What does a ring of fangs actually do?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Nefreet wrote:
My Ring of Fangs character has the Gloom Gunner Fighting Style, and my (biased) opinion is that it also works with unarmed strikes, for the same reasons.

Urg. That one is even trickier than the other ones. The abilities all say that they target weapons. However, most of the abilities are doing nothing but changing weapon damage in some way.

So RAW, I probably wouldn't allow it. But same as Rune of Eldritch Knight, I don't like that answer (and would gladly houserule it as working in home games I was GM of).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:


For vague rules, I see:

A) Do limbs and such count as weapons?
B) Do limbs and such count as weapons if the character has a feat (like Improved Unarmed Strike) or other ability or equipment that makes their unarmed attacks do lethal damage naturally?
C) Does having an ability or equipment that improves your unarmed strikes mean that you are considered armed just by having your unarmed strike available?

A) No, but everyone has a free Unarmed Strike weapon. You need a free limb to use it and you can't use it with an Attack of Opportunity.

B) Again, limbs aren't weapons. Unarmed Strike is a weapon. Improved Unarmed Strike just removes the need to have a limb free to use it and allows you to use it in an Attack of Opportunity.
C) Not unless the ability specifically mentions it, as Improved Unarmed Strike does.

I know folks think that there is a "common sense" interpretation that says that the RoF bite is somehow its own special thing, but the fact of the matter is that all of this modifies Unarmed Strike, which is the weapon in question. Unarmed Strike can be described as any number of limb attacks, but those limbs aren't the weapon, Unarmed Strike is the weapon. RoF is Unarmed Strike driving a Mustang, but it's still an Unarmed Strike weapon attack, subject to all the traits of Unarmed Strike that aren't specifically modified by the ring.


Dracomicron wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
A) Do limbs and such count as weapons?
A) No, but everyone has a free Unarmed Strike weapon. You need a free limb to use it and you can't use it with an Attack of Opportunity

That's actually a fairly good and clean interpretation. It matches up with all of the specific examples that I can think of. And it is easy to understand and rule on. I like it.

Unfortunately I haven't seen it spelled out this clearly in the rules themselves though (meaning that people can still present a valid argument against it), so I still consider the CRB to be somewhat vague on the subject.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
My Ring of Fangs character has the Gloom Gunner Fighting Style, and my (biased) opinion is that it also works with unarmed strikes, for the same reasons.

Urg. That one is even trickier than the other ones. The abilities all say that they target weapons. However, most of the abilities are doing nothing but changing weapon damage in some way.

So RAW, I probably wouldn't allow it. But same as Rune of Eldritch Knight, I don't like that answer (and would gladly houserule it as working in home games I was GM of).

Gloom Gunner's abilities are "always on", though. Compared to the Rune of the Eldritch Knight, where you have to "enchant" a weapon ahead of time.

Gloom Gunner should be the safer of the two options.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Does a ring of fangs just change what it explicitly say it changes or does it change what a bite attack should change?

Specifically does it

-make you always armed

-make your attacks non archaic

-require a free limb (as an unarmed strike)

It starts a Lot of threads on the Forum lmao.. other than that it makes punching more fun, I won't use it at my table tho, it's not worth it.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Did you click the FAQ button? ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Did you click the FAQ button? ^_^

Affermative, it's a good question.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Cool cool.

This thread was born out of the existence of so many other threads and the desire for a universal ruling in Starfinder Society.


Nefreet wrote:

Cool cool.

This thread was born out of the existence of so many other threads and the desire for a universal ruling in Starfinder Society.

Neat, hope it works out for everybody involved. I'm far away from such groupings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
A) Do limbs and such count as weapons?
A) No, but everyone has a free Unarmed Strike weapon. You need a free limb to use it and you can't use it with an Attack of Opportunity

That's actually a fairly good and clean interpretation. It matches up with all of the specific examples that I can think of. And it is easy to understand and rule on. I like it.

Unfortunately I haven't seen it spelled out this clearly in the rules themselves though (meaning that people can still present a valid argument against it), so I still consider the CRB to be somewhat vague on the subject.

I don't know about that.

Basic Melee Weapons
One Handed Weapon
Unarmed Strike
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.

This pretty explicitly says that Unarmed Strikes can be dealt with any limb or appendage, but it is still listed in the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table, suggesting that, mechanically, they are treated as a one handed weapon. This forum is quick to point out that there is a difference between the "fluff" and the rules. In this case, the fluff is basically that the attack can be made with any appendage. The rules are that it is a one-handed weapon, so you need a hand not-otherwise-in-use to use it.

While it would be nice to get a FAQ on this, if we're applying the same rational thinking to this that most of us apply to wearing 96 sets of second skin armor underneath clothes and heavy armor and power armor all at once, it actually gets pretty clear, or at least it should. It is less of a gray area than we are making it out to be.


Starfinder Superscriber
breithauptclan wrote:

Urg. That one is even trickier than the other ones. The abilities all say that they target weapons. However, most of the abilities are doing nothing but changing weapon damage in some way.

So RAW, I probably wouldn't allow it. But same as Rune of Eldritch Knight, I don't like that answer (and would gladly houserule it as working in home games I was GM of).

The part that makes most people say Gloom Gunner definitely works is the one that doesn't target weapons. It says, "Your melee and ranged attacks count as magic for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction and other situations, such as attacking incorporeal creatures."

Whether or not an Unarmed Strike is a weapon has no bearing on that, because it most certainly is a melee attack.

((Now, I happen to be of the opinion that Unarmed Strike *is* a weapon, albeit one with some rules funkiness, but I'm still waiting on that FAQ.))

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think that, once you work through the options, like we've done here, the variability lessens.

But if you're a Society player who travels to multiple Conventions and gaming stores and meets GMs who are unfamiliar with the questions or issues, or who have maybe already come to their own (different) conclusions, it can become a little nerve-wracking.

Or worse, if that interpretation is drastically more conservative than yours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pithica42 wrote:


((Now, I happen to be of the opinion that Unarmed Strike *is* a weapon, albeit one with some rules funkiness, but I'm still waiting on that FAQ.))

It's literally the first thing on the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table.

It's a weapon. Rules funkiness aside, it's a weapon because it's on the table for weapons, same as Solarian crystals or ammo or grenades.


Starfinder Superscriber

The online GM pool is much larger and more varied than it is at a typical lodge.

I run and play for 4 separate online lodges and between them there's probably 60 or 70 GM's. Every other week there's some new player in Discord asking "How do I make an Unarmed Strike character?" or "How useful is Unarmed Strike?" or some variant of that, and every single time it devolves into an argument, often about the definition of the word 'is'. Even the 'senior' GM's at the lodges don't agree 100% on a reading.

If you're running/playing at a local game store that has 1-4 GM's you can be fairly certain you know how it will work and it probably caused, at most 1 or 2 arguments and you all came to a consensus and called it a day.

If you're running/playing online or regularly going to cons or playing in multiple regions or whatever, that doesn't happen.


Starfinder Superscriber
Dracomicron wrote:

It's literally the first thing on the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table.

It's a weapon. Rules funkiness aside, it's a weapon because it's on the table for weapons, same as Solarian crystals or ammo or grenades.

I'm aware. That's my position as well. I have had multiple parties argue for hours that it's not for various reasons related to the 'rules funkiness'.


pithica42 wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:

It's literally the first thing on the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table.

It's a weapon. Rules funkiness aside, it's a weapon because it's on the table for weapons, same as Solarian crystals or ammo or grenades.

I'm aware. That's my position as well. I have had multiple parties argue for hours that it's not for various reasons related to the 'rules funkiness'.

It is bizarre to me that there is such wide diversion on this, and I can only assume it is caused by either preconceptions taken from different games, or personal interest in a particular interpretation that makes individual character builds work properly.

Humans aren't great at logical thought, especially when pre-existing biases and self-interest come into play.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You would think that online variation would be *easier* to overcome, since you can quickly and easily cite and quote rules text.

Anytime I encounter table variation, it's at an actual table, where maybe someone didn't bring their sourcebook and the internet connection isn't stable.


Dracomicron wrote:


It is bizarre to me that there is such wide diversion on this, and I can only assume it is caused by either preconceptions taken from different games, or personal interest in a particular interpretation that makes individual character builds work properly.

Dude, seriously not cool disparaging people that disagree with you for munchkinry. Your arguments are pretty bad. Far, far, FAR below what you'd need to launch an acusation of munchkinry against other people.

The Aristotelian its A therefore B therefore C logic gets questionable in an imperfect system (like the starfinder rulesset, or any system running in english)

Running the argument the other way, the ring gives you a bite, a bite attack is a natural weapon, natural weapons have these properties (always armed, not archaic, can be made even while pinned)

The silliness of not being armed when you have a mouth of big sharp pointy teeth (again, by the same argument you tried to use to say vesk weren't always armed)

Everything else with big sharp pointy teeth is armed, not archaic, and doesn't require a limb. It's setting a pattern for how big sharp pointy teeth work.

The idea that if you're holding a pair of steak knives you're not able to bite someone, but you drop one now you can bite someone is absurd enough to discount this line of thinking. Game developers expect you to know how a mouth of big sharp pointy teeth works, and thankfully for space canibals with a penchant for fine silverware, you can have your knife your fork and your big sharp pointy teeth ready to go all at once.


Nefreet wrote:

You would think that online variation would be *easier* to overcome, since you can quickly and easily cite and quote rules text.

Anytime I encounter table variation, it's at an actual table, where maybe someone didn't bring their sourcebook and the internet connection isn't stable.

Offline you usually only have 3 or 4 people in a group who regularly go online, look for rulings, and argue these things on the internet.

In the online community everyone is "that guy"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:


It is bizarre to me that there is such wide diversion on this, and I can only assume it is caused by either preconceptions taken from different games, or personal interest in a particular interpretation that makes individual character builds work properly.
Dude, seriously not cool disparaging people that disagree with you for munchkinry. Your arguments are pretty bad. Far, far, FAR below what you'd need to launch an acusation of munchkinry against other people.

Sigh.

I didn't disparage anyone for munchkinry. I have no idea if you have a character that is built to use the Ring of Fangs with a certain corner case ruling. I simply acknowledged that people are human with human reasons for doing things.

If you want to think that I'm disparaging folks for munchkinry, read my post again. I also mention preconceptions from other games. Self-interest and pre-existing bias are perfectly human reasons for not wanting to agree on a logical conclusion.

Quote:
Running the argument the other way, the ring gives you a bite, a bite attack is a natural weapon, natural weapons have these properties (always armed, not archaic, can be made even while pinned)

The bite attack is not a natural weapon. I think that you might be extrapolating from a different game that was not streamlined the way Starfinder was, like Pathfinder. Nothing anywhere in Starfinder defines a bite attack as a natural weapon. Natural Weapon traits of various races might mention bites, but it's all fluff. The mechanics are pretty clear in what they affect and how it works.

Quote:
The silliness of not being armed when you have a mouth of big sharp pointy teeth (again, by the same argument you tried to use to say vesk weren't always armed)

You think it is silly. That's okay.

Quote:
Everything else with big sharp pointy teeth is armed, not archaic, and doesn't require a limb. It's setting a pattern for how big sharp pointy teeth work.

Everything else with big sharp pointy teeth is either a monster (which has its own rules) or has specific rules explaining how the teeth work. What we take from this is that exceptions are specifically noted. The RoF doesn't have a specifically noted exception.

Quote:
The idea that if you're holding a pair of steak knives you're not able to bite someone, but you drop one now you can bite someone is absurd enough to discount this line of thinking. Game developers expect you to know how a mouth of big sharp pointy teeth works, and thankfully for space canibals with a penchant for fine silverware, you can have your knife your fork and your big sharp pointy teeth ready to go all at once.

Unarmed Strike is a one handed weapon. I don't think I don't think the game developers care if we know how a mouth of big sharp pointy teeth works, but they do kinda want us to actually read the rules that they did provide.

Sometimes the simple solution is the correct one. It's staring us right in the face. Unarmed Strike is literally the first entry on the One Handed Basic Melee Weapons chart, and it uses the same rules as any weapon, with a few caveats, noted in various locations throughout the book. There is a way to ignore the "must have a free hand" clause, and it isn't the Ring of Fangs.

EDIT: Trying to make my language less accusatory. BNW, I agree with you on a lot of issues, and I think part of my frustration is that I feel like you have a logical, rules-based take on fluff vs. rules (like with the Second Skin argument), but for this you are taking the fluff as rules, and I don't understand what the difference is. I don't disagree that many things are poorly written in Starfinder, but this seems like such a no-brainer that prevents abuse, just like with Second Skin and the armor upgrades, that I'm not sure where you are coming from here.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Dracomicron wrote:
Humans aren't great at logical thought...

On the contrary, humans are the best at logical though in the whole world. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:
Humans aren't great at logical thought...
On the contrary, humans are the best at logical though in the whole world. :P

I think dolphins have us beat; going onto dry land was a mistake.


Dracomicron wrote:

If you want to think that I'm disparaging folks for munchkinry, read my post again.

You, again, absolutely disparaged people for munchkinry. Tossing reading comprehension into the mix isn't helping your case.

Quote:
Unarmed Strike is a one handed weapon. I don't think I don't think the game developers care if we know how a mouth of big sharp pointy teeth works, but they do kinda want us to actually read the rules that they did provide.

along with you disagree with me so obviously you haven't read the rules

Quote:
Unarmed Strike is a one handed weapon. I don't think I don't think the game developers care if we know how a mouth of big sharp pointy teeth works, but they do kinda want us to actually read the rules that they did provide.

The problem is you think you're READING the rules and you're not. You are interpreting them and making an argument from them. You have your interpretation and argument mixed up with the rules and until you can tell them apart you can't see a rules argument other than your own as being valid. If you can't do that, then you can't weigh different arguments against each other.

Quote:
The bite attack is not a natural weapon.

Citation? Argument? Something other than a blanket declaration?

Quote:
I think that you might be extrapolating from a different game that was not streamlined the way Starfinder was, like Pathfinder. Nothing anywhere in Starfinder defines a bite attack as a natural weapon.

Natural Weapons (Ex)

Natural weapons (and natural attacks), such as acid spit,bite, claw, or slam don’t require ammunition and can’t be disarmed or sundered.

Quote:
Natural Weapon traits of various races might mention bites, but it's all fluff. The mechanics are pretty clear in what they affect and how it works.

Dismissing rules as fluff when they disagree with you is not "reading" them.

Quote:
Sometimes the simple solution is the correct one

Your argument about a bite attack really being an unarmed strike which uses the rules bounced off the chart and the unarmed strike feat and changed in some parts by the ring of fangs is the simple solution? As opposed to big sharp pointy teeth work like big sharp pointy teeth?

Uhm. No.

Quote:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upnx?Do-Vesk-Natural-Weapons-Threaten#1 5] Vesk threaten with their natural weapons

vs

dracomicron wrote:
Fluff. "Armed" is not a specific rule term. "Armed" can mean holding a rifle, but you can't normally make an AoO if you are holding a rifle, so it is largely meaningless, except as a colorful descriptor to state that even a naked vesk is a deadly weapon.

That is the answer your paradigm gave. It was wrong. You still keep trying to use that paradigm as the "obvious" answer

Quote:
You think it is silly. That's okay.

It's also wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracomicron wrote:
This forum is quick to point out that there is a difference between the "fluff" and the rules.

No. Just, No. You can't just ignore any rules you don't like by declaring them to be "fluff".

Quote:
still listed in the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table

That's the general rule. Exceptions can (and to me, clearly do) exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


You, again, absolutely disparaged people for munchkinry. Tossing reading comprehension into the mix isn't helping your case. along with you disagree with me so obviously you haven't read the rules

You have a lot of grievances. You also have no trouble tossing out inflammatory arguments, yourself.

Quote:
The problem is you think you're READING the rules and you're not. You are interpreting them and making an argument from them. You have your interpretation and argument mixed up with the rules and until you can tell them apart you can't see a rules argument other than your own as being valid. If you can't do that, then you can't weigh different arguments against each other.

See? You're basically telling me that I have no idea what I'm talking about even though I've painstakingly presented my arguments in the past, and continue to do so. There's no call for that. I do acknowledge arguments that are valid, even if I don't agree with them, but your arguments on this subject specifically, are not based on any text or intent of the rules that I can decipher.

Quote:
Quote:
The bite attack is not a natural weapon.
Citation? Argument? Something other than a blanket declaration?

You can't prove an absence. There is nothing that defines the RoF as a natural weapon, therefore it is not.

Quote:


Natural Weapons (Ex)

Natural weapons (and natural attacks), such as acid spit,bite, claw, or slam don’t require ammunition and can’t be disarmed or sundered.

That is a monster ability. Monsters and PCs have different rules in Starfinder. This is why I think you're extrapolating from Pathfinder, because there was no difference between PC and monster abilities in that system.

Quote:
Quote:
Natural Weapon traits of various races might mention bites, but it's all fluff. The mechanics are pretty clear in what they affect and how it works.
Dismissing rules as fluff when they disagree with you is not "reading" them.

What's the difference between this fluff and the fluff allowing the Second Skin burrito? You clearly acknowledged that the fluff there did not allow the rules to be abused. Make no mistake, making the 315 credit Ring of Fangs straight better than Vesk racial traits is quite abusable.

Quote:
Quote:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upnx?Do-Vesk-Natural-Weapons-Threaten#1 5] Vesk threaten with their natural weapons

vs

Quote:

dracomicron wrote:

Fluff. "Armed" is not a specific rule term. "Armed" can mean holding a rifle, but you can't normally make an AoO if you are holding a rifle, so it is largely meaningless, except as a colorful descriptor to state that even a naked vesk is a deadly weapon.
That is the answer your paradigm gave. It was wrong. You still keep trying to use that paradigm as the "obvious" answer

Uh... those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Vesk do threaten with their natural weapons, but that doesn't excuse them from the other requirements of Unarmed Strike, except insofar as their racial rules trait modifies it. I haven't seen anything that says that Vesk still threaten if they have no hands free. "Always armed" is not the same as "Always threatens."

My "paradigm" is a combination of reading what is on the page and understanding what is rules abuse. Do I think I'm right? Yeah. Most people do. You do, certainly. I have never seen anything from you (again, on THIS topic), though, that gives any rationale in the game other than it simply feeling right for you, that you know how teeth work and therefore that is how they should work in the game (which is heavily abstracted and stylized at the best of times).

I'm saying, "Unarmed Strike, which is what Ring of Fangs modifies, is a One Handed Basic Melee Weapon. Unarmed Strike says that it can include bite attacks, but using a bite with Unarmed Strike normally does not change its status as a One Handed Basic Melee Weapon. Ring of Fangs does not mention allowing Unarmed Strike to be used without a hand free, therefore it does not."

That is as clear an argument as I can make.

YOU are saying (paraphrased, and correct me if I'm wrong):

"The text of Ring of Fangs describes a natural weapon that is similar to monster bite attacks, which do not require a hand free, and therefore logic dictates that it does not require a free hand as Unarmed Strike does, even though it otherwise uses all rules related to Unarmed Strike, which is a One Handed Basic Melee Weapon."

If you were correct, nobody would ever need a hand free to make an Unarmed Strike, because bites are mentioned in the weapon entry for Unarmed Strike and you don't need a fancy ring to do them. You may now say, "but these are big pointy sharp teeth!" and that wouldn't change the fact that no rules distinction was made for the sharpness or bigness or pointiness of the teeth involved with the bite attack in the Unarmed Strike entry. The Ring of Fangs entry just talks about how much damage they do, and that they are lethal. Anything more is assigning traits where they do not exist.

Do you think that anyone can bite at any time (everyone has teeth, after all) and ignore the free hand requirement? Heck, extrapolate that out. Races with legs can kick. Races with heads can headbutt. Races with elbows can jab. Can we just say we're not punching and ignore the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon requirement at any time?


dracomicron wrote:
This pretty explicitly says that Unarmed Strikes can be dealt with any limb or appendage, but it is still listed in the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table, suggesting that, mechanically, they are treated as a one handed weapon.

The tailblade is also listed in the same place, and is explicitly used without wielding it in your hands. "one handed" is a level of effort and size, not that it will always take up your hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
dracomicron wrote:
This pretty explicitly says that Unarmed Strikes can be dealt with any limb or appendage, but it is still listed in the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table, suggesting that, mechanically, they are treated as a one handed weapon.

The tailblade is also listed in the same place, and is explicitly used without wielding it in your hands. "one handed" is a level of effort and size, not that it will always take up your hand.

That's the thing. The Tail Blade explicitly can be used without wielding it in your hands. The rules call it out, which they do not for the Ring of Fangs. When not on one's tail, it's a One Handed Basic Melee weapon.

The Tail Blade is also a level 4 operative weapon that costs 2300 credits and does 1d4 damage. The potential for abuse is way lower than a 315 credit magic item that doubles your specialization bonus.

The Tail Blade actually works against your argument.


Dracomicron wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:


That's actually a fairly good and clean interpretation. It matches up with all of the specific examples that I can think of. And it is easy to understand and rule on. I like it.

Unfortunately I haven't seen it spelled out this clearly in the rules themselves though (meaning that people can still present a valid argument against it), so I still consider the CRB to be somewhat vague on the subject.

I don't know about that.

Yeah. I am pretty sure that it is not as clear in the rules as it should be.

Even agreeing with you on the ruling, I can still come up with questions and disagreements.

Why does my human character only get one unarmed attack weapon? I have two hands, shouldn't I get two? Shouldn't a Kasatha character get four? How about other limbs? I have feet and a head. The unarmed attack weapons are free, can't I get as many of them as I want?

If my human character does get two unarmed attack weapons, can I put different weapon fusions on them and decide which one to use when I make an attack?

Does my unarmed attack weapon qualify for Multi-Weapon Fighting, or do I still have to take the entire full attack penalty because I technically only have one unarmed attack weapon?

How about for an alien that only has one limb that is suitable for making unarmed attacks with? Are they therefore less powerful than other characters like humans or kasatha because they have fewer unarmed attack weapons?

If it is instead ruled that a character only gets one unarmed attack weapon no matter how many limbs that they have, how does this interact with multiple abilities that change what the unarmed weapon damage is? For example a Vesk punching with power armor while wearing a ring of fangs. Which takes precedence, or does the player get to choose one? I'm assuming that the damage modifications shouldn't stack - though the rules don't actually say that either as far as I can find.


Dracomicron wrote:
See? You're basically telling me that I have no idea what I'm talking about even though I've painstakingly presented my arguments in the past, and continue to do so.

I'm telling you that

1) You're reading a subjective, imperfect, text as if it were a perfectly coherent objective, and logical system.

2) because you're doing 1, you keep making your arguments as if they disproved other arguments.

They do not.

In a perfectly coherent system with a perfect logician A--->B---C--->D
Works and it discounts all not D arguments.

In the system we're working with you can absolutely have A--->B---C--->D but you can ALSO have Z--->y---->X---> to Not D and even IF ABCD is a perfectlt logical and coherent arguement zyxNotD MIGHT be right. It might be the better answer.

Quote:
There's no call for that.

There is every call and every need to point out that the rules paradigm you are using to read the rules is simply untrue and has a terrible track record of ultimately getting the right answer.

Quote:
I do acknowledge arguments that are valid, even if I don't agree with them, but your arguments on this subject specifically, are not based on any text or intent of the rules that I can decipher.

It's all that text you keep dismissing as fluff.

Quote:
You can't prove an absence. There is nothing that defines the RoF as a natural weapon, therefore it is not.

That absolutely does not follow. At all.

There is no text outright stating that the bite attack is a natural weapon, so it MIGHT not be a bite attack... but it probably is.

Quote:
That is a monster ability. Monsters and PCs have different rules in Starfinder. This is why I think you're extrapolating from Pathfinder, because there was no difference between PC and monster abilities in that system.

Okay, so where are the PC rules for natural attacks? Oh right, there aren't any. You're trying to derive them across 300 pages of text. Which you shouldn't have to do, because something isn't going to work with something else.

Quote:


What's the difference between this fluff and the fluff allowing the Second Skin burrito?

Yeah, no.

The ring of fangs is VASTLY underpriced for what it does. But it's nowhere near 76 armor upgrades bad.

The difference there is that there was no evidence at all that armor under armor still let the upgrade slots function. While there was an argument made for WEARING the burritto absolutely nothing made any sort of argument for the burrito working like people wanted.

Quote:
Uh... those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Vesk do threaten with their natural weapons, but that doesn't excuse them from the other requirements of Unarmed Strike, except insofar as their racial rules trait modifies it. I haven't seen anything that says that Vesk still threaten if they have no hands free. "Always armed" is not the same as "Always threatens."

And this is where you jump the shark in trying to cram your interpolation into the rules.

That is exactly what it means. That is the game definition of armed. That is what the rules say, that is what the developer confirmed it says. But you won't accept that because it doesn't fit the paradigm that you've worked out from the rules. Because what you have is what you think is a logical argument from the rules all other evidence

Natural Weapons

Vesk are always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes and the attack doesn’t count as archaic. Vesk gain a unique weapon specialization with their natural weapons at 3rd level, allowing them to add 1–1/2 × their character level to their damage rolls for their natural weapons (instead of just adding their character level, as usual).

By your paradigm that armed is merely fluff nothing in that ability says that they threaten any squares. At all.

Quote:
I have never seen anything from you (again, on THIS topic), though, that gives any rationale in the game other than it simply feeling right for you

So to be clear here on why I'm getting growly with you?

This. This pile of horsefeathers right here.

To call the small novela of rules arguments and citations I've made nothing diminishes my arguments, me, logic, sense, reason, and evidence itself. It is absolutely, objectively, not true. It is shutting your eyes, sticking fingers in your ear and going la la la i can't hear you levels of willful ignorance to say "oh, there's nothing there."

And since you are obviously not listening to the evidence based argument being presented, with that I am done trying to present one to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:


Why does my human character only get one unarmed attack weapon? I have two hands, shouldn't I get two? Shouldn't a Kasatha character get four? How about other limbs? I have feet and a head. The unarmed attack weapons are free, can't I get as many of them as I want?

Uh, you don't need more than one. Unarmed Strike covers everything. It's not like Starfinder lets you get extra attacks for having more limbs.

Quote:
If my human character does get two unarmed attack weapons, can I put different weapon fusions on them and decide which one to use when I make an attack?

You can't put fusions on Unarmed Strike, because it's a 0-level weapon, and there is no room for fusions.

Quote:
Does my unarmed attack weapon qualify for Multi-Weapon Fighting, or do I still have to take the entire full attack penalty because I technically only have one unarmed attack weapon?

This is a legit gray area and I've thought of it myself. I don't think it works, but I'm not positive.

Quote:
How about for an alien that only has one limb that is suitable for making unarmed attacks with? Are they therefore less powerful than other characters like humans or kasatha because they have fewer unarmed attack weapons?

Which alien are you speaking of? I don't know of any as you describe. Regardless, Unarmed Strike is not more or less powerful based on how many limbs you have free, it is what it is.

Quote:
If it is instead ruled that a character only gets one unarmed attack weapon no matter how many limbs that they have, how does this interact with multiple abilities that change what the unarmed weapon damage is? For example a Vesk punching with power armor while wearing a ring of fangs. Which takes precedence, or does the player get to choose one? I'm assuming that the damage modifications shouldn't stack - though the rules don't actually say that either as far as I can find.

You only get one Unarmed Strike (because 99% of the time there's no difference either way) and then choose the "flavor" of unarmed strike you are making, with whatever set of modifiers you choose to apply.

"Unarmed Strike" is a purely game construct and I'm not sure why you would ever need more than one (barring the Multi-Weapon Fighting example, which is an extreme corner case).


Dracomicron wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:


How about for an alien that only has one limb that is suitable for making unarmed attacks with? Are they therefore less powerful than other characters like humans or kasatha because they have fewer unarmed attack weapons?
Which alien are you speaking of? I don't know of any as you describe. Regardless, Unarmed Strike is not more or less powerful based on how many limbs you have free, it is what it is.

It is in the first Alien Archive book, Appendix 1. It is the one that looks kind of like a slug and whips its tail around as an unarmed attack.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
By your paradigm that armed is merely fluff nothing in that ability says that they threaten any squares. At all.

I understand that there is not really a point to continue this discussion, but I would like to mention that the developers had to clarify that Vesk threaten with their Natural Weapons here, and that there was nothing in the CRB stating that "always armed" meant "threatens adjacent spaces." "Armed" can mean a lot of things, as I stated in the quoted text.

The fact that they have not come out and clarified anything else despite thousands of posts on the subject leads me to believe that the textual reading of otherwise using Unarmed Strike rules applies. I know you have opinions on Paizo's habits regarding FAQ, but it's all we really have to go on.


Dracomicron wrote:
You only get one Unarmed Strike (because 99% of the time there's no difference either way) and then choose the "flavor" of unarmed strike you are making, with whatever set of modifiers you choose to apply.

Do I get to choose each time I make an attack, or do I have to choose when I rearrange equipment or gain feats and stick with that choice?

Anyway, I think I have at least made my point that this isn't as clear cut and intuitive to understand as we all hope it could be.


breithauptclan wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:
You only get one Unarmed Strike (because 99% of the time there's no difference either way) and then choose the "flavor" of unarmed strike you are making, with whatever set of modifiers you choose to apply.

Do I get to choose each time I make an attack, or do I have to choose when I rearrange equipment or gain feats and stick with that choice?

Anyway, I think I have at least made my point that this isn't as clear cut and intuitive to understand as we all hope it could be.

...you get to choose each time you attack, assuming that the individual abilities are not mutually exclusive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Witness, ye, the return of yon argument that started me whining about needing this FAQ.


Dracomicron wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:
You only get one Unarmed Strike (because 99% of the time there's no difference either way) and then choose the "flavor" of unarmed strike you are making, with whatever set of modifiers you choose to apply.

Do I get to choose each time I make an attack, or do I have to choose when I rearrange equipment or gain feats and stick with that choice?

Anyway, I think I have at least made my point that this isn't as clear cut and intuitive to understand as we all hope it could be.

...you get to choose each time you attack, assuming that the individual abilities are not mutually exclusive.

And there is a rule that says this? Wouldn't get any argument in Society play (other than maybe from Halek's GM).


pithica42 wrote:
Witness, ye, the return of yon argument that started me whining about needing this FAQ.

Yup. FAQ button mashed.


Most of this could be avoided on a power creep and clarity level if the ring used the rules from the carnivorous spell, which makes it an operative weapon (thus not good for a damage boost) , and specifically spells out how the bite works.
(an attack with a basic melee weapon with the operative special quality for purposes of proficiency and Weapon Specialization and for other abilities that function with basic melee operative weapons. You can make this attack without using any limbs and when pinned. )

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Except the whole allure is the x2 level damage boost.

Coincidentally, tomorrow I'll be driving two hours away to a game store I've never set foot in and playing my Ring of Fangs Ysoki Gloom Gunner.

Curious to see how that GM will interpret things.

Sovereign Court

At this point I would be delighted if it was errataed to be 1x level damage (so not outshining races with natural weapons with a 315 credits item) but clearly defined to be non-archaic, "armed unarmed" and capable of attacks of opportunity, and suitable for fusions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pithica42 wrote:
Witness, ye, the return of yon argument that started me whining about needing this FAQ.

Wrong again!

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Lowering it to x1 damage would relegate a lot of characters to the trash bin. The x2 damage boost keeps unarmed strikes competitive with other weapon options.

At Level 3 I deal 1d3+11 (average 13). I could just as easily grab a tactical greataxe and deal 1d12+8 (average 14.5). Toss in the Melee Striker Gear Boost (instead of Raw Lethality) and that could be 1d12+10.

Plus, in my case, most of my character choices were chosen to augment unarmed strikes (such as Raw Lethality, Gloom Gunner and Weapon Focus-Basic), and largely go wasted if I have to resort to another weapon.


Nefreet wrote:
Lowering it to x1 damage would relegate a lot of characters to the trash bin.

But are there any downsides?


Lots of wasted paper, I guess.

I don't know, it doesn't seem like we really disagree on the end result of the thing, and the end result seems fine. The end result being "It keeps unarmed combat relatively competitive with weapons."

We just can't seem to agree on how get there. Maybe we'll get lucky, and eventually this thing will get an errata or FAQ. And maybe, just maybe, the experience will teach Paizo writers how to formulate an item description so it makes sense. Maybe.


Pantshandshake wrote:

Lots of wasted paper, I guess.

I don't know, it doesn't seem like we really disagree on the end result of the thing, and the end result seems fine. The end result being "It keeps unarmed combat relatively competitive with weapons."

We just can't seem to agree on how get there. Maybe we'll get lucky, and eventually this thing will get an errata or FAQ. And maybe, just maybe, the experience will teach Paizo writers how to formulate an item description so it makes sense. Maybe.

They probably devoted enough time to it to make it an interesting niche item for someone that wanted a big toothy smile and didn't realize it would become the lynchpin of character builds in a system that doesn't have a heck of a lot of different builds yet.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Lowering it to x1 damage would relegate a lot of characters to the trash bin.
But are there any downsides?

Not sure if that's meant to be humorous. I know I would be upset deleting a character that I spent time and thought on, enjoyed playing, and was looking forward to continuing playing with.


Nefreet wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Lowering it to x1 damage would relegate a lot of characters to the trash bin.
But are there any downsides?
Not sure if that's meant to be humorous. I know I would be upset deleting a character that I spent time and thought on, enjoyed playing, and was looking forward to continuing playing with.

The downsides are

  • • no fusions on your weapon (not sure if paizo over estimates that a bit)
  • • have to target KAC instead of EAC (not sure if EAC was intended to be almost a +2 to hit...)
  • • no weapon special abilities, especially reach.
  • • cheap or not, the ring still occupies one of your 2 magic item slots. Thats a hefty opportunity cost.
  • • Have to deal with DR "you probably don't get through this" rather than energy resistance where you can easily swap out a different weapon

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

With Raw Lethality and Gloom Gunner, I have Fusions and Crit effects. I'm happy with that.

Targeting KAC is fairly normal. Just boost your to-hit with things like Weapon Focus and being full BAB.

Occupying a magic item slot is obviously already pre-known.

Sovereign Court

Nefreet wrote:
Lowering it to x1 damage would relegate a lot of characters to the trash bin. The x2 damage boost keeps unarmed strikes competitive with other weapon options.

The thing I really dislike about the ring is that it gives a natural attack that's better than the natural attacks of races for which natural attacks are actually one of their showpieces.

Note that I proposed several things at once:
- Cutting down the specialization damage down to basically the level of a weapon, not a natural weapon.
- Allowing you to put fusions on the ring. You no longer need to strictly be a soldier to build a character around it, without being afraid of an incorporeal enemy pulling the rug out from under you.
- Treating it in most ways as a weapon, such as you being armed, and it not being archaic. (This also frees up Gear Boost slots so you can use Melee Striker if you want.)

With those things, the ring becomes basically a magical alternative to things like the shoulder laser: a weapon that does somewhat small damage but keeps your hands free.

It also keeps the damage proportional to the cost of the item. I'd be fine with higher-level versions of the ring that gave a bigger damage die. Right now, you'd be using Improved Unarmed Strike to upgrade the damage die just like a vesk would. 315 credits is after a couple of levels hard to distinguish from "basically free". Something that cheap really shouldn't be competitive with things that eat up 30+% of your WBL.


Ascalaphus wrote:
he thing I really dislike about the ring is that it gives a natural attack that's better than the natural attacks of races for which natural attacks are actually one of their showpieces.

there's a few magic items like that. The starfinder backpack is almost strictly better than a ysoki cheekpouch (no limit, increases your bulk, and most importantly lets you draw while moving instead of burning a swift action. Starfinder swift actions bottleneck your plans for the round, badly)

Wildwise makes the xenodruid ability to talk to critters fairly redundant by working on a much wider range of creatures.

Armor seals make the androids ability, the star shamans walk the void, and life bubble spell pretty redundant (life bubble however ends ARGUMENTS over armor seals... making it a metagame consideration)

51 to 100 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / What does a ring of fangs actually do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.