I just stumbled across the Flying Talon.
I thought that was only from the previous edition, e.g. the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (PZO1111).
- Is that an actual Pathfinder weapon allowed under the current rules?
- The Wording is strange. Are the +2 to disarm in addition to the +2 granted from the disarm weapon special feature? It grants +2 to trip, and the trip special feature doesn't, although I suspect that that is a relict of the 3.0 rules.
Also, does "The talon gives its wielder a reach of 10 feet." just mean it's a reach weapon, so you cannot attack adjacent, or does it actually give you reach?
It seems a departure from all other weapons, being a light reach weapon.
Mages could really use that for spellstrike at 10 feet, and for reaping AoOs from closing medium enemies.
The page you're referring to states that the item is a "Conversion", and the listed source material is a 3.5 module.
So, the current text on that page is somebody's view of how the item should be written for Pathfinder rules, rather than actual written rules.
(That said, after checking, the text is virtually 100% equal to the original text).
I agree that the wording is strange, but I'll try to clarify it as best I can.
First, 3.5 didn't have unified disarm, trip, etc, features. Instead, they wrote the relevant text for each such weapon.
So, the +2 to disarm is actually the disarm special feature.
3.5 didn't give a +2 bonus to trip weapons in general, so that's a unique feature of the weapon that would come in addition to the trip special feature.
The reach wording is odd, but the intent is presumably that the weapon itself has reach, rather than the wielder gaining reach.
Bumping as this interests me.
If i recall corectly the origonal was basically like the spiked chain but pretty much a kobold cultural version. If your going to allow it i would treat it like the dorn drugar (sp?) Where you have to switch between close or far with an action. Leaving it like the old spiked cgain is broken. It should also be a 2h weapon (the wording from that description doesnt really mention this)
Just saw this myself, and am wondering about it. I don't follow your analysis Are.
The +2 to Disarm must be a property of the weapon, not the Disarm feature. When doing a Disarm, there is actually a penalty of -4, not a bonus of +2. You only get a bonus of +2 if you have the feat, Improved Disarm. If this weapon granted the Improved Disarm feature, it would probably say so.
As for the reach wording, all I can see is RANGE 10ft for the weapon, and that it grants its wielder reach. The weapon itself does not have the Reach property, so I wouldn't assume that it won't work on adjacent enemies. Also, because it's a light weapon, I can see it working adjacent.
Honestly, I can see the argument from either side, which is why I've asked my DM what he proposes. Maybe the rules have changed since this question was originally posed? I don't know, I'm fairly new to Pathfinder.
Oops, the Disarm penalty is only -4 for Unarmed Disarm. My bad.
Regardless, my DM has ruled that the Flying Talon should be a Reach weapon. Fair enough. Also, the weapon itself adds +2 for Disarm or Trip Combat Maneuvers, just like the Swordbreaker Dagger adds +4 to Disarm. These bonuses are in addition to Feat bonuses such as Improved Disarm.