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.
And that is why you don't understand the difference between "successful" and "successfully". If you did, then it wouldn't seem more than a little silly. To "successfully overrun" your target means you have done just that. You have moved through his space. If the overrun was unsuccessful, then it means you've failed the Roll.
Successful means beating the Roll.
Unsuccessful means failing the Roll.
Successfully means bringing to a fruitful conclusion what you were intending to do.
I'm not really sure what is so hard to grasp about this. <shrug>
Now what would be VERY silly is to say "successfully" means I beat the roll. Now I beat the CMD and claim the benefit of the feat, which is to finish my charge at Target A. Only I can't because I'm flat on my face in front of Target B. So how am I going to complete the charge that the feat says is mine, when I haven't actually "successfully overrun" B? The CMD was beaten. But I didn't bring to a fruitful conclusion what I was intending to do.
"That's because the readied action interrupted it."
EXACTLY my point! Because the readied action interrupted, I didn't actually "successfully overrun" anything even though the CMD was beaten. I only succeeded on an overrun attack. I made the Roll, but I did not go through B's space. I succeeded on making an Overrun maneuver, but I failed to successfully overrun my target.
As I mentioned, this is the exact same mistake being made with Greater Trip. You define "successfully trip" as beating the CMD, claim the benefit of the feat to make an AoO, and then finally get around to actually doing what you were supposed to do before you got the AoO. If your target for some reason proved impervious to being rendered prone, then you were not allowed the AoO you just took. You have broken RAW at that point.
This is the problem Camp #1's interpretation keeps running up against.
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.
So don't.
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..."
But Hangar... we don't know that.
You are looking for a "successfully trip" to cause the opponent to provoke. What specific point in time are you saying this happens?
Your definition of the 'success" we are looking for has been and remains nebulous. Define it for us so we can know what you are referring to, yeah?
Is it the successfully CMB roll? The silliness of concealment makes that argument invalid. Unless you think you can "successfully trip" (roll CMB well), force them to provoke AoOs, then actually miss with the trip attack because of concealment.
If you think "successfully trip" is to hit the target successfully with a trip attack... things that are immune to being tripped make that interpretation behave oddly. You could successfully trip a snake, or a flying bird. Even though the trip is a failure...
Both of those points in time suffer the 'chain trip' flaw as well.
So, what point in time again is this AoO happening? What success is it that triggers it?
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.
Well, to his credit, what you are saying is hard to decipher. Very elusive stuff, to be honest.
Like, this post for example... isn't even helpful in telling us what you are saying.
Clearly it is a given that before the target gets knocked prone, the CMB roll had to have been successful. Neither Elbedor nor I have said that we don't need a successful CMB check. Of course we do!
That just isn't the only thing we need to trigger the feat.
We need the action and the effect.
The opponent needs to have been successfully tripped. Something has to have happened to the opponent. They have to have actually been tripped.
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?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.
Pretty much, yeah. Your opponent isn't doing anything, per se. They are having something done to them. That thing causes them to provoke involuntarily.
They're not provoking because of an action they are taking though. Not at all. There is no action for the provoke to even interrupt.
They provoke because Greater Trip says they do, and they provoke when Greater Trip says they do. Greater Trip is doing all the work for us. It tells us what happens and when.
What? They provoke.
When? When they are successfully tripped.
You've yet to convince me of this. You view it flawed because you are convinced your viewpoint is correct.
But your conclusion is based on false data.
Or because your conclusion is actually based on false data.
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.
See this bolded text? False data. (Actually, most everything in this quote is…)
Why? Because of this other bolded text:
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.
You actually call it a successful attack before concealment is taken into account.
Yikes!
This whole time you've been operating on false data. All of the conclusions you have drawn in this quote are therefore faulty. Errant. Wrong. Because they were based on false data.
Please try again.
"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.
The text of the rules do support that.
You must still successfully hit with your trip maneuver. Concealment applies to maneuvers.
With regular attacks, we generally say there is a successful attack, a successful hit, and successful damage.
Which of those three does 'trip' replace? You say it replaces the 'hit' huh? Sounds like nonsense to me. Trip attacks still need to hit. Pick another one.
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).
Aha! I knew this is what you've been driving at. All signs point back to the CMB roll with your reasoning.
And then I say to you!! Oh, but… concealment! Cuz, that happens after an attack is successful…To which you reply something along of this, I’m sure yeah?
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).
Oh, HIT now huh? Glad you’re not changing what you are talking about from post to post to post. >.<
Resolving the CMB success and resolving the HIT success are two different things.
In attacks there is the roll success and the hit success. Two different successes. Pick one. Which of these two successes provokes in your view? Pick one.
Either the CMB roll is your successful trip… or successfully hitting with the trip maneuver is your success… Stop arguing from both interchangeably whenever it is convenient to switch angles.
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.
A trip attack is successful before concealment. I like how you just keep flipping back and forth like anyone can follow along.
Choose 1 of 3 possible successes.
Roll. Hit. Effect.
And… pick.
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.
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.
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.
Uh… no, you’ve been arguing numerous things simultaneously! >.< Back n forth you go, when you stop we may never know.
because AoO's go off before the event that triggered them.
No they do not. They go off immediately 'when' triggered, not before they are triggered. That doesn't even make sense.
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."
No difference. None.
If your viewpoint is that the rules need to be errata'd to be in line with the rules... you are probably wrong about something.
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.
Faulty data again. A readied actions goes off before the triggering action is resolved, not before it completely. No time travel occurs. Nada.
Can you ready an action to shoot a bow at the first creature that walks into the room? Sure can.
But, according to your reasoning that wouldn't be possible.
Guy A readies an action to shoot the first person into the room. Guy B takes a move action and walks 10ft to the door and 5ft in, with the intent to keep walking another 15ft towards Guy A.
What happens? The readied action was just triggered! So what happens?
You're saying that the readied action happens before the move action Guy B took? So... Guy A is shooting through the wall at Guy B??
Uh... sorry, no... you've made an error.
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.
This is clearly saying that your action resolves before theirs does.... not that you time travel and your action starts before theirs. This is an interrupt. You get up to the trigger and no further, then readied action interrupts, then resolves, and then you continue where you left off.
So...this;
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.
Is patently false.
Faulty data. Not a good starting point for sound conclusions.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, Remy. I totally agree with you, but calm down, man. heh
You can debate very good points, but you don't have to try and bash their skulls in with your book. Getting worked up a bit there, don't you think?
Almost like you can sense blood in the water. :P
But seriously, I really REALLY don't want this thread to reduce itself to something nasty. So please rein it in. I would expect the same from fretgod99, bbangerter, HangerFlying, and everyone else.
...except for RavingDork. He's just crazy. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, Remy. I totally agree with you, but calm down, man. heh
You can debate very good points, but you don't have to try and bash their skulls in with your book. Getting worked up a bit there, don't you think?
Almost like you can sense blood in the water. :P
But seriously, I really REALLY don't want this thread to reduce itself to something nasty. So please rein it in. I would expect the same from fretgod99, bbangerter, HangerFlying, and everyone else.
...except for RavingDork. He's just crazy. :P
Haha. Am I getting worked up?
I just wanna know something...
"How do I reach these kids?" ~Cartman
Almost like you can sense blood in the water. :P
did you just call Remy a shark? That does make a lot of sense :P
Actually, I have a weird rules question, that I'm curious what others think will happen.
Lets say I have: improved trip, greater trip, vicious stomp, ki throw and binding throw.
Now, I've successfully tripped my opponent. What is the order of the different attacks/actions I can take? Do I Ki Throw, into binding throw and stop? Or do I get my 2 AOO's prior to binding throw resolving?
(My MMA fighter would like to know).
Now it seems reasonable that I probably ki throw into binding throw, and that's it. I lose my 2 AOO's in favor of grappling.
|
But Hangar... we don't know that.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..."
No, you don't agree with that statement. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid interpretation.
You are looking for a "successfully trip" to cause the opponent to provoke. What specific point in time are you saying this happens?
What specific point in time does the AoO from casting a ranged touch spell occur? Is it after the ranged touch attack is made? No, it's made after the "casting" and before the die roll is made, even though the RTA is a part of the casting of the spell. So, there is precedence for a singular event, comprised of two or more parts, to be "interrupted" by an AoO. It is certainly reasonably valid to interpret Greater Trip to work similarly. Whether you agree with me or not is obviously the point of this debate, but for you to not acknowledge that it is a reasonably valid interpretation is disengenuous.
Your definition of the 'success" we are looking for has been and remains nebulous. Define it for us so we can know what you are referring to, yeah?
Is it the successfully CMB roll? The silliness of concealment makes that argument invalid. Unless you think you can "successfully trip" (roll CMB well), force them to provoke AoOs, then actually miss with the trip attack because of concealment.
Considering you have to successfully pass a Stealth check before applying concealment, I don't see anything being invalidated.
If you think "successfully trip" is to hit the target successfully with a trip attack... things that are immune to being tripped make that interpretation behave oddly. You could successfully trip a snake, or a flying bird. Even though the trip is a failure...
Both of those points in time suffer the 'chain trip' flaw as well.
Eh, no. If something is immune to trip, the issue is moot because you can't make a trip attempt against them. Well, you could try, but it's an automatic failure. Which is what the "other" question is about: does the prone condition give immunity to the trip combat maneuver? Obviously, the question is irrelevant towards the application of the prone condition, but it is relevant if the result has a different effect (or if one can get another AoO from Greater Trip).
It does raise an interesting question: if you contest that an already prone guy can't be tripped (and thus can't get an AoO, because he's prone), how can you an AoO from Greater Trip takes place after the target has fallen prone?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Sub_Zero
If you're using Ki Throw, then you're unarmed. So I would guess you would:
Ki Throw him to the ground,
get your Greater Trip AoO on him (unarmed) to hit him once,
get your Vicious Stomp AoO on him (unarmed) to hit him again,
and then swift action Grapple him.
That's....a lot going on. But then you DID pay the Feat tax for it. So enjoy. :) Just make sure you have IUS or you'll be provoking in there somewhere.
EDIT: And yeah I think 'shark' about sums up Remy. :P
@ HangarFlying
The wording of your question at the end there got a little garbled. Phrase it again please? Are you asking something like "If a prone man can't be Greater Tripped for an AoO because he's prone, how can an AoO from Greater Trip take place when tripping a standing man since he's already prone when the AoO triggers?"
Is that about what you're asking?
|
|
Almost like you can sense blood in the water. :P
did you just call Remy a shark? That does make a lot of sense :P
Actually, I have a weird rules question, that I'm curious what others think will happen.
Lets say I have: improved trip, greater trip, vicious stomp, ki throw and binding throw.
Now, I've successfully tripped my opponent. What is the order of the different attacks/actions I can take? Do I Ki Throw, into binding throw and stop? Or do I get my 2 AOO's prior to binding throw resolving?
(My MMA fighter would like to know).
Now it seems reasonable that I probably ki throw into binding throw, and that's it. I lose my 2 AOO's in favor of grappling.
I'm assuming you have Combat Reflexes (not sure if it's a prerequisite for any of those feats), otherwise you would only be able to make 1 AoO, but this is how I would adjudicate it:
Trip, AoO (from Greater Trip), Ki Throw, AoO (from Vicious Stomp), Grapple attempt (from Binding Throw). The other side of the argument would presumably grant the AoO (from Greater Trip) after the Ki Throw. Really, all we are arguing here is whether or not the target of the AoO (from Greater Trip) gets a -4 to AC or not. The world still turns.
|
|
@ HangarFlying
The wording of your question at the end there got a little garbled. Phrase it again please? Are you asking something like "If a prone man can't be Greater Tripped for an AoO because he's prone, how can an AoO from Greater Trip take place when tripping a standing man since he's already prone when the AoO triggers?"
Is that about what you're asking?
Yeah, looking back on it, I could have worded it more clearly. :)
Yeah, I think that's a fair clarification.
@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.
Nope. Completing the action means casting the spell which creates "a counterspell effect". What's a "counterspell effect"? The spell is negated. The action is completed when the spell is negated. That is the effect. It is precisely the same scenario, but you don't want it to resolve the same way because it completely undercuts this notion that "successfully" is uniformly a different thing than "successful".
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?
Nope. The purpose is to fully cast the spell, including damage. Damage is the effect, just like knocking prone is the effect. In order to "successfully" use an ability, the effect must have already been applied. That means the damage must have been rolled. There is nothing left to maximize because damage has already been applied.
Also, I thought applying the effect of the spell would be a part of casting that spell, no? Why are you using "successfully" differently for spell casting than you are for attacks and combat maneuvers? Successfully means effect applied. But here you're saying you just have to "cast" the spell and not apply damage. This is inconsistent if you're still going to argue that "successfully" ubiquitously means the effect has been applied (which is what you've been arguing all along).
There certainly is hairsplitting going on. It's not being done by me.
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.
No, at least three examples.
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).Aha! I knew this is what you've been driving at. All signs point back to the CMB roll with your reasoning.
And then I say to you!! Oh, but… concealment! Cuz, that happens after an attack is successful…To which you reply something along of this, I’m sure yeah?
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).Oh, HIT now huh? Glad you’re not changing what you are talking about from post to post to post. >.<
I don't. I've always likened hitting to combat maneuver success. This has been true since I've started posting. And again, you're posting the same things over and over again, none of it having been successful at swaying my opinion. You've unsuccessfully swayed my opinion. That means your actions are all done because I used unsuccessfully.
Also, remember when you laughed about making performance checks to resolve combat maneuvers because I said "successfully trip an opponent" means the same thing as "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver"?
Man, I wonder where I might have gotten the idea to use the word "perform" from? I guess the developers want us all to dance when we make combat maneuver checks, too. Who woulda thunk it?
Uh… no, you’ve been arguing numerous things simultaneously! >.< Back n forth you go, when you stop we may never know.
Wat.
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.
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.
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.
Those aren't different things I'm arguing here. My point is that success on trip and success on hit are analogous. That I'm arguing different things here can only be believed if you define the underlying terms differently. And we do. I'm not arguing for different things, because I believe these all line up.
So as quaint and adorable as you're being, your criticisms don't line up. Go figure, you've made another wholly illogical point. Par for the course.
@ Sub_Zero
If you're using Ki Throw, then you're unarmed. So I would guess you would:
Ki Throw him to the ground,
get your Greater Trip AoO on him (unarmed) to hit him once,
get your Vicious Stomp AoO on him (unarmed) to hit him again,
and then swift action Grapple him.That's....a lot going on. But then you DID pay the Feat tax for it. So enjoy. :) Just make sure you have IUS or you'll be provoking in there somewhere.
I agree with this, except I'd give the AoO from GT prior to him hitting the ground.
The real question is whether you think using Spinning Throw instead of Binding Throw would make you forego the AoO from GT. Undoubtedly it would for the AoO from Vicious Stomp.
Faulty data again. A readied actions goes off before the triggering action is resolved, not before it completely. No time travel occurs. Nada.
Take this one up with Jason then.
Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.
Or take it up with the CRB
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it
It does not say just before the triggering action resolves, even though we understand that is what is really meant and how most everyone plays it (though I have seen people argue that if someone start wants to take an action and triggers a readied action as a result they can then change their mind and take a different action instead because of the wording in the CRB - an illogical position). But see this is the whole crux of the entire debate. My side states the AoO goes off before the triggering event resolves (e.g, prone condition is applied) - and we state this because that is exactly how AoO's have been defined to work - that they go off before the triggering event.
I understand that conceptually the triggering action starts. The interrupting action (either AoO or in this specific case readied action) goes off and resolves, then the triggering action resolves. But the rules clearly state it occurs before the action that triggers, not in the middle of the triggering action. Jason of course clarified that to help us understand what is actually meant.
Can we create corner cases that cause weird results (such as shooting the guy who started his turn behind a wall? Yes. Can we as GM's adjudicate that to make sense to fix the corner cases? Yes.
I've not made an error. I understand how the rules work, and more importantly, I understand how to adjudicate the rules when something is broken due to specific corner cases.
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.
Is patently false.
Faulty data. Not a good starting point for sound conclusions.
Sorry, what part of this is false? The part where the tripped guy doesn't get to complete his action? The part where the tripped doesn't get to make his roll to try and successfully overrun? If you are of the belief a tripped guy can still overrun someone...
(I know your not, but I don't think you've read what I actually said given your statement that I've based my conclusions on faulty data for that).
Why? Because of this other bolded text:Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.You actually call it a successful attack before concealment is taken into account.
Yikes!
This whole time you've been operating on false data. All of the conclusions you have drawn in this quote are therefore faulty. Errant. Wrong. Because they were based on false data.
Please try again.
This is a pedantic argument. Though I'll need to be more careful with my wording. I was using success in the general sense, not the game rules specific usage such as you quoted. My error.
You've yet to convince me of this. You view it flawed because you are convinced your viewpoint is correct.
But your conclusion is based on false data.
Or because your conclusion is actually based on false data.
It might be the case. But your opinion doesn't make it so. Neither you nor Elbedor can actually provide the rules to make a solid case of it anymore than I can provide a counter in the rules.
Net result of all your responses to me. You disagree with me, therefore I must be wrong... sorry, doesn't work that way. :)
Also, let's not act like this is a new question. This has been discussed (and the same points, mind you) since the Blog was released (and before).
There are two interpretations here that have rules support and that have existed for years. It's not going to be resolved without the Developers making a clear statement as to which interpretation they prefer.
Also, let's not act like this is a new question. This has been discussed (and the same points, mind you) since the Blog was released (and before).
There are two interpretations here that have rules support and that have existed for years. It's not going to be resolved without the Developers making a clear statement as to which interpretation they prefer.
In that case, is there an interpretation that has the least amount of problems that result from its implementation? In other words, if we assume both views are equally correct, and no conclusion can be reached without Dev input, then which interpretation causes the least amount of weird rule consequences?
|
|
In that case, is there an interpretation that has the least amount of problems that result from its implementation? In other words, if we assume both views are equally correct, and no conclusion can be reached without Dev input, then which interpretation causes the least amount of weird rule consequences?
Neither one really leads to any weird rule consequences.
In that case, is there an interpretation that has the least amount of problems that result from its implementation? In other words, if we assume both views are equally correct, and no conclusion can be reached without Dev input, then which interpretation causes the least amount of weird rule consequences?Neither one really leads to any weird rule consequences.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't the AOO happens prior to the action that triggered it lead to chain AOO's? I could be wrong, but I thought that was a natural consequence.
|
|
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't the AOO happens prior to the action that triggered it lead to chain AOO's? I could be wrong, but I thought that was a natural consequence.
The situation in which such a thing will actually occur is such an obscure corner-case, it's not a legitimate argument when determining whether or not "AoO before prone" is a valid interpretation.
All PCs in a party investing in Improved Trip, Greater Trip, Combat Reflexes, and a high DEX just to use this stupid theory a small handful of times throughout the course of an entire AP? Do you honestly thing such a party would even survive long enough to utilize their pet tactic? If the group decides to actually do this and build their characters in such a way, should they be prohibited from doing what they build their characters to do (and it's not like each PC chose the fighter class, and each can fight just as good as the other; no, they built all of their characters around one singular activity that they must do together to make it work). It is a strawman.
Many of the rules in the CRB will break down if you try to take it to such similarly ridiculous levels. Are they just as invalid?
@fretgod. You are confusing Effects here. I'm not sure if you're doing it intentionally to try and score debate points or if you really just don't know, but you're trying to lump in extra things. The key phrase is this part:
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell.
Once you've identified the spell as a readied action, you can cast the appropriate spell to counter it. Once you have done this you have "completed the action". You have "successfully countered a spell". What happens after this point is unimportant as far as what "successfully" means. Either the spell fizzles to nothing or it rebounds, all depending on which general or specific rule is acting on it. Generally the spell fizzles. But something like Parry Spell makes it rebound instead. But the spell can't rebound if it hasn't been successfully countered.
Think of it this way; Flame damage on a sword. It triggers when I successfully hit my target. If I hit something that absorbs all the physical damage, this doesn't mean I haven't successfully hit the target. I did, so the flame damage still triggers.
This is what "successfully counterspelling" is described as in the CRB. You identify the spell and cast the appropriate spell. You have countered the spell at this moment. It is disrupted. But what you're trying to describe it as is this:
Injury Poison. It triggers when I successfully damage my target. If I hit something that absorbs all the physical damage, this means I haven't successfully damaged my target. So the poison doesn't trigger.
So you're trying to describe Flame damage as Poison and saying that this means "successfully" doesn't mean what I say it means. Again, I'm not sure if you just don't know how counterspelling works, or if you are intentionally trying to insert extra steps to make a point. But basically you appear to be confusing what the given rule is looking for. "Successfully" means that whatever the rule is looking for has come to pass. If a feat only wants you to successfully perform a maneuver check, then it only cares about the Roll. But if it wants you to successfully perform X, then you must actually do X and not just Roll.
You're having the same issue differentiating between what Maximized Spellstrike is looking for and what it isn't looking for. The spellstrike ability lets you take a touch spell and deliver it through a weapon attack. To "successfully spellstrike" a target, you need to cast the spell and hit him with your weapon in order to deliver the spell. That is all. What happens next doesn't matter. It is not the purview of the ability. I could successfully spellstrike a target with shocking grasp only to have that target resist the damage. That doesn't mean I failed. I used the ability the way it was intended. Now if the spell got disrupted or if I missed with the attack, then I have not successfully used spellstrike.
Think of it like casting. I can successfully cast fireball, but then have the targets all Evasion the damage away to nothing. Just because they avoided the damage doesn't mean I've failed to cast the spell. I did. It manifested. Now if we're talking about successfully damaging someone with my spell, well THAT I failed in doing. I successfully cast Fireball. I did not successfully hurt anyone with Fireball.
So for Maximized Spellstrike, it wants to know when I've successfully used spellstrike; basically when I've successfully cast and delivered it to the target through my weapon. Once I have, I can spend points to maximize the spell damage that gets delivered.
This isn't splitting hairs. Far from it. This is reading exactly what the rules are giving us. I'm not adding extra steps. But you certainly keep trying to. That is the issue you are having with Greater Trip. You add in extra things that just aren't there. I'm really not sure why.
As for Spinning Throw, this is talking about a successful maneuver. So it wants the Roll to beat the CMD. This is another example of where they purposefully leave out "successfully", because if you perform the trip successfully, then the target is prone and you can't move him, bull rush him and knock him prone since he already is.
So another example to add to the boatload. Thanks. :)
And yes, just one other one still.
Maybe there is blood in the water. :P
@ HangarFlying
The wording of your question at the end there got a little garbled. Phrase it again please? Are you asking something like "If a prone man can't be Greater Tripped for an AoO because he's prone, how can an AoO from Greater Trip take place when tripping a standing man since he's already prone when the AoO triggers?"
Is that about what you're asking?
Yeah, looking back on it, I could have worded it more clearly. :)
Yeah, I think that's a fair clarification.
To answer your question about what I think:
Greater Trip wants you to knock a target prone through a trip attack. This means the target is standing and by tripping him you have rendered him prone. When you have done this successfully, the ability of Greater Trip fires. The target is now provoking and any enemies that threaten him and are able to make AoOs can do so.
This differs from an already prone target. You cannot successfully trip a prone target as in you cannot render him from standing to prone any more than you can render him from prone to standing (or any more than a standing man can Stand Up). Because you are unable to render him prone, you do not gain the ability from Greater Trip.
Now we could say realistically the target could be on his hands and knees and I could knock him flatter. In RL this is true. But in PF there are no degrees of "prone-ness". You either have the condition or you don't.
(A fact that led me to muse on one of these threads how a GM would treat a target that is sitting...and what if that sitting target got to his feet while threatened).
If "successfully trip" just referred to the roll, then things start to get messy. As the OP suggests, I can "trip" him, hit him with an AoO, and then use that AoO to "trip" him again since he's not technically prone based on this definition. This would generate a plethora of AoOs for all my buddies. A gattling-gun effect.
To avoid this, the GM has to ride in on Rule 0 and put a stop to this. If a game rule requires Rule 0 to avoid abuse of this level, then either the rule is being misinterpreted, or it is in bad need of errata'ing.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't the AOO happens prior to the action that triggered it lead to chain AOO's? I could be wrong, but I thought that was a natural consequence.The situation in which such a thing will actually occur is such an obscure corner-case, it's not a legitimate argument when determining whether or not "AoO before prone" is a valid interpretation.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't make it a valid interpretation, I'm saying if there's a problem with 1 of the 2 equally valid interpretations, it's a reason why we might go with the other.
Also, All PCs in a party investing in Improved Trip, Greater Trip, Combat Reflexes, and a high DEX just to use this stupid theory a small handful of times throughout the course of an entire AP?
actually only 1 would need all the feats, the others would just need combat reflexes. Run over trip, give free AOO, the use your AOO to Trip, Grant more free AOO, use that Free AOO to trip, Grant more free AOO, until you're out of AOO's.
Many of the rules in the CRB will break down if you try to take it to such similarly ridiculous levels. Are they just as invalid?
Again, I'm not saying that you're interpretation is invalid. I'm pointing out if we have a scenario where 2 interpretations are equally valid, why not use the one with the fewest abuses, until the Devs weigh in and give us the correct answer?
All of this assumes that both interpretations of the rule are equally valid, and I understand that this is not necessarily agreed upon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we replaced Binding throw with Spinning throw then we'd have:
Ki Throw maneuver
Bull Rush maneuver
Move target to new adjacent square
Bull rush target 5+ ft
Target falls prone
Greater Trip AoO
Vicious Stomp AoO
This assumes you move with him to keep him adjacent to you. If you just shove him back 5ft and don't move yourself, then he's out of your threatened space and you get no AoOs. He's still provoking just as the feats say he is, but you're not there to capitalize on it.
Reaper Miniatures
|
Not really. As was mentioned above, the answer does seem sort of contradictory. But the ultimate effect of the FAQ is that tripping a creature rising from prone does not prevent the creature from rising from prone. It does not necessarily mean that you cannot still attempt to trip said creature. On that point it's a bit ambiguous.Show me one rule that says prone characters can't be tripped.Would this apply?
Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?
No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/14/10
It's not even a little ambiguous. Some very minor edits follow:
Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?
No. (explanation of why)
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/14/10
Can you make a trip attack against a prone character? No. This is not ambiguous. Bulmahn already answered this.
The only time it's ambiguous if if you think "can I make a trip attack against a prone character?" is not the same question as "Can I use that attack to trip a prone character?" They are the same question, because an we call 'using an attack to trip a character' a 'trip attack'.
So are you saying a prone character "can't be tripped" just like a snake or ooze or flying creature? They certainly would seem to fit into the same category as none of them are on any legs to keep their weight suspended above the ground.
EDIT: And let me add this. How do we work a Meteor Hammer regarding a prone character or a snake or a flying person? I'm of the mind that you can make the attack roll to snag them with the weights, and if successful, pull them towards you.
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
I'm not saying that - I'm pointing out that Jason said that one could not make [an] attack to trip the [prone] character.
This does not preclude other types of attacks being made, but trip attacks were specifically called out and forbidden against already prone targets.
re: meteor hammer
Benefit: If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.
As I interpret the two-letter word "no", you cannot make a trip attempt (also known as a trip attack, also phrased above as an attack to trip) against the prone character, meteor hammer does not give you the ability to make trip attacks/attempts against prone targets. It lets you generate a different result (in this case, a drag) other than "knocking her prone".
Not that from a flavor and rule-of-cool standpoint I think it shouldn't be allowed, but according to Buhlman, you cannot make the trip attempt, and I interpret that to mean that you could not, therefore effect the drag result.
Purely for rule-of-cool, in a Non-PFS home game, I would personally allow the drag option.
Again, many people are asking for a Dev to clarify, and 100% of my point, whether I agree or disagree, is that a Dev, in fact, already has.
@fretgod. You are confusing Effects here. I'm not sure if you're doing it intentionally to try and score debate points or if you really just don't know, but you're trying to lump in extra things. The key phrase is this part:
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell.Once you've identified the spell as a readied action, you can cast the appropriate spell to counter it. Once you have done this you have "completed the action". You have "successfully countered a spell". What happens after this point is unimportant as far as what "successfully" means. Either the spell fizzles to nothing or it rebounds, all depending on which general or specific rule is acting on it. Generally the spell fizzles. But something like Parry Spell makes it rebound instead. But the spell can't rebound if it hasn't been successfully countered.
Think of it this way; Flame damage on a sword. It triggers when I successfully hit my target. If I hit something that absorbs all the physical damage, this doesn't mean I haven't successfully hit the target. I did, so the flame damage still triggers.
This is what "successfully counterspelling" is described as in the CRB. You identify the spell and cast the appropriate spell. You have countered the spell at this moment. It is disrupted. But what you're trying to describe it as is this:
***
Think of it like casting. I can successfully cast fireball, but then have the targets all Evasion the damage away to nothing. Just because they avoided the damage doesn't mean I've failed to cast the spell. I did. It manifested. Now if we're talking about successfully damaging someone with my spell, well THAT I failed in doing. I successfully cast Fireball. I did not successfully hurt anyone with Fireball.
But this is my point. The purpose of casting a damaging spell is to do damage. Just like the purpose of attacking is to do damage. This is how you justify having a "Successful Attack" but not "Successfully Attacking" - the attack hit, but failed to do damage. So you did not do what you sought out to do. Ergo, you did not "Successfully Attack".
So then how can you "Successfully Cast" a spell, the purpose of which is to do damage, if you have not yet done damage? If successfully attacking requires one to deal damage, if successfully tripping requires one to knock prone, if successfully disarming requires one to cause the target to drop an item, why doesn't successfully casting also require one to apply the effect of the spell? You're using "successfully" differently.
Either successfully uniformly means the purpose of your action was fully accomplished or it doesn't.
Counterspelling works because as soon as you cast the spell, the spell you're countering is negated. This is what completes the action. This is the effect. You're treating counterspelling like I believe GT and GD should be treated. You have not yet applied the effect. Per your interpretation of successfully, the effect must be applied because that's was successfully means.
I'm not saying that - I'm pointing out that Jason said that one could not make [an] attack to trip the [prone] character.
This does not preclude other types of attacks being made, but trip attacks were specifically called out and forbidden against already prone targets.
re: meteor hammer
Benefit: If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.As I interpret the two-letter word "no", you cannot make a trip attempt (also known as a trip attack, also phrased above as an attack to trip) against the prone character, meteor hammer does not give you the ability to make trip attacks/attempts against prone targets. It lets you generate a different result (in this case, a drag) other than "knocking her prone".
Not that from a flavor and rule-of-cool standpoint I think it shouldn't be allowed, but according to Buhlman, you cannot make the trip attempt, and I interpret that to mean that you could not, therefore effect the drag result.
Purely for rule-of-cool, in a Non-PFS home game, I would personally allow the drag option.
Again, many people are asking for a Dev to clarify, and 100% of my point, whether I agree or disagree, is that a Dev, in fact, already has.
No, that's not the question that was being asked. The question that was being asked is, "If I use a trip attack to trip a character standing up from prone, does that mean I knocked the character back down from standing up or does the character still get to stand up after I've used my attack?"
You're saying the question is, "Can I use a trip attack on a character that is prone?" That was not the question. That's why it's ambiguous. The FAQ isn't addressing whether a prone character can be tripped. The FAQ is addressing whether using a trip attack on a character who is prone and attempting to stand up prevents the character from standing up. It's an entirely different question.
Also, the explanation giving is important to understanding the actual question being addressed. The explanation is not "You cannot trip an already prone character." The explanation is "The AoO lands before the character stands up. Since the character is still prone when the attack resolves but hasn't actually acted yet, nothing prevents the character from finishing its move to stand up."
@fretgod99.
And you are still not understanding. Wow.
If I cast a spell, did I successfully cast it? Yes.
If I cast a spell and you resist it, did I successfully cast it? Still yes.
If I cast a spell and you resist it, did I successfully affect you with the spell? No.
Are you seriously saying you can't tell the difference?
"Successfully" uniformly means that you set out to do what you intend to do.
I successfully walked out my door.
I successfully climbed into my car.
I successfully started the car.
I successfully backed out of my driveway.
I unsuccessfully avoided the neighbor's cat who is now plastered to my back wheel.
I successfully did everything EXCEPT back out of my driveway without hitting anything.
"Successfully" can be attached to any action I attempt. If I am attempting to cast a spell, I successfully do so once I cast the spell. If I am attempting to damage you with that spell, I successfully do so when you take damage from the spell.
It is possible to "successfully roll" an Overrun check. All I have to do is roll the d20. It is possible to "successfully beat the CMD" of my target. All I have to do is make sure what I rolled and all my bonuses are at or better than his CMD. And yet it is STILL possible to fail at successfully Overunning my target, because he had a readied action that dropped me flat on my face before I could run through his space.
Please tell me you understand the difference here. These are very basic concepts we're talking about.
Elbedor, you're not referencing the entire Counterspell rule.
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. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
You stop after "you must then cast an appropriate spell". Casting the spell is the action, not the effect. The rules specifically tell us what the effect of the action is. The effect is what happens when you actually cast the appropriate spell: you create a "counterspell effect". What does that mean? It means both your spell and the countered spell are "automatically negated".
The action is casting the spell. The effect is negating the countered spell.
Per your interpretation of successfully, Parry Spell cannot operate because the countered spell has already been negated. When a spell is negated, we're specifically told it has "no other results".
Parry Spell only makes sense if "successfully" does not mean that the effect of the underlying action must already have been applied. Parry Spell must alter the actual effect (which is obviously what it does and is intended to do). But the effect can only be altered if it hasn't already been applied, according to how you've been arguing GD works.
@fretgod99.
And you are still not understanding. Wow.
If I cast a spell, did I successfully cast it? Yes.
If I cast a spell and you resist it, did I successfully cast it? Still yes.
If I cast a spell and you resist it, did I successfully affect you with the spell? No.Are you seriously saying you can't tell the difference?
"Successfully" uniformly means that you set out to do what you intend to do.
I successfully walked out my door.
I successfully climbed into my car.
I successfully started the car.
I successfully backed out of my driveway.
I unsuccessfully avoided the neighbor's cat who is now plastered to my back wheel.I successfully did everything EXCEPT back out of my driveway without hitting anything.
"Successfully" can be attached to any action I attempt. If I am attempting to cast a spell, I successfully do so once I cast the spell. If I am attempting to damage you with that spell, I successfully do so when you take damage from the spell.
It is possible to "successfully roll" an Overrun check. All I have to do is roll the d20. It is possible to "successfully beat the CMD" of my target. All I have to do is make sure what I rolled and all my bonuses are at or better than his CMD. And yet it is STILL possible to fail at successfully Overunning my target, because he had a readied action that dropped me flat on my face before I could run through his space.
Please tell me you understand the difference here. These are very basic concepts we're talking about.
If I make an attack, did I successfully hit? Yes.
If I make an attack and you successfully resist all the damage, did I successfully hit? Yes. (But you say no ...)If I make an attack and you resist the damage, did I successfully affect you with my attack? No.
Are you seriously telling me this is somehow different when casting a spell? Your second answer changes between spell-casting and attacking. Why? You haven't applied the effect in either case. But in order to successfully [verb], you have to apply the effect.
You're missing my point for why the successfully bit is irrelevant. If "Trip" is defined as "performing the trip combat maneuver" then you can successfully trip without having applied the effect yet. That is all this discussion is about. What does "successfully trip" mean?
Your claim is that because trip is a verb, it cannot possibly mean "perform the trip combat maneuver". Your position is that it has to mean "perform the trip combat maneuver and have already applied the effect". So I am asking you why "successfully counterspell" does not include applying the specific effect of counterspelling, which is to negate the countered spell.
If "successfully [verb]" means the effect was applied, then why doesn't it work this way for counterspelling or spell casting?
In that case, is there an interpretation that has the least amount of problems that result from its implementation? In other words, if we assume both views are equally correct, and no conclusion can be reached without Dev input, then which interpretation causes the least amount of weird rule consequences?Neither one really leads to any weird rule consequences.
I have to say this is a very odd response considering that I've spent time across this thread and others listing out all sorts of weird rule consequences that your interpretation opens the flood gates on.
???
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
No, that's not the question that was being asked. The question that was being asked is, "If I use a trip attack to trip a character standing up from prone, does that mean I knocked the character back down from standing up or does the character still get to stand up after I've used my attack?"
You're saying the question is, "Can I use a trip attack on a character that is prone?" That was not the question.
The Question:
When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?No.
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/14/10
This is far more straightforward than you seem to think it is. Note that I have edited only the answer and not the question. The question IS NOT, as you claim, "Can I prevent a prone character from standing up by making a trip attack against them?". If you insist on rephrasing the question, it could be rephrased as "Can I make a trip attack against a prone character as part of the AoO they trigger when attempting to stand." However, I am not basing my comments on this second version, but on the version Bulmahn posted in the FAQ, which is "When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?"
The only reason to argue at this point is because you want the cheese of being able to trigger AoOs from many party members instead of being relegated to using only your normal attack.
Can I make an opportunity attack as a trip to trip a prone character? NO. This is precisely the question, and precisely the answer given by Jason.
Can I make a (non-opportunity) trip attack to trip a prone character? NO.
There is absolutely no game reason why a trip attack would be allowed against a prone character as a normal action but not as an AoO.
This has been addressed by a Dev. Arguing that it has not is counter-productive.
If I make an attack, did I successfully hit? Yes.
If I make an attack and you successfully resist all the damage, did I successfully hit? Yes. (But you say no ...)
Hold up right there. What do you mean I say no? When did I say no? Of course you successfully hit him. Why would you ever think I said no? I've always said yes to this. Remy has said yes to this.
Have you not been reading what we post?
You attack me, hit, and all the damage is absorbed.
Did you successfully hit me? Yes.
Did you successfully damage me? No.
You make a trip attack against me, beat my CMD, but for some reason I don't fall over.
Did you successfully hit me with a trip attack? Yes.
Did you successfully trip me? No.
You attempt to charge Remy but you need to get through me first. You make a Charge Through, your Overrun check beats my CMD, but I have a readied action to trip you flat on your rear once you try to move through my space (which I do).
Did you successfully hit me with an overrun attempt? Yes.
Did you successfully overrun me? No.
In each and every case if you cannot apply the effect of your attack, then you have not successfully done the intent of your attack.
If we are talking about my ability to cast a spell, then I successfully cast it if I do so without it getting disrupted.
If we are talking about my ability to affect you with a cast spell, then I only successfully do so if you don't save or whatever.
If you do save or resist or whatever, then I have not successfully affected you with the successfully cast spell.
Let's make this clear.
Casting a spell is an action, not an effect.
The effect of a spell is what happens after you've cast it.
Your position is that "successfully [verb]" requires the completion of the action, including application of the effect. I know that's your position because you've been very clear about it.
Camp #3 believes that "successfully trip" is the result of "On Effect".
"Successful" is an adjective that describes the nouns "Attempt", "Attack", or "Maneuver". It means being favorable. "I performed a successful trip maneuver against my opponent." This implies that the noun 'Attempt' is positive. The attack is good.
"Successfully" is an adverb that describes the verb "to trip". It means performing an action favorably or having the action result fruitfully. "I have successfully tripped my opponent." This implies that the verb 'Trip' as taken place in a positive manner. The trip (target knocked prone) happened as intended.
These are two separate meanings.
The "Hit" is implied, but it is not tied to what "Successfully tripping your target" means. Only "Knocked Prone" is. So there is no "successfully tripped" if the "Knock Prone" didn't happen.
Again, the subtle difference between an Adjective and Adverb.
"Whenever you successfully disarm an opponent, the weapon lands 15 feet away from its previous wielder, in a random direction."
"Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."The two emboldened segments are triggering at the exact same time in the sequence of events. They happen AFTER "successfully" has been determined.
But "successfully disarmed" is assuming the Effect of dropping the item has already been applied.
We now know the definition of "successfully". We know the Effect is in place.
We are being told the definition of "successfully" right here. The term is not ambiguous after all. It is clearly defined. "Successfully" is defined as the roll taking place and the Effect having been applied.
So we know the meaning of "successfully". It includes the Effect of the action taken.
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.
If it did not resolve in a positive manner or a beneficial conclusion, then the action cannot be described as "Successfully".
we say "successfully trip" means the Effect is in place.
So now that we have it firmly established that your position is unequivocally that "successfully" doing something means that you absolutely, positively, in no uncertain terms must have applied the effect:
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. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
So, to successfully counter a spell, you must take an action (cast an appropriate spell), which then has a specific effect (negates the countered spell).
Whenever you successfully counter a spell, it returns back to its caster.
Parry spells requires you to have successfully countered a spell, meaning the effect of counterspelling has already been applied.
We know that's what "successfully" means in this instance because, as I quoted numerous times above, "we know the meaning of "successfully". It includes the Effect of the action taken."
The effect of counterspelling is to negate the targeted spell. Negate. Done and over. It has no more effects. This is specifically what the rules say.
Yet you're arguing that you have "successfully" countered a spell, simply by taking an action, prior to actually applying the effect. This does not follow. Either successfully uniformly includes application of the effect or it does not. Your clear position thus far has been that it requires application of the effect, yet now you argue that successfully does not require application of the effect, it simply requires that we've accomplished "whatever the rule is looking for". Those are not the same thing.
So, am I now allowed to argue that all the rule on GT is looking for is "exceeding the target's CMD"? That would mean I've done it successfully, correct?
No, that's not the question that was being asked. The question that was being asked is, "If I use a trip attack to trip a character standing up from prone, does that mean I knocked the character back down from standing up or does the character still get to stand up after I've used my attack?"
You're saying the question is, "Can I use a trip attack on a character that is prone?" That was not the question.
The Question:
When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?
No.
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/14/10This is far more straightforward than you seem to think it is. Note that I have edited only the answer and not the question. The question IS NOT, as you claim, "Can I prevent a prone character from standing up by making a trip attack against them?". If you insist on rephrasing the question, it could be rephrased as "Can I make a trip attack against a prone character as part of the AoO they trigger when attempting to stand." However, I am not basing my comments on this second version, but on the version Bulmahn posted in the FAQ, which is "When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?"
The only reason to argue at this point is because you want the cheese of being able to trigger AoOs from many party members instead of being relegated to using only your normal attack.
Can I make an opportunity attack as a trip to trip a prone character? NO. This is precisely the question, and precisely the answer given by Jason.
Can I make a (non-opportunity) trip attack to trip a prone character? NO.
There is absolutely no game reason why a trip attack would be allowed against a prone character as a normal action but not as an AoO.This has been addressed by a Dev. Arguing that it has not is counter-productive.
Please do not presume to understand my intentions. I have absolutely no desire to "cheese" anything to trigger more AoO. If you'd bother to read any of my previous posts on this matter, I've been explicit on how I would counter that exact issue. Why would I argue for cheese but propose a method to stop it?
The bottom line is the context of the question is "Does a trip attempt on a character standing up prevent that character from standing up". It goes no further than that. And other statements from Jason Buhlman himself show his stating that you can make a trip attempt against a prone character, but that the net effect is nil.
If we are talking about my ability to cast a spell, then I successfully cast it if I do so without it getting disrupted.
If we are talking about my ability to affect you with a cast spell, then I only successfully do so if you don't save or whatever.
If you do save or resist or whatever, then I have not successfully affected you with the successfully cast spell.
You're likening Cast to Hit. That's fine. But Counterspelling isn't looking for the action, it is looking for the effect of your casting. It is looking for Damage. It is looking for Knocking Prone. It is looking for Effect.
You cannot "successfully counter a spell" simply by casting a spell. You have to create the effect.
If "successfully countering a spell" simply involves taking the action, then I'm perfectly fine in stating that "successfully tripping an opponent" requires me succeeding at my combat maneuver check.
You attempt to charge Remy but you need to get through me first. You make a Charge Through, your Overrun check beats my CMD, but I have a readied action to trip you flat on your rear once you try to move through my space (which I do).
Did you successfully hit me with an overrun attempt? Yes.
Did you successfully overrun me? No.
Actually the answer to both of those questions is no. You never even get to roll for the overrun because the readied action goes before the trigger action. You are tripped and prone before you actually ran into the guy.
Let's take a slightly different example with a readied action.
You ready an action to attack me if I attempt to disarm you.
I attempt to disarm you.
Your readied action triggers and you hit and kill me.
I don't roll a disarm attempt at that point because my action is no longer possible.
If for some reason I did get to roll my disarm attempt, and I succeed in beating your CMD, the natural consequence of me beating your CMD on a disarm roll is that you become disarmed. So my corpse disarmed you in your method of resolution.
I've quoted this before, but you seem to be missing it still:
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
IF I beat the CMD, THEN the maneuver is a success AND has the listed effect. At the point we determine we beat the CMD we know the listed effect is going to happen. Just like at the point we know we beat a target's AC we know we are going to roll for damage (even if that damage in the end is negated - and please don't throw in concealment again, we've been over that and it is a red herring).
Also, you really are backpedaling on what successfully means in the counterspell example. You've arbitrarily decided for counterspell that its effect is somehow disassociated from successfully completing the action. Which while I agree they are disassociated, this isn't consistent in the least with your stance on GT.
And finally,
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).
Did he find one orange in your bag of apples? Or does fretgod99 actually just have a whole bag of apples on his side and you are trying to slip some oranges in. If you take successfully to mean what I and fretgod99 have taken it to mean then ALL of these match up with no conflicts.