It seems quite clear that the design intent of Doubling Rings is so that a character who fights with two weapons isn't penalized into having to upgrade both weapons as they progress by, essentially, letting the 2nd weapon "share" the runes of the first.
I have a monk PC who fights with a temple sword and makes additional attacks with his fist as it is agile. I wanted to get some thoughts on whether doubling rings would allow him to share his weapon rune properties on his unarmed attacks without having to separately buy handwraps of mighty blows for those secondary attacks.
I'm torn.
On one hand, the doubling rings specifically state (emphasis mine):
"the weapon’s fundamental runes are replicated onto any MELEE WEAPON you wield in the hand wearing the iron ring."
-and-
"The replication functions only if you wear both rings, and it ends as soon as you CEASE WIELDING A MELEE WEAPON in one of your hands."
On the other hand, the Monk's Powerful Fist states (again, emphasis mine):
"You know how to wield your fists as DEADLY WEAPONS."
Flavor-wise, I think everyone would agree that a monk's fists are weapons. But per the text of Powerful Fist I'm inclined to say the doubling rings would apply to the monk's fists from a RAW perspective as well.
But I'm curious to get other's opinions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you cannot ever use Doubling Rings with ANY Unarmed Attacks wholesale period. They really botched how Unarmed Attacks work when they had every chance to avoid the troublesome wording of the past.
You need the Handwraps of Mighty Blows to enchant your Unarmed Attacks and those Handwraps are not a valid choice for Doubling Rings either as they are ALSO not Weapons.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you cannot ever use Doubling Rings with ANY Unarmed Attacks wholesale period. They really botched how Unarmed Attacks work when they had every chance to avoid the troublesome wording of the past.
You need the Handwraps of Mighty Blows to enchant your Unarmed Attacks and those Handwraps are not a valid choice for Doubling Rings either as they are ALSO not Weapons.
From what I can see in the CRB I can agree with your first point but I disagree with the other.
to the first point: "Source Core Rulebook pg. 278
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so."
Pretty clear here they don't work with unarmed strikes normally.
However as to the second point when we look at Handwraps of Mighty Blows we see: "Source Core Rulebook pg. 611
Usage worn gloves
As you invest these embroidered strips of cloth, you must meditate and slowly wrap them around your hands. These handwraps have weapon runes etched into them to give your unarmed attacks the benefits of those runes, making your unarmed attacks work like magic weapons. For example, +1 striking handwraps of mighty blows would give you a +1 item bonus to attack rolls with your unarmed attacks and increase the damage of your unarmed attacks from one weapon die to two (normally 2d4 instead of 1d4, but if your fists have a different weapon damage die or you have other unarmed attacks, use two of that die size instead).
You can upgrade, add, and transfer runes to and from the handwraps just as you would for a weapon, and you can attach talismans to the handwraps. Treat the handwraps as melee weapons of the brawling group with light Bulk for these purposes. Property runes apply only when they would be applicable to the unarmed attack you’re using. For example, a property that must be applied to a slashing weapon wouldn’t function when you attacked with a fist, but you would gain its benefits if you attacked with a claw or some other slashing unarmed attack."
it seems to me that while the rings of doubling are not mentioned it would fall into this category of transfers (the actual text for handwraps says replicated but I do not think their is a big meaningful difference in the word choice) and having the appropriate runes transferred to your handwraps through a Ring of Doubling is most likely RAI.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"These purposes" refers to the ability to attach Runes and Talismans to it, that's all.
While I agree that this is less than ideal and something of an unneeded restriction for characters which use Unarmed Attacks, in general, the Handwraps are specifically worded in such a way as to indicate that they are NOT actually Weapons in their own right which the Doubling rings require. The Doubling Rings effect is entirely separate from actual Rune application or transference and the same goes for Talismans.
Doubling Rings are neither Runes nor Talismans. The same thing goes for Oils, they cannot be applied to Unarmed Attacks or Handwraps.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"These purposes" refers to the ability to attach Runes and Talismans to it, that's all.
While I agree that this is less than ideal and something of an unneeded restriction for characters which use Unarmed Attacks, in general, the Handwraps are specifically worded in such a way as to indicate that they are NOT actually Weapons in their own right which the Doubling rings require. The Doubling Rings effect is entirely separate from actual Rune application or transference and the same goes for Talismans.
Doubling Rings are neither Runes nor Talismans. The same thing goes for Oils, they cannot be applied to Unarmed Attacks or Handwraps.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. It seems to me they specifically spell out a scenario where they can be counted as weapons.
Oils I would agree would not work though as they are not mentioned in the scenario listed where a Handwrap may count as a weapon.
Good points all around.
For the time being, I think I plan to house rule it that at my table a monk's (and only a monk's) unarmed attacks count as weapons.
Clearly RAI a monk's unarmed strikes are intended to be their main attack. So it seems silly to me that RAW they can't utilize them as weapons.
I hadn't even considered Oils. But in my opinion, a monk should be able to utilize those as well.
|
|
Please look at Mystic Strike (p156 CRB) ability before you make the house rule. The rules intend that you would have to use handwraps.Good points all around.
For the time being, I think I plan to house rule it that at my table a monk's (and only a monk's) unarmed attacks count as weapons.
Clearly RAI a monk's unarmed strikes are intended to be their main attack. So it seems silly to me that RAW they can't utilize them as weapons.
I hadn't even considered Oils. But in my opinion, a monk should be able to utilize those as well.
It's an expected item pickup intended to fill in some of the needed gaps for a monk. Of course (as I always say) feel free to run your table how you like, but planning for them to acquire the item largely removes the need for a house rule.
(another option is if you feel the monk needs some help, is that you could be extra-generous and allow the use of Oils with the Hand-Wraps.)
Please look at Mystic Strike (p156 CRB) ability before you make the house rule. The rules intend that you would have to use handwraps.
It's an expected item pickup intended to fill in some of the needed gaps for a monk. Of course (as I always say) feel free to run your table how you like, but planning for them to acquire the item largely removes the need for a house rule.
Oh, I quite agree that the rules intend you have to use handwraps if you wanted to, say, add runes to your unarmed strikes. And as a result, it is very much an expected item pickup.
But as per the other comments, having handwraps do not, in fact, make them a weapon RAW.
I can't see any scenario in which considering a monk's unarmed strikes to be a weapon, would, in any meaningful way would unbalance things at my table.
That said, I am very open to other input and if anyone sees where that could potentially cause an issue, hit me! (pun intended)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fear, I suppose, is combining a monk's stances with other class' weapon attack abilities.
Tiger Claw and Wolf Jaw are the only way to combine the Agile property with a d8 damage die and Dragon Tail along with Animal Instinct barbarians are the only way to get d10 damage without getting a two-handed weapon.
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head that would be super problematic but I think that's what Paizo was worried about.
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head that would be super problematic but I think that's what Paizo was worried about.
They seem overly worried with a lot of the game. It seems they picked the most cautious way of doing things to start and only moved away from that if absolutely necessary. See things like Chirugeon's base ability, where they jumped through lots of hoops to avoid a much simpler and straightforward straight substitution. I can't figure out what goes off the rails if you'd use craft for medicine rolls, prerequisites and requirements with the Treat Wounds action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head that would be super problematic but I think that's what Paizo was worried about.They seem overly worried with a lot of the game. It seems they picked the most cautious way of doing things to start and only moved away from that if absolutely necessary. See things like Chirugeon's base ability, where they jumped through lots of hoops to avoid a much simpler and straightforward straight substitution. I can't figure out what goes off the rails if you'd use craft for medicine rolls, prerequisites and requirements with the Treat Wounds action.
After seeing a post today about a DM that had a bard at their table with +54 in Performance and just yesterday learning of the completely legal build of the "Painter Wizard", I kinda understand a little bit more this slow approach Paizo is having with the game, even if I would prefer PC's to have more freedom and some feats to be more meaningful aside from their very narrow uses.
After seeing a post today about a DM that had a bard at their table with +54 in Performance and just yesterday learning of the completely legal build of the "Painter Wizard"
I have NO context for this so I have no idea what to do with this comment. Maybe it has meaning to someone that's read the exact same threads you have. For instance, I have no way to know if that "+54 in Performance" was a math or understanding error or if this in any way relates to what I can only assume is a specific build of wizard?
*shrug* I cant help but think they pulled back too far on the alchemist vs the other classes even if we'd agree on the basic level of things for instance.
After seeing a post today about a DM that had a bard at their table with +54 in Performance and just yesterday learning of the completely legal build of the "Painter Wizard"I have NO context for this so I have no idea what to do with this comment. Maybe it has meaning to someone that's read the exact same threads you have. For instance, I have no way to know if that "+54 in Performance" was a math or understanding error or if this in any way relates to what I can only assume is a specific build of wizard?
*shrug* I cant help but think they pulled back too far on the alchemist vs the other classes even if we'd agree on the basic level of things for instance.
I realize I'm an idiot and didn't give even half of the context. But basically it was this post here: PF1e 11th level Bard with +54 Performance
And Painter Wizard was a build featured in this post: Painter Wizard
But I do agree with you that they got way too afraid to give some classes more power and with some of them, namely the alchemist, they completely took a different approach in design (at least apparently). While Fighters and Rogues got an insanely strong base chassis on top of good class feats, the alchemists were designed with a lot of constraints and the PF1e paradigm of having to pay feat taxes and suffer a lot of penalties don't offer a good enough pay off, not to mention some basic features like using its own class DC for items created by themselves, like casters do.
Lightning Raven:
On performance you threw me as the PF1 skill is perform. In PF1 it was possible to hyperfocus: for instance, you can get stealth and disguise in the 30's at 1st if you want to. For the most part it wasn't much of an issue as a lot of the time the +54 was trumped by a spell anyway.
As for the painter, the construct requirements are listed as HD = CL and as that can't be bypasses that means you have to be 10th level to make it. I don't think any DM wouldn't enforce it because its in the construction section instead of the prerequisites. It's a typo, not a loophole.
PS: thank you for the links as your points make much more sense [I generally don't read reddit so I'd have never connected your references]. PF1 had some quirks but I'd rather see a scalpel used to remove issues than a sledge hammer...
Lightning Raven:
On performance you threw me as the PF1 skill is perform. In PF1 it was possible to hyperfocus: for instance, you can get stealth and disguise in the 30's at 1st if you want to. For the most part it wasn't much of an issue as a lot of the time the +54 was trumped by a spell anyway.As for the painter, the construct requirements are listed as HD = CL and as that can't be bypasses that means you have to be 10th level to make it. I don't think any DM wouldn't enforce it because its in the construction section instead of the prerequisites. It's a typo, not a loophole.
PS: thank you for the links as your points make much more sense [I generally don't read reddit so I'd have never connected your references]. PF1 had some quirks but I'd rather see a scalpel used to remove issues than a sledge hammer...
The Trompe L'oeil Construct do not require a specific caster level (it must be in the requirements section, not the head text), which is the whole point of the "Painter Wizard" shtick, it was clarified in the Pearl of Power Errata. The text is long, but it truly checks out. It's absurd.
(it must be in the requirements section, not the head text)
It's in the construction section, not the description section of the monster: as such, it's clear to me it's a requirement and not the same as a pearl of power and actually has it in the description. Even if it's correct, it's clearly an error not taking the errata into account. Either way I don't see that issue as a deliberate design decision, and that's what we were talking about.
EDIT: we're wandering off topic, as we aren't talking about unarmed or Doubling Rings. ;)
Paizo is being very careful in PF2 about keeping Weapons & Unarmed separate. Both get boosts the other doesn't get or gets at different levels. I do not know what factors are accounted for, i.e. free hands, but it seems quite intentional given the specificity of language in Monk & Fighter feats. Ex. You could Flying Kick & punch somebody w/ a bare fist, but not with a gauntlet.
I think Doubling Rings exist only to balance 2W fighting w/ 2HW fighting and that unarmed simply does not work with them. This would include Handiwraps, since they can take weapon runes, but aren't a weapon to trigger the Doubling Rings.
It wouldn't bother me though if Paizo clarified that they're okay with making an exception for Handiwraps or made a different item that made this work. A rune for the Handiwraps might be a good balance point, though I say that not knowing the formulae behind Paizo's choices.
The Handiwraps themselves work w/ all unarmed attacks, so in a sense already achieve a similar status of working for several weapons. Ranged Unarmed Strikes (through Monk feats) would work with them.
Also, a gauntlet (though sub-par to most unarmed attacks) would also work for a similar feel.
It feels kind of weird that a non-monk can combine doubling rings to pair a sword and an offhand gauntlet (for punching) since gauntlets are weapons, but it's hard for the monk.
We need better feat support for weapon monks, so there's design space for a feat with for something to combine unarmed attacks and weapons.
We need better feat support for weapon monks, so there's design space for a feat with for something to combine unarmed attacks and weapons.
I think that flurry is meant to cover this: for instance, Monastic Weaponry and flurry allows a punch/kick and a Temple Sword attack in a single action: this doesn't solve needing to enchant handwraps and a weapon but that's an item issue, not a feat one.
We need better feat support for weapon monks, so there's design space for a feat with for something to combine unarmed attacks and weapons.I think that flurry is meant to cover this: for instance, Monastic Weaponry and flurry allows a punch/kick and a Temple Sword attack in a single action: this doesn't solve needing to enchant handwraps and a weapon but that's an item issue, not a feat one.
Well, specifically the problem is that the non-monk who wants to combine gauntlet punching and swordfighting can swing the doubling rings so they just need to pay for the rings (50 gp, later 1,300gp) instead of having to maintain runes on two separate weapons (a major striking rune is like 30,000gp).
We could give the weapon and fist monk something where they can apply their handwrap enhancement to a weapon (by wrapping it around the weapon and not the hand).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Handwraps are also great for ancestries that get natural attacks. If the rings worked on them you could have a two handed weapon and still have other attack options all with runes. I don't see the problem with it as the only point of doubling rings is to save money, if you can get a job for a few weeks then they become rather pointless. Money comes and goes, so not really a balance issue to me.