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


Rules Questions

401 to 450 of 471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Quandary wrote:
The fact remains that by the RAW, Trip has EXACTLY the same parameters as Disarm and Sunder.

Not to start (or continue) a long argument on this, but I think I see where you're coming with this, and I disagree.

All three have certain parameters included in their individual descriptions, and those are pretty much the same. However, all also have parameters defined by the general combat maneuver rules, including the section that describes how, to apply, bonuses must be relevant to the combat maneuver in question.

Weapons are blatantly involved in all sunder attempts (well, almost all). Disarm is pretty obvious as well. Trip on the other hand blatantly involves pushing/shoving/sweeping/what-have-you of unarmed combat, and also has a special class of weapons which may be used.

Blah. All that to say that there *are* more parameters coming in to the equation.

Waves farewell to what will be no-doubt a legendary thread.


Gnorlak the Confused? wrote:


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!

Yep, you got it.


d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Gnorlak the Confused? wrote:
a summary
That seems to be about right.

Ah thank you.

Love the SRD BTW.


Tripping, some questions
How can I trip the bad guy?
Many wonder "how"

Liberty's Edge

Haiku Monster wrote:

Tripping, some questions

How can I trip the bad guy?
Many wonder "how"

*claps

I am your biggest fan!


Studpuffin wrote:
Haiku Monster wrote:

Tripping, some questions

How can I trip the bad guy?
Many wonder "how"

*claps

I am your biggest fan!

Studpuffin "the fan"

Claims to be the biggest one
Maybe the only?

Liberty's Edge

Haiku Monster wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
Haiku Monster wrote:

Tripping, some questions

How can I trip the bad guy?
Many wonder "how"

*claps

I am your biggest fan!

Studpuffin "the fan"

Claims to be the biggest one
Maybe the only?

Then I am by default!

WOOOO!

<ignites lighter>


Majuba wrote:
Quandary wrote:
The fact remains that by the RAW, Trip has EXACTLY the same parameters as Disarm and Sunder.
All three have certain parameters included in their individual descriptions, and those are pretty much the same. However, all also have parameters defined by the general combat maneuver rules, including the section that describes how, to apply, bonuses must be relevant to the combat maneuver in question.

OK. There is indeed such a general rule, but it doesn't specifically mention Sunder and Disarm. If 'in place of a melee attack' is the phrase used to indicate you are using the weapon for Sunder and Disarm (and thus can use it's bonuses by the general rule), how can that EXACT SAME PHRASE not function likewise for Trip by the RAW?

Disarm's line "Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack." does NOT clearly indicate that non-weapon disarm's are "their own thing" that doesn't use a weapon-vector, because Unarmed Strike IS a 'weapon' vector (that 'weapon'-specific bonuses can apply to), albeit one with more drawbacks than manufactured weapons unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike.

Quote:
Weapons are blatantly involved in all sunder attempts (well, almost all). Disarm is pretty obvious as well. Trip on the other hand blatantly involves pushing/shoving/sweeping/what-have-you of unarmed combat, and also has a special class of weapons which may be used.

And then there's the 'blatant' fact the quarterstaves should be able to trip somebody as easily as a sickle, flail, halberd, or kamas can (much less the other weapons mentioned by people in this thread who have trained in martial arts weapon use). So 'blatantly obvoius' intuition probably isn't the best measure to use here. Who knows what Jason intended here, but the RAW just aren't that clear if they require one to interpret the exact same phrase to mean completely opposite things.

Again, how does the line "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack" lead one to believe that DOESN'T apply to an AoO made by a Longspear? (yet the same line is supposed to allow a Disarm in the same situation) How is that not 'a melee attack'? So you should be able Trip in that situation, yet the ONLY way to do so is with the weapon itself.


d20pfsrd.com wrote:
I'm speaking more towards the frequent use of the terms "pretty clear to begin with" or variants thereof.

Er, my apologies? Perhaps I should have said that...

James Jacobs wrote:
as far as I can tell by reading the rules... they're pretty dang clear.

Emphasis mine, of course. :P


Zurai wrote:
Rake wrote:
^ 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.

As it is right now you have to make the logical assumption that because weapons with the trip quality can be used to perform a trip maneuver then other weapons can't be used. It just doesn't make sense that you can trip with no trip weapons due to this statement. The common sense part is you can't trip with dagger but you can wield a dagger while you trip someone. Part of this problem on this being 100% clear is the assumption part as you know to assume makes an ass out of u and me.


Er, IGNORE ME!

(i.e. mispost :/)


Quandary wrote:
And then there's the 'blatant' fact the quarterstaves should be able to trip somebody as easily as a sickle, flail, halberd, or kamas can (much less the other weapons mentioned by people in this thread who have trained in martial arts weapon use).

I agree here! why isn't it a trip weapon? Did they think a free weapon that is double monk and trip was too powerful compared to the other weapons?


voska66 wrote:
As it is right now you have to make the logical assumption that because weapons with the trip quality can be used to perform a trip maneuver then other weapons can't be used. It just doesn't make sense that you can trip with no trip weapons due to this statement.

No, you don't. Because it's demonstrable that the RAW is BADLY written in this area. Going from that basis, WHY ISN'T IT possible that the line in Trip Weapons is superfluous and/or an artifact from 3.5 copy-and-paste? Why is that one line sacrosanct, and the problem MUST be in the other areas?

Quote:
The common sense part is you can't trip with dagger but you can wield a dagger while you trip someone. Part of this problem on this being 100% clear is the assumption part as you know to assume makes an ass out of u and me.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. We've had people with martial arts weapons training weigh in that it is indeed possible to trip somebody using a dagger - probably the heft of the dagger is as much useful as it's blade, but in a D&D rules context that doesn't matter, because weapon enchancements and feats for a dagger apply just as much when you're using it to apply non-lethal damage, which I would most easily visualize as braining someone with the hilt, i.e. using the weight as opposed to the blade.


voska66 wrote:
Quandary wrote:
And then there's the 'blatant' fact the quarterstaves should be able to trip somebody as easily as a sickle, flail, halberd, or kamas can (much less the other weapons mentioned by people in this thread who have trained in martial arts weapon use).
I agree here! why isn't it a trip weapon? Did they think a free weapon that is double monk and trip was too powerful compared to the other weapons?

I would like to see a feat someday that adds a few pole-type weapons to the list of 'trip weapons'. The quarterstaff really should be one, unless Saturday morning broadcasts of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have led me willfully and woefully astray in my regards for the capacities of a bo staff.


Its all down to interpretation at the end of the day.

I rule in my own games that having a Trip Weapon and having the Improved Trip feat simply allows you to drop the weapon instead of being knocked prone yourself if youl fail by 10 points or more on the roll. Not having a Trip weapon or the feat would provoke an AoO anyway and you'd likely suffer horribly in the attempt but you could still attempt it.

Without Improved Trip you still provoke an AoO doing it (unless said weapon has reach and the opponent cant threaten you)

Having only Improved Trip and no Trip weapon would mean (to me) you dont provoke the AoO but can still be knocked prone if you fail by 10 points or more on the roll.

I understand the dynamics of using certain weapons to perform Trip attempts seems...disconcerting, but the question is - the character is purposefully making some kind of manuver to achieve this effect with whatever he has in his hands (by that I mean they somehow perform a stunt or manuver suited to their weapon of choice), Given - this makes more sense with some weapons the game is NOT about being overly realistic (the drowing/suffocating rule is almost realistic enough for example) - its all about having some fun. So what if some plebian gets tripped by a wily rogue with a dagger?, it could happen in the movies...and thats almost what playing the game is like - incredible and sometimes unbelieveable things can happen in Pathfinder...just let it work is what I say.


James Jacobs wrote:
Quandary wrote:
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?

LOL!


Loopy wrote:
LOL!

Indeed.


Classic.


James, thank you for ruling on this and voicing your opinion. I disagree with the ruling, but thank you.

I disagree for the following reasons:

The only clause I have seen that could be construded as other weapons not working is in the description of trip weapons which states they can be used and grant extra benefits. Since the default tends to be you being able to do things unless otherwise stated, and I have seen nothing to indicate that other weapons cannot be used, I do not know where your decision is based off of.

The trip action has the same wording of how it is done as the disarm action. The disarm action can be infered to use a weapon, as there is a penalty to not using one. All this tells me that unarmed strike is inferior to other weapons, but any weapon may be used. I see no reason why the same wording should imply that a weapon is used in disarm but not used for trip.

That being said, the ruling raises some interesting questions for me:

1. Are you considered using an unarmed strike for trip if you do not have a trip weapon. If so, do bonuses to unarmed attacks count towards the trip, such as weapon focus. Also, do you provoke 2 attacks of opportunity if you are unprofficient with unarmed strike.

2. If no to 1: Unarmed strike is not a trip weapon. Can you mix trip in with Flurry of Blows without a weapon, which states the attack must be an unarmed strike or with a monk weapon?

3. Trip never states that you are touching the creature. If it has some kind of resistance or penalty to physically touching it, are you considered touching it? I know they are not tripable, but mimics and gelatinous cubes come to mind for the types of resistances I am refering to.

I had others driving home, but have since forgotten them. Maybe I will remember.

None of these are problems with the other interpretation, that you do not need a trip weapon and any melee attack may be used.


I agree with the ruling but I do think more weapons should be designated as trip weapons (though maybe without the +2 bonus). The longspear and quarterstaff come to mind. They are long and light at both ends, so are easy to control when extended in a sweeping motion at full extension. Longsword and greataxe? Not so much. Tripping with those weapons is called something else... chopping peoples' f'ing legs off.

The Exchange

In general, whether it is correct or not by either RAW or RAI, I will allow characters and monsters to attempt to trip or disarm regardless of weapon. They will just have a penalty when not using weapons specifically designed for doing so. This seems to be in agreement with the general concept of "never say no, just give it a difficulty" as well as agreeing with my real world imagination of being able to trip with long polearms or a quarterstaff etc.

I hope that Jason does not agree with James clearly official ruling but until we hear otherwise, the gods hath spoken. We now know what the official ruling is and we, as DM's, are free to rule as we like.

I do thank James for taking the time to step into this hotbed thread of contention. I had a feeling it was bound to devolve into a "pounce on whoever pops their head up" situation and riddle them with an unending series of "well what if this.." and "well if that's true then..." It's probably a good thing James issued the official proclamation and then exited because otherwise I'm sure he'd still be here answering what-ifs.

In short, I too disagree with the ruling, on both mechanical and conceptual grounds, but I accept what he said as "official" until we hear otherwise, either from him, Jason, or anyone else at Paizo.


Phew, I'm glad to see an official ruling on this!

I am brand spanking new to Pathfinder and, working my way through the Core Rulebook, this was one of my few rule confusions I wrote down during the first pass. So add me to the voices who say 'weapon trip' is an ambiguous section of the rules.

Sovereign Court

Loopy wrote:
I agree with the ruling but I do think more weapons should be designated as trip weapons (though maybe without the +2 bonus).

Trip weapons don't give a +2 bonus to trip attacks.

I too disagree with the ruling, but I'm ok with it, and I would also like to thank Mr Jacobs for his efforts in posting here.

I especially don't like, however, people who disagree with his ruling and then throw a temper tantrum, essentially holding their breath waiting for Mr Buhlman to "overrule" him. Tsk-tsk. IMO, anyone who's name is on page 1 of the rulebook is a good enough source for me.


James Jacobs wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, I'm not really clear what James' ruling/ official personal take actually means.

Barring a Trip Weapon,
is Trip done via Unarmed Strike (i.e. we can expect Errata returning the 3.5 wording, or giving Unarmed Strike the Trip property)?
Or is it a vague vectorless maneuver attack? (and thus feats, enhancement bonuses, & weapon training for Unarmed Strike can't apply)

It's hard to say, because he didn't really get into the actual rules at hand, focusing on the distinction between [manufactured] weapons and "leg sweeps or whatever" when "legs sweeps or whatever" actually CAN count as weapons for many purposes (weapon-specific enchancement bonuses, weapon focus, weapon training) even without Improved Unarmed Strike.

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
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
In short, I too disagree with the ruling, on both mechanical and conceptual grounds, but I accept what he said as "official" until we hear otherwise, either from him, Jason, or anyone else at Paizo.

+1


Twowlves wrote:
Loopy wrote:
I agree with the ruling but I do think more weapons should be designated as trip weapons (though maybe without the +2 bonus).

Trip weapons don't give a +2 bonus to trip attacks.

I too disagree with the ruling, but I'm ok with it, and I would also like to thank Mr Jacobs for his efforts in posting here.

In Beta, they did (IIRC). And, honestly, that's the way I'll rule Trip from now on. I understand Mr JJ's view on tripping and on rule 0. While I don't share his view on tripping (I explained why earlier), I'll do as he said and houserule it myself.

In real life, you can trip someone with anything (even just shouting "Boo" - Feint-tripping anyone? ;-). Trip weapon happen to have a little hook here or there so that tripping should be easier with them. But they would not be the only mean of tripping in my games. I would also rule that any weapon used to trip can be dropped (if possible: unarmed can't, locked gauntlet can't) to avoid being knocked prone instead.

Thanks for the miscellanous information everyone, especially Mr JJ !


James Jacobs wrote:

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.

Your answer is very much appreciated, and I am sure most people take your word to cary the same authority as Jason's.

For our sake I hope you will keep popping up on our, at times absurd, discussions about "what does the RAW actually say".


I think it's perfectly clear to me now, anyways. The only thing I'll make different is adding a few weapons to the Trip list, so to speak. But, yeah, that's house ruling, I know.

As far as tripping unarmed, yeah, it would be nice to give it the trip quality, but since you can't drop your bodypart due to messy-ness it makes perfect sense. To me :-)

And having the improved trip feat just is a neccessity if you are on a trip.. errr.. something...

There! I'm happy we got that cleared up! Thank you Ser James Jacobs!

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Wanna see "picky"? I'll give you "picky".

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
... James' clearly official ruling, but until we hear otherwise, the gods hath spoken. We now know ...

The conjugation "hath" is 3rd Person singular. Correct would be either "the god hath spoken" or "the gods have spoken."

Sorry for the thread-jack ... as if this thread were jackable.

The Exchange

Chris Mortika wrote:

Wanna see "picky"? I'll give you "picky".

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
... James' clearly official ruling, but until we hear otherwise, the gods hath spoken. We now know ...

The conjugation "hath" is 3rd Person singular. Correct would be either "the god hath spoken" or "the gods have spoken."

Sorry for the thread-jack ... as if this thread were jackable.

Duly noted :) Thanks for the correction!


Louis IX wrote:
Loopy wrote:
I agree with the ruling but I do think more weapons should be designated as trip weapons (though maybe without the +2 bonus).

Trip weapons don't give a +2 bonus to trip attacks.

Oh SNAP!

Louis IX wrote:
In Beta, they did (IIRC).

Yeah, I haven't made any trippy NPCs since the beta and in the beta I played a high-dex Cleric who used used the whip and other weapons to disarm and trip foes. Although now that I think of it, I'm not sure if the Whip got a +2 to trip or disarm. Well, regardless, wow.

I'm just wondering, why else would the "trip" be listed in the weapon description if you WERE able to trip with anything? Did we think that the writers just like messing with us and put words in places that don't mean anything?

Seems like a lot of people are just being waaaaaaaay too literal in regards to the tripping rules and quite honestly being very stubborn about it. The specific passage on tripping might not be 100% clear but when you look at the rules as presented in the greater text of the book, it IS clear. You just want to whine about something you don't like.


Loopy wrote:


I'm just wondering, why else would the "trip" be listed in the weapon description if you WERE able to trip with anything?

For the ability to drop them if you fail your Trip manoeuver check by 10 or more.

Loopy wrote:


The specific passage on tripping might not be 100% clear but when you look at the rules as presented in the greater text of the book, it IS clear.
You just want to whine about something you don't like.

I can't say how happy that last sentence makes me feel. Really. I can't.

I think the fact that "trip weapons can be used to trip" is mentioned only once, and only in the Equipment section, is not "100% clear" enough to prevent other weapons to do so. If my character had never bought such a weapon, I might never had read that part, despite reading Combat in length and taking Improved Trip. That's why I was surprised that some people thought it was questionable to trip with a weapon lacking that particular property. I'm even more surprised that it's now forbidden.

And... the "greater text"? Come on, the weapon of massive proportion that is the Core Rules Book is too heavy for a simple unclear comment to throw whole paragraphs to the bin.

I respect other people's opinion. I respect Mr JJ's decision. But I'll house-rule it back in. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

The Exchange

Loopy wrote:
Louis IX wrote:
Loopy wrote:
I agree with the ruling but I do think more weapons should be designated as trip weapons (though maybe without the +2 bonus).

Trip weapons don't give a +2 bonus to trip attacks.

Oh SNAP!

Louis IX wrote:
In Beta, they did (IIRC).

Yeah, I haven't made any trippy NPCs since the beta and in the beta I played a high-dex Cleric who used used the whip and other weapons to disarm and trip foes. Although now that I think of it, I'm not sure if the Whip got a +2 to trip or disarm. Well, regardless, wow.

I'm just wondering, why else would the "trip" be listed in the weapon description if you WERE able to trip with anything? Did we think that the writers just like messing with us and put words in places that don't mean anything?

Seems like a lot of people are just being waaaaaaaay too literal in regards to the tripping rules and quite honestly being very stubborn about it. The specific passage on tripping might not be 100% clear but when you look at the rules as presented in the greater text of the book, it IS clear. You just want to whine about something you don't like.

The thought is that Trip in the weapon's description allows you to drop the weapon if you fail by enough during a trip to be counter-tripped. Why would they give a trip description to weapons that allow you drop them to avoid the counter trip unless there were weapons that you couldn't drop to avoid the trip. Text like "Weapons can be dropped to avoid being counter-tripped." and "Only weapons with the trip descriptor may be used during a trip maneuver." would've done a better job at letting some of the parameters of the move be clearer.

Here is an example:
I have a heavy shield and a long sword in hands. My feet are sunk into the floor up to almost my waist via a spell and can't be freed. I have a foe nearby that I can attack with my sword. Now technically I can make melee attacks so I am able to trip the foe. How would that happen? Nowhere does it state what a trip is. I don't require a free appendage to complete one, only "in place of a melee attack". I am not allowed to trip with my sword or my shield. So how did it trip the dude? I doubt my tongue is long enough.
I can trip in that state but I have no clue how that would happen. Maybe I use my Psychopathetic powers.
Defining what a trip is would also help out. 3.5 said you needed a free hand or something but this isn't 3.5 and the rules are changed.

It isn't that people are whining about what they don't like. They want clear rules. These rules aren't clear and in a society game you need the rules to be cleared up. Maybe it's these muddy rules that my dude's legs are bogged down in....


Fake Healer wrote:

Here is an example:

I have a heavy shield and a long sword in hands. My feet are sunk into the floor up to almost my waist via a spell and can't be freed. I have a foe nearby that I can attack with my sword. Now technically I can make melee attacks so I am able to trip the foe. How would that happen? Nowhere does it state what a trip is. I don't require a free appendage to complete one, only "in place of a melee attack". I am not allowed to trip with my sword or my shield. So how did it trip the dude? I doubt my tongue is long enough.
I can trip in that state but I have no clue how that would happen. Maybe I use my Psychopathetic powers.
Defining what a trip is would also help out. 3.5 said you needed a free hand or something but this isn't 3.5 and the rules are changed.

Are you asking because you really want to know, or are you asking because you want your counterpoint to have more weight behind it? Seriously.

The rules for combat are ALL abstractions. You might as well demand to know what "hit points" are or why you can only take 1 attack a round with a longbow without feats at level 1. Better yet, with your character sealed up hip-deep, why aren't you using facing rules now, since obviously you cannot move the way the abstracted facing works RAW. Not to mention what happens if you miss the CMB roll by 10 and get tripped yourself! You say that clear rules are required for society play. Why? I can't remember this EVER being a major issue in ANY org-play game I ever participated in.

And to answer your question, you swing out with your sword, which the opponent easily dodges, whereupon he moves in for the kill. Having fallen for your trick, you sweep your shield back, catching him on the ankle and tripping his movement. It was not a move sufficient to be an attack, only one that could possible trip up an opponent (CMB roll).

However, even this answer is pointless. There are many other variations I could think up, each with equal merit, each denying the possibility of tripping properly with a non-trip weapon. The rules, abstract and vague as they are, rather clearly indicate that only "trip" weapons can be used to trip.

The Exchange

You are correct. Your answer is pointless because you tripped the opponent with a sword and a shield in your example. You can't use either to trip someone.
Next scene:
Same dude in same situation with his hands stuck(can't remove them) on a longspear. Does he trip at reach or does he trip adjacent? Is he able to use an unarmed strike to be able to attack adjacently thereby allowing an adjacent trip attempt?
Just saying that stuff is clear enough TO YOU or in YOUR opinion doesn't make it so. Even if you are James Jacobs. Obviously his opinion is that the rules are clear enough. I and many others disagree with that opinion. It doesn't mean I disagree with the ruling, it just means I want the rules clarified. Errata is warranted.


Fake Healer wrote:

You are correct. Your answer is pointless because you tripped the opponent with a sword and a shield in your example. You can't use either to trip someone.

Next scene:
Same dude in same situation with his hands stuck(can't remove them) on a longspear. Does he trip at reach or does he trip adjacent? Is he able to use an unarmed strike to be able to attack adjacently thereby allowing an adjacent trip attempt?
Just saying that stuff is clear enough TO YOU or in YOUR opinion doesn't make it so. Even if you are James Jacobs. Obviously his opinion is that the rules are clear enough. I and many others disagree with that opinion. It doesn't mean I disagree with the ruling, it just means I want the rules clarified. Errata is warranted.

Yeah, and while they're at it, how about clearing up that thing about dead people taking actions. I mean, can you or can't you? The rules are unclear!

Or you accept the rules are abstract and go from there. Continued examples are pointless.

And to answer your question, adjacent, with the butt end of the spear, unless he took a feat to trip with non-trip weapons, which would be a houserule. Why not try to give a REAL hard example?


I am good with the ruling, and hope all the negative energy doesn't drain JJ's good will too much! It is essentially unchanged from 3.5, the only question to me is do magic adds and feats/abilities that add to the to hit add to the CMB with a trip weapon? I am really just too lazy to look this up, but I have a fighter in my group who is a tripper now and I want to make sure all is well.

Again, Thanks James!

And to all who think this wasn't an issue, ask a new to D&D and PD&D player what the rule is and you might find some confusion. We have 2 in our group, and both absolutely thought any weapon could be used. Guess they were just stupid. (Or lacked the 3.5 knowledge we older players sometimes assume everyone has. Hmm...)


The Black Horde wrote:
I am good with the ruling, and hope all the negative energy doesn't drain JJ's good will too much! It is essentially unchanged from 3.5, the only question to me is do magic adds and feats/abilities that add to the to hit add to the CMB with a trip weapon? I am really just too lazy to look this up, but I have a fighter in my group who is a tripper now and I want to make sure all is well.

With a trip weapon, yes. All normal attack bonuses are added on for CMB.

The Black Horde wrote:
And to all who think this wasn't an issue, ask a new to D&D and PD&D player what the rule is and you might find some confusion. We have 2 in our group, and both absolutely thought any weapon could be used. Guess they were just stupid. (Or lacked the 3.5 knowledge we older players sometimes assume everyone has. Hmm...)

Funny though that the new player in our group, to whom PF is their first D20 style RPG, knew right away that only trip weapons can be used to trip. Maybe because she is a literature major?

The Exchange

The Black Horde wrote:
And to all who think this wasn't an issue, ask a new to D&D and PD&D player what the rule is and you might find some confusion. We have 2 in our group, and both absolutely thought any weapon could be used. Guess they were just stupid. (Or lacked the 3.5 knowledge we older players sometimes assume everyone has. Hmm...)

Well according to some, the rules are perfectly clear so obviously they were just stupid.

Spoiler:
I don't mean that in truth, its a rip on someone up-thread.

The Exchange

Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

You are correct. Your answer is pointless because you tripped the opponent with a sword and a shield in your example. You can't use either to trip someone.

Next scene:
Same dude in same situation with his hands stuck(can't remove them) on a longspear. Does he trip at reach or does he trip adjacent? Is he able to use an unarmed strike to be able to attack adjacently thereby allowing an adjacent trip attempt?
Just saying that stuff is clear enough TO YOU or in YOUR opinion doesn't make it so. Even if you are James Jacobs. Obviously his opinion is that the rules are clear enough. I and many others disagree with that opinion. It doesn't mean I disagree with the ruling, it just means I want the rules clarified. Errata is warranted.

Yeah, and while they're at it, how about clearing up that thing about dead people taking actions. I mean, can you or can't you? The rules are unclear!

Or you accept the rules are abstract and go from there. Continued examples are pointless.

And to answer your question, adjacent, with the butt end of the spear, unless he took a feat to trip with non-trip weapons, which would be a houserule. Why not try to give a REAL hard example?

According to the rules a reach weapon can't be used adjacently or with the butt end of the spear unless you are using houserules. Why not give REAL answers that fall within the parameters of the rules to questions instead of pretending you are so clear on them while making up answers out of the air. All of your answers are handwaving mixed with houserulings. None of them are any real solution except in a home game which I have no problems ruling on my own.

Once again, Errata is warranted.


Quandary wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm not really clear what James' ruling/ official personal take actually means.

Barring a Trip Weapon,
is Trip done via Unarmed Strike (i.e. we can expect Errata returning the 3.5 wording, or giving Unarmed Strike the Trip property)?
Or is it a vague vectorless maneuver attack? (and thus feats, enhancement bonuses, & weapon training for Unarmed Strike can't apply)

It's hard to say, because he didn't really get into the actual rules at hand, focusing on the distinction between [manufactured] weapons and "leg sweeps or whatever" when "legs sweeps or whatever" actually CAN count as weapons for many purposes (weapon-specific enchancement bonuses, weapon focus, weapon training) even without Improved Unarmed Strike.

I'm hoping that Trip is not done via Unarmed Strike, as I prefer vectorless maneuver attempts for keeping it simple.

I'm also hoping to see a compromise that allows the Trip maneuver to be made with or without weapons, just that there's no particular benefit to performing the maneuver while wielding your long sword and shield (and you don't have to drop them, either). No bonuses, no penalties, perform the check and move on with your life.


Robert Young wrote:
I'm hoping that Trip is not done via Unarmed Strike, as I prefer vectorless maneuver attempts for keeping it simple.

I'm curious how does that keep it simple vs. using the exact same attack #'s as your unarmed strike (only modified IF you are not medium-sized)?

How is it simpler to have non-weapon vectorless Trips but have in-place-of-weapon Disarm/Sunder/etc? Keeping track of what attack bonuses apply to what seems complicated to me, so the least number of cases there seems the simplest approach by my book. Did you find 3.5's Trip which used Unarmed difficult somehow? (besides the 2 rolls, obviously)

Personally, it makes sense that you should have the full range of attack bonuses available, because besides that inherently you're supposed to be able to use them (any attack bonuses apply to maneuvers, but some of them happen to require application to specific vectors), CMD benefits from every touch AC bonus out there (if we assume lack of luck and untyped touch ac bonuses is an oversight that will be corrected - if not, we have exactly the sort of 95% similar but slightly different set-up I warned against in Beta), so if we DON'T have a 'weapon' vector (including unarmed) for every maneuver, then those specific maneuvers are relatively disadvantaged vs. the maneuvers that do use vectors... And a justification for that isn't really popping out for me right at this moment.


Hey people, can we PLEASE keep this civil?
That includes not just not directly insulting other posters,
but not trying to negate the validity of their posts or questions.
If you don't find a personal need in having a question answered or the particular topic of a thread, just don't participate in it.

@FH: Try not to take this sort of stuff personally. I'm glad because you were one of the main people BUMPing this topic for so long until it at least came to Paizo's attention, which I couldn't keep up after 3 or 4 months. We still can hopefully get a full response from Jason, e.g. if Unarmed is the default vector ala 3.5 or what. Don't lay too much imnportance to the people who by their own representation, should have no further interest in the thread/topic.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some heated, personal posts. Calm down, everyone. In the end, it is just a game.


Quandary wrote:

Hey people, can we PLEASE keep this civil?

That includes not just not directly insulting other posters,
but not trying to negate the validity of their posts or questions.
If you don't find a personal need in having a question answered or the particular topic of a thread, just don't participate in it.

@FH: Try not to take this sort of stuff personally. I'm glad because you were one of the main people BUMPing this topic for so long until it at least came to Paizo's attention, which I couldn't keep up after 3 or 4 months. We still can hopefully get a full response from Jason, e.g. if Unarmed is the default vector ala 3.5 or what. Don't lay too much imnportance to the people who by their own representation, should have no further interest in the thread/topic.

I think it important that every post that utilizes something verging on an impolite tone be flagged.

I am not kidding about this. The number of people who are verging on referring to the dissenting side of this arguement as stupid has become annoying, and is preventing reasonable discourse. Mr. Jacobs kind attention to this has resolved only one of the concerns. That concern is that, by RAW, Trip bonuses only happen when you are using a Trip weapon, not when unarmed, and not in any other circumstance. Otherwise, Trip is just a Trip.

Quandary, you are correct, in that vectors need to be assigned to manuevers. Grapple has a vector set aside just for it, although it is unclear as to whether magic fang or an amulet of mighty fists apply to grapple check. This is no longer a question just about trip, but rather about the vectors used for combat manuevers, and the bonuses which apply to CMB checks. The arguments being used to justify no bonuses to a longsword, shield or longspear to a trip check could just as easily be applied to disarm checks, as in many ways, a disarm is using the weapon in way that it is not designed for.

Has the rule become that only trip, disarm, and "sundering" weapons, and non-existent bullrushing weapons, can apply bonuses to those manuevers? Can I sunder with a +2 rapier and obtain a +2 bonus to my sunder check?

PRD wrote:


Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

There is no rule limiting me from using a piercing weapon for a Sunder.

Does my +2 rapier improve my Disarm check? The wording is similar to Sunder and Trip, but that may mean that only flails, whips, ranseurs and spiked chains gain bonuses to disarm.


TreeLynx wrote:
Mr. Jacobs kind attention to this has resolved only one of the concerns. That concern is that, by RAW, Trip bonuses only happen when you are using a Trip weapon, not when unarmed, and not in any other circumstance. Otherwise, Trip is just a Trip.

Except that he didn't really address the rules themselves, just how they would play out, and his example wasn't clear to me whether it WOULD indeed be using Unarmed Strike as a 'vector' for Trip attempts (ala 3.5). Reverting to 3.5 ('in place of an UNARMED attack') seems THE simplest solution, and to me HIGHLY LIKELY as something that was over-looked between revisions (e.g. Trip Weapons were more signifigantly changed during Beta to addd +2, and perhaps not every line was reverted as they should have been)

Quote:
Grapple has a vector set aside just for it, although it is unclear as to whether magic fang or an amulet of mighty fists apply to grapple check.

Quite, and these same reasons, why some maneuvers could potentially use weapon-specific bonuses (incl. to Unarmed/Natural) and others couldn't (yet CMD always gains the same Touch AC bonuses) definitely applies to Grapple... Further amplified by the fact that Monsters with Grab ARE using Natural Weapons for Grab and thus WOULD be able to be benefit, FURTHER widening the Monster Grab/PC Grapple disparity.

Quote:
Has the rule become that only trip, disarm, and "sundering" weapons, and non-existent bullrushing weapons, can apply bonuses to those manuevers?

But Shields can, and can have the entire range of weapon-specific bonuses to do so.

Quote:
Can I sunder with a +2 rapier and obtain a +2 bonus to my sunder check? There is no rule limiting me from using a piercing weapon for a Sunder.

Sure, that's probably an implausible case, but I wouldn't want to bar Heavy Picks from Sundering. As far as I can tell, since James didn't say anything to counter it, Disarm and Sunder (any 'in place of melee attack...') indeed use the vector of whatever attack they are substituting.


Fake Healer wrote:

According to the rules a reach weapon can't be used adjacently or with the butt end of the spear unless you are using houserules. Why not give REAL answers that fall within the parameters of the rules to questions instead of pretending you are so clear on them while making up answers out of the air. All of your answers are handwaving mixed with houserulings. None of them are any real solution except in a home game which I have no problems ruling on my own.

Once again, Errata is warranted.

Hmm. Apparently my response was deemed inappropriate. I was actually joking in that last bit, but I think it got taken seriously...

So, take 2:

Real solution - Combat in D&D is an abstraction, which means we only take into account vectors when it is called for. You use your weapon to trip someone, but you are NOT making an attack, and you are using the weapon in a manner that it is not built for (not a trip weapon). Therefore, you do not get the bonuses from feats and/or weapon enhancements. If the weapon WAS designed for tripping, you WOULD get those bonuses.

Test - Does this solution conflict with any of the existing rules? Does this solution run counter to the official ruling from Paizo?

The answer is no on both counts, therefore the solution is valid.

If the solution is NOT valid, why? If you agree it IS valid, why are we arguing, since it will also be valid in org-play and no eratta is needed to generate it, as RAW supplies all the needed info? If you do NOT feel RAW supplies all the needed info, which parts are not supplied?


TreeLynx wrote:
Has the rule become that only trip, disarm, and "sundering" weapons, and non-existent bullrushing weapons, can apply bonuses to those manuevers?

The language used to describe those attributes are different. Trip explicitly allows you to trip with the weapon while the other maneuvers just indicate a benefit when using the maneuver.

For instance, look at the language for the "Reach" ability. There is no confusion that you do not get reach with every weapon, only reach weapons. That same language is used in Trip.

401 to 450 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.