Trips?

[hong]

Except now you are trying to get a mechanical advantage from a color description.

No, I'm gaining a mechanical advantage from reading the rules.

From what you are saying, a thief could use a +5 greatsword to get a +5 on his open locks skill. It doesn't say he can't use a GS to open a lock.

While it is clear from general knowledge that it's possible to use a staff or even a greatsword to trip someone (manuals on two-handed sword usage often depict the subject using it like a big polearm), it isn't so clear that it's possible to use a greatsword to pick locks.

Or try this, I have a fighter with a +5 dart, and weapon focus, so do I get +6 to trip if I am holding a dart??

Some applications of the rules are more silly than others. By the book, you can also dual-wield lances while on horseback. This doesn't mean the general rule of allowing Medium-sized weapons to be dual wielded is silly.

Um, why do you say this? I haven't been able to find this in the rules....
On page 140 it talks about getting an AoO, but *specifically* mentions "striking for damage".

It specifically says "attacking unarmed provokes an AoO...". I fail to see the difference between punching someone and grabbing them and throwing them to the ground. Both are unarmed combat maneuvers, and in matter of fact, the latter should make you _more_ vulnerable to getting whacked in return.

Further, it is done as a melee touch attack, and the description of a MTA doesn't mention getting an AoO either.

Because an MTA can be done with a weapon or with a fist, and the result differs depending on whether it's done with a weapon or a fist.

 

[hong]

You do realize that stops being funny after the 3rd or 4th time, right?

Haw haw!!!1 Caliban still wants the last word by telling me off for wanting the last word!11

You can stop any time you want.

 

[Caliban]

Haw haw!!!1 Caliban still wants the last word by telling me off for wanting the last word!11

You can stop any time you want.

Apparently you cannot.

 

[hong]

Haw haw!11!! Now Caliban wants the last word by observing that I want the last word!!!1

Apparently you cannot.

Of course not. That should have been apparent by the 3rd or 4th time.

 

[Caliban]

Haw haw!11!! Now Caliban wants the last word by observing that I want the last word!!!1




Of course not. That should have been apparent by the 3rd or 4th time.

Haw Haw 1!1

You are teh Funney!1!

 

[dcollins]

Exactly. I can't, and yet the intention is clearly understood. Just as it should be clear that any weapon can be used with a trip.

You've entirely missed the point.

You've claimed the following: that the language for certain weapons that says "you can trip with this weapon" is redundant, and true for all weapons by default.

My claim is that: this is not true, and, for example, there is no other language under any weapon description which is similarly redundant and true for all weapons by default.

In an attempt to disprove my claim, you've been forced to make up an assertion which is not stipulated under any weapon description. Therefore you've reinforced my point -- there are not, in fact, redundant assertions under the core rules weapons descriptions. All language under weapon descriptions are unique and special qualities for the weapon under consideration.

"Attacking unarmed provokes an AoO from the character you attack" -- PHB, p.140

Keep reading. Everything in that section is specific to "Unarmed Strikes".

This is because when you make bull rushes, grapples, disarms etc with a weapon, you _still_ provoke an AoO. This isn't the case for a trip.

A belief that bull rushes and grapples can also be made with weapons is way outside what any other readers of the core rules come away with.

 

[hong]

You've entirely missed the point.

Says who?

You've claimed the following: that the language for certain weapons that says "you can trip with this weapon" is redundant, and true for all weapons by default.

My claim is that: this is not true, and, for example, there is no other language under any weapon description which is similarly redundant and true for all weapons by default.

No, you've missed the point. Just because a claim is made that X can be used for purpose Y, does not mean anything that isn't X can't be used for the same.

I'm not disproving your claim, I'm pointing out that using any weapon to make a trip attempt is _not inconsistent_ with the rules. I'm pointing out that some uses of weapons are so obvious as to not require any text to allow it.

You don't need the book to tell you that you can hit someone with a sword. Similarly, you don't need the book to tell you that you can trip someone with a quarterstaff. The fact that the designers use excess verbiage for some fancy weapons does not change this basic fact.

Keep reading. Everything in that section is specific to "Unarmed Strikes".

Says who?

A belief that bull rushes and grapples can also be made with weapons is way outside what any other readers of the core rules come away with.

So disallow it. Do you also allow people to dual-wield lances on horseback?

 

[hong]

Haw Haw 1!1

You are teh Funney!1!

Well, of course. But really, you shouldn't be telling me this. Much as I try to avoid it, it might give me a big head.


Hong "and then where would we be?" Ooi

 

[Caliban]

So disallow it. Do you also allow people to dual-wield lances on horseback?

Do you allow people to trip using punching daggers or large shields?

 

[hong]

Do you allow people to trip using punching daggers or large shields?

Charging at someone from behind a shield, with the aim of knocking them flat, is basically a trip attack with a shield. A punching dagger is more suspect, I admit.