Magic Fang Question

[cappun]

Can a druid cast greater magic fang on himself then wildshape without losing the spell? The description of the spell indicates that the spell targets one natural weapon of the recipient. So if the druid cast it on his hands, then wild shaped into a bear, would he then have magic claws? If the same druid wildshaped into a wolf, however, he would not get the benefit of the spell because wolves only bite.

 

[Caliban]

Can a druid cast greater magic fang on himself then wildshape without losing the spell? The description of the spell indicates that the spell targets one natural weapon of the recipient. So if the druid cast it on his hands, then wild shaped into a bear, would he then have magic claws? If the same druid wildshaped into a wolf, however, he would not get the benefit of the spell because wolves only bite.

He would have to cast it twice to get both hands enchanted, otherwise only one of his claws would be magical.

He could cast it once and select his mouth, then turn into a wolf with an +1 magic bite attack.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

If you cast it on a monk, could the monk make an entire Flurry of Blows (2 attacks) with the one magic hand?

 

[Caliban]

If you cast it on a monk, could the monk make an entire Flurry of Blows (2 attacks) with the one magic hand?

I do not think so. I believe that flurry of blows represents a extra attack with a different part of your body. One attack could be with your magic hand, but the other would not.

If you had multiple attacks and did a flurry, you could choose to make your normal attacks with the magic hand, but the extra attack would not be.

 

[cappun]

If I cast magic fang on the claws of my bear companion, then only one of the claws would be enchanted? The way I read the spell is one natural weapon (read: claws, bite, slam, gore. etc.) is affected. I would argue that the claws of a bear or cat count as one natural weapon. If I wanted the bite to be included as well, I would have to cast it twice.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

If I cast magic fang on the claws of my bear companion, then only one of the claws would be enchanted? The way I read the spell is one natural weapon (read: claws, bite, slam, gore. etc.) is affected. I would argue that the claws of a bear or cat count as one natural weapon. If I wanted the bite to be included as well, I would have to cast it twice.

If there is a number before the attack (ie 2 claw attacks +whatever) it is counted as 2 attacks, and only one would be enchanted with magic fang.

If it is listed as one attack, like the crow (Claws +whatever) then it's one attack and that one attack would be enchanted.

--Pro-Caliban Spikey

 

[Pielorinho]

Caliban, is the idea that a monk couldn't Flurry with a single magic fang supported in the rules anywhere, or is that speculation? We've been playing it that a single magic fang is enough to allow all a monk's attacks to increase, but if that's contraindicated by the rules, we can change it.

So here's another question. A druid casts magic fang on one hand, then turns into a giant octopus. What happens then ? What if he turns into a boa contrictor?

(FWIW, I'd rule that a single octopus tentacle is magic, and that the boa constrictor is SOL)

Daniel

 

[Caliban]

Caliban, is the idea that a monk couldn't Flurry with a single magic fang supported in the rules anywhere, or is that speculation? We've been playing it that a single magic fang is enough to allow all a monk's attacks to increase, but if that's contraindicated by the rules, we can change it.

I'm basing this on the flurry of blows text on page 39 of the PHB, specifically where it talks about using the Flurry with the monk special weapons:

"A monk may also use the flurry of blows if armed with a monk special weapon... If armed with one such weapon, she makes the extra attack either with that weapon or unarmed. If armed with two such weapons, she uses one for the regular attack (or attacks) and the other for the extra attack."

I believe that it works the same way when using all unarmed attacks, they just don't spell it out because the damage and attack bonus for a monks unarmed attacks is identical, no matter which part of the body they are using to make the attack.

This changes when the monk has one of their limbs enhanced via Magic Fang, and I believe that the text for using flurry of blows with a monk special weapon should apply in that situation as well.

So here's another question. A druid casts magic fang on one hand, then turns into a giant octopus. What happens then ? What if he turns into a boa contrictor?

(FWIW, I'd rule that a single octopus tentacle is magic, and that the boa constrictor is SOL)

Daniel

I'd say that a single tentacle is enchanted, and that the boa constrictor is now considered a +1 weapon when doing constriction damage on creatures with damage reduction.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

A monk may
also use the flurry of blows if armed with a special monk weapon
(kama, nunchaku, or siangham). If armed with one such weapon, the
monk makes the extra attack either with that weapon or unarmed.

To me, this looks like it is saying a monk with one magic kama could use Flurry of Blows to strike twice with the kama - they attack with the kama and then make the extra attack with either the kama or their hand.

I guess, if I squint just right, I can see where it might be saying that they MUST make the first attack unarmed; but I'm not really convinced that is the most likely assumption.

 

[Caliban]

To me, this looks like it is saying a monk with one magic kama could use Flurry of Blows to strike twice with the kama - they attack with the kama and then make the extra attack with either the kama or their hand.

I guess, if I squint just right, I can see where it might be saying that they MUST make the first attack unarmed; but I'm not really convinced that is the most likely assumption.

It's not saying that they must make the first attack unarmed. I believe it's saying that if you make the first attack with the kama, the second attack must be unarmed. (Although if you have a kama in both your hands, you can do your normal attack with one kama and the extra attack with the second kama.)

Basically, the way I read that is the extra attack from the flurry comes from a different limb than your normal attacks. That's why it's a flurry.

It's the monks version of Two Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity, without the 1/2 strength damage on the off-hand.