Adding a few cents in. . .
Here's my interpretation of it. . .
Pathfinder has changed the rules such that weapons now contribute their bonuses to combat maneuvers. This is great news for people who hated the 3.5 trip mechanics. It means that you can add your weapon's bonuses (enhancement and feats) to the CMB roll. However, the rules are specific in that they label weapons you can make a trip with. You can't make a trip attack with every weapon -- which makes sense. No sap trips, no armor spike trips, no trips with a rock improvised weapon. Trip weapons are decided by their battlefield capability to trip up foes -- things with curves, hooks, and things that wrap around make battlefield-capable trip weapons. The designers balanced weapons around what was able to be a trip weapon -- feel free to house-rule it in your game if you feel a falchion is curved enough to be a trip weapon.
But you don't need a weapon to make a trip attempt. Unarmed strike isn't a trip weapon. You don't make unarmed strike trips. You just make unarmed trips. Thus, you don't add bonuses for unarmed strike on your trip attempts. Likewise, you don't add the enhancement bonus from your wielded longsword into your trip -- it isn't a trip weapon.
So in summary:
- You don't need a trip weapon to make a trip attempt.
- Yes, things can be easier if you do use a trip weapon -- you add bonuses for that weapon on your trip attempts.
- There is no such thing as a trip attempt with unarmed strike.
- There is an unarmed trip attempt, which you have to use if you're not wielding a trip weapon.
- You can't make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon.
That's my take, at least. . .
Adding a few cents in. . .
Here's my interpretation of it. . .
Pathfinder has changed the rules such that weapons now contribute their bonuses to combat maneuvers. This is great news for people who hated the 3.5 trip mechanics. It means that you can add your weapon's bonuses (enhancement and feats) to the CMB roll. However, the rules are specific in that they label weapons you can make a trip with. You can't make a trip attack with every weapon -- which makes sense. No sap trips, no armor spike trips, no trips with a rock improvised weapon. Trip weapons are decided by their battlefield capability to trip up foes -- things with curves, hooks, and things that wrap around make battlefield-capable trip weapons. The designers balanced weapons around what was able to be a trip weapon -- feel free to house-rule it in your game if you feel a falchion is curved enough to be a trip weapon.
But you don't need a weapon to make a trip attempt. Unarmed strike isn't a trip weapon. You don't make unarmed strike trips. You just make unarmed trips. Thus, you don't add bonuses for unarmed strike on your trip attempts. Likewise, you don't add the enhancement bonus from your wielded longsword into your trip -- it isn't a trip weapon.
So in summary:
- You don't need a trip weapon to make a trip attempt.
- Yes, things can be easier if you do use a trip weapon -- you add bonuses for that weapon on your trip attempts.
- There is no such thing as a trip attempt with unarmed strike.
- There is an unarmed trip attempt, which you have to use if you're not wielding a trip weapon.
- You can't make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon.
That's my take, at least. . .
This is how I see it as well. And pretty well summarised also.
I will not hide my desire that clarification confirms this interpretation, but even if it doesn't, I will welcome it.
Hopefully in a day or two this issue will be solved for good.
Until then, let's keep this thread alive.
Now I must get ready for a party; New year comes sooner in Europe, you know? ;)
Happy new year!!! XD
Adding a few cents in. . .
Here's my interpretation of it. . .
Pathfinder has changed the rules such that weapons now contribute their bonuses to combat maneuvers. This is great news for people who hated the 3.5 trip mechanics. It means that you can add your weapon's bonuses (enhancement and feats) to the CMB roll. However, the rules are specific in that they label weapons you can make a trip with. You can't make a trip attack with every weapon -- which makes sense. No sap trips, no armor spike trips, no trips with a rock improvised weapon. Trip weapons are decided by their battlefield capability to trip up foes -- things with curves, hooks, and things that wrap around make battlefield-capable trip weapons. The designers balanced weapons around what was able to be a trip weapon -- feel free to house-rule it in your game if you feel a falchion is curved enough to be a trip weapon.
But you don't need a weapon to make a trip attempt. Unarmed strike isn't a trip weapon. You don't make unarmed strike trips. You just make unarmed trips. Thus, you don't add bonuses for unarmed strike on your trip attempts. Likewise, you don't add the enhancement bonus from your wielded longsword into your trip -- it isn't a trip weapon.
So in summary:
- You don't need a trip weapon to make a trip attempt.
- Yes, things can be easier if you do use a trip weapon -- you add bonuses for that weapon on your trip attempts.
- There is no such thing as a trip attempt with unarmed strike.
- There is an unarmed trip attempt, which you have to use if you're not wielding a trip weapon.
- You can't make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon.
That's my take, at least. . .
True, and I think its a reasonable interpretation, but at the same time, I can see the other side of this debate, with it not being spelled out. Its perfectly reasonable, but at the same time, I still think there is enough "up in the air" over this issue that it could use official clarification.
Adding a few cents in. . .
Here's my interpretation of it. . .
Pathfinder has changed the rules such that weapons now contribute their bonuses to combat maneuvers. This is great news for people who hated the 3.5 trip mechanics. It means that you can add your weapon's bonuses (enhancement and feats) to the CMB roll. However, the rules are specific in that they label weapons you can make a trip with. You can't make a trip attack with every weapon -- which makes sense. No sap trips, no armor spike trips, no trips with a rock improvised weapon. Trip weapons are decided by their battlefield capability to trip up foes -- things with curves, hooks, and things that wrap around make battlefield-capable trip weapons. The designers balanced weapons around what was able to be a trip weapon -- feel free to house-rule it in your game if you feel a falchion is curved enough to be a trip weapon.
But you don't need a weapon to make a trip attempt. Unarmed strike isn't a trip weapon. You don't make unarmed strike trips. You just make unarmed trips. Thus, you don't add bonuses for unarmed strike on your trip attempts. Likewise, you don't add the enhancement bonus from your wielded longsword into your trip -- it isn't a trip weapon.
So in summary:
- You don't need a trip weapon to make a trip attempt.
- Yes, things can be easier if you do use a trip weapon -- you add bonuses for that weapon on your trip attempts.
- There is no such thing as a trip attempt with unarmed strike.
- There is an unarmed trip attempt, which you have to use if you're not wielding a trip weapon.
- You can't make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon.
That's my take, at least. . .
My interpretation exactly.
|
Adding a few cents in. . .
Here's my interpretation of it. . .
Pathfinder has changed the rules such that weapons now contribute their bonuses to combat maneuvers. This is great news for people who hated the 3.5 trip mechanics. It means that you can add your weapon's bonuses (enhancement and feats) to the CMB roll. However, the rules are specific in that they label weapons you can make a trip with. You can't make a trip attack with every weapon -- which makes sense. No sap trips, no armor spike trips, no trips with a rock improvised weapon. Trip weapons are decided by their battlefield capability to trip up foes -- things with curves, hooks, and things that wrap around make battlefield-capable trip weapons. The designers balanced weapons around what was able to be a trip weapon -- feel free to house-rule it in your game if you feel a falchion is curved enough to be a trip weapon.
But you don't need a weapon to make a trip attempt. Unarmed strike isn't a trip weapon. You don't make unarmed strike trips. You just make unarmed trips. Thus, you don't add bonuses for unarmed strike on your trip attempts. Likewise, you don't add the enhancement bonus from your wielded longsword into your trip -- it isn't a trip weapon.
So in summary:
- You don't need a trip weapon to make a trip attempt.
- Yes, things can be easier if you do use a trip weapon -- you add bonuses for that weapon on your trip attempts.
- There is no such thing as a trip attempt with unarmed strike.
- There is an unarmed trip attempt, which you have to use if you're not wielding a trip weapon.
- You can't make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon.
That's my take, at least. . .
BUMP on the thread - count me in on one who would like offical clarification.
It's worth noting that this mirrors exactly how I've always interpreted it.
Happy New Years Everyone.
Robert
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.
The problem with common sense in cases like these is that a lot of people don't have the RL experience upon which to form a judgment about how it might play out... so hence we get some pretty strange ideas bandied about :)
Using common sense also doesn't help the guy that interprets the rules one way in PFS and saves up his gold for a couple less powerful weapons so that one of them is a trip weapon, or invests feats in multiple weapons so he can trip, but then sees someone else that maxes out his longsword and his ability to use that longsword get to use that to trip in a PFS event where the GM and the player interpret things differently . . . . that's going to cause some issues.
that's going to cause some issues.
That's too true - in a competitive environment, the rules need to be clear and arbitrary. Around a gaming table with beer and pretzels on a lazy Friday night we can have all the fun in the world being bush lawyers and making interpretations, but at the Comp. table it needs to be clear and hard.
|
|
Admittedly, I haven't read through all of this thread, but I always understood trip to be nothing more than a Combat Action that you can perform at a whim - with some weapons and feats reducing your risks and improving your chances of success.
I once ran a rather successful Greatsword-wielding Rogue/Fighter with Improved Trip; he swept his enemy's legs with the flat of the blade and went in with the business end after the fact.
Admittedly, I haven't read through all of this thread, but I always understood trip to be nothing more than a Combat Action that you can perform at a whim - with some weapons and feats reducing your risks and improving your chances of success.
I once ran a rather successful Greatsword-wielding Rogue/Fighter with Improved Trip; he swept his enemy's legs with the flat of the blade and went in with the business end after the fact.
How did the greatsword help him with tripping? The "flat of the blade" wouldn't assist at all in tripping up a monster. Your DM can house-rule whatever he wants, but it's simply nowhere near a trip weapon. Now, an elven curve blade has a much stronger argument -- it's curved -- but it's not curved enough to be an effective hooking device for trips.
Maybe that's the problem -- what defines a trip weapon is ambiguous. The developers simply can define whatever they want -- it's their choice, not ours.
I once ran a rather successful Greatsword-wielding Rogue/Fighter with Improved Trip; he swept his enemy's legs with the flat of the blade and went in with the business end after the fact.How did the greatsword help him with tripping? The "flat of the blade" wouldn't assist at all in tripping up a monster. Your DM can house-rule whatever he wants, but it's simply nowhere near a trip weapon. Now, an elven curve blade has a much stronger argument -- it's curved -- but it's not curved enough to be an effective hooking device for trips.
Maybe that's the problem -- what defines a trip weapon is ambiguous. The developers simply can define whatever they want -- it's their choice, not ours.
He didn't say the greatsword is a trip weapon, just that it was used in such a fashion to unbalance his opponent. Meabolex was just using roleplay so everyone had an idea of what his character is attempting to do. Your interpretation of a trip is very specific. My interpretation is an attempt to trip was made and if the opponent ends up on the ground (doesn't matter how) a successful trip was made.
Why do all trip weapons have to have some kind of hook feature?
|
|
How did the greatsword help him with tripping? The "flat of the blade" wouldn't assist at all in tripping up a monster. Your DM can house-rule whatever he wants, but it's simply nowhere near a trip weapon. Now, an elven curve blade has a much stronger argument -- it's curved -- but it's not curved enough to be an effective hooking device for trips.
Maybe that's the problem -- what defines a trip weapon is ambiguous. The developers simply can define whatever they want -- it's their choice, not ours.
Well, if you'd focused less on the weapon I used, and considered the reasoning behind it (that would be the text you didn't quote), it would probably make more sense to you. But if I must explain it: Let a large man violently swing a six-foot hunk of iron into your legs and tell me how well you maintain your balance after the fact.
Anywho, it works out the same no matter how you play it out, the die rolls aren't affected in any significant way, and the notion that you need to "hook" an enemy is just silly - as long as your description of the action makes sense and the roll succeeds that should be enough.
I'll be happy to discuss my opinion on how trip is used, but I won't go a step further into the semantics of the writing for the "trip" weapon quality, or my weapon of choice's lack of hooks - since those are entirely irrelevant to my point/opinion.
Anywho, it works out the same no matter how you play it out, the die rolls aren't affected in any significant way, and the notion that you need to "hook" an enemy is just silly - as long as your description of the action makes sense and the roll succeeds that should be enough.
Actually, the roll is affected.
If that character has a magical greatsword, or weapon focus or whatever feature that improves his attack rolls with a greatsword, then it matters if all these bonus should come into play or not when he trips.
Hence the need to know if you can trip with a greatsword, a spiked gauntlet or any other non-tripping weapon.
I once ran a rather successful Greatsword-wielding Rogue/Fighter with ; he swept his enemy's legs with the flat of the blade and went in with the business end after the fact.
I'm thinking the answer for how he was using his Greatsword might be in there...
Good roleplaying btw :)
If it is only being done as an RP affectation, then any +mods from the sword wouldn't be included.
|
|
Actually, the roll is affected.If that character has a magical greatsword, or weapon focus or whatever feature that improves his attack rolls with a greatsword, then it matters if all these bonus should come into play or not when he trips.
Hence the need to know if you can trip with a greatsword, a spiked gauntlet or any other non-tripping weapon.
How would a magic greatsword affect the die roll any differently than a magic halberd, exactly?
A level 1 Fighter (Human) with 18 STR, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Weapon Focus: Halberd, who posesses a +1 Magic Halberd would gain:
A flat +9 Bonus (BaB 1, Strength Bonus 4, Weapon Focus 1, Magic Weapon 1, Feat Bonus 2) to Trip an opponent.
A level 1 Fighter (Human) with 18 STR, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Weapon Focus: Greatsword, who posesses a +1 Magic Greatsword would gain:
A flat +9 Bonus (BaB 1, Strength Bonus 4, Weapon Focus 1, Magic Weapon 1, Feat Bonus 2) to Trip an opponent.
The only difference is that the guy with the greatsword, by RAW, does not have the option to drop his weapon if the tables get turned, though a nice GM might say that he does.
Of course, if you insist upon saying that the Greatsword's bonuses doesn't count (despite allowing it to be used, which would make very little sense), the Greatsword fighter's to-hit would end up being 2 behind the Halberd fighter's.
Which brings me back to (though I hate to read repeated points and I hate to repeat my points) this:
I always understood trip to be nothing more than a Combat Action that you can perform at a whim - with some weapons and feats reducing your risks and improving your chances of success.
Good roleplaying btw :)
Thanks. I do what I can.
Edit: This is my last post on the subject. Until someone who publishes this game comes down and lays out the law, I'm stuck in my heathen non-hook-using, allowing-greatswords ways and that's that. So there's my opinion, for what its worth. It makes sense to me.
Double edit: Forgot the "t"s in "strength", and forgot to add the weapon focus into the equation.
I still say it works this way:
I'm confused about...the confusion. It seems pretty straight forward to me.
If you try to trip an opponent, you trigger an AoO. If the AoO hits, the amount of damage is added to the CMD of the person being tripped. If you beat the targets CMD, he/she/it is knocked prone. If you fail by 10 or more, you are knocked prone (Note there is nothing in the rules for trip about needing a weapon to perform it).
If you try to trip an opponent and you have Improved Trip, you do not incur an AoO. If you beat the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If you fail by 10 or more, you are knocked prone.
If you have a weapon with the Trip special quality, then, if your attack fails by 10 or more, you may drop the weapon instead of being knocked prone.
I just don't see where all the confusion is coming from.
For the Bump.
...
The only difference is that the guy with the greatsword, by RAW, does not have the option to drop his weapon if the tables get turned, though a nice GM might say that he does.
This point has been argued to exhaustion in other threads; If all weapons can be used to trip then this famous line has no reason to exist and is superfluous.
"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."
Of course, if you insist upon saying that the Greatsword's bonuses doesn't count (despite allowing it to be used, which would make very little sense), the Greatsword fighter's to-hit would end up being 2 behind the Halberd fighter's.Which brings me back to (though I hate to read repeated points and I hate to repeat my points) this:
I always understood trip to be nothing more than a Combat Action that you can perform at a whim - with some weapons and feats reducing your risks and improving your chances of success.
Which is your opinion, and a valid one if it suits your game. Nobody is telling you how to play. Not in this thread at least.
We're all here to find a solution to this issue.
Edit: This is my last post on the subject. Until someone who publishes this game comes down and lays out the law, I'm stuck in my heathen non-hook-using, allowing-greatswords ways and that's that. So there's my opinion, for what its worth. It makes sense to me.
So anyone(barring paizo staff) who disagrees with you is a zealot not worth to be listened. Thank you very much.
...
The only difference is that the guy with the greatsword, by RAW, does not have the option to drop his weapon if the tables get turned, though a nice GM might say that he does.This point has been argued to exhaustion in other threads; If all weapons can be used to trip then this famous line has no reason to exist and is superfluous.
"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."
No, only the first sentence of that line has no reason to exist, other than as a copy & paste error.
No, only the first sentence of that line has no reason to exist, other than as a copy & paste error....
The only difference is that the guy with the greatsword, by RAW, does not have the option to drop his weapon if the tables get turned, though a nice GM might say that he does.This point has been argued to exhaustion in other threads; If all weapons can be used to trip then this famous line has no reason to exist and is superfluous.
"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."
And yet it's the origin of all this discussion.
I want to know if it's really an error, an oversight or what.What's wrong with this?
No, only the first sentence of that line has no reason to exist, other than as a copy & paste error....
The only difference is that the guy with the greatsword, by RAW, does not have the option to drop his weapon if the tables get turned, though a nice GM might say that he does.This point has been argued to exhaustion in other threads; If all weapons can be used to trip then this famous line has no reason to exist and is superfluous.
"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."
And yet it's the origin of all this discussion.
I want to know if it's really an error, an oversight or what.
What's wrong with this?
Err... your reply to my post is a total non sequitur. It has no obvious direct link to what I wrote. Your post to which I responded said "these two sentences have no purpose if any weapon is allowed to be used to trip". My response to that was "no, only the first sentence of those two has no purpose in that case". Your response to that was "OMG why are you trying to suppress the truth!?".
Huh?
Was this a problem in 3.5? The wording is exactly the same and I don't remember it causing all this hassle.
The wording is different. 3.5 specifically stated that only unarmed attacks could be used to trip, then provided the exception that weapons with the Trip property could be used instead. Pathfinder has no such "only unarmed attacks can be used to make a Trip attempt" clause, so the "Weapons with this property can be used to make a Trip attempt" sentence is redundant, because any weapon can be used to make a Trip attempt by the letter of the rules.
On the one hand, people seem to engage a lot in very precise, legalistic examinations of the PF rules.
On the other hand, in law, precedent is a vital part of analysis. That is, look at prior case law, look at where things came from (sometimes VERY OLD law), to understand what the true application and intent of present law is.
It seems utterly bizarre that people would be legalistic in the first sense and then utterly reject the role of precedent.
This is one of many topics where people seem UTTERLY unwilling to give 3.5 rules precedent.
Look, PF is a modification of 3.5. Where PF is not clearly changing 3.5, use 3.5.
This is one of many topics where people seem UTTERLY unwilling to give 3.5 rules precedent.
Look, PF is a modification of 3.5. Where PF is not clearly changing 3.5, use 3.5.
Errr... in this case, Pathfinder is clearly changing 3.5. The entire combat maneuver system was re-written, and the Trip rules were intentionally re-written even past the degree that was needed to meet the new Combat Maneuvers system.
Believe me, I'm all for using 3.5 rulings where Pathfinder hasn't changed things. This isn't one of those places.
Err... your reply to my post is a total non sequitur. It has no obvious direct link to what I wrote. Your post to which I responded said "these two sentences have no purpose if any weapon is allowed to be used to trip". My response to that was "no, only the first sentence of those two has no purpose in that case". Your response to that was "OMG why are you trying to suppress the truth!?".Huh?
Well, quoting your text and not contradicting it pretty much implies accepting it as true, doesn't it? (which was my intention)
Then, the rest of the post has sense in the context of all this thread.
Ah, OK, I gotcha now. Usually when a post is quoted, people expect the response to be about the quoted post, thus why I was confused (not criticism, btw, just explanation).
If you have a weapon with the Trip special quality, then, if your attack fails by 10 or more, you may drop the weapon instead of being knocked prone.
I just don't see where all the confusion is coming from.
The confusion in our group (and we have talked about this being unclear) was that A) you can use trip in place of a melee attack, which seems to indicate that you can trip using any weapon (which because of IRL information and the way 'trip' is worded, makes sense) and B) Weapons with the trip quality can be dropped on a failed trip attempt, which makes *no* sense to us because why *couldn't* you drop a longsword.
*shrug*
Would also like official word.
If you have a weapon with the Trip special quality, then, if your attack fails by 10 or more, you may drop the weapon instead of being knocked prone.
I just don't see where all the confusion is coming from.
The confusion in our group (and we have talked about this being unclear) was that A) you can use trip in place of a melee attack, which seems to indicate that you can trip using any weapon (which because of IRL information and the way 'trip' is worded, makes sense) and B) Weapons with the trip quality can be dropped on a failed trip attempt, which makes *no* sense to us because why *couldn't* you drop a longsword.
*shrug*
Would also like official word.
I would think you'd be MORE likely to be return-tripped with a trip weapon than with something like a longsword (since trip weapons always have hooks or snagging parts).
Think about it. If I baseball bat some guy's legs with a longsword, how does he trip me up? If I hit one of his legs with a whip, he could easily pull on it and throw me off balance.
I maintain that only trip weapons and unarmed strikes can be used to trip. Hopefully, my interpretation will prove true.
No argumentation, just bumping for truth...
Ravingdork: Very good point about counter-tripping.
I just wanted to clarify a bit and to point out that part of why I was hoping to avoid too much lobbying for one position or another its that, if the discussion gets heated, and someone is moved to flag a post or something, or it gets really out of hand, we could just as easily see the only "official" attention in the thread being someone popping in to lock it.
Not saying that would happen based on current comments, just explaining why I'm a bit leery of having this turn into anything more than a simple request for clarification.
|
The other thing is the longer this "debate" goes on, the more likely some folks are to get more and more invested in their side being right. Well, at some point (PLEASE!!), we'll get official clarification... and somebody is going to be wrong. Me? I just want an answer, but I also don't want to see anyone - especially someone who argued passionately for their opinion - get egg on their face and walk away from this thing mad. We're not that big a community yet, we Pathfinders, so I'd like to see everyone stay happy and on the same side.
Why I'm personally not invested in 'being right' (besides the fact this is a discussion of RPG rules)
is that it's pretty obvious the rules here are going to be Errata'd/Updated ONE WAY OR THE OTHER,
so arguing what the CURRENT wording means is pointless.
The possibilities (as I see them) are A:
The "Trip Weapons can be used to make a Trip attack" is superfluous and confusing, and thus should be removed. +1 Quarterstaves will help you Trip better than mundane Quarterstaves, just like they help you Sunder or apply Non-Lethal damage with the -4 penalty applied.
or B:
For whatever reason, 3.5 Trip's 110% clear "you may make a Trip attack in place of an UNARMED melee attack" was botched (the current wording without any reference to 'Unarmed' appears identical to Sunder, excepting Sunder is an Attack Action) and we were left with the confusing possible indirect implication in the Trip Weapon section... Which means the Errata should restore the rule that Trip by default uses Unarmed Strike, which would make it impossible to Trip with a Quarterstave (or other non-Trip Weapons).
Going from the current rules, it appears under both scenarios that making a Trip attempt provokes an AoO unless you have Improved Trip, regardless of whether you use a Trip Weapon or not, which is a signifigant change from 3.5 (Trip Weapons were a 'cheap' way to avoid the AoO in 3.5, no longer in PRPG). As people have pointed out, if non-Trip Weapons are allowed to initiate Trips, the "you may drop the Weapon instead of being Tripped yourself" aspect of Trip Weapons would also seem BIZARRE (if you couldn't drop a Quarterstaff), and should probably be moved to the Core Trip Rules if weapon Trips without 'Trip Weapons' are indeed allowed. ...IF SO, that pretty much negates the entire mechanical benefit of the current "Trip Weapon" category, which would probably make it a good idea to give Trip Weapons the blanket +2 bonus that Disarm Weapons get, or else bring back the 3.5 wording that Trip Weapons don't provoke AoO's (without Imp Trip). Or make it clear that only Unarmed Strike and Trip Weapons can attempt Trip Maneuvers.
...Bump for the truth...
|
|
Since I'm not arguing the subject itself, I can freely post here without feeling guilty, or feeling like I went back on my word.
The primary issue when discussing these problems is that everyone ends up working with conjecture. And nothing else. You can't say any one person's opinion is invalid, and then go on to say that you're looking for facts when its fairly obvious that the only facts available can take the discussion in either direction, especially if they've already been 'discussed to death in other threads' - and to no particular conclusion.
So, having offered my opinion, I feel it is perfectly reasonable for me to refuse to discuss my opinion, especially if the discussion is less about the opinion and more about "hooks" or typos (seeing as I've explained my logic, my reasoning should be clear) - and even more reasonable for me to sit back and wait for an answer from a developer.
Which brings me to my previous point: If you want a definitive solution, you need someone who publishes the game to lay down the law, otherwise it is a matter of opinion. Until we get an answer, it seems they're perfectly willing to leave it up to the individuals in a game group, that means it remains a matter of opinion, which means that varying opinions are the only solutions available. Namecalling and nitpicking doesn't achieve anything here.
See, I'm not sure how to interpret this one meself, and seeing so many other fine people in a quandary.. so to speak... And I tripped over this thread and wanted to bump it along as well...
I tripped over this thread...
LOL, and bump.
James Jacobs, Jason Bulmahn, Paizo's usual deli sandwich delivery boy, window washer, or ANYONE with a connection to the general area where the office is, could we get an official rules clarification here?
Or just bump, either way! :)
Weekend is over.. time to bump this for offical clarification.
Much needed and wanted!
|
|
On the one hand, people seem to engage a lot in very precise, legalistic examinations of the PF rules.
On the other hand, in law, precedent is a vital part of analysis. That is, look at prior case law, look at where things came from (sometimes VERY OLD law), to understand what the true application and intent of present law is.
It seems utterly bizarre that people would be legalistic in the first sense and then utterly reject the role of precedent.
This is one of many topics where people seem UTTERLY unwilling to give 3.5 rules precedent.
Look, PF is a modification of 3.5. Where PF is not clearly changing 3.5, use 3.5.
So how do you propose those people who never played 3rd edition and is playing PF as their first "D&D" experience, or going from 1st or 2nd edition, or even those who started with 4th and is trying something new (better)?
I don't feel it's a fair precedent to force this adherrence to the (what many know as) previous rules incarnations.
Robert
|
|
Was this a problem in 3.5? The wording is exactly the same and I don't remember it causing all this hassle.
In 3.5 one needed to made an attack roll to hit one's Touch AC first, before being given the opportunity to make an "opposed roll." So all modifiers that one used to make an attack would definitely play a role. So if a weapon was used to initiate the trip, the enhancement bonus and feat related bonuses to that type of weapon did make a difference, and thus the need for clarification.
Figuring out how much of that concept carried over into the CMB checks for the purpose of initiating a trip is precisely what is causing the confusion.
Robert
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH Bump Bump Bump!!!!!!!!!!
bump for truth...
|
|
See this is the problem with what happens when the debate actually dies down. People wander off and the thread dies it's inevitable death for a month or two until someone else brings up the topic.
I mean I hate bumping threads but it's been thoroughly proven that without official word there will be no consensus. So at this point we're left to bumping a thread that will otherwise die off.
This is especially bothersome to me because this is a debate I've had with a player before.
I hate bumping it too.
I don't see as we have much choice though. It's a devisive topic over which we can not come to accord.
We'll just all have to make it part of our daily routine till an Editor or the Designer notices and weighs in on the topic.
I've been concerned about posting too much, because I fear that my comments, which are just meant to keep the thread from becoming contentious, seem to be getting misconstrued, which is ironic, because I was hoping to clear this up so that the topic would be less contentious.