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.
Concoct? You're twisting words to fit your interpretation instead of just interpreting what's written and I'm the one concocting?
We all know the AoO interrupts the casting and the ranged touch attack. Because the AoO is interrupting the action. What action is the AoO interrupting with Greater Trip?
|
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 definitely didn't say "wasn't then was". What I said was:
[Noun] is the name for the activity in which you [transitive verb] someone. The effect from being [transitive verbed] doesn't actually define what [transitive verb] is, it just tells you what happens to you after you have been [transitive verbed].
To put it more directly: "'Trip' is the name for the activity in which you 'trip' someone. The effect from being 'tripped' doesn't actually define what 'trip' is, it just tells you what happens to you after you have been 'tripped'".
You argue that trip [transitive verb] means prone [effect]. So, basically you're saying: "'Trip' is the name for the activity in which you 'prone' someone. The effect from being 'proned' doesn't actually define what 'prone' is, it just tells you what happens to you after you have been 'proned'".
I argue that trip [noun] has the ultimate intent of making the target prone [effect]. To do that, you must trip [transitive verb] the target by beating the target's CMD. Once a trip [transitive verb] is successful, the prone [effect] condition is applied to the target.
My simple point is that prone [effect] doesn't actually define what trip [noun or transitive verb] actually is. Prone [effect] is just the result of a successful trip [transitive verb], not the actual definition of a successful trip [transitive verb]. This argument is supported by what the rules actually say, and how the rules say it:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD--if you successfully trip [transitive verb] your target, the target is knocked prone [effect].
|
|
We all know the AoO interrupts the casting and the ranged touch attack. Because the AoO is interrupting the action. What action is the AoO interrupting with Greater Trip?
To use your own words to apply it to Greater Trip: "We all know the AoO interrupts the [roll to beat the CMD] and the [application of the prone effect]. Because the AoO is interrupting the action..."
EDIT: If your entrenched position makes you incapable of applying the knowledge of rules use to different, yet applicable theories, then there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.
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.Concoct? You're twisting words to fit your interpretation instead of just interpreting what's written and I'm the one concocting?
We all know the AoO interrupts the casting and the ranged touch attack. Because the AoO is interrupting the action. What action is the AoO interrupting with Greater Trip?
Come on, man. We've been through this a million times.
If the AoO from Greater Trip occurs prior to prone, it interrupts the falling to prone. This isn't an action. I get it. You've mentioned that. But again, neither is being moved from a GBR, but you don't have a problem correlating being moved to the ordinary movement action, which is an action. I don't have a problem correlating being knocked prone with the ordinary Drop to Prone free action, which is an action.
Beyond that, AoO don't have to interrupt an action; they interrupt the flow of actions. So, if the AoO from Greater Trip occurs while the character is falling prone (for the sake of providing a visual for what could happen on a successful trip prior to the prone condition being applied - we both know no such state actually exists), it interrupts the normal flow of actions even if no specific action is being interrupted. Though technically the action being interrupted under my interpretation would be the trip itself - the AoO occurs prior to the resolution of the trip attack since the effect of being knocked prone (usually) hasn't been applied yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ bbangerter and fretgod99. I hardly know where to begin. Unwrapping the puzzle you make of all this would take time, which I don't have. But I will try to be brief and to the point.
I never said I don't understand your positions. I do. I understand your reasoning and how you reach the conclusion you do. But your conclusion is based on false data. It is erroneously conceived and grows from there.
Strawman? I have not said you claim the sequence "Roll, item lands 15ft away, target drops item." I said that if you apply the same logic that you do to Greater Trip, then this is the sequence we are left with.
You asked for examples. I gave them. Now you're saying you don't like those examples? The concealment issue is EXACTLY a rule that shows that AoOs do not resolve immediately. Two AoOs interacting also shows that AoOs do not resolve immediately. You have attested that they must always. I have shown you special cases where they do not. You rightly understand that special cases override general rule. But then you incorrectly apply the general rule to a special case.
The question has been answered. A few times in fact. "Successfully disarm" is referring to the item no longer being in the owner's hand. "Successfully trip" is referring to the target no longer standing. The text is applying an Adverb to a Verb. It is describing these Verbs as being successfully performed. That Adverb is invalid until the Verb is actually completed. "Successfully" cannot be imposed upon the Verb "Trip" until we know that "Trip" has truly happened. But you keep suggesting that "Trip" means "Roll". I'd sure like to see the evidence on that. You point to "attack" or "attempt" or "maneuver", but these are the Roll. So your evidence is the argument itself. In essence 'It is as I say it is.' Which isn't really saying anything. You keep trying to say mine argument is inaccurate, but strangely I never seem to hear your evidence supporting your statements. Only how mine are wrong. Hmm....
"AoO's always resolve immediately, unless of course something else interrupts the AoO itself..."
Really? Oh that's convenient, isn't it? I'll recognize some special cases when they do, but then ignore the other special cases where they do also. And when someone tells me they do there too, I'll just say "Oh that can't be as they always resolve immediately."
Not sure the rules actually work that way. :)
And again concealment is a special case. So are lots of other areas...even Greater Trip. But you are willing to accept one case but ignore another to make your point...which you then argue can't be a special case because of the general rule...which you then have to later acknowledge does in fact get changed by special cases...which then you ignore again when a specific special case is pointed out...which then...sends us on this nice little merry-go-round.
"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."
Ah, excellent catch. So you ARE paying attention to what I'm saying. Good to know. Perhaps I should have just said partial concealment. ;)
As for the trap...and you wisely acknowledge that such cases exist. There are 2 that I'm aware of, although I'm hardly a master of every rule:
Greater Overrun. AoO generated. What is it interrupting?
You could rightly answer that nothing is being interrupted. You could also rightly answer that this is because Greater Overrun is introducing a special case to the general rule. But then you go back to making the same mistake you were before and ignoring the same special case Greater Trip is giving us. And your argument for ignoring it is because of the general rule...which we know can be changed.
"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."
Wisely put.
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.If your attack exceeds the target's CMD--if you successfully trip [transitive verb] your target, the target is knocked prone [effect].
Ah thank you for this. This is a classic example here of you legislating text.
"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD---if you successfully trip [transitive verb] your target..."
Stop right there. That is the part you are inventing. You are making it up out of nothing. Nowhere does the attack exceeding CMD say you have "successfully tripped" your target. No where. You are inventing this.
Please stick with RAW. "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD..."
What is happening at this point? The Roll is giving us a number and we are comparing that number to another number. That is ALL that is happening. Nothing has transpired other than this. The Roll only. No tripping has taken place. No contact has been made. Nothing has happened other than a d20 plus all your bonuses has beaten a listed CMD number and because our number is higher than theirs we know to move forward.
"...the target is knocked prone." There we go. Now the whole reason we were attempting a trip combat maneuver in the first place happens. Now that it has transpired, the Adverb "Successfully" can be attached to the Verb "Trip". If we had assigned "Successfully" before the trip actually happened, then that would cause all sorts of grammatical errors. But now that we have done what we set out to do, we have "successfully tripped" our opponent.
@ 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.
If you really think that's what I am doing then you are wrong.
You claim Elbedor's is unwilling to recognize the other sides argument, and yet you've not even taken the time to comprehend what I was saying.
To be clear, I wasn't "cherry picking". I was asking you how we could possibly proceed if we don't use the CRB's definition of trip. If anyone was cherry picking it is you, since you are suggesting that we use your definition of trip over others.
I understand your claim that what the book says is not a definition but the result. I'll tentatively accept that. Now we need a definition of trip do we not?
I asked you how we could possibly come to an agreement. Your only attempt at a response was to point to a dictionary that defined it as "to stumble". While I agree that is a perfectly valid definition of trip, you can equally say that "to fall" is a perfectly valid definition of trip. I'm not trying (with this particular line of argument) to argue one over the other, I'm merely asking you how we can proceed forward once we've reached this point? It seems if we go by what you say, we are at an impossible impasse.
|
|
Ah thank you for this. This is a classic example here of you legislating text.
"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD---if you successfully trip [transitive verb] your target..."
Stop right there. That is the part you are inventing. You are making it up out of nothing. Nowhere does the attack exceeding CMD say you have "successfully tripped" your target. No where. You are inventing this.
No where does the does the attack exceeding CMD say that you haven't "successfully tripped" your target. No where. You are blatantly ignoring the rules of the English language.
You are so dead set on your way being right, you are incapable of actually understanding what it is I'm saying.
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.Concoct? You're twisting words to fit your interpretation instead of just interpreting what's written and I'm the one concocting?
We all know the AoO interrupts the casting and the ranged touch attack. Because the AoO is interrupting the action. What action is the AoO interrupting with Greater Trip?
Come on, man. We've been through this a million times.
If the AoO from Greater Trip occurs prior to prone, it interrupts the falling to prone. This isn't an action. I get it. You've mentioned that. But again, neither is being moved from a GBR, but you don't have a problem correlating being moved to the ordinary movement action, which is an action. I don't have a problem correlating being knocked prone with the ordinary Drop to Prone free action, which is an action.
Beyond that, AoO don't have to interrupt an action; they interrupt the flow of actions. So, if the AoO from Greater Trip occurs while the character is falling prone (for the sake of providing a visual for what could happen on a successful trip prior to the prone condition being applied - we both know no such state actually exists), it interrupts the normal flow of actions even if no specific action is being interrupted. Though technically the action being interrupted under my interpretation would be the trip itself - the AoO occurs prior to the resolution of the trip attack since the effect of being knocked prone (usually) hasn't been applied yet.
Wrong answer. The AoO HangarFlying and others are trying to put in there is interrupting your own action. This is in violation of the rules. Your action of tripping does not provoke due to Improved Trip. And even if it did, you cannot provoke from yourself.
Greater Bull Rush is different because the target isn't provoking. He doesn't. Greater Trip says he does. But GBR doesn't say he does.
His movement does.
And have you ever noticed the wording of GBR? "Whenever you bull rush an opponent..."
Doesn't it strike you as odd that "successfully" is missing here? It's in Greater Disarm. It's in Greater Trip. But it's not here. There's a good reason it is. Because the AoO generated by GBR happens in the middle of the act of moving your target. His movement is provoking from your allies and their AoOs get to resolve immediately before he's pushed any further. He has not been "successfully bull rushed" yet because the action is still going on. The text acknowledges that the AoO here is different. So it leaves the word out.
Disarm and Trip are worded differently on purpose. Those events happen immediately upon the roll beating the CMD. The weapon leaves the owner's hand and the target is knocked prone. THEN the target provokes and the AoO triggers, resolves immediately, and interrupts nothing...just like Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp.
But...wife called. Time to head out and celebrate a son's BD. So off to do that. Will have to pick up the fun here later. ;)
Strawman? I have not said you claim the sequence "Roll, item lands 15ft away, target drops item." I said that if you apply the same logic that you do to Greater Trip, then this is the sequence we are left with.
here are a few posts where you've insinuated that my position must be that the 15' movement occurs prior to the disarm. But that's not true, as I've demonstrated. I've shown how the same logic applies without creating a paradox.
You asked for examples. I gave them. Now you're saying you don't like those examples? The concealment issue is EXACTLY a rule that shows that AoOs do not resolve immediately. Two AoOs interacting also shows that AoOs do not resolve immediately. You have attested that they must always. I have shown you special cases where they do not. You rightly understand that special cases override general rule. But then you incorrectly apply the general rule to a special case.
You've shown nothing other than examples supporting how we understand AoO to work, that's the point. How does interrupting an AoO with an AoO disprove that AoO interrupt the flow and resolve immediately? That's the literal language used in the rule book. AoO resolve immediately. If you throw in another AoO, you have another factor to consider - it's a separate intervening event - but it doesn't mean the AoO aren't resolved immediately.
As for concealment, if you're arguing this prevents the AoO from resolving immediately, you're confusing the basic case (where AoO resolves immediately upon determination of Hit because there are no other factors to consider) and the more complex case (where resolving the Hit doesn't actually occur until you've resolved the concealment issue).
"AoO's always resolve immediately, unless of course something else interrupts the AoO itself..."
Really? Oh that's convenient, isn't it? I'll recognize some special cases when they do, but then ignore the other special cases where they do also. And when someone tells me they do there too, I'll just say "Oh that can't be as they always resolve immediately."
Well, how do you propose we resolve AoO that are interrupted by other AoO? It's not me saying that AoO are resolved immediately. That's the language straight out of the rule book. The rule books are written presuming the general case. An AoO interrupting an AoO isn't the general case. So, you simply walk through it like you do any other situation. The most recent AoO gets resolved immediately, then you continue with the interrupted flow of actions. If that includes resolving the triggering AoO, then that resolves immediately. Repeat until there are no more AoO to resolve.
This isn't me saying AoO resolve immediately - it's the rule book. There's no dispute about that. Beyond that, none of this would do anything to support a position that, even if the triggering event were the success of the attack, that the AoO would still necessarily have to occur after the prone condition is applied. This debate shouldn't be about how AoO are made. The discussion is about the triggering event. You think it is the target getting knocked prone from a trip, I think it is the successful trip attack prior to application of the effect. It's been clear for a long time that we're not going to make any headway on that discussion.
You could rightly answer that nothing is being interrupted. You could also rightly answer that this is because Greater Overrun is introducing a special case to the general rule. But then you go back to making the same mistake you were before and ignoring the same special case Greater Trip is giving us. And your argument for ignoring it is because of the general rule...which we know can be changed.
"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."
Wisely put.
Right, so applied to Greater Overrun, what that means is the AoO interrupts the character making the Overrun. As soon as the target is knocked prone, because that's what the feat tells us is the trigger (it specifically calls out the target being knocked prone not "successfully overrun"), the AoO occur. The character doing the overrun likely isn't done moving yet (though not necessarily). If the character is not done moving, it is that character's movement which is interrupted. If that character is done moving, the AoO occurs prior to the next turn in the initiative order. In either event, the flow of actions has been interrupted and the AoO is resolved immediately. This isn't a trap. It works just as I would expect it to.
|
|
If you really think that's what I am doing then you are wrong.
You claim Elbedor's is unwilling to recognize the other sides argument, and yet you've not even taken the time to comprehend what I was saying.
To be clear, I wasn't "cherry picking". I was asking you how we could possibly proceed if we don't use the CRB's definition of trip. If anyone was cherry picking it is you, since you are suggesting that we use your definition of trip over others.
It's not my definition, it's the definition that hundreds of years that the English language has developed over has decided what the definition of the word "trip" should be.
I understand your claim that what the book says is not a definition but the result. I'll tentatively accept that. Now we need a definition of trip do we not?
Why is the definition found in the dictionary not sufficient?
I asked you how we could possibly come to an agreement. Your only attempt at a response was to point to a dictionary that defined it as "to stumble". While I agree that is a perfectly valid definition of trip, you can equally say that "to fall" is a perfectly valid definition of trip. I'm not trying (with this particular line of argument) to argue one over the other, I'm merely asking you how we can proceed forward once we've reached this point? It seems if we go by what you say, we are at an impossible impasse.
"To fall" is not a perfectly valid definition of trip because being tripped doesn't automatically guarantee that one will fall. It is quite possible that one might trip but recover and continue walking on their merry way.
Now, as far as the rules are concerned, we have been told that if one does indeed trip, they will fall. Your "to fall" is the effect the rules have told us to apply (and even that isn't guaranteed considering that other results of being tripped do exist: flat-footed or dragged are the two that immediately come to mind). That still doesn't mean that "to fall" defines what trip actually is, "to fall" is just the effect that happens when one is tripped.
EDITED TO BETTER RESPOND TO THE QUOTE.
Wrong answer. The AoO HangarFlying and others are trying to put in there is interrupting your own action. This is in violation of the rules. Your action of tripping does not provoke due to Improved Trip. And even if it did, you cannot provoke from yourself.
What rule says you cannot interrupt your own action? Nothing I've said means you're provoking from yourself. But what rule says your own action cannot be interrupted.
Greater Bull Rush is different because the target isn't provoking. He doesn't. Greater Trip says he does. But GBR doesn't say he does.
His movement does.
I'm honestly not even sure what to make of this. Is your argument that Greater Trip causes the target to provoke just for existing?
And have you ever noticed the wording of GBR? "Whenever you bull rush an opponent..."
Doesn't it strike you as odd that "successfully" is missing here? It's in Greater Disarm. It's in Greater Trip. But it's not here. There's a good reason it is. Because the AoO generated by GBR happens in the middle of the act of moving your target. His movement is provoking from your allies and their AoOs get to resolve immediately before he's pushed any further. He has not been "successfully bull rushed" yet because the action is still going on. The text acknowledges that the AoO here is different. So it leaves the word out.
I have noticed that. That's why I addressed it in a previous post. You think "successfully bull rush" would completely change the meaning of the GBR feat. I think that idea is preposterous.
Disarm and Trip are worded differently on purpose. Those events happen immediately upon the roll beating the CMD. The weapon leaves the owner's hand and the target is knocked prone. THEN the target provokes and the AoO triggers, resolves immediately, and interrupts nothing...just like Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp.
I disagree, and I've already stated why, so I won't belabor the point. Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp do interrupt. They interrupt the flow of actions, which is precisely what AoO are supposed to do. Whether an actual action is interrupted doesn't really matter.
But your conclusion is based on false data.
You've yet to convince me of this. You view it flawed because you are convinced your viewpoint is correct.
You asked for examples. I gave them. Now you're saying you don't like those examples? The concealment issue is EXACTLY a rule that shows that AoOs do not resolve immediately. Two AoOs interacting also shows that AoOs do not resolve immediately. You have attested that they must always. I have shown you special cases where they do not. You rightly understand that special cases override general rule. But then you incorrectly apply the general rule to a special case.
Understand I always start from the most simple case possible when trying to explain something. In the most simple case there are not additional rules in play - in the most simple case the AoO resolves immediately.
However, concealment isn't even a specific rule that overrides how AoO's work. The AoO still resolves immediately once you've determined a provoking event has occurred. You wouldn't say a normal melee attack was a success without first taking concealment into account. I likewise don't say a trip attack is a success without taking concealment into account. In this slightly more complex case over the simple case the AoO is still using the basic rule (not a specific rule overriding the basic rule) - and therefore still happens immediately upon a triggering event occurring. Concealment is a pre-determining factor for total success, not a post determining factor. There is a general rule that to determine if you hit something successfully you must beat the targets AC (or CMB for a maneuver). Concealment is a specific rule that overrides that.
Greater Bull Rush has a specific rule regarding the opportunity to take an AoO, but does not change the basic mechanic of when to resolve the AoO (e.g. immediately with the triggering event). Normally movement from a bull rush does not provoke. With GBR it does provoke from allies, and those AoO's are resolved immediately before the bull rush is completed.
I should add to the GBR example to cut off a possible argument. If the target of the bull rush is not next to any allies when the GBR starts the claim cannot be made that the AoO's don't take place because the target is out of range. The way it works is the same as movement. If the GBR causes the opponent to move out of an allies threatened square anywhere along the movement path, that is when the AoO takes place. The provoking event isn't actually the GBR itself, but rather movement out of a threatened square (caused by GBR in this case) but otherwise functionally the same as if the opponent had willingly moved out of a threatened square.
Greater Overrun also does not change the basic rules of when a AoO occurs. It does add a specific rule of allowing an AoO when one was not allowed before, but doesn't change how and when the AoO resolves. Triggering event? Target knocked prone. (Not successfully overrun, though that is a predetermining factor in this case). Greater trip though is not triggered on target knocked prone (see vicious stomp if you want that) but rather on determining the trip is successful. And remember, success isn't determined by the effects taking place, it is determined by whether after all is said and done the effect will take place (which is the point of disagreement, you believe success is determined only after the effect is in place).
"AoO's always resolve immediately, unless of course something else interrupts the AoO itself..."Really? Oh that's convenient, isn't it? I'll recognize some special cases when they do, but then ignore the other special cases where they do also. And when someone tells me they do there too, I'll just say "Oh that can't be as they always resolve immediately."
Not sure the rules actually work that way. :)
I'm not selectively ignoring the rules at my convenience, I'm building up the rules from basic building blocks and applying them as basic blocks till something tells me to treat it differently. Nothing in greater trip tells me to treat it differently. fretgod already explained the building up of multiple AoO's - none of these break the basic building block of how AoO's function.
Greater Bull Rush is different because the target isn't provoking. He doesn't. Greater Trip says he does. But GBR doesn't say he does.
You sure on this? :) Cause I'd say the CRB disagrees with you.
Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).
Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how to read that and get anything but that the target is the one provoking (as a result of his forced movement).
Additionally
And have you ever noticed the wording of GBR? "Whenever you bull rush an opponent..."
I'll give you this one. If your attempt to bull rush fails yet somehow forces the opponent to move, then your allies may take their AoO's.
(Sorry, I can be sarcastic at times, I'm not really trying to offend).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Egads, this is a lot to respond to. I'll have to pick it up tomorrow as I have time. Late here and I'd like to make sure I do any responses justice. I'd hate for someone to think I was avoiding questions. ;)
In a nutshell though, fretgod99, thanks for the links. They show that I wasn't accusing you of thinking of odd sequences but suggesting that if you applied your Greater Trip logic to Disarm that the sequencing is all off. More on that later though.
Also, bangerter with an extra 'b', I wasn't going against the grain of the CRB with regards to provoking and GBR and GT. I was referencing the CRB. GBR says that the target's movement provokes. GT says the target provokes. That's all. :) Heaven forbid any of us go against the CRB. That would just be crazy, wouldn't it?
But more on "Successfully" and CMs and their Greater feats later, unless someone beats me to the punch first. In the meantime know that I can be very sarcastic but can never offend. I'm just too loveable. :P
GBR says that the target's movement provokes. GT says the target provokes. That's all. :) Heaven forbid any of us go against the CRB. That would just be crazy, wouldn't it?
Is there an important distinction to make here? You can't attack the 'movement'. The target's movement provokes is just another way of saying "the target provokes by moving". So 'the movement' doesn't actually provoke because it is not a tangible thing that can be AoO'd.
Look forward to your response tomorrow.
Ok, lots of chatter here. Some are comments, some are questions. I'll cut through the bulk of it to get to the meat. But it's still rather long. I could have broken it down into parts, but I have other things to get done today, so I'd rather just throw it all out there. Of course this will probably generate a handful of responses as some of you pick this apart looking for errors and such. Let me nip that now. There aren't any errors. I'm as perfect as I am loveable. :P
Seriously though, I will say up front that I will not be able to respond to all the comments that come from this. I just don't have the time for that. But I can post as I'm able and have no problems with discussing this as far as RL allows. So don't mistake my lack of response for being unsure or stumped. I am quite comfortable in my position and have full confidence that it is the right one. I see and understand the thought process of Camps #1 and #2, because I was there. I held the same thought processes. But I also see the shortcomings of them. This is why I moved to #3. It had a more comfortable, simpler, and easier fit.
@fretgod99. Concerning AoOs, I propose that we resolve them just as the rules tell us to. That is why I said they do not always resolve immediately. You disagreed and demanded examples. So I showed you how they don't always do so as you were claiming. That is really all it was. I wasn't intending a cheap shot. I was taking you at your word. You said they always did. I pointed out that such wasn't true. Hence the examples to show how the rules work. But I think it is safe to say that we agree now on how they work.
@fretgod99 and bbangerter. Regarding Greater Bull Rush and Greater Trip provoking, I was referencing what the book says about provoking AoOs in the AoO section. It mentions how movement and actions provoke. Greater Bull Rush says this too. So I thought it interesting that Greater Trip said it was the target provoking and not any movement or actions. In fact if we look further, we see that Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp are saying the same thing. No actions are provoking. Only the target is. Interesting. Now the Feats don't expound on why the target does. He just does. Is this of importance? I suppose one person could argue that nothing is happening. I think I might have floated this as an idea, but you didn't seem to agree with the idea that the target is provoking just because he exists at this point. So it would make sense that someone else might argue that the target is doing something. He's falling down. Normally falling down or diving prone doesn't provoke any attacks. But now with these Feats, it does.
Camp #2 argues that the act of falling from a trip is what provokes, and as an AoO resolves immediately as an interrupt it must fire at a point where the target is falling, but hasn't yet reached prone.
This is one idea...if the reasoning was applied consistently. This would also mean that the AoOs from Vicious Stomp and Greater Overrun also fire before the target is actually prone. But they don't. Or at least if they do, then most of us have been interpreting VS and GO wrong all these years. But what bothers me is the inconsistency. All 3 feats are giving us the same thing. The target is provoking. Well if something needs to be happening instead of just existing, then the only thing the target is doing is falling over. So with VS and GO it is being interpreted that he falls down and then provokes. But with GT it is being interpreted that he provokes and then falls down. Why the inconsistency?
Well maybe you'd answer "Because GT is only saying trip where the others are specifically saying knocked or falling prone." This would make sense if Tripping and Knocking Prone weren't basically the same thing. But they are. Or rather "Trip" is an action that is one of a group of actions that all fall under the "Knock Prone" umbrella. When you're talking about "Tripping", you are talking about "Knocking Prone". I mean isn't that the reason you're making the trip attempt in the first place? They are directly related. When I talk about my Labrador, I am talking about a dog. I am not talking about anything other than a dog. Back to GT, there can be special rules that use the trip mechanic for something other than knocking prone. That's fine as special trumps general. But I'm referring to the general rule here. Greater Trip does not change the meaning of what a Trip is. It only changes the target from not provoking to provoking.
Greater Overrun, Vicious Stomp, and Greater Trip all have similar wording and function the same way. They want a target either knocked prone from an Overrun, falling prone for any reason whatsoever, or tripped prone. You might say with the "tripped prone" that I'm inferring an extra step as the text only says "successfully trip". You'd say this because you are convinced that "successfully trip" only means the roll succeeded. I've said this is not the case, but you don't believe me. You have not given any evidence as to why your interpretation is correct. I have given evidence as to why it is not correct. You have dismissed my evidence as unimportant, remained in your position, and STILL do not give any evidence to support that position. But maybe what comes next will help. I don't know.
@fretgod. Coming back to Greater Overrun, yes the AoO interrupts the movement of the character making the Overrun. We both agree on this. I was referring to the target not being interrupted. Something happens to him and THEN the AoO fires. You agree but then are not consistently applying your reasoning to this feat.
Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone by your overrun.
You declare an Overrun and make a Roll. If you beat the CMD, you can run through the target's space. If you beat the CMD by 5+, then you successfully knock the target prone as you run through.
For Greater Trip you have been arguing that "successfully trip" means only that you have beaten the CMD with a roll. So you get: Trip Roll, AoO, Prone Effect.
But then for Greater Overrun, you ignore this argument entirely. We know according to your interpretation that when you beat the CMD by 5+, that you have "successfully knocked prone" the target at that moment, even before the Effect is applied. But instead of performing the AoO immediately as you do in the case of Greater Trip, you wait for the Effect to happen. Is it because the text doesn't say "successfully knock a target prone" in Greater Overrun? I'd think we can surmise that is exactly what it is saying, although with different words. And haven't you been arguing that we can change the words of Greater Trip around to arrive at your conclusion so that "successfully X" only means the roll was high enough? So why not apply the same treatment here? Why the hesitation to do so?
You correctly interpret how Greater Overrun works, what the Roll means, what the Effect means, and how the sequence comes together. But then you go to Greater Trip which offers us the same type of sequence and you throw out what you just interpreted correctly and insert a different interpretation of a new mechanic which says that NOW "successfully" means something else. Before it meant the Roll and the Effect together, but now it only means Roll.
We then come to Disarm and see that its definition of "successfully" is in line with Greater Overrun and counter to yours. You insist that "where the item lands" is only the modification of the Effect (item leaves target's hand). But that is an assumed step you are taking. Nowhere in the section on Disarm does it say where the dropped item lands. We assume at the owner's feet, but the text doesn't actually say. (I will interrupt here for a moment to clarify that when I'm referring to "dropped", I am talking about "leaving target's hand". I don't mean the item drops to the floor and then goes somewhere else. I'm saying that at the moment the target has "dropped" an item, it has left the vicinity of his hand. He no longer has a hold of it). It isn't until we get to Greater Disarm that we now see the difference. Without Greater Disarm it lands at his feet. With it, it lands 15ft away. In both of these instances, this is talking about where the item ends up. It does not change the dropping one bit. In all 3 cases of Regular Disarm, Unarmed Disarm, and Greater Disarm the dropping is the same. If you beat the CMD then the Effect happens immediately and the item has left the targets hand(s). It even says it right in the text.
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying...
The attack roll was successful. You beat the CMD of the target. Now he drops something. The only part that changes, depending on the type of disarm, is where that item then ends up.
You have argued that "successfully" means the Roll only so the Effect hasn't happened yet. But we are told that after "successfully disarm" happens, the item is landing somewhere which means the leaving (the Effect) happened at some point before this. You insist the "leaving" is assumed, but the text of Greater Disarm and the end text talking about Unarmed Disarm are very clear that they are talking ONLY about where the item ends up. You say they are referring to more, but nothing after the comma in those sentences says anything about the target losing the item. You are (quite possibly unknowingly) inserting an extra step here and not going off of just the text. If any reference is made at all about the "leaving" it is done so in the Past Tense suggesting that the "dropping" has already happened. For unarmed, the item is even described as one that was "dropped".
This is very distinctly and quite directly telling us that the removing of the item from the owner's possession is taking place somewhere before the commas. This interpretation is not adding anything. It is not assuming anything. It is going strictly by the text that RAW gives us. "you successfully disarm your opponent" is saying that you have knocked the item from his hand(s). It is the only place left in the sentence where the "leaving" could happen. So we know the meaning of "successfully". It includes the Effect of the action taken.
Which makes perfect grammatical sense. We cannot apply "successfully" as an Adverb to a Verb that has not taken place yet. "Successfully" implies "done in a positive manner or with a beneficial outcome". The Verb action must have happened. And as HangarFlying so nicely pointed out, this Verb is transitive; it is acting upon another object..."opponent". So to perform a Disarm on an opponent, the disarm is only successfully resolved if we do in fact do what disarm says we do...we remove something from the target's hand(s). Tripping works the exact same way. In order for Trip to successfully resolve, we must do to the object the Verb that we are doing. That Verb cannot be described as "successfully" until we have resolved it in a positive manner or with a beneficial outcome. The moment we have rolled dice, we are sitting at a table seeing that the results have beaten the CMD and we know we can proceed with our intentions. We have "succeeded" in our attempt, but at that moment we have not "successfully" performed our action...to knock prone from a trip or knock an item away with a disarm. Now that we have the "go ahead" we may carry out the Transitive Verb upon the object. And at this point, unless some special rule intercedes, that Transitive Verb resolves "Successfully".
This is exactly how you treat Greater Overrun and the various Disarms. But you then ignore this when handling Greater Trip. I am not sure why you do, but as I said, it is inconsistent.
*phew* Ok, time to get some real work done. Have fun with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, a clarification which may have caused some of this trouble.
AoOs do generally interrupt things. When I've said you can't interrupt your own action, unfortunately I wasn't clear. I had meant that you do not provoke from your own action. The general rule of AoO does not allow you to perform something, provoke an AoO that you can then take against someone, and then continue your action. AoOs are only provoked by things other people do. But yes you can perform an AoO in the middle of your action (such as moving during the Overrun that causes a target to provoke). This makes sense and I agree with it. Perhaps that was confusing to some though.
However, this in no way implies that the AoO from Greater trip MUST come between the Roll and the Effect. Especially not if "successfully trip" means the Effect. But does it or doesn't it?
fretgod99, you've said that the AoO from Greater Trip must come between Roll and Effect because of how AoOs work. But this is not evidence for your argument. The argument is circular.
Why must the AoO come between Roll and Effect? Because "successfully trip" means only the Roll (and the AoO interrupts).
Why does "successfully trip" mean only the Roll? Because the AoO must come between the Roll and the Effect.
You generate an answer to a question that requires the question to provide the answer. This argument is circular and goes nowhere. That is why I've said you provide no evidence to support your argument. It is like saying:
Why am I eating Chocolate Ice cream? Because I like it.
Why do I like Chocolate Ice cream? Because I'm eating it.
What triggers the AoO in Vicious Stomp? The target falling prone adjacent to you. Is this fall interrupted? No. The AoO triggers after the target has already fallen prone. He is prone when the AoO fires. So what is left to resolve after that? Nothing. Is it possible that Greater Trip wants the target to be prone first and the AoO here behaves in exactly the same way? Certainly it's possible.
And the AoO can still interrupt something...especially if you still have a Move to take or were in the middle of a full-attack.
Does "successfully trip" mean just the Roll? No idea. What is the evidence to support a "Yes" answer?
Does "successfully trip" mean the Roll and Effect? Yes. What is the evidence? Because in order to apply the Adverb "Successfully" to the Verb "Trip" the action the Verb is taking must first be carried out. If it did not resolve in a positive manner or a beneficial conclusion, then the action cannot be described as "Successfully". The Roll is not the carrying out of the Verb. It is the player rolling a d20, adding some numbers and comparing it to other numbers. This results in us knowing whether to proceed with the Verb or to end. In the game, the character is attempting the Verb as the d20 is rolling on the table. When the result shows the CMD has been beaten, then the Verb resolves. The item is knocked from the target's grasp, the target is tripped, the weapon has damage applied to it, both target and attacker acquire the grapple condition, etc, etc.
But that is only one reason why we say "successfully trip" means the Effect is in place. We can also say because the progression we get here is in sync with the progression we get for Vicious Stomp.
Which is the same progression we get for Greater Overrun.
Which is the same progression we get for Disarm in all its forms.
And so forth and so on for every area that wants us to "successfully" do something before something else can happen.
Now back to work....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and one last thing regarding Greater Bull Rush, because I know this came up. This is exactly why they don't say "Whenever you successfully bull rush an opponent" in the Greater Feat text. They specifically make sure to leave the word "successfully" out of the text. If "successfully" only meant the Roll, then there is no reason to leave it out. But the Devs DID leave it out.
Why?
Not to save space. They could have just said "Whenever you trip an opponent" or "If you disarm your opponent without using a weapon". But they specifically put "successfully" INTO that text.
So why put it in there but intentionally leave it out of Bull Rush?
Because "successfully" means to resolve the action. A resolved Bull Rush has the target 5+ feet away. No AoO can be generated at that point. The AoOs have to come during the movement while the action is in the middle of resolving because it is the movement that is provoking. For disarming, tripping, knocking over from an overrun, and vicious stomping, the action of falling over is finished resolving in a positive manner. So now it can be described as "successfully". Granted, the word doesn't appear in the overrun or stomp feats, but it could be inserted or withheld without changing the meaning any.
:)
This is one idea...if the reasoning was applied consistently. This would also mean that the AoOs from Vicious Stomp and Greater Overrun also fire before the target is actually prone. But they don't. Or at least if they do, then most of us have been interpreting VS and GO wrong all these years. But what bothers me is the inconsistency. All 3 feats are giving us the same thing. The target is provoking. Well if something needs to be happening instead of just existing, then the only thing the target is doing is falling over. So with VS and GO it is being interpreted that he falls down and then provokes. But with GT it is being interpreted that he provokes and then falls down. Why the inconsistency?
This is where we disagree, which is the entire point. VS and GO specifically state that the provocation is when the target falls prone, meaning the effect has already occurred. There is still an interruption of the flow of actions per usual. VS and GO call out prone, GT does not. I disagree entirely with your contention that Trip is defined as knock prone, again pretty much an entire point of the discussion. Trip, in my opinion, is defined as a combat maneuver the goal of which is to (usually) knock your opponent prone. It's not an inconsistency to view GT differently if GT does not specifically call out being knocked prone, particularly if you do not believe "Trip" is defined as being knocked prone.
Well maybe you'd answer "Because GT is only saying trip where the others are specifically saying knocked or falling prone." This would make sense if Tripping and Knocking Prone weren't basically the same thing. But they are. Or rather "Trip" is an action that is one of a group of actions that all fall under the "Knock Prone" umbrella.
But you've just defined Trip two different ways. Is Trip the action or the effect? This is a conversation that goes back to the very first thread - how do you define a successful trip?
Greater Overrun, Vicious Stomp, and Greater Trip all have similar wording and function the same way. They want a target either knocked prone from an Overrun, falling prone for any reason whatsoever, or tripped prone. You might say with the "tripped prone" that I'm inferring an extra step as the text only says "successfully trip". You'd say this because you are convinced that "successfully trip" only means the roll succeeded. I've said this is not the case, but you don't believe me. You have not given any evidence as to why your interpretation is correct. I have given evidence as to why it is not correct. You have dismissed my evidence as unimportant, remained in your position, and STILL do not give any evidence to support that position. But maybe what comes next will help. I don't know.
I have provided evidence. We started talking about this like three threads ago. I do not see how "Successful Trip" and "Successfully Trip" should be viewed any differently. It's based off of the Determining Success rules language. You claim that "Your combat maneuver is a success" is an effect of the die roll (though we still don't know what that actually means). I believe it is simply the label we give to the successful die roll which indicates that the effect is impending.
You've argued that Trip is different than the ordinary language, because it doesn't include the success line. This is unpersuasive. One, it only makes sense if you already prescribe to your viewpoint (that success is an effect). If you believe success is just a label for the attack roll exceeding the target, it's unsurprising both are not present because it's simple duplication. Two, most of the other combat maneuver entries do not contain references to both the roll exceeding the target and the success line. Again, because doing so would be redundant. Three, my reading is completely analogous to the standard attack rule in regards to determining a successful hit. I believe a successful hit is the same as a successful combat maneuver (in terms of reading the rules side-by-side). Therefore, "successfully trip" would be determined the same way that "successfully hit" is determined.
That we disagree on these points does not mean I have not provided evidence to support my opinion.
But then for Greater Overrun, you ignore this argument entirely. We know according to your interpretation that when you beat the CMD by 5+, that you have "successfully knocked prone" the target at that moment, even before the Effect is applied. But instead of performing the AoO immediately as you do in the case of Greater Trip, you wait for the Effect to happen. Is it because the text doesn't say "successfully knock a target prone" in Greater Overrun? I'd think we can surmise that is exactly what it is saying, although with different words. And haven't you been arguing that we can change the words of Greater Trip around to arrive at your conclusion so that "successfully X" only means the roll was high enough? So why not apply the same treatment here? Why the hesitation to do so?
Again, it is because the GO feat literally says that the triggering event is that the opponent is now prone. The GT feat literally does not say anything about the opponent being prone. Understandably, your interpretation is that "successfully trip" means to be knocked prone. But you cannot disagree that there is no literal language in GT that says anything about being prone.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise to you that, if we view the meaning of "successfully trip" differently, that disagreement on meaning could cause a different result when applied to relevant rules. If I do not think "successfully trip" requires one to already be prone, where in the GT feat is there any discussion of the target already having been knocked prone?
You correctly interpret how Greater Overrun works, what the Roll means, what the Effect means, and how the sequence comes together. But then you go to Greater Trip which offers us the same type of sequence and you throw out what you just interpreted correctly and insert a different interpretation of a new mechanic which says that NOW "successfully" means something else. Before it meant the Roll and the Effect together, but now it only means Roll.
How I interpret "successfully" has not changed between the two cases, so I don't see how you think I have done so. "Successfully" doesn't even appear in GO. I argue that it is implied to be there, because I don't view "successfully" to mean anything other than "your combat maneuver succeeded", so to speak.
We then come to Disarm and see that its definition of "successfully" is in line with Greater Overrun and counter to yours. You insist that "where the item lands" is only the modification of the Effect (item leaves target's hand). But that is an assumed step you are taking. Nowhere in the section on Disarm does it say where the dropped item lands. We assume at the owner's feet, but the text doesn't actually say. (I will interrupt here for a moment to clarify that when I'm referring to "dropped", I am talking about "leaving target's hand". I don't mean the item drops to the floor and then goes somewhere else. I'm saying that at the moment the target has "dropped" an item, it has left the vicinity of his hand. He no longer has a hold of it). It isn't until we get to Greater Disarm that we now see the difference. Without Greater Disarm it lands at his feet. With it, it lands 15ft away. In both of these instances, this is talking about where the item ends up. It does not change the dropping one bit. In all 3 cases of Regular Disarm, Unarmed Disarm, and Greater Disarm the dropping is the same. If you beat the CMD then the Effect happens immediately and the item has left the targets hand(s). It even says it right in the text.
This is the part I don't really get why there's a disagreement. You agree that the ordinary effect of a Disarm is that the object lands on the ground at the feet of the target. You agree the the effect of a Greater Disarm is different in that the object lands on the ground 15' away from the target. That's all I'm saying. Greater Disarm alters the effect of Disarm. Instead of dropping it in the same square, it lands in a square 15' away. That is an alteration of the effect. That's all it is. The effect without GD is the item drops in the square. The effect with GD is the item drops in a different square. The effect is different. If the point of GD isn't to alter the effect (change where or how the item is dropped), what is the point of GD? Do you think where the item lands is not part of the effect? If not, then what happens after the item is dropped in an ordinary Disarm? There's nothing in the rules that say anything other than that it is dropped.
But again, the disagreement about how Disarm ordinarily functions is you think the item doesn't land in the square because you view "drop" as an ordinary term meaning, basically, "let go". I view it as meaning it is a forced application of "Drop an Item". I see no reason that the clear implication of both Drop an Item and Drop in Disarm (which I contend is the same thing) is other than the item lands, essentially, at one's feet.
So you see discrepancy again only because we define these terms differently. If we define all these terms as you do, there is no discrepancy in your reading. If, however, we define all these terms as I do, there is also no discrepancy in my reading. That's the point. Your reading is dependent upon your definition of these terms (and vice versa). You cannot disprove my interpretation using your definitions unless and until you can demonstrate that my definitions are necessarily incorrect (and, again, vice versa). Neither of us can do that. You cannot demonstrate, definitively, that my definitions of these terms are unreasonable. Similarly, I cannot demonstrate, definitively, that your definitions of these terms are unreasonable. Ergo, two reasonable interpretations exist and we have to wait for the Developers to, essentially, choose one (or a separate one entirely).
We cannot apply "successfully" as an Adverb to a Verb that has not taken place yet. "Successfully" implies "done in a positive manner or with a beneficial outcome".
Right. And if you define "Trip" or "Disarm" as the combat maneuver, as opposed to the effect, then successfully accomplishing either of these things still can refer to what happens prior to the implication of the effect. Again, that is the point. We're defining these terms differently. "Trip" (even the verb) can mean either accomplishing the combat maneuver attack or applying the effect of the combat maneuver. It is ambiguous as to which definition was intended. That is the point. It is only definitive if you presume which definition is intended.
This is exactly how you treat Greater Overrun and the various Disarms. But you then ignore this when handling Greater Trip.
Again, I treat them differently because we're simply defining things differently. In my opinion, GT does not call out the effect. The others do. GT only calls out the effect if you assume that "successfully trip" itself is a reference to the effect. We disagree on this, so there's not going to be a satisfactory resolution.
fretgod99, you've said that the AoO from Greater Trip must come between Roll and Effect because of how AoOs work. But this is not evidence for your argument. The argument is circular.
Why must the AoO come between Roll and Effect? Because "successfully trip" means only the Roll (and the AoO interrupts).
Why does "successfully trip" mean only the Roll? Because the AoO must come between the Roll and the Effect.
That is not why I say successfully trip means only the roll. So it isn't circular logic. Yes, the AoO comes before Prone because I believe that Successfully Trip does not refer to already having knocked the target prone. However, Successfully Trip, doesn't mean only the roll because the AoO comes before Prone.
Successfully Trip, in my opinion, is analogous to Successfully Hit. This is something I've been arguing pretty much since I got involved in these discussions a month ago.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Successfully Trip, in my opinion, is analogous to Successfully Hit.
Ah, well that boils it down nicely. I could have avoided all the wordiness if I had just zeroed in on this. :)
"Successfully Trip" cannot equal "Successfully Hit".
The purpose of an attack is not just to Hit. It is to do something to the target. Combat Maneuvers replace regular attacks. Instead of doing damage, you try to do something else. Move them with a Bull rush, make them drop something with a Disarm, blow past them with an Overrun, destroy an item with a Sunder, or knock them prone with a Trip. Performing one of these maneuvers requires a Hit, just like a regular attack does. But the purpose of performing them is to gain the Effects.
I don't perform a Trip attack just so that I can hit my target. If that was the entire purpose of the attack, then I would agree that to "successfully hit" the target is all I needed.
But that is not the purpose.
"Successfully Trip" is analogous to "Successfully Damage". That is the part of the attack sequence that you are replacing.
You hit and do damage.
You hit and push back.
You hit and force item drop.
You hit and run through (and maybe knock prone).
You hit and damage item.
You hit and knock prone.
If my Trip roll hits, then under normal circumstances he falls prone. At this point I have done what I set out to do. If I hit, but for some reason he doesn't fall prone, my attempt succeeded in that I made contact, but what I set out to do has failed.
"Successfully Trip" cannot equal "Successfully Hit"."Successfully Trip" is analogous to "Successfully Damage". That is the part of the attack sequence that you are replacing.
You are making this claim, but the actual text of the rules doesn't support this.
The successfully perform a <maneuver> is analogous with the successfully hit. We don't hit something just to hit something. We hit something with the intended effect of damaging it.
During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.
And what is the mechanic for determining success?
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success .
The rules right here are explicitly telling us what success on a maneuver is. And what the result of success means.
This language is almost identical to the language of a normal attack.
If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit .
If effect is part of determining success, then you do not successfully hit a creature that has enough DR to ignore the damage. To say otherwise is to apply one set of language parsing rules to normal attacks and a completely different set of language parsing rules for combat maneuvers - even though the rules very purposely spell out what success is and make the analogy that combat maneuvers are a form of attack. eg "If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD...". They don't call it out as a maneuver roll. The rules call it out like this because they want us to think of them as the same thing save the differences they explicitly call out (target CMD instead of AC, knocked prone instead of dealt damage, and the like).
Just like the goal of tripping an opponent is to knock them prone, the goal of hitting an opponent is to deal damage, not merely hit them. But success is determined before results are applied. If some other rule comes into play (like DR) that doesn't mean you didn't succeed. You didn't achieve your ultimate goal, but your attempt was a success in the manner in which the rules define success. We didn't achieve success as defined by the common every day usage of the word (in either the attack or trip attempt) but we did achieve it as defined by the rules. Since the rules give us the definition, we should use that specific definition.
As an aside, I'm not aware of anything that would prevent a creature from being tripped once the CMD has been beat, unlike the attack/damage where DR may in fact altar the the final effect to be 'no effect'. So beating the CMD is a foregone conclusion at that point that the target will be prone - its just a matter now of when we apply that status. I don't count the immune to trip of snakes and oozes in this category because I wouldn't even have the player roll in the first place to try and beat the CMD. The character could see in these cases that such a creature doesn't even have legs/feet to try and trip, there is no valid target to cause a trip in these cases.
But then for Greater Overrun, you ignore this argument entirely. We know according to your interpretation that when you beat the CMD by 5+, that you have "successfully knocked prone" the target at that moment, even before the Effect is applied. But instead of performing the AoO immediately as you do in the case of Greater Trip, you wait for the Effect to happen.
Per RAW? I think per RAW it actually does trigger before the prone condition - because AoO's go off before the event that triggered them. I don't run it that way because I don't believe that is the RAI based upon how it is worded and (especially with vicious stomp) how the fluff/thematic intent of it looks in my mind. Understand that this isn't the only set of rules I do this with. There are others where the RAW does not match what I believe the RAI to be. I play the RAI in those cases.
To fix this greater overrrun should be errata'd from:
"Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone by your overrun."
to
"Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity after being knocked prone by your overrun."
Successfully Trip, in my opinion, is analogous to Successfully Hit.Ah, well that boils it down nicely. I could have avoided all the wordiness if I had just zeroed in on this. :)
"Successfully Trip" cannot equal "Successfully Hit".
The purpose of an attack is not just to Hit. It is to do something to the target. Combat Maneuvers replace regular attacks. Instead of doing damage, you try to do something else. Move them with a Bull rush, make them drop something with a Disarm, blow past them with an Overrun, destroy an item with a Sunder, or knock them prone with a Trip. Performing one of these maneuvers requires a Hit, just like a regular attack does. But the purpose of performing them is to gain the Effects.
I don't perform a Trip attack just so that I can hit my target. If that was the entire purpose of the attack, then I would agree that to "successfully hit" the target is all I needed.
But that is not the purpose.
"Successfully Trip" is analogous to "Successfully Damage". That is the part of the attack sequence that you are replacing.
You hit and do damage.
You hit and push back.
You hit and force item drop.
You hit and run through (and maybe knock prone).
You hit and damage item.
You hit and knock prone.If my Trip roll hits, then under normal circumstances he falls prone. At this point I have done what I set out to do. If I hit, but for some reason he doesn't fall prone, my attempt succeeded in that I made contact, but what I set out to do has failed.
Disagree whole-heartedly. For the same reasons that I disagree that "successfully trip" is actually anything distinct from "successful trip". I fail to see how you've demonstrated that "Successfully Trip" is analogous to "Successfully Damage", other than stating that it's your preferred interpretation.
I don't see how Flaming Weapons would work any differently if the entry instead read, "A flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage whenever you successfully hit an opponent", instead of how it is worded now ("a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit").
What matters is that the hit was made, not that damage occurred (for the purposes of this ability, anyway).
But again, we've gone over this countless times. I doubt anything will be accomplished by doing it again. It's the same argument. We disagree on the relevant definitions.
Ok, see you're equating "successful trip attack/attempt/maneuver" with "successfully trip". I'm still not sure why, but this is the hiccup point. They are not the same thing.
If I make a successful trip attack
If I succeed at my trip attempt
If I have a successful trip maneuver
These are all taking about the Hit. In order to know whether we can trip someone we have to roll something to signify that we hit. If I want to damage someone with my weapon, I have to hit them. The hit has to happen. It has to be successful. The above statements are only signifying that a hit happened. But if you stop there, nothing else happens. Hitting is not the purpose of the attack you're making. You're hitting so that you can deliver something else to the target. That's why the wording for an attack roll or a successful combat maneuver tells us to put Hit and listed effect together. Hit and do damage. Hit and have the listed effect. They go together.
Sure I can successfully hit but fail to do damage. That makes perfect sense. I succeeded on my attack, but failed to deliver the damage. So did I successfully do what I set out to do? Nope. I hit him, but my goal was to do more than just that. The goal always is. The hit is just the carrier for what you're trying to do. The hit is used to deliver all sorts of effects. But in and of itself it doesn't equate to anything. It's like the box that my gift comes in. Its purpose is to transport the gift from the warehouse, through the mail, to my front door. It has a nice label on it. It's probably been beaten to bits. But its purpose is to carry the gift to me. So I open it, set it aside, and reuse/recycle it. The gift is the thing. Not the box.
Remember Hit and Damage both trigger when the roll beating a certain number. Usually once the number is beaten, both hit and damage happen. But sometimes things get in the way...such as DR or Concealment.
This can happen in a lot of different ways. I can succeed at making a combat maneuver, but still fail to successfully perform that maneuver. I can succeed at a skill check, but still fail to successfully accomplish the task. Don't believe me? Try demoralizing a paladin. :P
If all you do is hit and then stop there, you've done nothing. But if you apply the listed effect, then you've successfully done whatever you were attempting to do.
I can't say I've successfully tripped someone if he's standing there in front of me un-tripped. I can't say I've successfully demoralized someone if they're standing there unaffected by the Shaken condition. I can't say I've successfully blinded someone if he's not blind. I can't say I've successfully done anything if the thing I've tried to do and succeeded at hitting in my attempt to do, ends up doing nothing.
@fretgod99. Yes we do keep going over this. And you have never successfully explained why you keep equating "successful trip attempt" with "successfully tripped". You only say I've failed to convince you when I say one is the Hit and the other is the Effect. But you don't offer any counter argument.
You say hit is successfully because....and then you give examples of other hits.
If the flaming weapon successfully hits a target it deals extra damage. Because such a thing does extra damage on a hit. If the weapon instead did something on a successful trip attack, then it would do whatever that ability is. But if the weapon required you to first successfully trip your target, that ability doesn't trigger if the target hasn't been tripped.
If you're in a game, why would you attempt to hit a target? Orcs descend on you and you draw your sword. Then you attack. Why? To do damage.
If you're in a game, why would you attempt a Trip attack? What is the purpose of it? To knock someone prone.
You perform a trip attack in place of a regular attack to knock the target prone instead of to damage them.
You disagree with this? You really don't see how tripping and damaging are related?
I am curious how you might interpret the Charge Through feat, though.
If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.
It's curious to me that this feat uses "successfully overrun" (verb form you keep touting for Disarm and Trip) as equivalent to "successful overrun" (noun form that you say "successfully trip" is definitely supposed to be distinct from).
This feat's language says if you overrun successfully, the effect happens. However, if your "attempt" is unsuccessful, then you stop directly in front of the target creature (which is the same language used for a "failed attempt" in the general language for Overrun). Do you think the meaning of the feat would be different if the second sentence instead read "If you unsuccessfully overrun that creature ..."? Why is the feat referring to successfully overrunning (verb) but also a(n) (un)successful overrun (noun)?
If "successfully [verb]" means the action has already been completed, what purpose does the feat Parry Spell have? Your point is that when something is "successfully" done, the effect ordinarily relevant is already applied. If you successfully counterspell a spell, then, the spell has already been negated. More importantly, if a spell has been negated, there is no other effect. Per your interpretation of "successfully" and how it is different in meaning than simply a "successful" attempt of doing the same, the countered spell has already been negated and cannot have any other effect. And yet Parry Spell says that such a countered spell actually returns back on its caster.
How can a negated spell, which can have no other effect, be returned back on its caster, and then effect the caster? This can't be unless "successfully" doesn't have the same meaning you're espousing. Maybe it doesn't mean that the effect has to already be done and over with.
How does this compare to the "successfully" used in Binding Throw? There they specifically call out that the feat is supposed to apply after successfully using Ki Throw. In that case, it certainly makes sense that this means Ki Throw has ultimately been resolved. So why wouldn't they use that same language with other uses of "successfully" unless it wasn't intended to create this clear delineation that you're talking about.
Maybe successfully was simply used most of the time because saying "Successfully [verb]" is shorter than "Succeed at your attempt to [noun]". It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable, since that's a typical use in every day English and rule book writers are in the business of saving space. Do you think this possibility is entirely unreasonable?
What about Deceptive Exchange? Again, here we have an example of "successfully [verb]" that clearly comes in the context of occurring before the effect is applied. If "successfully feinting" an opponent in combat means that the target must have already been denied its dexterity bonus, how can you now exchange that penalty for something else? The penalty has already been applied. This only makes sense if "successfully feinting" means you've succeed at your bluff check, and now have an new option for the effect to be applied.
The same goes for Improved Two Weapon Feint and other feats that alter the actual effect to be applied. How can you alter that effect after it's already been applied? How does Maximized Spellstrike maximize the spell used during Spellstrike if the spell has already applied all of its damage to the target?
But this is what is required if "successfully [verb]" uniformly and necessarily means that the entire action has succeeded and the effects have already been put in place.
Now, please understand that I am not saying that "successfully" can never mean that the entire action has succeeded and the effects have already been put in place. What I'm asking is how you have determined that the "successfully" in GT and GD must be that type of successfully, and not the other type of successfully that we know the rule books have also used - the successfully that actually is synonymous with "successful attempt". We know that these latter successfully's do exist; I've just shown you a few of them. So how do you know, beyond any doubt, that this latter successfully is not the type of successfully used in GT and GD?
Or, again, can we recognize that maybe it's a little ambiguous. It's not entirely clear. There are a couple of reasonable interpretations and we simply cannot know the answer until a developer comes out and says, "[This] is what we meant."
The bottom line is you cannot say with any level of assuredness that the "successfully" used in GT and GD must refer to only the fully completed action unless every use of "successfully" in the rule books follows the exact same definition. This is clearly not the case. So, while it certainly is possible that the "successfully" in GT and GD could be interpreted the way you are interpreting it (and reasonably so), it is most definitely not the only way to do so.
@fretgod99. Yes we do keep going over this. And you have never successfully explained why you keep equating "successful trip attempt" with "successfully tripped". You only say I've failed to convince you when I say one is the Hit and the other is the Effect. But you don't offer any counter argument.
You say hit is successfully because....and then you give examples of other hits.
If the flaming weapon successfully hits a target it deals extra damage. Because such a thing does extra damage on a hit. If the weapon instead did something on a successful trip attack, then it would do whatever that ability is. But if the weapon required you to first successfully trip your target, that ability doesn't trigger if the target hasn't been tripped.
If you're in a game, why would you attempt to hit a target? Orcs descend on you and you draw your sword. Then you attack. Why? To do damage.
If you're in a game, why would you attempt a Trip attack? What is the purpose of it? To knock someone prone.
You perform a trip attack in place of a regular attack to knock the target prone instead of to damage them.
You disagree with this? You really don't see how tripping and damaging are related?
No, tripping and damaging aren't related. Knocking prone and damaging are related. Tripping is the action. Knocking prone is the effect. Hitting is the action. Damaging is the effect. You are using "Trip" to mean two different things: the action and the effect. I understand why you are doing that. I am using "Trip" only in the game term sense that is the action. "Trip" does not mean "knock prone"; knock prone is the effect of "Trip" (the action).
Beyond that, I have provided argumentation and evidence, you just disagree with it. That is fine. But that doesn't mean I haven't provided any.
I am curious how you might interpret the Charge Through feat, though.
This is actually a very good example of what I've been saying.
When making a charge, you can attempt to overrun one creature in the path of the charge as a free action. If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.
So basically you begin a charge at Target A, but Target B is in the way. You attempt to overrun B and make your CM check as a free action. As the Feat says, if you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. This is saying exactly what I expect it to. It is implying that "successfully" means that what you were attempting to do has fully resolved. You moved through B's space. You successfully overran. And now you are on your way to A as you complete the charge.
However if you fail the roll, then you are unsuccessful and the charge ends directly in front of B. Just as how a failed Overrun behaves.
This is only supporting what I've been arguing. I'm not sure why you are feeding me this, but I appreciate it. :)
But let's apply your reasoning to it now. I charge A and have to get past B. But what I don't know is that B has a readied action to perform a Trip attack against me if I try to enter his space. I pull adjacent to him and make my Overrun attempt. It is successful. You define this as "successfully" so this must mean I can complete the charge. However once I try to enter B's space, his readied action triggers and he succeeds in tripping me. So now I'm prone. But the feat says by your interpretation that I can complete the charge.
Only I can't.
Same exact scenario with my reasoning. My overrun is successful as per the roll, but B trips me. So I don't successfully overrun him. I'm prone. Action over. No conflict.
Maybe this helps to clarify what I've been trying to say?
Ah. I was looking at my screen at the wrong angle and didn't see these other links highlighted. Let me see what I can do before I have to turn in for the day.
Whenever you successfully counter a spell, it returns back to its caster. This works exactly like the spell turning spell.
Well when you attempt to counter a spell you need to make a Spellcraft check and then cast the appropriate spell. Once you have done this, you have created a counterspell effect according to the CRB. It is at this moment that you have "successfully counterspelled" the spell because you have generated the effect. From here normally the two spells just fizzle out, but this feat changes it so that instead of negating, it returns to the caster...just like the Spell Turning spell behaves.
Benefit: After you successfully use the Ki Throw feat on an opponent, you can use a swift action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent.
Normal: The grapple combat maneuver is a standard action.
This would appear to say that you must first complete a Ki Throw. You can't just succeed on a trip check...you actually have to throw the target prone into any adjacent square next to you. Otherwise what's the point of making a trip maneuver that does nothing but allow you to make a grapple maneuver? Why not just do the grapple maneuver?
Now that you've successfully done so, you can attempt the grapple check as a swift action instead of having to wait until the next round to do so as a standard action. The nice benefit to this is that the target is prone so you get a bonus on your check.
This is still supporting my argument. All of these are so far. I'm not sure why you're giving them to me, but thanks. Each of them are clearly defining "successfully" as an action that has fully resolved.
Next one. Hmm....
If you successfully feint an opponent, you can trick that opponent into accepting a one-handed object you are holding instead of denying that opponent its Dexterity bonus to AC against your next attack.
Ah, see this one is tricky. Normally to "successfully feint" an opponent means you've bluffed them and denied them their Dex. But this is replacing "denied Dex" with "trick into accepting an object". At first glance, it appears that their use of "successfully" is going against every other instance that they use the word. So is it an oversight? Did they mean to say "If you succeed in feinting"? I don't know. They didn't though, regardless.
I'd have to chalk this up to either inconsistency in their meaning or a poor attempt to do a quick switch-out of effects. Successfully has meant something different in every other instance but this one so far. But it is what it is. Guess there's one in every barrel. ;)
What I find really odd though is you saying that this is just another example of "successfully" coming before the effect. This has been the only case. So how can you say "another example"? That choice of words seems odd to me.
It's like if I say I have a bag of apples, proceed to pull out half a dozen apples, then pull out an orange that somehow ended up in the bag, and you announce 'AHA! See? That's not a bag of apples."
<scratches head>
Let's see if I have time for one more...
When you make a melee attack and successfully use your spellstrike ability against an opponent denied his Dexterity bonus to AC, you can spend 3 points from your arcane pool to maximize the spell delivered through your spellstrike as if using the Maximize Spell metamagic feat.
This one is tricky too, but not unreasonable. What is a spellstrike ability? An ability to cast a spell with range of touch and deliver it by hitting the target with your weapon. So if you successfully cast and successfully hit and successfully delivered (assuming any allowed save was failed), you have successfully used spellstrike. Now you roll for damage if you want, or you can immediately spend 3 points to maximize this damage.
So I have to say that all but one of these do a good job of telling us what "successfully" means. It means that you have completed whatever it was that you were trying to complete.
Which has been my argument all along.
Now maybe someone can do all of these more justice. I am not as familiar with many of the newer rules as I am with the core and near-core. But I looked them over and gave them my honest assessment.
The bottom line is you cannot say with any level of assuredness that the "successfully" used in GT and GD must refer to only the fully completed action unless every use of "successfully" in the rule books follows the exact same definition.
I think this exercise has done very nicely to show what "successfully" means. We did have one orange in our bag of apples, but that doesn't mean it's not a bag of apples.
So whether that orange was a typo or not, it appears that every other case is saying exactly what I've been saying. :)
Greater Trip wants the target knocked prone. It wants the Effect of the trip visited upon the target in order to satisfy the requirements of the feat which then triggers the AoOs. I've been saying this for quite some time now. I will continue to say it. These rules support my saying it. And I can say it with an immense level of assuredness.
Again, thank you for these examples. :)
G'nite.
But let's apply your reasoning to it now. I charge A and have to get past B. But what I don't know is that B has a readied action to perform a Trip attack against me if I try to enter his space. I pull adjacent to him and make my Overrun attempt. It is successful. You define this as "successfully" so this must mean I can complete the charge. However once I try to enter B's space, his readied action triggers and he succeeds in tripping me. So now I'm prone. But the feat says by your interpretation that I can complete the charge.
I agree that charge through is not a good example from those fretgod99 posted. However, all you've done here is shown you do not understand how readied actions work (they go off before the triggering action). Which is very similar to AoO's, which you understand, but want to ignore for GT.
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
You don't even get to roll to see if you have success in this case. You are about to overrun him, his trigger goes off. You are tripped. Being prone you are no longer capable of completing your action.
Also note, being successful in the roll does not mean something else along the path won't interfere and foil it.
Say A and B are in a line. C is between A and B but 5' to the side.
You charge A, overrun B (and beat the CMD) and continue past C towards A. C uses an AoO for moving through his threatened square to trip you. Remember we need to start with the simple cases, then build up the rules from there. C is not part of the simple case. In the simple case you get to complete your charge to A because you successfully overran. In the more complex case C now interrupts you at a later point in the charge, foiling your attempt. The successfully overran doesn't guarantee that nothing else will interfere, it just guarantees that the immediate factors have been met, and IF nothing else interferes then you get to complete your charge.
On parry spell.
Once you have done this, you have created a counterspell effect according to the CRB.
I'm not seeing this additional counterspell effect you mention talked about in the CRB.
...you can cast the spell as a counterspell and automatically ruin the other spellcaster's spell.
To successfully counterspell you must: Identify the spell being cast. Cast the same spell. And this has an effect of [knocking the spell prone] or rather of ruining it. Until it is ruined can you say it has been successfully counterspelled? Not if effect is part of the package. At this point there are no other steps or effects in the counterspell.
Ah. I was looking at my screen at the wrong angle and didn't see these other links highlighted. Let me see what I can do before I have to turn in for the day.
Whenever you successfully counter a spell, it returns back to its caster. This works exactly like the spell turning spell.Well when you attempt to counter a spell you need to make a Spellcraft check and then cast the appropriate spell. Once you have done this, you have created a counterspell effect according to the CRB. It is at this moment that you have "successfully counterspelled" the spell because you have generated the effect. From here normally the two spells just fizzle out, but this feat changes it so that instead of negating, it returns to the caster...just like the Spell Turning spell behaves.
Nope. Not possible. Because remember, "successfully counterspelling" means that it wants you to have finished counterspelling. Finishing counterspelling means the spell is negated. The effect has been fully applied. It's already done and over with. It can't be turned anymore because counterspelling specifically says it's already been negated and has no more effect.
That's how you interpret "successfully [verb]" for Trip and Disarm. Why aren't you for this feat?
Benefit: After you successfully use the Ki Throw feat on an opponent, you can use a swift action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent.
Normal: The grapple combat maneuver is a standard action.
This would appear to say that you must first complete a Ki Throw. You can't just succeed on a trip check...you actually have to throw the target prone into any adjacent square next to you. Otherwise what's the point of making a trip maneuver that does nothing but allow you to make a grapple maneuver? Why not just do the grapple maneuver?
Now that you've successfully done so, you can attempt the grapple check as a swift action instead of having to wait until the next round to do so as a standard action. The nice benefit to this is that the target is prone so you get a bonus on your check.
This is still supporting my argument. All of these are so far. I'm not sure why you're giving them to me, but thanks. Each of them are clearly defining "successfully" as an action that has fully resolved.
Next one. Hmm....
Then you missed the point because that feat specifically says after you successfully use ki throw, not whenever you use ki throw on an opponent. That example was provided to explicitly show how the rules could be written to clearly demonstrate that the effect fully needs to be applied first.
When you make a melee attack and successfully use your spellstrike ability against an opponent denied his Dexterity bonus to AC, you can spend 3 points from your arcane pool to maximize the spell delivered through your spellstrike as if using the Maximize Spell metamagic feat.This one is tricky too, but not unreasonable. What is a spellstrike ability? An ability to cast a spell with range of touch and deliver it by hitting the target with your weapon. So if you successfully cast and successfully hit and successfully delivered (assuming any allowed save was failed), you have successfully used spellstrike. Now you roll for damage if you want, or you can immediately spend 3 points to maximize this damage.
So I have to say that all but one of these do a good job of telling us what "successfully" means. It means that you have completed whatever it was that you were trying to complete.
Which has been my argument all along.
Now maybe someone can do all of these more justice. I am not as familiar with many of the newer rules as I am with the core and near-core. But I looked them over and gave them my honest assessment.
No, again you misunderstand how to apply your own argument from GT and GD. In order to have successfully used spell strike, the effect must have already been applied. That means you already rolled damage.
This ability is only useful if and only if the effect has not yet been applied. Yet, it says "successfully use". So how can you reconcile this?
To successfully counterspell you must: Identify the spell being cast. Cast the same spell. And this has an effect of [knocking the spell prone] or rather of ruining it. Until it is ruined can you say it has been successfully counterspelled? Not if effect is part of the package. At this point there are no other steps or effects in the counterspell.
Precisely. And if the spell has already been counterspelled and negated, because the effect has been applied, how can you then return that spell to the caster? You can't. There's nothing left to return. Just like there's no spell left to maximize with Maximize Spellstrike. Just like you've already denied the target of your feint their dexterity bonus.
If the effect must be fully applied, you're already done.
But let's apply your reasoning to it now. I charge A and have to get past B. But what I don't know is that B has a readied action to perform a Trip attack against me if I try to enter his space. I pull adjacent to him and make my Overrun attempt. It is successful. You define this as "successfully" so this must mean I can complete the charge. However once I try to enter B's space, his readied action triggers and he succeeds in tripping me. So now I'm prone. But the feat says by your interpretation that I can complete the charge.
You'd have been able to finish your charge if you hadn't been tripped. That's not a complicated thing to figure out. The feat doesn't say you can complete the charge if you've been tripped, so why would you assume I'd say you can?
You couldn't complete the charge if you got tripped by someone else 10' later, either.
But let's apply your reasoning to it now. I charge A and have to get past B. But what I don't know is that B has a readied action to perform a Trip attack against me if I try to enter his space. I pull adjacent to him and make my Overrun attempt. It is successful. You define this as "successfully" so this must mean I can complete the charge. However once I try to enter B's space, his readied action triggers and he succeeds in tripping me. So now I'm prone. But the feat says by your interpretation that I can complete the charge.I agree that charge through is not a good example from those fretgod99 posted. However, all you've done here is shown you do not understand how readied actions work (they go off before the triggering action). Which is very similar to AoO's, which you understand, but want to ignore for GT.
It was brought up not because the point on "successfully" is clear one way or the other but because the feat uses "successfully overrun" and "unsuccessful overrun" in the same entry. To me it seems more than a little silly to think that the first is referring to a fully completed action with effect applied but the second is referring only to the attempt without effect, because I disagree that there is any kind of significant difference for the purposes of these rules between using trip or disarm or feint or overrun or counterspell as a verb and using the same as a noun. This point was then followed up by a number of examples demonstrating that "successfully" really has nothing to do with a completed action and effect. It's a distinction without a difference.
But let's apply your reasoning to it now. I charge A and have to get past B. But what I don't know is that B has a readied action to perform a Trip attack against me if I try to enter his space. I pull adjacent to him and make my Overrun attempt. It is successful. You define this as "successfully" so this must mean I can complete the charge. However once I try to enter B's space, his readied action triggers and he succeeds in tripping me. So now I'm prone. But the feat says by your interpretation that I can complete the charge.I agree that charge through is not a good example from those fretgod99 posted. However, all you've done here is shown you do not understand how readied actions work (they go off before the triggering action). Which is very similar to AoO's, which you understand, but want to ignore for GT.
You don't even get to roll to see if you have success in this case. You are about to overrun him, his trigger goes off. You are tripped. Being prone you are no longer capable of completing your action.
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
I think you misunderstood my scenario. The Readied Action fires exactly when it was meant to.
The point of the scenario is to show that beating the CMD with the roll is not enough to count as "successfully". The way you interpret Greater Trip, you are claiming the benefit of the feat before you meet the terms of the requirements. You beat the CMD with the roll, claim the benefit of the AoO, and then fulfill the requirement by successfully tripping the target.
You are doing the same thing there are you were here in this scenario. You are beating the CMD with a check, and then claiming the benefit of being able to finish your charge against A, even though you failed to successfully overrun B.
I think this shows exactly what the problem is with your interpretation. :)
Also note, being successful in the roll does not mean something else along the path won't interfere and foil it.
Which is EXACTLY why "successfully" needs to be defined as completion of the action and not just a Roll. If I make the roll to trip a target and for some reason he doesn't fall down, I cannot claim the benefit of the feat and take my AoO. And again with the scenario, just because I made the roll, if something actually stops me from successfully overrunning, I cannot claim the feat's benefit.
Thank you for highlighting my point.
@bbangerter and fretgod99. No wonder you're having trouble with Greater Trip. You're not clear on Counterspell either? :P
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell's energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character.
So here we see that the purpose of a counterspell is to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. We are trying to keep that spell from resolving, or manifesting, or whatever term you'd like. If I can do that, then I have successfully counterspelled.
So first we make a Spellcheck against a set DC. Then...
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect.
Per the rules, this completes the action. The spell has been successfully counterspelled. Now it is Parry Spell's effect to change what comes after this. Normally the countered spell will just fizzle out. But this allows you to bounce it back at the original caster.
"Successfully" still means completing the action, guys.
Then you missed the point because that feat specifically says after you successfully use ki throw, not whenever you use ki throw on an opponent. That example was provided to explicitly show how the rules could be written to clearly demonstrate that the effect fully needs to be applied first.Benefit: After you successfully use the Ki Throw feat on an opponent, you can use a swift action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent.
Normal: The grapple combat maneuver is a standard action.
This would appear to say that you must first complete a Ki Throw. You can't just succeed on a trip check...you actually have to throw the target prone into any adjacent square next to you. Otherwise what's the point of making a trip maneuver that does nothing but allow you to make a grapple maneuver? Why not just do the grapple maneuver?
Now that you've successfully done so, you can attempt the grapple check as a swift action instead of having to wait until the next round to do so as a standard action. The nice benefit to this is that the target is prone so you get a bonus on your check.
This is still supporting my argument. All of these are so far. I'm not sure why you're giving them to me, but thanks. Each of them are clearly defining "successfully" as an action that has fully resolved.
Next one. Hmm....
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. After I have Ki Thrown a target into an adjacent square, then I can follow up on his prone rear end with initiating a grapple on him as a swift action.
How exactly does this not prove my point? You've successfully used Ki Throw on him. You made the roll. You threw him prone. And now you can start a grapple.
There is no grammatical difference between:
Whenever you successfully use the Ki Throw feat
and
After you successfully use the Ki Throw feat
They are the same thing. The Ki Throw is completed. Now onto the next step. You're saying that because they used "After" instead of "If" or "When" or "Whenever" that this somehow proves your point? You're really splitting hairs here quite a bit, don't you think?
If anything we can juxtapose this with the text from Ki Throw and see the real difference between "successful trip attack" and "successfully trip".
On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone in any square you threaten rather than its own square.
Ki Throw is talking about beating the CMD and then throwing the target prone. This is pretty straight forward and uncomplicated. Could they have said "When you successfully trip a target with an unarmed attack"? No. Because "successfully" would have implied that the target was knocked prone. It wouldn't make sense to say you knock him prone and then throw him prone elsewhere. That is why they specifically use the word "successful" and not "successfully".
Meanwhile, Binding Throw is pointing out that the Ki Throw must be completed first. "After you successfully use the Ki Throw feat". You're not allowed to start the grapple if you haven't completed the Ki Throw. They could have said "After you use the Ki Throw feat", but they wanted to make sure that your use of it was successfully done and some Rule Lawyer wasn't going to come in and try to cheat.
"Well I used the Ki Throw feat against him. Sure it failed, but I still used it and this feat says I only have to use it."
No. You have to use it successfully.
That's like the difference between gaining X if I make a jump check vs gaining Y if I make a successful jump check vs gaining Z if I successfully jump. X doesn't require any success. I could fall flat on my face, but if I made the check win or lose, I get X. With Y I have to beat the DC first. Which would be different again from Z where not only do I have to beat the DC, but I also have to complete the action of jumping. If the roll fails or if something intercedes to disallow me to jump the distance that is required, then I don't get Z.
Back to Binding Throw, if we inserted your interpretation of what "successfully" means then we'd only end up muddying the waters here. Does it mean I get to perform a grapple check once my Trip check is successful? Remember we are defining "successfully" as just beating the CMD. So once I make the Trip check, I have successfully used Ki Throw at that point. Which means before I even get to the throwing some people might interpret this as saying I can now Grapple. Which would mean I'm making a Trip check just to make a Grapple check...which is really quite pointless.
Now I trust that most people wouldn't interpret it that way. They would see that I must finish throwing the target prone before I get the Grapple check. But your interpretation certainly leaves the odd viewing of it open as a possibility. I mean look at the debates we're having over longspears and metal clubs. heh
When you make a melee attack and successfully use your spellstrike ability against an opponent denied his Dexterity bonus to AC, you can spend 3 points from your arcane pool to maximize the spell delivered through your spellstrike as if using the Maximize Spell metamagic feat.This one is tricky too, but not unreasonable. What is a spellstrike ability? An ability to cast a spell with range of touch and deliver it by hitting the target with your weapon. So if you successfully cast and successfully hit and successfully delivered (assuming any allowed save was failed), you have successfully used spellstrike. Now you roll for damage if you want, or you can immediately spend 3 points to maximize this damage.
So I have to say that all but one of these do a good job of telling us what "successfully" means. It means that you have completed whatever it was that you were trying to complete.
Which has been my argument all along.
Now maybe someone can do all of these more justice. I am not as familiar with many of the newer rules as I am with the core and near-core. But I looked them over and gave them my honest assessment.
No, again you misunderstand how to apply your own argument from GT and GD. In order to have successfully used spell strike, the effect must have already been applied. That means you already rolled damage.
This ability is only useful if and only if the effect has not yet been applied. Yet, it says "successfully use". So how can you reconcile this?
And again you are misunderstanding completely. The purpose of Spellstrike is to deliver the touch spell through a weapon attack. It is not concerned about anything that happens after that point.
Spellstrike does not fail if you (1)cast, (2)hit with weapon, (3)deliver effect, and then (4)effect is resisted. Spellstrike succeeded because its only job is to deliver the spell (1) through (3), which it did.
Spellstriking is like casting. If I cast a spell and the target resists it, did I successfully cast a spell? YES, I did. I cast it successfully. If I have an ability that says I gain X when I successfully cast a spell, then all I need to do is select a spell, pick its target, and cast it without getting interrupted. Once the spell goes off, I have successfully cast the spell. Now if that spell happened to be a fireball and the target effected is a red dragon, that doesn't mean I've failed to cast the spell. That means I'm just stupid. heh
So you are still either significantly misunderstanding the rules here or you are just splitting hairs. Either way the definition of "successfully" is really clear at this point, don't you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I successfully tripped a guy once, but he didn't fall to the ground.
I took a trip once during Fall. :P
Now it wasn't commented on recently, but I will remind everyone here to be fair that fretgod99 DID in fact find an orange in my bag of apples. I don't know if anyone else can explain it, but I can only chalk it up to inconsistency. However, this only means I have a bag of apples (with an orange in it) and not a bag of oranges (with some apples in it).
It is one example standing against a whole boatload of examples. So I think at this point we have very clearly been shown what the meaning of "Successfully" is.
Is Trip the action or the effect?
Yes. Both.
It is a verb with a direct object. It is both the action and the effect.
That is how verbs with direct objects function. They seamlessly connect the subject to the direct object with a verb… the action, which is also telling us the effect.
It tells us both what the subject is doing, and what is done to the direct object.
It is both the effect and the action which causes the effect.
So the answer to your question is simply...
Yes.
Look:
“I eat an apple.”
This tells us what I do. I eat.
This tells us what the effect is. The apple is eaten.
Verbs with direct objects tell us both.
“You successfully trip an opponent”
This tells us both the action and the effect.
The action: You successfully trip.
The effect: An opponent is tripped successfully.
Both of these things are true. Both of them are derived from “You successfully trip an opponent”. We know both the action and the effect.
It really is that simple. Which is why we know that "whenever" both the action and the effect happen, that the opponent provokes at that point. We need the action and the effect. Because that is literally what the feat is asking for.
We want both, because it says both.
So...
Next step is:
The effect of "An opponent is tripped successfully." What do you think this refers to?
I’m of the belief that this means that the opponent is prone, that the effect in question of being tripped successfully is that they become prone.
But what do you think “An opponent is tripped successfully” means?