Trip and Trip Weapons, Must they Go Together? (Looking for Clarification)


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Just to clarify, and explain why there might be some confusion on the issue further:

Under 3.5, Disarm specifically mentions being able to disarm with a weapon or without a weapon.

Sunder specifically mentions using a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to sunder.

Trip, as has been pointed out, in 3.5 specifically says that if you do not have a trip weapon you can still trip, but its an unarmed attempt.

Also, the following is stated in regards to gaining enhancement bonuses, bonuses to hit from weapon focus, etc.

Pathfinder Core Rules wrote:
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.

Regarding Bull Rush not mentioning using a weapon . . . again, in 3.5 every combat action that allowed you to use a weapon seemed to call you if you could use a weapon.

Mainly, I think this is just a matter of knowing if the rewording for CMB just left out previous 3.5 qualifiers, or if things were meant to change regarding what you could and couldn't use in combat.


To speak from a simulation perspective, my wife and her martial arts instructor, sometimes myself, can trip someone with a dagger, shortsword, longsword, bastard sword, and club, as far as real world weapons modelled by the PFRPG weapons, and it is easier to do with masterwork versions of these weapons. Heck, my wife and her instructor can both grapple people when they have a free hand and are wielding anything up to the bastard sword.

I believe that rules as written, with as a melee attack and not as an unarmed touch attack would be sufficient to indicate that the simulation of real world martial techniques are allowed by the rules. As far as trip weapons, I believe that Trip weapons can be used to make trip attacks may just be an artifact, but a clarifying artifact regardless.


we are not playing 3.5 anymore. I don't think these arguements are legit.


But again . . . ;)

I'm not really looking for arguments so much as clarification. I do appreciate everyone's interest in this topic, however. Whenever I have cited 3.5 it has been to illustrate why there may be some confusion on the issue.

In many cases, unless something was cited as a problem somewhere, rules were not changed from 3.5, so sometimes its important to distinguish if something is an "artifact" or an intentional change.

Its perfectly understandable, with the size of the project, but its also something that comes up from time to time. Plus, given that people on both sides of the discussion are very sure of their opinion and the obviousness of it, it seems even more like something that needs to be clarified.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fake Healer wrote:
This is where the confusion is, nowhere in any rules does it state that you need an appendage free to perform the maneuver or that you can't use a regular non-trip weapon to do so. 3.5 was clearer in this regard.

I'm waiting for someone to claim a trip maneuver with a dagger.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:
So, the question is, if I'm wielding a +3 dagger, can I use it to trip my opponent, and if so, do I enjoy a +3 bonus.

Under my personal interpretation, you could not use the dagger to trip (it is not a trip weapon) and you would not get its bonus to any such attempt (such as if you tried tripping with a trip weapon from your other hand).

I also acknowledge, however, that there is room for other interpretations as well. Official clarification would be nice.


LazarX wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
This is where the confusion is, nowhere in any rules does it state that you need an appendage free to perform the maneuver or that you can't use a regular non-trip weapon to do so. 3.5 was clearer in this regard.
I'm waiting for someone to claim a trip maneuver with a dagger.

How about making a trip maneuver while just wielding a dagger? Maybe not using the dagger to stab someone in the foot to make a trip, but using a weapon in such a way so as to gain a position of advantage to make a trip.


KnightErrantJR wrote:

But again . . . ;)

I'm not really looking for arguments so much as clarification. I do appreciate everyone's interest in this topic, however. Whenever I have cited 3.5 it has been to illustrate why there may be some confusion on the issue.

In many cases, unless something was cited as a problem somewhere, rules were not changed from 3.5, so sometimes its important to distinguish if something is an "artifact" or an intentional change.

What drives me nuts is changes from 3.5 that make Pathfinder less clear instead of more clear. I haven't found too many of them, but they're extra-annoying, IMO.

The Exchange

hogarth wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:

But again . . . ;)

I'm not really looking for arguments so much as clarification. I do appreciate everyone's interest in this topic, however. Whenever I have cited 3.5 it has been to illustrate why there may be some confusion on the issue.

In many cases, unless something was cited as a problem somewhere, rules were not changed from 3.5, so sometimes its important to distinguish if something is an "artifact" or an intentional change.

What drives me nuts is changes from 3.5 that make Pathfinder less clear instead of more clear. I haven't found too many of them, but they're extra-annoying, IMO.

Ditto and what is even more annoying is that this particular problem has been brought up 3 or 4 times and NO ONE HAS GIVEN AN OFFICIAL CLARIFICATION ON THE ISSUE EVEN THOUGH THE COMMUNITY IS BEGGING FOR IT!!!


William Timmins wrote:

In case anyone thinks nobody ever gets persuaded on the forums...

I started out thinking 'well of COURSE you can use any weapon to trip!'

Seeing some of the arguments, though... yeah, I'm thinking they just didn't completely transfer over all the verbiage from 3.5e, and that non-trip weapons cannot be used to trip.

I am not convinced either way, but I figure if the thread goes long enough someone will answer it. As for now I will allow a tripping without weapons since the disclaimer in the combat section was removed.


Skimmed the thread.. saved myself the aggravation.

I respect both interpretations, but I want to see the Offical Answer.

Keep posting asking for exactly that. Eventually it will come.


One good thing is that if trip weapons are required, Pathfinder has created some interesting options to expand on options. It will be interesting to see if more are added or any are changed in the Adventurer's Armory.

Sovereign Court

KnightErrantJR wrote:
One good thing is that if trip weapons are required, Pathfinder has created some interesting options to expand on options. It will be interesting to see if more are added or any are changed in the Adventurer's Armory.

Good point about the upcoming AA. I would certainly hope we'd get some kind of official clarification by the time that book hits the shelves, especially if it contains more trip weapons.

The Exchange

Just adding my support for an official clarification on this topic.


Tilquinith wrote:
Just adding my support for an official clarification on this topic.

Thanks for chiming in. Its obviously something that has occurred to a least a decent number of people.


KnightErrantJR wrote:

I'm starting this thread not so much to debate this issue, as its come up in a lot of other threads, but to see if either anyone has run across an official statement from one of the Paizo crew or if one of the Paizo crew would like to officially answer.

To clarify, I'm wondering if you need to have a weapon with the trip quality in order to use the trip action with a weapon, and if, when you don't have trip weapons, do you automatically trip unarmed?

Once again, I'm not really looking to debate this so much as I'm just wondering if anything official has been said at this point. Thanks all.

As the rules read you can use trip in place of any melee attack. Since all melee attacks are made with weapons or unarmed attacks you can use the trip manuver in place of them.

Reference PRD: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack."

Disarm is the same except you suffer a -4 penalty for doing it unarmed.

If you attack with dagger you can trip in place of that melee attack.

Whe you do so you use you CMB Bonus and any bonuse you currently have. So magic enhancements would be used.

Reference PRD: "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"

Next you get a weapon that has a special quality "Trip". All it does is remove the chance of you failing the trip by 10 and being knocked prone yourself by allowing you to drop the weapon instead. That's all the Trip special quality does. The Disarm is the same but gives you +2 bonus to disarming when using that weapon. You don't need to use a weapon with these qualities but they do give you a benefit when you do use them.

Reference PRD: "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."

Doesn't seem unclear me.


Tilquinith wrote:
Just adding my support for an official clarification on this topic.

+1


voska66 wrote:
As the rules read you can use trip in place of any melee attack. Since all melee attacks are made with weapons or unarmed attacks you can use the trip manuver in place of them.

And natural attacks, don't forget them. Some of us claim that the trip is made with a part of the body instead of the weapon.

In place of a melee attack just means substituting one action for another to me.
You wouldn't suggest to add your weapon's enhancement bonus to an acrobatics check to avoid AoO, would you?
It's also a maneuver check against an opponent's CMD.
While this example is obviously absurd, allowing to trip with any weapon would have this consequence to me.

Clarification would be good for everyone. I personally don't care if Im right or wrong anymore. Time for debate is over, all interpretations have been proven plausible within the rules as written.
For now this is an ask your DM issue.

So please Paizo, take us out of our misery. Show us the light.

Sovereign Court

nidho wrote:

In place of a melee attack just means substituting one action for another to me.

You wouldn't suggest to add your weapon's enhancement bonus to an acrobatics check to avoid AoO, would you?

Sure, if that weapon were a staff/pole ;)

I realize your example was meant to be absurd, but I can envision many ways that the weapon could be used to help avoid an AoO while "tumbling".


nidho wrote:
voska66 wrote:
As the rules read you can use trip in place of any melee attack. Since all melee attacks are made with weapons or unarmed attacks you can use the trip manuver in place of them.

And natural attacks, don't forget them. Some of us claim that the trip is made with a part of the body instead of the weapon.

In place of a melee attack just means substituting one action for another to me.
You wouldn't suggest to add your weapon's enhancement bonus to an acrobatics check to avoid AoO, would you?
It's also a maneuver check against an opponent's CMD.
While this example is obviously absurd, allowing to trip with any weapon would have this consequence to me.

Clarification would be good for everyone. I personally don't care if Im right or wrong anymore. Time for debate is over, all interpretations have been proven plausible within the rules as written.
For now this is an ask your DM issue.

So please Paizo, take us out of our misery. Show us the light.

I see your point but that's not what the rules actually say. You could flavor it like that but I think the rules are quite clear even if they don't quite make sense in some instances thematic wise.

As for adding weapon bonus to acrobatics, I'm not sure where that comes from. I see no rule that would allow it unless the weapon provided a bonus to acrobatics. Just because the CMD is used on multilple things doesn't change the rules.

What I think you are asking Paizo for is a rules change not clairification. Sounds like you want to change trip to be an unarmed attack where only weapons with the trip special quality could be used instead of an unarmed attack. That would work and it would be simpler.


Twowlves wrote:
nidho wrote:

In place of a melee attack just means substituting one action for another to me.

You wouldn't suggest to add your weapon's enhancement bonus to an acrobatics check to avoid AoO, would you?

Sure, if that weapon were a staff/pole ;)

I realize your example was meant to be absurd, but I can envision many ways that the weapon could be used to help avoid an AoO while "tumbling".

You can describe your tumbling/acrobatics maneuver as you wish:

Using the staff to pivot your weight or moving it gracefully to keep your opponent at bay while you move.
It all boils down to a skill check that is independent of having or not having a long stick in your hands.

Mechanically, a "magical staff of acrobatics" should give a competence bonus to the skill, not an enhancement one.
One does not preclude the other though.


voska66 wrote:
nidho wrote:
voska66 wrote:
As the rules read you can use trip in place of any melee attack. Since all melee attacks are made with weapons or unarmed attacks you can use the trip manuver in place of them.

And natural attacks, don't forget them. Some of us claim that the trip is made with a part of the body instead of the weapon.

In place of a melee attack just means substituting one action for another to me.
You wouldn't suggest to add your weapon's enhancement bonus to an acrobatics check to avoid AoO, would you?
It's also a maneuver check against an opponent's CMD.
While this example is obviously absurd, allowing to trip with any weapon would have this consequence to me.

Clarification would be good for everyone. I personally don't care if Im right or wrong anymore. Time for debate is over, all interpretations have been proven plausible within the rules as written.
For now this is an ask your DM issue.

So please Paizo, take us out of our misery. Show us the light.

I see your point but that's not what the rules actually say. You could flavor it like that but I think the rules are quite clear even if they don't quite make sense in some instances thematic wise.

I'm sure you have read some of the previous threads about this issue. The two positions are reasonably plausible.

You may have your interpretation clear in your head but so do I.
And you got it right, it's a cinematic thing for me. Your interpretation just doesn't feel right to me; it doesnt make it wrong, though. Not yet. ;)

Quote:


As for adding weapon bonus to acrobatics, I'm not sure where that comes from. I see no rule that would allow it unless the weapon provided a bonus to acrobatics. Just because the CMD is used on multilple things doesn't change the rules.

What I think you are asking Paizo for is a rules change not clairification. Sounds like you want to change trip to be an unarmed attack where only weapons with the trip special quality could be used instead of an unarmed attack. That would work and it would be simpler.

Yes, that last interpretation of the rules would make more sense to me.

As for what I'm asking it depends on the answer. If the rules are shown to favor my interpretation then it's a much needed clarification for me but a rules change for you. The opposite case applies also.

Anyway if Paizo developers decide to chime in and pronounce a verdict then the situation is resolved for all sides.
It's a win/win situation.


I think a lot of us have pointed out that we aren't 100% married to one interpretation or another, its more a matter of knowing which one is accurate. I may not care one way or another, but its a pretty wide swing if you have someone attacking with a +5 greatsword and trying to trip, or if they have to kick someone's legs out from under them without the +5 bonus (and any bonuses they might have from weapon focus, etc).


KnightErrantJR wrote:
I may not care one way or another, but its a pretty wide swing if you have someone attacking with a +5 greatsword and trying to trip, or if they have to kick someone's legs out from under them without the +5 bonus (and any bonuses they might have from weapon focus, etc).

That would be my take.

A trip in melee (sans trip weapon) would be performed as a sweep or similar, and provokes an AoO and MAY result in you falling if you fail.
The only logical reason for falling over in such an attempt was that you were using your legs - why would YOU fall over if using your sword and failed? So it's the only sense I can make of it. Anyhow, as you are NOT using a/the weapon itself, no + mods for weapon quality would be applied.

A trip in melee with trip weapon would have the advantage that you could apply any + modifiers to your attempt (as you are now utilising the weapon), and if your weapon gets locked up in your opponent you can simply drop it, as opposed to being 'wrestled back' with it to the ground. Using the weapon in this way may still attract an AoO i the absence of any feats to avoid said attack.

My take on it anyhow.

+1 for the 'Official Verdict(tm)'


Bump for an offical answer. Keep it up folks, don't let this thread vanish.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Jason, Eric, anyone? We're all looking for something official on this one. Please.


They don't love us anymore.

Either that or they're on vacation. It IS the week between Xmas and New Years, after all.


In the blog they did say something along the lines of returning at the start of the new year so I don't expect any help until Monday.


Or they can't bear to stop crying in pain (or laughter) long enough to respond.


I'm fine with an answer whenever someone gets the time to answer. I just don't want the thread to fall off into oblivion, as I think some of the other conversations relating to this issue have.


Ravingdork wrote:

"You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks."

If you can use any weapon to make trip attacks, then the above sentence has absolutely no reason for existing.

"You can use a pencil to write a letter."

Does this mean that you cannot use anything except a pencil to write a letter?


Zurai wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

"You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks."

If you can use any weapon to make trip attacks, then the above sentence has absolutely no reason for existing.

"You can use a pencil to write a letter."

Does this mean that you cannot use anything except a pencil to write a letter?

No, you can use a ballpen, a marker or even a computer but not a ruler or a clip.

but:

"you can use a whip to trip"

Does this mean that you cannot use anything except a whip to trip?

No, you can use bolas, a spiked chain or a dire flail but not a greatsword or a dagger.


And again, the point that I was hoping to get across in this thread isn't so much to argue one point of view or another, but to see how many people were interested in expressing their desire to see an official answer to the questions posed in the original post.


nidho wrote:
No, you can use a ballpen, a marker or even a computer but not a ruler or a clip.

Sure you can. You can even use air, smoke, water, blood, cheese, or pretty much anything to write a letter.

I've gone over this in the original thread (and I'll note that you finally conceded to me there, so restarting this ridiculous argument here is rather silly), but if you take the position that you can only use Trip property weapons to trip, then you cannot trip with unarmed attacks, which is patently stupid.


Zurai wrote:

Sure you can.

I've gone over this in the original thread (and I'll note that you finally conceded to me there, so restarting this ridiculous argument here is rather silly), but if you take the position that you can only use Trip property weapons to trip, then you cannot trip with unarmed attacks, which is patently stupid.

I really, really want to avoid any kind of arguments over this. I don't want to see this thread devolve into arguments or denouncements of other people for their interpretations of a rule. There is clearly a fairly large number of posters here that want an answer to this, and that's all this thread is asking for.

Please don't turn this into a thread where we start lobbying for positions or putting down other posters in the thread.


KnightErrantJR wrote:
Zurai wrote:

Sure you can.

I've gone over this in the original thread (and I'll note that you finally conceded to me there, so restarting this ridiculous argument here is rather silly), but if you take the position that you can only use Trip property weapons to trip, then you cannot trip with unarmed attacks, which is patently stupid.

I really, really want to avoid any kind of arguments over this. I don't want to see this thread devolve into arguments or denouncements of other people for their interpretations of a rule. There is clearly a fairly large number of posters here that want an answer to this, and that's all this thread is asking for.

Please don't turn this into a thread where we start lobbying for positions or putting down other posters in the thread.

In other words, this is a poorly disguised petition thread. You realize that's against forum rules?


Zurai wrote:
nidho wrote:
No, you can use a ballpen, a marker or even a computer but not a ruler or a clip.

Sure you can. You can even use air, smoke, water, blood, cheese, or pretty much anything to write a letter.

I've gone over this in the original thread (and I'll note that you finally conceded to me there, so restarting this ridiculous argument here is rather silly), but if you take the position that you can only use Trip property weapons to trip, then you cannot trip with unarmed attacks, which is patently stupid.

Your position was well argued but still not conclusive, that was my concession. This doesn't make the other options invalid, though.

This thread is proof enough that enough people in the community will not be satisfied while there's a reasonable doubt about this.

@KnightErrantJR Sorry for this sort of derailing. I will only chime in for the occasional bump from now on.

Sovereign Court

Zurai wrote:


In other words, this is a poorly disguised petition thread. You realize that's against forum rules?

Because your feeling threatened by its existence? You can argue till your blue in the face, and I actually won't concede the point to you. I think the fact is clear that the trip weapons are the only ones that are supposed to be used to trip because otherwise they would have been worded like the disarm property

PRD wrote:
Disarm: When you use a disarm weapon, you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to disarm an enemy

If you could use any weapon to trip they would have worded it to say similar

Trip: When you use a trip weapon you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped if you are tripped during your own trip attempt.

instead it says

PRD wrote:
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.

So yes this is something that needs clarification because you are unwilling to budge in your view of it, and I am unwilling to budge in mine.

And maybe unarmed strikes aren't used to make trip attempts, you aren't punching them. or attempting to do damage, so it isn't an unarmed strike, that doesn't preclude you from using your body to perform CMBs. Although if they clarify they can just as easily clarify that as well.


lastknightleft wrote:

How cute. I have a stalker.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Ah... the literalist tendencies of gamers... :)

Firstly and foremostly, "Can" is not synonymous to "must."

<snooty elitism> I've got a Master's degree in Figuring Out What Words Mean, Especially In Context,"</snooty elitism> and I believe that, "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks" is in this case a qualifier to the following statement, "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."

What the two sentences mean together is, "Trip: If you use this weapon in a trip attack, and you end up being tripped by your own trip attempt..." etc. etc. etc. If it turns out I'm right, perhaps we can suggest this rewording for the errata.

Since the description of Trip in the Combat Maneuvers section says "in place of a melee attack" it seems clear enough to me that any thing you can make a melee attack with can be used to make a trip attempt. TreeLynx's post about this being possible IRL helps support this. It's just that with non-trip weapons, you don't have any means of easily avoiding being tripped if you fail.

Also, I generally recall that in a lot of threads like this, James Jacobs and Jason Buhlman admonishing folks to "use common sense" regarding rules interpretations. If common sense dictates you can trip with your foot, then you can trip with your foot. You just can't drop your foot if someone tries to trip you in return.

Of course, hopefully once they get back from their vacation they might have a moment to respond officially. Let's hope they're having a nice break in the meantime.


Zurai wrote:
In other words, this is a poorly disguised petition thread. You realize that's against forum rules?

I am with Knight Errant Jr here. This is a devisive topic. We as a community can't seem to come to accord on our own.

This is not a petition, or if it is a petition in some technical legalistic interpretation, it's one asking for product support. No one is going to post here and try to enforce that asking for product support is against forum rules. That's just not good business.

This is not meant as an attack on Paizo. As other posters mentioned, when they get back from vacation I'm sure someone will answer the question. With the example KEjr has set, I'm just abiding until they do.. and posting once in a while to keep the the thread alive.

Likewise, this is not intended as an attack on you either, Zurai. However, it is not unreasonable for us to ask for a clarification on a rule when the community can not agree on its interpretation.

Sovereign Court

lastknightleft wrote:
I think the fact is clear that the trip weapons are the only ones that are supposed to be used to trip because otherwise they would have been worded like the disarm property

Why would they be worded like Disarm? Disarm weapons give a bonus to a roll, trip weapons let you avoid being counter tripped. They do different things, they have different wordings.

I think you underestimate the power of cut 'n' paste.

The Exchange

DeathQuaker wrote:

Ah... the literalist tendencies of gamers... :)

Firstly and foremostly, "Can" is not synonymous to "must."

<snooty elitism> I've got a Master's degree in Figuring Out What Words Mean, Especially In Context,"</snooty elitism> and I believe that, "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks" is in this case a qualifier to the following statement, "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."

What the two sentences mean together is, "Trip: If you use this weapon in a trip attack, and you end up being tripped by your own trip attempt..." etc. etc. etc. If it turns out I'm right, perhaps we can suggest this rewording for the errata.

Since the description of Trip in the Combat Maneuvers section says "in place of a melee attack" it seems clear enough to me that any thing you can make a melee attack with can be used to make a trip attempt. TreeLynx's post about this being possible IRL helps support this. It's just that with non-trip weapons, you don't have any means of easily avoiding being tripped if you fail.

Also, I generally recall that in a lot of threads like this, James Jacobs and Jason Buhlman admonishing folks to "use common sense" regarding rules interpretations. If common sense dictates you can trip with your foot, then you can trip with your foot. You just can't drop your foot if someone tries to trip you in return.

Of course, hopefully once they get back from their vacation they might have a moment to respond officially. Let's hope they're having a nice break in the meantime.

Not that I am for or against your position, just pointing out something from the other argument thread.....Why would I be able to drop a flail or scythe more easily than a longsword if I fail the trip? That was the other argument on the other thread.

This has been a message from the National Society of Bumpage...


Zurai wrote:


In other words, this is a poorly disguised petition thread. You realize that's against forum rules?

If I have done something wrong, please feel free to flag the thread, and I'll gladly receive whatever censure is due for the offence. I apologize in advance to Paizo if I have indeed violated any forum rules.

I actually reviewed the forum rules after your post, and could not find anything that seemed to apply to this particular thread, so until I have been properly correctly, I'll continue as before.

Again, I'd like thank most of the posters for simply stating their positions and politely asking for clarification. I really would like to keep this as civil and simple as possible.

Thanks.

Sovereign Court

Zurai wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
How cute. I have a stalker.

Really? A stalker? because I called you out for calling out someone and because we frequent the same board so we post in the same threads. Zurai, I hate to break it to you, but you are less than an speck of dust of a blip on my radar. If we disagree on different threads its because we have different playstyles and if we get into little sniping tiffs its because we have similar posting styles, but I hardly go thread to thread looking for your posts to disagree with you. I want clarification on this issue so whenever a thread pops up about it I come on and start talking in the hope that we get clarification. The fact that you come into threads about the subject either means that a) you think you know how it works, and are trying to prove it despite the fact that it really can't be proven one way or the other like other rules issues b) you think there needs to be clarification also, or c) the fact that other people might feel differently about how to interpret the rules in some way threatens your sense of identity or ego.

Although before I was thinking it was a, your last few posts are starting to convince me its c.

Sovereign Court

Twowlves wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
I think the fact is clear that the trip weapons are the only ones that are supposed to be used to trip because otherwise they would have been worded like the disarm property
Why would they be worded like Disarm? Disarm weapons give a bonus to a roll, trip weapons let you avoid being counter tripped. They do different things, they have different wordings.

Which is why I said I think, not "the rules say". Because they are my thoughts. I showed how you can word the sentence in a way that is similar and makes it clear that this is a function of the weapon when used for trip attacks. I don't have a problem if others don't see it that way, but I think that it would be good if it was clarified.

Twowlves wrote:
I think you underestimate the power of cut 'n' paste.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that statement, are you saying my use of cut and paste was bad, or are you saying that the wording is cut and paste but that the intention for the rules themselves was a change?

Sovereign Court

DeathQuaker wrote:

Ah... the literalist tendencies of gamers... :)

Firstly and foremostly, "Can" is not synonymous to "must."

<snooty elitism> I've got a Master's degree in Figuring Out What Words Mean, Especially In Context,"</snooty elitism> and I believe that, "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks" is in this case a qualifier to the following statement, "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."

What the two sentences mean together is, "Trip: If you use this weapon in a trip attack, and you end up being tripped by your own trip attempt..." etc. etc. etc. If it turns out I'm right, perhaps we can suggest this rewording for the errata.

Since the description of Trip in the Combat Maneuvers section says "in place of a melee attack" it seems clear enough to me that any thing you can make a melee attack with can be used to make a trip attempt. TreeLynx's post about this being possible IRL helps support this. It's just that with non-trip weapons, you don't have any means of easily avoiding being tripped if you fail.

Also, I generally recall that in a lot of threads like this, James Jacobs and Jason Buhlman admonishing folks to "use common sense" regarding rules interpretations. If common sense dictates you can trip with your foot, then you can trip with your foot. You just can't drop your foot if someone tries to trip you in return.

Of course, hopefully once they get back from their vacation they might have a moment to respond officially. Let's hope they're having a nice break in the meantime.

Because having the sentence in there at all is a bit of stupid redundancy if weapons that don't have the trip weapon quality can be used for trip.

If every weapon can be used for trip are there really going to be people out there who are so dim that they needed the extra clarification that a weapon with the trip property can be used for a trip attack? Personally I fear for the game if the designers think we are that dim, and in a book where word space was so vital, wouldn't cutting that sentence from every weapon added a few precious lines to the book for other things that were cut for space.

Look I'm not opposed to the idea that it was an intentional change from 3.5 and that they then didn't remove that line accidentaly because they were in cut n paste mode. But if that's the case a say so would be nice instead of us arguing over it endlessly, because this point was raised before the holidays in another thread. and I understand that Paizo is busy as all get out. But this one would really be nice for clarification ASAP as a lot of people use the trip rules and in fact I had to tell a player that they couldn't trip with reach unless they were using a weapon with the trip quality in my game (he was trying to use a glaive to trip from 10 feet away)

Personally I'm fine with either interpretation if I knew which one it was, that doesn't mean I don't want the official answer though and until then I'm running with mine.


i raise my voice, calling for the mighty sky gods to bring clarification on this issue...

and for everybody who feels the need to continue their arguments over this, could you just have some courtesty and take it to it's own thread, and not pollute the thread that consistently and from the beginning has directly asked people NOT to engage in argument or debate?

Sovereign Court

lastknightleft wrote:
Twowlves wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
I think the fact is clear that the trip weapons are the only ones that are supposed to be used to trip because otherwise they would have been worded like the disarm property
Why would they be worded like Disarm? Disarm weapons give a bonus to a roll, trip weapons let you avoid being counter tripped. They do different things, they have different wordings.
Which is why I said I think, not "the rules say".

No, you said "I think the fact is clear". You are asserting it's a "fact", even if you "think it is clear".

Twowlves wrote:
I think you underestimate the power of cut 'n' paste.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that statement, are you saying my use of cut and paste was bad, or are you saying that the wording is cut and paste but that the intention for the rules themselves was a change?

Not your use of cut and paste, the authors' use. They let several more profound instances slip through (referring to ranks of perform for Bardic inspiration instead of rounds per day, for example).

Sovereign Court

Twowlves wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Twowlves wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
I think the fact is clear that the trip weapons are the only ones that are supposed to be used to trip because otherwise they would have been worded like the disarm property
Why would they be worded like Disarm? Disarm weapons give a bonus to a roll, trip weapons let you avoid being counter tripped. They do different things, they have different wordings.
Which is why I said I think, not "the rules say".

No, you said "I think the fact is clear". You are asserting it's a "fact", even if you "think it is clear".

Right because in my mind its a fact and it is clear. In my mind there is no debate, I think these things. That doesn't mean it applies to others. This is what is going on in the fathoms of my brain. It wasn't my intent to call it a fact, but rather to say that in my head, it's clear cut in the way I stated it. When on these boards people will go pages in discussing the fact that a period or comma makes it two seperate statements I thought that the lack of punctuation would mean that it is my perspective because it is what I think. Guess it didn't come across that way.

51 to 100 of 471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Trip and Trip Weapons, Must they Go Together? (Looking for Clarification) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.