I have seen several answers to this first part saying both ways, but never in comparison to just using a regular arcane caster. And yes, this is PFS.
Trying to make a ratfolk (just got the boon) caster/rogue and am not sure if I should try magus or just go with a regular caster as I am using natural attacks to deliver my touch spells. I have found plenty of evidence that I can use my natural attacks with Spell combat and Arcane Pool (even to enchant them, though that one is still questionable. I have seen posts saying final word both ways. But more on that later.)
So the first part boils down to this:
If I cast a touch spell (say shocking hands) as a regular wizard/sorcerer/whatnot then can I deal my claw damage (admittedly only a d4 damage) with the "touch" part of the attack? or must I be a magus to do this? since I won't actually be channeling it into a weapon and using my normal method of delivery (ie my hand/claw)?
Secondly: I can see the argument against Arcane Pool working for natural attacks as it adds a +1 WEAPON enhancement, BUT an Amulet of Mighty Fists can be used to grant many if not all of the same enchantments to unarmed/natural attacks, even without the base +1 enchantment required for weapon enchants. As natural attacks (and the Amulet of Mighty Fists) use Magic Fang to get the enhancements, would a legal work around be requiring the amulet of magic fists with a +1 enchantment bonus (or equivalent effect) before I could use the arcane pool to grant other bonuses?
I know, when I ask questions, I ask them in deep detail. lol
Any caster can deliver touch spells with natural attacks.
You will have to take Natural Spell Combat for each natural attack you want to use with spell combat.
The enhancement(s) from the arcane pool apply only to one held weapon, I'm not sure if it can be a natural attack. If you can it should stack with the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
Gallant Armor wrote: Any caster can deliver touch spells with natural attacks.
You will have to take Natural Spell Combat for each natural attack you want to use with spell combat.
The enhancement(s) from the arcane pool apply only to one held weapon, I'm not sure if it can be a natural attack. If you can it should stack with the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
For Spell Combat your weapon can be a Natural Attack associated with your hand. You need Natural Spell Combat for each additional Natural Weapon you want to use.
So what I have gathered is that the only way to get my claw attack damage with my spell damage in the same action is use spell combat, or cast then hold the charge till next round to attack or I just touch them with the spell.
I have figured out that Natural spell combat arcana is needed to use any other natural attacks to deliver the spell (like a bite or tail attack) and must be taken for each other type of natural attack I want available.
The Arcane pool is really what I am trying to figure out a solid ruling for... Since I can't really specify if natural weapons are affected by that enchantment or not. I believe most of the GMs around here would probably say it is cool, but if I end up running into any conflicts over it at Convention or something, I just want to get it cleared up or have strong evidence to support my case.
Savage Wolf wrote:
The Arcane pool is really what I am trying to figure out a solid ruling for... Since I can't really specify if natural weapons are affected by that enchantment or not. I believe most of the GMs around here would probably say it is cool, but if I end up running into any conflicts over it at Convention or something, I just want to get it cleared up or have strong evidence to support my case.
A tricky question. While the idea of being able to make your claws burn in flames is pretty cool indeed, I don't think this should be allowed.
Natural weapons are not manufactured weapons, and they come with innate (or... should I say inborn?) pros and cons.
Now, if you and your GM feel that your character is falling behind in terms of power compared to the rest of the party, then yes. A little houserule and go for it, but as Gallant Armor said, it should stack with the amulet bonus.
Savage Wolf wrote: The Arcane pool is really what I am trying to figure out a solid ruling for... Since I can't really specify if natural weapons are affected by that enchantment or not. I believe most of the GMs around here would probably say it is cool, but if I end up running into any conflicts over it at Convention or something, I just want to get it cleared up or have strong evidence to support my case.
RAW, I'm going to have to say no, because:
Arcane Pool wrote: At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute.
Unless you can make a case that you can "hold" your claw, RAW would indicate "no". Note that it specifically says "hold" and not "wield", which would then work.
That said, it specifically does not reference Manufactured Weapons in the text, so I could probably be talked into a RAI/"Rule of Cool" houserule... but it'd be a houserule. If it's not PFS, perhaps ask for a Magus Arcana, with a requirement of "Natural Spell Combat" to allow "Natural Arcane Pool"?
Sorry. FWIW, I do like the idea, and would like to see it succeed.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
But wait! Let's throw another complication in. The Tail Blade listed in ARG attacks as a secondary natural attack. But is still augmentable like a weapon. Oh th confusion of it all! Heh, heh!
William Werminster wrote:
A tricky question. While the idea of being able to make your claws burn in flames is pretty cool indeed, I don't think this should be allowed.
Natural weapons are not manufactured weapons, and they come with innate (or... should I say inborn?) pros and cons.
Now, if you and your GM feel that your character is falling behind in terms of power compared to the rest of the party, then yes. A little houserule and go for it, but as Gallant Armor said, it should stack with the amulet bonus.
And that is one reason I brought up the Amulet in the first place. Also to point out that the Amulet can be used to enchant fists with the burning/freezing/acid/whatever enchants just like a weapon, not even needing the initial +1 enhancement that full weapon enchants do. But with the way rules in PFS tend to go I can easily see a ruling against natural weapons being enchantable that way. I site the discrepancy in Reduce person and Enlarge person and their effects on ranged weapons as my example for PFS rules that are "for balance... REALLY." lol
BigJohn42 wrote:
RAW, I'm going to have to say no, because:
Arcane Pool wrote: At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute.
Unless you can make a case that you can "hold" your claw, RAW would indicate "no". Note that it specifically says "hold" and not "wield", which would then work.
My argument there would be the exact wording that makes natural attacks usable with spell combat.
From the FAQ linked above by Gisher: "For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand..."
This states they are actual light melee weapons, though it doesn't bypass the word "Holding", even though previously they state that the ability enhances he characters weapon, and omit the word "Holding"
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
