Personally, I'd strongly advise against it. They know the thread is here. If they want to comment, they will. Considering how nice it is to have them around, I'd be hesitant to do anything that might make them regret being on the boards in the first place.
They'll address the issue when they're ready. Pestering them about it isn't likely to speed up the process, and might do just the opposite.
I honestly would hope not. There is a certain way of doing things. Its posted in the rules forum. If anyone wants to answer, the can, and if they are too busy or they don't want to answer, for one reason or another, I can respect that. I hope they do, but I don't think it serves anyone's purposes to hunt anyone down and hound them for answers.
|
Considering the number and types of threads in this forum they already reply to, I'm guessing that they don't have an easy answer on hand. I also guess that Jason is too busy with the APG playtest, and no one but him will touch this topic with a 10' pole.
So it'll be a while.
The problem is, will the problem of Jason being busy ever go away? I mean he's the lead designer. What happens after the APG? Do they say okay time to stop making new books. No they set him to work on the next great offering. So Jason will always be rediculously busy. I mean I hate to say it, but I think they need someone other than Jason to be the person who decides rules adjudication. Someone with a less full plate than the lead designer. I don't know who, but is there a secondary designer who follows the lead and knows the rules well enough to at least take the time to adjudicate?
What about a post on the society boards? Seems that Mr. Frost is the fastest to reply to questions like this. If there is no reply there, then my guess is that they have no answer.
Any PFS subscriber willing to post for us?
|
|
I would assume that once the open playtest for the APG is done, Jason will have a good bit of work to do, but then between the time that book goes to layout/printing, there will be a nice window of time when he can look into this. Let's not forget, he might be fully aware of this thread and is taking his time thinking of the best answer, and that answer might be going into the Gamemaster's Guide or the APG.
I further suspect that the next big book for PRPG after the GG and APG would be a second bestiary, which would take far less work from the lead designer (assuming about half the book would be updates to monsters previously appearing in the APs or other OGL books). This question as well as several about item crafting are swirling about, demanding official clarifications, and in each of these specific cases, I would imagine the designers are fully aware of them and are taking their time deciding which answer is best for the game in the long term.
As for Mr Frost, his area seems to be exclusively Organized Play. He might be able to give his best answer, and it would be "official" for PS games, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right answer for all PRPG games.
Hey, I agree 100% with a Twowolves post! This must herald a new age of cooperation and understanding!
Let's not forget, he might be fully aware of this thread and is taking his time thinking of the best answer, and that answer might be going into the Gamemaster's Guide or the APG.
I have to say, any 'answer' is going to be simply a temporary measure until the actual wording is adjusted (like Vital Strike). James' posts have said that Paizo is NOT going down the road of WotC (refusing to update subsequent printings of the rules, relying on FAQs to clarify suboptimal wording), but will be folding in any Errata to future printings, which will also propagate to the PRD online. ...Meaning APG/GMG/etc are not going to be used to rectify errors in the Core Rule product (thank god... I hope).
Posting this to the PFS thread seems like it probably WOULD get a prompter response, given Josh's diligence in resolving problems there, but I'd almost rather not because it's not REALLY a specific PFS issue, but an issue with the Core Rules being hideously confusing and ambiguous.
As is though, I think the RAW reading is going to have to be any weapon can make a Trip attack using relevant bonuses, because the simple wording to ban that (i.e. calling out Unarmed in normal Trip rules like 3.5) is simply not present.
It hasn't yet, but Jason posted (back when it was being discussed) saying that it WILL be changed to be more clear in time for the next print run (they will be putting out an Errata & updating the online PRD to reflect changes... apparently in the next few months). Basically, it will work exactly like he has EXPLAINED on the boards but the wording will no longer be frustratingly obtuse to the vast majority of readers.
This is the approach I expect for alot of these topics that amount to sub-optimal wording or editing issues. (And of course the simple Type-O's, missing lines, etc)
|
|
Please give us an inkling of what's going on here.
Okay, so thread stalking would be a bad idea ;), but if Paizo folks are aware of this thread (and this issue), but are not ready to answer, I'd like to hear that at least. Seriously... I'd rather hear "it's under discussion" or "we're not quite sure of the implications either way," than silence. Course, a definitive answer would be nice too.
Maybe we could start a pool for the number of posts before an answer is posted?
It is silly, but I feel like they are hiding out for no real reason here. Even a we are looking in to it would be nice.
Maybe we could start a pool for the number of posts before an answer is posted?
It is silly, but I feel like they are hiding out for no real reason here. Even a we are looking in to it would be nice.
Let's start a pool for what the official answer will eventually be.
|
|
I've at times considered making an inflamatory response just so something on this thread was flaggable to get attention, but that's silly and immature. Besides nowadays it would only summon Ross to delete the post but not say anything special or different regarding the status of the debate. So it's ultimately futile, but admittedly I think we all consider something like that sometimes because deep down there's a little voice screaming "Hey, look at me, pay attention to what I'm saying." lol :)
I Say they answer on Post 196.
For what it's worth, on Tuesday January the 5th, at the Paizo chat.. James Jacobs was asked about this. It was probably one the last two questions he took before signing off for the night.
He said Jason will probably answer it, but he (Jason) is just too busy with the APG playtest right now... because he really is following all the related discussions. Afterwards, he'll hopefully be catching up on some of this stuff.
Bump up the jam, bump it up....
We need sage advice, or something like it. Even a few rules clarifications a month would help. A top five questions answered or so would clear up most issues in no time. I really don't think the "all lines are busy now, please hold until after Gencon for the first available staffer" thing works. Why have a rules question area at all if they are to busy to answer rules questions?
They said when things die down they will go through the archives. This was in another thread recently.
Hulk am bumping!!!
If you can only trip with a trip weapon, then you can't trip with a foot, and that's just silly.
That's not true at all. The point is that if you don't have a trip weapon, then you HAVE to use a foot, leg, etc., to do the tripping; thus, the Attack of Opportunity. However, if you have a weapon specifically designed to do the tripping, then you can use it instead and not provide any Attack of Opportunity because you're using the weapon and not your body (just like using a weapon to attack vs. using your body -- i.e., unarmed -- to attack.
That makes sense all around, as it balances the "improved trip" feat with the "improved unarmed attack" feat with both enabling the attacker to perform an action without a weapon that would ordinarily provide an Attack of Opportunity if not done with a weapon, and without providing the AoO.
On the other hand, the "disarm" weapons provide a bonus to disarming, but the maneuver is clearly intended to provide an AoO even when performed armed, so there's no telling.
My interpretation (homerule, actually), is to simply rule that "trip" weapons simply provide a +2 bonus to tripping, just like "disarm" weapons.
I'll third the request for an official ruling on this.
And a fourth . . .
If you can only trip with a trip weapon, then you can't trip with a foot, and that's just silly.That's not true at all. The point is that if you don't have a trip weapon, then you HAVE to use a foot, leg, etc., to do the tripping; thus, the Attack of Opportunity. However, if you have a weapon specifically designed to do the tripping, then you can use it instead and not provide any Attack of Opportunity because you're using the weapon and not your body (just like using a weapon to attack vs. using your body -- i.e., unarmed -- to attack.
That makes sense all around, as it balances the "improved trip" feat with the "improved unarmed attack" feat with both enabling the attacker to perform an action without a weapon that would ordinarily provide an Attack of Opportunity if not done with a weapon, and without providing the AoO.
On the other hand, the "disarm" weapons provide a bonus to disarming, but the maneuver is clearly intended to provide an AoO even when performed armed, so there's no telling.
My interpretation (homerule, actually), is to simply rule that "trip" weapons simply provide a +2 bonus to tripping, just like "disarm" weapons.
I'll third the request for an official ruling on this.And a fourth . . .
What you say is true, in v3.5. In Pathfinder, tripping provokes even with a trip weapon, even with improved unarmed strike. You need Improved Trip to not provoke.
Personally I think the rules for trip weapons are bunk. I can knock someone down by smacking them on the knee with with a club, sticking a spear between their legs and twisting, or catching their shoulder with the hook of a halberd and giving a sharp pull. I can also drop a greatsword just as easily as a sickle if my trip attempt goes really badly. I'd just replace the trip ability with something like the disarm ability. If you use a trip weapon you get a +2 bonus because it is a little easier to trip someone with a weapon specifically designed to trip people. The "drop the weapon instead of being counter-tripped" rule should then apply to ALL weapons.
|
It is difficult to think of a person incapable of tripping another simply because they don't have a weapon. The +2 bonus makes sense to me but that's a pretty major change. This would still be more consistent though since to my knowledge, there has been no way to give a weapon the ability to trip (such as how the brutal surge property from MIC allows bull rushes). I know that's not a PF book but still, it would make things simpler if such a property were created or at least some other option were included. Just my ramblings on the matter.
Ask the Kobold, and ye shall receive! Skip Williams of Kobold Quarterly (and co-creator of 3rd edition) clarifies trip weapons for us with this reply to an e-mail I sent (his replies are nested in my message):
This has always been more than a little unclear - what is the benefit of using trip and disarm weapons?
You can drop them to avoid being tripped during your own trip attempt.Do they grant you a bonus to your CMB roll?
No.Do they prevent attacks of opportunity?
Not according to the rules, but it would make some sense that they would.Do you need a trip or disarm weapon to make those combat maneuvers with a weapon?
You can only make trip attacks unarmed or with a trippig weapon.So far, the only benefit the rules explicitly spell out is that you can drop your weapon to prevent yourself from being tripped or disarmed by a botched CMB roll.
Yup.
I knew it! Could you please show us some screenshots of the E-mail?
Yeah while not wanting to call you a liar (Actually I believe you) its kinda hard to take that as evidence.
See? :)
Erik Mona, do you like to dress in drag and do the Hula?All the time. In fact, that is my morning workout routine. I drip honey on my chest, put on a dress and dance the Hula.
HaHa!
Ha, if you insist.. I will say, though, I did correct some of his spelling.
That being said, I wanted an official response as much as anyone, so me fabricating an e-mail would be kind of counterproductive to that!
And yes, that is Skip Williams's e-mail address, as noted here: Kobold Quarterly contact page
Thanks for sharing of course, but I'm really looking for official PAIZO comment on this, and preferably from Jason, given James' abundant and helpful comments often aren't official clarifications of RAW, but more "this is how I would run it" (and he differs from Jason's opinion in many areas as well)
Do you need a trip or disarm weapon to make those combat maneuvers with a weapon?
You can only make trip attacks unarmed or with a trippig weapon.
Yet there is absolutely nothing in the Trip rules that suggests that, and I'm not aware of any wording connecting Unarmed Strike with Trip attempts in any way. This is really the fundamental question people are waiting for clarification on. It's not that the interpretation Skip is giving seems so unlikely, but that if it DOES correspond to Jason's intent, it's pretty clear there needs to be an Errata revision in the Trip rules.
There is nothing in the trip rules specifically, but the trip weapon description DOES suggest it, as has been mentioned before.
And it wouldn't be the first time that you had to look in a side-related rule description to get information on how stuff works.
|
Yeah while not wanting to call you a liar (Actually I believe you) its kinda hard to take that as evidence.
See? :)
Erik Mona, do you like to dress in drag and do the Hula?All the time. In fact, that is my morning workout routine. I drip honey on my chest, put on a dress and dance the Hula.
I *KNEW* I wasn't the only Evil person in the universe who does that! :)
I think one question to Skip was asked incorrectly:
Do they grant you a bonus to your CMB roll?
Skip Williams wrote:
No.
That's a true statement. A tripping weapon does not automatically grant you a bonus on your CMB -- there's no automatic "trip weapon bonus". However, any bonuses on the weapon made to use the trip attempt do get applied. . .
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.
So a better question to ask is:
Do enhancements to a trip weapon (enhancement bonus, Weapon Focus, etc.) grant you a bonus to your CMB if you perform a trip with a trip weapon?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Half a century from now, after everyone else has moved of to playing Pathfinder 5th Edition, with the pizo-electric anti-gravity miniatures that Sean K Reynolds III designs, Fake Healer will still be rocking back and forth in his chair, a crusty expression on his face, staring at his quaint little CRT monitor.
He'll be silent, except for every second day, when he'll screw up his face and say, "Computer: new entry. Text: bump. End text. Send."
If his hearing were any better, he'd notice that, two doors down, the frail but still booming laughter of Jason Buhlmann echoes down the halls after every post.
|
|
Half a century from now, after everyone else has moved of to playing Pathfinder 5th Edition, with the pizo-electric anti-gravity miniatures that Sean K Reynolds III designs, Fake Healer will still be rocking back and forth in his chair, a crusty expression on his face, staring at his quaint little CRT monitor.
He'll be silent, except for every second day, when he'll screw up his face and say, "Computer: new entry. Text: bump. End text. Send."
If his hearing were any better, he'd notice that, two doors down, the frail but still booming laughter of Jason Buhlmann echoes down the halls after every post.
Hey!!!!! I just got a flat-screen....jerk...