Combat Maneuvers and Weapon Special Features

While providing no actual benefit to trying to trip someone.

Like I said, I'd be on board for changing the trip property to also give a +2 on trip combat maneuver checks. We just have to get Jason to agree to it. :)

Alright, I'm lost.

Trip isn't being clarified, its being outright changed now?

Yes and no.
It`s definitely being clarified: You don`t need to worry about making inferences from the current wording of the Trip Weapon Quality, Trip works exactly like the Combat chapter says: in place of an (any) attack, and all weapon-specific bonuses apply to the CMB check made using the weapon. That doesn`t involve any change in the rules.

There`s some extraneous issues apart from that (+ that the exact benefits of Trip Weapons may be updated in the future), but the core issue of how Trip works was clarified, removing the controvery between people who applied the RAW of the Combat Chapter and those who `read into` the Equipment Chapter.

Fozbek wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Fozbek wrote:

The counter-question to that then becomes, "well wait a minute -- how exactly is a staff/spear/greatsword less useful for tripping people than a nunchuck?" since you seem to be arguing that only trip weapons should be able to trip.

Well you know -- having the trip property and it saying, "this weapon may be used to trip" would imply to me: the weapon is useful for tripping -- not dragging and repositioning.

And now the trip property also says it works for drag and reposition.

While providing no actual benefit to trying to trip someone.

The fact that you don't like its benefit doesn't erase its existence.

Abraham spalding wrote:

While providing no actual benefit to trying to trip someone.

Like I said, I'd be on board for changing the trip property to also give a +2 on trip combat maneuver checks. We just have to get Jason to agree to it. :)

I can favorite that.

The fact that you don't like its benefit doesn't erase its existence.

Benefit? Hardly -- if you fail by 10 or more I mean really who can do that? What outlandish challenge rating do you need to face to manage to fail by 10 or more? It takes trying to fail that hard on a trip attempt, and even then the 'benefit' is that you succeed on disarming yourself -- congratulations you are now less of a threat that you were before because you do not have your weapon.

That's a real great 'benefit' there.

Picking your poison isn't a benefit if you still die from drinking a poison.

Yes and no.

It`s definitely being clarified: You don`t need to worry about making inferences from the current wording of the Trip Weapon Quality, Trip works exactly like the Combat chapter says: in place of an (any) attack, and all weapon-specific bonuses apply to the CMB check made using the weapon. That doesn`t involve any change in the rules.

Right, but now you can trip with anything with the weapons bonus. I don't think I'd even seen that interpretation over several arguments about it with the old faq.

Maybe you didn`t consider it, I know that I certainly never considered it possible that one could read the RAW as suggesting that one specific type of attack made with (weapon) would not be eligible for attack bonuses attached to attacking with (weapon). There just was never any such wording, at least until SKR`s previous (short-lived) FAQ that barred Enhancement and other bonuses from non-Trip Weapons.

In the bad old days before the FAQ :-) when this was originally discussed, I never remember anybody discussing not applying weapon-specific bonuses, either pro or con... It just was never considered (and thus I always defaulted to the general rules, e.g. attack with weapon, weapon bonuses apply) as it wasn`t really relevant to how one interprets the relvance of the Combat Chapter RAW vs. Potential Interpretation of Equipment Chapter (unless one wants to consider a whole flurry of other house-rules, such as: Trip somebody with Quarterstaff, and they must yell out `Knave!`).

So the current rules (per this Blog) re: Trip is that, as the rules have always said it is made `in place of an attack` (i.e. using a weapon, e.g. Longspear), and as there is nothing to the contrary, when you make an attack with X weapon (no matter `normal` attack, sunder, trip, etc) then all bonuses appropriate for X weapon apply.

The rest is tangential (though important) issues or `hypothetical` future changes to Trip Weapon Quality.

Re: inplausible combinations, hopefully if the people you play with are mature, they just won`t try and Bullrush Strike enemies with a Whip, or Trip them with Barbazu Beards, etc... :-)

To quandary

I had always read the trip special quality.

Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped.

To mean that you couldn't trip with non trip weapons, and that unarmed had simply been forgotten as a "weapon". A few postings from james jacobs bore that out.

A: (James Jacobs 2/17/10) When you want to trip a foe, you don't normally use a weapon. Similarly, you don't normally use a weapon to bull rush, grapple, or overrun a foe. You just lash out with a leg sweep or whatever and try to trip the foe. Doing so is an attack, but that doesn't mean you need a weapon to make the attempt. Now... SOME weapons (not all) allow you to use the weapon to trip a foe, thus giving you a slight advantage since if you mess up the trip attempt, you can just drop the weapon to "counter" the trip that comes back at you. [Source]

A: (James Jacobs 3/5/10) If a weapon doesn't have the trip special quality listed on the chart of weapons on pages 142-143, you can't use it to trip foes. Whether or not we should have given this quality to things like spears or quarterstaffs or nets is a different topic-in order to trip a foe with a weapon, the weapon HAS to have the trip special quality. As to why we didn't give more weapons this quality, it all has to do with the way we decided to balance the rules for each weapon. Giving a weapon the trip special quality makes it better, which means it either has to become more expensive or less effective in other areas. [Source]

I had always considered someone with improved trip "armed" for the purposes of making sweep attack with their foot at people going past them.

Maybe you didn`t consider it, I know that I certainly never considered it possible that one could read the RAW as suggesting that one specific type of attack made with (weapon) would not be eligible for attack bonuses attached to attacking with (weapon). There just was never any such wording, at least until SKR`s previous (short-lived) FAQ that barred Enhancement and other bonuses from non-Trip Weapons.

The idea of making a trip attack with a non trip weapon but not getting any bonuses didn't occur to me either until a later FAQ, which just seemed like flavor text on top for making the trip attack unarmed without giving a tripper an unarmed threat area around them (stepping on improved unarmed strikes toes)

So the current rules (per this Blog) re: Trip is that, as the rules have always said it is made `in place of an attack` (i.e. using a weapon, e.g. Longspear), and as there is nothing to the contrary, when you make an attack with X weapon (no matter `normal` attack, sunder, trip, etc) then all bonuses appropriate for X weapon apply.

And you've always been able to trip attack with anything. And peter parker was never married.

Re: inplausible combinations, hopefully if the people you play with are mature, they just won`t try and Bullrush Strike enemies with a Whip, or Trip them with Barbazu Beards, etc... :-)

Hello, and welcome to the forums :k

Fozbek wrote:

The fact that you don't like its benefit doesn't erase its existence.

Benefit? Hardly -- if you fail by 10 or more I mean really who can do that? What outlandish challenge rating do you need to face to manage to fail by 10 or more? It takes trying to fail that hard on a trip attempt, and even then the 'benefit' is that you succeed on disarming yourself -- congratulations you are now less of a threat that you were before because you do not have your weapon.

That's a real great 'benefit' there.

Picking your poison isn't a benefit if you still die from drinking a poison.

I often wondered if rolling a 1 on a trip attempt (an auto failure by the attack roll rule), should count as failing by 10 or more.

If the 1 plus attack bonuses doesn´t actually fail by 10 or more (but only fails because 1 is auto-fail) then I don´t think it´s fair to say that it fails by 10 or more (which is expressly based on failing a DC by 10+, which wasn´t the case). I DO allow for a house-rule where you ´confirm the failure´ and if the 2nd roll is also a 1, then you are considered to fail by 10+... In most cases it doesn´t really matter, so the Confirm Roll is never needed, but this allows for more usages of the Fail by 10+ rule.

I think people who think this never comes up are #1 only considering the case of decently optimized PCs vs. normal range CR opponents (i.e. not considering enemies failing by 10+) which seems to be the huge focus of posters to these boards who are focused on ´char op´ style analysis,
and #2 not considering later iterative attacks, not to mention #3 not considering cases where big attack penalties are in place or big AC bonuses are in place. All of those cases make the Fail by 10 rule relevant, even if it isn´t as relevant for most normal CR range encounters that decently optimized PCs will face (from the PCs perspective).

Very nice, tnks :)

One of my players is a rgr / wizard (transmutation) and sometimes he uses telekinetic fist to make some manouvers, if i think it's legit i let him use int modifier instead of str.

The general rule for combat maneuvers is:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.

Good. I always wondered if you could add a fighter's weapon training to CMB. Same goes for attack bonus from bardic performance

Can we get an answer on haste and unarmed strike or natural attacks? BY RAW haste don't affect unarmed strike or natural attacks. The answer is of interest if:
- you play an monk, druid or ranger or any class using polymorph effects
or
- if you have an animal companion, mount, familiar, etc.
or
- if you use a lot of summons (druid, cleric, wizard, Summoner).

(BTW, this also means if you're using a finesse weapon to make a disarm, sunder, or trip, you should use your Dex instead of Str when calculating your CMB for the check.)

This new rule make Weapon Finesse acts as the Agile Maneuvers, right?

Like I said, I'd be on board for changing the trip property to also give a +2 on trip combat maneuver checks. We just have to get Jason to agree to it. :)

At last ! Great :-)

BTW, I like Pathfinders new game reference document.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

While providing no actual benefit to trying to trip someone.

Like I said, I'd be on board for changing the trip property to also give a +2 on trip combat maneuver checks. We just have to get Jason to agree to it. :)

I can favorite that.

+1

Abraham spalding wrote:

Fozbek wrote:

The fact that you don't like its benefit doesn't erase its existence.

Benefit? Hardly -- if you fail by 10 or more I mean really who can do that? What outlandish challenge rating do you need to face to manage to fail by 10 or more? It takes trying to fail that hard on a trip attempt, and even then the 'benefit' is that you succeed on disarming yourself -- congratulations you are now less of a threat that you were before because you do not have your weapon.

That's a real great 'benefit' there.

Picking your poison isn't a benefit if you still die from drinking a poison.

I often wondered if rolling a 1 on a trip attempt (an auto failure by the attack roll rule), should count as failing by 10 or more.

Good question.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The general rule for combat maneuvers is:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.

Good. I always wondered if you could add a fighter's weapon training to CMB. Same goes for attack bonus from bardic performance

Er, you do realize that bit was already in the rules to begin with, right? If you read the section on combat maneuvers in the Combat chapter of the core rules, it has that paragraph word for word. SKR was just reminding everyone.

edit_
er, that was my point ;-)
Didn't get it at first, but with the reminder I do.

Can we get an answer on haste and unarmed strike or natural attacks? BY RAW haste don't affect unarmed strike or natural attacks.

I already have a note to fix that in the next printing of the Core Rulebook; it shouldn't be limited to manufactured weapons (and the "with any weapon he is holding" is redundant, as if you'd be making an attack with someone else's weapon...).

This new rule make Weapon Finesse acts as the Agile Maneuvers, right?

Yes, at least for the use-your-weapon combat maneuvers: disarm, sunder, trip. For all the other maneuvers, Weapon Finesse doesn't apply, so Agile Maneuvers is still an option. I'm going to add a FAQ about this.

Zark wrote:

Can we get an answer on haste and unarmed strike or natural attacks? BY RAW haste don't affect unarmed strike or natural attacks.

I already have a note to fix that in the next printing of the Core Rulebook; it shouldn't be limited to manufactured weapons (and the "with any weapon he is holding" is redundant, as if you'd be making an attack with someone else's weapon...).

Zark wrote:

This new rule make Weapon Finesse acts as the Agile Maneuvers, right?

Yes, at least for the use-your-weapon combat maneuvers: disarm, sunder, trip. For all the other maneuvers, Weapon Finesse doesn't apply, so Agile Maneuvers is still an option. I'm going to add a FAQ about this.

Thank you Sean for the answer. :-)

Zark wrote:

This new rule make Weapon Finesse acts as the Agile Maneuvers, right?

Yes, at least for the use-your-weapon combat maneuvers: disarm, sunder, trip. For all the other maneuvers, Weapon Finesse doesn't apply, so Agile Maneuvers is still an option. I'm going to add a FAQ about this.

Thanks for the FAQ!

So to follow up, I think the remaining questions/issues are these:

#1:

Like I said, I'd be on board for changing the trip property to also give a +2 on trip combat maneuver checks. We just have to get Jason to agree to it.

I guess you guys are still deliberating on that one?

#2:

Belafon wrote:

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?

I'm gonna confer with Jason before I post an official answer about this one.

Still consulting on that one too, I presume.

#3: If you have Tripping Strike and attempt to disarm someone, can you "crit" the disarm attempt and thereby trigger your Tripping Strike?

Those are the main ones I remember/could find. I apologize if I missed any (or if I'm pestering); I just wanted to assemble remaining questions into one place for convenience.

Btw, shouldn't rolling a natural 1 count as failing by 10 or more?

Why? I mean, I could see some drama appeal for adding that to your home game, but there's no way to extrapolate it from the actual rules. I'm not sure how people can interpret "10 or more" to mean "10 or more, or roll a natural 1". Rolling a natural 1 doesn't cause your modifiers to not apply to the roll.

#1:

SKR wrote:

Like I said, I'd be on board for changing the trip property to also give a +2 on trip combat maneuver checks. We just have to get Jason to agree to it.

I guess you guys are still deliberating on that one?

Jason feels that "you can't trip me in return" is a significant benefit for the trip weapon, even though it doesn't make your trip attempts any more successful, and even though the guy specialized in tripping probably isn't going to ever fail by 10 or more and need that ability.

Belafon wrote:

#2 So... My monk has Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1. Does this mean he gets to add those two bonuses to other Combat Maneuvers such as Grapple?

Still consulting on that one too, I presume.

Yes.

#3: If you have Tripping Strike and attempt to disarm someone, can you "crit" the disarm attempt and thereby trigger your Tripping Strike?

Combat maneuvers don't have threat ranges and can't critically hit.

Does rolling a 1 on the combat maneuver check automatically count as failing by 10 or more?

No.

Thanks for all the info, Sean! Er, Mr. Reynolds. Or whatever you'd prefer I call you. :)

Jiggy wrote:

#3: If you have Tripping Strike and attempt to disarm someone, can you "crit" the disarm attempt and thereby trigger your Tripping Strike?

Combat maneuvers don't have threat ranges and can't critically hit.

That's what I thought. People try to squeeze waaaaaaay too much mileage out of that whole "maneuvers are attack rolls, therefore X" argument.

someone wrote:

Does rolling a 1 on the combat maneuver check automatically count as failing by 10 or more?

No.

Listed.

Great. Now there will be even less variety in weapons...

Great. Now there will be even less variety in weapons...

Yeah, I'm feeling a little bummed that my level 5 PFS fighter has Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Fighter Weapon Training all invested in flails. Now suddenly someone can put all that in, say, friggin' greatswords and be every bit as competent in tripping as I am, but dealing 2d6+10 damage instead of 1d8+8 with their normal attacks.

And this is my 14 INT fighter who ought to know the best tactics in combat.

Jason feels that "you can't trip me in return" is a significant benefit for the trip weapon, even though it doesn't make your trip attempts any more successful, and even though the guy specialized in tripping probably isn't going to ever fail by 10 or more and need that ability.

Significant benefit to who? Kobolds?

It was ok when the other person got a roll to trip in return: they could always get lucky. I'mjust trying to think of a scenario where this would come up for someone likely to be using a tripping polearm.

Yeah, I'm feeling a little bummed that my level 5 PFS fighter has Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Fighter Weapon Training all invested in flails. Now suddenly someone can put all that in, say, friggin' greatswords and be every bit as competent in tripping as I am, but dealing 2d6+10 damage instead of 1d8+8 with their normal attacks.

And this is my 14 INT fighter who ought to know the best tactics in combat.

Ouch. Can you swap them out at all in pathfinder society? The rules for fighter swapping out their feats are waaay to slow to help. Otherwise i suggest checking the arms and equipment guides for BBQ sauce, learning draconic and putting a rank in perform "insults"

I suppose you could always respond with the proverbial torches and pitchforks. They're trip weapons now...

It was ok when the other person got a roll to trip in return: they could always get lucky.

Actually, they don't trip you in return when you fail by 10 or more: you're simply "knocked prone" with no action on their part. Of course, unless Cledwyn (my fighter) is trying to trip a high-level quadruped, he can't fail by 10 or more. At level 5, he has a +14 to trip, meaning his minimum roll is 15, so to epic-fail the target would have to have a CMD of 25+ against trips. Even against a 7th-level fighter with 18STR and 14DEX, that's impossible unless he's invested resources in anti-trip.

Can you swap them out at all in pathfinder society?

Nope.

Jiggy wrote:

#1:

SKR wrote:

Like I said, I'd be on board for changing the trip property to also give a +2 on trip combat maneuver checks. We just have to get Jason to agree to it.

I guess you guys are still deliberating on that one?

Jason feels that "you can't trip me in return" is a significant benefit for the trip weapon, even though it doesn't make your trip attempts any more successful, and even though the guy specialized in tripping probably isn't going to ever fail by 10 or more and need that ability.

So being prone is worse than not having a weapon? This isn't 'you can't trip me in return' this is 'I can let you disarm me in return' -- the two are not the same. If the trip feature was 'you can't trip me if I fail horribly and that's that' then I might be good with it -- instead it is 'I can choose to be disarmed instead of prone'. I would have to try extremely hard to think of a situation I would rather not have a weapon than be prone.

So being prone is worse than not having a weapon? This isn't 'you can't trip me in return' this is 'I can let you disarm me in return' -- the two are not the same. If the trip feature was 'you can't trip me if I fail horribly and that's that' then I might be good with it -- instead it is 'I can choose to be disarmed instead of prone'. I would have to try extremely hard to think of a situation I would rather not have a weapon than be prone.

1) Why the frick don't you have a backup weapon? It's not like drawing it provokes AoO's or anything.

2) I do think that the trip property is now (due to the change in the rules surrounding it) underpowered. And I'll wager a guess from the wording of SKR's statement that he agrees. ;)

Of course, unless Cledwyn (my fighter) is trying to trip a high-level quadruped, he can't fail by 10 or more.

Oh? Really? I think you over-estimate yourself.

Abraham spalding wrote:

So being prone is worse than not having a weapon? This isn't 'you can't trip me in return' this is 'I can let you disarm me in return' -- the two are not the same. If the trip feature was 'you can't trip me if I fail horribly and that's that' then I might be good with it -- instead it is 'I can choose to be disarmed instead of prone'. I would have to try extremely hard to think of a situation I would rather not have a weapon than be prone.

1) Why the frick don't you have a backup weapon? It's not like drawing it provokes AoO's or anything.

2) I do think that the trip property is now (due to the change in the rules surrounding it) underpowered. And I'll wager a guess from the wording of SKR's statement that he agrees. ;)

Yes a back up weapon -- takes a move action (possibly a free action) but you know what? A back up weapon is just that -- besides: simply performing a tactic you are good at shouldn't put you at risk for losing your weapon.

I mean it's not like the wolf (or any other of a multitude of monsters) gets knocked prone when it attempts to trip me and fails by 10 or more, and I have a weapon that is specifically designed to help me trip people and it is no more useful than a weapon that isn't designed for tripping -- instead it turns me into a butterfinger.

Actually scratch all of that -- why does failing by 10 or more cause you any problem anyways? It's not like failing by 10 or more on an attack causes you to take damage, or your item to take damage when sundering. Failing by 10 or more when grappling doesn't cause you to tie yourself in knots -- so why should trip cause you issues simply for failing?

1) Why the frick don't you have a backup weapon? It's not like drawing it provokes AoO's or anything.

Do you have a back up weapon that you

1) have specialization in
2) Have your full weapon training in
3) have weapon focus for
4) has as many magical pluses as the weapon you were disarmed by being tripped.
5) you can carry? I realize there aren't rules for this sort of thing, but having a 12 foot long longspear strapped to your back isn't the sort of thing i allow.

2) I do think that the trip property is now (due to the change in the rules surrounding it) underpowered. And I'll wager a guess from the wording of SKR's statement that he agrees. ;)

-Wimpy wimpy wimpy. ABraham spaulding is right though, the "advantage" of the trip weapon is even LESS than being immune to being counter tripped because you're disarmed instead.

Actually scratch all of that -- why does failing by 10 or more cause you any problem anyways? It's not like failing by 10 or more on an attack causes you to take damage, or your item to take damage when sundering. Failing by 10 or more when grappling doesn't cause you to tie yourself in knots -- so why should trip cause you issues simply for failing?

Probably because the rules were different when that rule was written. It's only recently become the case that your non-trip weapon mattered during your trip attempt. Thus, the idea that you fall prone if you epic-fail was probably the image of trying to leg-sweep someone but they don't move, so your momentum knocks you on your arse instead. Then if you're using a trip weapon, it wraps/hooks around their ankle but again they don't move, so you lose your grip on the weapon.

But now that trip attempts are inherently weapon-based that doesn't make any sense at all anymore.

Jiggy wrote:

Of course, unless Cledwyn (my fighter) is trying to trip a high-level quadruped, he can't fail by 10 or more.

Oh? Really? I think you over-estimate yourself.

Sheesh. My statement wasn't a comprehensive assessment of the entire Bestiary. Merely a brief, general statement about his ability to trip "ordinary" targets.

Oh, and "ordinary" includes "level-appropriate". CR 8 monsters are the kind of thing I was implying I couldn't trip with my level 5 fighter. You took my statement to be waaaaaay more literal than was reasonable.

- why does failing by 10 or more cause you any problem anyways?

Because in the 3.5 rules if you failed to trip your opponent they got a roll to try to trip you. So the combat round would go

Ogre moves past the fighter!

Fighter attempts to trip ogre.

Fighter rolls

Fighter fails

Ogre rolles

Ogre fails

ermm.. where were we?

Exactly -- it doesn't fit any more -- so why keep it.

Hence why some of us (a growing number, I think) want the Trip weapon property to grant a +2 just like the Disarm property does.

Hence why some of us (a growing number, I think) want the Trip weapon property to grant a +2 just like the Disarm property does.

Count me in

I actually disagree with Jason. *shrug*

I actually disagree with Jason. *shrug*

Thought so.

Tell him he's making my PFS fighter cry. Also, tell him said fighter has max ranks in Profession (baking) and would happily bake him some in-game cookies if he'd consent to adding in that +2 on Trip Weapons. :D

You could either add +2 to trip attempts with Trip weapons (most asked feature it seems, count me in), or make them as so you don't get tripped back if you fail your attempt.
You could even then reduce the fail step so that failing a trip attempt by 5 or more instead of 10 makes you prone. So, trip weapons would be the only ones involving NO risk with a trip attempt... not including potential AoO for no training in the trip maneuver.
The greatsword fighter would take a big risk using his weapon to trip, while the flail fighter could simply not be tripped back.

You could either add +2 to trip attempts with Trip weapons (most asked feature it seems, count me in), or make them as so you don't get tripped back if you fail your attempt.

You could even then reduce the fail step so that failing a trip attempt by 5 or more instead of 10 makes you prone. So, trip weapons would be the only ones involving NO risk with a trip attempt... not including potential AoO for no training in the trip maneuver.
The greatsword fighter would take a big risk using his weapon to trip, while the flail fighter could simply not be tripped back.

You could do that, but that's a lot messier than going with the already-has-a-precedent-with-disarm +2 bonus.

Combat maneuvers don't have threat ranges and can't critically hit.

Could you explain this one? Is this future Errata you`re planning or what?

CMBs are clearly stated to be attack rolls. Attacks roll Crit, and the threat range changes depends on the weapon you`re using.
So why doesn`t that apply to CMB`s which are attack rolls and which may also use weapons... ???
AFAIK, several other areas of the CMB rules depend on them in fact being attack rolls, and there`s nothing specifying otherwise in this area AFAIK.

What IS the problem, with say a Knockback Critting, or a Grapple Maintain (Damage option), or a Sunder?
(in that case the object perhaps should be immune to Crit damage, but with Feats extra damage transfers to the wearer)

IMHO, part of the problem here is that the Core rules don`t have a clear term to indicate `normal damage/`weapon` attack` as distinct from any attack roll.

------------------------------

BTW, it never got cleared up: besides the big 3 weapon-delivered maneuvers (+Drag/Reposition sometimes)
Should the general principle be understood as if ANY maneuver is delivered via a `normal` (weapon) attack (incl. UAS, Nat Weapons, etc),
that said maneuver benefits from weapon bonuses? And that would include all of the following:
tentacle/etc: grab, anything: knockback/bullrush, anything crit:bullrush strike...?

Also:
Grapple/Over-Run/Bull-Rush re: relationship to Magic Fang/Mighty Fists, Weapon Training Groups, and deliverability via UAS?

What other Maneuvers can you take Weapon Focus in?

`Stacking` (or not) of Weapon Focus when using Weapon Delivered Maneuvers which also have their own Weapon Focus?
Grapple is explicit in Core Rules, and applies to Mancatcher and maybe a few other weapons,
plus any special weapon-attack Grapple abilities (Maneuver Monk Flurry?).

Could you explain this one? Is this future Errata you`re planning or what?

Using just the rules in the Core Rulebook, what is the effect if you "crit" a combat maneuver roll? There's no discussion of it at all. It mentions 20 autosucceeding and 1 autofailing, but never says that it has a threat range, whether or not you need to confirm a critical threat with a combat maneuver, or what happens if you do manage to crit with one. There's nothing in the Core Rulebook, other than it's called an attack roll (which lets you know that bonuses from spells that affect attack rolls apply to combat maneuver rolls), that indicates you can crit with a combat maneuver, or that rolling a critical threat (which is 20 for all attacks unless otherwise specified) has any sort of followup action (such as confirming the crit or applying a crit effect).

BTW, it never got cleared up: besides the big 3 weapon-delivered maneuvers (+Drag/Reposition sometimes) Should the general principle be understood as if ANY maneuver is delivered via a `normal` (weapon) attack (incl. UAS, Nat Weapons, etc), that said maneuver benefits from weapon bonuses? And that would include all of the following:

tentacle/etc: grab, anything: knockback/bullrush, anything crit:bullrush strike...?

I think you missed my earlier post, let me quote myself:

The general rule for combat maneuvers is:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
That second sentence means that if you're a creature that gets an automatic followup disarm, sunder, or trip on a successful attack roll, any extra bonuses to the normal attack roll apply to the free followup combat maneuver. It doesn't matter if the weapon is normally a "trip weapon" or not, you get the bonus.
Example: A wolf with a +1 enhancement bonus on its bite attacks from a magic fang applies that +1 to its free trip combat maneuver. Likewise, an advanced/companion wolf with Weapon Focus (bite) applies that +1 to its free trip combat maneuver.

Wasn't it said recently that you could now perform Drag and Reposition maneuvers with a trip weapon, or am I just badly reacting to my medication ?

Wasn't it said recently that you could now perform Drag and Reposition maneuvers with a trip weapon, or am I just badly reacting to my medication ?

You remember correctly; it's actually in the blog post itself:

There is a special exception to the above rules. If you’re using a weapon with the trip special feature, and you’re attempting a drag or reposition combat maneuver (Advanced Player’s Guide 321–322), you may apply the weapon’s bonuses to the roll because trip weapons are also suitable for dragging and repositioning (this also means we don’t have to add “drag” and “reposition” weapon properties to existing weapons).

So to be clear, with the Net Trickery feat, you can apply your net's magic bonus to Dirty Trick maneuvers, right?

Obvious things.

Duh, you're right, can't believe I forgot this.

Well, right now a Trip weapon gives a way to improve three combat maneuvers. It would be cool if weapon finesse applied to drag & reposition, but I think it isn't the case despite the "you may apply the weapon’s bonuses to the roll" sentence... which was also used to describe how you apply your bonuses to trip attempts, including weapon finesse.
Not so bad after all, even if it would be cool to see the trip feature actually doing something to improve, you know, the trip maneuver.