I love how everyone keeps screaming about common sense when obviously the common sense would be to allow it. It's not like it isn't possible to make a prone person vulnerable (therefore provoking AOO, which is all this is attempting to do), but no, just like trip locking (which is also quite obviously able to be done realistically especially in fantasy) it only isn't intended because of balance.
So this "stupid idea" makes sense. Just for game purposes people don't want it to.
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
The benefits of knowing a language is defined.
The benefits of the ride skill is defined, it just isn't called riding.Singing is not defined and your character breaking out into song doesn't change the game mechanically in any way, Making a perform(sing) is clearly defined on the other hand.
The rules state that lacking vocal capacity means you can only understand languages (ex. animal companions with 3 INT)
You are correct on the rolling on the other hand, seems the exception.
None of the examples you've provide have been similar to using a " " check to make someone vulnerable, people seem to caught up on the word trip. during a Ki throw you use a trip check to throw someone but obviously this feat does nothing because all the intelligent people using common sense know you cant throw a prone person without removing their prone condition, and if you do that you never tripped them. According to you the trip was unsuccessful if they aren't prone, which obviously they are not if you've picked them up.
None of the examples you've provide have been similar to using a " " check to make someone vulnerable, people seem to caught up on the word trip. during a Ki throw you use a trip check to throw someone but obviously this feat does nothing because all the intelligent people using common sense know you cant throw a prone person without removing their prone condition, and if you do that you never tripped them. According to you the trip was unsuccessful if they aren't prone, which obviously they are not if you've picked them up.
Obviously Ki Throw you're using your Ki to catch them as they're falling prone, then slide them over to the other spot before letting them finish falling. I mean, it does say Ki, so common sense says its your Ki that throws them! /sarcasm
I love how everyone keeps screaming about common sense when obviously the common sense would be to allow it.
If there are more people coming down on the side disallowing tripping a prone character on the basis of common sense, then I think your use of the term obviously is mistaken.
If there are more people coming down on the side disallowing tripping a prone character on the basis of common sense, then I think your use of the term obviously is mistaken.
Go open a thread saying it totally makes sense to trip lock because it isn't hard to sweep someones legs and see how many people agree it follows common sense (it does by the way, but common sense on this board is whatever ruling is most balanced not what actually makes sense)
Go open a thread saying it totally makes sense to trip lock because it isn't hard to sweep someones legs and see how many people agree it follows common sense (it does by the way, but common sense on this board is whatever ruling is most balanced not what actually makes sense)
If there are more people coming down on the side disallowing tripping a prone character on the basis of common sense, then I think your use of the term obviously is mistaken.
I just want everyone to be aware of what it is your trying to say here. You've been arguing, for quite some time now. That it makes perfect sense to make someone more vulnerable to attacks by TRIPPING THEM WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY ON THE GROUND! In what world does that make sense?
That's like saying I put my computer in standby mode, but I didn't like just how on standby it was so I went ahead and put in deeper standby mode.
Or, it's like saying my wife was pregnant, but I didn't like just how pregnant she was, so I went ahead and made her more pregnant.
Your argument doesn't make sense from a realistic standpoint or from a game mechanics standpoint.
Yet you continue to argue it like it does. Not once have you addressed the logic of tripping someone that's already on the ground. Know why? Because you CAN'T.
Or, it's like saying my wife was pregnant, but I didn't like just how pregnant she was, so I went ahead and made her more pregnant.
ROTFL!!!!
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.
Well, you have to define what a "successful trip attempt" is.
First, let's point out that a successful trip is a successful combat maneuver check. Since a trip maneuver is a combat maneuver.
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.
So according to the PRD, the only thing you need need to call a combat maneuver a success is equal or exceed the CMD of the target.
That's a ridiculous definition -- and probably the reason why Shadow_of_death has a good point.
By that definition, even if something cannot possibly be Xed, X is still a "successful combat maneuver" if your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target. Your X attempt may have no effect, but the *attempt* was successful.
This isn't a problem with grapple typically because the main method to become immune to grapple (freedom of movement) specifically says:
All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail.
Such a line of text doesn't exist in the book pertaining to things immune to trip. While it would be a reasonable assumption to assume anything that is immune to trip would also have all combat maneuver checks made to trip the target automatically fail, there is no text in the book that actually says that.
The problem here is that the text isn't explicit enough to prevent a rules lawyer from making a convincing argument similar to Shadow_of_death's. As long as you use common sense and "assume" such a line exists in the book, this shouldn't be an issue for any GM with half a brain.
Now, if the rules were designed to be interpreted by a computer, you *would* need to make such a statement. Unless that computer is Watson-like.
this shouldn't be an issue for any GM with half a brain
I guess this is where the major problem occurs.
Like Robert pointed out earlier, the creators of the game made the (I guess ridiculous based on this thread) assumption that the players of the game wouldn't even think about tripping something that was already on the ground. I mean TriOmega admitted he wouldn't even do that! Of course the creators of the game probably also made the (perhaps also ridiculous) assumption that the consumers of the game would, as you say, have half a brain. I exhibit this thread as evidence that that is obviously not the case for all consumers of the Pathfinder system.
Edit: I forgot to say...
First, let's point out that a successful trip is a successful combat maneuver check.
Really? I hate to get semantic here, but to me a successful trip ends when somebody's tripped. Otherwise my trip wasn't successful, cause they didn't trip. Just sayin'
Or, it's like saying my wife was pregnant, but I didn't like just how pregnant she was, so I went ahead and made her more pregnant.
While my wife was pregnant I never succeeded in making her more pregnant, but I did succeed in attempting many times.
Robert
I was resisting making a sex joke about that because I knew someone could do it better. I applaud you, Robert.
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.
Well, you have to define what a "successful trip attempt" is.
First, let's point out that a successful trip is a successful combat maneuver check. Since a trip maneuver is a combat maneuver.
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.So according to the PRD, the only thing you need need to call a combat maneuver a success is equal or exceed the CMD of the target.
That's a ridiculous definition -- and probably the reason why Shadow_of_death has a good point.
By that definition, even if something cannot possibly be Xed, X is still a "successful combat maneuver" if your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target. Your X attempt may have no effect, but the *attempt* was successful.
This isn't a problem with grapple typically because the main method to become immune to grapple (freedom of movement) specifically says:
All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail.Such a line of text doesn't exist in the book pertaining to things immune to trip. While it would be a reasonable assumption to assume anything that is...
Thank you for displaying my point more elegantly then obviously I could.
oh and my computer can be put into a deeper standby, go figure
Thank you for displaying my point more elegantly then obviously I could.
As long as you use common sense and "assume" such a line exists in the book, this shouldn't be an issue for any GM with half a brain.
Yes, thank you very much for making his point more eloquently than ever he could.
Ludicrous Speed-- GO!
As long as you use common sense and "assume" such a line exists in the book, this shouldn't be an issue for any GM with half a brain.Yes, thank you very much for making his point more eloquently than ever he could.
Ludicrous Speed-- GO!
I'm not entirely sure if this was being snarky or not. I'll assume no, but a GM who plays by RAW will have to deviate from rules as written if he doesn't want this to work and that was my point. I repeated over and over that I agree it shouldn't for anyone who may have missed that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is several months after the fact, but I was trying to get an answer to this question myself today and was reading this thread. I finally decided to look up the dictionary definition of Trip, which is "To cause to stumble" with the result as written in RAW, as being knocked prone.
So I then checked stumble "To strike your foot against something, as in walking or running, so as to stagger or fall".
So it is implied by dictionary definition that one must be on thier feet in order to trip and fall, rendering the whole concept of tripping a prone person as invalid.
I think it's perfectly fair to say you can't use Ki Throw on a prone target because the act of grabbing someone and throwing them presumes they can be readily grabbed. If dear maiden is prone and you want to punt her to the top of the building, you will have to use some other method that doesn't require you to be able to readily exert leverage in a way that relies on her standing.
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.
I think I get what JJ is trying to say here. His original quote that says you can’t trip a prone person (barring common sense exceptions) was talking about regular trip mechanics.
Ki throw technically requires a successful trip, per the semantics, but I think what he’s saying is that RAI might consider Ki Throw an exception to the rule.
For example, you’re not really TRIPPING the person, you’re THROWING them (which is why he’s saying don’t get pedantic with the semantics of the mechanic) (and yes, I rhymed all that on purpose) using the trip mechanic as an “activator” if you will.
Whether someone is standing or prone, it’s not a great stretch of reality to assume that someone with training in Ki Throw and Imp Ki Throw can pick a person up and hurl them whatever distance they can under those mechanics. In this particular example, it wouldn’t especially matter if that person was standing or prone, as mechanically you are really only RE-APPLYING the prone condition in a different square.
Given this, I might have to reverse my thinking on this one and agree with JJ. RAW and RAI make this a DM's call. Table variance for interpretation applies. At my table, I think I would allow it because of the feats invested.
Help me out here. My Google-fu seems to be weak today. I've read several times in this thread that you cannot perform the Trip maneuver on a target who is standing up, which provokes an Attack of Opportunity. According to Attacks of Opportunity, as I understand them anyway, Trip can be performed as an Attack of Opportunity.
This begs the questions: 1) Where is the official ruling on this that states you cannot trip a target who is standing up and provoking an attack of opportunity? WHY is this a ruling? I'm building a character whose entire concept is built around tripping/throwing my enemies around and keeping them prone for my party to beat on! This ruling sounds like it was made purely for game balance, not because it made any sense (which it does not.)
Help me out here. My Google-fu seems to be weak today. I've read several times in this thread that you cannot perform the Trip maneuver on a target who is standing up, which provokes an Attack of Opportunity. According to Attacks of Opportunity, as I understand them anyway, Trip can be performed as an Attack of Opportunity.
This begs the questions: 1) Where is the official ruling on this that states you cannot trip a target who is standing up and provoking an attack of opportunity? WHY is this a ruling? I'm building a character whose entire concept is built around tripping/throwing my enemies around and keeping them prone for my party to beat on! This ruling sounds like it was made purely for game balance, not because it made any sense (which it does not.)
And "game balance" is a completely legitimate reason for a ruling. It's why fighters don't get 9th level spells.
From what I understand you can't trip a prone enemy using the same method that knocked them prone in the first time. However, if you have a second method to trip they go from 'prone' to 'supine'. Trip them again with a third method and they become 'decumbent' and are sent to the Underworld until they successfully stand up three times.
Is this still really a thing?
Hey, I wasn't doubting the ruling, I just couldn't find the source. I look at it differently than the official FAQ. I saw it as you trip them as they are midway through getting up, plopping them back on the ground. Why the heck would you be trying to trip them before they get start to get up?
You don't parry an attack when somebody thinks about attacking, the attack has to be executed before you can parry it. That was the concept I was going off of.
And Fighters don't get 9th level spells because it's not a class feature. ;) I've never been a fan of rulings that don't make any logical sense other than "for game balance". But that's me. I also hate the Dodge and Combat Expertise feats because they're only there to make you spend extra feats to get the cool stuff! :P
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
@Thomas
Do you successful trip someone if he dont fall prone? Per definition i would say no. You succeed the CMB vs. CMD check but thats all. Otherwise you can generate AoO with Greater Trip on targets that are immune to trip maneuvers like oozes ... that is not RAW.
If you successfully trip target it is knocked prone.
If you make trip at prone target it cant be "knocked prone" by the definition of words. Your trip is unsuccessful as you do not achieve a desired result (knocking prone). You cant get AoO on unsuccessful trip.
Casting spell on magic immune creature count as fail from what i know.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to resurrect this thread to say this:You're trying to tag on to a decade old argument whose participants aren't participating anymore.
There is no rule that states you cannot trip a prone targetCommon sense
nd the creator of the game clearly says you can.
More than a decade ago when the game was still new and the current edition.
Any particular reason for trying to incite?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Parable: Archaeologist discovers buried hall containing the mummified corpses of people who died suddenly while in the middle of a debate. Archaeologist mulls over any materials that haven't decayed into illegibility, announces the answer to the rotted assemblage, then departs with a self-satisfied smirk.