Combat Maneuvers and Weapon Special Features

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...

Wait, what? A 20 autosucceeds on a grapple?

(pulls out the CRB)

(compares it to the PHB)

Whoa. Learn something new every day. See, it's this kind of thing that frustrates me sometimes - it's one of the million teeny tiny changes that bites longtime 3.5e players in the rear.

Well, at least I know now :)

Well, right now a Trip weapon gives a way to improve three combat maneuvers.

Just two, really: it improves drag and reposition by allowing you to apply weapon-specific bonuses to them - trip attempts don't need a trip weapon to get those bonuses. So actually a so-called "trip weapon" does more to improve the effectiveness of drags and repositions than of trips.

Kinda makes me wish Jason Buhlman would chime in on this directly.

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.

It was stated by SKR earlier in the thread that Weapon Finesse applies to maneuvers that employ a finessable weapon - so WF applies to disarm, sunder and trip, while you'd need Agile Maneuvers for the "non-weapon" maneuvers. But since the trip weapon quality lets you employ your weapon on drag and reposition attempts, I presume that means you could then apply WF on those two maneuvers (with an eligible weapon, obviously).

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.

Fo shizzle.

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

SKR 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.
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.

Couple things:

1) I think disarm, sunder, and trip are fairly clear. What about other things, though, where some other maneuver is explicitly delivered by a weapon attack? Specific example: The +1 from magic fang is on a bear, not a wolf, and the bear attempts a claw attack, hitting and attempting a free followup grab/grapple. Does the +1 apply to the maneuver?

2) What about one-shot, one-attack bonuses? If the wolf above is actually a wild shaped druid who has managed to choke down a potion of true strike, he gets the +20 attack on the attack, but does the followup trip maneuver inherit that bonus? My guess is not, but the language used could be read that way. That is, you say "any extra bonuses to the normal attack roll apply to the free followup combat maneuver".

Quandary wrote:

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...

But that´s the point: it´s identified as an attack roll, using CMB instead of normal attack bonus...

As you say, the CMB section only mentions the auto-hit 20/auto-miss 1 aspect of CMBs, but that is also true of regular attacks, and doesn´t seem sufficient to convey that ´yes, these are attack rolls, but don´t apply this attack roll-applicable rule (Crits) to CMBs because they are different´. I´m sure there´s tons of other attack roll-applicable rules that also apply to CMB even though they aren´t mentioned specifically... which is great, it saves space. But when the rules call out something as being an (X), all qualities of (X) should apply unless counter-acted... If we didn´t need CMB to inherit rules from attack rolls, there would be no reason to call CMB an attack roll in the first place, right?

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

SKR 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.
That second sentence means that if you're a creature that gets an automatic followup disarm, sunder, or trip on a successful attack roll...

OK, I´m just asking for clarification because your examples there all use the weapon-substitutable maneuvers (Trip, Sunder, Disarm) which doesn´t help clarify whether the normally NON-weapon-deliverable Maneuvers CAN also gain that bonus in situations where they are delivered by a weapon. EDIT: I see somebody else has the same question.

I will quote what the Blog says on this:

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... (goes on to mention GM fiat cases, which is great, but clearly distinct from RAW cases like Knockback, Grab, etc)

The ´incidental to making a maneuver´ bit is exactly what might make a reader think that the non-Trip/Sunder/Disarm maneuvers such as Grapple, Bull-Rush (...), would not gain any bonuses when delivered via Grab (Bite), Knockback, or other mechanisms using a weapon.

As I wrote before, the wording necessary to clarify how to deal with CORE cases like Knockback, Grab needs to be CLEARLY DISTINCT from your treatment of ´GM Fiat´. Using a Dagger somehow in a Grapple is totally GM Fiat, Using Dagger as a Knockback attack is completely NOT GM Fiat.

At this point, I will assume that weapon bonuses DO apply to Grab, Knockback (...),
since you didn´t just give a more direct answer ´no on Grapple/Bullrush´.

But realize that the examples you choose aren´t always the most clarifying (e.g. people read your old Trip FAQ with the Longsword example, and since you said ´it doesn´t really make a difference if you use a Longsword or Unarmed Trip´, continued to think that Reach Weapon Trips not using a Trip Weapon were dis-allowed, because you chose an example that DE-emphasized the difference rather than highlighting it).

One last thing: So it seems that the mythical ´non-weapon Trip attack´ doesn´t exist, right?
Which would mean that Unarmed Trip must use UNARMED STRIKE to deliver the Trip?
If somebody doesn´t have Improved Unarmed Strike, would they still provoke for making an UAS attack per se,
even if they avoid the Trip AoO by having the Improved Trip Feat?

Fozbek wrote:

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.

Neither was mine. That took me about 5 minutes to compile--and most of that time was going, "oh wait, nope, quadruped".

Merely a brief, general statement about his ability to trip "ordinary" targets.

None of those targets were particularly exotic.

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.

CR8 is entirely within the level-appropriate range. Even CR9 would be (according to the 3.5 DMG, 5% of encounters should be APL+4). And only one of those was CR8, anyway.

If anyone is counting i also want trip weapons to either add a +2 to trip attempts or make you immune to prone by failing by 10 or more without losing your weapon.

Foz, what you have to consider for the trip weapon is that IF you have a cr+3 fight AND IF you decide to trip and IF even then you roll badly (a virtual celesital alignment of circumstances) then you can decide to be arguably less screwed by dropping the weapon than being tripped yourself. You have the worst possible bonus: a small benefit that doesn't occur very often.

For this you're giving up a fair amount of damage.

When you think about it, when the CRB was published, the trip quality DID give you a numerical bonus - by allowing you to apply weapon specific bonuses that you couldn't get otherwise. Since a masterwork weapon is almost a given, and lots of melee characters take Weapon Focus, that means Trip Weapons gave you... hey! A +2 to trip! Except it could go even higher, via further enhancement or fighter weapon training and so forth.

One would be tempted to conclude, then, that the only reason disarm weapons grant a +2 bonus is to mirror the effective bonus granted by trip weapons. Now that trip weapons no longer grant a bonus, disarm weapons' bonus is suddenly no longer a balancing feature. Of course, I don't actually know the designers' thought processes (or even if it was already that way in 3.5, since I wasn't playing then), but it's interesting to think about, isn't it?

And Fozbek, you completely missed the point of what I was saying, both originally and in my reply to you. You took an off-handed illustrative remark and tried to take it as a precise factual claim. You read waaaay too much into it.

Perhaps to give a bit more of a benefit to Trip weapons (instead of or perhaps as well as the +2 bonus like Disarm weapons) is to reinstate a 3.5 rule - that if you attempt a trip with a weapon you don't provoke an AoO, even if you don't have the Improved Trip feat.

Perhaps to give a bit more of a benefit to Trip weapons (instead of or perhaps as well as the +2 bonus like Disarm weapons) is to reinstate a 3.5 rule - that if you attempt a trip with a weapon you don't provoke an AoO, even if you don't have the Improved Trip feat.

Of course if you do that, then you have to rebalance the feat (which at that point does nothing but give you a +2).

Official or not, from here forward in my Pathfinder game sessions (just about to start Carrion Crown) trip weapons get +2 to trip attempts ala disarm. It'll be easier on me and less confusing for my players. Thanks to all for the great discussion.

DigitalMage wrote:

Perhaps to give a bit more of a benefit to Trip weapons (instead of or perhaps as well as the +2 bonus like Disarm weapons) is to reinstate a 3.5 rule - that if you attempt a trip with a weapon you don't provoke an AoO, even if you don't have the Improved Trip feat.

Of course if you do that, then you have to rebalance the feat (which at that point does nothing but give you a +2).

Possibly, or it becomes a choice - either get the feat or use a trip weapon and save yourself the feat.

Jiggy wrote:

DigitalMage wrote:

Perhaps to give a bit more of a benefit to Trip weapons (instead of or perhaps as well as the +2 bonus like Disarm weapons) is to reinstate a 3.5 rule - that if you attempt a trip with a weapon you don't provoke an AoO, even if you don't have the Improved Trip feat.

Of course if you do that, then you have to rebalance the feat (which at that point does nothing but give you a +2).

Possibly, or it becomes a choice - either get the feat or use a trip weapon and save yourself the feat.

Given that very nearly every class is proficient with sickles (a simple, light, 1d6 trip weapon) that would more or less obsolete the feat. I think we'd better just stick with evaluating the trip weapon quality.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

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.

I would rather take the trip than be prone. I can fight while I am prone. It is hard to fight without a weapon. I think I am houseruling that the +2 applies to trip attacks. I agree with you being disarmed is not a benefit, especially for something that requires at least two feats and forces a character to get a stat(13 int) they most likely would not need otherwise.

Foz, what you have to consider for the trip weapon is that IF you have a cr+3 fight AND IF you decide to trip and IF even then you roll badly (a virtual celesital alignment of circumstances) then you can decide to be arguably less screwed by dropping the weapon than being tripped yourself. You have the worst possible bonus: a small benefit that doesn't occur very often.

For this you're giving up a fair amount of damage.

I'm not arguing that it's a good benefit. Just that it is, actually, a benefit. I know people like saying they'd rather fall prone, but I try not to give my enemies +4 to hit me, +4 to AC against my attacks, and a free attack against me (from either standing up or crawling away). Picking up the weapon again just gives them the free attack without any of the other penalties--assuming I don't have a second weapon. Which, frankly, I always do. It won't be identical, but it'll be better than trying to full attack from prone.

And no, you really don't give up any damage. The trip weapons in the CRB are the sickle (tied for best damage die of any simple light weapon), flail (tied for best damage die of any martial one-handed weapon), heavy flail (comparable damage die to most martial two-handers), halberd (same die as heavy flail), guisarme (a half point behind the heavy flail and halberd), scythe (same as guisarme), kama (tied for best damage die of all exotic light weapons), spiked chain (which sucks, but the suckage has nothing to do with it having the trip property, really), dire flail (tied for best double weapon damage die), gnome hooked hammer (slightly worse damage but much higher crit than dire flail), and bolas (which is just a strange weapon all around).

None of them really sacrifice much damage. The damage dice are almost always tied for top with the exception of the martial two-handed weapons, which usually have good crit stats and/or multiple additional weapon properties compared to the greatsword and greataxe.

heavy flail (comparable damage die to most martial two-handers), spiked chain (which sucks, but the suckage has nothing to do with it having the trip property, really),

When you have Heavy Flail, why would you use a Spiked chain? Does any class even get proficiency with Spiked Chain? Because many do get Heavy Flail.

I'm not arguing that it's a good benefit. Just that it is, actually, a benefit.

The term here is significant benefit.. which i don't think it is.

I know people like saying they'd rather fall prone, but I try not to give my enemies +4 to hit me, +4 to AC against my attacks, and a free attack against me (from either standing up or crawling away)

IF the tripper fails its only going to be one foe, so no big deal.

Picking up the weapon again just gives them the free attack without any of the other penalties--assuming I don't have a second weapon.

Also assuming that they don't pick it up and move away or fly off with it.

And no, you really don't give up any damage. The trip weapons in the CRB are the sickle (tied for best damage die of any simple light weapon) flail (tied for best damage die of any martial one-handed weapon)

-But with a lower crit range.

heavy flail (comparable damage die to most martial two-handers)

-but not with the best. its a full 2 points of damage behind the greatsword. You need weapon specialization just to break even.

halberd (same die as heavy flail)

ditto

guisarme (a half point behind the heavy flail and halberd)

- Half a point is half a point if you're getting this little benefit out of it.

scythe (same as guisarme)

The guisarm has reach. You should be comparing it to the greatsword, where its 2 points behind.

kama (tied for best damage die of all exotic light weapons)

But can't be thrown.

dire flail (tied for best double weapon damage die)

-Lower crit than the orc double axe.

Basically it seems like you're giving up a feat: either weapon specialization or improved crit in order to use the trip weapon.

None of them really sacrifice much damage. The damage dice are almost always tied for top with the exception of the martial two-handed weapons

I don't think i'm going out of my way to assume that most tripper have access to martial weapons.

which usually have good crit stats and/or multiple additional weapon properties compared to the greatsword and greataxe.

....? they have bad crits compared to the two hander or axe.

Given that very nearly every class is proficient with sickles (a simple, light, 1d6 trip weapon) that would more or less obsolete the feat.

Perhaps, but not everyone's primary weapon is going to be a sickle and not everyone is proficient in other tripping weapons such as flails. For those people if they want to be able to trip without having to swap weapons the feat is still valuable.

Jiggy wrote:

Given that very nearly every class is proficient with sickles (a simple, light, 1d6 trip weapon) that would more or less obsolete the feat.

Perhaps, but not everyone's primary weapon is going to be a sickle and not everyone is proficient in other tripping weapons such as flails. For those people if they want to be able to trip without having to swap weapons the feat is still valuable.

"Hm, I could spend a move action to draw a sickle so I can trip people... Nah, I think it'd be better if I spent two feats to get Combat Expertise and Improved Trip."

;)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

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.

Just as a minor point: 1 sp to buy a weapon cord.

We may have just witnessed the creation of a new (or at least much more viable) archetype: The low-str, high-dex dual-wielding tripmonster.

Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, and Improved Trip are the obvious feats, don't bother with Agile Maneuvers.

Rogue and Ranger jump to mind, but not exclusively.

Dagger is an obvious weapon choice but any light weapon will do, including spiked gauntlets.

I can only imagine the strategy consequences when I'm more worried about the skinny little guy with daggers tripping me than I am about the big hulk with a halberd tripping me.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

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.

Just as a minor point: 1 sp to buy a weapon cord.

Drop Trip weapon during full attack.
Use Swift action to recover weapon.
Continue full attack...

You still provoke an AoO.

With the new FAQ allowing tripping with any weapon, how should we interpret the (Ult.Combat) Net Maneuvering feat benefit "In melee, you can use a net to trip or disarm opponents instead of entangling them. You gain a +2 bonus on disarm checks made to use a net in this way."

Should this be interpreted the same as if the net gained the 'trip' special feature (i.e., you can drop it)? And presumably the +2 disarm benefit is the same as the 'disarm' special feature. It would perhaps have been more clear if it just said "In melee, you can use a net as if it were a trip weapon or a disarm weapon."

With the new FAQ allowing tripping with any weapon, how should we interpret the (Ult.Combat) Net Maneuvering feat benefit "In melee, you can use a net to trip or disarm opponents instead of entangling them. You gain a +2 bonus on disarm checks made to use a net in this way."

Should this be interpreted the same as if the net gained the 'trip' special feature (i.e., you can drop it)?

When something says it can do X, and something else can do X and Y, that doesn't mean the first thing can do Y.

And presumably the +2 disarm benefit is the same as the 'disarm' special feature.

Functionally the same, yes. But keep in mind that this does not mean the weapon actually gains the disarm quality. This would become relevant if, say, a future spell/ability/whatever were able to grant a weapon the disarm quality - they would then stack. Just like the "Dual-Minded" half-elf alternate racial trait doesn't grant you the Iron Will feat - it just gives you a +2 to will saves. Same primary function, but not the same thing.

It would perhaps have been more clear if it just said "In melee, you can use a net as if it were a trip weapon or a disarm weapon."

As you can see, this would be functionally different.

Fair enough.

One more comment. Ultimate Combat p.130 states regarding grapple weapons:

While you grapple the target with a grappling weapon, you can only move or damage the creature on your turn. You are still considered grappled, though you do not have to be adjacent to the creature to continue the grapple. If you move far enough away to be out of the weapon's reach, you end the grapple with that action.

The above seems pretty clear to me that you're actually using the weapon in the grapple maneuver. Hence, a grapple weapon's bonuses should apply to grapple maneuvers.

So this seems similar to a trip weapon's bonuses applying to drag/reposition maneuvers.

Fair enough.

One more comment. Ultimate Combat p.130 states regarding grapple weapons:

Quote:

While you grapple the target with a grappling weapon, you can only move or damage the creature on your turn. You are still considered grappled, though you do not have to be adjacent to the creature to continue the grapple. If you move far enough away to be out of the weapon's reach, you end the grapple with that action.

The above seems pretty clear to me that you're actually using the weapon in the grapple maneuver. Hence, a grapple weapon's bonuses should apply to grapple maneuvers.

So this seems similar to a trip weapon's bonuses applying to drag/reposition maneuvers.

Note that the blog says that "normally" it's only the big three that use a weapon and get the related bonuses. I believe that's intended to leave room for special circumstances - with the grapple weapons you mentioned, or with some feats that allow you to grapple with a whip, I believe we exercise that leeway and follow the overall rule of "using a weapon = gaining weapon bonuses".

In short, a grapple weapon gets its bonuses on grapples.

Just to add two-penn'th of dissatisfaction!

Trip - Simplified but now broken! If using a big hook you only get the advantage of being able to drop it? (we don't play the drag about manoeuvres as yet)! I know it's only a game but...? It makes no sense.

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).

I can't seem to find the above anywhere within the RAW, FAQ, or errata. How is this anything more than a house rule or developer opinion?

looks at the blog's post date

looks at the date of the most recent errata for the APG

hakes the magic 8 ball

"Try again later."

July now and still no FAQ update. They must still be rethinking their mistake not to include a +2 CMB for Trip weapons on Trip attacks. Ruling must be coming any day now. Any day.

Sorry to be annoying and maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but I would like something clarified, mainly because I plan on GMing PFS games here shortly and I am trying to make everything fair and follow the rules as much as possible.

Weapon Finesse: If I have this feat, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus?

It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and 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 apply to the roll. Therefore, if you're attempting a disarm, sunder, or trip maneuver, you can apply your Dex bonus instead of your Str mod on the combat maneuver check (assuming you're using a finessable weapon, of course). For other combat maneuvers, you use the normal rule for determining CMB (Str instead of Dex).

The Agile Maneuvers feat applies to all combat maneuvers, not just disarm, sunder, and trip, so it is still a useful option for a Dex-based creature that uses combat maneuvers.

—Sean K Reynolds, 10/03/11

In this FAQ Mr. Reynolds specifically mentions Weapon Finesse working for trip, disarm, and sunder and "other combat maneuvers, you use the normal rule...(Str instead of Dex)"

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.

Here he mentions the bit of GM discretionary power to give situational rulings that make sense.

My problem is that to me it makes sense to use Weapon Finesse with grapple if you have Improved Unarmed Strike (IUS) and/or Improved Grappled (which has IUS as a prerequisite) because unarmed strikes are considered light weapons for feats etc. So to me the rules are saying that you're using your unarmed fighting to make this grapple and you can use Weapon Finesse with your unarmed fighting, which consequently should allow you to use weapon finesse with grapple.

However, that is just how I'm interpreting things and I don't want to run it that way in PFS games and possibly set my players up for failure when they go to other games and it's run differently. Should I just follow the RAW of the FAQ and ignore the discretionary option?

Follow the RAW, AND be lenient enough to allow viable concepts.

As suggested by this FAQ, we allowed the group's dex-based rogue to apply his Dexterity modifier and weapon bonuses to dirty trick maneuvers made with his brass knuckle, except for the "entangled" condition since it didn't fit the way the weapon works. (Punching the eyes/ears/throat/pretending a hit in the face seemed good ways to perform the blinded, dazzled, deafened, shaken, or sickened conditions).
Result = one happy player and no broken game !

You have a point with Grapple, except that it is sadly considered as a weapon on it's own (you can take Weapon Focus : grapple), not as an US.

As mentioned, Grapple and UAS are distinct 'weapons' re: Weapon Focus.
It's not just for finesse, if you have an Amulet of Magic Fists +2,
that +2 doesn't apply to Grapple (or normal Bullrush or Over Run, etc),
because you aren't delivering Grapple with UAS (same for those other CMBs).
Suffice it to say that although one COULD imagine Grapple as being delivered by UAS,
Paizo considers a succesful Grapple check to involve more of your body that JUST your hands, or your feet, etc,
but it involves your WHOLE body enough so that having magic (/finessed) hands doesn't carry over to the whole check.

I would agree that the RAW COULD better include Grapple, perhaps not even on Finesse,
but in regards to Fighter Weapon Training Groups, and/or benefitting from Amulets of Mighty Fist.
OH WELL

@Rendrin - PFS treats this blog entry as official. Is the bit about GMs situationally allowing a weapon to be used in other maneuvers part of the blog? Yes? Then that's PFS-official too.

whether grapple uses UAS is not really a situational call, but applicable to all grapples, so i wouldn't diverge from the core functionality there. your opinion may vary :-)

Good point. I sort of forgot the specific example by the time I replied. ;)

Alright, that ruling about there being a WF: Grapple decides it for me so that it probably shouldn't be finessable. Thanks everyone.

is the info about Trip Weapon Quality and Drag/Reposition ever going to be added to Errata for APG or the FAQ for the Trip Weapon Quality or something? nothing besides this blog post suggests the correlation between the Trip Weapon Quality and those maneuvers, certainly not the RAW of the maneuvers themselves or the Trip Weapon Quality.

Jiggy wrote:

#1:

SKR wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

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.

Can anyone tell me if there has been an answer posted for this yet?

is the info about Trip Weapon Quality and Drag/Reposition ever going to be added to Errata for APG or the FAQ for the Trip Weapon Quality or something? nothing besides this blog post suggests the correlation between the Trip Weapon Quality and those maneuvers, certainly not the RAW of the maneuvers themselves or the Trip Weapon Quality.

bump for great justice.

Jiggy wrote:

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.

We're still all waiting for this consulting to end. Yes or no would an enchantment bonus to unarmed strikes or weapon focus unarmed work on grapple checks.

Quandary wrote:

is the info about Trip Weapon Quality and Drag/Reposition ever going to be added to Errata for APG or the FAQ for the Trip Weapon Quality or something? nothing besides this blog post suggests the correlation between the Trip Weapon Quality and those maneuvers, certainly not the RAW of the maneuvers themselves or the Trip Weapon Quality.

bump for great justice.

Heh, I keep telling people you can use Trip weapons for them and pointing to this blog, as the origin of the errata for not needing a trip weapon to trip wth. If the blog's as good as RAW for that, I don't see why a few sentences later it's somehow no longer as good as RAW.

I am starting to think we need to petition d20pfsrd to include this update, though. I mean, they include posts about rule changes made in the PFS threads as actual "errata" (see White Haired Witch entry and follow the links all the way into the rabbit hole), and they *already* adapted the trip change, so...why not this as well?

This isn't about you and me or anybody who has read the Blog, it's about people who haven't,
and putting that info in the PROPER location to inform the general public of Pathfinder players, which is FAQ/Errata.

That's a separate issue from the whole Grapple vs. UAS/Finesse/AoMF vs. Fighter Weapon Training thing (which Paizo's acknowledged as something they will 'consult' about, even though the RAW is clear, indicating that Paizo may amend/diverge from the RAW) yet still hasn't announced anything after who knows how long. Maybe they'll get to this after recovery from GenCon.

Also, another question that is un-answered:

So it seems that the mythical ´non-weapon Trip attack´ doesn´t exist, right? (that wording existed in 3.5, but was removed in PRPG)

Which means that without weapons/nat wpns, "in place of a melee attack" Trip must use UNARMED STRIKE to deliver the Trip?
If somebody doesn´t have Improved Unarmed Strike, would they still provoke for making an UAS attack per se,
even if they avoid the Trip AoO by having the Improved Trip Feat? Per RAW, it appears so.

I know this thread's been around for a while, but it seems like as good a place as any to bring up an old idea I had in the area of maneuver weapons.

Use the improvised weapons rules for non-maneuver weapons. A -4 to trip with a great sword compared to one designed for the task just makes sense. It's similar to using a chair leg as an improvised club.

And since trip weapons also work for maneuvers like drag & reposition, then they wouldn't be improvised for those uses either.

The same rules would go for disarm weapons. It would be my preference to lose the +2 bonus in this case, but I can live with it for less rule revamping.

This fits as well with the rule of attempting to disarm while unarmed, which is also at a -4, thus an "improvised disarm weapon".

Seems simple enough to me, and fits well within the existing rule structure.

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).

* * * * *

Quandary wrote:

(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:

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.

(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. :)

* * * * *

Serisan wrote:

Another minor

...

Does this mean that on a normal combat maneuver (grapple) you wouldn't get to add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects?

The wording used would suggest that only on a follow up attack do you get to add those bonuses.

This is exactly why game developers shouldn't try to account for every aspect of realism in their games. The basic wording ruling was good enough, but because people want their games to be done their way but want developers to act as their referees we indeed up with convoluted explanations.

Could have just left it at "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 whole "must be applicable to the weapon and attack" wording just complicates matters cause now you have to describe which weapons work for what maneuvers, when the game doesn't need that level depth, when the point is you want to grapple, disarm, sunder, trip, bull rush, overrun, someone. How you do it shouldn't be the focus but whether or not you can succeed on the check, to which whether or not you are using a greataxe or your bare hand isn't necessarily the primary focus but whether you can meet the required DC.

Can you honestly say someone wearing a Cestus on their hand can't bullrush you by running at you and shoving you superhard with their full weight behind it? of course they can if they're big enough and strong enough, so why isn't bull rush listed as a maneuver that a person can do with a weapon to push you? same with overrun, football players do it all the time again with a shove which is still a kind of unarmed attack.

A lot of things are supposed to be left open to interpretation between gaming groups, developers shouldn't feel obligated to make a rule for every possible outcome. There is no rule for me wanting to stick a stick of dynamite up a exposed monsters anus, or down it's throat and watch the creature explode from the result.

ARISE! ARISE my thread!

Jiggy wrote:

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.

Still waiting for the consultation to end. :/