Mabven, Greater Trip reads as:
Greater Trip (Combat)
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
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.
Specific written rules trump general rules.
It does. You said it yourself. An opportunity is when your opponent provokes. It does not say that multiple opportunities are when your opponent provokes.
It does. You said it yourself. An opportunity is when your opponent provokes. It does not say that multiple opportunities are when your opponent provokes.
Mabven, Greater Trip reads as:
Specific written rules trump general rules. This is an exception to the general rule.Greater Trip (Combat)
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
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.
Yes, he provokes, you do not provoke. To provoke, he must be doing something. He is doing only one thing, he is falling on the ground.
Yes, he provokes, you do not provoke. To provoke, he must be doing something. He is doing only one thing, he is falling on the ground.Mabven, Greater Trip reads as:
Specific written rules trump general rules. This is an exception to the general rule.Greater Trip (Combat)
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
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.
This is an exception to the general rule. We know this because of the next line:
Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.
So it is specifically written to trump the normal provocation requirements.
This is an exception to the general rule. We know this because of the next line:
Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.So it is specifically written to trump the normal provocation requirements.
He doesn't believe in your (or my) exceptions.
Normally, creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped. Being tripped is something he is doing. Being tripped means he is falling on the ground, because someone has intentionally taken his legs out from under him. He is being tripped, ie. falling on the ground. The exception is that under normal circumstances, falling on the ground does not provoke. The exception is that with this feat, falling on the ground, because his legs have been taken out from under him, provokes. This is not an exception to the rule that he must be the one provoking.
The provocation is "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent" per the written description of the Greater Trip feat.
Success is defined in the RAW, not as falling prone, but as "your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target".
The rules... <shrug>
I am not being evasive. There is nothing in the rules which says anything can provoke multiple times. It does specifically say that any one action can only provoke once. Everyone persists in ignoring this integral part of the rules.
To provoke is an action. It is an active verb. By definition, and action unto itself.
If the rules said "the creature must BE provacative", that would be a passive verb, thus not an action, but a state of being. I would agree with you then. But when they use an active verb, that indicates a discrete action.
Action 1: You trip an opponent. It's written right there in the Greater Trip feat.
Action 2: Target falls prone. That's written in the Vicious Stomp feat.
You trip. This does not provoke. He is tripped, which results in him falling. This does provoke.
You trip. This does not provoke. He is tripped, which results in him falling. This does provoke.
I will repeat for you.
The provocation is "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent" per the written description of the Greater Trip feat which overides the normal condition where "Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped."
And successfully tripping an opponent is indicated by the result of the success. Falling.
And successfully tripping an opponent is indicated by the result of the success. Falling.
Err.. except in many situations that we have already addressed in this thread.
And successfully tripping an opponent is indicated by the result of the success. Falling.
No.
Again, I will repeat for you.
Success is defined in the RAW, not as falling prone, but as "your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target".
And round and round she goes.
It's like a Derpy-Go-Round
Go ahead and go with whatever you want. But what you are saying it specifically says, is not what it says. I have show this to be true. I have demonstrated the dire results of jarl's misunderstanding of the sequence of actions. I have been entirely consistent in my argument, yet your argument continually changes. I am quite positive of what the rules say. You think I'm wrong, yet I have not heard any consistent use of the rules, nor of the english language to support your position. You can continue arguing with me, or you can go and play the game however you want, knowing that this crazy guy on the messageboards is never going to agree with what seems to be obvious about the rules to you.
And round and round she goes.It's like a Derpy-Go-Round
I don't speak Derp. Only English.
Trip
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.
It says, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.", not " If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, you succeed, then the target is knocked prone." Being knocked prone is the only indication that you have succeeded.
It says, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."
As I said many, many posts ago.. success is not defined in Trip. The word *success* is not in your quoted text so I fail to see how it supports you.
I can, however, point to a section of the combat maneuver rules that do define success - in explicit terms. But, you can continue to ignore that information if you wish.
@TOZ
You could just check the FAQs periodically.
Your character has the feats, not you. Your character knows nothing of dice. Your character has no ability to understand the success until the result of the success happens. Anything further is meta, you character knows nothing of meta.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you still riding?And round and round she goes.It's like a Derpy-Go-Round
I once watched a car attempt to cross a set of train tacks in the face of a oncoming train. You know how it is, I could not look away. This has been kinda like that.
Yes, the car got hit.
It says, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."As I said many, many posts ago.. success is not defined in Trip. The word *success* is not in your quoted text so I fail to see how it supports you.
I can, however, point to a section of the combat maneuver rules that do define success - in explicit terms.
@TOZ
You could just check the FAQs periodically.
And we are not talking about combat maneuvers in abstract. We are talking about trip. trip specifically says, you exceed their cmd, the target is knocked prone. There is nothing in between.
|
And we are not talking about combat maneuvers in abstract. We are talking about trip. trip specifically says, you exceed their cmd, the target is knocked prone. There is nothing in between.It says, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."As I said many, many posts ago.. success is not defined in Trip. The word *success* is not in your quoted text so I fail to see how it supports you.
I can, however, point to a section of the combat maneuver rules that do define success - in explicit terms.
@TOZ
You could just check the FAQs periodically.
Except for the numerous exceptions which show that there's a lot of leeway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and for trip, success is your opponent is knocked prone. It is explicit. I don't understand where the confusion is. If you want to look all over for exceptions, you will imagine all sorts of things.
@mabven
please attach rules citations for your statements or there is no point in responding. I grow tired of myself (and others) taking the time to point to the rules while you point at everything else.
I have cited the rules over and over. I have even shown you how your own citations mean the exact opposite of what you say it does. If you grow tired, stop posting.
Yes, it is crystal clear. There is no difference between success and knocking your opponent prone. Clear as day.
There is no exception. The feat says if your trip is a success. Trip says success is your opponent is knocked prone. Simple.
Actually the prone condition is a consequence of a successful trip attempt. Successfully tripping someone doesn't always result in the prone condition, as has been pointed out a few times already.
And it is really incorrect to characterize me as not citing rules, ignoring others citations, or being unwilling to examine the rules closely. I have cited every relevant rule to the argument, and even broken them down to their individual parts of speech. When there has been dispute about the meaning of a word, I have taken the dictionary definition of the word when it is not defined separately in the rules, and broken the dictionary definition down. I have even gone to the trouble of creating a pair of characters which graphically demonstrate how your reading of the rules is wrong. I'm not sure what additional effort you require of me.
My argument remains the same throughout the thread, justified over and over with close examination of the rules. I understand that you want this to work, but I have yet to see any supporting evidence. I have quite clearly lined out what would be convincing to me, and seen no effort to convince me beyond shifting arguments that seem to me to be self-contradictory. I have sat through indecipherable attempts to differentiate between "action" "provocation" and "opportunity", when it seems quite clear to me that a provocation is a type of action, and an opportunity has a one-to-one relationship with a provocation. I have listened to attempts to justify what seems to me to be an imaginary separation of a successful roll and the indication of that success.
I'm just not seeing anything that makes very much sense to me at all.
|
|
How about an argument that hasn't been stated?
Scenario 1a: Character A has neither Greater Trip nor Vicious Stomp.
Character A attempts to trip Target.
Character A makes a successful CMB check versus the target's CMD.
Result: Target falls prone.
Scenario 1b: Character B has Greater Trip, Character A does not have Vicious Stomp and is adjacent to target.
Character B attempts to trip Target.
Character B makes a successful CMB check versus the target's CMD.
Result: Target provokes attacks of opportunity from all adjacent characters due to Greater Trip and falls prone.
Scenario 1c: Character A still does not have Greater trip. Character C has Vicious Stomp and is adjacent to target.
Character A attempts to trip target.
Character A makes a successful CMB check versus the target's CMD.
Result: Target falls prone and provokes an attack of opportunity from Character C due to Vicious Stomp, which must be taken with an unarmed strike or natural attack.
Scenario 2: Character B has Greater Trip. Character C has Vicious Stomp and is adjacent to target.
Character B attempts to trip Target.
Character B makes a successful CMB check versus the target's CMD.
Result: Target provokes attacks of opportunity from all adjacent characters due to Greater Trip and falls prone, provoking an attack of opportunity from character C due to Vicious Stomp, which must be taken with an unarmed strike or natural attack.
Most GMs will shorthand scenario 1b and 1c to use the same timing (i.e. the attack of opportunity will be made with a +4 bonus from the target being prone) however I could see a justification for them being sequential (reference attacks of opportunity happening before the provoking "trigger").
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
Bolding is mine. Link is to d20pfsrd. This illustrates that determining success and applying effects happen sequentially, and therefore must be separate events. If you want to split all of the hairs, then the Greater Trip attack of opportunity would be made without the +4 bonus to hit from being prone, but the Vicious Stomp (which happens specifically AFTER the target falls prone). This can be chalked up to Greater Trip not calling out it's interaction as being different from normal attacks of opportunity (and therefore happening before the trigger).
Don't think of it as "successfully tripping = falling prone = happens at the same time." Think of it as "Succeed on a Combat Maneuver, check effects based on combat maneuver used, apply effects based on combat maneuver used."
This isn't even getting in to the "Square-Rectangle" argument that not every time someone falls prone they are necessarily being tripped, ergo the triggers are separate, and the statement above that there are effects that prevent you from going prone when successfully tripped that don't make you immune to trip in the first place. I think that the above stands on its own, however, I will kick this to my region's VC to have him look at it, as this interaction is available in PFS ergo it should be addressed.
And where is there any indication that there is a functional, mechanical separation between a successful roll and its listed effect? The word then does not indicate that there is some pause, simply that success is immediately followed by its listed effect. THEN can mean immediately or it can mean a year from now. It has no mechanical meaning in the rules indicating a separate opportunity is presented.
AND does not indicate a sequential series of events. It actually more often indicates simultaneity.