Nope, I never bought the Rules Compendium, and I do not consider it a valid source of rulings for Pathfinder.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"You can trip with this weapon" does not mean "You cannot trip with any other weapon". You've yet to provide any rule that supports the second statement.
Yea, you see, we could do this all day long.
Because my response to you is:
"Yes it does mean you cannot trip with any other weapon" by RAW.
I made no unpleasant remark about you.
The first sentence identifies the weapon as a special trip weapon.
As I said, your interpretation is not one bit better defined that mine.
Neither did I (make an unpleasant remark.)
The first sentence affirmatively asserts this weapon can do something no other weapon can do, specifically can be used with the Trip action.
If we are to believe your interpretation (and yes I'm fine with both interpretations being consider RAW), then the first sentence is unnecessary. If a line is unnecessary, then you are choosing to ignore it.
On the contrary, I believe that line was necessary to demonstrate that only weapons with this property can be used for Trip attempts.
I do not consider it a valid source of rulings for Pathfinder.
+1 since in 3.5 this would never have been debated. As mentioned above some lines were removed from 3.5 to 3.p rules. The removal of those lines introduced this debate.
The first sentence affirmatively asserts this weapon can do something no other weapon can do, specifically can be used with the Trip action.
Incorrect, speaking both grammatically and logically.
James Risner and the Grandfather appear to position themselves under "A", and no longer wish to debate the matter, which is fine for them. I wish them well.
First off I have withdraw from this discussion as I see it as a pointless stand off. Just as none of you have been able to point out just a single paragraph explicitly allowing trip attacks with any weapon we have not been able to do the opposite.
Since you insist on dragging me back into this discussion I will state my stance.
On trip weapons:
"Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If
you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can
drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."
I repeat:
"Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If
you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can
drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."
To me the italized sentance makes absolutely no meaning if any weapon can be tripped with. Its as simple as that. If that sentence had not been there I would agree with you. But it is there, so I do not.
As for unarmed attacks there are examples of it working with disarm and in a RL context it makes good sense that combat maneuvers can be acomplished with unarmed attacks.
To me it is a matter of context. When I read the rules as a whole this is the interpretation that makes sense to me.
As an example of reading out of context:
Unarmed Strike description:
"Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when
unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when
you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can
deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice."
I could, reading it out of context, conclude that I can with this feat do any combat maneuver without provokin AoO.
Does it make sense? To some it might.
Is it RAW? In a sense.
Is it a correct interpretation of RAW? Not in my world.
As for trip weapons you are reading them out of context. A context that there are numerous other weapons, and these do not allow the performance of the trip maneuver.
The first sentence affirmatively asserts this weapon can do something no other weapon can do, specifically can be used with the Trip action.Incorrect, speaking both grammatically and logically.
Please elaborate!
Please elaborate!The first sentence affirmatively asserts this weapon can do something no other weapon can do, specifically can be used with the Trip action.Incorrect, speaking both grammatically and logically.
James asserts that the statement "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks" means "Weapons without the trip property cannot be used to make trip attacks".
This is incorrect grammatically because it is a permissive phrase, not a restrictive one. It isn't saying which weapons cannot be used; it is merely saying that this one can be used. I can say to you, "You can paint the wall with red paint"; does that then mean that you cannot paint the wall with any other color of paint? Or that red paint can only be used to paint the wall? That is what James is claiming the sentence says.
It is incorrect logically because saying A == B is not the same as saying !A != B. In layman's speak, the fact that A equals B is not the same as <anything but A> does not equal B. In other words, B can equal A, C, and Z, all at the same time. In terms of this discussion, weapons with the Trip property are A, weapons without the Trip property are C, and the ability to use them in a trip attack is B. Just because A is permitted to B, doesn't mean only A is permitted to B. This is, in fact, a very clear-cut case of the logical propositional fallacy known as "denying the antecedent".
Now, all of that doesn't mean that James is wrong about the intent of the rule; claiming otherwise would make me guilty of arguing from fallacy, another logical fallacy. It does, however, mean that his argument has no basis in the rules as written.
EDIT: To be clear about the grammar issue, it is a remarkable sentence in that it is either badly worded or redundant. If the intent is to deny the use of non-trip weapons in a trip attempt, then either the Trip property or the Trip rules should read "Only weapons with the trip special property can be used to make a Trip attack". If the intent is that all weapons can be used to trip with, then the sentence can be removed altogether with no effect whatsoever. Where he sees clear intent, I see an error that could be interpreted either way.
Now, all of that doesn't mean that James is wrong about the intent of the rule; claiming otherwise would make me guilty of arguing from fallacy, another logical fallacy. It does, however, mean that his argument has no basis in the rules as written.
Does this mean that you are basically just arguing for the sake of the argument?
Many things can be interpreted from the RAW but that does not make it alle correct.I would prefer if the rules where read in context as I explained above.
Who came op with RAW any way.
RAW are in many argumants just a collection of words, and can be reduced to the W. The R to me is the intent that the W are trying to represent. And when egos and ulterior motives get mixed into the argument the RAW often becomes the WAR.
You must admit the futility of this dscussion since only an official ruling can give us the information we are all missing.
When someone states a blatant falsehood, I call them out on it. It's pretty much that simple. I really don't give a hoot'n'hollar whether you consider this discussion to have any point. When you asked for clarification, I thought you were actually interested in discussing; I see now that I was wrong.
When someone states a blatant falsehood, I call them out on it. It's pretty much that simple. I really don't give a hoot'n'hollar whether you consider this discussion to have any point. When you asked for clarification, I thought you were actually interested in discussing; I see now that I was wrong.
You should not be offended. But you cannot simply write "Incorrect..." and expect to be taken serously.
I agree with your explanation, but simply do not understand where you want to go with it. Hootn'hollar and all...
I agree with your explanation, but simply do not understand where you want to go with it.
The entire foundation for James's argument is his one assertion. Yours, too, for the record, although you at least provided support to the assertion.
By showing that his assertion is baseless, I show that his argument is baseless. He now must disprove my assertions about his argument, come up with new support for his argument, or cede the discussion; at least, if he acts in a logical fashion.
And as for which interpretations make sense... all I have to do to feel good about my interpretation is watch any random Jackie Chan movie. Jackie Chan trips people with anything and everything he can get his hands on, none of which would be labeled with the Trip property in D&D.
And as for which interpretations make sense... all I have to do to feel good about my interpretation is watch any random Jackie Chan movie. Jackie Chan trips people with anything and everything he can get his hands on, none of which would be labeled with the Trip property in D&D.
Thinking of movies I would like that combat maneuver Riddick pulls of with the tin mug in Chronicles of Riddick!
Let's use the text of the ability to make our points, shall we?Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).Here, Flurry of Blows specifically states exactly which weapons it is usable with. None of the Combat Maneuvers list any restrictions whatsoever, ...
True, which only imples that the weapon you're wielding does not restrict the kind of maneuver you can attempt, but the text will just get us so far.
We're stalled in a grey zone so as meabolex claims we should try to get to the intent of the rule.That's why I mention the flurry ability; as a parallelism.
The ability states that unarmed strikes or special weapons allow the monk to use the flurry.
Quite similar to the claim that I, among others, am making.
Also to mention is the fact that unarmed strikes can be performed with any part of the body.
So just as a monk can flurry with unarmed strikes with a non flurry weapon in his hands, any character can use a maneuver with any weapon in his hands. Defaulting to unarmed strike to perform the maneuver unless the weapon has the special ability; being that the case the weapon can be used.
...nor do any of them state that they are usable with any weapons at all.
Let's use the text of the rule to make our points, shall we?
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. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Just to paraphrase you:
When someone states a blatant falsehood, I call them out on it.By showing that his assertion is baseless, I show that his argument is baseless. He now must disprove my assertions about his argument, come up with new support for his argument, or cede the discussion; at least, if he acts in a logical fashion.
...These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver...
To me this looks as restrictive. There's only one ruling regarding applicability of a maneuver with a weapon: Special weapon abilities.
Eg: +2 to disarm with disarm weapon. And while I accept that the ability to drop the weapon if you fumble the roll is not a numerical bonus, it's still a bonus.
And as purely anecdotal evidence, in 3.5 you needed no weapon to perform a trip attack. The trip weapons, again, only provided some measure of safety should the maneuver go poorly. I find it hard to accept that Pathfinder actually restricts the trip ability in the effort attempts to simplify and streamline it.
With all due respect that's not what I think is been said here.
I'ts you who put out those A, B, C categories and started sorting people.A.) Adhere to the Equipment Section description, and forbid certain combat manuevers (specifically trip) if the weapon doesn't have the appropriate property.
Adding that when you cannot use a weapon you default to unarmed strike would be a closer approach to the intent of the rule.
B.) Take the Combat Chapter and description of the manuevers at face value. If there isn't a requirement for a special weapon listed, then there is no such requirement.
Again, there's no such requirement because even wielding a non trip weapon you can default to unarmed strike to perform the maneuver.
C.) Take the spirit of Point B, and evaluate each situation on a case by case basis. If the weapon doesn't lend itself to the manuever, then rule on that case specifically, but don't necessarily apply a broad sweeping rule.
If we assume that case by case basis means using the weapon description as a guideline this entire section could be incorporated into A.
You placed me in the C section; that's not exactly mi position. With the adjustments I suggest you I'd be more of an A person.
Does anyone taking part in this discussion own or have access to WotC's final official rule book for 3.5, the Rules Compendium? If so, turn to page 145 to see a somewhat expanded description of Trip. It is still not clear enough, but after reading though it, I believe what both 3.5 and PF are trying to say about Trip is that in order to attempt to trip an opponent, no matter what you are using to make the attempt, you make an unarmed melee touch attack which will provoke an AoO from the defender. But, what the weapons do that have the special trip ability is that when using one of them you make a melee touch attack with the weapon and do NOT provoke an AoO from the defender.
That's all true in a 3.5 context. In pathfinder though, that melee touch attack and the subsequent check are streamlined into only one roll. There's "apparently" a gap in the rules about what is exactly used to make this attack so hence the discussion.
|
My interpretation is that you can use trip with any weapon, and that weapons with the trip property give you a +2 bonus to the roll and may be dropped to prevent a retributive trip in the event of a massive failure.
There are some inconsistencies among the wording of the big three maneuvers that should usable with weapons (sunder,trip, and disarm). I think it would be good to get some clarification on the type of action it takes to perform the maneuvers (single attack vs. attack action in a full attack sequence for example), as well as a clarification on what can be used to execute the maneuvers.
I could see how the RAW could be interpreted either way, so I would feel better with clarification for organized play. In my home game, I will just run it how I see fit. As long as the same rules apply to both the PCs and the foes they will be facing it won't really hurt gameplay in the long run, with either ruling in effect.
love,
malkav
There are some inconsistencies among the wording of the big three maneuvers that should usable with weapons (sunder,trip, and disarm). I think it would be good to get some clarification on the type of action it takes to perform the maneuvers (single attack vs. attack action in a full attack sequence for example), as well as a clarification on what can be used to execute the maneuvers.I could see how the RAW could be interpreted either way, so I would feel better with clarification for organized play. In my home game, I will just run it how I see fit. As longs as the same rules apply to both the PCs and the foes they will be facing it won't really hurt gameplay in the long run, with either ruling in effect.
love,
malkav
+1
Since you insist on dragging me back into this discussion I will state my stance.
I will not accept responsibility for what you choose or choose not to do. You're more than welcome to post or change your mind about posting, but I can't make you do anything.
You made the decision to get involved again when after you felt there was no point in continuing. And that's just fine- but that was your choice.
My interpretation is that you can use trip with any weapon, and that weapons with the trip property give you a +2 bonus to the roll and may be dropped to prevent a retributive trip in the event of a massive failure.
There are some inconsistencies among the wording of the big three maneuvers that should usable with weapons (sunder,trip, and disarm). I think it would be good to get some clarification on the type of action it takes to perform the maneuvers (single attack vs. attack action in a full attack sequence for example), as well as a clarification on what can be used to execute the maneuvers.
I could see how the RAW could be interpreted either way, so I would feel better with clarification for organized play. In my home game, I will just run it how I see fit. As longs as the same rules apply to both the PCs and the foes they will be facing it won't really hurt gameplay in the long run, with either ruling in effect.
love,
malkav
+2
And to Nidho, Grandfather, and James Risner,
I have no issue with admitting I was (or could be) wrong should we get a clarification that proves just that. I'm not invested in being right. Respectfully I just don't think I'm wrong based on your arguments, any more than you of by mine. But feel free to drag me back here to say it, if and when you get an offical ruling.
With all due respect that's not what I think is been said here.
I'ts you who put out those A, B, C categories and started sorting people.
I was trying to understand where you were coming from, and you made the remark (and it was in the context of Sundering) about looking at the weapon itself to see if it made sense for the maneuver. I think I also left it open for you to correct me if I was wrong; which you have done, and that's cool.
Now if you want to read something bad into that and take umbrage, I'm sorry.
|
My interpretation is that you can use trip with any weapon, and that weapons with the trip property give you a +2 bonus to the roll and may be dropped to prevent a retributive trip in the event of a massive failure.
Note that "Trip" weapons do not give any sort of bonus to the maneuver roll. "Disarm" weapons do.
Note also the special property "Reach". It says you can strike at foes 10' away. A whip has the "reach" property. So naturally, the way some here read it, they would rule that you can use a whip to strike at foes only 10' away. However, the entry for the whip states that you can strike adjacent foes, or even foes up to 15' away. The specific entry for the whip supercedes the generic "reach" ability. I'd say the same applies for the specific entry under "Trip" in the combat section vs the two line blurb in the weapons chapter.
+2
And to Nidho, Grandfather, and James Risner,
I have no issue with admitting I was (or could be) wrong should we get a clarification that proves just that. I'm not invested in being right. Respectfully I just don't think I'm wrong based on your arguments, any more than you of by mine. But feel free to drag me back here to say it, if and when you get an offical ruling.
The only think that matters to me is to be wright.
That is I will happily change how the rule is enforced in my game to conform with an official ruling :D
|
I wish to chime in with my support towards the following:
Only weapons with the trip quality may be used to trip.
I cite the trip description in equipment as my own reasoning. It has been stated that this is not enough, that just because trip weapons are allowed to trip this does not mean any others can. Something involving red paint was used as an analogy.
In my experience, and my experience is vast, D&D (and now Pathfinder) has a history of calling things out when they are exceptions. The entire 'exception based gameplay' as it were. In this case, I have to agree that if all weapons could be used for tripping then the description for a Trip weapon would be different, something along the lines of "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt with a trip weapon, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."
However, the first part about using a trip weapon to make trip attempts was included, and I find it makes a world of sense. Some weapons, like a dagger or club, I would think difficult to use to trip someone. Others though I do agree, like my faithful's quarterstaff, should be allowed to trip.
In terms of RAW, my stance is thus: Only trip weapons (or 'unarmed' if lacking one) may be used to trip.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
asknethys@karuikage.net
|
|
Note that "Trip" weapons do not give any sort of bonus to the maneuver roll. "Disarm" weapons do.
Note also the special property "Reach". It says you can strike at foes 10' away. A whip has the "reach" property. So naturally, the way some here read it, they would rule that you can use a whip to strike at foes only 10' away. However, the entry for the whip states that you can strike adjacent foes, or even foes up to 15' away. The specific entry for the whip supercedes the generic "reach" ability. I'd say the same applies for the specific entry under "Trip" in the combat section vs the two line blurb in the weapons chapter.
ah! I did not catch that. I still stand by my interpretation minus the +2 bonus.
If in fact the trip quality is used to determine which weapons are physically capable of tripping then IMO the quality needs to be added to several other weapons (like quarterstaves, and pretty much all two handed melee weapons).
But once again, that is just my own view. I would still like clarification.
love,
malkav
|
|
Note that "Trip" weapons do not give any sort of bonus to the maneuver roll. "Disarm" weapons do.
Note also the special property "Reach". It says you can strike at foes 10' away. A whip has the "reach" property. So naturally, the way some here read it, they would rule that you can use a whip to strike at foes only 10' away. However, the entry for the whip states that you can strike adjacent foes, or even foes up to 15' away. The specific entry for the whip supercedes the generic "reach" ability. I'd say the same applies for the specific entry under "Trip" in the combat section vs the two line blurb in the weapons chapter.
ah! I did not catch that. I still stand by my interpretation minus the +2 bonus.
If in fact the trip quality is used to determine which weapons are physically capable of tripping then IMO the quality needs to be added to several other weapons (like quarterstaves, and pretty much all two handed melee weapons).
But once again, that is just my own view. I would still like clarification.
love,
malkav
Quarterstaffs I agree with. I think trying to use a Greataxe or Greatsword to trip with should actually have a penalty, akin to using that weapon for subdual damage (-4). After all, I think it'd be pretty freaking hard to trip someone with a giant blade that was made for chopping and not tripping. Unless you count chopping their legs off as a 'trip'. :D
I was trying to understand where you were coming from, and you made the remark (and it was in the context of Sundering) about looking at the weapon itself to see if it made sense for the maneuver. I think I also left it open for you to correct me if I was wrong; which you have done, and that's cool.
I respect that. I also consider it the base to any debate.
Now if you want to read something bad into that and take umbrage, I'm sorry.
I do not take it bad at all. I'm sorry that I made that impression.
|
|
You can trip with a greataxe all day, so long as you read "trip" as "put the enemy on their arse". Swinging a 12 pound axe in a manner to cause bleeding and loss of limb is different from swinging a 12lb axe in a manner designed to lift the foe off his feet and let him fall to the ground.
The net effect of trip is to put a foe on the ground without having to muck around with all those hit points. In that context, I see no reason to disallow the use of ANY weapon based on that criteria. Some weapons are especially useful in such attempts, in that the weapon itself gets caught up with the foe (as opposed to your entire body while weilding the weapon) and as such can be dropped long before the enemy gets the opportunity to turn the tables on you. But to say you can't put a foe on the ground with anything but a whip, halberd, sickle, a flail/heavy flail/dire flail, guisarme, scythe, kama, spiked chain or bola is nonsensical.
|
|
You can trip with a greataxe all day, so long as you read "trip" as "put the enemy on their arse". Swinging a 12 pound axe in a manner to cause bleeding and loss of limb is different from swinging a 12lb axe in a manner designed to lift the foe off his feet and let him fall to the ground.
The net effect of trip is to put a foe on the ground without having to muck around with all those hit points. In that context, I see no reason to disallow the use of ANY weapon based on that criteria. Some weapons are especially useful in such attempts, in that the weapon itself gets caught up with the foe (as opposed to your entire body while weilding the weapon) and as such can be dropped long before the enemy gets the opportunity to turn the tables on you. But to say you can't put a foe on the ground with anything but a whip, halberd, sickle, a flail/heavy flail/dire flail, guisarme, scythe, kama, spiked chain or bola is nonsensical.
This I agree with.
love,
malkav
You can trip with a greataxe all day, so long as you read "trip" as "put the enemy on their arse".
Quote of the day.
The entire 'exception based gameplay' as it were.
In a nut shell!
|
|
Something to consider: Some combat maneuvers are Standard Actions and some are Melee Attacks.
Standard Action:
Bull Rush
Grapple
Overrun
Feint
Melee Attack:
Disarm
Sunder
Trip
Seems like a demarcation between things you do with and without a weapon. So arguing that you don't grapple with a weapon and thus shouldn't trip with a non-trip weapon shouldn't hold water.
Let's use the text of the rule to make our points, shall we?
Just to paraphrase you:
When someone states a blatant falsehood, I call them out on it.By showing that his assertion is baseless, I show that his argument is baseless. He now must disprove my assertions about his argument, come up with new support for his argument, or cede the discussion; at least, if he acts in a logical fashion.
That's a really bad paraphrase, for three reasons.
First, what I said was not false in the slightest. I said "none of <the maneuvers> state they can be used with weapons". This is completely true: None of the maneuvers state that they can be used with any weapons at all. Not even the Combat Maneuvers text (which is NOT the text for any of the maneuvers, and thus outside of the truth of my statement) says that; it implies it, yes, but nowhere does it say, "You can perform a combat maneuver with a weapon" or anything like it.
Second, you're ignoring the very important point that this is not the single supporting assertion for my entire argument in this matter. Thus, disproving it (which you have not) does not disprove my argument, which means I don't have to react to it in any fashion.
Third, you didn't paraphrase, you quoted.
...These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver...To me this looks as restrictive. There's only one ruling regarding applicability of a maneuver with a weapon: Special weapon abilities.
Eg: +2 to disarm with disarm weapon. And while I accept that the ability to drop the weapon if you fumble the roll is not a numerical bonus, it's still a bonus.
You should quote the context as well as the statement when making an assertion like that, unless your intent is to deceive. Because that's not at all what that line is saying.
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.
The rules are clearly referring only to bonuses to attack rolls. Trip weapons don't grant a bonus to attack rolls.
Folks..
A brief sidetrack.
I think we're all trying to reign in our tempers (or we should be) and that's a good thing.
It's pretty clear we could do with a clarification from on high. If not for our own home games (which we can adjudicate any way we wish), but for games that run in a pubic venue (like PFS games).
Whether we agree on trip attacks or not, I invite you to join me THIS THREAD asking Paizo to consider some sort of process where we can start getting some rule clarifications on this stuff that we can't come to accord about on our own. It's often talked about doing a FAQ, but it hasn't happened yet. We all know how busy they are, but if we got just a couple of things clarified every week or so, then in a month or two we'd be a lot further along than we are now.
And it would be a lot less stressful, and that makes for a better community.
You may not agree with the process that I suggested in the thread, and that's fine. However any kindly call for some clarifications would be helpful, if just to show the need if not the method of doing it.
Folks..
A brief sidetrack.
I think we're all trying to reign in our tempers (or we should be) and that's a good thing.
It's pretty clear we could do with a clarification from on high. If not for our own home games (which we can adjudicate any way we wish), but for games that run in a pubic venue (like PFS games).
Whether we agree on trip attacks or not, I invite you to join me THIS THREAD asking Paizo to consider some sort of process where we can start getting some rule clarifications on this stuff that we can't come to accord about on our own. It's often talked about doing a FAQ, but it hasn't happened yet. We all know how busy they are, but if we got just a couple of things clarified every week or so, then in a month or two we'd be a lot further along than we are now.
And it would be a lot less stressful, and that makes for a better community.
You may not agree with the process that I suggested in the thread, and that's fine. However any kindly call for some clarifications would be helpful, if just to show the need if not the method of doing it.
Good idea.
First, what I said was not false in the slightest. I said "none of <the maneuvers> state they can be used with weapons". This is completely true: None of the maneuvers state that they can be used with any weapons at all. Not even the Combat Maneuvers text (which is NOT the text for any of the maneuvers, and thus outside of the truth of my statement) says that; it implies it, yes, but nowhere does it say, "You can perform a combat maneuver with a weapon" or anything like it.Second, you're ignoring the very important point that this is not the single supporting assertion for my entire argument in this matter. Thus, disproving it (which you have not) does not disprove my argument, which means I don't have to react to it in any fashion.
Third, you didn't paraphrase, you quoted.
True true and true.
All that paragraph was immature and out of place.You have my apologies.
...nor do any of them state that they are usable with any weapons at all.
Also true, but as you admitted, it's implied. Which was my intent behind quoting this:
...These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver...
To me this looks as restrictive. There's only one ruling regarding applicability of a maneuver with a weapon: Special weapon abilities.
Eg: +2 to disarm with disarm weapon. And while I accept that the ability to drop the weapon if you fumble the roll is not a numerical bonus, it's still a bonus.
You should quote the context as well as the statement when making an assertion like that, unless your intent is to deceive. Because that's not at all what that line is saying.
Note the bolded section, no deception here, I'm expressing an opinion.
Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon...
The rules are clearly referring only to bonuses to attack rolls. Trip weapons don't grant a bonus to attack rolls.
Are you sure? Trip weapons can be masterwork or magical, these two properties give bonus to the attack rolls.
I'm of the opinion that only trip weapons are suited to provide these bonuses to the trip maneuver attack roll. Not any other aside of unarmed strike which I claim(as a reminiscence of 3.5) to be the default mode of attack in a maneuver.Which brings us back to the main discussion of this thread.
And "quoting" you(I cannot say I didn't learn something today):
To be clear about the grammar issue, it is a remarkable sentence in that it is either badly worded or redundant. If the intent is to deny the use of non-trip weapons in a trip attempt, then either the Trip property or the Trip rules should read "Only weapons with the trip special property can be used to make a Trip attack". If the intent is that all weapons can be used to trip with, then the sentence can be removed altogether with no effect whatsoever. Where he sees clear intent, I see an error that could be interpreted either way.
The issue is not resolved.
On aside note:
English isn't my first language and sometimes I feel unable to convey all the meaning I want in a post. This can be a little frustrating specially in heated discussions like this one. But this should not be an excuse for me to be rude to anybody so I want to apologize again to all of you and specially to Zurai.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Incorrect, speaking both grammatically and logically.
Which is your opinion, one you can't prove is correct.
You have not shown anything that suggests that affirmative line has any purpose other than to show that weapons without the Trip property can be used to trip.
Quarterstaffs I agree with. I think trying to use a Greataxe or Greatsword to trip
I don't see anything (in real life) about a Quarterstaff or a Greatsword that makes them able to be used to trip someone. Neither have a hook to wrap around a leg to apply the force. You are left with just smacking their leg (which is hard to do) since the weapon applies the same force on your wrist as applied to their leg. In other words, in order to trip them you need to hit their leg and prevent your wrist from turning (basically applying the force to force their leg to move.)
Real Life (even RAI) doesn't matter when discussing RAW.
Incorrect, speaking both grammatically and logically.Which is your opinion, one you can't prove is correct.
No... actually, those are facts, not opinions.
I think a lot of people are reading "Trip" too litterally. It might have been better served to have been named "Knock Down". I can easily envision using a sap to knock someone down, even if I never touch their legs. Just like I can envision sweeping a leg with a quarterstaff.For the record, I see no other way to read the rule than in the context of an evolution of 3.5, so I read it as "Trip with any attack you like, but if using a "Trip" weapon you never risk being tripped in return on a miserably failed roll."
I partially agree with that. There's the Overrun maneuver to consider as well however. Anybody that played hockey will know that there are many ways to get someone on his butt. Whether these 'many ways' should all fall within the same category or be separate maneuvers is another debate however.
Otherwise I'm in the same situation as Blake: I wish that combat maneuvers were revised beyond grapple. However, if I had to make a call by RaW; I'd say that you can make a trip attempt regardless of what you hold. How you perform the trip is fluff to me. If you happen to hold a trip weapon, good for you as you can't botch your maneuver. Otherwise the weapon/no weapon issue looks irrelevant to me.
'findel
[edit] I know this has been addressed above, but do enhancement bonus provided by masterwork or magical weapons qualify for the "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." part of the Combat Maneuver description? (emphasis mine)
No... actually, those are facts, not opinions.In your opinion, but not facts.
Honestly, do we need 50 pages of this?
An opinion is something that is incapable of being shown to be true or false. Regardless of whether my statement is factually correct or not, it is not an opinion because it can be proven to be true or false.
Maybe you'd care to actually discuss this, instead of being petulant, by showing how you believe that I was incorrect?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
An opinion is something that is incapable of being shown to be true or false.
Maybe you'd care to actually discuss this, instead of being petulant, by showing how you believe that I was incorrect?
I have done so, since I quoted the rules to back my position and you have rules to back your position. So the DM needs to determine what the rules say from the two alternate interpretations of RAW.
You assert that only your way of interpreting the rules is valid and no other way is possible, to which I object by saying that your interpretation and your assertion it the only way is mere opinion.
You assert that only your way of interpreting the rules is valid and no other way is possible, to which I object by saying that your interpretation and your assertion it the only way is mere opinion.
Right-O.
[x] Not willing to discuss rationally.
not even the greatest weapon master in the world can trip a crippled blind orc with a quarterstaff?Absolutely not. The greatest weapon master in the world would never deign to use anything less than a full buck and a quarterstaff.
IIRC the 'quarter' in 'Quarter' refers to mercy as in 'to give quarter'
Batts