The price for the amulett of mighty fists is so high, because it (for the math) is two magic weapons in one.
One for unarmed strikes, one for natural attacks.
A +1 weapon costs 2000gp an aomf costs 2000+2000*1.5 = 5000gp
As is the amulett costs 2.5 times that what a magic weapon costs while it is more limited because it can only ever be +5 including special abilities.
This is not really set of by the fact, that you can add special abilities without a +1 enhancement.
Was that done for balancing issues?
Or was the idea convenience, so that someone with both (natural and unarmed attacks) only needs one amulett?
Just my 2 cents, if you give an animal companion with multiple attacks an amulet, such as a panther, they get regular damage plus the benefits of the amulet on all attacks. so 3 attacks that hit (assuming 1d6 flaming/etc.) would be an extra 3d6 damage. For a monk, if Flurry of Blows allows your fists/body to count as separate weapons, you could get an extra 1d6 on all attacks.
If that's the case for the monk, why does everyone say monks suck and amulets of mighty fists are overpriced?
From what I can gather here on the boards, the developers see a monk's Unarmed Strikes as several natural weapons, and thus priced the Amulet ridiculously.
Now, an Amulet that is tied to one type of weapon could be priced the same as a weapon in my opinion. Yes, the dragon is wearing a +1 Amulet of Frost, but if it's only affecting his claws, there isn't much of a problem.
EDIT: Actually, a greater version, which does what the current Amulet does and would stay the same price, might not be a bad idea.
I believe the price carry over was just something they didn't fix from the 3.5 SRD. All the way back to 3.0, this item hasn't been worth it's cost, and making the spell permanent was always a much better buy.From what I can gather here on the boards, the developers see a monk's Unarmed Strikes as several natural weapons, and thus priced the Amulet ridiculously.
Now, an Amulet that is tied to one type of weapon could be priced the same as a weapon in my opinion. Yes, the dragon is wearing a +1 Amulet of Frost, but if it's only affecting his claws, there isn't much of a problem.
EDIT: Actually, a greater version, which does what the current Amulet does and would stay the same price, might not be a bad idea.
Really? Because I find that having +1d6 on ALL my attacks to be worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This topic... again?
Considering your body becomes one weapon with Improved Unarmed Strike and not foot, foot, hip, shoulder, chest... Overpriced.
For monsters and Totem barbarians and Wildshaped druid, priced just fine. Which is why I like my idea for two different versions more and more now that I think about it...
Just get an allying weapon to give one of your fists an enhancement bonus. Stop worrying about overpriced amulet slots.
|
This topic... again?
I don't even read the monk threads. It just sounds like everyone focuses on to hit way more than damage.
And what the heck is wrong with FoB being essentially TWF? I'd say the monk is better at TWF considering he doesn't need as high of a Dex score for the feats... Oh wait, he doesn't need to take the feats for TWF EITHER! Man, he just looks better and better. (This message brought to you by a TWF Ranger that does more damage than the summoner and eidolon...)
So the message is being brought by another class that gets the TWF feats for free, but can take all of the other nice feats in that line, like Two-Weapon Rend and Two-Weapon Defense? Seems legit. ;)
I'd be using it with pluses for the to-hit bonus. Flaming et al. are only useful for so long; once resistances start kicking in, it's not so great, especially if you're missing most of the time anyway.
If your using an amulet of mighty fists for a monk your enhancing it with
melee weapon special abilities not pluses to hit. Example, if you want your monk attack to do Flaming damage it would cost only 5000gp. Now if you want to enhance a weapon to do flaming damage you have to pay the + 1 enhancement 2000gp, +1 8000gp for flaming 300gp for master worked plus the weapon cost. A flaming weapon cost 10300+gp. An amulet of mighty fists with flaming cost 5000gp. It's cheaper. I don't think amulet of mighty fists is a ripoff. Maybe I'm wrong.
I think theres something wrong with your math here, a +1 flaming weapon is a +2 equivalent which is 8k not 10k.
Since my hat is in the ring, I think that they should keep the amulet of mighty fists (it's nice to have something for the druids and summoners, after all). But make a magic item for the monk that works specifically for unarmed strikes (heck, other classes can use it too, but since it only enhances unarmed strikes, utility is limited), and price it as enhancing one weapon. There, problem solved. Why is this so difficult, Paizo?
prototype00
prototype00 you have to buy the +1 enhancement(2000gp) in order to get the + 1 flaming. (8000gp) they are accumulative.If your using an amulet of mighty fists for a monk your enhancing it with
melee weapon special abilities not pluses to hit. Example, if you want your monk attack to do Flaming damage it would cost only 5000gp. Now if you want to enhance a weapon to do flaming damage you have to pay the + 1 enhancement 2000gp, +1 8000gp for flaming 300gp for master worked plus the weapon cost. A flaming weapon cost 10300+gp. An amulet of mighty fists with flaming cost 5000gp. It's cheaper. I don't think amulet of mighty fists is a ripoff. Maybe I'm wrong.I think theres something wrong with your math here, a +1 flaming weapon is a +2 equivalent which is 8k not 10k.
Since my hat is in the ring, I think that they should keep the amulet of mighty fists (it's nice to have something for the druids and summoners, after all). But make a magic item for the monk that works specifically for unarmed strikes (heck, other classes can use it too, but since it only enhances unarmed strikes, utility is limited), and price it as enhancing one weapon. There, problem solved. Why is this so difficult, Paizo?
prototype00
It's a +2 weapon equivalent, it costs 8k gp. Its in the rules.
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted).
prototype00
I'd be using it with pluses for the to-hit bonus. Flaming et al. are only useful for so long; once resistances start kicking in, it's not so great, especially if you're missing most of the time anyway.
The big issue with using the Amulet of Mighty Fists for an enhancement bonuses is that Greater Magic Fang can also provide you the same enhancement bonus. Sure, not every party will have someone who can cast GMF, but that's what Permanency is for. Doesn't hurt that permanency for GMF can give up to a +5 enhancement for only 7500 gp.
I'd be using it with pluses for the to-hit bonus. Flaming et al. are only useful for so long; once resistances start kicking in, it's not so great, especially if you're missing most of the time anyway.Now if you get the defending melee weapon special ability that makes it better than straight enhancement pluses and you can apply the enhancement to AC.
Maybe, but I won't be going for defending until I have an enhancement bonus to apply. Need to-hit more than AC.
And prototype00 is correct. The last sentence means that you cannot create a flaming club; you must create at least a +1 flaming club. The cost of the weapon is the cost of a +2 weapon, or 8,000 gp (plus the cost of a masterwork weapon).
I'd be using it with pluses for the to-hit bonus. Flaming et al. are only useful for so long; once resistances start kicking in, it's not so great, especially if you're missing most of the time anyway.The big issue with using the Amulet of Mighty Fists for an enhancement bonuses is that Greater Magic Fang can also provide you the same enhancement bonus. Sure, not every party will have someone who can cast GMF, but that's what Permanency is for. Doesn't hurt that permanency for GMF can give up to a +5 enhancement for only 7500 gp.
Sure, if I can find a CL20 caster to cast it on me. : /
Sure, if I can find a CL20 caster to cast it on me. : /I'd be using it with pluses for the to-hit bonus. Flaming et al. are only useful for so long; once resistances start kicking in, it's not so great, especially if you're missing most of the time anyway.The big issue with using the Amulet of Mighty Fists for an enhancement bonuses is that Greater Magic Fang can also provide you the same enhancement bonus. Sure, not every party will have someone who can cast GMF, but that's what Permanency is for. Doesn't hurt that permanency for GMF can give up to a +5 enhancement for only 7500 gp.
That is an issue, but personally I could live with only getting a +4 or even +3, considering the much lower price tag and the fact that it opens up your options on the amulet.
Then again, if I were playing a monk I'd be trying real hard to get one of the other players in the group to play a class that gets GMF on its spell list anyway.
You can buy a +2 weapon for 8000 plus mwk weapon costs.
That is on the table in the book.
|
prototype00 you have to buy the +1 enhancement(2000gp) in order to get the + 1 flaming.
No, you don't.
That is the case for magic weapons. Read the description of AoMF. It specifically states that for this item you do NOT need the +1 enhancement bonus before you can add other effects;
"An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability."
The developers have explained the price as being based on Monks getting the same number of unarmed attacks as other classes would with two weapons (ergo, 200% normal cost) PLUS another 50% because the Monk unarmed strikes doing more damage (at higher levels) than any other weapon... along with being immune to disarm & sunder.
I agree with the 200%, but not the additional 50%. The problem is that they look at the ways Monk unarmed strikes are better than weapons used by other classes, but completely ignore the ways in which they are worse.
The biggest drawback is in flexibility. With weapons you can have a tool for every purpose... if the enemy is immune or resistant to blunt weapons you draw a slashing weapon, if they have DR X/silver you draw a silver weapon, if they're vulnerable to fire you draw a flaming weapon, et cetera. Monk unarmed strikes do not have that inherent flexibility... they are bludgeoning only unless you take a feat or other power, you cannot have a backup set of silver hands, you can use an AoMF to get flaming attacks but you can't have acid/cold/electric/et cetera. In theory you could buy multiple AoMF with different properties, but then you are taking time in combat to retrieve and select the one to wear. You could buy weapons to cover the flexibility, but then you're losing the benefits of unarmed attacks while still getting charged extra despite the numerous situations in which you cannot use them.
Also, with AoMF you can never have different enchantments for your two sets of attacks. They must always be the same. You don't have to worry about your fists being 'disarmed' or 'sundered', but if the AoMF gets taken out then ALL of your attacks are nerfed rather than just one weapon (which could be replaced by drawing another) as would happen to another combatant.
Ultimately, there is an inherent contradiction in the 'monk strikes are better and therefor should cost more to enchant' logic. If it were true then UN-enchanted monk strikes would be clearly just as much better than un-enchanted weapons for all the same reasons... despite being 'free' while the weapons are not. In short, they would be inherently 'unbalanced'. What's more, some weapons are clearly better than others... why don't THOSE cost significantly more to enchant? Thus, IMO the logic behind the extra 50% doesn't hold up. The benefits of monk strikes are offset by their drawbacks and thus shouldn't cost extra.
All that said, I play with house rules where monks can get tattoos or wraps (priced per masterwork weapon costs) that can then be enchanted to provide benefits to each of their sets of attacks (i.e. left attacks vs right attacks) at the normal weapon enchantment costs... so it comes out exactly the same as enchanting two weapons.
The price for the amulett of mighty fists is so high, because it (for the math) is two magic weapons in one.
One for unarmed strikes, one for natural attacks.A +1 weapon costs 2000gp an aomf costs 2000+2000*1.5 = 5000gp
As is the amulett costs 2.5 times that what a magic weapon costs while it is more limited because it can only ever be +5 including special abilities.
This is not really set of by the fact, that you can add special abilities without a +1 enhancement.Was that done for balancing issues?
The devs will likely answer yes, because according to them flurry of blows is the equivalent of two weapon fighting, and therefore it should be worth at least two weapons. Also a dragon can wear one ang gain the monus on all six attacks. That's six weapons there!
Monk-lovers foam at the mouth about this, claiming their favourite class gets nerfed because the devs do not want to enhance the druid's animal companion. Certainly the lack of enhancement bonus, the cost of it, and then enhancement cap seriously hurt the monk.
Or was the idea convenience, so that someone with both (natural and unarmed attacks) only needs one amulett?
No. I don't think that happens often at all.
Only issue I see with saying that monks pay so much the Amulet of Mighty Fists to account for Flurry of Blows is that you can perform a flurry of blows just fine with weapons instead of than an unarmed strike. Sure, at higher levels an unarmed strike does more damage than even the best monk weapons, but at higher levels the weapon damage dice isn't that important compared to static bonuses anyway.
Then you start bringing in archetypes, like the Zen Archer that gets flurry and can use the unarmed damage dice on his arrows, or any archetype that gives up Flurry of Blows but still uses unarmed attacks.
I really wish they hadn't changed the brass knuckles from how they work in the APG. Personally, I'd be more than willing to ignore the "fix" that was applied to them in any game I was in.
Ok how much does it cost to put the flaming weapon ability on a weapon?
Depends on what the weapon is already.
If its just MW then 8000 for the +1 then 6000 more for the flaming.
If its +2 already then its gonna be 10000 to go from 8000 to 18000
Only issue I see with saying that monks pay so much the Amulet of Mighty Fists to account for Flurry of Blows is that you can perform a flurry of blows just fine with weapons instead of than an unarmed strike. Sure, at higher levels an unarmed strike does more damage than even the best monk weapons, but at higher levels the weapon damage dice isn't that important compared to static bonuses anyway.
To be honest it is not the cost of the AoMF that bothers me so much as the cap on +5 worth of abilities. I came up with a fix for that which does not replace the AoMF (which is the big buggaboo for the devs, apparently) here.
Honestly I think the Amulet of Natural weapons from the 3ed Savage Species did it right and would funtion favorably for monks and ACs alike.
Dont remember the exact cost but i Do remeber that it affected one natural weapon or pair of (as in claws hooves or what not) and the cost went up if it affected more.
Ok how much does it cost to put the flaming weapon ability on a weapon?
Assume nonmagical masterwork weapon. You can't put flaming on it without also giving it a +1 or greater. So, the simplest thing you can make is a +1 flaming weapon. Looking at the weapon properties table for flaming, you see that it is worth the equivalent of a +1 bonus. This brings the total bonus equivalent for the weapon to +2. Looking at the price table, a +2 weapon costs 8,000 gp, not including the masterwork weapon itself.
If you already had a +1 weapon (worth 2,000 gp, not including masterwork weapon costs), adding flaming to it costs the difference between the resultant item and the original item, or 8,000 gp - 2,000 gp = 6,000 gp.
Now, the amulet of mighty fists does not have the "+1 before properties" requirement that magic weapons do. So a flaming amulet of mighty fists only has a total bonus equivalent of +1. It costs 2,000 gp.
Now, the amulet of mighty fists does not have the "+1 before properties" requirement that magic weapons do. So a flaming amulet of mighty fists only has a total bonus equivalent of +1. It costs 2,000 gp.
Umm... since the AoMF costs 5,000 times bonus times bonus, we'd be at 5k, not 2k for a +0 Amulet of Flaming Fists---
Actually due to its inherent cost modifier of 2.5x it cost 5000gp there blahpers.
EDIT: Shinobi'd
So if the price is so high because of FoB then a monk without FoB should just pay normal magic weapon cost.
Now, the amulet of mighty fists does not have the "+1 before properties" requirement that magic weapons do. So a flaming amulet of mighty fists only has a total bonus equivalent of +1. It costs 2,000 gp.Umm... since the AoMF costs 5,000 times bonus times bonus, we'd be at 5k, not 2k for a +0 Amulet of Flaming Fists---
Ack. That's right. You'd think I'd remember that given all the hubbub about it.
I once proposed as a fix to use item creation rules to add several amulet of mighty fists onto one, so only 5 times a +1 modifier would be the cost of 1+(4*1.5)= 7 amulets of mighty fists, which is lower than a +5 (35k compared to 125k). This can also be used to get above +5.
I was told however that the price of an amulet of mighty fists wasn't a problem, and that such use of item creation guidelines was close (if not equal to) munchkinism.
Edit: just to be clear, I would add things like flaming, not have 5 times a "+1 to attack and damage" enchancment as they don't stack.
I never thought it to be overpriced maybe its because i can avast a mighty fortune of 10k easily.
Sure the Figher's magic sword cost less but hey its not like i needed the money to buy armor.
Poor Guy Spent 4k on a set of armor that gave him an AC = To my wisdom bonus
so i have to spend a little gold here i find that i save a lot more in the long run with a monk than a fighter.
But hey im just a ranting noob what do i know.
For everyone advocating permanency: a successful dispel magic ends a permanency spell... permanently. It merely suppresses a magical item for a few rounds.
cost less though don't it
The cost savings of the greater magic fang/permanency combo are largely illusory. They are a trap and a money sink.
A +1 costs 8,200 gp; a +2 costs 8,290 gp; a +3 costs 8,410 gp; a +4 costs 8,530 gp; and a +5 costs 8,650 gp.
Greater Magic Fang +5 (20th level caster; 3rd level spell) equals 600 gp; Greater Magic Fang +4 (16th level caster; 3rd level spell) equals 480 gp; Greater Magic Fang +3 (12th level caster; 3rd level spell) equals 360 gp; Greater Magic Fang +2 (8th level caster; 3rd level spell) equals 240 gp; greater Magic Fang +1 (5th level caster; 3rd level spell) equals 150 gp; while Permanency equals 8,050 gp. (spell cost equals caster level x spell level x 10 gp, plus permanency for greater magic fang requires an 11th level caster and an additional fee of 7,500 gp).
That is the base cost for one combination of greater magic fang and permanency. You need two (at least) according to the latest rulings of SKR. That is 16,400 gp for a +1; 16,580 gp for a +2; 16,820 gp for a +3; 17,060 gp for a +4; and 17,300 gp for a +5. You need to locate two spellcasters (druid and wizard). The permanency is based solely on the wizard level, so getting a higher level wizard with a caster level above 11 will cost even more. This basic version gives you a permanent greater magic fang (or two) that has a caster level check DC of 22 to avoid being dispelled. Twenty-two. Hope you like replacing this a lot.
Of course, it is not certain you can even get an NPC to cast these spells.
From the footnotes on Spellcasting and Services:
If the additional costs put the spell's total cost above 3,000 gp, that spell is not generally available.
From the description on Spellcasting and Services:
In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th level spells.
So, yes. It is cheaper (at +2 and up) than the amulet. But it can be dispelled. Having it done over and over again adds up quickly. Having it dispelled once and recasts means it is more expensive than a +2 AoMF. Three times and you are just about equal in cost to a +3. Five times and it is actually cheaper to buy a +4 amulet. Eight times and your GMF/permanency 'trick' has now cost you more than a +5 amulet of mighty fists.
No. In the long run, it isn't worth it, unless you have a druid and a wizard in your party who don't charge that +7,500 gp fee for making greater magic fang permanent.
Master Arminas
Ouch. That does pretty much lay it all out there master arminas. Another one of those options that sounds nice in theory, but when you do the math and look at the mechanics it doesn't work.
Oh well; it's been a while since I used an unarmed monk anyway. Sad to say, they just aren't worth it unless the GM is willing to house-rule things.
Lucky for me we do a wizard fanatic in the group so the price was low low low for me.
I see what your getting at I never really looked at it before i just was like here gold wave hands make strong.
Good to know for my upcoming monk build thanks!
Pretty much enhancement is your ONLY option if you want to hit anything. Permanent spells are not going to cut it.
Lucky for me we do a wizard fanatic in the group so the price was low low low for me.
I see what your getting at I never really looked at it before i just was like here gold wave hands make strong.
Good to know for my upcoming monk build thanks!
Just remember, even if you do have wizard and druid in the group, the wizard has to pay that 7,500 gp just to cast permanency on greater magic fang. That is a spell cost associated with casting the spell. So unless he really doesn't care about money, he is going to be out 15,000 gp in pocket change every single time that he replaces the two spells you need.
Maybe you have a more communal group than I do, but every wizard player I have ever gamed with would balk at that.
Master Arminas