Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7823093" data-attributes="member: 6987520">It wouldn't be. I already told you how to get around the issue.[ATTACH=full]114479[/ATTACH]If you consider unarmed strikes as weapons, just as natural weapons are weapons, there is no reason why magic weapon couldn't affect unarmed strikes--even if you had to go to the point of specifying when the spell is cast how it is working (your punches, your kicks, your elbows, your forehead, whatever). Personally, I would just allow it to apply universally and not worry about it.There are several martial artists of all varieties that would disagree about how useless a fist is. In a magical game setting, a fist could be magical and wouldn't be useless. As I already said, the monk class's Ki-Empowered Strikes does this RAW, allowing spells to affect other classes makes it a non-issue.Also, a LOT depends on the nature of your game. Our table has mostly humanoid opponents (well over half of the encounters), so unarmed strikes can be very viable.Unarmed strikes can be weapons and should be considered so as per the original rules IMO. There are plenty of situations where a fist is more effective than a weapon. Try using a whip on someone who is fighting you in hand-to-hand. Likewise, weapons can be very much more effective (you can't throw your fist at a flying dragon).By your argument, only the most effective weapons should ever be used, and generally people gravitate towards them, but often enough players choose other weapons because they aren't just about min-maxing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7823093, member: 6987520"] It wouldn't be. I already told you how to get around the issue. [ATTACH type="full" width="411px"]114479[/ATTACH] If you consider unarmed strikes as weapons, just as natural weapons are weapons, there is no reason [I]why[/I] magic weapon couldn't affect unarmed strikes--even if you had to go to the point of specifying when the spell is cast [I]how[/I] it is working (your punches, your kicks, your elbows, your forehead, whatever). Personally, I would just allow it to apply universally and not worry about it. There are several martial artists of all varieties that would disagree about how useless a fist is. In a magical game setting, a fist could be magical and wouldn't be useless. As I already said, the monk class's Ki-Empowered Strikes does this RAW, allowing spells to affect other classes makes it a non-issue. Also, a LOT depends on the nature of your game. Our table has mostly humanoid opponents (well over half of the encounters), so unarmed strikes can be very viable. Unarmed strikes can be weapons and should be considered so as per the original rules IMO. There are plenty of situations where a fist is more effective than a weapon. Try using a whip on someone who is fighting you in hand-to-hand. Likewise, weapons can be very much more effective (you can't throw your fist at a flying dragon). By your argument, only the most effective weapons should ever be used, and generally people gravitate towards them, but often enough players choose other weapons because they aren't just about min-maxing. [/QUOTE]

Verification