The movement is not interrupted--you wasted that trip attempt to make a prone target prone. The target then continues his turn, and since you tripped him before he did anything (i.e. because AoO happens immediately). You are confusing interrupted movement with an interrupted Move action. Logical progression is this:The 3.5 SRD is obsolete.
By the RAW in the PFSRD, you can attempt to stand, granting an AoO. I won't argue that you no longer have the prone condition, but having the prone condition does not disqualify the chance for a Trip attack.
AoO Trip resolves, leaving you prone with your movement interrupted, just as if your normal movement were interrupted, and you still have the prone condition.
If your only action is to trip the target, that does not prevent the Move action from continuing.
- Target starts to use Move action to stand, triggering AoO
- AoO occurs immediately (before the Move action)
- Target continues Move action if possible
If you want to trip that target after the Move action, you need to use a Ready action.
Yes, a Trip attempt interrupts a Move Action. That is exactly what I am saying. Are you arguing otherwise?
|
The 3.5 SRD is obsolete.
By the RAW in the PFSRD, you can attempt to stand, granting an AoO. I won't argue that you no longer have the prone condition, but having the prone condition does not disqualify the chance for a Trip attack.
AoO Trip resolves, leaving you prone with your movement interrupted, just as if your normal movement were interrupted, and you still have the prone condition.
And then you complete your interrupted move action and are no longer prone, unless the tripper has something like Stand Still.
Hmm ... odd.
AoO's *are* resolved from before the action it taken, yes? If so, then you can trip, and re-trip, but it's not going to net much of an effect. Sure, you get the AoO, and sure, the target is prone (still), but that move-action has yet to take place (given AoO's take place first).
Target-wise, or on the receiving end, it's 1) Crap - I'm down, 2) crap - kick in the head, and still down ... 3) stand up.
I'm not seeing *how* you could have gotten into a "locked" situation in the first place.
The *only* way I'm seeing something different is with say, Combat Reflexes applied and a high dex modifier. If that guy has say a +3 dex mod and is doing the tripping and has the combat reflexes, he has 4 AoO's to make. So ... IF he keeps taking an AoO and trying to trip (assuming what the 2-feat dip of trip for the AoO, correct?) the downed guy, and keeps getting trip/AoO results, he *could* potentially blow all of his AoO's beating the guy on the ground, right?
In which case, it'll flow like (again from the victim's POV)
1) Fails trip resistance/whatever ==> "Crap I'm down!"
2) Attempts to stand up ==> "Crap - kick in the head, and still down!"
3) Tripper STILL has 3 more AoO's to burn, and fallen attempts to stand up ==> "Crap - kick in the head, and still down! Are you kidding me!?!?!"
4) Tripper STILL has 2 more AoO's to burn, and fallen attempts to stand up ==> "Crap - kick in the head, and still down! Son of a b~%#@!!!! Quit it!!!"
5) Tripper STILL has 1 more AoO's to burn, and fallen attempts to stand up ==> "Crap - kick in the head, and still down! Damn your eyes!!! DAMN YOUR EYES!!!!!"
6) No more AoO's on the tripper, so the guy can finally stand up - and he's busted up pretty good.
So, the tripper gets a full attack, can use 1 attack to down the target and the rest are attacks/strikes. Let's just look at the worst case scenario with a fighter at level 20. So, 4 attacks on a full attack - that's 1 trip and 3 swings. Then, this guy tries to stand up and the fighter has 4 more attacks through combat reflexes (honestly, though, 3 is kind of low for a dex/combat reflexes sort of fighter - 5 would be more accurate given all the magical *junk* in play by that level, IMO). So he ends up with 8 attacks and one being a trip and 4 being AoO's. If we give him the +5 dex mod, then we're looking at some 10 attacks ... 6 of which are AoO's basically curb-stomping this poor SoB into the pavement.
I can't think of many things that can handle a fighter full attacking with 9 potential strikes, all of which gain the *prone* benefit upon the target of the attack (ie: -4 to AC rating). That's just ... that's just abusive, IMO.
I'd suggest somehow limiting 1 AoO, PERIOD per target per AoO provoking action taken from any single target (thus, limiting the tripper to a single strike vs. the curb-stomping that just will be doled out casually if he can continue to burn every available AoO on that same, single action attempt made by the guy trying to stand up).
That age-old debate again.
1) game balance and RAW (and 3.5 FAQ) say you can't use a trip as an AoO on someone standing up
2) realist simulationism (because, if you picture the situation, you'll see that you can do it), rules twisting (at which point is the move action interrupted?), and many trip builds seem to say you can
Personally, I'd choose... neither side. I'm for allowing the PC doing the AoO to micro-delay his action by a second so that he could trip the guy again. It's that guy's fault not to tumble away before, right? He could also fight from the ground, or use abilities not to fall in the first place (see below).
That would give the AoO-er a tactical choice between a +4 on the attack (attacking someone prone), or another trip attempt.
If you are annoyed at people playing tripping machines (from either side of the GM screen), try to pit them against the same tactics. Or use evasive abilities, most notably the Back on You Feet skill trick (Complete Scoundrel). IIRC, it requires 12 ranks in Acrobatics/Tumble, but give you the ability to get back on your feet immediately when you'd be knocked prone... for the meager cost of 2 skill points! And another skill trick, requiring even less Acrobatics/Tumble ranks, allow you to get back from prone as a free action without AoO.
On the subject of being able to trip several times for the same "standing up" action, the rules say No: you only gain one AoO for a given action.
|
This is where your argument breaks down. Trip has two effects - it renders the target prone and interrupts their move action.
Unless you are now going to rule that if a character is tripped during their normal move action, that is. Then you are opening up an entirely new can of worms.
The move action has not STARTED yet is what we are telling you. The standing up is the move action. The AoO occurs before the stand up therefore cannot interrupt it as it did not occur mid movement.
Unless you mean to interpret it as meaning tripping someone prevents them from having a move action during their turn whatsoever. In which case I would like to see some RAW behind that one.
The same logic can be applied. Someone who is "attempting to stand" is not "prone".
No it can't. Once again either you are standing or you are prone. Since your action was interrupted you never got to stand up. Since you are not standing you are prone.
PS: The 3.5 SRD from the people who made the game have already cleared this up. I am only trying to explain to you that you keep a condition until it is cleared. The prone condition is cleared upon standing.
The 3.5 SRD is obsolete.
By the RAW in the PFSRD, you can attempt to stand, granting an AoO. I won't argue that you no longer have the prone condition, but having the prone condition does not disqualify the chance for a Trip attack.
AoO Trip resolves, leaving you prone with your movement interrupted, just as if your normal movement were interrupted, and you still have the prone condition.
The wording is the same, therefore the rules work the same.
In case you missed it [url=http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/rules/tripLockingDoesntWorkOfficialRulingOrNot&page=1#24] link [/ur]
Trip has one effect--it renders the target prone.This is where your argument breaks down. Trip has two effects - it renders the target prone and interrupts their move action.
Unless you are now going to rule that if a character is tripped during their normal move action, that is. Then you are opening up an entirely new can of worms.
But they are already prone, and that is where your argument breaks down. Even going by basic RAW saying you can make someone prone who is already prone, their condition never stopped being prone so they just continue to stand.
The movement is not interrupted--you wasted that trip attempt to make a prone target prone. The target then continues his turn, since you tripped him before he did anything (i.e. because AoO happens immediately). You are confusing interrupted movement with an interrupted Move action. Logical progression is this:The 3.5 SRD is obsolete.
By the RAW in the PFSRD, you can attempt to stand, granting an AoO. I won't argue that you no longer have the prone condition, but having the prone condition does not disqualify the chance for a Trip attack.
AoO Trip resolves, leaving you prone with your movement interrupted, just as if your normal movement were interrupted, and you still have the prone condition.
- Target starts to use Move action to stand, triggering AoO
- AoO occurs immediately (before the Move action)
- Target continues Move action if possible
If you want to trip that target after the Move action, you need to use a Ready action.
Trip has one effect--it renders the target prone.This is where your argument breaks down. Trip has two effects - it renders the target prone and interrupts their move action.
Unless you are now going to rule that if a character is tripped during their normal move action, that is. Then you are opening up an entirely new can of worms.
No, this is where you fail to apply the mechanics of actions in the PRD. Show me a quote from the PRD that states a trip interrupts a Move action. I'll help out with a quote of the trip mechanics:
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.
I don't see any reference to interrupting a Move action being one of the effects of trip. Of course, depending on the trigger for an AoO, it might interrupt a Move action, but only if that action has an opportunity for interruption. "Normal movement" is not equivalent to standing from prone. "Normal movement" can involve a situation that provokes an AoO after the action has started but before it completes. Standing from prone does not have this in between state. If you believe that it does, show it from the rules.
This is where your argument breaks down. Trip has two effects - it renders the target prone and interrupts their move action.
Unless you are now going to rule that if a character is tripped during their normal move action, that is. Then you are opening up an entirely new can of worms.
The move action has not STARTED yet is what we are telling you. The standing up is the move action. The AoO occurs before the stand up therefore cannot interrupt it as it did not occur mid movement.
Unless you mean to interpret it as meaning tripping someone prevents them from having a move action during their turn whatsoever. In which case I would like to see some RAW behind that one.
So here is the list of Move Actions that provoke an AoO:
Move
Control a Frightened Mount
Load a crossbow or hand crossbow
Move a heavy object
Pickup an item
Sheathe a weapon
Stand up from prone
Retrieve a stored item
So you are trying to say that by RAW only ONE of those provocations is NOT interrupted and unable to be completed by a Trip Attack?
Just stepping in here for a moment...
Is what at stake here in the debate really about Greater Trip's ability to provoke an additional AoO because the target was tripped?
If the target tries to stand up, if he never loses his prone condition, then he was never tripped.
or
The target attempted to stand up, is tripped again and thus provokes again.
Is this the ultimate reason for the debate?
Moro is convinced that a retrip takes place.
|
|
Just stepping in here for a moment...
Is what at stake here in the debate really about Greater Trip's ability to provoke an additional AoO because the target was tripped?
If the target tries to stand up, if he never loses his prone condition, then he was never tripped.
or
The target attempted to stand up, is tripped again and thus provokes again.
Is this the ultimate reason for the debate?
No it is not, and I may be wrong but I am pretty sure one AoO cannot trigger ANOTHER AoO.
So you are trying to say that by RAW only ONE of those provocations is NOT interrupted and unable to be completed by a Trip Attack?
Here is how I interpret the following
Move - Moving out of a threatened square incurring a trip would cause them to fall prone and end movement yes.
Control a Frightened Mount - The AoO would trigger and then fall prone therefore you are no longer mounted.
Load a crossbow or hand crossbow - Again the attack goes off before action, on success then they may still continue loading. Being prone does not prevent you from using a crossbow in any way.
Move a heavy object - Varies
Pickup an item - Unless you can no longer reach it then you may still grab the item.
Sheathe a weapon - Would not interrupt
Stand up from prone - We've been over this..
Retrieve a stored item - You are prone and then continue to retrieve the item while on the ground.
So if you want to apply logic and RAI to one side, then you need to apply it all around.
What do you mean?
So here is the list of Move Actions that provoke an AoO:
Move
Control a Frightened Mount
Load a crossbow or hand crossbow
Move a heavy object
Pickup an item
Sheathe a weapon
Stand up from prone
Retrieve a stored itemSo you are trying to say that by RAW only ONE of those provocations is NOT interrupted and unable to be completed by a Trip Attack?
That is correct. See my last post on the logical flow of AoO mechanics. Note that the action to move a heavy object would be limited in how far you could move said object, but that does not prevent the Move action. If you believe otherwise, I'll need to see a quote stating that said specific action cannot be taken while prone.
This is where your argument breaks down. Trip has two effects - it renders the target prone and interrupts their move action.
Unless you are now going to rule that if a character is tripped during their normal move action, that is. Then you are opening up an entirely new can of worms.
The move action has not STARTED yet is what we are telling you. The standing up is the move action. The AoO occurs before the stand up therefore cannot interrupt it as it did not occur mid movement.
Unless you mean to interpret it as meaning tripping someone prevents them from having a move action during their turn whatsoever. In which case I would like to see some RAW behind that one.
So here is the list of Move Actions that provoke an AoO:
Move
Control a Frightened Mount
Load a crossbow or hand crossbow
Move a heavy object
Pickup an item
Sheathe a weapon
Stand up from prone
Retrieve a stored itemSo you are trying to say that by RAW only ONE of those provocations is NOT interrupted and unable to be completed by a Trip Attack?
There is no be all end all of an AoO does or does not allow an action to be complete. I have told you this before. It is all situation, and you have to apply the rules for that situation.
Tripping a prone character is pointless because either you are standing or prone.
Tripping someone firing a bow is good because you can't fire a bow while prone.
You see it is situational. The entire game is situational depending on feats, and other things.
Situational
Situational
Situational
Situational
Stop trying to look away.
Situational
Actually, I don't think most of those would be prevented by being tripped. I can dig stuff out of my pockets as easily on the floor as I can standing up.
No it is not, and I may be wrong but I am pretty sure one AoO cannot trigger ANOTHER AoO.Just stepping in here for a moment...
Is what at stake here in the debate really about Greater Trip's ability to provoke an additional AoO because the target was tripped?
If the target tries to stand up, if he never loses his prone condition, then he was never tripped.
or
The target attempted to stand up, is tripped again and thus provokes again.
Is this the ultimate reason for the debate?
The greater trip does allow for being tripped to provoke another AoO.
PRD
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
|
|
No it is not, and I may be wrong but I am pretty sure one AoO cannot trigger ANOTHER AoO.
The greater trip does allow for being tripped to provoke another AoO.
PRD
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Well I read that but say someone triggers an AoO, you choose to trip with your AoO, the successful trip would then trigger ANOTHER AoO for you to take advantage of? That doesn't seem right at all... Is this really the case?
Well I read that but say someone triggers an AoO, you choose to trip with your AoO, the successful trip would then trigger ANOTHER AoO for you to take advantage of? That doesn't seem right at all... Is this really the case?
That is correct, but you'd need to have Combat Reflexes to have another AoO available to you. This is covered under the rules for making multiple AoO against the same target.
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
Emphasis mine...
Well I read that but say someone triggers an AoO, you choose to trip with your AoO, the successful trip would then trigger ANOTHER AoO for you to take advantage of? That doesn't seem right at all... Is this really the case?
No it is not, and I may be wrong but I am pretty sure one AoO cannot trigger ANOTHER AoO.
The greater trip does allow for being tripped to provoke another AoO.
PRD
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Yes. It is like the 3.5 version of improved trip. At least there is no spiked chain(3.5 version) to deal with this time.
It is really powerful when combined with a high CMB monster and/or a reach weapon.
Yikes... now I see why there are so many people out there scraping and clawing for munchkin trip interpretation builds.
Emphasis mine...
The thing I never understand is that since the rules work both ways, why don't the players realize that whatever brokeness they can convince their DM is legit can also apply to them.
You couldn't trip-lock people in 3.5. The reason for so many trip builds is that even without the ability to trip-lock, trip builds in 3.5 were still very powerful. In PF they are a little less so because the CMB/CMD system makes it so that tripping is no longer as reliable.
A monk with improved trip and combat reflexes.
Flurry -> trip, AoO from improved trip, remaining flurry attacks(with +2 to hit from target being prone)
Monk's friends get attacks on prone target, so basically the monk just gave all his melee friends a +2 to hit.
Target tries to get up -> AoO from all the monk's melee friends, then the monk makes an AoO with stunning fist(THAT will stop them from getting up), even if the guy does manage to get up, they only get a standard action instead of a full attack.
Worse, if they are a caster, they used their move action to get up, so now they either have to cast in melee, or use their standard action to move away(and provoke another AoO), and the monk can choose to trip them with that AoO.
A good monk trip build could keep 2 equal level characters from doing much more than making 1 standard attack action every other round.
When you can show me a picture of someone flat on their backs being knocked down I will agree with tripping a prone person. No, I am not being snarky--->Do the rules specifically state a prone person can not be tripped, no, but the dead condition(once again), which does state quiet a number of things, does not specifically state you can't take actions or continue playing with the same character, so by the logic of "the rules must state it" there is nothing stopping you from continuing to play with your dead character. By RAW, but not RAI it is a viable option.You are assuming the attack of opportunity occurs the instant the action starts - i.e., when the provoking character is still entirely prone.
By this logic, a readied action (which also occurs mid-action) to attack a character who enters through a door that you threaten would fail automatically, as you would take the readied attack the instant the action starts (with the interrupted character benefiting from total cover, still on the other side of the door).
I can see the logic in your argument, but I can also see the logic in the counter-argument. Also, it makes sense to me that a character might be able to keep another character down, kicking him and sweeping at his arms and legs as he tries to get prone. You see this in movies a lot, especially in scenes where one or more characters gang up on another character, keeping him prone or scrambling to stand or flee.
+1 smart argument.
It makes no sense to rule it any other way, really. An attack of opportunity is PROVOKED, meaning that something initiates it. The character gets knocked down, and rather then crawl away and try to stand up somewhere safe they try to leap up and get knocked down again.
The mechanics of a role playing game are notlike the mechanics of a video game, or most other forms of interactive entertainment. Being Prone is not JUST a status effect in this game. In this case it means being knocked on your rear, and I defy anyone to make a rational arguement that you can't knock down someone trying to stand up.
Even mechanically this is weak (see the quoted post about readied actions, which technically happen before the action they respond to).
+1 smart argument.
It makes no sense to rule it any other way, really. An attack of opportunity is PROVOKED, meaning that something initiates it. The character gets knocked down, and rather then crawl away and try to stand up somewhere safe they try to leap up and get knocked down again.
The mechanics of a role playing game are notlike the mechanics of a video game, or most other forms of interactive entertainment. Being Prone is not JUST a status effect in this game. In this case it means being knocked on your rear, and I defy anyone to make a rational arguement that you can't knock down someone trying to stand up.
Even mechanically this is weak (see the quoted post about readied actions, which technically happen before the action they respond to).
Yes, you can knock someone who is trying to get up back down.
Does that mean that can't finish getting up?
Getting up is a process, and just because you trip them at the beginning of that process doesn't mean that cannot finish what they started.
A move action take roughly 3 seconds. I start to get up, you trip me, that takes less than a second, I still have 2 seconds to finish getting up.
|
|
+1 smart argument.It makes no sense to rule it any other way, really. An attack of opportunity is PROVOKED, meaning that something initiates it. The character gets knocked down, and rather then crawl away and try to stand up somewhere safe they try to leap up and get knocked down again.
The mechanics of a role playing game are notlike the mechanics of a video game, or most other forms of interactive entertainment. Being Prone is not JUST a status effect in this game. In this case it means being knocked on your rear, and...
As we said, you are not getting an attack of opportunity because they are trying to get up. You are getting on because they lowered their guard for a moment. This happens BEFORE they even TRY to stand up. Why cant you people understand this.
It makes no sense to rule it any other way, really. An attack of opportunity is PROVOKED, meaning that something initiates it. The character gets knocked down, and rather then crawl away and try to stand up somewhere safe they try to leap up and get knocked down again.
The mechanics of a role playing game are notlike the mechanics of a video game, or most other forms of interactive entertainment. Being Prone is not JUST a status effect in this game. In this case it means being knocked on your rear, and I defy anyone to make a rational arguement that you can't knock down someone trying to stand up.
Even mechanically this is weak (see the quoted post about readied actions, which technically happen before the action they respond to).
What you are talking about is a Readied action, specifically with the trigger "when this target completes his Move action to stand, I trip him." If you worded it sloppily, something like "if the target tries to stand, I trip him" then the Readied action might indeed occur at the start of the action to stand. Readied actions do not always occur before the action they respond to, they occur when the stated trigger occurs. This is a very important distinction from AoO. Compare the language for a Readied action with that of AoO from my earlier posts:
Readying an 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.
Readied actions specifically call out possibly interrupting another character, and specifically call out that the Readied action occurs based on a specific condition, not a specific action.
What is also great is that there is absolutely no way to prevent someone from standing up whatsoever. They could be surrounded by trip fighters with whips and they still get to stand. All the whips can do sting or disarm. Unless they are drawing a weapon, in which case they are disarmed before they draw, and proceed to now draw. So nothing can prevent them from drawing a weapon, either.
See above. If a group of trippers want to keep a target down, all they have to do is Ready actions with the appropriate condition.
|
|
Curioser and curioser...
So, it takes a move action to stand, but if standing initiates an AoO, like a trip, it happens before the attempt to stand occurs?? Isn't this a bit chicken/egg?
What is also great is that there is absolutely no way to prevent someone from standing up whatsoever. They could be surrounded by trip fighters with whips and they still get to stand. All the whips can do sting or disarm. Unless they are drawing a weapon, in which case they are disarmed before they draw, and proceed to now draw. So nothing can prevent them from drawing a weapon, either.
And people are ok with this. Not only ok, but actively advocating it. Despite the nonsense and gamism that is needed to envision such a rule.
1) Standing does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The lowering of the guard required to do such a thing is what provokes. A must come before B. When A occurs C happens. Does this mean B has happened? No it means C jumps in line and manifests itself before B happens. Then upon resolution B occurs
A-Lowering of the guardB-Standing up/any other number of indefensible actions
C-Attack of opportunity
2)Yes we are advocating this because the rules state this is how it works, not to mention any other interpretation of the rules would lead to a situation where if someone gets knocked down by an intelligent enemy (or maybe even is specialized for it) they will NEVER be able to get back up.
Curioser and curioser...
So, it takes a move action to stand, but if standing initiates an AoO, like a trip, it happens before the attempt to stand occurs?? Isn't this a bit chicken/egg?
What is also great is that there is absolutely no way to prevent someone from standing up whatsoever. They could be surrounded by trip fighters with whips and they still get to stand. All the whips can do sting or disarm. Unless they are drawing a weapon, in which case they are disarmed before they draw, and proceed to now draw. So nothing can prevent them from drawing a weapon, either.
And people are ok with this. Not only ok, but actively advocating it. Despite the nonsense and gamism that is needed to envision such a rule.
Yes, because none of them can ready an action to trip the guy AFTER he stands up.
The created the rule to prevent "no fun".
Sitting on your butt all combat doing nothing but being beaten and tripped is "no fun".
It is the best reason in the world for creating a rule in a game that is supposed to be fun.
AoO happen immediately, they can not be delayed. Are you saying that if someone provokes an AoO from you by running away that you should be able to delay your attack until they complete their move and then trip them once they are 30' away? That makes even less sense.
Ah, gamism has been invoked, and so we all lose for being such silly people (of course, D&D and it's iterations are known as the pinnacle of gamist approaches...). A much better approach, then, would be to work out the exact physics of how tripping occurs and develop a set of tables, checks, calculations, and cyphers so we can make sure this stays realistic?
Let's leave the name calling out of this please. We aren't here to debate game theory. A rules question was asked, and we've provided the answer from the rules.
Of course, there is a way this can be solved for folks that want trip-locking in the game--make a feat.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Greater Trip
Benefit: Whenever a Prone target that you threaten attempts to stand, you may attempt to trip that target as an Immediate action. A successful trip interrupts the target's attempt to stand, causing the target to become Prone and also lose the Move action it was using to stand.
Making this an Immediate action allows it to act as an interrupt while also providing a cost (in addition to the feat) to keep this tactic under control in the game.
Reread your posts. If you don't see the condescension in them, versus simply stating what the rules of the game are (this is the rules forum after all), well, I guess we have different standards for communication.
It's fine if you don't like the rule, and many folks have said many times in this very thread that a GM can change it as he sees fit. Not liking a rule and simply arguing against it for that reason doesn't make any sense here.
|
|
This is really clear in the RAW, and is even clearer when pontificating RAI. I'm not sure why (other than rampant munchkinism) anyone would even want this to be a valid tactic, either for PC's (boring) or monsters (potentially lethal).
Has our desire for our one PC to completely dominate every fight really extended so far that we're willing to consider this a valuable tactic, or a worthwhile contribution to an encounter? Do big damage. Slay bad guys. Be epic.
And I have played in a game with a dual-whip weilding ranger with disarm and trip feats stacked up and she never dominated combat like the ROUGE did.
But neither could hope to match the power of the mighty MASCARA!
Given that it was definately the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5
Incorrect. Trip lock has never worked, and the charop boards havn't claimed it works in quite some years now. The wording of opportunity attacks hasn't changed; they've always occurred during the action that triggered them, at least since 3.5 (I don't have a 3.0 rulebook to reference).
Making an Attack of Opportunity
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to.An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round.
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).
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
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).
Same rule. Same ruling. You can't trip someone that is prone, the act of attempting to stand up provokes an attack of opportunity, and you do not remove the prone condition until the act that provoked the AoO (attempting to stand) completes, which cannot happen until after the AoO completes. Thus, you cannot trip-lock.
It is a rule that exists solely to prevent people from trip-locking.
Incorrect. The reason for the rule's existence is to make AoOs on spellcasting work. If the AoO occurred after the provoking action, it would be impossible for AoOs to interrupt spellcasting via forcing a concentration check for damage. If you're going to rant and rave, at least try to get your facts straight.
Preventing trip-locks is just a happy side effect.
|
I always thought this was a visualization:
Two fighters face each other, swords drawn.
the first is the teacher, the second, a squire.
"The number one rule of defense is this: always keep your steel between you and your foe."
The student nods and the fight commences.
At one point,the teacher feints, and, catching the student off guard, trips him.
The squire, remembering rule one, holds his blade out in front of him, an arrow from his chest to the teacher's. The teacher is forced to keep his distance.
The squire realizes that he's at a disadvantage, and realizes he needs to get up. He makes a gamble,and lowers his sword hand so that both hands are planted on the ground for leverage to rise.
The teacher moves like a snake and strikes, knocking the side of the squire's head with the flat of his blade.
The squire pushes off the ground, head reeling as he stumbles back into a defensive stance.
The teacher speaks, "What is the consequence of not following the first rule of defense? You end up dead. What is rule one?"
"Always keep your steel between you and your foe."
"Again!"
It is going to be a long day for the both of them.
So, the AoO wasn't from standing up, but that he had to drop his defenses to get up. I bet he wishes he had the kip-up ability.
|
|
Well since a character makes an AoA just prior to the action that provokes it then I would say that you can go ahead and trip someone when they try standing up but the result wont matter since they are already prone. Think of it like kicking someone when they are down, it doesn't really accomplish much besides hurting the guy (and possibly his ego) when he tries standing up. That character still stands up after the attack as it doesn't "interrupt" that action but there is always the chance that you very well could kill that person.
There does not appear to be an "official" ruling but the order of operations (As per raw) dictates that this is how it works. However if you readied an action to trip them as soon as they stand back up you could of course trip them again but on an AoA it's not possible.
Otherwise tripping could get really silly very fast with combat reflexes etc. Monks could easily take 2/3 enemies out of combat at a time if you could indeed prevent someone from standing up with an AoA.
That is one interpretation, but I have heard the case from both angles already. My question is, has this ever been clarified or confirmed by one of the devs? If not, I think it would benefit us to get this clarified (and maybe post the clarification to the d20pfsrd).
Since the AoO occurs "mid-action", it isn't automatically clear whether that means that the provoker is prone, standing, or somewhere inbetween, or if the character's condition can be "reset" to prone with a successful trip.
How can his action be reset to prone if he is still prone. He wants to stand up(he is still prone) he gets hit with an attempted trip. It is like trying to steal money someone does not have. In this case being prone equals being broke, and standing up means having money. You can't take the money until I get it--->You can't trip me until I stand up.
Edit: Another example-->I dont know if you are familiar with binary but a lot of things operate in an on...
Not to be snarky here, but when you can show me a prone person who just suddenly and without any other movement becomes upright again, a movement which according to rules takes up half your action (3 seconds) and usually requires some sort of actual getting to knees first, then one foot under you to support while the other moves up, then I can show you a guy that doesn't get interrupted.
It absolutely makes 0 sense to say that the AoO happens before the guy starts to stand up. None what so ever.
Nowhere does it even state that in the rules...it very clearly says it interrupts.
I suppose you have a site where such "facts" can be verified?
I have exactly as much verification as you do, except mine makes sense and yours doesn't (considering tripmonkey builds weren't around when they were designing AoOs).
And trying to trip someone "during" an attempt to stand up is exactly what the rules prevent. You aren't standing until the action completes. If you aren't standing, you can't be tripped.
I have a question for those of you who support the argument that RAW make trip locking impossible.
How you adjudicate a round in which an AoO is provoked by a normal move, and the Trip Attack is successful? Walk me through it, please.
It absolutely makes 0 sense to say that the AoO happens before the guy starts to stand up. None what so ever.
Nowhere does it even state that in the rules...it very clearly says it interrupts.
I'm assuming you've read the rest of this thread. If not, doing so will be beneficial.
To your statement that the rules clearly say it interrupts--please quote the rule that states this. Rather, the AoO rules specifically state, "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." The only mention of interruption is in the statement "An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round." This does not say the AoO interrupts the action itself, but rather the flow of actions. That means where normally you could not act on my turn, you can if I provoke an AoO. Unless you do something with your AoO that prevents such, my actions resume immediately after you complete the AoO.
I have a question for those of you who support the argument that RAW make trip locking impossible.
How you adjudicate a round in which an AoO is provoked by a normal move, and the Trip Attack is successful? Walk me through it, please.
Bill is moving past John.
Bill enters a threatened square. Nothing happens.
Bill tries to leave a threatened square for another threatened square. This provokes an AoO.
The AoO is resolved immediately. John trips Bill. Bill is now prone in the square he was attempting to leave because the AoO takes place before the action that provoked it.
Since moving to that square is no longer a valid action because Bill is prone, his move action is now over.
I have a question for those of you who support the argument that RAW make trip locking impossible.
How you adjudicate a round in which an AoO is provoked by a normal move, and the Trip Attack is successful? Walk me through it, please.
I don't see how this is confusing, but OK:
Goblin A provokes an AoO for attempting to leave a threatened square without taking a 5' step or withdrawing.
Player B trips Goblin.
Goblin falls prone in the square he was attempting to leave, because his action has not completed yet.
Goblin cannot complete his action because he cannot move while prone, so his move action ends.