Can you "trip" him?


Rules Questions

751 to 800 of 847 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Actually I should go back to that because this is important; the difference between "to trip" and "a trip maneuver" and how some people are interchanging them. These are not the same thing.

The trip maneuver is a form of attack that I make in order "to trip" my opponent. It can be a successful maneuver if my roll beats the target's CMD. Lots of things point this out. Feats, weapons, etc. But this is the maneuver. This is not the action "to trip". "To trip" someone in game terms means to knock them prone via "the trip maneuver". I didn't knock them prone from a spell or an overrun. I knocked them prone through the trip maneuver. This is important to understand.

Then when this happens, I have successfully tripped him.


Oh and this one:

Attach wrote:
The creature automatically latches onto its target when it successfully makes the listed attack.

And this one is curious:

Combat Maneuvers wrote:
Whenever a combatant successfully performs any combat maneuver, she can make a performance combat check as a swift action.

Why not just say "Whenever a combatant performs a successful combat maneuver..."? I'm guessing because a swift action, although fast, can't interrupt an action. It's not as fast as an AoO. So it must wait until the maneuver resolves first.

That's just a total guess though off the top of my head. I could be wrong about that.


And last one for now, I promise. But these things just keep popping up:

Riposte wrote:
a duelist can make an attack of opportunity against any creature whose attack she successfully parries, so long as the creature she is attacking is within reach.

Edit: Ah alas, this makes unlucky 13. So were I superstitious I'd be tempted to post just one more. But a promise is a promise.


I think you are reading a lot more into these examples then is really there.

Elbedor wrote:


Binding Throw wrote:
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.

Nothing in here states the effect of ki throw, that is being prone, is (or is not) in effect at the time of the grapple check. This is true if successfully means as you insist it means - but then you are begging the question. Though personally I think I'd agree that this is intended to take place after the target is prone.

Elbedor wrote:


Unseat(mythic) wrote:
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.

This is an additional effect applied on top of the effect of a successfully completed unseat. Without mythic a successfully completed unseat results in the target being knocked off the mount and landing prone. With mythic the target is knocked off their mount, falls prone, and takes damage. This is an alteration (or addition) to the effect.

Elbedor wrote:


Ride-by Attack(mythic) wrote:
When you successfully strike an opponent as part of a Ride-By Attack, you can continue to make attacks against successive targets.

Kind of like when you successfully hit an opponent like normal combat? There is no determination in there of the results of your successfully striking in the RBA. Did we do damage? Apply any rider effects to hitting? Doesn't matter. All that matters is that we struck the opponent. The particular use of successfully here doesn't care about any effect of that success.

Elbedor wrote:


"Saving Shield(mythic) wrote:
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.

Like RBA, this doesn't prove your point. If my ally has AC 10. My mythic saving shield puts it at 13. If the opponent rolls between 10 and 12 it means I blocked the hit. Again no other effect is being tacked on here. It is a singular piece. Just like if the foe rolled 13 or higher he successfully hit my ally - we don't even care what the effect is at that point - we just know the hit was a success.

Elbedor wrote:


Battlefield Healer(Story) wrote:
You must successfully cast a conjuration (healing) spell on an ally after being hit by an attack of opportunity...

Again we don't know what the final effect of the healing is (e.g, how much was healed). We just know we successfully cast the spell and it will have an effect. But the successfully cast doesn't imply the effect has been applied yet. Again we don't care what the effect even is. From a pure RAW standpoint, if our ally is a vampire, we just caused them further harm (though I'd never run that as RAI).

Elbedor wrote:


Elusive Redirection wrote:
When you successfully avoid damage, spend 1 ki point to redirect attack back at opponent.

This one is even more interesting. You are being flanked. You get attacked. You roll your reflex save.

Elusive Target wrote:


...If the attacker is flanking the monk, the flanking opponent who is not attacking becomes the target of the attack...

This is an effect of successfully making your elusive target reflex save. By your definition of successfully this must be applied, otherwise it wasn't really successful. By your definition of successfully there is no more attack to be redirected by Elusive Redirection. Its the same argument you tried with parry spell - that somehow the effect of successfully doing something in this once instance is different than how you apply it everywhere else.

Elbedor wrote:


Stealth wrote:
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.

What does successfully used stealth mean? All it means is your stealth roll beat their perception roll.

Elbedor wrote:


Creatures that successfully save cannot be affected by the same creature's stench for 24 hours.

This is like the others. Either you successfully make your saving throw or you don't. Again we don't care about whatever effect might come about as a result of either. E.g, if we successfully save vs a fireball we still take half damage. If fireball had a clause that successfully saving from it meant you would not be affected by any future fireballs from that creature it wouldn't change the fact that the current fireball still does half damage to you - but that effect of still taking half damage is incidental to having successfully saved.

Elbedor wrote:


Medusa's Wrath(Mythic) wrote:
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:

Eh, this has been kind of the whole point being made. The only thing 'resolved' here is that we determined your attack roll beat their AC. (again don't throw in the red herring of concealment, the rules need to be understood for the simple case before adding additional stuff)

Elbedor wrote:


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.

Immediate actions are not AoO's. We don't have any specific rules to tell us how an immediate action interrupts other actions - unlike AoO's and readied actions where the rules tell us they occur before the triggering event.

As such, it being spelled out that this immediate action takes place before prone does not prove the rule by exception. It simply tells as that for this purpose this immediate action occurs before the effect.

......

And your last two posts are like the others here. We don't care about any effect of those combat maneuvers or attacks. The effect is again incidental to the bonus gained from successfully doing the action.

In fact the performance combat check, thematically, needs to come before the effect. If I just trip someone in a boring fashion that doesn't get the crowd to cheer. If I trip them in a dramatic way it does. If I've already successfully tripped and knocked them prone, there isn't much I can do at that point to make it flashy. If in the process of tripping them I cause them to flip head over heels that is flashy, but they aren't prone until after they've flipped head over heels.

The short of all of your examples is that by begging the question on each of them you prove your point. Which of course doesn't really prove it at all.


Ok, this isn't to post just another example of "successfully". But this is something interesting. Found it in the NPC Codex under Warren Chief.

Warren Chief wrote:

Before Combat The monk drinks his potions of barkskin and protection from energy (fire) if he has had time to study his foes' weaknesses. When fighting in cramped or narrow areas, he instead drinks his potion of invisibility and coats an area of the floor with his salve of slipperiness. He then waits for foes to enter the greased area before attacking.

During Combat The monk uses his kama in conjunction with Spring Attack and Improved Trip to knock foes prone, potentially using the kama's ki focus special ability to channel his Stunning Fist. If he has successfully tripped foes with his salve of slipperiness, he activates his slippers of spider climbing so he doesn't have to cross the slippery floor, and uses flurry of blows with his shuriken. If outnumbered, he uses his elemental gem and flanks with the earth elemental.

Ok, now look at the bold parts. Salve of Slipperiness acts like a Grease spell. The Grease spell says nothing about tripping anyone. It only mentions falling down if you failed your save.

So is this an error to say "If he has successfully tripped foes"?

This could be an error. Or this could be telling us something else. I know there have been threads on here debating whether you could knock a snake prone by an overrun. I wonder if when the text says "can't be tripped" they mean "can't fall down"....which raises an eyebrow or two.


All it means is that the word successfully can have different meanings given different contexts.

Like, I successfully hit an opponent doesn't mean I successfully damaged an opponent.

I successfully knocked a foe prone doesn't mean I successfully tripped him (it might have been an overrun).

I successfully charged through an opponent doesn't mean I successfully charged my final target (something could have tripped me along the way afterwards).

I successfully cast a spell doesn't mean all targets were affected by it. For example, fireball, 2 enemies in its radius, one takes damage, the other is fire immune. I did successfully cast the spell regardless.

Or even more close to the conversation, I cannot counterspell a spell that is not successfully cast. If the caster fails a concentration check there is no reason to counter. If he gets the spell off, he did so successfully, but my actions then negated its effects.

So given the context, no it is not an error to say he successfully tripped the foe. But by the same token its not telling us anything else either. If the text had read "if an opponent falls down in the grease he activates his slippers..." would it mechanically make any difference at all to the tactics?


@bbangerter. I'm not sure where to begin. I don't think you're really understanding any of those things posted.

Binding Throw; you just said you agreed with me. So what is the debate about here? You have used Ki Throw on the target. He is now prone. Now grapple him.

Unseat: Successfully bull rushing the target off his mount means just that. You've moved him off his mount. NOW he falls and takes damage.

Ride By: Again they are only measure the hit. So that is all we have to go on. But you've successfully hit. Your action has resolved to this point that they want it.

Saving Shield; the hit is negated successfully. NOW you get your AoO.

Battlefield Healer: again you're not reading what it's saying. It doesn't care about the effect of the healing. It says when you successfully cast. Once you cast the spell and it's out there, you have done what it's asking for. The spell has resolved. THAT is the goal of the ability.

Elusive redirection: yet again you're not reading the feat. It wants to know when the ability has been successfully used. THEN something happens.

For all of this you're overshooting what they're asking for. The point is that to "successfully" do something, that something must happen. Are you really missing this? Or are you really not understanding what my argument is? Or are you just trying to wiggle around?

To trip someone is to knock them prone. To "successfully trip" is to "successfully knock them prone". Don't confuse "the trip maneuver" with the action "to trip". It is hardly begging the question. It is the entire purpose and action of making a trip maneuver in place of a regular attack.


bbangerter wrote:

All it means is that the word successfully can have different meanings given different contexts.

Like, I successfully hit an opponent doesn't mean I successfully damaged an opponent.

I successfully knocked a foe prone doesn't mean I successfully tripped him (it might have been an overrun).

I successfully charged through an opponent doesn't mean I successfully charged my final target (something could have tripped me along the way afterwards).

I successfully cast a spell doesn't mean all targets were affected by it. For example, fireball, 2 enemies in its radius, one takes damage, the other is fire immune. I did successfully cast the spell regardless.

Or even more close to the conversation, I cannot counterspell a spell that is not successfully cast. If the caster fails a concentration check there is no reason to counter. If he gets the spell off, he did so successfully, but my actions then negated its effects.

???

Ok, you really, really have no idea what I'm arguing then. You've just proven that here.

If I want to know if I successfully hit a target, what do I need to do? Hit the target. Once I've hit him, I've successfully done so.

If I want to damage the target, I need to damage him. Once I've done so, I have successfully damaged the target.

If I want to trip the target, I need to trip him.

If I want to cast a spell, I need to cast a spell.

In every single instance if I want to accomplish something successfully, I need to actually do it.

Save
Hit
Damage
Trip
Disarm
Move
Scratch my nose.
etc
etc

If you don't actually carry out the action, then you haven't done it successfully. I'm really not sure what is so hard to grasp about something so basic of a concept here. Honestly.


Its not a case of me not understanding. I understand, trust me, I really do. I can understand without necessarily agreeing with something.

Let me try a different tack.

If I'm using a melee weapon, and I successfully damage my opponent, does that also mean (which it necessarily must) that I successfully hit him?

In turn if I successfully knock an opponent prone, does that also mean I successfully tripped him (or unseated him, or overran him, etc). Yes of course.

Conversely then (using only the simple case), if I successfully hit an opponent, will I then successfully damage him? Yes, of course.

And if I successfully trip an opponent, will I successfully knock him prone?

In reading GT, I understand where you are coming from. If the context were simply the GT feat and nothing else I'd even agree with you. But I'm taking for my context the entirety of the rules, especially the combat chapter. And seeing that attacks and maneuvers are alike in many ways in their mechanical application. And attacks have if successful hit then damage. And maneuvers have if successful hit then effect. They target a different stat on the opponent, and they might have different bonuses based on feat selection and the like, but the basic formula for how each works is the same.

And in my reading of that as my context I see a distinct differentiation of success and effect. And that success and successfully is the same thing in that global context - same meaning expressed with different words. From that I context, if I succeed at something, then there will follow an effect. Unless of course something else from a more complicated scenario arises.

e.g, I can have an attack that is a success per the rules, but then something like concealment comes along and negates the attack. Because the attack was negated then no effect is applied (in this case damage). But I likewise wouldn't trigger some other effect based on a successful hit in that scenario, even though the rules might tell me when your attack hits (which it did before concealment) then apply X effect.

For example

Flaming Weapon wrote:


Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit

Likewise if something prevented the target from going prone I would not grant the AoO for GT. Not because the attempt wasn't successful in and of it self (and remember given the context I'm using I see no difference between success, successful, or successfully), but because some additional rule came into play.


bbangerter wrote:
If I'm using a melee weapon, and I successfully damage my opponent, does that also mean (which it necessarily must) that I successfully hit him?

so in this you're looking at the effect (damage) and saying that if you accomplished this you must have also hit. I assume this damage came from an attack with said melee weapon, and the damage being dealt has its source from the melee weapon. yes? If not, then successfully damaged does not necessarily mean that I successfully hit (magic don it, or some save or suck spell).

bbangerter wrote:
In turn if I successfully knock an opponent prone, does that also mean I successfully tripped him (or unseated him, or overran him, etc). Yes of course.

ok now we're looking at the effect of being knocked prone and asking if you successfully tripped. Well then, maybe. If you tripped then successfully knocking prone means that you did in fact successfully trip. Successfully knocking them prone could entail many different things though (spells, overrun, etc.). So in this instance successfully knocking prone is referring to in some way putting them in the prone position, (which could be accomplished via trip).

bbangerter wrote:
Conversely then (using only the simple case), if I successfully hit an opponent, will I then successfully damage him? Yes, of course.

Now you've confused me. your previous examples were about successful effects and now you've switched it to successfully hit. Hitting might entail damage, but successfully hitting does not equate to successfully damaging.

This makes me wonder if the crux of the argument is revolving around what we consider trip to be. If were referring to the trip attempt being synonymous with trip, then then successfully tripping means rolling higher then the CMB.

I instead see it as successfully tripping refers to the effect being applied (which seems intuitive) then you need to both hit and apply the effect.

This further makes me wonder. Is successfully attacking the same as successfully hitting? A successful attack seems like it entails both hitting, and damaging. You can't call your attack a success if it did nothing after all. With this in mind, you'd think that the successfully tripping need to also include the prone condition since you don't successfully trip if you don't apply the prone condition.

Actually thinking back to what Hangar said about the definition of trip, I have some additional thoughts. His argument that the trip in the book only refers to the effect and is not the definition. He then went on to say that to trip means to "to cause to stumble " (not necessarily fall). But isn't causing someone to stumble an effect? If so, isn't it a little bit of special pleading to say that the books definition doesn't count since it's only the effect, but the "to cause to stumble" is also really just an effect.

Also, what if you fail your CMB, roll, but the GM says the person stumbles but does not fall, do you get your AOO's since you successfully "tripped" them, since the did in fact stumble?

I really wish we had more FAQ hits since I would love to have this whole mess cleared up.


Sub_Zero wrote:


bbangerter wrote:
Conversely then (using only the simple case), if I successfully hit an opponent, will I then successfully damage him? Yes, of course.

Now you've confused me. your previous examples were about successful effects and now you've switched it to successfully hit. Hitting might entail damage, but successfully hitting does not equate to successfully damaging.

The key here is "...(using only the simple case)...". If I'm attacking with a melee weapon, and the opponent doesn't have concealment, DR, immunity to non-magical weapons, or any of a host of other possible rules that could also come in to play, then by virtue of hitting them I will also deal damage. In the simple cases succeeding at the cause always means succeeding at the effect. Or if the effect was applied, it means the cause was successful. In the simplest cases they both go hand in hand.

So what I'm getting at is that, in the simple cases, a successfully executed attack, maneuver, spell cast, whatever the game mechanic might be, will result in a successfully applied effect. But the game mechanics break this down like this. If your attack is successful THEN you get to apply damage. If your maneuver was successful, then you get to apply effect. If your spell was cast successfully, then you get to apply effect. This basic concept needs to be understood before we can correctly apply things like DR, immunities, saving throws, concealment, etc. Some rules will then alter the success (like concealment changes a successful attack to not actually be successful), and some will change the effect (like DR will reduce or eliminate damage).

GT though there are no rules to alter the effect once the cause is known to be a success. Did I succeed at beating the CMD? Was concealment taken into account? Is the creature immune to being tripped? If all those conditions pass then my maneuver was a success. Effect will now follow. But it is at this point that my viewpoint says, success is now guaranteed, the AoO kicks in from GT now. Then we continue and apply the effect.

If however there was a rule like, "With this feat you don't suffer the attack and AC penalties while prone" then that would altar the effect. I don't think this example is a really good one, but its hard to imagine a case where similar to the DR example, or a spell resistance example (spell casting was successful, spell effect was not).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that the simple case is usually the best. The reason we break it down into something more complex here, however, is because we don't see the proper sequence otherwise. Roll/Prone blend together which makes it hard to see where the AoO is being triggered.

Based on your responses, the heart of the problem seems to be this:

You see "successfully trip" and think "succeed on a trip attack".

These two things are not the same. Not even close. They are the difference between hitting and damaging.

The first is talking about the activity of tripping. Tripping someone means to make them stumble or fall over. In game terms, it is only the latter. To trip someone means to make them fall over. To trip someone successfully means to make them fall over successfully. Text all throughout the rules use this wording to describe activities that are resolving successfully.

If an ability wants me to successfully hit a target in combat, I need to make contact with it in some way. Anything that happens after the hit takes place isn't important for the sake of the ability. My flame damage doesn't care if any regular damage gets through. It triggers once the Hit happens. The purpose here is to hit and once I make contact I have successfully done so. Now any ability that triggers here can do so.

If something wants me to successfully damage a target in combat, NOW just making contact isn't enough. Now I need to deliver damage to the target. Injury poison requires damage. Only after I have delivered damage can I say that I have successfully damaged my target (and deliver the poison).

If an ability wants me to successfully cast a spell, then what happens after the spell manifests doesn't matter. My only concern is to cast the spell without being interrupted. If this is a touch spell, I can cast and hold the charge. The spell has been successfully cast even though I haven't delivered it. If I gain Hpts every time I successfully cast, then I gain them here.

If something wants me to successfully heal a friend with a cast spell, NOW just casting isn't enough. It actually needs to deliver a healing effect to my friend. So I need to cast and then touch my friend. If nothing gets in the way and some healing takes place, then at this point I have successfully healed a friend with a cast spell. If successfully healing a friend with a spell allows me to heal the same amount, then it happens here.

In each of these instances (and every example I gave above) and all throughout the rules, any time "successfully" is mentioned (except for one case that I've seen) it is referring to some verb, some activity, which has been carried out to completion. Successfully Hit (by beating AC) or Damage (by beating AC and delivering damage) or Bull rush off mount (by beating CMD and moving target off his mount) or etc. The event being described has taken place successfully. THEN some benefit is gained after this happens.

This establishes what "successfully" means when used in context of the game.

Now compare this to "succeed on a trip attack".

We have many examples of this. Ki Throw is one. Meteor Hammer is another. Hammer to the ground is a third; "At 7th level, when a foehammer succeeds at a bull rush combat maneuver, he can make a trip combat maneuver at the end of the bull rush. If he does not move with the target, the force of his blow may still trip his foe, but he takes a –5 penalty on the combat maneuver check to trip." This clearly shows that the bull rush has not completed. The "succeeds at a bull rush" is talking about beating the CMD. Now the target is pushed back and at the end of this move you get the trip attempt.

A Dragoncatch Guisearme is another example; "A dragoncatch guisarme can be used to make a special trip maneuver against creatures using wings to fly. If the maneuver succeeds, the target's wings are fouled and the creature is knocked off balance, falling to the ground and gaining the entangled condition. A creature tripped in this way can attempt a DC 15 Fly check as a move action to remove the entangled condition."

In this example we have samples of both "a trip maneuver" and "being tripped". At first the benefit wants the maneuver to succeed. If it does, then the target falls and gains the entangled condition. After the target has been tripped in this way, on its turn it can use a move action to attempt to remove the condition.

There is a distinct difference between "successfully trip" and "succeed on a trip maneuver". They are not the same thing. The rules provide the consistency to spell this out. One is talking about beating the CMD and the other is talking about the activity of what you're doing resolving in a beneficial manner.


Let me see if I can illustrate this further. If we take these two phrases:

"When I successfully trip my target"
and
"When I successfully perform a trip combat maneuver on my target"

I'm betting that those of the Roll/AoO/Prone camp are seeing this:

"When I successfully trip my target"
and
"When I successfully perform a trip combat maneuver on my target".

But this is a mistake. It is comparing a verb with a noun. What should be compared is this:

"When I successfully trip my target"
and
"When I successfully perform a trip combat maneuver on my target".

These are the verbs acting in the phrases. The second one is basically saying I am performing something so that I can trip my target (in game terms, knock him prone). It is including an extra step. The first one is just shortcutting right to the main part and ignoring that extra step.

This isn't the greatest example, but sort of like in old English if we read "He answered and said unto him". Well he's really not doing two things there. They're the same thing. He's saying something to someone. But the way it is written includes this extra step of "answered and said".

A better example would be in today's language it might be like "Hey I called to tell you I had a nice time at dinner last night". Well obviously I've called if I'm telling you something on the phone. This is an added step. I could just as easily say, "Hey, I had a nice time at dinner last night". Or I could say, "Hey, I want to say that I had a nice time at dinner last night"...which is essentially the same thing unless I add "...but I can't because you eat like a pig and I think you're disgusting." :P

"When I successfully perform a trip combat maneuver on my target", I have successfully beaten the CMD of the target in order to trip him (in order to proceed with the knocking prone).

"When I successfully trip my target", we have generalized past the roll and are focused on the fact that we have just tripped him. (in game terms, knocked him prone)

And these meanings extend beyond Greater Trip. Everywhere you find one format you get one meaning and everywhere you find the other format you get a different meaning. The formats are consistently applied.


Parry Spell
Deceptive Exchange
Maximize Spellstrike
Trick Throw

All use "successfully" to imply something other than the effect has already been put in place. And you've actually also agreed on Greater Disarm altering the effect, though how you read that there are two effects instead of one I'm not sure about. Regardless, it alters the effect, meaning the effect isn't fully carried out when the target is "successfully disarmed".

You've made the "successfully trip is different than successfully perform a trip attack" argument a number of times. I don't find it persuasive. It's certainly a possibility, but it's not persuasive. It absolutely depends upon the word "successfully" having a specific and distinct meaning, and only that one meaning, and that it is only ever used with that one meaning in mind. That does not appear to be the case.

You even tend to contradict what the meaning actually is. Sometimes it's verb+effect, sometimes it's the intended resolution of whatever you were doing. So if one can "successfully hit" (exceed target's AC), which you agree with, I fail to see how "successfully trip" (exceed target's CMD) cannot possibly be a valid interpretation.


We have debated the workings of Parry Spell, Maximized Spellstrike, Trick Throw, and even Disarm in all its forms. You see them defining "successfully" a certain way and then other rules defining "successfully" a different way. It all depends on how you wish to interpret something I assume, because your interpretation can go one way or the other, basically meaning there is no consistency. PF is very consistent with its rules. And I see them a certain way because they line up perfectly with the rest of the rules that talk about "successfully" and contrast them perfectly with the rules that talk about "successful combat maneuver". We've had this debate, but we can certainly revisit it if you want.

Deceptive Exchange I give you with no argument. This single feat is a fluke against a mountain of precedence. I don't know why it is there, but I would chalk it up to "This is what happens when more and more supplemental rules are piled on...eventually one of them runs afoul of the general guidelines." But maybe someone has a better answer. In either case it is the only one of its kind we have seen so far. Otherwise, the meaning of "successfully" and "when X maneuver is successful" appear to be consistent across the rules.

As for contradictions; there is no conflict. Verb + effect is exactly what happens when my intended resolution comes to be. This is not a contradiction. If we're playing a game of tag and my intention is to touch you via a touch attack, once I make contact I have done so. My intention was to touch you. The effect of my touch attack is to make contact. They are the same thing.

If I make a sword attack, I am trying to hit you and cause damage.
If I make a Trip attack, I substitute out "cause damage" and put in its place, "knock you prone".

Both of these attacks require beating a certain number. If the sword does, it's a successful attack. If the trip does, it's a successful maneuver. The problem is, you stop there. But you have only worked through half the equation. You have not accounted for the results of your action. Did you hit your target successfully? Yes, you made contact with the sword. Did you attack your target successfully? Not if your sword made contact and bounced off harmlessly. Did you trip your target successfully? Not if you pitched him forward but for some reason he didn't fall over.

Greater Trip isn't asking for "When you succeed on a trip combat maneuver". Read the text as many times as you like, the words are not there. "Succeed on a trip combat maneuver" means the roll beat the CMD and now something can be put into place; Damage, Prone, Disarmed, force movement, etc. But "successfully" means that whatever action you were doing has already put that something in place. Now that it's in place, something else is triggering.

Do you notice how every place where the text is asking for "successful combat maneuver", what comes next is an Effect of that maneuver.

Do you notice how every place where the text is asking for "successfully", what comes next is something new that is added to the maneuver's Effect?

Meteor Hammer wants maneuver success. Then you can knock prone as normal or drag instead. Effect only.
Binding Throw wants successfully. Then you can add in a grapple. Effect of Ki Throw AND a grapple.

Alchemical Silver wants attack success. Then the damage is modified down by -1. Effect only.
Sucker Punch wants successfully. Once successfully pinned, a dirty trick or trip can be performed as a swift action. Pin condition AND a dirty trick or trip attack.

With "success" we just get the Effect of that "attack/maneuver". But with "successfully" we get both the Effect of the maneuver (which I argue is already in place) and we get something new to add. This something new is being added because of the Effect being in place.

Have you noticed this trend? It's all throughout the rule system.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
The entry for AoO doesn't say they must always interrupt an action. They interrupt the flow of actions. Typically though not uniformly, interrupting the flow of actions entails interrupting an actual action.

So after 620 posts from the last time I checked on this subject, we are still arguing the SAME STINKING THING! What constitutes a successful trip? The successful roll or the application of the condition with the successful roll?

You keep bringing up the rule that says the AOO must interrupt the flow of actions, but the Greater Trip feat SPECIFICALLY alters that rule. General vs Specific. Specific wins. Case Closed. The dev's clearly ruled incorrectly leaving us with the fallout we have today...

If the intent is as you say, then the dev's need to reword the feat to make it abundantly clear.


Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
The entry for AoO doesn't say they must always interrupt an action. They interrupt the flow of actions. Typically though not uniformly, interrupting the flow of actions entails interrupting an actual action.

So after 620 posts from the last time I checked on this subject, we are still arguing the SAME STINKING THING! What constitutes a successful trip? The successful roll or the application of the condition with the successful roll?

You keep bringing up the rule that says the AOO must interrupt the flow of actions, but the Greater Trip feat SPECIFICALLY alters that rule. General vs Specific. Specific wins. Case Closed. The dev's clearly ruled incorrectly leaving us with the fallout we have today...

If the intent is as you say, then the dev's need to reword the feat to make it abundantly clear.

The feat would specifically alter that if the feat actually says something along those lines. It's not clear that it does. It may, it may not.

*shrug*


Attach wrote:
Attach (Ex) The creature automatically latches onto its target when it successfully makes the listed attack.

No mention or requirement of doing damage. But "successfully" makes the attack.

Performance Combat Maneuvers wrote:
Whenever a combatant successfully performs any combat maneuver, she can make a performance combat check as a swift action.

Successfully "performs any combat maneuver". But you've said "successfully performs a trip maneuver" can't possibly be a substitution. Interestingly, there is also an entry for "successfully knocking an opponent prone".

Disrupting Shot wrote:
If you ready an action to shoot an opponent casting a spell within 30 feet and successfully hit that opponent with a ranged attack, the concentration DC to successfully cast the spell is increased by +4.

Successfully hit. Damage not yet applied.

Mythic Ride-by-Attack wrote:
When you successfully strike an opponent as part of a Ride-By Attack, you can continue to make attacks against successive targets.

Successfully "strike". That raises the question about what "strike" means ...

Quivering Palm wrote:
If the monk strikes successfully and the target takes damage from the blow, the quivering palm attack succeeds.

This makes it absolutely explicit. Successfully strikes is referencing something entirely different than taking damage. Both must occur. Yet the word successfully is still used solely in conjunction with the hit, not the effect.

Eidolon Constrict wrote:
Whenever the eidolon successfully grapples a foe using the grab evolution, it deals additional damage equal to the amount of damage dealt by the attack used by the grab evolution.

Whenever the Eidolon successfully grapples its foe but ...

Bestiary Constrict wrote:
A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage).

So, either your position that "successfully [combat maneuver]" cannot possibly mean "successfully perform [combat maneuver]" is wrong, or an Eidolon's Constrict functions differently than the standard Bestiary Constrict. That would seem odd.

Fast Getaway Talen wrote:
After successfully making a ... Sleight of Hand check

Successfully referencing the check, not the effect.

Perfect Aid wrote:
Whenever you successfully use the aid another action, your ally also adds your tier to the aid another bonus.

Another example of successfully being used when the effect is altered because it has not yet been applied.

Spellblight Blinded wrote:
If the caster successfully casts the spell, the spell also ends the blinded condition.

Successfully casts, meaning simply performing the action. If the effect is required, a countered spell would not end the blinded condition.

Spellblight Grappled wrote:
While being grappled, a spellcaster can choose to take a 20% chance of spell failure when casting a touch spell. If the spell is successfully cast, the caster gains a +2 bonus on the attack roll against the creature grappling her.

Again, drawing a distinction between the action and the effect, this time explicitly. Successfully casting a spell, yet effect not yet applied.

Stalwart Defender Intercept wrote:
Once a round as an immediate action, when a melee or ranged weapon would successfully strike an adjacent ally, the stalwart defender can choose to have the weapon strike him instead of the intended target. The attack automatically hits the stalwart defender, regardless his AC or any miss chance in effect, and he suffers the normal consequences of the attack.

Successfully again being used in conjunction with the hit (action), not the damage (effect). Effect explicitly has not yet been applied, despite use of successfully.

Stalwart Defender Halting Blow wrote:
If a foe's movement in the defender's threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity and the stalwart defender successfully hits the foe with the attack, the foe's movement ends immediately.

Successfully used again in conjunction with hit.

Eldritch Knight Spell Critical wrote:
At 10th level, whenever an eldritch knight successfully confirms a critical hit, he can cast a spell as a swift action.

Successfully used again in conjunction with something that does not require the effect to have been applied yet.

Strangler wrote:
Whenever you successfully maintain a grapple and choose to deal damage, you can spend a swift action to deal your sneak attack damage to the creature you are grappling.

Successfully used in reference to the action, not the consequence.

Grapple Launcher wrote:
The grappling hook anchors into anything she successfully hits with an attack roll

Again, successfully being used in regards to the hit. Causing damage is not a requirement for this ability to function.

Unholy Champion wrote:
Whenever he uses smite good and successfully strikes an good outsider, the outsider is also subject to a banishment, using his antipaladin level as the caster level (his weapon and unholy symbol automatically count as objects that the subject hates). After the banishment effect and the damage from the attack is resolved, the smite immediately ends.

Once again, successfully being used independently from the effect.

Holy Champion wrote:
Whenever she uses smite evil and successfully strikes an evil outsider, the outsider is also subject to a banishment, using her paladin level as the caster level (her weapon and holy symbol automatically count as objects that the subject hates). After the banishment effect and the damage from the attack is resolved, the smite immediately ends.

Unsurprisingly, the Paladin and the Antipaladin have the same language.

Dragon-Slaying Strike wrote:
Whenever she uses smite evil and successfully strikes a dragon, the dragon is also subject to a single-target holy word, using her paladin level +10 as the caster level. After the banishment effect and the damage from the attack are resolved, the smite immediately ends.

A third Paladin example of the same.

Hammer to the Ground wrote:
any creature a foehammer successfully bull rushes is automatically knocked prone at the end of the bull rush.

If successfully uniformly and unequivocally included the resolution of the effect, "at the end of the bull rush" would be completely unnecessary.

Belly Shot wrote:
When the gulch gunner successfully hits an adjacent target with a ranged firearm attack, she deals +1d6 points of damage.

Another use of successfully in regards to the hit, prior to the application of damage (or at the very least altering the effect of the successful hit).

Powder Burns wrote:
When the gulch gunner successfully hits an adjacent foe with a ranged firearm attack, she may spend 1 grit point to deal an additional 1d6 points of fire damage from the muzzle flash of her weapon.

Repeat of the above.

Imprinting Hand wrote:
To use this ability, you must first successfully hit a foe with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or melee touch attack to make contact, then use this ability is a free action.

Another gap between successfully hitting and application of the effect.

Mythic Medusa's Wrath wrote:
You may forgo the two additional unarmed strikes of Medusa's Wrath to instead make a single unarmed strike at your highest base attack bonus. 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.

And another.

Spite wrote:
The next time you are hit by a melee attack or a combat maneuver is used successfully against you, the stored spell is triggered against your foe.

One final example showing that, at least sometimes, the rules seem to treat "successfully [combat maneuver]" and "successfully use a [combat maneuver]" the same way.

Greater Dirty Trick wrote:
Whenever you successfully perform a dirty trick, the penalty lasts for 1d4 rounds, plus 1 round for every 5 by which your attack exceeds the target's CMD. In addition, removing the condition requires the target to spend a standard action.

And one final example showing an alteration of an effect. I still contend it's difficult to alter an effect if the effect has already been applied, but whatever.

So there you go. A number of examples of "successfully" not used quite in the way you seem to mandate, in addition to those previously mentioned. I'm sure you'll disagree with a few of them and explain away a few others. That's fine. But I think it's fairly safe to say that there's not this mandatory uniform definition of "successfully" that you keep insisting upon. It need not necessarily refer to the already in-place effect. It certainly could (a great many times it does appear to mean that, in fact), but it doesn't have to. Sometimes it really just means the action was successful. Sometimes it alters the effect to be applied. That's the way it reads to me, anyway.

I'm not saying your interpretation can't be correct. I'm just saying it's not as cut and dried as you like to think. I'm not particularly interested in continuing this. Nothing new is being covered. No new insights are being provided. We're spinning wheels and wasting time. Feel free to play it how you wish and I will do the same. We'll have a clear answer if and when the Developers chime in. I'm not going to be particularly surprised whichever way they go because I think there are reasonable arguments for both sides.

Happy gaming!

Liberty's Edge

Your many examples are great, but they clearly point out the idea of Specific overruling the General, thus we arrive back at the impasse. Greater Trip SPECIFICALLY alters the rule creating an exception.


Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
The entry for AoO doesn't say they must always interrupt an action. They interrupt the flow of actions. Typically though not uniformly, interrupting the flow of actions entails interrupting an actual action.

So after 620 posts from the last time I checked on this subject, we are still arguing the SAME STINKING THING! What constitutes a successful trip? The successful roll or the application of the condition with the successful roll?

You keep bringing up the rule that says the AOO must interrupt the flow of actions, but the Greater Trip feat SPECIFICALLY alters that rule. General vs Specific. Specific wins. Case Closed. The dev's clearly ruled incorrectly leaving us with the fallout we have today...

If the intent is as you say, then the dev's need to reword the feat to make it abundantly clear.

Yes, unfortunately there has been comprehension issues over what "successfully" and what "trip" mean. Take fretgod99's latest post for example. He unknowingly has listed quite a few rules that actually prove my point for me. He just doesn't seem to know it. I'm not being flippant when I say this. I'm sincerely thinking there is a comprehension issue here. He is holding up a whole bunch of X's for us to look at and then says they are Y's.

What is my argument? That "successfully" means that whatever activity you have done, has happened in a positive or beneficial manner. Hitting means contact was made. Damaging means damage was delivered. Tripping means you have knocked your target over.

For example, "Successfully hit" means just that. We have made contact with the target successfully. A "Hit" has just happened. This shows "successfully" means that something already happened here. What happened? The hit did. Why he thinks damage must be applied, I'm not sure. It's not saying anything about "successfully damaged". It just wants the hit...which happened.

He then goes on with other examples about "successfully" hitting or saving or performing something against someone. In each case the activity being "successfully" done is actually done.

Even look at his last example; Greater Dirty Trick. It talks about the trick being successfully performed. The penalty is in place. And now we are told that penalty lasts longer than usual. So how he expects this to prove his point, I have no idea. Again I'm not being flippant or rude or angry or snarky or any of that. I really think there is a disconnect in reading this stuff.

If we are talking about "successfully hitting", then the hit has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully performing something" then the performing has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully damaging", then the damaging has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully disarming", then the disarming has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully casting", then the casting has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully touching", then the touching has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully tripping", then the tripping has already happened.

Does anyone sense a trend here anywhere? :P

But this is why I am still waiting for evidence to support the claim that the AoO must come between the attack roll and the fall prone. Nothing submitted so far has had any teeth to it. It is all based on reading errors so far. The one example of "successfully" not meaning "already resolved beneficially" is all there is to that argument. And that one would seem to be a fluke in the writing because it has nothing to back it up. It is not something that topples the mountain of everything else that I and Remy and others, and even fretgod99 unknowingly, has provided for us.

But I'm ok with not convincing him. If I do, that's great. But that was never my goal. ;)


I should follow this up just to make sure everyone is clear.

If the text gives us "When you successfully hit your target" (like it might for extra flame damage), what does this mean? We are making a roll against a number (the AC in this case) and we are making contact. The "Hit" has happened here. The above isn't asking us about damaging. It only wants a Hit to happen, which did....which very nicely gives us the definition of "successfully" to mean something that happened beneficially.

Now if the text gives us "When you successfully damage your target" (like it might for injury Poison or Monk Stun), what does this mean? We are making a roll against a number (still the AC) and making contact (the Hit). We are then applying damage. If this damage is absorbed, then no poison or stun happens because we have not "successfully damaged" our target. But if it isn't absorbed, then it does happen, and so we have "successfully damaged".

Similarly if text gives us "When you successfully trip your target", what does this mean? We are still making a roll against a number (the CMD in this case) and making contact (the Hit). We are then knocking the target over.

Remember if we elect to make a trip attack over a regular one we are swapping out Damage for Knock Prone. So Damage and Knock Prone are the same thing. If text only wants "a successful hit" or "a successful trip combat maneuver", these are asking only for the roll to beat the number. Once the roll beats the number then we've done what the text is asking for. But if it actually wants the target damaged or tripped, then we need to add the extra step there and apply the damage or the tripping.

Now someone might argue that the tripping isn't the damaging. It's the hitting. But this is incorrect. An attack means to hit and deal damage. If the weapon bounces off harmlessly, then the attack was not carried out successfully. I can have a successful attack by definition of the book. This means the roll beat the AC. But then this "successful" attack can be denied me due to any number of reasons. So although the book says it was a "successful attack" it really wasn't done successfully. It was denied in the process. So the end result is not "successfully" but "failed to".

A trip maneuver means to hit someone and bowl them over. If I hit them, but for some reason they don't go down, then the trip maneuver was not carried out successfully. I can have a successful maneuver by definition of the book. This means the roll beat the CMD. But then this "successful maneuver" can be denied me due to something that keeps the target from falling over. So although the book says it was a "successful maneuver", it really wasn't done successfully. It was denied in the process. Again this becomes "failed to trip" instead of "successfully tripped".

Once you have satisfied the conditions of "successfully" whether just to hit or to damage or to trip or to heal or to anything, then the requirements are met and the extra ability offered to you can take place.


Let's go back to a few of the examples fretgod99 has put up for us. I don't want to revisit all of them as that would make for a very long post. I also don't want to just use a bunch of "hit" examples, as they are all basically the same thing.

Holy Champion: "Whenever she uses smite evil and successfully strikes an evil outsider, the outsider is also subject to a banishment..."

This is a beautiful example of what "successfully" means. The evil outsider in this case was struck. Once we get to the COMMA in this sentence fragment, the hit has already happened and now the outsider is being subject to something new in addition to the damage that is about to happen.

Eldritch Knight Spell Critical: "At 10th level, whenever an eldritch knight successfully confirms a critical hit, he can cast a spell as a swift action."

Another beautiful example here. "Successfully" is telling us that the critical hit has been confirmed. It has happened. Now he can do something in addition to the damaging. He can cast a spell swiftly.

Lastly we can look at Spellblight Blinded: "If the caster successfully casts the spell, the spell also ends the blinded condition."

This clearly shows that "successfully casts the spell" implies the spell has been cast. Once it has, something else happens.

Now in all these examples, the error being made is that there is an assumption that something else must happen in order for my argument to be valid. Such as in the case of "successfully hitting" that in order for me to be right about what "successfully" means here, that somehow Damage must be worked into the situation. I'm not sure why this reasoning is being suggested. "Successfully" extends only so far as the verb that it is describing. If hitting, then hitting. If damaging, then damaging. If tripping, then tripping. To say that "successfully hit" doesn't mean it resolved because there is no damage is incorrect thinking. "Successfully hit" isn't talking about any damage. That is allowed to come later. The text is talking about "Hitting"...which happened...."successfully" even. :)


Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Your many examples are great, but they clearly point out the idea of Specific overruling the General, thus we arrive back at the impasse. Greater Trip SPECIFICALLY alters the rule creating an exception.

Does it specifically alter the rules? How so? What is the language used that clearly demonstrates the intent to alter the general rules?


Elbedor wrote:

If we are talking about "successfully hitting", then the hit has already happened.

If we are talking about "successfully performing something" then the performing has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully damaging", then the damaging has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully disarming", then the disarming has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully casting", then the casting has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully touching", then the touching has already happened.
If we are talking about "successfully tripping", then the tripping has already happened.

This isn't what you started out arguing. And, it's not necessarily the same thing as [verb+effect]. And, it does nothing to support your contention that "successfully tripping" means [action+effect] as opposed to [action]. That's the point. You're presuming "successfully tripping" means knocking the opponent prone, as opposed to successfully performing the combat maneuver.

To make that argument, you turn right back to "successfully" meaning [action+effect]. That is the definition we know to not be true. You see "When you trip, your opponent is knocked prone" (to paraphrase) and interpret it as saying "trip = knocked prone". I don't. "If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage." That doesn't mean "attack roll = damaged target". So why does "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone" mean "trip = knocked prone"?

We're right back to the same discussion about definitions. Now it's just a different one. I recognize the possibility of two reasonable interpretations. That you might prefer one doesn't mean there isn't another possibility.


Elbedor wrote:
Now someone might argue that the tripping isn't the damaging. It's the hitting. But this is incorrect. An attack means to hit and deal damage. If the weapon bounces off harmlessly, then the attack was not carried out successfully. I can have a successful attack by definition of the book. This means the roll beat the AC. But then this "successful" attack can be denied me due to any number of reasons. So although the book says it was a "successful attack" it really wasn't done successfully. It was denied in the process. So the end result is not "successfully" but "failed to".

And this is the part I look at as sophistry.

"I made a successful attack" and "I successfully attacked" are grammatically equivalent statements. "I successfully performed an attack" and "I successfully attacked" are, too. But you're saying they're not. This does not make any sense to me, whatsoever.

Ultimately, what you've done is abandon an argument that successfully actually provides any guidance and turned the entire discussion into what "trip" means when used in GT.

Because you must agree that if "trip" did (so assume for the sake of argument) mean "perform the trip combat maneuver", then "successfully tripping" would simply entail succeeding at the trip combat maneuver. Your new definition of "successfully" is "you accomplished what you set out to do" (and to be fair, that's basically what I've been arguing "successfully" means for quite a while). So if trip does mean the action as opposed to the action and the effect, then clearly you've accomplished what you've set out to do. Obviously then, if trip means the action and the effect, you can't do that successfully until the effect is applied. Either way, what "successfully" means is irrelevant - it's the same in both situations.

So, again, now we're back to the is "trip" analogous to "hit" or "damage". We've gone through this argument more than once, too. But hopefully we can now agree on where the disagreement lies. It has nothing to do with the definition of "successfully".


I have been making the same argument for a while now; that when an action is described as "successfully", it means this action has resolved in a positive or beneficial manner.

Successfully hit, means you have hit.
Successfully cast, means you have cast.
Successfully tripped, means you have tripped.

As every example we have posted here, save one, points out; the action being described as "successfully" has taken place and now other things are happening. What that action comprises differs from instance to instance. If all I have to do is hit my target, then I must succeed on the roll and then land the blow. This is what triggers flaming on a weapon. But if I must damage my target, then I must not only roll and land a blow, that blow must generate damage. This is what Stunning or Poisoning want. In either case, the action must come to a resolution in order to be done "successfully".

[verb+effect] is when the action I am doing concludes in some way. Am I trying to touch you with a touch attack? The moment I make contact, my action of touching has happened. I have successfully touched you. The result of my touching, the effect of making contact, has come to be. If you are thinking [verb+effect] means that a hit must result in damage to be successful, that was never my argument if we are only talking about hitting. Besides, Damage is not the effect of a Hit. Damage and Hit are the effects of a successful Attack Roll. I was under the impression we were in agreement on that as this is the definition of the Attack Roll given to us in the CRB. That is why your previous post is making no sense to me. It seems to suggest that I believe a successful hit isn't successful unless I also damage. I'm not sure where that idea came from.

As for "a successful attack" = "successfully attacking", these are not the same thing in game terms. We know the CRB calls beating the AC "a successful attack". But we also know "a successful attack" is not guaranteed to actually do anything. It can still fail. An ability that parries or dodges or absorbs my attack, means that my "successful attack" actually did nothing. This is entirely possible within the rules that PF gives us. You may think there is no difference, but there is because of this very reason. The action of attacking (rolling, hitting, damaging) did not resolve in a positive or beneficial manner. I didn't "attack successfully" because I missed. The way PF is set up it is logically possible to "score a successful attack against my target" and yet still "fail to successfully attack my target" because something after the roll interfered and blocked me.

A high roll by itself doesn't guarantee us anything...certainly not a successfully resolved action.


Regardless, what "successfully" means is irrelevant to the discussion. No matter how circuitous the route, we've both generally arrived at roughly the same place: successfully just means you accomplished whatever it is you sought out to do.

Thus, the question turns on what version of "trip" you think was intended: the game term reference to the combat maneuver or the more colloquial reference to the applied effect of knocking someone down with said combat maneuver. You analogize trip to damage; I analogize it to hit.

Both are reasonable understandings, so there isn't a resolution here absent a clear directive.

Cheers! It's been interesting!

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Your many examples are great, but they clearly point out the idea of Specific overruling the General, thus we arrive back at the impasse. Greater Trip SPECIFICALLY alters the rule creating an exception.
Does it specifically alter the rules? How so? What is the language used that clearly demonstrates the intent to alter the general rules?

Do you really need me to tell you yet again? Really?

Spoiler:
Greater Trip (Combat)

You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down. (Fluff, makes it clear what the intention of the feat is...)

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent (when you knock someone down), that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped. (You have how it normally works, and how it works with this feat)

Seriously, why is this so hard? It is 100% clear. There is no room for misinterpretation.


fretgod99 wrote:

Regardless, what "successfully" means is irrelevant to the discussion. No matter how circuitous the route, we've both generally arrived at roughly the same place: successfully just means you accomplished whatever it is you sought out to do.

Thus, the question turns on what version of "trip" you think was intended: the game term reference to the combat maneuver or the more colloquial reference to the applied effect of knocking someone down with said combat maneuver. You analogize trip to damage; I analogize it to hit.

Both are reasonable understandings, so there isn't a resolution here absent a clear directive.

Cheers! It's been interesting!

Tripping someone means you are knocking them down. How does this equate to Hit in any way?

Attack roll results in Hit and Damage.
Trip Attack roll results in Hit and Effect.

Hitting is hitting is hitting. It is all the same. I might hit someone to damage them. Or hit them to bull rush them. Or hit them to trip them. The Hit is virtually the same function. Contact is made. The Effect, however, differs based on the attack I'm using; either to Damage, to force movement, or to knocked prone.

Accomplishing this successfully is exactly what Greater Trip is looking for. It is vital.

But in spite of the disagreement, yes I agree it has been interesting. It's too bad we can't see eye to eye on this topic, but meh. Maybe the next one. :)


@ Aspasia de Malagant.

I believe I had also posted the full feat at one point a while ago....or maybe it was on a different thread. I had highlighted the fluff as well. The response I got was that it's not mechanics. I agree it's not. But it certainly does a nice job of setting the context we need to read the feat in. If anything gives us the writer's intentions of what needs to be accomplished, that does. :)

To be fair, fretgod99's argument is not that what you and I think is wrong. It is that another interpretation is possible because of ambiguity in the text. I may disagree with that, but again, he's not saying your interpretation is wrong.

<shrug>


Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Your many examples are great, but they clearly point out the idea of Specific overruling the General, thus we arrive back at the impasse. Greater Trip SPECIFICALLY alters the rule creating an exception.
Does it specifically alter the rules? How so? What is the language used that clearly demonstrates the intent to alter the general rules?

Do you really need me to tell you yet again? Really?

** spoiler omitted **

Seriously, why is this so hard? It is 100% clear. There is no room for misinterpretation.

So what you're saying is that you prefer the interpretation that says "trip" means effect applied.

But you're begging the question. It's helpful when you bold things and input your interpretation into things, but that's what you're doing - inputting your interpretation into things. And it's a reasonable interpretation, I don't think anybody is saying it isn't. You didn't explain anything new to me again. You didn't actually really explain anything at all. You just said "trip" means "already knocked prone". But that's hardly proof when the question being debated is whether "trip" as used in that entry means "already knocked prone".

It's not like I'm the only person who thinks it works differently than you do. And it's not like this is a brand new issue. It's been discussed for a couple of years. Do you think something that is impervious to misinterpretation because it is unequivocally 100% clear would be discussed without much resolution over a period of years?

I don't, but maybe that's just me.

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:

@ Aspasia de Malagant.

I believe I had also posted the full feat at one point a while ago....or maybe it was on a different thread. I had highlighted the fluff as well. The response I got was that it's not mechanics. I agree it's not. But it certainly does a nice job of setting the context we need to read the feat in. If anything gives us the writer's intentions of what needs to be accomplished, that does. :)

To be fair, fretgod99's argument is not that what you and I think is wrong. It is that another interpretation is possible because of ambiguity in the text. I may disagree with that, but again, he's not saying your interpretation is wrong.

<shrug>

I'm not trying to single anyone out but, that's the thing though; there is no ambiguity with that particular feat. It is very clear and precise. Any perceived ambiguity comes from a preconceived notion perpetuated by the dev's. They clearly erred with regard to this feat and some folks will take it to their graves supporting the official ruling, no matter how wrong it is. Twisting their own logic to coincide with officialdom. Unfortunately, I see a lot of that around here. :(


Elbedor wrote:

Tripping someone means you are knocking them down. How does this equate to Hit in any way?

Attack roll results in Hit and Damage.
Trip Attack roll results in Hit and Effect.

Hitting is hitting is hitting. It is all the same. I might hit someone to damage them. Or hit them to bull rush them. Or hit them to trip them. The Hit is virtually the same function. Contact is made. The Effect, however, differs based on the attack I'm using; either to Damage, to force movement, or to knocked prone.

Accomplishing this successfully is exactly what Greater Trip is looking for. It is vital.

But in spite of the disagreement, yes I agree it has been interesting. It's too bad we can't see eye to eye on this topic, but meh. Maybe the next one. :)

Tripping someone in Pathfinder means you are using the Trip combat maneuver. And we've been through the analogies. The combat maneuver entry is structured identically to the attack roll entry (unsurprising since combat maneuvers are specific kinds of attack rolls). Successful maneuver is determined at the same point successful hit is.

We've been talking about this for a month. I'm not saying anything new. The effect of an ordinary attack is to cause damage. The effect of an ordinary trip is to knock prone. I do not see "knocked prone" the same as I see "trip".

English (like a lot of languages) can use the same word for both the noun naming the action and the verb describing what the action actually does. That's why there's ambiguity here. Trip is being (potentially) used in two different ways - does trip as used in the GT feat retain its game specific reference to the Trip Combat Maneuver (so the verb references the specific trip combat maneuver - as in trip = perform the trip combat maneuver) or is it used there more generically, akin to the standard English word "to trip" (trip means to have knocked prone via the trip combat maneuver)? It's a fair question.


Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

@ Aspasia de Malagant.

I believe I had also posted the full feat at one point a while ago....or maybe it was on a different thread. I had highlighted the fluff as well. The response I got was that it's not mechanics. I agree it's not. But it certainly does a nice job of setting the context we need to read the feat in. If anything gives us the writer's intentions of what needs to be accomplished, that does. :)

To be fair, fretgod99's argument is not that what you and I think is wrong. It is that another interpretation is possible because of ambiguity in the text. I may disagree with that, but again, he's not saying your interpretation is wrong.

<shrug>

I'm not trying to single anyone out but, that's the thing though; there is no ambiguity with that particular feat. It is very clear and precise. Any perceived ambiguity comes from a preconceived notion perpetuated by the dev's. They clearly erred with regard to this feat and some folks will take it to their graves supporting the official ruling, no matter how wrong it is. Twisting their own logic to coincide with officialdom. Unfortunately, I see a lot of that around here. :(

I'm not twisting logic. We just view things differently.

*shrug*


@ Aspasia de Malagant

I like Pathfinder. I think it is loads better than 3.x D&D (and been a D&D fan for almost 3 decades now). I love how they fleshed out the classes and tweaked things. But as far as the rule-lawyering...

...I like WoD better. Less rule chatter and more gaming. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:

@ Aspasia de Malagant

I like Pathfinder. I think it is loads better than 3.x D&D (and been a D&D fan for almost 3 decades now). I love how they fleshed out the classes and tweaked things. But as far as the rule-lawyering...

...I like WoD better. Less rule chatter and more gaming. ;)

I can appreciate that. :)


@fretgod99

Regarding Determine Success and Attack Roll and their sentence structure, yes it would appear that "maneuver success" lines up nicely with "hit success". I think this is fair to argue. But then to stay fair we should consider the sentence structure of other entries as well.

Regarding Rolls and Maneuvers:

"If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage. Attack Roll
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Determine Success
"If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet." Bull rush
"If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice." Disarm
"If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition." Grapple
"If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space." Overrun
"If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally." Sunder
"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." Trip

Uh...wait a minute. That last one is worded differently. There is no mention of a successful attack or hit or maneuver. It talks about attack exceeding CMD and then jumps right to Prone.

If attack roll beats CMD, then success.
If trip roll exceeds CMD, then prone.

So...

Looks like the prone is the success. Or rather, success means prone. ;)


We've been through this. I don't think that section means what you think it means, unless you honestly think leaving out "success" has a functional impact. I've yet to see what that functional impact might be, and I suspect it's because there isn't one.

Both the success line and the "exceeding" line are used throughout all the combat maneuver entries, generally interchangeably. Trip doesn't have a second tier of "success". Most of the others do. So instead of repeating, they use synonymous phrases (in my opinion).

So again, no. A distinction without a difference.

Also, if you're going to insist upon that reading, then you have to reevaluate your position on disarm because disarm uses that success language and yet you're on record treating disarm just like you do trip. If disarm has an extra "success" step, what is it why isn't that they thing that's applied for the "successfully disarm" language in Greater Disarm?

The only thing I find odd about the trip entry isn't that there is no mention of "success" (because, again, I view that as being the same, for the most part, as the roll exceeding the relevant target). The only thing I find odd is that it says "exceeds" not "equals or exceeds". I have always assumed this to be an oversight.


Hey now, you wanted to talk sentence structure. ;)

But no, that was more ribbing than fact. Ki Throw notes a "successful unarmed trip attack" that is happening before the feat changes the knock prone in square to throw prone in adjacent square.

Although minus feat rule changes, the timing between hit and effect is virtually minimal or non-existent. Like the pass through and knock prone of an overrun. Hardly time or reason to put an AoO there. And in Overrun you actually can't. I still haven't heard any good reason why "a successful trip maneuver" and "to successfully trip" should be equated, though.

With disarm, I don't have to change a thing. I'm on record noting that where "successfully" appears in the Disarm and Greater Disarm text is referring to something that has already happened. An item has left the owner's hand(s). Now you can pick it up or it lands 15ft away.

fretgod99 wrote:
The only thing I find odd about the trip entry isn't that there is no mention of "success" (because, again, I view that as being the same, for the most part, as the roll exceeding the relevant target). The only thing I find odd is that it says "exceeds" not "equals or exceeds". I have always assumed this to be an oversight.

WHAT?!? Now we have to debate that too?!? No, actually I agree with you. I see "exceeds", but read it "equals or exceeds" anyway.

Either way, time for bed here. G'nite.

Shadow Lodge

Remy Balster wrote:


The spell is completely and wholly negated. Gone. Poof. Then Parry spell triggers, and directs that spell at the original caster.

That makes no sense to me. You say the spell is negated. Gone. Poof. It never exists. So what does Parry spell direct back at the caster? It can't redirect something doesn't exist. The result of Parry Spell must occur before the spell goes poof in order to have anything to redirect.

Am I missing something?


Sorry to barge in the middle of all this and not reading the fifteen previous pages of this thread, I just wanted to ask something that surely must have been discussed here and need confirmation.

According to this:

paizo wrote:

Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?

No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.

Source: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o72

Is this correct?

I had recently made a tripper build barbarian and the DM presented this to me which made my character fall apart. So I was looking for confirmation on the matter.

Much obliged.


HangarFlying wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Elbedor wrote:


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.

Did I say concealment or total concealment?

hrm. ponder.


fretgod99 wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

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.

You can simply say you prefer to not respond. Or, you know... don't respond. There is no reason to say you've responded to what was actually written when you didn't.


fretgod99 wrote:
Elbedor wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

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.

This clearly demonstrates your misunderstanding about readied actions. Thanks for the clear and direct reply.


fretgod99 wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

Tripping someone means you are knocking them down. How does this equate to Hit in any way?

Attack roll results in Hit and Damage.
Trip Attack roll results in Hit and Effect.

Hitting is hitting is hitting. It is all the same. I might hit someone to damage them. Or hit them to bull rush them. Or hit them to trip them. The Hit is virtually the same function. Contact is made. The Effect, however, differs based on the attack I'm using; either to Damage, to force movement, or to knocked prone.

Accomplishing this successfully is exactly what Greater Trip is looking for. It is vital.

But in spite of the disagreement, yes I agree it has been interesting. It's too bad we can't see eye to eye on this topic, but meh. Maybe the next one. :)

Tripping someone in Pathfinder means you are using the Trip combat maneuver. And we've been through the analogies. The combat maneuver entry is structured identically to the attack roll entry (unsurprising since combat maneuvers are specific kinds of attack rolls). Successful maneuver is determined at the same point successful hit is.

We've been talking about this for a month. I'm not saying anything new. The effect of an ordinary attack is to cause damage. The effect of an ordinary trip is to knock prone. I do not see "knocked prone" the same as I see "trip".

English (like a lot of languages) can use the same word for both the noun naming the action and the verb describing what the action actually does. That's why there's ambiguity here. Trip is being (potentially) used in two different ways - does trip as used in the GT feat retain its game specific reference to the Trip Combat Maneuver (so the verb references the specific trip combat maneuver - as in trip = perform the trip combat maneuver) or is it used there more generically, akin to the standard English word "to trip" (trip means to have knocked prone via the trip combat maneuver)? It's a fair question.

A fair question... maybe. But fair or not... let's go ahead and answer it.

In Basic English "whenever you successfully trip an opponent" means that the trip has taken place. Concur? Ie. The target has been affected by the trip. This means a plain English reading of the feat leads us to the conclusion that Greater Trip’s AoOs happen after the target is prone. Easy enough.

If we are instead using trip as a reference to a combat maneuver we are looking at something more like "whenever you successfully trip combat maneuver an opponent". Aside from the choppy broken syntax, let's press on. What is a successful trip combat maneuver?

Well, here is what the trip maneuver has to say...

trip wrote:

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.

Nothing in there about success. All we have is that line about what happens when we exceed the CMD. So, we know the target goes prone when we exceed the CMD when we use a maneuver. But, to find out when our maneuver is successful we have to look elsewhere... because trip rules don't say anything specifically. Interesting side note: The trip rules only reference ‘attack’. Ex. “If your attack fails by 10 or more”. I wonder why they use this word when referencing the step of determining the success or failure of the roll. Hrm… Anyway… on to find out where and how we determine success!

Where to look? How about maneuvers in general? Oh look, a "determining success" section.

more rules stuff wrote:
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.

Trick tricky! It gives us a clear answer… except for a few discrepancies. Namely, it has that pesky bit in there about “has the listed effect”. That is twice now we see that the target getting knocked prone results from our CMB roll being greater than their CMD. This time, success of the maneuver and the effects of the maneuver happen from the same trigger, they appear in the same sentence. It almost seems like they are synonymous, and are directly tied together… Hrm.

Where else can we turn to and find a RAW definition of a successful trip maneuver that doesn’t include that pesky bit about the effects of the maneuver being applied?

Is there such a rule somewhere? Hrm.

So. Looks like the success of the maneuver and the effects are basically triggered from the same thing. The attack roll vs CMD. So… we need to find some other way to force this AoO before the application of the prone condition. Any suggestions?

AoO rules you say? Hrm. Seems like a stretch… but I’ll bite.

”Dem Provoking AoO rules” wrote:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.

Hrm… our Greater Trip AoO isn’t either of these… so this section isn’t terribly relevant… maybe there is something else here we can use… where else can we look?

Ah! The Making an AoO rules, certainly we’ll find something useful here! ^.^

”Dem Making AoO rules” wrote:
An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

Boyah!! We hit paydirt! AoOs interrupt the normal flow of actions and are resolved immediately!

So… as soon as the trip maneuver is successful, BAM, AoO time! Whaaaaa?

Oh shi… wait. Didn’t we determine success and the effect being applied happened at the same time? Aww, that’s mean that the immediate resolution of the AoO happens after the prone condition is applied.

Gotta keep digging, we’ll find a way around these rules somewhere. I know it!!

Hrm… where to next? Maybe a dev said something a bit ambiguous about something else that we can reinterpret and adapt to this Greater Trip ruling…

”Dat Trip FAQ” wrote:
No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.

Darn. This doesn’t help us either. This is talking about one of those two things that provoke AoOs. Remember how that section doesn’t help? Still doesn’t. Weird enough, this seems to expand on that though…

It seems to be saying that the action to stand up from prone provokes an attack of opportunity, but gets interrupted before it resolves. I coulda swore the AoO came before the action entirely, because that is what I need to believe for my argument to hold any water despite not being supported by any of the rules I’ve gone through. The FAQ must be confused and not know what it is saying. That’s it. Yup.

What else can I turn up that supports the idea that the Greater Trip AoO happens before the prone condition? Certainly something somewhere does, otherwise my whole position is faulty. Cannot be that I’m wrong, therefore there must be something!

Hmph. Looks like the basic English interpretation works fine, and the combat maneuver success one is not tenable. Question answered.


olpolok wrote:

Sorry to barge in the middle of all this and not reading the fifteen previous pages of this thread, I just wanted to ask something that surely must have been discussed here and need confirmation.

According to this:

paizo wrote:

Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?

No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.

Source: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o72

Is this correct?

I had recently made a tripper build barbarian and the DM presented this to me which made my character fall apart. So I was looking for confirmation on the matter.

Much obliged.

Yes, that is correct. AoOs happen in response to actions (typically), but take place before the action that triggers them can be completed.

Thus, when someone attempts to stand up, they provoke immediately, while still prone. The AoO is fully resolved, and then after the AoO resolves their action is completed and resolved.

This means the AoO from standing happens when the guy is still prone. And if you tried to trip him, the trip would have no effect.


Elbedor wrote:

If an ability wants me to successfully hit a target in combat, I need to make contact with it in some way. Anything that happens after the hit takes place isn't important for the sake of the ability. My flame damage doesn't care if any regular damage gets through. It triggers once the Hit happens. The purpose here is to hit and once I make contact I have successfully done so. Now any ability that triggers here can do so.

That brings up an interesting question...

Do you get flaming weapon enchant weapon (or similar) when making combat maneuvers? >.>

I seems to follow that indeed you would. I've not used a weapon enchanted like that since... like ever. So... I'm curious if by RAW you should actually roll damage from your flaming enchant on a successful trip.

Hrm. Could be an interesting way to up a tripper build's damage output.


Remy Balster wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

If an ability wants me to successfully hit a target in combat, I need to make contact with it in some way. Anything that happens after the hit takes place isn't important for the sake of the ability. My flame damage doesn't care if any regular damage gets through. It triggers once the Hit happens. The purpose here is to hit and once I make contact I have successfully done so. Now any ability that triggers here can do so.

That brings up an interesting question...

Do you get flaming weapon enchant weapon (or similar) when making combat maneuvers? >.>

I seems to follow that indeed you would. I've not used a weapon enchanted like that since... like ever. So... I'm curious if by RAW you should actually roll damage from your flaming enchant on a successful trip.

Hrm. Could be an interesting way to up a tripper build's damage output.

I would say no you can't do it this way. Flaming requires a successful hit to land. Hitting is the purview of making a melee attack. Combat Maneuvers are "like" attacks in that the mechanics are similar, but they aren't "technically" because they don't roll against the AC. They roll against a different number...which again is "like" AC in some ways, but it's not.

This leads to odd things, such as using my flaming whip to drag you X number of feet. This suggests the whip is in significant contact with you for some duration of time, but yet no flame damage is suffered. Where as if I flick you with the whip and it's in contact only for an instant, THEN suddenly flame damage can transfer. Makes me wonder if only the very tip if the whip is actually alight....which is a rather underwhelming image really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF was not written for Rocket Scientists and Language Professors. It was written for the Average Joe. When the text of Greater Trip starts out by telling me that "You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down", this pretty much sets the context through which I'm going to read everything that follows.

"Whenever you successfully trip" is a simple and straightforward bit of text. Everywhere else in the rules where we find "If you successfully Verb", it is talking about the verb of "Verbing". If that Verb also happens to be a combat maneuver Noun, then the game distinguishes between whether it is talking about the Verbing or the Noun.

If it's talking about the Verbing, then we get something like "Whenever you Verb" or "When you successfully Verb". The Verb is the action happening.

If it's talking about the Noun, then we get something like "When your Noun is a success" or "If you succeed on a Noun". The words "is" and "succeed" in this case are the Verbs that apply to the Nouns. The Verb of tripping never applies directly to the Noun of a Trip Combat Maneuver.

The claim put forth is that in Greater Trip's case, "When you successfully Verb" can be read to mean "When you succeed on a Noun". But since this is not the norm of the rules, the burden of proof is on those putting this case forth. It is not the responsibility of ["When you Verb" means "When you Verb"] to prove anything. The rules set the context and the standard for this already. If the proposed reading that goes against the grain of this standard cannot be proven to be reasonably possible, then such a claim cannot be described as "valid". If it can be proven, then the text truly is ambiguous and in need of a FAQ or Errata.

To date, the only evidence I have seen is the citing of the AoO rules, which don't apply to this and the belief that reading it either way is possible...which isn't proof but rather restating the premise. There has also been a lot of time spent on refuting Camp #3's posts rather than citing evidence in support of Camp #1 or #2. If there are rules that suggest Verb can be Noun, then please state them so we can discuss them here. In their absence, the interpretation cannot be considered valid.


Or to put it another way; my assertion of a certain rule interpretation is not automatically valid until disproven. The burden is upon me to prove that it is valid.

I believe that the Sorcerer class should have Eschew Materials as a 1st level ability. I can cite the rules that show this.

I believe Sorcerers are detected in a Detect Magic cone because of the innate magic in their blood. If there is something somewhere that can support this, then I must cite it. If I can't, then this is the realm of Rule 0 and not RAW.

751 to 800 of 847 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you "trip" him? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.