| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It is only not clear, because you do not want it to be clear. I have quoted the rule, you do not accept it. I can not make you accept it. You can either accept what the rule says, or you can imagine a reason why what it says is short-hand for something else or that something must have been omitted. But I have shown you the rule. What else can I do?
|
This is because "the trip attempt is a success" and "the target is knocked prone" are interchangeable
Simultaneous does not in any way mean interchangeable.
You can start with not contradicting yourself. I will return to my earlier argument, where they are simply not interchangeable.
[...] rather than having to check for success, we simply knock the target prone. Is this correct? Obviously not. Therefore, they must logically be sequential.
You have to succeed before you can apply effects, otherwise there would be no point in rolling. Checking for success begins with the roll, is verified against the target's CMD, and yields a result. That result tells us to apply effects.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If it's easier you can think of Greater Trip as changing the "effects" line of trip to "falls prone and provokes an attack of opportunity" and that Vicious Stomp changes any instance of "falls prone" next to the possessor to "falls prone and provokes an attack of opportunity" so that the end result is "falls prone and provokes an attack of opportunity and provokes an attack of opportunity." While they happen simultaneously in our vision rules-wise, they are not simultaneous nor are they in response to the same "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)
One "opportunity" is "being tripped by someone with greater trip" and the other is "falling prone (for any reason) next to someone with vicious stomp." These are hardly the same thing (heck they use some of the same letters, but there are entire different words in there).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kenryu sweeps his right leg out colliding near the orc's ankle and knocking his foot out from under him. (Monk makes a successful trip attempt.)
As his opponent begins to teeter and fall Kenryu's right fist raises and drives down hard in a downward arc, catching his off-balanced opponent in the center of the chest, hammering him to the ground. (monk takes AoO from Improved Trip due to successfully beating his opponent's CMD. This occurs before opponent falls prone due to the fact that the AoO is provoked by beating the orc's CMD, and *not* by the orc falling to the ground. Because of that, this AoO must resolve before the orc falls.)
Planting his right foot and shifting his balance as the orc crashes to the ground before him, Kenryu snaps his left leg forward in a punishing kick that shatters the orc's jaw. (When the orc falls prone it provokes a second AoO from Punishing Kick.)
I really don't see why this is so hard to visualize. It makes perfect mechanical and thematic sense.
|
|
Kenryu sweeps his right leg out colliding near the orc's ankle and knocking his foot out from under him Monk makes a successful trip attempt.
As his opponent begins to teeter and fall Kenryu's right fist raises and drives down hard in a downward arc, catching his off-balanced opponent in the center of the chest, hammering him to the ground. monk takes AoO from Improved Trip due to successfully beating his opponent's CMD. This occurs before opponent falls prone due to the fact that the AoO is provoked by beating the orc's CMD, and *not* by the orc falling to the ground. Because of that, this AoO must resolve before the orc falls.
Planting his right foot and shifting his balance as the orc crashes to the ground before him, Kenryu snaps his left leg forward in a punishing kick that shatters the orc's jaw When the orc falls prone it provokes a second AoO from Punishing Kick.
I really don't see why this is so hard to visualize. It makes perfect mechanical and thematic sense.
Unfortunately this is a rules as written discussion so fluff isn't evidence. :\ Also it's Vicious Stomp. Punishing Kick is another feat that knocks prone though. >_> </nerd>
See, this happens all over the boards. A good example is RAGELANCEPOUNCE. The Devlopers have ruled that it does not work, because you can not get double damage from the lance from iterative attacks, and you can not use pounce when you are mounted, yet the debate rages on. People insist that the developers are wrong about their own product, insult the devs and call them lazy and incompetent, rather than accept that one way they thought the rules work simply is not so. I did not need the developers to tell me it does not work, but I was shouted down by the majority of people on the thread, just like on this thread. What is obvious to me, because I am not interested in creating high-DPR builds or pushing the mechanics of the game to their furthest limit, is not obvious to others.
People keep saying they will accept that you can not aoo twice from one trip if the Devs come in and make that ruling, but I know better. The devs can come in here, state unambiguously that it can not be done, and the debate will rage on. This has happened so often, with such vicious abuse directed toward the devs, I doubt they will comment on threads like this ever again. They used to participate in almost all threads all the time - those days are over. Who wants to spend time listening to people complaining that your work is crap, and you don't know how to do your job?
If you step back, and put out of your mind any thoughts of possible builds you are thinking of making using this double aoo concept, I think you may see that it is neither intended, nor written.
Everyone insists that I need to prove my position. My position is stated clearly in the section of the book on attacks of opportunity. People insist that new content trumps old - this is only true if the new content specifically states how it overrides the old. I have yet to see anyone post any proof that GT or VS state they are meant to violate the rule that you may only get one aoo from one opportunity. Then they say that it is two opportunities, and tell me I have to prove that it's not. Why do I have to prove that, they should prove that it is. There is a very simple concept in logic that says "You can not prove a negative." Everyone insists that it is my job to prove a negative. Is it my job also to reverse global warming, or invent a way to travel past the speed of light, or any other thing that is proven to be impossible?
If people were so sure about their position, why, instead of proving the positive - that it is written that these two feats are specifically meant to violate the rule of one aoo per opportunity - do they insist that it is my responsibility to prove the negative - once again, impossible.
Others insist that there are two different opportunities here. The rules say an opponent provokes an aoo, and not the attacker. So, what are the two different actions that the target is making that are the two different opportunities? Once again, they insist that I prove the negative - that there are not 2 different opportunities. Impossible. The rules say nothing about any action providing more than one opportunity, so why is it assumed to be so? They say that it is the feat that provides the opportunity. The rules say the target provides the opportunity. They say the feat is a specific exception. I have seen nothing in the description of either feat which states that it is the exception to the rule that the target provokes, and not the attacker.
People get angry at me. That's ok, I can take it, I'm an adult. But just because they are angry, it does not mean that I want them to feel angry. I only want to clarify the rules to the best of my ability. Sometimes I am blunt. It is hard not to be blunt when I end up repeating the same rules over and over to everyone who wanders into the thread.
So, here is my challenge - I have laid out in detail - in this very post, all of the reasons why it is apparent to me that one can not get more than one aoo from a single trip. Instead of insisting that I prove a negative, take a look at all of the types of positive proof I have said would sway my opinion on the fact, and try to find them for yourself. If something is not written in the rules, and you are making an inference as to what you think the rules are implying about it, stop challenging me to prove that your inference is wrong - I can not prove that something which is not written is right or wrong - instead find what is written without inferring anything, and prove to me that what is written is what you are saying the rule is, without use of inference.
Part of "don't be a jerk" is "don't be a passive aggressive jerk." If you read my posts, you will see that I do not call people names, do not tell people they are stupid, and if I quote from the dictionary, it is because people insist that the meaning of a dictionary word is other than it is.
I can be terse, but terse is quite a different thing from being offensive.
If you want to call me out on something, call me out. No one is fooled by you saying "one person".
I am obviously in the minority on this thread. That's where I like to be, because I am not interested in threads where everyone agrees on the interpretation of the rules. Those threads are 4 posts long, and if I am the first to answer a question, that's great, I've helped someone, but if the question has already been answered, why should I bother?
If the majority of people on this thread were sure they were absolutely right, why would they bother to argue with me? You all could just be like "Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out - oh, that Mabven guy is still posting? Well, who cares, the question has been answered." If it were unquestionable that you absolutely can take 2 aoo's with GT and VS, I could write a novel on this board to the contrary, and it would be indistinguishable from silence.
So, don't blame me that you are unsure - I am simply pointing out where it seems to me that people's logic doesn't hold true. If you are interested in a debate along those lines, great! If not, why do you bother to debate?
|
|
<Big post involving quickened spells provoking attacks of opportunity because of fake class abilities>
You are confusing text that happens to exist in certain feats (Paired Opportunists comes to mind) stating "this feat does not enable you to gain more than one attack of opportunity per action" with the text in attacks of opportunity where you are not permitted to gain more than one attack per opportunity, though if one provokes multiple attacks of opportunity, you can take all of them.
In your (albeit ad absurdum) example, if the individual in question had combat reflexes, they would issue forth 2 attacks of opportunity against the offending fire-casting cleric, and continue going about their day as normal. These are 2 opportunities from the same action, and unless your ability prohibits this specifically (as is done in the above referenced feat) then the controlling text becomes the attack of opportunity text, and since those two opportunities are defined differently, they both provoke, despite arising from the same action.
Now, can we argue actual possibilities within the rules rather than creating strawman rules constructs?
|
|
I'd like to see the VS/GT combo playtested and see if it is over powered or broken, while I already know that people using Greater Trip to gain multiple AoOs while the person is in midair is abuse. I will say that I've learned a lot about the trip mechanics and that when I do finally get to play my monk again (this Sunday) I'll be looking to take Greater Trip asap so I can better help my team. Kinda makes me regret taking Improved Grapple instead of Trip.
I'm playing a level 12 flowing monk in a non-PFS game. I do significantly less damage than half the party, even factoring in the attacks of opportunity as my damage, even with reposition on top of it, ki throw, the whole 9 yards. We are using legacy 3.5 material, but everyone has access to it, so it's generally balanced across the board. We are also playtesting unarmed strike magic weapons (I'm calling them handwraps for now for lack of a better term). I have a lot of fun playing the character because between reposition, the flowing monk ability that lets you force saves or be flat footed when using AoO's and touch of serenity, I can force 5-6 saves per round, sometimes off of immediate actions. But outside of being "nifty" there's simply enough stuff out there (even with my GM going the extra mile and stating that I can Ki Throw flying opponents, even though they would normally be trip-immune, because I am throwing them to the ground) that is trip immune for it to simply be a non-issue. I'm level 12 with a trip bonus in the high thirties, in some circumstances low forties (finesse plus fury's fall plus high dex plus the insight bonus ioun stone in a wayfinder yadda yadda), and I still fail sometimes. I've even failed by 10 once, recently.
My normal attack sequence is to either full attack, leading with a trip (so that I "gain back" the trip attack plus a bonus one due to the VS/GT combo) and then continue my attack sequence with the +4. My goal is to get Medusa's Wrath sometime soon so that if I do force them flat-footed with the attacks of opportunity mid-sequence, I can get the 2 bonus attacks by the end of the sequence. I am severely outdamaged by a standard two-handed weapon fighter, a magus, a negative energy channeling cleric, and a primal/orc cross-blooded sorcerer (with 2 levels of paladin and a level of oracle for nature's whispers).
When I get a single attack, it shines a bit more as I get to attack twice if I succeed the trip. :)
Yes, I have an emotional investment in this thread. That's why I've been trying to adhere so thoroughly to common discussion rules and logic, rather than ranting and raving. I asked our OP Healer friend to prove himself because in all honesty he has yet to provide even a fraction of the persuasive narrative or rules text that the majority opinion has behind it.
TL;DR - I play a VS/GT flowing monk (for maximum trip exposure) and it does not break itself in the normal course of the game. It is a very cool option, but that's about all.
Here's a similar but somewhat related question.
Ki Throw. If a monk has Ki Throw and Greater Trip... when does the AoO come into play?
Quoting for benefit: Ki Throw
Benefit: 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.
Does the Greater Trip come in the square the tripped guy is currently in, or does it come after the monk throws the target prone in a different square?
@ Unmitigated
The Flowing Monk redirection ability can only be used as many times per-day as you have monk levels. So, if you are a 12th level monk, and you are using it 6 times per round, you are out of uses after 2 rounds. Also, if you are being attacked 6 times in a round, you must be doing something to make yourself quite a tasty target, because redirection can only be used when you or an adjacent ally are being attacked.
As far as proving myself, I have done that. I have quoted the rules for aoo, trip, CMB, GT and VS. I have quoted James Jacobs saying that one can not trip a tripped opponent. I have quoted James Bulmahn saying the same thing. There are things I can not prove, because they are not in the rules - if you insist that tripping an opponent, and that opponent being tripped are two different things, I can not quote anything related to that, because there is nothing in the rules about that. I make the assumption that if it is not in the rules, it is not how it works, I assume that I can not read the minds of the developers. If you say to me "It must work like this, because there is nothing saying it doesn't, and these 5 rules from different places all say nothing about it not working" how am I supposed to quote rules that refute that?
Finally, why do you care at all? You have stated that you play a hybrid of pathfinder and 3.5, and your GM makes house-rules to allow you to use the trip maneuver against untrippable foes in order to use your ki throw ability. You are obviously not playing pathfinder Rules As Written, so exactly what stake do you have in this? In your GM's game, GT and VS work together. There is nothing I can say to change that, nor would I want to. Your GM's game is his game. I have no interest in telling your GM that he can not play the game the way he wants to.
I removed a bunch of posts and their replies. Really, folks, is it that hard to have a respectful discussion with each other?
Also, I'm locking this thread. After 400+ posts in a rules question, either the discussion is going in circles, or an answer WAS reached and is just getting buried under more posts.