|
they are exceedly rare, this was not becuase they are ineffective, flexible weapons deliver fantastic force, but becuase they require a lot more pratice to use effectively, concidering how much practice a sword takes, that is a saying a lot. .
They're one of the best weapons for dealing with heavily-armored & shielded opponents in foot combat; they are far from the best weapon for dealing with light- or no-armored opponents.
The best melee-weapon to deal with the mentioned armored and shielded oponents is the halberd or it's slightly smaller cousing the pole-axe.
Flails are simply too impractial - in the chaos of big battles they need too much room (prone to hit allies) and are very hard to recover on a miss - all in all an awful weapon, but you could teach a peasant to swing one in a very short time, they are not that hard to learn.
Regarding Bow and Crossbow:
An accurate depiction would be that the bow only does 1d2 damage and uses the worse modifier from Dex and Str to hit but adds double the Strength-modifier to damage.
This would make the crossbow attractive to anyone not having 16+ Dex and 16+ Str which was it's main advantage over the bow.
Regarding Bow and Crossbow:
An accurate depiction would be that the bow only does 1d2 damage and uses the worse modifier from Dex and Str to hit but adds double the Strength-modifier to damage.This would make the crossbow attractive to anyone not having 16+ Dex and 16+ Str which was it's main advantage over the bow.
Str 16+ AND Dex 16+ is non-existent among common people if using npc arrays, and if using regular 3d6 it's so rare it's not even noticeable. Regardless of this, warriors have used bows, mostly through being heavily trained. A longbowman might be a 2nd level warrior, which is a lot of training but not something that should give Str and Dex 16+.
Exotic weapon proficiency ftw.
Also, it's a very complicated rule you propose. The easier way to fix it "your way" would be to simply make all longbows mighty +2 or so.
Maybe, this wasn't a rules proposal.
However the "training" you mention isn't realistic to begin with.
The main reason that the french, despite realizing that english longbows are THE weapon, weren't able to file their own regiments was that they did not have enough rank and file soldiers who were strong enough ("barrelchested").
If strength isn't a factor you can train a peasant to become a longbowmen in quite a short time because Str > all when it comes to using a bow for war as opposed to shooting small furry animals with it.
I'm surprised no one's brought up the historical inaccuracy of guns vs armor yet. Guns in fantasy seem to be hard to use but pierce through armor, while historically armor was made to be bullet-proof but guns were easier to train with.
|
Yeah - 'guns instantly made armour pointless' is another fallicy happily sustained in RPG circles.
You'd think the large collections of historical armour with 'proof marks' where they were shot during testing to prove that they could stop bullets flat would be enough to make people realise that armour was used for a long time against guns (up to and including the first world war... and is used again these days... so there's really only a very small historical gap where at least some soldiers weren't wearing bullet-stopping armour).
On the other hand, fantasy RPGs aren't really meant to be historically accurate... more like 'popular misconceptions' accurate (which is where, I guess, the whole 'eastern fighting is always better' thing comes from too).
Also, a game like Pathfinder provides a range of armours from very different historical periods. While heavy plate armour (on one end) and 'buff coats' (on the other) both helped to protect against black powder firearms, a suit of chainmail (for example) would only have provided the musket ball extra shrapnel to rip through your body with.
In Pathfinder rules terms I guess firearms needed something to justify their relative expense, difficulty (and danger) of use, and low rate of fire... and the 'armour is useless against bullets' thing is established enough in the minds of the general public that it wasn't an unreasonable direction to take them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which weapons should be better?
Spiked Chain-- I hear tell that this was responsible for a horrible bit of munchkinry back in 3.5 and was subsequently nerfed into the ground. My issue is that I've never seen a picture of a spiked chain that didn't make it look like a double weapon. I think it should be a double weapon-- that could hardly make it overpowered, given that you'd then need TWO feats to use it effectively (EWP and TWF).
Starknife-- The dagger already has a throwing range increment, which means the starknife needs something to differentiate it from the dagger. Personally, I'd love to see the starknife get a longer range increment, or something to indicate that it's better as a throwing weapon than a dagger, while the dagger is better in melee.
Whip-- The whip was nerfed so hard it's now only good for combat maneuvers, and the only class that gets proficiency with it doesn't have full BAB progression and doesn't rely on STR, so it isn't even that good at that. My suggestion is to have whips deal an extra 1d8 sonic damage on a crit... and grant a morale bonus on Intimidate and Handle Animal checks to anything you've hit with it. I'd also give rogues proficiency with it-- imagine a sneak attack with a whip!
Greatclub-- The greatsword vs. greataxe debate has raged for years, but the greatclub has sat on the sidelines as strictly worse than either. I'd make greatclubs deal 3d4 damage, thus giving fighters and barbarians a reason to choose it over a greatsword or greataxe and giving the debate a third option.
As for more general weapon reform, it kind of bothers me that there's the "disarm" and "trip" weapon properties, but no such property for other combat maneuvers. I'd give picks and flails the "sunder" property; nets, spiked chains, and sickles the "grapple" property, shields the "bull rush" property, etc. In addition, certain weapons like the whip and some reach weapons would grant their wielder a flat bonus to CMB, (probably +1) to signify that they're designed for something more nuanced than "hit opponent with pointy end". I think that'd be an easy way to make weapon choice a bit deeper without having to introduce new mechanics to the combat system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I actually am Asian, I get tired of all the needless adoration of everything marked 'Asian'. I'll accept wuxia monks and mystical ninjas but please don't mix them with the mundane fighter and rogue (By the way, the KI system is just a subtle psionics point system no matter what name it goes by <.<). There's a difference between someone who watches anime and someone who worships it. I'm annoyed when things are constantly praised for qualities they don't, it's especially egregious when actual qualities are passed over or ignored for the rumors. And if you're going to overhype one thing, be fair and overhype everything and hide it in audacity otherwise you just come off as an ignorant fanboy. ¬_¬
I guess it might also be part of some weird sort of unconscious self-depreciation amongst American's against their European Ancestry thinking that if they make anything that could be linked to their own heretical history beyond awesome they'll be labeled as racist so they do the exact opposite.
Either way it tries to butt in on my own fantasy where I want things to be equally awesome and not be the exact opposite of their actual historical existence because people are ignorant, so I have to edit to the max.
I would just like every weapon to have something special, a reason to pick them over other weapons. Also want to get rid of the overdone crit system, too much focus on crits to the point of taking away flavor.
longsword, 1d8/19-20, slashing, finessable
rapier, 1d6/19-20, piercing, finessable, +2 crit confirm
scimitar, 1d6/19-20, slashing, finessable, +2 crit confirm
elven curve blade, 1d12/19-20, slashing, finessable, +2 crit confirm
nodachi, 1d12/19-20, slashing, brace, +2 crit confirm
great sword, 1d12/19-20, slashing, +4 damage on crits
great axe, 1d12/x3, slashing, +4 damage on crits
bastard sword, 1d10/19-20, slashing, +4 damage on crits
katana, 1d8/19-20, slashing, finessable, +2 crit confirm, +4 damage crit
Falchion, 1d12/19-20, slashing, +2 crit confirm
Heavy Mace, 1d8/x2, bludgeoning, +4 damage on crits
Not sure if it is balanced, but the general idea is there.
- Weapon finesse is considered a free feat
- Weapon specific feats instead apply to weapon groups
- (specific) Exotic/Martial weapons proficiency can also be obtained through traits, though in the case of Exotic, Martial proficiency in at least one other weapon in the same group is required
- The nodachi, would also be considered exotic
Just in general I understand that weapons can do different damage than others. The problem I have always had is that there is typically an optimal weapon to wield. This ends up with people making the same type of melee people over and over. I have actually been considering putting some default stats for the different weapon blocks. For instance making all 2 handers do the same type of damage and just go by weapon types in a general manner. I would much rather people play the flavor of character they want with the generalized weapon template than have people always making melee characters with falchions. The way the crit system is set up favors high crit weapons because of the crit feats involved.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whip-- The whip was nerfed so hard it's now only good for combat maneuvers, and the only class that gets proficiency with it doesn't have full BAB progression and doesn't rely on STR, so it isn't even that good at that. My suggestion is to have whips deal an extra 1d8 sonic damage on a crit... and grant a morale bonus on Intimidate and Handle Animal checks to anything you've hit with it. I'd also give rogues proficiency with it-- imagine a sneak attack with a whip!
You can Finesse a whip, and get to use your Dexterity in place of your Strength for those combat maneuvers it has qualities for - trip and disarm - so it's pretty damn good at them really. Not having the Improved Feats for those maneuvers is usually a non-issue, because most of the guys your try to trip or disarm aren't going to have a 15ft reach with which to AoO anyway. Add to that the range of whip-based Feats available now, and it's a pretty good weapon at what it does, especially for Bards and Clerics of Calistria (whip-based melee support rocks!).
Greatclub-- The greatsword vs. greataxe debate has raged for years, but the greatclub has sat on the sidelines as strictly worse than either. I'd make greatclubs deal 3d4 damage, thus giving fighters and barbarians a reason to choose it over a greatsword or greataxe and giving the debate a third option.
Pathfinder has pretty much replaced the greatclub with the earthbreaker anyway.
As for more general weapon reform, it kind of bothers me that there's the "disarm" and "trip" weapon properties, but no such property for other combat maneuvers. I'd give picks and flails the "sunder" property; nets, spiked chains, and sickles the "grapple" property, shields the "bull rush" property, etc. In addition, certain weapons like the whip and some reach weapons would grant their wielder a flat bonus to CMB, (probably +1) to signify that they're designed for something more nuanced than "hit opponent with pointy end". I think that'd be an easy way to make weapon choice a bit deeper without having to introduce new mechanics to the combat system.
There's quite a few weapons with the 'sunder' quality (check out the Adventurer's Armory or APG for stuff like the Bec de Corbin and the Lucerne Hammer), Ultimate Combat has added the 'grapple' weapon quality, as well as 'blocking', 'deadly', 'distracting', 'peformance', and 'fragile'. Back in the Adventurer's Armoury and the APG there's also stuff like the Glaive-Guisarme which helps you unseat mounted riders, the Boar Spear which gives an extra AC bonus against charging opponents, and various others with unique little bonuses. So the variety is there... it's just not there so much with the weapons in the core rulebook.
|
|
You can Finesse a whip, and get to use your Dexterity in place of your Strength for those combat maneuvers it has qualities for - trip and disarm - so it's pretty damn good at them really. Not having the Improved Feats for those maneuvers is usually a non-issue, because most of the guys your try to trip or disarm aren't going to have a 15ft reach with which to AoO anyway. Add to that the range of whip-based Feats available now, and it's a pretty good weapon at what it does, especially for Bards and Clerics of Calistria (whip-based melee support rocks!).
Does Finesse work with combat maneuvers? I checked the rulebook, and it just says "attack rolls"-- I didn't think it let you replace STR with DEX for calculating CMB too.
Also, I'll readily admit that the Core Rulebook and APG are all I've got to work from, and so I can't really use these new whip-based feats, or the earthbreaker, etc. Of course, that's getting into a whole new issue about constantly having to buy more books, but that's for another thread.
More to the point, if we're all about giving individual weapons more distinctive character, what I'd really like to do to make that happen is simply scale up the HP of characters, so we can widen the range of damage dice that weapons can deal. The highest base damage of any weapon is 12, be it 1d12 or 2d6. If weapons were allowed to deal 2d8 or 4d4 damage, then we could introduce new figures onto the weapon tables and give weapons more identity that way. As it stands, the sheer number of weapons that deal 1d6 damage is staggering-- we could shift a few of them up to 1d8 or 2d4, a few of the 1d8's to 2d4 or 1d10, a few of the 1d10's to 1d12, 2d6, or 3d4, and so forth.
|
|
Attack roll modifiers apply to combat maneuver rolls, because combat maneuver rolls are attack rolls. Specifically, 'word of god' from the devs has stated (I believe) that all your bonuses for using a weapon apply to combat maneuvers with that weapon if the weapon happens to have the related quality (such as a whip used to trip or disarm), but not otherwise. So a Dex 20 character with Weapon Finesse gets to use their +5 Dex bonus instead of their [whatever] Strength bonus when trying to trip or disarm with a whip... but not if they tried other maneuvers with it. They also get the whip's magical enhancement bonus, the plus from Weapon Focus, and all that sort of stuff on trips and disarms with the weapon.
The new whip Feats are mostly in Ultimate Combat, which is now in the PRD on this site (under 'links' on the left hand side of the page) - so no need to buy anything!
|
|
Attack roll modifiers apply to combat maneuver rolls, because combat maneuver rolls are attack rolls. Specifically, 'word of god' from the devs has stated (I believe) that all your bonuses for using a weapon apply to combat maneuvers with that weapon if the weapon happens to have the related quality (such as a whip used to trip or disarm), but not otherwise. So a Dex 20 character with Weapon Finesse gets to use their +5 Dex bonus instead of their [whatever] Strength bonus when trying to trip or disarm with a whip... but not if they tried other maneuvers with it. They also get the whip's magical enhancement bonus, the plus from Weapon Focus, and all that sort of stuff on trips and disarms with the weapon.
The new whip Feats are mostly in Ultimate Combat, which is now in the PRD on this site (under 'links' on the left hand side of the page) - so no need to buy anything!
Almost. You can use those weapons modifiers IF the weapon is used for the maneuver. For trip this requires the property. Disarm and sunder do not require this property to be done via a weapon and gain the bonus. You never get those benefits if you are using bull-rush, reposition, steal, dirty trick, grapple, drag or overrun (though you might be able to argue that you do if it's done via the UC "strike" feats that give you those maneuver checks on criticals).
There's something quite odd in the Fighter "flail" weapon group. Which of these doesn't belong?
Flails: chain spear [APG], dire flail, double chained kama [UC], flail, flying blade [UC], heavy flail, kusarigama [UC], kyoketsu shoge [UC], meteor hammer [UC], morningstar, nine-section whip [UC], nunchaku, sansetsukon [UC], scorpion whip [UC], spiked chain, urumi [UC], and whip.
|
|
Almost. You can use those weapons modifiers IF the weapon is used for the maneuver. For trip this requires the property. Disarm and sunder do not require this property to be done via a weapon and gain the bonus. You never get those benefits if you are using bull-rush, reposition, steal, dirty trick, grapple, drag or overrun (though you might be able to argue that you do if it's done via the UC "strike" feats that give you those maneuver checks on criticals).
Hold on... this...
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 what I was thinking of. Where are you getting the rest of what you say? Can you post a reference please?
|
|
Almost. You can use those weapons modifiers IF the weapon is used for the maneuver. For trip this requires the property. Disarm and sunder do not require this property to be done via a weapon and gain the bonus. You never get those benefits if you are using bull-rush, reposition, steal, dirty trick, grapple, drag or overrun (though you might be able to argue that you do if it's done via the UC "strike" feats that give you those maneuver checks on criticals).Hold on... this...
... is what I was thinking of. Where are you getting the rest of what you say? Can you post a reference please?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
Trip is different from sunder and disarm because trip requires the property to be done via a weapon. The second paragraph he has describes the benefits of using a weapon to perform the maneuver, the first tells you that you need trip to use the weapon to trip.
Note that the trip property says "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks." whereas both the disarm and sunder properties simply grant a bonus and do not have the above wording. They simply say "When you use a ___ weapon you get a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks to {disarm an enemy/sunder checks}" (emphasis added). This implies that you do not need these properties to make those rolls with the weapon, just that the property makes them better at it.
|
|
Trip is different from sunder and disarm because trip requires the property to be done via a weapon. The second paragraph he has describes the benefits of using a weapon to perform the maneuver, the first tells you that you need trip to use the weapon to trip.
Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the help/FAQ is saying? SKR states that you can trip using any weapon (or even no weapon at all) - he uses the example of tripping someone with a longsword in the quote above (and notes that you get absolutely no bonuses for doing so). You don't need the trip quality to use a weapon to trip, but you do need the trip quality to apply the bonuses you may get with that weapon to the trip attempt.
|
|
Trip is different from sunder and disarm because trip requires the property to be done via a weapon. The second paragraph he has describes the benefits of using a weapon to perform the maneuver, the first tells you that you need trip to use the weapon to trip.Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the help/FAQ is saying? SKR states that you can trip using any weapon (or even no weapon at all) - he uses the example of tripping someone with a longsword in the quote above (and notes that you get absolutely no bonuses for doing so). You don't need the trip quality to use a weapon to trip, but you do need the trip quality to apply the bonuses you may get with that weapon to the trip attempt.
because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt.
That's basically equivalent to saying "you aren't using it."
The trip property even states "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks", implying that you aren't using it for trip if your weapon doesn't have that property.
There's something quite odd in the Fighter "flail" weapon group. Which of these doesn't belong?
Flails: chain spear [APG], dire flail, double chained kama [UC], flail, flying blade [UC], heavy flail, kusarigama [UC], kyoketsu shoge [UC], meteor hammer [UC], morningstar, nine-section whip [UC], nunchaku, sansetsukon [UC], scorpion whip [UC], spiked chain, urumi [UC], and whip.
I'm not seeing it.
|
|
I'm not seeing it.There's something quite odd in the Fighter "flail" weapon group. Which of these doesn't belong?
Flails: chain spear [APG], dire flail, double chained kama [UC], flail, flying blade [UC], heavy flail, kusarigama [UC], kyoketsu shoge [UC], meteor hammer [UC], morningstar, nine-section whip [UC], nunchaku, sansetsukon [UC], scorpion whip [UC], spiked chain, urumi [UC], and whip.
I think they're referring to the morningstar. The picture in the book does not depict a flexible section, but real morningstars have chains between the head and the shaft (short chains, but still).
|
|
That's basically equivalent to saying "you aren't using it."
No... that's saying you are using it, but aren't getting any bonuses for doing so. It's an important difference, because you can do stuff like trip at reach with a longspear, even if you don't get the longspear's +5 magical bonus added to the attempt.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
That's basically equivalent to saying "you aren't using it."No... that's saying you are using it, but aren't getting any bonuses for doing so. It's an important difference, because you can do stuff like trip at reach with a longspear, even if you don't get the longspear's +5 magical bonus added to the attempt.
You CANNOT trip at reach with a longspear. You need the trip property to trip with that weapon, and it does not have it.
Please read the second half of my post, reposted here for your convenience:
The trip property even states "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks", implying that you aren't using it for trip if your weapon doesn't have that property.
In short: No "trip" property, no using that weapon to trip. Disarm and Sunder do not have this language, but are weapon properties that grant bonuses when using that weapon for the combat maneuver (instead of enabling), thus implying that you can use your weapons for those maneuvers with or without that property.
|
|
In short: No "trip" property, no using that weapon to trip.Yes, I realise that you're saying that - it's just that the help/FAQ disagrees with you (as quoted above).
The FAQ disagrees with RAW and RAI on that point, but only the way you're reading it.
The question the FAQ wanted to answer was "Do I need a trip weapon to trip?" and the answer was "No. You don't need a weapon to trip."
The only reasons I can see to include the "trip with longsword" comment at all is to prevent people from using the lack of free hands as a justification to preventing people from tripping, and to keep people from claiming you can't trip because if you trip with your body then you're using unarmed strike (which isn't a trip weapon). But the only reason unarmed strike isn't a trip weapon is because that would come with the baggage of being able to "drop" the weapon to avoid being tripped, which makes no sense for unarmed strike.
Using a weapon for a combat maneuver and not getting bonuses makes no sense in any way, shape or form (in either RAW or RAI). You are great at that weapon/the weapon is great. If you were using it, you'd get the bonuses.
The way you're reading the FAQ directly contradicts the book and not for the purpose of answering the stated question. Reading it as "you're effectively not using it" contradicts neither the book nor the FAQ.
|
|
That's basically equivalent to saying "you aren't using it."No... that's saying you are using it, but aren't getting any bonuses for doing so. It's an important difference, because you can do stuff like trip at reach with a longspear, even if you don't get the longspear's +5 magical bonus added to the attempt.You CANNOT trip at reach with a longspear. You need the trip property to trip with that weapon, and it does not have it.
Please read the second half of my post, reposted here for your convenience:
That's just wrong.
By RAW, "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks."
This is clearly NOT the same as saying, "You must use a trip weapon to make trip attacks."
This reading means that the only purpose of the trip property is to be able to drop the weapon instead of being tripped back. This makes no sense, however, because logically you should be able to drop any weapon you would attempt to trip with that you can drop at all (such as longspear).
It also makes no sense to be able to use a great weapon that you're great at (for a net +11 if you're a high level fighter) and not get any of that giant bonus when using that weapon just because you're knocking them down with it instead of stabbing with it (the damage boost is a separate aspect of the bonuses you get). Especially given that putting "trip" on that weapon would magically give you that bonus under the reading you and Prof are supporting.
If you're using the weapon either way, then why would you need the "trip" property to get the bonuses? What about those weapons makes skill matter for them, but not for other weapons? What about trip makes this true for trip but not for disarm or sunder (which can be done with any weapon)?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Almost. You can use those weapons modifiers IF the weapon is used for the maneuver. For trip this requires the property. Disarm and sunder do not require this property to be done via a weapon and gain the bonus. You never get those benefits if you are using bull-rush, reposition, steal, dirty trick, grapple, drag or overrun (though you might be able to argue that you do if it's done via the UC "strike" feats that give you those maneuver checks on criticals).Hold on... this...
... is what I was thinking of. Where are you getting the rest of what you say? Can you post a reference please?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
It's basically in the Core Book. From 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. 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."
Combat maneuvers are basically attacks. Bonuses and penalties to attack rolls apply to them, as long as it make sense. Bonuses that pertain to a weapon can be applied if and only the weapon is used to perform the maneuver. FAQ clarify that the TRIP property allows a weapon to apply the bonuses. It follows, although not explicitly stated, the only trip weapons (or no weapon at all) are used to perform trip attempts.
Note that the FAQ also says:
"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."
"Doesn't help" could still be interpreted that "but you are still using it", but it's applicable only as long as it does not have any relevant mechanic effects. Using a reach weapon like a spear to perform a trip attent at range would NOT be allowed.
A weapon with the trip quality allows you to make a trip with that weapon and possibly get lots of relevant bonuses.
If you have a weapon that does not have the trip quality you can still trip but you are not using that weapon to do so and therefore get fewer bonuses.
So my Fighter 8 with Imp Trip, Greater Trip, a +2 heavy flail (with Weapon trg flails) is really good a tripping. He gets +4 for feats, +1 Weapon Training and +2 from the flail (plus possibly Weapon Focus etc). So he is pretty good at tripping - and does not risk getting tripped if he fails.
If he puts his flail away and is fighting with a +5 longsword he can still trip but he is using his leg or something else to do the deed. Thus he does not get any bonuses from the weapon itself or weapon training, but still gets +4 from the Trip feats. If he fails in his attempt he can get tripped by his opponent.
So in the first example my fighter uses the flail to hook his opponent's leg and trip him over.
In the second he is face-to-face with his foe, swords crossed between them, snarling curses at each other. He then slips his leg behind his opponent's and does a neat judo-style trip.
If you want a weapon you can use to trip at reach buy a gusiarme.
I think they're referring to the morningstar. The picture in the book does not depict a flexible section, but real morningstars have chains between the head and the shaft (short chains, but still).
Morning stars are essentially spiked clubs: A spiked ball affixed to a wooden or metal shaft. A flail is a spiked ball affixed to a chain attached to a wooden or metal shaft. See here.
|
|
This reading means that the only purpose of the trip property is to be able to drop the weapon instead of being tripped back. This makes no sense, however, because logically you should be able to drop any weapon you would attempt to trip with that you can drop at all (such as longspear).RAW is very clear. While any weapon can be used to trip, only weapons with the trip feature apply their enhancement bonus to the trip attempt.
As I stated earlier, this makes no sense and directly contradicts the wording of the Trip property.
Also, see this addendum added by James Jacobs which indicates that you are NOT using a weapon if you are tripping unless you are using a weapon with the trip quality. You can argue that he's being overruled by other people, but taking a vaguely worded sentence in a FAQ and using it over a very clearly worded sentence from another official would, IMO, be rather dense.
EDIT: Better Link.
|
|
This reading means that the only purpose of the trip property is to be able to drop the weapon instead of being tripped back. This makes no sense, however, because logically you should be able to drop any weapon you would attempt to trip with that you can drop at all (such as longspear).RAW is very clear. While any weapon can be used to trip, only weapons with the trip feature apply their enhancement bonus to the trip attempt.As I stated earlier, this makes no sense and directly contradicts the wording of the Trip property.
You've asserted that it directly contradicts the wording of the trip property, but have given no justification for that assertion.
I've reviewed James Jacobs' house rules and I think they are perfectly fine if you want to use them.
Also, see this addendum added by James Jacobs which indicates that you are NOT using a weapon if you are tripping unless you are using a weapon with the trip quality. You can argue that he's being overruled by other people, but taking a vaguely worded sentence in a FAQ and using it over a very clearly worded sentence from another official would, IMO, be rather dense.EDIT: Better Link.
I have given plenty of justification. The trip property says that "You can use a trip weapon to trip." The disarm and sunder properties do not have this wording. This implies that disarm and sunder do not require it to be used for their respective combat maneuvers, but trip does.
The fact that this is James' official opinion on RAW just supports that.
SKR's post, as I said earlier, could just as easily be read as saying 'no bonus with longsword because you're effectively not using it.' It is YOU who choose to read this as something other than what RAW states. As James has said in other posts you can't really let people trip using a non-trip weapon because that would allow reach tripping, which is not intended.
So in other words, you have to overcome 3 pieces of supporting evidence: The wording of trip versus disarm/sunder, the problem of reach tripping without a reach-trip weapon and James' official opinion. And you want to overcome this based on one vaguely worded sentence in a FAQ.
Finally, I should note that James' opinion on this matter is not his HOUSE RULE opinion (which he has plenty of), it's his RAW+RAI opinion.
|
|
The trip property says that "You can use a trip weapon to trip."Exactly. Not, "You must use a trip weeapon to trip."
The disarm and sunder properties do not have this wording. This implies that disarm and sunder do not require it to be used for their respective combat maneuvers, but trip does.No, it doesn't. And this was clarified in the official faq.
The fact that this is James' official opinion on RAW just supports that.This discussion will go a lot smoother if you stop assuming things as fact which you haven't proven - namely that this is James' official opinion. What we do know for a fact is that he stated words which agree with you in the unofficial faq, but this position was not carried over to the official faq. The official faq agrees with what I've said.
I will defer to the other thread, BUT I would like to note that the reason it does not say "You MUST trip with a trip weapon" is because you need not. You can do it sans-weapon. THAT'S what the FAQ was clarifying in the first place. What we're discussing is whether you CAN trip with a non-trip weapon, which the trip quality's first sentence implies. Namely, if you could trip with a non-trip weapon, that entire first sentence would be completely unrequired! So unless we get errata that removes that sentence, I stand by my opinion that you CANNOT trip with a longsword/longspear/etc. If you try to, you're effectively NOT using the weapon.
I think they're referring to the morningstar. The picture in the book does not depict a flexible section, but real morningstars have chains between the head and the shaft (short chains, but still).Morning stars are essentially spiked clubs: A spiked ball affixed to a wooden or metal shaft. A flail is a spiked ball affixed to a chain attached to a wooden or metal shaft. See here.
Exactly.
I blame castlevania for the misconceptions over what 'morning stars' actually ARE...
|
|
Also, see this addendum added by James Jacobs which indicates that you are NOT using a weapon if you are tripping unless you are using a weapon with the trip quality...
Just to clarify - it can't really be an 'addendum' to the help/FAQ if it was written a year or so before the FAQ was.
Like it or not, the FAQs can and do change rules. I for one dislike and disagree with the need for the FAQ which changes the rules on Brew Potion and undoes all the good Pathfinder did with that particular type of item creation and reset it back to the 'redheaded stepchild of item creation Feats' it was in the bad old days of 3.5. That I dislike and disagree with the need for it, and won't be using it in home games I run, doesn't stop me from understanding it, or acknowledging the change has been made, despite it contradicting the rules in the Core book.
My own view is that current weapon balance is damaged by letting anyone using a one handed weapon turn it two handed at will.
Reducing the difference between a longsword and greatsword to only the average damage of their respective dice diminishes the true two handed weapons worth, and makes the exotic hand and a half weapons even less appealing.
In movie depictions, the use of a one handed weapon in two hands has been an act of finality or desperation. Inverting the sword to coup de grace the fallen enemy, or abandoning defense for reckless assault. I suppose thinking on it, I've also seen it used when trying to parry much stronger blows.
Anyhow, this is mostly just observation. Most comparisons I've seen on the boards have been one handed weapons wielded in two hands, vs two handed weapons.
Non elite array would yield for a 4th-level warrior (appropriate given the circumstance involved) a strength of 14 and a dexterity of 12. Ample strength for -- in game rules -- a longbow, composite +2, and enough dexterity to yield a +6 attack bonus in total, given bowmen will be focused in longbow. Add point-blank and far shot as the other two feats (assuming human), and you're rolling to hit a square (AC 5) 300 ft. away at +4; go for "heyday of the English longbow" distances (300 yards) and you're rolling to hit that square at -2.
Man, I gotta say. I really like the looks of this. I just wish I could justify it at my table outside of a mass combat. I'm sure for balances sake there should be some other factor in there that prevents you from simply ignoring AC.
Still, Kudos.
My own view is that current weapon balance is damaged by letting anyone using a one handed weapon turn it two handed at will.
Reducing the difference between a longsword and greatsword to only the average damage of their respective dice diminishes the true two handed weapons worth, and makes the exotic hand and a half weapons even less appealing.
In movie depictions, the use of a one handed weapon in two hands has been an act of finality or desperation. Inverting the sword to coup de grace the fallen enemy, or abandoning defense for reckless assault. I suppose thinking on it, I've also seen it used when trying to parry much stronger blows.
Anyhow, this is mostly just observation. Most comparisons I've seen on the boards have been one handed weapons wielded in two hands, vs two handed weapons.
I actually think the opposite. I find this to be the great equaliser among weapons. I make a point of choosing one handed weapons and weilding them in two most of the time, these days, as the difference is quite negligable, and I'm really not a fan of oversized weapons (a longsword used well is a whole lot cooler). The longsword, spear, rapier and heavy mace are my favourite weapons, and power attack and some strength make them all at least reasonably effective. I'm also a fan of the dagger, but sneak attack is all I've got, there.
I'm midway through rewatching the trilogy, and I've been taking note of Aragorn's (and Boromir's for he is infinately cooler) fighting style. He typically uses that longsword of his in two hands, ocassionally breaking this this rule for a punch to the face. Sources say Viggo is a hell of a swordsman too, so I'm willing to use this as my baseline.
In fact, I'm hoping to hide the existance of greatswords from my newest players as long as I can precisely for this reason. I'd rule them out if I could, but I don't like restricting my players so much.
If you ask me there should be less weapons. Long, bastard and greatswords could easily be one weapon, ferinstance. Falchions, scimitars and katanas likewise. The flail and heavy flail? Bump up the former one step and they're exactly the same. Add power attack and +3 str and the difference is fairly negligable. Challenge, smite or weapon training/spec? It's a non-issue.
I agree on shields, however, but when magic shields are part of the picture I think this particular problem starts to dissapear somewhat.
Just my one... two... nineteen pence on this matter. I've been watching this thread for a while, so I'm glad to finally have gotten to the top page and been able to contribute.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like every weapon to have something special, a reason to pick them over other weapons. Also want to get rid of the overdone crit system, too much focus on crits to the point of taking away flavor.
longsword, 1d8/19-20, slashing, finessable
rapier, 1d6/19-20, piercing, finessable, +2 crit confirm
scimitar, 1d6/19-20, slashing, finessable, +2 crit confirm
elven curve blade, 1d12/19-20, slashing, finessable, +2 crit confirm
nodachi, 1d12/19-20, slashing, brace, +2 crit confirm
great sword, 1d12/19-20, slashing, +4 damage on crits
great axe, 1d12/x3, slashing, +4 damage on crits
bastard sword, 1d10/19-20, slashing, +4 damage on crits
katana, 1d8/19-20, slashing, finessable, +2 crit confirm, +4 damage crit
Falchion, 1d12/19-20, slashing, +2 crit confirm
Heavy Mace, 1d8/x2, bludgeoning, +4 damage on crits- Weapon finesse is considered a free feat
While I am definitely in the camp of "yeah; let's fix these stupid weapons", some quibbles:
* Weapon Finesse should not be free. -- No freebies!
* Get rid of the crit stuff if the idea is to de-emphasize crits.
* longswords, bastard swords and katanas do piercing OR slashing, and are finessable only when wielded in two hands.
* make the rapier a d8 weapon, and introduce the main gauche, a similar but smaller d6 weapon made to pair with a rapier.
* When TWFing a pair of rapier and main gauche, or katana and wakizashi, or any two light weapons, the wielder may treat the matched pair of weapons as a single two-handed weapon for purposes of applying the benefits of the Shield of Swings feat.
* Heavy mace: d10 weapon.
Whichever one I'm holding.