And I should add this before we descend into what "tripped" means. I'd think we all agree what tripping someone entails. We declare the attack when it is appropriate to do so, we roll a d20 to make a check, and if we beat the number we need to beat, the target falls down.
The purpose of Tripping is not making the trip attack. We don't roll to beat the CMD so that we can roll to beat the CMD.
The purpose of Tripping is not hitting. We don't beat the CMD so that we can just hit. If so, then game tables everywhere would look like this:
PC: "I make a trip attack against the orc."
GM: "Make an attack against CMD of 15."
PC: rolls d20 "An 18, I hit."
GM: "Good job. Next player."
PC: "Wait. That's it? Nothing happened?"
GM: "Why...was there more?"
We declare a trip attack and make a roll and try to beat a CMD so that we can knock the target prone. Knocking the target prone is what tripping that target means. It is the reason we take the action. The action defines (or is defined by) what is taking place. Flipping open my cell phone and dialing your number means I'm calling you. I'm calling you means I'm flipping open my cell phone and dialing your number. But if I pass you on the street, I'm not going to say "Hey, you should pull out your cell phone and dial my number sometime." I'd rather just say "Hey, call me." And you'd know exactly what I mean by that.
Yes we can toss in all sorts of other rules here for concealment or AoOs or using the trip mechanics to actually do something else. But this is the gist of the attack. We attack them to knock them down, as opposed to disarm them or damage them or whatever.
Concerning "successfully", I could mention how Disarm works or the Parry Spell, although those are debates in and of themselves. And then we have the interesting wording of the Greater Bull rush and Overrun feats and how they avoid not only the word "successfully" but "successful" as well...as if the action of the maneuver knows it is "in process" and cannot grammatically assign itself the value of "success" until it has been completed in a beneficial manner.
I would think most of us can agree on this?
|
Summary of Readied actions.
I agree with your summary 100%. This is how readied actions work in a general sense. But the very nature of readied actions is fluid because the triggers for readied actions can be as varied as there are people on the planet.
Using movement as an example to prove your point ignores the more complex options.
I ready an attack against a target that casts a spell: the caster starts casting a spell, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the casting even though he has already started casting, just like an AoO.
I ready an attack against a target that attacks me: the target starts to attack me, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the target's attack, even though he has already started to attack me, just like an AoO.
I ready an attack against a target that moves out of a specific square: the target moves, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the target moves out of the square, even though he has already moved out of that square, just like an AoO.
Et cetera.
Then, to conclude, my turn is adjusted to a point before the target's turn, not in the middle of his turn.
|
|
And I should add this before we descend into what "tripped" means. I'd think we all agree what tripping someone entails. We declare the attack when it is appropriate to do so, we roll a d20 to make a check, and if we beat the number we need to beat, the target falls down.
The purpose of Tripping is not making the trip attack. We don't roll to beat the CMD so that we can roll to beat the CMD.
The purpose of Tripping is not hitting. We don't beat the CMD so that we can just hit. If so, then game tables everywhere would look like this:
PC: "I make a trip attack against the orc."
GM: "Make an attack against CMD of 15."
PC: rolls d20 "An 18, I hit."
GM: "Good job. Next player."
PC: "Wait. That's it? Nothing happened?"
GM: "Why...was there more?"We declare a trip attack and make a roll and try to beat a CMD so that we can knock the target prone. Knocking the target prone is what tripping that target means. It is the reason we take the action. The action defines (or is defined by) what is taking place. Flipping open my cell phone and dialing your number means I'm calling you. I'm calling you means I'm flipping open my cell phone and dialing your number. But if I pass you on the street, I'm not going to say "Hey, you should pull out your cell phone and dial my number sometime." I'd rather just say "Hey, call me." And you'd know exactly what I mean by that.
Yes we can toss in all sorts of other rules here for concealment or AoOs or using the trip mechanics to actually do something else. But this is the gist of the attack. We attack them to knock them down, as opposed to disarm them or damage them or whatever.
Concerning "successfully", I could mention how Disarm works or the Parry Spell, although those are debates in and of themselves. And then we have the interesting wording of the Greater Bull rush and Overrun feats and how they avoid not only the word "successfully" but "successful" as well...as if the action of the maneuver knows it is "in process" and cannot...
The purpose of anything is to get a desired effect.
The purpose of attacking is to, generally, cause damage.
The purpose of casting a spell is to cause the effect of that spell.
It is well established that these actions can result in an AoO before the effect, I really don't understand why you think that an extra "ly" implies that the same doesn't apply for greater trip.
I'm going to edit what you wrote, and bold my changes.
I agree with your summary 100%. This is how readied actions work [deleted]. But the very nature of readied actions is fluid because the triggers for readied actions can be as varied as there are people on the planet.
[deleted]
I ready an attack against a target that casts a spell: the caster starts casting a spell, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the casting resolves even though he has already started casting, just like an AoO.
I ready an attack against a target that attacks me: the target starts to attack me, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the target's attack resolves, even though he has already started to attack me, just like an AoO.
I ready an attack against a target that moves out of a specific square: the target moves, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the target moves out of the square, even though he has already declared he will move out of that square, just like an AoO.
Et cetera.
Then, to conclude, my turn is adjusted to a point before the target's turn, not in the middle of his turn.
Try that on for size? I do believe it is more consistent, and has less time travel.
The idea that interrupt action go before the trigger isn't the best way to express what it is you are trying to say, I think. They resolve immediately when triggered, even if that puts the triggering action on hold until they complete.
|
|
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
I argued no such thing. I stated that just because a handful of feats might break a specific general rule, that doesn't mean that every feat breaks that specific general rule (at least, that was what I was trying to say).
|
|
I'm going to edit what you wrote, and bold my changes.
I agree with your summary 100%. This is how readied actions work [deleted]. But the very nature of readied actions is fluid because the triggers for readied actions can be as varied as there are people on the planet.
[deleted]
I ready an attack against a target that casts a spell: the caster starts casting a spell, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the casting resolves even though he has already started casting, just like an AoO.
I ready an attack against a target that attacks me: the target starts to attack me, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the target's attack resolves, even though he has already started to attack me, just like an AoO.
I ready an attack against a target that moves out of a specific square: the target moves, I take my readied action—my attack occurs before the target moves out of the square, even though he has already declared he will move out of that square, just like an AoO.
Et cetera.
Then, to conclude, my turn is adjusted to a point before the target's turn, not in the middle of his turn.
Try that on for size? I do believe it is more consistent, and has less time travel.
The idea that interrupt action go before the trigger isn't the best way to express what it is you are trying to say, I think. They resolve immediately when triggered, even if that puts the triggering action on hold until they complete.
Doesn't change my point in the slightest. One can declare all they want, the readied action doesn't actually happen until the triggering action actually occurs.
I argued no such thing. I stated that just because a handful of feats might break a specific general rule, that doesn't mean that every feat breaks that specific general rule (at least, that was what I was trying to say).
He is trying to say the argument that "We must obey general case AoO trigger timing universally!" is a flawed argument. Because we know that there are exceptions. Since we know that there are exceptions, we must consider if this Greater Trip feat might be one.
The argument that the AoO trigger timing MUST be enforced fails to help us determine if the AoO trigger timing is being specifically overwritten in Greater Trip. Greater Trip might very well be a specific vs general overruling of how the AoO timing plays out.
Personally, I think the whole thing is irrelevant, because I see AoOs as specifically happening just after the trigger in all cases, ever (Or nearly ever).
I just think the trigger for them by default is the very moment a provoking action is begun.
Greater trip gives us a different trigger moment. So, in that sense it is already a special case. Whether that trigger moment is the whole action being successful or just ting with the trip attack has been the point of contention.
I have little doubt that it is a successfully completed trip action that triggers the AoO in question. I have zero doubt about how AoOs in general operate.
@HangarFlying.
When I joined the discussion several weeks back the Roll/AoO/Prone group was putting forth the argument that the AoO had to go in the middle because AoOs always interrupted actions. If the tripping event was you pulling his legs out and him falling down, then since AoOs resolve before the triggers do, this must mean the AoO happens before the fall prone. I seem to remember you had suggested along these lines, I know fretgod99 directly argued this, and I believe Kazaan did as well. This was during and after a long discussion over Actions and non-actions and so forth.
So basically the argument was "Greater Trip has to behave this way because everything has to follow the AoO rule." But we have at least 2 Feats that don't follow the AoO rule. This debunks the argument that everything has to. Which means Greater Trip doesn't necessarily have to either. Which means the AoO is free to land after the event resolves just like it does for Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp.
@ anyone
But something had just occurred to me. Have we been focusing on the wrong word in "successfully trip"?
By RAW what does "trip" mean?
@HangarFlying.
When I joined the discussion several weeks back the Roll/AoO/Prone group was putting forth the argument that the AoO had to go in the middle because AoOs always interrupted actions. If the tripping event was you pulling his legs out and him falling down, then since AoOs resolve before the triggers do, this must mean the AoO happens before the fall prone. I seem to remember you had suggested along these lines, I know fretgod99 directly argued this, and I believe Kazaan did as well. This was during and after a long discussion over Actions and non-actions and so forth.
So basically the argument was "Greater Trip has to behave this way because everything has to follow the AoO rule." But we have at least 2 Feats that don't follow the AoO rule. This debunks the argument that everything has to. Which means Greater Trip doesn't necessarily have to either. Which means the AoO is free to land after the event resolves just like it does for Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp.
@ anyone
But something had just occurred to me. Have we been focusing on the wrong word in "successfully trip"?
By RAW what does "trip" mean?
That's the entire point of what we've been discussing - the disagreement about whether "trip" means the action + effect (literal trip) or just the action (game term).
"The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
Not many ways to interpret that. You interrupt the other character's turn, but the readied action goes before the triggering event.
|
|
@HangarFlying.
When I joined the discussion several weeks back the Roll/AoO/Prone group was putting forth the argument that the AoO had to go in the middle because AoOs always interrupted actions. If the tripping event was you pulling his legs out and him falling down, then since AoOs resolve before the triggers do, this must mean the AoO happens before the fall prone. I seem to remember you had suggested along these lines, I know fretgod99 directly argued this, and I believe Kazaan did as well. This was during and after a long discussion over Actions and non-actions and so forth.
So basically the argument was "Greater Trip has to behave this way because everything has to follow the AoO rule." But we have at least 2 Feats that don't follow the AoO rule. This debunks the argument that everything has to. Which means Greater Trip doesn't necessarily have to either. Which means the AoO is free to land after the event resolves just like it does for Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp.
I stated that feats GENERALLY follow the normal rules, and that there are feats that provide an exception to that. I would argue that Vicious Stomp and Greater Overrun are exceptions to the general rule. It is certainly possible that Greater Trip is also an exception, but from how I understand the rules as a whole, as well as how I read the trip rules and the Greater Trip feat, I am of the opinion that Greater Trip is not an exception, and that the AoO occurs before the prone condition is applied.
You interpret it differently; I understand how you've come to your conclusion, and that's cool. Realistically, we've pretty much exhausted any potential avenue to present any new compelling evidence, ultimately we'll need the Devs to chime in and let us know which interpretation is supposed to be the correct interpretation.
@ anyoneBut something had just occurred to me. Have we been focusing on the wrong word in "successfully trip"?
By RAW what does "trip" mean?
I argue that "trip" is the mechanism by which you apply the prone condition. Others argue that "trip" is the prone condition.
Considering that I come from the position that Greater Trip is NOT an exception (as mentioned), the difference in the meaning of "trip" is ultimately irrelevant. In either case, the AoO occurs before the prone condition is applied. Of course, if your opinion differs, you will naturally come up with a different result.
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.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.
I'm not even remotely arguing both sides simultaneously. AoO and Readied Actions to attack a spellcaster occur, in game time, before the spellcaster casts the spell, even though it's the casting that triggers the AoO or Readied Action.
My point in quoting that section of the rule book was to address Elbedor's concern that if the damage occurs prior to the casting that you're not actually interrupting the casting.
The rules address that situation. AoO and Readied Actions are generally defined as occurring prior to the event that triggers them. So the spellcaster is technically hit before casting. However, a concentration check still must occur because "Damaged While Casting" is defined to include any attacks that come "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)".
So, even though the attack technically lands in game time before the casting occurs (for the sake of time keeping), the caster is still defined as having taken damage while casting because the attack occurred "in response" to the casting.
I'm not arguing both sides simultaneously; I'm applying the rules of the game as they are expressly intended to apply.
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.
This doesn't resolve anything.
PC: "I ready an action to attack when someone enters my threatened area."
Enemy: "I will move through that threatened area."
*declare step to enter into threatened area occurs prior to movement*
*Readied action triggers on declare step, prior to resolution of action*
*Enemy is outside threatened area because the enemy has not moved yet*
It works the exact same way under your declare step analysis. If the enemy hasn't actually moved into the space, he's not in range to be attacked. That's why I said the common sense interpretation of "I ready an action to attack the first enemy who enters my threatened area" is "I would like to ready to attack the first enemy who is actually in my threatened area".
So, "enters" basically just means "is actually in". Because otherwise the attack will always occur when the enemy is outside of range. But everybody knows what the real intent is in this type of situation, so the conversation never has to occur. Everybody knows what is supposed to happen.
Not so when the situation is more ambiguous like, what is the actual trigger for Greater Trip.
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.
This doesn't resolve anything.
PC: "I ready an action to attack when someone enters my threatened area."
Enemy: "I will move through that threatened area."
*declare step to enter into threatened area occurs prior to movement*
*Readied action triggers on declare step, prior to resolution of action*
*Enemy is outside threatened area because the enemy has not moved yet*It works the exact same way under your declare step analysis. If the enemy hasn't actually moved into the space, he's not in range to be attacked. That's why I said the common sense interpretation of "I ready an action to attack the first enemy who enters my threatened area" is "I would like to ready to attack the first enemy who is actually in my threatened area".
So, "enters" basically just means "is actually in". Because otherwise the attack will always occur when the enemy is outside of range. But everybody knows what the real intent is in this type of situation, so the conversation never has to occur. Everybody knows what is supposed to happen.
Not so when the situation is more ambiguous like, what is the actual trigger for Greater Trip.
"I would like to ready to attack the first enemy who is actually in my threatened area"
This means the readied action triggers from the successful resolution of the movement from one square into the square you threaten.
The trigger here is a completed action.
That is one of the reasons we know that the readied action doesn't have to reverse time and happen before the triggering action. It can trigger at any point we declare it to, and when it triggers, happens at that exact point in time.
By default, AoOs trigger from declaring. I'm speaking of the basic actions that by default provoke. These almost universally provoke when they are declared.
Readied actions don't have a default, and can be set to anything we want them to, whether that be declaring, resolution, effect, or anything you could imagine it to be.
Feats and abilities are preprogrammed to trigger when the conditions are met. So, our job is to read the ability, and determine exactly what the text of that ability tells us is the trigger time.
For Greater Trip, that trigger time is on a successful action. Much like the readied action to attack a dude who comes into your threatened area is triggered from a successfully resolved movement.
We don't need to rewind time in either case.
Edit: If I readied an action to attack an opponent when he was successfully tripped... when would my attack happen? When he was prone, or before he was tripped? The answer should be obvious. My attack happens after he has been tripped, and is prone.
"The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
Not many ways to interpret that. You interrupt the other character's turn, but the readied action goes before the triggering event.
If you leave that quote out of context, then it does appear to say time travel of some type. But it is important to read it within context.
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.
We know what interrupting means. It means the action takes place after the trigger begins, but before the trigger resolves.
The part you quoted could probably have been better written if they had said, "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it resolves." That would have removed some of the confusion.
Again it is impossible to shoot the 1st orc to enter the room, if no one is entering the room. It is impossible to attack someone who comes within 5ft of you, if they don't step from 10ft away to 5ft away. You can't reach them otherwise. You can't hit them in the 10ft square. Your attack must come after they have made the step to the 5ft square. That's why the 2nd and 3rd sentence I've cited above are there. They are to clarify what the writers meant.
Now any "time travel" that I think JB is referring to, has to do with the initiative ordering. Yes your target went on 12. He started what he was doing. Now before it resolves, your action interrupts and resolves first. Then if he can continue, he continues. Now to fix the whole initiative thing, you take the same number he has, only you're set to right before him from here on out. So if he, a buddy of his, and a friend of yours are all on 12 and it's been decided that it goes Buddy/Friend/Him, you are inserted between Friend and Him. It was his action that triggered, but now you're set to go before him.
That's really all that is. And so much more logically sequenced. Why JB didn't explain it as that, I don't know. Too wordy probably. :)
That's the entire point of what we've been discussing - the disagreement about whether "trip" means the action + effect (literal trip) or just the action (game term).
Ok, see then I guess I am confused. You say this (that "successfully trip" means "successful trip attack"), but then you and others argue that the AoO is coming between the attack and the prone because the AoO is coming before the trigger event or interrupting the trigger event....which is acknowledging that the trigger event is either the Effect or the Action + Effect.
So is the maneuver roll the trigger? Or is the falling prone the trigger? You argue one, but then turn around and argue the other.
So I'm confused here.
That's the entire point of what we've been discussing - the disagreement about whether "trip" means the action + effect (literal trip) or just the action (game term).Ok, see then I guess I am confused. You say this (that "successfully trip" means "successful trip attack"), but then you and others argue that the AoO is coming between the attack and the prone because the AoO is coming before the trigger event or interrupting the trigger event....which is acknowledging that the trigger event is either the Effect or the Action + Effect.
So is the maneuver roll the trigger? Or is the falling prone the trigger? You argue one, but then turn around and argue the other.
So I'm confused here.
When it is pointed out that the difference between a successful action and a successful action + effect doesn't actually make a difference.... he falls back to arguing that AoOs happen before the trigger.
When the AoO is explained as not actually creating time loop paradoxes and simply happens immediately... he falls back to arguing about the difference between action and action + effect.
That is why it is confusing. Depending on what you are discussing, his reasoning changes.
Ok, see this is what has been causing some of the problem here.
Camp #1's primary argument has been that during the Trip Action the AoO is inserted between beating the CMD of the target and the target falling prone. This is because AoOs interrupt actions. They happen once triggered and resolve immediately before the triggering action resolves. So the action of tripping begins when the roll is made. This triggers the AoO. The AoO resolves immediately as an interrupt, and now the action resolves and the target falls prone.
This argument RIGHT HERE admits that the Trip Action includes BOTH beating the CMD and the target falling prone.
So fretgod99, why now are you differentiating between Action + Effect (literal trip) or just the Action (game term), as if the Action now somehow doesn't include the effect of knocking prone???
The game term of the Trip Action is that when we beat the CMD of the target our maneuver is a success and we knock him prone. Both parts are included in the Trip Action. It even says so right there in the CRB.
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
But now you're changing the definition to mean that the Trip Action doesn't include the listed effect? Why? What rule are you citing that changes this?
I was missing what Remy was saying before, but I knew something wasn't clicking right in this discussion. The goal post keeps moving.
What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You cant trip snake cos it does not have legs. You cant trip prone person cos it technically do not have limbs it stand on, its just lying down on belly. Act of tripping is hitting creatures legs to knock it off balance (that is why creature with more legs have bonus and creatures without legs cannot be tripped) If you hit prone creature's legs it will not be trip as it does not have its weight supported on the said legs.
|
|
What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?
As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".
There is precedence that AoOs can inturrupt a singular action comprised of multiple parts. It's not a difficult stretch of the imagination to have that precedence apply to Greater Trip.
For Greater Trip, that trigger time is on a successful action. Much like the readied action to attack a dude who comes into your threatened area is triggered from a successfully resolved movement.
We don't need to rewind time in either case.
First one presumes successful action includes the actual application of the effect. Second one presumes the trigger for the readied action is for the opponent to actually be in the same square.
For the latter case, if you want to adjudicate it that way, ultimately it doesn't really matter. Whether the person is already in the space and is attacked or whether the person is outside of the space and attacked because of the declaration triggering a readied action that occurs before the action that triggers it won't change in this scenario that was provided. In either event, the roll to overrun would have been successful. If the overrunner is tripped, the overrunner can't make use of Charge Through, wherever the trip occurred.
But there is are two issues to resolve here. What happens if the character is tripped in your square? You cannot occupy the same square as an opponent unless that opponent is helpless. A failed overrun attempt moves you back in front of the opponent's square. But here we have a successful attempt and a prone but not helpless opponent sharing a square. If the readied action triggers when the rules specifically say it should (before the action that triggers it), the overrunner is tripped before the square is actually entered and you don't have a problem.
Beyond that, when does the knocking prone occur? Does it occur when the overrunner moves into and occupies the same space? Or does it occur after the overrunner has moved through the space? Does the person tripping with the readied action suffer the penalty for attacking while prone or not? Also, after the overrunner is tripped under your ready s/he would still be in the target's square - so is the target also knocked prone even though s/he tripped the overrunner? This is also not an issue if the overrunner is tripped before the square is actually entered.
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.
You certainly could ready an action to occur at any time. The clearly meaning from your "stab if he falls prone" trigger is, "I want to attack after this character is prone". Seems perfectly reasonable. In 999/1,000 cases, none of this is going to be an issue because everybody knows what the person declaring the readied action intends from context. And if it isn't clear, you can just ask.
Ok, see this is what has been causing some of the problem here.
Camp #1's primary argument has been that during the Trip Action the AoO is inserted between beating the CMD of the target and the target falling prone. This is because AoOs interrupt actions. They happen once triggered and resolve immediately before the triggering action resolves. So the action of tripping begins when the roll is made. This triggers the AoO. The AoO resolves immediately as an interrupt, and now the action resolves and the target falls prone.
This argument RIGHT HERE admits that the Trip Action includes BOTH beating the CMD and the target falling prone.
So fretgod99, why now are you differentiating between Action + Effect (literal trip) or just the Action (game term), as if the Action now somehow doesn't include the effect of knocking prone???
The game term of the Trip Action is that when we beat the CMD of the target our maneuver is a success and we knock him prone. Both parts are included in the Trip Action. It even says so right there in the CRB.
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.But now you're changing the definition to mean that the Trip Action doesn't include the listed effect? Why? What rule are you citing that changes this?
I was missing what Remy was saying before, but I knew something wasn't clicking right in this discussion. The goal post keeps moving.
What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?
Elbedor, there are at least three camps. My position hasn't ever been "Camp X" is right. My position has been "There are multiple valid interpretations, so we can't know which one is right until the Developers chime in".
So my arguments shouldn't be read as saying "Camp X and only Camp X should be right". My arguments should be read as saying "Here are some reasons why you cannot simply claim that Camp Y has the only correct interpretation".
For instance, me arguing about your definition of successfully does not mean I think successfully can never mean what you say it does. It just means that I think you cannot presume successfully means what you say it does in this instance because we have multiple uses of successfully.
So, if your claim is "This X is Y because all X are Y", my position is not that "No X are Y". My position is "Some X are Y, but some X are not-Y. So X alone is not enough to say that this X is Y."
What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".
There is precedence that AoOs can inturrupt a singular action comprised of multiple parts. It's not a difficult stretch of the imagination to have that precedence apply to Greater Trip.
If the die roll forces them to provoke. You can force a creature with concealment to provoke and then miss with the trip.
We've covered this.
For Greater Trip, that trigger time is on a successful action. Much like the readied action to attack a dude who comes into your threatened area is triggered from a successfully resolved movement.
We don't need to rewind time in either case.
First one presumes successful action includes the actual application of the effect. Second one presumes the trigger for the readied action is for the opponent to actually be in the same square.
For the latter case, if you want to adjudicate it that way, ultimately it doesn't really matter. Whether the person is already in the space and is attacked or whether the person is outside of the space and attacked because of the declaration triggering a readied action that occurs before the action that triggers it won't change in this scenario that was provided. In either event, the roll to overrun would have been successful. If the overrunner is tripped, the overrunner can't make use of Charge Through, wherever the trip occurred.
But there is are two issues to resolve here. What happens if the character is tripped in your square? You cannot occupy the same square as an opponent unless that opponent is helpless. A failed overrun attempt moves you back in front of the opponent's square. But here we have a successful attempt and a prone but not helpless opponent sharing a square. If the readied action triggers when the rules specifically say it should (before the action that triggers it), the overrunner is tripped before the square is actually entered and you don't have a problem.
Beyond that, when does the knocking prone occur? Does it occur when the overrunner moves into and occupies the same space? Or does it occur after the overrunner has moved through the space? Does the person tripping with the readied action suffer the penalty for attacking while prone or not? Also, after the overrunner is tripped under your ready s/he would still be in the target's square - so is the target also knocked prone even though s/he tripped the...
I feel like you are having a conversation about something... I'm just not sure what it is or why.
Overrun and occupying enemy spaces and whatever it is this whole thing is about... iono... seems off topic. Disorganized at best... I cannot figure out what you're trying to say here at all.
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.You certainly could ready an action to occur at any time. The clearly meaning from your "stab if he falls prone" trigger is, "I want to attack after this character is prone". Seems perfectly reasonable. In 999/1,000 cases, none of this is going to be an issue because everybody knows what the person declaring the readied action intends from context. And if it isn't clear, you can just ask.
You don't even need context! That is explicitly telling us when the trigger is. Clearly, and without any confusion whatsoever. It is blunt, and straightforward... and can only possibly be misunderstood if you are trying to misunderstand it intentionally.
If a readied action can happen after the trigger. It completely destroys the argument that a readied action must happen before the trigger.
My position has been "There are multiple valid interpretations, so we can't know which one is right until the Developers chime in".
Hrm. So... there is no reasoning with you on this then, is there? Only a recognized authority can sufficiently satisfy your need to have rules explained?
Gotcha.
What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".
Ok, so I just want to make sure, because fretgod99 has disagreed with you on this point just recently and was saying the Effect was not included in the Action. So I'm not sure what definition who is giving what. But you're saying, and I assume most people agree, that the Trip Action involves beating the CMD and knocking the target prone. So we're not just talking about beating the CMD when we talk about tripping someone. This is good to know.
Elbedor, there are at least three camps. My position hasn't ever been "Camp X" is right. My position has been "There are multiple valid interpretations, so we can't know which one is right until the Developers chime in".
I agree this has been your argument. So we have varying hypotheses, but for the sake of argument could we boil it down to 2?
#1 When the target CMD is beaten, the target falling prone is imminent. This triggers the AoO which resolves immediately. Then the target falls prone.
#2 When the target CMD is beaten, he is knocked prone. Now he provokes AoOs which resolve immediately.
Is this a fair summation?
I want to make sure to spell this out, because any hypothesis we present here is not just automatically valid. It require 2 things to be considered valid. I can't just make any claim I want. I must back up what I claim. To this end I have to provide evidence that supports what I'm saying and there needs to be a lack of evidence that would refute what I'm saying. I mean I could declare that by RAW the Fighter Class gains 12 Hpts every level, but we know this is false because there are rules that refute this and there are no rules that support this.
So what is the evidence that supports #1? I presented above some of the evidence for #2.
And while that is being thought over, something to consider:
I Charge Through orc A's space to charge orc B and knock A prone from Greater Overrun. I also have Vicious Stomp. Do I get 1 AoO or 2?
The answer matters. ;)
I should probably add for regarding Validity, does it seem fair to say that the existence of rules that support an idea carry much more weight than a lack of rules that refute that idea?
There is precedence that AoOs can inturrupt a singular action comprised of multiple parts. It's not a difficult stretch of the imagination to have that precedence apply to Greater Trip.
I completely agree with the precedent. This is the general rule for AoO....except for Greater Overrun which blatantly ignores this. And if one is doing this, a few others might be as well. ;)
As for what is or isn't a stretch of the imagination, I actually do have a hard time with imagining the AoO coming before the prone. For several reasons really. But a few of them are;
First, when a friend of mine says he successfully went to the store today, I assume he actually got to the store and isn't on his way there or just thinking of going. Just like if that friend successfully called me to tell me about it, I'm assuming we're actually on the phone and he's not in the middle of dialing my number.
Second, I have a hard time imagining how I've wrapped my Meteor Hammer weights around your legs, pulled your legs out from under you, and then manage to unwrap the weights, swing them back, and then attack you with them again, all before you hit the ground.
And third, the gattling-gun scenario that you have called a "red herring" isn't really that hard to achieve at all.
2 PCs
12 base Dex
Both with Combat Reflexes
Both with Cat's Grace Pots
One with Greater Trip
Drink pots. Flank a target. PCa uses attack and every AoO except last one to Trip. PCb uses every AoO to hit. Target falls prone after suffering 5 attacks...and then is hit with PCb's attack. So instead of suffering 3 attacks from my interpretation, he suffers 6 from yours.
And this becomes even worse if we're talking Dex-based builds. Anyone for landing 10 hits on the same guy instead of 3? All you need are 2 dex builds with fair gear and only 3 feats between them. Toss in a 3rd guy and make this 19 hits instead of 3. :P
Broken? You bet it is! And you think it's not a stretch to think of the Core rules as so broken that they allow for this? If we were talking about a supplemental and didn't have a basic understanding of what "successfully" means in either the English language or the game, I'd agree you might have a case. But since it is Core and we do, I can't.
My position has been "There are multiple valid interpretations, so we can't know which one is right until the Developers chime in".Hrm. So... there is no reasoning with you on this then, is there? Only a recognized authority can sufficiently satisfy your need to have rules explained?
Gotcha.
If there are multiple reasonable ways to interpret something, you can prefer one option over the other but you cannot say the other interpretation is incorrect without some clarification. I'm not sure why you're being flippant about it, it's simply how this stuff works.
I feel like you are having a conversation about something... I'm just not sure what it is or why.
Overrun and occupying enemy spaces and whatever it is this whole thing is about... iono... seems off topic. Disorganized at best... I cannot figure out what you're trying to say here at all.
It was a discussion brought up by Elbedor in regards to charge through. I responded because you were furthering the conversation. Also because the response demonstrates the general rule that Readied Actions come before the triggering event.
I Charge Through orc A's space to charge orc B and knock A prone from Greater Overrun. I also have Vicious Stomp. Do I get 1 AoO or 2?
I don't know if you'd get either. You definitely don't get the AoO from Greater Overrun. Whether you get one from Vicious Stomp I think depends upon if falling in the same square counts as being "adjacent" for the purposes of VS.
I Charge Through orc A's space to charge orc B and knock A prone from Greater Overrun. I also have Vicious Stomp. Do I get 1 AoO or 2?I don't know if you'd get either. You definitely don't get the AoO from Greater Overrun. Whether you get one from Vicious Stomp I think depends upon if falling in the same square counts as being "adjacent" for the purposes of VS.
I don't get an AoO from Greater Overrun when I knock a target prone? The feat says I do. And where does it say I perform my overrun check while in my target's square? I thought I had to make the check first in order to enter his square. That's what the rule seems to say.
"If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent..."
This says I stop, not move back. I don't think I can enter the target's square until after I've made a successful attempt.
It was a discussion brought up by Elbedor in regards to charge through. I responded because you were furthering the conversation. Also because the response demonstrates the general rule that Readied Actions come before the triggering event.I feel like you are having a conversation about something... I'm just not sure what it is or why.
Overrun and occupying enemy spaces and whatever it is this whole thing is about... iono... seems off topic. Disorganized at best... I cannot figure out what you're trying to say here at all.
I wasn't furthering that conversation at all. That is why what you wrote seemed out of nowhere.
You kept referring back to my example, as if your answer somehow applied to it... but I wasn't talking about overrunning in any way.
I think you got confused somewhere along the way.
Here is what I wrote, if you'd like another crack at responding:
"I would like to ready to attack the first enemy who is actually in my threatened area"
This means the readied action triggers from the successful resolution of the movement from one square into the square you threaten.
The trigger here is a completed action.
That is one of the reasons we know that the readied action doesn't have to reverse time and happen before the triggering action. It can trigger at any point we declare it to, and when it triggers, happens at that exact point in time.
By default, AoOs trigger from declaring. I'm speaking of the basic actions that by default provoke. These almost universally provoke when they are declared.
Readied actions don't have a default, and can be set to anything we want them to, whether that be declaring, resolution, effect, or anything you could imagine it to be.
Feats and abilities are preprogrammed to trigger when the conditions are met. So, our job is to read the ability, and determine exactly what the text of that ability tells us is the trigger time.
For Greater Trip, that trigger time is on a successful action. Much like the readied action to attack a dude who comes into your threatened area is triggered from a successfully resolved movement.
We don't need to rewind time in either case.
Edit: If I readied an action to attack an opponent when he was successfully tripped... when would my attack happen? When he was prone, or before he was tripped? The answer should be obvious. My attack happens after he has been tripped, and is prone.
By default, AoOs trigger from declaring. I'm speaking of the basic actions that by default provoke. These almost universally provoke when they are declared.
Readied actions don't have a default, and can be set to anything we want them to, whether that be declaring, resolution, effect, or anything you could imagine it to be.
Feats and abilities are preprogrammed to trigger when the conditions are met.
For Greater Trip, that trigger time is on a successful action. Much like the readied action to attack a dude who comes into your threatened area is triggered from a successfully resolved movement.
If I readied an action to attack an opponent when he was successfully tripped... when would my attack happen? When he was prone, or before he was tripped?
This is an interesting question. If I readied an action to attack a target when he was successfully tripped, I am looking to hit him when he's down. Once he is knocked down from a trip, my attack fires immediately.
Vicious Stomp and Greater Overrun work the same way. The trigger is something resolving. Once it does, the attack fires immediately.
|
|
What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".
There is precedence that AoOs can inturrupt a singular action comprised of multiple parts. It's not a difficult stretch of the imagination to have that precedence apply to Greater Trip.
If the die roll forces them to provoke. You can force a creature with concealment to provoke and then miss with the trip.
We've covered this.
I wasn't a part of that part of the conversation so I might of missed something because the rules say that a creature with total concealment doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity, so I'm not entirely sure how concealment applies.
|
|
Ok, so I just want to make sure, because fretgod99 has disagreed with you on this point just recently and was saying the Effect was not included in the Action. So I'm not sure what definition who is giving what. But you're saying, and I assume most people agree, that the Trip Action involves beating the CMD and knocking the target prone. So we're not just talking about beating the CMD when we talk about tripping someone. This is good to know.What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".
Well, insofar as the action and the effect are not the same thing, they both occur within the same span of time (during that character's Standard Action, for example). Furthermore, mere logic tells us that the two events are sequential, not simultaneous: after all, you do actually have to physically roll the dice first to determine whether or not to apply the effect. So, yes, these two parts do occur during a single Standard Action, but themselves are separate and distinct.
I wasn't a part of that part of the conversation so I might of missed something because the rules say that a creature with total concealment doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity, so I'm not entirely sure how concealment applies.
What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".
There is precedence that AoOs can inturrupt a singular action comprised of multiple parts. It's not a difficult stretch of the imagination to have that precedence apply to Greater Trip.
If the die roll forces them to provoke. You can force a creature with concealment to provoke and then miss with the trip.
We've covered this.
Yes, that was my mistake using total concealment instead of regular concealment in my example. So I think the way the conversation went was to just refer to the regular one.
What I think Remy is trying to say is that if "successfully trip" could be accomplished only by beating the CMD of the target, then the sequence of events would look like this:
You beat the CMD, force the target to provoke, get your AoO, and then we check for concealment.
This wouldn't work since we shouldn't be getting the AoO until after concealment has been checked...which is something we all agree on. So there is something else in there that has to be taken into consideration. The concealment check is a part of the sequence that comes after a "successful attack" by definition of the book. So is Concealment rewinding time? Or is a "successful attack" just the Roll and the Hit is something else? We have either:
Beat AC and score successful attack. This is the Hit. Concealment dice indicate miss so Time rewinds. Successful attack changed to a Miss.
or
Beat AC and score successful attack. This is the Roll. Concealment dice indicate Hit does not land. Successful attack misses.
Well, insofar as the action and the effect are not the same thing, they both occur within the same span of time (during that character's Standard Action, for example). Furthermore, mere logic tells us that the two events are sequential, not simultaneous: after all, you do actually have to physically roll the dice first to determine whether or not to apply the effect. So, yes, these two parts do occur during a single Standard Action, but themselves are separate and distinct.Ok, so I just want to make sure, because fretgod99 has disagreed with you on this point just recently and was saying the Effect was not included in the Action. So I'm not sure what definition who is giving what. But you're saying, and I assume most people agree, that the Trip Action involves beating the CMD and knocking the target prone. So we're not just talking about beating the CMD when we talk about tripping someone. This is good to know.What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".
So you are changing your mind? Because just previously you said the trip combat maneuver (the action) is comprised of 2 parts; the Roll and application of the Effect. So did you mean the Roll and the Effect are not the same thing? I agree with you there. But to say the Action and the Effect are not the same thing is erroneous (just like my use of total concealment in an AoO example). The Action is not just the Roll. Making a Trip Attack Action against a target doesn't mean I just Roll against him. The Roll is part of what happens during the Action. The sequence of events is "If Roll, then Hit and Effect."
The Roll's purpose is to generate a random number that we can use to determine whether we can deem the attack to be successful and then move forward with the rest of the Action. There is no need to progress if the Roll indicates failure. Once the Roll indicates "successful attack", then we need to confirm the Hit. This is automatic unless something like Concealment gets in the way. Once the Hit is confirmed we then apply the Effect. This is automatic also unless, again, something gets in the way.
The Trip Attack Action sequence involves all of these steps.
We know from the FAQ that we can perform a Trip Attack against a prone target. Nothing in the FAQ indicates that we can't try. We even get our +4 bonus or him being prone. But we're told it wouldn't stop him. So we can make the Roll and beat his CMD. We can confirm the hit. But we can't apply the Effect in such a way as to prevent the action of Standing from resolving. This would be like a cleric who casts a spell to remove blindness on himself. We're threatening so we get an AoO. That AoO crits and we have Blinding Critical. The cleric fails his Save, but nothing new is added or stacked. Now the cleric manages to finish his spell and is no longer blind.
Now if you're saying you want to break the sequence down into Roll Action, Hit Action, and Effect Action, that is a way to do it. But some folks might find that confusing. And it doesn't really get at my question regarding the Trip Action...which is including all 3 mini-actions.
|
|
Well, insofar as the action and the effect are not the same thing, they both occur within the same span of time (during that character's Standard Action, for example). Furthermore, mere logic tells us that the two events are sequential, not simultaneous: after all, you do actually have to physically roll the dice first to determine whether or not to apply the effect. So, yes, these two parts do occur during a single Standard Action, but themselves are separate and distinct.Ok, so I just want to make sure, because fretgod99 has disagreed with you on this point just recently and was saying the Effect was not included in the Action. So I'm not sure what definition who is giving what. But you're saying, and I assume most people agree, that the Trip Action involves beating the CMD and knocking the target prone. So we're not just talking about beating the CMD when we talk about tripping someone. This is good to know.What is the Action of Tripping? What does it entail? The Action involves what? What is provoking in Greater Trip?As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".So you are changing your mind? Because just previously you said the trip combat maneuver (the action) is comprised of 2 parts; the Roll and application of the Effect. So did you mean the Roll and the Effect are not the same thing? I agree with you there. But to say the Action and the Effect are not the same thing is erroneous (just like my use of total concealment in an AoO example). The Action is not just the Roll. Making a Trip Attack Action against a target doesn't mean I just Roll against him. The Roll is part of what happens during the Action. The sequence of events is "If Roll, then Hit and Effect."
The...
My position is not changed. My opinion is that you attempt to trip someone in order to apply the prone condition.
|
|
Yes, that was my mistake using total concealment instead of regular concealment in my example. So I think the way the conversation went was to just refer to the regular one.What I think Remy is trying to say is that if "successfully trip" could be accomplished only by beating the CMD of the target, then the sequence of events would look like this:
You beat the CMD, force the target to provoke, get your AoO, and then we check for concealment.
This wouldn't work since we shouldn't be getting the AoO until after concealment has been checked...which is something we all agree on. So there is something else in there that has to be taken into consideration. The concealment check is a part of the sequence that comes after a "successful attack" by definition of the book. So is Concealment rewinding time? Or is a "successful attack" just the Roll and the Hit is something else? We have either:
Beat AC and score successful attack. This is the Hit. Concealment dice indicate miss so Time rewinds. Successful attack changed to a Miss.
or
Beat AC and score successful attack. This is the Roll. Concealment dice indicate Hit does not land. Successful attack misses.
The point at which the AoO may occur has absolutely no bearing on the concealment check the defender makes.
ASIDE: It's also important to remember that each AoO gets it's own concealment check.
I Charge Through orc A's space to charge orc B and knock A prone from Greater Overrun. I also have Vicious Stomp. Do I get 1 AoO or 2?I don't know if you'd get either. You definitely don't get the AoO from Greater Overrun. Whether you get one from Vicious Stomp I think depends upon if falling in the same square counts as being "adjacent" for the purposes of VS.I don't get an AoO from Greater Overrun when I knock a target prone? The feat says I do. And where does it say I perform my overrun check while in my target's square? I thought I had to make the check first in order to enter his square. That's what the rule seems to say.
"If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent..."
This says I stop, not move back. I don't think I can enter the target's square until after I've made a successful attempt.
Sorry, I was thinking of Greater Bull Rush. Forgot GO doesn't have the "from your allies" language.
EDIT: In regards to the adjacency issue, it depends on when you think the knocking prone happens. If you're saying that the knocking prone happens prior to actually moving through the square then yeah, you'd possibly be adjacent to the character when knocked prone. If you think the knocking prone happens as you move through the space, then it's a question. So it depends on how you read and apply the rule, I guess.
I think you got confused somewhere along the way.
Here is what I wrote, if you'd like another crack at responding:
Nope. Wasn't confused. And Nope. Don't feel like responding to things I've already responded to. I appreciate you looking out for me, though. I'm sure you only have my best interests at heart.
By default, AoOs trigger from declaring. I'm speaking of the basic actions that by default provoke. These almost universally provoke when they are declared.
Readied actions don't have a default, and can be set to anything we want them to, whether that be declaring, resolution, effect, or anything you could imagine it to be.
Feats and abilities are preprogrammed to trigger when the conditions are met.
For Greater Trip, that trigger time is on a successful action. Much like the readied action to attack a dude who comes into your threatened area is triggered from a successfully resolved movement.
If I readied an action to attack an opponent when he was successfully tripped... when would my attack happen? When he was prone, or before he was tripped?
This is an interesting question. If I readied an action to attack a target when he was successfully tripped, I am looking to hit him when he's down. Once he is knocked down from a trip, my attack fires immediately.
Vicious Stomp and Greater Overrun work the same way. The trigger is something resolving. Once it does, the attack fires immediately.
If the only language used is "when he was successfully tripped", I'd revert to the standard rules language - the Readied Action would go before the triggering event, as per RAW, because that's the default for Readied Actions. But in actuality I'd clarify first and ask if the person actually wanted to wait for the trip to be fully resolved or if s/he actually wanted to act when a successful trip was determined.
When I asked what the Trip Action entailed, I was answered with this:
As I have mentioned before, the trip combat maneuver is comprised of two parts: the die roll to beat CMD (what I consider the actual trip), and the application of the prone condition. These two parts comprise the singular action of "tripping".
Which I mostly agree with. But then this followed:
Well, insofar as the action and the effect are not the same thing, they both occur within the same span of time...
Which is framing "action" as something different than "effect". So when I commented that the definition was changing, I was answered with:
My position is not changed. My opinion is that you attempt to trip someone in order to apply the prone condition.
Which is not answering the question at all. It is dodging it. I wasn't asking about the purpose of a trip attack. I was asking about what is included in the action of tripping someone. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine, HangarFlying. If you don't want to have a discussion, that is fine also. No one is making you post here. But if you want to add to the discussion, please don't waste time saying you didn't do something when you did. There is no purpose in that.
This has been a recurring problem here. First we debate over what "successfully" means. Then when it starts getting nailed down to a definition, suddenly, "successfully" isn't the issue. It's what "trip" means. It gets old. But fine. So let me answer my own question. What does the Trip Attack entail?
We know from the CRB that the Trip action involves a Roll to beat the CMD and an Effect which is applied. Doing this comprises the Trip Attack Action. When the CMD of the target is beaten the maneuver has the listed effect. When the maneuver is successful, it proceeds to resolve successfully.
To me this means that "successfully trip" is when the effect resolves and the target falls prone. Why do I think this? Well we have this:
After you successfully use the Ki Throw feat on an opponent, you can use a swift action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent.
and this;
When you successfully bull rush an opponent off his mount with Unseat, your opponent takes 1d6 points of falling damage per 2 tiers you possess.
and this;
When you successfully strike an opponent as part of a Ride-By Attack, you can continue to make attacks against successive targets.
and even this;
If you use Saving Shield to successfully negate an attack against an adjacent ally, you can immediately make an attack of opportunity against the attacker so long as it is within your melee reach.
and also this;
You must successfully cast a conjuration (healing) spell on an ally after being hit by an attack of opportunity...
and this too;
When you successfully avoid damage, spend 1 ki point to redirect attack back at opponent.
and finally this;
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again.
I think this successfully establishes for us what "successfully" means. And I haven't even exhausted all the examples. There are many, many more and we can go on and on. But just for fun, let's throw one more in there.
If you successfully hit your opponent, it must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier) or be staggered for 1 round.
This last one is talking about successfully hitting. You don't even have to apply the effect here. But "successfully" is still meaning that something has resolved. In this case, the Hit did. And if you want the exception that proves the rule, you can have this:
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...
Which is showing that they are explicitly pointing out in this case that "successfully" means "before prone". Why do they have to add that text there? Because normally "successfully" means after prone.
As for trip, by definition of the CRB:
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.
If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead.
If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.
So now we know what trip means.
We also know from the rules that when an AoO is provoked, "immediately resolve the attack of opportunity".
Put these together and we have "To successfully trip your target means that the trip action has resolved. Now the target provokes and your AoO resolves immediately".
Now if you feel otherwise, that is fine. This is what these boards are here for. But if you want your view to be seen as valid, then please cite what rules you are basing your interpretation on.
Are we ignoring the examples of successfully I've provided that don't necessarily mean "and the effect, too"?
And not to beat a dead horse, but the CRB doesn't define "Trip" as "to knock an opponent prone". That is the effect of the Trip Maneuver. It's certainly possible that this is the definition of the verb "Trip". It could also simply be a referencing to using that particular action.
Are we ignoring the examples of successfully I've provided that don't necessarily mean "and the effect, too"?
I know you pointed out Deceptive Exchange. Were there others?
And not to beat a dead horse, but the CRB doesn't define "Trip" as "to knock an opponent prone". That is the effect of the Trip Maneuver. It's certainly possible that this is the definition of the verb "Trip". It could also simply be a referencing to using that particular action.
The trip maneuver is not "to trip". It is a maneuver used "to trip". There is still confusion between the maneuver and the action.
EDITED to sound less snappy. Wasn't meaning it that way, but when I reread it could certainly appear so.
And while we're at it, let's toss this one up too:
Creatures that successfully save cannot be affected by the same creature's stench for 24 hours.
There really are a ton of these things buried everywhere that talk about actions and effects and things resolving.