You're doing a lot of question begging here.
Don’t confuse providing a definition with begging the question. When explaining what something means by providing definitions, it can seem superficially similar to begging the question, but isn’t so.
The confusion stems from not understanding this statement “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent”. People seem to be unable to process this phrase. I’m not sure why. I’ve explained it repeatedly by this point.
I’m not begging the question when I explain how to parse this sentence… I’m only using English grammar and definitions to do so. I’m explaining what is fact, not what is an argument.
Facts related to: “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent”
Trip definition; action that causes fall
Fall definition; come down suddenly from upright position
Successfully definition; achieving or having achieved success.
Success definition; the favorable outcome of something attempted
When; your opponent has been successfully tripped (To become prone from not prone by an action intended to do so), by you; Then…
This is purely definitional. I’m not explaining how ‘I think’ it ‘should’ work. I’m not arguing how ‘I think’ anything… I’m simply explaining how the phrase “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent” is to read, in terms of the English language.
No begging the question needed.
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?
See above. English is how I know that. I know what all the words mean in the phrase “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent”. I.e. I’m fluent in English.
As to what differentiates “A successful trip” and “successfully attempting to trip”? Well… the words “attempting to” spring to mind. Those words have meaning… and are present in one, and not in the other. So clearly these two things have different meanings. Agree?
As to meteor hammer… if you are not tripping your opponent, then you are clearly not successfully tripping your opponent. I’m not sure what to tell you. If you don’t trip them, how could you possibly be successfully tripping them? You cannot be.
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).
AoOs are resolved as soon as they are triggered. Yes. The AoO for Greater trip is triggered immediately upon ‘successfully tripping your opponent’. Simple as that.
This issue, rather, hang-up you have on Vicious Stomp is not related. Vicious Stomp triggers from an opponent falling prone adjacent to you. Greater Trip causes your opponent to provoke when you successfully trip them. These can happen completely independent of one another.
If you trip someone 10’ away, greater trip triggers and vicious stomp does not. If someone slips and falls next to you, vicious stomp triggers and greater trip does not.
They are thus different triggers, because there exists numerous situations in which they trigger independently of one another. It would be impossible for this to be the same trigger, because it is not the same thing.
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.
Being tripped doesn’t simply mean falling prone. You’re oversimplifying it because it is convenient to your argument to do so.
“Being tripped” means “Falling prone due to the action of another specifically intended to cause you to fall prone”.
I understand that you want Vicious Stomp’s trigger and Greater Trip’s trigger to be the same thing, but they simply aren’t the same thing. There are in some instances where they can both trigger simultaneously, sure. But that does not make them identical to one another.
3x+2=Y
2x+4=Y
Both of those are different equations… however, sometimes they have the same value for Y. (When X=2) But just because they can have the same value for Y in one specific case does NOT make them the same equation.
Likewise, there is a case when both Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip can both cause AoOs to be provoked, but it isn’t from the same trigger, not exactly. It is from two separate triggers both occurring at the same time. But there are many more cases when these triggers occur completely separate from one another.
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.
The resolution to this is very simply, true.
The AoOs from Greater Trip occur after the target has become prone.
You cannot trip a prone target.
Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp have separate triggers, and can indeed both trigger simultaneously.
This wouldn't be the first time where a literal reading of the rules would lead to abusive results.
And lastly...
Your reading of the rules isn't a "literal" reading. It is an "illiterate*" reading of the rules.
And illiterate reading of the rules leads to abuse all the time, I agree.
Disclaimer* Definition of Illiterate used: violating accepted standards in reading and writing.
Or is there something that I am missing in the rules here ? something that makes the AoO from greater trip ignore the normal rules(and FAQ) for AoO ?
Your not missing anything. Multiple people in this thread are simply misunderstanding or ignoring the mechanics of how AoO's work - probably on account of it tripping up their sense of realism.
The resolution to this is very simply, true.
The AoOs from Greater Trip occur after the target has become prone.
You cannot trip a prone target.
Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp have separate triggers, and can indeed both trigger simultaneously.** spoiler omitted **
So AoO from Greater trip has some rule that tells you to disregard the normal rule for AoO ?** spoiler omitted **
Would not the Immediate interrupting be after success and before having the listed effect? As that is the only place there is a "chain of events" so to speak to actually interrupt (disregarding the timetraveling interrupt before the roll, therefore it never happened, return to the CM, provoke, interrupt before the roll, never happened and so on)If AoO happen AFTER the triggering (as You seem to advocate with the Greater Trip AoO) then someone provoking for moving out of a threatened square would be out of range when you get to take the AoO. Standing up from Prone provokes, the AoO would then happen when they are standing, and can then be tripped again (yet the FAQ states that this is NOT how it happens Tripping a...
You are missing several things. This thread goes into them in detail.
Actually Greater Trip does instruct us to ignore the normal rule of how AoOs work. Suggesting that a specific rule can't override the general rule is just silly. Being knocked over from a trip doesn't provoke an AoO. Being knocked over from an Overrun doesn't provoke an AoO. Falling prone on purpose doesn't provoke an AoO. Going from Standing to Prone by any means does not provoke an AoO. Because it's not technically an action (except in Falling Prone's case). There is nothing to interrupt and nothing to provoke. But Greater Trip changes this so that now the target does. You don't provoke. You don't interrupt your own action with your own AoO. The enemy provokes. But he isn't performing an action to be interrupted.
Some folks keep citing the way AoO works in interrupting actions and then assume it must be the same when a specific case changes the rules in some way. If this is true, then please tell me what action the AoO is interrupting with regards to Vicious Stomp. Or maybe Greater Overrun? What is being interrupted there?
Anyone?
Actually Greater Trip does instruct us to ignore the normal rule of how AoOs work. Suggesting that a specific rule can't override the general rule is just silly. Being knocked over from a trip doesn't provoke an AoO. Being knocked over from an Overrun doesn't provoke an AoO. Falling prone on purpose doesn't provoke an AoO. Going from Standing to Prone by any means does not provoke an AoO. Because it's not technically an action (except in Falling Prone's case). There is nothing to interrupt and nothing to provoke. But Greater Trip changes this so that now the target does. You don't provoke. You don't interrupt your own action with your own AoO. The enemy provokes. But he isn't performing an action to be interrupted.
Some folks keep citing the way AoO works in interrupting actions and then assume it must be the same when a specific case changes the rules in some way. If this is true, then please tell me what action the AoO is interrupting with regards to Vicious Stomp. Or maybe Greater Overrun? What is being interrupted there?
Anyone?
We can interrupt nothing! Just like we can divide by zero.
What part are people confused on still?
1) To successfully trip your opponent they must be not-prone, and through your action become prone.
2) Greater Trip’s AoOs happen after the prone condition is applied.
3) The AoO cannot interrupt the trip that caused it because of like, temporal consistency n stuff.
4) Normal AoOs trigger from ‘attempting’ to perform actions.
5) Greater Trip’s AoO triggers from a successful action (ie completed action)
6) Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip have separate AoO triggers, and can both trigger simultaneously.
7) A successful trip attempt, a successful trip, and successfully tripping your opponent… these three phrases mean something similar yet different from one another.
8) Something else.
Maybe seeing specifically what the objection is, it can be properly treated.
@Remy. Forgive me but I've woken with a head-cold this morning and my brain is a bit fuzzy. I've lost the context of your post and I'm not sure if you're responding to me or just highlighting what I'm saying. With regard to this issue, we are arguing the same side of it. For clarification my comments were addressing Mucronis and bbangerter. As the OP I would like for people to feel free to discuss their thinking so we can pick them apart and leave them battered and bleeding on the roadside of debate as we....er...sorry, inside voice coming out there. What I meant of course was that...so we can see where the disagreements lie. =D
I agree with you that "our side" has it right and if the Devs ever came out and said otherwise that this would break all sorts of other rules and leave them open to abuse. But then I would surmise the "other side" would say the same thing in reverse. So instead of dismissing them, I'd like to dissect the chatter and see if we can find where the disconnect it...if such a thing is possible short of an official word from on high.
Now those in the Roll Only camp, let me know if I'm close at all on the thinking process with regard to Greater Trip:
A) Sees how a normal AoO works.
B) Sees that Greater Trip causes an AoO.
C) Something must be getting interrupted since that is what AoOs normally do.
D) The Roll and the Effect are the "Something" that is happening so the AoO goes between them.
E) This thinking is reinforced by seeing "successful trip attempt" and "successfully trip" as the same thing as found elsewhere in the rules.
Likewise those of us that are in the Roll and Effect camp, does this sound close to the thinking process:
A) Sees how a normal AoO works.
B) Sees that Greater Trip causes a special AoO through a special rule.
C) This special AoO is taking place after something happens to the target. Target is tripped (i.e. knocked over) and so now provokes.
D) This is similar mechanics with how Vicious Stomp and Greater Overrun work; something happens, then target provokes, now nothing left to resolve.
E) Sees "successful trip attempt" and "successfully trip" as different things.
There may be much more detail involved than this, but my attempt is to grasp the basic concept of what mental steps are going on. So feel free to let me know where I'm on target or way off with any of this.
I think you hit the perverbial nail on the head with that post. And just so we're clear, I'm on the side of roll and effect camp.
There is nothing, outside of trying to pull in rules with no relevance to this subject as character witnesses, that suggests that greater trip's AoO is reliant on the CMB roll alone.
Also, there are two other camps entirely:
You CAN trip a prone target
And
You CANNOT trip a prone target
Some who agree with roll and effect still believe a prone target can be tripped. Conversely we have those who believe a prone car get cannot be tripped, but that it doesn't matter because the dice roll is all that matters. So actually we have 4 camps thus far.
No matter how you see it, the devs need to clarify on this soon so I can finally decide on weather or not to make a druid/ranger tripping master who's animal companion also trips and both have this feat and combat reflexes for epic 14 attack rounds...
|
Long response to the shamrock with claims of proficiency in the English language.
Last time I checked, the definition of "trip" does not say "lying flat or prostrate", so I find your assertion that the AoO occurs after the target falls prone to be dubious. If Greater Trip said "when you successfully knock your opponent prone..." I would tend to agree with you. It doesn't say that, it says "when you successfully trip...". The AoO occurs prior to the target falling prone.
Long response to the shamrock with claims of proficiency in the English language.Last time I checked, the definition of "trip" does not say "lying flat or prostrate", so I find your assertion that the AoO occurs after the target falls prone to be dubious. If Greater Trip said "when you successfully knock your opponent prone..." I would tend to agree with you. It doesn't say that, it says "when you successfully trip...". The AoO occurs prior to the target falling prone.
Successful: having the intended result
Trip: an action that causes somebody to fallFall: to drop or come down suddenly from an upright position
Drop: to move into a lower position
Position: the place where somebody or something is, especially in relation to other things
Game definition of Prone: The character is lying on the ground.
Game reference to standing: Standing up is a move-equivalent action
Regarding positions, we have two defined positions. Standing, and Prone. Standing is 'up' from prone.
I'll let you figure out what all that means from there. I know you can do it. I'll leave you with a question-hint.
Can a trip, an action that causes somebody to fall, be considered successful if that 'somebody' hasn't yet fallen?
Can a trip, an action that causes somebody to fall, be considered successful if that 'somebody' hasn't yet fallen?
In pathfinder, yes.
There are all kinds of strange things in this game, including AOOs that occur before the event that provoked the AOO.
Pathfinder does not behave like the real world.
The definition of Trip that I find in the rules is "If your attack (roll) exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone." That is probably why some folks are seeing "successfully tripping" and "knocking prone" as the same thing. At least I do.
But to separate Roll from Effect for a moment, consider a mental exercise. Suppose two Halflings wield their small halberds; one hooks the leg of a human and yanks and the other hooks the leg of an ogre and yanks. What happens?
Is one not even allowed to attempt the roll?
Is that roll a failure even if it beats an 18 CMD?
Is that attempt a failure because the effect can't be applied?
As for what the Greater Trip feat says; yes it would have helped if it just said "Whenever you successfully knock your opponent prone with a trip...". But in essence, that's what some think it's saying since knocking your opponent prone is the definition of tripping him. Now if the wording was something like "Whenever you succeed at a trip attempt, that target provokes AoOs and then falls prone", that would have helped too and we wouldn't be debating this.
But it doesn't. And we are.
Can a trip, an action that causes somebody to fall, be considered successful if that 'somebody' hasn't yet fallen?In pathfinder, yes.
There are all kinds of strange things in this game, including AOOs that occur before the event that provoked the AOO.
Pathfinder does not behave like the real world.
Let's nip the Fantasy/Reality argument right here, because it's useless. "Because it's not possible in RL" isn't an argument against a rule just as much as "It's a Fantasy" isn't a blanket excuse to allow everything.
|
As I see it, a successful trip attempt is more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you "failed" to trip them.
This. Simplistic resolution to a circular argument. A quick FAQ defining a "failed" trip attempt, or rather a "successful" trip attempt as afflicting or not afflicting the prone condition would work wonders.
Let's play the definition game:
Success: Rolling equal to or higher than the target DC/AC/CMD.
Success in Skills: "When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."
And here is one to blow your mind: "Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment."
That shows that an attack is considered successful BEFORE the effect, in this case damage, is ever applied.
But really, as I said before, both sides are 100% valid in their support for their position. Can you not see that?
Can you not see that the only possible correct answer is one provided from the Devs? They have proven time and again that you cannot prove a side based on logic. If there are two valid arguments, the Devs will flip on which logic to follow based on their whim.
The real FAQ questions does not have anything to do with trip. The real, mechanical, question is:
"What constitutes a successful hit/attack/maneuver? Is it the successful attack roll, or the successful application of the effect?"
This:
"As I see it, a successful trip attempt is more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you "failed" to trip them."
Is no more/less valid than this:
"As I see it, a successful trip attempt is nothing more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you still successfully tripped them."
You're doing a lot of question begging here.Don’t confuse providing a definition with begging the question. When explaining what something means by providing definitions, it can seem superficially similar to begging the question, but isn’t so.
I'm not confusing anything.
While similar, is a different meaning. A successful trip roll and successfully tripping an opponent isn’t precisely the same thing.
Point to be proven. Assumed to be true, though the implication is that the proof is yet to come. No question begged.
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.
This discussion is about whether a prone character can actually be tripped. Stating that a creature must be not-prone to be tripped is assuming the answer to a point in contention and asserting it as true. Ergo, question begged. A pretty big one too, since it's the entire point of this discussion.
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'.
This is simply an assertion of your earlier point to be proven, that a "successful trip attempt" is somehow distinct from a "successful trip". So, question begged.
My main question though, was what motivates people towards thinking a prone target can ‘be tripped’? They simply cannot be.
Question begged.
Regardless, there are still a few things I'm curious about. In another thread, you were absolutely emphatic about the fact that the attack roll exceeding the target's CMD causes two distinct things: 1. Success, and 2. The effect (knocking prone in this case). What I wanted to know then, and what I still want to know, is what, precisely, does "success" mean then? If it is not simply what we call the occurrence of having your attack roll exceed the target's CMD and it is not the effect itself, what is it?
Beyond that, I'm not particularly convinced by your "English Language" arguments here. How do you use that to parse between a "successful trip attack" and a "successful trip"? You're calling one the attempt and one what happens as a result of the attempt? I'll just copy and paste my response from the other thread.
That being said, I think you're making a distinction without a difference in regards to successfully attempting a trip and succeeding at tripping. I can't think of any situation where anybody would interpret a sentence like "I succeeded at my attempt to do X" to mean anything other than "I successfully did X". If attempt means to make an effort to accomplish a task and success means to accomplish a task, then a successful attempt means the effort to accomplish the task accomplished the task.
So what specific rules-based language are you using to distinguish "successful trip attack" "successful trip attempt" or "successful combat maneuver check" (or whatever other version you'd like) and "successful trip" or "successfully trip"?
And the Meteor Hammer explicitly states that you are tripping your opponent, but that the end result is something different than ordinary. It says "trip", so I'm not sure how you're interpreting that to mean something other than "trip".
Let's play the definition game:
Success: Rolling equal to or higher than the target DC/AC/CMD.
Success in Skills: "When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."And here is one to blow your mind: "Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment."
That shows that an attack is considered successful BEFORE the effect, in this case damage, is ever applied.
But really, as I said before, both sides are 100% valid in their support for their position. Can you not see that?
Can you not see that the only possible correct answer is one provided from the Devs? They have proven time and again that you cannot prove a side based on logic. If there are two valid arguments, the Devs will flip on which logic to follow based on their whim.
The real FAQ questions does not have anything to do with trip. The real, mechanical, question is:
"What constitutes a successful hit/attack/maneuver? Is it the successful attack roll, or the successful application of the effect?"
This:
"As I see it, a successful trip attempt is more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you "failed" to trip them."
Is no more/less valid than this:
"As I see it, a successful trip attempt is nothing more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you still successfully tripped them."
This is all correct.
In the universe where you can trip a prone target, to gain an AoO from Greater Trip, then you can also...
...disarm an empty-handed target to take an attack with with Break Guard.
...sunder an object that is incorporeal, or already broken, or using a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, to regain rage rounds with Destroyer's Blessing.
...counter a Resilient mythic spell without spending your own mythic power, to redirect it with Parry Spell.
Does the Can-Be-Tripped-While-Prone camp agree with all of these? This isn't a rherotical question, I'd genuinely like an answer.
|
|
Successful: having the intended result
Trip: an action that causes somebody to fall
Fall: to drop or come down suddenly from an upright position
Drop: to move into a lower position
Position: the place where somebody or something is, especially in relation to other thingsGame definition of Prone: The character is lying on the ground.
Game reference to standing: Standing up is a move-equivalent actionRegarding positions, we have two defined positions. Standing, and Prone. Standing is 'up' from prone.
I'll let you figure out what all that means from there. I know you can do it. I'll leave you with a question-hint.
Can a trip, an action that causes somebody to fall, be considered successful if that 'somebody' hasn't yet fallen?
You try so hard, yet fall so short. It's adorable, really.
To trip is to stumble, or lose ones balance, not "to fall". The game rules tell us that once a character has tripped, or stumbled, they then gain the prone condition, having fallen from being of unsure footing.
There is nothing inconsistent with a specific rule (in this case, the Greater Trip feat) "breaking" the general rules (a tripped character gains the prone condition and any action committed against him is with the prone condition in effect). In short, Greater Trip breaks the normal rules and grants an AoO if the attacker successfully trips the target (i.e. the attacker succeeds with the combat maneuver roll) prior to the results of the successful trip being applied (i.e. the prone condition is applied to the target).
This is the way it works. I'm sorry that the rules don't conform to your idyllic desires of what you want it to be.
Can we leave the smarm at the door? Suggesting that the other side is stupid, or illiterate, or willfully ignorant does nothing but erode your own image of intelligence, literacy, and credibility.
@ HangarFlying and Remy Balster
I'm not your parent, but I would suggest the both of you take a breather if this is going to get personal. Or take a lesson from fretgod99 and I. We're best of chums even though he's irritating and always wrong. :P
@ Zahmahkibo. Valid point.
Regarding Komoda; I'm having trouble seeing "As I see it, a successful trip attempt is nothing more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you still successfully tripped them" as valid reasoning.
This is implying that I can roll a d20, beat the target's CMD, and announce to my teammates that I have successfully tripped the target even if he's immune to the Prone condition and standing right there in front of me.
You are ok with calling this valid or am I misinterpreting something somewhere?
Actually Greater Trip does instruct us to ignore the normal rule of how AoOs work. Suggesting that a specific rule can't override the general rule is just silly. Being knocked over from a trip doesn't provoke an AoO. Being knocked over from an Overrun doesn't provoke an AoO. Falling prone on purpose doesn't provoke an AoO. Going from Standing to Prone by any means does not provoke an AoO. Because it's not technically an action (except in Falling Prone's case). There is nothing to interrupt and nothing to provoke. But Greater Trip changes this so that now the target does. You don't provoke. You don't interrupt your own action with your own AoO. The enemy provokes. But he isn't performing an action to be interrupted.
Some folks keep citing the way AoO works in interrupting actions and then assume it must be the same when a specific case changes the rules in some way. If this is true, then please tell me what action the AoO is interrupting with regards to Vicious Stomp. Or maybe Greater Overrun? What is being interrupted there?
Anyone?
We can interrupt nothing! Just like we can divide by zero.
What part are people confused on still?
1) To successfully trip your opponent they must be not-prone, and through your action become prone.
2) Greater Trip’s AoOs happen after the prone condition is applied.
3) The AoO cannot interrupt the trip that caused it because of like, temporal consistency n stuff.
4) Normal AoOs trigger from ‘attempting’ to perform actions.
5) Greater Trip’s AoO triggers from a successful action (ie completed action)
6) Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip have separate AoO triggers, and can both trigger simultaneously.
7) A successful trip attempt, a successful trip, and successfully tripping your opponent… these three phrases mean something similar yet different from one another.
8) Something else.Maybe seeing specifically what the objection is, it can be properly treated.
Two things: 1. Does the AoO from a Greater Bullrush come after the target has stopped being pushed or immediately upon the target leaving a threatened square? Because for your logic (There's nothing to interrupt!) to be correct, the AoO from a Greater Bullrush could not come until after the entire Bullrush is already complete, meaning once the target stops moving. After all, being moved is no more an action than being knocked prone.
Aside from that, where in any of the AoO rules does it state that an AoO has to interrupt an action? It doesn't ever state that. It says that "An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round." Asking what action is interrupted by the AoO is irrelevant. An AoO need not interrupt a specific action. It interrupts the flow of actions. And it occurs immediately, prior to the resolution of the triggering event.
Show me one rule that says prone characters can't be tripped.
Would this apply?
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, 08/14/10
In the universe where you can trip a prone target, to gain an AoO from Greater Trip, then you can also...
...disarm an empty-handed target to take an attack with with Break Guard.
...sunder an object that is incorporeal, or already broken, or using a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, to regain rage rounds with Destroyer's Blessing.
...counter a Resilient mythic spell without spending your own mythic power, to redirect it with Parry Spell.
Does the Can-Be-Tripped-While-Prone camp agree with all of these? This isn't a rherotical question, I'd genuinely like an answer.
Break Guard allows you to use a swift action to attack with your other weapon when you've successfully disarmed. So sure, you could do it but not only does it not gain you anything, it costs you a swift action and you forego making an attack with one of your weapons. Perhaps it's worthwhile if you want to get an extra attack with a weapon that has a better ability to overcome damage reduction. *shrug*
Destroyer's Blessing - Incorporeal Creatures don't have a physical body and, absent ghost touch items, won't have items or equipment which would be a valid target to sunder. It's essentially the same as trying to trip a snake. It just doesn't work. As for sundering an already broken item, I'm not sure why that would be a problem. You can damage a weapon beyond breaking it - you can destroy it. As for nonlethal damage, that turns on whether nonlethal damage can actually harm an object. If nonlethal damage is incapable of harming an object, then it's rather like tripping a snake. It would essentially be treated like using an ineffective weapon to attempt to sunder (using a mace to sunder a rope, for instance) - per se unsuccessful.
Regarding Resilient Mythic Spell and Parry Spell, I'm not sure how this presents a similar problem. Parry Spell changes what happens when you successfully counter a spell, Resilient Mythic Spell simply changes what has to occur in order to successfully counter such a spell. If the new conditions are met, we're told it works just like normal counterspelling.
The only one that honestly seems particularly applicable to the trip scenario is the disarm one. I'd allow it, but again it's subject to incredibly limited utility and has a cost associated with it. It's not hard to fathom how it would work, either. The "disarm" is simply an attack or deflection of a blocking appendage or whatever to create an opening for your other weapon.
@ HangarFlying and Remy Balster
I'm not your parent, but I would suggest the both of you take a breather if this is going to get personal. Or take a lesson from fretgod99 and I. We're best of chums even though he's irritating and always wrong. :P
Your face is irritating and always wrong.
BOOM! Roasted.
Show me one rule that says prone characters can't be tripped.Would this apply?
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, 08/14/10
Not really. As was mentioned above, the answer does seem sort of contradictory. But the ultimate effect of the FAQ is that tripping a creature rising from prone does not prevent the creature from rising from prone. It does not necessarily mean that you cannot still attempt to trip said creature. On that point it's a bit ambiguous.
@ fretgod99. The rule of Greater Bull Rush is not the same as Greater Trip, Greater Overrun or Vicious Stomp. In these latter cases, the opponent is provoking. In Greater Bull Rush, his movement is provoking.
What is the difference? Plenty. For Greater Trip, Greater Overrun, and Vicious Stomp the trigger is the opponent being tripped/knocked/falling/diving/dropping prone. The trigger takes place, the AoO fires, then nothing is left to resolve. For Greater Bull Rush, the movement provokes. So the movement begins, is interrupted, and then resolves.
Regular AoOs trigger because of certain actions and take place before those actions resolve. The inference is that they are interrupting actions. But if you don't agree, then perhaps we are closer to a resolution concerning Greater Trip than we first thought. ;)
Aww, I thought you'd just say I'm stupid and ugly. I guess an irritating face is close enough though.
Not really. As was mentioned above, the answer does seem sort of contradictory. But the ultimate effect of the FAQ is that tripping a creature rising from prone does not prevent the creature from rising from prone. It does not necessarily mean that you cannot still attempt to trip said creature. On that point it's a bit ambiguous.Show me one rule that says prone characters can't be tripped.Would this apply?
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, 08/14/10
I agree about attempting. But ultimately you cannot succeed at tripping him because he's prone.
@ HangarFlying and Remy Balster
I'm not your parent, but I would suggest the both of you take a breather if this is going to get personal. Or take a lesson from fretgod99 and I. We're best of chums even though he's irritating and always wrong. :P
@ Zahmahkibo. Valid point.
Regarding Komoda; I'm having trouble seeing "As I see it, a successful trip attempt is nothing more than just a check to surpass CMD. If you did not inflict the prone condition for any reason, you still successfully tripped them" as valid reasoning.
This is implying that I can roll a d20, beat the target's CMD, and announce to my teammates that I have successfully tripped the target even if he's immune to the Prone condition and standing right there in front of me.
You are ok with calling this valid or am I misinterpreting something somewhere?
If the target is immune to the prone condition, then it could possibly still be tripped with a meteor hammer or seven branched sword. Arguably (maybe), it could also be the target of a spinning throw or some other similar tactic, but just wouldn't end up prone.
If the target is immune to being tripped, then the attempt necessarily fails because the target is immune to the maneuver, not the result.
The wonky result is that snakes are immune to being dragged via trip with a meteor hammer. That's how the rules are worded, though.
*shrug*
@ fretgod99. The rule of Greater Bull Rush is not the same as Greater Trip, Greater Overrun or Vicious Stomp. In these latter cases, the opponent is provoking. In Greater Bull Rush, his movement is provoking.
What is the difference? Plenty. For Greater Trip, Greater Overrun, and Vicious Stomp the trigger is the opponent being tripped/knocked/falling/diving/dropping prone. The trigger takes place, the AoO fires, then nothing is left to resolve. For Greater Bull Rush, the movement provokes. So the movement begins, is interrupted, and then resolves.
Regular AoOs trigger because of certain actions and take place before those actions resolve. The inference is that they are interrupting actions. But if you don't agree, then perhaps we are closer to a resolution concerning Greater Trip than we first thought. ;)
Aww, I thought you'd just say I'm stupid and ugly. I guess an irritating face is close enough though.
But the point is, the target isn't the one making an action to be interrupted. "Being moved" is not an action anymore than "Being knocked prone" is, which is ultimately what the "What are you even interrupting" argument turns on.
Being knocked prone is not an action, so there's nothing to interrupt. Sure, but being moved isn't an action either. Well, but moving is an action so that's virtually the same thing. Right, and falling prone is also an action, which is virtually the same thing. Yeah, but falling prone doesn't provoke. Sure, but Greater Trip is a specific rule that overrides that.
Ultimately, my point is that the "What are you even interrupting" argument is incorrect and unhelpful for two reasons: 1. It misunderstands how AoO interrupt the flow of actions and, 2. It does not apply the same logic across the board in like situations.
I agree that the target isn't technically performing any action by being moved. But the target is not the one provoking when being Greater Bull Rushed. His movement is. So there is a subtle but noticeable difference there. With a regular Bull Rush, his forced movement isn't enough to trigger an AoO. But the Greater feat changes that so now it is enough. If I had to explain it, I'd say the feat is treating the the target's change in position as if he had made the movement himself. Although this isn't really the best description.
I agree that the target isn't technically performing any action by being moved. But the target is not the one provoking when being Greater Bull Rushed. His movement is. So there is a subtle but noticeable difference there. With a regular Bull Rush, his forced movement isn't enough to trigger an AoO. But the Greater feat changes that so now it is enough. If I had to explain it, I'd say the feat is treating the the target's change in position as if he had made the movement himself. Although this isn't really the best description.
And with an ordinary trip or attempt to fall prone, that action isn't enough to provoke an attack of opportunity. But with Greater Trip it is because the feat changes that, just like with GBR.
So if the AoO for a Greater Bull Rush precedes actually vacating the threatened square, why can't the AoO from Greater Trip precede the target arriving at prone?
inb4 "because the trip isn't successful until the target is knocked prone"
Because with Greater Trip the movement is not what is provoking. The act of the target falling to the ground is not what is provoking. The target having been successfully tripped (i.e. is now flat on his face on the ground) is what is provoking.
...just like with Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp. Could they have worded it better to avoid all this? Certainly. Maybe instead of a FAQ we need an Errata to clarify.
"Whenever you successfully knock your opponent prone with a trip attack, that opponent provokes Attacks of Opportunity."
or
"Whenever you succeed on a trip attack, the opponent provokes Attacks of Opportunity and then falls prone."
|
|
"Whenever you succeed on a trip attack, the opponent provokes Attacks of Opportunity and then falls prone."
This is what it already says, except that it is redundant to include the "...and then falls prone" because the target is already going to fall prone once the AoO has been completed.
EDIT: your first "rewording" is changing things to be the way you want them to be. So, what is the most logical, and least difficult, understanding: the way it already is (the second) or the way you'd rather it be (the first).
Disarm causes you to drop one held item. Now, mind you, this could just as easily be a non-weapon as it could be a weapon so you could break their guard by making them drop the scroll they were holding. But, beyond that, certain weapons cannot be disarmed, meaning they cannot be dropped when wielded. But that doesn't necessarily mean I can't knock it out of the way to open up a gap in your defenses. If you're armed with Brass Knuckles or a Cestus or even just Unarmed Strike, I can use a Disarm maneuver to try to make you "drop" your weapon. As to whether it counts as a de facto failure since it's "un-disarmable" or if you can "succeed" with no effect. That's a possible debate. But it doesn't apply here.<snip>
I'm not asking about a target armed with a scroll or cestus, but one who is holding nothing at all. Can you Break Guard a wraith, or a vargouille, or a swarm of rats?
The example most definitely applies here. We're taking a feat that allows the player to take an action after "successfully" executing a combat maneuver, and asking if that condition can be fulfilled when executing the maneuver against a target against whom such a maneuver would have no actual impact. Being unarmed is to disarm, as lying prone is to trip.
Same goes for sundering an incorporeal object. If it's incorporeal, that may be a de facto failure or it might be a technical success. That can be up for debate. If you bring an object to less than half its HP, it gains the Broken condition. Taking it from 4 out of 10 HP to 2 out of 10 HP is still bringing it to a value less than half its total HP so it would get "more" broken. That doesn't broken. That doesn't matter, mechanically speaking, it gets the same net penalty to performance, but I'm chipping away at it slowly but surely and those little successes can possibly invigorate me if that kind of thing floats my boat. Do you have the option to attempt to deal nonlethal damage to an object that is inherently immune to nonlethal damage? Will you just deal 0 damage or will it all just default to lethal damage? Who knows; another debate. But that doesn't apply to the matter at hand.
You're right that a broken object can be sundered again for a purpose. I had something else in mind with that example, but confused myself in the post.
The other two sub-examples, however, are again clearly relevant. There's no rule that says you can't attempt to sunder an incorporeal, illusory, or ethereal object, they simply don't take the damage. Likewise, there's no rule that says you can't attempt to trip a prone creature, they just don't fall.
Parry Spell is a complete non-sequitor as the specific rules of Resilient spells trump the general rules that allow you to counter in the first place.
A Resilient spell can't be countered (without mythic power etc. etc.). Does this mean that you cannot even attempt to counter it, or that you can try, but will always fail? Not rhetorical, still seeking an answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree about attempting. But ultimately you cannot succeed at tripping him because he's prone.
Yet the CRB clearly states that you "successfully attack" someone that you miss due to concealment?
Concealment gives the subject of a (1)successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment.
See the problem with following your logic?
The concealment rules continue with:
Make the attack normally—if the attacker (2)hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being (3)struck.
This shows a (1)successful attack that(2)hits but does not (3)strike the target. For crying out loud, the RAW calls it a successful hit before the miss chance is ever rolled.
How is that different from a successful trip that does not knock a target prone?
I am not even advocating that it makes sense! I am trying to show that applying logic to the rules is inherently impossible as the RAW never does.
Again, the only correct answer is a Dev answer.
A Resilient spell can't be countered (without mythic power etc. etc.). Does this mean that you cannot even attempt to counter it, or that you can try, but will always fail? Not rhetorical, still seeking an answer.
No, you can attempt it. You can always attempt it, your attempt just fails. It'd be like trying to counter magic missile with burning hands. You can certainly try it, but barring some specific feats or abilities that alter how the rules ordinarily work, it won't ultimately do anything. You can't succeed on the counterspell because the rules tell you it won't work unless you use an appropriate spell.
That's not really the same situation we're discussing with trip, though. Prone never says you can't be prone already to apply it. Trip never says to do it the target must fit certain conditions. That's why there's a question. Counterspell says it only works if you do X. Trip doesn't have a similar explicit limitation aside from the opponent having to be no more than one size category larger than you.
I agree about attempting. But ultimately you cannot succeed at tripping him because he's prone.Yet the CRB clearly states that you "successfully attack" someone that you miss due to concealment?
Concealment gives the subject of a (1)successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment.See the problem with following your logic?
The concealment rules continue with:
Make the attack normally—if the attacker (2)hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being (3)struck.This shows a (1)successful attack that(2)hits but does not (3)strike the target. For crying out loud, the RAW calls it a successful hit before the miss chance is ever rolled.
How is that different from a successful trip that does not knock a target prone?
I am not even advocating that it makes sense! I am trying to show that applying logic to the rules is inherently impossible as the RAW never does.
Again, the only correct answer is a Dev answer.
I've made the same point regarding flaming weapons and failing to overcome damage reduction. The game rules clearly distinguish between the success of the roll and the application of the effect. That's why some have gotten into parsing the differences between "successful attempt" and "successful attack" and "successful roll" and "successful [maneuver]", which I contend the rules use interchangeably.
For instance, Remy interprets "successfully trip" to mean something different than either "successful trip attempt" or "successful trip".
Prone never says you can't be prone already to apply it.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't realize there was disagreement on this point.
Another round of hypotheticals:
Orc rogue with the Born Alone feat uses Knock-Out Blow on an unconscious target. There is no rule stating that an unconscious individual cannot be knocked unconscious. Does she gain temporary hit points?
The same character prestiges into assassin and uses her death attack against a dead enemy. There's no rule saying that a dead target can't be killed. Does she gain temporary hitpoints?
@ Hangerflying. That isn't what it already says. That's how you're reading it. The key is "successfully trip". You say that does not imply prone, I say it does. We can round-robin it all you like, but your interpretation is going to open a world of broken rules and abuses. Like the OP of this thread, for instance...
@ Komoda. Yes, it has been acknowledge in other threads if not this one yet that PF plays fast and loose with the wording, which results in this kind of confusion. What they are referring to there is the Roll. Not the action in its entirety. But let us draw that example out. You roll, score a hit, fail the concealment chance, so therefore miss and don't deliver damage.
Have you successfully attacked your target? No.
Have you successfully hit your target? No.
But the text even said the attacker hits. True, it does. And doesn't that just mess with your mind because if the Concealment dice say you didn't, then you didn't even though you did when you didn't and...
Anyway.
So what did you succeed at? You succeeded at the Roll only. You did not successfully hit nor damage your target. You do not get to enjoy any abilities that trigger on Hit or on Damage. You are denied them because you failed in your attack. We can even extend this further.
Let's say your attack was a Trip attack. You succeed on the roll and then fail the Concealment roll. You're still saying that you've "successfully tripped" your target because your attack roll was good?
Really?
@ fretgod99. That was a cheap shot. You know he rushed that one as well as I do. ;) But to answer your point, Flaming weapon and DR are special rules that insert themselves into the General flow. They are cases of Specific overruling General. Flaming weapon is just saying you get to tack on an extra d6 fire when you roll for damage. This Special Rule can be further interrupted by the Special Rule of Concealment as above that can deny you even hit.
Do you really think if the roll is good but the concealment denies you and no damage is scored that you have "successfully attacked" your target?
I'm more of the mind that the writers again were playing a bit fast and loose with the words. They say "successful hit", but how can it be successful if you don't know if you've hit yet because the Concealment dice still need to be rolled? I think they were meaning "successful roll". But alas they didn't and here we are....
In a nutshell there are many places where the writers should have just stuck with "successful roll" and left it at that. Saying "Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack..." is just totally confusing people.
How do we know it was a successful attack? The book says so.
But the concealment dice weren't rolled yet, so how do we know it was successful yet?
And what if the concealment dice say you actually didn't succeed? How can it be successful when you've missed?
See where this goes?
But if we read it as "successful roll", then it makes a whole lot more sense. "My roll succeeded, now we roll for Concealment and...@$#!%$, I missed!"
In a nutshell there are many places where the writers should have just stuck with "successful roll" and left it at that. Saying "Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack..." is just totally confusing people.
How do we know it was a successful attack? The book says so.
But the concealment dice weren't rolled yet, so how do we know it was successful yet?
And what if the concealment dice say you actually didn't succeed? How can it be successful when you've missed?
See where this goes?
But if we read it as "successful roll", then it makes a whole lot more sense. "My roll succeeded, now we roll for Concealment and...@$#!%$, I missed!"
All of that works if you see 'successful attack' and 'successful roll' as the same thing. Then there's no confusion.
Successful attack --> roll concealment --> apply damage (or not)
Successful trip attack --> proc any powers based off trip --> apply Prone condition
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prone never says you can't be prone already to apply it.Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't realize there was disagreement on this point.
Another round of hypotheticals:
Orc rogue with the Born Alone feat uses Knock-Out Blow on an unconscious target. There is no rule stating that an unconscious individual cannot be knocked unconscious. Does she gain temporary hit points?
The same character prestiges into assassin and uses her death attack against a dead enemy. There's no rule saying that a dead target can't be killed. Does she gain temporary hitpoints?
You do not gain this bonus if the opponent is helpless.
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.
So no, you cannot keep using it against an unconscious foe as that would violate the conditions of the feat.
As for the Dead thing, it's not an explicit statement. But I think it's a safe assumption that if Born Alone prohibits you from using it on someone who is already unconscious, the intent is to also prohibit you from rekilling something that is already dead. You could also argue that a dead character is otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy, essentially rendering it helpless.
So again, you could waste your once per day knock out use on the unconscious foe, but you wouldn't benefit from Born Alone again because Born Alone specifically prohibits it.
In a nutshell there are many places where the writers should have just stuck with "successful roll" and left it at that. Saying "Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack..." is just totally confusing people.
How do we know it was a successful attack? The book says so.
But the concealment dice weren't rolled yet, so how do we know it was successful yet?
And what if the concealment dice say you actually didn't succeed? How can it be successful when you've missed?
See where this goes?
But if we read it as "successful roll", then it makes a whole lot more sense. "My roll succeeded, now we roll for Concealment and...@$#!%$, I missed!"
All of that works if you see 'successful attack' and 'successful roll' as the same thing. Then there's no confusion.
Successful attack --> roll concealment --> apply damage (or not)
Successful trip attack --> proc any powers based off trip --> apply Prone condition
All of that works? There's no confusion for you? What part is working and not confusing? How can you have a Successful Attack if the Concealment dice deny that you've even hit? Not hitting your target is a "Successful Attack"?
Can I make a post that's just full of questions?
:P
@ fretgod99. That was a cheap shot. You know he rushed that one as well as I do. ;) But to answer your point, Flaming weapon and DR are special rules that insert themselves into the General flow. They are cases of Specific overruling General. Flaming weapon is just saying you get to tack on an extra d6 fire when you roll for damage. This Special Rule can be further interrupted by the Special Rule of Concealment as above that can deny you even hit.
Do you really think if the roll is good but the concealment denies you and no damage is scored that you have "successfully attacked" your target?
I'm more of the mind that the writers again were playing a bit fast and loose with the words. They say "successful hit", but how can it be successful if you don't know if you've hit yet because the Concealment dice still need to be rolled? I think they were meaning "successful roll". But alas they didn't and here we are....
To be fair, I can just as easily say they were playing fast and loose with the words by saying "successfully trip" instead of "make a successful trip attempt" to save space.
And per the game terms, yes you can "successfully attacked" your target, even if you fail to do damage. I say that because "successfully attacking" and "dealing damage" are two separate things that can have legitimate game implications. Many abilities are triggered by simply hitting or "successfully attacking" a target. Many abilities are triggered by actually dealing damage. Applying an ability that requires dealing damage when all your damage was negated by DR is likely not correct. Similarly, not applying an ability which only requires a successful attack because all the damage was somehow negated might be equally incorrect (context matters).
But in the case of concealment, I'd say that the retroactivity of the ability actually negates a successful hit. The language of concealment actually says that if the concealment check made by the defender succeeds, then the defender has actually avoided being stricken. This situation would be analogous to something like Saving Finale. It takes a successful hit and negates it. This functions a bit differently than what we're talking about here though. The rules specifically tell you to take a successful attack, then throw in another condition to reevaluate the success. But to get to that point, you must still make a successful attack (not just attack roll).