Combat maneuvers with finesse weapons

[Arachnofiend]

In PF1 if you used a finesse weapon to perform a maneuver then your CMB was based on your dexterity rather than your strength. I didn't think this was still the case in PF2, but I saw someone state it was a while back with some confidence. I still haven't been able to find any confirmation within the book myself so I'm wondering if I'm just missing it or if my initial understanding was correct.

Can, for example, a Rogue with a light mace Shove using her dexterity modifier to the Athletics check?

[Blave]

No. Finesse says it allows you to use Dex for attack rolls.

Maneuvers are Athletics checks, not attack rolls. They have the Attack trait, but that still doesn't turn a skill check into an attack roll.

[PochiPooom]

Yes, you add the weapon's item bonus to attack rolls and what you are doing is an attack roll. You are doing an attack not a CMB with hands.

Finesse:
You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon. You still use your Strength modifier when calculating damage.

Trip:
You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand. This uses the weapon’s reach (if different from your own) and adds the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to the Athletics check. If you critically fail a check to Trip using the weapon, you can drop the weapon to take the effects of a failure instead of a critical failure.

If you read both it's preatty clear that it is like this. Also in a "realism" point of view it makes much more sense. And in PF1 was also like this.

There is not oficial answer yet.

[Blave]

PochiPooom wrote:

Yes, you add the weapon's item bonus to attack rolls and what you are doing is an attack roll.

No, you're making an Athletics check, not an attack roll. Even the maneuver traits on the weapons call this out specifically.

Trip weapon trait wrote:

adds the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to the Athletics check.

Finesse doesn't say it allows you to make Athletics checks with Dex instead of strength, so you can't.

[Ascalaphus]

It's an Athletics check with the Attack trait. It's subject to (and causes increase in) Multiple Attack Penalty. It's an attack, but made with a skill.

[PochiPooom]

That's the point. It is still an attack but made with an skill. You are using your weapon to make a CMB but you are still doing an attack (check traits). So you can use your Dex instead of your Str on attack rolls.

[Claxon]

I don't see anything that would allow you to substitute dex for strength for the athletics check.

The maneuvers traits on weapons allow you to add your item bonus to attack rolls to the maneuver check only.

[Blave]

PochiPooom wrote:

That's the point. It is still an attack but made with an skill. You are using your weapon to make a CMB but you are still doing an attack (check traits). So you can use your Dex instead of your Str on attack rolls.

You're still not making an attack roll. You're making a skill check that has the attack trait. Yes, the trait means it "involves an attack". But that doesn't mean the skill check suddenly changes its type of roll to an attack roll.

Otherwise bless would give a bonus to trip, kicking in doors and escaping a grapple.

[Rengam]

Blave wrote:

You're still not making an attack roll. You're making a skill check that has the attack trait. Yes, the trait means it "involves an attack". But that doesn't mean the skill check suddenly changes its type of roll to an attack roll.

That may be the 1e definition of an attack roll, but I think that's not true in 2e.

CRBp446 says "When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take
a variety of forms..."

So a Trip attempt is a skill check, but it's also an attack roll.

If this weren't the case, MAP would not be taken into account for trips and grapples, as the rules say MAP is applied to attack rolls.

[PochiPooom]

There is this thread about this, really well explained. Take your own conclusions but, in my point of view, this skill check is an attack roll.

It was like this in PF1 and should be not different in PF2. Still, as I said not official answer for PF2.

In my table you can do it.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42o9i?Tripping-with-a-Whip

[Claxon]

In my opinion, the way the rules are written, nothing about the description implies strongly that you would swap the ability score used.

The trip trait says you add the weapon item bonus to the maneuver, that's it.

Trip is an athletics skill check. Yes it also has the attack trait, which means it's subject to MAP. Nothing else.

Nothing in these rules, so far as I can tell, would remotely imply you get to substitute dex for strength.

[Blave]

Ok, I can see where you're coming from and I might be wrong.

(I know, that's not something you read very often on the internet. But yes, it just happened.)

If it's true, it seems like a pretty huge buff to the finesse trait. It's like having a strength-weapon suddenly allowing you to use your strength score for AC. Well, maybe not quite as drastic, but it does seem rather powerful.

[rayous brightblade]

This came up in the playtest and here was one of the developer responses from facebook:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
If you are performing the Trip with a finesse weapon (such as the whip that has the trip trait), you add your Dexterity instead of Strength to that particular Athletics attack roll.

edit: it was mentioned in this thread https://paizo.com/threads/rzs428y0?Finesse-weapons-with-tripdisarm#1

[Arachnofiend]

Huh, if there's a developer comment on the matter I suppose that settles it. I still think reading the book as written I would not interpret the rules as saying you can ever use dexterity to an athletics check - an errata to the finesse property to make this abundantly clear may be necessary, I think anyone who wasn't already used to this rule from PF1 wouldn't clue in on this at all and this is a pretty important bit of utility for Thief Rogues since so many of their baseline weapons have a maneuver property on it.

Blave wrote:

If it's true, it seems like a pretty huge buff to the finesse trait. It's like having a strength-weapon suddenly allowing you to use your strength score for AC. Well, maybe not quite as drastic, but it does seem rather powerful.

It's not quite that good - unlike PF1 where any weapon could trip or disarm, you need the maneuver property and finesse to take advantage of this. Very few weapons have multiple maneuvers on them and most of those include Disarm which is not nearly as good as the other choices. If you're a rogue with a light mace, you can shove, which is very good, but it doesn't open up Athletics as an excellent skill for you entirely.

[Claxon]

rayous brightblade wrote:

This came up in the playtest and here was one of the developer responses from facebook:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
If you are performing the Trip with a finesse weapon (such as the whip that has the trip trait), you add your Dexterity instead of Strength to that particular Athletics attack roll.

edit: it was mentioned in this thread https://paizo.com/threads/rzs428y0?Finesse-weapons-with-tripdisarm#1

It makes sense.

It's just the rules as written, don't support that position, IMO.

However, since the statement was made by a dev I would consider this a pending FAQ.

[Zwordsman]

Out of curiousity has anyone found a definition for "attack action" in this?

"When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. "

it states any other attack action. I have never found anything definiting attack action. Except the Attack Trait. Because traits are used in P2 to define item type and action types. So I can't see anything except hte attack trait defininng what an attack action is..

But has anyone found an attack action definition?

[Garretmander]

An action with the attack trait would be an attack action. That's how the tags work.

[Zwordsman]

Then why wouldn't the specific of the Fineese Trait mean you subb out Dex for Str on the Attack Roll of (via Athletics check)?

If the attack trait makes it an attack action. And the Attack Roll section states if its an attack action its considered an attack roll (seemingly no matter what you're rolling). Then the atheltic scheck for a trip would be an attack roll. When made with the whip it would be an attack roll taht is allowed to sub out str and dex.

What part of that transitive am I missing since folks are saying it doesn't work by raw?

(bringing it up for clarity. Also because that dev comment was during the playtest so sadly it has little application to the final version considering how other dev comments in the playtest aren't applicable anymore due to changes)

[Garretmander]

Zwordsman wrote:

If the attack trait makes it an attack action. And the Attack Roll section states if its an attack action its considered an attack roll (seemingly no matter what you're rolling). Then the atheltic scheck for a trip would be an attack roll. When made with the whip it would be an attack roll taht is allowed to sub out str and dex.

Yes, exactly, I agree with this interpretation.

[Peat]

Garretmander wrote:

An action with the attack trait would be an attack action. That's how the tags work.

Does that mean an action with the Concentrate Trait a Concentrate roll? Or a Fortune Trait is a Fortune roll? The part that throws me off is this line on 446:

Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.

Rather than defining Shove as an Attack Action they call it a Skill Action, implying difference?

It’s one possible interpretation but it’s far from established fact in my reading. The only thing we have to go off of was the one off hand comment made during Playtest which is more general philosophy than hard ruling.

[shroudb]

Peat wrote:

Garretmander wrote:

An action with the attack trait would be an attack action. That's how the tags work.

Does that mean an action with the Concentrate Trait a Concentrate roll? Or a Fortune Trait is a Fortune roll? The part that throws me off is this line on 446:

Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.

Rather than defining Shove as an Attack Action they call it a Skill Action, implying difference?

It’s one possible interpretation but it’s far from established fact in my reading. The only thing we have to go off of was the one off hand comment made during Playtest which is more general philosophy than hard ruling.

i think most of the confusion comes from the fact that we have been conditioned to think of "attack" as a standalone action throughout the history of rpgs.

in pf2, there doesn't exist a standalone "attack". That one, the one we are used to call that, is now renamed as Strike.

"Attack action" in pf2 is just ONE of the traits of the action, it designates what happens with said action like "it has MAP and etc." Exactly as much as Concentrate designates what happens with an action "You cannot use it while raging, can be disrupted in disruptive stance, etc"

So, nothing forbits a Skill action to be an Attack action, and a Concentrate action, and a Manipulate action, all in the same time.

Look at the sentence you quoted:

"Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others."

it doesn't actually lists "attack action" but Strike and Skill. It doesn't seperate Skill from Attack, but Skill from Strike.

[Ascalaphus]

To be fair, PF1 also had "attacks" that didn't involve attack rolls. But it mostly came up in the context of "fireball breaks invisibility because it's an attack". Source of endless arguments.

[Peat]

But why wouldn’t they just say “every check that has the Attack Trait is an Attack Roll” if that’s what they meant? Seems a strange omission or choice to tangentially cross-reference or make you use transititive logic to figure it out rather than stating it. But we’re all only human :)

[shroudb]

Peat wrote:

But why wouldn’t they just say “every check that has the Attack Trait is an Attack Roll” if that’s what they meant? Seems a strange omission or choice to tangentially cross-reference or make you use transititive logic to figure it out rather than stating it. But we’re all only human :)

the easy answer is that maybe they thought it was intuitive enough.

The difficult answer is that maybe there was a really hasty redesign in the whole "attack" thing. (if you look at the Spell section, you'll see several spells without spell attack rolls being labeled as Attack, a trait that certainly doesn't fit the bill for them)

but overall, i thikn we should wait for errata/faq

the RAI at least seems (as indicated by the dev post as well) to be evident, and the RAW is not easy to rule in one favor or the other, so at least we have that.

[Peat]

My whip-wielding Dex Ranger certainly hopes so ;)

[Quandary]

Yeah, I see a need not just to Errata Finesse property to make it clear, but the general "Attack roll" section, which should at least mention example of one Skill-based check since that is pretty much a vanilla mechanic... Saying "...or skill checks such as Athletics(Shove)" just doesn't seem too much to expect.

[Zwordsman]

Peat wrote:

Does that mean an action with the Concentrate Trait a Concentrate roll? Or a Fortune Trait is a Fortune roll? The part that throws me off is this line on 446:

Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.
-----second quote-----
But why wouldn’t they just say “every check that has the Attack Trait is an Attack Roll” if that’s what they meant? Seems a strange omission or choice to tangentially cross-reference or make you use transititive logic to figure it out rather than stating it. But we’re all only human :)

"When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll. "

This line from Attack Rolls is what creates the diliniation for me. It is calling out that attack actions = attack rolls.
Nowhere I've found does Concentration trait has anything similar.

"certain actions like shove" is still being listed under what an attack action is section. Shove is a skill based roll, with the attack trait. So its adding all of it together.
So it was giving a staple example. While Attack trait gives its own example. These two togehter gives me the definition of what an attack is in P2.

For my reading anyway. I can fairly undestand other POVs.

They probably should do something to clarify "attack trait = attack roll" because it isn't just fineese (or trip) that relies on this concept. And if theyr'e bulding off of it like this. They best solidify the grounding early on.

[Atalius]

Yes we need an answer to this important question.