If I had a +3 Amulet of Mighty Fists as a monk, would that give me a +3 when trying to initiate the grapple? I believe it would give me a +3 to damage if I chose the damage option once we were in the grapple. But I'm just not sure if when I initiate the grapple I would gain the +3 benefit to land it? Would I get the +3 when I went to maintain and chose the damage option? Or if there is any other time besides outright attacking someone with my fists that I would gain the +3 to attack rolls.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quote: This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons. Quote: 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 DC of this maneuver is your target’s Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll. I can see where the confusion is. Unfortunately, AoMF's do not provide a bonus to grappling, because you are not using an Unarmed Strike to make the grapple. (You're not using any weapon at all, actually.)
However, there are some options if you want to be better at grappling. The Anaconda's Coils (UE) provide a bonus to Strength and for Grappling (and they stack!), the Gauntlets of Twisting Vines (Heroes of the Wild) give you a +2 Circumstance Bonus, and the Grappler's Mask (APG/UE) lets you grapple without provoking AoO's if you don't want to spend the feat.
Ah thank you good sir! Would the AOMF add +3 damage to the constrict damage?
Constrict isn't quite the same as damaging during a grapple (it's a Universal Monster Ability, although some other sources may provide access to it). ...If that seems a little exacting for the terms, well, that's how the rules for this game can be. XD The names of abilities are important for getting the right rules text.
Anyway, when you're grappling, you can "inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike". Amulet of Mighty Fists increases the damage of your unarmed strike, so it would definitely apply when you're trying to damage a creature you're grappling.
GM Rednal wrote: I can see where the confusion is. Unfortunately, AoMF's do not provide a bonus to grappling, because you are not using an Unarmed Strike to make the grapple. (You're not using any weapon at all, actually.) Well, wouldn't you be using a Natural Attack if the Grapple were achieved through a specific Natural Attack?
What if you were a White Haired Witch with an Amulet of Mighty Fists? A successful attack with your White Hair gives you a free Grapple Check, and if you succeed, only your victim is Grappled. You don't have the Grappled Condition yourself. Plus, there are ways to get the Grab Ability, and there is the Hamatula Strike Feat: all ways to grapple with a weapon directly.
Those would be cases of "specific rules overriding the general rule". The normal scenario is that you are not using any kind of weapon, including a natural weapon, to grapple. If you can manage to grapple through a natural attack, then yes, the AoMF would apply at that point.
(Although I can see some might argue against Hamatula Strike - it doesn't actually say that you're grappling with the weapon itself, but rather that you're damaging someone and then grappling them.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quote: 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 DC of this maneuver is your target’s Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll. Has this issue been FAQ, because to me, when you perform a combat manuever you are using your body. And if you have Unarmed Strike, your body is a weapon. Therefore, you are using your unarmed strike (aka body) (aka weapon) to perform the combat manuever. So in my mind, absent a FAQ that says differently, you would apply AoMF bonuses to combat manuever checks
That is one way to think of it, but rules-wise, Unarmed Strikes are a specific thing. What applies to your unarmed strikes isn't necessarily going to apply to anything else you're doing with your body.
Combat Maneuvers only use weapons when they specifically say they do (generally any CMB that says you can do it "in place of a melee attack) or when that CMB is granted as part of an attack you have (like the White-Haired Witch). If it doesn't say you're using a weapon, then you aren't, so bonuses to your weapons won't apply.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
There was an official answer, even if it isn't in the FAQs
All unarmed strikes use your body, but not all attacks that use your body are unarmed strikes.
Matthew Downie wrote: There was an official answer, even if it isn't in the FAQs
All unarmed strikes use your body, but not all attacks that use your body are unarmed strikes.
Wow, why are they hiding this answer away from people? It is definitely counter-intuitive to me and deserves to be shown to people so that they may know the rules without having to know about some obscure rules thread.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Maybe they didn't revisit it because that response was immediately followed by two hundred posts of aggressive quibbling over the differences between attacks and attack rolls and between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks...
Generally speaking, an Unarmed Strike is treated as a weapon, and it is only used for things you can use a weapon for (making attack rolls to deal hit point damage, making sunder maneuvers, etc).
Benefits to your unarmed strike do not apply to things that are not normally done with weapons, such as grappling, unless you have a feat, class feature, or other option that allows it. Think of it as, oh, having the right sort of training. A great boxer isn't necessarily going to be a great wrestler - knowing how to make expert punches and guards can only get you so far if your goal is to hold someone down instead of knocking them out.
Driver_325yards wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: There was an official answer, even if it isn't in the FAQs
All unarmed strikes use your body, but not all attacks that use your body are unarmed strikes.
Wow, why are they hiding this answer away from people? It is definitely counter-intuitive to me and deserves to be shown to people so that they may know the rules without having to know about some obscure rules thread. I have always found it frustrating that FAQs don't have a dedicated search engine and that there is no filter for Official Rules Posts for when searching the messageboards.
I remember that ruling. I was part of compelling the PDT to make it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You can always search the PDT's posts here...
Matthew Downie wrote: Maybe they didn't revisit it because that response was immediately followed by two hundred posts of aggressive quibbling over the differences between attacks and attack rolls and between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks... +1
I believe we'd have a lot more FAQ and we'd still have "all posts on line are official" if not for the aggressive quibbling.
James Risner wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Maybe they didn't revisit it because that response was immediately followed by two hundred posts of aggressive quibbling over the differences between attacks and attack rolls and between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks... +1
I believe we'd have a lot more FAQ and we'd still have "all posts on line are official" if not for the aggressive quibbling. LOL We would have a LOT less quibbling if some of the basic cornerstones of the game where actually defined. For instance, if I knew 100% when 'thrown weapon' or 'wielded' were said, what it actually meant. It's because things are left nebulous that people quibble IMO. It's a catch 22 if you say they don't answer questions because of quibbling when people quibble because so many questions are left unanswered...
People quibble because they want something from the game that most players, Paizo, the developers, and others don’t.
The want the game to be a computer program. Where everything is define, linear, deterministic, and rigid.
Matthew Downie wrote: You can always search the PDT's posts here... Sort of. Unfortunately text in quotation blocks doesn't show up on searches of their posts. So following your link we see that on August 8, 2017 there was a post about Mirror Image, but a search for "mirror" turns up no matches. It's something that has been annoying me for a while.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
James Risner wrote: People quibble because they want something from the game that most players, Paizo, the developers, and others don’t.
The want the game to be a computer program. Where everything is define, linear, deterministic, and rigid.
I don't think they are asking too much to want something to mean the SAME thing when it's in the text. When the same word/phrase means different thing depending on who wrote it, it leads to questioning, as it should. Any less, and it's not a set of rule but suggestions. People pay for rules.
And I'd refute that "they want something from the game that most players, Paizo, the developers, and others don’t" when that thing is to have a consistent and understandable game. I don't think a single player wouldn't be happy to be able to have confidence that when they read the word 'wield' in a new rule, that they KNEW 100% what that actually meant.
That’s where we differ. I think a lot of people pay for suggestions more than rules and the quibbling over a word is offputting.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
James Risner wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: Maybe they didn't revisit it because that response was immediately followed by two hundred posts of aggressive quibbling over the differences between attacks and attack rolls and between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks... +1
I believe we'd have a lot more FAQ and we'd still have "all posts on line are official" if not for the aggressive quibbling. We're the customers. Either that AoMF Official Rules Post was intended to cause aggressive quibbling or it was a bad ruling.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Any ruling would have been controversial, since opinions were sharply divided on the subject.
That doesn't excuse the tone of the "PAIZO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN RULES" responses.
As I see it, Paizo has the right to make rules changes via errata for the sake of what they see as good game balance.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matthew Downie wrote: Any ruling would have been controversial, since opinions were sharply divided on the subject.
That doesn't excuse the tone of the "PAIZO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN RULES" responses.
As I see it, Paizo has the right to make rules changes via errata for the sake of what they see as good game balance.
Paizo is a business, though. We are the customers. It's simply axiomatic that if lots of customers have a problem with a business's product, there is something wrong with its product.
Has the right to make rules changes? Indeed they do. In fact, Paizo has an obligation to make rules changes when there is a problem with the rules because business and customers and stuff.
I wouldn't have considered any ruling controversial. And controversial though I found this one, I still acknowledge this change in the rules.
The reason I had a problem with the rules is that it further complicated the game. The way I saw it before the ruling is that the AoMF said and says that it gives its bonuses to "unarmed and natural attacks." In that particular thread, I proved that Grappling is unarmed, and it is an attack, and is therefore an unarmed attack. What Paizo did was to say that a Combat Maneuver is to say that a Combat Maneuvers that are not unarmed attacks. They are Unarmed. They are Attacks, but they are not unarmed attacks?! I consider this a minor quibble, but their ruling creates cognitive dissonance for me. I would have liked it much better if they'd said something like "For the purposes of the Amulet of Mighty Fists, 'unarmed attacks' only means 'Unarmed Strikes', and will not necessarily enhance Combat Maneuver Checks." The way they worded the ruling has been inviting efforts to interpret it to be much more far-reaching than the AoMF, trying to interpret all Combat Maneuvers as being not attacks, for example.
Furthermore, if the decision to make the ruling their way was a game balance decision, it was a poor ruling because it is easily circumvented. Because there is another ruling that says that if you make a Combat Maneuver with a Magic Weapon, you do get to add the Enhancement Bonus of that weapon to your Combat Maneuver Check. And you don't normally get to add your Enhancement Bonuses from the AoMF to your Grapple Check because your Unarmed Strike and other Natural Weapons are normally what would be called "incidental" to making the Maneuver. But that is clearly not the case if your Natural Attack has the Grab Ability, which gives you a +4 on all Grapple Checks and lets you make a Free Action Grapple every time to score a hit with the associated Natural Weapon, an Alchemist's Tentacle, for example. Would you actually say that your Tentacle which gave you your Grapple Check in the first place and is giving you a +4 on your Check is in any way incidental? If you would say that, could you also keep a straight face and pass a sobriety test?
So it is worded in a way that is counter-intuitive, invites over-reaching speculative interpretations, and is easily circumvented. That is why I think that Official Rules Post was followed by more than a hundred posts afterwords.
But I acknowledge and accept this change in the rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: So it is worded in a way that is counter-intuitive, invites over-reaching speculative interpretations, and is easily circumvented. That is why I think that Official Rules Post was followed by more than a hundred posts afterwords.
But I acknowledge and accept this change in the rules.
I agree 100%. I'm often fine with the actual ruling but baffled by the explanation. For instance the 'adding the same stat more than once' and 'multiple nested sources'... Where there is a nice, simple way to explain/fix it but that was ignored for the one that throws a wrench into everything. :(
On THIS ruling, that "cognitive dissonance", IMO, is that a Dan bong's enchantment works but your hands doesn't... To explain, using a Dan bong actually makes it HARDER to grapple [–4 penalty for not having 2 free hands, +2 grapple weapon] while your "incidental" weapon is required to negate the 2 free hand requirement.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
In that particular thread, I proved that Grappling is unarmed, and it is an attack, and is therefore an unarmed attack.
Scot, I like a lot of your builds and comments. But you did not 'prove' grappling is an unarmed attack. You merely argued it very loudly.
As some of us said you were attempting to conflate terms. Grapple: defined. Attack:defined. But your definition of grapple attack superimposed those words in a way the rules did not.
Quote: What Paizo did was to say that a Combat Maneuver is to say that a Combat Maneuvers that are not unarmed attacks. They are Unarmed. They are Attacks, but they are not unarmed attacks?! I consider this a minor quibble, but their ruling creates cognitive dissonance for me. Sure, but your ruling creates cognitive dissonance for others.
No company or game is going to have complete mental buyin. I for one completely hate the idea of character classes and levels.
But paizo was actually right in this case, I think wrapping your mind their ruling, after some reflection, would solve the question of dissonance. The rules are not simplistic, they are intricate, but there's nothing mechanically breaking reality to suggest that an Amulet that makes your Fists strikes more puissant might not make you more able to hold on to someone. Hitting =/= holding.
Quote:
The way they worded the ruling has been inviting efforts to interpret it to be much more far-reaching than the AoMF, trying to interpret all Combat Maneuvers as being not attacks, for example.
Which I believe was exactly their intent.
As you say it is the logically inescapable conclusion.
You may use an iterative attack to perform a disarm combat maneuver check, for example.
But making this definition does help remove some of the ambiguity and overloading on the word 'attack'.
Perfect Tommy wrote: But your definition of grapple attack superimposed those words in a way the rules did not. No: Just the opposite. I am asserting that those words are NOT superimposed, since indeed there is no unified term for the 2 words put together. I subjected the the situation to each definition individually and seperately, and
Perfect Tommy wrote: You merely argued it very loudly. and supported my arguments with a comprehensive body of evidence that unambiguously proved my point. According to you, I comprehensively proved my point to everybody, including yourself.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Scott keeps pounding the table saying all grapples are attacks.
No one is contending they are not.
That being said, loudly? Am I typing too loudly? At this hour? Dude, I'm not doing anything more than giving my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say. The volume (?) of my words is something you are reading into, I think. But personal remarks don't belong on a public forum. I would like to hear from you in a private message what I said that gives you some sense of a shrill or bellicose tone.
I am as stubborn as my facts.
Also, what are you talking about? "Grapple attack" is not a game term, and it is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the Amulet of Mighty Fists and therefore about "unarmed attacks" and "natural attacks." "Unarmed attack:" is that what you mean? That is what this Thread is about.
We can keep arguing about whether a Grapple is an unarmed attack if you really want to, I guess, but I think it is sort of silly to do. the PDT has already made a ruling. I appreciate the invitation to demonstrate how I comprehensively proved what the rules used to say some years ago, but it seems academic at this point to do so on this thread.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
James Risner wrote: Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away. It's really hard to say all this when the DEV's have had to 'read the rules like machine code' to parse the rules 'just' right to get some of the rulings they got. At times we're expected to read the rules conversationally while others technically. The lack of consistent expectations encourages and invites the "quibbling" you seem to hate. It's as much the devs 'fault' as anyone else's if people are turned away from the forums.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
graystone wrote: James Risner wrote: Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away. It's really hard to say all this when the DEV's have had to 'read the rules like machine code' to parse the rules 'just' right to get some of the rulings they got. At times we're expected to read the rules conversationally while others technically. The lack of consistent expectations encourages and invites the "quibbling" you seem to hate. It's as much the devs 'fault' as anyone else's if people are turned away from the forums. Exactly, I feel that the "read it conversationally" is something they put up as a shield to cover them for poor rules, because lots of things that you'd think are true by "reading it conversationally (like WP get flurry! Thus like monk use level to bab! Or arrows get the bows enhancement so it obviously punches through DR like normal)" aren't true because in that instance we were supposed to read it rules tight (didn't say full bab so no full bab, didn't say and for DR purposes so it doesn't let it punch through DR).
It's very convenient for them. Since we don't know before hand we just need to guess which to use so that makes the rules text meaningless and you can say what the rule means and use either excuse to prove you right. "oh we meant this, obviously conversational tone", "oh we didn't mean that, follow what the rules actually say"
Like if they never came out and used the "follow the technical reading of the rule that doesn't match the casual reading" then we'd not have a problem, they'd be consistent and we'd know better how to rule things. But since they invoke both, we quibble cause who know's whose going to be right in the end.
Scott,
I'm not interested in getting into personal flame war with anyone, especially about rulings that are settled. Look forward, not back.
My point in posting here, now,
1. Discussion about AoMF.
2. Your contention that this ruling is counter intuitive; your contention that it was a poor ruling.
3. Your point that it caused you cognitive dissonance.
Quote:
We're the customers. Either that AoMF Official Rules Post was intended to cause aggressive quibbling or it was a bad ruling.
See, this is the kind of argument I find simplistic and off-putting.
Its black and white thinking.
Paizo has tens and even hundreds of thousands of customers. The fact that fewer than 30 have a contentious debate on a rules forum really doesn't say anything about anything.
Giving another example: I agreed with your position on "Grapple Attack" but this doesn't mean I agreed with your logic, or that you 'proved' it.
I agreed with your position only because I did a fairly exhaustive search of paizo posts and rules and found cases where Paizo used terms such as over run attacks and disarm attacks.
At which point there were two alternate explanations - either poor word choice slipped through copy check, or paizo really did intend the term "grapple attack". A slight preponderance of the evidence suggested the latter, even though this went against my understanding of the rules.
Based on these examples, I agreed with you. But I return to your choice of words. You've doubled down on the idea that you "proved" something; that it was "facts" and "unambiguous". None of those terms do I think accurately describe the situation.
As I said in the previous post, I don't find the ruling off-putting, I don't find it counter-intuitive. What it does suggest is that your view of the rules is at variance with theirs; and it does suggest you are emotionally invested in the answer.
Paizo makes FAQs and clarifications all the time. Most of the time people are happy to get clarifications, and I think it is good customer service that they do so.
Regarding AoMF:
You said
Quote: Furthermore, if the decision to make the ruling their way was a game balance decision, it was a poor ruling because it is easily circumvented... But that is clearly not the case if your Natural Attack has the Grab Ability, which gives you a +4 on all Grapple Checks and lets you make a Free Action Grapple every time to score a hit with the associated Natural Weapon, an Alchemist's Tentacle, for example. Would you actually say that your Tentacle which gave you your Grapple Check in the first place and is giving you a +4 on your Check is in any way incidental? If you would say that, could you also keep a straight face and pass a sobriety test? Again, very loud, but there are certainly other ways of looking at this.
I stated it before, but I'm not sure you 'got it'. If you did, you didn't address it.
The fact that AoMF aids you in an *attack* (ie, hitting with a tentacle)
doesn't necessarily mean that it aids in holding. The very text you quoted provides one justification - the attack bonus conveyed via AoMF is incidental to performing a grapple check.
Its just as valid as saying that a trip weapon doesn't provide a bonus to disarm. The mechanic that provides the trip bonus doesn't help.
And its not helpful to insist that people that think differently can't pass a sobriety test.
James Risner wrote: Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away. Umm, Okay.
For the time being, I am willing to entertain James Risner's interpretation of "loudly asserted."
Scott Wilhelm wrote: James Risner wrote: Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away. Umm, Okay.
For the time being, I am willing to entertain James Risner's interpretation of "loudly asserted." I don’t wish for this thread to turn into a dog pile on you but suffice to say I find your method of arguing (discussing if you prefer) to be very off putting to the point I often ignore threads that you are involved with.
Knight who says Meh wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: James Risner wrote: Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away. Umm, Okay.
For the time being, I am willing to entertain James Risner's interpretation of "loudly asserted." I don’t wish for this thread to turn into a dog pile on you but suffice to say I find your method of arguing (discussing if you prefer) to be very off putting to the point I often ignore threads that you are involved with. What I find interesting is that people suggest that quibbling and 'loud' arguments are off putting so they directly interact with the person doing what they hate which is an invitation for that person to reply with more "quibbling and 'loud' arguments".
If a person bothers you, skip their posts. [it's not hard] If you disagree with them, post what you disagree with and leave it: If you continue to debate them, it's VERY disingenuous to say it's their fault for a bad atmosphere. Scott already said his piece so his continued replies can only be the fault of those posting their disagreement with him. If you dislike quibbles, stop quibbling...
Knight who says Meh: This isn't directed at you per se. I just another complaint about scott and posted. If you truly just meant this as a heads up, a private message would have been a better way to go if the idea is to make the thread a place you want to read.
Perfect Tommy wrote: I'm not interested in getting into personal flame war with anyone Okay, does this mean you are going to stop flaming me? You'll be keeping your personal remarks to yourself from now on? Fine by me.
Perfect Tommy wrote: 2. Your contention that this ruling is counter intuitive... 3. Your point that it caused you cognitive dissonance. I believe those things, but those are not my contentions.
Perfect Tommy wrote: your contention that it was a poor ruling. No. My contention is that the more than 100 threads that followed the ruling is a natural result of the qualities of the ruling. It might have been a poor ruling, or it might have been the intent of Paizo Publishing to provoke further debate, in which case, it was a good ruling.
I wrote: We're the customers. Either that AoMF Official Rules Post was intended to cause aggressive quibbling or it was a bad ruling. You're oversimplifying my contention.
Perfect Tommy wrote: See, this is the kind of argument I find simplistic and off-putting. Well, it is a free country, you can believe whatever you want. But as I said, you were just oversimplifying my thesis.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Its black and white thinking. Maybe.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Paizo has tens and even hundreds of thousands of customers. The fact that fewer than 30 have a contentious debate on a rules forum really doesn't say anything about anything. I don't haven't actually counted how many people contributed to the thread, but for the time being, I'll accept your number. But even so, Paizo took an action that sparked angry responses from dozens of customers that we know of, the ones most closely involved in the conversation in the first place. And I do think that that reaction from the community should have been predictable from the wording of the ruling. Quite possibly because it is a bad ruling, but I am still mindful that provoking further debate could have been seen as a positive outcome by Paizo, or in some other way, the situation could be too nuanced to simply declare the ruling bad.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Giving another example: I agreed with your position on "Grapple Attack" but this doesn't mean I agreed with your logic, or that you 'proved' it. I see a real danger of derailing this thread by bringing a debate from a different thread. I brought an abundance of evidence to support my claims, more than I needed to comprehensively prove that was I was saying was square with the Rules as Written.
But you assert you have your own reasons for just happening to hold an opinion that is similar to mine, but you are still somehow finding a way to disagree with me? That is a nuanced position, sir! Or maybe you do agree with me, you just have some personal problem with me? If that's the case, then you are just continuing this discussion only to insult me personally? Maybe you should just keep your personal remarks to yourself.
Perfect Tommy wrote: What it does suggest is that your view of the rules is at variance with theirs; and it does suggest you are emotionally invested in the answer. The ruling did have a minor effect on some of my character builds. But I have made no secret of this. I was a contributor to the thread where the Official Rules Post was made, and I made it plain then and there how I intended to use the AoMF before and after the ruling.
But my reason for not liking the ruling doesn't have anything to do what the ruling was. I don't care what the rules are. I only want to know what the rules are, faithfully report on what the rules are, give my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules are, play the game my own way according to the rules, and defend the rights of others to do the same.
The reason why I don't like the ruling has more to do with the wording. Ironically, it is partly because the ruling had only a minor effect on my character builds that I think of this as a poor ruling. I think it is very easy to circumvent what I believe to be the intent of the ruling with slight tweak to my character.
I wrote: if the decision to make the ruling their way was a game balance decision, it was a poor ruling because it is easily circumvented Perfect Tommy wrote: Again, very loud, You haven't articulated a single thing about anything I said that justifies your characterizing my debate style as "loud." So again, you said you don't want a "flame war?" So just keep your personal remarks to yourself.
Perfect Tommy wrote: And its not helpful to insist that people that think differently can't pass a sobriety test. But I haven't said that you can't pass a sobriety test. Nor did I insist that of anybody in fact or in the abstract. I asked a question. You are insulting me directly, and I want you to stop.
I wrote: But that is clearly not the case if your Natural Attack has the Grab Ability, which gives you a +4 on all Grapple Checks and lets you make a Free Action Grapple every time to score a hit with the associated Natural Weapon, an Alchemist's Tentacle, for example. Perfect Tommy wrote: The fact that AoMF aids you in an *attack* (ie, hitting with a tentacle)
doesn't necessarily mean that it aids in holding. The very text you quoted provides one justification - the attack bonus conveyed via AoMF is incidental to performing a grapple check.
I'm not sure what text you are saying I am quoting. I see you quoting me, but not quoting what I'm quoting. I think I know what you are talking about.
Paizoblog wrote: some weapons apply their bonuses on combat maneuver checks, and some do not. So how do you know which weapons do? The answer depends on what kind of combat maneuver you’re attempting, and in some cases what kind of weapon you’re using.
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.
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. For example, just because you have a +5 greatsword doesn’t mean it gives you a +5 bonus on dirty trick checks (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player’s Guide 320), and just because you have a +5 dagger doesn’t mean it gives you a +5 bonus on grapple checks. Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers, such as when using a sap in a dirty trick maneuver to hit an opponent in a sensitive spot.
You see normally, when you are using a weapon such as a Natural Attack to perform a Combat Maneuver, you do get the enhancement bonus. Normally, you don't use any natural or manufactured weapons to perform a Grapple: they are "incidental to making the maneuver." But that is not always the case.
Hamatula Strike wrote: Benefit: Whenever you damage an opponent with a piercing weapon, you can immediately make a grapple check; success means the opponent is impaled on your weapon and you both gain the grappled condition. When you use Hamatula Strike to Grapple someone, you pretty explicitly are using your Piercing Weapon to Grapple with. If I encountered PFSGM who disallowed using my +1 Halberd's Enhancement Bonus to help Grapple someone by impaling them on my Halberd's spearhead on the grounds that the weapon you are impaling them on is "incidental to making the maneuver," I would suspect that GM as fishing for excuses to unfairly treat me, and I would consider reporting that GM.
Likewise, Alchemal Tentacle
Alchemist, Discvery, Tentacle wrote: with the grab ability. Universal Monster Rules, Grab wrote: If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action Here you are directly using your Tentacle to make the Grapple Check? How is that "incidental to making the maneuver?"
Universal Monster Rules, Grab wrote: Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple. So this is saying that if you have a Tentacle at all, you get a +4 on all Grapple checks. That really looks like your Tentacle is more than "incidental to making" any Grapple Maneuver Check, but admittedly that is less than technically unambiguous.
graystone wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: James Risner wrote: Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away. Umm, Okay.
For the time being, I am willing to entertain James Risner's interpretation of "loudly asserted." I don’t wish for this thread to turn into a dog pile on you but suffice to say I find your method of arguing (discussing if you prefer) to be very off putting to the point I often ignore threads that you are involved with. What I find interesting is that people suggest that quibbling and 'loud' arguments are off putting so they directly interact with the person doing what they hate which is an invitation for that person to reply with more "quibbling and 'loud' arguments".
If a person bothers you, skip their posts. [it's not hard] If you disagree with them, post what you disagree with and leave it: If you continue to debate them, it's VERY disingenuous to say it's their fault for a bad atmosphere. Scott already said his piece so his continued replies can only be the fault of those posting their disagreement with him. If you dislike quibbles, stop quibbling...
Knight who says Meh: This isn't directed at you per se. I just another complaint about scott and posted. If you truly just meant this as a heads up, a private message would have been a better way to go if the idea is to make the thread a place you want to read. What I think is funny is that Perfect Tommy is actually proving my point
I wrote: The way they worded the ruling has been inviting efforts to interpret it to be much more far-reaching than the AoMF, trying to interpret all Combat Maneuvers as being not attacks, for example. And here is Perfect Tommy doing exactly what is problematic about the ruling in the first place!
Perfect Tommy wrote: Which I believe was exactly their intent.
Scott:
You have said that I have insulted you. I don't believe I have done so. If you can quote something that you believe is me insulting you, I'd be happy to address the situation.
I have said I have found your arguments simplistic, and black and white.
I have said I find this style of arguing off-putting.
Quote: You haven't articulated a single thing about anything I said that justifies your characterizing my debate style as "loud." As I said previously, when you use words such as
"I PROVED'; 'unambiguous'; 'facts'; you are (loudly) claiming something that is not true.
If you *had* proved it - surely, Paizo would have agreed with you; it would have been the only logical explanation. When you use words like that you discount that any other view is possible.
Likewise, when you say " Quote: Would you actually say that your Tentacle which gave you your Grapple Check in the first place and is giving you a +4 on your Check is in any way incidental? If you would say that, could you also keep a straight face and pass a sobriety test? This is denigrates anyone that holds a different opinion than you. This is what I mean by loud.
None of us have a direct pipeline to the developers (or at least I don't think any of us do); we don't know how they will decide an argument. So lets not try to state our opinions as facts and denigrate other peoples arguments. Persuade.
Regarding tentacle attack. I've explained it twice now. I'll try again.
A tentacle grants you a grab. Great.
AoMF grants you a bonus to an attack. Great. AoMF helps you hit with the tentacle.
The tentacle provides you +4 to the grapple. I accept your representation of the rules.
Nonetheless, AoMF provides NO BENEFIT to the GRAPPLE Maneuver check, because it has been ruled NOT TO BE AN ATTACK, it is a maneuver check. AoMF aids attacks.
There are multiple justifications for that. One is the AoMF bonus to attack is incidental to a grapple.
In the interests of comity, I'm going to let the other comments pass without comment.
Perfect Tommy wrote: it has been ruled NOT TO BE AN ATTACK, it is a maneuver check. AoMF aids attacks. False.
Official Rules Post wrote: 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. This post does not say Combat Maneuvers are not attacks. It says Combat Maneuvers are not unarmed attacks nor natural weapons. It does not say that they are not attacks at all.
You are further supporting my point that the wording of this ruling is problematic in that it encourages people to make over-reaching claims about Combat Maneuvers: that is exactly what you are doing here.
Perfect Tommy wrote: If you *had* proved it - surely, Paizo would have agreed with you; It is not known whether Paizo agreed with me or not. They changed the rules to make what I was saying no longer true. When Paizo makes a ruling that makes what I am saying no longer true, that suggests that they do agree with me that what I'm saying was technically legal. They just didn't like it for some reason. So, they change it. If they or anyone else could demonstrate that what I'm saying is false within the rules, then they could just do that. There is no need to change the rules when I'm wrong.
Perfect Tommy wrote: it would have been the only logical explanation. When you use words like that you discount that any other view is possible. False. I have not been saying that no other legal interpretations exist. Only that mine are or were legal (except where otherwise noted), meaning that a PFS player has the right to play it that way.
James Risner wrote: Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. My posts therefore clearly do not fit James Risner's interpretation of the word "Loudly,"
I give my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say. I want to play the game my own way according to what the rules say. And I endeavor to defend the right of other players to do the same.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
oh well, another potentially interesting thread taken over by Scott :(
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Perfect Tommy wrote: If you *had* proved it - surely, Paizo would have agreed with you They regularly make rulings/errata/FAQ's that invalidate former correct, at the time, RAW or make up whole new rule out of whole cloth. So the fact that a ruling comes out often has NO relation to what the legality/correctness of the rules before the change.
The only way we know the thought process behind a ruling is when a dev comes and says it [either in the ruling itself on on this site].
For this FAQ, I understand it but am bothered by the why. Your hands seem anything from "incidental", as not using both is a -4 [the equivalent of non-proficiency]. Even putting that aside, it's a ruling that fails the 'common sense reading' James is so fond of mentioning: an attack you make unarmed is somehow not an attack or unarmed. Then calling a maneuver check an "attack roll" multiple times in the combat section would tend to make the 'average' person think they were attacks.
If they had instead said "for balance reasons, we've decided to change maneuvers to work like [fill in blank]", I'd have shrugged and moved on. However, they explained and it didn't mesh well with the rules as/is.
Chess Pwn wrote: oh well, another potentially interesting thread taken over by Scott :( I'm not sure how more interesting a thread that's had it's question already answered can be. If scott and tommy weren't having a back and forth, what would there be to say?
graystone wrote: For this FAQ, I understand it but am bothered by the why. Your hands seem anything from "incidental", as not using both is a -4 [the equivalent of non-proficiency]. Good one. I dont' remember that point being made.
graystone wrote: For this FAQ, I understand it but am bothered by the why. Your hands seem anything from "incidental", as not using both is a -4 [the equivalent of non-proficiency]. No one is saying that hands are incidental.
But having hands is not the same as making a natural attack.
AoMF help you hit. Empty hands help you hold. I don't understand why that concept is hard, or provokes dissonance.
Perfect Tommy wrote: graystone wrote: For this FAQ, I understand it but am bothered by the why. Your hands seem anything from "incidental", as not using both is a -4 [the equivalent of non-proficiency]. No one is saying that hands are incidental.
But having hands is not the same as making a natural attack.
AoMF help you hit. Empty hands help you hold. I don't understand why that concept is hard, or provokes dissonance. Ok it's like this:
If I use a Dan bong to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a garrote to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Sibat to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Kumade to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Harpoon to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Grappling hook to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Mancatcher to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use my hands[unarmed] to grapple, I don't attack with it/them?
And if you say hands doesn't equal unarmed attacks, we've determined that individual parts of the body are specific unarmed weapons: Unchained monk teaches us that hands, feet and heads are their own type of unarmed strike.
SO it goes like this:
Combat maneuvers tell us to make attack rolls: Common reading says you make attack rolls to make an attack.
You need 2 hands to avoid a -4 to grapple. Common reading says that you've actually using those hands to attack.
As to "Empty hands help you hold", that makes little to no sense if you haven't managed to put your hands on the target so you can hold them [ie, attack them]. EVERY other time you're required to touch/grab something in the game you make an attack [they even made an 'armed' unarmed attack for this kind of thing]. An AoMF adds it's bonuses to touch spells as they are ""Armed" Unarmed Attacks", an "unarmed attack" that "counts as an armed attack" and AoMF buffs "unarmed attacks" [not unarmed strikes]: but they somehow don't work on grapples...
Again, I understand the ruling: That's different that it coming ANYWHERE close to having the ruling fit a common sense reading. We're told that grabbing something is definitely not an attack with your hands... dissonance is the only thing to call it.
Perfect Tommy wrote: graystone wrote: For this FAQ, I understand it but am bothered by the why. Your hands seem anything from "incidental", as not using both is a -4 [the equivalent of non-proficiency]. No one is saying that hands are incidental. Paizo did say that. Not in the AoMF Official Rules Post, but in another Post. I cited it earlier, and I linked to it.
Paizoblog wrote: some weapons apply their bonuses on combat maneuver checks... So how do you know...? Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon... 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.
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.
So this post means that when you are making a Grapple, your hands are incidental to making the maneuver.
Perfect Tommy wrote: But having hands is not the same as making a natural attack. Yeah, you're right. As I write this, I'm starting to see a problem with Graystone's observation that I liked so much before. Hands do not equal Unarmed Strikes. Unarmed Strikes can be made with any of a variety of body parts. The fact that you need to have hands free has nothing to do with your ability to make Unarmed Strikes. If your hands are full, and you attempt to Grapple, you take a -4 penalty to your Grapple Check. If your hands are full, and you attempt to make an Unarmed Strike, there is no penalty for having full hands. Also, there is no such thing as +2 Hands.
Of course, there is such a thing as a +2 Gauntlet. Gauntlets go on your hands. And Graystone has a point that you clearly do use your hands to Grapple with, since you take a -4 penalty if you don't have at least 2 hands free. But the rules say you don't, so you don't, although the Post empowers the GM to allow it, but don't bank on that happening.
Perfect Tommy wrote: AoMF help you hit. Empty hands help you hold. I don't understand why that concept is hard, or provokes dissonance. Most of the people I know think of their hands when they think of making Unarmed Strikes, or strikes with their weapons for that matter. There's no need for you to loudly accuse someone of being unable to get confused by that and also be able to pass a sobriety test ;)
graystone wrote: Ok it's like this:
If I use a Dan bong to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a garrote to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Sibat to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Kumade to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Harpoon to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Grappling hook to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Mancatcher to grapple, I make an attack with it.
There are a lot of grappling weapons out there, and it does seem unfortunate that the Paizoblog seems to have ignored them when talking about weapons being "incidental to making the [Grapple] maneuver."
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Hands do not equal Unarmed Strikes. Nothing is looking for an unarmed strike though. It's looking for an unarmed attack [which included "armed" unarmed attacks]. So an attack to touch a person if an unarmed attack.
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." For me, a "common sense read" is it's clearly unarmed [or you take a -4] and clearly an attack. It takes a convoluted technical read to call something you uses an attack roll and use both hands as not an unarmed attack.
grappling weapons: there's 45 trip weapons and 30 disarm ones so it's no surprise they stood out more that grapple. Only one sunder weapon I know of [Flambard = +4 sunder vs wooden hafts].
Perfect Tommy: It's the Dev's telling us "read it common sense way" that makes the ruling provoke dissonance.
The difference with sunder, trip, and disarm is that any weapon can be used to sunder, trip, or disarm. Only certain weapons have bonuses or, in the case of a “trip” weapon, the ability to be dropped rather than fall down when you fail by 10 or more. But anything, whether it has one of those qualities or not, can be used to perform those maneuvers.
Only weapons with the grapple quality or special rules in their descriptions can be used to grapple. And most of those weapons don’t have any rules stating that you don’t take the -4 penalty for not having both hands free. So compared to sunder, trip, and disarm, grappling with a weapon is a bit of a mess rules-wise.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Of course, there is such a thing as a +2 Gauntlet. Unless the PDT, for some reason, rules they aren't weapons. I've heard they are 'discussing' it. I wouldn't really be surprised if they did, despite the fact they have been for ages and Paizo has a feat just for gauntlets.
Azten wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Of course, there is such a thing as a +2 Gauntlet. Unless the PDT, for some reason, rules they aren't weapons. I've heard they are 'discussing' it. I wouldn't really be surprised if they did, despite the fact they have been for ages and Paizo has a feat just for gauntlets. If they ruled that Gauntlets aren't weapons, that would open the door for Monks to put on Cold Iron Gauntlets, do their full MUSD, and bypass DR for Cold Iron (and Adamantine, and Silver...).
Monks have been arguably been able to do this anyway, but this has been a problem since before the Core Rulebook was published, and they still haven't disambiguated the Gauntlet weapon.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
