I've been considering implementing automatic progression to my party of newcomers to alleviate some of the item tax and focus on giving them options that are flavorful rather than powerful, but I noticed something as I've been looking through the rules. Does anyone know how ABP interacts with weapon traits like Shove or Trip? Do you apply your attack potency bonus to those maneuvers if the weapon has the appropriate trait, or is the removal of item bonuses just a net loss in that case?
I'm a little confused by your question. Just like the base game, a potency rune on your weapon applies a bonus to attacks and automatic bonus progression grants you a +1 potency bonus to attacks, the main difference being it's not on a specific weapon but to any weapon you wield.
If you use your weapon to make the attack I would grant the item bonus to it, as they are typically still attack rolls (at least I'm pretty sure trip is).
Now what you may mean is that if you had an item that gave a bonus to athletics checks and a weapon that gave a bonus to attack rolls via potency, doesn't this end up a net loss since now you don't have two different bonus types?
To which I say, weren't they both item bonuses before and didn't stack?
I'm a little confused by your question. Just like the base game, a potency rune on your weapon applies a bonus to attacks and automatic bonus progression grants you a +1 potency bonus to attacks,
Strict wording, the potency bonus on your weapons only applies to "attack rolls", and skill checks from combat maneuvers with the Attack trait have been ruled as not being attack rolls.
But I would probably run it as though they were a full fundamental rune on the item and allow it to work anyway as long as the weapon has the appropriate trait.
Also, there are the Skill Potency bonuses that the characters get to put onto some of their skills. Those would also be added to combat maneuver checks. And probably shouldn't stack with the potency bonus from the weapon - though I haven't checked if they stack without ABP. It might be that an invested item has a different bonus type than the weapon rune gives. But my thinking is that they would both be item bonuses to begin with.
Yeah, normally I think they're both item bonuses so wouldn't stack, but in ABP they're both potency bonuses and still don't stack.
Regarding combat maneuvers with the attack roll trait, perhaps I misunderstood but I thought there was a ruling that they DID count as attack rolls, because they increase MAP, are affected by MAP etc.
Was there an explanation for why they shouldn't count as attack rolls?
Anyways, the RAW may be that it wouldn't count but since (or if) a normal potency rune would work I (as a GM) would rule that it functions the same way under ABP.
Also for what it's worth potency runes say:
Magical enhancements make this weapon strike true. Attack rolls with this weapon gain a +1 item bonus, and the weapon can be etched with one property rune.
While ABP says:
Starting at 2nd level, you gain a +1 potency bonus to attack rolls with all weapons and unarmed attacks. This increases to +2 at 10th level, and +3 at 16th level.
To me, those two sentences read the same (except replace item bonus with potency bonus, and the rune applies to one weapon instead of all weapons). So if potency runes apply to trip attacks, then the bonus from ABP should apply. And if ABP doesn't, I can't see how there is any wording difference that would let potency runes apply either.
Never mind, I see why. It's because the trip trait on weapons explicitly 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.
So it's because the trip trait explicitly says item bonus. As a GM, I think it should be obvious to understand that you should substitute potency bonus in this instance if you're using ABP.
Yeah, normally I think they're both item bonuses so wouldn't stack, but in ABP they're both potency bonuses and still don't stack.
Regarding combat maneuvers with the attack roll trait, perhaps I misunderstood but I thought there was a ruling that they DID count as attack rolls, because they increase MAP, are affected by MAP etc.
Was there an explanation for why they shouldn't count as attack rolls?
Not much of an explanation - just a clear statement in the first CRB errata that they are not.
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. ...
Anyways, the RAW may be that it wouldn't count but since (or if) a normal potency rune would work I (as a GM) would rule that it functions the same way under ABP.
Same. That is how I try to run ABP as well. You get the same bonuses, but without actually using equipment. So anything you can do without ABP you can also do with ABP.
Though that does require some houseruling of the official houserule. Such as taking the item bonus from spells like Mage Armor and Magic Weapon, and consumable items like mutagens and bombs and changing them into potency bonuses that do still exist but don't stack with the potency bonuses given automatically from ABP.
Regarding combat maneuvers with the attack roll trait, perhaps I misunderstood but I thought there was a ruling that they DID count as attack rolls, because they increase MAP, are affected by MAP etc.Was there an explanation for why they shouldn't count as attack rolls?
Not much of an explanation - just a clear statement in the first CRB errata that they are not.
I'm trying to think of what that would impact, like what does or doesn't work because of this.
The only thing I can really think of it removed true strike from working, so you couldn't guarantee tripping/grappling (or really make critical hits much more likely) to happen. Outside of that I'm struggling to see the impact.
It has been too long and I don't remember all of the shenanigans that people were bringing up. True Strike was probably one of them. Also using the item bonus from a weapon on combat maneuvers no matter what traits the weapon does or doesn't have - simply holding the weapon gives the item bonus to attack rolls, so making a trip unarmed would gain the weapon's rune bonus.
Yeah, I suppose that would be a weird thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to think of what that would impact, like what does or doesn't work because of this.
It disables Inspire Courage from improving trip and grapple attempts, which is fairly significant.
The big one though was 'clarifying'/changing the way finesse interacted with maneuver traits, which was a big deal at the time and something Paizo had ruled the other way during the playtest.
Also using the item bonus from a weapon on combat maneuvers no matter what traits the weapon does or doesn't have - simply holding the weapon gives the item bonus to attack rolls, so making a trip unarmed would gain the weapon's rune bonus.
This wouldn't happen even under the old ruling, potency runes specify they apply to attacks with that weapon.