Amulet of Mighty Cheese


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I couldn't find this with the search function, but I doubt I'm the first one to think about this.
Item creation rules say the price for a wondrous item is 1.5 to have it without slot.

Can I have a few amulet of mighty fists that are slotless? (not two times +1 as that doesnt stack, but 1 for flaming, 1 for +1 and one for shocking for example).

This would tranform a square progression of weapons a linear progression, with the problem that you can only stack a lot of little enchantments, two times +5 is still unbearably expensive.

For calculation:
4 times +1, once with slot = 3*7.5k + 5k = 27.5k
+4 item = 32k
this is the first time it is a better deal than a weapon.

So my questions:
1. is this allowed?
2. is this intended (= balanced)?
3. does this give the long wining monk the edge he needs to kick ass and chew some bubblegum?

Another more concrete example for fun, assuming budget of 200k (+10 weapon):
Or monk can get:
speed with slot: 45k
holy: 30k
corrosive burst: 30k
shocking burst: 30k
flaming burst:30k
Icy burst:30k
and still have 5k left which almost gives us .. +1


A slotless item is 2x the cost, not 1.5x.


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.

Isn't this the rule used? Core page 553, last lines
instead of adding a ring ability to a ring ability, I add the neck ability to a neck slot.


That rule is for adding multiple powers to a single item.

You specified:

Quote:
Can I have a few amulet of mighty fists that are slotless?

Multiple items that don't take up an item slot. Slotless items are 2x the cost.


okay, you can still have 20 slotless +1 abilities for the price of a +10 weapon if it costs twice as much.
(but 1.5 does work then? it just not slotless, it's one big item with a similar ability added a few times)

the question about balance still stands for x1.5 and x2 options.


If you get a ring of protection and invisibility, that is 'multiple abilities on a single item.' 1.5 times the price.

If you get a +5 deflection AC bonus on a rock that goes around your head rather than taking up one of your two ring slots, that is 'unslotted item.' 2 times the price.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The tables are an aid for the GM to decide how much an item is worth. They aren't intended to be used by players to cheese up some überitems. You can take that custom item set to your GM, and if they're at all sane, they'll shoot it down or modify it to be more reasonable (e.g, making it not stack with other items that grant weapon properties or scaling up the cost by some reasonable amount).

The "multiple powers" math isn't meant to apply to weapon properties; otherwise, the weapon properties system wouldn't itself use enhancement bonus equivalence as the baseline. Splitting this up among several items should not circumvent this limitation.

Edit: The important thing to take away from this is that a player making custom items has absolutely, positively zero rights and zero entitlements. If the GM decides that the item you've invented should cost ten times the table price--or bans it entirely--that's all there is to it.


of course it's GM fiat, but if used with a few +2 or +3 abilities (rather then 20 +1), a GM might think that it's okay as monk are often seen as a rather weak class. That's why I'm asking.


I would not allow it in my games, as it is clearly designed to circumvent the cost of an equivalent amulet of mighty fists while being superior in every possible way.

That's the only meaningful answer I can provide. Ask your GM.

Shadow Lodge

AOMF needs to be removed from the game, then replaced by something better. if i were you i would just say screw the over priced pos and just not play an unarmed character.

but to add to the discussion, no this would not work. enhancement bonuses do not stack from different sources. you would only be able to have one of your 20 AOMF active at one time. if you wanted to do that then this is kind of a silly thing to try, since you would just need to carry 3 +1 AOMF and switch them as needed.


I believe his proposal was to stack weapon properties rather than actual enhancement bonuses. Such properties aren't actually enhancement bonuses (though they are priced as such); they aren't bonuses at all in game terms.

For that reason, I would value items that added properties to weapons at a much higher value than a weapon with that property, unless the item clearly specified that it did not add properties to an already-magical weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are creating magic items to help monks just make it a monk's amulet for the normal cost of weapon enhancement and only working with unarmed strikes, not natural weapons. When you are creating items on your own you are in effect homebrewing anyway.


TheSideKick wrote:

AOMF needs to be removed from the game, then replaced by something better. if i were you i would just say screw the over priced pos and just not play an unarmed character.

but to add to the discussion, no this would not work. enhancement bonuses do not stack from different sources. you would only be able to have one of your 20 AOMF active at one time. if you wanted to do that then this is kind of a silly thing to try, since you would just need to carry 3 +1 AOMF and switch them as needed.

AoMF is okay for druids, dragons, animal companions and other monsters. Its problems is that it fails at its intended purpose of being a monk item, because the desingner had to take into account its other uses and it didn't occur to them to make an item attunable to a single natural A.K.A unarmed strike.

Humbly,
Yawar

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Amulet of Mighty Cheese All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion