Amulet of Mighty Fists and Grappling: Can We Get An Answer?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading the rules for Grapple, nothing says that it must be an unarmed attack. In fact, there are plenty of ways to grapple without using unarmed attacks.

The way I would rule it is that if you are using the Amulet of Might Fists for an unarmed grapple, then you would get the bonus. If you are using a net, then you wouldn't. However, if you are using a magical net, then you would get the net's bonus. I believe that this is within the spirit and the letter of the rules. I don't see it as game breaking so it's what I'm going with in my own games.

Since I don't have to actually convince anyone of my interpretation of the rules (and they have been posted enough already) I won't defend my position any more than I already have.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You get a magical daggers bonus to trip because you made your dagger attack better, but you make your entire body work better with magic fang and it doesn't help you grapple?

*backfoot headscratch*


Has the game been errata'ed or FAQ'ed to blend:

Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) and Weapon Focus (grapple)?

If so, then there's your answer. If not, then I'm guessing the Devs are seeing these as two separate styles of combat. Whether any of us agree or disagree is another matter.

<shrug>


Mojorat wrote:

Mydrrin to get a weapon enhancement bonus to an attack a weapon has to be used.

When I trip with a longsword a sword is used.

When I use a garotte to grapple the garrot is used.

When I grapple normally what weapon is used?

None no weapon is uses when you grapple. The onky weapon involved is the grapple itself which I can take weapon focus for.

The fact that I am using my hands is meaningless. You need a rule that says grapples are treatedas unarmed strikes or natural weapons or a grapple may be substituted for a regular attack. Without those exceptions an amf cannot boost a grapple.

This is fundimental to some of the games core combat mechanics.

(Woops Edit for clarification. By being unarmed being meaningless to grapple i ment for the purposes of Conveying bonuses Ie if your unarmed bonuses to unarmed strikes etc are not conveyed. This is seperate from the rule about needing hands free to grapple)

When you trip with as a martial artist, how does that happen. Mostly you come in and take them off their centre of gravity. I've done martial arts for about 10 years, sure you can kick their feet as they come in or sweep them but it is really difficult and the timing needs to be perfect, it's simpler and easier to use your body and move them to a place where their centre of gravity is somewhere where their feet is not. So how can you trip someone and get the bonus if somehow this doesn't apply?

If someone said they used their dagger to trip someone, I would ask how. Because a short weapon is hard to, if they could come up with a way they could use it to trip then I would give it to them. The answer is here:

Quote:
For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver.

It has to do with wether the dagger is incidental to the maneuver.

In grapple it is everything.

Your reasoning that no weapon is used in grapple, what is used it trip? Your logic is off.

Can you not get your head around the body being a weapon and that it can be used effectively in many ways? The rules show this.

BTW I have grappled without my hands free and still won the match.

Shadow Lodge

There's a lot of ways to trip someone

Leg sweep.
Put your foot behind theirs and push them
Grab by neck, lift, slam.
Push real hard.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personal combat experience is irrelevant to determining how the Pathfinder RPG rules work. The rules are allowed to deviate from your real-life experience. Here's what the rules say:

1) The amulet of mighty fists says it grants an enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks.
2) The Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook equates "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes".
3) The FAQ blog counts unarmed strikes as weapons for the purposes of combat maneuvers.
4) The FAQ blog says you only use your weapon with disarm, sunder or trip maneuvers; none of the others (such as grapple) use any weapon at all unless you have a special exception of some sort.

One must be able to at least follow that logic chain in order to have a productive discussion of these mechanics. Anyone who can't would probably be better off just running their own games the way that's fun for them and just leaving it at that, which is completely fine. For everyone else, the only way you'll get to apply bonuses specific to your unarmed strikes (or any other weapon, for that matter) to your grapple checks is if you either (A) apply a houserule, or (B) get some sort of circumstance that takes your grapples outside the realm of "normally".

"A" is outside the scope of this section of the forums. "B" is a legitimate possibility, but the only means I'm aware of for employing a weapon in a grapple involve specialized manufactured weapons, not unarmed strikes.


Regarding tripping with a dagger:

SKR wrote:
Krome wrote:
SKR wrote:
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

Okay so maybe I am just being dense... but now you can use all of your weapons' modifiers for Disarm, Sunder, and Trip from any weapon.

How exactly does, say a dagger, help you trip? Does a dagger really have a chance of sundering plate armor?

Perhaps you're taking a stab at your opponent's groin so they fall prone, or perhaps the dagger is just a distraction for your foot. Rather than publishing a huge list of weapons and what you can and can't do with them (most of which would be "well, I can see some circumstances where this would work, so it should be on the trip list"), we're allowing you to use weapons with trip maneuvers.

Tripping doesn't have to mean you used the weapon to hook the target's leg to pull them onto their face or back. It just means you got them off balance somehow and caused them to take a spill.

So, they decided to make using a weapon relevant for making a trip.


Jiggy wrote:

Personal combat experience is irrelevant to determining how the Pathfinder RPG rules work. The rules are allowed to deviate from your real-life experience. Here's what the rules say:

1) The amulet of mighty fists says it grants an enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks.
2) The Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook equates "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes".
3) The FAQ blog counts unarmed strikes as weapons for the purposes of combat maneuvers.
4) The FAQ blog says you only use your weapon with disarm, sunder or trip maneuvers; none of the others (such as grapple) use any weapon at all unless you have a special exception of some sort.

One must be able to at least follow that logic chain in order to have a productive discussion of these mechanics. Anyone who can't would probably be better off just running their own games the way that's fun for them and just leaving it at that, which is completely fine. For everyone else, the only way you'll get to apply bonuses specific to your unarmed strikes (or any other weapon, for that matter) to your grapple checks is if you either (A) apply a houserule, or (B) get some sort of circumstance that takes your grapples outside the realm of "normally".

"A" is outside the scope of this section of the forums. "B" is a legitimate possibility, but the only means I'm aware of for employing a weapon in a grapple involve specialized manufactured weapons, not unarmed strikes.

Thanks Jiggy for reiterate and not address any issues that were brought up by your simple explanation and ignore the qualification for a weapon to be used in a combat maneuver.

Logic applied to the rules is something you know. The RULE is:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

The Clarification of the rule on the blog did what?

Reiterated again the rules. The clarification was that any weapon can be used typically in the three combat maneuver.

It again states the reason for the other maneuvers not being able to be used in that the weapon was incidental to the maneuver. That's it it was not that absolutely cannot in any way or form that any other than the three could be used.

The rule again in case you missed it again is:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

The blog only was helping to clear up some issues that people were having with the rule. It again reiterated the requirements for having this.

Again the qualification is the most important thing in the FAQ blog. I will state this again so you can argue with this and how this relates to the rule instead of making some stuff that it says what it doesn't say.

"For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver."

This explains the qualification to having the bonus apply. It is consistent with THE RULE. Everything is consistent with THE RULE.

The Rule plainly states that it can be used. The clarification plainly states what is valid. All these fit so AotMF bonus is a valid bonus for grappling.

The only way you can't come to this conclusion is if you somehow think the FAQ blog says something it doesn't and is inconsistent with the RULE.


Enhancement bonuses say they apply to attack rolls.

It clearly states that a CMB roll is an attack roll. If you are making an attack roll you MUST be attacking with something, right? So you are clearly using some part of your body to grapple, and the body as a whole is the weapon used for unarmed strikes...

How has no one seen this yet?


Sogh myddrin what weapon is used in a grapple? Vtw my hands and my body are not weapons recognized by the game.

Unarmed strike
Longsword
Garrot
Claw

Two of the weapons above are manufacured and can be enchanted. Two are influenced by amf. All 4 of these can be used in a trip sunder or disarm

Which of these can be used in a grapple. And tell me the rule that says they van be used.

Just to reiterate my hands and my body are not. Weapons rdcognized by the game.


To answe the poster above my previous post. To get that benefit you need to use a weapon. Say I have an axe in my hand and I bull rish someone. My bonuses to the axe do not help because the axe is not used in the maneuver. To use the axe I need a feat or ability tbat says explicitly a person with this feat can use axes for bullrushes.

Grapple is tbe same. The general combat maneuver rules do not explicitly forbid weapons. But all the specific rules paradigms for combat maneuvers is only 3 can be done with a weaponn

The only way to use any weapon with grapple is if a rule says you can.

Lantern Lodge

Just to throw this in:

If we say AoMF works with grapple, we also say it works with bull rushes, drag, reposition, overrun, trip, disarm, sunder, steal, and dirty trick (depending on what the dirty trick is).

I do believe at the very least the intent is that AoMF helps grapples, and thus any other combat manuever that doesn't use an object other than your body.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mydrrin wrote:
It again states the reason for the other maneuvers not being able to be used in that the weapon was incidental to the maneuver. That's it it was not that absolutely cannot in any way or form that any other than the three could be used.

This does not contradict what I said. I allowed for that possibility, explicitly, in my post that you quoted. Please at least read my post all the way to the end before trying to correct me.

Normally, D/S/T are the only maneuvers that get weapon-specific bonuses (such as an AoMF's enhancement bonus to your unarmed strikes). But if you can find a situation where your unarmed strikes and grapples are no longer "normal", then go nuts. I'm just not aware of any means of getting there. Are you?

Quote:

The rule again in case you missed it again is:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

Have you read the sentence immediately following the one you bolded? The one that says you don't always get every bonus?

Quote:
I will state this again so you can argue with this and how this relates to the rule instead of making some stuff that it says what it doesn't say.

I'd like you to quote a line from one of my posts in which I claim that the rules or blog say something that they don't say. Just one line. Go ahead. Quote me.

Quote:

"For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver."

This explains the qualification to having the bonus apply.

Yes. It's explaining why maneuvers that aren't D/S/T (such as grapples) wouldn't benefit from weapon-specific bonuses (such as enhancement bonuses to unarmed strikes from an AoMF).

So in order for your unarmed strike bonuses to apply to a grapple, you would need to find a reason that your ability to "strike for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts" (Core Rulebook, Unarmed Attacks) is more than incidentally involved in attempts to "grapple a foe, hindering his combat options" (Core Rulebook, Grapple).

So, in your opinion, by what means can you make your ability to strike for damage with punches, etc more than incidental to your ability to grab hold of someone?

Quote:
The Rule plainly states that it can be used.

The rule plainly states that bonuses which are applicable to the weapon used can be used. That's that line after the one you bolded that you seem to have missed.

Quote:
The clarification plainly states what is valid.

Yes, but you haven't shown why unarmed strikes fit into that validity.


Your body (everything from head to toe) is the weapon used for a grapple. An unarmed strike includes the whole body (for a monk at least) as part of this weapon. So by RAW, even your arm hairs are enhanced by the AoMF. You don't have to throw a punch or kick to get the bonus. I could chest bump an opponent with the intent of hurting them and its considered an attack.

So to make a bull rush I would be using my shoulder (typically. I could also use my head if I wished) which would also be an unarmed strike. Same goes for a grapple.

Show me one instance in Pathfinder that allows you to make an attack roll without some kind of weapon...you can't, it wouldn't be an attack...and as I stated before, EVERY combat maneuver roll IS an attack roll.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Shimesen wrote:
Enhancement bonuses say they apply to attack rolls.

Only attack rolls made with that weapon. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't say that the enhancement bonus of a +2 longsword would apply when you show your bow or make an unarmed strike or cast scorching ray, right? Those are attack rolls, but since they don't employ your +2 longsword, you don't get to use its enhancement bonus to attack rolls.

In the same way, an AoMF grants an enhancement bonus to attack rolls made with your unarmed strikes. If you're doing some other attack—such as swinging a sword, shooting a bow, or executing a maneuver that doesn't employ your unarmed strike—you won't get to apply that bonus even though you're making an attack roll.

Quote:
It clearly states that a CMB roll is an attack roll. If you are making an attack roll you MUST be attacking with something, right?

Remember, the rules for combat maneuvers say you add your CMB in place of your attack bonus, and that you can add other bonuses from feats or spells or whatever only if they're applicable to the weapon/attack being used. So an enhancement bonus only applies if your grapple is using the weapon that has that enhancement bonus.

So does a grapple use the "unarmed strike" weapon? According to the official FAQ blog that has already been linked and referenced multiple times throughout this thread, no, it does not. At least, not "normally". Normally the only maneuvers that use a weapon at all (and unarmed strikes are explicitly noted as counting as a weapon for this purpose) are disarm, sunder and trip. You'll need a special reason to get to use a weapon (such as unarmed strike) in any other maneuver (such as grapple). If you've got such a reason, then by all means, knock yourself out.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Shimesen wrote:
Show me one instance in Pathfinder that allows you to make an attack roll without some kind of weapon...you can't, it wouldn't be an attack...and as I stated before, EVERY combat maneuver roll IS an attack roll.

See the aforementioned official FAQ blog on combat maneuvers. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, but they don't necessarily use a weapon. Only disarm, sunder or trip use weapons unless you have a special exception.

Remember, the Core Rulebook says that in order for a given bonus to apply to your CMB check, it has to be applicable to the weapon/attack used to perform the maneuver. This is why Agile Maneuvers exists in addition to Weapon Finesse. Weapon Finesse will let you use DEX for maneuvers that employ your (finessable) weapon, such as D/S/T. But to use DEX for grapples or other maneuvers, you need Agile Maneuvers specifically because they don't use your weapon. If your grapple used your unarmed strikes, you'd be able to use Weapon Finesse for grapples.

But you can't.


I have to agree with Jiggy here.

The RAW of the rules seems he is correct, a striek is different then a grapple.

For those who would use RL Martial arts as an example, I will just point out that in MMA there are people better known for striking then grappling and vice versa. They are two differnt skill sets (though most are good at both). The AOMF gives a bonus to strikers but not to grapplers because it effects unarmed strikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im going to try this one more time and phrase it as a math equasion. However, im not good at phrasing things like this. So After anyone whos better at framing things can maybe re-write it

Bob is a level 6 Fighter with an 18 str a bab of +6 an am of +1 he has Weapon focus Unarmed strike Weapon focus grapple he has weapon training with the monk group. he has imp grapple

the base melee attack forumula is d20 + str +bab +misc

Because he is attacking with a weapon the modifiers for misc involve a weapon he adds +1 from AMF +1 from weapon focus +1 from weapon training.

the attack rol is d20 +4 +6 + [+1 +1 +1]= d20 +13.

Bob decides he is going to grapple, the CMB roll is d20 + str +misc

because bob is grappling the Misc is +1 weapon focus grapple, and +2 from imp grapple. AMF and weapon training do not apply his weapon is 'grapple' illustrated by his weapon focus. Grapple (as far as i know) is not listed in the monk weapon group s)

so the attack roll is d20 +4 +6 +[+1 +2] or d20 +13.

The above was attempting to illustrate, that when Bob grapples he is not using a Weapon as defined by the game (ie something targetable by weapon focus).

I reiterate bob has WEAPON FOCUS GRAPPLE.. ive tried hammering this in for twelve posts. The game treats Grapple as its own weapon.

Lastly, the Fluf description off Unarmed Strikes that is being used could basically be used to justify AFM benefiting everything under the sun. However the only case where "my body as a weapon matter" or "i have killing hands" or "I can kill a man with a headbutt" is if you are using Unarmed Strikes.

Anyhow i think the math equasion model i tried using above if done correctly illustrates the point well.

I attack with a grapple, what is my strength, what is my bab what ar emy misc modifers, do i have PERMISSION to use a weapon. (no)

I am going to trip, what is my strength, what is my bab, what are my misc modifers do i have PERMISSION to use a weapon (yes) then add weapon modifeirs.


Mojorat wrote:

Im going to try this one more time and phrase it as a math equasion. However, im not good at phrasing things like this. So After anyone whos better at framing things can maybe re-write it

Bob is a level 6 Fighter with an 18 str a bab of +6 an am of +1 he has Weapon focus Unarmed strike Weapon focus grapple he has weapon training with the monk group. he has imp grapple

the base melee attack forumula is d20 + str +bab +misc

Because he is attacking with a weapon the modifiers for misc involve a weapon he adds +1 from AMF +1 from weapon focus +1 from weapon training.

the attack rol is d20 +4 +6 + [+1 +1 +1]= d20 +13.

Bob decides he is going to grapple, the CMB roll is d20 + str +misc

because bob is grappling the Misc is +1 weapon focus grapple, and +2 from imp grapple. AMF and weapon training do not apply his weapon is 'grapple' illustrated by his weapon focus. Grapple (as far as i know) is not listed in the monk weapon group s)

so the attack roll is d20 +4 +6 +[+1 +2] or d20 +13.

The above was attempting to illustrate, that when Bob grapples he is not using a Weapon as defined by the game (ie something targetable by weapon focus).

I reiterate bob has WEAPON FOCUS GRAPPLE.. ive tried hammering this in for twelve posts. The game treats Grapple as its own weapon.

Lastly, the Fluf description off Unarmed Strikes that is being used could basically be used to justify AFM benefiting everything under the sun. However the only case where "my body as a weapon matter" or "i have killing hands" or "I can kill a man with a headbutt" is if you are using Unarmed Strikes.

Anyhow i think the math equasion model i tried using above if done correctly illustrates the point well.

I attack with a grapple, what is my strength, what is my bab what ar emy misc modifers, do i have PERMISSION to use a weapon. (no)

I am going to trip, what is my strength, what is my bab, what are my misc modifers do i have PERMISSION to use a weapon (yes) then add weapon modifeirs.

Got a question for you mancatcher can have a weapon focus and so can grapple. So what does that mean to you? That therefore mancatcher can't have a grapple?


No it means the man catcher has special rules excepting it from the general rules of grapple. The same is true of the Garrot.

the game works on General rules and specific exceptions.

I can Trip with a Longsword, because there is a specific rule saying i can.

I can Grapple with a garrot, or a mancatcher because the specific rules for those weapons over ride the general rule of grapple

General rule combat maneuvers is that generally, only Trip disarm and sunder can be done with weapons. I do not remember the exact phrasing but it implies exceptions to this can exist.

However, the More specific rules (but general for the combat maneuver) for Grapple do not provide an exception that says A weapon can be used. I want to stress i am not discussing RL or which body parts can be used. Im stalking 100% the strict mechanics of how Pathfinder allows weapons to be used with a combat maneuver

Garrot, and Mancatcher (and probably some others i cant think of) have an Exception that allows them to be used. so when you Grapple with a garrot, or A man catcher all weapon specific bonuses are applied.

AMF only enhances two weapons Unarmed Attacks (or strikes) and the entire group of natural attacks.

I used Weapon focus grapple (listed under the weapon focus feat) to try and reinforce the understanding that a grapple is not a Unarmed Strike The game treats it as a wholly seperate weapon.

So to use AFM with a grapple, you need an Exception to either AMF or Grapple, or Unarmed Strikes that says 'this weapon can be used with a grapple' It has to be a weapon as the game recognizes it in a mechanical sense.

Ie can you take weapon focus with it, is it listed in the list of weapons in the book.

So for this All the descriptive qualities you have used to justify why AMF should boost grapple are all descriptive qualities of the unarmed Strike weapon.

They have no bearing on grapple unless a feat or class feature provides an exception.


Jiggy wrote:
Mydrrin wrote:
It again states the reason for the other maneuvers not being able to be used in that the weapon was incidental to the maneuver. That's it it was not that absolutely cannot in any way or form that any other than the three could be used.

This does not contradict what I said. I allowed for that possibility, explicitly, in my post that you quoted. Please at least read my post all the way to the end before trying to correct me.

Normally, D/S/T are the only maneuvers that get weapon-specific bonuses (such as an AoMF's enhancement bonus to your unarmed strikes). But if you can find a situation where your unarmed strikes and grapples are no longer "normal", then go nuts. I'm just not aware of any means of getting there. Are you?

Are you dense? Yes, the rule, you know the rule states it clearly. Normally what? The rule still applies, the weapon is the body which is enchanted, is used therefore valid. Not sure what you are trying to argue.

Quote:
Quote:

The rule again in case you missed it again is:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

Have you read the sentence immediately following the one you bolded? The one that says you don't always get every bonus?

Yes I read it, and keep responding to it. Have discussed it ad nauseum with you. Can you understand what you read, because it clearly states that it is applicable when you use the weapon for the combat maneuver made, grappling is made by the body which is enchanted, did you want to hear that again?

Quote:
Quote:
I will state this again so you can argue with this and how this relates to the rule instead of making some stuff that it says what it doesn't say.
I'd like you to quote a line from one of my posts in which I claim that the rules or blog say something that they don't say. Just one line. Go ahead. Quote me.

"none of the others (such as grapple) use any weapon at all unless you have a special exception of some sort." "And the wording and the rules say that an unarmed attack is an unarmed strike, and an unarmed strike is a weapon, and weapons don't apply to grapples."

There are many weapons that grapple is written in it. It is not a sacred cow, and you get +2 for this. The Qualification states what can be used. Body is definitely enchanted and used. Next.

Quote:
Quote:

"For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver."

This explains the qualification to having the bonus apply.

Yes. It's explaining why maneuvers that aren't D/S/T (such as grapples) wouldn't benefit from weapon-specific bonuses (such as enhancement bonuses to unarmed strikes from an AoMF)....

Do think you should come to that conclusion or exclusion from what was written in the FAQ, the only way the FAQ can be consistent with the RULE is to allow it. It says normally a weapon is incidental to the maneuver and disqualified from the bonus. Not sure what your issue is. It does not say special dispensation, it says it MUST be used and integral to the maneuver to be valid. Not sure how the body can be considered less than a garrot. It's absurd.


Mydrrin,

Relax. Take a breath.

This is not important enough to get upset about.

Rule Zero.


Mojorat wrote:

No it means the man catcher has special rules excepting it from the general rules of grapple. The same is true of the Garrot.

the game works on General rules and specific exceptions.

I can Trip with a Longsword, because there is a specific rule saying i can.

I can Grapple with a garrot, or a mancatcher because the specific rules for those weapons over ride the general rule of grapple

General rule combat maneuvers is that generally, only Trip disarm and sunder can be done with weapons. I do not remember the exact phrasing but it implies exceptions to this can exist.

However, the More specific rules (but general for the combat maneuver) for Grapple do not provide an exception that says A weapon can be used. I want to stress i am not discussing RL or which body parts can be used. Im stalking 100% the strict mechanics of how Pathfinder allows weapons to be used with a combat maneuver

Garrot, and Mancatcher (and probably some others i cant think of) have an Exception that allows them to be used. so when you Grapple with a garrot, or A man catcher all weapon specific bonuses are applied.

AMF only enhances two weapons Unarmed Attacks (or strikes) and the entire group of natural attacks.

I used Weapon focus grapple (listed under the weapon focus feat) to try and reinforce the understanding that a grapple is not a Unarmed Strike The game treats it as a wholly seperate weapon.

So to use AFM with a grapple, you need an Exception to either AMF or Grapple, or Unarmed Strikes that says 'this weapon can be used with a grapple' It has to be a weapon as the game recognizes it in a mechanical sense.

Ie can you take weapon focus with it, is it listed in the list of weapons in the book.

So for this All the descriptive qualities you have used to justify why AMF should boost grapple are all descriptive qualities of the unarmed Strike weapon.

They have no bearing on grapple unless a feat or class feature provides an exception.

You are wrong it does not have special rules. It is built for grappling, which it gets a +2 to grapple. But most swords aren't made to grapple, it really is explained very very clearly in the combat maneuvers section. It just needs to be "not incidental" or a major part of the grapple.

Show me where it says it needs to have it explicitly stated for every weapon. Same with a dagger tripping, stated in the rules it MUST be an integral part of the maneuver. One would need to convince me to let that fly. The FAQ discussed the reasons for weapons doing it, generally all weapons can be used for them as it causes too many issues with people discussing things too much to when it is valid so all weapons can be. I would be more inclined to the RULE than the all aren't valid. As much as enchanted wet noodle, there should be a case in how you use it or how it could be used in the way of the combat maneuver.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mydrrin wrote:

the weapon is the body which is enchanted...

...
...grappling is made by the body which is enchanted

This is the part where you're wrong.

"The body" is not a weapon. "The body" is not enchanted by an AoMF.

Neither of those claims of yours are actually in the rules.

What the AoMF says it enhances is unarmed strikes, not "your body".

What the FAQ blog says is considered a weapon is unarmed strikes, not "your body".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mydrrin wrote:
You are wrong it does not have special rules. It is built for grappling

You just stated that it doesn't have special rules to let it be involved in grappling, then in the next breath cited the special rules you just said it didn't have.


Err doesnt have special rules?

Mancatcher: This polearm consists of two curved metal bands that close around a target when you attack, allowing you to bind an opponent. A mancatcher is built to capture a creature of a particular size category (such as Small or Medium) and doesn't work on creatures of the wrong size. Make a touch attack to hit an opponent and a combat maneuver check to grapple him (without the –4 penalty for not having two hands free); success means you and the target are grappled. Once the target is grappled, you can perform a move or damage grapple action against him. The mancatcher has hardness 10 and 5 hit points; it requires a DC 26 Strength check to break it. If you drop the mancatcher, the target can free himself as a standard action.

the Weapon description spells out how it is used for grappling if that is not a specific exception to the general rule what is?

The dagger can be used for grappling because the Trip maneuver says that weapons can be used for the maneuver. How you would make a dagger an intergal part of a trip maneuver i have no idea.

Sigh look at it this way. I guess I have two final questions and then ultimately i'll except that if your not getting this now you wont ever

First, You know the specic rules for Trip Disarm and Sunder? Theres a specific rule that says they can be used with weapon attacks

Second, find a rule that excplicitly says a)a grapple is an unarmed strike or a natural attack b) an unarmed strike or natural attack can be used with a grapple maneuver. or c) some feat that EXPLICITLY says 'you can grapple with any of the above weapons'

Until you can find a referencfe to that use the following logic, I can take Weapon focus Grapple Ergo Grapple is its own weapon. When i attempt an attack using the Grapple weaon only feats and bonuses that explicitly modify the grapple weapon are allowed.

Is there an explicit rule that says A grapple is an unarmed attack or natural weapon or can be used in conjunction with those?

Try that Attack formula i did for Bob above d20 + str +bab+misc

misc =Weapon specific feats, weapon specific enhancements, weaon specific class features, size bonuses.

Then do an If/then check for every part of the forumula
for bob it is

d20 +4 (18 str mod) +6 (level 6 fighter) +misc

For an unarmed strike it is What weapon am i using (unarmed strike) Weapon specific feat +1 does AFM modify the weapon i am using AFM +1 Do i have a class feature that modifies the Weapon i am usining. bob has the weaon training group monk

so for bob it is d20 +4 (18 str) +6 (bab+6) +3 (Weapon focus UAs +1, AMF +1, Weapon training monk +1)

This is the math for Bob to make an unarmed Strike. are you with me so far?

Bob tries to grapple somone, bob has imp grapple weapon focus grapple

d20 +4 (18 str) +6 (bab +6) + 3 (Weapon focus grapple +1, Imp grapple +2)

Im trying to use this to illustrate in the math what weapon bob is using, he is using a weapin defined by the gime called Grapple.

If bob tried to use a mancatcher His weapon focus Grapple would not apply because the 'weapon' has been replaced with man catcher.

Bob with a +1 Mancatcher is d20 +4 +6 +1 (+1 enhancement bonus to the man catcher) so +11 on the touch attack, when for the grapple part he adds his +2 from imp grapple but still uses the modifers for man catcher.

If this isnt making sense to anyone perhaps somone with better math can rewrite it.


Shimesen wrote:
Show me one instance in Pathfinder that allows you to make an attack roll without some kind of weapon...you can't, it wouldn't be an attack...and as I stated before, EVERY combat maneuver roll IS an attack roll.

Telekinesis.


Jiggy wrote:

"The body" is not a weapon. "The body" is not enchanted by an AoMF.

What the AoMF says it enhances is unarmed strikes, not "your body".

This is really what it comes down to, I think.

It's a ludicrous distinction, (since you can make an unarmed strike with any part of your body, but not in any other way) but it's what we're working with in the rules.

If organized play requires that "the rules" be followed to the letter, then so be it, but it doesn't make a lick of sense to do it this way.


aboniks wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

"The body" is not a weapon. "The body" is not enchanted by an AoMF.

What the AoMF says it enhances is unarmed strikes, not "your body".

This is really what it comes down to, I think.

It's a ludicrous distinction, (since you can make an unarmed strike with any part of your body, but not in any other way) but it's what we're working with in the rules.

If organized play requires that "the rules" be followed to the letter, then so be it, but it doesn't make a lick of sense to do it this way.

For the purposes of a game mechanic it isnt a ludicrous distinction. the game has specific rules on how X can be applied to Y. for X to Apply to Y it has to meet specific requirements.

The 'my whole body is enchanted' argument honestly could be used to justify the AMF providing a bonus on almosy every d20 roll in the game that is an attack roll.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

"The body" is not a weapon. "The body" is not enchanted by an AoMF.

What the AoMF says it enhances is unarmed strikes, not "your body".

This is really what it comes down to, I think.

It's a ludicrous distinction, (since you can make an unarmed strike with any part of your body, but not in any other way) but it's what we're working with in the rules.

If organized play requires that "the rules" be followed to the letter, then so be it, but it doesn't make a lick of sense to do it this way.

A couple of thoughts:

One, the CRB talks about unarmed attacks (which the AoMF enhances) as referring to your ability to "strike for damage with punches, kicks, head butts, etc", not your ability to generally use your body combatively. I think there's enough difference thematically between the ability to punch hard and the ability to grab and hold and twist and whatever, that enhancing one and not the other is far from "not making a lick of sense".

Two, I'd probably houserule grapples to include bonuses to unarmed strikes in my own game; there's a whole forum for that kind of thing, but it's not this one. ;)


Mojorat wrote:

For the purposes of a game mechanic it isnt a ludicrous distinction.

Your table, your opinion.

My table, my opinion.

PFS table, rules.

I'm not going to argue opinions with you, because changing your opinion isn't meaningful to me in even the slightest way. I don't care how you interpret this any more than you care how I interpret this. Argue opinions with someone else.


I'm not sure I understand the hostility, or how pfs applies.

Look just to be clear I'm trying to explain how a rules mechanic on when and why weapons and weapon enhancements are applied on an attack roll.

But no one has commented on my bob math :(

But to be clear if a player asked me if amf could apply to a grapple check in a game I am running at home I would allow it.

I'm really not trying to argue with anyone just explain how the math works and why it works that way. However my appologies if it came accross argumentative.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, that was an interesting dialogue.

aboniks: It's ludicrous and doesn't make a lick of sense!
Mojorat: It's not ludicrous.
aboniks: HEY MAN ARGUE OPINIONS WITH SOMEONE ELSE!


Jiggy wrote:

One, the CRB talks about unarmed attacks (which the AoMF enhances) as referring to your ability to "strike for damage with punches, kicks, head butts, etc", not your ability to generally use your body combatively.

Good point. I had forgotten that it was impossible to hit someone in the face with your elbow in the pathfinder version of combat.

Jiggy wrote:

Well, that was an interesting dialogue.

aboniks: It's ludicrous and doesn't make a lick of sense!
Mojorat: It's not ludicrous.
aboniks: HEY MAN ARGUE OPINIONS WITH SOMEONE ELSE!

Or:

aboniks: Here in the rules forum, in a discussion about the rules, I agree that Mojorat has the rules right. I have an opinion that the rule in question makes a ludicrous distinction.
Mojorat: Your opinion is wrong.
aboniks: Argue about opinions with someone else.

Or is this not the rules forum anymore?

p.s. That wasn't hostility, Mojo. Sorry it came across that way.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 21 people marked this as a favorite.
master arminas wrote:

This is a thread for a simple question that has arisen time and time again:

When a character or creature is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists and attempts a grapple maneuver, does the enhancement bonus of the AoMF (if any) add to the character's roll to perform the grapple?

If it does, then does the enhancement bonus (if any) also apply to the character resisting a grapple maneuver?

I post this because the question keeps on popping up in thread after thread, and nowhere have I (with my admittedly weak search-fu) been able to find an answer from the developers. I, for one, would like to see the issue settled once and for all with a simple answer: YES or NO.

If you feel the same way, please click FAQ and here is hoping that we will finally receive an answer.

Post your own opinions and thoughts below, if you like.

MA

The answer is no. An amulet of might fists "grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." You make a combat maneuver to grapple.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, PDT!


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow...so a combat maneuver is no longer an attack. good to know the design team doesn't know its own rules....I think perhaps that the answer should have been worded differently...


Dan Bong

These short, blunt sticks are held in the hands to enhance unarmed martial techniques.

Benefit: They provide the wielder with the ability to lock an opponent and target pressure points that grant her a +2 bonus on her combat maneuver to grapple.

Would a +3 Dan Bong add +5 to grapple checks? By RAW it seems it does not.

Lantern Lodge

They should, but remember you get a minus for not having "both hands free".

Really bummed about the grapple ruling. Grapple builds will suffer a bit, but they are still viable. Don't need to buy any weapons I guess.

But reasonably, if they had said yes, it would open some flood gates that probably should remain closed.

Lantern Lodge

Though, if I may make a request to the PDT:

Would you be willing to post it in the FAQ? It should be something to be seen by a lot of people, not just by the few with good search-fu.


Really, Tetori monks, and their grab ability, are the only "makes sense" grappler, as they can say they use unarmed strikes to grapple with a straight face.

Lantern Lodge

There's the tetori, plus anyone with the grab ability, maybe even someone with constrict.

The goblin barbarian archetype gets grab with his bite attack, and with animal fury he'll get a bonus on grapples for that. So AoMF would still help him and the tetori.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shimesen wrote:
Wow...so a combat maneuver is no longer an attack. good to know the design team doesn't know its own rules....I think perhaps that the answer should have been worded differently...

Really? That's what they said? I could swear they said something different.

Combat Maneuvers only benefit from an AoMF if the weapon enhanced by the Amulet has an influence on the maneuver. Since grapples aren't influenced by unarmed strikes, then AoMF doesn't apply.

However, an AoMF would apply if the enemy was using a weapon with the grab special feature, like the tentacles of an octopus.

[Edit] Damnit! Couldn't keep the snark out of this thread. :(

I blame Cosmo.

Lantern Lodge

I think the point he was getting at was the emphasis on the PDT on the idea of "AoMF gives pluses to attack rolls... but grapple is a combat manuever". The last sentence wasn't written the best, and will probably inspire some controversy later, but it happens.

Lantern Lodge

DANG IT, COMOS!

I will break you down to pieces for this crime against the web forms!

I will DEFEAT you! (And I don't care that you don't have any feat, I will find a way!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now I know how it will work in PFS play but I see no reason to change how I'm going to rule it in my own games. Those who disagree with Paizo, remember that it's their rules for their game but you are free to change how it works in your own games. Change it and move on.


I'm just confused about why exactly an unarmed strike is NOT the weapon used to grapple. If I'm using my body to physically touch you in any way that is harmful, that's an unarmed strike. How is this not the same with grapple. That's all I want to know.

To make ANY attack roll (this includes a combat maneuver roll) you MUST use some word of weapon. Even ranged spells such as rays are subject to this, which is why they are counted as weapons. Same for touch attacks. So why, when using a combat manuver, would I no longer be using some sort of weapon. If I AM using the a weapon, am I not using my body in some way? And don't enhancements to unarmed strikes apply to the whole body? Can't a touch spell be discharged with ANY part of the body? This just doesnt make any logical sense.


Shimesen wrote:

I'm just confused about why exactly an unarmed strike is NOT the weapon used to grapple. If I'm using my body to physically touch you in any way that is harmful, that's an unarmed strike. How is this not the same with grapple. That's all I want to know.

To make ANY attack roll (this includes a combat maneuver roll) you MUST use some word of weapon. Even ranged spells such as rays are subject to this, which is why they are counted as weapons. Same for touch attacks. So why, when using a combat manuver, would I no longer be using some sort of weapon. If I AM using the a weapon, am I not using my body in some way? And don't enhancements to unarmed strikes apply to the whole body? Can't a touch spell be discharged with ANY part of the body? This just doesnt make any logical sense.

You're not necessarily using a weapon with any and every combat maneuver.

It's also a balance issue, so it goes beyond "does it make sense in the real world". What about bull rushes? Don't you use your body to make a bull rush? What about overrun? Don't you use your body to do that, too?

Amulets of Might Fist already are priced higher than comparable magic weapons because they do more. They apply to any unarmed strike you make (even if you TWF with them) and they apply to every single one of your natural attacks. With a Greataxe, you get bonuses to your attack and damage and now to a trip, disarm, or sunder because you're likely using your weapon to assist with the maneuver.

Should a Greataxe's bonuses also apply to a bull rush? What if I say my character bull rushes by pushing the enemy back with the haft of his axe? Aren't I now using it for the bull rush? No, not really. It's incidental.

But if this "I'm using my body" idea carries through, then now not only does the AoMF apply to all unarmed strikes (at the very least, the benefit of a double magic weapon and major boon to flurrying monks) and all natural attacks (massive, massive benefit), but now we're arguing that it should apply to combat maneuvers that virtually no other weapon would be able to get its bonus applied to. AoMF now adds significant bonuses to Grapple, Bull Rush, Overrun, Steal, Dirty Trick, Reposition, and Drag, in addition to the ordinary Trip, Disarm, and Sunder plus the bonuses to Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons.

No other weapon can even come close to that. So even if you can't be satisfied with the verisimilitude of it, you can't argue with the blatant balance issue.

EDIT: Also, you have to realize that saying the PDT doesn't understand their own rules is incredibly disrespectful.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
master arminas wrote:

This is a thread for a simple question that has arisen time and time again:

When a character or creature is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists and attempts a grapple maneuver, does the enhancement bonus of the AoMF (if any) add to the character's roll to perform the grapple?

If it does, then does the enhancement bonus (if any) also apply to the character resisting a grapple maneuver?

I post this because the question keeps on popping up in thread after thread, and nowhere have I (with my admittedly weak search-fu) been able to find an answer from the developers. I, for one, would like to see the issue settled once and for all with a simple answer: YES or NO.

If you feel the same way, please click FAQ and here is hoping that we will finally receive an answer.

Post your own opinions and thoughts below, if you like.

MA

The answer is no. An amulet of might fists "grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." You make a combat maneuver to grapple.

I'm confused. So when you trip something...how does that work? You are making a combat maneuver...you get the bonus. Seems a very odd distinction and in conflict with:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

If you agree that it shouldn't apply for one because it is a combat maneuver, then it shouldn't work for trip nor anything else. Confused be me.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
master arminas wrote:

This is a thread for a simple question that has arisen time and time again:

When a character or creature is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists and attempts a grapple maneuver, does the enhancement bonus of the AoMF (if any) add to the character's roll to perform the grapple?

If it does, then does the enhancement bonus (if any) also apply to the character resisting a grapple maneuver?

I post this because the question keeps on popping up in thread after thread, and nowhere have I (with my admittedly weak search-fu) been able to find an answer from the developers. I, for one, would like to see the issue settled once and for all with a simple answer: YES or NO.

If you feel the same way, please click FAQ and here is hoping that we will finally receive an answer.

Post your own opinions and thoughts below, if you like.

MA

The answer is no. An amulet of might fists "grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." You make a combat maneuver to grapple.

Thanks for the answer, Design Team. That is pretty much what I (on a personal level) thought, but the question just keeps popping up and I appreciate the fact that you folks answered.

MA

101 to 150 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Amulet of Mighty Fists and Grappling: Can We Get An Answer? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.