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...
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.
Basically, 'what the book says'.
And so the debate was finally over. : P
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
In order to trip with reach, you either need to have reach on your own as a virtue of your race, or you need to be wielding a reach weapon with the trip ability.
Being able to trip with any long-hafted weapon like a spear or pole arm is a neat idea, but that's better handled as a specific feat rather than allowing any long-hafted weapon to gain the trip ability.
Basically, 'what the book says'.
And so the debate was finally over. : P
Actually, that's pretty much opposite what the book says. It may very well be what the book means, though.
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...
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.
Basically, 'what the book says'.
And so the debate was finally over. : P
Actually, it's also what the book DOESN'T say (i.e. it isn't explicitly written in the Trip section), namely that you can only use "trip" weapons to trip.
So, you have only 10* weapons with which you can trip (I categorized the flail and its heavy and dire versions as one as they're basically just variants of the same weapon) of which one is a non-leathal weaon, two are exotic weapons (three if you count the dire flail) and one is a ranged weapon. Not sure how to classify unarmed attack since it isn't designated as a "trip" weapon.I have to say that I find that way too limiting. Trip just became way too situational to use unless you specialize in it. Way IMO, of course.
(Yes, I used "way" way too much in that paragraph)
* Sickle, Flail, Flail, heavy, Guisarme, Halberd, Scythe, Kama, Whip, Chain, spiked, Flail, dire, Hammer, gnome hooked, Bolas
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.In order to trip with reach, you either need to have reach on your own as a virtue of your race, or you need to be wielding a reach weapon with the trip ability.
Being able to trip with any long-hafted weapon like a spear or pole arm is a neat idea, but that's better handled as a specific feat rather than allowing any long-hafted weapon to gain the trip ability.
So by your logic, if I want to be able to trip with a quarterstaff, I need a feat, but that feat hasn't been written yet. Gotcha. I've got a feat to go write.
Thanks for the clarification by the way.
Actually, that's pretty much opposite what the book says. It may very well be what the book means, though.
Referenced under Equipment Weapons: "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."
This points out that you can use this weapon in a trip attack. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality you can't use it in a trip attack.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers: "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."
This points out that any bonuses you apply must applicable to the weapon used or the attack. So if the weapon used is trip weapon you can trip and the bonus applying to that weapon are used in that attack. They are applicable. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality then the bonus specific to that weapon are not applicable.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
You can trip place of any melee attack. This doesn't say you use whatever weapon you are wielding to trip. It just says you can trip. That's the action you take instead. It's not a unarmed attack but it still provokes an attack of opportunity. Basically trip is replacement action of it's own.
^ As voska points out, this is what the books says. Mr. Jacobs' answer seems pretty identical to 'what the book says' to me.
So wait... I can or can NOT to trip with ANY weapon?
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.
Not all weapons allow you to use them to trip a foe.
Some weapons do, as noted in their entries.
|
So wait... I can or can NOT to trip with ANY weapon?Can NOT, it appears. If you want to trip with a weapon, it needs to be a trip weapon. Otherwise, it's just a regular trip attempt.
So if I am playing a 20th level fighter and I say "I want to try to trip the beggar 10' away me with my spear" the DM's response should be "sorry, that is impossible."
Edit: fixed something.
Thank you James.
If you want to trip someone, just Trip them (nothing fancy required).
If you want to avoid getting tripped if you fail badly, use a Trip weapon.
If you want to get some sort of weapon bonus to the attempt, use a Trip weapon (or a new feat).
If you want to describe tripping someone with your staff/spear/pogo-stick, do so.
Honestly, I really want a response from Jason Buhlman on this issue,
because nobody here has a problem saying how THEY would run it,
it's a matter of the RAW/RAI and the fact that the RAW are poorly written.
And I should add, this topic has been debated and has requested official feedback for MONTHS longer than this thread itself,
which was started when the consensus was that the RAW were unclear and people just wanted offical feedback from Jason.
Whatever the RAI, the RAW are pretty damn unclear/badly written.
If any of this is going to be clarified/Errata'd, it'd be very nice to know.
|
|
So if I am playing a 20th level fighter and I say "I want to try to trip the beggar next to me with my spear" the DM's response should be "sorry, that is impossible."
Followed by "but you CAN make a trip attempt. Just not using that spear, unless you took the feat [content deleted] which allows you to trip with a spear."
So then my 20th level fighter can not trip a beggar with a spear from 10' away by core rules. Just want to make sure that's clear, which it seems to be.
So, you have only 10 weapons with which you can trip...And you can trip any time regardless. I wouldn't get hung up on the lack of trip weapons when the ruling is you can trip your opponent, but if you want to use your weapon to do so, you need a trip weapon.
Yes... at a much lower CMB than with a weapon, though (unless you specifically make characters who only use one of the 10 "trip" weapons).
Yes... at a much lower CMB than with a weapon, though (unless you specifically make characters who only use one of the 10 "trip" weapons).So, you have only 10 weapons with which you can trip...And you can trip any time regardless. I wouldn't get hung up on the lack of trip weapons when the ruling is you can trip your opponent, but if you want to use your weapon to do so, you need a trip weapon.
So go write a feat that allows you to use a different weapon to trip with.
My question no longer has to do with what is RAW or RAI (JJ's response, at least in my opinion, has given us an official ruling on that). My question now is: When I write said new feat, should it be for a single weapon, or would writing it for a class of weapons (such as hafted) be too much. Personally I don't see how writing it for a class of weapons could be overpowered, but other people's input would be nice.
|
|
That's my read of things, and what James indicated in his post. The fighter trying to trip 10' away with a longspear cannot do so. He must either have the natural reach to do so, or use a trip weapon, or use the [content deleted] feat.
Ok. Now we know how JJ would run it, which obviously based on past experience is not official. We've seen numerous cases where rulings or clarifications made by parties from Paizo without the last name of Bulmahn were very different than what actually ends up in the rules.
Personally while I appreciate JJ's feedback on how HE would interpret it, I'm with Quandary that until Jason chimes in its just that, a personal opinion but not an official stance or ruling.
Personally if a player in my campaign wanted to try to trip someone with a spear (or whatever weapon) I'd let them try but just assess a penalty based on the situation. I just wanted to be clear on what are the RULES AS INTENDED.
The Creative Director is not enough? Do you really think Jason's response would be any different?
No, not really, because you notice he says "this is how I run it", "My take...". I'm sure there's plenty of areas where "how James runs things" is different than Jason's. So I have no idea what Jason's response will be, and even if I did know what his intent was, I want specific information re: the RAW themselves, i.e. the specific RAW justification for a certain interpretation, or if specific wording areas may be updated in the next Errata/Printing.
Certainly, it wouldn't be surprising if the Trip wording were amended to use the "Unarmed Strike" wording ala 3.5, which could have been lost between revisions. Then again, there is no real simulationist argument for restricting weapon trips to only the ones with "Trip Weapon" quality.
So then my 20th level fighter can not trip a beggar with a spear from 10' away by core rules. Just want to make sure that's clear, which it seems to be.
Sure he can; use Lunge.
When I write said new feat, should it be for a single weapon, or would writing it for a class of weapons (such as hafted) be too much.
I wouldn't think there's anything wrong with doing this for a class of weapons.
I honestly don't see why all the fuss to get more answers. If you want to play it differently, do so. Getting more responses will just set it further in stone.
|
|
The Creative Director is not enough? Do you really think Jason's response would be any different?Honestly, I really want a response from Jason Buhlman on this issue...
Do I need to generate a list of links to threads where Jason over-ruled JJ or where JJ changed his mind 2-3 times in the course of a week on the same discussion or where JJ made very clear that Jason overrules things all the time? I've seen MANY posts where JJ said "I lobbied for X to be in the rules but Jason nixed it" etc.
So basically, while I do appreciate JJ's feedback and all, I think its already been established many times in the past that nothing is official unless Jason says it is lol
Do I need to generate a list of links to threads where Jason over-ruled JJ or where JJ changed his mind 2-3 times in the course of a week on the same discussion or where JJ made very clear that Jason overrules things all the time? I've seen MANY posts where JJ said "I lobbied for X to be in the rules but Jason nixed it" etc.
That would be an immensely fun list :)
As would be the ones where Jason overrules himself.
So if I am playing a 20th level fighter and I say "I want to try to trip the beggar 10' away me with my spear" the DM's response should be "sorry, that is impossible."
By RAW and RAI, the fighter can never trip a character ten feet away without natural reach, or a trip weapon with reach; yes.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I really want a response from Jason Buhlman on this issue...
Kind of like how if as a kid you ask Mom if you can do something and she says no so instead you go ask Dad if you can do the same thing hoping to get the answer you want?
Honestly, I don't think the problem is a problem. It seems pretty clear to me, but since this thread's 7 pages long it's obviously NOT clear.
But basically... when you trip a foe you don't use a weapon. If you want to use a weapon, you have to use one that lists "trip" under its Special category.
If you wouldn't mind commenting on/ bringing to Jason's attention the issue of whether Grapple uses Unarmed Strike as it's "vector" (basically relevant for weapon specific attack bonuses). 3.5 Grapple specifically made an Unarmed Strike attack for it's touch portion. IUS is obviously a pre-req to Imp Grapple. I've brought this up before, with NO response...???
|
|
Kind of like how if as a kid you ask Mom if you can do something and she says no so instead you go ask Dad if you can do the same thing hoping to get the answer you want?
In that scenario mom and dad are equally responsible for making the rules and the kid is purposely trying to jack the system by seeking a better answer from the other party.
In this scenario there is really only one person (or Dad lol) who makes the "real" rules. Everyone else interprets them, even Mom :)
However, I have no doubt that what you said is probably exactly what Jason would say. The point though is that many, through no fault of their own, consider Jason's word to be final. Mind you this is no disrespect to you or your interpretations, its meant only to recognize that Jason is the one party responsible for making final decisions on the rules.
Now if things have changed at Paizo and other parties are able to make final decisions on rules then HALLELUJAH! NO MORE BULMAHN BOTTLENECK!!!!
;)
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also... if folks are going to stubbornly not accept rulings from anyone but Jason on rules matters, they should cultivate more patience. Jason's only one guy, and by requiring only one person to be your "trusted and for real official source," you're artificially limiting the amount of feedback you'll get.
Sorry if my response wasn't the one you were looking or hoping for. Fortunately, you can run your game however you want if the rules don't work for you. But as far as I can tell by reading the rules... they're pretty dang clear.
You can't trip with a weapon unless that weapon has the word "trip" listed under its special.
If you wouldn't mind commenting on/ bringing to Jason's attention the issue of whether Grapple uses Unarmed Strike as it's "vector" (basically relevant for weapon specific attack bonuses). 3.5 Grapple specifically made an Unarmed Strike attack for it's touch portion. IUS is obviously a pre-req to Imp Grapple. I've brought this up before, with NO response...???
Wha..?
Why would an unarmed strike be relevant to starting a grapple? What are you reading that suggests this?
Is this a "well it used to work that way..." issue?
^ As voska points out, this is what the books says. Mr. Jacobs' answer seems pretty identical to 'what the book says' to me.
Then you (and voska) aren't reading what you quoted very closely. "You can use X to Y" does not mean the same thing as "You can only use X to Y". For example, I could say to you, "You can use a Windows computer to write your posts on the Paizo message board". That does NOT mean, "You can ONLY use a Windows computer to write your posts on the Paizo message board".
I'm not arguing that James is wrong, merely that his ruling is NOT what the book says. "What the book says" is not always "what the book was meant to say". I just want to make sure it's realized that, assuming James is stating the intended-by-the-design interpretation, the text needs to be fixed because the text does not match the RAI.
|
|
Also... if folks are going to stubbornly not accept rulings from anyone but Jason on rules matters, they should cultivate more patience. Jason's only one guy, and by requiring only one person to be your "trusted and for real official source," you're artificially limiting the amount of feedback you'll get.
Sorry if my response wasn't the one you were looking or hoping for. Fortunately, you can run your game however you want if the rules don't work for you. But as far as I can tell by reading the rules... they're pretty dang clear.
You can't trip with a weapon unless that weapon has the word "trip" listed under its special.
Just so we're clear, are you saying that your response is "an official ruling" or an "this is how I believe, very strongly, that it is supposed to work" ?
I'm just saying that while I think everyone appreciates a response from <anyone at> Paizo, most assume that Jason is the only "official" source. Most (myself included) put a great deal of weight and faith into the opinions of other Paizo folks, but when it comes down to "official" it has seemed in the past that the only party able to give "official" rulings was Jason.
Sorry if my response wasn't the one you were looking or hoping for. Fortunately, you can run your game however you want if the rules don't work for you. But as far as I can tell by reading the rules... they're pretty dang clear.
You can't trip with a weapon unless that weapon has the word "trip" listed under its special.
So, going with this ruling I then have a problem with the weapons that have the "trip" special descriptor.
If the criteria is that it can be used to "hook" or "ensnare" the opponent's legs, then there are a lot of extra weapons that would fit those criteria. Off the top of my head, axes, hammers, picks (heck, even a crossbow in melee).Also, if another criteria could be "sweeping" i.e. a leg sweep, which you used as an example, then things like hammers, maces, clubs, spears and quarterstaffs would certainly fit too (to knock or "sweep" away an opponents legs).
If the list of "trip" weapons was expanded I'd feel much better about the ruling.
Honestly, I really want a response from Jason Buhlman on this issue...Kind of like how if as a kid you ask Mom if you can do something and she says no so instead you go ask Dad if you can do the same thing hoping to get the answer you want?
But basically... when you trip a foe you don't use a weapon. If you want to use a weapon, you have to use one that lists "trip" under its Special category.
Not at all, because I could care less WHICH interpretation it is (unlike getting another cookie after Mom said no).
When you say "But basically..." that isn't really an insight to the actual RAW, it's evading them.The fact remains that by the RAW, Trip has EXACTLY the same parameters as Disarm and Sunder.
Like I said, I find it EXTREMELY LIKELY that the Trip wording will be amended to mention Unarmed Strike like 3.5.
Although I can unabashedly say it's GREAT that there is actually ANY comment from Paizo on this topic,
"But basically..." comments that don't deal with RAW aren't fully dealing with the issue.
Is this going to be Errata'd? How? I don't get the impression that anybody besides Jason actually has editorial control over the rules, so it's rather up to him, or somebody who relays his exact response, to deal with this.
But yeah, the people asking for answer on this since October or November or so are probably pretty patient by any book.
I mean, if they hadn't been bumping the thread enough for somebody to mention it in chat,
you wouldn't have commented on this, right? So I guess patience pays off...
Why would an unarmed strike be relevant to starting a grapple? What are you reading that suggests this?
Is this a "well it used to work that way..." issue?
I'm not saying there is a specific line in the current RAW directing this (there are specific lines suggesting they are separate), it's just that given we know that there are PLENTY of mistakes in the RAW, I think it's reasonable to ask a question about. Further, there are discrepancies like if Grapple is "it's own" weapon separate from Unarmed Strike, why isn't it part of the "Close" Weapons group? Amulet of Mighty Fist applying to Grapple checks seems completely plausible to, I'd just like to have it confirmed how this is intended to work, and there hasn't been a response when I brought it up before. ???
I'm just saying that while I think everyone appreciates a response from <anyone at> Paizo, most assume that Jason is the only "official" source.
:P Most? I think the creative director is good enough for the vast majority of players, especially (but not only) in a case like this one where the language is pretty clear to begin with.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just so we're clear, are you saying that your response is "an official ruling" or an "this is how I believe, very strongly, that it is supposed to work" ?
I'm just saying that while I think everyone appreciates a response from <anyone at> Paizo, most assume that Jason is the only "official" source. Most (myself included) put a great deal of weight and faith into the opinions of other Paizo folks, but when it comes down to "official" it has seemed in the past that the only party able to give "official" rulings was Jason.
So if my rulings aren't official, I suppose I can turn my efforts and attentions to other matters (like preparing Pathfinder APs or ordering art or whatever) and avoid these threads? That doesn't seem like a good solution.
If you're looking for official rulings, then consider my earlier response official. I can't imagine that Jason would disagree, but if he does, I suspect he and I will have a sit down to talk it out and figure out the best way to handle it and at that point ANOTHER official ruling will come down.
And even then, there'll be folks who don't agree. And that's fine. Play the game the way you want to play it. Everyone here at Paizo house rules the Pathfinder rules in their games because it's raw, baseline GM nature to tinker. No reason you shouldn't do the same.
Anyway, I've got other job duties to attend to today, so if I don't post to this thread again don't take that as indication that Paizo doesn't care about the rules. Take it as indication that I feel the problem has been addressed and that there's no need for the discussion to continue for now.
Anyway, I've got other job duties to attend to today, so if I don't post to this thread again don't take that as indication that Paizo doesn't care about the rules. Take it as indication that I feel the problem has been addressed and that there's no need for the discussion to continue for now.
Sure thing, and thanks for giving your attention to this thread. If you could, it'd be great if you can mention the topic to Jason next time you talk to him.
Woohoo, 400 posts to say what I've been saying all along anyway q:
|
|
:P Most? I think the creative director is good enough for the vast majority of players, especially (but not only) in a case like this one where the language is pretty clear to begin with.
Do you purposely intend to insult all of the people who did not believe it was as crystal clear as you believed it to be?
:P Most? I think the creative director is good enough for the vast majority of players, especially (but not only) in a case like this one where the language is pretty clear to begin with.Do you purposely intend to insult all of the people who did not believe it was as crystal clear as you believed it to be?
I'm not insulting anyone, I just think it was a little smug (or just absurd) to claim that "most people don't trust the word of the entire project's Creative Director".
C'mon. :P
Okay...
Uhm...
So you can attempt to trip at any time. And it is assumed you are doing so with your appendages and such:
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...
But if you have a weapon that says it has the "trip" ability it gives you a bonus in the form of not getting tripped in response, right?
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.
However, if you have a reach weapon (without the trip designation) you cannot trip at reach. You must have reach through means other than the weapon itself, right?
In order to trip with reach, you either need to have reach on your own as a virtue of your race, or you need to be wielding a reach weapon with the trip ability.
That is all of it? Did I get it all? This thread has been hard to follow ( I came in late) and I am honestly trying to be sure I am synthesizing all of the pertinent points.
Edit: Thank you James!
|
|
especially (but not only) in a case like this one where the language is pretty clear to begin with.
I'm speaking more towards the frequent use of the terms "pretty clear to begin with" or variants thereof. If a large number of people see different readings of something, either those people who see something other than what you do, or do not see things as crystal clear as you do, are either stupid, or something is not as clear as you might think. You could make the same statement but leave off the part about "man this is so clear why are you people not getting this" bit and it would probably be a tad more diplomatic... unless diplomacy isn't really that important to you.