In a one on one fight, yes, the triplocker is likely to win.
My staying put and turtling keeps the triplocker pinned down. He can only move so far before I am out of his threatened area. If he wants to maintain triplock, his movement options are limited. If I move 5' each round, he has to move with me to maintain triplock, or away from me to maintain distance so I can't attack him.
A single triplocker can only keep so many characters triplocked. If outnumbered, his odds decrease.
If he has someone triplocked, he can't do much about the guy outside of his threatened are making ranged attacks or casting spells without releasing his triplock.
If a PC relies on one single tactic to win, as a DM I am under no obligation to not counter it because that's all he's got.
Triplock is not the "perfect combo".
It is a tactical advantage that has limits.
Yeah. Allies cannot be discounted. I got trip-locked a couple of games ago, so what did I do? I crawled towards my barbarian friend a few squares away. The trip locker opted not to follow me because he knew I was leading him into my barbarian friend's kill range.
In a one on one fight, yes, the triplocker is likely to win.
My staying put and turtling keeps the triplocker pinned down. He can only move so far before I am out of his threatened area. If he wants to maintain triplock, his movement options are limited. If I move 5' each round, he has to move with me to maintain triplock, or away from me to maintain distance so I can't attack him.
A single triplocker can only keep so many characters triplocked. If outnumbered, his odds decrease.
If he has someone triplocked, he can't do much about the guy outside of his threatened are making ranged attacks or casting spells without releasing his triplock.
If a PC relies on one single tactic to win, as a DM I am under no obligation to not counter it because that's all he's got.
Triplock is not the "perfect combo".
It is a tactical advantage that has limits.
I was speaking of one triplocker against one opponent on the battlefied, not one triplocker holding a party down. I said a while back that was a ridiculous assessment.
The triplocker is not alone however. Of course his buddies are occupying the other members. They might be triplockers too. I would see no reason not to do it if since it pretty much ends the fight.How do you plan to move out of his threatened area if you are prone? All you can do is crawl which provokes, and you can only crawl 5 feet.
Yeah. Allies cannot be discounted. I got trip-locked a couple of games ago, so what did I do? I crawled towards my barbarian friend a few squares away. The trip locker opted not to follow me because he knew I was leading him into my barbarian friend's kill range.In a one on one fight, yes, the triplocker is likely to win.
My staying put and turtling keeps the triplocker pinned down. He can only move so far before I am out of his threatened area. If he wants to maintain triplock, his movement options are limited. If I move 5' each round, he has to move with me to maintain triplock, or away from me to maintain distance so I can't attack him.
A single triplocker can only keep so many characters triplocked. If outnumbered, his odds decrease.
If he has someone triplocked, he can't do much about the guy outside of his threatened are making ranged attacks or casting spells without releasing his triplock.
If a PC relies on one single tactic to win, as a DM I am under no obligation to not counter it because that's all he's got.
Triplock is not the "perfect combo".
It is a tactical advantage that has limits.
Why wasn't the barbarian triplocked? How did you survive full found attacks, plus the AoO for trying to crawl.
If I ever use triplock, which I wont everyone, would get some. I would probably triplock the melee guys first, and send the lesser, but not necessarily bad triplockers for the other party members if there was a main tripper.
For what it's worth, I will add my 2c on why I'm glad that by RAW Trip-lock is not possible (both in 3.5 - as explained by the 3.5 FAQ - AND in Pathfinder - as explained Jason Bulmahn several posts above).
Before 3.5 FAQ added the clarification on 'no Trip-locking, since you cannot Trip an already tripped character' one of my groups was scared to hell with a simple kind of monsters which, by their very nature, were very common at low levels (and deadly thanks to Trip-locking).
Dogs and Wolves.
These lovely beasts have an innate Trip attack with their Bite, which triggers any time they make a Bite attack (Standard attack, Readied attack, Attack of Opportunity). Plus, they LOVE to roam in packs.
A 4-men group of characters at 1st-3rd level, while roaming in the wilderness, can easily found a group of - let's say - 4-5 rabid dogs (if not more). Not necessarily CR 1 Riding Dogs, I'm speaking also of CR 1/3 common Dogs.
Most of these fights were a parade of Trip-locked characters (again, before the FAQ explained it was not possible), with characters often bitten to death (or near-death) and unable to escape. -4 to AC and -4 to hit can be VERY deadly at 1st-3rd level; a sequence of 'I attack - miss; the dog attacks me - damn, it hit me again...' 'Guys, I will try to stand up ! - Damn, no good, damaged AND tripped again... I think it's time to roll another character...'
Please remember, not all 'trip-machines' need to actually waste a damaging attack in order to trip you. Most monsters (which frequently have other bonuses as well - like reach and high CMB) could mince you to shreds if trip-locking were allowed (and again, I really do not understand the point of discussing if it were allowable, since the devs already answered to us that it is not by RAW).
Just my 2c.
Assuming then that the concentration check fails, so does the spell. (because it was interrupted by the AoO)
Assuming then that the CMD check fails, so should the movement. (because it was interrupted by the AoO trip combat maneuver)
I'm sorry, but the second is incorrect. Being tripped does not end movement, being prone means you cannot continue moving.
Now I don't believe that say being tripped would stop you from drawing a weapon (a move action), right?
Notice in the case of casting a spell: the caster is hit, but with the concentration check casts the spell as normal. Likewise an archer firing provokes, but AFTER being hit by the AOO fires the bow as normal.
Likewise the person standing up provokes, and after the AOO completes his action (standing up).
We do agree that it should be a non-issue.
-James
You know what? This and your previous post have had an *amazing* amount of clarity for me regarding system precedent.
I'm fairly confident that it's a non-issue at this point for me, and now I've got the in-game precedents to point to for similar function.
Regarding the trip-locking monster ... I've got a perfect defense - DISARM!
'nuff said.
If you're set around disarming, and geared for that, go ahead and make the disarm from your *prone* condition and you can negate that guys whole schtick outright (except maybe a monk). This is especially damaging to Mr. Reach-Weapon there - especially w/"ready" an action to wait for his attack/movement/trip/whatever he's trying, the disarming character gets to take his freakin' weapon outright and leave him now UNABLE to threaten anyone. Even w/the -4 imposed, an optimized disarmer will have a +4 in favor anyway.
Just saying ... there's a LOT of things to do to stop the freakin' trip-cheese bastich!
A LOT of options ...
Edit: Just for capitalizing on the 'backwards compatibility' thing - this one feat from CW WILL FULLY NEUTRALIZE trip-monkeys flat.
You can attack from a prone position without penalty.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Lightning Reflexes, BAB +2
Benefit: You can make an attack from the prone position and take NO PENALTY on your attack roll. IF your attack roll is successful, YOU MAY REGAIN YOUR FEET IMMEDIATELY as a free action. Opponents gain NO BONUS on melee attacks against you while you are prone.
Special: A fighter may select Prone Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.
So, yeah ... for a 2-feat dip, you can make yourself IMMUNE to tripping (or the effects anyway - AoO should/would still get ya' though).
Note that standing up becomes a FREE action, and if your first attack hits, you can FULL ATTACK the tripper immediately on your init after he's "trip-locked" you.
*shakes head at nonsensical insistence on trip locking as "the win" for tactics*
Thanks again, James - really helped me get a solid handle on this thing.
For what it's worth, I will add my 2c on why I'm glad that by RAW Trip-lock is not possible (both in 3.5 - as explained by the 3.5 FAQ - AND in Pathfinder - as explained Jason Bulmahn several posts above).
Before 3.5 FAQ added the clarification on 'no Trip-locking, since you cannot Trip an already tripped character' one of my groups was scared to hell with a simple kind of monsters which, by their very nature, were very common at low levels (and deadly thanks to Trip-locking).
Dogs and Wolves.
These lovely beasts have an innate Trip attack with their Bite, which triggers any time they make a Bite attack (Standard attack, Readied attack, Attack of Opportunity). Plus, they LOVE to roam in packs.
A 4-men group of characters at 1st-3rd level, while roaming in the wilderness, can easily found a group of - let's say - 4-5 rabid dogs (if not more). Not necessarily CR 1 Riding Dogs, I'm speaking also of CR 1/3 common Dogs.
Most of these fights were a parade of Trip-locked characters (again, before the FAQ explained it was not possible), with characters often bitten to death (or near-death) and unable to escape. -4 to AC and -4 to hit can be VERY deadly at 1st-3rd level; a sequence of 'I attack - miss; the dog attacks me - damn, it hit me again...' 'Guys, I will try to stand up ! - Damn, no good, damaged AND tripped again... I think it's time to roll another character...'
Please remember, not all 'trip-machines' need to actually waste a damaging attack in order to trip you. Most monsters (which frequently have other bonuses as well - like reach and high CMB) could mince you to shreds if trip-locking were allowed (and again, I really do not understand the point of discussing if it were allowable, since the devs already answered to us that it is not by RAW).
Just my 2c.
The debate with my fellow piazoites is now about how much damage it could cause. They think it is ok. I think it is overpowered. I am about to walk away from the thread since I keep getting the same strategies suggested to me, and I have to keep repeating myself though. It is starting to get boring saying the same thing over and over.
Setting up the PCs against multiple triplocking optimized opponents could rightly be taken as a DM trying to wipe the party.
To get out of that you would need a caster to teleport the party away or somehow negate the triplockers with spells (possibly something save or lose, or better, something that grants cover (no AoO) or even concealment (miss chance on the AoO)). And yes, I know casting a spell provokes an AoO, but if you can get it off you can break the triplock.
I won't claim triplocking isn't a very effective tactic. But it is not without counters. They may not be easy or guaranteed to work, but they exist.
Remember, the fight isn't over until it's over.
If triplocking is not so powerful then it should not be an issue. If I used all grapplers I would expect for them to find a way out.
Assuming then that the concentration check fails, so does the spell. (because it was interrupted by the AoO)
Assuming then that the CMD check fails, so should the movement. (because it was interrupted by the AoO trip combat maneuver)
I'm sorry, but the second is incorrect. Being tripped does not end movement, being prone means you cannot continue moving.
Now I don't believe that say being tripped would stop you from drawing a weapon (a move action), right?
Notice in the case of casting a spell: the caster is hit, but with the concentration check casts the spell as normal. Likewise an archer firing provokes, but AFTER being hit by the AOO fires the bow as normal.
Likewise the person standing up provokes, and after the AOO completes his action (standing up).
We do agree that it should be a non-issue.
-James
You know what? This and your previous post have had an *amazing* amount of clarity for me regarding system precedent.
I'm fairly confident that it's a non-issue at this point for me, and now I've got the in-game precedents to point to for similar function.
Regarding the trip-locking monster ... I've got a perfect defense - DISARM!
'nuff said.
If you're set around disarming, and geared for that, go ahead and make the disarm from your *prone* condition and you can negate that guys whole schtick outright (except maybe a monk). This is especially damaging to Mr. Reach-Weapon there - especially w/"ready" an action to wait for his attack/movement/trip/whatever he's trying, the disarming character gets to take his freakin' weapon outright and leave him now UNABLE to threaten anyone. Even w/the -4 imposed, an optimized disarmer will have a +4 in favor anyway.
Just saying ... there's a LOT of things to do to stop the freakin' trip-cheese bastich!
A LOT of options ...
Edit: Just for capitalizing on the 'backwards compatibility' thing - this one feat from CW WILL FULLY NEUTRALIZE trip-monkeys flat....
If you try to disarm you provoke. He could then disarm you instead. If you have to have disarm as your only way out, and even that is highly questionable then the tactic is too powerful. So one tactic that requires two feats(strike back, and improved disarm) has been mentioned. Grappling which is kind of a lock down tactic itself is not even that specific.
|
I would hope that the rest of my party is able to do something to the monster, and/or drag me the heck out of there once I am unconscious or wounded.
If hope is your only option ......
I would maybe "bluff" my way into pretending to be knocked unconscious.
Trips dont do hit point damage. It looks like you are back to that hope option, and if the rest of the party is trip-locked you just get coup de graced to make sure you are dead.
I would try to attack from prone to kill the monster.Fighting a melee based monster from prone, really?
I would cast a spell from prone (if a caster).The most power class(Casters) might be able to get out. If that is what it takes, and even that is not a good guarantee depending on the intelligence of the monster then that just shows how broken it is. It does not take much wisdom to ready an action against spell casting.
I would distract the monster with a spell/diversion/ability.You might have to explain this one to me.
I might even (gasp!) die. If I am resurrected, I would try to fix my CMD (which everyone has, btw). If my character wasn't rezed, I would roll a new character and knowing my GM might use this tactic against me, I might choose different footing/ground/tactics/terrain to fight on. I would increase my CMD. I might take the improved trip feat to gain the bonus against trips. I might do a variety of things to avoid this.Monsters win the CMB battle, especially at higher levels. The only thing to do is try to stay out of range, but once again the DM controls the world. If he wants you in range then you will be in range.
Not EVERY monster you face from this point on would be a trip-lock. Not every build will be one. Not every NPC can do this.Every monster does not have too. You only need to lose one battle to die.
...
Lastly, I would like to point out again that NOT every fight will go in
Nope, no snark here. Move along people, move along.
|
I've been watching this thread grow and this just seems like an exploit of a rule wording. I know it is nothing I would allow in a game because, from a story telling aspect, it's just silly. The thread title itself, "Trip-locking", is indicative of related topics in video games with flaws/weaknesses in game code that allow you to beat enemies easier with less danger than normal using a error in code logic.
As to the discussions, by all logic, you cannot trip someone who is already prone. AoO's take place as an immediate action in response to someone attempting to do something and happens just before. The tripped opponent has not removed the prone condition before the AoO has went off, so a trip would not work. The AoO was in response to them attempting to remove the prone condition and happens while they are still under the prone effects. After the AoO, they have no removed the prone condition and are now standing. It seems very straight forward. Someone trying to cast a magic missle on you, you get your AoO before the spell is cast, not after. So someone is standing up, you get the AoO before they stand.
Why the difference? Why does an AoO obviously come into play DURING one action but only BEFORE another?
And THAT is why the rule is gamist.
No, it's not, at least not in this case. Short of grappling or entangling, there's really no way to keep someone prone.
And THAT is why the rule is gamist.
Wow, this thread is still going, even after we've laid out the specific rules and had a "yep, that's right" from the dev...I guess some folks never give up. I already even pointed out the specific mechanic that covers how spellcasting and AoO's interact, since that rule is indeed an exception to the standard AoO mechanic of the attack happening before the action.
Now, for the above statement, there you go again being insulting. You do realize that the entire Pathfinder ruleset is gamist, right? Gamist is not a negative term, as you apparently want to use it. It simply describes how the game itself approaches play mechanics. Pathfinder is not a simulation. It is not a narrative system. It is a gamist system. There are a few more subtleties in the overall application of game theory to Pathfinder, but no matter how you hack it its going to come out the same. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, acting surprised by this, and talking down to those that enjoy this approach?
Best you can do is trip them again... say with a readied action 'when they stand up'.
-James
Exactly. And doing that actually isn't all that bad from a gameplay point of view, either, because you DO actually give up your full attack to do it. It's a win from both the simulationist and the gamist perspective.
Um, yeah, that's kinda my point. The ruling is specific enough to only count against a narrow set of circumstances, of which trip-locking is one. However, by logically extending the ruling to another action, in this case spell casting, you render invalid another mechanic (concentration checks for damage during casting).
So, any way you look at it, an exception was made, and not made for reasons of simplicity or realism. It was a nerf. Now, it may very well be a nerf to spellcasting! I can't rule that out. People can't stop others from taking actions, except where spells are concerned. That fits the evidence as well.
However, either way, it was a nerf. And since it seems to be a nerf against a specific tactic (either casting in meele or trip-locking), I call it gamist.
You've just stopped reading my posts, right? Spellcasting is the exception, not tripping. The exception is right there in the rules. Every other AoO pretty much works just like it does for tripping--action that provokes an AoO starts to occur, AoO occurs, action that provoked the AoO continues if possible. This is consistent all the way through, and even the spellcasting exception is simply an expansion of the rules clarifying how the concentration check interacts.
|
|
Dang, I must be blind. I completely missed Jason's post on page 3 confirming the mechanic.
And THAT is why the rule is gamist.Wow, this thread is still going, even after we've laid out the specific rules and had a "yep, that's right" from the dev...I guess some folks never give up. I already even pointed out the specific mechanic that covers how spellcasting and AoO's interact, since that rule is indeed an exception to the standard AoO mechanic of the attack happening before the action.
Now, for the above statement, there you go again being insulting. You do realize that the entire Pathfinder ruleset is gamist, right? Gamist is not a negative term, as you apparently want to use it. It simply describes how the game itself approaches play mechanics. Pathfinder is not a simulation. It is not a narrative system. It is a gamist system. There are a few more subtleties in the overall application of game theory to Pathfinder, but no matter how you hack it its going to come out the same. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, acting surprised by this, and talking down to those that enjoy this approach?
For both spell-casting and combat maneuvers, damage from the provoked AoO factors into the resolution of the ability. This is no way contradicts the idea that the AoO should be fully resolved just before the action itself is resolved; in fact, it supports it.
Wow, this thread is still going, even after we've laid out the specific rules and had a "yep, that's right" from the dev...I guess some folks never give up. I already even pointed out the specific mechanic that covers how spellcasting and AoO's interact, since that rule is indeed an exception to the standard AoO mechanic of the attack happening before the action.Perhaps you missed the part where I stated unequivocally that I know what the rules say? And where I say that the specific exception is the gamist quality I abhor?
And you are missing the part where I (again) point out that the supposed specific exception you abhor is, in fact, not an exception at all. Every AoO works the exact same way. That's how the game functions. If you don't like that function of the game, you don't like how Pathfinder handles AoO entirely.
Now, for the above statement, there you go again being insulting. You do realize that the entire Pathfinder ruleset is gamist, right? Gamist is not a negative term, as you apparently want to use it. It simply describes how the game itself approaches play mechanics. Pathfinder is not a simulation. It is not a narrative system. It is a gamist system. There are a few more subtleties in the overall application of game theory to Pathfinder, but no matter how you hack it its going to come out the same. I'm not sure why you keep brining this up, acting surprised by this, and talking down to those that enjoy this approach?
Well, if you happen to think that a rule created for the sake of making things flow in a certain way, even if it is internally inconsistant, is ok, more power to you. I do not. In fact, I play PnP games BECAUSE I dislike gamist rules. You know what gamist rules remind me of? NWN, NWN2, KotOR, ME, etc. You can't "say" this until you finish a certain quest. You can't go "there" because you havn't unlocked the zone. You can't just shoot the guy because the game won't let you target him yet. You can't break those boxes, or damage that wall, it cut that rope because the game isn't set up for it.
There is a term I am using. It is "gamist rule". That being a subset of rules that relate primarily to the game as a meta-concept, rather than in-game play. A rule that disallows a specific event that should otherwise be allowed because the event is deemed inappropriate is a "gamist rule".
See above. Every rule in Pathfinder exists as a meta-concept to support the game. I'm assuming from your stance, then, that you hate hit points? Armor class? Reflex saves that don't require you to actually move to another square? You are trying to plant your flag on the hill of trip-lock disqualification being some amazing exception to the rules. It's not. It consistently applies the rules as they exist.
You've just stopped reading my posts, right? Spellcasting is the exception, not tripping. The exception is right there in the rules. Every other AoO pretty much works just like it does for tripping--action that provokes an AoO starts to occur, AoO occurs, action that provoked the AoO continues if possible. This is consistent all the way through, and even the spellcasting exception is simply an expansion of the rules clarifying how the concentration check interacts.So why the nerf to spellcasters? Since that is EXACTLY what it is. A nerf.
OR you see that the nerf was to combatants by removing a way to interrupt actions. In that case, all that was LEFT was a way to interrupt spellcasters. In any case, they (original game designers) felt strongly enough about it to include an ENTIRELY different mechanic into the game. So why so strongly about spells, but specifically against it for other actions? Why is stopping a caster from casting and forcing them to loose the spell not unbalancing to the casters, but trip-locking, which causes NO permament resource drain, is OP?
As I noted above, the spellcasting exception is indeed just an expansion of the existing rule--they do not change how the AoO works, just that for spellcasting it introduces a sub-rule for concentration. Saying it is an entirely separate mechanic is a big stretch; application of the rule is still consistent. Spellcasting requires concentration (as do a few other mechanics in the game). Swinging a sword, standing up, etc. does not require concentration. That's another "gamist" element (for the good, in my opinion) of the entire Pathfinder (and d20) rule set.
People can't stop others from taking actions, except where spells are concerned.
This is false. Amusingly, it's already been proved false by several posts in this very thread.
Example:
Monster provokes by attempting to charge past Character.
Character uses his AoO to trip Monster.
Monster can now no longer complete his charge; his movement stops in that square and his charge is prevented.
No exception was made, no nerf unless you are confusing what you want to be the case with reality and finding the later lacking compared with the former...
Come again? Play this all out in sequence. First, assume that AoO is delivered before the action that triggers the AoO is STARTED, like many claim:
Wiz is on init 7. On init 8, he takes damage. Does he make a concentration check on init 7 to cast because he took damage? No. On init 7 he casts, triggering an AoO, which hits. As per above, the AoO is delivered BEFORE the action. Thus, the attack must land BEFORE the spell is cast. And that's before the casting STARTED. Why should he have to make a concentration check now and not before? What is the fundamental difference?
Answer: It's what the RULE says. Which makes it different from, and inconsistant with, the rule governing tripping as an AoO while an opponent is standing.
I agrue there should be no such gap. Either AoO's are delivered BEFORE the action, which negates the concentration check for spellcasting, or DURING the action, which allows tripping an opponent while they attempt to stand.
Or you could follow the specific rule for Concentration needed if you take damage while casting a spell (or using certain magic items, or using a spell-like ability...). Standing does not require concentration. Spellcasting does. Thems the rules.
Figured I'd copy the PRD again, for folks that missed it back on page 2-3...
[b]Injury:[b] 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).
It is clear that the AoO happens during and interrupts spellcasting. The previously stated reasoning for trip not working is that the AoO happens BEFORE the target tries to stand, which is why they are still considered prone. If you cannot see the inconsistancy, I don't know what more to tell you.
Previously stated reason where? Give an official source/quote or reference.
There is no inconsistency.
- A person starts to stand and provokes an AoO.
- The attacker uses his AoO to trip the opponent.
- The person standing continues his action to stand, as the trip does not in any way remove the person's ability to continue his Move action.
I'm nice to my players. In my game standing up doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity, a rule a borrowed from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. As people have pointed out, tripping is nasty enough without allowing trip-locking.
I've run a (3.5) game with an orc spiked-chain trip monkey. It just wasn't very fun.
The previously stated reasoning for trip not working is that the AoO happens BEFORE the target tries to stand, which is why they are still considered prone.
Incorrect. You are still considered prone until the action of attempting to not be prone is completed (think about that logically; the goal of the 'stand up from prone' action is to remove the 'prone' condition. Therefore, it logically follows that, until the action is complete, the condition is not removed). Further, there's no support in the rules for AoOs happening before the triggering action. The spellcasting text is not a contradiction with or exception to the AoO timing.
I am trying to discern what you are doing here. Did you honestly not understand my hyperbole of what I was getting at, or did you deliberately misinterpret my statement as a form of ad hominem?
Considering you changed your statement, I would have to make the assertion that you too realized you were making an incorrect statement.
In reading through the intervening posts since I was last here, it occurred to me that the "I could do this in real life" argument in use is as far as I can tell grossly oversimplifying what's happening in the combat turn as mirrored by the rules. By this, I mean that people are saying things like "get down in a prone position and I guarantee I can keep you there." However, this misses the complexity of the action economy in Pathfinder. An AoO is, effectively, a Free action since given the right circumstances (Combat Reflexes + high Dex) you can make as many as you want. This is clearly superior to an Immediate, Swift, Standard, or Move action which are all limited to one per turn (or two Move actions if you sacrifice a Standard action). So, the energy/time required to execute an AoO is not comparable to a Standard action, or any of these other actions for that matter.
With this in mind, I think a fairer consideration for a real-world example would be this...You have tripped an opponent. Said opponent has an ally threatening you directly in melee. Can you, realistically, defended yourself from both opponents, attack one of your opponents, and keep the tripped opponent on the ground without any specialized training? When considering this scenario, it seems the Pathfinder rules do a good job of emulating the actions necessary to defend yourself and continue attacking, while also getting in a "quick hit" if the tripped opponent tries to stand.
As is probably obvious from my previous posts, I'm not looking for Pathfinder to exactly simulate real combat, but I think it's doing a fair step better than some folks think given these considerations.
It is clear that the AoO happens during and interrupts spellcasting. The previously stated reasoning for trip not working is that the AoO happens BEFORE the target tries to stand, which is why they are still considered prone. If you cannot see the inconsistancy, I don't know what more to tell you.
I already know I should stay out of this. But here goes:
There is a difference between happening before an action COMPLETES, and before an action BEGINS. In all cases an AoO happens between the beginning and ending of an action.
A Standing Up
1. Character begins standing up.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character finishes standing up.
B Moving Through Threatened square
1. Character begins to move to new square.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character moves to new square.
C Casting Spell
1. Character begins casting spell.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character finishes the spell.
The only difference between the three is that Casting has a special rule that may allow the spell to fail (but the casting action is still completed, the spell is lost either way.) There is nothing about attacks of opportunity that prevents a non-spellcasting action to finish. Sometimes the result of the attack may leave a character unable to complete, (grappled, prone, dead, etc) but a standard AoO doesn't stop anything from happening.
You are prone in the Grease spell. You attempt to stand, but fail, so...now you get up anyway? Because THAT is the logical conclusion of this thread.
Sorry, but nowhere in the Grease spell the text says that standing up has a chance to make you fall again.
"A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Acrobatics check. Failure means it can't move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Acrobatics skill for details). Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed."
Standing up from prone (after a fall) does not force any kind of check to see if you can fall again. Such checks are made only if trying to move across the greased area.
So yes, if you are prone due to a Grease spell, you have only to spend a move action to stand up. Nothing else (you don't even have to make any kind of check whatsoever).
Considering you changed your statement, I would have to make the assertion that you too realized you were making an incorrect statement.At no time did I change my post, if that is what you mean. If, instead, you are stating that I knowingly engaged in such hyperbole, that is correct. As do we all, from time to time, to make a point. Just like saying the Greatclub has no advantages over the Greatsword. Hyperbole, but essentially true, given context.
Yeah, that's my fault; I went looking for the text to put it in context and couldn't find it. However, there Greatclub really does not have a single mechanical advantage over the Greatsword, so no, that's not hyperbole. It's fact. Furthermore, your statement was not made in a hyperbolic manner; it was presented as fact, with supporting clauses and a logical (if incorrect) introduction and conclusion. Hyperboles are presented as-is and in an obviously over-exaggerated manner ("This bag weighs a ton!"; obviously it doesn't actually weigh a ton, or you wouldn't be able to lift it). By backing up your "You cannot prevent any action except spellcasting" with "that fits the evidence as well", you eliminated the defense of "it was just hyperbole!".
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, folks,
I am kinda amazed that this is still raging on. I have skimmed the posts from my ruling till now and most of them seem to be focused around a gamist argument, which I can understand. The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.
Whether or not triplock is too powerful is mostly irrelevant. I personally believe it is too good if the "in combat" cost is an AoO, but probably ok if it burns and action to pull off. Fortunately for my opinion, the rules support this as well, and have done so since the 3.5 ruling on this same issue.
Moving along folks.. keep it civil. I'll check back in later.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Whether or not triplock is too powerful is mostly irrelevant. I personally believe it is too good if the "in combat" cost is an AoO, but probably ok if it burns and action to pull off. Fortunately for my opinion, the rules support this as well, and have done so since the 3.5 ruling on this same issue.
Moving along folks.. keep it civil. I'll check back in later.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm with you on the ruling, but you do have a really interesting focal point too - emphasized above by me.
Hmmm ... *maybe* a solution would revolve around changing HOW the benefit of the trip attack is made by the tripper then?
So, instead of getting an AoO to attack the target of YOUR trip attempt, instead you get to use a *swift* action to deliver an attack as well? This would limit it to 1 use, PERIOD, and charge a cost of the tripper to use it then. I'd say that even the baseline Trip feat *should* include this, and then maybe have the AoO-provoking work sort of like the Bull Rush works now - you (bull-rusher) don't get the AoO, BUT any allies who's threatened spaces you move the target through provoke AoO's.
It can read something like, "Make a swift action in order to make a single attack at your highest BAB on the tripped target." Or something to this effect (ie: similar TO an AoO, but NOT via AoO mechanics).
I think that could work out nicely, honestly - and will make the trip a kindred spirit to bull rush in 'team friendly' application and mechanics.
I think this may become a new house rule for my games - I'll have to bounce it off my players, though.
|
|
Or, you know, we could all just say "Trip-locking doesn't work because the rules say it doesn't, the guy who designed the game says it doesn't, and because it's clearly attempting to be the PnP equivalent of some hole in the code of your favorite video game".
You know, we could do that.
Or, we could discuss various house rules in the house rule forum, since now we know (and have known for, what, five pages?) That trip lock does not work.
We could do that too.
We could even stay here in this thread and rage against the machine some more. You know, whatever everyone wants to do. It's all good.
I'm with you on the ruling, but you do have a really interesting focal point too - emphasized above by me.
Hmmm ... *maybe* a solution would revolve around changing HOW the benefit of the trip attack is made by the tripper then?
So, instead of getting an AoO to attack the target of YOUR trip attempt, instead you get to use a *swift* action to deliver an attack as well? This would limit it to 1 use, PERIOD, and charge a cost of the tripper to use it then. I'd say that even the baseline Trip feat *should* include this, and then maybe have the AoO-provoking work sort of like the Bull Rush works now - you (bull-rusher) don't get the AoO, BUT any allies who's threatened spaces you move the target through provoke AoO's.
It can read something like, "Make a swift action in order to make a single attack at your highest BAB on the tripped target." Or something to this effect (ie: similar TO an AoO, but NOT via AoO mechanics).
I think that could work out nicely, honestly - and will make the trip a kindred spirit to bull rush in 'team friendly' application and mechanics.
I think this may become a new house rule for my games - I'll have to bounce it off my players, though.
Yikes!
Houserule, shmouserule, whatever you do, I caution you to think twice (or three times) before breaking one mechanic to fix another possibly broken mechanic.
By this I mean that "swift" actions are not used for attacking. Other than with Quickened spells, I can't think of any way to attack with a swift action, and that's not really attacking anyway (and it requires one of the most powerful feats in the game).
I know what you're thinking. Swift actions are already limited to only getting one of them and only being able to do it on your own turn.
But rather than breaking the accepted convention of what a swift action is (really tiny expense of time, usually only for quickened spells or activating some feats, class abilities, or magic items), why not just leave Swift actions alone and write a Trip houserule that uses its own mechanics?
Seems to me like that's the better way to go, from a game design POV.
Or, you know, we could all just say "Trip-locking doesn't work because the rules say it doesn't, the guy who designed the game says it doesn't, and because it's clearly attempting to be the PnP equivalent of some hole in the code of your favorite video game".
You know, we could do that.
Or, we could discuss various house rules in the house rule forum, since now we know (and have known for, what, five pages?) That trip lock does not work.
We could do that too.
We could even stay here in this thread and rage against the machine some more. You know, whatever everyone wants to do. It's all good.
Quite right - new forum, then.
Apologies ...