Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jay_Ibero_911 10-25-06, 11:47 PM	I saw some references to it being changed somehow. Does it no longer grant +6 str as it does in Spell Compendium?
ShinAkuma2 10-30-06, 01:24 AM	Perhaps the references you mention actually refer to the SpC changes themselves. Remember, that +6 isn't all-purpose. It only adds to the things specifically mentioned in the description.
Morgen 10-30-06, 02:18 PM	Eh, it's still +3 to hit though, which isn't terrible, and you get bonus damage to break things and in grapples you get the bonus to the check and a natural attack to hit people with. All in all it's better then any other 1st level spell for raising your attack. It just lacks the damage bonus it had before.
CeramicWeasel 11-16-06, 12:34 AM	Remember, that +6 isn't all-purpose. It only adds to the things specifically mentioned in the description. So, it doesn't add to damage with the exception of the slam attack? The spell description is kind of vague about how far the bonus extends when using a melee weapon, and i've been searching everywhere for some sort of clarification but haven't had any luck. The word "attacks" could be taken to mean attack rolls and damage rolls, for example.
RedKnightofKet 11-16-06, 01:37 PM	So, it doesn't add to damage with the exception of the slam attack? The spell description is kind of vague about how far the bonus extends when using a melee weapon, and i've been searching everywhere for some sort of clarification but haven't had any luck. The word "attacks" could be taken to mean attack rolls and damage rolls, for example. Huh? How is "to attack rolls" not clear? To hit is called "attack", and damage is called "damage". I think it's pretty obvious that it doesn't apply. Shouldn't be any table variation on this. The clarification comes in the SpC wording of the spell. If you're using the older version, check the current one. Always good to know which ones have been adjusted.
solbergb 11-16-06, 06:56 PM	Huh? How is "to attack rolls" not clear? To hit is called "attack", and damage is called "damage". I think it's pretty obvious that it doesn't apply. Shouldn't be any table variation on this. You are way too optomistic. The strength very clearly does apply when the hand is used as a natural weapon. The text is contradictory and possibly incomplete. It could mean you get +6 str only for grapples and using the fist as a weapon and for "smashing things". It could mean you get +6 str for any attack coming from that hand but not for damage(which is bizzare). It could mean you just plain get +6 str and the rest is flavor. We don't really know, and the SC didn't really clarify anything. The point of view you think is obvious is one of at least 3 prevailing opinions. I lean toward the more restrictive +6 only for fist used as weapon, or for grapple, or for smashing things with the fist. I'm not even sure if it should apply for unarmed strike. When using the spell as a player, I just ask the DM. As a judge, I use whichever of the opinions the players seem to like that isn't the "it is just +6 str to anything" since I don't have strong opinions on this spell.
Mommy was an Orc 11-16-06, 07:25 PM	Generally, as someone who plays just such a Monk, where I try to cast it every combat, I've found the prevailing option tends to be: You get +6 to Str for purposes of attack rolls, grapples, and smashing things. When you specifically use that hand to make a slam attack as a secondary attack, you get to do 1d6+str. When you use it as your primary, you do 1d6+Str*1.5. So as an example, if I kick someone, I get +3 to hit, but no bonus to damage. If I grapple or do a slam, I get +3 to hit/damage. The text doesn't say the strength only applies for purposes of attacks with your hand, though some people interpret it that way at which point I get more focused on grappling over other options.
CeramicWeasel 11-16-06, 09:54 PM	Huh? How is "to attack rolls" not clear? To hit is called "attack", and damage is called "damage". I think it's pretty obvious that it doesn't apply. Shouldn't be any table variation on this. The clarification comes in the SpC wording of the spell. If you're using the older version, check the current one. Always good to know which ones have been adjusted. I've never seen the SpC, i only have a copy of Complete Arcane, and in there it doesn't say anything about attack rolls. The exact wording is "for the purposes of attacks, grapple checks, or breaking and crushing items", which is ambiguous at best. The word "attack" as defined in the Player's Handbook can mean any number of things and "attack rolls" are only a part of any given attack action. It's a pretty important distinction. How has the wording been updated in the Spell Compendium?
solbergb 11-17-06, 01:48 PM	Part of why my monk doesn't care that much is he already has a +4 str belt. If he casts the spell he's doing it for the grapple bonus or to get a natural weapon attack in addition to his flurry. My arcane archer uses the spell exclusively for grappling. So I defer to Andy's experiendce, since he uses it on a char for melee without other sources of str bonus.
SirApropos 11-19-06, 12:40 PM	Would the +6 Str bonus count for things such as Bull Rush considering it is an Attack and that it doesn't deal damage?
Mommy was an Orc 11-19-06, 12:49 PM	Would the +6 Str bonus count for things such as Bull Rush considering it is an Attack and that it doesn't deal damage? Bull Rush is an opposed strength check, not an attack roll. I'd view that as clearly not. Fist of Stone does now say Attack Rolls in Spell Compendium, for reference.
zee_villain 11-19-06, 05:59 PM	My friends and I have just finished our 3rd LG module and have come to realize that Fist of Stone as it is described in the Complete Arcane might not be interpreted correctly by everyone at the table. The first sentence of the spell description states: "You transform one of your hands into a mighty fist of stone, gaining a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength for purposes of attacks, grapple checks, or breaking and crushing items." So, "+6 enhancement bonus to Strength"- means what exactly? "Attacks" - meaning to hit and damage (it does not say attack rolls only)? "Grapple checks, or breaking and crushing items" – luckily this part of it we are good on. The second sentence states: “In addition, you gain the ability to make one natural slam attack as a standard action, dealing 1d6 points of damage plus your new Strength bonus (or 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus if you make no other attacks that round).” So, you do get a strength bonus on your attack, and you get a slam attack ability. As I read the explanation over and over, my understanding of it is this: 1. You gain +6 enhancement bonus to Strength to one of your hands for 1 minute. 2. You can use the Strength bonus for purposes of attacks, grapple checks, or breaking and crushing items. a. “Attacks” meaning, the whole attack action and everything that goes with it. The bonus on the to hit (if any) and damage (if any). The description does not state attack rolls only as other spells do. 3. You gain the ability to make one natural slam attack with that hand utilizing the strength bonus. 4. Your hand does not go thru any physical change at all. We have been going back and forth at it for a while now and can’t seem to agree on things. Ultimately, the DM would make the official rule; however, in LG I am not sure. What do the LG rules (Triad) lawyers say? What does the Spell Compendium say? Thanks in advance.
JJeff 11-19-06, 07:41 PM	The point is that the latest printing of the spell, which would be the one in Spell Compendium, states "Attack rolls" instead of just "Attacks". The resat of the spell description is the same. That's why there's an issue. The spell seemingly only gives the +6 str for attack rolls (Seemingly intepreted by many to mean only the to-hit rolls), and other strength checks ("Grapple checks, or breaking and crushing items" ).
CeramicWeasel 11-19-06, 08:27 PM	Fist of Stone does now say Attack Rolls in Spell Compendium, for reference. That clarification pretty much settles it for me. My interpretation is now as so: The +6 str bonus applies to attack rolls made using the hand in question. So characters wielding two weapons will only receive the bonus on one. The bonus only applies to damage rolls made from the slam attack. The DM may rule that unarmed strikes specifically using that fist also receive the damage bonus. And that makes far more sense for a 1st level spell. It's no substitute for Bull's Strength for strength buffing, and not quite as useful as Enlarge Person for grappling, but it's still good to have for the right occasion.
Mommy was an Orc 11-19-06, 09:40 PM	That clarification pretty much settles it for me. My interpretation is now as so: [LIST] The +6 str bonus applies to attack rolls made using the hand in question. So characters wielding two weapons will only receive the bonus on one. Just curious, but on what basis are you limiting it to the hand in question? As I noted, I won't argue that at the table, but the spell description says it gives +6 Strength for the purposes of attack rolls, not to attack rolls made with that particular hand. You also get into the silliness of what kind of bonus to hit does someone get when they're wielding a weapon two-handed vs. one-handed vs. TWFing.
CeramicWeasel 11-20-06, 09:55 PM	Just curious, but on what basis are you limiting it to the hand in question? The spell description says that "you transform one of your hands", so it would seem unreasonable to me that someone using their other hand, or even a monk using a kick, would get the same bonuses. I don't think it makes things too complicated either. A strength modifier to attack rolls isn't adjusted for two-handed weapons and off-hand attacks like it is on damage rolls. That's just how i like to do things though. I wouldn't fault anyone for allowing the bonus extend to all attack rolls for the purpose of simplicity.
trollbill 11-21-06, 04:42 PM	Generally, as someone who plays just such a Monk, where I try to cast it every combat, I've found the prevailing option tends to be: You get +6 to Str for purposes of attack rolls, grapples, and smashing things. When you specifically use that hand to make a slam attack as a secondary attack, you get to do 1d6+str. When you use it as your primary, you do 1d6+Str*1.5. So as an example, if I kick someone, I get +3 to hit, but no bonus to damage. If I grapple or do a slam, I get +3 to hit/damage. The text doesn't say the strength only applies for purposes of attacks with your hand, though some people interpret it that way at which point I get more focused on grappling over other options. Question. Do you think the interpretation you put on the spell makes this spell appropriate for 1st-level of effect? One way you can get a hint of the author's intent is to look at the power level of something. If it is noticably higher or lower than other equivalent rules that it can be compaired to, odds are that was not the intend. Obviously that isn't very technical, but we are suppsoed to be enforcing the spirt of the rules as well as the letter. And the spirit of 3.5 has always been 'balance.'
solbergb 11-21-06, 05:30 PM	The trouble is most interpretations ARE more limited than bull strength, the L2 spell, even at +6 vs +4 strength. 1 minute duration is a limit, but a weird one. It doesn't limit a L1 caster at all, but limits a L10 caster a lot. This duration means it is likely intended for a dabbler in arcane magic who is primarily a fighter, or for something like a warmage to use in the low levels only. So the question is how much MORE limited should it be to be a L1 spell. I'm in the "it is only intended to affect the hand, and actions using just that hand" camp, but I recognize that most of the common interpretations work ok as a L1 spell. The one place it is unambiguous is "I hit him with the fist". As a player, I'd base my decision to use that spell on how useful I thought the "punch with fist" or grapple is likely to be for me. Anything I can do with that strength involving weapons is pure gravy.
Mommy was an Orc 11-21-06, 06:45 PM	Yes. Clearly so. You have to be an arcane caster willing to go up to the front lines and your likely best option is not using a weapon and doing the slam as your primary attack or doing a grapple with either interpretation for the exact same effect. In most cases, by the time your build can use this effectively, you likely can afford a +2 Strength item and Alter Self is a much better spell to be casting for 3 secondary attacks instead of 1 as well as lasting 10 minutes per level. In over a hundred mods, I've yet to see anyone other than myself cast this in four regions. And mind you, I ask every DM how they rule on Fist of Stone without telling them my interpretation. Question. Do you think the interpretation you put on the spell makes this spell appropriate for 1st-level of effect? One way you can get a hint of the author's intent is to look at the power level of something. If it is noticably higher or lower than other equivalent rules that it can be compaired to, odds are that was not the intend. Obviously that isn't very technical, but we are suppsoed to be enforcing the spirt of the rules as well as the letter. And the spirit of 3.5 has always been 'balance.'
Mommy was an Orc 11-21-06, 07:03 PM	1 minute duration is a limit, but a weird one. It doesn't limit a L1 caster at all, but limits a L10 caster a lot. This duration means it is likely intended for a dabbler in arcane magic who is primarily a fighter, or for something like a warmage to use in the low levels only. Anything I can do with that strength involving weapons is pure gravy. That's part of the real problem with it - most casters can really only get away with casting one buff spell on themselves at the start of combat. Fist of Stone isn't a defensive spell and that's usually the biggest area of concern. My Monk Caster acts a lot like Burke(solbergb's monk) in combat. She's got a slightly better AC some of the time and Fist of Stone makes her a slightly better Grappler. But she has to spend a round to do it.
_m_ 11-21-06, 07:44 PM	That's part of the real problem with it - most casters can really only get away with casting one buff spell on themselves at the start of combat. Fist of Stone isn't a defensive spell and that's usually the biggest area of concern. My Monk Caster acts a lot like Burke(solbergb's monk) in combat. She's got a slightly better AC some of the time and Fist of Stone makes her a slightly better Grappler. But she has to spend a round to do it. any way you could quicken or swift it? oh, and is contingency totally restricted in lgh?
Mommy was an Orc 11-21-06, 07:48 PM	any way you could quicken or swift it? Yeah, if you cast 5th level spells and prep...but by that time, you probably can consider enchanting your own +6 Str belt if that's something you want to do on a regular basis.
_m_ 11-21-06, 08:03 PM	Yeah, if you cast 5th level spells and prep...but by that time, you probably can consider enchanting your own +6 Str belt if that's something you want to do on a regular basis. tru. and if you can cast 5th level spells... u probably dont need to cast +6 str to kill things...
solbergb 11-21-06, 08:51 PM	In over a hundred mods, I've yet to see anyone other than myself cast this in four regions. And mind you, I ask every DM how they rule on Fist of Stone without telling them my interpretation. I've seen a couple gish-types use it when I've been running the game. Always in the low levels. I've seen an arcane hierophont share it with his bear companion, for grapple purposes. My archer uses it as a pre-grapple buff sequence (usually it is "enlarge full round, then cast fist of stone, then grapple monster grabs me or I'm transposed into the grapple") My monk has the spell but has yet to use it. I intend to use it when we're doing the kind of fight where round/level buffs are pre-cast. Scry and fry type situations.
_m_ 11-21-06, 10:06 PM	I've seen a couple gish-types use it when I've been running the game. Always in the low levels. I've seen an arcane hierophont share it with his bear companion, for grapple purposes. My archer uses it as a pre-grapple buff sequence (usually it is "enlarge full round, then cast fist of stone, then grapple monster grabs me or I'm transposed into the grapple") My monk has the spell but has yet to use it. I intend to use it when we're doing the kind of fight where round/level buffs are pre-cast. Scry and fry type situations. lol scry and fry. genuienly would NEVER have thought of doing that. curse of growing up in perenland.
CeramicWeasel 11-22-06, 01:35 AM	In most cases, by the time your build can use this effectively, you likely can afford a +2 Strength item and Alter Self is a much better spell to be casting for 3 secondary attacks instead of 1 as well as lasting 10 minutes per level. How does Alter Self grant 3 secondary attacks? I haven't had much experience with this spell, but the description specifically states that a body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks.
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 08:31 AM	How does Alter Self grant 3 secondary attacks? I haven't had much experience with this spell, but the description specifically states that a body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks. Change into a Troglodyte. As a Monk, you flurry with kicks as your primary, then claw/claw/bite as your secondary. Not to mention pick up the huge jump in natural AC. Standard Monk Caster move, usually achievable by 5th level or so.
solbergb 11-22-06, 01:25 PM	Trogs not only have the best nat armor bonus of the legal alter self forms they have MULTIATTACK on their claw/claw/bite routine. Which means you actually hit with them some of the time. Although unless you're getting the "all nat weapons +1" version of GMF from a friendly druid or something like fires of purity you won't do massive damage with them. When I can use the nat weapons with my monk, they together add up to about one unarmed strike, and have a to-hit similar to the low iterative attack.
solbergb 11-22-06, 01:27 PM	lol scry and fry. genuienly would NEVER have thought of doing that. curse of growing up in perenland. I've seen it exactly once (bad guy left a blood sample at a crime scene, we were in a city with an arcanist guild and could borrow one of their scrying mirrors and we had a travel domain cleric with domain spont to teleport us to where we scried him escaping....which meant we triggered a fight with only half the party present as the cleric went back to get the rest of the party...but in the end I'd say it was a net win. We stopped him from notifying his superiors, and gained info that made stuff easier). But it also applies to situations where you're pretty sure a fight is gonna happen when you kick down the door, or step through the planar gate, due to divination or scouting...but are also pretty sure you can buff safely. Some kinds of arena-style formal combat might lend themselves to that kind of buffing too. It's useful enough to have in the spellbook, but not useful enough to be used as a routine tactic for my L13 character.
Howie23 11-22-06, 02:06 PM	My archer uses it as a pre-grapple buff sequence (usually it is "enlarge full round, then cast fist of stone, then grapple monster grabs me or I'm transposed into the grapple") I remember you doing this in the interactive at NFC last year with the bonedrinker. Very effective. I've used it once with my arcane archer to go into melee in an encounter where natural weapons were preferred over manufactured weapons due to sundering issues. It has become one of my "always have scribed scroll or have Right Scroll for the Job" spells. David
trollbill 11-22-06, 02:13 PM	My archer uses it as a pre-grapple buff sequence (usually it is "enlarge full round, then cast fist of stone, then grapple monster grabs me or I'm transposed into the grapple") Wouldn't grease work better?
Mommy was an Orc 11-22-06, 02:16 PM	Wouldn't grease work better? A grapple monster is going to grab somebody and it will then negate the archer's main attack. So best it grabs the archer buffed up to be hard to grapple.
solbergb 11-22-06, 05:13 PM	Yeah, that bone-drinker...it's like "can you last one more round in there? I don't want to instantly die when I transpose in!" buff buff buff) There was a lot in that interactive that being big and fist of stone helped with. I also went through nearly my entire supply of ready silver arrows. After that I got a bigger supply, and a haversack to store the extras in. Also...some people who get grappled won't really be helped by a +10 to their grapple check. Whereas a near full BAB archer, enlarged with 18 base strength and fist of stone can actually either pin the guy or escape the grapple sometimes...or just punch the thing in the nose. I expect to use the tactic less often when I have improved precise shot. It would then only be a trick to immobilize a dangerous enemy or for situations where bows are ineffective (very high winds, for example). Even now I am more likely to fire nonlethal arrows into the grapple than fuss with it when the grappler is affected by such. Most folks being grappled don't mind a nonlethal tag if I accidently hit them.
_m_ 11-22-06, 06:11 PM	Yeah, that bone-drinker...it's like "can you last one more round in there? I don't want to instantly die when I transpose in!" buff buff buff) There was a lot in that interactive that being big and fist of stone helped with. I also went through nearly my entire supply of ready silver arrows. After that I got a bigger supply, and a haversack to store the extras in. Also...some people who get grappled won't really be helped by a +10 to their grapple check. Whereas a near full BAB archer, enlarged with 18 base strength and fist of stone can actually either pin the guy or escape the grapple sometimes...or just punch the thing in the nose. I expect to use the tactic less often when I have improved precise shot. It would then only be a trick to immobilize a dangerous enemy or for situations where bows are ineffective (very high winds, for example). Even now I am more likely to fire nonlethal arrows into the grapple than fuss with it when the grappler is affected by such. Most folks being grappled don't mind a nonlethal tag if I accidently hit them. bone drinker? thats the sillyest name ever! how ubelievably painfull would drinking bones be! meanwhile, im still in perenland... so still no scrying.