Trips?

[Caliban]

I've always thought that you can use any (melee) weapon to trip. It breaks my sense of disbelief more to think that you can't trip someone with a staff or a spear, than to think you can trip with a battleaxe or rapier.

Assuming that you could trip with a spear or staff, then why would you be unable to drop the staff or spear when you fail to trip them and they try to trip you back?

Why would only certain weapons be able to be dropped to prevent the counter-trip, and all other weapons are glued to your hands?

The core rules seem to assume that a trip is actively hooking something around your targets leg or limb and pulling them off-balance.

The core rules don't seem to consider using a straight hafted weapon to sweep someones feat out from under them.

 

[dcollins]

If I recall, isn't the example in the PHB of Tordek using his Waraxe to make the trip?? As an example of intent.

No. There is no example given under the "Trip" heading on PH p. 139.

It would please me if you would also respond to the Knockdown feat argument which also supports my view.

Knockdown is an example of a feat changing the normal rules. It uses the Trip mechanic to adjudicate a distinct activity, namely that: "Your mighty blows can knock foes off their feat." (S&F p. 7). Clearly, from that description, no actual tripping is occuring, with or without any weapon. It is precisely analagous to ray attacks using the "touch attack" mechanic, even though the spellcaster is clearly not actually touching the target in question.

Even if that were not the case, using a supplement book as a basis for evaluating a core rule mechanic is a shaky premise. There are definitely other places (in fact, other feats) in Sword & Fist where it makes assertions about core mechanics which have been contradicted by the original designers.

 

[hong]

Assuming that you could trip with a spear or staff, then why would you be unable to drop the staff or spear when you fail to trip them and they try to trip you back?

Game balance.

Why would only certain weapons be able to be dropped to prevent the counter-trip, and all other weapons are glued to your hands?

Game balance.

The core rules seem to assume that a trip is actively hooking something around your targets leg or limb and pulling them off-balance.

In that case, the core rules are mistaken. If a wolf can grab your leg and pull it out from under you, I should be able to knock someone down with the butt-end of a spear.

The core rules don't seem to consider using a straight hafted weapon to sweep someones feat out from under them.

That's because the core rules are broken.

 

[Caliban]

Game balance.



Game balance.

Exactly what is the game balance issue that would allow you to drop a flail to avoid a counter-trip and require that you not be able to do this with a quarterstaff?

It just seems to me that they overlooked the use of quarterstaffs and spears in this manner.

In that case, the core rules are mistaken. If a wolf can grab your leg and pull it out from under you, I should be able to knock someone down with the butt-end of a spear.

That's just it. A wolf is using their jaws to grab your leg and pull you down. The butt-end of a spear doesn't have anything to hook, grab, or wrap your limb with.

That's what the rules seem to assume: that if you can't lock onto their leg somehow, your not going to be able to trip them.

That's because the core rules are broken.

I'm not saying they aren't incomplete in this area. There's several areas that the core rules don't cover adequately, or just gloss over in the interest of simplicity.

I'm just saying that by the core rules, it appears that you either need a trip weapon or you are tripping unarmed.

I could certainly see a feat that allows you to trip someone with a hafted weapon, or just saying that they can be used for trips, but have a -4 penalty (because they can't hook your leg, and it's harder to knock their feet out from under them than just hooking a leg and pulling). The feat would negate the -4 penalty.

It would be a house rule, but a reasonable one.

 

[hong]

Exactly what is the game balance issue that would allow you to drop a flail to avoid a counter-trip and require that you not be able to do this with a quarterstaff?[/b]

Well, in that case, I guess there's no reason not to allow you to drop a quarterstaff after a failed trip attempt.

That's just it. A wolf is using their jaws to grab your leg and pull you down. The butt-end of a spear doesn't have anything to hook, grab, or wrap your limb with.

You can sweep someone's legs out from under them with any polearm. Or you can just give them a solid shove in the chest, and knock them down that way. Or whatever; many fighting styles teach techniques for knocking a person down.

That's what the rules seem to assume: that if you can't lock onto their leg somehow, your not going to be able to trip them.

It's a bad assumption then.

I'm not saying they aren't incomplete in this area. There's several areas that the core rules don't cover adequately, or just gloss over in the interest of simplicity.

I'm just saying that by the core rules, it appears that you either need a trip weapon or you are tripping unarmed.

And I'm saying that by the core rules, there's nothing to stop you from tripping with any weapon, and certain weapons let you do certain things as part of that.

 

[Caliban]

Well, in that case, I guess there's no reason not to allow you to drop a quarterstaff after a failed trip attempt.

And yet the core rules don't allow it. Otherwise they would specifically mention it as they do for every single weapon that it notes as being used in a trip attempt.

If it was intended to be something you could do with every weapon, it would be mentioned in the trip description. Instead the ability to drop the weapon is only mentioned for specific weapons. Logically this means that only those weapons can be dropped on a failed trip attempt, and this very strongly indicates that only those weapons can be used to trip people, under the core rules.

Look at the flail and guisarme descriptions on page 100 and 101 of the PHB. It specifically states for the flail: "You can use this weapon to make trip attacks". For the guisarme: "because of the guisarme's curved blade, you can also use it to make trip attacks."

If any weapon can be used to make a trip attack, why is it specifically spelled out for these weapons (and for every other trip weapon)?

You can sweep someone's legs out from under them with any polearm. Or you can just give them a solid shove in the chest, and knock them down that way. Or whatever; many fighting styles teach techniques for knocking a person down.

In the real world, yes. In D&D, it seems to require a weapon with sharp curve or hook (guisarme), or a flexible weapon (chain, whip, flail) that can wrap around your limb.

It's a bad assumption then.

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that's what the core rules are using.

And I'm saying that by the core rules, there's nothing to stop you from tripping with any weapon, and certain weapons let you do certain things as part of that.

I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

You may disagree with the core rules on this issue, and I'm not saying your wrong to disagree. This appears to be one of those areas where they oversimplified things. Since you more knowledgable about tripping techniques, the holes in the rules (for this area) are more obvious to you.

I feel the same way when I try to make a fighter who can use "real" fencing techniques. (At best you can do a crude approximation, the D&D combat system is too abstract to allow you to realistically simulate the specific maneuvers used in real fencing.)

 

[hong]

And yet the core rules don't allow it.

There is nothing in the core rules that explictly forbids using any weapon to make a trip attack. The exact mechanics of a trip are that you make a touch attack, followed by an opposed Str check. Since there are no limits on what you can make a touch attack with, I conclude that there are no limits on what you can trip with.

Otherwise they would specifically mention it as they do for every single weapon that it notes as being used in a trip attempt.

No, since it's not specifically mentioned as being disallowed, there's no reason you can't do it.

If it was intended to be something you could do with every weapon, it would be mentioned in the trip description. Instead the ability to drop the weapon is only mentioned for specific weapons. Logically this means that only those weapons can be dropped on a failed trip attempt, and this very strongly indicates that only those weapons can be used to trip people, under the core rules.

No, logically it means that those specific weapons can be used for trip attacks, with the special feature that they can be dropped if the trip fails. No particular claim is made about other weapons. You can make the inference that other weapons shouldn't be usable for trip attacks, but that's a judgement call on your part. If this judgement call ends up conflicting with what you know about the actual capabilities of various weapons and fighting styles, then the reasonable option is to modify that judgement call to fit. In this case, since no explicit ban is made on using any weapon for trip attacks, it's entirely consistent with the rules to play it that way.

Look at the flail and guisarme descriptions on page 100 and 101 of the PHB. It specifically states for the flail: "You can use this weapon to make trip attacks". For the guisarme: "because of the guisarme's curved blade, you can also use it to make trip attacks."

If any weapon can be used to make a trip attack, why is it specifically spelled out for these weapons (and for every other trip weapon)?

Because the designers like to insert superfluous verbiage. It happens elsewhere in the books.

 

[Caliban]

There is nothing in the core rules that explictly forbids using any weapon to make a trip attack. The exact mechanics of a trip are that you make a touch attack, followed by an opposed Str check. Since there are no limits on what you can make a touch attack with, I conclude that there are no limits on what you can trip with.

Yes there is. I pointed it out to you.

No, since it's not specifically mentioned as being disallowed, there's no reason you can't do it.

There is every reason. Just like with spells, if it's not in the weapon description (or in the general rules that govern it's use), it's not a capablitly of the weapon.

No, logically it means that those specific weapons can be used for trip attacks, with the special feature that they can be dropped if the trip fails. No particular claim is made about other weapons. You can make the inference that other weapons shouldn't be usable for trip attacks, but that's a judgement call on your part. If this judgement call ends up conflicting with what you know about the actual capabilities of various weapons and fighting styles, then the reasonable option is to modify that judgement call to fit. In this case, since no explicit ban is made on using any weapon for trip attacks, it's entirely consistent with the rules to play it that way.

Only if you choose to ignore the context of the passages in the weapons descriptions. What's more, this has been confirmed by the sage.

I've examined the text in the PHB from every viewpoint I can manage, and this is the only explanation that is consistent with the PHB. It may not be close enough to reality to suit you, but there are several parts of the combat system that are only vaguely related to reality. (Armor for example.)

Seriously.

You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks.

There is no reason for that statement, unless you cannot normally make trip attacks with a weapon. "Excess verbiage" doesn't cut it.

The guisarme states that you can make trips attack with it because of the way it's constructed. This indicates that normally weapons are not constructed in a way that allows trip attacks.

Therefore:

The Trip attack in the combat section is unarmed by default. Certain weapons in the equipment sectioin allow you to use the Trip attack with them, because they explicitly say so.

Because the designers like to insert superfluous verbiage. It happens elsewhere in the books.

*shrug* I'm sorry Hong. The core rules simply don't handle it the way you think it should be handled. Just house rule it and move on.

 

[hong]

Yes there is. I pointed it out to you.

I missed it.

There is every reason. Just like with spells, if it's not in the weapon description (or in the general rules that govern it's use), it's not a capablitly of the weapon.

There's nothing in the weapon descriptions that says "you can use this weapon to make disarming attempts" either. Nor is there anything that says "you can use this weapon to attack an object". And yet we assume that, as a general capability of weapons, it's possible to do these sorts of things.

Only if you choose to ignore the context of the passages in the weapons descriptions.

Which leads to contradictions, and therefore I reject that particular context as nonsensical.

What's more, this has been confirmed by the sage.

Screw the Sage. There you go, I'm giving you an opportunity to put on your "the Sage agrees with me, therefore I'm right" hat.

I've examined the text in the PHB from every viewpoint I can manage, and this is the only explanation that is consistent with the PHB.

Then you're not trying hard enough.

It may not be close enough to reality to suit you, but there are several parts of the combat system that are only vaguely related to reality. (Armor for example.)

Seriously.

You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks.

There is no reason for that statement, unless you cannot normally make trip attacks with a weapon.

In context, what it means is that you can make trip attacks, with the proviso that you can drop the weapon if the attack fails. As to why other weapons can't be dropped, the answer is, as said before, game balance.

"Excess verbiage" doesn't cut it.

Of course it does. I just did it.

The guisarme states that you can make trips attack with it because of the way it's constructed. This indicates that normally weapons are not constructed in a way that allows trip attacks.

The guisarme states that you can make trip attacks with the proviso that you can drop the weapon if used in that fashion. You cannot drop other weapons, because their construction requires you to use them in a more exposed or awkward manner to make a trip. Hence you're more vulnerable to being tripped in return.

The Trip attack in the combat section is unarmed by default. Certain weapons in the equipment sectioin allow you to use the Trip attack with them, because they explicitly say so.

And other weapons allow you to use the trip attack with them, because there's no explicit prohibition on doing so.

*shrug* I'm sorry Hong. The core rules simply don't handle it the way you think it should be handled.

This is soooo 1999.

 

[dcollins]

The guisarme states that you can make trip attacks with the proviso that you can drop the weapon if used in that fashion.

That's not correct. The guisarme language makes two separate and distinct claims, in two separate and distinct sentences. This is the same way it's done for all tripping weapons:

(1) You may use this weapon to make trip attacks.
(2) You can drop this weapon to avoid counter-trips.

These are not a single claim -- they are not joined in a single sentence. The presence of independent claim #1 is one of the main pieces of evidence that by default, weapons cannot be used in trip attacks.