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.
Assume a human with a 30' Movement rate moves past an orc.
The human moves 10', entering a square threatened by the orc, then continues his move.
When the human moves out of the threatened square, this action immediately provokes and AoO.
The orc uses his AoO and successfully trips the human.
The human is now Prone. The human had 20' left in his Move action, but can no longer use that movement as he is prone. He has effectively "lost" the rest of that Move action.
He has a remaining Standard or Move action, and could actually stand from prone (as a Move action). This would provoke another AoO from the orc (these are two separate opportunities for AoO), although the orc would need Combat Reflexes in order to take advantage of this second AoO.
because the AoO takes place before the action that provoked it.
This is not true, for the record. If this were true, you couldn't AoO to stop spells (because if it's before the spell starts casting or after the spell is finished casting, there's no "damage during the casting of a spell" to trigger the concentration check).
AoOs happen during the action that provokes them, in between the start and the completion of that action. They're special because normally there is nothing you can do "during" an action (except actions that take longer than a full-round action).
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.
AoO is because you lower your guard.
In this case, you lower your defenses and put your hands on the ground to push yourself up. That is when the AoO takes place, you are still prone, but your hands are not in a good position to defend yourself. After the AoO, you are still free to finish pushing yourself up off the ground.
The way I see it is this. I start to get up, you yank my leg out from underneath me, then I finish getting up.
If you held onto my leg for an extended period of time, then you would be grappling not tripping.
What you say makes 0 sense to me. If I spend .5 seconds preparing to get up, then you spend .5 seconds to grabbing my leg and pulling, then I still have 2 seconds to finish getting up.
To me the rule seems pretty clear, but if you don't find it realistic, then that is another argument.
I knew immediately when I left the office that I wanted to retract my statement. Now that I am home with no worries read my thoughts below.
I am a supporter of you must do something to provoke an AoO. Therefore the motion has started. If you are tripped as part of an AoO, whether you stand up, or leave a threatened square, etc. you are knocked prone. You may take another action as appropriate to end your round. I see this as an argument on the letter of the law versus the spirit.
Hopefull, I won't trip myself up again ...
Except for the whole "spells can be interrupted during the action but you are either standing or prone all the time with no period where you are getting up where an opponent may be able to trip you again" part.
The effects of damage from an AoO during spellcasting are specifically covered in the rules:
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
Emphasis mine.
Alternatively, "you are either armed or disarmed all the time with no period where you are drawing your weapon/retreiving an item where an opponent may be able to disarm you, despite the fact that retrieving that item is what initiates the AoO."
Drawing a weapon does not provoke an AoO, so I see no relevance for the discussion. A more relevant example would be loading a crossbow. If you disarm the target after it provokes, then the loading is indeed interrupted since the crossbow is no longer in hand.
For items (including weapons stored in packs--this is not Drawing a Weapon), if you attempt a disarm as the AoO when a target tries to retrieve a stored item, just as with the crossbow you can disarm the item since disarm targets "one item it is carrying" and the rules do not specify "carrying" as being in hand. This is one area where the PRD lost a bit, as they removed the Grabbing Items section that is present in the SRD. In truth, these rules aren't specifically necessary since the mechanics for disarm already allow grabbing an item, but I personally think leaving this section in place would have helped folks understand this better.
You can use a disarm action to snatch an item worn by the target. If you want to have the item in your hand, the disarm must be made as an unarmed attack.
If the item is poorly secured or otherwise easy to snatch or cut away the attacker gets a +4 bonus. Unlike on a normal disarm attempt, failing the attempt doesn’t allow the defender to attempt to disarm you. This otherwise functions identically to a disarm attempt, as noted above.
You can’t snatch an item that is well secured unless you have pinned the wearer (see Grapple). Even then, the defender gains a +4 bonus on his roll to resist the attempt.
So, there are actually mechanics to cover the items in question.
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.
Assume a human with a 30' Movement rate moves past an orc.
The human moves 10', entering a square threatened by the orc, then continues his move.
When the human moves out of the threatened square, this action immediately provokes and AoO.
The orc uses his AoO and successfully trips the human.
The human is now Prone. The human had 20' left in his Move action, but can no longer use that movement as he is prone. He has effectively "lost" the rest of that Move action.
He has a remaining Standard or Move action, and could actually stand from prone (as a Move action). This would provoke another AoO from the orc (these are two separate opportunities for AoO), although the orc would need Combat Reflexes in order to take advantage of this second AoO.
The bolded part would be why I have an issue with this interpretation. It effectively makes Trip attacks useless as a control mechanic.
|
The bolded part would be why I have an issue with this interpretation. It effectively makes Trip attacks useless as a control mechanic.
I fail to see why in the example you were replying to. If he moves, and is tripped, he has to use his other action to stand. Thus he cannot move. The only difference with prone targets is that tripping a person while they stand does not waste their action like tripping a moving person does.
Director of Games
|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
The bolded part would be why I have an issue with this interpretation. It effectively makes Trip attacks useless as a control mechanic.I fail to see why in the example you were replying to. If he moves, and is tripped, he has to use his other action to stand. Thus he cannot move. The only difference with prone targets is that tripping a person while they stand does not waste their action like tripping a moving person does.
Agreed, and I'm not even sure what you mean by an interpretation? If you specifically mean the part in bold is wrong, I'm unsure how you interpret the following rule (that's been in place since 3.5):
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).
The rules clearly state that the human in my example should have a Move or Standard action left. Are you saying this is incorrect, and if so could you elaborate?
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I love Pathfinder and their Dev's. Common sense and game balance win again!
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hooray! No trip lock for you! Muwahahaha...
Hooray! No trip lock in Pathfinder Society for you! Muwahahaha...Remember, those who want triplocking can just houserule it. And they will.
True TOZ but that is the case with the entire game.
|
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I am a fan, a very big fan of this game and the ruleset, but honestly I fail completely to understand the concept of an action resolving itself before the action that provoked it is completed. One being faster than the other, in this case, even though both are essentially the same timing structure.
You win, however.
I am a fan, a very big fan of this game and the ruleset, but honestly I fail completely to understand the concept of an action resolving itself before the action that provoked it is completed. One being faster than the other, in this case, even though both are essentially the same timing structure.
You win, however.
Uhhh.. an AoO does not by any measure take the same amount of time as a move action. Seriously, time yourself standing up from being tripped and sprawling all over the ground. Now time yourself stabbing with a sword.
Hilarious.
As I said, gamist. It is a rule that exists solely to prevent people from trip-locking. It has nothing to do with logic, or reality, or facts. It exists to plug a leak.
Which, IMO, is the worst possible reason you create a rule.
I thought rules were made to plug holes, and keep things fair.
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?
No, that's not it at all. The reason for the RULE is gamist. That does not reflect at all on it's supporters, but I will reiterate that I believe it is one of the WORST reasons for creating a rule. So stop being all sensative about "name calling".
And the "much better way" is to either make a feat, which you suggested, and is a good suggestion, OR just ignore the gamist rule and allow AoO's to work like that.
And as to being tripped and kept down, that usually will require a fantastic series of rolls, AND you can use other methods to escape the situation, AND the rest of the party is there to help you out, AND if you mindlessly rush a trip-monster with a high CMB vs your own low CMD, you deserve what you get.
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. Additionally, I also have cast while prone, making the check, and laughing as the now flat-footed tripper got shot with a barrage of sneak attacks. I then asked politely if he would let me up, or if I should just cast something else (it moved to engage the rogue, so I stood up).
So I have never seen trip-locking being that big a deal. Player and DM tactics always won out over one-trick-pony builds.
Explain this trip-locking to me in detail, and I can find fault in the game that had supposed trip locking
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 have explain this already, more than once. It is below and above the thread you are replying to.
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 already explain that to you more than once. I think you are just ignoring my post. If you did not agree you should state what you disagree with so I can break it down further but I see no reason to go in repeat mode.
Ignore my previous post tonight.
Other than that, would any of the supporters of triplock be ok if it happened to you?
|
I am a fan, a very big fan of this game and the ruleset, but honestly I fail completely to understand the concept of an action resolving itself before the action that provoked it is completed. One being faster than the other, in this case, even though both are essentially the same timing structure.
You win, however.
do some tests timing how long you would be helpless after deciding to get up in a cramped area in good conditions (IE no one trying to hit each other around you):
1) you were tripped laying flat on your back time yourself getting up
- 1a) rolling over onto stomache and then pucsh up with hands: 3.5 seconds
- 1b) sit up - stand from sitting 2second with hands flat on the floor, 3 if you want to keep a object the size of a weapon in your hands.
2) you were tripp stomache down
- 2a) push up 2.5 seconds (1a minus a second to roll over)
- 2b) pusing hands to steady self while steping back and up (you do not have the flexibility to do this in armor, maybe a DC10 acrobatics...) 3 seconds, but I would rule it fighting defensibly
notice the steps that it takes to actually get up when you are laying down flat. Useing those same situations
- 1a: I roll over, you 'trip me' hitting my body that is still flat to the floor, i continue standing
- 1b: I sit up, you trip me, hitting my legs/chest. This might actually give me momentum in my attempt to stand., but would definatly not knock me on my back again.
- 2a see 1a. I set my hands, you hit them to no effect, I begin to push up and stand
- 2b I set front hand you hit leg, giving me momentum to push the leg you hit behind me easier. I thank you.
two of the four normal methods of rising from a prone position, an attempted trip may HELP them get up faster. If you wanted to keep someone who is prone down, you have to pin them. Thats the whole point of pinning.
|
|
To me the rule seems pretty clear...Except for the whole "spells can be interrupted during the action but you are either standing or prone all the time with no period where you are getting up where an opponent may be able to trip you again" part.
Alternatively, "you are either armed or disarmed all the time with no period where you are drawing your weapon/retreiving an item where an opponent may be able to disarm you, despite the fact that retrieving that item is what initiates the AoO."
Though I can see where that may be an issue with unreality rather than rule incohherence.
Wrong. The AoO for casting a spell happens before the spellcasting starts, the damage you do does not in itself stop the spell, a failed concentration check for taking the damage does.
Hilarious.
So you can ready an action. In other words, give up your standard action to roll a single CMB vs CMD to trip someone up. But, if they lower their guard and try to stand, there is no way to prevent them with an AoO. Despite your trip feats, and reach weapon, and the fact you get to HIT them, you cannot TRIP them or delay your AoO till AFTER they stand.
As I said, gamist. It is a rule that exists solely to prevent people from trip-locking. It has nothing to do with logic, or reality, or facts. It exists to plug a leak.
Which, IMO, is the worst possible reason you create a rule.
plug the leak or drown.. which is worse ?
By the way in the movies.. when people are knocked prone they do not typically try to trip them again unless they want to humiliate them, which can very well be done by readying your action, usually they try to kill them when their defenses are down and the Jackie Chan rolls around left and right under and over tables to dodge the blows.
As long as the rules are consistent, then that is all we can ask for. I never rolled up a trick monkey, in regards to grapple, trip, reach, etc. so I never looked at the rules in detail. Maybe my first hunch was correct, but then realism started to cast doubt.
I can back the developer's on this since it's more fair play overall.
That said, there are oddities that stand out immediately regarding that call.
1) Move actions that provoke AoO's tend to end the move action. Witness by the move into/out of threatened squares - if you get tripped (harder now in PF to do than other editions), your move action ends.
**Does this mean that the "move" action (clearly stated/listed as such) of "stand up from prone" become the *only* "move" action that is NOT subject to action interruption??? I mean, if you get stopped from 'movement' in the one case, why not in the other case as there's STILL movement taking place?
**Note this is different from the "retrieve a stored item" thing in that you can *reasonably* take a hit and still pull your item out. But standing up while someone actively trying to repetitively curb-stomp you??? {ie: Greater Trip and Combat Reflexes}
2) That ruling makes sense with the normal Trip feat, but what happens when Greater Trip takes place? According to it's provided benefits, *any* successful trip result ==> AoO.
**Surely, the prone-prone status wouldn't matter much, but why wouldn't such characters get the benefit of their feat for making another Trip Attempt that's successful?
Again, I'm NOT a fan of this tactic to pile up, BUT to arbitrarily treat it this way *does* seem a bit artificial. It may be fair, but then you're kind of screwing the concept of the trip feat-invested character quite a bit on his investment. He's getting screwed on Combat Reflexes if he's not getting the ability to use 'em very often, he's screwed on the AoO's granted by Greater Trip if he can't keep the guy down when he's RIGHT NEXT TO 'EM! And he's probably getting a little bit screwed for having invested so heavily in Dex *just* to boost his AoO limits for his curb-stomping tactics. It's a LOT of design put into making such a character function. It would suck to be suddenly nerfed/not allowed to specialize in "knock 'em down and beat 'em to a pulp" tactics when the whole character was geared for this. 3 feats + a heavy stat investment is NOT something to easily modify in terms of character adjustment.
Plus, there *is* the inherent limitation to the maneuver in the first place - it's tough to pull off reliably. Every extra AoO would *only* come from a successful CMD check, and it's already not easy, so yeah ... just saying.
Really - NOT a fan, but I'm also not a fan of changed rules ... for kind of the sake of changing the rules.
I can back the developer's on this since it's more fair play overall.
That said, there are oddities that stand out immediately regarding that call.
1) Move actions that provoke AoO's tend to end the move action. Witness by the move into/out of threatened squares - if you get tripped (harder now in PF to do than other editions), your move action ends.
**Does this mean that the "move" action (clearly stated/listed as such) of "stand up from prone" become the *only* "move" action that is NOT subject to action interruption??? I mean, if you get stopped from 'movement' in the one case, why not in the other case as there's STILL movement taking place?
**Note this is different from the "retrieve a stored item" thing in that you can *reasonably* take a hit and still pull your item out. But standing up while someone actively trying to repetitively curb-stomp you??? {ie: Greater Trip and Combat Reflexes}
2) That ruling makes sense with the normal Trip feat, but what happens when Greater Trip takes place? According to it's provided benefits, *any* successful trip result ==> AoO.
**Surely, the prone-prone status wouldn't matter much, but why wouldn't such characters get the benefit of their feat for making another Trip Attempt that's successful?
Again, I'm NOT a fan of this tactic to pile up, BUT to arbitrarily treat it this way *does* seem a bit artificial. It may be fair, but then you're kind of screwing the concept of the trip feat-invested character quite a bit on his investment. He's getting screwed on Combat Reflexes if he's not getting the ability to use 'em very often, he's screwed on the AoO's granted by Greater Trip if he can't keep the guy down when he's RIGHT NEXT TO 'EM! And he's probably getting a little bit screwed for having invested so heavily in Dex *just* to boost his AoO limits for his curb-stomping tactics. It's a LOT of design put into making such a character function. It would suck to be suddenly nerfed/not allowed to specialize in "knock 'em down and beat 'em to a pulp"...
1) they only end the move actions when the action is no longer feasible, someone going to leave a threatened square gets tripped and usually cant use the move anymore. A rogue with the proper talent could still move though :
"Rogue Crawl (Ex): While prone, a rogue with this ability
can move at half speed. This movement provokes attacks of
opportunity as normal. A rogue with this talent can take a
5-foot step while crawling."
2) In my opinion it is just a matter of not being able to trip someone that is prone already and thus I say Jason is wrong(well a bit) in his explanation, just dont trip a prone creature period, smack it on the head instead so that it stays down.
Do not overcomplicate it by saying you can trip a creature that is prone but it simply has no effect, smacking a prone creature prone is not a trip it is simple smacking.
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks. Glade to know that nothing changed from 3.5 to PFPRG that would actually allow someone to be continuously tripped.
2) In my opinion it is just a matter of not being able to trip someone that is prone already and thus I say Jason is wrong(well a bit) in his explanation, just dont trip a prone creature period, smack it on the head instead so that it stays down.
Do not overcomplicate it by saying you can trip a creature that is prone but it simply has no effect, smacking a prone creature prone is not a trip it is simple smacking.
He was giving the RAW interpretation. RAI, trip was never intended to keep people down. It is not fair to DM or players. I am sure a bunch of trip based giants could wipe a party easily if that trip-lock worked, then players would be complaining, and rightfully so. It is just better to avoid the situation altogether and play the rule as intended.
2) That ruling makes sense with the normal Trip feat, but what happens when Greater Trip takes place? According to it's provided benefits, *any* successful trip result ==> AoO.
**Surely, the prone-prone status wouldn't matter much, but why wouldn't such characters get the benefit of their feat for making another Trip Attempt that's successful?
Again, I'm NOT a fan of this tactic to pile up, BUT to arbitrarily treat it this way *does* seem a bit artificial. It may be fair, but then you're kind of screwing the concept of the trip feat-invested character quite a bit on his investment. He's getting screwed on Combat Reflexes if he's not getting the ability to use 'em very often, he's screwed on the AoO's granted by Greater Trip if he can't keep the guy down when he's RIGHT NEXT TO 'EM! And he's probably getting a little bit screwed for having invested so heavily in Dex *just* to boost his AoO limits for his curb-stomping tactics. It's a LOT of design put into making such a character function. It would suck to be suddenly nerfed/not allowed to specialize in "knock 'em down and beat 'em to a pulp" tactics when the whole character was geared for this. 3 feats + a heavy stat investment is NOT something to easily modify in terms of character adjustment.
Why would you even bother trying this?
Assuming round 1 you trip the enemy. It's now round two. Here's what might happen:
Option One:
Enemy: I stand up from prone.
You: That provokes. I trip him, here's my CMB roll. I got him? Great, I use Greater Trip to make an AoO, here's my attack roll. I hit him? Great, here's my damage.
Enemy: I finish standing up and attack the Speaker
Result: you had to make TWO attack rolls (one CMB, one attack) to hit him once. He hit you once.
Option Two:
Enemy: I stand up from prone.
You: That provokes. I attack him, here's my attack roll. I hit him? Great, here's my damage.
Enemy: I finish standing up and attack the Speaker
Result: you had to make ONE attack roll to hit him once. He hit you once.
Both options get you the exact same result (you hit him once, he hits you once) but the Greater Trip option gives you two chances to fail, while simply attacking him gives you only one chance to fail.
I would go for option two if I were you.
Why would you even bother trying this?
Assuming round 1 you trip the enemy. It's now round two. Here's what might happen:
Option One:
Enemy: I stand up from prone.
You: That provokes. I trip him, here's my CMB roll. I got him? Great, I use Greater Trip to make an AoO, here's my attack roll. I hit him? Great, here's my damage.
Enemy: I finish standing up and attack the Speaker
Result: you had to make TWO attack rolls (one CMB, one attack) to hit him once. He hit you once.Option Two:
Enemy: I stand up from prone.
You: That provokes. I attack him, here's my attack roll. I hit him? Great, here's my damage.
Enemy: I finish standing up and attack the Speaker
Result: you had to make ONE attack...
Well ... yeah. ASSUMING the attacker has only 1 attack in the first place. Counting iteratives/whatever, then you can trip on the first, AoO, and continue w/your full attacks now striking at a PRONE target (ie: lower AC ==> easier to hit. This holds true of the 1 strike only scenario, too - if it works, that AoO is against the prone target, which is easier to accomplish).
As soon as you add in additional strikes, it's a great idea to open up w/trip just to lower the AC of your target - thus making the iteratives more likely to strike in the first place.
Mechanically - it's a good idea, worth the risk of *possibly* failing the trip attempt. Keep in mind, that prone target is prone for everyone that walks to/is within range of him, too.
Why bother? Well ... because if a successful Trip nets an AoO at full bab, why not do that against a prone target? Keep kickin' the CRAP out of 'em (almost literally) ... how's it a bad idea?
EDIT: Now, that said, I *still* think it's uber-cheese and crap-tas-tic to be on the receiving end of this. However, I'd wager that a simple fix via a change to AoO's in general would work to limit it just fine (ie: as I suggested earlier a "one action provokes = 1 AND ONLY 1 AoO attempt" will fix it up much more easily than RAW/RAI junk).
|
|
EDIT: Now, that said, I *still* think it's uber-cheese and crap-tas-tic to be on the receiving end of this. However, I'd wager that a simple fix via a change to AoO's in general would work to limit it just fine (ie: as I suggested earlier a "one action provokes = 1 AND ONLY 1 AoO attempt" will fix it up much more easily than RAW/RAI...
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.
1 action only provokes 1 AoO from an enemy.
Oh - nice!!!
Then half of this thread was for what purpose again??
Even w/the Greater Trip in play - you can *only* get the 1 AoO in the first place, yes?
This, IMO, *kind* of marginalizes Combat Reflexes now as you can get extra hits, sure - but *only* once against any given AoO provoking action.
So ... even in theory, then, you *can't* trip lock by RAW, or RAI, correct?
lol ... whole lot of fuss over nothin' then, eh?
:-D
|
|
Not really. What people want is to be able to trip someone when they stand, making them prone again and wasting the move action the guy used to stand. Thus, the tripped person cannot stand up while threatened unless the tripper misses his trip attempt. At no action cost to the tripper, because they use their AoO and not their turn of actions.
If I have misrepresented the people in favor of tripping prone opponents, one of you please correct me.
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This is giving me a headache.
I'm a firm believer in Cause preceding Effect, and this appears to be more of an exercise is quantum theory then rational thought.
I'm having a difficult time understanding the ruling. I get the mechanical explanation... someone has the condition "prone" which isn't removed until they stand up (completing their action) the AoO occurs as a result of their action, interrupting it, but occurring before the action has any results whatsoever.
So in order of action/precedence
A is prone (In real life prone means laying FLAT on the ground)
A goes to get up (no longer laying flat on the ground) and gets hit for being in a risky situation. The attacker chooses to trip them.
Trip attack is successful, but because the target isn't standing the trip can't effect them.
B stands up.
I understand it mechanically, but how in the world do you DESCRIBE that happening?
Clearly I'm in the "house rule it out" camp here, but if you can use a trip attack as part of an AoO then why not in this particular instance?
So if the condition of the person using an action that provokes is so important, how is this mechanically any different from a concentration check?
If A casts a spell, and Be hits him with an attack, but A isn't technically casting a spell until after the AoO then why do we EVER need to make a concentration check?
This seems like a poor ruling to me. (not that I'm anyone that matters, lol)
Not really. What people want is to be able to trip someone when they stand, making them prone again and wasting the move action the guy used to stand. Thus, the tripped person cannot stand up while threatened unless the tripper misses his trip attempt. At no action cost to the tripper, because they use their AoO and not their turn of actions.
If I have misrepresented the people in favor of tripping prone opponents, one of you please correct me.
I think that's pretty accurate. I mean the player isn't trip locked normally, they can still crawl away THEN get up.
|
|
I think that's pretty accurate. I mean the player isn't trip locked normally, they can still crawl away THEN get up.
Only to have the tripper move up to them and trip them again, forcing them into the exact same situation?
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.
So he crawls 5ft., provoking AoO, and stands. Tripper 5ft steps and full attacks, with the first attack being a trip. Tripper now gets a full attack on prone target, and target can do nothing but lay there and attack back at a -4.
So in order of action/precedence
A is prone (In real life prone means laying FLAT on the ground)
A goes to get up (no longer laying flat on the ground) and gets hit for being in a risky situation. The attacker chooses to trip them.
Trip attack is successful, but because the target isn't standing the trip can't effect them.
B stands up.
You are assuming they make it off their backs before they get attacked. Maybe they only lift an arm or leg or their head.
I think that's pretty accurate. I mean the player isn't trip locked normally, they can still crawl away THEN get up.Not really. What people want is to be able to trip someone when they stand, making them prone again and wasting the move action the guy used to stand. Thus, the tripped person cannot stand up while threatened unless the tripper misses his trip attempt. At no action cost to the tripper, because they use their AoO and not their turn of actions.
If I have misrepresented the people in favor of tripping prone opponents, one of you please correct me.
Crawling provokes attacks of opportunity and you can only crawl 5 feet, so they still can't really escape.
From the PRD:
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.
I'm a firm believer in Cause preceding Effect, and this appears to be more of an exercise is quantum theory then rational thought.
I understand it mechanically, but how in the world do you DESCRIBE that happening?
It is not really the attempt at standing up that causes the AoO, it is the vulnerability, the opening, the momentary dropping of the guard that provokes the AoO.
So, the tripper sees the prone person leave themselves open for a fraction of a second as they go to stand up and they can get a shot off at them. But the prone person still hasn't stood up yet, so they can't be tripped but they are easier to hurt in that moment.
I've always seen AoO as muscle memory, you don't consciously make the decision, your subconscious sees the opening and your muscles respond, often before you consciously see the opening. Think of martial arts fights, where you have masters fighting masters, where there is mostly just a blur of moving limbs before someone hit's the ground.
I think that's pretty accurate. I mean the player isn't trip locked normally, they can still crawl away THEN get up.Only to have the tripper move up to them and trip them again, forcing them into the exact same situation?
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.So he crawls 5ft., provoking AoO, and stands. Tripper 5ft steps and full attacks, with the first attack being a trip. Tripper now gets a full attack on prone target, and target can do nothing but lay there and attack back at a -4.
Stop ninja'ing me. It is against the board's rules to ninja me. :)