cestus, when you use the ascetic style with your cestus, Rynjin's sayng that your attack is either with a +1 frost cestus or a flaming cestus, but not a +1 flaming frost cestus. That's what's being debated.

If I'm reading your later posts correctly, you actually disagree with Rynjin on that point.

Grand Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

It think Rynjin's problem is that you are picking and choosing which abilities/enhancements to add per ability, instead of which item wholly is better (and would be the "winner" between two items working).

If it were magical stacking effects each effect is determined separately so it would be less an issue. But magic items are different, they are sorted by slots and can be packages of effects per slot.

Let us say you are using a plain +2 leather Armor with +4 worth of enhancement abilities. Then you put on Bracers of Armor +5.

The bracers obviously win in terms of AC, but the total bonus of the leather Armor is overall better. Which item is active? When attacked if the bracers are active, do you still maintain the effects of the leather armor?

Simplify it more, you are wearing magical leather Armor with abilities, then don plate armor over it, that also has abilities. Do you get both sets of abilities despite only one of the armors being "working"?

I know it has come up on the boards in the last a few times (multiple armors and effects), but it isn't a subject I follow actively so I don't know if it has had any Dev clarification or FAQ. But my gut says only one item gets to work, you don't get to pick and choose which abilities from either item works at any given point.

At least I think that is what they are saying. Magic items aren't effects, they are items. That it is either on or off with what they provide.

Exactly.

In the case of the bracers of armor and the armored coat, both have specific text in their item descriptions that describe how they interact with other items. There was never any need for clarification on those items because it was already covered in the text

As for your last paragraph, magic items grant effects, especially in the case of the amulet because you are not hitting with the amulet. You are hitting with something that the amulet applies an effect to.


GM Aram Zey wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

It think Rynjin's problem is that you are picking and choosing which abilities/enhancements to add per ability, instead of which item wholly is better (and would be the "winner" between two items working).

If it were magical stacking effects each effect is determined separately so it would be less an issue. But magic items are different, they are sorted by slots and can be packages of effects per slot.

Let us say you are using a plain +2 leather Armor with +4 worth of enhancement abilities. Then you put on Bracers of Armor +5.

The bracers obviously win in terms of AC, but the total bonus of the leather Armor is overall better. Which item is active? When attacked if the bracers are active, do you still maintain the effects of the leather armor?

Simplify it more, you are wearing magical leather Armor with abilities, then don plate armor over it, that also has abilities. Do you get both sets of abilities despite only one of the armors being "working"?

I know it has come up on the boards in the last a few times (multiple armors and effects), but it isn't a subject I follow actively so I don't know if it has had any Dev clarification or FAQ. But my gut says only one item gets to work, you don't get to pick and choose which abilities from either item works at any given point.

At least I think that is what they are saying. Magic items aren't effects, they are items. That it is either on or off with what they provide.

Exactly.

In the case of the bracers of armor and the armored coat, both have specific text in their item descriptions that describe how they interact with other items. There was never any need for clarification on those items because it was already covered in the text

As for your last paragraph, magic items grant effects, especially in the case of the amulet because you are not hitting with the amulet. You are hitting with something that the amulet applies an effect to.

But that doesn't change anything and is still completely the same issue as the armor.

You have a +3 cestus with abilities.

You have an AoMF with +2 and more abilities.

One or the other is "on" as it is the "winner" between the two packages of abilities.

The AoMF is essentially a weapon, it even follows the pricing of a dual weapon (used to be more expensive before the errata). It is still providing a set enhancement and ability suite. Just like any other weapon.

It isn't a SP or SU or spell effect that stacks with what exists like a spell or a class ability that allows you to add a specific (or multiple specific) ability to an existing weapon on top of what was there prior to use.


Amulet of mighty fists ADDS an enhancement bonus to US and natural attacks. It also can ADD special properties.

Just because it follows the price for a weapon doesn't make it a weapon. It gives bonuses and abilities to other actual weapons.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Amulet of mighty fists ADDS an enhancement bonus to US and natural attacks. It also can ADD special properties.

Just because it follows the price for a weapon doesn't make it a weapon. It gives bonuses and abilities to other actual weapons.

It gives them weapon properties, completely different than individual spell effects. An enhancement bonus is a necessary property of a magical weapon. You can't even have a magical weapon until you add an enhancement bonus. Saying it isn't a weapon because it doesn't state outright what damage die/crit/multiplier, knowing full well those "weapon properties" are dependant on the wearer is splitting a VERY fine hair. To the point of being intentionally ignorant of what the item does and is used for. The magic on a weapon ADDS enhancement bonuses and can ADD special abilities, just like the magic on the amulet does.

If the weapon you are attacking with already has enhancement bonuses and properties what makes you think you get both the weapon's properties and the weapon properties of the amulet?

If it doesn't work for armor, why does it work for weapons? As a matter of fact if if doesn't work for any item with a slot, why would it start working for this situation?

The rules I've seen regarding doubling up on an item that provides effects from a slot typically indicate one or the other doesn't work. As a matter of fact the only thing that we have right now is that you get the largest of any bonus (from the magical effect stacking rules).

So if you have on a magical cestus putting on the AoMF probably should not do anything at all, as the "weapon" is already enchanted and in place. So adding another item to that "slot" would be redundant.

Kind of like putting on a third ring, you don't get any benefit from it. You already have the benefits from the 2 you are allowed.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Amulet of mighty fists ADDS an enhancement bonus to US and natural attacks. It also can ADD special properties.

No, it does not. As I tried to make very clear earlier, an AoMF GRANTS special abilities.

And does not have the specific exception of abilities like the Magus' Arcane Pool that GRANTS an Enhancement but also says something like "These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5".

Grand Lodge

Skylancer4 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Amulet of mighty fists ADDS an enhancement bonus to US and natural attacks. It also can ADD special properties.

Just because it follows the price for a weapon doesn't make it a weapon. It gives bonuses and abilities to other actual weapons.

It gives them weapon properties, completely different than individual spell effects. An enhancement bonus is a necessary property of a magical weapon. You can't even have a magical weapon until you add an enhancement bonus. Saying it isn't a weapon because it doesn't state outright what damage die/crit/multiplier, knowing full well those "weapon properties" are dependant on the wearer is splitting a VERY fine hair. To the point of being intentionally ignorant of what the item does and is used for. The magic on a weapon ADDS enhancement bonuses and can ADD special abilities, just like the magic on the amultet does.

If the weapon you are attacking with already has enhancement bonuses and properties what makes you think you get both the weapon's properties and the weapon properties of the amulet?

If it doesn't work for armor, why does it work for weapons? As a matter of fact if if doesn't work for any item with a slot, why would it start working for this situation?

The rules I've seen regarding doubling up on an item that provides effects from a slot typically indicate one or the other doesn't work. As a matter of fact the only thing that we have right now is that you get the largest of any bonus (from the magical effect stacking rules).

So if you have on a magical cestus putting on the AoMF probably should not do anything at all, as the "weapon" is already enchanted and in place. So adding another item to that "slot" would be redundant.

Kind of like putting on a third ring, you don't get any benefit from it. You already have the benefits from the 2 you are allowed.

You are grossly confusing several rules.

It doesn't work for armor because the bracers of armor specifically state that how it interacts with other sourcers of armor bonuses to AC. The only other item I can think of where such an instance occurs is the armored coat, where there is once more a specific rule for that specific item.

In this case, you are not adding a magic weapon to the magic weapon slot. In the first place there is no "magic weapon slot". The amulet of mighty fists occupies the 'neck' magic item slot and confers a benefit on a completely different body part - you do not attack with your neck (unless you are some kind of awakened giraffe monk).

If we accept that the amulet normally affects unarmed stikes (grants, adds, whatever, really does not matter), and that the ascetic style feat allows you to apply the benefit of the amulet to the cestus, then the only thing that is relevant is whether the bonuses overlap.

When you receive bonuses from different sources, the effects either overlap or stack. For example, if you have an amulet of mighty fists (+1 flaming) and body wraps of mighty strikes (+1 frost), you can apply both properties to your unarmed strike, but it does not become either a +1 flaming OR a +1 frost unarmed strike. Neither does it become a +2 flaming frost unarmed strike. It becomes a +1 flaming frost unarmed strike because the +1 enhancement bonus from both sources overlap, but the flaming and frost properties do not overlap and so both apply. It is exactly the same as with the amulet of mighty strikes worn by an ascetic style user and an enchanted cestus. If the effects are validly applied to the weapon, then the effects either overlap or stack. Enhancement bonuses overlap, but unique item properties that are not identical to a unique item property from another source applies normally, or 'stacks' with the other properties.

It is exactly the same if you fire a +1 flaming arrow from a +2 frost bow. The enhancement bonuses overlap and do not stack, but the flaming property from the arrow and the frost property from the bow do not overlap, and so they both apply to the fired arrow.

Grand Lodge

If you are still in doubt, just hit the faq button and we'll see if we can get a developer response.


GM Aram Zey wrote:
It is exactly the same if you fire a +1 flaming arrow from a +2 frost bow. The enhancement bonuses overlap and do not stack, but the flaming property from the arrow and the frost property from the bow do not overlap, and so they both apply to the fired arrow.

It is nothing like a bow and arrow... There are specific exceptions called out to allow those to stack. There is nothing in the AoMF that remotely references that or implies it.

That is ranged magical weapons and ammunition.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

The Magus example is called out because it is DIFFERENT then normal stacking rules.

The request here is do two magic items/weapons stack their effects.

The magus example doesn't apply because it very specifically allows the ENHANCEMENT bonuses of the ability to stack with the weapon.

Bow and ammunition, the default, do not allow you to do that. Greater Magic Weapon, also the default, does not allow you to do that. Sword Bond, the paladin ability, DOES...and has special language included like the magus to showcase it.

So, without specific language detailing an exception, we just use the bow/arrow rules for the stacking, which are the DEFAULT, not the EXCEPTION. Effectively, the AoMF is a bow and the UA weapons are now arrows, because one grants the effect to the other.

So, we DO have rules on how those function.

Your max is going to be:
A +0/+10 AoMF with 2 +5/+5 Weapons,

Or

A +5/+5 AoMF with 2 +1/+9 Weapons.

I'd personally go with B, with a golf bag of Bane weapons, But that's me.

==Aelryinth


Perhaps there is no text in magic weapons or for the amulet of mighty fists because at the time of their writing there was no option to allow it and it did not need to be said. Now there might be so it should be clarified. The clarification should be included with the feat but since it is from a soft back there will never be a FAQ or errata to it :/


Aelryinth wrote:

The Magus example is called out because it is DIFFERENT then normal stacking rules.

The request here is do two magic items/weapons stack their effects.

The magus example doesn't apply because it very specifically allows the ENHANCEMENT bonuses of the ability to stack with the weapon.

Bow and ammunition, the default, do not allow you to do that. Greater Magic Weapon, also the default, does not allow you to do that. Sword Bond, the paladin ability, DOES...and has special language included like the magus to showcase it.

So, without specific language detailing an exception, we just use the bow/arrow rules for the stacking, which are the DEFAULT, not the EXCEPTION. Effectively, the AoMF is a bow and the UA weapons are now arrows, because one grants the effect to the other.

So, we DO have rules on how those function.

Your max is going to be:
A +0/+10 AoMF with 2 +5/+5 Weapons,

Or

A +5/+5 AoMF with 2 +1/+9 Weapons.

I'd personally go with B, with a golf bag of Bane weapons, But that's me.

==Aelryinth

The problem is it is an exception based game, you don't get to "just use" the ammo/ranged weapon rule because you feel like it. You use them cause the rules say you do. Without a statement to use it, it isn't an "option".

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

It is one magic weapon effect being extended to another magic weapon effect.

So, it IS the 'default'. The exception is now that the Amulet can affect a weapon instead of just your body. It thus now uses the default rules that apply to that situation.

Exception, accessing default. We're all taken care of.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

I'm just going to say that the writer of the feat has in the one post stated that his intent was not to allow the amulet of mighty fist to apply to an enchanted weapon, BUT also acknowledged IN THE SAME POST that the best way to rule it as it currently reads is to treat it the same way as a magical bow being used with magical arrows.

Until there is a statement from Owen K. C. Stephens or errata/faq that states otherwise, that would be the best ruling we have to go by, and that's good enough for me.

As a general statement, there will always be people who refuse to accept the rules work in a way they did not anticipate, and absolutely cannot be persuaded otherwise. Discussions with such people gets nowhere, and so I am leaving this conversation. I deal with enough of such people working as a cop. I do not need that exact same kind of stress on a game forum.


Gisher wrote:
Ashram wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Incidentally, impact doesn't work with light weapons. You seem to be having bad luck with your examples.
Incidentally, the esoteric magus can make his fists impact, but that's neither here nor there. :v

I'm not sure that they can. The standard Magus description says that they can add special abilities to their weapon, but we still don't allow that to override the requirement that the weapon be piercing or slashing for the Keen ability.

Similarly the Esoteric Magus description says that they can add Special abilities to their Unarmed Strikes or weapons. It isn't clear to me that we get to override the restrictions on Impact any more than we can ignore them for Keen.

For the record, I do hope that they can use Impact on their Unarmed Strikes, but I think the wording is ambiguous.

Taken straight from the archetype info:

Arcane Pool (Su): At 1st level, an esoteric can use his arcane pool to enhance his unarmed strikes as if they were manufactured weapons. At 5th level, he can use these bonuses to add any of the following weapon special abilities to his weapons or unarmed strikes: defending, flaming, flaming burst, frost, icy burst, impact, shock, shocking burst, speed, or thundering. This ability alters arcane pool.

I see what you're saying though. I wouldn't think you'd be able to use a light manufactured weapon with impact, but being able to put impact on your unarmed strikes is supposed to be a special thing that goes beyond the normal rules in this situation.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
GM Aram Zey wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Rynjin has the right of it.

The enhancement bonuses simply overlap. You take the higher of the two.

In the case of +1 and so forth abilities, you simply can't have a total, that exceeds +10.

That's it.

Blackbloodtroll, we all agree that the enhancement bonuses simply overlap and do not stack. What Rynjin is claiming is that the additional bonuses do not stack. So if you had a flaming amulet of mighty fists and a +1 frost cestus, when you use the ascetic style with your cestus, Rynjin's sayng that your attack is either with a +1 frost cestus or a flaming cestus, but not a +1 flaming frost cestus. That's what's being debated.

If I'm reading your later posts correctly, you actually disagree with Rynjin on that point.

It would seem I agree with some points, but seemingly, not all.


Yes, it appears this combination works.
(as long as you take the general stacking limitations into account)

Yes, this is pretty broken, almost certainly not intended, and needs to be reworded in a hurry.


Byakko wrote:

Yes, it appears this combination works.

(as long as you take the general stacking limitations into account)

Yes, this is pretty broken, almost certainly not intended, and needs to be reworded in a hurry.

I would agree it was probably not what was intended but i am not sure it is so broken that things need to come to a full stop to fix them. actually as the feat comes in a softback book there is not any FAQ or Errata process that covers it so it would have to be reprinted as a feat in a hardback before it could be addressed. That would put it in a horrible place like the scorpion whip was (and kind of still is) with multiple printed versions of the same thing floating around. Anyways, i digest, it requires money and forgoing one of the staple magic items to pull off so there is that. Trading away AC for offense is a standard option in the game and you are looking at between 4-16K to gain any benefits from it, a sizable sum for most players to budget in along with a magic weapon to stack with it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Mechanically, this effect is exactly as strong as stacking a +5 bow and +1/+9 Arrows.

Note that it also will cost you 500,000 gp to actually come true!

In the shorter term, what it is is mechanical cost savings, as you alternate back and forth between Amulet and Weapon(s) in building them up.

It's 'broken' only in the sense that it exceeds a +10 weapon.

Realistically, it's just a gold acclerant, and unless you devote 3/4 of your wealth by level to maxing it out, it's going to have no realistic impact on play until level 20+.

Remember, to make this work, you have to max out an Amulet of Mighty Fists (100,000 gp max, +5 Max), and TWO weapons (200k max each = 400,000 gp, +10 max each).

That's a LOT of money. TWF'ing ain't cheap.

Basically, the stacking here allows you to reach the equivalent of a +5/+5 weapon with 2 weapons (i.e. functionally 2 +10 weapons) at the same time a normal person would reach a +10 weapon with one weapon.

Normally, it would be 2 +7 weapons = 1 +10 Weapon.

That's it. That's the advantage. After this point, yeah, they can still stack more stuff on...but it's gonna cost them another 200k to max everything. And what's the single weapon fighter doing with that same 200k? Throwing it down the drain?

It's actually very similar to how you can stack weapon and armor enhancements together onto an Uber Shield, and spend gawdawful amounts of money on the thing. You do know you can get the equivalent of a +5/+9 Shield Using Shield Mastery, right?

So, not broken, or overpowered, even at the very, very endgame. Just a place to put money, and making it a little cheaper to be a TWF.
=======================
MMMM, can close weapons be put into Ascetic Style?

Because if you can get a Shield onto that list, then Ascetic Style and Shield Master could stack.

YOu could have a Shield that is getting +5 from Armor Enhancement, +5 IN special abilities from Amulet of Mighty Fists, and +1/+9 from Weapon Enhancements. YAY, +5/+14 shield!

Wow, wouldn't that be an uber shield. And if it's a Klar, it can do blunt, piercing AND slash damage as you like...all with different damage (if you let a spiked shield do non-spiked bashing damage, that is).

==Aelryinth

Scarab Sages

Aelryinth wrote:


MMMM, can close weapons be put into Ascetic Style?

Because if you can get a Shield onto that list, then Ascetic Style and Shield Master could stack.

YOu could have a Shield that is getting +5 from Armor Enhancement, +5 IN special abilities from Amulet of Mighty Fists, and +1/+9 from Weapon Enhancements. YAY, +5/+14 shield!

Wow, wouldn't that be an uber...

You can't use it with close weapons, but you can make a shield a monk weapon with crusaders flurry, since Mazludeh has favored weapon heavy shield.

You still can't flurry with it because you can't flurry while wearing armor, but you could use monk damage with it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Well, there you go then. You can now make an effectively +19 Weapon!

Broken! Broken!

==Aelryinth


I'm a month late to the party, but I was recently looking for Ascetic Style stuff and stumbled upon this. I really love the Weapon Master's Guide for all the new stuff it lets martials do, and this is one of the cooler concepts (both thematically and for builds).

I want to throw my hat into the conversation to hopefully clear some stuff up:

1.) @Imbicatus Ascetic Style works with weapons in the (monk) weapon group. Crusader's Flurry unfortunately would not allow extra weapons in this case.

2.) @Aelryinth Nothing in this allows characters to break the hard +10 equiv. cap. I don't know what happens when an effect puts you over, but that is an edge case that isn't going to come up in a real game without really trying.

3.) Let us please work with one objection at a time to keep from muddying the waters. Is this an argument about special ability stacking, the legality of Ascetic Style's application to item effects, or some weird confusion on whether a monk with an AoMF and magic fang on his fists needs to choose between the AoMF or the +1 from the spell.

Let's try to break this down with the following:

Hypothetical character is a

12th level Monk
Feats: Ascetic Style, Weapon Focus (cestus), IUS,
Items: AoMF (+2 flaming), +1 shocking cestus

AoMF grants an enhancement bonus and/or melee-valid special abilities on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons. This would give you a +2 enhancement bonus on unarmed strike attacks, and the flaming property when you hit them.

Because of Ascetic Style, the text on the Amulet essentially reads "grants a +2 enhancement bonus and the flaming special ability on attack and damage rolls with a cestus.

So when you swing at someone with your +1 shocking cestus, you get the normal effect of attacking (+1 enhancement bonus and the shocking special property), as well as the AoMF bonus (+2 enhancement bonus, flaming special property). Enhancement bonuses don't stack, so the +2 takes priority. The special properties are not the same property, so they both function.

If you don't think this is correct, let's replace the situation with a similar, but removed example to isolate just what problem people have with this.

Hypothetical character is a

12th level commoner
Feats: none
Items: +1 shocking cestus, Deliquescent Gloves
Active Spell Effect: Greater Magic Weapon (cestus) (8th level, +2)

D. Gloves grant the corrosive weapon property to a held weapon, unarmed strikes, or a natural attack.

Attacking with the cestus should result in an attack with a +2 enhancement bonus (GMW overrides the +1 on the weapon) that also is shocking and corrosive.

If the commoner's attacks are dealing acid and electricity damage, there is no reason that the monk's attacks shouldn't be dealing fire and electricity damage. If you think otherwise, please tell me why.

Bottom line, I don't understand why this is an alien concept when applying new special abilities is something many classes can do (see: magus, occultist, paladin, wizard w/ archetype, etc) Not all of these have stacking language, but this doesn't mean that they don't stack.

This kind of thing isn't any more "broken" than the above class examples, though it does provide more of an advantage when it comes to two weapon fighting or shuriken (shuriken are ranged weapons BUT the wording of Ascetic Style's special section specifies "all monk weapons" instead of "all melee monk weapons"


Cycada wrote:
If the commoner's attacks are dealing acid and electricity damage, there is no reason that the monk's attacks shouldn't be dealing fire and electricity damage. If you think otherwise, please tell me why.

Because the Commoner isn't wielding two different weapons and trying to benefit from both.

He's wielding a weapon.

And then he's using Deliquescent Gloves, which add some acid damage to a weapon.

The Monk is wielding what is effectively a weapon, and then using another weapon, and trying to combine them into one super weapon.


Rynjin wrote:
Cycada wrote:
If the commoner's attacks are dealing acid and electricity damage, there is no reason that the monk's attacks shouldn't be dealing fire and electricity damage. If you think otherwise, please tell me why.

Because the Commoner isn't wielding two different weapons and trying to benefit from both.

He's wielding a weapon.

And then he's using Deliquescent Gloves, which add some acid damage to a weapon.

The Monk is wielding what is effectively a weapon, and then using another weapon, and trying to combine them into one super weapon.

What two weapons is the monk wielding? And how are the two situations different, mechanically?

Could you please elaborate so I can understand your objection?

To try and help, I have included the text of Deliquescent Gloves in the spoiler below. The bolded text is the relevant portion:

Deliquescent Gloves:
These heavy leather gloves ripple and flows at the wearer’s command, reshaping to fit any hand, claw, tentacle, or alien limb.

The wearer’s melee touch attacks with that hand deal 1d6 points of acid damage. If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.

The wearer’s gloved hand is protected from the acid ability of oozes, allowing him to use that hand to attack oozes with unarmed strike or natural attack without risk of harm from contact with the ooze. These unarmed strikes and natural attacks never cause an ooze to split.


Cycada wrote:


What two weapons is the monk wielding?

An Amulet of Mighty Fists is a weapon in all but name. The only slight difference is that it applies an Enhancement to Unarmed Strikes, whereas a magic weapon applies an Enhancement to itself.

In addition to an Enhancement, they can potentially provide Wepaon Special Abilities.

Cycada wrote:
And how are the two situations different, mechanically?

Because it's two weapons trying to enhance each other.

It's, yet again, because this is about the fifth time in this f@+&ing thread I've had to repeat a similar analogy, like trying wield a +1 Flaming Cestus and a +1 Frost Longsword and thinking you end up with a +1 Flaming Frost Longsword. That ain't how it works.

Cycada wrote:


To try and help, I have included the text of Deliquescent Gloves in the spoiler below. The bolded text is the relevant portion:

** spoiler omitted **

The Deliquescent Gloves don't mean diddly here. They grant Corrosive to an existing weapon. Full stop. It ADDS to what is already there.

Just like a Magus' Arcane pool.

Not like an Amulet of Mighty Fists enhancing a completely different Magic Weapon.

An example again already used, so I'm assuming you didn't bother even glancing at more than the last few posts of the thread before posting.


Amulet of mighty fists isn't a weapon. It is a wondrous item that takes up the neck slot and boosts unarmed strikes and natural attacks.
It most certainly isn't like trying wield a +1 Flaming Cestus and a +1 Frost Longsword and thinking you end up with a +1 Flaming Frost Longsword.
It's like using bodywraps and an AoMF. Greater magic weapon spell on a weapon. Using AoMF with an Esoteric Magus that has enhanced it's US already. Or a shield that's a weapon and the shield master feat which transfers the defense enhancement to attack.


Assumptions of what I've done aren't relevant. Obviously, I don't think that your example is a useful one. That is why I am questioning it; It's not that I'm unaware you carry that opinion.

So if I am understanding you correctly, you are arguing that the semantics of the AoMF is what is at fault here.

The difference between the words "gains", "apply", and "grants" is the only issue you can find with applying the AoMF to the weapon.

If not, then I'm sorry but I am definitely confused. The wording on an Ascetic Style modified AoMF, and Deliquescent Gloves would be nearly identical.

Silver Crusade

I`ll put my word here.
Debates are great, but do you know what looks REALY similar to this question? Bows and arrows. They are stacking exept for +1/2/3/4/5 bonus. I guess this feat allows similar to monks.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

GM Aram Zey wrote:
The text of the items seem to disagree with you, Rynjin.

Cestus is not an Unarmed Strike.

AoMF enhances your existing natural or unarmed strike weapon.

The Bodywraps also enhance your natural or unarmed strike weapon.


Ascetic style, ascetic form, and martial versatility is in incredibly scary combo. All you need to do is figure out which weapons you apply those feats to. For example, apply them to a seven-branched sword. Boom, now your brawler can flurry with a scythe, and you can replace the scythe's damage with unarmed strike damage later on.

This is because of ascetic form, by the way, not ascetic style. Ascetic style is basically feral combat training, except it applies to weapons in the monk weapon group instead of the natural weapon group. Ascetic form, however, applies to class abilities.

Ascetic Form wrote:
Benefit(s): You can use the chosen melee weapon with any class ability that can be used with an unarmed strike, such as an unchained monk's style strike ability. In addition, you are treated as a monk with a level equal to your character level for the purpose of determining the number of times per day that you can use feats with uses per day that depend upon your monk level, such as the Stunning Fist or Perfect Strike feats.

You know what other class features utilize unarmed strikes? Flurry of blows, brawler's flurry, and the unarmed strikes class features.

So why are we picking some totally unrelated weapon to what we want to use? Weapon groups is why. We pick a weapon that is both in the monk weapon group and another group. Using the above example, a seven-branched sword is both a monk weapon and a heavy blade. You could already flurry with the sword since it has the monk weapon ability, but that's not what we're aiming for. So we pick up weapon focus (seven-branched sword), ascetic style (seven-branched sword), and ascetic form (seven-branched sword). Then we pick up martial versatility (ascetic form), and now not only can we apply class features to any monk group weapon that would normally only be used for unarmed strikes, be we also apply them to anything in the heavy blades weapon group.

As far as I can tell, the only thing this doesn't apply to would be long-ranged weapons (such as bows, firearms, and siege weapons). One thing to note is that this is only sharing the benefits of ascetic form; you won't be able to, say, use adder strike with your scythe this way unless you've also picked up martial mastery or martial versatility (ascetic style). Considering it takes four feats to do this, you may want to pick up a weapon that you could already flurry with to snip the feat tax down a bit, and since martial versatility has a human prerequisite, you can't really do this without one. Still it'd be interesting to see what kinds of things you could do with something like this (such as using kinetic fist with a rope dart or domain strike with a heavy mace).

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ascetic Style and Stacking "effects that augment an unarmed strike" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.