|
So I have an observation and a question. Observation: I'm not seeing anywhere in the CRB where it is stated unequivocally that a combat maneuver is an attack, merely that it uses an attack roll. My question, then, is this: If the phrase "attack roll" under combat maneuvers was replaced with the phrase "combat maneuver check," (along with necessary concomitant wording changes) would any issues with understanding the FAQ go away?
And yes, I did see the part where it said, " While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action." It doesn't say that the maneuvers are attacks, merely that some can be performed as part of or in place of, keeping maneuvers distinct from attacks in my mind. Emphasis mine.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I have an observation and a question. Observation: I'm not seeing anywhere in the CRB where it is stated unequivocally that a combat maneuver is an attack, merely that it uses an attack roll.
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
How can that be true Jiggy, it was just ruled that Grapple cannot be an unarmed attack.
It's why the ruling is so odd and confusing. A grapple is officially a combat maneuver that cannot be an unarmed strike or unarmed attack. So many of the rules to grapple only make sense if Grapple can be an unarmed attack.
Ruling:
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.
|
|
How can that be true Jiggy, it was just ruled that Grapple cannot be an unarmed attack. All combat maneuvers are attacks just has been throw out.
It's why the ruling is so odd and confusing. A grapple is officially a combat maneuver that cannot be an unarmed strike or unarmed attack. So many of the rules to grapple only make sense if Grapple can be an unarmed attack.
Ruling:
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.
grapple can be an unarmed attack, it cannot be an "unarmed strike". this is where most people are getting confused.
grapple can be an unarmed attack, it cannot be an "unarmed strike". this is where most people are getting confused.How can that be true Jiggy, it was just ruled that Grapple cannot be an unarmed attack. All combat maneuvers are attacks just has been throw out.
It's why the ruling is so odd and confusing. A grapple is officially a combat maneuver that cannot be an unarmed strike or unarmed attack. So many of the rules to grapple only make sense if Grapple can be an unarmed attack.
Ruling:
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.
But the ruling states "+1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks" quote of the amulet is not valid for grapple because grapple is a combat maneuver. It's very confusing.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's only confusing if you continue to believe that an "unarmed attack" is an attack roll made without a weapon, in spite of the game defining "unarmed attack" as its own type of weapon.
Expect similar confusion in the future whenever a ruling is made that's based on a definition you've chosen to change.
|
|
It's only confusing if you continue to believe that an "unarmed attack" is an attack roll made without a weapon, in spite of the game defining "unarmed attack" as its own type of weapon.
Expect similar confusion in the future whenever a ruling is made that's based on a definition you've chosen to change.
but an unarmed attack isnt a type of attack, an "unarmed strike" is a type of weapon.
"Strike, UnarmedAn unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls."
see how it doesnt say "unarmed attack" it says "unarmed strike" thats where your confusion lies.
The ruling also disallows the use of AotMF to overcome DR for grappling damage and disallows grappling to overcome DR at all for a monk using his hands.
Grappling says as an option for a standard action:
"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. "
Under Monk:
"ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
Because grappling is not an unarmed attack it is a combat maneuver. The "ki strike" cannot be used, the AotMF cannot be used to overcome DR.
|
|
The ruling also disallows the use of AotMF to overcome DR for grappling damage and disallows grappling to overcome DR at all for a monk using his hands.
Grappling says as an option for a standard action:
"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. "
Under Monk:
"ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
Because grappling is not an unarmed attack it is a combat maneuver. The "ki strike" cannot be used, the AotMF cannot be used to overcome DR.
"unarmed attack" is not defined in the crb, only an "unarmed strike" is. so an unarmed attack is an attack made unarmed, and since combat maneuvers are attacks in there own right, as long as the combat maneuver is made unarmed it will qualify for the AOMF bonus.
It's only confusing if you continue to believe that an "unarmed attack" is an attack roll made without a weapon, in spite of the game defining "unarmed attack" as its own type of weapon.
Expect similar confusion in the future whenever a ruling is made that's based on a definition you've chosen to change.
Still not understanding your rationalization.
So then, lets see if I got this right. For you: unarmed attack is a weapon. Not a specific weapon, but one that comes into being when an attack is made? And one that cannot be used for grapple?
That grapple is an attack. But cannot be made by a weapon called unarmed?
Your conceptualization is that unarmed strike is not any part of the body as defined in Monk but a weapon conceptualization that for brief moments occur when attacking?
Just to clear things up.
"unarmed attack" is not defined in the crb, only an "unarmed strike" is. so an unarmed attack is an attack made unarmed, and since combat maneuvers are attacks in there own right, as long as the combat maneuver is made unarmed it will qualify for the AOMF bonus.The ruling also disallows the use of AotMF to overcome DR for grappling damage and disallows grappling to overcome DR at all for a monk using his hands.
Grappling says as an option for a standard action:
"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. "
Under Monk:
"ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
Because grappling is not an unarmed attack it is a combat maneuver. The "ki strike" cannot be used, the AotMF cannot be used to overcome DR.
I agree with you. Ruling as I read it says otherwise. How do you view it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I agree with you. Ruling as I read it says otherwise. How do you view it?
if the 2 conditions are met, then RAW says you get your AoMF bonus to the attack role.
1. are grapple attempts attacks? yes2. are you wielding a weapon while making this attack roll? no
a grapple attempt with these qualifications would be an unarmed attack. now i did not say its an "unarmed strike" which is a weapon and cannot be used with a grapple attack roll. An AoMF does not need an unarmed strike to apply its bonus, only an attack (roll) that is being made unarmed.
but now this is a RAW interpretation, the developers may say "no because its not RAI or ment to work that way" but that's an entirely different issue.
"unarmed attack" is not defined in the crb, only an "unarmed strike" is. so an unarmed attack is an attack made unarmed, and since combat maneuvers are attacks in there own right, as long as the combat maneuver is made unarmed it will qualify for the AOMF bonus.The ruling also disallows the use of AotMF to overcome DR for grappling damage and disallows grappling to overcome DR at all for a monk using his hands.
Grappling says as an option for a standard action:
"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. "
Under Monk:
"ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
Because grappling is not an unarmed attack it is a combat maneuver. The "ki strike" cannot be used, the AotMF cannot be used to overcome DR.
How do you reconcile this with the sub-section "unarmed attacks" in the Combat chapter?
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“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).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@TheSideKick (and some others): Have a look at the rules for how "unarmed strikes" work in the Core Rulebook. Read the bolded subheading that introduces that ruleset. See how it says "unarmed attacks"? Now read that ruleset. See how it goes back and forth between "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes"?
They are the same thing.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Wyntr.
People seem ro be confusing rl definition of unarmed attack and the game definition.
Simplist thing is this grapple iz its own attack that you can take weapon focus for. There is no rules to reconcile the pdt ruling is within the wording odlf the rules.
When I grapple I may be doing an attack with no weapon in hans but at no point is it an unarmed attack as the game defines it.
People seem ro be confusing rl definition of unarmed attack and the game definition.
Simplist thing is this grapple iz its own attack that you can take weapon focus for. There is no rules to reconcile the pdt ruling is within the wording odlf the rules.
When I grapple I may be doing an attack with no weapon in hans but at no point is it an unarmed attack as the game defines it.
How do you reconcile Mancatcher having it's own weapon focus and able to have weapon focus grapple? Would the Mancatcher not be able to use it's weapon focus to the grapple? One would have to get both a weapon focus to Mancatcher to hit, and weapon focus to grapple to the grapple part to get weapon focus for both?
Once someone is caught in the Mancatcher. Does the enhancement bonus to the damage occur, because it does grapple damage. Could an enhanced Mancatcher ever pierce DR?
With the ruling the Machatcher enhancement bonus would only be used in the touch attack. That's how I read it.
@TheSideKick (and some others): Have a look at the rules for how "unarmed strikes" work in the Core Rulebook. Read the bolded subheading that introduces that ruleset. See how it says "unarmed attacks"? Now read that ruleset. See how it goes back and forth between "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes"?
They are the same thing.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Wyntr.
Could unarmed strikes be a subset of unarmed attacks?
People seem ro be confusing rl definition of unarmed attack and the game definition.
Simplist thing is this grapple iz its own attack that you can take weapon focus for. There is no rules to reconcile the pdt ruling is within the wording odlf the rules.
When I grapple I may be doing an attack with no weapon in hans but at no point is it an unarmed attack as the game defines it.
How do you reconcile Mancatcher having it's own weapon focus and able to have weapon focus grapple? Would the Mancatcher not be able to use it's weapon focus to the grapple? One would have to get both a weapon focus to Mancatcher to hit, and weapon focus to grapple to the grapple part to get weapon focus for both?
Once someone is caught in the Mancatcher. Does the enhancement bonus to the damage occur, because it does grapple damage. Could an enhanced Mancatcher ever pierce DR?
With the ruling the Machatcher enhancement bonus would only be used in the touch attack. That's how I read it.
I don't ned ro reconcile anything. Specific trumps general. I know I've mentioned this several times but you do get that the man catchers specific rules override rhe general rule right?
I don't ned ro reconcile anything. Specific trumps general. I know I've mentioned this several times but you do get that the man catchers specific rules override rhe general rule right?People seem ro be confusing rl definition of unarmed attack and the game definition.
Simplist thing is this grapple iz its own attack that you can take weapon focus for. There is no rules to reconcile the pdt ruling is within the wording odlf the rules.
When I grapple I may be doing an attack with no weapon in hans but at no point is it an unarmed attack as the game defines it.
How do you reconcile Mancatcher having it's own weapon focus and able to have weapon focus grapple? Would the Mancatcher not be able to use it's weapon focus to the grapple? One would have to get both a weapon focus to Mancatcher to hit, and weapon focus to grapple to the grapple part to get weapon focus for both?
Once someone is caught in the Mancatcher. Does the enhancement bonus to the damage occur, because it does grapple damage. Could an enhanced Mancatcher ever pierce DR?
With the ruling the Machatcher enhancement bonus would only be used in the touch attack. That's how I read it.
Sooo....how do think Mancatcher works within the new rules? You did not answer one question.
Sooo....how do think Mancatcher works within the new rules? You did not answer one question.I don't ned ro reconcile anything. Specific trumps general. I know I've mentioned this several times but you do get that the man catchers specific rules override rhe general rule right?People seem ro be confusing rl definition of unarmed attack and the game definition.
Simplist thing is this grapple iz its own attack that you can take weapon focus for. There is no rules to reconcile the pdt ruling is within the wording odlf the rules.
When I grapple I may be doing an attack with no weapon in hans but at no point is it an unarmed attack as the game defines it.
How do you reconcile Mancatcher having it's own weapon focus and able to have weapon focus grapple? Would the Mancatcher not be able to use it's weapon focus to the grapple? One would have to get both a weapon focus to Mancatcher to hit, and weapon focus to grapple to the grapple part to get weapon focus for both?
Once someone is caught in the Mancatcher. Does the enhancement bonus to the damage occur, because it does grapple damage. Could an enhanced Mancatcher ever pierce DR?
With the ruling the Machatcher enhancement bonus would only be used in the touch attack. That's how I read it.
What new rules are we talking about here? Nothing was changed, as far as I'm aware. This is how it's worked at the very least since the blog post came out.
|
|
So I have an observation and a question. Observation: I'm not seeing anywhere in the CRB where it is stated unequivocally that a combat maneuver is an attack, merely that it uses an attack roll.Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Which, if you'll forgive me, does not actually say they are attacks, just that they use attack rolls. That is the reason for the second question I asked. They are explicitly stated to be maneuvers and actions that can replace or add to an attack in some cases.
As far as unarmed strikes being a subset of unarmed attacks, they are. Unarmed attacks also include natural weapons and certain spells. They are, however, treated as "armed" unarmed attacks.
This post was intended ealier but hit a cell dead zone thankfully I'd copied it as ttping it al out on the phone was a pain.
Just to be clear and I hope this does not come off rude but if you were adding amf to grapple before you were doing it wrong. Pdt answe is fully within the raw of my first printing core book.
The issue seems to be real life terminology mixed with game terminology and a predetermined paradigm. This doesn't mean peoole were having badwrong fun but from a game point of view I've noticed issues when people can't determine house rules from rules.
I posed like five examples of this before but to get this make up a character. I called mine bob he's a lv 5 fighter with 18 str weapon training monk weapon focus unarmed strike weapon focus grapple and imp grapple. He has an amf +1.
Work out his attacks and when you get to the part where weapon bonuses are applied ask the following questions.
1) when I do the attack what weapon am I using and where does rhe game say I can explicitly use that weapon.
Do thia for a strike for damage a trip and a grapple.
Remember pf is a permission based system it will say ypu can do stuff explicitly. If it doesn't say you can do something you can't. However special exceptions are made all the time.
On a final note one of the reasons I've paid a lot of attention ro this is its a fundimental part of the games combat mechanics. I think if more people understand it their game will open up.
People seem ro be confusing rl definition of unarmed attack and the game definition.
Simplist thing is this grapple iz its own attack that you can take weapon focus for. There is no rules to reconcile the pdt ruling is within the wording odlf the rules.
When I grapple I may be doing an attack with no weapon in hans but at no point is it an unarmed attack as the game defines it.
How do you reconcile Mancatcher having it's own weapon focus and able to have weapon focus grapple? Would the Mancatcher not be able to use it's weapon focus to the grapple? One would have to get both a weapon focus to Mancatcher to hit, and weapon focus to grapple to the grapple part to get weapon focus for both?
Once someone is caught in the Mancatcher. Does the enhancement bonus to the damage occur, because it does grapple damage. Could an enhanced Mancatcher ever pierce DR?
With the ruling the Machatcher enhancement bonus would only be used in the touch attack. That's how I read it.
I see it as Man-catcher is unique in that you can take WF twice with it. And it stacks. Once with it iself, but it also can take with grapple: giving +2 grapple.
If the amulet doesn't grant its enhancement bonus to grapples... does that mean you cannot get an enhancement bonus to grapples?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In the case of the man-catcher or garotte or any other weapon that lets you grapppel (not a lot of them thst I can think of) the wf wouldn't stack with wf grapple. Your weapon changes to the mancacher and all its bonuses apply.
@scott whillhelm
I think that's where the preconcieved paradigm comes in. We have one section of the combat maneuver rules which littlerally says only 3 specific maneuvers can generally be used with a weapon however peopple seemed strongly cought up in the idea of "grappling is done with my hands" and "my whole body is enchanted" and just tuned out the pre existing rule about which maneuvers were explicitly labeled as done with weapons.
Just to be clear again I have no issue with the idea as a house rule and woukd okay it if one of my players asked.
If the amulet doesn't grant its enhancement bonus to grapples... does that mean you cannot get an enhancement bonus to grapples?
Of course you can. Use a grapple weapon.
Of course you can. Use a grapple weapon.If the amulet doesn't grant its enhancement bonus to grapples... does that mean you cannot get an enhancement bonus to grapples?
Allow me to be more specific: you cannot enhance grapples if you're playing a wrestler? (Unarmed.)
Anyone else notice that Mydrrin is specifically not replying or responding to any post that completely shuts his argument down? Like Wyntr's?
Based off the posts he's made in this thread, I can only conclude that he is blatantly ignoring what's been posted and quoted from the rulebook in a feeble effort to try and 'prove' his opinion is the correct one, despite the Dev team already ruling against him.
Anyone else notice that Mydrrin is specifically not replying or responding to any post that completely shuts his argument down? Like Wyntr's?
Based off the posts he's made in this thread, I can only conclude that he is blatantly ignoring what's been posted and quoted from the rulebook in a feeble effort to try and 'prove' his opinion is the correct one, despite the Dev team already ruling against him.
I responded to it with my comment to Jiggy who had the same question.
Look up where it is.
Standard Actions:
Attacks:
And listed all the different kinds of attacks with different types of weapons.
Later, way way down... it talks of Special Attacks and Combat Maneuvers.
To which I responded.
Could unarmed strikes be a subset of unarmed attacks?
But thanks for keeping up. I'll use as much snarkyness as you have shown.
If the amulet doesn't grant its enhancement bonus to grapples... does that mean you cannot get an enhancement bonus to grapples?
In Pathfinder, in 3.5 you can/could.
Wait, if it still exists in Pathfinder...psionics: had Grip of Iron...
Yep, still exists.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/equipment/psionic-items/universa l-items#TOC-Gloves-of-Titan-s-Grip
Based on this spell: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/g/grip-of-iron
Anyone else notice that Mydrrin is specifically not replying or responding to any post that completely shuts his argument down? Like Wyntr's?
Based off the posts he's made in this thread, I can only conclude that he is blatantly ignoring what's been posted and quoted from the rulebook in a feeble effort to try and 'prove' his opinion is the correct one, despite the Dev team already ruling against him.
Right now I'm trying to get Jiggy to define his position about unarmed strikes and when it becomes a weapon. If he agrees with it is a momentary thing than I can attack that position with always considered armed, if he agrees that it is permanent then I can say that AotMF is always active. Right now it is hard to argue with Jiggy because his definition isn't very solid and once I can define it I can show logic to show how the body enchanted makes the only sense. There are many things later to discuss once this gets resolved.
Majorat I am trying to get him to discuss Mancatcher and how the rules apply without discussing unarmed attack. Later I can link them to show how unarmed gets them because it clearly states when to apply the enhancement bonus. Keeping going with the logic it keeps on with "Let's say someone is making a weapon, the rules have been defined". He gets around this by not discussing how the rules as apply to Mancatcher and using the special snowflake defence and odd things like permissions.
I'm still trying to understand the ruling.
Wint'r quote if taken in context is about what to do in a standard action. It is not in the unarmed section of the combat section.
Before the quote she had is:
Standard Actions
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
So it is obvious that:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“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).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
Obvious that Unarmed Strike is a subset of Unarmed Attack. And her reasoning isn't valid and her quote mis-context.
I might have did it succinctly and not address her because Jiggy and I have been arguing for a while and chose to address his same concerns.
These are my methods to my madness. Why I am passionate about it? I like monks and I think I have a good understanding of the rules and if something doesn't jive I try to understand why things are the way they are and my understanding changes until the next change. Someone has to convince me to abandon rules for "just because", maybe I'm Lawful Neutral in my viewpoint of the world.
The justification goes beyond simple rules language. Reposting from earlier in the thread:
You're not necessarily using a weapon with any and every combat maneuver.
It's also a balance issue, so it goes beyond "does it make sense in the real world". What about bull rushes? Don't you use your body to make a bull rush? What about overrun? Don't you use your body to do that, too?
Amulets of Might Fist already are priced higher than comparable magic weapons because they do more. They apply to any unarmed strike you make (even if you TWF with them) and they apply to every single one of your natural attacks. With a Greataxe, you get bonuses to your attack and damage and now to a trip, disarm, or sunder because you're likely using your weapon to assist with the maneuver.
Should a Greataxe's bonuses also apply to a bull rush? What if I say my character bull rushes by pushing the enemy back with the haft of his axe? Aren't I now using it for the bull rush? No, not really. It's incidental.
But if this "I'm using my body" idea carries through, then now not only does the AoMF apply to all unarmed strikes (at the very least, the benefit of a double magic weapon and major boon to flurrying monks) and all natural attacks (massive, massive benefit), but now we're arguing that it should apply to combat maneuvers that virtually no other weapon would be able to get its bonus applied to. AoMF now adds significant bonuses to Grapple, Bull Rush, Overrun, Steal, Dirty Trick, Reposition, and Drag, in addition to the ordinary Trip, Disarm, and Sunder plus the bonuses to Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons.
No other weapon can even come close to that. So even if you can't be satisfied with the verisimilitude of it, you can't argue with the blatant balance issue.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now I'm trying to get Jiggy to define his position about unarmed strikes and when it becomes a weapon. If he agrees with it is a momentary thing than I can attack that position with always considered armed, if he agrees that it is permanent then I can say that AotMF is always active.
Neither.
Your unarmed strike is what the Pathfinder ruleset defines as a weapon, but that does not mean it fits the common english meaning of "weapon". It doesn't even have to itself be a physical object. It is a game unit you can wield to perform certain actions with.
It's not a thing that blinks in and out of existence when you make use of it. You always have it. And you use your body to wield it. But it is not your body, and enhancing it does not mean enhancing your body.
The AoMF is always active, but it only affects what it says it affects.
Speaking of which, let's even assume for a moment that "unarmed strike" is just a subtype of "unarmed attacks", as is everything else listed in that now-infamous heading. Let's just say it really does mean that. So then since the AoMF gives a bonus to "unarmed attacks", it would affect everything under that "unarmed attacks" heading, right?
So let's see, what does that include:
• Unarmed strikes
• Touch spells
• Natural weapons
Do you see what's not on that list? Grapples. Ergo, AoMF still doesn't affect grappling.
Anyone else notice that Mydrrin is specifically not replying or responding to any post that completely shuts his argument down? Like Wyntr's?
Based off the posts he's made in this thread, I can only conclude that he is blatantly ignoring what's been posted and quoted from the rulebook in a feeble effort to try and 'prove' his opinion is the correct one, despite the Dev team already ruling against him.
I was only commenting on TheSideKick's comment that there was no definition in the CRB for "unarmed attack".
It is not in the unarmed section of the combat section.
Where is this section? I did not find anything that seemed to match (beyond what I already quoted that you dismissed) in the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook.
Before the quote she had is
I don't mean to offend you with the correction (and take no offense from your assumption), but I am not female.
Right now I'm trying to get Jiggy to define his position about unarmed strikes and when it becomes a weapon. If he agrees with it is a momentary thing than I can attack that position with always considered armed, if he agrees that it is permanent then I can say that AotMF is always active.Neither.
Your unarmed strike is what the Pathfinder ruleset defines as a weapon, but that does not mean it fits the common english meaning of "weapon". It doesn't even have to itself be a physical object. It is a game unit you can wield to perform certain actions with.
It's not a thing that blinks in and out of existence when you make use of it. You always have it. And you use your body to wield it. But it is not your body, and enhancing it does not mean enhancing your body.
The AoMF is always active, but it only affects what it says it affects.
Speaking of which, let's even assume for a moment that "unarmed strike" is just a subtype of "unarmed attacks", as is everything else listed in that now-infamous heading. Let's just say it really does mean that. So then since the AoMF gives a bonus to "unarmed attacks", it would affect everything under that "unarmed attacks" heading, right?
So let's see, what does that include:
• Unarmed strikes
• Touch spells
• Natural weaponsDo you see what's not on that list? Grapples. Ergo, AoMF still doesn't affect grappling.
You know what else is not on that list? Any special attack or combat maneuver. Same with for any weapon. Special Attacks and Combat Maneuvers have their own special sections, with their rules and conditions. Following those rules it clearly states that:
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.
It's specific no?
It is not in the unarmed section of the combat section.Where is this section? I did not find anything that seemed to match (beyond what I already quoted that you dismissed) in the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook.
"How do you reconcile this with the sub-section "unarmed attacks" in the Combat chapter? "
Was what you said.Before the quote she had isI don't mean to offend you with the correction (and take no offense from your assumption), but I am not female.
I can only use the masculine/feminine of the person your pic shows. If you dress as female I will address you as female, it is the common curtesy. I will address you as male in the future sir.
Of course you can. Use a grapple weapon.If the amulet doesn't grant its enhancement bonus to grapples... does that mean you cannot get an enhancement bonus to grapples?
Allow me to be more specific: you cannot enhance grapples if you're playing a wrestler? (Unarmed.)
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a first-party way to get an enhancement bonus to grapples without involving a weapon somehow. Custom magic items/homebrew to the rescue!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know what else is not on that list? Any special attack or combat maneuver.
Correct. There is nothing in the rules for unarmed attacks/strikes that makes them applicable to any combat maneuvers at all. In order to use your unarmed attacks/strikes (and any related bonuses) on a combat maneuver, you would need a separate rule from somewhere else to explicitly allow it.
One such rule is the FAQ blog from 2 1/2 years ago, which explicitly allows your unarmed strikes to be used in disarms, sunders and trips.
But outside of that specific rule, we default back to the general rule that maneuvers aren't considered unarmed attacks and don't use the "unarmed strike" weapon.
"How do you reconcile this with the sub-section "unarmed attacks" in the Combat chapter? "
Was what you said.
I apologize for being unclear; I should have cut more off of the quotes. I was addressing TheSideKick on how he reconciles there being no definition for an unarmed attack with there being a section on unarmed attacks in the Combat chapter.
I am still wondering about the unarmed section of the combat section that you mentioned - I am not sure I am understanding your argument.
|
|
Right now I'm trying to get Jiggy to define his position about unarmed strikes and when it becomes a weapon. If he agrees with it is a momentary thing than I can attack that position with always considered armed, if he agrees that it is permanent then I can say that AotMF is always active.Neither.
Your unarmed strike is what the Pathfinder ruleset defines as a weapon, but that does not mean it fits the common english meaning of "weapon". It doesn't even have to itself be a physical object. It is a game unit you can wield to perform certain actions with.
It's not a thing that blinks in and out of existence when you make use of it. You always have it. And you use your body to wield it. But it is not your body, and enhancing it does not mean enhancing your body.
The AoMF is always active, but it only affects what it says it affects.
Speaking of which, let's even assume for a moment that "unarmed strike" is just a subtype of "unarmed attacks", as is everything else listed in that now-infamous heading. Let's just say it really does mean that. So then since the AoMF gives a bonus to "unarmed attacks", it would affect everything under that "unarmed attacks" heading, right?
So let's see, what does that include:
• Unarmed strikes
• Touch spells
• Natural weaponsDo you see what's not on that list? Grapples. Ergo, AoMF still doesn't affect grappling.
You know what else is not on that list? Any special attack or combat maneuver. Same with for any weapon. Special Attacks and Combat Maneuvers have their own special sections, with their rules and conditions. Following those rules it clearly states that:
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.
It's specific no?
Correct, special attacks and maneuvers are not on that list, because they have their own rules about how they interact with attacks. Currently, the rules state that there are three maneuvers that can stand-in-for or be part of an attack without the use of special abilities such as Grab. Those are disarm, sunder, trip.
So, when you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, you make the attack roll and add any bonuses that are applied to the weapon that you're using to make the maneuver check. The same three maneuvers that can replace an attack have been ruled to make use of weapons, while all other combat maneuvers do not. Hence, all other combat maneuvers do not use the attack bonuses granted to any weapon because no weapon is used.
If the amulet doesn't grant its enhancement bonus to grapples... does that mean you cannot get an enhancement bonus to grapples?
In Pathfinder, in 3.5 you can/could.
Wait, if it still exists in Pathfinder...psionics: had Grip of Iron...
Yep, still exists.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/equipment/psionic-items/universa l-items#TOC-Gloves-of-Titan-s-GripBased on this spell: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/g/grip-of-iron
That doesn't really help my PFS characters though.
Edit: oops, saw my mistake.
@Myriddin do you understand what a permission based system is?
I'll use an example. I make a new game called Fruits and Frivoltries It has the following rules
1) Fruit: a Fruit is any edible item the game defines as a Fruit. RL connection to Fruitness has no bearing on this
2) Apples Peaches, Tomatoes and all Tubers are Fruits
3) a Tuber is any edible plant that commonly has its fruiting body under the ground, for example a Potato.
4)Healing a Fruit eaten every day of the weeek instantly heals you to full
5) Apples eaten on Tuesdays are poisonous and no longer heal. If a player eats an Apple on Tuesday he or she dies instantly.
So, for our first adventure, the players rush to stop Prince Appleton whos mind has gone poisonous on Tuesdays. After dodging his poisonous applie pies they defeat him. Among his Belongings they find an Orange.
is an Orange a Fruit?
The answer is no because the game has not told me it is a fruit.
Almost everything in Pathfinder works like this.
When Bob with 18 str bab +6 WF UAS WF Grapple Imp grapple, Weapon training monk.
d20 roll, what is bobs strength bonus +4 what is bobs bab +6, is bob full attacking? Yes, is bob using a weapon? yes what weapon Unarmed Strike. Is bob trying a combat maneuver yes? what CBM does the game give me permission to do? Trip (check does trip allow me to do it with a weapon, yes) so on his first attack bob gets d20 +10 (+4 +6, +1 AMF +1 UAS WF +1 Weapon Training monk (Unarmed Strike is in the monk weapon training group) so all in all 1d20 +13 1d3 +6
It is litterally a flow chart, If this then this if not then no is this allowed yes/no then do this.
However, the rules state that If you are allowed with /permission/ to do ANY combat maneyver in place of an attack, or use a weapon with a combat maneuver that the Weapon Bonuses apply
This means that any and all weapon bonuses apply with Trip disarm sunder explicitly, it also means that several of the 'quick combat maneuver' feats can be used with a weapon, because they replace an attack. This does not apply to Quick Grapple. (or whatever the specific feat is called)
So i have a Dagger, i want to Trip somone, can i? yes the game says i can. can i Grapple with the Dagger? no because the game does not give me permission and I have no feat called 'grapple with your dagger'
Finally, I get to the Mancatcher and the Garrot. Look this goes back to special exceptions and really if you dont get this im not sure if repeating it a 6th or 7th time will help. the Garrot and Mancatcher have special rules describing how the weapons are used in a Grapple.
This may surprise you, but when somone successfuly grapples you holding a Garrot the Metal wire is wrapped around your throat. What does this mean? It means the special rules under garrot describing how it is used in a grapple i want to stress it /is/ the grapple allow weapon enhancement bonuses to be used to grapple with a garrot.
I concur with Mojorat. The rulings are what they are.
However, I would like to point out a couple of thoughts and their consequences:
1. Instead of saying "look at the blog post", SKR said he was consulting with the dev team on whether Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) and the amulet would affect combat maneuvers including grapple. Unfortunately we've not heard results of the consultation, but SKR apparently felt that the issue is not as cut and dry as saying "look at the blog post". Perhaps he felt it falls under the special case scenario mentioned in the blog post that "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"; but that is speculation on my part.
2. "Weapon Focus (grapple)" is not a good example of separating grapples from "Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)". Consider "Weapon Focus (sunder)" - this feat gives +1 to all sunder checks, regardless of weapon used (but of course gives no bonus to normal attacks).
3. Likewise "Weapon Focus (grapple)" has legitimate reason for existing other than distinguishing itself from "Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)". Consider a monster that has the grab special ability with both its bite and its tentacles. Taking "Weapon Focus (bite)" would give it +1 to attack as well as the subsequent grab (as illustrated by SKR's blog post). But no benefit on tentacle attempts. Likewise "Weapon Focus (tentacle)" would give the monster +1 to attack and grab with its tentacle, but not to bites. Finally, "Weapon Focus (grapple)" would grant a +1 bonus to grab attempts with both bites and tentacles - but give no bonus to normal attacks with either.
4. Our hypothetical tentacle-bite monster may wear a +1 amulet of mighty fists. Both its bites and its tentacles would gain a +1 to normal attacks; and both bite and tentacle grabs (grapples) gain the +1 from the amulet as well.
The bottom-line is that this means that monsters can use the amulet to be better at grapples, but normal characters can't. An unfortunate consequence.
...
I would like to add that I think it is a short-coming that PFS characters cannot buy an item that grants an enhancement bonus to grapples (or bullrush, etc). I would suggest that the amulet of mighty fists could fill that gap, giving meaning to the item for classes other than monk (and some special builds). I think it would be great if a greataxe wielding barbarian could also pickup a +2 amulet to be better at overrunning, or a sword-n-board fighter may want the amulet to reposition foes better, and so forth.