The AoMF is priced to be equivalent to someone TWFing with two weapons with identical enhancement and properties. I'm going to take as given that this is reasonable in general. I find it frustrating for some specific properties, either because there'd be no point in getting it on both your TWF weapons or because the benefit of doing so vanishes for an AoMF. The first category includes speed, fortuitous, benevolent, seaborne, pitfall, and brawling. The second includes allying, defending, and spell storing. One or the other has defiant depending on whether its benefits are supposed to stack with itself (don't know, don't really care, has the same problem with AoMFs either way).
My proposed solution is to price an AoMF as if it were two weapons with mostly identical properties, except for the problematic ones which would be divided between said weapons as evenly as possible. (Note that if it doesn't have any problematic properties this is the same as the book pricing.)
Example 1: a +1 fortuitous speed AoMF is book-priced at 4k*(5^2)=100k. Under my proposal it gets priced like a +1 fortuitous weapon plus a +1 speed weapon: 2k*(2^2) + 2k*(4^2) = 40k.
Example 2 assumes the common house rule that an AoMF can go up to +10, not just +5: a +2 flaming holy defiant seaborne defending AoMF is book-priced at 4k*(9^2) = 324k. This becomes a +2 flaming holy defiant weapon and a +2 flaming holy seaborne defending weapon (because that splits the problematic properties up most evenly), priced at 2k*(7^2) + 2k*(7^2) = 196k.
Is this a reasonable thing to do? Am I missing any snags? Obviously some GM adjudication is required to determine whether a property is problematic in the relevant ways, but IMHO it's usually pretty clear.
One major snag: natural weapon builds. Pricing as 2 makes little sense when you are applying across 5 strikes.
Doesn't that problem predate the proposal? Or are you saying this makes it worse?
Don't be afraid to admit your minds have been blown.
Actually, I think amulet of mighty fists is priced as a slotless weapon enhancement bonus.
It takes the neck slot.
It takes the neck slot.
the bet adjustment to AoMF is to remove the slot dependency.
People's gripe with it is it sits where amulet of natural armor should go.
...Didn't the Amulet of Mighty Fists recently get repriced and, like, have its costs cut in half or so?
think it was a reduction to like 80% of previous price or something.
...Didn't the Amulet of Mighty Fists recently get repriced and, like, have its costs cut in half or so?think it was a reduction to like 80% of previous price or something.
There was some confusion when the errata crew used "Price" instead of "Cost" if I remember it correctly.
It's now bonus squared times 4000, instead of 4500.
In other words: the price of two weapons.
As Wonderstell said, the AoMF is priced as two weapons. This is just how Paizo is doing it. I'm not trying to change that, just tweak it for certain properties.
That is, please momentarily agree with Paizo that pricing a +N flaming frost AoMF as two +N flaming frost weapons is appropriate. Then I argue a +N flaming speed AoMF should be priced as one +N flaming weapon plus one +N flaming speed weapon, because that's what a real TWF would buy and carry.
Putting flaming on every weapon you have is cool. Putting speed on every weapon you have is silly, since you only get one extra attack per round, total, period.
Yeah I see nothing wrong with pricing it as if a sensible player bought two weapons for TWF. Just gonna put this in my "obscure houserules" google doc.
Could just have two difference items, one for unarmed strikes and one for non-unarmed strike natural weapons. Price the unarmed strike one as low as you think it deserves.
While the many-natural-attacks build is certainly a problem for the AoMF, I believe it to be entirely separate from this problem, and that solving one does not require solving the other. One is about the properties of the amulet, one is about its wearer.
Conversely, solving one does not automatically solve the other. Say you find a way to price a +N AoMF that depends on the build of the wearer. You will still have the problem of massively overcharging for speed (a very popular property) etc; in fact the more limbs you charge for, the worse it gets. The proposal here may or may not apply at that point, but the problem will be real.
So I think it's perfectly reasonable to solve just the properties problem---for the AoMF as currently written---and leave the much harder build problem for other threads. So are there problems with the stated proposal that don't already apply to the AoMF?