I'm pretty sure that this falls into the same rules ruling that this does.
And I agree with Gortle.
It's RAW, it's stupid, ignore it - everyone else does.
It becomes a 'too bad to be true' scenario to rule that an Animal Instinct Barbarian can't escape from a grapple while in Rage.
It becomes a 'too bad to be true' scenario to rule that an Animal Instinct Barbarian can't escape from a grapple while in Rage.
Have to correct myself. The Barbarian is fine. The wording for Anathema doesn't limit it to only the attacks granted by the Rage. So similar rules language, but not the same.
Still. The point of the ruling being too bad to be true is still valid even though my example was wrong.
Don't scare me like that, breithauptclan! I happen to be playing an animal instinct barbarian grappler in a very strict by-the-rules group.
Sorry, sorry. No, you should be fine. ;-)
Don't scare me like that, breithauptclan! I happen to be playing an animal instinct barbarian grappler in a very strict by-the-rules group.
Hmm... In a more loose RAW group you might be able to get away with using a whip to make a trip attack with since you aren't using it as a weapon but as a tool to make a skill check with.
But a strict RAW group would almost certainly shut that idea down since it is technically still a weapon that you are using.
Paizo specified that skill rolls w/ the Attack Trait, i.e. Shove, are not attack rolls (so no True Strike). So arguably they are not attacks except for purposes of MAP (as per the Trait). That might be why Combat Forms says attacks (when it should likely say Strikes IMO), because despite the trait, those skill-based combat maneuvers aren't attacks if they aren't attack rolls (at least that's how I interpret it in the greater context).
Paizo specified that skill rolls w/ the Attack Trait, i.e. Shove, are not attack rolls (so no True Strike). So arguably they are not attacks except for purposes of MAP (as per the Trait). That might be why Combat Forms says attacks (when it should likely say Strikes IMO), because despite the trait, those skill-based combat maneuvers aren't attacks if they aren't attack rolls (at least that's how I interpret it in the greater context).
Yup. Which is why a loose RAW group would allow it.
Strict RAW, on the other hand, would look at:
Flagrantly disrespecting an animal of your chosen kind is anathema to your instinct, as is using weapons while raging.
Since you are using a weapon to make the trip attack, that triggers anathema.
Paizo specified that skill rolls w/ the Attack Trait, i.e. Shove, are not attack rolls (so no True Strike). So arguably they are not attacks except for purposes of MAP (as per the Trait). That might be why Combat Forms says attacks (when it should likely say Strikes IMO), because despite the trait, those skill-based combat maneuvers aren't attacks if they aren't attack rolls (at least that's how I interpret it in the greater context).Yup. Which is why a loose RAW group would allow it.
Strict RAW, on the other hand, would look at:
Flagrantly disrespecting an animal of your chosen kind is anathema to your instinct, as is using weapons while raging.Since you are using a weapon to make the trip attack, that triggers anathema.
I'd been addressing Battle Forms as per the OP, not the Animal Barbarian Rage anathema nor any sort of weapon usage. I think Battle Forms can trip, etc.
In your reply, I'm not sure why you'd assume somebody would be using a weapon to trip, especially an Animal Barbarian. I agree that when raging an Animal Barbarian cannot use weapons to trip (nor anything else one would wield a weapon for) w/o breaking anathema.