[W]hat an opportunity is ... is whenever an opponent provokes.
You just defined an opportunity. I accept.
One thing can provoke twice.
But, by your definition, the thing that provokes, is the opportunity. How can one thing (opportunity) provoke twice? It can't
[W]hat an opportunity is ... is whenever an opponent provokes.You just defined an opportunity. I accept.
One thing can provoke twice.But, by your definition, the thing that provokes, is the opportunity. How can one thing (opportunity) provoke twice? It can't
Oh, man, I can't count the amount of times I have said exactly this. Yet somehow people infer that there is some separation between the provocation and opportunity, or that by definition, the provocation must be able to contain multiple opportunities.
By definition, if you do not trip the person, the trip is not a success, no matter what you roll. GT says "if your trip is a success", not "if you succeed at your CMB against your opponent's CMD, no matter what the result"
You are once again inferring something jason never said. He did not say "you can succeed at a trip against a prone person." He simply stated that you can not make the opponent prone, because he is already prone when you make the trip. There is nothing in there saying that you have succeeded. I'm really not seeing how "No." has anything to do with "Yes."
|
I'm sorry, but you're making a fundamental assumption that the rest of us are not making, and have yet to adequately prove it.
The assertion you are making is that successfully resolving a combat maneuver, and the game mechanic results of that combat maneuver happen simultaneously and as a single effect, if that combat maneuver is a trip and a trip alone. If this is true, then this simultaneity (if not the nature of the two being identical as you claim) represents interchangeability. Therefore, rather than having to check for success, we simply knock the target prone. Is this correct? Obviously not. Therefore, they must logically be sequential.
Given that my side, the side that is not making the assertion that "succeeding a trip" and "falling prone" are the same event or opportunity is not logically bound to disprove you based on classical logical debate (specifically the point where whomever is attempting to assert a point in an argument must logically prove and defend that point to have their assertion hold), and yet we have specifically proven our existing assertion ("succeeding a trip" causes the trip-ee to provoke an attack of opportunity, and falling prone causes the trip-ee to provoke an attack of opportunity) in spades, as well as showing clear (if not explicit) evidence as to why your assertion does not hold logical value, I submit that you have degraded your argument to angrily picking apart the grammar of the other side because you simply don't want it to be accurate.
There is a big difference between what is simultaneous IN THE GAME WORLD, and what is simultaneous at the table. Of course you have to roll the dice, THEN look at its result in order to determine success AT THE GAME TABLE, but IN THE GAME WORLD, there is no separation between the successful roll, and the result of that roll, thus the use of the conjunction AND instead of THEN.
You are bound to disprove my definition of the word AND, because you are using it improperly. It does not indicate sequential items or separated items, but joined and simultaneous items.
|
|
There is a big difference between what is simultaneous IN THE GAME WORLD, and what is simultaneous at the table. Of course you have to roll the dice, THEN look at its result in order to determine success AT THE GAME TABLE, but IN THE GAME WORLD, there is no separation between the successful roll, and the result of that roll, thus the use of the conjunction AND instead of THEN.
You are bound to disprove my definition of the word AND, because you are using it improperly. It does not indicate sequential items or separated items, but joined and simultaneous items.
I think you may have misunderstood what I said. You're asserting that they're simultaneous. You have not proven their simultaneity outside of anecdote. I have disproven them with game text. It's your move, not mine.
And just for reference, my interpretation has been approved by our VC for PFS usage - just got the message back. I'll see what I can do for official movement on this, but given the debacle that is FoB right now I'm not sure I really want it ;)
I'll state it again, AND is a conjunction indicating simultaneity and joining, not a sequential set of events or separation. Falling prone is the defined result of trip. There are feats and abilities and weapons that change the result, but it does not change the definition of success in all combat maneuvers, which says success is determined AND it has its listed result.
And is simultaneous. Then is sequential. Or is exclusionary. These are basic parts of speech, and if you are looking for a definition of them outside of the dictionary, or a specific definition of AND in the rules which supports your position, you are not going to find it.
There is a big difference between what is simultaneous IN THE GAME WORLD, and what is simultaneous at the table. Of course you have to roll the dice, THEN look at its result in order to determine success AT THE GAME TABLE, but IN THE GAME WORLD, there is no separation between the successful roll, and the result of that roll, thus the use of the conjunction AND instead of THEN.
You are bound to disprove my definition of the word AND, because you are using it improperly. It does not indicate sequential items or separated items, but joined and simultaneous items.
I think you may have misunderstood what I said. You're asserting that they're simultaneous. You have not proven their simultaneity outside of anecdote. I have disproven them with game text. It's your move, not mine.
And just for reference, my interpretation has been approved by our VC for PFS usage - just got the message back. I'll see what I can do for official movement on this, but given the debacle that is FoB right now I'm not sure I really want it ;)
I have proven their simultaneity, using the most basic parts of the English language. Good for you that your VC misunderstands the rules in the same way you do, it does not change the nature of the English language. If you are going to insist on an alternate definition for such a basic part of speech as a conjunction, I don't know that there is anything I can convince you of that you are not already convinced of.
I can't believe that I have to do this, but here follows the definition of the English word "and" :
and
[and; unstressed uhnd, uhn, or, especially after a homorganic consonant, n] Show IPA
conjunction
1.
(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover: pens and pencils.
2.
added to; plus: 2 and 2 are 4.
3.
then: He read for an hour and went to bed.
4.
also, at the same time: to sleep and dream.
5.
then again; repeatedly: He coughed and coughed.
6.
(used to imply different qualities in things having the same name): There are bargains and bargains, so watch out.
7.
(used to introduce a sentence, implying continuation) also; then: And then it happened.
8.
Informal . to (used between two finite verbs): Try and do it. Call and see if she's home yet.
9.
(used to introduce a consequence or conditional result): He felt sick and decided to lie down for a while. Say one more word about it and I'll scream.
10.
but; on the contrary: He tried to run five miles and couldn't. They said they were about to leave and then stayed for two more hours.
11.
(used to connect alternatives): He felt that he was being forced to choose between his career and his family.
12.
(used to introduce a comment on the preceding clause): They don't like each other—and with good reason.
13.
Archaic . if: and you please. Compare an2 .
None of those definitions indicate separation or sequence, yet look at #4: also, at the same time: to sleep and dream.
The only one which comes close to meaning sequential is #5: then again; repeatedly: He coughed and coughed.
However, this is not really sequential, but repeatedly. So, do you contend that the rule is that you roll, determine the success of the roll, then the opponent is tripped over and over again?
I'm sorry, but you're making a fundamental assumption that the rest of us are not making, and have yet to adequately prove it.
The assertion you are making is that successfully resolving a combat maneuver, and the game mechanic results of that combat maneuver happen simultaneously and as a single effect, if that combat maneuver is a trip and a trip alone. If this is true, then this simultaneity (if not the nature of the two being identical as you claim) represents interchangeability. Therefore, rather than having to check for success, we simply knock the target prone. Is this correct? Obviously not. Therefore, they must logically be sequential.
Given that my side, the side that is not making the assertion that "succeeding a trip" and "falling prone" are the same event or opportunity is not logically bound to disprove you based on classical logical debate (specifically the point where whomever is attempting to assert a point in an argument must logically prove and defend that point to have their assertion hold), and yet we have specifically proven our existing assertion ("succeeding a trip" causes the trip-ee to provoke an attack of opportunity, and falling prone causes the trip-ee to provoke an attack of opportunity) in spades, as well as showing clear (if not explicit) evidence as to why your assertion does not hold logical value, I submit that you have degraded your argument to angrily picking apart the grammar of the other side because you simply don't want it to be accurate.
So, if tripping an opponent is not knocking them prone, what is it?
I could ask the same question of any other combat maneuver:
If bull rushing an opponent isn't pushing them back, then what is it?
If overrunning an opponent isn't moving through their square, then what is it?
Or is Trip singular in this respect?
Ah, using English, that grammatically perfect and completely exception-free language, to prove your point.
Am I supposed to use French or Chinese to discuss the meaning of literature written in English? Am I supposed to accept others' assertion that and means then, when it most clearly does not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe that I have to do this, but here follows the definition of the English word "and" :
and
[and; unstressed uhnd, uhn, or, especially after a homorganic consonant, n] Show IPA
conjunction
1.
(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover: pens and pencils.
2.
added to; plus: 2 and 2 are 4.
3.
then: He read for an hour and went to bed.
4.
also, at the same time: to sleep and dream.
5.
then again; repeatedly: He coughed and coughed. ...
Actually Mabven, you just weakened your argument because of number 3:
3.
then: He read for an hour and went to bed.
That is a sequential series of events. He read for an hour, then went to bed. When you apply 'and' to trip, it more than likely means 'if your attack succeeds, then the opponent is knocked prone' which would be sequential. It also falls into line with Determining Success which lists the effect coming after the successful CMB roll. Falling Prone is the normal listed effect for trip, but there are other listed effectsm such as being flat-footed or sickened, as a result of a successful CMB vs CMD.
That is the point everyone has been arguing against you. Because Trip has more than one listed effect, falling prone cannot be a simultaneous effect as a result of being tripped. It is merely the normal listed effect. Since it is only the normal listed effect, it can be interrupted by the Attack of Opportunity granted by Greater Trip, at which point, once the attack(s) are resolved, the opponent is prone at which point Vicious Stomp would come into play.
|
|
Ah, using English, that grammatically perfect and completely exception-free language, to prove your point.Am I supposed to use French or Chinese to discuss the meaning of literature written in English? Am I supposed to accept others' assertion that and means then, when it most clearly does not?
That wasn't actually a shot at you. It was a comment on how difficult a time everyone is having understanding everyone else.
ok, I missed 3. This is an example of English failing me. This does not change the fact that trip is simultaneous, and not sequential. It is quite clearly defined to be so. It also does not change the fact that multiple definitions of and indicate simultaneity, while only one indicates sequential order.
It also does not change the fact that trip itself indicates that success and falling prone are one and the same.
I got into the business of parsing the word and, because others were throwing it in my face. That one definition among 9 does not change all the overwhelming evidence that success and its result are the same.
I think I've said this before somewhere, but it is very clearly not obvious if so many intelligent people are in disagreement about it.
Who said I was intelligent? I find offense in that statement good sir.
Intelligent people can have a stake in a debate, and argue non-factual statements to try and get what they want. You want to be able to make 2 attacks of opportunity for one provoking action. You will argue any argument which will allow you to do this. This does not make you unintelligent, just emotionally invested, and it also does not make it any less obvious to someone who does not have a stake in it.
|
|
ok, I missed 3. This is an example of English failing me. This does not change the fact that trip is simultaneous, and not sequential. It is quite clearly defined to be so. It also does not change the fact that multiple definitions of and indicate simultaneity, while only one indicates sequential order.
And here is where your credibility for your argument disappears.
Please refer to this for rules on civilized discourse, and why you have disproven your own argument, as the core tenet you have been hiding behind, the "english language" defense just fell apart. Please support the truth of your assertion with new evidence, which should not be difficult if it is so "overwhelming."
No, the core of my argument is that the rules state that you can only take one AOO per provoking action. I only got into the english argument because I was dragged into it. The core of my argument is also that anything which contradicts the core rules, must explicity state exactly how it is exempt from the general rule. If someone could show me that, I would have no problem accepting your position. In 8 pages, no one has been able to, and they just quote the same statements which contradict their own arguments.
Find me somewhere that says "This feat is exempt from the rule that you may only make one aoo per opportunity", or something reasonably close to that, and I will accept your position without further argument.
Yes, specific trumps general. If the rule specifically changes the general rule it trumps the general rule. No one has shown me how either GT or VS or anything else specifically trumps the general rule on one aoo per opportunity, only that it specifically trumps the rule that you do not get to make an aoo against a tripped opponent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the core of my argument is that the rules state that you can only take one AOO per provoking action. [...]
If that was the core of your argument, we wouldn't be arguing. The core of your argument is the assertion that succeeding a trip and applying its effects are not separate provoking opportunities. We have demonstrated how they are (or at the very least could be) separate, grammatically as well as logically. Please demonstrate how they are not, as your last attempt to demonstrate their simultaneity was defeated using the method by which you attempted to prove it.
Specifically, if you cannot prove that they are simultaneous, then the above rule that you can only take one attack per opportunity is irrelevant. We do not need to prove that the feats break these rules, we simply need to prove that we're not trying to take two attacks for the same opportunity.
I'll even preview the next argument I've got saved up for you: I assert that triggering a feat or class ability that grants you an attack of opportunity, is it's own discrete opportunity.
They are not separate, because trip says they are not. I have quoted it over and over, look back in the thread and find one of the 10 times I have quoted it. And then people say, oh but look at cmd success. You insist that and in that case means then, but that contradicts the definition of trip, so it is much more logical to think that and means at the same time, because that is what trip says specifically.
You show me a verbal ambiguity, and ignore the completely unambiguous verbal example.
Additionally, the section on aoo says specifically that one can not take more than one aoo per opportunity. An opportunity is defined as something the target provokes. You succeeding on a cmb roll is not a provocation by the target, it is your own action. Show me where your success at a cmb roll is an action by the target.
For your next argument, I say again, you can not trigger the aoo, only the target can, no matter what your feats are. That is also very explicit in the rules.
You will ignore these arguments, you will insist on your narrow ruling based on an assumption without facts, and we will go around in a circle again.
|
Could you take it outside, please?
At this stage something like 75-80% of the posts are coming from two or three posters, endlessly repeating the same old points.
It's obvious no-one is prepared to back down, because you are each firmly convinced that you are right. That means this isn't a discussion - it's grandstanding for the love of arguing.
Well then, contribute something to the debate. Add your voice.
Actually Mabven, there are several feats which force someone to provoke an attack of opportunity. Greater Trip is one such feat. I trip you, and force you to provoke. You didn't willingly provoke, unlike in other situations, like movement.
There is a problem, that even if the AoO from Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip don't stack, there is still the possibility for the AoO abuse presented in the Brothers Cut build. It was already stated that you 'can' trip someone that is already prone, so even if you use Greater Trip, and they fall prone because they are simultaneous (as per your argument), then you would take your attack of opportunity. Because it's been stated by the devs that you *can* trip a prone target, you can still generate additional AoOs by using Greater Trip again.
In that situation, one would have to choose to either Vicious Stomp, or use their Greater Trip AoO. If they chose Vicious Stomp, the turn ends because Vicious Stomp outlines you deal unarmed strike damage. If you use your Greater Trip, you can keep tripping them until your allies run out of AoO, then you use Vicious Stomp. So say you have an ally with 3 AoOs, and you have 3 as well. You trip them, then use 2 AoO to trip them twice more (after the initial trip), using up 2 AoO, which gives your ally 3 total AoOs, then you use your third AoO to Vicious Stomp.
Wow, hmm, *note to self* Don't start off with 'Actually Mabven' again, starting to sound annoying.
It is not about willingly provoking, it is about some action by the target provoking. In the case of GT and VS, that action is falling to the ground.
It has actually been quite clearly stated by Jason Bulhman that you can not trip someone who is prone, so there is no way to abuse that. He was actually quoted on the last page by someone who thought he said you could trip a prone person, and he immediately edited his post stating that he misread it. Go back a page and read the Jason Buhlman quote, and you will see quite clearly his answer starts with "No.", not "No, but..." or "No, except when...", just "No."
So, it is just not true that you can trip a prone target.
Feel free to start with, "Actually Mabven", it does not annoy me at all. I am quite happy to debate with people who are willing to do so without becoming personally insulted by the fact that I don't agree with them, and you seem to be of that rare breed.
Hmm, I could be mistaken, but I thought he said you could trip a prone person, but making a prone person 'more prone' has no overall effect. Time to go back browsing again :(
[Edit] Hmm..
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
He does say no, then goes on to explain that if you trip a prone person as a AoO, they still get up because you only tripped them while prone, not after they regained their feet.
However, nowhere does he say that you can't trip an already prone person. But that's a technicality and mostly unclear.
I will say, that there is enough ambiguity over the multiple trip/AoO debate in this thread that they should clarify it, either for, or against. Hence the reason there as 63 FAQ requests last time I looked. Personally, I would test run the GT/VS combo and see if it's how powerful it is, but I would firmly rule against the Brothers Cut combo.
|
|
Because it's been stated by the devs that you *can* trip a prone target. . .
Are you sure about that?
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.
That was in the dim and distant past (about two weeks ago)
Ah, well JohnF kind of solved it for me. So you can't trip a prone person. That means most of this debate comes down to whether or not falling prone is the immediate consequence of tripping, or if it can be interrupted with the Greater Trip AoO, which would then cause two different actions of being tripped, and falling prone.
[Edit] BTW, will have to continue this later, being nagged at by friends to jump on Xbox Live. They just don't understand forum debates, the savages.
|
|
You insist that and in that case means then, but that contradicts the definition of trip,
Please support this assertion. In what way does that "contradict the definition of trip"?
And as an added bonus, part two of the above. Not every attack of opportunity is provoked. Some are granted by class features (i.e. Opportunist) or feats (Paired Opportunists, Vicious Stomp). Even if you are correct (and I'm not stating that you are, in fact the opposite), I assert that it's irrelevant, as that would simply make it that they are provoking once from Greater Trip and once from triggering the user's Vicious Stomp feat.
I think there is an easy way to explain it, using the definition of AOO. An AOO by definition resolves immediately, resolve meaning that it's results come into effect immediately. So, the effect of being tripped is to be knocked prone. This condition must be met before anything else can happen. So, once the aoo from greater trip resolves, the opponent is already prone on the ground, and thus does not meet the conditions that can trigger VS - falling to the ground - you simply can not fall to the ground when you are already on the ground.
Is that clearer?
|
|
I think there is an easy way to explain it, using the definition of AOO. An AOO by definition resolves immediately, resolve meaning that it's results come into effect immediately. So, the effect of being tripped is to be knocked prone. This condition must be met before anything else can happen. So, once the aoo from greater trip resolves, the opponent is already prone on the ground, and thus does not meet the conditions that can trigger VS - falling to the ground - you simply can not fall to the ground when you are already on the ground.
Is that clearer?
So by that logic, VS does nothing? Not acceptable. Please quote rules text, not anecdote. Furthermore please refrain from arguments where one "doesn't have enough time" to do something. D&D combat is an abstraction, monsters and PCs don't stand in specially demarcated 5' squares waiting exactly 6 seconds to perform perfectly segmented actions.
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.
See where it says "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone?" It does not say "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the trip attempt is a success, then (or and) the target is knocked prone. This is because "the trip attempt is a success" and "the target is knocked prone" are interchangeable. If one happens, the other happens, there is no order of one before the other - you exceed the CMD, the target is prone.
Clear?
So by that logic, VS does nothing? Not acceptable. Please quote rules text, not anecdote. Furthermore please refrain from arguments where one "doesn't have enough time" to do something. D&D combat is an abstraction, monsters and PCs don't stand in specially demarcated 5' squares waiting exactly 6 seconds to perform perfectly segmented actions.I think there is an easy way to explain it, using the definition of AOO. An AOO by definition resolves immediately, resolve meaning that it's results come into effect immediately. So, the effect of being tripped is to be knocked prone. This condition must be met before anything else can happen. So, once the aoo from greater trip resolves, the opponent is already prone on the ground, and thus does not meet the conditions that can trigger VS - falling to the ground - you simply can not fall to the ground when you are already on the ground.
Is that clearer?
No, VS does not do nothing - if someone other than you trips the opponent, or they become prone by some other means (bull rush, spell, falling unconscious, etc.), you get to use VS. Or if you do not have GT, you personally can get an AOO from VS, but no one else does. Make sense?
|
|
See where it says "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone?" It does not say "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the trip attempt is a success, then (or and) the target is knocked prone. This is because "the trip attempt is a success" and "the target is knocked prone" are interchangeable.
Actually, this is because CM success was already defined earlier in the chapter, and they left it out for redundancy. In which case, we consult CM success, which you don't accept as valid for this debate. Ergo we are at an impasse on this point. Please prove one that is clear.