Starmantle

[Athan Artilliam]

So a starmantle cloak destroys all mundane weapon attacks, & grant's a chance to take half damage from magical ones. But what about unarmed or natural attacks? I doubt it explodes some dudes fist off

[Rebel7284]

While it's unclear based on the wording, I think common sense would indicate that natural weapons are not turned into light/destroyed.

[Vaern]

Starmantle destroys all nonmagic weapons that touch it. An unarmed attack is defined as an attack without a weapon in hand, so starmantle would have no effect in either department: it is not a mundane weapon and is therefore not protected by immunity to nonmagic weapon attacks, and it is not a weapon and is therefore not subject to the reflex save for half damage.

Natural weapons become a bit more iffy since they are defined as a sort of weapon, but in this case you'd probably be safe defaulting to the aforementioned "common sense" clause. Starmantle should offer immunity (or reflex for half if the attack is treated as magic), but should probably not destroy the weapon.

[noob]

Common sense indicates a claw is not really tougher than a sword and so that you should not try sticking your claws in the thing that annihilated swords.
Nothing says natural weapons are protected and the common sense argument works both ways.

[King of Nowhere]

Common sense indicates a claw is not really tougher than a sword and so that you should not try sticking your claws in the thing that annihilated swords.
Nothing says natural weapons are protected and the common sense argument works both ways.

Yes, i agree that by "common sense" claws should be destroyed.
It would make the spell even stronger, though

[Max Caysey]

While it's unclear based on the wording, I think common sense would indicate that natural weapons are not turned into light/destroyed.

They are indeed, unless you have DR, which in turn makes your natural weapons count as magic!

[Saint-Just]

Was there ever any effect that intentionally removed/destroyed natural weapons?

[Doctor Despair]

Starmantle destroys all nonmagic weapons that touch it. An unarmed attack is defined as an attack without a weapon in hand, so starmantle would have no effect in either department: it is not a mundane weapon and is therefore not protected by immunity to nonmagic weapon attacks, and it is not a weapon and is therefore not subject to the reflex save for half damage.

Unarmed strike is definitely a weapon. You're right that they are not natural weapons (unintuitively). However:


An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

One can argue over whether it must be manufactured by definition, or a weapon that is neither natural nor manufactured, but it is explicitly a weapon.

Do not touch the Starmantle.

Edit:


Was there ever any effect that intentionally removed/destroyed natural weapons?

You can throw a melee weapon not designed to be thrown at a -4. Throwing a natural weapon in this manner presumably removes the weapon. It is unclear if you can just walk over, pick it up, and stick it back on though. The rules are silent on whether throwing a natural weapon means you lose it, so they are also silent on whether picking it up lets you reattach it.

Having the throwing enhancement (via the necklace of natural attacks) or the throw anything feat removes the penalty for doing this, but doesn't negate the RAI that your weapon is gone.

Adding the returning enhancement or taking levels in Bloodstorm Blade can allow you to recover your weapon. The sample necklace of natural attacks has both throwing and returning for a reason, after all.

[Pezzo]

what about improvised weapons or if you throw another creature at it, would the starmantle destroy them?

[Athan Artilliam]

Unarmed strike is definitely a weapon. You're right that they are not natural weapons (unintuitively). However:



One can argue over whether it must be manufactured by definition, or a weapon that is neither natural nor manufactured, but it is explicitly a weapon.

Do not touch the Starmantle.

Edit:



You can throw a melee weapon not designed to be thrown at a -4. Throwing a natural weapon in this manner presumably removes the weapon. It is unclear if you can just walk over, pick it up, and stick it back on though. The rules are silent on whether throwing a natural weapon means you lose it, so they are also silent on whether picking it up lets you reattach it.

Having the throwing enhancement (via the necklace of natural attacks) or the throw anything feat removes the penalty for doing this, but doesn't negate the RAI that your weapon is gone.

Adding the returning enhancement or taking levels in Bloodstorm Blade can allow you to recover your weapon. The sample necklace of natural attacks has both throwing and returning for a reason, after all.

Maybe for some kind of quilled beast it would be cool to see


Anyways, I guess Starmantle is just OP I'm glad I have a permissive DM cause I'm gonna make one

[ben-zayb]

what about improvised weapons or if you throw another creature at it, would the starmantle destroy them?Ooh, that's nice, just in case Hulking Hurler wasn't cheesed enough. Either wield your enemy's corpse or hold your enemy using improved grab.

[Gruftzwerg]

what about improvised weapons or if you throw another creature at it, would the starmantle destroy them?

Improvised Weapons are not weapons. "You can use" em as weapons, but that doesn't "turn the item/creature" into a weapon. It's the same as with weapon-like spells. Just because something can be used as weapon (weaponized) doesn't turn it into a weapon.

____________

as said by others, a strict RAW interpretation of the starmantel cloak's ability implies that both unarmed strike and natural weapons are affected. It's up to your DM and table if you wanna go for the RAW interpretation or not.
As other suggested, better imply that only manufactured weapons are affected by the ability.

[Vaern]

Improvised Weapons are not weapons. "You can use" em as weapons, but that doesn't "turn the item/creature" into a weapon. It's the same as with weapon-like spells. Just because something can be used as weapon (weaponized) doesn't turn it into a weapon.

This is the same logic that should be applied to unarmed strikes which are, by definition, an attack with no weapon. Your fists are not weapons, even if you are using them as weapons. You can't even properly deal lethal damage without investing a feat or equipment into it. Improvised weapons are also considered light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons depending on their size, so the clause specifying that unarmed strikes are considered light weapons is no different than considering a small improvised weapon like an empty bottle to be a light weapon.

Besides that, an improvised weapon is actually called a weapon and involved a specific item to be affected, which only makes them more susceptible to ruling that they are affected by starmantle. An unarmed strike doesn't even use a particular part of the body. You could punch, kick, throw elbows and knees, headbutt, etc, and it's all considered an unarmed strike. In order for an "unarmed strike" to be destroyed, the spell would literally have to vaporize the entirety of the attacker.

[Gruftzwerg]

This is the same logic that should be applied to unarmed strikes which are, by definition, an attack with no weapon. Your fists are not weapons, even if you are using them as weapons. You can't even properly deal lethal damage without investing a feat or equipment into it. Improvised weapons are also considered light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons depending on their size, so the clause specifying that unarmed strikes are considered light weapons is no different than considering a small improvised weapon like an empty bottle to be a light weapon.

Besides that, an improvised weapon is actually called a weapon and involved a specific item to be affected, which only makes them more susceptible to ruling that they are affected by starmantle. An unarmed strike doesn't even use a particular part of the body. You could punch, kick, throw elbows and knees, headbutt, etc, and it's all considered an unarmed strike. In order for an "unarmed strike" to be destroyed, the spell would literally have to vaporize the entirety of the attacker.

By common sense, yeah.
By RAW not so much..

1.) The problem is that "weapons" is a defined term in 3.5
It's defined by the "weapons (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm)" list in the PHB/SRD and by all it extensions (anything else that specifically calls something out as a "weapon" or any extension of the "weapons" list).

2.) Unarmed Strike is part of the weapons list and thus a weapon by RAW. It's sole arguable if they qualify for "held weapon", a term sometimes used in other rules (abilities, items..).

3.) While Natural Weapons aren't on the weapons list, their definition calls them out as weapons.

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.

As said, imho the issue is in the Starmantle description. It should have been "manufactured weapons" and not "weapons" overall.

[Soranar]

As a DM I would never allow a spell to just kill characters with no saves or even SR mentioned. This is clearly intended to mean objects and not bodyparts.

Also the spell description claims SR: yes (harmless)

If it is harmless than it can't kill people so: unarmed strikes, improvised weapons made of living things and natural weapons are a loophole to the spell.

[Gruftzwerg]

As a DM I would never allow a spell to just kill characters with no saves or even SR mentioned. This is clearly intended to mean objects and not bodyparts.

Also the spell description claims SR: yes (harmless)

If it is harmless than it can't kill people so: unarmed strikes, improvised weapons made of living things and natural weapons are a loophole to the spell.

The real silliness by RAW is that you only lose the limb. Nothing more, nothing less. No further HP dmg, no death..

It's better to houserule it to "manufactured weapons". The editors must have been sleeping here.

[Zanos]

The real silliness by RAW is that you only lose the limb. Nothing more, nothing less. No further HP dmg, no death..

It's better to houserule it to "manufactured weapons". The editors must have been sleeping here.
I mean, you wouldn't lose the limb, would you? A limb is used to make a natural weapon attack, but if you have a claw attack your arm isn't your natural weapon. Mechanically you would just permanently lose your ability to make claw attacks, not any limbs.

I guess that gets weird if you're a monk whose whole body is considered a weapon by RAW.


As a DM I would never allow a spell to just kill characters with no saves or even SR mentioned. This is clearly intended to mean objects and not bodyparts.

Also the spell description claims SR: yes (harmless)

If it is harmless than it can't kill people so: unarmed strikes, improvised weapons made of living things and natural weapons are a loophole to the spell.
Harmless is used as a descriptor for the target, not the spells effects. Any buff spell that can be cast on another person is going to be flagged as harmless because it's harmless to the target, but many buff spells actually damage attackers. See Mass Fire Shield for example; the personal version isn't labeled harmless because personal spells usually exclude the save line entirely.

But yes, permanently losing natural weapons(or a monk evaporating) because you hit someone with starmantle up is quite silly. I'd probably just have it negate the attack.

[loky1109]

I guess that gets weird if you're a monk whose whole body is considered a weapon by RAW.

Not whole body, but any body part.

[Silly Name]

I'll go against the grain and say I quite appreciate the visual of starmantle dissolving natural weapons and unarmed attacks. :)

The idea that it'd only protect against manufactured weapons seems to me more counterintuitive, narratively, than it simply working against *all* weapons equally.

[Gruftzwerg]

I mean, you wouldn't lose the limb, would you? A limb is used to make a natural weapon attack, but if you have a claw attack your arm isn't your natural weapon. Mechanically you would just permanently lose your ability to make claw attacks, not any limbs.

I guess that gets weird if you're a monk whose whole body is considered a weapon by RAW.


K, limb was missleading. My bad. More precise would have been the body part you use for your unarmed strike (fists, feet or head for non-monks, monk can also use elbows and knees) or the natural weapon you used (e.g. a claw). Remember to never headbutt someone wearing a starmantle cloak..^^

[Athan Artilliam]

K, limb was missleading. My bad. More precise would have been the body part you use for your unarmed strike (fists, feet or head for non-monks, monk can also use elbows and knees) or the natural weapon you used (e.g. a claw). Remember to never headbutt someone wearing a starmantle cloak..^^

Maybe a kind of enervating effect that destroys claws but leaves limbs/hands/feet/heads numb & useless until they rest for the day?

[Doctor Despair]

Maybe a kind of enervating effect that destroys claws but leaves limbs/hands/feet/heads numb & useless until they rest for the day?

Quite technically, you'd lose your unarmed strike, not your limbs or body parts, so that's not a bad reading. What that looks like is up to interpretation. Maybe your muscles just lack the vigor to strike anymore with those quick, sharp movements.

[skunk3]

Personally I think that the Starmantle Cloak should be an epic item and cost significantly more than what it does. It's so cheesy and OP (it *is* from the Book of Exalted Cheese, after all), especially if you combine it with the Retributive Amulet from the same book. With those items used together, you'd only take 1/4 of the damage you normally otherwise would from a magical weapon attack, and 1/4 of the damage would also be applied to the attacker. Making the DC15 reflex save is a trivial matter by the time anyone could afford a Starmantle Cloak, and most likely a guaranteed success. I played a character who had one and it was just absurd. I was a Warlock running around like HIT ME BRO!

[Elves]

I don't see a mechanism for it to destroy a natural weapon so I'd say it wouldn't

[Doctor Despair]

I don't see a mechanism for it to destroy a natural weapon so I'd say it wouldn't


The starmantle renders the wearer impervious to nonmagical weapon attacks and transforms any nonmagical weapon or missile that strikes it into harmless light, destroying it forever.

Natural weapons are weapons. Nonmagical weapons are destroyed.

[skunk3]

Natural weapons are weapons. Nonmagical weapons are destroyed.

Yep. My interpretation of the item is that non-magical natural weapons would be destroyed. Any creature attempting to strike anyone wearing a Starmantle cloak would look in horror as their appendages magically dissolve. That just makes the item even more cheesy.

[Elves]

Natural weapons are weapons. Nonmagical weapons are destroyed.

But what does it mean for a natural weapon to be destroyed? Not defined, unlike object rules, so I read it as a noncompute. Skunk's comment above for example involves fluff extrapolation.

[Doctor Despair]

But what does it mean for a natural weapon to be destroyed? Not defined, unlike object rules, so I read it as a noncompute. Skunk's comment above for example involves fluff extrapolation.

Please offer a definition for "destroy" apart from the common sense "gone."

Starmantle is quite explicit:


The starmantle renders the wearer impervious to nonmagical weapon attacks and transforms any nonmagical weapon or missile that strikes it into harmless light, destroying it forever.

Your natural weapons is transformed into harmless light. You can dither over what it means for it to be destroyed, but you explicitly can't harm anything with it ever again. No more attacks with that natural weapon.

[Elves]

Please offer a definition for "destroy" apart from the common sense "gone."
Weapons have hit points and AC. You can attack them. You can target them with a disintegrate. You can't do the same for a natural weapon.

It makes me think of certain charop "tricks" that rely on IRL extrapolation instead of rules. Like if I have bracers of striking (throwing). I could say, because you can make an unarmed strike with any body part, I'm going to make an unarmed strike with my head, which will result in my head being thrown into another space. And since my head is in another space I can now speak the verbal component of a swift action spell, even though my body is in a silence effect (after all, it never says your head and body must be in the same place to cast the spell). That kind of thing. It's zany and in some cases DMs might allow it but it's not based on well-defined rules.

[Pezzo]

I agree with doctor despair's interpretation, because, natural weapons can be gained without physically changing a creatures body, everything has a mouth but not everything can bite attack

[Lord Torath]

Remember to never headbutt someone wearing a starmantle cloak..^^"Nobody wins with a headbutt (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAwQitjCMAEjlSh?format=jpg&name=small)."

[loky1109]

You can target them with a disintegrate. You can't do the same for a natural weapon.

Actually I can with Disintegration Finesse feat.

[Elves]

Actually I can with Disintegration Finesse feat.
That feat also calls out that it only has mechanical significance if you're using a variant rule.

Unarmed strike, which isn't a natural weapon, is an example of why starmantle is best read to mean manufactured weapons. You can make an unarmed strike with any body part, so if you interpret starmantle as "destroying" your unarmed strike, that would have to mean a) your entire body is destroyed -- poof, you're gone or b) no part of you is gone, there is no visible change, you just can't make unarmed strikes anymore for some reason. Both are awkward readings that you can't really call RAW.

Starmantle is one of those things that I don't see the point of rules lawyering, though, because it's OP and needs a rewrite in any case. A better question is how should it work (if it even needs to exist)?

[loky1109]

That feat also calls out that it only has mechanical significance if you're using a variant rule.

Or if damage amount is enough to kill.
Anyway, I can. )))

[Doctor Despair]

That feat also calls out that it only has mechanical significance if you're using a variant rule.

Unarmed strike, which isn't a natural weapon, is an example of why starmantle is best read to mean manufactured weapons. You can make an unarmed strike with any body part, so if you interpret starmantle as "destroying" your unarmed strike, that would have to mean a) your entire body is destroyed -- poof, you're gone or b) no part of you is gone, there is no visible change, you just can't make unarmed strikes anymore for some reason. Both are awkward readings that you can't really call RAW.

Starmantle is one of those things that I don't see the point of rules lawyering, though, because it's OP and needs a rewrite in any case. A better question is how should it work (if it even needs to exist)?

I agree that it should have read "manufactured weapons." That it didn't is what creates the odd readings. I believe the most RAW reading is b (i.e. you just can't make unarmed strikes anymore). A Regenerate cast on you could probably restore your ability to unarmed strike though. With that said, games are seldom ran full RAW, and a reasonable DM would probably either limit it to manufactured weapons, or just make a creature lose the offending body part they attacked with.

Hm... here's a thought. If a character has even one sla or supernatural ability, is their body truly nonmagical? The attack is, and their body certainly isn't +1 outside of use of the Necklace of Natural Attacks or Kensai or something, but it isn't exactly nonmagical, is it?

[Athan Artilliam]

your entire body is destroyed -- poof, you're gone

Actually I like this one best. Hit me I dare you, become nothing!

[Gruftzwerg]

I agree that it should have read "manufactured weapons." That it didn't is what creates the odd readings. I believe the most RAW reading is b (i.e. you just can't make unarmed strikes anymore). A Regenerate cast on you could probably restore your ability to unarmed strike though. With that said, games are seldom ran full RAW, and a reasonable DM would probably either limit it to manufactured weapons, or just make a creature lose the offending body part they attacked with.

Hm... here's a thought. If a character has even one sla or supernatural ability, is their body truly nonmagical? The attack is, and their body certainly isn't +1 outside of use of the Necklace of Natural Attacks or Kensai or something, but it isn't exactly nonmagical, is it?

Magical weapon is a defined term, so it has to explicitly qualify for that.

You have named two legal options with the necklace and Kensai. I can add Monk's Ki-Strike (magic) ability to extend the list. Further low lvl monk's can profit from the spells Magic Weapon and Magic Fang to prevent their unarmed strikes to be destroyed.

So from a balancing point of view:
There are multiple counters. And 3.5 is a world where similar threats exist for player gear (and taking dmg when attacking unarmed) like oozes and stuff. The question is, is it balanced to have such a powerful ability on an item and is the price justified.
And this would give spells that can regrow lost limbs a RAW legal option to create a scenario where you actually lose a limb by the rules (and not just because the DM wanted to mess around with you for reasons..^^). So that those spells (e.g. Regenerate (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/regenerate.htm)) can be used in that manner.

[Pezzo]

one should be able to sunder the starmantle without fear of disintegrating his weapon since it "transforms any nonmagical weapon or missile that strikes the wearer", but the spell version here differs and "transforms any nonmagical weapon or missile that strikes it". If by "it" they mean the mantle or the wearer is unclear, so I'd say spell > item

[Feantar]

Was there ever any effect that intentionally removed/destroyed natural weapons?

Well, one would assume that Vorpal weapons do remove a bite attack. :smalltongue: