warforged battlefist and INA [Archive] - Wizards Community

warforged battlefist and INA [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
seraphin138
02-12-07, 04:34 PM must've been asked a thousand times...

didn't see where though ^_^

so, do they stack?

which would bring the slam attack to 2d6 :)
Cabral
02-12-07, 06:53 PM I would say yes, because you can apply Improved Natural Attack after the effects of the Battlefist.
Loki5654
02-12-07, 07:21 PM No.

They both improve the base natural attack by one step. Thus, like Monkey Grip and Powerful Build, they do not stack.
Cabral
02-12-07, 07:57 PM Weapon Focus increases the bonus to hit by one step.
A +1 weapon increases the bonus to hit by one step.
They don't stack?

A battlefist changes a warforged's slam attack to 1d8 and Improved Natural Attack improves it by one step to 2d6.

A monk with a battlefist and INA would deal unarmed damage as if two sizes larger than normal.

Monkey gripping to gain a higher unarmed damage doesn't work because an oversized battlefist still increases your unarmed damage by one, and only one size category.

For the slam damage, it's not so clear, but I'd say no just because the idea of monkey gripping a spiked gauntlet sized for a Titan (25 ft tall, so that gauntlet is likely 5 ft long!), is ridiculous.

So, yes, INA stacks with a battlefist, granting you an an average +2.5 damage over the battlefist. (The feat or battlefist alone only grants an average +1 damage for the feat or +2 damage for the fist*.)
*In addition to whatever enhancement bonus the battlefist possesses.
UnderworldLord
02-12-07, 08:40 PM I highly agree. One is teaching you how to use your slam more effectively, and the other is giving it more weight for you to swing. Fluff wise, I believe it makes sense. But, this is my interpretation of it, so do as you will.
seraphin138
02-13-07, 08:59 AM thx all!

one thing : increasing from 1d4 to 1d8 is more like 2 steps ;)

but i'd say they stack too

now let's convince my dm :D
AbsentMindedProfessor
02-22-07, 05:47 PM Good luck convincing. My group decided that stacking would be overpowered. They also ruled that the bodytracery feats would not work through the BF either. Wish we could get an official ruling from the powers that be. I did "ask wizards" but to no avail.
UnderworldLord
02-22-07, 06:09 PM I can see the tracery feats not stacking, but I'm still in favor of them stacking. Even if it did get you up to 1d8 damage, you now have a blunt longsword you can use once a round. Whoop-de-do. Second Slam? Sure, at a -5 to hit, go for it. Jaws of Death with INA? Why not I ask? If you feel like doing all that, you might as well call yourself "Eviscerater" and be a paladin of the LoBster, and PrC into juggernaut. Lay on hands for a wf pally repairs you as though a repair spell. The Sub lets it also damage other constructs [SMITE THE INFIDELS!]

Now if you do want to break it, I can send you the character sheet on that.
Cabral
02-24-07, 12:36 AM Balance wise, Improved Natural Attack is a similar to Weapon Specialization. Weapon Specialization + Improved Natural Attack + Battlefist is an underpowered combination. Compare it to Weapon Specialization + Battlefist + Power Attack (Be sure to add 1.5 times your strength bonus if you only have the one slam attack).

As to Tracery: What happens when I kick? The battlefist's damage modifier applies and tracery is exposed. The simplest solotion is to say the tracery "bleeds" through to the exterior of the battlefist. Otherwise, your houserule makes as little sense as the rule.
UnderworldLord
02-24-07, 10:26 AM Why would the battlefist apply to the kick though? Trust me, you don't want to let that happen. I can show you the character that I produced specifically to work on slam attack rules. As for letting traceries... If I have adamantine fists, and put on a battlefist, is the battlefist now adamantine? No... its steel, or iron, or whatever else its made of. Its like saying I can take a club and put a core of silver inside: no silver exposed, no silver touching the werewolf I am beating, therefore, ww still gets DR.
AbsentMindedProfessor
02-25-07, 03:04 PM The PC in question on our campaign was also a Monk, so the question of balance was Monk Unarmed Strike + Battlefist + INA (and the question of tre body tracery feats) compared to a Fighter with Focus, Weap. Spec and PA with a Greatsword. It came out fairly even but then add in the extra goodness a monk gets, it was deemed overpowered.
Cabral
02-25-07, 07:23 PM Why would the battlefist apply to the kick though?
Why wouldn't it?
Option 1: Roll with the flow of D&D's abstract nature of combat.

Option 2: Battlefist only applies to the fist it is atatched to. Now, keep track which one that is (and if that fist is occupied, you can't make slam attacks). Be prepared for Battlefists (Left and right), Battfeet (left and right), battle foreheads (middle), and battlejaws (middle). Do you also penalize warforged rogues with battlefists for having one oversized hand?

It's a magic item. It doesn't necessarily hit harder because it's a bigger fist. It makes a warforged hit harder because it's enchanted with that property. By making it a gauntlet, it has character, apart from that it's not much different than an amulet of mighty fists (Which noone doubts whether it stacks with Improved Natural Attack and monk levels). Don't penalize it because it has more flavor. :P
</rant>

By the rules, Improved Natual Attack stacks with battlefists and monk levels.
Battlefists partially overlap/partially stack with amulets of mighty fists. The battlefist's increase to damage always applies but the only higher enhancement bonus applies.
Tracery feats apply regardless of whether a battlefist is used.
UnderworldLord
02-25-07, 10:38 PM Option 1: viable. But you're kick still isn't using your battlefist. You're fist is.

Option 2: Why are your hands full? You fight with a slam attack. You don't need a sword, and you can get a wand sheath. That said, lets consider: its a free move to options from one hand to the other. The idea to make battlefeet is silly. As for a rogue... he has one hand thats normal sized still. Where did the penalty come in?

Yes, its a magic item, its +1 item. As for tracery feats: you still haven't rebuked what I said about the silver in the club. If you just really wanted to, you could make that work... okay, so now I put a silver medalion on. Do overcome his DR now?
Cabral
02-26-07, 08:00 AM Option 1: viable. But you're kick still isn't using your battlefist. You're fist is.

Of course they both are. An amulet of mighty fists doesn't apply to just your fists and a battlefist applies your slam attack and unarmed attack regardless of how delivered.
As for a rogue... he has one hand thats normal sized still. Where did the penalty come in?
Is he picking locks and disarming traps one-handed?
Yes, its a magic item, its +1 item.
A +1 weapon which is never actually used as such in it's own right. If a +1 sword increased your slam damage to 1d8, would you need to slam with your off-hand, the sword-wielding hand or would it just work regardless?

The battlefist does not restrict you to which limb you attack with. There is no implicit restriction, nor should there be (overarching "should", in your games whatever goes).
As for tracery feats: you still haven't rebuked what I said about the silver in the club. If you just really wanted to, you could make that work...
The tracery feats work now. A warforged wrapped from head to toe in ... wrappings still applies his body tracery feats as normal.
okay, so now I put a silver medalion on. Do overcome his DR now?
If it said that it treated all grapple and natural weapon damage as silver, the yes, it would.

The warforged spontaneosly grow extra bits here and there (ie, warforged juggernaught's spikes), if you really need a rationale, the tracery grows over the battlefist (and sloughs offs when it is removed).
UnderworldLord
02-26-07, 10:47 AM An amulet of might fists does not physically enlarge a single feature of you're body. It provides magical force increasing the blow.

Sure I don' see why he isn't picking/disableing with one hand. I've seen it done [previous experience, we had a bet going :) . I lost the bet]

As for the sword.... I can punch you while holding a sword. I just swing up with the pommel or hilt guard where my hand is. In my game, if you're using a battlefist, that fist is the one its going to apply to. But, as I take it you're at least implying the rule 0 concept, I'll agree to disagree with you.

While you're first response on the tracery feats confuses me by making no sense, I guess I could accept you're second response. The gauntlet is attached, and so the growth may not recognize it as being part of the body. I guess I could accept that, but I am going to stay quite wary of it.

And by 'silver medallion' I just meant a regular non-magical medallion made of silver. I know two people that would be very willing to tell me that such things are very true. This is the same two people that use brass knuckles [again, non-magical] and apply them to headbutts, kicks, chops, and whatnot else.
Cabral
02-26-07, 09:19 PM This is the same two people that use brass knuckles [again, non-magical] and apply them to headbutts, kicks, chops, and whatnot else.
Not at all. Brass knuckles have their own damage and are wielded as a weapon. You strike with knuckles to deal brass knuckle damage.

Brass knuckles do not allow you to deal unarmed damage as if you were one-size category larger.

If a battle fist were an amulet, worded exactly is it is now, would there be any question as to whether it applies to kicks or if body tracery feats apply? No, because the mechanics of the battlefist don't prevent it, only your interpretation is limiting the item. You are penalizing a magic item for having snifty Eberron/Warforged flavor.
Euangelion
02-26-07, 11:37 PM Strictly by the RAW, one may have a case that a battlefist increases a slam attack no matter what part of the body does the slamming. But common sense would indicate that it would only apply to the hand that the battlefist actually covers. As for the Tracery feats, it would also seem to me to be common sense that the battlefist covers up the silver or cold iron tracery (unless the player decides to slam with some other part of the body, dealing the normal damage for that sized warforged). But of course, the battlefist could be made with alchemical silver or cold iron (or adamanine, byeshk, flametouched iron, or any of the other special metal materials) and further enhanced as a normal weapon.
Edit: and since they are not named bonuses, the battlefist and INA would stack for increasing the damage of the slam attack.
UnderworldLord
02-27-07, 12:57 PM The brass knuckles was a side-note about players doing things they shouldn't be able to. :) But there is an amulet, which you noted: the mighty fists one. But if you believe I'm punishing them for flavor, then so be it.

PS: to quote a certain someone, "twice tak" to Euangelion for making clear the obvious difference between my version of common sense and RAW. Sometimes, I like to use the former over the latter.
Cabral
02-28-07, 01:42 AM Strictly by the RAW, one may have a case that a battlefist increases a slam attack no matter what part of the body does the slamming. But common sense would indicate that it would only apply to the hand that the battlefist actually covers.
Not necessarily. There is little indication that the magic weapon provides the increase in damage via increase in mass. In fact, there is evidence that the enchantment is more holistic. "Yada yada slam attack yada yada 1d8 damage yada yada (assuming a medium character)". And before anyone scoffs, this is the mechanical reason that monkey gripping a larger battlefist won't work. (And I won't go into the common sense of that idea ...)

One battlefist eats up your gauntlets (plural) slot (similar to a glove of storing), so you can't wield a second one if you have a second slam attack. That is a holistic impact for something you are claiming has no holistic benefit.
As for the Tracery feats, it would also seem to me to be common sense that the battlefist covers up the silver or cold iron tracery (unless the player decides to slam with some other part of the body, dealing the normal damage for that sized warforged). But of course, the battlefist could be made with alchemical silver or cold iron (or adamanine, byeshk, flametouched iron, or any of the other special metal materials) and further enhanced as a normal weapon.

Well, there's no saying that tracery don't bypass DR and such by their presence/proximity rather than by actual contact. I believe Faiths of Eberron has a special alchemical silver fire/smoke that irritates lycanthropes.

Edit: and since they are not named bonuses, the battlefist and INA would stack for increasing the damage of the slam attack.
Actually, they're not bonuses. They are effects that are different enough to provide a cumulative benefit. :)

Again, I'm not saying you have to change the way you are running your game or anything (and I do try to use common sense adjudicating situations that come up). However, There is something to be said about strictish adherence to the mechanics (assuming well written/designed mechanics): Predictability. Your players will know what they are getting and are less likely to be surprised by an item's/ability's effectiveness (or lack thereof) in your game.

In the case of the Battlefist, for what it's worth, I think it's mediocrely written. The mechanics are fairly straightforward but create some odd issues. For example, can you apply weapon augmentation to a battlefist and apply the benefit to your slam and unarmed attacks? What benefit, if any, does a warforged non-monk with (or without) improved unarmed strike from a battlefist?
Euangelion
03-01-07, 12:12 PM Actually, they're not bonuses. They are effects that are different enough to provide a cumulative benefit. :)
That's what I said! The only things that can't stack are certain named bonuses. They are not named bonuses. They "stack." :D

In the case of the Battlefist, for what it's worth, I think it's mediocrely written. The mechanics are fairly straightforward but create some odd issues. For example, can you apply weapon augmentation to a battlefist and apply the benefit to your slam and unarmed attacks? What benefit, if any, does a warforged non-monk with (or without) improved unarmed strike from a battlefist?
Actually, what are poorly written are the slam attack rules. Without designating a certain part of the body that does the slam, one could use their eyelid, little toe, rear end, or anything else to slam. Again, that's completely against common sense, but by the RAW, it's allowed.

It sort of begs this question: can a warforged holding a weapon in one hand and using a heavy shield in the other still make a slam attack?
JulesCARV
03-01-07, 03:12 PM Hmm... if INA and battlefist stack, a warforged monk/fist of zuoken with improved natural attack (unarmed strike) and a battlefist who manifests augmented expansion (medium --> huge) deals damage as a colossal monk.

That sounds kinda fun.

If only you could substitute psiforged body for wild talent...
Cabral
03-01-07, 06:55 PM Actually, what are poorly written are the slam attack rules. Without designating a certain part of the body that does the slam, one could use their eyelid, little toe, rear end, or anything else to slam. Again, that's completely against common sense, but by the RAW, it's allowed.
Like monks!

Seriously, it's somewhere between having Improved Unarmed Strike and not. No AoOs, deals lethal damage but no iterative attacks. Perhaps it was deliberate.
Euangelion
03-01-07, 07:25 PM It probably was deliberate, to serve as a generic natural attack. It just ends up being goofy in terms of the mechanics. Take the woodling template, which gives a slam attack to any creature that gets the template. But how does getting plant traits allow a warhorse to attack someone differently than before? Well, one possibility is a headbutt, which does lethal damage because the woodling warhorse's head is as dense as wood (which would also work well for a warforged, IMHO). But by the RAW it could be the horse's tail instead. A nice houserule might be to have the DM select a particular part of the body that gains the slam attack.

The other issue is that getting a +1 enhancement bonus towards to hit and damage rolls as well as a size increase to a warforged's slam attack through the battlefist is better than getting the same bonuses apart from the size increase from an amulet of mighty fists. But an amulet of mighty fists is far more expensive, because of it takes up a non-associated body slot. However, it takes up an important body slot for a warforged (the same one used by docents, disks of energy resistance, the essence of X components, and final messengers) . Thus a battlefist is vastly superior to an amulet of mighty fists, and yet is a fraction of the price, especially if it allows any part of the warforged body to deal the enhanced slam attack! Restricting it to enhancing only a slam attack dealt by the hand actually covered by the battlefist would be an important way of balancing the benefits of having one.
Ivelios2
03-02-07, 10:26 PM Improved natural attack and battlefist by rules absolutley do not stack. Both effects say they treat your natural attack as if you were one size catagory larger. So your a medium warforge and you have the fist bam you count as having large fists for natural attacks. Then you take INA and bam guess what your still medium so increasing your natural attack by one size is still counting as large. Nowhere does it say it looks at what your fists are currently counted as nor was it ment to.
Cabral
03-10-07, 09:43 PM Improved natural attack and battlefist by rules absolutley do not stack. Both effects say they treat your natural attack as if you were one size catagory larger. So your a medium warforge and you have the fist bam you count as having large fists for natural attacks. Then you take INA and bam guess what your still medium so increasing your natural attack by one size is still counting as large. Nowhere does it say it looks at what your fists are currently counted as nor was it ment to.
What happens if you increase your size twice? Your attacks are treated as if two sizes larger. There is no reason they would not stack. They would then also stack with any kind of enlarge effect.

I don't know why people are so harsh on such a weak combination.
UnderworldLord
03-10-07, 11:43 PM I'm still simply putting it as that the battlefist gives it area and wieght, as opposed to the feat which teaches you how to use it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
seraphin138 02-12-07, 04:34 PM	must've been asked a thousand times... didn't see where though ^_^ so, do they stack? which would bring the slam attack to 2d6 :)
Cabral 02-12-07, 06:53 PM	I would say yes, because you can apply Improved Natural Attack after the effects of the Battlefist.
Loki5654 02-12-07, 07:21 PM	No. They both improve the base natural attack by one step. Thus, like Monkey Grip and Powerful Build, they do not stack.
Cabral 02-12-07, 07:57 PM	Weapon Focus increases the bonus to hit by one step. A +1 weapon increases the bonus to hit by one step. They don't stack? A battlefist changes a warforged's slam attack to 1d8 and Improved Natural Attack improves it by one step to 2d6. A monk with a battlefist and INA would deal unarmed damage as if two sizes larger than normal. Monkey gripping to gain a higher unarmed damage doesn't work because an oversized battlefist still increases your unarmed damage by one, and only one size category. For the slam damage, it's not so clear, but I'd say no just because the idea of monkey gripping a spiked gauntlet sized for a Titan (25 ft tall, so that gauntlet is likely 5 ft long!), is ridiculous. So, yes, INA stacks with a battlefist, granting you an an average +2.5 damage over the battlefist. (The feat or battlefist alone only grants an average +1 damage for the feat or +2 damage for the fist.) In addition to whatever enhancement bonus the battlefist possesses.
UnderworldLord 02-12-07, 08:40 PM	I highly agree. One is teaching you how to use your slam more effectively, and the other is giving it more weight for you to swing. Fluff wise, I believe it makes sense. But, this is my interpretation of it, so do as you will.
seraphin138 02-13-07, 08:59 AM	thx all! one thing : increasing from 1d4 to 1d8 is more like 2 steps ;) but i'd say they stack too now let's convince my dm :D
AbsentMindedProfessor 02-22-07, 05:47 PM	Good luck convincing. My group decided that stacking would be overpowered. They also ruled that the bodytracery feats would not work through the BF either. Wish we could get an official ruling from the powers that be. I did "ask wizards" but to no avail.
UnderworldLord 02-22-07, 06:09 PM	I can see the tracery feats not stacking, but I'm still in favor of them stacking. Even if it did get you up to 1d8 damage, you now have a blunt longsword you can use once a round. Whoop-de-do. Second Slam? Sure, at a -5 to hit, go for it. Jaws of Death with INA? Why not I ask? If you feel like doing all that, you might as well call yourself "Eviscerater" and be a paladin of the LoBster, and PrC into juggernaut. Lay on hands for a wf pally repairs you as though a repair spell. The Sub lets it also damage other constructs [SMITE THE INFIDELS!] Now if you do want to break it, I can send you the character sheet on that.
Cabral 02-24-07, 12:36 AM	Balance wise, Improved Natural Attack is a similar to Weapon Specialization. Weapon Specialization + Improved Natural Attack + Battlefist is an underpowered combination. Compare it to Weapon Specialization + Battlefist + Power Attack (Be sure to add 1.5 times your strength bonus if you only have the one slam attack). As to Tracery: What happens when I kick? The battlefist's damage modifier applies and tracery is exposed. The simplest solotion is to say the tracery "bleeds" through to the exterior of the battlefist. Otherwise, your houserule makes as little sense as the rule.
UnderworldLord 02-24-07, 10:26 AM	Why would the battlefist apply to the kick though? Trust me, you don't want to let that happen. I can show you the character that I produced specifically to work on slam attack rules. As for letting traceries... If I have adamantine fists, and put on a battlefist, is the battlefist now adamantine? No... its steel, or iron, or whatever else its made of. Its like saying I can take a club and put a core of silver inside: no silver exposed, no silver touching the werewolf I am beating, therefore, ww still gets DR.
AbsentMindedProfessor 02-25-07, 03:04 PM	The PC in question on our campaign was also a Monk, so the question of balance was Monk Unarmed Strike + Battlefist + INA (and the question of tre body tracery feats) compared to a Fighter with Focus, Weap. Spec and PA with a Greatsword. It came out fairly even but then add in the extra goodness a monk gets, it was deemed overpowered.
Cabral 02-25-07, 07:23 PM	Why would the battlefist apply to the kick though? Why wouldn't it? Option 1: Roll with the flow of D&D's abstract nature of combat. Option 2: Battlefist only applies to the fist it is atatched to. Now, keep track which one that is (and if that fist is occupied, you can't make slam attacks). Be prepared for Battlefists (Left and right), Battfeet (left and right), battle foreheads (middle), and battlejaws (middle). Do you also penalize warforged rogues with battlefists for having one oversized hand? It's a magic item. It doesn't necessarily hit harder because it's a bigger fist. It makes a warforged hit harder because it's enchanted with that property. By making it a gauntlet, it has character, apart from that it's not much different than an amulet of mighty fists (Which noone doubts whether it stacks with Improved Natural Attack and monk levels). Don't penalize it because it has more flavor. :P </rant> By the rules, Improved Natual Attack stacks with battlefists and monk levels. Battlefists partially overlap/partially stack with amulets of mighty fists. The battlefist's increase to damage always applies but the only higher enhancement bonus applies. Tracery feats apply regardless of whether a battlefist is used.
UnderworldLord 02-25-07, 10:38 PM	Option 1: viable. But you're kick still isn't using your battlefist. You're fist is. Option 2: Why are your hands full? You fight with a slam attack. You don't need a sword, and you can get a wand sheath. That said, lets consider: its a free move to options from one hand to the other. The idea to make battlefeet is silly. As for a rogue... he has one hand thats normal sized still. Where did the penalty come in? Yes, its a magic item, its +1 item. As for tracery feats: you still haven't rebuked what I said about the silver in the club. If you just really wanted to, you could make that work... okay, so now I put a silver medalion on. Do overcome his DR now?
Cabral 02-26-07, 08:00 AM	Option 1: viable. But you're kick still isn't using your battlefist. You're fist is. Of course they both are. An amulet of mighty fists doesn't apply to just your fists and a battlefist applies your slam attack and unarmed attack regardless of how delivered. As for a rogue... he has one hand thats normal sized still. Where did the penalty come in? Is he picking locks and disarming traps one-handed? Yes, its a magic item, its +1 item. A +1 weapon which is never actually used as such in it's own right. If a +1 sword increased your slam damage to 1d8, would you need to slam with your off-hand, the sword-wielding hand or would it just work regardless? The battlefist does not restrict you to which limb you attack with. There is no implicit restriction, nor should there be (overarching "should", in your games whatever goes). As for tracery feats: you still haven't rebuked what I said about the silver in the club. If you just really wanted to, you could make that work... The tracery feats work now. A warforged wrapped from head to toe in ... wrappings still applies his body tracery feats as normal. okay, so now I put a silver medalion on. Do overcome his DR now? If it said that it treated all grapple and natural weapon damage as silver, the yes, it would. The warforged spontaneosly grow extra bits here and there (ie, warforged juggernaught's spikes), if you really need a rationale, the tracery grows over the battlefist (and sloughs offs when it is removed).
UnderworldLord 02-26-07, 10:47 AM	An amulet of might fists does not physically enlarge a single feature of you're body. It provides magical force increasing the blow. Sure I don' see why he isn't picking/disableing with one hand. I've seen it done [previous experience, we had a bet going :) . I lost the bet] As for the sword.... I can punch you while holding a sword. I just swing up with the pommel or hilt guard where my hand is. In my game, if you're using a battlefist, that fist is the one its going to apply to. But, as I take it you're at least implying the rule 0 concept, I'll agree to disagree with you. While you're first response on the tracery feats confuses me by making no sense, I guess I could accept you're second response. The gauntlet is attached, and so the growth may not recognize it as being part of the body. I guess I could accept that, but I am going to stay quite wary of it. And by 'silver medallion' I just meant a regular non-magical medallion made of silver. I know two people that would be very willing to tell me that such things are very true. This is the same two people that use brass knuckles [again, non-magical] and apply them to headbutts, kicks, chops, and whatnot else.
Cabral 02-26-07, 09:19 PM	This is the same two people that use brass knuckles [again, non-magical] and apply them to headbutts, kicks, chops, and whatnot else. Not at all. Brass knuckles have their own damage and are wielded as a weapon. You strike with knuckles to deal brass knuckle damage. Brass knuckles do not allow you to deal unarmed damage as if you were one-size category larger. If a battle fist were an amulet, worded exactly is it is now, would there be any question as to whether it applies to kicks or if body tracery feats apply? No, because the mechanics of the battlefist don't prevent it, only your interpretation is limiting the item. You are penalizing a magic item for having snifty Eberron/Warforged flavor.
Euangelion 02-26-07, 11:37 PM	Strictly by the RAW, one may have a case that a battlefist increases a slam attack no matter what part of the body does the slamming. But common sense would indicate that it would only apply to the hand that the battlefist actually covers. As for the Tracery feats, it would also seem to me to be common sense that the battlefist covers up the silver or cold iron tracery (unless the player decides to slam with some other part of the body, dealing the normal damage for that sized warforged). But of course, the battlefist could be made with alchemical silver or cold iron (or adamanine, byeshk, flametouched iron, or any of the other special metal materials) and further enhanced as a normal weapon. Edit: and since they are not named bonuses, the battlefist and INA would stack for increasing the damage of the slam attack.
UnderworldLord 02-27-07, 12:57 PM	The brass knuckles was a side-note about players doing things they shouldn't be able to. :) But there is an amulet, which you noted: the mighty fists one. But if you believe I'm punishing them for flavor, then so be it. PS: to quote a certain someone, "twice tak" to Euangelion for making clear the obvious difference between my version of common sense and RAW. Sometimes, I like to use the former over the latter.
Cabral 02-28-07, 01:42 AM	Strictly by the RAW, one may have a case that a battlefist increases a slam attack no matter what part of the body does the slamming. But common sense would indicate that it would only apply to the hand that the battlefist actually covers. Not necessarily. There is little indication that the magic weapon provides the increase in damage via increase in mass. In fact, there is evidence that the enchantment is more holistic. "Yada yada slam attack yada yada 1d8 damage yada yada (assuming a medium character)". And before anyone scoffs, this is the mechanical reason that monkey gripping a larger battlefist won't work. (And I won't go into the common sense of that idea ...) One battlefist eats up your gauntlets (plural) slot (similar to a glove of storing), so you can't wield a second one if you have a second slam attack. That is a holistic impact for something you are claiming has no holistic benefit. As for the Tracery feats, it would also seem to me to be common sense that the battlefist covers up the silver or cold iron tracery (unless the player decides to slam with some other part of the body, dealing the normal damage for that sized warforged). But of course, the battlefist could be made with alchemical silver or cold iron (or adamanine, byeshk, flametouched iron, or any of the other special metal materials) and further enhanced as a normal weapon. Well, there's no saying that tracery don't bypass DR and such by their presence/proximity rather than by actual contact. I believe Faiths of Eberron has a special alchemical silver fire/smoke that irritates lycanthropes. Edit: and since they are not named bonuses, the battlefist and INA would stack for increasing the damage of the slam attack. Actually, they're not bonuses. They are effects that are different enough to provide a cumulative benefit. :) Again, I'm not saying you have to change the way you are running your game or anything (and I do try to use common sense adjudicating situations that come up). However, There is something to be said about strictish adherence to the mechanics (assuming well written/designed mechanics): Predictability. Your players will know what they are getting and are less likely to be surprised by an item's/ability's effectiveness (or lack thereof) in your game. In the case of the Battlefist, for what it's worth, I think it's mediocrely written. The mechanics are fairly straightforward but create some odd issues. For example, can you apply weapon augmentation to a battlefist and apply the benefit to your slam and unarmed attacks? What benefit, if any, does a warforged non-monk with (or without) improved unarmed strike from a battlefist?
Euangelion 03-01-07, 12:12 PM	Actually, they're not bonuses. They are effects that are different enough to provide a cumulative benefit. :) That's what I said! The only things that can't stack are certain named bonuses. They are not named bonuses. They "stack." :D In the case of the Battlefist, for what it's worth, I think it's mediocrely written. The mechanics are fairly straightforward but create some odd issues. For example, can you apply weapon augmentation to a battlefist and apply the benefit to your slam and unarmed attacks? What benefit, if any, does a warforged non-monk with (or without) improved unarmed strike from a battlefist? Actually, what are poorly written are the slam attack rules. Without designating a certain part of the body that does the slam, one could use their eyelid, little toe, rear end, or anything else to slam. Again, that's completely against common sense, but by the RAW, it's allowed. It sort of begs this question: can a warforged holding a weapon in one hand and using a heavy shield in the other still make a slam attack?
JulesCARV 03-01-07, 03:12 PM	Hmm... if INA and battlefist stack, a warforged monk/fist of zuoken with improved natural attack (unarmed strike) and a battlefist who manifests augmented expansion (medium --> huge) deals damage as a colossal monk. That sounds kinda fun. If only you could substitute psiforged body for wild talent...
Cabral 03-01-07, 06:55 PM	Actually, what are poorly written are the slam attack rules. Without designating a certain part of the body that does the slam, one could use their eyelid, little toe, rear end, or anything else to slam. Again, that's completely against common sense, but by the RAW, it's allowed. Like monks! Seriously, it's somewhere between having Improved Unarmed Strike and not. No AoOs, deals lethal damage but no iterative attacks. Perhaps it was deliberate.
Euangelion 03-01-07, 07:25 PM	It probably was deliberate, to serve as a generic natural attack. It just ends up being goofy in terms of the mechanics. Take the woodling template, which gives a slam attack to any creature that gets the template. But how does getting plant traits allow a warhorse to attack someone differently than before? Well, one possibility is a headbutt, which does lethal damage because the woodling warhorse's head is as dense as wood (which would also work well for a warforged, IMHO). But by the RAW it could be the horse's tail instead. A nice houserule might be to have the DM select a particular part of the body that gains the slam attack. The other issue is that getting a +1 enhancement bonus towards to hit and damage rolls as well as a size increase to a warforged's slam attack through the battlefist is better than getting the same bonuses apart from the size increase from an amulet of mighty fists. But an amulet of mighty fists is far more expensive, because of it takes up a non-associated body slot. However, it takes up an important body slot for a warforged (the same one used by docents, disks of energy resistance, the essence of X components, and final messengers) . Thus a battlefist is vastly superior to an amulet of mighty fists, and yet is a fraction of the price, especially if it allows any part of the warforged body to deal the enhanced slam attack! Restricting it to enhancing only a slam attack dealt by the hand actually covered by the battlefist would be an important way of balancing the benefits of having one.
Ivelios2 03-02-07, 10:26 PM	Improved natural attack and battlefist by rules absolutley do not stack. Both effects say they treat your natural attack as if you were one size catagory larger. So your a medium warforge and you have the fist bam you count as having large fists for natural attacks. Then you take INA and bam guess what your still medium so increasing your natural attack by one size is still counting as large. Nowhere does it say it looks at what your fists are currently counted as nor was it ment to.
Cabral 03-10-07, 09:43 PM	Improved natural attack and battlefist by rules absolutley do not stack. Both effects say they treat your natural attack as if you were one size catagory larger. So your a medium warforge and you have the fist bam you count as having large fists for natural attacks. Then you take INA and bam guess what your still medium so increasing your natural attack by one size is still counting as large. Nowhere does it say it looks at what your fists are currently counted as nor was it ment to. What happens if you increase your size twice? Your attacks are treated as if two sizes larger. There is no reason they would not stack. They would then also stack with any kind of enlarge effect. I don't know why people are so harsh on such a weak combination.
UnderworldLord 03-10-07, 11:43 PM	I'm still simply putting it as that the battlefist gives it area and wieght, as opposed to the feat which teaches you how to use it.