RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.
Yes, I've read that, and nothing in it contradicts what the rest of us have been saying in any way.
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)
And this is all wrong. You need to read all the things linked before stating what has "never" been said or established.
OK, I will bold the relevant parts of the FAQ for you (that don´t conform to what Meabo posted)
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
So you CAN make Trips with non-Trip Weapons, including UAS or Longspears.
The first sentence (after the ´--´) is even in line with unarmed Trip using Unarmed Strike, though that isn´t clear.Since I was so nice to provide links and quotes, I´d appreciate any quotes:
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
OK, I will bold the relevant parts of the FAQ for you (that don´t conform to what Meabo posted)
So you CAN make Trips with non-Trip Weapons, including UAS or Longspears.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
Is this sentence of yours supposed to be related to what you bolded?
Since I was so nice to provide links and quotes, I´d appreciate any quotes:
Demonstrating that James Jacobs advice has any official standing (I´m pretty sure he himself has stated otherwise)
Here's the second referral of this post. Please actually read it this time before you again state that it's never been said. I would call your attention to the words "consider my earlier response official."
Of James Jacobs discussing the relevant RAW for Trip (i.e. the maneuver itself is worded exactly like Disarm with no other restrictions)
How about this one? For some reason the link seems buggy, so look for the James Jacobs post with the 9:26 timestamp. The key line is "But as far as I can tell by reading the rules... they're pretty dang clear."
Of him responding to my question as to how to square his description of Trip being delivered ´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.´ with his usage of ´you don´t normally use a weapon´, i.e. whether ´weapon´ includes IUS/Natural Weapons or only means manufactured weapons.
This one (i.e., whether "weapon" includes Unarmed Strike/Natural Weapons or just manufactured weapons) is not, to my knowledge, explicitly called out. I would therefore, as in every other instance of the word "weapon" anywhere in rules, FAQs, or other sources ever, consider "weapon" to be the umbrella term of which US/NW are subcategories - therefore, barring specification elsewhere, it would be logical to conclude that trip not using a weapon means it doesn't use ANY non-trip weapon, whether manufactured, natural, or of the Improved Unarmed variety.
If you notice, the FAQ is EXPLICITLY describing performing a Trip WITH A LONGSWORD, which doesn´t have the Trip quality. It´s going into how you don´t apply the Enhancement bonus to this check, but you are using the weapon itself to perform the maneuver. Which is against JJ´s previous opinion. And very very relevant for Reach Weapon users and characters with extra Natural Attacks, etc. Again, as I pointed out, the first line after the ¨--¨ is completely in-line with Unarmed Trips being delivered via Unarmed Strike (even if it doesn´t verify that directly), which is what I interpret the FAQ to in fact be saying - If unarmed Trip was some wierd ´vectorless´ maneuver independent of UAS like Grapple is, I would have expected the FAQ to point that out.
Thanks for James´ quote saying that. I do know he´s otherwise said that, not having any official role with Paizo rules-wise, his posts are generally just his opinion, or how ´he would rule it as a GM´, and aren´t necessarily official. Too bad one of the few times he claimed offical-ness, it was fairly drastically changed. Again, why would anybody EXPECT JJ to make any official rulings on PRPG rules? He doesn´t really have any role involving crunch at Paizo.
I tried but couldn´t find any 9:26 time-stamp (searching for 9:26).
Such a quote as you found doesn´t come close to what I´m talking about.
JJ´s ruling includes a restriction that is nowhere found in the Trip rules or anywhere else for that matter, yet he gives no reason why his ruling contains such a restriction. If he explained that RAI is XYZ which is in-line with extrapolation of ABC, and applies to X even though X in no way has any such restriction per RAW (and Y written the exact same way isn´t affected by his ruling), that would be on par with what I´m talking about in terms of having a specific connection to RAW. I still have no idea on what RAW basis JJ formed his opinion, or what specific parts of RAW he was over-riding in anticipation of Errata. This isn´t un-typical for JJ posts about questions, he usually makes a GM gut-check, which is fine, but not when one is interested in clarifying the exact RAW/RAI.
You´re right that that´s how the usage of weapon would be normally interpreted from rules text, and that´s why I considered that interpretation to possibly be what he meant... But we´re NOT talking rules text, we´re talking JJ´s forum posts. And as I said, I specifically asked him to clarify that distinction, because his description of Tripping pretty much exactly conformed to how one could describe UAS, i.e. in conflict with the ´normal rules reading of ´weapon´´. Yet there was never any answer AFAIK. This is another thing that makes me think, if he was particularly concerned with RAW, why wouldn´t he want to clarify such a distinction? Isn´t it an important distinction whether or not certain attack bonuses apply?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you notice, the FAQ is EXPLICITLY describing performing a Trip WITH A LONGSWORD
Not in the way you mean it, no. "With" a longsword, simply by rules of the English language, can mean two very different things: one, it could mean "by means of using" ("with a longsword" becomes "by means of using a longsword"), or two, "while wielding a longsword" ("perform a trip while wielding a longsword"). One of them implies the weapon is involved, the other simply that it's present.
Now, again just by how English works, we have to decide how to interpret that one tiny little phrase that you yanked out of the FAQ by examining context clues - what's being said in the rest of the FAQ? The content of the rest of the FAQ can tell us which of the two different meanings of the phrase "with a +5 longsword" was actually meant. Other things said in the FAQ include:
• Weapons aren't needed for a trip attempt
• You don't add bonuses related to a non-trip weapon (whether inherent to the weapon or from feats) to a trip attempt
• "In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword"
• "...the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt"
Now, which way of interpreting "with a +5 longsword" fits the rest of the content of the FAQ? Three of the above points don't seem to reasonably fit with the idea of the sword being part of the attempt. If you were actually using the sword to make the attempt, then why wouldn't you add its bonuses? If the sword is involved, then why is there no difference between a +5 longsword and an unarmed trip? Shouldn't there be a +5 difference? And if the sword is used in the attempt, then why doesn't it help you in the attempt?
If you interpret "with a +5 longsword" to mean "by means of using a longsword", then the rest of the FAQ seems arbitrary and counterintuitive. If you interpret "with a +5 longsword" to mean "while wielding a +5 longsword", then the statement in question fits perfectly with the rest of the FAQ and everything makes sense.
The same goes for interpreting the FAQ in light of JJ's rulings (the one must not have been 9:26 - it was 9 something, unless my time settings are off or something, or we're in different time zones; in any case, it's visible in my "favorites" in my profile, as I already stated earlier). If you choose to interpret a certain four words in the FAQ a certain way, you have to not only reconcile apparent inconsistencies within the FAQ itself, but also view it as being in direct contradiction with other rulings. If you choose to interpret those four measly words the other way, then suddenly everything makes sense, there are no contradictions of any kind, and you have an answer and don't need to wait for any eratta.
Now if there are two ways to interpret a tiny phrase - nay, a SINGLE WORD - and one conflicts with most material and the other doesn't, then why do you keep choosing to interpret it in the most difficult way possible? The RAW is less than explicit. The rules of language offer two different interpretations of "with a +5 longsword". That leaves nothing but context and rulings to use for extrapolating meaning. That context, those rulings, they all coincide with one interpretation and conflict with the other. Yet you persistently choose to not only interpret this (apparently) all-important phrase in the way that conflicts with all other evidence, but then also choose to believe that the conflict results from all the other evidence being wrong, rather than that phrase or your interpretation thereof.
I have cited rulings. I have quoted, I have linked, I have referenced. I have broken down material to its base components for analysis. I have analyzed the available information in every rational way possible. I have said nothing that I could not back up with plain facts. I have sorted data into logical pieces for clarity. I have done everything there is to do to show what's what and why.
As you have not yet responded to logic in any way - choosing to simply restate your claims or deny the validity of contradicting sources rather than mount any sort of rational counterargument - I see no reason to think you will suddenly begin now. Thus, I'm done. Anyone else reading has more than enough material to understand how trip currently works according to both the FAQ and JJ's official ruling and how they support each other. I'll just have to accept that a handful of people will (as JJ put it) stubbornly refuse to accept it, and try to content myself with the fact that 99% of people searching for trip rulings will come away from this with their questions answered.
Good day, Quandary. I hope someday you get the closure you need (whatever that may be).
The FAQ was referring to using the longsword to actually make the trip, but you not getting the bonuses that would apply to any other attack roll. The intent was to say the weapon is involved but it is a nonfactor. Effectively it may as well not even be involved since it is a nonfactor since you get no bonuses from it. speaking it may as well.
I don't know who was arguing which side, but the point is you can use the longsword, however it does no good.
Combat maneuvers have nothing to do with the anatomy of the creature making them. If YOU can describe how your character is performing the maneuver that knocks down your opponent, your GM can allow the opponent to be knocked down, or require you to come up with something else. That's the GM's job, to arbitrate your setting and run the critters you're up against, be they snakes or spiders or bandits or zombies or pirates.
Trips:
*The barbarian lunges forward and grabs the bandit by the throat, cleanly jerking the smaller human off the ground, growling angrily up at the puny excuse for a man and then smacking him down on his back at the barbarian's fur-clad feet.
*The fighter bulls up close to the large dragon and smacks it one, two, three times with his shield, each step into the creature's mass unbalancing it more until it drops on its side at his feet, at the mercy of his companion's blades and in dire straights.
*The monk spins his +3 staff and knocks both zombies off their feet with a low sweep, the undead hitting the ground with a sickening squelch as he retakes his stance and shifts out of their direct, flanking line. (Note that in this case the weapon is mentioned, but the character, not using a trip weapon, cannot make the +3 bonus of the staff work in his favor. But he had a convenient stick.)
*The bill-fighter backs away, hooking his polearm beneath the bear's front foot, but the thing keeps charging at him, and he cannot divert its course. Rather than be pulled off balance by the charging beast, he drops his bill and hopes that his spiked gauntlet will provide him enough offensive countermeasure to keep from being torn apart by the angry grizzly. (Look, a trip weapon that failed!)
*Waist deep in mud, the monk cannot use a leg sweep to trip. Actually, he can't really move much at all. Luckily his ninja opponent, using light steps to dance across the muddy surface, wasn't able to leap quite far enough over the mired martial artist, and he gets pulled down *splat* into the mud with his foe on a lucky ankle grab, even though his short sword left a deadly scar in the monk's forearm! (Note that the Monk, despite having Unarmed Strike, STILL provokes attacks of opportunity without having improved trip. It has nothing to do with weapon proficiency or bonuses, and even an amulet of mighty fists doesn't add to your CMB!)
*The blackguard rides close to the paladin, swinging his unholy morningstar. His hydra mount, trained arduously with by its vile rider, snatches out with one of its many heads to drag the paladin's horse to the ground! Thankfully, both horse and paladin strike out at the hydra, dealing 54 damage to the unwise beast! Sadly, the hydra lurches forward undaunted by its failed attempt, despite the abysmal unbalancing, allowing his laughing rider a chance to mock the Paladin as the many-headed monstrosity heals. (Despite failing its trip attempt by way more than 10, the hydra cannot be tripped in return since it has no legs! The hydra doesn't actually use a 'natural weapon' to make the trip attempt, but it does make the trip attempt in place of using one of its natural weapons.)
*The two bards circle around each other warily, calling insults and challenges to each other to try and provoke the first move while swishing their rapiers in impressive flourishes. When the first bard darts in, the second shows that even bards can have impressive combat tricks. Flashing back to the many hours of training with his stoic fighter friend, the second bard deflects the first's clumsy thrust, and sweeps his leg out, spinning a full, beautiful circle that leaves the first bard floating for nearly a second in the air before he comes smashing down to the floor with a thunderous crash, gasping to regain his wind. Who could have seen it coming?
I hope these examples help to provide some context and examples for you. They're all backed up by the rules as provided in the core book on pages 198 and 199 (Combat Maneuvers), 201 (Trip Combat Maneuver), 145 (Trip weapon special ability), 126 (Greater Trip), and 128 (Improved Trip).
You must always remember two things when you read a Pathfinder Rulebook. You must follow the rules of the language the rulebook is written in (in my case English), and you must remember that Pathfinder is a game of exceptions. They do not tell you all the things you CANNOT do, they only tell you the things they can. In English, any period (.) denotes a full-stop. The statement preceding the period is whole and complete, assuming that the writers have followed the rules of English and the editors have correctly proofed the document.
Note that on page 145 it says:
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.
Since Pathfinder game rules are based on exceptions, any weapon that does NOT have the Trip weapon special ability cannot be used to make trips.
However:
p199 Pathfinder Core Rulebook]
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. The DC of this maneuver is your
target’s Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers
are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and
take any other penalties that would normally apply to an
attack roll.
The same logic that tells us you cannot make every iterative attack at your full CMB to sunder everything around you (since you apply a -5 iterative penalty to your iterative attacks) you also apply all bonuses and/or penalties to combat maneuvers. If you have Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) your Unarmed Combat Maneuvers do not gain a +1 bonus. Combat Maneuvers are, by definition, not unarmed strikes unless you are punching through someone's shield with Sunder. If you are not proficient in the use of flail, your trip attack with the flail has a -4 penalty, or you can trip without using the flail and avoid the penalty, but even using the flail doesn't prevent the attack of opportunity. If you have a +4 flail you are not proficient in, the bonus and penalty cancel out, but you still don't avoid the attack of opportunity without the improved trip feat. Tripping someone with a guisarme avoids attacks of opportunity unless your opponent also has reach.
I hope this clarifies any confusion you may have on the use of trips and the vagaries of combat maneuvers.