PF2E has done great at streamlining some things. But other things have turned the game into a page-turning search for rule references. Not a fan of that.
The change isn't "needed" in the sense that not fixing it will break the game. The DCs are based on the bonuses, so it all works mechanically. The issue that I have (can't speak for others) is that this blurs the line between exceptional characters and average ones, leaving us with this middle of the road situation that leaves me feeling meh since everyone can do everything. A Legend in an ability is only +5 better than someone who has no training at all. Han Solo would be high level in a SW game, but he always blows those Bluff checks. He's just not very good at it. Being high level didn't improve his ability to lie to people. This is the case with the Attributes too. All the extreme highs and lows have been filtered out so you're left with a lot of 16's and 18's. Meh. MHO, anyway.
I'm FAQ number 42. I win!
The RAW on this seems pretty clear. Entries concerning Spike Shields refer back to the Spikes...which clearly indicate they are "as if". Do I agree that this should be how it is? Not at all. JJ mentioned not liking the idea of a spiked heavy shield in the off-hand doing 2d6 damage. But a flaming longsword does even more, so I don't see the problem there. But back to RAW, those of you arguing that Spiked Shields don't actually fall into the FAQ are splitting hairs. You're combing through minutia and ignoring the bits you don't like. As Menacing has pointed out, the Shields tell us to refer back to the Spikes entry. If you don't like it and want to house-rule it, go for it. But like it or not (and I don't), we are stuck with the official ruling that Paizo has given us.
In the other thread, I mentioned early on how I believed the idea of a Brawler archetype (who gave up his AC and Unarmed Damage) dipping into Monk and wearing Robes in order to get access to certain bonuses seemed overpowered to me. But as a PFS GM, I wasn't aware of any precedent in the rules that would disallow this. This generated a number of questions for me, the key one being the stacking of levels through the text of "counts as" in the Martial Training ability. Hence my question here. I was asking more than just what Mark thinks it should be, but also asking for a pointer in how to interpret it...meaning if there was anything in the rules that would lend itself to supporting a specific way of reading it over another. Thanks to you, Chess Pwn, your citing of Mark's original answer to a similar question helps to show what his opinion on the matter is. And thanks to Kazaan's mention of the Magus rule that explicitly points out stacking (where the Brawler rule does not), this seemed to be the precedent I was looking for....which also happens to agree with a Developer's viewpoint. So unless Mark has any further comments for this, I can withdraw my question as it has been satisfactorily answered since its posting.
Mark, I was wondering if you could give a pointer as to how best to interpret a rule concerning the Brawler's Martial Training ability. For reference: At 1st level, a brawler counts her total brawler levels as both fighter levels and monk levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats. She also counts as both a fighter and a monk for feats and magic items that have different effects based on whether the character has levels in those classes (such as Stunning Fist and a monk's robe). This ability does not automatically grant feats normally granted to fighters and monks based on class level, namely Stunning Fist. I embolded the key issue that I and others are having with this. The debate stems from how to interpret "counts as". Does this mean that Brawler levels in these conditions are to be "in the place of" Fighter and Monk levels? Or are they "in addition to"? For example, does a Brawler-2/Fighter-2 qualify for Weapon Specialization? Or how many times per day can a Brawler-4/Monk-4 perform a Stunning Fist?
Keep in mind that regardless of whether Bardic performance is tied to a skill, you are not actually using that skill. The rule of Skill Use in the CRB is that if you are using a skill, then you must make a skill check. As Inspire Courage doesn't require a skill check, then you are not 'using' a skill. What you ARE doing is using a Supernatural ability that is tied to a Charisma-based skill, but that ability doesn't actually involve using that skill in the case of Inspire Courage. It can't, because to say you are using a skill and not making a check for it is breaking RAW. Rage only restricts certain skill uses and any Abilities that require patience and concentration...none of which Inspire Courage demands. If Inspire Courage required a skill check to activate or was described as needing patience or concentration, then and only then would Rage restrict it from being activated/maintained. But we know this is not the case. I believe Inspire Courage falls into the same category as Channel Energy.
This makes them ok to activate/maintain while Raging.
I know there have been several threads floated around over the past few years that tackle this issue. But I've not seen anything definitive that helps to carry this topic out of the "grey" area. So this is more of a FAQ request to help clear up a core issue that has been debated for quite a few years now. Argument For:
Argument Against:
Feel free to post your arguments FOR or AGAINST the use of Inspire Courage while Raging. But also please hit the FAQ button to see if we can get this answered definitively.
Just because one person deems something to be answered or resolved doesn't mean that everyone else does. In asking for what issues still need resolving, you will invite responses that include those topics where I might think something was resolved by a FAQ while others feel that the FAQ doesn't address the specific issue in question. That said, I agree that this thread isn't where disagreements need to be argued. There are other places for that. This is more of a way to sum up where the problem areas are; something that other posters have done very nicely already. :)
Yes, as shown above, Greater Trip is still a contested issue. ;)
One that has generated a few threads on occasion: Greater Trip; is the AoO performed before or after the Prone condition is applied?
We've always done it where it's either a Move action for the recipient to take it out of the hands of an adjacent giver (who just let's go of it) or a Move action for the giver to put it into the hands of an adjacent recipient (who just shifts his grip onto it). No idea if it's RAW or even close, but that's what we've always done for simplicity.
I completely understand what you're saying and I've probably made the same comments about it. However the common-sense reading of Ready is that the readied action takes place before the trigger action "resolves". So an orc is in the middle of his action as he opens the door. Then the readied action happens. Then the orc's action continues (if he's still alive). For simplicity, your Initiative is now set to just before the orc. Curious as to why you would disallow a Readied Swift action if you've already done one, but not disallow a Readied Move action if you've already done one. You're only allowed one of each of those, since you can't burn your Standard (used to Ready) for a 2nd Move action. And that is exactly why we are having this discussion. Did you notice the rule says you can't have that 2nd Move unless you give up your Standard for it? You bolded it. But when you Ready an action, what are you doing with your Standard? You're using it to Ready. So you don't have it to use for a 2nd Move that turn. So if I've Moved and then Ready a Move, I can't actually perform that 2nd Move. This is the very problem with treating a Readied Swift as if it is still a Swift. Because if you say a Readied Action still retains its original "nature", then you are stuck spending a full-round action just to Ready a Move because you're spending a Standard to Ready and you're treating the readied action still as a Move. And you can't Ready a Standard at all! Instead, I believe the rule of Ready is pretty clear. Readying is a Standard Action. So you take that action that was a Standard or Move or Swift or Free and it is now a Standard. Perform a Swift? There's your Swift for the turn.
Simple and no mess. You haven't violated any rules. You haven't performed 2 Swifts. You've performed 1 Swift and 1 Standard because the rule of Ready changes that action into a Standard. And if you don't believe action types can change, then ask yourself how many Move actions are involved when rapid reloading a light crossbow? ;)
Parallel comparison of Action Economies below. Remember that a character is only allowed a single Standard, a single Move, and a single Swift on their turn. The only modification to this is they can give up their Standard to perform a 2nd Move. If they don't or can't exchange the Standard, then no 2nd Move is allowed. #1 Swift (Swift action spent), Move (Move action spent), Readied Swift (Standard action spent, but action still counts as Swift so can't be done since Swift was already done this turn). #2 Swift (Swift action spent), Move (Move action spent), Readied Move (Standard action spent, but action still counts as Move so can't be done since Move was already done this turn...and no Standard is available to exchange for a 2nd Move). If you insist on #1, then you must also be insisting on #2 as they use the same interpretation of Ready. We all agree #2 is wrong. It is entirely possible to Move and then Ready to Move again. So #1 must be wrong also. However, the following involves no conflict... #3 Swift (Swift action spent), Move (Move action spent), Readied Swift (Standard action spent). #4 Swift (Swift action spent), Move (Move action spent), Readied Move (Standard action spent).
This assumes that the action you are Readying retains its original nature; a Readied Swift remains a Swift, a Readied Move remains a Move, and a Readied Standard remains a Standard. But there are major problems with this assumption. If Readying a Swift uses up your Swift for the turn, then Readying a Move uses up your Move for the turn. Do you see where this becomes an issue? You'd never be able to Move and then Ready to Move again all in the same turn, since Moving spends your Move action and Readying still counts as a Move while also costing you your Standard action. Per the rules, you're not allowed a 2nd Move unless you exchange your Standard for it. But you don't have a Standard to exchange since you spent it on Readying. So you're limited to a single Move action which you've already used Moving. Which puts you in the exact same predicament you face when Readying a Swift action after performing a Swift action earlier in your turn. So either Ready changes the Action Type to Standard or it doesn't and we run into all sorts of Action Economy problems.
What? No similar rule regarding move and standard? You mean this little rule that people seem to keep forgetting about? In a normal round, you can perform A standard action and A move action... According to this you are limited to a single Standard and a single Move (unless you burn your Standard to make a 2nd Move). So if Readying your Swift counts as your Standard and your Swift, then why doesn't Readying your Standard count as your Standard and another Standard? Why are you switching how you interpret the rule of Ready? There is one way to avoid this conflict. To recognize that the Ready action redefines the nature of the action, converting it from whatever Type it was to a Standard. Rapid Reload does it for reloading. Bard levels do it for Performance. Lots of other things do it for lots of other things. So why won't you let Ready do it as it was designed to do? Here's an interesting exercise to illustrate the point: Round 1
Round 2
Nefreet, I'm totally with you. We are in the same boat. Simply put, the original text in the CRB was ambiguous. One camp focused on the first part and another camp focused on the second part. The FAQ clarified it is the first part that matters. Those of us in the second camp can understand and accept the reasoning behind the FAQ. It's been an interesting debate all. Moving on now.
No disrespect taken and none offered. That illustration that you posted, however, is labeled incorrectly. In order for it to be in line with the official FAQ, it should actually be reversed. The distance the jumper's feet have moved is 17 feet and the distance he has cleared (the pit) is 15 ft. The FAQ says you need to roll a 15 in this case. This is enough to clear the pit, but only because your feet are moving 17ft from one space of ground before the pit, covering the 15ft distance of open space over the pit, to the other space of ground after the pit, which by any measure is more than 15 feet of distance that your feet have traveled. This means the second part of text is wrong. A result of 15 does not reflect how far I have 'traveled' as it suggests. According to the FAQ a result of 15 reflects how far I have 'cleared'. I have 'traveled' 17 feet (from jumping to landing with feet first and the rest of body following) and have 'cleared' 15 feet (of open pit). So this second part of text needs to be rewritten, removed, or just flat out ignored.
Wow! Step away for a day or two and look what happens. Awesome! :) Meh, so I was wrong too. As was mentioned, there were two particular sentences that conflicted in Acrobatics' description and I was with Nefreet and others giving weight to the second one. Nice to have it answered officially either way. And probably best to ignore the second sentence there since it describes jumping as movement (hence the confusion between jumping as movement vs jumping as clearing an object during movement). So this is a win/win as Paladins and armor-clad warriors everywhere cheer that they now have a chance against that 10-ft pit. :)
this was brought up and talked about a long time ago. many people feel he is being "safe" and that he does not actually deny the possibility of a DC 10. It's true that it was brought up and discussed. But in the absence of any other DEV input what we still have are two rules in Acrobatics that seem to conflict with each other and the words of a Developer who gives weight and favor to the second one. So unless/until another DEV somewhere has provided input or clarity to this matter, it appears the DC 11 argument is holding the most weight out of the three...that the Acrobatics check result reflects the distance traveled and you must travel/cross 11+ feet to get past a 10ft gap. But all that aside, again I don't think it really matters. So what if a GM wants to give me a DC of 10 instead of 11 or 15. Easier for my guy to make the jump. I'm ok with that. :)
If you know on average you can jump 10 feet, and you find a chasm that's 5-9 feet across, then you know you can jump across the cavern. And you don't have to make a roll to do it. If the player asks "how far is it?," and the GM says "about 10 feet," and the player uses Take 10 because he knows his Take 10 result gets him 11 feet, that's fine. This seems to indicate that a result of 10 is good enough for anything 9ft or less, but you'd need an 11 for a chasm that is 10ft. So the answer to the OP seems to be DC 11.
Again, if we're talking about being on a grid, you are in a square and jumping less than 5 feet leaves you in your own square. But if we talk 1-ft increments, then yes, you only need a 1 to move into a pit that you're on the edge of. And even if you start at the edge and the pit is 10 feet across, the area you want to land in (on the other side of the pit) is 11 feet away from your current location. So you need to jump from 0 to 11. Jumping from 0 to 10 lands you IN the pit. If the goal is to jump INTO the pit, then a 10 is just fine. But if you are trying to jump OVER the pit, then a 10 is only good if the pit is less than 10 feet across as per what SKR says.
That would be true if you're counting in 5-foot increments. If you roll so bad as to get under a 5, then you're not really jumping at all as opposed to stumbling around in your square...which is entirely possible with such a low roll. Now if you break things down into more 1-foot increments, then you can see some actual movement. Again, even as SKR pointed out in those links, a result of 10 is good for 5-9 feet, but you'd need a result of 11 to manage an "about 10" foot jump. No where in those discussions does he say DC 10 for a 10ft pit. He recognizes that in order to get over the pit, you have to travel more than 10 feet and therefore need more than a result of 10. Maybe he's said otherwise elsewhere, I don't know. I've only looked at what Cheapy linked on the first page. From those posts SKR seems to be emphasizing the part of the CRB that mentions "...the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump)..."
Crazy how long it's taken for me to get that point across, huh? He's not saying at all that you count the square you leave from. 0 1 2 3 4 Starting in 0 and ending in 4 is a 20ft travel distance.
The wording for Acrobatics is most certainly ambiguous. I have found at various tables that: #1 DC 15 is the logical answer (to go from A to D you must traverse 15ft)
I've always leaned toward #1 but I can see the reasoning behind the others. I see SKR's comments that Cheapy linked on Page 1 talk about how Taking 10 with no modifiers means you can easily jump a 5-9ft wide chasm. Notice here that SKR didn't say 10ft chasm. What he's saying is a DC 10 is needed for 5-9 feet. So he appears to be acknowledging that a result of 10 is not enough to cross a 10ft pit. And seeing as the game always rounds fractions down, a 5-9ft wide pit is technically 5ft wide with regards to a grid. Which would mean a "5ft" pit requires a DC 10 jump. (Where he DOES mention a DC 10, he's talking about a 10ft jump...not crossing a 10ft pit). So again #1 sounds like the right answer and #2 could be argued as correct also. However... #3 is the easy and most common answer I've seen at tables. As my gaming time tends to be limited, I just go with whatever the GM says instead of wasting time debating rules (that's what this forum is for). And #3 just means my guys have a better chance of actually making the jumps anyway.
That's an easy one. Step 1: Put on Cestus.
:p
Cestus: The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm. The close combat weapon is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and often lined with wicked spikes along the backs of the hands and wrists. While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus. When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks). Bold mine. But what does "using" mean in this sentence? Wearing? If so, why doesn't it just say "When wearing a cestus..."? Wielding? Other rules seem clear that when you can or cannot "use" something, it is referring to performing the function of that item. You must "use" a shield in order to get the AC bonus from it. Also when wearing a Light Shield, you can carry but not "use" weapons in that hand. Does this mean I can wield a Cestus while wielding a dagger in the same hand such that any attack or AoO that I make can be done with either weapon? (Note, I didn't say both weapons). An example would be punching a target with the Cestus on my turn and discovering that the target has DR/slashing. Then when he provokes an AoO on his turn, I elect to slash with the dagger. And for clarification, I'm not talking about TWF with both weapons. The FAQ about that topic makes it very clear that you can't make an "off-hand" attack in cases where you don't have an off-hand.
Ok, now for something actually constructive instead of ranting about ranting. :p As mentioned, there is a difference between Race traits and Racial traits. Confusing, but that's the case. Race traits are a category of the various traits that you can select (such as Combat, Magic, Faith, Religion, Social, etc). Racial Traits are abilities available to specific races. When you select "Adopted" as a Social Trait you immediately get to choose a Race trait from the race you've selected. So on your character sheet you will actually have 3 traits listed. Something akin to: 1st Trait (anything but Social or Race)
As an example, I have a PFS character whose traits are: Fate's Favored (Faith)
So hopefully that clarifies things a bit. I can understand the frustration of feeling like the GM is just having a power-trip. But this is probably not the best place to vent. It doesn't usually come across as you might intend. Hopefully you guys will be able to work something out, change up who's GMing, or whatever. Good luck. :)
Earlier in the discussion there was mention of the 1.5x Str limit "rule" which was the reasoning behind the FAQ. Balance is in question if a character is allowed to benefit from 1.5x Str bonus from wielding his weapon 2-handed AND getting in an extra .5x Str attack with TWF. That makes it 2.0x Str and Devs don't want to allow for that. Although it is unwritten, it was the standard by which the Devs held to when creating the FAQ. Using a Bow with two hands does not grant the 1.5x Str bonus. Nor does TWF with a Bow and an Unarmed Strike break the limit. Shooting your target with an arrow and 5ft stepping to kick or headbutt him doesn't push you beyond 1.5x Str. Plus doing so with any skill gets expensive in feats and combat penalties. So I honestly don't see the big deal in allowing for it regardless of your interpretation. It doesn't exactly break the game. <shrug>
Yes Krodjin, you are correct that projectile weapons follow their own set of rules apart from melee weapons. That has been BBT's argument from the beginning. :p
BBT has it correctly. The FAQ is talking about 2-H weapons (and inferring 1-H weapons wielded with two hands). A Bow is neither of these. You require 2 hands to operate a Bow, but you do not get 1.5x your Str bonus to it and it is impossible to operate the Bow by keeping both of your hands on it at all times. One hand holds it while the other pulls arrow, loads arrow, draws string, and releases all as part of the attack action. In fact your hand MUST release the string. If it doesn't, then you don't fire the weapon properly. By it's nature of operation, you are left with a free hand at the end of the attack sequence. It is certainly viable to assume that, after releasing the string, your hand is free to add a punch to your attack sequence. The best way to do this is via the TWF rules. Plus TWF with a Bow and unarmed strike does not violate the "1.5x Str max" unwritten rule. You're getting 1x Str from the Bow and .5x Str from the unarmed strike.
The interrupt taking place is happening after the action triggers it, but before it actually resolves: ie once you start to cast a spell or aim with a ranged weapon or raise a potion to your lips, but before you get the spell off or fire the arrow or drink. Hence casting can be disrupted. The same is true with readied actions. You can't shoot "the first orc to enter the room" until an orc actually enters the room. So that orc has to begin his move, enter the room, and then can be hit before he can finish his move action. Standing from prone breaks this for game balance. Realistically, when someone is gathering their feet under them to stand, you can knock them back over. But the Dev's don't want a game where warriors can easily triplock casters and proceed to pound them to death. So via the game rules, the target is prone until they're standing. You cannot reapply the prone condition (or if you can it just means nothing), your AoO resolves, and now the target stands up...as per the FAQ.
As a cleric who is not built around healing, I will be glad to burn one of my slots to heal a PC instead of to buff him. I will be willing (although not happy) to burn all of my slots I would have otherwise used to buff him for healing him, if that is his desire. But if he is too cheap to get himself a CLW wand or some Pots so that I can be about buffing, then why am I the bad guy when I don't burn my wands and Pots to heal him? Because he's busy using his money on armor and weapons to protect me? I'm right there on the frontline with him, carrying the same load, burning my money on similar gear. And I don't see him expending his weapons and armor and having to buy new ones between sessions. So why am I called on to expend my wealth while he gets to keep his? Does this make me selfish and greedy? Really? He's being the drain on my economy and I'M the selfish one? At the very least it should be a party thing. We all go in knowing the risks and we share the costs. Fighter was killed and the Barb was level-drained? Their recovery comes out of the party loot before everything else is split. All accounts are settled. THEN we share the excess. If someone was being excessively stupid along the way, then the party can vote to change said shares. This is part of the issue with a game system like this. In a regular weekly/monthly group consisting of the same players, there's unity there. Everyone is generally ok with having a Party Fund of some kind. Not so much when you're hopping from table to table at a CON and you hardly bump into the same people twice. I've got a buddy that I usually run with on Fantasy Grounds when they have PFS games up. We make a good team and we're there to help each other out. I don't mind burning money on him because I know he does the same for me. In the larger group, I don't have a problem sharing the cost. But the rules are set up so that what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. There is no sharing. If allowing everyone to purchase their own copy of the +1 flaming longsword that was sundered during the adventure isn't too much of a stretch, then allowing the party to dump coin and PP into a generic Party Fund of some type that allows them to buy supplies before/during/after the adventure isn't too much of a stretch either. My humble opinion anyway.
When I begin a session, I make a point to note what everyone's contributions involve and to let them know what I can contribute. I'll make a point about CLW wands and various scrolls or potions. I have no issue with coming prepared and letting others turn to me when they need help. I, like others, enjoy being a "boyscout". We actually like having long, extensive inventories filled with odds and ends tucked away for rainy days. Then when the party runs into something extraordinary, we are able to contribute in some fashion by having the item needed that "saves the day". Am I inclined to offer these rare and precious consumables to a group knowing that I'm burning my gold without any payback other than to hear "Nice job, thanks" ? Not really. But I would be much more inclined to provide aid in this way if something akin to below were official: PC#1 has Consumable X.
So what abuses can be made from this? Maybe it's just my own perspective but "boyscouts will get used" isn't a concern. If I don't want to share, I won't. And I won't be guilted or bullied into it either. I have no problems dropping the coin for a BoL scroll. If I can't cast it, I'll hand it to the party cleric with instructions to use it on me as needed. If I can cast it, I'd expect anyone I use it on to repay me. Not having the above or some way to put together a "party fund" of some kind, chills teamwork. Maybe there are big abuses I'm overlooking, but I see good things coming from a change like this.
Seebs properly notes the use of the word "mundane" as it is being used here. The text is not drawing a distinction between armor and non-armor. It is drawing a distinction between mundane armor and non-mundane armor. As if to say "Unlike mundane armor, this special armor..." This carries over into the next sentence when it distinguishes itself "from normal armor"....not just "from armor". Both instances are talking about armor. One type is mundane and normal. The other is something special. RAI? No idea. But certainly RAW.
This is correct. However there are other effects that create armor that also do not have any ACP/ASF values. These words create translucent armor made of solid magic, protecting without weight or obstruction. So unlike mundane/normal armor, there are spells that create a special kind of armor. Something that doesn't carry any ACP/ASF values to them, but this doesn't make them non-armor. They are referred to as armor. They provide an armor bonus. And they are contrasted with mundane/normal armor. Sounds like armor to me. So without splitting hairs here, if it looks, walks, quacks, and tastes like a duck...then I'd say the burden of proof is on the one claiming it's not really a duck. ;)
Remy, Robb, Devil's, Sing, and a sprinkling of others all have the right of it. The burden of proof is not on them. It is on those that wish to hold some spells to a certain Standard (must say it counts as X effect in order to treat it that way), who then relax that Standard for other spells (doesn't have to say it counts as X effect even though we treat it that way). Why the change in Standards other than because you want it to be that way? Also;
If "being a suit" is what qualifies something as being armor, then Magic Vestment should not work on Breastplate, Chain Shirt, Hide, Leather, or Padded armors as none of these are listed as "suits" in the CRB. ;)
Blackstorm is correct and I stand by my previous post. Although the PC's are not blind, the attackers are basically invisible because they cannot be seen. So follow the rules for invisible attackers. Even if I can locate the square an invisible creature resides in, I still lose my Dex bonus against its attacks as per the rules. So unless the PCs move outside the 30ft range, find a way to reveal their targets, or gain some means of nullifying SAs against them, they are subject to such attacks.
So with the drow in darkness with total concealment, they were in essence invisible? Last time I checked, an invisible attacker not only gains +2 on the attack, but denies the defender any Dex bonus to AC...which qualifies for Sneak Attack. But maybe I'm missing something.
As it is untyped "Energy" that is causing the damage, I'd probably go with it being "Untyped Energy Damage" and the PFS Scenario being unique/wrong. Just my thoughts though.
When a vicious weapon strikes, it creates a flash of energy. That energy causes the damage, as shown in the text. So it is not Option #1. There is no mention of Negative energy or the effects on Undead or Constructs as Darksol has pointed out. So it is not Option #3. This leaves Option #2. As a guess, I'd say the energy is untyped so you can't set up a situation where you can ignore the 1d6 coming back at you; in essence getting the +2d6 for free.
This would seem to clearly give us the context of what they mean by "trip". Both sentences even include reference to what you get to do when you knock down/trip your target. Does anyone really think the writer would put "on foes that you knock down" if he really meant "against foes that you make a successful trip attempt on"?
PF was not written for Rocket Scientists and Language Professors. It was written for the Average Joe. When the text of Greater Trip starts out by telling me that "You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down", this pretty much sets the context through which I'm going to read everything that follows. "Whenever you successfully trip" is a simple and straightforward bit of text. Everywhere else in the rules where we find "If you successfully Verb", it is talking about the verb of "Verbing". If that Verb also happens to be a combat maneuver Noun, then the game distinguishes between whether it is talking about the Verbing or the Noun. If it's talking about the Verbing, then we get something like "Whenever you Verb" or "When you successfully Verb". The Verb is the action happening. If it's talking about the Noun, then we get something like "When your Noun is a success" or "If you succeed on a Noun". The words "is" and "succeed" in this case are the Verbs that apply to the Nouns. The Verb of tripping never applies directly to the Noun of a Trip Combat Maneuver. The claim put forth is that in Greater Trip's case, "When you successfully Verb" can be read to mean "When you succeed on a Noun". But since this is not the norm of the rules, the burden of proof is on those putting this case forth. It is not the responsibility of ["When you Verb" means "When you Verb"] to prove anything. The rules set the context and the standard for this already. If the proposed reading that goes against the grain of this standard cannot be proven to be reasonably possible, then such a claim cannot be described as "valid". If it can be proven, then the text truly is ambiguous and in need of a FAQ or Errata. To date, the only evidence I have seen is the citing of the AoO rules, which don't apply to this and the belief that reading it either way is possible...which isn't proof but rather restating the premise. There has also been a lot of time spent on refuting Camp #3's posts rather than citing evidence in support of Camp #1 or #2. If there are rules that suggest Verb can be Noun, then please state them so we can discuss them here. In their absence, the interpretation cannot be considered valid.
I agree that the simple case is usually the best. The reason we break it down into something more complex here, however, is because we don't see the proper sequence otherwise. Roll/Prone blend together which makes it hard to see where the AoO is being triggered. Based on your responses, the heart of the problem seems to be this: You see "successfully trip" and think "succeed on a trip attack". These two things are not the same. Not even close. They are the difference between hitting and damaging. The first is talking about the activity of tripping. Tripping someone means to make them stumble or fall over. In game terms, it is only the latter. To trip someone means to make them fall over. To trip someone successfully means to make them fall over successfully. Text all throughout the rules use this wording to describe activities that are resolving successfully. If an ability wants me to successfully hit a target in combat, I need to make contact with it in some way. Anything that happens after the hit takes place isn't important for the sake of the ability. My flame damage doesn't care if any regular damage gets through. It triggers once the Hit happens. The purpose here is to hit and once I make contact I have successfully done so. Now any ability that triggers here can do so. If something wants me to successfully damage a target in combat, NOW just making contact isn't enough. Now I need to deliver damage to the target. Injury poison requires damage. Only after I have delivered damage can I say that I have successfully damaged my target (and deliver the poison). If an ability wants me to successfully cast a spell, then what happens after the spell manifests doesn't matter. My only concern is to cast the spell without being interrupted. If this is a touch spell, I can cast and hold the charge. The spell has been successfully cast even though I haven't delivered it. If I gain Hpts every time I successfully cast, then I gain them here. If something wants me to successfully heal a friend with a cast spell, NOW just casting isn't enough. It actually needs to deliver a healing effect to my friend. So I need to cast and then touch my friend. If nothing gets in the way and some healing takes place, then at this point I have successfully healed a friend with a cast spell. If successfully healing a friend with a spell allows me to heal the same amount, then it happens here. In each of these instances (and every example I gave above) and all throughout the rules, any time "successfully" is mentioned (except for one case that I've seen) it is referring to some verb, some activity, which has been carried out to completion. Successfully Hit (by beating AC) or Damage (by beating AC and delivering damage) or Bull rush off mount (by beating CMD and moving target off his mount) or etc. The event being described has taken place successfully. THEN some benefit is gained after this happens. This establishes what "successfully" means when used in context of the game. Now compare this to "succeed on a trip attack". We have many examples of this. Ki Throw is one. Meteor Hammer is another. Hammer to the ground is a third; "At 7th level, when a foehammer succeeds at a bull rush combat maneuver, he can make a trip combat maneuver at the end of the bull rush. If he does not move with the target, the force of his blow may still trip his foe, but he takes a –5 penalty on the combat maneuver check to trip." This clearly shows that the bull rush has not completed. The "succeeds at a bull rush" is talking about beating the CMD. Now the target is pushed back and at the end of this move you get the trip attempt. A Dragoncatch Guisearme is another example; "A dragoncatch guisarme can be used to make a special trip maneuver against creatures using wings to fly. If the maneuver succeeds, the target's wings are fouled and the creature is knocked off balance, falling to the ground and gaining the entangled condition. A creature tripped in this way can attempt a DC 15 Fly check as a move action to remove the entangled condition." In this example we have samples of both "a trip maneuver" and "being tripped". At first the benefit wants the maneuver to succeed. If it does, then the target falls and gains the entangled condition. After the target has been tripped in this way, on its turn it can use a move action to attempt to remove the condition. There is a distinct difference between "successfully trip" and "succeed on a trip maneuver". They are not the same thing. The rules provide the consistency to spell this out. One is talking about beating the CMD and the other is talking about the activity of what you're doing resolving in a beneficial manner.
I think we need some clarification on the whole Ready Action. You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the highlighted areas are the areas bbangerter is focusing in on. This suggests my readied action goes before the action that triggers it. However if we adjust the lighting a bit, we get: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action. So it appears that what is actually happening is that the triggering action begins, but then gets interrupted before it fully resolves. The orc running into the room is in the middle of his move action. But before he can complete it, you shoot him. He had to have started it and moved. Otherwise he wouldn't be in the room and there would be nothing for you to shoot at. Then your initiative is set at the same number as the triggering character's. But just like all ties, this is resolved in a way so that someone goes first. If we have 3 people at 11, someone has to go first, second, and last. In this case you automatically get to go first on the same initiative number as the triggering character. Does this explain the issue? Because I'd like to get back to
If we replaced Binding throw with Spinning throw then we'd have: Ki Throw maneuver
This assumes you move with him to keep him adjacent to you. If you just shove him back 5ft and don't move yourself, then he's out of your threatened space and you get no AoOs. He's still provoking just as the feats say he is, but you're not there to capitalize on it.
@ Sub_Zero If you're using Ki Throw, then you're unarmed. So I would guess you would: Ki Throw him to the ground,
That's....a lot going on. But then you DID pay the Feat tax for it. So enjoy. :) Just make sure you have IUS or you'll be provoking in there somewhere. EDIT: And yeah I think 'shark' about sums up Remy. :P
Uh, Remy. I totally agree with you, but calm down, man. heh You can debate very good points, but you don't have to try and bash their skulls in with your book. Getting worked up a bit there, don't you think? Almost like you can sense blood in the water. :P But seriously, I really REALLY don't want this thread to reduce itself to something nasty. So please rein it in. I would expect the same from fretgod99, bbangerter, HangerFlying, and everyone else. ...except for RavingDork. He's just crazy. :P
I successfully tripped a guy once, but he didn't fall to the ground. I took a trip once during Fall. :P
|
