I still haven't seen anyone quote RAW where it is clearly stated that the AoO goes off before the trigger.
Here you go, I posted this on the first page (from the FAQ, I bolded the relevant section):
"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."
I still can't believe you guys are arguing this. It's clear as clear can be. The AoO must be resolved BEFORE THE ACTION THAT TRIGGERED IT. Geez, the inability to read is amazing.
You can argue about reality and this and that all you want. If you want the game's view, it happens BEFORE THE ACTION THAT TRIGGERED IT. WHAT IS SO COMPLICATED?
If you trip a person and get an AoO, the person is considered standing, not prone.
If you target a person to trip while standing up, you can't because he's still prone.
It's crystal clear. Home rule it however you want, but if you can't figure it out from this, then you're just not going to figure it out.
SCENARIO:
A creature moves into your threatening reach and then continues to move again, outside of your reach. The movement (leaving a threatened square) provokes the attack. If your interpretation were correct you would get an AOO, but you could not reach them because they are now out of range.
Well now you're just lying, either that or you've utterly failed to understand what I've said. So poorly in fact, it seems almost more likely that you're just being deceitful. I have pointed out multiple times, so many times, that this situation is different than the norm because it comes from a feat and is not dealing with an enemy's action. So my interpretation of an enemy moving out of a threatened square is the same as yours and THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
BEFORE THE ACTION THAT TRIGGERED IT. Geez, the inability to read is amazing.
And again, being knocked prone is NOT an action. The only action the AoO can interrupt is you tripping them, but the AoO is not predicated on the occurrence of a trip as with the overwhelming majority of AoOs, but on its success. You cannot interrupt an action with an action whose occurrence dictates the first action successfully occur.
...It's also stupid to interrupt yourself
Thanks Moondragon Starshadow, but I see that quote as further evidence that the designers wouldn't want a juggle-lock effect. I also agree that falling prone is not an action in and of itself and as such does not fall under the purview of the FAQ you posted.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
Greater trip when you trip a for.
Vicious Stomp when foe falls prone.
Seems like two separate things to me.
Greater Trip: How does this interact with Vicious Stomp (APG)? Do you get two AOOs or just one?
Using these feats together provokes two AOOs, because the two AOO-triggering acts are similar, but different.
Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe. Vicious Stomp gives you an AOO occurs when a foe falls prone.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
Greater trip when you trip a for.
Vicious Stomp when foe falls prone.Seems like two separate things to me.
Not all dogs are brown. But a brown dog is still a dog.
If a bell went off when a dog came into the room...and another bell went off when a brown furred animal came into the room... how many bells would go off when a brown dog came into the room? (It is 2, btw)
Same kind of logic is at play here with Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip. They each have different trigger conditions, but they can overlap.
Vicious Stomp gives you an AoO whenever an adjacent foe falls prone. They might not have been tripped, they could slip, fall from a distance, fall asleep, or even be KOd. Lots of things can cause prone.
Greater trip's AoO happens when you successfully trip your target. It has a slightly different trigger, even if that normally results in the same prone condition. The trigger is a successful trip.
This FAQ post doesn't help this conversation at all... I'm not sure why it keeps getting brought up. It simply isn't relevant to the problem.
The problem is...
While an AoO does interrupt actions that trigger said AoO... Greater Trip's AoO is not triggered by the target's actions. There are no actions being taken for this AoO to interrupt.
So unless someone has some relevant text that shows AoOs also interrupt status effects and conditions. The target is prone when the AoO from Greater Trip is applied. Because the AoO happens after the trip is successful.
Ok. Ignoring the fact that the FAQ is explicitly about the difference between the two and you think they are exactly the same, you keep saying this:
While an AoO does interrupt actions that trigger said AoO... Greater Trip's AoO is not triggered by the target's actions. There are no actions being taken for this AoO to interrupt.
You say there is no action to interrupt. I say there is, namely your trip attempt.
You perform an action: a trip attempt.
The trip is successful.
Greater Trip provides an AoO that interrupts your trip attempt.
Then target falls prone.
Ok. Ignoring the fact that the FAQ is explicitly about the difference between the two and you think they are exactly the same, you keep saying this:
While an AoO does interrupt actions that trigger said AoO... Greater Trip's AoO is not triggered by the target's actions. There are no actions being taken for this AoO to interrupt.
You say there is no action to interrupt. I say there is, namely your trip attempt.
You perform an action: a trip attempt.
The trip is successful.
Greater Trip provides an AoO that interrupts your trip attempt.
Then target falls prone.
A couple of things…
I very clearly don’t think Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip’s related AoOs have the same trigger conditions. I just explained this. I’m not going to go over it again, because it is simply a red herring, and if you don’t understand what I wrote, I encourage you to read it again.On to the relevant topic… what you just wrote…
The sequence you just wrote down… what did the AoO interrupt?
Did it interrupt an action? Or did it interrupt a status effect? Did it interrupt a condition?
Hint: It interrupted a condition. (Prone)
Explain to me where it says that Attacks of Opportunity interrupt conditions? I’ve been asking for some quote that says they interrupt conditions. But, my guess is that no one will provide one because there isn’t one. I certainly haven’t found one.
Finally, just to stress this point about AoOs in general… An attack of opportunity normally interrupts the action that provokes them. Actions can either provoke, or not provoke. Moving can most certainly provoke, so can shooting a ranged weapon, and a myriad of other actions. When an action that provokes is performed, and an enemy threatens you, they get an AoO. This AoO is triggered by your ‘attempt’ to perform the triggering ‘action’. The AoO is resolved before the ‘action’ that is triggering it.
However! In the case of Greater Trip this is not what is happening. The guy being tripped is not performing any action to cause an AoO. He is simply existing, which is ‘not an action’. He is not provoking an AoO because of anything he is doing. There is simply no action here for an AoO to interrupt!
All that said… read the line from Greater Trip again: "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
Your trip attempt is already done, and successful. Then the opponent provokes an AoO. He is not performing any action that is provoking this AoO, it simply happens because the feat says it does. So there is no action to interrupt.
You successfully trip him (which applies the prone condition), then he provokes an AoO.
By RAW, and by RAI, this is clearly how to rule on this issue…
Unless someone has something, anything, that indicates that AoOs do in fact interrupt the application of a condition? No?
Ok. Ignoring the fact that the FAQ is explicitly about the difference between the two and you think they are exactly the same, you keep saying this:
While an AoO does interrupt actions that trigger said AoO... Greater Trip's AoO is not triggered by the target's actions. There are no actions being taken for this AoO to interrupt.
You say there is no action to interrupt. I say there is, namely your trip attempt.
You perform an action: a trip attempt.
The trip is successful.
Greater Trip provides an AoO that interrupts your trip attempt.
Then target falls prone.A couple of things…
I very clearly don’t think Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip’s related AoOs have the same trigger conditions. I just explained this. I’m not going to go over it again, because it is simply a red herring, and if you don’t understand what I wrote, I encourage you to read it again.On to the relevant topic… what you just wrote…
The sequence you just wrote down… what did the AoO interrupt?
Did it interrupt an action? Or did it interrupt a status effect? Did it interrupt a condition?
Hint: It interrupted a condition. (Prone)Explain to me where it says that Attacks of Opportunity interrupt conditions? I’ve been asking for some quote that says they interrupt conditions. But, my guess is that no one will provide one because there isn’t one. I certainly haven’t found one.
Finally, just to stress this point about AoOs in general… An attack of opportunity normally interrupts the action that provokes them. Actions can either provoke, or not provoke. Moving can most certainly provoke, so can shooting a ranged weapon, and a myriad of other actions. When an action that provokes is performed, and an enemy threatens you, they get an AoO. This AoO is triggered by your ‘attempt’ to perform the triggering ‘action’. The AoO is resolved before the ‘action’ that is triggering it.
However! In the case of Greater Trip this is not what is...
The trip is the action that provokes.
For the AoO to interrupt the action it must be before the target is prone.Once the target is prone, the action is over.
If the AoO occurs after the target is prone, then it didn't interrupt anything.
The trip is the action that provokes.
For the AoO to interrupt the action it must be before the target is prone.
Once the target is prone, the action is over.
If the AoO occurs after the target is prone, then it didn't interrupt anything.
False. (The tripper isn't provoking an AoO, the opponent who is tripped is provoking an AoO)
True. (It doesn't interrupt it though, it happens after the trip is already successful)
True. (Yup)
True. (Yup)
The trip is the action that provokes.
For the AoO to interrupt the action it must be before the target is prone.
Once the target is prone, the action is over.
If the AoO occurs after the target is prone, then it didn't interrupt anything.False. (The tripper isn't provoking an AoO, the opponent who is tripped is provoking an AoO)
True. (It doesn't interrupt it though, it happens after the trip is already successful)
True. (Yup)
True. (Yup)
The tripper if forcing the opponent to provoke because of the Greater Trip feat. The trip is the action that forces the AoO. The trip is the action the AoO interrupts.
The tripper if forcing the opponent to provoke because of the Greater Trip feat. The trip is the action that forces the AoO. The trip is the action the AoO interrupts.
Why would it?
AoOs only interrupt the action that provokes them.
There is no action here that is provoking an attack of opportunity. It is a feat which has a special trigger condition which is causing the AoO to be provoked.
The trip doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
The opponent who is tripped provokes an attack of opportunity. No action required, it just happens.
No action to interrupt, the AoO simply happens.
"An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn)."
The AoO from greater trip happens after the trip. The feat tells us it does. The feat is why this AoO is even happening, so this AoO happens exactly when the feat tells us it happens. After you "successfully trip". Then the AoO. Then you move on with the round...
There is nothing that says an AoO interrupts conditions. Nothing. So a successful trip applies the prone condition. A successful trip is a resolved trip. The action is done and over.
The tripper if forcing the opponent to provoke because of the Greater Trip feat. The trip is the action that forces the AoO. The trip is the action the AoO interrupts.Why would it?
AoOs only interrupt the action that provokes them.
There is no action here that is provoking an attack of opportunity. It is a feat which has a special trigger condition which is causing the AoO to be provoked.
The trip doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
The opponent who is tripped provokes an attack of opportunity. No action required, it just happens.
No action to interrupt, the AoO simply happens."An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn)."
The AoO from greater trip happens after the trip. The feat tells us it does. The feat is why this AoO is even happening, so this AoO happens exactly when the feat tells us it happens. After you "successfully trip". Then the AoO. Then you move on with the round...
There is nothing that says an AoO interrupts conditions. Nothing. So a successful trip applies the prone condition. A successful trip is a resolved trip. The action is done and over.
A successful trip provokes the AoO.
Just like leaving a threatened square provokes an AoO.The successful trip, being the action that provoked the AoO, is interrupted by the AoO and then the opponent falls prone.
Just like leaving a threatened square, the action that provoked an AoO, is interrupted by the AoO and then the opponent leaves the square.
How are you arguing that the TRIP doesn't provoke the AoO granted by Greater TRIP when you successfully TRIP someone?
Apologies ahead of time for the long post, but I wanted to address some things Durngrun Stonebreaker and others have brought up thus far.
You are suggesting interrupting your own action with an AoO. This is inventing rules. Your AoOs are not provoked by you. They are provoked by the target. As Remy has pointed out, the target is not performing any action to provoke. The feat is changing the rules and forcing the target to provoke by having a specific condition applied to him. If you have not knocked him prone, then he has not suffered the condition, hence no AoO. Besides, you can NEVER provoke yourself with your own actions as the Improved and Greater Trip feats emphatically state that you do not provoke while attempting a Trip action.
The falling prone MUST come after the AoO? Why do you assume this? What rule is saying that an AoO gets to interrupt the application of a condition?
Trip attempt/Prone
Blinding Critical/Blind
Attack action/Damage
The AoO rules that you are attempting to apply here simply do not work. If any AoO were allowed to happen here, it would happen during the action.
Beginning Tripping/AoO/Finish Tripping/Prone
Beginning Blinding/AoO/Finish Blinding/Blind
Begin Attacking/AoO/Finish Attacking/ Damage
But as stated, you cannot interrupt your own trip attack. You are immune via the feat and no general application of AoO allows you to do so.
Let us look at Vicious Stomp. I will use your own interpretation to show where you are breaking the rules. We all know how AoO works.
Point 1 : Action begins
Point 1.5: AoO intercepts
Point 2 : Action resolves
Apply this to Vicious Stomp...
Point 1 : Target falls prone and provokes.
Point 1.5: You perform the AoO.
Point 2 : ???
There is no Point 2 as there is nothing left to resolve. The rules of AoO do not work here. The event of the target falling prone happened at Point 1. The AoO followed, but there is nothing to intercept. The rule of AoO has changed via the feat from an "Intercept Action" to a "Response Action". You are responding to something that has already happened and not intercepting anything.
Or maybe you are suggesting that the target "begins" to fall prone, then is hit with the AoO, and then "finishes" falling prone?
Point 1 : Target begins to fall prone and provokes.
Point 1/5: You perform the AoO.
Point 2 : Target finishes falling prone.
This is in violation of the rules set down by Vicious Stomp. You do not get an AoO when a target "begins" to fall prone. He must have fallen prone before you get your AoO. So the rule of AoO is STILL broken here.
The exact same thing is happening with Greater Trip. The specific rule of the feat changes AoO from an Intercept Action to a Response Action. There is nothing to intercept. You have successfully knocked your target prone and now he provokes.
Or is the definition of a "successful trip" confusing to people. Well what does a successful purchase off Amazon constitute? To successfully buy something from Amazon, I need to:
#1 put it into my cart and
#2 pay for it
It is not a "successful purchase" if I only put it into my cart. And I cannot pay for it unless I put it into my cart first. The two are intertwined in the definition of a "successful purchase".
Likewise it is not a successful trip if the only thing happening is the die roll is high enough to apply the effect. The effect needs to be applied. How can you say you've successfully tripped someone if he's still standing there? A target is not successfully blinded without the blind condition being applied. A target is not successfully killed, if I am not able to apply the Dead condition to him.
Take a moment and think about it. Now which version passes your Common Sense test?
As for Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp interacting...
I'll give you a dollar if you bring me something yellow.
I'll give you a dollar if you bring me something sweet.
I'll give you a dollar if you bring me something wrapped in plastic.
If you bring me a yellow, lemon candy wrapped in plastic, then by the above conditions I owe you $3. You have brought me 1 thing, but it meets all 3 conditions.
If I successfully trip my opponent (ie knock him prone) I get an AoO.
If an opponent falls prone next to me, I get an AoO.
One thing has taken place, but I am allowed 2 AoOs.
The "Trip Roll" and "Fall Prone" are not separate things. There is no RAW that supports separating them. The rules for AoO do not address this, as that is discussing actions that the target chooses to take while within your threatened space. The FAQ does not address this because it is talking about how the same event can trigger twice by use of two different Feat chains.
And to reiterate a previous point:
Being knocked prone is not an action because it does not count against your Action Economy in any sense whatsoever.
Being knocked prone is not what provokes the AoO. A successful trip provokes the AoO. A trip is an action. AoOs interrupt the action that provoked them. The AoO therefore interrupts the trip.
Being knocked prone is not what provokes the AoO. A successful trip provokes the AoO. A trip is an action. AoOs interrupt the action that provoked them. The AoO therefore interrupts the trip.
No. A successful trip does not provoke the AoO.
The tripped opponent provokes the AoO. "that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
The opponent provokes the AoO. The trip does not provoke the AoO.
What Remy said. A successful trip (i.e. making the roll and applying the condition) is the event that forces the target to provoke. Like in Vicious Stomp where the target falling prone is the event that forces the target to provoke.
The Trip attempt does not provoke.
The Trip success does not provoke.
The falling prone does not provoke.
The target provokes after a certain event takes place; being knocked prone from a Greater Trip and falling prone for any of a hundred reasons into an adjacent space(VS).
Actually Remy, I think you have your finger on the crux of the misunderstanding.
When I came onboard this thread I was in the popular interpretation camp that went; Trip Roll, AoO, Prone. But the more I thought about it, the less it seemed to make sense. Vicious Stomp wasn't interrupting any actions. And I can't interrupt my own actions. Plus falling over isn't even an action to interrupt. So it started becoming a bit of a convoluted mess the more I thought about it and tried to dissect it (Told you, Ravingdork, PF isn't kind to us over-thinkers). ;)
But you and Davick and others were counter-arguing a different interpretation and I started to understand what you were saying. The play-by-play fit together better and passed my Common Sense test with flying colors. Unfortunately I was focusing on the wrong arguments and talking about actions and non-actions and so forth. That wasn't the point at all. The point was that we have 2 Feats here that are changing the rules on us and I think most people aren't picking up on it (including me until recently).
The rule of AoO is that the target provokes when he does something. So people are looking at Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp trying to figure out what the target is doing to provoke. The rule says he has to be doing something to provoke. So what is it?
But that's just the thing. The target isn't doing anything. The feats are changing the rule to say that when a certain event happens, you and I can treat the target "as if" he's doing something to provoke. That event comes into being, we get our AoO, and then we move on. There is no action to "interrupt".
And it doesn't matter if the guy is knocked prone, dives prone, is thrown prone, or however he becomes prone....once he's prone he has met the specific requirements of my Vicious Stomp so now he is considered to be provoking (even though by general rule he's not) and I can get an unarmed AoO against him.
Nicely done. :)
Yep, Remy converted me with his clever, logical arguments too.
Well let's look at Greater Bullrush then.
With Greater Bullrush the opponent's movement provokes an AoO.
But the movement isn't his action. Does the AoO occur after the bull rush?
Player, with Greater Bullrush, bull rushes Opponent past Ally. Opponent's movement provokes AoO but Ally cannot make AoO until bull rush is over so Opponent has to end movement in Ally's threatened square for Greater Bullrush to have any effect?
Ah yes, Greater Bull Rush is an excellent example to look at. What do we have? The key element begins with "Whenever you bull rush an opponent..."
Now let's stop right there. This wording looks familiar. We see something similar with Greater Trip "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent..." and we find it again with Vicious Stomp "Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you..."
In each of these cases, this beginning text is setting up the event that must take place before the benefits of the feat can happen. Basically each of them are saying "When X happens..."
So when X happens, what is the benefit?
For Greater Trip it is "that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
For Vicious Stomp it is "that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
And for Greater Bull Rush it is "his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you)."
So this further supports the argument that it is not the action of tripping or bull rushing or falling prone that is being interrupted. What is happening is the specific rule of the feat is setting up a trigger that allows the AoO to "fire" after the trigger is reached.
Thank you Durngrun for bringing this up. It becomes another piece of the emerging puzzle. :)
As an extra note, although not always pertaining to AoOs, there are plenty of feats that offer this similar text of "When X, then Y."
Greater Disarm
Greater Feint
Greater Overrun
Greater Sunder
...to name a few.
So there is definitely a set pattern that Greater Trip and Bull Rush fall into.
Ah yes, Greater Bull Rush is an excellent example to look at. What do we have? The key element begins with "Whenever you bull rush an opponent..."
Now let's stop right there. This wording looks familiar. We see something similar with Greater Trip "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent..." and we find it again with Vicious Stomp "Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you..."
In each of these cases, this beginning text is setting up the event that must take place before the benefits of the feat can happen. Basically each of them are saying "When X happens..."
So when X happens, what is the benefit?
For Greater Trip it is "that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
For Vicious Stomp it is "that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
And for Greater Bull Rush it is "his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you)."
So this further supports the argument that it is not the action of tripping or bull rushing or falling prone that is being interrupted. What is happening is the specific rule of the feat is setting up a trigger that allows the AoO to "fire" after the trigger is reached.
Thank you Durngrun for bringing this up. It becomes another piece of the emerging puzzle. :)
Just to be clear.
You feel the AoO occurs after the bull rush, not during?
What kind of "action" is being interupted by the AoO from a Greater Bull Rush? Last time I checked, " being moved" is not an action.
I would say the AoO happens when the feat says it happens.
Greater Bull Rush (Combat)
Your bull rush attacks throw enemies off balance.
Prerequisites: Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6, Str 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Bull Rush. Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).
Normal: Creatures moved by bull rush do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Emphasis mine.
It says that once the requirement is met (Whenever I bull rush an opponent), then his movement provokes from my allies but not me. Normally this movement doesn't provoke but the rule of Greater Bull Rush changes this.
This is in line with how these feats all seem to work. First some requirement is met and then the target provokes (or in the case of Greater Bull Rush, his movement provokes). So the AoO would happen at the point in time when the feat is saying the provoking is taking place.
Some Feats (and their requirements) that share similar language:
Greater Bull Rush = Whenever you bull rush an opponent
Greater Disarm = Whenever you disarm an opponent (although no AoO with this one)
Greater Feint = Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus (again no AoO with this)
Greater Overrun = Whenever you overrun opponents
Greater Sunder = Whenever you sunder to destroy a weapon, shield, or suit of armor (again no AoO here)
Greater Trip = Whenever you successfully trip an opponent
Vicious Stomp = Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you
Does this help to answer your question?
Ok I didn't catch all the ay up but I had an epiphany. If I perform a trip maneuver against a snake, would greater trip allow an AoO? If success is merely that my CMB was greater than his CMD it would. But we all know that a snake can't be tripped. Why not? I can get a roll high enough. Because you cannot apply the prone condition to a snake. It cannot be tripped. I cannot apply the listed effect. Ergo, applying the listed effect is in fact part of determining success. Which mean the AoO couldn't occur until after it is applied.
One of the arguments has been that there is no "action" to interrupt with the Greater Trip AoO being triggered by the trip or the fall. Hence the AoO must occur after the trip and once the target is prone. It can't come before the trip or during the fall since there is no action being interrupted. "Falling to prone" isn't an action.
But neither is "being moved". So I'm just curious why people are drawing a distinction.
Also, if you are a creature that cannot be tripped, you cannot be tripped regardless of the die results. Beating a CMD is irrelevant if the target is immune to the result. So Greater Trip wouldn't provide an AoO on a creature that cannot be tripped because you cannot succeed on a trip attempt against a creature that cannot be tripped, regardless of the die results.
One of the arguments has been that there is no "action" to interrupt with the Greater Trip AoO being triggered by the trip or the fall. Hence the AoO must occur after the trip and once the target is prone. It can't come before the trip or during the fall since there is no action being interrupted. "Falling to prone" isn't an action.
But neither is "being moved". So I'm just curious why people are drawing a distinction.
Being moved is not an action. And?
I just want to know how many attacks my wildshaped saurian shaman/lore warden can make. He has combat reflexes (18 dex, after mods, so 5 possible AoOs), greater trip, and is in the shape of a Stegosaurus (1 Tail attack for 4d6+12 plus trip) So, if I hit (likely, after all party buffs + charge), I attempt to trip (with a modifier in the high 20's before buffs, so again, likely). Say that I succeed. Now, I get to attack again, and if successful, that allows another trip attempt. How long can this go on? If I am successful in all my attempts (my buddy, the cleric with the law domain makes this automatic, usually), can I get 6 total attacks on the guy (1 for charging, 5 for AoOs...and maybe 2 for flinching after being hit 6 times for 4d6+12 ~150-160 damage)?
According to the ruling some folk here are suggesting... you could make; The initial hit, the first follow-up, the second follow-up, the third follow-up, the fourth follow-up, and then a fifth follow-up attack. A total of six hits.
The order would go Hit+Trip/AoO Hit+Trip/AoO Hit+Trip/AoO Hit+Trip/AoO Hit+Trip/AoO Hit+Trip. Also of note, if any of your allies threatened them, they could get up to 6 AoOs on your opponent as well.
If you use the ruling that the target is already prone when the Greater Trip AoO occurs, then you would get 2 hits. Hit+Trip/AoO Hit+Invalid-Trip.
One of the arguments has been that there is no "action" to interrupt with the Greater Trip AoO being triggered by the trip or the fall. Hence the AoO must occur after the trip and once the target is prone. It can't come before the trip or during the fall since there is no action being interrupted. "Falling to prone" isn't an action.
But neither is "being moved". So I'm just curious why people are drawing a distinction.
A distinction isn't being made. What is being claimed is that the AoO happens when the feat in question says that it happens.
When a trip is successful vs being moved. Let us compare the wording on these two triggers.
When a trip is successful: This is after the trip is performed. For an action to be successful, by its very nature it has already happened.
When being moved: This is describing an ongoing condition, 'being' tells us that the movement is happening 'now'.
So, an AoO from a successful trip happens immediately after the trip. An AoO from being moved happens during the move.
Let’s get creative here for a moment and scramble some words up. What if a feat said: Whenever you attempt to trip an opponent, they provoke an AoO.
What would this mean? Well, this says 'when we attempt', so this trigger would happen after we declare the attempt, but before the resolution.
Or if a different feat said: Whenever you successfully hit an opponent, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity. That would cause them to provoke after they've been hit.
The default condition for default AoOs is that the opponent attempts to perform an action that by default provokes an AoO.
Feats spell out for us what causes them to provoke, and it may or may not be the same sort of trigger condition as the default AoO rules give us. It is simply whatever the feat or ability says that it is, instead. If it after a successful trip, then it happens after the trip. If it when being moved from a bull rush, then it while being moved.
One of the arguments has been that there is no "action" to interrupt with the Greater Trip AoO being triggered by the trip or the fall. Hence the AoO must occur after the trip and once the target is prone. It can't come before the trip or during the fall since there is no action being interrupted. "Falling to prone" isn't an action.
But neither is "being moved". So I'm just curious why people are drawing a distinction.
You are correct that "being moved" is not an action that you are taking. Nor based on my earlier arguments does it count against your Action Economy as far as I know.
This is why I pointed out in an earlier post that I was arguing this from the wrong direction. It didn't matter about the Action/Non-action situation. What I had been missing until Remy put his finger on it, was that in every Feat I have found that deals with generating AoO's from an enemy, things line up in a neat format.
There is text setting up the requirement needed. This is what must happen before an AoO is allowed to even be considered. If you look at several of the Feats I listed above, you will see they are all generally worded the same. Basically "Whenever X..."
Following this, you have the benefit of the Feat. You cause the target to provoke an AoO in some way which usually either allows you an extra hit, you and your allies an extra hit, or just your allies the extra hit. The wording is very similar in all cases to something like "then the opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
What we have here is a theme of Feats that are all overriding the general rule of how AoO works and allowing them to work, not as an interrupt between the start and finish of an Action, but to trigger as an extra attack "as if" the target did something to provoke once a certain requirement is met.
(Aaannnd, sorta ninja'd by Remy...again...)
(Aaannnd, sorta ninja'd by Remy...again...)
You're far more eloquent than I am... I'm glad that you are replying as well, as I tend to be blunt and rather stiff in my explanations. You however, are much more illustrative and easier to follow.
Succeeding on a trip doesn't mean the target is lying on the ground yet. It could. Doesn't have to.
*shrug*
That's sort of what we're arguing about here. Being moved via GBR means the movement provokes as movement ordinarily does. That means the target actually provokes before having moved out of the square (even though it requires a successful BR along with movement to actually provoke - at the very least, the AoO occurs immediately as the movement is occurring). Why then is it such a stretch to think that a successful trip attempt via GT could cause the provocation of an AoO, which would occur before the subject actually hits the ground?
I fail to see how the language from the feats (which understandably all line up - such is the nature of rule books) differs in any way from the standard language in the Combat section regarding Attacks of Opportunity. A triggering event occurs and this event causes the creature to potentially be subject to an attack of opportunity. Uniformly, the attack of opportunity occurs immediately when it is triggered. It therefore seems reasonable to me that the AoO triggered by GT occurs immediately when the trip happens, before the creature is actually prone. These feats do not override how AoO usually work; they simply provide a new triggering event. The AoO still happens immediately upon the triggering event occurring. Nothing in the feat language changes that.
If you think this creates issues with the chain tripping idea, this is precisely where I tell you to exercise your common sense as a GM, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Do you think that Vicious Stomp would provoke an additional attack of opportunity if the target fell prone due to being subject to a Greater Overrun? If you say no because the triggering events are the same (being knocked prone), then you are saying that being tripped and actually being prone are necessarily separate things. However, by saying the AoO from GT occurs after the target is knocked prone, you are saying that being tripped and actually being prone are functionally the exact same thing.
What you argue for could certainly be how the Developers intend this to work. I'll not assume that until I see one say it, though. It seems to me, based on the FAQ, that they intend the state of being tripped and the state of being prone to be, in some discernible capacity, distinct. So I shall treat them as such until directed otherwise.
It therefore seems reasonable to me that the AoO triggered by GT occurs immediately when the trip happens, before the creature is actually prone
That right there.
That is where you are going wrong. The AoO happens on a successful trip.
Do you think that there is a time between a successful trip and the target being prone? They are one and the same thing.
If the target isn't prone yet, you haven't successfully tripped them. By… like, definition. Literally.
To trip someone, you knock them prone. If you successfully trip someone, you have knocked them prone.
The feat causes the opponent to provoke when the trip is successful... which means they must have already gone prone. The trip is fully resolved, because the trip was successful.
This may be hard to parse for some people, but it really shouldn't be. For any action to be successful, that action must be completed already. Otherwise it isn't successful... yet.
For the AoO to trigger on a successful action, that action must, by definition, be resolved. The application of prone to the target has been completed. The action was a success. Then they provoke. Immediately following the successful trip, and before any other actions, the AoOs are resolved.
If you think this creates issues with the chain tripping idea, this is precisely where I tell you to exercise your common sense as a GM, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
I'm addressing this point separately, because I see it from time to time on various threads, or something to the same effect.
Look, if a GM has to override the rules by default... then there is a problem with the rule. Calling to common sense doesn't change that fact. If it is common sense to ignore a rule... that must be a very screwed up rule.
If "everyone knows to just ignore a rule", or "everyone already does it different"... then that rule is a bad one!
This is an admission to knowing that a rule "shouldn't work this way"... and if a rule shouldn't work that way...
Maybe, just maybe... you are simply misreading or misunderstanding it? Maybe the rule is being applied incorrectly or inappropriately? Maybe the rule doesn’t actually work that way after all!
If someone is showing you a logical, sound, and coherent alternate way to interpret a "rule that is bad, and should be house ruled away, by common sense"... maybe you should look closely at how this alternate reading would work?
Sometimes you might find that you've simply been using a rule the wrong way, and that was why it seemed wrong the whole time.
If your argument is genuine, and you truly think that "this is precisely where I tell you to exercise your common sense as a GM" should be applied to this rule... then you already know that either A) It is a bad rule. Or B) Your understanding of the rule is wrong.
What you argue for could certainly be how the Developers intend this to work. I'll not assume that until I see one say it, though. It seems to me, based on the FAQ, that they intend the state of being tripped and the state of being prone to be, in some discernible capacity, distinct. So I shall treat them as such until directed otherwise.
That is a logic error.
All X are Y.
Not all Y are X.
X and Y are not the same thing. Even if all X are Y.
In example form;
All dogs are mammals.
Not all mammals are dogs.
Dogs and mammals are not the same thing, even though all dogs are mammals.
In this specific case;
All successful trips knock the opponent prone.
Not all prone opponents are so because of successful trips.
Successful trips and prone opponents are not the same thing, even though all successful trips knock the opponent prone.
Logic puzzles make my head spin. heh
...Why then is it such a stretch to think that a successful trip attempt via GT could cause the provocation of an AoO, which would occur before the subject actually hits the ground?
I don't know about everyone else, but for me the stretch is if I trip with a whip. To do so is not as simple as sweeping out someone's legs with a staff and then following up to smack the guy as he falls over. The whip is snagging one or both legs and you're either pulling his legs out from under him (if he's standing still) or you are anchoring a leg as he moves forward so that the leg isn't there for him to shift his weight to (sort of like when you trip over your own shoelaces). Since "falling prone" isn't really an action, or a free action at most in the case of diving, there isn't any real measurable passage of time that is there for me to loosen my whip from his leg(s), pull back on the whip to ready another strike, and then hit him after the tug and before the drop.
Now does this mean it can't be done? Well this is a fantasy game where all sorts of things are possible. The very way the Turn sequence is set up isn't realistic at all. So one could argue that it would be possible to snag the guys leg, make him begin to fall, unhook the whip from his leg, pull back for another strike, and then hit him before he tumbles.
But again we run into the issue of what is a "Successful Trip". For comparison. What does it mean if I've successfully blinded a target with Blinding Critical? Did I succeed at the moment I confirmed the Crit? The moment he failed the Save? Or the moment where for all intents and purposes he now suffers from the Blind Condition?
Common Sense leads me to say that I have successfully blinded him when he is, in fact, now blind.
Do you think that Vicious Stomp would provoke an additional attack of opportunity if the target fell prone due to being subject to a Greater Overrun?
If you bring me something blue, I will give you $1.
If you bring me something sweet, I will give you $1.Now if you hand me a blue M&M, by the stipulations put forth above, I owe you $2.
Greater Overrun triggers an AoO when the target is knocked prone from my Overrun. Vicious Stomp triggers if a target falls prone adjacent to me. If I do the overrun and knock him prone and he is adjacent to me, I get 2 AoO against him. If you knock him prone from an overrun 10ft from me and I have a reach weapon, I get 1 AoO from the provoke from the overrun, but my Vicious Stomp doesn't "fire" because he's not adjacent to me.
Now all this aside, Davick mentioned something that I think is very important. It was mentioned much earlier in the thread (page 1 maybe?) and I noted it because I was unable to find the quote source.
I can't recall the name now, but someone posted something that talked about being able to "Successfully Trip" trip-immune targets because "successful tripping" was defined as the roll, not the actual fall of the target. I don't know where he got this quote from. If it is from some official source, then we have our answer right there regardless of what does or does not seem to make sense to anyone. Hence the importance of knowing where that quote came from.
So if anyone happens to know, please share it. If it's only someone's opinion, then the debate goes on. But if it is Official ruling, then the discussion is pretty much at an end and I am wrong.
...although I would say there would need to be some errata somewhere as this goes against the book definition of Trip.
Found the upthread mention of it. Just not the source. Page 1 middle of the page posted by Mucronis. The hidden section titled AoO vs prone.
Anyone know where this comes from?
Now all this aside, Davick mentioned something that I think is very important. It was mentioned much earlier in the thread (page 1 maybe?) and I noted it because I was unable to find the quote source.
I can't recall the name now, but someone posted something that talked about being able to "Successfully Trip" trip-immune targets because "successful tripping" was defined as the roll, not the actual fall of the target. I don't know where he got this quote from. If it is from some official source, then we have our answer right there regardless of what does or does not seem to make sense to anyone. Hence the importance of knowing where that quote came from.
So if anyone happens to know, please share it. If it's only someone's opinion, then the debate goes on. But if it is Official ruling, then the discussion is pretty much at an end and I am wrong.
It is from the combat maneuvers section of the core rulebook.
"If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure."
But this supports the notion that the condition is applied at the same step as 'success' is determined. They are one and the same. Even if the target is immune to the applied condition, the success and the try-to-applying of the condition happen at the same time.
But even more importantly, in this case...
"Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped."
It isn't that these creatures are immune to being prone... per se. They are simply not eligible targets for a trip maneuver. There isn't any way to successfully trip a target that you cannot even try to trip...
So, the whole tripping a snake thing is yet another tangent that leads us in a circle without getting to the heart of the matter.
You cannot trip a snake, because a snake cannot be tripped. I'm pretty sure a snake can, however, be prone. Prone: "The character is lying on the ground." Honestly...come to think of it...I'm not sure why all slithering things are not considered continuously prone... but, again, that is some random tangent.
A clearer example... A bird that is flying cannot be tripped. But a bird most certainly isn't immune to being prone. They simply cannot be made prone with the combat maneuver Trip. So you cannot successfully trip a flying bird. The maneuver would automatically fail. It isn't an eligible target!
But a bird that wasn't flying could be tripped. And it would most certainly be knocked prone.
What you say makes sense.
I wasn't clear in my post so tried to follow up with another one. There was something a few posts after what you mention (after the talk of the rulebook) under the hidden section "AoO vs prone" that Mucronis posted back on Page 1...25th post or so. I was curious where that came from. :)
What you say makes sense.
I wasn't clear in my post so tried to follow up with another one. There was something a few posts after what you mention (after the talk of the rulebook) under the hidden section "AoO vs prone" that Mucronis posted back on Page 1...25th post or so. I was curious where that came from. :)
It looks like the same quote. Or am I missing it?
It would be the same as making a Trip AoO against someone standing up, yes you can do it, success is simply beating the AC/CMD/DC. The target is still immune to the condition that would be applied (or rather he already has said condition, and they don't stack)
Or making a Trip attempt vs someone or something that is immune to the Prone condition (NOT immune to trip attempts, as that would not be a valid target to start with) success is possible, it simply will not have the expected result.
A successful Trip attack with Greater Trip vs something immune to the Prone condition would still provoke AoO. BUT most GM's (myself included) would most likely not let that sort of cheese work in there game(PFS excluded ofc)
This last statment is based on the assumption that "Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect." and Greater trip "looks" for a success, NOT the application of the listed effect. So the Prone immune thing provoking from Greater trip COULD be wrong, it is only based on my understanding of the "chain of events"
This bolded part?
“Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect”
I’ll break the logic of this sentence down to show that the condition is applied at the same time as success is determined, and thus cannot be interrupted, because it has already happened.
If A then, B and C.
A)attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target
B)your maneuver is a success
C)has the listed effect
So the first part is If A then B. Given that if we have B(which activates our AoO), then A has happened, then we also have C. Because if A then C.
So at the moment we have A, we then have both B and C.
Meaning, the moment we exceed their CMD with a roll, we have both determined success and applied the listed effect (prone).
Edit/addition:
If we assume (with good cause) that the only way to achieve success on a maneuver is to succeed on the roll. We assume that “If B then A” is always true.
And add a new one for Greater Trip. If B then X. If we succeed on the trip (B) then the opponent provokes an AoO (X).
We can determine the following true statements;
If A then, B and C.
If B then X.
If B then A.
If A then B.
If A then C.
Which allows us to combine lines. Such as;
If B then, A and C and X.
If the trip is a success (B), then we had rolled high enough (A), and so have applied the listed effect (C), and have now caused the target to provoke an AoO (X).
Further edit:
Vicious Stomp tiggers from C. If C then X.
If we also both Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip. It looks like this...
If A then, B and C
Since B then X.
Since C then X.
/drops mic
This bolded part?It would be the same as making a Trip AoO against someone standing up, yes you can do it, success is simply beating the AC/CMD/DC. The target is still immune to the condition that would be applied (or rather he already has said condition, and they don't stack)
Or making a Trip attempt vs someone or something that is immune to the Prone condition (NOT immune to trip attempts, as that would not be a valid target to start with) success is possible, it simply will not have the expected result.
A successful Trip attack with Greater Trip vs something immune to the Prone condition would still provoke AoO. BUT most GM's (myself included) would most likely not let that sort of cheese work in there game(PFS excluded ofc)
This last statment is based on the assumption that "Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect." and Greater trip "looks" for a success, NOT the application of the listed effect. So the Prone immune thing provoking from Greater trip COULD be wrong, it is only based on my understanding of the "chain of events"
This whole thing from "It would be the same..." all the way to the end of "...my understanding of the 'chain of events'". I recognize parts of the book, but I wasn't clear if these were Mucronis's words (i.e. his view of the rules) or if he was pulling all of this from some source.
I was under the impression that all of it was being pulled from somewhere. But perhaps I was mistaken. <shrug>
This bolded part?It would be the same as making a Trip AoO against someone standing up, yes you can do it, success is simply beating the AC/CMD/DC. The target is still immune to the condition that would be applied (or rather he already has said condition, and they don't stack)
Or making a Trip attempt vs someone or something that is immune to the Prone condition (NOT immune to trip attempts, as that would not be a valid target to start with) success is possible, it simply will not have the expected result.
A successful Trip attack with Greater Trip vs something immune to the Prone condition would still provoke AoO. BUT most GM's (myself included) would most likely not let that sort of cheese work in there game(PFS excluded ofc)
This last statment is based on the assumption that "Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect." and Greater trip "looks" for a success, NOT the application of the listed effect. So the Prone immune thing provoking from Greater trip COULD be wrong, it is only based on my understanding of the "chain of events"
This whole thing from "It would be the same..." all the way to the end of "...my understanding of the 'chain of events'". I recognize parts of the book, but I wasn't clear if these were Mucronis's words (i.e. his view of the rules) or if he was pulling all of this from some source.
I was under the impression that all of it was being pulled from somewhere. But perhaps I was mistaken. <shrug>
I'm assuming it is all his words except the quoted portion.
I'm not sure there even is anything that is both immune to prone, and still an eligible target for trip. I'm not going to go out and say there is no such thing... but my gut is telling me that there isn't... and that if there is, it is an oversight.
It therefore seems reasonable to me that the AoO triggered by GT occurs immediately when the trip happens, before the creature is actually proneThat right there.
That is where you are going wrong. The AoO happens on a successful trip.
Do you think that there is a time between a successful trip and the target being prone? They are one and the same thing.
If the target isn't prone yet, you haven't successfully tripped them. By… like, definition. Literally.
To trip someone, you knock them prone. If you successfully trip someone, you have knocked them prone.
The feat causes the opponent to provoke when the trip is successful... which means they must have already gone prone. The trip is fully resolved, because the trip was successful.
This may be hard to parse for some people, but it really shouldn't be. For any action to be successful, that action must be completed already. Otherwise it isn't successful... yet.
For the AoO to trigger on a successful action, that action must, by definition, be resolved. The application of prone to the target has been completed. The action was a success. Then they provoke. Immediately following the successful trip, and before any other actions, the AoOs are resolved.
A successful trip occurs when an opponent is knocked off balance and is in the process of falling. I can provide real world examples if you like, but that's not necessarily helpful in this sort of thing. It is, in no way, inconceivable that there can and should be a distinction between the process of being tripped and actually being prone. Ultimately this boils down to unprovable points, as many of these grey areas in the rules do.
You argue that "successful trip" means the target is on the ground. I argue that "successful trip" means that the target will be on the ground (in so far as interrupting the flow of combat with an AoO is concerned).
"For any action to be successful, the action must be completed already."
Rolling for hit and damage are distinct physical actions that are a part of the same thing: an attack. The game action taken is an attack, but the attack is not completed until both parts of it are rolled. And yet we are all familiar with abilities which allow PCs to force rerolls on successful hits, prior to damage being rolled. If rolling for damage is a part of completing a successful hit, how can you have a successful hit prior to damage being rolled? Because you have an ability that tells you it interrupts the normal flow of things. The triggering action need not be fully accomplished yet because we know what the end result would be if it were to be carried out uninterrupted. But that is the point, the triggering action was interrupted and, per the rules on AoO, the interruption should be resolved immediately.
Applying your logic across the boards means that Saving Finale is a worthless spell. For it to function, the target must have actually failed its saving throw. Yet, pursuant to your logic which conflates the success or failure of an action with the ultimate results that succeeded or failed action causes, if the target actually failed its saving throw, it must have already suffered the consequences of doing so. If the creature has already suffered the consequences, what is the purpose of rerolling? The consequence of the failed save has already been suffered. It only works if we're allowed to insert an intervening action that immediately interrupts the flow of events. This is precisely what Attacks of Opportunity do. I fail to see why it is inconceivable that this same dynamic could be at play in the Greater Trip scenario.
If you think this creates issues with the chain tripping idea, this is precisely where I tell you to exercise your common sense as a GM, as I mentioned in an earlier post.I'm addressing this point separately, because I see it from time to time on various threads, or something to the same effect.
Look, if a GM has to override the rules by default... then there is a problem with the rule. Calling to common sense doesn't change that fact. If it is common sense to ignore a rule... that must be a very screwed up rule.
If "everyone knows to just ignore a rule", or "everyone already does it different"... then that rule is a bad one!
This is an admission to knowing that a rule "shouldn't work this way"... and if a rule shouldn't work that way...
Maybe, just maybe... you are simply misreading or misunderstanding it? Maybe the rule is being applied incorrectly or inappropriately? Maybe the rule doesn’t actually work that way after all!
If someone is showing you a logical, sound, and coherent alternate way to interpret a "rule that is bad, and should be house ruled away, by common sense"... maybe you should look closely at how this alternate reading would work?
Sometimes you might find that you've simply been using a rule the wrong way, and that was why it seemed wrong the whole time.
If your argument is genuine, and you truly think that "this is precisely where I tell you to exercise your common sense as a GM" should be applied to this rule... then you already know that either A) It is a bad rule. Or B) Your understanding of the rule is wrong.
You're presuming that the rule ought to work as you believe it does. I'm saying it doesn't, ergo I wouldn't be ignoring the rule. We're often presented with situations where utilizing the rules literally as written with no capacity for exercising judgment leads to wonky results. The Developers have stated time and again that GMs and PCs are supposed to use their common sense when interpreting rules. This is me simply following that directive and recognizing that if a situation, even if played as literally written, leads to something ridiculous, maybe we ought not allow the ridiculousness just because.
It seems equally ridiculous to me to state that someone getting tripped and someone falling prone are two separate things if someone getting tripped is defined as someone actually falling prone. The result is quite literally one event causing two separate attacks of opportunity to be provoked, which we know is a violation of the rules. The person would not have fallen prone absent the tripping. The tripping isn't fully resolved until the person actually falls prone. Ergo, they are one and the same. If you are going to distinguish between being tripped and falling prone, there must be something distinct about them.