Monks and Magic Fang

[Nikosandros]

just for the sake of arguement... in FR, there's a monk NPC who has permanent magic fangs , and it states specifically in his description that he has "a permanent magic fang spell on each of his hands and feet"

Mmm... this really muddles matters...

 

[hammymchamham]

Just like to say I agree with the above statements. Imagine if it only affected, say, one of the monks hands. Then the pc would say 'Ok, I attack, using my full attack action, only using my right hand.'

It would get silly fast. Anyway, most animals have an attack such as 2 claws, and thus needs 2 magic fangs for both weapons. But if it said Claw would only need 1 magic fang. Since a monk isn't '2 hands, 2 legs, one body, one head', but is a weapon, makes since it would only take one magic fang.

 

[Brekki]

I think the 'magic fang' should effect only one appendix, and think the rules point to this.

Also, if a monk is just using that one hand, no others, he should get a penalty to his attack, just as with holding an item in one hand.

 

[Benben]

I think the 'magic fang' should effect only one appendix, and think the rules point to this.

Personally, I think magic fang should only effect a monk's spleen.

The rules are very clear to avoid mentioning what appendage a monk strikes with. Despite names like Circle Kick and Roundabout Kick, the actual rules text does not mention what the monk is actually attacking with.

I think the rules on this matter are unclear and it's up to the DM to decide.

 

[Nikosandros]

I think the 'magic fang' should effect only one appendix, and think the rules point to this.

The wording of the spell supports this, but how would you adjudicate it in game terms?

Also, if a monk is just using that one hand, no others, he should get a penalty to his attack, just as with holding an item in one hand.

What penalty applies to a monk that 'uses just one hand'?

If he doesn't, then how many of his attacks are affected by the spell?

 

[hammymchamham]

Also, if a monk is just using that one hand, no others, he should get a penalty to his attack, just as with holding an item in one hand.

Well, what is the peanlty according to the rules, for a monk fighting with only one hand?

 

[Caliban]

Well, what is the peanlty according to the rules, for a monk fighting with only one hand?

There is no penalty for a monk using only a single limb to make all of his attacks. They can use one limb, or multiple limbs in their attack routine.

The only time it would make a difference is if you are using Flurry of Blows. I read the ability to mean that the extra attack from Flurry of Blows comes from a different limb than the limb or limbs used in the normal attack sequence, but others have interpreted it mean that you can make the extra attack with the same limb.

 

[Krail Stromquism]

Monk weapons

Taking into account that the Monk can use monk weapons with thier unarmed attack bonuses would lend me to think that they could recieve the spell and make use of it with having it cast on every appendage.

say he had a tonfa that was +1 and Shocking, all his attacks including flurry of blows would take the tonfa enhancements into account for bonuses to attack and damage. right?

Does that make sense/help?

 

[saucercrab]

Re: Monk weapons

Taking into account that the Monk can use monk weapons with thier unarmed attack bonuses would lend me to think that they could recieve the spell and make use of it with having it cast on every appendage.

say he had a tonfa that was +1 and Shocking, all his attacks including flurry of blows would take the tonfa enhancements into account for bonuses to attack and damage. right?

Does that make sense/help?

My wacked view of the monk wielding a special monk weapon is that he can switch it from hand to hand, I've seen a few Bruce Lee movies where he is using a pair of nunchaku & he's constantly switching them from hand to hand along various routes (in the front, around the back, over the shoulder, etc.). I know, nunchaku are different from the siangham & kama, but it's possible.

As can be inferred from above, I am in the camp that says monks can't fully benefit from magic fang & greater magic fang; I always saw the two spells as being of more use to druids with their wild shaping & animal sidekicks, while monks have ki strike & more attacks.

Both the section on the monk's Unarmed Strike on page 39 & the description of magic fang on page223 of the PH list a fist a being a separate weapon/limb. I take them being as literal & would limit the monk using mf & imf.

Maybe make improved versions of the spells (at one level higher from the original) that apply to the whole body, so a monk or tiger would only need one casting.

Nikosandros & hammymchamham,
Page 6 of the current FAQ has a question about a monk making unarmed attacks while holding something in one hand, like a lantern or somesuch; the answer says that a monk would suffer difficulties from this & goes on in detail about them. Maybe that could apply in this situation, where a monk is limiting himself in what he attacks with.

Anyway, just IMO.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I could justify it either way, so I'd go completely metagame. If the monk is being overshadowed in combat (especially because the DM isn't giving him monk toys), then allow it to affect all of his attacks. If the monk is overshadowing the fighters, then limit it to his primary hand or his off hand, and have it only affect the one. In my experience, monks need all the help they can get.