Does an Unarmed Strike with Improved Trip become a "Trip Weapon"?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Mr.Jacobs does not get to make official rules though so even if he is right, and the rules guys are wrong, then the rules guys(Sean and Jason's) explanations are still the official rules.
Another thing is the FAQ is how things are intended to work even if the written rules don't support the FAQ*(vital strike).

*I have not read Mr.Jacobs breakdown of the situation.

At this point you have two choices you can say this is what they were trying to say, but the wording was not well so I can follow that or you can say what they said is more important than what they meant and follow that.

PS: I do understand the issue because either the trip ability needs to be rewritten to state that it allows you to use the bonus and drop the weapon, or the FAQ does not do as much good as people think it does.

Not everyone goes online to check the rule. I am 1 about of over 10 gamers that actually spends time on the boards. Everyone reads the books however so I think errata should change the words, and FAQ's should explain the words that are in the book.

I am going to FAQ this post in hopes that it gets errat'd in the book.


ProfPotts wrote:

If you can't use any weapon to attempt a trip, then wouldn't the help/FAQ answer simply have been something like:

'You can attempt a trip with a trip weapon, or unarmed.'

... Instead of wasting a couple of paragraphs of text clarifying which bonuses you get (or rather don't get) when using a non-trip weapon to try a trip?

As far as I know SKR isn't prone to excessive rules wordage for no reason, is he?

Yes, you can trip your target with your mind's power.

Rules are clear. You can trip a target with your body or your natural weapon, or with a weapon with the trip ability. You apply "all effects" that you would apply to an attack. So weapon focus, malus for fighting with 2 weapons, etc. We don't need a faq or something, it's very clear, and it is because they used some pages to explain and not 2 lines.


wraithstrike wrote:

Mr.Jacobs does not get to make official rules though so even if he is right, and the rules guys are wrong, then the rules guys(Sean and Jason's) explanations are still the official rules.

Another thing is the FAQ is how things are intended to work even if the written rules don't support the FAQ*(vital strike).

*I have not read Mr.Jacobs breakdown of the situation.

At this point you have two choices you can say this is what they were trying to say, but the wording was not well so I can follow that or you can say what they said is more important than what they meant and follow that.

PS: I do understand the issue because either the trip ability needs to be rewritten to state that it allows you to use the bonus and drop the weapon, or the FAQ does not do as much good as people think it does.

Not everyone goes online to check the rule. I am 1 about of over 10 gamers that actually spends time on the boards. Everyone reads the books however so I think errata should change the words, and FAQ's should explain the words that are in the book.

I am going to FAQ this post in hopes that it gets errat'd in the book.

Page 199, core rulebook eng version.

"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."

Page 145, trip weapon special ability:

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.

SO:
You always use all modifiers listed (and other effects means all type not listed) applicable to the weapon or attack you are using.
Trip ability don't give you the weapon bonuses, it just let you use it to trip THEN like rules state, you apply all modifiers.

If you don't use a weapon you are using a natural weapon or an unarmed attack (and what else? your smell?) so you must apply all bonuses and maluses you have on those attacks.

Now it's clear?


AlecStorm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Mr.Jacobs does not get to make official rules though so even if he is right, and the rules guys are wrong, then the rules guys(Sean and Jason's) explanations are still the official rules.

Another thing is the FAQ is how things are intended to work even if the written rules don't support the FAQ*(vital strike).

*I have not read Mr.Jacobs breakdown of the situation.

At this point you have two choices you can say this is what they were trying to say, but the wording was not well so I can follow that or you can say what they said is more important than what they meant and follow that.

PS: I do understand the issue because either the trip ability needs to be rewritten to state that it allows you to use the bonus and drop the weapon, or the FAQ does not do as much good as people think it does.

Not everyone goes online to check the rule. I am 1 about of over 10 gamers that actually spends time on the boards. Everyone reads the books however so I think errata should change the words, and FAQ's should explain the words that are in the book.

I am going to FAQ this post in hopes that it gets errat'd in the book.

Page 199, core rulebook eng version.

"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."

Page 145, trip weapon special ability:

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.

SO:
You always use all modifiers listed (and other effects means all type not listed) applicable to the weapon or attack you are using.
Trip ability don't give you the weapon bonuses, it just let you use it to trip THEN like rules state, you apply all modifiers.

If you don't use a weapon you are using a natural weapon or an unarmed attack (and what else? your smell?) so you must apply all bonuses and maluses you have on those attacks....

I know both of those rules. So do a lot of the other posters, but it is not helping the situation.


ironnic wrote:
But let me ask, was your buddy standing squared off, ready to defend himself?

Actually, he was. He grabbed me, I slipped out of my sweatshirt, leaving him holding part of it, ducked out of his second attempt to grab me, brought my hand over his head and then down behind his legs and lifted.

ironnic wrote:
But that doesn't mean I could pick up a stick and trip someone in combat. Same with a longsword. But grabbing an opponent's leg with a kama and pulling him off balance makes sense. I can also see how most weapons could aid in tripping with proper training, but I'd think they'd be sub-par to a trip weapon in effectiveness.

Picking up a stick and tripping someone with it is a pretty standard maneuver in bojitsu (among other arts). Longswords can be used to trip by gripping the blade with your gauntlets and hooking the opponents legs with the crosspiece. This is also a common maneuver, especially of traditional german sword styles, the follow-up to the trip being a particularly brutal attack called a mordschlag (translates to "murder stroke")

I teach armed combat for a living. I can tell you that the only weapons on the planet that you really can't trip with are the semi-flexible ones like the sjambok, and shields (unless you throw it or swing it by the arm-loop). Hiltless swords like machetes are also hard, but really, a hard hit to the back of the knee with the blunt edge of the weapon combined with a free-hand chest push can drop someone pretty easily.

Everything else, tripping's easy.


Wraithstrike, this END the situation. It's clear, you can use the weapon bonuses IF you can use the weapon to do the maneuver (you had apply, it's not a choice).
This is not in the weapon special ability description because it's a rule that works with it but don't depend from.
The trip ability don't need to be rewritten, it's very clear. Your weapon got it? Well, you can use it to trip. You trip with a weapon? Apply bonuses and maluses. Stop.


Sorry, I I thought you meant that my post was wrong. Indeed, it was quite frustrating to think that you knew the rules but did not agree.
My fault.


I retract my "angry" post. I really just skim read, and was only saying the rule should be better written. I was just long winded about it.

Liberty's Edge

I think one thing people are forgetting is that unless stated otherwise a FAQ is not there to *change* rules, only clarify them. The wording of the trip property and the combat maneuver section indicates that if you *could* use the longsword for tripping, you'd get your bonuses, but you can't because it's not a trip weapon. However, you can trip sans-weapon, so you aren't blocked from tripping (which is what the FAQ was trying to say).

If this last (vague) line of the FAQ were a rules change, it's an odd one that makes it harder to drop a spear simply because you're tripping with it, and makes it harder to drop that spear than another polearm that has a different tip based solely on the fact that the other polearm has the "trip" property (even with identical hand-holds). It would also add a special case to the combat maneuver rules that state that when you use a weapon for a combat maneuver you get relevant bonuses (it currently has no exceptions).

This means that you would need a minimum of 2 rule changes spelled out for the "you're using the longsword" interpretation to work (one to change the trip property and another to update the combat maneuver section), while you would need 0 changes to simply call it a badly worded sentence. Since the FAQ was not noted as having a rule change of any form, I prefer to lean towards the 0 rule change scenario.

EDIT: I should note that using the weapon to trip as an improvised weapon seems perfectly reasonable (as the modified weapon block would include the trip property).


ironnic wrote:

I agree with Heaven's Agent and others. Nothing that Sean says trumps the clearly laid out rules that James put down or the RAW. Sean was likely just going through a stack of FAQ updates and thought he was clear, when he truly was not. Nothing is definitive in what was stated.

It really kills me when people grab the original question and the word "No." as a definitive answer, without keeping in the context of what follows - that you can also trip unarmed. Let the man finish his thought if you're going to quote him.

Granting a simple weapon the ability to trip at a reach totally diminishes the intent of the rules. A sorcerer can now make a trip attempt with a longspear according to some rules lawyering?? That couldn't possibly be the intent of the designers. And he can't drop it if he fails because you're following the unarmed trip rules? Also makes no sense.

It's funny to me how adamant some people are about language that's so fuzzy. And how many times have I read "What Sean meant was..." Only Sean knows what he meant by what he wrote. We can make assumptions, but they're just that, assumptions. Not rules.

Assuming that Sean is trumping James just because he answered a question a different (and more vague) way is again just that, an assumption.

None of that entry warrants a rules change. Let's wait for solid rules clarification before we go jumping at assumptions.

I agree that people who are unable to read in context are making this problem a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

Take the quote

Quote:
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

It very clearly says that the longsword doesn't help you make the trip attempt - just like an unarmed trip doesn't help you make the trip attempt. It even says that there's no difference between a longsword and an unarmed attack and says that a trip can be performed unarmed.

How much more clear can it possibly be?


When you trip someone you use mainly your upper limbs. Arm, hand, etc. And what are those limb? Your natural weapon or unarmed attacks. So what bonuses you should add (or not) during a trip attempt?
By the way, my job is done, I clarified the rules for whom asked, I don't need further discussion.


AlecStorm wrote:

When you trip someone you use mainly your upper limbs. Arm, hand, etc. And what are those limb? Your natural weapon or unarmed attacks. So what bonuses you should add (or not) during a trip attempt?

By the way, my job is done, I clarified the rules for whom asked, I don't need further discussion.

Actually, you use whatever you can - not just arms, hands, etc. You can use the hilt of a blade, the pommel, the flat of the blade, whatever you've got handy.

And, yes, the answer has been given. It is possible to trip with a non-trip weapon, but only trip weapons add enhancement bonuses, feat bonuses from specific weapons (such as weapon focus), etc.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:

When you trip someone you use mainly your upper limbs. Arm, hand, etc. And what are those limb? Your natural weapon or unarmed attacks. So what bonuses you should add (or not) during a trip attempt?

By the way, my job is done, I clarified the rules for whom asked, I don't need further discussion.

Actually, you use whatever you can - not just arms, hands, etc. You can use the hilt of a blade, the pommel, the flat of the blade, whatever you've got handy.

And, yes, the answer has been given. It is possible to trip with a non-trip weapon, but only trip weapons add enhancement bonuses, feat bonuses from specific weapons (such as weapon focus), etc.

This answer is not a forgone conclusion, please don't act like it is.

As I've noted before, it would require a minimum of 2 rule changes to support the view that non-trip weapons can be used to trip at all (without treating them as improvised weapons with the trip property), and the FAQ does not make any such rule changes nor does it suggest it intends to. As a FAQ's purpose is to clarify rules, not change them, an explicit note must be made to override existing rules. I'd hardly call one badly-worded sentence an explicit override.

Since it requires 2 rule changes, a couple of weird consequences and a lot of questionable logic (such as one stick being harder to drop than another), I find it unlikely that your interpretation is the correct one.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've updated the FAQ to make it extra-clear, as some people are having problems interpreting it.

Edit: Meaning I updated the existing FAQ entry about trip combat maneuvers and trip weapons.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I've updated the FAQ to make it extra-clear, as some people are having problems interpreting it.

link to make it abundantly clear?

Grand Lodge

Lobolusk wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I've updated the FAQ to make it extra-clear, as some people are having problems interpreting it.
link to make it abundantly clear?

Link, agreed, would be really cool. Thxs.


Here's the link, and a quote:

Sean K Reynolds, Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?

No. When making a trip combat maneuver, you don't have to use a weapon with the trip special feature. For example, you can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike, even though those weapons don't have the trip special feature.
Note that 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 trip 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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I've updated the FAQ to make it extra-clear, as some people are having problems interpreting it.

So you're effectively changing the rules in the combat section having to do with combat maneuvers to add an exception to when bonuses apply? AND changing the wording of the trip property to remove the first sentence? AND making it so it's harder to drop a weapon just because you're tripping and it's not a trip weapon (note that it's normally always a free action to drop). AND making it so a person can trip at reach with a simple weapon?

This seems like a lot of baggage.

Forgive me if I seem terse, but consider this ruling completely and totally ignored for lack of sensibility.

I can see a ruling that says "you can use it as an improvised trip weapon", but not a "you're always using it, but somehow don't get bonuses to apply to absolutely everything else, including other combat maneuvers that use the weapon." Especially when a minimum of 2 rules changes are required and at least one illogical consequence and one balance consequence results.


Wow, thanks for the clarification Sean!

Much more clear now and obviously my interpretation was wrong. Looks like you CAN use any weapon to make a trip. But also, clearly unarmed strikes are never trip weapons.

I don't totally agree with the decision, but at least it's a decision.

And Sabbity, I'm honored that you liked my Improvised Trip Weapon idea. I think it worked well within the rules.


ironnic wrote:

Wow, thanks for the clarification Sean!

Much more clear now and obviously my interpretation was wrong. Looks like you CAN use any weapon to make a trip. But also, clearly unarmed strikes are never trip weapons.

Happy maneuvering everyone...

i dont see why this statement makes people so upset? it is what it is?

Contributor

StabbittyDoom wrote:
So you're effectively changing the rules in the combat section having to do with combat maneuvers to add an exception to when bonuses apply?

This is the interpretation Jason and I agreed on back when I posted that FAQ entry in March 2011.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND changing the wording of the trip property to remove the first sentence?

This doesn't change the trip weapon property at all. "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks" does not mean "You can't use a non-trip weapon to make trip attacks." There's nothing in the Trip combat maneuver description that says you have to use a weapon with the trip special ability.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND making it so it's harder to drop a weapon just because you're tripping and it's not a trip weapon (note that it's normally always a free action to drop).

Dropping a weapon as part of a failed trip has always been an advantage of the trip weapon property. This FAQ doesn't change that.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND making it so a person can trip at reach with a simple weapon?

Eh?

Liberty's Edge

Lobolusk wrote:
ironnic wrote:

Wow, thanks for the clarification Sean!

Much more clear now and obviously my interpretation was wrong. Looks like you CAN use any weapon to make a trip. But also, clearly unarmed strikes are never trip weapons.

Happy maneuvering everyone...

i dont see why this statement makes people so upset? it is what it is?

To be honest, my main concern is the illogical nature of the consequences. If I were using a quarterstaff to disarm someone, I get bonuses from skill and magic. If I use it to trip, I don't. If I use it as an improvised trip weapon, I do. I fail to see how the last two scenarios are different, world-wise. Both of them involve using a weapon in a way that isn't intended, and the same way no less, but one has a different bonus pattern than the other.

I especially don't see how an enhancement bonus would fail to activate even though you *are* using the weapon (according to this ruling). Those bonuses always activate, even if you aren't using the weapon properly, so why does one improper use get bonuses and the other not?

It breaks the verisimilitude of my world, and I don't like that. You break that for the purpose of an unimportant rules nitpick and you've removed part of the fun for no good reason.

It's like trying to play a video game set in the medieval era and seeing a billboard for Coke. It just doesn't make sense and completely removes you from the game.

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
So you're effectively changing the rules in the combat section having to do with combat maneuvers to add an exception to when bonuses apply?

This is the interpretation Jason and I agreed on back when I posted that FAQ entry in March 2011.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND changing the wording of the trip property to remove the first sentence?

This doesn't change the trip weapon property at all. "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks" does not mean "You can't use a non-trip weapon to make trip attacks." There's nothing in the Trip combat maneuver description that says you have to use a weapon with the trip special ability.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND making it so it's harder to drop a weapon just because you're tripping and it's not a trip weapon (note that it's normally always a free action to drop).

Dropping a weapon as part of a failed trip has always been an advantage of the trip weapon property. This FAQ doesn't change that.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND making it so a person can trip at reach with a simple weapon?

Eh?

If you can trip with any weapon, you can trip with a simple reach weapon (longspear), and can thus trip at reach without needing a reach trip weapon. This is the balance consequence I referred to.

Also, though you can say that the sentence in the trip property is not contradicted, it is CERTAINLY no longer necessary with this ruling. However, this still leaves a rule change in the Combat chapter that states that if you use a weapon for a maneuver you always get the relevant bonuses for that weapon.


When Pathfinder 2.0 comes out, it would be nice to have combat maneuvers simplified so there aren't as many rules and fiddly little exceptions.

Liberty's Edge

Doomed Hero wrote:
ironnic wrote:
But let me ask, was your buddy standing squared off, ready to defend himself?

Actually, he was. He grabbed me, I slipped out of my sweatshirt, leaving him holding part of it, ducked out of his second attempt to grab me, brought my hand over his head and then down behind his legs and lifted.

ironnic wrote:
But that doesn't mean I could pick up a stick and trip someone in combat. Same with a longsword. But grabbing an opponent's leg with a kama and pulling him off balance makes sense. I can also see how most weapons could aid in tripping with proper training, but I'd think they'd be sub-par to a trip weapon in effectiveness.

Picking up a stick and tripping someone with it is a pretty standard maneuver in bojitsu (among other arts). Longswords can be used to trip by gripping the blade with your gauntlets and hooking the opponents legs with the crosspiece. This is also a common maneuver, especially of traditional german sword styles, the follow-up to the trip being a particularly brutal attack called a mordschlag (translates to "murder stroke")

I teach armed combat for a living. I can tell you that the only weapons on the planet that you really can't trip with are the semi-flexible ones like the sjambok, and shields (unless you throw it or swing it by the arm-loop). Hiltless swords like machetes are also hard, but really, a hard hit to the back of the knee with the blunt edge of the weapon combined with a free-hand chest push can drop someone pretty easily.

Everything else, tripping's easy.

I can vouch for Doomed Heroe's classes, I took a couple when we lived in the same town. for the record though, he has taught traditional and stage combat classes.

As for defering to reality. I do that on a limited sense, witht eh martial abilities. Being and amatuer martial artist I realising that certain things, like cleaving, or pulling a weapon out of an embediment are just effortless in fantasyland.

When you look at modern combat you don't see a lot of fancy moves, even my coveted kungfu saves a lot of that for kata and demonstration. successful martial arts keep things simple, fast, and brutal. Though I suppose that's why grappling monsters are also so deadly, most fights end on the ground and not in a very pretty way. Which leads me to my only serious problem with fantasy combat versus combat experience. Most systems don't allow for how dirty and decisive can be.

To keep myself from falling into a tirade about efficency and fantasy; I'll move on. If you are playing with your game master and he doesn't approve of what you want to do, just talk it over and find a comprommise. This isn't society play, so there's room for fudging. heck you might just create the amulet of superior tripping which is essntially a magic item that enhances the CMB and CMD of tripping. there are options, just find them, and try not to get too caught up in the mechanics or the realism.

Remember rule #1 is enjoy the game.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
So you're effectively changing the rules in the combat section having to do with combat maneuvers to add an exception to when bonuses apply?

This is the interpretation Jason and I agreed on back when I posted that FAQ entry in March 2011.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND changing the wording of the trip property to remove the first sentence?

This doesn't change the trip weapon property at all. "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks" does not mean "You can't use a non-trip weapon to make trip attacks." There's nothing in the Trip combat maneuver description that says you have to use a weapon with the trip special ability.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND making it so it's harder to drop a weapon just because you're tripping and it's not a trip weapon (note that it's normally always a free action to drop).

Dropping a weapon as part of a failed trip has always been an advantage of the trip weapon property. This FAQ doesn't change that.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
AND making it so a person can trip at reach with a simple weapon?

Eh?

So, other then allowing a pole arm to be used in a bull rush, what is the use of this ability:

Quote:
Sweeping Fend (Ex): At 13th level, a polearm master can use any spear or pole arm to make a bull rush or trip maneuver, though he takes a –4 penalty to his CMB when making such attempts. Weapons with the trip property do not incur this penalty on trip maneuvers. This ability replaces weapon training 3.

So, at level 12, the polearm master can trip with a pole arm at reach with no penalty (to the CMB), then at level 13, he takes a -4 to do the same trick?

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:
To be honest, my main concern is the illogical nature of the consequences. If I were using a quarterstaff to disarm someone, I get bonuses from skill and magic. If I use it to trip, I don't. If I use it as an improvised trip weapon, I do. I fail to see how the last two scenarios are different, world-wise. Both of them involve using a weapon in a way that isn't intended, and the same way no less, but one has a different bonus pattern than the other.

I see what you're saying. I'd argue that we need to treat all of the weapons the same in that "not using it for its right purpose" shouldn't give the bonuses, which means at +5 dagger shouldn't give you its +5 to disarm checks or or to trip checks.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
I especially don't see how an enhancement bonus would fail to activate even though you *are* using the weapon (according to this ruling). Those bonuses always activate, even if you aren't using the weapon properly, so why does one improper use get bonuses and the other not?

Because a dagger's enhancement bonus makes it good for stabbing enemies, but not for disarming enemies, tripping enemies, or picking locks.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
It breaks the verisimilitude of my world, and I don't like that. You break that for the purpose of an unimportant rules nitpick and you've removed part of the fun for no good reason.

Yeah, I'm all about removing the fun.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
If you can trip with any weapon, you can trip with a simple reach weapon (longspear), and can thus trip at reach without needing a reach trip weapon. This is the balance consequence I referred to.

Why is tripping with a longspear a broken combo? If you fail by 10, you're tripped, and on his turn your enemy can step up and full attack your unarmed prone dirt-biting regretful self.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
Also, though you can say that the sentence in the trip property is not contradicted, it is CERTAINLY no longer necessary with this ruling.

There are many, many, many places in the rules where there is redundant wording.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
However, this still leaves a rule change in the Combat chapter that states that if you use a weapon for a maneuver you always get the relevant bonuses for that weapon.

Actually, I think you're referring to this text:

Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
But it sounds like you're ignoring the very next sentence:
These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

So it's perfectly reasonable to not count a particular weapon's bonus if that doesn't apply to the maneuver you're attempting. Does a whip help you make a bull rush? No. Does a sap help you sunder? No. Does a spiked gauntlet help you steal? No.


A super-big "Thank You" to Sean for clarifying this issue and the intent of the FAQ.

Now, while we have your ear, can you tell us how that affects the Polearm Master Fighter Archtype's ability at level 13:

PRD wrote:


Sweeping Fend (Ex): At 13th level, a polearm master can use any spear or pole arm to make a bull rush or trip maneuver, though he takes a –4 penalty to his CMB when making such attempts. Weapons with the trip property do not incur this penalty on trip maneuvers. This ability replaces weapon training 3.

If any spear/polearm can be used for tripping at reach, then the level 12 fighter has no penalty, but at level 13 she gets a -4 penalty.

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

You're changing the wording with your interpretation of this line. You're saying that you're using the longsword to trip, but not getting the bonus. This line says that if you use the longsword to trip, you get the bonus. The word "used" in this sentence is fairly obvious. Is this the mechanism through which you're doing the maneuver? Yes? You get the attack bonuses as bonuses on the check.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I see what you're saying. I'd argue that we need to treat all of the weapons the same in that "not using it for its right purpose" shouldn't give the bonuses, which means at +5 dagger shouldn't give you its +5 to disarm checks or or to trip checks.

Except that it DOES give bonuses to both disarm and sunder. That's what the line in the combat maneuvers section is for! If it doesn't do that, then the line has no purpose.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Why is tripping with a longspear a broken combo? If you fail by 10, you're tripped, and on his turn your enemy can step up and full attack your unarmed prone dirt-biting regretful self.

It may not be broken, but it certainly has consequences elsewhere, such as negating the benefit of one of the Polearm Fighter's abilities (noted above by Happler). (Note that the ability does NOT grant the trip property, it only says "you can trip with it".)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Because a dagger's enhancement bonus makes it good for stabbing enemies, but not for disarming enemies, tripping enemies, or picking locks.

Of course it doesn't apply to picking locks, but it does apply to attack rolls. Combat Maneuver Checks are attack rolls. This is *explicitly stated* in the combat chapter for no other reason than to apply such bonuses to them. Your ruling removes this rule entirely. If this is your intent, then go ahead and remove several lines from the CRB, but please realize that it isn't RAW as it stands now.

EDIT: Typo.


Seriously, this is getting old.

The rules were quoted and their correct interpretation was given.

It was pointed out by the game designers that this was the original intent.

So, can we stop with the "now, you're changing the rules" rant? The rules have always said the exact same thing (ie. that non-trip weapons can be used to trip). This has been pointed out 18 different ways from Sunday. What do you want, for the skies to open up and God to scream down at you?

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:

Seriously, this is getting old.

The rules were quoted and their correct interpretation was given.

It was pointed out by the game designers that this was the original intent.

So, can we stop with the "now, you're changing the rules" rant? The rules have always said the exact same thing (ie. that non-trip weapons can be used to trip). This has been pointed out 18 different ways from Sunday. What do you want, for the skies to open up and God to scream down at you?

Oh, sure, because the devs are totally infallible.

Look, people make mistakes, and I want to be sure that all the fall-out of this rules decision is careful considered. I'm sure they considered quite a bit of this, but it has become obvious to me that things have been missed. This ruling renders multiple lines of the rulebook either redundant or wrong, and causes at least one class feature to become a penalty rather than a bonus. This says to me that something is amiss.

I'm not asking that they rule my way, I'm asking that they rule consistently. If SKR says that the line about attack bonuses adding to combat maneuvers is wrong and will be removed, then so be it. That will be consistent. If he says that the pole-arm ability should actually say "can treat as having the trip property", so be it, because that's consistent.

As of right now, it's not consistent. A lack of consistency makes the rules confusing and sometimes (as is the case now) breaks the verisimilitude of the world or even causes what should be a bonus or a special feature to be a penalty or become moot.


StabbittyDoom wrote:


Oh, sure, because the devs are totally infallible.

Then you aren't arguing over what the rules are, rather you're arguing over what the rules should be.

That's an entirely different argument.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


I see what you're saying. I'd argue that we need to treat all of the weapons the same in that "not using it for its right purpose" shouldn't give the bonuses, which means at +5 dagger shouldn't give you its +5 to disarm checks or or to trip checks.

Hello Sean, one thought I shared earlier would be to treat all non-maneuver weapons as being improvised to the task. So a longsword could trip, but it would be at a -4 due to not being perfect for the job.

This penalty also aligns with the 13th level power of the Polearm Expert.

This could also apply to disarm weapons if you chose to do it that way, in fact disarming unarmed already falls under a similar penalty.

For simplicity and realism, bonuses could apply across the board, but the –4 to an improvised maneuver weapon would make it not as effective as an actual weapon designed to assist in a maneuver.

Not being able to drop a non-trip weapon lacks realism to me. I'd think any held weapon or improvised tool could be dropped just as easily as one designed for the task. Any attack that couldn't be disarmed (unarmed attacks, natural attacks, gauntlets, etc.) also can't be dropped and could end in a trip. I could certainly go either way with this though, just thinking out loud.

The Exchange

Thanks Sean!

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:


Oh, sure, because the devs are totally infallible.

Then you aren't arguing over what the rules are, rather you're arguing over what the rules should be.

That's an entirely different argument.

No, the rules as they are are quite clear: If you use the weapon for a maneuver, you get the attack bonuses specific to that weapon on your combat maneuver check. The FAQ would change these rules, but does not state it changes these rules. It also changes these rules in ways that result in strange things like making a Polearm Fighter's class ability a penalty instead of a bonus.

The things SKR have stated are rules changes, there is no contesting that, however they would be very far-reaching changes to very fundamental and as-of-yet unchallenged rules, such as adding attack bonuses to maneuver checks when using a weapon.

Because the required rules changes are far-reaching, but based on a FAQ that is not, all I ask is that these far-reaching consequences be both well thought out and explicitly changed. As you saw above, SKR incorrectly stated that a +5 dagger adds nothing to disarm (stating it in a way that implies this is RAW). This is very much not true if you read the combat chapter.

It is my belief, however, that when considering the far-reaching consequences of the change it would be better to state that a character can trip with a non-trip weapon as an improvised weapon, and still add relevant attack bonuses when doing so. This remains consistent, lets a person trip with a longsword (albeit at a penalty), and doesn't require sweeping rules changes.

Regardless of what the change or lack thereof is, it should be consistently applied throughout the core system and if it breaks an existing class feature or feat, those rules should be updated as well.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with simply leaving it as status quo and saying "You can always trip sans-weapon, even when you are wielding a weapon, but you can also trip with a trip weapon and get the relevant bonuses."

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I'd argue that we need to treat all of the weapons the same in that "not using it for its right purpose" shouldn't give the bonuses, which means at +5 dagger shouldn't give you its +5 to disarm checks or or to trip checks.

Waitwaitwait WHAT? So non-disarm weapons don't apply their bonuses to disarm attempts either?


Sean,

Thank you for stepping into the zany Rules Forums fray once again to explain and debate. I would like to commend you (and the rest of the Paizo folks) who made the call to update the FAQ to clarify the new rules position regarding and the chaos that resulted there from.

Although I have expressed the following sentiments before, I continue to believe them: Paizo has my full support because they are quite willing to treat their game material as a living document capable of changing and evolving - as necessary or through demand. Please do not change your design philosophy or close your communication channels to the players and consumers of your products. It is much appreciated.

We're in this together :)

Contributor

Jiggy wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I'd argue that we need to treat all of the weapons the same in that "not using it for its right purpose" shouldn't give the bonuses, which means at +5 dagger shouldn't give you its +5 to disarm checks or or to trip checks.
Waitwaitwait WHAT? So non-disarm weapons don't apply their bonuses to disarm attempts either?

I am suggesting that they probably shouldn't. A whip shouldn't be able to help you bull rush someone, so it shouldn't matter that it's a +5 whip or that you have Weapon Focus (whip). A sap shouldn't be able to help you sunder, so it shouldn't matter that it's a +5 sap or that you have Weapon Focus (sap).

But for now, that's just my interpretation, and I'm going to talk to Jason about it on Monday to see if he agrees.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I am suggesting that they probably shouldn't. A whip shouldn't be able to help you bull rush someone, so it shouldn't matter that it's a +5 whip or that you have Weapon Focus (whip). A sap shouldn't be able to help you sunder, so it shouldn't matter that it's a +5 sap or that you have Weapon Focus (sap).

But for now, that's just my interpretation, and I'm going to talk to Jason about it on Monday to see if he agrees.

I agree with this because I'm all for more equality across the weapon properties.

However, this may require the need for Sunder, Bull Rush and other combat maneuver properties and a mini overhaul of the weapons. Just thinking long term.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I'd argue that we need to treat all of the weapons the same in that "not using it for its right purpose" shouldn't give the bonuses, which means at +5 dagger shouldn't give you its +5 to disarm checks or or to trip checks.
Waitwaitwait WHAT? So non-disarm weapons don't apply their bonuses to disarm attempts either?

I am suggesting that they probably shouldn't. A whip shouldn't be able to help you bull rush someone, so it shouldn't matter that it's a +5 whip or that you have Weapon Focus (whip). A sap shouldn't be able to help you sunder, so it shouldn't matter that it's a +5 sap or that you have Weapon Focus (sap).

But for now, that's just my interpretation, and I'm going to talk to Jason about it on Monday to see if he agrees.

Ohhhh, okay. I was sitting here thinking "HOLY CRAP HOW DID I MISS THAT???". Alright, I look forward to seeing how that turns out.

And thanks for the update to the FAQ!


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you and Jason decide to change disarm and/or other maneuvers as well, please use errata. Using the FAQ to change existing rules is bad form and only confuses people, as it then contradicts the written rule (which technically has not been changed).

Contributor

Any FAQ issue that results in a change in the rules is updated in the next printing of the book. That's why we've started using the "Update: blah blah blah" note on some of the FAQ entries.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Any FAQ issue that results in a change in the rules is updated in the next printing of the book. That's why we've started using the "Update: blah blah blah" note on some of the FAQ entries.

:D


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Any FAQ issue that results in a change in the rules is updated in the next printing of the book. That's why we've started using the "Update: blah blah blah" note on some of the FAQ entries.

Will there be an update to the level 13 ability of a Polearm Master too?

Contributor

That depends on the outcome of this discussion.

I'm not ignoring your earlier question, I just don't have an answer for it yet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What about the maneuvers where no special weapons exist, like Dirty Trick? Can they be perfomed with any weapon, or can't they be perfomed with any weapon?

Liberty's Edge

This part is house-rule, but I've always gone by the rule that you can disarm and sunder with anything, but other maneuvers are sans-weapon unless they have some property (though I consider unarmed strike valid for all of them). The reason for disarm being "any weapon" is the difference between the disarm property and the trip property, which implies that all weapons can do the former but not all weapons can do the latter. For sunder, well, forcing people to sunder with their fists instead of their great-axe is just silly.

I could see Drag being doable with any weapon that can trip. I can also see certain uses of dirty trick (such as a gut shot) being doable with a weapon. Bull-rush should be doable with any bludgeoning weapon.

Again, all of this is house-rule. The only thing that the rules state is if you use the weapon, you get applicable bonuses on the combat maneuver check. This means that unless a combat maneuver or weapon property states otherwise (see the trip property, the mancatcher, any natural attack with grab or trip monster abilities, etc) allowing them to use the weapon for the maneuver is technically a house-rule. But then again, disallowing the use is also technically a house-rule. At least, near as I can tell.


And now you got a faq that doesn't change nothing, except for one thing: now the shape of a weapon influences its magic property.
So now the rules state: if your weapon is a wip, you add the bonus, if it's a longsword, no. Why?
Sorry Sean, but this has not much sense. Moreover this complicates a simple rule.


AlecStorm wrote:

And now you got a faq that doesn't change nothing, except for one thing: now the shape of a weapon influences its magic property.

So now the rules state: if your weapon is a wip, you add the bonus, if it's a longsword, no. Why?
Sorry Sean, but this has not much sense. Moreover this complicates a simple rule.

The intent of trip property was to give the weapon a good advantage over a weapon not designed for tripping.

As an example you can bang a nail in place with a screwdriver, but it is not the same as using a hammer.

In other words the right tool for the right job.


AlecStorm wrote:

And now you got a faq that doesn't change nothing, except for one thing: now the shape of a weapon influences its magic property.

So now the rules state: if your weapon is a wip, you add the bonus, if it's a longsword, no. Why?

Because one has the trip property and one doesnt?

51 to 100 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does an Unarmed Strike with Improved Trip become a "Trip Weapon"? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.