Per magic item rules any slot item can have the properties of another slot item added for 50% cost increase. Whats RAW and RAI is someone with a +2 AOMF wants to enchanct it with a agile flaming AOMF?
Cost would be 16 GP + 24 GP and the effects stack nicely. Of course it would be cheating an effective + 4 AOMF for just 40 K instead of 64 K. But rules seem to allow this.
The rules present guidelines for GMs to price magic items. Whether a non-slotted AoMF actually exists is up to each GM.
The old Brass Knuckles used to allow a monk to deal unarmed strike damage through them, but could be enchanted like a normal weapon instead of an AoMF. Because Brass Knuckles were classified under unarmed attacks, it was arguable that a monk could receive enchantment benefits on his unarmed strikes from both his brass knuckles as well as an AoMF (which enhance unarmed attacks). I seem to recall a high level monk would have been able to afford approximately +12 of enchantments for the cost of +10.
The brass knuckles have since been errata'd to no longer provide the same benefits. You may take that as an implication that it was not a good idea.
Amulets of Mighty Fists are enchanted just like weapons. So it proper to get a +2 Agile Flaming AOMF. It would be a +4 equivalent enchant, so you would look at the price for a +4 and purchase that. The rule that you are looking at is for combining separate type items. For example, if you combined a cloak of resistance +1 with Muleback cords (1000 + (1000 * 1.5)) = 2500.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wait. Are you asking about enchanting a single Amulet with the benefits of two separate amulets? I thought you were talking about owning an amulet and a second item with a different set of amulet enchantments.
Nooooooo ... I'm going to guess that nobody's going to allow this.
I have to wonder though, if you're already on this thought process, why not take it to the most ridiculous limit? If you're assuming it's legal, ten take a single amulet and enchant it with ten different +1 amulet properties. The first costs 4,000, and all others cost 6,000 each.
That may serve as additional evidence for the "there's no way this is legal" camp of thought.
@Troubleshooter
Yes, so its certainly not RAI. Is there some RAW countering it?
@Criik
Is it realy specified to combine only sperate items?
I think one could enchanch Muleback cords with Muleback cords for 2500 with no additional benefit (except maybe dispelling), because the bonuses do not stack.
I don't know about the official ruling, but my past groups ruled that multiple copies of an effect were simultaneously dispelled.
Our reasoning, which I agree with, was that creatures with At Will SLAs could slather on ten copies of each and it would be effectively impossible to remove an effect from them.
Since magic item creation only gives you estimates for magic items, I can't do much for you on the RAW front. The best I could do is probably tracking down some essay where they advise GMs to consult the prices of existing magic items when pricing new ones.
When working with guidelines, there's no hard rule saying something is legal, nor a hard rule saying it's illegal. I generally find that it's better that way -- PC crafters would throw a lot more fits about being able to craft something broken but legal.
What i dislike about AOMF is that its hard capped at +5, while weapons go to effective +10.
If the rules provide a way to achieve a goal specifically, you cannot appeal to the general rules to avoid that specific rule.
There are rules for how to make an amulet of mighty fists more powerful; you enchant it with more effects at a certain cost rate. A +2 agile flaming AOMF is 64k because it is +4 equivalent. The general rule of combining magic items exists for cases where there isn't a more specific rule for magical item upgrades.
The reason you don't get AOMF to +10 is that you can do it a different way. So your AOMF is given 5 points of special qualities and then you pay a high level caster to give you permanent greater magic fang (+5) to your unarmed attack. Or you can just carry around a pile of potions for the same effect without the cost of permanency (though this will be more expensive).
You have options to get around the '+5' cap.
carn wrote: @Troubleshooter
Yes, so its certainly not RAI. Is there some RAW countering it?
Yes.
PRD wrote: Magic Item Gold Piece Values
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
There already exists an item that is not so much similar as it is identical, so, RAW, you should use the price of a +4 Amulet as a guide, not the Table.
Of course, the custom magic item guidelines aren't actually rules, they're guidelines, so using terms like "rules" or "RAW" is inaccurate. There is no RAW when it comes to custom magic items, they exist, and are priced, solely at GM discretion.
Clearly, when you make a AoMF that has enchantments stack upon one another you follow the cost outlined at the bottom of the AoMF descriptions. I guess I am missing how that is even a controversy.
However, the question that I thought was initially being asked was whether you can have two amulets of mighty fist on at the same time with different enchantments on each.
The answer to that is clearly yes as long as you pay the money for the extra slot. I guess I don't see the controversy concerning this either.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
However, the question that I thought was initially being asked was whether you can have two amulets of mighty fist on at the same time with different enchantments on each.
The answer to that is clearly yes as long as you pay the money for the extra slot. I guess I don't see the controversy concerning this either.
I thought that that is simply not possible.
If someone has a +5 AOMF, he should not get at the same time a functioning flaming burst speed AOMF, because then he would have circumvented the +5 cap of AOMF and saved money in comparsion to normal prograssion (a +5 slaming burst speed AOMF would cost 400 k with standard cost continued, a +5 AOMF and a flaming burst speed AOMF cost 100+150=250, only little more than +10 weapon)
carn wrote: Per magic item rules any slot item can have the properties of another slot item added for 50% cost increase. Whats RAW and RAI is someone with a +2 AOMF wants to enchanct it with a agile flaming AOMF?
Cost would be 16 GP + 24 GP and the effects stack nicely. Of course it would be cheating an effective + 4 AOMF for just 40 K instead of 64 K. But rules seem to allow this.
The way I originally read this question is that you wanted a +2 AOMF (16,000gp) and wanted to add the properties of an Agile Flaming AOMF to another item slot (ex: boots) for 24,000gp.
So, it wouldn't be adding both enchantments to the same amulet (which would not work as people are pointing out), but getting those benefits for that price structure by using two slots.
The two slot method looks like it would work per RAW. It appears you could spend 6k to enchant each slot for an AOMF effect for 6k per by RAW. I might have missed an obscure exclusion though that prevents this.
16k +2 AMOF
6k Agile Boots
6k Flaming Gauntlets
6k Bane Ring
6k Acid Cloak
etc.
So, 40k for a +2 Agile, Flaming, Acid, Bane natural attack. Go Flurry.
Also worth note is that this looks similar to wearing enchanted armor and the bracers of armor. Only one magic item takes precedence in that case. Perhaps that's what should happen here.
Now the next question is will we see this nerfed. I am handing out 10 to 1 odds that the answer is yes yes and yes again. First, they hate monks. Second, this is broken. What a bad combination.
Now that I think about it, they will need to nerfed this for manufactured items as well. Remember, AoMF can be made to added enchantments to manufactured weapons so the example that Rory gave can also be add to the greatsword.
They must be bad at hating monks. They confirmed that the bonus Ki attack stacks with haste, and the last errata cut prices for AoMF by 20% or so.
Driver 325 yards wrote: Now that I think about it, they will need to nerfed this for manufactured items as well. Remember, AoMF can be made to added enchantments to manufactured weapons so the example that Rory gave can also be add to the greatsword. For posterity, I do not think this "trick" should work. I'm just not sure by RAW how the trick does not work. I play mostly PFS though, so I don't have to worry about it as custom magic items aren't permitted.
Rory wrote:
The two slot method looks like it would work per RAW. It appears you could spend 6k to enchant each slot for an AOMF effect for 6k per by RAW. I might have missed an obscure exclusion though that prevents this.
16k +2 AMOF
6k Agile Boots
6k Flaming Gauntlets
6k Bane Ring
6k Acid Cloak
etc.
So, 40k for a +2 Agile, Flaming, Acid, Bane natural attack. Go Flurry.
Bah! This would eat up too many of the precious slots.
Why not go all the way and make the iems you mentioned slotless for a mere 8k a pop, instead of 6k? I consider this markup well spent...
Rory wrote:
The way I originally read this question is that you wanted a +2 AOMF (16,000gp) and wanted to add the properties of an Agile Flaming AOMF to another item slot (ex: boots) for 24,000gp.
Where do you get the rule, that using a different slot is +50%?
The only rule i found was:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#Table-Estimating-Magic-Item-Gold-Piece- Values
"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."
"Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."
For example AOMF +5 cost 100K, adding amulet of natural armor +5 on it (so that the neck slot item provides both) cost 50k (normal amulet of natural armor +5)*1.5= 75k.
That rule i mutilated to read it that it just like it allows to add the natural armor +5 on the AOMF+5, it would allow to add an AOMF effective +5 on the AOMF+5.
but i cannot see the slot rule.
And the above rule is therefore important, because it would allow a acid cloak of protection +1 for probably 7.5 k, avoiding any slot waste for that nice flurry bonus.
Could one make an HotMF (Hat of the mighty fists, or maybe a charm so its even slotless...)? Sure they could, by RAW you can make custom items, custom spells, custom classes, custom abilities, custom races, custom (anything), all of which can easily break the game system. The GM has to be very careful about what is allowed as custom and how the item creation rules are used in their campaign. I would argue that the AotMF effect can not be applied by two different sources as they are the same buff (even if they grant different effects) because the "initial" buff of an AotMF is to enchant the unarmed strike (weapon).
There are lots of things that may be legal by RAW either through omission, complication, or unintentional consequences, not to mention simple grammatical differences that make some rules difficult to interpret. I agree by RAW I do not see anything that would not allow custom items like this, but I have no doubt it's not RAI, and provides a significant path of abuse by unarmed fighters. But since it is a custom item it is easy enough for any GM to simply not allow it.
carn wrote: Rory wrote:
The way I originally read this question is that you wanted a +2 AOMF (16,000gp) and wanted to add the properties of an Agile Flaming AOMF to another item slot (ex: boots) for 24,000gp.
Where do you get the rule, that using a different slot is +50%?
The only rule i found was:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#Table-Estimating-Magic-Item-Gold-Piece- Values
"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."
"Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."
For example AOMF +5 cost 100K, adding amulet of natural armor +5 on it (so that the neck slot item provides both) cost 50k (normal amulet of natural armor +5)*1.5= 75k.
That rule i mutilated to read it that it just like it allows to add the natural armor +5 on the AOMF+5, it would allow to add an AOMF effective +5 on the AOMF+5.
but i cannot see the slot rule.
And the above rule is therefore important, because it would allow a acid cloak of protection +1 for probably 7.5 k, avoiding any slot waste for that nice flurry bonus. Yeah, clearly he should have put all the items in the same slot to make his point. There is no rule that says that if you put the items in different slots the price increases by 50%.
That aside, his point is still valid. Actually, I am not familiar with the custom items rules and whether you can slot items normally meant for the neck slot into different locations. If you could you could pull off the effective AoMF+5 for even less money
Relixander wrote: Could one make an HotMF (Hat of the mighty fists, or maybe a charm so its even slotless...)? Sure they could, by RAW you can make custom items, custom spells, custom classes, custom abilities, custom races, custom (anything), all of which can easily break the game system. The GM has to be very careful about what is allowed as custom and how the item creation rules are used in their campaign. I would argue that the AotMF effect can not be applied by two different sources as they are the same buff (even if they grant different effects) because the "initial" buff of an AotMF is to enchant the unarmed strike (weapon).
There are lots of things that may be legal by RAW either through omission, complication, or unintentional consequences, not to mention simple grammatical differences that make some rules difficult to interpret. I agree by RAW I do not see anything that would not allow custom items like this, but I have no doubt it's not RAI, and provides a significant path of abuse by unarmed fighters. But since it is a custom item it is easy enough for any GM to simply not allow it.
I agree with you only everything except for one minor issure. I believe that RAW and RAI support this result. I just think that noone really realized how it could be abused. This is a case of RAW and RAI coming together and produce a broken result.
So, if you are GMing, you don't have to come up with a justification for why it does not work (why does everyone have to justify). All you have to do is clap your hands at the player that came up with the combo and say, "Yep, what you did is legal and may even be able to be justified from an in game standpoint, however, it breaks the game so I am nerfing it."
Your players will appreciate the honesty.
Driver 325 yards wrote: There is no rule that says that if you put the items in different slots the price increases by 50%.
I think that is a hold over from 3.5 in my memory. As much as I try to purge those, some still linger. In Pathfinder, it doesn't cost extra to enchant a +1 Boots of Mighty Fist? So my 6000gp example would be a 4000gp example, even worse.
I think Midnight Angel hit the best combo using an 8000gp slotless version.
Midnight_Angel wrote: Rory wrote:
The two slot method looks like it would work per RAW. It appears you could spend 6k to enchant each slot for an AOMF effect for 6k per by RAW. I might have missed an obscure exclusion though that prevents this.
16k +2 AMOF
6k Agile Boots
6k Flaming Gauntlets
6k Bane Ring
6k Acid Cloak
etc.
So, 40k for a +2 Agile, Flaming, Acid, Bane natural attack. Go Flurry.
Bah! This would eat up too many of the precious slots.
Why not go all the way and make the iems you mentioned slotless for a mere 8k a pop, instead of 6k? I consider this markup well spent... Better yet, forget about slotless, just do exactly what rory suggested, but make them tattoos. Now it is 4K each and you still have all of your valuable normal slots.
By RAW, technically, you can make the item you're talking about.
Also, by RAW, you shouldn't. From the magic item section:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
And also:
The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide.
That's in the RAW. Sure, it doesn't say a GM must disallow what you want to do. In fact, a GM could very well allow it if he wants to. It would be game changing, because I would have every monster you fight using these kinds of enchantments. My world would be flooded with them. The reason there are no +2 flaming burst shocking keen vorpal swords in the world is the price. But when all you need is a +2 sword and a comparatively cheap stack of slotless amulets, everyone will have them. EVERYONE. These will be used against the players all the time. They won't find other magic items in the monster's lair because it will spend all its gold on these super cheap enchantments. Once the players have them, they will have to sell the rest, but the flooded market means they'll only get a tenth of the value, ultimately crushing their WBL values to be way lower than they should be. But, that's the problem with unleashing poorly balanced game mechanics - they're guaranteed to have a huge impact on the supply and demand of the world economy.
Although, much better would be if the GM followed the guidelines in the book, using good judgment, and set the price by comparing to existing items in the first place - after all, the RAW says he should.
Even if it could work, I'd argue that you can't get the effect of both at once. So you'd have to choose, on each individual attack, whether you're going to take the +2 to hit and damage or benefit from Agile and Flaming. That would permit you to do it, but it isn't outright trying to get the full cumulative effect while dodging the full cumulative price.
I hear you DM Blake,
However, the problem here is that the items he is talking about are in the market already. Right now there is a guy with a +2AoMF tattoo somewhere and there is a regular AoMF bane somewhere. All he is really asking is what happens if you put both of them on.
I think everyone agrees that by RAW they would both be active. I think we all also agree (because it is undeniable) that if you abuse this to his highest level, it is broken. So the question become what is the fix.
Is the fix simply that two AoMFs do not stack no matter what? At first, I leaned this way but then i realized that would give an unfair advantage to melee fighters. RAI, based on reading the AoMF description, clearly foresee that AoMF can stack onto manufactured weapons. So your +2 weapon can benefit from a bane AoMF made for manufactured weapons.
I think the solution is limiting any such stacking to happening only once. So AoMF and enchanted weapons can happen as envisioned. Also 2 AoMF stack to the benefit of an unarmed strike. However, 3 of more such stackings are overly broken and can never happen. My two cents anyway.
I guess what I am saying is that the pricing of the item is not the issue, its the function of the items that is the issue and that needs to change.
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.
In general, there's not usually an issue with adding additional enchantments to an already enchanted weapon. For example, my paladin with a +2 longsword can cast Weapon Bless on it, yes? While that wouldn't add any more enhancement bonus (the +2 already trumps the +1 he receives from the spell), it would add the ability to bypass DR/good and to auto-confirm criticals, both of which would be useful at times). My druid could similarly enchant his +2 quarterstaff with Shillelagh to get the extra damage dice, or cast Greater Magic Fang on the monk to add an attack bonus to his Elemental Fists.
Why are we singling AoMF out for this abuse?
Driver 325 yards wrote: RAI, based on reading the AoMF description, clearly foresee that AoMF can stack onto manufactured weapons. So your +2 weapon can benefit from a bane AoMF made for manufactured weapons.
"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."
An AoMF doesn't add anything to manufactured weapons. "melee weapon special abilities" is what it can add, not what it can be added to.
An Agile AoMF has no effect for a character with Weapon Finesse making an attack with a rapier.
Rory wrote: Driver 325 yards wrote: RAI, based on reading the AoMF description, clearly foresee that AoMF can stack onto manufactured weapons. So your +2 weapon can benefit from a bane AoMF made for manufactured weapons.
"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."
An AoMF doesn't add anything to manufactured weapons. "melee weapon special abilities" is what it can add, not what it can be added to.
An Agile AoMF has no effect for a character with Weapon Finesse making an attack with a rapier. Rory, you appear to be correct. I should have went back and read the AoMF and not relied on my memory
Orfamay Quest wrote: Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.
In general, there's not usually an issue with adding additional enchantments to an already enchanted weapon. For example, my paladin with a +2 longsword can cast Weapon Bless on it, yes? While that wouldn't add any more enhancement bonus (the +2 already trumps the +1 he receives from the spell), it would add the ability to bypass DR/good and to auto-confirm criticals, both of which would be useful at times). My druid could similarly enchant his +2 quarterstaff with Shillelagh to get the extra damage dice, or cast Greater Magic Fang on the monk to add an attack bonus to his Elemental Fists.
Why are we singling AoMF out for this abuse?
You know, I have never really focused on optimize equipment that much, but after this post I relieved that the potential problems with magic item optimization is one that spans far beyond AoMF. I don't care to go into them now and go off topic, but with that said, I agree with you that we may be singling out AoMF.
I know its wrong, but my mind is churning with abuses that can result, not by creating custom items, but by stacking the effects of existing items.
That said, singled out or not, the nerf is coming like an planet sized asteriod on direct course with the earth.
Rory wrote: Driver 325 yards wrote: There is no rule that says that if you put the items in different slots the price increases by 50%.
I think that is a hold over from 3.5 in my memory. As much as I try to purge those, some still linger. In Pathfinder, it doesn't cost extra to enchant a +1 Boots of Mighty Fist? So my 6000gp example would be a 4000gp example, even worse. Side issue to this (crazy) topic: Slot Affinities still exist in Pathfinder, they simply aren't hard-coded into the rules so much as in custom. Compare Helm of Teleportation to Boots of Teleportation (Helm costs +50% for precisely the same ability, because the feet slot has an affinity for movement based powers, and the head slot does not).
Majuba wrote: Rory wrote: Driver 325 yards wrote: There is no rule that says that if you put the items in different slots the price increases by 50%.
I think that is a hold over from 3.5 in my memory. As much as I try to purge those, some still linger. In Pathfinder, it doesn't cost extra to enchant a +1 Boots of Mighty Fist? So my 6000gp example would be a 4000gp example, even worse. Side issue to this (crazy) topic: Slot Affinities still exist in Pathfinder, they simply aren't hard-coded into the rules so much as in custom. Compare Helm of Teleportation to Boots of Teleportation (Helm costs +50% for precisely the same ability, because the feet slot has an affinity for movement based powers, and the head slot does not). Oh, yeah you have to look hard to find that one. Some people at our gaming table may be unpleasantly surprised.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
