If I have Ascetic style with a waveblade, can I have a +10 blade (+5 enhancement, +5 other stuff) and +5 AoMF (with other abilities), and they all combine when I attack?
You can never breach a +5 enhancement bonus save for an effect like Bane/Ferocity/etc. that raises the *effective* enhancement bonus by 2.
Also, ascetic style does not allow you to use items that benefit unarmed strikes with things that are not unarmed strikes.
Choose one weapon from the monk fighter weapon group. While using this style and wielding the chosen weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks.
An item's enhancement bonus isn't an effect, but a spell like stone-fist is, as is the monk's unarmed strike damage increases, and so on.
The answer to that is a very complicated technically yes… it technically works because it operates under the same rule as magic arrows fired from a magic bow… all enchantments apply, but only the highest enhancement bonus applies… however, despite it technically working it isn’t exactly intended by the rules and attempting to do this may very well result in your DM throwing a rule book at you.
Also, ascetic style does not allow you to use items that benefit unarmed strikes with things that are not unarmed strikes.
Choose one weapon from the monk fighter weapon group. While using this style and wielding the chosen weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks.An item's enhancement bonus isn't an effect, but a spell like stone-fist is, as is the monk's unarmed strike damage increases, and so on.
An AoMF is infact an effect that augments unarmed strikes.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
It explicitly augments the attack and damage roll of the unarmed strike… this is why there is technically a loophole in the normal rules here that shouldn’t be allowed…
i don't see how they can stack though? both are 'enhancement bonus' to the same attack and they same damage. these never stack. (not anymore then a magical weapon get both it's magical enhancement bonus to hit and the +1 enhancement from the fact it's also masterwork).
even the arrow and bow example you had doesn't stack. a +5 arrow shot from a +5 bow still only get +5 to hit and damage. the bow grant the arrow a +5 enhancement to hit and damage if the arrow already have it they just don't stack.
i don't see how they can stack though? both are 'enhancement bonus' to the same attack and they same damage. these never stack. (not anymore then a magical weapon get both it's magical enhancement bonus to hit and the +1 enhancement from the fact it's also masterwork).
even the arrow and bow example you had doesn't stack. a +5 arrow shot from a +5 bow still only get +5 to hit and damage. the bow grant the arrow a +5 enhancement to hit and damage if the arrow already have it they just don't stack.
The AoMF wouldn't get a static bonus, but, hypothetically, would have Holy, Flaming, Shocking, and Frost. Or whatever. Things that the weapon itself doesn't have.
I think what the OP is trying to do is to stack non-bonus enchantments from the AoMF. For example, if the sword had the vorpal enchantment and the amulet had speed and bane in addition to their actual enchantment bonus.
There's also a rule (don't have the FAQ handy) that you can never go above an +10 total enhancement value.
Neither the sword nor the amulet is going over the +10 enchantment limit. As Chell pointed out it is similar to what happens when you fire a magic arrow from a magic bow.
There's also a rule (don't have the FAQ handy) that you can never go above an +10 total enhancement value.
Not an FAQ, what you're thinking about is this: "A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10." (CRB pg. 468), but that's only about stuff like a Paragon's Divine Bond that affects a weapon, not about stacking different effects on the attack.
There's also a rule (don't have the FAQ handy) that you can never go above an +10 total enhancement value.Not an FAQ, what you're thinking about is this: "A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10." (CRB pg. 468), but that's only about stuff like a Paragon's Divine Bond that affects a weapon, not about stacking different effects on the attack.
How does that not apply?
1) You can't go above +5 in flat enhancement, and you can't go above +10 total equivalent (doesn't matter source).OP has a weapon that already has a +10 equivalent to it, so nothing else can be added.
Chell's statement doesn't change anything because it's an enhancement bonus, of which the weapon is already maxed out on.
It's basically a case of having two sources of enhancement bonuses and special abilities applied to the same weapon. At best a lenient GM might let you choose round by round which source you're applying, but you certainly don't end up with +15 to attack and damage nor do you get to apply all the special abilities.
There's still the simple matter that having an AoMF that only benefits your natural attacks isn't the same thing as having an effect that boosts your unarmed attacks. If you actually made punches (or claws, bite, etc.) then it would apply, because the enhancement is applied directly to your natural attacks such as unarmed, not directly to a pool of "effects that benefit unarmed strikes" that unarmed attacks get to benefit from. You have +X hands for your +X AoMF, not your hands get +X to attack/Dmg.
How does that not apply?
Becasue the AoMF is not added to the weapon, it's still a seperate item. Basically, the AoMF's effects are added to the attack, not the weapon itself.
How does that not apply?Becasue the AoMF is not added to the weapon, it's still a seperate item. Basically, the AoMF's effects are added to the attack, not the weapon itself.
Yeah. It's similar to a warpriest sacred weapon or a magus arcane pool.
natural attacks such as unarmed
Unarmed Strike isn't a natural attack. That you apparently don't know that makes me call into doubt your suitability of talking about the topic.
the enhancement is applied directly to your natural attacks such as unarmed, not directly to a pool of "effects that benefit unarmed strikes" that unarmed attacks get to benefit from
What? If it's applied, it's an effect. Stop making up stuff about a "pool", no one claimed there was such a thing.
Making your unarmed strikes stronger is an effect, and one that augments an unarmed strike. That's all the feat asks for.
Hell, even the author of the feat said it makes AoMF and weapon enchantments stack!
Yeah. It's similar to a warpriest sacred weapon or a magus arcane pool.How does that not apply?Becasue the AoMF is not added to the weapon, it's still a seperate item. Basically, the AoMF's effects are added to the attack, not the weapon itself.
Er, what? Those are added to the weapon, and are subject to the +10 limit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Amulet of Mighty Fists: Does this allow a creature's natural attacks to bypass damage reduction if the enhancement bonus is high enough (as noted on page 562)?
Yes. If the amulet grants at least a +3 enhancement bonus it allows a creature's natural attacks to bypass cold iron and silver damage reduction. If it is +4, it allows them to bypass adamantine damage reduction (although not hardness), and if it is +5, it allows them to bypass alignment-based damage reduction.
That shows that it is an enhancement bonus applied to the hand, not a bonus to the attack. Otherwise, it would work as a bow enhancement, that doesn't allow you to bypass those DR.
The +10 bonus-equivalent limitation is a hard cap for all weapons; you can't exceed that even with class abilities or other unusual abilities.
A hard cap is a hard cap, combining stuff doesn't allow you to bypass it.
Unusual abilities include magic items.
natural attacks such as unarmedUnarmed Strike isn't a natural attack. That you apparently don't know that makes me call into doubt your suitability of talking about the topic.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
The item benefits both because they are both made with the natural body, as opposed to say a sword, cestus, etc. It's affecting the character's body, and an attack made with anything body the character's body would not get the enhancement bonus applied to it.
the enhancement is applied directly to your natural attacks such as unarmed, not directly to a pool of "effects that benefit unarmed strikes" that unarmed attacks get to benefit fromWhat? If it's applied, it's an effect. Stop making up stuff about a "pool", no one claimed there was such a thing.
Making your unarmed strikes stronger is an effect, and one that augments an unarmed strike. That's all the feat asks for.
Hell, even the author of the feat said it makes AoMF and weapon enchantments stack!
Yes, lets quote the rules from a rando brought in to write part of one book who also got wrong that an AoMF can have a max +10 effective enhancement bonus (it can't).
An enhancement bonus with a wielded weapon is not an effect you aren't wielding the weapon that is enhanced when you use an AoMF and Ascetic style (assuming you didn't take it on unarmed for some reason).
How does that not apply?Becasue the AoMF is not added to the weapon, it's still a seperate item. Basically, the AoMF's effects are added to the attack, not the weapon itself.
Regardless of whether or not that is true by RAW, it's obviously not the intention of the rules.
Now, a more interesting question than the OP's is "if you have a +5 weapon with a +1 special ability and an AOMF with +4 of special abilities on it, do you get everything" and I think the answer there is yes. That works fine and is cheaper. But I don't buy this whole "it's two separate things and you should ignore the +10 cap rule".
How does that not apply?Becasue the AoMF is not added to the weapon, it's still a seperate item. Basically, the AoMF's effects are added to the attack, not the weapon itself.Regardless of whether or not that is true by RAW, it's obviously not the intention of the rules.
Now, a more interesting question than the OP's is "if you have a +5 weapon with a +1 special ability and an AOMF with +4 of special abilities on it, do you get everything" and I think the answer there is yes. That works fine and is cheaper. But I don't buy this whole "it's two separate things and you should ignore the +10 cap rule".
It is absolutely not RAI… the author of the feat has even stated that very clearly… it was never intended to work this way, but due to an oversight and poor wording on his part, it is RAW… he even requested it to be cleared up or changed in an FAQ or Errata, but nothing was ever done about it.
I dunno where yall are getting this "Hard cap" thing, where not even Arcane Pools can boost it. It may be there, I just haven't seen it. And if that's the case, does it specify that a Furious weapon can go above the +5? Or bring it above the +10 hard cap?
I've always assumed a magus can add abilities to a weapon, even if it has a +10 total.
I dunno where yall are getting this "Hard cap" thing, where not even Arcane Pools can boost it. It may be there, I just haven't seen it.
I quoted it in the ninth post in this thread.
That shows that it is an enhancement bonus applied to the hand, not a bonus to the attack. Otherwise, it would work as a bow enhancement, that doesn't allow you to bypass those DR.
Irrelevant, because even if we assume that the FAQ is a clarification and not a superposition of the rules (i.e. a specific exception), an AoMF doesn't make an unarmed strike a weapon (e.g. you can't cast Magic Weapon on them), it merely makes attacks with it count as attacks made with a magic weapon with the respective enchantment(s). AoMF doesn't add enchantments to an existing weapon, because it can't, as there is no such existing weapon. And if it doesn't add enchantments to an existing weapon for natural attacks and unarmed strikes, it also doesn't do so for when it's applied to an actual weapon via Ascetic Style. It doesn't matter if AoMF's effect is "apply these ennchantments when attacking with US" or "makes your US count as a weapon possessing these enchantments", it cannot possibly add the enchantments to an existing weapon, adn thus can't be affected by the rule that says "A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus [...] higher than +10.", as this is one of the cases where "treated as" is ≠ "have".
A hard cap is a hard cap, combining stuff doesn't allow you to bypass it.
Unusual abilities include magic items.
That you can break it by using a projectile weapons with magic ammunition proves that it's not a hard cap on the attack.
You made an objectively wrong statement. Own up to it.
The item benefits both because they are both made with the natural body
Wrong. It benefits US and NA because it says so. The item may have been designed to affect both because both are made with only the body, but for a rule discussion that's irrelevant.
There is literally one question here: Is the AoMF (or its benefits, if you will) an effect that augments unarmed strikes. It has absolutely no bearing what else it does or does not affect.
An enhancement bonus with a wielded weapon is not an effect
The AoMF is a wondrous item, not a weapon. Nor is unarmed strike a weapon for such rules. So either AoMF doesn't do anything, or your point is moot.
you aren't wielding the weapon that is enhanced when you use an AoMF and Ascetic style (assuming you didn't take it on unarmed for some reason).
You aren't using unarmed strikes, either, and yet Ascetic Strike lets you profit from e.g. Mizu Ki Hikari Rebel. The feat changes what you apply, that's literally what it was made to do.
1st, bows (any projectile weapon) are allowed to pass on their enchantment to ammunition because of a specific rule that allows that for projectile weapons. You cannot just apply those rules to other weapons or attacks.
2nd, projectile weapons cannot bypass the hardlimit of +10 by shooting magical ammunition. The GM decides how to handle such a case, but they are very rare cases.
3rd, Amulet of Mighty Fist stacks with Handwraps, but that does not let you bypass the +10 limit either.
4th, Ascetic Style does let you benefit from Amulet of Mighty Fist and Handwraps with the chosen weapon. That is literally what the feat is for, the only argument against it is that some people don't like it.
5th, no, you cannot bypass the +10 limit this way. Once again the only thing that can bypass the limit is things like Bane. Stop trying to bypass the limit, you just can't do it unless the GM actively removes that rule: Not magus, not casters, not arcane archers, not paladins, not occultists, not fighters, not spiritualists, nobody.
6th, the closest you will even get to bypassing the cap is using a shield or armor spike. The reason being that weapon enchantment is separate from shield and armor enchantments. Yes you can have a +10 shield enhancement bonus along with a +10 weapon enhancement bonus, it will cost you 440,000 gp but its theoretically possible.
100% this.
You could totally have a +5 weapon with no special abilities, ascetic style, a +1 amulet of mighty fists with all the special abilities you want. The amulet will pass on the special abilities to the weapon, but only up to +5 worth of abilities because otherwise the weapon would exceed the hard cap of +10. If for some reason the amulet has more than +5 worth of special abilities, I would let the player choose which special abilities are passed on every time combat starts (every attack, or even every round is too good, and the rules don't really explain how we should handle such a scenario).
2nd, projectile weapons cannot bypass the hardlimit of +10 by shooting magical ammunition.
Why not? Which rule prevents that? The one that says "A single weapon"? I don't see how a magic bow and a magic arrow, two seperate objects, are affected by that.
The FAQ on DR penetration with magic projectile weapons actually shows that a magic projectile weapon's enchantments do not get added to the ammunition, otherwise they would help overcome DR. Only bestowing just the benefit of the enchantment(s) and not the actual enchantments can result in DR not being penetrated.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, becasue I don't like that rule, but it needs to be something that doesn't exclusively talks about weapons rather than attacks.
3rd, Amulet of Mighty Fist stacks with Handwraps, but that does not let you bypass the +10 limit either.
No, you can't: "A character can’t benefit from both handwraps and other items that provide enhancement bonuses or weapon special abilities (such as an amulet of mighty fists) on the same attack."
Once again the only thing that can bypass the limit is things like Bane.
That Bane, Holy et al. do bypass the cap further show that it's not a cap on the attack, but only on the weapon.
The amulet will pass on the special abilities to the weapon
But, it doesn't, it passes on the special abilities to the attack. Read the feat description again, it says "as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks.", not 'as if the weapon was unarmed strike.'
I understand what it says, but it's not intended to actually function that way and bypass the limits.
I understand what it says, but it's not intended to actually function that way and bypass the limits.
This is a RAW vs RAI issue in which we have a definitive statement of RAI from the author as well as a statement of RAW verified by the same author…
RAW it does in fact work the same way as magic arrows fired from a magic bow, which per RAW does allow for a total modified enhancement bonus above +10 but only the highest actual enhancement bonus from the two sources applies and only the enhancement bonus on the actual physical arrows applies to DR. Translated over this means that Ascetic Style allows you to benefit from effects on an AoMF with your chosen weapon and stack your modified enhancements above +10 but only the highest actual enhancement bonus applies and only the enhancement bonuses on the physical weapon apply to DR.
RAI, this interaction was entirely unintended and if the author of the Ascetic Style feat were permitted to he would correct it. He wanted it fixed in an FAQ or Errata but it was left as is.
Because of this, it is purely up to table variation as to if it is allowed in your game or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In total transparency, I also don't think the "RAW" for bow and arrow interaction should be permissible either and also apply the same +10 hard cap to them. There's no good reason to allow it for bow + arrow.
They almost have to stack, because then you get weird questions about what to leave out. And Pathfinder tends to avoid issues like that. Say you have a +1 bow with an additional +7 worth of abilities. Combine that with an arrow that is +5 with an additional different +2 worth of abilities. What is the result of the final attack? What gets kept and what gets left out?
I understand what it says, but it's not intended to actually function that way and bypass the limits.
I'm not saying it must be ruled that way, but not allowing it is a divergence from the RAW, and people should make informed decisions - for which it's necessary to know what the truth is. If a GM wants to not have the weapon's enchantments and AoMF stack, or impose a hard limit of +10 bonus affecting any given attack, that's fine, but it should be made with the knowledge that it's a houserule, and not out of ignorance and the misbelieve that's what the rules are.
Part of it is that there is no magic bullet that solves the issue. Sure, one could ban stacking, but how do you explain why the archer can stack bonuses, but their Monk can't? And as Melkiador said, if you impose a hard +10 limit to attacks, how do you decide which enchantments get ignored? Plus, how do you handle a Vigilante with Steel Soldier, a magic armor, and an AoMF? RAW they stack, too, but there is no actual weapon involved, but rather merely apply the enchantment(s) on something else; the total effective nchantments also max out at +10. Do you ban that, too, even though it bypasses the main issues? ANd if not, how do you justify treating it differently from the similar case of Ascetic Style?
It should be noted that unless a player overspends on weapons, the +10 limit only becomes relevant at ~18th level.
This is a RAW vs RAI issue in which we have a definitive statement of RAI from the author as well as a statement of RAW verified by the same author…
It's a little bit more complicated in that the author's intend is not the definitive RAI. There's a sort of hierarchy of who's intend matters most, and the author is at the very bottom, below the editor(s) and the design team. We have the author's statement on the topic, but not the editor, nor do we know about the design team's stance on stacking enchantments in an indirect way.
Which is part of why usually I hesitate to call something RAI unless it's very clear (like that Simple Weapon Proficiency's "without penalty" only applies to the non-proficiency penalty, not others). We almost never know enough people's position on the topic.
This is a RAW vs RAI issue in which we have a definitive statement of RAI from the author as well as a statement of RAW verified by the same author…It's a little bit more complicated in that the author's intend is not the definitive RAI. There's a sort of hierarchy of who's intend matters most, and the author is at the very bottom, below the editor(s) and the design team. We have the author's statement on the topic, but not the editor, nor do we know about the design team's stance on stacking enchantments in an indirect way.
Which is part of why usually I hesitate to call something RAI unless it's very clear (like that Simple Weapon Proficiency's "without penalty" only applies to the non-proficiency penalty, not others). We almost never know enough people's position on the topic.
Simple weapon prof is a poor example to illustrate your point with… Simple Weapon Prof isn’t a RAW vs RAI issue, but rather a rules hierarchy issue… people who try to argue that it allows them to ignore all penalties are ignoring the rules hierarchy. General rule, lacking proficiency results in -4 penalty on attack rolls. Simple Weapon Prof feat applies a new more specific general rule for the user that they may use simple weapons with no penalty. Other abilities and feats or rules that add penalties are even more specific rules than that and as such override the “without penalty” rule. The only penalty that rule overrides is non-proficiency because it is the only penalty applied by a more general rule. And we know it is considered a more general rule because of the Normal line of the feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno where yall are getting this "Hard cap" thing, where not even Arcane Pools can boost it. It may be there, I just haven't seen it.I quoted it in the ninth post in this thread.
That shows that it is an enhancement bonus applied to the hand, not a bonus to the attack. Otherwise, it would work as a bow enhancement, that doesn't allow you to bypass those DR.Irrelevant, because even if we assume that the FAQ is a clarification and not a superposition of the rules (i.e. a specific exception), an AoMF doesn't make an unarmed strike a weapon (e.g. you can't cast Magic Weapon on them), it merely makes attacks with it count as attacks made with a magic weapon with the respective enchantment(s). AoMF doesn't add enchantments to an existing weapon, because it can't, as there is no such existing weapon. And if it doesn't add enchantments to an existing weapon for natural attacks and unarmed strikes, it also doesn't do so for when it's applied to an actual weapon via Ascetic Style. It doesn't matter if AoMF's effect is "apply these ennchantments when attacking with US" or "makes your US count as a weapon possessing these enchantments", it cannot possibly add the enchantments to an existing weapon, adn thus can't be affected by the rule that says "A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus [...] higher than +10.", as this is one of the cases where "treated as" is ≠ "have".
That you can break it by using a projectile weapons with magic ammunition proves that it's not a hard cap on the attack.A hard cap is a hard cap, combining stuff doesn't allow you to bypass it.
Unusual abilities include magic items.
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.
AMULET OF MIGHTY FISTS
Aura faint evocation; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 4,000 gp (+1), 16,000 gp (+2), 36,000 gp (+3), 64,000 gp (+4), 100,000 gp (+5); Weight —
DESCRIPTION
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table 15–9 for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack
or damage bonuses.
Magic Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: When a ranged weapon shares its enhancement bonus with its ammunition, does this count as “true” enhancement bonus or more like a temporary bonus like greater magic weapon? In other words, does the shared enhancement bonus allow the arrow to bypass damage reduction as if it was cold iron, silver, adamantine, and aligned?
No, other than the ways indicated in the Core Rulebook (if the ranged weapon is at least +1, they count as magic, and if the ranged weapon is aligned they count as that alignment as well) the enhancement bonus granted to ammunition from the ranged weapon doesn’t help them overcome the other types of damage reduction. Archers and other such characters can buy various sorts of ammunition or ammunition with a high enhancement bonus to overcome the various types of damage reduction.
The amulet of Mighty Fists and magical bows and arrows have very different rules. One enhances the weapon (unarmed attacks are weapons, they aren't manufactured weapons), while a missile weapon enhancement gives a bonus to attack n damage, and makes the ammunition magical. That bonus overlaps the ammunition enhancement.
Special abilities from missile weapons have the text:
Projectile weapons with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.
(you find the same text in the description of the abilities in the CRB).
As the weapon bestow the special ability to the arrow, you fall again under the +10 cap limit, as the projectile can't have more than a +10 total of enhancement and special abilities, even if the special abilities come from the missile weapon.You guys remember a 3.x ruling, that doesn't applies to Pathfinder.
P.S.: I agree that you can have a +1 brilliant energy, Greater designating, Flaming arrow benefit for the +5 bonus to hit and damage from a bow enhancement, as it isn't an enhancement to the arrow. But that arrow will only count as +1 for DR penetration.
|
|
... Holy et al. do bypass the cap further show that it's not a cap on the attack, but only on the weapon.
Holy doesn't add anything to the weapon enhancement. It allows it to bypass DR/Good (and in some instances DR/Epic), but the weapon enhancement stays the same.
DR/Epic is a bit of a mess, see FAQ:
DR/Epic: How do the new rules for overcoming DR/epic (page 7) interact with weapon special abilities that have variable enhancement bonuses, such as bane and furious?
Essentially, there are now two ways to overcome DR/epic with magic weapons.
The first way is presented in the Universal Monster Rules in the Bestiary: You can use a weapon that has an actual enhancement bonus of +6 or higher. Currently the Pathfinder RPG has no weapons with a permanent +6 or higher enhancement bonus (though you can temporarily achieve a +6 or higher enhancement bonus with certain magical or class abilities).
The second way is presented in Mythic Adventures: You can use a weapon that has a total "plus-equivalent" of +6 or higher. For example, a +1 vorpal longsword and a +2 flaming frost shock keen longsword both are +6-equivalent magic weapons.
A weapon with a conditional or variable enhancement bonus, such as bane or furious, gets the best of both options. As a baseline, it include the plus-equivalences for its enhancement bonuses and special abilities; when the conditional or variable enhancement bonuses activate, it adds those to its total as well.
For example, a +3 undead-bane longsword is a +4-equivalent weapon, which on its own is not enough to overcome DR/epic. When used against an undead creature, its enhancement bonus increases by an additional +2, making it effectively a +6-equivalent weapon (+3 baseline enhancement bonus, +1-equivalent from bane, +2 conditional enhancement bonus against undead from bane) and therefore able to overcome that undead creature's DR/epic. (Another way of looking at it is when bane is active, you add its conditional +2 enhancement bonus to the weapon's normal +4-equivalent bonus, temporarily giving you a +6-equivalent weapon).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what it says, but it's not intended to actually function that way and bypass the limits.I'm not saying it must be ruled that way, but not allowing it is a divergence from the RAW, and people should make informed decisions - for which it's necessary to know what the truth is. If a GM wants to not have the weapon's enchantments and AoMF stack, or impose a hard limit of +10 bonus affecting any given attack, that's fine, but it should be made with the knowledge that it's a houserule, and not out of ignorance and the misbelieve that's what the rules are.
Part of it is that there is no magic bullet that solves the issue. Sure, one could ban stacking, but how do you explain why the archer can stack bonuses, but their Monk can't? And as Melkiador said, if you impose a hard +10 limit to attacks, how do you decide which enchantments get ignored? Plus, how do you handle a Vigilante with Steel Soldier, a magic armor, and an AoMF? RAW they stack, too, but there is no actual weapon involved, but rather merely apply the enchantment(s) on something else; the total effective nchantments also max out at +10. Do you ban that, too, even though it bypasses the main issues? ANd if not, how do you justify treating it differently from the similar case of Ascetic Style?
It should be noted that unless a player overspends on weapons, the +10 limit only becomes relevant at ~18th level.
This is a RAW vs RAI issue in which we have a definitive statement of RAI from the author as well as a statement of RAW verified by the same author…It's a little bit more complicated in that the author's intend is not the definitive RAI. There's a sort of hierarchy of who's intend matters most, and the...
I blanket bank anything stacking to over +10, unless maybe the group is playing some crazy epic (not mythic) campaign (which I wouldn't run anyways).
All those things you mentioned do stack, and that's fine. I just don't let them stack above +10. As for how to resolve which abilities remain active, I would let the player choose per combat (changing mid combat is probably too much, but letting them choose at the start of each combat seems reasonable).
As you mentioned, it's also not super likely to happen anyways because of the general expense of such items. Even if one wanted a +5 weapon and a +1 thing with +5 of abilities that's still 122,000 gp cost. And you don't have that much gold until level 13. And I as a GMwould enforce the general rule suggestion that you can't spend 100% of your wealth on such items. IIRC it's limited to 25% of wealth be spent on weapon(s) (I can't recall for sure because it's rarely come up in my games).
Basically it's only a problem if a player really tries to abuse it, in which case they'll probably be doing other things that I'm not particularly fond of as a player/GM and I'd probably have a conversation with them outside of game time about the kind of game I'm trying to run and whether or not they're a good fit.
A minor nitpick on a sub-thought.
It is not an indication at all whether the enhancement bonuses to an attack stack or not. This is already covered by the general rule that bonuses of the same type do not stack unless explicitly allowed too (eg, dodge). The line is simply reminder text of the general stacking rules as applied to a bonus of type 'enhancement'. Note the reminder text in the handwraps specifically says the enhancement bonus does not stack.
The non-enhancement bonuses (flaming, holy, etc) are of course not governed by the stacking bonuses rule.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a little bit more complicated in that the author's intend is not the definitive RAI. There's a sort of hierarchy of who's intend matters most, and the author is at the very bottom, below the editor(s) and the design team.
So many problems with this statement. Starting with this bombastic assertion- pulled from one persons opinion of what the hierarchy should be, noting that the Design Team is the definitive RAW source, brief digression to note that the designers openly stated they rarely gave a pass over softcover material, and moving through the editors whose role is to check grammar, not rules/lore (maybe you meant developers?). But most importantly the author’s intent IS the definitive intent.
I freelanced a tiny bit for Paizo during 1E. When I wrote, I wrote what I intended. If a developer made a change they would communicate back what the change was. Or, far more likely, tell me what the problem was and ask me to change it. Even if there was no communication (never happened to me) I could easily look and see if changes were made. When Alex says “I meant for it to work this way, do that unless the designers say they want it to work another way” - that’s the intent.
Saying that the author’s intent, the person who came up with the idea and visualized how it was going to be used (maybe not visualizing some possible misuses), doesn’t matter unless someone higher up a made-up priority chain happens to publicly agree that the author knows his own intent. . . that’s an argument that can’t hold up.
It’s the levels of intent that is encouraged for Pathfinder.
Design team
Editors
Writers
There have been many times where an editor has overwritten the original intent. And while the design team has final say, their rulings often don’t mesh with what’s actually present in the text either.
It’s the levels of intent that is encouraged for Pathfinder.
Design team
Editors
WritersThere have been many times where an editor has overwritten the original intent. And while the design team has final say, their rulings often don’t mesh with what’s actually present in the text either.
Even if the writers intent is considered the lowest in the hierarchy, their intent shouldn’t be dismissed just because “we haven’t heard anything from editors or design team” or “editors and design team didn’t change it”… the fact that the higher ups in the hierarchy haven’t weighed in on it means the writers intent IS the only official intent we have and should be considered as THE intent until someone higher up weighs in on it. From what we’ve heard from the writer on the subject, it was even a case of their requested changes being denied, their requests were just simply not acted on, in other-words ignored, forgotten, or unseen.
|
|
I'll give an example of this from my own writing.
I wrote an adventure which included a minor magic item. The command word to activate was inscribed on it in Infernal, and the word itself also served as a hint to the next part of the adventure. The background included a family that made deals with devils, the item had hell motifs, there was even a reminder in the adventure that one of the NPCs spoke Infernal in case the players were unable to translate it themselves.
Well, when I actually wrote up the item description I somehow wrote "Abyssal" instead of "Infernal." I didn't catch it, the developer didn't catch it, the editor didn't catch it. (The designers almost certainly never even looked at it.) It was published with "Abyssal." Sure enough, someone running the adventure caught it quite quickly and asked if that was supposed to be Infernal. I looked back over my turnover and, sure enough, I had written the wrong word. "Whoops," I replied. "Yeah, that's supposed to be Infernal." That was the only acknowledgement. The developer didn't respond, nor did anyone else with a golem by their name.
So is someone really going to argue that the players have to speak Abyssal to read the word? The author acknowledged the mistake and said what the correction should be. But since no one else did we are stuck with it as Abyssal?
I feel we usually try to give all of the information around here. There's "official" and then there's best practices. Players need to be informed of both when asking a question, because you can never be sure which way your GM is going to go.
We have a few developers around here who gave intent on things that don't really match with what is written. In general, this community tends to side with those interpretations and recommend them. But it's still not "official", and your GM may still decide to go against them. So, just be prepared.
Holy doesn't add anything to the weapon enhancement.
Oops, I meant to write "Furious".
I'm not saying that I disagree with the apparent RAW, but I'd say the "how else would you do it?" is a weak argument (assuming it's rhetorical), since there would be consistent ways to do it, just no method provided by the rules.
It's an indication that it's not intended, because if they don't stack, there is a situation not covered by the rules, and you would need to use houserules. That goes against everything the game is about: A pre-existing ruleset so that the people playing the game don't have to make up stuff.
It is not an indication at all whether the enhancement bonuses to an attack stack or not. This is already covered by the general rule that bonuses of the same type do not stack unless explicitly allowed too (eg, dodge). The line is simply reminder text of the general stacking rules as applied to a bonus of type 'enhancement'.
What? No! That line is explicitly preventing handwraps form stacking with any weapon enchantments from stuff like AoMF.
It's very much not reminder text, and that's exactly my point - they had to add ruletext to not have handwraps and AoMF stack.
But most importantly the author’s intent IS the definitive intent.
What if an editor changes the text because they intend the ability to do somethign different? What if the PDT issue an FAQ or erratum that change what the ability does because they intend it to be different?
CLaiming what those people think an ability should do wasn't part of any intend is utterly nonsensical. If an editor or dev or the PDT change something in the rules, at that point their intend is the only one that matters, becasue they altered the rules to fit that intend.
Saying that the author’s intent, the person who came up with the idea and visualized how it was going to be used (maybe not visualizing some possible misuses), doesn’t matter unless someone higher up a made-up priority chain happens to publicly agree that the author knows his own intent. . . that’s an argument that can’t hold up.
I didn't say that. You're arguing against a strawman rather than why I said.
When Alex says “I meant for it to work this way, do that unless the designers say they want it to work another way” - that’s the intent.
No, that's his intend. Do you know the editor's intend on what the feat should do? No you don't, because you're not psychic.
I'm glad the reality amuses you.
Even if the writers intent is considered the lowest in the hierarchy, their intent shouldn’t be dismissed just because “we haven’t heard anything from editors or design team” or “editors and design team didn’t change it”…
Not what I said, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But most importantly the author’s intent IS the definitive intent.What if an editor changes the text because they intend the ability to do somethign different? What if the PDT issue an FAQ or erratum that change what the ability does because they intend it to be different?
CLaiming what those people think an ability should do wasn't part of any intend is utterly nonsensical. If an editor or dev or the PDT change something in the rules, at that point their intend is the only one that matters, becasue they altered the rules to fit that intend.
Saying that the author’s intent, the person who came up with the idea and visualized how it was going to be used (maybe not visualizing some possible misuses), doesn’t matter unless someone higher up a made-up priority chain happens to publicly agree that the author knows his own intent. . . that’s an argument that can’t hold up.I didn't say that. You're arguing against a strawman rather than why I said.
When Alex says “I meant for it to work this way, do that unless the designers say they want it to work another way” - that’s the intent.No, that's his intend. Do you know the editor's intend on what the feat should do? No you don't, because you're not psychic.
I'm glad the reality amuses you.
Even if the writers intent is considered the lowest in the hierarchy, their intent shouldn’t be dismissed just because “we haven’t heard anything from editors or design team” or “editors and design team didn’t change it”…Not what I said, either.
You have contradicted yourself multiple times in this very post... You claim you didn't say the writer's intent doesn't matter unless someone higher up on the hierarchy makes a statement of their intent, then you IMMEDIATELY followed up by doing exactly that. You straight up dismissed the Author's intent because "we don't know what the editor's intent is". We don't know what it is BECAUSE NO EDITOR EVER STATED THEIR INTENT ON THIS!. And then you claim you didn't say to dismiss the writer's intent simply because we don't have a statement of intent from a higher up, right after you LITTERALY JUST DID EXACTLY THAT! You may not have "said" to do it, but you absolutely DID do it.
What? No! That line is explicitly preventing handwraps form stacking with any weapon enchantments from stuff like AoMF.
It's very much not reminder text, and that's exactly my point - they had to add ruletext to not have handwraps and AoMF stack.
However, masterwork handwraps can be enchanted as weapons, providing their benefits on unarmed attacks the character makes with her hands.
The enhancement bonus is applied to the unarmed attacks.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
AoMF applies an enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks.
We now have two things providing an enhancement bonus (something not normally stackable by the general rule) to the same thing - the unarmed attack.
Contrast this with a magus arcane pool enhancement.
These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5.
That line is not preventing something normally allowed. You are not normally allowed to stack enhancements bonuses to attacks. You need an exception to allow it. The general rules already cover the not stackable. It is, therefore, reminder text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, masterwork handwraps can be enchanted as weapons, providing their benefits on unarmed attacks the character makes with her hands.
The enhancement bonus is applied to the unarmed attacks.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
AoMF applies an enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks.
We now have two things providing an enhancement bonus (something not normally stackable by the general rule) to the same thing - the unarmed attack.
Contrast this with a magus arcane pool enhancement.
These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5.
That line is not preventing something normally allowed. You are not normally allowed to stack enhancements bonuses to attacks. You need an exception to allow it. The general rules already cover the not stackable. It is, therefore, reminder text.
I think you might be a bit too hung up on the raw Enhancement Bonus… I’m pretty sure everyone in this thread is in agreement that the Enhancement Bonus doesn’t stack… there is no special wording in any of the items or feats involved to allow it. The issue is Weapon Special Abilities. One side of the argument says +10 hard cap can’t be exceeded under any circumstances (at least one person even extending this to the explicit rules for Magic Ammo that explicitly allow for this limit to be exceeded, claiming that rule to be a mistake)… the other side of the arguments says Ascetic Style + AoMF can exceed this limit in the same way that magic ammo does. Regardless of what side of the argument people are on, we all seem to understand that the Enhancement Bonus cannot exceed +5 AND only the highest Enhancement Bonus from the weapon or AoMF applies.