|
I have a bloodrager using an amulet of mighty fists to supplement her claw attacks. the Amulet has the Allying weapon quality, allowing her to transfer some of the enhancement bonus from her claws to an ally's weapon. the amulet specifically states that it doesn't have the ability, it grants it to the creature's melee attacks as long as it can be applied to an unarmed strike.
I see each claw as a different weapon, like dual wielding a manufactured weapon in each hand. Another player thinks they both count as a single weapon that attacks twice, since feats like "improved natural attack" would improve both claws, not just one.
I need to know which of us is correct.
Imho you are right.
Each claw is a separate weapon. But improved natural attack (as I understand it) improves one natural attack type (claw, bite, tail, etc..). To put it in a more rules correct way: both weapons (claws) meet prerequisites of the feat and thus gain the benefit. The same as polymorphed you with different claws would still benefit from the feat.
I guess i wouldent let someone put allying on a AOMF.
Well, I suppose...but you have to use the claws first.
This is an issue that came up with defending, which has similar 'move enhancement bonus to X' mechanics.
The ruling was that you need to actively use the weapon to attack for it to count.
So while it can be theoretically nice (a +1 furious allying amulet giving the ally a +3, possibly piercing through some DR), it does not seem like a good use of your time (you are making claw attacks you are intentionally nerfing, rather than making actually good claw attacks, using a weapon, or casting spells), and as such it is a waste of money.
Would the OP mind clarifying a couple things?
1) What is the actual enhancement bonus of the AoMF? Or maybe more helpful, can you share with everyone the full stats of the AoMF in question?
2) Is the barbarian trying to send enhancement bonus to himself (via the I am my own Ally FAQ), or to other party members?
3) Is the barbarian trying to send enhancement bonus to one ally with one claw, and to a second ally with the second claw?
I ask #2, because if he is trying to gain the allying bonus himself - he shouldn't be putting the Allying property on the AoMF, but rather on a different weapon that would not impede the use of claws (e.g., Cestus, Barbazu Beard, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Spiked Armor, etc.). If you make that weapon a +X/Allying weapon, you can use it to simply feed your amulet an enhancement bonus. You can then put +5 worth of special properties on the AoMF, and the combined cost comes out to be closer to standard weapon pricing.
As far as #3 goes - lets say you have a +3 Allying AoMF. I think you would treat the claws no differently than if the character were dual weilding +3 Allying daggers. After all, each claw has its own roll. If you choose not transfer the enhancement bonuses on either claw, then each claw would still individually get the benefit of a +3 enhancement bonus to attack & damage.
Now - to be clear - You couldn't stack the enhancement bonuses. That is, you couldn't send claw 1 & claw 2's bonuses all to one ally for a combined +6 bonus. But given the cost of the AoMF, I don't see why each attack wouldn't gain the ability.
|
This FAQ seems to imply that the Amulet itself is treated as "one weapon", regardless of how many natural attacks you are using.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Another player thinks they both count as a single weapon that attacks twice, since feats like "improved natural attack" would improve both claws, not just one.
I haven't delved into the larger question, but the quoted part at least is definitely wrong. After all, we already know that using a manufactured weapon with a given limb prevents using a natural attack with the same limb in the same full-attack (and vice-versa). As such, someone with two claw attacks could use a sword in one hand and a claw attack with the other. This would not be possible under the above-quoted interpretation.
For the purposes of the enchantment, the amulet itself is what counts as the weapon. It gives all natural weapons and unarmed strikes the given quality.
With your ruling, a monk, who has a theoretically unlimited number of ways to unarmed strike, could take all the various bonuses from their hands, feet, knees, elbows, etc, and give them all as separate, individual bonuses to an ally, or even to themselves.
Is that really how you think the rule should work?
This FAQ seems to imply that the Amulet itself is treated as "one weapon", regardless of how many natural attacks you are using.
I think that FAQ makes a ruling that is specifically limited to how the SPEED property works on AoMF. It even admits that the reasoning for the FAQ response is not based on RAW - but on developer Rule 0.
I wish they had just put a cap on it (i.e, can grant no more than 2 extra attacks per round) rather than saying it only grants a single extra attack. After all, you are paying twice as much money for a +1 Speed AoMF as you would for a +1 Speed Manufactured Weapon. You should get at least twice the benefit.
However trying to use this logic to rule on how all other special properties would work (+1 properties at that) clearly is faulty - after all, we know that a "+1 Flaming" AoMF makes every single one of your unarmed & natural attacks "+1 Flaming"
This FAQ seems to imply that the Amulet itself is treated as "one weapon", regardless of how many natural attacks you are using.
That faq also works if you treat the amulet as applying it's enhancements to all natural weapons.
A creature with the speed enhancement can't get more than 1 attack because the speed enhancement on a natural attackdoesn't stack with other similar bonuses...like another source of the speed enhancement on another natural attack
...With your ruling, a monk, who has a theoretically unlimited number of ways to unarmed strike, could take all the various bonuses from their hands, feet, knees, elbows, etc, and give them all as separate, individual bonuses to an ally, or even to themselves.
Is that really how you think the rule should work?
That is not true. There is no weapon called a punch, or a hand. There is no weapon called a knee or foot, or elbow, etc. There is only a weapon called "Unarmed Attack" - and you only have one of those. Even if you have TWF, you are using a single weapon for both your main and offhand attacks. You may be using different limbs to deliver these attacks with that one weapon, but you are still only using a single weapon.
Natural Attacks are different - they are listed as individually defined weapons. There is not just a universal "Natural Attack" weapon in the way there is a universal "Unarmed Attack". No - each Natural Attack is listed individually in the Beastiary (under the Universal Monster Rules) as its own weapon type. They each have different damage dice, different damage types, and primary/secondary attack classifications.
A creature with 4 arms that makes an unarmed attack can make no more unarmed attacks than a person with 2 arms, or a person with no arms. a creature with 4 arms (and 4 claws) can certainly make more claw attacks than a creature with 2 arms (and 2 claws) or no arms (and no claws) because they are individual weapons and they follow different rules than unarmed attack.
|
|
This FAQ seems to imply that the Amulet itself is treated as "one weapon", regardless of how many natural attacks you are using.trying to use this logic to rule on how all other special properties would work (+1 properties at that) clearly is faulty
And I didn't.
I'm focusing more on a combination that, quoting the FAQ, "gets better the more natural attacks a monster has".
I'm focusing more on a combination that, quoting the FAQ, "gets better the more natural attacks a monster has".
But with an Amulet of Mighty Fists, regardless of which special property is purchased, it "gets better the more natural attacks a monster has". If the designers want to fix that, then they need to make the Necklace of Natural Weapons from 3.5 - where the pricing was the same as with a manufactured weapon, but you had to pay for each natural weapon you wanted the special properties (or enhancement bonuses) to apply to.
As was mentioned with speed, however, is that based on the current FAQs, you can't benefit form multiple speed weapons because the bonus of making extra attacks is considered to be of the same type.
(on a side note - i think the logic of that ruling fails, as the speed weapon says that the extra attack must be used with the weapon that has the speed property. So if you dual wield a pair of +1 speed daggers, the bonus to make an extra attack with the left hand is not the same as the bonus to make an extra attack with the right hand.... the bonuses do different things...but i digress)
However with a +3 Allying AoMF, as i have mentioned before, you wouldn't be able to send your +3 enhancement bonus to claws, your +3 enhancement bonus to bite and your +3 enhancement bonus to your tail slap all to one ally. All of those have the same type of bonus, and they do not stack
But I see no reason why you would not be able to send your tail's +3 enhancement bonus to ally 1's kukri, your bite's +3 enhancement bonus to ally 2's great axe, one claw's +3 enhancement bonus to ally 3's Composite Longbow, and your second claw's +3 enhancement bonus to ally 4's Heavy Mace.
There is no change in the number of attacks per round that would be benefiting from the +3 enhancement bonuses - and there is no question that all of the natural attacks would have benefited from the AoMF's +3 enhancement bonus had the wearer of the amulet chosen NOT to redistribute the bonuses via Allying.
Alright, so if the enhancement bonuses from Allying wouldn't stack, then what about the cases of Defending/Guardian? Would the bloodrager be able to take +3 from both claws to get an effective +6?
What cases is that? I dont see that work.
|
|
I'm focusing more on a combination that, quoting the FAQ, "gets better the more natural attacks a monster has".But with an Amulet of Mighty Fists, regardless of which special property is purchased, it "gets better the more natural attacks a monster has".
Incrementally better, then.
The game balance POV highlighted in that FAQ is that a critter with X+1 natural attacks shouldn't get a better deal than a critter with X natural attacks when using the same item.
+1 is fine. Flaming is fine. But the Speed FAQ should cover Allying, Defending, and anything else that gets "better" with the more attacks you have.