Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists bypass DR based on its enhancement bonus?


Rules Questions

201 to 227 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Sangalor wrote:
master arminas wrote:

Okay, another question for you folks: if the AoMF does bypass DR (as a magic weapon), then does a monk (or druid or animal companion or brawler or what-have-you) wearing the amulet consider his natural attacks or unarmed strike as a magic weapon for purposes of incorporeal creatures? I.e., 50% miss chance as opposed to complete immunity for non-magical weapons?

And why are we still waiting on this . . . why? Yes or no? Come on, people, it either does or doesn't, there isn't a middle ground.

MA

Incorporeal: yes, the amulet would allow to affect them :-)

Just to be more specific: I thought of a +1 AoMF, and I generally think that an AoMF makes attacks magical. But I am not entirely sure about it, hence my other post :-)


Excellent question, Sangalor. And to tell the truth, I do not know.

MA


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

*rolls dem common sense dice*

well, after reading all this, I suppose I'll just add the common sense approach.

Enhancement bonuses can overcome DR if they are high enough (+3 and beyond).

The amulet grants an 'enhancement bonus' to unarmed strikes and natural weapons.

The fact that this item is created by Greater Magic Fang doesn't matter (I don't recall greater magic fang EVER granting me the ability to add flaming, frost, or shocking properties, so why in the world can the AoMF do that...answer...it's NOT the same thing as GMF).

To be 'completely honest', AoMF is actually correctly priced when you consider the abuse that 'non-monks' can use with it (sorry, I've never liked Flurry and would enjoy seeing it removed from the Monk entirely).

If you two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes, then AoMF enchants both your weapons, and if you have natural attacks on top of that, then AoMF becomes a bargain.

But again, the question of whether or not it bypasses DR just seems...silly (to me, the answer is an obvious 'of course it does', but hey...I just take the practical approach). I guess I'm just fortunate enough to have never encountered a DM who is THAT uptight about the rules, and if i ever did meet one, I probably wouldn't play in their campaign.


A lot of the AoMF discussion is based around RAW, Duskblade, rather than common sense. When I first came to these boards due to our group starting up our first Pathfinder game (and having a monk in the group), I read through all the myriad monk imbalance threads, and finally asked:

"So could the monk be mostly fixed by simply dropping the AoMF cost by 20% and allowing it's enhancement bonus to apply to DR?" and the majority answer was 'yes'. :p

But that doesn't change the RAW, and apparently Paizo has some sort of bizarre attachment to the AoMF as-is. So the Monk and AoMF discussions will continue, because we all like to discuss/debate the RAW. :D


Well, the thing is...the cost of the AoMF is pretty fair IF you consider how it can be used in conjunction with both natural attacks AND unarmed strikes (which can also be used with TWF).

At first, I thought reducing the price of AoMF was a good idea as well, but once I realized how it could be used with natural attacks and TWF...well, that amulet then became a HUGE bargain.

In order for a two-weapon fighter to get two +5 weapons, he needs to dump 100,000 gp into them. However, the amulet also applies to natural weapons, which are 'somewhat' easy to obtain if you know how to find them.

Not to bash on the monk's abilities but....I've actually been crunching some numbers on the class, and I think I discovered a very shocking revelation. I'll probably post it on the advice boards so everyone can see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it hilarious that some insisted that the Monk is nearly OP because he cannot be disarmed. Never in my D&D nor my PF days have I seen a DM use Disarm on the players. He'd rather Grapple and Rend or Trip instead. Usually they'd just go with the normal tactic and attack.


I agree Duskblade. There is an issue if your game has both a monk and a wildshaping druid or ranger that kits out his animal companion. Ideally the two items should be split apart. An Amulet of Mighty Fists for unarmed strikes, and an Amulet of Mighty Claws for natural attacks. This would solve that issue cleanly.

In our game there is no druid or ranger, so the easiest way to ensure a relatively balanced monk is simply to do what I mentioned before. For games with no monk but a druid/ranger, the item is priced appropriately. For games with both, I'd recommend the item split.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree with Duskblade. Yes, there ARE exceptions to enhancement bypassing DR - suchg as with Masterwork weapons and with GMW and GMF. However, these exceptions are specifically called out as such. The AoMF is not, so I would say that by RAW, it bypasses DR.


Icyshadow wrote:
I find it hilarious that some insisted that the Monk is nearly OP because he cannot be disarmed. Never in my D&D nor my PF days have I seen a DM use Disarm on the players. He'd rather Grapple and Rend or Trip instead. Usually they'd just go with the normal tactic and attack.

Even assuming they do use it 15g per hand covers disarm. Sure it takes an action to get going and to release it but is that lack of action + being unsunderable really worth a scaling cost increase to someone with 2 such attacks?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...not to mention that the AoMF is vulnerable to Steal...


Dabbler wrote:
...not to mention that the AoMF is vulnerable to Steal...

That's like saying weapons are vulnerable to disarm...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Axl wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
...not to mention that the AoMF is vulnerable to Steal...
That's like saying weapons are vulnerable to disarm...

They are - which means the monk is as vulnerable to being 'disarmed' or 'sundered' as anyone else. Oh, they may have their unarmed strike first, but take the magic out of a fighter's weapon at high level and see how effective it is at getting through the DR that a lot of creatures have at that level...


And no answer yet. Soon enough it will be Halloween, and then Election Day, and then Thanksgiving, and Christmas! Will we still be waiting on an answer in 2013?

Stay tuned.

MA


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Believe it or not, there are more important things than answering every single question there is about the monk. I was able to patiently wait 10 months for this to be answered, without snarkily bumping it now and then. I'm sure we can wait on this and other questions.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Although once again, I'll post this.

SKR wrote:
* Can't get past DR, mainly because the amulet of mighty fists costs more. Which it has to cost more because it's not fair for the guy with two short swords to pay x2 and have the monk using two fists or fist/elbow/foot/face pay only x1. Also, if the +1 AMF cost the same as a +1 sword, it becomes the best choice for every monster with 2 or more natural attacks per round, so that's a problem.

That would be an exceedingly strange problem to have if the AoMF didn't get past DR normally. Within the realm of possibility it was a mistake? Yea, sure. I think there's a simpler explanation though.


Cheapy, I hope the AoMF does bypass DR based on enhancement. I hope that is the answer to be had. One would figure though, that with 83 FAQ requests, if the answer was as simple as YES, then someone would have posted it just to shut us up.

It is a simple question with a simple answer: Yes or No.

That is all we want, a one-word answer to the following question:

Quote:
Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists allow unarmed strikes and natural attacks to bypass DR based on its enhancement bonus like magic weapons do?

One word. Three or two letters. That is all it would take to put this to bed.

MA


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think it is evident from Cheapy's quote of SKR, that the answer is already there as a Yes, and people are reading into this way more than necessary.

Apply basic logic to SKR's post. Heck, just the first sentence of the quote Cheapy posted. The fact that "amulet of mighty fists costs more" is the reason for the issue that monks "can't get past DR" answers this! If AoMF could not bypass DR, why would SKR give a reason for difficult overcoming DR of "costs more"? Yes, he is restating the issue as presented to him, but why would he restate an erroneous issue, and then provide a reason why this imaginary issue exists, rather than just correct the premise upon which the issue is based?

Could it be that he was ignoring everything else or made a statement in error? I suppose, but I find it far more likely that all this hoopla is generated by over analysis by some monk fans looking for another reason to feel wronged, and then others reacting with a "well, it is kind of unclear, a FAQ could clear this up". Frankly, I don't think this needs a FAQ, and would not be surprised if the reason it hasn't been answered is that the devs don't think it needs a FAQ either.

Moreover, with 83 FAQ requests, I don't think snarky bumping or complaints about timeliness will help get an answer faster. Quite the opposite I'd imagine.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
master arminas wrote:


Quote:
Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists allow unarmed strikes and natural attacks to bypass DR based on its enhancement bonus like magic weapons do?

One word. Three or two letters. That is all it would take to put this to bed.

Ha. Yeah, that's all it will take.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Personally I'm hoping the lack of a solid answer is because something better is being built into the monk in the upcoming fix.


Steve Geddes wrote:
master arminas wrote:


Quote:
Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists allow unarmed strikes and natural attacks to bypass DR based on its enhancement bonus like magic weapons do?

One word. Three or two letters. That is all it would take to put this to bed.

Ha. Yeah, that's all it will take.

Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but yeah, either a YES or a NO will settle it for me. I currently allow for the AoMF to bypass DR in my own game, but then I don't play PFS. But, for PFS play, for those who do participate, it could be an important question. Because RAW, it either might or might not.

So, yeah. I'll take a YES or a NO and won't ask for any further exposition on the subject. Others might not. [shrug]

MA


Mikaze wrote:
Personally I'm hoping the lack of a solid answer is because something better is being built into the monk in the upcoming fix.

That would be nice, but I am not going to bet the farm on it.

MA


Mikaze wrote:
Personally I'm hoping the lack of a solid answer is because something better is being built into the monk in the upcoming fix.

LOL


One reason to disregard James Jacobs' statement is the fact that it opens with something along the lines of "I hate how enhancement bonuses can overcome DR." Enhancement bonuses not overcoming DR may be his preference, but it is also against current RAW -- and James Jacobs gave no hint that any change to that rule was forthcoming. Since his premise contradicts RAW, his conclusion cannot be accepted either.

So far nobody has tried to interpret that statement as prohibiting weapons from overcoming DR as is explicitly stated in the rules -- so I would not do likewise with the Amulet of Mighty Fists without some sort of independent confirmation that is based on more than a dislike of a current rule.


Steve Geddes wrote:
master arminas wrote:


Quote:
Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists allow unarmed strikes and natural attacks to bypass DR based on its enhancement bonus like magic weapons do?

One word. Three or two letters. That is all it would take to put this to bed.

Ha. Yeah, that's all it will take.

That is all it would take here too. My DM currently does not allow AOMF to overcome DR because there is no yes or no answer and the one dev comments that it does not. So I have to put my monks and more importantly natural weapon fighters on the shelf and go back to playing what PF wants me to play. A guy with high strength wielding a weapon in two hands with power attack.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Answered in FAQ.


Yep, just saw it. The question has been answered!

MA


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now monk are so overpowered.

201 to 227 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists bypass DR based on its enhancement bonus? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.