The majority, Creative Director included, disagree with you.
By your logic you can use a whip to overrun or a longspear to grapple.
Again, if you can't concede that the RAW is clear, it seems almost willfully ignorant to deny that RAI seems very clear. One does not overrun with a whip. One does not grapple with a longspear. One does not trip with an armor spike.
What is with this complete evasion of people's actual arguments to your premise? Grapple and Over-Run are not 'in place of a melee attack'. Trip is. Cut the straw-man BS, seriously.
And have you seriously searched the thread archives of the Bump thread and it's precursor to establish what "the majority" thinks? Who even CARES what the majority thinks? The issue is that the RAW are defective, and the popularity of different interepretations doesn't have any bearing on that fact. JJ's response of "basically, this is how i would run it...", ESPECIALLY in light of his past rulings have diverged from Jason's taken on RAW, is no further proof.
Further, using the most far-fetched examples as 'proof' is absurd. Real-world, one can indeed trip with a quarterstaff. Real-world, one can trip with one's leg covered with armor spikes.
Calling people willfully ignorant for not agreeing with you isn't persuasive, or likely to win you any friends, either.
-+---------+--------+-
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 (Improved or not) IS a 'weapon' vector (that 'weapon'-specific bonuses can apply to), albeit one with more drawbacks, especially in this case, than manufactured weapons unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike.
|
I keep hearing fun phrases like:
"I think the tripping-with-weapons-issue has very soundly been cleared up at this point."
"it seems almost willfully ignorant to deny that RAI seems very clear"
"That's my thinking anyways."
"but it seems plenty clear enough, if you ask me."
and other wording to enforce a supposedly factual side to the argument.The only real fact is that the wording is confusing and needs clearing up by the rules writer, as no one else really knows what he intended 100%. Perhaps someone will be right in their interpretation but until proven so by Jason, their stance is not a fact because the rules can be interpreted in more than one manner.
...they changed a section of the combat rules (combat maneuvers) because they had to. Then, when it came to the equipment section, they just copy-pasted information over.
I honestly can't see any "official" interpretation until we get this particular oversight cleared up.
Respectfully - it's not an oversight. RAW and RAI agree.
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.
What is with this complete evasion of people's actual arguments to your premise? Grapple and Over-Run are not 'in place of a melee attack'. Trip is. Cut the straw-man BS, seriously.
:/ *cough*
Bull Rush
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.
Further, using the most far-fetched examples as 'proof' is absurd. Real-world, one can indeed trip with a quarterstaff. Real-world, one can trip with one's leg covered with armor spikes.
I never said anything about proof, and was referring to the majority in the thread, but sure - of course you can trip someone with a quarterstaff in the 'real world', and if my character uses a quarterstaff in combat, that's almost certianly how I'd flavor it. But we're discussing a tabletop game, not the real world.
I'll concede that it's slightly disappointing that a quarterstaff isn't a trip weapon, but the rules regarding tripping with weapons are clear - and if you can present a discrepency that demonstrates that they are not, please do.
...politely.
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 (Improved or not) IS a 'weapon' vector (that 'weapon'-specific bonuses can apply to)...
I will again state that I agree that the rules-as-written governing weapon use with disarm and sunder are a little cloudy (as opposed to the rules for trip, which seem very clear to myself, to - from what I can tell - the majority of the posters in this thread, and to Creative Director Mr. Jacobs).
On the other hand, I think that the rules-as-intended regarding weapons and disarms and sunders are rather apparent, given that their wordings refer to being armed and/or dealing damage.
So am I understanding correctly that only weapons designated as "trip weapons" may be used to trip a combatant?
|
|
Love waving around James Jacobs name as a victory flag, don't you? It's good that you are leaving off the parts of his post that make his statement a statement of his opinion on the rules and not an official branding. That would totally undermine you. Can't have facts getting in the way of your opinion.
By your logic you can use a whip to overrun or a longspear to grapple.What is with this complete evasion of people's actual arguments to your premise? Grapple and Over-Run are not 'in place of a melee attack'. Trip is. Cut the straw-man BS, seriously.:/ *cough*Bull Rush
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.
Am I supposed to giggle when you quote the rules for Bullrush when your previous quote was referencing Grapple and Over-Run, neither of which contain that wording?
That this is your response when people call out your evasion of arguments and reliance on straw-man's... is amazing.Respectfully - it's not an oversight. RAW and RAI agree.
Respectfully, your debating style isn't persuading anybody, and as you've been the only one to insinuate that those who disagree with you are ignorant, you probably have a bit to work on in the respect department.
So am I understanding correctly that only weapons designated as "trip weapons" may be used to trip a combatant?
Correct, though you don't need any weapon at all in order to make a trip attempt.
Love waving around James Jacobs name as a victory flag, don't you? It's good that you are leaving off the parts of his post that make his statement a statement of his opinion on the rules...
1.) Be civil.
2.) See below.
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.
|
|
Love waving around James Jacobs name as a victory flag, don't you? It's good that you are leaving off the parts of his post that make his statement a statement of his opinion on the rules...1.) Be civil.
2.) See below.
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.
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.
In response to your numbers....
1. Practice what you preach. You don't want people to see you acting like a total tool.2. See bolded above. More of your avoidance acts when questioned.
I have seen on a couple occasions in rules clarification threads where James or Vic or others from Paizo stated their opinion on a rule and were corrected by Jason with a follow-up post stating the actual ruling. That sets a precedence in the matter and also a hierarchy about official rules errata. I will wait until Jason's voice is voiced and then take that as fact.
In response to your numbers....
1. Practice what you preach. You don't want people to see you acting like a total tool.
...but, a rake is a...
2. See bolded above. More of your avoidance acts when questioned.
Mmmmnope. Mr. Jacob's take, the one you quoted, is the earlier response that we are advised to regard as official.
A repost (again) for reference (again):
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.
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 drowning/suffocating rule is almost realistic enough for me as an 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 and stop worrying about the realism of it.
Official rulings aside, I wouldn't allow characters to trip with a non-trip weapon.
Here's the thing: Greater Trip is insanely powerful with reach weapons. Allow me to elaborate.
Our level 9 Barbarian, Sonja, has 20 Strength, 16 Dexterity, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip and Greater Trip. She wields a Guisarme, so she positively can trip with a reach weapon.
Her CMB to trip is 9 (BAB) + 5 (strength) + 2 (rage strength) + 4 (feat bonuses), TOTAL = 20. She also has Strength Surge, which adds her strength value to her CMB yet again, for an additional + 7 CMB on one attack per rage. So her total CMB on the trip can be as high as 27.
She moves 10 feet away from a Dire Carebear and trips it. Our Dire Carebear has an average CMD at that level, we'll say 28. So, while raging, there is absolutely no chance that Sonja is knocked prone or forced to drop her weapon on a failed Trip attempt. If she rolls a 1 with a bonus of 20, her failure margin is still only 8. While Surging, she automatically succeeds on any roll higher than 1.
Sonja blows Strength Surge to auto-succeed on her first attempt. The Carebear falls prone; because she used Greater Trip, the Carebear triggers Opportunity Attack #1 (from Sonja and every other melee character that threatens him).
On his turn, the Dire Carebear stands up. Trigger OA #2. But don't actually attack him, just trip him again, since you can use it in place of a melee attack. By some uncanny stroke of misfortune, Sonja fails.
Now that he's upright, the Carebear wants to move next to Sonja. He's already used a move action to stand, so he can't shift. He has to move, which triggers OA #3. Trip him again, and this time Sonja succeeds. Trigger OA #4 as he is falling. This time, deal damage.
The entire monster's turn was useless. All he did was provoke 4 OAs. Sonja has to fail two consecutive trips (which will happen approximately once in four turns) just so that the Carebear can move next to her. Worst case scenario, all she has to do is shift and repeat the process on her next turn. Best case scenario, Sonja just stands there and attacks a prone target twice.
This cycle is never going to end. A Greater Trip polearm user takes 1 monster entirely out of the fight, while still making OAs against other approaching enemies if she feels so inclined. You might say, give the Dire Carebear some ranged attacks. But Sonja is still tripping him right back down as he tries to stand up, and again as he tries to cast / shoot. You might also say that a non-reach character could do this, but at least in that scenario the Dire Carebear could just attack her while prone (or right after standing if he wants to risk the free attack). I also understand that the feat Lunge would enable a non-reach trip weapon to do this, but at least then you're taxing the character another feat and some AC. In the end, that's still a small price to pay for the ability to completely remove a monster from the fight.
By ruling that the Guisarme is the only reach / trip weapon in the game, the DM retains some degree of control. If Sonja never gets a magical Guisarme, she will have to choose between damage dealing mode and ultra control mode, by virtue of which weapon she is wielding. In all likelihood, Sonja will be the only one taking OAs against her trip-buddy (unless your party is full of reach weapon wielders), so at least you give the trip buddy a little more durability.
This seems like a much more amenable solution than giving every monster in your campaign 4 extra legs, or boosting every monster's CMD by 5. Those actions would penalize the rest of the players who weren't being total douchebags.
Official rulings aside, I wouldn't allow characters to trip with a non-trip weapon.
Fortunately, that IS the official ruling.
stuff
Just one thing...I'm not sure you can use trip during the AoO for someone standing up. Doesn't the AoO come before the action that triggers it? So unless you can trip someone who is prone, I think you'd have to choose another type of attack.
@ClubSauce: AoO's don't work like that, thus your scenario doesn't work.
AoO's happen just BEFORE their triggering action completes, thus are made against the pre-existing conditions. Think about it: Movement provokes for moving OUT of a square. To make an AoO against somebody who is moving out of a square you threaten into one that you don't, your attack has to target them while they are still in the first square, because you don't (necessarily) have the reach for the square they're moving into. Same with Trip, when somebody TRIES standing up and provokes, THEY ARE STILL Prone, thus you can't trip them. This has been dealt with in many other threads. If you can't find it here on the messageboards, try WotC's Ask a Sage.
So, this is James "official (My Take) ruling":
So what does that mean?
Is Trip a non-weapon attack for purposes of enancement bonuses, feats, training, as Rake suggests?
But aren't "leg sweeps" (but nut necessarily legs, Trip can be pulling someone down with you arms as well) covered by Unarmed Strike (allowing attendant bonuses)?
Thus, James' "offical ruling" could mean two different things: unique non-weapon Trip or unarmed Trip ala 3.5, which is exactly why most everybody patiently bumping the thread wanted a response from Jason, because he is most qualified to actually clarify the rules themselves, not how he would run them.
As I've said earlier, I think Errata'ing the Trip rules to read "in place of an unarmed strike" LIKE 3.5 is the simplest fix to the situation.
James' official personal take on it just isn't specific enough to even cover this distinction, unfortunately.
Official rulings aside, I wouldn't allow characters to trip with a non-trip weapon.Fortunately, that IS the official ruling.
Actually, there is no official ruling :D There are now 2 threads unsuccessfully disambiguating the rules. It can't be done, you can make an argument for either side right now. Fortunately, a good DM can settle matters of opinion very quickly.
I'm not sure you can use trip during the AoO for someone standing up.
That's a good point, I hadn't considered that. Since Sonja only gets 1 OA to trip the bear, it will stand next to her at the end of 50% of her turns. It still never gets to attack her, and she gets to attack it twice.
This really doesn't matter though, since Sonja still gets 2-5 trip attempts. OA when it moves next to you, Full-Attack to trip twice on your turn, and possibly up to twice more (Haste effects or monster movement).
I think you guys nitpicking my scenario are missing the forrest for the trees. There is still an 88% chance that the monster does absolutely nothing on its turn. All the while it is taking at least 2 damaging attacks per turn. Trip + Reach is still insanely powerful, and if you restrict it to a Guisarme only combination, you prevent the DM from having to modify the campaign in ways that would be detrimental to players who aren't being power-gaming douchebags.
Lol now the Dire Carebear gets to stand next to Sonja at the end of 50% of his turns.
She'll still get 2-3 trip attempts before it gets to attack her, though. 2 on her own turn, possibly 1 on the Carebears turn.
Well, as they say, maybe Fighter-types can have nice stuff SOMETIMES :-)
And if you're Dire Carebear, options like Sundering/Disarming the Reach Weapon that's tripping you,or just Grappling your Trip-Tormenter can be pretty effective in this case. Or using Spring Attack. Etc.
Well, as they say, maybe Fighter-types can have nice stuff SOMETIMES :-)
This isn't nice, it's absurd. If a wizard wants to take a monster out of a fight, the monster has to pass 1 save. It also eats up player resources. If the Reaching Tripper wants to do it, the monster effectively has to make 3 consecutive saves in 1 turn, each with a 50% chance. Oh and they still have an attack saved for anything that runs past them. And it doesn't eat any resources.
Do math. That's broken.
And if you're Dire Carebear, options like Sundering/Disarming the Reach Weapon that's tripping you,
or just Grappling your Trip-Tormenter can be pretty effective in this case. Or using Spring Attack. Etc.
Remember, you automatically trip something once per rage. So the monster is on its back to start the fight. It has to use its move action to stand up, and its standard action just to get Sonja within its reach.
The Carebear can't grapple because it doesn't have an action left to ready. It can ready a sunder or disarm attempt on the weapon, but that's not only going to provoke another OA, but the ridiculous Reaching Tripper is going to have a massive CMD.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
With Club Sauce, by the time someone's 9th Level, shouldn't they be running into really big things, or things that fly, or things with supernatural abilities that don't trigger attacks of opportunity?
Put another way, if someone's 9th Level, and has devoted all their Feats and tactics towards one fighting style, they ought to be pretty good at it.
Not only that, but there is a trip + reach weapon, so this ruling does nothing to prevent that except force the player to use it, thus reducing their average damage by .5 per attack (d10 weapon goes to 2d4).
Put another way, if someone's 9th Level, and has devoted all their Feats and tactics towards one fighting style, they ought to be pretty good at it.
And she will be, with her non-magical Guisarme. (Although Barbarians / Fighters have more than 3 feats by level 9, and this combo hardly represents all of their feats)
But in order to attain that level of perfection when it comes to crowd control, Sonja sacrifices some of her damage during a single turn. Instead of making her opportunity attacks with a +3 Glaive, she has to make them with a non-magical Guisarme. -3 attack and -3 damage. It's really not the end of the world.
If Sonja wants to deal more damage, she can drop or sheathe the Guisarme and pull out a +3 weapon. But unless it's a trip weapon, she can't trip with it, which means that she can't trip with reach and have an enhancement bonus on the same turn.
If you really can't afford the free action and move action that the exchange requires, try to acquire a magical Guisarme. That takes you right back to letting your DM decide whether you should be able to trip with a reach weapon and make opportunity attacks with a nice enhancement bonus during the same turn. If he doesn't mind, he'll probably let you buy one. If he does mind, you'll probably never find anyone that makes magical Guisarmes.
The bottom line is that nowhere in the text is there any direct mention of whether or not you can make a trip attack with a weapon that does not include the trip keyword. So it is a matter of opinion. Is the presence of the trip keyword on some weapons supposed to indicate that you can't trip with weapons that lack said keyword, or is the fact that you can make a trip attack in place of a melee attack supposed to indicate that you can trip with any melee attack? There is no official ruling, and in that sense, your DM can make whatever decision he wants without breaking any rules.
Because Greater Trip is so abusively powerful when combined with a reach weapon, my opinion is that you should not trip with a non-trip weapon, simply because you can reduce a monster to no effective action 88% of the time, and you're still taking 2 OAs (which is better than a full-round attack); you should at least give up your enhancement bonus so that other, non-powergaming roleplayers at the table whose characters are 1/3 as effective as yours can be effective in combat.
Everybody loses nuclear war. That's not how roleplaying games were meant to be played in my mind. If you're going to enable a powergaming douchebag by letting him use some combo like this, at least give the people who are actually trying to play D&D / Pathfinder, not Find the Loophole, a way to keep pace.
I don't think there would be as many AoO's against CareBear as you think in this instance (I can only see 2).
"Standing up from Prone" is a type of Move Action, but it doesn't actually count as Movement (imagine you only have a move speed of 5': if you are tripped and stand up, you still have 5' of movement left, meaning standing up doesn't count as movement), meaning you still get the 5' Step you always get if you don't other perform any Movement (distinct from Move Actions). And for the same AoO as Standing Up, CareBear could crawl towards her enemy, whereupon she can attack/grapple/whatever. In situations where CareBear was the one closing in (and was originally Tripped by her own provocation of an AoO), I think it would be a GM call whether or not Crawling would count as it's own type of provocation, or simply as Movement that provokes (which if a Movement AoO had already been taken, wouldn't further provoke.)
Anyhow, this isn't really the thread for this...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
All you guys trying to argue that you could trip with any weapon were giving in to your inner munchkin. ;-)
Jasper, old bean, you do realize that you're slinging insults in a thread where people are taking pains to be civil, don't you? And insulting people with a little smiley afterthought is still insulting people.
As for myself, I'm a big fan of simulating a fantastic environment with enough verisimilitude that players can internalize their combat options. This I see as one of the geniuses of 3rd Edition tactical combat. You can call it "literalism" if you like, but I think of it as a feature, not a bug.
Having fenced for a good 15+ years, I find the idea that you can practically trip someone with a sword completely ridiculous.
So you couldn't sweep someone with the flat edge (or even the blade) of a longsword? Bull. I agree that FENCING swords (rapiers/foils/epees) you wouldn't be able to trip with, but a saber, or any sword with a solid heft and rigid blade can most definitely be used to sweep (or just smack them on the back of the knee). Hell, they teach you tripping techniques with the katana in Kenjutsu.
BTW, I'm not arguing RAW or RAI, just that your fencing experience, which uses bendy bladed "swords" (more like metal toothpicks in my opinion), applies to all swords is not correct.
Having fenced for a good 15+ years, I find the idea that you can practically trip someone with a sword completely ridiculous.So you couldn't sweep someone with the flat edge (or even the blade) of a longsword? Bull. I agree that FENCING swords (rapiers/foils/epees) you wouldn't be able to trip with, but a saber, or any sword with a solid heft and rigid blade can most definitely be used to sweep (or just smack them on the back of the knee). Hell, they teach you tripping techniques with the katana in Kenjutsu.
BTW, I'm not arguing RAW or RAI, just that your fencing experience, which uses bendy bladed "swords" (more like metal toothpicks in my opinion), applies to all swords is not correct.
Full stop on this line of discussion, please.
I have fenced with a gim for a couple of years, and while I know that a demonstration wushu blade on a tai chi sword can in no way be used for a trip, an actual battle usable gim with a fuller that doesn't react like a whip when using techniques might be usable to overbear an opponent and bring them to the ground, which is, in fact, part of what I was arguing for originally. I can conceive of describing a gim as a rapier, although it is most certainly more a slashing blade than a piercing blade.
Chris, you are absolutely correct that there are grounding techniques using the katana, the tanto, and the wakazashi in kenjutsu. My wife has been taking kenjutsu for two years, and I know this, as she has demonstrated these techniques with a boken on me. I would consider a boken to be best represented within the game as a masterwork club.
Jasper, just because the sword techniques you have trained in for 15+ years do not including grounding techniques does not mean these techniques do not exist within many weapon forms, both eastern and western, and aboriginal, including german broadsword techniques, native american fighting techniques, kung fu, and various jutsus. They are considered unsportsmanlike, and generally unsafe unless you are trained in taking rolls and breakfalls, so most competition forms deliberately exclude grounding techniques.
With all that said, this particular line of discussion cannot bear any positive fruit. What can happen with in the real world is ultimatelty moot. Either the rules allow sticks and axes and other weapons to overbear and bring an oppenent to the ground without a flexible element or a hook, or they don't. This was never for me about munchkin points, as I play casters, usually. For me, this was a simulation question. Per JJ, they don't, so in order to allow a stick, axe or other weapon to overbear and bring an opponent to ground, someone would have to create a feat for it, at this time. The rules do need to include some element of clarification to indicate that "as a melee attack" means one thing for bullrush and trip, and something else for disarm and sunder. That is all there is to it right now, because, as Quandry has been indicated, the same phrase means two different things.
EDIT: You too, TreeLynx. I am curious which school.
My wife trains in Nami Ryu.
Can we just stop this moot line of discussion at this time, as I asked above? Grounding techniques exist which use weapons as an extension of the body for leverage, some of which do not involve throwing off your center or hooking, or touching a leg at all, some of which happen to also be cutting techniques, which the game cannot model in a balanced way. Going way off into the nuts and bolts of how it happens is something I think no one on this board is qualified to discuss, as those people usually don't spend their time playing and arguing about role playing games. At our best, we have some training and observation, but we certainly aren't usually at a level where we could be starting our own martial traditions.
Edit to reiterate:
The rules do need to include some element of clarification to indicate that "as a melee attack" means one thing for bullrush and trip, and something else for disarm and sunder. That is all there is to it right now, because, as Quandary has indicated, the same phrase means two different things.
I studied knife fighting back in the 90s. It was more than just knife fighting but also included elements of other martial arts. We learned how to trip a person with a knife. But realistically you aren't actually tripping the person with the actual knife. You are tripping the person with your leg and sticking them with the knife when they lose balance.
I also studied Kenjitsu and I wouldn't call that tripping with Boken. That more bashing someone in the leg. Sure they go prone but if you had used a katana you would have remove their leg. I can see how you could trip with a lot of weapons but that's not what the weapons were designed for. But nothing should stop you from doing so but I don't see how weapon training would apply or weapon focus as that would be applied using the weapon properly. The magical bonus would also enhance the use of the weapon's proper technique. So even though you could use a long sword to trip you wouldn't apply the bonuses on that weapon.
This is just my opinion though.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's a joke son, a joke!
If you're offended, you /probably/ need to Chill Out. Maybe even take the chip off your shoulder. Seriously, no offense intended.
No offense taken. There are certainly people on these boards who would not intend it as a joke, and I couldn't tell by your tone of voice how serious you were.
Incidentally, welcome to the boards. You ask great questions, provide coherent answers, and seem a decent sort of fellow. I expect Lilith will be by with cookies any time now. (Hint: try the snickerdoodles.)
I studied knife fighting back in the 90s. It was more than just knife fighting but also included elements of other martial arts. We learned how to trip a person with a knife. But realistically you aren't actually tripping the person with the actual knife. You are tripping the person with your leg and sticking them with the knife when they lose balance.
I also studied Kenjitsu and I wouldn't call that tripping with Boken. That more bashing someone in the leg. Sure they go prone but if you had used a katana you would have remove their leg. I can see how you could trip with a lot of weapons but that's not what the weapons were designed for. But nothing should stop you from doing so but I don't see how weapon training would apply or weapon focus as that would be applied using the weapon properly. The magical bonus would also enhance the use of the weapon's proper technique. So even though you could use a long sword to trip you wouldn't apply the bonuses on that weapon.
This is just my opinion though.
On the other hand, take a look at some of the weapons which are given the "trip" descriptor. Sickle, Kama and the Scythe. None of these weapons were designed as specific tripping weapons (only the Kama comes even close in some forms of its use) and all of them "hook" with the sharp edge of the blade. Thus you'd just as likely shear someone's legs off with a Scythe as you would with a sword (which you could actually turn to use the flat of the blade to hit someone over the knees with)
On the other hand, take a look at some of the weapons which are given the "trip" descriptor. Sickle, Kama and the Scythe. None of these weapons were designed as specific tripping weapons (only the Kama comes even close in some forms of its use) and all of them "hook" with the sharp edge of the blade. Thus you'd just as likely shear someone's legs off with a Scythe as you would with a sword (which you could actually turn to use the flat of the blade to hit someone over the knees with)
You're right. The Scythe and Sickle should do damage when you trip with them. Maybe all the trip weapons should. I think we'd have a balance problem if they did though.
Incidentally, I believe that hitting someone with the flat of your blade is called intentionally dealing subdual damage and there's a -4 for that.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It seems to me that the point is being missed here.
Here are my 2 cents:From the PRD: "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."
Okay, as an experienced GM, I think the wording is obvious, you can attempt a trip COMBAT MANUVER with any weapon or without a weapon, but you can only make a "TRIP ATTACK" with a trip weapon. That is, a trip weapon is a weapon that maintains full functionality when applied as a tripping implement (i.e. a scythe). The down-side to doing this is that you have to hit their AC or you get no trip attempt, ergo, it is less useful against highly armored opponents whereas, if you only attempt a trip, you just do the manuver check which is statistically much easier than having to beat both their AC and CMB. So the give and take is that if you really want to trip you forego the attack and just do the manuver, but if you like your odds, you can do a "trip attack" instead and potentially do damage too. Essentially trip weapons work like a wolf's trip ability.
That is the most amazingly... creative interpretation I've ever seen. That's so farfetched that I'm leaning toward believing you're just trolling.
But in case you're not, the reason the word "attack" is used is probably related to the fact that combat maneuver rolls are a subtype of attack rolls, with special rules (like trying to hit CMD instead of AC). Your "theory" that the trip quality lets you make a normal attack whose success then results in a subsequent trip is further refuted by the existence of a feat that lets you make a trip attempt for free when you crit with a regular attack. Why would a feat exist to allow that when you could instead use a Trip Weapon and get a BETTER effect (only need to hit, not crit)? The answer is that your interpretation is wrong, and likely based on a poor understanding of the differences between Pathfinder and 3.5 in regard to combat maneuvers.
Hopefully this clears it up for you.
I don't recall ever needing a weapon or other object in my hands to trip someone on the playground in Elementary School. Is someone suggesting that battle-hardened warriors can't figure out how to use their leg to trip someone?
Hell, the text for the combat maneuver even says that you trip yourself if you fail the check by a certain amount. You can trip yourself with a staff just as much as you can trip yourself by catching one foot on the other.
It seems to me that the point is being missed here.
Here are my 2 cents:From the PRD: "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."
Okay, as an experienced GM, I think the wording is obvious, you can attempt a trip COMBAT MANUVER with any weapon or without a weapon, but you can only make a "TRIP ATTACK" with a trip weapon. That is, a trip weapon is a weapon that maintains full functionality when applied as a tripping implement (i.e. a scythe). The down-side to doing this is that you have to hit their AC or you get no trip attempt, ergo, it is less useful against highly armored opponents whereas, if you only attempt a trip, you just do the manuver check which is statistically much easier than having to beat both their AC and CMB. So the give and take is that if you really want to trip you forego the attack and just do the manuver, but if you like your odds, you can do a "trip attack" instead and potentially do damage too. Essentially trip weapons work like a wolf's trip ability.
This makes perfect sense to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Click my name to go to my profile, then click my "favorite" posts. You'll find a series of posts (awkwardly, in reverse order) from James Jacobs, the creative director, giving an official ruling on Trip and trip weapons. Feel free to read it yourself, but here's a summary:
By default, you make trip attempts without the use of a weapon (i.e., with a leg sweep or whatever).
If the weapon you're wielding has the "trip" quality, then you're able to use the weapon itself to make the attempt (instead of your leg/arm/face/bellybutton).
Thus, if your weapon does NOT have the "trip" quality, then it cannot be used for the trip attempt - you instead make the attempt in the default fashion: using your body. This has the side effect that you must use your natural reach unless your weapon has both "reach" AND "trip".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enduin-
I'm no expert, but I'm not aware of a difference between a trip-combat-maneuver and a trip-attack. My understanding is that when you use a weapon to trip, you forgo the damage and just try to knock someone down. It doesn't, AFAIK, work like a wolf's trip, where you do a damage attack, and if it hits, you get to try a take-down as well. Cool idea, but I've never heard of it working like that.
BTW, here is the FAQ on tripping, and below that James' response that Jiggy refers to.
If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?
No. Note that when making a trip combat maneuver, you don't need to use a weapon at all--for example, you can trip when you're unarmed, even though unarmed strike isn't listed as a trip weapon.
There are advantages to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a "trip weapon") when making a trip combat maneuver. One, if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone. Two, you can apply the weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon-specific attack bonuses such as Weapon Focus, and so on to your trip combat maneuver roll.
For example, you'd add the enhancement bonus from a +5 whip to your trip combat maneuver roll because a whip is a trip weapon. You wouldn't add the enhancement bonus from a +5 longsword to your trip combat maneuver roll because a longsword is not a trip weapon. In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt.—Sean K Reynolds, 03/15/11
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.
;)
And AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, James Jacobs was again over-ruled on a rules issue.
Which is why I don´t prefer to ask him about such subjects, though (as the quote obviously shows) he gets quite tetchy when somebody makes clear that they are interested in a RAW-based opinion and/or official Errata. Hopefully now that it seems the Rules Team is more ´on it´ in terms of FAQ/Errata, these questions can now be answered by those best qualified to deal with them.
The FAQ obviously implies that this area will be getting Errata in the next printing, since nothing else in the game, much less anything reasonably invokable from the RAW of Trip, implies such a distinction about Weapon Enhancement Bonuses.
Good to see my original post is still correct (:
* You don't need a trip weapon to make a trip attempt.
* Yes, things can be easier if you do use a trip weapon -- you add bonuses for that weapon on your trip attempts. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the trip weapon to avoid being "counter" tripped.
* There is no such thing as a trip attempt with unarmed strike.
* There is an unarmed trip attempt, which you have to use if you're not wielding a trip weapon.
* You can't make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, James Jacobs was again over-ruled on a rules issue.
Has he been overruled on this rules issue? If so, please link. If not, then... I guess thanks for the reminder that you think there will be eratta.
But to be clear to anyone searching the Rules forum for an answer on trip rules:
No such eratta has been issued so far. Thus, Quandary's position is speculation and the current rules (and therefore what you can expect in organized play, though of course you're free to houserule) are as have been summarized/linked by James Jacobs, meabolex, Mosaic, and myself. As it currently stands, that is how tripping "officially" works.
@Quandary - I get that you personally anticipate a change, and it wouldn't bother me if that happened. However (and this is nothing more than a friendly request - disregard if you wish), seeing as the Rules board is where people - especially new players - will be searching for answers, I think it would be considerate if you tried to focus on what the current official rules are, rather than what you expect them to become later, lest a newbie confuse one for the other.
Uh... Not all of that quote is correct.
You CAN make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon.
...You just don´t use weapon-specific bonuses, including Enhancement bonus, for that weapon.
Which would imply you CAN use UAS to deliver a Trip.
It isn´t clear if the ´unarmed´ Trip option is in fact the same as this, or a separate, truly ´weaponless´ option.
Has he been overruled on this rules issue? If so, please link.
Read the FAQ for the Core Rules.
Start in top-right corner of screen, located in Core Rules: Gear and Magic Items.This has been there since the middle of March, BTW.
@Quandary - I get that you personally anticipate a change, and it wouldn't bother me if that happened. However (and this is nothing more than a friendly request - disregard if you wish), seeing as the Rules board is where people - especially new players - will be searching for answers, I think it would be considerate if you tried to focus on what the current official rules are, rather than what you expect them to become later, lest a newbie confuse one for the other.
The FAQ is how it ´officially´ works now, but as I noted, there is no currently announced Errata to implement that in the RAW, and the FAQ explanation is IN NO WAY something anybody could get by reading the current RAW. So when I mention that fact, it is because the CURRENT situation could be confusing to a typical board reader, and that fact is completely up to Paizo´s own actions for issuing FAQ which CONFLICTS with actual RAW.
James Jacobs´ ´reading´ never was official, he never tried to support it by the RAW, and he never even clarified all implications of his reading, e.g. whether or not non-Weapon Trip was delivered by UAS or not (his ´imagery´ of Trip conformed to UAS). But he´s not a ´Rules Guy´ at Paizo, so I don´t know why anybody would expect him to issue correct and incisive rulings on the RAW, just because he happens to be an awesome guy who likes to share his love of the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You CAN make a trip attempt with a weapon that isn't marked as a trip weapon.
Not under current rules, no.
As has been pointed out, quoted, referenced, linked, and verified as "official", a trip attempt by default uses no weapon, and in order to use a weapon to make the trip attempt, that weapon needs to have the "trip" ability.
I've already provided links upthread to where this was explicitly stated, as well as declared to be an official ruling. So unless you can link an official source explicitly stating the opposite, then your position is nothing more than your own interpretation. If you have such a source, then link it. Please please please stop simply pitting your own word against official rulings.