I believe that this is a case that can't be proven either way.*
We have evidence that you need to use a weapon that gives a bonus to the CMB in question to be able to finesse it. There is at least one.
We have evidence that in most cases, Unarmed Strike counts as a weapon that is indeed affected by weapon finesse.
We have evidence that you cannot replace the strength portion of the CMB with dexterity in the case of grapple.
We have evidence that you don't need a weapon with the quality to make the attack with that weapon (i.e. trip with short sword).
So I think the only way you can get the right answer is through FAQ.
*In the last few months I have noticed quite a few subsystems** that don't follow the same logic as other systems or subsystems. As such, the only way to get a correct answer is through the FAQ process.
**Mounted Combat, HiPS, Drawing Wands etc.
I think it's pretty straight-forward that you can't apply Weapon Finesse to a Grapple check for the following reasons:
1) Disarm, Trip, and Sunder can be performed with any weapon in place of any melee attack. Trip can be performed, even with a weapon that doesn't have the 'trip' property and, likewise, Disarm can be done without a 'disarm' weapon. These properties only give a bonus on the associated maneuver.
2) Grapple is not performed in place of a melee attack. Even with Grab (Ex) or a weapon with the 'grapple' special, the grapple check is made after the attack lands as a separate roll. Finesse might help you land the initial attack if it's done with a finessable weapon, but it shouldn't help with the actual Grapple check because you're trying to twist and overpower your opponent after already connecting. For this, you need Agile Maneuvers.
3) "Hands" is no more of a type of weapon than "Feet". Weapon Finesse may apply to Unarmed Strikes, but Unarmed Strikes don't inherently apply to grapples any more than they apply to Drag, Push, Steal, Reposition, or Dirty Trick maneuvers, unless you have the Quick <maneuver> feat to allow you to make one of those maneuvers in place of a melee attack (as opposed to as a swift action). There is no Quick Grapple feat.
4) Grapple, by default, works off of Strength just like any other maneuver. If you're trying to disarm someone, by default, you're using your strength as leverage to physically knock their weapon from their hand. If you're trying to trip someone, you're using your weapon to lever them off balance. If you're using a finesseable weapon to trip or disarm, it involves more flourish and "soft-levering". But that won't work with a grapple. Tai-chi or other "soft style" martial arts may be able to trip a person with graceful, flowing moves, but I can't see them grappling someone by the same method. Grappling is a fight of dominance between you and another person and whether you do it the traditional way of headlocks and arm-bars and clinches, or you take the Agile Maneuver feat and do a flying spinning leg-lock throw, "finesse" doesn't factor into it.
Daethor wrote: ucobronco wrote: I'm still waiting to be persuaded by logic. I see lots of no's, but no explanation as to why a grapple maneuver which is executed with your hands could not take advantage of weapon finesse as it would be consider a light, natural attack and thus allow the substitution of the Dexterity modifier.
In the post I cite that discusses using weapon focus (unarmed strike) to modify the grapple CM Sean K Reynolds states that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers (the example asked mentions a monk who uses a feat that is for unarmed strike) to modify his grapple CM bonus.
The point I'm making is that a grapple attack is executed with your hands (i.e. a light, natural attack) and as such would be subject to weapon finesse.
I think Sean's post made it pretty clear. Only trip, sunder, and disarm attempts can use weapon bonuses *unless the GM says circumstances dictate otherwise.* So ask your GM, or if you are the GM, make a ruling. There is no hard and fast rule on this.
Also, it's unrealistic expect a post to be that long and detailed and not get bogged down in minutiae. You said you wanted a simple yes or no (which some people gave), but when people said "No", you demanded reasons after others already gave numerous reasons which contradicts your demand for a simple answer.
That's because what he actually wanted was a "Yes" answer.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I haven't read the whole thread, but this question is answered in the FAQ.
There's also additional information on the subject HERE.
Definitive answer: you can only use Weapon Finesse on weapon-based maneuvers, which is limited to disarm, sunder and trip, unless you have a special exception. To use DEX for grapple, you need Agile Manuevers or a way to deliver grapples through a weapon.
Like with:
Rynjin wrote: Could you do it with the Dan Bong, I now wonder? Which was mentioned above, as was the FAQ.
Now if I have a +5 Dan Bong I would gain +7 to grapple, If I had Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, they would also count (making it +9) as it is a grappling weapon.
So why wouldn't Weapon Finesse count?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Unarmed strikes are a finessible weapon. "your body" is not a weapon. “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks). (Pg. 182 Core)
I disagree.
ayronc wrote: Answer : No, except when the weapon being used has the Grapple quality and is a light weapon usable under the Weapon Finesse rules
Is Unarmed Strike a grappling weapon?
While you are generally using your hands to make the grapple, you are not using Unarmed Strike to effect the grapple and it is Improved Unarmed Strike which makes your hands a weapon. You do not gain a bonus to Climb or Craft just because you have Weapon Finesse and you use your hands for these purposes and as such you don't gain a Weapon Finesse bonus for Grapple.
Agile Maneuvers does give the same ability to use Dexterity for maneuvers and without the light weapon caveats. Use this if you want a Dex based grappler, but don't expect AoMF or weapon focus to apply.
Climb, craft, and this thread discussion on the finessibility of grapple have nothing to do with each other. It is a logical error commonly referred to as a faulty comparison.
ucobronco wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Unarmed strikes are a finessible weapon. "your body" is not a weapon. “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks). (Pg. 182 Core)
I disagree. Nothing in that quote disagrees with his point.
You do not Grapple with your unarmed strikes.
The fact that you can pelvic thrust an enemy into submission does not mean you can pelvic thrust them into a Grapple.
Kazaan wrote: Hmm, I'm seeing a few errors in the discussion. Correction time.
First off, Combat Maneuver Rolls are a type of Attack Roll. However, "hands" is not a type of weapon. Unarmed Strike is a type of weapon, but "hand" is not. Technically, your whole body is your Unarmed Strike because you need not define what you're hitting with; it could be a punch, an elbow, a kick, a headbutt, or a vulgar pelvis thrust. Are you "hitting" someone with a grapple? Not in the strictest sense; well, maybe if you watch pro wrestling. But for real fighting, a grapple doesn't really involve "striking" so much as "grasping". Moreover, if Weapon Finesse applied to Grappling because it "uses your body" as a weapon (remember, Unarmed Strike = Your Body), then that also means that Drag, Push, and Reposition (which use "hands") as well as Bull Rush also qualify for it. What is the need for Agile Maneuvers, then, if everything it does can already be replicated by Weapon Finesse? Furthermore, what point is there in taking Weapon Focus (Grapple) if Weapon Focus (Unarmed) would already apply to a grapple?
Furthermore, the difference between a Grapple and a Disarm is hardly arbitrary. They may be similar, but disarming someone involves a lot more striking than grabbing hold of them. You may grab hold of the weapon afterwards (if you have a free hand), but if you're using a two-handed weapon to disarm someone, you're likely hitting them either in the hand or at a leverage point on the weapon. And, again, Disarm can replace a melee attack while Grapple cannot. While there are "quick" feats that allow you to perform various other maneuvers in place of a melee attack (ie. Quick Dirty Trick, Quick Steal, etc), there is no Quick Grapple; the best you can get is Rapid Grapple which makes it a Move action.
You're using a logical error called begging the question. Why would have the designers created these feats I mention if not for this?
It doesn't address the issue. The existance of these other feats does not prove my assertion is wrong.
Rynjin wrote:
The fact that you can pelvic thrust an enemy into submission does not mean you can pelvic thrust them into a Grapple.
This is very true. I tried it with my Monk and the opponent ended up with a crushed skull.
Psyren wrote: The only way you can weapon finesse a grapple check without Agile Maneuvers is if you are:
(a) using the Grab ability (this method requires a natural weapon like a bite);
(b) using the special grapple granted by a weapon with the "grapple" property.
The former is limited primarily to monsters and certain spellcasters; the latter only works on a crit, so it's difficult to build around.
I could see that logic applying if you needed the grab property to execute the grapple.
But I am proposing that since the grapple is initiated with your own natural attacks that it would be finessible.
ucobronco wrote:
since the grapple is initiated with your own natural attacks
The problem is that this is not the case.
A Grapple is not a Natural Attack or an Unarmed Strike. A Grapple is a Grapple.
Neither is it initiated by a Natural Attack or an Unarmed Strike.
Kazaan wrote: I think it's pretty straight-forward that you can't apply Weapon Finesse to a Grapple check for the following reasons:
1) Disarm, Trip, and Sunder can be performed with any weapon in place of any melee attack. Trip can be performed, even with a weapon that doesn't have the 'trip' property and, likewise, Disarm can be done without a 'disarm' weapon. These properties only give a bonus on the associated maneuver.
2) Grapple is not performed in place of a melee attack. Even with Grab (Ex) or a weapon with the 'grapple' special, the grapple check is made after the attack lands as a separate roll. Finesse might help you land the initial attack if it's done with a finessable weapon, but it shouldn't help with the actual Grapple check because you're trying to twist and overpower your opponent after already connecting. For this, you need Agile Maneuvers.
3) "Hands" is no more of a type of weapon than "Feet". Weapon Finesse may apply to Unarmed Strikes, but Unarmed Strikes don't inherently apply to grapples any more than they apply to Drag, Push, Steal, Reposition, or Dirty Trick maneuvers, unless you have the Quick <maneuver> feat to allow you to make one of those maneuvers in place of a melee attack (as opposed to as a swift action). There is no Quick Grapple feat.
4) Grapple, by default, works off of Strength just like any other maneuver. If you're trying to disarm someone, by default, you're using your strength as leverage to physically knock their weapon from their hand. If you're trying to trip someone, you're using your weapon to lever them off balance. If you're using a finesseable weapon to trip or disarm, it involves more flourish and "soft-levering". But that won't work with a grapple. Tai-chi or other "soft style" martial arts may be able to trip a person with graceful, flowing moves, but I can't see them grappling someone by the same method. Grappling is a fight of dominance between you and another person and whether you do it the traditional way of headlocks and...
A grapple can be used in place of a melee attack. You can attempt to start a grapple as many times as you have attacks in a round. Once the grapple is started you conduct it with your body (a light, natural weapon) which is finessible.
An attack roll by default does works off of Strength. With Weapon Finesse it would work off of Dexterity.
LazarX wrote: Daethor wrote: ucobronco wrote: I'm still waiting to be persuaded by logic. I see lots of no's, but no explanation as to why a grapple maneuver which is executed with your hands could not take advantage of weapon finesse as it would be consider a light, natural attack and thus allow the substitution of the Dexterity modifier.
In the post I cite that discusses using weapon focus (unarmed strike) to modify the grapple CM Sean K Reynolds states that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers (the example asked mentions a monk who uses a feat that is for unarmed strike) to modify his grapple CM bonus.
The point I'm making is that a grapple attack is executed with your hands (i.e. a light, natural attack) and as such would be subject to weapon finesse.
I think Sean's post made it pretty clear. Only trip, sunder, and disarm attempts can use weapon bonuses *unless the GM says circumstances dictate otherwise.* So ask your GM, or if you are the GM, make a ruling. There is no hard and fast rule on this.
Also, it's unrealistic expect a post to be that long and detailed and not get bogged down in minutiae. You said you wanted a simple yes or no (which some people gave), but when people said "No", you demanded reasons after others already gave numerous reasons which contradicts your demand for a simple answer.
That's because what he actually wanted was a "Yes" answer. I think it is clear I am arguing on the "Yes" side :)
Jiggy wrote: I haven't read the whole thread, but this question is answered in the FAQ.
There's also additional information on the subject HERE.
Definitive answer: you can only use Weapon Finesse on weapon-based maneuvers, which is limited to disarm, sunder and trip, unless you have a special exception. To use DEX for grapple, you need Agile Manuevers or a way to deliver grapples through a weapon.
Unarmed Strike makes your natural attacks a weapon.
ucobronco wrote: A grapple can be used in place of a melee attack. You can attempt to start a grapple as many times as you have attacks in a round. "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe"
Nope.
Rynjin wrote: ucobronco wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Unarmed strikes are a finessible weapon. "your body" is not a weapon. “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks). (Pg. 182 Core)
I disagree. Nothing in that quote disagrees with his point.
You do not Grapple with your unarmed strikes.
The fact that you can pelvic thrust an enemy into submission does not mean you can pelvic thrust them into a Grapple. Yes, you do grapple with your unarmed strikes (hands). And when you are deprived of them, you take a penalty to the attack.
ucobronco wrote:
Yes, you do grapple with your unarmed strikes (hands). And when you are deprived of them, you take a penalty to the attack.
"Hands" =/= "Unarmed Strikes"
Taking a penalty because you can't use your hands for something that requires your hands is not free reign to say anything involving your hands is an Unarmed Strike.
Picking up an item is not "Unarmed Striking" it any more than Grappling someone is using your Unarmed Strikes to do so.
Rynjin wrote: ucobronco wrote: A grapple can be used in place of a melee attack. You can attempt to start a grapple as many times as you have attacks in a round. "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe"
Nope. You’re right. I thought a grapple attack could be used multiple times and in place of an attack of opportunity. But it looks to be a standard action.
Rynjin wrote: ucobronco wrote:
Yes, you do grapple with your unarmed strikes (hands). And when you are deprived of them, you take a penalty to the attack.
"Hands" =/= "Unarmed Strikes"
Taking a penalty because you can't use your hands for something that requires your hands is not free reign to say anything involving your hands is an Unarmed Strike.
Picking up an item is not "Unarmed Striking" it any more than Grappling someone is using your Unarmed Strikes to do so.
I'm not using it as free reign. I'm using it to adjusting my attack roll.
:)
I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons.
This is the mistake you keep making.
"Hands" are not weapons. Light, natural, or otherwise.
Unarmed strikes are weapons.
You do not execute a Grapple with your Unarmed Strikes.
You execute a Grapple with your hands.
ucobronco wrote: I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons. Grapple wrote: Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. You don't need your hands to do a grapple. You can grapple without them. Because you're using more than your hands to grapple.
Xenrac wrote: ucobronco wrote: I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons. Grapple wrote: Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. You don't need your hands to do a grapple. You can grapple without them. Because you're using more than your hands to grapple. Grapple Transformers
More than meets the hand.
:)
That's true, but any part of your body that you can execute an attack with is considered a light, natural weapon with Improved Unarmed Strike.
ucobronco wrote: Xenrac wrote: ucobronco wrote: I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons. Grapple wrote: Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. You don't need your hands to do a grapple. You can grapple without them. Because you're using more than your hands to grapple. Grapple Transformers
More than meets the hand.
:)
That's true, but any part of your body that you can execute an attack with is considered a light, natural weapon with Improvide Unarmed Strike. You say "any part" But you take the same penalty if you only have one hand free that you do if neither of your hands are free. It's because you aren't using "any part" of your body, you are using your whole body.
ucobronco wrote: That's true, but any part of your body that you can execute an attack with is considered a light, natural weapon with Improved Unarmed Strike. No. Your Unarmed Strike is considered Armed and can deal lethal damage with Improved Unarmed Strike.
It does not magically transform your body into a weapon even when you're not making an Unarmed Strike. It lets you make Unarmed Strikes without provoking and that deal lethal damage.
Xenrac wrote: ucobronco wrote: Xenrac wrote: ucobronco wrote: I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons. Grapple wrote: Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. You don't need your hands to do a grapple. You can grapple without them. Because you're using more than your hands to grapple. Grapple Transformers
More than meets the hand.
:)
That's true, but any part of your body that you can execute an attack with is considered a light, natural weapon with Improvide Unarmed Strike. You say "any part" But you take the same penalty if you only have one hand free that you do if neither of your hands are free. It's because you aren't using "any part" of your body, you are using your whole body. I agree. You have an excellent point that you would get the same bonus from Weapon Finesse to your whole body.
:)
Yes, you do grapple with your unarmed strikes (hands). And when you are deprived of them, you take a penalty to the attack.
You just proved that you do not grapple with just your hands. If you only grapple with your hands you would not be able to do it at all if you do not have free hands. Since it has already been established that you can indeed grapple without free hands, this means you are using more than just your hands.
Also the rules for the grappled condition state that you cannot take any action that requires two hands if you are grappled. If you go by your idea that grappling uses hands once you are grappled you cannot break out, because to grapple requires two hands.
This proves that you do not in fact use your hands in a grapple; they merely give you a bonus to your grapple check. Instead of actually granting a bonus they are offsetting a penalty. Mathematically speaking -1 = + (-1), or in this case -4 = + (-4).
ucobronco wrote: I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons. By your logic, with Weapon Finesse, I should be able to apply my dex in place of strength to a climb check because I climb with my hands. Weapon Finesse involves striking someone. Punching, kicking, elbowing, headbutting, vulgar pelvis thrusting, and ambiguous unarmed melee attack are all variants of Unarmed Strike but Grapple is not a variant of Unarmed Strike because you're not "striking" the opponent with a headlock. You're executing a grapple, but it is not an Unarmed Strike.
Furthermore, Pathfinder is, first and foremost, a system. All parts of the system are interconnected like gears in a mechanical watch. So to bring up the existence of Grapple as an entity separate from Unarmed Strike such as with the case of Weapon Focus et. al. is not an example of begging the question because there would, literally, be absolutely zero benefit in taking WFocus(Grapple) over WFocus(Unarmed Strike). With the system in mind that is an issue that must be avoided. System parity and sensibility are paramount.
Mysterious Stranger wrote: Yes, you do grapple with your unarmed strikes (hands). And when you are deprived of them, you take a penalty to the attack.
You just proved that you do not grapple with just your hands. If you only grapple with your hands you would not be able to do it at all if you do not have free hands. Since it has already been established that you can indeed grapple without free hands, this means you are using more than just your hands.
Also the rules for the grappled condition state that you cannot take any action that requires two hands if you are grappled. If you go by your idea that grappling uses hands once you are grappled you cannot break out, because to grapple requires two hands.
This proves that you do not in fact use your hands in a grapple; they merely give you a bonus to your grapple check. Instead of actually granting a bonus they are offsetting a penalty. Mathematically speaking -1 = + (-1), or in this case -4 = + (-4).
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Kazaan wrote: ucobronco wrote: I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons. By your logic, with Weapon Finesse, I should be able to apply my dex in place of strength to a climb check because I climb with my hands. Weapon Finesse involves striking someone. Punching, kicking, elbowing, headbutting, vulgar pelvis thrusting, and ambiguous unarmed melee attack are all variants of Unarmed Strike but Grapple is not a variant of Unarmed Strike because you're not "striking" the opponent with a headlock. You're executing a grapple, but it is not an Unarmed Strike.
Furthermore, Pathfinder is, first and foremost, a system. All parts of the system are interconnected like gears in a mechanical watch. So to bring up the existence of Grapple as an entity separate from Unarmed Strike such as with the case of Weapon Focus et. al. is not an example of begging the question because there would, literally, be absolutely zero benefit in taking WFocus(Grapple) over WFocus(Unarmed Strike). With the system in mind that is an issue that must be avoided. System parity and sensibility are paramount. :) I thought I already explained that an attack roll to grapple someone was different than a Climb skill check.
As long as you understand that an attack roll to Grapple is different than an attack roll to Unarmed Strike too.
Okay. Let's get this out simply. Attack Roll =/= Skill Roll =/= Combat Maneuver Roll
Certain Combat Maneuvers can substitute Attack Rolls. A Grapple is not one of them.
Parts of your body can be Weapon Finessed since they are Unarmed Strikes.
A Grapple is Not an Unarmed Strike.
A Grapple is carried out with your entire body.
Your entire body is not an Unarmed Strike.
Your answer is simply No. People gave you a simple answer. You asked for logic. You now refuse to listen to logic. You also like to assume your logic is correct and use it to find fault in our logic. But your logic is incorrect. This is clear because no one agrees. You have also began to condescend to those you are arguing with as if you are on some kind of logical high ground.
Your answer is No. And this thread should be locked because you're a troll.
I'm done here.
Xenrac wrote: Okay. Let's get this out simply. Attack Roll =/= Skill Roll =/= Combat Maneuver Roll
Certain Combat Maneuvers can substitute Attack Rolls. A Grapple is not one of them.
Parts of your body can be Weapon Finessed since they are Unarmed Strikes.
A Grapple is Not an Unarmed Strike.
A Grapple is carried out with your entire body.
Your entire body is not an Unarmed Strike.
Your answer is simply No. People gave you a simple answer. You asked for logic. You now refuse to listen to logic. You also like to assume your logic is correct and use it to find fault in our logic. But your logic is incorrect. This is clear because no one agrees. You have also began to condescend to those you are arguing with as if you are on some kind of logical high ground.
Your answer is No. And this thread should be locked because you're a troll.
I'm done here.
Actually :) I was about to concede to Rynjin's logic.
Rynjin made a great point that grapple was not interchangable with the other mentioned CMs as part of a full attack.
Although I think your line of logic is incorrect. You can have a rules debate on the messageboard that doesn't get resolved and where people don't back off their points. Why can't we just agree to disagree?
:P
And I was only condescending when it was necessary. Such as when people reduce an arguement to the comparison of a grapple attack to a Climb skill check.
ucobronco, the burden of proof is upon you due to your positive claim and argument against consensus. You have not provided proof adequate to shift this consensus, as is clearly evident from this thread. Does that make you wrong? Not necessarily, and you don't have to accept the majority interpretation if you don't want to. However, you asked for a community opinion in the original post and have been given it. If you are playing PFS expect to have the DM rule against you. If you are playing a home game, why seek approval from this forum at all? Go argue with your DM or, if you DM, rule it however you wish. Happy gaming.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm gonna step back from the issue for a moment and point a thing out:
ucobronco, this has been a stunning demonstration of the art of being maximally abrasive without technically flaming people. I simply don't know whether you are doing it on purpose or not, but I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you have no idea how obnoxious your treatment of other posters here is.
First, telling people you want a simple yes-or-no answer in a rules discussion forum is unreasonable. The D&D rules have never, in any edition, consistently allowed clear, simple, yes-or-no answers. If you've seen multiple threads get bogged down before, that is a pretty clear sign that such an answer may not exist.
Second, once you get the clear yes-or-no answer, and it's no, responding by asking people to explain it is sort of rude. Why did you tell people you wanted a simple answer, if you actually wanted a solid justification?
Third, you're applying the names of logical fallacies left and right, but mostly in cases where they genuinely don't apply. Quite simply, the rules of an RPG are not a realm which is formalized enough for formal logical rules to consistently apply.
Two specific examples of that really leap out. The first is that, within the scope of an RPG rules set, "a different feat does what you want, so this one probably doesn't" is a completely valid argument, because there is a general game design principle at issue. Usually, you don't have two feats one of which is clearly and unconditionally superior to the other. If weapon finesse were that good at providing the benefits of agile maneuvers, agile maneuvers wouldn't exist.
The second is the various things like comparisons with Climb. You're dismissing those, but they're perfectly reasonable ways for people to go about comparing and contrasting bits of the rules to try to figure out how they ought to work.
Here's the thing: It was not necessary to be condescending. It was just arrogant and dismissive of the other participants. You are not giving the impression that you want to participate in a discussion focused on understanding the rules, but you are giving the impression that you are uninterested in taking the time to understand other people's arguments or positions, especially if they don't lead to the outcome you want.
MHO, the FAQ's specific list of combat maneuvers where Weapon Finesse would apply is pretty convincing evidence that the designers do not intend it to apply to grapple checks. If someone asked me as a GM whether it would work, I'd say no. If they reacted the way you did, with the kind of dismissive behavior you're showing, I wouldn't continue talking with them about rules, and we would not share a gaming group.
You may want to consider revising your strategy. Ultimately, a social interaction strategy that makes people dislike you is not working well.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
