| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes with reach.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not with the others on this one.
You need an Unarmed attack with the Trip trait for it to work. Otherwise, you don't actually have Reach, you just have some attacks with Reach.
And Trip is not an Unarmed attack, so it doesn't benefit from Effortless Reach.
|
RAW, probably not as only your 'unarmed attacks' have reach and maneuvers like Trip are not actually attacks*: You can't do a 'reach trip' just because you have a one-handed reach weapon in your other hand.
If you had an Unarmed attack with the Trip trait, you'd be all set...
That being said, I'd kinda expect this to be allowed at most tables...
*This is a rather confusing but important distinction
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not with the others on this one.
You need an Unarmed attack with the Trip trait for it to work. Otherwise, you don't actually have Reach, you just have some attacks with Reach.And Trip is not an Unarmed attack, so it doesn't benefit from Effortless Reach.
Trip is not an Attack Roll, but it is an Attack. It has the Attack Trait. That is literally what the Attack Trait means.
If Effortless Reach said Strikes or Attack Rolls, then you would be right.
But it doesn't.
?
Surely there is a general rule somewhere indicating that you can target anything within your natural reach (that is, not merely from a manufactured weapon) with an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surely there is a general rule somewhere indicating that you can target anything within your natural reach (that is, not merely from a manufactured weapon) with an attack.
The ability goes out of its way to say it grants the Reach trait to one's unarmed attacks rather than simply give Reach to the creature. That might be to limit the ability, or it could be so that creatures that already have Reach can extend it. I go with the former since that covers nearly all PCs (and the latter would interact weird). This would mean you'd be limited to Strikes and maneuvers that the unarmed strike had as traits, i.e. Grapple for the Shadow Grasp Stance (though that already has Reach!). So if you wanted to Trip with this feat, you'd need Wolf Stance and to be flanking.
Shadow Grasp gives us a good example too. That unarmed strike has Reach, yet Paizo still had to designate one could grapple with it. Animal Barbarians have several options w/ maneuvers tied to unarmed attacks, and if those attacks gained Reach (and the Deer does) that doesn't open up all the "this creature has reach" options; only the maneuvers listed.
tl:dr. The feat doesn't give the creature Reach, it gives their unarmed attacks Reach. Trip is not itself an unarmed attack.
Surely there is a general rule somewhere indicating that you can target anything within your natural reach (that is, not merely from a manufactured weapon) with an attack.
Not that I am seeing. There is this:
If you’re using a melee weapon or unarmed attack, your target must be within your reach;
But as the name of the quote suggests, this is explicitly talking about the Strike action.
The trip action doesn't say that you use your characters natural or unnatural reach.
The trip trait only says that if your weapon has a different reach than your own, you use the weapon's reach.
Trip is not itself an unarmed attack.
How do you justify this?
There is no definition for unarmed attack. Just of unarmed and of attack. Trip can meet both of these.
Trip is an attack as it has the Attack trait - which defines it as an attack.
A trip can be done while unarmed, while armed with a weapon and using a free hand, and also with a weapon with the Trip trait.
I'm not seeing any justification for your position.
Surely there is a general rule somewhere indicating that you can target anything within your natural reach (that is, not merely from a manufactured weapon) with an attack.
Took a while to find. I had to go back up a level and check the general rules for Effects. There is a section on Reach which establishes a default reach of 5ft for anything that involves your body or a weapon. Its a little vague. But also common sense so I guess its clear enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trip is not itself an unarmed attack.How do you justify this?
Unarmed attacks use unarmed attack proficiency. Trip used Athletics proficiency.
Meanwhile, the Trip weapon trait says, "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."
And the definition of unarmed attacks is at Unarmed Attacks in the Equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook.
Trip is not itself an unarmed attack.How do you justify this?
There is no definition for unarmed attack. Just of unarmed and of attack. Trip can meet both of these.
Trip is an attack as it has the Attack trait - which defines it as an attack.
A trip can be done while unarmed, while armed with a weapon and using a free hand, and also with a weapon with the Trip trait.
I'm not seeing any justification for your position.
I believe the "unarmed" description does delineate what an unarmed attack is: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=199
And I think both of our interpretations can be derived from that (not that I'm beholden to mine, it's a first impression). I see unarmed attacks much like Fist is listed as its own entry, and one isn't using one's Fist attack to Trip, but rather one's hand which is available (which is partly why Handwraps wouldn't add their bonus unless the unarmed attack had that maneuver trait).Though then there is that line about fists & grappling appendages operating like a Free-Hand weapon which in turn says it allows one to do various things, including the open-ended "...and so on" though that's saying more that the weapon doesn't interfere/use the hand more than it's enabling the weapon (in this case unarmed attack) itself to do those things. Oi. And Free Hand also mentions using manipulate actions, which wouldn't even be attacks, so maybe going there veers too far off anyway.
I think I'd allow the trip because hey, (unimpressive) 18th level feat (and one can finagle reach earlier than that via other means). But this all leads back to why wouldn't the ability simply grant reach? (w/ perhaps an addendum of not working with weapons or reach weapons specifically if either of those were the issue).
Yeah thats a good point. Unarmed attack is not a defined word though in the game. That just the title of a grouping of weapons for proficiency purposes. Its all lowercase. It is still technically valid in the game and in natural English to call a Trip done with your hands as an unarmed attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use Reflective Ripple Stance...
|
Yeah thats a good point. Unarmed attack is not a defined word though in the game. That just the title of a grouping of weapons for proficiency purposes. Its all lowercase. It is still technically valid in the game and in natural English to call a Trip done with your hands as an unarmed attack.
Why then would we need Flowing Wave to have the Trip trait ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, though I object to Gortle's argument that Athletics attacks are unarmed attacks, I favor letting Effortless Reach apply to Athletics attacks. The flavor seems more fun. Effortless Reach is an uncommon feat; thus, it needs GM approval anyways, so ask the GM whether he or she will let it apply to tripping, too.
This week I let the monk in my campaign grapple a incorporeal ghost. The monk wore ghost-touch Handwraps of Mighty Blows. Nevertheless, the handwraps' description says, "with your unarmed attacks," and not to anything else, so the player asked for for a decision first.
For a less accommodating GM, the way to go would be the Reflective Ripple Stance, as Pixel Popper suggested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah thats a good point. Unarmed attack is not a defined word though in the game. That just the title of a grouping of weapons for proficiency purposes. Its all lowercase. It is still technically valid in the game and in natural English to call a Trip done with your hands as an unarmed attack.
Unarmed attack is very much defined.
Trip is an attack, but not an unarmed attack. Per strict RAW, it doesn't benefit from Effortless Reach.
Recapping. Its a very minor point. But it does make a difference to a few abilities.
Effortless Reach is a monk feat that gives reach to unarmed attacks
Unarmed Attacks is a category of attacks that are made with natural weapons. Its described as a Strike. It also curiously specifically mentions that there are special unarmed attacks defined elsewhere. It is also often refered to in the rules as unarmed attack not Unarmed Attack as its not a glossary defined rules element.
A Trip done without a weapon is an Attack because it has the Attack Trait. But it is an Athletics check not an Attack Roll.
Which is one of the things they clarified in the Errata page 446
An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.
An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game (along with saving throws, skill checks, and Perception checks). They are used for Strikes and spell attacks, and traditionally target Armor Class.
Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.
A Trip can be unarmed, and it is attack. At the same time unarmed attacks are described as Strikes. A Trip is clearly not a Strike.
The net result is its perfectly legal in game to say a Trip with a natural weapon is an unarmed attack.
It is also perfectly legal to say a Trip with a natural weapon is not an unarmed attack.
There are two different game concepts here. Two different definitions. So just like natural English words can sometimes mean two different things depending on context. But we don't have the context here to split them apart. So GMs will just have to decide.
Or maybe we can consider that a Trip are a special type of unarmed attack that is resolved with an athletics check as a specific rule overrides general rule type thing. Which unifies the problem but seems like a stretch.
The Reach Trait uses the term natural attacks, which fixes this problem as it clearly includes both. Though I can't find that wording in either printing of the rule book or the errata. So maybe its just a Nethys thing.
Generally speaking from the description of the power its reasonable for GMs to allow it.
Yeah thats a good point. Unarmed attack is not a defined word though in the game. That just the title of a grouping of weapons for proficiency purposes. Its all lowercase. It is still technically valid in the game and in natural English to call a Trip done with your hands as an unarmed attack.Unarmed attack is very much defined.
Trip is an attack, but not an unarmed attack. Per strict RAW, it doesn't benefit from Effortless Reach.
Your mind is not quite open enough.
You are missing that a Trip with empty hands is unarmed. A Trip is an attack.
Both of those are explicit game rules.
So this Trip is an (unarmed) (attack) but not an (unarmed attack).
?!?
I agree with that statement. Dare I say we both agree on that statement.
Natural English does not make that distinction possible without doing something with capitalisation or punctuation like I just have. The rules allow both readings.
It cracks me up how you get all hung up on capitalization and proper terms and how "unarmed attack" isn't defined, but as soon as SB shows you, page and reference, a block singled out especially to define unarmed attacks - wait I'm sorry, it's capitalized in the block title, so Unarmed Attacks (or does that not "count" because it's not capitalized everywhere) in no uncertain terms you switch to "weeerrll we can mash these words together and in simple English they mean something different than the book specifically defines
Happy to be of service :)
But this is exactly why they capitalise terms in rulebooks to distinguish between the common use of the language and the in game use. They did not do it here.
and you're closed-minded if you disagree"
I didn't say that. That phrase has other connotations I did not use. Please don't verbal me like that. I used a much more neutral open term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It cracks me up how you get all hung up on capitalization and proper terms and how "unarmed attack" isn't defined, but as soon as SB shows you, page and reference, a block singled out especially to define unarmed attacks - wait I'm sorry, it's capitalized in the block title, so Unarmed Attacks (or does that not "count" because it's not capitalized everywhere) in no uncertain terms you switch to "weeerrll we can mash these words together and in simple English they mean something different than the book specifically defines and you're closed-minded if you disagree"
Yup. Welcome to the rules forum. I still maintain that the rules in the CRB would be more consistent and better defined if they were written in C instead.
Does it matter to anyone that the hand is the base/normally required weapon to perform the Trip action?
Reflective Ripple Stance has the trip trait because you're using a weapon--water--to make unarmed attacks (in the same vein as foxfire is an unarmed fire attack), so I wouldn't use that as a justification that the hand can't trip. Fist doesn't need the trip trait, it's required to make a trip at baseline.
Now you can't trip with your tengu beak but you can use it with effortless reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it matter to anyone that the hand is the base/normally required weapon to perform the Trip action?
Reflective Ripple Stance has the trip trait because you're using a weapon--water--to make unarmed attacks (in the same vein as foxfire is an unarmed fire attack), so I wouldn't use that as a justification that the hand can't trip. Fist doesn't need the trip trait, it's required to make a trip at baseline.
Now you can't trip with your tengu beak but you can use it with effortless reach.
I interpret hand and fist as different mechanics especially since fist = fists, kicks, or headbutts, etc. Fist the weapon entry doesn't need to list maneuver traits because it's a free hand (et al) that does those, and fist itself doesn't require a free hand.
The Stances require the Trip trait because yes, they might not use your hand at all, but also so you can get the Handwraps bonus. A Monk w/ Reflective Ripple Stance could have their arms full and still trip since the Stance makes no mention of using one's hands. It also needs the Trip trait to clarify that you can trip w/ its Reach. A Stance w/ Reach and no Trip trait could not, even if it involved hands or they were free.
As Gortle summarized it, it's a matter of whether an action being unarmed (usually) and an attack = being an "unarmed attack".
Yes or no, the rules allow for either.
I think not since I can't see trip as being an attack entry like Fist, but I'd likely still allow it for an 18th level feat.
It cracks me up how you get all hung up on capitalization and proper terms and how "unarmed attack" isn't defined, but as soon as SB shows you, page and reference, a block singled out especially to define unarmed attacks - wait I'm sorry, it's capitalized in the block title, so Unarmed Attacks (or does that not "count" because it's not capitalized everywhere) in no uncertain terms you switch to "weeerrll we can mash these words together and in simple English they mean something different than the book specifically defines
Further on this. This is a discussion. I'm making statements, listening and adjusting my opinion. Why wouldn't I be doing this? We aren't discussing politics or philosphy.
I have to refine my opinions and rephrase them to distill them down to their essense, and to help people understand where the actual differences lie. I'm no oracle. I'm not right. I make many mistakes which I acknowledge when I agree I've made a mistake.
So yes I was absolutely wrong when I said there was no definition, but it took a while for someone to correct me, so that opinion went out a bit more. There is a definition. Its a descriptive definition that is not locked down. Its also most definitely not a keyword. Which is important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yes I was absolutely wrong when I said there was no definition, but it took a while for someone to correct me, so that opinion went out a bit more. There is a definition. Its a descriptive definition that is not locked down. Its also most definitely not a keyword. Which is important.
Gortle at 07:08 am: "There is no definition for unarmed attack. Just of unarmed and of attack."
Mathmuse at 7:39am: "And the definition of unarmed attacks is at Unarmed Attacks in the Equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook."Gortle at 07:56 am: "Unarmed attack is not a defined word though in the game."
SuperBidi at 7 hours, 31 minutes ago: "Unarmed attack is very much defined."
"Unarmed" is a weapon trait. Does that count as a keyword?
Interestingly, the Archives of Nethys lists all unarmed attacks under the weapon trait Unarmed:
Unarmed
Source Core Rulebook pg. 283 2.0
An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn't a weapon, though it's categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it's part of your body, an unarmed attack can't be Disarmed. It also doesn't take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage generally works like a free-hand weapon.
Monk Unarmed Attacks
Cobra Fang, Crane Wing, Dragon Tail, Falling Stone, Fire Talon, Flashing Spark, Flowing Wave, Gorilla Slam, Iron Sweep, Lashing Branch, Shadow Grasp, Stinging Lash, Stumbling Swing, Tiger Claw, Vitality Blast, Wind Crash, Wolf Jaw
Weapons
Fist
The Trip action is not on the list.
I think that Effortless Reach would be a more plausible feat if it had said, "Your unarmed attacks and Disarm, Grapple, Shove, and Trip actions gain the reach trait." But defining Athletics attacks as unarmed attacks goes beyond the rules.
"your mind is not open" means the same as "closed-minded" in simple English and yet you insist there are subtle differences
Have you heard in advertising the phrase ""Open your mind""? It comes up often enough. Its not an insult.
Why don't the Athletics attacks have the Unarmed trait if they're unarmed attacks?
Why don't Strikes?
The Unarmed trait lists monk attacks to point out that you need to be unarmed and the weapon group Unarmed for specialisation reasons. There is no reason for athletics checks to be there.But the actual reason is because Paizo realised their rules where being interpreted in a way they did not intend and decided to patch it via errata. That the rules are not perfect is reasonable and a surprise to no one.
And the rest of what you say is not worth responding to.
"Unarmed" is a weapon trait. Does that count as a keyword?
Yes "Unarmed" does, but "unarmed" does not. Its an official rule look it up CRB page 17 paragraph 2
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Gortle, but I find that your thesis in this case is too much of a stretch.
There's no capitalization so there's a reasonable doubt they're not speaking about Unarmed Attacks but about any attack made while unarmed.
The issue is that the uncapitalize term "unarmed attack" is used all around the book and considering that it applies to Trip, Grapple and Shove would be a massive rule change. As an example, Martial Artist Dedication would improve your proficiency with Trips, Grapples and Shoves, that's not nothing.
Also, even if I go in your direction, accepting the reasonable doubt, I don't find anything in the rules supporting this interpretation.
So we face a choice between considering that unarmed attack = Unarmed Attack and we have a whole set of consistent rules or that unarmed attack = attack made unarmed and we are blown in space with absolutely no rules to follow and a lot of inconsistent feats and abilities.
I don't think there's a reasonable doubt left once you consider the impact of the 2 interpretations.
The rule books make distinctions between "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes."
"Unarmed attacks" is used when they're referring to body parts used as a weapons or anything they says is an unarmed attack (e.g., foxfire) and when referring to those body parts (e.g., magic fang).
"Unarmed Strikes is used when referring to the act of making a Strike with a body part (or other thing like foxfire that is defined as unarmed).
So, to me, Gortle is correct and your body parts (neck, arm, leg, hips, what have you) gain the reach trait so long as you don't stick a weapon on them (and you don't have a feature that lets you use a weapon as an unarmed attack).
If Gortle is wrong and "unarmed attacks" is always synonymous with "unarmed strikes" then magic fang only grants its effect to a single strike you make during its duration, as an example of how that assessment screws up the rules.
I would conclude that you hand is an unarmed attack, gains the reach trait, at default can be used/is required to trip, and Trip is an attack, so you can trip at reach. You can't Steal or Disable a Device at reach, though.
Sorry Gortle, but I find that your thesis in this case is too much of a stretch.
There's no capitalization so there's a reasonable doubt they're not speaking about Unarmed Attacks but about any attack made while unarmed.
The issue is that the uncapitalize term "unarmed attack" is used all around the book and considering that it applies to Trip, Grapple and Shove would be a massive rule change. As an example, Martial Artist Dedication would improve your proficiency with Trips, Grapples and Shoves, that's not nothing.
Also, even if I go in your direction, accepting the reasonable doubt, I don't find anything in the rules supporting this interpretation.So we face a choice between considering that unarmed attack = Unarmed Attack and we have a whole set of consistent rules or that unarmed attack = attack made unarmed and we are blown in space with absolutely no rules to follow and a lot of inconsistent feats and abilities.
I don't think there's a reasonable doubt left once you consider the impact of the 2 interpretations.
Its a rabbit hole and no big deal. I just like working things through and this leads to a mess.
But your discussion of the outcome here assumes there has to be one true meaning. I've pointed out that there are two ways by the rules to read unarmed attacks. I'm not requiring you to shoot your self in the foot with a poor rules interpretation. Choose the one that makes sense in any particular situation. Uncertainty exists. Move on. That is natural English after all. Somehow its a popular language anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But your discussion of the outcome here assumes there has to be one true meaning.
There's no one true meaning, but still there's a spectrum of more or less acceptable rules, each of them having their own reasons to be applied. That's also why these discussions are interesting, to forge my own interpretation of the rules and to understand what opposition I could face while GMing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But your discussion of the outcome here assumes there has to be one true meaning.There's no one true meaning, but still there's a spectrum of more or less acceptable rules, each of them having their own reasons to be applied. That's also why these discussions are interesting, to forge my own interpretation of the rules and to understand what opposition I could face while GMing.
Agreed. This is exactly why I still read and post on the rules thread. And sometimes the arguments here make me change my mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you’re flanking a target while in Wolf Stance, your wolf jaw unarmed attacks also gain the trip trait.
Now your hand has to be free to make wolf jaw unarmed attacks anyway, so whether you are flanking or not you could just use that free hand, rather than a wolf jaw unarmed attack to trip. So what is the point of sometimes gaining the trip trait on wolf jaw unarmed attacks?
The argument has always been that it helps you because Handwraps of Mighty Blows don't grant their item bonuses to athletics attacks made with your free hand, but they do grant their item bonuses to athletics attacks made with unarmed attacks possessing the trip trait.
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.
Although unarmed attacks are explicitly not weapons, they benefit from weapon traits as if they were. If you are wearing Handwraps with potency runes, trip attacks made with wolf jaw unarmed attacks get that item bonus while trip attacks made with your free hand do not. So there is a benefit to wolf jaw unarmed attacks gaining the trip trait.
But now we have the argument that athletics attacks made with body parts are unarmed attacks.
If that were true then Handwraps would grant item bonuses to athletics attacks made with a free hand because the Handwraps entry uses the phrase 'unarmed attacks' rather than limiting itself to 'unarmed strikes.'
So what would be the point of getting the trip trait on wolf jaw unarmed attacks?
-----
Side Note: Magic Fang also uses the phrase 'unarmed attack' rather than 'unarmed strike' so the arguments made for Handwraps also apply to that spell.
So what would be the point of getting the trip trait on wolf jaw unarmed attacks?
I suspect but cannot prove that the stance attacks are qualified as distinct weapons, which is why they need the unarmed trait and they need to have weapon traits to do things your hands can already do.
E.g., Dragon Tail is no longer Agile or Finesse, but I don't believe that is evidence that a kick is not Agile and Finesse.
I am of the impression that weapon traits were originally designed to allow weapons to do things hands could do (like in 1E): trip, disarm, shove. Then special non-manufactured/"natural" unarmed attacks like antlers, Dragon Tail, foxfire were created and needed traits.
These "natural" attacks possessing the Trip trait are also not completely plausible. The last part of the Trip trait is that you can instead drop your weapon to not suffer the consequences of a critical fail on the Trip attempt. Can you drop your hands?
But I concede equipoise on the issue of being able to Trip with Effortless Reach by RAW.
Blake's Tiger, I think you missed my point. If free hand trips are unarmed attacks, then there is absolutely no additional benefit to using wolf jaw unarmed attacks to trip instead of just performing the trip free-handed.
Blake's Tiger, I think you missed my point. If free hand trips are unarmed attacks, then there is absolutely no additional benefit to using wolf jaw unarmed attacks to trip instead of just performing the trip free-handed.
My point was that there may be no point; they just got carried away with the concept of traits and added in things that were redundant (and that their presence isn't proof that your hand unarmed attack as an object rather than an action is or isn't what Effortless Reach was referring to).
What's the point of giving a halfing's fists the Trip trait through Dance Underfoot?
Unless there exists a feat, feature, or item that lets you make a Trip attempt with a Trip weapon on a simultaneous same MAP Strike. I haven't found one yet, but it could exist.
Or at one point they intended you couldn't do anything with your hands during a stance, which meant those stance strikes without a Trip trait couldn't Trip without leaving stance. But that doesn't explain giving halfings' hands the Trip trait.
|
|
Blake's Tiger, I think you missed my point. If free hand trips are unarmed attacks, then there is absolutely no additional benefit to using wolf jaw unarmed attacks to trip instead of just performing the trip free-handed.The benefit is that you get to add your item bonus from hand wraps to trips.
Gisher noted above that, if we use the difference between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes to make our decision, the item bonus from handwraps would apply to free-handed trips too.
Gisher noted above that, if we use the difference between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes to make our decision, the item bonus from handwraps would apply to free-handed trips too.Blake's Tiger, I think you missed my point. If free hand trips are unarmed attacks, then there is absolutely no additional benefit to using wolf jaw unarmed attacks to trip instead of just performing the trip free-handed.The benefit is that you get to add your item bonus from hand wraps to trips.
Nope. Handwraps of Mighty Blows give only bonuses to attack rolls and as such it doesn't apply to Trip (which asks for an Athletics check and not an attack roll) whatever your interpreation.
I'm becoming more certain that the term "unarmed attack" always refers to the body part capable of making an attack. For example, how you find it in Magic Weapon or
Toppling Dance (I miss recalled and linked incorrectly above) could be interpreted to mean the act of Striking with an unarmed trait weapon (but, again, what's the point?).
Iruxi Unarmed Cunning could be interpreted either way in the first part of the sentence but definitely as an object in the second:
Whenever you score a critical hit with a claw or an unarmed attack you gained from a lizardfolk ancestry feat, you apply the unarmed attack’s critical specialization effect.
The action of Striking does not have a critical specialization effect, only weapons/weapon groups have critical specialization effects.
My point is that the Strikes do not gain the reach trait, thing part of the body used to make a strike gains the reach trait.
So the question left, to me, is if Effortless Reach applying the reach trait to any part of my character's body that they can attack with, including their hands, only manifests when they are making a Strike or can they use them for other Attack trait actions at reach including Disarm, Force Open, Grapple, Shove, and Trip.
And, again, I concede equipoise based on Paizo occasionally using the term "unarmed attacks" in places where "unarmed Strikes" would have been more clear and unambiguous.
But I don't, personally, think you can take the presence of a potentially redundant trait on an unarmed attack (do catfolk normally not have agile and finesse traits with their hands?) as evidence one way or another as to how a random feat means to use the term "unarmed attack."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the unarmed attack has the trip trait, it should work like a weapon and give you the item bonus. I don't see how it would work any differently.
I think everyone agrees that a trip attack made with an unarmed attack with the trip trait gets the Handwraps bonus.
As I stated before, that has been the longstanding explanation for why wolf jaw attacks benefit from gaining the trip trait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Handwraps of Mighty Blows give only bonuses to attack rolls and as such it doesn't apply to Trip (which asks for an Athletics check and not an attack roll) whatever your interpreation.Gisher noted above that, if we use the difference between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes to make our decision, the item bonus from handwraps would apply to free-handed trips too.Blake's Tiger, I think you missed my point. If free hand trips are unarmed attacks, then there is absolutely no additional benefit to using wolf jaw unarmed attacks to trip instead of just performing the trip free-handed.The benefit is that you get to add your item bonus from hand wraps to trips.
Please cite the text stating that Handwraps only apply rune bonuses to attack rolls. I can't find it anywhere in the Handwraps entry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blake's Tiger, I think you missed my point. If free hand trips are unarmed attacks, then there is absolutely no additional benefit to using wolf jaw unarmed attacks to trip instead of just performing the trip free-handed.My point was that there may be no point; they just got carried away with the concept of traits and added in things that were redundant (and that their presence isn't proof that your hand unarmed attack as an object rather than an action is or isn't what Effortless Reach was referring to).
...
It's possible that it doesn't have a point. But it did have a point under the prior interpretation of 'unarmed attack.' I'm trying to see whether this newly proposed definition makes more or less sense than the old one when we apply it to other game elements.