Pretty sure they understand their own rules. If you don't understand why the pdt ruled the way it did I suggest going over some of mine or jiggies posts.
For why it works the way it does. The three cm that work with weapons can all repla e any attack you make even an aoo. Changing this would require a paradigm shift.
Lastly I'm loath ro use rl examples but unarmed strikes are strikes there is little if anything to connect them. When the mma first started there were fighters who couldn't do both.
On the rules people throw this "but my whole body is enchanted" argument like its some sort of wonder powee. The whole body thing only matters to strikes or na nothing else.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure they understand their own rules. If you don't understand why the pdt ruled the way it did I suggest going over some of mine or jiggies posts.
For why it works the way it does. The three cm that work with weapons can all repla e any attack you make even an aoo. Changing this would require a paradigm shift.
Lastly I'm loath ro use rl examples but unarmed strikes are strikes there is little if anything to connect them. When the mma first started there were fighters who couldn't do both.
On the rules people throw this "but my whole body is enchanted" argument like its some sort of wonder powee. The whole body thing only matters to strikes or na nothing else.
I'm not disrespecting the team but it's an odd ruling by anyones standards. A teams issue is that AotMF isn't allowed because it is a combat maneuver.
Does that disqualify all other combat maneuvers from the benefit of the AotMF? There are many implications.
It wasn't disallowed because its a combat maneuver. It was disallowed because it is not an unarmed strike or natutal attack.
I've repeated this multiple times and appparenly I'm explaining it wrong.
To do anything in pathfinder you nees permission to do it it is that simple. If you want to use amd
F with a combat maneuver find explicit rules that say it can be done with an uas. Its that simple. All
I provided sever examples with the weapon focus grapple and bob the fighter. The intent was to illustrate the game math and logic.
Anyhow the reasons why amf doesn't help grapple follows a logical pattern that follows a core game mechanic.
If you want to capture a ghost, use a +1 Ghost Touch net. If you keep a hold of the net, you can control the ghost via opposed strength checks, which ghosts automatically fail as they possess no strength score.
From the paizo blog post on combat maneuvers:
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.
(emphasis mine)
You can argue till you're blue in the face that since magically enhanced hands and arms are being used the enhancement bonus should apply. But the Design team has decided that in the case of unarmed strike, the weapon is 'incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn't make you better at attempting the maneuver.'
In other words, something that makes you better at striking something doesn't necessarily make you better at grabbing something.
I'm not seeing how Grab allows you to apply a weapon bonus, but if the supposed Grab exception really bothers you, look at the Push (Ex) ability, which allows a creature to apply its weapon attack bonuses to a Bull Rush. So there's your precedent.
Actually, it seems to me that grapplers with claws WOULD NORMALLY use their claws to grapple, and that even grab is not necessary. And the AoMF enhances claws.
Nope. The claws are incidental.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I hope the below doesn't sound snarky. Trying to be neutral and matter-of-fact here.
If I'm using my body to physically touch you in any way that is harmful, that's an unarmed strike.
Well, there's your problem: you've invented a definition of unarmed strikes that's contrary to what the CRB says, and then built all subsequent ideas on top of that.
Unarmed strikes aren't a catch-all of any and every method of using your body to physically affect someone harmfully. Unarmed strikes are "striking for damage", according to the Core Rulebook.
It's the PDT's job to make rulings in accordance with the definitions of terms in the Core Rulebook. If your definitions are different than that, then don't be surprised when the rulings that were made for rules that you abandoned don't jive as well with the houserules you replaced them with.
EDIT: I hope the below doesn't sound snarky. Trying to be neutral and matter-of-fact here.
If I'm using my body to physically touch you in any way that is harmful, that's an unarmed strike.Well, there's your problem: you've invented a definition of unarmed strikes that's contrary to what the CRB says, and then built all subsequent ideas on top of that.
Unarmed strikes aren't a catch-all of any and every method of using your body to physically affect someone harmfully. Unarmed strikes are "striking for damage", according to the Core Rulebook.
It's the PDT's job to make rulings in accordance with the definitions of terms in the Core Rulebook. If your definitions are different than that, then don't be surprised when the rulings that were made for rules that you abandoned don't jive as well with the houserules you replaced them with.
I'm not replacing anything with anything. I did explicitly use monk unarmed strike , which allows any part of the body, as my example. I'm also not trying to say the PDT is doing something wrong. I'm just confused as to how making an attack can be done without a weapon, which is what they've ruled here.
There is no possible way to attack someone without a weapon. And yet, they have ruled that a grapple does just that. If they explained what precisely the weapon used for a grapple is, then perhaps it would make more sense. But the only thing I can see as the weapon, is the body. That same body is enhanced by AoMF all the way around. The AoMF doesn't turn on and off based on what you are doing at that exact moment. If it did, then I would see how this would work. This would be like +4 full plate that didn't get its bonus against acid spashes because they sent attacks, they just do damage to the item. That +4 still applies to hardness/HP even though its not a sunder. See my point? Your WHOLE body is enhanced by AoMF, and you ARE using your body to make an attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not replacing anything with anything.
You: unarmed strikes are any harmful activity using your body.
CRB: unarmed strikes are when you strike for damage.Do you honestly not see a difference between the two?
I did explicitly use monk unarmed strike , which allows any part of the body, as my example.
Any part of the body can deliver the unarmed strike; that does NOT mean that something which enhances your unarmed strikes will in turn enhance everything that you might do with your body.
I'm just confused as to how making an attack can be done without a weapon, which is what they've ruled here.
It's what they ruled 2 1/2 years ago, in fact.
There is no possible way to attack someone without a weapon.
Why not? Where is that written? Why can't something that the game classifies as an attack roll be done without using something that the game classifies as a weapon? Where did that belief originate?
If they explained what precisely the weapon used for a grapple is, then perhaps it would make more sense. But the only thing I can see as the weapon, is the body.
Then stop believing that a grapple has to be delivered by something that's considered a weapon. Problem solved.
That same body is enhanced by AoMF all the way around.
Again, you're flat-out contradicting the CRB. The AoMF says it enhances your unarmed strikes, not just your whole body in general. Enhancing the weapon called unarmed strike is not the same as generally enhancing your body. Just because you can use various body parts to deliver unarmed strikes does not mean that those body parts are being enhanced instead of the unarmed strike weapon.
A longsword can be wielded in my left or right arm; does that mean that when I upgrade to a +1 longsword that it's my arms that got enhanced? Of course not. The parts of your body that wield the enhanced weapon—whether a sword or an unarmed strike—are not the thing being enhanced. Only the weapon itself is being enhanced. Not the body parts used to swing it.
Your WHOLE body is enhanced by AoMF
No, it's not. Your weapon called unarmed strike is enhanced by AoMF.
and you ARE using your body to make an attack.
You mean for the grapple? Yes, you're using your body to make an attack. But your body is not enhanced. Your unarmed strike—your ability to strike for damage—is enhanced, but you're not using your ability to strike for damage to perform the grapple.
sigh i have posted like 15 examples showing weapon focus grapple why do people still insist it isnt clear i didnt make this up it is in the feat description as far as i know i have a first edition.
pdt isnt rerwriting rules there is no "but now monks are weaker" the fact that people are inserting rules on how the game applies weapon enhancements is the issue.
The Combat section of the CRB defines "unarmed attacks" as "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon". You're not striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts when attempting to grapple.
So, from that standpoint, it really doesn't matter if it refers to Unarmed Attacks or Unarmed Strikes. The CRB appears to use them interchangeably, at least insofar as is relevant here.
Now, you may argue that you think it's poorly worded because it creates some ambiguity. That is find, I suppose. But saying the Design Team has rewritten these rules or changed how the rules work by fiat is inaccurate.
I'm of the opinion that the ruling states that Amulet of the Mighty Fists bonus is a bonus to only unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes is not a weapon but a mystical enhancement bonus only to the unarmed strike. You don't get the bonus to tripping or anything other combat maneuver but only to unarmed strikes. That you aren't a weapon, that from AotMF the bonus doesn't help you with overcoming damage resistance. You don't change your hardness or anything else that enhancement does, so I would say that this is the ruling.
This is how I would interpret it. It is very broad with many ramifications.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unarmed strikes is not a weapon
unarmed strikes are considered weapons
You don't get the bonus to tripping or anything other combat maneuver but only to unarmed strikes.
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.
myrrdin your post shows your not getting it but ill try again.
Ill cover the part you got right unarmed strikes are a weapon. They encompas a bunch of game defined actions that describe blows to injure with parts of the body.
However you stated an unarmed strike can't influence a trip. This is the part that tells me your not getting it.
Ask your self my character is armed with unarmed strikes. I want to use them in combat maneuvers what is the default permissions rhe game allows me.
The default permission is thst any combat maneuver that replaces an attack (basicslly it can be done with a full attack as an aoo etc).
Once you have that then ask do any feats give me explicit permission to either use a combat maneuver with my unarmed strikes or replace an attack with a combat maneuver.
I suggest making up a char like I did before with bob the unarmed warrior and ask yourself these questions for different combat maneuvers to answer them.
The mechanics of why it works this way are intrinsic to the system if you understand it you will have grasped a major game mechanic.
As further reasing look up and reas the full descriptions of the mancatcher or garrot. These zhow exceptions to the rule.
On a side note all of this has made me think a brutil pugilist makes for an awesome garotte char.
There is no possible way to attack someone without a weapon. And yet, they have ruled that a grapple does just that.
Incorrect. Telekinesis allows you to make combat maneuvers using only the force of the spell, no weapon involved.
OK, from what I've seen in resp once to my posts, this is the argument against me: AoMF only applies its bonus to unarmed strikes delivered with your body. Not the whole body.
If that's true, then would an enhancement bonus apply to a longsword's hilt as well as its blade? Or does it only apply if I'm making a slashing attack? What if I thrust to try and do pierce damage? Or hit with the hilt for non-lethal? AFAIK, all of these get the bonus (all though you suffer other penalties for atemping them) because every portion of the weapon gets the bonus. Even if you use said longsword as ammunition in a bow or spell for ranged attacks, it still gets the bonus.
So why then, would changing the type of attack being done with your body (the weapon enchanted by AoMF) change when it applies? You argue that 'unarmed strike' is the weapon, not your body. I argue that 'unarmed strike' is an attack type and my fist is the weapon used to deliver it. An enhancement bonus applies to the weapon, not the attack. A sword is still enchanted, even when shielthed.
basically my argument is that a "weapon" is an object of some kind (even ethereal or non-phsyical in the case of telekinetic spells or rays) and it is this 'thing' according to the rules in the crb that gets enchanted, not the attacks it does. The attacks merely reap the benefit of said bonus. If this is not the case, then perhaps a rewording of how enchantments/enhancements are put on weapons/armor is needed.
Or at least an exception to the rule for unarmed strike explaining that the attack is the weapon, not the physical object used.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Alright Shimsen, if the 'whole body' gets enhanced, then how do you govern an effect like Brilliant Energy? Does Brilliant Energy mean the whole body is Brilliant Energy, meaning the Monk now becomes immune to anything that isn't a natural weapon or unarmed strike?
Can he walk through walls? Does he sink into the floor? Can he even breathe?
Funny thing about Longswords, they aren't listed as being piercing or slashing weapons, just slashing. So RAW, longswords can't be made to make piercing attacks.
Also, your 'clever' question doesn't matter. You are using the Longsword to strike and deal damage, which is what the enhancement bonus enhances. You aren't using the Longsword to make a grapple check (and in fact, can't). If you use the Longswords hilt to make a trip attack (a real life method of using longswords, for your information), you are still using the longsword in a manner consistent with the enhancement bonus.
Grapple is not a maneuver normally made with a weapon. It takes very specific weapons, abilities or exceptions to get enhancement bonuses to grapple checks. Period.
AoMF enhances natural attacks and unarmed strikes. A Grapple is neither a natural attack nor an unarmed strike, therefor, it's not enhanced. Unless you are playing a creature with the grab ability, then you do not gain the benefits of an AoMF on your grapple checks.
Even with the Grab ability, you probably only receive the enhancement bonus if you use the weapon with the ability in the grapple, and take a -20 penalty for doing so. If you opt to conduct the grapple normally, you don't gain the benefit of the AoMF (because you are no longer using the weapon).
myrrdin your post shows your not getting it but ill try again.
Ill cover the part you got right unarmed strikes are a weapon. They encompas a bunch of game defined actions that describe blows to injure with parts of the body.
However you stated an unarmed strike can't influence a trip. This is the part that tells me your not getting it.
Ask your self my character is armed with unarmed strikes. I want to use them in combat maneuvers what is the default permissions rhe game allows me.
The default permission is thst any combat maneuver that replaces an attack (basicslly it can be done with a full attack as an aoo etc).
Once you have that then ask do any feats give me explicit permission to either use a combat maneuver with my unarmed strikes or replace an attack with a combat maneuver.
I suggest making up a char like I did before with bob the unarmed warrior and ask yourself these questions for different combat maneuvers to answer them.
The mechanics of why it works this way are intrinsic to the system if you understand it you will have grasped a major game mechanic.
As further reasing look up and reas the full descriptions of the mancatcher or garrot. These zhow exceptions to the rule.
On a side note all of this has made me think a brutil pugilist makes for an awesome garotte char.
I will try to rationalize it over the weekend. Still not certain I understand what:
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.
means.
The grappling weapons of the eastern weapons pages don't have special rules for grappling. The only way it makes sense for me right now is for the amulet to be a wondrous item that only gives a bonus to strikes specifically. Have to think on it a bit more.
If they said it doesn't apply because the 3 combat maneuvers are the only ones allowed it would be clear. But they said no, because it was a combat maneuver. More thinking.
'Because it's a combat maneuver' is a valid answer. Combat Maneuvers, as a general rule, don't benefit from enhancement bonuses on weapons. The exception being Disarm, Trip and Sunder.
A weapon with a maneuver special property (disarm, trip, sunder, grapple etc.) is also an exception as those weapons gain the enhancement bonus on the weapons on those maneuvers. For the Disarm and Sunder properties, this isn't a big deal as they can already be used in such a way. Trip is the exception as drag and reposition maneuvers also gain enhancement bonuses if a weapon with the trip property is used to make the maneuver.
Remember, in Pathfinder, specific rules trump general rules. The general rule is that combat maneuvers don't benefit from weapon bonuses. The specific rule is that Disarm, Trip and Sunder maneuvers benefit from weapon bonuses if the weapon is used in the maneuver. Even more specific, a weapon with a maneuver property allows that maneuver to benefit if that weapon is used to make the maneuver.
Tels, I'm not disagreeing with anything you said other than the quip about a brilliant energy monk. I actually DO imagine the whole monk becomes energy. Does he walk through walls and fall through the floor? No because incoporial and brilliant energy might be similar, but are in fact seprate things. One is for use against the other, not not the other way. They aren't interchangeable.
Under the heading "attack" in the actions in combat section of the CRB it specifically states that all forms of attacks are made with a weapon. Melee attack, ranged attack, natural attack, and unarmed strike, all call out using a weapon. Period. My entire argument is that an attack is made with an object called a "weapon" of this purpose (regardless of what that object is).
Under combat maneuvers is states that ALL combat maneuvers are attacks. Period. Not just the ones that replace a "normal attack", all of them. So, again, my argument is that you do this with some sort of object.
If you want to argue that the enhancement from AoMF only applies to you when punching, kicking, or headbutting, fine. I get that. But then I say that unarmed strike needs rewording so as to specify that the "object" is not your physical hand, but that your "hand while in a striking motion" is the object.
A longsword laying on the floor not doing anything is still enchanted and counts as such at that point. Yo say my fist is not enchanted because I'm not punching you doesn't follow in that line of thought, but that is what you are saying.
All that said, I'm not arguing that grappling doesn't receive the bonus because unarmed strike is not the weapon being use. I completely understand that logic. Even if my longsword is +5, I don't get that bonus to my dagger attack because its not the weapon being used. What I'm arguing is that an unarmed strike is an attack made with your body (or part of it). So if I describe my grapple and holding both your arms behind your back with both of my clenched fists. Then next round I punch you in the back of the head with one of those fists, my weapon of choice has not changed. I didn't put away and take out some new weapon. I used the same object, but for different purposes.
What you all seem to think I'm talking about is like with a shield. It can be enchanted as either armor or as a weapon, neither of which apply to the other.
What I'm saying is that both a grapple and an unarmed strike benefit from the same enhancement bonus if both made with the same weapon.
I'm trying to understand how an unarmed strike (as a weapon) can be enchanted and that enchantment doesn't exist if you arnt attacking with it.
This would be like is the above mentioned longsword didn't get its enhancement bonus to hardness/HP when someone attempts to sunder it because its not attacking. The reason you don't get a bonus to hardness/HP for unarmed strike is because 1) the rules specifically say you can't sunder it. And 2) people (characters, NPCs, etc) don't follow those rules because we have ac/HP rules that govern that. They are similar in that sundering an object is equatable to attacking and damaging a PC, but items specifically have seprate (and simpler) rules. An unarmed strike can't be sundered because the weapon is part of the body, which follows a different set of rules for during what a sunder does.
Ultimately it makes little sense to say that a longsword is a weapon when in your hand, but not when on the ground. To say my fist is a weapon when making an unarmed strike but not when writing a letter makes just as little sense. The difference is that I can use my fist for many more purposes besides attacking than I can a longsword. But even still, I could use that sword to cut my meat, skewer my meat over the fire, hang my cloak from a tree trunk with it, etc. All the while its still a weapon, which it still enchanted, but not making any benefit of it while roasting my pig.
'Because it's a combat maneuver' is a valid answer. Combat Maneuvers, as a general rule, don't benefit from enhancement bonuses on weapons. The exception being Disarm, Trip and Sunder.
A weapon with a maneuver special property (disarm, trip, sunder, grapple etc.) is also an exception as those weapons gain the enhancement bonus on the weapons on those maneuvers. For the Disarm and Sunder properties, this isn't a big deal as they can already be used in such a way. Trip is the exception as drag and reposition maneuvers also gain enhancement bonuses if a weapon with the trip property is used to make the maneuver.
Remember, in Pathfinder, specific rules trump general rules. The general rule is that combat maneuvers don't benefit from weapon bonuses.
That's incorrect. The General rule states the following:
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.
While I understant what you meant to say, and agree 100%, your choice of wording was poor. The general rule says it DOES apply, the specific rule says grapple and others simple don't use a weapon at all.
Any that is my whole point, is states that you are making an attack. Attack states that it can only be done with a weapon. So any combat maneuver that doesn't use a weapon is not an attack, but again, ALL combat maneuvers are attacks. This circular logic is where the system is failing me, and why I originally said the design team was altering its original rules. You can't have both. Either a grapple uses a weapon or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then its not an attack. If its not an attack, then no combat maneuver is, and none of them benefit from a weapon...again circular logic that results in rules not working as intended.
Ultimately, it's your own personal problem in rationalizing this. If it helps, picture the AoMF flashing each time someone makes an unarmed strike or natural attack, representing the body surging with energy when it attacks to damage someone.
Did I hope the PDT would rule otherwise? Yes, yes I did. It would mean my Monk just got a lot better at grappling; as in the difference between +21 vs +28 on grapple checks. But I'm not surprised they didn't as grappling is already, arguably, one of the most powerful maneuvers. Why? Because the one maneuver can completely remove a person from the fight if you can land it; it also has no size restriction, like it did in 3.5 if I remember correctly. To balance this out, Grapple is also one of the hardest maneuvers to increase beyond Impoved/Greater Grapple. After those two feats, the only way to increase your grapple bonus is to, essentially, increase your BAB or ability score (strength in most cases).
Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Drag, Reposition, Bull Rush, even Dirty Trick, all have ways of gaining enhancement bonus, some of which are obscure, but grapple is really difficult.
OK, here's my solution: to bring the rules for unarmed strikes in line with how this works (and this should probably be done for rays as well) the book should include the following (which everyone, I believe, already thinks is the intent) but which is not actually in the wording: unarmed strikes are treated as weapons for the purposes of [list whatever applies].
That way, its crystal clear that although its considered a weapon when doing things, its not a physical object that can be picked up or crafted magically, etc., like an actually weapon can be.
Any that is my whole point, is states that you are making an attack. Attack states that it can only be done with a weapon. So any combat maneuver that doesn't use a weapon is not an attack, but again, ALL combat maneuvers are attacks. This circular logic is where the system is failing me, and why I originally said the design team was altering its original rules. You can't have both. Either a grapple uses a weapon or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then its not...
This is not true at all. Again, Specific > General. The general rule for attacks is that they must be made using a weapon. The specific rule for Combat Maneuvers is that weapons are incidental in their use. They are still attacks, but they don't use weapons.
No circular logic here. The specific Combat Maneuver Rules over-rule the General Combat rules that say all attacks use weapons.
I think on some level the game treats combat maneuvers as their own weapon. As I have mwntioned weapon focus grapple. However this isn't well documented. Can I take weapon focus bull rush or overrun? Logic says yes but no examples of it.
So from the combat focus, the game sees grapple as its own type of weapon away from unarmed strikes.
I will try to rationalize it over the weekend. Still not certain I understand what:
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.
means.
There's not a lot to make sense of here. They have now specifically excluded Combat Maneuvers from what Amulet of Mighty Fists modifies.
The text of the magic item description says that the AMoF enhances unarmed attack rolls. That hasn't changed.
Page 199 of the Core Rulebook clearly states that Combat Maneuver Checks are Attack Rolls.
Attack rolls that are performed without a weapon are unarmed attack rolls, or at least they were.
Sean Reynolds emphasized the importance of the fact that some combat maneuver checks were performed armed and some unarmed, but all of them are attacks. Mostly that post was about applying bonuses from weapons, and since AMoF neither is a weapon nor applies bonuses to weapons (The AMoF applies bonuses to attack ROLLS and damage ROLLS.), it isn't especially a relevant FAQ, anyway.
They haven't errata'd any of the existing rules text to my knowledge at this time. The new rule must be a logic rule.
It used to be that if you made an attack roll, and the attack roll was unarmed, then it was an unarmed attack roll. That is the understanding of logic in the simple way of my people.
But in the fantasy world authored by the Design Team that we have enjoyed playing in, that syllogism just isn't always true, not anymore. Fantasy worlds do not have to obey real world logic. There are whole fields of mathematics designed to describe the logic of alternate universes. What is the logic behind this official ruling? I don't know. They might explain, or the mathemeticians of Golorian may derive the answer.
"The Dungeon Master does not play dice with the Universe."
Albert Einstein
From grappling:
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. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
Made much more sense as a bonus to the body. Now in order to use your AotMF bonus one has to specifically use an unarmed strike.
I always liked to think of it as twisting/breaking an arm or something to hurt them because of the grapple itself, now you have to make an unarmed strike. Maybe it was just me but that was how I read it.
Some might argue (maybe Majorat) that it doesn't specifically say you can make an unarmed attack but only damage equal to your unarmed strike. This wouldn't overcome DR because it is not a strike. "ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as" and grappling isn't an unarmed attack.
Life used to be so much simpler.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
AMoF neither is a weapon nor applies bonuses to weaponsIt applies bonuses to the weapon called "unarmed strike" or "unarmed attack".Actually, what it says is:
"Amulet of Mighty Fists...
Price 4,000 gp (+1)... This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons...."http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wondrousItems.html
See what it says? It say "attack and damage ROLLS."
Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
For as much of a distinction as you're trying to make between them, magic weapons and the AoMF sure have awfully similar text...
Honestly, it doesn't matter, because anyone who was using grapple in pfs was bypassing this little issue with their builds anyway, so it doesn't break anything there...for everyone else we can still use rule 0 and say it works. No harm. Just like crane style feats. Nothing stops home games from using the original set.