My point is that there's no need to invoke Rule Zero to rule that grapple does--or does not--benefit from such feats. The rule is that there is no rule, so the GM decides. This isn't an alien thing. Pathfinder is full of such rules--see paladin and cavalier mounts, spell research, magic item creation, dozens of optional rules sets, and so on--things with RAW that empower (and in some cases require) the GM to decide how the rules work.
The GM deciding to go one way or another on this subject isn't a "house rule" divergent from RAW--it is RAW, because the printed text is vague and designer clarification points to the GM and says "her call".
Ah. We're on the same sheet of music then.
I was confused by your earlier response to Markthus:
SKR said "ask your GM".Someone posted a link where SKR basically said you do add enhancement bonus from the amulet to grapple CMB checks.
What's the argument?
I thought you were saying that what SKR said was the reason for the argument...which puzzled me to no end.
My question has to be "In what gaming situation is a rule telling the DM to make a judgement call insufficient?"In organized play.I see. Mark me down in the 'permanently disorganized' column, in that case. :)
Does the blog post ruling referenced early even apply at all in organized play? (and do FAQ's?)
I believe FAQ responses are binding, as they are official clarifications of how the rules actually work.
|
If grapple can have weapon focus...
Then is it a light, one handed, two-handed, natural, or ranged attack weapon? Everything else has a category, heck even rays are. It seems to be most like a natural attack.
Would magic weapon affect it? How about magic fang? Because every weapon in the game can be affect by either of those two, why wouldn't grapple be if you can take weapon focus in it?
Question: if you can apply a bonus for unarmed strikes to grapples, then why does the brawling armor property specifically call out both a bonus (untyped) to attacks and damage with UAS AND a bonus (once again untyped) on grapple checks?
From brawling:
The wearer of brawling armor gains a +2 bonus on unarmed attack and damage rolls, including combat maneuver checks made to grapple. Her unarmed strikes count as magic weapons for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. These bonuses do not apply to natural weapons. This special ability does not prevent the wearer's unarmed strikes from provoking attacks of opportunity or make the wearer's unarmed strikes count as armed attacks. The brawling ability can be applied only to light armor.
Nothing else in Pathfinder (to my knowledge) has the bolded section. Which, to me, implies that normally a bonus to UAS doesn't apply to grapples.
MA
First, SKR's origonal ruling was 'its up to the dm' and honestly? i have no issue with that.
People however, seem to confusing some thing.
First, Combat maneuvers benefit from any bonus that helps in an attack roll.
So, Bard song, bless, flanking etc.
Any specific Bonus to the type of attack being made.
IF i have weapon focus grapple, i get +1 on my grapple attempt
With me so far?
By the raw as written, AMF only Affects Unarmed Strikes, Natural attacks.
Heres the Rub, doing something without a weapon in your hand does not make it an unarmed strike. Its a specific weapon in the same way as a longsword.
In regards to the 'is been solved' Reference im not sure how This has been solved. Ultimately SKR's statement was 'its up to the gm' I dont see Why a Grapple Is a unarmed strike or Natural attack without invoking rule zero.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is another of those totally ambiguous things that has been left up to the GM. So it's easy to solve for a home game, just ask your GM. It really is only an issue for pfs play. I have a tetori monk in pfs, and I simply avoided taking that item so as not to have to argue about it. Two cheap items worth noting for grapplers: armbands of the brawler +1 competence to grapples for 500g and gauntlets of the skilled maneuver +2 untyped for 4000g.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, still having trouble posting without snark.
"It is up to the GM" is a terrible way to design a set of rules.
|
[URL=http://www.yourlink.com]Name of your link[/URL]
It will then appear as this: Name of your link
Everyone will appreciate it greatly, and it makes you appear more competent of a poster.
A lot of times the links you post are broken, because they are not in the above format, so there's really no point in not using the proper code.
Thanks =)
|
I found SK's answer
"Belafon wrote:
#2 So... My monk has Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1. Does this mean he gets to add those two bonuses to other Combat Maneuvers such as Grapple?"
Sean K Reynolds Designer, RPG Superstar Judge Oct 3, 2011, 09:44 PM wrote,
"Yes."
That's not what he said.
To quote what he actually said:
Yes.#2 So... My monk has Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1. Does this mean he gets to add those two bonuses to other Combat Maneuvers such as Grapple?Still consulting on that one too, I presume.
So he said he's still consulting on the issue, not that he agreed.
Also important to note that earlier in the thread on the same page, he indicated that Weapon Finesse would apply to Combat Maneuvers, but only for those "Use your weapon" maneuvers (Trip, Disarm, Sunder). For the rest, you'd have to use Agile Maneuvers. This again supports the theory that at least by RAW, AoMF and Weapon Focus (UAS) do not apply to Grapple. If they did, then so too should Weapon Finesse.
That being said, if I were the GM, I'd allow it, which is in line with his comments of "file this under its the GM's call" (paraphrased I know), but that's still different than saying the RAW allow it.
While it is true that the GM is always free to interpret any rules as he or she sees fit (with the exception of Organized Play), I think the Devs clearly distinguish between grey areas and RAW. For instance, if you were to ask "Does Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) confer a +1 bonus to my attacks when using an Unarmed Strike?" Jason would answer "Yes" as opposed to "file this under your GM is free to interpret the rules as she sees fit."
I would be thrilled if it did. That said, I'm not so sure that it would, because of a few RAW reasons involving keeping the CRB consistent and the fact that it would be a good thing for monks, which is something Paizo is reluctant about ;p
This attitude is so toxic if people want anything to get done.
And since "When do bonuses apply to maneuvers" is kind of Jiggy's thing, my stance is that whatever he says is how it is.
|
|
i used to be in the same mindset as mojorat, but after reading that the AOMF applies to unarmed "attacks" and not unarmed "strikes" im now thinking that the AOMF is able to apply a generic bonus to grapple checks.
if the AOMF said "unarmed strikes", which is a weapon in its self, then i would still be of the opinion that it does not work, but it doesn't. unarmed attacks, not being a weapon but a condition of an attack, i see this now as RAW. so long as the attack is performed without a weapon in hand, i see it qualifying the condition of an AOMF.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would not allow amulets of mighty fist to add to the grapple CMB; but SKR said yes...
No he didn't.
He was misquoted.Or to be more precise, the person who quoted his "yes" also deleted the thing he was saying yes to, making it look like he was saying yes to a very different thing.
Is there a reason why it shouldn't apply to grapple checks made unarmed?
Thematically? No reason at all amf shouldn't apply. Rules wise it goes to core game mechanics in how weapon bonuses and riders on those bonuses are conveyed.
So an unarmed strike a kukri and a longsword and a grapple are all weapon attacks. The only weapon that boosts grapples is the grapple weapon.
However as has been pointed put amf says unarmed attacks not strikes. So we have amf modifying an attack not defined in the rules. For the record grapple as its own weapon is only mentioned once.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a reason why it shouldn't apply to grapple checks made unarmed?
Yes, and it's explained in this FAQ blog that's already been referenced in this thread. You only get weapon-specific bonuses if your maneuver actually uses that weapon, and (barring special circumstances) only disarm, sunder and trip employ a weapon. Unarmed strike counts as a weapon for these purposes, so bonuses to unarmed strikes will only apply to combat maneuvers that use your weapon, which again is just disarm, sunder and trip unless you have some special circumstance that changes that fact.
Is there a reason why it shouldn't apply to grapple checks made unarmed?Yes, and it's explained in this FAQ blog that's already been referenced in this thread. You only get weapon-specific bonuses if your maneuver actually uses that weapon, and (barring special circumstances) only disarm, sunder and trip employ a weapon. Unarmed strike counts as a weapon for these purposes, so bonuses to unarmed strikes will only apply to combat maneuvers that use your weapon, which again is just disarm, sunder and trip unless you have some special circumstance that changes that fact.
Jiggy's right on the money on this one. The "few other circumstances" often either involve unusual feats or the fact that trip weapons allow you to use them for drag and reposition.
I think it'd be a perfectly reasonable and understandable house rule to allow AoMF and similar bonuses to Unarmed Strikes to apply towards Grapple checks, particularly in light of the GM Discretion language in the oft-quoted blog post. However, that appears to be house rule territory, no matter how reasonable.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
that FAQ is about applying weapon bonuses to combat maneuvers
Incorrect. There is no such thing as a "weapon bonus". The FAQ is talking about ANY bonus that might be dependent on what weapon you're using, whether that's the bonus from Weapon Focus, a fighter's Weapon Training class feature, your DEX bonus via Weapon Finesse, or an enhancement bonus. Any bonus that you get if you're using Weapon A but don't get if you're using Weapon B may or may not apply to a combat maneuver, depending on whether or not the maneuver makes use of your weapon. The FAQ/blog is talking about all of that.
The enhancement bonus granted by an AoMF is just such a bonus, as it only applies to your unarmed strikes, not to your longsword or your shuriken or whatever else. Therefore, a maneuver needs to be employing the weapon that's getting that enhancement bonus in order for that enhancement bonus to apply. A maneuver that does not use a weapon at all cannot receive any such bonus. Grapple is one such maneuver.
and the Amulet of Mighty Fists is NOT a weapon.
But the thing to which it grants an enhancement bonus IS a weapon, and you need to be using that weapon in order to benefit from the enhancement bonus that the AoMF grants to that weapon.
Everyone who has says that the AoMF only enhances Unarmed Strikes is clearly mistaken. It enhances all unarmed attacks, not just strikes.
This distinction is your own invention, and is not supported in the rules. "Unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes" are synonyms, used interchangeably. There's a whole section in the Combat chapter of the CRB titled "Unarmed Attacks" which lays out the rules for unarmed strikes, using both terms to mean the same thing.
Ergo, the AoMF's reference to "unarmed attacks" is the same as if it said "unarmed strikes".
And we know from the FAQ/blog that unarmed strikes/attacks count as weapons.
And we know that grapples (barring special circumstances) don't use a weapon.
Lets Try this again.
There are two seperate issues being discussed and they are confusing things.
1)First Unarmed strikes (the weapon) have no bearing on Grapple feat abilities or anything in the game that specifically influence unarmed strikes have no bearing on a discussion about grapple.
2)the game has clear definitions about when something enhances a weapon and how that Weapons effects can shift to when you are doing other things.
3) At the end of this we come to ultimately, why SKR said ask your DM.
the rules used by PF are like a badly defragged hard drive, They were written by many people, further edidted by more people, then finally edited by the paizo for PF.
What does this all mean? Well like my badly defragged hard drive refrence there are bits and pieces of text all over the place that either use out dated terminology (Lycanthrope cure refernces specifically lvl 12 cleric for example) Or they use inconsistent Terminology.
So what do we have that relates to the current discussion?, Enhancement bonuses to weapons, only effect weapons. If i do something that is not considered a weapon, or is intended for a different type of weapon those bonuses have no effect.
Ex, if i have WF UAS i do not get a +1 to grapple any more than my WF Longsword gives a bonus to grapple.
First, The game appears to define grapple specifically as its own weapon. This is illustrated in the Weapon focus example. However, no where else in the game is it defined as a weapon. I havent looked but i doubt any of the fighter weapon groups that should logically include it (close or monk) include a reference to grapple.
second, AFM refers to unarmed attacks, or natural weapons. No where in the game is unarmed attack defined. IF it is its own weapon type It does not apply to grapples Or actually unarmed strikes.
However, we know the intent of AMF is to apply to unarmed strikes, So its either a deliberate change in wording to apply to anything done without your hands, or simply inconsistant wording.
At the end of the day its my opinion tha tby RAW AFM has no benefit to anything other than Unarmed Strikes or Natural attacks, and the inconsistant wording basically results in the 'ask your dm' question.
As i said before, As far as a game i am playing in I have no issue with AFM influencing grapple. However, the reasons i feel it doesnt for raw goes into how core game mechanics work and if they are changed for this case it should be a specific exception not because the rules are misunderstood.
that FAQ is about applying weapon bonuses to combat maneuversIncorrect. There is no such thing as a "weapon bonus". The FAQ is talking about ANY bonus that might be dependent on what weapon you're using, whether that's the bonus from Weapon Focus, a fighter's Weapon Training class feature, your DEX bonus via Weapon Finesse, or an enhancement bonus. Any bonus that you get if you're using Weapon A but don't get if you're using Weapon B may or may not apply to a combat maneuver, depending on whether or not the maneuver makes use of your weapon. The FAQ/blog is talking about all of that.
The enhancement bonus granted by an AoMF is just such a bonus, as it only applies to your unarmed strikes, not to your longsword or your shuriken or whatever else. Therefore, a maneuver needs to be employing the weapon that's getting that enhancement bonus in order for that enhancement bonus to apply. A maneuver that does not use a weapon at all cannot receive any such bonus. Grapple is one such maneuver.
and the Amulet of Mighty Fists is NOT a weapon.But the thing to which it grants an enhancement bonus IS a weapon, and you need to be using that weapon in order to benefit from the enhancement bonus that the AoMF grants to that weapon.
Everyone who has says that the AoMF only enhances Unarmed Strikes is clearly mistaken. It enhances all unarmed attacks, not just strikes.This distinction is your own invention, and is not supported in the rules. "Unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes" are synonyms, used interchangeably. There's a whole section in the Combat chapter of the CRB titled "Unarmed Attacks" which lays out the rules for unarmed strikes, using both terms to mean the same thing.
Ergo, the AoMF's reference to "unarmed attacks" is the same as if it said "unarmed strikes".
And we know from the FAQ/blog that unarmed strikes/attacks count as weapons.
And we know that grapples (barring special circumstances) don't use a weapon.
]
Jiggy, please explain your position. You have always been the one most against this ruling but in my opinion not well thought out arguments. Just kind of a, well, that's the way it is.
The Blog, is about clearing up what allowed bonus. It clearly stated that the bonus as stated in the rules is about when to apply the bonus to:
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.
What clarity was given?
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.
It states the rules for when this applies for a GM to make a decision. The weapon must not be incidental to making the maneuver. It's not like using a dagger in grapple, you are using your body to grapple, it is enhanced. Weapon focus shows unarmed strikes, weapon focus grapple is still separate and useful in each.
Is the body used in the attack? Is the Amulet enhancement used on the body? Is it not incidental? All answered yes. Therefore it applies. There is not wiggle room for no.
How can one argue that you don't use your body in a grapple less than a mancatcher or garrot?
Your line of thinking about grapple not using a weapon is questionable at best, there are many weapons that have grapple to them and can be used for grapple. You are wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, please explain your position. You have always been the one most against this ruling but in my opinion not well thought out arguments. Just kind of a, well, that's the way it is.
No, I've repeatedly spelled out the argument behind my position, step by step. See my last post for a very thorough and explicit example. If there's something in that breakdown that you don't understand, point it out specifically and I'll try to clarify. But I've not just been declaring "that's the way it is".
It states the rules for when this applies for a GM to make a decision. The weapon must not be incidental to making the maneuver. It's not like using a dagger in grapple, you are using your body to grapple, it is enhanced. Weapon focus shows unarmed strikes, weapon focus grapple is still separate and useful in each.
Is the body used in the attack? Is the Amulet enhancement used on the body? Is it not incidental? All answered yes. Therefore it applies.
This argument fails completely; if the AoMF enhanced "your body" (terminology you invented; it's not present in the rules) then its bonus would apply to everything you ever do (except for Stilled spells, I suppose) because they use your body. Performing a bull rush uses your body. Using Acrobatics to tumble uses your body. The Climb skill uses your body. Are you going to claim that all of those things benefit from the enhancement bonus of an AoMF, using your reasoning of "they use your body, and your body is enhanced"?
The AoMF does not "enhance your body". It provides an enhancement bonus (or other effect) to your unarmed strikes. If you're not making an unarmed strike, the bonus does not apply. And if you're performing a maneuver other than disarm/sunder/trip, then you're not making an unarmed strike.
There is not wiggle room for no.
There is if you go by the actual rules instead of making up stuff like "your body is enhanced" and treating that as a rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, if AoMF affects my body, can I get a Ghost Touch AoMF and just run through walls and stuff?
I'd play a young human female and call myself Twilight Cat (because the other name is trade marked).
:P
Jiggy, if AoMF affects my body, can I get a Ghost Touch AoMF and just run through walls and stuff?
I'd play a young human female and call myself Twilight Cat (because the other name is trade marked).
:P
Ghost touch doesn't make you incorporeal, but it does let you hit an incorporeal foe (it counts as solid for both you and the incorporeal creature). Interesting fact--wearing ghost touch armor specifically doesn't stop an incorporeal from going through walls, even though it's solid for the purposes of blocking attacks. Sweet!
Jiggy, please explain your position. You have always been the one most against this ruling but in my opinion not well thought out arguments. Just kind of a, well, that's the way it is.No, I've repeatedly spelled out the argument behind my position, step by step. See my last post for a very thorough and explicit example. If there's something in that breakdown that you don't understand, point it out specifically and I'll try to clarify. But I've not just been declaring "that's the way it is".
It states the rules for when this applies for a GM to make a decision. The weapon must not be incidental to making the maneuver. It's not like using a dagger in grapple, you are using your body to grapple, it is enhanced. Weapon focus shows unarmed strikes, weapon focus grapple is still separate and useful in each.
Is the body used in the attack? Is the Amulet enhancement used on the body? Is it not incidental? All answered yes. Therefore it applies.
This argument fails completely; if the AoMF enhanced "your body" (terminology you invented; it's not present in the rules) then its bonus would apply to everything you ever do (except for Stilled spells, I suppose) because they use your body. Performing a bull rush uses your body. Using Acrobatics to tumble uses your body. The Climb skill uses your body. Are you going to claim that all of those things benefit from the enhancement bonus of an AoMF, using your reasoning of "they use your body, and your body is enhanced"?
The AoMF does not "enhance your body". It provides an enhancement bonus (or other effect) to your unarmed strikes. If you're not making an unarmed strike, the bonus does not apply. And if you're performing a maneuver other than disarm/sunder/trip, then you're not making an unarmed strike.
There is not wiggle room for no.There is if you go by the actual rules instead of making up stuff like "your body is enhanced" and treating that as a rule.
The rule is :
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
What you are claiming is that it only applies to certain things and that's it. This is wrong. The blog plainly states the reasons for having it apply.
The clarity for when to make it apply:
"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."
AotMF enhances what? All unarmed attacks.
Grappling would be what? An unarmed attack. You think I'm making this up?
You have to put up something more than "You just don't understand" or "make stuff up" to have a valid argument. Show me a rule stating it doesn't apply.
Stating how climb uses your body? More jibber jabber. What are you trying to say? Climb is an unarmed attack?
The rules clearly show it applies. Show me a rule that states it doesn't instead of word gymnastics about how unarmed attacks somehow you know to mean to only unarmed strikes. The wording is the wording. And the rules is the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The rule is :
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
What you are claiming is that it only applies to certain things and that's it. This is wrong. The blog plainly states the reasons for having it apply.
The blog states that normally the only maneuvers that utilize a weapon are disarm, sunder and trip. It says that.
The blog also states that unarmed strikes count as weapons for these purposes. It says that.So if the only maneuvers that normally utilize a weapon are D/S/T, and unarmed strikes are treated as weapons in this rule, then what does that tell you? It tells me that the only maneuvers that normally utilize a weapon are D/S/T.
How are you getting something else from that?
Grappling would be what? An unarmed attack.
No, it's not.
The Combat chapter of the CRB equates "unarmed attack" and "unarmed strike". They are the same thing; the terms are used interchangeably. Look in the Combat chapter under "Unarmed Attacks". It's right there in your book. It talks about "striking for damage", and flips back and forth between "unarmed attack" and "unarmed strike". They are the same thing, as far as the CRB is concerned.Grapple is something else. As I pointed out above, the blog explicitly calls out disarm/sunder/trip as the only maneuvers that normally use a weapon, such as an unarmed strike/unarmed attack.
So no, grapple is not an unarmed attack/unarmed strike. Neither is bull rush, overrun, dirty trick, or any other maneuver other than D/S/T. Why? Because maneuvers treat unarmed strikes as a weapon and only use your weapon in D/S/T. Therefore, anything other than D/S/T doesn't use unarmed strikes.
Show me a rule stating it doesn't apply.
See above.
Show me a rule that states it doesn't
See above.
instead of word gymnastics about how unarmed attacks somehow you know to mean to only unarmed strikes.
I don't see how pointing to a section of rules in the CRB and saying "it means what that says it means" is word gymnastics.
The wording is the wording. And the rules is the rules.
And the wording and the rules say that an unarmed attack is an unarmed strike, and an unarmed strike is a weapon, and weapons don't apply to grapples.
The wording and the rules don't say that a grapple is an unarmed attack or that an AoMF just generally "enhances your body". That's what you say, not what the wording or the rules say.
To kind of reiterate and supporr what jiggy has said. You can take weapon focus grapple.
What does this mean? You need a rule saying amf enhances the weapon grapple.
I also didn't know they interchanged strikes and attaxk though.
Ghost touch doesn't make you incorporeal, but it does let you hit an incorporeal foe (it counts as solid for both you and the incorporeal creature). Interesting fact--wearing ghost touch armor specifically doesn't stop an incorporeal from going through walls, even though it's solid for the purposes of blocking attacks. Sweet!Jiggy, if AoMF affects my body, can I get a Ghost Touch AoMF and just run through walls and stuff?
I'd play a young human female and call myself Twilight Cat (because the other name is trade marked).
:P
Oops, was thinking Brilliant Energy.
Oops, was thinking Brilliant Energy.Ghost touch doesn't make you incorporeal, but it does let you hit an incorporeal foe (it counts as solid for both you and the incorporeal creature). Interesting fact--wearing ghost touch armor specifically doesn't stop an incorporeal from going through walls, even though it's solid for the purposes of blocking attacks. Sweet!Jiggy, if AoMF affects my body, can I get a Ghost Touch AoMF and just run through walls and stuff?
I'd play a young human female and call myself Twilight Cat (because the other name is trade marked).
:P
Hmmm, that's an interesting one. The trouble is that brilliant energy doesn't let you ignore cover from inanimate objects (for instance using a brilliant energy whip to whip someone on the other side of a thin wall), so it seems like it wouldn't work.
Hmmm, that's an interesting one. The trouble is that brilliant energy doesn't let you ignore cover from inanimate objects (for instance using a brilliant energy whip to whip someone on the other side of a thin wall), so it seems like it wouldn't work.Oops, was thinking Brilliant Energy.Ghost touch doesn't make you incorporeal, but it does let you hit an incorporeal foe (it counts as solid for both you and the incorporeal creature). Interesting fact--wearing ghost touch armor specifically doesn't stop an incorporeal from going through walls, even though it's solid for the purposes of blocking attacks. Sweet!Jiggy, if AoMF affects my body, can I get a Ghost Touch AoMF and just run through walls and stuff?
I'd play a young human female and call myself Twilight Cat (because the other name is trade marked).
:P
It was kind of a joke to point out how the amulet only enhances the strikes, not the whole body. Besides, if you were to suddenly turn into a Brilliant Energy Body... how is the Amulet staying on your body in the first place? Wouldn't it just fall right through you? Or what about yourself? Wouldn't you just fall through the ground and get stuck in the core of the planet (where Rovagug will turn you into a pretty girl named Sandy)?
Grapple is something else. As I pointed out above, the blog explicitly calls out disarm/sunder/trip as the only maneuvers that normally use a weapon, such as an unarmed strike/unarmed attack.
The Statement:
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.
The Qualification.
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.
The Statement doesn't say absolutely but normally.
AotMF meets The Qualification for using the enhancement in grapple because you are using your elbows, knees, arms, legs, etc...to grapple.
Grapple is also allowed with weapons like garrot and mancatcher there is precedence of having grapple on weapons and of using the bonus.
Just because AotMF can use it's enhancement bonus to trip doesn't disqualify it from using it's bonus to grapple.
It was kind of a joke to point out how the amulet only enhances the strikes, not the whole body. Besides, if you were to suddenly turn into a Brilliant Energy Body... how is the Amulet staying on your body in the first place? Wouldn't it just fall right through you? Or what about yourself? Wouldn't you just fall through the ground and get stuck in the core of the planet (where Rovagug will turn you into a pretty girl named Sandy)?
How does brilliant energy weapons work? How could you ever scabbard one? Or place it on the ground? I guess a giant graveyard of brilliant weapons in the centre of the earth seems the only answer right? Once it gets loosed from the hand then that is it time to get a new sword something better without the brilliant energy no?
Unarmed Strikes don't have the Grapple special ability like mancatchers or garrotes do, therefore, the bonuses to unarmed strikes do not apply to grapple.
A Fighter with Weapon Training in Garrotes and Greater/Weapon Focus in the Garrote with a +5 FG-Dueling Garrote would certainly have a massive grapple bonus. Hell, as written, a Garrote for a medium opponent can be used to strangle colossal creatures.
Unarmed Strikes don't have the Grapple special ability like mancatchers or garrotes do, therefore, the bonuses to unarmed strikes do not apply to grapple.
A Fighter with Weapon Training in Garrotes and Greater/Weapon Focus in the Garrote with a +5 FG-Dueling Garrote would certainly have a massive grapple bonus. Hell, as written, a Garrote for a medium opponent can be used to strangle colossal creatures.
The Qualification.
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.
See why garrot and mancatcher get the bonus. The weapon is used in the grapple. The guidance is there, the rules are there. You are using your arms, legs, elbows, etc...to grapple, the weapon is used in the effect. Having an enhancement should make you better at the maneuver.
Mydrrin to get a weapon enhancement bonus to an attack a weapon has to be used.
When I trip with a longsword a sword is used.
When I use a garotte to grapple the garrot is used.
When I grapple normally what weapon is used?
None no weapon is uses when you grapple. The onky weapon involved is the grapple itself which I can take weapon focus for.
The fact that I am using my hands is meaningless. You need a rule that says grapples are treatedas unarmed strikes or natural weapons or a grapple may be substituted for a regular attack. Without those exceptions an amf cannot boost a grapple.
This is fundimental to some of the games core combat mechanics.
(Woops Edit for clarification. By being unarmed being meaningless to grapple i ment for the purposes of Conveying bonuses Ie if your unarmed bonuses to unarmed strikes etc are not conveyed. This is seperate from the rule about needing hands free to grapple)