Does enhancement bonus to natural / unarmed attacks add attack bonus to touch attacks.

[Adrian Carlstedt]

So, I am playing a Dragon Diciple that wears an amulet of mighty strikes to aid her claws and fangs. If I want to make a melee touch attack, like, say, a shocking grasp, do I get the enhancement bonus from the amulet to the attack roll for my touch attack?

[claudekennilol]

No, a touch attack is neither an unarmed attack nor a natural attack so it doesn't apply. Remember an unarmed attack is a specific thing, so a touch attack is specifically not an unarmed attack.

[Talonhawke]

As Claude said no. However if you cast and hold the charge you can deliver it with a claw on the next round and gain the bonus. Also I believe a Magus could do the same thing with spell strike.

[Adrian Carlstedt]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[kestral287]

Combat, Unarmed Attacks section:

Quote:

"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).

Bolding mine. This clearly labels the touch attack as an unarmed attack, which qualifies it for the Amulet.

[Talonhawke]

This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

If your using a spell it not an attack with the unarmed attack.
Also your quoting from rules on when you provoke which has no bearing on when bonuses apply.

[kestral287]

The quote is actually just about whether or not a given unarmed attack is armed, not about when they're provoking (which is more or less an offshoot of armed/unarmed)-- but listing touch spells there clearly labels them as unarmed, does it not?

*Shrug* How much of the Amulet applies is a different question, of course. The to-hit probably should, but since the actual touch does no damage, damage bonuses there would be... weird.

[TorresGlitch]

Kestral, read closer. The ruletext you've quoted concerns 'WHEN' a character is considered 'armed'. People who are armed can make AoOs and don't provoke when they attack. The text you're quoting has nothing at all to do with enhancement bonuses.
Holding a melee weapon = Armed
Having a natural attack = Armed
Having Improved Unarmed Strike = Armed
Holding a Touch Spell = Armed
--------------

Enhancement bonuses to weapons boosts the weapons.
Enhancement bonuses to a natural attack boosts that natural attack.
Enhancement bonuses to an Impr.U.Strike boosts the Impr.U.Strike.
Enhancement bonuses to Touch attacks boosts touch attacks.

En enhancement bonus only applies to it's respective group (and in most cases that specific attack (ex 'Dagger').
There *might (since there has been a debate on it) be an exception on Touch Attacks for Improved Unarmed Strike and natural weapons enhancement bonus (to hit) when delivering that Touch attack as a touch attack. I know it doesn't apply to damage. And I doubt it applies to to-hit either, since there are items that specifically boosts Touch Attacks.

Special:
If you use a natural attack or unarmed strike that would allow you to deliver a Touch spell you are holding will benefit from it's specific enhancement-bonus (Natural attacks uses natural attacks bonuses, unarmed uses Impr.Unarmed Strike bonuses.) The touch spell autohits (it is an added effect on top of the attack you used) if that natural attack or unarmed strike hit.

Feats and abilities can add to and alter these rules.

[kestral287]

It's not the armed that I'm looking at. It's the unarmed.

That touch spells are armed is easy. But based on that section, they're armed unarmed attacks.

[graystone]

kestral287 wrote:

It's not the armed that I'm looking at. It's the unarmed.

That touch spells are armed is easy. But based on that section, they're armed unarmed attacks.

Yep, the section is called "Armed" Unarmed Attacks. So if the reason they threaten is that it's an "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, it makes it seem like it's a kind od Unarmed Attack. If that's not what they meant, this is rule #5001 that's really poorly written.

[kestral287]

Graystone is more with it than I am today, and explained my point better.

*Shrug* Wouldn't be the first time that section is weird. For example: RAW, Gauntlets (not Spiked, regular) are under the "unarmed attacks" listing and as such, are also modified by an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

[TorresGlitch]

Kestral287 wrote:

"That touch spells are armed is easy. But based on that section, they're armed unarmed attacks."

An "unarmed attack" deals 1d2 (/1d3) damage and provokes an attack of opportunity.

If you wonder why the text calls it 'armed unarmed attack', it's because the 'unarmed attack' has been equipped with a bonus that makes it 'armed'. And they list the three methods of how you make an 'unarmed attack' into an 'armed unarmed attack' - Though they are called 'Natural' attacks, 'IUS' attacks or 'held charge' attacks instead of 'armed unarmed attacks'.

Edit: Ninjad