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.
But successfully counter a spell requires the effect has already been applied. The effect fully negates the spell and means it can have no other result.
If the effect has been applied, it's already been negated.
But srsly ... why is it so difficult to think that Parry Spell actually changes what happens when you successfully counter a spell? It makes perfect sense. It doesn't add a new effect after everything is all said and done (this particularly makes no sense when the original effect is "nothing else can be done"). Unless you're changing the part of the effect that says nothing else can be done, you can't do anything else.
Concealment isn't the basic case, is it?@ 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.
Dude... NONE of this is the basic case. Nada. The basic case has absolutely nothing to do with this entire thread. LOL
The spell is completely and wholly negated. Gone. Poof. Then Parry spell triggers, and directs that spell at the original caster.
So Parry Spell lets you cast a new spell then? How does that work. The spell was wholly negated. It isn't there anymore. It can't have any more effect. How is there anything left to be returned?
Doesn't it seem much simpler to understand that Parry Spell actually changes how Counterspell works? Instead of completely negating the spell and it goes away, you negate the intended effects and return it back to the caster. You override it, so to speak.
Seriously, you have issues with readied actions creating a time paradox, but you have no issues with Parry Spell creating a logical paradox?
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.
But successfully counter a spell requires the effect has already been applied. The effect fully negates the spell and means it can have no other result.
If the effect has been applied, it's already been negated.
But srsly ... why is it so difficult to think that Parry Spell actually changes what happens when you successfully counter a spell? It makes perfect sense. It doesn't add a new effect after everything is all said and done (this particularly makes no sense when the original effect is "nothing else can be done"). Unless you're changing the part of the effect that says nothing else can be done, you can't do anything else.
The original spell effect is gone. Poof. Is no more. How many times must I say that? Finito. Fin. Bye bye.
Your reading is that a Parry Spell counterspelled spell still affects all of the original targets except the counterspeller?
Dude... NONE of this is the basic case. Nada. The basic case has absolutely nothing to do with this entire thread. LOLConcealment isn't the basic case, is it?@ 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.
In regards to simply making a trip attempt and determining if you were successful at it? Yeah, until you start throwing in things like concealment, it's referencing the basic case. The basic case is, how do you determine when you've successfully made a trip attack.
That's actually what a lot of this discussion (across multiple threads) has been about.
The spell is completely and wholly negated. Gone. Poof. Then Parry spell triggers, and directs that spell at the original caster.So Parry Spell lets you cast a new spell then? How does that work. The spell was wholly negated. It isn't there anymore. It can't have any more effect. How is there anything left to be returned?
Doesn't it seem much simpler to understand that Parry Spell actually changes how Counterspell works? Instead of completely negating the spell and it goes away, you negate the intended effects and return it back to the caster. You override it, so to speak.
Seriously, you have issues with readied actions creating a time paradox, but you have no issues with Parry Spell creating a logical paradox?
There is no logical paradox. It doesn't let you cast a spell, but it does cause a spell effect to target the original caster, yes.
In regards to simply making a trip attempt and determining if you were successful at it? Yeah, until you start throwing in things like concealment, it's referencing the basic case. The basic case is, how do you determine when you've successfully made a trip attack.
That's actually what a lot of this discussion (across multiple threads) has been about.
If you are trying to isolate the exact moment when the trip is successful... switching between definitions of supposedly the same thing which is actually different things is not cool.
Anyway, this was settled. It is irrelevant now.
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.
But successfully counter a spell requires the effect has already been applied. The effect fully negates the spell and means it can have no other result.
If the effect has been applied, it's already been negated.
But srsly ... why is it so difficult to think that Parry Spell actually changes what happens when you successfully counter a spell? It makes perfect sense. It doesn't add a new effect after everything is all said and done (this particularly makes no sense when the original effect is "nothing else can be done"). Unless you're changing the part of the effect that says nothing else can be done, you can't do anything else.
The original spell effect is gone. Poof. Is no more. How many times must I say that? Finito. Fin. Bye bye.
Your reading is that a Parry Spell counterspelled spell still affects all of the original targets except the counterspeller?
But I'm not talking about the original spell effect. That's not what Parry Spell is after. Parry Spell is concerned with the counterspell effect.
The counterspell effect completely negates the targeted spell. Counterspell means "spell negated and no more effect". Your reading with Parry Spell is "spell negated and no more result. But now that that's all done, spell returns back to its caster." My reading with Parry Spell is "spell negated and instead returns back to its caster". Parry Spell overrides the "no more result". It actually changes the effect of counterspelling.
But seriously, we're getting quite far afield here. The only reason I brought this up was to demonstrate that this whole "successfully can only mean that the effect has already been applied" argument is inconsistently applied and poorly founded.
In regards to simply making a trip attempt and determining if you were successful at it? Yeah, until you start throwing in things like concealment, it's referencing the basic case. The basic case is, how do you determine when you've successfully made a trip attack.
That's actually what a lot of this discussion (across multiple threads) has been about.
If you are trying to isolate the exact moment when the trip is successful... switching between definitions of supposedly the same thing which is actually different things is not cool.
Anyway, this was settled. It is irrelevant now.
But I wasn't switching between definitions? When a non-basic case was being discussed, I wasn't making reference to the basic case.
Doesn't it seem much simpler to understand that Parry Spell actually changes how Counterspell works? Instead of completely negating the spell and it goes away, you negate the intended effects and return it back to the caster. You override it, so to speak.
This reading causes a spell with multiple targets to continue functioning despite being counterspelled. Only the counterspeller isn't affected, and the original caster is affected in place of the counterspeller. But all the other original targets would be affected still.
I don't think that is the intent, at all.
Doesn't it seem much simpler to understand that Parry Spell actually changes how Counterspell works? Instead of completely negating the spell and it goes away, you negate the intended effects and return it back to the caster. You override it, so to speak.This reading causes a spell with multiple targets to continue functioning despite being counterspelled. Only the counterspeller isn't affected, and the original caster is affected in place of the counterspeller. But all the other original targets would be affected still.
I don't think that is the intent, at all.
How does negating the intended effects mean other targets are still affected? Instead of "negate the spell and no more results" we have "negate the spell and return it on its caster". That is my reading. That is an actual change to the counterspell effect, but one that makes sense because you're not allowing something that can have no more results to have more results.
Concealment isn't the basic case, is it?
So you are saying Roll and Hit change relationship depending on what's affecting them?
If nothing, then they are the same thing?
If something, then they are different things?
Where exactly are you pulling that out from? Because that's not part of the rules that I'm seeing. All I see are what is given us for Attack Rolls, Determining Success of Combat Maneuvers and the individual Maneuvers themselves.
We've quoted them back and forth so many times, I'm not sure why you keep leaving off the end.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
This is the basic case. The roll that is successful results in a Hit and Damage.
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
This again is the basic case. The roll that is successful results in a "maneuver hit" and listed effect. And more specifically:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.
The 'maneuver hit' here was so unimportant that they didn't even bother to mention it. The only thing they cared about with Tripping is that if the roll is successful, the target is knocked prone.
Now if I am to take this text at face value without making the mistake of reading extra meaning into it, this must mean that any time I perform a trip maneuver, unless the maneuver or attack is specifically spelled out in the text, I can pass over it and go straight to the knock prone. Because that is the result of beating the CMD with the roll.
So when we are talking about Greater Trip, no attack or maneuver is mentioned. So we are not concerned about hit success in the basic case. As per the definition we are only concerned with beating CMD means target is prone. If we're talking about Ki Throw, it is specifically calling out the attack, but then proceeds to include the throw prone in the second part. Meteor Hammer specifically calls out the attempt, but then again spells out the drag or knock prone for us. Spinning Throw again points out maneuver for us, and then proceeds to let us know that the Knock prone is part of it later.
So it appears that if the maneuver or attack or attempt is pointed out, then the knocked prone is also spelled out later in some form or other. But if we're just talking about "successfully" then the knock prone doesn't need to be mentioned because it is happening in the "successfully" portion as given us by definition of what a successfully rolled Trip attack does...it knocks the target prone.
This may not be in every single case. I haven't read every book. But it seems to be the case in what I have seen so far. Maybe there are cases where this doesn't happen, I don't know. Just a pattern that I've seen emerging.
But I'm not talking about the original spell effect. That's not what Parry Spell is after. Parry Spell is concerned with the counterspell effect.
The counterspell effect completely negates the targeted spell. Counterspell means "spell negated and no more effect". Your reading with Parry Spell is "spell negated and no more result. But now that that's all done, spell returns back to its caster."
Yes, that is a good way to put it.
My reading with Parry Spell is "spell negated and instead returns back to its caster". Parry Spell overrides the "no more result". It actually changes the effect of counterspelling.
But seriously, we're getting quite far afield here. The only reason I brought this up was to demonstrate that this whole "successfully can only mean that the effect has already been applied" argument is inconsistently applied and poorly founded.
Yes, I know why you brought it up, which was why I initially called it a red herring... since I maintain that it is another dead ended argument. I parse this text the exact same way I would any other 'successfully verb + object' text and it works out fine.
I think if you took a really close look at the idea of Spell Parry simply modifying the effect of Counterspelling, you will notice that it ends up destroying the original intent of counterspelling, simply replacing it with a Spell Turning effect. Not so wonderful.
Only the effect of Counter Spell itself can allow the additional targets to be spared the effects of a multitarget spell effect, the effect of Spell Parry cannot… it only servers to target a spell effect back at the original caster.
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.
Unfortunately no. Parry Spell and Greater Disarm alter part of the effect. The 2nd half of 2 parts more specifically. Parry Spell doesn't change the fact that the spell was negated. That still happened. But instead of having no further effect, it then rebounds the spell onto the original caster.
Disarming types such as regular, unarmed, or greater don't change anything about the moment the item leaves the target's hand. They change where the item ends up. In game terms there is no difference between the item leaving the target's hand if you disarm him regularly, unarmed, or with Greater Disarm. The target has lost possession of the item.
The Effect has 2 parts. A beginning and an end. A disarmed item leaves the target's hand and then ends up somewhere. The leaving doesn't change. The ending up does.
Parry Spell has 2 parts. The negation and the rebound. Negation happens followed by rebound. A regular counterspell has 2 parts. The negation and then nothing. The spell has fizzled and had no effect.
You may think this is splitting hairs, but it is actually quite important in understanding what is going on.
With a readied attack, I will trip the guy who enters my threatened space. My attack cannot happen before he enters my threatened space. I can't reach him if it does. The same with the orc in the room. His move must have begun to carry him into the room, otherwise I have nothing to shoot at.
Maybe the wording of the text is throwing you off, but time does not unwind. The readied action triggers when the target declares a certain action. That action has begun, but is interrupted.
Can I ready an action to shoot the first orc shaman who hurts my friends with a fireball? Sure. When does it trigger. After my friends are hurt by the fireball. This is a dumb way to frame a readied action, but it is possible. It would be wiser to say I ready an action to shoot the first orc shaman who attempts to cast.
So now what happens? Do I disrupt the spell? The CRB sure says I did. But if I hit him before he started casting, then how is the spell disrupted? He didn't start it yet.
The fact is that he DID start it. And now I'm interrupting him.
Many of these things have a beginning part and an end part. AoOs and Ready actions insert themselves between these generally. Or it's possible depending on how they're worded that they actually come after...like shooting the orc who hurts my friends.
The 'maneuver hit' here was so unimportant that they didn't even bother to mention it. The only thing they cared about with Tripping is that if the roll is successful, the target is knocked prone.
A couple of things. First, if you're looking to the lack of explicit reference to the hit, and assuming this is for a reason other than simply avoiding repetition and the like, then you're going to have trouble drawing your analogies to other combat maneuvers.
You're saying the "hit" stage is incidental for trip because it isn't mentioned. But that must mean it isn't incidental for Disarm, because there it is mentioned. It's also called out in Grapple, Overrun, Bull Rush, and Sunder, just in the CRB. So now we're cutting out those analogies.
Now if I am to take this text at face value without making the mistake of reading extra meaning into it, this must mean that any time I perform a trip maneuver, unless the maneuver or attack is specifically spelled out in the text, I can pass over it and go straight to the knock prone. Because that is the result of beating the CMD with the roll.
I don't disagree with this. It's the basic case. Your roll exceeds the target CMD, it's a "successful hit", nothing else intervenes, so you apply the effect.
So it appears that if the maneuver or attack or attempt is pointed out, then the knocked prone is also spelled out later in some form or other. But if we're just talking about "successfully" then the knock prone doesn't need to be mentioned because it is happening in the "successfully" portion as given us by definition of what a successfully rolled Trip attack does...it knocks the target prone.
I suppose you could draw that conclusion. I can see why you might get there. But again, now you're treating Trip differently than the other combat maneuvers, all of which specifically call out the attempt.
But aside from that, I still don't think you have good ground to stand on by saying that Trip isn't actually making reference to the success of the hit. Disarm first uses the "if your attack is successful" language, but then goes on to say if your attack exceeds CMD by 10 or more, something else happens. To me, that's drawing a complete analogy between "exceeding CMD" and "success of the maneuver". Trip would be equally understandable if they said "If your attack succeeds (using the same language as disarm, sunder, etc.), your target is knocked prone." This is all written concerning the basic case (as rule books generally are), so they're not going to make a distinction if doing so is unnecessary.
At least as I think I understand your point, you're placing a distinction on "if your attack succeeds" and "if your attack exceeds the CMD". Otherwise, please explain again because I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Are you saying the "your maneuver is a success" isn't relevant to trip because they don't say, "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, your maneuver is a success and the target is knocked prone"?
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.
Unfortunately no. Parry Spell and Greater Disarm alter part of the effect. The 2nd half of 2 parts more specifically. Parry Spell doesn't change the fact that the spell was negated. That still happened. But instead of having no further effect, it then rebounds the spell onto the original caster.
Disarming types such as regular, unarmed, or greater don't change anything about the moment the item leaves the target's hand. They change where the item ends up. In game terms there is no difference between the item leaving the target's hand if you disarm him regularly, unarmed, or with Greater Disarm. The target has lost possession of the item.
The Effect has 2 parts. A beginning and an end. A disarmed item leaves the target's hand and then ends up somewhere. The leaving doesn't change. The ending up does.
I never said otherwise. I simply said the effect is different. You said no.
Now you're saying that the effect is different, but only part of the effect. That's actually true. I don't disagree with you at all. But where in the rules and/or where in your definition of "successfully" does it say that only part of an effect must be applied in order for the action to be accomplished successfully?
With a readied attack, I will trip the guy who enters my threatened space. My attack cannot happen before he enters my threatened space. I can't reach him if it does. The same with the orc in the room. His move must have begun to carry him into the room, otherwise I have nothing to shoot at.
Maybe the wording of the text is throwing you off, but time does not unwind. The readied action triggers when the target declares a certain action. That action has begun, but is interrupted.
Can I ready an action to shoot the first orc shaman who hurts my friends with a fireball? Sure. When does it trigger. After my friends are hurt by the fireball. This is a dumb way to frame a readied action, but it is possible. It would be wiser to say I ready an action to shoot the first orc shaman who attempts to cast.
So now what happens? Do I disrupt the spell? The CRB sure says I did. But if I hit him before he started casting, then how is the spell disrupted? He didn't start it yet.
The fact is that he DID start it. And now I'm interrupting him.
Many of these things have a beginning part and an end part. AoOs and Ready actions insert themselves between these generally. Or it's possible depending on how they're worded that they actually come after...like shooting the orc who hurts my friends.
Look, I understand how the timing would work in the real world. But the bottom line is this is not how it works in game time.
The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). 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.
This literally addresses what you are talking about completely.
Yes, the action technically in the real world happens in the middle of whatever it is that provoked or triggered the readied action. However, we do not have rules to cover timing issues for this situation. Therefore, to resolve it the AoO or triggered readied action is pushed before the triggering event.
So yes, you disrupt the spellcaster before he's actually casting his spell. Yes, you hit the opponent before he enters your space. Even though those actions having been initiated is what triggers your AoO or readied action, you handle your attack before they occur. It creates a time paradox. It's a function of the game rules.
I understand people's hesitancy to accept that it works this way, because it feels weird. It belies our understanding of time and causation. Despite that, this is absolutely how these situations are intended to be handled, under the rules.
I am saying that unless they specifically point out the attack, attempt, or maneuver for discussion, it appears that it is assumed and the focus shifts to the applied Effect.
And in those cases where they do point out the attack, attempt, or maneuver for discussion (in the cases I've seen anyway), they make sure to get around to focusing back on the applied Effect.
On a successful unarmed trip combat maneuver against an opponent your size or smaller, you can spend a swift action to attempt a bull rush combat maneuver against that opponent. If your bull rush succeeds, you can move that opponent to any unoccupied square you threaten, then push that opponent the number of 5-foot increments your successful bull rush allows. The target is then knocked prone. If the bull rush fails, you can use the Ki Throw feat as normal.
This points out the maneuver as separate from the Knock prone which comes later.
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
No maneuver, attack, or attempt is spelled out. Neither is there any direct mention of knocking prone. Where is the knocking prone occurring in this sentence?
I am saying that unless they specifically point out the attack, attempt, or maneuver for discussion, it appears that it is assumed and the focus shifts to the applied Effect.
And in those cases where they do point out the attack, attempt, or maneuver for discussion (in the cases I've seen anyway), they make sure to get around to focusing back on the applied Effect.
On a successful unarmed trip combat maneuver against an opponent your size or smaller, you can spend a swift action to attempt a bull rush combat maneuver against that opponent. If your bull rush succeeds, you can move that opponent to any unoccupied square you threaten, then push that opponent the number of 5-foot increments your successful bull rush allows. The target is then knocked prone. If the bull rush fails, you can use the Ki Throw feat as normal.This points out the maneuver as separate from the Knock prone which comes later.
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.No maneuver, attack, or attempt is spelled out. Neither is there any direct mention of knocking prone. Where is the knocking prone occurring in this sentence?
Ok, thanks for rephrasing that. I see where you're coming from. Again, it's reasonable. It just boils down to whether you view "successfully trip" as intentionally different from "successfully perform a trip combat maneuver" for a reason other than saving space.
If you think it's intentionally different, then obviously the lack of calling out the subsequent application of the effect means it must be rolled into the trip. If you do not think it's intentional, then it's simply another thing that occurs as a result of the successful hit, so to speak (so "this also happens when you successfully hit").
All that being said, I do not think that something like Ki Throw would be less understandable if they instead said, "Whenever you successfully trip a target your size or smaller while unarmed [or using an unarmed strike or attack or whatever], ...". I think the phrasing is easier as actually written, but I do not believe the meaning would change. Same with Meteor Hammer, "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent using your Meteor Hammer, you may ...".
Now you're saying that the effect is different, but only part of the effect. That's actually true. I don't disagree with you at all. But where in the rules and/or where in your definition of "successfully" does it say that only part of an effect must be applied in order for the action to be accomplished successfully?
Yes, I'm sorry. I must stand corrected. It is not an Effect with 2 parts. It appears to be 2 separate Effects.
Disarming is concerned with the item leaving the owner's hand. When you have successfully disarmed him, you have knocked the item from his hand. Its effect ends here.
Now under normal circumstances what follows is that the item becomes subject to gravity and drops to his feet. If you performed the disarm unarmed, you can pick it up automatically. The GM can describe this however he likes; whether you've pulled it from his grasp or catch it as it falls or kick it up and snag it out of the air or just snatch it as it clatters to the ground. If you performed it with Greater Disarm, then it has left his hand, but now skitters off 15ft in a random direction. Greater Disarm isn't changing the effect of disarming any more than Greater Trip is changing the effect of knocking prone. It is what comes after that changes.
Item lands 15ft away.
Target provokes AoOs.
BIG EDIT: Ah, but I see how this might be construed as begging the question because I'm putting the GT effect of provoking after an assumed "knocked prone". Unfortunately the text of the feat really doesn't give us much room to move around in. When I successfully trip target, target provokes. So he's not falling at the provoke part, because this is only talking about the provoking. It's not saying he provokes as he falls. Unfortunately the text doesn't really tell us WHY he provokes. So I really don't see any room whatsoever for the "knock prone" to fit anywhere other than the "successfully trip". If we say "successfully trip" is the Hit, then we still have to assume the "Knock Prone" happens here, because there is literally nowhere else for it to fit. But if we refuse to put it in "successfully trip", then we are left to assume that it must go left unmentioned and happen after the feat...which...isn't how they structure the game.
Unless the AoO is mistakenly interpreted as replacing the knock prone.
I would think anyone would find this structure quite an odd way of handling the key effect of the attack you're performing.
All that being said, I do not think that something like Ki Throw would be less understandable if they instead said, "Whenever you successfully trip a target your size or smaller while unarmed [or using an unarmed strike or attack or whatever], ...". I think the phrasing is easier as actually written, but I do not believe the meaning would change. Same with Meteor Hammer, "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent using your Meteor Hammer, you may ...".
Only if you are reading "successfully trip" the way you do. Otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever. Although that would be a cool effect to trip your opponent prone and then drag him toward you all with the hammer.
But as far as wording, as I can't climb into the writers' heads, I can only assume that they worded it the way they did because "successfully" means something different.
Otherwise they could have easily replaced:
If you succeed at a trip attempt
with
If you successfully trip
or
On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller
with
If you successfully trip a target your size or smaller while unarmed
More concise, less space, and less ink. But their not doing so would seem to lend significant weight to the argument that it is because "successfully" means something else.
All that being said, I do not think that something like Ki Throw would be less understandable if they instead said, "Whenever you successfully trip a target your size or smaller while unarmed [or using an unarmed strike or attack or whatever], ...". I think the phrasing is easier as actually written, but I do not believe the meaning would change. Same with Meteor Hammer, "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent using your Meteor Hammer, you may ...".Only if you are reading "successfully trip" the way you do. Otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.
Sure, I thought that was a given but on rereading it's not as clear that's what I meant.
But as far as wording, as I can't climb into the writers' heads, I can only assume that they worded it the way they did because "successfully" means something different.
Otherwise they could have easily replaced:
If you succeed at a trip attempt
with
If you successfully trip
or
On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller
with
If you successfully trip a target your size or smaller while unarmedMore concise, less space, and less ink. But their not doing so would seem to lend significant weight to the argument that it is because "successfully" means something else.
I don't think it's really determinative either way, but I show this:
If you succeed at a trip attempt with your meteor hammer
If you successfully trip an opponent with your meteor hammer
On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller
Whenever you successfully trip a target your size or smaller while unarmed
The original phrasing is shorter (even if slightly) in both cases. Of course, if we change the "whenever" from the Ki Throw example to "if", that would switch the second one to the alternate version being slightly shorter (meaning we'd split the examples).
Like I said though, I don't think the difference is enough for it to mean either side could claim it as a particularly convincing point.
Unfortunately the text doesn't really tell us WHY he provokes. So I really don't see any room whatsoever for the "knock prone" to fit anywhere other than the "successfully trip". If we say "successfully trip" is the Hit, then we still have to assume the "Knock Prone" happens here, because there is literally nowhere else for it to fit. But if we refuse to put it in "successfully trip", then we are left to assume that it must go left unmentioned and happen after the feat...which...isn't how they structure the game.
You're right. It isn't explicit on where that's supposed to occur. But again, this boils down to preconceived interpretations getting in the way.
If you're looking at it from the perspective that "successfully trip an opponent" doesn't mean anything different than "successfully perform a trip attack on an opponent" then the feat does nothing except insert another effect of the successful hit (so to speak). Since AoO occur immediately when triggered, it resolves, then the rest of the trip consequences are carried out.
Undoubtedly, this reading would be clearer if the entry read something like "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes an AoO then is knocked prone [or even something like "as it is knocked prone]". To be fair though, the other reading would be clearer if the entry read something like "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes an AoO when it is knocked prone [or "that opponent is knocked prone and provokes an AoO]".
So whether it makes sense is, as we've both noted, generally dependent upon how you are already reading the rest of the rules.
Look, I understand how the timing would work in the real world. But the bottom line is this is not how it works in game time.
The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). 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.This literally addresses what you are talking about completely.
Yes, the action technically in the real world happens in the middle of whatever it is that provoked or triggered the readied action. However, we do not have rules to cover timing issues for this situation. Therefore, to resolve it the AoO or triggered readied action is pushed before the triggering event.
So yes, you disrupt the spellcaster before he's actually casting his spell. Yes, you hit the opponent before he enters your space. Even though those actions having been initiated is what triggers your AoO or readied action, you handle your attack before they occur. It creates a time paradox. It's a function of the game rules.
I understand people's hesitancy to accept that it works this way, because it feels weird. It belies our understanding of time and causation. Despite that, this is absolutely how these situations are intended to be handled, under the rules.
But this doesn't address spellcasting. The spellcaster must begin his spell otherwise there is nothing for me to interrupt.
And if I ready an attack to hit the first guy who enters my threatened space, my attack is happening while he is still 10ft away? What am I swinging at? This section of comments doesn't clarify much of anything regarding this issue. The book was clear enough. It resolves immediately before the triggering action resolves. Target steps into my threatened space and my attack fires. He's now flat on his back because my attack was to trip him.
Sort of beating them to the punch, as it were. I guess I'd have to see the whole comment/conversation to see it in context. Because, yeah this by itself makes no sense. This opens the door to spellcasters not losing their spells if the attacks land before they even begin casting.
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding something. <shrug>
But this doesn't address spellcasting. The spellcaster must begin his spell otherwise there is nothing for me to interrupt.
And if I ready an attack to hit the first guy who enters my threatened space, my attack is happening while he is still 10ft away? What am I swinging at? This section of comments doesn't clarify much of anything regarding this issue. The book was clear enough. It resolves immediately before the triggering action resolves. Target steps into my threatened space and my attack fires. He's now flat on his back because my attack was to trip him.
Sort of beating them to the punch, as it were. I guess I'd have to see the whole comment/conversation to see it in context. Because, yeah this by itself makes no sense. This opens the door to spellcasters not losing their spells if the attacks land before they even begin casting.
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding something. <shrug>
Say for instance that your opponent is moving up 10' before attempting to Overrun you. Your readied action (or AoO if s/he doesn't have Improved Overrun) triggers upon your opponent entering your square. However, because there's no "in the middle of an action" time frame or "moving into your square" condition, you have to find a way to deal with it.
The rules say (and the Developer statements back up) that your AoO or readied action is treated as if it occurred prior to the triggering event. However, you still interrupt your opponent in that the opponent doesn't move back 10' to before the movement or his/her turn started. You only back up to the triggering event. So yes, the opponent entered your square. But your AoO/Readied Action triggers and the opponent is treated as if s/he hadn't actually moved into your square yet.
Typically, this isn't going to matter. But it could. What if the movement provoked because the opponent was moving through a threatened space into a space that had cover? If the AoO occurred literally during the movement, how do you determine if the opponent has cover? There is no "in between spaces" condition. Should it be partial cover? No cover? The only real way to resolve it is to treat it as Buhlman says - you push the AoO to before the thing that actually triggered it, meaning even though movement is what triggers the AoO that movement hasn't actually occurred yet when the AoO is resolved.
Spellcasting is treated the same way. Casting a spell provokes, but we don't have a "in the middle of a standard action" time frame. So the AoO lands, technically, prior to the spell actually being cast. In game time, the caster hasn't actually done anything yet, even though the caster initiating spell casting is what causes the AoO to occur.
The common sense interpretation of the "the first target who enters my threatened space" is "I want to go as soon as there is a target actually in a threatened space".
Think about the converse, reach weapons cannot attack adjacent creatures. So if a creature is leaving the space 10' away and entering the space 5' away, when does the attack occur? If it happens after the movement, obviously the reach weapon can't be used. But what about during? Is a creature which is traveling between an adjacent square and a non-adjacent square adjacent or not? This is the "middle ground" reference Buhlman makes in the quote above.
Answering these questions is far too complicated for what the rules provide and for how the Developers want to handle the situation. So, they accept a certain amount of paradoxical effect because it streamlines the process. So for game purposes, there is a paradox even if we understand that it wouldn't quite work that way in the real world.
EDIT: Specifically in regards to the AoO for spellcasting, look at how the rules are actually written. It addresses this situation.
If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
If you are damaged while trying to cast a spell. The interrupting event occurs during spellcasting if it comes in response to your casting (such as an AoO or readied action). So even if the AoO or readied action occurs prior to casting in game time, it is still defined as an "interrupting event" for the purposes of causing damage during spellcasting.
Hopefully that helps.
|
But this doesn't address spellcasting. The spellcaster must begin his spell otherwise there is nothing for me to interrupt.
And if I ready an attack to hit the first guy who enters my threatened space, my attack is happening while he is still 10ft away? What am I swinging at? This section of comments doesn't clarify much of anything regarding this issue. The book was clear enough. It resolves immediately before the triggering action resolves. Target steps into my threatened space and my attack fires. He's now flat on his back because my attack was to trip him.
Sort of beating them to the punch, as it were. I guess I'd have to see the whole comment/conversation to see it in context. Because, yeah this by itself makes no sense. This opens the door to spellcasters not losing their spells if the attacks land before they even begin casting.
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding something. <shrug>
I think you're overthinking it. The AoO being made before the causing event is a necessary evil of the game mechanics and action economy. The triggering event happens when the triggering event happens, but due to the way things need to be adjudicated, as well as to keep things simple, the game designers made an arbitrary decision.
Look at it this way: the AoO most certainly doesn't happen after the triggering event is completed. In the case of casting a spell, the AoO doesn't occur after the fireball spell has been completed, the AoO occurs before the spell is completed. Because if the AoO connects and does whatever it does, the caster must now make a concentration check to determine if he/she can actually complete the spell.
It's not unreasonable to apply the same logic to Greater Trip: the actual AoO happens somewhere between the time of a successful trip attempt and the application of the prone effect, not after the prone effect has been applied.
Regardless, Jason tells us that for ease of game mechanics, the AoO occurs before the triggering event occurs.
As an aside, it makes our whole debate about whether or not "trip=prone" or "trip=stumble then apply the prone condition" largely academic. Even if your interpretation is correct, and "prone" is the triggering event from Greater Trip, the AoO occurs before the triggering event, thus the AoO occurs before the prone condition is applied to the target.
I was referring to Readied Actions, not AoOs. But we can talk about AoOs as that is more pertinent to the discussion here.
Look at it this way: the AoO most certainly doesn't happen after the triggering event is completed.
Really? Are you sure about this?
Then please explain Vicious Stomp or Greater Overrun to me. ;)
|
|
Exceptions to the general rule. The rule book has many, many examples of this concept.
EDIT: to further expand, those exceptions specifically call out that the the effect needs to be applied in order to fulfill the conditions to trigger the AoO. It's not a "gotcha" that somehow shows that the general rule is no longer valid.
Wait. So if we have 2 feats that are exceptions to the rule. Why not a 3rd? Or a 4th? Or a 5th?
The whole argument behind Camp #1's interpretation is that "The AoO must come between the trip check and the prone condition because that is what AoOs do".
But we have 2 feats that show explicitly that this is not something that all AoOs must do.
Camp #1 is basing its argument on the general rule
To explain how a certain feat must function
Only to turn around and say here on this thread
That there are at least 2 feats that change how the general rule functions.
Your whole argument disappears at this point. You cannot say the feat must behave that way by citing the general rule of AoOs and then turn around and admit that feats can change that very rule.
So what other evidence can you cite to support your view? Maybe I've just been very distracted with RL here (an understatement) and maybe I've missed some key evidence, but it seems thus far on this thread and others that your whole discussion has been about why Camp #3's view is wrong and how Camp #1 is right because that's how AoOs work.
Because without evidence, you cannot claim that your view is valid. It is an inference and a hypothesis. Which means perhaps that it is quite valid, and reasonable, and likely, and even probably the case that the AoO in Greater Trip is triggering at the same moment in time and for very similar reasons that the AoOs from Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp do...because to successfully trip your target means to knock him prone via a trip attack. How can it mean this? Because that's what feats do. GOr and VS did it. GT can too.
And just as a follow up; we also have at least 1 non-debated case that "successfully" means the action having been completed. So we know "successfully" can certainly mean this. There are several other areas that are up for grabs. But if it is defined as such in one place beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is very likely the case in other instances as well. How many? Maybe we'll see. ;)
More on that later though.
In the meantime, apple anyone? :P
And just as a follow up; we also have at least 1 non-debated case that "successfully" means the action having been completed. So we know "successfully" can certainly mean this. There are several other areas that are up for grabs. But if it is defined as such in one place beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is very likely the case in other instances as well. How many? Maybe we'll see. ;)
More on that later though.
In the meantime, apple anyone? :P
As I've noted, there are certainly uses of "successfully" in the rules that imply the action has been completed and the effect applied. So undoubtedly "successfully" can mean that.
My only point in that regard is that the use of "successfully" alone is insufficient to establish that because we have other examples from the rule books where "successfully" is used in reference to the action only and not the effect.
So use of the word "successfully" is not necessarily determinative. Context matters.
Insofar as feats like Greater Overrun are concerned, it calls out the condition as the target actually being knocked prone. One could argue that the same interruption sequence could apply there but I think everybody agrees on the context that the intent is for the target to be knocked prone, then have the AoO fire. The same or similar language isn't used in Greater Trip (as I discussed above), so the context in that case is not obvious. Thus, we have different reasonable interpretations.
EDIT: As an aside, this was my reason for bringing up Binding Throw a few pages back. That feat makes the context clear by literally stating the feat applies after the condition is met.
Just as another example as to why I don't think we can derive anything useful from the use of the word "successfully", here is an example I came across while looking into something completely unrelated.
Trick Throw (Ex): At 9th level, when an unarmed fighter successfully trips an opponent with an unarmed attack, he can attempt a dirty trick combat maneuver against that creature (before the opponent becomes prone) as an immediate action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. This ability replaces weapon training 2.
Here we have successfully being unquestionably used in reference to "successfully tripping" without application of the effect. However, the ability also explicitly calls out that the new effect of the ability applies prior to the target falling prone.
Do with that what you will, I suppose. Just thought it was interesting.
I agree it is interesting. Thank you for this. Seriously. No snark or anything intended.
Because the text here is making sure to specifically point out that it is "(before the opponent becomes prone)", it appears to be making sure we know that an exception to the rule is taking place...an exception which is proving the rule.
As if to say: "Normally when we use the word 'successfully' we are referring to an act that has resolved, but in this case we want something taking place before that point."
Maybe just my reading anyway.
Of course I don't know why they didn't just say "When a fighter succeeds at an unarmed trip attack against an opponent...." Not sure why they felt they had to make it so wordy.
But again, this tends to happen with a lot of games. They start with the core set and everything is nice and snug (for the most part). Then more and more things get added, and soon enough something runs into something else and an Errata needs to be made or a fluke happens that needs to be explained or ignored. It happens.
But I have to say PF is really one tight ship. I've played quite a few games and it is put together rather well. I have an old favorite from the 80's that friends of mine and I have played on and off over the years. The thing was as broken as sin and I added House rule after House rule to clean it up. I got to the point where it seemed like I had more House rules than the thing has core rules. So I figured I'd just rewrite it from scratch. I wouldn't be the first to say I'm not the best writer. Slow process really. But it's a hobby when I'm not busy irritating you guys. :P
The rules say (and the Developer statements back up) that your AoO or readied action is treated as if it occurred prior to the triggering event. However, you still interrupt your opponent in that the opponent doesn't move back 10' to before the movement or his/her turn started. You only back up to the triggering event. So yes, the opponent entered your square. But your AoO/Readied Action triggers and the opponent is treated as if s/he hadn't actually moved into your square yet.
Typically, this isn't going to matter. But it could. What if the movement provoked because the opponent was moving through a threatened space into a space that had cover? If the AoO occurred literally during the movement, how do you determine if the opponent has cover? There is no "in between spaces" condition. Should it be partial cover? No cover? The only real way to resolve it is to treat it as Buhlman says - you push the AoO to before the thing that actually triggered it, meaning even though movement is what triggers the AoO that movement hasn't actually occurred yet when the AoO is resolved.
So... I ready an action to attack an enemy that enters my threatened area. An enemy comes running up to me and is going to enter my threatened area. My readied action triggers before he enters my threatened area, I fail to attack him because he out of range. Then he finishes moving into my threatened area, stabs me, and I die.
Right?
That sounds wrong. But... seems to be how you are saying it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exceptions to the general rule. The rule book has many, many examples of this concept.
EDIT: to further expand, those exceptions specifically call out that the the effect needs to be applied in order to fulfill the conditions to trigger the AoO. It's not a "gotcha" that somehow shows that the general rule is no longer valid.
I thought you thought that AoOs happen before the triggering event?
So.. shouldn't your position be that the AoO from vicious stomp happens before the trigger, the target going prone?
Why the inconsistency?
The rules say (and the Developer statements back up) that your AoO or readied action is treated as if it occurred prior to the triggering event. However, you still interrupt your opponent in that the opponent doesn't move back 10' to before the movement or his/her turn started. You only back up to the triggering event. So yes, the opponent entered your square. But your AoO/Readied Action triggers and the opponent is treated as if s/he hadn't actually moved into your square yet.
Typically, this isn't going to matter. But it could. What if the movement provoked because the opponent was moving through a threatened space into a space that had cover? If the AoO occurred literally during the movement, how do you determine if the opponent has cover? There is no "in between spaces" condition. Should it be partial cover? No cover? The only real way to resolve it is to treat it as Buhlman says - you push the AoO to before the thing that actually triggered it, meaning even though movement is what triggers the AoO that movement hasn't actually occurred yet when the AoO is resolved.
So... I ready an action to attack an enemy that enters my threatened area. An enemy comes running up to me and is going to enter my threatened area. My readied action triggers before he enters my threatened area, I fail to attack him because he out of range. Then he finishes moving into my threatened area, stabs me, and I die.
Right?
That sounds wrong. But... seems to be how you are saying it works.
I addressed this scenario above.
Bottom line is no matter how you want to bury your head in the sand, how AoO and Readied Actions function is clear. You are incorrect on this. I've given you not only the exact rules quotations, but explicit Developer comments telling you precisely how they work.
The rules say (and the Developer statements back up) that your AoO or readied action is treated as if it occurred prior to the triggering event. However, you still interrupt your opponent in that the opponent doesn't move back 10' to before the movement or his/her turn started. You only back up to the triggering event. So yes, the opponent entered your square. But your AoO/Readied Action triggers and the opponent is treated as if s/he hadn't actually moved into your square yet.
Typically, this isn't going to matter. But it could. What if the movement provoked because the opponent was moving through a threatened space into a space that had cover? If the AoO occurred literally during the movement, how do you determine if the opponent has cover? There is no "in between spaces" condition. Should it be partial cover? No cover? The only real way to resolve it is to treat it as Buhlman says - you push the AoO to before the thing that actually triggered it, meaning even though movement is what triggers the AoO that movement hasn't actually occurred yet when the AoO is resolved.
So... I ready an action to attack an enemy that enters my threatened area. An enemy comes running up to me and is going to enter my threatened area. My readied action triggers before he enters my threatened area, I fail to attack him because he out of range. Then he finishes moving into my threatened area, stabs me, and I die.
Right?
That sounds wrong. But... seems to be how you are saying it works.
I addressed this scenario above.
Bottom line is no matter how you want to bury your head in the sand, how AoO and Readied Actions function is clear. You are incorrect on this. I've given you not only the exact rules quotations, but explicit Developer comments telling you precisely how they work.
So... what is your answer?
|
|
So... what is your answer?The rules say (and the Developer statements back up) that your AoO or readied action is treated as if it occurred prior to the triggering event. However, you still interrupt your opponent in that the opponent doesn't move back 10' to before the movement or his/her turn started. You only back up to the triggering event. So yes, the opponent entered your square. But your AoO/Readied Action triggers and the opponent is treated as if s/he hadn't actually moved into your square yet.
Typically, this isn't going to matter. But it could. What if the movement provoked because the opponent was moving through a threatened space into a space that had cover? If the AoO occurred literally during the movement, how do you determine if the opponent has cover? There is no "in between spaces" condition. Should it be partial cover? No cover? The only real way to resolve it is to treat it as Buhlman says - you push the AoO to before the thing that actually triggered it, meaning even though movement is what triggers the AoO that movement hasn't actually occurred yet when the AoO is resolved.
So... I ready an action to attack an enemy that enters my threatened area. An enemy comes running up to me and is going to enter my threatened area. My readied action triggers before he enters my threatened area, I fail to attack him because he out of range. Then he finishes moving into my threatened area, stabs me, and I die.
Right?
That sounds wrong. But... seems to be how you are saying it works.
I addressed this scenario above.
Bottom line is no matter how you want to bury your head in the sand, how AoO and Readied Actions function is clear. You are incorrect on this. I've given you not only the exact rules quotations, but explicit Developer comments telling you precisely how they work.
Remy, how do readied actions work? Because apparently the rules and developer quotes aren't good enough for you.
|
|
Wait. So if we have 2 feats that are exceptions to the rule. Why not a 3rd? Or a 4th? Or a 5th?
The whole argument behind Camp #1's interpretation is that "The AoO must come between the trip check and the prone condition because that is what AoOs do".
But we have 2 feats that show explicitly that this is not something that all AoOs must do.
Camp #1 is basing its argument on the general rule
To explain how a certain feat must function
Only to turn around and say here on this thread
That there are at least 2 feats that change how the general rule functions.Your whole argument disappears at this point. You cannot say the feat must behave that way by citing the general rule of AoOs and then turn around and admit that feats can change that very rule.
Your summation is so completely wrong, I don't know where to begin. So, because a handful of feats happen to be an exception, that every feat must be an exception? That is essentially what you are saying: because there is something that is an exception to the rule, my entire argument is somehow invalidated. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
So what other evidence can you cite to support your view? Maybe I've just been very distracted with RL here (an understatement) and maybe I've missed some key evidence, but it seems thus far on this thread and others that your whole discussion has been about why Camp #3's view is wrong and how Camp #1 is right because that's how AoOs work.
Last time I checked, the entire purpose of an argument is to provide evidence as to why the other side is wrong, and why your side is right.
My evidence: rules quotations, FAQ quotations, developer quotations, applying the theory of similarly constructed rules.
Your Evidence: personal opinion of how you think the rule should be interpreted, hyper-optimized characters taking advantage of the way a rule works (as if that has never happened before).
I mean, really, that's what your position's argument boils down to.
Because without evidence, you cannot claim that your view is valid. It is an inference and a hypothesis. Which means perhaps that it is quite valid, and reasonable, and likely, and even probably the case that the AoO in Greater Trip is triggering at the same moment in time and for very similar reasons that the AoOs from Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp do...because to successfully trip your target means to knock him prone via a trip attack. How can it mean this? Because that's what feats do. GOr and VS did it. GT can too.
Possible, but not likely. By the very nature of the wording of Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp, they are different in the timing of execution than Greater Trip.
While prone is the ultimate result of being tripped, you haven't actually provided sufficient evidence to explain why I should interpret it the way you are interpreting it. I've provided evidence as to why you should interpret it the way I interpret it, but you're response basically boils down to: "That isn't right, because that's not how I interpret it". I've even provided evidence to show that, even if it was interpreted the way you interpret it, you're still wrong. Yet, you're response isn't to provide evidence to counter my evidence, it's to throw up a strawman argument.
You've lost the argument, you just don't realize it yet.
You're response makes me wonder if you actually read what I wrote.I thought you thought that AoOs happen before the triggering event?
So.. shouldn't your position be that the AoO from vicious stomp happens before the trigger, the target going prone?
Why the inconsistency?
Answer the questions then mate.
Dodging questions isn't helping us come to an understanding. If you want to come to an understanding... that is. If your goal is something other than a productive discussion of the rules... this might not be the forum for you.
Since you are here, and you are posting here... I'm going to go ahead and assume you do indeed want to have a productive discussion of the rules.
So... answer the question.
Simple enough question.
Some quotes, so you can stick to RAW responses.
Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Remy, how do readied actions work? Because apparently the rules and developer quotes aren't good enough for you.
The rules and developer quotes are perfectly 100% in line with my understanding of both AoOs and readied actions.
That is to say... The rules and developer quotes are good enough for me.
But, if you want an explanation of readied actions... I will provide one for you.
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.
This is the paragraph we will examine. In whole for record and reference. Now let’s look at individual parts of it. Since we intend to examine this closely and precisely.
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.
So, what we have here is the outline of how we establish a trigger for our action. We set a condition, and when that condition happens our readied action triggers in response to it.
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.
Here is the part you, and others, get caught up on and misunderstand. This is referencing actions in their entirety. That, I think, is what you are not seeing.
It is telling us that you interrupt the activities of another character, assuming that these activities were the established trigger. Then your readied action is completed and resolved immediately, essentially mid- other character’s activity.
Your whole action is finished before their action finishes. That is the context of this line.
Then their action takes off where it left off… well, maybe… because…
Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
He has to be capable of actually finishing what he started.
So, if I ready an action to attack someone when they got into melee range with me… then I would interrupt their movement action while they closed in. I would put their movement action on pause the very instant that I could make the attack, then I would make the attack, then resolve the attack. This happens right as they got into melee range, my trigger event. Then after my readied action is finished, assuming they are still alive n whatnot… they can finish the move action they were in the middle of taking.
That is how readied actions work. No time travel necessary. And 100% RAW.
Wait. So if we have 2 feats that are exceptions to the rule. Why not a 3rd? Or a 4th? Or a 5th?
The whole argument behind Camp #1's interpretation is that "The AoO must come between the trip check and the prone condition because that is what AoOs do".
But we have 2 feats that show explicitly that this is not something that all AoOs must do.
Camp #1 is basing its argument on the general rule
To explain how a certain feat must function
Only to turn around and say here on this thread
That there are at least 2 feats that change how the general rule functions.Your whole argument disappears at this point. You cannot say the feat must behave that way by citing the general rule of AoOs and then turn around and admit that feats can change that very rule.
Your summation is so completely wrong, I don't know where to begin. So, because a handful of feats happen to be an exception, that every feat must be an exception? That is essentially what you are saying: because there is something that is an exception to the rule, my entire argument is somehow invalidated. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
So what other evidence can you cite to support your view? Maybe I've just been very distracted with RL here (an understatement) and maybe I've missed some key evidence, but it seems thus far on this thread and others that your whole discussion has been about why Camp #3's view is wrong and how Camp #1 is right because that's how AoOs work.Last time I checked, the entire purpose of an argument is to provide evidence as to why the other side is wrong, and why your side is right.
My evidence: rules quotations, FAQ quotations, developer quotations, applying the theory of similarly constructed rules.
Your Evidence: personal opinion of how you think the rule should be interpreted, hyper-optimized characters taking advantage of the way a rule works (as if that has never happened before).
I mean, really,...
This is basically a LONG post that just says "NU-UH IM RIGHT UR RONG NO NO NO IM RIGHT UR RONG!!!!1!"
Is that productive? I doubt it.
Care to actually discuss the points being made? The actual topic at hand maybe?
I've even provided evidence to show that, even if it was interpreted the way you interpret it, you're still wrong. Yet, you're response isn't to provide evidence to counter my evidence, it's to throw up a strawman argument.
Everything you have thus far posted as 'evidence' is rules that support the interpretation that the AoO from Greater Trip happens after the target is prone.
If you feel otherwise, please link us to your evidence or repost it. This has been a long thread, maybe it got missed? It has had too many "NO ur rong" posts mixed in.
Your summation is so completely wrong, I don't know where to begin. So, because a handful of feats happen to be an exception, that every feat must be an exception? That is essentially what you are saying: because there is something that is an exception to the rule, my entire argument is somehow invalidated. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
My summation is very basic, pointed, and reasonable. You have argued:
A feat behaves the way it does because it must conform to the general rule.
and then proceeded to contradict yourself by admitting:
A feat does not have to conform to the general rule.
This undercuts your argument that Greater Trip must behave the way you say because it must conform to the general rule of AoOs. Your argument becomes something that can't be tripped. i.e. it has no legs. :P
You're response makes me wonder if you actually read what I wrote.Answer the questions then mate.
Dodging questions isn't helping us come to an understanding. If you want to come to an understanding... that is. If your goal is something other than a productive discussion of the rules... this might not be the forum for you.
Since you are here, and you are posting here... I'm going to go ahead and assume you do indeed want to have a productive discussion of the rules.
So... answer the question.
Simple enough question.
Some quotes, so you can stick to RAW responses.
Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you.Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Even if your interpretation is correct, and "prone" is the triggering event from Greater Trip, the AoO occurs before the triggering event, thus the AoO occurs before the prone condition is applied to the target.
Hey look at that, I answered the question for you with your own words!
So... new question... You are of the belief that the AoO from Vicious Stomp happens before the opponent is prone. Is that your final answer?
The rules say (and the Developer statements back up) that your AoO or readied action is treated as if it occurred prior to the triggering event. However, you still interrupt your opponent in that the opponent doesn't move back 10' to before the movement or his/her turn started. You only back up to the triggering event. So yes, the opponent entered your square. But your AoO/Readied Action triggers and the opponent is treated as if s/he hadn't actually moved into your square yet.
Typically, this isn't going to matter. But it could. What if the movement provoked because the opponent was moving through a threatened space into a space that had cover? If the AoO occurred literally during the movement, how do you determine if the opponent has cover? There is no "in between spaces" condition. Should it be partial cover? No cover? The only real way to resolve it is to treat it as Buhlman says - you push the AoO to before the thing that actually triggered it, meaning even though movement is what triggers the AoO that movement hasn't actually occurred yet when the AoO is resolved.
So... I ready an action to attack an enemy that enters my threatened area. An enemy comes running up to me and is going to enter my threatened area. My readied action triggers before he enters my threatened area, I fail to attack him because he out of range. Then he finishes moving into my threatened area, stabs me, and I die.
Right?
That sounds wrong. But... seems to be how you are saying it works.
I addressed this scenario above.
Bottom line is no matter how you want to bury your head in the sand, how AoO and Readied Actions function is clear. You are incorrect on this. I've given you not only the exact rules quotations, but explicit Developer comments telling you precisely how they work.
Do you mean this?
Think about the converse, reach weapons cannot attack adjacent creatures. So if a creature is leaving the space 10' away and entering the space 5' away, when does the attack occur? If it happens after the movement, obviously the reach weapon can't be used. But what about during? Is a creature which is traveling between an adjacent square and a non-adjacent square adjacent or not? This is the "middle ground" reference Buhlman makes in the quote above.
Answering these questions is far too complicated for what the rules provide and for how the Developers want to handle the situation. So, they accept a certain amount of paradoxical effect because it streamlines the process. So for game purposes, there is a paradox even if we understand that it wouldn't quite work that way in the real world.
EDIT: Specifically in regards to the AoO for spellcasting, look at how the rules are actually written. It addresses this situation.If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).If you are damaged while trying to cast a spell. The interrupting event occurs during spellcasting if it comes in response to your casting (such as an AoO or readied action). So even if the AoO or readied action occurs prior to casting in game time, it is still defined as an "interrupting event" for the purposes of causing damage during spellcasting.
Because you seem to be saying that the AoO is an interrupt and happens precisely when the trigger event happens, and not before it. And also be saying that the AoO travels through time and happens before the trigger event. You are arguing both sides simultaneously.
Consider for a moment that you may be overcomplicating this whole thing. Instead consider that maybe when a character performs an action that the action caries with it a declare step. This declare step marks the start of the action. This declare step is when an action provokes.
Movement carries with it multiple declare steps potentially, with each square traversed preceded by a declare step, followed by a resolve step.
Thus actions have built in trigger timeframes for when they provoke. Immediately upon declaring that the action is to be taken. The very first moment of the action.
Every AoO rule now falls perfectly into place. There are no discrepancies with time traveling paradoxes or otherwise. The AoO happens immediately upon being triggered, and is resolved immediately. This AoO begins and ends before the action which triggered it ends, but after it began. It happens during the action, and is properly an interrupting effect.
Readied actions are similar but more diverse. Since the condition can be freely set by the person readying them. The trigger can be just about anything, from the initiation of an action to the completion of an action, or even an action mid-way through. In fact, they could even be triggered from things which aren't even actions, but 'effects'. You could ready an action to stab a dude if he falls prone. This would happen immediately after the triggering event, before anything else happens, immediately after. And you'd stab the dude after he fell prone.
This brings us to feats and abilities. These can have a diverse number of triggering events for them to activate, similar to readied actions. Whatever the feat says it is looking for is the trigger. The trigger goes off immediately when it says it goes off. They generally spell out when they go into effect. Whenever X to Y, etc.
This means that the effect of the feat is triggered immediately when the conditions it outlines are met, and the effect happens immediately after.
Reading the rules this way is not only intuition friendly, but completely RAW. It happens to be in line with everything in the FAQs, and everything the Devs have said… It also has the very nice added bonus of eliminating just about every discrepancy that has been voiced in the entirety of this entire thread.
Last time I checked, the entire purpose of an argument is to provide evidence as to why the other side is wrong, and why your side is right.
My evidence: rules quotations, FAQ quotations, developer quotations, applying the theory of similarly constructed rules.
Your Evidence: personal opinion of how you think the rule should be interpreted, hyper-optimized characters taking advantage of the way a rule works (as if that has never happened before).
I mean, really, that's what your position's argument boils down to.
If you truly believe this, then you haven't really been paying attention to what has been said on this thread. But if you feel your side has all the answers then please tell me:
How is "successfully" defined in the Binding Throw Feat?
Where does the AoO land in Vicious Stomp?
Where does it land for Greater Overrun?
What RAW are you citing that supports the argument that the AoO must come between the trip attack and the prone target?
What FAQ quotations have you posted that supports the AoO must come between the trip attack and the prone target?
What Dev has given his support to your hypothesis of how Greater Trip works?
What 'theory of similarly constructed rules' supports your hypothesis?
For my hypothesis, I give you Binding Throw as evidence of how "successfully" is defined.
For my hypothesis, I give you JJ's opinion.
For my hypothesis, I give you the interesting wording of Trick Throw which seems to be expressly pointing out an exception that is proving the rule.
For my hypothesis, I give you Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp that show AoO behavior is subject to specific rule.
For my hypothesis, I give you another look at Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp and compare them to Greater Trip as we notice similar mechanics at play.
For my hypothesis, I give you grammatical language rules and how something cannot be truthfully defined to be X unless it is actually X.
A blue horse that is not blue is not a blue horse.
A successfully jumped hurdle that what not jumped is not a successfully jumped hurdle.
A successfully tripped man that was not tripped is not a successfully tripped man.