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!

Would it break anything if the Amulet of Mighty Fists took up the "Weapon Slot"


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion


Or was technically slotless or something? It's just been nagging at me for forever now that it just sucks for the AoMF to take up the amulet slot. Not only does it cost twice as much (and have half the maximum bonus) as a similar weapon, it also precludes you from using cool amulet abilities.

Seems to me like it wouldn't bust anything to have it be an item worn around your neck that didn't actually take up the amulet/neck/whatever slot. Anybody have a pressing reason why that's a bad idea that I've overlooked?

While we're here, does anyone know the flavor reason for not letting someone wear multiple amulets and rings?


It would make any character who uses the amulet stronger. Might not seem too bad for a unarmed monk(which is pretty weak anyway), but a natural attack fighter or barbarian would benefit just as much.


Rynjin wrote:
While we're here, does anyone know the flavor reason for not letting someone wear multiple amulets and rings?

So your character doesn't go wandering around tricked out with 4 rings on each finger, and layers of amulets around their neck?

It would absolutely happen :P

Serious now, I think the common reason for such limitations, or at least the assumption I've usually made, is that the magic is too potent to really function in such close proximity. Hence, you can wear a ring on each hand thanks to distance, but loading up a single one with multiple would cause them to not function properly. That idea could probably be extend to most slots.

Don't know if that's really supported in text anywhere though. Or if it's even accurate in the first place. So, dunno.


Darkwolf117 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
While we're here, does anyone know the flavor reason for not letting someone wear multiple amulets and rings?
So your character doesn't go wandering around tricked out with 4 rings on each finger, and layers of amulets around their neck?

Well I know that, that's why I asked for the FLAVOR reason, not the mechanical one. =p

I know I'd be doing my best Mr. T impression if I could wear all the magical bling I wanted.


Unless you're playing PFS, just call it bracers of mighty fists, or shirt of mighty fists, or boots of mighty fists, or... You get the idea. Nothing says it must be an amulet.


Gloves of Mighty Fist just sounds cooler than Amulet of Mighty Fists to me.

But if playing in Golarion or where your GM will allow it:

Make it a AoMF Tattoo. Get the tattoo all the way to +5 then get a slotted one and load it with Special Propertties.

Now you have the full +10 available to any other weapon.

Just so long as you have only a single with the Static +5 bonus you are fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Darkwolf117 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
While we're here, does anyone know the flavor reason for not letting someone wear multiple amulets and rings?
So your character doesn't go wandering around tricked out with 4 rings on each finger, and layers of amulets around their neck?

Well I know that, that's why I asked for the FLAVOR reason, not the mechanical one. =p

I know I'd be doing my best Mr. T impression if I could wear all the magical bling I wanted.

I use this explanation:

Your body has a number of magical points, a lot like chakra. Magic items are normally made to make use of these points to allow their magic to flow through you.

To make a magic item that functions without accessing one of these natural points of magical affinity, you have to put a lot more work in (hence the x2 cost).


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Darkwolf117 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
While we're here, does anyone know the flavor reason for not letting someone wear multiple amulets and rings?
So your character doesn't go wandering around tricked out with 4 rings on each finger, and layers of amulets around their neck?

Well I know that, that's why I asked for the FLAVOR reason, not the mechanical one. =p

I know I'd be doing my best Mr. T impression if I could wear all the magical bling I wanted.

I use this explanation:

Your body has a number of magical points, a lot like chakra. Magic items are normally made to make use of these points to allow their magic to flow through you.

To make a magic item that functions without accessing one of these natural points of magical affinity, you have to put a lot more work in (hence the x2 cost).

I think that is one of the best explanations of this I have heard.


I think the chakra explanation has problems, most especially with hands. Hand has one ring point each, one shared glove point, and one shared bracer point? That's an, awful lot of chakra for just the hands. It would also suggest that those with extra hands (alchemist with the discovery, or multi limb eidolon for example) ought to get extra ring chakras. For that matter, feet ought to offer similar chakra (toe ring, boot, anklet in that case), especially in races like Vanara, who can use their feet similarly to hands.

It's purely a game balance mechanism.


It still is a good explaination.

Also can't you have rings and such on additional arms and switch the active effects?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Or was technically slotless or something? It's just been nagging at me for forever now that it just sucks for the AoMF to take up the amulet slot. Not only does it cost twice as much (and have half the maximum bonus) as a similar weapon, it also precludes you from using cool amulet abilities.

I agree, but there is no 'weapon slot' - weapons are effectively slotless. As this doubles the price of an item, it effectively means the AoMF is four times the cost of a weapon. However, there is no reason it cannot be bracers, a ring, or any other slotted item.


Yeah, sometimes the parentheses just don't cut it.

Maybe a rephrase: Would it break anything if an AoMF was slotless?


Rynjin wrote:

Yeah, sometimes the parentheses just don't cut it.

Maybe a rephrase: Would it break anything if an AoMF was slotless?

Well if it were slotless, you could buy 5 amulets and put different enchantments on each for super cheap.


Well while we're houseruling that's easily fixed by saying only one AoMF can be equipped at a time.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Yeah, sometimes the parentheses just don't cut it.

Maybe a rephrase: Would it break anything if an AoMF was slotless?

Well if it were slotless, you could buy 5 amulets and put different enchantments on each for super cheap.

Crafting yes. Buying No.


Rynjin wrote:
Well while we're houseruling that's easily fixed by saying only one AoMF can be equipped at a time.

Then no, it wouldn't break anything. It would make the character using it stronger, but not that much.

Precedent would be the bigger issue. Other players on your table may want to do the same thing with say cloaks and belts(resistance and ability score belt are very important). Issues of fairness may come up.


Tattoo it onto the character. It is covered by the rules and you don't have to worry about people complaining about it.


There was an item in 3.5 called the "Monk's Tattoos" which did the same thing as a Monk's robe, they were tattooed on the forearms and used the bracer slot. Of course, at 4k, you instead spent 8k on them to make them slotless, and wore bracers lol.

Make them whatever you want, I hate that you get an AoMF or a Nat Armor amulet myself, both are too expensive to pay double for at normal WBL. I like the idea of Handwraps that can be enchanted at normal weapon prices, but only for the hands individually.


It would not break something if you turned the AoMF into a slotless item by paying more.
As it is (enhancing unarmed strikes and natural attacks) it would be too strong if you only made it slotless without changing the price.

@Azaelas Fayth: Where are the rules for those tattoos?
Would they work for things that you normally have to put on and take off to make them work like the sleeves of many garments from UE?


The ones i mentioned were in DnD Magic of Faerun splatbook 3.x.

I don't have UE, so don't know if magical Tattoos are available in PF yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inscribe Magical Tattoo from Inner Sea Magic.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:


I use this explanation:

Your body has a number of magical points, a lot like chakra. Magic items are normally made to make use of these points to allow their magic to flow through you.

To make a magic item that functions without accessing one of these natural points of magical affinity, you have to put a lot more work in (hence the x2 cost).

There's even a magical item that supports this interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam Luchjenbroers wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:


I use this explanation:

Your body has a number of magical points, a lot like chakra. Magic items are normally made to make use of these points to allow their magic to flow through you.

To make a magic item that functions without accessing one of these natural points of magical affinity, you have to put a lot more work in (hence the x2 cost).

There's even a magical item that supports this interpretation.

IIRC Magic Of Incarnum explicitly called them chakras while adding a whole array of related effects.

Spoiler:
I need to sit and draw a chakra-based class unrleated to incarnum. While they had some nice ideas the whole basis for it was skewed... Unborn souls? What?


I'd like to see a class that gets bonuses for not using magic item slots like the monk gets them for not using weapons and armor.
For example each slot provides a certain bonus when not used. And the number of unused slots correlates with how high this bonus is. Capped by level.

Just for some ideas:
x = number of free slots with max=class level

Armor: x to AC bonus (not certain which type)
Belts:
Body: x rounds of fasthealing 1/day
Chest: x points of ki pool
Eyes:
Feet: x times 5ft fast movement
Hands: Lay on hands xd6/day
Head:
Headband:
Neck:
Ring (up to two):
Shield:
Shoulders:
Wrists:

The biggest problem with this would be that this class could but all their money in slotless items or few really strong items and gain double benefit.
But I like the idea.


I considered (and my return actually designing that) a rune-using class that would in a similar way - it would inscribe runes on non-magical items worn on those slots gaining corresponding bonuses in the process.


In Champions of Ruin, there's a Gladiator PrC with sample NPC's, both the NPC's have items that function as the AoMF. One is called Gauntlets of Mighty Fists and the other is called Helm of Mighty Horns. It states they both function as AoMF.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbranus wrote:
It would not break something if you turned the AoMF into a slotless item by paying more.

It would break your bank balance...

Andoran

So, the whole idea here is to try and get all the bonuses of the AoMF without using a magic slot? The benefits of this item are worth having a slot used. The amulet is centered on the body and makes sense for it effecting the entire body, since it effects claws, kicks, punches, bites, tails, wings, slams, headbutt, gore, poke, elbow, knee, etc. Not to mention the effect of getting +1d6 energy damage on attacks at the cost of only +1, where normal weapons need at least +2 cost.


Yes.

Because it's terrible IMO that a Monk not only has to pay twice as much for each bonus (with only a +5 maximum), he's also gypped out of a magic item slot where the cheaper and easier to obtain (magic swords drop like candy, don't even try to deny it) magic weapons don't take up any slot at all.

I'd go with magic armbands or whatever but when I suggest changes I like them to be small ones that are likely to be implemented. I don't want a cost change, I don't want them upgraded, I just want to be able to wear one with my Amulet of Natural Armor or whatever. Make it a Monk only feature if you've gotta keep it from breaking Eidolons or whatever. I'll likely use this regardless of whether it's actually implemented, but if the general consensus is that with the right restrictions it wouldn't break anything, then I don't see why it couldn't work its way into the main game.


I would suggest making it Gloves it just fits!


Rynjin wrote:

Yes.

Because it's terrible IMO that a Monk not only has to pay twice as much for each bonus (with only a +5 maximum), he's also gypped out of a magic item slot where the cheaper and easier to obtain (magic swords drop like candy, don't even try to deny it) magic weapons don't take up any slot at all.

I'd go with magic armbands or whatever but when I suggest changes I like them to be small ones that are likely to be implemented. I don't want a cost change, I don't want them upgraded, I just want to be able to wear one with my Amulet of Natural Armor or whatever. Make it a Monk only feature if you've gotta keep it from breaking Eidolons or whatever. I'll likely use this regardless of whether it's actually implemented, but if the general consensus is that with the right restrictions it wouldn't break anything, then I don't see why it couldn't work its way into the main game.

After thinking about it, monks already have a pretty high ac. Allowing them to have an extra 5 ac would be very strong considering the exponential growth of AC.

Also, you aren't paying double. Monks two weapon fight through flurry, meaning the amulet is equivalent to buying 2 weapons. It costs slightly less to buy an amulet then to buy two equivalent weapons.


Very slightly less, and the bonus can never go above +5. You're paying twice as much for half the bonus really.

And what about we poor MoMS?


And Monks only have high AC at the cost of other factors.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Very slightly less, and the bonus can never go above +5. You're paying twice as much for half the bonus really.

And what about we poor MoMS?

He's using Crane Style and is unhittable anyway. :P


No Crane Style here, we still haven't determined whether melee attacks are melee weapons yet. =p

Dragon/Snake/Tiger and then off to Alchemist in my specific case.


There are four scaling armor sources: deflection, enhancement to armor, enhancement to shield, enhancement to natural armor All normally go to +5 max. This lets a shielded character barely keep up with monster BAB.

Fighters get an additional +5 in rising dexterity limits, allowing them to keep up with enemies that use NPC wealth for things like magic weapons or have cleric buddies or have enormous size bonuses to their attack stat. Or they can use two handed weapons and not have pitiful AC.

Unarmed monks get a scaling untyped bonus, but don't get their enhancement bonus to natural armor. They can't use shields. That already has them barely keeping up with medium BAB opponents. Bracers of Armor have a higher cap, but a monk would need dex+wis of 44 to match mithril fullplate; 48 to match it with a heavy shield. Unless an unarmed monk is an extreme dex/wis build the higher cap on Bracers of Armor is not going to be enough to make up the difference, giving lower AC than a heavily armored but shieldless non-fighter.

Armed monks, on the other hand, do get that enhancement bonus to natural armor and the monk AC bonus offsets the lack of an enhancement to their nonexistent shield bonus. That lets them hope to match ACs with non-fighter sword and board builds and unshielded fighter builds. Instead of struggling to keep their AC relevant against hybrid opponents they can hope to keep it relevant against primary combatants.

Armed monks taking full advantage of the new flurry ruling are near the back of the damage pack for <8+int skill point non-casters*, but they can be said to be in the pack at least and are no longer completely pitiful compared to saving throw optimized barbarians. Unarmed monks have a long ways to go before they threaten anyone's position in anything.

* As long as they can full attack, armed monks are ahead of ex-paladins, spell-less rangers not fighting their favored enemy and bonded with their hunting companions instead of an animal companion, spell-less paladins that can't smite and are out of weapon bond minutes, barbarians that are out of rage rounds, and cavaliers/samurai that are out of challenges and are somewhere they can't take their mount. I think they're behind every other noncasting except the rogue/ninja and the NPC classes.

Silver Crusade

johnlocke90 wrote:


fter thinking about it, monks already have a pretty high ac. Allowing them to have an extra 5 ac would be very strong considering the exponential growth of AC.

Also, you aren't paying double. Monks two weapon fight through flurry, meaning the amulet is equivalent to buying 2 weapons. It costs slightly less to buy an amulet then to buy two equivalent weapons.

Technically, you just have to take the barskskin quinggong power asap, and for 1 ki point you're ready for hours of awesomeness.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Would it break anything if the Amulet of Mighty Fists took up the "Weapon Slot" 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.