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


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I don't believe that Jason is 'undecided' about it, though. That's absurd.
It's easy enough between however many drafts and revisions for something like this to have slipped thru the cracks. But for it's INTENDED functioning to be something that he would say "Oh. Haven't thought about that one. Hmmm... Let me get back to you" just doesn't make sense.

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
Quandary wrote:

I don't believe that Jason is 'undecided' about it, though. That's absurd.

It's easy enough between however many drafts and revisions for something like this to have slipped thru the cracks. But for it's INTENDED functioning to be something that he would say "Oh. Haven't thought about that one. Hmmm... Let me get back to you" just doesn't make sense.

I meant more "we as a staff." That's the only thing that I can figure, that there's some pretty stubbornly divided opinions on the Paizo staff, so they can't come to a consensus, and it's not important enough to Jason risk p***ing off half the folks he works with.


Okay... So they think this is a Pandora's Box? Neat! So who has the guts to have a look-see? :-)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quandary wrote:

I don't believe that Jason is 'undecided' about it, though. That's absurd.

It's easy enough between however many drafts and revisions for something like this to have slipped thru the cracks. But for it's INTENDED functioning to be something that he would say "Oh. Haven't thought about that one. Hmmm... Let me get back to you" just doesn't make sense.

Or possibly Jason's kind of busy with the APG and he's the formal rules response guy, which is what's being demanded rather than the personal opinions of the rest of the staff? Just a thought.

I rule you can trip with anything but without a trip weapon, you're off-balance and can be tripped in return while with a specially designed trip weapon you can drop it without being off-balance yourself. If this position isn't correct, then the line about being knocked prone if you fail a trip is meaningless as all trip weapons allow you to discard the weapon instead. But that's just my incredibly unofficial position

Dark Archive

Guys, they are about to release GMG and APG pretty soon, so I'd say Jason is probably really, really busy. Not to mention that on top of everything else, the recent announcements likely mean the whole staff will be more or less swamped with work.

I'm sure that once things cool down a bit, there will an updated errata and even FAQ at some point.

FWIW, I think the intention is that you can only trip with weapons with the 'Trip' property. That's how it reads to me, and likely is meant to add something "extra" to anyone investing in unarmed attacks and polearms/two-handed weapons. Such as you cannot "brace" a longsword or a greatsword against a charge.

EDIT: Or just go with what Paul said.

The Exchange

bump

Dark Archive

There are other people from Paizo who could respond to this. Wow.


Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
There are other people from Paizo who could respond to this. Wow.

Yes, and they're all equally busy. Or do you think that everyone but Jason is lazing away in the sun (not that there is any in Seattle, but it's a metaphor anyway...) drinking fruity drinks from little glasses with umbrellas?


Asgetrion wrote:
FWIW, I think the intention is that you can only trip with weapons with the 'Trip' property. That's how it reads to me, and likely is meant to add something "extra" to anyone investing in unarmed attacks and polearms/two-handed weapons.

The problem with this interpretation, of course, is that unarmed strikes do not have the "trip" property.

Dark Archive

Zurai wrote:
do you think that everyone but Jason is lazing away in the sun (not that there is any in Seattle, but it's a metaphor anyway...) drinking fruity drinks from little glasses with umbrellas?

yes.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
FWIW, I think the intention is that you can only trip with weapons with the 'Trip' property. That's how it reads to me, and likely is meant to add something "extra" to anyone investing in unarmed attacks and polearms/two-handed weapons.
The problem with this interpretation, of course, is that unarmed strikes do not have the "trip" property.

Doesn't the trip text say that if you don't have a weapon you can attempt to trip while unarmed, thus negating that particular problem?


No, it doesn't currently. That was 3.5. (for the umpteenth time - not to you, of course)


Not to bump or anything (really, after the first couple dozen bumps a couple hours from each other, it gets old and rude even if one can understand the frustration), but I have to add my two cents in the (growing) pot. These are personal views and not challenging the rulers.

- The Trip manoeuver states that if the check failed, you are tripped instead
- Trip weapons can be dropped if the trip manoeuver fails, avoiding the counter-trip

=> If we were to trip only with trip weapons, we would never be tripped on a failed check (provided we can drop the weapon - has anyone tried tripping with a locked gauntlet?)

- We can trip unarmed, and Unarmed Strike isn't described as a Trip weapon (really, it's just to be able to drop it... drop your limbs? Nah...)
- Realistically, you can thrust any pointy weapon between the foe's legs and twist, and they'd drop

=> For me, you can trip with any weapon, but (1) without training in Tripping, you incur an AoO, and (2) without a Trip weapon, you fall prone if you fail your manoeuver check

Follow-up question:
- Unarmed Trip: without training in either, would that incur one or two AoO? I think one since it's one source. But what about being trained in one and not the other?


Louis IX wrote:

Not to bump or anything (really, after the first couple dozen bumps a couple hours from each other, it gets old and rude even if one can understand the frustration), but I have to add my two cents in the (growing) pot. These are personal views and not challenging the rulers.

- The Trip manoeuver states that if the check failed, you are tripped instead
- Trip weapons can be dropped if the trip manoeuver fails, avoiding the counter-trip

=> If we were to trip only with trip weapons, we would never be tripped on a failed check (provided we can drop the weapon - has anyone tried tripping with a locked gauntlet?)

- We can trip unarmed, and Unarmed Strike isn't described as a Trip weapon (really, it's just to be able to drop it... drop your limbs? Nah...)
- Realistically, you can thrust any pointy weapon between the foe's legs and twist, and they'd drop

=> For me, you can trip with any weapon, but (1) without training in Tripping, you incur an AoO, and (2) without a Trip weapon, you fall prone if you fail your manoeuver check

Follow-up question:
- Unarmed Trip: without training in either, would that incur one or two AoO? I think one since it's one source. But what about being trained in one and not the other?

The problems addressed in this thread (a LOT of pages ago) however are not only discussing this.

The fact is, when you make a Combat Maneuver with a weapon (like Disarm or Sunder), you add ALL the bonuses to hit on your CMB.
So, for example, a medium-sized Fighter 9th with STR 18, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Weapon Training +2 (Heavy Blades), and a +2 Greatsword has a CMB of +19 when he attempts a Sunder or a Disarm combat maneuver with his Greatsword (normally, his CMB would be +13).

When he tries a Trip attempt, what happens ?
With a Trip weapon, the answer is simple - he adds all his bonuses to the Trip attempt. So, for example, if he has a +1 Heavy Flail, Weapon Focus (Heavy Flail) and Weapon Training +1 (Flails), his Trip CMB would be +16.

But, without a Trip weapon? Can he use his Greatsword for a +18 Trip attempt? Must he use his Unarmed strikes, for a +13 Trip attempt ? And what if he possesses an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1, is his Trip CMB +14?

Those are the most important questions, IMHO.

Dark Archive

Zurai wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
FWIW, I think the intention is that you can only trip with weapons with the 'Trip' property. That's how it reads to me, and likely is meant to add something "extra" to anyone investing in unarmed attacks and polearms/two-handed weapons.
The problem with this interpretation, of course, is that unarmed strikes do not have the "trip" property.

It's mentioned here:

PRD wrote:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

Alright, going strictly by RAW it seems that tripping is apparently meant to happen far less often than in 3E; it can be done with certains weapons, and the monk can use unarmed strikes to do it. That's my impression based on all references to tripping I could quickly find.


The Wraith wrote:


The fact is, when you make a Combat Maneuver with a weapon (like Disarm or Sunder), you add ALL the bonuses to hit on your CMB.
So, for example, a medium-sized Fighter 9th with STR 18, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Weapon Training +2 (Heavy Blades), and a +2 Greatsword has a CMB of +19 when he attempts a Sunder or a Disarm combat maneuver with his Greatsword (normally, his CMB would be +13).

When he tries a Trip attempt, what happens ?
With a Trip weapon, the answer is simple - he adds all his bonuses to the Trip attempt. So, for example, if he has a +1 Heavy Flail, Weapon Focus (Heavy Flail) and Weapon Training +1 (Flails), his Trip CMB would be +16.

But, without a Trip weapon? Can he use his Greatsword for a +18 Trip attempt? Must he use his Unarmed strikes, for a +13 Trip attempt ? And what if he possesses an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1, is his Trip CMB +14?

Those are the most important questions, IMHO.

To stay coherent with my previous post and my views about this issue, I'd say that all bonuses apply. He could try to Trip the enemy with his Greatsword at +19 (why +18?).

In narrative terms, he could aim his sword at the enemy's feet and push him bodily while said enemy is unbalanced; he could thrust between his legs and twist his weapon; he could slash at the enemy's legs with the flat of his blade... the exact mechanics of the Trip aren't described in the rules. As a Judo practitioner myself, I can say there are tons of manoeuvers to make a Trip attempt, and the rules are only grouping everything under one heading.

The only drawback I see within the rules is that if he fails the Trip manoeuver (by 10 or more) with his Greatsword, he'll be tripped instead. That's the only difference I see between a weapon with the Trip ability and one without.
Consequently, if he chose to do the trip with his Heavy Flail instead, he'd do it at +16, with the only advantage of being able to drop the weapon if he fails his check. That's exchanging a +3 for the ability to stay upright if he fails.

And if he chose to do the trip unarmed for whatever reason (and he can do it while keeping his Greatsword in hand, too), his AoMF would count, too (for the +14 you mentioned). Although he could be tripped back if he fails. That's exchanging +5 for nothing, on top of incurring an attack of opportunity if he doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike.

BTW, let's hope he has the Improved Trip for these attempts, too (in order to avoid the AoO). I didn't see the feat's +2 in your computation of his CMB (+9 for Fighter 9, +4 for Strength, +2 because of the feat, +6 for the various bonuses due to his Greatsword... gives +21 against another Medium creature).

EDIT:

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.

In my interpretation, the first sentence doesn't mean you can't use other weapons to make trip attacks, especially as there is no mention elsewhere (especially in the Trip section of the Combat chapter) that other weapons couldn't be used to that end. Otherwise, the keyword "only" would have been used.

That first sentence merely states the context for the second sentence. The quoted paragraph could be translated into "If you use a trip weapon to make a trip attack, and if you're tripped during your attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped." Putting two conditionals in one sentence is unwieldy, though.


Louis IX wrote:


To stay coherent with my previous post and my views about this issue, I'd say that all bonuses apply. He could try to Trip the enemy with his Greatsword at +19 (why +18?).

My mistake, I intended +19, of course.

Louis IX wrote:


BTW, let's hope he has the Improved Trip for these attempts, too (in order to avoid the AoO). I didn't see the feat's +2 in your computation of his CMB (+9 for Fighter 9, +4 for Strength, +2 because of the feat, +6 for the various bonuses due to his Greatsword... gives +21 against another Medium creature).

I didn't give him Improved Trip, I was merely trying to make an example which included the 'miscellaneous' bonus to CMB. Of course, with the feat his CMB would be +21 with this reading.

Of course, your reading of the rules is reasonable - however, the main problem if this is also legit by RAW.
And this is what is compelling a lot of people on doing 'bump' every hour (or so) on this thread.


The Wraith wrote:


Louis IX wrote:


BTW, let's hope he has the Improved Trip for these attempts, too (in order to avoid the AoO). I didn't see the feat's +2 in your computation of his CMB (+9 for Fighter 9, +4 for Strength, +2 because of the feat, +6 for the various bonuses due to his Greatsword... gives +21 against another Medium creature).

I didn't give him Improved Trip, I was merely trying to make an example which included the 'miscellaneous' bonus to CMB. Of course, with the feat his CMB would be +21 with this reading.

Of course, your reading of the rules is reasonable - however, the main problem if this is also legit by RAW.
And this is what is compelling a lot of people on doing 'bump' every hour (or so) on this thread.

The thing is, what I read from the PRD (see my Edit above) is in accordance with my interpretation of RAW (I tend to say "for me", "I see", "I think", and "my interpretation" but that's always "as I understand RAW" so, for me, it's RAW :-)

In my mind, saying "you can do X with Y" doesn't imply "without Y you can't do X" (I have a little background in maths, where A=>B doesn't equate B=>A). If Paizo's intent had been to imply this, I think they'd have written "you can do X with Y, and only with Y", and they'd have written this not as a side note in the Equipment chapter, but in bold and in the appropriate chapter (Combat/Trip).

About the example character not having Improved Trip... the poor guy. Let's not forget that not only he incurs an attack of opportunity, but that the damage dealt during this aoo will be used as a penalty to his CMB. When I wrote +21, I expected him not to fail (at least not by 10 or more). If he gets hit before trying the manoeuver, he could very well find himself on his back, his impressive skill with the Greatsword be damned.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Louis IX wrote:


=> For me, you can trip with any weapon, but (1) without training in Tripping, you incur an AoO, and (2) without a Trip weapon, you fall prone if you fail your manoeuver check

Follow-up question:
- Unarmed Trip: without training in either, would that incur one or two AoO? I think one since it's one source. But what about being trained in one and not the other?

I totally agree with you and don't see what's confusing here. Perhaps the rule was clearer in 3.5 because you had to make an unarmed touch attack to Trip before making an opposed Strength/Dexterity check. However PF combat maneuvers system seemed clear to me, before I read the entire thread that is ;o) No offense meant guys...

On a more serious tone, regarding your follow-up question, you can incur one AoO per opportunity. If you Trip (unarmed) you're not making an Unarmed attack. Hence only one AoO. It's the same if you have a BAB of +6 or higher : you attack more than once but you incur only one AoO. On top of that, except when you have Combat Reflexes and a Dex above 12, your foe can't get more than one AoO per round.

Bran.


Asgetrion wrote:
Alright, going strictly by RAW it seems that tripping is apparently meant to happen far less often than in 3E; it can be done with certains weapons, and the monk can use unarmed strikes to do it. That's my impression based on all references to tripping I could quickly find.

Mmm.. how's that less than 3E - looks pretty much exactly the same to me:

  • Can trip by pushing/tripping (unarmed), and are tripped if you fail by too much (vs. 3E return trip attempt).
  • Can trip with a "trip" weapon, and avoid the failed/return trip if you're willing to drop the weapon.
  • You provoke an attack of opportunity unless you have Improved Trip, or are using a reach Trip weapon vs. someone without reach.

    No real change was made, except now trip weapon attack bonuses add to the attempt. IMHO of course.

    For the record, I don't think endlessly bumping this thread is going to garner any willingness to reply to the issue.

  • Dark Archive

    Majuba wrote:
    Asgetrion wrote:
    Alright, going strictly by RAW it seems that tripping is apparently meant to happen far less often than in 3E; it can be done with certains weapons, and the monk can use unarmed strikes to do it. That's my impression based on all references to tripping I could quickly find.

    Mmm.. how's that less than 3E - looks pretty much exactly the same to me:

  • Can trip by pushing/tripping (unarmed), and are tripped if you fail by too much (vs. 3E return trip attempt).
  • Can trip with a "trip" weapon, and avoid the failed/return trip if you're willing to drop the weapon.
  • You provoke an attack of opportunity unless you have Improved Trip, or are using a reach Trip weapon vs. someone without reach.

    No real change was made, except now trip weapon attack bonuses add to the attempt. IMHO of course.

    For the record, I don't think endlessly bumping this thread is going to garner any willingness to reply to the issue.

  • Actually, my interpretation of the PF RPG rules is that you cannot use the Trip maneuver, unless:

    1) You're wielding a weapon with the 'Trip' property
    2) You're a monk, and thus can use Unarmed Strike to trip

    That's how I read it, but I can understand why people have conflicting opinions about it (and I'm not implying my opinion is the one-and-only correct interpretation).

    AFAIK, *anyone* could try tripping in 3E, regardless of whether they were armed or not.

    Sovereign Court

    Asgetrion wrote:

    Actually, my interpretation of the PF RPG rules is that you cannot use the Trip maneuver, unless:

    1) You're wielding a weapon with the 'Trip' property
    2) You're a monk, and thus can use Unarmed Strike to trip

    That's how I read it, but I can understand why people have conflicting opinions about it (and I'm not implying my opinion is the one-and-only correct interpretation).

    So it's your belief that no one but monks can be "reverse tripped" by failing an attempt by 10+, assuming the tripping monk wasn't using a "Trip-only" weapon?

    Dark Archive

    Twowlves wrote:
    Asgetrion wrote:

    Actually, my interpretation of the PF RPG rules is that you cannot use the Trip maneuver, unless:

    1) You're wielding a weapon with the 'Trip' property
    2) You're a monk, and thus can use Unarmed Strike to trip

    That's how I read it, but I can understand why people have conflicting opinions about it (and I'm not implying my opinion is the one-and-only correct interpretation).

    So it's your belief that no one but monks can be "reverse tripped" by failing an attempt by 10+, assuming the tripping monk wasn't using a "Trip-only" weapon?

    As I said, I don't "believe" anything; my interpretation may not be what Jason intended. And this issue hasn't come up during play at my table (yet), so I haven't thought which way to lean when somebody asks if he can trip an opponent. Difficult terrain, attacks of opportunity, skill-related stuff... those are things that come up each session. Maneuvers? Not much -- we've only seen two Bull Rush attempts so far in the campaign, and that's about it. No trips or disarms.


    Asgetrion wrote:
    And this issue hasn't come up during play at my table (yet), so I haven't thought which way to lean when somebody asks if he can trip an opponent. Difficult terrain, attacks of opportunity, skill-related stuff... those are things that come up each session. Maneuvers? Not much -- we've only seen two Bull Rush attempts so far in the campaign, and that's about it. No trips or disarms.

    But the way your players are assuming it works may be influencing their choice not to attempt to Trip. If it is more 'open' then they believe, there may be situations they might have used it where they did not.

    The Exchange

    bump


    The problem with "we're busy releasing new stuff now, don't ask us questions" is when won't they be? I love pathfinder, but if there is no mechanism to clarify rules officially, this will cost them players. Ignoring a thread because they don't like the tone, or their busy or whatever makes it seem like $$$ trumps service. Our group has a list of things that a single word or two was dropped from the 3.5 rules, and it is very unclear now. If new players need 3.5 and the Pathfinder core rules to play, will they stick with it? One or two hours a week officially clarifying issues would be easy, and a huge "we care about you" from the staff. Knock out one or two issues a week, make it errata, and we are golden. Sage advice was random, and some hated it, but it was at least official and helpful at times.


    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
    The Black Horde wrote:
    The problem with "we're busy releasing new stuff now, don't ask us questions" is when won't they be? I love pathfinder, but if there is no mechanism to clarify rules officially, this will cost them players. Ignoring a thread because they don't like the tone, or their busy or whatever makes it seem like $$$ trumps service. Our group has a list of things that a single word or two was dropped from the 3.5 rules, and it is very unclear now. If new players need 3.5 and the Pathfinder core rules to play, will they stick with it? One or two hours a week officially clarifying issues would be easy, and a huge "we care about you" from the staff. Knock out one or two issues a week, make it errata, and we are golden. Sage advice was random, and some hated it, but it was at least official and helpful at times.

    Don't want to sound fan-boyish, but please give me the name of another game company which listen to their customers as much as Paizo that they let their customers or prospects actually playtest their games OPENLY and for FREE before the product is released ? Let me know if you find such reactivity on the boards of another game company that you can actually write to the author of a module to actually get some clarification and even expanded material. Granted, you don't get your answer right now, but please browse the rest of the boards and you'll find a dedicated bunch who knows what customer service means.

    I guess we're all spoiled children here ;o))

    Bran.


    I will admit to having only read the last page so some of my confusion might stem from that.
    I don't really see what the problem is...
    You can trip with whatever you like, your leg, your weapon, your tongue etc.

    PRD wrote:


    You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.

    I think Louis IX explained it quite well above. Feel free to think that you can only trip with "trip" weapons, but that's not what the rules say. They just give you the option of avoiding being tripped back by a failed trip attempt (if you let go of the weapon).

    It's the same way that an adamantine weapon gives you an edge when sundering items because it ignores hardness (less than 20).


    Bran wrote:

    Don't want to sound fan-boyish, but please give me the name of another game company which listen to their customers as much as Paizo that they let their customers or prospects actually playtest their games OPENLY and for FREE before the product is released ? Let me know if you find such reactivity on the boards of another game company that you can actually write to the author of a module to actually get some clarification and even expanded material. Granted, you don't get your answer right now, but please browse the rest of the boards and you'll find a dedicated bunch who knows what customer service means.

    I guess we're all spoiled children here ;o))

    Bran.

    I posted a message on the Pathfinder RPG Errata needs an update thread that might help explain the position of folks like me that do indeed expect better customer support now. James indicates in the noted thread (earlier than my post) that they expect this situation to improve within the next few days. The basic gist is this--Paizo has become a different company than when they first started, or even than when the started up the Pathfinder material. I do indeed appreciate the greater involvement Paizo fosters with its customer base. However, in the long run they cannot ignore the importance of customer support since they are now both the game mechanics and the setting gurus. They need a new model to deal with their new role in gaming.

    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

    Especially when we're talking about questions regarding the CORE rules. This isn't something about an obscure PrC that appeared in a regional splatbook. Given that these are the core rules that everyone is using, and that every other company who produces a Pathfinder-compatible product will be using, this stuff needs to get nailed down.

    I'm in line to buy the APG and the GM's Guide, but those are secondary resources, not even the adventure paths that Paizo says make up most of its sales. I'm totally okay with the idea that Paizo is still getting used to being as successful as it is, and may have over-reached a little, and I'll continue to be supportive. I just hope that in the very near future, finishing off the core rules becomes the priority again.

    The Exchange

    bump


    Not that speed bump again! You go too fast, Fake Healer (and maybe too far).

    Could you summarize in each bump the thread's consensus (like "pros" and "cons") so that people not interested in browsing 330+ posts (most of which are bumps) can have the short version? You can even do it in a spoiler :-)


    Louis IX wrote:


    Could you summarize in each bump the thread's consensus (like "pros" and "cons") so that people not interested in browsing 330+ posts (most of which are bumps) can have the short version? You can even do it in a spoiler :-)

    Thread consensus:

    A Trip is a melee attack, which can be used as part of any attack sequence or flurry of blows.
    Trip weapons can be dropped, and you cannot be tripped in return if you fail your CMB check. Bonuses which apply to unarmed attacks and trip weapons apply to trip attempts done with these attack forms. The Improved Trip feat adds to these trip attempts. Trip weapons can be dropped, and you cannot be tripped in return.

    At debate: The Pathfinder RPG has updated the Trip combat manuever. Trip can be done with any melee attack, applying all bonuses available with that attack form, whether it is a greatsword, greatclub, kukri or rapier. Improved Trip adds to all trip attempts, regardless of whether it is done with a trip weapon or not. This may be what is indicated by RAW, but the sentence, "You may use this weapon for a trip attempt." seems to some readers to be a clause that indicates an exception property.

    Coincidentally, this was discussed during the beta, if I recall correctly, during a long thread regarding the spiked chain or reach weapons, where it was determined that it made more sense for all weapons to be able to trip.

    The Exchange

    So then basically it is your opinion that all weapons and melee attacks can be used to attempt to trip someone (to which I at least conceptually agree) and that the sentence "You may use this weapon for a trip attempt." should effectively be ignored.

    I'd love to see *@paizo.com make that statement :)


    d20pfsrd.com wrote:

    So then basically it is your opinion that all weapons and melee attacks can be used to attempt to trip someone (to which I at least conceptually agree) and that the sentence "You may use this weapon for a trip attempt." should effectively be ignored.

    I'd love to see *@paizo.com make that statement :)

    Yes, that's my stance. The RAW seems to imply it. But the rules and that sentence leave a grey area, where the question of what bonuses apply to the CMB check to trip an opponent comes up. A clarifying sentence, which doesn't exist anywhere, like "Only weapons specified as usable for trip attempts apply any related bonuses to trip attempts made with a weapon." would clean this up pretty quickly, although I think the better change would be to remove the offending sentence from RAW, to make it easier to trip with masterwork quarterstaves.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    I asked James Jacobs about this issue, and this thread last night at the Paizo Chat. He replied that he wasn't interested in reading the thread or addressing the issue.


    This is all wrapped up very neatly right here.

    Specifically, post #9.


    Chris Mortika wrote:
    I asked James Jacobs about this issue, and this thread last night at the Paizo Chat. He replied that he wasn't interested in reading the thread or addressing the issue.

    I did not know Paizo had chat, but more importantly I don't think every post has to be addressed, and it should not be expected that they be addressed. It has been said when things die down the posts in the rules section would be looked and many of them that did not get an official would get taken care of. For now we should just go with how we think it should work. I personally don't think it makes sense to require a weapon to knock someone down.


    Chris Mortika wrote:
    I asked James Jacobs about this issue, and this thread last night at the Paizo Chat. He replied that he wasn't interested in reading the thread or addressing the issue.

    That's a very disappointing response. I'm not so much concerned about the trip question in particular as with support of the rules overall. To see so many posts from Paizo folks on so many other topics and have a specific statement that they won't even look at this thread? I really do hope they come around to a better support model for rules questions.

    Sovereign Court

    Chris Mortika wrote:
    I asked James Jacobs about this issue, and this thread last night at the Paizo Chat. He replied that he wasn't interested in reading the thread or addressing the issue.

    did he say why he wasn't interested?

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    erian_7 wrote:
    Chris Mortika wrote:
    I asked James Jacobs about this issue, and this thread last night at the Paizo Chat. He replied that he wasn't interested in reading the thread or addressing the issue.
    That's a very disappointing response. I'm not so much concerned about the trip question in particular as with support of the rules overall. To see so many posts from Paizo folks on so many other topics and have a specific statement that they won't even look at this thread? I really do hope they come around to a better support model for rules questions.

    It's also taken out of context.

    The chat boards are pretty informal, and not everything anyone says in there should be taken at completely face value.

    The REAL reason that I haven't posted on this thread is because there's a LOT of threads on this board. I (and everyone else at Paizo) can't post to every one of them. We have other job responsibilities as well. I suspect it's more just random chance that no one from Paizo's chimed in on this thread, and after it was brought to my attention last night at the chat I DID intend to stop by here and see what was going on. It just took me a bit to get here.

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    OK! That said... this thread is 7 pages long. I can NOT believe that there's actually 7 pages worth of questions here.

    So if someone could summarize what the concern is after this post I'll see what I can do to answer things. And in the future, if you don't see a Paizo employee on a thread... chances are good that we're not ignoring it but that, in fact, it wasn't one of the 100 or so threads we got around to talking on that week or day or month.

    You guys DO outnumber us by several thousand to one, after all! ;-)


    The question boils down to:

    Does one trip with a weapon attack (such as a quarterstaff or an unarmed strike), or is a trip simply it's own action, replacing, but not equivalent to, a melee attack?

    Obviously some weapons can be used to perform a trip, as notated in the entries for those weapons, but it seems to be unclear to some whether or not a weapon is normally required (or used at all) to perform a trip.

    A much shorter (and linear) version of the issue can be found here.

    The Exchange

    My main question is (others likely have other questions):

    Can you ONLY make a trip/disarm attempt with a weapon that has the trip/disarm quality/descriptor?

    The Exchange

    James Jacobs wrote:
    OK! That said... this thread is 7 pages long. I can NOT believe that there's actually 7 pages worth of questions here.

    It's probably 6 pages of bumps and one or two questions.


    Do you need a trip weapon to make a trip attempt?

    If you do use a trip weapon, do you add bonuses for that weapon (feats/enhancement bonuses) on your trip attempts?

    Can you make a trip attempt with an unarmed strike?

    Is there such thing as an unarmed trip attempt (as opposed to unarmed strike)?

    Do you have to use the unarmed trip attempt if you're not wielding a trip weapon?

    Can you make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon?


    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

    Summary:

    Trip Rules state: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack." (and extraneous stuff to this topic)

    "In place of a melee attack" is exactly the same wording used by Disarm and Sunder. Given there's many situations (reach weapons, not having IUS & AoO's ) where you have the opportunity for a melee attack but only WITH a weapon because you don't threaten otherwise, and there isn't any wording suggesting this substituted attack must take a different 'vehicle' than the melee attack it is substituting for, I would take it that any melee weapon can Trip (with relevant bonuses).
    Rake is suggesting that Trip is supposedly "it's own" attack form that doesn't use any specific weapon (incl. Unarmed Strike) as a vector, and he compares it to Grapple (even though as I mentioned, the wording is more similar to Sunder and Disarm than Grapple).

    This brings up another unanswered question I've posed before: Is Grapple "it's own" attack form, or does it use Unarmed Strike as a vector?

    The Trip Weapon rules state: "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."
    The question is whether the first sentence here is SUPERFLUOUS (because any melee weapon can make a trip attack), or if there IS in fact a restriction on how Trip works (which should properly be spelled out in it's functioning) to either be some vague non-weapon type of attack (as Rake suggests) or otherwise (3.5 clearly specified the 'normal' function of Trip to use Unarmed Strike which is missing from PRPG).

    And honestly, people have been asking about this for months longer than this thread, this thread was started only when the topic had been debated from all sides and the consensus was that there was no clear way to interpret the RAW and "word from above" was needed for RAI and to indicate that the subject would be revisited in Errat/Updates.

    The Exchange

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    So now before JJ gets back there's gonna be 11 new pages lol

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    My take:

    When you want to trip a foe, you don't normally use a weapon. Similarly, you don't normally use a weapon to bull rush, grapple, or overrun a foe. You just lash out with a leg sweep or whatever and try to trip the foe. Doing so is an attack, but that doesn't mean you need a weapon to make the attempt.

    Now... SOME weapons (not all) allow you to use the weapon to trip a foe, thus giving you a slight advantage since if you mess up the trip attempt, you can just drop the weapon to "counter" the trip that comes back at you.


    James Jacobs wrote:

    My take:

    When you want to trip a foe, you don't normally use a weapon. Similarly, you don't normally use a weapon to bull rush, grapple, or overrun a foe. You just lash out with a leg sweep or whatever and try to trip the foe. Doing so is an attack, but that doesn't mean you need a weapon to make the attempt.

    Now... SOME weapons (not all) allow you to use the weapon to trip a foe, thus giving you a slight advantage since if you mess up the trip attempt, you can just drop the weapon to "counter" the trip that comes back at you.

    My question to this is if you have a reach weapon that is not a trip weapon, can you trip at reach. There is nothing in the rules to prevent it, but your interpretation would.

    301 to 350 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.