|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
If you have a spell storing Amulet of Mighty Fists, does it allow you to store a spell in the form of an unarmed strike and also in each one of your natural attacks (i.e. fist, bite, and claw)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It lets you store one spell that can be discharged with any unarmed attack such as unarmed strike, natural weapon, etc.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
James Risner wrote: It lets you store one spell that can be discharged with any unarmed attack such as unarmed strike, natural weapon, etc. A fair and reasonable response, if one seemingly unsupported by any explicit text. I would expect most DM's response to be closer to my initial reaction of "Shut it, you!"*backhand*.
It applys to every unarmed strike and natural attack. James doesnt have rules text supporting his interpratation.
The amulet applys to every eligible attack. So you can hold a spell in each attack. So if you had a bite unarmed strike and 2 claws you would have 4 spells. You would have to put the spells in each weapon though.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The text for Spell Storing specifies "a single targeted spell". I would agree with James Risner that you get ONE spell that you may discharge with any relevant attack.
This FAQ is for a different weapon property, but I think pretty clearly shows that the developer intent is not to allow properties of this sort to apply to multiple natural attacks:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9oaf
Spell Storing is written with a single weapon/attack in mind, and applying it to all natural attacks would be way too powerful for the cost. One of those instances where a GM should apply common sense.
PRD wrote: Spell Storing: A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. You have a single spell storing item, so you can discharge it with any of your unarmed/natural attacks, but then it is empty. You can't charge multiple spells in different limbs, it is charged in the magic item.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Halek wrote: It applys to every unarmed strike and natural attack. James doesnt have rules text supporting his interpratation.
The amulet applys to every eligible attack. So you can hold a spell in each attack. So if you had a bite unarmed strike and 2 claws you would have 4 spells. You would have to put the spells in each weapon though.
You interpretation is the unsupported one.
As the other posters note the item says, "store a single spell". Single means one and only one. In the case the amulet of mighty fists is the "weapon" and it's benefits can be applied to any unarmed attacks you possess.
Fair enough with the faq i concede the point.
Thanks for the FAQ. And the FAQ answer the question in the affirmative for me.
A +1 Amulet of Mighty Fists gives a +1 to all unarmed and natural attacks. You don't have to choose one or the other. The FAQ basically says that speed would apply to other attack forms (just like the enhancement bonus), but for the fact that it is too powerful. Now that is an odd FAQ answer because I would have thought they would just say that haste only gives you one extra attack in a full attack routine, but I digress.
So the answer to whether the spell storing works with your unarmed and natural attacks in the case of an AoMF, absent a FAQ saying that it is too powerful, is yes.
That's really not how you should process that.
RAI, I agree that only one spell at a time should be allowed but if you put flaming on an AoMF all of your natural weapons become flaming weapons so if you put spell storing on an AoMF all of your natural weapons should be spell storing weapons.
"All your weapons become flaming2 is a bit different from "all your weapons become capable to deal an energy damage of your choice", but that is exactly where you are going saying that "all your limbs become able to store a different spell".
What you get is that is "your limbs are capable to store a single spell that can be delivered by any of them". A single effect, like flaming, that is shared by all limbs.
Diego Rossi wrote: "All your weapons become flaming2 is a bit different from "all your weapons become capable to deal an energy damage of your choice", but that is exactly where you are going saying that "all your limbs become able to store a different spell".
What you get is that is "your limbs are capable to store a single spell that can be delivered by any of them". A single effect, like flaming, that is shared by all limbs.
Please do not overstate what we are saying. We are not saying that all of your limbs become spell storing. We are saying that one claw, one bite, and one unarmed strike becomes spell storing. At least that is what I am saying.
Gallant Armor wrote: all of your natural weapons should be spell storing weapons. And they are, but they don't have individual spell slots per weapon as that wouldn't make sense.
James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: all of your natural weapons should be spell storing weapons. And they are, but they don't have individual spell slots per weapon as that wouldn't make sense. Sure it makes sense, you are just really saying that it is too powerful. And absent a ruling saying that the results are too powerful, it is totally legal.
Diego Rossi wrote: "All your weapons become flaming2 is a bit different from "all your weapons become capable to deal an energy damage of your choice", but that is exactly where you are going saying that "all your limbs become able to store a different spell".
What you get is that is "your limbs are capable to store a single spell that can be delivered by any of them". A single effect, like flaming, that is shared by all limbs.
I'm not referring to unarmed strike as that would be one weapon. I'm referring to natural attacks which are separate weapons. If each is a spell storing weapon via an AoMF, each should be able to store a spell (in theory).
I'm not arguing that this should be allowed, I'm explaining that there should be an FAQ on this.
James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: all of your natural weapons should be spell storing weapons. And they are, but they don't have individual spell slots per weapon as that wouldn't make sense. That would be like saying that putting flaming on an AoMF would only apply to one attack.
Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF.
Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet.
James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
Gallant Armor wrote: By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
Because you didn't pay a cost equal to what it would cost if you had 3 or more spell storing weapons.
Just because something doesn't prevent you from making sub par choices doesn't mean those choices should now be enhanced.
Amulet is designed for flaming, agile, and other things like that. There will be times like spell storing and speed where it isn't the best design.
It seems pretty simple to me (why so many AoMF questions lately).
You have spell storing that stores a single spell.
You flurry, getting 3 attacks.
Your first attack hits. You make a choice, would you like to discharge the spell? Answer: Yes, please, zap that mofo.
Your second attack hits. You make a choice, would you like to discharge the spell? Answer: I would like to, but the spell is gone and needs reloaded.
Your third attack misses, cause you suck.
Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
Did you give your claw or bite spell storing? Or did you give the amulet spell storing?
That's where this trickles down to. Your Amulet has the effects, not your natural weapons or unarmed strikes. Your natural weapons and unarmed strikes are just benefiting from the effects.
James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
Because you didn't pay a cost equal to what it would cost if you had 3 or more spell storing weapons.
Just because something doesn't prevent you from making sub par choices doesn't mean those choices should now be enhanced.
Amulet is designed for flaming, agile, and other things like that. There will be times like spell storing and speed where it isn't the best design. By that logic players should be required to have a +1 for each natural attack they want to have flaming. If you have 2 swords you have to enchant them with flaming and pay the cost twice. If you have 5 natural attacks you only have to pay it once. There is no reason why spell storing should be treated differently by the rules.
Link2000 wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
Did you give your claw or bite spell storing? Or did you give the amulet spell storing?
That's where this trickles down to. Your Amulet has the effects, not your natural weapons or unarmed strikes. Your natural weapons and unarmed strikes are just benefiting from the effects. "Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. "
Nowhere does it say that it grants the effects to natural weapons and not the actual weapon ability.
Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
Because you didn't pay a cost equal to what it would cost if you had 3 or more spell storing weapons.
Just because something doesn't prevent you from making sub par choices doesn't mean those choices should now be enhanced.
Amulet is designed for flaming, agile, and other things like that. There will be times like spell storing and speed where it isn't the best design. By that logic players should be required to have a +1 for each natural attack they want to have flaming. If you have 2 swords you have to enchant them with flaming and pay the cost twice. If you have 5 natural attacks you only have to pay it once. There is no reason why spell storing should be treated differently by the rules. The Amulet has +1 Flaming, and passes that benefit to unarmed strikes and natural attacks. Spell Storing is no different.
Sword with Spell Storing:
1) Put spell in sword.
2) Hit enemy with sword.
3) Decide if spell is expended with attack.
3a) If spell is expended, repeat steps 1-3.
3b) If spell is not expended, repeat steps 2-3.
Amulet of Mighty Fists with Spell Storing:
1) Put spell in amulet.
2) Hit enemy with attack affected by amulet.
3) Decide if spell is expended with attack.
3a) If spell is expended, repeat steps 1-3.
3b) If spell is not expended, repeat steps 2-3.
Just to show it has the same build as a "Flaming"
Sword with Flaming:
1) Activate Flaming on sword.
2) Hit enemy with sword.
3) Deal 1d6 Fire damage in addition to weapons damage.
Amulet of Mighty Fists with Flaming:
1) Activate Flaming on amulet.
2) Hit enemy with attack affected by amulet.
3) Deal 1d6 Fire damage in addition to attacks damage.
The amulet has the enhancements, and passes those bonuses to your attacks. Your attacks don't have enhancements themselves. Drop a sword, sword is still enhanced. Drop an amulet, your attacks are not enhanced any more.
Gallant Armor wrote: Link2000 wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
Did you give your claw or bite spell storing? Or did you give the amulet spell storing?
That's where this trickles down to. Your Amulet has the effects, not your natural weapons or unarmed strikes. Your natural weapons and unarmed strikes are just benefiting from the effects. "Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. "
Nowhere does it say that it grants the effects to natural weapons and not the actual weapon ability. It says it right in the line you quoted, "this AMULET can GRANT melee weapon special abilities". The AMULET, the necklace itself, has the enhancement that's being GRANTED.
Link2000 wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Link2000 wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
Did you give your claw or bite spell storing? Or did you give the amulet spell storing?
That's where this trickles down to. Your Amulet has the effects, not your natural weapons or unarmed strikes. Your natural weapons and unarmed strikes are just benefiting from the effects. "Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. "
Nowhere does it say that it grants the effects to natural weapons and not the actual weapon ability. It says it right in the line you quoted, "this AMULET can GRANT melee weapon special abilities". The AMULET, the necklace itself, has the enhancement that's being GRANTED. Not sure what you are saying. So the amulet grants special abilities to natural weapons but the natural weapons don't actually have the special abilities?
"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. For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves."
By this logic since grant doesn't mean give, Magi only get the +1 to attack and damage and don't overcome DR with the enhancement bonuses they get from their pool.
This is getting silly....How about word it like this then:
"Your skin now has this ability. Your skin is considered 1 weapon, regardless of what part of your body you hit with."
Gallant Armor wrote: Not sure what you are saying. So the amulet grants special abilities to natural weapons but the natural weapons don't actually have the special abilities?
"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. For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves."
By this logic since grant doesn't mean give, Magi only get the +1 to attack and damage and don't overcome DR with the enhancement bonuses they get from their pool.
How does that "logic" equal what I had said?
Amulet is enhanced. Not natural attacks. Not unarmed strikes. Amulet.
Amulet grants enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks.
Magi grants enhancement bonus to weapon wielded. If weapon already has enhancement bonus, increase appropriately.
Like, I don't see the confusion here. The ability says exactly what it does.
Link2000 wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Not sure what you are saying. So the amulet grants special abilities to natural weapons but the natural weapons don't actually have the special abilities?
"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. For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves."
By this logic since grant doesn't mean give, Magi only get the +1 to attack and damage and don't overcome DR with the enhancement bonuses they get from their pool.
How does that "logic" equal what I had said?
Amulet is enhanced. Not natural attacks. Not unarmed strikes. Amulet.
Amulet grants enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks.
Magi grants enhancement bonus to weapon wielded. If weapon already has enhancement bonus, increase appropriately.
Like, I don't see the confusion here. The ability says exactly what it does. You are saying that "grant" doesn't really give the ability it just grants some part of the ability. By that logic granting a +3 enhancement bonus shouldn't help overcoming DR.
Either the natural attacks are spell storing or they are not. There is no middle ground outlined within the rules. A spell storing weapon can store and deliver a spell. AoMF grants special abilities to all of a creatures natural attacks. Thus all natural attacks would be spell storing and could individually hold and deliver a spell.
Unless you twist the rules and wording beyond comprehension where "grant" doesn't mean anything this is how it would work.
The amulet is spell storing. The amulet holds one spell of 3rd level or lower. When a natural attack or unarmed strike makes contact, you may discharge the spell that the amulet has stored.
Also, the Magi's ability tells you exactly what happens, so I'm still not seeing the relevance here. Are you looking for help as to what it's ability does? Does a part of it confuse you? I'd love to give my interpretation, if you point out the part that doesn't make much sense.
Where are you getting the idea that every attack gains the spell storing property? If I can attack with my spell storing sword 3 times, can I put 3 spells into it? If the answer is no, guess what? It's the same with the Amulet, since when does a weapon special ability work differently on an amulet compared to a sword unless specifically stated otherwise?
Link2000 wrote: The amulet is spell storing. The amulet holds one spell of 3rd level or lower. When a natural attack or unarmed strike makes contact, you may discharge the spell that the amulet has stored.
Also, the Magi's ability tells you exactly what happens, so I'm still not seeing the relevance here. Are you looking for help as to what it's ability does? Does a part of it confuse you? I'd love to give my interpretation, if you point out the part that doesn't make much sense.
Where are you getting the idea that every attack gains the spell storing property? If I can attack with my spell storing sword 3 times, can I put 3 spells into it? If the answer is no, guess what? It's the same with the Amulet, since when does a weapon special ability work differently on an amulet compared to a sword unless specifically stated otherwise?
The amulet can't work in that way as spell storing specifically calls out how it works.
"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."
Unless you are planning on hitting someone with the amulet, the amulet can't be what stores the spell. The weapon stores the spell, in this case the natural weapon.
Your interpretation is overpowered in another way. That would mean that if the attacker hits with any of their natural attacks they can trigger the spell storing effect. That is not how spell storing is supposed to work. You store a spell in a weapon and then discharge it from that weapon into the target on a hit.
That means if you store the spell in your left claw and hit with your right, you don't get to trigger it.
There is absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest that the amulet works in the way you describe. The amulet in all ways transfers the abilities you enchant it with to the wearers natural attacks. If you give it a +5, your natural weapons are all +5, if you give it flaming, your weapons are flaming. There is nothing that says it is any more complected like you are making it.
As for the Magi example, that shows the meaning of the word "grant" in the game. It means that what is granted it given to the weapon. You were the one who seems to have issues parsing that word:
Link2000 wrote: ""this AMULET can GRANT melee weapon special abilities". The AMULET, the necklace itself, has the enhancement that's being GRANTED."
Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
FAQ wrote: Amulet of Mighty Fists: If a creature with multiple natural attacks (such as bite/claw/claw) wears an amulet with the speed property, does it get one extra attack with each of its natural weapons?
No... mainly because that combination is way too good for monsters with multiple attacks, and gets better the more natural attacks a monster has. Doubling a creature's attacks per round is really powerful, even for 80,000 gp (the price of a +4 amulet).
posted July 2011 | back to top
While it say "because it would be too good", it is a clear precedent that the amulet bonus isn't applied to each natural attack separately, but to all of them once as a single thing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Gallant Armor wrote: Link2000 wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
Did you give your claw or bite spell storing? Or did you give the amulet spell storing?
That's where this trickles down to. Your Amulet has the effects, not your natural weapons or unarmed strikes. Your natural weapons and unarmed strikes are just benefiting from the effects. "Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. "
Nowhere does it say that it grants the effects to natural weapons and not the actual weapon ability. "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." for AoMF vs "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5." for weapons.
Yes it say exactly that it grant, not that the natural or unarmed attack is a +x weapon.
Same for special abilities, the weapon has the special ability, the amulet grant it.
BTW, simple logical test: mi tiger has a AoMF of spell storing with shocking grasp, by your logic it can store 5 spells.
Now I take the amulet and wear it. I have the IUS feat, so i can make one or more unarmed attacks. But I get only 1 spell because my unarmed attack is only one. What happened to the other 4 spells?
Diego Rossi wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
FAQ wrote: Amulet of Mighty Fists: If a creature with multiple natural attacks (such as bite/claw/claw) wears an amulet with the speed property, does it get one extra attack with each of its natural weapons?
No... mainly because that combination is way too good for monsters with multiple attacks, and gets better the more natural attacks a monster has. Doubling a creature's attacks per round is really powerful, even for 80,000 gp (the price of a +4 amulet).
posted July 2011 | back to top
While it say "because it would be too good", it is a clear precedent that the amulet bonus isn't applied to each natural attack separately, but to all of them once as a single thing.
That's a fair justification for a home rule, but it doesn't really apply RAW.
Diego Rossi wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Link2000 wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: James Risner wrote: Gallant Armor wrote: Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.
Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet. By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?
By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.
You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.
Did you give your claw or bite spell storing? Or did you give the amulet spell storing?
That's where this trickles down to. Your Amulet has the effects, not your natural weapons or unarmed strikes. Your natural weapons and unarmed strikes are just benefiting from the effects. "Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. "
Nowhere does it say that it grants the effects to natural weapons and not the actual weapon ability. "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." for AoMF vs "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5." for weapons.
Yes it say exactly that it grant, not that the natural or unarmed attack is a +x weapon.
Same for special abilities, the weapon has the special ability, the amulet grant it.
BTW, simple logical test: mi tiger has a AoMF of spell storing with shocking grasp, by your logic it can store 5 spells.
Now I take the amulet and wear it. I have the IUS feat, so i can make one or more unarmed attacks. But I get only 1 spell because my unarmed attack is only one. What happened to the other 4 spells? I can't believe I'm having this argument with a second person, but the word "grant" means to give. In all other instances of it's use in the game if an effect grants a property to a target, the target has that property. No where does it say otherwise.
For your simple logical test as soon as you removed the amulet, all of the spells would dissipate harmlessly as the natural weapons that held the spells would no longer be spell storing.
If you put flaming on an AoMF it makes your natural attacks have the flaming property. No where does it say that actually the amulet has the property and it just transfers the damage at the time of the attack, the natural attacks have the flaming property.
The same holds true for spell storing, the natural attacks would have the spell storing property.
There is nothing that says otherwise.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Well, this will be my final post on the matter, because I will probably make better use of my time teaching my cat how to play a proper game of chess than to explain how an amulet of mighty fists works to you.
The flaming weapon property gives all the attacks of the enhanced weapon the effect. Spell storing gives one attack of the enhanced weapon the effect. Same goes for the amulet... like every other enhancement works. The only difference is that the amulet can apply the effect to your unarmed strikes and natural attacks.
Link2000 wrote: Well, this will be my final post on the matter, because I will probably make better use of my time teaching my cat how to play a proper game of chess than to explain how an amulet of mighty fists works to you.
The flaming weapon property gives all the attacks of the enhanced weapon the effect. Spell storing gives one attack of the enhanced weapon the effect. Same goes for the amulet... like every other enhancement works. The only difference is that the amulet can apply the effect to your unarmed strikes and natural attacks.
I'm a little sorry to see you go because you still haven't shown one part of any rule that would indicate that is how any of this works and I'm curious to see how you interpreted it this way.
What you have described is a fine item to build, or a good house rule to implement, but nowhere does it say that the AoMF works like this.
For the final time I suppose; the AoMF grants special abilities to natural attacks. This means that the natural attacks have those special abilities. If you have a +1 flaming spell storing AoMF, then your claws would be a +1 flaming spell storing claws, and your bite would be a +1 flaming spell storing bite, each of them capable of storing a spell.
I don't see how I can make this any clearer.
Gallant Armor wrote: Now that I've seen your argument I can't unsee it.
(meaning I understand your argument, and I'm not sure anymore if the 'common' interpretation is correct.)
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
