What does a ring of fangs actually do?


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 252 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

BNW, I am appreciative of your enthusiasm in telling me that I'm wrong. It just tells me that you care. <3

All I want to do here is find out how the new wording actually does the things that you are saying it does, because I can't follow your logical chain from the words actually printed to your conclusion. That's why I asked if there was any other text leaked that wasn't already transcribed here.

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

Intuitive. We already suspected this.

In addition, a player character with this ability as a racial
trait is always considered armed.

Basically the same as the Vesk racial, still relying on a rules term from Pathfinder to imply the ability to make attacks of opportunity. From the Starfinder rules, it could simply mean "is holding a rifle. A rifle is an armament."

But specifically, this takes the rules discussion into PC-only territory, unlike the first bit which applies to monster attacks.

They can deal 1d3 lethal damage (of the listed type, or bludgeoning if no type is specified) with unarmed strikes,

...so they are Unarmed Strikes, with the corresponding traits unless modified by the specific rules? At first I thought the clarification that they were "always considered armed" with a "natural weapon" weapon that did 1d3 Lethal and WAS NOT an unarmed strike. That would solve most of the issues because there would no longer be interaction between IUS and Natural Weapons. It would be its own separate thing. But that's not what happened.

and the attack doesn’t have the archaic special property. They also 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).

This is pretty boilerplate Natural Weapons.

None of this actually addresses the legitimate rules questions about the limitations of needing a free hand, and it especially doesn't say anything about the Ring of Fangs or other variable issues, like interaction between power armor damage die and natural weapons.

You are falling back on old arguments, and I would ask you not to do that. I asked how THIS information supported your assertion that the issue was incontrovertibly over, not whether or not we know about how space minotaurs gore people, or whatnot. I'm not asking for much, here. If the proof is there, in writing, then I will easily accept it (I haven't played my RoF character at 3rd level yet; I could theoretically spend his Gear Boost differently).


Dracomicron wrote:
None of this actually addresses the legitimate rules questions about the limitations of needing a free hand

for the third time, it's. In the video.


Dracomicron wrote:
I asked how THIS information supported your assertion that the issue was incontrovertibly over,

And again, the NPC rules for "what the heck is a bite attack?" are also the PC rules. (always armed. Not archaic.) Proposing there's a third "pc bite but its a magical item bite so its totally different rules that we don't know..." doesn't make any sense.

Even if you're going to insist on not applying that wording to the ring of fangs, you have way 1 to get mouth of big sharp pointy teeth. You have way 2 to get a mouth full of big sharp pointy teeth. They work the same. Way 3 of getting a mouth full of big sharp pointy teeth will be totally different because....?

There isn't an argument left and saying you don't see it when its right in front of you isn't discussion anymore


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:
None of this actually addresses the legitimate rules questions about the limitations of needing a free hand
for the third time, it's. In the video.

Finally watched it. They were awfully hesitant to say. Used terms like "I think so..." implying that they weren't ready to come down with a solid ruling after reading dozens of pages of arguments on the forums.

So... enough for a GM to make a ruling at a table, but not enough to silence all doubt, unfortunately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracomicron wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:
None of this actually addresses the legitimate rules questions about the limitations of needing a free hand
for the third time, it's. In the video.
Finally watched it. They were awfully hesitant to say. Used terms like "I think so..." implying that they weren't ready to come down with a solid ruling after reading dozens of pages of arguments on the forums.

Or perhaps not being in a position to make/issue an official determination at the time.


Dracomicron wrote:


Finally watched it. They were awfully hesitant to say. Used terms like "I think so..." implying that they weren't ready to come down with a solid ruling after reading dozens of pages of arguments on the forums.

Do you think if there was some deep seeded rule like natural attacks require a free hand that none of them would have been aware of it?

Because that's what you need for natural attacks to require a free hand. I can't bite someone because there's a rifle in my hands... makes absolutely zero sense and the rules plinko you use to get there is less than solid.

Quote:
So... enough for a GM to make a ruling at a table, but not enough to silence all doubt, unfortunately.

Which we had before. Blatant common sense with the rules has always been allowed (yes even in PFS), rules arguments from accross 100 pages of the book don't always work out, and applying the idea of normal from the unarmed strike feat to a space minotaur was iffy at best.

Considering the level of epistemic nihilism it takes to avoid being able to define "armed" I'm going to considered this matter settled with any reasonable DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Considering the level of epistemic nihilism it takes to avoid being able to define "armed" I'm going to considered this matter settled with any reasonable DM.

Okay, but there are still going to be "unreasonable" GMs out there that would still like some non-obtuse rules text, especially when there are issues at stake like allowing a 315 credit magic item to completely trump what is supposed to be a very valuable racial trait.

You are welcome to consider the matter settled. You don't have to continue arguing. I, on the other hand, would still l like an official errata that considers the implications, instead of relying on some devs who got put on the spot at a convention Q&A. I know that I wouldn't want to be pressed for a binding controversial ruling when I was tired and probably hung over.


Dracomicron wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Considering the level of epistemic nihilism it takes to avoid being able to define "armed" I'm going to considered this matter settled with any reasonable DM.

Okay, but there are still going to be "unreasonable" GMs out there that would still like some non-obtuse rules text, especially when there are issues at stake like allowing a 315 credit magic item to completely trump what is supposed to be a very valuable racial trait.

You are welcome to consider the matter settled. You don't have to continue arguing. I, on the other hand, would still l like an official errata that considers the implications, instead of relying on some devs who got put on the spot at a convention Q&A. I know that I wouldn't want to be pressed for a binding controversial ruling when I was tired and probably hung over.

I don't think the part about needing a free hand was ever that controversial to begin with. A few people on the rules forums followed a questionable train of thought to a conclusion that defies common sense and was never the problem with the ring anyway. Okay, it requires a free hand, I only hold my back up laser rifle in one and proceed to bite people.

Quote:
allowing a 315 credit magic item to completely trump what is supposed to be a very valuable racial trait.

It's vastly underpriced, but a starfinder backpack does the same thing to ysoki cheekpouches. It also occupies a magic item slot, which isn't nothing.

Quote:
ka1y, but there are still going to be "unreasonable" GMs out there that would still like some non-obtuse rules text

What you're looking for is obtuse proof rules text, which almost never happens.


Ascalaphus wrote:

The interesting thing about the AA3 rules is that they still don't classify NPC/monster natural attacks as unarmed strikes (so they're never inheriting an archaic tag).

eh?

In addition, a player character with this ability as a racial
trait is always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal
damage (of the listed type, or bludgeoning if no type is
specified) with unarmed strikes, and the attack doesn’t have
the archaic special property. They also 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).


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

The interesting thing about the AA3 rules is that they still don't classify NPC/monster natural attacks as unarmed strikes (so they're never inheriting an archaic tag).

eh?

In addition, a player character with this ability as a racial
trait is always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal
damage (of the listed type, or bludgeoning if no type is
specified) with unarmed strikes, and the attack doesn’t have
the archaic special property. They also 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).

Yes, that text applies solely to PCs. Ascalaphus is talking about monsters/NPCs.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

The interesting thing about the AA3 rules is that they still don't classify NPC/monster natural attacks as unarmed strikes (so they're never inheriting an archaic tag).

Specifically player characters treat their unarmed strikes in a particular way. A nuar NPC's gore is just a gore. It's not an unarmed strike, it's a natural weapon.

A PC nuar's unarmed strike is a non-archaic weapon, always armed and with a unique weapon specialization. NPC nuar don't get any of that; they don't need the first two things and NPC weapon damage is calculated differently from PC damage anyway.

I think that's pretty easy to explain: because virtually all NPC monsters who would warrant stat blocks? Fall into two categories: those with meaningfully effective natural weapons, and those with skill/magic/cyberware/etc to upgrade their crude unarmed attacks into something as effective as a weapon. NPCs with neither either don't get stat blocks ( because you are never expected to fight them ), or they get stat blocks that don't have an unarmed attack ( because they aren't going to attack you with bare fists, but with guns or blades ).

Certainly the GM could *choose* to stat up an NPC with an unarmed attack that is archaic. However, this would be their choice to represent someone weird. Hence why it isn't the default.

Sovereign Court

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

The interesting thing about the AA3 rules is that they still don't classify NPC/monster natural attacks as unarmed strikes (so they're never inheriting an archaic tag).

eh?

In addition, a player character with this ability as a racial
trait is always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal
damage (of the listed type, or bludgeoning if no type is
specified) with unarmed strikes, and the attack doesn’t have
the archaic special property. They also 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).

You bolded the wrong part.

"In addition, a player character with this ability as a racial
trait is always considered armed. They... "

None of the rest of the paragraph applies to NPCs/monsters in any way. And it's not needed. Because NPC/monster natural weapons were never unarmed strikes to begin with.

For PCs however, they then go on to implement the natural weapon using the mechanics of unarmed strikes. Which allows you to hook up feats and gear boosts that react to unarmed strikes (sweet). They also go on to explicitly remove some disadvantages that you'd get from unarmed strikes (never archaic).

However, all that applies to racial traits, and the ring of fang isn't that.

The AA3 text quite simply does not apply to the ring of fangs. The ring of fangs doesn't even mention natural weapons, let alone give you natural attacks as a racial trait.

You're going from "most bites are natural weapons" and "this gives you a bite" to "this gives you a bite, so I'll use the rules for racial natural weapons". Which seems like a fair ruling in the absence of rules, but it's not the rule.


Ascalapus wrote:
You're going from "most bites are natural weapons" and "this gives you a bite" to "this gives you a bite, so I'll use the rules for racial natural weapons". Which seems like a fair ruling in the absence of rules, but it's not the rule.

Both ways of getting a bite that we know about use the same rule. (with allowances for the differences between PCs and NPCs)

This way of getting a bite attack either uses the same rules, or doesn't have rules at all. Even if it doesn't have rules, the best argument is for using the common sense answer that big sharp pointy teeth work like big sharp pointy teeth.

There is no, nadda, zero, zilch reason to go with the epistemic nihlism that we don't know how these work anymore.

You need mechanics for a PC with a bite attack. Here are the mechanics. Use them instead of inventing them.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You need mechanics for a PC with a bite attack. Here are the mechanics. Use them instead of inventing them.

Rules for a PC with a bite attack that isn't a Natural Weapon already exist.

They're called Unarmed Strike.


Dracomicron wrote:

exist.

They're called Unarmed Strike.

It isn't an unarmed strike (an unarmed attack being made by getting descriptive with the unarmed strike):....which isn't an example the game uses.

Natural weapons (and natural attacks), such as acid spit, bite,

It is a natural attack, specifically a "bite attack" . It's a mouth full of big sharp pointy teeth that you bite people with on an item called a ring of fangs.

You're not even making an argument it's just objecting. Every terrible argument (and especially the polemics of declaring a vast pile of evidence for my position is somehow evidence against it) have made me adamant on this.

House rule it how you want in a home game. In a shared play environment you have to at least try to read the rules. You're not doing that.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@BNW: we know for a fact the Ring of Fangs is an unarmed strike because it explicitly says so. It doesn't say it's a natural weapon.

We don't have any problem with lacking rules for the ring; we have the rules for unarmed strikes which we've been told to use.


Ascalaphus wrote:

@BNW: we know for a fact the Ring of Fangs is an unarmed strike because it explicitly says so. It doesn't say it's a natural weapon.

We don't have any problem with lacking rules for the ring; we have the rules for unarmed strikes which we've been told to use.

Unarmed strike and natural weapon are not mutually exclusive things. Its exactly like saying he's not a new yorkers he's an american. It's completely illogical. Natural weapons are a modification to or subset of unarmed strikes.

Vesk: 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 natural weapons are unarmed strikes

In addition, a player character with this ability (natural weapons) as a racial trait is always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal
damage (of the listed type, or bludgeoning if no type is
specified) with unarmed strikes

Natural weapons generally are unarmed strikes.

Reptics: They can deal 1d3 lethal
slashing damage with unarmed
strikes

Many species with natural weaponry calls out the natural weapon as modifying their unarmed strikes.

"Its not a natural weapon it's an unarmed strike" is a non argument because natural weapons ARE modified unarmed strikes.

What you are arguing is that a weapon that is a bite attack is a modified unarmed strike, but for some reason it's modified differently than other bite attacks which are unarmed strikes, and you know how its different than other bite attacks.

Option 1: It's a bite attack. People know how big sharp pointy teeth work.

Option 2: Its a bite attack, of course that means its an unarmed attack using the rules from the table, and the unarmed strike feat, and 4 other places in the rulebooks. so it modifies this this thi and this but not that that or that....

No. You weren't told to use that. You're told it's a bite attack. Use the rules for a bite.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Whoa. Lots of posts since I last checked.

*looks at all available new information*

*sighs*

Okay. So. It does not appear, to me, that anything has changed.

I suppose I shall continue running my RoF character as I laid out back on page 1 until more information becomes available.

...but more people should be clicking the FAQ button ^_^


Nefreet wrote:

Whoa. Lots of posts since I last checked.

*looks at all available new information*

*sighs*

Okay. So. It does not appear, to me, that anything has changed.

The only argument for the ring not granting armed and non archaic was we didn't know that PC attacks worked that way by default

We now know that PC attacks work that way by default.

We had one case where bite would grant armed and non archaic, we now know thats the default for pc abilities.

We know how PC bite options work, we should treat the ring differently because....

I would hold off on getting your gloom gunner raw lethality. It doesn't look like it will work with the ring.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Wait, what? Why wouldn't it?


Nefreet wrote:
Wait, what? Why wouldn't it?

They can deal 1d3 lethal

damage (of the listed type, or bludgeoning if no type is
specified) with unarmed strikes, and the attack doesn’t have
the archaic special property.

[SFS Legal] Raw Lethality (Ex)
Source Starfinder Armory pg. 154
When wielding weapons with the archaic weapon special property

The bite isn't archaic, so if you had improved unarmed strike you'd either be getting your kung fu fighting on for level to damage or nibbling someone to death for 2 x level to damage.


Nefreet wrote:
Wait, what? Why wouldn't it?

Rampant speculation, apparently.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Wait, what? Why wouldn't it?

They can deal 1d3 lethal damage (of the listed type, or bludgeoning if no type is specified) with unarmed strikes, and the attack doesn’t have the archaic special property.

[SFS Legal] Raw Lethality (Ex)
Source Starfinder Armory pg. 154
When wielding weapons with the archaic weapon special property The bite isn't archaic, so if you had improved unarmed strike you'd either be getting your kung fu fighting on for level to damage or nibbling someone to death for 2 x level to damage.

I'm not talking about racial abilities.

My RoF character is an Ysoki, and doesn't have their own natural weapons.

The "rules clarification" you're pointing to seems to be in regards to races like Vesk and Nuar.

Similarly, the bite attack granted by the Carnivorous spell couldn't be augmented by Improved Unarmed Strike.

The clarification seems to be a blanket statement that "all races are created equal", and that even if a Nuar's entry grammatically differs from a Vesk's, the intention is that they're treated the same.

That doesn't translate to every other option in the game.


Nefreet wrote:


My RoF character is an Ysoki, and doesn't have their own natural weapons.

It doesn't matter.

The ring gives you a bite attack giving you a powerful bite attack

Bite attacks are not archaic

Quote:
The "rules clarification" you're pointing to seems to be in regards to races like Vesk and Nuar.

It's a general rule for how natural weapons work for PCs. Which is pretty much the same way they work for monsters. When it was pointed out that monster natural weapons weren't archaic the argument was no no no.. pcs and monsters use totally different rules in starfinder

Now we know that's not the case. PCs use largely the same rules as the NPCs.

Bite attacks from monsters are not archaic.

Bite attacks from PCs with racial abilities are not archaic.

You expect the Bite attack from the ring of fangs to be different because...of what? The pedantic technicality that it isn't absolutely disproven by the clarification? Which would dump it back into its a bite attack its probably not archaic anyway.

Declaring half of the rings text as fluff by saying the first sentence is fluff is 1) Is not a rule 2) if it is a rule, is broken with regular regularity. It gives you a bite attack. that's how it works.

Quote:
Similarly, the bite attack granted by the Carnivorous spell couldn't be augmented by Improved Unarmed Strike.

Because it has a listed amount of damage that it does and so does improved unarmed strike. If improved unarmed strike was a size bonus or a die increase it could.

But natural weapons are a sub category or add on or modification to unarmed strikes. So natural weapons and improved unarmed strike will work together.

Quote:

The clarification seems to be a blanket statement that "all races are created equal", and that even if a Nuar's entry grammatically differs from a Vesk, the intention is that they're treated the same.

That doesn't translate to every other option in the game.

It clears up any dangling natural attack rules, of which the ring seems to be one.

Seriously, read the description of the ring.

If the intent was "Hey, you have a mouth full of big sharp pointy teeth and you get get your bite on. The bite does 1d3 damage plus 2x your level. Bites are modified unarmed strikes that deal piercing damage" that whats written there would be reasonable? I think so.

If the intent was We're going to fluff a mouth full of big sharp pointy teeth, but it's really just a punch, that happens to do piercing damage, and if affects anything else you're holding like a shield, and because the unarmed strike feat says you're not armed then you're not armed with these big sharp pointy teeth, and because it's an unarmed strike but i didnt SAY so you're not armed, and because its an unarmed strike it's still archaic, oh AND because the normal in unarmed strike says you need a free hand then you can't bite anyone while you're holding two teacups... No. You need a The Question esque conspiracy board to put that together.

How big sharp pointy teeth work has always been derivable from the examples. They've spelled it out. That doesn't leave any room left to argue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Bite attacks are not archaic

If you bite someone without having IUS or the Natural Weapons Racial Trait, they are. Seriously. The "clarification" ONLY clarifies that natural weapons and natural attacks don't use ammo and can't be disarmed or sundered; EVERYTHING else in that entry ONLY applies to the Natural Weapons racial trait.

I'm not saying that the whole thing isn't cleared up somewhere else, but that text isn't what you want it to be. I would avoid putting too much hope there.


Dracomicron wrote:


If you bite someone without having IUS or the Natural Weapons Racial Trait, they are.

Show me a reason to believe that that is better than the argument in the other direction.

You're dismissing as completely useless arguments that are a hairs breadth away from being a math problem while embracing as a given completely unevidenced assertions that a bite attack is using the same rules as a punch unless something specifically spells out otherwise rather than it being a general property of how bite attacks work.

That you could envision a human biting someone and resolving it as a bite attack (with a questionable definition of appendage) that you (not the rules came up with) does not mean that that incredibly corner case is the default rule for all bite attacks. Calling that a bite attack and then resolving all bite attacks that way is a clear case of equivocation. (which is where you use two ideas with the same word but different meanings and argue one as if its the other)

How many times does your paradigm that leads to this conclusion need to be wrong before you realize there's a problem with it?

You thought vesk didn't threaten because you refuse to accept what armed means. Despite developer clarification that they're always armed.

Despite armed popping up yet again in the rules you insist on the epistemic nihlism that armed might be fluff text to be that socially they're considered to be holding a rifle rather than accepting that armed means that they threaten.

You thought there was some rules chicanery that would keep a nuar holding a laser rifle from using their horns. There isn't.

Racial ability bite: Not archaic. They threaten General rule

Carnivorous spellbite: Not archaic. They threaten
That the ring is based on

Every PC race bite: not archaic. Not archaic. They threaten. general rule

Monster bites: Not archaic. They threaten.

Monster examples: Not archaic. They threaten.

Are you seeing a pattern here that MIGHT be better evidence for a rules conclussion than an imperfect attempt at putting together 5 sections of the core rulebook?

In starfinder bite attacks are big sharp ppointy teeth that are not archaic and they threaten. No , a human attacking with their teeth is not the same as a bite attack. You don't have one by default, species abilities grant them, spells grant them, and the ring grants them. The ring grants a bite, a bite is a natural attack, a natural attack threatens and is non archaic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad you brought up Carnivorous.

Your mouth expands to twice its normal size,and fills with rows of razor-sharp teeth, giving you a bite attack. This attack is treated as 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.

Those are some great, detailed rules.

They are printed in Temple of the Twelve, same as the Ring of Fangs. Don't you think that, if they thought they needed to give further special rules to an item with a similar effect in the same book, that they would have?

Carnivorous doesn't work anything like Natural Weapons. It's an operative basic melee weapon you can use without free hands and while pinned. It doesn't stack with IUS, Raw Lethality, Unarmed Mauler, anything like that. You can't Ring of Fangs your Carnivorous for extra long sharp teeth to get double specialization.

Carnivorous actually hurts your argument, because it's evidence that Paizo would have put in the qualities you want the Ring of Fangs to have if they wanted it to have them.

The only pattern I see is that you really want the rules to support your point of view and see concurrence where there is only more questions. You might be right. I might be right. We can't know for sure at this point because the quantum box is still closed. Schrodinger's Ring of Fangs.


Dracomicron wrote:


Carnivorous actually hurts your argument, because it's evidence that Paizo would have put in the qualities you want the Ring of Fangs to have if they wanted it to have them.

You are absolutely right.

not archaic is not a property. Archaic is.

What you just said is that if the thing was supposed to be archaic they would have put that quality on it if they wanted it to have it.

In general we don't say what things aren't. So the fact we never say "natural attacks are archaic" is the signal that they are not archaic, especially since we define them (along with natural weapons) on page 155 of Alien Archive without mentioning archaic at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:


Carnivorous actually hurts your argument, because it's evidence that Paizo would have put in the qualities you want the Ring of Fangs to have if they wanted it to have them.

You are absolutely right.

not archaic is not a property. Archaic is.

What you just said is that if the thing was supposed to be archaic they would have put that quality on it if they wanted it to have it.

In general we don't say what things aren't. So the fact we never say "natural attacks are archaic" is the signal that they are not archaic, especially since we define them (along with natural weapons) on page 155 of Alien Archive without mentioning archaic at all.

Except that it DID say that it was Archaic when they said it was an Unarmed Strike, which has the Archaic property. C'mon.


Dracomicron wrote:

Except that it DID say that it was Archaic when they said it was an Unarmed Strike, which has the Archaic property. C'mon.

Then what you're arguing is that its nested rather than explicit.

It is however clearly nested as a BITE attack.

A bite attack is a natural attack. Which is an unarmed strike but it is a non archaic unarmed strike and you are armed. Arguing thatits an unarmed strike not a bite or a natural weapon is pointless: it's like arguing that someone is an american not a new yorker. They are not mutually exclusive.

Natural attacks are not archaic was explicitly spelled out in alien archive 3 rather than just heavily implied by ommission and confirmed with a board post.

Natural attacks are armed is spelled out in alien archive 3.

You can't legitimately nest it as an unarmed strike and then not call it a bite attack. The item tells you its a bite six ways from sunday.


But "Bite Attack" isn't a thing in the rules. It's a potential descriptor for Natural Weapons, spell effects, monster attacks, etc.

I mean, does the Ring of Fangs make your bite Operative like Carnivorous? They're both bite attacks. By your logic, it follows.


Dracomicron wrote:
But "Bite Attack" isn't a thing in the rules. It's a potential descriptor for Natural Weapons, spell effects, monster attacks, etc.

It's very much a thing in the rules. Its in the ring of fangs

family: unarmed strike
genus: natural weapon
species: bite
subspecies: overpowered 2x level to damage big sharp pointy teeth

The rules really do expect you to be able to make that kind of connection on your own. I mean, are you even arguing how the thing works or are you just venting that it's not written with magic the gathering levels of rules tightness?

Quote:
I mean, does the Ring of Fangs make your bite Operative like Carnivorous? They're both bite attacks. By your logic, it follows.

No. That doesn't follow. The ring is clearly not using the rules from carnivorous. It adds 2x damage from level for one thing.

You keep saying you're not doing this, but you keep not only trying to use Aristotelian logic but insist that everyone else must be too. No. there are other valid rules interpretation methods. Zoom out. Look at the forest.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You keep saying you're not doing this, but you keep not only trying to use Aristotelian logic but insist that everyone else must be too. No. there are other valid rules interpretation methods. Zoom out. Look at the forest.

The big picture forest is that we have a Society-legal magic item that is absurdly underpriced and overpowered unless we apply the letter of the rules. You are essentially mandating that the metagame for unarmed PCs always accounts for this little back-matter Adventure Path trinket.

Do you want EVERY unarmed combatant whose player has access to a PDF of AP#2 using this thing? Don't you think that's a little extreme?


Dracomicron wrote:


The big picture forest is that we have a Society-legal magic item that is absurdly underpriced and overpowered unless we apply the letter of the rules.

You are NOT just applying the letter of the rules. Your answer is not the raw answer. You need to make a large number of judgement calls and you are really straining what can be called judgement to do so in order to reach a desired end

You need to really work to avoid figuring out what armed means.

You're settling the outright contradiction between the weapon description of unarmed strike (can be made with any limb) and the feat (without this feat you can't get your kickboxing on) in favor of the feat. (not terrible on its own but its definitely not THE raw)

You're trying to apply normal under the unarmed strike feat to a creature that has a similar ability/ is definitely not normal as if normal meant "always", resulting in the abject silliness of not being able to gore someone with your hands full. Which violates the idea of always armed.

and really annoyingly, you pretend you don't know what a bite attack is, then change the topic when someone points out what a bite attack is. You really walked into a wall when you said it should have its properties spelled out. If its nested for unarmed strike then by all fairness its nested for a bite attack.

That is not the letter of the law pushing the answer towards the weird result that is you. It is a very concious, human decision to constantly work at taking the harder road because it goes where you want it to go.

That does not work in a shared campaign. There is no way I can send a player through your F(x) about what the ring is and how it works without bumping into a dozen problems. On the other hand "hey, you have big sharp pointy teeth, they just do what they say" is easy and straightforward.

You have absolutely no answer to raw coming from the other direction, at all.

Alien archive 3 spells out how natural weapons work for PCs. Its the common sense answer I've been arguing for all along. Thats not a coincidence, its been there the whole time.

Quote:
Do you want EVERY unarmed combatant whose player has access to a PDF of AP#2 using this thing? Don't you think that's a little extreme?

Extreme would be if it was the only melee build. There's nothing wrong with an item being good for a type of build. I have no problem with every unarmed combatant taking it as long as every combatant isn't taking it. I expect every longarm/heavy weapon user to have a scope. Besides OG pre armory solarions who dumped charisma is there a weapon solarion who doesn't take the charisma to damage crystal?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

315 gp to be always armed, always threatening, unable to be disarmed from it, at the cost of magic item slot and it's competitive without investment during the entire career of an SFS character?

Sounds like the ultimate backup weapon for every character, not just those focusing on unarmed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Damanta wrote:

315 gp to be always armed, always threatening, unable to be disarmed from it, at the cost of magic item slot and it's competitive without investment during the entire career of an SFS character?

Sounds like the ultimate backup weapon for every character, not just those focusing on unarmed.

Exactly. Every longarms or heavy weapon character would take it. It's cheaper than a bayonet bracket+decent weapon or a tail blade.


Damanta wrote:

315 gp to be always armed, always threatening, unable to be disarmed from it, at the cost of magic item slot and it's competitive without investment during the entire career of an SFS character?

Sounds like the ultimate backup weapon for every character, not just those focusing on unarmed.

The bayonette bracket does most of that, and you're going to want to use both magic item slots eventually.


A survival knife and bayonette bracket also let you attack with dex , something you can't do with the ring.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

In case any developers come along. I still think we need a FAQ, but since I've already FAQ'd several posts in the thread and can't FAQ them again, I'm just going to post again that I think we need a FAQ.

I don't care what the answer is. I'm just tired of the arguments.


I do not see how the alien archive 3 clarification didn't end this.

There are no rules for a "bite" attack for a PC other than what are in the Unarmed Strike One Handed Basic Melee Weapon entry- dracomicron

But there are no rules for what a PC bite attack is! How do I use that? - Hammerjack

Still waiting for you to show me a page number or FAQ that lists what a "Bite" attack for a PC does.- The metric system

Please point out those clearly stated PC natural weapon rules that you are using.- breithauptclan

Monsters and PCs have different rules in Starfinder. - Dracomicron

That was the big hold up. People had to argue that they couldn't possibly list it like this, or that we didn't KNOW it worked like this.

Class: Unarmed Attacks (can't be disarmed, requires no ammo)
Genus: Natural weapon (armed. Not archaic)
Species:Bite (Piering damage. Can be made while grappled or pinned)
Subspecies: Bite with 2x Level

Otherwise the entire ring works with no problem.

When you wear this ring (crunch, the ring is a worn magical item)
your teeth become long and sharp, giving you a powerful bite attack.(you have a bite attack)

You can choose to have your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage (by biting them. Calling it an unarmed attack isn't any more disqualifying it as a bite attack than calling a bluejay a bird means you're talking about a different animal now)

It fits every single sentence of the raw

It fits every single bit of "fluff"

It's the at face reading of the ring. If someone had a 1d3 melee weapon and just started running around with it, without thinking, that's the reading that works. If the ring was supposed to be archaic or not let you count as armed that would be something you'd have to spell out to someone reading the ring. Otherwise they're not qualities you'd worry about, you'd just run around biting people with it like it says.

OH, but the alien archive calls out SPECIES natural weapons. We know magic weapon granted special weapons are going to work in a completely different manner...

Come on. thats the definition of nit picking rules lawyering and it doesn't help you, at all. Do you really think there's going to be an entirely different rules subsystem for this one item that no one bothered to mention or that its going to use the same rules as as the other natural weapons in the game? If it doesn't work like other natural weapons you're back to trying to figure out how it works and there's no reason it doesn't work like the other natural weapons anyway. It doesn't drop into team pointy fists interpretation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

I've heard your arguments. I've heard them over and over and over again. I don't agree with you. Repeating them isn't going to make me agree with you.

This text...

"Ring of Fangs wrote:
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).

Is different than this text...

Vesk Natural Weapons wrote:
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).

Nothing you have said thus far as convinced me that rules that apply to the latter automatically apply to the former (or vice versa).

The text is different, therefore the rules are different and don't necessarily inherit the same properties from one another. If they intend for them to be the same, they should have made them the same or they should put out a FAQ saying they're the same. If they intend for them to be the same but with some minor difference(s), they could have said, "Here is the difference, otherwise it works like X." or put out a FAQ that changes the rules to that.

You're assuming they're the same. You have reasons why. I don't think those reasons are correct, but I've been willing to concede, from the beginning, that if that's what the FAQ says I'd be fine with it. I'd also be fine with the FAQ saying that only stellifara can wear it and it does nothing but give them teeth to chew food with. I don't care.

What I'm not fine with is the constant implication that anyone that disagrees with you is arguing for the sake of arguing or being 'nit-picky' or arguing in bad faith every time this comes up. Even if your interpretation is the correct one, which, again, it may be, the fact that there are still several other GMs in this thread with different interpretations, means that it's going to get interpreted differently at different tables until there is a FAQ.

That's the problem. The quoted rule from AA3 doesn't fix that. Your repeated assertions that it does doesn't fix that. I'm only responding to this thread, again, because we still need a FAQ. Saying that we don't while there are still open questions and legitimate disagreement is counterproductive to the purpose of this thread.


Pithica wrote:
What I'm not fine with is the constant implication that anyone that disagrees with you is arguing for the sake of arguing or being 'nit-picky' or arguing in bad faith every time this comes up.

Arguing that the ring of fangs which explicitly gives you big sharp pointy teeth, explicitly gives you a bite attack, actually gives you a bite attack with said big sharp point teeth should not be meeting nearly this much resistance.

The chief point of that resistance, as quoted six times, from 5 different people, was that there were no rules for a PC bite attack. We can't possibly derive them from the examples.

And then we got the rules for a PC bite attack. They were exactly as derived from the examples. A PCs bite is a natural attack, which is a type of unarmed strike. The entire item makes sense in that context.

And people still aren't satisfied.

I cannot conclude that's because the rules aren't clear or that the argument hasn't been made clear enough. Epistemic nihlism for the item doing exactly what it says it does isn't a viable position. Its the ring of fangs, you grow big sharp pointy teeth, you bite people.

"these unarmed strikes" is a little weird, IF you don't know that natural attacks like the bite the ring gives you, are unarmed strikes.
But once that fact is pointed out, and then confirmed, there's no rules argument against that position. At all.

If waiting for an FAQ or clarification was a viable option I'd be fine with it. But paizo has never been good with clarifications, and in the past few years they've been absolutely terrible. This goes tripple for splat books.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

There isn't another option.

No one has managed to convince anyone that there's a 'one holy interpretation'™. Moses has yet to come down from the mountain and convince anyone that the tablets are real.

Every single person that actually participates in the argument seems to come away more convinced that they're the only correct one.

So, I repeat. FAQ. Please.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I wish I could favorite certain posts more than once.

I think there's an added incentive for the Designers to address this in the FAQ:

We'll stop bumping this up to the top ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funny thing about games. They're not real life, and don't use real life logic. One bite attack is a basic operative melee weapon. Another is considered an unarmed strike. A third bite attack is a monster ability under totally different rules, that expressly do not apply to PCs.

Games use rules as a simulation, and sometimes the simulation requires different measures to keep the game balanced and fun for everybody. In Arkham Horror, for example, you can fight a cultist with a knife. You can use a knife, too, but the mechanics of you using a knife and them using a knife are different, because the PvE nature of the game requires that the rules be different.

I don't care how clear it is to one person (even me); without errata to explain how something unclear works (and this is unclear, because otherwise there would not be an argument), you're going to have to rely on individual interpretations. We are not arguing for the sake of argument; everyone here would rather this be settled. So we need a FAQ.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I do not see how the alien archive 3 clarification didn't end this.

Because it's not applicable. It talks about NPCs and it talks about PC racial traits. The Ring of Fangs isn't covered by either of those.


Ascalaphus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I do not see how the alien archive 3 clarification didn't end this.

Because it's not applicable. It talks about NPCs and it talks about PC racial traits. The Ring of Fangs isn't covered by either of those.

So, to avoid the conclusion that the thing that says you get a bite attack actually gives you a bite attack we must propose that

1) there is some third unknown way natural weapons and unarmed strikes interacts/relates

AND

2) whatever that method is it will drop the fangs out as archaic.

This is in spite of nearly identical language for NPCS natural weapons, the examples we have of PC natural weapons, and the new spelled out rules for PC natual weapons all having very similar language and identical effects.

That is NOT a reasonable counter argument.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


This is in spite of nearly identical language for NPCS natural weapons, the examples we have of PC natural weapons, and the new spelled out rules for PC natual weapons all having very similar language and identical effects.

That is NOT a reasonable counter argument.

"These things seem very similar to me, but admittedly not identical, therefore you are wrong."

THAT is not a reasonable counter-argument.

We can do this all day. We shouldn't, though.


Dracomicron wrote:


THAT is not a reasonable counter-argument.

We can do this all day. We shouldn't, though.

If you believe that starfinder is an MMO written in computer code, its not.

If you believe that the game was written in English to be interpreted via common sense it's absolutely a reasonable counterargument. Nested rules are a thing, so if you see bites being used with consistent rules you can conclude rather strongly that they have a rule behind them. Doubly so when the rule behind them is spelled out.

There are no rules for a "bite" attack for a PC other than what are in the Unarmed Strike One Handed Basic Melee Weapon entry- dracomicron

You wanted the rules for PC natural attacks. You got them. And promptly moved the goalpost.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:


THAT is not a reasonable counter-argument.

We can do this all day. We shouldn't, though.

If you believe that starfinder is an MMO written in computer code, its not.

If you believe that the game was written in English to be interpreted via common sense it's absolutely a reasonable counterargument.

There are no rules for a "bite" attack for a PC other than what are in the Unarmed Strike One Handed Basic Melee Weapon entry- dracomicron

You wanted the rules for PC natural attacks. You got them. And promptly moved the goalpost.

I didn't move any goalpost. The goal was always to have a clear and concise ruling that didn't leave room for doubt.

The rules for PC natural attacks in AA3 are specifically (and explicitly) ONLY for those with the Natural Weapons racial trait. I'm not sure why you can't accept that they made that specific ruling that excludes the Ring of Fangs.

I get it, you want things to make logical real world sense. Not everything in a game does, though. When I'm playing Monopoly and I roll the die, I can't stop on Boardwalk unless i roll the exact number of spaces necessary. If I roll a six or whatever, I just cruise on past GO! and collect my $200. In the real world, I could just drive up to Boardwalk in my shoe or tophat (or on my Scottie dog, whatever), hit the brakes, and then I'm there with my bag of money, ready to buy it and start building houses.

That would be totally unbalanced in Monopoly, same as letting the Ring of Fangs circumvent the requirement of having Natural Weapons.

201 to 250 of 252 << 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.