Trips?

[hong]

That's not correct. The guisarme language makes two separate and distinct claims, in two separate and distinct sentences.

And regardless, it's still the case that no explicit prohibition exists on using other weapons for trips.

 

[Caliban]

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.

No, we don't assume anything there. The disarm action on page 137 of the PHB specifically discusses using weapons and unarmed attacks to disarm.

The Trip action on page 139 makes absolutely no mention of using a weapon. The only time weapons are mentioned in conjuction with a trip attack is in the equipment section, for certain specific weapons.

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

Which contradiction would that be? I don't see any contradiction in the text.

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.

*shrug* And you go right ahead and put on your "The Sage disagrees with me, therefore I'm right" hat if you want.

It still doesn't change the fact that nothing in the text supports your claim, and I've pointed out several things that support mine.

As I've said before, the core rules don't always handle everything in the best or most realistic way. If you disagree with how they handle something, just house rule it and move on. I've done that in several areas for my home game.

 

[hong]

The Trip action on page 139 makes absolutely no mention of using a weapon.

Nor should it have to, because I can't think of any earthly reason why only specific weapons can be used to trip someone.

The only time weapons are mentioned in conjuction with a trip attack is in the equipment section, for certain specific weapons.

And as I keep saying, all that means is that those particular weapons can be used for trips, and have special features when used in that way. That doesn't rule out using _other_ weapons for the same end.

Which contradiction would that be? I don't see any contradiction in the text.

The contradiction that it's eminently reasonable for many weapons to be used for trip attacks, and yet since it isn't mentioned in their descriptions, it somehow isn't possible.

*shrug* And you go right ahead and put on your "The Sage disagrees with me, therefore I'm right" hat if you want.

Of course I am. Because I'm right.

It still doesn't change the fact that nothing in the text supports your claim,

I've pointed out that nothing in the text _contradicts_ my claim. What part of "is consistent with the rules" do you have trouble understanding?

and I've pointed out several things that support mine.

You've pointed out that a certain narrow interpretation of the letter of the rules leads to a certain conclusion, one that's at odds with what's known about fighting styles.

As I've said before, the core rules don't always handle everything in the best or most realistic way. If you disagree with how they handle something, just house rule it and move on. I've done that in several areas for my home game.

Is there a point to this paragraph of yours?

 

[Caliban]

Nor should it have to, because I can't think of any earthly reason why only specific weapons can be used to trip someone.

I see you are choosing to ignore the fact that disarm does speifically mention that it can be used with weapons, while trip makes no such mention.

And as I keep saying, all that means is that those particular weapons can be used for trips, and have special features when used in that way. That doesn't rule out using _other_ weapons for the same end.

The way it's phrased, that's exactly what it does.

The contradiction that it's eminently reasonable for many weapons to be used for trip attacks, and yet since it isn't mentioned in their descriptions, it somehow isn't possible.

So the contradiction is between your view of reality and what the rules state.

When was the last time you expected D&D to closely conform to your view of reality?

Does this mean that you think that armor in D&D works like it does in real life?

Of course I am. Because I'm right.

I've pointed out that nothing in the text _contradicts_ my claim. What part of "is consistent with the rules" do you have trouble understanding?

I've pointed out at least two pieces of text that does contradict your claim. You say that you are choosing to ignore them, because they "lead to contradictorary conclusions".

If it doesn't contradict your claims, why do you need to ignore it?

You've pointed out that a certain narrow interpretation of the letter of the rules leads to a certain conclusion, one that's at odds with what's known about fighting styles.

And the way armor and hit points work in D&D is at odds with whats known about the way it works in the real world.

Perhaps in D&D the ability to trip with those weapons is based on the fighting style and not on the weapon. There is nothing wrong with a feat that allows you to use a weapon for something it can't normally do.

Is there a point to this paragraph of yours?

Yes, but apparently you are choosing to ignore it.

*shrug* Hong, we are just going around in circles. At this point I'm pretty sure that nothing anyone says will change your mind, and nothing you have said has managed to change my mind.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[hong]

I see you are choosing to ignore the fact that disarm does speifically mention that it can be used with weapons, while trip makes no such mention.

The point is that no individual weapon description makes mention that it can be used to make special attacks, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

I can push someone with the butt-end of a spear. There's nothing in the book to stop me. That's a trip attack, and it's made with a weapon that doesn't allow trip attacks. What, I'm supposed to put down the weapon and attack as if unarmed?

The way it's phrased, that's exactly what it does.

Bleh.

Does this mean that you think that armor in D&D works like it does in real life?

It's close enough for practical purposes.

I've pointed out at least two pieces of text that does contradict your claim.

You've done no such thing. You've pointed out the rules that say that a given weapon can be used to make trip attacks (like I didn't know that already). The conclusion that other weapons cannot be used for the same does not logically follow.

You say that you are choosing to ignore them, because they "lead to contradictorary conclusions".

If it doesn't contradict your claims, why do you need to ignore it?

What?

And the way armor and hit points work in D&D is at odds with whats known about the way it works in the real world.

It's close enough for practical purposes; in particular, for the purpose of creating a particular swashbuckling atmosphere.

Perhaps in D&D the ability to trip with those weapons is based on the fighting style and not on the weapon. There is nothing wrong with a feat that allows you to use a weapon for something it can't normally do.

There's something particularly wrong with a feat that lets you use a weapon for something it can already do.

*shrug* Hong, we are just going around in circles. At this point I'm pretty sure that nothing anyone says will change your mind, and nothing you have said has managed to change my mind.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

You first.

 

[dcollins]

And regardless, it's still the case that no explicit prohibition exists on using other weapons for trips.

Again, you may as well argue that all weapons can make reach attacks and double-damage-versus-charge attacks.

A quality which needs special declaration in a weapon description cannot sensibly be a quality shared by default for all weapons.

 

[hong]

Again, you may as well argue that all weapons can make reach attacks and double-damage-versus-charge attacks.

By default, a weapon has a 5-foot reach. That's stated elsewhere. Similarly, by default a weapon can be readied against charge attacks, and does normal damage.

By default, there's no prohibition that I can see on using any weapon with a trip.

A quality which needs special declaration in a weapon description cannot sensibly be a quality shared by default for all weapons.

I dispute that being able to be used in a trip attack qualifies as a "special quality".

 

[Caliban]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*shrug* Hong, we are just going around in circles. At this point I'm pretty sure that nothing anyone says will change your mind, and nothing you have said has managed to change my mind.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You first.


__________________

I thought I just did?

 

[hong]

I thought I just did?

No, you're still posting in this thread.

Unlike me! See, unlike you, I have the strength of mind not to post to this thread anymore. Therefore, I win!

I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[Caliban]

No, you're still posting in this thread.

Unlike me! See, unlike you, I have the strength of mind not to post to this thread anymore. Therefore, I win!

I love it when a plan comes together.

*shrug* Whatever.