| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Does the damage bonus from having an amulet of mighty fists apply to the damage rolls of Special Attacks that use natural weapons (such as constrict, rend, or trample)? Why or why not?
As much as it doesn't make a lick of sense, the answer appears to be no. None of the three you listed usually has an attack form attached to it, just that it is a special attack. Rend is the only one you can make a case for, as the special attack section for it usually includes the weapon. special attacks: Rend (2 claws, 1d6+7). Rest are an untyped damage (heck many of these would overcome DR, as the are not weapon attacks or natural attacks at first blush). I couldn't find any language anywhere to actually say what they are RAW. RAI its pretty obvious they are whatever natural attack the creature possesses, but I'm sure you could gather that, and thats why this thread was made.
Odd, because many of the other attacks have listings (pull, powerful charge) etc.
Then again, does a constrictor snake constrict with its bite? Unlikely.
It seems like it should for Special Attacks that use natural weapons since the item description lists "attack and damage rolls with unarmed weapons and natural attacks."
That being said, I'm not certain that Trample implies the use of a creature's natural attacks. If a monster's claws are sundered or otherwise made unusable, I'm pretty sure it can continue to use Trample without an issue. In that same situation, the monster would lose the ability to Rend with its claws or whatever, so it follows that Rend is intrinsically part of its natural attacks and would hence gain any enhancement bonuses provided to the creature's natural attacks.
I'm not so sure about Constrict. Does a monster use its claws/tentacles/bite to Constrict? Maybe it would only gain the enhancement bonus if it was specifically using that limb to grapple, taking the appropriate -20 penalty.
Is there a precedent for how this same situation is resolved when a creature's natural attacks are imbued with Magic Fang? Does it get a bonus on Special Attacks then? I'd like to know what other people think.
Something like this came up a couple years ago when I ran Serpent Skull and a player in the group had a rend attack and eldritch claw feat. I had to decide on the fly one encounter if his rend overcame the monsters DR/silver. I just went with sure why not.
What about rake?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rake definitely works.
Rake (Ex): A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature’s description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
Since they're explicitly extra natural attacks, they benefit from anything that enhances natural attacks.
I think it works on the damage part of the others, too:
Constrict: ... The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.
Rend: ... The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus.
Trample: As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category Smaller than itself. This works just like the overrun combat maneuver, but the trampling creature does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path. Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier....
If the damage for these special attacks is equal to a natural attack, and the natural attack damage is increased, shouldn't that also increase the damage of the special attack?
The Combat Maneuver roll for trample doesn't get a bonus, though, because it's an Overrun maneuver and those don't benefit from weapon bonuses.
this was actually just answered (rather to my dislike) in a thread about grapple and the AoMF. to cliffnotes the ruling that was made: if the special attack you are trying to use does not list natural attack or unarmed strike as the weapon used to make it, then it doesnt recieve the bonus. a grapple (as an example) does not benefit from AoMF. i would say that neither does constrict, rend, or trample because none of them are actually using the natural weapon as the weapon for the attack.
rend might have a fighting chance at arguing that it IS using a natural weapon to make it, but its not specifically stated, so might need errata. constrict is not using a natural weapon of any kind normally because it used the whole body (just like a grapple) and trample uses legs and feet that are not listed as natural weapons unless you somehow make them into such.
They don't have to BE natural attacks though. They derive their damage FROM natural attacks. If their damage didn't go up when a natural attack's damage goes up, then it isn't equal now, is it?
Grapple not getting a bonus to attack makes sense, but constrict, rend or trample not getting the damage bonus, doesn't.
just because they do damage based of the damage of your natural attack, doesn't make it a natural attack, does it? i would argue that the damage from a constrict/trample/rend does not gain the bonus from an AoMF because they are not actually natural attacks. at least by RAW. keep in mind, i think the ruling made against grapple and other combat maneuvers not was a terrible one, but it is still the ruling that was made. and by that ruling, none of the above attacks are natural attacks, and would not benifit from the AoMF in any way. do i think its stupid to look at it like that, yes, but thats how it is. just like AoO's happening before the triggers for them...thats retarded. just because you see an opening in your opponents defense when he swings (when boxing) doesnt mean that you hit him before he throws the punch. you dont see the opening until after he starts to throw it. at the very least, you both land them at the same time...and thats IF you swing faster then he does. but again, logic isn't always the right answer in pathfinder, so yeah...
|
|
The descriptions of these special attacks don't say the damage is based on the natural attack damage, they say it's equal to.
Equality means that two things share the same value. If they cease to share the same value, they aren't equal. Thus if we have a rule "x is equal to y" and we increase the value of x, we must increase y to satisfy the rule.
If we have the rules: (1) Alice gets a 5% raise every year and (2) Bob is paid equally to Alice, then we must give Bob a 5% raise every year even though there is no separate rule that awards Bob a raise.
The word "typically/usually" might allow for a weird AoMF exception for Constrict and Rend (since wearing an AoMF is not "typical" and thus breaks equality) but Trample does not have this exception in the description, so anything that increases slam damage increases Trample damage by definition of equality. And if Trample is boosted by an AoMF, why the heck shouldn't Constrict or Rend be? This suggests that either "typically/usually" should be removed or else the phrase "equal to" should be changed to "based on" or "derived from" in order to make sure that these things are consistent.
Note that a successful grapple check made to damage the grappled creature invokes the same "equal to" rule. ("You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon.")
Note also that this is separate from the question about whether the AoMF grants a bonus to the CMB check to grapple which is neither an UAS nor "equal to" an UAS attack roll.
your equality description is accurate, Weirdo but you are forgetting something: the bonus to damage from an AoMF only applies "when making an unarmed strike or natural attack". this means that your actual natural attack damage doesn't actually have this bonus in it. its added only AFTER its been declared that the attack being made is indeed a natural attack. so ultimately, its not a bonus that is included until you make the attack with the appropriate weapon. i argued this same point with grapple because it makes no sense that a weapon can have a +5 bonus, but doesnt get that bonus because your not making an attack "associated" with that weapon, even though you are using that weapon to attack. as an example: if i use the shaft of my +5 longbow to attack in melee as an improvised weapon, i would not get the +5 bonus to either attack or damage, because that is not an "attack associated with the weapon", but yet i am clearly using that weapon to make an attack.
just because a trample uses the same damage calculation that your natural attack does, doesnt mean that it recieves the same bonuses because you arn't actually making a natural attack with it. basically, it gets the base damage+str+size. anything else you get would also have to be aplicable to trample as well as natural attacks.
just so we are clear, im playing devil's advocate here. i fully believe that trample/constrict/rend are, and always have been natural weapons, but after looking into it, i noticed that they are not listed as such, and so felt the need to post acordingly. i would love a clarification from a developer saying that, yes, they ARE natural attacks, but as it stands, thats not how they are worded.
They are special attacks that augment the creature's ordinary natural attacks in some way. Things like rend and rake are far less questionable than something like trample or constrict. If you want to draw the analogy to the AoMF ruling, then rend and rake are far more akin to trip, disarm, or sunder while trample and constrict are far more like overrun and grapple. If you want to parse on those lines, rend and rake make sense to benefit, while trample and constrict less so.
I agree. But as it stands, none of them are actually using a natural weapon to make the attack until a clarification is made.
...as it stands, none of them are actually using a natural weapon to make the attack until a clarification is made.
The opposite stance could be argued just as easily. Every one of those attack forms make use of a creature's natural weapons.
/devil's advocate
...as it stands, none of them are actually using a natural weapon to make the attack until a clarification is made.The opposite stance could be argued just as easily. Every one of those attack forms make use of a creature's natural weapons.
/devil's advocate
so does a grapple because as far as some of us are concerned, the body is a natural weapon (especially in the case of a slam attack). but its not the weapon used to make a grapple. the same is true about constrict/trample/rend. currently, they do not list any specific weapon as the weapon used to deliver the attack. because of this, they are "weaponless" attacks, just like grapple and overrun.
|
|
just because a trample uses the same damage calculation that your natural attack does, doesnt mean that it recieves the same bonuses because you arn't actually making a natural attack with it. basically, it gets the base damage+str+size. anything else you get would also have to be aplicable to trample as well as natural attacks.
If that's what the devs intended, they should have worded it as "trample's damage equals the weapon die used for their slam plus their Str mod / 1.5xStr mod." Saying "trample's damage equals slam damage damage" means it gets the whole package - any damage modifiers applicable to slam are applicable to trample. Again, this happens indirectly by definition of equality.
Now, maybe the devs did intend "special attack damage equals natural attack weapon die + Str." They're not technical writers. But as-is there's a better argument for giving Trample an AoMF bonus than not.
Things like rend and rake are far less questionable than something like trample or constrict.
Rake isn't questionable at all. As mentioned above it's an ability that grants free natural attacks under certain circumstances. It's just as entitled to an AoMF boost as the free UAS from Vicious Stomp or Panther Style's retaliatory strikes.
Personally, I think it makes more sense to treat Rend like Sneak Attack - a situational bit of bonus damage to a specific attack (the final hit that triggers rend).
so does a grapple because as far as some of us are concerned, the body is a natural weapon (especially in the case of a slam attack). but its not the weapon used to make a grapple. the same is true about constrict/trample/rend. currently, they do not list any specific weapon as the weapon used to deliver the attack. because of this, they are "weaponless" attacks, just like grapple and overrun.
However, the damage done by grapple is not weaponless.
"You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon.
The clear implication of this is that you are using the strike or weapon to damage. If you are grappling someone with a +1 flaming dagger and you make a grapple check to damage, you may stab them in the kidneys, benefiting from +1+d6 fire damage from the enhancement on the dagger. Likewise if you are grappling someone wearing a +1 flaming AoMF you can punch them in the kidneys, benefiting from +1+d6 fire damage.
This doesn't necessarily mean that you get the +1 bonus on the CMB check to maintain the grapple. And that makes perfect sense. Controlling a grapple is a very different skill from delivering an accurate and damaging strike, as evidenced by the fact that some martial arts styles are considered heavy on grappling (eg Brazillian Jiu Jitsu) while others are heavy on striking (eg Karate). Striking won't help you control your opponent's body in a grapple - but it will help you give them a good knock in the head/gut if the opportunity arises.
I can easily see Trample working the same way - you get the AoMF damage bonus, but not the accuracy bonus.
The problem here is that "apparently" (according to the other thread where the ruling was made) the bonuses from an AoMF only apply to your unarmed strikes or natural attacks when you make an unarmed strike or natural attack, not all the time. I myself argued that it makes no sense to say a weapon is only enchanted when its being "swung", but apparently that's the logic behind it. So unless you are making an unarmed strike or natural attack when you constrict (which as per RAW, you are not) then you do not receive the bonus, and it is not counted towards your total unarmed or natural damage.
|
|
The ruling says
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.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?
...
That sounds to me like they were specifically ruling against using the AoMF bonus on the grapple check (the roll to perform the grapple), the accuracy half of the equation, not the damage roll (after successfully grappling for damage).
I've asked for clarification in the other thread, but given that much of the argument against allowing AoMF to apply to the grapple check is that grapple isn't a weapon-based combat maneuver, and the text under damaging specifically allows the use of a light or one-handed weapon, it seems pretty clear-cut to me that it's a different circumstance.
It is a different circumstance. But just like grapple, special attacks are also not weapon based unless specifically stated as such. Currently, simply having the speak attack deal equal damage to a natural weapon, doesn't mean it uses a natural weapon to make it. And because of this, it would not receive anything from AoMF.
|
|
It doesn't have to use a natural weapon to make the attack to have damage equal to a natural weapon.
See for comparison Dragon Roar. Not an UAS, but deals UAS damage.
It doesn't have to use a natural weapon to make the attack to have damage equal to a natural weapon.
See for comparison Dragon Roar. Not an UAS, but deals UAS damage.
and now you have added Dragon Roar to the list of special attacks in question.
no, it doesnt have to use the weapon to deal equal damage, but to get the bonus from AoMF, you MUST make the attack with a natural weapon or UAS. so technically, your natural weapon DOESNT HAVE THIS BONUS to damage until you make an attack with it. so the "equal to" part of all these special attacks does not include the bonus because its not there.
Lets throw in an abstract third thing: You have an AoMF +1, you DO do damage equal to your natural attack and GAIN the +1. But the monster you are fighting has DR/magic, does your special attack overcome it?
Lets throw in an abstract third thing: You have an AoMF +1, you DO do damage equal to your natural attack and GAIN the +1. But the monster you are fighting has DR/magic, does your special attack overcome it?
if you assume that you are gaining the benefits of AoMF for your special attack, then you are gaining ALL the benifits, so your special attack is not treated as magical, even though you arnt using the +1 to hit, you ARE using it to damage, so you are using it. this makes it magical.
but if you are NOT getting the +1 to damage and DONT gain the +1 for it (nor would you apply anything like flaming or keen if it was on the AoMF) then you could not bypass the DR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are constrict and rend even effected by DR to begin with?
The rules are clear that DR only applies against attacks.
So I guess if you interpret these abilities as not being attacks and not getting the bonuses from AoMF, then they bypass DR completely (it just doesn't apply). However, if you hold the opposite viewpoint, then it stands to reason that DR would apply.
not true. they ARE attacks. they are NOT attacks made with the weapon "natural attack". they are made with some invisible force of the gods that defies all logic and also does damage "equal to" a natural weapon.
this was how it was ruled for grapple and other combat manuvers. these special attacks are no different.
what NEEDS to happen, is an FAQ or errata that clarifies all of these special attacks as being made using a natural attack as the weapon. currently, however, there is no such rule or ruling, so strictly RAW, they are "weaponless" attacks.
|
|
No, some kind of FAQ or errata would be very helpful, but it's not necessary to define these attacks as weapon attacks. For example, it would be completely acceptable for the Devs to rule that:
1) The special attacks are not natural weapon attacks but deal the exact same damage as the creature's most relevant natural attack including DR piercing abilities (without benefiting from effects boosting the natural attack that don't directly improve damage).
2) The special attacks are not natural weapon attacks but do benefit from effects that boost natural weapon damage in general (eg AoMF) including DR piercing, but don't benefit from effects that boost specific natural attacks (eg Improved NA).
3) The special attacks are only supposed to deal damage "based on" natural attacks and can't be enhanced or pierce DR in any way unless enhanced by something that specifically boosts that special attack. While this would be disappointing to many it's not particularly unreasonable.
4) In the case of Rend, the damage is added to the triggering attack in a way similar to SA, which means it doesn't inherently bypass DR but does bypass DR if the triggering attack does and will help the triggering attack overcome the DR threshold if necessary rather than taking DR out of both the weapon and Rend separately.
Are constrict and rend even effected by DR to begin with?
The rules are clear that DR only applies against attacks.
So I guess if you interpret these abilities as not being attacks and not getting the bonuses from AoMF, then they bypass DR completely (it just doesn't apply). However, if you hold the opposite viewpoint, then it stands to reason that DR would apply.
I don't think that works. Spells that deal P/B/S damage don't automatically bypass DR, so I don't think special attacks would get a free pass just because they aren't weapon attacks. (Strictly speaking only Constrict specifies a damage type, but Trample and Rend really look like they should be B and P/S respectively)
It doesn't have to use a natural weapon to make the attack to have damage equal to a natural weapon.
See for comparison Dragon Roar. Not an UAS, but deals UAS damage.
and now you have added Dragon Roar to the list of special attacks in question.
no, it doesnt have to use the weapon to deal equal damage, but to get the bonus from AoMF, you MUST make the attack with a natural weapon or UAS. so technically, your natural weapon DOESNT HAVE THIS BONUS to damage until you make an attack with it. so the "equal to" part of all these special attacks does not include the bonus because its not there.
I think instead you're getting nervous about the grapple ruling and turning it into a slippery slope.
If you have a bonus to a damage roll made with an UAS or natural attack (the wording on AoMF), you have a bonus to UAS or natural attack damage.
This becomes obvious in the Weapons section, where the terms "damage" and "damage roll" are used interchangeably:
Projectile Weapons: Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions). A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon unless it's a specially built composite shortbow or longbow, or a sling. If the character has a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when he uses a bow or a sling.
...
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 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.
Weirdo, in all those weapon quotes, it specifically calls out strength as being changed somehow in the damage rolls because the general rule is that strength is a bonus added to both attack and damage. but for instance, a projectile weapon does not use the strength modifier. the above spoiler quote you made makes mention of how a composite bow applies strength to damage even though the bow is a dex based weapon. this is a case of special vs general.
in the case of the special attacks in question in this thread, there is no general rule on them at all because each is its own special rule. that being said, an attack is still an attack and a melee attack only receives bonuses to attack and damage from the weapon the attack is made with. if i attack with my longbow, i cant apply the bonus from my +3 dagger to damage with it. even if i had a special quality on the bow that said "apply all bonuses you receive to melee attacks" on this bow, i still dont get the +3 from my dagger because its an entirely different weapon.
in the case of AoMF, a natural weapon (and all bonuses it is enchanted/enhanced with via AoMF) is a singular and separate weapon from the one used to make a special attack like constrict.
again, should it be clarified that these special attacks are made with a natural weapon? yes, and i fully agree that they should be. but there is no such clarification at this time. perhaps more people should hit FAQ...
|
|
Weirdo, in all those weapon quotes, it specifically calls out strength as being changed somehow in the damage rolls because the general rule is that strength is a bonus added to both attack and damage. but for instance, a projectile weapon does not use the strength modifier. the above spoiler quote you made makes mention of how a composite bow applies strength to damage even though the bow is a dex based weapon. this is a case of special vs general.
You're missing the point. It's not a case of specific vs general rules, it's a case of clarifying terminology.
In all those quotes "damage" is used to refer to a damage roll with a weapon. That means that "modifier to damage" and "modifier to damage roll" are interchangeable. If an attack deals "damage equal to UAS damage" it is the same thing as dealing "damage equal to that dealt with an UAS damage roll." AoMF increases the damage dealt with an UAS (or natural attack) damage roll, which means it increases the damage for anything that deals "damage equal to an UAS/natural attack)."
in the case of the special attacks in question in this thread, there is no general rule on them at all because each is its own special rule. that being said, an attack is still an attack and a melee attack only receives bonuses to attack and damage from the weapon the attack is made with. if i attack with my longbow, i cant apply the bonus from my +3 dagger to damage with it. even if i had a special quality on the bow that said "apply all bonuses you receive to melee attacks" on this bow, i still dont get the +3 from my dagger because its an entirely different weapon.
The +3 enhancement on the dagger isn't an enhancement on melee attacks, it's an enhancement on attacks with that specific dagger (it wouldn't even apply to attacks made with a second dagger in your off-hand). Something that benefits from bonuses to melee attacks generally (such as Power Attack) doesn't benefit from bonuses to attacks with one specific melee weapon. This is the difference between saying that Constrict benefits from an AoMF and saying constrict benefits from Improved Natural Attack (bite) in any creature with a bite attack.
The situation I've suggested is instead is more like "If I have an ability that lets me use my Perform(Dance) skill modifier instead of Acrobatics, does that include the bonus from a Circlet of Persuasion (+3 to cha-based checks) which increases my Perform skill but not my Acrobatics skill?" ("If I have an ability that deals the same damage as my UAS/natural attack, does that include a bonus from an AoMF, which applies to UAS/natural attack damage but not combat maneuvers or special attacks?")
The +3 enhancement on the dagger isn't an enhancement on melee attacks, it's an enhancement on attacks with that specific dagger (it wouldn't even apply to attacks made with a second dagger in your off-hand). Something that benefits from bonuses to melee attacks generally (such as Power Attack) doesn't benefit from bonuses to attacks with one specific melee...
you just proved my point! thank you. the +x from an amulet of mighty fists is an enhancement on attacks and damage MADE WITH THE SPECIFIC WEAPON called "natural attack or unarmed strike". a special attack is not this weapon, it is (as of right now) an attack made with a completely different weapon. this is the argument made for they it doesnt work for grapple (which is why i brought it up to begin with) and until either these attacks are clarified to use the specific weapon "natural attack", or they change the ruling on AoMF to allow it to work on any weapon made with the body (to include Unarmed Strike and Natural Weapons) this is how the rules work.