yeah, our GM is unsure of what the rules say for here...
and i don't think the rules are terribly clear about it.
so I think we'll be going with our gut, and saying it cannot be used.
While i do agree with Lakeside that the sword could be used as a sword while it's being enchanted. My feeling is that the act of picking up and using the sword would spoil the delicate enchantments on the weapon.
that's sort of what my gut is saying about the use item while enchanting.
I'm playing a Sorcerer, and we are in a town waiting for an army to arrive before we commence with our next mission.
my question is, I want to start adding Flaming Burst to our fighters Falcata.
If I'm on day 2 of crafting and the army arrives, is our fighter allowed to use the weapon and i continue crafting after our "adventuring" for that day using the 4 hrs nets 2 hrs of crafting rules?
My gut tells me that if we need to go and respond to the army that's arriving we cannot use the sword that i'm working on.
I assumed he meant lore warden, because he talked about the replacement of the armor class feature with the skills feature, which fits with the lore warden archetype.
on a side note. if you really want to get the extra proficiencies, and are stuck on the Lore warden prestige class, you could either A) take the proficiencies.. fighters get alot, so assuming you're not playing in a power gamey group you'll probably be fine. or B) multiclass into a different class for a level to gain the proficiencies.
I'm no expert on Archetypes, but from what I understand you would lose the armor proficiencies... or you would not be able to take the lore warden archetype.
Because the abilities of the different Archetypes cannot overlap, and the Lore warden overlaps with the base fighter's Armor proficiency, they cannot co-exist.
therefore, you cannot choose to be a fighter / lore warden and still maintain the proficiencies.
The Archetypes are not classes that can be splashed on, they are adopted for all of the class levels that they coincide for. You can mix and match archetypes so long as their abilities do not overlap but you are still a fighter at heart.
So, unless I'm not understanding archetypes at all, i believe this is how this should be adjudicated.
The interpretation that dead undead cannot be raised raises issues with involuntarily created undead. Resurrection prevention is usually reserved for level 8 or higher spell effects and I believe there are contagious undead with CRs substantially below 15.
Undead:
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
it's not an interpretation that undead cannot be raised... it's the rules...
they can be ressurected... which is a more powerful spell... but that still makes it impossible for this thought experiment to work.
The druid turns himself into a lich... 8 days pass, before Kantas the Druid-slayer shows up with his +10 battleaxe of druidic lich slaying. and kills the lich... then crushes the phylactery into a fine poweder...
The druid's soul chuckles to himself because he can reincarnate... but oh no... he didn't read the rules...
Reincarnate:
With this spell, you bring back a dead creature in another body, provided that its death occurred no more than 1 week before the casting of the spell and the subject's soul is free and willing to return. If the subject's soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.
Turns out too long has passed from when he turned into a lich. he "died" more than a week ago... blast how could He be so careless... that's ok he has a friendly GM who will allow the Reincarnate to work over any length of time... so that's ok... here we go, time to reincarnate...
but oh no... what's this?? more rules?? blast!!! Carelessness again...
undead:
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
Now that he's turned undead, he's not longer able to be re-incarnated... because he is now a destroyed undead, not a dead living thing!! Blast!! if only he could write my own rules!! then he'd have no one to play with cause the game would be no fun!! everyone would play druids that re-incarnate and can never die!!
Paragon Surge is usable by Oracles, granting them access to most arcane spells. Go research it.
Unless there's a way for an Oracle to get access to arcane spells through feats... I'm not sure how paragon surge will allow an oracle to cast haste.....
Once the druid becomes the Lich, he ceases to be able to be ressurected / reincarnated...
Once the phylactery is destroyed, the Lich is also destroyed. The lich doesn't cease being undead because his phylactery is destroyed... he ceases existing... there is no transition between Lich and rejuvenated Lich... there is no transition where the druid becomes alive again between the destruction of the phylactery and the destruction of the Lich...
Once the druid adopts the Lich template... they cease being a Druid... they would lose all powers from being a Druid... they would become undead... and never again be able to be reincarnated.
thus that archetype would be useless.
besides Druids are far too powerful as it is, they don't need to be impossible to kill.
I think I came to that same conclusion... but I just got confused because I keep getting this odd image of an eidolon making out with it's chest... in order for the vishkanya to get it's saliva on the eidolon's bite attack...
2 questions both working around the vishkanya and natural weapons.
1) Can it be done? Can a Vishkanya poison their natural weapons prior to attacking with them?
Toxic Ability:
A number of times per day equal to his Constitution modifier (minimum 1/day), a vishkanya can envenom a weapon that he wields with his toxic saliva or blood (using blood requires the vishkanya to be injured when he uses this ability). Applying venom in this way is a swift action. Vishkanya Venom: Injury; save Fort DC 10 + 1/2 the vishkanya's Hit Dice + the vishkanya's Constitution modifier; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Dex; cure 1 save.
2) I kind of assume this one is a no... but i'm curious what other people think.
Can a Vishkanya Summoner (synthesist) poison the eidolon's natural weapons?
Fused Eidolon:
A synthesist summons the essence of a powerful outsider to meld with his own being. The synthesist wears the eidolon like translucent, living armor. The eidolon mimics all of the synthesist’s movements, and the synthesist perceives through the eidolon’s senses and speaks through its voice, as the two are now one creature.
While fused with his eidolon, the synthesist uses the eidolon’s physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), but retains his own mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma). The synthesist gains the eidolon’s hit points as temporary hit points. When these hit points reach 0, the eidolon is killed and sent back to its home plane. The synthesist uses the eidolon’s base attack bonus, and gains the eidolon’s armor and natural armor bonuses and modifiers to ability scores. The synthesist also gains access to the eidolon’s special abilities and the eidolon’s evolutions. The synthesist is still limited to the eidolon’s maximum number of natural attacks. The eidolon has no skills or feats of its own. The eidolon must be at least the same size as the synthesist. The eidolon must have limbs for the synthesist to cast spells with somatic components. The eidolon’s temporary hit points can be restored with the rejuvenate eidolon spell.
While fused, the synthesist loses the benefits of his armor. He counts as both his original type and as an outsider for any effect related to type, whichever is worse for the synthesist. Spells such as banishment or dismissal work normally on the eidolon, but the synthesist is unaffected. Neither the synthesist nor his eidolon can be targeted separately, as they are fused into one creature. The synthesist and eidolon cannot take separate actions. While fused with his eidolon, the synthesist can use all of his own abilities and gear, except for his armor. In all other cases, this ability functions as the summoner’s normal eidolon ability (for example, the synthesist cannot use his summon monster ability while the eidolon is present).
I kind of think it could work because of the bolded text...
but at the same time, I also think it couldn't work, because the Summoner isn't wielding the Eidolon's natural attacks.
I would imagine that because most apes walk on all fours, you'd probably be able to get away with just using it... because they are similar...
It's a bit of a grey area though, because apes can use their arms differently than most quadripeds... so it could be ruled either way...
I guess the definitive question is... could the creature that had the armor be ridden? if the answer is yes, then the armor is appropriate for the wolf. if the creature could not be ridden, then the armor is not appropriate.
ultimately this would be a GM discretion... because Apes are a bit of a grey area.
I should doubly clarify so no one jumps on this and tries to get all powergamey.
The suit of armor doesn't change 'shape' per say... A Human cannot put on magical armor that is made for a horse.
but a wolf could put on magical barding that was made for a horse. The general shape is essentially the same...
whereas the human requires completely different movement for the fore limb section of armor... and that part doesn't change...
it's been a staple of D&D that magical equipment changes to fit the wearer since at least 2nd Edition... possibly 1st, but i never played 1st and thus cannot confirm.
If it's magical equipment... and it's designed for a non-humanoid...
it resizes to fit the new wearer... Assuming your wolf is a similar shape to what was wearing the armor to begin with, and the armor to begin with was magical... your wolf should be able to just put it on.
just like bracers of armor, they resize to fit anyone between diminuative and colossal, heck they'd even fit a dragon.
at least this was the case in 3.5, I assume this was carried over to Pathfinder.
Also, thanks to Caderyn for pointing out the staff-like wand ability...
i didn't know it existed, however our casters are either oracles, or sorcerers in our party... but i'll keep it in mind for future characters... cause that'd be useful
a 3rd level spell regardless of caster level will have the same DC, assuming all stats are the same.
we will use fireball as the example for demonstration.
assuming an Int score of 18 for both characters, giving a +4 modifier.
If i'm a Wizard Level 5, i can throw a fireball for 5D6 Damage (This is the 'effect' you're talking about)
the Save DC is that of a 3rd level spell. Thus the forumula for calculating the spell DC is as follows 10 + spell level + casting attribute modifier.
so we have 10 + 3 (fireball is Level 3) + 4 (int modifier) = 17.
If i'm the same wizard casting at level 10, i can throw a fireball for 10D6 damage (greater effect) However, it is still a 3rd level spell...
so the Save DC is 10 + 3 (spell level) + 4 (Int modifier) = 17.
same Save DC but greater effect.
Also for wand creation, you can elect to cast the spell at a lower caster level, hence how you can have a wand of cure light wounds only heal D8+1.
This same example will work if casting fireball from a wand. except according to the rules, the wand uses minimum casting stat, thus the save DC will be 14 as posted previously. (10 + 3 + 1 [13 int modifier])
I recently was asked a question about a save DC for a wand of hold person.
I was under the impression that when you make a wand the wand spell version automatically uses the lowest casting stat required to be able to cast the spell...
however i cannot find the rule that specifies that... also cannot find anything about the cost for something like that... I would think that the cost of a Wand of Hold Person DC 20 would be more expensive than a wand of hold person DC 15
if you're driving a car... the car moves on the same initiative as you... right?
you're driving you're controlling, you're making all the decisions for the car...
when you "ready" an action for something... IE "if Johnny the Imp moves to here, i'll shoot him" you're taking your attention away from driving the vehicle, and focusing on Johnny the Imp.
Because of this... your vehicle starts going all crazy like... if you're driving a car and you start staring off into space, thinking of Johnny the Imp, your car may very well veer off into the sunset / meridian. without control from you.
that happened because you "readied" the action... you stopped focusing on driving the vehicle and focused on Johnny the Imp, and his impeccable teeth.
great now all i can think about is a little imp smiling at me with pearly white teeth...
Except you don't use that table. You use the ones that I presented.
I hate PFSRD for exactly this reason: They make mistakes and mislead people.
The Strong Jaw spell does not have that table in its description, and doesn't even reference it.
The PFSRD provides the same information, I just quoted both websites, and the only difference is that the natural attacks by size chart isn't listed on the strong jaw spell on the PRD...
however, the spell states that you do damage as if you were two size categories larger... So having the table in the strong jaw entry helps out whoever is looking up that information. Thus the SRD is laid out a little better in this particular case.
now when casting the strong jaw spell, would you reference a feat, or would you reference the Natural Attacks by Size chart?
what is more intuitive to you?
Strong Jaw from PRD:
Laying a hand upon an allied creature's jaw, claws, tentacles, or other natural weapons, you enhance the power of that creature's natural attacks. Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead. This spell does not actually change the creature's size; all of its statistics except the amount of damage dealt by its natural attacks remain unchanged.
At what point does this spell reference the improved natural weapon feat? I'll tell you where... no where... the word Feat doesn't show up in the text for strong jaw at all... It only states that you do damage as if you were two size categories larger... and guess what? There's a table created for just such and occasion
therefore, please tell us why we should use values presented in an obscure area unrelated to the question at hand, instead of the table created specifically for this type of scenario?
There's a reason the SRD posts the size chart in the strong jaw spell entry... and that's because it's useful information pertaining to the strong jaw spell.
(that's actually the strong jaw spell but it has the table in an easy to find location)
So, as we can see here, the Feat Improved natural weapon has it's own progression line listed in the feat, while mentioning that it functions like increasing the creatures size category.
Awkwardly these are different things. and i'm curious why they gave a seperate progression in the feat, as opposed to just using the table they already provided...
My apologies for coming across as hostile ravingdork, that was not my intention. I suffered from not reading the entire feat, i read "does damage as one size category larger" passed over the numbers given, assuming they just mirrored the table... but evidently they do not.
So a strong jaw vital strike would add another 4, or 8 dice, that's the part that's not clear to me... Seems like I could argue either way.
The vital Strike with the strong jaw, would add a rediculous amount of damage.
I've spoken with our party druid about this... he's only just begun to wildshape at level 7... It's an interesting concept, to turn into a large bear, take improved natural weapon bite, then cast strong jaw on the bite, do to 4D6 damage. then take vital strike, and bite for 8D6 damage.
The Stegosaurus Tail attack goes from 4D6 to 8D6 base damage.
that's the BASE damage of the new tail attack, because of the amplification brought on by Strong Jaw.
Strong Jaw:
Laying a hand upon an allied creature's jaw, claws, tentacles, or other natural weapons, you enhance the power of that creature's natural attacks. Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead. This spell does not actually change the creature's size; all of its statistics except the amount of damage dealt by its natural attacks remain unchanged.
and here's Vital Strike
Vital Strike:
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
It states that you add the weapons base damage again when you successfully hit with a vital strike.
So, say you're in a combat, and you Move into striking distance and vital strike, Your tail attack with Strong Jaw does a base 8D6 damage.
Vital strike adds the base damage again... so you do an additional 8D6 damage.
for a grand total of 16 D6. Pity you only add the strength damage once. :(
but yes... if you actually do this, can you please video tape yourself holding a bowl full of dice and say to the player "This is how much damage you take!" while dramatically throwing all those dice onto the table.
So for x2, 4d6+8 would effectively become 8d6+16. That is how the game expects you to handle all multipliers.
As for the damage progression, I personally believe it would go from 4d6 to 6d6 to 8d6. This is supported by the Improved Natural Attack feat which has the same progression.
That's not actually how the progression goes Ravingdork...
if you look at the chart for natural weapon progression
Bite 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6
you can see it doubles every 2 size categories. starting from Diminuative, because smaller than that has to have a minimum damage.
it goes D2 - D4 (x2), D4 - D8(x2), D8 - 2D8 (x2)
It's more apparent that it continues to double if we start at Tiny.
D3 - D6, D6 - 2D6, 2D6 - 4D6. that's not a linear progression. it's exponential.
Therefor, it would not progress to 6D6, it would in fact be 8D6, if you cast strong jaw on a colossal creature.
Using the Improved natural weapons feat example.
the Stegosaurus' tail slap attack would not go from 4D6 - 6D6 - 8D6, it would go 4D6 - 4D8 - 8D6. This is because of the exponential increase of the table.
I've never considered anything less than 5th level to be anything but "low level", and I'm sure I'm not alone there. Before 5th level, you're nothing. You have no real accomplishments yet, and those you have likely don't extend far outside the town you started adventuring in. How evil (or good, or lawful, etc.) can you really be if you've never accomplished much, if anything, with it?
Evil is a state of mind...
I could be a lowly level 1 fighter that is the son/daughter of Elizabeth Bathory. I'm not compelled by a deity to perform evil acts, however, i could still perform atrocious acts. Simply because i'm the son of a noble woman, people would turn a blind eye... the guards would be paid to look the other way by my characters mother. And thus I'd be able to continue to do whatever i wanted, in whatever depraved fashion i want. Thus i'm evil of my own accord... I'm only helped financially, with no guidance from an evil deity. But I'm fairly certain that a paladin's detect evil would go haywire in that castle.
Any of the serving staff who have assisted willingly in the atrocities would also register as evil, because they are complicit in the deeds of their master, again with no divine intervention. And lets face it, serving staff are not higher than level 5.
It's a situation where adjudication on the part of the GM is necessary. Because the rules as written do not cover this type of situation properly.
Thus my adherence to "use GM discretion" when it comes to detect evil.
However, if I'm a level 6 fighter, and I don't pay my parking tickets, I register as evil.
Not paying parking tickets is at best a non-lawful act. Not even chaotic. Just not lawful. Killing the meter maid would be evil. :p
I'd say anyone who bathes and the blood of virgins and rolls around in baby mash is at least level 5. You have to kill a lot of babies and virgins and those are you bread and butter XPs for evil types. That should be more than enough XP to make level 5. :p
they were just level 1 commoner virgins, and lets face it, babies are terrible XP...
The parking tickets, i hope you understood was a tongue in cheek, "slightly evil" act...
maybe he beat up the meter maid when they gave him the ticket...
The point is, it's rediculous that a Level 6 Marginally evil fighter, registers as faintly evil... Yet a Level 4 extremely evil fighter, registers no aura.
The level of Aura should be based on how evil the character is... Depending more on the acts of the player, and less so on his alignment.
However, the alignment system is built into the Pathfinder and D&D systems since day 1. so it's nigh impossible to ignore.
I have to agree with Raven's first description of the rule about how the spell works.
If we look at the structure of the table, detailing what is detectable... we can see that the spell references the strength of the aura.
Therefore, we can extrapolate that the spell "Detect Evil" functions the same as "Detect Magic". the only real difference is that "Detect Magic" actually states that in round 1, it detects the presence or absence of magical auras.
Now, If we take a look at the table, it seems fairly limiting. I assume this is more of the issue that your player has with the wording of the spell.
If I'm playing an evil fighter that bathes in the blood of virgins and rolls in the mashed up remains of newborns... I'm not registering as evil, because I'm only level 4.
However, if I'm a level 6 fighter, and I don't pay my parking tickets, I register as evil.
Now, i'm sure the level 6 fighter is probably closer to Chaotic Neutral, but for the sake of this arguement, assume he's just a little too far from neutral (he has alot of parking tickets).
So, we can see that there is a problem with the way the table is created.
I would rule that each individual character has their own scale of 'evil' and that would be what registers on the detect evil.
for instance, the Level 4 fighter described above is pretty evil. We're talking seriously depraved, and someone that a paladin would take a detour from their assigned quest to go and vanquish. So they would probably weigh in around a moderate to strong aura of evil.
However, Mr L6 fighter that doesn't pay his parking tickets, and just doesn't follow the laws in a particular area... maybe starts a few bar fights for fun. But that's the extent of his evil... probably barely registers, at most is a feint... and the paladin can probably come up to him and say "you should probably look into repenting... lest you get too far gone, and i have to kill you."
There is varying degrees of evil, and the degree of evil needs to be looked at, instead of the level of the character being examined.
Now, this is of course not RAW. I would urge for the sake of playability that detect evil be looked at less as a cookie cutter, Here's the table now follow it, but more like, Use the table as a guideline and determine aura strength from that.
But the long of the short is... If you actually read the entire Detect Evil spell, and how it's entirely worded, you can extrapolate that they just forgot to add the word "auras" to the what you detect in the first line. It is self explanatory. People make mistakes when they write things... that doesn't give carte blanche to interpret how you want, or to do as you wish... The rule in the core rule book that says "these rules are guidelines, do with them what you will" gives you carte blanche to do what you want.
The players level of education doesn't mean anything when it comes to comprehension of the rules...
My girlfriend has a Bachelor of Science in physics and astronomy (honours program). She is one of the smartest people I know. We had a recorded message saying someone texted our land-line. The message said "Someone texted your land-line press 1 to hear the message" (I shortened it down because I didn't want to give out the number, and it was a little more 'flowery' with it's words).
She legitimately asked "why didn't you press 1 to hear the message?"
"umm Dear... that was a recording..."
Thus my point, even smart people can say or do dumb things. It's entirely possible to read something and interpret it differently regardless of level of education, I myself am on the cusp of finishing my college diploma for electronics engineering, There have been times where my instructors just don't understand what it is that people are asking... and these guys are significantly more educated than your friend. (unless your friend also has a doctorate in electronic engineering)
I used to be in the military, and we had many officers who had university level education... but when it came to reading and understanding some basic user manuals, these guys were useless. Education does not equate to being able to 100% understand the wording / intent of the rules.
Understanding of the English language, and being able to apply common sense to what you're reading, is what helps to understand what the rule is trying to say. However, common sense is also useful in changing a rule that doesn't really work the way it appears to be written. Like in the case of Detect Evil. It is written in a prohibitive way that a low level sadistic serial killer doesn't register, however a Level 6 fighter that beat up his mother one time because she called him fat does.
So in summary:
- education doesn't really matter... Smart people say and do dumb things all the time.
- the wording of detect evil IS self explanatory, It detects auras.
- Detect evil is prohibitive, and should be changed.
- Invoke the rule in the CRB allowing the GM to change things to fit his/her campaign and fix the issue.
- Your player is right in assuming that detect evil should determine if evil is present regardless of if the source of the evil doesn't show up in the table of evil auras. Detect Evil should determine how strong the aura is based on how evil the subject being observed is.
Cheapy, you are aware, I assume, that cockfighting trainers "improve" their rooster's talons with metal blades. I would argue that doing so with the appropriate degree of skill is turning a "natural weapon" into a "masterwork" weapon.
My point here is to show that pushing the rules so that there is no distinction between "melee weapon" and "natural melee weapon" has consequences.
Besides, I think it would be friggin awesome for my tiger to have +2 adamantium flaming teeth.
And isn't the game all about the awesomeness?
That's not making the rooster's claws masterwork, that's equipping the rooster with spurs. there is a HUGE distinction between making masterwork claws, and equipping something on the claws. If i put a sword in your hand, is your hand masterwork? No, so lets not get ridiculous here.
The issue here is that people seem to be latching onto the game definition of "melee weapons" and a logical definition of "melee weapons"
when we look at the AoMF we need to look at what it is both RAW trying to do and Logically trying to do.
Amulet of Mighty fists:
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.
Unarmed Strike:
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
It's a very small stretch to look at the bolded section of the unarmed strike and recognize that the unarmed strike is intended to be a weapon of sorts. It is a melee weapon when you are talking about methods of doing damage. It is not a melee weapon when you are talking about adding the throwing enhancement on an AoMF. because it cannot be thrown from your body, Or transformative, because your hands don't fit the same category as other melee weapons. It just functions as a melee weapon for some purposes IE doing damage. Therefor, if you are applying a weapon enhancement that "can be applied to unarmed attacks" you need to look at the ability, and determine "does this make sense to apply to an unarmed attack?" If the enhancement applies damage, then YES it does apply.
If the enhancement could kill the wielder, in the case of throwing, then NO it does not apply. In a 'few' grey areas, such as transformative, you need to read the description of the transformative enhancement. It states that you turn the weapon into another weapon. well, that would mean your hand / arm would turn into another weapon, but you no longer have a hand to wield the weapon because, your hand is the weapon... so if you don't have hands to wield the weapon, you cannot use the weapon. Thus, IMO Transformative should not work on an AoMF.
Now onto this rediculous notion of being able to put adamantine teeth into your tigers mouth and then enchant them... No... just NO...
Masterwork Weapons:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. You can't add the masterwork quality to a weapon after it is created; it must be crafted as a masterwork weapon (see the Craft skill). The masterwork quality adds 300 gp to the cost of a normal weapon (or 6 gp to the cost of a single unit of ammunition). Adding the masterwork quality to a double weapon costs twice the normal increase (+600 gp).
You must make an item masterwork upon the items creation, you cannot add masterwork to the weapon at a later date. The Tiger already has a bite weapon, therefor you cannot add masterwork to the bite.
the teeth themselves are not the weapon, therefore you would not be able to enchant the adamantine teeth. the actual bite itself is the weapon. That's the jaw, the muscles in the head, and the teeth. so you'd need to make ALL of that adamantine, or at least create the whole thing as one item, THEN enchant it. I think your tiger would have a problem if you cut off it's head, so that you could remove it's jaw / muscles so that you could create masterwork variations of them. But how would you do that? what makes a jaw masterwork? you can't exactly improve it's to weightedness, you can't improve it's speed, so what do you change to make it masterwork?
Once you've figured that out, then you need to put your cat back together, and hope it's not upset that you killed it just so that you could muddle around with it's head, thinking you can do better than evolution.
So unless you can make your tiger Masterwork... lets end this discussion now. before PETA gets on here and makes a terrible flash game about masterwork tigers.
However, my intuition is telling me that since you don't do any attack damage on a combat maneuver and you don't roll the extra dice unless you're rolling weapon damage, that you would not roll the extra fire damage when you are performing a trip CM, or any other such CM
shock:
Upon command, a shock weapon is sheathed in crackling electricity that deals an extra 1d6 points of electricity damage on a successful hit. The electricity does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
However an argument could be made that when you successfully complete the trip combat maneuver you are inflicting a hit.
so lets take a look at the combat maneuver text
Performing a Combat Maneuver:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
I've bolded an important phrase in that wall of text.
Combat Maneuver Determine Success:
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.
In the determine success it never says you inflict a 'hit' it just checks for success.
while the term 'hit' can be taken as "i actually hit the guy with my sword, i was just trying to trip him, so he should take the D6 fire damage" we need to look at the classification in game rules. In game rules a "hit" is defined as attacking an opponent and rolling the attack die, If the amount rolled + your attack bonus >= opponent's AC then you've scored a hit. However, for combat maneuvers it's slightly different.
when performing a Combat Maneuver, you announce your intention, then roll a die, add your CMB If CMB + Die rolled >= Opponents CMD then the Combat Maneuver is a success. You have never 'hit' the opponent for the purposes of the game rules. While you may have struck your opponent with your weapon, it wasn't in such a way that the weapon would discharge it's energy to cause the extra damage.
This is an important distinction that must be recognized when reading the rules. Sometimes words are used in a way that specifies a condition in game, not a real world scenario.
Based on this information, I would rule that No the extra damage is not applied during a combat maneuver.
Based on the following evidence:
-The weapon effect states that the damage is applied on a 'hit'
-a combat maneuver only checks for success
-you never actually 'hit' the opponent when performing a combat maneuver.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
It's fairly clear that the amulet grants the +1-5 enhancement bonus to the items, in the same way that adding a +1-5 on a manufactured weapon does.
It would stack.
As for the holding issue.
If you're DMing, you can rule it either way you want, that's the beauty of GMing.
Personally as a player i'd have an issue with it. Not that i find it game breaking, because i don't think it is game breaking at all. But for the simple fact that "holding" and "ready for attack" are two completely different concepts.
There was a seperate thread that was talking about a Monk/Magus and whether or not the Arcane pool and the unarmed attack worked together, and the consensus was a little divided.
However the second post in that thread agrees with me that by the letter of the Arcane Pool rule, the effects can only be applied to weapons the magus is holding.
now again, i don't intend to be coming across as argumentative. But you've posted 4 threads asking fairly straightforward questions. so i'm trying to answer as clearly and concisely as possible.
using just text this can sometimes appear as argumentative.
that's a good question. I would hazard a guess to say that the Spell level is the required DC, because the caster level doesn't help tell you what the spell is... I can be a 20th level caster brewing a potion of cure serious wounds. the perception of spell level would tell me that it's a Cure serious wounds potion.
however now that i think more on it... i think having a caster level DC would be able to tell you the strength of the potion. IE
is the potion of cure serious wounds made at 3d8+5 or is it 3d8+15?
that's where a caster level based DC would come in handy.
I think having both DC's would be fine, and if the caster level DC is made, then the PC would determine the potions strength. if the spell level DC is made, then they just know it's a potion of cure serious wounds, but not how potent it is.
Regarding the magic item identification.
you do not need to ID the aura before rolling spellcraft. It states in the detect magic spell that if the aura that you observe comes from an item, you can use spellcraft to ID the item. You could use the knowledge arcana to ID the school of the aura if you didn't have spellcraft, however, that wouldn't be terribly useful in identifying the magic item.
If it can be applied to a melee weapon it can be applied to the AoMF.
The effect is sometimes a little ambiguous. like in the case of transformative or throwing.
However, this one is again cut and dry.
sure it seems like it'd be quite powerful in the hands of a dex based character. but it's no more so than a fighter using strength... and not needing to have a weapon ability added to gain his strength bonus to attack rolls.
Again, it's fairly clear, if you read the arcane pool description.
It states it stacks with an enhancement bonus up to a max of +5.
you can also add certain abilities to a weapon. which don't stack if the weapon already has those enhancements.
but it only affects one weapon.
IE:
One kick, One punch or One headbutt.
Assuming the magus' Arcane Pool ability can be used to enhance unarmed attacks.
the Arcane pool also states that it affects a weapon that the magus is holding. I don't know about you, but I seldom hold my own hand. at least that's what I tell my therapist.
If we take a look at the Arcane Pool rules, It clearly states the following.
Arcane Pool:
At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute. For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves.
I've bolded two passages that I feel are important to this question.
the first part relates to what classifies as a weapon you are holding? Can a magus use his arcane pool to boost his unarmed strikes / natural weapons? or can the magus only use his arcane pool to modify Manufactured weapons?
The second portion is more to the question you asked. Assuming the first part is answered positively (as in the magus can apply the arcane pool to unarmed strikes / natural attacks) then yes of course the magus can use the arcane pool to add an enhancement bonus to the natural weapons. However, It would only apply to one weapon, as the Arcane pool specifically states that it only affects one weapon. so one claw or one bite would be the only thing the arcane pool would affect.
However, i'm not terribly familiar with the arcane pool. I don't know if it can be used to modify unarmed attacks or natural attacks. however, if it can be used to modify those attacks, it's quite clear that you are able to stack the enhancement bonus with One natural attack.
I would rule that your natural weapons, gain the immune to fire quality
so... your claws (but not hands), your bite (but not face).
The portion of your body that you use to deal damage is immune to fire, however the part of your body attached to the natural weapon is not immune to fire.
I don't think that any GM would allow you to say "ok, you have quenching so your whole body being attached to your natural weapons is now immune to fire."
I could see a GM saying "Your claws are immune to fire due to the AoMF, so if you wanted to reach into the forge to pull out the sword that's being worked on, go ahead"
cause it wouldn't be game breaking. but Aside from those limited RP effects, I wouldn't allow the AoMF's to allow for fire immunity.
The +2 bonus vs fire based effects would of course still function, because you can use your weapons to shield some of the effect. but not all of it. in the same way that you use a Sword with that effect to attempt to deflect some of the incoming fireball.
I think the easiest way to say "no" to the player is to point them to the Greater Magic Fang spell...
Magic Fang:
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.
Greater Magic Fang:
This spell functions like magic fang, except that the enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.
Alternatively, you may imbue all of the creature's natural weapons with a +1 enhancement bonus (regardless of your caster level).
The bolded portion of the spoiler emphasises the issue, and should help clarify what he's asking to do. with a little italicized text to get a bit of an extra point across. It specifies one fist, which can be extrapolated to indicate just one arm, which would be one claw.
The stipulation on "fist" could be argued as a possible nerf to a monk, but as BBT said, it's affecting the "unarmed strike" weapon which is the monks entire body.
In short, I feel that your player is attempting to be a little power gamey, and you should mention that Dragons don't like extra gamey meat, it's too chewy.
Yes, but you don't get the +2 until Dragon Disciple 3
Once you have a BAB of +6 or higher, you gain the iterative attacks.
Basically, divide your BAB by 5, and round up. this is the number of attacks you have. and the BAB for each attack, is reduced by 5 from the previous attack, starting with full BAB on your first attack.
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A transformative weapon alters its shape at its wielder's command, becoming any other melee weapon of the same general shape and handedness.
Ok, so lets take a look at that phrase. It was Quoted by MechE_ up above. and IMO the important part of it was ignored.
I agree with MechE_ because the simple statement "Is Considered As" specifically precludes the unarmed strike from actually being a light weapon. It is a seperate case, that is considered to be a light weapon for all cases. This does not make it a light weapon.
so lets go into the above quoted text.
If you look at the bolded text, you can see that it talks about the same general shape and handedness. How many hands do you need to 'equip' unarmed strikes?
answer is... none. they are a part of your body. if you don't need hands to equip them, then what other weapons have the same handedness?
Also I'd love to see how you can justify a scythe having the same general shape as your hands? or even a sword? do you have long knife like hands?
Another issue that pops up... So you've turned your hands into a scythe, cause you have odd shaped hands, and now you go to swing the scythe but lo and behold you no longer have any arms with which to wield the scythe. The transformative doesn't allow you to turn your hands into part of a weapon, it turns them INTO the weapon, haft and all. Thus you would lose any hands with which to wield the item.
Another glaring issue with this, what material would the weapons be made of? The transformative doesn't say what material they become, so could you use transformative to turn an item into an adamantine weapon if it wasn't made out of it?
It appears after a cursory search on the message boards, that the weapon maintains it's material. So the question I ask is, how much damage does a fleshy longsword do? or a fleshy scythe?
tl;dr
the handedness of the unarmed strikes presents a problem.
shape of unarmed strikes presents a problem.
material of hands presents a problem.
Based on these conclusions I would have to rule against the ability of transformative to be able to affect the unarmed strike or natural weapons.
I actually did a double take on the "so long as it can be applied to unarmed attacks" and said to myself Crap there goes my vorpal claws / bite attacks...
then i thought about it more and said, you know... my claws are slashing, and they are my unarmed attack... so it should work out just fine...
However, because i'm a Sorcerer, i think a better enchantment would be Brilliant Energy, so that i'm hitting mostly a touch AC.
sadly, in my party, i'm a sorcerer / backup tank... I'm starting out in Dragon Disciple, and i have the second highest AC, and the second most HP. (thank you D12 HD!!)
Our Druid is also being a pain in the backside. it was like pulling teeth to get him to make potions of greater magic fang for me and his tiger... which eventually we'll use it to permanency on the tiger and myself.
On a side note, i don't really feel like adding a seperate thread when there's already an AoMF thread going...
If I add fire to an AoMF, then through the draconic bloodline i gain D6 fire damage to my claw / bite attacks... do they stack? or not? i can't recall exactly, and i'm a little lazy right now to look it up. My gut is telling me they don't stack. but I don't trust it here, cause it's a little different than an enhancement bonus to an attack...
"Engulfed creatures are subject to the cube’s
paralysis and acid, gain the pinned condition, are in danger
of suffocating, and are trapped within its body until they are
no longer pinned"
which means that you are only subject to the 1D6 that the cube does.
I think you have to go with the idea that, RAW yes you can put throwing on an amulet of mighty fists...
but it would be as effective as putting flaming on the same amulet, then going on an adventure to the plane of fire.
It's just not going to do anything.
You can't throw an arm, you can physically throw a sword... but you can't throw your arms.
because you are physically capable of throwing a sword, you gain the benefits. the only benefit of the throwing ability is that you gain a range increment of 10 feet, and you are counted as proficient with it. Basically it removes the "improvised throwing weapon" from the equation.
your own arms/body cannot be improvised throwing weapons, unless someone else is throwing you. you're not one of their natural weapons so the amulet won't grant them any proficiency, or the range increment of 10 feet.
So, we can summarize by saying:
Sure you can put throwing on an amulet of mighty fists, but it's not recommended because it's as useless as the NHL players and managers talking right now...
