But I still want to know if an Ooze can be knocked prone. Or even, can you "successfully trip" a prone man? Off the top of my head, I'd say no to both of those. Although anyone who wishes to debate that is certainly free to start their own thread. But I'm inclined to think (again off the top of my head as I type this) that anyone who believes "successful trip" does not equate "prone" may be stuck with having to say yes. More on that later though as I mull this one over a bit.
As I said, it's a good question about Oozes. I don't think there's a clear answer, to be honest.
As for the creature that is already prone, the easy explanation is that if you are already prone, you're essentially immune to being tripped (like a snake is). I don't know that it's actually been addressed by a Developer, though I remember reading some comments loosely on the subject. The FAQ on tripping a prone creature was really only addressing if tripping on the AoO would prevent the creature from standing up. Ultimately, it appears the desire is to avoid trip-lock and trip-abuse, so I'd assume if pressed the answer would be that someone who is prone or has already been tripped is for all intents and purposes immune to being tripped until they get up from prone.
But even if you want to argue the line that says success only occurs once the target is knocked prone, it still runs counter to your present argument that "success" and "knocked prone" occur simultaneously as a result of the attack roll.
Also, if the success of a hit is determined only after a creature does damage, how does one utilize the pushing assault feat?
When you hit a creature your size or smaller with a two-handed weapon attack modified by the Power Attack feat, you can choose to push the target 5 feet directly away from you instead of dealing the extra damage from Power Attack. If you score a critical hit, you can instead push the target 10 feet directly away from you. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunities, and the target must end this move in a safe space it can stand in. You choose which effect to apply after the attack roll has been made, but before the damage is rolled.
It works on a hit, but is applied before damage is rolled. If doing damage is a necessary part of performing a successful hit, how does one determine the hit was a success prior to damage being rolled?
Aside from that, the rules also tell us that "If your attack succeeds, you deal damage". Meaning, you determine success prior to dealing damage. Damage is the effect of the condition, which is a successful hit. So again, you are arguing that the attack roll is both a cause and a result of the cause. This is paradoxical.
Finally, if damage reduction results in negating all damage, no damage is "dealt". The glossary entry actually makes reference to that. So again, there could be no successful hit without dealing damage under your interpretation. That means the Damage Reduction would also be preventing the energy damage from a flaming weapon because the flaming property tells us it only applies "on a successful hit". But the rules governing Damage Reduction state that it does not prevent energy damage. Under your interpretation, it would have to if the weapon damage does not exceed the Damage Reduction.
That's too many contradictions for me to be comfortable with.
YES!!!! 200 Posts!! Whoot! I made a post that got to 200! I rule! Hahaha
Congrats. :) Guess we'll see how many more are needed before fretgod99 comes around to the Dark Side. :P
These are quite a few posts added while I slept. Lots to digest. First let me start off by saying the IF/WHEN exercise wasn't so much a distinction between these two words in general. IF and WHEN are both subordinating conjunctions. In that regard they are interchangeable. However, there is a slight distinction in their use. Say my wife's car has an empty gas tank, so she takes my van to head off to work and asks me to refill the car. My response can be 1 of 2:
IF I go out today, I'll fill up the tank.
WHEN I go out today, I'll fill up the tank.
Notice the slight distinction there? IF implies I have not decided whether I'm going out or not. It is a question of whether I might or might not. The car's full tank depends on a decision I haven't made yet. WHEN implies that I have made the decision that I am going out. It is no longer a question of IF. But IF this distinction doesn't help the argument any, THEN there is no reason to harp on it.
(Now there could be a 3rd answer I give my wife. That of 'NO'. But seeing as I like a happy home, why would I do that? :P )
One thing I've noticed in many of your posts, fretgod99, is a theme running through them. Reading what you post is good for me as it gives me a look inside your head and how you reason things...at least it does if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly. And this theme seems to be blending 2 different things.
You sometimes talk about a "successful attack" and other times refer to a "successful hit/attempt/maneuver" and you interchange these two concepts as if they are the same thing. But as far as I can tell, they are not the same. I admit the PF books do get a bit wonky with language on several points. Sometimes they are referring to the "Attack" in its entirety where other times they say an "attack" to just mean a hit/attempt/maneuver. What do you expect the house to look like when they keep adding more and more rooms onto the original design? But for the most part I believe the RAI is preserved.
Let's go back to the definition of the Attack Roll to show you what I mean. Say we have 2 PCs; our big brutish Half-orc and our easy-going Halfling. They both attack the same target. Both of them hit. The Half-orc deals 15 damage and the Halfling deals 5. But the target has 5/- DR. So damage is adjusted down to 10 and 0.
Whose attack was successful? I accept that they both succeeded in hitting their targets, but were both attacks successful? I would submit to say no. The intent of the attack was to do damage. The Half-orc succeeded in doing so. The Halfling only succeeded in hitting the target with no effect.
What we have going on is Hit success + Effect success = Attack success.
Since the Half-orc satisfied both events of hitting and effect, then his attack was a success in its entirety. However, the Halfling did not succeed in his attack. His hit was on, but the Effect did not transpire.
The same is true with all the rules throughout the PF books. And you've posted a whole bunch of them for people to look at. Many of them are referring to the Hit part of the equation. Not the entirety of the action. As I said, the wording gets wonky in some places, but basically, they are offering specific rules that fire at this point in the equation where the hit is determined a success (i.e. the roll indicates one).
Conversely, there are other rules that don't apply until the whole equation is fulfilled. Simply, the Hit must land and the Effect must be in place before the condition is satisfied. Greater Trip is just such an example because it wants the target to be successfully tripped first. This means the Attack was successful. In essence, that the Hit took place and the Effect was applied. Disagree?
What, then, is the purpose of a Trip? To knock the target prone. Can you "Successfully Trip" a target without knocking him prone? That answer, as far as I can tell, has to be "No". Because if you could say "Yes", you get this scenario:
GM: "You see the man lying prone on the ground."
PC #1: "We all surround him. I perform a Trip Attack on him."
(d20 roll indicates success)
GM: "Your trip is a success. Each of you get an AoO on him."
(all PCs roll their AoOs)
GM: "Now I would apply the prone effect, but as he already is, there is no need. We continue with PC #2."
PC #2: "I perform a Trip Attack on him."
(d20 roll indicates success and we assume all PCs have Combat Reflexes for multiple AoOs per Round)
GM: "Your trip is a success. Each of you get another AoO on him."
...and so it continues for each of them.
This isn't Trip-lock or Chain-Trip. This is Trip-crazy! Does PFS really allow this kind of thing at their tables? Because to say a "successful trip" is gained only because the roll beat the CMD, then as far as I can tell it seems as if we HAVE to accept this scenario. Sure you can argue that PC #2 can't force AoOs since his "trip" may constitute a similar action to PC #1 (although someone else could argue that it works this way just fine as these are two separate trip actions). But this still doesn't dispel PC #1's generation of AoOs for him and all his buddies in the first place. However, if you are still arguing that it is not possible, please tell me why it isn't. Because the only reason I can think of is "as the target is already prone, the Effect of Trip cannot be applied, therefore regardless of whether the Hit succeeds, the target cannot be Successfully Tripped, hence no AoO provoked." Which in essence supports my argument of how Greater Trip works.
And if you can think of another reason apart from that, Kudos to you and I offer a bow to your great debating talents. :)
The same can be argued for our Ooze. It can't be tripped. Says so in the stat block. But nowhere does it say it "can't be knocked prone". So can it be knocked prone? As there are multiple ways to knock something prone (i.e. Tripping and Overrunning as the 2 prime examples), and as you are not defining "Successful Tripping" as knocking something prone but simply succeeding on a roll, then by this reasoning I am led to believe that the Ooze is only immune to the Trip Roll, not the prone effect, so therefore I should conclude that the Ooze can be knocked prone.
I would argue, conversely, that since the Ooze cannot be tripped, it cannot be knocked prone. Therefore a successful Overrun would still allow you to move through its space, but you cannot knock it prone regardless of how high the roll is. But perhaps this is a subject for another thread.
However, seeing as we're on the subject of Overrun, yes I agree that "If the check is successful, you can move through its space." This is the definition of a successful Overrun. "Check" is referring to the dice roll. "Moving" is referring to the effect. When you have both in place, the Overrun is a success. If you have only rolled, but not moved through, then technically you didn't really Overrun. You sorta stopped or went around...which is no different than a normal move.
This is how I think you are confusing the Hit success with the Attack success anyway.
Lastly, if there are questions I'm not answering that need to be (if I'm able to), please boil them down. I hit the ones I remember, but there is a lot of stuff here and much of it can get lost in the mix.
One last note about our prone man.
Just because he's lying on the ground doesn't mean I can't use my halberd to hook his leg and pull. This would constitute a Trip attempt. I can roll the d20 and beat his CMD. But the point of doing so is useless...because I can't apply the Prone Condition to him...and that is why I can't "successfully trip" him, regardless of what the roll says.
One last note about our prone man.
Just because he's lying on the ground doesn't mean I can't use my halberd to hook his leg and pull. This would constitute a Trip attempt. I can roll the d20 and beat his CMD. But the point of doing so is useless...because I can't apply the Prone Condition to him...and that is why I can't "successfully trip" him, regardless of what the roll says.
It's hardly pointless if it allows you and your entire team free attacks of opportunity.
My point exactly. :)
If we say the AoO comes before the Prone, then it would seem that I can "successfully trip" a prone man because my CMB check meets or beats his CMD. This would then force him to provoke AoOs from myself and all my buddies. After this we get to the Prone part...which is then ignored since the guy is already prone and the Effect is moot.
It doesn't seem like this should work that way. So unless I'm missing something, is the above correct? If the Devs say so, then I must concede. But I'm rather of the belief that it works more like this:
If we say the AoO comes after the Prone, then my Trip Action will not be successful (regardless of how high the roll is) because the Effect cannot be applied. So no Trip-crazy going on.
I'm considering a new thread to address this type of thing directly.
If we say the AoO comes before the Prone, then it would seem that I can "successfully trip" a prone man because my CMB check meets or beats his CMD. This would then force him to provoke AoOs from myself and all my buddies. After this we get to the Prone part...which is then ignored since the guy is already prone and the Effect is moot.
And if you could do this, then you could prompt a near endless chain of AoOs from an already prone target.
Example: Mr. E (Enemy), Trippi (Greater Tripper), Smash (Allied heavy hitter). Both allies have combat reflexes and a nice high Dex.
If you add in a second Tripper, then there would be two chances to continue the chain each time (or just wallop the not-quite-prone guy).
Rather ludicrous.
First let me start off by saying the IF/WHEN exercise wasn't so much a distinction between these two words in general. IF and WHEN are both subordinating conjunctions. In that regard they are interchangeable. However, there is a slight distinction in their use. Say my wife's car has an empty gas tank, so she takes my van to head off to work and asks me to refill the car. My response can be 1 of 2:
IF I go out today, I'll fill up the tank.
WHEN I go out today, I'll fill up the tank.Notice the slight distinction there? IF implies I have not decided whether I'm going out or not. It is a question of whether I might or might not. The car's full tank depends on a decision I haven't made yet. WHEN implies that I have made the decision that I am going out. It is no longer a question of IF. But IF this distinction doesn't help the argument any, THEN there is no reason to harp on it.
And for the purposes of what we're discussing here, the distinction between the two cases is irrelevant. They both set a condition to be satisfied: Whether a trip combat maneuver has occurred. So as you said, no reason to belabor the point.
You sometimes talk about a "successful attack" and other times refer to a "successful hit/attempt/maneuver" and you interchange these two concepts as if they are the same thing. But as far as I can tell, they are not the same. I admit the PF books do get a bit wonky with language on several points. Sometimes they are referring to the "Attack" in its entirety where other times they say an "attack" to just mean a hit/attempt/maneuver. What do you expect the house to look like when they keep adding more and more rooms onto the original design? But for the most part I believe the RAI is preserved.
Let's go back to the definition of the Attack Roll to show you what I mean. Say we have 2 PCs; our big brutish Half-orc and our easy-going Halfling. They both attack the same target. Both of them hit. The Half-orc deals 15 damage and the Halfling deals 5. But the target has 5/- DR. So damage is adjusted down to 10 and 0.
Whose attack was successful? I accept that they both succeeded in hitting their targets, but were both attacks successful? I would submit to say no. The intent of the attack was to do damage. The Half-orc succeeded in doing so. The Halfling only succeeded in hitting the target with no effect.
What we have going on is Hit success + Effect success = Attack success.
I use the phrases interchangeably because the rulebook uses the phrases interchangeably. Attack and Maneuver aren't necessarily uniformly interchangeable, but they are when we're discussing making trips or disarms or sunders.
For instance, the book tells us that if our "attack is successful", the target drops a carried item and is "disarmed". Specifically "attack". The entry on Attack Rolls states that you make an "attack roll" and "if your result equals or beats the target's AC, you hit and deal damage." Next, the Damage entry states, "If your attack succeeds, you deal damage." A successful attack cannot therefore include causing damage because the damage entry says causing damage is the effect of a successful attack.
Could the language be more consistent, more uniform? Sure. But it is absolutely clear that these terms are used interchangeably to refer to the aspect of the action taken in combat that relates directly to the attack roll and not the effect caused by the success of that roll. We know that "hit" and "attack" in this context are analogous because the rules use them the same way. We know that you make an attack roll when doing a combat maneuver, just like with a regular attack (though the bonuses may be slightly different). We know through parallel construction that the rules analogize combat maneuver success with hitting. I see no evidence to suggest that Hit Success + Effect Success = Attack Success, particularly when the rules state something completely different. The rules, unequivocally and in more than one place, state that Attack Success causes the effect. See Damage, See Disarm, See Sunder, See Overrun, See Bull Rush, etc. All of them say, "If your attack is successful, [the effect occurs]."
So an attack that causes no damage might indeed be ineffective, but it was not unsuccessful, in so far as game terms are concerned anyway.
What, then, is the purpose of a Trip? To knock the target prone. Can you "Successfully Trip" a target without knocking him prone? That answer, as far as I can tell, has to be "No".
Yes. See Meteor Hammer.
What, then, is the purpose of a Trip? To knock the target prone. Can you "Successfully Trip" a target without knocking him prone? That answer, as far as I can tell, has to be "No".Yes. See Meteor Hammer.
I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. I meant as a general rule. I agree that Meteor Hammer introduces a specific rule to supplant the Prone with a Drag...or something drag-like.
The same can be argued for our Ooze. It can't be tripped. Says so in the stat block. But nowhere does it say it "can't be knocked prone". So can it be knocked prone? As there are multiple ways to knock something prone (i.e. Tripping and Overrunning as the 2 prime examples), and as you are not defining "Successful Tripping" as knocking something prone but simply succeeding on a roll, then by this reasoning I am led to believe that the Ooze is only immune to the Trip Roll, not the prone effect, so therefore I should conclude that the Ooze can be knocked prone.
I would argue, conversely, that since the Ooze cannot be tripped, it cannot be knocked prone. Therefore a successful Overrun would still allow you to move through its space, but you cannot knock it prone regardless of how high the roll is. But perhaps this is a subject for another thread.
The bottom line is that the rules only state that an Ooze is immune to being tripped. It does not say that an Ooze is immune to being prone.
This isn't Trip-lock or Chain-Trip. This is Trip-crazy! Does PFS really allow this kind of thing at their tables? Because to say a "successful trip" is gained only because the roll beat the CMD, then as far as I can tell it seems as if we HAVE to accept this scenario. Sure you can argue that PC #2 can't force AoOs since his "trip" may constitute a similar action to PC #1 (although someone else could argue that it works this way just fine as these are two separate trip actions). But this still doesn't dispel PC #1's generation of AoOs for him and all his buddies in the first place. However, if you are still arguing that it is not possible, please tell me why it isn't. Because the only reason I can think of is "as the target is already prone, the Effect of Trip cannot be applied, therefore regardless of whether the Hit succeeds, the target cannot be Successfully Tripped, hence no AoO provoked." Which in essence supports my argument of how Greater Trip works.
Actually, nothing in the rules states that someone who is already prone cannot be tripped again. The FAQ entry simply states that making a trip via AoO on a character who is standing up from prone does not prevent that person from standing up because the AoO comes before the character actually stands up.
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
So to get technical, your interpretation also does not prevent the issue you're raising because Jason states that you can trip someone who is prone, it just doesn't do anything beyond leaving them prone. Is the character prone after you make your trip attempt? Yes. The effect of tripping can still be applied, it just doesn't change anything. So it would still be successful, even per your interpretation.
But as much as we've played with the words, I still think it comes down to application...and specifically "Can you 'trip' a prone man?"
Majuba and others have pointed out the chain-trip incident. But even if we assume a GM would say no to it, I still see a problem with "tripping" a prone target in order to generate AoOs for yourself and your buddies.
So can a prone man be "successfully tripped" according to the RAW set forth by the rules and Greater Trip specifically?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Edit. Got ninja'ed by you. heh
I understand the Prone condition cannot be applied to a target standing up from prone as he is still technically prone when the AoO hits. We agree there. But what if while he was standing PC#1 uses his AoO to Trip so that he can generate AoOs through Greater Trip for PC#2 and PC#3 who are within melee?
This is possible?
But as much as we've played with the words, I still think it comes down to application...and specifically "Can you 'trip' a prone man?"
Majuba and others have pointed out the chain-trip incident. But even if we assume a GM would say no to it, I still see a problem with "tripping" a prone target in order to generate AoOs for yourself and your buddies.
So can a prone man be "successfully tripped" according to the RAW set forth by the rules and Greater Trip specifically?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Edit. Got ninja'ed by you. heh
I understand the Prone condition cannot be applied to a target standing up from prone as he is still technically prone when the AoO hits. We agree there. But what if while he was standing PC#1 uses his AoO to Trip so that he can generate AoOs through Greater Trip for PC#2 and PC#3 who are within melee?
This is possible?
No, the prone condition can be applied to someone who is already prone, that's the point. It just doesn't actually accomplish anything.
So RAW? Yes, you can technically use Greater Trip to provide AoO on a character who is already prone by successfully tripping them. And that issue will crop up whether the AoO on the first trip from Greater Trip occurs prior to initially knocking the target prone or not. That unquestionably is not the intent, though. It's not what is supposed to happen in either interpretation, hence my call for GMs exercising common sense.
There are many situations in this game where you can apply a strict, cold reading of the Rules as they are Written and you will undeniably break the game. Rules can't be written with the expectation that every wonky interpretation or confluence of abstract rules can be accounted for. That's where people have to make a judgment call.
We know without a doubt that chain-tripping and trip-locking (and by extension, Greater Trip AoO abuse) is not at all what the designers intended to occur, even if the technical language of the rules might allow for it. This has been true since 3.5 and continues through PF to today. But the bottom line is that the pure rules language (under either interpretation of what we're debating) allows for this type of abuse. So, exercise common sense because we all recognize it is not supposed to actually work that way.
See, when I exercise "Common Sense" I don't go anywhere near this issue and having to ignore rules, wonky or not.
When Greater Trip is read as saying that the "successful trip" includes both the roll and the effect, then we avoid all this headache. By this reading, you CANNOT 'trip' a prone target. You can make the roll if you like, but the effect will not apply and the AoO will not be generated.
There is no abuse of the rule. There is no rule to abuse.
And the beautiful thing is that even with this interpretation, I am still able to read Meteor Hammer and Spinning Throw and Ki Throw and all sorts of other rules just fine. :)
But as to your view that the prone target can be tripped by RAW; I will be posting a new thread shortly to discuss a scenario containing specifically this issue....as I agree with others in calling the possibility of that 'ludicrous' and that it certainly leaves the game wide open to abuse that must be put down...which in and of itself speaks out against either a bad rule or a bad interpretation.
Now if the Devs were to come out and say "Yes it is possible" and for the reasons you have argued, then I must concede to your interpretation of RAW regarding this Feat...no matter how 'ludicrous' it would seem to me or others. But until such a time as they speak out on this, I find the easier path is the road I've described.
When Greater Trip is read as saying that the "successful trip" includes both the roll and the effect, then we avoid all this headache. By this reading, you CANNOT 'trip' a prone target. You can make the roll if you like, but the effect will not apply and the AoO will not be generated.
Is the target prone after the trip attempt? Yes. Then, per your interpretation, how was the trip not successful? Is there a rule that says you cannot trip a prone target? Is there a rule that says the target must not be prone prior to tripping? Just because the effect doesn't change anything doesn't mean it didn't apply. Hence, the ludicrousness applies regardless of interpretation.
And at least one developer has said that it is possible to trip a prone character. I quoted it above. He simply stated that tripping a prone character ultimately doesn't change anything because the character was already prone.
The quote you mention from the developer above was referring to using a trip attack as the AoO against a target standing up. He said nothing about "successfully tripping" that target. The reason he falls short of that statement, I assume, is because it is impossible to "succeed" at tripping something that is already prone at the moment you make the attempt. It is like killing a dead body. You can't. Sure you can hit it, stab it, kick it, and slice and dice it all you like. But you can't kill it. The Dead condition has already been applied. You cannot blind a blind man. And you cannot knock a prone man prone.
But to answer your questions:
How was the trip not successful? If Target stands up, and I hit him with an AoO Trip attack, the roll beats the CMD, but "it has no effect" (JB's words). If the effect has no effect, then you did not trip him because he's standing up and you can't stop that with another trip attack. The trip failed. You hit, but did nothing. The only thing you accomplished was using an AoO to accomplish nothing.
Is there a rule to say you can't trip a prone target?! Does there need to be for you? Are we nit-picking things that much? Why do I suddenly feel like I'm watching the Black Knight scene of Monty Python's Holy Grail. :P
But to answer that question, I would say 'yes, there is a rule'.
(did that catch you off guard? heh Well it's more of a derived rule).
What is the definition of Trip? Page 201 (my printing) "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." So tripping means to knock prone (unless you've got a Meteor Hammer handy). Now we can surmise that from what Jason says, that regardless of the roll, the effect has no effect. It's not that it applies but doesn't stack. It doesn't have an effect. So if you cannot knock something prone, the very essence of what a Trip is, then I think I'm safe to go out on that limb and say yes, you cannot trip a prone target.
Why? Is there a rule that you know of that says you can? Maybe I missed that. Wouldn't be the first time. <shrug>
No, as far as I'm aware there's no rule that actually covers the situation. Just a developer saying you can trip someone who's prone, it just doesn't change anything. I'm not putting much weight either way on his use of the word effect, because I have no way of knowing if he meant that as a game mechanic or simply because it was a word that fit the need. Similarly, had he said something other than "effect" (like impact or something else), I wouldn't be saying that favored me because he didn't say "effect". Besides, the FAQ doesn't say you hit and do nothing or that the trip fails; the point of the FAQ is that the AoO is resolved before the target stands up - so you hit, but don't prevent the target from standing up after the AoO is resolved.
And if we're back to the definition of trip, we've again come full circle. What does it mean to "knock" someone prone? Is there a transitory period between being "knocked" prone and actually being prone? If so, doesn't it stand to reason that this is the point at which an attack of opportunity might be provoked via Greater Trip? It's certainly possible that to be "knocked" prone, a person needs to be not prone to start with. Dunno. But again, you're begging the question about what a successful trip is. If the trip is the attack which produces an effect, then this is all irrelevant. If the trip is the attack and the effect, then it matters. So we're back to that ...
Heh. It would seem so. I'm mentally wiped after a long day so will have to take a fresh look at this later...if there is anything left to discuss really.
"...if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse."
:)
But for kicks, I did post the application scenario elsewhere so feel free to check that one out. But fyi I'm more interested in hearing what people have to say there and joining the conversation here and there rather than spearheading any charge.
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect,No effect means, no effect. So you can't generate AoO's etc by using trip on a prone target.
This assumes that the AoO comes after the Effect. Since the Effect cannot resolve, the AoO is not triggered. As argued by others, however, if the AoO comes before the Effect, then you can because the AoO triggers after the Roll but before the Effect succeeds or fails to resolve. I disagree with the idea of AoO coming before Effect. I believe it is dependent on Effect. Success = Effect.
Consider this piece:
Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.
Now if Success is the Roll and not the Effect, then I have to read this sentence as "Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of rolls depending on how much your attack roll..."
This is nonsense wording. But if Success is the Effect, then it reads: "Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of effect depending on how much your attack roll..."
What are varying levels of success? Varying levels of Effect. Are they dependent on the Roll? Of course they are. I'm not arguing against that part. However if we are considering an IF/THEN statement as given to us by Determine Success, then we can conclude that Effect is dependent on Roll, but is also a natural result of Roll in so much as the two are conjoined. Unless a specific rule acts upon this relation to separate the two, they are inseparable.
Which brings us back to A = B + C and the question of "What does it mean to successfully trip your target"?
I would surmise that we are actually dealing with 2 different definitions of "success" which may be confusing. One part is talking about the attempted roll. "My roll was a success" as in the numbers are high enough to beat the CMD. This is a loose use of the term much as I might say "Go up this road 200 yards to the 7-11". First off you're not going "up" anything. "Up" implies vertical travel. Second, is 7-11 EXACTLY 200 yards away? Probably not, but you get the meaning of my sentence. Anyone who asks what time the sun is setting is doing the same thing. We all know the sun doesn't "literally" set. But we get what the person is saying when he's talking about sunset and sunrise.
The second use of the term "success" seems to relate to the action in its entirety. Did I successfully trip him? Well, is he on the floor at your feet or is he standing in front of you? At the moment you ask whether you've successfully tripped him, the answer to that depends on the state of the target that you were attempting to trip. Is he prone? Then yes, you've tripped him. Is he standing? Then no, you failed to do so.
Now is it possible to say that you've technically tripped him as in he's going to fall, but there is a moment in between where he hasn't quite fallen just yet and that is where the AoO can occur? In Real Life, I would say that is certainly possible. You make him stumble, and then smack him as he drops. But as people from both sides of this argument have noted, we are not dealing with real life. Yes, certain things still apply. Physics and Gravity and all that (unless you magic it away). But the game suspends certain parts of RL for purposes of balance. Look at avoiding Trip-Lock. I can't re-trip a guy standing up from prone. Well in RL I certainly can. He gets to his hands and knees and I kick his arms out from under him and he's back on his face. But the game wouldn't balance that way, so they suspend it.
The same is happening with the lack of time between the trip and the fall. Falling down because you were knocked there is not an action by any definition. In game terms there is no measureable time delay between being knocking prone and ending up prone. There is literally nothing for an AoO to insert itself into. I cannot take the very weapon I am in the process of using to trip my target and use it for an AoO. The weapon cannot coexist in such a way as to be used for two different things at the exact same point in time.
(again, unless you magic it that way) :P
Now PF plays loose with the words, so sometimes it might seem like they keep interchanging one meaning for another...which is what probably lands us on a thread like this. But as others have said before me, I prefer the KISS method. If I can read it with simple English and it's passing my Common Sense and KISS tests left and right, then the meaning is clear.
Interesting way of looking at it.
Can you trip a prone man? No. Can you take the trip action against a prone man? Yes.
Subtle difference.
It repeats what I said on the other thread, but this subtle difference is the same subtle difference between making an Intimidation check to Demoralize a target and having that target be a 3+ level Paladin.
The check may succeed per the rules of how Skill Checks work, but the effect will not be delivered. For that reason, I could not conclude that the target was successfully demoralized.
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect,No effect means, no effect. So you can't generate AoO's etc by using trip on a prone target.This assumes that the AoO comes after the Effect. Since the Effect cannot resolve, the AoO is not triggered. As argued by others, however, if the AoO comes before the Effect, then you can because the AoO triggers after the Roll but before the Effect succeeds or fails to resolve. I disagree with the idea of AoO coming before Effect. I believe it is dependent on Effect. Success = Effect.
Consider this piece:
Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD.Now if Success is the Roll and not the Effect, then I have to read this sentence as "Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of rolls depending on how much your attack roll..."
This is nonsense wording. But if Success is the Effect, then it reads: "Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of effect depending on how much your attack roll..."
What are varying levels of success? Varying levels of Effect. Are they dependent on the Roll? Of course they are. I'm not arguing against that part. However if we are considering an IF/THEN statement as given to us by Determine Success, then we can conclude that Effect is dependent on Roll, but is also a natural result of Roll in so much as the two are conjoined. Unless a specific rule acts upon this relation to separate the two, they are inseparable.
This isn't helping you. Success doesn't mean "roll"; it references the outcome of the roll. Success, as we define it, is simply the name for the attack roll having exceeded the target.
All it means is, the outcome of the maneuver depends upon how well you roll. The success of your maneuver (the effect to be applied by your successful attempt) depends upon how well you roll. The effect changes for some maneuvers depending on not just beating the CMD, but by how much.
And again, you're still arguing two things. One argument you present is that "Success" is a distinct thing from both the roll and the effect of the roll; it is caused by the roll itself and occurs simultaneously with the effect. The other argument you present is that "Success" is the result of the effect having been applied, meaning it occurs or is determined after the effect applies. These two positions are logically inconsistent.
Can you trip a prone man? No. Can you take the trip action against a prone man? Yes.
Subtle difference.
Can you make a successful trip action against a prone creature? That's the question. And it turns on what "success" means. Does it refer to the action or the consequence?
This isn't helping you. Success doesn't mean "roll"; it references the outcome of the roll. Success, as we define it, is simply the name for the attack roll having exceeded the target.
Aw, I thought it rather clever. ;) But to correct you slightly:
Success of the attack/attempt, as we define it, is simply the name for the roll having exceeded the target. Success for the action is something different. I believe it to be Success(roll) + Success(effect).
Can you make a successful trip action against a prone creature? That's the question. And it turns on what "success" means. Does it refer to the action or the consequence?Can you trip a prone man? No. Can you take the trip action against a prone man? Yes.
Subtle difference.
Yes this is the question. Greater Bull Rush is careful to denote that the AoO generated is for your allies and not you. Vicious Stomp does the same in denoting the AoO is for you only. Many entries (although I'd love to say ALL, I cannot as there are some that are admittedly fuzzy) appear to denote "attack" or "attempt" as opposed to "action".
So I see a "trip attack" and a "trip attempt" as the same thing. They denote the Roll.
I also see "succeeding at a trip attack" and "succeeding at a trip attempt as the same. They also denote succeeding at the Roll.
But once we get to "successfully tripping", I am seeing something else. This seems to be encompassing the entire event of tripping from successful roll to successful effect. There are feats and abilities that can play with the effect (like a Meteor Hammer switching out the Prone for a Drag). But did you successfully Drag your target if it proved to be somehow immune to Dragging? It was a successful roll, but again the effect didn't apply.
We've talked primarily about attack rolls, but a successful attack roll and a successful skill check are very close in wording. They basically say "If your result meets or beats AC or DC, then you hit/damage or succeed." But back once again to that Intimidation check. If my check beats the DC of a 3rd level Paladin, have I succeeded in Demoralizing him?
I would say no.
Not to butt in too much into an interesting debate, but I'm curious where either of you might fall on the issue of Ki Throw. This lets you a essentially reposition the opponent in addition to the trip. If you repositioned the opponent Who gets the attack of opportunity? your adjacent ally or a newly adjacent Ally because of the reposition?
Not to butt in too much into an interesting debate, but I'm curious where either of you might fall on the issue of Ki Throw. This lets you a essentially reposition the opponent in addition to the trip. If you repositioned the opponent Who gets the attack of opportunity? your adjacent ally or a newly adjacent Ally because of the reposition?
Debate? These are just affectionate Secret Messages. I take it we have been beating your Sense Motive check, then? :P
Not to butt in too much into an interesting debate, but I'm curious where either of you might fall on the issue of Ki Throw. This lets you a essentially reposition the opponent in addition to the trip. If you repositioned the opponent Who gets the attack of opportunity? your adjacent ally or a newly adjacent Ally because of the reposition?
If you believe the AoO from Greater Trip comes after the attack roll is determined to be successful, whoever threatens at that point. If you believe the AoO from Greater Trip comes after the target is knocked prone, whoever threatens after the target is thrown.
@fretgod99 I can say that I whole-heartedly agree with you. I believe we are up to once in a row now? :)
@fretgod99 I can say that I whole-heartedly agree with you. I believe we are up to once in a row now? :)
Ha! A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, right?
|
After reading this thread, I hereby declare that all of you are wrong.
I think I just blew up. =/
|
|
In the case of Greater Trip, this means that you successfully make your trip attempt, but before the results of that action (opponent getting the prone modifier applied) you take an attack of opportunity. Think of it as tripping them and smacking them with your weapon on their way down.
I'll tell you what, if someone can show me a CREDIBLE video of this, I will concede the point that the trigger is divorced from the consequence of the success. The odds of being able to "hit someone on the way down" is pretty slim at best. I've studied several martial art forms and not once have I seen someone that takes an opponent down "hit someone on the way down". I don't think its biomechanically possible. I really don't think anyone is fast enough to do it. What I have seen (and done) is immediately moving into an advantageous position to deliver blows with nigh impunity or the opponent resists from the floor (unless they can kip up).
If by credible you mean "in-real-life" then no you probably won't see it, its the type of trope The Matrix and the like brought into being, and that's why its here. Y'know why? It's fun.
Ah, but do you know what is MORE fun? Getting the AoO on them when they're actually prone so I can attack at a +4. :)
So if "fun" is the deciding factor, let's just go with that. Heck, make it a +8 for extra giggles.
But yes, I agree that sometimes we can apply RL to things and sometimes we can't. But then that's why we're here debating rule interpretation. "Because it's not possible in RL" isn't an argument against a rule just as much as "It's a Fantasy" isn't a blanket excuse to allow everything.
That being said, I'm still of the mind that there is no measurable time between the "trip" and the "prone". No action is taking place. It is like the difference in time between the sword stabbing and the damage applying. Namely, there isn't any.
|
|
Ah, but do you know what is MORE fun? Getting the AoO on them when they're actually prone so I can attack at a +4. :)
So if "fun" is the deciding factor, let's just go with that. Heck, make it a +8 for extra giggles.
But yes, I agree that sometimes we can apply RL to things and sometimes we can't. But then that's why we're here debating rule interpretation. "Because it's not possible in RL" isn't an argument against a rule just as much as "It's a Fantasy" isn't a blanket excuse to allow everything.
I agree :) My reference to RL was an attempt to provide perspective on the subject at hand. I can understand why the Dev's might rule to divorce the trigger from the consequence, which to my understanding was to prevent trip locking of opponents. The brutal truth is in RL most fights go to the ground for precisely this reason. Attacking from a position of advantage is the goal of every thug, soldier, commander, and government of the world. To do otherwise is tantamount to defeat. No one wants to be defeated...
Now, if the goal is indeed to prevent trip locking, then the mechanics need to be clearly written to accomplish this end. They should be written in such a manner as to flow logically without breaking immersion. I'm all for this.
I think for general AoOs the purpose is to squeeze in an interrupt when the enemy has taken their eye off the ball. By natural consequence this prevents trip-lock as Standing is the action that provokes and the AoO comes before completion of that action...so logically the target isn't Standing yet, hence he's prone. There is no real in-between state.
Of course when we come to disarming, I find the rules a bit odd since you're technically generating an AoO by taking your attention off your opponent and putting it onto....the very thing he's going to hit you with for his AoO. But just like how the Turn sequence is constructed, this is another example of where RL gets suspended for game balance.
In the case of Greater Trip, this means that you successfully make your trip attempt, but before the results of that action (opponent getting the prone modifier applied) you take an attack of opportunity. Think of it as tripping them and smacking them with your weapon on their way down.I'll tell you what, if someone can show me a CREDIBLE video of this, I will concede the point that the trigger is divorced from the consequence of the success. The odds of being able to "hit someone on the way down" is pretty slim at best. I've studied several martial art forms and not once have I seen someone that takes an opponent down "hit someone on the way down". I don't think its biomechanically possible. I really don't think anyone is fast enough to do it. What I have seen (and done) is immediately moving into an advantageous position to deliver blows with nigh impunity or the opponent resists from the floor (unless they can kip up).
Wasn't the ninja from Metal Gear Solid known for this very thing?
Perhaps not, but it better allows us to visualize it, which is the only thing that really matters in a fantasy roleplaying game.
Perhaps not, but it better allows us to visualize it, which is the only thing that really matters in a fantasy roleplaying game.
agreed, but this sort of view would also seem to favor the +4 bonus on attack. A person mid fall sideways putting their arms out to avoid a painful landing is much more prone then someone simply on the ground. Not that any of this is supported by rules mind you, but going purely off visualization I'd say they should definitely count as prone since your not exactly the stalwart definition of defensive fighting as you tumble on your face.
As too the actual rule, I must say Elbedor has me convinced, but every time I'm about to write the rule off as done Fretgod99 has to come in and sew doubt in my view.
It's quite frustrating. :P
Actually you don't need to pay attention to anything fretgod99 is saying. Just ignore him. :P
Seriously though, he does bring up points in the rules and language that can be curious. It's as if the Devs didn't really write this stuff to hold up under such scrutiny. For example, the rules say what an Attack Roll is. Roll the d20, add in modifiers, and compare it to a number. If it meets or beats this number then a hit is scored and damage is applied. But then they proceed to play fast and loose with the wording and mix attacks, attempts, hits, and successes into a confusing jumble. In the past I expressed their original definition as:
Successful Roll = Successful Hit + Successful Damage
But I think this was confusing to some people as they were reading it in a fashion other than what I intended. I would amend the formula to read more like:
IF Successful Roll, THEN Successful Hit AND Successful Damage
The point is that "Hit" and "Damage" are linked together. Unless a specific rule acts to divide these two, they are inseparable. Which is the case in RL if you consider as the knife sinks in, the damage is delivered. So why not just say "IF Successful Roll, THEN Damage"? Because there can be a case where the Hit may happen, but the Damage doesn't get delivered...such as with DR. Or other cases where the ability is looking for the hit to score, not the damage to be applied. So they are both important to have in the equation.
But as the rules tend to play loose with their own meanings, what I think ultimately it should look like is this:
A Successful Action = Successful Roll (Hit) + Successful Effect
(or to preserve our IF/THEN statement):
IF Successful Roll AND Successful Effect, THEN Successful Action (about as plain English as I can get it)
The Action is what you're attempting to do. You did not succeed if either the Roll failed (meaning you didn't hit him) or if the Effect failed (meaning your hit landed, but nothing happened). For attacking, this means you have to both land the shot AND have an effect. Otherwise how can you say you've succeeded in attacking him?
For skills, this means the exact same thing. How can you say you have succeeded in Demoralizing a target if the Roll is good, but the target is a Paladin (hence the Effect doesn't apply)? The point is, you can't.
I read Greater Trip in this same light. The Feat wants a trigger for the AoO and that trigger is that I "successfully trip" my opponent. In order for a Successful Trip to happen, I must have a Successful Roll AND a Successful Effect (i.e. knocking the target prone)
If the only requirement for Success is a high enough roll, then we run into issues of PCs "successfully" demoralizing paladins (although nothing happened) and PCs "successfully" tripping prone targets and generating AoOs for their buddies. And I'm sure there are more examples out there than these.
Which I think is not only odd or quirky ruling, but utter nonsense.
EDIT: But in all fairness, I should add that one solution to this debate may be to have someone post a FAQ request thread with the question worded something like "Can I Greater Trip a prone target to make him provoke?" If the Devs answer that, then we have our answer on this.
Hmm...actually while posting on the other trip thread, something occurred to me.
Even if the AoO comes after the Prone, if you can trip a prone target and reapply the condition in a non-stacking manner, that might be enough to satisfy Greater Trip's requirement to provoke.
So to amend my last EDIT, I would have to say someone should just simply post a new thread asking for FAQ that says something akin to "Does the AoO provoked by Greater Trip come before or after the target is Prone?"
Sounds straight forward enough and then either I must concede to fretgod99 or he worships at my feet for my amazing intuitiveness. :P
(actually any credit in that regard has to go to Davick, Remy, and others who convinced me in the first place).
So to amend my last EDIT, I would have to say someone should just simply post a new thread asking for FAQ that says something akin to "Does the AoO provoked by Greater Trip come before or after the target is Prone?"
Or, you know, just FAQ the very first post in this thread made by Darthslash, since he asked that exact question ;).
Personally it's very clear to me, based on the FAQ on tripping to prevent trip locking, and based on how readied actions work (which are in many ways similar in function to AoO's in the manner in which they interrupt the normal flow of events), that the AoO's from greater trip occur BEFORE the target receives the prone condition. This also means that, RAW, vicious stomp happens before the prone condition (though in this particular case I'm confident that the RAI of vicious stomp is intended to come after the prone condition is applied).
The rule though for both readied actions and AoO's is they come just prior to whatever event triggered them, their results are resolved, then if the character who performed the triggering event is still able to do so they finish their action that resulted in the trigger.
EDIT: While the FAQ on tripping talks about the particular scenario of not being able to trip lock someone, the manner in which it is explained covers AoO's in a broader sense - explaining that AoO's occur prior to the trigger. It isn't a special exception rule for the trip lock condition, but rather an explanation of general rules for AoO's and when they occur.
Or, you know, just FAQ the very first post in this thread made by Darthslash, since he asked that exact question ;).So to amend my last EDIT, I would have to say someone should just simply post a new thread asking for FAQ that says something akin to "Does the AoO provoked by Greater Trip come before or after the target is Prone?"
I am not highly proficient with the requirements of requesting a FAQ, but it would appear that the OP would need to be trimmed for conciseness. Maybe just my opinion though. :)
If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
This would indicate if the readied action is against an action, then it behaves similarly to an AoO as in it behaves as an interrupt between the start and finish of that action. If I announced that I will shoot the first orc to enter the room, my shot can't take place until an orc enters the room. If my shot went off before the trigger (before he entered the room) there would be nothing for me to shoot at.
AoOs work similarly. They interrupt actions. But per the normal rules, being knocked over is not an action. It is a condition that you suffer as the Effect from someone else's action. Becoming Blind also isn't an action. Nor is being made Sickened, Shaken, Dead, Bleeding, or any other condition. The application of an Effect is not an action. And you cannot perform an AoO to interrupt your own action. They are only for interrupting other people's actions. So per the rules you cannot knock someone prone with a trip and then interrupt that same action with an AoO and THEN apply the Effect. AoOs don't work that way. This interpretation is legislating new rules, not deciphering the ones we have.
Where the problem falls is that we think of AoOs has HAVING to interrupt something. So what is there to interrupt? The answer is nothing. When a target falls prone adjacent to you, the "falling prone" part is done. NOW the target provokes if you have Vicious Stomp and the AoO fires. An AoO is not interrupting anything in this case because this is a special rule allowing an AoO where one was not allowed normally before. The same is true with Greater Trip. You must FIRST successfully trip your target. THEN he provokes. AND THEN the AoO fires. There is nothing left to resolve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BS. It is so far from being clear that it is opaque.