I am considering each of these options for my 4th level Brawler (PFS).
If I am understanding how the Braid would work for my Brawler, his Unarmed damage would increase by 3 levels, he would gain 10 feet movement speed, but he would not gain any benefit from the increased STR bonus to Flurry of Blows.
So, ultimately, he gains an increased damage dice to his unarmed damage (most levels) and 10 feet increased movement with the Braid.
However, with the Amulet of Mighty Fists I believe I can have it enchanted with any melee attack enhancement, plus add additional ones as I level.
My question is two-fold: which would be better in the majority of cases, and what enhancements would a Brawler prefer on the amulet? I am a Mutagenic Brawler (Half-Orc) and focus on Unarmed Damage and using a Whip to trip enemies when appropriate. He is currently wearing Light Armor with the Brawling Enchant so his unarmed strikes currently count as magical to bypass DR.
So, I simply buy it and not add an actual weapon enhancement, just use it for the +1 to Hit and Damage?
Seems to me that placing and enhancement on it that at the very least adds 1d6 points of Fire/Cold/Lightning damage would be more effective. Or perhaps the one that does 2d6 to the guy I hit, and 1d6 to myself. Considering I would be using Brawlers Flurry this could end up with lots of healing for myself.
I see the attraction for the additional bonus to Hit, but wouldn't the additional damage out-weigh that?
So, I simply buy it and not add an actual weapon enhancement, just use it for the +1 to Hit and Damage?
Seems to me that placing and enhancement on it that at the very least adds 1d6 points of Fire/Cold/Lightning damage would be more effective. Or perhaps the one that does 2d6 to the guy I hit, and 1d6 to myself. Considering I would be using Brawlers Flurry this could end up with lots of healing for myself.
I see the attraction for the additional bonus to Hit, but wouldn't the additional damage out-weigh that?
Until you start facing things with fire resistance 5. The straight bonus to both attack and damage is typically the best option crunch wise. Less misses, so you get in more total damage.
An Amulet of Mighty Fists is essential to basically all unarmed characters. Don't leave home without it.
And for the record, you're probably best off using it for a straight Enhancement Bonus on to-hit and damage.
I wouldn't say it is a complete make or break depending on the build, but not using it means you have to go through some contrivances in order to get enhancements.
Ignoring the brawler and monk archetypes that can just ignore DR if you pass a check, the need for the 'true' enhancement from the amulet is not quite as essential anymore due to pummeling style. With pummeling style, DR 20 can end up being like DR 3 if you have 7 hits. So overall, it is design to take DR's lunch money and give it a swirly. That, combined with the other tasty advantages of the style (amazing crits, access to pseudo pounce) makes it generally one of the top runners for 'best style feats'
Now, of course, that raises the question of where you are getting the enhancement bonus that I said was 'the best crunch wise' earlier. That is simply- from greater magic fang or greater magic weapon. They give bonus that scales to caster level, and they do so for hours/level (which means you just need to bribe your caster with a few pearls of power). Their only flaw in this role is that they could not make your attacks pierce through most DR (like a normal enhancement bonus would). But with pummeling style, that flaw is moot.
So that means that it is possible to pass up the amulet of mighty fists, as long as you have a reliable means to get one of those spells cast on you and if you have the right build.
Allying weapons can give you your enhancement bonuses while an Amulet of Mighty Fists can be used for fun stuff. Run it past your DM though since some seem to lose their minds over people being their own ally. It's odd though since they made an FAQ for it.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda
EDIT: I see that it's for a PFS character so it may be best to just take the Amulet of Mighty Fists + enhancement bonuses to avoid table variance.
If you have pummeling style, there is a good arguement for keen to be put on the Amulet of Mighty Fists, if only to save you a feat.
prototype00
Amulet with straigth +'ses is the way to go, IMOP.
And i dont see why the armor would make your unarmed strikes count as magic.
Edit: and i stand correctet on the count as magic issue. It seems they do.
Allying weapons can give you your enhancement bonuses while an Amulet of Mighty Fists can be used for fun stuff. Run it past your DM though since some seem to lose their minds over people being their own ally. It's odd though since they made an FAQ for it.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda
EDIT: I see that it's for a PFS character so it may be best to just take the Amulet of Mighty Fists + enhancement bonuses to avoid table variance.
That still carries shenanigans, graystone. You need to use the weapon before you can activate that ability- ie- you must attack with the weapon before you can shift enhancement bonuses around (this carries with the rulings on other, somewhat similar properties like defending)
So this means that you have to waste your first attack (the one at highest BAB, and most likely to hit) with a weapon your are purposefully nerfing before you can pull this trick. It also means that you cannot combine with various builds (ie- pummeling style, which only allows unarmed strikes)
I know that you have tried to argue that this isn't that big a deal in rules threads before...but that can be make or break for some people. Plus, it is generally silly (unless you are using a glitter dusted pink quarterstaff and calling yourself Mahou Shoujo PINK PUNCH...then I am willing to aesthetically accept that your punches are empowered by a hand held magical item- otherwise, I view that enhancement should either a passive thing like with the amulet, or only on the item you actually plan to hit people with.)
Sidenote- (I totally want to watch the magical girl show that I made up on the spot there now.......damn my 3 AM brain, it is starting to try to write theme songs.....)
Amulet with straigth +'ses is the way to go, IMOP.
And i dont see why the armor would make your unarmed strikes count as magic.
Brawling armor- a property that brawlers just absolutely love. It goes on light armor only, and it gives a +2 attack and damage to unarmed strikes (and +2 to some other stuff; not as important here) and it makes the attacks count as magic.
Actually, if you are discussing items from a brawler, if possible, you generally want to get that long, long before the amulet. It is the same as having a +2 weapon that also gives +1 AC (since you need a +1 armor first, obviously), and only costs 4,000 gp (compared the simple +1 amulet that has the exact same cost).
Yeah, brawling armor is a much wiser investment if you can get it (can you get it without much fuss in PFS?)
..
unless you are using a glitter dusted pink quarterstaff and calling yourself Mahou Shoujo PINK PUNCH...
This is gonna be my amazing next character when my shaman or my zen archer dies and dont get up next.:)
It does depend on your build, but if you're running a Pummeling Charge build, I'd highly recommend the Braid. You count as a monk because of Martial Training, so your speed should keep going up. I'm not sure why you think you won't get the strength bonus, though. Not only do you have MT, but I believe brawler's flurry counts as flurry of blows for qualifying for fears and items.
It does depend on your build, but if you're running a Pummeling Charge build, I'd highly recommend the Braid. You count as a monk because of Martial Training, so your speed should keep going up. I'm not sure why you think you won't get the strength bonus, though. Not only do you have MT, but I believe brawler's flurry counts as flurry of blows for qualifying for fears and items.
I dont think Martial training give speed boost even with the brand. But i can see how to undestand it like that, but for PFS i dont think it is a sure thing.
Amulet with straigth +'ses is the way to go, IMOP.
For most classes, yes. For barbarian or bloodrager furious is better.
Amulet with straigth +'ses is the way to go, IMOP.For most classes, yes. For barbarian or bloodrager furious is better.
Ah, but Furious ultimately just adds straight plusses more efficiently.
Amulet with straigth +'ses is the way to go, IMOP.For most classes, yes. For barbarian or bloodrager furious is better.
Only because it translates to pure +'s for a lot of their fights. At least by the time they are rocking a +2 weapon (which might be level 5 if you are pushing it, and maybe have a crafter).
And those are enough +'s that some forms of DR stop being a problem.
|
If you have pummeling style, there is a good arguement for keen to be put on the Amulet of Mighty Fists, if only to save you a feat.
prototype00
Keen will only function if you are doing piercing or slashing on your unarmed strikes which is difficult when using pummeling style. It's possible, but you will just be using the feat that you saved on Improved Critical on Weapon Versatility or Hamatulatsu instead.
Amulet with straigth +'ses is the way to go, IMOP.For most classes, yes. For barbarian or bloodrager furious is better.Only because it translates to pure +'s for a lot of their fights. At least by the time they are rocking a +2 weapon (which might be level 5 if you are pushing it, and maybe have a crafter).
And those are enough +'s that some forms of DR stop being a problem.
I think you're mixing up courageous and furious but yes, it is for pure +'s.
I think you're mixing up courageous and furious but yes, it is for pure +'s.
....furious? The one that gives an extra +2 enhancement bonus to your weapon when you rage? Which means it works as at least a +3 weapon by default (since it always need a +1 first)?
|
I think you're mixing up courageous and furious but yes, it is for pure +'s.....furious? The one that gives an extra +2 enhancement bonus to your weapon when you rage? Which means it works as at least a +3 weapon by default (since it always need a +1 first)?
Not for an amulet of mighty fists. You can enchant the amulet before it has any pluses. So for a barbarian/bloodrager you're much better off buying the +1 equivalent of a +0 Furious AoMF (which is the equivalent of a +2 amulet whenever you're in combat for far less money).
AMULET OF MIGHTY FISTS
Aura faint evocation; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 4,000 gp (+1), 16,000 gp (+2), 36,000 gp (+3), 64,000 (+4), 100,000 gp (+5); Weight —
DESCRIPTIONThis 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.
|
Allying weapons can give you your enhancement bonuses while an Amulet of Mighty Fists can be used for fun stuff. Run it past your DM though since some seem to lose their minds over people being their own ally. It's odd though since they made an FAQ for it.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda
EDIT: I see that it's for a PFS character so it may be best to just take the Amulet of Mighty Fists + enhancement bonuses to avoid table variance.
Worst case is that you use up an iterative with it (definitely not the 1st attack - since Allying says specifically "As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon") - just make sure that the Allying weapon is a cestus or brass knuckles so that they count as unarmed for Pummeling Style.
Frankly - I think that using up a metaphysical 'hand' counts as 'wielding' - but you will get some table variation between the two interpretations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Enters thread*
unless you are using a glitter dusted pink quarterstaff and calling yourself Mahou Shoujo PINK PUNCH...then I am willing to aesthetically accept that your punches are empowered by a hand held magical item-
*blinkblinkblink*
Excuse me, I have a character to go build.
*Exits thread*
Worst case is that you use up an iterative with it (definitely not the 1st attack - since Allying says specifically "As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon") - just make sure that the Allying weapon is a cestus or brass knuckles so that they count as unarmed for Pummeling Style.
Frankly - I think that using up a metaphysical 'hand' counts as 'wielding' - but you will get some table variation between the two interpretations.
FAQ says that pummeling style only works with unarmed strikes. So no go on the pummeling style.
I am not even sure how your scenario is supposed to work out...because you need to use the weapon, and pummeling style is a full round action. And if you could just use the cestus, then why ever bother with the unarmed strikes? (we are discussing ways to get around their sticky enhancement problems, and they generally have less crit range than the cestus, which is a major point with pummeling style's crit system. I would just go with a keen cestus in that case)
Agree with everyone else. The Braid of a Hundred Masters was a really poorly designed (Pathfinder Organized Play Scenario boon). What should have been a worthy boon at the end of a 3 part series ended up being a tease only. Whoever thought it should be in the neck slot was wrong.
|
|
FAQ says that pummeling style only works with unarmed strikes. So no go on the pummeling style.Worst case is that you use up an iterative with it (definitely not the 1st attack - since Allying says specifically "As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon") - just make sure that the Allying weapon is a cestus or brass knuckles so that they count as unarmed for Pummeling Style.
Frankly - I think that using up a metaphysical 'hand' counts as 'wielding' - but you will get some table variation between the two interpretations.
Hence it working in combo only with a cestus or brass knuckles (maybe a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head). Blows with them count as unarmed strikes.
|
|
Hence it working in combo only with a cestus or brass knuckles (maybe a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head). Blows with them count as unarmed strikes.FAQ says that pummeling style only works with unarmed strikes. So no go on the pummeling style.Worst case is that you use up an iterative with it (definitely not the 1st attack - since Allying says specifically "As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon") - just make sure that the Allying weapon is a cestus or brass knuckles so that they count as unarmed for Pummeling Style.
Frankly - I think that using up a metaphysical 'hand' counts as 'wielding' - but you will get some table variation between the two interpretations.
To not restart an old argument that has been in several threads in the rules forum, I'll just say expect extreme table variation on that.
To not restart an old argument that has been in several threads in the rules forum, I'll just say expect extreme table variation on that.Hence it working in combo only with a cestus or brass knuckles (maybe a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head). Blows with them count as unarmed strikes.FAQ says that pummeling style only works with unarmed strikes. So no go on the pummeling style.Worst case is that you use up an iterative with it (definitely not the 1st attack - since Allying says specifically "As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon") - just make sure that the Allying weapon is a cestus or brass knuckles so that they count as unarmed for Pummeling Style.
Frankly - I think that using up a metaphysical 'hand' counts as 'wielding' - but you will get some table variation between the two interpretations.
True. I am fairly sure the official answer is 'no', but it seems like a fairly simple house rule.
Although it still doesn't answer- why bother with allying at all? Why not just use cestus for every hit? It is more easily enhanced (even more so when you aren't spending a +1 on allying) and the fact that it has 19-20 critical (17-20 with keen/improved critical) makes pummeling style downright broken when it comes to crits.
Hence it working in combo only with a cestus or brass knuckles (maybe a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head). Blows with them count as unarmed strikes.FAQ says that pummeling style only works with unarmed strikes. So no go on the pummeling style.Worst case is that you use up an iterative with it (definitely not the 1st attack - since Allying says specifically "As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon") - just make sure that the Allying weapon is a cestus or brass knuckles so that they count as unarmed for Pummeling Style.
Frankly - I think that using up a metaphysical 'hand' counts as 'wielding' - but you will get some table variation between the two interpretations.
They don't count as unarmed strikes, as they are armed attacks with the weapon. Else the monk would use his unarmed strike damage with them and he doesn't. If you've played that they do it's been a house rule and is a change of the actual rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That still carries shenanigans, graystone. You need to use the weapon before you can activate that ability- ie- you must attack with the weapon before you can shift enhancement bonuses around (this carries with the rulings on other, somewhat similar properties like defending)
This only works if you invalidate a LARGE section of the game. Do you, for instance, make a staff magus attack someone before they gain Quarterstaff Defense? Or as a Kensai you have to "waste your first attack" to get Canny Defense? Are they shenanigans too? The defending FAQ was JUST for that item and not a universal way to read wield.
"As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon, the wielder chooses how to allocate her weapon's enhancement bonus." You LITERALLY have to move the bonus BEFORE using the weapon so the idea that you have to attack with it makes little sense as that requires some kind of time travel to go back in time to have the prerequisite to happen after the effect happens. Wielder here seems to mean ready to use but not attacking with much like the Kensai and staff magus' abilities.
Really the only issue I see is a GM quibbling over the 'unless it would make no sense' clause to qualify for being an ally. Seems straight forward to me but my common sense doesn't mean it matches others common senses.
EDIT: I reread the FAQ and I can see how it could be used to make you attack with it, no matter how illogical it seems to me. (prerequisite after effect happens) I'm glad the people I play with don't drag this FAQ out to ruin parts of the game for us.
This only works if you invalidate a LARGE section of the game. Do you, for instance, make a staff magus attack someone before they gain Quarterstaff Defense? Or as a Kensai you have to "waste your first attack" to get Canny Defense? Are they shenanigans too? The defending FAQ was JUST for that item and not a universal way to read wield.
"As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon, the wielder chooses how to allocate her weapon's enhancement bonus." You LITERALLY have to move the bonus BEFORE using the weapon so the idea that you have to attack with it makes little sense as that requires some kind of time travel to go back in time to have the prerequisite to happen after the effect happens. Wielder here seems to mean ready to use but not attacking with much like the Kensai and staff magus' abilities.
Really the only issue I see is a GM quibbling over the 'unless it would make no sense' clause to qualify for being an ally. Seems straight forward to me but my common sense doesn't mean it matches others common senses.
EDIT: I reread the FAQ and I can see how it could be used to make you attack with it, no matter how illogical it seems to me. (prerequisite after effect happens) I'm glad the people I play with don't drag this FAQ out to ruin parts of the game for us.
I don't see very much 'could' in this answer on the mechanics of defending weapons (which has similar point shifting mechanics to allying weapons):
If a wizard is holding a defending weapon with one hand and casting a spell with the other, he's not using the weapon and therefore gains no benefit from it. He has to actively be trying to use the weapon to hurt someone to be able to trigger its special ability.
That means you have to use the weapon at least once as an attack, and then all the following attacks get the enhancement bonus. I am not seeing any time travel here- the shifting of enhancement bonus happens as you try to swing with the weapon, and it enhances the following attacks with other weapons (unarmed strikes here).
And a side note to defend against rules forum politics- Here is James Risner stating that this was a reply while SKR was still employed by Paizo, which makes the answer valid
Unless there is some specific FAQ I am unaware of. I will always admit to that.
|
|
That means you have to use the weapon at least once as an attack, and then all the following attacks get the enhancement bonus. I am not seeing any time travel here- the shifting of enhancement bonus happens as you try to swing with the weapon, and it enhances the following attacks with other weapons (unarmed strikes here).
While there's a valid argument that one of the swings has to be with the Allying weapon (expect table variation - there's evidence on both sides) - it's definitely NOT a valid argument that it needs to be the first swing.
An allying weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to one weapon being used by an ally of the wielder. The wielder must have line of sight to the intended ally. As a free action, at the start of her turn before using her weapon, the wielder chooses how to allocate her weapon's enhancement bonus. The bonus to the ally's weapon lasts until the allying weapon's wielder's next turn. The enhancement bonus from the allying weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus on the ally's weapon (if any).
Since it's always used 'at the start of her turn' it doesn't matter when the weapon is swung in order to qualify you as being the 'wielder'. (If you argue that it needs to be swung to be wielded.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lemeres: My issue with using Defending as a way to work things is it can lead to time paradoxes Since it uses future actions as a prerequisite.
1) I add 2 to my AC with a defending weapon.
2) I move to attack, drawing two AoO
3) Foe 1 misses me by 1
4) Foe 2 disarms me
5) I now can't fulfill defending's future attack requirement so I retroactively lose my AC bonus
6) Time rewinds and I get hit by the first Foe
7) The first foe knocks me down below 0
8) as I never got disarmed, I retroactively regain my AC and stand up unharmed
9) Jump to 4)
Similar things can happen with Allying (if you use defending rules) with readied actions, stuns and other things. Another issue is with allying yourself and killing the target with your non-allying weapon and not having another target for your allying weapon to attack. Now your caught in a time loop again...
Going on the assumption that developers are human and make mistakes too, and convince others that the error is correct, consider
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
It clearly says "before using the weapon", not "before attacking with..." so that means using it could be using it to defend yourself with, such as the total defense action, correct? That isn't using it to actively hurt someone, but you're probably using it parry your butt off. In our games we allow the Defending bonus in this situation.
lemeres: My issue with using Defending as a way to work things is it can lead to time paradoxes Since it uses future actions as a prerequisite.
...
Similar things can happen with Allying (if you use defending rules) with readied actions, stuns and other things. Another issue is with allying yourself and killing the target with your non-allying weapon and not having another target for your allying weapon to attack. Now your caught in a time loop again...
It is quite troublesome...which is why I wouldn't suggest using allying in the first place. Since things get so silly and problematic when you use properties of this class. I have simply argued that defending is an example of how the developers have arbitrated on the issue of 'use' and 'wield', as well on weapon properties with this type of language.
Still, allying at least has less issues than defending- if you get stunned before using your allying weapon, you never get those nonallying attacks at all.
It is also why I would suggest placing the requirement that the allying weapon must be the first hit- you have far less time paradoxes if you don't try to fiddle with things so you can push the allying weapon to a later worthless hit, and still get the enhancements of your unarmed strikes. That way, if you get disarmed before using it- you know before you have to work with the enhancement bonuses of the unarmed hits.
Honestly though, I do not think we will get much fruitful results from continuing this...at least not on this part of the forum. It is better to leave off the issue for now and just leave it for the rules forums if we seriously feel strongly about it. We are getting far, far too off topic, and I fear I am getting too opinionated and catty. No hard feeling, but I love to argue, but always forget that internet arguments tend to get too emotional since we overblow casual comments. Good night folks, I am leaving from this thread for...good I hope (I will try to resist my urge to argue).
Lemeres: Allying would tend to have less issues but things like a readied action can still get you into the same issues (especially is you give them out to someone with a readied action). I'll agree to move along with this too. This isn't directly related to the thread after all.