Emblazon Armament on a Natural Weapon

[Aristophanes]

Can Emblazon Armament be etched into a natural weapon like a horn or a hoof?

[graystone]

"You can spend 10 minutes emblazoning a symbol of your deity upon a weapon or shield."

Neither option is unarmed attacks, so no.

[Aristophanes]

graystone wrote:

"You can spend 10 minutes emblazoning a symbol of your deity upon a weapon or shield."

Neither option is unarmed attacks, so no.

Ah yes. Good point. Thanks.

[HammerJack]

Also, remember "natural weapon" is not a rules category in 2E. It's just unarmed attacks, so they have no special privilege of counting as weapons for any purpose.

[Finoan]

I would probably houserule allow using Emblazon on Handwraps. Which also isn't a weapon, but does accept weapon runes and talismans and such.

[Tridus]

Finoan wrote:

I would probably houserule allow using Emblazon on Handwraps. Which also isn't a weapon, but does accept weapon runes and talismans and such.

Same. Especially if your deity has an unarmed strike as their favored weapon like Irori.

[HammerJack]

Not an unreasonable houserule, but definitely not an option without houseruling the feat.

[Ascalaphus]

I hope by the time PF3 rolls around we get a better take on weapons vs unarmed. There's so many feats that casually mention weapons and thereby exclude unarmed strikes when it doesn't feel like that was a particular balance goal. Just habit of phrasing.

I'm also still miffed that rangers are not that good with claws. As a nature-oriented class they should have nice synergy with close-to-nature ancestries with nice unarmed strikes, but instead it's a big nothingburger.

[Nelzy]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I hope by the time PF3 rolls around we get a better take on weapons vs unarmed. There's so many feats that casually mention weapons and thereby exclude unarmed strikes when it doesn't feel like that was a particular balance goal. Just habit of phrasing.

I'm also still miffed that rangers are not that good with claws. As a nature-oriented class they should have nice synergy with close-to-nature ancestries with nice unarmed strikes, but instead it's a big nothingburger.

to be fair i think its intentional from paiso's side, feels like they have done alot of designe desitions based on pf1 and removed alot of synergy potential, especially in the natural attack department but also in alot of other areas.

[The Raven Black]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I hope by the time PF3 rolls around we get a better take on weapons vs unarmed. There's so many feats that casually mention weapons and thereby exclude unarmed strikes when it doesn't feel like that was a particular balance goal. Just habit of phrasing.

I'm also still miffed that rangers are not that good with claws. As a nature-oriented class they should have nice synergy with close-to-nature ancestries with nice unarmed strikes, but instead it's a big nothingburger.

I feel this should be the Shifter rather than the Ranger.