Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Origin 06-04-05, 06:12 PM	Ok, I understand how to do trip attack and such, but I don't see anywhere if it requires all of your attacks (full attack), or just 1? Also, with the Improved Trip Attack feat, it says you get to attack the enemy as if you didn't use your attack to trip the enemy. I suppose that means just one attack is required? And does it have to be the first attack you get, or can it be any? And, if you do fail on the trip attack, do you forfeit all other attacks? Would you still be allowed an Attack of Oppertuny, if allowed the chance? Lets bounce. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :heehee
dragonseth 06-04-05, 06:15 PM	I just stared at that for about 3 minutes before my Dad woke me up.
Dalthbar 06-04-05, 06:21 PM	Your trip attempt is a melee attack. If you don't have Improved Trip, this provokes an AoO, but if you have multiple attacks in a round, you should be able to take those as well. Nothing states that you need to make the trip attempt as the first attack in a round (though your attack bonus will naturally be the highest at that point). If you have Improved Trip then you in effect get a "free" follow-through attack now that the opponent is tripped. This is the "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt" bit that's mentioned. I've just always thought of it as one action - you trip and immediately attack as the person is on their way down. If you fail, then they can try to trip you. But if that fails, then I don't think it goes infinium until someone trips. They can just choose to or choose not to and that's that. If nobody falls, just pick things up where you left off if you have more attacks in that round.
Leobardis 06-04-05, 06:22 PM	Ok, I understand how to do trip attack and such, but I don't see anywhere if it requires all of your attacks (full attack), or just 1? Just one, you can even do them as AoOs Also, with the Improved Trip Attack feat, it says you get to attack the enemy as if you didn't use your attack to trip the enemy. I suppose that means just one attack is required? Yes, if you succeed on the trip roll you get an immediate extra attack at the same bonus you made the trip touch attack with. You can then finish attacking if you have more then one, or you can move, etc... And does it have to be the first attack you get, or can it be any? No, you could choose to attack, then try a trip, and if it fails, you could try to trip again or attack again. It all depends on how many attacks you get. And, if you do fail on the trip attack, do you forfeit all other attacks? No Would you still be allowed an Attack of Oppertuny, if allowed the chance? Yes, and you could even try another trip as your AoO
Origin 06-04-05, 06:34 PM	Thanks both of you made it a lot clearer, except now I have 1 more question.. If you fail the trip attack, and they trip you back, and they fail too, do you keep going infinitely until someone trips, or is that the end of it?
Leobardis 06-04-05, 06:40 PM	That is the end of it.
Origin 06-04-05, 06:44 PM	Thank you.
Egres 06-04-05, 06:53 PM	Your trip attempt is a melee attack. If you don't have Improved Trip, this provokes an AoO, Not necessarily. You could trip with a weapon, or just have the Imp. Unarmed Strike feat.
Origin 06-04-05, 08:51 PM	So.. what are you saying? When does a trip attack provoke an AoO? What can I do to prevent my trip attacks from provoking an AoO? If I get the Improved Trip feat will it stop provoking AoO's? And do the AoO's count as the trip back or just normal AoO's? So how can I stop my trip attacks from allowing them to trip me back if I fail?
Origin 06-04-05, 09:48 PM	I've been waiting an hour and really need to know, I'm creating my character right now and I need to decide if he should focus on tripping the enemy.
glutton 06-04-05, 11:53 PM	Just check your PHB man! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRIP You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a –4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid. If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you. Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack. Being Tripped (Prone): A tripped character is prone. Standing up is a move action. Tripping a Mounted Opponent: You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the rider from his mount. Tripping with a Weapon: Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped ------------------------------------------------------------------------- the Misleading part at the begininng that says you provoke an aoo as normal for a unarmed attack, ignore. A trip is a special action that just Improved unarmed strike will not overcome. You require the feat Improved trip, or a special ability similar to it, or a weapon you can trip with like a sickle or spiked chain. I am Only unsure on the useage of a weapon that cannot trip after you make an unarmed trip. Example, you have a +1 bastard sword and the Improved trip feat. You make a successful trip with your, legs i guess, you are now granted a free melee attack at the bonus you used to trip, do you get to use the bastard sword? My gut says yes, your Dm may rule its an unarmed attack though. Enjoy
SALDAR 06-05-05, 12:01 AM	glutton answered while I was typing. No use wasting all that work so I'll post anyway. When does a trip attack provoke an AoO? What can I do to prevent my trip attacks from provoking an AoO? The description of the Trip Special Attack in the Combat chapter of the PHB covers the first question. When you begin a trip attempt you make an unarmed melee touch attack that provokes an AoO. The Improved Trip feat eliminates this AoO and grants you a +4 bonus on the opposed strength check. Also listed are ways to avoid AoOs when tripping. The list states that you avoid AoOs if you have the Improved Trip feat or are using certain weapons. The qualifying weapons are those whose descriptions in the equipment chapter states that they can be used to make trip attacks. If the weapon’s description does not state that it can be used to make trip attacks then it provokes an AoO when tripping. If I get the Improved Trip feat will it stop provoking AoO's? Yes, when making an unarmed trip attempt. It does not help when using weapons that are not designed for tripping. See previous answer. And do the AoO's count as the trip back or just normal AoO's? You can use any attack to make a trip attempt. The AoO against a character making a trip attempt is a “normal” AoO and as such can be any form of attack the person being tripped chooses. The AoO does not have to be a trip. It could be a normal attack, a disarm attempt, or any other form of attack that can be used in place of a normal attack. So how can I stop my trip attacks from allowing them to trip me back if I fail? By using a weapon to trip. You simply let go of it. I disagree with Egres’ use of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat to avoid the AoO when tripping. First, because you are no longer considered unarmed when using it, you are now making an armed melee attack, which is totally different from the unarmed melee touch attack required to make a trip attempt. Second, the description of the unarmed strike as a weapon in the equipment chapter lacks the statement that it can be used to make trip attacks. Third, Improved Unarmed Strike is not listed in the Trip Special Attack section as a way to avoid AoOs when making a trip attempt. Finally, I contacted WotC Customer Service a few months ago on this subject and they replied that the Improved Unarmed Strike benefits do not apply to the Trip Special Attack. Just a different perspective on the matter. In the end it is up to you and your DM how you play it.
jaerad 06-05-05, 12:51 AM	Since he got his stuff answered, gonna gank this thread. Also listed are ways to avoid AoOs when tripping. The list states that you avoid AoOs if you have the Improved Trip feat or are using certain weapons. The qualifying weapons are those whose descriptions in the equipment chapter states that they can be used to make trip attacks. If the weapon’s description does not state that it can be used to make trip attacks then it provokes an AoO when tripping. Yes, when making an unarmed trip attempt. It does not help when using weapons that are not designed for tripping. See previous answer. So you can trip with any weapon, but only certain weapons can do so without provoking AoOs. So if the weapon has a Trip note, then it is used to trip without provoking AoOs. You can trip with any other weapon, but doing so provokes AoOs. Why does Imp. Trip only negate the AoO for unarmed attacks?
SALDAR 06-05-05, 01:37 AM	Maybe the designers felt that a longsword or mace was more effective if used in other ways, like actually hitting for damage.
jaerad 06-05-05, 02:25 AM	I'm begining to think that you're wrong. You cannot normally make trip attacks with weapons that do not have the Trip footnote. See Tripping with a Weapon, PHB. See also the Trip Attack special ability of Exotic Weapon Masters, Complete Warrior. Furthermore, under Avoiding AoOs, "if you are tripping with a weapon (see below) you don't provoke an" AoO. So tripping with any weapon (that allows you to trip with it) does not provoke AoOs. This is further supported by the fact that trips are designated unarmed melee touch attacks so that they provoke AoOs, while melee touch attacks do not provoke AoOs.
Tsuul 06-05-05, 02:34 AM	Only some weapons can be used for trip attempts. A non-exhaustive(sp) list is given of weapons that can be used. But it should be noted that all of the weapons listed state that they can be used for tripping in their description.
SALDAR 06-05-05, 02:44 AM	Upon further study I believe jaerad and Tsuul are correct. Unless a weapon's description states that it can be used to make trip attempts it cannot. That is why Improved Trip doesn't apply to weapons. It doesn't need to.
glutton 06-05-05, 02:55 AM	further proof is given in the actual trippign example in the phb
Egres 06-05-05, 07:16 AM	I disagree with Egres’ use of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat to avoid the AoO when tripping. First, because you are no longer considered unarmed when using it, you are now making an armed melee attack, which is totally different from the unarmed melee touch attack required to make a trip attempt. Second, the description of the unarmed strike as a weapon in the equipment chapter lacks the statement that it can be used to make trip attacks. Third, Improved Unarmed Strike is not listed in the Trip Special Attack section as a way to avoid AoOs when making a trip attempt. Finally, I contacted WotC Customer Service a few months ago on this subject and they replied that the Improved Unarmed Strike benefits do not apply to the Trip Special Attack. Just a different perspective on the matter. In the end it is up to you and your DM how you play it. SALDAR, come on, you are the only one who disagrees, you know.(and the fact that Cust Serv agrees with you is completely meaningless, and you should know it) Don't try to confuse a board member: when you make an unarmed attack with the IUS feat you are making an unarmed "armed" melee attack. As the PHB says. From the SRD: “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Deal with it, and don't start another thread on a solved issue.
q'afuu 06-05-05, 07:39 AM	SALDAR, come on, you are the only one who disagrees, you know. Not quite true. It's not as clear-cut as you want to make it out to be. Read the IUS description, particularly the 'normal' part - that would imply IUS applies only to unarmed strikes, not unarmed attacks in general. Personally, I think the designers didn't completely think through what effects the differences between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks might have mechanically, and as such their intentions aren't at all clear. Further evidence of this comes from WF (unarmed strike) which doesn't apply to unarmed attacks in general, only to unarmed strikes specifically and from the grapple mechanic (which by common sense and logic can be an unarmed attack when not using natural weapons, but is never specifically categorized as such, so IUS doesn't apply even if it would apply to unarmed attacks in general). In short, it's an area of the rules that could do with some official clarification.
Egres 06-05-05, 08:34 AM	Not quite true. It's not as clear-cut as you want to make it out to be. Read the IUS description, particularly the 'normal' part - that would imply IUS applies only to unarmed strikes, not unarmed attacks in general. Right. But you are missing (voluntarily?) the main point: Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. Not to mention the part I have already quoted above... Further evidence of this comes from WF (unarmed strike) which doesn't apply to unarmed attacks in general Actually, you are negating yourself. Since the WF (Unarmed Strike) specifically refers to Unarmed Strikes it obviously can't refer to all unarmed attacks. WF (Apple) doesn't apply to all fruits.
Origin 06-05-05, 09:21 AM	Ok I must thank you guys so much, but now I have another question. The only way to avoid a trip back attempt (if you failed) would be to drop your weapon. So, what if you're unarmed? (this assumes you have Improved Trip feat) I mean, you cannot drop your arm.. So this would lead me to think that you either 1. Don't get tripped back or 2. Must get tripped back and you can't do anything to stop it.
snowlynx 06-05-05, 09:30 AM	Yup, don't fail tripping someone while unarmed....they'll get that chance to trip you back. (In other words, choose what enemies you think about tripping carefully- don't try to trip four-footed beasties.)
Egres 06-05-05, 09:40 AM	Ok I must thank you guys so much, but now I have another question. The only way to avoid a trip back attempt (if you failed) would be to drop your weapon. So, what if you're unarmed? (this assumes you have Improved Trip feat) I mean, you cannot drop your arm.. So this would lead me to think that you either 1. Don't get tripped back or 2. Must get tripped back and you can't do anything to stop it. You got it right.
q'afuu 06-05-05, 09:58 AM	But you are missing (voluntarily?) the main point: ... No, I'm taking *all* evidence into account and noting that there are some (quite a few) inconsistencies. There was no reason for me to repeat what you deem the main point, since you had already brought it up. I was just adding the info you (voluntarily? :P ) missed. Actually, you are negating yourself. Since the WF (Unarmed Strike) specifically refers to Unarmed Strikes it obviously can't refer to all unarmed attacks. No, I'm making a point. WF(US) not applying to all unarmed attacks raises problems. For one thing, it means an unarmed tripper can't ever apply WF to his trip attempts, while an armed one can. That's nonsense, there's no reason why that should be the case. For another, it means grapplers need to use WF(grapple) - which no-one in their right mind would, aside from the most dedicated grapple monkeys: the feat is practically worthless (although WS(grapple) is even worse, that effectively *is* worthless) - unless they use a main-gauche (I don't know the stats for this item, but I'm told all weapon-specific feats can be applied to grappling through it). More nonsense. Take into account the confusion the distinction between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks often leads to, and it appears fairly obvious that removing that distinction altogether would make things a lot better. Naturally, that's only my opinion, and my opinion holds no sway over how D&D effectively works outside my own campaign, but I would submit that the inconsistencies noted above indicate the design team isn't necessarily completely on the same page when it comes to the issue either. I wouldn't consider this issue 'solved' without official clarification.
Tsuul 06-05-05, 10:15 AM	For one thing, it means an unarmed tripper can't ever apply WF to his trip attempts, while an armed one can.I believe you can take WF(Tripping) in the same manner that you can take WF(Grappeling).
Egres 06-05-05, 10:25 AM	No, I'm making a point. WF(US) not applying to all unarmed attacks raises problems. For one thing, it means an unarmed tripper can't ever apply WF to his trip attempts, while an armed one can. That's nonsense, there's no reason why that should be the case. That's nonsense...for you. I have no problem with it. WF (Unarmed attack) would be too much. It would apply to all natural weapons, bites, claws, and to touch spells too. Really, I can't see any problem. For another, it means grapplers need to use WF(grapple) - which no-one in their right mind would, aside from the most dedicated grapple monkeys: the feat is practically worthless (although WS(grapple) is even worse, that effectively *is* worthless) - unless they use a main-gauche (I don't know the stats for this item, but I'm told all weapon-specific feats can be applied to grappling through it). More nonsense. A worthless (for you) feat doesn't change the RAW. And you should know it. Take into account the confusion the distinction between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks often leads to, and it appears fairly obvious that removing that distinction altogether would make things a lot better. Naturally, that's only my opinion, and my opinion holds no sway over how D&D effectively works outside my own campaign, but I would submit that the inconsistencies noted above indicate the design team isn't necessarily completely on the same page when it comes to the issue either. I wouldn't consider this issue 'solved' without official clarification. nope. The RAW are clear. The fact that you dislike them is meaningless, and, once more, you should know it.
jaerad 06-05-05, 12:49 PM	I believe you can take WF(Tripping) in the same manner that you can take WF(Grappeling). ....What about WF (Sundering), WF (Charging), WF (Disarm)... No, you can't just take WF in any "attack action." WF applies only to weapons, unarmed strikes, grappling, and rays (if caster). Whether or not it would be considered overbalanced to have WF (Unarmed Attacks) which would include natural attacks and the like, ... hmm. On one hand, grappling is a lot different than striking. I'm not sure they should be lumped in together. In fact, I think it is advantageous for the system that an unarmed spec. d00d has to spend extra feats to emphasize in both striking and grappling. Touch spells.. isn't that what WF (Ray) is supposed to encompass? Natural Weapons... ya, I don't want to lump claws, bites, tails, etc. all into one entity. You wanna be great at using your tail? Fine, but that greatness doesn't carry over to your mouth.
q'afuu 06-05-05, 01:41 PM	WF (Unarmed attack) would be too much. It would apply to all natural weapons, bites, claws, and to touch spells too. No, it wouldn't. And you should know it. As for what I should know:Naturally, that's only my opinion, and my opinion holds no sway over how D&D effectively works outside my own campaign.
Tsuul 06-05-05, 02:12 PM	.... WF applies only to weapons, unarmed strikes, grappling, and rays (if caster).In other words "just weapons". Gotcha. Yup.
Egres 06-05-05, 02:19 PM	No, it wouldn't. And you should know it. What? :confused: ? :confused: ? :confused: ? :confused:
q'afuu 06-05-05, 03:49 PM	What? :confused: ? :confused: ? :confused: ? :confused: WF (unarmed attacks), if it would exist, wouldn't apply to "all natural weapons, bites, claws, and to touch spells too". Those all have their own, specific version of WF. 'Touch spells' is even divided up into more categories. Examples: the Arrowhawk has WF(bite), a Dire Bear has WF (claw), an Invisible Stalker has WF (slam), WF (ray) is mentioned as a specific example in the WF feat description (rays are touch attacks), ... Which you should know. :P
jaerad 06-05-05, 04:10 PM	Q'afuu, what then would fall under Unarmed Attacks? Sorry for being a newb, but I can't help it. :)
Tsuul 06-05-05, 04:13 PM	Q'afuu, what then would fall under Unarmed Attacks? Sorry for being a newb, but I can't help it.Nothing. It's too general. Just like you can't take WF(Natural Attacks) but you can take WF(Claw). If you want it to apply to your punches you would take WF(Unarmed Strike).
q'afuu 06-05-05, 04:22 PM	What Tsuul said, except I don't think it's too general. There's very little (actually, I can't think of anything) you can do with an unarmed attack that you can't also do with a weapon, although sometimes the number of weapons you can do a specific maneuver with is limited (tripping requires a weapon that allows you to trip with it (like a halberd), grappling requires a weapon that allows you to grapple with them (like claws)). Even the delivery of a melee touch spell can be combined with a claw attack.
Tsuul 06-05-05, 05:20 PM	Unarmed Attacks are to attacking with an Unarmed Strike as Melee Attacks are to attacking with a Longsword. Both[Unarmed and Melee attacks] are too broad to be used for WF. The SATs should never have removed these types of thinkers from their tests.
Nephlite 06-05-05, 05:21 PM	That's nonsense...for you. I have no problem with it. WF (Unarmed attack) would be too much. It would apply to all natural weapons, bites, claws, and to touch spells too. . Weapon Focus (Unarmed Attack) with a special feature that it doesn't apply to natural weapon or touch spells. There balanced. Pluys why did anyone list Natural weapons seperate of claws and bite since they are natural weapons?
Tsuul 06-05-05, 05:32 PM	Weapon Focus (Unarmed Attack) with a special feature that it doesn't apply to natural weapon or touch spells. There balanced. WF(Unarmed Attack) + WF(Grapple) = +4. for using the same 'weapon'. WF(Unarmed Attack) + WS(Unarmed Attack) + WF(Unarmed Strike) + WS(Unarmed Strike) = Broken Pluys why did anyone list Natural weapons seperate of claws and bite since they are natural weapons?One is a category and the other a weapon.
q'afuu 06-05-05, 05:39 PM	WF(Unarmed Attack) + WF(Grapple) = +4. for using the same 'weapon'. +2, unless you're talking GWF. ;)
q'afuu 06-05-05, 05:45 PM	Unarmed Attacks are to attacking with an Unarmed Strike as Melee Attacks are to attacking with a Longsword. Both[Unarmed and Melee attacks] are too broad to be used for WF. That's a bit extreme. The unarmed attacks that are not specifically unarmed strikes are limited to grapples, trips and delivering melee touch spell charges (and out of those three, only tripping is a 'real' unarmed attack). That's a small minority. The melee attacks that are not specifically longsword attacks are a huge majority of all melee attacks.
jaerad 06-05-05, 07:04 PM	+2, unless you're talking GWF. ;) Ahhhh, I get it. No such thing as WF (Grapple), now there's only WF (Unarmed Attacks). Gotcha. Would there still be the category of Unarmed Strikes? Methinks not... The unarmed attacks that are not specifically unarmed strikes are limited to grapples, trips and delivering melee touch spell charges (and out of those three, only tripping is a 'real' unarmed attack). As long as there was a Special remark that melee touch spells were not included in the benefits of WF (Unarmed Attack) I think this would be balanced. This would mean that with WF (UA) you would get benefits to striking, tripping, and grappling. I hardly think that's overbalanced. For once, I agree with q'afuu. :) Keep it up, though I don't always agree with you, I do like hearing your opinion. It's nice to hear some dissent once and awhile. :) ** Well, if I was correct in assuming that WF (UA) would include strikes, trips, and grapples and there would no longer be WF (Grapple), WF (Unarmed Strikes), and melee touch spells are discluded. I suppose I would also agree to having UA and US seperated, but I think they are fine together.
q'afuu 06-06-05, 03:14 AM	Ahhhh, I get it. No such thing as WF (Grapple), now there's only WF (Unarmed Attacks). Gotcha. Would there still be the category of Unarmed Strikes? Methinks not... Well, that'd be the logical consequence - you would get one and only one way to apply WF to grapple attacks. My point above was actually that WF only gives you a +1 to hit though: even if you had the option of stacking WF(grapple) with WF(unarmed), it would only give you a +2, not a +4. ;) As long as there was a Special remark that melee touch spells were not included in the benefits of WF (Unarmed Attack) I think this would be balanced. This would mean that with WF (UA) you would get benefits to striking, tripping, and grappling. I hardly think that's overbalanced. Strictly speaking, melee touch spell attacks are considered armed at least for purposes of not provoking an AoO while delivering it. Furthermore, you can combine making an unarmed strike with delivering a touch spell charge. It seems to me that makes them clearly separate. WF (unarmed attacks) would logically not apply to melee touch spell deliveries (unless combined with a 'real' unarmed attack, but then it wouldn't be a touch attack anyway). Personally though, I'd let WF(unarmed attacks) apply to touch spell delivery as well. I'd prefer for every weapon o have some form of WF available for it and WF(melee touch spell) wouldn't exactly cut it. I don't really see any problem with this anyway. What kind of build is going to benefit inordinately from having all these applications coming from one feat? Monks would arguably get the most out of it (by far, even) and they have to make up for their 3/4 BAB. Non-monk unarmed brawlers are not a very powerful concept to begin with, this feat certainly wouldn't break them. And any build that allows for touch spells is going to suffer BAB-wise to begin with. And in case I wasn't clear, yes, I wouldn't make any distinction between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks in general. I don't see what purpose that serves. Maybe there is one, in which case I'd be happy if someone could explain it, but I doubt it.
Egres 06-06-05, 04:57 AM	WF (unarmed attacks), if it would exist, wouldn't apply to "all natural weapons, bites, claws, and to touch spells too". Those all have their own, specific version of WF. 'Touch spells' is even divided up into more categories. Examples: the Arrowhawk has WF(bite), a Dire Bear has WF (claw), an Invisible Stalker has WF (slam), WF (ray) is mentioned as a specific example in the WF feat description (rays are touch attacks), ... Which you should know. :P What the hell are you saying, q'afuu? You know that all those categories of attacks fall under the defintion of "Unarmed Attacks". No matter what you say, they are all Unarmed Attacks, and they all would benefit from that feat.
q'afuu 06-06-05, 06:23 AM	You know that all those categories of attacks fall under the defintion of "Unarmed Attacks". No matter what you say, they are all Unarmed Attacks, and they all would benefit from that feat. First of all, they're mentioned under the so-called 'armed' unarmed attacks header (why, I don't know - they have next to nothing in common with 'unarmed' unarmed attacks). Mentioned, but not defined as. The only thing *defined* as such is an unarmed strike made by a monk or someone with the IUS feat. There is no strict definition in the PHB that says an attack with for instance a natural weapon is for all intents and purposes an unarmed attack. Not even the one in the glossary, even if they all comply with it. That merely says an unarmed attack is an attack made with no weapon in hand, not that all attacks made without weapon in hand are unarmed attacks. To use your favourite analogy: apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples. Second, they wouldn't all benefit from the feat because they already have their own, specific feat. Third, the feat doesn't even exist. I'm suggesting it should, but it doesn't. What are you basing your call on exactly what it does and what it doesn't do on?
Egres 06-06-05, 07:23 AM	First of all, they're mentioned under the so-called 'armed' unarmed attacks header (why, I don't know - they have next to nothing in common with 'unarmed' unarmed attacks). Mentioned, but not defined as. The only thing *defined* as such is an unarmed strike made by a monk or someone with the IUS feat. There is no strict definition in the PHB that says an attack with for instance a natural weapon is for all intents and purposes an unarmed attack. Not even the one in the glossary, even if they all comply with it. That merely says an unarmed attack is an attack made with no weapon in hand, not that all attacks made without weapon in hand are unarmed attacks. To use your favourite analogy: apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples. Second, they wouldn't all benefit from the feat because they already have their own, specific feat. Third, the feat doesn't even exist. I'm suggesting it should, but it doesn't. What are you basing your call on exactly what it does and what it doesn't do on? Uh? They are all Unarmed "armed" attacks. Thus, if the feat was published, it would apply to all of them. Do you have RAW to to quote as a counter argument?
q'afuu 06-06-05, 08:08 AM	They are all Unarmed "armed" attacks. Prove it. The RAW don't say so.
Egres 06-06-05, 08:40 AM	Prove it. The RAW don't say so. From the SRD: “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)
q'afuu 06-06-05, 09:03 AM	So? That only says creatures attacking with natural weapons are considered armed. It doesn't say they're unarmed.
Egres 06-06-05, 09:52 AM	So? That only says creatures attacking with natural weapons are considered armed. It doesn't say they're unarmed. q'afuu? Are you crazy....blind..or are you just joking? Let's try again: From the SRD: “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)
Thorak 06-06-05, 10:25 AM	My two copper; Weapon Focus and it's wording is utterly irrelevant to the wording of IUS. Just because WF refers to single weapons (and related things, like grapple and rays) does not mean IUS has to. IUS says, very specifically; "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed -- that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed." And Trip says, again specifically; "Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks." The AoO from Trip is because Trip is unarmed. IUS says you do not provoke AoOs when you attack unarmed. How much clearer do you want it to be? And q'afuu; I have to agree with Egres; natural weapons are included in a list of "armed" unarmed attacks. I don't know how much clearer you want it. It's like arguing that a club isn't a Simple weapon, despite it being on the list of Simple weapons.
q'afuu 06-06-05, 11:21 AM	q'afuu? Are you crazy....blind..or are you just joking? Once again: does that paragraph say all those attacks are unarmed attacks, 'armed' or not? No, it doesn't. Not specifically. Fooling around with colours and font sizes isn't going to change that. Is it a reasonable assumption that such is implied though? Yes, absolutely. Just like it's a reasonable assumption going by the wording of the IUS feat, specifically the 'normal' paragraph, that the design team may have been a bit confused about where the line between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks, if any, is to be drawn. ... natural weapons are included in a list of "armed" unarmed attacks. Actually, they're included in a list under the "armed" unarmed attacks header. There is no specific indication that that list is, effectively, a list of "armed" unarmed attacks, just a (fairly obvious) implication.
Thorak 06-06-05, 11:26 AM	Once again: does that paragraph say all those attacks are unarmed attacks, 'armed' or not? No, it doesn't. Not specifically. Fooling around with colours and font sizes isn't going to change that. Is it a reasonable assumption that such is implied though? Yes, absolutely. Just like it's a reasonable assumption going by the wording of the IUS feat, specifically the 'normal' paragraph, that the design team may have been a bit confused about where the line between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks, if any, is to be drawn. Just to reiterate my point; It's a list of things that are "armed" unarmed attacks. Natural weapons is on that list. Saying they're not an unarmed attack is like arguing that a club isn't a Simple weapon.
q'afuu 06-06-05, 11:27 AM	Just to reiterate my point; See above. I edited in a comment.
Origin 06-06-05, 01:02 PM	Hah, now it's a battle of the brains. :D Thank you everyone.. I think that this has become rather clear to me (after spending the last hour reading this thread.. lol). And Thorak, long time no see :) How long's it been? 6 months?
Thorak 06-06-05, 01:29 PM	Actually, they're included in a list under the "armed" unarmed attacks header. There is no specific indication that that list is, effectively, a list of "armed" unarmed attacks, just a (fairly obvious) implication. So I assume you also think that clubs aren't Simple weapons, that Magic Missile isn't a Sorc/Wiz spell, and that Trip isn't a special attack. And that Weapon Focus isn't a feat. And that Strength isn't an ability. And that Dwarves aren't a race, and Barbarian isn't a class. Because all of those are things listed under a general heading. Just like natural weapons are listed under the general heading of "armed" unarmed attacks.
q'afuu 06-06-05, 01:47 PM	Because all of those are things listed under a general heading. Just like natural weapons are listed under the general heading of "armed" unarmed attacks.Unlike natural weapons, they're also mentioned in things like the weapons table in the case of clubs, spell lists (lists that are actually specifically defined as listing spells) in the case of Magic Missile, the feat list in the case of WF, and so on. And those things are specifically and unambiguously defined as such and moreover, all their characteristics point at what they are. Clubs have a given damage, weapon type, handedness... All typical for weapons. MM has a spell description. The Barbarian class has a hit die, a BAB and save progression, class abilities and a skill list. If no-one told you it was a class but someone asked you, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a different answer. The same can't be said for natural weapons being unarmed attacks. They don't get iterative attacks, unlike unarmed attacks. They threaten without requiring a feat or class ability, unlike unarmed attacks. They're called weapons, for Pete's sake, unlike unarmed attacks. Same situation as above, but now with natural weapons: if nobody ever told you they were unarmed attacks and somebody asked you, would it be equally inconceivable to say they're not unarmed attacks as it is to say the barbarian is not a class or Magic Missile isn't a spell?
Egres 06-06-05, 03:26 PM	Err..didn't you notice that they are "armed" unarmed attacks? q'afuu, come on..come on! Why are you wasting your time with such silliness? They're called weapons, for Pete's sake, unlike unarmed attacks. lol... Ok..by your reasoning, then, even Unarmed Strikes aren't Unarmed Attacks, since they are listed as simple weapons....
q'afuu 06-06-05, 03:41 PM	Ok..by your reasoning, then, even Unarmed Strikes aren't Unarmed Attacks, since they are listed as simple weapons....I didn't say this is conclusive evidence. It's an indication, no more, no less. And no, I didn't notice they *are* "armed" unarmed attacks. I only noticed there is some inconclusive evidence that strongly suggests so. Your failure to even acknowledge this and Thorak's flawed comparison with clubs, the barbarian class et al lead me to believe inconclusive evidence is all there is. Obviously, you're well within your rights to conclude such circumstantial evidence is enough for you to assume natural weapons *are* effectively unarmed attacks. But then I would have to wonder why you'd disregard circumstantial evidence when it comes to the question whether or not there is an ambiguity in the PHB regarding IUS applying to unarmed attacks in general or unarmed strikes only.
Thorak 06-06-05, 03:48 PM	Unlike natural weapons, they're also mentioned in things like the weapons table in the case of clubs, spell lists (lists that are actually specifically defined as listing spells) in the case of Magic Missile, the feat list in the case of WF, and so on. And those things are specifically and unambiguously defined as such and moreover, all their characteristics point at what they are. Clubs have a given damage, weapon type, handedness... All typical for weapons. MM has a spell description. The Barbarian class has a hit die, a BAB and save progression, class abilities and a skill list. If no-one told you it was a class but someone asked you, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a different answer. And yet, even though a natural weapon is an attack you can use when unarmed, you won't acknowledge that it's an unarmed attack. Same difference. If you accept all the above, you have to accept natural weapons being unarmed attacks. The same can't be said for natural weapons being unarmed attacks. They don't get iterative attacks, unlike unarmed attacks. They threaten without requiring a feat or class ability, unlike unarmed attacks. They're called weapons, for Pete's sake, unlike unarmed attacks. Same situation as above, but now with natural weapons: if nobody ever told you they were unarmed attacks and somebody asked you, would it be equally inconceivable to say they're not unarmed attacks as it is to say the barbarian is not a class or Magic Missile isn't a spell? Unarmed attacks don't get iterative attacks. Certain specific weapons classified as such do. "Unarmed attacks" is a big catchall term. Covers unarmed strikes, natural weapons, touch spells, and similar types of things are all unarmed attacks. Saying that natural weapons are weapons is disingenious, because so are unarmed strikes, and that doesn't prevent them from being unarmed attacks. Heck, look at the gauntlet. Pretty clearly a manufactured weapon. It's also an unarmed weapon. They're not mutually exclusive. As for how obvious it is; of course it's not obvious. It's an "armed" unarmed attack. We're discussing something that doesn't act like what it actually is. It's just as intuitive as the fact that touching someone is an unarmed attack, unless you've cast Shocking Grasp, in which case it's armed.
Egres 06-06-05, 03:53 PM	So..q'afuu. Let us help understand your point of view. What are Natural Weapons? Unarmed Attacks? Armed Attacks? tertium non datur
q'afuu 06-06-05, 04:01 PM	Unarmed attacks don't get iterative attacks. Really? So I can't make iterative trip attacks unless I use a tripping weapon? I can't make iterative unarmed strikes (which are, after all, part of the grand family of unarmed attacks)? I think I'm now beginning to understand why some people feel the monk is underpowered. It must suck never to get to make more than one attack per turn, especially when the PHB seems to indicate otherwise. I'm sure that rubs some people the wrong way. ;) It's just as intuitive as the fact that touching someone is an unarmed attack, unless you've cast Shocking Grasp, in which case it's armed. So now you're saying that when you've cast Shocking Grasp, it's not an unarmed attack? ;)
Egres 06-06-05, 04:05 PM	So now you're saying that when you've cast Shocking Grasp, it's not an unarmed attack? ;) It's an "armed" unarmed attack. q'afuu..why are you ignoring my question?
q'afuu 06-06-05, 04:14 PM	So..q'afuu. Let us help understand your point of view. I understand my POV just fine, thank you. I'm willing to help you understand it as well though. ;) What are Natural Weapons? Unarmed Attacks? Armed Attacks? tertium non daturThere is no third? Then what are you pointing at in the PHB? Obviously there is a third possibility - both. Grandstanding aside though, that's besides the point. I'm not arguing that natural weapons are unarmed attacks, armed attacks, neither or both. I'm arguing the rules are inconclusive on this point. It's easy to make an interpretation, but no matter how easy and obvious, that's still an interpretation, based on circumstantial evidence. You are apparently willing to make such an interpretation. Excellent, good for you. But if you're willing to give circumstantial evidence enough credence to do so in this case, it'd be hypocritical not to do so in the case of the Impr. Unarmed Strike feat, where there is circumstantial evidence that suggests the distinction between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes is blurred, or at least not made the same way by everyone. And if you can acknowledge that, you'll forcibly have to acknowledge that the question if IUS prevents you from provoking during a trip attempt is *not* a solved issue.
q'afuu 06-06-05, 04:18 PM	It's an "armed" unarmed attack. That's not what he implied. If you say something is A, unless B applies, then you imply it's not A when B applies. Implication rather than statement of fact is the heart of this whole argument. q'afuu..why are you ignoring my question? :rolleyes: I was addressing the two posts in order, and since typing up my answers was going to take a little while, I decided to make two posts rather than one. Sheesh. Get over yourself already. :P
Egres 06-06-05, 04:27 PM	I understand my POV just fine, thank you. I'm willing to help you understand it as well though. :rofl: My bad English strikes back.(note to self: never type so fast). There is no third? Then what are you pointing at in the PHB? Obviously there is a third possibility - both. Didn't you notice those "" around the word armed? Those are unarmed attacks. A special case, but always unarmed attacks.
q'afuu 06-06-05, 04:31 PM	Those are unarmed attacks. A special case, but always unarmed attacks. Considering I went out of my way to explain that this issue isn't what's being argumented, but rather that the very existence of the issue is an argument in itself for the IUS interpretation question, who's dodging the point now? ;)
Egres 06-06-05, 05:41 PM	Considering I went out of my way to explain that this issue isn't what's being argumented, but rather that the very existence of the issue is an argument in itself for the IUS interpretation question, who's dodging the point now? ;) Uh? You are basing your way of reasoning under a circumstancial, secondary source: a feat. I and Thorak are basing our on a primary source, the combat chapter, under "Unarmed Attacks". Draw your conclusion.
q'afuu 06-06-05, 06:04 PM	Considering the issue is the interpretation of that feat, I'd say the primary source is the feat description. ;)
Thorak 06-06-05, 06:33 PM	Really? So I can't make iterative trip attacks unless I use a tripping weapon? I can't make iterative unarmed strikes (which are, after all, part of the grand family of unarmed attacks)? That's not what I said. I said unarmed attacks don't get iterative attacks. Because "unarmed attacks" isn't that kind of category; it covers both things that do, and things that don't. Iterative attacks have absolutely nothing to do with whether an attack is unarmed or not. So now you're saying that when you've cast Shocking Grasp, it's not an unarmed attack? ;) You're the one who's claiming that these kinds of terms are exclusive, not me. When you cast Shocking Grasp, unleashing it is an unarmed attack. It's also an armed attack. Same for natural weapons. They're unarmed, and armed.
Tony Vargas 06-06-05, 07:19 PM	Y'know, I started reading the last page of the thread, and I just couldn't tell exactly what the point of contention was. Aparently, it's the assertion that you can avoid the AoO on a Trip by taking Improved Unarmed Strike? You could trip with a weapon, or just have the Imp. Unarmed Strike feat. As the PHB says. From the SRD: “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. So, if I follow, you're saying that a Monk (who doesn't have Improved Trip yet), a character with Improved Unarmed Strike, a wizard with an undischarged Touch of Fatigue, and any creature with a natural physical weapon can all make Trip attempts without provoking AoOs, without having to take Improved Trip? ... Aparently somewhere along the line someone made some sort of claim about unarmed strike not being useable with itterative attacks? Where'd that come from? The closest thing I can think of is monsters with natural weapons, who generally have a different sort of full attack, instead. :uh-huh:
q'afuu 06-06-05, 07:27 PM	Aparently, it's the assertion that you can avoid the AoO on a Trip by taking Improved Unarmed Strike? More generally speaking, it's the assertion that IUS applies to all forms of unarmed attacks rather than to unarmed strikes alone and that the PHB is unambiguous about that.
Tony Vargas 06-06-05, 07:36 PM	More generally speaking, it's the assertion that IUS applies to all forms of unarmed attacks rather than to unarmed strikes alone and that the PHB is unambiguous about that. The PH isn't unambiguous about very much. But, I'd like to note that: 1) It's Improved Unarmed Strike and, 2) Unarmed Strike seems to cover a lot of territory (it's punches, it's kicks, etc...). I guess it depends on whether you consider Unarmed Strike to be a manuever that provokes an AoO unless you have the Improved Feat, and Trip to be a sepparate manuever, that also provokes an AoO, unless you have the Improved Feat or are using a Trip weapon (like a Guisarme). Or, if you consider Unarmed Strike to be a weapon, that can be used to Trip (like a Guisarme), but which provokes an AoO if you don't have the Improved feat...
Thorak 06-06-05, 10:06 PM	Aparently somewhere along the line someone made some sort of claim about unarmed strike not being useable with itterative attacks? Where'd that come from? The closest thing I can think of is monsters with natural weapons, who generally have a different sort of full attack, instead. I made a claim that there was nothing inherent about unarmed attacks in general that gave all unarmed attacks iterative attacks due to BAB. That natural weapons are unarmed attacks proves my point. Unarmed strikes, obviously, aren't natural weapons, and get iterative attacks. Or, if you consider Unarmed Strike to be a weapon, that can be used to Trip (like a Guisarme), but which provokes an AoO if you don't have the Improved feat... Two problems with that; Unarmed strike never once says you can Trip with it. Trip uses an unarmed melee touch attack. An unarmed melee touch attack isn't an unarmed strike. May as well say you can start a grapple by punching someone.
q'afuu 06-07-05, 04:37 AM	The PH isn't unambiguous about very much. But, I'd like to note that: 1) It's Improved Unarmed Strike and, 2) Unarmed Strike seems to cover a lot of territory (it's punches, it's kicks, etc...). Specifically, the PHB refers to unarmed attacks in the 'benefit' part of the IUS feat description but to unarmed strikes in the 'normal' part of that same description. That's the ambiguity.
Egres 06-07-05, 05:52 AM	Specifically, the PHB refers to unarmed attacks in the 'benefit' part of the IUS feat description but to unarmed strikes in the 'normal' part of that same description. That's the ambiguity. The "normal" part in the feat is apparently restrictive cause it refers to the main point of the feat: helping with your unarmed strikes.(it couldn't state that "you are now considered armed with your natural weapons": that would had been silly and useless) But it also covers, in the "benefit" section, all the other unarmed attacks. That's my point. Unarmed attacks and strikes are like fruits and apples.
Thorak 06-07-05, 07:27 AM	Specifically, the PHB refers to unarmed attacks in the 'benefit' part of the IUS feat description but to unarmed strikes in the 'normal' part of that same description. That's the ambiguity. For what it's worth, most other unarmed attacks are "armed" unarmed attacks, leaving out only unarmed melee touch attacks. To take another tack, why does learning how to punch an armed opponent without exposing yourself not allow you to trip them without exposing yourself? Seems like the same sort of training would apply; it's avoiding the armed attack when unarmed yourself. And that's exactly how IUS describes it; you're armed even when unarmed.
q'afuu 06-07-05, 09:22 AM	The "normal" part in the feat is apparently restrictive cause it refers to the main point of the feat: helping with your unarmed strikes.(it couldn't state that "you are now considered armed with your natural weapons": that would had been silly and useless) But it also covers, in the "benefit" section, all the other unarmed attacks. That's my point. If it already covers all unarmed attacks (not all others, *all*), why be restrictive in the 'normal' paragraph? Why not refer to unarmed attacks in general, or even leave the whole 'normal' paragraph out, since it doesn't really tell us anything new anyway (or rather, it wouldn't but because of the wording it tells us there's an ambiguity)? Unarmed attacks and strikes are like fruits and apples. Yup. But I'm not contesting that, and it doesn't really prove anything for this specific issue. For what it's worth, most other unarmed attacks are "armed" unarmed attacks, leaving out only unarmed melee touch attacks. To take another tack, why does learning how to punch an armed opponent without exposing yourself not allow you to trip them without exposing yourself? Seems like the same sort of training would apply; it's avoiding the armed attack when unarmed yourself. And that's exactly how IUS describes it; you're armed even when unarmed. For the record, I'm not trying to prove IUS doesn't help out with unarmed attacks other than unarmed strikes. All I'm saying is that there's an ambiguity.
q'afuu 06-07-05, 09:25 AM	May as well say you can start a grapple by punching someone. As an aside, you actually can start a grapple by clawing someone (another one of these "armed" unarmed attacks) provided you have Improved Grab.
Egres 06-07-05, 09:38 AM	If it already covers all unarmed attacks (not all others, *all*), why be restrictive in the 'normal' paragraph? Why not refer to unarmed attacks in general, or even leave the whole 'normal' paragraph out, since it doesn't really tell us anything new anyway (or rather, it wouldn't but because of the wording it tells us there's an ambiguity)? Because, as I wrote above, the IUS feat is useless when applied to natural weapons. It's not so hard to understand. Thats' the reason why in the "normal" part they list the main benefit of the feat: its application to unarmed strikes. Why bother with natural weapons, when they already have the same benefit?
q'afuu 06-07-05, 10:05 AM	Why bother with natural weapons, when they already have the same benefit? Yet Trip attacks don't already have that benefit - they need IUS for that. So why not bother with them?
Keenath 06-07-05, 10:23 AM	IUS has two parts: "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed." "In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option." The second half refers ONLY to unarmed strikes, but the first does not. Tripping says: "Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks." Now, you have Trip referring to "as normal for unarmed attacks", and IUS says "You don't provoke AOOs when attacking while unarmed". Obviously these are referring to the same situation. IUS makes you not provoke AOOs for attacking unarmed. An unarmed strike is a type of unarmed attack, but not the only one. Now, that would mean IUS gives you a special ability not to take AOOs from tripping. Is that fair? SURE! Look at Improved Trip, and compare it ot the other Improved [Combat technique] feats. Sunder, Grapple, and Disarm all do the same thing: You don't provoke an AOO for the action, and you get a +4 on your opposed check. Improved Trip is different. It gives you (1) No AOOs, (2) +4 on the check, and (3) an extra attack when you succeed! Why does IT give you an extra benefit? Because one of its benefits is already covered by another feat! The designers were aware that IUS stops Trips from provoking AOOs and made Improved Trip a little better to make up for that fact -- otherwise nobody would spend a feat just for a +4 on the check.
Egres 06-07-05, 10:34 AM	Yet Trip attacks don't already have that benefit - they need IUS for that. So why not bother with them? Because you can't list every exception and/or effect linked to a feat/ability and such.
q'afuu 06-07-05, 11:38 AM	IUS has two parts: "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed." "In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option." The second half refers ONLY to unarmed strikes, but the first does not.That's because unarmed strikes are the only unarmed attacks that have the option to do either lethal or nonlethal damage as the player chooses and without possibly incurring a penalty. The second half can only refer to unarmed strikes. Because you can't list every exception and/or effect linked to a feat/ability and such. Sure you can. There aren't that many to begin with. Even better though, you could just not list any. All the necessary info is covered anyway, aside from the unarmed attack/strike ambiguity the 'normal' part is entirely redundant.
Thorak 06-07-05, 12:24 PM	Sure you can. There aren't that many to begin with. Even better though, you could just not list any. All the necessary info is covered anyway, aside from the unarmed attack/strike ambiguity the 'normal' part is entirely redundant. Of course the "normal" part is entirely redundant. It's redundant in every feat, because it describes the normal rules which are described more fully elsewhere.
SALDAR 06-07-05, 12:55 PM	You are basing your way of reasoning under a circumstancial, secondary source: a feat. I and Thorak are basing our on a primary source, the combat chapter, under "Unarmed Attacks". Draw your conclusion. And I’m basing my reasoning on a primary source, the combat chapter, under “Trip”. This IS the primary source on Trip. If it is not then what is? Half sentences that have similar wording? Under “Trip” in the combat chapter it states that when making a “Trip” attempt you avoid AoOs by having the Improved Trip feat or by using a trip weapon. This IS the Rule As Written. There is no ambiguity in this statement. Any arguments to the contrary are superfluous and a waste of time for the others and myself.
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 01:49 PM	Specifically, the PHB refers to unarmed attacks in the 'benefit' part of the IUS feat description but to unarmed strikes in the 'normal' part of that same description. That's the ambiguity. OK, yeah, that's ambiguity. There are a lot of places in the rules where words are seemingly used more-or-less synonymously, yet, the fact that different words /are/ used can be taken as an indication that there's /some/, possibly critical, technical difference. I think that, sometimes, it's just a writer getting sick of repeating the same words over and over, or an editorial gaff or whatever. Of course, sometimes it isn't... :rolleyes: I made a claim that there was nothing inherent about unarmed attacks in general that gave all unarmed attacks iterative attacks due to BAB. That natural weapons are unarmed attacks proves my point. Unarmed strikes, obviously, aren't natural weapons, and get iterative attacks. And a trip attempt isn't a natural weapon, either. And, really, creatures with natural weapons are about the only example of that, and that in the MM. Creatures (like the PC races in the PH) who lack natural weapons always get itterative attacks, rather than the natural weapon attack routines in the MM, when making a Full Attack. Trip can be substituted for an attack (per the footnote on the standard actions table), so I don't think there's any question of it not being useable with itterative attacks, right? I'm also not so sure there's a broader category of 'unarmed attacks' that have over-arching rules associated with them. Unarmed Strikes, the touch attacks to start Grapples or Trips, natural weapons, touch spells, etc all work pretty differently from eachother. Two problems with that; Unarmed strike never once says you can Trip with it. Trip uses an unarmed melee touch attack. An unarmed melee touch attack isn't an unarmed strike. May as well say you can start a grapple by punching someone. Not quite, you can't trip someone by hitting them with a guisarme, you have to use the Trip action, and it inflicts no damage, and is a melee touch attack - so tripping someone 'with an unarmed strike' could be no different from that (you're not punching them for damage vs thier normal AC, but you're still using the same 'weapon' - your fist or foot or whatever - to trip them). So it's not /quite/ as bad as saying you can start a grapple by punching (claiming to have Improved Grab, in effect). ;) I agree that it's awefully tenuous though, and without some sort of support for that logic, the idea of IUS bypassing the AoO for (non-Improved) Trip doesn't seem very well-justified. For what it's worth, most other unarmed attacks are "armed" unarmed attacks, leaving out only unarmed melee touch attacks. So the melee touch attack to Trip or to start a Grapple, really, are all the 'unarmed attacks' could be refering to besides unarmed strikes. But , Improved Grapple looks like this: IMPROVED GRAPPLE [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike. Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you make a touch attack to start a grapple. You also gain a +4 bonus on all grapple checks, regardless of whether you started the grapple. Normal: Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you make a touch attack to start a grapple. Now, if IUS negated the AoO for the touch attack to start a grapple, why would Improved Grapple be worded that way? All it'd really be giving you is the +4 to grapple checks. Trip, though, is different. It specifies that using a Trip weapon allows you to avoid an AoO. So, if an AoO-provoking AoO is being used as the 'trip weapon,' then the idea that IUS negates the AoO would make perfect sense... To take another tack, why does learning how to punch an armed opponent without exposing yourself not allow you to trip them without exposing yourself? Seems like the same sort of training would apply; it's avoiding the armed attack when unarmed yourself. Improved Trip negates the AoO for an unarmed Trip attempt, but not for an Unarmed Strike, so it would seem that the two sorts of 'training' are, indeed, quite sepparable. And that's exactly how IUS describes it; you're armed even when unarmed.I think that's a reasonable way to describe it. Afterall, being 'armed' has important implications, even on rounds in which you don't make an actual attack. Being 'armed' also doesn't have any bearing on Trip, unless you're armed with a Trip-capable weapon. Look at Improved Trip, and compare it ot the other Improved [Combat technique] feats. Sunder, Grapple, and Disarm all do the same thing: You don't provoke an AOO for the action, and you get a +4 on your opposed check. Improved Trip is different. It gives you (1) No AOOs, (2) +4 on the check, and (3) an extra attack when you succeed! Why does IT give you an extra benefit? I'd think it'd mainly be because the AoO is already easily avoided by using a Trip weapon, so isn't nearly as valuable. And, conversely, unless you're a monk, the extra attack is relatively trivial if you're /not/ using such a weapon (especially if you don't have IUS). So two benefits - (1) no AoO and (3) extra attack - are unlikely to be meaningful at the same time. If all you have is improved trip, you basically get two benefits. If you don't have a trip weapon, they're (1) no AoO and (2) +4 check - if you take the extra attack unarmed, you'll suffer an AoO, so (1) is effectively gone. If you do have a trip weapon, you only get two benefits (2) +4 check, and (3) extra attack - you weren't facing an AoO to begin with. Under “Trip” in the combat chapter it states that when making a “Trip” attempt you avoid AoOs by having the Improved Trip feat or by using a trip weapon. This IS the Rule As Written. There is no ambiguity in this statement. True enough, but what if Unarmed Strike were a Trip weapon...? It's pretty clear that Trip doesn't provoke an AoO when you use a Trip weapon, (and attacking with a weapon doesn't normally provoke an AoO), but does provoke an AoO when you trip unarmed, just as Unarmed Strike provokes an AoO... That's really the crux of the passage about Trip provoking when unarmed, but not provoking with a trip weapon - it's not Tripping, itself, that's AoO-provoking, it's what you're tripping with. At least, it's ambiguous enough that such could be implied.
SALDAR 06-07-05, 01:59 PM	True enough, but what if Unarmed Strike were a Trip weapon...? But it is not a trip weapon. If it were then you would not need Improved Trip or IUS as using trip weapons do not provoke AoOs.
Nephlite 06-07-05, 02:09 PM	But it is not a trip weapon. If it were then you would not need Improved Trip or IUS as using trip weapons do not provoke AoOs. You can only trip with trip weapons I thought. Unarmed strikes are special trips that provoke attacks opportunity unless you have Improved unarmed Strike feat. Improved Trip is great because with you get +4 to using tripping weapons.
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 02:14 PM	But it is not a trip weapon. If it were then you would not need Improved Trip or IUS as using trip weapons do not provoke AoOs. It doesn't have a footnote about being a trip weapon in the weapon tables (which makes some sense, the footnote says you can drop the weapon, which clearly couldn't aply). But, aside from that, it does seem to work a lot like a trip weapon. When you're armed with a Trip weapon, you can attack with the weapon vs normal AC & do damage, or make a melee touch attack with that weapon to perform a trip. When you're unarmed, you have exactly the same options (strike for damage unarmed, or trip unarmed), but you provoke an AoO. You could look at that and say "the AoO doesn't come for Trip, it comes from using an AoO-provoking Unarmed Strike as a Trip weapon. " But, I agree that the clearest, most straight-forward reading of the rules is that Improved Trip negates the AoO for tripping unarmed, and that's it. However, there is an ambiguity in Improved Unarmed Strike that could be taken as negating AoOs for the touch attacks to Trip unarmed or start a Grapple, and, it's pretty easy to see the implication in Trip & Improved Trip that tripping unarmed is basically the same as using an Unarmed Strike as a trip weapon....
q'afuu 06-07-05, 02:35 PM	So the melee touch attack to Trip or to start a Grapple, really, are all the 'unarmed attacks' could be refering to besides unarmed strikes. The melee touch attack to start a grapple adds another layer of complexity. If you are unarmed and make a grapple attempt, that melee touch attack must needs be an unarmed attack, yes (IMO it'd be one either way unless you use something that is or counts as a weapon that allows you to grapple with, like claws, but just to establish some proof of relevance)? If it's an unarmed attack, it should provoke an AoO just like unarmed tripping. That AoO is never mentioned in the case of grapple though - there is mention of one, but it's not specified that that's due to being unarmed. It seems more plausible in this case that it's the action of grappling that makes you provoke, rather than being unarmed (since you provoke even before making the touch attack). If that's the case though, there should be another AoO provoked by everyone not making an "armed" unarmed melee touch attack to initiate the grapple. Obviously it's not *necessary* to mention that, since that'd simply be in accordance with the rules. But it's strange that this'd get mentioned in the Trip description but be left out of the Grapple section, especially since during the 3.5 conversion, the designers chose to explain the whole process in complete detail after the 3.0 version had caused so much confusion. So, just to satisfy my curiosity, who here has ruled that there is an AoO provoked by making an unarmed attack in the course of a grapple attempt and who has ruled otherwise (effectively making the initiating touch attack not an unarmed attack, or at least an exception to the regular unarmed attack rules)?
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 03:00 PM	But it's strange that this'd get mentioned in the Trip description but be left out of the Grapple section, especially since during the 3.5 conversion, the designers chose to explain the whole process in complete detail after the 3.0 version had caused so much confusion. It's not strange at all, really - you can't grapple with a weapon, the touch attack to start a (non-Improved Grapple/Grab) grapple is always going to be unarmed and will always provoke; OTOH, you /can/ Trip with a weapon, so the AoO depends on whether you're using a Trip Weapon, or are unarmed - sometimes it will provoke, sometimes it won't (even if you lack Improved Trip), depending on what weapon you're using.
q'afuu 06-07-05, 03:09 PM	It's not strange at all, really - you can't grapple with a weapon, the touch attack to start a (non-Improved Grapple/Grab) grapple is always going to be unarmed and will always provoke... Actually, that's debatable. If a character has claws, but doesn't benefit from Impr. Grab, is there anything that says the initiating touch attack is a 'real' unarmed attack (not an 'armed' unarmed attack) and must needs be provoke? I don't see anything that would conclusively indicate this (in fact, I find the opposite more plausible).
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 03:13 PM	If a character has claws, but doesn't benefit from Impr. Grab, is there anything that says the initiating touch attack is a 'real' unarmed attack (not an 'armed' unarmed attack) and must needs be provoke? Well, the fact that he doesn't have Improved Grab would be a pretty strong indicator in my book... I wouldn't think that would be any different than a character holding a sword or wearing a spiked gauntlet starting a grapple.
q'afuu 06-07-05, 03:24 PM	Well, the fact that he doesn't have Improved Grab would be a pretty strong indicator in my book... I can certainly appreciate that POV, but there's obviously no definite rule that says grapples without Impr. Grab are made unarmed. Heck, I've seen several arguments been made to suggest that the initiating touch attack is not an unarmed attack to begin with, since there's no absolute indication of that, and shouldn't mechanically be considered to be one even if the grappler is effectively unarmed.
Elan The Eternal 06-07-05, 03:32 PM	let's bring a different question. If a creature falls prone it gets -4 to execute meele attacks. the question is : can you full attack while prone ? and does your reach get smaller if you are attacking while prone ?
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 03:41 PM	there's obviously no definite rule that says grapples without Impr. Grab are made unarmed. "To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target." That's the very first line of 'starting a grapple.' If you can show me were a weapon (or natural weapon of a creature w/o improved grab) says 'you can use this weapon to 'grab and hold' an opponent' - I guess I'd have to believe that grapples can be made 'armed.' :rolleyes:
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 03:42 PM	the question is : can you full attack while prone ? and does your reach get smaller if you are attacking while prone ? Completely unrelated but: Yes you can full attack while prone. and, No your reach is not altered while prone. ('Prone' is different from 'in a grapple,' though)
Nephlite 06-07-05, 03:50 PM	Completely unrelated but: Yes you can full attack while prone. and, No your reach is not altered while prone. ('Prone' is different from 'in a grapple,' though) Is Prone face down or Back on ground? If it is the first isn't it hard to fight?
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 04:01 PM	Is Prone face down or Back on ground? If it is the first isn't it hard to fight?In english, face-down is 'prone' or 'prostrate' and face-up is 'supine.' In D&D, Prone is defined as "The character is on the ground" (SRD). (And there's no condition for 'kneeling,' either, before anyone asks).
SALDAR 06-07-05, 04:26 PM	It doesn't have a footnote about being a trip weapon in the weapon tables.... Nor does the description of Unarmed Strike in the equipment chapter say it can be used to make trip attacks, as all weapons that can be used to trip do. It is not a trip weapon. So, with or without IUS, you cannot use an Unarmed Strike to make a trip attempt. But, I agree that the clearest, most straight-forward reading of the rules is that Improved Trip negates the AoO for tripping unarmed, and that's it. That is my point. The rules are straight forward in this case. There is no need for this debate based on the similar wording of half of a sentence. IUS does not apply because Unarmed Strike is not a trip weapon AND the rules are quite clear on the matter as how to avoid AoOs when tripping.
q'afuu 06-07-05, 05:07 PM	"To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target." That's the very first line of 'starting a grapple.' If you can show me were a weapon (or natural weapon of a creature w/o improved grab) says 'you can use this weapon to 'grab and hold' an opponent' - I guess I'd have to believe that grapples can be made 'armed.' :rolleyes: So basically the claws of a creature with Improved Grab (brown bears, lions, ...) can be used for a grapple, but the claws of a creature without Improved Grab (badgers, black bears, ...) can't? A dragon with Snatch feat can use its claws to grapple, an otherwise identical dragon without can't? Cats grab their young by gripping their necks in their jaws, is that 'grabbing and holding' or not? As an aside, since I can't verify it myself, I've been told there's a weapon in the A&EG that gives grapple bonuses.
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 05:18 PM	So basically the claws of a creature with Improved Grab (brown bears, lions, ...) can be used for a grapple, but the claws of a creature without Improved Grab (badgers, black bears, ...) can't?Yes. Not that such a creature might not be able to grapple - just that it couldn't do it, with it's natural weapon, used in thier 'natural' way, as an 'armed' attack. And, not that there might not be oversites in the monster descriptions due to the focus on thier use as monsters vs PC races (a house cat might reasonably have Improved Grab & Swallow Whole vs Fine creatures, but that would rarely every matter in-game, so is an understandible omission).
Keenath 06-07-05, 05:31 PM	And, conversely, unless you're a monk, the extra attack is relatively trivial if you're /not/ using such a weapon (especially if you don't have IUS).I don't understand this comment. You seem to believe you're required to make an unarmed strike as your additional attack? This is not correct. You get "a melee attack", and you can do anything you could normally do with that. Trip the guy and then hit him with your big axe. Trip him, then sunder his weapon. Trip him, then disarm him. Anything you like. It's just a melee attack. So two benefits - (1) no AoO and (3) extra attack - are unlikely to be meaningful at the same time. Not at all; as I said, you can easily hit him with your best attack while he's on the floor, even if that weapon isn't a tripping weapon.
Keenath 06-07-05, 05:33 PM	Nor does the description of Unarmed Strike in the equipment chapter say it can be used to make trip attacks, as all weapons that can be used to trip do. It is not a trip weapon. So, with or without IUS, you cannot use an Unarmed Strike to make a trip attempt. That's true, you can't use an Unarmed Strike, but if you're not holding a trip weapon, you are REQUIRED to make an unarmed attack, which is still covered by IUS. It's just not an unarmed STRIKE, which is a type of unarmed attack which has special rules and deals damage.
Egres 06-07-05, 05:35 PM	As an aside, since I can't verify it myself, I've been told there's a weapon in the A&EG that gives grapple bonuses. There's one in Sandstorm too. Buit I can't see how this is related to this topic the rules are quite clear on the matter as how to avoid AoOs when tripping. Right. From the SRD: Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. You can try to ignore that sentence as you like, but you can't erase it. Deal with it.
SALDAR 06-07-05, 05:57 PM	From the SRD: Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. You can try to ignore that sentence as you like, but you can't erase it. Deal with it. Using an Unarmed Strike with IUS is no longer a "normal" unarmed attack. It is, as you have pointed out, an "armed" unarmed attack. You are considered armed. Trip requires an unarmed attack. So, how exactly do you make an unarmed attack when you are armed? From the SRD dealing directly with the subject at hand: Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack. You can try to ignore that RULE as you like, but you can't erase it. Deal with it.
Thorak 06-07-05, 06:38 PM	(And there's no condition for 'kneeling,' either, before anyone asks). Check out Table 8-6, page 151 of the PHB. Lists the AC penalty for Kneeling. Not that I recall anything that would force you to kneel, but the condition is there in the rules. Using an Unarmed Strike with IUS is no longer a "normal" unarmed attack. It is, as you have pointed out, an "armed" unarmed attack. You are considered armed. Trip requires an unarmed attack. So, how exactly do you make an unarmed attack when you are armed? By making an "armed" unarmed attack. An attack that, by definition, is both. From the SRD dealing directly with the subject at hand: Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack. You can try to ignore that RULE as you like, but you can't erase it. Deal with it. Does that rule say those are the only ways to avoid the AoO? Nope. For instance, you can avoid it by Disarming them first, so they don't threaten you. Can't provoke an AoO if the enemy doesn't threaten you. That's a bit more roundabout, sure, but it's still a way to avoid the AoO that isn't covered, and yet is blatantly obviously true.
Egres 06-07-05, 06:50 PM	Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack. You can try to ignore that RULE as you like, but you can't erase it. Deal with it. Actually, I'm not ignoring it. I'm just implementing it. That's quite different. My point of view has no problem with that line. Your point of view, OTH, has some problems with the one I have quoted. Draw your conclusion.
q'afuu 06-07-05, 06:52 PM	Buit I can't see how this is related to this topic It's a side issue. I wondered why the Grapple description doesn't mention anything about provoking an AoO when making an unarmed grapple while Trip does.
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 07:14 PM	Check out Table 8-6, page 151 of the PHB. Lists the AC penalty for Kneeling. Not that I recall anything that would force you to kneel, but the condition is there in the rules. That's right - it wasn't the condition that was missing, it was the action to kneel or rise from kneeling that was mysteriously absent...
Tony Vargas 06-07-05, 07:25 PM	I don't understand this comment. You seem to believe you're required to make an unarmed strike as your additional attack? Well, the debate's been on the difference between armed and unarmed trips, especially with regards to IUS. If you're unarmed, your follow-up attack will, presumably, be an unarmed attack. If you're armed with a trip weapon, it will, likewise, usually be with that weapon. I hadn't thought about the instance of being armed with a non-trip weapon, and performing an unarmed improved trip, and what you'd take said follow-up attack with, in that instance. The basic point, though, is still that the AoO for trip is easily avoided, by using a trip-capable weapon, so the relative value of Improved Trip's AoO negation isn't as great as that of other 'Improved' feats that eliminate AoOs. If you are unarmed, the AoO negation is a significant bonus, but then the follow-up attack is less so. FWIW.
SALDAR 06-07-05, 10:46 PM	Does that rule say those are the only ways to avoid the AoO? Nope. For instance, you can avoid it by Disarming them first, so they don't threaten you. Can't provoke an AoO if the enemy doesn't threaten you. That's a bit more roundabout, sure, but it's still a way to avoid the AoO that isn't covered, and yet is blatantly obviously true. Performing the Disarm Special Attack first has nothing to do with making the actual Trip Special Attack. The debate has nothing to do with what occurs prior to the trip. It centers on the actual trip attempt and the AoO provoked by the unarmed melee touch attack made at that time. You must provoke an AoO before you can avoid it and if your opponent does not threaten then there is no provocation, and in such a situation this debate is a moot point. Improved Trip and trip weapons are the only ways in the RAW to avoid provoking an AoO when making a trip attempt. It is stated without ambiguity in the combat chapter under the Trip Special Attack.
Thorak 06-07-05, 11:06 PM	Performing the Disarm Special Attack first has nothing to do with making the actual Trip Special Attack. The debate has nothing to do with what occurs prior to the trip. It centers on the actual trip attempt and the AoO provoked by the unarmed melee touch attack made at that time. You must provoke an AoO before you can avoid it and if your opponent does not threaten then there is no provocation, and in such a situation this debate is a moot point. Avoiding is not provoking. It's not a "AoO provoked, then avoided" mechanic. It's a "AoO not provoked" mechanic. So I stand by my statement that Tripping an unarmed opponent also avoids the AoO. Improved Trip and trip weapons are the only ways in the RAW to avoid provoking an AoO when making a trip attempt. It is stated without ambiguity in the combat chapter under the Trip Special Attack. Sure there's ambiguity. It gives two ways to avoid the AoO. It never once says those are the only ways to do so.
SALDAR 06-07-05, 11:21 PM	Avoiding is not provoking. It's not a "AoO provoked, then avoided" mechanic. It's a "AoO not provoked" mechanic. You are correct. By RAW the only way to enter a situation of “AoO not provoked” when making a trip attempt is with the Improved Trip feat or a trip weapon. Better?
Thorak 06-08-05, 01:17 AM	You are correct. By RAW the only way to enter a situation of “AoO not provoked” when making a trip attempt is with the Improved Trip feat or a trip weapon. Better? Better wording, but the statement is obviously incorrect. Bob does not have IUS or Improved Trip, or any weapon of any sort. Joe is his evil twin, and is identical in every way. Bob Trips Joe. And enters a situation of "AoO not provoked", without Improved trip or a trip weapon. Because Joe doesn't threaten him. That's my point.
jaerad 06-08-05, 02:11 AM	Man, you guys are adamant..ine.... Anywho. What exactly is the problem with letting IUS negate the AoO from tripping? There's sure a lot of semantic argueing, but I guess I'm missing what the issue is.
Egres 06-08-05, 06:38 AM	Man, you guys are adamant..ine.... Anywho. What exactly is the problem with letting IUS negate the AoO from tripping? There's sure a lot of semantic argueing, but I guess I'm missing what the issue is. You aren't the only one....
q'afuu 06-08-05, 07:10 AM	You aren't the only one.... Actually, you *are* the issue. :P Or at least your adamant denial that IUS, tripping and unarmed attacks in general make for an open-and-shut case.
Egres 06-08-05, 08:13 AM	Actually, you *are* the issue. :P Or at least your adamant denial that IUS, tripping and unarmed attacks in general make for an open-and-shut case. Actually, * you* are, as usual, my "favored enemy"(:P), and don't like the fact that the RAW are quite clear. In fact, you state that the rules are illogical, but this doesn't mean, as you should know, that they aren't as they really are.
q'afuu 06-08-05, 08:49 AM	Actually, * you* are, as usual, my "favored enemy"(:P), and don't like the fact that the RAW are quite clear. In fact, you state that the rules are illogical, but this doesn't mean, as you should know, that they aren't as they really are. The RAW are neither clear, nor illogical (at least not in this regard). They are, however, ambiguous.
Thorak 06-08-05, 09:41 AM	The RAW are neither clear, nor illogical (at least not in this regard). They are, however, ambiguous. I don't see how they're ambiguous. IUS makes you armed when unarmed. Trip provokes an AoO for being unarmed. I don't see why they don't stack. I see why you think they shouldn't. And agree, for what it's worth. But I don't agree that there's ambiguity in the RAW.
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 12:45 PM	I don't see how they're ambiguous. They're written in english. IUS makes you armed when unarmed. Trip provokes an AoO for being unarmed. It's just as easy to read IUS like this: IUS makes you armed when unarmed by Improving your Unarmed Strike so that it works like an armed attack - that allows you to threaten while unarmed. Tripping, unarmed, provokes an AoO /like/ other unarmed attacks, not because it's an unarmed attack. I'm not saying one interpretation is right - I'm frankly undecided. If someone can convince me that Unarmed Strike should effectively be considered a Trip Weapon, or that IUS making /all/ your unarmed attacks non-AoO-provoking jibes with the way Grappling & Improved Grapple work, I'd go one way or the other. Alternately, you could just convince me that one interpretation is clearly superior from the perspective of balance and/or playability... I'm willing to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant to write the rules in such a way as to make the game not suck.
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 12:50 PM	What exactly is the problem with letting IUS negate the AoO from tripping? I think the crux of the problem is that it's Improved Unarmed Strike, not Improved Unarmed Attack or Improved Unarmed Avoidance of Attacks of Opportunity. You wouldn't think that Improved Unarmed Strike would Improve your ability to Trip for instance, since there's already an Improved Trip. Though, the argument that Unarmed Strike is like a trip weapon would make some sense.
Thorak 06-08-05, 02:18 PM	They're written in english. It's just as easy to read IUS like this: IUS makes you armed when unarmed by Improving your Unarmed Strike so that it works like an armed attack - that allows you to threaten while unarmed. Tripping, unarmed, provokes an AoO /like/ other unarmed attacks, not because it's an unarmed attack. Except that IUS' benefit doesn't say anything specific to unarmed strikes. That's what I mean by it not being ambiguous. The feat's benefit says "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed." Are you unarmed when making a trip (without a weapon, obviously)? Yep. So, from IUS, you're now considered to be armed. And thus don't provoke the AoO for Tripping, which is provoked only as per normal for unarmed attacks. And yes, Trip provokes because it's an unarmed attack. Says so right in the description; "This provokes an attack of opportunity from your opponent as normal for unarmed attacks." And, with IUS, you're "considered to be armed even when unarmed." So, for you, you don't provoke AoO normally for unarmed attacks. So why is Trip magically immune to that benefit?
SALDAR 06-08-05, 02:39 PM	Better wording, but the statement is obviously incorrect. You are correct. It is incorrect. If you do not provoke then there is nothing to avoid to begin with. When you use Improved Trip or a trip weapon you avoid provoking an AoO when making a trip attempt. There is no need to avoid that which is not there. Bob does not have IUS or Improved Trip, or any weapon of any sort. Joe is his evil twin, and is identical in every way. Bob Trips Joe. And enters a situation of "AoO not provoked", without Improved trip or a trip weapon. Because Joe doesn't threaten him. This has nothing to do with the debate. Everyone knows that if you do not threaten then you cannot make AoOs. These are the RAW for AoOs, not for Trip. You can trip a dead creature all day long without provoking an AoO. Does this mean that you are “avoiding” AoOs? No! There are no AoOs so there is nothing to avoid. You wouldn't think that Improved Unarmed Strike would Improve your ability to Trip for instance, since there's already an Improved Trip. That is the crux of it. There IS an Improved Trip. Several participants in this debate want to use the IUS feat as a partial replacement of the Improved Trip feat as well as circumvent Improved Trip’s prerequisites of Int 13 and Combat Expertise. Never mind that Improved Trip is part of a totally different feat tree from that of IUS and uses a different combat mechanic (unarmed melee “touch” attack vs. “armed” unarmed melee attack). Allowing IUS to do this, other than being outside the RAW, would also be the only instance in which one feat replaces the benefits, in part or in whole, of another feat, especially when IUS has no prerequisites at all.
SALDAR 06-08-05, 02:46 PM	And, with IUS, you're "considered to be armed even when unarmed." So, for you, you don't provoke AoO normally for unarmed attacks. So why is Trip magically immune to that benefit? Because, as you pointed out, with IUS you are now making "armed" attacks and Trip requires an "unarmed" attack.
nefestous 06-08-05, 03:02 PM	Because, as you pointed out, with IUS you are now making "armed" attacks and Trip requires an "unarmed" attack. I don't recall trip requiring an unarmed attack. I believe the reason triping causes an attack of oppertunity is not due to the attacking being an unarmed one, but the difficulty of the manuever. IUS teaches a character to how to fight properly with just the body. Improved Trip teaches a character how to trip properly. The two are generally unrelated.
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 03:10 PM	Except that IUS' benefit doesn't say anything specific to unarmed strikes The benefit says "your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option," in addition, the name of the feat is specific to Unarmed Strike. And the 'normal' section of the feat is also unarmed-strike specific. Only the first two sentences of the benefits section don't specifically mention unarmed strike, instead, they are predicated upon /being unarmed/. that's what I mean by it not being ambiguous. The feat's benefit says "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed." Which is still a true statement, if your Unarmed Strike (and nothing else) now counts as an 'armed' attack. Are you unarmed when making a trip (without a weapon, obviously)? Yep. So, from IUS, you're now considered to be armed. Are you considered armed while holding a dagger? Yes. Can you make a trip attack while holding a dagger? Yes. Do you provoke an AoO for tripping while holding a dagger? Yes. Obviously, being 'considered armed' isn't enough. IUS goes on to say: "that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed." Note that this does not litterally say 'none of your unarmed attacks provoke AoOs,' which is how you're interpreting it. It can also be read to imply that /any/ attack you make while not armed is no-longer AoO-provoking, while, if you are holding a weapon, that benefit is lost. For instance, you could use this sentence to rule that you can't TWF with a longsword primary, and an IUS secondary without provoking, since, as you are armed, that IUS benefit doesn't aply. In fact, it doesn't reference 'unarmed attacks' (a broad category that is only implied, IIRC, not explicitly defined elsewhere in the rules) directly, at all. Both quotes reference /being/ unarmed as the key condition. That enough ambiguity?
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 03:12 PM	Because, as you pointed out, with IUS you are now making "armed" attacks and Trip requires an "unarmed" attack. So, what, now having IUS makes you /incapable/ of tripping without a weapon?? :uh-huh:
SALDAR 06-08-05, 03:30 PM	I don't recall trip requiring an unarmed attack. It requires an unarmed melee touch attack or an armed melee touch attack with a trip weapon (a weapon whose description states it can be used to make trip attacks). Can you make a trip attack while holding a dagger? Yes. Yes, but you cannot use the dagger to make the attempt. It is not a trip weapon (see above). So, what, now having IUS makes you /incapable/ of tripping without a weapon?? No. You can still make an unarmed melee touch attack to start a trip, you just cannot use the benefits of IUS while doing so since an attack benefiting from IUS is an armed attack. You can have a feat and choose to not gain its benefits. This is one situation where you would have to.
Tsuul 06-08-05, 03:36 PM	You can still make an unarmed melee touch attack to start a trip, you just cannot use the benefits of IUS while doing so since an attack benefiting from IUS is an armed attack.Its's an "armed" unarmed attack. It is just considered armed, but not realy armed at the same time.
Thorak 06-08-05, 05:02 PM	You are correct. It is incorrect. If you do not provoke then there is nothing to avoid to begin with. When you use Improved Trip or a trip weapon you avoid provoking an AoO when making a trip attempt. There is no need to avoid that which is not there. That's disingenuous. And if you want to use that terminology, then I'm not "avoiding" the AoO from Tripping with IUS. I'm not provoking it in the first place, because IUS says I don't provoke when unarmed. This has nothing to do with the debate. Everyone knows that if you do not threaten then you cannot make AoOs. These are the RAW for AoOs, not for Trip. You can trip a dead creature all day long without provoking an AoO. Does this mean that you are “avoiding” AoOs? No! There are no AoOs so there is nothing to avoid. See above. You use that justification, it just means that IUS isn't "avoiding" the AoO, it's not provoking it in the first place. Which also, for that matter, neatly answers why it's not listed in Trip under "avoiding AoOs". That is the crux of it. There IS an Improved Trip. Several participants in this debate want to use the IUS feat as a partial replacement of the Improved Trip feat as well as circumvent Improved Trip’s prerequisites of Int 13 and Combat Expertise. Never mind that Improved Trip is part of a totally different feat tree from that of IUS and uses a different combat mechanic (unarmed melee “touch” attack vs. “armed” unarmed melee attack). Allowing IUS to do this, other than being outside the RAW, would also be the only instance in which one feat replaces the benefits, in part or in whole, of another feat, especially when IUS has no prerequisites at all. You do get +4 on the Trip check, and a free attack if you're successful. That's more than enough oomph for the feat, alone. Compare to Improved Grapple, which gets +4 to grapple checks and no AoOs; seems like Improved Trip is overpowered in comparison. Perhaps because IUS can be a partial replacement for one of its three effects. Because, as you pointed out, with IUS you are now making "armed" attacks and Trip requires an "unarmed" attack. With IUS, I am now making "armed" unarmed attacks. They're still unarmed, they just count as armed, too. The benefit says "your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option," in addition, the name of the feat is specific to Unarmed Strike. And the 'normal' section of the feat is also unarmed-strike specific. Only the first two sentences of the benefits section don't specifically mention unarmed strike, instead, they are predicated upon /being unarmed/. Yes, but the bit you quoted starts with "In addition . . .". Meaning it's not continuing the same comment, but adding to it, a more specific remark just for unarmed strikes in this case. Still, there's only 4 sentences among the Benefit and Normal sections. So half of them are written referring to all unarmed attacks, and the other two specify things a bit more for unarmed strikes. How's this an issue? It's not like there's a huge weight of evidence weighing it down. And it doesn't change what the feat says, anyway. It makes unarmed attacks count as armed. Like the unarmed attack you use to Trip. Which therefore wouldn't provoke AoOs, since it's now treated as armed. Which is still a true statement, if your Unarmed Strike (and nothing else) now counts as an 'armed' attack. Yes, but there's no suggestion it's that limited. Are you unarmed when Tripping without a weapon? Yes. Ergo, by that sentence, you count as armed. Are you considered armed while holding a dagger? Yes. Can you make a trip attack while holding a dagger? Yes. Do you provoke an AoO for tripping while holding a dagger? Yes. Obviously, being 'considered armed' isn't enough. Are you using the dagger to make the Trip attack? No. It doesn't apply, for the same reason that if you're wielding a longsword and punch someone, without IUS, you provoke an AoO for the punch. IUS goes on to say: "that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed." Note that this does not litterally say 'none of your unarmed attacks provoke AoOs,' which is how you're interpreting it. No, it says that when you attack unarmed, you don't provoke an AoO. You can still provoke an AoO with an unarmed attack by, say, Disarming with it. But Trip clearly says it provokes an AoO because it's unarmed. That's why Trip is different from Disarm, in this case. It can also be read to imply that /any/ attack you make while not armed is no-longer AoO-provoking, while, if you are holding a weapon, that benefit is lost. For instance, you could use this sentence to rule that you can't TWF with a longsword primary, and an IUS secondary without provoking, since, as you are armed, that IUS benefit doesn't aply. That seems pretty extreme, and I don't believe what I'm talking about is even remotely that counterintuitive. In fact, it doesn't reference 'unarmed attacks' (a broad category that is only implied, IIRC, not explicitly defined elsewhere in the rules) directly, at all. Both quotes reference /being/ unarmed as the key condition. Right. Are you unarmed when making a Trip attack? Yup, says so right there; an unarmed melee touch attack. How does IUS not apply?
Tony Vargas 06-08-05, 05:51 PM	You do get +4 on the Trip check, and a free attack if you're successful. That's more than enough oomph for the feat, alone. Compare to Improved Grapple, which gets +4 to grapple checks and no AoOs; seems like Improved Trip is overpowered in comparison. Then again, consider that some of the assertions being made about IUS would also allow it to negate the AoO for starting a grapple. Afterall, you're making the grapple unarmed, and it's an attack. Perhaps because IUS can be a partial replacement for one of its three effects.I think it's more likely because Trip Weapons are an excellent replacement for one of it's three benefits. Yes, but the bit you quoted starts with "In addition . . .". Meaning it's not continuing the same comment, but adding to it, a more specific remark just for unarmed strikes in this case. That fairly obvious, yes - but it's just as obvious that the whole feat is about Unarmed Strikes. Yes, but there's no suggestion it's that limited.Half the explanation of the feat, and the name of the feat suggest that it is. Are you unarmed when Tripping without a weapon? Yes. Ergo, by that sentence, you count as armed. Not always. You could be armed with a non-trip-capable weapon, making you, well, armed. Are you using the dagger to make the Trip attack? No. It doesn't apply, for the same reason that if you're wielding a longsword and punch someone, without IUS, you provoke an AoO for the punch. And you can even read IUS such that you still provoke the AoO for that punch, because you're wielding the longsword. That seems pretty extreme, and I don't believe what I'm talking about is even remotely that counterintuitive.That Improved Unarmed Strike aplies to things other than Unarmed Strike is pretty counterintuitive. But, in any case, it serves to illustrate the ambiguity of the wording, which is all I was pointing out. But Trip clearly says it provokes an AoO because it's unarmed. More acurately, Trip /doesn't/ provoke an AoO when done with a Trip weapon. Is IUS a Trip weapon? If you kick someone with your left foot, that can be an IUS, if you kick thier feat out from under them with your left foot, that can be an Improved Trip. Doesn't even sound quite as different as slashing someone with a guisarme does from snagging them with it's hook. Right. Are you unarmed when making a Trip attack? Yup, says so right there; an unarmed melee touch attack. How does IUS not apply? You can make an unarmed attack while armed (it's the only way you can trip if your only weapon is a sword, for instance). The clause in IUS that would make it aply to an unarmed trip attack is "you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed." If you're wielding a sword, and making a trip attack, you're not unarmed, and IUS can't aply. Of course, under a different, legitimate, reading of the rules, it also can't aply because you're not making an Unarmed Strike. (Have we established ambiguity in IUS yet?) OTOH, if an Unarmed Strike is a weapon you can Trip with (even though it can't possibly be a 'trip weapon' in the footnote sense, since you can't drop it), and you take all of the IUS description the way it's probably meant - as aplying to Unarmed Strike, then it would aply. :rolleyes:
Egres 06-08-05, 08:21 PM	You can have a feat and choose to not gain its benefits. This is one situation where you would have to. False. Show us a quote where the RAW confirm this statement. I bet you'll don't find any.
nefestous 06-09-05, 10:43 AM	Subject Accourding to the SRD rules about the trip maneuver, when making a trip attac... *********************************** Discussion Thread Response (Sam S.) 06/08/2005 03:58 PM Nefestous Yes he provokes an attack of opportunity. Good Gaming! Sam S. Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST *********************************** Auto-Response 06/08/2005 02:54 PM Your question has not been submitted yet.No matches were found. *********************************** Customer (Nefestous) 06/08/2005 02:54 PM Accourding to the SRD rules about the trip manuever, when making a trip attack, you start with an unarmed melee touch attack against your opponent. It also specifies that "This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks". My question is in reguards to the interaction between this portion of SRD ruling and the Feat "IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE". Does a character with "IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE" provoke an attack of oppertunity from an enemy when attempting a trip action even if the character does not also hold the "IMPROVED TRIP"? I kinda hoped they would expand on the question, but that what I get when I sent the question to customer service
jaerad 06-09-05, 11:49 AM	I kinda hoped they would expand on the question, but that what I get when I sent the question to customer service Lol, custserv. I have never, and probably will never, ask custserv anything. From what I understand, the best you're going to get is a quick perusal of the rules and a reply. I can get better than that on the boards as it is, considering that most times you can also get some reasoning to back it up.
Tony Vargas 06-09-05, 12:22 PM	I can get better than that on the boards as it is, considering that most times you can also get some reasoning to back it up.The quality of that reasoning can be pretty varied, though. And, even well-reasoned responses can get pretty bizarre. Thorak, for instance, like to tease out absurdities in the rules and support them with flawless logic. At the other extreme, I'll point out ambiguities and 'alternate interpretations' in the even the clearest and most obvious of passages. Heck, Egres just made an assertion that, unless you can find a passage that explicitly states otherwise, feats are involuntary responses on the part of characters that have them. Compared to that, a simple yes or no from custserv must seem pretty helpful - though probably not as entertaining.
Egres 06-09-05, 01:06 PM	Heck, Egres just made an assertion that, unless you can find a passage that explicitly states otherwise, feats are involuntary responses on the part of characters that have them. That's what the RAW state. You can't choose, for example, to avoid the benefit from WF if you are using a weapon which you are focused with.
Thorak 06-09-05, 01:13 PM	The quality of that reasoning can be pretty varied, though. And, even well-reasoned responses can get pretty bizarre. Thorak, for instance, like to tease out absurdities in the rules and support them with flawless logic. Hey now, come o . . . Ah, heck. You're right. Compared to that, a simple yes or no from custserv must seem pretty helpful - though probably not as entertaining. My biggest issue with custserv is that they almost never provide reasons for their answers. It's like doing a math test and not showing your work; you might be right, but is it a fluke, or do you actually know what you're doing? And, in the case of the rules, it doesn't help solve the problem, since we're typically going by the RAW and custserv answers often disagree with it.
q'afuu 06-09-05, 01:32 PM	That's what the RAW state. You can't choose, for example, to avoid the benefit from WF if you are using a weapon which you are focused with. Actually, the RAW doesn't say anything either way. They don't say you can't nor that you can. To give an example that would indicate you can, at least in specific cases: you can voluntarily fail saves, choosing to avoid the benefit from, for instance, Iron Will.
Tony Vargas 06-09-05, 01:37 PM	That's what the RAW state.Where? You can't choose, for example, to avoid the benefit from WF if you are using a weapon which you are focused with.I don't know why you'd ever /want/ to attack with a lower AB, but if you wanted to, why the heck couldn't you?
Tony Vargas 06-09-05, 01:46 PM	Hey now, come o . . . Ah, heck. You're right. ;) My biggest issue with custserv is that they almost never provide reasons for their answers. I think it's probably supposed to be a simple question-answer thing. If you want debate, you can come here. I mean, it's a question about the rules, and all the rules of any game are ultimately arbitrary. It's like doing a math test and not showing your work; you might be right, but is it a fluke, or do you actually know what you're doing? Is their job to prove thier mastery of the rules, or just to answer simple questions? I mean, "does Improved Unarmed Strike negate the AoO for Tripping, like Improved Trip does?" Seems like a pretty simple question. You can make it into a complicated question by minute dissection of the phrasing of IUS, or by speculating about the weapon-like status of IUS, and we did just that. That takes a certain amount of geekitude. :D And, in the case of the rules, it doesn't help solve the problem, since we're typically going by the RAW and custserv answers often disagree with it.C'mon, they disagree with you. The RAW is ambiguous, remember? :D Well, when I read it, anyway. ;)
Egres 06-09-05, 03:33 PM	To give an example that would indicate you can, at least in specific cases: you can voluntarily fail saves, choosing to avoid the benefit from, for instance, Iron Will. q'afuu, dont' you see that you're helping me? You can voluntarily fail your save because the RAW allow you to do so. But the RAW don't allow you to do the same with feats, like Weapon Focus. Where? Here, for example: WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL] Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1. Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. It doesn't state "you can add a +1 etc...". It states: "you gain", and nothing more. Just like you can't lower your BAB when attacking, you can't choose to not apply the +1 granted by WF. This is what the RAW state. If you disagree, I'll be glad to read your RAW based reply. No challenge: just curiosity. I don't know why you'd ever /want/ to attack with a lower AB, but if you wanted to, why the heck couldn't you? Because, for example, I' could be disguised, and I would not show my real "power" when fighting. For your second question, you can't because the RAW say so.
Tony Vargas 06-09-05, 04:36 PM	Just like you can't lower your BAB when attacking, you can't choose to not apply the +1 granted by WF. Where does it say you can't choose not to use all your BAB when attacking? This is what the RAW state. So you say, but you haven't shown that. If you disagree, I'll be glad to read your RAW based reply.No problem: Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.[/I]It says 'you gain' not 'you gain, and must always use.' For your second question, you can't because the RAW say so.Are you sure you're not just trolling with this one? Because, for example, I' could be disguised, and I would not show my real "power" when fighting. You can't tell what someone else's BAB is, all you know is whether they hit you or not - they could always have rolled a 20. Sense Motive might give you an idea (there's some non-core rules for such a use of the skill, IIRC), so a Bluff check to conceal your 'true skill' would make more sense than voluntarily reducing BAB.
q'afuu 06-09-05, 05:06 PM	q'afuu, dont' you see that you're helping me? You can voluntarily fail your save because the RAW allow you to do so. But the RAW don't allow you to do the same with feats, like Weapon Focus. Says you. ;)
Egres 06-09-05, 05:36 PM	Where does it say you can't choose not to use all your BAB when attacking? Where does it say that humans can't eat chariots? Jokes apart, your reply is quite...weird: you should know that if there aren't rules to allow a maneuver/ability or something similar, you can't do it. By your reasoning, the Power Attack feat could be useless: where does it say that I can't lower my bab to gain a +5 damage for each attack? The RAW don't state what you can't do: they state what you can. If they don't state anything about something, you can't do it. And I'll admit I'm a bit surprised that I have to say such an obvious statement with posters like you... Not to mention that negativa non sunt probanda... It says 'you gain' not 'you gain, and must always use.' If you are right, why didn't they state something like "you can add...". The feat states "you gain", and nothing else. By your reasoning a character could lower its AC too: ARMOR SKIN [EPIC] Benefit: The character gains a +1 natural armor bonus to Armor Class, or his or her existing natural armor bonus increases by 1. Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. Now, with the power of my non-RAW-based reasonement, I'll show you how I can strip my flesh off to lower my natural AC bonus, cause this feat doesn't state " you gain, and must always use".... You are creating new rules on the fly, and you are completely unsupported. You want to arbitrarily lower your BAB, you want to negate that the wording of the feat doesn't allow you to negate its bonus... You want too much without RAW to do so. Says you. A well argumented reply, indeed. ;)
Tony Vargas 06-09-05, 05:56 PM	Where does it say that humans can't eat chariots? Where do they say that humans /can/ eat rice? Big revelation for you: the rules don't, and can't, cover every little thing. The whole "what rule says you can/what rule says you can't" rubrick is fruitless. Some things the rules specifically state, some they broadly imply, and some they just don't cover. The last can neither be assumed to be mandated nor forbidden - they just aren't covered. You have to actually use common sense. There's little reason for a human to attempt to eat a chariot, few ways in which he could actually do it, and very little nutritional value to be gained from doing so - and you don't need rules to tell you that. The RAW don't state what you can't do: they state what you can. I don't know what makes you think that. On the first page, of the first rules file of the SRD: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Basics.rtf There's a table entry that indicates that a character with a spellcasting stat at a certain level /can't/ cast spells of a certain level. (And I was willing to go through the whole freak'n SRD to find such an example... :rolleyes: I am such a geek. :nonono: )
Egres 06-09-05, 06:25 PM	Where do they say that humans /can/ eat rice? Big revelation for you: the rules don't, and can't, cover every little thing. Nope. The rules don't cover what common sense could do, but bab and feats are technical terms that have nothing to do with common sense, and with what we all know about human phiosology. By your reasoning I could state that I can lower my AC to gain an equal bonus to my bab, because the rules don't prevent so. What an absurd way of reasonig. I can concede that it's weird that you can't voluntarily lower your bab, but the RAW don't allow it. Note to Tony Vargas: I' m not a WotC author, and thus I'm not responsable for their RAW "crimes". If you don't like the rules, change them. On the first page, of the first rules file of the SRD: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Basics.rtf There's a table entry that indicates that a character with a spellcasting stat at a certain level /can't/ cast spells of a certain level. Actually, thats' an exception... And a silly one too. What did you expect from a table? A big smile in the line where there's your great "exception to my statement"? You can find a "can't" listed there only becasue it's a table, and it must lists when you can benefit from something. Tell us: did you find any daily spells table in the fighter description with a big list of "no spells for this level"? Tony Vargas,...seriously. Are you trying to make fun of me? Can you really imagine how big the rulebooks would be if they listed all the things you can't do? Come on......
q'afuu 06-09-05, 07:29 PM	The RAW don't state what you can't do: they state what you can. If they don't state anything about something, you can't do it. Obviously, they also state a wizard can't prepare spells without 8 hours of rest, and can't prepare spells as normal if he has cast spells 8 hours or less prior to preparation. They state a druid can't wildshape into something with more HD than his or her level. They state a cleric can't deviate more than one step in alignment from his deity's. They state you can't maintain a grapple if you can't move into the square of the person you try to grapple. They say you can't stack effects from the same source. Honestly, they state a whole lot of things you can't do. That's hardly surprising: it's often easier to sum up limitations to certain actions than to describe the exact extent of those actions. Saying that the rules don't cover what common sense can is, no offense, ridiculous. What's common sense to you might seem absurd to me and vice versa. You can't rely on people having common sense. Heck, you certainly can't rely on sense being common to begin with. Check out the Natural Spell feat. Taken literally, it says you can complete the somatic components of a spell while wildshaped without making any limitation on the form. Since the RAW say so, a druid wildshaped into a slug can complete somatic components, even if a slug is entirely incapable of making noise on its own. By the RAW, you can use a shield as an off-hand weapon. They don't state you can use one as a primary weapon as well, so by your reasoning you can't. Is this a case of common sense telling us that yes, if you want to you can actually make a shield bash as a primary attack or should we assume that a technical matter like the differences between primary and off-hand attacks can only be covered by the RAW?
Tony Vargas 06-09-05, 08:14 PM	The rules don't cover what common sense could do, but bab and feats are technical terms that have nothing to do with common sense, and with what we all know about human phiosology. Hey, you brought up the guy eating the chariot... By your reasoning I could state that I can lower my AC to gain an equal bonus to my bab, because the rules don't prevent so. No, by reasoning you could lower your AC, if you didn't feel like using all of it, and gain no benefit from doing so - not that you ever would. You're the one who's trying to ditch common sense in favor of an absolute dogmatic "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" aproach to interpreting the rules. I can concede that it's weird that you can't voluntarily lower your bab, but the RAW don't allow it. Note to Tony Vargas: I' m not a WotC author, and thus I'm not responsable for their RAW "crimes". AFAICT, you're taking something of the same tack Thorak does, just not backing it up nearly as well. Your aproach is that the rules must be taken litterally, and, there must be one 'right' litteral way of taking them. If you find that the one right litteral interpretion you come up with leads to stupid results, then it's WotC's fault for writing a stupid rule, not yours for interpreting it in a stupid way. Actually, thats' an exception...How many 'exceptions' do you need before you admit the 'rule' they're exceptions to doesn't exist? You can find a "can't" listed there only becasue it's a table, and it must lists when you can benefit from something. Continuing through the SRD, and ommitting tables: "fatigued (–2 penalty to Strength, –2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run)" "A bard can’t inspire competence in himself. " "A bard can’t use song of freedom on himself." " A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s " "A druid can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity’s " "If this adjustment would reduce the druid’s effective level to 0 or lower, she can’t have that animal as a companion." "The new form’s Hit Dice can’t exceed the character’s druid level" "A druid can’t use this ability to take the form of a plant that isn’t a creature." "The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows." "if she is denied her Dexterity bonus to AC, she can’t use this ability. " "Even a rogue with the Combat Reflexes feat can’t use the opportunist ability more than once per round." "The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however." "Spells of the prohibited school or schools are not available to the wizard, and she can’t even cast such spells from scrolls or fire them from wands. " "You can’t save skill points to spend later." "You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another." "you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone" "If the skill doesn’t allow you to attempt the same task more than once, or if failure carries an inherent penalty (such as with the Climb skill), you can’t take 20." "an untrained character can’t attempt checks with this skill (for skills that are designated as “Trained Only”)" "You also can’t use a shield while climbing" "You can’t get through a space that your head does not fit through." :rolleyes: "if that one opposed check goes in favor of the forger, then the reader can’t try using his own skill again, even if he’s suspicious about the document." "A barbarian can’t learn the Forgery skill unless he has learned to read and write." "If you have no ranks in Handle Animal, you can’t teach, rear, or train animals. " ... That takes us through 'Skills I' And, that's just searching for 'can't' - any requirement (must, needs, etc) is a logically comparable restriction. The rules most certainly put forth many, many things that you can't do. Not only that, but a lot of 'cans' can be turned around into 'can't's.' If Power Attack says that you /can/ trade AB for Dam, then it implies that you can't do so without power attack, and so forth. Are you trying to make fun of me?I'm trying to be respectful while making my point. It... isn't always esy. Actually, I'm kinda wondering if you're not pulling my leg - trying to see how far I'll go searching the SRD for "can't" and so forth... :rolleyes: Can you really imagine how big the rulebooks would be if they listed all the things you can't do? Or how big it would be if they listed /everything/ you're permitted to?
Tony Vargas 06-09-05, 08:23 PM	Saying that the rules don't cover what common sense can is, no offense, ridiculous. What's common sense to you might seem absurd to me and vice versa. You can't rely on people having common sense. You also can't completely compensate for lack of common sense. There's no such thing as fool-proof.
q'afuu 06-09-05, 08:50 PM	There's no such thing as fool-proof. Tony, making a comment like that on a thread like this one is testing the limits of my self-restraint. ;) Not that I don't agree, but still.
Egres 06-10-05, 04:29 AM	Obviously, they also state a wizard can't prepare spells without 8 hours of rest, and can't prepare spells as normal if he has cast spells 8 hours or less prior to preparation. They state a druid can't wildshape into something with more HD than his or her level. They state a cleric can't deviate more than one step in alignment from his deity's. They state you can't maintain a grapple if you can't move into the square of the person you try to grapple. They say you can't stack effects from the same source. Honestly, they state a whole lot of things you can't do. That's hardly surprising: it's often easier to sum up limitations to certain actions than to describe the exact extent of those actions. q'afuu, this answer will answer to the main point of Tony Vargas too. Don't you see that all the "can't" you have found have something in common? They all are the result of other rules: WotC made a set of rules, and since these rules allow you to do something, they clarify what are possible misconception and/or mistakes you could make applying them, because it would go against what the author's intent was, just like the not-stackability of the same bonus. Note: you can voluntarily lower your caster level. You can voluntarily fail your saves. But there's nothing like that regarding your bab. Draw your conclusion. If you find that the one right litteral interpretion you come up with leads to stupid results, then it's WotC's fault for writing a stupid rule, not yours for interpreting it in a stupid way. Actually, litteral interpretation is what we do when we use the acronym "RAW". I don't know what you think "interpretation" means, but I can assure you that I live thanks to my interpretation of "rules" in RL. And I bet you can't do the same. There are no RAW to allow what you claim is possible. Show me them, and I'll be glad to admit you were right. Or how big it would be if they listed /everything/ you're permitted to? Check the number of pages of your core books, and you'll find the answer you are searching for. There's no such thing as fool-proof. Agreed. Absolutely. One more question for you: check out the Dervish PrC. It makes you treat the scimitar as a light weapon for all purposes. By gaining this ability,you take a -4 on disarm checks and can no longer Power Attack with a scimitar. The wording of the ability doesn't make it optional, so you can't elect to treat it as a one-handed weapon (like everyone else does, and like you did before gaining the ability). By your reasoning the PrC would allow, instead, to treat it as a light weapon for some purposes, and as a one-handed one for others, since it doesn't state "you always treat the scimitar..." blah blah. Bah.
q'afuu 06-10-05, 04:52 AM	Draw your conclusion. That would be that, unlike what you first said, the RAW do state things you can't do. Whether that's due to other things they state doesn't really matter - they do. By your reasoning the PrC would allow, instead, to treat it as a light weapon for some purposes, and as a one-handed one for others, since it doesn't state "you always treat the scimitar..." blah blah. Bah. Want to apply common sense to this one too? After all, you're also supposed to look at the way the weapon is actually used, rather than which handedness is designated to it (although strictly going by the RAW, you wouldn't know it - it takes a common sense interpretation or a reading of the FAQ to do so). According to you, a dervish wielding a single scimitar in two hands is still considered to be wielding a light weapon. Is this a case of the RAW being exact or should common sense step in? And how do you know which it is? And while you're at it, take a look at my Natural spellcasting slug and primary hand shield basher issues, would you?
Egres 06-10-05, 05:06 AM	According to you, a dervish wielding a single scimitar in two hands is still considered to be wielding a light weapon. Is this a case of the RAW being exact or should common sense step in? And how do you know which it is? And while you're at it, take a look at my Natural spellcasting slug and primary hand shield basher issues, would you? Are you interested in arguing about RAW or about my point of view on the game? I'm arguing about the RAW. If you don't want to share your thoughts on this issue, ignore me, please. In the case of the Dervish the RAW state what I have already wrote, and the scimitar, just like a dagger, would still be a light weapon. The same goes for your slug and primary hand shield basher. You must decide: are we debataing about RAW or not? Remember that, by the RAW, you could run from north to south and then make a long jump from south to north... These are the RAW: I'm not interested to other issues at the moment. That would be that, unlike what you first said, the RAW do state things you can't do. Whether that's due to other things they state doesn't really matter - they do. Nope. They simply limit what they allow, because they first introduce something new. Once again: you can voluntarily lower your caster level and saves, but there's nothing similar for bab. Think about it.
q'afuu 06-10-05, 05:11 AM	Are you interested in arguing about RAW or about my point of view on the game? I'm arguing about the RAW. The rules don't cover what common sense could do, but bab and feats are technical terms that have nothing to do with common sense, and with what we all know about human phiosology. No, really. Are you arguing about the RAW, or are you arguing about common sense, or both? You make a sweeping statement about only the RAW being relevant (thereby contradicting a prior statement of yours) yet I see no reason to think this would be the case. If common sense is to be applied in some areas, why is it not to be applied in others and where does it say so, other than in your posts?
Egres 06-10-05, 05:15 AM	No, really. Are you arguing about the RAW, or are you arguing about common sense, or both? I'm arguing about RAW. In fact, I'm the one who pointed out that the common sense should enter only when there aren't technicalities involved. Didn't you notice? Note: the bab is a technical term.
q'afuu 06-10-05, 05:19 AM	In fact, I'm the one who pointed out that the common sense should enter only when there aren't technicalities involved. And I pointed out that that is an arbitrary decision you made, but which isn't supported by the RAW. ;)
Egres 06-10-05, 05:23 AM	And I pointed out that that is an arbitrary decision you made, but which isn't supported by the RAW. ;) But this what the RAW state: themselves. And, sorry, but your is a paradox: are you really stating that the RAW should tell you when they don't apply? That would be an application of the RAW nonetheless! Once again: you can voluntarily lower your caster level and saves, but there's nothing similar for bab. Think about it.
q'afuu 06-10-05, 06:37 AM	But this what the RAW state: themselves. And, sorry, but your is a paradox: are you really stating that the RAW should tell you when they don't apply? That would be an application of the RAW nonetheless! That's hardly a paradox. Stating something doesn't apply under certain circumstances doesn't mean that under those circumstances the opposite applies. It's not because the RAW say A that, under circumstances where they don't apply, you have to go with a letter other than A. It might still be A. It just doesn't have to be A. But since you keep the Skills & Feats FAQ, let me ask you: when the FAQ (and now I'm talking about the official 3.5 main FAQ, which you reference several times) goes against the literal reading of the RAW on a technical matter (such as dual-wielding weapons of speed), what takes precedence - RAW or FAQ? And if the latter, doesn't that constitute a precedence of common sense over RAW for such issues?
Egres 06-10-05, 07:22 AM	That's hardly a paradox. Stating something doesn't apply under certain circumstances doesn't mean that under those circumstances the opposite applies. It's not because the RAW say A that, under circumstances where they don't apply, you have to go with a letter other than A. It might still be A. It just doesn't have to be A. But since you keep the Skills & Feats FAQ, let me ask you: when the FAQ (and now I'm talking about the official 3.5 main FAQ, which you reference several times) goes against the literal reading of the RAW on a technical matter (such as dual-wielding weapons of speed), what takes precedence - RAW or FAQ? And if the latter, doesn't that constitute a precedence of common sense over RAW for such issues? When the FAQ go against the RAW, the FAQ are wrong.(see the bastard sword issue, for example). But I reference it because that's not "Egres's FAQ", but the "Skills and Feats FAQ". I cannot limit myself to my PoV when writing a FAQ. BTW, why are you stating that I have referenced a FAQ against the RAW? What are you talking about? Speed Weapons? Let me know your PoV in the right thread, in this forum. Once more again: You can voluntarily lower your caster level and saves, but there's nothing similar for bab. Any thoughts?
q'afuu 06-10-05, 08:13 AM	When the FAQ go against the RAW, the FAQ are wrong.(see the bastard sword issue, for example). But I reference it because that's not "Egres's FAQ", but the "Skills and Feats FAQ". I cannot limit myself to my PoV when writing a FAQ. Funny. When it comes to monks and TWF you refuse to go with the FAQ answer even if it doesn't contradict the RAW, while when it comes to speed weapons, where the FAQ does contradict the RAW, you have no such qualms. ;) BTW, why are you stating that I have referenced a FAQ against the RAW? What are you talking about? Speed Weapons? Let me know your PoV in the right thread, in this forum. I'll keep it here, for simplicity's sake. All the arguments have been a made a million times already anyway. The RAW don't state that the effects of two speed weapons fall under the rule that says two identical effects overlap rather than stack, so that possibility is open. There is a quarterstaff of speed in the RAW that sets the precedent that you can make an extra attack with each end, since both have been enhanced with speed. Yet the FAQ says dual-wielding speed weapons doesn't grant you an extra attack with each. You can voluntarily lower your caster level and saves, but there's nothing similar for bab. Any thoughts? Common sense. There are plausible reasons why someone would want to lower his CL or fail a save voluntarily. There are no plausible reasons why anyone would want to reduce his or her BAB.
Egres 06-10-05, 09:01 AM	Funny. When it comes to monks and TWF you refuse to go with the FAQ answer even if it doesn't contradict the RAW, while when it comes to speed weapons, where the FAQ does contradict the RAW, you have no such qualms. Actually, I absolutely agree with the FAQ. But, as I wrote above, I agree with the FAQ, and not the general consensus. Once again: it's not "Egres's FAQ". Are you reading my posts q'afuu? The RAW don't state that the effects of two speed weapons fall under the rule that says two identical effects overlap rather than stack, so that possibility is open. There is a quarterstaff of speed in the RAW that sets the precedent that you can make an extra attack with each end, since both have been enhanced with speed. Yet the FAQ says dual-wielding speed weapons doesn't grant you an extra attack with each. Nope. There are no reasons to state an exception to a general rule. A bad written magic weapon in a non core book cannot be considered a proof to state otherwise. RAW are respected here too. Common sense. No RAW then. Fair enough. Welcome to the world of HR.
q'afuu 06-10-05, 09:30 AM	There are no reasons to state an exception to a general rule. A bad written magic weapon in a non core book cannot be considered a proof to state otherwise. RAW are respected here too. There is no reason a general rule applies if the rules don't state it does. The speed enhancement neatly eliminates the possibility to stack speed with Haste and the 'same effects overlap rather than stack' rule eliminates the possibility to stack two speed enhancements on the same weapon, but the RAW do state that 'when making a full attack, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it'. Sounds like one of those cases where the RAW tell you what you can do to me. And if, and I stress 'if' because there's nothing conclusive to indicate that, wielding two speed weapons falls under the 'same effects overlap rather than stack' rule, this would still be a case of the specific overruling the general. The RAW state you get an extra attack for every speed weapon you wield. The FAQ says you don't. That's all there's to it. Btw, if there are no reasons to state exceptions, how are we supposed to know what's an exception? Are you sure that came out right? ;) No RAW then. Fair enough. Welcome to the world of HR.First, as an aside, the rules don't say you can lower your caster level. They say you can cast a spell at a lower caster level than usual, but that's not the same thing. Second, the rules say a character can wear armour and benefit from the armour bonus and various enhancements that armour bestows. They don't say, however, that a character can't wear more than one at the same time. Obviously the armour bonuses won't stack, but the different special effects will all apply. IMC, that's not possible. Does that mean I'm in the world of HR, or that I'm interpreting the rules as they are meant to be read?
Egres 06-10-05, 10:13 AM	There is no reason a general rule applies if the rules don't state it does. No offense, but this is really a silly statement. They are called general rules for a good reason. Let me guess: you are not a lawyer in RL. Second, the rules say a character can wear armour and benefit from the armour bonus and various enhancements that armour bestows. They don't say, however, that a character can't wear more than one at the same time. Obviously the armour bonuses won't stack, but the different special effects will all apply. IMC, that's not possible. Does that mean I'm in the world of HR, or that I'm interpreting the rules as they are meant to be read? Wearing more than a single armor isn't allowed by the RAW, and thus you can't do it. Just a note I forgot to add in my previous post: Common sense. What's common sense to you might seem absurd to me and vice versa. You can't rely on people having common sense.
q'afuu 06-10-05, 10:23 AM	No offense, but this is really a silly statement. They are called general rules for a good reason. Let me guess: you are not a lawyer in RL. Engineer, actually, which gives me a pretty good feeling for rules and mechanics, but that's neither here nor there. 'Like effects overlap rather than stack' is a general rule. Nothing in the rules says this particular rule is relevant in the case of two speed weapons. Hence, it doesn't necessarily apply. Wearing more than a single armor isn't allowed by the RAW, and thus you can't do it. Possibly, but I wouldn't mind seeing an actual reference or quote. I made a (cursory, so I may have missed it) check and didn't find anything. Just a note I forgot to add in my previous post Just a note: you brought up common sense as an arbitrator before I did. ;) I merely illustrated the nonsense of trusting on common sense in one area if you can't/won't in another.
Egres 06-10-05, 11:10 AM	Just a note: you brought up common sense as an arbitrator before I did. I merely illustrated the nonsense of trusting on common sense in one area if you can't/won't in another. Nope. I brought up, as I wroted above for two times, that you are allowed to use it when there are no techincal terms involved. There are no bab and AC in RL. But you know that humans don't eat chariots too. ;) Since you are using the "common sense" to support your "I can lower my bab" rule, I see you have no RAW, and since yoyu are using common sense to support a technical-term-based rule, you have no support at all.
q'afuu 06-10-05, 11:13 AM	I brought up, as I wroted above for two times, that you are allowed to use it when there are no techincal terms involved. There are no bab and AC in RL. Neither are there armour proficiencies in RL. Found that part of the RAW that says I can only use one set of armour at a time yet? ;)
Thorak 06-10-05, 12:16 PM	There is a quarterstaff of speed in the RAW that sets the precedent that you can make an extra attack with each end, since both have been enhanced with speed. Yet the FAQ says dual-wielding speed weapons doesn't grant you an extra attack with each. Let's be fair. That's the quarterstaff of alacrity, IIRC, and it's an epic item, I believe, costing over 200,000gp. It's not just two speed weapons, it has several other powers, and IIRC at least implies that the stacking of the two Speeds could be one of those special powers.[/QUOTE] 'Like effects overlap rather than stack' is a general rule. Nothing in the rules says this particular rule is relevant in the case of two speed weapons. Hence, it doesn't necessarily apply. Nothing in the rules says this? "(This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)" That says it. Because weapons don't make attacks. Their wielder does. Speed, like Haste, affects the wielder. And these effects are not cumulative with other similar effects. That is why Speed doesn't stack with Speed. Because it's similar to itself, and it says it's not cumulative with similar effects.
Tony Vargas 06-10-05, 12:26 PM	Don't you see that all the "can't" you have found have something in common? Yes, they refute your absurd claim that the rules never state what you "can't do." Actually, litteral interpretation is what we do when we use the acronym "RAW". That right, what you fail to recognize is that litteral interpretation doesn't always get you the best answer, or even the same answer as someone else trying for a litteral interpretation. You're assuming perfection on your part. It is a mistaken assumption. I don't know what you think "interpretation" means, but I can assure you that I live thanks to my interpretation of "rules" in RL. I can't even 'interpret' what you mean by that. :confused: There are no RAW to allow what you claim is possible. Show me them, and I'll be glad to admit you were right. You see, this is the problem with the can/can't conciet. It's just a cheap rhetorical mechanism to shift the burden of proof to the other guy. You make an assertion and then say "prove I'm wrong - show me exactly where the rules explicitly say "Egres is Wrong" - see, you can't, I'm right! I'm right!" One more question for you: check out the Dervish PrC. It makes you treat the scimitar as a light weapon for all purposes. By gaining this ability,you take a -4 on disarm checks and can no longer Power Attack with a scimitar. Y'know, if I did check it, I might disagree with that assessment, but I'll just take it as a hypothetical... The wording of the ability doesn't make it optional, so you can't elect to treat it as a one-handed weapon (like everyone else does, and like you did before gaining the ability). That's absurd. The scimitar is a one-handed weapon. By your reasoning the PrC would allow, instead, to treat it as a light weapon for some purposes, and as a one-handed one for others, since it doesn't state "you always treat the scimitar..." blah blah. Wrong. By my reasoning, the Dervish could use the scimitar as a light weapon in all ways, or as a one-handed weapon in all ways - because he could choose to use or not to use the ability.
jaerad 06-10-05, 01:50 PM	Second, the rules say a character can wear armour and benefit from the armour bonus and various enhancements that armour bestows. They don't say, however, that a character can't wear more than one at the same time. Obviously the armour bonuses won't stack, but the different special effects will all apply. Pg. 214 of DMG. "One robe or suit of armor on the body" This applies only for magic items if you want to be technical, so: Pg. 21 DMG. Bonus Types: "Armor: This is the bonus that nonmagical armor gives a character." So not only will the armor bonuses not stack, but since armor takes up a magic item slot, you can't have multiple armors with different magic effects. Since I don't think by RAW you are specifically disallowed from wearing suits of armor on top of each other, I guess by RAW you could wear two suits of armor and "benefit" from increased ACP and encumberance. I can't believe no one else answered that. That right, what you fail to recognize is that litteral interpretation doesn't always get you the best answer, or even the same answer as someone else trying for a litteral interpretation. You're assuming perfection on your part. It is a mistaken assumption. 'Xactly. Key word in literal interpretation: interpretation. Slashing Blades: A dervish treats the scimitar as a light weapon (rather than a one-handed weapon) for all purposes, including fighting with two weapons. Hmm. By RAW, Ergres has a point. It does say for all purposes. But I suppose one could lean on "treats" and break it down to an interpretation allowing one to "not-treat." Man, what a linguistics field day. You guys wanna stop bandying words and trying to "out-absurd" the other? This post is having less and less to do with tripping...
Tony Vargas 06-10-05, 02:13 PM	You guys wanna stop bandying words and trying to "out-absurd" the other? This post is having less and less to do with tripping... This was about tripping? :embarrass OK, I'm going to go back and reply to the last post that was actually on topic........ I kinda hoped they would expand on the question, but that what I get when I sent the question to customer service Customer (Nefestous) 06/08/2005 02:54 PM Accourding to the SRD rules about the trip manuever, when making a trip attack, you start with an unarmed melee touch attack against your opponent. It also specifies that "This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks". My question is in reguards to the interaction between this portion of SRD ruling and the Feat "IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE". Does a character with "IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE" provoke an attack of oppertunity from an enemy when attempting a trip action even if the character does not also hold the "IMPROVED TRIP"? Yes he provokes an attack of opportunity. Good Gaming! Sam S. Customer Service Representative Ih, whatever.... :surrender
Egres 06-11-05, 07:02 AM	Neither are there armour proficiencies in RL. Found that part of the RAW that says I can only use one set of armour at a time yet? I don't need to do it. The RAW don't allow it, and thus you can't wear more than one armor. Remember: negativa non sunt probanda. That right, what you fail to recognize is that litteral interpretation doesn't always get you the best answer, or even the same answer as someone else trying for a litteral interpretation. You're assuming perfection on your part. It is a mistaken assumption. Nope. Actually, I, Thorak and Jaerad are the only ones here who're using the RAW. You are claiming that you can lower your bab without any rule, literal or not, to support your PoV. There's a big difference between our way of reasoning and yours. Ours is supported, yours isn't. Y'know, if I did check it, I might disagree with that assessment, but I'll just take it as a hypothetical... Maybe you don't want to check... That's absurd. The scimitar is a one-handed weapon. "That's absurd blah blah." Quote RAW please. Wrong. By my reasoning, the Dervish could use the scimitar as a light weapon in all ways, or as a one-handed weapon in all ways - because he could choose to use or not to use the ability. Even more against the RAW.
q'afuu 06-12-05, 04:02 PM	Let's be fair. That's the quarterstaff of alacrity, IIRC, and it's an epic item, I believe, costing over 200,000gp. It's not just two speed weapons, it has several other powers, and IIRC at least implies that the stacking of the two Speeds could be one of those special powers. Could be, yes. Nothing in the rules says this? "(This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)" That says it. Because weapons don't make attacks. Their wielder does. Speed, like Haste, affects the wielder. And these effects are not cumulative with other similar effects. That is why Speed doesn't stack with Speed. Because it's similar to itself, and it says it's not cumulative with similar effects. I agree with your reasoning, and have posted similar arguments several times on the many threads about dual speed weapons. It's also the way I rule IMC. But that doesn't mean it's literally what the rules say. What they say is that you can't stack two speed (or speed-like) effects, but they don't say those effects affect the wielder (logic says so, the rules don't). And unfortunately that magical quarterstaff provides at least circumstantial evidence to the contrary.