I agree with Mergy and Cheapy. They are seperate events mostly due to the word "after" being there. Its a lot to hang on a single word but it is backed up by the reposition feat which allows you to move 5' when being tripped. That would provide a situation where one feat would trigger an AoO, but the other wouldn't. This indicates that they do not happen at the same moment in time and actually create two seperate trigger conditions. I believe that using "after" was not a mistake but specifically made as an exception to the normal rules for AoOs which typically come before the provoking action.
...and, actually I'm looking at Vicious Stomp right now and it doesn't appear to use the "after" wording.
Vicious Stomp (Combat)You take advantage of the moment to brutally kick an enemy when he is down.
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. This attack must be an unarmed strike.
Hm. I still agree with Mergy and Cheapy. However, I think of this more from the standpoint of the feat investment giving a payoff. Otherwise taking both feats would do you absolutely no good and I highly doubt that was in the intent. I mean, surely your not saying that it was the intent of the designer for it to give you no pay off to invest in both feats especially with them both being in the same feat tree?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ganymede, I'm pretty sure you're going against the RAW on this. You said, "Doesn't the answer there depend on what the imaginary feat says?" Well, when you're going to be snarky like that it helps if you're certain that the feat in question is actually imaginary:
You have learned the technique of rolling safely away when an enemy trips you.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility.
Benefit: If you are tripped, you can spend an immediate action to move 5 feet without provoking an attack of opportunity. This does not count as taking a 5-foot step. You fall prone after this movement.
This feat indicates that the completion of the trip and the falling prone are two distinct events, albeit ones that, except in the case of someone with this feat, invariably happen immediately in sequence.
Tripping someone with Landing roll:
You trip him. Greater Trip gives you an AOO. He spends an immediate action to avoid falling prone adjacent to you, so no Vicious stomp.
Tripping someone without Landing roll:
You trip him. Greater trip gives you an AOO. He falls prone. Vicious Stomp gives you another AOO.
You know... I think you also have to think of this in terms of how readied actions would work with this. For instance, you can ready an action to attack after your opponent has fallen prone in anticipation of your ally tripping them. You could also ready an action to attack them before the trip is made. In fact, it could be desirable to do so if you are attacking them with a ranged weapon so your opponent doesn't get the bonus +4 to AC from being prone vs. ranged attacks.
Clearly being prone and getting tripped are neither the same action, triggering condition or happen at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering both feats use the exact same wording and format, it would be silly to interpret their timing differently as you have.They both use the "Whenever [a specific event happens], that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity." Being tripped and falling prone are both specific events that happen at the exact same time. By definition, one can not happen after the other as you seem to indicate.
Exact same wording? That's not an honest argument from an informed position.
"Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
"Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
Different trigger, different effect. Note that Greater Trip causes the target to provoke AoOs from everybody. But given that there are plenty of situations that would trigger one but not the other, it's fairly clear that they have different TRIGGERS. Which is what the AoO rules interact with.
|
My initial response to this was that, no, you cannot get two AoO in this situation. After reading all of the posts, though, I have to reconsider. Of particular concern are the rules concerning provoking an AoO, that the attack is instant when the action that provokes it happens. This seems to indicate that a successful trip maneuver is the trigger, not falling prone, which in this case would make a difference. However, I would only agree to such a thing if the attacker using Greater Trip does not gain the bonus to hit when using the AoO from that feat. After all, we just declared that being tripped and falling prone are two seperate things and that the AoO takes place instantly, before the target can fall prone. If they are the same, then there is only one AoO. If they are different, then there can be no bonus on the first. Therefore, no attack bonus when using Greater Trip. The bonus would apply normally for the AoO from Vicious Stomp, as well as the AoO when the target stands. Also bolstering this argument is the wording of Landing Roll, which differentiates being tripped and falling prone as two different things. However, GM's can rule that applies only to those who have the Landing Roll feat. Despite the wording, something about getting two AoO for being tripped once just feels wrong, like it is not RAI regardless of being RAW. The intent of Vicioius Stomp seems to be that the character can capitaize on the trips that other characters perform, not allowing two AoO from the same character for one combat maneuver.
Starting a 1:32 you get to see what I think they were going for here, as a man is tripped, kicked in mid air, and then stomped on.
I agree that it does feel a little intense to 1)be tripped and then have an AOO against you for that 2) fall prone and have another AOO against you, possibly from multiple foes, with a bonus to hit, and 3) incur another AOO when standing up, or suffer a penalty to AC and attack when prone unless you have a combination of feats to prevent that.
However, it takes a lot of feats to produce this combination of attacks, so I don't think it's necessarily underpowered. A character taking this combination of feats would be underpowered when facing creatures resistant to tripping, such as creatures with multiple legs, no legs, flying, etc. because he wouldn't have any feats that would assist in fighting them.
The intent of Vicioius Stomp seems to be that the character can capitaize on the trips that other characters perform, not allowing two AoO from the same character for one combat maneuver.
Why do you say that? The feat says:
"Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
It says nothing about how they ended up that way. Why would you assume that the intent was that they have to end up that way by someone else's hand for you to take advantage of it?
|
|
The intent of Vicioius Stomp seems to be that the character can capitaize on the trips that other characters perform, not allowing two AoO from the same character for one combat maneuver.Why do you say that? The feat says:
"Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you."It says nothing about how they ended up that way. Why would you assume that the intent was that they have to end up that way by someone else's hand for you to take advantage of it?
Yes, I could have worded that line better. I do not assume that it is only for attacking those tripped by others, of course. I agree that you can stomp on those your own character tripped, too. You just have the added benefit of kicking anyone your friends toss down there, as well. Regardless of my wording, I do not get the feeling that the feat was intended to allow two AoO for one trip maneuver (even though as written, it appears to do exactly that). Why not? Well, I'm not really sure. A hunch, intuition, instinct, whatever it is. That's just the sense I get. I don't claim to be positive, though, and I'd like to have some clairification from the developers.
But you do believe that Vicious Stomp allows an AoO.
And you believe that Greater Trip grants an AoO.
And you believe they each have their own trigger?
...what am I missing?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel it's a heavy feat investment (meaning gained at higher levels) for something that has littler impact on the game the higher level things get (as stupid-high CMD and non-trippable creatures get more proliferant).
So I don't mind allowing both AoO to function.
Note, with Greater Trip, the person being tripped provokes an Attack of Opportunity. Everyone in range can lay a beatdown because of that, not just the tripper.
Vicious Stomp adding one more attack on what is likely already a gang beatdown isn't going to push things over the edge.
A couple trip-focused monks, built with teamwork feats and this lineup (including enhanced ki throw), would make a terrifying NPC battle, especially in an arena setting.
There's a number of good teamwork feats that could make this brutal: Coordinated Maneuvers, Outflank, Paired Opportunist, Precise Strike (yikes!).
.
Okay, wild thought here. Follow my line of reasoning:
1. Greater Trip makes the tripped person provoke an Attack of Opportunity for being successfully tripped.
2. The AoO resolves BEFORE the event that provokes it is COMPLETED.
3. The Trippee is not yet prone, so someone acting on the Attack of Opportunity could then try to trip him as well, setting off yet another "group AoO" if they have Greater Trip.
4. Repeat ad nauseum (possibly literally, for the person being juggled), as long as you have AoO actions left by those involved (with Combat Reflexes).
Wow...
Change "trip" to "push out of a plane door" and it's easier to see how the event causing a collision with the ground might be a different event from the actual event of landing on the ground.
When the first AOO occurs, he isn't even prone yet. Not that it makes the above chain of tripping by trip specialized high dex PC's any less absurd. As too condoning it, if the PC's bring it out, it's fair to do it back...
Kai, one of the writers posted on here that you can't trip as an aoo if the target was just tripped. Apparently if someone is tripped, it doesn't make sense for them to be tripped again, as if a person who is already falling finds losing his balance pretty meaningless.
Actually, they said your trip doesn't do anything extra (not that you can't trip) on an Attack of Opportunity when someone is trying to stand, because they are still prone when the sequence of events comes up, so making them prone again doesn't matter and they stand up anyways.
It was the case in 3.5e, and they've added it to the Pathfinder FAQ as well.
In my case, I'm using that exact same logic from the FAQ but with regards to Greater Trip.
The Attack of Opportunity occurs before the tripped person is prone. So they are standing, and someone can try tripping them again.
While it's similar to the standing up from prone situation (being tripped again won't make them "more" prone), it does give a side benefit that everyone gets another Attack of Opportunity.
Imagine 8 guys around one poor sap, and he's being repeatedly greater tripped. It'd be 7x the number of trips in damaging attacks potential that makes the difference, and why someone would want to use it.
.
It is quite silly though, especially considering how much is going on in just a 6 second round. Absurdity to the highest levels.*
RAW maybe... but still absurd.
Vicious Stomp feels different though, to me... but I have a weak spot for "unarmed strikes".
.
*Although for some reason, a bunch of people stomping someone who's on the ground, repeatedly in a very short time, seems to be exactly how a lot of unfortunate gang attacks can go down.
Perhaps this isn't all unrealistic.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the same action is cause the provoking, only one AoO.
I disagree. There is precedent in the rules for the same action provoking 2 AoOs. If I cast a ranged touch attack spell (a single action), I provoke twice : once for casting a spell and once for making a ranged attack.
I believe it is the same here.
And since the Greater Trip mentions that the AoO is provoked by successfully tripping your opponent, then he is prone (in most cases the result of a successful trip) and gets -4 to AC against your AoOs.
|
I would like some confirmation as to when the attack of opportunity from Greater Trip takes place. If it does happen instantly, interrupting all other play, then the opponent can't be prone yet.
The reason for that is the feat mentioned above: Landing Roll. If someone can take an Immediate action to negate their going prone, then it stands to reason the attack of opportunity can interrupt going prone.
|
|
Some of you guys seem to be arguing a weird point (that the AOOs from Greater Trip happen BEFORE the creature is prone), that I've never seen argued before.
The only reason that you seem to be arguing that point is because you want to interpret the rules in a way that bends them to your advantage (2 AOOs for Great Trip/Vicious Stomp).
That is pretty much the defines disingenuous, in my opinion.
Greater Trip states that the AoO happens "whenever you successfully trip an opponent". How else do you determine trip "success", other than by the criteria of the enemy being knocked prone?
Some of you guys seem to be arguing a weird point (that the AOOs from Greater Trip happen BEFORE the creature is prone), that I've never seen argued before.
The only reason that you seem to be arguing that point is because you want to interpret the rules in a way that bends them to your advantage (2 AOOs for Great Trip/Vicious Stomp).
That is pretty much the defines disingenuous, in my opinion.
Greater Trip states that the AoO happens "whenever you successfully trip an opponent". How else do you determine trip "success", other than by the criteria of the enemy being knocked prone?
I would like to point out that this is false on several levels. Firstly, it is false that the people here are trying to "interpret the rules in a way that bends them to your advantage". Everyone here is trying to figure out what the correct way to interpret the rules are. Whether it is beneficial to them or not is moot. That is not a result of their interpretation.
Secondly I would like to point out in this thread where James Jacobs states that you can use Greater Trip to trip someone who is already prone anyway. So they do not have to be "knocked prone". They could already BE prone. You just have to succeed at the combat maneuver.
Logic dictates that the same would be true for Vicious Stomp. It doesn't matter who put them on their back at your feet or if you got an attack for being the one who tripped them or not. They provoked for Greater Trip if you succeeded at the combat maneuver, and they provoked for falling prone next to you. Why should it matter if you were the one who put them there?
Please also bear in mind that there are other situations in the rules where it specifically calls out that your actions DO NOT make someone else provoke AoO. Bull Rush is an example of this. This wording is (IMO not mistakenly) missing from these feats. Thus they work in conjunction with one another. To think otherwise would be to apply similar wording as Bull Rush to these feats when none exists.
An enemy being moved by a bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Bull Rush feat.
Greater Bull Rush (Combat)
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Bull Rush. Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).Normal: Creatures moved by bull rush do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
The analogy here is that normally a bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the movement that you force your target to take. However, because of this feat it allows your allies to make AoOs against your target because the feat specifically states that you do.
Just like with Vicious Stomp; normally a foe falling prone next to you does not provoke an AoO (regardless of how they ended up prone next to you). However, because of this feat it allows you to make an AoO against your target because the feat specifically states that you do.
The same goes for Greater Trip. They are not mutually exclusive. They work in conjunction with one another.
Some of you guys seem to be arguing a weird point (that the AOOs from Greater Trip happen BEFORE the creature is prone), that I've never seen argued before.
The only reason that you seem to be arguing that point is because you want to interpret the rules in a way that bends them to your advantage (2 AOOs for Great Trip/Vicious Stomp).
That is pretty much the defines disingenuous, in my opinion.
Greater Trip states that the AoO happens "whenever you successfully trip an opponent". How else do you determine trip "success", other than by the criteria of the enemy being knocked prone?
You missed the part where we are referencing the FAQ.
The game developers are the ones who've stated that "the attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved". Its the reason we can't trip someone who is standing up from prone.It isn't that the check result is the 'success', but rather that the very method of applying an attack of opportunity results in 'interruption of play'.
You resolve the attack of opportunity, and then you resolve the falling prone.
If your AoO occurred after the event that triggered it finished, then you could trip someone trying to stand up. This flies in the face of the FAQ entry. I don't see how this is being disingenuous.
Watch it, Kaisoku, you are running the risk of being silly by using an analogy.
Secondly I would like to point out in this thread where James Jacobs states that you can use Greater Trip to trip someone who is already prone anyway. So they do not have to be "knocked prone". They could already BE prone. You just have to succeed at the combat maneuver.
You should double check the topics you refer to. What James writes in that topic is: "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.".
He expands that he would allow it for Ki Throw, being an action that makes sense against an already prone opponent.But basically what James Jacobs writes is the opposite of what you state.
Suceeding a combat maneuver check is not the a triggering action for the greater trip AoO. You can easily make a succesful CMB check, but still fail you trip attempt due to the fact that the enemy is flying.
|
|
Secondly I would like to point out in this thread where James Jacobs states that you can use Greater Trip to trip someone who is already prone anyway. So they do not have to be "knocked prone". They could already BE prone. You just have to succeed at the combat maneuver.
I would point you to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook FAQ, which says no you cannot trip a prone person as they come up from prone.
Oie, people are reading only what they want out of the written text here.
Here's the FAQ entry:
Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?
No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10
The question is asking "can you trip him again", as in, "can you make him go prone again after standing up" by using the AoO.
The FAQ entry is stating that you can't make him prone again after standing up because the trip would resolve first, and the character would just continue standing up.
Note how it doesn't say you can't perform the trip maneuver. It doesn't say you can't waste your time if you want. You can roll your trip attempt and make the prone person prone, it just won't stop him from standing up again, as that was the question being asked.
I am of the opinion that when the same action caused both opportunities, then both opportunities are, in fact, the same. Can't say what the devs think.
|
|
Well if you haven't yet clicked the FAQ, please do so. For now I can't see it as overpowered, and I do believe that the feats provide for two opportunities for an attack of opportunity.Well there are two things going on here-
One is whether it is two opportunities or only one. This has consequences on the second, which is 'is it overpowering/breaking to see it the other way'.
Towards the later, let me paint the picture for you:
Four NPCs are flanking your PC.
One of them trips your PC, and then your PC is attacked 16 times by them as he/she is falling. Afterwards (assuming that this hasn't killed the victim) the original attacker finishes his full attack action, then the rest take their full attacks on your PC. The last attacker 'trips' your PC again (even though they're prone) and and another 16 attacks come by them... assuming that your PC has survived so far of course.
Does that sound reasonable or unreasonable to you? Can you see that as somehow overpowered or just flat-out wrong?
-James
How exactly did four NPCS flank me? Nevermind, I suppose they did.
So one of them has Greater Trip and they all have Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike and Vicious Stomp? Wow, I'm fighting a bunch of monks and a high level fighter. That's fine.
How did greater trip (resulting in 4 attacks of opportunity) and vicious stomp (resulting in 4 attacks of opportunity) translate into 16 attacks?
I also don't think someone can trip a character while he's prone. You can't trip someone who is already prone, as detailed in the FAQ.
So your example is flawed, contrived and kind of stupid. It therefore does seem kind of unreasonable, and it also seems kind of flat-out wrong. :)
Explosion much? The AoOs have multiple layers... like onions.
The AoOs are triggered by different feats... different sources. The feats in question are triggered off different conditions.
One is for a successful trip attempt, the other is for landing prone.
So there is no way that these two are the same thing, thus the 2 AoOs conclusion. I will also say that a successful trip attempt may result in a creature falling prone.
Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?
No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10
In the above example we see a trip maneuver completed vs a Prone opponent, but nothing occurs since the creature is already prone. It seems to follow that based on the wording of Greater Trip, tripping an already prone creature would provoke an AoO since you are successful in your maneuver attempt.
However, as I said before, even if the trigger were the same (which it's not) you'd still get 2 AoOs. But why?
Example:
If you had a feat (called feat 1) that said every time you successfully trip a creature you make an AoO you may make an AoO and another feat (feat 2) that said whenever a creature is tripped you may make an AoO against it, you'd be able to use them both (that is to say stack them) against a creature that you tripped. This is because they are different feats and different sources generating the AoO, these sources are triggering off the same event (your successful trip attempt).
James usually I agree with you but this time I am on the other side here. The conditions are different otherwise the above mentioned landing roll feat wouldn't have time to be triggered your already prone.
Second stop treating mergy like he is out to game the system he is looking at a situation where he can set up for 2 AoO once around 3 if his opponent stands up. Your the one who brought us Flurry of AoO not him.
I can build a monk that can make 2 attacks at up to 5 enemies in a 100ft line at this level even more if i pump dex and take greater trip.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I clicked FAQ. I hope it's clarified that you receive 2 AoO's. I doubt it though. I expect that the AoO from Greater Trip comes as a result of knocking them prone - the same trigger for Vicious Stomp and therefore you're not eligible for a 2nd AoO.
I imagine the designers will say that Vicious Stomp grants you an AoO when your buddy with Greater Trip knocks a foe prone beside you.
I hope I'm wrong.