in a game that consider RAW at face value if it's not out right stupid. (as in if the rules doesn't say stuff, use logic, but when it say stuff you follow it as much as possible)
- monk\brawler get to use any part of body for unarmed strike and it 'treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that modify either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.' (from brawler)
- this faq state that:
"Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes."
and Rune of durability that follow pretty much to same target as spells like magic weapon has:
"Target weapon touched
Duration permanent
..A weapon that bears this rune multiplies its hit points by 2.."
so what do you think?
Edit.
GM said 'anything in the AON'.
so if that work i'm also thinking about Hardening. the spell can be used on items with no hardness, and hardness 0 +10 = 10 after all...
and paying for spell casting is only 10*spell level * caster level, so 20*10*6 = 1,200 gp for permanent hardness 10.
?? i never intended to use magic fang (at least not as part of this question).
magic fang is an example on how these spells work for the monk\brawler and how the rune should work as well - on how the spell format is the same (except the duration etc).
What are your weapon stats?
Not your class HP and constitution bonus. It is "body made by flesh and bones". Hardness 0, maybe 10 hp. At most, you can double those HPs.
Then there is the interesting corollary of this line of thinking. Your body can be sudered.
"I sunder his right arm weapon!" and chop!, away with your right arm.
A weapon that bears this rune multiplies its hit points by 2, as if it were one size category larger than it actually is. Placing more than one rune of this type on a weapon has no effect.
Another corollary: it is a virtual increase in size. So you can't benefit from other effects that count as virtual increases in size.
By RAW, this actually works. The Monk's unarmed strike is explicitly valid as a target for spells that affect manufactured weapons. The FAQ confirms that the Monk's unarmed strike is its entire body. Therefore, the hit points of its entire body are doubled.
The major question we need to ask is whether "the hit points of your entire body" is distinct from a character's total hit points (ie. how many hit points do you really get?). My reading of the rules is that No, the body's hit points are the same as the creature's hit points. My basis for it comes from Pathfinder Core's definition of hit points (see here):
Quote:
Hit Points (hp): Hit points are an abstraction signifying how robust and healthy a creature is at the current moment. To determine a creature's hit points, roll the dice indicated by its Hit Dice. A creature gains maximum hit points if its first Hit Die roll is for a character class level. Creatures whose first Hit Die comes from an NPC class or from his race roll their first Hit Die normally. Wounds subtract hit points, while healing (both natural and magical) restores hit points. Some abilities and spells grant temporary hit points that disappear after a specific duration. When a creature's hit points drop below 0, it becomes unconscious. When a creature's hit points reach a negative total equal to its Constitution score, it dies.
Here hit points are explicitly defined as "how robust and healthy a creature is" with a further indication that subtractions from hit points means wounds. As such, a creature's hit points intrinsically refers to its state of bodily health, and therefore going by RAW I would rule that doubling the hit points of the body would indeed double your total hit points.
So congratulations for coming up with a cheesy trick.
Hit Points: An object’s hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table 7–12, Table 7–13, and Table 7–14). Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Appendix 2). When an object’s hit points reach 0, it’s ruined.
So, if you apply the weapon stats, you need to apply all of them, you can't make a cut-and-paste where you take a piece of a rule and a piece of another, forgetting the pieces you don't like.
You inscribe an angular rune upon the surface of a weapon, increasing its hit points. A weapon that bears this rune multiplies its hit points by 2,as if it were one size category larger than it actually is. Placing more than one rune of this type on a weapon has no effect.
The description of the spell specifies that the increase in HP is as if it were one size category larger. The way I see it is that a creatures HP unlike an object are not affected by its size category the rune does not work on creatures.
As to Hardining that specifies it increases the hardness. Creatures do not have a hardness, so it does not work. Not having something is not the same as having a 0. Not having something means it value is Null, not zero.
Mysterious Stranger, yes, that's a valid interpretation. If we accept that the hit points being increased "as if it were one size category larger than it actually is" takes precedence over the doubling of hit points, then most creatures would not benefit from additional hit points using this.
However, a construct (such as a Wyrwood race character) does go up in hit points (it is not a doubling, however) based on size category.
So depending on how one reads this clause, there are different effects.
The Wyrwood race gains HP from size due to a racial ability. Since constructs don’t double their HP for being one size category larger that also invalidates a construct from benefiting from the rune.
I have to agree with Claxon on this that it is completely absurd. But if you want to discuss the idea based on strict RAW then you should go strictly by what is written. What is written is that the spell doubles your HP as if you were one size larger. So, in order for it to work on a monk the monk has to have some ability that doubles his HP when he increases his size by one category. Construct do not double their HP for increasing their size category they get a fixed amount of bonus HP.
Now if the monk was an intelligent weapon I could see that RAW it might work. But the monk would actually need to be an actual intelligent weapon, not just polymorphed into one. But that type of a campaign is so outside the norms that it brings up the question is the game even still Pathfinder.
Maybe you could let your body's (read corpse's) hp be doubled, as a dead body can be used as a weapon by someone with a certain rage power or who is sufficiently big enough, so that your remains are still intact enough to be used with a raise dead spell, but as hinted at by Stranger above, creature HP and object HP are not really the same thing, and the spell is only affecting object HP.
You might die from having your heart stabbed, but your body is still pretty much intact as an item. That said, the game never actually bothers to give us a "corpse hp calculation" so you are basically doubling a non-existent number, but hey that's what you get when you try to out RAW RAI.
The Wyrwood race gains HP from size due to a racial ability. Since constructs don’t double their HP for being one size category larger that also invalidates a construct from benefiting from the rune.
I have to agree with Claxon on this that it is completely absurd. But if you want to discuss the idea based on strict RAW then you should go strictly by what is written. What is written is that the spell doubles your HP as if you were one size larger. So, in order for it to work on a monk the monk has to have some ability that doubles his HP when he increases his size by one category. Construct do not double their HP for increasing their size category they get a fixed amount of bonus HP.
There is no restriction language written in the spell that states you have to have a rules mechanic doubling your hit points per size category in order to benefit from this spell. We should not invent unwritten rules. It makes a convoluted mess out of the rules and invites a text-free rules debate since now your rules are inferred rules and not written rules in any book (which is a surefire sign your rulings are no longer RAW - Rules As Written).
The spell does its magic and one of two interpretations bears out, as far as I can tell:
1) The spell's primary effect is to double the target's hit points, with a note that you should regard this as an effective size increase to the target's hit points for any mechanics that interact with that. In this case, the Monk's hit points are doubled.
2) The spell's primary effect is to increase the target's effective size for hit point purposes, and the doubling of hit points is to be treated as a natural consequence of doing so. In this case, a Wyvaran Monk's hit points increase as if he went up 1 size category on the construct traits' bonus hit points chart.
Both interpretations are valid. But I am not seeing a text basis for your "#3 - the spell doubles the target's hit points if the target's hit points double from a size category increase and otherwise does nothing even if the target's hit points would go up from a size increase." The spell simply isn't written that way.
I agree that this is all an absurd activity, but that's the fun of entertaining such questions.
Quote:
Now if the monk was an intelligent weapon I could see that RAW it might work. But the monk would actually need to be an actual intelligent weapon, not just polymorphed into one. But that type of a campaign is so outside the norms that it brings up the question is the game even still Pathfinder.
This to me suggests that you are in a mindset of curtailing cheesy things rather than cleanly working off of the rules, since there is honestly no good reason to say "it might [emphasis added] work" if the monk was an intelligent weapon. An intelligent weapon should definitely work and indeed would not need monk levels to be a legal target for the spell, as it quite obviously already is a weapon, and as such would very clearly be a valid and RAI target for the spell to take effect as described. I think we are going too far into a restrictive reading if we suggest that intelligent weapon items perhaps aren't weapon enough for the weapon-enhancing spell.
The FAQ is in error and flawed (in parts). FAQs are specific and tailored to a specific situation and question. It is well-stated and noted they are not to be extrapolated or expanded (obviously they can be used as compelling persuasion, especially in very similar cases) or taken beyond the scope of their question. Remember that this FAQ specifically asked about magic fang alone. Any expounding or out of parameters musing are not to be applied beyond its scope without further specific FAQs other than how it pertains to magic fang.
Spoiler to save space:
----------------------------------------
FAQ wrote:
Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
A monk's unarmed attacks are specifically fists, elbows, knees, and feet. Not headbutts, not belly bounces, not butt bumps, not shoulder charges, not body slams, not a big splash off the top-rope turnbuckle. The FAQ replier (accounting for them using 'kick' in place of 'feet') adding in 'headbutts, and so on' does not expand the list, it is an error or overreach.
Even if they wanted to, this FAQ is about magic fang and how it applies the written ability, not about expanding the monk's Unarmed Strike class ability or scope. That would require a FAQ asking 'Monk's Unarmed Strike ability applies to knees, feet, fists, and elbows. Does that mean it applies to strikes made with not those things?" Then a FAQ replier might be able to get away with expanding the list.
Monk > Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
...
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
All of a monk's attacks are not considered Unarmed Strikes (for purposes of their class ability, which gives them special status or effects, like counting as manufactured or natural, bypassing DR/magic, or dealing lethal damage), but magic fang would apply to any unarmed strikes made, regardless of method (though they might not benefit from the monk's class ability, such as making them not provoke or able to deal lethal damage).
So while his body might be a valid target for a spell like magic fang (and that actually is the Target for the spell), his entire body is not the weapon or attack, nor would any attack made using a body part count. A headbutt would certainly be an unarmed attack and provoke AoOs as normal (without some other feat that stops it, like Improved Unarmed Strike), but it also wouldn't count as both natural and manufactured, because it is not listed under the monk's Unarmed Strike ability.
FAQ wrote:
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike
This is clearly incorrect. A monk's unarmed strike is made with fists, elbows, knees, and feet. Specifically named out, RAW (which is what you are claiming you want to cleave to).
FAQ wrote:
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike.
There's no reason... other than the fact that a monk's entire body and (non-knee, feet, elbow, fist) body parts that might be used to make an unarmed attack are not covered under the class's ability that lets them do so, ie. count as valid targets, and thus cannot be or apply to them. However, when taken within the scope and question of this specific FAQ and in regards to magic fang specifically, this is correct. The benefit would apply to all their unarmed strikes, regardless of delivery, but those strikes (and this FAQ) do not make all their unarmed strikes (other than knees, feet, fist, and elbows) benefit from the monk's Unarmed Strike ability.
----------------------------------------
In the case of spells that target manufactured or 'real' weapons, like magic weapon or rune of durability, that's where the real question lies (with monks). Magic weapon was errata'd to specify a monk's unarmed strike (specifically their class ability). So that spell (+1 attack and damage, count as magic) should work for any (fist, elbow, knee, feet) strikes made during the duration, but only those, since headbutts are not covered (they don't count as manufactured weapons because the ability does not apply to them and are not valid).
As others point out, your fists, feet, knees, and elbows do not have separate hit points from you. Their hardness and hit points don't depend on their or your size. It will not double your body's hit points, because your body is not a weapon, even though your body is a valid point to target for a spell that affects your weapons.
Similar to the way a spell can be delivered to you through an object like your armor or a shield, such as a tower shield used for total cover. The object might not be a valid target for a charm spell, but you can still 'target' the shield to deliver the effect to its holder, despite them having total cover or even being technically unseen to you behind the shield. Calling the shield a 'target' is just an easy use of phrase for a corner case where something counts as something it isn't or is a valid target in a rare case where it otherwise wouldn't be for 95% of the other creatures or objects in the game.
A monk's body does not count as a valid target for the spells rune of durability or magic weapon despite being able to apply the spell's benefits to Unarmed Strikes made by them or even to touch their body to provide them. A rune of durability even if scribed on their body or fist, won't increase their hit points, because their body isn't a weapon (for this purpose) despite them counting their unarmed attacks as manufactured (and thus those specific attacks; fists, elbows, knees, feet) as able to be targeted or benefit.
TL;DR No, rune of durability will not double your hit points.
You inscribe an angular rune upon the surface of a weapon, increasing its hit points. A weapon that bears this rune multiplies its hit points by 2, as if it were one size category larger than it actually is. Placing more than one rune of this type on a weapon has no effect.
The description of a spell is part of the rules. Therefor anything in the description of the spell is fair game when discussing RAW. I am reposting the description of the spell as I did on my first post. The bolded section clearly state it doubles the HP as if it were one size category larger. As I said if you are using RAW to try and get away with something then you have to use RAW for everything. If you dismiss the section on the spell about the size category, I can dismiss the section about monks counting as weapons.
Hm, Pizza Lord makes an interesting argument. He asserts that FAQs should only be applied within their scope and that this is taking the FAQ out of scope so the FAQ should not apply to Rune of Durability and thus concludes that the unarmed strike of a creature is not in fact its body. I can't help but feel that Pizza Lord is sneaking RAI into a RAW discussion though, by effectively arguing "This FAQ is not intended for Rune of Durability, so we should ignore it for Rune of Durability." when the FAQ itself is written as answering "For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?" with the answer that "a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes." There is a potential for hair-splitting here, by arguing that Rune of Durability is perhaps insufficiently similar to Magic Fang to qualify (despite both being weapon-enhancing spells), but I believe that ignores the preceding categorical statement that "a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body" and the FAQ's title being phrased more broadly.
Mysterious Stranger, I am not dismissing any section. As I said, only one of two interpretations bears out, as far as I can tell. Either we grant that in the spell effect primacy goes to the weapon being treated as one size category larger or we grant that primacy goes to doubling hit points, but in both circumstances a Wyrwood race character would benefit from a hit point increase.
no, that doesn't work. The spell targets manufactured weapons.
but
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
and
A brawler’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that modify either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
and rune of durability is a spell
IM NOT SAYING IT SHOULD WORK, but im searching for why it can't and I dont think the manufactured argument holds up
no, that doesn't work. The spell targets manufactured weapons.
but
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
and
A brawler’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that modify either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
and rune of durability is a spell
IM NOT SAYING IT SHOULD WORK, but im searching for why it can't and I dont think the manufactured argument holds up
as above, the weapon is touched - what weapon? One could argue it is the entire body as was done above.
Then it is pointed out that size increase doesn't affect HPs when it comes to Class based creatures (thus large wizards have the same HP distribution as small wizards). Thus the target has a permanent angular magical rune that does nothing but subject it to detect magic. and we're back to my original post
Note: basic size changing magic like Enlarge Person:T1 does not affect HPs directly.
Since virtual size increases don't stack, the "as if it were one size category larger than it actually is" is not mere explanatory text but actually relevant rule text, and thus must be heeded. This means "A weapon that bears this rune multiplies its hit points by 2, as if it were one size category larger than it actually is." produces an invalid result when applied to something that doesn't double HP by being one size larger, and thus no HP increase happens.
Indeed, the "by 2" is actually reminder text (and thus not part of the RAW), as you could remove it without changing the effect.
no, that doesn't work. The spell targets manufactured weapons.
The spell has the exact same target line as Magic Weapon, which explicitly says that it works on a Monk's unarmed strike (based on the Monk ability, not a specific aspect of the spell). This means that without any doubt Rune of Duarbility can be cast on a Monk's or Brawlers unarmed strike.
And I have to agree, the extra words about the virtual size are binding (otherwise there would be no real reason to add them).
As for the hardening spell, I would also fail, not because creatures have no hardness (since some objects also have no hardness. this should work the same as barkskin in this matter) rather since the spell doesn't target weapons but items(objects?). the monk\brawler may count as a 'living' weapon but he never had the option to become an item. the fact the spell can target weapon as they are objects doesn't mean the monk\brawler is a valid target for that spell.
If we go by a virtual size increase being the source of the hit point increase, then a construct character, such as a Wyrwood Monk, would still increase in hit points from this spell, but no one else afaict.
If we go by a virtual size increase being the source of the hit point increase, then a construct character, such as a Wyrwood Monk, would still increase in hit points from this spell, but no one else afaict.
No, because the construct, even a monk, is not the Unarmed Strike. They are only a valid target for casting it upon to affect their unarmed strikes (specifically). They are not the Unarmed Strike. They can make their (monk) unarmed strikes with their knees, feet, fists, or elbows, but they are not the affected weapon or object.
This is like you arguing that the FAQ means that magic fang works on wyrwood monks, because the fact says that monks are valid targets, but they aren't. They aren't living creatures. This is you taking a straight-forward FAQ and trying to move it beyond its scope into corner cases and specifics that weren't part of the FAQ. By you saying that [this specific] FAQ says monks are valid targets, and from that generalization of monks (which are assumed to be typical PC races) you are applying to fringe cases or specific creatures or races that work differently.
You'd have to give the wyrwood the Living Machine alternate racial trait to have it count as a living creature for magic fang.
Even then with magic weapon or rune of durability, its body is not the weapons used for the [monk's] unarmed strikes, so Rune of Durability will not increase their hit points, because the hit points of their fists, elbows, knees, and feet do not apply or have any influence on their hit points. Maybe if they were a roper or a hydra or some other creature whose limbs (specifically fists, elbows, knees, or feet) had hit points separate from their body, then you might... might have an argument to increasing those specific hit points.
In all fairness, right now... Tell me what a Small-size Wywood monk's (6 hp) fist hit points are. What are his left knee hit points? Right now, no spells on him at all? rune of durability does not increase creature's hit points. It has to be a weapon, even an intelligent weapon. If you cast possess object or something and take over a sword, then you have that sword's hit points (and hardness). If someone casts (or already cast) rune of durability then yes, you in sword-form would have twice the hit points of a normal sword. It doesn't work in this case, because it is a corner case involving rulings and FAQs based on straight-forward, basic assumptions of targeting. You are taking the targeting answer from the FAQ, and assuming that means that the effects work the same on a monk's body, as they do on a manufactured weapon.
Casting magic fang or magic weapon on a monk (perfectly legal and valid) does not grant the monk +2 hardness per +1 enhancement bonus, nor do they get +10 hit points per enhancement bonus, even if that's how it works for magical enhancements on weapons. They don't get to say "That's +40 because my unarmed strikes are knees, feet, fists, and elbows! That's 4! No wait, that's times 8, because I have two of each of those things! +80 hit points just from magic weapon!" They don't even get the +10 hit points.
since any part of the monk counts..., put the rune on their codpiece so it will double in HPs (as though it was twice as big) when they use it for an unarmed attack!
A Wyrwood monk dose not double its HP based on size. A construct gets a set number of extra HP based on the specific size of the construct. It does not matter how many HP the base construct has the bonus HP are always the same for the size. A large construct gains a bonus of +30 HP no matter what its base HP are. It could have 10 HP, or 1000 HP and it still gets the same +30 HP.
RAW this spell will not increase the HP of any monk.
LoL
People naturally will try to game the system. It isn't a problem and is more about trying to be clever (with some debate and rules lawyering). We all know PF1 is a Work of Art (not uniformly consistent, nor realistically accurate or precise) and not a science textbook or technical manual. GMs have to implement some interpretation and sense of Fair Play to make this rule heavy game of Let's Pretend work and that's their Home Game. No point in getting huffy about it, just point out that it is a game in your Home Game and remain open to debate.
LoL
People naturally will try to game the system. It isn't a problem and is more about trying to be clever (with some debate and rules lawyering). We all know PF1 is a Work of Art (not uniformly consistent, nor realistically accurate or precise) and not a science textbook or technical manual. GMs have to implement some interpretation and sense of Fair Play to make this rule heavy game of Let's Pretend work and that's their Home Game. No point in getting huffy about it, just point out that it is a game in your Home Game and remain open to debate.
With the people I know and with whom I like to play? Sure. Cleverness can be rewarded.
With some guy in the rule forum who tries to make a pretzel out of fair play and logic, way less.
(Not targeted specifically at anyone in this thread, it is a general remark.)
