|
In the d20pfsrd FAQ there's a reference to how enhancement bonuses from Magic Fang or the amulet of might fists don't apply to grapple checks (or bull rush or ...) because those maneuvers are not weapon-related like the disarm and trip maneuvers are.
What about energy damage from enhancements to the AoMF? If the bonus from a given weapon doesn't apply to the grapple, would other effects provided by the weapon still be used? This sounds a little like the rule where DR sufficient to prevent damage from a weapon means that any poison on the weapon is not applied to the target...
I'm sorry but after browsing the FAQ I cannot seem to find that reference.
I'd be grateful if you could provide a link.
I thought that the higher price of AoMF was due to the fact that the enhancement bonus they provided applied to unarmed strikes and all maneuvers.
I think your first post is slightly misleading...
You CAN use weapon specific bonuses, e.g. Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec: Grapple, as Stubs says.
In that case Grapple is clearly considered it´s own distinct weapon as opposed to UAS.
(You should presumably be able to take Improved Critical: Grapple, though that doesn´t seem so useful)
The question is not whether these maneuvers benefit from ´weapon bonuses´, but whether they count as being delivered by Natural Attacks or Unarmed Strike or not, and thus whether you can use bonuses which apply to Natural Attacks / Unarmed Strike. The point is that weapon bonuses apply to Maneuvers IF YOU USE THE WEAPON TO DELIVER IT. The action type of the maneuver doesn´t matter for this.
The Core Rules do a poor job of distinguishing the ´weapon bonus´ issue, as it focuses mainly on the action type (some Maneuvers can be delivered in place of any attack roll, which would seem to mean using a weapon since if you have a Reach Weapon you MUST use the weapon to deliver a Maneuver at extended Reach). It´s unclear if it´s possible to take Weapon Focus: Bullrush like you can for Grapple, or what. Ideally, the rules could directly clarify that some Maneuvers (Grapple, Bullrush, Over-Run, non-Weapon Trip?) are ´their own weapon´ and whether or not this counts as a Natural Attack, etc. Note that if they are not Natural Weapons, there would be no way to add enhancement bonus directly to these ´maneuver weapons´ (as you can for manufactured / natural / UAS) besides ´global´ bonuses which apply to all attacks.
Some Maneuvers can apparently be delivered by melee weapons via special abilities when they normally can´t via Core Maneuver Rules (i.e. Barbarian Knockback Bullrush, or the Grab ability) and would thus benefit from the appropriate weapon bonus - I presume if you have WF:Bullrush, that it doesn´t apply in that case, but WF:Melee Weapon would (Improved Bullrush +2 applies in either case)
Currently it isn´t clear whether Trip is delivered by UAS or not. If delivered by a Trip Weapon it uses those weapon bonuses. If delivered by UAS, it uses UAS bonuses (incl. Magic Fang). If NOT delivered by UAS and not considered a type of Natural Attack in some sense then Magic Fang DOES´NT apply to non-Weapon Trips. James Jacobs described it as a sweep of the leg, etc, which conforms to ways you can use UAS yet he didn´t directly distinguish betwee ´weapon´ and UAS when banning ´weapon bonuses´ to non-weapon Trip.
Personally, I think it´s more than reasonable to say that UAS delivers ALL Maneuvers not done via another weapon (Grapple, Trip, Bullrush, etc) but that is clearly against the RAW and is definitely a house-rule.
The 3.5 Grapple manuever allowed you to inflict unarmed strike damage when you established a hold. I don't believe the PF version does that. Instead there's a distinct "damage" option which you can use on attempts to maintain the grapple.
Damage: 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.
Considering the above statement I think it would require some unintuitive and perhaps even downright hardheaded thinking to deny the extra damage from an AoMF or a +1 holy dagger. I guess a really hardheaded interpretation could be that when the rules say the damage is "equal to" the damage of the weapon being used they only mean the base damage, but if that's the intent then the rules could say, "equal to the base damage". Certainly I'd find it very odd if stabbing an elf with an elf bane dagger while grappling didn't inflict 2d6 extra damage. I fail to see why an unarmed strike or natural weapon should function differently from a dagger in this regards. I suppose one could claim that grappling damage inflicted by unarmed strikes might come from twisting somebody's arm or suplexing him on his head, but it could just as easily come from holding him down and punching him in the face.
The following sentence, "This damage can be lethal or nonlethal", is a little more problematic. Can one inflict nonlethal damage with an elfbane dagger, or is the nonlethal damage only for unarmed strikes? If you do nonlethal damage with an elf bane dagger would the +2d6 apply then? Limiting the nonlethal damage to unarmed strikes (or possibly wrestling/jiu-jitsu holds which do unarmed strike damage) seems most reasonable to me though admittedly it doesn't seem to match the exact wording of the rules.
Yeah, the non-lethal bit working with normal melee weapons is a bit odd... but all these weapons CAN inflict non-lethal with their normal attacks (just taking -4) so I don´t see it as the biggest problem.
It WOULD be clearer to specify base weapon damage if that´s the intent, but given that there are explicit examples of separate Weapon Spec: UAS and Grapple, it DOES become sort of mess if you allow applying weapon specific bonuses, e.g. weapon specific bonus damage tied to the physical weapon (or via AMF effects) could apply but ´skill based´ weapon specific damage bonuses DON´T apply... If that´s the case, you´d also expect the rules to say so. Amazing, who´d think that Grapple rules could be clarified via Errata...