Cost of a permanent +5 Great Magic Fang


Rules Questions


So help me out guys. If I'm calculating this out right to have a level 20 Wizard and level 20 Summoner or Druid cast Greater Magic Fang With a +5 bonus and a Permanency Spell to effectively give a Monk a +5 to attack and damage would cost only 9100GP?

Here is the math.

Spellcasting services cost Spellcaster level x Level of Spell x 10GP

For the Greater Magic fang at +5 would then = 20 x 3 x 10 = 600

Permanency = 20 x 5 x 10 = 1,000GP + 7,500GP in material costs for greater magic fang according to the permanency spell description. Also not %100 sure if the caster of the permanency spell needs to be level 20 or if they can just be level 11 since the minimum caster level for permanency in regards to Greater Magic Fang is 11. Which would drop the price for this down to 550GP.

So 1000+7500+600=9,100GP gets you a permanent +5 to attack and damage where as a +5 weapon would cost you 50,000GP.

Is this in accordance with all rules and if so is this very fair? I get that this means you can't get special abilities like flaming and such. BUT monks can get the amulet of mighty fists to get those special abilities.

What do you guys think? Am I completely missing something (Would not be the first time) or have a found a way to make the monk much more powerful at earlier levels?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Technically yes, this is what it would require.

However, you have to find the necessary casters together and get them to agree to the casting.

This is subject to Dispel, like any other spell effect and if dispelled, poof, it is gone.

Also, unlike the amulet of mighty fists GMF will not go through cold iron/silver/adamantine or alignment based DR. So that alone is often worth getting the Amulet of the extra cost.


Your math seems fine.

With level 20 spell casters, you can't always assume that you would be able to just purchase spell casting from them, as in most worlds they are pretty rare and not really interested in wasting their time with such things, but that is up to your GM, just want you to be aware that getting that isn't guaranteed, and certainly make take more than just plopping down the money.

The biggest issue that you have with this idea is dispel magic. If your weapon or amulet of mighty fists is hit with a dispel magic, it's powers are suppressed for the duration. If your magic fang is, then it is just gone, and you will have to purchase it again.


Keep in mind that this Greater Magic Fang would apply to only one fist, foot, or whatever. The amulet applies to every natural attack, which can be a pretty sizeable advantage.


You read the rule right. That's the RAW deal.

Monks suck so bad I wouldn't change it. Heck, they could just get a temple sword and be just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, so this doesn't seem like a big issue for a low-tier class.

If a fighter with a greatsword and weapon specialization and weapon training and weapon focus, etc., wanted to drop 9K to be better at using his fist as a backup weapon, I'd have no problem with that either.

If a druid wants to enchant his pet dire tiger to get a permanent +5 bite, well, by the time he can do it, the tiger needs the help. If he wants +5 on each of his tiger's claw too, he's up to 45,500gp, about what the fighter spent on his favorite sword.

The spell can be permanently dispelled. That might get expensive. It's harder to permanently dispel a magic weapon - those are usually just temporarily suppressed.

Finally, don't worry about letting your average 4th level chump buy this in the local marketplace; 20th level wizards should be very rare, hard to find, and absolutely not interested in wasting this kind of time for pocket change. From a roleplaying perspective, this kind of thing might not be available until the PCs are high enough level to actually be interacting as equals, or nearly equals, with these lofty spellcasters.


Take a look at the recent Paying For Permanence thread. It went over the same idea: +5 Great Magic Fang.


True it can be dispelled but as the description of Permanency it can only be dispelled but a spellcaster of higher level so if I get the level 20 spellcaster it would effectively be immune to dispel until we face something with an effective CL of 21 or greater (Never gotten to higher levels in campaigns so I don't know how often that happens).

I would lose the DR bypass but even then I could still get the Amulet of mighty fists at higher levels.

I'm just saying that a level 5 character could get this bonus which is still a very big bonus for not a lot of money. And depending on what campaign your playing DR probably wont be that big a deal at that level.

What would you suggest taking this then or not?

And I get the whole aspect of Level 20 Casters not wanting to deal with pissants. (Which I find is kind of cynical. There are bound to be some spellcasters who are kind enough to cast their spells at the price labeled in the book. If not there would be special rule for paying higher level spellcasters to cast spells) For my character coming in at level 6 I could work it as he worked for and or did favors for the spellcasters to gain favor enough to get the spellcasting plus the payment.


Ian Bell wrote:
Keep in mind that this Greater Magic Fang would apply to only one fist, foot, or whatever. The amulet applies to every natural attack, which can be a pretty sizeable advantage.

This was addressed in a FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?

As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).

However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.

This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account.

Scarab Sages

Theta Thief wrote:

True it can be dispelled but as the description of Permanency it can only be dispelled but a spellcaster of higher level so if I get the level 20 spellcaster it would effectively be immune to dispel until we face something with an effective CL of 21 or greater (Never gotten to higher levels in campaigns so I don't know how often that happens).

That only applies to the personal use of the spell to add self only spells. Permanency cast only other creatures can be dispelled as normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Theta Thief wrote:

True it can be dispelled but as the description of Permanency it can only be dispelled but a spellcaster of higher level so if I get the level 20 spellcaster it would effectively be immune to dispel until we face something with an effective CL of 21 or greater (Never gotten to higher levels in campaigns so I don't know how often that happens).

I would lose the DR bypass but even then I could still get the Amulet of mighty fists at higher levels.

I'm just saying that a level 5 character could get this bonus which is still a very big bonus for not a lot of money. And depending on what campaign your playing DR probably wont be that big a deal at that level.

What would you suggest taking this then or not?

IF your level 5 character can find a level 20 wizard,

If that level 20 wizard will even bother to talk to such a noob,
If your noob can convince the level 20 wizard to take time out of his important archmage-stuff to cast Permanency for a pathetic 1,000gp (he probably has more than that in his pocket right next to his pocket lint),
IF your level 5 character can find a level 20 druid,
If that level 20 druid will even bother to talk to such a noob,
If your noob can convince the level 20 druid to take time out of his important archdruid-stuff to cast Greater Magic Fang for a pathetic 600gp (he probably spent more than that at last night's poker game with his buddies),
If you can get those two arch-casters together at the same place at the same time,
And if your GM allows all this nonsense for a 5th level character.

If you can manage all that, especially that last one because it's a doozey (it definitely would be at my table, but your noob would have never gotten past that first problem or the fourth problem so the final doozey is a moot point), then yeah, you should totally do this. You'll be the awesomest level 5 monk ever!

(which isn't saying much, considering monks)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Theta Thief wrote:

True it can be dispelled but as the description of Permanency it can only be dispelled but a spellcaster of higher level so if I get the level 20 spellcaster it would effectively be immune to dispel until we face something with an effective CL of 21 or greater (Never gotten to higher levels in campaigns so I don't know how often that happens).

That only applies to the personal use of the spell to add self only spells. Permanency cast only other creatures can be dispelled as normal.

Imbicatus is correct. Check out the penultimate sentence in the Permanency description:

"Spells cast on other targets are vulnerable to dispel magic as normal."


Saldiven wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Theta Thief wrote:

True it can be dispelled but as the description of Permanency it can only be dispelled but a spellcaster of higher level so if I get the level 20 spellcaster it would effectively be immune to dispel until we face something with an effective CL of 21 or greater (Never gotten to higher levels in campaigns so I don't know how often that happens).

That only applies to the personal use of the spell to add self only spells. Permanency cast only other creatures can be dispelled as normal.

Imbicatus is correct. Check out the penultimate sentence in the Permanency description:

"Spells cast on other targets are vulnerable to dispel magic as normal."

Favorited just for using "penultimate" in a sentence. Don't see that every day.


DM_Blake wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Theta Thief wrote:

True it can be dispelled but as the description of Permanency it can only be dispelled but a spellcaster of higher level so if I get the level 20 spellcaster it would effectively be immune to dispel until we face something with an effective CL of 21 or greater (Never gotten to higher levels in campaigns so I don't know how often that happens).

That only applies to the personal use of the spell to add self only spells. Permanency cast only other creatures can be dispelled as normal.

Imbicatus is correct. Check out the penultimate sentence in the Permanency description:

"Spells cast on other targets are vulnerable to dispel magic as normal."

Favorited just for using "penultimate" in a sentence. Don't see that every day.

Sounds better than "second to last."


For all the talk of how wizards and the like plane shift I would say even finding one to help in the first place would be hard. Good luck!

....
Penultimate.


One wonders what the writer of the antepenultimate post, not including this one, will do if one uses an even fancier word.*

* Use of "one" for extra hoity-toitiness!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:

One wonders what the writer of the antepenultimate post, not including this one, will do if one uses an even fancier word.*

* Use of "one" for extra hoity-toitiness!

The word you're looking for was preantepenultimate, but it's no longer the right word because I screwed it up. :-(


For unarmed strikes at least (which only need one casting for the entire duration), wouldn't it be safer to get a magic item that can cast Greater Magic Fang 1-3 times per day?

That way, dispel is an annoyance, rather than crippling.

With caster level 9, you get a +3 enhancement bonus, and it lasts for 9 hours. 2 uses, and the entire day is covered. Caster level 17 would get you +5, and it would last for 17 hours. That is the whole day with one use (since you can't stay up because the sorcerer needs her beauty sleep).

Now, bear with me, since magic item creation is nowhere near my forte, so this might be wildly off. Going to assume that it is spell levelxcaster levelx2000/(5/uses)

Cost
3x9x2000/2.5= 21600
3x17x2000/5=20400

Note- the 17th level one has 1 less uses, which affects its price. So yes, it is cheaper despite being over all better quality.

Comparison to amulet of might fangs.
+3= 36,000
+5=100,000

Even with the first one, it is cheaper, and considering the comparison with the amulet it is still extremely good despite being twice the permanency price. Of course, each of these only cover the enhancement of one attack (so mostly useful for unarmed strikes), and it doesn't teat through DR other than magic (so it is only useful if you can tear through that anyway). So this is mostly something to look at for a monk or brawler, who can fill both of those conditions.


lemeres wrote:

For unarmed strikes at least (which only need one casting for the entire duration), wouldn't it be safer to get a magic item that can cast Greater Magic Fang 1-3 times per day?

That way, dispel is an annoyance, rather than crippling.

With caster level 9, you get a +3 enhancement bonus, and it lasts for 9 hours. 2 uses, and the entire day is covered. Caster level 17 would get you +5, and it would last for 17 hours. That is the whole day with one use (since you can't stay up because the sorcerer needs her beauty sleep).

Now, bear with me, since magic item creation is nowhere near my forte, so this might be wildly off. Going to assume that it is spell levelxcaster levelx2000/(5/uses)

Cost
3x9x2000/2.5= 21600
3x17x2000/5=20400

Note- the 17th level one has 1 less uses, which affects its price. So yes, it is cheaper despite being over all better quality.

Comparison to amulet of might fangs.
+3= 36,000
+5=100,000

Even with the first one, it is cheaper, and considering the comparison with the amulet it is still extremely good despite being twice the permanency price. Of course, each of these only cover the enhancement of one attack (so mostly useful for unarmed strikes), and it doesn't teat through DR other than magic (so it is only useful if you can tear through that anyway). So this is mostly something to look at for a monk or brawler, who can fill both of those conditions.

At that point you are likely falling athwart of the following clause in the magic item pricing section:

"If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect."

I'd require any such item to be priced the same as an equivalent amulet of mighty fists.


So, do a wand. Cheaper than the amulet, more expensive than the 2x day item but cheaper than the 3x day item and doesn't fall athwart the loophole clause.

Plus, if you need it, you can cast multiple times per day if it gets dispelled and even cast it on more than once creature, or more than one attack per creature, so much more versatile than the magic item. And it will likely last your entire adventuring career.


Ian Bell wrote:


At that point you are likely falling athwart of the following clause in the magic item pricing section:

"If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect."

I'd require any such item to be priced the same as an equivalent amulet of mighty fists.

No. Amulet of Mighty fists is a constant effect. If dispelled, it's suppressed for the duration, then kicks back in immediately. The "Amulet of Greater Magic Fang as a 17th level caster 5times/day" is not constant effect. If the effect is dispelled it must be reapplied. It's also not constant effect.

"But 17 hours is effectively a constant effect!" No, it's PRACTICALLY a constant effect, not effectively, nor is it a constant effect in reality. Heck, the "AoGMFaa17CL5/d" could be passed around and remain effective, whereas the Amulet of Mighty Fists only benefits one person at a time.

These items may have the same practical effect, but they are very different in execution. They shouldn't cost the same thing, because they aren't.


Ian Bell wrote:

At that point you are likely falling athwart of the following clause in the magic item pricing section:

"If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect."

I'd require any such item to be priced the same as an equivalent amulet of mighty fists.

Yep. I have seen that.

But since it gets a similar effect as permanencied GMF, but the spell version costs half the price, then the principle of that rule ends up being in questionable standing.

The general point of this thread was "I found some numbers that end up way less expensive than AoMF", and I just tossed out other numbers.

But going to the main point your brought up...while you end up with the enhancement bonus, it is rather worse than the AoMF. It is a 1/day spell, that can be dispelled. And it doesn't deal with DR. And it doesn't cover all natural attacks, but only a single one.

So the effect is worse. So while I can see a need for a much higher price, I can still see why it might get a discount. But as I said- I do not do crafting. I just decided to glance at the equations for arguments sake. So I am unsure how to compare a command item with no slot versus an item that uses a slot but gives a vastly superior effect.

EDIT- noticed what Dallium said. Yes, same idea- these are different items. I actually put in the 1/day thing to both lower price and to limit how useful it could be for the whole party/even 1 person with natural attacks.


Berinor wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

One wonders what the writer of the antepenultimate post, not including this one, will do if one uses an even fancier word.*

* Use of "one" for extra hoity-toitiness!

The word you're looking for was preantepenultimate, but it's no longer the right word because I screwed it up. :-(

You people are awesome.


Dallium wrote:
These items may have the same practical effect, but they are very different in execution. They shouldn't cost the same thing, because they aren't.

I can attest to this in play, having paid an EXORBITANT sum (for that character's wealth) to have greater magic fang permanencied, only to have it dispelled literally the next session. I got to punch a few people with it, but that was a lot of coin for a meager bonus.

NOTE: Not that I'm complaining. Overpaying to undersolve problems was kind of that character's idiom.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dallium wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:


At that point you are likely falling athwart of the following clause in the magic item pricing section:

"If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect."

I'd require any such item to be priced the same as an equivalent amulet of mighty fists.

No. Amulet of Mighty fists is a constant effect. If dispelled, it's suppressed for the duration, then kicks back in immediately. The "Amulet of Greater Magic Fang as a 17th level caster 5times/day" is not constant effect. If the effect is dispelled it must be reapplied. It's also not constant effect.

"But 17 hours is effectively a constant effect!" No, it's PRACTICALLY a constant effect, not effectively, nor is it a constant effect in reality. Heck, the "AoGMFaa17CL5/d" could be passed around and remain effective, whereas the Amulet of Mighty Fists only benefits one person at a time.

These items may have the same practical effect, but they are very different in execution. They shouldn't cost the same thing, because they aren't.

You are correct - the 5/day CL17 amulet is clearly a superior item to the normal AoMF and should therefore cost more.


And 1/day CL 17?

Cause it gets screwed for the day by a dispel. And it only affects the one weapon of the one party member.

Scarab Sages

lemeres wrote:

And 1/day CL 17?

Cause it gets screwed for the day by a dispel. And it only affects the one weapon of the one party member.

The entire body Unarmed Strike is a single weapon for the purpose of the spell. If they also had a bite or claws or something, they would have to choose, but a single casting covers all fists, feet, head, elbows, knees, hip checks, shoulder slams, and pelvic thrusts.


lemeres wrote:

And 1/day CL 17?

Cause it gets screwed for the day by a dispel. And it only affects the one weapon of the one party member.

Doesn't matter - in most situations it's going to function the same as the AOMF for a monk, and it's not vulnerable to dispel in the same way as the permanent spell, which DOES have an argument for being cheaper since you're permanently out money when it gets dispelled.

Actually I'd probably consider upping the price because as a use-activated item it's basically slotless - you cast your one spell, then swap it out for another amulet (or whatever).

EDIT: And as noted earlier, I was wrong about how it applies to unarmed strikes. Yeah, it's not nearly as good for a druid or animal companion, but you don't price things based on the worst-case user.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

As I mentioned earlier remember the difference between GMF +5 and an AoMF +5 is that GMF only penetrates magic DR but AoMF penetrates Silver, Cold Iron, Adamantine and Alignment DRs.


Not much of a balancing factor when you're talking about a character with the ki pool class feature.

Liberty's Edge

I consider natural weapon users the balancing case for the price of amulet of might fists, not the unarmed strike user. The monk can always just pick up a temple sword for single-weapon price and flurry away, the shape-shifter build can't.

If you want balance then make Amulet of Mighty Fists be unarmed strike only, cut it down to the same price as a single magic weapon, then create a separate item that boosts all natural attacks at the original price and call it something like Amulet of Tooth and Claw.

If you want to compare for the monk use case, compare it against single weapon price: 50k.


Ian Bell wrote:
Not much of a balancing factor when you're talking about a character with the ki pool class feature.

On the other hand, making the ki pool class feature actually be some sort of benefit could be nice.

Bottom line though, is if a 1/day or a 5/day amulet of greater magic fang is broken, then so would a wand be, and it is pretty hard to not allow the existence of wands.....


Dave Justus wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Not much of a balancing factor when you're talking about a character with the ki pool class feature.

On the other hand, making the ki pool class feature actually be some sort of benefit could be nice.

Bottom line though, is if a 1/day or a 5/day amulet of greater magic fang is broken, then so would a wand be, and it is pretty hard to not allow the existence of wands.....

No item here is "broken", we're just discussing the proper pricing per the item pricing rules. There's nothing wrong with the wand pricing, and if you want to save a little money vs. the amulet that's a way you can go. You have to deal with possibly running out of charges, getting someone to cast the spell on you (or the occasional 1 rolled on a UMD check), etc.

The earlier claim that a wand would last your entire adventuring career is pretty clearly campaign-dependent (and not consistent with most of the ones I've played in, at least), and it seems clear to me that wands are priced in a way that indicates they're *not* expected to be an effectively infinite resource. A daily use-activated item is not the same sort of resource at all. Other than 'continuous' items those are the place where the item pricing rules most often have a big problem.


Ian Bell wrote:


The earlier claim that a wand would last your entire adventuring career is pretty clearly campaign-dependent (and not consistent with most of the ones I've played in, at least), and it seems clear to me that wands are priced in a way that indicates they're *not* expected to be an effectively infinite resource. A daily use-activated item is not the same sort of resource at all. Other than 'continuous' items those are the place where the item pricing rules most often have a big problem.

A wand that is an hour per level buff will probably last your entire adventuring career. It is rare that you go through more than 50 days of 'adventure' as far as serious combat/dungeon delving.

Granted, you wouldn't have it available at the start (at least) of surprise ambushes on the road etc., but those sort of 1-a-day encounters usually aren't really meaningful anyway. The 1/day item has an advantage there over the wand, but it probably is more an advantage on paper than something that will practically make a difference.


Since you're paying the high CL to get the +5, a charge from the wand would last most of the day anyways, so there would be no reason not to cast it on the morning of any day where you expect combat.


Ian Bell wrote:


Actually I'd probably consider upping the price because as a use-activated item it's basically slotless - you cast your one spell, then swap it out for another amulet (or whatever).

This does not work. If you remove the item, you immediately lose the benefits.

Dark Archive

If you're going to get the spell cast on you and use permanency then invest in a ring of counterspells and have dispel magic cast in it, it's cheap at 4k and will save you a world of hassle and gold getting the magic fang back.


Thinking about it- with the argument that the item should be priced similarly to another comparable item, couldn't the GMF thing be priced like a normal weapon instead of a AoMF?

My argument- we are judging this according to monks, since they are the only ones that get through the DR problem

A monk can flurry with a single weapon for all of their attacks. So It isn't like you need TWF style prices when the class can do it with one weapon.

Yes, unarmed strikes can be used in TWF, but it isn't ever going to be used that way for a monk.

I know many of the arguments against this (slotless, invalidating a current item with something that doesn't use its slot, not following the current existing items, etc.), but it is interesting to consider.


A potion of Magic Fang +5 is 3000 gold and lasts for 20 hours. You need either a bountiful bottle to take it every day or a 4th level alchemist with the infusion discovery and Alchemical Allocation.


lemeres wrote:
With caster level 9, you get a +3 enhancement bonus, and it lasts for 9 hours. 2 uses, and the entire day is covered. Caster level 17 would get you +5, and it would last for 17 hours. That is the whole day with one use (since you can't stay up because the sorcerer needs her beauty sleep).

9/4 => +2, not +3

17/4 => +4, not +5

Remember to round down.

Formula for CL12, 2/day:
12 CL * 3 SL * 2000 gp / ( 5 / 2) = 28,800 gp for +3
Formula for CL12, 1/day, Extended:
12 CL * 4 SL * 2000 gp / 5 = 19,200 gp for +3

Same coverage, only one casting. Save 9,600 gp.

Formula for CL20, 1/day:
20 CL * 3 SL * 2000 gp / 5 = 24,000 gp for +5

----
As to the ki class feature making this more beneficial to a monk, that would only apply if they were the only users of this. This could easily be used by many classes, so that one class feature only makes it more usable for that class, not more expensive.

----
At CL20, GMF lasts 20 hours, so you have time to travel from the 20th level druid to that 20th level wizard.

If that wizard has the stafflike-wand discovery, you can get a CL5 wand of GMF and have the wizard use UMD to cast it at 20th level. If they fail the UMD, they can try the next day without expending the charge.

/cevah

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Cost of a permanent +5 Great Magic Fang All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.