In any case, this is not a discussion about the implications of the rules Mabven, just what they are. So I wouldn't mind if you took your Brothers Cut back to their own thread and continued talking RAW with us here.
This is RAW. The Brothers Cut are a representation of what you insist is RAW. How can that possibly not be germane to the discussion? The rules don't exist in a vacuum, they exist so we can build characters with them. The Brothers Cut are built from the rules we have been discussing, assuming that tripping works the way you insist it does. Hey, at this point, I hope the devs come in here and tell you that you are absolutely right about tripping, because I definitely want to play Tourne in an upcoming pathfinder society campaign my group is starting. My friend Danny will make an outstanding Trouche!
"The Brothers Cut kiss with a kick-ass clank!"
So if an archer attacks a Come and Get Me Barbarian, that's two opportunities?Yes it is.And a whip wielder attacking him somehow would also be 2 opportunities as you count?
-James
Yes, come and get me has it's own AoO opportunity generation, the whip wielder takes an inherent AoO based on the weapon itself being treated as a ranged weapon.
Are you truly trying to limit a 12th (12th!) level Barbarian's Rage power by saying it doesn't provoke twice in the case of ranged weapons? That's a little limiting James.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
in the end any 2 characters working in unison is very powerful, its called tactics.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Mabven, you must really be up in arms about the teamwork feats.
The brothers cut get defeated by Hold Person or any other variety of Magic, so I'm not seeing how it's over-powered. I guess everything is awesome in a vaccuum.
175 per round for two characters teaming up together on a single enemy* at level 7 isn't overpowered though. So I don't really understand your point.
*By the way, is your average damage assuming all your trips hit? Because if so, that's just laughable.
175 is the average, 90% of which is done by the character whose turn it is not. When it is his turn, he will do another 34 average, and another 34 if the poor victim decides to stand, and once it is Tourne's turn again, because he can full attack, the average for his turn on the second round goes up to 202. Also, if Trauch ditches dodge and takes Bleeding attack, every turn on the opponent's turn he will bleed for 24 damage. So, if you really want to take the average damage for both characters' turns, you really end up with a figure of 292 average between the two of them. That is 146 apiece per round, with near certainty of success on every roll against CR appropriate enemies, and complete denial of any actions to the enemy in the process, at 7th level. What CR appropriate enemy could survive a round of that? What 3 CR appropriate enemies could survive that? When have you ever had a 7th level character of any class that could output close to that much damage?
Also, if Trauch ditches dodge and takes Bleeding attack, every turn on the opponent's turn he will bleed for 24 damage.
*facepalm* please read Bleeding Attack again. Bleed damage doesn't stack (unless it is stated that it does), bleed only triggers once per round on their turn. So the most you'll get out of it is 4 bleed damage per round.
Bleeding Attack* (Ex):
Mavbven, please keep the Brothers Cut calculations out of this - we are discussing Trip in this thread. I have not checked over your other calculations, but the numbers are possibly inflated.
Then stop discussing them. You bring it up, and make false assumptions about them, I will correct you. If you do not discuss it, I have nothing to correct.
@Stynkk: you are right about bleeding attack. Take the average damage per round down to 272, which is 136 per brother, per round.
Attacking with a whip provokes, and attacking a barbarian using Come And Get Me provokes. That's two.
Tourne approves! He thinks maybe he should have chosen the life of a barbarian. Stay tuned for...
AM TOURNE!
|
Attacking with a whip provokes, and attacking a barbarian using Come And Get Me provokes. That's two.No, that's one whip attack mergy. One. It may provoke multiple times over, but its only one opportunity as it's only one thing (one whip attack).
-James
Actually, that was my mistake. I was thinking of the ray of frost into melee thing. You're correct, only one AoO in that case.
Feats, abilities, class features, etc. don't provoke attacks of opportunity. Only two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity.Specific overrides general.
You quoted the general rule.
Any class features or feats that define new ways to gain an opportunity work as intended.
Come and Get me doesn't provoke an AoO, attacking the Barbarian provokes the AoO. Performing the "distracting act" provokes the AoO.
The opportunity comes from the attack. No matter how many ways you have that would make an attack provoke, it's still a single opportunity, (since the action provides the opportunity, not the feat.)
There may be some feat that allows AoOs to be taken with no action on attack receiver's part, that may change things in that specific case, but Come and Get Me isn't such an ability, neither is Vicious Stomp.
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion on what represents an opportunity. The section on multiple attacks of opportunity (the section most relevant to this discussion, I feel) is specific on the matter. An opportunity is created when a character provokes. And it's specific that a character that provokes multiple times creates multiple opportunities.
Movement doesn't count as multiple opportunities because it's specifically called out as a single opportunity.
Well, I read the whole entry on Attacks of Opportunity, not just the section on multiple AoOs. The content of a rule is what gives it relevancy, not where it is located.
Feats, abilities, class features, etc. don't provoke attacks of opportunity. Only two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity.Specific overrides general.
You quoted the general rule.
Any class features or feats that define new ways to gain an opportunity work as intended.Come and Get me doesn't provoke an AoO, attacking the Barbarian provokes the AoO. Performing the "distracting act" provokes the AoO.
The opportunity comes from the attack. No matter how many ways you have that would make an attack provoke, it's still a single opportunity, (since the action provides the opportunity, not the feat.)
There may be some feat that allows AoOs to be taken with no action on attack receiver's part, that may change things in that specific case, but Come and Get Me isn't such an ability, neither is Vicious Stomp.
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion on what represents an opportunity. The section on multiple attacks of opportunity (the section most relevant to this discussion, I feel) is specific on the matter. An opportunity is created when a character provokes. And it's specific that a character that provokes multiple times creates multiple opportunities.
Movement doesn't count as multiple opportunities because it's specifically called out as a single opportunity.
Well, I read the whole entry on Attacks of Opportunity, not just the section on multiple AoOs. The content of a rule is what gives it relevancy, not where it is located.
You make the Brothers Cut sad. No kisses for you :'(
I'm surprised no one has brought up greater overrun yet.
Greater Overrun:
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to overrun a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Overrun. Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone by your overrun.
Greater Trip:
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Overrun makes it clear that is the act of being knocked prone that provokes, not a successful overrun attempt.
Trip does not make this distinction. If falling prone is the provoking action (and not the trip being successful) then the greater trip benefit should follow the wording of the greater overrun.
Until more recent books, there was no other possible result of a successful trip other than the opponent ending prone. Not so with overrun. Once more, you infer what is not implied, you are working backward from new mechanics, and inferring that because those new mechanics require more explicit descriptions of their results, because they vary from the core rules, that the original mechanics should have that level of explicitness also. But that is false, because when GT was written, there was no other possible result of a successful trip, thus no need for extra verbiage.
How about this: what if there were a feat which said that if someone attempts to trip you, and they exceed your CMD, you may take an immediate action to teleport 30 feet away. Would that mean the trip attempt was a success?
Ok. I went too complex with my Brothers Cut thread, and it muddied the issue. It was fun tho. Here is the simple version - Same characters - Tourne trips the enemy. The his roll exceeds the enemy's CMD, provoking AoO's from both himself and from Trauche. Trauche uses his AoO to sneak-attack the enemy. The enemy is not yet prone, and Tourne gets to take his AoO. He elects to use his AoO to do another Trip. He can do this, because the enemy is not yet prone, because I have been told that succeeding on the check, and the enemy falling prone are divided into two different opportunities. He exceeds the enemy's CMD again, another success, Trauche makes another sneak attack. The enemy is still not prone, so Tourne uses his AoO to make another trip, and succeeds. This contiues until Tourne runs out of AoO's, at which point the enemy falls prone.
Doesn't this sound like an abuse of the rules?
But yes it does, it is the same issue. You are saying that the successful roll is what provides the opportunity, and not the opponent dropping prone. That leads directly to spending all your aoo's on trip attempts on the continuously not-yet-prone enemy, while the rogue party member uses all his aoo's for sneak attacks. It is not a difficult concept. Either the opportunity is created before the enemy is prone, in which case that works, or it is created when the enemy becomes prone, which means only one use of GT, and no use of VS, because it is the exact same opportunity.
No, if GT only gives you an aoo when the opponent goes prone, then there is only one opportunity - the opponent going prone. You can not get two aoo's from the same opportunity. The rules state this very explicitly. So, either you dispute that the aoo for GT is triggered when the opponent goes prone, or you must accept the fact that when the opponent is tripped, you may only get one aoo, choose either GT or VS, not both. The rules are very clear on the concept of one aoo per opportunity.
And what are these two opportunities? I count one: opponent goes prone on the ground.
Yes, but you are ignoring the first 5 words of what you bolded. It is the opponent who must provoke, you do not provoke with your feat. Your feat just allows you to take advantage of an opportunity that would not be an opportunity at all without the feat. Unfortunately for this combination, the thing that the opponent does to provoke, falling prone, is the triggering opportunity for both feats. It's really as simple as that.
No, that's not true. The event is the opportunity. The feat is not the opportunity. You quoted the section of the rules yourself that says so.
I know that you want the two feats to stack, but they do not. It is clear, but I understand that it does not seem clear to you, because you want the feats to work together, and thus you find ambiguity and inconsistency where it does not exist. An opponent must do something to provoke the attack. This is what you are calling an "event." This is what the rules are referring to as an "opportunity." You are trying to find a distinction that does not exist.
Because it does not tolerate being broken down further. I am not trying to break anything down, but stick to what is only written in the rules. In the rules, it says that something the opponent does provokes the attack. This is known as the opportunity. There is nothing you can do to provoke the attack. You can do something that forces the opponent to do something which provokes, but that is entirely different. In this case, what you do is you trip the opponent. This puts his body outside of his own control, and gravity does the work, thus his body does something which provokes the attack outside of his control. There is only one thing he is doing which could provoke, and that is to fall. He is not falling twice, he is not doing something in addition to falling. He is only falling under the force of gravity. One action, one provocation, one opportunity.
Sorry, I forgot my rules bat. Oh, there it is... MacGurcules has it correct.
In the case of a whip wielding fighter attacking a barbarian (from a threatened range)
Come and Get Me (Ex): While raging, as a free action the barbarian may leave herself open to attack while preparing devastating counterattacks. Enemies gain a +4 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the barbarian until the beginning of her next turn, but every attack against the barbarian provokes an attack of opportunity from her, which is resolved prior to resolving each enemy attack. A barbarian must be at least 12th level to select this rage power.
A normal attack provokes, that much is clear. However, the whip is a special case.
Using a whip provokes an attack of opportunity, just as if you had used a ranged weapon.
So using a whip to make an attack while threatened also draws an attack of opportunity.
So there you go, cut and dry, easy peasy. The whip inherently provokes an attack (that's one opportunity), and because the Barbarian has Come & Get Me up a second AoO is granted by the very nature of the Rage Power (a second opportunity based on the circumstances).
EDIT: But, this has NOTHING to do with Mergy's original question.
Stynkk, this is just as wrong as GT + VS. One action - an attack. It does not matter that he has multiple abilities that allow that attack to be considered an opportunity. It is still one opportunity. If she is attacked twice with the whip, that is two opportunities, but one attack is one provocation, one action, one opportunity. It is cut-and-dry in the rules, and tolerates no separation, addition, expansion of a single action. One action, one provocation, one opportunity. You, as the person who gets the aoo, can not create the opportunity. Only the target of the aoo can create the opportunity. You can have multiple feats that make something which is not normally an opportunity into one, but that does not change the fact that the opponent has done only one thing. Since he must be the one to create the opportunity, he must do multiple different things in order to create multiple different opportunities. Quote 30 different feats/abilities which allow actions which are not normally opportunities to become opportunities, it does not change the fact that it is your opponent who creates the opportunity, not you, not your feats, and not your extraordinary abilities.
I know that it's the target that provokes. I'm not saying otherwise. Where does it say anywhere that an event can only provoke once? Nowhere that I've seen. Yes, you can only attack once per opportunity, but each time a person provokes, it generates a new opportunity. The opportunity comes from the provocation not from the action.
The only thing I've seen like that is the specificity of movement related AoOs. That's it. I don't know what more you have to explain to the other side, MacGurcules.
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.
If I were to belive Mabven or James then why would the rules state this? Wouldn't movement only be one opportunity per the rules? Wouldn't that support your reading? Well, it's obviously not the case because each time you're exiting a threatened square you're provoking a new AoO per the rules - that would qualify as a new opportunity, even during the same "move action". Thats why they had to write this specific exception regarding movement in the rules or it wouldn't function that way.
I know that people don't like when I quote the dictionary, but when a term is not specifically defined in the rule books, you have no choice but to fall back on the term's common meaning. Here is the definition of opportunity:
1. a favourable, appropriate, or advantageous combination of circumstances
So, you trip your opponent - this is your action, it is not a circumstance nor a combination of circumstances, and even if it were, the rules state that the opponent creates the opportunity, not you. Your opponent falls - this is a circumstance. Your opponent is next to you, another circumstance. You are wielding a weapon which is capable of threatening the square he is in as he falls. This is a circumstance. You have GT and VS - this is a circumstance. He falls, you are next to him, you have a deadly weapon in your hand. You have one or more feats which allow you to take aoo's when someone falls prone next to you.This is the favorable, appropriate, or advantageous combination of circumstances.
This combination of circumstances is your opportunity. Just because you have duplicates of one of the circumstances does not make it more than one opportunity. Those duplicate circumstances would need to be combined with duplicates of the other circumstances, most importantly, the opponent falling. If the opponent falls twice, and you have two feats, then absolutely, you get two opportunities. But as it stands, you have only one combination of circumstances, although you have a redundancy in one. You must choose among the redundant circumstances, unless you have a duplicate of another, thus allowing you to have two combinations of circumstances.
Yes, when the opponent provokes. That is the opportunity. How is the opponent doing more than one thing when he falls? He is not even in control of that part. So, name two things he is doing, because the rules say HE must provoke. What are the two things he is doing which separately provoke aoo's?
No, you said yourself, he the opponent must provoke- this is the opportunity. It also says you may not take more than one aoo per opportunity. So, he provokes, this is the opportunity. What is the second thing he does to provoke, to make it an additional, separate opportunity?
A condition is not an opportunity. You said yourself, the rules say the opportunity is when he provokes. So he must provoke twice. What I have been saying is consistent, what you are saying has changed to its opposite from two posts ago. Two posts ago you said this exactly: "You needn't refer to a dictionary. It says right there in the rules what an opportunity is. It's whenever an opponent provokes." So, the rules say, one provocation, one opportunity. Now you say saying one thing provokes from two different conditions. You then say each time he provokes is a separate opportunity. To provoke is an active verb. A provocation is an action of its own, not a part of an action. You said yourself that this is what the rules say.
Ok, here is a condition - I have combat reflexes. This allows me to take more than one aoo per round. here is another condition, I have GT. Here is a third condition, I use an aoo. Since I used an aoo, and created a new condition, I can take another. I can empty myself of aoo's on one action from my opponent, because each time I take an aoo, I create a new condition.
This is not what the rules say. The rules say that the opponent must provoke. To provoke he must make an action which is listed as one of the actions which provoke. There is no circumstance outlined in the rules where a provocation is part of an action. A provocation is a discrete action of its own. You having 2 "conditions" or feats, has nothing to do with it. Those conditions are not anything the opponent is doing, and they are not actions performed by your opponent, nor even by you.
Event 1: Successful trip maneuver attempt [attacker's attack roll beats defender's CMD] via Greater Trip
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
Event 2: Defender falls prone [upon successful completion of the above attack roll] via Vicious Stomp
Really. It's not that hard. There are 2 different provoking events here even if they are a result of 1 action by the attacker.
That doesn't mean that I think "Trip: the Inception" is going to stay once the devs get a real chance to look at it. they probably need to plug the tripping the tripped guy maneuver.
Jarl, the opponent must be the one provoking. The successful trip maneuver is something you are doing, not your opponent. The rules are clear that your opponent must provoke, not you. You have 2 events, but only one of them is what your opponent is doing - falling prone in the square next to you.