take it this way: you succesfully trip someone, that provokes an AoO which takes place directly between the succesfull attemp and the prone condition. but you are already succesfully tripped and thus can not be tripped again to get another AoO.Imagine how absolutely STUPID it would look for someone to initiate a trip, stop, hit the guy he's tripping, and THEN put him on the ground. My issue with the timing is that if you interrupt yourself, you take your AoO, then you go to trip him... wait, when he's tripped it provokes. Do I have combat reflexes? If yes, I have more AoO per round. I take another one because I'm initiating a trip.
There is no "between." The distinctions being made here would require a revision of timing rules and overcomplicated BS that nobody wants to deal with. The attempt is NOT known to be a success until the target is prone. The DM can tell the player what the CMD to beat is, but that does not change the timing built into the feat mechanics.
I maintain that you cannot distinguish "falling" from "prone" during a trip attempt. The rules do not permit it. A single AoO at a net +4 to hit will not break your game, even if it's done every round. There are plenty of enemies that can't be tripped.
Not saying that it would be broken, or it's an unreasonable or major house rule. Just that the rules as they are don't support it.
AoOs and Readied Action mechanics are based on interrupting actions between attempt and resolution.
It has to be a successful trip. A successful trip leaves your opponent prone. One must SUCCESSFULLY trip the opponent to receive the AoO. Therefore your timing issue is solved.I think you're having trouble with the way turn based combat abstracts time. Everything happens simultaneously. All the feat says is that your trip check needs to be successful, that does not mean the opponent is already on the ground at that time. It simply assures your success.
No. The real problem here is that you are claiming that you are interrupting your own action. If this were the case you wouldn't make the trip attempt first. The trip has to come first and the rules do not distinguish a time frame for falling from being tripped. The effects are for all intents and purposes, instantaneous. You can't argue that the events in combat are vague and fluid, because every other action from every other combatant following in initiative order will interact with the tripped creature as if it were prone. I don't care if you think it's all happening simultaneously, for the game rules to function, there is a series of events that follow in sequence.
Trip first. Success? Opponent is prone. Attack of Opportunity. The success indicates prone. Without greater trip, any iterative attack following would treat the opponent as prone.
Make moving while prone the same speed as climbing while prone and make an acrobatics check to stand or move without provoking. Not sure if this is actually a rule but it sounds fair to me.Does the tripper think it is fair that he took feats to get you down, and you can just walk away?You can't just walk away if you read what I wrote. Make an acrobatics check to stand up or move. Would be no different than starting from your feet. Ever seen a gymnast? Does the acrobat who put a lot of ranks in acrobatics think its fair that he gets hit 3 times when he fumbles a skill once?
1st Acro Check for tumbling
2nd Acro check for not falling prone when getting hit
3rd Acro check for getting up1st AOO from failed tumble
2nd attack Next round fighter takes advantage of downed rogue
3rd Rogue stands up and gets AOO againIf you allow an acrobatics check at each point then the rogue might still get hit and not be flanking but will also not be totally screwed.
You don't fall prone when you get hit so that is only 1 hit.
This question came up in another thread which I will give you a link to. link
Trip first. Success? Opponent is prone. Attack of Opportunity. The success indicates prone.
that makes a 4:3 in votes for being prone while hit by the AoO. some more votes or arguments?
Yeah, i could see doing it that way to.
Drat.
Since it's been made very clear that the AoO for standing up from prone happens while they are still prone, it only makes sense to me that the AoO for a successful greater trip happens while they are still standing. Just like the AoO for movement happens while the target is still in the square leaving which provoked the attack.i can see your point and agree with it. other voices?
I agree on this point. As others have mentioned, I expect the AoO to occured just after you trip him, before he falls prone. It is while he is stumbling that it is possible to whack him an extra time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacks of opportunity are resolved before the action that triggered them. So if getting tripped causes them to provoke, the attacks happen before they fall prone.
Being prone is a result of the trip. Since the AoO happens before that resolves, he it not prone when the attacks happen.
Roll your CM. If it exceeds the CMD, your greater trip has succeeded, and the opponent provokes. After the AoOs, the trip resolves and he is prone. Because the AoOs happen before the action that triggered them.
The trip succeeded when the dice were rolled, the result of that success (knocked prone) is interrupted by the AoOs.
It almost seems like I'm beating a dead horse but for those who say the feat says nothing about being knocked down or prone heres a link.
I apologise for not really answering your posts, yet.
I guess it is more an understanding of the rules than an undoubtable proof of wording.the argument, that one would not interrupt one own action for an AoO of oneself is not unreasonable IMO.
also what foghammer said sounds not bad to me.
I know the exact wording of these links of yours. but it does not contradict my understanding of the mechanism.
I learned to accept, that one could not trip someone who gets up from prone condition again.
I'd say this is a similar situation. though I would pofit from your perspektive, hence i love to trip as often as possible.
I wished, they would use unmistakable formulation in every situation.
Yeah, as I said I'm not sure where the confusion is. It has been officially clarified that AoOs happen BEFORE the action that triggers that is resolved. Yes, that makes an awkward mental picture. Get over it, turn based combat is an abstraction anyway.
If the AoO happens before the trip is resolved, the opponent is standing when you take your attack. It's pretty clear.
Remember the rule. AoO for opponent getting up = opponent prone. AoO for opponent falling down = opponent standing.
Yeah, as I said I'm not sure where the confusion is. It has been officially clarified that AoOs happen BEFORE the action that triggers that is resolved. Yes, that makes an awkward mental picture. Get over it, turn based combat is an abstraction anyway.
If the AoO happens before the trip is resolved, the opponent is standing when you take your attack. It's pretty clear.
Remember the rule. AoO for opponent getting up = opponent prone. AoO for opponent falling down = opponent standing.
Your certainty in declaring that others are having trouble with the rules is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence for your case.
Your certainty in declaring that others are having trouble with the rules is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence for your case.
err lack of evidence? I've already linked the official clarification that AoOs happen before the triggering action resolves. I've quoted the feat description that does not contradict the general case rule. I've pointed out that the inverse case works the exact same way. What other evidence do you need?
Those who want to believe what they believe will not be convinced by any amount of evidence. Those who are willing to consider things that are presented to them have already been convinced.
err lack of evidence? I've already linked the official clarification that AoOs happen before the triggering action resolves.
I knew the link and its wording and take it as the clarification just for that situation there.
as clarification that the AoO, which responds to the stand up attemp, happens before the stand up is complete.BUT I wouldn't consider it the one and only official rule for every AoO on the field.
I am aware of the part in the rules, that calls Ao0s "interrupt" the sequence of a turn:
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).
I also know the wording of the concerning feats but I agree with BigNorseWolf,
that this is far from evidence. it is a hint, it may imply that is to handle in the way You and others describe.but even though I asume, that is probably meant this way, I regard it as kind of indefinite.
which is unnecessary cause one short sentence in the descrition would have clarified that fact.
I'd say that James Jacobs rates this feat-description as perfectly precise but at least some "unwilling" do not.
To me, the sequence seems rather simple:
1. Attemting to trip
2. Succeding the CMB check
3. Opponent is being tripped, which provokes an AoO
4. Resolve AoO, as AoOs are resolved before the action that triggers them.
5. Resolve trip = opponent prone.
It isn't the trip attempt that causes the AoO, it is the fact that the opponent is being tripped that triggers it.
While I have no difficulty understanding that the counter argument, is that there are no sequence in which actions happens, I have a hard time finding anything in the book that supports that claim.
A whole lot of other situations in the rules does expect a different stages in one action, at any of these, possible AoOs will interrupt and affect them.
At the beginning of this thread I was in the "provokes while standing" crowd, as every single AoO is provoked at the start of the action, so why should greater trip be different. Then someone posted
"You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down."
from Greater Trips flavour text. The argument here is stemming from Rules as Written vs Rules as Intended.
RAW you provoke while still standing.
RAI greater trip was made to make up for the removal of the free attack 3.5 improved trip gave when you tripped a target, and looks like it was intended to let you hack at a prone guy, and have your buddies give him a kick too.
RAW however trumps the intention until RAW is changed/errata'd/faq'd.
When you AoO a creature getting up, it's still prone when you hit it. When you AoO a creature falling down, it's still standing when you hit it.
I think this is as succinct as I could hope to make my opinion on the subject. Honestly I could see an argument for the other way around, it wouldn't be crazy, but I think for balance's sake yeah. You don't get to double dip on AoOs and prone penalties. You get your bonus due to them being prone on AoOs when they stand up, not when they are still in the process of falling down.
Let me ask everyone this. If there was a feat for spellcasting that allowed you to make AOO after casting a paraylzing spell such as Color Spray would you also not have the target be paralyed when the AOO took place. The spell is instantaneous which means that as soon as it's cast it takes place. If there is no time to hit between not being paralyzed and being paralyzed then he is for the AOO as unless you have a timetraveling spell you can not attack before what is causing you to be able to be hit. As the rules are there also is no rule for being off balance after a trip attack. If you are successful you are prone if not you are standing. No time in between.
If there existed any situation like the one you propose, it would be easier to comment on and a lot more relevant comparison.
An similar situation is Greater Bull Rush: You make the attempt, succeed, and before you resolve the bull rush, your allies get their AoOs.
In this case, the AoOs clearly trigger after your combat maneuver, but before the effects of it are resolved.
There might not be anything the directly states that you are off-balance, but the fact that AoOs interrupts (takes place before) the triggering event pretty much makes that redundant.
The triggering event isn't the trip attempt, it is being tripped, so the AoO occurs before that.
Another example to compare it to: If I start falling, there are no rules for falling speed, and I fall my maximum fall speed seemingly at an instant. But eventhough the rules don't specify any time from starting to fall and landing, I have the time to cast feather fall to avoid it. While the rules doesn't specify a time interval, we have to assume some timespan between cause (falling or being tripped) and effect (landing and/or falling prone from trip) in which there are time to react (caster feather fall or making an AoO).
Your certainty in declaring that others are having trouble with the rules is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence for your case.err lack of evidence? I've already linked the official clarification that AoOs happen before the triggering action resolves. I've quoted the feat description that does not contradict the general case rule. I've pointed out that the inverse case works the exact same way. What other evidence do you need?
Those who want to believe what they believe will not be convinced by any amount of evidence. Those who are willing to consider things that are presented to them have already been convinced.
And what is the triggering action, the trip itself or BEING prone?
In every other case when there's an AoO you're interrupting someone ELSE'S action, not your own.
One character does something that draws an attack of opportunity and then its resolved. It happens in the order that you resolve it in. In this case, what you're saying is that the trip is resolved and then before the person is tripped they get attacked... even though they're not vulnerable yet. Thats not how other AoO work.
One player ATTEMPTS to grapple another and they draw the AoO... the aoo is resolved and then the grapple is tried. This goes along with the order that events actually happen: one player tried to get in close enough to grab another and got stabbed in the process.
In this case you would have Someone look into the future, say "you are going to be tripped" hit him, and then knock his legs out from under him, as opposed to knocking him on the ground and then hitting him as he falls. I can see reasons for reading it either way, i just can't see any reason anymore to fall strongly into one camp or the other.
|
The reason you would fall into one camp is because AoOs always - and I mean ALWAYS - happen before the action that provoked it is resolved. In this case the action that provokes the AoOs is the player tripping the monster, so anyone that threatens the monster gets an AoO before the trip is resolved.
I understand that it is hard the put it in a storyboard, but dev rulings in the past on similar things has made this pretty clear as far as rules go.
|
|
Lets take a different yet similar example. Greater Bull Rush. Here is the set up.
M
YA
M = Monster
Y = You
A = Ally
If you greater bullrush from that square does your ally in that position get an AoO?
If you rule that the AoO does not happen until after the bull rush then the ally will never get her AoO as they monster will already be out of reach.
However, if the AoO happens before each square of movement the bull rush forces (as the RAW states happens) then the ally will get their AoO.
So, as long as you accept that the same rule must apply to Greater Trip as it does Greater Bull Rush then the AoO's must be performed before the trip and therefore the victim is not prone for the attack.
|
|
So what are you saying? When do the AoOs happen on a greater bull rush?On a bull rush it's after the bull rush has succeded in hitting it's target. The point is that on a successful trip there is no time between the attack and the point the target hits the ground. The AOO are also being take by 2 different PC's so the action can logically be interupted. You can not interrupt your own actions.
Do this! turn on your TV but before you hit the on button hit the channel button. You notice you haven't changed the channel because you haven't turned the tv on yet. Same thing with trip.
Bull rush comparison: You turn on the TV then your friend changes the channel. Remember that he can not hit the button until he sees that the flicker on the tv. Depending on how good he is he may or may not change the channel.
When you use metaphor and comparison you have to use like circumstances not what you feel is the same. The situations in your comparisons are completely different!
Also technically on the bull rush the NPC is actually moving out of a threatened area which is actually what is provoking when you boil down how the rules work.
Stay away from using metaphors and comparisons because as I have already mentioned, if you try to story board the situation it won't make sense. We are not talking about what makes sense in our head but what mechanically happens in game to represent AoOs
For a start, I believe that there needs to be a universal rule on how AoOs work in all situations. This includes when you get AoOs in the middle of your own actions. You clearly think this differentiates.
If you suggest that the differentiating point is that you can't interrupt your own actions then you leave yourself in an odd situation where when you perform a Greater Trip, your allies attack before the trip because they can interrupt your actions, and then you attack when the target is prone which is just silly.
I am unsure why you think you can't interrupt your own actions anyway. You can use 5ft steps to interrupt your attacks so why not AoO. (If gets even more silly when you start having AoOs against someone who's AoO provokes.)
I'll say it again. For good reasons AoOs are ALWAYS performed before the action that provoked them is resolved.
|
|
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.
The feat says that the trip provokes attacks of opportunities in the plural. If it only gave the the tripper an AoO then it would't be plural. As it is plural then it must mean that it provokes for your allies as well.
|
|
You only get a slight paradox is you start to want the order things are resolved mechanical to represent a storyboard of how combat occurs. The combat system in PF can't do that.
You say your way of applying logic prevents any paradox. Can you tell me the step-by-step order a Greater Bull Rush happens when you have an ally stood next to you as shown in the diagram a few posts above.
|
No this is why mechanically all AoOs are perforormed before the action that provoked them. This solves all the problems and allows the game to run smoothly.You don't get it. Making the AOO in this fashion before the action is what causes the paradox. If you simply use logic then you don't get a paradox.
Meh, easy logic to fix this.
Each action has a beginning phase and an ending phase. In the beginning phase, action is not complete, you are simply preparing to take the action. Such as gathering your limbs beneath you before standing up. This action provokes the aoo, which happens and resolves. Then you complete your action through the ending phase, ending up standing.
Trip still doesn't work to trip you.
Apply to maneuvers as needed.
Timing of this situation, using an APNAP method or Control Structures of computer programming:
A, B opponents. Let's assume the both have improved and greater trip feats
1)A tries to trip B
Begin of Trip Maneuver
2) A makes a CMB roll against B CMD
2a) A fails, then B has an apptempt to trip A, go to point 1, inverting A and B
2b) A succeed the CMB roll, B becomes prone [This is a Successfull Trip]
End of Trip Maneuver
3) Effect of the Greater Trip feat activates now (a successfull trip has occurred, A gets an AoO
4) Because of the prone condition, A gets special advantages against B starting with the AoO
So, Greater Trip will not activate until a Succesfull Trip is made, which occurs at the end of the entire Trip Maneuver. The Trip Combat Action in its paragraph describes all the actions the occurs when there's a trip action. A success in a trip maneuver is indeed overcoming all the instances of a typical trip process. Also, the Greter Trip states Succesfull Trip and not a Succesfull CMB Trip Roll, which the latter refering to a part of the entire Trip process.
BUT that would be a bit hilarious, naming the feat (Greater Trip) while not being part of any Trip Maneuver process...
Timing of this situation, using an APNAP method or Control Structures of computer programming:
A, B opponents. Let's assume the both have improved and greater trip feats
1)A tries to trip B
Begin of Trip Maneuver
2) A makes a CMB roll against B CMD
2a) A fails, then B has an apptempt to trip A, go to point 1, inverting A and B
2b) A succeed the CMB roll, B becomes prone [This is a Successfull Trip]
End of Trip Maneuver
3) Effect of the Greater Trip feat activates now (a successfull trip has occurred, A gets an AoO
4) Because of the prone condition, A gets special advantages against B starting with the AoOSo, Greater Trip will not activate until a Succesfull Trip is made, which occurs at the end of the entire Trip Maneuver. The Trip Combat Action in its paragraph describes all the actions the occurs when there's a trip action. A success in a trip maneuver is indeed overcoming all the instances of a typical trip process. Also, the Greter Trip states Succesfull Trip and not a Succesfull CMB Trip Roll, which the latter refering to a part of the entire Trip process.
BUT that would be a bit hilarious, naming the feat (Greater Trip) while not being part of any Trip Maneuver process...
I don't agree with the structure you propose.
Your 2b shouldn't be written as one point, as it entails both a cause and an effect.
2b: Cause - A Succeed the CMB roll (trip succesful)
3: AoO occurs, because the trip is succesful, but happens before the triggering action is resolved.
4: Effect - Trip is resolved, B is prone.
Compare it to Greater Bull Rush again. The effect of the bull rush is not fixed to the cause, and might even be negated by a trip.
A tries to bull rush B, while C is an ally to A, who will attempt a trip if an AoO occurs:
1)A tries to bull rush B
Begin of bull rush Maneuver
2) A makes a CMB roll against B CMD.
2a) A fails. The bull rush is unsuccesful. End of bull rush maneuver.
2b) A succeed the CMB roll, the bull rush is succesful.
3) Due to the movement of the bull rush, B provokes an AoO from C. C tries a trip attempt.
3a) C fails CMB check against B, trip unsuccesful.
4a) Effect of bull rush is resolved, and B is moved to another square. End of bull rush maneuver.
3b) C succeed CMB check against B, trip succesful.
4b) Effect of trip - B is prone.
5b) Effect of bull rush - due to interrupting actions, B is not moved, although bull rush was succesful. End of bull rush maneuver.
If we follow your structure, since the movement of B is a part of a succesful bull rush, it would create a paradox, when the trip stops him from moving.
Looking at the maneuvers at a step by step basis, shows that they can't in fact be succesful - eventhough interrupting actions affect their outcome.
I understand your point, but my answer to the question "what's a Successful Trip in Pathfinder system?" was:
To complete the 'successful trip' you have to win cmb roll [cause] and thus make your opponent prone [effect]. This phenomenon of cause/effect is called a successful trip in Pathfinder System [and that's why it is all written under the paragraph of tripping], though I agree that's not what a 'Successful Trip' is meant in a Real Life System (arguable, but at least more acceptable by common sense). To complete my answer, after you have accomplished all passages under the Combat Maneuver Trip Paragraph, you have a successful trip, then the AoO of Greater Trip occurs...
AoOs that can interrupt combat maneuvers are specifically written in the rulebook when it is said that movement or not posessing the appropriate feats causes an AoO. So that's why you can perform any other AoOs in the middle of a trip (=/=successful trip), but not an AoO permitted only when a successful action occurs.
I understand your point, but my answer to the question "what's a Successful Trip in Pathfinder system?" was:
To complete the 'successful trip' you have to win cmb roll [cause] and thus make your opponent prone [effect]. This phenomenon of cause/effect is called a successful trip in Pathfinder System [and that's why it is all written under the paragraph of tripping], though I agree that's not what a 'Successful Trip' is meant in a Real Life System (arguable, but at least more acceptable by common sense). To complete my answer, after you have accomplished all passages under the Combat Maneuver Trip Paragraph, you have a successful trip, then the AoO of Greater Trip occurs...AoOs that can interrupt combat maneuvers are specifically written in the rulebook when it is said that movement or not posessing the appropriate feats causes an AoO. So that's why you can perform any other AoOs in the middle of a trip (=/=successful trip), but not an AoO permitted only when a successful action occurs.
Well then, we just basically disagrees on how to interpret a 'succesful trip', which is not specified in the rules.
I believe that a trip is a succesful trip as soon as the cause is established, ie. as you succeed your trip attempt. The effects take place afterwards.
I think this is the most consistent with the other combat maneuvers, that are more specific in what a succes entails:
Grapple writes: "... If succesful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition." The succesful grapples is determined by the succesful attempt. The effects follow thereafter.
Bull Rush, Disarm and Sunder, all have the wording "If your attack is succesful, *insert effect of bull rush, disarm, or sunder*". I my reading this differentiates between a succesful combat maneuvers, and the following effects.
Granted, the wording is a bit varied in the trip maneuver, and my examples does not give a definite answer to what a succesful combat maneuver entails, so it can be read in different ways.
Well then, we just basically disagrees on how to interpret a 'succesful trip', which is not specified in the rules.
I believe that a trip is a succesful trip as soon as the cause is established, ie. as you succeed your trip attempt. The effects take place afterwards.
I think this is the most consistent with the other combat maneuvers, that are more specific in what a succes entails:
Grapple writes: "... If succesful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition." The succesful grapples is determined by the succesful attempt. The effects follow thereafter.
Bull Rush, Disarm and Sunder, all have the wording "If your attack is succesful, *insert effect of bull rush, disarm, or sunder*". I my reading this differentiates between a succesful combat maneuvers, and the following effects.
Say you don't have improved grapple and you go to grapple your opponent. You don't roll the CMB check until after he resolves his AoO, right? And INSTANTLY upon making a successful grapple check, you gain the *grappled condition*. Same with bull rushing. You provoke, and they attack before you ever roll your CMB, at which point if it's successful, you move him.
So why would you think that making a CMB roll and seeing that it is successful is what triggers the AoO before the target falls prone, a condition of being tripped. The opponent is not successfully tripped until he's on his rump. The condition happens immediately, along with the roll. The roll and the condition are the result. The trip entry in the combat section of the core rulebook does not specify that the opponent falls prone at the end of the round, or one second after the trip, or at the beginning of his next turn, it says he is prone because the roll was successful. End of story.
As for the example of a greater bull rush triggering an AoO used to trip... the tripper is being a jerk trying to screw up the bull rush like that. Either stab him for lethal damage or leave it. Sure, that would create a problem, but only if someone was already BEING a problem.