I put a suggested item (and some feats) in the first post of this thread. Please feel free to critique.
I believe it should be priced the same as a weapon: if it works for unarmed strikes only. Not a double weapon. Not 1.5 times a weapon. As a single magic weapons. Having it go up to +10 (enhancement plus special poperties) could solve a lot of issues.
Master Arminas
I compromised at 1.5 x weapon cost, because it can be argued that it is more than a single weapon (if you compare to a TWF build as will inevitably happen). However it is less than two weapons or a double weapon because it cannot carry different sets of properties.
The Amulet of Natural Attacks is priced higher because it works for hand, feet, head, bite, legs, elbow effectively turning your entire body in to a +1 weapon or whatever the bonus is aside from the fact that a +1 sword is only for that sword and no other form of attack. I would say the price is set very well.
I agree. The problem is that it is expensive for what the monk gets out of it, without one he has no chance of hitting CR appropriate challenges at high level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Amulet of Natural Attacks is priced higher because it works for hand, feet, head, bite, legs, elbow effectively turning your entire body in to a +1 weapon or whatever the bonus is aside from the fact that a +1 sword is only for that sword and no other form of attack. I would say the price is set very well.
No. No. NO. Unarmed strikes are ONE weapon. Just because SKR and other developers want to change that doesn't mean that they are correct. The original (D&D 3rd edition) Amulet of the Mighty Fists was priced high because of the monk's scaling unarmed damage and the developers at the time considered it worthwhile to make the monk pay for increasing a weapon that could potentially deal 20 points of damage before Strength and enhancement. It was also deliberately set in the wrong slot, so that added on an extra 50% cost. Remember that version was higher priced than in Pathfinder (I believe a +5 cost 180,000 gp, if I am remembering right).
Pathfinder did away with the +50% for inappropriate slot, but they didn't reduce the cost by a full third. It went from 3x what a weapon would cost to 2.5x. The reason for that is because the amulet of the mighty fists might have started as a monk item, but it became so useful to critters, animal companions, mounts, edilons, the whole natural attack spectrum that reducing the cost more would have made it far too good for critters and druids and rangers and summoners.
And it is correctly price for that purpose. bonus x bonus x 2,000 gp for the unarmed strikes; bonus x bonus x 2,000 gp for the natural weapons +50% for a secondary property. Fits exactly the current Pathfinder pricing.
This is why people who play monks say that their characters are still getting screwed. We don't have a single item that only enhances unarmed strikes, because the current design/development team believes that would be meta-gaming. So monks are stuck with an item that has 60% of its cost sunk in features that are not relevant to the monk class.
In order to cut down the complaints, they came up with this idea (dropped since the first days of 3.0) that unarmed attacks are multiple weapons and you are paying for that--not for the ability to enhance natural attacks. It is sophistry, nothing more.
In my view, unarmed strikes are and should be considered to be a single weapon. Meaning that you can't two-weapon fight with just your fists. Monks don't have two-weapon fighting--they have flurry of blows. Getting enhancement bonuses and special weapon properties to unarmed strikes should be no different than applying those same bonuses to weapons.
And if that makes people who use two-weapon fighting upset; well, they can be upset. I don't imagine there would be a sudden rush of people intending to play super-uber-fighting monks; do you? No. Because even with that change, the monk will still remain a very low power class in relation other other canon classes in Pathfinder.
Master Arminas
I would replace ki strike by a +1 enhancement bonus to hit, increasing by a further +1 per four levels (+5 at level 20) that bypasses DR as a weapon enhancement. End of problem.
|
I just give them the additional benefit of working as an Amulet of Natural Armor of their level. That takes a lot of the sting out of the high price, while still keeping them costly enough to not be abused. And it helps out Monks and Druids in an area they're happy for help in, but not to any broken degree.
What do you guys think of this idea?
An Amulet similar to the AoMF that only gives bonus equivalents, and not numerical bonuses (i.e. no +1, +2, +3, +4, nor +5, just flaming, holy, etc.) The Amulet can only go to a equivalent +5 bonus level. The cost would be the same as a weapon enchantment of the same type and level.
In combination with this, the Monk is given a new Class Ability that grants a +1 to Attacks and Damage for every four Monk Levels the character has.
Thoughts? Weak, Strong, Just Right?
Strong. For better or worse the monk already gets scaling damage, remember. +5 to hit and 2d10 damage is keeping up with the combat classes, +5 to hit and 2d10+5 damage could be excessive.
If the monk's unarmed damage was static, I would agree this is what the doctor ordered, but it isn't.
If the monk just gets the enhancement to hit, then the AoMF isn't so overblown because you can use it to add static damage or use it to add effects. +5 to hit keeps you up with the combat classes and 2d10 flaming holy axiomatic damage (for example) is perfectly adequate, and while you are paying less than for a +10 weapon you are getting less for it.
|
|
Anybody else think that if the AoMF would also apply to Nat Armor, the price would be worth it? Assuming you use numerical buffs of course. Giving +X to Attacks/Damage/Nat Armor does sound fairly strong, and it removes the problem of losing that neck slot.
For clarity: In my games you get the NA bonus whether you went bonus or properties on offense. So a +1 Acidic AoMF gives a +2 NA bonus.
And it's a bit more expensive than a weapon and AoNA of it's level...but a bit less than two weapons and an AoNA, which strikes me as a good midpoint to be at.
So you think if I modify the above to say that the Monk would get +1 to Attack rolls per four Monk levels, and leave out the damage part, it would be good, without being overly powerful? Keep the modified AoMF, reduce t's price, and give the Monk this class ability?
The bonus to hit is the big thing the monk needs to keep up. The AoMF then becomes gravy, not main course. It doesn't then need to be modified because you can use it for properties without sacrificing accuracy. The cost of it, and adding natural armour for 150% cost of an AoNA isn't even a major gripe, because you are paying for something non-essential.
If you think about it, by the time compare the cost of an AoNA x 150% plus AoMF for properties, at level 20, to the cost of a +10 weapon which other classes are forking out for, it suddenly loses pain. The AoMF was only painful when it was costing you that much for something that was only ever half as effective. With the bonus to hit and scaling unarmed damage making up for the first +5, that doesn't hurt any more.
I'm sorry, I do not quite get what you are sayng with your second paragraph. Are you agreeing with Deadmanwalking about adding auto Natural Armor abilities to the modified AoMF?
No, I was saying it was unnecessary. At level 20 you would have a +5 modifier to hit with unarmed strike, and an amulet of mighty fists for +5 worth of features/properties. If you incorporate an amulet of natural armour into the bargain, at 150% cost, the total cost still comes to 200,000gp. This is exactly the cost of a +10 weapon, which you effectively have with +5 to hit, 2d10 base damage (OK, no static +5 but it's 2d10, you know?) and +5 worth of special properties, with +5 to AC on top.
You don't need to add in the extra AoNA bonus into the AoMF for free, it works out nicely without it.
Just a thought though, doesn't the +1 attack per four levels of Monk still cause the lower levels of Monk to be behind the other melee warriors who can buy those bonuses? I agree, it seems to even out around level 20, but how many characters are taken that far? My group tends to not go above 15.
What if the Monk's Robe was given the added benefit of gaining the attack bonus as well as the unarmed damage and ac boost as if you were five levels higher?
Good point - and good solution!
|
|
No, I was saying it was unnecessary. At level 20 you would have a +5 modifier to hit with unarmed strike, and an amulet of mighty fists for +5 worth of features/properties. If you incorporate an amulet of natural armour into the bargain, at 150% cost, the total cost still comes to 200,000gp. This is exactly the cost of a +10 weapon, which you effectively have with +5 to hit, 2d10 base damage (OK, no static +5 but it's 2d10, you know?) and +5 worth of special properties, with +5 to AC on top.
You don't need to add in the extra AoNA bonus into the AoMF for free, it works out nicely without it.
For the record, my proposal was intended as an alternative to the others listed, not necessarily as something additive. I do have other Monk house rules that I use with it...but nothing that gives a flat to-hit bonus.
Or, to put it another way: I tend to agree with Dabbler that my solution plus Optimistic Cynic's is probably a tad excessive.
Good point - and good solution!The problem will be increasing the cost of the robe if we are going to increase its benefits. Perhaps I can switch out the +1 stunning fist (already houseruled to affect elemental fist) for the buff to the attack. Otherwise, it would only make sense the cost for the robe would increase to some extent.
Indeed. But consider that the monk is getting a +1 per four levels to hit, so at 8th level that's +2 to hit, the equivelant of two +2 weapons if you want to look at it that way. It's always important to recall that flurry of blows amplifies any bonus as if the monk had two weapons, not one.
Not many people on the forums disagree with the thought that the Amulet of Mighty Fists is overpriced...at least in regards to the Monk.
For the record, this Monk simply pays the price for the amulet, because it is worth every copper. The endless complaints about the price feel ridiculous to me.
Not many people on the forums disagree with the thought that the Amulet of Mighty Fists is overpriced...at least in regards to the Monk.For the record, this Monk simply pays the price for the amulet, because it is worth every copper. The endless complaints about the price feel ridiculous to me.
As it stands monk gets less out of the AoMF than another combat class gets out of two magic weapons, so paying 2.5x the price of a magic weapon is overpriced. The fact it is capped at +5 rather than +10 is insult to injury.
I don't disagree that the AoMF is correctly priced for what it does, it's just not priced correctly for what the monk gets out of it.
The fact of the matter is that to pay that much for a simple numerical buff to your Unarmed Strikes is silly.
I agree. If you have the automatic enhancement to the unarmed strike, and use the AoMF for weapon properties, it's suddenly worth it, because hey, you end up with a much better weapon than the AoMF is on paper, so it's cool. But as-is, the AoMF is just not cutting it for monk support.
To clarify, I and my group see the Monk as somebody that should be a second string fighter with excellent Combat Maneuvers. He should not match the fighter or other front line melee warriors is terms of hitting/damage potential. But he should be a good backup if needed, and his movement and CMBs should help with some battlefield control.
The monk's best role is as mobile support: hold yourself in reserve, then go where you are needed to disrupt the enemy. Best example is how I used a monk in a 3.5 campaign some years back. The party and our allies attacked a bandit camp deep in the woods; the bandits formed a defensive line and held us off while their leader proceeded to nail us and our allies with lethal archery.
Enter my monk: using acrobatics to get around their lines, I made a dash for the leader and tried to trip him. He was now in melee, and couldn't ignore me and shoot holes in the party any more. I knew my monk wouldn't last three rounds, as he dropped his bow and drew his sword, but that wasn't the point: he was tied down for those three rounds, which was long enough for the party's fighter and barbarian to chop through the enemy ranks and come to my rescue now he wasn't murdering them.
Thing is, the monk cannot do this if the monk cannot hit anything. And that's where enhancement comes in...
Interesting, I would agree an alternative to the AoMF should be priced less, but more than a conventional weapon.
I just give them the additional benefit of working as an Amulet of Natural Armor of their level. That takes a lot of the sting out of the high price, while still keeping them costly enough to not be abused. And it helps out Monks and Druids in an area they're happy for help in, but not to any broken degree.Anybody else think that if the AoMF would also apply to Nat Armor, the price would be worth it? Assuming you use numerical buffs of course. Giving +X to Attacks/Damage/Nat Armor does sound fairly strong, and it removes the problem of losing that neck slot.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Optimistic Cynic. If, IF, the Amulet of Mighty Fists only applies to unarmed strikes, then you can add in the natural armor bonus without changing the book price.
The formula would be (bonus x bonus x 2,000 gp) [for unarmed strike] + (bonus x bonus x 2,000 gp) [for natural armor] + (bonus x bonus x 1,000 gp) [for the natural armor being a secondary property]. For a +1 AoMF taht comes out to 5,000 gp--exactly book price. For a +5 AoMF that comes out to 125,000 gp--excactly book price.
If, on the other hand, the amulet applies to unarmed strikes, natural weapons, AND natural armor--and the price doesn't change--it is far too good. Such an amulet should cost the following:
+1: 7,500 gp
+2: 32,000 gp
+3: 72,000 gp
+4: 128,000 gp
+5: 200,000 gp
Druids and summoners would go crazy over having such an option, even if they had to sell the souls of their fellow party members to afford it. Don't laugh; I've seen people try to sell other party members souls in game before. It can happen to you, so be warned!
Master Arminas
Greater Magic Fang and permanency does what you want, the AMF is for things like holy and flaming, if you account for that the monk will catch up late game the only down side is dispel dropping the enhancement bonus.
Just as a note enhancement bonuses still punch through dr's as the bonus grow.
Monks are 2 weapon fighters and they always have been, unfortunately some people missed that fact, and it is and always has been a fact. Compared to a two weapon rouge monks are fine compared to a fighter they are weak witch I would be fine with except that a fighter can be a better martial artist than most monks and that should be fixed. Better CM's is where the fix needs to be made the weapon bonuses don't need fixed you all just need to start paying attention.
TL;DR Buy the best G. Magic fang you can on both you arms, buy permanency on both arms, get a weaker AMF have all the same things everyone else has.
I beg to differ, BlueAria, on two counts:
1) The monk has not always been a TWF class, in 3.5 it most definitely wasn't a TWF class.
2) The TWF rogue is death on two legs in a flanking position. The monk...isn't.
Greater Magic Fang and permanency does what you want, the AMF is for things like holy and flaming, if you account for that the monk will catch up late game the only down side is dispel dropping the enhancement bonus.
You have a find two different casters. And pay them to cast the spells at least two times each.
Greater Magic Fang is a 3rd level, requiring a 5th level caster (for +1), an 8th level caster (for +2), a 12th level caster (for +3), a 16th level caster (for +4), or a 20th level caster (for +5). It is a druid/ranger only spell.
That means the cost for casting that spell is 150 gp (+1), 240 gp (+2), 360 gp (+3), 480 gp (+4), and 600 gp (+5). You need two of these.
Permanency is a 5th level spell, and requires an 11th level caster to make a greater magic fang permanent. It also has an additional cost of 7,500 gp. So two castings would cost 16,100 gp minimum. That is for a caster level of 11. And it can be dispelled.
Note, also, that under spellcasting in goods and services, it says that any spell that costs more than 3,000 gp is generally unavailable.
Just as a note enhancement bonuses still punch through dr's as the bonus grow.
Wrong. That applies to weapons. Look at the spell description of greater magic fang again. It specifically says This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.
Monks are 2 weapon fighters and they always have been, unfortunately some people missed that fact, and it is and always has been a fact. Compared to a two weapon rouge monks are fine compared to a fighter they are weak witch I would be fine with except that a fighter can be a better martial artist than most monks and that should be fixed. Better CM's is where the fix needs to be made the weapon bonuses don't need fixed you all just need to start paying attention.
Once again, no. If monks had always been TWFers then Paizo's own products and adventure paths would not have shown the monk NPCs included in those products as using a single weapon with their flurry of blows attacks. Not since the monk was reintroduced in 3.0 has any version of the monk been considered a two-weapon fighter. Not in 3.0, not in 3.5, and not in Pathfinder until Sean K. Reynolds decided to clarify things.
Rogues (one weapon or two weapon) have that Boomstick called sneak attack. They don't hit as often as martial characters (usually), but when they do and sneak attack applies, they deal tremendous damage.
Fighters, rangers, barbarians, paladins, and cavaliers using two-weapon fighting have the same virtual BAB as the monk, but then they ALL receive bonuses to attack and damage that quickly put the monk four or more points behind them (sometimes a lot more than four). And those classes can afford to buy up their Strength scores to levels a monk can't touch, since he needs four or five good scores to their one or two or three.
I should also note that is a relatively rare fighter, barbarian, paladin, or cavalier who chooses to use two-weapon fighting. If they don't, the difference in attack bonuses increases by an additional 2 points. Monks, under the SKR Protocol (which I am now calling it), do not have that choice. If they don't flurry, their BAB is cut to medium, adding another three points in difference.
And I will thank you to not suggest that it is we who have not been paying attention, Sir. I believe that you will, with a little research, that we, the fans who like and appreciate the monk, have been harping on these issues since the first Alpha and Beta tests.
TL;DR Buy the best G. Magic fang you can on both you arms, buy permanency on both arms, get a weaker AMF have all the same things everyone else has.
No, sir. You are quite simply wrong. Is that succient enough for you?
Master Arminas