Combat Maneuvers and Weapon Special Features

I wrote this blog last week. I believe I was holding off on updating the FAQ until this blog went live. But I'm a bit distracted today, I'll have an answer tomorrow.

I am currently running a Pathfinder campaign and I came across a question that me and my group was wondering about. How many times in a combat round can someone use sneak attack, can they use it equal to normal attacks per round or do they only get to use once a round?

They may use sneak attack on every attack that qualifies either through flanking or denying the opponent their dexterity bonus.

Sneak attack damage is not a 'rider effect' meaning it is not dependent on defeating DR in order for it to happen.

Jiggy wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Yes, but the wording was tweaked fairly recently. Did you not hear about that? Read it closely; there are some small but clarifying wording changes compared to how it read when it first went up.

Yeah, I noticd a thread about that recently...

I´m not sure exactly how it was changed, but I´m pretty certain that it used a Longsword in the 1st iteration as well.
I didn´t see anything in the new version that seemed like a functional difference to the 1st version,
but I´m also in the set that saw (pre-FAQ) that a 100% valid and possible reading of the RAW was that you didn´t need Trip Weapons to deliver a Trip. /shrug

It was changed, primarily, to mention the longsword example more than once and with clearer grammar. It clarified the rule to show it to be in line with your original position.

While the FAQ seems to make it clear that you can wield a long sword and still make a Trip Maneuver but not gain its weapon related bonuses, this new "clarification" states that you do in fact get to use the weapon related bonuses. So now a +5 Longsword adds its +5 enhancement bonus to Trip, Sunders and Disarms.

The FAQ seemed pretty clear before, but this just changed everything!

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, or applying Occam's Razor too zealously, but it seems evident to me that in light of the FAQ and this blog entry, weapons lacking the Trip special quality are not "suitable" for tripping and therefore shouldn't apply their bonuses.

I'm aware that this interpretation can be viewed as a contradiction of the blog clarification: "Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll."

However, these remarks are general, collectivized remarks. Later in the blog post, the following statements are made: "For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn't make you better at attempting the maneuver. ... ... 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)." (bold emphasis mine)

The bolded phrase implies that these weapons (with the trip special feature) *are* suitable for trip attempts, which in turn implies that other weapons are not. Coupled with the FAQ that explicitly indicates that trip weapons can, as a benefit of possessing the trip special quality, add their associated attack bonuses to the trip attempt, and I arrive at the conclusion that only weapons with the trip special feature should add their bonuses to trip attempts.

Of course, as neither unarmed strikes nor natural attacks are identified as Trip weapons (inasmuch as it's usually impossible to drop them on a failed attempt), this reasoning would, by itself, imply that unarmed strikes and natural attacks would not be eligible to allow the contribution of associated attack bonuses, were it not for the fact that the original rules text states, "These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver." Considering the mundane methods that exist in everyday life for me to be tripped by other people (intentionally or not) and animals, I would regard these modes of attack as suitable for tripping, and thus able to allow the contribution of attack bonuses to trip attempts made via natural attacks or unarmed strikes.

In my opinion, the portion of the blog entry that identified natural attacks and unarmed strikes as "weapons for this purpose" was a serious mistake, and should be removed. Assuming that my interpretation is the intended one, I might have presented the paragraph as follows:

"Disarm, sunder, and sometimes trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) always apply to the roll for disarm and sunder attempts, and apply to rolls made in trip attempts if the weapon has the trip special quality. (The restriction on trip is due to the fact that, unlike disarming and sundering, not all weapons are suitable for use in trip attempts - those that are have the trip special quality.) Note that for these kinds of combat maneuvers, natural attacks, while not weapons per-se, should still allow the contribution of any applicable attack-related bonuses when the natural attack is the agency by which the maneuver is performed. Of course, as with all combat maneuvers, unarmed strikes also allow the contribution of any applicable attack-related bonuses, since an unarmed strike is usually the default method of executing a combat maneuver."

That text might need some polish, but I think it's what was meant. (Of course, I'm entirely open to the notion that I'm mistaken, since it means that my Dual-wielding ranger can use his +4 longsword to trip at a bonus... ^_^)

I'm looking forward to the update tomorrow, Sean. I just finished reading the thread that prompted the blog post, so it has me interested :)

I love every single art of goblins from PF :)

oh and the clarification is also nice.

My friend will be happy. He was playing a monk and not getting his unarmed strike bonus on trip was lame. But unarmed strikes and natural weapons weren't considered trip weapons prior, so no bonus.

If this is the case, I may well give a bonus on grapple checks for unarmed strike bonuses since you use your hands and legs to do it.

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.”

Ok, that all seems straight forward but my question has always been does this include the weapon finesse feat. For example if I'm trying a disarm while using a rapier and I have the weapon finesse feat do I get to use my DEX rather than STR when attempting the disarm. The wording seems to me to indicate yes but doesn't that somewhat invalidate the agile maneuvers feat?

Thanks

Torger

And this is why I feel Paizo's change from 3.5 to COmbat Manouevres is overrated - in 3.5 a Trip was "an unarmed melee attack" and therefore only if a weapon specifically stated it could be used to trip could it do so, nice and clear.

The rules are clear on this. Why are people trying to add confusion? Trip, sunder an disarm can be done with any weapon and use the characters attack bonuses towards cmb. This makes things simpler because you don't have to check to see if your weapon has the sunder, disarm or trip quality.

My meteor hammer wielding bard is going to be VERY happy about this revelation!

Why are people trying to add confusion? Trip, sunder an disarm can be done with any weapon and use the characters attack bonuses towards cmb.

The reason there's confusion is because - as has already been pointed out multiple times - this directly contradicts a recent update to the Trip FAQ that was written by the exact same person who wrote this blog post. Thus, people are wondering whether that was deliberate or the result of poor wording.

Thanks for clearing this up when you can Sean...

I wanted to mention a few other points that went beyond even what the FAQ/Blog dealt with, but seem relevant:

When doing a Knockback attack (Barbarian Rage Power, Bullrush + damage), how is the damage handled?
2-Handed STR applies I assume. What about weapon-specific damage bonuses (enhancement, weapon spec)?
What about things like Flaming, etc? And this is all multiplied on Crits using the normal weapon stats, correct?
(it seems like you are using the weapon ´normally´ just with your special ability to do the Knockback instead of normal damage)

If some other maneuver is somehow boosted so that you do damage with it, I assume all the above applies?
(e.g. Vicious Trip: You do some nasty damage while tripping them...)

Part of the paradigm with some maneuvers not using weapon-specific attack bonuses in certain cases (I¨m not sure which pending FAQ/Errata consolidation... Purely from the Blog, it would be the corner cases allowed by GM fiat) is that those don´t apply when ´you don´t use the weapon as it was designed´. My above questions are clarifying how weapon-specific damage bonuses are treated parallel with those attack bonuses... But how does that paradigm apply to using a lethal weapon to deliver NON-LETHAL damage, which takes a -4 attack penalty? Relatedly, if weapon-specific damage bonuses apply here, are effects like Flaming converted to non-lethal Fire damage?

Also, how does the ´not using it like it was designed´ paradigm apply to using weapons as improvised weapons? That subject itself is interesting, e.g. using a Reach weapon as a non-Reach improvised weapon, or using a Spear as a Bludgeoning improvised weapon, etc.

Obviously, this topic engendered alot more issues than just changing one sentence in the Equipment or Combat Chapter.... Thanks for tackling it!

I am currently running a Pathfinder campaign and I came across a question that me and my group was wondering about. How many times in a combat round can someone use sneak attack, can they use it equal to normal attacks per round or do they only get to use once a round?

This is an easy question, as many times as enemy qualifies.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

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.”

Ok, that all seems straight forward but my question has always been does this include the weapon finesse feat. For example if I'm trying a disarm while using a rapier and I have the weapon finesse feat do I get to use my DEX rather than STR when attempting the disarm. The wording seems to me to indicate yes but doesn't that somewhat invalidate the agile maneuvers feat?

Thanks

Torger

FAQed. I'd also love some clarification on this one. Can a finesse character use DEX when making a combat maneuver with an appropriate finessable weapon. The idea of the disarm seems to go pretty well with the iconic rapier duel.

There's a really old quote from Jacobs floating around somewhere saying that this is how he does it, but it doesn't have the force of an "official" ruling. I guess it doesn't invalidate agile maneuvers in that it only applies when using a finesse weapon appropriate to the maneuver, but then again, any maneuver which is done without a weapon would be done unarmed... which is finessable.

but then again, any maneuver which is done without a weapon would be done unarmed... which is finessable.

hmmm, hadn't even thought of that. Still I personally wouldn't mind seeing agile maneuvers become obsolete. It's always seemed unesicarily harsh having to take one feat to attack with your good stat and a second feat to use maneuvers with your good stat.

Here's hoping for a ruling ^_^

Torger

Bascaria wrote:

but then again, any maneuver which is done without a weapon would be done unarmed... which is finessable.

hmmm, hadn't even thought of that. Still I personally wouldn't mind seeing agile maneuvers become obsolete. It's always seemed unesicarily harsh having to take one feat to attack with your good stat and a second feat to use maneuvers with your good stat.

Here's hoping for a ruling ^_^

Torger

Totally agree I'd love to see agile maneuvers be obsoleted. I'm even tempted to say I wish that being able to use dex was an inherent ability of finessable weapons, and obsolete weapon finesse as well. But that might be asking too much.

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

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?

Insert joke about his whole body being a registered deadly weapon.

I'm fine with Agile Maneuvers being phased out. I'd be happy if characters could choose to go either Dex or Str for hit rolls. Unnecessarily penalizes dex based characters by requiring extra feat expenditures just to do what strength based characters do. Though if that is done, certain maneuvers would need to be strength based only like Bull Rush and Overrun.

Quote:

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

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'd file that under "the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers."

I think it's important to realize (and I think this is how SKR is thinking, based on the blog) that just because you're not using a weapon for something doesn't mean you're using "Unarmed Strike" for it.

Perform (Dance) doesn't use a weapon, but that doesn't mean Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) will give you a +1 to the check.

Grappling doesn't use a weapon, but that doesn't mean Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) will give you a +1 to the attempt - hence why you can choose Weapon Focus (Grapple).

And so on and so forth.

Lots of people seem to think that "lack of a weapon" = "using Unarmed Strike", and I think that's a fallacy that leads to extra complications that don't actually exist. Thus, I believe SKR's intent is that maneuvers which aren't Disarm, Sunder or Trip don't use weapons and therefore also don't use the "Unarmed Strike" weapon. (Excepting, of course, the "GM ruling under special circumstances" thing, as SKR noted above.)

To reiterate/sum up:
Lack of weapon does not equal unarmed strike.

@Jiggy: Sure, but given the common knowledge that UAS can use ´any part of your body´, exactly WHY would anybody think these maneuvers AREN´T delivered by UAS, but are somehow their own independent ´weapon´?
They aren´t DEFINED as a weapon anywhere for any purpose (beyond Grapple in Weapon Focus). Maybe people are SUPPOSED to ´know´ that these maneuvers are their own pseudo-weapons with unknown Crit Range/Multipliers and unknown Reach stats that don´t seem to be able to augmented by any Enhancement bonuses (or can they? Magic Fang doesn´t seem to apply, but can you just use magic weapon if they are weapons?), that may or may not be valid uses of Weapon Focus (based on the Grapple example), but that reading really requires a good amount of reading into the rules, as well as hand-waving of related problems. As-is, they aren´t very well defined, with Grapple being the best (re: Weapon Focus).

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'd file that under "the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers."

But this cuts to the core of how Grapple works: if you use UAS (or ´CAN´ use UAS and it´s bonuses) you would be doing so all the time, not as some wierd corner-case GM call in ´certain circumstances´.

If these maneuvers AREN´T conventionally delivered by UAS, it needs to be clarified that they are their own ´weapons´ (that you can take weapon focus in?). I.e. that everybody actually threatens with all these Maneuvers that aren´t delivered by weapons (including UAS). Their Reach (and Crit stats) are never defined nor linked to ´natural attacks´/UAS reach, so how does one know the valid conditions for their use? Of course, they have heavy action costs, so you can´t make AoO´s with them, but that doesn´t fix the basic problem.

Besides, positing a UAS-delivered Grapple brings up the issue of Weapon Focus: UAS and Weapon Focus: Grappling over-lapping, and how one is supposed to deal with that. We still don´t know if Grapple is a unique ´maneuver weapon´ or if any weapon, including the weapon-delivered maneuvers (trip, disarm, sunder) can have their own weapon focus (which also runs into stacking situations when delivering them with a weapon which you also have weapon focus in).

Quandary, I think you missed my real point.

Look:

@Jiggy: Sure, but given the common knowledge that UAS can use ´any part of your body´, exactly WHY would anybody think these maneuvers AREN´T delivered by UAS, but are somehow their own independent ´weapon´?

I'm not saying that the other maneuvers use "their own independent weapon", as you seem to think I'm saying. I'm saying they don't use a weapon at all.

Unarmed Strike, as you are so fond of pointing out, is a weapon.

Some things don't use ANY weapon - not even unarmed strike.

Your post actually illustrates pretty clearly what I was getting at: people seem to have this need to ascribe every action to some kind of weapon, and if there's not one, they default to Unarmed Strike. Why is the concept of "not a weapon at all, not even UAS" so objectionable to people's concepts of combat maneuvers?

Well, Weapon Focus: Grapple kind of stares us in the face as implicating Grapple as it´s own weapon.
Regardless, if Paizo wants people to use the concept that there is no weapon in any sense at all
(when stats like Crit and Reach/Threatened Area are derived from the weapon used) they should spell that out, because such a paradigm ISN´T bleedingly obvious to your average reader...

If it doesn´t matter what you are holding in your hands, or what your normal Reach is, etc, that you can always attack (adjacent/within normal reach) opponents with these maneuvers (i.e. having some qualities of UAS), why not mention that?

I´m still not sure how to deal with Weapon Focus stacking for UAS and Grapple if using UAS to deliver Grapple, plus if Bullrush, Over-Run, Trip, Disarm, Sunder, etc. are even valid to take for Weapon Focus. What happens when you take Weapon Focus: Mancatcher + Weapon Focus Grapple? Even potentially ´weapon-less´ (or ´their own weapons´ ala Grapple) maneuvers like Grapple and Bullrush CAN be combined with weapon attacks (e.g. Knockback), which could also use clarifications re: if it´s ´using the weapon as designed´ (i.e. weapon specific attack and possibly damage bonuses apply).

Unifying ´not using weapons as they are designed´ seems like a good way to cover all the bases... Since besides ´non-intended´ maneuvers delivered via weapons, you have using lethal weapons to deliver non-lethal damage and improvised weapons (which i don´t see why you can´t use a normal weapon as, e.g. if you want to use an axe(slashing) as an improvised bludgeoning weapon).

I am currently running a Pathfinder campaign and I came across a question that me and my group was wondering about. How many times in a combat round can someone use sneak attack, can they use it equal to normal attacks per round or do they only get to use once a round?

any attack that qualifies. if the opponent is flanked by you or denied his dex, all attacks qualify for sneak attack. Including AoO's

I'd file that under "the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers."

This makes the monk as a tripper either good or lousy based on DM ruling from table to table. Its kind of a big deal to a lot of builds to leave it up in the air like that.

Regardless, if Paizo wants people to use the concept that there is no weapon in any sense at all

... they should spell that out

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver.

It says right there in the blog post that:

So there you go. Most maneuvers don't use the Unarmed Strike weapon.

SO should we expect Weapon Focus: Grapple to be removed from the next printing?
That obviously implies that Grapple is it´s own weapon.
I have know idea what the intent is for other maneuvers not delivered by ANOTHER DISTINCT WEAPON.

It also isn´t clear how the Trip-related maneuvers (Reposition, Drag) work: are they available as ´weapon-less´ maneuvers that don´t care what you are wielding/etc? Or are they delivered by weapons but only ´incidentally´ so that weapon-specific bonuses don´t apply?

A question I always had re: RAW: If you don´t have Improved UAS, do you still provoke when delivering a Trip, Sunder, Disarm via UAS (when you DO have the appropriate Improved Maneuver Feat)?

SO should we expect Weapon Focus: Grapple to be removed from the next printing?

That obviously implies that Grapple is it´s own weapon.
I have know idea what the intent is for other maneuvers not delivered by ANOTHER DISTINCT WEAPON.

Look again:

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

The feat makes an exception to allow you to choose a non-weapon as though it were a weapon (unarmed strike and ray have since been defined as weapons in their own right, but that's irrelevant here). Treating something as X for the purposes of a certain feat does not mean that thing is X.

There is no conflict between the ability to choose Grapple with Weapon Focus and the concept of weaponless maneuvers.

Sorry SKR, but I'm as confused about this issue as I was before, and IMO the current FAQ says something different (actually I read something different) about what weapons allow you to add enhancement bonuses to Trip CMB, I will wait till it gets written in the FAQ (I agree with the problems pointed out by other people)

Ok, big followup post.

First of all, apologies for letting this answer wait for a few days, I've been away from work dealing with a hospitalized cat, and I can only update the FAQ from inside the office and didn't want to have clarifications here but not in the FAQ (as that would cause even more confusion than the contradictory/out-of-date problems we've had between the two so far).

* * * * *

(Paraphrased) Does a creature with an automatic followup maneuver ability, like a wolf with its free trip, get to add extra attack bonuses to the free combat maneuver check?

The general rule for combat maneuvers is:

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.

(Which is nice, because it means we don't have to add in extra rules or exceptions for this sort of thing).

(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.)

* * * * *

I've updated the FAQ about trip weapon to reflect the clarifications in this blog. The update also includes a reference to this blog and a note that the FAQ has been revised to remove text that contradicts the rulings here. :)

* * * * *

Another minor clarification: You mention trip being used with weapons. Is that "weapons in general" or "trip weapons only?" I assume the latter, but I've heard arguments for the former from some people, who state that the trip weapon bonus is only that you can drop the weapon if you fail the check.

Every time this blog entry says "weapon" instead of "trip weapon," it means "any weapon."

In other words, you can make disarm, sunder, and trip checks with any weapon, and you apply your bonuses (enhancement bonus, Weapon Focus, and so on) to the disarm, sunder, or trip combat maneuver roll.
It doesn't have to be a manufactured weapon (thus you can use unarmed strikes and/or natural attacks ) and it doesn't have to be a weapon with a special feature relating to that combat maneuver (such as a disarm weapon or trip weapon). Thus you can trip with a whip, longsword, unarmed strike, bite, greatsword, and so on, and apply your bonuses to the combat maneuver roll.

* * * * *

Okay so maybe I am just being dense... but now you can use all of your weapons' modifiers for Disarm, Sunder, and Trip from any weapon.

Is Paizo eliminating those characteristics from weapons and just making all weapons do that now?
How exactly does, say a dagger, help you trip? Does a dagger really have a chance of sundering plate armor?
What is the point of the special features if you can use the modifiers from any weapon?

To answer your questions in order:

No.

Perhaps you're taking a stab at your opponent's groin so they fall prone, or perhaps the dagger is just a distraction for your foot. Rather than publishing a huge list of weapons and what you can and can't do with them (most of which would be "well, I can see some circumstances where this would work, so it should be on the trip list"), we're allowing you to use weapons with trip maneuvers.

As you start walking down that road, be sure to stop by the Inn of Should A Dagger Be Able To Harm Someone in Plate At All and Why Doesn't My +5 Deflection Bonus Protect Me From Swarms?

The point of the special feature is you get an additional option (disarm weapons give a +2 bonus on disarm checks, trip weapons lets you drop your weapon on a bad trip combat maneuver instead of being tripped, etc.).

* * * * *

hmmm, hadn't even thought of that. Still I personally wouldn't mind seeing agile maneuvers become obsolete. It's always seemed unesicarily harsh having to take one feat to attack with your good stat and a second feat to use maneuvers with your good stat.

I'd be quite comfortable if the game was more friendly to Dex-based characters and let you pick whether to use Dex or Str for things like combat maneuvers and attack rolls, but that's a separate discussion...

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

Now, time to ask for specific sources of the rules you're asking about:

To clarify, when using normal weapons with abilities like Knockback(Bullrush), you can´t use the weapon specific attack bonuses?

(would you still apply Enhancement DAMAGE bonus, Weapon Spec, Flaming, etc, in that case?)

1) Do you mean knockback from the Core Rulebook, or knockdown from the APG? Just checking.

And (Maneuver) Strike Feats also don´t use the weapon-specific attack bonuses for the CMB?

2) Please clarify what "(Maneuver) Strike feats" you mean. We have a lot of things using that name now (Vital Strike, Kirin Strike, etc.)...

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.

Ack, the suspense! The suspense! :)

2) Please clarify what "(Maneuver) Strike feats" you mean. We have a lot of things using that name now (Vital Strike, Kirin Strike, etc.)...

Quandary and I discussed this enough that I can inform you he's referring to things like Tripping Strike, where if you crit you get to compare the confirmation roll to the victim's CMD and if you beat it they fall prone (or drop their weapon, or whatever).

What he wants to know:
When you use one of those feats and compare your confirmation roll to the target's CMD, do you remove bonuses that aren't applicable to a combat maneuver, or just use the confirmation roll as-is?

Related to those same feats:
Can you crit with a combat maneuver? I.e., if I have Tripping Strike and roll a natural 20 on a disarm attempt, do I make a confirmation roll to "crit" with the disarm and potentially activate Tripping Strike? Or can only "normal" attacks crit?

Thank you for the clarifications, Sean. I'd say it was worth the wait. Hopefully your cat is doing well.

Now I'll be watching the follow up questions with interest. :)

1) Do you mean knockback from the Core Rulebook, or knockdown from the APG? Just checking.

Since knockdown uses Trip, I feel mostly comfortable in saying that knockdown probably works just like a normal weapon-delivered Trip...

Knockback (Ex): Once per round, the barbarian can make a bull rush attempt against one target in place of a melee attack. If successful, the target takes damage equal to the barbarian's Strength modifier and is moved back as normal. The barbarian does not need to move with the target if successful. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

But since this Bullrush now uses the exact same `in place of melee attack` wording that Trip/Disarm/Sunder normally use, it should be fine to apply weapon-specific attack bonuses? Since Knockback/Knockdown DO apply damage via a weapon attack, should they both apply relevant damage bonuses (including Flaming, et al) along with using the weapon`s Crit range/multiplier?

Jiggy is right, by `(insert Maneuver) Strike Feats` I mean Tripping Strike, Bullrush Strike, etc (from the APG, although UC may have expanded them... I don`t know).
Those are written differently from either Bestiary Trip ability (free action maneuver triggered by attack) or Knockback/Knockdown (in place of attack) abilities:

Bull Rush Strike (Combat)

Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can push your opponent back, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent's CMD, you may push your opponent back as if from the bull rush combat maneuver. You do not need to move with the target if successful. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

In the case of Tripping Strike, that is already a Maneuver that normally allows weapon bonuses, but Bull Rush normally doesn`t allow that...

...I guess some of my confusion here is resulting from the vagueness inherent in the part of the blog talking about `not applying weapon-specific attack bonuses on weapons not used as they`re supposed to/incidental to their design`. Maybe if that was re-phrased so that it obviously ONLY applied to when PURE GM FIAT was allowing a weapon to be used, rather than possibly seeming like it may apply when the rules (thru various mechanisms) specifically does allow a weapon to deliver a maneuver (that normally isn`t weapon-deliverable), as per Bestiary Trip, Knockback, Bullrush Strike (and probably more)... Whether the rules `happen` to use phrasing like `in place of attack` or some totally different mechanism (but still delivered by the weapon).

EDIT: IN re-reading Bullrush Strike, I just realized that I`m not sure if the intent is that you are doing Critical Damage or not, i.e. if the Bullrush is REPLACING the extra Crit damage or not. It says (if you Confirm the Crit) you do the Bullrush along with `normal` damage, but does normal damage mean `your normal Crit damage` or `normal non-Crit damage`?

And to Quandary -- it appears your position was indeed correct on this issue officially. I am of course personally not in agreement with this, personally I find the idea nonsense in the highest degree however the idea of trip specific weapons was a bunch of nonsense too.

However I'm expecting something to make up for the fact that so many of those exotic weapons that simply have the trip or disarm property added to a normal weapon will get worked over again since it is an absolutely pointless and useless ability to have now.

However I'm expecting something to make up for the fact that so many of those exotic weapons that simply have the trip or disarm property added to a normal weapon will get worked over again since it is an absolutely pointless and useless ability to have now.

Pointless and useless except that it keeps you from being tripped when you roll an exceptional failure on your trip combat maneuver.

Abe, I mostly agree... You still want Trip Weapon Quality to mean something signifigant.
FYI, Disarm Weapon Quality still grants a +2 bonus, so that is fine IMHO... I suggested the same for Trip Weapons, which is easy Errata.
They both also allow dropping the weapon, negating a weakness of using those Maneuvers (getting tripped/disarmed yourself).
Seriously, for the typical PC who is semi-specialized into one weapon or class of weapons, being dis-armed or tripped mid-battle isn`t something to take lightly.
QUESTION: If you tried to use Greater Trip or Disarm on your opponent, and fail big, do YOU now provoke an AoO / have your weapon thrown 15` away?

Honestly, I would like to know what happens when you fail big on an unarmed Disarm: you can`t drop your arm (or natural weapons). Should something else happen? Or does the -4 penalty cover that? If so, should the penalty ALSO apply to natural weapons since you can`t drop those, either?

ALSO: I would like to know if the intent is that you can take Weapon Focus in ALL Manuvers? Or just non-weapon delivered ones? But even for conventionally non-weapon delivered maneuvers, we can see that they CAN end up being delivered by weapons, so you run into stacking issues there. Even per the Core examples, does Weapon Focus: Mancatcher and Weapon Focus: Grapple `stack` (although Mancatcher works wierdly with a Touch Attack first, so perhaps the bonuses would apply to different rolls there). But assuming Weapon Focus: Scythe and Weapon Focus: Trip (or Weapon Focus: Spear and Weapon Focus: Bullrush and Barbarian Knockback), how should they stack?

Yeah, I mostly agree... You still want Trip Weapon Quality to mean something signifigant.

FYI, Disarm Weapon Quality still grants a +2 bonus, so that is fine IMHO...
I suggested the same for Trip Weapons, which is easy Errata.

I would be fine with that change, too. (I'm all for a trend toward simplicity and similarity in rules where possible.)

Honestly, I would like to know what happens when you fail big on an unarmed Disarm: you can`t drop your arm (or natural weapons). Should something else happen? Or does the -4 penalty cover that? If so, should the penalty ALSO apply to natural weapons since you can`t drop those, either?

Yeah, I think the –4 penalty when trying disarmed unarmed covers that.

As for the second question, answer unknown. There are a lot of little hidden things in the rules where it's written assuming humanoid PCs and questions like this are never addressed. Stuff that would require a hard look at the rules to cover these exceptions in the Core Rulebook. Perhaps something as simple as "Unarmed strikes count as natural attacks, except the do get iterative attacks and do provoke attacks of opportunity." Then you'd just refer to natural attacks in all other places, and unarmed strike would be covered within that. Or, to do it the opposite way, say "Natural attacks count as unarmed strikes, except they do not provoke attacks of opportunity and do not get iterative attacks," then you'd refer to unarmed strikes in all other places and natural attacks would be covered within that.

As for the question about knockback, I gotta read it over and talk to Jason.

Perhaps something as simple as "Unarmed strikes count as natural attacks, except the do get iterative attacks and do provoke attacks of opportunity." Then you'd just refer to natural attacks in all other places, and unarmed strike would be covered within that.

I don't think I'm capable of expressing how much I support this adjustment with words. This is something that should happen.

Abraham spalding wrote:

However I'm expecting something to make up for the fact that so many of those exotic weapons that simply have the trip or disarm property added to a normal weapon will get worked over again since it is an absolutely pointless and useless ability to have now.

Pointless and useless except that it keeps you from being tripped when you roll an exceptional failure on your trip combat maneuver.

Because the people that are building to trip are really going to be likely to fail by 5 or more, and even then I generally would rather keep my weapon than be on my butt. After all with weapon in hand I still threaten and can attack, without my weapon I can't do those things, and worse the enemy might pick it up meaning I'm now at a double disadvantage.

Another point would be that there are now several ways to avoid the AoO of getting up or to do so faster than a standard action (counterpointed by the fact the same can be said of retrieving a weapon) -- all in all at best it comes out even and at worse still not really needed.

I'm going to leave out the point that it's kind of silly to assume that because you failed to trip someone else you are yourself going to be tripped which the rules currently maintain (even though it requires you to fail by 5 or more a significant task).

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Perhaps something as simple as "Unarmed strikes count as natural attacks, except the do get iterative attacks and do provoke attacks of opportunity." Then you'd just refer to natural attacks in all other places, and unarmed strike would be covered within that.

I don't think I'm capable of expressing how much I support this adjustment with words. This is something that should happen.

So improve natural attack monks will then be back?

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Perhaps something as simple as "Unarmed strikes count as natural attacks, except the do get iterative attacks and do provoke attacks of opportunity." Then you'd just refer to natural attacks in all other places, and unarmed strike would be covered within that.

I don't think I'm capable of expressing how much I support this adjustment with words. This is something that should happen.

So improve natural attack monks will then be back?

Precisely (among other things.)

In the absense of anything else, this...

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).

... is pretty nice for weapons with the Trip quality.

In the absense of anything else, this...

Blog wrote:

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).

... is pretty nice for weapons with the Trip quality.

It is something... but of course the question then becomes, "well wait a minute -- I obviously already get the bonus with any weapon I trip with so why wouldn't I get that bonus when doing these maneuvers anyways? How exactly is a staff/spear/greatsword less useful for repositioning or dragging people then a nunchuck?"

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

However I'm expecting something to make up for the fact that so many of those exotic weapons that simply have the trip or disarm property added to a normal weapon will get worked over again since it is an absolutely pointless and useless ability to have now.

Pointless and useless except that it keeps you from being tripped when you roll an exceptional failure on your trip combat maneuver.

Because the people that are building to trip are really going to be likely to fail by 5 or more, and even then I generally would rather keep my weapon than be on my butt. After all with weapon in hand I still threaten and can attack, without my weapon I can't do those things, and worse the enemy might pick it up meaning I'm now at a double disadvantage.

Another point would be that there are now several ways to avoid the AoO of getting up or to do so faster than a standard action (counterpointed by the fact the same can be said of retrieving a weapon) -- all in all at best it comes out even and at worse still not really needed.

I'm going to leave out the point that it's kind of silly to assume that because you failed to trip someone else you are yourself going to be tripped which the rules currently maintain (even though it requires you to fail by 5 or more a significant task).

The penalty kicks in at failure by 10 or more, not 5 or more.

The real benefit, to me, of having the trip quality isn't being able to drop the weapon, but that you can also use that weapon, now, to deliver reposition and drag attempts, with all the weapon-appropriate bonuses.

ProfPotts wrote:

In the absense of anything else, this...

Blog wrote:

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).

... is pretty nice for weapons with the Trip quality.

It is something... but of course the question then becomes, "well wait a minute -- I obviously already get the bonus with any weapon I trip with so why wouldn't I get that bonus when doing these maneuvers anyways? How exactly is a staff/spear/greatsword less useful for repositioning or dragging people then a nunchuck?"

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.

It is something... but of course the question then becomes, "well wait a minute -- I obviously already get the bonus with any weapon I trip with so why wouldn't I get that bonus when doing these maneuvers anyways? How exactly is a staff/spear/greatsword less useful for repositioning or dragging people then a nunchuck?"

LOL! Well, debating whether in-game weapons are in any way realistic or not is another kettle of fish entirely, and not really what the blog (or thread) is about, as far as I can tell...

If you guys can have a Paizo-Pow-Wow on the UAS and Grapple thing (re: bonuses) I would be thrilled...
It really also applies to Bullrush and Over-Run and other stuff that isn`t normally deliverable by weapon.

Since these Maneuver attacks aren`t currently affected by Magic Fang/Mighty Fist and aren`t in any Weapon Training Groups, effectively they are the only maneuvers that you CAN`T enhance the attack bonus for by normal means (barring weapon attack-trigger special abilities, ala Knockback)... while CMD of course always benefits from everything that affects it... making these Maneuvers harder than other Maneuvers.

Actually, do other Maneuvers besides Grapple also qualify to take for Weapon Focus?

I could REALLY see Grapple/Bullrush/OverRun being clarified as being delivered by UAS, or just being a valid attack for Magic Fang/Mighty Fist enhancements to affect. Also, they should be included in SOME Fighter Weapon Training Group, whether Close, Natural, or whatever. This would be somewhat tied into how Weapon Focus/Training may `stack` or not...

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.

Of course I could just be confused because I like words and abilities to match.

I`m not certain on this, but I think that the Trip Weapon quality may well be Errata`d.
Of course, it`s unlikely to incorporate mentions of Drag/Reposition (in the Core book) since those maneuvers aren`t in the Core Book.

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.

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.