"An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability."
So, does "melee weapon special ability" mean melee-only abilities or any ability that can be applied to melee weapons?
There's a table here:
"Melee Weapon Special Abilities" that lists Ghost Touch. This suggests a +0 Ghost Touch amulet is perfectly fine.
However, I don't believe the Amulet of Mighty Fists applies to grapples. Grappling isn't a 'natural attack' in the way that a bite attack is.
It doesn't apply to grapples.
Ah, I found the reference for AoMF & grappling.
Grapple isn't a natural attack. And ghost touch wouldn't allow you to grapple incorporeal creatures.
However, ghost spike armor will allow you to.
Grapple isn't a natural attack. And ghost touch wouldn't allow you to grapple incorporeal creatures.
However, ghost spike armor will allow you to.
Just pull out your ghost touched Dan Bong! NOW the weapon has a reason for a grapple bonus.
Yeah, the dan bong is weird. And probably doesn't work by the rules.
Although I guess ghost touch on the dan bong would allow you to gain the bonus to grapples, if you had a method to grapple incorporeal creatures.
|
For the record you can't grapple incorporeal even with a ghost touched anything.
Incorporeal creatures are specifically immune to grapple. Ghost touched doesn't overcome this.
One exception to this and specifically called out is the 17th Tetori ability:
At 17th level, the tetori’s unarmed strike gains the ghost touch special ability, and an incorporeal creature that he strikes gains the grappled condition (Reflex negates, DC 10 + 1/2 the wrestler’s level + his Wisdom modifier). Inescapable grasp is a swift action and lasts until the beginning of the wrestler’s next turn.
In this case the Tetori hits the incorporeal creature and gives it the grappled condition if it fails its save. This would be a specific overcoming general ruling.
Looks like El Fuego is going to have to find another way to grapple with ghosts... :P
Ew, gross! Can you please keep your weird phasmophilic fetishes to yourself? Children are reading these boards! Also, getting ectoplasma out of chainmail is a nightmare! Not that I would have any experience with that, of course... *cough*
|
|
My PFS Tetori picked up a +1 Ghost Touch Earthbreaker (had a boon that gave him proficiency) and a Swarmbane Clasp. It was his answer to 2 creature types he couldn't grapple. There were at least two times that just smashing something with a hammer turned out to be better than grappling it (another time handing the Earthbreaker to the barbarian was also a very effective tactic, especially when he crit the ghost with it.)
Also having a swarmbane clasp is a great antiswarm tactic, even if you don't use it, dropping it on an archer or fighter can end swarms really quickly.
What about if the creature that has the +0 Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists has the Grab monster ability?
...what if they have Grab and Constrict?
Hm. I'm not certain. According to this Paizo Blog weapons only get to use their enhancements when they are used as part of a maneuver. By definition Grab is used with the natural weapon that initiated the attack. And Constrict is just a rider effect off grapple.
|
Lune, since the incorporeal creature cannot be grappled they would take damage from the normal attack but be subject to the Grab.
Incorporeal: Incorporeal creatures cannot fall or take falling damage. Incorporeal creatures cannot make trip or grapple attacks, nor can they be tripped or grappled.
Grab: If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Nothing in the Agile enchant changes how those would interact.
An equivalent-situation would be if you had a Flaming AoMF and punched a Fire elemental--it would take the physical damage but not be subject to the fire damage.
|
This brings up a question I was wondering about as well. I'm in the process of making a Dhampir grappling character with the alternate racial trait to give him fangs. That allows him to bite someone when he maintains a grapple to cause damage. Would a Vampiric Amulet of Mighty Fists work for that? Is Vampiric legal to put into an Amulet of Mighty Fists? It can only be put on piercing or slashing weapons. The bite is both, but unarmed strikes are neither normally.
When you maintain to deal damage, you would get the benefit of an Amulet on the damage, right (say, Flaming)? Just not to-hit? Because you're dealing unarmed strike damage (or in my case bite damage), and the Amulet applies to that?
AoMF calls out unarmed and natural attacks.
|
|
I'm not sure which part you're replying to. I know that when making a normal bite attack, the amulet would apply. I'm asking if it applies when making a bite as part of maintaining a grapple, given that it's been clarified that it doesn't apply to the grapple itself.
The reason I asked if Vampiric is legal to put on an amulet is that the amulet contains this text when talking about special abilities: "Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks." It doesn't call out natural attacks in that section. Personally, I think it's implied that they mean natural attacks as well, but I'm not sure if there's been clarification about it. Since unarmed attacks are normally bludgeoning, and not piercing or slashing, I don't know if I'm going to run into issues in PFS with having Vampiric on an amulet. It's basically the same question with Keen. Can Keen be put on an AoMF? I know it can't apply to a bludgeoning attack. If someone is using claws, though, it would work. If it's legal to have in the first place.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you make a grapple CMB, it isn't making a bite attack. It may be applying bite damage, but that doesn't make it a bite.
The question of whether or not "Grab" property on the bite makes the grapple "use a weapon" and therefore you apply bonuses to the bite to the grapple is another question. This question may be an "Ask your GM" question, as we don't have definitive answers. At least, I'm unaware of definitive answers from a developer.
|
|
Well, but a grapple already uses a weapon when dealing damage. Not on the roll to grapple, but on the damage part.
Damage
You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
I don't think there's any question that if you have enhancement bonuses to armor spikes or a light weapon, or special abilities on those weapons, that those would apply to the damage roll, even though they did not apply to the grapple check itself. So it seems odd that an AoMF wouldn't apply to the damage from an unarmed strike or natural attack in this situation. The clarification from the PDT doesn't go into a lot of details, so I'm not sure.
Could a +1 ghost touch harpoon be used to grapple/ensnare an incorporeal creature?
I've seen several people use a +1 Ghost Touch net for the same thing, so I don't see why not.
|
|
Re: Harpoon: No. Again, ghost touch doesn't override the non grapple clause of incorporeal.
Re: Ghost Touch Net: technically, a net is not a valid weapon for the ghost touch enchantment. If you had a ghost touch net, you're probably into table variation territory since the entangled condition is not expressly called out.
|
Apologies for the thread resurrection but I am a little confused.
Amulet of Mighty Fists says...
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.
Italics mine.
And Ghost Touch says...
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons and ammunition.
So, it looks like an Amulet of Mighty Fists cannot be ghost touch.
Am I missing something?
|
|
Well, now that's just confusing. Why is the rule in place? What melee weapon abilities cannot be applied to unarmed strikes?
It just looks like plain-English RAW to me, but I have just looked over them and a load of the abilities say 'melee weapon only'.
It looks like RAW you can only apply generic enchantments like flaming or holy which have no restrictions in the text.
Vorpal and keen are melee abilities that cannot be used on unarmed strikes, off the top of my head.
|
Well, now that's just confusing. Why is the rule in place? What melee weapon abilities cannot be applied to unarmed strikes?
It just looks like plain-English RAW to me, but I have just looked over them and a load of the abilities say 'melee weapon only'.
It looks like RAW you can only apply generic enchantments like flaming or holy which have no restrictions in the text.
but an unarmed strike is a melee weapon...
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
If you have the Hamatulatsu feat, then I don't see why Keen wouldn't be allowed on an AoMF... it would only apply when you chose to deal Piercing Damage, but you DO qualify...
Yes, but Keen works on slashing weapons, like Claws... the AoMF works with natural attacks. So it works... for anyone that qualifies.
|
|
If you have the Hamatulatsu feat, then I don't see why Keen wouldn't be allowed on an AoMF... it would only apply when you chose to deal Piercing Damage, but you DO qualify...No, because the amulet should qualify, not you. When you make magic items the feats of the final user have no effect.
The amulet itself can't qualify for anything if you look at it like that. It's not a weapon at all.
But it says any ability that can be applied to natural weapons can be applied.keen should work 100%.
If you have the Hamatulatsu feat, then I don't see why Keen wouldn't be allowed on an AoMF... it would only apply when you chose to deal Piercing Damage, but you DO qualify...No, because the amulet should qualify, not you. When you make magic items the feats of the final user have no effect.
The amulet itself can't qualify for anything if you look at it like that. It's not a weapon at all.
But it says any ability that can be applied to natural weapons can be applied.keen should work 100%.
Actually it is specifically abilities that can be applied to unarmed strikes... while the amulet affects natural weapons the enchantment limit is based on unarmed strikes not natural weapons. That means the amulet of might fists can have any enchantment that can be applied to a light bludgeoning melee weapon that can never be thrown or disarmed. Keen requires piercing or slashing, standard unarmed strike is neither of those thus not a valid enchant for an amulet of mighty fists.
|
If you have the Hamatulatsu feat, then I don't see why Keen wouldn't be allowed on an AoMF... it would only apply when you chose to deal Piercing Damage, but you DO qualify...No, because the amulet should qualify, not you. When you make magic items the feats of the final user have no effect.
The amulet itself can't qualify for anything if you look at it like that. It's not a weapon at all.
But it says any ability that can be applied to natural weapons can be applied.keen should work 100%.
No, it is not what it says:
Keen: This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen.
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.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
....
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
The amulet can receive only special abilities that work with unarmed attacks, unarmed attacks are bludgeoning weapons. Keen works on piercing or slashing melee weapons.
Feats that change how the kind of damage dealt by an unarmed attack are something the character gets, they don't change the nature of the unarmed attacks.The amulet can't be enchanted with keen.
|
|
Except it doesn't say that, it says:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.Unarmed strikes aren't piercing or slashing weapons normally, and thus the amulet cannot have Keen.
As a GM, I wouldn't mind allowing it, but it's definitely not allowed by base.
Edit: I'm an idiot, unarmed attacks, not unarmed strikes. Since natural attacks are also unarmed attacks (along with unarmed strikes, touch attacks and other things), you can definitely apply keen.
Unarmed attacks is defined on page 182 of the Core Rulebook:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
It doesn't include natural attacks.
You were right before the editing.
What melee weapon abilities cannot be applied to unarmed strikes?
Called
ThrowingAnchoring
Sharding
Dancing
Flying
Injecting
Growing
Slithering
Concealed, Lesser
Concealed
Impervious
Glamered
Resizing
Unseen
Transformative
Brilliant Energy
Rusting (probably)
Flamboyant
Keen
Skewering
Sticky
Vampiric
Culling
Impact
Ki Intensifying
Vampiric, Greater
Flamboyant, Greater
Umbral
Vorpal
Prehensile
It doesn't include natural attacks.
You were right before the editing.
Also defined on that page is
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Yes, the term "unarmed attack" is used for two different things. However, the first line of the AoMF description says this: "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." It clearly differentiates between unarmed attacks and natural weapon, which means that sentence must use the "unarmed strike" useage of the term. And unless the writer is schizophrenic, that means the second use of the term in the AoMF description must do the same.
|
|
If you have the Hamatulatsu feat, then I don't see why Keen wouldn't be allowed on an AoMF... it would only apply when you chose to deal Piercing Damage, but you DO qualify...No, because the amulet should qualify, not you. When you make magic items the feats of the final user have no effect.
The amulet itself can't qualify for anything if you look at it like that. It's not a weapon at all.
But it says any ability that can be applied to natural weapons can be applied.keen should work 100%.
No, it is not what it says:
Keen: This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen.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.Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
....
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).The amulet can receive only special abilities that work with unarmed attacks, unarmed attacks are bludgeoning weapons. Keen works on piercing or slashing melee weapons.
Feats that change how the kind of damage dealt by an unarmed attack are something the character gets, they don't change the nature of the unarmed attacks.
The amulet can't...
But 1 of any number of feats can Change unarmed strikes to slashing or piercing damage.
|
|
But 1 of any number of feats can Change unarmed strikes to slashing or piercing damage.
But what feat has the final user is irrelevant when enchanting an item.
Or you are arguing that the amulet magic doesn't work unless someone has the feat that makes his unarmed strikes doing piercing or slashing damage as it is an invalid item?
|
|
But 1 of any number of feats can Change unarmed strikes to slashing or piercing damage.But what feat has the final user is irrelevant when enchanting an item.
Or you are arguing that the amulet magic doesn't work unless someone has the feat that makes his unarmed strikes doing piercing or slashing damage as it is an invalid item?
That was my understanding.
keen works as a legal enhancement, but will only work on piercing or slashing attacks. Like claws or bites or whatever.
But 1 of any number of feats can Change unarmed strikes to slashing or piercing damage.But what feat has the final user is irrelevant when enchanting an item.
Or you are arguing that the amulet magic doesn't work unless someone has the feat that makes his unarmed strikes doing piercing or slashing damage as it is an invalid item?
That was my understanding.
keen works as a legal enhancement, but will only work on piercing or slashing attacks. Like claws or bites or whatever.
This would be accurate if keen functioned like the mighty cleave enchantment. But it does not. It doesn’t say “a wielder who can use the weapon to do slashing or piercing damage” it said “can only be applied to a slashing or piercing weapon”. Despite what feats you may have an unarmed strike is always a bludgeoning weapon, you may be able to use it to deal slashing or piercing via feats, but the type of weapon has not changed by virtue of your feats.
I didn't think there was an official answer regarding whether the ability to enchant something was based on the type of damage that could potentially be done, or the type of damage that was done normally. It's been probably 5 years since I thought about it, so I guess it could have been answered since then.
I remember some discussion of vorpal rope gauntlets I think?
That once per day limit on the ghost spike armor enchantment, at a +2, seems really restrictive. Is wrastling ghosts really meant to be that hard?