Am I being unfair by nerfing Amulet of Mighty Fists?

[Deca4531]

So one of my players is going for Feral Ranger build where she uses claw and bite attacks. So she has 2 claws and a bite, all at full BAB, each do 1d8 + strength. Already that's fairly powerful. Then she bought a +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/amulet-of-mighty-fists) for 16k. She chose to add 1d6 of fire and lighting, and apparently this applies to all her natural weapons. Now for anyone else to have this effect they would need a single +3 weapon worth 18k, and she now has 3. I felt this was unfair to the other players so I told her it could only apply to one claw or bite, but that she could buy tooth or claw caps so she could enchant her other weapons.

Some additional info, this is a pathfinder game and the players are 9th level. She is a catfolk and the rest of the party are dwarves, a fighter, monk and cleric respectfully. I was trying to keep things balanced, so she isn't getting 6d6 extra damage for 16k. Was I unfair in my choice of nerf? The monk could also have done this and done even more damage with a flurry of blows, but the fighter and cleric would have been at a disadvantage because they use manufacturered weapons. This isn't an item I use in any of my builds, so is it meant to be this powerful? Was I wrong to nerf it or should I have done so a different way? I appreciate your feedback and any suggestions you might have.

[Keltest]

I could be crazy, but the page you linked seems to indicate that in the event of a creature (or PC) with multiple weapons attacking, it is already intended that the bonus effects only apply to one weapon. heck, the claw/claw/bite routine is the exact example used.



If a creature with multiple natural attacks (such as bite/claw/claw) wears an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the speed property, does it get one extra attack with each of its natural weapons?

No... mainly because that combination is way too good for monsters with multiple attacks, and gets better the more natural attacks a monster has. Doubling a creature's attacks per round is really powerful, even for 80,000 gp (the price of a +4 amulet).

I don't know how authoritative that site's sources are for pathfinder, but the precedent seems to be there.

[ZamielVanWeber]

She does 6d6 is she hits with all three attacks and it looks like she gave up the to hit bonus from the amulet to do it plus this damage is ripped to shreds by the appropriate energy resistance 5. Unless you intend for no one to ever have energy resistance (or a high AC) it should not be a problem.

[gartius]

Yes you were wrong to nerf it

The amulet of mighty fists has two major problems for natural attack users
1) its a more expensive fighting style - you pointed out it costs 16k for +2 whereas a +2 weapon is only 8k. its double the cost to allow it to apply to all natural attacks.
2) its a slotted item. This means they are giving the amulet of natural armour or the necklace of adaptation or any others to be able to gain this attack bonus.

This is where the fighter and cleric will benefit in being able to use that slot for other things on top of their weapons.

Generally manufactured weapons will edge out on the damage front as well due to 1&1/2 Strength if 2 handing or via buffs with the cleric such as divine power etc.

[exelsisxax]

Unless you intend to ban haste and metamagic and all summoning spells, yes it's unfair. Those enchantments are the only way to permanently enhance natural attacks. Everything else favours weapon-users as much or more. The monk has more attacks with weapons which can be enchanted for cheaper, the fighter eventually gets more attacks and should already have much higher average damage, especially if 2-handing. Combine with haste or similar effects, and your ranger is doing the smart thing to try to stay relevant.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Don't know if PF changed it or not but shouldn't only either the claws or the bite be considered her primary natural weapon and the other a secondary that has to eat a to-hit penalty and only gets half str to damage?

[John Longarrow]

Would it be too much if a ranger using two weapon fighting were to get a pair of short swords with the same energy combo? For the money, that's what she's competing with.

[Shackel]

Don't know if PF changed it or not but shouldn't only either the claws or the bite be considered her primary natural weapon and the other a secondary that has to eat a to-hit penalty and only gets half str to damage?

In PF, certain natural attacks are always considered to be primary or secondary unless otherwise stated: bites and claws fall into the former category, meaning that unless whatever grants them declares them secondary or unless you use manufactured weapons, all three will be primary.

Also, yes, OP, you were terribly wrong to nerf it, especially over a measly +2d6 damage per non-magical attack at level 9. If you're going to shrink it to one weapon at least just make it normal price. The price of two weapon fighting is bad enough, trying to make someone pay triple price for a maximum of +5(including special abilities) is just cruel.

[Malroth]

A zen archer monk spending that same 16K on a similarly enchanted bow and arrows could be adding in 24d6+ per round at a better to hit bonus so no Your Natural attack ranger getting a mesely 6d6 is not broken in the least if the least powerful class in the game is outshining you by 4 to 1.

[gartius]

Don't know if PF changed it or not but shouldn't only either the claws or the bite be considered her primary natural weapon and the other a secondary that has to eat a to-hit penalty and only gets half str to damage?

Bite and claws are both classed as primary attacks so no penalties are applied to them.

However I am wondering how the ranger managed to boost a claw (1d4 for medium) and bite (1d6) to both be 1d8.

[Grytorm]

I could be crazy, but the page you linked seems to indicate that in the event of a creature (or PC) with multiple weapons attacking, it is already intended that the bonus effects only apply to one weapon. heck, the claw/claw/bite routine is the exact example used.

Actually, if you read closer that only applies to the speed weapon enchantment but they don't really go into detail.

Also I am reminded of my distaste for errata. Not because things don't need changes sometimes, I just wished that they had a document which allowed people to look at the original versions of things as well.

[Deca4531]

I could be crazy, but the page you linked seems to indicate that in the event of a creature (or PC) with multiple weapons attacking, it is already intended that the bonus effects only apply to one weapon. heck, the claw/claw/bite routine is the exact example used.

I don't know how authoritative that site's sources are for pathfinder, but the precedent seems to be there.

That was specific to speed only, as far as I know.


She does 6d6 is she hits with all three attacks and it looks like she gave up the to hit bonus from the amulet to do it plus this damage is ripped to shreds by the appropriate energy resistance 5. Unless you intend for no one to ever have energy resistance (or a high AC) it should not be a problem

So far they haven't fought anything with those abilities and I don't think they will anytime soon .


The amulet of mighty fists has two major problems for natural attack users
1) its a more expensive fighting style - you pointed out it costs 16k for +2 whereas a +2 weapon is only 8k. its double the cost to allow it to apply to all natural attacks.
2) its a slotted item. This means they are giving the amulet of natural armour or the necklace of adaptation or any others to be able to gain this attack bonus.

This is where the fighter and cleric will benefit in being able to use that slot for other things on top of their weapons.

Generally manufactured weapons will edge out on the damage front as well due to 1&1/2 Strength if 2 handing or via buffs with the cleric such as divine power etc.

1) swords and the like need to be +1 before they can have extra effects, the amulet does not. Yes she is loosing out on that +1 bit she also pays 2k less so it evens out.
2) as I said she could buy caps for teeth and claws to work around this.
3) if she only uses her bite she can add strength and a half and use multiple attacks based on bab.


Now a lot of people are talking about "it would be cheaper to use 2 swords for 8k each." No, a weapon has to be a +1 before you can add flaming and shocking to it, so to have the same effect you would need a +3 weapon which is 18k. She is loosing out on +1 to attack, which is less than 10% of her total ability to hit, and pays 2k less. If I let her have it on all 3, she is still loosing out on only +1 per attack but gaining 48,000 gold worth of extra damage.

[exelsisxax]

Natural attacks CANNOT be used as iteratives. Your ranger can never use two bites in a round(assuming there's never going to be more than one head)

[OldTrees1]

Then she bought a +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/amulet-of-mighty-fists) for 16k. She chose to add 1d6 of fire and lighting, and apparently this applies to all her natural weapons. Now for anyone else to have this effect they would need a single +3 weapon worth 18k, and she now has 3.

Remember that the +2 Amulet is only giving the 2 +1 weapon special abilities so it is not comparable to a +3 weapon. The 36Kgp one is comparable to the 18K weapon.

Although you could give it a minor nerf by requiring the Amulet provide at minimum a +1 enhancement bonus (aka a +1 Shocking for 16K vs an 8K weapon). I would certainly do this myself. In 3e both Bracers of Armor and Amulet of Mighty Fist required a minimum of a +1 before specials.


I don't know how authoritative that site's sources are for pathfinder, but the precedent seems to be there.

I would not consider that authoritative because they clearly are not aware that speed never stacks be it on multiple weapons or multiple natural weapons. They are trying to extrapolate from a blatant misreading.


However let us consider the case the OP faces:
The characters are 9th level so they can have 2 attacks(Full/-5) without any class/racial features (and the price of 1 weapon). Two Weapon Fighting would increase that to 3 attacks (and the price of 2 weapons) at -2/-2/-7.
This natural weapon warrior has 3 natural weapons (1 attack each) that they can enchant for the price of 2 weapons and they attack at Full/-5/-5.
So as long as it remains only 3 natural weapons the two cases seem comparable at this level range.

[gartius]

1) swords and the like need to be +1 before they can have extra effects, the amulet does not. Yes she is loosing out on that +1 bit she also pays 2k less so it evens out.
2) as I said she could buy caps for teeth and claws to work around this.
3) if she only uses her bite she can add strength and a half and use multiple attacks based on bab.


Now a lot of people are talking about "it would be cheaper to use 2 swords for 8k each." No, a weapon has to be a +1 before you can add flaming and shocking to it, so to have the same effect you would need a +3 weapon which is 18k. She is loosing out on +1 to attack, which is less than 10% of her total ability to hit, and pays 2k less. If I let her have it on all 3, she is still loosing out on only +1 per attack but gaining 48,000 gold worth of extra damage.

1) Actually it doesn't and this becomes more pronounced as you extrapolate the cost for items (+3 amulet vs +4 sword 4k difference, +4 amulet vs +5 sword 14k difference, +5 amulet vs +6 sword 38k difference).
2) what is this going to entail? They are already paying more for one natural attack compared to manufactured and you want to increase this further.
3)as has been pointed out natural attacks cannot have iterative attacks unless specified (as with animal companion advancement)

honestly if you are that bothered about the +1 ignoring houserule it so that the first thing they have to buy is the +1 enhancement

[Deca4531]

Remember that the +2 Amulet is only giving the 2 +1 weapon special abilities so it is not comparable to a +3 weapon. The 36Kgp one is comparable to the 18K weapon.

Although you could give it a minor nerf by requiring the Amulet provide at minimum a +1 enhancement bonus (aka a +1 Shocking for 16K vs an 8K weapon). I would certainly do this myself.



I would not consider that authoritative because they clearly are not aware that speed never stacks be it on multiple weapons or multiple natural weapons. They are trying to extrapolate from a blatant misreading.


However let us consider the case the OP faces:
The characters are 9th level so they can have 2 attacks(Full/-5) without any class/racial features (and the price of 1 weapon). Two Weapon Fighting would increase that to 3 attacks (and the price of 2 weapons) at -2/-2/-7.
This natural weapon warrior has 3 natural weapons (1 attack each) that they can enchant for the price of 2 weapons and they attack at Full/-5/-5.
So as long as it remains only 3 natural weapons the two cases seem comparable at this level range.

Mostly right, but claws and bite use full BAB so it would be -2/-2-/7 compared to Full/Full/Full.

Now if we look at damage, to DW you really need to use light weapons, so assume 1d6 of damage, or an average 3.5. with 2 +2 weapons (16k) let's say shocking, his average goes up to 8 per hit, and is less likely to hit on latter attacks

Now this ranger with claws and bite does 1d8 each, so 4.5 average. Add flaming shocking amulet will giver her an average of 10.5 with a high likelihood of hitting each time. She also adds full strength to each hit, Wich the DW character does not. Assuming the DW is Dex based and has only a 14 strength, he would add 6 more damage to his average, where claw build I'd strength focused with a 20, so they add 15 to their average damage

That gives us a total, assuming all 3 hit, 14 for the DW and 25.5 for the claw build.

Assuming my math is right.

[Deca4531]

1) Actually it doesn't and this becomes more pronounced as you extrapolate the cost for items (+3 amulet vs +4 sword 4k difference, +4 amulet vs +5 sword 14k difference, +5 amulet vs +6 sword 38k difference).
2) what is this going to entail? They are already paying more for one natural attack compared to manufactured and you want to increase this further.
3)as has been pointed out natural attacks cannot have iterative attacks unless specified (as with animal companion advancement)

honestly if you are that bothered about the +1 ignoring houserule it so that the first thing they have to buy is the +1 enhancement

1 ) OK, so if I bumped the cost of the amulet to 18k, equal to a +3 weapon and gave her the +1 on top of the rest, she is still paying 1/3 of what anyone else would.

2) if I told her she could enchant her claws and teeth just like a sword, they would be paying the same as anyone else, yes? Hence the caps. It would have to be +1 first before she could add the other effects, where the amulet saves her 2k if she doesn't care about that +1.

3) I admit I wrong on this part, as it doesn't say in the discription for natural weapons that this wasn't an option anywhere that I could find, but after looking at high level animals it does seem to be the case.. If you could give me a source I could reference that would be awesome.

[SangoProduction]

1 ) OK, so if I bumped the cost of the amulet to 18k, equal to a +3 weapon and gave her the +1 on top of the rest, she is still paying 1/3 of what anyone else would.

2) if I told her she could enchant her claws and teeth just like a sword, they would be paying the same as anyone else, yes? Hence the caps. It would have to be +1 first before she could add the other effects, where the amulet saves her 2k if she doesn't care about that +1.

3) I admit I wrong on this part, as it doesn't say in the discription for natural weapons that this wasn't an option anywhere that I could find, but after looking at high level animals it does seem to be the case.. If you could give me a source I could reference that would be awesome.

Actually, if she has to enchant her weapons each individually, that means she's paying 3x what a two-handed user would, and 1.5x a two-weapon user would. And they get no iteratives, unless they take a 3.0 Savage Species feat.

I would, for your group, probably just say "Hey, mechanically, here, take a longsword (or greatsword, but the group op seems rather low). Use that for all mechanical purposes, but fluff it as your jaws 'n claws. You can favorably choose to apply effects as though it were both natural and manufactured." And be done with it. Maybe toss them a bone and let them apply 1.5x their strength modifier to damage.

I certainly would not be inclined to play with natural weapons in your game in either case, but this isn't about me. This is about your group. 6d6 over 3 attacks is a lot to your group. That means it's a lot. You...could...add resistances occasionally, but eh. You don't plan to.

If you're looking for validation that your nerf was correct, you're not going to find it on these boards. But, if it works for your group, and no one's particularly miffed, have at it.

[gartius]

1) sorry i dont understand- if its a +3 amulet you pay the cost of the +3 amulet (which is 32k) which is not 1/3 the cost of what a +3 weapon pays.

2) again this comes to the idea of slots on body and you are penalising the natural attacker for the different slots compared to the DW fighter on top of paying the cost of items. This would also make natural attacks really unfeasible in general.


3) from the srd http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attack
Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

Multiple Attacks

A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

[stanprollyright]

Go ahead and nerf. Natural Attacks are stupidly strong in this game.

[Deca4531]

Actually, if she has to enchant her weapons each individually, that means she's paying 3x what a two-handed user would, and 1.5x a two-weapon user would. And they get no iteratives, unless they take a 3.0 Savage Species feat.

I would, for your group, probably just say "Hey, mechanically, here, take a longsword (or greatsword, but the group op seems rather low). Use that for all mechanical purposes, but fluff it as your jaws 'n claws. You can favorably choose to apply effects as though it were both natural and manufactured." And be done with it. Maybe toss them a bone and let them apply 1.5x their strength modifier to damage.

I certainly would not be inclined to play with natural weapons in your game in either case, but this isn't about me. This is about your group. 6d6 over 3 attacks is a lot to your group. That means it's a lot. You...could...add resistances occasionally, but eh. You don't plan to.

If you're looking for validation that your nerf was correct, you're not going to find it on these boards. But, if it works for your group, and no one's particularly miffed, have at it.

My player was actually very understanding about it and agreed with the change, but as i said before i dont use this item or nat atks in any of my own builds, so if i was missing something (for instance i didn't know she couldn't do iterative attacks with a single claw or bite) then i want to know so i can adjust my ruling. mostly the basis for my ruling was her average damage compared to the rest of the party. the fighter uses a dwarven way ax and does about 30 to 40 damage a round. the cleric uses a 2 handed mace that does 2d6 and has a huge strength (22) and power attacks, doing around 55 damage a turn, and the monk flurry does about 55 as well. she was doing around 70 a round, which was allowing her to solo some bosses, not something a ranger should be able to do imo.

based on what i have learned and people's opinions i think i'll have to do some house ruling so her abilities function more like a monk flurry, maybe just remove the Amulet all together and let her enchant her stuff like a sword.

[Deca4531]

1) sorry i dont understand- if its a +3 amulet you pay the cost of the +3 amulet (which is 32k) which is not 1/3 the cost of what a +3 weapon pays.

2) again this comes to the idea of slots on body and you are penalising the natural attacker for the different slots compared to the DW fighter on top of paying the cost of items. This would also make natural attacks really unfeasible in general.


3) from the srd http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attack

1) you misunderstood me. i said if i bumped the price of the amulet to 18k, the same as a +3 weapon, and gave her +1 to attacks (just like a +3 weapon would do) then this effect would trasmit to all 3 of her attacks, equaling 3 +3 weapons for the price of 1. currently all she is loosing with the amulet, before nerfs, is 1 more average damage and +1 to hit (which if pfft when all 3 of her attacks use full bab)

2) claw and tooth caps would take up the same slots a weapon would, so no this isnt penalizing her.

3) thank you :)

[OldTrees1]

Mostly right, but claws and bite use full BAB so it would be -2/-2-/7 compared to Full/Full/Full.

Now if we look at damage, to DW you really need to use light weapons, so assume 1d6 of damage, or an average 3.5. with 2 +2 weapons (16k) let's say shocking, his average goes up to 8 per hit, and is less likely to hit on latter attacks

Assuming my math is right.

Are you sure about that Full/Full/Full? I only know 3.5 but surely Pathfinder did not declare all natural weapons to be primary weapons?
Edit: Someone quoted the Pathfinder rules. Pathfinder does keep the secondary natural weapons rules so it would not be Full/Full/Full.

DW or TWF is often One Handed/Light Weapon and most of the damage comes from the ability modifiers rather than the weapon dice.

Also remember TWF costs a feat while natural weapons cost a class/racial feature.


Nat Weapons
3 attacks at Full/-5/-5 (call it -3.33 each for rounding) with a +1 Shocking Amulet (same price as 2 weapons).
Total Damage: 3d8+3(the +1)+2*mod(Secondaries get only 1/2 mod)+3d6 ~= 6d8+2*mod

TWF
3 attacks at -2/-2/-7 (call it -3 each for rounding) with a +1 Shocking Longsword and a +1 Flaming Shortsword (ignore the improved threat range).
Total Damage: 2d8+1d6+3+2.5*mod(Off Hand gets only 1/2 mod)+3d6 ~= 6d8-1+2.5*mod

THF
2 attacks at Full/-5 (call it -2.5 each for rounding) with a +1 Shocking Flaming Greatsword(18K ~= 16K).
Total Damage: 4d6+3+3*mod+4d6 ~= 2d6+6d8-3+3*mod

Seem all to be similar enough to me (assuming you change Amulet to require a +1 enhancement first). If anything it is the Greatsword that is the strongest.


Edit:
Or yeah, increasing it to a +1 Shocking Flaming Amulet for 18K works too.

[Kelb_Panthera]

1) you misunderstood me. i said if i bumped the price of the amulet to 18k, the same as a +3 weapon, and gave her +1 to attacks (just like a +3 weapon would do) then this effect would trasmit to all 3 of her attacks, equaling 3 +3 weapons for the price of 1. currently all she is loosing with the amulet, before nerfs, is 1 more average damage and +1 to hit (which if pfft when all 3 of her attacks use full bab)

2) claw and tooth caps would take up the same slots a weapon would, so no this isnt penalizing her.

3) thank you :)

You forgot bypassing DR X/ magic unless she has it herself. No enhancement bonus, no bypassing DR.

[Deca4531]

Are you sure about that Full/Full/Full? I only know 3.5 but surely Pathfinder did not declare all natural weapons to be primary weapons?
Edit: Someone quoted the Pathfinder rules. Pathfinder does keep the secondary natural weapons rules so it would not be Full/Full/Full.

DW or TWF is often One Handed/Light Weapon and most of the damage comes from the ability modifiers rather than the weapon dice.

Also remember TWF costs a feat while natural weapons cost a class/racial feature.


Nat Weapons
3 attacks at Full/-5/-5 (call it -3.33 each for rounding) with a +1 Shocking Amulet (same price as 2 weapons).
Total Damage: 3d8+3(the +1)+2*mod(Secondaries get only 1/2 mod)+3d6 ~= 6d8+2*mod

TWF
3 attacks at -2/-2/-7 (call it -3 each for rounding) with a +1 Shocking Longsword and a +1 Flaming Shortsword (ignore the improved threat range).
Total Damage: 2d8+1d6+3+2.5*mod(Off Hand gets only 1/2 mod)+3d6 ~= 6d8-1+2.5*mod

THF
2 attacks at Full/-5 (call it -2.5 each for rounding) with a +1 Shocking Flaming Greatsword(18K ~= 16K).
Total Damage: 4d6+3+3*mod+4d6 ~= 2d6+6d8-3+3*mod

Seem all to be similar enough to me (assuming you change Amulet to require a +1 enhancement first). If anything it is the Greatsword that is the strongest.


Edit:
Or yeah, increasing it to a +1 Shocking Flaming Amulet for 18K works too.

Claws and bite are both primary attacks (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Natural-Attacks) in PF. so they use Full BAB and full strength mod. also, i wouldn't take +1 over 1d6. a +1 shocking amulet would give you a 4.5 dmg boost, but a flaming, shocking amulet (since it doesnt need to be +1 to have these) gives you 7 more dmg.

[Deca4531]

You forgot bypassing DR X/ magic unless she has it herself. No enhancement bonus, no bypassing DR.

true, but her class gives her Eldritch Claws (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/eldritch-claws) as a bonus feat at 6th level

[OldTrees1]

Claws and bite are both primary attacks (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Natural-Attacks) in PF. so they use Full BAB and full strength mod. also, i wouldn't take +1 over 1d6. a +1 shocking amulet would give you a 4.5 dmg boost, but a flaming, shocking amulet (since it doesnt need to be +1 to have these) gives you 7 more dmg.

1) Wow! I see no reason Pathfinder decided to make it possible to have multiple primary natural weapons. I would suggest altering that.

2) I agree that 1d6 dam is better than +1 atk/dam which is why I have been suggesting and presuming you would houserule a minimum of a +1 enhancement (like your plan to force it to be upgraded to a +1 Flaming Shocking Amulet would do).

[Mato]

Q: Am I being unfair by nerfing Amulet of Mighty Fists?
Note: It's pathfinder.

A: If it were D&D, no.
Also a +1 flaming shocking amulet of mighty fists costs 54,000gp.
Assuming a strength score of thirty, your 9th level ranger deals 1d8+10+2d6 & 1d8+5+2d6*2 or 54 avg.

The monk, at half that strength score, with improved natural weapon, drinks a 300gp elixir of flaming fist and deals 2d8+10+1d6x3 or 67.5 avg for the next ten rounds.

The cleric of mystra, at half that strength score, simply throws a horde of venomous creatures enhanced with venomfire's +9d6 damage at his opponent from his throne (carried by his undead former enemies).

[Deca4531]

Q: Am I being unfair by nerfing Amulet of Mighty Fists?
Note: It's pathfinder.

A: If it were D&D, no.
Also a +1 flaming shocking amulet of mighty fists costs 54,000gp.
Assuming a strength score of thirty, your 9th level ranger deals 1d8+10+2d6 & 1d8+5+2d6*2 or 54 avg.

The monk, at half that strength score, with improved natural weapon, drinks a 300gp elixir of flaming fist and deals 2d8+10+1d6x3 or 67.5 avg for the next ten rounds.

The cleric of mystra, at half that strength score, simply throws a horde of venomous creatures enhanced with venomfire's +9d6 damage at his opponent from his throne (carried by his undead former enemies).

+1 damage is insignificant at this point, so a +2 Amulet of flame and shock is more than enough. Also ALL her attacks are primary, so full STR and BAB. Boosts her average by 10 more points.

As for the monk, yep, he could match her in damage (you didn't half his STR BTW), monks are OP. But the monk flurry at their level is only 7/7/2/2 where the ranger is at 9/9/9. So her average number of hits will be much higher, especially on bosses, marketing her overall damage higher than the monk.

[JNAProductions]

Monks are OP...

Guys, I think this is the wrong forum. We're too high Op for this.

[Mehangel]

monks are OP

I think that the monk example was given due to how pathetic and weak the class was. Not saying the monk cannot be optimized, but to call the monk class (one of the lower tiered classes) overpowered, couldn't actually be further from the general opinion of the forum.

[Deca4531]

I think that the monk example was given due to how pathetic and weak the class was. Not saying the monk cannot be optimized, but to call the monk class (one of the lower tiered classes) overpowered, couldn't actually be further from the general opinion of the forum.

i just don't agree with the whole Tier system, its very subjective. The monk in our game isn't power gamed at all and is one of the strongest characters in the game. he could probably take out any other player in 1 on 1 combat. as long as you don't build them intentionally bad they preform fine.

[The Glyphstone]

Monks are OP...

Guys, I think this is the wrong forum. We're too high Op for this.

No, we just need to recalibrate our dials way, way down. If a monk is legitimately one of the strongest characters in the group, they're playing very low-op. Just gotta keep that in mind when giving advice, so we don't accidentally destroy the equilibrium with a unbalancing suggestion.

[JNAProductions]

No, we just need to recalibrate our dials way, way down. If a monk is legitimately one of the strongest characters in the group, they're playing very low-op. Just gotta keep that in mind when giving advice, so we don't accidentally destroy the equilibrium with a unbalancing suggestion.

True, true. Why don't you give us the characters' full builds, OP?

[Deca4531]

True, true. Why don't you give us the characters' full builds, OP?

Lets see if i can do this from memory.

Fighter, Tank, full plate and tower shield. mostly focused on defence feats except for power atk.

Cleric, dps and off heals, focuses on debuffs and power atks with two hander. healing and travel domains. used full plate as well.

Monk, dps, focuses on grapple and flurry as well as adding to his unarmed atk, like bleed damage and such.

Ranger, dps, built around natural weapons.

no one in the group is optimized, this is the first real game for the ranger and fighter (i complimented her on coming up with such a good build for being so new), and the monk and cleric are experienced but focus more on the role play of their characters than anything else.

[John Longarrow]

If she only gets 3 attacks per round, how is she averaging 70 points of damage?

1d8+2d6 = 11.5 avg damage. If she hits with all 3 that would be 34.5 damage. Even with an 18 STR that would only add an extra 12 for 46.5. That leaves about 7 damage per hit unaccounted for.

[gr8artist]

I haven't read the entirety of every post so it's possible I repeat something someone else said. I ran a fairly long PF campaign that reached into higher levels. One of the primary PC's was a goblin alchemist (vivisectionist) who used an AoMF with the Vicious property (+2d6 dmg, 1d6 to the attacker). The goblin ended up with a bite, claws, and wing buffet, and got Greater Invisibility from her extracts. Lots and lots of damage there.
Almost as much as a Fireball spell.

Is the amulet strong? Yes. It's one of the better options for character builds like hers.
Is it overpowered? No. There are easy counters and obvious flaws.
Is it overpowered in your campaign? Possibly. If your group is really relaxed and unoptimized, then a strong full-attack routine might outshine the other PC's.

My advice would be to ask the other players what they think. If they're OK with it, then you can give your BBEG's some protections against the fearsome player. If they don't have pounce, then distance is the easiest counter. Elemental Resistance or Immunity is another easy one. Concealment works too, as it's a flat miss chance on all attacks (regardless of their iterative bonus).
If the other players think it's too strong, then there are a number of obvious nerfs you could employ:
Require a +1 modifier before special abilities.
Restrict it to a particular weapon type (bite or claws).
Lower the effectiveness to d4's instead of d6's.
Make it limited use (ie 4 full-attacks per day, unlimited single attacks).

[Eldaran]

Lets see if i can do this from memory.

Fighter, Tank, full plate and tower shield. mostly focused on defence feats except for power atk.

Cleric, dps and off heals, focuses on debuffs and power atks with two hander. healing and travel domains. used full plate as well.

Monk, dps, focuses on grapple and flurry as well as adding to his unarmed atk, like bleed damage and such.

Ranger, dps, built around natural weapons.

no one in the group is optimized, this is the first real game for the ranger and fighter (i complimented her on coming up with such a good build for being so new), and the monk and cleric are experienced but focus more on the role play of their characters than anything else.

Here's what I find confusing. You're upset that the character built for damage is doing more damage than those built for defense or utility. Yes, the ranger is out-damaging the cleric, but the cleric has spells. The ranger is out-damaging the fighter, but the fighter probably has significantly more AC.

Also, +1 enhancement bonus is generally considered better than something like shocking or flaming. It doesn't get shutdown by resistances, is more consistent damage, and lets you bypass various forms of DR (not just DR/magic). Consider that +1 to hit is worth +2 damage for a primary natural attack (look at power attack), so the +1 enhancement bonus adds 3 damage compared to 3.5 from a 1d6.

[Deca4531]

I haven't read the entirety of every post so it's possible I repeat something someone else said. I ran a fairly long PF campaign that reached into higher levels. One of the primary PC's was a goblin alchemist (vivisectionist) who used an AoMF with the Vicious property (+2d6 dmg, 1d6 to the attacker). The goblin ended up with a bite, claws, and wing buffet, and got Greater Invisibility from her extracts. Lots and lots of damage there.
Almost as much as a Fireball spell.

Is the amulet strong? Yes. It's one of the better options for character builds like hers.
Is it overpowered? No. There are easy counters and obvious flaws.
Is it overpowered in your campaign? Possibly. If your group is really relaxed and unoptimized, then a strong full-attack routine might outshine the other PC's.

My advice would be to ask the other players what they think. If they're OK with it, then you can give your BBEG's some protections against the fearsome player. If they don't have pounce, then distance is the easiest counter. Elemental Resistance or Immunity is another easy one. Concealment works too, as it's a flat miss chance on all attacks (regardless of their iterative bonus).
If the other players think it's too strong, then there are a number of obvious nerfs you could employ:
Require a +1 modifier before special abilities.
Restrict it to a particular weapon type (bite or claws).
Lower the effectiveness to d4's instead of d6's.
Make it limited use (ie 4 full-attacks per day, unlimited single attacks).

Some good suggestions, thank you.

[blackbloodtroll]

I found the "don't do too well, or you'll be punished" approach to be very DM vs Player, and that usually does not end well.
You have a full caster, who has the potential to end combats alone, and the guy who wanted to do one thing well, gets put down for doing just that.
It is not even the most powerful, or effective way to be a natural weapon specialist.
The other players seemed to have focused elsewhere, and you basically put the word out, that if they ever get a little too good, at what they want to be good at, you may shut them down.
Maybe, that's`okay with your players. Finding a cool effective option that fits their concept, but opting to choose something else, as it may bring about the DM's ire.
It does not seem to be breaking the game. The player seems to just dealing a little more damage, than those not solely focused on damage. That seems like what they should be doing.
They don't have an effective way to deal with swarms, incorporeal, DR, and rely on some energy damage, that is susceptible to resistance.
Seriously. The player does not have a way to deal with a lowly Spider Swarm, or random Fighter in Adamantine Armor. You should reconsider.
A focused Fighter, with a Two-Handed Weapon will outclass this PC. They still have a slot open for a Swarmbane Clasp, and it is cheaper to add stuff like Ghost Touch. Heck, the Fighter can take advantage of all the Weapon Blanches, whilst this PC has to suck it to all sorts of DR.
The Cleric has access to Greater Magic Weapon, and numerous other buffs, that will not effect Natural Weapons.
So, even with just a bit of varied tactics, the Ranger can be outclassed.
Make some suggestions to other players on tactics, and don't punish this player needlessly.

[AnachroNinja]

In my opinion, the really important factor is that you are essentially setting a cap here. You are making a decision that 70ish average damage per round at level 9 is too much. That's not necessarily wrong by any means, as long as you are aware of what your doing. As noted by others, the ranger's lacking any number of other types of abilities that the other characters get access to, which is only an issue if it's actually an issue.

If you, and your party, are comfortable with a damage cap in that area to keep everyone's characters in the same general ballpark, then cool. If that idea bothers you, maybe reevaluate.

[killem2]

Yes.


This is so I can have the proper amount of characters.

[Krazzman]

Are you being unfair? In my opinion yes. That item eats a ton of money as well as blocking a slot.

Let's recap your players.
You got a fighter using a weak fighting style to perform a role that isn't viable in pathfinder. Your cleric is using a big stick to bash people while healing a little bit. Your monk is apparently the strongest one since he is probably the best versed player.

The mentioned tier system is not a ranking in terms of power but potential. It always was player>build>tier.

Furthermore your group is quite unbalanced. No arcane casting and no ranged dpr.

But since the problem is already apparent... there is a dedicated catfolk item for their claws to count as different materials.

[meemaas]

I could be crazy, but the page you linked seems to indicate that in the event of a creature (or PC) with multiple weapons attacking, it is already intended that the bonus effects only apply to one weapon. heck, the claw/claw/bite routine is the exact example used.




I don't know how authoritative that site's sources are for pathfinder, but the precedent seems to be there.

That is actually pulled straight from the Paizo FAQS, however, that was more a ruling on the Speed property than anything else.

[The Glyphstone]

Seeing the rest of the group, I definitely think you don't necessarily need to nerf the amulet. With one member of the group as a AC tank and a second as a healbot cleric, that means the Monk and the Ranger have to bring all of the party's offensive capability. Right now, the Monk and the Ranger are doing comparable damage, but if you nerf the Ranger, the Monk will just end up looking even more OP. The real question is if the players feel unhappy about their comparative contributions - I'd only suggest reining in the Ranger if the Monk is complaining about being overshadowed. If the four of them are happy, then all you need to do is pad Monster HP up a little to keep enemies threatening.

I would, regardless, still make the amulet have a minimum flat +1 bonus before getting properties, like a regular magic weapon. I never actually noticed that, and think it's silly, so that's a houserule I'd do myself.

[Berenger]

Aside from the numbers, telling a cat to get claw caps or teeth caps sounds like a grave insult to me.

[Coidzor]

1) swords and the like need to be +1 before they can have extra effects, the amulet does not. Yes she is loosing out on that +1 bit she also pays 2k less so it evens out.

I don't think it does, given DR/Magic and how common it is.


2) as I said she could buy caps for teeth and claws to work around this.


So you're saying that she now has to be in a worse place than a TWFer.


true, but her class gives her Eldritch Claws (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/eldritch-claws) as a bonus feat at 6th level

That's irrelevant for nerfing the item.