Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Marcotic 07-29-07, 02:46 AM	Well, I've scrounged the rules, but haven't found anything banning it out right, but there are no rules to support (in my knowledge at least), and there is that Amulet of mighty fists so one would assume that that is where you would have to go. My Feral-orc wants his claws enchanted and says its' perfectly legit. I have mechanical hesitations, but see no reason not to save for said mechanical hesitations. 1. He won't be paying nearly as much as the rule provided equivalent (although that thing is Amazingly expensive) 2. He won't be taking up a necklace slot. I think that Housing the price of the Mighty Fists down a notch may be a good solution, I was also considering allowing it, but saying that the procedure will cost as much as a Mighty fists because living creatures interact strangely with enchantments, so it cost more to get around that, also it must be focused on a the neck so you cannot gain benefit from another magic necklace/amulet. (in other words putting down mighty fist necklace on his person rather then a necklace.) The questions I pose to you all are 1. Can you get your claws enchanted w/out wearing an item 2. If the rules say you can't would the above ideas for dealing with it be feasible, if not any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
Nom 07-29-07, 03:11 AM	Theoretically, you can do it. It just requires permanency and greater magic fang used together. The trick is finding a caster who can do this.
zeratulcraft 07-29-07, 03:16 AM	And if he gets hit by a successful dispel, he loses his investment.
Salla 07-29-07, 09:21 AM	If you are referring to having the spells Magic Fang or Greater Magic Fang made permanent through the Permanency spell (as Nom says), then yes. If you are referring to using the Magic Item Crafting rules to simply have +1 claws or teeth, no.
Potato Weasel 07-29-07, 10:04 AM	The thing that ourtright disallows it is he doesnt have (and there is no way to get) masterwork claws. Also, the magic item crafting rules are made for items, not beings. Just put the enchantments on an amulet of mighty fists or go the players handbook faq way and just allow him to use gauntlets with his claw damage instead.
danyc 07-29-07, 01:38 PM	Another thing to keep in mind when looking at the pricing of the Amulet is that it affects all your attacks, so if you have a claw/claw/bite routine it might be a little more cost-efficient than it looks. Or maybe he could be a Kensai.
Mock26 07-29-07, 01:59 PM	Per the RAW you can change the rules so that he could turn his claws into masterwork claws and then enchant them as a +1 or higher weapon. Just remember that Rule 0 is RAW.
Marcotic 07-29-07, 10:18 PM	PC Cool! Marco just gave me +1 claws! Other PC Well, that doesn't quite follow the RAW Me: I DIDN'T BREAK THE RAW! I AM THE RAW!
Marcus Majarra 07-29-07, 10:56 PM	Per the RAW you can change the rules so that he could turn his claws into masterwork claws and then enchant them as a +1 or higher weapon. Just remember that Rule 0 is RAW. And there's another forum for this kind of advice: the House Rule forum. Changing the rules might be within the scope of the RAW, but the new rules are not.
Mock26 07-29-07, 11:03 PM	And there's another forum for this kind of advice: the House Rule forum. Changing the rules might be within the scope of the RAW, but the new rules are not. But, since Rule 0 is RAW, there is nothing wrong with suggesting the use of Rule 0 in this situation. If the rules don't allow a player or DM to do what they want to do, then suggesting that they change the rules is a legitimate piece of advice that can and should be given. And, the House Rule forum is generally for the discussion of the pros and cons of various house rules. There is no written rule that states that all discussion of house rules HAS to happen there. That forum was created as a place where people could basically go and get advice for their house rules, be they existing or planned rules. There is nothing wrong with suggesting the use or creation of house rules in other forums, including this one.
Marcus Majarra 07-29-07, 11:22 PM	There is nothing wrong with suggesting the use or creation of house rules in other forums, including this one. I disagree. This forum should be primarily concerned with dealing with rules as written, not with rules as we want them to be. The idea is to try and remain within the scope of the rules. If looking for alternative to printed rules, it's more appropriate to go to the House Rules forum. That's one of its primary purposes. The OP's questions were as follows: 1. Can you get your claws enchanted w/out wearing an item 2. If the rules say you can't would the above ideas for dealing with it be feasible, if not any suggestions? Thanks in advance. 1. No. Unless otherwise noticed, you cannot enhance a natural weapon as if you were dealing with a magic item. The reason for this is that it involves an important balance issue regarding the loss of these abilities. The feral orc can very well lose his amulet of mighty fists. However, having +1 claws will follow him forever. In order to ensure balance, something must be sacrificed to retain an "always on" benefit. 2. There have been two good suggestions provided: combining greater magic fang with permanency, and taking Kensai levels. In the former, you get the same benefits of having magic claws with enhancement bonuses to hit and damage, but the spell can be dispelled at any time, meaning you have to find a spellcaster to do this all again. With kensai levels, you'll never lose the benefits, but this will cost you some class levels.
Mock26 07-29-07, 11:41 PM	I disagree. This forum should be primarily concerned with dealing with rules as written, not with rules as we want them to be. The idea is to try and remain within the scope of the rules. If looking for alternative to printed rules, it's more appropriate to go to the House Rules forum. That's one of its primary purposes. Then please alert the moderators. I merely suggested the use of Rule 0. I did not come up with specific house rules for the original poster. There is a big difference.
Marcus Majarra 07-30-07, 12:23 AM	Then please alert the moderators. I merely suggested the use of Rule 0. I did not come up with specific house rules for the original poster. There is a big difference. I propose we end this inner discussion before it escalates. All I am saying is that we should look to RAW solutions before recommending the adoption of new solutions (especially when the topic title suggests a need for RAW support).
Mock26 07-30-07, 12:33 AM	I propose we end this inner discussion before it escalates. All I am saying is that we should look to RAW solutions before recommending the adoption of new solutions (especially when the topic title suggests a need for RAW support). And the RAW were looked at and they were not giving the original poster what he wanted, which seemed to be +1 claws. So, if the RAW doesn't support what he wants, suggest that he go beyond the RAW, which is what I did. /side topic
Anathema 07-30-07, 03:07 AM	You actually can; but if and only if you take levels of the Kensai PRC (Complete Warrior, pg49). Its primary class feature allows you to choose your signature weapon and imbue it with enchantments, and you may choose natural attacks. It's a really cool PRC if you ask me.
eamon 07-30-07, 06:27 AM	Although you can be extraordanarily literal minded about it and suggest that because claws aren't masterwork, they can't be enchanted, note that there are non-masterwork magic weapons in some splat books, and on the other hand, say, the warforged's fists can be enchanted (ECS/MM3). The reason why a weapon should be masterwork before enchanting is suggested to be economical, in the sense that "you might as well make it masterwork" if you're willing to spend the gp making it magic. In other words, if you want to forbid making claws magic, I would simply say that only objects can be enchanted, and thus, the only creatures that can be enchanted are constructs. That makes much more in-game sense that the bit about masterwork, IMHO.
mvincent 07-30-07, 12:34 PM	there is nothing wrong with suggesting the use of Rule 0Agreed. Usually it is assumed as an option (providing that one has an agreeable DM or is one themself) but yes, no harm in providing a reminder. Personally, I avoid rule 0 myself because it reduces a character's portability to another DM's game. Also, many players can start confusing those rulings with the real rules (as seen on these boards), and they can have untested balance effects.
mvincent 07-30-07, 12:52 PM	Theoretically, you can do it. It just requires permanency and greater magic fang used together. The trick is finding a caster who can do this.Note that two casters can (and probably should) collaborate on this: one to provide the GMF, and one to provide the permanency. Other tips: 1) Go for caster level 20 as this gives you a +5 natural weapon, and is immune to regular dispel magic. The whole thing should cost about 9k gp. 2) If a 20 level druid cannot be located, try for a lower level one that has his CL temporarily augmented using a bead of karma, candle of invocation, orange ioun stone, and/or a ring of spell-storing loaded with death knell. 3) A CL 20 GMF is still vulnerable to Greater Dispel Magic. However, a ring of counterspells (loaded with GDM) can help prevent targeted GDM's, while a bunch of CL 21 magic mouths can protect against area GDM's (the magic mouths could be created by a lower level caster using any of the CL augmenting items list in item #2).
Salla 07-30-07, 12:53 PM	In other words, if you want to forbid making claws magic, I would simply say that only objects can be enchanted, and thus, the only creatures that can be enchanted are constructs. That makes much more in-game sense that the bit about masterwork, IMHO. Constructs are creatures, not objects, and cannot be enchanted in that manner, either (Warforged composite plating is a specific exception).
ciryx2k 08-05-07, 03:24 AM	Actually, per RAW there IS a way: Kensai from Complete Warrior specifically states that a monk may designate his fist as his signature weapon. It even gives ways to have BOTH fists enchanted. The enchantment rules for this use the stats for enchanting weapons via magic weapon tables. This is the ONLY way I have found to do it, and since Kensai doesn't allow your monk abilities to stack with it and you can neve take levels is monk again, it's a pretty stiff penalty. You can technically do this though, so I thought I'd throw it in.
Neutronium_Dragon 08-05-07, 12:25 PM	It has been mentioned (even in the RotG articles) that the Amulet of Mighty Fists' exorbitant cost is partly due to the fact that it's occupying an inappropriate item slot for its effect, thus triggering the +50% price hike. If you create an alternate item which does occupy an appropriate slot (such as Bracers of Mighty Fists) then the +50% price hike wouldn't apply, so the +1 version would drop from 6000 GP to 4000 GP, etc.
calronmoonflower 08-05-07, 04:41 PM	It has been mentioned (even in the RotG articles) that the Amulet of Mighty Fists' exorbitant cost is partly due to the fact that it's occupying an inappropriate item slot for its effect, thus triggering the +50% price hike. If you create an alternate item which does occupy an appropriate slot (such as Bracers of Mighty Fists) then the +50% price hike wouldn't apply, so the +1 version would drop from 6000 GP to 4000 GP, etc. I looked it up and it cost X3 as much not +50%. Look up the Savage Species is has a Necklace of Natural Weapons. It cost the same as a appropriate magical weapon(s) plus 600. You can even add enchantments to it.
Neutronium_Dragon 08-05-07, 09:26 PM	The Savage Species necklace affects only *one* natural weapon at a price of 2600 GP. If you want it to affect more than that, you have to start multiplying the cost. However, the DMG amulet simply affects all weapons, period. Items like that tend to be priced as double weapons - it's apparently the case with the Amulet and was explicitly stated as being the case with Bracers of Striking, which work in a very similar way (but add special properties rather than an Enhancement bonus). At double weapon cost, you've got 4000 GP (for two +1 Enhancements), multiplied by +50% for the noncustomary slot. This is also an item which is used as the direct example in the Rules of the Game article concerning noncustomary slots: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050111a The only difference here is that bracers are probably more appropriate in theme than gauntlets if you're going to be clawing things. (Either slot is considered appropriate for the effect, though.)
calronmoonflower 08-05-07, 11:59 PM	The Savage Species necklace affects only *one* natural weapon at a price of 2600 GP. If you want it to affect more than that, you have to start multiplying the cost. That is way my post had an (s). However, the DMG amulet simply affects all weapons, period. Items like that tend to be priced as double weapons - it's apparently the case with the Amulet and was explicitly stated as being the case with Bracers of Striking, which work in a very similar way (but add special properties rather than an Enhancement bonus). At double weapon cost, you've got 4000 GP (for two +1 Enhancements), multiplied by +50% for the noncustomary slot. I guess that makes sense. Not making an appropriate slot that affect one natural attack doesn't. But still, What slot does a weapon take up? It costs more AND takes a slot. It sucks unless you have three or more natural attacks.
Lord_Bonez 08-06-07, 01:32 AM	I didnt read all of the posts but I thought this might help if u were willing to multi class or make a variant of the Kensai class featured in the AD&D Complete Warrior. Hell if u wanted to u could do alot of things but to the point, the kensai has the signature weapon ability it allows him to spend EXP to enchant a weapon the amount of enchantment rises as u gain levels. The important part or this rambling is it spicifically states that u can imbue natural weapons up to a +10 at level 10. I dont know if u will even read this but anyone else that does think about it the next time u are going to make a Monk.:)