^ That's basically how I've interpreted the rules as well.
It does admittedly get a little wierd and I do think that there is a good argument that Greater Trip should be made when the target is prone. It stems from the following (assume combat reflexes).
I make a trip attack, which provokes an AOO
-The AOO is a trip attack, which provokes an AOO
--The AOO is a trip attack, which provokes an AOO
---The AOO is a trip attack, which provokes an AOO
Addressing the issue brought up with my card stack example (note, it was an analogy, not meant to absolutely simulate the process)
I'm going to suggest we drop the MtG example, since it seems to be more full of holes than the actual rules question here.
I think based on Vicious Stomp we can all agree that an AoO does not explicitly occur before the action that triggered it, especially if it is YOUR action and not an opponent's, or not an action at all and instead a called out condition for provoking (a successful trip, a target falling prone), if you're having trouble with that part, think of it as specific vs. general. Everyone good with that? Ok, so the only issue remaining is whether or not the effects of a successful trip attempt are instantaneous with that success; the sentence "your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect." Is there any room for an AoO between success and listed effect? In my games, I'm going to say no, but I'm not really sure it's possible to say for sure one way or the other, but the fact that "has the listed effect" is under the Determining Success header influences my opinion.
For an example without the specific pesky word "success" we can look at Improved Overrun which says, "Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone by your overrun."
Are those AoOs before or after prone? It's effectively the exact same scenario, but instead of calling it a "successful overrun" they say "are knocked prone" (a successful trip by the way, being synonymous with being prone). For all I know they worded greater trip the way they did to save word space and didn't figure anyone would think it possible to successfully trip an enemy and them not be prone. If they wanted their Greater feats to be consistent, which I bet they do, then it looks to me like we can get a good idea of RAI here.
Altogether, that pretty much settles it for me. I can't foresee any other new information coming into this question beyond developer insight, and I doubt we're going to get that.
|
Not certain that's how it actually plays out, but I fully agree the whole thing gets wonky. Of course I don't know what's harder to swallow...#1 attacking a guy with a whip that I'm in the process of using to trip him with
or
#2 killing a guy with a whip. :P
A base 1d3 damage isn't that much different then a base 1d6 or even 1d10 damage when you add all the same modifiers. I do think I should get around to taking power attack though. Add to that I'm using a Holy whip and most of my targets are evil and there is another 2d6 damage.
If it makes you feel better, I've got a second whip in my other hand so I could trip him with one and hit him with the other for the AoO if it hurts your brain less :P
I guess I'm just confused why any of this is surprising when he seemed to understand it 2 years ago.
I'm well known for my poor memory. What's more, it's pretty easy to forget one little thread post out of the thousands I make each year.
~B: Fact, The AoO does not occur after the target is prone. (Established by FAQ).
This may not sound as fancy, but that's BS. The FAQ does no such thing.
Wouldn't it go something more like this?
1) Declare Trip against target.
2) Roll D20+CMB: 16 vs CMD of 15. .
Special Immediate Considerations.
- Declare AoO.
- Roll D20+attack bonus: 19 vs AC of 14. Your attack hits.
- Deal damage.
End Special Immediate Considerations.
3) Target is tripped.
...Hammertime.
- Declare AoO.
- Roll D20+attack bonus: 14 vs AC of 10 (target is prone). Your attack hits.
- Deal damage.
4) Target .
Two things trigger the AoO's: tripping the target, and the target falling prone. Since the effect comes before the triggering event it effectively is
AoO
Trip
AoO
Prone
In that order.
Does vicious stomp say they take prone penalties against that bonus AoO? Cause if not, they don't per the interpretations given by plenty of others in this thread.
Not certain that's how it actually plays out, but I fully agree the whole thing gets wonky. Of course I don't know what's harder to swallow...#1 attacking a guy with a whip that I'm in the process of using to trip him with
or
#2 killing a guy with a whip. :P
A base 1d3 damage isn't that much different then a base 1d6 or even 1d10 damage when you add all the same modifiers. I do think I should get around to taking power attack though. Add to that I'm using a Holy whip and most of my targets are evil and there is another 2d6 damage.
If it makes you feel better, I've got a second whip in my other hand so I could trip him with one and hit him with the other for the AoO if it hurts your brain less :P
It's not the base damage that's the issue. It's the nonlethal nature of the whip plus the fact that it does no damage to anything with armor. heh
I don't play whip wielders, but that sounds like it'd take an awful long time to kill a guy with. :)
So, if an attack of opportunity occurs BEFORE the triggering event, wouldn't that mean that both the AoO from Greater Trip AND Vicious Stomp treat the target as standing?
If so, that's seriously lame. The feats literally benefit others more than yourself.
Not quite. The trigger for the AOO from Greater Trip is succeeding at tripping the target. You then take your AOO, prior to the opponent falling, and therefore not gaining any benefits for a prone target (as the target is not yet prone).
After the Greater Trip AOO is resolved the target falls and is prone. It is the target becoming prone which is the trigger for Vicious Stomp and so you take the AOO related to that action then, gaining the benefit of the target's -4 AC due to being prone.
'Technically' your description contradicts RAW. What you're suggesting is that the AoO is coming after the trigger, but the general rule is that the AoO comes before.
However...
If AoO's happen before the trigger and the trigger for Greater Trip is "successfully tripping the target", then the AoO happens when? Before you successfully trip the target...which makes absolutely no sense to me.
If the trigger for Vicious Stomp is the target "falling prone adjacent to you", then the AoO happens when? Before he actually falls prone. Which again makes no sense.
So either I am WAY off somewhere or there is a specific rule at work here that breaks from the general rule and is applying itself to both Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp, allowing their AoOs to take place after their triggers. To avoid breaking all sorts of continuity, I'm all for the idea that there is a specific rule at work. The target is successfully tripped and then you AoO him. The target falls prone and then you stomp him.
But this still doesn't answer the question of what a "successful trip" is. Is it just the CMB roll? Or is it the CMB roll AND listed effect? I've seen both interpretations offered and they both seem possible.
If there is a quote somewhere that unequivocally divorces roll from effect, then we have our answer. Without that...well...here we are. :)
The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved.
The AoO does not come before the triggering event happens, it occurs before the trigger completes.
In the case of Greater Trip, this means that you successfully make your trip attempt, but before the results of that action (opponent getting the prone modifier applied) you take an attack of opportunity. Think of it as tripping them and smacking them with your weapon on their way down.
For Vicious Stomp, the trigger is an opponent receiving the prone modifier. In the normal case of falling down, there is nothing else that happens after the modifier is applied, so after your AoO, you move on to the next action. This could be the next character, the rest of your actions, or the tripped characters remaining actions for the round depending on when the trip occurs.
If there was some spell or feat that said "An opponent is knocked prone and then blinded" Vicious Stomp would happen between the becoming prone and the blinding.
The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved.The AoO does not come before the triggering event happens, it occurs before the trigger completes.
In the case of Greater Trip, this means that you successfully make your trip attempt, but before the results of that action (opponent getting the prone modifier applied) you take an attack of opportunity. Think of it as tripping them and smacking them with your weapon on their way down.
For Vicious Stomp, the trigger is an opponent receiving the prone modifier. In the normal case of falling down, there is nothing else that happens after the modifier is applied, so after your AoO, you move on to the next action. This could be the next character, the rest of your actions, or the tripped characters remaining actions for the round depending on when the trip occurs.
If there was some spell or feat that said "An opponent is knocked prone and then blinded" Vicious Stomp would happen between the becoming prone and the blinding.
You're just saying the same thing but with different words. A successful trip comes with them being prone. Since you determine success and apply the listed effect at the same time what is your reasoning for separating them? Everyone is making this claim that "it happens this way" but no one is giving the evidence to support it. Restating a claim will not make it truer. Until someone can give a reason why the "and" in determining success is not binding, there is no point in regurgitating the same thought over and over. It is not "and then" it is just "and" as in simultaneous. It cannot be successful and not have the listed effect.
Don't think of it as tripping them and smacking them with the weapon on the way down, because if you're tripping the, with a whip it would still be connected to them or you're moving at the speed of light. The IRL argument is definitely not in your favor.
For vicious stomp, make up your mind. Either the AoO happens before the trigger completes, as you say, or it doesn't. applying the listed effect is as much a part of determining success of a trip as being prone is a part of falling prone. Someone in the process of falling prone for vicious stomp is as prone as someone in the process of falling prone for trip. If they aren't done yet, they aren't. If they are, they are. Your description makes it impossible to handle them differently despite you trying to.
It is impossible to apply an AoO before the action that triggered it resolves if the AoO only occurs if the action resolves. If the book said "If an opponent successfully moves out of your threatened area, you may make an attack of opportunity" then that would be relevant and it would mean that the opponent would had to have moved out of your threatened area, not initiated a move as it works now. It is a different thing.
So your problem is just a fluff problem; "I can't envision tripping someone with my whip, then disengaging it quickly enough to hit them with it as an AoO before they've already hit the ground."
I don't have a fluff problem either way, I was just pointing out that were I you, I wouldn't bring that up because it is not on your side.
We already showed, in the rules, where it says how Success is defined for the game; not as successfully tripping them but succeeding at the roll. No where does it specify that determining success and applying the effect are indivisible;
No you didn't. I saw a header that said "Determining Success" and it tied success and listed effects together as part of determining success. Or, succeeding at the roll and succeeding at tripping are in fact the same (which makes a whole lot of sense). It is at least vague in whether they are indivisible. If you have reason to believe it is not vague, please provide that instead of restating the claim.
The rules explicitly state that AoOs are resolved immediately on being triggered. When put in layman's terms, for ease of understanding, we say that the AoO "happens before the action that triggers it" so people understand that you don't wait until they move out of their square and then attack them after they've moved away or attempt to trip them and get hit with an AoO after you've...
That's right, it happens immediately upon a successful trip attempt and since success and listed effects happen simultaneously (prove they don't) that means they're prone. What do layman terms have to do with actually applying the real rules? Because again, we are NOT talking about being triggered by an action, but a condition of a feat being met. Rules of thumb need not apply. And I went over the whole moving thing earlier. Honestly, I'm getting tired of saying the same things over and over. So one last time, unless someone can clarify the statement "is successful and has the listed effect." the matter is as settled as it can be.
You can disagree if you want, but don't pretend the issue is indisputable. It's not. It hinges on an interpretation, not on a number, or an application, an interpretation.
As mentioned by Horselord, an AoO happens prior to the action that provoked it. Which is like looking at an alternate reality situation where time and gameplay slightly goes backwards for a moment.
So in a rules mechanical way (ignore reality for a moment), the AoO of the greater trip technically goes off prior to the act of tripping (again, ignore reality for a moment). So the opponent was standing, was hit by an AoO, and then successfully tripped. Now, in reality mode, the trip happened and then the AoO, but the AoO has be resolved as if the opponent was standing.
This is also the mechanical way of looking at an opponent standing up, provoking an AoO. You cannot trip the opponent using an AoO in this instance because it happens prior to him actually standing up, so in this instance the opponent is prone (and thus unable to be tripped). So, going back to the weird world of AoO, you do the AoO while the opponent is prone and then stands up.
As long as you do this wacky wild pseudo reality time conversion, AoO questions can usually get resolved. The moment you insert normal timeflow of reality does it get tricky, and why people argue about it on the forums and say things like "not buying it" or whatever. I find the best explanation is the issue of why you cannot re-trip someone standing up as the best way to address the unusual time flow issues in AoO. See this FAQ
This cannot be true.
Why?
It breaks causality.
If you trip someone, and get an AoO...and they are not prone...you could use this AoO to trip them.
This would allow you to burn every single AoO you hae chaining trips on an enemy that each happen before the one that happened before it. Each one would cause the target to provoke from everyone around the target.
It is wrong.
Look how it would work out... Example, Tripper guy has 5 AoOs to burn per round, he has 2 allies with 5 AoOs to burn per round too. They all move in around BBEG.
Tripper trips BBEG. BBEG provokes from all the 3. Each one uses their AoO. Tripper trips again. The other 2 attack. Tripper trips him again, which provokes again. They all use their AoOs again... repeating until they all run out.
In total, there is a total of 10 hits on him, and he is tripped before he is tripped 5 times.
It is absolutely absurd.
Even in the case of a single tripper.. How can he use the AoO from sucessfully tripping a dude… to trip the dude before he trips him? He gets an AoO from tripping, and the guy isn’t yet prone, so is a valid target for tripping, and so he trips him…before the trip that allowed him to trip…
Gah.
The answer is obvious. The target is already prone when you get the AoO from greater trip.
As mentioned by Horselord, an AoO happens prior to the action that provoked it. Which is like looking at an alternate reality situation where time and gameplay slightly goes backwards for a moment.
So in a rules mechanical way (ignore reality for a moment), the AoO of the greater trip technically goes off prior to the act of tripping (again, ignore reality for a moment). So the opponent was standing, was hit by an AoO, and then successfully tripped. Now, in reality mode, the trip happened and then the AoO, but the AoO has be resolved as if the opponent was standing.
This is also the mechanical way of looking at an opponent standing up, provoking an AoO. You cannot trip the opponent using an AoO in this instance because it happens prior to him actually standing up, so in this instance the opponent is prone (and thus unable to be tripped). So, going back to the weird world of AoO, you do the AoO while the opponent is prone and then stands up.
As long as you do this wacky wild pseudo reality time conversion, AoO questions can usually get resolved. The moment you insert normal timeflow of reality does it get tricky, and why people argue about it on the forums and say things like "not buying it" or whatever. I find the best explanation is the issue of why you cannot re-trip someone standing up as the best way to address the unusual time flow issues in AoO. See this FAQ
This cannot be true.
Why?
It breaks causality.
If you trip someone, and get an AoO...and they are not prone...you could use this AoO to trip them.
This would allow you to burn every single AoO you hae chaining trips on an enemy that each happen before the one that happened before it. Each one would cause the target to provoke from everyone around the target.
It is wrong.
Look how it would work out... Example, Tripper guy has 5 AoOs to burn per round, he has 2 allies with 5 AoOs to burn per round too. They all move...
Because you could choose to do something pointless? There is nothing in the rules that prevent you from making a bad decision. That is a completely pointless argument.
Wouldn't it go something more like this?
1) Declare Trip against target.
2) Roll D20+CMB: 16 vs CMD of 15. .
Special Immediate Considerations.
- Declare AoO.
- Roll D20+attack bonus: 19 vs AC of 14. Your attack hits.
- Deal damage.
End Special Immediate Considerations.
3) Target is tripped.
...Hammertime.
- Declare AoO.
- Roll D20+attack bonus: 14 vs AC of 10 (target is prone). Your attack hits.
- Deal damage.
4) Target .Two things trigger the AoO's: tripping the target, and the target falling prone. Since the effect comes before the triggering event it effectively is
AoO
Trip
AoO
ProneIn that order.
Does vicious stomp say they take prone penalties against that bonus AoO? Cause if not, they don't per the interpretations given by plenty of others in this thread.
It can't possibly work like that...
1) Declare trip.
2) Roll, you succeed.
- Special Immediate Considerations.
- Declare AoO. Trip attempt.
- Roll Your trip succeeds.
~ Even More Special Immediate Considerations.
~ Declare AoO. Trip attempt.
~ Roll Your trip succeeds.
/ Even Morer Specialer Immediate Considerations.
/ Declare AoO. Trip attempt.
/ Roll Your trip succeeds.
! Even Morerer Specialerer Immediater Considerations.
! Declare AoO. Trip attempt.
! Roll Your trip succeeds.
! End Even Morerer Specialerer Immediater Considerations.
/ End Even Morer Specialer Immediate Considerations.
~ End Even More Special Immediate Considerations.
- End Special Immediate Considerations.
3) Target is tripped before being tripped before being tripped before being tripped before being tripped...
No...
Because you could choose to do something pointless? There is nothing in the rules that prevent you from making a bad decision. That is a completely pointless argument.
What are you talking about?
If you can use the AoO from successfully tripping someone to trip them before you trip them, which makes your successful trip impossible, thus isn’t actually successful, meaning you don’t get the AoO after all…meaning the trip was successful, meaning you do get to trip them before you trip them, meaning you don’t successfully trip them after you trip them which gives you the trip to trip before your trip which makes the trip cause your previous trip not cause the later trip which cannot happen before it… you have successfully broken reality.
This is an infinite paradox loop.
The rule clearly is being interpreted wrong if it creates infinite paradoxes that literally cannot be resolved.
Because you could choose to do something pointless? There is nothing in the rules that prevent you from making a bad decision. That is a completely pointless argument.What are you talking about?
If you can use the AoO from sucessfully tripping someone to trip them before you trip them, which makes your succesful trip impossible, thus isn’t actually succesful, meaning you don’t get the AoO after all…meaning the trip was succesful, meaning you do get to trip them before you trip them, meaning you don’t successfully trip them after you trip them which gives you the trip to trip before your trip which makes the trip cause your previous trip not cause the later trip which cannot happen before it… you have succesfully broken reality.
This is an infinite paradox loop.
The rule clearly is being interpretted wrong if it creates infite paradoxes that literally cannot be resolved.
Except you wouldn't choose to trip them with your AoO. Just because you can choose to do something stupid does not mean that stupid thing is against the rules. It is a pointless argument. It adds nothing to the discussion.
Lemme explain this with a clearer example.
Actions
1)Successfully trip.
2)Use AoO to Trip
Results of Actions
A)Provokes AoO
B)Target Falls Prone
C)Is already prone, invalid target, unsuccessful trip
If you get the AoO before the target falls prone…
1)You successfully trip your target, then A) they provoke an AoO, and you 2) Use that AoO to trip them and they B) fall prone… this happens before 1) which means C) they are already prone for your initial trip attempt, which isn’t successful, so you do not trip them, which means they never A) provoke, which means you never 2) AoO trip, so they never B) fall prone, which means your 1) original trip is actually successful…
then A) they provoke an AoO, and you 2) Use that AoO to trip them and they B) fall prone… this happens before 1) which means C) they are already prone for your initial trip attempt, which isn’t successful, so you do not trip them, which means they never A) provoke, which means you never 2) AoO trip, so they never B) fall prone, which means your 1) original trip is actually successful…
then A) they provoke an AoO, and you 2) Use that AoO to trip them and they B) fall prone… this happens before 1) which means C) they are already prone for your initial trip attempt, which isn’t successful, so you do not trip them, which means they never A) provoke, which means you never 2) AoO trip, so they never B) fall prone, which means your 1) original trip is actually successful…
…forever.
Clearly, the AoO happens after they fall prone.
Because you could choose to do something pointless? There is nothing in the rules that prevent you from making a bad decision. That is a completely pointless argument.What are you talking about?
If you can use the AoO from sucessfully tripping someone to trip them before you trip them, which makes your succesful trip impossible, thus isn’t actually succesful, meaning you don’t get the AoO after all…meaning the trip was succesful, meaning you do get to trip them before you trip them, meaning you don’t successfully trip them after you trip them which gives you the trip to trip before your trip which makes the trip cause your previous trip not cause the later trip which cannot happen before it… you have succesfully broken reality.
This is an infinite paradox loop.
The rule clearly is being interpretted wrong if it creates infite paradoxes that literally cannot be resolved.
The second trip attempt wouldn't trigger another AoO:
When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack, such as scorching ray, and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?
Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity, one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events. As a note, since all of the rays are fired simultaneously (in the case of scorching ray), you would only provoke one attack of opportunity for making the ranged attack, even if you fired more than one ray.
The Greater Trip feat allows you to take an attack of opportunity against a foe that you trip. The Vicious Stomp feat allows you to take an attack of opportunity against a foe that falls prone adjacent to you. If you have both these feats and trip a foe, do you get to make two attacks of opportunity (assuming that you can)?
Yes, the two triggering acts are similar here but they are different. One occurs when you trip a foe. The other occurs when a foe falls prone. It requires a large number of feats to accomplish, but you can really pile on the attacks with this combination.
You can't provoke twice for being tripped. If you could, the FAQ for Greater Trip/Vicious Stomp wouldn't have been necessary (you'd just get your two AoOs and no distinction would have to be made between the two provocations).
I included the FAQ on rays because it's similar. You don't get multiple AoOs for each Ray. You don't get multiple AoOs for each trip attempt.
At least, that's how I read it.
Except you wouldn't choose to trip them with your AoO. Just because you can choose to do something stupid does not mean that stupid thing is against the rules. It is a pointless argument. It adds nothing to the discussion.Because you could choose to do something pointless? There is nothing in the rules that prevent you from making a bad decision. That is a completely pointless argument.What are you talking about?
If you can use the AoO from sucessfully tripping someone to trip them before you trip them, which makes your succesful trip impossible, thus isn’t actually succesful, meaning you don’t get the AoO after all…meaning the trip was succesful, meaning you do get to trip them before you trip them, meaning you don’t successfully trip them after you trip them which gives you the trip to trip before your trip which makes the trip cause your previous trip not cause the later trip which cannot happen before it… you have succesfully broken reality.
This is an infinite paradox loop.
The rule clearly is being interpretted wrong if it creates infite paradoxes that literally cannot be resolved.
If your bad interpretation of a rule creates infinite paradoxes... and someone points that out to you... your response shouldn’t be dismissal. If your ruling creates an unresolvable paradox... you are wrong. Plain and simple, wrong.
Telling you, and showing you, why you are wrong is generally considered a valuable contribution to a conversation... least in my circle of friends. But… we generally prefer being corrected, and appreciate it when we are. Why? Because we actually like being right.
You can't provoke twice for being tripped. If you could, the FAQ for Greater Trip/Vicious Stomp wouldn't have been necessary (you'd just get your two AoOs and no distinction would have to be made between the two provocations).
I included the FAQ on rays because it's similar. You don't get multiple AoOs for each Ray. You don't get multiple AoOs for each trip attempt.
At least, that's how I read it.
Well, each trip would be its own trip. Each trip would be a separate instance of being tripped.
If the target isn't prone when the AoO occurs, then he has not yet been tripped, and he can be tripped by that AoO. That AoO trip is a separate instance, and would allow for another AoO if successful. Although it invalidated the trip that allows the AoO in the process...
It creates a nestled problem, with unresolvable outcomes, and is multiple layers deep.
That ruling is wrong.
The AoO occurs after the target is prone.
That whole argument was simply to demonstrate how absurd the ruling would be if the target of your greater trip wasn’t prone when he provoked an AoO. It is an argument to RAI, because I believe we can all safely assume the designers didn’t intend for infinitely regressing unresolvable problem… yeah?
As for RAW?
“Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.”
When you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
The attack of opportunity clause for interruption applies when a creature provokes, it interrupts the thing that creature did to provoke.
In this case, the creature didn’t do anything to provoke. There is nothing to interrupt.
YOU caused IT to provoke. There is nothing it is doing that can be interrupted.
Thus the order of events is.
1) You trip it.
2) It falls prone. Trip resolved successfully.
3) It provokes AoOs.
4) Resolve AoOs.
|
|
Not certain that's how it actually plays out, but I fully agree the whole thing gets wonky. Of course I don't know what's harder to swallow...#1 attacking a guy with a whip that I'm in the process of using to trip him with
or
#2 killing a guy with a whip. :P
A base 1d3 damage isn't that much different then a base 1d6 or even 1d10 damage when you add all the same modifiers. I do think I should get around to taking power attack though. Add to that I'm using a Holy whip and most of my targets are evil and there is another 2d6 damage.
If it makes you feel better, I've got a second whip in my other hand so I could trip him with one and hit him with the other for the AoO if it hurts your brain less :P
It's not the base damage that's the issue. It's the nonlethal nature of the whip plus the fact that it does no damage to anything with armor. heh
I don't play whip wielders, but that sounds like it'd take an awful long time to kill a guy with. :)
The feat Whip Mastery makes a whip do lethal damage and no longer has the issues with armored foes.
If the creature didn't do anything to provoke, then why does the feat say "that opponent provokes".
Azuroth has is correct, the wording is such that you resolve the AoO before the triggering event completes. It's not "backwards through time", it's "inserted into a moment of time", interrupting events.
Though for Ravingdork's player, this could have additional benefits for Combat Reflexes, since the target is valid for tripping still (he's still not prone), so he could set off Greater Trip over and over (think juggling him) setting off AoOs all around for everyone.
Imagine a couple of monks built for this, laying some Greater Trip/Vicious Stomp beatdowns over and over until they run out of Combat Reflexes. Nasty!
If the creature didn't do anything to provoke, then why does the feat say "that opponent provokes".
Because Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp introduce specific rules that override the general rule of AoO.
I see a lot of good arguments on here, but there is something that I haven't seen anyone mention yet which might be important. This might seem to side with how Davick and Remy are seeing things, but I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on this...
The general rule of AoO deals with actions that people take, yes?
Stand up from Prone
Move out of a threatened square
Drink a potion
Cast a spell
Attack with a ranged weapon
All of these are Move or Standard Actions. There are even a bunch of Full-round Actions that I can list, but you can look those up. Basically all of these actions have a definitive beginning and end to them. AoO acts as an "interrupt" to these actions much like Counterspelling interrupts spellcasting.
However being tripped and falling prone are both "technically" free actions that you're forced to take. Free actions are defined as actions that don't take any time at all. There is no definitive beginning or end to them. The book even points out that "Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity." They use the word "rarely", but are there any free actions that provoke AoOs? I'm not aware of any, but if someone knows of one, please post it. Because my understanding is that they are generally "uninterruptable."
So the general rule of AoO doesn't allow you to get a free shot just because someone fell next to you or because you've tripped them.
But Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp introduce specific rules that override the general rules. The general rule does not apply here.
So basically what seems to be happening is the specific rule allows you a free attack when a certain circumstance occurs...a "successful trip" or a "falling prone in an adjacent space". The general rule of AoO is broken by the specific rule as the circumstance resolves first before the AoO takes place.
But this brings us back to what a "successful trip" is. Well what is the definition of a Trip? "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."
That would seem to say that "successfully tripping" and "target falling prone" are synonymous, in that one includes the other...unless someone happens to know of any other text that refutes or overrules this.
|
|
Note: Those who are claiming the Greater Trip AoO occurs after the target is prone are giving a greater advantage to the tripper (and his allies) than thoser of us who see the act oif tripping as what causes the target to provoke, witht he actual "falling prone" part being a separate step of the trip.
So, those of us arguing that the AoO from Greater Trip happens after you roll the attack and succeed, but before the effects of the attack are applied, are decreasing the power of the combo.
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Note that it says successfully trip, not successfully impart the prone condition on the target.
So, as some of us have been saying:
Declare Trip
Target gets AoO if the tripper does not have Improved Trip or monster Trip ability
Make trip attempt: roll CMB vs CMD
If CMB result if higher than CMD, Greater Trip causes target to provoke
Take Greater Trip AoO (not sure why you would want to trip a tripped target again, other than to cause your allies/yuou to gain more whack-a-mole AoOs...) note that any of my PCs built for this would use this AoO for a Disarm attempt (which may provoke from the target)
Trip effect resolves: Target falls prone
Target meets the trigger for an AoO from
Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. This attack must be an unarmed strike.
. Because the target is prone, and Vicious Stomp requires an unarmed attack, it does not need to specify that a prone target takes a -4 penalty to their AC (and CMD), as that is built into the prone condition itself.
Now, my trip/disarm builds (I have two, at present) wouldn't mind the extra bonus to succeed with the disarm attempt, but the rules seem to point fairly clearly to when the Greater Trip AoO occurs, which is after the trip is rolled, but before the trip effects are adjudicated.
If you are wanting Dev clarification... well, the last time this was FAQ'd, it was tagged as "Answered in FAQ". And since there was no other entries, it is referring to the FAQ on standing up from prone, and the line:
"The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved."
Which is kind of the way it was stated in 3.5e:
"An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn)."
Or more succintly (my own words):
"Resolve the AoO before you resolve the action that provoked it."
Nothing about free actions or anything interferes with this. This would be a fabrication of rules, not interpretation. It even says that some Free actions can provoke. The game rules do not discuss whatsoever "clear starting and ending actions", or that Free actions somehow don't have a start and end.
If someone is provoking by being tripped or being prone, it doesn't matter, since the AoO needs to be completed before that action (being tripped or being prone) is completed. That is the idea behind interrupting the flow to resolve the AoO.
I’ve been reviewing the book, and other threads on AoOs… and I cannot find anything that says AoOs happen before the event that triggers them.
Does anyone have some text on this?
What I have found is that some actions can provoke, and it is the initiation of these actions which triggers the AoOs, thus the AoO interrupt the completion of said actions. Ie Fight A initiates the action of decking Fighter B, Fighter B has a sword, and Fighter A provokes because he is unarmed. Fighter B gets his AoO when Fighter A initiated the attack action. So the AoO is resolved before the unarmed strike is resolved. But it doesn’t actually happen before, merely is resolved before.
But, in the case of Greater Trip, there is no action initiated which is triggering the AoO. The AoO triggers on a condition of a successful trip. So it isn’t until the trip is resolved that this special AoO event occurs.
The creature that provokes only provokes because the attacker has a feat that causes it to. The creature provoking the attack isn’t actually performing any sort of action to provoke, which is a very unique exception to the standard model of AoO rules. Normally, to provoke an AoO a creature has to trigger it by initiating an action of some type. But in the case of the AoO caused by Greater Trip, this is not the case at all. The creature provoking the attack of opportunity has not initiated any actions, and the AoO is instead reliant on a totally different trigger event than is typical.
A successful trip.
There really only seems to be one sequence of events for this.
1) Initiate trip.
2) Roll trip.
3) Apply successful trip. (They fall prone)
4) Trigger AoO.
5) Resolve AoO.
If you are wanting Dev clarification... well, the last time this was FAQ'd, it was tagged as "Answered in FAQ". And since there was no other entries, it is referring to the FAQ on standing up from prone, and the line:
"The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved."
Which is kind of the way it was stated in 3.5e:
"An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn)."
Or more succintly (my own words):
"Resolve the AoO before you resolve the action that provoked it."
Nothing about free actions or anything interferes with this. This would be a fabrication of rules, not interpretation. It even says that some Free actions can provoke. The game rules do not discuss whatsoever "clear starting and ending actions", or that Free actions somehow don't have a start and end.
If someone is provoking by being tripped or being prone, it doesn't matter, since the AoO needs to be completed before that action (being tripped or being prone) is completed. That is the idea behind interrupting the flow to resolve the AoO.
The problem is that no action is provoking this AoO. You cannot resolve the AoO before the action which provokes it, because there isn’t one.
The creature being tripped has not performed any actions which cause an AoO.
We are not using the standard rules for actions that trigger AoOs here... because there is no action here to interrupt.
The tripper trips. The target provokes. Done.
Note: Those who are claiming the Greater Trip AoO occurs after the target is prone are giving a greater advantage to the tripper (and his allies) than thoser of us who see the act oif tripping as what causes the target to provoke, witht he actual "falling prone" part being a separate step of the trip. So, those of us arguing that the AoO from Greater Trip happens after you roll the attack and succeed, but before the effects of the attack are applied, are decreasing the power of the combo.
Unfortunately, 'advantage' or 'lack of' has little to no relevance to rule interpretation.
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.Note that it says successfully trip, not successfully impart the prone condition on the target.
This points back to what is a "successful trip." By definition a trip is knocking your target prone by beating their CMD with your CMB check. It says it right there in the book and the PRD. When you have succeeded in tripping your opponent you have succeeded in knocking him prone. They are synonymous. So what text are you pulling from that suggest the two are separate? Please link that so I can review it, because I am unaware of it.
On another note, let me correct my earlier statements. Being tripped and falling prone are not Free Actions. They are not actions at all by any definition. They are not Move, Standard, or Full-round for obvious reasons. They are not Free or Swift because they occur outside of your Turn. They are not Immediate because they do not count against your use of Swift when your Turn arrives.
By all definition they fall under the "Not an Action". Falling over is as quick and easy as...well...falling over. :) Are there any "Not an actions" that provoke? I don't know of any at all, but if you do know of some, I would genuinely like to know. In fact if I had to guess, it would seem like "not an actions" never provoke...again unless someone is happy to share an example that they know of.
The problem here seems to be people applying the general AoO rule to things that do not provoke AoOs under the general AoO rule. It's silly really.
Standing up from Prone provokes an AoO under the general rule. So apply it as the rule says. Interrupt the action of standing and hit your target while he is still yet prone.
Falling down does not provoke an AoO under the general rule. You do not get a free shot at me just because I fell over next to you. But now introduce a specific rule that overrides the general one and says that you CAN get an AoO on me. Now we're not talking about the general AoO rules anymore. Now we're talking about specific application. General no longer applies. The sequence of events has changed. The AoO is now coming after the "not an action" that triggered it.
Or are you arguing this:
Target falls prone in adjacent square
I get AoO on target for falling prone in adjacent square
Now target REALLY falls prone in adjacent square
This suggests time reversal and the target falling twice. AoO rules do not allow for time reversal. They are interrupters that slip in between the start and finish of an action. They trigger at the start of an action and then resolve before the end of that action. But as falling over is "not an action" there is no beginning or end to measure. You cannot satisfy the condition of "falling over" and then have an attack hit you while you are "still falling over".
So maybe you are arguing this:
Target begins to fall prone in adjacent square
I don't really get an AoO because the conditions of the feat say he has to fall prone, not start to fall prone, but I'll ignore that and just say I get an AoO.
Target finishes falling prone in adjacent square
Now compare that with this and a dash of Common Sense:
Target falls prone
This completed act allows me to perform an AoO on him.
AoO resolved
End.
Which do you want at your table?
(Sorta ninja'd by Remy there...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve been reviewing the book, and other threads on AoOs… and I cannot find anything that says AoOs happen before the event that triggers them.
This is a good point. AoO's don't actually reverse time in any sense. They don't occur before the action that triggers them. They occur before the triggering action resolves. So the triggering action has already begun. It just hasn't finished yet.
The problem starts when trying to apply this continuity to something like Vicious Stomp. You can't have fallen prone (thereby satisfying the trigger), have your fall interrupted by AoO, and THEN finish falling prone. You've already fallen prone. There is nothing left to resolve. The AoO rule has been broken and comes after the trigger resolved. If you hadn't really fallen prone, but just started too, then the trigger condition was not satisfied and the attacker doesn't get an AoO. Vicious Stomp does not say "Whenever a target begins to fall prone on an adjacent square..."
So too with Greater Trip. Unless there is text somewhere divorcing the roll from the effect, you can't successfully knock someone prone via a trip and yet they aren't knocked prone via a trip.
Look at Ready Action. "The (readied) action occurs just before the action that triggers it." But what if my readied action is to shoot the next orc that comes into the room? How can I shoot him before he comes into the room if he isn't there for me to shoot?
Common Sense needs to come into play here at some point. Obviously the orc must have entered the room, otherwise there is nothing for me to shoot. But a too-literal interpretation of RAW would suggest that I somehow get to shoot him before he enters the room...which is nonsensical.
Applying the same common sense:
I successfully trip target
Target is successfully tripped
Definition of successful tripping is that target is knocked prone
Target is prone
Initiate AoO against prone target
Check to see if my AoO provokes an AoO from the target (such as if I punch him without IUS)
Resolve target's AoO against me (if any and at -4 for being prone)
Resolve my AoO against target.
A much smaller headache than what's being counter suggested.
Out of curiosity, where did this come from? I can't seem to find it.
It would be the same as making a Trip AoO against someone standing up, yes you can do it, success is simply beating the AC/CMD/DC. The target is still immune to the condition that would be applied (or rather he already has said condition, and they don't stack)
Or making a Trip attempt vs someone or something that is immune to the Prone condition (NOT immune to trip attempts, as that would not be a valid target to start with) success is possible, it simply will not have the expected result.
A successful Trip attack with Greater Trip vs something immune to the Prone condition would still provoke AoO. BUT most GM's (myself included) would most likely not let that sort of cheese work in there game(PFS excluded ofc)
This last statment is based on the assumption that "Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect." and Greater trip "looks" for a success, NOT the application of the listed effect. So the Prone immune thing provoking from Greater trip COULD be wrong, it is only based on my understanding of the "chain of events"
Emphasis, mine.
:)
This cannot be true.
Why?
It breaks causality.
If you trip someone, and get an AoO...and they are not prone...you could use this AoO to trip them.
This would allow you to burn every single AoO you hae chaining trips on an enemy that each happen before the one that happened before it. Each one would cause the target to provoke from everyone around the target.
It is wrong.
Look how it would work out... Example, Tripper guy has 5 AoOs to burn per round, he has 2 allies with 5 AoOs to burn per round too. They all move in around BBEG.
Tripper trips BBEG. BBEG provokes from all the 3. Each one uses their AoO. Tripper trips again. The other 2 attack. Tripper trips him again, which provokes again. They all use their AoOs again... repeating until they all run out.
In total, there is a total of 10 hits on him, and he is tripped before he is tripped 5 times.
It is absolutely absurd.
Even in the case of a single tripper.. How can he use the AoO from sucessfully tripping a dude… to trip the dude before he trips him? He gets an AoO from tripping, and the guy isn’t yet prone, so is a valid target for tripping, and so he trips him…before the trip that allowed him to trip…
Gah.
The answer is obvious. The target is already prone when you get the AoO from greater trip.
I find I quite like Remy's interpretation, and until someone can come up with a better argument, this is how I'm going to rule in my games (that a target is considered prone against all trip/stomp related attacks of opportunity).
The effect of a trip is that the target falls prone. If they happen to already be prone, they maintain their prone position. It's little more than rolling them over from their front to their back. Repeated trips on a target via AoOs are, essentially, a juggle-combo.
Are you suggesting that if I Greater Trip a target that the target is prone before I get to make my provoked AoO? That is what you seem to be suggesting if I were to use my AoO to trip them again. I thought your previous argument was that the target isn't prone at that time...
Trip Attack, determine success.
Trip is Successful. Greater Trip provokes AoO.
Resolve AoO. The AoO happens instantly before any effects are applied (ie. the Prone condition).
Emphasis is mine, but this is the crux of the disagreement. What RAW are you quoting that proves this assumption? I do not know of any rules that say rolls and effects of rolls are separate from each other.
The rules for AoO is talking about interrupting actions. Falling prone is not an action. It is not interruptible.
See, that's just the issue here. People keep saying AoO's "interrupt" actions which is certainly true...but it is not the point of the argument here.
The point is that falling prone is not an action so AoO doesn't apply to it. Show me by RAW where falling prone is an action.
Standing up from prone is a Move Action.
Diving prone is a Free Action.
Falling prone is "Not an Action".
According to the general rule of AoOs, AoOs interrupt actions, not "non-actions". But by your argument you keep assuming that they do. You are making a rule leap to where the rule doesn't support the argument. I am certainly open to the argument, but without RAW or FAQ or Dev input, it is conjecture only.
Dropping prone is a free action. It ordinarily wouldn't provoke an AoO. Do you really think it's a stretch to believe that a person highly trained in knocking a person over might be able to do so in a manner than not only causes them to fall, but causes them to fall awkwardly?
I don't see any real substantive difference between "Dropping Prone" and "Being Dropped to Prone". The only real difference is the impetus behind the action, like with movement and forced movement via Bull Rush. Being forced to move is not an action either, and yet nobody is saying that the AoO your allies get from you having Greater Bull Rush does not occur until the movement is finished.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still refuse to believe that it was the designers' intent to allow for "juggling."
The simple solution to the "Chain Tripping" issue is to exercise some common sense as a GM.
GM: "No, you can't use this particular attack of opportunity to trip the BBEG."
PC: "What? Why?"
GM: "Because you already successfully tripped him. You get an AoO because it got tripped, so make it while the creature is falling."
PC: "But I can trip in place of any attack!"
GM: "It won't work. It has already been tripped."
PC: "But the AoO trip occurs before it's prone!"
GM: "If you want to play it that way, fine. It makes absolutely no sense, but if that's how we want to play this, ok."
PC: "That's how I want to play this."
GM: "Ok. You do realize that the next encounter is going to be like 5 extremely dexterous giants with Greater Trip and Combat Reflexes, all using reach weapons, right? Their spellcasting friend will probably have a scroll of Mass Enlarge Person, too."
PC: "... Maybe I'll just do a regular attack. Tripping the BBEG when it's already been tripped doesn't make any sense, anyway."
GM: "Yeah, that's probably a good idea."
Or you could just assume that when he goes prone, he goes prone, and your AoO gets the bonuses.
I'm pretty certain the developers follow the KISS methodology wherever possible.
Or you could just assume that when he goes prone, he goes prone, and your AoO gets the bonuses.
I'm pretty certain the developers follow the KISS methodology wherever possible.
I would agree. :)
The definition of Trip is that I succeed in knocking the target prone. How do I know I've knocked him prone? The roll tells me I did. No reason to read into it any more than that with who is what where how and why.
Short, simple, and no headaches.
Ignoring the rules of a system in certain situations is the opposite of "simple". If you ignore the system, you might as well not have one and then we're just playing competitive storytelling. The Devs have stated, explicitly, in no uncertain terms, that AoOs interrupt the actions that prompt them. The rules state, explicitly, that "success" of a roll is determined by the sum of your roll meeting or exceeding the target value for the roll. Effects are prompted by success, but the existence of various abilities that declare, right out, that "You may do this after you roll attack, but before dealing damage" and similar as well as the fact that "Declaring" standing up provokes an AoO before removing the prone condition (also stated by the Devs via FAQ), shows that the effect isn't indivisibly tied to the success roll.
KISS: Follow the rules and don't make up crazy stuff to try and explain why mechanical constructs of the rules for balanced and predictable gameplay don't quite line up exactly with simulationist ideals.
There are also abilities that say "After you roll but before determining success." Do you have an ability that says, "After determining success but before [something]"?
Taking the rule that states, in uncertain terms, "The maneuver is successful and has the listed effect" to be the two happen at once is not a crazy idea. Trying to insert a point between two events described as simultaneously is, if nothing else, unnecessary. If it can be interpreted either way (and it definitely can), why would you take the interpretation that involves a theoretical break point somewhere? Forget K.I.S.S., use a little Occam's Razor here.
And again, being knocked prone is NOT an action. The only action the AoO can interrupt is you tripping them, but the AoO is not predicated on the occurrence of a trip as with the overwhelming majority of AoOs, but on its success. You cannot interrupt an action with an action whose success dictates the first action successfully occur.
There are also abilities that say "After you roll but before determining success." Do you have an ability that says, "After determining success but before [something]"?
Taking the rule that states, in uncertain terms, "The maneuver is successful and has the listed effect" to be the two happen at once is not a crazy idea. Trying to insert a point between two events described as simultaneously is, if nothing else, unnecessary. If it can be interpreted either way (and it definitely can), why would you take the interpretation that involves a theoretical break point somewhere? Forget K.I.S.S., use a little Occam's Razor here.
And again, being knocked prone is NOT an action. The only action the AoO can interrupt is you tripping them, but the AoO is not predicated on the occurrence of a trip as with the overwhelming majority of AoOs, but on its success. You cannot interrupt an action with an action whose success dictates the first action successfully occur.
SCENARIO:
A creature moves into your threatening reach and then continues to move again, outside of your reach. The movement (leaving a threatened square) provokes the attack. If your interpretation were correct you would get an AOO, but you could not reach them because they are now out of range.A good example is the Pin Down Feat.
The attack you are granted must come before the 5-foot step resolves, otherwise the opponent would be out of range. (In most scenarios). The feat does not say explicitly say it occurs before the 5-foot is resolved, but it is understood because this is how AOOs work.
The TRIP PARADOX from earlier is also equally silly. If you look at the scenario above and allow the hit, what happens if the hit kills the creature? Suddenly the creature falls prone in the square, which means it didn't leave the threatened square, meaning it didn't provoke, meaning it didn't die. *Mind Blown*
It's not a perfect system, but seems pretty clear what the rule is here. AOO resolves IMMEDIATELY after the trigger, but before the trigger resolves.
Here is my chart breaking down the steps in an Action. (people seem to like these...)
1. Initiate action. (say out loud, I'm going to do something.)
2. Apply Penalties for action. (-2Attack for Power Attack)
3. Roll Dice. (Wait for it...)
4. Determine success/failure. (DM tells you it hits, YAY)
5. Apply Benefits of action. (Deal Damage)
AOOs and immediate actions can take place after any step in this process.
Examples:
A. Trip w/o improved trip. AOO=1.5
B. Feat: Lucky Halfling. Immediate=3.5
C. Greater Trip. AOO=4.5
D. Vicious Stomp. AOO=5.5
Ignoring the rules of a system in certain situations is the opposite of "simple". If you ignore the system, you might as well not have one and then we're just playing competitive storytelling. The Devs have stated, explicitly, in no uncertain terms, that AoOs interrupt the actions that prompt them. The rules state, explicitly, that "success" of a roll is determined by the sum of your roll meeting or exceeding the target value for the roll. Effects are prompted by success, but the existence of various abilities that declare, right out, that "You may do this after you roll attack, but before dealing damage" and similar as well as the fact that "Declaring" standing up provokes an AoO before removing the prone condition (also stated by the Devs via FAQ), shows that the effect isn't indivisibly tied to the success roll.
KISS: Follow the rules and don't make up crazy stuff to try and explain why mechanical constructs of the rules for balanced and predictable gameplay don't quite line up exactly with simulationist ideals.
I still haven't seen anyone quote RAW where it is clearly stated that the AoO goes off before the trigger.