Post/Author/DateTime	Post
championstyle 05-23-05, 07:16 PM	1. Let me set the stage of my question, a monk warforged wearing battlefists wants to enchant his unnarmed strikes with permanent bonuses like a weapon would have such as +2 flaming. My questions are several and follow as such... - Battlefist is not a weapon but a component, correct? If it isn't a weapon does it occupy the same magic item slot as gauntlets or bracers? - If he enchants +2 flaming this directly onto his fists(unnarmed strike) it will work in conjuction with the battlefist, correct? - If his fists(unnarmed strike) are +2 flaming and he decides to enchant his battlefist with Frost and ghost touch, the effects of the fist(unnarmed strike) stack with the battlefist making the attacks for this WF monk +2 flaming frost ghost touch? - Finally, if all of this is possible. The cost for enchanting the battlefist with weapon enchantments should cost more because it isnt a weapon and the enchantments are considered out of place, correct? Any clarification on this issue would be greatly appreciated as this will become an issue in my existing campaign as my players near experience and wealth levels necessary to begin enchanting items or buying enchanted items.
Edymnion 05-23-05, 10:18 PM	Well, you can't enchant their fists directly, so that part of the idea is right out. However, you could always get an Amulet of Mighty Fists, which would let you do essentially the same thing. I'm not sure how I'd try to handle stacking between an Amulet of Mighty Fists and a Battlefist though. Gut reaction would be that they overlap. +1 Flaming Amulet with a +1 Shocking Fist would overlap to give you a +1 Flaming Shocking attack. Those amulets ain't cheap though.
championstyle 05-23-05, 10:48 PM	Why couldnt you enchant the fist directly? My understanding of warforged is that he is essentially a living item. You can use craft armor to enchance his AC and give him abilities such as invulnerability or other armor enchantments, then why couldnt you use the same logic to enchant the warforged's hand. I seem to have serious issues understanding exactly how a wf interacts with magic and magic items. Is there a quick and dirty way to explain this to me so I can sort it out?
Edymnion 05-23-05, 10:56 PM	Basically its because you can't enchant the WF itself directly. You can enchant his composite plating, but not his body itself. Mechanically, its the same as enchanting armor. But what you're wanting to do is to enchant a natural attack, which mechanically, is no differant than a Longtooth Shifter trying to enchant his teeth. Remember the rule of thumb. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the WF are just like any other race. If you don't find anything that specifically says they can or can not do something, for the sake of balance, replace the word "Warforged" in your question with "Human". If the answer is still yes, then yeah, they can do it. If not, then no, they can't. So, it would come out as "Can a human enchant their fists?" Nope, because that is part of the creature, and you can't enchant creatures. You can only enchant WF plating because it specifically says you can, their fists have no such qualifier.
Kid SixXx 05-24-05, 07:09 AM	1. Let me set the stage of my question, a monk warforged wearing battlefists wants to enchant his unnarmed strikes with permanent bonuses like a weapon would have such as +2 flaming. My questions are several and follow as such... - Battlefist is not a weapon but a component, correct? If it isn't a weapon does it occupy the same magic item slot as gauntlets or bracers? - If he enchants +2 flaming this directly onto his fists(unnarmed strike) it will work in conjuction with the battlefist, correct? - If his fists(unnarmed strike) are +2 flaming and he decides to enchant his battlefist with Frost and ghost touch, the effects of the fist(unnarmed strike) stack with the battlefist making the attacks for this WF monk +2 flaming frost ghost touch? - Finally, if all of this is possible. The cost for enchanting the battlefist with weapon enchantments should cost more because it isnt a weapon and the enchantments are considered out of place, correct? Any clarification on this issue would be greatly appreciated as this will become an issue in my existing campaign as my players near experience and wealth levels necessary to begin enchanting items or buying enchanted items. Technically the Battlefist is a weapon as well as a componant. Logically it should be able to be further enhanced as well as be made of other materials so that it can pass through certain types of DR. A WF can add armor enhancements to it's composite plating, but not "plusses" to it's fists. It can, however, take the various Tracery feats to help it pass through DR. It's allowed to enhance it's plating because they don't wear any armor at all. A WF Monk will be able to enhance it's fists to serve as magical weapons via the Ki Strike ablilty or by spells such as Magic Fang just as any other monk.
championstyle 05-24-05, 09:07 AM	If yes, it is very strange that it does since it isnt a weapon by virtue of not requiring a WP or EWP. I find it strange according to this reasoning that it would then allow the user to bypass DR/Magic. Furthermore the cost of the item in the book is not reflective of it being a component but being a weapon. I cant help but feel that they had a good idea but dropped the ball on the design.
championstyle 05-24-05, 09:11 AM	If the fist doesnt take up an actual item slot, then it should follow the rules for WF components and cost double for enchantments. otherwise it should occupy the slot of a gauntlet.
championstyle 05-24-05, 09:45 AM	ok... here is my last post, i hope it is clearer than the previous ones. Follow my logic... 1- Battlefist is not a weapon because it doesnt require a weapon or exotic weapon proficiency. Therefore it should count as an out of place component and require a 2x cost for enchantments. The fist should then have a base price of no less than 4600 for its +1 enchancement and its unnarmed damage augmentation. 2- Battlefist is a weapon and is properly priced in the book, but should require a weapon proficiency of some sort as all weapons do. It requires craft weapons and armour so it should therefore logically follow that it is a weapon. Which is the correct one? I think the BF should be an exotic weapon, it is what makes the most sense according to the rules.
manneedshaircut 05-25-05, 02:48 AM	I think the correct choice here is: The battlefist is a poorly desinged weapon which is inherently overpowering for the monk wielding it. With a Battle fist and Enlarge Person, my level 20 monk's damage goes from 2d10 to more than the charts show, probably something like 5d6 or 5d8. Even without enlarge person, you upgrade your damage to 4d8. That is an awful lot of damage for a component which costs only 2600gp. But, to answer the question, the description of the Battlefist: This +1 weapon... Thus, it is a weapon and can be enchanted. It would probably be kept under Simple Weapon proficiency which everyone gets, since it is really most similar to brass knuckles, which i would rule are a simple weapon. just my 2c
Pinky's brain 05-25-05, 03:27 AM	It is a weapon, but the monk is not using it as such ... he is using unarmed attacks.
AvonRekaes 05-25-05, 03:51 AM	Just as a side note... Weapons are already under the double-price non-slot rule. Weapons are non-slotted items. Check the list in the DMG if you don't believe me. This is why a Weapon +1 costs 2000 while an Armor +1 costs 1000. Armor is a slot on your body, so it's cheaper.
Greyman 05-25-05, 06:52 AM	I think the correct choice here is: The battlefist is a poorly desinged weapon which is inherently overpowering for the monk wielding it. With a Battle fist and Enlarge Person, my level 20 monk's damage goes from 2d10 to more than the charts show, probably something like 5d6 or 5d8. Even without enlarge person, you upgrade your damage to 4d8. That is an awful lot of damage for a component which costs only 2600gp. Sorry, enlarge person cannot be used on a warforged as it has a target of "one humanoid creature." A warforged is a construct, and not an humanoid.
manneedshaircut 05-26-05, 01:19 AM	Sorry, enlarge person cannot be used on a warforged as it has a target of "one humanoid creature." A warforged is a construct, and not an humanoid. Actually Warforged only have the Living Construct subtype which means they are Humanoid (Living Construct). Thus, Enlarge person works on them.
Greyman 05-26-05, 09:45 AM	No, Warforged have the Living Construct subtype and the Constuct type. The have to as an Humanoid simply cannot have the Living Construct subtype.Living Construct Subtype (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_livingconstructsubtype&alpha=) A living construct is a new subtype of construct, a created being given sentience and free will through powerful and complex creation enchantments. Living constructs combine aspects of both constructs and living creatures, as detailed below. ...To reiterate: being a Construct (Living Construct), a Warforged is not a valid target for enlarge person. Truely, I wish they were, for that spell is a perfect buff for a melee/grappler.