Clawlock v Iron Golem

[schreier]

The clawlock, with Eldritch claws and beast strike, does twice unarmed damage plus its Eldritch blast.

A hypothetical lvl 20 warlock with a monk's belt
and strength 12 has (for simplicity):

1d8 unarmed damage
9d6 Eldritch blast

So a claw does 2d8+9d6+1

An iron golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.

So I assume a claw does 2d8+1 in that case? Or is it 1d8+1?

If you use vitrollic blast on the claws, does the damage go through?

[Darg]

Your unarmed damage is not doubled by using the feats together. Eldritch claws deals unarmed + blast damage when you attack with the claws. Beast strike adds the damage of your claws to your unarmed attack. If you attack with a claw, beast strike is not applied. If you make an unarmed strike you do not benefit from the damage calculation of eldritch claws.

The golem would not suffer the normal claw damage because of it's immunity. Nor can you apply a shape or essence to your claws because it is not eldritch blast.

[Troacctid]

Eldritch Claws do not allow spell resistance. They also cannot benefit from eldritch essences. In fact, they're not an invocation at all.

[Gruftzwerg]

Your unarmed damage is not doubled by using the feats together. Eldritch claws deals unarmed + blast damage when you attack with the claws. Beast strike adds the damage of your claws to your unarmed attack. If you attack with a claw, beast strike is not applied. If you make an unarmed strike you do not benefit from the damage calculation of eldritch claws.

The golem would not suffer the normal claw damage because of it's immunity. Nor can you apply a shape or essence to your claws because it is not eldritch blast.

Sorry but I have to disagree on both topics:

1)
Eldritch Claws gives Claw attacks with "normal Unarmed Strike damage + Eldritch Blast damage".
Beast Strike lets you add your Claw damage on top of your regular unarmed strikes. Which leads to:
Beast Strike: Unarmed Strike damage + Unarmed Strike damage + Eldritch Blast damage

I don't get where you see a problem here? (*just kindly asking*)

2) @topic

Lets have a look at the golems magic immunity ability:


Immunity to Magic (Ex)

An iron golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.

A magical attack that deals electricity damage slows an iron golem (as the slow spell) for 3 rounds, with no saving throw.

A magical attack that deals fire damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. For example, an iron golem hit by a fireball gains back 6 hit points if the damage total is 18 points. An iron golem gets no saving throw against fire effects.

An iron golem is affected normally by rust attacks, such as that of a rust monster or a rusting grasp spell.

As you can see the golems immunity ain't a free outta jail card against all forms of magic (only against some forms..).

The Golems Immunity only affects spells and SLA's. Eldritch Claws is neither of em. While it is a magical ability, it doesn't resemble a specific spell and as such it is most likely a SU ability.

Further Eldritch Claws deal neither fire or electricity damage, thus doesn't proc any of the other abilities.

This leads to the conclusion that you do full damage with Eldritch Claws against an Iron Golem. The same can be said about Beast Strike.


for completeness's sake:
- A Vitriolic Blast (acid dmg = no SR) would also do the job here against the Golem.
- You can UMD the Monk's Belt to pretend to be a higher lvl monk for better results:
UMD roll -20 (penalty for emulation class lvl) +5 (Monk's Belt) = effective Monk lvl from item
- Sizing enhancement on a Necklace of Natural Attack (unarmed strike) lets you size your unarmed strike up to colossal size (-2 to hit for each size step) since unarmed strikes are always considered a light weapon (despite their size compared to your size).

_______________

Warlocks don't have the same shortcomings as other casters, because...
...Warlocks are mushrooms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXX8URSUWm0) ^^

[Troacctid]

To sum up—if your claws are dealing 2d8+9d6+1 against a normal opponent, they'll deal 2d8+9d6-14 against an iron golem.

[Gruftzwerg]

Note that one of the best warlocks options would still be an Eldritch Glaive + Vitriolic Blast against the Iron Golem:
- also allows for multiple attacks
- bypasses DR (adamantine) compared to Eldritch Claws/Beast Strike

on the other hand the clawlock can go ubercharger and just laugh at the DR with his insane high dmg numbers.

If you are interested, I have optimized builds for both in my signature.

[Darg]

1)
Eldritch Claws gives Claw attacks with "normal Unarmed Strike damage + Eldritch Blast damage".
Beast Strike lets you add your Claw damage on top of your regular unarmed strikes. Which leads to:
Beast Strike: Unarmed Strike damage + Unarmed Strike damage + Eldritch Blast damage

I don't get where you see a problem here? (*just kindly asking*)


On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage.

When you make an unarmed strike or grapple check to deal damage, you may add your claw or slam damage to your unarmed trike or grapple damage.

The feats are mutually exclusive. One can't be used unless you attack with the claw. The other can't be used unless you make an unarmed strike or grapple check. Neither feat is activated just by doing either weapons' damage; the specific weapon has to be used to make the attack.


Eldritch Claws do not allow spell resistance. They also cannot benefit from eldritch essences. In fact, they're not an invocation at all.

The feat tells you that it allows you to deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack. At the risk of contradicting myself, it works just like hideous blow. If spell resistance does not work on eldritch claws, then by extension it cannot work on hideous blow.

[Troacctid]

The feat tells you that it allows you to deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack. At the risk of contradicting myself, it works just like hideous blow. If spell resistance does not work on eldritch claws, then by extension it cannot work on hideous blow.
Hideous blow is an invocation. Eldritch Claws are not. They work very differently.

[Darg]

Hideous blow is an invocation. Eldritch Claws are not. They work very differently.

Not really. Blast shapes modify eldritch blast. A creature can't simply resist the blast shape but fail to resist the eldritch blast; there is no 2 caster level checks when determining failure or success. So unless eldritch blast itself possesses SR, hideous blow isn't being resisted either. The ability being affected by spell resistance solely depends on the qualities of eldritch blast itself which is delivered by the weapon strike. If hideous blow as an invocation could be resisted, mechanically the weapon strike cannot be performed.

Eldritch claws alters the delivery of eldritch blast just like hideous blow. Mechanically the feat is extremely poorly worded, but they probably didn't want the EB damage dice to be subject to sources of multiplication.

[Gruftzwerg]

The feats are mutually exclusive. One can't be used unless you attack with the claw. The other can't be used unless you make an unarmed strike or grapple check. Neither feat is activated just by doing either weapons' damage; the specific weapon has to be used to make the attack.


The feat tells you that it allows you to deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack. At the risk of contradicting myself, it works just like hideous blow. If spell resistance does not work on eldritch claws, then by extension it cannot work on hideous blow.

Beast Strike is activated by doing unarmed strikes:

When you make an unarmed strike or grapple check to deal damage, you may add your claw or slam damage to your unarmed trike or grapple damage.

You may add your claw dmg on top of your unarmed strike damage.

Eldritch Claws gives you "Claws":

As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands.

and the feat also tells you how to calculate its damage:

On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage. The successful attack requirement ain't a specific Eldritch Claw rule and is just reminding you of the general rules for an Attack with claws (and leaves em unchanged!).

_____

Beast Strike > Eldritch Claws

Beast Strike is the most specific action/rule here and thus trumps all rules set before (general and those of Eldritch Claws). It trumps the general rules for claws and unarmed strike and combines em as it defines it in its rule text.

[schreier]

It sounds like there is some disagreement on the interpretation of the combination of the feats, and of the damage's nature (spell-like or supernatural?)

I think that doubling up the unarmed damage is the cleanest and closest to RAW when using the two feats.

It does seem to convert the damage into a claw, and I can see it as a supernatural or even extraordinary.

To complicate things further - if you had a necklace of natural weapons keyed to claws and unarmed damage, would it apply its bonus 2 or 3 times?

Let's say you have a necklace of natural weapons +1 flaming - would it add +3+3d6 or +1+1d6?

[Darg]

It sounds like there is some disagreement on the interpretation of the combination of the feats, and of the damage's nature (spell-like or supernatural?)

I think that doubling up the unarmed damage is the cleanest and closest to RAW when using the two feats.

It does seem to convert the damage into a claw, and I can see it as a supernatural or even extraordinary.

To complicate things further - if you had a necklace of natural weapons keyed to claws and unarmed damage, would it apply its bonus 2 or 3 times?

Let's say you have a necklace of natural weapons +1 flaming - would it add +3+3d6 or +1+1d6?

Regardless of our disagreement on the reading of the feat, named bonuses don't generally stack. Especially when coming from the same source. So that +1 would only be +1 total. The +1+1d6 is correct.

[AnimeTheCat]

The Golems Immunity only affects spells and SLA's. Eldritch Claws is neither of em. While it is a magical ability, it doesn't resemble a specific spell and as such it is most likely a SU ability.


uhm... I'm confused by this. Eldritch Claws are a modification of the Eldritch Blast to have them form the shape of claws around the user's hands. It's still Eldritch Blast, just in the shape of a claw. If Eldritch Blast requires Spell Resistance (which it does explicitly) and is a Spell-Like Ability (which it is explicitly) then the Iron Golem should be immune to Eldritch Claws, as it is a shaping of the Eldritch Blast in to claws and Eldritch Blast is a SLA that requires the user to overcome SR.

What am I missing that makes Eldritch Claws not a Spell Like Ability and no longer require the user to overcome Spell Resistance?

[Remuko]

Regardless of our disagreement on the reading of the feat, named bonuses don't generally stack. Especially when coming from the same source. So that +1 would only be +1 total. The +1+1d6 is correct.

its not stacking though. If you have 2 +1 flaming swords, one in each hand, the +1 and the +1d6 from flaming applies when you attack with both as +2 and +2d6. Its not stacking its just two separate instances being applies. Same here in the example. 1 unarmed strike and 2 claws. +1 and +1d6 fire on each for a total of +3 and +3d6, not stacking, but cumulative.

[Zanos]

uhm... I'm confused by this. Eldritch Claws are a modification of the Eldritch Blast to have them form the shape of claws around the user's hands. It's still Eldritch Blast, just in the shape of a claw. If Eldritch Blast requires Spell Resistance (which it does explicitly) and is a Spell-Like Ability (which it is explicitly) then the Iron Golem should be immune to Eldritch Claws, as it is a shaping of the Eldritch Blast in to claws and Eldritch Blast is a SLA that requires the user to overcome SR.

What am I missing that makes Eldritch Claws not a Spell Like Ability and no longer require the user to overcome Spell Resistance?
I believe the argument is that by RAW eldritch claws is not an eldritch blast. It is a feat that gives you a natural attack that uses your eldritch blast damage, but not itself an eldritch blast.

[Rijan_Sai]

I believe the argument is that by RAW eldritch claws is not an eldritch blast. It is a feat that gives you a natural attack that uses your eldritch blast damage, but not itself an eldritch blast.

^This^
While I myself would prefer it to be a Blast Shape, (because Vitriolic Hellfire claws...) the wording of the feat does not (seem) to allow for it. (Though it does lend itself to this topic, allowing for ignoring SR and such. So, balance...)

[Darg]

its not stacking though. If you have 2 +1 flaming swords, one in each hand, the +1 and the +1d6 from flaming applies when you attack with both as +2 and +2d6. Its not stacking its just two separate instances being applies. Same here in the example. 1 unarmed strike and 2 claws. +1 and +1d6 fire on each for a total of +3 and +3d6, not stacking, but cumulative.

They were asking if it stacked for +3 +3d6 per each attack. I mentioned that it doesn't stack and is only +1+1d6 per each attack.


You can deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack.
Prerequisite: Eldritch blast 2d6.
Benefit: As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands. While your eldritch claws exist you may make up to two claw attacks as natural weapons. You are automatically proficient with your eldritch claws. On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage. Once you form your eldritch claws they remain until just before the beginning of your next turn. You cannot use your normal eldritch blast ability while your eldritch claws exist. A monk may not use eldritch claws as part of her flurry of blows.

Just because the eldritch blast is used as natural weapons doesn't mean it loses the qualities of eldritch blast.

[Remuko]

They were asking if it stacked for +3 +3d6 per each attack. I mentioned that it doesn't stack and is only +1+1d6 per each attack.

Thats not how I read it


To complicate things further - if you had a necklace of natural weapons keyed to claws and unarmed damage, would it apply its bonus 2 or 3 times?

Let's say you have a necklace of natural weapons +1 flaming - would it add +3+3d6 or +1+1d6?

schreier appears (to me, they can correct me if im wrong) to be talking about the necklace being keyed to unarmed strike and your two claws. the necklace being +1 flaming and thus adding +1 and flaming (+1d6) to the unarmed strike, and each of the two claws.

[Gruftzwerg]

It sounds like there is some disagreement on the interpretation of the combination of the feats, and of the damage's nature (spell-like or supernatural?)

I think that doubling up the unarmed damage is the cleanest and closest to RAW when using the two feats.

It does seem to convert the damage into a claw, and I can see it as a supernatural or even extraordinary.

To complicate things further - if you had a necklace of natural weapons keyed to claws and unarmed damage, would it apply its bonus 2 or 3 times?

Let's say you have a necklace of natural weapons +1 flaming - would it add +3+3d6 or +1+1d6?

As Darg said, named bonuses don't stack. Have a look at the stacking rules if you aren't aware of em (the Basics (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm))
_____________________


uhm... I'm confused by this. Eldritch Claws are a modification of the Eldritch Blast to have them form the shape of claws around the user's hands. It's still Eldritch Blast, just in the shape of a claw. If Eldritch Blast requires Spell Resistance (which it does explicitly) and is a Spell-Like Ability (which it is explicitly) then the Iron Golem should be immune to Eldritch Claws, as it is a shaping of the Eldritch Blast in to claws and Eldritch Blast is a SLA that requires the user to overcome SR.

What am I missing that makes Eldritch Claws not a Spell Like Ability and no longer require the user to overcome Spell Resistance?

As Zanos said, Eldritch Claws ain't defined as Blast Shape (compared to Eldritch Glaive) but is a feat. It can't be an SLA since it doesn't "resemble a specific spell". Ex ability is also to be excluded since the ability is clearly magical. Natural ability disqualifies by default (since the claws aren't part of your natural form). Which leaves SU as sole possible category, and the Eldritch Claws fit the definition of them (magical, but doesn't resemble a specific spell).

Since Eldritch Claws ain't a SLA/Spell, it bypasses the Iron Golems Immunity with ease.

Your assumtions are true for Eldritch Glaive, since that is defined as a Blast Shape. Eldritch Claws on the other hand is clearly giving you Claws that ain't a blast shape (thus also not allowing essences due to this). It misses any rule that would indicate it as blase shape. Other sources always call out if an ability is a blast shape or essence.

[Darg]

As Zanos said, Eldritch Claws ain't defined as Blast Shape (compared to Eldritch Glaive) but is a feat. It can't be an SLA since it doesn't "resemble a specific spell". Ex ability is also to be excluded since the ability is clearly magical. Natural ability disqualifies by default (since the claws aren't part of your natural form). Which leaves SU as sole possible category, and the Eldritch Claws fit the definition of them (magical, but doesn't resemble a specific spell).

Since Eldritch Claws ain't a SLA/Spell, it bypasses the Iron Golems Immunity with ease.

Your assumtions are true for Eldritch Glaive, since that is defined as a Blast Shape. Eldritch Claws on the other hand is clearly giving you Claws that ain't a blast shape (thus also not allowing essences due to this). It misses any rule that would indicate it as blase shape. Other sources always call out if an ability is a blast shape or essence.

You are correct, Eldritch claws is not an SLA/spell. It is a feat. The feat as a free action allows you to form your eldritch blast into the shape of claws and deliver your eldritch blast when you attack with said claws. The claws bypass the immunity (unarmed damage) but the eldritch blast being delivered by the claws (EB damage) does not because eldritch blast is subject to spell immunity. The feat says you deliver your eldritch blast with a melee attack. I don't think the feat can be more specific than that.

[Asmotherion]

Essence not working aside, I think vitriolic blast makes the whole invocation an "intant conjuration" imo, which translates into the whole EB becoming spell resistance: no. At least that's how I interpreat it.

[Dusk Raven]

You are correct, Eldritch claws is not an SLA/spell. It is a feat. The feat as a free action allows you to form your eldritch blast into the shape of claws and deliver your eldritch blast when you attack with said claws. The claws bypass the immunity (unarmed damage) but the eldritch blast being delivered by the claws (EB damage) does not because eldritch blast is subject to spell immunity. The feat says you deliver your eldritch blast with a melee attack. I don't think the feat can be more specific than that.

It actually doesn't say that: https://www.realmshelps.net/charbuild/feat/Eldritch_Claws - it says that your Eldritch Claws deal unarmed strike damage plus eldritch blast damage. My interpretation of that so far has been:

1: You can't use eldritch essence invocations with it, as it's not actually an Eldritch Blast,
2: Beast Strike, while most definitely not Rules as Intended, does mean your unarmed strike damage is doubled, as your eldritch claws do your eldritch blast damage, plus "normal unarmed strike" damage. Which does make it sound that they're not meant to double. It would help if the feat actually specified what damage type the claws do...
3: ...And also, Eldritch Claws is a cool but very poorly worded feat.

I haven't thought about some of the other issues in this thread, but I think:
1. Spell resistance doesn't apply, certainly not if you're punching someone - after all, spell resistance doesn't apply to, say, flaming weapons, right?
2. I'm not sure whether the special effects from a Necklace of Natural Weapons would stack, however... if you were able to attack with both natural weapons anyway, you'd multiple the damage in that instance... hmm.

While we're on the subject of various Clawlock questions, Enlightened Fist 7 gives a character the ability to turn a ray into a touch spell that they can then hold the charge and deliver with an unarmed strike. Could one cast an Eldritch Blast in such a fashion, turning it into a touch spell, then hold the charge and on the next turn, use Eldritch Claws and keep the charge (thus allowing you to actually use Eldritch Essences with your unarmed strikes) until you land a hit?


Ex ability is also to be excluded since the ability is clearly magical.

I saw this, and immediately thought of Tome of Battle and its maneuver that lets you teleport 50 feet as an EX ability. Otherwise, though, I agree with Eldritch Claws being SU.

[Gruftzwerg]

You are correct, Eldritch claws is not an SLA/spell. It is a feat. The feat as a free action allows you to form your eldritch blast into the shape of claws and deliver your eldritch blast when you attack with said claws. The claws bypass the immunity (unarmed damage) but the eldritch blast being delivered by the claws (EB damage) does not because eldritch blast is subject to spell immunity. The feat says you deliver your eldritch blast with a melee attack. I don't think the feat can be more specific than that.
You are implying into the text that it "delivers the Eldritch Blast", but the text ain't saying that. It only tells you how the damage of the claws are calculated. Otherwise you could "deliver" your essences. This ain't the Hideous Blow shape.



..
2: Beast Strike, while most definitely not Rules as Intended, does mean your unarmed strike damage is doubled, as your eldritch claws do your eldritch blast damage, plus "normal unarmed strike" damage.
I'm not really sure about this. First we are talking about "Dragon" here. Second, the 2 feats where pubished in #355 (BS) and #358 (EC). With such a minimal time frame, one could imply a connection and a single intention behind it. Who knows..^^




2. I'm not sure whether the special effects from a Necklace of Natural Weapons would stack, however... if you were able to attack with both natural weapons anyway, you'd multiple the damage in that instance... hmm.

While we're on the subject of various Clawlock questions, Enlightened Fist 7 gives a character the ability to turn a ray into a touch spell that they can then hold the charge and deliver with an unarmed strike. Could one cast an Eldritch Blast in such a fashion, turning it into a touch spell, then hold the charge and on the next turn, use Eldritch Claws and keep the charge (thus allowing you to actually use Eldritch Essences with your unarmed strikes) until you land a hit?



I saw this, and immediately thought of Tome of Battle and its maneuver that lets you teleport 50 feet as an EX ability. Otherwise, though, I agree with Eldritch Claws being SU.
@necklace
The necklace works on "Attacks". You are either attacking with an unarmed strike or with your natural weapons, not both (while you may deal dmg with both due to the feats). As such the enhancement bonus affects the attack only once and not twice. And even if you somehow could manage that, it's still the same bonus type and thus still won't stack. Either way is a dead end.

@Enlightened Fist
Using Enlightened Fist to emulate the Hideous Blow shape is just a waste of resources.. but yeah it would work that way.

@ToB maneuvers


A martial maneuver is a discrete extraordinary or supernatural effect that is temporarily expended after use.
Not all maneuvers are EX, some are magical and thus fall into the SU category. Now tell me how teleporting ain't magical? ;)
Unless they call out themselves an exception to the norm (which some might do), all magical maneuvers are SU.

[AnimeTheCat]

You are implying into the text that it "delivers the Eldritch Blast", but the text ain't saying that. It only tells you how the damage of the claws are calculated. Otherwise you could "deliver" your essences. This ain't the Hideous Blow shape.


It actually doesn't say that: https://www.realmshelps.net/charbuild/feat/Eldritch_Claws - it says that your Eldritch Claws deal unarmed strike damage plus eldritch blast damage.

I disagree, this looks pretty cut and dry to me...


As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands. While your eldritch claws exist you may make up to two claw attacks as natural weapons. You are automatically proficient with your eldritch claws. On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage. Once you form your eldritch claws they remain until just before the beginning of your next turn. You cannot use your normal eldritch blast ability while your eldritch claws exist. A monk may not use eldritch claws as part of her flurry of blows.

There's no way that this isn't your eldritch blast ability. The feat says you form the energy of your eldritch blast in to claws. Then, when you attack with the claws, you deal your unarmed strike damage AND eldritch blast damage. To top it all off, you can't use your normal Eldritch blast if you have the claws shaped. Eldritch claws are your eldtritch blast, your eldritch blast is a SLA, Eldritch Blast is subject to SR. Best case scenario, you slap the golem for 1d4+str nonlethal damage (or more if wearing Monk's Belt).

[Darg]

You are implying into the text that it "delivers the Eldritch Blast", but the text ain't saying that. It only tells you how the damage of the claws are calculated. Otherwise you could "deliver" your essences. This ain't the Hideous Blow shape.

Eldritch claws is a rather unique case, but altering the method of delivery of a spell doesn't negate the spell resistance. Neither should eldritch blast lose its weakness to spell resistance. Honestly, adding essences to the claws wouldn't really be OP or anything. The feat limits you to 2 attacks per round with the claws and the text does not say that they are natural weapons. They are only natural weapons when you attack with them. As that is the case, beast strike can't work with eldritch claws.


Not all maneuvers are EX, some are magical and thus fall into the SU category. Now tell me how teleporting ain't magical? ;)
Unless they call out themselves an exception to the norm (which some might do), all magical maneuvers are SU.

All maneuvers are Ex unless specifically mentioned in their description that they are Su. Shadow Jaunt and Shadow Blink are Ex abilities. Tell me how a beholder flies with perfect maneuverability with an Ex ability. Ex abilities aren't beholden to physics and can appear to be magical but are not.

[schreier]

I think the restriction on two claw attacks is because it is a natural weapon. The way I read it, if you just use Eldritch Claws by themselves, it is unarmed damage + eldritch blast + strength and limited to two attacks (but you get two attacks even if BAB is below 6). If you use beast strike, it is unarmed damage + eldritch blast + unarmed damage + strength, and you get iterative attacks and can even flurry.

I see both sides of the "spell immunity/spell resistance" - it converts the effect to claws, so is doing untyped damage that is not a spell-like ability and it is not specifically called a supernatural ability. The RAW I would think means it bypasses spell resistance and is extraordinary since it is not called out as anything. From a balance perspective, it might make more sense to make it supernatural and not bypass spell resistance.

[Darg]

The effect of creating the claws is the feat. The eldritch blast damage is the eldritch blast. The feat has 3 instances telling you that it is an eldritch blast being delivered. I think it's harder to believe that it doesn't have the qualities of being an eldritch blast. If it wasn't meant to be delivering your eldritch blast it would have been written that the attack does unarmed damage plus additional damage equal to your eldritch blast instead of stating it does your eldritch blast damage.

[Dusk Raven]

I'm not really sure about this. First we are talking about "Dragon" here. Second, the 2 feats where pubished in #355 (BS) and #358 (EC). With such a minimal time frame, one could imply a connection and a single intention behind it. Who knows..^^

If WotC couldn't keep their stuff straight, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dragon Magazine folks couldn't either.


@Enlightened Fist
Using Enlightened Fist to emulate the Hideous Blow shape is just a waste of resources.. but yeah it would work that way.

What resources? Worth noting though, that I'm asking for a Gestalt campaign, and I value the ability to progress both Monk and Warlock at the same time.



There's no way that this isn't your eldritch blast ability. The feat says you form the energy of your eldritch blast in to claws. Then, when you attack with the claws, you deal your unarmed strike damage AND eldritch blast damage. To top it all off, you can't use your normal Eldritch blast if you have the claws shaped. Eldritch claws are your eldtritch blast, your eldritch blast is a SLA, Eldritch Blast is subject to SR. Best case scenario, you slap the golem for 1d4+str nonlethal damage (or more if wearing Monk's Belt).

Emphasis mine. For comparison, Hideous Blow states, "If you hit, the target is affected as if struck by your eldritch blast (including any eldritch essence applied to the blast)." There is precedent for language for describing hitting a foe with an eldritch blast attached to a melee strike, the feat doesn't use it. Further, since the feat states that you can't use your "normal" eldritch blast, meaning it is not a normal eldritch blast, which could mean very little or could mean it isn't an eldritch blast at all.


The effect of creating the claws is the feat. The eldritch blast damage is the eldritch blast. The feat has 3 instances telling you that it is an eldritch blast being delivered. I think it's harder to believe that it doesn't have the qualities of being an eldritch blast. If it wasn't meant to be delivering your eldritch blast it would have been written that the attack does unarmed damage plus additional damage equal to your eldritch blast instead of stating it does your eldritch blast damage.

Would it? It never actually says that you're delivering an eldritch blast in those words, only that you have claws whose damage is your unarmed strike plus eldritch blast damage. By the same argument, is Eldritch Claws also an unarmed strike, since it says you deal "normal" unarmed strike damage? On top of that, keep in mind that eldritch claws isn't a touch attack like the eldritch glaive invocation is.

Mind you, this is mostly a minor quibble for me over RAW and I don't think it matters that much, and I wouldn't oppose a DM who ruled that it is indeed an eldritch blast (which was probably the intention anyway) and that SR applies to it. However, I would immediately follow that ruling with a question: "Does that mean I can apply eldritch essence invocations to it?" I would happily accept that trade. I actually think it'd be an improvement if eldritch claws were, for all intents and purposes, a blast shape invocation that just worked weirdly, and that you really are applying an eldritch blast with each successful claw attack, and I'd certainly be willing to rule it that way if I were the DM. Usually with 3.5, I think it's best to go with Rules as Intended, or even better, just go with what's fun.

[Gruftzwerg]

I think the restriction on two claw attacks is because it is a natural weapon. The way I read it, if you just use Eldritch Claws by themselves, it is unarmed damage + eldritch blast + strength and limited to two attacks (but you get two attacks even if BAB is below 6). If you use beast strike, it is unarmed damage + eldritch blast + unarmed damage + strength, and you get iterative attacks and can even flurry.

I see both sides of the "spell immunity/spell resistance" - it converts the effect to claws, so is doing untyped damage that is not a spell-like ability and it is not specifically called a supernatural ability. The RAW I would think means it bypasses spell resistance and is extraordinary since it is not called out as anything. From a balance perspective, it might make more sense to make it supernatural and not bypass spell resistance.

I agree on almost everything here, except the EX/SU argument. You don't default to EX when no category is called out. If no specific exception is called out, you look at the general Special Ability definitions (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)and pick the sole fitting option there.
Natural Ability: non-special* ; non-magical
Extraordinary Ability: special* ; non-magical
Spell Like Ability: magical & resembles a spell and thus has to obey general Spell rules (e.g. combining spell efffect)
Supernatural Ability: magical but doesn't resemble a spell, thus doesn't obey general Spell rules
* "special" as defined in the EX category

Eldritch Claws clearly involves magic (to form em) but doesn't resemble a spell (there is no Eldritch Claw spell). As such, they are clearly SU (since no callout was made to make a specific exception).

That being said, I have to bow for your explanation of the other topics being so precise and on point.



Eldritch claws is a rather unique case, but altering the method of delivery of a spell doesn't negate the spell resistance. Neither should eldritch blast lose its weakness to spell resistance. Honestly, adding essences to the claws wouldn't really be OP or anything. The feat limits you to 2 attacks per round with the claws and the text does not say that they are natural weapons. They are only natural weapons when you attack with them. As that is the case, beast strike can't work with eldritch claws.



All maneuvers are Ex unless specifically mentioned in their description that they are Su. Shadow Jaunt and Shadow Blink are Ex abilities. Tell me how a beholder flies with perfect maneuverability with an Ex ability. Ex abilities aren't beholden to physics and can appear to be magical but are not.
Eldritch Claws obey the general rule for claws. It doesn't create new rules but rather reminds you how claws work (2 attacks but no iterative attacks).
It lacks the explicit wording needed here to "deliver your Eldritch Blast". It sole mentions that the damage also consists of Eldritch Blast damage. Compare it with Hideous Blow or any other real touch spell. They have a more explicit wording regards delivering something. Eldritch Claws on the other hand sole gives you permission to combine your Unarmed Strike damage with your Eldritch Blast damage for your Claw damage.


There is no rule that maneuvers default to EX when it isn't specifically called out. I have given you the quote (from ToB P37) that says that they can be either EX or SU. If no category is specifically called out, you default to the category that fits best (see my answer to "schreier").
Shadow Jaunt and Shadow Blink enable you to teleport. And teleport involves magic, thus they are SU.
The beholder has a "special" form of flight:

Flight (Ex): A beholder's body is naturally buoyant. ...
This is a specific callout that clearly shows that the beholders ability to fly is non-magical. It is still a special ability and thus EX is the most fitting category here (and not Natural Ability like for birds who have a natural form for flight).



What resources? Worth noting though, that I'm asking for a Gestalt campaign, and I value the ability to progress both Monk and Warlock at the same time.


Enlightened Fist is still a choice for clawlocks, don't get me wrong. It just shouldn't be the reason to sole get that ability ;)

Using the combo (either Enlightened Fist or Hideous Blow) can be a nice prebuff method but that's all. After the combat starts you don't wanna waste any possible extra attacks anymore.

[Darg]

Would it? It never actually says that you're delivering an eldritch blast in those words, only that you have claws whose damage is your unarmed strike plus eldritch blast damage. By the same argument, is Eldritch Claws also an unarmed strike, since it says you deal "normal" unarmed strike damage? On top of that, keep in mind that eldritch claws isn't a touch attack like the eldritch glaive invocation is.

I don't see why "You can deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack" would mean you aren't delivering your eldritch blast with the melee attacks you can make. Prior to the unarmed strike damage being mentioned, it tells you that you make claw attacks. It does not say that you make an unarmed attack or strike.


What resources? Worth noting though, that I'm asking for a Gestalt campaign, and I value the ability to progress both Monk and Warlock at the same time.

You aren't really wasting anything. If anything it's actually really beneficial. It saves an invocation choice, explicitly let's you use an unarmed strike in place of the touch attack as part of casting, and let's you combine it with the arcane fist ability. Or, you could combine it with hideous blow. Hold the charge and use the standard action with hideous blow and deliver your blast twice in a single standard (hideous blow is not cast so it doesn't provoke nor cause the loss of the charge). Add in Snap Kick and you could make it 3 blasts and 2 unarmed strikes. The only thing you lose out on is really just arcane rejuvenation.


Eldritch Claws obey the general rule for claws. It doesn't create new rules but rather reminds you how claws work (2 attacks but no iterative attacks).
It lacks the explicit wording needed here to "deliver your Eldritch Blast". It sole mentions that the damage also consists of Eldritch Blast damage. Compare it with Hideous Blow or any other real touch spell. They have a more explicit wording regards delivering something. Eldritch Claws on the other hand sole gives you permission to combine your Unarmed Strike damage with your Eldritch Blast damage for your Claw damage.

You don't have permission to perform more than 2 attacks. You can tell me all you want that it is simply a reminder, but that is not what it says. The explicit wording is in the feat's description, "You can deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack." The PHB even tells you that this part of the feat is a "Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language."



There is no rule that maneuvers default to EX when it isn't specifically called out. I have given you the quote (from ToB P37) that says that they can be either EX or SU. If no category is specifically called out, you default to the category that fits best (see my answer to "schreier").
Shadow Jaunt and Shadow Blink enable you to teleport. And teleport involves magic, thus they are SU.

I guess you missed the rule on page 40 under "Extraordinary or Supernatural Abilities": "Unless the description of the specific maneuver or stance says otherwise, treat it as an extraordinary ability."

[Dusk Raven]

Enlightened Fist is still a choice for clawlocks, don't get me wrong. It just shouldn't be the reason to sole get that ability ;)

Using the combo (either Enlightened Fist or Hideous Blow) can be a nice prebuff method but that's all. After the combat starts you don't wanna waste any possible extra attacks anymore.

Oh, absolutely, I was merely considering it a fun extra - and being able to deliver an actual eldritch blast alongside the eldritch claws would be amusing, plus it's something I know works with eldritch essences. Alternatively, I have a few Chameleon levels in that build, so I could also just use it for actual ray spells. Either way, however, it would just be something I do as prep, or if I somehow end up with a turn in which can't get adjacent to any enemies or otherwise can't attack, but I also don't feel like actually using the ray as a ray.


I don't see why "You can deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack" would mean you aren't delivering your eldritch blast with the melee attacks you can make. Prior to the unarmed strike damage being mentioned, it tells you that you make claw attacks. It does not say that you make an unarmed attack or strike.

Hideous blow contains the language one would use if one actually was delivering a blast with a melee attack of any sort (at least if the designers were being sensible). By contrast, eldritch claws merely give you claws, whose damage contains both unarmed strike and eldritch blast damage. Why would it be one of those and not the other?


You aren't really wasting anything. If anything it's actually really beneficial. It saves an invocation choice, explicitly let's you use an unarmed strike in place of the touch attack as part of casting, and let's you combine it with the arcane fist ability. Or, you could combine it with hideous blow. Hold the charge and use the standard action with hideous blow and deliver your blast twice in a single standard (hideous blow is not cast so it doesn't provoke nor cause the loss of the charge). Add in Snap Kick and you could make it 3 blasts and 2 unarmed strikes. The only thing you lose out on is really just arcane rejuvenation.

That character will be using eldritch claws+beast strike, not hideous blow, which seems inferior to both those feats either alone or together. In general, it'd be more advantageous to use the claws over Enlightened Fist's hold ray ability, unless I have enough prep time to channel an eldritch blast and hold the charge before activating the claws on the next turn. Or, if it turns out I can't use essences with the claws, and thus I'm only getting use of essences (and Hellfire Warlock's extra hellfire damage) from casting the normal eldritch blast"



You don't have permission to perform more than 2 attacks. You can tell me all you want that it is simply a reminder, but that is not what it says. The explicit wording is in the feat's description, "You can deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack." The PHB even tells you that this part of the feat is a "Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language."


...I had to look at the feat again to figure out why you kept saying that, and turns out it says it between the feat name and the prerequisites, the section I never look at for actual rules because it's almost always just fluff and never actually has anything of mechanical value. I've never encountered a case where the summary actually expanded one's understanding of the rules, but I guess there's a first time for everything, even in 3.5. However, that still leaves a couple of unanswered questions - does it use different damage types or is it all the same slashing and piercing used by normal claws? Since it's not a touch attack, I'm inclined to believe it's entirely physical, like normal claws - and also because it'd be really nice if you could effectively double your unarmed strike damage with the Beast Strike feat (though DMs might understandably want to disallow that!), and that's obviously a no-go if your claws technically deal bludgeoning plus force damage.

[Darg]

Hideous blow contains the language one would use if one actually was delivering a blast with a melee attack of any sort (at least if the designers were being sensible). By contrast, eldritch claws merely give you claws, whose damage contains both unarmed strike and eldritch blast damage. Why would it be one of those and not the other?

While I can't get inside the mind of the creator of the feat I can tell you that it is most likely the difference in structure. A feat description is formatted completely differently than an invocation.


That character will be using eldritch claws+beast strike, not hideous blow, which seems inferior to both those feats either alone or together. In general, it'd be more advantageous to use the claws over Enlightened Fist's hold ray ability, unless I have enough prep time to channel an eldritch blast and hold the charge before activating the claws on the next turn. Or, if it turns out I can't use essences with the claws, and thus I'm only getting use of essences (and Hellfire Warlock's extra hellfire damage) from casting the normal eldritch blast"

I don't have much experience with eldritch claws+beast strike because we tend to stay away from dragon material. You'd get your full attack with unarmed strikes + 2 claw attacks of eldritch blast damage. If your DM rules that eldritch claws is not eldritch blast, you could hold off on using the feat until after you make your first blast attack to add essences to it. Blinding/shaken/nauseated are really good to put on your target. That said, I don't think eldritch claws even qualifies for beast strike; which requires an actual claw attack. Eldritch claws refers to itself as the weapon "eldritch claws" instead of saying you are proficient with your claws.


...I had to look at the feat again to figure out why you kept saying that, and turns out it says it between the feat name and the prerequisites, the section I never look at for actual rules because it's almost always just fluff and never actually has anything of mechanical value. I've never encountered a case where the summary actually expanded one's understanding of the rules, but I guess there's a first time for everything, even in 3.5. However, that still leaves a couple of unanswered questions - does it use different damage types or is it all the same slashing and piercing used by normal claws? Since it's not a touch attack, I'm inclined to believe it's entirely physical, like normal claws - and also because it'd be really nice if you could effectively double your unarmed strike damage with the Beast Strike feat (though DMs might understandably want to disallow that!), and that's obviously a no-go if your claws technically deal bludgeoning plus force damage.

An example of the feat not making any sense at all without the plain text at the beginning of the feat description is the Double Wand Wielder feat from CArc.


General
You can activate two wands at the same time.

Prerequisite
Craft Wand (PH) , Two-Weapon Fighting (PH)

Benefit
As a full-round action, you can wield a wand in each hand (if you have both hands free), with one wand designated as your primary wand and the other your secondary wand. Each use of the secondary wand expends 2 charges from it instead of 1.

Without the plain text it's easy to see how someone could look at it and say that it doesn't actually do anything. Other examples include the proficiency feats and weapon selection feats in the PHB. One egregious example is the shield proficiency feat. If you don't pay attention to the plain text, the benefit would apply to tower shields as well.

Edritch blast damage is magical without a descriptor. So at the bare minimum in how it is ruled, it will bypass x/magic damage reduction. It is never force damage unless one uses a homebrew invocation to change the damage type. If you want to damage incorporeal creatures without the 50% miss chance, a one level dip into enlighted spirit will get you spirit blast. A one level dip can be valuable anyways thanks to aura of menace, just passing by some one gives them a really nice penalties and it works automatically.

[Dusk Raven]

I don't have much experience with eldritch claws+beast strike because we tend to stay away from dragon material. You'd get your full attack with unarmed strikes + 2 claw attacks of eldritch blast damage. If your DM rules that eldritch claws is not eldritch blast, you could hold off on using the feat until after you make your first blast attack to add essences to it. Blinding/shaken/nauseated are really good to put on your target. That said, I don't think eldritch claws even qualifies for beast strike; which requires an actual claw attack. Eldritch claws refers to itself as the weapon "eldritch claws" instead of saying you are proficient with your claws.

Why only two? Also, it says you get claw attacks, they're natural weapons. That's all Beast Strike needs. And I don't recall a case of a creature not being proficient with natural weapons, or of those terms even being used in the same sentence at any point in the rules. It's just assumed that you're proficient.

This is reaching levels of quibbling over language that I would completely ignore as a DM, and I would implore any other DM to just use some common sense. D&D 3.5, after all, is where I learned to hate the words, "rules as written."


Edritch blast damage is magical without a descriptor. So at the bare minimum in how it is ruled, it will bypass x/magic damage reduction. It is never force damage unless one uses a homebrew invocation to change the damage type. If you want to damage incorporeal creatures without the 50% miss chance, a one level dip into enlighted spirit will get you spirit blast. A one level dip can be valuable anyways thanks to aura of menace, just passing by some one gives them a really nice penalties and it works automatically.

...Never mind on the force damage thing, I honestly thought that was its normal damage type, and not untyped damage. Guess I'm too used to 5e now.

[schreier]

I thought it would be interesting to get responses in survey format since the responses are so widespread, so here is the link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6P8LN68

I'll post the responses we get this weekend I guess although anyone should be able to see them I beleive

[Gruftzwerg]

You don't have permission to perform more than 2 attacks. You can tell me all you want that it is simply a reminder, but that is not what it says. The explicit wording is in the feat's description, "You can deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack." The PHB even tells you that this part of the feat is a "Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language."




I guess you missed the rule on page 40 under "Extraordinary or Supernatural Abilities": "Unless the description of the specific maneuver or stance says otherwise, treat it as an extraordinary ability."

First, it seems I missed the rule on P40 as you said, thx for pointing me to it =)

But.. I still don't see how your statement about Eldritch Claws is justified: Link to Eldritch Claws feat JPG (https://www.enworld.org/attachments/eldritch-claws-feat-jpg.30571/)
Nowhere does it state that you "deliver your eldritch blast". It only tells you that you grow Claws from your eldritch blast ability and tells you how the damage of em is calculated, not more not less.

And repeating general rules as reminder is a common thing. E.g. most touch spells still repeat that they work on a successful touch attack in their text even if the "target: creature touched"-line already puts them under the general rules for touch attacks. Ray spells are another example where the obvious "Effect: Ray" is explained as friendly reminder in their rule text. Eldritch Claws does the same thing by repeating the general rules for "Claws". Just repeating general rules just repeat em. It doesn't create a 2nd copy of it that pretends to be more specific, but calls out the same result as the general rule. That would make no sense since it would be just repeating the general rules. As such, you have to threat such rule text as friendly reminder.

[Paragon]

Nowhere does it state that you "deliver your eldritch blast". It only tells you that you grow Claws from your eldritch blast ability and tells you how the damage of em is calculated, not more not less.

It does. Before anything else, just below the title.

On a related matter, if a glaivelock uses his iteration attacks then, as a free action, grows his claws, can he make the claw attacks as a secondary natural one ? It sounds pretty nice

[Dusk Raven]

It does. Before anything else, just below the title.

On a related matter, if a glaivelock uses his iteration attacks then, as a free action, grows his claws, can he make the claw attacks as a secondary natural one ? It sounds pretty nice

By the time you grow the claws, the full attack action would already be over, I think, and thus you'd be left with claws but no action to use them - although you could at least make attacks of opportunity with them. Also, you'd have to have one or more foes within reach weapon range, and one or more within 5 feet, since the two have different ranges.

[Zarvistic]

By the time you grow the claws, the full attack action would already be over, I think, and thus you'd be left with claws but no action to use them - although you could at least make attacks of opportunity with them. Also, you'd have to have one or more foes within reach weapon range, and one or more within 5 feet, since the two have different ranges.
Not sure if the idea is possible or not, but I don't think these two things are an issue, cause you can both 5ft step as well as take free actions between attacks of a full-attack, so you could create the claws between glaive attacks and 5ft step later to use them.

[Dusk Raven]

Not sure if the idea is possible or not, but I don't think these two things are an issue, cause you can both 5ft step as well as take free actions between attacks of a full-attack, so you could create the claws between glaive attacks and 5ft step later to use them.

I wasn't sure if you could take free actions within a full attack or not. The problem, however, is that you can't use your normal eldritch blast with your claws out. So, the question is, is your full attack over once all your iterative glaive attacks are used? Actually, I'm not even sure you could do that, because using eldritch glaive isn't a full attack, it's a special full-round action. At least, if I'm reading the invocation text correctly.

[Darg]

I wasn't sure if you could take free actions within a full attack or not. The problem, however, is that you can't use your normal eldritch blast with your claws out. So, the question is, is your full attack over once all your iterative glaive attacks are used? Actually, I'm not even sure you could do that, because using eldritch glaive isn't a full attack, it's a special full-round action. At least, if I'm reading the invocation text correctly.

The PHB says, "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally." This is on page 139. Basically they can be performed at any time during your turn.


By the time you grow the claws, the full attack action would already be over, I think, and thus you'd be left with claws but no action to use them - although you could at least make attacks of opportunity with them. Also, you'd have to have one or more foes within reach weapon range, and one or more within 5 feet, since the two have different ranges.

Just pick up the Short Haft feat. As a swift action you can give up your reach quality. But the 5 ft. step is probably a lot more functional and doesn't cost a feat.

[Gruftzwerg]

It does. Before anything else, just below the title.

On a related matter, if a glaivelock uses his iteration attacks then, as a free action, grows his claws, can he make the claw attacks as a secondary natural one ? It sounds pretty nice

1: That sentence is fluff text and not part of the "rules" presented in the "benefit" section. A common format in 3.5. Only the "benefit" section has the right to create rules for the feat. Anything else is not part of the rules of the feat and just mere fluff text.

2: Depends on the limbs used.. (official answer)
At first glance you can freely combine your regular full-attack (including iterative) and use your Eldritch Claws as secondary attacks. The sole thing that restricts this is that IIRC 3.5 has some kind of "1 limb per action/per round" rule (don't ask where this does come from. I can just recall several discussions regarding it over the years..).
E.g.: If you use a 2h weapon, both arms are already used for attacking (and couldn't use Claws). A monk on the other hand could attack with his other limbs and still use both arms for the claw attacks.

Rules of the Game for reference: All about Unarmed Strikes part 2 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a)

A creature can choose to treat its unarmed attacks as its primary attacks and its natural weapons as secondary attacks. (This method is normally used to add weapon attacks to a natural attack routine.) The creature must make all unarmed attacks with its primary limb, which prevents that hand from being used for a natural attack such as a claw or slam.
Sadly they don't tell us where this rule comes from.. ^^
Maybe someone can back this up with actual rule text?

[Paragon]

1: That sentence is fluff text and not part of the "rules" presented in the "benefit" section. A common format in 3.5. Only the "benefit" section has the right to create rules for the feat. Anything else is not part of the rules of the feat and just mere fluff text.

Fair enough but the RAI is as clear as can be. Going against it upholding the sacred RAW is just fanatism :smallbiggrin:


2: Depends on the limbs used.. (official answer)
At first glance you can freely combine your regular full-attack (including iterative) and use your Eldritch Claws as secondary attacks. The sole thing that restricts this is that IIRC 3.5 has some kind of "1 limb per action/per round" rule (don't ask where this does come from. I can just recall several discussions regarding it over the years..).
E.g.: If you use a 2h weapon, both arms are already used for attacking (and couldn't use Claws). A monk on the other hand could attack with his other limbs and still use both arms for the claw attacks.

Rules of the Game for reference: All about Unarmed Strikes part 2 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a)
Sadly they don't tell us where this rule comes from.. ^^
Maybe someone can back this up with actual rule text?

I remember reading something like this in the archives as well but never found the actual rule for it.
Is there anyway to make a Talashatora Warlock ? ^^ I didn't find an easy one

The best way imho would be playing a Diopsid Warlock

[Zarvistic]

Could take monastic training bound to cerebruhmancer and use that to advance a bunch of stuff maybe.

[Gruftzwerg]

Fair enough but the RAI is as clear as can be. Going against it upholding the sacred RAW is just fanatism :smallbiggrin:



I remember reading something like this in the archives as well but never found the actual rule for it.
Is there anyway to make a Talashatora Warlock ? ^^ I didn't find an easy one

The best way imho would be playing a Diopsid Warlock

I can see a point for RAI, but since the benefit section ain't ambiguous imho, it wouldn't fly at my table.

And regarding Talashatora: Dunno if the is any PRC that progresses psionic and arcane caster lvl at the same time. Alternatively just UMD a Monk's Belt. UMD Roll -20 (penalty from UMD) +5 (Monk's Belt) = effective Monk lvl for activating the belt

[Darg]

1: That sentence is fluff text and not part of the "rules" presented in the "benefit" section. A common format in 3.5. Only the "benefit" section has the right to create rules for the feat. Anything else is not part of the rules of the feat and just mere fluff text.

"Fluff" is not how the PHB describes it. Yes, there is rules text within the plain text. I even provided examples where feats even require the plain text to even function: proficiency feats and weapon selections such as improved critical or weapon focus.

Where is the basis that "fluff" text even exists other than personal disagreement with the text itself?


Sadly they don't tell us where this rule comes from.. ^^
Maybe someone can back this up with actual rule text?

There is no rules text for this. The only rule available is that you only use a limb for a single type of attack. Use gauntlets for an armed unarmed strike? You can't use those hands. That said, claws can also be on the feet so where a creature has its natural weapons is important too. Unarmed strikes as the description of the weapon says in the PHB can be made with ANY part of the body so even if arms and legs can't be used a head butt is still quite possible unless you bite which uses the "head limb." That said, a booty bump or belly bump isn't going to do any damage by themselves so unarmed strikes are pretty limited by the number of extremities.

[Paragon]

Alternatively just UMD a Monk's Belt. UMD Roll -20 (penalty from UMD) +5 (Monk's Belt) = effective Monk lvl for activating the belt

But maybe I don't get what UMD allows you to do but whether you're a level-0 monk (with UMD) or not a monk (without it) it doesn't change much right ?

[schreier]

But maybe I don't get what UMD allows you to do but whether you're a level-0 monk (with UMD) or not a monk (without it) it doesn't change much right ?

Not sure it works, but it could be trying to qualify as a monk for purposes of the damage? A level 15 warlock UMD on the monks belt might be able to do level 20 unarmed damage with that approach (if the DM allows)

[schreier]

Responses to the survey so far (5 responses):

What type of ability does the Eldritch Claws feat count as?
Supernatural 3
Extraordinary 2

I went Supernatural there, even though the RAW part of me thinks Extraordinary because it feels Supernatural. If shadow blink is extraordinary though, this feels like it could be/should be too though, so I am honestly torn. I'll call it 2.5 to 2.5, so a virtual tie because I can't decide.


Does Eldritch Claws work with Beast Strike?
Yes 4
No 1

Does Eldritch Claws allow you to use Blast Essences on it?
No 5

The only unanimous answer


Interesting responses so far ... glad to see 1. I am not crazy for having questions, and 2. I am relatively close to the majority opinion.

I didn't ask about the interaction of the necklace of natural weapons because it feels open to abuse (if claws/unarmed attacks stack 3 times or not) -- I think the easiest answer is no because the "claw" damage is the base damage, not the "enhanced" damage (which is kind of like claw damage + other damage/effects).

[Darg]

Responses to the survey so far (5 responses):

What type of ability does the Eldritch Claws feat count as?
Supernatural 3
Extraordinary 2

I went Supernatural there, even though the RAW part of me thinks Extraordinary because it feels Supernatural. If shadow blink is extraordinary though, this feels like it could be/should be too though, so I am honestly torn. I'll call it 2.5 to 2.5, so a virtual tie because I can't decide.


Does Eldritch Claws work with Beast Strike?
Yes 4
No 1

Does Eldritch Claws allow you to use Blast Essences on it?
No 5

The only unanimous answer


Interesting responses so far ... glad to see 1. I am not crazy for having questions, and 2. I am relatively close to the majority opinion.

I didn't ask about the interaction of the necklace of natural weapons because it feels open to abuse (if claws/unarmed attacks stack 3 times or not) -- I think the easiest answer is no because the "claw" damage is the base damage, not the "enhanced" damage (which is kind of like claw damage + other damage/effects).

Opinions don't really mean much. On this board there is a higher concentration of optimizers that expect every frontline fighter to take a 1 level pounce barbarian dip to keep up than people playing 3e actually do. They are also of the opinion that losing caster levels in trade for non-casting opportunities is an exceptionally poor choice due to the multitude of options spellcasters receive over the decade of content releases. Always with the disclaimer of balancing to the table like the disclaimer actually helps anyone. Just take it with a grain of salt.

Your first question has its own flaws. 2 of us believe that it delivers your eldritch blast instead of being your eldritch blast. As a feat it is unaffected by AMF. But the damage is the eldritch blast. As an SLA, the eldritch blast portion would be affected by AMF and spell resistance. Meaning you would still have claws, just not blast damage. Personally I think the feat as a whole for flavor be supernatural so that you can't form the claws in an AMF, but the blast damage is still an SLA and thus subject to spell resistance.

The last 2 questions are fine.


Not sure it works, but it could be trying to qualify as a monk for purposes of the damage? A level 15 warlock UMD on the monks belt might be able to do level 20 unarmed damage with that approach (if the DM allows)

To emulate a class feature at a specific level, the skill requires activating the item. A passive effect isn't activated and therefore you can't fake being a level 20 monk.

[Gruftzwerg]

"Fluff" is not how the PHB describes it. Yes, there is rules text within the plain text. I even provided examples where feats even require the plain text to even function: proficiency feats and weapon selections such as improved critical or weapon focus.

Where is the basis that "fluff" text even exists other than personal disagreement with the text itself?



There is no rules text for this. The only rule available is that you only use a limb for a single type of attack. Use gauntlets for an armed unarmed strike? You can't use those hands. That said, claws can also be on the feet so where a creature has its natural weapons is important too. Unarmed strikes as the description of the weapon says in the PHB can be made with ANY part of the body so even if arms and legs can't be used a head butt is still quite possible unless you bite which uses the "head limb." That said, a booty bump or belly bump isn't going to do any damage by themselves so unarmed strikes are pretty limited by the number of extremities.
We have an official format for Feat Descriotions (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm) which sole gives the "Benefit:" line the permission to give you rules for the ability. Anything else has not been given permission to do so.
And if you have a look at the PHB version on page 89, it has also the following line in between the title and prerequisite:


Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language.

This defines the part that your interpretation relies on as "plain language", which is *fluff* and not rule text how the ability works. That is defined in the "Benefits" section as said.

Regarding Eldritch Claws on you feet: The ability is specific that your grow claws from your hands and thus disallows the regular option to have claws on your feet therefore. Sadly this doesn't work. This is why I mentioned monk, since only their unarmed strike ability has the special exception to not have any "offhand part of their body". They can choose anything as their "Primary Limb" to get their iterative attacks (something non monks don't have the permission to do..).


But maybe I don't get what UMD allows you to do but whether you're a level-0 monk (with UMD) or not a monk (without it) it doesn't change much right ?

You can use UMD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm)to emulate a class feature. You pretend to have X lvls in a class with a -20 on your roll. The Monk's Belt then gives you higher values in return. For more details, see my response to Darg below.




Your first question has its own flaws. 2 of us believe that it delivers your eldritch blast instead of being your eldritch blast. As a feat it is unaffected by AMF. But the damage is the eldritch blast. As an SLA, the eldritch blast portion would be affected by AMF and spell resistance. Meaning you would still have claws, just not blast damage. Personally I think the feat as a whole for flavor be supernatural so that you can't form the claws in an AMF, but the blast damage is still an SLA and thus subject to spell resistance.

The last 2 questions are fine.



To emulate a class feature at a specific level, the skill requires activating the item. A passive effect isn't activated and therefore you can't fake being a level 20 monk.

Since Eldritch Claws aren't a maneuver, they don't have the clause to default to EX when their type ain't mentioned in their rule text. Imho we should be agreeing that the act of forming the Eldritch Claws definitively involves magic and thus therefore should be categorized as SU (which means that you can't use em in a AMF).

Regards "Activating Magic Items": (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm)

Using Items

To use a magic item, it must be activated, although sometimes activation simply means putting a ring on your finger. Some items, once donned, function constantly. In most cases, using an item requires a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. By contrast, spell completion items are treated like spells in combat and do provoke attacks of opportunity.

Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise. However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, regardless of the type of magic item, unless the item description specifically states otherwise.

The four ways to activate magic items are described below.

...
All magic items need to be activated. Even passive working magic items have activation methods. It may be as simple as donning em. Therefore you may UMD a Monk's Belt.

[Paragon]

This defines the part that your interpretation relies on as "plain language", which is *fluff* and not rule text how the ability works. That is defined in the "Benefits" section as said.

Fair enough. But a friendly reminder that, by RAW, this game is unplayable



Since Eldritch Claws aren't a maneuver, they don't have the clause to default to EX when their type ain't mentioned in their rule text. Imho we should be agreeing that the act of forming the Eldritch Claws definitively involves magic and thus therefore should be categorized as SU (which means that you can't use em in a AMF).

I think the Ex by default when a maneuver isn't the argument here. What is interesting is that an exception to "magic = Spell/SLA/Su" exists and since you only need an exception to invalidate a rule then you can't dismiss it and say "itis magical and not an SLA nor a spell so it is Su".


You can use UMD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm)to emulate a class feature. You pretend to have X lvls in a class with a -20 on your roll. The Monk's Belt then gives you higher values in return. For more details, see my response to Darg below.

Regards "Activating Magic Items": (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm)
All magic items need to be activated. Even passive working magic items have activation methods. It may be as simple as donning em. Therefore you may UMD a Monk's Belt.

Thanks, that seems to float except the entry says
Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20
So i'm guessing since you don't need to use the class feature to activate it since you can don it as a non-monk, you can't UMD it ?

What's even worse in this case
If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement.
Monk having to be lawful is another DC check of 30 or having to be a lawful warlock which is weird (if not illegal)

[Darg]

We have an official format for Feat Descriotions (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm) which sole gives the "Benefit:" line the permission to give you rules for the ability. Anything else has not been given permission to do so.
And if you have a look at the PHB version on page 89, it has also the following line in between the title and prerequisite:



This defines the part that your interpretation relies on as "plain language", which is *fluff* and not rule text how the ability works. That is defined in the "Benefits" section as said.

Good job ignoring the feats I gave as examples where the plain text has important rules for the function of the feat. As your quote mentions, it tells you what the feat does which is not simply fluff the way you like it.


SHIELD PROFICIENCY [GENERAL]
You are proficient with bucklers, small shields, and large shields.

Benefit: You can use a shield and take only the standard penalties (see Table 7–6: Armor and Shields, page 123).

Normal: When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield’s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride checks.

Special: Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Vs


Shield Proficiency [General]
Benefit
You can use a shield and take only the standard penalties.

Normal
When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield’s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride checks.

Special
Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

The SRD version of shield proficiency allows the use of tower shields without penalty. Other examples of feats that require the plain text to function or know what to apply the benefits to:


EXOTIC WEAPON PROFICIENCY [GENERAL]
Choose a type of exotic weapon, such as dire flail or shuriken (see Table 7–5: Weapons, page 116, for a list of exotic weapons). You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1 (plus Str 13 for bastard sword or dwarven waraxe).

Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.

Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon. Proficiency with the bastard sword or the dwarven waraxe has an additional prerequisite of Str 13.
A fighter may select Exotic Weapon Proficiency as one of his
fighter bonus feats (see page 38)


ARMOR PROFICIENCY (LIGHT) [GENERAL]
You are proficient with light armor (see Table 7–6: Armor and Shields, page 123).

Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Pick Pocket, and Tumble checks.

Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.

Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.


WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. You are especially good at using this weapon. (If you have chosen ray, you are especially good with rays, such as the one produced by the ray of frost spell.)

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. A fighter may select Weapon Focus as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38). He must have Weapon Focus with a weapon to gain the Weapon Specialization feat for that weapon.

The benefit line of exotic weapon proficiency doesn't tell you how the feat works. It only tells you the benefit. You NEED the plain text to give rules in order to know to select an exotic weapon and that the feat applies to that weapon. Armor proficiency works the same way. You need the plain text to know that it applies to light armor. Finally we get to weapon focus. A ray is not a weapon and therefore would normally not be an option for this feat. Luckily, the plain text is rules text so it allows us to select ray as a weapon for the feat.


Regarding Eldritch Claws on you feet: The ability is specific that your grow claws from your hands and thus disallows the regular option to have claws on your feet therefore. Sadly this doesn't work. This is why I mentioned monk, since only their unarmed strike ability has the special exception to not have any "offhand part of their body". They can choose anything as their "Primary Limb" to get their iterative attacks (something non monks don't have the permission to do..).

I was referring to claws in general, not specifically Eldritch claws which as you said take up your hands. A lion has claws on all 4 legs and if it pounces and misses the neck with its bite but the back legs are on the creature, it will use the back claws to rip at the creature's hind quarter. Anatomically speaking, they have 4 sets of claws, but only use two sets at a time which mimic the lion creature entry. For a dragon disciple it doesn't specify where you grow the claws or whether you only grow 2 sets vs a dragon's 4 sets.


Regards "Activating Magic Items": (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm)
All magic items need to be activated. Even passive working magic items have activation methods. It may be as simple as donning em. Therefore you may UMD a Monk's Belt.

UMD lets you emulate having class features, not having levels in a class. The belt has a requirement of monk levels and therefore you cannot use UMD to fake being a monk.


What's even worse in this case .
Monk having to be lawful is another DC check of 30 or having to be a lawful warlock which is weird (if not illegal)

Nothing technically requires it. But if we say a player selects the class at every level up like with the neverwinter nights games, then the alignment requirement would apply to selecting the class at every level.

[Paragon]

UMD lets you emulate having class features, not having levels in a class.
It sure is worded like it does
your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20

And to boot,
If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device checkmeaning you have to be lawful if you emulate any monk class feature (such as unarmed damage) of UMD being lawful.

As for being able to activate the belt, the previous argument was pretty clear quoting that "donning" it is when you make the check

[Darg]

It sure is worded like it does

And to boot, meaning you have to be lawful if you emulate any monk class feature (such as unarmed damage) of UMD being lawful.

As for being able to activate the belt, the previous argument was pretty clear quoting that "donning" it is when you make the check

The skill doesn't let you emulate a class, just a feature of the class. Take casting a scroll. Use magic device lets you emulate the spellcasting ability of a class allowed to use the scroll at the appropriate level required to cast from the scroll.

The quote you presented even tells you that you are emulating a class feature. It just has an additional check to emulate the alignment of the class whose class feature is being emulated. You are not emulating a class at any point.

[Paragon]

The skill doesn't let you emulate a class, just a feature of the class. Take casting a scroll. Use magic device lets you emulate the spellcasting ability of a class allowed to use the scroll at the appropriate level required to cast from the scroll.

The quote you presented even tells you that you are emulating a class feature. It just has an additional check to emulate the alignment of the class whose class feature is being emulated. You are not emulating a class at any point.

Don't get me wrong I understand what it's supposed to do, i'm just liking this debate. But my quote specifically says "emulated class" and not class feature. Hence, the quote.
And even in you exemple there is a required level to be attained by the check, why can't it be the same with you trying to reach a required level of monk for unarmed damages opposed to spellcasting ability ?

[Darg]

But my quote specifically says "emulated class" and not class feature. Hence, the quote.

When things are taken out of context meaning can be lost. Which is what is happening here. The full quote:


Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20.

You aren't emulating the class as a whole, but merely a part. That part returns valid when you say you are emulating a class because you CAN emulate something in part. I can emulate a clown by wearing big shoes. It doesn't mean I'm emulating being a clown.


And even in you exemple there is a required level to be attained by the check, why can't it be the same with you trying to reach a required level of monk for unarmed damages opposed to spellcasting ability ?

Monk's belt doesn't require a specific amount of monk unarmed damage to function.


The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.

In all cases, the bolded statement is satisfied. A spellcraft check uses the minimum level required to successfully use an item. As the belt functions at monk level 0, the spellcraft check DC is 20 (20+0). As the character doesn't need to have levels in monk to use the belt, a spellcraft check is never actually used. In comparison, using a fireball staff requires a DC 25 check. There is no rule allowing you to upscale the caster level to increase the caster level of the spell. A spellcraft check is only ever a "can use an item" or "can't use an item."

The PHB uses this example:


For example, Lidda finds a magic chalice that turns regular water into holy water when a cleric or an experienced paladin channels positive energy into it as if turning undead. She attempts to activate the item by emulating the cleric’s undead turning ability. Her effective cleric level is her check result minus 20. Since a cleric can turn undead at 1st level, she needs a Use Magic Device check result of 21 or higher to succeed.

[Paragon]

When things are taken out of context meaning can be lost. Which is what is happening here. While you are correct and I omitted part of the sentence, it still mentions class level and not class feature level in the part I've quotted.





1) You aren't emulating the class as a whole, but merely a part. That part returns valid when you say you are emulating a class because you CAN emulate something in part.

2) Monk's belt doesn't require a specific amount of monk unarmed damage to function.

3) The PHB uses this example:
For example, Lidda finds a magic chalice that turns regular water into holy water when a cleric or an experienced paladin channels positive energy into it as if turning undead. She attempts to activate the item by emulating the cleric’s undead turning ability. Her effective cleric level is her check result minus 20. Since a cleric can turn undead at 1st level, she needs a Use Magic Device check result of 21 or higher to succeed.


1) Yes
2) True, I remember making this argument and being convinced by the fact that every magic item need to be activated (cf post #50) and since you activate it by donning it you can UMD and I guess what i'm missing is the rule saying that since you can have one benefit of a magic item, you can't UMD to have more ?
3) Best exemple possible. I'll rephrase it like this :
For example, Lidda finds a monk's belt that treats the wearer's AC and unarmed damage as a monk of five levels higher when a monk dons it on. She attempts to activate the item by emulating the monk's AC bonus and Unarmed strike abilities. Her effective monk level is her check result minus 20. Since a monk has his AC bonus and Unarmed Strikes at 1st level, she needs a Use Magic Device check result of 21 or higher to succeed.

[Gruftzwerg]

Good job ignoring the feats I gave as examples where the plain text has important rules for the function of the feat. As your quote mentions, it tells you what the feat does which is not simply fluff the way you like it.



Vs



The SRD version of shield proficiency allows the use of tower shields without penalty. Other examples of feats that require the plain text to function or know what to apply the benefits to:







The benefit line of exotic weapon proficiency doesn't tell you how the feat works. It only tells you the benefit. You NEED the plain text to give rules in order to know to select an exotic weapon and that the feat applies to that weapon. Armor proficiency works the same way. You need the plain text to know that it applies to light armor. Finally we get to weapon focus. A ray is not a weapon and therefore would normally not be an option for this feat. Luckily, the plain text is rules text so it allows us to select ray as a weapon for the feat.
I can explain all the feats without error and don't need to rely on the *fluff*-text for this.

First, the "general" rules for non-/proficiency are in the weapon & armor sections. No need to repeat em here again.

Each feat can easily be explained with sole the rule relevant parts: Prerequisites; Benefit; Normal & Special
Fluff-text can sometimes be helpful, but also can be misleading. As such, arguments shouldn't be relying on them.

The rules for Tower Shields are more specific than the proficiency rules. Since the feat also does rely on those rules, it gets trumped the same way due to the more specific Tower Shield rules. Even if you would consider the fluff text of Shield Proficiency as rules, it wouldn't change the outcome.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency:
The "Benefit/Normal" sections explain what you get and the "Special" section explains how the feat works in general (can be picked multiple times; each time select a new type of exotic weapon). No need to rely on the fluff text. (sure, it is helpful here for a quick overview, but not required as I have shown).

Proficiency Armor (Light):
The fluff text repeats the name of the feat = 0 new information provided.
Everything of importance is handled in the rules section of the feat (or in the general rules for armor/weapon proficiency).

Weapon Focus:
Same chase as with Exotic Weapon Proficiency. The special line contains the information you are looking for in the fluff text. Still no need for the fluff text. The rules have everything covered up.




UMD lets you emulate having class features, not having levels in a class. The belt has a requirement of monk levels and therefore you cannot use UMD to fake being a monk.

The "general" benefit of the item is to increase a monk's US damage & AC by virtual lvls. The non-monk rule is a specific exception the item provides.
When donning the item, it generally asks first for monk US & AC lvls. If you can't provide those, it jumps to the specific exception part and provides you with 5 virtual monk lvls for those abilities.
And this is where UMD comes in handy. When the item asks for a class ability (the moment you equip the belt), UMD can fake to have class lvls in that class. Depending on your UMD roll (optimization) this can be pretty high.

[Dusk Raven]

I personally wouldn't let the Monk's Belt UMD work if I were DM, in the way that's being discussed. Sure, you can emulate being a monk, but it advances an unarmed strike progression that you don't actually have, and no amount of UMD will give you that.

...I also forgot to take a look at the questionnaire.


Fair enough. But a friendly reminder that, by RAW, this game is unplayable

...I think I'm going to add this to my signature.


Monk having to be lawful is another DC check of 30 or having to be a lawful warlock which is weird (if not illegal)

You can be a Lawful Evil Warlock. Warlocks have to be "any evil or any chaotic." That being said, it never actually specifies any consequences for ceasing to be evil or chaotic, and the Enlightened Spirit PrC is "any good" so make of that what you will.

[Gruftzwerg]

Sure, you can emulate being a monk, but it advances an unarmed strike progression that you don't actually have, and no amount of UMD will give you that.

Actually the belt doesn't advance the abilities, it just gives you the values on the stats as if you where a monk with 5 additional lvls.

The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher.
And the buff is targeting regular stats that everybody has: unarmed damage & AC
It changes those stats to the value a monk with 5 additional lvls would have.

This is further confirmed by:

This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.
This sentence confirms that you don't get the ability. You get an effect that functions like the ability.



While I can see that some tables might houserule this option away as for being to strong (or to cheap), I would suggest those tables to also ban Tashalatora for the same reasons.
Other than that, if you are fine with the power lvl, it is a very strong optimization option to take by RAW.

[Dusk Raven]

Actually the belt doesn't advance the abilities, it just gives you the values on the stats as if you where a monk with 5 additional lvls.

And the buff is targeting regular stats that everybody has: unarmed damage & AC
It changes those stats to the value a monk with 5 additional lvls would have.

This is further confirmed by:

This sentence confirms that you don't get the ability. You get an effect that functions like the ability.

That's generally the language it uses when it's meant to advance a class feature.

The main problem I see is that:

"This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." From the sounds of it, you wouldn't actually be able to use the Unarmed Strike damage anyway. Similarly, anything that lets you turn undead as a cleric of whatever levels higher, for example, doesn't actually give you the ability to turn undead.

EDIT: To use a more specific example I found while browsing the DMG, the Druid's Vestment wouldn't give you the ability to Wild Shape even if you UMD it, I believe.

I also suspect UMD only lets you emulate class features for the purposes of activating magic items. You don't activate a Monk's Belt, it just is. But I may be wrong about that, since the UMD description also describes emulating a race for the purposes of a Dwarven Thrower, and you get a passive bonus with that.

In addition, A Google search came up with a discussion in Pathfinder over the similar Monk's Robe, and one user posted:


So you're going to get 1d8 unarmed strike and a +1 monk bonus to AC.

UMD can't actually give you a higher monk level. You just emulate one for purposes of activating an item. That's only useful for items that require X levels of Y. In this case, no matter what DC you hit, you're not going to improve the robes.

Entertainingly, monk's robes work for non-monks. So no UMD check is required under any circumstances.

Mind you, I was mostly stating my stance as DM, where I would indeed houserule it away, though for RAI reasons rather than being strong - I don't think having a powerful unarmed strike is the most broken thing in 3.5, after all.

[Gruftzwerg]

That's generally the language it uses when it's meant to advance a class feature.

The main problem I see is that:

"This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." From the sounds of it, you wouldn't actually be able to use the Unarmed Strike damage anyway. Similarly, anything that lets you turn undead as a cleric of whatever levels higher, for example, doesn't actually give you the ability to turn undead.

1. The items effect exchanges your "Unarmed Damage" score/value
You don't need the "monk's unarmed strike ability" to make use of your altered "unarmed damage" score. Everybody has "unarmed damage" and can use it without being a monk.

2. The items effect gives you an AC bonus that functions like that of a monk
You don't need to be monk to profit from an effect that resembles the monk's AC bonus.

While the item asks for monk lvls to determine the values it gives in return, you don't need those abilities to profit from effect it gives.


EDIT: To use a more specific example I found while browsing the DMG, the Druid's Vestment wouldn't give you the ability to Wild Shape even if you UMD it, I believe.
Druid's Vestment doesn't work the same as a Monk's Belt. The vestment targets the Wild Shape ability to give it an additional use. A UMD user would still lack the ability and thus it wouldn't work.

But.. , The Skin of Kaletor (dragon #324 page 74) works similar to the Monk's Belt and thus might work here. It increases you effective druid lvls for Wild Shaping and in addition gives non-druids the ability to Wild Shape once/day as a Druid limited to 4HD forms.




I also suspect UMD only lets you emulate class features for the purposes of activating magic items. You don't activate a Monk's Belt, it just is. But I may be wrong about that, since the UMD description also describes emulating a race for the purposes of a Dwarven Thrower, and you get a passive bonus with that.
I already addressed that in a post with a rule quote that all magic items needs to get activated. And that it may be as simple as donning the item. See post #50 here in this thread.



Mind you, I was mostly stating my stance as DM, where I would indeed houserule it away, though for RAI reasons rather than being strong - I don't think having a powerful unarmed strike is the most broken thing in 3.5, after all.
As always, everybody should rule such things at their tables how they like it. I just enjoy the RAW discussion for the sake of the forum. Cause if every response would be "ask your DM", we wouldn't get anywhere and the forum would be useless. That is my humble opinion why we need these RAW discussions as base to start from. Than we have a base where we can either decide to give it a green light at our tables or to alter it according to our needs ;)
IMHO one of the main purposes for UMD in 3.5 is to be used as gap-closer (in power lvl / Tier lvl) for mundanes to compete with casters. So, if it is within RAW and on pair with what a caster might do at the current table, I would let it fly at my table.

[Darg]

RAW stipulates that you are emulating a requirement. Monk's belt has a requirement of 0 monk levels. Whether it increases your monk level by 5 or gives you the benefits of a level 5 monk, both options only require 0 levels of monk. Both benefits work with 0 levels in monk. UMD does not emulate class levels. So by RAW, UMD can't be used on Monk's belt.

By RAW, you don't have permission to choose how high you want the UMD check to be. By RAW, you have to use the minimum DC value possible to use the item. As I mentioned in a previous post, a staff of fireballs has a DC of 25. You can't choose to make the DC 30 because you want to fire the fireballs at CL 10.

[Dusk Raven]

1. The items effect exchanges your "Unarmed Damage" score/value
You don't need the "monk's unarmed strike ability" to make use of your altered "unarmed damage" score. Everybody has "unarmed damage" and can use it without being a monk.

2. The items effect gives you an AC bonus that functions like that of a monk
You don't need to be monk to profit from an effect that resembles the monk's AC bonus.

While the item asks for monk lvls to determine the values it gives in return, you don't need those abilities to profit from effect it gives.

The unarmed strike progression is, however, a Monk class feature, as is the AC bonus. Otherwise, your unarmed damage would just be 1d4 if you had Improved Unarmed Strike, less if you didn't. If you don't have those features, it gives you one at a set level, but otherwise, you don't have either of those class abilities, and UMD doesn't give you them.


But.. , The Skin of Kaletor (dragon #324 page 74) works similar to the Monk's Belt and thus might work here. It increases you effective druid lvls for Wild Shaping and in addition gives non-druids the ability to Wild Shape once/day as a Druid limited to 4HD forms.

I think the same thing would apply - UMD can't give you a class feature you don't have, and the only reason you would have one... is if you didn't have one to begin with. That's one hell of a paradox.


As always, everybody should rule such things at their tables how they like it. I just enjoy the RAW discussion for the sake of the forum. Cause if every response would be "ask your DM", we wouldn't get anywhere and the forum would be useless. That is my humble opinion why we need these RAW discussions as base to start from. Than we have a base where we can either decide to give it a green light at our tables or to alter it according to our needs ;)
IMHO one of the main purposes for UMD in 3.5 is to be used as gap-closer (in power lvl / Tier lvl) for mundanes to compete with casters. So, if it is within RAW and on pair with what a caster might do at the current table, I would let it fly at my table.

It's good that you enjoy them, I don't, I'm just a nitpicker. I think they're good issues to explore though... I just worry that I come across as confrontational or whatnot during them.

On a side note, the last time I toyed with UMD was a Warlock, as they eventually get to take 10 on them. Which is, of course, a Tier 4 class, so still kind of in line with what you're thinking, but still. I don't think one is going to advance very far in tier by borrowing a Monk's Unarmed Strike progression though.

[Remuko]

I gotta say I agree with Gruft. Monks belts function checks your monk levels, you use UMD to emulate being a monk, your result determines what level of monk you ping as to the item, and then the item gives you an AC and unarmed damage of a monk 4 (or 5? i forget) levels higher than your result. The item doesnt improve monk abilities it gives them, if youre a monk theres just some overlap. Youre not getting an ability you dont have from UMD, youre just convincing the item youre a monk of a certain level and then it gives you the damage and AC that it would give to a monk of that level, because thats how the item works.

Is it cheesy? yeah probably, but I do agree with Gruft it seems pretty clear RAW.

[Darg]

I gotta say I agree with Gruft. Monks belts function checks your monk levels, you use UMD to emulate being a monk, your result determines what level of monk you ping as to the item, and then the item gives you an AC and unarmed damage of a monk 4 (or 5? i forget) levels higher than your result. The item doesnt improve monk abilities it gives them, if youre a monk theres just some overlap. Youre not getting an ability you dont have from UMD, youre just convincing the item youre a monk of a certain level and then it gives you the damage and AC that it would give to a monk of that level, because thats how the item works.

Is it cheesy? yeah probably, but I do agree with Gruft it seems pretty clear RAW.

It only gives you the monk abilities if you don't have monk abilities, otherwise it only improves them. This causes your logic to fall apart. UMD "does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." So even if Monk's Belt let you improve your monk abilities and you were considered a level 20 monk from your UMD check, you couldn't use the abilities because you don't have them. And if you possessed them you wouldn't need a UMD check in the first place. This cheese can't work by RAW because no matter how you approach it, something has to be ignored for it to work.

[Dusk Raven]

It only gives you the monk abilities if you don't have monk abilities, otherwise it only improves them. This causes your logic to fall apart. UMD "does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." So even if Monk's Belt let you improve your monk abilities and you were considered a level 20 monk from your UMD check, you couldn't use the abilities because you don't have them. And if you possessed them you wouldn't need a UMD check in the first place. This cheese can't work by RAW because no matter how you approach it, something has to be ignored for it to work.

In a nutshell, that's the argument I was making - you can emulate a class feature all you want for purposes of activating magic items, but you can't actually use those class features - and the Monk's Belt only gives you that feature, at a set level, if you don't already have it. If you're trying to emulate a Monk's class feature, then the Monk's Belt doesn't give you the class feature because it thinks you already have it, and it instead tries to improve a class feature that you don't actually have and can't use. It's the same way for the The Skin of Kaletor Gruft mentioned as well.

[Remuko]

It only gives you the monk abilities if you don't have monk abilities, otherwise it only improves them. This causes your logic to fall apart. UMD "does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." So even if Monk's Belt let you improve your monk abilities and you were considered a level 20 monk from your UMD check, you couldn't use the abilities because you don't have them. And if you possessed them you wouldn't need a UMD check in the first place. This cheese can't work by RAW because no matter how you approach it, something has to be ignored for it to work.

No, if youre a monk or not it gives you "The abilities of your monk level +4 (or 5 i forget which)".

[Gruftzwerg]

I gotta say I agree with Gruft. Monks belts function checks your monk levels, you use UMD to emulate being a monk, your result determines what level of monk you ping as to the item, and then the item gives you an AC and unarmed damage of a monk 4 (or 5? i forget) levels higher than your result. The item doesnt improve monk abilities it gives them, if youre a monk theres just some overlap. Youre not getting an ability you dont have from UMD, youre just convincing the item youre a monk of a certain level and then it gives you the damage and AC that it would give to a monk of that level, because thats how the item works.

Is it cheesy? yeah probably, but I do agree with Gruft it seems pretty clear RAW.
&

It only gives you the monk abilities if you don't have monk abilities, otherwise it only improves them. This causes your logic to fall apart. UMD "does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." So even if Monk's Belt let you improve your monk abilities and you were considered a level 20 monk from your UMD check, you couldn't use the abilities because you don't have them. And if you possessed them you wouldn't need a UMD check in the first place. This cheese can't work by RAW because no matter how you approach it, something has to be ignored for it to work.

I agree with Remuko's interpretation except that the belt gives you "monk abilities". Because it doesn't. And since the counterargument of Darg seems to be based on that, I'll try to respond to both.

What the Monk's Belt does:
1. Checks your Monk levels for Monk's Unarmed Strike and AC abilities
2. Exchances your "unarmed damage" stat to that of a monk with 5 more levels.
3. Gives you an effect that "functions" like a Monk's AC with 5 more levels.

"Unarmed damage" is a stat everybody has and ain't monk specific. The check (1) targets the ability, while the benefit targets the base stat (2) "unarmed damage".
The effect of the AC bonus (3) only "functions" just like the monk's AC bonus and targets the AC stats directly. This means it doesn't give you the ability either.


The wearer's AC (3) and unarmed damage (2) is treated as a monk of five levels higher (1). If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC (3) and unarmed damage (2) of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus (3) functions just like the monk's AC bonus.
Monk's Belt does never really give you the abilities. It doesn't give your the monk's unarmed strike ability nor the monk's AC ability (to qualify for feats/prc..). Which means, you still need the "improved unarmed strike"-feat to attack without provoking AoO for attacking unarmed (which the Monk's Unarmed Strike ability would include).

[Dusk Raven]

I agree with Remuko's interpretation except that the belt gives you "monk abilities". Because it doesn't. And since the counterargument of Darg seems to be based on that, I'll try to respond to both.

What the Monk's Belt does:
1. Checks your Monk levels for Monk's Unarmed Strike and AC abilities
2. Exchances your "unarmed damage" stat to that of a monk with 5 more levels.
3. Gives you an effect that "functions" like a Monk's AC with 5 more levels.

"Unarmed damage" is a stat everybody has and ain't monk specific. The check (1) targets the ability, while the benefit targets the base stat (2) "unarmed damage".
The effect of the AC bonus (3) only "functions" just like the monk's AC bonus and targets the AC stats directly. This means it doesn't give you the ability either.

Monk's Belt does never really give you the abilities. It doesn't give your the monk's unarmed strike ability nor the monk's AC ability (to qualify for feats/prc..). Which means, you still need the "improved unarmed strike"-feat to attack without provoking AoO for attacking unarmed (which the Monk's Unarmed Strike ability would include).

This actually reinforces my point that you can't UMD a higher Monk damage this way. Because the Monk's Belt doesn't give you the abilities of Monk, it just sets your unarmed damage to a certain value, depending on whether or not you're a Monk, and thus have that ability. That means you only get the improved damage if you're a Monk and thus have that ability to begin with, because those are the only circumstances in which your unarmed strike damage increases beyond that of Monk 5. It improves the existing values if you have that Monk ability in particular, and if you don't, your damage (and AC bonus) is that of a 5th-level Monk, but it's not actually the Monk's unarmed strike. If it weren't a class ability, you wouldn't be able to emulate it with UMD to begin with, because UMD doesn't let you emulate levels, just class features, and the "effective level in the emulated class" to quote the skill description, is for the purposes of prerequisites/level-based abilities. So it's a class ability, and you can emulate it, but can't actually use it. The fact that everyone has unarmed strike damage is irrelevant, because Monks (and classes with abilities based off the Monk) are the only ones that can actually boost it in the fashion that the Monk's Belt enhances. If that's not a class feature, I don't know what is. So either you have the ability, and your effective Monk level is five levels higher, or you don't, and you get Monk 5 Lite.

[Gruftzwerg]

This actually reinforces my point that you can't UMD a higher Monk damage this way. Because the Monk's Belt doesn't give you the abilities of Monk, it just sets your unarmed damage to a certain value, depending on whether or not you're a Monk, and thus have that ability. That means you only get the improved damage if you're a Monk and thus have that ability to begin with, because those are the only circumstances in which your unarmed strike damage increases beyond that of Monk 5. It improves the existing values if you have that Monk ability in particular, and if you don't, your damage (and AC bonus) is that of a 5th-level Monk, but it's not actually the Monk's unarmed strike. If it weren't a class ability, you wouldn't be able to emulate it with UMD to begin with, because UMD doesn't let you emulate levels, just class features, and the "effective level in the emulated class" to quote the skill description, is for the purposes of prerequisites/level-based abilities. So it's a class ability, and you can emulate it, but can't actually use it. The fact that everyone has unarmed strike damage is irrelevant, because Monks (and classes with abilities based off the Monk) are the only ones that can actually boost it in the fashion that the Monk's Belt enhances. If that's not a class feature, I don't know what is. So either you have the ability, and your effective Monk level is five levels higher, or you don't, and you get Monk 5 Lite.

1: Monk's Unarmed Strike ability targets "general" unarmed strike rules (no AoO, no penalty for dealing lethal damage). Further it targets and alters the base stat "unarmed damage" that everybody has and can use. Just because monks have a special form of unarmed strike doesn't mean that a non-monk can't use the "general" unarmed strike rules.. (they are just not as good as monks) ;)

2: Monk's Belt checks for (effective) monk lvls for the Unarmed Strike and AC bonus abilities.
It then gives two effects that both target base stats that everybody has (Unarmed Damage and AC)

3: Neither of the two effects "improves/progresses" your monk abilities. One sets your "unarmed damage" to a certain value, the other gives your AC a bonus effect that work similar to that of a monk (and thus would overlap any real monk AC bonus because it gives a higher bonus).

While the items general activation method (while donning) asks for lvls in monk abilities, the benefits it gives doesn't require you to have those monk abilities to profit from the item. You don't need to be a monk to make use of "unarmed damage" nor for a AC bonus that works similar to that of a monk. The effects of the item doesn't target the monk abilities, only the general activation requirement of the belt does that. You are mixing requirements (monk abilities) and the effect (benefit to base stats) up.

This is exactly the scenario UMD intended here imho: You fake levels in a class and pretend to have a class ability to profit from an effect that doesn't require you to have that ability. The belt gives you higher values on your base stats, if you manage to fake monk lvls via UMD. It doesn't let you ignore AoO for attacking unarmed (what the monk's ability would do), nor let your Unarmed Strike be a legit target for spells & effects that target manufactured or natural weapons (all things a monk gets). What the belt does give you is a higher value for unarmed strike and an AC bonus (similar to a monk).

Here a lil attempt to show the logic behind it:
A non monk (and non UMD user) also only gets a higher "unarmed damage" value & the AC bonus. The non-monk can perfectly make use of that higher unarmed damage and the AC bonus without being a monk. If now a UMD user pretends to be higher level monk and gets higher values in return, he also doesn't need to be a monk to use em.

[schreier]

We had a few more answers, and it stayed pretty close to what I expected:

What type of ability does the Eldritch Claws feat count as?
Supernatural 3
Spell-like
Extraordinary 3

This one is extremely close and split, with no obvious answer

Does Eldritch Claws work with Beast Strike?
Yes 6
No 2

Does Eldritch Claws allow you to use Blast Essences on it?
No 7
Yes 1

The Beast strike (yes) and Blast essences are fairly consistent.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6P8LN68