You can choose to make attacks that provoke AoO's as part of an AoO and it will provoke an additional AoO. This can continue until you or your target runs out of AoO's then the chain is resolved.
Also yes you can trip with a spiked gauntlet, you can trip with any weapon but if you fail by 5 or more you are knocked prone. Certain weapons just happen to get a bonus towards tripping.
Keep in mind while you don't threaten the adjacent squares if they go 5 more feet they have left your threatened area and you can trip them with your guisarme.
[ ][O][X][ ][ ]
\/
[ ][O][ ][X][ ]
Safe!
[ ][O][X][ ][ ]
\/
[ ][O][ ][ ][X]
AoO!
Mechanically cheesy, but actually fairly sensible, but in the same way that you could (theoretically) bash the guy with the butt of the handle of the polearm if he gets to close to use the business end on, using it as a quarterstaff.
Rules-wise, there are a couple of feats about along these lines. I'm not really sure that the mechanic should need a feat, though.
In the case of the spiked gauntlet, mechanically it's easy: you let go of the polearm (you can hold it with one hand, just not wield it) with the spiked glove (a free action) and bash them in the face with the gauntlet as it is already in your hand.
Your post pretty much sums up a number of the reasons I dislike the ruling on trip.
And I believe you would be unable to attack with both the spiked gauntlet and a 2 handed weapon at the same time. If you consider yourself weilding the guisarm, you would not get the spiked gauntlets. If you wore armor spikes, however, you could, since they don't need a hand.
|
1) It's been ruled recently that you can't trip with any weapon -- you need a trip weapon.
2) Trip weapons do not give any bonus to the trip roll.
3) The tripper only falls prone if he missed by 10+, not 5+.And I realize that if they move out of squares 10' away you get trip attacks. I'm thinking more about foes running circles around you /inside/ your reach, as they setup flank attacks.
Seems pretty clear that said Improved Trip Guisarme Fighter wants to wear a spiked gauntlet, even though he's not intending to actually punch anyone with it.
1) Its been ruled that you don't -normally- use a "weapon" to trip, rather that a trip is a set of physical actions that lead to the combat maneuver "trip". (Like a leg sweep, a shoulder push or any other cinematic maneuver that leads to a trip attempt)
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...
2)If you use a "weapon" to trip it must be a "trip" weapon. The benefits of doing so are that you may drop said weapon instead of allowing bad things to happen.
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.
3) Fine and Dandy.
Edit: Urk - misread something and removed a response to said misread thing.
I want to link to each specific post but I am unsure how to format it...sorry about that.
1) It's been ruled recently that you can't trip with any weapon -- you need a trip weapon.
2) Trip weapons do not give any bonus to the trip roll.
3) The tripper only falls prone if he missed by 10+, not 5+.And I realize that if they move out of squares 10' away you get trip attacks. I'm thinking more about foes running circles around you /inside/ your reach, as they setup flank attacks.
Seems pretty clear that said Improved Trip Guisarme Fighter wants to wear a spiked gauntlet, even though he's not intending to actually punch anyone with it.
1) Its been ruled that you don't -normally- use a "weapon" to trip, rather that a trip is a set of physical actions that lead to the combat maneuver "trip". (Like a leg sweep, a shoulder push or any other cinematic maneuver that leads to a trip attempt)
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...
2)If you use a "weapon" to trip it must be a "trip" weapon. The benefits of doing so are that you may drop said weapon instead of allowing bad things to happen.
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.3) Fine and Dandy.
Last point for OP.
You can't trip with a reach weapon unless it is specifically a "trip weapon":
In order to trip with reach, you either need to have reach on your own as a virtue of your race, or you need to be wielding a reach weapon with the trip ability.I want to link to each specific post but I am unsure how to format it...sorry about that.
Perhaps you should look at the weapons, since a guisarm is a trip + reach weapon. The problem is that he doesn't normally provoke AoO from adjacent foes. By having spiked gauntlets or armor spikes, he does get the AoO. He can then use this AoO he would not otherwise have to trip, even though he is technically not using that weapon. So by having a gauntlet, you can perform a leg sweep, but if you don't have that gauntlet, you can't.
Could you guys link the official ruling for trip weapons, I can't find it...
Cause I'm 99% sure you can trip with any weapon you like.
So, a fighter is armed with a guisarme, and has Improved Trip. He can trip foes as an opportunity attack as they close from 10' to 5'. However, he can't make such an opportunity trip against foes that move from a square adjacent to him, as they aren't threatened...
Correct.
But! Give him a spiked gauntlet, and then he can, even though the spiked gauntlet can't actually be used to trip?
Correct. You can substitute a trip attack for a weapon attack if you entitled to a weapon attack.
Do I have all that right? Or does the opportunity attack have to be with the threatening weapon, meaning you could punch the guy, but not trip him since spiked gauntlets aren't a trip weapon?
No, it does not have to be made with the threatening weapon.
Another question: If the fighter didn't have Improved Trip, would using a trip as an opportunity attack itself trigger an opportunity attack by the moving foe? What if said foe then went for an opportunity trip himself? Weee!
Yes, you can start a very long chain of AoOs this way, especially if both parties have combat reflexes. As soon as one of them succeeds or fails dramatically at the attempted trip, however, the chain ends. In practice, they rarely last very long.
Could you guys link the official ruling for trip weapons, I can't find it...
Cause I'm 99% sure you can trip with any weapon you like.
Page 7 of the Must trip & Trip Weapons go together James Jacobs says yes, otherwise you are tripping unarmed.
Yup, I just found that myself. What that means is if a foe is standing right next to you, and you threaten that area with a spiked gauntlet then you can make a trip attempt in place of an attack for your AoO. You just don't get the bonuses you would for the guirasme and also risk falling prone.
Perhaps you should look at the weapons, since a guisarm is a trip + reach weapon. The problem is that he doesn't normally provoke AoO from adjacent foes. By having spiked gauntlets or armor spikes, he does get the AoO. He can then use this AoO he would not otherwise have to trip, even though he is technically not using that weapon. So by having a gauntlet, you can perform a leg sweep, but if you don't have that gauntlet, you can't.
I see where you are coming from there, it seems counter-intuitive that wearing a glove would help you do a leg sweep. If they had Improved Unarmed Strike (whether or not they had Improved Trip) I wouldn't have a problem with them trying the 'unarmed' trip without the gauntlet.
Perhaps you should look at the weapons, since a guisarm is a trip + reach weapon. The problem is that he doesn't normally provoke AoO from adjacent foes. By having spiked gauntlets or armor spikes, he does get the AoO. He can then use this AoO he would not otherwise have to trip, even though he is technically not using that weapon. So by having a gauntlet, you can perform a leg sweep, but if you don't have that gauntlet, you can't.I see where you are coming from there, it seems counter-intuitive that wearing a glove would help you do a leg sweep. If they had Improved Unarmed Strike (whether or not they had Improved Trip) I wouldn't have a problem with them trying the 'unarmed' trip without the gauntlet.
If they had improved unarmed strike, they would provoke an AoO, thus no problem. The problem is that if they don't and are unarmed they can't do a leg sweep. If they don't and have any non-reach weapon, like a dager, they can perform a leg sweep. Why should the presence of a dagger allow you to do a leg sweep. That why I dislike the ruling, but that is how they ruled.
That's why I think the trip attempt wouldn't benefit from the guismrae if they're so close you can't really use it.
In the case of the spiked gauntlet, mechanically it's easy: you let go of the polearm (you can hold it with one hand, just not wield it) with the spiked glove (a free action) and bash them in the face with the gauntlet as it is already in your hand.You only get free actions during your turn, not during opportunity attacks...
You'd have to have made that decision at the end of your turn, and then wouldn't be able to use the polearm for opportunity attacks.
Not true, you get free actions at any time. You only get swift actions on your turn.
That's why I think the trip attempt wouldn't benefit from the guismrae if they're so close you can't really use it.
I agree with you there, the trip attempt would not get guissarm benefitts, as you can't make the attack with it.
If they had improved unarmed strike, they would provoke an AoO, thus no problem. The problem is that if they don't and are unarmed they can't do a leg sweep. If they don't and have any non-reach weapon, like a dager, they can perform a leg sweep. Why should the presence of a dagger allow you to do a leg sweep. That why I dislike the ruling, but that is how they ruled.
Only thing I can think of is to use the weapon in hand to make a feint or block so you can get close enough to do the leg-sweep, but yes, I take your point. I don't see the problem with being able to make an AoO with the haft of the weapon, although I do see reason to place a penalty to hit on it.
You only get free actions during your turn, not during opportunity attacks...Not true, you get free actions at any time. You only get swift actions on your turn.You're going to have to point that out to me in the rules, as I don't see it.
My point of view isn't clearly spelled out either, although if you look at page 188 at the end of the description of "Free Actions", it's clearly implied (emphasis mine, of course):
"Speak: In general speaking is a free action that you can perform /even when it isn't your turn/."
Generally speaking, there are reasons to limit Free Actions to only being on your turn, both in order to speed up play, but also to avoid things like foes always dropping prone when shot at, etc.
[Edit]
Hmmm, actually, looking more closely, it's spelled out pretty clearly on page 181 that you can only take actions on your turn, with Immediate Actions being a specific exception to this.[Edit 2]
Incidentally, another place this comes up is with a "Ring of Force Shield", one of which my fighter picked up in Rise of the Runelords. It's a shield you can switch on/off with a Free Action... Being able to switch between the shield's +2 AC and making opportunity attacks with a polearm at will would be a bit much.
sorry, your right. I was thinking of immediate actions, which changing weapons is not.
My take.
Since neither your reach weapon nor your spiked gauntlets are trip weapons, neither would grant you a benefit for tripping.
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.
As a DM, I would rule that whatever abilities your trip weapon has contribute to the maneuver where applicable. Since no damage is done, I wouldn't give fire damage for a +3 flaming Scythe, but I'd give the +3 to your CMB. I'd say this falls under "other effects" since you're using that weapon to perform the maneuver.
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.
I know that this has been done over and over but just because this passage is inclusive rather than exclusive doesn't make it any less clear for people who apply common sense. It does deserve an entry in the combat maneuvers section but saying "ha ha I can use my longsword to trip because it doesn't say I CAN'T... it just says I CAN use other stuff which... uh... I guess maybe people assumed they wouldn't be able to so they made a note about it... or something" would never work at my table. It does need clarification for posterity's sake, but the intent is pretty clear to me. On this same note, the second sentence regarding dropping the weapon is ALSO inclusive. So, does that mean all weapons have that ability too? (Yeah yeah quid pro quo blah blah blah I don't care.)
What is not clear is the relationship between CMB and unarmed attacks which many folks have pointed out. Since you can USE other weapons for making trip attempts, I'd rule that you can also USE an unarmed strike. You would not incur an attack of opportunity for doing so if you have Improved Trip because you are performing a Disarm maneuver. The feat is very clear in that matter. Any attack made by you won't incur an AoO as long as that attack is a Trip.
You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver.
This feat doesn't care what weapon you're using for your trip combat maneuver. This line of logic would also allow you to add it to a flurry of blows. However, I agree with Jasper. Currently it seems that the maneuver is just that: a maneuver. It doesn't appear to be an unarmed strike at all. It's just... a THING. The "trip" quality clearly needs to be added to unarmed strike for sanity's sake.
List of weapons I would make sweeping trip weapons:
Unarmed Strike
Quarterstaff
Longspear
Ranseur
Sling Staff
I tried looking at Sajan to help us figure this out. Below, it says Sajan's disarm check is +14.
Sajan's CMB is +10.
Monk Level 8 + 2 Strength.
He gets +4 from Improved Disarm and Greater Disarm.
Total: +14.
Note that Sajan also has Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)
I'm not sure if Jason was speaking abstractly in regards to the +14 (as in, not including WHICH weapon Sajan wanted to use for Disarm checks), but this makes it seem as if combat maneuvers aren't going to benefit from a hell of a lot. Unless, as I said, he's being abstract.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/tags/sajan&source=search
Boy, I sure wish Sajan had Improved Trip instead.
So that wasn't all that much help I guess.
For the pole-arm + spiked glove full reach situation couldn't it also be covered by using the pole-arm for 10' reach and using it (or specifically it's pole) as an improvised weapon for a 5' reach ?
For the pole-arm + spiked glove full reach situation couldn't it also be covered by using the pole-arm for 10' reach and using it (or specifically it's pole) as an improvised weapon for a 5' reach ?
Thats a good question. If you take the feat to make you proficient with improvised weapons, I don't see why a polearm couldn't be considered one. You can't make AoO with a weapon your not proficient with IIRC.
Presumably you mean "Catch Off-Guard"? I don't believe there is a "Improvised Weapon Proficiency" feat per se, but I think Catch Off-Guard's "suffer no penalties for using an improvised weapon" would work.
I like that approach, seems more fitting than taking Improved Unarmed Strike. The only question then is what it would be most like for damage purposes? A Great Club, or a Quarter Staff? Probably a Quarter Staff, as it'd be weird to have it do more base damage than a Guisarme.
If your DM allowed something like that, I'd say it'd be whatever the rules for improvised weapons say it'd be.
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Quarterstaff sounds good considering you're probably whacking them with it. However, by the very wording above, it should be exactly the damage of a regular weapon of its type. That's because it isn't an improvised weapon. It's an actual weapon. For what it's worth, since a Guisarme is designed for combat use, I would rule that you cannot use the feat to use it in the WRONG way with proficiency, especially considering the existence of the Improvised Weapon Mastery feat.
There was a whole Dragon article on polearm fighting a while back. Look it up in the back issues, pick it up, and use the feat that allows you to use your polearm within 5'. That's much more appropriate rather than trying to bend and poke at the RAW.
... trying to bend and poke at the RAW.
Au contraire mon cher,
I'm looking at it more as "in-character".
Slamming someone with the pole when they get too close for using the head of the pole-arm just seems like the first that comes to (my) mind. More than letting go of the pole with one hand to slam with a spiked gauntlet.
To me it should work close to a club or quarterstaff (but unbalanced so -4 to hit).
I haven't found the "no AoO with an improvised weapon rules" yet but I'll check again.
... trying to bend and poke at the RAW.Au contraire mon cher,
I'm looking at it more as "in-character".
Slamming someone with the pole when they get too close for using the head of the pole-arm just seems like the first that comes to (my) mind. More than letting go of the pole with one hand to slam with a spiked gauntlet.
To me it should work close to a club or quarterstaff (but unbalanced so -4 to hit).
I haven't found the "no AoO with an improvised weapon rules" yet but I'll check again.
I'd prefer a homebrew feat called "Haft Strike" for polearms and polearms only that let you use them as quarterstaffs. I don't think the intent of improvised weapons was to bastardize actual weapons.
Slamming someone with the pole when they get too close for using the head of the pole-arm just seems like the first that comes to (my) mind. More than letting go of the pole with one hand to slam with a spiked gauntlet.
To me it should work close to a club or quarterstaff (but unbalanced so -4 to hit).
I agree. It's a basic use of the weapon, I think, and included in the training in how to use it. Some weapons are clearly designed with this in mind, like the naginata or the greek dori.
Slightly off topic but I've house-ruled that you can move the grip down further on the spear/polearm as a move action so you can attack, etc. adjacent squares but at a -4 penalty due to imbalance of the weapon. This penalty rises to -8 if anyone is stood directly behind the weilder to reflect them getting in the way.
Introducing a feat (Improved Reach Weapon Fighting?) with a requirement of Weapon Focus (polearm/spear) to negate the imbalance problem.
Hrm, I don't see such a rule either, now that you mention it.
If you let someone use the haft of a polearm as an improvised club, that'd mean you actually threatened adjacent squares, and thus could get around the -4 penalty by tripping...
I'm not sure I like the implications of this, and I'd rule that you needed to take a Free Action to "Switch Your Grip", from polearm to an improvised club, much like for Spiked Gauntlets.
After thinking about it, I'd probably also let you use it as a short spear (assuming you had a butt spike). Perhaps this'd be a bit generous though, as after all you can't stab with a longsword.
I could have sworn you couldn't make AoO if you were unprofficient with a weapon, but apparently that is only true of unarmed strikes.
Note, something I tought about (both rule and quasi-realism) was that someone using a polearme as an improvised staff for 5' reach might not ALSO have 10' reach at the same time. You could probably switch from one to the other (free action or no action like chosing the tip of a double wapon) during your turn but if your reacting(AoO not at your turn)you would be left in "last condition" until you next turn.
Ex.: You get rushed (not charged) at and chose to take a trip (let's say you have the Improved one) as an AoO when the opponent get's right in front (5' reach) using the pole to help "counter sweep" (Improvised use of the staff to threaten and unarmed improved trip combination). You would now be weilding an improvised staff until your turn comes. I think that would be my call.
That might be the place a feat could come in (that and remove the -4 to hit).
|
|
Slightly off topic but I've house-ruled that you can move the grip down further on the spear/polearm as a move action so you can attack, etc. adjacent squares but at a -4 penalty due to imbalance of the weapon. This penalty rises to -8 if anyone is stood directly behind the weilder to reflect them getting in the way.
Introducing a feat (Improved Reach Weapon Fighting?) with a requirement of Weapon Focus (polearm/spear) to negate the imbalance problem.
There is a weapon in Dwarves of Golarion that works the same way. Its a spiked chain variant that lets you use a move action to change your grip on the weapon, changing it from a reach weapon to a not-reach weapon. I'd just say give that ability to all reach weapons and be done with it.
Slightly off topic but I've house-ruled that you can move the grip down further on the spear/polearm as a move action so you can attack, etc. adjacent squares but at a -4 penalty due to imbalance of the weapon. This penalty rises to -8 if anyone is stood directly behind the weilder to reflect them getting in the way.
Introducing a feat (Improved Reach Weapon Fighting?) with a requirement of Weapon Focus (polearm/spear) to negate the imbalance problem.
The Short Haft feat from the Draconic compendium does the same thing, but without the penalty.
|
Everyone is Proficient with Unarmed Strikes -- e.g. they don't get -4 to hit. Unarmed strikes normally provoke opportunity attacks and don't threaten adjacent squares, both of which Improved Unarmed Strike gets around.
This is mostly true. I'd argue that its probably just a total miss by the designers, but it appears that wizards are not proficient with unarmed strikes... though every other class that is proficient with simple weapons is. I'd just let them have it though.
|
|
I just stumbled across the rule for this, at the top left of page 141:
"All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race."
Bit of an awkward location, that.
Indeed, that is an odd location. Nice to know that... it was strange that someone like a Sorc could be proficient but not the wizard. The lack of listing in the wizard description is a fairly glaring ommission. I geuss this technically means they're proficient with Gauntlets too then.
Your post pretty much sums up a number of the reasons I dislike the ruling on trip.
And I believe you would be unable to attack with both the spiked gauntlet and a 2 handed weapon at the same time. If you consider yourself weilding the guisarm, you would not get the spiked gauntlets. If you wore armor spikes, however, you could, since they don't need a hand.
Make ut so as an immediate action you can change from wielding the polearm threatening 10'-15', to holding the polearm with one hand (no longer threatening, which would free up unarmed trip attempts. By making it an immediate action, you prevent the player from abusively switching back and forth.
(Now, a monk with a polearm should still threaten without having to switch hands.)
I just stumbled across the rule for this, at the top left of page 141:
"All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race."
Bit of an awkward location, that.
Wow. I had no idea.