Renitent Rover's page

I posted this somewhat off topic in another thread. Tyring to get a discussion going apropos the right thread and not hijack someone elses.

SKR wrote a blog post in 2011 where he mentioned several rulings in an attempt to clarify CMB bonues acquired from weapons and other sources. The blog has four pages of posted messages with it that bring up several questions as well:

See this link for more information.

My main question is about when is it applicable to add the bonuses from unarmed strike (weapon focus (unarmed strike), AoMF, Brawling armor property etc) to some Combat Maneuvers (CMs)? Between the SRD on CMs, and the linked blog post above, I see a lot of wiggle room for multiple interpretations.

In the blog post like I pointed out above, the question about bonuses to grapple was asked in the posts following the Blog linked above. Some of the relevant dialogue is here:

in the spoilered quote, @jiggy's post and SKR said he would consult with JJ and get back to us. As it's been two years, I'm not holding my breath (and yes they're busy and have higher priorities, but I would love to see this readdressed...so hit FAQ! And in this case, I really think it needs it, and is NOT an overuse of the FAQ). The blog post isn't quite as good as an errata; the RAW often can't withstand a detailed parsing of their contents; and the blog didn't go through the devs review process the way an errata would, but it's what we have to work with.

I don't carry the rep on these boards that some of the common and well known posters do like @wraithstrike, @ravingdork, @cheapy or @jiggy do, but I do have a fair amount of system mastery...I just happen to be a professional lurker rather than an avid poster. So, I do want your opinions, but I think this issue has multiple references which I will try to cover here along with the link above.

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. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

(emphasis mine)

This seems clear to me, in that if you use something to affect the CM, you get to add any bonuses from that attack method to the CM.

A. The blog post muddied the waters IMO for unarmed strikes with grapple. The SRD quote above was what I always used to allow unarmed strike bonuses for grapple, as your clearly using your hands. Under the grapple rules, you take a -4 penalty for not using both hands to make the grapple. Once you have the grapple condition (attacker or defender) you can only use actions that require one hand, meaning your other hand is involved. So an attack to grapple is clearly using your hands by game mechanics.

Now to SKR's blog. He says

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.

(emphasis on normally mine).

B. SKR references unarmed strikes (US) as weapons for the three CMs. This is important if you have neither the feat IUS (FIUS) or the Monk's IUS (MIUS). The MIUS is the only one that says your hands become weapons. So SKR's comment is important in that it allows both those with just FIUS and without the feat to count their hands as weapons for Trip, Disarm and Sunder. It's being permissive for USs and natural weapons against those three CMs. It is NOT being restrictive in saying the CANNOT apply to other CMs. Further more, the IUS feat says "You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.", which could be fairly inclusive for CMs.

C. SKR says normally only those three use weapons, allowing for exceptions. He cites a couple in 1) polearm master using a polearm to bull rush, 2) weapons with trip property for drag or reposition. There are clearly other exception as with shield slam feat and supporting feats (shield focus, shield specialization, weapon focus shield).

D.

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.

This is generally true, and I hate to infer what SKR was saying, but I assess in this context he was saying 'weapon' as in a manufactured weapon. The examples he uses are a longsword and a dagger, which aren't helpful in a grapple (unless you have Hamatula Strike and a piercing weapon). As I pointed out above, hands are used in a grapple and are certainly not just "incidental" to the grapple based upon the grapple rules and the penalties required for using hands. So I assess they are an exception.

E.

Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers

From my points above, I have always ruled that bonuses to unarmed strike support the grapple CM in all circumstances, and by extension, weapon finesse would allow you to sub Dex for Str as unarmed strike is a light weapon.

Grapple to me is the most clear cut case, the other CMs are more ambiguous to me.

1. Drag - in most circumstances would include you grabbing your opponent with your hands (or a weapon) and dragging them with you. So yes to unarmed strike. Besides that, I only know of weapons with the 'trip' property being able to transfer bonuses.

2. Reposition - less clear. If you are manhandling them into the new square, then yes unarmed strike would apply, but if you do it through constantly threatening their left side so the move right, then no. Leaves some room for interpretation. Besides that, I only know of weapons with the 'trip' property being able to transfer bonuses.

3. Bull rush - maybe if you did a sumo wrestling style push you could use unarmed strike bonuses, but probably not. Shields work awfully well with the right feats (and shield focus and weapon focus (shield) would help out). Without them, this one benefits from Agile Maneuvers and not much else (if you have a high DEX build obviously).

4. Over run - I would probably allow shields to help in some circumstances, but there's no RAW to support this. Agile Manuevers still helps here without shield builds (and the shields is just my (probably generous) interpretation.)

5. Steal - definitely use hands. Rules even allow the use of a whip. However it's an odd one and not an 'attack' per se like the others, so unarmed strike probably wouldn't help. But it is an attack cause it uses CMB. Hell, I don't know on this one. Never seen it in play.

6. Feint - NOT a CM and uses a different mechanic.

Noting how a bull rush build can easily be made using shields, and drag and reposition can use weapons with the 'trip' property, grapple, overrun and steal are getting left behind on CMB bonuses as you level up.

I believe this whole issue is important for a couple of game balance issues. If you don't allow something like unarmed strike to be used with a grapple, then by mid levels when compared to trip, disarm and sunder, grapple and the other CMs start to fall behind in their CMB check by 4-5 points as the others start to pile on bonuses from weapon enhancement, weapon focus, fighter weapon training etc, and it gets worse. This clearly makes some CMs superior to others on just what you can add to CMB, which doesn't support variety of play, nor do I think is good for the game. We all know that CMD climbs into the stratosphere in the late game, so the only way to have grapple, overrun, and steal to keep up with Trip, sunder, and disarm is to have some way to help add to them.

The other game balance issue is that allowing bonuses to unarmed strike to support the CMB for grapple, you help the monk with an AoMF just a little by keeping grapple a good option for them. Everyone know's they need it.

Last point. Weapon Focus (WF) lists grapple as a possible focus. While this is currently RAW, I think it causes more problems than helping. If I can take grapple, I can take trip. If I have a WF (flail) and WF (trip), they stack, causing further inflation of the three you can clearly use with weapons.

Not to mention that if I can take WF (grapple), which fighter weapon group does it fall into? Does it come under close or natural? Is there another one for just CMs?

SKR and the other devs still should provide an answer on the use of unarmed strike bonuses with grapple CMB, but I think my points above provide solid support that they should, both mechanically from how the rules are written, as well as from a game balance perspective.

Kamelguru wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Renitent Rover wrote:

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.

Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?

honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.

So...

- You cannot use ranged combat against someone who does not have a ranged weapon. Because that is an unfair advantage.

- You cannot use spells against a non-spellcaster, because that is unfair.

- You cannot use Lay on Hands when fighting an enemy without healing capability, because that is unfair.

- You cannot use a magical weapon against someone with a mundane weapon, because that is unfair.

- You cannot attack someone when you are buffed, or when they have been debuffed.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Fair is not the same as honorable. Please try again.

He doesn't really need to, he was using a bit of sarcasm to point out how your point wasn't supported by RAW. You are making an interpretation of honorable that is not supported by RAW. A Japanses samarai, a 17th Century British Naval officer, and a Teutonic knight would all have a very different understanding of what is honorable or not. The devs didn't define it, except for a couple of points, that leaves it up to this debate.

My point is that you should not be declaring your position is supported by RAW, as it's not. I think any GM should define such a codes for his Paladin in his home brew to some extent (or work with the player), but the rules don't give it.

My point about the prisoners stands. The RAW require the paladin to uphold the law and provide justice and combat evil. Executing a prisoner falls within the scope of this and ARE supported, if the means of adjudication were righteous (which a divinely provide class ability would be).

My point here takes some extrapolation or my part as well, but I believe my logic holds.

Renitent Rover wrote:

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.

If you're going to posit that your position is RAW, then you're missing a couple of points in your above statement.

1)Nowhere is sneak attack disallowed, or coup de grace, and an ambush is a perfectly acceptable combat tactic.
2) Poison is specifically mentioned (not sure why)
3) and your conclusion of "then..." is an extapolation of the rules, not "just reading the rules"

BIGGEST POINT- an execution is an act of justice, precipitated from the Paladin's position of authority to act as his diety's champion and arbiter within the scope of law. A properly executed execution is NOT an attack against a helpless opponent, but an extension of the law. It's not random or capricious, but done with forethought and after the Paladin renders judgement against them.

Also, to make more of a point, the code doesn't say he cannot attack helpless opponents (sleeping, stunned, held, ambushed, etc). It never makes any such claim. You are reading into what honorable means more than the rules.

It would be perfectly legitimate for the game to supply codes of conduct (like vows, orders etc) that spelled out more precisely what the behavior is...but you have no ground to claim you position comes from RAW. You are making an interpretation, predicated on a flawed understanding of what chivalric or clergy honor codes really demanded.

You can either base them on hisrtoric codes (in which case you're wrong), or you can base your Paladin code on a made up one. A perfectly legitimate way to proceed in your homebrew, but has no standing in RAW.

Renitent Rover wrote:

We've been over this whole stupid idea of "proper authorities" already.

a) No one is a better proper authority than a Paladin; especially in the absence of a respectable governing body.

Also, your other repeated argument keeps being that killing unarmed prisoners in evil. I ask again, how do LG societies execute people then???
b) That's an incredibly basic judicial action followed by societies througout history, some way to lawfully kill a criminal for the greater good.

Taking a) and b), killing prisoners is not only NOT dishonorable, it is often required by ANY PC trying to uphold law and justice, or work for the common good, but especially for a Paladin.

a) Is wrong.

b) I never said it was even, but it does break the paladin's code. Which is a step above most LG characters.

Killing prisoners is not the paladin's job.

A) is not wrong, another poster made a very good argument for why a Paladin would be the best judge. summary= if he's corrupt or makes the wrong desicion, he loses his powers, so after every adjudication, if he can still lay on hands, he made a good call.

His code requires him to uphold the law. You are making a declaration that killing prisoners is not honorable. That is flat wrong. Many honorable codes in history and literature allow (and even demand) the killing of prisoners. There is some form of Judgment that takes place (what we call a trial by jury in the USA today and due process), but that judgement can also be as simple as "detect evil".

The honor part of the code is very ambiguous, it only says the Paladin must act honorably at all times. You are the one that is declaring that it is not honorable to kill prisoners. The code never says that, and I completely disagree that it's dishonorable to kill prisoners. It can often be the right thing to do. It can also often be the wrong thing to do as well.

Our modern day convetion of treating prisoners of war with dignitiy and not harming them is relatively recent, and medieval chivalric orders and clergy certainly didn't have this requirement.

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"

Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.

Should he have healed up the morlock, given it a weapon, and then slew it in combat? Why? The morlock likely has absolutely no chance winning, in which case you are setting up a farce combat in order to create a facade of honor. This almost seems evil to me, as you are deliberately setting up the morlock to suffer more.

He should take helpless creatures prisoner and turn them over to the proper authorities. Even if he give the morlock a sword. If the morlock does not try to fight the paladin, he can in no way honorably kill it.

We've been over this whole stupid idea of "proper authorities" already.

a) No one is a better proper authority than a Paladin; especially in the absence of a respectable governing body.

Also, your other repeated argument keeps being that killing unarmed prisoners in evil. I ask again, how do LG societies execute people then???
b) That's an incredibly basic judicial action followed by societies througout history, some way to lawfully kill a criminal for the greater good.

Taking a) and b), killing prisoners is not only NOT dishonorable, it is often required by ANY PC trying to uphold law and justice, or work for the common good, but especially for a Paladin.

stuff...

We did argue the points, the three of us, in character. With the ninja and Balto pointing out that killing helpless individuals was the antithesis of 'good' and doing so without any due process or even evidence they'd committed 'evil' acts was the opposite of 'lawful'.

We did not prevail. The paladin reasoned that they (three morlocks and a drow) detected evil, they would perform evil acts if released, and it was therefore his duty to slay them (though he offered to do it in combat if we wanted to give them weapons; since it hardly could have been a fair fight, we didn't bite).

We backed down instead. I can't speak for the ninja, but Balto decided the consequences were on the head of the paladin and walked away.

In the end, the drow was spared because he bargained with the paladin - his life for information (so in fact, we, the party, finally have an inkling of what is going on in the module). The morlocks were killed out of hand without even being...

There was due process, the Paladin detected evil. That's enough. They are priests, or 5HD+. The got the evil aura from committing evil acts. His detection confirms it, and the law demands justice (execution). Now it didn't happen in a courtroom with a lawyer, but this isn't a CG society trying to live with each other.

The Paladin doesn't need some secular local beuracrat to empower him to enforce justice....his divine patron gives him that authority. He should work with them when they are available, and rendering justice as the Paly's god sees fit. But in their absence, or their malingering malfeasance, the Paly's god demands that his champion takes action.

IMO, most players tend to put modern day attitudes (and modern Western values of individual freedom) on their characters, which pushes most players' perception of morality closer to CG. We may live in modern rule-of-law societies, but they are societies that promote protection of individual freedoms like Andoran.

Singapore would be much closer to a LG, where drug dealers are executed and spitting on the sidewalk gets you flogged (for spreading vectors in a crowded metropolis), both strict lawful responses that are for the greater good above the individual.

Well, that's one reason that I try to build all of my characters with more than just one thing in mind. Focusing on ONLY DPS or ONLY AC or ONLY Diplomacy is a recipe for disaster. A skillful PFS player manages to cover multiple bases.

And when role-playing in character, a skillfull pathfinder agent wants to cover those bases as well. His organization keeps sending him out on murkily defined missions, against odds that outnumber him, and with people he's never worked with before. If the agent wants to bring his butt back alive (and has an INT and/or WIS above 8), he'll quickly realize he needs to develop the attitude of being a top tier special agent himself and use team work. By the time he's 4th or 5th level, he's had 40-50 combats under his belt. From a role-playing persepctive, he'll definitely want to optimize some to survive those...as does any real world profession that engages in like activity.

That being said, for the OP, I've only seen one player death in PFS and that was in Day of the Demon.

As for teamwork, it also means learning to let others do the work for the good of the group and taking a step back: