Amulet of Mighty Fists=Huge Rip-off?

[unre9istered]

Is is just me or is the Amulet of Mighty Fists a huge rip-off? Should a Monk really have to pay three times as much for a +1 to his attack and damage as just about anyone else? /retorical question rant

Is there an actual reason for this, or is it just another instance of WotC being clueless regarding game balance?

[The Glyphstone]

It's a well-known issue that the AoMF is horrifically overpriced. The Necklace of Natural Attacks from Savage Species is much cheaper, and it lets you add weapon enhancements. It's Kensai-in-a-Box, without the code restrictions!

[Arakune]

Is is just me or is the Amulet of Mighty Fists a huge rip-off? Should a Monk really have to pay three times as much for a +1 to his attack and damage as just about anyone else? /retorical question rant

Is there an actual reason for this, or is it just another instance of WotC being clueless regarding game balance?

It's just a magic "weapon" in a different slot. Normally it costs more/impossible to change one magic enchantment type to an incompatible slot. They already made the magic creation rules and wanted to give it a try to other items.

Maybe.

[tyckspoon]

It's usable by monks, but I suspect it wasn't really designed for them; it's a much better deal when you put it on a collar and hang it on the Druid's pet tiger, or when it's being carried by a Thri-keen, or a claws+bite Psychic Warrior.. basically, if you're an actual natural attacks user, it's fairly priced. Monks just get rules shafted here, and I would bet the designers/playtesters never thought of it because their playtest games just houseruled in the use of gauntlets or something.

[AmberVael]

Is there an actual reason for this, or is it just another instance of WotC being clueless regarding game balance?

WotC is clueless when it comes to attacking while unarmed, and attacking with multiple weapons. These options were nerfed when they should have been boosted.

Frankly, even from the perspective of someone who wants to boost a number of different natural weapons, it is overpriced.

[Kalirren]

Yeah, the AoMF's priced basically according to rules guidelines:

x2 because it affects both your fists
x1.5 because of a strange slot.

I hate the strange slot rules anyway, and the x2 doesn't really do much because you're unlikely to use both your fists for TWF, as feat-starved as you are as a monk.

But the AoMF it's really useful for, say, a dragon, or an illithid body tamer. Natural attacks win.

[Hzurr]

Typically, I hear about people allowing monks to get enchanted "hand wraps" or something like that. Monks already have to spend enough on magic items as it is, and the AoMF thing is annoying

(That being said, the one time I played a Thri-Kreen, it was pretty awesome)

[DragoonWraith]

It's useless. I had a character with 16 natural attacks, and I still with Necklace of Natural Attacks over Amulet of Mighty Fists. It's just that bad. I could have put a +4 bonus on every attack, but I preferred to have a +3 equivalent (with +2 worth of special abilities) on four of them, because enhancement bonuses are just bad.

[AmberVael]

Let me make a comparison here.

Amulet of Natural Attacks:
+1 = 6,000 gold.
+2 = 24,000 gold.
+3 = 54,000 gold.

This simply adds the relevant number to attack and damage on unarmed and natural attacks. It does absolutely nothing else.

So lets compare...

Strength Enhancing Item:
+2 strength (+1 modifier) = 4,000
+4 strength (+2 modifier) = 16,000
+6 strength (+3 modifier) = 36,000

Strength adds to all melee attacks, damage, carrying capacity, strength checks, various other things like trip and grapple and all kinds of nifty stuff.


So yes. Amulet of Might Fists is overpriced. Buy the +1 version and leave it at that (so as to make your weapons magical), and then just go Strength items all the way. Because increasing your strength to get the same damage and attack bonus (and more) is significantly cheaper.

This help explain why it is so ridiculous?

[Eldariel]

It's useless. I had a character with 16 natural attacks, and I still with Necklace of Natural Attacks over Amulet of Mighty Fists. It's just that bad. I could have put a +4 bonus on every attack, but I preferred to have a +3 equivalent (with +2 worth of special abilities) on four of them, because enhancement bonuses are just bad.

If you allow it to get weapon abilities, it becomes a decent deal for many Natural Weapon-heavy characters though. But no, never for Unarmed types; they prefer Greater Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Fang, and Necklace if neither is available.

[Keld Denar]

This help explain why it is so ridiculous?

Well, there is the matter of "what do you buy to enhance your damage when you already have a +6 Str item?". Sure, the +str item is a better deal, but then what? The pricing on a +8 Str item is epic. Also, you'd get the best bang for your buck with a +4 Str item and a +1 Amulet (6000+16000=22000 vs 36000).

Its the same thing with AC. Natural Armor is cheaper to buy than Deflection, but there comes a point when you've bought all the NA you can buy, and if you want more AC, you HAVE to buy Deflection, and at the lowest levels, its better to buy +1 Deflection, +1 NA, and +1 Enhancement than +3 of any of the 3.

Thats why the costs tend to be quadratic in nature. Item slots and their respective bonuses becomes more valuable as things start filling up. Its the Law of Supply and Demand, applied to your body.

[AmberVael]

Well, there is the matter of "what do you buy to enhance your damage when you already have a +6 Str item?"

Well sure, but that doesn't make the enhancement bonus any less stupid in terms of price.

It does less and costs more. Would it be more efficient to get a bit of both? Sure- but that doesn't mean the one that is less worthwhile should be more costly.

[Lycanthromancer]

Its the Law of Supply and Demand, applied to your body.

That's what s/he said.

As for enhancement bonuses? Greater magic weapon or greater magic fang. Chained. Buy a pearl of power for the party caster, or get a constant-use item.

Or just be a monk/psychic warrior. Or a druid. Or a totemist. Or an unarmed swordsage/jade phoenix mage. Or something.

[nedz]

x2 because it affects both your fists
x1.5 because of a strange slot.

So if we removed the x2 costing as a Houserule we would get :-

Amulet of Natural Attacks:
+1 = 3,000 gold.
+2 = 12,000 gold.
+3 = 26,000 gold.

Would this be a fairer price ?

[Starbuck_II]

Yeah, the AoMF's priced basically according to rules guidelines:

x2 because it affects both your fists
x1.5 because of a strange slot.

I hate the strange slot rules anyway, and the x2 doesn't really do much because you're unlikely to use both your fists for TWF, as feat-starved as you are as a monk.

But the AoMF it's really useful for, say, a dragon, or an illithid body tamer. Natural attacks win.

No, it is X2 for Weapon costs (multiplied because at least 2 natural attacks).
x1.5 for wrong slot (not strange slot but wrong).

A shirt, belt, or ring (any slot) would be x1.

Check: +1 weapon is 2K x2 is 4K.
Add 1.5 for wrong slot is 6K.

Check +2 Weapon x2 =16K.
Add 1.5 for wrong slot is 24K.

Now what would a Shirt of Mighty Fists cost?
+1= 4K
+2 = 16K
+3= 32K

Surprisingly, this is same as Str boost item.

[Kalirren]

It would be fairer, yes. Still not fair. It's still expensive as a magic weapon goes. The 1.5x slot restriction is not friendly.

And there's certainly no reason to have AoMF cost double for affecting both your fists, because a monk striking unarmed can only declare unarmed attacks as part of the primary hand's attack sequence anyway - a monk can't TWF with the unarmed strike alone. ("There's no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed." -SRD)

Edit: Ninja'ed. Starbuck_II, how is what you said different from what I said? The price of an AoMF is 6K * bonus squared = 2K * 1.5 for wrong slot (we agree on this) the other factor of 2 comes from (as you say it) "weapon cost" for at least 2 natural attacks, whereas I say 2 fists. Same thing.

[Starbuck_II]

It would be fairer, yes. Still not fair. It's still expensive as a magic weapon goes. The 1.5x slot restriction is not friendly.

And there's certainly no reason to have AoMF cost double for affecting both your fists, because a monk striking unarmed can only declare unarmed attacks as part of the primary hand's attack sequence anyway - a monk can't TWF with the unarmed strike alone. ("There's no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed." -SRD)

FAQ says otherwise.
I'd rather not nerf a Monk; feels like kicking a kid when he is down.

[AmberVael]

FAQ says otherwise.
I'd rather not nerf a Monk; feels like kicking a kid when he is down.

That implies that TWFing is actually a good choice for the Monk. It isn't really a nerf to disallow them a power that is bad for them to use. =P

[Kalirren]

Regardless about what the FAQ may or may not say, or whether or not it would be a comparative nerf, RAW is quite explicit on the matter. The capacity to TWF or MWF comes from offhand attacks. Monks striking unarmed never strike offhand. Monks therefore cannot use unarmed strikes in an offhand extra attack sequence derived from TWF/MWF. (Paradoxically, non-monks can.) QED.

Any sensible DM, of course, would houserule this.

[TheThan]

It's just a magic "weapon" in a different slot. Normally it costs more/impossible to change one magic enchantment type to an incompatible slot. They already made the magic creation rules and wanted to give it a try to other items.

Maybe.

so not only is it overpriced, its also underpowered because its taking up something other than your weapons spot. So a monk can't use that amulet of natural armor, or amulet of health he just found.

[AstralFire]

I've never seen anyone actually ban this, and I don't think that was the intent of the statement in saying the monk has no off-hand. So. I don't really care about RAW.

[Grommen]

Regardless about what the FAQ may or may not say, or whether or not it would be a comparative nerf, RAW is quite explicit on the matter. The capacity to TWF or MWF comes from offhand attacks. Monks striking unarmed never strike offhand. Monks therefore cannot use unarmed strikes in an offhand extra attack sequence derived from TWF/MWF. (Paradoxically, non-monks can.) QED.

Any sensible DM, of course, would houserule this.

Ok kid. I am a monk (well modern day equivalent). Their referring to the fact that neither hand is considered "Off hand" for anything. They are not saying that monks only use one hand and one only to fight. My right attacks just as often as my left, as well as both feet, elbows, knees, head. Still I do not think I would take Two weapon fighting with a monk due to their lower BAB, however I would not prevent one from doing so. At least in 3.5..

Pathfinder's Flurry of Blows is just TWF with full BAB. Works out pretty good on paper, I have yet to play a monk in this fashion.

Besides that you all realize that monks can pick up an actual weapon right? For a long, long time you don't need an amulet of the mighty fist cause the damage from your unarmed attacks will not do that much more damage than a weapon.

Still on the expensive side for those little buggers, and you have to give up amulets of natural armor (that robs monks of their AC). I think I would agree with everyone else (and several of the video games that use 3.5 rules) and say that you should enchant (gauntlets/arm wraps) or something of the like for your monks to gain attack and damage bonuses. or make Amulets of the Defensive and mighty fist (doing AC, attack and damage). Coarse "Boots of the mighty azzwhoopen" wold be fun too....

Hay that is why we have enchantment rules.

[Keld Denar]

As far as an Amulet that affects ALL of your natural weapons...well, people who TWF still need to buy 2 magic weapons. A person with multiple natural weapons should too, to a limit. That said, Neck is already a VERY valuable slot. There are LOTS of good necks, and even with the MICs rules about adding various bonuses to items with body slot afinity, there are still a number of very nice necks.

I think an AoMF should get rid of EITHER the 1.5x multiplier for wrong slot, as the loss of other neck slots is a steep cost as it is, OR the 2x multiplier, and I'm more inclined to go with the 1.5. Maybe have a 1x neck that applies to 1 natural weapon (like a monk's UAS, no matter what you hit with, its all considered your UAS), and then have another neck with a 2x cost that applies if you have 2 or more natural weapons. That would still keep it on par with TWF with regards to price, but doesn't cripple someone with a claw/claw/bite/tenticle/tenticle/gore/tail routine.

With Monks and TWF, its really grey, and I've debated it before. Its a matter of what you consider specific and what you consider general. If you consider the TWF rules in the combat chapter of the PBH as the specific rule, then RAW, you can TWF with UASs, even as a monk, since TWF explicitly gives you an offhand attack, even if you normally wouldn't have one. If you consider the monk rules in the character chapter to be the specific rules, then a monk never has, and can never gain, an offhand attack. Either is an equally valid reading. Since the FAQ sides with allowing it, and it can go either way, I'm inclined to believe that it is possible. And if you stack enough size modifiers onto your Unarmed Strike, its WAY worth whatever penalties you take to gain extra attacks per round, as with a Tashalatoran Monk/PsyWar blend or anyone on the receiving end of a Greater Mighty Wallop spell.

[Kalirren]

Their referring to the fact that neither hand is considered "Off hand" for anything. They are not saying that monks only use one hand and one only to fight. My right attacks just as often as my left, as well as both feet, elbows, knees, head. Still I do not think I would take Two weapon fighting with a monk due to their lower BAB, however I would not prevent one from doing so. At least in 3.5..

Oh I completely agree. My point was that even within the RAW itself, the rationale for the increased cost of the Amulets is extremely weak. RAW is silly, as is the FAQ. Within RAW, monks don't even have proficiency with their unarmed strike.

Re: Keld Denar

In any case, when interpreting RAW, my philosophy is that when two rules interact, "specific" should only trump "general" when at least 1 of 2 circumstances holds:

1) The "specific" lists itself as an exception to a referenced "general" rule.

2) There's no ruling that would be consistent with both rules.

In this case there exists a ruling that is consistent with both Rules As Written, so "specific trumps general" doesn't come into play. The two weapon fighting special attack grants an extra attack when a weapon is being wielded offhand. In the case of a monk using only UAS, no weapon is being wielded offhand, because a monk simply cannot declare an offhand UAS. (A silly proposition, but that's the RAW for you.) So an entirely consistent interpretation of the RAW is that a monk can't TWF using UAS alone.

[Keld Denar]

In the case of a monk using only UAS, no weapon is being wielded offhand, because a monk simply cannot declare an offhand UAS. (A silly proposition, but that's the RAW for you.) So an entirely consistent interpretation of the RAW is that a monk can't TWF using UAS alone.

Ah, but a Fighter doesn't have an offhand either. No where in the rules for fighters does it state that he has one, or can ever have one. You could convievably "wield" somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 weapons at any given time, but none of them are considered offhand so long as the fighter is only making the number of attacks that his BAB allows him (IE, BAB 1-5 = 1 attack, BAB 6-10 = 2 attacks, BAB 11-15 = 3 attacks, etc). Even if hes holding a weapon in each hand, neither of them is considered "offhand", because he hasn't invoked the TWF attack action in the combat section of the PHB. If he had a BAB of 11, he could attack with his "main hand" longsword, his "offhand" flail, and his armor spikes, once each, and none of them are considered offhand attacks with the applicable penalties. Thats ALL that means.

Similarly, a monk is armed at all times with an unarmed strike that is considered to be EVERY part of his body. As long as hes making attacks that don't exceed what he's entitled to with BAB and his flurry ability, he's not making offhand attacks either. If he has a BAB of +6 and uses a Flurry, he could hit once with his left hand, once with the kama in his right hand, and once with his left knee. None of these attacks are considered offhand attacks, just like the fighter in the example above. That doesn't prevent the monk from GAINING an offhand attack by invoking the TWF rules.

Reading it that way, the text in the monk class description is simply a reminder that TWF normally doesn't apply to a monk, just like it normally doesn't apply to a fighter, regardless of how many weapons he's wielding. The difference is that its implied with the fighter, and explicit with the monk. Fundamentally, they are the same though.

Make sense? Like I said, it can go either way. Your interpretation is just as valid as mine, but mine has the support of the FAQ. All else being equal, I'd rather side with the FAQ.

[Grommen]

And I think that is also implying that for purposes of damage bonus from high STR they don't get their off hand x1/2, monks get the full STR bonus for every attack.

I can show you and example of that as well if needed

[Keld Denar]

And I think that is also implying that for purposes of damage bonus from high STR they don't get their off hand x1/2, monks get the full STR bonus for every attack.

See, the thing is, NOBODY does, normally. In my example above with the fighter who has a longsword in his right hand and a flail in his left hand. If he has the BAB to attack with both, neither of them are considered offhand attacks, and both recieve FULL +1x Str bonus to damage and both are considered "main hand". Its only when he uses the TWF action in the combat section of the PHB that one is designated as main hand, and the other is designated as offhand, to which the main hand gets +1x Str bonus and the offhand gets +0.5x Str bonus.

Same thing with the monk in my example. None of this attacks are considered "offhand" no matter which hand, or body part he uses, unless he, like the above fighter, gains extra attacks through the use of the TWF combat option in the combat section of the PHB. If he does claim extra attacks, those attacks would only gain +0.5x Str bonus to damage.

[Kalirren]

Make sense? Like I said, it can go either way. Your interpretation is just as valid as mine, but mine has the support of the FAQ. All else being equal, I'd rather side with the FAQ.

I don't think it makes sense. There are presumptions that we're forced to make, and when we argue about the rules like this, ought to make explicit. D&D rules are clearly written with the presumption of having two hands. See, for example, this:

When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus.

Clearly this, the most general rule, presumes that you have a primary hand and an off hand, and establishes the basis for their being different in terms of system mechanics. The existence of primary hand and off hand is further elaborated below:

Light

A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

One-Handed

A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or ½ his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.

I also think -it's presumed that when you declare an attack, you choose a drawn weapon and a handing for it, consistent with all previous attacks made during the round and any additional restrictions you may have. A weapon used in the primary hand is presumed unavailable for the off-hand.

...a Fighter doesn't have an offhand either. No where in the rules for fighters does it state that he has one, or can ever have one. You could concievably "wield" somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 weapons at any given time, but none of them are considered offhand so long as the fighter is only making the number of attacks that his BAB allows him (IE, BAB 1-5 = 1 attack, BAB 6-10 = 2 attacks, BAB 11-15 = 3 attacks, etc). Even if hes holding a weapon in each hand, neither of them is considered "offhand", because he hasn't invoked the TWF attack action in the combat section of the PHB.

Contrary to what you claim, the idea of an offhand attack does not stem from the TWF special attack. It stems from the presumed difference between offhand and primary hand. TWF is enabled by and requires the wielding of a weapon in the offhand.

Drawing a weapon and readying a shield are the actions that make it clear that a weapon/shield is being wielded. You can't use a weapon that isn't drawn, or a shield that isn't readied. D&D doesn't keep track of which hand you draw a weapon into, as long as it's drawn at all. UAS and gauntlets are an exception to this rule in that you're presumed not to need to draw them. Armor spikes are an even more heavily detailed exception:

You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

So with regard to this:

If he had a BAB of 11, he could attack with his "main hand" longsword, his "offhand" flail, and his armor spikes, once each, and none of them are considered offhand attacks with the applicable penalties. Thats ALL that means.

I concur with your holding, assuming you meant that these attacks occur in 3 different rounds. But I think this is a result of D&D not keeping track of which weapon is drawn in which hand, and the specific rule that states that armor spikes can be used in a regular melee attack, not the lack of a difference between primary and off hand as you claim.

Similarly, a monk is armed at all times with an unarmed strike that is considered to be EVERY part of his body. As long as hes making attacks that don't exceed what he's entitled to with BAB and his flurry ability, he's not making offhand attacks either. If he has a BAB of +6 and uses a Flurry, he could hit once with his left hand, once with the kama in his right hand, and once with his left knee. None of these attacks are considered offhand attacks, just like the fighter in the example above.

I concur.

That doesn't prevent the monk from GAINING an offhand attack by invoking the TWF rules.

Agreed. This is where the RAW gets stupid. By RAW, a monk can TWF with any weapon besides the unarmed strike; the unarmed strike is the ~only~ weapon that the monk cannot declare as a weapon being wielded in the offhand. Any other weapon will do.

If you have an off-hand weapon, you may choose to make an extra attack with it during a full attack routine by using the TWF special attack. But since there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, the monk can't possibly use the UAS as an off-hand weapon, and thus can't get the extra attack from TWF.

Reading it that way, the text in the monk class description is simply a reminder that TWF normally doesn't apply to a monk, just like it normally doesn't apply to a fighter, regardless of how many weapons he's wielding. The difference is that its implied with the fighter, and explicit with the monk. Fundamentally, they are the same though.

I have to disagree with the notion that wielding weapons in D&D is as flexible as you put to be. I think the more succinct RAI interpretation is that the "no such thing as an offhand strike" remark refers simply to a monk's UAS never being penalized with off-hand damage.

Edit: Interesting! On the basis of RAI I'd rule that a TWF'ing monk got 1x Str to damage on the TWF attacks.

[Keld Denar]

Which "hand" is a bootblade (Complete Scoundrel) held in? Which "hand" are armor spikes held in? Which "hand" do you wield a Mouth Pick weapon (Lords of Madness) in?

In reality, 3.5 got rid of handedness, most notably by the lack of the Ambidexterity feat. All hands are considered equally proficient, even if they aren't hands. 3e had handedness, 3.5 does not.

Thats why I've tried to impress a difference between offhand (descriptive, references one of two hands) and offhand (mechanical, weapon used as part of the TWF attack routine). They look the same, but they aren't the same thing.

I concur with your holding, assuming you meant that these attacks occur in 3 different rounds. But I think this is a result of D&D not keeping track of which weapon is drawn in which hand, and the specific rule that states that armor spikes can be used in a regular melee attack, not the lack of a difference between primary and off hand as you claim.

Why do they have to occur in 3 different rounds? What stops you from making a single attack with any number of weapons you have, so long as have a BAB high enough to support it? D&D doesn't keep track of which hand a weapon is drawn in, or any such rule. If it does, cite it. I've never seen such a rule. Heck, if you wanted to, you could wield any of the half dozen weapons that don't require hands, while leaving your hands open to hold wands or potions or a ranged weapon. Then how is any hand supposed to remember which it is, since none are used. Thats the part that makes no sense.

Lets have a little story, shall we? Bob the fighter is wielding a glaive, a great weapon for a fighter. He is also wearing full plate, which have armor spikes installed in them, because being able to claim AoOs is important. Bob has a BAB of +11, allowing him to make 3 attacks. He takes a 5' step adjacent to an orc warrior and attacks an orc wizard who is 10' away with his glaive. With a tremendous hit, he cleaves the orc wizards head square off. But poor Bob, he still has 2 attacks (at +6 and +1) but the only orc left is too close to attack with his glaive. So he attacks with his armor spikes, twice.

Now, would you say that the armor spikes count as offhand attacks? They arn't, because Bob isn't TWFing with them. He's mearly taking the iterative attacks he's alotted. He doesn't get the 1.5x Str bonus that he enjoys with his glaive, since the armor spikes aren't a 2handed weapon, but neither is he penalized with 0.5x Str bonus with them either.

That is because there is no handedness in 3.5. There just isn't. Each hand is the same, and each non-hand-whatever-is-wielding-a-weapon is the same as well.

But since there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, the monk can't possibly use the UAS as an off-hand weapon, and thus can't get the extra attack from TWF.

And like I said, this is a valid reading of the rules. Its basically stating that the monk rules trump the TWF rules. My belief is the other way around, that the TWF rules trump the monk rules. Which one is right? I dunno. Send an email to one of the devs and ask them. I doubt you'll get a response back. Without that, it IS grey, and it IS indefinite, and trying to rule it any other way is biased.

That said, because the FAQ sides with the idea that the TWF rules trump the monk rules, and all other things being equal, I'm inclined to follow the FAQ. You have every right to do the contrary, but to state that the other arguement is wrong is invalid.

[Runestar]

Does the amulet actually factor in a 1.5 price multiplier for occupying an odd slot? I thought it was simply priced off 3 natural weapons.

Occupying the neck slot isn't really an issue, if you use the common-slot pricing mechanic in MIC (it lets you add the common stat-enhancing bonuses to your existing magic gear at no extra cost). So I could have an amulet of mighty fists+1 that also grants +2con and +1NA at 6000+4000+2000 or 12000gp, same as if I had purchased them separately.

Yet on the other hand, it is cheaper compared to an amulet of natural weapons if used on a creature with more than 3 natural attacks, such as a dragon PC.