So this helpful monk punts the old lady to the roof top?!?
Less punt and more of a force applied by foot or hand to cause body at rest to become body in motion.
In kung fu movies it happens a lot... I cannot remember a specific scene off the top of my head but in many of Jackie Chan's movies he has to save some poor lady. He will toss her, spin her, kick her back into a chair. I recall he even tossed one off a platform into something soft of course while the bad guys would get flung into the pile of bricks.
What PCs can do is above and beyond what kung fu movie do. So why not trip someone into another square?
Creative Director
|
I was never talking about Ki throws. I was talking about trip. Ki throw is a different topic entirely.Two topics in one thread issue then huh?
Would you say you can Ki Throw someone who was already prone then with a successful trip?
I would, yes, because the image of someone picking up someone else and throwing them in the context of a kung-fu fight is cool and logical and (in the context of said fantasy kung-fu fight) believable.
I'm just not a fan of overly pedantic rules arguments, is all, so if I seem curt or brusk... that's what's going on.
In the end, it's your GM that gets to make the call anyway.
...A modicum of common sense is required here.
Sorry I have to chuckle, this is a fantasy game. So many things in Pathfinder do not make common sense.
One example falling, why is it capped at 20d6? When you fall in the first 6 seconds you would fall about 600 feet but you will still not have reached terminal velocity of 120mph. In the next 6 second you will reach terminal velocity and be falling if I remember correctly 1056 ft per 6 seconds. Common sense would say it should be capped at 105d6 damage instead of 20d6.
Things do not have to make common sense to work. Before Ki Throw there was no game mechanic reason to try to trip someone who was already prone. With Ki Throw there is a game mechaninc reason you would want to trip someone already prone.
You can't trip someone who is prone. Just like you can't put a sleeping person to sleep, kill someone who's dead, or so on. This is a case where, I would hope, common sense would remove the need to write things down.
Hello, and welcome to the boards.
...I'm just not a fan of overly pedantic rules arguments, is all, so if I seem curt or brusk... that's what's going on...
I can understand since you guys are asked all the time on rules calls. Many of which are in black and white somewhere in the rules.
I appreciate you responding to this conversation and giving us your opinion on the matter.
Thanks!
Sorry I have to chuckle, this is a fantasy game. So many things in Pathfinder do not make common sense.One example falling, why is it capped at 20d6? When you fall in the first 6 seconds you would fall about 600 feet but you will still not have reached terminal velocity of 120mph. In the next 6 second you will reach terminal velocity and be falling if I remember correctly 1056 ft per 6 seconds. Common sense would say it should be capped at 105d6 damage instead of 20d6.
Common sense would also say that 105 dice is far too many to roll and the abstraction of the concept into an operational game rule requires simplification.
And that there's still a very limited number of ways someone can be prone at the same time.
Common sense would also say that 105 dice is far too many to roll and the abstraction of the concept into an operational game rule requires simplification.
And that there's still a very limited number of ways someone can be prone at the same time.
But what gamer worth his salt does not already own 105d6s? Oh the look on a PCs face when a DM stands up from behind his screen with a bowl full of dice and pours it onto the table. "You take that in damage. How many hitpoints were you at?" The jaw dropping from the players would be priceless.
If the limited number is greater then 1 then move them from one to the other. haha
|
Creative Director
|
You can't trip someone who is prone. Just like you can't put a sleeping person to sleep, kill someone who's dead, or so on. This is a case where, I would hope, common sense would remove the need to write things down.Hello, and welcome to the boards.
Yay! If I'd known that I only needed to make 18,450 or so posts to these boards before I officially got a welcome, I would have been posting a lot more rapidly over the past several years. Better late than never, I guess!
Not to nitpick, but if the intent of tripping an already prone opponent is to provoke multiple attacks of opportunity, it should be worth noting that even if an attacker has combat reflexes, he only gets one attack of opportunity per target per round. So Larry and Bob can't keep smacking Sally around, even if it is possible to trip her while she's prone.
No. He gets one attack per instance of triggering.
Btw if it wasnt clear from my previous post i think the idea of this is lame. i was just spelling out what the OP wanted to do.
So bob and Larry Trip Sue. First Trip AOO triggers
He then wants to trop Sue again, this would be a second AOO trigger. So valud for another AOO
and again
and again
and again
My Monk with only Imp Trip at lvl 9 for Tripping is like
+26/+26/+26/+21/+21 after a Ki point. If i had been designed to Do this add +2
Pretty Much means given party members with combat reflexes. i could kill anything with a 38 or lower CMD reasonably in one round just on AOO.s
Its kind of broken.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
But can you prepare an action to trip someone upon getting up?
I would like to point out that the attack of opportunity from greater trip does NOT rely on tripping the target, your trip could have no effect, it only asks for a successful trip attempt, as long as you succeed the AOO activates per RAW.
even if you try to trip a gelatinous cube, all greater trip asks is for a successful check, it doesn't ask for you to make your target prone.
Obviously not the intent, but for anyone playing rules as written it is completely allowed.
No. He gets one attack per instance of triggering.
Btw if it wasnt clear from my previous post i think the idea of this is lame. i was just spelling out what the OP wanted to do.
So bob and Larry Trip Sue. First Trip AOO triggers
He then wants to trop Sue again, this would be a second AOO trigger. So valud for another AOO
and again
and again
and again
My Monk with only Imp Trip at lvl 9 for Tripping is like
+26/+26/+26/+21/+21 after a Ki point. If i had been designed to Do this add +2
Pretty Much means given party members with combat reflexes. i could kill anything with a 38 or lower CMD reasonably in one round just on AOO.s
Its kind of broken.
I stand corrected. I just checked the SRD, and you're right. I don't know where I picked up that crazy notion.
+12. A guy cannot pick a guy up and throw him onto a table with a trip attack because he's not tripping him. A trip attack knocks someone down.
You can't pick someone up by knocking them down. If I have to explain why, then this is just a silly conversation, I'm sorry.
Guess you have never seen a true master of judo at work, like Gene Lebell.
I would say that guy went up from where he was. That is a great example of what ki throw would be.
If you were curious the guy flying through the air was on the other side of Gene Lebell before he tossed him over his head.
Yes, BUT that guy was more than likely standing up, and perhaps even offering Gene a bit of momentum via movement of some kind. I guarantee you he wasn't lying on the ground, 185 pounds of dead weight, and then flung up in the air like that.
Granted, as James said, it sounds cool, and in the prospect of a fantastical kung fu fight, seems even remotely reasonable.
However, if you are following RAW you cannot attempt to trip someone that is already prone.
Trip
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.
Ki Throw
Benefit: On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone in any square you threaten rather than its own square. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and you cannot throw the creature into a space occupied by other creatures.
By RAW you cannot Ki Throw someone that is already prone. You cannot even attempt to use the combat maneuver "Trip" on an opponent that is already affected by the "Prone" condition.
You can houserule anything you want, but by RAW this is a no go.
@Freehold DM
Ready
The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).
Readying an Action
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.
I would say you cannot ready an action to trip someone when they stand up, for the same reason you can't trip someone as an AoO when they are standing up. Technically they are still affected by the prone condition. If your readied action occurs just before they've fully stood up, they are still technically prone. It's just one of those technicalities that comes about from turn based combat rules.
I would like to point out that the attack of opportunity from greater trip does NOT rely on tripping the target, your trip could have no effect, it only asks for a successful trip attempt, as long as you succeed the AOO activates per RAW.
even if you try to trip a gelatinous cube, all greater trip asks is for a successful check, it doesn't ask for you to make your target prone.
Obviously not the intent, but for anyone playing rules as written it is completely allowed.
Really? I'd argue that.
Greater Trip (Combat)
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
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.
It doesn't say when you "attempt" to trip an opponent. It says when you "successfully trip an opponent." The result of a successful trip is adding the prone condition.
The name of the feat is "Greater Trip" not "Greater Die Roll to See if You Might Have Tripped Had the Target Not Already Been Prone or Immune to Tripping."
It doesn't say when you "attempt" to trip an opponent. It says when you "successfully trip an opponent." The result of a successful trip is adding the prone condition.
The name of the feat is "Greater Trip" not "Greater Die Roll to See if You Might Have Tripped Had the Target Not Already Been Prone or Immune to Tripping."
A successful trip does not require the effects of the trip, or is an attack that is completely negated by DR no longer a successful attack?
The trip was successful, it just didn't do anything. Greater trip just asks for the success not the effect. Edit: just like KI throw just asks for success and not actually causing the prone condition. OR are you saying KI throw doesn't work on a prone opponent either?
It doesn't say when you "attempt" to trip an opponent. It says when you "successfully trip an opponent." The result of a successful trip is adding the prone condition.
The name of the feat is "Greater Trip" not "Greater Die Roll to See if You Might Have Tripped Had the Target Not Already Been Prone or Immune to Tripping."
A successful trip does not require the effects of the trip, or is an attack that is completely negated by DR no longer a successful attack?
The trip was successful, it just didn't do anything. Greater trip just asks for the success not the effect. Edit: just like KI throw just asks for success and not actually causing the prone condition. OR are you saying KI throw doesn't work on a prone opponent either?
Buck-buck-brawk? So you're saying that as I attempt to trip my mailbox, if I roll a number bigger than it's CMD then my attempt is successful. Nevermind the fact that my mailbox is cemented two feet below the surface of the ground. All that's required my my "successful" trip was that I made a die roll high enough to have tripped it, were it capable of being tripped in the first place.
I'm sorry but that doesn't even make sense. The result of a successful trip is that something GETS TRIPPED.
Buck-buck-brawk? So you're saying that as I attempt to trip my mailbox, if I roll a number bigger than it's CMD then my attempt is successful. Nevermind the fact that my mailbox is cemented two feet below the surface of the ground. All that's required my my "successful" trip was that I made a die roll high enough to have tripped it, were it capable of being tripped in the first place.
I'm sorry but that doesn't even make sense. The result of a successful trip is that something GETS TRIPPED.
To be fair, being cemented into the ground would give it enough of a bonus that you being able to beat it means you busted it somehow and it fell down.
But yes your maneuver was enough to shake it in some way, even if it didn't actually fall prone. Think of it against a snake, it didn't fall prone but the monk kicked it onto its back and everyone took a stab while it couldn't weave or strike. Makes perfect sense to me.
Again just like Ki throw still activates on a prone opponent
Buck-buck-brawk? So you're saying that as I attempt to trip my mailbox, if I roll a number bigger than it's CMD then my attempt is successful. Nevermind the fact that my mailbox is cemented two feet below the surface of the ground. All that's required my my "successful" trip was that I made a die roll high enough to have tripped it, were it capable of being tripped in the first place.
I'm sorry but that doesn't even make sense. The result of a successful trip is that something GETS TRIPPED.
To be fair, being cemented into the ground would give it enough of a bonus that you being able to beat it means you busted it somehow and it fell down.
But yes your maneuver was enough to shake it in some way, even if it didn't actually fall prone. Think of it against a snake, it didn't fall prone but the monk kicked it onto its back and everyone took a stab while it couldn't weave or strike. Makes perfect sense to me.
Again just like Ki throw still activates on a prone opponent
Well you've defeated me with your logic. Perhaps we should change the name of the Feat to "Greater AoO Provoker." Since you don't actually have to Trip anything in order for it to be useful.
|
But yes your maneuver was enough to shake it in some way, even if it didn't actually fall prone. Think of it against a snake, it didn't fall prone but the monk kicked it onto its back and everyone took a stab while it couldn't weave or strike. Makes perfect sense to me.
Again just like Ki throw still activates on a prone opponent
Except you cannot even attempt to trip a snake, thus you cannot ki throw it.
From the PRD:
Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.
So, why can you not trip a snake if you can trip someone who is laying down? What is different, what is the same?
Well you've defeated me with your logic. Perhaps we should change the name of the Feat to "Greater AoO Provoker." Since you don't actually have to Trip anything in order for it to be useful.
Ya know we probably should. And ki throw should be changed to KI reposition, because it doesn't require you to actually throw the person, only move them. Oh and greater disarm should be throw weapon, cause that's the only effect it has.
Or we could streamline things and just name them what they are, and don't think I think this is RAI, I am just saying it works that way as written. Which can be cool for some builds and campaigns.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yay! If I'd known that I only needed to make 18,450 or so posts to these boards before I officially got a welcome, I would have been posting a lot more rapidly over the past several years. Better late than never, I guess!
Hello, and welcome to the boards.
We were all hoping you'd take the hint...
|
But can you prepare an action to trip someone upon getting up?
Yes.
Bob trips Sally
Larry readies an action on his turn to trip Sally if/when she gets up.
Sally tries to stand up (move action)
This provokes and AoO from both Bob and Larry (but not tripped)
Larry's standard action now kicks in. He attempts to trip her.
Sally now prone (again) and may take her standard action (or a second move action to possibly stand up again; unless Bob had Combat Reflexes he couldn't make another AoO, but Larry could since it has been his turn again since his last AoO when she fell the first time).
Robert
But yes your maneuver was enough to shake it in some way, even if it didn't actually fall prone. Think of it against a snake, it didn't fall prone but the monk kicked it onto its back and everyone took a stab while it couldn't weave or strike. Makes perfect sense to me.
Again just like Ki throw still activates on a prone opponent
Except you cannot even attempt to trip a snake, thus you cannot ki throw it.
From the PRD:
Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.So, why can you not trip a snake if you can trip someone who is laying down? What is different, what is the same?
Well honestly it says they can't be tripped not that you can't attempt, although it does seem to suggest you auto fail.... doesn't say that though... But yes the snake was an example of fluff logic as opposed to rules. (he brought up both so I addressed both)
|
|
It doesn't say when you "attempt" to trip an opponent. It says when you "successfully trip an opponent." The result of a successful trip is adding the prone condition.
The name of the feat is "Greater Trip" not "Greater Die Roll to See if You Might Have Tripped Had the Target Not Already Been Prone or Immune to Tripping."
A successful trip does not require the effects of the trip, or is an attack that is completely negated by DR no longer a successful attack?
The trip was successful, it just didn't do anything. Greater trip just asks for the success not the effect. Edit: just like KI throw just asks for success and not actually causing the prone condition. OR are you saying KI throw doesn't work on a prone opponent either?
I think MW quoted the relevant parts of the mechanics, and I agree with him. It isn't about whether the attempt or attack theoretically succeeds or not; this is about the meaning of 'prone' condition in the context of the game mechanics. No matter how hard you try, you cannot apply it twice. Conditions that stack -- such a shaken character becoming frightened -- are exceptions that are more or less explicitly pointed out in the rules. Ergo, since you cannot trip a character that is already prone, Greater Trip or Ki Throw do not benefit you in any way in this case.
|
|
A successful trip does not require the effects of the trip, or is an attack that is completely negated by DR no longer a successful attack?
The trip was successful, it just didn't do anything. Greater trip just asks for the success not the effect. Edit: just like KI throw just asks for success and not actually causing the prone condition. OR are you saying KI throw doesn't work on a prone opponent either?
This is about the most absurd thing I've heard all day.
If it didn't do anything - it wasn't successful.
This isn't some little league baseball thing where even last place are considered winners and get trophies and stuff.
If the person didn't fall - they didn't trip - thus it wasn't successful.
By your logic we would never convict anyone of "attempted murder". Even though they didn't die - the attempt was succussful cuz the bullet hit them so they were 'affected' in some way - so really it's murder even though they're still alive.
Robert
A successful trip does not require the effects of the trip, or is an attack that is completely negated by DR no longer a successful attack?
The trip was successful, it just didn't do anything. Greater trip just asks for the success not the effect. Edit: just like KI throw just asks for success and not actually causing the prone condition. OR are you saying KI throw doesn't work on a prone opponent either?
This is about the most absurd thing I've heard all day.
If it didn't do anything - it wasn't successful.
This isn't some little league baseball thing where even last place are considered winners and get trophies and stuff.
If the person didn't fall - they didn't trip - thus it wasn't successful.
By your logic we would never convict anyone of "attempted murder". Even though they didn't die - the attempt was succussful cuz the bullet hit them so they were 'affected' in some way - so really it's murder even though they're still alive.
Robert
Thank you. I thought I was being perfectly clear, but apparently my interpretation of "tripping" something wasn't clear enough. BTW I hope people could tell I was being sarcastic earlier with the whole "defeated me with your logic." I thought I was laying it on pretty thick.
This is about the most absurd thing I've heard all day.
If it didn't do anything - it wasn't successful.
This isn't some little league baseball thing where even last place are considered winners and get trophies and stuff.
If the person didn't fall - they didn't trip - thus it wasn't successful.
By your logic we would never convict anyone of "attempted murder". Even though they didn't die - the attempt was succussful cuz the bullet hit them so they were 'affected' in some way - so really it's murder even though they're still alive.
Robert
Being affected in some way doesn't make it successful, a closer example would be that if you were attempting to shoot someone (making a murder check) and if you succeed an explosive goes off from the shot. As long as you make the check (whether it kills them or not per the effect of a murder check, because maybe they are immune due to body armor or already dead) the successful check still set off the explosive.
Edit: yes mendedwall sarcasm noted.
|
|
A successful trip does not require the effects of the trip, or is an attack that is completely negated by DR no longer a successful attack?
The trip was successful, it just didn't do anything. Greater trip just asks for the success not the effect. Edit: just like KI throw just asks for success and not actually causing the prone condition. OR are you saying KI throw doesn't work on a prone opponent either?
Using similar logic
Vital Strike states: When you use the attack action, you can make
one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals
additional damage.
The feat doesn't state I actually have to "hit my opponents AC" in order to do this bonus damage.
Am I to believe all one needs to do then is declare that he's making an attack action and thus he's successfully made the action to attack (perhaps didn't do anything - but the action did take place).
Robert
|
|
Being affected in some way doesn't make it successful, a closer example would be that if you were attempting to shoot someone (making a murder check) and if you succeed an explosive goes off from the shot. As long as you make the check (whether it kills them or not per the effect of a murder check, because maybe they are immune due to body armor or already dead) the successful check still set off the explosive.
But in the case of THIS game - being tripped has an in-game mechanical effect - and that is fall "prone" which is a definable in game condition.
If one is not prone - he was not tripped.
If he was not tripped, then doing anything that requires him to have been tripped first is irrelevant.
But your logic if I use stunning fist to stun someone to make him flat footed so that he could be sneak attacked, and I hit but don't stun him, I should still consider him stunned for the sneak attack since I at least affected him in some way with my stun attack.
Which we all know is absurd - because if he's not stunned, he's not flat-footed (barring any other reason that may have caused it) thus he shouldn't be prone to being sneak attacked (unless some other condition stipulation is met).
Man I wish I could get paid by the job that interviewed me and almost hired me. I attempted to get the job at least.
Robert
This is about the most absurd thing I've heard all day.
If it didn't do anything - it wasn't successful.
This isn't some little league baseball thing where even last place are considered winners and get trophies and stuff.
If the person didn't fall - they didn't trip - thus it wasn't successful.
By your logic we would never convict anyone of "attempted murder". Even though they didn't die - the attempt was succussful cuz the bullet hit them so they were 'affected' in some way - so really it's murder even though they're still alive.
Robert
Being affected in some way doesn't make it successful, a closer example would be that if you were attempting to shoot someone (making a murder check) and if you succeed an explosive goes off from the shot. As long as you make the check (whether it kills them or not per the effect of a murder check, because maybe they are immune due to body armor or already dead) the successful check still set off the explosive.
Edit: yes mendedwall sarcasm noted.
Holy crap! I can't believe you're persisting with this. So what you're saying is that the result of my successful "murder" check was that there was an explosion, which, incidentally did absolutely nothing to the person I was trying to murder because they are immune to murder. BUT, I still provoked AoOs because my murder check was successful. My 6 year old knows that you can't make a successful murder check without the result being somebody gets murdered.
No wonder my dad always used to say "if common sense came in a box everybody would have some."
|
|
This is about the most absurd thing I've heard all day.
If it didn't do anything - it wasn't successful.
This isn't some little league baseball thing where even last place are considered winners and get trophies and stuff.
If the person didn't fall - they didn't trip - thus it wasn't successful.
By your logic we would never convict anyone of "attempted murder". Even though they didn't die - the attempt was succussful cuz the bullet hit them so they were 'affected' in some way - so really it's murder even though they're still alive.
Robert
Being affected in some way doesn't make it successful, a closer example would be that if you were attempting to shoot someone (making a murder check) and if you succeed an explosive goes off from the shot. As long as you make the check (whether it kills them or not per the effect of a murder check, because maybe they are immune due to body armor or already dead) the successful check still set off the explosive.
Edit: yes mendedwall sarcasm noted.
Actually I think I now see where you are going with this....
How bout this:
If I have a poisoned blade, and I "hit" my target, but his damage reduction removes all damage from the hit, he is NOT subjected to the poison on my blade.
If I have stoneskin and you attack me with a level-draining slam attack, and my stoneskin absorbs all damage - I am not subject to level draining.
I think you're arguing the opposite is true. Which as far as I know - it is not.
Robert
Actually I think I now see where you are going with this....
How bout this:
If I have a poisoned blade, and I "hit" my target, but his damage reduction removes all damage from the hit, he is NOT subjected to the poison on my blade.If I have stoneskin and you attack me with a level-draining slam attack, and my stoneskin absorbs all damage - I am not subject to level draining.
I think you're arguing the opposite is true. Which as far as I know - it is not.
Robert
Poison requires you to damage the target not successfully hit him (un-like the trip thing)
Same with level drain.
Using similar logic
Vital Strike states: When you use the attack action, you can make
one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals
additional damage.The feat doesn't state I actually have to "hit my opponents AC" in order to do this bonus damage.
Am I to believe all one needs to do then is declare that he's making an attack action and thus he's successfully made the action to attack (perhaps didn't do anything - but the action did take place).
Robert
Actually it says the attack does additional damage, which means you have to be applying damage for it to work. You cant add to N/A.
Unlike the trip thing which isn't "in addition to being knocked prone" it is it's own effect based on the same check.
But in the case of THIS game - being tripped has an in-game mechanical effect - and that is fall "prone" which is a definable in game condition.
If one is not prone - he was not tripped.
If he was not tripped, then doing anything that requires him to have been tripped first is irrelevant.
But your logic if I use stunning fist to stun someone to make him flat footed so that he could be sneak attacked, and I hit but don't stun him, I should still consider him stunned for the sneak attack since I at least affected him in some way with my stun attack.
Which we all know is absurd - because if he's not stunned, he's not flat-footed (barring any other reason that may have caused it) thus he shouldn't be prone to being sneak attacked (unless some other condition stipulation is met).
Man I wish I could get paid by the job that interviewed me and almost hired me. I attempted to get the job at least.
Robert
Now your confusing activation actions, The stun says it activates when you a) hit him, and b) he fails a check. Greater trip only states he must make a successful trip attack. and nowhere in any of the rules is "being tripped" defined. Their is the action of tripping which is -Making a Combat maneuver check vs. targets CMD- in order to apply the effects of of the maneuver. In this case the effects of a trip maneuver are "target falls prone" and "Provokes AOO". Two separate effects of the same roll.
and as I said before (people can forget, just trying to keep it civil) I am fully aware of the RAI (its higher up in this thread even, except he changed his mind about prone people and KI throw, so kinda inconsistent), I am just saying as written it should still apply.
Now your confusing activation actions, The stun says it activates when you a) hit him, and b) he fails a check. Greater trip only states he must make a successful trip attack. and nowhere in any of the rules is "being tripped" defined. Their is the action of tripping which is -Making a Combat maneuver check vs. targets CMD- in order to apply the effects of of the maneuver. In this case the effects of a trip maneuver are "target falls prone" and "Provokes AOO". Two separate effects of the same roll.
I'm sorry, did you just say the rules don't clearly state what "being tripped" means? How many years did you pee on the toilet seat before somebody told you to lift it up?
In regards to successful CMD checks:
Determine Success
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
In regards to tripping:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.
The result of a successful trip (greater, lesser, awesome, powerful, it doesn't matter what adjective you put in front of it it's still a trip) is that the target gains the prone condition. You cannot give somebody the prone condition if they already have it, just like you can't give somebody chicken pox if they already have it.
I'm not sure how much clearer that can be made.
Threads like this one make my faith in humanity die a little inside.
Amen
You can't trip someone who is prone. Just like you can't put a sleeping person to sleep, kill someone who's dead, or so on. This is a case where, I would hope, common sense would remove the need to write things down.So...being that my nature is to argue everything...
I said in my last statement...you can be prone multiple ways...got my head thinking...
(Assume's tripper has greater trip)
Trip attack happens
Opponent falls on his face
AoO's Occur
Tripper Trip's a person again, flipping opponent on his back/side (you pick)
AoO's Occur?So that's going from a prone position to a prone position. A DM could use this by having a target fall on his face...party keeps wailing. Turn him over...oh...wrong guy, no wonder he never fought back. Or such and such.
Or...what would be a maneuver to flip someone over? Or would the prone position always be on your face/back/side?
<--lotsa uncommon sense, not a lotta common...
Here's the two problems with your argument:
1. YOU said you can be prone multiple ways. The rules state no such thing. In fact there is no such thing as "facing" in Pathfinder. The rules do not have any mechanics built in for what direction a character is looking. That's why flanking has to be two enemies in a direct and opposite line from each other in order to get the benefit, because there is no rule about which enemy a character is "looking at" (read-facing).
2. If there are no mechanics for which way a person is facing, then there is no way to determine HOW a person is prone. If you can find anywhere in the rules where it says a person can be prone on their back, side, front, etc. I'd love to see them. According to game mechanics...
Prone
The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
...the person takes penalties to attack and armor class except against ranged attacks. You're trying to ascribe some type of realistic imaginary "look" to a mechanic that has no such thing built into it. Prone, is just that, prone, without any mechanical application of HOW the person is prone. Flipping them around would need a successful grapple check, and then a move action, and you would actually be putting the prone enemy into a different square, because there is no mechanic for changing just exactly how they are prone.
|
|
Greater trip only states he must make a successful trip attack. and nowhere in any of the rules is "being tripped" defined. Their is the action of tripping which is -Making a Combat maneuver check vs. targets CMD- in order to apply the effects of of the maneuver. In this case the effects of a trip maneuver are "target falls prone" and "Provokes AOO". Two separate effects of the same roll.
If one cannot be tripped, an attempt to do so cannot be successful. If one cannot communicate, an attempt to do so with them would not be successful. If one cannot walk, an attempt to do so would not be successful. If one cannot be or do, then Anything that requires that successful action would be irrelevant and rendered useless.
The Linguistics skill indicates one can "speak a number of languages"
But no where is "Speaking" defined in the rules.
The Ride skill tells us we can "ride" a mount.
No where is "Riding" defined in the rules.
Perform skill indicates we can "sing".
No where is "Singing" defined in the rules.
So can a person without any auditory/vocal capacity still sing or speak languages simply because the skill states we can?
The book consistently indicates we must roll dice.
But no where is "rolling" defined
I believe the game fairly assumes a certain level of intellect and understanding.
Robert
I believe the game fairly assumes a certain level of intellect and understanding.Robert
But then again, you know what assuming does... I would say this thread definitely proves that old adage to be true.
Reality Check DC 5: Pretty sure that if I had a player adamantly trying to argue this nonsense with me at the table that their character would suffer the Vengeful Gaze of God. Furthermore, they would not be invited to future sessions with the advice, "Grow up, or get lost."
Seriously, I feel dumber for having read this far, particularly after one of the devs gave their ruling. >.>
How about bullrushing shield wielders with shield slam and greater bullrush? Going with Jim, Bob and Sally again. Jim and Bob both have greater bull rush, shield slam, and combat reflexes at +3 dex, along with all the pre-reqs. Jim is at A1, Bob at A2, and Sally at B2.
Jim makes an attack at Sally and hits with his shield, free bull rush attempt! As long as he's succeeds, Sally is bull-rushed towards C3, provoking Bob.
Bob makes AoO w/his shield, succeeds, bull-rushing Sally towards C2, provoking Jim.
Jim makes AoO w/his shield, succeeds, bull-rushing Sally towards C3 again, again provoking Bob.
Bob again makes AoO w/shield sending her back toward C2.
Jim again AoO's and off she goes for C3 again.
Bob makes his last AoO, sending her back toward C2.
Jim makes his last AoO, sending her toward C3 where she was originally headed.
How does this work? A) Jim hits 4 times and Bob 3? Or B) do you go reverse order, Jim's last hit sends her into C3, where neither threatened, so Sally got hit by Jim twice with his shield?
This gets really nasty if they add in shield spikes with wounding, or have another friend Joe who stands in D2, and can hit Sally for each bullrush (assuming he has the AoO for it). Even worse, Joe could have a trip weapon, and greater trip, and for the final hits, knock Sally prone provoking and making her provoke when she gets back up too!
Note, the fighter's can't flank, as then they would be bull-rushing each other, or at the very least, making Sally just end up prone instead of setting off the chain.
|
|
How about bullrushing shield wielders with shield slam and greater bullrush? Going with Jim, Bob and Sally again. Jim and Bob both have greater bull rush, shield slam, and combat reflexes at +3 dex, along with all the pre-reqs. Jim is at A1, Bob at A2, and Sally at B2.
That sounds like a complicated nightmare.
I think it warrants its own thread.
Robert