"Trip-Locking Doesn't Work" - Official Ruling or Not?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 556 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.

It seems to be the general consensus around here that you can't make a trip attack-of-opportunity on a character who is standing up from prone.

Has this rule been clarified by the devs, or is this just a trend that the board seems mainly to agree with? If this rule has been confirmed by Jason or another dev, could someone direct me to the post? This could have a very significant impact on my games as one of my players is a HUGE fan of trip builds, and is (kind of) playing one now.

Liberty's Edge

Garden Tool wrote:

It seems to be the general consensus around here that you can't make a trip attack-of-opportunity on a character who is standing up from prone.

Has this rule been clarified by the devs, or is this just a trend that the board seems mainly to agree with? If this rule has been confirmed by Jason or another dev, could someone direct me to the post? This could have a very significant impact on my games as one of my players is a HUGE fan of trip builds, and is (kind of) playing one now.

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.

Dark Archive

Themetricsystem wrote:

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.


Garden Tool wrote:

It seems to be the general consensus around here that you can't make a trip attack-of-opportunity on a character who is standing up from prone.

Has this rule been clarified by the devs, or is this just a trend that the board seems mainly to agree with? If this rule has been confirmed by Jason or another dev, could someone direct me to the post? This could have a very significant impact on my games as one of my players is a HUGE fan of trip builds, and is (kind of) playing one now.

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.


Garden Tool wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

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 or off state designated with 1's or 0's. In D&D/Pathfinder a lot of things are like that. Either you are up=1 or down=0. Tripping takes you to 0.


I don't think the Paizo team's really needed for this one. AoO's that are provoked in the middle of someone else's turn resolve before the provoking action (see AoO in Combat section). So the person who's been downed tries to stand. You interrupt with your trip attempt. If it fails, they then continue and stand up. If it succeeds, the target is rendered prone. But they're already and still prone-they haven't completed the move action to rise. So you took a prone person and rendered them prone. The conditions don't stack. So, having completed your AoO, they continue with their move aciton and rise to their feet. Seems straightforward to me. *shrug*

Dark Archive

concerro wrote:
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.


Garden Tool wrote:
concerro wrote:
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 down.

What works by common sense in real life does not work in the game. Balance often trumps logic with the rules. A readied attack and an attack of opportunity are similar, but not the same. You could word the readied action so that you don't swing until you have a clear shot. Attacks of opportunity dont give you that option, but they don't take up standard actions either. In real life you dont have the issue of being only up or down. There is a moment in between being up or down. Since the game has only up or down you are either trying to trip a standing character or a prone one. By the definition of the attack of opportunity you are attacking a prone character since he is not standing due to an interrupted action. Since he is still down he can't be tripped, or maybe he could but he was prone anyway, so it is a moot point, and he continues to stand.

Liberty's Edge

Garden Tool wrote:


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 down.

The prone status is just that, the prone status. When you go from prone to standing there is no intermediate period you just stand up. The sequence would go

1) Prone
2) Attempt to stand up
3) AoA, with or without trip
4) Move action to stand up

There is no in between and the AoA occurs before the move action does, and even IF there was an in between status like "Staggered" or something like that it STILL wouldn't matter because they would gain the staggered status AFTER the AoA regardless.

On the argument in movies the person on the ground would be an example of characters taking their actions to ready against the person standing up and then tripping them as opposed to attacking on their initiative and then attacking otherwise.

A lot of people get mixed up due to the nature of rounds too. Say you have 29,798,634 goblins fighting. Each of them are going to get 6 seconds to make their actions, and though that round would take a few years to play out (being generous) the time elapsed is still only 6 seconds. AoA's occur within that 6 second timeframe as well.


There is no assumption. All attacks of opportunity are resolved before the action that provoked them is resolved. The prone victim is still prone when the AoO occurs. If the tripper wishes to trip them again, they must wait for their turn.

Considering that the trippee uses a move action to stand up it is still almost a certainty that they will be within move and attack range the next turn unless the tripper loses his action(s) for some reason. Still potentially combat ending, but it gives a clever player or DM a chance to escape, as opposed to the alternative which can be very frustrating to say the least.

Dark Archive

Given that it was definately the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5 (hence the wild popularity of trip builds), may I ask what Pathfinder changed that appears to have swayed the opinion of D&D community so drastically?

Is the wording for the trip maneuver or attacks of opportunity significantly different in Pathfinder?


The Pathfinder rules clearly state that Attacks of Opportunity are resolved by "interrupting" the flow of combat, which is returned to only after the attack is resolved.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Garden Tool wrote:
Given that it was definately the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5 (hence the wild popularity of trip builds), may I ask what Pathfinder changed that appears to have swayed the opinion of D&D community so drastically?

I've used a couple of trip builds myself, and wasn't generally allowed to trip someone rising from prone in 3.5. I've always understood that AoOs went off prior to completion of the action that triggered them. This isn't the same as a readied action, which goes off when its conditions are met (which may occur during any part of an opponent's turn). Well planned use of readied actions can still achieve a sort of trip-lock.

Liberty's Edge

Garden Tool wrote:

Given that it was definitely the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5, may I ask what Pathfinder changed that appears to have swayed the opinion of D&D community so drastically?

Is the wording for the trip maneuver or attacks of opportunity significantly different in Pathfinder?

I will take this space to note that pathfinder is an intentional upgrade and re-balancing of 3'rd ed rules and therefore things changed (IMO) for the better.

That being said in 3.X AoO were never specifically designated as having a specific order of operations. There was nothing coming down from brass stating that the attack occurred before the action. It was only assumed to "interrupt" the action. This is probably mainly due to the fact that getting a successor AoO on a caster worked to distract the spellcaster.

Now with pathfinder there is specific terminology stating that they occur beforehand. That is ... that really.
It sounds like you are really attached to this trip build, my best suggestion is to let it go. Call it an artifact from the old system that got polished over. Personally I like the change, otherwise any creature that gets free trip attacks would be a whole HELL of a lot more challenging.


Interesting...so your AoO happens either before or after, but not during an action?

Forget trip-locking. You have a reach weapon with the disarm ability, like a whip. An enemy caster provokes an AoO to retrieve a wand, which he intends to use on the party cleric. You CANNOT disarm them as an AoO? They are taking the wand out of their pack, which is provoking the AoO, but the attack needs to be resolved BEFORE the wand is available for disarm?

I find the lack of verisimilitude distressing...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is silly. BEING prone does not provoke an attack of opportunity, attempting to stand up does. If you are attempting to stand up, then you are no longer prone, you are somewhere in between prone and standing.

An action can very obviously begin before provoking an AOO, as evidenced by movement provoking. This isn't some silly WotC/M:tG "Last In, First Out" interrupt card being played on the "stack" and then resolved in reverse order.

Bottom line, standing up takes as much time as it takes an unencumbered Human to move 30 feet, and somewhere within that time frame another trip attempt can certainly occur.

Dark Archive

ZeroCharisma wrote:
The Pathfinder rules clearly state that Attacks of Opportunity are resolved by "interrupting" the flow of combat, which is returned to only after the attack is resolved.

So did the 3.5 ruleset.

To quote the 3.5 SRD: "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)."

So why the radical face-heel-turn on player's opinions of trip builds, and the consensus of how this works? What changed?


Garden Tool wrote:

Given that it was definately the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5 (hence the wild popularity of trip builds), may I ask what Pathfinder changed that appears to have swayed the opinion of D&D community so drastically?

Is the wording for the trip maneuver or attacks of opportunity significantly different in Pathfinder?

Actually the build did not work in 3.5, and it was stated on their boards. The issue is that many people ignored that information just to keep their builds. I will look for a thread that showed this, but no promises since many of my threads have been deleted.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Garden Tool wrote:

Given that it was definately the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5 (hence the wild popularity of trip builds), may I ask what Pathfinder changed that appears to have swayed the opinion of D&D community so drastically?

Is the wording for the trip maneuver or attacks of opportunity significantly different in Pathfinder?

I remember seeing a consensus that you couldn't trip someone who was standing back up as far back as 3 or 4 years ago. Might have even been in a sage advice in the magazines or on the boards for the magazine.

Liberty's Edge

Moro wrote:

This is silly. BEING prone does not provoke an attack of opportunity, attempting to stand up does. If you are attempting to stand up, then you are no longer prone, you are somewhere in between prone and standing.

An action can very obviously begin before provoking an AOO, as evidenced by movement provoking. This isn't some silly WotC/M:tG "Last In, First Out" interrupt card being played on the "stack" and then resolved in reverse order.

Bottom line, standing up takes as much time as it takes an unencumbered Human to move 30 feet, and somewhere within that time frame another trip attempt can certainly occur.

No, the AoO occurs because the character drops his guard, NOT because he starts some action. The character drops his guard to begin to stand up. This is when the AoO occurs, not in some fictional time where the character is half standing.

Plus, am I the only one here who keeps asking themselves why the prone creature doesn't just acrobatics tumble away from the enemy first?


Moro wrote:

This is silly. BEING prone does not provoke an attack of opportunity, attempting to stand up does. If you are attempting to stand up, then you are no longer prone, you are somewhere in between prone and standing.

An action can very obviously begin before provoking an AOO, as evidenced by movement provoking. This isn't some silly WotC/M:tG "Last In, First Out" interrupt card being played on the "stack" and then resolved in reverse order.

Bottom line, standing up takes as much time as it takes an unencumbered Human to move 30 feet, and somewhere within that time frame another trip attempt can certainly occur.

Either you are up or down, and until the action is complete then it has not taken place. If the standing action has not taken place then you are not standing. If you are not standing then you are prone. The game does not account for being in between prone and standing. It only accounts for one or the other. You can houserule however you like but the rules, and the game's designers say differently.


Garden Tool wrote:
ZeroCharisma wrote:
The Pathfinder rules clearly state that Attacks of Opportunity are resolved by "interrupting" the flow of combat, which is returned to only after the attack is resolved.

So did the 3.5 ruleset.

To quote the 3.5 SRD: "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)."

So why the radical face-heel-turn on player's opinions of trip builds, and the consensus of how this works? What changed?

To answer your question in regards solely to myself:

Pathfinder caused me to more critically re-examine the rules and take ownership of them because they made so many "common sense" revisions and clarifications, plus they involved all of us in the play-testing, which I both appreciated and embraced.

I did not fully understand that rule in 3.5 (so it was more open to abuse) but considering that during PF Beta play-testing, my group was much more prone (no pun intended) to getting out the rulebook and looking something up, we discovered that the rules did indeed prevent the "trip-lock" and went forward from there.


Themetricsystem wrote:
Plus, am I the only one here who keeps asking themselves why the prone creature doesn't just acrobatics tumble away from the enemy first?

That's exactly why trip-locking SHOULD work. It's trivially easy to get out of the situation, and it prevents nonsense like my earlier example.


Garden Tool wrote:

Given that it was definately the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5 (hence the wild popularity of trip builds), may I ask what Pathfinder changed that appears to have swayed the opinion of D&D community so drastically?

Is the wording for the trip maneuver or attacks of opportunity significantly different in Pathfinder?

You are working from an assumption here that this was largely accepted. I do not believe that assumption is correct. The ruling that you cannot trip an already prone target was actually even stated in the D&D 3.5 FAQ:

Quote:

When a character gets up from prone, when does the attack of opportunity take place? When he is still prone? When he is standing? Can the attacker choose when to attack? In one case, the attacker can get a +4 bonus to hit. In the other, he can make another trip attack.

All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them (see Chapter 8 in the PH). When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who’s getting up, your target is effectively prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however.

The wording for order of operations actually hasn't even changed:

d20 SRD wrote:
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).
PRD wrote:

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).


As the folks above have noted many times, the rules state that by RAW you can not.

If you can convince the DM, you could state that your AoO is to keep him down because any of us who have wrestled know, if someone is stronger, quicker than you and in a superior position, he or she may very well KEEP you on the deck regardless of whether you want to get up or not.

I could go either way actually in this issue. While it would make Trippers with Combat Reflexes a NIGHTMARE it might be fun. I mean really, you only have so many AoO a round and if that's what you want to build, chat up your DM / GM and see what you can work out.

Again, by RAW, newp, shouldn't be able to do it. By House Ruling it, you might.

Hope some of this helps

Have Fun out there!!

~ W ~


Themetricsystem wrote:
Garden Tool wrote:

Given that it was definitely the consensus that AoO trip-locking did work in 3.5, may I ask what Pathfinder changed that appears to have swayed the opinion of D&D community so drastically?

Is the wording for the trip maneuver or attacks of opportunity significantly different in Pathfinder?

I will take this space to note that pathfinder is an intentional upgrade and re-balancing of 3'rd ed rules and therefore things changed (IMO) for the better.

That being said in 3.X AoO were never specifically designated as having a specific order of operations. There was nothing coming down from brass stating that the attack occurred before the action. It was only assumed to "interrupt" the action. This is probably mainly due to the fact that getting a successor AoO on a caster worked to distract the spellcaster.

Now with pathfinder there is specific terminology stating that they occur beforehand. That is ... that really.
It sounds like you are really attached to this trip build, my best suggestion is to let it go. Call it an artifact from the old system that got polished over. Personally I like the change, otherwise any creature that gets free trip attacks would be a whole HELL of a lot more challenging.

To add to this would anyone want to lose initiative to a trip based huge monster with a reach weapon if the rules allowed for tripping on prone characters? I can see entire parties getting wiped.

Shadow Lodge

As erian already stated with provided quotes, this "trip locking" did not work in 3.5, and it STILL doesnt work. Im of the consensus that not clarification is needed because its pretty obvious, IMO.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Plus, am I the only one here who keeps asking themselves why the prone creature doesn't just acrobatics tumble away from the enemy first?
That's exactly why trip-locking SHOULD work. It's trivially easy to get out of the situation, and it prevents nonsense like my earlier example.

I did not know you could tumble from a prone position. I thought you were limited to crawling.

In any event tumbling is no longer a a DC 15 skill check. You have to beat the opponent's CMD, which may not be easy, especially if the monster is made to keep you down. See my post on the huge trip monster to see that issues. Not everyone can tumble, nor would they be able to tumble well.


wraithstrike wrote:
Moro wrote:

This is silly. BEING prone does not provoke an attack of opportunity, attempting to stand up does. If you are attempting to stand up, then you are no longer prone, you are somewhere in between prone and standing.

An action can very obviously begin before provoking an AOO, as evidenced by movement provoking. This isn't some silly WotC/M:tG "Last In, First Out" interrupt card being played on the "stack" and then resolved in reverse order.

Bottom line, standing up takes as much time as it takes an unencumbered Human to move 30 feet, and somewhere within that time frame another trip attempt can certainly occur.

Either you are up or down, and until the action is complete then it has not taken place. If the standing action has not taken place then you are not standing. If you are not standing then you are prone. The game does not account for being in between prone and standing. It only accounts for one or the other. You can houserule however you like but the rules, and the game's designers say differently.

The game also doesn't account for you "interrupting" someones movement action. Are you telling me that if a character moves 10', and provokes an AOO, that I cannot trip him there because his action isn't "complete"? The rules already DO allow for "in-between" states of being in nebulous times between the beginning of an action and the end.


wraithstrike wrote:
Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Plus, am I the only one here who keeps asking themselves why the prone creature doesn't just acrobatics tumble away from the enemy first?
That's exactly why trip-locking SHOULD work. It's trivially easy to get out of the situation, and it prevents nonsense like my earlier example.

I did not know you could tumble from a prone position. I thought you were limited to crawling.

In any event tumbling is no longer a a DC 15 skill check. You have to beat the opponent's CMD, which may not be easy, especially if the monster is made to keep you down. See my post on the huge trip monster to see that issues. Not everyone can tumble, nor would they be able to tumble well.

Also, tumbling while prone takes up a full-round action according to Acrobatics rules. So you'd use your entire round to get a few feet away, remain down, and let your opponent move up on you again and take a swipe at you.

Dark Archive

Interesting, was not aware that this did not work in 3.5.

The consensus seems to have validity. How to break this to my player...

HmmmmmmmMMMMAHAHAHAHAAAA! >: D

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:


I did not know you could tumble from a prone position. I thought you were limited to crawling.

In any event tumbling is no longer a a DC 15 skill check. You have to beat the opponent's CMD, which may not be easy, especially if the monster is made to keep you down. See my post on the huge trip monster to see that issues. Not everyone can tumble, nor would they be able to tumble well.

Yup yup, at least as far as I've seen being prone doesn't limit you from doing so, at least according to the RAW I've been pouring over. You still have to follow all of the normal acrobatics rules, like you mentioned about the CMD, but of course it gives you a viable OPTION to get some distance between you and them without automatically incurring an AoO.


Moro wrote:
The game also doesn't account for you "interrupting" someones movement action. Are you telling me that if a character moves 10', and provokes an AOO, that I cannot trip him there because his action isn't "complete"? The rules already DO allow for "in-between" states of being in nebulous times between the beginning of an action and the end.
The mechanics actually do account for interrupting an action--you simply have to consider what actually provoked the AoO. For your movement example, the move provokes and AoO when the target leaves a threatened square--the AoO triggers at that point and you could indeed trip the target as the AoO. Consider the language as follows:
  1. an attack of opportunity is provoked
  2. immediately resolve the attack of opportunity
  3. 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)
From this, you can see the order compensates for an interrupted action in step 3. If the target took a Move action first to go 10' of a 30' move and was then tripped, continuing the turn means it can then take a Standard or Move action. The first Move action is effectively interrupted, because the target cannot continue the move (since he's prone).


Moro wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Moro wrote:

This is silly. BEING prone does not provoke an attack of opportunity, attempting to stand up does. If you are attempting to stand up, then you are no longer prone, you are somewhere in between prone and standing.

An action can very obviously begin before provoking an AOO, as evidenced by movement provoking. This isn't some silly WotC/M:tG "Last In, First Out" interrupt card being played on the "stack" and then resolved in reverse order.

Bottom line, standing up takes as much time as it takes an unencumbered Human to move 30 feet, and somewhere within that time frame another trip attempt can certainly occur.

Either you are up or down, and until the action is complete then it has not taken place. If the standing action has not taken place then you are not standing. If you are not standing then you are prone. The game does not account for being in between prone and standing. It only accounts for one or the other. You can houserule however you like but the rules, and the game's designers say differently.
The game also doesn't account for you "interrupting" someones movement action. Are you telling me that if a character moves 10', and provokes an AOO, that I cannot trip him there because his action isn't "complete"? The rules already DO allow for "in-between" states of being in nebulous times between the beginning of an action and the end.

Actually it does account for it. You just have to combine a few rules to figure out what to do. If you are tripped while moving then your movement ends since you can't move at normal speed while prone.

In any event your example is a bad one because moving is not comparable to the tripping example. The movement is not an "in-between states" example because the state is standing, at least before the trip.

The ruling is not just because the action is not complete. That is not an all encompassing rule. It is because he is going from prone to standing, that he is not standing until the action is complete. Sometimes the AoO can prevent an action from being completed. An example is tripping someone who is trying to fire a bow. This works because you can't use a bow while prone, which works because the changing of the condition takes away options. Trying to trip someone who wants to stand does not work, because they never stood up.


erian_7 wrote:
Moro wrote:
The game also doesn't account for you "interrupting" someones movement action. Are you telling me that if a character moves 10', and provokes an AOO, that I cannot trip him there because his action isn't "complete"? The rules already DO allow for "in-between" states of being in nebulous times between the beginning of an action and the end.
The mechanics actually do account for interrupting an action--you simply have to consider what actually provoked the AoO. For your movement example, the move provokes and AoO when the target leaves a threatened square--the AoO triggers at that point and you could indeed trip the target as the AoO. Consider the language as follows:
  1. an attack of opportunity is provoked
  2. immediately resolve the attack of opportunity
  3. 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)
From this, you can see the order compensates for an interrupted action in step 3. If the target took a Move action first to go 10' of a 30' move and was then tripped, continuing the turn means it can then take a Standard or Move action. The first Move action is effectively interrupted, because the target cannot continue the move (since he's prone).

Yes, and since standing up from prone is a move action, it can be interrupted at any point during the movement required to stand.

Logically, movement is required to stand.
Movement can be interrupted, and in the case of a Trip, movement is ended and the target becomes prone.

Quote:
Trying to trip someone who wants to stand does not work, because they never stood up.

The same logic can be applied. Someone who is "attempting to stand" is not "prone".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

This thread makes me so proud.


Themetricsystem wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I did not know you could tumble from a prone position. I thought you were limited to crawling.

In any event tumbling is no longer a a DC 15 skill check. You have to beat the opponent's CMD, which may not be easy, especially if the monster is made to keep you down. See my post on the huge trip monster to see that issues. Not everyone can tumble, nor would they be able to tumble well.

Yup yup, at least as far as I've seen being prone doesn't limit you from doing so, at least according to the RAW I've been pouring over. You still have to follow all of the normal acrobatics rules, like you mentioned about the CMD, but of course it gives you a viable OPTION to get some distance between you and them without automatically incurring an AoO.

The fighter in heavy armor is not tumbling away in most situations barring a miracle especially since most CMB-combat based creatures have a high CMD. Actually a lot of characters would be owned by this tactic if it were valid.

A Balor has a 54 CMD, and if he gets the two trip feats it goes up to a 58.

Nakfeshnees have a 42 without any trip feats. The fighter has been neutralized, and he will most likely summon help to deal with the casters. Look like a TPK to me with both creatures if they specialize in trip.

Liberty's Edge

Moro wrote:


Yes, and since standing up from prone is a move action, it can be interrupted at any point during the movement required to stand.

Logically, movement is required to stand.
Movement can be interrupted, and in the case of a Trip, movement is ended and the target becomes prone.

No.

Feel free to run it this way in your games as a house rule but beware that it can and very will wreak HAVOK on your melee PCs. A single monster decides he wants to take combat reflexes, and then they get the prone condition, they are almost certainly not getting up.
If you wanted to run it like this then the person tripping would get a +4 bonus as a trip is a melee attack, and depending on the characters dex they would get up to a -2 to their CMD... so they would in all likelihood not be getting up... EVER.

Quote:


The fighter in heavy armor is not tumbling away in most situations barring a miracle especially since most CMB-combat based creatures have a high CMD. Actually a lot of characters would be owned by this tactic if it were valid.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly, I was talking more about situations like a caster or a "lite" melee PC gets caught up in things. Escape is sometimes necessary.


Quote:
All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them (see Chapter 8 in the PH). When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who’s getting up, your target is effectively prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however.

Also, since some people really do want to stick to a purely RAW interpretation, the above would be incorrect, because nowhere in the RAW for a Trip attempt does it say that you cannot trip a prone target.

So if you want to apply logic and RAI to one side, then you need to apply it all around.


Moro wrote:

Yes, and since standing up from prone is a move action, it can be interrupted at any point during the movement required to stand.

Logically, movement is required to stand.
Movement can be interrupted, and in the case of a Trip, movement is ended and the target becomes prone.

Logically, perhaps, but that's not what the rules say--"immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then...complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn." This is not about real-world logic, but rather game mechanics.

You're stating that the interruption can occur any time during the movement, but that is not the case. It occurs "immediately" when the AoO is provoked. The example you use with movement is not the same--the target has already moved 10' of a 30' Move action before triggering the AoO. Keep in mind it is not the target's entire Move action that provoked the AoO, but rather the exact 5' movement that took him out of a threatened square. Specific actions trigger AoO, and the AoO occurs immediately after that trigger.


Moro wrote:


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.

Sovereign Court

concerro wrote:

I did not know you could tumble from a prone position. I thought you were limited to crawling.

In a similar vein, I was wondering if one could use Acrobatics to "tumble up", like a kip. Essentially use Acrobatics to tumble to a standing position without provoking an AoO. Is there a reason why one could not?


Moro wrote:
Quote:
All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them (see Chapter 8 in the PH). When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who’s getting up, your target is effectively prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however.

Also, since some people really do want to stick to a purely RAW interpretation, the above would be incorrect, because nowhere in the RAW for a Trip attempt does it say that you cannot trip a prone target.

So if you want to apply logic and RAI to one side, then you need to apply it all around.

Note that you're quoting the d20 3.5 FAQ, not the folks on this forum.

You can indeed use a trip combat maneuver if you like for the AoO provoked, but it's pointless to do so. Trip has one effect--it renders the target prone. Since your target is already prone, your trip attempt has no effect. So, you effectively just wasted an AoO to do nothing, when you could have done something that actually has an effect...


Moro wrote:
Quote:
All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them (see Chapter 8 in the PH). When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who’s getting up, your target is effectively prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however.

Also, since some people really do want to stick to a purely RAW interpretation, the above would be incorrect, because nowhere in the RAW for a Trip attempt does it say that you cannot trip a prone target.

So if you want to apply logic and RAI to one side, then you need to apply it all around.

The 3.5 answer which uses the same wording as Pathfinder is here. By the way purely RAW is the rules. Now some rules are not clear, which require the devs to step in and explain which was done in 3.5. You have RAW and RAI. Even if we agree with you the correct ruling would still be that tripping prone characters does not work until James or Jason reverses it.

If you trip someone who is prone, assuming it was possible, their condition never changed so they just continue to stand. Tripping someone who is prone is not a retrip. It just gives them a condition they already had, kind of like trying to kill a dead character. You stab the dead guy/trip the prone guy and I still only have to cast raise dead/try to stand up once to make it work. The only conditions that I know that stack are the fear conditions, and that is only because they specifically say so.

Liberty's Edge

Twowlves wrote:
concerro wrote:

I did not know you could tumble from a prone position. I thought you were limited to crawling.

In a similar vein, I was wondering if one could use Acrobatics to "tumble up", like a kip. Essentially use Acrobatics to tumble to a standing position without provoking an AoO. Is there a reason why one could not?

As per the normal acrobatics rules I would say no, but it makes sense and I remember doing something like this in 3.5 on my monk frequently but I can't seem to find the precedent... Hmmm more investigation is in order. I shall return with edits shortly.

Edit: Thats what it was! Thief acrobat had a class feature named Kip-up that let you do just that without provoking AoO, but it was def not a baseline feature.


concerro wrote:
Moro wrote:


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.


erian_7 wrote:
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.


Twowlves wrote:
concerro wrote:

I did not know you could tumble from a prone position. I thought you were limited to crawling.

In a similar vein, I was wondering if one could use Acrobatics to "tumble up", like a kip. Essentially use Acrobatics to tumble to a standing position without provoking an AoO. Is there a reason why one could not?

I think there were skill tricks and feats that allowed it in 3.5. I would suggest that if the advanced players guide does not have a rule for it, making it into a DC or CMD+5 or 10 would be ok.


Moro wrote:

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 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:
  1. Target starts to use Move action to stand, triggering AoO
  2. AoO occurs immediately (before the Move action)
  3. Target continues Move action if possible
If your only action is to trip the target, that does not prevent the Move action from continuing.

If you want to trip that target after the Move action, you need to use a Ready action.

Moro wrote:
erian_7 wrote:
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 understand 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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

1 to 50 of 556 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / "Trip-Locking Doesn't Work" - Official Ruling or Not? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.