Starting a new thread here, as the other one is bloated and based on a fundamental idea that needs to be discarded, as I will briefly explain:
The question, of course, is 'do you need a trip weapon to trip someone?'
The RAW (and RAI) answer here is a clear and definitive no... no interpretation required. The trip maneuver has no more to do with weapons than the grapple maneuver does. To quote the PRD:
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
You can perform a trip in place of a melee attack. No qualifiers, no conditions. No mention of a weapon. A CMB check is an attack roll, but - again - that isn't any more relevant to the use of a weapon than a bull rush is.
Now then, certian weapons DO call out that they can be used to perform a trip maneuver... which makes sense since those cases are exceptions to the rule. In those cases, the tripper recieves the benefits described in the weapon's entry.
The rules are crystal clear here, the trip maneuver (as with every other maneuver save for the disarm maneuver) has nothing to do with weapons.
Put like that seems to be crystal clear to me to me too.
First: I agree with your interpretation and have not read the bloated trip thread.
I think the only question I see is "in place of a melee attack." Does that mean if you are unarmed and use unarmed strike you provoke a second AoO? 1 even if you have the improved trip feat?
This is so rare as to be virtually irrelevant, but I'm not sure how I would rule on it.
You can perform a trip in place of a melee attack. No qualifiers, no conditions. No mention of a weapon. A CMB check is an attack roll, but - again - that isn't any more relevant to the use of a weapon than a bull rush is.
I think part of the debate is that, for example, fighters get a bonus to their CMs if they use a weapon that they have Weapon Training in.
So, if the fighter has Weapon Training in double weapons, can he stick out his quarterstaff to trip someone (a very reasonable thing to do with a quarterstaff) and thus get his Weapon Training bonus for the trip attempt? Only since it's not a "Trip" weapon, it's just that if he fails, he will be able to be tripped in return and not be able to drop the weapon to avoid the trip.
Or is it essentially an "unarmed" attempt (but not an unarmed strike; i.e., he sticks his foot out to trip someone, not his staff) and thus he gets no bonuses? (And would he get bonuses if he had the Unarmed/Close Weapon Training?)
The "melee attack" wording is what confuses people, since it's not clear what you are making the melee attack with.
A trip attempt is NOT like a bull rush or an overrun, where you're obviously using your whole body to just force through. Nor is it exactly in a category with Disarming and Sundering, which both can use weapons (in fact, I wouldn't try sundering without a weapon unless you're a really good monk). And we have Grapple, which you don't use weapons to initiate but can use (light) weapons during. There's no real pattern we can reliably follow looking at the other combat maneuvers.
3.5 had it worded as "unarmed attack" which was much clearer.
I think your interpretation is a solid reading, but unfortunately--I think there is room for confusion here, or else the first debate would not have gone as long as it did.
I think part of the debate is that, for example, fighters get a bonus to their CMs if they use a weapon that they have Weapon Training in.
Which makes perfect sense, since some weapons may be used to trip, as notated in their individual entries. Fighters specializing in those weapons may apply the bonuses from Weapon Training. This would also apply to disam and sunders, etc., which also makes sense. : )
A trip attempt is NOT like a bull rush or an overrun, where you're obviously using your whole body to just force through. Nor is it exactly in a category with Disarming and Sundering, which both can use weapons...
Mechanically, it is very much like bull rush, overrun, and most other maneuvers. As with most other maneuvers, nothing connects a trip CMB check with a weapon (though certian weapons are notated as being specially compatable with a trip).
3.5 had it worded as "unarmed attack" which was much clearer.Ah, but read literally, without consideration for 'how it used to work', the mechanics are very clear as written - as I've illustrated above! I would guess that the discrepency between 'how it works now' and 'how WotC did it' is responsible for most of the confusion.
Which makes perfect sense, since some weapons may be used to trip, as notated in their individual entries. Fighters specializing in those weapons may apply the bonuses from Weapon Training. This would also apply to disam and sunders, etc., which also makes sense. : )Mechanically, it is very much like bull rush, overrun, and most other maneuvers. As with most other maneuvers, nothing connects a trip CMB check with a weapon (though certian weapons are notated as being specially compatable with a trip).
The only question remaining residual from the other thread is whether a +5 quarterstaff wielded by a fighter with Weapon Focus (quarterstaff), Weapon Training, et al. gets to add all of those bonuses to trip attempts made by hir when wielding said quarterstaff. By RAW, the answer is yes, but some people have made the exclusionary argument that this would only be true if the quarterstaff had the sentence "This weapon can be used to make trip attempts."
So, the real question is whether a +5 quarterstaff gives a +5 enhancement bonus to trip attempts, or whether only a +5 halberd or +5 spiked chain and similar other "trip weapons" give this bonus.
The only question remaining residual from the other thread is whether a +5 quarterstaff wielded by a fighter with Weapon Focus (quarterstaff), Weapon Training, et al. gets to add all of those bonuses to trip attempts made by hir when wielding said quarterstaff. By RAW, the answer is yes...
That's an easy question to answer: RAW and RAI say no; and they say it clearly. A combat maneuver check is an attack roll that uses your CMB modifier in place of your regular modifiers. To quote the PRD:
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.
If you were making a disarm or sunder attempt, your weapon would be very applicable, as detailed in the descriptions of those maneuvers! Likewise, you could use a halberd or a spiked chain to trip, as detailed in the descriptions for those weapons.
Nothing about the quarterstaff, short sword, greataxe, (and so on) is applicable to a trip maneuver. Reading the 'trip' entry, you can see that nothing there suggests the influence of a weapon any more than is true for the bull rush maneuver, overrun maneuver, grapple maneuver, etc. In the specific case of the quarterstaff, that might be a bit disappointing, but the rules clearly state what a trip CMB check entails.
There is no part of this issue on which the rules are silent. The answers are plain, there just seems to be some confusion about the way a trip used to work.
Referenced under Equipment Weapons: "Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."
This points out that you can use this weapon in a trip attack. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality you can't use it in a trip attack.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
This points out that any bonuses you apply must applicable to the weapon used or the attack. So if the weapon used is trip weapon you can trip and the bonus applying to that weapon are used in that attack. They are applicable. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality then the bonus specific to that weapon are not applicable.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
You can trip place of any melee attack. This doesn't say you use whatever weapon you are wielding to trip. It just says you can trip. That's the action you take instead. It's not a unarmed attack but it still provokes an attack of opportunity. Basically trip is replacement action of it's own.
This seem quite clear to me. I admit I was confused at first but when you put all 3 pieces in place it seems quite clear.
You've got it, voska.
It seems cleaner now, at least.
At dissonance with simulation, but cleaner.
One question, however, remains.
Can you trip any creature up to one size category larger within your current reach? Assuming, of course, that the reach is not a natural reach.
Here's a repost from the other thread (:
Pathfinder has changed the rules such that weapons now contribute their bonuses to combat maneuvers. This is great news for people who hated the 3.5 trip mechanics. It means that you can add your weapon's bonuses (enhancement and feats) to the CMB roll. However, the rules are specific in that they label weapons you can make a trip with. You can't make a trip attack with every weapon -- which makes sense. No sap trips, no armor spike trips, no trips with a rock improvised weapon. Trip weapons are decided by their battlefield capability to trip up foes -- things with curves, hooks, and things that wrap around make battlefield-capable trip weapons. The designers balanced weapons around what was able to be a trip weapon -- feel free to house-rule it in your game if you feel a falchion is curved enough to be a trip weapon.
But you don't need a weapon to make a trip attempt. Unarmed strike isn't a trip weapon. You don't make unarmed strike trips. You just make unarmed trips. Thus, you don't add bonuses for unarmed strike on your trip attempts. Likewise, you don't add the enhancement bonus from your wielded longsword into your trip -- it isn't a trip weapon.
So in summary:
* 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.
|
So wait. Are you guys saying that you can only trip with weapons that are trip weapons or with a wholly different action? How is that action performed? Is it a leg sweep, shove or slide? What if you don't have legs or are unable to move your legs? What if you have your hands occupied with a weapon and shield and feet mired in mud, unable to move them? Can you still trip? What is an actual trip? I understand that Trip Weapons can be used to perform a trip but what else is needed to qualify for a trip? Legs? Arms? A Tail? "In place of a Melee attack" is not specific enough to tell us how a trip happens. I could have a Heavy shield in one hand, a longsword in the other, and both feet glued to the ground with some magical glue. Can I trip? I can make a melee attack but how could I trip someone? Nothing states I need a free limb or movement, just a melee attack. If I can't perform a trip with a longsword then please clear up how I could in that instance and the rules that state that I would be able to or unable to perform it.
It seems cleaner now, at least.
At dissonance with simulation, but cleaner.
Yeah, it is a bit disappointing that a quarterstaff isn't a trip weapon, but the theme of what constitutes a trip weapon seems to be 'weapons with hooks on them'.
One question, however, remains.
Can you trip any creature up to one size category larger within your current reach?
Quite a different issue, but since the first issue is clearly resolved...
A CMB check is executed in place of a melee attack. If you can't make a melee attack, you can't make a CMB check. I assume you're asking to determine wether or not weilding a reach weapon allows you to trip at that weapon's reach.
Let's look at the PRD:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.
So you can make a melee attack into all squares into which you threaten, and you threaten more squares when weilding a reach weapon.
Here we do have room for interpretation, and must determine RAI. Can you make an attack with your spiked gauntlet at ten feet if you are weilding a longspear? The rules say you can make a melee attack into all squares into which you threaten!
Probably not, eh? The gauntlet isn't relevant to the longspear's reach. For the same reason, most players and GMs would probably not interpret the rules in such a way that a longspear enables one to bull rush, grapple, trip, or make an unarmed strike at a reach outside of their natural range.
It's an interesting issue, though. Thoughts, anyone?
Are you guys saying that you can only trip with weapons that are trip weapons or with a wholly different action? How is that action performed?
A shove, a body slam, a leg (or tail?) sweep, a throw. It's not important, mechanically.
One way or another, you maneuver the other guy to the ground. A CMB check is influenced by BAB and feats (martial training), strength, and size. Use some combination of those factors to imagine whatever flavor you like.
So wait. Are you guys saying that you can only trip with weapons that are trip weapons or with a wholly different action? How is that action performed? Is it a leg sweep, shove or slide? What if you don't have legs or are unable to move your legs? What if you have your hands occupied with a weapon and shield and feet mired in mud, unable to move them? Can you still trip? What is an actual trip? I understand that Trip Weapons can be used to perform a trip but what else is needed to qualify for a trip? Legs? Arms? A Tail? "In place of a Melee attack" is not specific enough to tell us how a trip happens. I could have a Heavy shield in one hand, a longsword in the other, and both feet glued to the ground with some magical glue. Can I trip? I can make a melee attack but how could I trip someone? Nothing states I need a free limb or movement, just a melee attack. If I can't perform a trip with a longsword then please clear up how I could in that instance and the rules that state that I would be able to or unable to perform it.
By letter of the rule it really doesn't matter. How it actually happens is just fluff description left up to person describing the maneuver. The rules say you can do now it's your job to visualize and describe it.
|
|
By letter of the rule it really doesn't matter. How it actually happens is just fluff description left up to person describing the maneuver. The rules say you can do now it's your job to visualize and describe it.So wait. Are you guys saying that you can only trip with weapons that are trip weapons or with a wholly different action? How is that action performed? Is it a leg sweep, shove or slide? What if you don't have legs or are unable to move your legs? What if you have your hands occupied with a weapon and shield and feet mired in mud, unable to move them? Can you still trip? What is an actual trip? I understand that Trip Weapons can be used to perform a trip but what else is needed to qualify for a trip? Legs? Arms? A Tail? "In place of a Melee attack" is not specific enough to tell us how a trip happens. I could have a Heavy shield in one hand, a longsword in the other, and both feet glued to the ground with some magical glue. Can I trip? I can make a melee attack but how could I trip someone? Nothing states I need a free limb or movement, just a melee attack. If I can't perform a trip with a longsword then please clear up how I could in that instance and the rules that state that I would be able to or unable to perform it.
That's one way to conveniently cover up an issue.
I still think that trip needs to be cleared up as to what it is. If I played in a Society game and was in the condition I described I could reasonably expect the GM to rule in either direction as to whether I could trip or not. There needs to be a definition as to what a trip is. You guys obviously are happy with your interpretations but that isn't enough for some, including me.|
|
It seems cleaner now, at least.
At dissonance with simulation, but cleaner.
Yeah, it is a bit disappointing that a quarterstaff isn't a trip weapon, but the theme of what constitutes a trip weapon seems to be 'weapons with hooks on them'.
One question, however, remains.
Can you trip any creature up to one size category larger within your current reach?Quite a different issue, but since the first issue is clearly resolved...
A CMB check is executed in place of a melee attack. If you can't make a melee attack, you can't make a CMB check. I assume you're asking to determine wether or not weilding a reach weapon allows you to trip at that weapon's reach.
Let's look at the PRD:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.
So you can make a melee attack into all squares into which you threaten, and you threaten more squares when weilding a reach weapon.
Here we do have room for interpretation, and must determine RAI. Can you make an attack with your spiked gauntlet at ten feet if you are weilding a longspear? The rules say you can make a melee attack into all squares into which you threaten!
Probably not, eh? The gauntlet isn't relevant to the longspear's reach. For the same reason, most players and GMs would probably not interpret the rules in such a way that a longspear enables one to bull rush, grapple, trip, or make an unarmed strike at a reach outside of their natural range.
It's an interesting issue, though. Thoughts, anyone?
Along those lines, nowhere does it state the trip is done relative to one's natural reach. It says "in place of a melee attack". So I could interpret that as if my melee attack is the qualifier for a trip to happen then the qualifier for where it happens is defined by the conditions for the melee attack allowing me to trip at reach.
|
|
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.
So what attack is used to make a trip other than a weapon? It doesn't state that it is some part of the body and is subject to natural reach.
That's one way to conveniently cover up an issue.
I still think that trip needs to be cleared up as to what it is. If I played in a Society game and was in the condition I described I could reasonably expect the GM to rule in either direction as to whether I could trip or not. There needs to be a definition as to what a trip is. You guys obviously are happy with your interpretations but that isn't enough for some, including me.
Nobody is covering up the issue here, or interpreting the rules with regards to trip maneuvers, for that matter. A literal, logical reading of the (perfectly clear) rules is all that we are putting forth here - particularly as voska has rather gracefully summarized them in post #9. If you are seeing some discrepency in the rules with regards to maneuvers, please point them out!
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.
So what attack is used to make a trip other than a weapon? It doesn't state that it is some part of the body and is subject to natural reach.
That is the question.
If one rules that you could make a melee attack with a spiked gauntlet at a reach of 10 feet, because one is weilding a longspear, I think it would be clear that they were violating the RAI.
By the same token, grappling, tripping, etc, at the same reach seems to violate RAI. From a RAW standpoint it seems that you could make a case for it, but I think the RAI here is clear. Any player or GM with any sense, I think, would rule that a player could not - for example - start a grapple at longspear-range.
|
|
Oh so a trip is ...... what again? OH! A maneuver. What is it performed with again? Either a trip weapon or.....some THING else.....yeah, don't know why anything needs clearing up here.
Thanks for riding in here and saving everyone from their own stupidity.[/sarcasm]
Just because you think you have a clear idea of the rules doesn't automatically make you right. Perhaps in YOUR game you are, but maybe not in someone else's or in Society Play. I am arguing not because I disagree with you guys but because it isn't clear what a trip is. My own beliefs are closely aligned if not exactly the same as your own. The difference is that I can see the murky parts of the rules that can cause problems regarding the clarity of the rules and their interpretation whereas you have everything figured out and are in denial of any possibility of other views that could be drawn from them.
I am arguing not because I disagree with you guys but because it isn't clear what a trip is.
Please explain exactly what part of the rules are unclear, and I would be willing to bet that we can find the solution.
To recap the aforementioned rules:
Referenced under Equipment Weapons: "Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."
This points out that you can use this weapon in a trip attack. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality you can't use it in a trip attack.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
This points out that any bonuses you apply must applicable to the weapon used or the attack. So if the weapon used is trip weapon you can trip and the bonus applying to that weapon are used in that attack. They are applicable. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality then the bonus specific to that weapon are not applicable.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
You can trip place of any melee attack. This doesn't say you use whatever weapon you are wielding to trip. It just says you can trip. That's the action you take instead. It's not a unarmed attack but it still provokes an attack of opportunity.
my problem with this is that Sunder and Disarm use exactly the same basic wording: "in place of a melee attack."
Disarm LATER has a line saying "Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack." but if you're going solely by the interpretation you're promoting here, there's nothing positively directing one to use the weapon (and it's bonuses) as part of the disarm attack roll in the first place, though wielding a weapon somehow avoids a penalty. Sunder doesn't mention weapons or not-weapons anywhere.
and i've actually asked for clarification re: if grapple uses unarmed strike as a 'vehicle' to deliver it's attack, with no answer.
I am arguing not because I disagree with you guys but because it isn't clear what a trip is.Please explain exactly what part of the rules are unclear, and I would be willing to bet that we can find the solution.
To recap the aforementioned rules:
Referenced under Equipment Weapons: "Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."
This points out that you can use this weapon in a trip attack. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality you can't use it in a trip attack.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
This points out that any bonuses you apply must applicable to the weapon used or the attack. So if the weapon used is trip weapon you can trip and the bonus applying to that weapon are used in that attack. They are applicable. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality then the bonus specific to that weapon are not applicable.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
You can trip place of any melee attack. This doesn't say you use whatever weapon you are wielding to trip. It just says you can trip. That's the action you take instead. It's not a unarmed attack but it still provokes an attack of opportunity.
I'd like to disagree with the summary above.
As I read it you can trip with any attack/weapon you have handy (no, the gauntlet/longspear combo doesn't work, you only have reach because of the longspear, thus you can't attack an enemy 10' away with your gauntlet, that's just common sense) - "trip" weapons only bestow the ability to drop it to avoid the result of a bad CMB check.The CMB description and the Trip section clearly spells that out.
IF the above summary should be true, then I'm baffled why it isn't spelled out in the Trip section that you can only use "trip" weapons (or a monk using Flurry of Blows - since Unarmed Attack isn't designated as a "trip" weapon) when making a trip attempt.
I can see that the "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks." line causes a lot of confusion (and I'd also like to make another point from a post in the other thread, namely that it says "can use" not "must use"). I believe it's a superflous sentence - or a descriptive only sentence at best.
So, the way I see it (depending on whether an official ruling is forthcoming and what it is) one of two things is "wrong" in the rules:
1) The "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks." is superflous and should be stricken (because you can use any attack/weapon to Trip).
2) The Trip section is missing a clarification that you can only use "trip" weapons to perform a Trip maneuver.
Disarm LATER has a line saying "Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack."
Sunder doesn't mention weapons or not-weapons anywhere.
No, but sunder does mention a damage roll. A maneuver check is an attack roll with substituted values. Nothing states that damage rolls are substituted or affected in any way, so damage is rolled normally, according to the damage dice on the weapon you are weilding. Thus, your weapon applies, and feats and class features relevant to your weapon apply as well. Similarly, you are correct in that being unarmed imposes a penalty to CMB checks made to disarm an opponent. Being armed with a weapon negates the penalties. Again, your weapon is relevant to the check, so you may apply relevant feats and class features as well.
I am arguing not because I disagree with you guys but because it isn't clear what a trip is.Please explain exactly what part of the rules are unclear, and I would be willing to bet that we can find the solution.
To recap the aforementioned rules:
Referenced under Equipment Weapons: "Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."
This points out that you can use this weapon in a trip attack. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality you can't use it in a trip attack.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
This points out that any bonuses you apply must applicable to the weapon used or the attack. So if the weapon used is trip weapon you can trip and the bonus applying to that weapon are used in that attack. They are applicable. If the weapon doesn't have the trip quality then the bonus specific to that weapon are not applicable.
Referenced under Combat Combat Maneuvers Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
You can trip place of any melee attack. This doesn't say you use whatever weapon you are wielding to trip. It just says you can trip. That's the action you take instead. It's not a unarmed attack but it still provokes an attack of opportunity.
It also nowhere says that you can't use your weapon to trip. It only ever says that trip weapons get the special bennefit of not being tripped back. Like is posted above, disarm also doens't say you use your weapon, but then has clauses for doing it unarmed. I see no evidence to support your interpretation of the rules that you are not using a weapon to trip.
If one rules that you could make a melee attack with a spiked gauntlet at a reach of 10 feet, because one is weilding a longspear, I think it would be clear that they were violating the RAI.By the same token, grappling, tripping, etc, at the same reach seems to violate RAI. From a RAW standpoint it seems that you could make a case for it, but I think the RAI here is clear. Any player or GM with any sense, I think, would rule that a player could not - for example - start a grapple at longspear-range.
I would think, by dint of the same logic used to apply to the Trip Weapon allowing one to trip and gain weapon bonuses, that the Reach property of the weapon is what allows one to threaten or melee attack squares outside of ones natural reach. This means then, that the only way to trip at 10' for a creature with a natural reach of 5' is to wield a weapon with both the reach and trip properties. This also gets wierd if you are talking about using a lance to disarm from horseback, as it is a one handed weapon in that case, and you, could, by RAW, with a high disarm check take a weapon from an opponent and pick it up 5' away, as you have an empty hand.
Disarm LATER has a line saying "Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack."Sunder doesn't mention weapons or not-weapons anywhere.No, but sunder does mention a damage roll. A maneuver check is an attack roll with substituted values. Nothing states that damage rolls are substituted or affected in any way, so damage is rolled normally, according to the damage dice on the weapon you are weilding. Thus, your weapon applies, and feats and class features relevant to your weapon apply as well. Similarly, you are correct in that being unarmed imposes a penalty to CMB checks made to disarm an opponent. Being armed with a weapon negates the penalties. Again, your weapon is relevant to the check, so you may apply relevant feats and class features as well.
So are you saying that when making a disarm attempt you wouldn't add the weapon enhancement bonus or fighter training feats in? Becuase thats how I interpret what you said, and I have to flatly disagree.
edit: for clarity
So are you saying that when making a disarm attempt you wouldn't add the weapon enhancement bonus or fighter training feats in? Becuase thats how I interpret what you said, and I have to flatly disagree.
edit: for clarity
Not at all. Being armed with a weapon is very relevant to making a disarm attempt, therefore - since the weapon applies, factors like feats and weapon training apply, as stated in the rules for Combat Maneuver Checks.
Same for sunder. Weapon damage applies, so feats and weapon training applies.
If the weapon applies in any way to the maneuver (to which it does not, with regards to a trip), the aforementioned factors also apply.
James Jacobs confirms here.
No, but sunder does mention a damage roll. A maneuver check is an attack roll with substituted values. Nothing states that damage rolls are substituted or affected in any way, so damage is rolled normally, according to the damage dice on the weapon you are weilding. Thus, your weapon applies, and feats and class features relevant to your weapon apply as well. Similarly, you are correct in that being unarmed imposes a penalty to CMB checks made to disarm an opponent. Being armed with a weapon negates the penalties. Again, your weapon is relevant to the check, so you may apply relevant feats and class features as well.
I really don't get that argument. The basic parameters of how Trip/Disarm/Sunder function uses EXACTLY the same wording. That Sunder does damage, not specifying "it's own" damage, does imply you are using a weapon (/Unarmed) to do so, but that secondary effect by itself doesn't direct one to use a weapon attack roll... Disarm never mentions damage anyways, mentioniong a penalty if you are not wielding a weapon, but it's basic parameters are THE EXACT SAME as Trip.
So once again, maybe we don't 100% know the RAI, but we can see that the RAW are written VERY BADLY because there's a multitude of explanations, whether certain passages are SUPEFLUOUS, whether certain different passages misleadingly use the exact same wording, etc...
Not at all. Being armed with a weapon is very relevant to making a disarm attempt, therefore - since the weapon applies, factors like feats and weapon training apply, as stated in the rules for Combat Maneuver Checks.
Same for sunder. Weapon damage applies, so feats and weapon training applies.
If the weapon applies in any way to the maneuver (to which it does not, with regards to a trip), the aforementioned factors also apply.
Seriously, how can you claim that THE EXACT SAME WORDING you use you to support your argument that Trip is "it's own attack form distinct from a weapon vector" ("in place of a melee attack") simultaneously supports a completely different interpretation for Disarm and Sunder? Why would they use that wording if it supposed to work like it does for Trip? SECONDARY EFFECTS (damage) or non-causative penalties are not sufficient to change the meaning of the prime parameter definition. What happens when somebody takes a Feat to make all their Trip attempts cause damage, irrespective of weapon type? Does that all of a sudden let them use weapon-specific attack bonuses?
Combat Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
The RAI seems clear to me.
Because being armed with a weapon is relevant to disarm, and weapon damage is relevant to sunder, so spell, feat, and class bonuses are applicable.
Also, James Jacobs mentions here that weapons are not relevant to bull rush, overrun, and grapple, but specifically does not mention disarm and sunder. Further demonstration of the RAI.
I'll concede that the RAW is less clear for disarm and sunder than it is for trip on this issue, but it seems plenty clear enough, if you ask me.
Combat Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."The RAI seems clear to me.
Because being armed with a weapon is relevant to disarm, and weapon damage is relevant to sunder, so spell, feat, and class bonuses are applicable.
Also, James Jacobs mentions here that weapons are not relevant to bull rush, overrun, and grapple, but specifically does not mention disarm and sunder. Further demonstration of the RAI.
I'll concede that the RAW is less clear for disarm and sunder than it is for trip on this issue, but it seems plenty clear enough, if you ask me.
Interesting that you think it is clear enough, but so many people have come to the exact oposite conclusion and see nothing to support your claims.
Interesting that you think it is clear enough, but so many people have come to the exact oposite conclusion and see nothing to support your claims.
Well. Hopefully those people will address exactly what is unclear so that we can collectively clear it up as we have with the 'tripping-with-a-weapon' issue.
It also nowhere says that you can't use your weapon to trip. It only ever says that trip...
I'd say by having a rule that weapons with trip quality can be used to trip kind of says that other weapons can't be used to trip. Why would they specify that you can use a flail to trip if you can trip with any weapon. That doesn't make sense. So clearly only weapons with the trip quality can be used to trip. Sure the trip quality also offer another benefit but you can't ignore the first benefit.
For sunder it's not like they have weapons that can sunder with where others can't so I take it any weapon or attack can sunder. With disarm they do have a quality for that but it says disarm weapons just do it better than non disarm weapons. If the trip quality didn't exist then I'd say any weapon could be used to trip based on how the other maneuvers are worded.
Now what is a trip? That's undefined. I look at it like special unarmed attack. It's not an unarmed attack though. So weapon focus unarmed would not apply. I suspect this is exactly why they didn't call it an unarmed attack.
That's my thinking anyways.
It also nowhere says that you can't use your weapon to trip. It only ever says that trip...
I'd say by having a rule that weapons with trip quality can be used to trip kind of says that other weapons can't be used to trip. Why would they specify that you can use a flail to trip if you can trip with any weapon. That doesn't make sense. So clearly only weapons with the trip quality can be used to trip. Sure the trip quality also offer another benefit but you can't ignore the first benefit.
For sunder it's not like they have weapons that can sunder with where others can't so I take it any weapon or attack can sunder. With disarm they do have a quality for that but it says disarm weapons just do it better than non disarm weapons. If the trip quality didn't exist then I'd say any weapon could be used to trip based on how the other maneuvers are worded.
Now what is a trip? That's undefined. I look at it like special unarmed attack. It's not an unarmed attack though. So weapon focus unarmed would not apply. I suspect this is exactly why they didn't call it an unarmed attack.
That's my thinking anyways.
The point is that trip weapons get bonuses to trip. Thus they do it better than other weapons. It doesn't say anywhere that other weapons can't be used. The section you quote is passive and only states what can be done. It doesn't say that other weapons can't. No where does it say that other weapons can't. In a game with the default of on, your saying this defaults to off.
By saying in the trip quality that you can use that weapon to trip implies you can't use a weapon to trip that doesn't have the quality. As others posted, James Jacobs says exactly this in another thread.
The section you quote is passive and only states what can be done. It doesn't say that other weapons can't. No where does it say that other weapons can't.
A CMB check is defined - and it has nothing to do with weapons or weapon bonuses unless a weapon is applicable to the maneuver.
So:
1.) Weapons have no relevance to CMB checks unless a weapon is applicable to a maneuver. The 'default' you speak of in this case is a clear 'no'.
2.) Nothing in the trip maneuver suggests that a weapon is applicable.
3.) Trip weapons specifically state that they can apply to trip maneuvers.
4.) The creative director, James Jacobs, has verified all of this multiple times, in plain language (see above for the link).
I think the tripping-with-weapons-issue has very soundly been cleared up at this point.
1.) Weapons have no relevance to CMB checks unless a weapon is applicable to a maneuver. The 'default' you speak of in this case is a clear 'no'.
Please cite a source in the rules for your base assumption. As far as I can tell, this is made up out of thin air.
Please cite a source in the rules for your base assumption. As far as I can tell, this is made up out of thin air.
My pleasure.
Combat Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
The rule here states that weapon-related bonuses ONLY apply to a combat maneuver check (of which a trip check is one) if a weapon is relevant to the check. Nothing in the description of a trip (or a bull rush, or an overrun, or a grapple...) has any relevance to weapons.
Trip weapons DO call out a specific application to a trip maneuver.
The rule here states that weapon-related bonuses ONLY apply to a combat maneuver check (of which a trip check is one) if a weapon is relevant to the check.
No, it doesn't. It says the bonuses must be applicable to the weapon used to perform the maneuver, not that the bonuses are only applicable if a weapon is used to perform the maneuver. That text actually very strongly implies that the default is "weapons apply".
|
|
The point is that trip weapons get bonuses to trip. Thus they do it better than other weapons. It doesn't say anywhere that other weapons can't be used. The section you quote is passive and only states what can be done. It doesn't say that other weapons can't. No where does it say that other weapons can't. In a game with the default of on, your saying this defaults to off.
It also nowhere says that you can't use your weapon to trip. It only ever says that trip...
I'd say by having a rule that weapons with trip quality can be used to trip kind of says that other weapons can't be used to trip. Why would they specify that you can use a flail to trip if you can trip with any weapon. That doesn't make sense. So clearly only weapons with the trip quality can be used to trip. Sure the trip quality also offer another benefit but you can't ignore the first benefit.
For sunder it's not like they have weapons that can sunder with where others can't so I take it any weapon or attack can sunder. With disarm they do have a quality for that but it says disarm weapons just do it better than non disarm weapons. If the trip quality didn't exist then I'd say any weapon could be used to trip based on how the other maneuvers are worded.
Now what is a trip? That's undefined. I look at it like special unarmed attack. It's not an unarmed attack though. So weapon focus unarmed would not apply. I suspect this is exactly why they didn't call it an unarmed attack.
That's my thinking anyways.
This. And all the other posters who find the rules wordings to be murky. The point is that there is an issue that needs Jason Bulmahn's ruling, not some poster who is positive that their way is right or that there isn't any confusion to the rule, not some other people who didn't write the rules (because some Paizo people have contradicted rulings amongst themselves before on the MBs) and not anyone deciding that the DMs can make individual rulings on this (Society Play needs to be in sync).
Starting another thread to claim some divine understanding doesn't help the issue. Now let's watch this thread grow like the last one. Maybe when we hit 6 or so pages some new messiah will come and pronounce that Their Way is the right way and save us from our poor pathetic attempts at reason.....
Rake, you're not convincing anybody be ignoring the specific arguments and relying on circular logic.
"in place of a melee attack" cannot mean two different things just because you want it to,
and Trip and Disarm and Sunder rely on exactly that same wording to establish their parameters.
If I can use Trip "in place of a melee attack", exactly what line is stopping me from using it in place of a Longspear's melee attack outside of my normal Reach?
I don't think anybody would argue the functional interpretation you're suggesting is in fact IMPOSSIBLE by the RAI, but it happens that the RAW are NOT clearly written. One simply cannot use the exact same turn of phrase to mean two different things if you want to write a clear rule-set. Evading the RAW and claiming "how it SHOULD work is just fine" is evading the reality of defective wording.
No, it doesn't. It says the bonuses must be applicable to the weapon used to perform the maneuver, not that the bonuses are only applicable if a weapon is used to perform the maneuver.
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.
|
|
Please cite a source in the rules for your base assumption. As far as I can tell, this is made up out of thin air.My pleasure.
Combat Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."The rule here states that weapon-related bonuses ONLY apply to a combat maneuver check (of which a trip check is one) if a weapon is relevant to the check. Nothing in the description of a trip (or a bull rush, or an overrun, or a grapple...) has any relevance to weapons.
Trip weapons DO call out a specific application to a trip maneuver.
How does any of these statements rule out using other non-trip weapons without applying their bonuses? Non-trip weapons have never been ruled out for use in a trip maneuver in the RAW.
Zurai,
I'm afraid I don't follow your statement. Could you repeat that in a different way?
Sure.
Combat Maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
What Rake is saying is that this passage states, "Only use weapon bonuses if weapons are applicable to the specific maneuver in question".
What I am saying is that this passage states, "Apply any bonuses the weapon used by the maneuver grants".
The two are NOT anywhere near equivalent. Rake is somehow reading a passage entirely written in positive language (there isn't a single "not" or other negation in the entire passage) to state what CANNOT be done ("Weapons do not apply unless the maneuver says so", amusingly ignoring the fact that no maneuvers state that weapons may be used to perform them). There is no possible logical reading of the passage that supports that interpretation.
The majority, Creative Director included, disagree with you.
Bull. James disagrees with me, yes. I have seen no polls among all multiple-hundred-thousand Pathfinder RPG users that shows their stance on this issue that would let you claim to speak for the majority. Get off your high horse. You do not speak for The Will of the People.
You're also very patently putting words in my mouth by ignoring that I do not disagree that this may well be RAI. As I have stated many times now, my only stance in this is that the rules do NOT say that only trip weapons may be used to trip, and thus the rules text needs to be clarified in future printings.
The problem here is that 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.
So now you have people trying to fit 3.5e wording in the equipment section into the new combat maneuvers wording.
I honestly can't see any "official" interpretation until we get this particular oversight cleared up.