| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but the bold words tell otherwiseThat'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.
Ah. I was looking at the reference to what I had said.
In general, if you succeed in the roll for a CMB, then any effects that occur on a success will also happen.
In the specific case where a creature (such as an Ochre Jelly) is immune to Trip - then the specific overrides the general and a trip can not be successful regardless of roll.
At least - that's what I was trying to say. Sorry if I got wires crossed there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I fully agree with. As GM I would say it appears that since an Ooze is immune to tripping, you automatically fail the attempt. The CMD listed is for other CMs, but for Trip it is virtually infinite in value.
However I wonder if this is implying that the creature cannot be knocked prone, since technically you can still do so with an Overrun...just not a Trip. I would assume so, but I can't produce any text to support that claim.
|
Admittedly this is only an opinion, and James Jacbos's at that.
If something is prone, it can't be tripped, because it's already prone. For the same reason, things that don't have legs can't be tripped, and things that are not walking on the ground (because they're swimming or flying or whatever) can't be tripped either.In your opinion.
If you have the greater trip feat and you attack a prone creature with a trip attack and the numbers you roll say you succeded on said trip attack, do you trigger the greater trip AoO feature for a successful trip attack even if the creature is already prone?
Thanks for your opinion.
That sounds like a "no AoO" to me...anyone else?
But do you see how the logic is circular? An ooze that is immune to critical hits still suffers from flaming burst, which happens due to a successful critical hit.
Which is why people disagree. And ask for FAQs so often.
The rules can be different, that is clearly at the purview of the designers. But it has to be understood that when these rulings do not follow the same logic, it makes it impossible for players/DMs to make the "correct" ruling, as there is no valid logic to follow.
I knew it was different to begin with. As a personal rule, I tend never to try to apply rules from a different part of the game to my disputes on a singular subject for no other reason than I am well aware that no two aspects of the game are truly interchangeable.
|
|
But do you see how the logic is circular? An ooze that is immune to critical hits still suffers from flaming burst, which happens due to a successful critical hit.
Which is why people disagree. And ask for FAQs so often.
The rules can be different, that is clearly at the purview of the designers. But it has to be understood that when these rulings do not follow the same logic, it makes it impossible for players/DMs to make the "correct" ruling, as there is no valid logic to follow.
"A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that
also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit.The fire does not harm the wielder. In addition to the extra
fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming
burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on
a successful critical hit. If the weapon’s critical multiplier is
3, add an extra 2d10 points of fire damage instead, and if
the multiplier is 4, add an extra 3d10 points of fire damage.
Even if the flaming ability is not active, the weapon still
deals its extra fire damage on a successful critical hit."
Where exactly does it say that flaming burst still goes off on a critical hit even if the creature is immune to crits? Is that a FAQ somewhere?
i cant find an FAQ on it (but i'm really bad at searching for the FAQ's on this site, so maybe someone can find it) but i do know with a high degree of certainty that at least one DEV has said that when you crit on an immune target, the burst still goes off. I personally dont agree with this because IMHO a critical hit is defined as striking so successfully that you do far more damage than you intended to. So if i swing at your shoulder, expecting you to block with your weapon and i used enough force in my swing to get past that block and you simply didnt get your sword up in time i critted because i used far more force than i needed to just slide you open, instead i cleaved your arm off! but if you are immune to crits (im still trying to understand how exactly anything could be immune to this) then i've never used more force in a strike than i intended to use.
this is just my idea, visually, of how critting works, so theres that. but i dont see how it could be looked at any other way without crossing over into the realm of sneak attack instead of crits.
|
|
Where exactly does it say that flaming burst still goes off on a critical hit even if the creature is immune to crits? Is that a FAQ somewhere?Magic Items/Weapons
Magic Weapons and Critical Hits: Some weapon special abilities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect also functions against creatures not normally subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon's regular damage.
Thanks I was wondering were that was.
i guess that explains why i couldnt find the faq...
|
|
Greater Trip (Combat)
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
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[b], that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.
What I comes down to is what is a successful trip. If a creature cant be tripped how do you succeed?
Magic Weapons and Critical Hits: Some weapon [b]special abilities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect also functions against creatures not normally subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon's regular damage.
Notice that it talks about special abilities and weapons and then points out how they still work?
You dont have that with trip. If greater trip ment for the AoO to happen even if the target was not a tripable target it would have spelled it out as most 'special' case stuff does.
At least thats the way I see it.
I have a staple answer for just about every rules debate worth having:
Both sides have made very valid points. It is impossible to prove either side as the logic of the game can never be applied a certain way to more than one sub-system of the rule. At this point, you will have to decide at your table until a FAQ/Errata is printed.
Great debate guys, I enjoyed it and it never got nasty.
Unless it's just a clarification due to the obvious confusion one might make to a weapon's "effect that activates on a critical hit" being a type of critical hit or how you'd adjudicate it against a creature that is normally immune (and for which you wouldn't normally bother confirming the crit). No such issue exists with Trip because a successful trip is self-evident based on the rules; it's successful when you overcome the target's CMD.
either im confused as to what you are trying to say here, or i outright disagree.
a successful trip is NOT determined by surpassing CMD, and here is why:
if my character does not know that his target is immune to trips, there is nothing stopping him from making a trip attempt. even IF he succeeds the CMD check, he still fails to trip his target because the target never fell prone. the character clearly knows that he connected with his "hit" to knock it prone, but it never went down.
it is not the same with crits. with a crit, the only way for my character to know that it critted is to see an effect happen that only happens on a crit. if you dont have a burst effect or something else that happens on a crit, then as far as the character knows it was just another successful attack. but when you have a burst effect you KNOW when it goes off because something different happens.
a trip has an intended result that when something is immune, you know so because your intended result didnt happen. but with a crit, you never INTENDED to do so, it just happened by decision of yours so you are never expecting it, so when it doesnt happen because something is immune, you are none the wiser unless you have a burst effect and even then, all you actually know is that every so often your weapon does that (seeming at random) and this case compared to all others is no different.
|
|
Question @Kazan.
If you use a greater trip attack against a creature that is immune (oozes, snakes, etc) to being tripped, do still trigger the AoO if you succeed on your roll? Or lets add, you are medium and you succeed on your CMD for a trip attempt but the creature is hugh, do you trigger the greater trip AoO?
If something is prone, it can't be tripped, because it's already prone. For the same reason, things that don't have legs can't be tripped, and things that are not walking on the ground (because they're swimming or flying or whatever) can't be tripped either.
and why, Kazaan, can you not trip a flying, swimming, or no legged creature? BECAUSE THEY ARE IMMUNE!!! and so, a prone target would also be immune to trips...not to the prone condition, but to trips. so even with a successful CMD check, the TRIP attempt is a failure. it would be a different story is the creature was immune to the prone condition, but not to being tripped. but simply put, thats not possible.
"For creatures without legs, being prone has practically no meaning; it's simply a non-issue for them."
so then, if i got a crawl speed on my human character and simply slithered around everywhere i went then i too would not have to worry about every being tripped, correct? im permanently prone just like a snake or ooze. the only difference at that point would be that my stat block doesnt explicitly say "immune to trips" but i am effectively doing the same thing. so how am i any different than someone who has been knocked prone who hasn't yet tried to get up?
Can you slither on your back? Is your morphology such that you can either move just as easily flat on your back as you can on your stomach or standing up or, at least, make it a non-action to adjust your position? An Ooze has no distinct top or bottom; it can move around just as easily regardless of it's orientation. A Snake is shaped such that it can always be in a position to move around for negligible effort.
If you're lying flat on your back, arms akimbo, and I grab your arm and lever you over onto your front, I've just tripped you, according to the game, because I beat your CMD. At the same time, that moment that I tripped you and started turning you over, I plant my knee into your spleen. This was no accident; since I have Greater Trip, I flipped you over in a prescribed manner to expose a spot I could easily attack.
what you just described was a grapple and/or pin, not a trip. simply because you used the word "grab" in your statement.
i see what you are saying, but that wasn't my point. lets say that yes, i actually AM slithering around on my belly and i CAN protect myself just as well on my belly as i can on my back, because i'm a monk and am threatening no matter what part of my body is facing you. my point is that no matter what you do, you cant give me the prone condition because im already prone. the same as a snake or ooze. they already are prone and therefore cannot be made prone.
An interesting note concerning whether Trip = Prone;
In the Bestiary Glossary under Incorporeal it mentions how "Incorporeal creatures cannot make trip or grapple attacks, nor can they be tripped or grappled." When they mention Trip here could they be equating Trip with Prone? Meaning if something can't be Tripped it means it can't be Knocked Prone? They don't seem to come right out and say it anywhere. The correlation seems to be inferred.
The text does go on to explain that the creature cannot manipulate objects nor be manipulated by objects. So you can't Drag or Bull Rush a ghost either. The immunity to Knocking Prone could be explained here too. But again based on the book's definition of Trip, Greater Trip's fluff text, JJ's post (which seems to be equating Trip with Prone), and an assortment of other things it seems like the game is pointing from Trip ---> Knock Prone without really coming out and saying it directly. Meaning it is left up to us to make that mental step just like it is in a lot of other areas.
And to toss this out there:
I just checked the PRD and it says that, if your roll for the maneuver meets or exceeds the target's CMD, the maneuver is a success.
Don't forget the rest of that sentence. "...and has the listed effect."
That part tends to fall off whenever someone uses this sentence to argue that success is only the Roll. I'm not sure why that is...
:P
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok, I have received a few requests now to repost this question in a format that can be a candidate for FAQ. The main question I'm seeing is:
"Can I Greater Trip a prone target to make him provoke AoOs? Why or why not?"
There are a few spin-off questions from this, however.
"Does the AoO from Greater Trip fire before or after the target is prone?"
"If an ability triggers on the application of a Condition, can I reapply that Condition to cause the ability to trigger again even if the Condition doesn't worsen, extend, or stack with itself? (i.e. Can I 'make' a blind man Blind or a prone man Prone?)"
Does anyone see either a key question that is different than this or disagree with any of these questions? Or is it possible to post a few related questions in a single FAQ request?
Because of a keen understanding of syntactical significance. For example, I could say, "I will drive to the store and get groceries." I may get to the store and find it closed unexpectedly; but that doesn't negate the fact that I drove there.Don't forget the rest of that sentence. "...and has the listed effect."
That part tends to fall off whenever someone uses this sentence to argue that success is only the Roll. I'm not sure why that is...
If all you were looking for is to answer "What is a successful drive to the store", then yes your answer suffices. But if you are trying to define "What is a successful shopping trip", then the part of the sentence that says "...and get groceries" is extremely important. As the store was closed, you may have succeeded in going to the store, but you did not have a successful shopping trip. Both parts are required in order to succeed.
But this takes us back to what a "successful trip" is and we spend a lot of energy going round-robin on it. Hence the reason for putting together the right question for FAQ.
HA! I'm not quite sure how that equates to rule examples, but I guess that would be a situation where you've unintentionally re-applied the "Groceries" Condition.
Conditions
Groceried: Characters become Groceried when they successfully arrive at the store and purchase products. This condition is a lesser form of the Overstocked effect.
Wife-Scolded: A Groceried character who purchases more items within a short period of time upgrades to Wife-Scolded. This condition can also be acquired when you over purchase too many items, purchase the wrong items, or fail to purchase the correct items. Wife-Scolded is a greater form of the Overstocked effect.
So what happens if drive to the store and pick up groceries, then drove home to find out that my wife also picked up those same groceries? Was my trip not successful because I picked up a redundant set of groceries?
It's more like you call the fuel delivery man because you're running low on heating oil due to the cold weather. Your wife, unbeknownst to you, ALSO calls the fuel delivery man. The first truck shows up and fills your tank. Then the SECOND truck shows up, but cannot fill your tank because it is already full. How many successful fuel deliveries were there ?
So what happens if drive to the store and pick up groceries, then drove home to find out that my wife also picked up those same groceries? Was my trip not successful because I picked up a redundant set of groceries?It's more like you call the fuel delivery man because you're running low on heating oil due to the cold weather. Your wife, unbeknownst to you, ALSO calls the fuel delivery man. The first truck shows up and fills your tank. Then the SECOND truck shows up, but cannot fill your tank because it is already full. How many successful fuel deliveries were there ?
For the second driver (analog to the 'tripper') there was a successful delivery. He went to the address on time and gets payed his full bonus for hitting all the addresses on his list.
The household (analog to the person attacked by a trip) is full of fuel after the first delivery and remain full of fuel after the second.
For the second driver (analog to the 'tripper') there was a successful delivery. He went to the address on time and gets payed his full bonus for hitting all the addresses on his list.
The household (analog to the person attacked by a trip) is full of fuel after the first delivery and remain full of fuel after the second.
I disagree. He delivered no fuel.
I disagree. He delivered no fuel.For the second driver (analog to the 'tripper') there was a successful delivery. He went to the address on time and gets payed his full bonus for hitting all the addresses on his list.
The household (analog to the person attacked by a trip) is full of fuel after the first delivery and remain full of fuel after the second.
I suppose we must agree to disagree here.
I believe he delivered the fuel, but did not fill up their tank.
We can play with the words to get them to fit just how we like, Democratus, although if we're equating tripping and delivery, then it's more like you're saying once you've made the call (Roll) you are considering that a successful delivery...even though the truck hasn't shown up yet (Effect). At least if we're still talking Roll and Effect. ;)
But for Greater Trip the main question still boils down to whether you can Greater Trip a prone target and make him provoke. One of two things must happen to allow for this. Either Greater Trip only requires a successful Roll or the Prone condition can be reapplied. However, if the Effect must be in place and the condition cannot be reapplied, then the answer is that you cannot Greater Trip a prone target and make him provoke.
Regardless of which side any of us are on, do we agree this make sense?
If the Devs answer the question I'm suggesting and give the reason to that answer, my hope is that it provides final confirmation regarding where the AoO lands in the sequence AND if non-stacking/worsening/lengthening conditions can be reapplied.
I've heard 1 positive regarding this so far. If others have better suggestions, let me know. Otherwise I'll probably put together a new Thread and put the question up for FAQ request in the next 24 hours or so....delivery trucks and groceries aside. heh
Well said, Elbedor.
It will be nice to hear what the Devs have to say if an when they chime in.
Wow. Not only is that a 2nd positive, but one from the "other side" as well. Either I'm doing something right or just fraternizing with the enemy. ;)
I would like to see this as an FAQ because it does seem to be unclear as to how a successful "trip" interacts with an already prone target.
I would like to see this as an FAQ because it does seem to be unclear as to how a successful "trip" interacts with an already prone target.
We know the general intent of rules regarding abilities is to prevent abuse. I think we can safely agree to that, yes? I hope so, anyway... because the devs have a clear track record of making rulings in such a way as to eliminate rule abuse. This, too, will eventually be one of those cases, should a FAQ eventually come.
I am 100% confident that you cannot trip an already prone target. Any attempt to trip them will not be a 'success'. Not only is that common sense, which we are supposed to 'engage' when reading the rules, but it is also the sensible ruling to prevent abuse of certain abilities or peculiar tactics.
Otherwise any creature (or character) with an attack that is linked to a free trip who takes Greater Trip can simply chain attack a target until they run out of AoOs. Clearly not intentional.
There are lesser abuses too, such as chaining trips while feeding your buddies free AoOs until yall run out. Or simply getting free attacks on trip-immune creatures who you clearly cannot trip in the first place.
It isn't sensible to say you can trip a prone target. It isn't sensible to say you can trip a trip-immune target. It creates game problems too, aside from being the clearly obvious answer.
My curiosity, at this point... is why is anyone still arguing this? What motivation is there to argue that you can trip someone who is prone? Aside from the fact that you clearly cannot do so... why is it being argued? It seems peculiar to me that anyone thinks that is 'the right answer' to this debate... anyone mind explaining how they could possibly think this is the case?
I'm very much not trying to be insulting, please forgive me if I'm coming off that way... I'm just, truly mystified by some of these arguments in this thread. I keep getting the feeling that there must simply be some other motivation for the people who think a prone target should be trip-able. So... what is it?
As on other threads, I am in agreement with you, Remy. My purpose here was to consider a possible scenario and to see what different people thought of it. As the debate over what "success" means effects how the mechanics operate in many areas, I thought it important to lay out one such case, discuss it, and see if an agreement could be reached. But such a thing has proven as elusive here as it has elsewhere.
For that reason I've constructed a single FAQ candidate question that I will be posting shortly. I am hoping for it to touch on 3 different areas that seem to have plagued those of us that like to debate the rules.
#1 What is the definition of a "successful trip"?
#2 Can I reapply a condition that already exists for purposes of triggering an ability?
#3 Is the AoO generated from Greater Trip for me alone or for my buddies as well?
I'm sure you and I would probably agree on most if not all of these. But I think it's important to get the debate out there as long as there can be a potential end in sight...either group consensus or getting this FAQ'ed. Once I have posted it, I will make notification here and anyone and everyone will be welcome to go there and click away to bring it to the Devs attention. :)
If that means the end of this thread and others like it...guess we'll see.
FAQ request posted.
As on other threads, I am in agreement with you, Remy. My purpose here was to consider a possible scenario and to see what different people thought of it. As the debate over what "success" means effects how the mechanics operate in many areas, I thought it important to lay out one such case, discuss it, and see if an agreement could be reached. But such a thing has proven as elusive here as it has elsewhere.
For that reason I've constructed a single FAQ candidate question that I will be posting shortly. I am hoping for it to touch on 3 different areas that seem to have plagued those of us that like to debate the rules.
#1 What is the definition of a "successful trip"?
#2 Can I reapply a condition that already exists for purposes of triggering an ability?
#3 Is the AoO generated from Greater Trip for me alone or for my buddies as well?I'm sure you and I would probably agree on most if not all of these. But I think it's important to get the debate out there as long as there can be a potential end in sight...either group consensus or getting this FAQ'ed. Once I have posted it, I will make notification here and anyone and everyone will be welcome to go there and click away to bring it to the Devs attention. :)
If that means the end of this thread and others like it...guess we'll see.
A "successful trip" definition doesn't 'exactly' help in this debate, per se. We are looking for "successfully trip an opponent". While similar, is a different meaning. A successful trip roll and successfully tripping an opponent isn’t precisely the same thing.
To trip an opponent successfully, you must have 'actually' tripped them. This means they start as not prone, and then because of your efforts, now are.
Greater trip doesn't trigger off simply rolling high enough; it triggers off the very specific and exact trigger of "successfully trip an opponent". The opponent must 'be tripped', and by 'you'.
On question #2, I'm pretty sure it is irrelevant...but not 100% certain. Most of the time the wording to these abilities that trigger off of condition application read something to the effect of 'when you cause the target to become X' or similar. It is looking for the application of the condition for the first time. For example, Vicious Stomp triggers when the target drops prone. You don't 'drop' prone if you are already prone, you 'stay prone'.
I'm fairly sure that any reapplication of a condition is meaningless. (But I'm not reading through every ability I know of to verify this, so could be mistaken)
As to #3, I've only ever seen that interpreted as the opponent triggers attacks from everyone who threatens him. But, I guess it could be interpreted otherwise? I've just never seen it. And... the wording strongly implies it applies to any/everyone since it says "provokes attacks of opportunity". That seems plural.
My main question though, was what motivates people towards thinking a prone target can ‘be tripped’? They simply cannot be. It simply doesn’t make any sense. These words don’t mean what they seem to think they do. There has to be something that is motivating people to argue that a prone target can be tripped, some in-game advantage they want to argue for. I’m not sure… something. I’m curious what it is.
A "successful trip" definition doesn't 'exactly' help in this debate, per se. We are looking for "successfully trip an opponent". While similar, is a different meaning. A successful trip roll and successfully tripping an opponent isn’t precisely the same thing.
To trip an opponent successfully, you must have 'actually' tripped them. This means they start as not prone, and then because of your efforts, now are.
Greater trip doesn't trigger off simply rolling high enough; it triggers off the very specific and exact trigger of "successfully trip an opponent". The opponent must 'be tripped', and by 'you'.
On question #2, I'm pretty sure it is irrelevant...but not 100% certain. Most of the time the wording to these abilities that trigger off of condition application read something to the effect of 'when you cause the target to become X' or similar. It is looking for the application of the condition for the first time. For example, Vicious Stomp triggers when the target drops prone. You don't 'drop' prone if you are already prone, you 'stay prone'.
I'm fairly sure that any reapplication of a condition is meaningless. (But I'm not reading through every ability I know of to verify this, so could be mistaken)
As to #3, I've only ever seen that interpreted as the opponent triggers attacks from everyone who threatens him. But, I guess it could be interpreted otherwise? I've just never seen it. And... the wording strongly implies it applies to any/everyone since it says "provokes attacks of opportunity". That seems plural.
My main question though, was what motivates people towards thinking a prone target can ‘be tripped’? They simply cannot be. It simply doesn’t make any sense. These words don’t mean what they seem to think they do. There has to be something that is motivating people to argue that a prone target can be tripped, some in-game advantage they want to argue for. I’m not sure… something. I’m curious what it is.
You're doing a lot of question begging here.
A successful trip is not the same as successfully attempting to trip. How do you know that? What distinguishes the two? How do you know that "actually tripping" someone requires that they start on their feat? What if I use my meteor hammer to drag a prone opponent closer? Am I disallowed from successfully tripping with my meteor hammer because the target is already prone?
As I've said a couple of times, the only reason this all came up is because of the question about when the AoO from Greater Trip occurs. That's the only reason I'm arguing. The rest of this discussion is a natural consequence of the extension of the conversation about this disagreement. I'm not looking for any particular advantage regarding tripping a prone opponent.
AoO interrupt the flow of events. Ordinarily, I'd probably assume the Greater Trip AoO occurs at the time when the target has the effect applied, but the FAQ re: Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip makes it clear that two AoO are provoked. But rather than saying this is an exception to the "Each act only provokes once" rule, we're told that one occurs because of "being tripped" while the other occurs because of "falling prone".
Without clarification, the implication is that "being tripped" and "falling prone" are therefore two separate things. Ergo, "being tripped" refers to the successful attempt, not the result (which is typically, though not always, that the target is knocked prone).
If "being tripped" necessarily means "falling prone", then you are provoking two AoO for the same thing. You've stated over and over that a trip is not successful until the target is knocked prone. That means that being knocked prone is a necessary component of being successfully tripped. If that is the case, then the AoO is triggered by being knocked prone, but only in the instances where it's caused by tripping. Vicious Stomp allows an AoO whenever an adjacent creature falls prone, by whatever means including being tripped. So being knocked prone via a trip results in two AoO (hence the Double Jeopardy analogy in the other thread). As I've said, if this is actually the intent, then just make that clear. I don't actually have a problem with that.
However, by apparently distinguishing the two there is an implication that they are separate. They can only be separate if the triggering event is actually two things.
The resolution to all this is simple: Either say that Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip allow two AoO for what is fundamentally the same thing. Or recognize that the attack roll itself is what determines whether the maneuver is a success, which means the AoO from Greater Trip occurs prior to the application of any effect.
No trip-locking ever occurs. Trip-locking is repeatedly preventing an opponent from standing up. We know that can't happen because of the FAQ specifically addressing that point. But if you're worried about repeat trip attempts creating multiple AoO from multiple opponents, either clarify whether the AoO from Greater Trip is supposed to be limited to the tripper (which I doubt) or simply FAQ/Errata that the AoO from Greater Trip cannot be used to make a trip attempt. Or, as I've mentioned, as your GMs and PCs to use common sense. This wouldn't be the first time where a literal reading of the rules would lead to abusive results.
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.
Your argument does nothing to prevent the other guy(s) from making their attack of opportunity, and so the debate goes on.
True and true.
I think the "trip attempt" in this case is telling you what mechanic to use to resolve the attack (especially since the result is not a "tripped" or "falls prone" result, but becomes "snagged"). There's no "snagged" condition to apply, so the rules specify flat-footed instead. It's almost like a feint as a combat maneuver instead of a Bluff/Sense motive check.
We're not going to resolve this until the devs chime in, but it's back to a definition of successful trip. Is it simply success at the maneuver check, or is it success at the maneuver check AND the target actually transitioning from not-prone to prone as a result ?
I'm reading "trip attempt" to mean the Roll.
This differs in my mind from "successfully trip" which implies the whole event.
But I'm just repeating myself at this point. <shrug>
I'm reading "trip attempt" to mean the Roll.
This differs in my mind from "successfully trip" which implies the whole event.
This is just how it should be read.
When you attempt to "snag" an opponent with a SBS, Improved and Greater trip both provide their +2 bonuses, because "trip attempt" and "check made to trip a foe" are synonymous.
It seems that they want any bonuses that apply to a Trip attempt to apply equally to this special trip attempt, therefore "trip a foe" cannot possibly equate to succeeding at a trip check and knocking them from not prone to prone.
Succeeding a trip attempt does equate to knocking a foe prone. The Seven-Bladed Sword, when used, expands this definition by providing an alternate effect which a trip maneuver can effect, namely snaging a foe, forcing them to stumble and making them flat-footed. If your trip doesn't accomplish either of these things, it hasn't succeeded.
I've broken down my reasoning below, for the simplicity of argument. If you disagree with the above, which point do you object to?
1) To succeed is to achieve a desired end, to produce a desired effect.
2) If your attempt does not achieve any ends/produce any effects, it cannot be said to have succeeded.
3) In a combat maneuver, beating an opponent's CMB is the means to the end, not the end itself.
4) The one and only desired end of an unaltered trip maneuver is knocking an opponent prone.
4b) The SBS provides an alternate end to to a trip maneuver, expanding the list of success conditions.
4c) Greater Trip does not provide an alternate end to a trip maneuver for the purpose of evaluating success, because for the AoO to occur the attempt must have already succeeded.
5) If the opponent is not knocked prone by a trip, or is not snagged with a SBS, then the trip has not succeeded, regardless of the result of the CMB check.