AoMF and spell touch attacks


Rules Questions


p182 of the CRB lists the following types of attacks as 'armed' unarmed attacks: a monk, a character with IUS feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons.

Since it is grouped in with monk attacks and IUS attacks, this would lead me to believe that touch spells benefit from an Amulet of Mighty Fists. Nowhere else in the 'Attack' section of Standard Actions does it discuss spell touch attacks.

p185 of the CRB describes touch spells as 'an armed attack'

This would lead me to believe touch spells do NOT benefit from an AoMF.

Everything I've read elsewhere on the forums, as well as my gut reaction and the general accepted play I've experienced with every iteration of tabletop gaming, says the latter of the two is the correct interpretation.

However, I'm trying to go strictly by RAW. I can't find Errata changing or correcting the first statement, or a satisfactory explanation of why 'armed' unarmed is used to describe Monk attacks, IUS attacks, touch spell attacks, and natural attacks, but one of those four listed doesn't benefit from an AoMF. The context of the first statement on p182 feels like a further clarification of the 'Attacks of Opportunity' section, but there's a significant amount of ambiguity in my mind.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Armed" in those paragraph don't mean "with weapons", it refer to page 182.
And page 182 is about not provoking Attack of opportunity, not about using weapons.

A touch attack benefit from a AoMF when attacking, i.e. making your to hit roll.
The damage, generally, will not benefit, but that can depend on the attack you just made.

Or, at least, that is how I have seen people play.

But if we look the AoMF, this is in its text:

PRD wrote:
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

So, now I have some doubt.


Diego Rossi wrote:

"Armed" in those paragraph don't mean "with weapons", it refer to page 182.

And page 182 is about not provoking Attack of opportunity, not about using weapons.

A touch attack benefit from a AoMF when attacking, i.e. making your to hit roll.
The damage, generally, will not benefit, but that can depend on the attack you just made.

Or, at least, that is how I have seen people play.

None of what you just said made any sense. I never talked about 'with weapons', and you give zero reasoning for your statement on touch attacks benefiting from AoMF on hit rolls. If there's an actual rule in a book stating any of that please let me know where, but I'm not looking for opinion or how your group has played it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sinivar wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

"Armed" in those paragraph don't mean "with weapons", it refer to page 182.

And page 182 is about not provoking Attack of opportunity, not about using weapons.

A touch attack benefit from a AoMF when attacking, i.e. making your to hit roll.
The damage, generally, will not benefit, but that can depend on the attack you just made.

Or, at least, that is how I have seen people play.

None of what you just said made any sense. I never talked about 'with weapons', and you give zero reasoning for your statement on touch attacks benefiting from AoMF on hit rolls. If there's an actual rule in a book stating any of that please let me know where, but I'm not looking for opinion or how your group has played it.

Apparently there is a piece of text that exclude them:

PRD wrote:


This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

Touch attacks aren't mentioned in the AoMF, so it don't affect them.

Sinivar wrote:

p182 of the CRB lists the following types of attacks as 'armed' unarmed attacks: a monk, a character with IUS feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons.

Since it is grouped in with monk attacks and IUS attacks, this would lead me to believe that touch spells benefit from an Amulet of Mighty Fists. Nowhere else in the 'Attack' section of Standard Actions does it discuss spell touch attacks.

PRD wrote:


"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

And that refer the IUS feat:

PRD wrote:

Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)

You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.

Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.

Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks is about not provoking Attacks of Opportunity. It hasn't other effects.

Silver Crusade

It wouldn't help with a normal touch attack, but if you made it via unarmed strike, it would.


Sure, but then you can't ignore armor.


Trish Megistos wrote:
Sure, but then you can't ignore armor.

Inaccurate... you can try and delivery a touch spell as part of a normal unarmed or natural attack when 'holding the charge', but then it takes a separate action to make that attack and is no longer considered a touch attack.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Touch attacks aren't mentioned in the AoMF, so it don't affect them.

The AoMF talks about unarmed attacks, and p182 says that touch attacks to deliver spells are considered 'armed' unarmed, just like monks, IUS and natural attacks. That means it is a category of unarmed attacks.

What else does that term 'armed' unarmed mean? Why phrase it that way if is not in fact an unarmed attack?

Diego Rossi wrote:


IUS Feat
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed

This is exactly the confusion I'm asking about, and quoting it doesn't somehow make it clearer.

Having this feat means your unarmed attacks are now considered to be armed. Having an active touch spell means your unarmed attack is considered armed. Why does one benefit from AoMF but not the other?

If an active touch spell is not considered an unarmed attack, why is it specifically described as one on p182?


@Sinivar
Which is exactly what I was referring to.

Because "normal" unarmed attacks don't ignore armor class.


Trish Megistos wrote:

@Sinivar

Which is exactly what I was referring to.

Because "normal" unarmed attacks don't ignore armor class.

And completely irrelevant because if you read my post, or even just the topic headline, I'm asking about spell touch attacks not unarmed attacks in general.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Sinivar:
You are not listening.

"Armed" unarmed attack mean only that the attack count as an armed attack.
The effect of being an armed attack is that it don't trigger an Attack of Opportunity when attacking.

You are trying to attack other effects to that, but there are no rules saying that.
It don't turn it into a unarmed attack.

Read the text of the rules:

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: title, it has no mechanical effects

Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. What it say: sometime unarmed attacks count as armed. The object of the phrase is unarmed attack. touch attacks aren't included.

A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks). Do what it say: a monk attack, a unarmed attack with IUS and a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spells count as being armed.

It don't say; "a touch attack count as a unarmed strike" anywhere.


@Sinivar
Well, I guess it was a roundabout way of saying that you can't use it with touch attacks. That isn't relevant to this thread?


Trish Megistos wrote:

@Sinivar

Well, I guess it was a roundabout way of saying that you can't use it with touch attacks. That isn't relevant to this thread?

That's not what you said though. And if that is what you're saying, why?


Diego Rossi wrote:

@Sinivar:

You are not listening.

Pot, kettle. You're ignoring parts convenient to making your point.

Diego Rossi wrote:


"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: title, it has no mechanical effects

unarmed attack has a specific meaning in pathfinder, why do you feel in this instance it has no mechanical effect?

Diego Rossi wrote:


What it say: sometime unarmed attacks count as armed. The object of the phrase is unarmed attack. touch attacks aren't included.

If you continue on to read the very next sentence in the CRB it talks about spell touch attacks. They are included in the Standard Actions section discussing unarmed attacks. Why discuss them there if they are not unarmed attacks.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / AoMF and spell touch attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.