I think you missed my point. By giving instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, the rules are necessarily saying that you can apply the same condition to the same target. It's just that the outcome is resolved differently depending on the relevant conditions.The problem is that the general rule doesn't give instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, only on how they interact with each other. Because of this, you cannot assume that a lack of rules is its own rule. If there is no rule about combining an attack and a spell with one action (purely as an example), then you cannot combine them just because neither rule about each action fails to mention this.
The fact that many of the conditions discuss what happens when the same condition is applied is pretty much the exact definition of the adage "The exception that proves the rule".
Some extend the duration, some increase the severity, some apply a more serious version of the same condition. None of them ever state that having the condition makes one immune to the condition. It stands to reason then that the condition can be applied, but nothing changes unless you're told how to change things.
Damage is what occurs when your "Attack" is successful. An "Attack" is accomplished by making an "Attack Roll". So again, how is it possible that the Damage is both an effect of a successful Attack Roll and a part of the condition which determines if said Attack Roll is successful? And how can we know if a Hit is successful unless and until Damage is applied, if Damage isn't applied until after we know if the Attack succeeds?
The creature is hit if damage is applied if the attack is successful if the attack roll hit if damage is applied if the attack is successful if the attack roll hit if ...
That's not quite what I meant. The "Hit" and the "Damage" both occur at the moment the attack is deemed successful by the d20 roll...unless a specific rule such as DR inserts itself into the general equation. We have a successful attack and a successful result of that attack. Now in the past I've listed this as:
Successful Roll = Hit + Damage
But I think this is incorrect and confusing. I think what I've been trying to say is more like:
IF successful Roll, THEN Hit and Damage.
This holds true in RL as well, considering if I took a Combat Knife and stuck it into an intruder's chest, the hitting and the damage are occurring simultaneously as the knife sinks in...much to the detriment of the intruder.
Perhaps that's a little clearer. Or perhaps not.
A single action never provokes more than one AOO from the same opponent.Not really true. For example casting a ray spell provokes twice (once for casting a spell and once for making a ranged attack)That is two actions, not one. Bizbag referenced the rule correctly.
Action 1: Cast a spell.
Action 2 (free action granted by casting a ray spell, but still a separate action): Make a ranged attack.Can you quote the rules on this?
Because AFAIK attacking with a ray spell is part of the same action as casting it is. If what you're saying is true, I can cast a ray spell, then take a move action and then make the ranged attack, like with normal touch spells right?
Confusion may come from a more colloquial use of the word "Action". It's two separate "events" combined into the same act, each of which result in provoking from threatening opponents.
Ranged Touch Attack Spells and AOOs: When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack (such as scorching ray), and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?
Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity: one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events.
(Note that at spell that fires multiple simultaneous rays, such as scorching ray, only provokes one AOO for making the ranged attack instead of one AOO for each ranged attack. It still provokes for casting the spell.
But as the Combat entry notes:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action.
I think you missed my point. By giving instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, the rules are necessarily saying that you can apply the same condition to the same target. It's just that the outcome is resolved differently depending on the relevant conditions.The problem is that the general rule doesn't give instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, only on how they interact with each other. Because of this, you cannot assume that a lack of rules is its own rule. If there is no rule about combining an attack and a spell with one action (purely as an example), then you cannot combine them just because neither rule about each action fails to mention this.The fact that many of the conditions discuss what happens when the same condition is applied is pretty much the exact definition of the adage "The exception that proves the rule".
Some extend the duration, some increase the severity, some apply a more serious version of the same condition. None of them ever state that having the condition makes one immune to the condition. It stands to reason then that the condition can be applied, but nothing changes unless you're told how to change things.
you just proved my point! if a specific condition does NOT list what happens in the case of reapplication then it simply cannot be reapplied. this is because if it COULD be reapplied, the rules would say "this effect can be reapplied" or "effects that do not extend duration or increase in severity get reapplied".
because that is NOT in any rules, its not a rule. if its not a rule, it cant happen. its that simple.
I think you missed my point. By giving instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, the rules are necessarily saying that you can apply the same condition to the same target. It's just that the outcome is resolved differently depending on the relevant conditions.The problem is that the general rule doesn't give instructions on how conditions interact with themselves, only on how they interact with each other. Because of this, you cannot assume that a lack of rules is its own rule. If there is no rule about combining an attack and a spell with one action (purely as an example), then you cannot combine them just because neither rule about each action fails to mention this.The fact that many of the conditions discuss what happens when the same condition is applied is pretty much the exact definition of the adage "The exception that proves the rule".
Some extend the duration, some increase the severity, some apply a more serious version of the same condition. None of them ever state that having the condition makes one immune to the condition. It stands to reason then that the condition can be applied, but nothing changes unless you're told how to change things.
you just proved my point! if a specific condition does NOT list what happens in the case of reapplication then it simply cannot be reapplied. this is because if it COULD be reapplied, the rules would say "this effect can be reapplied" or "effects that do not extend duration or increase in severity get reapplied".
because that is NOT in any rules, its not a rule. if its not a rule, it cant happen. its that simple.
So your position is that being momentarily blind makes you immune to being blind? Or being momentarily stunned makes you immune to being stunned? What happens if you're invisible because of a casting of Vanish and then you become the subject of a Greater Invisibility spell? Does Greater Invisibility automatically fail because you are already under the condition of Invisible and the rules don't specifically tell you how the conditions interact?
If the Invisible issue works because it comes from spells, what about different spells that might Entangle or Trip? Is it ok for the conditions to stack or overlap if they come from spells but not from other methods of implementation?
Exception that proves the rule. It's a thing.
there are NO exceptions that prove a rule in pathfinder. and as far as the vanish to grater invisibility question, if you are casting greater invisibility on someone (other than yourself) who's already invisible, you better have a solid answer to the question "how do you know where he is" because needing to see a target is a thing for spellcasting. so unless you're touching your target, you're gonna fail to hit them with your spell. if you ARE touching them, or you are doing this to yourself, then 1) your stupid or making a terrible choice. 2) greater invisibility is actually a "more severe" form of invisibility so falls under that part of the rules. 3) if it were vanish ontop of vanish, then it would be an issue of extending the duration as is listed in most condition giving abilities (example: target is sickened for 1D6+2 rounds). in the case of a spell, the duration is listed in the pre-text instead of the description (usually instantaneous for most spells, but for vanish its # of rounds = CL).
so for my example, this would be a special rule not reapplying the condition, but extending its duration. you could actually argue that even greater invis only extends the duration without reapplying, but thats if you believe that greater invis isn't a different condition all together than normal invis.
in the case of prone, however, there is nothing in pathfinder AFAIK that gives something the prone condition for any specific duration. because of this, applying prone a second time doesn't extend the duration because this would create a weird backlog effect to action economy. - you're knocked prone for 5 rounds, but you can get up as soon as you can act on your turn, but still are treated as though you are prone for the sake of game mechanics...you are either prone, or you arnt.
there are NO exceptions that prove a rule in pathfinder.
There is no rule that says you cannot draw two weapons at the same time.
However, there is a rule that says, "If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one." This line only makes sense if you cannot ordinarily draw two weapons at the same time. Thus, it is an exception which confirms the more general, unspoken rule.
Regarding Vanish and Greater Invisibility, I was unaware that there are levels of severity of the Invisible condition. Where is that found in the rules?
there are NO exceptions that prove a rule in pathfinder.There is no rule that says you cannot draw two weapons at the same time.
Rules on drawing a weapon always refer to weapon as singular not plural. In additions, if it's not written that you can't do something, this by no means imply that you can do it. Else, you could say that since it's not written that you can't fly by shaking your belly, you can do it. After all, no rules says that if you shake your belly you can't fly.
As per the main question, basically you cannot trip a prone character, else you could find that you can lock down a prone character to stay prone, even without greater trip feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per the main question, basically you cannot trip a prone character, else you could find that you can lock down a prone character to stay prone, even without greater trip feat.
The question is a little more subtle than that, although it IS sandwiched into a scenario so might have been missed. Basically the issue is whether PC#2 and PC#3 can satisfy the requirement of the Greater Trip feat in order to force MBG to provoke AoOs even though he is technically Prone. Hence "trip" as opposed to trip in the title.
You seem to be saying that they cannot, if by "you cannot trip a prone character" you mean that you cannot be considered to have "successfully tripped" him. Some would agree with you on the grounds that in order to satisfy the requirement of "successfully tripping", the target must be knocked prone. And as MBG cannot be, then PC#2's and #3's attempts would fail.
Others would argue that the only measure of a "Successful Trip" is the CM roll against the target CMD. So if this is good enough, regardless of whether or not you can "Knock the target prone", then you have satisfied Greater Trip's requirement. This leads to PC#2 using his action to generate free attacks for #1 and #3 and then PC#3 using his AoO from MBG's standing to generate yet more free attacks for #1 and #2.
Yes it is pure cheese.
But is it legal?
Someone please show me any exceptions that prove an unwritten rule in pathfinder that ARE NOT themselves special rules that overrule the general as is the case with drawing two weapons with two weapon fighting.
@Elbidor - yes, your answer depends on two factors.
1) can you give a prone target the prone condition again?
2) is a successful CMB check sufficient to grant the AoO's from greater trip?
If either of these are no, then this doesn't work. My opinion is that even if 2 is a yes, if 1 is a no (which I believe it is) then no AoO can be taken even on a successful CMB check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to confirm what some of you are saying about what a successful trip is according to Greater Trip.
I have a CMD of 20.
You roll a 25 and beat my CMD.
Many of you say that you succeeded and AOOs will follow.
However:
I have an ability that says I cannot be tripped. Following the logic above, even though I was not tripped you still beat my CMD and take your AOOs. However the trip actually failed and you wouldn't take AOOs. The only thing that fails in this example is that I didn't fall prone.
That example makes me think that there is more to a 'successful' trip than just beating CMD. I would consider falling prone is what determines if you were successful. If you are already prone and cannot fall prone again any additional trip attempts will fail.
|
If the target is Bleeding, are they immune to taking the Bleeding condition again? Does the rest of their skin suddenly become impenetrable and bloodless? Of course not. You could inflict 200 different bleed effects on a single target; but only the worst one applies. Same goes for the Prone condition, you could drop them prone 200 times, but only the worst Prone applies and since they are, de facto equal in penalty by definition, the question of which one to apply is moot.
Lets take a different example, an ability that, if you drop a target to negative HP, you get a bonus. The target is at 5 HP and you hit him for 10 damage, taking him down to -5 HP. You have brought him to negative HP, thus you trigger your ability and the target is dying. Now lets say you hit his unconscious, dying body again and take him down to -15 (we'll presume this is a tough cookie and is still alive). You've brought him to negative HP [b]again/b]. Your ability triggers again and you get the bonus again.
The problem is you are lumping all conditions into the same category. They don't all work the same. Bleed, your example, has a specific line that tells you how to apply multiple bleed effects. There is no such line within the prone condition text so you cannot have the prone condition applied more than once. Every condition that can, has rules on how to apply them. You can't use the lack of information as directions to how it works. In other words "it doesn't say you can't".
People are leaving out a little sense of reality in all of this too. And before someone says it, don't say "but it's a fantasy world, you can't bring reality into it", because certain aspects of this fantasy world are still anchored at least somewhat on reality and realism. IRL, if you were prone (stomach or back on the floor), how could someone make you prone again? You can't get any worse without going through the earth.
The question is a little more subtle than that, although it IS sandwiched into a scenario so might have been missed. Basically the issue is whether PC#2 and PC#3 can satisfy the requirement of the Greater Trip feat in order to force MBG to provoke AoOs even though he is technically Prone. Hence "trip" as opposed to trip in the title.You seem to be saying that they cannot, if by "you cannot trip a prone character" you mean that you cannot be considered to have "successfully tripped" him. Some would agree with you on the grounds that in order to satisfy the requirement of "successfully tripping", the target must be knocked prone. And as MBG cannot be, then PC#2's and #3's attempts would fail.
Others would argue that the only measure of a "Successful Trip" is the CM roll against the target CMD. So if this is good enough, regardless of whether or not you can "Knock the target prone", then you have satisfied Greater Trip's requirement. This leads to PC#2 using his action to generate free attacks for #1 and #3 and then PC#3 using his AoO from MBG's standing to generate yet more free attacks for #1 and #2.
Yes it is pure cheese.
But is it legal?
Hmmm. I don't think. I mean, Jason Bullman said that you can try to trip an opponent that is standing up from prone, but that's wouldn't have any effect (here, just in case). Now, I know that Bullman's not the "official voice" of the rules, so to speak, but it sure make sense. I tend to agree with him. Now, starting from this point, if you assume that a standing up character could be "tripped with no effect" (I'm shortening the concept), it seems a paradox if something that have no effect has actually an effect. To explain better: greater trip says that to made your opponent provoke aoo, you must succesfully trip him. Now, if he's prone, and he provokes by standing up, you can "try to trip", but that has no effect (side note: I think that all here are agree on this single thing, so I assume that as well).
1)Now, if tripping your opponent has no effect, how could it have the effect of making him provoke?
2) And, as bonus question, how can you define a "successful trip attempt" an attempt that has no effect?
It seems to me that those two points would made the tripping mechanics totally senseless. So I say that no, you cannot use greater trip on an opponent that's standing up from prone to make him provoke another aoo in addition from standing up one.
Now, that's my reasoning. In addition, after writing that wall of text, I'd have the idea to search the FAQs, and I found that:
Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up.
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10
So, ruleswise, you cannot use greater trip to make your opponent provoke when he stands up from prone, because you cannot in first place trip him while he's standing up.
Who says the condition needs to be worse than your current state? Between worse and better there's null. If I take a step up a ladder, then two steps down, then one step up again, I'm right back where I started. But you wouldn't say I hadn't moved, would you? Just because inflicting prone a second time is redundant doesn't mean the target just sat there motionless. I could flip them from their back onto their front or any number of judo/jujitsu maneuvers that involve an opponent on the ground ending up back on the ground.
Who says you can't apply if it isn't a worse condition? The rules do. Look at my above quote about conditions. Sense its not two versons on the same effect, the "apply the worst" part of the rule is not valid here.
Next argument of non existing rules plz...
Interesting debate over application of Condition. This begs another question for me then.
Is it possible, when tripping a prone target, to have a good roll, apply the prone condition which doesn't stack, and then say that is good enough for the Greater Trip requirement?
If so, then we have 2 possible situations that could mean we can force a prone target to provoke.
#1 If the AoO comes before the Prone.
#2 If the AoO comes after the Prone, but the Prone is simply being reapplied (but not stacking).
Or we have #3 that says you cannot "trip" a prone target and make him provoke because the AoO comes after Prone, but prone is not effectively applied, so the attempt fails and Greater Trip's requirement is not met.
Interesting debate over application of Condition. This begs another question for me then.
Is it possible, when tripping a prone target, to have a good roll, apply the prone condition which doesn't stack, and then say that is good enough for the Greater Trip requirement?
Excuse me, English is not my native language, and I think I can't get your question. Could you explain better what you mean?
Sorry. My English isn't always the best either and it's my native language. heh But my German, Spanish, and Korean are absolutely dismal.
Greater Trip requires that you "successfully trip" a target in order to make that target provoke AoOs. Let us assume for now that this "success" is measured by rolling high enough and also applying the Prone condition. So:
Step #1 You make a trip attack against a Prone target.
Step #2 You then apply the Prone condition to that Prone target.
Step #3 This new Prone condition does not stack with the current Prone condition.
You have now technically rolled high enough AND applied the condition (even if it didn't stack).
Does this satisfy Greater Trip's requirement? Does the target now provoke AoOs?
The rules don't say that you can't trip a prone character. This is a grand misunderstanding. The rules say that when you use an AoO to trip a character that is prone and trying to stand up, you do so BEFORE they actually try to stand up, therefore, even if you succeed, you have gained nothing because they were prone before your attack, and after, but STILL have their action to stand up.
The rule is not a special one in place to stop the lock down. The rule is just following the order of actions when involving Attacks of Opportunity. It had to be clarified because people were not following the proper order and causing the lock down.
The error is not a ridiculous one, as The Temple Of Elemental Evil video game caused the trip lock down ALL THE TIME! And in that game you stood up automatically so you had no option but to get stuck in the lock down!
I lost quite a few characters that way.
Almost all conditions stack in some way, even if you don't see them. For instance, if I have an ability that does 1d6 bleed, I roll that each time I hit a character, until I get a 6. If I get a 4 on the first hit, then a 3, 1, 5, 4 the bleed is 5. I don't ever just roll once and say get a 1, then just allow that 1 to stand.
I believe the basis is that if there is no explicit mention of the interaction, then if there is no level of effect (as in bleed 1 vs. bleed 5) then the longest duration takes place. If there is a level effect, the highest level takes place. Page 208/209 CRB - Combining Magic Effects
The rules don't say that you can't trip a prone character. This is a grand misunderstanding. The rules say that when you use an AoO to trip a character that is prone and trying to stand up, you do so BEFORE they actually try to stand up, therefore, even if you succeed, you have gained nothing because they were prone before your attack, and after, but STILL have their action to stand up.
The rule is not a special one in place to stop the lock down. The rule is just following the order of actions when involving Attacks of Opportunity. It had to be clarified because people were not following the proper order and causing the lock down.
The error is not a ridiculous one, as The Temple Of Elemental Evil video game caused the trip lock down ALL THE TIME! And in that game you stood up automatically so you had no option but to get stuck in the lock down!
I lost quite a few characters that way.
Almost all conditions stack in some way, even if you don't see them. For instance, if I have an ability that does 1d6 bleed, I roll that each time I hit a character, until I get a 6. If I get a 4 on the first hit, then a 3, 1, 5, 4 the bleed is 5. I don't ever just roll once and say get a 1, then just allow that 1 to stand.
I believe the basis is that if there is no explicit mention of the interaction, then if there is no level of effect (as in bleed 1 vs. bleed 5) then the longest duration takes place. If there is a level effect, the highest level takes place. Page 208/209 CRB - Combining Magic Effects
1)combinging magic effects rules do not apply here, because the condition under debate is not magical.
2) you are assuming (as are alot of people here) that because one type of condition reapplies based on severity, that all conditions reapply. they dont. a condition can only be reapplied if you either a)increase the severity, or b) extend the duration. both of those cases are explicitly stated as things that can be done within each specific condition that allows that to happen. the prone condition can neither have its duration extended, or increase in severity. therefore there is no possible way to reapply the condition.
While there may be no significant effect of reapplying a condition, there is no reason to believe that condition is not reapplied.
In almost every single instance of the game, it would never matter. But there are a few where it might.
For example, say someone was at full hit points but under a bleed effect. (Assume temporary hit points before the hit, so they could still be at full). A cure spell will not result in any new hit points as none are lost. Yet the application of that cure spell will still stop the Bleed. Just because the person is at full hit points, does not mean the cure spell does not apply.
It is true that the section I referenced states magic spells or effects, I see no reason to apply combining rules for any other part of the game differently, unless specifically noted, as there are no other guidelines. How do you resolve feats if not by following these rules?
By your logic, a feat that gives a trait bonus of +1 AC and a second feat that gives a trait bonus of +1 AC would both stack. This is because the rules for stacking bonuses is under the "Special Spell Effects" section of the rulebook, which happen to be on the same exact page as the "Combining Magic Effects" section.
I think we both agree that while under the "Special Spell Effects" section, which clearly ONLY discusses magic spell effects, it applies to ALL named and unnamed bonus types in the game, not just magical ones.
If the target is Bleeding, are they immune to taking the Bleeding condition again? Does the rest of their skin suddenly become impenetrable and bloodless? Of course not. You could inflict 200 different bleed effects on a single target; but only the worst one applies. Same goes for the Prone condition, you could drop them prone 200 times, but only the worst Prone applies and since they are, de facto equal in penalty by definition, the question of which one to apply is moot.
Lets take a different example, an ability that, if you drop a target to negative HP, you get a bonus. The target is at 5 HP and you hit him for 10 damage, taking him down to -5 HP. You have brought him to negative HP, thus you trigger your ability and the target is dying. Now lets say you hit his unconscious, dying body again and take him down to -15 (we'll presume this is a tough cookie and is still alive). You've brought him to negative HP [b]again/b]. Your ability triggers again and you get the bonus again.
The problem is you are lumping all conditions into the same category. They don't all work the same. Bleed, your example, has a specific line that tells you how to apply multiple bleed effects. There is no such line within the prone condition text so you cannot have the prone condition applied more than once. Every condition that can, has rules on how to apply them. You can't use the lack of information as directions to how it works. In other words "it doesn't say you can't".
People are leaving out a little sense of reality in all of this too. And before someone says it, don't say "but it's a fantasy world, you can't bring reality into it", because certain aspects of this fantasy world are still anchored at least somewhat on reality and realism. IRL, if you were prone (stomach or back on the floor), how could someone make you prone again? You can't get any worse without going through the earth.
I find this "real world example" to be a serious oversimplification of the prone condition. I can do a lot while lying on the ground. I can fire a weapon, cast a spell or retrieve items. A "trip" attack could easily push me back over as I prop up to get something, pull my elbows out when I am taking aim, or just spin me around making me lose my positioning. I am not considered to be completely supine or prone with all points flat and unable to move just because I am prone. I may even be on my haunches or leaning back on my elbows.
|
|
Say I have a feat that when I cause a creature to get the dead condition I get special effect X.
I also have a spell that causes the dead condition.
I cast the spell and creature Z now has the dead condition and I get special effect X.
Can I cast the spell on creature Z again and meet the requirment for the feat?
Per the FAQ on trip-lock, a "trip" attack has no effect on you if you are already prone. It cannot stop you from reaching for something, or spoil your aim, or keep you from standing up, or anything. It doesn't add to the duration or hinder you in any way beyond what the normal Prone condition says.
Conditions that can be stacked or worsened or lengthened seem to be spelled out as saying so. Otherwise the default may be that a reapplication is ineffective (as in Prone's case). As Jacob points out with his example and question, the Dead condition cannot be reapplied, worsened, or lengthened no matter what I do to the corpse. I must raise it first and then kill it again to trigger the ability again.
Greater Trip requires that you "successfully trip" a target in order to make that target provoke AoOs. Let us assume for now that this "success" is measured by rolling high enough and also applying the Prone condition. So:
Step #1 You make a trip attack against a Prone target.
Step #2 You then apply the Prone condition to that Prone target.
Step #3 This new Prone condition does not stack with the current Prone condition.You have now technically rolled high enough AND applied the condition (even if it didn't stack).
Does this satisfy Greater Trip's requirement? Does the target now provoke AoOs?
Ok, get it. Under those assumptions I would say yes to both your questions.
@Komoda: do you even know what's an aoo?
All the arguments thus far are good. Unfortunately it all hinges on weather a "successful trip attempt" is defined as surpassing CMD or successfully giving the prone condition to the target and weather a target that is prone can be given the condition again.
As to the original scenario, if it works then your 3 PCs have effectively "AoO locked" a target to death using trips and AoO's to which paizo is very against (which is why the ruled against the trip lock to begin with) and I would have to imagine that they would rule a similar way in this case to prevent the lock.
Combat reflexes and a +4 dex mod on each of your PCs would kill just about anything using this scenario. Not to mention that it gets dead twice as fast if you add in one more PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the book plays fast and loose with the wording around a "successful trip attempt", hence the disagreement. In one place they may be referring to the overall action where other times they are talking just about the roll portion.
As pointed out here and on other threads, an Attack Roll comprises both the hit (roll) and the damage (effect). If I miss the roll, the effect doesn't apply and the attack is a failure. If I hit, but the effect fails (is absorbed, saved against, etc), then the hit was a success, but the overall attack is again a failure. Once both succeed, then the overall attack is a success.
Greater Trip is looking for a successful trip. We have 2 definitions of that so far. Those that say "Roll" decides and those that say "Roll and Effect" decides. But I think they are two different things. Again if the Roll succeeds but the Effect fails, what are we saying succeeds? The wording of the rules can be a bit dodgy as we look at different Feats and abilities.
Consider another thread talking about Ki Throwing off a cliff. "If my trip succeeds, can I throw my target..."
The wording right there supports the notion that the Trip has succeeded and THEN the effect applies. But is this how it really works? Or is it more reflective of how we sequence each step? What I mean is, we sit at the table and roll dice. Then when the roll is good enough we see that we have "succeeded". THEN we apply whatever the effect is. So that is how we tend to think of it.
But this isn't necessarily what is happening in the game. I don't drive my sword into the monster's hide, see that I've hit, and then after some strange pause Damage suddenly shows up. The damage is happening at the same moment as the sword is sliding into the beast. I only see the sequence of Roll, Hit, Damage because that is what is happening at the table. A RL example would be us talking about Sunset and Sunrise. We all know the Sun isn't really doing the moving here, but we also know what someone means when they talk about rising and setting.
Regarding the OP scenario, I'm of the mind that the Devs did not intend for the Greater Trip feat to be abused this way. Whether it is RAW or not can still be debated, but I'm fairly certain RAI would not allow it. At least I'm fairly certain that most if not all PFS GMs would not allow such a thing at their tables. Which lends itself to either being against RAW or in need of errata. A rule that needs to be ignored, forgotten, disallowed, or house-ruled is a rule that is either poorly designed or poorly interpreted.
someone needs to reformulate the question and post asking for an FAQ.
Q: Does succeeding on a trip attempt (by surpassing targets CMD with CMB roll) satisfy the requirement for "Greater Trip" and allow all adjacent characters an AoO if the target is already prone?
honestly, we could simply eliminate all further debate about issues such as these if the Dev's just posted that if a character has any of the following conditions they are immune to that condition until they no longer have it. and then list stated conditions (prone; dead; unconscious; etc.)
Yes Blackstorm, I know what an AoO is. My last post was about how applying "Real World Logic" never works as there is no way to mechanically adjudicate the very real world situation that I presented.
Jacob, here is the rub, the feat does not say, "you get this ability when you knock someone prone." If that were the case, I think we all agree that trigger cannot happen twice.
The feat says, "Successful trip attack".
That is the key to this debate.
If someone is dead, you cannot reapply the dead condition to trigger anything, such as the Hungry Ghost Monk abilities, but you can clearly, "Successfully Hit" the dead person, even with an attack that deals nonlethal damage, which would have no effect.
My point from the beginning was that there is no SPECIAL anti-trip-lock rule, it is a FAQ that clarifies the Normal Order of Operations of Attack of Opportunities that SHOWS the trip-lock impossible due to normal AoO rules.
These same rules make the disarm-lock impossible also. If you disarm someone, and they go to pick up the weapon, you get an AoO, but disarming them during that AoO (even if successful) is useless as they have no weapon. They can then continue to pick up the weapon and hit you back.
The real question debated has nothing to due with trip. It is trulye:
"What constitutes a successful hit/attack/maneuver? Is it the successful attack roll, or the successful application of the effect?"
The real question debated has nothing to due with trip. It is trulye:
"What constitutes a successful hit/attack/maneuver? Is it the successful attack roll, or the successful application of the effect?"
I agree this is something that can extend beyond just the Trip situation. And it can probably be boiled down even further than this, as a successful "hit" and a successful "attack" are not necessarily the same thing. At risk of repeating myself, consider what it looks like to successfully Demoralize a target.
My Intimidation check must meet or beat a defined DC.
#1 If the roll is good enough, then the target gains the Shaken condition.
#2 If the roll is bad, then the target does not gain the Shaken condition.
#3 If the roll is good, but the target is immune to Fear, then the target does not gain the Shaken condition.
Which of these situations constitute having successfully Demoralized the target?
#1 certainly.
#2 definitely not.
#3 ???
That all depends on whether I define "success" as only the Roll needing to be good or the Effect needing to apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules state:
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
This says to me that beating the enemy CMD means that the Trip is successful.
In addition, you apply listed effects. Prone would be the effect of a Trip attack. So you apply the Prone condition. The target may be already prone so the net effect is nothing.
However this doesn't change the fact that, per RAW, you were successful in your Trip attack.
Any power that is activated as a result of a successful Trip attack should be activated. The Prone/Standing status of your target is irrelevant.
So you can still get your power's effect against a target that can't be tripped (say, an ooze) because your maneuver was a success.
Forgive me if I disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do see in many individual monster entries (including some Oozes) "can't be Tripped". So a Trip would not be successful against it.
If it instead said "can't be Prone" then a Trip attack would still be able to work. But the Prone condition would not be applied to the creature.
The rules state:
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.This says to me that beating the enemy CMD means that the Trip is successful.
In addition, you apply listed effects. Prone would be the effect of a Trip attack. So you apply the Prone condition. The target may be already prone so the net effect is nothing.
However this doesn't change the fact that, per RAW, you were successful in your Trip attack.
Any power that is activated as a result of a successful Trip attack should be activated. The Prone/Standing status of your target is irrelevant.
So you would classify #3 in my above Demoralize example as a success?
You example wasn't talking about the Trip maneuver. You were talking about an entirely different set of rules.
There's no need to bring up different rules when the RAW for the rule in question provides the needed information.
But to be fair I will answer your question.
Yes, the character did successfully perform a Demoralize action even though the enemy was not given the Shaken condition.
So if there was a power that activated upon a successful Demoralize action - it would trigger no matter what condition the target creature had or did not have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slim, I think Democratus has it. If you are immune to the attack (trip) it can't be successful. That would be a normal exception to the rule (if the rule is clarified in this way).
If however, you are immune to the effect, then auxiliary effects may still take place.
|
|
Slim, I think Democratus has it. If you are immune to the attack (trip) it can't be successful. That would be a normal exception to the rule (if the rule is clarified in this way).
If however, you are immune to the effect, then auxiliary effects may still take place.
So what your saying is that you can use a greater trip attack against a creature that is immune (oozes, snakes, etc) to being tripped and still trigger the AoO?
So what your saying is that you can use a greater trip attack against a creature that is immune (oozes, snakes, etc) to being tripped and still trigger the AoO?Slim, I think Democratus has it. If you are immune to the attack (trip) it can't be successful. That would be a normal exception to the rule (if the rule is clarified in this way).
If however, you are immune to the effect, then auxiliary effects may still take place.
That's exactly the opposite of what is being said.
You example wasn't talking about the Trip maneuver. You were talking about an entirely different set of rules.
There's no need to bring up different rules when the RAW for the rule in question provides the needed information.
But to be fair I will answer your question.
Yes, the character did successfully perform a Demoralize action even though the enemy was not given the Shaken condition.
So if there was a power that activated upon a successful Demoralize action - it would trigger no matter what condition the target creature had or did not have.
"An entirely different set of rules"? Really? The rules set down for Combat Maneuvers, Attack Rolls, and Skill Checks are the exact same. "If your roll meets or beats X, then you are successful." So how are they suddenly a different set? How is it that in one instance the application of the effect doesn't matter, but suddenly under a different yet parallel instance the effect now does matter? The definition of "success" is the same in both instances.
And meaning to or not, you are playing with words. The question was not whether the character successfully performed the Roll. The question was did he successfully demoralize his target. THAT is what I think is the biggest disconnect here between the two camps. Those that define "success" as the Roll only are only talking about the Roll. They only see the Roll. Which is technically correct, but not the full picture. Meanwhile those that define "success" as the Roll AND Effect, are talking about the events in their entirety. They are focused on successful application of what they are attempting to do.
It is possible for me to claim that I have succeeded on my Intimidation check to Demoralize a Paladin. But it is impossible for me to claim that I have succeeded in Demoralizing the Paladin. So the answer to #3 would certainly seem to be "No".
The wording of Greater Trip seems to fall into that same wording. "Whenever you successfully trip..." The disconnect between the 2 camps here is that #1 is focusing on the Roll and #2 is focusing on the entire event...or to reword it:
#1 "Whenever you succeed at a trip attempt..."
vs
#2 "Whenever you have successfully tripped..."
Can anyone confirm that this is accurate? If so, are the two camps irreconcilable short of a FAQ? Or is there a way to decipher which way "Whenever you successfully trip..." should be read?
And as a side note, the OP doesn't hinge on just this question. Others have debated the application of Conditions, which I think is worth attention. Even if we were to assume #2 was correct, there is still the matter of whether Prone can be technically reapplied to a prone target in such as way as to trigger Greater Trip. :)
Actually I must stand corrected on something. The rule of Skill Checks does not include any reference to an applied effect. It simply states "If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than the DC of the task you are attempting to accomplish, you succeed." I'm assuming the application of effect is inferred, but it is not mentioned.
This differs from CM rolls and Attack rolls as they reference effect application specifically. "If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect."
So take that as you will.
|
|
That's exactly the opposite of what is being said.So what your saying is that you can use a greater trip attack against a creature that is immune (oozes, snakes, etc) to being tripped and still trigger the AoO?Slim, I think Democratus has it. If you are immune to the attack (trip) it can't be successful. That would be a normal exception to the rule (if the rule is clarified in this way).
If however, you are immune to the effect, then auxiliary effects may still take place.
Sorry but the bold words tell otherwise