RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Consider "Weapon Focus (sunder)"
This feat does not exist. If it were a valid option, Weapon Focus would have said something like "you may select a combat maneuver as your weapon", but it doesn't. It says you may select grapple. That does not automatically extend to all combat maneuvers.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don't think that changes the conclusion though.
I had thought some on weapon focus for other combat maneuvers but there is np supporr for it that I'm aware of.
In all honesty I only became aware of weapon focus grapple after one of those periodic rules questions where somone tries to apply wf to all slashing weapons.
Likewise, there should be a Weapon Focus (touch attack) for spells like inflict light wounds. Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) doesn't apply for that.
Well, you can deliver it via an unarmed strike. But I agree.
Back to what the blog meant. I still haven't found in the rules where it says only the three are allowed. It's not under any of the combat maneuvers for any of them.
It clearly states:
During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
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.
From Amulet of the Mighty Fists:
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
On to the blog: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom&page=3?Combat-Maneuvers-and-W eapon-Special-Features#discuss
What the blog says is it clarifies many things. I don't see it categorically removing the chance but stated a qualification that it needs to not be incidental (which is what the rule stated), which IMO grappling and unarmed attacks are not incidental.
Anyways, we have been over this many times. AotMF has been ruled for whatever reason not applicable because Grapple is a combat maneuver. Which I am not certain what the ruling means. Rules state clearly you can add any bonuses of applicable weapon to your rolls. If they said unarmed attack cannot be used with grapple it would have been more clear. As it was and many have commented that it's an odd ruling.
Weird questions like can a monk grappler ever overcome DR?
If the monk's "ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." can't work because grapple is a combat maneuver and AotMF doesn't work. What options are there for monks? Going to hurt viability of any monk grapplers.
|
Back to what the blog meant. I still haven't found in the rules where it says only the three are allowed. It's not under any of the combat maneuvers for any of them.
It clearly states:
During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
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.
Problem is you didn't read far enough.
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. 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.
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
So Disarm attempts are expected to be made using a weapon.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
So you're trying to deal damage to an object in place of a normal attack. How do you do that? Attacks deal damage using weapons, so it's safe to assume that sunder attempts are made with some sort of weapon.
Trip is the odd man out in that it doesn't have text that points to the use of weapons, but the Trip special property on many weapons indicates that weapons are commonly used to Trip.
The other combat maneuvers do not contain text that indicates that they are performed with weapons, or indicate that weapons are detrimental.
Bull Rush: Can replace a charge, but having a weapon in hand is generally not going to improve your chances.
Dirty Trick: Variable, and weapon bonus application is up to the GM.
Drag: If it can trip, it can drag, and it has been ruled as such.
Grapple: You grapple with hands, and when you're trying to grab somebody, you're generally not doing damage to them by grabbing them. You can maneuver into a position where you'll be able to damage them, but that comes later. This one even calls out that having a weapon in hand is detrimental to the grapple attempt. Having a body part in a striking posture would generally be likewise detrimental (fist, for example, can't grab).
Overrun: Same idea as a bull rush. Momentum is your weapon, not any weapon in your hand.
Reposition: Can be done with trip weapons.
Steal: Calls out that you need a free hand, so weapons would necessarily impede the attempt.
As far as grappling and unarmed attacks not being incidental, when you're attempting to grapple somebody, you can't really attack them. Once you have grappled them, you can cause them damage, yes. But when you're trying to grab hold of somebody, your body (hands especially) had better be able to grip them.
|
|
Here's the other main issue, and I think it's one of inaccurate word choice in the rules. Although it uses an attack roll, a combat maneuver is generally not an attack. Attack is defined as an attempt to strike your opponent, and is clarified to deal damage if it hits.
If the mentions of attack rolls were replaced with Combat Maneuver Checks, then this issue of understanding wouldn't come up. I respectfully posit that such might be an advantageous errata to the wording of the Combat Maneuvers section of the rules.
|
|
Weird questions like can a monk grappler ever overcome DR?
If the monk's "ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." can't work because grapple is a combat maneuver and AotMF doesn't work.
The way I read the ruling, it only states that the AoMF bonus doesn't apply on combat maneuver checks made to grapple.
Dealing damage during a grapple still follows the rule "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 rule clearly specifies that you are using a weapon to damage and benefit from that weapon's enhanced damage (though it appears not the accuracy bonus on the actual grapple check), whether it's a magic dagger or magically enhanced UAS.
Does anyone disagree with this?
well the rules on paper are mutable guidelines when subjected to human social interaction. its a horribly complex game though with so many working parts. ive just found that if rules are changed without knowg isomething breaks. the methodology f my ftuid example follows the patttern of rules for the wholegame.
|
|
The way I read the ruling, it only states that the AoMF bonus doesn't apply on combat maneuver checks made to grapple.
Dealing damage during a grapple still follows the rule "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 rule clearly specifies that you are using a weapon to damage and benefit from that weapon's enhanced damage (though it appears not the accuracy bonus on the actual grapple check), whether it's a magic dagger or magically enhanced UAS.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Makes perfect sense here.
Makes perfect sense here.The way I read the ruling, it only states that the AoMF bonus doesn't apply on combat maneuver checks made to grapple.
Dealing damage during a grapple still follows the rule "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 rule clearly specifies that you are using a weapon to damage and benefit from that weapon's enhanced damage (though it appears not the accuracy bonus on the actual grapple check), whether it's a magic dagger or magically enhanced UAS.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Thank you for your insight Jlighter, much appreciated.
My understanding of how it works is that you only get damage bonus if it helps you do the maneuver better. If you don't get the bonus with hitting then how can one get it for damaging, in other words if it doesn't apply to hit then how can it apply to damage.
The words of AotMF is "This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." If grappling is not an attack, and
"Damage
You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike"
It would be damage done by the grapple, can be non-lethal like a twisted arm, or lethal like a broken arm is how I picture it. The ruling states that grappling is a combat maneuver that is not an unarmed attack and the bonus only goes to unarmed attacks. If that logic makes sense. You are only doing damage = your unarmed strike and not making an unarmed strike. If grappling was an attack then I would say it would apply.
How to explain it better: you are twisting an arm, does your amulet make you better at twisting the arm?
To me, the grappling rules for damage support the enhancement bonus to the combat maneuver grapple.
|
|
It would be damage done by the grapple, can be non-lethal like a twisted arm, or lethal like a broken arm is how I picture it. The ruling states that grappling is a combat maneuver that is not an unarmed attack and the bonus only goes to unarmed attacks. If that logic makes sense. You are only doing damage = your unarmed strike and not making an unarmed strike. If grappling was an attack then I would say it would apply.
If you are doing damage = your UAS, then any modifications to your UAS damage would apply by definition of equality.
Would you say that a 20th level monk reverts to d4+Str damage when grappling? No, because when damaging in a grapple you deal damage equal to your UAS which will be 2d10+Str+misc modifiers for a 20th level monk. There is no indication anywhere that you should keep track of a separate "UAS damage during a grapple." It's the same damage.
But dealing UAS damage does not necessarily require you to make an UAS. See Dragon Roar or the similar Genie Style feats (eg Efreeti Touch) which deal your UAS damage without actually making an UAS.
My understanding of how it works is that you only get damage bonus if it helps you do the maneuver better. If you don't get the bonus with hitting then how can one get it for damaging, in other words if it doesn't apply to hit then how can it apply to damage.
...
How to explain it better: you are twisting an arm, does your amulet make you better at twisting the arm?To me, the grappling rules for damage support the enhancement bonus to the combat maneuver grapple.
The UAS weapon is incidental to the grapple check despite being key to the damage because the damage is incidental to the success of the grapple.
Making a grapple check, even with intent to deal damage, is not just about damaging someone. If you were just damaging the grappled opponent, you would make a normal attack roll or full-attack (with all bonuses from the AoMF) and then release the grapple due to failure to maintain it. A successful grapple check requires you to maintain control over your opponent's body. If you are grappling for damage, you are maintaining control over your opponent while also looking for an opportunity to twist an arm, elbow the face, etc. Control is the goal, damage is a bonus.
The amulet's enhancement helps you to strike accurately and to put extra force into damaging. It is unable to help you maintain the grapple because maintaining control in a tight grappling situation requires a different skill set from accurate striking. However, the skill of applying force to a part of someone's body translates much better so the enchantment is relevant to that part.
You could also say that grappling for damage with an AoMF represents a quick opportunistic strike rather than a damaging lock - that by making a grapple check you maneuver someone into a position in which you get a sort of auto-hit with your strike or weapon and deal appropriate damage without making an attack roll (or activating other effects that key off a "hit").
|
|
A grapple check is not made with the intent to deal damage. You're making a grapple check to keep the opponent grappled (or pinned), or to grapple/pin the opponent in the first place. Doing damage in the process is incidental and has nothing to do with the grapple.
If grapple was an action that strictly damage, I might agree with you that it's an attack. Attacks that hit result in damage, that's part of the definition in the book. But grapple doesn't necessarily result in damage just because it connects. Grapple is a maneuver (as quoted in the rules), not an attack, that inflicts a condition on the opponent, much as Dirty Trick can inflict the blinded condition or the Trip maneuver can inflict the Prone condition. The fact that it later allows you to potentially deal damage in addition to the condition is irrelevant because any weapon in your hand doesn't help the attempt and can actually hinder it.
For example, if you're using your arms/hands to pin somebody's arms and effectively immobilize them, what does that have to do with the knee you just slammed into his kidney? The former makes the latter possible, but the latter is otherwise irrelevant and has nothing to do with your ability to accomplish the former.
Mydrrin, care to reply to my other arguments to your point?
i know i've been off this thread for a while now, but im back because i got involded in a related thread and felt that those who are still arguing my point of view here (and those who are opposed) could make valid this other discussion.
if you believe that a grapple does not benefit from AoMF because it is not using the weapon "Unarmed strike/attack", then is stands to reason that a special attack such as Constrict/Trample/Rend/Etc. does not benefit from an AoMF either...in any way. to your "damage equal to your natural attack" would therefore not include any bonus from AoMF, correct?
i say this because special attacks such as constrict/trample/rend, do not explicitly have a special rule to fall back on that states what weapon they are being made with, just like grapple doesn't. so like grapple, its not made with any weapon at all...right?
if you think you get the bonus from AoMF on a trample or rend's damage calculation, then its being made with a natural attack. if its being made with a natural attack (even though there is no rule to support that statement) then grapple is being made with something too...
|
|
For what it's worth, I'm personally flexible on if the AoMF would apply to damage dealt during a grapple. At the moment, I'm on the side of it would, but I'd switch my views if I saw an argument that convinced me. I do, however, believe that the call about it not applying to the Combat Maneuver roll in the first place is the correct one.
|
|
A grapple check is not made with the intent to deal damage. You're making a grapple check to keep the opponent grappled (or pinned), or to grapple/pin the opponent in the first place. Doing damage in the process is incidental and has nothing to do with the grapple.
Yes.
To clarify my above post: when I say "grappling with intent to damage" I mean "making a grapple check to maintain a grapple and deciding to deal damage as your incidental bonus instead of moving, pinning, or tying up your opponent."
if you think you get the bonus from AoMF on a trample or rend's damage calculation, then its being made with a natural attack. if its being made with a natural attack (even though there is no rule to support that statement) then grapple is being made with something too...
As I said in the other thread and also above here, dealing UAS/natural attack damage does not necessarily mean you are making an UAS / natural weapon attack. Again, for reference: Dragon Roar.
EDIT:
For what it's worth, I'm personally flexible on if the AoMF would apply to damage dealt during a grapple. At the moment, I'm on the side of it would, but I'd switch my views if I saw an argument that convinced me. I do, however, believe that the call about it not applying to the Combat Maneuver roll in the first place is the correct one.
I'd be OK with not applying the AoMF damage bonus in a grapple if and only if stabbing someone with my magic shortsword in a grapple does a flat d6 points of damage. UAS, natural, and manufactured weapons are presented side-by-side as damage options in the grapple rules and should be treated equivalently.
|
|
I'd be OK with not applying the AoMF damage bonus in a grapple if and only if stabbing someone with my magic shortsword in a grapple does a flat d6 points of damage. UAS, natural, and manufactured weapons are presented side-by-side as damage options in the grapple rules and should be treated equivalently.
+1 for pointing out the counterargument to the lack of convincing arguments. :)
if you have a +1 dagger and succeed at a grapple to do damage it gets the +1 . uas with amf is no different just neither helps on the grapple.
Sorry haven't had too much time...life takes priority.
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.So Disarm attempts are expected to be made using a weapon.
Disarm and Sunder:
Improved Unarmed Strike:Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed
You could strike the hand wielding or haft of the weapon, but someone without unarmed combat wouldn't be proficient at doing this.
Trip is the odd man out in that it doesn't have text that points to the use of weapons, but the Trip special property on many weapons indicates that weapons are commonly used to Trip.
The other combat maneuvers do not contain text that indicates that they are performed with weapons, or indicate that weapons are detrimental.
Bull Rush: Can replace a charge, but having a weapon in hand is generally not going to improve your chances.
Dirty Trick: Variable, and weapon bonus application is up to the GM.
Drag: If it can trip, it can drag, and it has been ruled as such.
Grapple: You grapple with hands, and when you're trying to grab somebody, you're generally not doing damage to them by grabbing them. You can maneuver into a position where you'll be able to damage them, but that comes later. This one even calls out that having a weapon in hand is detrimental to the grapple attempt. Having a body part in a striking posture would generally be likewise detrimental (fist, for example, can't grab).
Overrun: Same idea as a bull rush. Momentum is your weapon, not any weapon in your hand.
Reposition: Can be done with trip weapons.
Steal: Calls out that you need a free hand, so weapons would necessarily impede the attempt.As far as grappling and unarmed attacks not being incidental, when you're attempting to grapple somebody, you can't really attack them. Once you have grappled them, you can cause them damage, yes. But when you're trying to grab hold of somebody, your body (hands especially) had better be able to grip them.
It all comes down to the rule.
Combat Maneuvers
During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
Performing a Combat Maneuver
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.
Combat Maneuvers are complicated, but goes to the principle used. The FAQ blog references this and tries to give reasons. It states the same thing that rules states and tries to make easy rules to follow like that any weapon can be used. I disagree with it but I understand that they don't want millions of questions. To me the rules are simple enough, the mechanic is simple enough.
I believe grapple fits within the rules. I believe grapple is an attack, you make attack rolls. I would rule also that not every weapon can sunder and not every weapon can trip, because these fit the rules better than a blanket weapons can do these combat maneuvers. "Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects." Clearly states what is allowed, but people will question what it all means and I understand why the decision was made to FAQ blog about it. The RAW still says to me that grappling can be done unarmed and is an attack, and this wasn't struck down in the FAQ Blog because it reinstated what the qualification was.
"But when you're trying to grab hold of somebody, your body (hands especially) had better be able to grip them."
You can grapple without arms, even with stuff in your hands, you get a negative on your grapple attack roll. "Combat maneuvers are attack rolls".
For your grapple rationalization it comes down to what a magic enhancement bonus does. Well, what does it do? Does it make your sword sharper? Does it make the hammer what then? It just makes doing something with them better. It's magic. Why does magic fang let an animal bite better does it give bigger jaw muscles, does it make claws sharper? It's a conceptualization that it makes whatever better at doing the things it does, whacking biting or skewering. Why is this different for AotMF enhancement bonus? Do we question why an Ioun Stone can be applied to grapple? Yet, it's far more questionable call logically. Amulet of Mighty Fists can give and enhancement bonus to attacks a monk does with his monk'y parts (elbows, hands, feet etc...).
A grapple check is not made with the intent to deal damage. You're making a grapple check to keep the opponent grappled (or pinned), or to grapple/pin the opponent in the first place. Doing damage in the process is incidental and has nothing to do with the grapple.
If grapple was an action that strictly damage, I might agree with you that it's an attack. Attacks that hit result in damage, that's part of the definition in the book. But grapple doesn't necessarily result in damage just because it connects. Grapple is a maneuver (as quoted in the rules), not an attack, that inflicts a condition on the opponent, much as Dirty Trick can inflict the blinded condition or the Trip maneuver can inflict the Prone condition. The fact that it later allows you to potentially deal damage in addition to the condition is irrelevant because any weapon in your hand doesn't help the attempt and can actually hinder it.
For example, if you're using your arms/hands to pin somebody's arms and effectively immobilize them, what does that have to do with the knee you just slammed into his kidney? The former makes the latter possible, but the latter is otherwise irrelevant and has nothing to do with your ability to accomplish the former.
Mydrrin, care to reply to my other arguments to your point?
Attacks do not have to do damage. Trips make you prone.
Some spells are ranged and touch spells do not do damage. But an attack is needed.
I would generally not allow Dirty Trick a bonus from AotMF, someone would have to show how it might apply and not be incidental.
@myriddin
Do you know what a special exception to the rule is? Its the one that says people doing a disarm with unarmed strikes have a penalty.
Conversly grapple talks about having your hans free. Both the garrot and man catcher have exceptions ro this penalty.
I don't need to decide what the enhancement bonus on my weapon does the game tells me. The base damage for +1 dagger is d4+1 wether I trip on it or stab somone with it. Damage rolls are seperate from attack rolls and don't require an attack roll if a game situation says they don't.
If I grapple and have 18 str and a +1 dagger I get to use tbst dagger as the damage portion because grapple says I can.
Look do ypu understand how a permissive rules system works?
It would be damage done by the grapple, can be non-lethal like a twisted arm, or lethal like a broken arm is how I picture it. The ruling states that grappling is a combat maneuver that is not an unarmed attack and the bonus only goes to unarmed attacks. If that logic makes sense. You are only doing damage = your unarmed strike and not making an unarmed strike. If grappling was an attack then I would say it would apply.If you are doing damage = your UAS, then any modifications to your UAS damage would apply by definition of equality.
Would you say that a 20th level monk reverts to d4+Str damage when grappling? No, because when damaging in a grapple you deal damage equal to your UAS which will be 2d10+Str+misc modifiers for a 20th level monk. There is no indication anywhere that you should keep track of a separate "UAS damage during a grapple." It's the same damage.
But dealing UAS damage does not necessarily require you to make an UAS. See Dragon Roar or the similar Genie Style feats (eg Efreeti Touch) which deal your UAS damage without actually making an UAS.
My understanding of how it works is that you only get damage bonus if it helps you do the maneuver better. If you don't get the bonus with hitting then how can one get it for damaging, in other words if it doesn't apply to hit then how can it apply to damage.
...
How to explain it better: you are twisting an arm, does your amulet make you better at twisting the arm?To me, the grappling rules for damage support the enhancement bonus to the combat maneuver grapple.
The UAS weapon is incidental to the grapple check despite being key to the damage because the damage is incidental to the success of the grapple.
Making a grapple check, even with intent to deal damage, is not just about damaging someone. If you were just damaging the grappled...
The crux of it is whether Unarmed Combat is grappling. Some people contend that grappling is not an attack. When it clearly states it is. I was positing that if grappling is not an attack what would that mean. Grappling damage says you do damage = your unarmed strike, AotMF says that it adds bonuses to unarmed attacks and damage...the only way for grappling damage to get AotMF bonus is if it is an attack. Same for ki strike.
From your post you believe that grappling damage is a strike. Head butt or opportunistic strike. Grappling is the method it happens, why wouldn't grappling get the bonuses?
If someone said grapple was not an attack they are wrong. Its just not an attack used with an unarmed strike.
To be clear if I am grappling the rules not care if I use a dagger or unarmed strike to desl my light wespon damage.
Edited phone induced typo conveyed message poorly.
@myriddin
Do you know what a special exception to the rule is? Its the one that says people doing a disarm with unarmed strikes have a penalty.
Conversly grapple talks about having your hans free. Both the garrot and man catcher have exceptions ro this penalty.
I don't need to decide what the enhancement bonus on my weapon does the game tells me. The base damage for +1 dagger is d4+1 wether I trip on it or stab somone with it. Damage rolls are seperate from attack rolls and don't require an attack roll if a game situation says they don't.
If I grapple and have 18 str and a +1 dagger I get to use tbst dagger as the damage portion because grapple says I can.
Look do ypu understand how a permissive rules system works?
The rules state what makes is allowed. Not sure what your permissive rules system means. We have gone over the rules a few times. You seem to think it means something I don't.
|
|
Attacks do not have to do damage. Trips make you prone.
Indeed. And grapple makes you grappled. Successive grapple checks can allow a variety of additional effects, including damage, but the core function of grapple is to give you the grappled condition.
From your post you believe that grappling damage is a strike. Head butt or opportunistic strike.
Nope, I'm saying that describing damage in grappling as a strike is one way to deal with the flavour explanation for why by RAW the AoMF applies to the grapple damage but not the grapple CMB check. I'm also perfectly happy to say that the activity of jerking a joint lock to break a bone is "close enough" to striking to get the bonus but manipulating the opponent into a joint lock is not "close enough" to striking.
Either way, RAW says that the grapple CMB check is weaponless, but the damage roll is not.
The crux of it is whether Unarmed Combat is grappling. Some people contend that grappling is not an attack. When it clearly states it is. I was positing that if grappling is not an attack what would that mean. Grappling damage says you do damage = your unarmed strike, AotMF says that it adds bonuses to unarmed attacks and damage...the only way for grappling damage to get AotMF bonus is if it is an attack. Same for ki strike.
...
Grappling is the method it happens, why wouldn't grappling get the bonuses?
Seriously, look at Dragon Roar.
"While using Dragon Style, as a standard action you can expend two Stunning Fist attempts to unleash a concussive roar in a 15-foot cone. Creatures caught in the cone take your unarmed strike damage and become shaken for 1d4 rounds."
This is not an UAS. It's not even an attack roll, it's an area effect. It's a shockwave. Yet somehow that shockwave does the same damage as your UAS. Clearly it is possible to deal UAS damage without making an UAS attack roll.
The rules state what makes is allowed. Not sure what your permissive rules system means. We have gone over the rules a few times. You seem to think it means something I don't.@myriddin
Do you know what a special exception to the rule is? Its the one that says people doing a disarm with unarmed strikes have a penalty.
Conversly grapple talks about having your hans free. Both the garrot and man catcher have exceptions ro this penalty.
I don't need to decide what the enhancement bonus on my weapon does the game tells me. The base damage for +1 dagger is d4+1 wether I trip on it or stab somone with it. Damage rolls are seperate from attack rolls and don't require an attack roll if a game situation says they don't.
If I grapple and have 18 str and a +1 dagger I get to use tbst dagger as the damage portion because grapple says I can.
Look do ypu understand how a permissive rules system works?
Did you read my post above with the fruit? It means be Use the game specifically says only 3 maneuvers can be used with weapons you need permission to use grapple with an unarmed strike.
That permission doednt exist. You've been pretty obtuse in ignoring this. You need explicit permission.
Something like tgis feat lets you use unarmed strikes for grappling. The whole game is built on this system.
|
|
Mydrrin, answering your points in order:
IUS doesn't mean that you aren't still unarmed. You are still unarmed, but you are considered armed for purposes of provoking AoOs and dealing lethal vs. nonlethal damage. It doesn't say that you aren't still unarmed, and you are still required to be by the feat. It's Improved Unarmed Strike, not Improved Armed Strike. You'd still take the Disarm penalty.
Not every attack is going to require an attack roll, and not everything that requires an attack roll is defined as an attack. Contrast Combat Maneuvers, which are never defined as an attack, with Touch Spells and Ranged Touch Spells which are explicitly stated to be attacks.
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. 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.
Note the difference in wording. Touch attacks are spells that are specifically called out as attacks. Combat Maneuvers have no such wording, and say that they specifically replace an attack, not that they are one. Later on, it says that weapons or attacks can be used to perform the maneuver, but that's still not the same as saying the maneuver is an attack.
@Mojorat: I'm the one who said it isn't, and the above is why. :)
You believe that Grapple is an attack, and that it should benefit from AoMF as such. That's your interpretation. I personally don't see it that way, and that is my interpretation. I freely admit that it's my interpretation, not necessarily RAW. I have cited my reasons for believing so, however. I believe that not all attack rolls are automatically attacks, the same way not all attacks require attack rolls.
The Devs did have a reason for making the ruling the way they did, and it ties back to their blog post from some time back which has governed their related rulings ever since, this most recent one being one of them. My interpretation, to me, seems to be in keeping with their blog post and ruling, but perhaps not for the reasons that they use.
you forgot to quote the rest of combat maneuvers where it goes on to say "Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."
way to quote the rules in a way that bends them to your liking...very sneaky of you.
now i WILL say that "attack" and "attack roll" might not mean the same thing, its is fair to say that in order to make an "attack roll" you must be making and "attack". not to mention that the CRB uses the two terms interchangeably throughout its many pages. so while you are perfectly capable of making the argument that a combat maneuver is not an attack, that is still your opinion, because the blog post and FAQ do not clarify a combat maneuver as "Not an attack".
The rules state what makes is allowed. Not sure what your permissive rules system means. We have gone over the rules a few times. You seem to think it means something I don't.@myriddin
Do you know what a special exception to the rule is? Its the one that says people doing a disarm with unarmed strikes have a penalty.
Conversly grapple talks about having your hans free. Both the garrot and man catcher have exceptions ro this penalty.
I don't need to decide what the enhancement bonus on my weapon does the game tells me. The base damage for +1 dagger is d4+1 wether I trip on it or stab somone with it. Damage rolls are seperate from attack rolls and don't require an attack roll if a game situation says they don't.
If I grapple and have 18 str and a +1 dagger I get to use tbst dagger as the damage portion because grapple says I can.
Look do ypu understand how a permissive rules system works?
Did you read my post above with the fruit? It means be Use the game specifically says only 3 maneuvers can be used with weapons you need permission to use grapple with an unarmed strike.
That permission doednt exist. You've been pretty obtuse in ignoring this. You need explicit permission.
Something like tgis feat lets you use unarmed strikes for grappling. The whole game is built on this system.
Where does it say in the rules that only 3 maneuvers can be used with weapons?
Where does it say in the rules that only 3 maneuvers can be used with weapons?
in the blog FAQ that has been sited in this threat like 100 times...perhaps you should read it... only trip, sunder, and disarm are used with a "weapon". the argument is how do you make an attack or attack roll without a weapon? you have now completely invalidated everything you have been arguing at because of that statement...way to go...
the argument is how do you make an attack or attack roll without a weapon?The same way you always did. With a d20. :P
yes, but in order to attack in pathfinder you need SOMETHING listed as a weapon, weather it be a type of unarmed attack weapon, an improvised weapon, a manufactured weapon, or a spell. that "thing" is what you make the attack 'WITH'. now, however, they are saying that you are using "nothing" to make an attack, which is not possible by the rules as written. it is quite simple for the developers to solve this whole thing by simply saying that a grapple (just like an Unarmed Strike) is a type of weapon. however, they have not. by doing this, it would not change their current ruling at all because an AoMF does not list the weapon "grapple" as something that can be enchanted by it. i would be quite accepting of this, if they did it, but they haven't. they instead remain firm that a grapple is made with some mystery unknown "thing" that is not as of yet defined within the rules.
Mydrrin, answering your points in order:
IUS doesn't mean that you aren't still unarmed. You are still unarmed, but you are considered armed for purposes of provoking AoOs and dealing lethal vs. nonlethal damage. It doesn't say that you aren't still unarmed, and you are still required to be by the feat. It's Improved Unarmed Strike, not Improved Armed Strike. You'd still take the Disarm penalty.
Improved Unarmed Strike states:
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
It doesn't say only when considering AOO or dealing lethal vs nonlethal.
Continuing:
"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).
It says clearly being armed counts for both offence and defence.
Not every attack is going to require an attack roll, and not everything that requires an attack roll is defined as an attack. Contrast Combat Maneuvers, which are never defined as an attack, with Touch Spells and Ranged Touch Spells which are explicitly stated to be attacks.
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.Note the difference in wording. Touch attacks are spells that are specifically called out as attacks. Combat Maneuvers have no such wording, and say that they specifically replace an attack, not that they are one. Later on, it says that weapons or attacks can be used to perform the maneuver, but that's still not the same as saying the maneuver is an attack.During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. 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's an odd thing to say that it is an attack roll without an attack. That grappling is not opposed? We could use the english language definitions but I don't think it's that much of a valid argument. What would you define as an attack?
See if I can find something in combat maneuvers that says attack instead of just attack roll.
Trip:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.
Sunder:
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally.
Drag:
If your attack is successful, both you and your target are moved 5 feet back, with your opponent occupying your original space and you in the space behind that in a straight line.
Dirty Trick, Disarm, Bull Rush, nearly all of them have this wordage.
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Simplified but defining.
Combat maneuvers seem to be attacks. Some are standard actions and some can be done as part of a full attack. Standard action ones are different but are still attacks in RAW. My thoughts.
|
|
the argument is how do you make an attack or attack roll without a weapon?
Seriously, though, I don't know that that's the argument. It's more a question of what the underlying reason is for why AoMF doesn't apply to grapples when weapon enhancers apply to things like Trip. It's never stated that a weapon is needed to make an attack roll, that's an assumption on your part.
And with regards to my ignoring the next part of the Combat Maneuver section, I didn't. I've read it several times. But my point was that although it uses an attack roll, it's never stated that a combat maneuver is an attack. I did freely admit that it was an interpretation, and I've stated the logic behind that interpretation.
The reason why enhancement modifiers from weapons don't apply to grapple is that weapons were deemed "inconsequential" to maneuvers other than disarm, trip or sunder. Exceptions exist, like the Drag and Reposition maneuvers, or people with the Shield Slam feat, but these are exceptions.
The normal rule is weapon bonuses only apply to Disarm, Trip and Sunder. If the maneuver you make isn't one of those three, then weapon bonuses don't apply.
Remember that in Pathfinder, specific rules trump general rules. The rule for maneuvers is a general rule, the rule for Drag and Reposition is a specific rule for weapons with the Trip property.
I cannot state this enough, as it really is that important. If you do not possess a specific rule allowing you to ass weapon bonuses to your maneuver, then you do not receive said bonus.
in the blog FAQ that has been sited in this threat like 100 times...perhaps you should read it... only trip, sunder, and disarm are used with a "weapon". the argument is how do you make an attack or attack roll without a weapon? you have now completely invalidated everything you have been arguing at because of that statement...way to go...
Where does it say in the rules that only 3 maneuvers can be used with weapons?
He said
"the game specifically says only 3 maneuvers can be used with weapons"The FAQ doesn't say that it says normally 3 maneuvers are the only ones, it spells out that the weapon is incidental. It starts the FAQ by stating :
"“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.” That last sentence implies that some weapons apply their bonuses on combat maneuver checks, and some do not. So how do you know which weapons do? The answer depends on what kind of combat maneuver you’re attempting, and in some cases what kind of weapon you’re using."
It goes on to say all weapons can do the three (which is a simplification so there isn't a million questions to when it applies), and goes on to state why the other shouldn't typically be applied because the weapon is incidental. Both are simplifications. The rule still stands unmodified. The whole argument has been about whether AotMF applies. The RAW clearly states it should IMO, the clarification didn't strike down the rules. The weapon still needs to not be incidental to making the maneuver.
The rules say nothing
The FAQ simplifies when to use on the 3 maneuvers and again states what qualifications the rule has.
It's here: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom&page=3?Combat-Maneuvers-and-W eapon-Special-Features#discuss
I would say it comes down to this.
In my games, you want to make a combat maneuver it needs to be described, I decide if the weapon bonus goes to it. This IMO is RAW.
You want to trip someone with a cestus, describe how you are applying the cestus to improve the maneuver as normally I don't allow it. You want to dirty trick with a dagger? You use the reflection of the sun to blind them. Sure creative, I would allow it. You want to dirty trick with a sword, "cause I cut their eyes out" nope.
The rules state it is a judgement decision.
Even the FAQ goes to talk about this.
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.
Sean Renolds said later in the FAQ blog:
Question: 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: I'd file that under "the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers."
The rules clearly state when to apply them, a judgement is made to whether they are applicable or not. Maybe the reflective dagger bonus is generous in why the bonus makes it "shinier", but I tend to be generous with creativity.
To me Unarmed Attacks and Grapple fit the RAW rules for when it applies and I will argue it should apply to any GM who contemplates it.
Thanks for the answer, PDT.
@ Mydrrin and Shimesen:
You use your hands and feet when you climb and swim that don’t mean Amulet of Mighty Fists grant you a bonus on these checks.
I would say it comes down to this.
In my games, you want to make a combat maneuver it needs to be described, I decide if the weapon bonus goes to it. This IMO is RAW.
You want to trip someone with a cestus, describe how you are applying the cestus to improve the maneuver as normally I don't allow it. You want to dirty trick with a dagger? You use the reflection of the sun to blind them. Sure creative, I would allow it. You want to dirty trick with a sword, "cause I cut their eyes out" nope.
The rules state it is a judgement decision.
Even the FAQ goes to talk about this.
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.
Sean Renolds said later in the FAQ blog:
Question: 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: I'd file that under "the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers."
The rules clearly state when to apply them, a judgement is made to whether they are applicable or not. Maybe the reflective dagger bonus is generous in why the bonus makes it "shinier", but I tend to be generous with creativity.
To me Unarmed Attacks and Grapple fit the RAW rules for when it applies and I will argue it should apply to any GM who contemplates it.
sigh ive repeated this adnausium but your not gettg it. the faq says only three maneuvers are normally used with weapons. trip sunder disarm. do you grasp that anything else needs permission? it says normly because exceptiins exist.
but honestly at this point im thinking you dont get what a perissiin based system is. ill spell it out.pf explicitly gives permissikn to use weapons with those three maneuvers.
now here is the next part.
find me a single feat or ability that explicigly says unsrmed strikes or attacks can be used with a grapple.
it doesnt exist there is no raw in your statement. its a perfectly fine house rule.
Thanks for the answer, PDT.
@ Mydrrin and Shimesen:
You use your hands and feet when you climb and swim that don’t mean Amulet of Mighty Fists grant you a bonus on these checks.
Not sure your comment. It specifically states in AotMF:
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks".
Grappling is an attack.
Combat Maneuvers states: 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.
This is the discussion.
To answer your question. No, I don't think it should apply. Does it say in swim or climb to use the applicable enhancement bonus to it?
I would say it comes down to this.
In my games, you want to make a combat maneuver it needs to be described, I decide if the weapon bonus goes to it. This IMO is RAW.
You want to trip someone with a cestus, describe how you are applying the cestus to improve the maneuver as normally I don't allow it. You want to dirty trick with a dagger? You use the reflection of the sun to blind them. Sure creative, I would allow it. You want to dirty trick with a sword, "cause I cut their eyes out" nope.
The rules state it is a judgement decision.
Even the FAQ goes to talk about this.
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.
Sean Renolds said later in the FAQ blog:
Question: 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: I'd file that under "the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers."
The rules clearly state when to apply them, a judgement is made to whether they are applicable or not. Maybe the reflective dagger bonus is generous in why the bonus makes it "shinier", but I tend to be generous with creativity.
To me Unarmed Attacks and Grapple fit the RAW rules for when it applies and I will argue it should apply to any GM who contemplates it.
sigh ive repeated this adnausium but your not gettg it. the faq says only three maneuvers are normally used with weapons. trip sunder disarm. do you grasp that anything else needs permission? it says normly because exceptiins exist.
but honestly at this point im thinking you dont get what a perissiin based system is. ill spell it out.pf explicitly gives permissikn to use weapons with those three maneuvers.
now here is the next part....
Yes, I keep trying to ask where does it say in THE RULES that specifically you can only do certain combat maneuvers an not others.
It DOES specifically says the GM to make a judgement call in whether it is incidental to the maneuver or not.
These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
Maneuvers are more complicated than just bashing someone.
During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
It is a flexible system, something with judgement calls.
Uhh the faq that has been linked to a hundred times?
Actually here is a blog post [ur=lhttp://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom]link[/url]
I don't know how much has made it to new printings as my crb is first printing and parts are out of date now. Essentially the only maneuvers done with weapons are those that can be done in place of an attack. That blog explains everything well and as jiggy said this ddbate happened like 21/2 years ago.
The default rules are that unarmed strikes are not utilized when making a grapple. However, they left it open for GMs to decide that bonuses to unarmed strikes could apply to grapple checks if the GMs so choose.
So, baseline (RAW) is that it's not applicable. There is room for GM discretion to apply it if the GM thinks it is fitting and appropriate.
That the Developers think it prudent to allow GMs to choose to allow UAS bonuses to apply to grapple does not mean that the standard position is to allow UAS bonuses to apply to grapple.
Uhh the faq that has been linked to a hundred times?
Actually here is a blog post link
I don't know how much has made it to new printings as my crb is first printing and parts are out of date now. Essentially the only maneuvers done with weapons are those that can be done in place of an attack. That blog explains everything well and as jiggy said this ddbate happened like 21/2 years ago.
fixed that link for you
Thanks for the answer, PDT.
@ Mydrrin and Shimesen:
You use your hands and feet when you climb and swim that don’t mean Amulet of Mighty Fists grant you a bonus on these checks.Not sure your comment. It specifically states in AotMF:
"This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks".
Grappling is an attack.
Combat Maneuvers states: 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.
This is the discussion.
To answer your question. No, I don't think it should apply. Does it say in swim or climb to use the applicable enhancement bonus to it?
The thing is it is not an attack. It's a Combat Maneuver and the Devs now have explained that grapple is not an attack, so why keep arguing?
Uhh the faq that has been linked to a hundred times?
Actually here is a blog post [ur=lhttp://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom]link[/url]
I don't know how much has made it to new printings as my crb is first printing and parts are out of date now. Essentially the only maneuvers done with weapons are those that can be done in place of an attack. That blog explains everything well and as jiggy said this ddbate happened like 21/2 years ago.
Ummm... so where in the rules does it state this? The FAQ blog tried to simplify it. It still links the rule and states the the qualification for this. It did not change the rule but tried to explain it, and they simplified it so fewer arguments. The rule is still the same, and it is a judgement call to where it is incidental. Or as the rule state: "These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is it is not an attack. It's a Combat Maneuver and the Devs now have explained that grapple is not an attack, so why keep arguing?
So...this is what confuses me. The rules.
So lets say that combat maneuvers are not attacks. What does that mean? The whole writings of the combat maneuvers section is full of attack language. So what to make of it.
The rules are still the rules. Grapple are a subset of combat maneuvers and combat maneuvers are a subset of attacks.
So does the ruling apply to grapple or to all combat maneuvers? So all the rules have to be rewritten? Because it didn't say it didn't apply because it is a grapple but because it is a combat maneuver.