Hm, this sounds an awful lot like saying that the AoO from Greater Trip occurs while the target is falling to the ground, but hasn't actually landed prone yet.If your interpretation requires a fully completed disarm, the weapon is already lying on the ground. If my interpretation only requires the successful check, the alteration occurs at the same time the effect is applied.No. The weapon is not yet on the ground when a disarm is deemed successful. It is successful when they drop it. Then apply effect of Greater Disarm immediately, and it lands 15ft away.Then you should be familiar with the concept.
The only difference between the two is this: The time after a weapon is dropped is a point in time in the game world. The point in time between the opponent being knocked off balance and them becoming prone is not a point in time in the game world.
What step in the trip attack correlates to it? None. What step in disarm correlates to the weapon being dropped? Resolution.
Hm...
There's no correlation between falling prone to a point in time in the game world. There is no "falling prone" condition. There is "not prone" (standing) and "prone" (on the ground). There is a "drop to prone" free action, which tripping essentially forces you to take. But as you and others have said, there's no "falling prone" time period.
Interestingly, there also isn't an "in the process of dropping an item" time period. There is "held" (wielded, in hand, whatever) and there is "dropped" (on the ground). There is a "drop an item" free action, which disarming essentially forces you to take. But I fail to see how there is a point in time in the game world after a held item is dropped and before this formerly held item lands on the ground.
If dropping prone in your space does not accompany any point in game time because there's no transitory state between not-prone and prone, why doesn't disarm follow this exact same identical structure? Why is there no all of a sudden a transitory state between not-dropped and dropped? Shouldn't we treat these two as the same? Unless your position is that a dropped item ordinarily simply floats there in limbo, I fail to see why these two scenarios aren't completely analogous.
If there's no in-between state in falling prone, there's no in-between state in dropping an item.
Your whole interpretation thus far says that the success of the maneuver triggers the AoO. Are we changing it now to;
"Whenever you successfully hit with a trip attack against an opponent"?
Because that is the step after concealment. Still isn't what Greater Trip says... but...
Immediately upon determination of success. Concealment overrides success. Just like it does with normal attack rolls. It's pretty cool how it all lines up like that. So no AoO.But...
AoOs are resolved IMMEDIATELY remember? So.. before ANY check for concealment!
Trip roll succeeds. AoO. Then check concealment. Miss target. Trip action Fails. But hey, you got free AoOs from nothing happening, so, wewt.
Concealment overrides success of the roll, AFTER the success of the roll.
If the AoO triggers immediately, which it does, and the trigger is simply a successful roll, which you claim, then the AoO comes before the concealment check.
What are you saying triggers the AoO again? The die roll succeeding, or is it something else now?
Concealment is an intervening cause. Just like it is with hits.
bbangerter just wrote it out quite nicely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your whole interpretation thus far says that the success of the maneuver triggers the AoO. Are we changing it now to;
"Whenever you successfully hit with a trip attack against an opponent"?
Because that is the step after concealment. Still isn't what Greater Trip says... but...
fretgod99 has been explaining things from the simple case. If you want to complicate things with concealment and the like, that is easy to extrapolate, but the simple case needs to be understood first.
The rules don't spell it out (they shouldn't need to), but checking concealment conditions is part of determining whether you've actually had success in hitting/tripping/disarming/etc your opponent or not.
Your grasping at straws to make your case doesn't help your view point.
The ongoing opposing view has been that the roll itself was the determining "success" that the feat was looking for. This view is incorrect. For many, many reasons.
This last is one of many.
You don't seem to share the idea that the CMB roll is the success that Greater Trip is looking for. That is good.
I'm not arguing for my case at the moment, it has already been firmly established as a reasonable interpretation. I'm arguing that the CMB roll is not the trigger for Greater Trip. You seem to agree.
You are of the opinion that one of these steps is where the AoO triggers... which one?
1.you declare, 2.roll, 3.resolve - determine success of the roll, 4.check that you can hit, 5.resolve - successfully hit, 6.attempt to apply prone condition, 7.resolve - prone applied.
I ask, because you state that you check for stuff that happens in step 4 through 7 but seem to say the AoO triggers in the step 3/4 area. So, which step does the AoO happen?
Successful Hit. That's always been the relevant stage, whether for ordinary attacks or combat maneuvers. This has never changed.
The reason the combat maneuver roll was mentioned is because in the ordinary case you don't need to worry about other intervening issues like concealment. As was noted, we were addressing the basic case. We no longer are.
Successful Combat Maneuver occupies the same place on your little breakdown as does Hit (or Successful Hit). Always has.
If dropping prone in your space does not accompany any point in game time because there's no transitory state between not-prone and prone, why doesn't disarm follow this exact same identical structure? Why is there no all of a sudden a transitory state between not-dropped and dropped? Shouldn't we treat these two as the same? Unless your position is that a dropped item ordinarily simply floats there in limbo, I fail to see why these two scenarios aren't completely analogous.
If there's no in-between state in falling prone, there's no in-between state in dropping an item.
Why? Because of the rules.
I already explained why. The moment you drop a weapon is a defined moment in the game. This is when you have be disarmed, successfully.
There is no defined moment when someone is almost prone. Nothing references this game time moment, it is purely made up.
A successfully tripped opponent is prone. A successfully disarmed opponent drops an item.
One of these maneuvers forces something to the ground. The other forces it to be let go.
Disagree? What step of tripping someone are they almost prone but not yet prone? What rules text references this stat of being?
We have a direct reference to the item being dropped. We do not have a direct reference to the opponent being dropped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Successful Hit. That's always been the relevant stage, whether for ordinary attacks or combat maneuvers. This has never changed.
The reason the combat maneuver roll was mentioned is because in the ordinary case you don't need to worry about other intervening issues like concealment. As was noted, we were addressing the basic case. We no longer are.
Successful Combat Maneuver occupies the same place on your little breakdown as does Hit (or Successful Hit). Always has.
So, when you read Greater Trip, instead of "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent" you see...
"Whenever you successfully hit an opponent with a trip attack"?
We have a direct reference to the item being dropped. It's when the item lands in your square or an adjacent one.
There is no moment between an item falling out of your hand and an item landing on the ground. That is not described in the rules.
I'm treating Drop an Item analogously to Drop to Prone. They're game terms. Drop an Item means the item lands in your square or an adjacent one. It doesn't mean drop as in let go and now it's falling but hasn't hit the ground yet. What rules text references the state of being between letting an item go and it hitting the ground?
The ongoing opposing view has been that the roll itself was the determining "success" that the feat was looking for. This view is incorrect. For many, many reasons.
It has been argued this for the simple case - and only the simple case. I've seen no one espouse that things like concealment wouldn't modify that. The simple case is you beat the CMD, or you don't, and nothing else is in play that could interfere with that.
1.you declare, 2.roll, 3.resolve - determine success of the roll, 4.check that you can hit, 5.resolve - successfully hit, 6.attempt to apply prone condition, 7.resolve - prone applied.
I'm not sure I'm following what each of your steps are here. If I'm understanding them correctly though I'd say right after 6. The target is a valid target (can we even apply the prone condition) and you've beat all the other conditions - they only thing remaining is to apply the prone condition at 7 - which the AoO comes before as the result at that point is a foregone conclusion but has yet to be resolved. I reserve the right to change my answer on this though as I noted your steps aren't entirely clear to me - e.g, there isn't really a step 6 in the actual rules. You either apply prone condition or you don't. There isn't a 'attempt to apply' step in the process.
The AoO occurs at the point in time it is determined you have successfully tripped your opponent, but prior to resolving that you have successfully tripped them. That is, in the simple case, you have beat the CMD. Note oozes, snakes, flyers are not part of the simple case. Concealment is not part of the simple case. Readied actions against you are not part of the simple case.
In the simple case if you beat the CMD that target WILL end up prone, no ifs, ands, or buts.
In the simple case the steps are:
1) Declare attack
2) Make attack roll
3) Determine success by comparing it against the CMD
4) If success then Resolve - apply prone condition.
The AoO in this case is right after step 3.
With concealment it becomes:
1) Declare attack
2) Make attack roll
3) Determine success by comparing it against the CMD
4) Take concealment into account and determine if your possible success was a true success.
5) If success then Resolve - apply prone condition.
The AoO here occurs after step 4. Note that many tables will roll the dice for 2 and 4 together just to save table time. A failure on either of these though results in failure on the maneuver.
Successful Hit. That's always been the relevant stage, whether for ordinary attacks or combat maneuvers. This has never changed.
The reason the combat maneuver roll was mentioned is because in the ordinary case you don't need to worry about other intervening issues like concealment. As was noted, we were addressing the basic case. We no longer are.
Successful Combat Maneuver occupies the same place on your little breakdown as does Hit (or Successful Hit). Always has.
So, when you read Greater Trip, instead of "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent" you see...
"Whenever you successfully hit an opponent with a trip attack"?
"Successful Hit" is the analogy. You succeed on your trip attack at the same point where you succeed on a normal attack that would allow your energy weapon to deal its energy damage to the target.
"Successful Hit" is the analogy. You succeed on your trip attack at the same point where you succeed on a normal attack that would allow your energy weapon to deal its energy damage to the target.Successful Hit. That's always been the relevant stage, whether for ordinary attacks or combat maneuvers. This has never changed.
The reason the combat maneuver roll was mentioned is because in the ordinary case you don't need to worry about other intervening issues like concealment. As was noted, we were addressing the basic case. We no longer are.
Successful Combat Maneuver occupies the same place on your little breakdown as does Hit (or Successful Hit). Always has.
So, when you read Greater Trip, instead of "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent" you see...
"Whenever you successfully hit an opponent with a trip attack"?
So, you think a snake can be successfully tripped? Unable to be tripped triggers in at step 6. So.. you can successfully trip a snake, get some AoOs, even though a snake cannot be tripped? Cool.
The ongoing opposing view has been that the roll itself was the determining "success" that the feat was looking for. This view is incorrect. For many, many reasons.
It has been argued this for the simple case - and only the simple case. I've seen no one espouse that things like concealment wouldn't modify that. The simple case is you beat the CMD, or you don't, and nothing else is in play that could interfere with that.
1.you declare, 2.roll, 3.resolve - determine success of the roll, 4.check that you can hit, 5.resolve - successfully hit, 6.attempt to apply prone condition, 7.resolve - prone applied.
I'm not sure I'm following what each of your steps are here. If I'm understanding them correctly though I'd say right after 6. The target is a valid target (can we even apply the prone condition) and you've beat all the other conditions - they only thing remaining is to apply the prone condition at 7 - which the AoO comes before as the result at that point is a foregone conclusion but has yet to be resolved. I reserve the right to change my answer on this though as I noted your steps aren't entirely clear to me - e.g, there isn't really a step 6 in the actual rules. You either apply prone condition or you don't. There isn't a 'attempt to apply' step in the process.
The AoO occurs at the point in time it is determined you have successfully tripped your opponent, but prior to resolving that you have successfully tripped them. That is, in the simple case, you have beat the CMD. Note oozes, snakes, flyers are not part of the simple case. Concealment is not part of the simple case. Readied actions against you are not part of the simple case.
In the simple case if you beat the CMD that target WILL end up prone, no ifs, ands, or buts.
In the simple case the steps are:
1) Declare attack
2) Make attack roll
3) Determine success by comparing it against the CMD
4) If success then Resolve - apply prone condition.The AoO in this case is right after step 3.
With concealment it becomes:
1) Declare attack
2) Make attack roll
3) Determine success by comparing it against the CMD
4) Take concealment into account and determine if your possible success was a true success.
5) If success then Resolve - apply prone condition.The AoO here occurs after step 4. Note that many tables will roll the dice for 2 and 4 together just to save table time. A failure on either of these though results in failure on the maneuver.
Step 6 is analogous to the 'attempt to apply damage' step in a regular attack. It happens after you roll damage, and this is when things may reduce of eliminate it. If there is DR or immunity, it is applied here. Similarly, this is when the check to see if your target is trip immune. If you trip a snake, step 6 is where the show ends.
We can successfully roll their CMD, we can successfully make contact. But we fail to actually trip, because they're immune. Much like if you scorching ray'd a fire elemental. You can beat their AC, you can have your rays actually hit them, but the fire damage doesn't get past this step because they're immune.
Greater Trip wants "successfully trip an opponent", which you seem to be equating to "everything except the effect" is resolved. But the correlation between the trip and an attack is that the opponent going prone is the same as damage being dealt.
Those are the respective successful applications of effect. Then there is successfully hitting. And successfully rolling.
You are hinting at a fourth "success" but I'm not sure what it is. One that is a little after the successful hit, but before the successful effect. Can you elaborate what it is that is being successful?
After 6 is the correct place to apply the AoO then.
Greater Trip wants "successfully trip an opponent", which you seem to be equating to "everything except the effect" is resolved. But the correlation between the trip and an attack is that the opponent going prone is the same as damage being dealt.
Agreed. Dealing the damage is the equivalent of applying prone. For the snake though we need a more apt analogy from the normal attack to deal damage. DR/Immunity isn't really the correct analogy to use there since in those scenarios rider effects on successfully hitting the target would still trigger - even if no damage is done.
The analogy I would use is a incorporeal creature vs a nonmagical weapon.
Cannot be tripped for a snake is the same as cannot be hurt by nonmagical for incorporeal. No matter what you do there is no degree of success that can be had in these situations. A rider effect that depended on successfully hitting an incorporeal creature would not trigger because the creature is immune to all forms of nonmagical attack.
This is different from the DR (or resistance example - and immunity is simply a form of infinite resistance) you still apply damage - because if you exceed the DR/resistance, then some damage still occurs. Hence why DR/resistance not apt comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, things seem to be getting heated and there is a lot of back and forth going on. I wish I had this kind of free time. Reading through this stuff is not only starting to make my head spin, but I've also noticed a few things sticking out that I think are important to look at. In fact there are a whole BUNCH of things that we need to look at. But as posts fly back and forth, the last thing we need is another wordy response. So I'm going to keep this simple.
@fretgod99. I enjoy debating with you. I enjoy our posts whether we agree or disagree. But you have shown that you do not quite understand how either Greater Disarm or regular Disarm work.
Regular Disarm: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying..."
Greater Disarm: "Whenever you successfully disarm an opponent, the weapon lands 15 feet away from its previous wielder..."
Now I'm not sure why, but there is assumption here that the bold from each statement are the same. They are not. "Drops" is not equal to "Lands". For a regular Disarm, "Drops" means that the item falls from his hand and "lands in his square". Although Greater Disarm changes this, it isn't changing "Drops" in any way. The target still drops the item. But Greater Disarm changes WHERE that item "Lands". "Lands 15ft away." The Effect of an item dropping remains the same. This Effect MUST be in place before the item can land anywhere...whether in his square or 15ft away. Otherwise you have "lands in his square and then drops from his hand"...which is ridiculous really. But some keep arguing that the Effect is not in place yet. Even though events such as this show that it must be.
But if you don't believe me, then keep reading. Because this is very telling. Page 199, Combat Chapter, Special Attacks section, Combat Maneuvers subsection, Disarm specifically...last sentence.
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
Now hold on right here a moment. How can you pick up the item dropped, if the Effect hasn't happened yet? Do you see where your argument takes this? You are arguing that a disarm goes "Roll, Pick up item, Target drops item". Which is...well...impossible for starters. Is this really where you want to be? Because your sequence structure is all wrong.
"...you may automatically pick up the item dropped" is not applying the Effect of dropping. It is referring to your ability of picking up. And what you are picking up is an item that has already been dropped. Well when was it dropped? Not here. It was dropped at some point before this. But there is only 1 point left where it could have happened..."If you successfully disarm your opponent".
So this tells us very directly that "successfully disarm" means he has dropped his weapon. The Effect is in place at this moment. THEN it lands in his square, or 15ft away, or you pick it up.
We now know the definition of "successfully". We know the Effect is in place. All we have to do is apply it properly and we can bring all this chatter to a close.
After 6 is the correct place to apply the AoO then.
Greater Trip wants "successfully trip an opponent", which you seem to be equating to "everything except the effect" is resolved. But the correlation between the trip and an attack is that the opponent going prone is the same as damage being dealt.Agreed. Dealing the damage is the equivalent of applying prone. For the snake though we need a more apt analogy from the normal attack to deal damage. DR/Immunity isn't really the correct analogy to use there since in those scenarios rider effects on successfully hitting the target would still trigger - even if no damage is done.
The analogy I would use is a incorporeal creature vs a nonmagical weapon.
Cannot be tripped for a snake is the same as cannot be hurt by nonmagical for incorporeal. No matter what you do there is no degree of success that can be had in these situations. A rider effect that depended on successfully hitting an incorporeal creature would not trigger because the creature is immune to all forms of nonmagical attack.
This is different from the DR (or resistance example - and immunity is simply a form of infinite resistance) you still apply damage - because if you exceed the DR/resistance, then some damage still occurs. Hence why DR/resistance not apt comparison.
I get the analogy, but it isn't quite right. Incorporeal would stop a trip too, for example. But it stops the trip attack by stopping it from hitting. While a snake can be hit with a trip attack, it just wont trip him, he is immune to the effect. (Similar to a fire elemental being immune to the effect of fire damage)
That is why step 6 is where we find that a trip against a snake has failed. We rolled well, we even made contact. It just didn't do anything. It had no effect.
Much like hitting a fire elemental with fire, we can roll well, we can even make contact... but they're immune to the effect, so our attack has no effect.
Same with tripping a dude who is already prone. We can roll, we can make contact, but we get to step 6 and stop. They cannot be made prone, since they are already. So the trip has no effect.
Step 6 is the same step that for regular attacks would check for DR/resistance/immunity. With a trip, we are only concerned with immunity, because of the binary nature of the condition. If something is immune to being tripped, then the trip stops here.
If they're not immune, we move on to step 7. Resolve/apply effect, and successfully finish the trip action.
If we treat the Greater Trip trigger as an analog to a "on hit" ability, we run into a number of weird errors. Like successfully tripping snakes. Or using the AoO from a successful trip to trip them again, and again, and again.
The only 'error' free reading is that successfully trip mean that they have already been knocked prone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would now be an apt time to apply Occam's Razor to our problem?
It seems like we have at least one interpretation that works, and does not cause weird rules problems (tripping a prone person to generate extra attacks, tripping a flying person, etc.), and we have a reading that is under contention, although it might also be valid that would allow these problems.
If we for a minute assume that both interpretations are plausible (not to suggest that they are, but for the sake of argument it sounds like both could be plausible) then isn't it time to pick the one with the least amount of possible errors?
This of course should not take away from continuing to debate since, if one side is ultimately wrong, it will influence the overall outcome, but if our current state is such that both work, why not choose the one with the fewest internal problems?
I get the analogy, but it isn't quite right. Incorporeal would stop a trip too, for example. But it stops the trip attack by stopping it from hitting. While a snake can be hit with a trip attack, it just wont trip him, he is immune to the effect. (Similar to a fire elemental being immune to the effect of fire damage)
This makes an assumption that simply hitting something is enough to trip it. Thematically a trip is sweeping the creatures feet out from under it. It is literally impossible to do so with a snake because it has no feet - just like it is literally impossible to touch something that is insubstantial (incorporeal). You could punch the snake, you could stab the snake, but you cannot trip it because the means of tripping something doesn't exist on a snake.
Beating the CMD doesn't mean you hit the snake. It means you rolled well enough to sweep/pull/displace its feet - but it has none so it is literally impossible to do.
In a world where greater trip triggers of a successful hit with a trip attack...
And the druid is practically god,especially if you have super high dex and combat reflexes.
Shape on into a stegosaurus...
Hit... causes trip. Trip succeeds on hit before prone AoO - Hit... causes trip. Trip succeeds on a hit before prone AoO - Hit... causes trip. Until you exhaust your 6+ AoOs.
Total damage - w/6 AoOs 28d6+70 or so minimum. You're looking at 168 on average damage from this chain tail attack. Non-optimized too, you could bump it up considerably with a few buffs and whatnot.
My best estimate for a chain tripper druid build is an optimized per round damage of about 275 avg or so at level 8. That seems about in line with nothing ever.
Oh, and then his stegosaurus companion joins the fray and does about half that too. Just trip after trip in a nice long chain.
Why? Because we are saying the trip provokes before the target goes prone. Which means they are Not Prone for the AoO, which means we an trip them. Since this new trip can cause them to provoke before they go prone, again, we can simply keep doing it. Free attacks for everyone.
Also, watch out for them wolves, they could be scary too.
Clearly this is not intended?
So, you think a snake can be successfully tripped? Unable to be tripped triggers in at step 6. So.. you can successfully trip a snake, get some AoOs, even though a snake cannot be tripped? Cool."Successful Hit" is the analogy. You succeed on your trip attack at the same point where you succeed on a normal attack that would allow your energy weapon to deal its energy damage to the target.Successful Hit. That's always been the relevant stage, whether for ordinary attacks or combat maneuvers. This has never changed.
The reason the combat maneuver roll was mentioned is because in the ordinary case you don't need to worry about other intervening issues like concealment. As was noted, we were addressing the basic case. We no longer are.
Successful Combat Maneuver occupies the same place on your little breakdown as does Hit (or Successful Hit). Always has.
So, when you read Greater Trip, instead of "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent" you see...
"Whenever you successfully hit an opponent with a trip attack"?
Nope. And I've answered that question like ten times. Cool indeed.
Regular Disarm: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying..."
Greater Disarm: "Whenever you successfully disarm an opponent, the weapon lands 15 feet away from its previous wielder..."Now I'm not sure why, but there is assumption here that the bold from each statement are the same. They are not. "Drops" is not equal to "Lands". For a regular Disarm, "Drops" means that the item falls from his hand and "lands in his square". Although Greater Disarm changes this, it isn't changing "Drops" in any way. The target still drops the item. But Greater Disarm changes WHERE that item "Lands". "Lands 15ft away." The Effect of an item dropping remains the same.
This is exactly what I've said. You don't think changing where the item lands alters the effect. I disagree. It drops just the same, but lands elsewhere. It's as simple as that.
This Effect MUST be in place before the item can land anywhere...whether in his square or 15ft away. Otherwise you have "lands in his square and then drops from his hand"...which is ridiculous really. But some keep arguing that the Effect is not in place yet. Even though events such as this show that it must be.
The effect is not in place at the time success is determined. It doesn't need to be. The effect of Greater Disarm is to alter how the ordinary effect plays out.
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.Now hold on right here a moment. How can you pick up the item dropped, if the Effect hasn't happened yet? Do you see where your argument takes this? You are arguing that a disarm goes "Roll, Pick up item, Target drops item". Which is...well...impossible for starters. Is this really where you want to be? Because your sequence structure is all wrong.
"...you may automatically pick up the item dropped" is not applying the Effect of dropping. It is referring to your ability of picking up. And what you are picking up is an item that has already been dropped. Well when was it dropped? Not here. It was dropped at some point before this. But there is only 1 point left where it could have happened..."If you successfully disarm your opponent".
It is referring to what you may do when the item is dropped. It's not a difficult thing to envision. If you have an empty hand when the effect goes into place, instead of the item falling to the ground, as per usual, you can grab it.
I understand how disarm works. None of this has ever been about my misunderstanding of combat maneuvers and how they function. We simply disagree that "successfully" must only mean once the combat maneuver's effect has already been applied. You don't read the normal attack rules that way, so why would you read the combat maneuver attack rules that way?
In a world where greater trip triggers of a successful hit with a trip attack...
And the druid is practically god,especially if you have super high dex and combat reflexes.
Shape on into a stegosaurus...
Hit... causes trip. Trip succeeds on hit before prone AoO - Hit... causes trip. Trip succeeds on a hit before prone AoO - Hit... causes trip. Until you exhaust your 6+ AoOs.
Total damage - w/6 AoOs 28d6+70 or so minimum. You're looking at 168 on average damage from this chain tail attack. Non-optimized too, you could bump it up considerably with a few buffs and whatnot.
My best estimate for a chain tripper druid build is an optimized per round damage of about 275 avg or so at level 8. That seems about in line with nothing ever.
Oh, and then his stegosaurus companion joins the fray and does about half that too. Just trip after trip in a nice long chain.
Why? Because we are saying the trip provokes before the target goes prone. Which means they are Not Prone for the AoO, which means we an trip them. Since this new trip can cause them to provoke before they go prone, again, we can simply keep doing it. Free attacks for everyone.
Also, watch out for them wolves, they could be scary too.
Clearly this is not intended?
The target being prone or not has nothing to do with this chain if you want to go pure RAW. The FAQ on trip explicitly says you can make a trip attempt against a prone target who is standing up (though to no effect in terms of keeping them prone and hence trip-locking them). Is it such an odd thing that when pushed with certain builds and combo's that the rules break? Happens ALL the time. (search the message boards for any dozen examples with just a few minutes of searching). This doesn't mean the rules must have been written with some other intent in mind.
I, as a GM, would never allow the trip chain described above. The fact that pure RAW would allow it doesn't mean the basic building blocks of the rules are broken, it just means an edge case was found.
It just means the GM, once again, must step in and make a reasonable ruling to remove the abuse. In this case you can either rule a prone character cannot be tripped again to trigger the AoO (a good and reasonable ruling - this works if you believe the AoO's don't go off till after the target is prone) - but allow the first AoO from greater trip to give all the allies the +4 to hit a prone target. I could argue from a balance perspective against this that a prone character is already at a huge disadvantage and that such a bonus to self and allies is an abuse as well.
Or you could also just rule that you will only allow a single trip per turn to trigger the greater trip AoO (also a good and reasonable ruling, while preserving the basic building block of how AoO's resolve before the event that triggered them resolves).
Or, as I would do, you could simply rule both of those scenarios e.g, even on a new round I wouldn't allow a greater trip build to trip an already prone character to add AoO's.
Also, why does "unable to be tripped" come into play at step 6? You listed that as the step where you determine whether the Prone condition can be applied. How is that remotely the same thing?
Last time I checked, snakes are immune to being tripped. Snakes are not immune to having the prone condition applied to them. So why are we even getting to step 6? That implies that you think you should be able to trip/drag a snake with a Meteor Hammer, even though snakes are immune to being tripped.
You don't get that far. The analysis never gets to step 6.
It should go:
PC: I want to trip the snake.
DM: ... Ok. Roll.
PC: *rolls* I got a-
DM: You failed.
PC: But you didn't even let me say what I got! I rolled a natural 20!
DM: Doesn't matter. You failed. Snakes are immune to being tripped.
Whether a snake is immune to the prone condition is irrelevant. They're immune to being tripped so you never even get that far.
@fretgod99. You are still missing what is being said. I don't know if you're swept up in the back and forth with Remy, but you're fuzzing over the part that tells us exactly what it means to "successfully" do something.
Disarm: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying..."
We know the Effect of a disarm is for the target to drop an item. This does not tell us anything about where that item lands. A Regular Disarm means the target drops the item and it lands in his square at his feet. An Unarmed Disarm means the target drops the item and it "may" end up in your hands (after you automatically pick it up). A Greater Disarm means the target drops the item and it lands 15ft away.
The only thing changing here is where the item lands. The one thing that does not change through all of this is that the target drops the item...which is the Effect. So we know that although the landing can change depending on the type of Disarm being made, the Effect of dropping is constant.
Disarm: "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped."
Greater Disarm: "Whenever you successfully disarm an opponent, the weapon lands 15 feet away..."
You say the drop is assumed into the text after the comma. But it can't be. Everything after the comma is only referring to where the dropped item ends up; in your hands or 15ft away. But in order for the item to get there; in order for you to pick up the item or for it to land 15ft away, the Effect of dropping must already be in place. "Roll, target drops item, you pick up/it lands 15ft away" is the only logical progression we can have.
It is impossible to have;
Roll, you pick up item, target drops item.
Roll, item lands 15ft away, target drops item.
This is the part you are fuzzing over. But this is the most important part. We are being told the definition of "successfully" right here. The term is not ambiguous after all. It is clearly defined. "Successfully" is defined as the roll taking place and the Effect having been applied. The drop happened before the comma in each instance. Twisting, molding, and stretching words to make them fit a given interpretation does a disservice to anyone reading this thread. The point here is not to prove ourselves right or someone wrong. The point is to come to an understanding of how certain things work.
We are given very clearly what the definition of "successfully" means. But if someone still disagrees, maybe they should ask themselves this;
Why does Bull Rush never mention "successfully bull rushed"? It uses the word "successful" a few times to refer to the Roll. But it never comes out and says "if you successfully bull rush". That is because it can't say that. "Successfully" means the Effect has been applied (just like for Disarm and just like for Trip). The Effect of a bull rush is movement. After I make the Roll I am in the process of moving my target. "Successfully" can't happen until this is finished.
Look at Greater Bull Rush. It says the same thing. "Whenever you Bull Rush". Nowhere does it mention "successfully". That's because it can't. Bull Rushing involves the Roll and movement. The ability given by the feat doesn't happen after "successfully". It happens during the movement which is before "successfully" is accomplished.
The same is true with Overrun.
The same is true with Sunder.
Disarm and Trip are different. I make a roll, apply an Effect, and then can declare I have "successfully" disarmed or tripped. If anyone cares to read the text of these and the other Combat Maneuvers and if anyone reads over their Greater feats, this could very well become obvious. People would see the bigger picture of how they all work, instead of trying to twist and turn meanings to make the text fit how they want it.
But again, back to Disarm that gives us the mechanics. It is showing very pointedly and very clearly what "successfully" means. The term is not ambiguous in any way. And this thread and others like it are not in need of FAQing at all. The Devs don't need to waste their time answering what, read with some common sense, already has an answer.
We simply disagree that "successfully" must only mean once the combat maneuver's effect has already been applied. You don't read the normal attack rules that way, so why would you read the combat maneuver attack rules that way?
This is where you are still missing. We read rules that talk about "successful" one way because that is the way they are written. They are talking about a successful roll. We read rules that talk about "successfully" a different way because it is the way they are written. They are talking about successfully accomplishing something...which by its very nature requires you to actually do something. You keep saying these two terms are the same when they are not. They aren't grammatically. They aren't progressively. They aren't systematically. They aren't the same in any regard. That is the mistake you keep making.
As I've posted above, we are given the definition of "successfully". It is not an ambiguous term. There is no need for a FAQ. And this may be why the Devs, after all these years, have never bothered to answer it. Because RAW already does.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
PC: I want to trip the snake.
DM: ... Ok. Roll.
PC: *rolls* I got a-
DM: You failed.
PC: But you didn't even let me say what I got! I rolled a natural 20!
DM: Doesn't matter. You failed. Snakes are immune to being tripped.
This is how I'd rule it. Whether RAW or not, if it can't be tripped, then the CMD for purposes of tripping is Infinite to the point that not even a Nat20 can succeed.
EDIT: Actually that's not true. I responded too quickly. It is certainly reasonable and within RAW to use Meteor Hammer on a snake to drag it closer. This means the Trip attempt can be successful. This would also imply that when the Devs said things like snakes can't be tripped, they were meaning that snakes can't be knocked prone. The Prone Condition means nothing to creatures that have the physiology of snakes and oozes and such. I realize this touches on a different debate, but at the very least Meteor Hammer to drag a snake shows you can in fact succeed on a trip attempt against it. You just can't do what a regular Trip does and knock it prone.
And before this opens another can of worms, I'd also say you can use that Meteor Hammer on a hovering creature to drag it closer also. Which again implies Roll possible even if Prone Effect isn't.
|
We simply disagree that "successfully" must only mean once the combat maneuver's effect has already been applied. You don't read the normal attack rules that way, so why would you read the combat maneuver attack rules that way?This is where you are still missing. We read rules that talk about "successful" one way because that is the way they are written. They are talking about a successful roll. We read rules that talk about "successfully" a different way because it is the way they are written. They are talking about successfully accomplishing something...which by its very nature requires you to actually do something. You keep saying these two terms are the same when they are not. They aren't grammatically. They aren't progressively. They aren't systematically. They aren't the same in any regard. That is the mistake you keep making.
As I've posted above, we are given the definition of "successfully". It is not an ambiguous term. There is no need for a FAQ. And this may be why the Devs, after all these years, have never bothered to answer it. Because RAW already does.
You do realize that your post you have linked was later disproven? Read the 4th, 5th and 6th posts after yours. And onward if you'd like.
But if you'd like to go over how "Successful" and "Successfully" and their definitions are different, we can do so again. :)
|
|
You do realize that your post you have linked was later disproven? Read the 4th, 5th and 6th posts after yours. And onward if you'd like.
But if you'd like to go over how "Successful" and "Successfully" and their definitions are different, we can do so again. :)
Nothing was proven, just inane words from an entrenched point of view which fails to recognize the reality that the other side might also have a valid point.
See, I recognize what your side saying and can completely understand why you come to that conclusion, though I think it is false. Your side, specifically Remy and Shimesen, is so blinded by your position that you can't even conceive of what I am trying to say and fail realize that it is just as valid of a position.
@fretgod99. You are still missing what is being said. I don't know if you're swept up in the back and forth with Remy, but you're fuzzing over the part that tells us exactly what it means to "successfully" do something.
Disarm: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying..."
We know the Effect of a disarm is for the target to drop an item. This does not tell us anything about where that item lands. A Regular Disarm means the target drops the item and it lands in his square at his feet. An Unarmed Disarm means the target drops the item and it "may" end up in your hands (after you automatically pick it up). A Greater Disarm means the target drops the item and it lands 15ft away.
The only thing changing here is where the item lands. The one thing that does not change through all of this is that the target drops the item...which is the Effect. So we know that although the landing can change depending on the type of Disarm being made, the Effect of dropping is constant.
This is literally exactly what I've said. There is a modification to the effect, which is to drop the item held.
I have never once said disarm functions to drop the item after it is moved 15' away. That is a strawman the two of you created. I've never said the item ends up in the empty-handed disarmer's hand before it is dropped. This is a strawman you have created. I've said the alteration happens when the effect is applied. At the same time. How you read that to mean it must happens before the effect is applied is honestly beyond me. I have no idea how you think that's even remotely close to anything I'm saying.
We simply disagree that "successfully" now means we're talking about something that has already happened.
Under your interpretation of Greater Disarm, the item has already been dropped. For Greater Disarm to work, the item hits the floor in your square or an adjacent one (because that's what Drop an Item means, just like that's what Drop to Prone means for Trip) and this happens before the alteration to the drop effect occurs. The item is already on the ground. It's already done. You've already succeeded. That's how you view things. This only makes sense if you think the alteration to the effect can happen while the effect is occurring. The item is in the process of dropping to the ground, but hasn't hit the ground yet. Dropping an Item in Pathfinder isn't like simply letting something go in the real world. Dropping an Item in Pathfinder means it lands in your square or an adjacent one, on the ground. If this has already been done (because "successfully" means we're talking about something that has already been accomplished, as in past tense), then the item is already lying on the ground.
As for how Bull Rush and Overrun are different, I thought the important thing was that now the Greater feats are using verbs. This point was made quite strenuously over a great number of posts. Why is "successfully" verb treated differently than [successfully implied] verb? Both require you to be successful at the action being contemplated, so why are you treating things differently because one overtly says "successfully"? Do you honestly think the Greater Bull Rush feat would be changed at all if it instead read, "Whenever you successfully bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies (but not you)"?
Finally, using the statement about disarming while having a free hand isn't proof of what "successfully" means; it's literally just making the same point over again. It's not a distinct entry that provides a definition for "successfully" and how that means something different than "successful". There's no new information being provided. It's literally the same thing as the Greater Disarm feat. If the successful disarm happens with a slightly different context, [minor alteration to the effect]. It's the same argument, not proof of the concept.
We simply disagree that "successfully" must only mean once the combat maneuver's effect has already been applied. You don't read the normal attack rules that way, so why would you read the combat maneuver attack rules that way?This is where you are still missing. We read rules that talk about "successful" one way because that is the way they are written. They are talking about a successful roll. We read rules that talk about "successfully" a different way because it is the way they are written. They are talking about successfully accomplishing something...which by its very nature requires you to actually do something. You keep saying these two terms are the same when they are not. They aren't grammatically. They aren't progressively. They aren't systematically. They aren't the same in any regard. That is the mistake you keep making.
As I've posted above, we are given the definition of "successfully". It is not an ambiguous term. There is no need for a FAQ. And this may be why the Devs, after all these years, have never bothered to answer it. Because RAW already does.
I understand your position. You read "successful attack" differently than you read "successfully attack". I get it. We've been over that a bunch. I disagree. I don't see "successfully attack an opponent" as being different than "succeed at making an attack on an opponent" in any sense other than one is shorter than the other.
Succeeding on an attack roll is actually doing something. You've still accomplished something. We just disagree on what the rules at that point are specifically asking us to accomplish.
PC: I want to trip the snake.
DM: ... Ok. Roll.
PC: *rolls* I got a-
DM: You failed.
PC: But you didn't even let me say what I got! I rolled a natural 20!
DM: Doesn't matter. You failed. Snakes are immune to being tripped.This is how I'd rule it. Whether RAW or not, if it can't be tripped, then the CMD for purposes of tripping is Infinite to the point that not even a Nat20 can succeed.
EDIT: Actually that's not true. I responded too quickly. It is certainly reasonable and within RAW to use Meteor Hammer on a snake to drag it closer. This means the Trip attempt can be successful. This would also imply that when the Devs said things like snakes can't be tripped, they were meaning that snakes can't be knocked prone. The Prone Condition means nothing to creatures that have the physiology of snakes and oozes and such. I realize this touches on a different debate, but at the very least Meteor Hammer to drag a snake shows you can in fact succeed on a trip attempt against it. You just can't do what a regular Trip does and knock it prone.
And before this opens another can of worms, I'd also say you can use that Meteor Hammer on a hovering creature to drag it closer also. Which again implies Roll possible even if Prone Effect isn't.
I agree that that's how it should work. But RAW is clear: snakes are flying creatures are immune to being tripped, the action, not prone, the condition. Similar to how incorporeal creatures are immune to attacks from nonmagical weapons, as opposed to the damage from nonmagical weapons.
@ HangerFlying. If you read the posts I suggested, you would see where Sub_Zero points out that you are saying something is not a definition but an Effect, and then turning to definitions to arrive at your argument...which is to say that it really is a definition....which undermines the argument you just put forth.
@fretgod99. You are still misunderstanding. I'm not sure why you think that just because a target drops his item it means that the item MUST hit the floor. I'm only talking about the item dropping. I never said where it dropped. It has left his hand. He is disarmed. Where it ends up all depends on the type of Disarm you are doing.
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
Read the part after the comma. There is no mention of the target dropping the item here. It is only talking about you picking something up that was dropped already. Why you insist on putting the drop in here I have no idea. You keep reading into it. The dropping has taken place by the time we get to the comma. The dropping has happened when we get to "successfully disarm". To "successfully disarm" someone means that you have made them drop the item. NOW you can pick it up if you want.
And if you read and understood what I posted, then you would not say I am claiming that you think it is: Roll, item lands 15ft away, target drops item. I am saying that this is what you end up with if you apply the same reasoning of order sequencing that you're assigning to Greater Trip. You are saying Roll, AoO, target falls prone. But that is not what Greater Trip is telling us.
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes AoOs.
In BOTH cases, once you pass the comma, the trip and the disarm have already happened. The target is prone and the item is out of his hand. NOW you get an AoO or NOW you get to pick up the item or NOW it lands at his feet or NOW it lands 15ft away.
You are picking and choosing which rules you want to argue and which rules you want to ignore. That is not how you get to a valid conclusion. Camp #1's interpretation is based upon 3 invalid premises. These premises are inserting the wrong values into the multi-step equation that we're dealing with. They then proceed to correctly work out each step, but with the wrong values at the beginning, they only end up correctly coming to the wrong answer. If you really understood Camp #3, then you would see this as clearly as we do. But you don't, so you don't.
I don't see "successfully attack an opponent" as being different than "succeed at making an attack on an opponent" in any sense other than one is shorter than the other.
Succeeding on an attack roll is actually doing something. You've still accomplished something. We just disagree on what the rules at that point are specifically asking us to accomplish.
"Successfully" refers to the verb 'to attack' in your first statement...which in turn is referring to the Roll.
"Succeed" is a verb in the second part....which again is referring to the Roll."Succeeding" is also a verb. Again something you're doing...which yet again is referring to the Roll.
In every example you are talking about making the Roll.
Greater Trip does not want the Roll. It wants to know when the target has been successfully tripped. It isn't asking us to succeed on a trip attack. It doesn't say to make a successful Roll. It doesn't care about the Roll. It wants the verb of tripping to happen. Not the verb of rolling. If it wanted the Roll, then it would say so just like in every other case that does so. This does not. It just doesn't care about the Roll. The focus on this Roll is where the inference is being inserted. It is not there but you are trying to put it there.
I don't see "successfully attack an opponent" as being different than "succeed at making an attack on an opponent" in any sense other than one is shorter than the other.
Succeeding on an attack roll is actually doing something. You've still accomplished something. We just disagree on what the rules at that point are specifically asking us to accomplish.
"Successfully" refers to the verb 'to attack' in your first statement...which in turn is referring to the Roll.
"Succeed" is a verb in the second part....which again is referring to the Roll.
"Succeeding" is also a verb. Again something you're doing...which yet again is referring to the Roll.In every example you are talking about making the Roll.
Greater Trip does not want the Roll. It wants to know when the target has been successfully tripped. It isn't asking us to succeed on a trip attack. It doesn't say to make a successful Roll. It doesn't care about the Roll. It wants the verb of tripping to happen. Not the verb of rolling. If it wanted the Roll, then it would say so just like in every other case that does so. This does not. It just doesn't care about the Roll. The focus on this Roll is where the inference is being inserted. It is not there but you are trying to put it there.
That's the point in contention. You're assuming the verb of tripping means the common definition of trip and not "Tripping" as in accomplishing the combat maneuver.
That's what the discussion is about, so you can't just assume the answer to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that that's how it should work. But RAW is clear: snakes are flying creatures are immune to being tripped, the action, not prone, the condition. Similar to how incorporeal creatures are immune to attacks from nonmagical weapons, as opposed to the damage from nonmagical weapons.
Interesting. So you think RAW is saying that if a man has a fly spell cast on him and he is floating there, that this somehow prevents the weights of a Meteor Hammer from wrapping around him so that I can pull him closer. And yet if I Overrun him, my shouldering past him somehow forces him to descend to the ground even though he is currently immune to the effects of gravity. Hmm...
You really think Jason and Sean and the others wrote it that way?
Guess that's a discussion for another thread. heh
And if you read and understood what I posted, then you would not say I am claiming that you think it is: Roll, item lands 15ft away, target drops item. I am saying that this is what you end up with if you apply the same reasoning of order sequencing that you're assigning to Greater Trip. You are saying Roll, AoO, target falls prone. But that is not what Greater Trip is telling us.
You clearly don't understand how I see things working for Greater Trip then. As I stated above, the reason the AoO comes before Prone is because of the nature of attacks of opportunities. They interrupt and resolve immediately, meaning it has to occur before prone gets applied, presuming the triggering event is a successful trip attack (which is what my position espouses).
With Greater Disarm, the triggering event is still a successful disarm attack, but the effect of Greater Disarm isn't to interrupt anything, it's to alter how the drop occurs. How does this mean, in any way, that the alteration caused Greater Disarm must occur before the effect is applied? How? I am explicitly telling you that it occurs at the same time as the ordinary disarm effect because it simply modifies what typically happens on a disarm. At the same time. Not before. Not after. At the same time.
Greater Disarm: Successful Attack -> Triggers Effect -> Modified drop due to Greater Disarm
This is the same process I apply to Greater Trip. Successful Attack -> Triggers Effect -> AoO must be resolved immediately -> Effect applies
And finally, the drop only occurs prior to the comma if you're reading "successfully" in the way that you do. I don't, so your cognitive dissonance isn't really my problem.
I'm assuming the verb of tripping means that you are accomplishing the combat maneuver. The combat maneuver of Trip means that you knock someone prone when you have beaten their CMD with your Roll. The problem is that you are focusing in only on the Roll and calling that the Combat Maneuver in its entirety. And this is what leads you to your conclusion.
This is compounded when you make the assumption that AoOs MUST resolve immediately after the Roll and MUST interrupt things.
As I stated above, the reason the AoO comes before Prone is because of the nature of attacks of opportunities. They interrupt and resolve immediately, meaning it has to occur before prone gets applied...
That is one of those invalid premises right there. Why does the AoO HAVE to interrupt and resolve immediately? You know full well there are times they don't. At least 3 of them have been pointed out on this thread alone. But you keep insisting that they do. This is probably the biggest issue you're having with where the AoO lands.
I agree that that's how it should work. But RAW is clear: snakes are flying creatures are immune to being tripped, the action, not prone, the condition. Similar to how incorporeal creatures are immune to attacks from nonmagical weapons, as opposed to the damage from nonmagical weapons.Interesting. So you think RAW is saying that if a man has a fly spell cast on him and he is floating there, that this somehow prevents the weights of a Meteor Hammer from wrapping around him so that I can pull him closer. And yet if I Overrun him, my shouldering past him somehow forces him to descend to the ground even though he is currently immune to the effects of gravity. Hmm...
You really think Jason and Sean and the others wrote it that way?
Guess that's a discussion for another thread. heh
Unintended consequences and all that. The words say "Immune to Trip". That's all it says. It does not say "Immune to Prone" and we have no other rules entry anywhere else telling us that "Immune to Trip" really means "Immune to Prone".
I'm assuming the verb of tripping means that you are accomplishing the combat maneuver. The combat maneuver of Trip means that you knock someone prone when you have beaten their CMD with your Roll. The problem is that you are focusing in only on the Roll and calling that the Combat Maneuver in its entirety. And this is what leads you to your conclusion.
This is compounded when you make the assumption that AoOs MUST resolve immediately after the Roll and MUST interrupt things.
As I stated above, the reason the AoO comes before Prone is because of the nature of attacks of opportunities. They interrupt and resolve immediately, meaning it has to occur before prone gets applied...That is one of those invalid premises right there. Why does the AoO HAVE to interrupt and resolve immediately? You know full well there are times they don't. At least 3 of them have been pointed out on this thread alone. But you keep insisting that they do. This is probably the biggest issue you're having with where the AoO lands.
Please point me to examples of AoO that do not resolve immediately because the only rules we have regarding AoO tell us that they must resolve immediately.
This is compounded when you make the assumption that AoOs MUST resolve immediately after the Roll and MUST interrupt things.
This isn't an assumption. This is RAW as supported by the rules, the FAQ's, and direct developer posts.
Someone in one of the threads posted 4 or 5 different instances where it was stated plainly that AoO's take place before you resolve the triggering event.
"Cognitive Dissonance". Cute. First I'm 'disingenuous'. Then I'm 'arguing Strawmen'. Now I'm 'cognitively dissonant'. And you complain about Remy being rude. *sigh* Where's the love, man?
An AoO that does not resolve immediately. No problem.
I Greater Trip my opponent. That opponent is invisible, but I know he is in the square that I'm targeting. My Roll is successful. Now according to your argument the AoO happens here. But it doesn't. First the target gets to roll Concealment. If he succeeds, then I do not actually get my AoO. If he fails, then I get it. The AoO did not resolve immediately.
Another example?
My target stands up. I declare my AoO to be an unarmed attack. I do not have IUS. My target gets an AoO against me before my AoO resolves. My AoO did not resolve immediately. His did...unless he also attacks unarmed without IUS and I happen to have armor spikes that I wasn't using for some reason. Now my new AoO (if I have one) is interrupting his which is interrupting my first one which is interrupting his standing.
But the point of both of these examples is that AoOs can not always resolve immediately.
Also AoOs do not always interrupt things in spite of what you argue. There are cases where nothing is interrupted...where the AoO comes at the end.
This is compounded when you make the assumption that AoOs MUST resolve immediately after the Roll and MUST interrupt things.
This isn't an assumption. This is RAW as supported by the rules, the FAQ's, and direct developer posts.
Someone in one of the threads posted 4 or 5 different instances where it was stated plainly that AoO's take place before you resolve the triggering event.
Are you really sure you want to walk into that trap?
|
|
@ HangerFlying. If you read the posts I suggested, you would see where Sub_Zero points out that you are saying something is not a definition but an Effect, and then turning to definitions to arrive at your argument...which is to say that it really is a definition....which undermines the argument you just put forth.
Which is completely asinine. He's cherry picking what he wants it to be. Either way, my point that you're arguing from an entrenched position and unwilling to recognize the other side of the argument is validated by your very response.
Heh. Actually he was right on target. You were arguing the definition was only an effect and then in your quoting of what the definition was, mentioned the very same effect. So you started saying it wasn't and then ended saying it was. :)
|
|
I'm assuming the verb of tripping means that you are accomplishing the combat maneuver. The combat maneuver of Trip means that you knock someone prone when you have beaten their CMD with your Roll. The problem is that you are focusing in only on the Roll and calling that the Combat Maneuver in its entirety. And this is what leads you to your conclusion.
This is compounded when you make the assumption that AoOs MUST resolve immediately after the Roll and MUST interrupt things.
For what it's worth, tripping is a transitive verb in this context.
That is one of those invalid premises right there. Why does the AoO HAVE to interrupt and resolve immediately? You know full well there are times they don't. At least 3 of them have been pointed out on this thread alone. But you keep insisting that they do. This is probably the biggest issue you're having with where the AoO lands.
The casting of a ranged touch spell provokes two AoO, even though the casting of the spell and the ranged touch attack are actually a singular event. The AoO for the casting of the spell occurs before the ranged touch attack is made. This is essentially how the AoO for Greater Trip works, though you're going to concoct a reason as to why it doesn't.
"Cognitive Dissonance". Cute. First I'm 'disingenuous'. Then I'm 'arguing Strawmen'. Now I'm 'cognitively dissonant'. And you complain about Remy being rude. *sigh* Where's the love, man?
An AoO that does not resolve immediately. No problem.
I Greater Trip my opponent. That opponent is invisible, but I know he is in the square that I'm targeting. My Roll is successful. Now according to your argument the AoO happens here. But it doesn't. First the target gets to roll Concealment. If he succeeds, then I do not actually get my AoO. If he fails, then I get it. The AoO did not resolve immediately.
Another example?
My target stands up. I declare my AoO to be an unarmed attack. I do not have IUS. My target gets an AoO against me before my AoO resolves. My AoO did not resolve immediately. His did...unless he also attacks unarmed without IUS and I happen to have armor spikes that I wasn't using for some reason. Now my new AoO (if I have one) is interrupting his which is interrupting my first one which is interrupting his standing.
But the point of both of these examples is that AoOs can not always resolve immediately.
Also AoOs do not always interrupt things in spite of what you argue. There are cases where nothing is interrupted...where the AoO comes at the end.
1. Cognitive Dissonance isn't an attack on you. You're commenting upon how my interpretation doesn't make sense to you. I believe a lot of that has to do with positional bias because you're trying to understand it while maintaining your position. They're contradictory positions, so naturally there is discord.
2. Disingenuous was in response to your literal substitution of language. I do not believe it is an honest substitution because I was clear that the statements were equivalent in implication and meaning, not literal reading. But if you thought this was an attack on you, I apologize. It wasn't intended as an attack, just to point out something I thought was a bit unfair.
3. You have created a strawman. I have never argued that Greater Disarm means that the item lands 15' away prior to being dropped. I've actually explicitly stated otherwise more than once. But you keep attacking that point like it's something relevant to my position. Again, this isn't an attack on you, it's simply undercutting your argument against my position. That particular criticism you have on my position isn't actually one of my position.
As for the AoO examples:
1. You present Greater Trip. This is a point in contention and one interpretation presents a circumstance where it does resolve immediately. So you can hardly use this as an example proving your point when this very discussion is about how that feat functions. Beyond that, the concealment issue was addressed above. It's all a part of determining what constitutes a successful hit (or trip attack).
2. You provided an example that simply compounds the ordinary rule. The opponent stands up, which provokes. You attack with an unarmed strike, which provokes. The opponent makes its AoO provoked by your US, resolving it immediately (while still prone), and then you (assuming you are still able) resolve your AoO (continuing on after the interruption flow of actions), and then the opponent (assuming it is still able) resolves the original triggering event (continuing on after the interruption of the flow of actions).
So, you've provided two examples. One is the current topic being contested. The other provides a textbook example of how AoO are supposed to work, by handling them immediately prior to resolving the triggering action. If an AoO provokes another AoO, you treat it just like any other situation - it gets interrupted and the second AoO follows the ordinary rubric.
This is compounded when you make the assumption that AoOs MUST resolve immediately after the Roll and MUST interrupt things.
This isn't an assumption. This is RAW as supported by the rules, the FAQ's, and direct developer posts.
Someone in one of the threads posted 4 or 5 different instances where it was stated plainly that AoO's take place before you resolve the triggering event.
I posted something in this thread. Here.
Though it probably has popped up elsewhere, too.
The only question is whether the triggering event is the success of the attack, as opposed to the success of the application of the effect. But again, that's precisely what is being contested. The point regarding AoO resolving immediately, interrupting the resolution of their triggering event, should not be in contention, however. It is explicitly how the rules work.
"Cognitive Dissonance". Cute. First I'm 'disingenuous'. Then I'm 'arguing Strawmen'. Now I'm 'cognitively dissonant'. And you complain about Remy being rude. *sigh* Where's the love, man?
An AoO that does not resolve immediately. No problem.
I Greater Trip my opponent. That opponent is invisible, but I know he is in the square that I'm targeting. My Roll is successful. Now according to your argument the AoO happens here. But it doesn't. First the target gets to roll Concealment. If he succeeds, then I do not actually get my AoO. If he fails, then I get it. The AoO did not resolve immediately.
Another example?
My target stands up. I declare my AoO to be an unarmed attack. I do not have IUS. My target gets an AoO against me before my AoO resolves. My AoO did not resolve immediately. His did...unless he also attacks unarmed without IUS and I happen to have armor spikes that I wasn't using for some reason. Now my new AoO (if I have one) is interrupting his which is interrupting my first one which is interrupting his standing.
But the point of both of these examples is that AoOs can not always resolve immediately.
AoO's always resolve immediately, unless of course something else interrupts the AoO itself, like another AoO, a readied action that triggers off whatever the AoO was, or even an immediate action spell. It would be more correct to say an AoO always resolves before the thing that triggered the AoO.
Next, you are making the same mistake Remy did and trying to force the resolution of the AoO in the improper location as a means of disproving the opposing viewpoint - ie, before concealment is resolved. We don't know if the trip was successful till AFTER we account for concealment. Once all factors have been taken into account and we know the target will be prone as a result, THEN, and only then, do we resolve the AoO - which comes before resolving the triggering event.
As an aside, if your opponent is invisible, you don't get an AoO to begin with. Targets with total concealment do not provoke AoO's.
Also AoOs do not always interrupt things in spite of what you argue. There are cases where nothing is interrupted...where the AoO comes at the end.
There probably are some special rule cases where they don't, but that doesn't change the basic rule of how they work. But if you can provide examples we can evaluate them and see if they are a special rules case or have somehow broken the basic case.
Are you really sure you want to walk into that trap?
This is compounded when you make the assumption that AoOs MUST resolve immediately after the Roll and MUST interrupt things.
This isn't an assumption. This is RAW as supported by the rules, the FAQ's, and direct developer posts.
Someone in one of the threads posted 4 or 5 different instances where it was stated plainly that AoO's take place before you resolve the triggering event.
Yes, yes I do :). Show me the trap.
The entry for AoO doesn't say they must always interrupt an action. They interrupt the flow of actions. Typically though not uniformly, interrupting the flow of actions entails interrupting an actual action.