We're not in the Rules forum, but the General Discussion forum. And truth be told Paizo has on numerous occasions FAQ/errata'd intent wasn't the copy/pasted RAW from 3.5. Basically PFRPG is a collection of "house rules" that the Paizo crew used in 3.5 so intent has a great deal to do with the discussion at hand.
We're not in the Rules forum, but the General Discussion forum. And truth be told Paizo has on numerous occasions FAQ/errata'd intent wasn't the copy/pasted RAW from 3.5. Basically PFRPG is a collection of "house rules" that the Paizo crew used in 3.5 so intent has a great deal to do with the discussion at hand.
Yes, it really is! I know what you mean, truly.
Since intent is merely surmised and not known, I was trying to avoid it. A strong point in a debate does have factual backing, and when there is an unknown I would not have used it to prove a point.
Since you would like to discuss intent, is there any precedent that makes you believe the intent focuses on the source of enhancements?
We're not in the Rules forum, but the General Discussion forum. And truth be told Paizo has on numerous occasions FAQ/errata'd intent wasn't the copy/pasted RAW from 3.5. Basically PFRPG is a collection of "house rules" that the Paizo crew used in 3.5 so intent has a great deal to do with the discussion at hand.Yes, it really is! I know what you mean, truly.
Since intent is merely surmised and not known, I was trying to avoid it. A strong point in a debate does have factual backing, and when there is an unknown I would not have used it to prove a point.
Since you would like to discuss intent, is there any precedent that makes you believe the intent focuses on the source of enhancements?
Honestly?
I don't think they even thought about it. The PFRPG changes were 'house rules' that got published. From what we've seen from JJ he doesn't like the +# enhancements bypassing DR, so from that we can take that not everyone plays with all the same rules from the Paizo crew. So now we have what amounts to 'house rules' from multiple groups. That came down to A LOT of "i's" to dot and "t's" to cross, and while they did a very good job, to this day we're still fighting with some of the issues from the various changes and no wording changes due to the "i's" and "t's" not being followed all the way back in all appropriate places.
Intent wise, most of the 'effects' that add to weapons in a non permanent way have that 'does not bypass DR' (magic fang, magic weapon being the ones we get to see most often). While the AoMF is "constant" effect while worn, it doesn't actually truly make the 'weapons' in question a permanent magic item. Again back that up with, most creatures that would have and use an AoMF would have some sort of DR itself (not including most NPCs that were built using the CRB races obviously - we're talking 3+ NA and intelligent; Dragons, etc.) and wouldn't be worrying about whether or not the AoMF works that way due to being able to bypass DRs it would worry about normally innately.
Regardless I'd be interested to know the Paizo's decision, I'm not one of those inflamed with the cost of the AoMF because it costs more and I want to use one on a monk. Nor am I a monk 'hater' as I'm sure some would say. Reality is, the item was not meant for monks, it is a carry over from previous editions and probably geared towards druid and their ACs or the occasional poly focused caster.
EDIT: By no means am I knocking the Paizo crew, if anything it says more about the idiocy of some posters who seem to expect a perfect product and may not grasp the depth and breadth of what the PFRPG project was. It isn't like there is just one person who woke up one day with all these ideas, it really sounds like a compilation of rules from various sources and because of that it has some untested conflicts because some rules weren't completely tested with others (thus the current debate). There is no one person who can go "oh it works this way" because they have to go check all the other damn rules out there that they may not have complete understanding of, their hands are basically tied because everything that was published and not trying to break something else... It was a huge undertaking and they're still ironing out the wrinkles, and people are complaining about it :-/
Actually strike that, in another thread (monk thread, God help us) it was brought up that they actually did change the wording from 3.5 to PFRPG to note the enhancement bonus applies to hit and damage rolls. Apparently they did think of it.
So we have a wonderous item that grants a constant effect of up to +5 to hit and damage (only) on natural and/or unarmed attacks (Greater Magic Fang).
Priced out (3x20x2000) or 120000gp for +5.
Chances are they thought that was a tad steep for a single type of attack and wanted to reduce book keeping (stated goal of the rewrite) and went with pricing similar to weapons (then charged a multiplier to account for multiple attacks) to make it a bit more reasonable. Basically we have a wonderous item granting an effect similar to a weapon (but is not a magical weapon) and it made more sense to price it like weapons (as it is cheaper at every +enhancement point than if it applied to 1 attack type and jacking the price up with extra effects [+150%, or even 75%+50%] for multiple attack types).