Reaper Miniatures
|
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.
Anything in quotation marks is a copy/paste. No sleight of hand on my typing.
You say the question is:
"Does a trip attempt on a character standing up prevent that character from standing up"
This strikes me as odd, since the question clearly actually is:
"When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again? "
these are not the same question. What you are saying the question is, is not what it is. I have evidence to back up my claim. Here we go, to the clipboard!
It is
"When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again? "
it is not
"Does a trip attempt on a character standing up prevent that character from standing up"
when I copy/paste the question in the FAQ I pretty clearly see
"Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again? "
Shall We compare them one more time?
"When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again? "
"Does a trip attempt on a character standing up prevent that character from standing up"
Sing it with me, little kiddies: "one of these things is not like the other..."
It is clearly not the same question. Somehow in two previous posts I have copy/paste the exact same question and you have seen an entirely different question than the one I posted.
now, before you accuse me of presuming to tell you what you think the question is, remember, I copied it form your posts. These are your words, "Does a trip attempt on a character standing up prevent that character from standing up" and these are the FAQ words: ""When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again? "
Can I use the trip attempt to make the character prone again.
Being most generous to you, that's the extent of the question. So there'd be no reason to deny a trip attempt using Meteor Hammer's trip/drag or the Seven Branched Swords trip/flat-footed functions.
I am accusing you of presuming what my intent is. Your position is that I want to be able to allow unending trip attacks provoked by Greater Trip. Please tell me where, in any of my posts, I have said anything remotely to that end?
The purpose of the FAQ is to avoid disallowing a character to stand up from prone. It is not addressing whether a prone character can be attacked with a trip.
If the point of the FAQ was to address explicitly whether you can use a trip attack on a prone opponent, why not answer that more directly? Why not just say, "No. You cannot trip a prone opponent." Why did the explanation not stop there instead of continuing on to say that doing so simply wouldn't prevent the target from standing up?
Because the context of the question wasn't "Can I trip a prone target". The context of the question was "Can I trip a target who is standing up to prevent that target from standing up".
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.
Again, I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying. B's readied action is to attack me if I attempt to enter his square. Not his threatened space. His square. My Overrun roll takes place while adjacent to him. I have not tried to move into his square yet. Only if my roll succeeds can I then try to move into his square. Once my roll is successful, I then try to move in and this is when his readied action fires. My roll had been successful, but he knocks me down.
Therefore:
I have succeeded on my Overrun attempt, but I have not successfully Overrun him.
This right here shows that Rolling is not enough to count as "successfully overrun". I must actually move through. I must carry out what is asked for. The Roll only gives me the green light to proceed. But the action is what needs to resolve. The feat wants me to "successfully overrun". I can only claim to have done so when I have already moved through his space. Not before with just a Roll, as this scenario shows very clearly.
This is the case with lots of things. But I can go into this more later. I see fretgod99 has written a bunch. I don't have time to go through it, although at first glance I can see a few corrects will be needed. :P
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
Can I use the trip attempt to make the character prone again.
Being most generous to you, that's the extent of the question. So there'd be no reason to deny a trip attempt using Meteor Hammer's trip/drag or the Seven Branched Swords trip/flat-footed functions.
I am accusing you of presuming what my intent is. Your position is that I want to be able to allow unending trip attacks provoked by Greater Trip. Please tell me where, in any of my posts, I have said anything remotely to that end?
The purpose of the FAQ is to avoid disallowing a character to stand up from prone. It is not addressing whether a prone character can be attacked with a trip.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9n8a
"Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?"This is precisely as I had quoted it, and precisely what it says.
When I said the only reason to argue is "blah blah blah" I was stating my opinion, and the "you" used within that context was, at that time, a vague general "you" oriented to no poster in particular.
In this case, however, I am currently speaking directly to you, Fretgod.
What I care about is the words of the question, and the words that you (Fretgod) repeatedly claim to be there simply are not. The FAQ does not use the phrase "to make the character prone again". You have added those words for purposes about which I shall refrain from speculating, although I suspect world domination to be the ultimate goal of anyone I meet, as a rule of thumb. NOTE: The You in the preceding post refers specifically to you, Mr. Fretgod, as in "Fretgod has added in words that do not actually appear on the FAQ"
I shall also point out that this is the second re-phrasing of the question you have presented to me, which once again, fails to be the words of the actual question. Twice now you have tried to convince me, contrary to the evidence, that the question in the FAQ which I have helpfully linked is something other than what it actually is.
@fretgod99.
There really is no reason to twist words. You've been doing this for a while now. Stop please.
You know what I mean when I say "successfully trip" must implement the effect of the attack.
You also know what I mean when I say "successfully cast a spell" means exactly that. To make the spell manifest.
You know the difference between successfully casting a spell and successfully affecting a target with a successfully cast spell.
You know the difference between successfully climbing into a car and successfully starting that car.
And you'd know what I'd mean if I told you the sun was rising and how it's not actually 'rising'.
Are you truly unable to comprehend the difference between these things? Because there is no need to twist things around just to score some imaginary debate points.
The intention of this thread is to provide people an opportunity to discuss their ideas and to follow where the clues lead in order to reach a truthful rendering. Based on your responses, you have no interest in that. It would seem you would rather argue a point until you can be proven right. It would seem that this is all it has become to you; that you must be right at any cost.
I have very clearly and very calmly pointed out where the interpretation that "successfully" being defined as only the roll is in error. Your response is to parse words and act as if you have no idea what I'm talking about. And yet we continue to talk. And the more we talk, the more feats and skills and spells that you toss out, and the more game world scenarios pop up that show such an interpretation applies very messily to the world. Feats become disjointed and cannot operate as intended. Abilities misfire. The list goes on. And then a GM must come in with his house rules and clean all that mess up. And this is a mess that is completely unnecessary. Because there is another interpretation that allows for all this to work just fine.
If you truly believed that the reading was ambiguous, then why spend so much time and energy defending such a broken interpretation? Especially when another interpretation is more readily available. It would seem that you do not really believe the wording is ambiguous. You either believe it is as you see it or you are just trolling. I hold nothing against you and certainly welcome discussion. But anyone here who is simply wanting to split hairs and argue for the sake of arguing is not welcome.
Now if we have cut through all the bull and if you truly believe in what you're espousing then please explain to me the Charge Through scenario that I listed. Because I would like to better understand your position.
You want to charge Target A. Target B is between you and A.
You begin your charge and draw adjacent to Target B.
You make an Overrun maneuver and succeed in beating B's CMD.
You attempt to run through B's space, but he has a readied trip attack to stop you from doing so.
Before you can enter his space, he successfully trips you and you are flat on your back in your space.
Now according to what you have argued for these past many weeks, "Successfully" means that you have beat the CMD only. The application of the Effect is inconsequential. This is how you arrive at Trip/AoO/Prone with regards to Greater Trip.
So if just the Roll is good enough, then why can you not claim the benefit of the Charge Through Feat? It clearly says that if you successfully overrun your opponent that you may complete the charge. So why can't you?
Because the readied action knocked you down?
This is inconsequential according to your argument. The Effect of actually running through your target's space doesn't matter. You succeeded on the Roll and that is all that matters.
Or maybe it is possible that I am misunderstanding your position. Or maybe it is possible that your position is incorrect. Maybe in order to "successfully overrun" you actually have to move through your target's space first. Maybe the triggering of a feat's ability doesn't happen when just the Roll does. Maybe the action that you are performing must resolve fully.
The Trip must knock the target prone.
The Disarm must knock something out of his hand.
The Overrun must allow you to get through his space.
The Spell must be cast without being disrupted.
The Hit must actually deliver some kind of effect or damage.
The list goes on.
And on.
And on.
So I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Sans that, it would seem we have reached a clear and decisive conclusion as far as what "successfully" means.
If anyone disagrees, we can certainly go on. I have no issues with remaining on this thread for now. But this thread is for people who wish to have honest open discussions regarding this topic. If anyone is just looking to be proven right no matter what or to troll for their own cheap enjoyment, then this thread is not for them.
As an added note, it would also help if we left the snark on our own sides of the monitor (yeah Rem, I'm talkin' to you). ;)
Can I use the trip attempt to make the character prone again.
Being most generous to you, that's the extent of the question. So there'd be no reason to deny a trip attempt using Meteor Hammer's trip/drag or the Seven Branched Swords trip/flat-footed functions.
I am accusing you of presuming what my intent is. Your position is that I want to be able to allow unending trip attacks provoked by Greater Trip. Please tell me where, in any of my posts, I have said anything remotely to that end?
The purpose of the FAQ is to avoid disallowing a character to stand up from prone. It is not addressing whether a prone character can be attacked with a trip.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9n8a
"Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?"
This is precisely as I had quoted it, and precisely what it says.When I said the only reason to argue is "blah blah blah" I was stating my opinion, and the "you" used within that context was, at that time, a vague general "you" oriented to no poster in particular.
In this case, however, I am currently speaking directly to you, Fretgod.
What I care about is the words of the question, and the words that you (Fretgod) repeatedly claim to be there simply are not. The FAQ does not use the phrase "to make the character prone again". You have added those words for purposes about which I shall refrain from speculating, although I suspect world domination to be the ultimate goal of anyone I meet, as a rule of thumb. NOTE: The You in the preceding post refers specifically to you, Mr. Fretgod, as in "Fretgod has added in words that do not actually appear on the FAQ"
I shall also point out that this is the second re-phrasing of the question you have presented to me, which once again, fails to be the words of the actual question. Twice now you have tried to convince me, contrary to the evidence, that the question in the FAQ which I have helpfully linked is something other than what it actually is.
You realize the thing I'm saying you're accusing me of is the motivation I have for arguing this, right? You said I'm arguing this because I want to cheese and trip ad nauseum. That has nothing to do with anything I've ever said. This little "can you trip someone who is already prone" question is simply an off-shoot of a larger conversation that has been spanning multiple threads.
I have added words, yes. I have done so to provide context. Because I believe that context is important to understanding the reason for the FAQ. I do not believe the FAQ comments specifically on the general point of being able to trip someone while prone. Hence the explanation regarding AoO and how they do not prevent someone from standing up. Because the question was about whether you could prevent someone from standing up. But perhaps it does. Fine enough.
You are free to disagree with the context I am providing. It really doesn't much matter to me. Just don't pretend like I'm making it up to suit my own purposes.
Cast Spell = Make an Attack Roll
Disrupt Spell = Concealment
Spell Effect = Damage
Cast Spell = Make a Trip Attack
Disrupt Spell = Concealment
Spell Effect = Knock Prone.
I am not twisting words. Your position is that successfully means an effect must have occurred. Successfully [verb] is different than successful [noun] because successfully [verb] requires both successful [noun] plus successful [noun]'s effect.
Greater Trip: Whenever you successfully trip [verb] an opponent, your opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Trip: If your attack roll [action] exceeds the targets CMD, the target is knocked prone [effect].
Parry Spell: Whenever you successfully counter [verb] a spell, it returns back to its caster.
Counterspell: You must identify the spell and cast an appropriate spell [action]. The target spell is then negated [effect].
Your position is that successfully [verb] requires an effect to be completed. That is how you treat it for every situation.
The Trip [action] must knock the target prone [effect].
The Disarm [action] must knock something out of his hand [effect].
The Overrun [action] must allow you to get through his space [effect].
The Hit [action] must actually deliver some kind of effect or damage [effect].
All of those are actions causing effects.
But then we have:
The Spell must be cast [action] without being disrupted [not an effect].
This is not the same thing.
The analogy is would be: The Spell cast [action] must have some kind of effect or cause damage [effect].
Specifically for counterspelling [noun]: An appropriate spell must be cast [action] to negate the target's spell [effect].
The Parry Spell feat is not asking us to cast a "successful counterspell". It is asking us to "successfully counter a spell". Successfully counter [verb] a spell. That means, per your interpretation that an effect must actually be applied.
Not being disrupted is not an effect. Not being disrupted means you successfully cast a spell. It means you've successfully hit. But remember, per your interpretation, successfully is looking for us to "to damage" so to speak.
If your interpretation that successfully always demands an effect to be true, "successfully counter a spell" means that the target spell has been negated because the counterspell effect has been applied. Thus, there is nothing left to return to the caster. This must be true unless there is not a uniform definition of "successfully" which requires that an effect has been applied.
Again, I am not saying that your interpretation of successfully cannot be the correct one. I am saying that we have no way of knowing that it absolutely must be the correct one because there are two reasonable interpretations available. That is the point.
Now according to what you have argued for these past many weeks, "Successfully" means that you have beat the CMD only. The application of the Effect is inconsequential. This is how you arrive at Trip/AoO/Prone with regards to Greater Trip.
So if just the Roll is good enough, then why can you not claim the benefit of the Charge Through Feat? It clearly says that if you successfully overrun your opponent that you may complete the charge. So why can't you?
Because the readied action knocked you down?
This is inconsequential according to your argument. The Effect of actually running through your target's space doesn't matter. You succeeded on the Roll and that is all that matters.
Or maybe it is possible that I am misunderstanding your position. Or maybe it is possible that your position is incorrect. Maybe in order to "successfully overrun" you actually have to move through your target's space first. Maybe the triggering of a feat's ability doesn't happen when just the Roll does. Maybe the action that you are performing must resolve fully.
I've actually responded to this. You can no more continue charging if you're tripped immediately after you initiate the Charge Through feat than you could if you're tripped 10' later. This is analogous to negating a successful hit with concealment.
If you're prone, you can't charge. This is true whether you've used the Charge Through feat or not. If you think my interpretation requires that you be allowed to charge while prone because of a "successful overrun", then doesn't your interpretation require you to be allowed to charge while prone if somebody else (or the overrun target) trips you after you've moved through the overrun target's square?
I hardly think you'd agree with that. It's preposterous. So why do you think my position must necessarily adopt an equally preposterous claim?
Again, I'm not twisting words. I am taking the words you have been emphatic about and demonstrating why maybe your emphasis of those things are misplaced. I have argued for weeks that your "successfully/successful" dichotomy is baseless. This isn't me twisting your words; it's me demonstrating precisely why your argument is baseless - because when applied across the boards, it leads to contradictory results.
My point isn't that your underlying position (that the AoO from Greater Trip comes after the target is knocked prone) is not reasonable or supported by a valid interpretation of the rules. It never has been. It very well may be the one the Developers choose to go with.
My point (at least insofar as this successfully business is concerned) is simply that this basis for your argument is bad logic. It is not a well-founded argument. This argument attempting to undercut the AoO comes before prone position is not a valid one because the same argument does not hold true throughout the rule books.
That is why I am arguing. Because there is another interpretation that can be reasonably read from the rules that I believe more readily meshes with the FAQ on the AoO from GT and Vicious Stomp. That interpretation is valid, whether you think it is the best answer or not. That is my point.
Again, the Developers could come in and adopt your interpretation over mine. That is fine. Both are valid but ultimately contradictory interpretations. They have to pick one. My feelings aren't going to be hurt if they choose yours over mine. Just like I'm not going to swell with pride if they choose mine over yours.
But it would be nice it people could simply agree that there actually are two valid interpretations. That you think one interpretation is better does not mean the other isn't valid. We can discuss which interpretation is more playable (which is the point Sub-Zero is trying to get at) or creates fewer problems, and that is fine. But we can't get to that conversation if we don't have two valid positions to decide between.
No, as for the answer to the ability to "trip" someone who is already prone, I do not think the FAQ in question actually definitively answers it. But, if pressed I think the Devs would likely ultimately say no. That seems to be what the answer was in 3.5.
What I'd prefer though if they did decide you can't "re-prone" someone who is prone is to make it specific to reapplying the prone condition. I see no reason why you can't trip/drag or trip/flat-foot someone who is prone.
That being said though, you can still overrun a prone opponent. I'm not sure that you shouldn't be able to get an AoO from Greater Overrun for stomping over someone just because they're already prone. I think it's perfectly reasonable and realistic to think that you could run through the square of somebody who is already on the ground in such a manner that the target can't adequately defend itself from your allies. However, a ruling that you can't effectively "re-prone" someone who is prone would preclude that. Maybe we'd just have to chalk that up to unintended consequences.
*shrug*
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.
If you are arguing that the success we are looking for is analogous to the 'hit’ of a regular attack, you should stop saying that the success we are looking for is a successful CMB roll. Because that would be analogous to a successful attack roll… not a successful hit.
So… those are not the same step.
That is all.
But thank you for clarifying what step you think the AoO occurs on. Which isn’t the CMB roll success.
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...
I see where you are wrong, so I could let it go. I've pointed it out, and since you have rejected a clearer understanding of your starting point, we will most likely be unable to come to an accord.
I do hope that you reevaluate the concept of interrupts though at some point, simply because I think it might help you fully understand the system.
I know things like interrupts can be difficult to wrap your head around. But I do have faith that you can do it if you actually went back with an open mind and examined your premises.
Ponder what some of those quotes actually mean. Ask yourself if "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it" might simply mean the whole actions. That if someone starts a movement that provokes halfway through, that the AoO doesn't 'actually reverse time and warp space... that maybe the AoO simply resolves immediately when it is provoked, and that the movement finishes afterwards.
Because then the AoO would have occurred while the other action was happening, but if finished before the other action finished. Therefore saying it occurred before the action that triggered it is speaking in more of a chronological sense... and not advocating the breakdown of space-time.
Maybe, just maybe...
I know I know. Stuff like: 'Movement starts - AoO is provoked - AoO resolved - movement finishes.' is pretty tricky to follow.
But if you do wind up wondering if maybe you're fundamental mistaken on the nature of interrupts in this game... and you go back and take a fresh look at the way the rules are written... I'm sure you will find that once you parse the rules as if interrupts simply get resolved immediately upon being triggered, that they happen the very instant that the condition of their trigger is set to, that they are resolved right there on the spot, and that you simply carry on where you left afterwards...
You won't find any of those 'corner cases' you are saying that GMs should have to make up random on the spot ruling for. In fact, you might be surprised to find that is seals up the rules pretty darn near perfectly in almost every conceivable way regarding interrupts.
It is kinda weird like that. My perspective. It doesn't need any adhoc GM freespinning. I wonder why it is that your interpretation does?
Regardless. Good luck to you buddy. It has been fun chatting. I totally understand where you are coming from now and how you reached your conclusions. Thanks for taking the time to finally get to the source of your confusion. Rethink the notion that interrupts cause time traveling paradoxes and whatnot sometime though huh? Everything just makes so much more sense when you keep the timeline moving in only one direction…
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.
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.
No one shares your opinion on time travelling actions. Well, maybe some folk do… but they’d be wrong too.
Actions don’t travel through space and time like some scifi heroes. They happen in precisely the order they are triggered.
The readied action doesn't occur until he moves into his space. That cannot happen until after the overrun starts. It is literally mid-overrun.
So... the overrun isn't successful, in whole, because it got interrupted. But he most certainly rolled the CMB and moved in. Saying the readied action happens before...doesn't make any sense. The trigger cannot possibly happen until mid overrun.
Unless aliens and time travel and wormholes. Or whatever other random weirdness factor that is as far from RAW as possible...
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.
No conflicts? So all of those weird 'corner cases' that you propose GMs should have enough common sense to rule on the fly aren't 'conflicts'??
Time travelling actions aren't 'conflicts'???
Loopholes that allow for massive attack chains aren't 'conflicts'????
Dude... from your perspective you cannot shoot a guy who runs into the room with a readied action...because that shoots him before he entered the room through the wall instead.
Your interpretation is only conflicts.
My point isn't that your underlying position (that the AoO from Greater Trip comes after the target is knocked prone) is not reasonable or supported by a valid interpretation of the rules. It never has been. It very well may be the one the Developers choose to go with.
My point (at least insofar as this successfully business is concerned) is simply that this basis for your argument is bad logic. It is not a well-founded argument. This argument attempting to undercut the AoO comes before prone position is not a valid one because the same argument does not hold true throughout the rule books.
That is why I am arguing. Because there is another interpretation that can be reasonably read from the rules that I believe more readily meshes with the FAQ on the AoO from GT and Vicious Stomp. That interpretation is valid, whether you think it is the best answer or not. That is my point.
Again, the Developers could come in and adopt your interpretation over mine. That is fine. Both are valid but ultimately contradictory interpretations. They have to pick one. My feelings aren't going to be hurt if they choose yours over mine. Just like I'm not going to swell with pride if they choose mine over yours.
But it would be nice it people could simply agree that there actually are two valid interpretations. That you think one interpretation is better does not mean the other isn't valid. We can discuss which interpretation is more playable (which is the point Sub-Zero is trying to get at) or creates fewer problems, and that is fine. But we can't get to that conversation if we don't have two valid positions to decide between.
Your interpretation(conclusion) is completely valid except that you are starting on incorrect readings of the rules as written(faulty premises).
Is this the concession you are looking for?
If “you successfully trip an opponent” doesn’t mean “you successfully trip an opponent” and instead means “you successfully hit an opponent with a trip attack” then yes, your interpretation is completely valid.
But… ya know… it doesn’t actually say that.
You can no more continue charging if you're tripped immediately after you initiate the Charge Through feat than you could if you're tripped 10' later. This is analogous to negating a successful hit with concealment.
I can see it being described this way. It is possible for a readied action to steal away what would otherwise be successful. I think we are still disagreeing over which part of that spacing the "successfully overrun" happened in, however.
If I understand correctly, you believe that were the above scenario to play out as it did, you have still "successfully overrun" your target even if you weren't able to actually overrun him. Is this correct? That were there any abilities that you could lay claim to whenever you "successfully overrun", you can do so after the Roll even if you didn't actually overrun anything?
Or are you saying that in the scenario, you WOULD have gotten that benefit right after the Roll but then the readied action stole the success away so you lose that benefit you just gained? Sort of like if flame damage triggers on Hit and the attack roll shows Hit, but then concealment denies Hit so flame damage doesn't happen.
Because this is important to get right and I want to make sure I understand.
Totally missed this part. To Errata the above, after "...but then concealment denies Hit so flame damage doesn't happen" add in:
Or are you saying that the benefit of the Feat doesn't trigger when the CMD is beat, but rather when the Hit lands, because Roll and Hit are seen as different entities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need some clarification on the whole Ready Action.
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. 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. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the highlighted areas are the areas bbangerter is focusing in on. This suggests my readied action goes before the action that triggers it.
However if we adjust the lighting a bit, we get:
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. 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. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
So it appears that what is actually happening is that the triggering action begins, but then gets interrupted before it fully resolves. The orc running into the room is in the middle of his move action. But before he can complete it, you shoot him. He had to have started it and moved. Otherwise he wouldn't be in the room and there would be nothing for you to shoot at.
Then your initiative is set at the same number as the triggering character's. But just like all ties, this is resolved in a way so that someone goes first. If we have 3 people at 11, someone has to go first, second, and last. In this case you automatically get to go first on the same initiative number as the triggering character.
Does this explain the issue? Because I'd like to get back to explaining how bbangerter is wrong about tripping our discussion on tripping. :P
I think we need some clarification on the whole Ready Action.
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. 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. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the highlighted areas are the areas bbangerter is focusing in on. This suggests my readied action goes before the action that triggers it.
However if we adjust the lighting a bit, we get:
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. 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. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.So it appears that what is actually happening is that the triggering action begins, but then gets interrupted before it fully resolves. The orc running into the room is in the middle of his move action. But before he can complete it, you shoot him. He had to have started it and moved. Otherwise he wouldn't be in the room and there would be nothing for you to shoot at.
Then your initiative is set at the same number as the triggering character's. But just like all ties, this is resolved in a way so that someone goes first. If we have 3 people at 11, someone has to go first, second, and last. In this case you automatically get to go first on the same initiative number as the triggering character.
Does this explain the issue?
Very well constructed. You are much better at highlighting the relevant information and formatting a compelling case that I.
Some people get caught up by that phrase. That "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it" one. They cannot recognize that this is speaking to fully completed actions. Ie the readied action is fully completed before the action which triggers it is fully completed.
/shrug
Horses and water.
If you are arguing that the success we are looking for is analogous to the 'hit’ of a regular attack, you should stop saying that the success we are looking for is a successful CMB roll. Because that would be analogous to a successful attack roll… not a successful hit.
So… those are not the same step.
That is all.
But thank you for clarifying what step you think the AoO occurs on. Which isn’t the CMB roll success.
In the basic case, they are the same. Most of the discussion centered on the basic case. Thus my conflation of the two.
No one shares your opinion on time travelling actions. Well, maybe some folk do… but they’d be wrong too.
Actions don’t travel through space and time like some scifi heroes. They happen in precisely the order they are triggered.
The readied action doesn't occur until he moves into his space. That cannot happen until after the overrun starts. It is literally mid-overrun.
So... the overrun isn't successful, in whole, because it got interrupted. But he most certainly rolled the CMB and moved in. Saying the readied action happens before...doesn't make any sense. The trigger cannot possibly happen until mid overrun.
Unless aliens and time travel and wormholes. Or whatever other random weirdness factor that is as far from RAW as possible...
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. ... Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.
No, Remy. The rules actually do create a time paradox. Somebody triggers your readied action. Your readied action technically resolves prior to the thing that triggered it.
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. ... Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.No, Remy. The rules actually do create a time paradox. Somebody triggers your readied action. Your readied action technically resolves prior to the thing that triggered it.
It resolves before the triggering action resolves. It doesn't resolve before the triggering action begins, though.
No time paradox.
In the basic case, they are the same. Most of the discussion centered on the basic case. Thus my conflation of the two.If you are arguing that the success we are looking for is analogous to the 'hit’ of a regular attack, you should stop saying that the success we are looking for is a successful CMB roll. Because that would be analogous to a successful attack roll… not a successful hit.
So… those are not the same step.
That is all.
But thank you for clarifying what step you think the AoO occurs on. Which isn’t the CMB roll success.
"Roll" and "Hit" are not the same, fretgod99. They are two separate things. Which one you believe is triggering "successfully trip" is very important to get right. So make sure you distinguish properly.
"Roll" and "Hit" are not the same, fretgod99. They are two separate things. Which one you believe is triggering "successfully trip" is very important to get right. So make sure you distinguish properly.In the basic case, they are the same. Most of the discussion centered on the basic case. Thus my conflation of the two.If you are arguing that the success we are looking for is analogous to the 'hit’ of a regular attack, you should stop saying that the success we are looking for is a successful CMB roll. Because that would be analogous to a successful attack roll… not a successful hit.
So… those are not the same step.
That is all.
But thank you for clarifying what step you think the AoO occurs on. Which isn’t the CMB roll success.
Successfully hit. Which in the basic case is the same thing as simply exceeding your target's CMD.
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. ... Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. 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.No, Remy. The rules actually do create a time paradox. Somebody triggers your readied action. Your readied action technically resolves prior to the thing that triggered it.
This is incorrect. I have highlighted the proper areas for you since you missed mine earlier. I added the important parts since you seemed to have left them off your earlier post. A readied action interrupts.
If the orc did not begin his move into the room, then you cannot perform your action to shoot him since there is nothing in the room to shoot.
If you ready an action to attack someone who enters your square, your attack happens, technically, before the person enters your square. It interrupts only in the sense that it occurs while they're still in the midst of that action for the purposes of initiative tracking.
It's analogous to the AoO for someone standing up. It is triggered by the character standing up, but technically is resolved before the target actually stands up. It creates a time paradox, which is recognized by the Developers as being a necessary evil.
If you ready an action to attack someone who enters your square, your attack happens, technically, before the person enters your square. It interrupts only in the sense that it occurs while they're still in the midst of that action for the purposes of initiative tracking.
It's analogous to the AoO for someone standing up. It is triggered by the character standing up, but technically is resolved before the target actually stands up. It creates a time paradox, which is recognized by the Developers as being a necessary evil.
Only a time paradox if you fail to understand it.
So Parry Spell alters the effect then. Good, we're in agreement.
Just like Greater Disarm alters the effect.
*shrug*
Looks like we've made progress.
@ fretgod99.
Again Roll and Hit are not the same. Concealment can deny a Hit. Concealment does not deny the Roll. You need a completely different rule to deny the Roll.
To exceed your target's CMD is to Hit and Effect. We've been over this before. It's right there in the CRB.
To exceed AC is to Hit and Damage.
To exceed CMD is to Hit and Effect.
The Roll is not Hit.
The Roll is not Damage.
The Roll is something unaffected by rules that deny Hits and deny Damages. To deny Rolls you must insert a different rule entirely. Something like "Whenever you roll to hit your opponent, roll twice and take the lesser result" would need to be in place. Or perhaps "You may roll again and take the better result". Or even "You may roll again, but you must take this second result, even if it is worse".
I am not only questioning your interpretation of Greater Trip at this point.
@ fretgod99.
Again Roll and Hit are not the same. Concealment can deny a Hit. Concealment does not deny the Roll. You need a completely different rule to deny the Roll.
To exceed your target's CMD is to Hit and Effect. We've been over this before. It's right there in the CRB.
To exceed AC is to Hit and Damage.
To exceed CMD is to Hit and Effect.The Roll is not Hit.
The Roll is not Damage.
The Roll is something unaffected by rules that deny Hits and deny Damages. To deny Rolls you must insert a different rule entirely. Something like "Whenever you roll to hit your opponent, roll twice and take the lesser result" would need to be in place. Or perhaps "You may roll again and take the better result". Or even "You may roll again, but you must take this second result, even if it is worse".I am not only questioning your interpretation of Greater Trip at this point.
Concealment isn't the basic case, is it?
How can the spell be returned against the caster if it has been negated? Spell parry tells us that it is, so... it is.
Besides, if it wasn't... then the whole point of counterspelling a spell that affected multiple targets would be completely lost.
So you are inferring that instead of:
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.
Parry spell changes the bold to this:
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 and it returns back to its caster.
How can the spell be returned against the caster if it has been negated? Spell parry tells us that it is, so... it is.
Besides, if it wasn't... then the whole point of counterspelling a spell that affected multiple targets would be completely lost.
So you are inferring that instead of:
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.Parry spell changes the bold to this:
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 and it returns back to its caster.
That's the only way it makes sense. If it doesn't change the effect, then Parry Spell has no point. Otherwise the effect would have been applied and the spell would already have been negated with no possible other result.
But aside from that, "whenever you [do x]" can have a prospective interpretation as well.
So Parry Spell alters the effect then. Good, we're in agreement.
Just like Greater Disarm alters the effect.
*shrug*
Looks like we've made progress.
I just said the exact opposite of that.
srsly...
Parry Spell triggers when you successfully counter a spell. The effect of Parry Spell is independent of the effect of the counterspell.
How can the spell be returned against the caster if it has been negated? Spell parry tells us that it is, so... it is.
Besides, if it wasn't... then the whole point of counterspelling a spell that affected multiple targets would be completely lost.
So you are inferring that instead of:
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.Parry spell changes the bold to this:
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 and it returns back to its caster.That's the only way it makes sense. If it doesn't change the effect, then Parry Spell has no point. Otherwise the effect would have been applied and the spell would already have been negated with no possible other result.
But aside from that, "whenever you [do x]" can have a prospective interpretation as well.
The spell is completely and wholly negated. Gone. Poof. Then Parry spell triggers, and directs that spell at the original caster.