|
So the ring of fangs (Dead Suns #2) says it makes your natural attacks deal lethal piercing damage, AND it adds 2xlevel to damage (in place of specialization.). Can I turn that off without taking off the ring? Can I choose to deal bludgeoning non-lethal damage and still add 2x my level to damage, or would I have to swing with a -4 to deal nonlethal damage with it?
Here is what it says:
"When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp,
giving you a powerful bite attack. You can choose to have
your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage, and if
you are 3rd level or higher, you automatically gain a special
version of the Weapon Specialization feat that adds double
your level to the damage of these unarmed attacks (rather
than adding your level)."
I don't think what you're asking is in the spirit of the item or rules BUT you can easily make a case for the opposite since nothing is spelled out otherwise.
I agree with SirShua.
|
|
I would like to know how much damage is the bite attack it confers; where in the books is it based from and does the damage change level to level.
It considered an unarmed attack but what does an unarmed attack damage do? also does the pc get to add their strength modifier to the rings special added damage?
Someone please clarify this item.a breakdown using 2 different level pcs would be nice soldiers for example what adds to the rings damage from any class special ability concerning unarmed attacks?
Thanks.
I would like to know how much damage is the bite attack it confers; where in the books is it based from and does the damage change level to level.
It considered an unarmed attack but what does an unarmed attack damage do? also does the pc get to add their strength modifier to the rings special added damage?
Someone please clarify this item.a breakdown using 2 different level pcs would be nice soldiers for example what adds to the rings damage from any class special ability concerning unarmed attacks?Thanks.
Source Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 171
Level —; Price —
Damage 1d3 B; Critical —
Bulk —; Special archaic, nonlethal
Description
An unarmed strike can be dealt with any limb or appendage. Unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage, and the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus to weapon damage rolls.
Your head, and therefore teeth, are an appendage. The Ring of Fangs attack is an Unarmed Strike, and therefore does 1d3 damage normally (this can be modified by Improved Unarmed Strike). If you are 3rd level or higher, you gain a form of weapon specialization that does bonus damage equal to (level x2).
Please note that, Rules As Written, the Ring of Fangs only modifies the lethality and specialization damage of the unarmed strike. Technically the attack is still Archaic, meaning that it does -5 damage to opponents in modern armor. Also technically, one cannot make an Unarmed Strike unless they have a hand free, per the "Normal" rules in Improved Unarmed Strike:
There is some contention that these restrictions do not apply because a Ring of Fangs bite isn't a "normal" strike, and that it doesn't make sense to need a hand free when you are biting someone. I will leave that up to the GMs, but my opinion is that a 315 credit level 3 magic item shouldn't give an unarmed attack that is in all ways superior to a Vesk's natural weapons.
One normally needs a Soldier's Gear Boost (Raw Lethality) to remove the penalty from Archaic weapons, and the Improved Unarmed Strike feat to threaten squares with an Unarmed Strike or attack without a hand free.
I hadn't considered the archaic aspect. That's good to know.
My thought was that the reason that it gets double specialization damage is because it's likely applying a -5 penalty to attacks against civilized opponents. This also ensures that it doesn't immediately outclass an unarmed vesk.
My SRO dragonbot uses a Ring of Fangs, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Raw Lethality to compete in melee.
I don't personally believe that it is archaic. No other bite attack in the game is.
I don't personally believe that it is archaic. No other bite attack in the game is.
That is a reasonable interpretation, but, applying the modifiers listed without making external assumptions, it remains archaic.
Barring developers weighing in (and they haven't, despite several threads on the issue), I choose to believe that they aren't invalidating races with Natural Weapons with a dirt cheap level 3 trinket, and that is how I choose to run my game.
As I said before, I'm not trying to tell other GMs how to run their games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't personally believe that it is archaic. No other bite attack in the game is.It's not a bite attack.
It's an unarmed strike.
It is both.
The description for RoF has two parts. The first part tells you that you gain a bite attack.
"When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp, giving you a powerful bite attack."
The second part tells you how your bite attack works, since there is not a standard definition like "1d4 damage for medium creatures" to fall back on.
"You can choose to have your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage, and if you are 3rd level or higher, you automatically gain a special version of the Weapon Specialization feat that adds double your level to the damage of these unarmed attacks (rather than adding your level)."
So when you use your bite attack, it is an unarmed strike with modifications to the type and amount of damage. There's no reason you could not choose to instead make a normal unarmed attack, or bash with a tactical shield, etc.
Because the definition of the RoF bite attack does not include anything about making the strike not archaic, I do not see any reason to assume the extra rule. The resulting attack will still power through modern armor with raw damage modifier.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you for the most part, but you skipped the important bit.
• You gain X
• X works like Y
• Y is this
• You gain a bite attack
• It works as an unarmed strike
• Unarmed Strikes are archaic
What you'd need for this bite attack to not be archaic would be some text that tells us it isn't, since by default all unarmed strikes are archaic.
Because the definition of the RoF bite attack does not include anything about making the strike not archaic, I do not see any reason to assume the extra rule. The resulting attack will still power through modern armor with raw damage modifier.
I didn't skip that at all. RoF being a non-archaic attack would be an extra rule. I do not see a reason to assume an extra rule.
So it's a bite, but a bite without rules consequences? It's a floor wax and a dessert topping, but fatal if eaten on desserts?
I'm not sure what you mean by "no rules consequences?"
Rules consequences:
1. You use your teeth to make the attack.
2. Your damage type is piercing.
3. You use a special form of weapon specialization.
If there is a further definition of rules that apply to bite attacks, at some point, those would also apply.
Yes.
There is currently no rule that would make that bite not be archaic.
It was my understanding that, for the most part, there isn't much distinction between unarmed strikes and natural attacks in Starfinder anymore.
I agree with you for the most part, but you skipped the important bit.
• You gain X
• X works like Y
• Y is this• You gain a bite attack
• It works as an unarmed strike
• Unarmed Strikes are archaicWhat you'd need for this bite attack to not be archaic would be some text that tells us it isn't, since by default all unarmed strikes are archaic.
I think the stronger argument is that as a consequence of being a bite attack it is non archaic. But I'm not going to break someone's character if they went the raw lethality route.
|
I think the stronger argument is that as a consequence of being a bite attack it is non archaic. But I'm not going to break someone's character if they went the raw lethality route.
Thankfully, if Paizo breaks my character by changing or clarifying how Ring of Fangs works for Dragonbot here, I'm pretty sure SFS gives me a free respec of anything I used for that build.
I would be happy to re-allocate my Gear Boost to something actually useful for my heavy weapons build, instead of devoting all of my level 3 to my melee backup strategy.
I think the stronger argument is that as a consequence of being a bite attack it is non archaic. But I'm not going to break someone's character if they went the raw lethality route.
Thankfully, if Paizo breaks my character by changing or clarifying how Ring of Fangs works for Dragonbot here, I'm pretty sure SFS gives me a free respec of anything I used for that build.
I would be happy to re-allocate my Gear Boost to something actually useful for my heavy weapons build, instead of devoting all of my level 3 to my melee backup strategy.
Technically you only get a rebuild if they change something. If they clarify something you need to get a specific exemption.