Can you "trip" him?


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 847 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Ok guys. We know you're trying to divert all of us from seeing this little bromance you have going. But ain't working. :P

More seriously, Remy I do agree with you, but you are coming off as dismissive, as in you are stating pointedly "I am right and you are wrong". Such may be the case (and on this topic I agree with you), but the delivery matters. So whether intended or not, that's what seems to be coming across...to me anyway.

But as far as the topic, fretgodd99, "Hit" and "Damage" are two separate things joined by "and". So they normally go together, but when you have something like DR interrupt this, then it's possible to "Hit" and yet have "No Damage". I think just about everyone agrees with this. So I'm not quite sure why you think I think a failed Damage implies a failed Hit, but to explain it briefly again, we can have:

If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.

But under the definition of a Trip we aren't given a "Hit" and a "Knock Prone". We are only given a "Knock Prone".

If you beat the CMD, the target is knocked prone.

The "Hit" is implied, but it is not tied to what "Successfully tripping your target" means. Only "Knocked Prone" is. So there is no "successfully tripped" if the "Knock Prone" didn't happen.

Again, the subtle difference between an Adjective and Adverb.

I can have a successful trip attempt and trigger Ki Throw.
I can have a successful trip attempt and trigger Meteor Hammer.
I can have a successful trip attempt and trigger a variety of different feats/spells/skills/abilities/whatnot.
I can have a successful trip attempt and knock the target prone.

These are all having the adjective "successful" in place. Ki Throw, Meteor Hammer, and others are only concerned with the Adjective. They want the Noun "attempt" to be successful.

Meanwhile the Adverb "successfully" is tied directly to "Trip" and not "Attempt". Greater Trip doesn't care about whether the Noun (Attempt) was successful or not. It only cares about whether the Verb (Trip) was executed successfully or not. And a successfully executed Trip is one which has knocked the target prone.

I can have a successful trip attempt that knocks the target prone. If so, then I can say I have "successfully tripped my opponent".

I can also have a successful trip attempt that fails to knock the target prone. If so, then I cannot say I have "successfully tripped my opponent".


Elbedor wrote:

The divide is over "Is 'successful' the same as 'successfully'?"

I believe it cannot be.

"Successful" is an adjective that describes the nouns "Attempt", "Attack", or "Maneuver". It means being favorable. "I performed a successful trip maneuver against my opponent." This implies that the noun 'Attempt' is positive. The attack is good.

"Successfully" is an adverb that describes the verb "to trip". It means performing an action favorably or having the action result fruitfully. "I have successfully tripped my opponent." This implies that the verb 'Trip' as taken place in a positive manner. The trip (target knocked prone) happened as intended.

These are two separate meanings.

By the game mechanics it is possible to have a "successful maneuver" and still "fail to successfully trip".

Do you think there is a quantifiable difference between:

1. I performed a successful trip on my opponent

and

2. I successfully performed a trip on my opponent

and

3. I successfully tripped my opponent?

The divide isn't over success and successfully. It is over whether you think the "trip" in "successfully trip an opponent" refers to the action Trip (game term) or the effect trip (standard English term).


Elbedor wrote:

But as far as the topic, fretgodd99, "Hit" and "Damage" are two separate things joined by "and". So they normally go together, but when you have something like DR interrupt this, then it's possible to "Hit" and yet have "No Damage". I think just about everyone agrees with this. So I'm not quite sure why you think I think a failed Damage implies a failed Hit, but to explain it briefly again, we can have:

If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.

But under the definition of a Trip we aren't given a "Hit" and a "Knock Prone". We are only given a "Knock Prone".

I disagree with you parsing it like this.

Attack Roll wrote:
If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Determining Success wrote:
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
Trip wrote:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.

You're reading the Trip entry as being different. We don't have "two" things. We're only told we have a roll (no "success" element) and then the result, which you're saying is different than the Attack Roll "Hit" analogy.

But for that the be the case based on this construction, you would have to believe that Disarm and Sunder operate differently because they specifically reference "success".

Disarm wrote:
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).
Sunder wrote:
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally.

What I think you're neglecting to remember in this analysis is that I believe, in both the Attack Roll entry and the Determining Success entry, the "Roll" and "Success" (or "Hit") are synonymous. So it makes perfect sense to me that each of these entries only mention either "success" of the roll or "if your roll exceeds ..." because based upon my interpretation, these are one and the same. It would be completely redundant to write "If your attack exceeds your target's CMD, your trip is a success and your opponent is knocked prone". By saying your attack exceeds the target's CMD I believe you are already saying your attack is a success and vice versa.

So yes, the "Hit" is implied. But I disagree that it is not tied to successfully tripping an opponent because I think it functions just like an attack roll. Damage is the effect like knocking prone is the effect. Both require a successful hit to occur.

But ultimately, if they want the trip in "successfully trip" to mean the effect as opposed to the action, it needs to be clarified. The same is true if they want the trip to mean the action as opposed to the effect. At best it's ambiguous. As I've said many times, I can see it going either way. But without them actually stepping in and saying which way it's supposed to go, we can't know for certain.


Elbedor wrote:
More seriously, Remy I do agree with you, but you are coming off as dismissive, as in you are stating pointedly "I am right and you are wrong". Such may be the case (and on this topic I agree with you), but the delivery matters. So whether intended or not, that's what seems to be coming across...to me anyway.

I don't know. I guess I could try to phrase things better. But... I'm not going to ignore when someone says something that literally is wrong.

My bedside manners are indeed terrible though.

Is this better?

"What you just posted isn't correct because X,Y,Z..."

Instead of just

"You are wrong because of X, Y, Z..."

Since that puts the focus on the ideas being posted and not the person posting? I could try that...


fretgod99 wrote:

Do you think there is a quantifiable difference between:

1. I performed a successful trip on my opponent

and

2. I successfully performed a trip on my opponent

and

3. I successfully tripped my opponent?

The divide isn't over success and successfully. It is over whether you think the "trip" in "successfully trip an opponent" refers to the action Trip (game term) or the effect trip (standard English term).

1. This wording is too ambiguous. It has multiple readings. One of the meanings is nearly the same as item 3. But it could be interpreted otherwise too.

2. This means that a trip (noun) was successfully performed (verb) on an opponent. Meaning that we know that it was performed successfully... but what is a successful performance? We don't know if the trip action itself was successful, we only know that the performance of it was.

3. This means the opponent has been tripped successfully. And is eating dirt. (although this assumes you didn't mean to include the "?" here)

These two statements below have the same meaning, with different syntax.

You successfully trip an opponent.
An opponent is tripped successfully, by you.

The action 'trip' in this phrase directly acts upon the direct object. Meaning... The successful trip has affected 'an opponent'. Meaning 'an opponent' has been tripped successfully.

If you look up the definition to "Trip" you will find that it has different definitions for (verb with direct object) and (verb without direct object). The word "trip" literally changes meanings with or without a direct object.


fretgod99 wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

But as far as the topic, fretgodd99, "Hit" and "Damage" are two separate things joined by "and". So they normally go together, but when you have something like DR interrupt this, then it's possible to "Hit" and yet have "No Damage". I think just about everyone agrees with this. So I'm not quite sure why you think I think a failed Damage implies a failed Hit, but to explain it briefly again, we can have:

If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.
If Roll, then Hit and Damage.

But under the definition of a Trip we aren't given a "Hit" and a "Knock Prone". We are only given a "Knock Prone".

I disagree with you parsing it like this.

Attack Roll wrote:
If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Determining Success wrote:
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
Trip wrote:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.

You're reading the Trip entry as being different. We don't have "two" things. We're only told we have a roll (no "success" element) and then the result, which you're saying is different than the Attack Roll "Hit" analogy.

But for that the be the case based on this construction, you would have to believe that Disarm and Sunder operate differently because they specifically reference "success".

Disarm wrote:
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).
Sunder wrote:
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally.
What I think you're neglecting to remember in this analysis is that I believe, in both the Attack Roll entry and the Determining Success entry, the "Roll" and "Success" (or "Hit") are synonymous. So it makes perfect sense to me that each of these entries...

Hit is an effect though.

You check to see if you actually hit, even after you roll well, especially regarding concealment or incorporeal targets etc. Hit carries with it other effects, and has stipulations. It very much is an effect of succeeding on the attack roll; much like the target going prone is an effect of succeeding on your CMB roll.

Attack: Roll - Success - Effect/Hit - Effect/Damage
Trip: Roll - Success - Effect/Prone

Attacking has one extra step in it.


Let us say for the moment and in order to begin together on the same Step, that Roll and Hit are synonymous. A successful Roll means a successful Hit. Furthermore a Hit and Effect are not necessarily synonymous because a successful Hit does not always guarantee an Effect. DR draining Damage to 0 for example.

But then we need to back up here for a moment, because a successful Roll doesn't always equate to a successful Hit. Deflect Arrow and Concealment are examples of what can "interrupt the action" between the Roll and the Hit. So here you can have a successful Roll (the result beat the target AC), but the Hit doesn't land.

Now in the examples I gave, one that was missing (for obvious reason) was:

If Roll, then Hit and Damage. (I think we all agree that Damage isn't happening when there is no Hit).

So it looks like "If Roll, then Hit and if Hit, then Damage".

Specifically if the Roll fails, we're done. If it succeeds we move on. Now any rules that could deny a Hit are taken into account and if so, the Hit misses and we're done. If it succeeds, anything that triggers "On Hit" happens here and we move on. Now any rules that could deny Effect are taken into account and if so, the Effect misses and we're done. Otherwise, anything that triggers "On Effect" happens here and we reach final conclusion.

This doesn't touch on where Greater Trip factors in, but at least for this part; does this sound fair?


fretgod99 wrote:
Only if "successfully trip an opponent" is defined as "having knocked the opponent prone from a successful trip".

Hmm. That is how "you successfully trip an opponent" is defined.

It isn't begging the question... that is how it is defined.

This sort of comment is the sort that gives me the feeling you haven't understood what has been argued here. Maybe you do, you say you do. But... then you say something like this which suggests that you don't.

In pathfinder the purpose of tripping someone is to cause them to go prone. That is what the trip maneuver does. For it to be successful, it necessarily must have done this.

Which part do you disagree with, specifically? I'll break it down to the various steps so we can identify which exact step it is.

1. The goal or purpose of the trip maneuver is to cause the target to become prone.
2. A successful action is an action that has accomplished its goal.

Actually I think it just those two... not many steps. That is all I need to assume as true to define "successfully trip an opponent" as meaning your opponent is tasting the floor.


For Trip specifically, "Hit" is glossed over. It's not mentioned in the text. Maybe it's assumed into the Roll, but I don't think so. If I attempt to trip an Invisible foe and I beat his CMD with the roll, but THEN the Concealment dice come up saying I've actually missed, then my inferred Hit was actually a resounding Miss.

The same is true for someone range tripping a Monk with bolas who then deflects them once the Roll is good. The supposed Hit is denied.

So I think we still end up with "If Roll, then Hit and if Hit, then Effect." And I still think that sounds like a very fair summation.

But for now, I'll shut up and let others talk for a bit. Lots of things on my backburner that have been on hold for a while.


Remy Balster wrote:

Hit is an effect though.

You check to see if you actually hit, even after you roll well, especially regarding concealment or incorporeal targets etc. Hit carries with it other effects, and has stipulations. It very much is an effect of succeeding on the attack roll; much like the target going prone is an effect of succeeding on your CMB roll.

Attack: Roll - Success - Effect/Hit - Effect/Damage
Trip: Roll - Success - Effect/Prone

Attacking has one extra step in it.

No, hit isn't an effect. Hit is the name we give for when the attack roll exceeds the target's AC. A hit is simply a successful attack roll.

Besides, I thought all combat maneuvers had two effects. Success is an effect, remember? You were very emphatic about that. You even dropped your mic because you got so excited. You never actually explained what distinct effect "success" is, but you were very emphatic that it was one.


Remy Balster wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Only if "successfully trip an opponent" is defined as "having knocked the opponent prone from a successful trip".

Hmm. That is how "you successfully trip an opponent" is defined.

It isn't begging the question... that is how it is defined.

This sort of comment is the sort that gives me the feeling you haven't understood what has been argued here. Maybe you do, you say you do. But... then you say something like this which suggests that you don't.

In pathfinder the purpose of tripping someone is to cause them to go prone. That is what the trip maneuver does. For it to be successful, it necessarily must have done this.

Which part do you disagree with, specifically? I'll break it down to the various steps so we can identify which exact step it is.

1. The goal or purpose of the trip maneuver is to cause the target to become prone.
2. A successful action is an action that has accomplished its goal.

Actually I think it just those two... not many steps. That is all I need to assume as true to define "successfully trip an opponent" as meaning your opponent is tasting the floor.

Or, "successfully trip an opponent" can be read to being using the game term Trip. As in, "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver on an opponent". That's the point. Is "trip" being used as a game term or as a standard English term? That's why you're begging. The question being debated is which definition of trip is relevant. You're assuming the relevant definition is yours, then attempting to use that assumption to conduct the rest of the argument. But you haven't proven that your assumption regarding the relevant definition is correct.

Because half the time, per your understanding of the rules, it is being used as a game term and half the time it is being used as a standard English term. That could be the intent, I've never said that such a reading is impossible. But it doesn't have to be the intent. They could have meant the term "trip" to be read as the game term in all its usages. And the game term specifically references the combat maneuver. The game term trip functions like an attack functions - what matters is the roll; the effect is a separate consideration.

So, does "successfully trip an opponent" mean "successfully knock an opponent prone" or does it mean "successfully perform the combat maneuver trip"? How do you unerringly know?

Of course, that question necessarily turns on when one determines success of a combat maneuver. And we know we disagree on that, too. Some say on effect. Some say on success of the roll, like with ordinary attack rolls.


Elbedor wrote:

For Trip specifically, "Hit" is glossed over. It's not mentioned in the text. Maybe it's assumed into the Roll, but I don't think so. If I attempt to trip an Invisible foe and I beat his CMD with the roll, but THEN the Concealment dice come up saying I've actually missed, then my inferred Hit was actually a resounding Miss.

The same is true for someone range tripping a Monk with bolas who then deflects them once the Roll is good. The supposed Hit is denied.

So I think we still end up with "If Roll, then Hit and if Hit, then Effect." And I still think that sounds like a very fair summation.

But for now, I'll shut up and let others talk for a bit. Lots of things on my backburner that have been on hold for a while.

But that's exactly how it works for regular attack rolls, so why wouldn't it work the same for combat maneuvers?

If you attack an invisible foe and beat its CMD with the roll (successful hit), but then the concealment roll counter that, the concealment has negated your successful hit and it instead is a miss or failure.

It works the same for someone shooting an arrow at a Monk who deflects it with the relevant feat. The successful hit is subsequently negated.

It functions the same whether it's an attack roll or trip attempt. If your attack roll "hits", the corresponding effect occurs (whether damage or otherwise). The "hit" is simply the name we give to the phenomenon of your die roll beating its target.


fretgod99 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Only if "successfully trip an opponent" is defined as "having knocked the opponent prone from a successful trip".

Hmm. That is how "you successfully trip an opponent" is defined.

It isn't begging the question... that is how it is defined.

This sort of comment is the sort that gives me the feeling you haven't understood what has been argued here. Maybe you do, you say you do. But... then you say something like this which suggests that you don't.

In pathfinder the purpose of tripping someone is to cause them to go prone. That is what the trip maneuver does. For it to be successful, it necessarily must have done this.

Which part do you disagree with, specifically? I'll break it down to the various steps so we can identify which exact step it is.

1. The goal or purpose of the trip maneuver is to cause the target to become prone.
2. A successful action is an action that has accomplished its goal.

Actually I think it just those two... not many steps. That is all I need to assume as true to define "successfully trip an opponent" as meaning your opponent is tasting the floor.

Or, "successfully trip an opponent" can be read to being using the game term Trip. As in, "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver on an opponent". That's the point. Is "trip" being used as a game term or as a standard English term? That's why you're begging. The question being debated is which definition of trip is relevant. You're assuming the relevant definition is yours, then attempting to use that assumption to conduct the rest of the argument. But you haven't proven that your assumption regarding the relevant definition is correct.

Because half the time, per your understanding of the rules, it is being used as a game term and half the time it is being used as a standard English term. That could be the intent, I've never said that such a reading is impossible. But it doesn't have to be the intent. They could have meant the term...

It does have to be the intent. Because of the way that phrase is constructed. That is what I keep trying to explain.

Your 'alternate' reading of the phrase has to completely rewrite it. The feat does not say "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver on an opponent"... if it did we wouldn't be even discussing this.

What it actually says is "whenever you successfully trip an opponent". And this phrase requires that the opponent has been tripped.

The verb (trip) is of the nature (successfully) and done unto direct object (an opponent) performed by (you).

It just is what is written.

The part that should garner your attention is that the syntax of this phrase is such that the action is performed upon the direct object. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever if read the way you want it to.

"Whenever you succeed on your trip roll an opponent" This is what you advocate it says?


fretgod99 wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

For Trip specifically, "Hit" is glossed over. It's not mentioned in the text. Maybe it's assumed into the Roll, but I don't think so. If I attempt to trip an Invisible foe and I beat his CMD with the roll, but THEN the Concealment dice come up saying I've actually missed, then my inferred Hit was actually a resounding Miss.

The same is true for someone range tripping a Monk with bolas who then deflects them once the Roll is good. The supposed Hit is denied.

So I think we still end up with "If Roll, then Hit and if Hit, then Effect." And I still think that sounds like a very fair summation.

But for now, I'll shut up and let others talk for a bit. Lots of things on my backburner that have been on hold for a while.

But that's exactly how it works for regular attack rolls, so why wouldn't it work the same for combat maneuvers?

If you attack an invisible foe and beat its CMD with the roll (successful hit), but then the concealment roll counter that, the concealment has negated your successful hit and it instead is a miss or failure.

It works the same for someone shooting an arrow at a Monk who deflects it with the relevant feat. The successful hit is subsequently negated.

It functions the same whether it's an attack roll or trip attempt. If your attack roll "hits", the corresponding effect occurs (whether damage or otherwise). The "hit" is simply the name we give to the phenomenon of your die roll beating its target.

No. Hit is a game term. It is not some random word that was adopted because its cool.

Succeeding on your attack roll and hitting are two different steps. That isn't even debatable. You can succeed on the d20 roll and roll their AC+ and still miss due to concealment. The roll was successful, the hit was not.


fretgod99 wrote:
Besides, I thought all combat maneuvers had two effects. Success is an effect, remember? You were very emphatic about that. You even dropped your mic because you got so excited. You never actually explained what distinct effect "success" is, but you were very emphatic that it was one.

Again, you are not extracting the message of my post correctly.

If A then, B and C. And… Since B then A preceded.

A= Roll good
B= Success
C= Apply Prone

B and C happen at the same time. They both trigger from A.

If A then B.
If A then C.

Since B then A preceded thus C. Is a valid extraction.

This was based on the phrasing of how combat maneuvers function. But it turned out to not be the point of contention. So we stopped talking about it. Are you re-contending it now for some reason?

All it does is prove that a successful trip combat maneuver happens concurrently with the application of prone. It doesn’t help your argument in the slightest.


Remy Balster wrote:

It does have to be the intent. Because of the way that phrase is constructed. That is what I keep trying to explain.

Your 'alternate' reading of the phrase has to completely rewrite it. The feat does not say "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver on an opponent"... if it did we wouldn't be even discussing this.

What it actually says is "whenever you successfully trip an opponent". And this phrase requires that the opponent has been tripped.

The verb (trip) is of the nature (successfully) and done unto direct object (an opponent) performed by (you).

It just is what is written.

The part that should garner your attention is that the syntax of this phrase is such that the action is performed upon the direct object. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever if read the way you want it to.

"Whenever you succeed on your trip roll an opponent" This is what you advocate it says?

No. I advocate that it means "whenever you successfully perform the trip combat maneuver on an opponent", just like I said.

The question is whether "Trip" is used like "Hit" is used when abilities allow you to extra things on a successful hit. That's the conversation we're having. That's what this is about. What is a "successful trip"? Is success determined before or after the target is effected? Because when you conduct a regular attack roll, success is determined prior to effect.


fretgod99 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

It does have to be the intent. Because of the way that phrase is constructed. That is what I keep trying to explain.

Your 'alternate' reading of the phrase has to completely rewrite it. The feat does not say "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver on an opponent"... if it did we wouldn't be even discussing this.

What it actually says is "whenever you successfully trip an opponent". And this phrase requires that the opponent has been tripped.

The verb (trip) is of the nature (successfully) and done unto direct object (an opponent) performed by (you).

It just is what is written.

The part that should garner your attention is that the syntax of this phrase is such that the action is performed upon the direct object. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever if read the way you want it to.

"Whenever you succeed on your trip roll an opponent" This is what you advocate it says?

No. I advocate that it means "whenever you successfully perform the trip combat maneuver on an opponent", just like I said.

The question is whether "Trip" is used like "Hit" is used when abilities allow you to extra things on a successful hit. That's the conversation we're having. That's what this is about. What is a "successful trip"? Is success determined before or after the target is effected? Because when you conduct a regular attack roll, success is determined prior to effect.

Ok.

What you have just said is all incorrect. I respect your opinion and think of you as a perfectly capabable individual. But the words in the post are all wrong.

And I will show you why.

"whenever(conjunction) ////you (noun-subject)////successfully (adverb) perform (verb)////the trip combat maneuver(noun-direct object) on an opponent"

So... from what you wrote we have

Subject - You
Action - Perform
Object - Maneuver

And from the rules text we have

"Whenever you(subject) successfully trip(verb) an opponent(direct object)"

Subject - You
Action - Trip
Object - Opponent

In short. Everything you have written here is incorrect. I trust that you are an intelligent and cognizant individual however, and that you will see the minor yet complete error that you have made.


Remy Balster wrote:

No. Hit is a game term. It is not some random word that was adopted because its cool.

Succeeding on your attack roll and hitting are two different steps. That isn't even debatable. You can succeed on the d20 roll and roll their AC+ and still miss due to concealment. The roll was successful, the hit was not.

I agree that Hit is a game term. I absolutely disagree with everything else you stated here. Hit is a game term with a specific definition. Hit is what you call succeeding on your attack roll. Concealment doesn't operate before you determine whether there was a hit.

Concealment only operates on a hit.

Concealment wrote:
if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck.

If the attack hits. Meaning, if the attacker's roll beat the target's AC. Because they are one and the same. A successful hit is simply the name we give to what happens when your attack roll beats its target. Concealment negates what was already determined to be an ordinarily successful hit. If there was another step in there, it would say "if the attacker's attack roll meets or beats the defender's AC, ...". But it doesn't. It says "hit". Because "hit" means the exact same thing and they're saving space.

If it were not the same thing, we'd be left with nonsense. You can't use concealment until you determine whether the attack hits. But if the hit requires something else to be determined successful, how do you know when to roll for concealment? You roll your die then ... what? It's not a hit yet because there's another step. But concealment says it works on hits. So what's the next step? It has to be a hit but it can't be a hit because you're saying concealment operates before you determine if it was actually a hit.

What about Deflect Arrows?

Deflect Arrows wrote:
Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it.

Again, it requires a "hit". What is the extra step between rolling the attack die and "hitting"? What are the components of the step that determines whether an attack roll that exceeds AC is a hit?

What about Mounted Combat?

Mounted Combat wrote:
Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate action) to negate the hit.

Hit occurs, according to you, at the same time that damage does. But this ability only allows you to negate the hit, not the damage. If damage is not caused by the hit, but rather is a simultaneously occurring event that results directly from the die roll but not the determination of whether said die roll is a hit (which apparently is something completely different that you've never defined), this ability only serves to negate the hit. It does nothing to negate the simultaneously occurring damage that is caused by the die roll exceeding the mount's AC.

So here we have the opposite occurrence of a flaming weapon. A flaming weapon applies fire damage on a successful hit. If the physical damage fails to exceed DR, energy damage still applies. The damage was negated, but the hit was not. But if I attack someone's mount with my flaming longsword and my attack roll exceeds the mount's AC, the rider can negate my hit. But since the hit isn't what causes the damage (according to you) and the hit is the only thing negated by Mounted Combat, then I still do the weapon damage, but I do not do the energy damage. Because "Hit" is something completely separate and distinct from both "Damage" and "Attack Roll". "Hit" and "Damage" are two simultaneously occurring separate events that result when one's attack roll exceeds the target's AC. So if only one of them is negated, then the other ought to remain.

Unless I'm not characterizing what your understanding of "Hit" is correctly. And I'm guessing you don't think I am. So please, be specific. What does "Hit" mean that is completely distinct from either the attack roll or the damage? What does "Hit" mean that doesn't itself cause the damage? In what order do the steps occur when you make an attack roll, then determine a hit, then deal damage?

Also, does the "successfully hit" from Disrupting Shot mean something different than the "successful hit" from a Flaming Weapon? What about the "successfully hit" in the Halting Blow power for a Stalwart Defender, is that something different than a "successful hit" in other contexts, as well?

Aside from that, I'm curious about the Brace weapon ability. It allows the weapon to deal double damage on a "successful hit" against a charging creature. This certainly implies that it's actually the hit that causes the damage. Is this a mistake in the CRB? Should this be corrected to say it deals double damage when the attack roll meets or exceeds the AC of a charging creature? Also, the Damage entry in the Equipment chapter says that the listing is for the damage dealt by a weapon "on a successful hit". Is this also in error? It appears to undercut your belief that the determination of a hit and the causing of damage are two simultaneous events neither of which causes the other.

The Cursed Sword entry says "All damage dealt is also reduced by 2 points, but never below a minimum of 1 point of damage on any successful hit." This also certainly seems to say that a successful hit is actually what causes damage. How does this interact with your belief that hitting is something that is "triggered" (to use your term) by the die roll and simultaneously with damage, to boot?

What of the Damage entry in the Combat section of the CRB? You're instructed to add your STR modifier to damage "When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon". Again, this seems to modify the damage dealt based on the success of your hit, not the die roll.

Do I need to go on or can we stop with this? You are unquestionably incorrect that "Hit" is something separate and distinct from making a successful attack roll. They are, quite simply, one and the same. A successful hit is not caused by or triggered by your attack roll exceeding the target's AC; that is what a successful hit is defined as.

And your incorrectness on hitting is relevant to this combat maneuvers discussion because it is the exact same analysis in both scenarios. Both entries are structured "If die roll, then success and effect."

Your position is that both "success" and "effect" are two separate things that are "triggered" by the successful die roll. This is unequivocally false in regards to attack rolls. Do you think it's more accurate for combat maneuver checks?


Remy Balster wrote:

Ok.

What you have just said is all incorrect. I respect your opinion and think of you as a perfectly capabable individual. But the words in the post are all wrong.

And I will show you why.

"whenever(conjunction) ////you (noun-subject)////successfully (adverb) perform (verb)////the trip combat maneuver(noun-direct object) on an opponent"

So... from what you wrote we have

Subject - You
Action - Perform
Object - Maneuver

And from the rules text we have

"Whenever you(subject) successfully trip(verb) an opponent(direct object)"

Subject - You
Action - Trip
Object - Opponent

In short. Everything you have written here is incorrect. I trust that you are an intelligent and cognizant individual however, and that you will see the minor yet complete error that you have made.

I'm going to ask you one final time to cut out the condescending attitude. You're perfectly aware of what you're doing. Stop being rude.


fretgod99 wrote:

If it were not the same thing, we'd be left with nonsense. You can't use concealment until you determine whether the attack hits. But if the hit requires something else to be determined successful, how do you know when to roll for concealment? You roll your die then ... what? It's not a hit yet because there's another step. But concealment says it works on hits. So what's the next step? It has to be a hit but it can't be a hit because you're saying concealment operates before you determine if it was actually a hit.

We're not left with nonsense. The rules don't read like computer code.

"Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack."

This is something that is determined upon hit. Not upon rolling high. Note that it says that it occurs upon hit.

However, it negates the hit. While there could likely be a better way to phrase that... I think we all know what it means. The attack misses and doesn't 'actually' hit.

Effects that would trigger 'on hit' would not trigger if the attack missed from concealment. We apply a little common sense to the reading, and know an attack cannot hit and not hit. We know that most of the things that trigger ‘on hit’ are looking for contact being made, and in the case of concealment contact wouldn’t be made. So we can come to the conclusion that missing from concealment means that the attack missed and didn’t hit.

It is only nonsense if you insist on reading the rules like computer code. They aren't computer code, and we aren't computers. We can understand what is being said here.

The rules are written assuming we can comprehend better than a computer running script.


fretgod99 wrote:

Hit occurs, according to you, at the same time that damage does. But this ability only allows you to negate the hit, not the damage. If damage is not caused by the hit, but rather is a simultaneously occurring event that results directly from the die roll but not the determination of whether said die roll is a hit (which apparently is something completely different that you've never defined), this ability only serves to negate the hit. It does nothing to negate the simultaneously occurring damage that is caused by the die roll exceeding the mount's AC.

So here we have the opposite occurrence of a flaming weapon. A flaming weapon applies fire damage on a successful hit. If the physical damage fails to exceed DR, energy damage still applies. The damage was negated, but the hit was not. But if I attack someone's mount with my flaming longsword and my attack roll exceeds the mount's AC, the rider can negate my hit. But since the hit isn't what causes the damage (according to you) and the hit is the only thing negated by Mounted Combat, then I still do the weapon damage, but I do not do the energy damage. Because "Hit" is something completely separate and distinct from both "Damage" and "Attack Roll". "Hit" and "Damage" are two simultaneously occurring separate events that result when one's attack roll exceeds the target's AC. So if only one of them is negated, then the other ought to remain.

Unless I'm not characterizing what your understanding of "Hit" is correctly. And I'm guessing you don't think I am. So please, be specific. What does "Hit" mean that is completely distinct from either the attack roll or the damage? What does "Hit" mean that doesn't itself cause the damage? In what order do the steps occur when you make an attack roll, then determine a hit, then deal damage?

In game time, yes, hit and damage occur at the same time. But in player time, they don't.

1.Declare attack - 2.Roll - 3.Determine roll result - 4.attempt to apply hit - 5.resolve hit - 6.attempt to apply damage - 7.resolve damage.

Those are the basic steps we go through every attack. Sometimes some of those steps can be skipped because we don't need them. Nothing in effect to prevent hits or damage? We skip right past those steps.

There could be other steps too, basically any specific text can call out anything as a triggering event for its own purposes. But those are the basic steps right there.

Attack a guy with an unarmed attack? AoO triggers from step 1.
Have an ability you can use that adds a bonus to your d20 roll before determining success? Apply at step 2.
Have one that lets you reroll or something even after your results are determined? Apply at step 3.
Target has concealment? Apply at step 4.
Have a flaming weapon that does damage on a hit? Apply at step 5.
Target has some damage reduction? Apply at step 6.
Blade has injury poison? Apply at step 7.


fretgod99 wrote:
Aside from that, I'm curious about the Brace weapon ability. It allows the weapon to deal double damage on a "successful hit" against a charging creature. This certainly implies that it's actually the hit that causes the damage. Is this a mistake in the CRB? Should this be corrected to say it deals double damage when the attack roll meets or exceeds the AC of a charging creature? Also, the Damage entry in the Equipment chapter says that the listing is for the damage dealt by a weapon "on a successful hit". Is this also in error? It appears to undercut your belief that the determination of a hit and the causing of damage are two simultaneous events neither of which causes the other.

I really don't know what you're going on about here. Hits precede damage. Hit then damage.

Hitting a target means to make contact with your attack against them. How much damage that does or whether it even does damage is determined afterwards.

They are separate events, but linked via the requirement of the hit for there to even be a damage step.

Again, I have no idea why you think any of what you just wrote is 'my belief', but you are very much in error.


fretgod99 wrote:

And your incorrectness on hitting is relevant to this combat maneuvers discussion because it is the exact same analysis in both scenarios. Both entries are structured "If die roll, then success and effect."

Your position is that both "success" and "effect" are two separate things that are "triggered" by the successful die roll. This is unequivocally false in regards to attack rolls. Do you think it's more accurate for combat maneuver checks?

You really don’t seem to know my position.

The die roll can succeed. The hit can succeed. And you can even succeed at damaging your target.

Success is determined based on goal.

What is the goal of the die roll? To achieve a target number. If you roll high enough to achieve that number, your die roll is a successful roll. Proceed to hit.

What is the goal of hitting? To make contact with your opponent. If you manage to hit your target, say they have no way of negating a hit or the % dice aren't in their favor. You succeed at hitting. Proceed to damage.

What is the goal of damaging your opponent? To inflict HP damage on their sorry behind! Roll some dice, compare to DR n stuff and determine how much if any damage is done. If some is done, then you have successfully damaged your opponent! Wewt! Attack is fully resolved.

That might even successfully knock them unconscious, or maybe it successfully kills them. Maybe you successfully vanquish your opponent. Success can apply to anything with a goal and an outcome. Anything you do can be successful or fail to be successful. If something triggers from a success… you have to know what success it is looking for.

Greater trip wants you to “successfully trip an opponent”.

It wants the whole action (trip) to be a success. We can only say that the whole action (trip) is a success when the whole action (trip) is fully resolved and has achieved the goal of making the target prone.


Remy Balster wrote:

In game time, yes, hit and damage occur at the same time. But in player time, they don't.

1.Declare attack - 2.Roll - 3.Determine roll result - 4.attempt to apply hit - 5.resolve hit - 6.attempt to apply damage - 7.resolve damage.

Those are the basic steps we go through every attack.

I thought we weren't running this like a computer script? What does it matter if we run this sequentially as players? If, logically, Hit and Damage are determined at the same time and as a result of the die roll alone, it does not matter if something negates "Hit", damage still applies. Unless "Hit" is part of what actually causes "Damage".


Remy Balster wrote:

I really don't know what you're going on about here. Hits precede damage. Hit then damage.

Hitting a target means to make contact with your attack against them. How much damage that does or whether it even does damage is determined afterwards.

They are separate events, but linked via the requirement of the hit for there to even be a damage step.

Again, I have no idea why you think any of what you just wrote is 'my belief', but you are very much in error.

No, that doesn't make sense. How can "Hit" and "Damage" be simultaneously occurring events (something you've been very emphatic about - for instance see here, B and C happen at the same time) that don't cause one another if damage is determined after we find out if we hit? And if all hitting means is that you make contact with the target on your attack, how is that different than your attack roll exceeding AC again?

So, is success determined at the same time as the effect, or does it precede the effect? You're arguing for both positions which is inherently contradictory.


Remy Balster wrote:

I really don't know what you're going on about here. Hits precede damage. Hit then damage.

Hitting a target means to make contact with your attack against them. How much damage that does or whether it even does damage is determined afterwards.

They are separate events, but linked via the requirement of the hit for there to even be a damage step.

Again, I have no idea why you think any of what you just wrote is 'my belief', but you are very much in error.

No, that can't be true because B and C together, remember? Success is a different thing than Effect, even though you also argue that Success only occurs if Effect. But now you're saying Success then Effect and also stating that Success causes Effect.

I'm stating this is your belief because this is precisely how you read the Determining Success section of Combat Maneuvers. You have argued that more than once. If A, then B and C. B and C are simultaneous but separate events, both of which are triggered by A, not by each other. That's the position you've taken. You were so emphatic about it, you even mic dropped and walked off the proverbial stage. I'm stating it's your belief because you've stated that it's your belief.


You're incorrect. Hit causes damage. Because Hit is the same thing as your die roll exceeding the target's AC. The rules are clear on this.

The rule book uses "Hit" as a synonym for an attack roll that exceeds the target's AC. It's as simple as that. The book constructs the Combat Maneuvers entry identically to how it constructs the Attack entry. If Success then Effect in one case, it ought to be Success then Effect in the other. Reading them differently is inconsistent.

Intermixing game-specific definitions and real world definitions for the same term (Trip, Hit, Success) whenever it suits your position best is inconsistent.

Hit causes Damage. Similarly Success at the Combat Maneuver causes the Effect.

That's a perfectly valid and intelligible interpretation, despite your protestations.

Remy Balster wrote:

Greater trip wants you to “successfully trip an opponent”.

It wants the whole action (trip) to be a success. We can only say that the whole action (trip) is a success when the whole action (trip) is fully resolved and has achieved the goal of making the target prone.

That is also a perfectly valid interpretation. I've never said this it is inconceivable that this could be the intent. It is not, however, the only valid interpretation, which has been my ultimate point this entire time.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post and the replies. Keep personal insults out of the conversation.


I'll be honest, I'm just about argued out. We've been going round-robin on this thing for a while now. Not quite sure what else to say unless anything new occurs to me. No idea how many feel they fall into what camp, but it would seem agreement is out of reach.

I understand Camp #1 reads Greater Trip as, "Whenever you successfully perform a trip maneuver against an opponent..."

And Camp #3 reads it as, "Whenever you successfully knock prone an opponent..."

No idea how to bring those together as succeeding on a maneuver and succeeding at knocking the target prone are two completely different parts of the equation.

But if there's a bright side, it's that this thread and others like it really help me out in my efforts to rewrite an old AH game from the 80's (personal project right now for me and some friends). Things like this point out loud and clear where interpretations can differ and I can make sure to take steps in spelling things out as clear as possible. So thank you for that. At least it's something, but I think it's a big something. :)


Actually the only thing I can think of is this; say the reading of the wording is ambiguous. We have 2 possible answers.

#1 Greater Trip's AoO triggers on roll success.
#2 Greater Trip's AoO triggers on target knocked prone.

I've mentioned in previous posts about concerns over abuses that can happen with #1. I'm figuring anyone who agrees with #2 will see the same abuses.

Does anyone who agrees with #1 see the same abuses as being an issue? Such as the gattling-gun AoO inferred in the OP.


Well, #2 doesn't wholly prevent the "Gatling-gun trip" either, if that's a concern. It just prevents it from being used against a target who is already prone.

The FAQ on tripping using an AoO says that your AoO triggers before the target starts to stand, therefore not knocking him prone. By that same logic, if you have Greater Trip, and trip a standing target, then he provokes before he finishes falling - so 6 of the other guys without Greater trip who standing around the target one AoO each; the 7th guy also gets an AoO, and has Greater Trip - so now he trips, triggering another round of AoOs - which cycles back to the first guy again.

Now it's possible they could reverse the behavior on an target who was just tripped and say the AoO doesn't trigger until he falls prone, but if so it would purely be for the purposes of stopping that tactic.


Actually #2 is saying that the target is provoking the AoO because he has been knocked prone (i.e. successfully tripped). THus he is prone at the moment the AoO fires. So this AoO can't be used to further gattling-gun more AoOs as the target is now prone.

The way #2 defines "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent..." is saying that although a "successful trip attack" is talking about the d20 roll against the CMD (such as in Ki Throw's case), to "successfully trip" is talking about actually performing the action that trip involves...which is to render the target prone.

#1, however, means the AoO fires before the target is prone and therefore vulnerable to constant "tripping" to generate more and more AoOs. At least I think so.


Derp. Done for the day, work has fried my brain and drained me of any and all reading comprehension.

At least until I get home, heh.


We're supposed to comprehend this stuff too?

NOW he tells me...


Elbedor wrote:

Actually the only thing I can think of is this; say the reading of the wording is ambiguous. We have 2 possible answers.

#1 Greater Trip's AoO triggers on roll success.
#2 Greater Trip's AoO triggers on target knocked prone.

I've mentioned in previous posts about concerns over abuses that can happen with #1. I'm figuring anyone who agrees with #2 will see the same abuses.

Does anyone who agrees with #1 see the same abuses as being an issue? Such as the gattling-gun AoO inferred in the OP.

Of course I see the abuse possible. That does not change the RAW. I would not have a problem with anyone that changes the rule at their table to stem the abuse. But we are not here to discuss the rules based on merits of their use.

Even if we were, we have found 4? instances where this would come into play, while 3? of them are abuse free. If 1 instance is a problem, than there is a problem with that 1 instance, not the base rule.

I am happy to read/state when I think a rule has an issue that may be a problem. But when I do so, it is meant so others may decide what works for them at their table, not to justify my position on what I think is the official rule.


fretgod99 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

I really don't know what you're going on about here. Hits precede damage. Hit then damage.

Hitting a target means to make contact with your attack against them. How much damage that does or whether it even does damage is determined afterwards.

They are separate events, but linked via the requirement of the hit for there to even be a damage step.

Again, I have no idea why you think any of what you just wrote is 'my belief', but you are very much in error.

No, that doesn't make sense. How can "Hit" and "Damage" be simultaneously occurring events (something you've been very emphatic about - for instance see here, B and C happen at the same time) that don't cause one another if damage is determined after we find out if we hit? And if all hitting means is that you make contact with the target on your attack, how is that different than your attack roll exceeding AC again?

So, is success determined at the same time as the effect, or does it precede the effect? You're arguing for both positions which is inherently contradictory.

I have and will continue to say: You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what my position is. You should probably stop trying to tell me what my position is though.

The link to my post was about trips. Not attacks that do damage. I'm not of the position that these are the exact same thing. Something tells me that you think they are?

Success is determined for anything when that thing has accomplished its goal. Multiple successful events take place for you to damage an opponent with an attack.

Your roll must succeed. You must successfully hit. And you must successfully apply damage.

If that is too confusing? Not my problem. I understand it just fine.


fretgod99 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

I really don't know what you're going on about here. Hits precede damage. Hit then damage.

Hitting a target means to make contact with your attack against them. How much damage that does or whether it even does damage is determined afterwards.

They are separate events, but linked via the requirement of the hit for there to even be a damage step.

Again, I have no idea why you think any of what you just wrote is 'my belief', but you are very much in error.

No, that can't be true because B and C together, remember? Success is a different thing than Effect, even though you also argue that Success only occurs if Effect. But now you're saying Success then Effect and also stating that Success causes Effect.

I'm stating this is your belief because this is precisely how you read the Determining Success section of Combat Maneuvers. You have argued that more than once. If A, then B and C. B and C are simultaneous but separate events, both of which are triggered by A, not by each other. That's the position you've taken. You were so emphatic about it, you even mic dropped and walked off the proverbial stage. I'm stating it's your belief because you've stated that it's your belief.

You are conflating a discussion about maneuvers with a discussion about attacking to do damage. They have similarities, for sure, but are not the exact same thing.

But, attempting my best effort to address what I’m guessing is the intent of your contention…

If you roll high enough the maneuver roll is successful, yes. What is your point?

A successful roll does not a “successfully trip an opponent” make if said opponent cannot be made to be prone.

But you are correct in that my belief is that these things all happen simultaneously in game time. Absolutely they do. Something that triggers upon successfully tripping an opponent happens after the opponent is prone.

But how we determine the success of a chain of player performed determinations? No, there is a clear chain of events that take place.

Declare - roll - determine roll success - apply hit - determine hit success - roll damage - apply damage - determine damage success.

Different sorts of abilities and effects trigger during different steps of these kinds of determinations. And there are multiple stages that can be successful. But for the whole action to be considered successful, the last step needs to be reached and to also be successful.


fretgod99 wrote:

You're incorrect. Hit causes damage. Because Hit is the same thing as your die roll exceeding the target's AC. The rules are clear on this.

The rule book uses "Hit" as a synonym for an attack roll that exceeds the target's AC. It's as simple as that. The book constructs the Combat Maneuvers entry identically to how it constructs the Attack entry. If Success then Effect in one case, it ought to be Success then Effect in the other. Reading them differently is inconsistent.

Intermixing game-specific definitions and real world definitions for the same term (Trip, Hit, Success) whenever it suits your position best is inconsistent.

Hit causes Damage. Similarly Success at the Combat Maneuver causes the Effect.

That's a perfectly valid and intelligible interpretation, despite your protestations.

Remy Balster wrote:

Greater trip wants you to “successfully trip an opponent”.

It wants the whole action (trip) to be a success. We can only say that the whole action (trip) is a success when the whole action (trip) is fully resolved and has achieved the goal of making the target prone.

That is also a perfectly valid interpretation. I've never said this it is inconceivable that this could be the intent. It is not, however, the only valid interpretation, which has been my ultimate point this entire time.

Are we really going to talk about your belief that "successfully performing a trip attack on an opponent" is identical to "successfully trip an opponent"??

I really don't wanna have to talk about the Perform Skill.

The simple fact is that they don't mean the same thing. And whether or not a Trip Maneuver is successful is irrelevant to the wording of Greater trip.

It doesn't matter if a trip maneuver is successful. That isn't what greater trip is looking for to be successful. It wants "successfully trip an opponent".

A "successful maneuver" is (adjective - noun)
"Successfully trip" is (adverb - verb)

One is a thing. The other is an action.

Greater trip is looking for the action.

Greater trip doesn't care about no thangs.

Greater Trip wants action!

When is the action of "trip an opponent" successful? It is successful when the opponent is knocked prone.

That is why your interpretation is not valid.


Remy Balster wrote:
The link to my post was about trips. Not attacks that do damage. I'm not of the position that these are the exact same thing. Something tells me that you think they are?

I do think they are. The rules are structured identically. The rules say you can make these types of combat maneuver checks in place of attacks. The rules call them attacks. They function just like attacks.

Because they are attacks. Just specific types of attacks. A trip attack is an attack. You just might have some different bonuses to add and you target CMD instead of AC.


Remy Balster wrote:

Are we really going to talk about your belief that "successfully performing a trip attack on an opponent" is identical to "successfully trip an opponent"??

I really don't wanna have to talk about the Perform Skill.

The simple fact is that they don't mean the same thing. And whether or not a Trip Maneuver is successful is irrelevant to the wording of Greater trip.

It doesn't matter if a trip maneuver is successful. That isn't what greater trip is looking for to be successful. It wants "successfully trip an opponent".

A "successful maneuver" is (adjective - noun)
"Successfully trip" is (adverb - verb)

One is a thing. The other is an action.

Greater trip is looking for the action.

Greater trip doesn't care about no thangs.

Greater Trip wants action!

When is the action of "trip an opponent" successful? It is successful when the opponent is knocked prone.

That is why your interpretation is not valid.

And the verb is simply successful performance of the noun. If you're agreeing that the action being performed is the noun, then I'm not sure what the problem here is.

It is equally reasonable to think that since greater trip does not refer to the effect of the action as the triggering event (like other greater maneuver feats do), it is concerned with whether the action was successful before determination of the effect. It refers to a successful performance of the action.

That you do not agree with an interpretation does not make that interpretation invalid. That your interpretation might ultimately be the one adopted does not mean another interpretation was not valid.

So, you can keep regurgitating the same points and ignoring counterarguments because I don't know, I guess you don't understand the nuance. Doesn't matter much to me. You've not said anything determinative up to this point and I doubt you ever will. My only point has been there's another legitimate way to interpret this language. If you at this point cannot even see how this is remotely possible, I'm not going to waste my time.


The big disconnect is still between "trip attempt" and "trip". Some things in the rules call for one. Some call for the other. They're not the same thing.

fretgod99 wrote:
It is equally reasonable to think that since greater trip does not refer to the effect of the action as the triggering event (like other greater maneuver feats do), it is concerned with whether the action was successful before determination of the effect. It refers to a successful performance of the action.

What Greater maneuvers interpret this way?

Greater Disarm? It wants to know when you have successfully disarmed your target. Meaning the item is out of their hand. Once it is, it then lands 15ft away. It can't land 15ft away until it is successfully removed from their hand.

Greater Grapple? That requires the target to be grappled first.

Greater Overrun? That requires the target to be knocked prone first.

Greater Sunder? That requires an item to suffer enough damage to destroy it first.

Greater Trip? That requires that the target be tripped first. Oh wait, we're talking about this one. But then it DOES seem to fall in line with all the others. Just as they require some effect to be visited upon the target before the AoO or damage or whatnot triggers, so too does Greater Trip. You're right, they are the same. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
The link to my post was about trips. Not attacks that do damage. I'm not of the position that these are the exact same thing. Something tells me that you think they are?

I do think they are. The rules are structured identically. The rules say you can make these types of combat maneuver checks in place of attacks. The rules call them attacks. They function just like attacks.

Because they are attacks. Just specific types of attacks. A trip attack is an attack. You just might have some different bonuses to add and you target CMD instead of AC.

So, what you are saying is that they are identical, except for all the ways in which they are not identical.

Cool. Glad to have that cleared up. They are identical and not identical. No problem there.


Elbedor wrote:

The big disconnect is still between "trip attempt" and "trip". Some things in the rules call for one. Some call for the other. They're not the same thing.

fretgod99 wrote:
It is equally reasonable to think that since greater trip does not refer to the effect of the action as the triggering event (like other greater maneuver feats do), it is concerned with whether the action was successful before determination of the effect. It refers to a successful performance of the action.

What Greater maneuvers interpret this way?

Greater Disarm? It wants to know when you have successfully disarmed your target. Meaning the item is out of their hand. Once it is, it then lands 15ft away. It can't land 15ft away until it is successfully removed from their hand.

Greater Grapple? That requires the target to be grappled first.

Greater Overrun? That requires the target to be knocked prone first.

Greater Sunder? That requires an item to suffer enough damage to destroy it first.

Greater Trip? That requires that the target be tripped first. Oh wait, we're talking about this one. But then it DOES seem to fall in line with all the others. Just as they require some effect to be visited upon the target before the AoO or damage or whatnot triggers, so too does Greater Trip. You're right, they are the same. ;)

Greater Overrun specifically calls out the effect. "When you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone. So the opponent must actually get knocked prone, and they hyperlink to the Prone condition.

Greater Bull Rush specifies the cause of the provocation. The target's "movement provokes attacks of opportunity". Again, specifically referencing the thing that causes the provocation.

Greater Sunder specifies a desired outcome. "Whenever you sunder to destroy". Not "Whenever you successfully sunder an opponent's [whatever]". It doesn't operate on all Sunder attempts. It only operates once you've determined if you will deal enough damage to destroy the item, and it specifically says so.

Greater Grapple references the necessary condition. "Once you have grappled a creature", specifically meaning once the "Grappled" condition is applied. We know the "Grappled" condition already has to have been applied because it specifically references maintaining a grapple and, more importantly, the entry hyperlinks to the Grappled condition.

Greater Disarm is structured like Greater Trip. It does not say, "When your target drops a held item". It requires the Disarm to be successful. If it required the target to already have dropped the held item, how are you causing the item to land 15' away? It makes more sense to me that Greater Disarm actually changes the effect to be applied. Meaning, you determine that a successful Disarm has been accomplished and at that point Greater Disarm applies. Just like how I'm reading Greater Trip. Determine success of the combat maneuver and apply the feat's effects, because that's how the triggers indicate that you should treat them. It makes no sense to me to determine success, cause the target to drop an item, then cause the item to teleport 15' away. It makes more sense that it's the actual manner in which you disarm the item that causes it to fly across the room, meaning the item is still in the hand of the owner when Greater Disarm applies, i.e., it applies pre-effect.

Greater Trip simply says "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent", and it hyperlinks to the Combat Maneuver. It doesn't link to Prone like Overrun does. It doesn't link to the effect's condition like Grapple does. It doesn't call out a condition at all. It could conceivably be referencing the actual literal definition of having tripped someone. It could just as easily be referencing the game action of performing a trip on someone.

Those that require a specific effect or amount of damage to occur specifically reference those in the entry. Greater Trip and Greater Disarm do not. Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable to believe the benefits of those feats are triggered by the success of the action, not the application of the effect.


fretgod99 wrote:
Greater Sunder specifies a desired outcome. "Whenever you sunder to destroy". Not "Whenever you successfully sunder an opponent's [whatever]". It doesn't operate on all Sunder attempts. It only operates once you've determined if you will deal enough damage to destroy the item, and it specifically says so.

Error here.

"sunder to destroy" is a type of action, as compared to "sunder to not destroy". We have those options when we sunder. Either we are trying to destroy it, or simply break it.

We can refrain from dealing that last bit of damage and leave an item at 1 hp.

So, while you come to the same conclusion as the right one... in that it only works when you intend to destroy the object, and actually do destroy the object. You got there with a faulty reading of how it works.

It only operates when you deal excess damage, because that is literally the effect of the ability. "any excess damage is applied to the item's wielder".

So, it triggers every time you sunder a weapon to destroy it, whether successful or not. However, if you are not successful in actually destroying it, the effect is nothing, because there is 0 excess damage.


fretgod99 wrote:
Greater Disarm is structured like Greater Trip. It does not say, "When your target drops a held item". It requires the Disarm to be successful. If it required the target to already have dropped the held item, how are you causing the item to land 15' away? It makes more sense to me that Greater Disarm actually changes the effect to be applied. Meaning, you determine that a successful Disarm has been accomplished and at that point Greater Disarm applies. Just like how I'm reading Greater Trip. Determine success of the combat maneuver and apply the feat's effects, because that's how the triggers indicate that you should treat them. It makes no sense to me to determine success, cause the target to drop an item, then cause the item to teleport 15' away. It makes more sense that it's the actual manner in which you disarm the item that causes it to fly across the room, meaning the item is still in the hand of the owner when Greater Disarm applies, i.e., it applies pre-effect.

There are some faults here as well.

The goal of disarm is to remove the target item from the hands of your opponent. The goal is to make them drop it. Greater disarm triggers when this happens, and makes it land 15 ft away. The trigger happens here when it is dropped, not when it lands. Landing on the ground is the inevitable conclusion, sure...but it follows after the drop.

So, they drop the item (successfully disarming an opponent), and immediately following the dropping of the item the Greater Disarm trigger goes into effect, causing the item to land a distance away. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to apply the logic and interpretation you have for Greater Trip here either. Think about it.

You say the AoO happens before the effect of trip is applied... Same exact phrasing as the trigger of Greater Disarm.

Would you say the landing 15ft away happens before the effect of disarm? Are you saying the item lands 15ft away before he drops it? That is the sort of logic you are applying to Greater Trip.

Direct comparison time:

"Whenever you (0)successfully (1)disarm an opponent, the (2)weapon (3)lands 15 feet away from its previous wielder, in a random direction." And then apply the effect of the maneuver: Weapon (4)drops.

"Whenever you (0)successfully (1)trip an opponent, that (2)opponent (3)provokes attacks of opportunity." And then apply the effect of the maneuver: Opponent knocked (4)prone.

You say: Whenever you succeed on a maneuver to (1)trip, (2)they (3)provoke and then (4)fall prone.

So... Whenever you succeed on a maneuver to (1)disarm, the (2)weapon (3)lands 15ft away and then it (4)drops?

More clear cut evidence that the opponent is already prone when the AoO from Greater Trip triggers, because your reading is nonsensical. Or... you could read it the way I and others do. That step "0" implies the effect is applied. Then you get this:

If the opponent (0)drops their item when you (1)disarm them, then (2)it (3)lands 15 ft away.

If the opponent falls (0)prone when you (1)trip them, then (2)they (3)provoke.

Direct comparison. Direct substitutions. One is absurd, the other is not. No matter how you slice it or dice it... the simple truth is that they drop the item before it lands 15 ft away. Every time. How could you argue otherwise?

fretgod99 wrote:


Those that require a specific effect or amount of damage to occur specifically reference those in the entry. Greater Trip and Greater Disarm do not. Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable to believe the benefits of those feats are triggered by the success of the action, not the application of the effect.

That seems to be what your whole argument boils down to. You seem to be saying the disarmed item lands 15ft away before it is dropped.

That isn't what you are actually saying, is it?


Remy Balster wrote:

You say the AoO happens before the effect of trip is applied... Same exact phrasing as the trigger of Greater Disarm.

Would you say the landing 15ft away happens before the effect of disarm? Are you saying the item lands 15ft away before he drops it? That is the sort of logic you are applying to Greater Trip.

Direct comparison time:

"Whenever you (0)successfully (1)disarm an opponent, the (2)weapon (3)lands 15 feet away from its previous wielder, in a random direction." And then apply the effect of the maneuver: Weapon (4)drops.

"Whenever you (0)successfully (1)trip an opponent, that (2)opponent (3)provokes attacks of opportunity." And then apply the effect of the maneuver: Opponent knocked (4)prone.

You say: Whenever you succeed on a maneuver to (1)trip, (2)they (3)provoke and then (4)fall prone.

So... Whenever you succeed on a maneuver to (1)disarm, the (2)weapon (3)lands 15ft away and then it (4)drops?

This is one reason why I had to leave Camp #1.

351 to 400 of 847 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you "trip" him? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.