|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I understand there's been some discussion about this, but my rules-fu on this one is still a little fuzzy:
Does and Amulet of Mighty fists +3 (+3 enhancement bonus) confer the ability to ignore DR silver and cold iron?
If someone could link me to that or just quote the relevant ruling, I'd be much obliged. :)
X
(edit) That should be does it confer the ability to ignore DR silver/cold iron to natural weapons and/or unarmed attacks?
Very interesting question. I would say yes, but no ruling I know of.
When you enchant a +3 mace, it gains a "+3 Enhancement bonus" to attack and damage rolls. When use use an Amulet of Might Fists, your natural/unarmed attacks gain a "+3 Enhancement bonus" to attack and damage rolls.
I don't see any difference in the wording of the bonuses, so I don't see any reason to treat them differently. So, if a magical mace can bypass the DR you want to bypass, then your monk attacks can do it also, given the same amount of enhancement bonus from your Amulet of Mighty Fists.
Sadly, there seems to be no RAW to confirm or deny this assumption.
Even though there's no RAW rules to confirm this, the amulet of mighty fists is so overpriced that it would only suck more if it _didn't_ overcome DR. Think about it.
Overpriced?
A Monk's Flurry of Blows is the same as two weapon fighting. Two +5 adamant short swords cost 106,020 gold and do 1d6 each. How much extra would you pay so that they could never be disarmed or sundered and gave you the Quick Draw feat for free?
Two +5 Monk fists costs 125,000, do up to 2d10 damage each and can not be disarmed or sundered. They don't even require the Quick Draw feat to get them ready. All that is easily worth the extra 18,980.
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.
DR type - Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine* +4
alignment-based +5
*note that this doe not give the ability to ignore hardness, like an actual adamantine weapon does.
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
So if I am reading these correctly, then the bonus on the Amulet of Mighty Fists is still a magical enhancement, therefore means that +3 Amulet of Mighty Fists does in fact bypass cold iron and silver damage reduction as a +3 weapon would.
Ekeebe
I understand there's been some discussion about this, but my rules-fu on this one is still a little fuzzy:
Does and Amulet of Mighty fists +3 (+3 enhancement bonus) confer the ability to ignore DR silver and cold iron?
If someone could link me to that or just quote the relevant ruling, I'd be much obliged. :)
X
(edit) That should be does it confer the ability to ignore DR silver/cold iron to natural weapons and/or unarmed attacks?
I don't believe it does. If you read magic fang and greater magic fang(needed to make the amulet) they only mention getting over DR/magic. A good idea as a monk would be buying some special material cold iron/silver/adamantine weapons in case of DR and some oils of bless weapon.
I don't believe it does. If you read magic fang and greater magic fang(needed to make the amulet) they only mention getting over DR/magic.
Greater Magic Fang and Greater Magic Weapon are specifically exceptions (which is why they mention they only penetrate DR/magic). They don't get the DR penetrating ability because otherwise why would anyone buy a +3 sword when someone in the party can cast GMW?
Greater Magic Fang and Greater Magic Weapon are specifically exceptions (which is why they mention they only penetrate DR/magic). They don't get the DR penetrating ability because otherwise why would anyone buy a +3 sword when someone in the party can cast GMW?
I don't believe it does. If you read magic fang and greater magic fang(needed to make the amulet) they only mention getting over DR/magic.
I don't have a problem with it doing so and actually I think it should for the price paid and being punished by capping out at +5. I'm just not totally convinced that by RAW a item functioning off of greater magic fang should work that way. That being said monks and druids are at a serious disadvantage using a primary class feature of natural weapons if you don't allow it. I would probably let someone get up to +10 on the amulet as a house rule and let it double as an amulet of natural protection for an additional cost.
I don't believe it does. If you read magic fang and greater magic fang(needed to make the amulet) they only mention getting over DR/magic. A good idea as a monk would be buying some special material cold iron/silver/adamantine weapons in case of DR and some oils of bless weapon.I understand there's been some discussion about this, but my rules-fu on this one is still a little fuzzy:
Does and Amulet of Mighty fists +3 (+3 enhancement bonus) confer the ability to ignore DR silver and cold iron?
If someone could link me to that or just quote the relevant ruling, I'd be much obliged. :)
X
(edit) That should be does it confer the ability to ignore DR silver/cold iron to natural weapons and/or unarmed attacks?
A spell on which a magic item is based in order to grant a special ability is not the same than casting a spell to obtain an effect.
Let's put it in another way: would you allow a Shock weapon to function into a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability ? The Shock Special Ability is created via call lightning (a 3rd-level spell) or lightning bolt (3rd-level spell too). Yet the weapon is NOT casting a call lightning/lightning bolt spell.
Another example is the (dreaded) Dust of Disappearance. The Dust is created through the use of the greater invisibility spell, yet, despite that, no magical means (except a Dust of Appearance) can detect a creature made invisible through this item. Not even Invibility Purge, which automatically dispels all invisibility in an area !
The SPELLS Greater Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Fang were weakened, in order not to become too much powerful through the new DR system introduced by Pathfinder. On the other hand, a permanent Magic Item made with the help of such spells which gives a permanent enhancement bonus to hit and damage should not.
After all, in order to craft a vanilla +3 Weapon, the only requisite is caster level 9th - you invest money, time, resources, but no additional spells, and you end with a product which is powerful; on the other hand, in order to craft an Amulet of Mighty Fists +3 you invest money (more money...), time (more time...), resources, AND an additional spell, and you end with a weapon which cannot bypass DR ? I don't really think the intention of the devs was this...
|
I don't have a problem with it doing so and actually I think it should for the price paid and being punished by capping out at +5. I'm just not totally convinced that by RAW a item functioning off of greater magic fang should work that way. That being said monks and druids are at a serious disadvantage using a primary class feature of natural weapons if you don't allow it. I would probably let someone get up to +10 on the amulet as a house rule and let it double as an amulet of natural protection for an additional cost.Greater Magic Fang and Greater Magic Weapon are specifically exceptions (which is why they mention they only penetrate DR/magic). They don't get the DR penetrating ability because otherwise why would anyone buy a +3 sword when someone in the party can cast GMW?
I don't believe it does. If you read magic fang and greater magic fang(needed to make the amulet) they only mention getting over DR/magic.
I don't take the spell used to create a magic item as anything other then creation requirement and fluff.
For example, Merciful weapons require cure light wounds, but you can not actually hit a friend with them and heal them.
Merciful: The weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, and all damage it deals is nonlethal damage. On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume it (allowing it to deal lethal damage, but without any bonus damage from this ability).
Faint conjuration; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, cure light wounds; Price +1 bonus.
edit; Gah! Ninja'd :P
I don't believe it does. If you read magic fang and greater magic fang(needed to make the amulet) they only mention getting over DR/magic. A good idea as a monk would be buying some special material cold iron/silver/adamantine weapons in case of DR and some oils of bless weapon.I understand there's been some discussion about this, but my rules-fu on this one is still a little fuzzy:
Does and Amulet of Mighty fists +3 (+3 enhancement bonus) confer the ability to ignore DR silver and cold iron?
If someone could link me to that or just quote the relevant ruling, I'd be much obliged. :)
X
(edit) That should be does it confer the ability to ignore DR silver/cold iron to natural weapons and/or unarmed attacks?
A spell on which a magic item is based in order to grant a special ability is not the same than casting a spell to obtain an effect.
Let's put it in another way: would you allow a Shock weapon to function into a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability ? The Shock Special Ability is created via call lightning (a 3rd-level spell) or lightning bolt (3rd-level spell too). Yet the weapon is NOT casting a call lightning/lightning bolt spell.
Another example is the (dreaded) Dust of Disappearance. The Dust is created through the use of the greater invisibility spell, yet, despite that, no magical means (except a Dust of Appearance) can detect a creature made invisible through this item. Not even Invibility Purge, which automatically dispels all invisibility in an area !
The SPELLS Greater Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Fang were weakened, in order not to become too much powerful through the new DR system introduced by Pathfinder. On the other hand, a permanent Magic Item made with the help of such spells which gives a permanent enhancement bonus to hit and damage should not.
After all, in order to craft a vanilla +3 Weapon, the only requisite is caster level 9th - you invest money, time, resources, but no additional...
Again I have no problem with that interpretation. I would like to see it spelled out in the Amulet of mighty fists the same way your example of dust of disappearance is spelled out within the item description.
An extra line stating "An amulet of mighty fists +3, +4, and +5 overcomes DR/silver and cold iron, DR/adamantine, and DR/alignment respectively." That way there is no question.
Even though there's no RAW rules to confirm this, the amulet of mighty fists is so overpriced that it would only suck more if it _didn't_ overcome DR. Think about it.Overpriced?
A Monk's Flurry of Blows is the same as two weapon fighting. Two +5 adamant short swords cost 106,020 gold and do 1d6 each. How much extra would you pay so that they could never be disarmed or sundered and gave you the Quick Draw feat for free?
Two +5 Monk fists costs 125,000, do up to 2d10 damage each and can not be disarmed or sundered. They don't even require the Quick Draw feat to get them ready. All that is easily worth the extra 18,980.
I don't buy this. A monk could just buy one +5 sickle and flurry of blows it. Also, for a non-monk, the item is laughably useless. Basically to determine balance, IMO, you need to compare the AMF to a weapon-wielding monk, not to another class.
So my monk can either: Spend 125,000 gold to have a +5 unarmed attack, which he can flurry of blows with; or spend 122,000 gold to have a +5 sickle, which he can flurry of blows with, a belt of +6 strength for another 3 attack and damage, and a bracers of armor +6 for decent AC.
How is the first option remotely better than the second?
Even though there's no RAW rules to confirm this, the amulet of mighty fists is so overpriced that it would only suck more if it _didn't_ overcome DR. Think about it.Overpriced?
A Monk's Flurry of Blows is the same as two weapon fighting. Two +5 adamant short swords cost 106,020 gold and do 1d6 each. How much extra would you pay so that they could never be disarmed or sundered and gave you the Quick Draw feat for free?
Two +5 Monk fists costs 125,000, do up to 2d10 damage each and can not be disarmed or sundered. They don't even require the Quick Draw feat to get them ready. All that is easily worth the extra 18,980.
I don't buy this. A monk could just buy one +5 sickle and flurry of blows it. Also, for a non-monk, the item is laughably useless. Basically to determine balance, IMO, you need to compare the AMF to a weapon-wielding monk, not to another class.
So my monk can either: Spend 125,000 gold to have a +5 unarmed attack, which he can flurry of blows with; or spend 122,000 gold to have a +5 sickle, which he can flurry of blows with, a belt of +6 strength for another 3 attack and damage, and a bracers of armor +6 for decent AC.
How is the first option remotely better than the second?
I assume you are referring to the Kama. This is one reason the siangham duelist monk has so much appeal. one weapon flurry of blows and money left for other items. The reason the amulet can be better is because of the increasing hand to hand damage. the kama will always do low base damage. This isn't such a problem for some character builds, fighters can tear someone up with 1d4 kukri's no problem. It's just a tradeoff.
I assume you are referring to the Kama. This is one reason the siangham duelist monk has so much appeal. one weapon flurry of blows and money left for other items. The reason the amulet can be better is because of the increasing hand to hand damage. the kama will always do low base damage. This isn't such a problem for some character builds, fighters can tear someone up with 1d4 kukri's no problem. It's just a tradeoff.
Sorry, yes, kama. My bad for not looking up which weapons are monk weapons before making my post. But any monk weapon, really. A +5 quarterstaff leaves the argument just as solid.
I don't buy that a level-scaled class feature justifies making a magic item vastly more expensive than similar items. That's like saying "magic rapiers should be more expensive because rogues can sneak attack with them!".
Basically by going non-unarmed I am freeing up enough money to almost buy a level-appropriate belt of strength at each weapon enhancement level. I can't see how "it works with monk's unarmed damage" - which will generally be much less than sneak attack, if less situational - justifies two and a half times the cost.
I assume you are referring to the Kama. This is one reason the siangham duelist monk has so much appeal. one weapon flurry of blows and money left for other items. The reason the amulet can be better is because of the increasing hand to hand damage. the kama will always do low base damage. This isn't such a problem for some character builds, fighters can tear someone up with 1d4 kukri's no problem. It's just a tradeoff.Sorry, yes, kama. My bad for not looking up which weapons are monk weapons before making my post. But any monk weapon, really. A +5 quarterstaff leaves the argument just as solid.
I don't buy that a level-scaled class feature justifies making a magic item vastly more expensive than similar items. That's like saying "magic rapiers should be more expensive because rogues can sneak attack with them!".
Basically by going non-unarmed I am freeing up enough money to almost buy a level-appropriate belt of strength at each weapon enhancement level. I can't see how "it works with monk's unarmed damage" - which will generally be much less than sneak attack, if less situational - justifies two and a half times the cost.
The monk doesn't make it near as scary as the druid. 9 attacks at level 6 12 hours a day with +4 str, with grab on 8 attacks or 5 attacks with pounce at the same level and they're all primary. If you had a +5 amulet of mighty fists it would increase all these attacks by +5 at the cost of one magic item slot. That can become abusive. That is why it is more expensive. It enhances ALL natural attacks, does a magic rapier somehow enhance a rogue's other items, just what weapons CAN'T a rogue sneak attack with? there are not very many.
Comparing a +5 Amulet to +5 weapon + belt + bracers is not a very good comparison. By the time any monk had the cash for a +5 amulet, they would have the rest of that to some degree.
For instance, instead of a +5 Amulet, have a +4 Amulet, +4 bracers, and +4 Str/+4 Dex Belt for barely more. Other than not bypassing DR/good/evil/lawful, it's far far better than either of the other options.
Amulet is certainly expensive, and far more than a single weapon. The advantage of it increases over time though as the base damage increases (faster with a monk's robe of course). Also can add to some combat maneuvers (sunder for instance).