They don't stack, but you need a separate weapon for each fist you use during a flurry. Also, I advocate applying the bonus to the fist beneath the cestus. If your GM doesn't like it, apply the bonus to your fingertips instead, say hello to Sir Pokerton. Failing that, just apply the bonus to your elbows.
EDIT: lol, ninja'd
Sadly however you now see the issue your paying effectively for 4.5 weapons just to have + 10 with your whole attack routine. Add in the fact that if allying is like defending. Your using 2 attacks a round just to get it off.
Two things:
1. The price of all these weapons together is 269k. This would function at the same level as 2 +10 weapons, which would cost the average TWFer 400k.
2. It is debatable whether or not you need to attack with them at all, considering the wording used in the text of the "Allying" weapons entry. Even if you have to attack with it, you don't necessarily have to burn your useful attacks with them, just toss them in at the end of a routine. Barring that, just pay some schmo a few copper pieces a day to swing wildly at the air while passing your fists the bonuses due to the weapons.
I guess that works but at that point you paying 144k (2 x +6 ($72,000)=144k) to get a +5 on all your attacks (not a +10). At that point the AoMF comes out to be even cheaper...
EDIT: ahhh plus the AoMF price for the total +10...your post ninjaed me there....the whole set up is a bit on the wonky side for my taste.
But you use the AoMF to get bonuses other than EB, such as ghost touch or flaming. Added together you get the +10 total that other weapons can achieve for less than 3/4 the price.
EDIT: I agree, it is wonky, but it is a legitimate way to get the +10 fists that all monks (well, REAL monks :D) want, for far less gold than the average TWFer would have to put up.
Which means that their may be allying weapon errata ont the way. As only Dragoons can TWF for cheaper than 2 weapons.
Until that happens I will keep the monks of this board informed about all of their options.
Until that happens I will keep the monks of this board informed about all of their options.
I am making a Master of Many Styles and might have to use this idea. "luckily' for me I lose FoB so I dont have to pay for two weapons. Might enchant my temple sword with it and see how things go...or a cestus.
I suppose it's my fault for not specifying: I meant criticizing other fans and calling them names and lobbing insults. As opposed to criticizing the things the game developers and designers say/rule on the forums that exist to discuss such things.You seem to think the 2 things are equivalent.
And in any case... that is not an example of calling someone a liar or whiner, so...still waiting...
The forums exist to discuss rules and that probably includes criticizing choices made by the developers.
Suggesting the designers are lying is just as bad as suggesting another fan is, though. Conveniently, both are covered by the same, "most important rule".
Until that happens I will keep the monks of this board informed about all of their options.I am making a Master of Many Styles and might have to use this idea. "luckily' for me I lose FoB so I dont have to pay for two weapons. Might enchant my temple sword with it and see how things go...or a cestus.
Temple sword would probably be the best idea, as you can enchant the temple sword with other stuff and have a good selection between your AoMF fists and temple sword. I prefer cestus for pure monks because I personally find the idea of magical combat gloves that enhance your martial prowess to be very fitting.
To be fair, I think the "can't be disarmed/sundered/stolen" equals out with "eats a slot". But that's just me.
15 gold per hand cover disarm. And andamantine is the closest thing to unsunderable and it doesn't make a weapon harder to enchant.
If it were a flat +2-4k over then enhancement cost sure but raising all enhancement cost by half for properties everyone else can get for 3k flat is a bit much.
I keep saying that an allying weapon is 100% legit for this very purpose.
Yes it dolves the problem of the +5 cap, but it actually doesn't solve the problem of getting enough enhancement at the lower levels. +1 Allying makes up to +2 worth which is 8,000gp, which is more than a +1 AoMF. The issue in many cases is that the monk gets the enhancement later than other classes, and this fix does not help that.
At low levels your fist don't do that much more than the weapons you can use. For instance, you only surpass the Temple sword at level 8. Enhance a temple sword up to that point and give it allying after you break the threshold. Or just be patient (as all monks should be :D) and accept that you are going to be +1 behind people with weapons other than fists for a few levels. You will eventually surpass them though (speaking strictly of cost-benefit comparisons).
At low levels +1 makes a lot of difference, and a dex-based monk won't hit anything with the temple sword is the problem with that option.
There are also finessable weapons you can use...
Why a dex based monk anyway? You get TWF for free and you get your full str on offhand attacks...
There are also finessable weapons you can use...
Why a dex based monk anyway? You get TWF for free and you get your full str on offhand attacks...
...and an AC that sucks to combine with your d8 hit dice. I know it's not a huge difference from a d10, but with MAD your con is likely less than a full-BAB class, so you will suffer if you cannot keep your AC up.
I've generally found dex & wis based monks more survivable than strength based monks (ie they actually can survive without a caster buffing them to heaven), while Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers allow their attacks and maneuvers to go unhindered. Damage output suffers, but I was never a believer that the monk should out-damage the fighter anyway.
Plus, nine-foot tall muscle-bound hulks just don't fit the image of the shaolin priest for me. The monk is supposed to be about skill and precision, not brute-force and ignorance - there are fighters for that.
Oh, and the finesseable weapons a monk can use are either 1d6 20/x2 or 1d4 20/x2. Overall, better off fighting unarmed above 4th level.
We just have to be patient. In all likelihood Paizo will release some subtle adjustments to the core monk that will help remedy our concerns somewhat.
With how long of a wait there's been for that to happen, it seems doubtful.
Unless you're talking about "adjustments" like the Flurry of Blows = TWF one and other nerfs. Those might be happening even as we speak.
For me, the can't be disarmed or sundered (wich are hard to do against a monk anyway) is over compensated by the fact that each time you hit something with spikes or on fire you are hurting yourself. So it isn't worth a slot to me, the item should cost:
Handwraps of Migthy Strikes:
-2000*bonus^2* (base for weapons)
-0.5* (making a slotless item sloted)
-+75% (for enchanting the off-hand attacks idiocy, wich is a similar ability)
Total: 1750*bonus^2
Unarmed strikes are already the worst ¨weapon¨ in the game, an item that enchants it should take that into account. While other classes have bonuses to make them better with weapons, the monk's class fetures make the worst weapon usable and then devs penalize him for it by not making proper magic items. The end result is that other classes can be better at fighting like a monk than the monkand still are among the worst options for those classes.
Humbly,
Yawar
There are also finessable weapons you can use...
Why a dex based monk anyway? You get TWF for free and you get your full str on offhand attacks...
...and an AC that sucks to combine with your d8 hit dice. I know it's not a huge difference from a d10, but with MAD your con is likely less than a full-BAB class, so you will suffer if you cannot keep your AC up.
I've generally found dex & wis based monks more survivable than strength based monks (ie they actually can survive without a caster buffing them to heaven), while Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers allow their attacks and maneuvers to go unhindered. Damage output suffers, but I was never a believer that the monk should out-damage the fighter anyway.
Plus, nine-foot tall muscle-bound hulks just don't fit the image of the shaolin priest for me. The monk is supposed to be about skill and precision, not brute-force and ignorance - there are fighters for that.
Oh, and the finesseable weapons a monk can use are either 1d6 20/x2 or 1d4 20/x2. Overall, better off fighting unarmed above 4th level.
So... you are saying you want a better option than other classes for TWF... namely enchanted monk fists? Am I understanding you correctly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... you are saying you want a better option than other classes for TWF... namely enchanted monk fists? Am I understanding you correctly?
Where did you get that from?
I am saying that TWF or not, the monk's unarmed strike is lagging well behind other prime manufactured weapons in terms of three out of four factors: enhancement, threat range and threat multiplier. Comparing manufactured weapons to one-another, the damage dice are the least important factor in the long run, and enhancement costs the same no matter which one you use. Yet the unarmed strike is expected to be a primary weapon for a combat class.
What I would like is for the enhancement to be brought up to speed so that the monk can at least hit targets as reliably as a full BAB class TWFing and not using it's special tricks. Then the increasing damage dice of the unarmed strike is matched by the greater threat ranges and multipliers available to those with proficiency with martial weapons.
In other words, I want the monk to be as good as the other combat classes when they are TWFing WITHOUT their smites, rages, favoured enemies or weapon training. They then have these options on top, while the monk has his defences and stunning fist.
Edit: And I'll add to this, I'm advocating a scaling enhancement bonus to hit only for the monk's unarmed strike, not to damage. Damage scales enough as it is with the rising dice. I would also like to see the monk gain a ki-ability to bypass DR, so their low damage output does not make them irrelevant against opponents with DR. That way the concept of less damage/more strikes might actually work.
So... you are saying you want a better option than other classes for TWF... namely enchanted monk fists? Am I understanding you correctly?Where did you get that from?
I am saying that TWF or not, the monk's unarmed strike is lagging well behind other prime manufactured weapons in terms of three out of four factors: enhancement, threat range and threat multiplier. Comparing manufactured weapons to one-another, the damage dice are the least important factor in the long run, and enhancement costs the same no matter which one you use. Yet the unarmed strike is expected to be a primary weapon for a combat class.
What I would like is for the enhancement to be brought up to speed so that the monk can at least hit targets as reliably as a full BAB class TWFing and not using it's special tricks. Then the increasing damage dice of the unarmed strike is matched by the greater threat ranges and multipliers available to those with proficiency with martial weapons.
In other words, I want the monk to be as good as the other combat classes when they are TWFing WITHOUT their smites, rages, favoured enemies or weapon training. They then have these options on top, while the monk has his defences and stunning fist.
Two points.
1. Unarmed strike is a single primary weapon, monks have other weapons that they are expected to use for offense, namely all weapons they are proficient with and can use in a flurry. These weapons come with the same perks and drawbacks that any other class using them would have (except fighters).
2. You are effectively +1 down for a single fist when you use a strictly allying weapon approach, not exactly the end of the world, plus you can use the weapon itself for special material DR early on.
EDIT: Originally had 3, but I couldn't figure out a good wording for the 3rd.
Two points.
1. Unarmed strike is a single primary weapon, monks have other weapons that they are expected to use for offense, namely all weapons they are proficient with and can use in a flurry. These weapons come with the same perks and drawbacks that any other class using them would have (except fighters).
Yes, but those weapons suck. You just exchange the worse on enhancement for worse on damage dice is all. You are still behind in three of four categories for assessing a weapon. If you want to use all your abilities, you need to make it ki-focus, and that then leaves you worse off for enhancement as well.
2. You are effectively +1 down for a single fist when you use a strictly allying weapon approach, not exactly the end of the world, plus you can use the weapon itself for special material DR early on.
So once again, the solution you propose for the iconic unarmed fighter to be viable is "use a weapon". I kind of think you are missing the point - I have nothing against armed monks that want to go that path, but it's not what many monk player's choose the monk class for. In addition, you are STILL +1 down. You are still behind the curve. Add that to MAD, and you are further down, and that's just the same old problem re-badged.
The insults are an exception rather than the norm. I'd assume both sides would prefer the thread not be locked.
The the subject line of the thread is correct, but the OP's example is a poor illustration.
The AoMF cannot possibly be overpriced because it is in fact the cheapest available option in some cases, namely large numbers of natural attacks.
The monk however, is a bad example. The class abilities are biased against itemization, but they don't do enough to remove the need for it.
I wouldn't mind seeing the monk be able to make unarmed attacks and/or stunning fist attempts as touch attacks. It would make touch AC his specialty both offensively and defensively. Unfortunately, hitting touch AC may give him too much of an advantage.
Killsmith's idea of touch attacks isn't a bad idea, even make it cost one or two ki points per attack.
The existing uses of ki points are horrible, as others have already mentioned in this thread.
Killsmith's idea of touch attacks isn't a bad idea, even make it cost one or two ki points per attack.
The existing uses of ki points are horrible, as others have already mentioned in this thread.
True, Magus can do it with Arcane pool (by taking right Discovery or whatever they are called)
The best ki ability is the +4 dodge bonus to AC. But ki-pool is insufficient in size to make this viable in every round of every fight.
Alright, i've got to ask why do some of you think that the Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't allow you to bypass certain DR?
Where in the rules does it mention that?
Alright, i've got to ask why do some of you think that the Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't allow you to bypass certain DR?
Where in the rules does it mention that?
Because the only explicit statement of enhancements bypassing DR refers to weapons. And temporary enhancement bonuses (such as greater magic weapon are stated to not grant DR-bypassing benefits.
And consider how strict the use for item types are, compare for example that bracers of armor do not count as light armor for the purpose of applying the brawling armor property.
Ultimately, the problem is that for the amulet of mighty fists there is no specific text confirming or denying the possibility of bypassing DR.
Alright, i've got to ask why do some of you think that the Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't allow you to bypass certain DR?
Where in the rules does it mention that?
Because the only explicit statement of enhancements bypassing DR refers to weapons. And temporary enhancement bonuses (such as greater magic weapon are stated to not grant DR-bypassing benefits.
And consider how strict the use for item types are, compare for example that bracers of armor do not count as light armor for the purpose of applying the brawling armor property.
Ultimately, the problem is that for the amulet of mighty fists there is no specific text confirming or denying the possibility of bypassing DR.
"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction."
Okay this is the quote from Special Abilities regarding DR and enhancement bonuses. +3 negates Cold Iron/Silver, +4 negates Adamantine, and +5 negates Alignment-based.
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability."
And this is the quote of the Amulet of Mighty Fists. So it gives an Enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 to Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks.
If both of those are correct then a person wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists(+3) and using an Unarmed Strike would bypass Cold Iron/Silver, since it grants a +3 Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes.
"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls."
Here is a quote from the Unarmed Strike entry on the weapon table. It's clear that it counts as a weapon.
Your Bracers of Armor example isn't the same situation. The property Brawling clearly calls out for Light Armor which Bracers are not. The Amulet itself isn't being used as a weapon it grants an Enhancement bonus to Unarmed Strikes which are a weapon.
The only thing Greater Magic Fang has to do with the Amulet is that its a preq to crafting it with Craft Wondrous Item. Its text has no meaning for the use of the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
"Frost
Aura moderate evocation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chill metal or ice storm; Price +1 bonus.
DESCRIPTION
Upon command, a frost weapon is sheathed in icy cold that deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. The cold does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given."
A Frost Weapon requires a Chill Metal or Ice Storm yet its effect has nothing to do with either. Most magic items are as such, so why does it matter all of a sudden for the Amulet of Mighty Fists?
As for there containing no specific text confirming or denying the possibility of bypassing DR in the text for the Amulet the same could be said for the Magic Weapons listing. No where does it state that a weapon can bypass DR with enhancement, yet it works without any problems.
That rule is stated in the Special Abilities section under Damage Reduction. A specific rule that works for Enhancement bonuses. So anytime you have an Enhancement bonus on a weapon that's +3 or higher you can bypass certain DR, unless specific text says otherwise like in Greater Magic Fang/Weapon spells where it is called out.
So in conclusion there is nothing stating that the Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't allow an Unarmed Strike enhanced by it to bypass DR.
I'm inclined to agree with Brain in a Jar, at least if there's nothing more at play (additional rules ze missed, developer comments and so on).
@Brain in a Jar:
What you point out is why some (me included) consider it likely that the amulet does indeed allow bypassing of DR. But that is unfortunately not a definitive reading.
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore (...)
The problem here is that natural attacks and unarmed strikes aren't generically considered weapons, also the enhancement bonus granted by the amulet to the attacks is not an inherent bonus but essentially "overlayed" over the attack. (Meaning a +2 longsword is infact magically enchanted to be a +2 sword, while a +2 amulet grants your fist a +2 bonus, but it isn't inherently a +2 fist.)
No where does it state that a weapon can bypass DR with enhancement
Actually the bit about "Weapons with an enhancement bonus (...)" is exactly that.
So in conclusion there is nothing stating that the Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't allow an Unarmed Strike enhanced by it to bypass DR.
Unfortunately there isn't anything stating that it does either.
...again: you don't need to convince me, I'm on your side in this - but it isn't definitive currently, so for example playing PFS with different GMs may yield different results regarding whether your unarmed attacks can/not bypass DR.
I do think it is ambiguous in that unarmed attacks and natural weapons are sometimes considered weapons, sometimes not (what is a "weapon" and not is very vague all the time - see improvised weapons vs quickdraw).
I do not think, however, that there is a difference _in this case_ between a +2 weapon and a weapon with a +2 enhancement bonus, as the text specifically refers to "with an enhancement bonus", and the table shows "what type of enhancement bonus is required" rather than "what type of weapon".
In general, I think the dev's should make a full blog post detailing what is a weapon and what is not, in what circumstances. I think the vagueness of this is large enough and affects so many parts of the game that it would be good for them to actually issue errata, splitting the term "weapons" into "weapons" (actual objects designed to attack with) and something like "armaments" (whatever you're using to attack, including natural attacks, unarmed attacks, ray spells, improvised weapons, whatever) (and yes, "armament" isn't a good word, but English isn't my main language and it's just for example).
The problem here is that natural attacks and unarmed strikes aren't generically considered weapons, also the enhancement bonus granted by the amulet to the attacks is not an inherent bonus but essentially "overlayed" over the attack. (Meaning a +2 longsword is infact magically enchanted to be a +2 sword, while a +2 amulet grants your fist a +2 bonus, but it isn't inherently a +2 fist.)
"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls."
They are weapons no one can refute that.
The only requirements for bypassing DR is using a weapon and having an Enhancement bonus of +3 or higher.
Unarmed Strike + Amulet of Mighty Fists(+3)=Bypass Cold Iron/Silver
Actually the bit about "Weapons with an enhancement bonus (...)" is exactly that.
That's actually listed under Special Abilities, Damage Reduction not under Magic Weapons.
Unfortunately there isn't anything stating that it does either.
That's not really how the rules are written though. They don't write extra words into rules to state things unless it is a specific rule that is counter to the normal rules.
Also don't forget that an AoMF doesn't need to give a +# bonus, you could just put Flaming on it or some such. It provides whatever bonus and/or ability it is created with but isn't bound by the actual weapon creation rules such as needing a +1 before adding abilities. It isn't actually a weapon, but it is granting the magical enhancement effect(s) of one to natural attacks and the like.
Also before the most recent deluge of "official" racial/class options with multiple natural attacks, most "high end" monsters that would use an AoMF also had DR and could innately bypass it, so it wasn't really an 'issue' if it didn't work that way. Now with player options it is an 'issue.'
EDIT@Brain: The major point is, your unarmed strikes are weapons, you are getting the effect(s) from the amulet (which may or may not have +#) which isn't a weapon. If your unarmed strikes were "crafted" and enhanced as a weapon there wouldn't be an issue. Instead they are getting some abilities tagged on (which is more like the spell) by an outside, non weapon source.
Personally I don't care either way but I see RAW leaning to the "doesn't work" side, either way a FAQ would be nice I'd agree.
I'm with Brain-in-a-Jar on this one, myself. I can see the other view though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The major point is, your unarmed strikes are weapons, you are getting the effect(s) from the amulet (which may or may not have +#) which isn't a weapon.
Why would this matter? The rules make no mention of the source of the effect, and I'd therefore conclude that the source is irrelevant. The rules state that there must be an enhancement bonus, but do not specify or restrict in any other manner.
The source having relevance is an assumption at best.
I've been following this thread from the beginning (and many other Monk threads), but to re-focus this one to the point: If you have three or more natural attacks, the Amulet of Mighty Fists is well priced.
The fact that the Monk class itself relies heavily on an item that is not well suited cost-wise is not a problem with the Amulet of Mighty Fists. This is a design flaw with the Monk class. The developers even seem to agree as they do not wish to fix the Monk's difficulties using items.
Since this thread was supposed to focus on the amulet itself, I will clearly add that my Dragon Disciple does not find the cost prohibitive. I know that there are Druids that feel the same, not to mention the many possible races that inherently have natural attacks.
My monk fix includes them just plain getting a +1 enhancement per 4 monk levels via Ki Strike (Magic), so long as they have 1 ki point left. So they can then add an amulet of mighty fists for special properties and be all set. Simple and involves the smallest change.
Ditto, save that I would make it to hit only (+1 at 4th, +1/3 levels to cap at +5 at 16th to keep pace with normal weapon enhancement) and add a ki-ability to bypass DR.
The major point is, your unarmed strikes are weapons, you are getting the effect(s) from the amulet (which may or may not have +#) which isn't a weapon.Why would this matter? The rules make no mention of the source of the effect, and I'd therefore conclude that the source is irrelevant. The rules state that there must be an enhancement bonus, but do not specify or restrict in any other manner.
The source having relevance is an assumption at best.
As you and I don't know RAI, we have to account for ALL things, you cannot conclude source is irrelevant as we don't actually know what is or isn't relevant.
As you and I don't know RAI, we have to account for ALL things, you cannot conclude source is irrelevant as we don't actually know what is or isn't relevant.
If we are discussing RAI, I fully agree. Also, if you want to debate intent, I see that as a different discussion and would gladly participate.
My point is about RAW however, and not RAI. When the intent is not known, and the rules are not written, all GMs have their own perspective and I suppose I saw no reason to discuss it down that route.