
wraithstrike |

They have to know about this post by now. It is probably an in office joke to see how long it will go, or maybe there is a daily office betting pool to see how many times it will get bumped in a day. Someone may even have a spreadsheet to figure out the odds of possible bumps according to what day it is.
Serious response: In reality there are other questions that have not been answered that are just as valid. I will give them the benefit of the doubt since they seem to know what they are doing. They could be in the process if deciding which way the rule should work. It does not make sense to me that you need a weapon to knock someone down, and that may be the point being debated in the office.

The Wraith |

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."
Yes, and don't forget:
"Mists of dreams drip along the nascent echo and love no more. End of line. "

![]() |

They have to know about this post by now. It is probably an in office joke to see how long it will go, or maybe there is a daily office betting pool to see how many times it will get bumped in a day. Someone may even have a spreadsheet to figure out the odds of possible bumps according to what day it is.
I seriously agree with this.

![]() |

Bump!!!! To recap, Trip rules are odd. The first page of this thread pretty much covers the ambiguous parts.
What can you trip with (weapons, unarmed strikes, a free hand, etc.)?
If you can use weapons do the weapon bonuses apply to the trip attempt?
and there are some others....
I totally agree with the above poster.
BUMP!!!
![]() |

I thought you were only supposed to bump a thread once every 24 hours, or is that some other forums rule that I'm attributing to here accidentally.
Maybe we can get official clarification on that point. Anyone from Paizo care to comment?

![]() |

Fake Healer wrote:I agree with the poster above...Quandary wrote:...Is Jason dead or something?I haven't seen much from him lately....it is worrisome.
BUMP!!!!!
He just posted the final revisions to the playtest classes. So he was a bit consumed with those. As long as they don't use whatever project he works on next as to why he can't comment.

![]() |
My general requirement (leaving aside the monk thing) is that to do any form of tripping the weapon must be a two handed weapon (like a quarterstaff or chain) or be an appropriate exotic such as a whip, normal rules then apply. I do not allow tripping with light weapons. (the whip is not a light weapon but it is finessable)

King Joey |

Do you really need the developers for this? I mean, most of y'all seem to have put way more thought into this than I suspect they ever did, so why would you change whatever solution is working for your game just because some guy on a message board who happens be a developer says it's supposed to be another way? I can understand seeking clarification on a rule that you can't get to work for you, but most of you are describing at great lengths quite reasonable solutions that you are clearly implementing in your games. What more clarification could you possibly need?
Or has the concept of organized gaming or standardized gaming or whatever it's called completely undone the concept of original game mastering? You know, when you are the game master it is -- quite literally -- YOUR WORLD. The trip rules work however YOU decide they should work, no matter what the developers say. Right?

![]() |

Do you really need the developers for this? I mean, most of y'all seem to have put way more thought into this than I suspect they ever did, so why would you change whatever solution is working for your game just because some guy on a message board who happens be a developer says it's supposed to be another way? I can understand seeking clarification on a rule that you can't get to work for you, but most of you are describing at great lengths quite reasonable solutions that you are clearly implementing in your games. What more clarification could you possibly need?
Or has the concept of organized gaming or standardized gaming or whatever it's called completely undone the concept of original game mastering? You know, when you are the game master it is -- quite literally -- YOUR WORLD. The trip rules work however YOU decide they should work, no matter what the developers say. Right?
I do rule it the way I rule it, however, if there was clarification I wouldn't have to argue with players who feel it should be different (which I have, they went with my ruling, but weren't happy about it) and it's not something I feel strongly enough about to make it a rule that applies to my worlds only. I'll go with the official ruling on it because I don't care enough to want to rule it one way or another, and the problem is whichever way you rule it, you get people who feel it should be the other way (as we've seen here)
This isn't something that ruins our games, but it is something that clarification would help so that we don't have to go through it with new players all the time.

![]() |

Do you really need the developers for this? I mean, most of y'all seem to have put way more thought into this than I suspect they ever did, so why would you change whatever solution is working for your game just because some guy on a message board who happens be a developer says it's supposed to be another way? I can understand seeking clarification on a rule that you can't get to work for you, but most of you are describing at great lengths quite reasonable solutions that you are clearly implementing in your games. What more clarification could you possibly need?
Or has the concept of organized gaming or standardized gaming or whatever it's called completely undone the concept of original game mastering? You know, when you are the game master it is -- quite literally -- YOUR WORLD. The trip rules work however YOU decide they should work, no matter what the developers say. Right?
This needs clarification because it is a screwy wording that effects the game, not only home games but Pathfinder Society games.
I can houserule anything. There are no house rules in Society games.That effects people wishing to build characters that may use the trip ability.

![]() |

lastknightleft wrote:I thought you were only supposed to bump a thread once every 24 hours, or is that some other forums rule that I'm attributing to here accidentally.Maybe we can get official clarification on that point. Anyone from Paizo care to comment?
I would like an official answer to this as well. I have been following this thread for a few weeks now in hopes of finding out this very thing.
Anyone...?
Robert

Razz |

It is their game and their rules, they do have the responsibility of giving clarifications.
The way I see it (and have used and even WotC has clarified this a bunch of times) is this.
TRIP attacks are always unarmed. You're using your body to knock an opponent down. In fact, The Sage has stated the word "trip" is a misnomer. It should be called "Knockdown", actually. Unless you have a weapon that can Trip, you're using your body (e.g. grab opponent's head and shove it down, planting feet on foe and shoving it back down, locking your arm around an appendage and pulling the enemy down, etc.). Obviously you can't use a "dagger" or "short sword" or whatever to trip an opponent.
If you have a trip weapon, you're free to use the weapon. You still provoke AoO if you don't have Improved Trip.
You're allowed to use any type of attack allowed as an attack action with an AoO. Therefore, you can use your AoO to make a Trip attack. Again, your opponent will be allowed an AoO against your AoO trip if you don't have Improved Trip (creating a chain of AoOs, yes, it can happen and has been clarified by WotC before).
I don't see what there is to clarify?

![]() |

It is their game and their rules, they do have the responsibility of giving clarifications.
The way I see it (and have used and even WotC has clarified this a bunch of times) is this.
TRIP attacks are always unarmed. You're using your body to knock an opponent down. In fact, The Sage has stated the word "trip" is a misnomer. It should be called "Knockdown", actually. Unless you have a weapon that can Trip, you're using your body (e.g. grab opponent's head and shove it down, planting feet on foe and shoving it back down, locking your arm around an appendage and pulling the enemy down, etc.). Obviously you can't use a "dagger" or "short sword" or whatever to trip an opponent.
If you have a trip weapon, you're free to use the weapon. You still provoke AoO if you don't have Improved Trip.
You're allowed to use any type of attack allowed as an attack action with an AoO. Therefore, you can use your AoO to make a Trip attack. Again, your opponent will be allowed an AoO against your AoO trip if you don't have Improved Trip (creating a chain of AoOs, yes, it can happen and has been clarified by WotC before).
I don't see what there is to clarify?
The Sage is 3.5. This is a thread about the newly worded Pathfinder ability. There are several omissions in the wording in the Pathfinder version as opposed to the 3.5 version. For one there is no wording that even allows unarmed trips. That is why there is a need to clarify. Perhaps you should educate yourself on a thread's contents before coming in on a high horse and preaching your word as gospel.

![]() |

Razz is as entitled to post his opinion as you are. Just because you don't like his answer isn't an excuse to be abusive.
I apologize. It just angers me that someone can pop into a thread and pass judgment on the whole deal without reading the whys of the thread. It's not so much that I didn't like his answer, its more that I am frustrated that someone may dissuade an answer from higher-ups on a question that is obviously wanted by a good portion of the community. It was a threadcrap and I responded badly to it.
Oh and BUMP!

Freddy Honeycutt |
Chill,
I am seeing a cavalier with a lance flanking a running dragon trying to trip the dragon with the lance...
like a stick in my brothers bicycle tire....
It may take some time for those guys to sort that out, I think they are working on the advanced players guide (maybe it will be in there). Not everyone uses trip...

Razz |

Mynameisjake wrote:Razz is as entitled to post his opinion as you are. Just because you don't like his answer isn't an excuse to be abusive.I apologize. It just angers me that someone can pop into a thread and pass judgment on the whole deal without reading the whys of the thread. It's not so much that I didn't like his answer, its more that I am frustrated that someone may dissuade an answer from higher-ups on a question that is obviously wanted by a good portion of the community. It was a threadcrap and I responded badly to it.
Oh and BUMP!
It doesn't say it's unarmed either in 3.5 SRD, the wording is somewhat the same. Why don't you tell us which words are left out instead of insulting me?
And Pathfinder is built off 3.5e so The Sage does count.

Quandary |

It doesn't say it's unarmed either in 3.5 SRD, the wording is somewhat the same.
Why don't you tell us which words are left out instead of insulting me?
Really? Might want to check in with reality before getting all self righteous:
Making a Trip Attack
Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.
(...)
Tripping with a Weapon
Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity.
(...)
And Pathfinder is built off 3.5e so The Sage does count.
And here we can see the specifically clear wording in 3.5 was removed, so one could probably assume there IS an intended change in functionality, since otherwise Jason could have simply cut and pasted the OGL SRD wording. Of course, he COULD have intended to work exactly like 3.5, but that intent wasn't conveyed by the words he chose. Which is why people are waiting for word of what the intent is and the Errata that will fix it. If you bothered to read all of people's posts on the subject, you would know that ALL possible interpretations have been gone over and every relevant phrase has been analyzed word for word in comparison to 3.5.

Razz |

Again with the name calling, I simply made an earlier statement on how WotC provided answer to this and how I handled it in my games and I'm being called self-righteous and arrogant. I asked for an example, and I am being called names still.
The nerve of you people. Don't turn into ENWorld, please. I was being completely civil and I get these childish replies.

Razz |

And if he took the words out, it was probably because they intended something but ditched it and forgot to fix the wording. It's a huge book, after all. And, in the end, it doesn't realistically make sense for a dagger to be able to "trip/knockdown" a hill giant. Again, all I am saying here is I don't understand why this has gone on for 5 pages and is being bumped like this. Maybe they haven't replied because the answer is simply in the common sense of it all.

nidho |

The fact, Razz, is that although some members of this community might share your position(I do) on this issue, some others see as possible to use any weapon to perfom the trip maneuver within the new writing of the rules. The new text is ambiguous.
That's why an official clarification is desirable and why this thread it's being BUMPed.
EDIT: And closely followed by most of us, I daresay.

![]() |

Well... Rixx said so in post 184, page 4. Here.
Still not enough it seems.
So Rixx is an official source for errata? Since when? Basically he is just another person with an opinion on the matter. The only rulings that count come from the people who make rules for Pathfinder and Society usage.

nidho |

nidho wrote:Well... Rixx said so in post 184, page 4. Here.
Still not enough it seems.
So Rixx is an official source for errata? Since when? Basically he is just another person with an opinion on the matter. The only rulings that count come from the people who make rules for Pathfinder and Society usage.
O_o
Who's saying official?
I was merely pointing at what Ravingdork mentioned; a post where Rixx claimed that he got an answer from D&D 3.0 co-creator Skip Williams.
Now I must ask, have YOU educated yourself on the thread's contents before coming in on a high horse and preaching your word as gospel?

![]() |

Fake Healer wrote:nidho wrote:Well... Rixx said so in post 184, page 4. Here.
Still not enough it seems.
So Rixx is an official source for errata? Since when? Basically he is just another person with an opinion on the matter. The only rulings that count come from the people who make rules for Pathfinder and Society usage.
O_o
Who's saying official?
I was merely pointing at what Ravingdork mentioned; a post where Rixx claimed that he got an answer from D&D 3.0 co-creator Skip Williams.
Now I must ask, have YOU educated yourself on the thread's contents before coming in on a high horse and preaching your word as gospel?
I have educated myself on the thread. It is about Pathfinder's version of trip. Not 3.0 or 3.5 or Iron Kingdoms, or any other system. It is about the Pathfinder version of trip and errata that is necessary to make it unconfused for official Society play and for the Pathfinder system. Unfortunately, people keep referencing a system that isn't part of the equation because the Pathfinder version has changed from the original 3.0 and 3.5 versions. This is all outlined on pages 1 and 2 of the thread if you would like to read up on what the real issues are.
You not only posted about the Rixx response but made a comment about "still not enough it seems" as to that being some sort of official response. This high-horse has plenty of room for all....
nidho |

nidho wrote:Fake Healer wrote:nidho wrote:Well... Rixx said so in post 184, page 4. Here.
Still not enough it seems.
So Rixx is an official source for errata? Since when? Basically he is just another person with an opinion on the matter. The only rulings that count come from the people who make rules for Pathfinder and Society usage.
O_o
Who's saying official?
I was merely pointing at what Ravingdork mentioned; a post where Rixx claimed that he got an answer from D&D 3.0 co-creator Skip Williams.
Now I must ask, have YOU educated yourself on the thread's contents before coming in on a high horse and preaching your word as gospel?
I have educated myself on the thread. It is about Pathfinder's version of trip. Not 3.0 or 3.5 or Iron Kingdoms, or any other system. It is about the Pathfinder version of trip and errata that is necessary to make it unconfused for official Society play and for the Pathfinder system. Unfortunately, people keep referencing a system that isn't part of the equation because the Pathfinder version has changed from the original 3.0 and 3.5 versions. This is all outlined on pages 1 and 2 of the thread if you would like to read up on what the real issues are.
You not only posted about the Rixx response but made a comment about "still not enough it seems" as to that being some sort of official response. This high-horse has plenty of room for all....
Cool! you can take the reigns, I will operate the turret... BUMP! BUMP! BUMP!
Now seriously; I agree with you 100%. This is PF, and PF trip rules need to be errated. My comment was more in the lines of "unofficial is not enough for everyone so official IS needed".
It's difficult for me to convey intention with english written language, what would be simply a friendly taunt in a face to face conversation becomes something more serious here. I should have defused my last comment with a smiley or something. My apologies if I offended you.

![]() |

Again with the name calling, I simply made an earlier statement on how WotC provided answer to this and how I handled it in my games and I'm being called self-righteous and arrogant. I asked for an example, and I am being called names still.
The nerve of you people. Don't turn into ENWorld, please. I was being completely civil and I get these childish replies.
For what it's worth I do think there was a quite a bit of overreaction to what you posted because I know you weren't trying to offend. In all fairness though, your exact argument had been posted in the thread earlier (specifically that trip worked this way in 3.5, that both sage and the rules compendium clarified how it worked, and that when things are unclear default to 3.5) and your argument is one I agree with, but it was repetition. The reason this is still an issue is because even people who played 3.5 don't agree with how 3.5 worked, and so with the ambiguity released in pathfinder are rehashing the argument. It's one I've had with a player who was wanting to use his glaive to trip with reach and I told him that to trip at reach you need a trip weapon with reach like a guisarme. He felt that you could trip with any weapon, because he could see how you can trip with any weapon. That is why I want clarification. Fake healer I think is a little sensitive because no one pays attention to how well he does on chore wars anymore ;)

TreeLynx |

For what it's worth I do think there was a quite a bit of overreaction to what you posted because I know you weren't trying to offend. In all fairness though, your exact argument had been posted in the thread earlier (specifically that trip worked this way in 3.5, that both sage and the rules compendium clarified how it worked, and that when things are unclear default to 3.5) and your argument is one I agree with, but it was repetition. The reason this is still an issue is because even people who played 3.5 don't agree with how 3.5 worked, and so with the ambiguity released in pathfinder are rehashing the argument. It's one I've had with a player who was wanting to use his glaive to trip with reach and I told him that to trip at reach you need a trip weapon with reach like a guisarme. He felt that you could trip with any weapon, because he could see how you can trip with any weapon. That is why I want clarification. Fake healer I think is a little sensitive because no one pays attention to how well he does on chore wars anymore ;)
This. +1, BUMP, et al.
While according to 3.5 RAW and Errata, Sage, Skip Williams, et al. you could not trip with a quarterstaff, club, or any other weapon which was not specifically a trip weapon, my experience IRL is that you can trip with a dagger, shortsword, longsword/bastard sword, greatsword, axe, quarterstaff, and club. It certainly would provoke in most cases, as it requires closing to use leverage, or reverse grip on a dagger, and is difficult to do, and failure by more than 10 would in fact result in being knocked prone. However, the 3PF RAW does seem to imply that this is possible, and if this is not the intent, it should be clarified.