Greater Trip this?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

31 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can I use Greater Trip on a prone target and make that target provoke AoOs for me and my allies? Why or why not?

Where an AoO lands in the trip sequence and what constitutes a “successful trip” have been points of contention for a while now. If “success” is determined by the Roll only, then it would suggest the answer to the above question is “Yes”. But if both the Roll and the Knocking Prone must take place, then the above answer may be “No”. The rule wording tends to get ambiguous.

This gets slightly more complicated when throwing in debate over whether non-stacking, non-worsening, and non-lengthening conditions can be reapplied for the purposes of triggering abilities (i.e. “Whenever you trip a target…”, “Whenever you blind a target…”, “Whenever you diarm a target…”, etc).

There are other threads to debate these issues as have been done at length. For this, please hit the FAQ button and let’s see if we can get this answered.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Please hit FAQ on the above post. I haven't been on these boards nearly as long as several folks, so I can't say if this has been tried a hundred times already. But hopefully if this gets answered it will tackle 3 questions that have an effect on game mechanics in a few areas:

What constitutes a “successful trip”?
Can I reapply an existing condition to trigger an ability?
Is the AoO generated for me only or for all my friends too?


FAQ'd

Sczarni

FAQ'd.

Well, I can give you my opinion since the RAW doesn't feel precise enough, if it helps at all.

1. What Constitudes a "Successful Trip"?
---I would have to say, meeting or beating the CMD. Just like what constitutes a Hit with AC. So, if you use a trip, and it meets or beats their CMD(prone or not), then I say it succeeds!
2. Can I re-apply an existing condition to trigger an ability?
---I would have to say no, because it already exists. Unless the ability says that it would extend the duration, make it worse, or flat out says it applies regardless, I wouldn't think it would apply. Does blinding a blind person make them anymore blind? It's redundant. They're already blind, so a blinding ability wouldn't do anything to them. It would successful hit them, but wouldn't have an actual effect as they are already blind. You also cannot disarm someone who is already disarmed.
3. Is the AoO generated for me only or for all my friends too?
---If it comes from them standing up, it states they provoke an AoO to anyone threatening them. Your feat explicitly says you get an AoO for making a successful trip. Why would your Allies get AoOs for your feat? It doesn't state that it works that way. That's what Teamwork feats are for.

There ya go. I hope this helps in some way.


FAQ'ed.

Just to point out, James Jacobs answered the question, "Can you trip a prone creature?" with an emphatic no. Earlier in that thread someone also quoted a 3.5 FAQ that explicitly says you cannot trip a prone creature.

My personal opinion: The purpose of a trip is to knock someone prone. The Greater Trip feat's intention seems to be that the act of falling from being tripped now triggers attacks of opportunity. If someone is already prone, then they cannot fall to the ground; therefore, they cannot provoke attacks of opportunity.

Sczarni

Well that settles that... :D

Liberty's Edge

Do we really need another thread on this, aren't the other two threads sufficient to cover greater trip questions?


Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Do we really need another thread on this, aren't the other two threads sufficient to cover greater trip questions?

yes this thread is needed. Specifically because the question is asked in a precise manner so that a FAQ will answer the exact problem in question.


Jason Buhlman said you can use a trip attack on a prone opponent, it just doesn't amount to anything.

And James kind of backed off the explicit no, ultimately ending up with, basically, "It's up to your GM".

*shrug*


Kazumetsa Raijin wrote:


3. Is the AoO generated for me only or for all my friends too?
---If it comes from them standing up, it states they provoke an AoO to anyone threatening them. Your feat explicitly says you get an AoO for making a successful trip. Why would your Allies get AoOs for your feat? It doesn't state that it works that way. That's what Teamwork feats are for.

actually....

Quote:


Greater Trip

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

This implies that it provokes multiple AOO and doesn't specify just you. (check of vicious stomp for comparison).


from the FAQ
Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?

No.
The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved.
In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.

—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10

Why doesn't this answer your question?

What am I missing?

Edit; I see.
Greater trip give AOO's on your trip.

But If they already have the trip condition, you can't add trip to them again under the standard stacking rule- i.e. two effects from the same source do not stack.


Yes, thank you Xaratherus for adding the link to JJ's comments. I agree with them. The purpose of my FAQ question is not because I haven't made up my mind about the issue. I have. I am even on record on various threads concerning my thoughts regarding this (and there are several...thoughts and threads). But discussion on these threads has generated some interesting results and I thought it pertinent to try and settle what seemed to have become an impasse between a few entrenched camps. Much of it revolved around what it means to "successfully trip your opponent". Some of it even broke into what conditions could be reapplied and why. There was even debate over whether the AoO was enjoyed by just the Tripper or for anyone who threatened.

Hence the question. On the surface it may seem like something that is either stupidly obvious or just stupid period. Perhaps there was a better way to phrase it. Anyone is certainly welcome to boil it down further or even just focus on one of the aspects I was trying to cover with the OP.

Ultimately my hope is that a descriptive answer might put to rest the questions:

#1 What is a successful trip?
#2 Can conditions be reapplied for sake of triggering abilities?
#3 Who enjoys the AoOs that are provoked?

As for me, I am decided on answers to these questions unless someone has something new to add or the Design Team has a curve ball in mind.


Cornielius wrote:

from the FAQ

Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?

No.
The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved.
In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.

—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10

Why doesn't this answer your question?

What am I missing?

Again, I am of the mind that you cannot trip a prone target. But there are people who have argued that since a "successful trip" only entails the roll and not applying the effect, that technically you can hit a prone target with a trip attempt, roll well enough, and by this interpretation of Greater Trip force the target to provoke, even if the effect cannot be applied.

I do not believe this is the case, but I am asking for it to be FAQ'ed as discussion and debate over this has really gone nowhere. As for what you quoted, that is pertaining to something slightly different than this case. I do not know of anyone who is debating where the AoO lands in the sequence of a target standing up.

I hope this helps clarify.


Actually, that FAQ seems to be contradictory in itself.

It provides the answer, "No, you cannot use an AoO provoked by a prone character standing up," - but then goes on to describe what happens when you do just that.


I think what the FAQ is saying is that you get the AoO from the target standing and you could use that AoO as another Trip Combat Maneuver. But it wouldn't do anything as you can't reapply the Prone condition to something already Prone. i.e. The AoO would have been wasted. And then the target stands up.


I can see that as probably what was meant, but I don't think it's really stated very well. It's the whole, "Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up," that throws it out of whack, because that seems to indicate that you can do it - it just doesn't cause them to remain prone.

Shadow Lodge

Faq'd


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Elbedor wrote:
Is the AoO generated for me only or for all my friends too?

Just FYI - you might be thinking of Greater Feint and the denial of Dexterity. I don't think there's been much debate about the Greater Trip AoO (of course, this thread disproves me...)


Effectively, what's at question is whether it's the actual successful attack roll that triggers the AoOs, or whether it is the act of the target actually falling prone from the successful roll that triggers them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Xaratherus wrote:
Effectively, what's at question is whether it's the actual successful attack roll that triggers the AoOs, or whether it is the act of the target actually falling prone from the successful roll that triggers them.

I have no problem with the answer to the OP being "No", regardless of the answer to this.


Xaratherus wrote:
I can see that as probably what was meant, but I don't think it's really stated very well. It's the whole, "Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up," that throws it out of whack, because that seems to indicate that you can do it - it just doesn't cause them to remain prone.

That's the rub. It does not say you cannot trip a prone target. It says that if you make the AoO on an opponent who is standing up, it happens before the target stands up. Then, as you said, it pretty strongly implies that you can make the trip attempt, just that it would not prevent the target from standing up since their action is still available after the AoO is resolved.


Majuba wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Effectively, what's at question is whether it's the actual successful attack roll that triggers the AoOs, or whether it is the act of the target actually falling prone from the successful roll that triggers them.
I have no problem with the answer to the OP being "No", regardless of the answer to this.

I agree a large part (the biggest really) is concerning this issue. Points #2 and #3 are secondary, in my mind at least.

But honestly if it's the actual Roll that triggers the AoO, then I would think the OP answer would have to be "Yes". Maybe I'm missing something, but if only the Roll counts, then I could Roll ---> Succeed ---> Trigger AoOs ---> fail to apply Prone. There are no rules that say I can't ever try. The Standup/Trip AoO FAQ does make that clear. Even if the guy is lying flat on his face, he's not somehow magically protected in a way that makes me unable to go through the motions of making a Trip attack by hooking his leg with my halberd.

But in either event, PF doesn't really help their case the way they seem to interchange words like "attack", "attempt", "maneuver", and others. It DOES lead to some confusion.


fretgod99 wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
I can see that as probably what was meant, but I don't think it's really stated very well. It's the whole, "Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up," that throws it out of whack, because that seems to indicate that you can do it - it just doesn't cause them to remain prone.
That's the rub. It does not say you cannot trip a prone target. It says that if you make the AoO on an opponent who is standing up, it happens before the target stands up. Then, as you said, it pretty strongly implies that you can make the trip attempt, just that it would not prevent the target from standing up since their action is still available after the AoO is resolved.

I agree that you can make the attempt. But I believe the implication is that you can't trip what is already prone. So since your action basically did nothing, he then finishes standing up. The game seems to treat the condition as a "Yes" or "No". There is no in-between stage. Since the rule of AoO is that it has to come before the trigger resolves, then it has to happen before he's up...meaning he's prone still...technically. So no successful trip can happen and then his action of standing resolves as he magically morphs instantly from prone to standing with no interceding position....because the game says so. heh

Or something like that.


I'm trying to think beyond the current discussion to an extent. Let's say that you were a cross-class martial caster; you've got some feats and class abilities that grant you bonuses to trip attempts.

Could you use a trip attack versus a prone target to, say, deliver a touch spell charge? If you're able to make the attack, even though it's a combat maneuver that's going to fail because the target is already prone, then you'd effectively be able to gain a bonus to deliver the touch spell even though the maneuver you're using can't technically 'work'.


Xaratherus wrote:

I'm trying to think beyond the current discussion to an extent. Let's say that you were a cross-class martial caster; you've got some feats and class abilities that grant you bonuses to trip attempts.

Could you use a trip attack versus a prone target to, say, deliver a touch spell charge? If you're able to make the attack, even though it's a combat maneuver that's going to fail because the target is already prone, then you'd effectively be able to gain a bonus to deliver the touch spell even though the maneuver you're using can't technically 'work'.

Sure. But by the same token, should I be disallowed to drag an opponent closer with my meteor hammer or to make the opponent flat-footed with my seven branched sword simply because the target is already lying on the ground?

Shadow Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

I'm trying to think beyond the current discussion to an extent. Let's say that you were a cross-class martial caster; you've got some feats and class abilities that grant you bonuses to trip attempts.

Could you use a trip attack versus a prone target to, say, deliver a touch spell charge? If you're able to make the attack, even though it's a combat maneuver that's going to fail because the target is already prone, then you'd effectively be able to gain a bonus to deliver the touch spell even though the maneuver you're using can't technically 'work'.

Sure. But by the same token, should I be disallowed to drag an opponent closer with my meteor hammer or to make the opponent flat-footed with my seven branched sword simply because the target is already lying on the ground?

Yup. Because you would be using a different combat maneuver 'drag' which isnt part of the meteor hammer special feature so you dont get the 'trip'.

At least thats how I see it.


PF seems to treat "successfully trip" and "successful trip attempt" as two different things. An event versus a roll. They play loose with the wording. Whether this is intentional or an oversight I don't know.

But I would think you could use a meteor hammer on a prone target and drag him 5ft closer as the weapon allows when you have a "successful trip attempt". But at the same time you can't "successfully trip" a prone target with the hammer and make him provoke or keep him from standing or whatever.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

I'm trying to think beyond the current discussion to an extent. Let's say that you were a cross-class martial caster; you've got some feats and class abilities that grant you bonuses to trip attempts.

Could you use a trip attack versus a prone target to, say, deliver a touch spell charge? If you're able to make the attack, even though it's a combat maneuver that's going to fail because the target is already prone, then you'd effectively be able to gain a bonus to deliver the touch spell even though the maneuver you're using can't technically 'work'.

Sure. But by the same token, should I be disallowed to drag an opponent closer with my meteor hammer or to make the opponent flat-footed with my seven branched sword simply because the target is already lying on the ground?

Yup. Because you would be using a different combat maneuver 'drag' which isnt part of the meteor hammer special feature so you dont get the 'trip'.

At least thats how I see it.

?

This weapon consists of one or two spherical weights attached by a 10-foot chain. You whirl the weights and wrap them around an opponent's body. 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. You may use this weapon in two different ways: in meteor mode you use it as a double weapon, while in fortress mode you cannot use it as a double weapon but gain reach and a +1 shield bonus to AC. Switching between these two modes is a free action decided at the start of your turn.

It says you make a trip attack and can choose to drag rather than knock prone.


Elbedor wrote:

PF seems to treat "successfully trip" and "successful trip attempt" as two different things. An event versus a roll. They play loose with the wording. Whether this is intentional or an oversight I don't know.

But I would think you could use a meteor hammer on a prone target and drag him 5ft closer as the weapon allows when you have a "successful trip attempt". But at the same time you can't "successfully trip" a prone target with the hammer and make him provoke or keep him from standing or whatever.

So would my successful trip to drag the target provoke an AoO?


Would your "successful trip attempt" that results in a meteor hammer drag provoke an AoO because of Greater Trip?

That's a good question. Off the top of my head I'd say no since you didn't actually trip the target as the feat wants...especially if the target was already prone. But maybe someone has a more definitive answer for that.


Elbedor wrote:

Would your "successful trip attempt" that results in a meteor hammer drag provoke an AoO because of Greater Trip?

That's a good question. Off the top of my head I'd say no since you didn't actually trip the target as the feat wants...especially if the target was already prone. But maybe someone has a more definitive answer for that.

I agree to that "No". Why? Because Greater Trip isn't looking for a successful trip attempt, or even a successful trip. What it wants is very specific.

"Whenever you successfully trip an opponent".

The opponent must have been tripped for this to trigger.


Remy Balster wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

Would your "successful trip attempt" that results in a meteor hammer drag provoke an AoO because of Greater Trip?

That's a good question. Off the top of my head I'd say no since you didn't actually trip the target as the feat wants...especially if the target was already prone. But maybe someone has a more definitive answer for that.

I agree to that "No". Why? Because Greater Trip isn't looking for ... a successful trip. What it wants is very specific.

"Whenever you successfully trip an opponent".

The opponent must have been tripped for this to trigger.

?

How is that not the same thing?

Even by the arguments the two of you are making, a successful trip is one where the CMD is overcome and then the effect is applied. The Meteor Hammer simply alters the effect. Why should that matter? You still "tripped" the person.


I think what Remy is implying is that a successful trip is one where you actually cause the person to fall down, whereas a successful trip attempt is a trip combat maneuver roll that exceeds the target's CMD. To offer another example, look at abilities that trigger on a successful hit and abilities that specifically state they have to do damage. The former triggers as long as your attack roll exceeds their AC; the latter triggers only if your attack roll exceeds their AC and actually causes damage to the target.

I'm not sure how I feel about the matter. Personally, I'm still of the mind that at my table you can't attempt a trip maneuver against a target that's already prone. Attempting to sweep someone's legs out from under them when they're already lying on the ground isn't an attempt to trip them - it's more of just a hook\drag move.


Well put Xaratherus. Was going to respond similarly, but you ninja'd me. (People keep doing that).

"Successful Trip Attempt" VS "Successfully Trip" is the point of contention.

Are the two the same? If you think Roll/AoO/Prone, then yes. If you think Roll/Prone/AoO, then no. Or rather, if you think Yes, then you see Roll/AoO/Prone. And if you think No, then you see Roll/Prone/AoO.


Xaratherus wrote:

I think what Remy is implying is that a successful trip is one where you actually cause the person to fall down, whereas a successful trip attempt is a trip combat maneuver roll that exceeds the target's CMD. To offer another example, look at abilities that trigger on a successful hit and abilities that specifically state they have to do damage. The former triggers as long as your attack roll exceeds their AC; the latter triggers only if your attack roll exceeds their AC and actually causes damage to the target.

I'm not sure how I feel about the matter. Personally, I'm still of the mind that at my table you can't attempt a trip maneuver against a target that's already prone. Attempting to sweep someone's legs out from under them when they're already lying on the ground isn't an attempt to trip them - it's more of just a hook\drag move.

No, I get that. He's distinguishing between "successful trip attempt" and "successfully trip". I understand (but disagree with) the attempt argument.

But he's also apparently distinguishing between "successful trip" and "successfully trip". That seems like balancing angels on a pinhead. How is a successful trip anything other than what happens when you trip successfully?


I think it was probably rushed shorthand? Dunno. Before someone pointed out the FAQ earlier in the thread, my opinion was that you couldn't even attempt a trip versus a prone opponent. To me, a successful trip attempt requires not only that the roll exceed their CMD, but that they actually fall on their butt\back\face\whatever.


Xaratherus wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about the matter. Personally, I'm still of the mind that at my table you can't attempt a trip maneuver against a target that's already prone. Attempting to sweep someone's legs out from under them when they're already lying on the ground isn't an attempt to trip them - it's more of just a hook\drag move.

But a trip doesn't have to be a hook and sweep, I think that's sort of the point. And prone doesn't mean helpless. A character on the ground can still defend him/herself. Why couldn't the trip attempt be something like simply knocking the character's elbow or hand out from under him/her when s/he's in a ground defense position (propped on an elbow, one foot on ground, one foot raised between you and your opponent)? After all, "prone" in Pathfinder doesn't mean OED "prone", which means lying flat (particularly face down). Prone in Pathfinder just means lying on the ground.


Xaratherus wrote:
I think it was probably rushed shorthand? Dunno. Before someone pointed out the FAQ earlier in the thread, my opinion was that you couldn't even attempt a trip versus a prone opponent. To me, a successful trip attempt requires not only that the roll exceed their CMD, but that they actually fall on their butt\back\face\whatever.

It's certainly a valid opinion. I understand why people have it and it's certainly possible that's how the Devs will clarify this to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xaratherus wrote:
I think it was probably rushed shorthand? Dunno. Before someone pointed out the FAQ earlier in the thread, my opinion was that you couldn't even attempt a trip versus a prone opponent. To me, a successful trip attempt requires not only that the roll exceed their CMD, but that they actually fall on their butt\back\face\whatever.

Well, the key difference was actually "an opponent".

Subject: You
Action: Successfully trip
*Object*: An opponent

Ignoring the object of the phrase is what is causing the confusion.

The object in a phrase is that which is acted upon by the subject. So, having an object in the phrase completely changes the context of the phrase.

Success speaks to goal. It is part of the definition of success. You cannot succeed on a task if you did not intend to accomplish the goal.

When determining if something is successful, we must compare the goal to result.

A successful attempt: What is the goal of the attempt? To exceed their CMD with your roll? Yeah, that could be the stated goal.

A successful trip [action]: What is the goal of the trip [action]? To cause the victim to fall down, prone? Yeah, that could be the stated goal.

So, if you have successfully tripped an opponent... what does that mean?

It means...

You achieved your goal in that the opponent is prone as a result of your trip [action].

Greater Trip triggers when a 1)subject 2)acts upon an 3)object. “Whenever 1)you successfully 2)trip an 3)opponent”.

Stop ignoring the 3).

If I give you $5 whenever you successfully make a sandwich... would you expect $5 whenever you successfully make?

That doesn't even make sense. You guys keep trying to break things down into unintelligible fragments. Asking analogs to "What is it to successfully make?" "Are we successful in our attempt to make?"

... a sandwich.

If you look at it from another angle...

Rolling high enough to beat someone's CMD is a successful attempt to trip them. But if they are somehow immune to being prone... the trip itself is not a success. Why? Because you didn't screw it up. Your attempt was a good attempt. You did well! unfortunately, regardless of how good you did, they couldn't be effected by it. They were resistant. They defended. They.

On a successful attempt:
You did well.

On a successful attempt that results in a successful action:
You did well, and it pays off.

On a successful attempt that isn't a successful action:
You did well, but it didn't pay off.

Adding in the context of an opponent.

On a successful attempt against them:
You did well against them.

On a successful attempt against them that results in a successful action:
You did well against them, and your goal is achieved.

On a successful attempt against them that doesn't result in a successful action:
You did well against them, but your goal failed for another reason.

Now...

For Greater Trip, specifically. The exact rules text we have is "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent,”.

That is our trigger event for the AoO. Because it says also “that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.”

So, the event “you successfully trip an opponent” must happen to trigger an AoO.

Now, the opponent is the object, the thing which is being acted upon in this phrase. The action is successfully trip. And the subject is you.

So…

We can conclude that the opponent[object] must be successfully tripped [action] by you [subject]for the opponent to provoke attacks of opportunity.

What was a successful trip action again?
Successful; met goal
Trip’s goal: to cause opponent to go prone

Right… it is as soon as the opponent has been successfully tripped by you. That happens as soon as your trip action is successful. Your trip action is successful as soon as your opponent becomes prone.


"I performed a successful trip".

What does that mean? What was the goal there? Did the opponent get knocked prone?

You're begging the question. Entirely. Again. You're presuming "Trip" = "Fall Prone". What you're missing is that this is the entire point of this discussion.

The conversation is actually about what the word Trip means. By simply stating "Trip means your opponent falls prone. Duh!" you're ignoring the entire discussion.

"Successful Attack", as used in the rules, does not mean you actually caused damage yet.
"Successful Hit", as used in the rules, does not mean you actually caused damage yet.
"Successful Attempt", as used in the rules, does not mean you actually imposed the effect yet.

You're drawing a distinction between "I performed a successful trip" and "I successfully tripped an opponent". How is "I successfully tripped an opponent" any different than "I performed a successful trip against my opponent"?

You're talking about unintelligible parsing, but then you do precisely that. I succeeded at my trip attempt against my target literally means the same thing as I successfully tripped my target. Literally. The exact same thing. Your argument is that these two things now mean something different.

Context matters, sure. The context of "successful trip" is that there is a target of the trip attempt. That's the object. You cannot have a successful trip without a target, so this argument that having an object in one phrase is pure rubbish.

The bottom line is if you want to get into the linguistics of it, there is no functional difference between a successful attempt at doing something and successfully doing something. I've explained already. "I succeeded at my attempt to trip" literally means "I successfully tripped". They are one and the same.

"Attempt" = An effort to accomplish a task
"Success" = The accomplishment of a task
"Successful Attempt" = The effort intended to accomplish the task accomplished the task

You cannot distinguish between "Successful Trip Attempt" and "Successful Trip". You cannot distinguish between "Successfully Attempt to Trip an Opponent" and "Successfully Trip an Opponent". You cannot distinguish between "Successful Trip Attempt on an Opponent" and "Successfully Trip an Opponent". They all mean the same thing. You made an effort to trip your target and the result of that effort is that you accomplished your goal of tripping that target.

Nobody is ignoring the object. The object is present in all of them. It's just merely implied in some cases. You cannot trip at all unless there is a target (object) of your trip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed with fretgod99.

A successful hit is not "an attack roll that equals or exceeds the creature's AC and does damage". It's simply "an attack roll that equals or exceeds the creature's AC". If you have an ability that simply states that it requires a successful hit to trigger, then it triggers even if you fail to deal damage; if you have an ability that states that it requires damage, then you not only have to successfully hit them, but that hit also has to deal damage to them.

Thus why a Wizard with IUS can be holding a charge of a touch spell, make a successful unarmed strike against a foe, have every bit of the damage from the strike absorbed by the target's DR - and still discharge the held touch spell. And why a Rogue with an injury poison on his punching dagger can confirm a crit on a target - and fail to apply the poison because the target is somehow immune to damage from piercing weapons.

There are two ways of reading Greater Trip, and both are potentially valid depending on what other areas of the rules you reference. That's why the FAQ seems necessary.


Xaratherus wrote:
There are two ways of reading Greater Trip, and both are potentially valid depending on what other areas of the rules you reference. That's why the FAQ seems necessary.

agreed.


That's a false comparison. Making an attack and dealing damage are distinct game events, with distinct rolls. A trip is a single event, with a single roll.

Consider:

Monster 1: "I was attacked by an adventurer today!"
Monster 2: "Are you alright?"
M1: "Yeah, she beat my AC but didn't get past my DR."
M2: "That's a relief."

vs.

M1: "I was tripped by an adventurer today!"
M2: "Are you alright?"
M1: "Yeah, he beat my CMD, but I'm a Emperor Cobra and immune to trips."
M2: "So, she didn't actually trip you."
M1: "I guess not."


The logical answer to me is 'no'. AoOs go off before the actions that trigger them, or you could never interrupt a spell with one or whack someone moving away from you (without reach). As such, when the prone target provokes, he is still prone, and cannot become more prone.

Shadow Lodge

I've always hated 'goes off before the action that triggered it'. makes very little since to me.

I prefer to look at this way. On my turn I declare my action and that declaration is the start of my action.


And that is when the AoO is triggered; after declaration, before enacting.


Zahmahkibo wrote:

That's a false comparison. Making an attack and dealing damage are distinct game events, with distinct rolls. A trip is a single event, with a single roll.

Consider:

Monster 1: "I was attacked by an adventurer today!"
Monster 2: "Are you alright?"
M1: "Yeah, she beat my AC but didn't get past my DR."
M2: "That's a relief."

vs.

M1: "I was tripped by an adventurer today!"
M2: "Are you alright?"
M1: "Yeah, he beat my CMD, but I'm a Emperor Cobra and immune to trips."
M2: "So, she didn't actually trip you."
M1: "I guess not."

Like Remy, you seem to be begging the question (and missing the point of what I said). Your second example is assuming that that "successful trip" means "beat my CMD and fall prone" when that is what is under question. Your definition of trip provided in the second example follows a different logic to determine success than what is used in the first example.

In your first example, the adventurer made a successful attack roll against monster 1. The monster's DR negated it, but the fact is that the attack roll was successful, so it was a successful attack.

Now, with that in mind, which restatement of your second example is correct:

1. The adventurer made a successful trip attack versus monster 1's CMD. The monster's immunity to trip negated it, but the fact is that the combat maneuver roll to trip was successful, so it was a successful trip.

or

2. The adventurer made a successful trip attack versus monster 1's CMD. The monster's immunity to trip negated it, so the trip attempt was not successful.

Option 1 follows the same logic as used to determine what a successful attack is; option 2 follows different logic in that the roll must be successful and the creature must fall prone from it.


The examples illustrates how "attacked" differs from "tripped" in common use. The latter implies a specific outcome, the former does not.

2 is the least incorrect restatement, but I wouldn't say there was "a successful trip attack." Because of the difference stated above, the two example situations do not follow the same structure.

If you attack a target with concealment, beat their AC, but fail the concealment roll, is that a successful attack?


Zahmahkibo wrote:

The examples illustrates how "attacked" differs from "tripped" in common use. The latter implies a specific outcome, the former does not.

2 is the least incorrect restatement, but I wouldn't say there was "a successful trip attack." Because of the difference stated above, the two example situations do not follow the same structure.

If you attack a target with concealment, beat their AC, but fail the concealment roll, is that a successful attack?

No, it's not a successful attack, and that's because Concealment clearly defines it as a miss:

Concealment Miss Chance wrote:
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.

Specific trumps general (as usual). The rules spell out in regards to concealment what they don't spell out for trip. Concealment is a specific modifier that can cause an otherwise successful attack roll to be counted as a failure or miss; neither the description of the trip maneuver nor the description of the prone condition state that the target already being prone causes an otherwise successful trip attempt to be counted as a failure or miss.


fretgod99 wrote:

"I performed a successful trip".

What does that mean? What was the goal there? Did the opponent get knocked prone?

You're begging the question. Entirely. Again. You're presuming "Trip" = "Fall Prone". What you're missing is that this is the entire point of this discussion.

The conversation is actually about what the word Trip means. By simply stating "Trip means your opponent falls prone. Duh!" you're ignoring the entire discussion.

"Successful Attack", as used in the rules, does not mean you actually caused damage yet.
"Successful Hit", as used in the rules, does not mean you actually caused damage yet.
"Successful Attempt", as used in the rules, does not mean you actually imposed the effect yet.

You're drawing a distinction between "I performed a successful trip" and "I successfully tripped an opponent". How is "I successfully tripped an opponent" any different than "I performed a successful trip against my opponent"?

You're talking about unintelligible parsing, but then you do precisely that. I succeeded at my trip attempt against my target literally means the same thing as I successfully tripped my target. Literally. The exact same thing. Your argument is that these two things now mean something different.

Context matters, sure. The context of "successful trip" is that there is a target of the trip attempt. That's the object. You cannot have a successful trip without a target, so this argument that having an object in one phrase is pure rubbish.

The bottom line is if you want to get into the linguistics of it, there is no functional difference between a successful attempt at doing something and successfully doing something. I've explained already. "I succeeded at my attempt to trip" literally means "I successfully tripped". They are one and the same.

"Attempt" = An effort to accomplish a task
"Success" = The accomplishment of a task
"Successful Attempt" = The effort intended to accomplish the task accomplished the task

You cannot distinguish between...

They are not one and the same. The fact that you don't understand that is enough to explain why you are having a difficulty understanding how Greater trip functions.

I succeeded in my attempt to trip
And
I successfully attempted to trip
And
My trip attempt was successful

All of those mean something different.

Anyway… What is the goal of a trip?

Quite simple to answer, yes?

The goal of a trip action is to knock the target prone. That is ‘the goal’. So… for a trip action to be successful, it must accomplish that goal. A trip action is therefore not successful unless it has knocked the target prone.

It really is that simple.

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Greater Trip this? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.