I think focusing on the cost formula for AoMF detracts from the other (much more) relevant issues revolving around monks and FoB. Just my .02.
Agreed
Unfortunately they are related.
FoB, and the monk in general, is fine design wise. It functions the way it is supposed to.
Sadly somewhere in the 3.0,3.5,3.75,PFRPG evolution the game turned into "Monty Haul", something that was sneered at in old school D&D. While there is nothing inherently wrong with a game where your magic items are as important as your actual character design, it is when one of the character designs is handicapped out of the gate by suboptimal magic item selection and worse limited potential compared to competing classes.
I threw out the Ki Crafter feat because unlike the martial classes the monk can't take a feat tax to make his own items without multiclassing. That's screwed up. Doubly so once you realize that even the conservative monk players have identified that there is an item that they must have to operate past a certain level.
On the other hand, this change has made me notice the Manoeuvre Master, which is actually quite the neat archetype, especially for being able to wear armour pretty well. The armour expert trait means a mithral breastplate by the high levels with no proficiency problems and only fast movement lost.
Monks have the best-designed archetypes in the game. They have many thoughtful, cool archetypes that really transform the class while remaining more-or-less in-band power-wise. Most classes mostly have take-it-or-leave-it archetypes, or archetypes that are kind of cool but don't really affect how you build a character. Monk stands out by having a large number of amazingly designed ones.
My alchemist has one and loves it dearly for monstrous physique. The item that is supposed to be ideal for monks is oddly enough being bought up by everyone else.
Having it be both unarmed and natural seems to me to be just simplification of concept. Of course the catch to that is that it winds up being a tax on the general monk who will never, typically, be using a natural weapon. When you factor that on top of the, as currently presented, flurry rules which are markedly worse than using the standard two weapon feats it makes it somewhat hard to want to play a monk.
Edit: I'm looking over the monk's flurry ability and I'm thinking why not play a ranger instead. In my very humble opinion if flurry is supposed to work like the two weapon fighting chain exactly then get rid of flurry and grant the feats instead. Of course adding in a corollary that states that when using them monks bab is equal to level. That way they can at least qualify as perquisites for the rest of them.
This was what I was thinking as well, if we really fall under the as intended ruling.
That said, I still do not see why the flurry needs (needed?) to change away from the single weapon thing. And nowhere have I seen unarmed strikes could be dual wielded. Does this mean that any class can now TWF with unarmed attacks. Means that anybody walking into that throne room is now threat. Most enemies only provoke once, So a party surrounds one dude at a time and lets rip. 2-3 full BAB classes still wont miss and most of their damage will be from their high str, as they are not MAD classes.
Guess this means that the TWF ninja and the unarmed ninja are now also potentially the same build. Just get the monk's robes and your set. Getting in double the usual SA you would get in a full round, and you are not even "wielding" any weapons. You also have a ki pool, stars at a lower level no less! Wonder if this means that not only did the ninja break the rogue, it also broke the monk? Greater attack penalty you say? At level 10 you can have greater invis. giving a bonus to hit and denying the enemy his dex on every hit. And making you a lot harder to hit!
Aug 23, 2011. This is the date a FAQ question was doted 'if using a temple sword (in two hands, for Power Attack) + flurry' was valid.
This leads me to two questions.
A) The Devs have not been aware that this is how a lot - if not most- have read the rules. Since it's been up again and again how people actually read the rules, does this indicate that the Devs have lost contact with their fan base?
B) The Devs have been aware that this is how a lot - if not most- have read the rules, but the Devs have chosen not to address it.
As for 'Monk using unarmed damage being sort of OK if compared to a fighter (or other full BAB class) if the fighter has been designed as a monk (specialized in unarmed damage)' is just like saying a high level bard is fine as a arcane caster if you compare it to a high level sorcerer that is built like a bard and tries to mimic a bard, a Sorcerer with only 16 char and otherwise built as a bard (high str if melee or high dex if archer).
Why compare a really crappy optimized fighter with the monk. Using TWF is far from optimized. Using TWF and unarmed strike is madness.
If the assumption is that the unarmed monk deals competitive damage that lets him participate as a proud member in combat, then he should be compared to what a damage dealers normally can do, not what the normally can do if they are built to play a crappy version of the monk. Few full BAB classes are designed as TWF character since the TWF concept is far from good. I don't think any sane players would build a Barbarian or fighter using TWF and unarmed strike. Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger or monk. The unarmed strike options is bad that's why people start using the temple sword in two hand.
A level 18 bard with char 16 can cast spells from all his spell levels and he can do a lot of other cool stuff. The bard can participate as a proud member in spell casting if compared to other spell casters build as a bard. Why would they?
BTW, I really don't like the archetypes has left the vanilla classes in the dust.
[Thread jack]@ LoreKeeper. Thanks for the help in the locked thread. I didn't mean you had to post the builds I just pointed out full BAB classes will always bring a monk down to his knees when talking damage. I've seen the DPR Olypmics threads, but I don't get the math. [/Thread jack]
On the other hand, this change has made me notice the Manoeuvre Master, which is actually quite the neat archetype, especially for being able to wear armour pretty well. The armour expert trait means a mithral breastplate by the high levels with no proficiency problems and only fast movement lost.Monks have the best-designed archetypes in the game. They have many thoughtful, cool archetypes that really transform the class while remaining more-or-less in-band power-wise. Most classes mostly have take-it-or-leave-it archetypes, or archetypes that are kind of cool but don't really affect how you build a character. Monk stands out by having a large number of amazingly designed ones.
You know, it's interesting to consider that in light of Sean Reynolds' "I don't want to obsolete/create power creep" comments in the UE thread that led up to this.
I totally get the sentiment of what he's aiming for -- he does not want options in the splats that are patently better than what's in core. Options should be options, not replacements. ((I also understand why specifically he doesn't want an item that replaces the Amulet of Mighty Fists, even thought the Amulet of Mighty Fists needs replacing--new players/core only players may not know it exists or feel "forced" to buy another product they don't want. How to fix that is a tricky dilemma--although in this specific case it might be worth solving.))
But in a way, many of the existing monk archetypes in APG, UC, and UM are just that--replacements. They make monks that are largely more playable and masterable than the core monk (the borkage created by the flurry "clarification" to the sohei and zen archer notwithstanding). No one calls it "power creep" because the monk archetypes just makes something difficult for many to play well easier to play--or gives focus to a character class that according to many lacked it--rather than making something that was fine as-is into something that was overpowered. But it ALSO still in a way leaves new gamers and core only gamers in the dust, because without the options provided by the monk archetypes, players are left with the core monk that many have trouble mastering and/or determining a focus for their character that consistently works (and if you pick your focus to be "unarmed attacks" you will be sorely disappointed as soon as all your fellow players get cool enhancement bonuses to weapons--which gets accounted for in determining monster CR--and you're left with no enhancements or ways to bypass many forms of DR without having to rely on other party members to help you, and your only trick is dealing a lot of damage with a multi-attack option no one's quite sure how it actually works at the moment).
Power creep is a good thing when applied to the stuff widely considered to be weak or underpowered. If there was no power creep to the benefit of said weak options, they would never get fixed and noone who wants a competent PC will ever play them / those that aren't rules savvy enough to note the gimpiness will attempt to play them and just get frustrated.
It's when power creep happens to the already best-in-class stuff that things get borked. Like the teleportation subschool for conjurors in APG. Conjuration is already one of the best schools, and the conjuror benefits were already pretty good. Then that came along and said, "Hey, how would you like a Su teleport to get out of grapple free 3 + int times per day, too?"
THAT is an example of bad power creep.
I think we agree on the broad sentiment, StreamoftheSky, but I differentiate power creep ("If you use X supplement, your character will be notably and brokenly powerful compared to core") from improving/errata-ing/correcting something that is essentially poorly written/expressed/designed in core. A number of the monk issues are the latter, IMO.
Monks are controllers. They control the battle where it occurs who it occurs with. They have good damage but not the same output of the fighter.
They cannot control as well as a fighter either, so that clearly is NOT their role.
...Or they could implement my simple fix: Ki Strike (Magic) makes unarmed strike a +1 enhancement per 4 monk levels, continuously active as long as he has ki remaining. AoMF remains the same. An incredibly expensive item that has the benefit of not needing a +1 before adding special properties. A Monk 20 then has a +5 enhancement and up to +5 in special weapon proprties from the AoMF. Simple and balanced.
This has been suggested, but that would mean rewriting core and I don't think the Devs are going to go that far!
I don't see why this is such an issue, nobody complains that the rapid fire sequence allows using a single weapon to make multiple attacks when the two weapon fighter cannot. I just don't see it as that big of an issue, certainly not enough to justify the complexity of tracking what a monk can do when he has which body parts unavailable and how many attacks he is limited to at that point.
Exactly. Nothing was broken, so why did it need fixing?
What about giving the monk an ability similar to the Paladin's "Divine Bond" ability that allows him to enhance his weapon with bonuses and weapon properties?Why is letting the monk be able to afford a continuous enhancement / special properties bonus weapon on par with other martials so against everyone's sensibilities?
It isn't against the sensibilities of a great many people. But remember, some people want to keep "sub-optimal choices" in the game. Perhaps they view the monk as one of these choices, and want it to stay that way is all I can think of.
I understand the clarification, since FoB specifically calls out to the TWF feat chain, but there's something wrong when a "clarification" raises more questions and problems then the original presumption did.
It's like "Here, have TWF, but it only works with a specific group of weapons and has all these IF/THEN/BUT's that it's not really TWF but it is."
It's all the downside of TWF with none of the upside. That, we are told, is "fair" to the other combat classes. I don't get it either, given all the other things those classes can do with TWF that the monk cannot.
I think the best thing the designers could do for the monk is make it less MAD. I would somehow integrate a rule that allows the monk to use dex instead of str for damage or either their wisdom.
Adding Wis to hit or damage is one possibility, but on the whole if we give the monk parity in weapon enhancement to the pure combat classes, it doesn't need it that badly. The biggest thing the monk got hit with in Pathfinder was the 'no Improved Natural Attack' rule. If they just let that back in, it would make a big difference.
Remember, monks can already reduce MADness by using Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers to get Dex into their attacks and moves.
|
I rather see static bonuses for monk unarmed strikes instead of bigger dice. Fighters get weapon training, so this is something they can do for monks as well.
The sensei monk archetype uses WIS to attack instead of STR. I like that archetype, but it wasn't a good damage dealer. Going maneuvers was doable, but I like maneuver master better for that. Those 2 archetypes would be good together, but they replace the same things.
|
Since Monks in Pathfinder are also built around a "Ki" mechanic then I think that should be looked at a bit more closely. When I look at a Pathfinder/D&D monk, I see the Shaolin type monks who have the Iron Body, channel their chi to achieve great feats etc.... The Paladin's Divine Bond ability actually works better for the monk than it does the Paladin. A Monk using his life essence to be able to do special things is wonderful. I could see a Monk using his Ki to cause his fists to burst into flames, or freeze over, or start to secrete an acidic liquid etc...
I'm not sure I agree with the 'it's not fair to two-weapon fighting builds' argument... just because two-weapon builds need to spend a bunch of extra feats and twice as much gold just to compare with a basic two-handed weapon build, it doesn't mean that monks should have to suffer too.
I agree. Fighters with TWF feats also don't lose those feats when they strap on armor, and they're not limited to the types of weapons they can TWF with.
EDIT: ...and I skipped about 12 pages. Sorry got down to the bottom of page 1 and got exited about posting. My apologies if this has been covered, and/or the conversation has moved on. I'll go back and read now.
One thing I thought about is why is the monks unarmed so high? In AD&D it made sense for a 20th level monk to have the 5 or 6 d4. The rounds were one minute and length and a single attack represented many blows. So a single hit was like 6 or more hits. In the 6 second round do we really need a damage that is twice that of a bastard sword?
I get the increase in damage, but it still should have some limits. I think it should improve, but overshadow their own weapons. I think improving this relationship would go a long way, that's where my thought on a lower damage die and have a training feature on top of it that improves the hit and damage of all monk weapons is a win win. It keeps the flavor, makes both options viable.
Then Brass knuckles don't need a nerf, and then fix AoMS. Just a thought.
In 1st edition the monk tops out at 6d4 with 4 attacks per round. Fighters, paladins, and rangers only got 3 attacks per round with their weapons. Later on, but still in 1st, when two-weapon fighting was first allowed, it brought those martial classes up to the same level as far as numbers of attacks went.
Of course, the 1st edition monk didn't use fighter THAC0: he fought with either a Rogue or Cleric THAC0 (I can't remember). But, as an aside, when the 1st edition monk used WEAPONS (any weapon with which he was proficient), he gained a damage bonus equal to one-half his monk level.
Monks didn't hit as often as fighters, but when they did you knew it.
Master Arminas
I'm not sure I agree with the 'it's not fair to two-weapon fighting builds' argument... just because two-weapon builds need to spend a bunch of extra feats and twice as much gold just to compare with a basic two-handed weapon build, it doesn't mean that monks should have to suffer too.I agree. Fighters with TWF feats also don't lose those feats when they strap on armor, and they're not limited to the types of weapons they can TWF with.
EDIT: ...and I skipped about 12 pages. Sorry got down to the bottom of page 1 and got exited about posting. My apologies if this has been covered, and/or the conversation has moved on. I'll go back and read now.
It's all good, Jodokai! Just be sure and hit the FAQ button on post #1 to keep this in the in-box of the developers (I'm sure they are still gnashing their teeth at how this has bloomed out of control).
Master Arminas
Just a thought, I know it's not what everyone wants, but I think that is one of the issues designers take with the monk. Can't give him good stuff because the Unarmed Damage is out of proportion to the weapons they use.
If we were writing the monk from scratch I would agree, but I think we need to stick to changes that can be implemented or tacked on to the existing monk. We are not writing Pathfinder 2.0 - yet.
I'm not sure I agree with the 'it's not fair to two-weapon fighting builds' argument... just because two-weapon builds need to spend a bunch of extra feats and twice as much gold just to compare with a basic two-handed weapon build, it doesn't mean that monks should have to suffer too.I agree. Fighters with TWF feats also don't lose those feats when they strap on armor, and they're not limited to the types of weapons they can TWF with.
They have special abilities that work through whatever weapons they choose to use, too, and get to access the whole TWF feat tree - if they want Two Weapon Defence they don't have to buy feats twice to do it!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Late to the party, although I have been following it with interest from the beginning. Put me down in master arminas' camp...+1 to basically all of his points.
While the point has already been made, this situation does bring up a question with Paizo's internal organization. Either:
1) There are two sides of the office, one that makes the product (AP's, accessories, etc.) and the other that makes the rules. Obviously, based on the stat blocks provided in the AP's and the GMG (as well as archetypes like the Zen Archer and Sohei that CLEARLY do no work with the clarification), the assumption by Paizo's own staff was that they interpreted it similarly to how arminas (and the group that I have been playing with) has. This would indicate a lack of review and or communication between the two groups.
and/or,
2) SKR gave a quick response to a long series of questions regarding the AoMF and monk attacks, and then JB sided with that interpretation to prevent his co-worker from looking bad. To his credit, JB indicated their plans to review and make a final ruling on the issue, and this shows a commitment on his part to customer service.
I will say that some of SKR's responses were somewhat troublesome. I would not expect such a tone being directed at one's customers, even in the midst of a contentious debate such as this.
This party is just getting started, Joachim! You know, I had a barbarian character in 3.5 with that exact name, spelling and all!
Master Arminas
|
I will say that some of SKR's responses were somewhat troublesome. I would not expect such a tone being directed at one's customers, even in the midst of a contentious debate such as this.
That's actually kind of common. :(
He has a tendency to drop bomb shells, and then not understand when people either show him he is wrong (or flaws in the reasoning) or a lot of people explain a different side to his opinions, like here. He isn't the only individual that tends to get an attitude with customers who disagree, or point out inconsistancies, but it isn't overly common for the company at all.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that some of SKR's responses were somewhat troublesome. I would not expect such a tone being directed at one's customers, even in the midst of a contentious debate such as this.That's actually kind of common. :(
He has a tendency to drop bomb shells, and then not understand when people either show him he is wrong (or flaws in the reasoning) or a lot of people explain a different side to his opinions, like here. He isn't the only individual that tends to get an attitude with customers who disagree, or point out inconsistancies, but it isn't overly common for the company at all.
When your job and your vocation are working out problems with a system, it's hard not to get defensive when a bunch of enthusiasts who don't get paid jump up and down and attack the ideas you did get paid to come up with and tell you that you are wrong. If they are correct, it's even worse.
I have every sympathy with what SKR is trying to do. I still think that he's missed the point of FoB and reached the wrong decision, but I do follow his reasoning and I do understand that he's walking in a minefield where whatever he does, someone will attack it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish personal attacks and call-outs towards specific devs would stop, even(or rather especially) when they're voicing stances I'd otherwise agree with. Things aren't nearly as nasty now as they were a few years ago, but it still pops up every now and then.
On the flipside, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't frustrated by the tone sometimes. The "armchair developer" crack back during the Vow of Poverty mess was probably the low point.
I'd like to think customers and developers alike can have discussions about how to better the game or what they want out of it without either "side" going into attack mode.
I will say that some of SKR's responses were somewhat troublesome. I would not expect such a tone being directed at one's customers, even in the midst of a contentious debate such as this.That's actually kind of common. :(
He has a tendency to drop bomb shells, and then not understand when people either show him he is wrong (or flaws in the reasoning) or a lot of people explain a different side to his opinions, like here. He isn't the only individual that tends to get an attitude with customers who disagree, or point out inconsistancies, but it isn't overly common for the company at all.When your job and your vocation are working out problems with a system, it's hard not to get defensive when a bunch of enthusiasts who don't get paid jump up and down and attack the ideas you did get paid to come up with and tell you that you are wrong. If they are correct, it's even worse.
I have every sympathy with what SKR is trying to do. I still think that he's missed the point of FoB and reached the wrong decision, but I do follow his reasoning and I do understand that he's walking in a minefield where whatever he does, someone will attack it.
Agreed. Especially when many of the people that are complaining have the same angry tone that we fault him for. Having worked for a company that deals with complaints from customers, I can feel his pain. It's not easy to balance something and a lot of people keep thinking that it is. Already, reading back on the last two pages and other threads on how to fix FoB, we see people can't exactly agree on what homebrew version is balanced. So, imagine if that was your job? At the very least the argument has gotten more civil for the most part.
I always feel bad for Devs, because they always get the business end of the stick.
But I also feel bad for the customers who ask for answers to rule problems and get no responses. How long has there been "confusion" about one monk thing or another? There was confusion about FoB before SKR's post. All his post did was whack the hornet's nest.
I always feel bad for Devs, because they always get the business end of the stick.
But I also feel bad for the customers who ask for answers to rule problems and get no responses. How long has there been "confusion" about one monk thing or another? There was confusion about FoB before SKR's post. All his post did was whack the hornet's nest.
Well that's not completely true. People were confused and they got a response. It was just not the one people liked/agreed with. Now, they are re-evaluating this new ruling. I personally don't like the new ruling so I hope it is reversed.
Well, what this new "ruling" means for me is: monks should now stick to unarmed. How I have always played monks. Except for my PFS monk of course... Who has a single weapon. The problem doesn't go away by simply picking up another of the same weapons (its not light). He has feats like deflect arrows and is using crane style aiming for Crane Wing, both deflects needs an hand free.
This means I have to make half of my attacks at a much worse attack and damage bonus. Get the AoMFs you say? Right, if I remember correctly my weapon enhancements will now cost 3.5 times that of a single weapon. Also means I need to get rid of that amulet of Natural armour.
So I hope that everything simply "goes back to normal" pretty soon.
|
|
Agreed. Especially when many of the people that are complaining have the same angry tone that we fault him for. Having worked for a company that deals with complaints from customers, I can feel his pain. It's not easy to balance something and a lot of people keep thinking that it is. Already, reading back on the last two pages and other threads on how to fix FoB, we see people can't exactly agree on what homebrew version is balanced. So, imagine if that was your job? At the very least the argument has gotten more civil for the most part.
Difference being that he's not paying us to play his game. It's the other way around. I understand that some of the responses were somewhat over-the-top (one of the reasons I have stayed silent on the matter, letting the dust settle a little bit), but he needs to maintain some level of civility with his customers, especially when he is being challenged with reasonable arguments (see: how this new ruling invalidates entire archetypes). Instead, he chose to respond with snark...and in the process showed his lack of respect of the people that literally 'pay his salary'.
|
Difference being that he's not paying us to play his game. It's the other way around. I understand that some of the responses were somewhat over-the-top (one of the reasons I have stayed silent on the matter, letting the dust settle a little bit), but he needs to maintain some level of civility with his customers, especially when he is being challenged with reasonable arguments (see: how this new ruling invalidates entire archetypes). Instead, he chose to respond with snark...and in the process showed his lack of respect of the people that literally 'pay his salary'.
[soapbox]His responses don't trouble me in the least. People were being snarky (at best) or pretty rude (at worst). He responded in a snarky manner. As a person that spends 95% of his time being a smart @$$, I can relate. I took his comments as cheeky jokes, nothing more. He is human after all and really, who doesn't like being a bit of a "wise acre" from time to time.[/soapbox]
That being said, I really love monks and have always played them the way most of the voices here have considered them being played. Going forward, I'm going to have to take a hard look at them (until an official answer is given) to determine if they're worth playing under the "new" interpretation. I'm really interested in the Zen Archer, also, which makes me really excited to see how that shakes out, though I imagine it will be something to the effect of "as flurry of blows, but using his bow for every attack."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. Especially when many of the people that are complaining have the same angry tone that we fault him for. Having worked for a company that deals with complaints from customers, I can feel his pain. It's not easy to balance something and a lot of people keep thinking that it is. Already, reading back on the last two pages and other threads on how to fix FoB, we see people can't exactly agree on what homebrew version is balanced. So, imagine if that was your job? At the very least the argument has gotten more civil for the most part.Difference being that he's not paying us to play his game. It's the other way around. I understand that some of the responses were somewhat over-the-top (one of the reasons I have stayed silent on the matter, letting the dust settle a little bit), but he needs to maintain some level of civility with his customers, especially when he is being challenged with reasonable arguments (see: how this new ruling invalidates entire archetypes). Instead, he chose to respond with snark...and in the process showed his lack of respect of the people that literally 'pay his salary'.
Believe me I see where you are coming from. Generally speaking, it's important to keep a professional face when dealing with customers. But, it is difficult to try and keep a face of civility when the people that pay his salary don't show the same. It works both ways. People get invested and passionate over a hobby and it is difficult to not be sarcastic and caustic when something in that hobby is changed in a way we dislike. But it is the responsibility of the customer to show the same civility that they wish to expect from an employee of a company. Likewise for the employee. When one member of this social contract doesn't hold up their end, it makes it difficult for the other to. It's something I hope many posters keep in mind when they are displeased with a ruling.
In this end, it's a simple matter of treating others the way you wish to be treated.
Well, what this new "ruling" means for me is: monks should now stick to unarmed. How I have always played monks. Except for my PFS monk of course... Who has a single weapon. The problem doesn't go away by simply picking up another of the same weapons (its not light). He has feats like deflect arrows and is using crane style aiming for Crane Wing, both deflects needs an hand free.
This means I have to make half of my attacks at a much worse attack and damage bonus. Get the AoMFs you say? Right, if I remember correctly my weapon enhancements will now cost 3.5 times that of a single weapon. Also means I need to get rid of that amulet of Natural armour.
So I hope that everything simply "goes back to normal" pretty soon.
You could attach the amulet to another slot. There are rules for different slots in Pathfinder. Nothing says it has to be an amulet.
Or carry multiple potions of Barkskin.
Nothing, except WBL.
Nothing, except WBL.
This is the issue, always. That's why I suggested a two-slot item (feet and hands) that was cheaper. It at least gave an economic option that didn't gimp you.
Well, what this new "ruling" means for me is: monks should now stick to unarmed. How I have always played monks. Except for my PFS monk of course... Who has a single weapon. The problem doesn't go away by simply picking up another of the same weapons (its not light). He has feats like deflect arrows and is using crane style aiming for Crane Wing, both deflects needs an hand free.
This means I have to make half of my attacks at a much worse attack and damage bonus. Get the AoMFs you say? Right, if I remember correctly my weapon enhancements will now cost 3.5 times that of a single weapon. Also means I need to get rid of that amulet of Natural armour.
So I hope that everything simply "goes back to normal" pretty soon.
You could attach the amulet to another slot. There are rules for different slots in Pathfinder. Nothing says it has to be an amulet.
Or carry multiple potions of Barkskin.
Okay, did some checking. From what I can tell a vest of natural armour would cost the same as an amulet of natural armour of the same enhancement? Or in this case a Vest of Mighty Fists, the same as an amulet? I do not see anything about strange slots. I was checking in the Magic Item Creation section.
Okay, did some checking. From what I can tell a vest of natural armour would cost the same as an amulet of natural armour of the same enhancement? Or in this case a Vest of Mighty Fists, the same as an amulet? I do not see anything about strange slots. I was checking in the Magic Item Creation section.Well, what this new "ruling" means for me is: monks should now stick to unarmed. How I have always played monks. Except for my PFS monk of course... Who has a single weapon. The problem doesn't go away by simply picking up another of the same weapons (its not light). He has feats like deflect arrows and is using crane style aiming for Crane Wing, both deflects needs an hand free.
This means I have to make half of my attacks at a much worse attack and damage bonus. Get the AoMFs you say? Right, if I remember correctly my weapon enhancements will now cost 3.5 times that of a single weapon. Also means I need to get rid of that amulet of Natural armour.
So I hope that everything simply "goes back to normal" pretty soon.
You could attach the amulet to another slot. There are rules for different slots in Pathfinder. Nothing says it has to be an amulet.
Or carry multiple potions of Barkskin.
I suppose you can get a Ring of Protection. Costs as much as an Amulet of Natural Armor and it takes up a different slot. Other than that, you get free AC when you get a Headband of Wisdom. And that's AC you can never lose from touch attacks or being flat-footed.
Okay, did some checking. From what I can tell a vest of natural armour would cost the same as an amulet of natural armour of the same enhancement? Or in this case a Vest of Mighty Fists, the same as an amulet? I do not see anything about strange slots. I was checking in the Magic Item Creation section.Well, what this new "ruling" means for me is: monks should now stick to unarmed. How I have always played monks. Except for my PFS monk of course... Who has a single weapon. The problem doesn't go away by simply picking up another of the same weapons (its not light). He has feats like deflect arrows and is using crane style aiming for Crane Wing, both deflects needs an hand free.
This means I have to make half of my attacks at a much worse attack and damage bonus. Get the AoMFs you say? Right, if I remember correctly my weapon enhancements will now cost 3.5 times that of a single weapon. Also means I need to get rid of that amulet of Natural armour.
So I hope that everything simply "goes back to normal" pretty soon.
You could attach the amulet to another slot. There are rules for different slots in Pathfinder. Nothing says it has to be an amulet.
Or carry multiple potions of Barkskin.
I have seen people quote double cost if you make an item for a slot other than the one intended, but I can't find that in the book right now. All I see is if it is a slotless item, the cost is doubled.
The other way to do it would be to combine the mighty fists and natural armor into one amulet:
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a
character’s body, the cost of adding any additional ability to
that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds
the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the
cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of
invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
You could make an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1 and Natural Armor +1, though figuring the cost would be difficult, since as separate items, one is 2000gp and the other is 5000gp. So if the Mighty Fists were the starting item, the combined cost would be 8000gp, and if the Natural Armor were the starting item, the combined cost would be 9500gp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen people quote double cost if you make an item for a slot other than the one intended, but I can't find that in the book right now. All I see is if it is a slotless item, the cost is doubled.
I think some folks believe that 3.5's 'slot affinity' is applicable in Pathfinder. That is one of the (stated) reasons behind the even higher cost of the Amulet of Mighty Fists in 3.5: it had an extra 50% tagged on for being in an inappropriate slot.
Pathfinder removed the slot affinity, which should have cut the cost for a +1 AoMF from 6,000 gp (3.5) to 4,000 gp, but instead they priced it at 5,000 gp. Same applies to the +2, +3, +4, and +5 versions. Reasoning being that the AoMF doesn't need an actual +1 bonus to get a special weapon property (such as flaming).
I don't know about you guys, but I'd be fine with dumping that aspect to get even a small price break on the AoMF. After all, the problem with the monk isn't damage; it's hitting CR appropriate targets in the first place and getting through their DR.
If the AoMF was cheaper, and if its enhancement bonuses work like weapon enhancement bonuses (i.e., bypass damage reduction at +3 or higher), then a lot of the grumbling would go away.
Speaking of which, that is another question that has never (to the best of my knowledge) been answered by a developer: I have a monk with a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists. No special weapon properties, just a straight up +5 enhancement bonus. Does this mean my unarmed strikes ignore DR based on cold iron and silver (+3 equivilant), adamantine (+4 equivilant), and alignment (+5 equivilant)?
Master Arminas
I see no reason to assume the basic enhancement bonuses to hit/damage of an AoMF would work any different from the enhancement bonuses to hit/damage of an enchanted weapon.
I suppose you can get a Ring of Protection. Costs as much as an Amulet of Natural Armor and it takes up a different slot. Other than that, you get free AC when you get a Headband of Wisdom. And that's AC you can never lose from touch attacks or being flat-footed.
Seriously, by mid level you should have a ring, amulet and bracers, as well as belt and headband, to boost AC. If you don't, you just became a very squishy target. The ring is not an alternative, it's already assumed.
I suppose you can get a Ring of Protection. Costs as much as an Amulet of Natural Armor and it takes up a different slot. Other than that, you get free AC when you get a Headband of Wisdom. And that's AC you can never lose from touch attacks or being flat-footed.Seriously, by mid level you should have a ring, amulet and bracers, as well as belt and headband, to boost AC. If you don't, you just became a very squishy target. The ring is not an alternative, it's already assumed.
That's a fair point. You still get AC from your Headband of Wisdom at the least so that is cool in my opinion.
That's a fair point. You still get AC from your Headband of Wisdom at the least so that is cool in my opinion.I suppose you can get a Ring of Protection. Costs as much as an Amulet of Natural Armor and it takes up a different slot. Other than that, you get free AC when you get a Headband of Wisdom. And that's AC you can never lose from touch attacks or being flat-footed.Seriously, by mid level you should have a ring, amulet and bracers, as well as belt and headband, to boost AC. If you don't, you just became a very squishy target. The ring is not an alternative, it's already assumed.
Yes you do, but consider:
Monk gets Monk AC bonus, plus Wis, plus bracers. Fighter gets armour and shield. Everything else (natural armour, ring of protection etc.). If your monk starts with 16 wisdom, then +6 from a headband only give him +6 in total.
So for monk at level 20 AC is 8 + Wis + 5, makes for 19.
Fighter it is 9 + 5 for best armour, plus 2 + 5 makes 21.
Now take off +5 from the monk because the amulet of natural armour has to make way for an amulet of mighty fists and you see whe the monk isn't happy about that AoMF.