Bracers of Striking & weapon adjustment spells

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The intent we agree on but this is not the house rule forum so MW/GMW applies to natural weapons as well as manufactured weapons until an errata is issued on this.

He stated in no uncertain terms that agreed that this was the intent, but until they errata it, he was going to ignore the intent and have it work the opposite of their intent.

This kind of stuff happens at the Psionics Handbook forum all the time. The book is unfortunately unclear in many areas, and several things should be errata'd, so munchkins say "but it's in the rules."

For instance, Animal Affinity is a 2nd-level psionic power. It only affects the manifester, so it can't be used on allies. It grants a bonus of 1d4+1 to any ability score.

The book states that the bonus is unnamed, so it stacks with Bull's Strength and stuff like that. Munckin PCs were delighted.

The Sage agreed, and put it in the FAQ. Of course, he just looked at the book and didn't think about it.

The author of the book says that there was a mistake, and that is should be an enhancement bonus.

There have been two sets of errata to the PsiH, but because the Sage put his ruling in the FAQ, they never errata'd Animal Affinity.

Now, is this broken?

Yes. There's nothing preventing a psychic warrior from putting on a +6 Belt of Giant Strength, and then manifesting maximized Animal Affinity for another +5 points of Strength. And then they get inherent bonuses on top of that, too. Now combine with Polymorph Self and the Enlarge spell. You'll have a character walking around all day with Strength scores that make epic characters jealous, around 12th to 14th level.

And yet, munchkin PCs still go "by the book."

If anyone is interested in more psionic munckin combos, I can put those up too.

St. M posted...

Errata from the game designers is often a free, thankless task. Books get published, often under a strict schedule when in a corporate environment (smaller companies like Malhavok reap the benefits of taking a bit more time in trade for things "done right").

Basically the WotC erratas are things that people have noticed post release. It's like a game patch. No amount of beta testing could have made Diablo II perfect. They've had to patch it like 9 or 10 times. Complex RPGs like D&D are similar.

The moral of the story: the Sage is issuing a "patch" which should be used.

Now, before this turns into another flame bath, I would just like to point out that, though I think Aggeman is wrong, his interpretation is probably not broken.

 

[kreynolds]

In one case the intent of the rule is being willfully ignored, even though you acknowledge and agree with the intent. I find that reprehensible and will not do that.

Bull. I did not take the moral low-ground. I'm playing the game as it was intended, as it was very clearly spelled out by the campaign DM's.

You know, even I don't bull this bad. I've never seen so much crap in a single thread in my entire life. Where are my hip-weighters...

 

[Pax]

Here's my take on this whole mess.

BAck to the original question. In the specific case of BRacersof Striking -- I would say that YES, MW and GMW can indeed work on them, along with ANY weapon-specific spell or ability.

Why?

Becaue Bracers of Strikign have the unique property of being able to be ENCHANTED AS WEAPONS. To someone wearing them, they ARE weapons -- or rather, the pair of them is a single double-weapon. Thus, you cast the GMW on the bracers, NOT on their wearer -- and it should work without a hitch.

After all, if you cast GMW on your +1 Sure Striking Double-sword of Flaming Burst ... GMW works, right? So why not on your +1 Sure Striking Bracers or Striking of Flaming Burst?

...

It will in fact work, IMC.

 

[Caliban]

You know, even I don't bull this bad. I've never seen so much crap in a single thread in my entire life. Where are my hip-weighters...

*shrug* Whatever.

 

[Azger]

Re: Here's my take on this whole mess.

BAck to the original question. In the specific case of BRacersof Striking -- I would say that YES, MW and GMW can indeed work on them, along with ANY weapon-specific spell or ability.

Why?

Becaue Bracers of Strikign have the unique property of being able to be ENCHANTED AS WEAPONS. To someone wearing them, they ARE weapons -- or rather, the pair of them is a single double-weapon. Thus, you cast the GMW on the bracers, NOT on their wearer -- and it should work without a hitch.

After all, if you cast GMW on your +1 Sure Striking Double-sword of Flaming Burst ... GMW works, right? So why not on your +1 Sure Striking Bracers or Striking of Flaming Burst?

...

It will in fact work, IMC.

Bracers of Striking are not weapons.

Why aren't they?

1) They do not have a damage dice, crit range or crit multiplier. They just enhance your normal unarmed attacks.
2) If you look at them they are specifically listed under the Wonder Items. This alone tells me it isn't a weapon... and GWM states it needs to be cast on a weapon.
3)They specifically grant special abilities only with no mention of being able to an enhancement bonus on them. So why would you be able to provide one with GMW.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

2) If you look at them they are specifically listed under the Wonder Items. This alone tells me it isn't a weapon... and GWM states it needs to be cast on a weapon.


They also require the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat. Has anyone though about contacting the author? I understand he may have his own website...

 

[Pax]

Re: Re: Here's my take on this whole mess.

Bracers of Striking are not weapons.

Why aren't they?

1) They do not have a damage dice, crit range or crit multiplier. They just enhance your normal unarmed attacks.
2) If you look at them they are specifically listed under the Wonder Items. This alone tells me it isn't a weapon... and GWM states it needs to be cast on a weapon.
3)They specifically grant special abilities only with no mention of being able to an enhancement bonus on them. So why would you be able to provide one with GMW.

Um. Go reread the DMG bit about weapons' magical abilities ; they *have* to be put in *after* an enhancement bonus of at least +1.

And the Bracers of Striking specifically and exactly state:

Bracers of Striking: The wearer of bracers of striking is considered armed even when unarmed (as if he had the Improved Unarmed Strike feat).
The bracers may be modified with special weapon abilities as if they were a blunt weapon (though they cound as a double weapon, so double the cost of any ability).
--- Magic of Faerun, page 155; lower right corner

Note, the bracers may be modified "as if they wre a blunt weapon." As I see it, it means that applying weapon enchantments/enhancements/abilites/etc requires you to follow all relevant rules.

And before you can make a sword "flaming" (+1 cost), it has to be a +1 sword. Ergo, the "ability" to add an actual enhancement bonus is, in fact, a prerequisite you must in fact meet, before adding non-enhancement magical weapon abilities to the Bracers.


[edit]
Furthermore, by your requirements to be considered a weapon, ammunition fails the test!! Arrows don't have damage dice, a threat range, nor a crit multiplier. Yet, arrows and other forms of ammunition do count as "weapons" for GMW and related purposes.
[/edit]

 

[Metalsmith]

*shrug*

Whatever. It's your game, I really don't care.

I will always choose to play the game as I believe it was meant to be played (especially when the intent is obvious, as it is in this case), and choose not to take every opportunity to use the imperfect language of the authors to make my characters more powerful than intended.

WOW!! I thought only Ettins could do that!

Talk with 2 different voices out of the same body.

Caliban must have the Many-Headed template, Kewl.

Or he's changed his mind about theScrolls in Armor thing. Because he plays the game as I believe it was meant to be played.

Metalsmith

 

[angramainyu]

The tone in this thread is really quite appalling. Everyone just take a deep breath and cool down.