|
5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
When you trip someone with Greater Trip, and get a free attack of opportunity as a result, is the target considered prone against said attack of opportunity?
I always thought so, but My GM has begun to question it, and someone in another thread recently brought up the idea that attacks of opportunity always come before the things that trigger them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As far as I know, an AoO does take place before the triggering action. So, when standing up from prone, the attack will take place while the enemy is still prone. This prevents "trip locking," but also means the prone person will still have the penalties for the condition during the AoO.
This is the interpretation stated by Jason Bulmahn here.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote: Resolves prior to the prone, like all other AoOs.
Notice that vicious stomp happens when the enemy is prone, and it's at a separate time than greater trip.
But does the vicious stomp actually occur against a prone opponent? If AoO's occur prior to their triggers, then it stands to reason that the target is not prone when you attack him (since the trigger is "being prone" and your attack comes before the trigger).
Necro bump because I want the official answer on VS too!
Also, is the GT thing official canon? I always thought that they were prone despite the trigger clause because it explicitly calls out "successful" trip. In my mind that put it in the same camp as how if you ready an action for when you are hit the action comes after the damage not before.
It feels really weird to claim that a guy can defend himself better in the second while falling than he can while on the ground...
Yeah, it does seem odd that they'd both occur before the opponent is prone especially given the flavor text of Viscous stomp:
PRD wrote: You take advantage of the moment to brutally kick an enemy when he is down. Since according to RAW, you wouldn't be kicking him while he was down, you'd be kicking him while he was on his way down...
I'm still not clear on if it is officially settled that they are not prone during the AoO according to RAW. Is it official or just the current interpretation people are taking?
The word "successful" really means a lot doesn't it? I thought that the consequences of a "successful" action were instantaneously applied because they wanted to avoid paradoxes. That is why if you ready an action for being hit the damage is still applied regardless of your readied action - because being hit is a successful attack action. That way you avoid the paradox of invalidating the attack which in itself caused the trigger.
If that is the case then since it says "successful trip" the consequence (falling prone) is instantaneous just like the consequence of a successful attack (damage) is instantaneous. It's a work-around for the whole response occurs before trigger clause.
...Right?
I think it'd flow as follows.
Normally, when tripping someone
1) Declare Trip
2) Resolve Trip
3a) Target falls prone
3b) Target does not fall prone
3c) Initiator falls prone
If the recipient takes an AoO against the trip attempt
1) Declare Trip
2) Resolve Trip
X) Declare AoO
--- Stop... Hammer time ---
X1) Resolve AoO
--- Resume ---
3a) Target falls prone
3b) Target does not fall prone
3c) Initiator falls prone
If Initiator takes Greater Trip AoO
1) Declare Trip
2) Resolve Trip
X) Declare AoO
--- Stop... In the naaaame of love ---
X1) Resolve AoO
--- Resume ---
3a) Target falls prone
3b) Target does not fall prone
3c) Initiator falls prone
If Initiator takes Vicious Stomp AoO
1) Declare Trip
2) Resolve Trip
3a) Target falls prone
X) Declare AoO
--- [One or more critical STOP errors has occurred] ---
X1) Resolve AoO
--- Resume ---
3b) Target does not fall prone
3c) Initiator falls prone
If Target takes Vicious Stomp AoO
1) Declare Trip
2) Resolve Trip
3a) Target falls prone
3b) Target does not fall prone
3c) Initiator falls prone
X) Declare AoO
--- I can't think of anymore "Stop" lines ---
X1) Resolve AoO
--- Resume ---
What's the reasoning for when Trip and VS trigger?
The same as all AoO's, they trigger when a specific condition is met - interrupting the current flow of events until the AoO is resolved.
Greater Trip triggers at the time of a successful trip combat maneuver.
prd wrote: Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity. The trigger condition here is that you make a successful trip attempt against an opponent.
Gaining the prone condition from a trip occurs after the trip is resolved.
Vicious stom triggers when someone gains the prone condition while adjacent to you.
prd wrote: Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. The trigger condition here does not occur until the victim gains the prone condition.
That's a really odd interpretation of success. Almost any real person would say a trip isn't successful until the target is prone.
That's why the successful clause should come into play.
It's just like readying an action against a successful hit. A hit isn't successful until the consequences are applied so an interrupt can't act before the consequence. That's why if you want to avoid damage you need to ready against the swing itself not the success of the swing.
How is what I'm saying wrong? Why wouldn't the fact that it calls out "success" in the trigger override the interrupt clause for trip/prone/AoO just like it does for hit/damage/readied action?
I also still don't get VS either. That one seems like they shouldn't be prone RAW (although that seems opposite RAI given flavor text). There's no success clause so why wouldn't normal "AoO occurs before trigger" clause apply? The trigger is falling prone adjacent to you. Therefore your AoO preempts them being prone. Just like when the trigger is someone leaving a square you threaten. The AoO preempts them leaving the square.
I seem to be backwards from what sounds like the common ruling. What am I not getting?
Scrynor wrote: "AoO occurs before trigger" You have this backwards. The AoO occurs AFTER the trigger condition occurs - however, with many AoO's the trigger condition is the enemy starting a specific action, not the completion of that action.
Greater trip requires a successful trip attack to occur. That doesn't mean the trip has been completely resolved yet - that is they have started the act of being tripped.
VS triggering condition is someone is goes from the not prone condition to the prone condition next to you. The main point being they are now prone. This is an oddball one in that the action has completed (e.g, they've become prone).
Movement provoking AoO's trigger is when someone is leaving a space you threaten - they have not completed that leaving of that space yet, but are in the act of doing so.
A readied action to attack someone when they hit you would be just that - they swing, if they hit, you take damage, but now you get to attack back.
A readied action to attack someone who attacks you is different. They pull back their sword and begin the swing, they are now attacking you, you react and attack them. Then they continue their attack afterwords.
While fluff text is never used for RAW - given multiple possible interpretations for RAW the fluff text is useful in determining RAI - and understanding how the ability was intended to work even if the RAW isn't especially clear on it.
I think I get the movement AoO thing. The big deal is that the trigger is "leaving" a square you threaten instead of "has left" a square so they are still in range.
If I discard the notion of readied goes before trigger then VS makes perfect sense to me. Prone == prone.
I still don't get GT though. What else in the game divides a successful action with its consequence in this manner? It still seems like once you dictate "success" the consequence is immediate and implicit and cannot be interrupted. How is a hit not just a successful attack with damage as the consequence just like a successful trip has prone as the consequence? If you can split up the success and consequence of a trip in this manner then why can't you split up a hit the same way just by wording it differently?
In mechanics:
I ready an action to attack the first person to successfully attack me.
They attack.
Attack roll is determined to be a success, but that doesn't mean that the attack has been completely resolved yet.
I attack back.
Their damage is applied (if they don't die).
In thematics:
They pull back their sword and begin to swing, I've readied my stab for the feeling of the first nick on my skin, they hit, I attack and stab them, their dagger finishes sinking in.
Now replace attack back with 5 ft step back and you have yourself in the paradox scenario they were trying to avoid by negating the consequences of success when the trigger is success.
ready to 5' back when they approach.
I know how to actually invalidate an attack, I'm just not sure why the the success-consequence connection is slower in the case of greater trip than it is in the case of everything else in the game.
The "AoO precedes provoking action" is a rule of thumb for simplicity. By strict RAW, it interrupts the normal flow of combat. Now, a readied action, on the other hand, by RAW does preempt the trigger. So if you readied a move action to with a trigger of "Enemy moves to a location where they threaten your spot", then your move would trigger just before the enemy commits to moving adjacent to you. This is important because it means your move happens before they threaten you and, thus, before they can take an AoO. By contrast, if the readied action occurred after they moved to threaten you, then your readied move would provoke an AoO.
@Kazaan, isn't that clarification in favor of them being prone for GT?
According to those statements, readied actions are even faster than AoOs . If a readied action cannot break the successful action -> consequence timeline then why can an AoO?
No, because the "falling prone" is an action in and of itself which is forced upon the recipient of the trip. When you succeed at tripping someone, you stop the flow, resolve the AoO, then resume normal flow at which point the target falls prone as a forced action. Logically and cinematically speaking, it's also supported, as an AoO is a reflexive action to a tactical situation whereas a readied action is a strategic action that you're concertedly "ready for". Furthermore, it's the simple mechanics of the game. The rules state that a readied action preempts the triggering action. It isn't "faster" but rather it "retcons" the events.
If it really is a "forced action" then I understand but I've never heard of a "forced action". What is the support for that being the way it works? You aren't forcing them to take the fall prone action. It isn't a fall prone action. They don't even have the action econ for that because you can't fall prone when it isn't your turn (free not immediate). The application of the prone condition is simply the consequence of the successful trip. Just because there is a "fall prone" action doesn't mean that is the only way to become prone.
You can't "stop the flow" between success and consequence just like you can't "retcon" off success and preempt the consequence. There is no gap. Success and consequence are one.
Where does it ever say you can? What else in the game breaks that success-consequence bond? Why make an exception just for trip?
Scrynor wrote: If it really is a "forced action" then I understand but I've never heard of a "forced action". What is the support for that being the way it works? You aren't forcing them to take the fall prone action. It isn't a fall prone action.
For example, while dazed one cannot take any actions.. but it is not a way to become immune to being tripped...
Also, for those wanting the AOO to occur prior to the victim falling prone.. what happens should the Greater tripper elect to trip the victim again with their AOO?
-James
Well for that latter I am pretty sure that is just a wasted action as all you are doing is spending time/risk to try and apply a condition that is already on them similar to what happens if you trip somebody with your AoO triggered by them standing up.
Let's stay focused on the success-consequence bond! What evidence is there that there is a gap between there allowing you to violate its immediacy?
Scrynor wrote: You can't "stop the flow" between success and consequence just like you can't "retcon" off success and preempt the consequence. There is no gap. Success and consequence are one. Why, exactly, can't you retcon off success to preempt consequence? Is this written in the rules somewhere or is it just your presumption? In fact, there are examples of abilities that allow you to apply a retroactive bonus to a previously failed roll and act as if it had actually succeeded. I can't remember the name of the ability off-hand, but when I find it, I'll link to it (unless someone else beats me to the punch). But just as "standing up" from prone provokes but you're still considered prone when the AoO occurs (and, arguably, there's less "between time" involved here), it makes complete sense in the system that when you AoO a person via Greater Trip, they are not yet on the ground. Cinematically speaking, you sweep their feet out from under them and as they're falling, you are able to take another swing. They're falling (the trip is a success) but they're not fully prone yet. On the other hand, VS triggers on them arriving at the prone state; once they're on the ground, you stomp your foot into their gut. Same thing goes for taking an AoO against a person leaving an adjacent square. Say, for the sake of example, you threaten adjacent and an enemy tries to normal-move out of your threatened square. This provokes an AoO. They "begin" their action to leave the square, you interrupt their movement for the AoO, then they complete the movement by actually leaving the square. If the AoO waited until the entire movement was complete, they'd be one square away and out of your reach to take the attack.
Everything you are citing are triggers which do not specifically call out success (attempting to leave a threatened square not successfully leaving it, attempting to stand not having successfully stood). You are triggering off the start of an action. Success is the completion of the action.
Changing a failure into a success by using an ability to get a bonus is not the same thing as creating a time gap between success and consequence to allow a pause or retcon.
The example for not being able to retcon off success to preempt consequence is a successful attack. You cannot trigger off of being hit (successful attack) and have your response preempt the damage (consequence of successful attack). Your response comes after the damage.
There's mine, I am open to debate on it. I await yours.
As for cinematically, yes, I can visualize hitting someone as they fall. I can just as easily visualize hitting them just after they fall. What I can't visualize is a falling man defending himself as well as a standing man (ie retains dex mod, no penalty to AC, etc). As they don't explicitly detail the penalties of "falling" it is easier to avoid the absurdity of them being a fully capable defender by taking the prone interpretation.
So the question boils down to this:
If you get an AOO on the success of SOMETHING, do you get the AOO when SOMETHING fully resolved or when success of SOMETHING is announced.
Would be similar to a feat that was like so:
Bully Hammerer
When someone adjacent to you makes a racist comment, they proke an attack of opportunity from you.
So with Bully Hammerer, would you try and stab them after they say their comment or right before?
I'm not sure if the made-up scenario will actually distract us or not but it actually isn't quite like that scenario because you didn't explicitly call out success.
You'd have to say something like:
When someone successfully taunts you, they provoke an AoO from you.
In that scenario the successful action is the taunt and the consequence is you being angry. So do you stab them before or after you get angry?
By Pathfinder rules, you stab them after they make the comment but before you get angry.
Guy A: Man, you're a ****
Guy B: *WHAM*... Man, now I'm pissed.
The AoO is a reflexive action; you heard a nasty term directed at you and you just lashed out before you even had time to comprehend the insult and be upset at it.
I'm still waiting for your support of that conclusion. Where is your evidence that you can pause between success and consequence?
...to say nothing of how thematically weird that is. ::edit:: Hrmm I guess I did say something... what an odd phrase.
Scrynor wrote: I'm still waiting for your support of that conclusion. Where is your evidence that you can pause between success and consequence?
...to say nothing of how thematically weird that is. ::edit:: Hrmm I guess I did say something... what an odd phrase.
Because, as per the Official FAQ, "The AoO is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved." You resolve attacks and combat maneuvers; you don't resolve "being prone". If someone doesn't have Improved Trip, then their trip attempt itself provokes. So once they declare, "I'm going to execute a trip against you," someone could interrupt with, "I make an AoO against it." The AoO would then instantly resolve, then the person making the trip gets to roll their CM check. In the case of Greater Trip, it's when someone is "successfully tripped" as the trigger. So once you succeed at the attack roll, the action *stops*, the AoO resolves, then trip action resolves and the target falls prone.
Yeah man. I know how AoOs work.
My entire argument is that the key difference is that the trigger on GT is not an action. The trigger is on a resolution. Trip is the action. A "successful trip" is not an action. You cannot take the "successful trip" action. "Successful trip" is a resolution. Therefore that rule you cited is not stating what occurs in this situation.
The only example I personally know of in the game that has an official ruling and has a trigger that is set on a resolution instead of an action is someone readying an action on when they are hit (not attacked or approached. ie a successful attack). The normal ruling for a readied action, much like for AoOs, is that they preempt their trigger. However in this specific circumstance, by readying against a resolution instead of against an action, the readied action does preempt the trigger (the hit and damage).
I take this official ruling on this very similar situation as evidence of how GT should work in the absence of an official ruling on GT or at least an example of another similar situation with a different official ruling than the example I listed above.
I sincerely do appreciate the discourse. I just don't think this is as settled as you are treating it. Please engage me on the specifics of my argument either by inspecting my logic or providing counter-example instead of re-stating the AoO rules.
Ok, let me try to put this in other terms...
When an AoO says it "preempts the trigger", that means that whatever is involved with the resolution of that trigger doesn't apply during the AoO. For example, when you stand up, you provoke an AoO and you're prone during that AoO. If someone takes an AoO to trip you, you're already prone so all it does is trigger other benefits involving tripping an opponent (GT, Ki Throw, etc). Then, the action resolves and the person stands up (clears prone position). When you trip someone, it is successful once the Attack roll shows that you beat their CMD. The AoO goes off before the prone condition is applied. Yes, that does mean that you retcon the situation that you took the attack before you actually completed the trip. Thems is da rules. Don't like it, invent your own tabletop RPG. Guess what, allthe people acting in a given round of combat are acting in the same 6s interval. Those orcs aren't waiting their turn in line; they're all acting at once offset just ever so slightly by their relative initiative rolls. When one orc moves up to you and attacks on his "turn" and then the next orc moves up and attacks on his turn, cinematically speaking, they're both running up to you at the same time and attacking one immediately after the other. But for the sake of logistics of a tabletop game, we view the combat action from a turn-based perspective.
That is still avoiding my argument. You are applying your own interpretation of the rules instead of reading them directly when you choose to focus on one part of an entire sentence ("preempts the trigger") over the rest of the sentence. You are choosing to pause where I am saying you cannot pause based on your own interpretation without providing solid evidence and then saying "thems is da rules". You are the one separating the successful trip and prone into two separate resolutions via your interpretation. It is not stated anywhere that I know of that you should do this.
The wording for a readied action go exactly like this:
"You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
However, when you ready against a successful hit you do NOT execute your readied action before you are hit providing you the opportunity to negate that damage. You take the damage.
The wording is the same. Why are you discounting this similarity? Explain how the readied/hit/do-not-preempt makes sense using your interpretation for trip.
Try this:
- I ready an action to attack someone who successfully trips me
- You successfully trip me
- I attack and kill you
Am I prone or not? If the attack preempts then why am I prone? I killed you before you successfully tripped me. But if you never successfully tripped me then I never had my action triggered.
It creates a paradox. That is why you can't preempt when you trigger off of successful actions. To avoid paradox.
Why would an AoO be different? It is the same wording. Why would successful trip be different than successful attack?
I think people have avoided this conversation because greater trip doesn't actually create a paradox. That doesn't make the rule go away though.
The core argument is that AoOs and readied actions are the same thing at their mechanical core because the preempt wording is the same. The only difference is AoO has fixed triggers and a limit on executions per round
whereas readied you use an action to set a temporary trigger.
If they are the same thing then we have an official ruling triggering off of successful actions via "hitting" that is in conflict with the interpretation you and others are putting forth for greater trip.
Scrynor wrote: Try this:
- I ready an action to attack someone who successfully trips me
- You successfully trip me
- I attack and kill you
Am I prone or not?
Yes. You are prone. The person who tripped you is also dead. They successfully tripped you and, in response, you attack and killed him. His dead body continues the previous momentum and still sweeps your legs out from under you. It seems like a paradox, but no more than if Person A provokes an AoO at the end of his move from Orc B and then, later in the round, Person C, who is adjacent to Orc B, attacks and kills Orc B. How was Orc B able to take an AoO against Peron A at the end of his, presumably, 3-4 second move action when Peron C killed Orc B at the very beginning of his turn? Remember, all the turns in a round happen in parallel and initiative simply determines who's actions resolve first. That's more of a paradox than anything involving trip and AoOs or Readied Actions; and I've seen people argue tooth and nail not just that it works that way because it's the rules but that it is perfectly reasonable and logical besides and anyone who points out the possibility of paradox is blaspheming against every deity in the pantheon.
So is he prone when he gets his readied action?
Yes, all actions are intermixed within the 6 second round with multiple combatants but we are talking about two people with two actions linked by direct causality and not the greater mind-job that is the general fray.
There is a paradox and you are just sidestepping it by inventing rational to avoid it because you can think of one. What if the readied action isn't an attack? Say it is a 5 foot step backwards?
- I ready an action to 5 ft step away from someone who successfully trips me
- You successfully trip (and you have a 5 foot reach)
- I step back and am now outside your reach
Am I prone?
The sticking point is still that there is no gap between success and consequence. A trip is not successful until someone is prone. You are adding a non-existent resolution point just because there is a die roll involved. There is no success until the desired consequence of what you attempted occurs. That is the very definition of success and the only way to evaluate it. Think real world. Nobody would ever say that a person is successfully tripped until they are down on the ground. As long as they are stumbling or falling they still have a chance to recover so you are still trying to trip them. You have not successfully tripped them yet.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Glad to see this thread getting a little more attention.
Man I hope they are treated as prone. Otherwise, there is little reason left in playing any other kind of fighter other than a two-handed- or archer-fighter.
So, I have a dex of 20, Combat Reflexes, Greater Trip and Tripping Strike, I can hit an opponent with up to 5 attacks of opportunity, as long as I keep hitting criticals with good enough confirmation rolls, as in the following sequence of events?
-Successfully perform trip attack
-Take AoO because of Greater Trip, and trigger and successfully perform free trip from TS.
-Take AoO because of Greater Trip, and trigger and successfully perform free trip from TS.
-Take AoO because of Greater Trip, and trigger and successfully perform free trip from TS.
-Take AoO because of Greater Trip, and trigger and successfully perform free trip from TS.
-Take AoO because of Greater Trip, and trigger and successfully perform free trip from TS.
If the opponent never actually gains the tripped condition until all the flow-interrupting actions finish resolving, there's no reason why I can't perfom a trip on him, right? I've never heard of a condition that describes someone as 'being successfully tripped but not prone yet' that would preclude further trip attempts.
Edit: clarified sequence of events a little.
According to JB, you could even do that against a target that's already prone (ie. as they're trying to stand up from prone). You'll keep applying redundant "prone" conditions but it'll still qualify as a successful trip and you could take GT AoO, use Ki Throw, etc.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Even with a 15-20 weapon and hefty bonuses on your confirmation rolls, you are unlikely to get 5 crits in a row on anything close to a regular basis.
EDIT: Can you provide a source link, Kazaan? That sounds totally wrong to me.
Quote: Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?
No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10
The FAQ clarifies that you can't trip-lock a target because just being tripped doesn't prevent them from resolving their "stand up" action. But, in the bolded passage, he states that the trip combat maneuver can be performed successfully. Additionally...
prd wrote: Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure. Success of a combat maneuver is defined in the rulebook as your attack roll equaling or exceeding the CMD of the target. Not causing them to fall prone on a trip, not causing their weapon to fly away on a disarm, etc. Success is entirely contingent on the rolls. You can succeed on a check but, afterwards, find out that the target has some other benefit that makes them immune to that status inflicted by the effect. For example, the Aldori Swordlord has an ability, Disarming Strike, that allows him to inflict damage on a successful disarm. He can succeed based on his roll, but then find that his target has a locked gauntlet preventing him from being affected by Disarm. But, since he succeeded at his combat maneuver check, the Disarm was a success even though the target didn't actually get disarmed; so he can deliver the attack via Disarming Strike anyway.
You could try to trip someone and succeed at the roll, but then find they are immune to being forced prone (ie. they can levitate at will). But your trip still succeeds and you can take an AoO via Greater Trip. You couldn't, however, take an AoO from Vicious Stomp because the target didn't end up falling prone.
Kazaan wrote: Success is entirely contingent on the rolls. Untrue.
For example, you cannot trip a flying creature. You can however try, and your roll may exceed theirs.
Regardless, do you think it's reasonable to trip a victim 6 times as they fall provoking 6 AOOs from all adjacent to him???
That doesn't seem right to me, and certainly a balance problem if you believe it to be allowable.
-James
james maissen wrote: Kazaan wrote: Success is entirely contingent on the rolls. Untrue.
For example, you cannot trip a flying creature. You can however try, and your roll may exceed theirs.
Regardless, do you think it's reasonable to trip a victim 6 times as they fall provoking 6 AOOs from all adjacent to him???
That doesn't seem right to me, and certainly a balance problem if you believe it to be allowable.
-James Not only would I allow it, but I'd likely envision it as a juggle combo in a fighting game where you're constantly knocking them back up into the air as they fall before finally letting them slam to the ground. But RAW is RAW; if you are able to make the attempt and your roll beats or equals their defense, it's considered a success and any effects that come about contingent on a "successful" trip will come into play.
Interesting. They do seem to have explicitly re-defined the word "success" which I find odd but is what it is. So that definitely means things that trigger off success can happen even without the consequence (like your locked gauntlet example). Thanks for pointing that one out.
The very next words after after the re-define of success though are "and has the listed effect".
I still don't know of any evidence that there is a gap between success and consequence allowing you to pause or preempt off of success.
The quote about the timing of prone does not apply as it isn't a trigger off of successfully standing. It is a trigger off of taking the stand action so it certainly happens before they stand.
The successful attack example still exists as evidence that shows you cannot pause or preempt between success and consequence. You cannot act before the damage.
Kazaan wrote:
Not only would I allow it....
Hey as long as you wouldn't cry foul if it happened to your character..
Personally it breaks any feeling of verisimilitude for me, but to each their own,
James
PS: I take it that you would also allow 'untrippable' creatures such as fliers and the like to provoke AOOs, as they are 'successfully' tripped despite being immune?
Any attack for damage is a common example of "success" and "consequence" being separate. You roll your attack; if it equals or exceeds the target's AC (success), you apply damage (consequence). There are a plethora of abilities that parse the flow of combat so you can interrupt between rolling your dice and the announcement of whether it surpassed the target's AC or DC. I found 2 abilities that delineate a separation between a successful attack roll and the damage roll:
prd wrote: Flesh Wound (Ex): Once per rage, the barbarian can try to avoid serious harm from an attack. The barbarian must make a Fortitude save with a DC equal to the damage that would be dealt by the attack. The barbarian's armor check penalty applies on this saving throw. If the save succeeds, the barbarian takes half damage from the attack and the damage is nonlethal. The barbarian must elect to use this ability after the attack roll is made, but before the damage is rolled. A barbarian must be at least 10th level to select this rage power. prd wrote: Pushing Assault (Combat)
A strike made with a two-handed weapon can push a similar sized opponent backward.
Prerequisites: Str 15, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When you hit a creature your size or smaller with a two-handed weapon attack modified by the Power Attack feat, you can choose to push the target 5 feet directly away from you instead of dealing the extra damage from Power Attack. If you score a critical hit, you can instead push the target 10 feet directly away from you. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunities, and the target must end this move in a safe space it can stand in. You choose which effect to apply after the attack roll has been made, but before the damage is rolled.
The only difference here is that for an attack that deals damage based on dice, the consequence is somewhat randomized. But it's no difference than a static effect such as a spell that heals for a static value or a trip that inflicts a status effect.
james maissen wrote: Kazaan wrote:
Not only would I allow it....
Hey as long as you wouldn't cry foul if it happened to your character..
Personally it breaks any feeling of verisimilitude for me, but to each their own,
James
PS: I take it that you would also allow 'untrippable' creatures such as fliers and the like to provoke AOOs, as they are 'successfully' tripped despite being immune? If they managed to somehow roll 6 consecutive crits against me with enough Dex to give them 5 bonus AoOs through combat reflexes, I'll say they earned it and I'd criticize my own tactics for getting me into a situation where I'd be vulnerable to that kind of an assault (unless I'm the tank, in which case soaking up that many AoOs from him is kind of my job). And, as I said, being immune to trip means you're immune to the consequence; being forced prone. So long as you are physically capable of executing the maneuver against a target, you should be allowed to perform it. If you go to trip something, and they turn out to be immune to the effect, you're still going to knock them off balance somewhat and make them vulnerable to an AoO if you have that capacity. Haven't you ever watched an anime with characters who can fly and one gets slammed to the ground only to bring themselves to a screeching halt in mid-air? Yeah, they didn't get knocked fully prone since they can fly... but they are vulnerable to attack as they're trying to regain their posture.
Kazaan wrote: If they managed to somehow roll 6 consecutive crits against me with enough Dex to give them 5 bonus AoOs through combat reflexes What does a critical hit have to do with anything?
I'm simply talking about greater trip, then tripping off the AOO and cycling that for everyone's DEX mod worth of Combat Reflexes.
It's fairly easy to jack up a trip check and thus surround and kill a PC in a round.. even a surprise round if two of the enemy have lookout (including the tripper).
Here's the scenario.. you are traveling along..
suddenly the flying PC arcane caster is surrounded and 'tripped' multiple times taking 20 attacks and being killed..
Roll for initiative.
Then now do a normal move to the party cleric who sadly lost initiative to them.. and get another 20 attacks as the cleric is repeatedly tripped and killed before falling prone.
\end scenario
Somehow this seems wrong to me, but doesn't to you. Possibly because I don't see anime as support for verisimilitude for my game, but to each their own,
James
Gotcha, good examples of a break between success and consequence. However, all those examples are explicitly called out as functioning that way as evidenced by your bolding. That implies they are an exception to the rule and not the rule itself. Greater trip has no such wording. We have an example of trying to trigger off of success where it doesn't preempt (hit-damage) that is a general rule. Why override it without specific wording telling you to do so like in those examples you provided?
He is concerned with criticals because if you aren't critting the chain of trips is meaningless. You are tripping and giving up your AoO to trip again over and over and therefore are doing no damage and the end result is just that the guy is prone. You need tripping strike and a critical to get the trip in addition to a normal damage dealing blow.
Scrynor wrote:
He is concerned with criticals because if you aren't critting the chain of trips is meaningless. You are tripping and giving up your AoO to trip again over and over and therefore are doing no damage and the end result is just that the guy is prone. You need tripping strike and a critical to get the trip in addition to a normal damage dealing blow.
Only if you are alone.. if you have friends you provoke for them as well.. ALL of them that threaten the victim.
Now in all of those attacks that will happen as a result, certainly criticals are bound to happen...
-James
|
|
