Some desired clarrifications:
Clarifications:
1) I'm pretty sure this is allowed, but you should be able to cast this multiple times. It does not stack. Each cast affects a new "weapon." Option 2 of greater magic fang can be mixed with Option 1, but the effects don't stack.
2) Flurry of blows. If only once enchanted, the monk only applies the bonus to either the odd numbered attacks, or the even numbered attacks. This assumes you don't go with option 2 for greater magic fang.
3) Does this affect combat maneuvers? Grapple? Trip? Bull Rush? Disarm? Does a judo flip over the shoulder count as a trip? Would enchanting your fists really enable you to push someone?
|
Some desired clarrifications:
Clarifications:
1) I'm pretty sure this is allowed, but you should be able to cast this multiple times. It does not stack. Each cast affects a new "weapon." Option 2 of greater magic fang can be mixed with Option 1, but the effects don't stack.
2) Flurry of blows. If only once enchanted, the monk only applies the bonus to either the odd numbered attacks, or the even numbered attacks. This assumes you don't go with option 2 for greater magic fang.
3) Does this affect combat maneuvers? Grapple? Trip? Bull Rush? Disarm? Does a judo flip over the shoulder count as a trip? Would enchanting your fists really enable you to push someone?
1. Magic Fang may give the monk's unarmed strike a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. If used on a natural weapon, each natural weapon must be selected individually, and no it does not stack if cast on the same one.
2. The bonus applies to all monk unarmed strike attacks. Unarmed Strike is a single type of Natural Attack, so Magic Fang may influence all of the monk's unarmed strikes, not just the even or odd numbered ones.3. If the unarmed strike is used for the combat maneuver, then yes, this bonus should be included.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
2. The bonus applies to all monk unarmed strike attacks. Unarmed Strike is a single type of Natural Attack, so Magic Fang may influence all of the monk's unarmed strikes, not just the even or odd numbered ones.
MAGIC FANG
School transmutation; Level druid 1, ranger 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the
subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The
spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon.
The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from
nonlethal damage to lethal damage.
Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
It seems from the wording of Magic Fang that you can only enchant one striking surface at a time at anything greater than +1. I can't find anything from the monk description or from the improved unarmed strike feat to dictate otherwise.
Can you elaborate where you can come to the conclusion that all monk unarmed strikes are affected?
|
|
See the weapon table. An unarmed strike is a single type of unarmed attack, which is a melee weapon. An unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon (despite my initial reply, which I was in error on). Claw, bite, tail, slam, etc. are individual types of natural attacks as well.
Magic Fang is likely referencing a "Fist" type of natural attack. "... can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon." The last bit indicates that the attacks before it are types of natural weapons. As an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, 'fist' must be referencing something else. Possibly some monster's attack.
The spell mentions that it may be used on any "single natural attack" or "unarmed strike".
In short, a monk may use this on his unarmed strike and it would apply to any attack or damage made with his unarmed strike rolls.
Even if you choose to disregard the above, there is nothing that says a Monk must make his Flurry of Blows using different 'parts' of his body. He can, but is not forced to. The monk could feasibly make all of his flurried attacks with a single foot if he so chose.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
So would a druid need to cast this twice to enchant both his claw attacks and bite attack ?
|
|
Three times. One for each claw attack, one for the bite attack.
An unarmed strike is a single type of attack. A monk does not have 8 unarmed strikes, he has 8 attacks with unarmed strike. If a creature had one claw with two attacks, he would only need one casting of Magic Fang. If he had two claws at one attack each, he would need two castings.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Three times. One for each claw attack, one for the bite attack.
An unarmed strike is a single type of attack. A monk does not have 8 unarmed strikes, he has 8 attacks with unarmed strike. If a creature had one claw with two attacks, he would only need one casting of Magic Fang. If he had two claws at one attack each, he would need two castings.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
lol thats brutal. A fighter can get off 4 attacks with his 1 weapon all with the same enchant, same bonuses... yet a druid can do 3 attacks and needs to buff them all individually? Yikes...
|
|
lol thats brutal. A fighter can get off 4 attacks with his 1 weapon all with the same enchant, same bonuses... yet a druid can do 3 attacks and needs to buff them all individually? Yikes...
If the druid is wildshaped and they are 3 different attack types, then yes. If the druid was not wildshaped and making iterative attacks with his scimitar, then no, he can buff his one weapon and be just fine.
The item you want is "Amulet of Mighty Fists". +1 to +5 enhancement bonus to all attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
lol thats brutal. A fighter can get off 4 attacks with his 1 weapon all with the same enchant, same bonuses... yet a druid can do 3 attacks and needs to buff them all individually? Yikes...If the druid is wildshaped and they are 3 different attack types, then yes. If the druid was not wildshaped and making iterative attacks with his scimitar, then no, he can buff his one weapon and be just fine.
The item you want is "Amulet of Mighty Fists". +1 to +5 enhancement bonus to all attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
And is yet way too pricey for a druid who has to consider the humanoid weapon and wild armor already. One would've thought that the nerfing of wildshape would've made the wild enhancement on armor somewhat cheaper.
Everyone note that special weapon abilities from amulets of mighty fists only apply to unarmed attacks. No holy flaming Tyrannosaurus bites and tail slaps, sorry.
And what's the deal with the pricing structure on those amulets? Sheesh. You're better off with the wild necklace from Savage Species.
|
|
Everyone note that special weapon abilities from amulets of mighty fists only apply to unarmed attacks. No holy flaming Tyrannosaurus bites and tail slaps, sorry.
This is not actually what the item says. It states:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.
So long as the special abilities picked would work with unarmed attacks, then they can be used with the Amulet of Mighty Fists and thus granted to natural attacks of the wearer. The text is to prevent abilities such as "Dancing" or "Returning" from being placed on the Amulet.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Three times. One for each claw attack, one for the bite attack.
An unarmed strike is a single type of attack. A monk does not have 8 unarmed strikes, he has 8 attacks with unarmed strike. If a creature had one claw with two attacks, he would only need one casting of Magic Fang. If he had two claws at one attack each, he would need two castings.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
I'm afraid you are incorrect Nethys (and I almost never get the chance to say that, huzzah!), the druid would have to cast Magic Fang twice, once for the bite, and once for the claws. Claws are a single natural weapon, at least, according to the stat blocks of most big cats, and the entry in the SRD about determining a creatures primary attack.
When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.
|
|
That quote is only for the purpose of calculating the attack bonus of primary and secondary attacks. That has nothing to do with Magic Fang, which specifically only enchants a single natural weapon or unarmed strike at a time.
You should notice that in those stat blocks, it will often say something like
"2 claws +X (XdX) and bite +X (XdX)"
That creature has 3 attacks. 2 claws and 1 bite. They would need to be enchanted individually with magic fang. Anytime a creature has multiple attacks with the same bonus, they are listed together with a quantity (in this case, 2) before the attack (claws). That does not meant they may be enchanted together.
This is one issue I am certain on.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
That quote is only for the purpose of calculating the attack bonus of primary and secondary attacks. That has nothing to do with Magic Fang, which specifically only enchants a single natural weapon or unarmed strike at a time.
You should notice that in those stat blocks, it will often say something like
"2 claws +X (XdX) and bite +X (XdX)"
That creature has 3 attacks. 2 claws and 1 bite. They would need to be enchanted individually with magic fang. Anytime a creature has multiple attacks with the same bonus, they are listed together with a quantity (in this case, 2) before the attack (claws). That does not meant they may be enchanted together.
This is one issue I am certain on.
I wasn't saying that a single attack roll is made for the claws, I was providing the bit from the SRD as an example of how 2 claws are treated, numerically at least, identically. They are made at the same attack bonus, both deal the same amount of damage based on strength (1/2 or full), etc.
A creature with 2 claws and 1 bite makes 3 attacks, but it has 2 natural weapons, Claw and Bite, the same way a monk may make multiple attacks with multiple fists/feet/elbows/etc., but still only has one weapon, Unarmed. You're certainly entitled to your interpretation on this, since there isn't an official answer, but your way seems to overly penalize druids for no good reason.
Lacking an unambiguous official answer I'd go with the option that A> follows the precedent of natural attacks receiving identical bonuses/penalties when presented as a set and B> seems the most balanced when comparing similar abilities, i.e. Natural attacks vs. unarmed attacks.
Certainty doesn't mean you're right, it just means you're certain.
Ok so if a fighter has two short swords he only needs one magic weapon spell right?
Maybe a closer point would be a two bladed sword? Dwarven Urgosh? Gnomish Hook-Hammer?
|
|
I was pointing out that your quote is misleading. Take a look at it a bit deeper.
"When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary."
Extrapolating, this means the same.
"When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of the natural weapons (or sometimes a pair of natural weapons or set of natural weapons) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary."
The only time the 'natural weapons' are consolidated is for purposes of declaring a primary weapon. This does not change the fact that 2 claw attacks are still multiple natural weapons, even if they are a single primary weapon for the purposes of the attack roll.
If you still need an official response, hopefully Jason can pop in here and clarify.
Edit: Abraham, I grant you a free +1 weapon of your choosing.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
...
A creature with 2 claws and 1 bite makes 3 attacks, but it has 2 natural weapons, Claw and Bite, the same way a monk may make multiple attacks with multiple fists/feet/elbows/etc., but still only has one weapon, Unarmed. You're certainly entitled to your interpretation on this, since there isn't an official answer, but your way seems to overly penalize druids for no good reason.
..
I understand the wording of the spell, but I am in agreement with Brodiggan Gale. The monsters stat blocks and even Eberron shifters talk about claws as a single natural attack. I was actually surprised I can not find an exact rules reference that says that as swear I had read that before. Plus it is allot easier to work with at the game table to consider claws as a single natural attack for purpose of magic fang. Oh and this is my opinion.... =)
I wasn't saying that a single attack roll is made for the claws, I was providing the bit from the SRD as an example of how 2 claws are treated, numerically at least, identically. They are made at the same attack bonus, both deal the same amount of damage based on strength (1/2 or full), etc.
A creature with 2 claws and 1 bite makes 3 attacks, but it has 2 natural weapons, Claw and Bite, the same way a monk may make multiple attacks with multiple fists/feet/elbows/etc., but still only has one weapon, Unarmed. You're certainly entitled to your interpretation on this, since there isn't an official answer, but your way seems to overly penalize druids for no good reason.
Lacking an unambiguous official answer I'd go with the option that A> follows the precedent of natural attacks receiving identical bonuses/penalties when presented as a set and B> seems the most balanced when comparing similar abilities, i.e. Natural attacks vs. unarmed attacks.
Certainty doesn't mean you're right, it just means you're certain.
You'll have to wait for the Bestiary to answer this question fully. Until then, we'll have to use the 3.5 SRD:
Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.
When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.
The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry.
If you can make one attack per claw and you get 2 attacks, then that assumes you have two claws.
Ok so if a fighter has two short swords he only needs one magic weapon spell right?
Maybe a closer point would be a two bladed sword? Dwarven Urgosh? Gnomish Hook-Hammer?
A two weapon fighter needs two castings of Magic Weapon in the same way a druid/animal companion with a Claw and a Bite needs two castings of Magic Fang.
In both cases you need 2 castings of a 1st (or 3rd for greater) level spell to fully buff the character. For creatures with a single primary natural attack, or fighters with a two handed weapon, you only need one casting.
If you can make one attack per claw and you get 2 attacks, then that assumes you have two claws.
Not arguing that part, there obviously are in fact 2 physical claws, I'm arguing that they count as a single natural weapon for effects like Magic Fang for the same reason that Unarmed counts as a single weapon for Monks (despite having multiple fists, feet, etc. and multiple attacks).
Ok so if a fighter has two short swords he only needs one magic weapon spell right?
Maybe a closer point would be a two bladed sword? Dwarven Urgosh? Gnomish Hook-Hammer?
A two weapon fighter needs two castings of Magic Weapon in the same way a druid/animal companion with a Claw and a Bite needs two castings of Magic Fang.
In both cases you need 2 castings of a 1st (or 3rd for greater) level spell to fully buff the character. For creatures with a single primary natural attack, or fighters with a two handed weapon, you only need one casting.
Exactly my point. 2 claws are the same as two short swords, technically since each end of the weapon must be masterwork individually it should take one casting per end of the weapon.
If you can make one attack per claw and you get 2 attacks, then that assumes you have two claws.Not arguing that part, there obviously are in fact 2 physical claws, I'm arguing that they count as a single natural weapon for effects like Magic Fang for the same reason that Unarmed counts as a single weapon for Monks (despite having multiple fists, feet, etc. and multiple attacks).
Magic fang actually treats unarmed strike and natural weapons as two different things:
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.
A claw is one natural weapon. Two claws are two natural weapons. Magic fang doesn't apply itself to a group of natural weapons. Unarmed strike isn't a group of weapons -- it's considered one entity.
Exactly my point. 2 claws are the same as two short swords, technically since each end of the weapon must be masterwork individually it should take one casting per end of the weapon.
Then why shouldn't a monk have to have two castings? The new flurry rules even specifically reference the two weapon fighting rules:
"Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."
I'm not saying they should, I'm saying this is one area where we have a serious, unambiguous answer, monks definitely do not have to have multiple castings, without question.
The ambiguous part is whether or not an animal with an attack entry like "Full Attack: 2 claws +x and bite +x" should need two castings or three.
I say they shouldn't for the same reasons a monk doesn't need multiple castings. For the purposes of Magic Fang/Weapon, Unarmed is a single weapon, Claw is a single weapon, Bite is a single weapon, etc.
(Or at least, that would be my ruling.)
Your ruling, meaning a house rule, not The rule.
Besides Nythes already covered why, because you can flurry with one hand.
Heck you can be tied up and still flurry with your head! No where does it say that the unarmed strike has to be done with a separate whatever each time. However with natural attacks it does state this.
Your ruling, meaning a house rule, not The rule.
Nor is Nethys' interpretation an official rule.
In the absence of an official ruling, I was trying to present an alternate interpretation of the rules as written, and my argument as to why it was more balanced and better fit the precedent of other abilities affecting natural attacks/multiple attacks. If I came off as saying that my opinion was absolute fact, my apologies, that wasn't my intent. I did want to point out that there were differing opinions on this though, and that it wasn't as cut and dried as Nethys initially presented it.
I gotta agree with Karui on one thing though, at this point, it might be better to sit tight and wait for a ruling that _is_ official.
(There, multiple edits to clean up a hurried post, apologies for any confusion if someone quoted me before I had a chance to correct any of that.)
One last post, now that I'm home and have access to my books.
Some supporting evidence for my interpretation:
-Improved Natural Attack also refers to natural weapon in the singular "this natural weapon" but in stat blocks for creatures with Improved Natural Attack (Claw) both claws are improved.
-Creatures with claws that are playable as characters (trolls for instance) list "Claw" as a single natural weapon under their racial abilities. The troll for instance has "Natural Weapons: Claw (1d6) and bite (1d6)."
|
|
The first is not really supporting evidence. Improved Natural Attack works much like Weapon Focus in that it improves every natural weapon of that type. Similarly, Weapon Focus (Longsword) improves the attack roll of every longsword that character will ever wield.
As for the second...where is that from? The 3.5 Monster Manual? If so, one, that's 3.5. Two, see a few of these other entries:
Rakshasa Natural Weapons: Bite (1d6) and 2 claws (1d4).
Lizardfolk Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4).
Troglodyte Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4).
Anyhow, this is still all 3.5. The new Bestiary is not out yet.
The first is not really supporting evidence. Improved Natural Attack works much like Weapon Focus in that it improves every natural weapon of that type. Similarly, Weapon Focus (Longsword) improves the attack roll of every longsword that character will ever wield.
As for the second...where is that from? The 3.5 Monster Manual? If so, one, that's 3.5. Two, see a few of these other entries:
Rakshasa Natural Weapons: Bite (1d6) and 2 claws (1d4).
Lizardfolk Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4).
Troglodyte Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4).
Fair enough. Back to the status quo of ambiguity then. I swear this was spelled out explicitly somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it now.
Fair enough. Back to the status quo of ambiguity then. I swear this was spelled out explicitly somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it now.The first is not really supporting evidence. Improved Natural Attack works much like Weapon Focus in that it improves every natural weapon of that type. Similarly, Weapon Focus (Longsword) improves the attack roll of every longsword that character will ever wield.
As for the second...where is that from? The 3.5 Monster Manual? If so, one, that's 3.5. Two, see a few of these other entries:
Rakshasa Natural Weapons: Bite (1d6) and 2 claws (1d4).
Lizardfolk Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4).
Troglodyte Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4).
I resurrect this from the dead!!!
I have a player that wants to have Greater Magic Fang, Permanency, cast on his 10th level monk (making a new character after losing his rogue recently). I think that he should have to have it cast twice, on each fist, but he thinks that one casting covers all of his body.
I am at a loss for what to allow or do... Side bit: a +3 weapon costs 18,000 gp, while a permanent greater magic fang at +3 costs around 9000 gp. This seems ridiculously unfair to other players. Also, when you combine it with an Amulet of Mighty Fists (only giving weapon enhancements, not actual +'s to hit or damage) this gets quite crazy fast.
I really wish this issue were clarified by a dev.
I have a player that wants to have Greater Magic Fang, Permanency, cast on his 10th level monk (making a new character after losing his rogue recently). I think that he should have to have it cast twice, on each fist, but he thinks that one casting covers all of his body.
You could split the difference. Have the monk choose one 'part' to be enchanted. (fist, elbow, knee, or foot) That's the only thing that is enchanted, not his whole body.
However, he can make a full attack with flurry of blows using only that part.
If, somehow, he's overpowered and it's hurting the group, have a naughty wizard dispel him.
The monk doesn't have natural weapons. He has Improved Unarmed Strike which makes his unarmed attacks (which are generically any ol' attack without a weapon, such as fist or foot or knee or forehead) act as a natural weapon from the point of view of the rules. Thus he is considered armed for AOOs but cannot be sundered, etc.
It also means that his entire person is, for the purposes of spells like greater magic fang, one natural weapon. The entire monk. If each body part was a different natural weapon, a monk's stat block would spell out "2 fists (1d8), 1 forehead (1d8), 2 knees (1d8), 2 feet(1d8), 2 elbows (1d8), etc etc" and they would be able to attack with all those extra weapons at the prescribed penalties and according to the rules pertaining to non-primary natural weapon attacks.
If even just two fists were considered, a monk would be able to attack with both as per TWF. Wait, you say, he can via Flurry of Blows! No, you are going backwards. Flurry is a class feature that lets a monk attack lots of times AS PER the TWF rules. It is another special rule that says "Monks can do a thing that is like this other thing for the purposes of rules with the following caveats..."
Magic Fang and Greater Magic Fang effect the entire monk.
I believe this thread agreed on that point back in 2009 and was getting into the details of whether or not the two claws on a Lizardman count as 1 weapon or 2 weapons for the purpose of the aforementioned spells.
Magic Fang and Greater Magic Fang effect the entire monk.
Magic Fang can affect his unarmed strike, not the whole monk. Otherwise it would also apply to a Toothy half-orc bite, and the Abyssal claws from his level of sorcerer, and the gore from his barbarian totem. (He's going to take a level of ranger at 4th...)
Magic Fang can affect his unarmed strike, not the whole monk. Otherwise it would also apply to a Toothy half-orc bite, and the Abyssal claws from his level of sorcerer, and the gore from his barbarian totem. (He's going to take a level of ranger at 4th...)
Details details. Magic Fang and Greater Magic Fang equally affect all attacks making use of the monk's Improved Unarmed Strike feature. Better?
|
Fair enough. Back to the status quo of ambiguity then. I swear this was spelled out explicitly somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it now.The first is not really supporting evidence. Improved Natural Attack works much like Weapon Focus in that it improves every natural weapon of that type. Similarly, Weapon Focus (Longsword) improves the attack roll of every longsword that character will ever wield.
As for the second...where is that from? The 3.5 Monster Manual? If so, one, that's 3.5. Two, see a few of these other entries:
Rakshasa Natural Weapons: Bite (1d6) and 2 claws (1d4).
Lizardfolk Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4).
Troglodyte Natural Weapons: 2 claws (1d4) and bite (1d4).I resurrect this from the dead!!!
I have a player that wants to have Greater Magic Fang, Permanency, cast on his 10th level monk (making a new character after losing his rogue recently). I think that he should have to have it cast twice, on each fist, but he thinks that one casting covers all of his body.
I am at a loss for what to allow or do... Side bit: a +3 weapon costs 18,000 gp, while a permanent greater magic fang at +3 costs around 9000 gp. This seems ridiculously unfair to other players. Also, when you combine it with an Amulet of Mighty Fists (only giving weapon enhancements, not actual +'s to hit or damage) this gets quite crazy fast.
I really wish this issue were clarified by a dev.
It's cheaper because it's less effective then a real magic weapon. Unlike those a magic fang/weapon enhanced attack does not pierce DR nor can it ever go over a +5 in total bonuses. That's worth a significant drop in price.
It's cheaper because it's less effective then a real magic weapon. Unlike those a magic fang/weapon enhanced attack does not pierce DR nor can it ever go over a +5 in total bonuses. That's worth a significant drop in price.
You also can't resell it or trade it in for a cooler weapon that you find while adventuring.
|
|
You also can't resell it or trade it in for a cooler weapon that you find while adventuring.
It's cheaper because it's less effective then a real magic weapon. Unlike those a magic fang/weapon enhanced attack does not pierce DR nor can it ever go over a +5 in total bonuses. That's worth a significant drop in price.
If you wanna go that far a simple dispel Magic spell will permanently remove the bonus and you're out 9 grand. Whoops.
If you wanna go that far a simple dispel Magic spell will permanently remove the bonus and you're out 9 grand. Whoops.You also can't resell it or trade it in for a cooler weapon that you find while adventuring.
It's cheaper because it's less effective then a real magic weapon. Unlike those a magic fang/weapon enhanced attack does not pierce DR nor can it ever go over a +5 in total bonuses. That's worth a significant drop in price.
This, although it's worth noting that an antimagic field won't remove it, so the permanently enhanced monk doesn't have to fear them... just dispelling traps and casters.