| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Greater Trip and the placement of the AoO before or after the Prone effect have been discussed on here extensively by many people (myself included). But a scenario has come to mind that begs the question of how this trip event should resolve.
Setting: 3 PCs (each with Halberd, Greater Trip feat, and plenty of AoOs available) track down and fight Mr. BadGuy (MBG). Combat begins and everyone moves into position. Flanking is unimportant.
PC#1 has the Initiative and declares a Trip attack. The roll is a success. Now whether the AoO happens here or after the Prone condition is unimportant at the moment. By the end of PC#1's action, we know that MBG is still alive, is prone, and all PCs have had their AoOs. Onto PC#2 who is next.
PC#2 declares a Trip Attack against MBG who is prone on the ground. Assuming his roll beats the CMD, what happens? We know his application of the prone condition will not take effect as it's already there. But what about the AoOs generated by the feat due to a "successful trip" as laid down in the Greater Trip feat?
This is Point A.
Point B moves beyond PC#2's action to MBG's action. He stands up. This generates yet more AoOs, but PC#3 decides that his attack will be a Trip. Again we know that the Prone from this cannot take effect as MBG is still technically prone, but just like Point A, can PC#3 force another series of AoOs through the feat rules?
Your answer may depend on whether you believe the AoO is supposed to come before or after the "prone" and what constitutes a "successful trip", but I'm curious as to how people would rule this.
Thoughts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point A: How do you trip someone who is not standing up?
Point B: The AoO comes before the bad guy is standing, he's still prone when you hit him. See my answer to Point A.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me this boils down to "Can a prone character be successfully tripped ?". I lean rather strongly towards No. Your maneuver may "succeed" by virtue of having a good enough opposed roll, but being tripped while prone has, per the faq, no real effect. We know from the trip maneuver rule itself that "Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped." Can you make a trip attempt against a flying creature, knowing that it cannot be tripped, and claim that because your opposed roll was good enough that you've made a successful trip attempt despite the fact that the target can't be tripped ?
In addition, in keeping with the philosophy that trip-locking is a bad thing, there may be a balance issue.
If I understand it correctly you cannot use a trip attack on a person standing up from prone because the attack comes before the action that triggered it and since the target is already prone you cannot trip them.
Logic would extend that to your question.
Since the target is already prone, you cannot trip them. Therefore the other two PC's cannot use their trip abilities and all the benefits they generate against and already prone target.
Moving on from game rules to common sense, you cannot trip someone who has already been tripped and is on the ground. It's a binary condition. Either your standing upright and can be tripped, or your on the ground and prone and can't be tripped.
My general rule of thumb is, if the combination of game rules seems to lead to some odd effect that would be kinda silly, then don't interpret it that way.
So in all your examples, once the target has been tripped, trip attacks are not valid on them until they have once again successfully regained their feet.
They could easily fix all the confusion by adding:
"You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you and is already on their feet."
to the Trip combat description but I assume they thought the word 'trip' was enough to make people think the target was standing so that wouldn't be necessary.
You cannot trip a prone person. Such a manuever fails. A person standing up from prone is still prone, thus attacks of opportunity for standing up cannot trip the person. This is to prevent trip locking someone and was intentional by developer design.
You cannot trip a prone person. Such a manuever fails. A person standing up from prone is still prone, thus attacks of opportunity for standing up cannot trip the person. This is to prevent trip locking someone and was intentional by developer design.
I understand and agree with this. :) What I'm wondering is this:
According to Greater Trip, when you "successfully trip" your opponent, he provokes attacks of opportunity.
Now IF the AoO provoked fires after the "trip" but before the "prone", then technically I could:
Step #1 "Trip" a prone target.
Step #2 Make him provoke from all my buddies.
Step #3 Fail to apply the prone condition as he is already prone.
Notice I said IF here. I am not saying this is how to interpret the Feat. I am just presenting one interpretation that I have seen on here. So IF this interpretation is correct, then the technique of Steps 1-3 would seem possible.
However if you read Greater Trip to mean the AoO comes after prone, then you cannot generate AoOs by tripping a prone target as he is already prone and the "trip" fails.
Again, not saying I agree with or disagree. Just presenting the two interpretations and how they apply to this situation. I was curious to see what others thought.
You cannot trip a prone person. Such a manuever fails. A person standing up from prone is still prone, thus attacks of opportunity for standing up cannot trip the person. This is to prevent trip locking someone and was intentional by developer design.
The FAQ says that the AoO occurs prior to the person standing. Jason Buhlman said that while you can attack someone who is prone with a trip attack, it just won't do anything.
So the question isn't if you can trip someone who is prone (EDIT: "can" meaning "can attempt to"). You can. The question is, can a trip attack be "successful" even if the target starts out prone.
This all stems from the ridiculously drawn out conversation in the other thread about when the AoO from Greater Trip occurs. Specifically, what constitutes a "successful" trip - is it exceeding the target's CMD with your attack roll or is it knocking the person prone.
Couldn't have put it better myself.....cause I didn't. heh
Although I'm also interested in its application with the above scenario.
Success, in the system, is defined as your check roll matching or exceeding the DC (AC and CMD are just DC by a different name for specific circumstances). You cannot trip flying creatures, oozes, etc. so you cannot even make the attempt in the system. But you can make the attempt against those not immune to the maneuver and, if successful, it causes the listed effect. To wit, there are certain weapon enhancements, such as Flaming Burst, that have an effect when you score a Critical Hit. Some enemies are immune to Crits, but the rules specifically spell out that even if the enemy is immune to crits, the Flaming Burst can still do its burst if you score what would have otherwise been a crit. Another example would be, what if you fought an enemy that was immune to Fire but you didn't know it. You cast a Fire spell that has a caveat that, if it hits, you gain some bonus (say, for example, temporary HP). You cast your fire spell and it "hits" the opponent, but deals no damage because the target is immune to fire. Would you say that it "missed"? Even an attack nullified by Crane Wing doesn't "miss". So your fire spell "hits" the target, has no effect, but you gain your temporary HP regardless. Same would logically apply to an opponent that is already prone and for whom falling prone again would be redundant. Cinematically speaking, you'd be flipping them over from their butt onto their face. Still prone. To go further, say you had Ki Throw. On a successful trip, it allows you to throw the target into any square you threaten. Would it be reasonable to say that this doesn't work just because the target is already on the ground? I wouldn't say so. Pick his butt up and ki-toss him between you and your Fighter buddy.
Truth talk. Success is in reference to the attack roll, not the application of the effect. The effect is what happens once you've determined success.
lets look at this from a real life point of view, if i tempt to trip you while you are already on the ground and sucessfully make contact (and in turn hurt you) with my foot, did i trip you again? no, i just flat out kicked you. therefore, even if i attempt to trip a prone target and succeed, my trip attempt failed because the target was not tripped.
lets look at this from a real life point of view, if i tempt to trip you while you are already on the ground and sucessfully make contact (and in turn hurt you) with my foot, did i trip you again? no, i just flat out kicked you. therefore, even if i attempt to trip a prone target and succeed, my trip attempt failed because the target was not tripped.
If I attempt to trip you in real life while you are trying to stand up and I successfully make contact with my foot, did I trip you again? Yes. Yes, I knocked you straight back on your butt.
But that's not how it works in the game.
*shrug*
lets look at this from a real life point of view, if i tempt to trip you while you are already on the ground and sucessfully make contact (and in turn hurt you) with my foot, did i trip you again? no, i just flat out kicked you. therefore, even if i attempt to trip a prone target and succeed, my trip attempt failed because the target was not tripped.If I attempt to trip you in real life while you are trying to stand up and I successfully make contact with my foot, did I trip you again? Yes. Yes, I knocked you straight back on your butt.
But that's not how it works in the game.
*shrug*
Tuche
I refer you to the standard "just because its a make believe world" response to the argument where I tell you that while yes, its a game, the mechanics are still based largely on normal physics where at all possible.
Point in case, you cannot inflict someone with a condition they already have, at most you can give them a new, more severe form of it, or lengthen the time they suffer from it. Trip, however is not a condition that you can do either of those for, ergo, you cannot knock prone a prone target. Period.
A good discussion of the rules can be found under the Greater Trip Question thread (plug there for ya, Darthslash). Some of that will be entailed here too as is seen, but my question pertains more to application of the rule.
I agree that although "technically" the Blind condition does not explicitly state that you are immune to further blinding attempts, I think it makes perfect sense to say you cannot blind a blind man no more than you can kill a dead man or knock a prone man prone.
But can a prone man be "successfully tripped"? Can PC#2 satisfy the conditions of Greater Trip by "tripping" a prone target, thereby granting his buddies free AoOs?
Greater Trip (Combat)
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.
(Highlighted what I felt were the important parts.)
As I see it, a successful trip attempt is more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you "failed" to trip them.
As I see it, a successful trip attempt is more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you "failed" to trip them.
That's sort of the question, though. Why didn't you "inflict" the prone condition? Does the target have to go from "not prone" to "prone" in order for you to have inflicted the condition?
I would contend that you can inflict the blind condition on something that has been blinded (for instance, using Dirty Trick on the same enemy). Like with being affected by two Rays of Enfeeblement, the effects don't stack, they overlap. Similarly with tripping, you can do it, it just doesn't change anything.
As for what constitutes success, I'll ask one of the same things I did in the other thread, do you have to actually do physical damage in order to succeed on your attempt to hit a target with your weapon?
|
Greater Trip and the placement of the AoO before or after the Prone effect have been discussed on here extensively by many people (myself included). But a scenario has come to mind that begs the question of how this trip event should resolve.
Setting: 3 PCs (each with Halberd, Greater Trip feat, and plenty of AoOs available) track down and fight Mr. BadGuy (MBG). Combat begins and everyone moves into position. Flanking is unimportant.
PC#1 has the Initiative and declares a Trip attack. The roll is a success. Now whether the AoO happens here or after the Prone condition is unimportant at the moment. By the end of PC#1's action, we know that MBG is still alive, is prone, and all PCs have had their AoOs. Onto PC#2 who is next.
PC#2 declares a Trip Attack against MBG who is prone on the ground. Assuming his roll beats the CMD, what happens? We know his application of the prone condition will not take effect as it's already there. But what about the AoOs generated by the feat due to a "successful trip" as laid down in the Greater Trip feat?
This is Point A.
Point B moves beyond PC#2's action to MBG's action. He stands up. This generates yet more AoOs, but PC#3 decides that his attack will be a Trip. Again we know that the Prone from this cannot take effect as MBG is still technically prone, but just like Point A, can PC#3 force another series of AoOs through the feat rules?
Your answer may depend on whether you believe the AoO is supposed to come before or after the "prone" and what constitutes a "successful trip", but I'm curious as to how people would rule this.
Thoughts?
A successful trip is meeting or beating the CMD. Plain and Simple.
Trip and Prone are not the same thing, as Trip Causes the Prone Condition. Trip as an attack, much like a standard melee attack. A standard melee attack is successful as long as it meet or beats the victims AC. You could view the damage as the "condition" too, if you want. Same concept.
RAI - I would say no, it's stupid. Whomever is just doing this to avoid attacking AC on the target, to target it's lower CMD instead and still do the same damage(albeit through AoO or standard attack). Clearly rules abuse, since there is no real reason to do this unless to gain the mentioned perk of going vs CMD instead of AC.
RAW - Seems legit. Even if he's already prone, that doesn't make him immune to Trip Attempts, it just makes him immune to prone, as he is already prone. Cheesy? yes, very. Silly? A little. Is there a hidden motive here? Most likely. However, if he did somehow fail his trip attempt by 10+ while trying to trip his already prone opponent, he would fall too unless he had something preventing it or helping with the recovery from it.
If you're already prone, you try to stand up, and you are hit with another trip; You are still immune to the proning condition until you are fully standing again(for the sake of the AoOs anyways). However, you can still trip them and succeed for another AoO. I don't know why... especially when you can just attack instead.
That's my piece! I hope it helps. I clicked on the FAQ button just because clear ruling is always nice :)
|
I'm gonna jump in on this one, mainly because I love the rules rodeo. It flexes the brain and I learn new things.
Greater Trip and the placement of the AoO before or after the Prone effect have been discussed on here extensively by many people (myself included). But a scenario has come to mind that begs the question of how this trip event should resolve.
Setting: 3 PCs (each with Halberd, Greater Trip feat, and plenty of AoOs available) track down and fight Mr. BadGuy (MBG). Combat begins and everyone moves into position. Flanking is unimportant.
PC#1 has the Initiative and declares a Trip attack. The roll is a success. Now whether the AoO happens here or after the Prone condition is unimportant at the moment. By the end of PC#1's action, we know that MBG is still alive, is prone, and all PCs have had their AoOs. Onto PC#2 who is next.
As per greater trip, only the person performing the trip gets the AoO. So only one player would attack.
PC#2 declares a Trip Attack against MBG who is prone on the ground. Assuming his roll beats the CMD, what happens? We know his application of the prone condition will not take effect as it's already there. But what about the AoOs generated by the feat due to a "successful trip" as laid down in the Greater Trip feat?
While it is never stated in the rules, IMHO, any GM who allows a prone character to be tripped is .... allowing the players to run the game. A "successful trip" by the very definition of those two words means "You were standing. You are now down." If you were never standing, the first half of this statement cannot be true, therefore the entire statement is false, because the second relies on the first.
This is Point A.
Point B moves beyond PC#2's action to MBG's action. He stands up. This generates yet more AoOs, but PC#3 decides that his attack will be a Trip. Again we know that the Prone from this cannot take effect as MBG is still technically prone, but just like Point A, can PC#3 force another series of AoOs through the feat rules?
This steps into the realm of personal in-house rules. First off, as an AoO, a player can trip the MBG, but only the one performing the trip will get that AoO from Greater Trip, and that assumes that they were able to make the Greater Trip AoO in the first place (ie. hadn't already used up their AoO for their turn, or had Combat Reflexes). In my game, AoO order goes based off of initiative order. So, assuming order of PC's was #1, #2, and then #3, #3 would only get that trip if #1 and #2 passed on it. The MGB can not be prone anymore for the trip to succeed (see my previous comment).
Your answer may depend on whether you believe the AoO is supposed to come before or after the "prone" and what constitutes a "successful trip", but I'm curious as to how people would rule this.Thoughts?
A successful trip would be beating the MGB's CMD.
Main point is, only the guy performing the Greater Trip gets the AoO. The bad guy standing provokes AoO's from everybody around him unless he has a way to prevent the AoO's (the spell Stand gets around this). Trip can be used as an AoO to knock the guy back down once he is up. A character already prone cannot be tripped by the very definition of the words.
As per greater trip, only the person performing the trip gets the AoO. So only one player would attack.
Greater trip says that whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity. There is nothing in the Greater Trip feat which limits this AoO to just the person performing the trip.
As for what constitutes success, I'll ask one of the same things I did in the other thread, do you have to actually do physical damage in order to succeed on your attempt to hit a target with your weapon?
I thought the question on the other thread wasn't so much about whether you hit or not (the d20 shows that you did), but rather was the attack successful?
This would be similar to when you attempt to Demoralize a target that is immune to the Shaken condition. The roll is high enough to indicate success according to the rules of Skill checks, but the effect can't be delivered. So did you succeed in demoralizing your target? ;)
As per greater trip, only the person performing the trip gets the AoO. So only one player would attack.
Yeah, that would certainly constitute this as a Rules Rodeo by bringing that interpretation aboard. :P
As for FAQing this, someone might have to post a more tidy question. Something like "Can I 'trip' a prone target and satisfy Greater Trip's conditions for provoking?" My presented scenario is a bit cumbersome...possibly too cumbersome for their liking.
|
|
I beg to differ. The very description of the feat states that "You can make a free attack on foes that you knock down."
Otherwise, it munches the crap out of the feat and makes it broken. IMHO, players love to break feats and make munch, but scream when the same is done to them in return.
To each their own, though.
|
Greater trip says that whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity. There is nothing in the Greater Trip feat which limits this AoO to just the person performing the trip.
As per greater trip, only the person performing the trip gets the AoO. So only one player would attack.
^^This^^
As per greater trip, only the person performing the trip gets the AoO. So only one player would attack.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Emphasis mine.
Provokes attacks (multiple), and no listed restriction to only provoking for the tripper.
This is similar to greater bull rush and greater reposition, though in those cases each calls out that the person doing the bull rush/reposition doesn't get an AoO. The lack of any qualifiers one way or the other on greater trip means all threatening characters get the option to take the AoO.
I beg to differ. The very description of the feat states that "You can make a free attack on foes that you knock down."
Otherwise, it munches the crap out of the feat and makes it broken. IMHO, players love to break feats and make munch, but scream when the same is done to them in return.
To each their own, though.
Don't confuse the brief fluff description with the mechanical benefit. The Benefit section of feats is the mechanical implementation of how it works.
|
|
I beg to differ. The very description of the feat states that "You can make a free attack on foes that you knock down."
Otherwise, it munches the crap out of the feat and makes it broken. IMHO, players love to break feats and make munch, but scream when the same is done to them in return.
To each their own, though.
That is just the generic description of the feat. If you keep reading it says:
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
It clearly states ATTACKS...plural. If the intent was for just the tripper to get the AoO then it would say ATTACK...singular, as you can't provoke from the same person more than once for the same action.
EDIT: Doh! Ninja'd
For those reasoning that only the tripper may make an attack of opportunity, The fluff part says "You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down."
So it's also attacks there, plural. So since you believe the fluff is part of the rules, this must mean that the feat allows you to make multiple attacks of opportunity yourself when you trip the opponent, specific beats general after all and even further on in the feat it says attacks of opportunity.
So if I trip somebody once and can make 5 AoO a round then I can take all of them after that one trip. sweet.
I'll stick to the interpretation that the creature simply provokes attacks of opportunity from everybody who threatens him and that it's one AoO each.
A single action never provokes more than one AOO from the same opponent. A move can, but not more than one for any given 5' of movement. With Greater Trip, the opponent is considered to have provoked an AOO from anyone who threatens them.
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
A single move, whether that is 5' of movement or 300' of movement, only provokes a single AoO from a given individual.
Would you say the attack "wasn't successful"? What about effects that trigger on a successful attack?
Depends on the exact wording. Since some riders don't take effect unless you actually DO penetrate DR, effects that depend on them don't get triggered.
Example: If I've got some effect that depends on successfully poisoning someone with a poisoned weapon, but my attack doesn't do enough damage to get through DR, then while the attack may be a hit, if I don't penetrate DR, I haven't poisoned the target. In this case, there's a difference between "make a successful attack with a poisoned weapon" and "successfully poison a target with a poisoned weapon". And if the target is immune to poison, the first is possible while the second is not.
I'm not sure all authors are careful enough with the wording to avoid confusion over the trigger; thus our "What is a successful trip ?" question.
As for what constitutes success, I'll ask one of the same things I did in the other thread, do you have to actually do physical damage in order to succeed on your attempt to hit a target with your weapon?I thought the question on the other thread wasn't so much about whether you hit or not (the d20 shows that you did), but rather was the attack successful?
This would be similar to when you attempt to Demoralize a target that is immune to the Shaken condition. The roll is high enough to indicate success according to the rules of Skill checks, but the effect can't be delivered. So did you succeed in demoralizing your target? ;)
You can't succeed on applying Shaken to a character that is immune to being Shaken any more than you can succeed on Tripping a character that is immune to being Tripped.
Nothing in the Prone entry says a character already Prone is immune to effects that make it Prone.
On the Hit/Attack bit, the point is that "Hit" is defined as making a successful Attack Roll. The effect of making a successful Attack Roll is to deal Damage. And as the Damage section notes, you deal Damage if your Attack was successful. So, the rules treat "Hit", "Attack", and "Attack Roll" as essentially the same thing. A Hit is just an Attack (or Attack Roll) that exceeds the target AC.
By parallel construction and extension, the same applies to Combat Maneuvers and Success. If your "Attack" succeeds, the effect is applied (Disarm, Sunder, Trip, etc.).
Would you say the attack "wasn't successful"? What about effects that trigger on a successful attack?Depends on the exact wording. Since some riders don't take effect unless you actually DO penetrate DR, effects that depend on them don't get triggered.
Example: If I've got some effect that depends on successfully poisoning someone with a poisoned weapon, but my attack doesn't do enough damage to get through DR, then while the attack may be a hit, if I don't penetrate DR, I haven't poisoned the target. In this case, there's a difference between "make a successful attack with a poisoned weapon" and "successfully poison a target with a poisoned weapon". And if the target is immune to poison, the first is possible while the second is not.
I'm not sure all authors are careful enough with the wording to avoid confusion over the trigger; thus our "What is a successful trip ?" question.
Whether there's a relevant distinction depends on the ability. If the hypothetical ability we're talking about has to do with the poison, it doesn't really matter since the creature is immune to poison.
But if it does matter for whatever reason (for instance, an Ifrint with the Scorching Weapons feat), the first wording would apply the effect while the second would not. All that matters in the first instance is that the hit was successful. What matters in the second is that the hit resulted in actual damage. Scorching Weapons is triggered by a successful hit, so it doesn't matter if all weapon damage is negated.
This isn't new though. There are many feats whose effects don't apply unless the attack actually results in damage. If the DR (or whatever ability) negates the damage, then no additional effect is applied even though the attack itself was successful. If the effect is triggered by the successful hit alone, the effect applies whether damage is negated or not (unless it's one of those things specifically called out as being negated as in the DR entry).
Now, sure, I could roll attack and score a miss, either by missing outright or my attack being deflected off their plate armor harmlessly, but what about if I land a solid blow on them but don't do enough damage through their DR to inflict relative injury? Would you say the attack "wasn't successful"? What about effects that trigger on a successful attack?
I would say that in the event that the effect does not apply (damage is absorbed, extra damage ignored, spell-effects resisted, or whatnot), then the "hit" may be successful, but the overall "action" failed.
There seems to be some confusion over a "successful hit" and a "successful action". I do not believe they are the same thing.
If more than one condition affects a character, apply them all. If effects can't combine, apply the most severe effect.
Nowhere in this rule does it state that you can apply the same condition twice to the same target. AFAIK, the only time you can do this is when an effect (such as some spells) renews the effects duration when it is used again,but that is a special rule countering a general rule.
You can't succeed on applying Shaken to a character that is immune to being Shaken any more than you can succeed on Tripping a character that is immune to being Tripped.
I can't succeed at applying Shaken, but can I succeed at beating the DC of the skill check? And if I can, does that mean the skill was a success in spite of effect failure?
On the Hit/Attack bit, the point is that "Hit" is defined as making a successful Attack Roll.
"Hit and deal damage" are defined as making a successful Attack Roll, not just "Hit". Although I would concur that the book is blending a roll and an effect into one term it calls 'Attack Roll', which comes off as a bit confusing.
If more than one condition affects a character, apply them all. If effects can't combine, apply the most severe effect.Nowhere in this rule does it state that you can apply the same condition twice to the same target. AFAIK, the only time you can do this is when an effect (such as some spells) renews the effects duration when it is used again,but that is a special rule countering a general rule.
The rules never state you can't apply the same condition twice to the same target and I contend that they actually imply the opposite. That they tell you how to handle situations in which a character might have the same or a similar condition applied again.
For instance:
When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect.
Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted.
Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.
This penalty does not stack with itself. Apply the highest penalty instead. (Ray of Enfeeblement)
Like conditions either stack to create a worse condition, if you're told that's what they do, they extend the time the condition applies, or they simply overlap and you apply the most severe effect for as long as it is in place and then apply the next most severe effect if another is still in place after the first is alleviated.
You can't succeed on applying Shaken to a character that is immune to being Shaken any more than you can succeed on Tripping a character that is immune to being Tripped.I can't succeed at applying Shaken, but can I succeed at beating the DC of the skill check? And if I can, does that mean the skill was a success in spite of effect failure?
On the Hit/Attack bit, the point is that "Hit" is defined as making a successful Attack Roll."Hit and deal damage" are defined as making a successful Attack Roll, not just "Hit". Although I would concur that the book is blending a roll and an effect into one term it calls 'Attack Roll', which comes off as a bit confusing.
Damage is what occurs when your "Attack" is successful. An "Attack" is accomplished by making an "Attack Roll". So again, how is it possible that the Damage is both an effect of a successful Attack Roll and a part of the condition which determines if said Attack Roll is successful? And how can we know if a Hit is successful unless and until Damage is applied, if Damage isn't applied until after we know if the Attack succeeds?
The creature is hit if damage is applied if the attack is successful if the attack roll hit if damage is applied if the attack is successful if the attack roll hit if ...
If more than one condition affects a character, apply them all. If effects can't combine, apply the most severe effect.Nowhere in this rule does it state that you can apply the same condition twice to the same target. AFAIK, the only time you can do this is when an effect (such as some spells) renews the effects duration when it is used again,but that is a special rule countering a general rule.The rules never state you can't apply the same condition twice to the same target and I contend that they actually imply the opposite. That they tell you how to handle situations in which a character might have the same or a similar condition applied again.
For instance:
When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect.
Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted.
Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.
This penalty does not stack with itself. Apply the highest penalty instead. (Ray of Enfeeblement)Like conditions either stack to create a worse condition, if you're told that's what they do, they extend the time the condition applies, or they simply overlap and you apply the most severe effect for as long as it is in place and then apply the next most severe effect if another is still in place after the first is alleviated.
The rules don't state that I can't add effects not listed in a spells description for no other reason that because I want to, either, but I still can't.
If a rule makes no mention of being able to do something, then by default, you cannot.
Every condition that states that it replaces itself or worsens, is stated as doing so in its own description. It then becomes a general vs. Specific argument.
In the case of prone, the specific does not state to reapply or upgrade, therefore refer to general rule.
General rule makes no mention of reapplying the same effect twice, ergo it cannot be done.
I think you missed my point. By giving instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, the rules are necessarily saying that you can apply the same condition to the same target. It's just that the outcome is resolved differently depending on the relevant conditions.
A single action never provokes more than one AOO from the same opponent.Not really true. For example casting a ray spell provokes twice (once for casting a spell and once for making a ranged attack)
That is two actions, not one. Bizbag referenced the rule correctly.
Action 1: Cast a spell.
Action 2 (free action granted by casting a ray spell, but still a separate action): Make a ranged attack.
I think you missed my point. By giving instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, the rules are necessarily saying that you can apply the same condition to the same target. It's just that the outcome is resolved differently depending on the relevant conditions.
The problem is that the general rule doesn't give instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, only on how they interact with each other. Because of this, you cannot assume that a lack of rules is its own rule. If there is no rule about combining an attack and a spell with one action (purely as an example), then you cannot combine them just because neither rule about each action fails to mention this.