Lol, the gentle chopping trip maybe?
|
I haven't seen OP's other posts on this subject, but I must admit I don't like Pathfinder's rule that you can get the benefit of any weapon in a trip (in terms of MW and Magic plus bonuses). Its another of the reasons I prefer 3.5 over PF personally.
Those techniques came in a fencing book from germany in XVI century. And you add your enhancement bonus because, as i said, you USE your weapon to check and counter your opponent weapon, then use your body to do the trip.
My only issue with that is, couldn't the same argument be made that you should get your weapon's Masterwork and any enchantment bonus to hit on unarmed attacks? E.g. you use your weapon to check and counter your opponent's weapon then use your knee / elbow / free hand to strike the foe?
Perhaps a better way to reflect the fact that "you USE your weapon to check and counter your opponent weapon, then use your body to do the trip" would be have Trip be a CMB check without Weapon Bonuses (i.e. as if you were unarmed) but that it removes the attack of opportunity (even when you don't have the Improved trip feat).
Then you could have Trip weapons build on that by also allowing the weapon bonuses to be added to the CMB check.
So basically like the 3.5 rule apart from the fact that as long as you have a weapon in hand (any weapon, not just a Trip weapon) you can avoid the AoO.
The problem I have with all of that is that the Trip weapons are not actually better at tripping than any other weapon.
I'd be fine if all trips were unarmed (I think tripping is useless for the most part anyway), but the idea that weapons with the trip quality are better at it--no, that's silly.
They are actually better at Repositioning and Drag, since they all have hooks on them, so the current rule there is good.
Ultimately, I'm sure it was done as a balancing factor. Without allowing all weapons to trip, they'd be stuck with trip being basically impossible, because only unarmed bonuses should apply (because, again, the weapons with the trip quality currently are not better at tripping).
The problem I have with all of that is that the Trip weapons are not actually better at tripping than any other weapon.
I'd be fine if all trips were unarmed (I think tripping is useless for the most part anyway), but the idea that weapons with the trip quality are better at it--no, that's silly.
Rules wise, this can be seen as if you use a regular weapon to trip, you are involved in some form of grappling during the move. Hence, if you miss your trip, you can be tripped too.
With a weapon designed to trip (which weren't really anyone, except if you count weapons designed to unmount riders, which is not really the same thing), you don't *need* to grapple. So if you use a Bill gisarme hook to trap the armor and trip the guy somehow, if you miss, you lose your weapon, instead of risking falling prone yourself yourself.
With a weapon designed to trip (which weren't really anyone, except if you count weapons designed to unmount riders, which is not really the same thing)
This was pretty much my point.
The "trip" weapons are not made for tripping.
With a weapon designed to trip (which weren't really anyone, except if you count weapons designed to unmount riders, which is not really the same thing)This was pretty much my point.
The "trip" weapons are not made for tripping.
Oh sure, I was agreeing with you. I was trying to reinforce your point, not rebutting it :)
|
Use a vase or a wine bottle, then you only get a -4 because they function like a sap (that always breaks on a successful hit). :)could you cite that, please? I just realised that the CRB does not have a description for the sap.
There's no description outside the sap's entry in the weapons table, but has "nonlethal" listed as a damage type in the Special column. Granted, saps don't usually break when you use them, but a vase or bottle always seem to break when used to knock someone out in the movies.