AoMF+fervor

[Del_Taco_Eater]

Character idea:

1.) buy spell storing amulet of mighty fists
2.) multiclass warpriest and monk so your body is both your body and a weapon
3.) as a swift action store a spell in yourself (I thought of inflict wounds)
4.) attack, dealing unarmed + spell damage
5.) repeat

The idea is that fervor can only be a spell that targets yourself, and you yourself are a spell storing weapon.

Does this work, and if so, (or if not) why?

[dragonhunterq]

Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

and you yourself are a spell storing weapon.

You are not your unarmed strikes or natural weapons.

[James Risner]

You are not a weapon.

[Del_Taco_Eater]

James Risner wrote:

You are not a weapon.

Why wouldn't that be covered by the amulet? What is the difference between myself and a spell storing sword?

[Yuri Sarreth]

fervor targets the spell on the warpriest and not on the amulet which would need to be the target for it too be stored..

Trying to cast inflict with fervor would damage the warpriest..

[Del_Taco_Eater]

Yuri Sarreth wrote:

fervor targets the spell on the warpriest and not on the amulet which would need to be the target for it too be stored..

Trying to cast inflict with fervor would damage the warpriest..

This makes less sense to me. I don't attempt to slap people with my flaming amulet, it works with my body magically. My body is a flaming weapon now. Similarly, when I wear a spell storing AoMF my body is spell storing now.

[dragonhunterq]

No, your unarmed strike is a flaming weapon with a flaming amulet, not you. The rules draw a distinction between 'you' and 'your unarmed strike'.' They are not synonymous.

[Del_Taco_Eater]

dragonhunterq wrote:

No, your unarmed strike is a flaming weapon with a flaming amulet, not you. The rules draw a distinction between 'you' and 'your unarmed strike'.' They are not synonymous.

How am I not my unarmed strike when my unarmed strike is literally my hand? Or any part of my body?

[James Risner]

Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

No, your unarmed strike is a flaming weapon with a flaming amulet, not you. The rules draw a distinction between 'you' and 'your unarmed strike'.' They are not synonymous.

How am I not my unarmed strike when my unarmed strike is literally my hand? Or any part of my body?

Because the rules don't say you are and the rules are about permission not denial.

[Del_Taco_Eater]

Maybe we won't agree, but I think it's silly to say an ability the targets "the war priest" can't target "the warpriest's hand".

[James Risner]

Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

2.) multiclass warpriest and monk so your body is both your body and a weapon

Make a rules argument without using that logic, maybe you can convince us. Quote the rules and walk us thought it.

[Yuri Sarreth]

Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

Yuri Sarreth wrote:

fervor targets the spell on the warpriest and not on the amulet which would need to be the target for it too be stored..

Trying to cast inflict with fervor would damage the warpriest..

This makes less sense to me. I don't attempt to slap people with my flaming amulet, it works with my body magically. My body is a flaming weapon now. Similarly, when I wear a spell storing AoMF my body is spell storing now.

No the amulet would create a flaming aura around the part of your body you strike the opponent with. If it worked as you are saying your entire body would have the aura and anyone hitting you with an unarmed strike or natural weapon would suffer the 1d6 of fire damage.

The spell must be cast on the amulet for it to be stored, which is a clearly distinct item from any part of your body. Yes it allows you to release a spell into the target you stuck with your fist but it is still not stored in your fist.

If it made your whole body spell storing as you suggest every spell cast with you as a target would be subject to storing.. ie.. the enemy cast magic missile at you and it would be stored rather than damaging you.

A second point is that what you are trying to do is already build into the game. The Magus ability called spellstrike.