What you argue for could certainly be how the Developers intend this to work. I'll not assume that until I see one say it, though. It seems to me, based on the FAQ, that they intend the state of being tripped and the state of being prone to be, in some discernible capacity, distinct. So I shall treat them as such until directed otherwise.That is a logic error.
All X are Y.
Not all Y are X.
X and Y are not the same thing. Even if all X are Y.In example form;
All dogs are mammals.
Not all mammals are dogs.
Dogs and mammals are not the same thing, even though all dogs are mammals.In this specific case;
All successful trips knock the opponent prone.
Not all prone opponents are so because of successful trips.
Successful trips and prone opponents are not the same thing, even though all successful trips knock the opponent prone.
If all squares are rectangles, then all things that affect rectangles also affect squares. Being prone because you were tripped is a subset of being prone. It is entirely subsumed by the larger set of being prone. If being tripped is the same as being prone (which is what your position argues), then the two attacks of opportunity are being caused by the same thing: being prone. How you got to prone isn't important - that fact that you are prone is what is uniformly causing the two provocations. Unless "being tripped" is not completely subsumed by "being prone", you're effectively allowing one thing to provoke twice.
A successful trip occurs when an opponent is knocked off balance and is in the process of falling.
Unfortunately, this is in conflict with the rules that define what a Trip is. Page 201 states "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." So this would seem to conclude that to trip a target means to knock him prone. Or to trip a target successfully means to knock him prone successfully. They are synonymous.
If rolling for damage is a part of completing a successful hit, how can you have a successful hit prior to damage being rolled? Because you have an ability that tells you it interrupts the normal flow of things.
If you're talking about why do we roll the d20 before the damage dice, that is quite simply because that is how people generally do it. The Damage doesn't apply automatically unless the roll is high enough. Although I have played at tables where the GM has players roll both sets of dice together to cut down on time. That way if the attack roll signifies a "hit", then the rolled damage can apply automatically.
If you're talking about specific rules changing the equation, however, then yes this is how specific rules work. They override general rule. The general rule is that attack/damage happen simultaneously. But when you toss Adamantine Fullplate into the mix, you now have something that by specific rule design inserts itself into the equation. Namely after the hit is rolled and the damage is rolled, but before said damage is applied to the target. This would be the case if you had a Feat that said something like "Whenever your opponent's Trip attack exceeds your CMD, make a Reflex Save against X. If the Save is successful, then you are not knocked prone." Again an example of a specific rule overriding a general one.
But this does not relate to how Greater Trip works. Greater Trip is not inserting itself into the equation of "trip roll/prone". It is modifying the requirement of what provokes an AoO. Normally falling down does not provoke. But now with Greater Trip it does.
The triggering action need not be fully accomplished yet because we know what the end result would be if it were to be carried out uninterrupted. But that is the point, the triggering action was interrupted and, per the rules on AoO, the interruption should be resolved immediately.
Again, talking apples and oranges. You are attempting to apply the general rule of AoOs and how they interrupt actions, but Greater Trip is not talking about this at all. It is discussing how to change something that was not provoke-able into something that now is...namely the falling down, not the trip attack as per RAW you cannot provoke from your own actions nor can you interrupt your own actions with an AoO. Greater Trip requires Improved Trip and Improved Trip specifically states that you do not provoke while attempting a trip....not even from yourself.
Applying your logic across the boards means that Saving Finale is a worthless spell.
Unfortunately, not true. First off, said logic is not being applied across the board. It is only being applied to the cases where the new specific rules spelled out in the feats say to apply this logic. Secondly, Saving Finale is yet another example of Specific overruling General.
Your presuming that the rule ought to work as you believe it does. I'm saying it doesn't...
We are "presuming" only insofar as we are applying Common Sense and Logic to the rules that are given us by RAW. Nothing else is being ignored nor invented. You are free to say it doesn't, although this would mean that you are incorrect.
It seems equally ridiculous to me to state that someone getting tripped and someone falling prone are two separate things if someone getting tripped is defined as someone actually falling prone. The result is quite literally one event causing two separate attacks of opportunity to be provoked, which we know is a violation of the rules.
The Greater Trip/Vicious Stomp FAQ states clearly that both Feats force the target to provoke. I've given 2 examples of how such a thing is possible. I will reiterate for clarity.
Give me something blue and I will give you $1.
Give me something sweet and I will give you $1.
If you give me a blue M&M candy, then by these conditions, I owe you $2. You have given me one thing, but you have met the requirements of both conditions and therefore get double. It is the same with the Feats.
Scenario A: I Greater Trip my foe. I get one AoO for knocking him prone and another AoO for having Vicious Stomp.
Scenario B: I Greater Trip my foe with a reach weapon. I get one AoO for knocking him prone, but he is not adjacent to me, so VS doesn't "fire".
Scenario C: My foe is knocked prone from a spell while adjacent to me. GT does not fire. But I get one AoO from VS.
Scenario D: My ally Greater Trips my foe who is out of my threatened space. I do not get any AoOs from either GT or VS as I do not meet the requirements.
If all squares are rectangles, then all things that affect rectangles...
As mentioned before, logic puzzles make my head hurt. :)
If all squares are rectangles, then all things that affect rectangles also affect squares. Being prone because you were tripped is a subset of being prone. It is entirely subsumed by the larger set of being prone. If being tripped is the same as being prone (which is what your position argues), then the two attacks of opportunity are being caused by the same thing: being prone. How you got to prone isn't important - that fact that you are prone is what is uniformly causing the two provocations. Unless "being tripped" is not completely subsumed by "being prone", you're effectively allowing one thing to provoke twice.What you argue for could certainly be how the Developers intend this to work. I'll not assume that until I see one say it, though. It seems to me, based on the FAQ, that they intend the state of being tripped and the state of being prone to be, in some discernible capacity, distinct. So I shall treat them as such until directed otherwise.That is a logic error.
All X are Y.
Not all Y are X.
X and Y are not the same thing. Even if all X are Y.In example form;
All dogs are mammals.
Not all mammals are dogs.
Dogs and mammals are not the same thing, even though all dogs are mammals.In this specific case;
All successful trips knock the opponent prone.
Not all prone opponents are so because of successful trips.
Successful trips and prone opponents are not the same thing, even though all successful trips knock the opponent prone.
That is why you aren't getting it! You're utilizing faulty logic.
If I set up an alarm that goes off when a square appears. And I set up a second alarm when a rectangle appears... How many alarms go off if a square appears?
2 alarms.
My position isn't that being prone and being tripped are the same. In fact, if you reread my post on the logic of how to parse the rules, you will see I very clearly labeled them differently.
Hrm… ok, I’m repeating myself, but bear with me, I cleaned it up slightly, maybe.
“If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect”
I’ll break the logic of that sentence down, again, to show that the condition is applied at the same time as success is determined, and thus cannot be interrupted, because it has already happened.
If A then, B and C.
A)attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target
B)your maneuver is a success
C)has the listed effect (target is prone)
So the first part is If A then B. Given that if we have B(which activates our AoO), then A has happened, then we also have C. Because if A then C.
So at the moment we have A, we then have both B and C.
Meaning, the moment we exceed their CMD with a roll, we have both determined success and applied the listed effect (prone).
And add a new one for Greater Trip. If B then X. If we succeed on the trip (B) then the opponent provokes an AoO (X).
Vicious Stomp triggers from C. If C then Y. Where Y is an unarmed AoO.
We can determine the following true statements;
If A then, B and C.
If A then B.
If A then C.
If B then X.
If C then Y.
Which allows us to combine lines. Such as;
If A then, B and C. Thus since B then X, and since C then Y.
If the trip is a success (B), then we had rolled high enough (A), and so have applied the listed effect (C), and have now caused the target to provoke an AoO (X) and caused the target to provoke an unarmed AoO (Y).
If we have both Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip. It looks like this...
If A then, B and C
Since B then X.
Since C then Y.
Prone and success happen simultaneously. You cannot interrupt prone from being applied. And the trigger for each AoO is different.
*sigh* I need to stop reading. I'm getting a headache.
Although I must say I did like the "If A, then B and C" where A is the trip roll, B is the trigger for Greater Trip and C is the trigger for Vicious Stomp. Hence when A happens, both B and C fire simultaneously.
That actually cleans it up nicely in my mind. :)
Now off to get some Motrin...*groan*
A successful trip occurs when an opponent is knocked off balance and is in the process of falling. I can provide real world examples if you like, but that's not necessarily helpful in this sort of thing. It is, in no way, inconceivable that there can and should be a distinction between the process of being tripped and actually being prone. Ultimately this boils down to unprovable points, as many of these grey areas in the rules do.
You argue that "successful trip" means the target is on the ground. I argue that "successful trip" means that the target will be on the ground (in so far as interrupting the flow of combat with an AoO is concerned).
The rules are explicit here. There is no gray area at all.
There is also no such condition as 'almost prone-kinda sorta soonish'.
The moment we exceed their CMD with a roll, we have both determined success and applied the listed effect (prone).
It is one step. You cannot interrupt one step.
"If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect"
One step.
The AoO cannot happen before this step. It requires this step for the trip to be a 'success'. The AoO has to go after this step, otherwise the trip is not a 'success' yet.
"Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity"
So, we require that the trip is successful.
The step that trip is successful is the same step that applies the prone condition. This is one single step.
Thus, when the AoO triggers, the target is already prone.
And all this over a +4 bonus...
...still looking for the Motrin bottle.
The rules say determine if the trip is successful (meaning roll > CMD). If it is, then the target is prone. So, no. You're conflating the action with the result.
And the AoO occurs when the trip is successful, not when the target is prone. Since AoO occur immediately, interrupting the ordinary flow of action, it occurs before the then part of the if-then trip attack.
You can argue the logic is faulty all you want, you're not correct in that.
It's not If A, then B and C. A and B are the same thing. It's If A, then C. Your X (AoO from GT) occurs on A, interrupting the flow to C. Y (AoO from Vicious Stomp) occurs once you get to C.
Exceeding the CMD means the attack was a success (presuming no immunity to the maneuver). They are one and the same. Breaking them down as you have is erroneous, so you should probably pick up that mic again.
And again, you can interrupt one step. That happens all the time. Forcing rerolls (like in the example I posted above) is precisely this - interrupting a single step.
To me, the AoO was included to limit actions and abusing this feature like in 3.5 with their trip builds. I found it weird when I made the transition over to PF that it included using an AoO, but that is how I make the most sense of it. I feel strongly that the guy is prone, and that the AoO really is included to be used as a limit.
As much as I dislike reading through logic puzzles, the whole "If A, then B and C" Remy breaks down and presents to us is a very good rendering of how the rules are working. The very sentence given to us in the rules has 3 parts.
"If"
"Then"
"And"
However, some seem to disagree. If I had to guess why I would say it is because they are stuck on the idea that "an AoO must interrupt actions and therefore it must be interrupting something happening during the Greater Trip situation."
Ok, let us apply this reasoning to the rules. Consider Greater Overrun. Please tell me what action is being interrupted...anyone? The rules give us a feat that explains that when you knock a target prone from an overrun attempt, that he provokes attacks of opportunities. According to the applied reasoning something must be interrupted. So what is it? Because all I see happening is that you:
A Overrun
B Knock target prone
C Perform AoO
There is nothing left to interrupt.
Let us then consider Vicious Stomp. The rules tell us that when a target falls prone adjacent to you, he provokes an unarmed AoO from you. Applying the same logic to this situation please tell me what action is being interrupted, because again, I don't see any. All I see is:
A Target falls prone adjacent to you
B Perform AoO
Followed, again, by nothing. Nothing is being interrupted because there is nothing left to interrupt.
Some people are attempting to apply the general rule of how AoO works to situations that are specifically spelled out. Their application doesn't fit...like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.
I would encourage them to drop the idea, just for a moment, that an AoO must interrupt these Feats and look at them with fresh eyes. After they give it a good long look, go ahead and pick up the idea again if you want. But you might find it isn't sitting so well anymore.
Exceeding the CMD means the attack was a success
You forgot this part:
"...and has the listed effect."
If quoting rules, please make sure to include the whole thing. It might be considered disingenuous by some people if you or I or anyone were to simply pick and choose the pieces that we want.
As for the argument over what a "successful trip" is. This keeps getting ignored, but on page 201 (my book printing anyway) they give us the definition of what a Trip is.
"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."
Hence, this is the definition of a successful trip.
Your interpretation is in violation of this rule as you are stating that a "successful trip" does not require the target to be prone. As the rules do not violate themselves (else they would need to be errata'ed), your interpretation cannot be correct.
Now combine this with the stated rules of the various Feats.
Event Requirement takes place.
Target considered to be provoking.
AoO "fires".
End.
Exceeding the CMD means the attack was a successYou forgot this part:
"...and has the listed effect."
If quoting rules, please make sure to include the whole thing. It might be considered disingenuous by some people if you or I or anyone were to simply pick and choose the pieces that we want.
As for the argument over what a "successful trip" is. This keeps getting ignored, but on page 201 (my book printing anyway) they give us the definition of what a Trip is.
"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."
Hence, this is the definition of a successful trip.
Your interpretation is in violation of this rule as you are stating that a "successful trip" does not require the target to be prone. As the rules do not violate themselves (else they would need to be errata'ed), your interpretation cannot be correct.
Now combine this with the stated rules of the various Feats.
Event Requirement takes place.
Target considered to be provoking.
AoO "fires".
End.
I wasn't quoting rules, I was referencing them. The effect of the maneuver is irrelevant to the determination of whether the maneuver was actually successful.
The line from Trip, as you later note, is: "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." There is no, if your attack exceed's the target's CMD, then your attack is both successful and your target is knocked prone. That is precisely my point. Being "successful" is not an effect of exceeding your targets CMD, which is how Remy sets up his logical argument. Being "successful" is simply defined as exceeding your targets CMD. That's not a causal relationship; it is a definitional one.
My reference to being tripped can be conceived as not necessarily being on your front or back at that moment is a demonstration of how one may conceptualize why and how the process can be interrupted. That you trip an opponent does not mean the opponent must necessarily immediately be on the ground, particularly if there is an intervening action which we're told takes place and is resolved immediately upon determination of success.
Ultimately, the disagreement is whether being prone is a part of the calculus of success. I do not think it is, and I see no reason to believe that it is unless further clarified by a Developer. Success is determined by the roll of the die: does your attack exceed the CMD. The effect of being successful is that the target ends up prone. An additional effect, if you have Greater Trip, is that there is a provocation at the moment of success. Attacks of Opportunity are resolved immediately upon provocation, even if they interrupt how events ordinarily proceed. Being knocked prone is not what makes your trip a successful one; being knocked prone is what happens after your trip has been accomplished successfully.
Ok...I understand what you are saying, but I'm still not sure why you are stuck on the AoO having to come before the target is prone.
Is it because you think the AoO which is provoked has to interrupt something? That seems to be the blanket application you're trying to have here anyway. That an AoO by its very nature must interrupt an action...and in the case of Greater Trip since it must interrupt something, it must be after the roll and before the prone.
Is this an accurate assessment? Or am I off somewhere?
The AoO should clearly happen once the target is tripped, else the following could happen:
Tripper has 3 buddies within reach of the target (allowing them to make an AoO upon successful trip), all of them have greater trip, combat reflexes and reasonable dex.
Once the target is successfully tripped they can all make an AoO, which happens while the target isn't yet prone. 1-2 of them decide to use their AoO to do another trip attempt, while the rest do damage. If these new trip attemps are again successfull then they both provoke AoOs and everybody can make another attack and so on until they can no longer make AoOs. Assuming they all have 18 dex that one trip at the start resulted in a chain of 20 AoOs (of which at least 4 would have been trip attempts, the rest could all have been attacks that deal damage).
So I believe it's intended that this AoO happens when the target is prone, not before he goes prone, as that can result in the above.
The rules say determine if the trip is successful (meaning roll > CMD). If it is, then the target is prone. So, no. You're conflating the action with the result.
I am not conflating the action with the result, I am conflating success with having a result. I am doing so because Determining Success tells me to. It says that a successful maneuver has the listed effect. As far as I can tell, it is not possible to have a successful maneuver that has not had the listed effect. There is no reason to not conflate them except to add in a magic moment for this single type of AoO to happen.
Why add an unnecessary theoretical stop to something that works perfectly well without it?
You're having a chicken or the egg discussion. You are saying that a successful maneuver will knock an opponent prone, and I am saying that an opponent knocked prone signifies a successful maneuver. The Determining Success section can be seen to support either, since it conjoins the two. But I would like to point out something from your line in trip, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." You'll notice it does NOT say, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the trip is a success." You didn't seem to notice that trip is itself categorizing its success by the status of the enemy. Success and listed effect are not cause and effect, they are both the effect of your roll exceeding CMB and are applied at the same time.
So until you can demonstrate the existence of your proposed hypothetical entity, that pocket of time that exists during the and of "is a success and has the listed effect" then I'm going to continue not believing in it.
The line from Trip, as you later note, is: "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." There is no, if your attack exceed's the target's CMD, then your attack is both successful and your target is knocked prone. That is precisely my point. Being "successful" is not an effect of exceeding your targets CMD, which is how Remy sets up his logical argument. Being "successful" is simply defined as exceeding your targets CMD. That's not a causal relationship; it is a definitional one.
If success is definitional, so too is the listed effect being applied.
"If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect."
If this is a declaration of definition, then it is also defining a successful roll as one which applies the listed effect.
It is one single sentence. And it is structured in a standard logic format of 'If, then, and'.
Rolling high enough does exactly two things, at once; applies the listed effect and is successful. There isn't anything that suggests that this isn't anything but a simultaneous occurrence.
Yet it is true that AoO happen immediately upon being triggered, even if that interrupts another action. But in the case of triggering on a successful action, it doesn't interrupt anything. It has nothing to interrupt.
"your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect" is the one step I was talking about.
Here is a thought experiment for you, lets say I have an weapon/attack that does 1d6 slashing damage and another 1d6 fire damage.
Can anything interrupt the application of these damage? Ie, can anything 'trigger' in between the application of them,say... after 1d6 slashing damage, and before the 1d6 fire damage? How about vice versa? Can something happen after the fire damage, but before the physical damage?
No, nothing can. Something can happen before any damage is applied... or after any damage is applied. But there isn't any way to interrupt the application of these two damages in between each other, because they happen on the same step. They might each be applied differently, resistance, dr, etc. But there isn't a way to perform any kind of action that happens before one, and after the other...because they are simultaneous.
Why did I bring that up? Because the combat maneuver rules are fairly straightforward, and the rule for determining success of a combat maneuver is very explicit.
If you roll high enough then; you succeed and apply the effect.
Step 1) Roll
Step 2) Succeed and apply the effect
If a successful roll is a definitional determination, then by your same reasoning so too is the listed effects being applied. Whether you call is definitional or causal is irrelevant, because they appear in the rules text concurrently with one another.
While the proponent of having the AoO before the target is prone may have the correct interpretation of the rule, that interpretation opens a chain-trip trigger that lets people abuse the rule by doing between 2 to 10 attack of opportunity depending on how many people are near the target.
I agree about the idea of a chain-trip trigger being possible as you and others are seeing. It was discussed earlier and batted about as to whether it would pass or fail the GM test. There seemed to be fair arguments on both sides.
As to the "AoO before Prone"...that's the sticking point. As per my earliest replies on here I was in the camp of "AoO before Prone". But my misgivings about it were not far behind. Something wasn't setting right about the timing of it all and how Greater Trip related (or failed to relate) with other Feats of similar text.
After listening to both sides argue their cases, I found that the "AoO after Prone" scenario was the correct one. It passed my Common Sense test. It passed my Logic test. And it passed the RAW test. It was becoming clear very quickly that the Emperor truly had no clothes. :P
As you can see, some people have been swayed. While others haven't. Hence the discussion continues....
The rules say determine if the trip is successful (meaning roll > CMD). If it is, then the target is prone. So, no. You're conflating the action with the result.I am not conflating the action with the result, I am conflating success with having a result. I am doing so because Determining Success tells me to. It says that a successful maneuver has the listed effect. As far as I can tell, it is not possible to have a successful maneuver that has not had the listed effect. There is no reason to not conflate them except to add in a magic moment for this single type of AoO to happen.
Why add an unnecessary theoretical stop to something that works perfectly well without it?
You're having a chicken or the egg discussion. You are saying that a successful maneuver will knock an opponent prone, and I am saying that an opponent knocked prone signifies a successful maneuver. The Determining Success section can be seen to support either, since it conjoins the two. But I would like to point out something from your line in trip, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." You'll notice it does NOT say, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the trip is a success." You didn't seem to notice that trip is itself categorizing its success by the status of the enemy. Success and listed effect are not cause and effect, they are both the effect of your roll exceeding CMB and are applied at the same time.
So until you can demonstrate the existence of your proposed hypothetical entity, that pocket of time that exists during the and of "is a success and has the listed effect" then I'm going to continue not believing in it.
You don't determine success by seeing if the character was knocked prone. That is the result of success. You determine success by whether or not your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Creatures can be knocked prone without trip ever being involved. That a creature is prone is not sufficient to say that the creature was successfully tripped.
It would be completely superfluous to say, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the trip is a success". That is simply what success is. To trip someone in Pathfinder, you do not have to knock them prone. To trip someone, you have to exceed the target's CMD. If you exceed the target's CMD, being prone is what then happens to them. That is already described above in "Determining Success" section. "If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect." Success is determined by exceeding the CMD. Success is not determined by having the effect. If the effect was a necessary component of determining success, it would be written, "If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target and the listed effect is applied, your maneuver is a success." Did you successfully trip them? If so, they are knocked prone.
You're free to not use my interpretation. It's no skin off my back. I'm just explaining why people interpret it this way.
The bottom line is that effectively and logically, if the AoO from Greater Trip occurs once the character is knocked prone, and being knocked prone is a necessary part of determining success of a trip attack. If that is the case, then the AoO from Greater Trip is provoked because the character was knocked prone. That is functionally equivalent to the AoO provoked for Vicious Stomp. If that is the case, you are allowing the same triggering event to trigger two separate AoO. The AoO from Greater Trip doesn't get trigger until the target is knocked prone, which is precisely the same thing that triggers the AoO for Vicious Stomp. Hence, Double Jeopardy. If success of the trip attempt is something other than actually being knocked prone (specifically, meeting or exceeding the target's CMD), then there is no issue with the same event triggering AoO.
If success is definitional, so too is the listed effect being applied.
"If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect."
If this is a declaration of definition, then it is also defining a successful roll as one which applies the listed effect.
It is one single sentence. And it is structured in a standard logic format of 'If, then, and'.
Rolling high enough does exactly two things, at once; applies the listed effect and is successful. There isn't anything that suggests that this isn't anything but a simultaneous occurrence.
Yet it is true that AoO happen immediately upon being triggered, even if that interrupts another action. But in the case of triggering on a successful action, it doesn't interrupt anything. It has nothing to interrupt.
"your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect" is the one step I was talking about.
Here is a thought experiment for you, lets say I have an weapon/attack that does 1d6 slashing damage and another 1d6 fire damage.
Can anything interrupt the application of these damage? Ie, can anything 'trigger' in between the application of them,say... after 1d6 slashing damage, and before the 1d6 fire damage? How about vice versa? Can something happen after the fire damage, but before the physical damage?
No, nothing can. Something can happen before any damage is applied... or after any damage is applied. But there isn't any way to interrupt the application of these two damages in between each other, because they happen on the same step. They might each be applied differently, resistance, dr, etc. But there isn't a way to perform any kind of action that happens before one, and after the other...because they are simultaneous.
Why did I bring that up? Because the combat maneuver rules are fairly straightforward, and the rule for determining success of a combat maneuver is very explicit.
If you roll high enough then; you succeed and apply the effect.
Step 1) Roll
Step 2) Succeed and apply the effectIf a successful roll is a definitional determination, then by your same reasoning so too is the listed effects being applied. Whether you call is definitional or causal is irrelevant, because they appear in the rules text concurrently with one another.
I disagree with your interpretation. Success is not an effect of exceeding the CMD. Success it what you call exceeding the CMD. In order for your interpretation to mean anything, "success" would have to mean something distinct from exceeding the target's CMD. So what does "success" mean, aside from exceeding the target's CMD?
Success cannot mean the listed effect because you're saying that two separate things are actually caused by exceeding the target's CMD: success and the listed effect. So, if success is not simply exceeding the target's CMD and success is not simply the enactment of the listed status effect, what is it? What does success mean when you've made an attack roll to perform a combat maneuver?
While the proponent of having the AoO before the target is prone may have the correct interpretation of the rule, that interpretation opens a chain-trip trigger that lets people abuse the rule by doing between 2 to 10 attack of opportunity depending on how many people are near the target.
And the problem is aggravated when you count on a druid wildshaped on an animal with the trip ability with, say, a tripping wolf companion.
As such, I vastly prefer granting a +4 on ONE AoO than letting one foe suffer 100+ damage because of one trip attempt.
Otherwise, I'd have to disallow many trip builds and that's just not fun for the PC who wanted to play that.
It's a simple matter of saying to your PCs, either recognize that this is going beyond the intent of the abilities and agree to restrict it (exercise common sense), or recognize that your opponents will be able to do the exact same thing. Rules exist all over the place that can be abused by PCs if you let them. It's specifically how they're written even though everybody recognizes that not curtailing how they're applied leads to abuse.
This really wouldn't be an issue if Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp didn't provoke for the same thing if the AoO from Greater Trip comes after the target falls prone. That's really the only issue. That's why we have to play this parsing game.
This really wouldn't be an issue if Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp didn't provoke for the same thing...
Actually they don't provoke for the same thing. Not technically. But bear with me and I'll get to what I mean...
The bottom line is that effectively and logically, if the AoO from Greater Trip occurs once the character is knocked prone, and being knocked prone is a necessary part of determining success of a trip attack. If that is the case, then the AoO from Greater Trip is provoked because the character was knocked prone. That is functionally equivalent to the AoO provoked for Vicious Stomp. If that is the case, you are allowing the same triggering event to trigger two separate AoO. The AoO from Greater Trip doesn't get trigger until the target is knocked prone, which is precisely the same thing that triggers the AoO for Vicious Stomp. Hence, Double Jeopardy.
This line of reasoning is not entirely accurate. The AoO from Greater Trip is occurring because the target provokes after being successfully knocked prone from a trip. The AoO from Vicious Stomp is occurring because the target fell prone adjacent to you. They are similar but different enough.
For Vicious Stomp, it doesn't matter how he ended up prone. He could have been tripped, knocked over from a spell, overrun, thrown, or dived prone of his own free will. The only thing Vicious Stomp looks for as a trigger is that he fell prone adjacent to you. It doesn't care how he got there, just that he got there. Plus he has to be adjacent, not just in your threatened space. So just because you are Large with a 10ft reach, doesn't mean you can hit him.
Greater Trip, however, is looking for a slightly different trigger. It is looking for the target being knocked prone via Trip. Not from Overrun or Shield Slam or a spell effect or any number of other ways. A target diving prone won't trigger it. He must be knocked prone via your Trip attack. It is being very specific. And in this case if you could reach him further than adjacent, you can still get your attack off. Greater Trip does not specify this detail.
So they are two separate, yet closely related things, as my Blue M&M example in an earlier post that would have earned you $2. :)
I'm still curious though about why you feel the need to insert the AoO between the Roll and the Prone. I'm unclear as to whether this is over how you are reading Determine Success or whether this is how AoOs are supposed to behave or something else. Perhaps I've missed it, but this part of your thinking is still unclear to me.
Let me rephrase that last part.
We have dissected this discussion down to the atom and we're arguing over what the meaning of "is" is. I'm wondering why we need to even do this. This is a game meant for people 13 and up. I highly doubt people are required to have a Doctorate in Linguistics just to be able to interpret the rules correctly. So why are we there?
I would think a Common Sense reading of Greater Trip would lead folks to conclude "Hey great! I beat his CMD. He's on his back. Now I get to follow up with my Attack of Opportunity and hit with a +4 for him being prone." My kids can come to that conclusion. And in fact they have since I started chatting on this thread. The wife did too, but then she was always smarter than me....(and watching while I type this, so ya know)...
Anyway the point is, is there really a need to dissect that any further? If so, then why? Why is it so difficult to accept the idea of the AoO coming after the prone? Or rather, why is it so important that it comes before?
This line of reasoning is not entirely accurate. The AoO from Greater Trip is occurring because the target provokes after being successfully knocked prone from a trip. The AoO from Vicious Stomp is occurring because the target fell prone adjacent to you. They are similar but different enough.
For Vicious Stomp, it doesn't matter how he ended up prone. He could have been tripped, knocked over from a spell, overrun, thrown, or dived prone of his own free will. The only thing Vicious Stomp looks for as a trigger is that he fell prone adjacent to you. It doesn't care how he got there, just that he got there. Plus he has to be adjacent, not just in your threatened space. So just because you are Large with a 10ft reach, doesn't mean you can hit him.
Greater Trip, however, is looking for a slightly different trigger. It is looking for the target being knocked prone via Trip. Not from Overrun or Shield Slam or a spell effect or any number of other ways. A target diving prone won't trigger it. He must be knocked prone via your Trip attack. It is being very specific. And in this case if you could reach him further than adjacent, you can still get your attack off. Greater Trip does not specify this detail.
So they are two separate, yet closely related things, as my Blue M&M example in an earlier post that would have earned you $2. :)
I'm still curious though about why you feel the need to insert the AoO between the Roll and the Prone. I'm unclear as to whether this is over how you are reading Determine Success or whether this is how AoOs are supposed to behave or something else. Perhaps I've missed it, but this part of your thinking is still unclear to me.
If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.
On a successful unarmed trip combat maneuver against an opponent your size or smaller, you can spend a swift action to attempt a bull rush combat maneuver against that opponent. If your bull rush succeeds, you can move that opponent to any unoccupied square you threaten, then push that opponent the number of 5-foot increments your successful bull rush allows. The target is then knocked prone.
On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone in any square you threaten rather than its own square. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and you cannot throw the creature into a space occupied by other creatures.
Here are a few examples of where the game separates the success of a trip attack from the target actually being knocked prone. There is a fundamental difference in the language used with Greater Trip and Greater Overrun in that GT specifically calls out that the provocation occurs on the success of the attack roll, not on the onset of the subsequent effect. Greater Overrun triggers when the target is actually knocked prone.
Do you think that using a Meteor Hammer to make a trip attack while having Greater Trip means that you do not get to make an Attack of Opportunity because the target never falls prone? For Spinning Throw, do you have to wait until the target is knocked prone to make the AoO? If so, why? Where are you instructed that the target of your trip has to be prone before you can make the AoO? What if the Spinning Throw places the target outside of your threatened area, do you forego the AoO?
Let me rephrase that last part.
We have dissected this discussion down to the atom and we're arguing over what the meaning of "is" is. I'm wondering why we need to even do this. This is a game meant for people 13 and up. I highly doubt people are required to have a Doctorate in Linguistics just to be able to interpret the rules correctly. So why are we there?
I would think a Common Sense reading of Greater Trip would lead folks to conclude "Hey great! I beat his CMD. He's on his back. Now I get to follow up with my Attack of Opportunity and hit with a +4 for him being prone." My kids can come to that conclusion. And in fact they have since I started chatting on this thread. The wife did too, but then she was always smarter than me....(and watching while I type this, so ya know)...
Anyway the point is, is there really a need to dissect that any further? If so, then why? Why is it so difficult to accept the idea of the AoO coming after the prone? Or rather, why is it so important that it comes before?
Can't I just as easily ask why is it so difficult to accept the idea that "success" and "being prone" are two separate things when tripping is concerned? Why is it so important that the AoO come after?
If the AoO comes after, in my opinion you're getting two AoO for the same triggering event - being knocked prone. Plus, the trigger is "success" and as I've shown, success on a trip does not always mean the target is immediately dropped prone. So the distinction can actually matter.
But ultimately, if it's a home game, play it however you want.
This really wouldn't be an issue if Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp didn't provoke for the same thing...Actually they don't provoke for the same thing. Not technically. But bear with me and I'll get to what I mean...
The bottom line is that effectively and logically, if the AoO from Greater Trip occurs once the character is knocked prone, and being knocked prone is a necessary part of determining success of a trip attack. If that is the case, then the AoO from Greater Trip is provoked because the character was knocked prone. That is functionally equivalent to the AoO provoked for Vicious Stomp. If that is the case, you are allowing the same triggering event to trigger two separate AoO. The AoO from Greater Trip doesn't get trigger until the target is knocked prone, which is precisely the same thing that triggers the AoO for Vicious Stomp. Hence, Double Jeopardy.This line of reasoning is not entirely accurate. The AoO from Greater Trip is occurring because the target provokes after being successfully knocked prone from a trip. The AoO from Vicious Stomp is occurring because the target fell prone adjacent to you. They are similar but different enough.
For Vicious Stomp, it doesn't matter how he ended up prone. He could have been tripped, knocked over from a spell, overrun, thrown, or dived prone of his own free will. The only thing Vicious Stomp looks for as a trigger is that he fell prone adjacent to you. It doesn't care how he got there, just that he got there. Plus he has to be adjacent, not just in your threatened space. So just because you are Large with a 10ft reach, doesn't mean you can hit him.
Greater Trip, however, is looking for a slightly different trigger. It is looking for the target being knocked prone via Trip. Not from Overrun or Shield Slam or a spell effect or any number of other ways. A target diving prone won't trigger it. He must be knocked prone via your Trip attack. It is being very specific. And...
The word prone never appears in the Greater Trip feat.
The word prone never appears in the Greater Trip feat.
Correct...because it doesn't have to. It appears in the description of what a Trip is in the CM section under "Trip". So all you need to do is take the definition that the rules give you and apply it to the Feat the rules give you. Would seem simple enough. :)
Here are a few examples of where the game separates the success of a trip attack from the target actually being knocked prone. There is a fundamental difference in the language used with Greater Trip and Greater Overrun in that GT specifically calls out that the provocation occurs on the success of the attack roll, not on the onset of the subsequent effect. Greater Overrun triggers when the target is actually knocked prone.
Do you think that using a Meteor Hammer to make a trip attack while having Greater Trip means that you do not get to make an Attack of Opportunity because the target never falls prone? For Spinning Throw, do you have to wait until the target is knocked prone to make the AoO? If so, why? Where are you instructed that the target of your trip has to be prone before you can make the AoO? What if the Spinning Throw places the target outside of your threatened area, do you forego the AoO?
These are excellent examples...of Specific overruling General...which is something I've been talking about for a while now. Do you not remember me mentioning this a few times throughout my I don't remember how many posts? These examples you give are wonderful in how they change the rules that are normally applied.
Normally "If A, then B and C". But then the new rule comes along for the Meteor Hammer or the Ki Throw and changes how the system operates to something else. I get that. There is no need to debate that. I agree with you on this point. You are giving specific rules that change "If A, then B and C", which is nice and fine and great.
But then you take a very small but very relevant mental step and think that somehow:
A specific rule changing "If A, then B and C" proves that "If A, then B and C" was never "If A, then B and C" in the first place.
That little mental step is what I'm getting at. I don't know why you are taking it, but it is an assumed step. It is not a logically sound one.
Not to get confusing, but I did warn that I don't like logic puzzles. :P Let's clean that up a little. In very basic terms if X is the rule and Y has the power to change it, just because it can change it doesn't prove that X was never X. It is still X. It is just Y in certain specific cases.
Not sure if that's any better actually....
The problem here is not these examples disproving anything I've been saying. The problem is that you insist on using Specific rules to somehow explain how the General isn't the General. I'm not interested in the Specific. I'm interested in the General. Because Greater Trip does not change the General rule of Tripping. It doesn't change "If A, then B and C" in any way.
What it DOES do is change the rule about provoking. Before Greater Trip, knocking someone prone doesn't force them to provoke. After Greater Trip, now it does. Pure and simple. That's all it does.
As for where am I instructed that the target of my trip has to be prone before I can make the AoO? I am instructed in the rules.
#1 A Trip, by definition of the rules means to knock someone prone with a trip attack.
#2 Therefore if I have successfully knocked him prone with a trip attack, then I have successfully tripped him.
#3 Therefore if I have successfully tripped him, then he provokes and I get my AoO.
For kicks let's throw Vicious Stomp into the mix.
#1 A Trip, by definition of the rules means to knock someone prone with a trip attack.
#2 Therefore if I have successfully knocked him prone with a trip attack, then I have successfully tripped him.
#3 Therefore if I have successfully tripped him, then he provokes and I get my AoO.
#4 Therefore since successful trip means knocking prone with a trip attack, he has fallen prone (assume adjacent) and I get my Vicious Stomp.
My $2 Blue M&M. *yum*
(Edited for wording and a poor attempt at clarity)
One wonders how you can have a "successful trip attack" before you determine whether the target has been knocked prone. That is the point you're overlooking in what I said. This is not a new, special case for trip. These scenarios do not say, "Now determine success of your trip attack prior to your opponent becoming prone." These scenarios all say, "On a successful trip attack [something new happens]".
The change in the rules is not that success is determined prior the target being prone, it is what happens after you have determined the attack to be a success.
So this specific rule does not change "If A, then B and C". It was never "If A, then B and C". If you think that "success" is a result of your attack roll exceeding the targets CMD, and that "success" is something distinct from the effect of the maneuver (specifically here, the target being knocked prone), then what exactly does "success" mean? What is different about success? What is the distinguishing factor?
I have no issue with logic puzzles. This logic puzzle makes no sense because it's erroneously created. To read the sentence "If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect" to mean "If your attack roll beats CMD [A]", then two things happen "You succeed (whatever that means) [B]" and "listed effect happens [C]" is utterly nonsensical. That sentence is a shorter way of writing "If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and, as a result, the target suffers the listed effect". The effect is a result of the success of your attack roll. There is only one component of the "then" statement: The effect of the maneuver. Success is not an effect of the attack roll, success is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.
You don't determine success by seeing if the character was knocked prone. That is the result of success. You determine success by whether or not your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Creatures can be knocked prone without trip ever being involved. That a creature is prone is not sufficient to say that the creature...The rules say determine if the trip is successful (meaning roll > CMD). If it is, then the target is prone. So, no. You're conflating the action with the result.I am not conflating the action with the result, I am conflating success with having a result. I am doing so because Determining Success tells me to. It says that a successful maneuver has the listed effect. As far as I can tell, it is not possible to have a successful maneuver that has not had the listed effect. There is no reason to not conflate them except to add in a magic moment for this single type of AoO to happen.
Why add an unnecessary theoretical stop to something that works perfectly well without it?
You're having a chicken or the egg discussion. You are saying that a successful maneuver will knock an opponent prone, and I am saying that an opponent knocked prone signifies a successful maneuver. The Determining Success section can be seen to support either, since it conjoins the two. But I would like to point out something from your line in trip, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." You'll notice it does NOT say, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the trip is a success." You didn't seem to notice that trip is itself categorizing its success by the status of the enemy. Success and listed effect are not cause and effect, they are both the effect of your roll exceeding CMB and are applied at the same time.
So until you can demonstrate the existence of your proposed hypothetical entity, that pocket of time that exists during the and of "is a success and has the listed effect" then I'm going to continue not believing in it.
So could I then successfully disarm someone who carries nothing? Since there is no such requirement in the maneuver, and I could make my cmb exceed their cmb, it should work.
Success is not an effect of the attack roll, success is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.
Which for trip, is the enemy falling prone. That is success.
Success is not an effect of the attack roll, success is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.Which for trip, is the enemy falling prone. That is success.
Or is it the result of success?
Or is it the result of success?Success is not an effect of the attack roll, success is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.Which for trip, is the enemy falling prone. That is success.
Both.
Both.Or is it the result of success?Success is not an effect of the attack roll, success is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.Which for trip, is the enemy falling prone. That is success.
Wait, seriously? The target falling prone is both the result of success and what success is defined as?
So could I then successfully disarm someone who carries nothing? Since there is no such requirement in the maneuver, and I could make my cmb exceed their cmb, it should work.
It works just like trying to trip a snake or a flying creature or tripping a creature which is already prone. If you aren't carrying anything, there's nothing to disarm. I mean, you could certainly attempt it and your roll could most definitely meet or exceed the target's CMD, but the effect would be absolutely nothing.
So could I then successfully disarm someone who carries nothing? Since there is no such requirement in the maneuver, and I could make my cmb exceed their cmb, it should work.It works just like trying to trip a snake or a flying creature or tripping a creature which is already prone. If you aren't carrying anything, there's nothing to disarm. I mean, you could certainly attempt it and your roll could most definitely meet or exceed the target's CMD, but the effect would be absolutely nothing.
But I would yhen qualify for any effects triggered by a successful disarm?
So could I then successfully disarm someone who carries nothing? Since there is no such requirement in the maneuver, and I could make my cmb exceed their cmb, it should work.It works just like trying to trip a snake or a flying creature or tripping a creature which is already prone. If you aren't carrying anything, there's nothing to disarm. I mean, you could certainly attempt it and your roll could most definitely meet or exceed the target's CMD, but the effect would be absolutely nothing.
But I would then qualify for any effects triggered by a successful disarm?
Wait, seriously? The target falling prone is both the result of success and what success is defined as?Both.Or is it the result of success?Success is not an effect of the attack roll, success is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.Which for trip, is the enemy falling prone. That is success.
were really getting into world salad territory here. But all throw in my lot for what it's worth.
Success: the correct or desired result of an attempt (Merriam Webster)
So lets go ahead and substitute it in here. I'll leave off the correct part since it's not relevant to our usage of the word.
[the desired result] is not an effect of the attack roll, [the desired result] of an attempt is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.
actually the desired result is the effect of the attack roll. so the desired result of exceeding someones CMD is them falling prone.
Or is it the result of [the desired result]?
literally saying nothing with this statement
Wait, seriously? The target falling prone is both the result of [the desired result] and what [the desired result] is defined as?
so in essence, yes. it is the results of success and what the success is defined as.
gotta love word salad.... yum.
Wait, seriously? The target falling prone is both the result of success and what success is defined as?Both.Or is it the result of success?Success is not an effect of the attack roll, success is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.Which for trip, is the enemy falling prone. That is success.were really getting into world salad territory here. But all throw in my lot for what it's worth.
Success: the correct or desired result of an attempt (Merriam Webster)
So lets go ahead and substitute it in here. I'll leave off the correct part since it's not relevant to our usage of the word.
[the desired result] is not an effect of the attack roll, [the desired result] of an attempt is simply what happens if your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.actually the desired result is the effect of the attack roll. so the desired result of exceeding someones CMD is them falling prone.
Or is it the result of [the desired result]?literally saying nothing with this statement
Wait, seriously? The target falling prone is both the result of [the desired result] and what [the desired result] is defined as?so in essence, yes. it is the results of success and what the success is defined as.
gotta love word salad.... yum.
Or is the desired result exceeding the target's CMD? Question thoroughly begged.
Aside from that, this sentence: The target falling prone is both the result of [the desired result] and what [the desired result] is defined as? should really read: The cause is both the cause and the effect? since that's what we're talking about here. Does "success" cause the desired result (falling prone) or is it merely the desired result itself? He said it is both. That doesn't follow in the least.
So while I appreciate this little distraction, it ultimately serves no purpose. After all, if we're looking real world definitions "Trip" doesn't necessarily mean to land prone; it could just mean you stumbled. And it still ignores the situations I listed above where one has to determine that a "successful" trip was made before the target fell prone. Success is in reference to the attack roll, not the result.
But I would then qualify for any effects triggered by a successful disarm?So could I then successfully disarm someone who carries nothing? Since there is no such requirement in the maneuver, and I could make my cmb exceed their cmb, it should work.It works just like trying to trip a snake or a flying creature or tripping a creature which is already prone. If you aren't carrying anything, there's nothing to disarm. I mean, you could certainly attempt it and your roll could most definitely meet or exceed the target's CMD, but the effect would be absolutely nothing.
It works just like trying to trip a snake or a flying creature or tripping a creature which is already prone.
What other effects are you trying to trigger with your attempt to disarm someone who isn't armed?
Word Salad? This is a whole Word Buffet! "Let's pick and choose what little bits support my statement but ignore everything else." heh I think we might have passed the point of:
"Gee, I wonder how this rule works. Let me 'discuss' it with others and come to some reasonable conclusion."
and turned into:
"I'm too invested in my position now. I have to prove myself right."
The more we dissect this thing, the worse it all gets. I'm not sure if the Devs wrote every single entry of every possibly related rule to stand up to this kind of nit-picking.
This is a bit wordy, but bear with me as I add the next course to this ever expanding dinner...
@ fretgod99 I'm taking another look with fresh eyes at the examples you posted upthread concerning the Throws and the Hammer. Divorcing myself as much as possible from any pre-defined conclusion (which isn't too hard as I'm already on record on this thread for considering both sides of this issue) what I find seems to be rather confusing.
Meteor Hammer says "If you succeed at a trip attempt..."
Ok, so what is a "trip attempt"? I guess I'd say that's the moment in time that extends from when the Player announces his intentions, through the Player rolling the d20, to the moment the d20 stops moving on the table. "Success at a trip attempt" would seem to be the moment that the d20 +/- all the factors indicates the target's CMD was beaten. So to "succeed at a trip attempt" would mean rolling the d20 and beating the CMD. This is separate from applying the results.
Does that sound like a fair interpretation of that segment?
Without meaning to pick words apart, I would also read "Succeed at a trip attempt" and "Successfully trip an opponent" as two different things.
The success at the "trip attempt" I'm reading as the d20 roll only. To "successfully trip an opponent" means that the d20 roll is good enough AND the result of that (knocking him prone) has been applied. I mean sure, I could trip someone and have them stumble around a bit...like sticking my leg out as they walk past...but the book's definition of a trip is that I've knocked the target prone. So we have tripping being synonymous with knocking prone.
This would be like the difference between saying you have succeeded on your attack roll (implying the d20 indicates you've hit the AC of the target) and you have successfully attacked your target (implying the roll was good enough and the damage/effect/whatever is applied).
But let's see how that reading continues to stand up.
Spinning Throw is a bit confusing with the wording. For a book that needs to keep track of its spacing, "On a successful unarmed trip combat maneuver against an opponent" sounds like it has a few to many in there. Why not just say "When you successfully trip an opponent with an unarmed attack"? Same number of words, but ironically slightly less space and would be saying the same thing...
...unless it's meaning to say something slightly different. Let me see. Again with the fresh eyes, when including the rest of the text, this seems to be inserting a Swift Action into the spot between the Roll and the Prone. It's a specific rule changing the equation in this case as to how a Trip Attack resolves.
So that makes sense, but it still doesn't conflict with how I'm reading Greater Trip. Remember, Greater Trip isn't changing the equation by inserting anything between Roll and Prone. It's changing the fact that "successfully tripping" now provokes where before it didn't.
So what about this last one, Ki Throw? First off I notice they remove the "combat maneuver" text and just put in "attack". Second, they do seem to make a distinction between the "attack" and the "Prone".
But just like the other cases, I think with the wording they are specifically talking about the "Roll". They are using the text to separate out the "attempt" or the "attack" from the "results" (although I must admit that Spinning Throw's choice of wording is a bit odd).
This is different than the text Greater Trip gives us. There is no mention of "when you succeed on the attempt" or "when your attack roll is successful". It just says "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent". I guess we're just seeing that part of a sentence differently, because no matter which way I look at it, it implies to me that the Roll was good enough and the results are in place. Logically speaking, if the definition of Trip is to knock prone as the book says, then how can I say I've successfully tripped the guy and yet he's still standing there? That is one thing I have a hard time getting around. I've "tripped" him and he's falling prone but at the moment of my AoO he isn't down yet?
That seems to be asking quite a bit from an AoO. An AoO interrupts actions; generally speaking Standard, Move, and Full-round actions. It could technically interrupt Free, Swift, and Immediate actions too, although I am unaware of any such actions that provoke. But if I'm knocked over by something you do, I'm not taking an action. I'm not doing anything for you to interrupt. If anything, I'm taking a "Not an Action" (to use the book terms) although I'm not sure you can take "Not an Action"s outside of your Turn...
Anyway, not sure if all this helps, but that's what I come to.
But I would then qualify for any effects triggered by a successful disarm?So could I then successfully disarm someone who carries nothing? Since there is no such requirement in the maneuver, and I could make my cmb exceed their cmb, it should work.It works just like trying to trip a snake or a flying creature or tripping a creature which is already prone. If you aren't carrying anything, there's nothing to disarm. I mean, you could certainly attempt it and your roll could most definitely meet or exceed the target's CMD, but the effect would be absolutely nothing.It works just like trying to trip a snake or a flying creature or tripping a creature which is already prone.
What other effects are you trying to trigger with your attempt to disarm someone who isn't armed?
The last sentence of the Trip section says things such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures cannot be tripped. And if we look in the Bestiary, entries such as Ochre Jelly and the various Snakes say they cannot be tripped.
Overrunning someone doesn't mention tripping them. It says knocking them prone. So by this, does it mean that I can't trip an Ooze, but I can still knock it prone with an Overrun? As a GM, I'd say no. First off that doesn't make sense to allow that. Second, if something is immune to Tripping, then I'd probably rule it is immune to being knocked prone...which suggests synonymous relation between the two.
But maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe I can Overrun the ooze and knock it prone because according to some lines of reasoning "successfully tripping" and "being knocked prone" aren't the same thing...
Ok, that might be something actually. Let's reason this out...
Group #1 says "Successfully Tripped" refers to the d20 roll only and not the results.
Group #2 says "Successfully Tripped" refers to both the roll and the results.
Certain creatures are listed as "can't be tripped."
So you cannot make a roll against them as there is no CMD to roll against (the CMD listed is for referencing other Combat Maneuvers).
So according to both Groups #1 and #2, such creatures cannot be "Successfully Tripped."
Now we come to Overrunning.
Such creatures do not say they are immune to the Prone Condition, only "Tripping."
If my Overrun exceeds the CMD by 5, I knock the target prone.
Can I knock such creatures prone?
I conclude no.
Does this mean I can't Overrun such a creature?
It would seem I could Overrun it as in run past it (assuming it isn't occupying the entire square I'm trying to run through), but it is immune to gaining the Prone Condition.
So what do we have here?
Creatures immune to Trip are also immune to Prone.
These two things are interrelated. Tripping is a subset of Knocking Prone (as Tripping results in Prone, but not all Prone is a matter of being Tripped).
So to "Successfully Trip" a target, you have successfully entered the Prone category via the Trip subset.
Hmm....will think on this more as a few things are occupying my attention atm. I just wrote it out as I thought it. Any comments of where I'm either dead on or dead wrong?
Ok, that might be something actually. Let's reason this out...
Group #1 says "Successfully Tripped" refers to the d20 roll only and not the results.
Group #2 says "Successfully Tripped" refers to both the roll and the results.Certain creatures are listed as "can't be tripped."
So you cannot make a roll against them as there is no CMD to roll against (the CMD listed is for referencing other Combat Maneuvers).
So according to both Groups #1 and #2, such creatures cannot be "Successfully Tripped."Now we come to Overrunning.
Such creatures do not say they are immune to the Prone Condition, only "Tripping."
If my Overrun exceeds the CMD by 5, I knock the target prone.
Can I knock such creatures prone?
I conclude no.
Does this mean I can't Overrun such a creature?
It would seem I could Overrun it as in run past it (assuming it isn't occupying the entire square I'm trying to run through), but it is immune to gaining the Prone Condition.So what do we have here?
Creatures immune to Trip are also immune to Prone.
These two things are interrelated. Tripping is a subset of Knocking Prone (as Tripping results in Prone, but not all Prone is a matter of being Tripped).
So to "Successfully Trip" a target, you have successfully entered the Prone category via the Trip subset.Hmm....will think on this more as a few things are occupying my attention atm. I just wrote it out as I thought it. Any comments of where I'm either dead on or dead wrong?
It's actually a good question. There's nothing in the Ooze entry for instance that mentions immunity to being tripped. The problem with assuming that such a creature is immune to the prone condition is that you have to make a pretty big assumption to get there. I don't think I'm comfortable saying that these creatures are immune to being prone from any method, but I can't think of one off the top of my head that makes a lot of sense.
But aside from that, if "successfully tripping" means you have knocked the target prone, it gets really difficult (I contend nigh impossible) to contend that you're getting an AoO from two different things. Additionally, it undercuts your M&M analogy. Your analogy is:
Bring me something blue for $1.
Bring me something sweet for $1.
Your conclusion being that if a blue M&M is brought, you will get $2. But this is distinguishable from the trip question because, per your own position, "Trip" is completely contained within "Knock Prone". This isn't the case for your analogy, however. The subset of things which are blue is not entirely encapsulated within the subset of things which are sweet.
More aptly, the analogy would now read:
Bring me a piece of candy for $1.
Bring me a Blue M&M for $1.
At this point, you might still be able to argue that the conditions should stack. But if we include the other relevant rules, like each opportunity only provokes once, and say that each time you bring me something you can only get $1, the issue becomes more apparent.
Regarding the other post you made, I didn't want to quote the entire thing but I've got some thoughts on that.
First, you are correct that people tend to simply get entrenched in their positions once we get to this point of an argument. So I appreciate you trying to look at this fresh.
That being said, I think you're making a distinction without a difference in regards to successfully attempting a trip and succeeding at tripping. I can't think of any situation where anybody would interpret a sentence like "I succeeded at my attempt to do X" to mean anything other than "I successfully did X". If attempt means to make an effort to accomplish a task and success means to accomplish a task, then a successful attempt means the effort to accomplish the task accomplished the task.
In regards to Spinning Throw, you are correct that the feat specifically allows a swift action bull rush to interrupt the trip attempt. But the import of this isn't that the feat allows a swift action to interrupt a trip attempt, it's that it allows a bull rush to be done as a swift action as long as it's done as a part of a successful trip. Aside from that, it's used to illustrate how the rules distinguish between the die roll and the application of the condition, and furthermore how the rules identify success as relating specifically to the die roll.
Your response to the Ki Throw example seems to be a combination of these other two.
I've got a bit more to say, but to avoid making another complete wall of text, I'll put it in a new post.
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
We've talked about this language ad nauseum. Some believe that "success" is an actual effect of when your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target. My contention is that "success" is simply the name we give to the occurrence of your attack roll equaling or exceeding the CMD of the target.
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead.
Here is the contested language. People argue that because it does not specifically say "success" that it must mean something separate from your attack exceeding the target's CMD. What's interesting is that the second sentence, also specifically referencing the attack roll itself, discusses what happens when the attempt fails. Fail, as we all know, is the antonym of Succeed. So clearly there is an intent here to relate the attack roll itself with success, not the result of the attack roll.
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm.
In Disarm, we see an explicit reference to the success of the attack, not the success of the maneuver. The second sentence mirrors the initial sentence of the Trip entry ("If your attack exceeds ..."). Finally, we see another reference to what happens if the attack itself does not exceed the target's CMD, which is called "failing" (i.e., "not succeeding").
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points.
Similarly, Sunder makes explicit reference to the success of the attack roll, which then causes the effect of the maneuver. The second sentence I included because it is relevant to what I'll discuss next. Note that even if your sunder attempt does not cause damage because it does not exceed the object's Hardness, the attack was still a success.
If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Finally, we have the definition of Attack Roll. The attack made pursuant to a combat maneuver check is simply a more specific application of the general Attack Roll, so it makes sense to look at this general rule, too. Notice that this language exactly mirrors the language used for determining success of a combat maneuver check.
Is it your position that the reference to "hit" is simply an effect of your die roll equaling or beating the target's AC? Or, does everybody who plays this game understands that "to hit" simply means that your attack roll exceeded the target's AC? Is "hit" something distinguishable from making an attack roll that beats AC? More importantly, do you have to wait to determine if you did damage to see if you hit? If A, then B and C, right? You cannot know if you succeeded at your trip until you see if the target was knocked prone. Shouldn't it then stand to reason that you do not know if you "hit" unless you actually did damage?
If we're giving this Attack Roll language the same treatment you are giving the Successful Combat Maneuver language, causing damage is a part of determining if you successfully hit your opponent. But we know that isn't the case. Nobody thinks it works that way, nobody I've seen speak of it anyway. If you fail to overcome a creature's damage reduction, does that mean you failed to hit, or does it simply mean your successful hit failed to cause any damage?
To further drive home the point, a flaming weapon deals addition fire damage "on a successful hit". Even if the attack from a flaming weapon does not deal enough physical damage to overcome a creature's damage reduction, damage reduction does not negate energy damage dealt along with an attack. So, the fire damage still applies even if no weapon damage makes it through the damage reduction. In short, the attack was still a success, whether the weapon actually deals any physical damage or not.
If you're worried about the uniform construction of these Greater Feats, why are you not worried about the uniform construction of the rest of the rules associated with attacks and combat maneuvers? The bottom line is that the language used in all of these entries makes it clear that the "success" of an attack is determined by the attack roll, not whether damage or some other effect is actually applied. It's not: If A, then B and C. It's: If A (in other words, B), then C. Or A=B.
@fretgod99 You are a very good debater. Your posts get me to think about some of this stuff deeply. Good thing I am an over-thinker. ;)
That being said...
Your Trip, Disarm, and Sunder quotes are wonderful examples of "IF/THEN" statements that spell out results taking place after certain conditions are met. Namely how to get to the Trip, Disarm, or Sunder point. But this isn't implying what you think they are. They are talking about IF/THEN. Greater Trip isn't concerned about IF you trip. It wants to know about WHEN you trip. The condition it is setting forth and the results it is seeking are different. Basically, when you get to WHEN, IF/THEN have already occurred. (You might want to read that again. I had to and I WROTE the thing).
An IF/THEN statement in this case is a condition that might or might not come to pass. Its possibility is dynamic.
A WHEN statement is a condition that is or has come to pass. It is referring to the Now or the Was. Its possibility is set and static.
It's actually quite a bit more complicated than that, but I don't want to get into it in this post. It treads the realm of timey wimey. But in a nutshell:
"IF I do X, then I disarm my target." Like the examples you cite above, this is telling us how to get to the disarm. The disarm might happen.
"WHEN I disarm my target, Y happens." This tells us what happens once you have disarmed the target. The disarm has happened.
Remember that grammatically, the IF and WHEN part is the conditional clause. It is the part that must come to pass before the rest of the sentence can take place. The other part of the sentence is the Independent Clause. It exists independently on its own and only applies once the condition is met. The focus is the Independent clause. The Trigger is the Conditional clause.
This is supported further by your own reference to Attacks. Per your post, what happens if my roll equals or beats the target's AC? I...hit...and...deal damage. So what is a successful attack? It is not only a successful hit. That is simply the d20 roll. A successful attack is one that hits and deals damage. Of course this says nothing about the damage packet being reduced to 0 once we introduce the specific rules of Damage Reduction. :)
So how does this all relate to Greater Trip? The feat wants to know about WHEN. When I have successfully tripped. Not when I have made a successful trip attack or trip roll or anything like that. That stuff is the nature of IF/THEN. Greater Trip moves past that to the point where the trip has been successful. And by definition a successful maneuver is one that has its listed effect.
But I still want to know if an Ooze can be knocked prone. Or even, can you "successfully trip" a prone man? Off the top of my head, I'd say no to both of those. Although anyone who wishes to debate that is certainly free to start their own thread. But I'm inclined to think (again off the top of my head as I type this) that anyone who believes "successful trip" does not equate "prone" may be stuck with having to say yes. More on that later though as I mull this one over a bit.
Speaking of being an over-thinker, have I mentioned that it drives my wife batty sometimes? :P
And for those of you on the edge of sheer boredom, here's something to push you over the cliff. A quick English grammar refresher. At least I hope it's quick.
The general rule of event resolution is; “If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.”
The subordinating conjunction ‘If’ combines the dependent clause “…your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target…” with the independent clause “…your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.”
Meanwhile, the coordinating conjunction ‘and’ is combining 2 independent clauses together. The 1st one “…your maneuver is a success…” is being blended with the 2nd one “…your maneuver has the listed effect.” In this second one “your maneuver” appears again, but it is removed when the sentence is formed because the ‘and’ indicates both clauses are relating to the same maneuver.
According to the rules of English Grammar, you can reverse these parts and maintain the same meaning. Doing so gives you:
“Your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect, if your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target.”
Put this way, what are the rules saying? They tell me that success and listed effect both happen when the attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD. Basically "If Roll, then Success and Effect." Or reverse that to read "Success and Effect, if Roll."
But say you don't like that and still want to divorce Roll from Effect......only, you can't. Not without fundamentally changing the meaning of the sentence anyway. Success and Effect are combined together by the coordinating conjunction as the Event that takes place once the condition of Roll happens. You cannot remove one without the other just as you cannot balance a mathematical equation by dividing only one side by 2. You must divide both sides to maintain equilibrium.
Now you could split the sentence into two:
"If Roll, then Success."
"If Roll, then Effect."
But in order to preserve the original meaning of the sentence, you must treat these two as equal. Hence we're back to them being synonymous.
As for Spinning Throw, what's happening is the sentence is being changed entirely specifically. Instead of "If Roll, then Success and Effect" we now have:
"On Success, Bull Rush and then Effect."
@fretgod99 You are a very good debater. Your posts get me to think about some of this stuff deeply. Good thing I am an over-thinker. ;)
That being said...
Your Trip, Disarm, and Sunder quotes are wonderful examples of "IF/THEN" statements that spell out results taking place after certain conditions are met. Namely how to get to the Trip, Disarm, or Sunder point. But this isn't implying what you think they are. They are talking about IF/THEN. Greater Trip isn't concerned about IF you trip. It wants to know about WHEN you trip. The condition it is setting forth and the results it is seeking are different. Basically, when you get to WHEN, IF/THEN have already occurred. (You might want to read that again. I had to and I WROTE the thing).
An IF/THEN statement in this case is a condition that might or might not come to pass. Its possibility is dynamic.
A WHEN statement is a condition that is or has come to pass. It is referring to the Now or the Was. Its possibility is set and static.
I've appreciated this little back-and-forth as well. It's an interesting diversion to my ordinarily relatively dull workday.
Ultimately in this post though I think you are overemphasizing any possible differences between IF and WHEN. Both serve the same purpose here: they are subordinating conjunctions establishing a condition to be met. Both rules entries would be just as intelligible if you swapped them out.
"When your attack roll equals or exceeds the target's CMD, your combat maneuver is a success and has the listed effect."
"If you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
It's also notable that the Greater Trip entry would be equally intelligible if it were written, "Whenever your attack exceeds the target's Trip CMD, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity." The only difference is context would be much more relevant here. It's unclear what kind of attack this would be referring to without any context.
Obviously, it should be limited to attack rolls made to trip, but you and I both know how people like stretch things in these situations. "But the rules simply say that any time my attack roll exceeds the target's CMD, it provokes. It doesn't matter what kind of attack I'm making. Greater Trip means my opponents provoke whenever I hit them with any kind of attack!"
To avoid these kinds of shenanigans, it's much simpler to write something that explicitly tells us what we're talking about. Instead of referencing the attack roll, we're given a context specific stand-in for the same idea - successful trip. There's no need to reference how to determine whether a trip is successful because that's done comprehensively elsewhere in the rules; we're told just what a successful trip is.
You're begging the question in your grammar post. An equally intelligible meaning of that phrase connotes an attempt to save space (an very common thing where rule books are concerned).
"If your attack roll meets or exceeds the target's CMD, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect."
can also be read to mean (and without any real mental gymnastics): "If your attack roll meets or exceeds the target's CMD, your maneuver is a success and, as a result, has the listed effect."
Undoubtedly, for me to stop here and say that this is the intended meaning would be begging the question just as much.
But your desire to separate the clauses (distribute the attack roll, so to speak) is a good one.
This is what I want to know. "If your attack > CMD, your maneuver is a success." Ultimately, what does that mean? What effect does "your maneuver is a success" have? Doesn't it seem completely extraneous to have a step in the process that reiterates what success is? The goal is to be CMD, so simply by introducing the condition that the roll must be equal to or greater than the CMD accomplishes that. What else is added by creating another effect that says you succeeded? Don't we know if you've succeeded simply by the fact that the condition was met?
You can't simply respond to say that "success" means you've applied the listed effect, because that's the separate and distinct part you're also splitting out into its own distinct statement. So what quantifiable, distinct effect is "success"?
In short, the Trip entry could have been just as easily and just as intelligibly written like the Disarm entry. In other words, is there a discernible difference between:
1. If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.
and
2. If your attack succeeds, the target is knocked prone.
Similarly, does Sunder work any differently if the entry would have instead been written: If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, you deal damage to the item normally. Is there any fundamental change to either of these combat maneuvers if you simply swap the phrasing of their conditional clauses?
I think the answer to that clearly is no, there is no difference in the statements. If that is the case, how is success something distinct from the attack roll meeting or exceeding the target's CMD?
EDIT: I forgot to mention this earlier, but I think the entry in Overrun makes the definitional connection between the roll and the maneuver's "success" absolutely clear.
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space.
It splits the statements up for us. "Make the maneuver check as usual." "If the check is successful, the relevant effect occurs." To over explain, the check being over the target is what makes it successful and the check being successful is the thing that causes the desired effect. I don't see how you could read this to mean that the success of the check is both a concurrent result with and also a cause of the desired effect.
Do you view this as being different than Trip?
Like I said though, the only reason I think there has to be a difference is because of how the FAQ on Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp was written. They didn't say that the feats created an exception to the rule that the same action can provoke only once. They said that the triggering actions were different. If ultimately what triggers the AoO on Greater Trip is the falling prone (how some are defining success), it's functionally no different than what triggers the AoO for Vicious Stomp. Both are triggered by the opponent falling prone. But then again, that's what led us to the Blue M&Ms discussion.
Tangled webs and all that.
And undoubtedly, the Developers could come in and say the AoO comes after the target is prone. I won't have a problem play it that way if that's how they rule. I simply think it'd be poor logic to get there without providing something else to clear things up along the way.