I think the AoMF is designed with monsters in mind, but it's really the only option a monk has.
So my proposed change is that the AoMF has two enchantment branches. For example, if you bought a +3 AoMF, you can distribute it in two different ways, such as a vanilla +3 magic, and a +1 magic, Frost and Shock version. When using the AoMF to modify only a single type of attack (such as Unarmed Strike), you can freely choose which bonus you want on which attack. So a monk could use the +1 Frost Shock on his first punches that have high to-hit, then switch to the +3 for his last few attacks that have a lower to-hit.
Since the AoMF costs 2.5x as much and only enchants one weapon for the monk, I think this might make it more justified for its price.
Thoughts?
Well, that one weapon is his whole freaking body, rather than just one measly hunk of metal.
When he is making love with his bling on, his attack rolls will be getting that sweet, sweet bonus.
kyrt: Eh, I'd use it. It'd be nice to have two options, even if you don't shuffle mid-attack, but between different enemies. Different elemental options or something.
Cheapy: I'm not sure what to make of your post. Are you saying you think the 2.5x multiplier for the AoMF is justified? I disagree, and I doubt I'm the only one.
The argument on the AMF's price looks like this:
1) It's at least as powerful as a pair of shortswords of the same bonus - that's a minimum of 4600 GP (masterwork on the shortswords, two +1 bonuses)
2) In addition to this, it also adds to the wearer's CMB for all unarmed attacks - trips, grapples, and the like - that's worth "something".
The problem with this isn't the price of the amulet. The problem is the Wealth By Level markers. Double weapons have a similar issue. Plus, it takes the same slot that an Amulet of Natural Armor consumes.
AdAstra:
1) How do you figure? Why is it as powerful as two, rather than one?
2) And does a magic weapon not? You can do pretty much anything with a weapon except grapple.
I will agree with you that taking up the same slot as the amulet of natural armor is a problem.
The only CMs that can use your weapon are sunder, trip, disarm, and... Maybe dirty trick. Bullrush, overrun, steal, reposition, drag, pull, grapple, etc use unarmed.
My point was that the amulet enchants far more than the equivalent weapon, and can be used wherever you can wear an amulet. Which is far more often than where you can use a weapon. If I enchanted my main dagger, I wouldn't expect that my two boot daggers would be enchanted too. With the same bonuses, to boot!
But that's what the AoMF does. Unarmed strikes isn't just punching. It's punching, kicking, elbowing, headbutting, kneeing, pelvic thrusting, poking them with your pinky finger for great justice, etc.
The monk effectively has TWF with an unarmed strike flurry, so it's pretty much like enchanting two weapons. (That you won't drop due to being disarmed or knocked out, and that you can use while holding onto a rope, a torch, or whatever else.)
Also, you don't have to have that first +1 on an amulet before adding nifty things. This can be fun for really cheap bane -- against the right enemy, bane is effectively a +4-equivalent mod, available for the low low price of 5k gold. Not so useful if you never know what you're fighting next, but in a campaign or adventure path with an overarching theme, you could have 6 different bane weapons for less than the price of one +4 sword.
Personally, I'd rather just let a monk add magical enhancements to his unarmed strike directly without needing an amulet at all.
The monk effectively has TWF with an unarmed strike flurry, so it's pretty much like enchanting two weapons.
Except monks can effectively TWF with a single weapon, though.
How I rule this when I GM is I let them either A) just get the amulet of mighty fists and have it work normally or B)I let them enchant their body half at a time following the regular enchantment prices. So for example if he enchants the right half of his body to be +1 corrosive then during his attack we assume he punches/kicks/elbows/whatever with that half of his body so all his attacks are treated as being +1 corrosive. however when he uses flurry of blows only ha;f of his attacks are enchanted so I have him do his attacks more like a two-wep fighter one half of his body at a time and he doesn't get any bonuses on grapples steal ect untill both halfs of his body are enchanted but the bonus is a s big as his lowest bonus
It needs to be MORE Monk friendly?
I have never seen a Monk (at high enough level to afford one) not buy one. If anything, it is too Monk friendly!
I have never seen a Monk (at high enough level to afford one) not buy one. If anything, it is too Monk friendly!
I disagree. It's not particularly monk friendly, it's just bread and butter. A must-have. Just like an enchanted sword is a to fighter. A must-have is not necessarily friendly, nor even fun. On the contrary, it's usually quite boring.
To counter this piece of boredom, multiple books have been published containing awesomeness to put in the fighters Christmas stocking. The question is: Why can't an unarmed combatant be part of this?
Sure, as explained above, something which effectively is two enchanted weapons in a single item should come at a higher price. But that is beside the point. The unarmed monk should also have her part of the frost/fire/force/menacing/dueling/vicious/vorpal/artifact/intelligent/curse d-weapon fun!
(I do understand that AoMF can have some of this stuff, but only up to a max of +5)
I have never seen a Monk (at high enough level to afford one) not buy one. If anything, it is too Monk friendly!I disagree. It's not particularly monk friendly, it's just bread and butter. A must-have. Just like an enchanted sword is a to fighter. A must-have is not necessarily friendly, nor even fun. On the contrary, it's usually quite boring.
To counter this piece of boredom, multiple books have been published containing awesomeness to put in the fighters Christmas stocking. The question is: Why can't an unarmed combatant be part of this?
Sure, as explained above, something which effectively is two enchanted weapons in a single item should come at a higher price. But that is beside the point. The unarmed monk should also have her part of the frost/fire/force/menacing/dueling/vicious/vorpal/artifact/intelligent/curse d-weapon fun!
Did you read Ultimate Combat? It may as well been renamed Ultimate Monk, since they got the most love.
The problem, Windquake, is that it's too expensive. Monks have to buy it to get the bonuses it provides that they need, but they're less able to buy other things they need because the damned thing costs an arm and a leg.
The only ones who do not have this problem, are the ones wielding two-handed weapons. Everybody else who does melee combat, needs to buy something for each hand. The sword-and-shield paladin, as well as the scimitar-dagger rogue. 'Tis only fair that the monk pays a higher price due to her dual wielding (technically speaking) nature.
No, the problem, as stated above, is that AoMF is not any fun. It's just a plus on a character sheet.
Did you read Ultimate Combat? It may as well been renamed Ultimate Monk, since they got the most love.
I, and everybody else I hope, loves Paizo even more for giving monks their long-in-coming love they deserved?
I do think Paizo got a bit carried away on some of those styles, but that's material for another good thread :-)
We don't want everything to be the same with the serial numbers filed off.
On this, I politely disagree.
Weapons should be mathematically identical, even if they take different routes to get there. Otherwise, anything that gives the slightest advantage (like two handed swords do) becomes the default option for everything (like two handed weapons have in Pathfinder.)
For Pathfinder to work, two identical fighters using two weapon combat or sword and shield or greatsword should be within about +/- 3% of each other for expected yield of damage per round. Any advantage that's greater than + 5% exceeds the benefit of having a +1 on the die roll.