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
How can you have a "successful hit" if you don't hit your target? But no, concealment actually negates a successful hit/attack/attack roll. Then Blind Fight provides an opportunity to negate the successful negation of a successful hit/attack/attack roll. Then other abilities could force a reroll of that reroll. And so on and so forth.
Regardless, concealment actually negates the attack. But, the attack must normally be successful for concealment to come into play in the first place.
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
Yeah. It works.
A successful attack means rolling the needed roll to overcome the opponent's AC. Once you have made a successful attack, you hit the enemy, with a hit you apply damage.
However, the Concealment of a target procs on a successful attack. It instead makes you roll a 20% chance that there is no hit, despite having made a successful attack. It interrupts the process (like an AOO) and applies its effect before continuing.
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.
You could, but you can't. Back to square one, to successfully trip means to meet/beat the CMD AND applies the effect. If the CMD cannot be beaten OR if the effect cannot be applied, then technically success did not happen. Purely by game terms. Yes the roll was successful, but the action failed. The target is not prone and the GM is laughing maniacally...
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).
So if I have a sword that triggers a shocking grasp effect on hit, then it triggers once the d20 says I hit? Or once the Concealment dice say I hit? And let's say the target is, unbeknownst to me, immune to electricity and slashing damage. My attack was still successful? I think we could agree that the hit succeeded. My sword made contact. But you think the overall action I was attempting to perform worked?
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...
This makes sense. Specific rule inserting to change General rule.
For the sake of argument, pretend there's no helpless clause in Born Alone. Does that change the answer?
Or if you prefer an actual example:
1) Have a character with 6 tiers of the hierophant mythic path take the ability Undying Healer, which allows them to project a ghostly image when they fall unconscious.
2) Have a separate character be a Heavens oracle with the Awesome Display revelation and, say, 46 Charisma.
3) Have the oracle repeatedly cast Color Spray, which has full effect on targets of up to 20 HD, on the hierophant, who willingly fails all his saves, is repeatedly knocked unconscious while already unconscious, and spawns a whole bunch of projections.
Does this work?
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).So if I have a sword that triggers a shocking grasp effect on hit, then it triggers once the d20 says I hit? Or once the Concealment dice say I hit? And let's say the target is, unbeknownst to me, immune to electricity and slashing damage. My attack was still successful? I think we could agree that the hit succeeded. My sword made contact. But you think the overall action I was attempting to perform worked?
Normally, the spell would go off as soon as you hit. As noted, the Concealment would interrupt the sequence of what happens when you normally hit.
Aside from that, if the target is immune to slashing damage, the slashing damage is simply ignored. It's DR, so it does nothing to negate the spell discharge. Similarly, the spell discharges even if the creature is immune to electricity, just like if you tried to shocking grasp the same creature without the sword.
The attack still hit, it just didn't ultimately do anything. It was a successful attack insofar as game terms are concerned, even if not successful insofar as colloquial terms are concerned. This is how we argue it works for tripping an already prone target.
I feel like this thread has gone a little bit too far astray here...why are we discussing hypothetical mythic ghost projections on a thread about tripping mechanics?
For the sake of argument, pretend there's no helpless clause in Born Alone. Does that change the answer?
Or if you prefer an actual example:
1) Have a character with 6 tiers of the hierophant mythic path take the ability Undying Healer, which allows them to project a ghostly image when they fall unconscious.
2) Have a separate character be a Heavens oracle with the Awesome Display revelation and, say, 46 Charisma.
3) Have the oracle repeatedly cast Color Spray, which has full effect on targets of up to 20 HD, on the hierophant, who willingly fails all his saves, is repeatedly knocked unconscious while already unconscious, and spawns a whole bunch of projections.Does this work?
For unconsciousness, I'd say no it wouldn't really change anything. Same with death. When you're dealing with putting hit points past a certain threshold, it's hard to conceptualize how you can unring that bell. It's not a particularly apt analogy to the prone condition. So I wouldn't allow multiple images. But again, I don't think it's a particularly good analogy to tripping an already prone creature.
A better reference would be like the Stunned or Staggered conditions. Neither of them refer to stacking or overlapping the conditions either, but I see no reason not to allow someone to use an ability that would stun an opponent as a rider simply because that opponent was already stunned.
A better reference would be like the Stunned or Staggered conditions.
That's a rather arbitrary distinction. I can see how death would be different than other conditions, since it's inextricably bound to a continuous scale (hp). This is not true for (un)consciousness. You can retain hp if knocked out by a spell, but if you are killed by a death effect you immediately drop to -Con.
Conditions are binary, as far as the mechanics of Pathfinder are concerned. You cannot be kind-of-stunned or extra-staggered, it's all or nothing. Putting prone, stunned, and staggered into one pile, and unconscious into another, is not consistent.
We're also not talking about abilities that apply conditions "as a rider." No one is saying you can't cast Grease beneath a prone target. The question is whether you can meaningfully apply a condition to a creature that is already suffering from it. You said:
Prone never says you can't be prone already to apply it.
If you can't knock unconscious a creature that is already unconscious, then I don't see why you should be able to knock prone a creature that is already prone, when the rules provide no insight into either interaction.
If you are extending the duration of a temporary condition, such as repeatedly demoralizing the same target, that's one thing. I'm not actually sure if repeated Color Sprays would extend the duration of unconsciousness, but prone is only removed by the victim's action, so that wouldn't work for tripping.
A better reference would be like the Stunned or Staggered conditions.That's a rather arbitrary distinction. I can see how death would be different than other conditions, since it's inextricably bound to a continuous scale (hp). This is not true for (un)consciousness. You can retain hp if knocked out by a spell, but if you are killed by a death effect you immediately drop to -Con.
Conditions are binary, as far as the mechanics of Pathfinder are concerned. You cannot be kind-of-stunned or extra-staggered, it's all or nothing. Putting prone, stunned, and staggered into one pile, and unconscious into another, is not consistent.
We're also not talking about abilities that apply conditions "as a rider." No one is saying you can't cast Grease beneath a prone target. The question is whether you can meaningfully apply a condition to a creature that is already suffering from it. You said:
Prone never says you can't be prone already to apply it.If you can't knock unconscious a creature that is already unconscious, then I don't see why you should be able to knock prone a creature that is already prone, when the rules provide no insight into either interaction.
If you are extending the duration of a temporary condition, such as repeatedly demoralizing the same target, that's one thing. I'm not actually sure if repeated Color Sprays would extend the duration of unconsciousness, but prone is only removed by the victim's action, so that wouldn't work for tripping.
Death and Unconsciousness are both functions of HPs. So it makes sense to lump them together. That's why I did. It's not even remotely arbitrary.
Stunned, Staggered, and Prone are not functions of HPs. They also don't contain other direction as to how reapplying the same condition might work. So it makes sense to lump them together. That's why I did.
I'm saying you can't make an unconscious creature unconscious again for the same reason you can't reapply dead to an already dead creature - it's a function of hit points. The same cannot be said for Stunned, Staggered, or Prone.
You become staggered at exactly 0 hp, so staggered is as much a function of hp as unconscious is. Color spray, slow, and similar effects can cause staggering or unconsciousness without touching hp totals, but there's no way to cause death without reducing hp.
Ok, so lump Staggered with Death and Unconsciousness. Wasn't really paying all that much attention to Staggered, to tell the truth.
*shrug*
And you can kill without reducing HP. Dropping Con to 0 kills without reducing HP to -Con, etc.
Unconsciousness (and I guess Staggered) still really aren't the same as Prone.
EDIT: That's not true, actually. You become Disabled when you reach 0 HP. Being Disabled applies the Staggered condition. So never mind. Move it back in with Stunned and Prone.
Those of you who havent already, please go to 'Greater Trip This' thread and click the FAQ flag button. That thread was started specifically to gather FAQ flags on the discussions going on here.
Yes, please do.
I'm still curious how it can be so hard to imagine "Roll/Prone/AoO" and yet so easy to imagine "I successfully tripped a target that didn't fall prone". Not poking fun. Just curious.
And you can kill without reducing HP. Dropping Con to 0 kills without reducing HP to -Con, etc.
But it still reduces hp by some measure, so that doesn't get around anything.
Unconsciousness (and I guess Staggered) still really aren't the same as Prone.
EDIT: That's not true, actually. You become Disabled when you reach 0 HP. Being Disabled applies the Staggered condition. So never mind. Move it back in with Stunned and Prone.
The fact that this matters also seems quite arbitrary, but we're getting pretty far afield of the original question. I maintain that denying reapplication of staggered and unconscious, but allowing it for prone and stunned is inconsistent, especially when prone is the only condition of those four that is always applied indefinitely.
If you don't see why that position is unsustainable, then we're at an impasse.
Those of you who havent already, please go to 'Greater Trip This' thread and click the FAQ flag button. That thread was started specifically to gather FAQ flags on the discussions going on here.Yes, please do.
I'm still curious how it can be so hard to imagine "Roll/Prone/AoO" and yet so easy to imagine "I successfully tripped a target that didn't fall prone". Not poking fun. Just curious.
It's not hard to imagine. Just because I'm not convinced the rules work that way doesn't mean I can't understand why some think they do.
It's a similar question to: If you accept that the AoO from someone standing up occurs prior to them standing up, why is it so difficult to accept that the AoO from tripping someone could occur before they actually hit the ground?
And you can kill without reducing HP. Dropping Con to 0 kills without reducing HP to -Con, etc.But it still reduces hp by some measure, so that doesn't get around anything.
Unconsciousness (and I guess Staggered) still really aren't the same as Prone.
EDIT: That's not true, actually. You become Disabled when you reach 0 HP. Being Disabled applies the Staggered condition. So never mind. Move it back in with Stunned and Prone.
The fact that this matters also seems quite arbitrary, but we're getting pretty far afield of the original question. I maintain that denying reapplication of staggered and unconscious, but allowing it for prone and stunned is inconsistent, especially when prone is the only condition of those four that is always applied indefinitely.
If you don't see why that position is unsustainable, then we're at an impasse.
I said treat Staggered like the others in the edit. So it's really just unconscious, which is much more like dead than the others.
It's not unsustainable just because you don't agree with it. It's also hardly arbitrary for the same reason. But yes, it appears we're at an impasse.
|
@Zahmahkibo: Go ahead and reapply the unconscious condition, what is it going to give you, "Deeper Unconscious"? Staggered becomes "Deeper Staggered"? If you have the Dead condition and you've become dead again, is there some additional benefit for becoming "More Dead", or does it just ensure that you're not "Mostly Dead" (and thus "To Blave" won't be able to help you). Applying the prone condition to an already prone target doesn't do anything. You can't be "More Prone".
It's a similar question to: If you accept that the AoO from someone standing up occurs prior to them standing up, why is it so difficult to accept that the AoO from tripping someone could occur before they actually hit the ground?
I'm going to factionalize this whole debate further and say that the AoO from greater trip does occur before the opponent has fallen prone (and could therefore be used on another trip, I suppose). They're in the midst of the action of falling prone when the AoO happens, however, which means the attack can't happen unless the target will be falling prone from the original trip afterwards.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a similar question to: If you accept that the AoO from someone standing up occurs prior to them standing up, why is it so difficult to accept that the AoO from tripping someone could occur before they actually hit the ground?I'm going to factionalize this whole debate further and say that the AoO from greater trip does occur before the opponent has fallen prone (and could therefore be used on another trip, I suppose). They're in the midst of the action of falling prone when the AoO happens, however, which means the attack can't happen unless the target will be falling prone from the original trip afterwards.
That's fair.
The three camps basically are:
1. Trip Success = Roll > CMD; AoO occurs before Prone.
2. Trip Success = Roll > CMD + Target knocked prone; AoO occurs before Prone because of Interrupt
3. Trip Success = Roll > CMD + Target knocked prone; AoO occurs after Prone because Trip Success requires Prone to determine success
HangarFlying: Yes, that's what those examples were intended to demonstrate.
It's a similar question to: If you accept that the AoO from someone standing up occurs prior to them standing up, why is it so difficult to accept that the AoO from tripping someone could occur before they actually hit the ground?I'm going to factionalize this whole debate further and say that the AoO from greater trip does occur before the opponent has fallen prone (and could therefore be used on another trip, I suppose). They're in the midst of the action of falling prone when the AoO happens, however, which means the attack can't happen unless the target will be falling prone from the original trip afterwards.
well thats arguably a reasonable resolution, but then how would you solve the "the target is already prone and now i am making a completely unrelated trip attempt on that prone target. do i get the AoO from greater trip?" conundrum?
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.
No, and No. And mostly No.
AoOs don't happen before the event that triggered them. That is absolutely ludicrous, and unfounded by any text in the game. Not only is it insane to think that is how it works, but it is not RAW or RAI either.
AoOs happen immediately when they are triggered, and are resolved immediately.
Most default triggers are the attempt to perform an action. Try to move out of a threatened space? The attempt to do so provokes. Not the completed movement, but the attempt to move. So before the action i complete, there is an AoO.
The AoO doesn't happen before the attempt to move. That is insane.
I mean that in the 'literally not sane' kind of way. It upends any semblance of causality and makes the game sequence of events fail to make any sense whatsoever.
Pathfinder makes numerous attempts to model reality in a simplistic enough system that it doesn't get bogged down by too much tedium. But the intent is clear, to model realistic interpretation whenever feasible. Even when it comes to the supernatural, the game system makes an effort to make much of it as plausible as fantasy reality gets.
Nowhere in the game does the basic principles of causality break down... except maybe some weird time related abilities and magics. But those are intended to.
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.
It is true by definition.
A creature that is “lying on the ground” cannot be made to become “lying on the ground”. Because they already are.
Someone “lying on the ground” cannot be made to stumble or fall. They are “lying on the ground” already, there is no stumbling or falling possible. A prone character cannot be tripped, by definition. It is not possible.
The debate stems from some fundamental misunderstanding on your view. Some things have fundamental truth to them. This is one of those things.
Nonsense statement: “While lying on the ground I tripped and fell to the ground.”
It is nonsense. Your position is that of irrevocably absurd nonsense. Your position is self defeating. I’m not begging the question… I’m telling you that you are fundamentally wrong, because what you have said is itself a logical fallacy.
Greater Trip and the placement of the AoO before or after the Prone effect have been discussed on here extensively by many people (myself included). But a scenario has come to mind that begs the question of how this trip event should resolve.
I have nothing to contribute to the mechanical side of this debate. Instead, I'd like the be the pedantic jerk who corrects everyone's grammar online.
That's not what "begging the question" is. Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy that means you're using your statement itself as proof for your statement. Like saying "that guy can't play basketball because he has no game."
My main question though, was what motivates people towards thinking a prone target can ‘be tripped’? They simply cannot be.Question begged.
My question was to motivation. I did not provide the answer to my question. But no one else seems inclined to answer it, so I’ll just stop asking.
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.
Those proposing your view here keep ignoring what the feat actually says.
Greater trip has this to say: “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.”I want you to take another look at that first segment. “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent”
Break it down into the fundamental parts of sentence structure if you must. But take a good look at it.
Does it have a subject? Yes, of course. “You”. Does it have a verb? Yep, “Trip”, “successfully trip”. Okay… now… the part that everyone is ignoring for no reason… does it have an object? YES IT DOES OMG. “an opponent”.
This means that the verb is the action of the subject that acts upon the object.
The trigger for Greater Trip requires by the basic tenets of the English language that the object is acted upon by the subject in the prescribed manner. Or in other words… that the opponent is tripped, and by you.
Rolling high on a dice roll isn’t the trigger. A dice roll doesn’t act upon the opponent. Even if we call that a successful trip attempt, it still hasn’t yet acted upon the opponent.
Greater Trip is very specific, and requires exactly what it says it requires. “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent”.
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.
Well, there is an actual difference there.
"I succeeded at my attempt to do X" and "I succeeded at X" don't mean the same thing.
In normal every day language they are interchangeable enough, but every day language is a bit sloppy like that. And most people don’t bother talking about a successful attempt to do something, because most of the time a successful attempt is a given.
But there is a distinction, even if you have failed to see it.
Here is an example:
I’m learning to rock climb, and my long term goal is to climb a steep rocky cliff. I know going out to the rocky cliff that I’m not going to climb to the top. But I can certainly try, or attempt it. And going in with the intent to give it everything I have, leave it all on the line and do the best I can… could be called a successful attempt to climb the rocky cliff. But it isn’t successfully climbing the rocky cliff.
Not everyone cares enough to use precision of speech though. Some people don’t care to, or simply cannot make those distinctions. Are you one of them?
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".
Meteor Hammer say: “If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.”
It specifically refers to a trip attempt. This differs from Greater Trip, in that Greater Trip is referring to “successfully trip an opponent”.
I’ll save you the appeal to English again, because we both know these are different statements. Clearly.
"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).
This is not what it says.
"Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity." is what it says.
Is the reason you argue for your view simply because you haven't read the feat?
Neither of his rewordings are the way it already is. They are rewordings.
Just woke up, sort of in a hurry this morning so only read this. If my answer is redundant or the conversation has moved on, then... <shrug>
It's not hard to imagine. Just because I'm not convinced the rules work that way doesn't mean I can't understand why some think they do.
It's a similar question to: If you accept that the AoO from someone standing up occurs prior to them standing up, why is it so difficult to accept that the AoO from tripping someone could occur before they actually hit the ground?
Because standing up is a Move action that provokes from the one doing the standing. You knocking over a target doesn't provoke anything. It is part of your own action and unless a specific rule intercedes, you cannot interrupt your own actions with AoOs. They don't provoke from you. Now that you've tripped him, now he is treated as provoking...although technically he's not doing anything.
Or rather he's doing as much as he's doing when going prone from an Overrun or a Vicious Stomp.
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.
For this particular example… logic still applies. Although concealment has always been an area of the rules that fails the reality check. I mean, regardless of the volume of the 5’ cube a creature fills, the miss chance remains fixed, for example. That by itself is absurd.
But the rational for concealment is that you think you hit. Basically, you hit what you where aiming for, it just wasn’t actually the target a % of the time.
But it isn’t very relevant to prone or tripping really, it is a different effect and has different rules.
Again, just a quick response.
@Zahmahkibo: Go ahead and reapply the unconscious condition, what is it going to give you, "Deeper Unconscious"? Staggered becomes "Deeper Staggered"? If you have the Dead condition and you've become dead again, is there some additional benefit for becoming "More Dead", or does it just ensure that you're not "Mostly Dead" (and thus "To Blave" won't be able to help you). Applying the prone condition to an already prone target doesn't do anything. You can't be "More Prone".
The issue is not what extra penalty you apply to the target from restaggering or rekilling or re-proning (??) a target. The question becomes if you have an ability that gives you some benefit when you do, can you reapply that condition and gain that benefit? Take the OP for example.
Target is prone. I perform a trip maneuver on the target. If the application of prone doesn't matter or if I can reapply it, then my Greater Trip fires and AoOs are generated for me and all my friends surrounding the target.
Roll/AoO/Prone allows for this. I'm not sure what tables wouldn't call this an abuse or misreading of the rules, however.
Roll/Prone/AoO does not allow for this as the Prone cannot (or should not) be reapplied with any effect.
Greater Trip and the placement of the AoO before or after the Prone effect have been discussed on here extensively by many people (myself included). But a scenario has come to mind that begs the question of how this trip event should resolve.
I have nothing to contribute to the mechanical side of this debate. Instead, I'd like the be the pedantic jerk who corrects everyone's grammar online.
That's not what "begging the question" is. Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy that means you're using your statement itself as proof for your statement. Like saying "that guy can't play basketball because he has no game."
Thank you, Dr. English. :P
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".
I agree that the game looks for a success at different stages of determining outcomes for ancillary effects to trigger. I get that.
Greater Trip looks for "you successfully trip an opponent" which is you having performed a successful action upon a target.
You keep dropping "an opponent" from the discussion, and I find that telling.
But, as to what I interpret as different? Anything that means something differently.
"Successful trip"
"Successfully Trip"
"Successful trip attempt"
"Succeed at a trip attempt"
"Succeed on a trip maneuver"
etc.
Depending on the context of the rest of the phrase in which these are found could all mean slightly different things. Sometimes they're virtually interchangeable. I’m not sure any of these are really all that relevant.
But what is very clear is what "you successfully trip an opponent" means.
The argument:
The opponent's act of falling from your trip in process is what triggers the AoO (meaning he is somewhere between standing and prone)
makes more sense than:
My CM Roll is what triggers the AoO and then he falls over.
Not saying I agree with it, but at least it makes more sense.
With the "act of falling" argument the trip would first be checked by prone immunity. If your Roll is good, but he's immune to prone, then he's not in the act of falling. So you can't get your AoO on a prone-immune target. This part is in agreement with the Roll/Prone/AoO group.
So that's something.
That's fair.
The three camps basically are:
1. Trip Success = Roll > CMD; AoO occurs before Prone.
2. Trip Success = Roll > CMD + Target knocked prone; AoO occurs before Prone because of Interrupt
3. Trip Success = Roll > CMD + Target knocked prone; AoO occurs after Prone because Trip Success requires Prone to determine success
That is a good summation of the camps I think.
#1 is just false - This isn't what the feat is even talking about
#2 is very probably wrong - opens door for abuse, success and prone happen simultaneously
#3 is very probably correct - yep
I would agree that I do not agree with #1. I think placing the AoO behind the Roll but before you check for prone does in fact open the door to all sorts of abuses; just as the OP scenario suggests. Also it does not jive with me as far as what it means to "successfully trip".
#3 has been my stand-point shortly after coming across these types of threads and hearing the arguments put forth.
#2 is not my interpretation of events, but I would be much more comfortable with it over #1 if this is the route the Devs decided to go.
Why? Because it includes the "prone-immune check" which is a key part of #3 for me. If Roll is good, we immediately check to see if the target can actually be knocked prone. Perhaps the target is already prone. Or perhaps some other features keeps it from falling over. If a flag goes up right after the Roll saying "Nope, effect can't apply", then it ends here and the AoO does not trigger. If it passes the "prone-immune check" then the target is tipping over and is in the process of being on his way to the ground. The AoO fires at this point and then the target lands flat on his back/face/whatever.
I'm not arguing for #2. I'm just spelling out how I can see it being argued. It does not allow the +4 for prone with the AoO like #3 does, but it inserts an extra step to disallow AoOs against prone-immune unlike #1. It also includes some conceptual issues such as how do I perform an AoO with the weapon that is in the process of tripping him? With a staff or sword I see no issue. With a whip, flail, or halberd that is hooked or wrapped around him at that precise moment in time, my sense of credulity is stretched thin. But then this wouldn't be the first time in PF that such a thing has happened.
The way I'm reading "successfully trip" is still in line with #3 in a similar way to how Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp play out. #2 seems to insert the AoO where it doesn't need to be and there is no direct text to indicate it needs to go there. But as stated, if the Devs want to say #2, then I can live with that as it closes the door on rule abuse.
#2 is not my interpretation of events, but I would be much more comfortable with it over #1 if this is the route the Devs decided to go.
Why? Because it includes the "prone-immune check" which is a key part of #3 for me. If Roll is good, we immediately check to see if the target can actually be knocked prone. Perhaps the target is already prone. Or perhaps some other features keeps it from falling over. If a flag goes up right after the Roll saying "Nope, effect can't apply", then it ends here and the AoO does not trigger. If it passes the "prone-immune check" then the target is tipping over and is in the process of being on his way to the ground. The AoO fires at this point and then the target lands flat on his back/face/whatever.
I'm not arguing for #2. I'm just spelling out how I can see it being argued. It does not allow the +4 for prone with the AoO like #3 does, but it inserts an extra step to disallow AoOs against prone-immune unlike #1. It also includes some conceptual issues such as how do I perform an AoO with the weapon that is in the process of tripping him? With a staff or sword I see no issue. With a whip, flail, or halberd that is hooked or wrapped around him at that precise moment in time, my sense of credulity is stretched thin. But then this wouldn't be the first time in PF that such a thing has happened.
The way I'm reading "successfully trip" is still in line with #3 in a similar way to how Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp play out. #2 seems to insert the AoO where it doesn't need to be and there is no direct text to indicate it needs to go there. But as stated, if the Devs want to say #2, then I can live with that as it closes the door on rule abuse.
Well, #2 still carries the Gatling gun AoO abuse.
2. Trip Success = Roll > CMD + Target knocked prone; AoO occurs before Prone because of Interrupt
If the AoO happens before the target becomes prone…then the AoO can be used to trip again, and again, and again. Each AoO interrupting the resolution of the one before, with the target finally falling prone at the very end.
#2 clears up some abuses, but not this one… which is arguably the worst of them.
I’m learning to rock climb, and my long term goal is to climb a steep rocky cliff. I know going out to the rocky cliff that I’m not going to climb to the top. But I can certainly try, or attempt it. And going in with the intent to give it everything I have, leave it all on the line and do the best I can… could be called a successful attempt to climb the rocky cliff. But it isn’t successfully climbing the rocky cliff.
Nope. They are still the same. Your goal then wasn't to climb to the top. Your goal was to make your best effort to climb to the top.
If the actual goal was to climb to the top, you failed. You failed the attempt and you failed to climb to the top. If your goal was to try your hardest to climb to the top, then you can succeed at your attempt without actually climbing to the top. Because climbing to the top was not your goal.
And, as I stated in the other thread, your "object" stuff is again asserting a distinction without a difference. There is still an object of a "successful trip". There necessarily has to be. You cannot trip without a target. So a successful trip is necessarily one that operates on the target of the trip.
Just woke up, sort of in a hurry this morning so only read this. If my answer is redundant or the conversation has moved on, then... <shrug>
It's not hard to imagine. Just because I'm not convinced the rules work that way doesn't mean I can't understand why some think they do.
It's a similar question to: If you accept that the AoO from someone standing up occurs prior to them standing up, why is it so difficult to accept that the AoO from tripping someone could occur before they actually hit the ground?
Because standing up is a Move action that provokes from the one doing the standing. You knocking over a target doesn't provoke anything. It is part of your own action and unless a specific rule intercedes, you cannot interrupt your own actions with AoOs. They don't provoke from you. Now that you've tripped him, now he is treated as provoking...although technically he's not doing anything.
Or rather he's doing as much as he's doing when going prone from an Overrun or a Vicious Stomp.
But the argument is that the Greater Trip feat is exactly the alteration of the rules that you're talking about, so you can't really just handwave it away. And the difference between Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp and then Greater Trip is that both the former specifically call out when the target is actually knocked prone.
The argument:
The opponent's act of falling from your trip in process is what triggers the AoO (meaning he is somewhere between standing and prone)
makes more sense than:
My CM Roll is what triggers the AoO and then he falls over.
Not saying I agree with it, but at least it makes more sense.
With the "act of falling" argument the trip would first be checked by prone immunity. If your Roll is good, but he's immune to prone, then he's not in the act of falling. So you can't get your AoO on a prone-immune target. This part is in agreement with the Roll/Prone/AoO group.
So that's something.
I should actually insert a 2b, which changes the "opponent knocked prone" to "opponent has effect applied" because I see no reason with Greater Trip wouldn't provide an AoO for someone using their Meteor Hammer to drag the opponent. Beyond that, I see no reason why someone can't use a Meteor Hammer to drag an already prone opponent, even if the Devs step in to say that you can't reapply the prone condition.
And frankly I'm closer to that position than anything.
That's fair.
The three camps basically are:
1. Trip Success = Roll > CMD; AoO occurs before Prone.
2. Trip Success = Roll > CMD + Target knocked prone; AoO occurs before Prone because of Interrupt
3. Trip Success = Roll > CMD + Target knocked prone; AoO occurs after Prone because Trip Success requires Prone to determine successThat is a good summation of the camps I think.
#1 is just false - This isn't what the feat is even talking about
#2 is very probably wrong - opens door for abuse, success and prone happen simultaneously
#3 is very probably correct - yep
1 isn't patently false any more than the other two. 1 simply interprets the feat to mean "successfully trip an opponent" to mean the exact same thing as "successfully hit an opponent". We know "successfully hit an opponent" does not require the imposition of an effect (to actually cause damage) in order for triggering or rider effects to occur. It's merely an analogy between hitting and tripping.
That you don't agree with the position does not make it utterly nonsensical.
Target is prone. I perform a trip maneuver on the target. If the application of prone doesn't matter or if I can reapply it, then my Greater Trip fires and AoOs are generated for me and all my friends surrounding the target.
Roll/AoO/Prone allows for this. I'm not sure what tables wouldn't call this an abuse or misreading of the rules, however./QUOTE]
If the AoO happens before the target becomes prone…then the AoO can be used to trip again, and again, and again. Each AoO interrupting the resolution of the one before, with the target finally falling prone at the very end.#2 clears up some abuses, but not this one… which is arguably the worst of them.
Abusive, maybe, but abusive isn't equivalent to illegal.
However, I'm going to retract my support for position #2 anyway. On re-reading the Combat section of the PHB, I realized that I conflated part of the rules for readied actions (which occur "just before" the trigger) with the rules for AoOs (which have no such preemptive clause). I maintain the same position on the effects, or lack thereof, of re-applying conditions, but that is no longer my only argument for the question in the OP.
So, move me over to camp #3.
Messed up the quote tags on that one, hopefully it's clear that the last block was my words.
If the AoO happens after the trigger, then the character that stands up from prone can't trigger the AoO until done standing as the only successful way to stand is to have completed the standing from the prone position, not to attempt to stand.
If you are prone and you "stand up" the AoO happens BEFORE you stand up. You are prone and can't be trip locked because of this. You also suffer the penalties of being prone during that AoO.
The only way to adjudicate that is to understand that the AoO happens before the trigger. I didn't realize that was in question during any of this discussion.
There is some confusion here. AoOs happen after the triggering action begins, but before it resolves. So once the person begins getting to his feet, he is struck with the AoO. As he is still technically prone, trip-lock is avoided. The same is true with any other action that provokes.
Messed up the quote tags on that one, hopefully it's clear that the last block was my words.
Figured that was the case. Yes, it read just fine. I've done the same thing. Edit is my friend. :)
Since there is no "trigger" phase of the round, this is pretty much semantics. While there has to be a trigger, it is not some special action or part of one, it is just a declaration by a player.
If I declare my PC is going to take a 5' step and move 5', no AoO.
If I declare my PC is going to move 10' so AoO ensues. I didn't "start moving" as "starting to move" isn't a trigger.
Mechanically, the AoO comes Before the action that triggers it.
Thematically, you can describe it however you like. It could be a 6th sense, a telegraphing of action, an unexpected opening in defenses or just dumb luck.
Can't trip a prone character. It doesn't state it specifically in the rules, but it doesn't specifically state that you can't take a move action to stand if yur already standing either, which is also not possible. I think you can just apply some common sense here and tell yur players to try and beat the system another way
|
Since there is no "trigger" phase of the round, this is pretty much semantics. While there has to be a trigger, it is not some special action or part of one, it is just a declaration by a player.
If I declare my PC is going to take a 5' step and move 5', no AoO.
If I declare my PC is going to move 10' so AoO ensues. I didn't "start moving" as "starting to move" isn't a trigger.
Mechanically, the AoO comes Before the action that triggers it.
Thematically, you can describe it however you like. It could be a 6th sense, a telegraphing of action, an unexpected opening in defenses or just dumb luck.
Why isnt 'stating to move' a trigger? Label it how you want but you start an action and finish an action, somewhere in that action an AoO can be triggered (sometimes more then once depending).