No, my attack roll exceeded their CMD. Period. I rolled a nat 20 even!
But you are correct that they cannot be tripped.
Still my roll did not fail to exceed their CMD.
You would have a point if the trip rules (and other rules) did not specifically call out scenarios in which a roll that would normally succeed actually fails. Yes, even a natural 20.
You succeed on a trip by exceeding the CMD (and using determing success) in all instances except in the case where the rules state you cannot. I don't think we disagree on this.
Unfortunately, your case for what constitutes a successful trip attempt is weakened by Determining Success for Combat Maneuvers and the trip FAQ. The result of going prone is a result of a successful trip maneuver, not the definition of a successful trip maneuver.
A couple more:
Another weapon
Benefit: If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.
&
At 1st level, as an immediate action, a flowing monk can attempt a reposition or trip combat maneuver against a creature that the flowing monk threatens and that attacks him. If the combat maneuver is successful, the attacker is sickened for 1 round (Reflex DC = 10 + 1/2 the monk’s level + monk’s Wisdom modifier to halve the duration), plus 1 additional round at 4th level and for every four levels afterward (to a maximum of 6 rounds at 20th level).
It is obvious that the solution that requires the least amount of editing is to declare it 1 AoO (vs prone), so I'm curious which way this will go.
(Myself, I prefer to have more options than fewer)
I agree that greater trip would function with any of the weapons/feats described that change the result of a trip (that is to say something other than simply going prone after a successful trip).
As far as the rules modifications go: it would be easier to just add the following entry into trip exceptions: Prone creatures cannot be tripped.
This eliminates the redundant and exploitative ground AoOs.
However, this is all negating the fact that 2 AoOs are provoked from the OP's original question.
However, it doesn't fix the exploitation of using your AoO to trip an already tripped creature. For instance, a monk uses Greater Trip and trips the creature resulting in AoO from everyone threatening him. The Monk uses his AoO to make another Greater Trip provoking another set of AoOs, of which he then makes another Greater Trip... up until he runs out of AoOs, the only time he would use Vicious Stomp in this scenario is if his allies have run out of AoOs and he's still got one left.
However, a better entry that would remove a lot of the abuse would be: Tripped or prone creatures cannot be tripped until they have returned to a standing position.
However, it doesn't fix the exploitation of using your AoO to trip an already tripped creature. For instance, a monk uses Greater Trip and trips the creature resulting in AoO from everyone threatening him. The Monk uses his AoO to make another Greater Trip provoking another set of AoOs, of which he then makes another Greater Trip... up until he runs out of AoOs, the only time he would use Vicious Stomp in this scenario is if his allies have run out of AoOs and he's still got one left.
However, a better entry that would remove a lot of the abuse would be: Tripped or prone creatures cannot be tripped until they have returned to a standing position.
This is a problem in and of the Attack of Opportunity and how it resolves. This has always been a "problem" and actually I don't think it is a problem at all. It requires a focused group with the right feats surrounding a single opponent in melee combat. There are enough circumstantial issues with this "exploit" that I don't see it being a gamebreaker. It's more of a pseudo-teamwork feat.
Really, in this case, your issue is with the existence of Combat Reflexes, the Attack of Opportunity and the usage of Trip during AoOs.
In addition, your suggested going prone ruling would have no bearing when using a weapon like the Seven Branched Sword, which does not result in the creature going prone after a successful trip so your concerns will still be occuring.
Actually, it would, because my suggested ruling is: Tripped or Prone creatures cannot be tripped until they have returned to a standing position.
Meaning once someone has tripped a creature, they cannot be tripped again until they have regained their footing. So with the Seven Branched Sword, they can trip them, resulting in the character stumbling forward and being flatfooted until their turn where they regain their footing, at which point they can be tripped again.
@tels
There is no Tripped condition... so you'd have to add more rules to the game for your proposal to work.
So is the majority ruling in favour of two AoOs or one? I lost track of this thread in the last few days when I couldn't get onto Paizo.
Still very much split Mergy.
Not really. The argument as to whether there should be two AoOs was mostly given up on 150 posts ago. Now it's all about what it means to be tripped or how you judge a successful maneuver. Neither of which has really any bearing on the question that started this thread.So is the majority ruling in favour of two AoOs or one? I lost track of this thread in the last few days when I couldn't get onto Paizo.Still very much split Mergy.
Actually, the argument as to the nature of trip is core to this discussion.
One side argues that being tripped and falling prone are two separate occurrences and thus are two separate opportunities for the purposes of Combat Reflexes.
The other side argues that being tripped and falling prone are the same occurrence and thus only one opportunity.
Based on what I've seen now, I would say that it is two separate attacks of opportunity. That's how I would rule it in my games. If, for some reason, it seemed to be too powerful of a combination I would revisit the ruling later. As it stands, you have to take a ton of feats to exploit this and there should be a reward for the investment. I'm still going to FAQ it though.
|
Actually, the argument as to the nature of trip is core to this discussion.
One side argues that being tripped and falling prone are two separate occurrences and thus are two separate opportunities for the purposes of Combat Reflexes.
The other side argues that being tripped and falling prone are the same occurrence and thus only one opportunity.
Thanks for catching me up. Yup, whether there's a such thing as a trip without a prone is pretty core to the argument. I do like the flowing monk example. :)
|
Based on what I've seen now, I would say that it is two separate attacks of opportunity. That's how I would rule it in my games. If, for some reason, it seemed to be too powerful of a combination I would revisit the ruling later. As it stands, you have to take a ton of feats to exploit this and there should be a reward for the investment. I'm still going to FAQ it though.
I agree - it certainly needs a definitive ruling.
While the argument for there being two different opportunities is quite compelling (especially since Landing Throw can intervene between the two events), the combination of treating them as two opportunities and the ruling that the attack of opportunity provoked by standing up from prone occurs before the provoking action completes leads to the situation where you can trip an opponent even after he has already been successfully tripped because the attack of opportunity interrupts before the trip is complete. So a clarification made to prevent multiple trips when standing up leads to an equally far-fetched situation of multiple trips when falling down.
I'd treat it as two possible provoking events, but I wouldn't allow tripping somebody who is already in the process of being tripped. But I don't get to make the rules for Pathfinder, so what I'd do as GM doesn't carry much weight.
If you want to see just how far one can go with this concept of "trip attempt and falling prone are two different opportunities", go check out this thread I just started. I'm sure you will be astonished:
James, take a look at the link I posted just above. It is the extreme example of how this concept can be exploited. You will enjoy it (maybe you will even sing along) ;-)
MacGurcules - if you want to see just how many AOO's one can achieve through this interpretation, check the link I posted above. We're the Brother's Cut cuttin' sharp as a knife.
I'm telling you, guys, it's not relevant. Read the section on attacks of opportunity. Yes, it does say you only get one attack per opportunity. But it's also specific in saying each time an enemy provokes it represents a different opportunity. It doesn't matter if it's from the same action or how close together the events are. It provokes twice, you get two attacks. It's right there on the page.Not really. The argument as to whether there should be two AoOs was mostly given up on 150 posts ago. Now it's all about what it means to be tripped or how you judge a successful maneuver. Neither of which has really any bearing on the question that started this thread.So is the majority ruling in favour of two AoOs or one? I lost track of this thread in the last few days when I couldn't get onto Paizo.Still very much split Mergy.Actually, the argument as to the nature of trip is core to this discussion.
One side argues that being tripped and falling prone are two separate occurrences and thus are two separate opportunities for the purposes of Combat Reflexes.
The other side argues that being tripped and falling prone are the same occurrence and thus only one opportunity.
So if an archer attacks a Come and Get Me Barbarian, that's two opportunities?
So if an archer attacks a Come and Get Me Barbarian, that's two opportunities?
Yes it is.
Forget two opportunities, that's child's play - I built a character that creates 6-7 opportunities per round.
@MacGurcules
My Brothers Cut do not trip prone opponents. Their opponent does not go prone until the last trip, because the tripper has two different ways to use the trip maneuver to apply conditions other than prone to the target.
They do an average of 179 damage per round excluding the rogue's turn and the opponent's turn (standing up), at 7th level.
The Brothers Cut cut sharp as a knife, it's a natural fact.
I see that some of us are confused as to how Attacks of Opportunity even work.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Feats, abilities, class features, etc. don't provoke attacks of opportunity. Only two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity.
Performing the distracting action is what provokes an attack of opportunity and allows and attack of opportunity to be taken. Regardless how many sources might allow a character to consider a particular action "distracting," the distracting actions themselves are, individually, single opportunities.
Edit: This is also why you can only provoke once for movement no matter how many threatened squares you move through. Movement is a single opportunity.
It's the way the majority of other people on this thread judge what is a successful trip. I'm just embracing the splat.
Ahh, so you wouldn't mind the Brothers Cut playing at your table? Good to know, we'll be by for next session.
|
|
Absurd. Funny, but absurd. The Brothers Cut, like any min-maxed DPR experiment, will certainly not be showing up at a real table. If you and a friend were to bring this to a table, you would still need to level up. Since your builds don't seem to turn on properly until level 7, it's rather unlikely I'll ever see these Brothers at a PFS table.
I like the song though.
Absurd. Funny, but absurd. The Brothers Cut, like any min-maxed DPR experiment, will certainly not be showing up at a real table. If you and a friend were to bring this to a table, you would still need to level up. Since your builds don't seem to turn on properly until level 7, it's rather unlikely I'll ever see these Brothers at a PFS table.
I like the song though.
I simply built the most absurd min-max version of the idea. It would be very simple to give the rogue a much better wis just by lowering his dex by 2 (he starts with 17, which is 13 points, make it 15 and it's only 7 points.) So, he only gets 5 aoo's per round instead of 6, but then he has a wis of 12. Same with the fighter, lower the strength by 2, end up with a 13 con. With those small changes, you then have 2 very viable characters at all levels - when not tripping the rogue is still a pretty effective sneak-attack rogue, the fighter/monk is still a power-attacking, overhand chop, two-handed weapon power-house in mithral full-plate with a two-handed weapon that has d10 damage and x3 critical.
Absurd. Funny, but absurd. The Brothers Cut, like any min-maxed DPR experiment, will certainly not be showing up at a real table. If you and a friend were to bring this to a table, you would still need to level up. Since your builds don't seem to turn on properly until level 7, it's rather unlikely I'll ever see these Brothers at a PFS table.
I like the song though.
Yeah but all it really needs is the following:
1. A PC with greater trip and combat reflexes. The later will show up in almost all of the builds with the former.
2. Other melee PCs with combat reflexes.
Then absurdity follows from this reading of the rules.
Does not need anything convoluted or even a theme song.. it's a simple consequence of reading the rule that way,
James
Oh, but the song and the kissing is what the build is all about. Without those, it just doesn't work, mechanically. ;)
I look at it like this...
Moving out of threatened area (if 10ft+ reach) only provokes one attack of opportunity because its the exact same thing (moving out of threatened area x2).
I see each FEAT granting an attack of opportunity (GIT + VS). As they are not the same condition, 2 AoOs. Being tripped CREATES the prone condition. But things like Grease, Shield Slam, etc can also knock a creature prone next to the Monk (therefor activating VS). But the Monk using GIT makes the enemy provoke from *all threatening targets* after a successful trip attempt.
If the two did not interact, I believe UC would have specifically stated such (as the Trip chain is not a minor thing and I assume Paizo is smarter than to overlook something that 'exploitable').
I look at it like this...
Moving out of threatened area (if 10ft+ reach) only provokes one attack of opportunity because its the exact same thing (moving out of threatened area x2).
I see each FEAT granting an attack of opportunity (GIT + VS). As they are not the same condition, 2 AoOs. Being tripped CREATES the prone condition. But things like Grease, Shield Slam, etc can also knock a creature prone next to the Monk (therefor activating VS). But the Monk using GIT makes the enemy provoke from *all threatening targets* after a successful trip attempt.
If the two did not interact, I believe UC would have specifically stated such (as the Trip chain is not a minor thing and I assume Paizo is smarter than to overlook something that 'exploitable').
In that case, I'm taking it on the road. Watch out Pathfinder Society, here come the Brothers Cut, "we like to get it up."
@truesidekick
Yeah, but your version does not let the rogue do 211 average damage in round one, when it's not even his turn! (yes, I know this is more average damage than I said before, seems I shorted each brother an AoO per round.)
Mabven, your brothers are making a lot of assumptions. 1) They don't get hit by reach on their way in. 2) They don't miss on any attacks. 3) That every trip is successful (most CR7 have a 30+ to trip). and 4) That the rogue can in fact get a position next to/flanking the creature or that there aren't multiple creatures.
|
|
@truesidekick
Yeah, but your version does not let the rogue do 211 average damage in round one, when it's not even his turn! (yes, I know this is more average damage than I said before, seems I shorted each brother an AoO per round.)
If you and a friend bring this to a table at level 7, I would congratulate you. I still don't think it's overpowered for the feat investment; the inability to work the combo on flying, untrippable or many-legged enemies or enemies immune to sneak attack make it situational. The fact that you both need to be at the table qualifies it for doing more damage than a single player.
With this level of optimization I wouldn't bother going to something like PFS, but if your home game GM likes to really churn out the combat, this combo looks pretty good.
Mabven, your brothers are making a lot of assumptions. 1) They don't get hit by reach on their way in. 2) They don't miss on any attacks. 3) That every trip is successful (most CR7 have a 30+ to trip). and 4) That the rogue can in fact get a position next to/flanking the creature or that there aren't multiple creatures.
1) It's fine if they get hit by reach on the way in, as long as it is not a one-shot kill, because Tourne doesn't need to use his Redirection ability to start the sequence, he can simply trip with his standard action.
2 & 3) In most situations, since Tranche is using a double move to get into flank, and not attacking on his turn, he will be able to position for a flank, and Tourne can then charge in, giving him a +24 on his trip attempt. Additionally, with tandem trip teamwork feat, even if he does roll a 5 or lower, he gets to re-roll. Once the first trip is successful, the opponent is flat-footed, so unless he has no dex or dodge bonus, that will increase the likelihood that subsequent trips succeed. He also gets to re-roll on all the subsequent trip attempts if they fail.
3b) They do not require a flank, since the first trip will make the opponent flat-footed, so even if he is standing in a doorway, as long as there are two open squares next to him, they can pull this off.
3c) This actually works very well with 2 or even 3 adjacent enemies. Tourne can start the sequence by provoking and taking the immediate action Redirection trip attempt against the first. Traunche will most likely drop one before the sequence is over (did I mention 211 average damage?), then Tourne can use his standard action to attack the second adjacent foe and continue the sequence with him.
4) They are not required to do this on the first round of combat, or any specific round, so if positioning is not ideal, they can maneuver and avoid enemies, especially since they are both very stealthy and very acrobatic.
@truesidekick
Yeah, but your version does not let the rogue do 211 average damage in round one, when it's not even his turn! (yes, I know this is more average damage than I said before, seems I shorted each brother an AoO per round.)If you and a friend bring this to a table at level 7, I would congratulate you. I still don't think it's overpowered for the feat investment; the inability to work the combo on flying, untrippable or many-legged enemies or enemies immune to sneak attack make it situational. The fact that you both need to be at the table qualifies it for doing more damage than a single player.
With this level of optimization I wouldn't bother going to something like PFS, but if your home game GM likes to really churn out the combat, this combo looks pretty good.
I can slightly shuffle ability points - Tourne removes 2 from str, and can even afford to remove 2 from dex, add them to con, Traunche removes 2 from dex, adds it to wis for better will save. Since this is point buy, removing 2 from their main stats yeilds 7 points to spend. This way, they are no longer one-trick ponies, and they don't really have any more serious vulnerabilities than any other rogue and fighter of their level.
Since you don't think this is overpowered, the Brothers Cut love you -
"So love all your brothers
And love all your sisters
Love all the misses
And love all the misters
Don't be shy when you're sharin' your kisses
The brothers Cut kiss
And we ain't sissies"
1) It's fine if they get hit by reach on the way in, as long as it is not a one-shot kill, because Tourne doesn't need to use his Redirection ability to start the sequence, he can simply trip with his standard action.
Tourne has an 8 CON. Very low HP, even for a fighter. It is quite possible he will get oneshot.
2 & 3) In most situations, since Tranche is using a double move to get into flank, and not attacking on his turn, he will be able to position for a flank, and Tourne can then charge in, giving him a +24 on his trip attempt. Additionally, with tandem trip teamwork feat, even if he does roll a 5 or lower, he gets to re-roll. Once the first trip is successful, the opponent is flat-footed, so unless he has no dex or dodge bonus, that will increase the likelihood that subsequent trips succeed. He also gets to re-roll on all the subsequent trip attempts if they fail.
Tranche is actually a decent character. He doesn't rely on Tourne, but just benefits from him. Still might take a shot to the face on the way in, but I think he has more HP than Tourne with almost the same AC.
3b) They do not require a flank, since the first trip will make the opponent flat-footed, so even if he is standing in a doorway, as long as there are two open squares next to him, they can pull this off.
No, but the flank adds another 2 to the trip maneuver. Almost, most monsters CR7 only have 1 or 2 AC from dex anyway. Interesting note... being flat-footed does not make you lose your dex bonus to CMD.
3c) This actually works very well with 2 or even 3 adjacent enemies. Tourne can start the sequence by provoking and taking the immediate action Redirection trip attempt against the first. Traunche will most likely drop one before the sequence is over (did I mention 211 average damage?), then Tourne can use his standard action to attack the second adjacent foe and continue the sequence with him.
I was more meaning it won't work in say, a small room where Traunche is unable to route around to flank/when enemies are able to setup flanking on Tourne. More due to action economy than anything.
4) They are not required to do this on the first round of combat, or any specific round, so if positioning is not ideal, they can maneuver and avoid enemies, especially since they are both very stealthy and very acrobatic.
The weak point of this build is Torne. He is very weak without Traunche. Meanwhile Traunche is fairly well made and can hold his own.
You need to realize I built this pair for maximum damage with no consideration to anything else. If I bring the average damage down from 211 per round to 175 per round, Tourne can very easily have a 14 con. Other than his con, Torne is actually a very decent character who can attack on his own for 1d10 + 18, and an additional +1d6 if he has a flanker with the precise strike teamwork feat. He has an AC of 26, and can up that pretty cheaply with a +1 buckler, and can fight defensively for another +3 (acrobatics). He has very decent saves because of his monk levels, almost full BAB, an astounding CMD, has monk unarmed strike for when he is disarmed, is as stealthy as a fighter wearing full-plate can be, and can still pull off some amazing battlefield control and do decent damage at the same time even without Traunche. Overall, I think he is actually pretty versatile for a fighter of his level, as long as we don't use the absurdist version of his stats I created for the DPR example.