| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You should double check the topics you refer to. ...But basically what James Jacobs writes is the opposite of what you state.
Perhaps you should double check the topics I was refering to and reread it. And then maybe reread what I wrote.
When James Jacobs was asked, "Would you say you can Ki Throw someone who was already prone then with a successful trip?" He stated:
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.
This is important as Ki Throw reads:
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.
Those together establish that you can, in fact, trip an already prone target. Normally it doesn't do anything unless you have a feat that allows you to do so like Ki Throw.
Ok, moving on...
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.
The fact that you can already trip a prone target was refering to allow you to Vicious Stomp someone reagardless of whether they are prone or not. I was establishing that it does not matter when the Vicious Stomp is triggered or not as to whether you get the AoO.
At this point I would like to echo Kaisoku's, "Oie, people are reading only what they want out of the written text here." Requoting what he said (which is what I was also getting at):
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.
We know that you CAN, in fact, trip an already prone target from James' words. Normally it doesn't do anything, but it does when you have certain feats. So you can successfully trip someone. It would not normally matter as you can't make a prone person more prone. But you CAN, trip a prone target.
As for flying creatures...
As stated in the 3.5 FAQ here :
Being tripped makes you prone. Who can be tripped?
Beholders? Gelatinous cubes? What effect does tripping
have on these creatures? Can a prone character be tripped
again? What about flying and swimming creatures? Many
creatures have neither legs nor any relationship to the
ground or gravity. How does tripping affect them?
Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped.
Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped.
You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You
won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be
in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common
sense.
A creature flying with wings can be “tripped,” in which
case the creature stalls (see Tactical Aerial Movement on page
20 of the DMG). You can’t make an incorporeal creature fall
down. You also can’t trip a prone creature.
Creatures can’t be tripped when they’re swimming (the
water holds them up). Likewise, a burrowing creature is driving
its body through a fairly solid medium that serves to hold it up.
I can already hear your retort that "this is not D&D, this is Pathfinder!" My point is that the rule I stated here provides precident for being able to trip flying creatures, albeit only ones with wings. That makes sense and I believe that if you asked this in a rules thread and got a response from Paizo staff that while they aren't likely to say that there are printed rules to support this that it is in the spirit of the rules to allow it.
...however, even if you have succeeded at providing a limited example of how you could succeed at a trip attempt without successfully tripping someone the point is moot to the question at hand and you would be arguing your point on an exception.The FAQ is an interesting read. Go over it *very* carefully. You can make a trip maneuver against someone prone when they provoke from trying to stand, but it won't do anything as they will stand after the AOOs.
Great! So we are all agreed that you can make a trip attack against a prone target. I would also agree that normally it wouldn't do anything. That is, unless of course a feat specifically says that it does. Such as the case with Greater Trip. It doesn't say you have to successfully knock them prone, it says that you have to successfully trip them. Since "successfully trip" is not specifically defined within the rules we get into this dirty business of what the proper definition of it is. I believe it is logical that succeeding at your CMD check results in a successful trip rather than succeeding at knocking someone prone. I believe this for two important reasons:
1. The rules make a distinction in the difference between successfully tripping someone (Greater Trip) and someone falling prone in front of you (Vicious Stomp).2. James Jacobs stated that he would allow for you to trip an already prone target for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of a feat (Ki Throw).
So what we have here is that there are two seperate triggering conditions that grant two seperate attacks of opportunity. The first (Greater Trip) requires that you successfully trip your opponent (regardless of whether they are already prone or not) and the second (Vicious Stomp) requires that your target falls prone next to you (regardless of whether it was by your hand or not). As long as both triggering conditions are satisfied and you have enough attacks of opportunity then you are able to perform both.
Also Lune I feel that Ki throw would also be useful when dealing with a flyer since i figure that could actually prone them. But thats for another thread.
I didn't think of that, Talonhawke, but your probably right. Although, we have always played with the 3.5 stall rules (quoted above) in Pathfinder anyway. Although for non-winged fliers it would still help.
Those together establish that you can, in fact, trip an already prone target. Normally it doesn't do anything unless you have a feat that allows you to do so like Ki Throw.
This does not establish that you can trip an already prone person. It specifies a situation where you are able to do it. Nothing in James Jacobs' statement disregards his previous comment that "you can't trip someone who is prone".
When making your point, you can't just take half of what he says and ignore the rest.Just because one specific ability allow a certain event, doesn't automatically mean that it established precedent for other abilities. This is the nature of generel versus specific rules at its very core.
It is kind of a moot point. I provides nothing in discussing these things as generel rules (Whether or not you can trip an prone person), since it is the specific situations which are interesting. I assume that it is for this reason the developers so often avoid clear cut rulings, and instead suggest that GMs and players find the solutions that work for them.
I didn't ignore the rest. You are choosing to ignore everything that doesn't fit your limited perspective. I am taking what he said in context.
And, yes... that is kinda what precedent means. Prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance. When designers establish precedent they are typically careful about it and do not jump to make knee jerk decisions. It is their job to consider the outcome of their rulings. So when James said that you could trip someone who is prone, I am sure that he considered the impact of his words for other circumstances as well. And, yes, he also stated that in the end it is the DM's call. But that is sorta the rule 0 that doesn't need to be stated, isn't it?
By the way, to be clear, HaraldKlak, James did not contradict himself in that thread. He did, however, give an exception that provides an example of when you are able to trip someone who is already prone. This establishes that exceptions DO exist. And the context of the example is very similar to the context of this thread... thus why I linked it. Aside from that the FAQ, as others have pointed out, also provides for what happens when you trip a prone opponent. Thus, also establishing that it can be done. It normally doesn't do anything, but it can be done.
To believe otherwise would be to have purposefully selective reading retention.
|
The rules do specifically say you may not trip flying creatures, yes. I don't think it's a stretch to also say you cannot successfully trip prone or already tripped creatures. If that is the only part of this ruling that would worry you (a large number of enemies with Greater Trip all tripping the tripped guy) then Vicious Stomp has nothing to do with that.
|
|
Being successful at a trip means being successful at a trip. Since there are feats which negate the prone condition after being tripped, that's easy to see. Therefore the prone condition and someone tripping you are different triggers, and since they are they can both be taken advantage of with the requisite feats.
I'm going to try to come at this from a different angle.
We have a Tripping Monk master, and a Fighter. Both use trip and greater trip with combat reflexes. Monk also happens to have Ki Throw. They are fighting an Orc.
(X's are empty squares)
Situation) Layout: FXMO
Monk makes a trip on the Orc and succeeds. Because Monk has greater trip, this provokes an AoO on the Orc.
For those who think Greater Trip&Vicious Stomp get 2 AoO's, the monk would get to make an AoO for his successful trip, THEN move the orc into the fighter's threatened range. Thus the fighter doesn't get to make a swing.
For those saying it is a single AoO (I now agree), the monk can move the Orc with the throw, and then the trip finishes, provoking AoO's from both Monk and Fighter.
I initially thought it allowed for 2 AoO's, but due to the wording of the Trip combat maneuver, I now think a success immediately causes the target to become prone. Greater Trip AoO's happen after the success of a trip, which causes the prone condition. If they aren't prone, then success hasn't happened yet.
Trip: "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."
Greater Trip: "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
Ki Throw: "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."
|
And, yes... that is kinda what precedent means. Prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance. When designers establish precedent they are typically careful about it and do not jump to make knee jerk decisions. It is their job to consider the outcome of their rulings. So when James said that you could trip someone who is prone, I am sure that he considered the impact of his words for other circumstances as well. And, yes, he also stated that in the end it is the DM's call. But that is sorta the rule 0 that doesn't need to be stated, isn't it?
James is not the rules guy at Paizo, he was asked how he would rule it and gave what he would do in his game because he thinks tossing a prone guy is a cool thing. It doesnt mean hed set it as precedent, and I would bet money he wouldnt allow someone to trip prone people to get a free aoo. I wouldnt use a statement from James as ammo vs the DM (he hates that lol).
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.
This is the best explanation of why the OP's situation entails 2 AoOs. Also, it makes complete sense if you've ever done any judo or jujitsu. It is very plausible, with reasonable training, to hit someone twice with unarmed strikes after most tripping moves, or even to transition into a grapple, within the span of a 6 second interval. It is especially true if the Greater Trip AoO is considered part of the trip, such as a strong jerk on the head or arms to lead into O-Soto-Gari.
No stack. One action is causing aoo - falling prone. It does not matter how you may justify it as different parts of falling prone, it is one provoking action, one aoo. This is identical to the reason that you do not get multiple aoo's just because someone moves through multiple squares you threaten. One provoking action, one aoo. Flame me.
|
No stack. One action is causing aoo - falling prone. It does not matter how you may justify it as different parts of falling prone, it is one provoking action, one aoo. This is identical to the reason that you do not get multiple aoo's just because someone moves through multiple squares you threaten. One provoking action, one aoo. Flame me.
Actually I'd agree with you on this one, following pretty much the same reasoning.
The breakdown of the trip into multiple sub-sections is important when it comes to different responses (such as Landing Throw) that can change where the trippee ends up, etc. But as far as provoking an aoo, it's really just one action.|
|
First off, I'm rather enjoying this thread ;)
Secondly, I'm curious about the intent behind the creation of the Vicious Stomp feat. Clearly, it was meant for lower level monks and fighters with IAS who intended to use the Trip maneuver on a regular basis. Would the devs create a feat that would interact with Trip and Improved Trip but not Greater Trip? If so, was it in the expectations that Vicious Stomp was a lesser replacement if you didn't qualify for (or select) Greater Trip? Was it a stopgap dpr measure until you qualified for Greater Trip and benefit from its AOO (which would override Vicious Stomps AOO)? Or is it simply a case that they never considered the interaction of the Greater Trip AOO and Vicious Stomp AOO?
Vicious Stomp gives aoo possibilities in more situations than greater trip. This is why the feat exists, because there are going to be times when an opponent falls prone next to you for reasons other than that you tripped them. So, if you have both feats, VS is only redundant if you are the tripper, but still has utility if someone else trips or causes your opponent to fall prone next to you some other way.
To try and read into the feats some level of stacking because you think one is made redundant by the other is to infer what is not implied. Inference is the enemy of game balance.
|
|
First off, I'm rather enjoying this thread ;)
Secondly, I'm curious about the intent behind the creation of the Vicious Stomp feat. Clearly, it was meant for lower level monks and fighters with IAS who intended to use the Trip maneuver on a regular basis.
Obviously I'm not privy to the innermost thoughts of the designers. But my reading of Vicious Stomp is that it's a low-level feat to compensate for the fact that giving up even one part of a flurry to trip instead of doing damage can be quite a high price to pay for beginning characters. Vicious Stomp lets you get the chance to hand out at least some damage.
It's also quite nice for role-playing, too. I'm trying out a tripmonk myself (he gets his second outing tonight). It rather surprised the GM when he (the monk, not the GM) put the boot in when his opponent fell over (from regular damage, not a trip maneuver). It didn't affect the outcome of the encounter - the opponent was already out of combat - but it did rather live up to the "Vicious" part of the name.
|
|
It seems quite divided, and I'm pleased with the number of people hitting the FAQ button. I do think it's a combo that should work, but if it doesn't, then I suppose Vicious is intended to be a stopgap until Greater Trip, with the secondary ability of being able to quickly finish off an opponent who goes unconscious.
This isn't the only case of a single opportunity (act) generating multiple AoOs in Pathfinder.
A creature that overruns another creature while threatened (and without improved overrun) generates 2 AoOs (1 from movement, 1 from the overrun attempt)
A creature that casts a spell that is the equivalent of a ranged attack (like acid arrow) while threatened generates 2 AoOs. (1 from spell casting, 1 from the ranged attack component).
As we can see from the Trip FAQ, you can perform a trip combat maneuver vs a prone target. It is successful (it hits), but it does not result in the target falling prone - as they are already prone.
This isn't the only case of a single opportunity (act) generating multiple AoOs in Pathfinder.
A creature that overruns another creature while threatened (and without improved overrun) generates 2 AoOs (1 from movement, 1 from the overrun attempt)
A creature that casts a spell that is the equivalent of a ranged attack (like acid arrow) while threatened generates 2 AoOs. (1 from spell casting, 1 from the ranged attack component).
As we can see from the Trip FAQ, you can perform a trip combat maneuver vs a prone target. It is successful (it hits), but it does not result in the target falling prone - as they are already prone.
I would argue that both of those, as you say, are single opportunities, and as such, DO NOT generate multiple AoOs, as per RAW.
In the case of the first example, EVERY overrun attempt against an armed opponent would provoke twice as you MUST move through a threatened square, i.e. the target's.
This isn't the only case of a single opportunity (act) generating multiple AoOs in Pathfinder.
A creature that overruns another creature while threatened (and without improved overrun) generates 2 AoOs (1 from movement, 1 from the overrun attempt)
A creature that casts a spell that is the equivalent of a ranged attack (like acid arrow) while threatened generates 2 AoOs. (1 from spell casting, 1 from the ranged attack component).
As we can see from the Trip FAQ, you can perform a trip combat maneuver vs a prone target. It is successful (it hits), but it does not result in the target falling prone - as they are already prone.
Both of your examples have two separate opportunities. Falling prone from being tripped is a single opportunity - it is one non-action caused by being tripped. Your examples each show two separate conscious actions which each provoke aoo's in their own right. Show me an example of a single action, or even an event outside the characters control caused by an enemy which provokes more than one aoo, and you might be onto something.
And before you say overrun and casting a ranged touch attack are both single actions, take a look at both entries in the CRB, and you will see they are both described as multiple actions which are combined. (move and bull rush, cast and attack)
I would argue that both of those, as you say, are single opportunities, and as such, DO NOT generate multiple AoOs, as per RAW.
In the case of the first example, EVERY overrun attempt against an armed opponent would provoke twice as you MUST move through a threatened square, i.e. the target's.
Your argument would ultimately prove futile since each of the instances I called out have multiple opportunities.
Yes, Overrun is quite terrible, but a character's movement always provokes.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively.
So as you see, there are two opportunities in a Ranged Touch spell. The spell casting and the ranged touch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both of your examples have two separate opportunities. Falling prone from being tripped is a single opportunity - it is one non-action caused by being tripped. Your examples each show two separate conscious actions which each provoke aoo's in their own right. Show me an example of a single action, or even an event outside the characters control caused by an enemy which provokes more than one aoo, and you might be onto something.
This is not the case. There are two opportunities in this example as well. The opportunity generated from Greater Trip feat and the opportunity generated from Viscious Stomp feat.
Show me an example of a single action, or even an event outside the characters control caused by an enemy which provokes more than one aoo, and you might be onto something.
Easily. A character with greater bull rush & shield slam that knocks an opponent into a wall in front of a character with Viscious stomp.
The viscious stomp ally gets two AoOs. One provoked from the Movement of the Bull Rush target and once from the opponent falling prone. Does that qualify?
The attacker does not provoke the opportunity, the target does. In your other examples, the target is doing two distinct actions which provoke attacks, with GT/VS the attacker has two feats which allow for aoo based on the same action. The target is doing only one thing which provokes, thus only one aoo.
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
The above specifically states that combat reflexes does not allow you to make more than one aoo for a given opportunity. The opportunity is the opponent falling prone. You could have 20 different feats which allow you to consider falling prone as an opportunity, it still does not change how combat reflexes works.
You can try to justify it all you want, but it simply is not so.
You are looking for an action-economy loophole which does not exist. Such seeking of loopholes is exactly what breaks the game, and I don't know any GM who would not laugh and simply say "No."
Both of your examples have two separate opportunities. Falling prone from being tripped is a single opportunity - it is one non-action caused by being tripped. Your examples each show two separate conscious actions which each provoke aoo's in their own right. Show me an example of a single action, or even an event outside the characters control caused by an enemy which provokes more than one aoo, and you might be onto something.This is not the case. There are two opportunities in this example as well. The opportunity generated from Greater Trip feat and the opportunity generated from Viscious Stomp feat.
Show me an example of a single action, or even an event outside the characters control caused by an enemy which provokes more than one aoo, and you might be onto something.Easily. A character with greater bull rush & shield slam that knocks an opponent into a wall in front of a character with Viscious stomp.
The viscious stomp ally gets two AoOs. One provoked from the Movement of the Bull Rush target and once from the opponent falling prone. Does that qualify?
No, it does not qualify. You have two opportunities with this example, one is the movement, the other is falling prone. Just because the target did not cause the actions (movement and falling), it is still providing two different opportunities. GT/VS is still only one opportunity, thus no stack.
Seriously, the case is closed. Continue to argue all you want, it will not change how the rules work.
Seriously, the case is closed. Continue to argue all you want, it will not change how the rules work.
Same to you sir. Same to you.
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.
Attack roll > CMD = Successful Trip attempt -> Provoke AOO 1 (via Trip)
Enemy falls prone -> Provoke AOO 2 (via Vicious Stomp)Seems pretty clear, well, unless you can refute the RAW defining "success".
Go ahead and convince yourself that being tripped and being tripped are two different things. You are not convincing anyone else.
No, being tripped and landing on the ground are 2 different things. :)
No, being tripped and landing on the ground are 2 different things. :)
Landing on the ground is what makes it a successful trip. Show me how a trip attempt is successful if no one falls on the ground.
@james maissen
Did I at any point, ever say that?
No, I did not. You can, however, kick one.
--------------
@Mabven the OP healer
Easy. Your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD; i.e. success. You are free to houserule it, but trying to apply your RW logic to the game mechanics doesn't change the RAW.
Besides, you can trip a person in RL (as much as i don't care to apply RW physics to in game actions) and end up watching that person just roll out of it. He still lost his balance and footing even if he didn't end up prone. Yes, somewhat contrived, but still yet possible. I rolled out of a fall at a full sprint just last Thursday. <Shrug, don't really care.>
Attack roll > CMD = Successful Trip attemptSo you believe that you can successfully trip a prone creature?
-James
The FAQ clearly defines you can successfully execute a trip maneuver on an already prone opponent. They will not be forced prone by this new maneuver, however, since they are already prone.
Your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD; i.e. success. You are free to houserule it, but trying to apply your RW logic to the game mechanics doesn't change the RAW.
^This is success.
Read the definition of trip. The rules themselves state that a trip is not successful until someone falls prone. If you succeed at your cmb against an already prone character, it still is not a successful trip.
If you succeed at your cmb against an ooze, a creature without legs or a flying creature, it is still not a successful trip. Succeeding at your CMB does not indicate a successful trip, your opponent falling prone does. You are dividing it into two parts -> succeed at trip -> opponent falls prone. This is not how it works. Once the opponent falls prone, and not before, it is a successful trip. Seriously, read the rules before making statements that have no basis in the rules.
Wrong Mabven thats like saying an attack roll isnt successful until you deal damage which is false.
Being knocked prone is the result of succedding not a qualification for it.
Wrong Mabven thats like saying an attack roll isnt successful until you deal damage which is false.
Being knocked prone is the result of succedding not a qualification for it.
It is not like that at all. Read, seriously, read and stop writing nonsense.
It is not like that at all. Read, seriously, read and stop writing nonsense.
You're right, it is exactly like that. I'd like to point out to you that the trip entry in the combat chapter does not define what constitutes success in it. So we have to use the default for an Attack Roll/maneuver success - that is hitting someone with your maneuver not what occurs afterward.
@james maissen
Did I at any point, ever say that?
No, I did not.
Actually you did. Make up your mind.
You can make a trip maneuver check against someone that is prone. You can succeed on the check. You claim that this is a successful trip.
-James
Where did I say that?
I said an AOO is provoked by a successful trip attempt. I , also, said that an AOO is provoked upon landing prone. I never said you can trip a prone person, even though, as Stynkk pointed out the FAQ says you can with no effect.
It is not like that at all. Read, seriously, read and stop writing nonsense.Wrong Mabven thats like saying an attack roll isnt successful until you deal damage which is false.
Being knocked prone is the result of succedding not a qualification for it.
That wasn't nonsense he posted.
Fallacy of "Wrong Direction"
The relation between cause and effect is reversed.
Examples:
- Cancer causes smoking.
- The increase in AIDS was caused by more sex education. (In fact, the increase in sex education was caused by the spread of AIDS.)
Proof:
Give a causal argument showing that the relation between cause and effect has been reversed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Please bold the part in the above that says my trip is only successful once they are prone.
I can see the part where is says if my attack exceeds the targets CMD they are knocked prone. Lets check Combat Manuver rules.
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.
Hmmmm.... Looks like once i beat your CMD I succeded whether or not you fall prone or not, though without a special ability or feat you are going prone.