|
There are some parts of the rules that are implied rather than explicit. Note that this is in no way synonymous with "imaginary" or "unwritten". It is implied that there are distinct divides for actions into three parts; Declaration, Determination, and Resolution. We know this because of how various rules play out and how FAQs have been answered. If it didn't work this way, then certain rules elements could not be performed such as those that act on the attack roll but before damage has been rolled or AoOs taken when a player tries to move out of a threatened square. So it doesn't need to explicitly state that there is a division of action because it could not logically be any other way. Now, of course, if you want a b+~!+&@ crazy system with no internal consistency, by all means go play your schizo game. But what we're discussing here is the default rules established for an internally consistent game with parity of rules elements.
Three sub-divisions of a rules element; Declaration, Determination, and Resolution. And there are conditions where an AoO could be provoked by any one of those three. The AoO from an unimproved combat maneuver or moving out of a threatened square are triggered by Declaration and the AoO resolves before you get to Determination. Greater Trip forces an AoO on successful Determination. Lastly, Vicious Stomp triggers on a particular Resolution.
Lastly, for those arguing that it's not fair you don't get to benefit from the prone you inflict with your trip when you get your Greater Trip AoO, keep in mind that Trip can be used in place of any melee attack. Trip them as the first attack of your full-attack and they are prone for all the rest of your full-attack. The AoO is more to let you recover that damage you would have otherwise attempted and for which the target wouldn't have been prone anyway.
Very well put.
Lastly, for those arguing that it's not fair you don't get to benefit from the prone you inflict with your trip when you get your Greater Trip AoO, keep in mind that Trip can be used in place of any melee attack. Trip them as the first attack of your full-attack and they are prone for all the rest of your full-attack. The AoO is more to let you recover that damage you would have otherwise attempted and for which the target wouldn't have been prone anyway.
Balance isn't proof of legality, and the alternate interpretation is hardly gamebreaking.
If we were talking about Vicious Stomp, that order of events would be correct. The trigger is "Whenever an opponent...," so it's similar to moving out of a threatened square. The AoO is made before the move or fall is completed.
Greater Trip, however, triggers off of the feat's holder successfully accomplishing an entire task. The AoO takes place after the full sequence of trip events. The formatting of Greater Disarm is identical to that of Greater Trip. When you disarm a foe with that feat, does their weapon somehow land 15 feet away before it has even left their hands? If not, then the maneuver must have taken full effect before the feat trigger occurs.
(To be clear: "target drops weapon"::disarm, as "target falls prone"::trip. I could see someone arguing that redirecting the fall of the weapon is the same as interrupting the fall of an enemy, but that wouldn't be correct because the disarm has completed once the weapon is has left the target's hands, regardless of where or how it lands.)
Until there's a FAQ, I suspect that were going to have to be stuck with these multiple valid interpretations, especially considering that each has merit when used in the contexts of other parts of the rules.
Personally I started off believing that the AOO happened prior to following prone, but have sense come to believe that it happens after a person has fallen prone. I'm honestly at a loss to what the true intent is though.
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.
You are getting really close to understanding it. I see the progress you've made thus far. Keep it up! So close!
Very well put.There are some parts of the rules that are implied rather than explicit. Note that this is in no way synonymous with "imaginary" or "unwritten". It is implied that there are distinct divides for actions into three parts; Declaration, Determination, and Resolution. We know this because of how various rules play out and how FAQs have been answered. If it didn't work this way, then certain rules elements could not be performed such as those that act on the attack roll but before damage has been rolled or AoOs taken when a player tries to move out of a threatened square. So it doesn't need to explicitly state that there is a division of action because it could not logically be any other way. Now, of course, if you want a b+~!+&@ crazy system with no internal consistency, by all means go play your schizo game. But what we're discussing here is the default rules established for an internally consistent game with parity of rules elements.
Three sub-divisions of a rules element; Declaration, Determination, and Resolution. And there are conditions where an AoO could be provoked by any one of those three. The AoO from an unimproved combat maneuver or moving out of a threatened square are triggered by Declaration and the AoO resolves before you get to Determination. Greater Trip forces an AoO on successful Determination. Lastly, Vicious Stomp triggers on a particular Resolution.
Lastly, for those arguing that it's not fair you don't get to benefit from the prone you inflict with your trip when you get your Greater Trip AoO, keep in mind that Trip can be used in place of any melee attack. Trip them as the first attack of your full-attack and they are prone for all the rest of your full-attack. The AoO is more to let you recover that damage you would have otherwise attempted and for which the target wouldn't have been prone anyway.
Very well put, excepting of course that Greater Trip triggers from resolution.
Balance wise... my argument hurts the only tripper I've ever liked... the ranged tripper.
Zen Archer Monk/ Archer Fight build. It uses a bow to trip with, and thus being prone already for the AoO actually sucks. But I'm not arguing from an "I want" mentality. I'm arguing from a "What is" mentality.
Goal of trip: Make target prone.
Successful trip: Target became prone.
It really is that simple. The AoO triggers from the resolution of the trip action. The trip cannot be successful until it has resolved.
The trip die roll can be… but the trip action itself cannot be.
“When you trip” triggers on declaration.
“When you succeed on a trip attempt” triggers on determination.
“When you successfully trip an opponent” triggers on resolution.
The line “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent” is specifically talking about the action of tripping. For the action to be successful, it must be resolved. Until it is resolved, it cannot have achieved the goal of the trip. Achieving the goal of the trip is necessary for it to be successful. This is tautologically true.
Yet the goal of an attack is to damage the opponent, yet by RAW, even if you don't damage the opponent, the CRB identifies it as a successful attack.
How do you resolve that?
To be clear about my position: Thematically, you should not be able to apply prone twice. Mechanically, the official ruling of what counts as a successful attack in one part of the rules should match the official ruling of what counts as a successful attack in another.
But we are not discussing thematically here.
As to the order and why AoO's go first, there is no mechanical, "start moving" there is only a declaration and resolution. Nothing different happens the second your mini/token starts moving. It all happens upon the declaration.
Player 1: I move 10'
Player 2: OK, after your mini moves 1/8" I get my AoO.
Player 1: /moves mini
Player 2: Takes AoO.
It happens like this:
Player 1: I move 10'
Player 2: Takes AoO.
Remy, your condescension is tiresome. Please knock it off.
|
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.
A character with a meteor hammer and the Greater Trip feat absolutely can get an AoO for successfully tripping their target. This is further evidence of the order of operations: that the AoO occurs prior to the effect being applied.
This is supported within the rules (PRD:Combat:Combat Maneuvers:Determining Success). What is a successful combat maneuver? A successful die rol and an application of the effect. While normally occurring nearly simultaneously, these are two distinct "actions" that don't preclude the possibility of being immediately inturrupted under special circumstances.
Remy, your condescension is tiresome. Please knock it off.
Just to be clear. Those of you in Camp #1 agree that the answer to the OP scenario is "Yes, I can Greater Trip a prone target to generate an AoO for everyone."
This then leads to one of those AoOs being used to "trip" the prone target, thereby generating yet more AoOs for everyone. One of which then uses this new AoO to "trip" the prone target again, to yet again generate even more AoOs.
And so on.
Because to say "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent..." means only that the Roll is good, then you are left with only this answer. The Effect doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the target is even Immune to tripping or the Prone condition. All that matters is the Roll. So other than the above example, it is also quite possible to emphatically state:
"I have successfully tripped my opponent." When in fact that opponent is immune to tripping and/or being Prone and is standing right in front of you.
This is your answer? I just want to make sure I understand completely. This application of the rules makes sense to you?
Remy, your condescension is tiresome. Please knock it off.
Hrm. No... I'm genuinely cheering you on. I get excited when people see new information for what it is and the pieces start falling into place. It seemed like you had reached a better understanding of what was going on. Maybe I was mistaken... but, my cheering was genuine.
Remy, your condescension is tiresome. Please knock it off.Hrm. No... I'm genuinely cheering you on. I get excited when people see new information for what it is and the pieces start falling into place. It seemed like you had reached a better understanding of what was going on. Maybe I was mistaken... but, my cheering was genuine.
I understand the points you're trying to make. An inability to understand was never the issue. I simply disagree with your position.
But if you think the section you bolded means I made prgoress on agreeing with the point I was responding to, you either didn't understand my point or have completely divorced that section from context.
We're defining "goal" differently. You think getting to the top of the mountain is knocking someone prone. I disagree. Making the attack roll is the attempt, your attempt exceeding the target's CMD is the top. You, no doubt, disagree. It makes no difference to me.
Yet the goal of an attack is to damage the opponent, yet by RAW, even if you don't damage the opponent, the CRB identifies it as a successful attack.
How do you resolve that?
The goal of the attack is to land a blow, or to hit. The attack roll is what you roll to see if you hit.
Has nothing to do with damage other than enabling you to make a damage roll as the follow-up to the resolution of the attack roll.
Normal attacks have that 2 step process, there are two die rolls involved. Not so with trip maneuver. Trip just has the one.
If you wish to compare them, you should stick only to the parts of their respective mechanics that involve the d20 rolls and what relates.
To successfully trip an opponent and to successfully hit an opponent are directly comparable.
Declaration - "I am gunna trip tha dude!" And "I am gunna smack him in his mouth!"
Determination - d20 vs CMD for trip, d20 vs AC for attack. Yay or Nay.
Resolution - Check if target can be tripped, if yes they be prone. Congratulations! You successfully trip your opponent. Check if target can be hit (concealment, incorporeal, etc) if yes then the dude be hit. Congratulations! You successfully hit your opponent!
Attacking then goes on to the next step - The hit. Damage, other stuff, etc.
Hangar, if that is how you read it, then that is why you are still on the dark side. You changed the reading.
If this, than this and this.
Not: If this and this, than this.
There is an important distinction.
If I go to the store, I can buy milk and eggs.
Not: If I go to the store and buy milk, I can buy eggs.
Determine success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, "than this" your maneuver is a success and "this" has the listed effect.
Again, it may seem silly, I am just trying to apply the mechanics of a "successful hit/attack/maneuver" equally across the game.
For people who just say it is impossible to knock someone down that is down, I see your point. Mine is that the mechanics of the isn't about knocking/tripping someone down. It is only about succeeding on the d20 roll used.
You can argue till you are blue in the face that prone matters or doesn't. It is clear that as per RAW, backed up be magic weapon procs and concealment entries, that the success is determined at the roll. It is backed up that a Dev stated that if you trip a prone person there is no net effect, not that you couldn't do it.
Remy, it clearly states that the attack is successful upon the d20 being => than the AC. It claimed it a success before the application of any effect.
You are changing it. You are saying that the effect now matters to determine if it was successful.
If I am "tripping" a prone person, my "goal" is to do whatever I want. If that is ONLY to get a successful "trip hit" to gain the effect of a feat that is not "prone" than how is that ANY DIFFERENT that what you claim - That idea that my goal of an attack is to hit, not do damage.
Isn't it a little silly to apply two different determinations for the "success" of an attack/maneuver?
Remy, your condescension is tiresome. Please knock it off.Hrm. No... I'm genuinely cheering you on. I get excited when people see new information for what it is and the pieces start falling into place. It seemed like you had reached a better understanding of what was going on. Maybe I was mistaken... but, my cheering was genuine.I understand the points you're trying to make. An inability to understand was never the issue. I simply disagree with your position.
But if you think the section you bolded means I made prgoress on agreeing with the point I was responding to, you either didn't understand my point or have completely divorced that section from context.
We're defining "goal" differently. You think getting to the top of the mountain is knocking someone prone. I disagree. Making the attack roll is the attempt, your attempt exceeding the target's CMD is the top. You, no doubt, disagree. It makes no difference to me.
Ah okay. I was still talking about being able to make the distinction between
Successfully attempt to climb the cliff
and
Successfully climb the cliff
Earlier you stated boldly that they meant the exact same thing, always. Period.
Then in the part I bolded you used the 'successful attempt' as different than 'successfully climbed'. I just saw that as progress. And it is progress.
Whether we agree on any of this game stuff or not, I’d like to be able to at the very least work out the communication stuff. If we cannot agree on how to communicate ideas and concept, then we will be forever unable to share those ideas and concepts.
And towards that end, you’ve improved. And personally I think that is awesome. Genuinely.
I've learned a bunch from this conversation too! I really don't mean that insultingly. We cannot have everything figured out all the time. Otherwise why would we even bother having discussions? Hopefully we do it to learn from one another.
Or look at it this way:
Cause:
Determine success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target,
Effect 1:
your maneuver is a success
Effect 2:
and has the listed effect.
---
In most cases we are all looking for effect 2. In this case, Effect 1 is enough to trigger the feat.
Remy, it clearly states that the attack is successful upon the d20 being => than the AC. It claimed it a success before the application of any effect.
You are changing it. You are saying that the effect now matters to determine if it was successful.
If I am "tripping" a prone person, my "goal" is to do whatever I want. If that is ONLY to get a successful "trip hit" to gain the effect of a feat that is not "prone" than how is that ANY DIFFERENT that what you claim - That idea that my goal of an attack is to hit, not do damage.
Isn't it a little silly to apply two different determinations for the "success" of an attack/maneuver?
A trip has a pretty obvious goal. To make your opponent prone.
An attack has a pretty obvious goal too, to hit your opponent.
Nothing silly about that.
Or look at it this way:
Cause:
Determine success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target,Effect 1:
your maneuver is a successEffect 2:
and has the listed effect.---
In most cases we are all looking for effect 2. In this case, Effect 1 is enough to trigger the feat.
Except your opponent hasn't been tripped yet.
We are looking for "successfully trip an opponent".
Not "are successful on a trip check".
The effect/goal (make opponent prone) of the action (trip) must have happened for the action (trip) to be successful.
Remy, it clearly states that the attack is successful upon the d20 being => than the AC. It claimed it a success before the application of any effect.
You are changing it. You are saying that the effect now matters to determine if it was successful.
It claims it a success at the same step as the effect is applied.
To borrow your analogy... you get both your milk and eggs at the same time, the same step.
That is the resolution step.
If I go to the store, I can buy milk and eggs.Not: If I go to the store and buy milk, I can buy eggs.
Determine success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, "than this" your maneuver is a success and "this" has the listed effect.
The “If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target” bit is the Determination step.
The “Your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect” is the Resolution step.
That quote from the CRB shows us those two steps very clearly.
Isn't it a little silly to apply two different determinations for the "success" of an attack/maneuver?
Not at all. We do that with almost every roll. Sometimes the target of our attack simply cannot be affected by our attack. So the effect simply cannot be applied. That is determined in the resolution step, when we attempt to apply the effect of our successful attempt.
If we attack a ghost, and we roll higher than his AC, we attempt to apply the effect 'hit' to the ghost. But it fails, because he is incorporeal. Thus the resolution of our attack fails.
If you try to trip a prone target, and beat his CMD, then you attempt to apply the prone condition (the effect) and it is unable to be applied, so your attempt to trip fails. Again, this happens when we attempt to apply the condition, it simply cannot succeed, and success is determined/resolved in this very same step. That isn't coincidental.
Fun bonus! It makes sense.
Because if you don't knock your target prone, you didn't trip them. So saying your trip is successful is just silly. Good thing the rules don't actually work like though, or we'd be playing a really silly game.
Whether we agree on any of this game stuff or not, I’d like to be able to at the very least work out the communication stuff. If we cannot agree on how to communicate ideas and concept, then we will be forever unable to share those ideas and concepts.
And towards that end, you’ve improved. And personally I think that is awesome. Genuinely.
fretgod99 has been perfectly civil throughout this entire debate, their communication doesn't need any work.
Stating ideas clearly is one thing, but more fundamental than that is the ability to avoid alienating the other participants while doing so. I'm on the same side as you are on this question, but these and similar statements of yours come across as patronizing. You may intended them to be sincere displays of camaraderie, but that's not what ends up on the page.
Remy, it clearly states that the attack is successful upon the d20 being => than the AC. It claimed it a success before the application of any effect.
You are changing it. You are saying that the effect now matters to determine if it was successful.
If I am "tripping" a prone person, my "goal" is to do whatever I want. If that is ONLY to get a successful "trip hit" to gain the effect of a feat that is not "prone" than how is that ANY DIFFERENT that what you claim - That idea that my goal of an attack is to hit, not do damage.
Isn't it a little silly to apply two different determinations for the "success" of an attack/maneuver?
A normal attack consists of two game events: hitting the target with your weapon, and inflicting damage. They're part of the same larger action, logistically, but the game distinguishes between a) attacks that miss, b) attacks that hit and inflict damage, and c) attacks that hit but do not inflict damage. B and C are successful attacks, A is not.
For tripping, there are only two categories, special weapons notwithstanding: a) trips that don't make the target fall prone, and b) trips that do. There's no c) for trips. Pathfinder doesn't distinguish between trips that whiff entirely, and trips that whack into an opponent's legs but fail to topple them. B is a successful trip, A is not.
Whether we agree on any of this game stuff or not, I’d like to be able to at the very least work out the communication stuff. If we cannot agree on how to communicate ideas and concept, then we will be forever unable to share those ideas and concepts.
And towards that end, you’ve improved. And personally I think that is awesome. Genuinely.
fretgod99 has been perfectly civil throughout this entire debate, their communication doesn't need any work.
Stating ideas clearly is one thing, but more fundamental than that is the ability to avoid alienating the other participants while doing so. I'm on the same side as you are on this question, but these and similar statements of yours come across as patronizing. You may intended them to be sincere displays of camaraderie, but that's not what ends up on the page.
Everyone's communication could use work. That is just a fact. Language is complex.. It isn't easy. I've never met a person who was flawless at communicating. Teachers, professors, translators, and experts of all kinds... they aren't flawless.
I accept that fact; though always strive to become better at it regardless. I'm not going to pretend everyone is flawless at it either, just to spare them the truth of finding out they're mistaken on something. How else do people get better?
I don't expect anyone from sparing me of this same truth, and welcome it. I read every contention to what I say and evaluate it completely, and when there are flaws in it point them out. Not to be a jerk, but because there are flaws.
Sometimes people don't 'actually listen', and if I pick up on that over a long conversation, I will adjust my communication style in an effort to find the right style that they can come to terms with. Some people respond to a little abrasiveness, some people respond to just the facts, others to camaraderie and encouragement. In an effort to 'get through' I have over the course of this very long discussion oscillated through different styles, indeed. But I find continuing to try a better option than just giving up on people.
Maybe the shift in style comes off as insincere? Or is it condescending because I am making what you perceive as too fine a distinction in language to care about? As I’ve said… I’m not flawless at it either and have learned a good deal during this conversation. I am troubled that I come off as condescending though, that wasn’t my intention at any point.
Remy, your condescension is tiresome. Please knock it off.Hrm. No... I'm genuinely cheering you on. I get excited when people see new information for what it is and the pieces start falling into place. It seemed like you had reached a better understanding of what was going on. Maybe I was mistaken... but, my cheering was genuine.I understand the points you're trying to make. An inability to understand was never the issue. I simply disagree with your position.
But if you think the section you bolded means I made prgoress on agreeing with the point I was responding to, you either didn't understand my point or have completely divorced that section from context.
We're defining "goal" differently. You think getting to the top of the mountain is knocking someone prone. I disagree. Making the attack roll is the attempt, your attempt exceeding the target's CMD is the top. You, no doubt, disagree. It makes no difference to me.
Ah okay. I was still talking about being able to make the distinction between
Successfully attempt to climb the cliff
and
Successfully climb the cliffEarlier you stated boldly that they meant the exact same thing, always. Period.
Then in the part I bolded you used the 'successful attempt' as different than 'successfully climbed'. I just saw that as progress. And it is progress.
That's the point, though. I didn't differentiate between Successfully Attempting to Climb the Cliff and Successfully Climbing the Cliff. I stated that the reason there was a difference is because in that second instance, the goal of the attempt was not actually to climb the cliff. The goal was to do one's best to climb the cliff. Therefore, in that situation one can succeed at the attempt and fail to climb the cliff, because the goal is different.
In the instance where the goal of the attempt is to climb the cliff, you cannot succeed if you do not climb the cliff. But ultimately it does not matter since this will all head back to the same discussion. You call a "successful trip" when the target ends up prone because you're defining the goal as the target ending up prone. I'm saying the goal is to beat the target's CMD, which brings about the desired result (typically) of the target ending up prone. It's ultimately the same argument.
You call a "successful trip" when the target ends up prone because you're defining the goal as the target ending up prone. I'm saying the goal is to beat the target's CMD, which brings about the desired result (typically) of the target ending up prone.
But the goal of tripping is not to beat the target's CMD. The goal is to beat the target's CMD so that he is knocked prone.
I Bull Rush a target to move him forwards, not so I can beat the CMD.
I Disarm a target to remove his weapon, not to beat the CMD.
I Overrun a target to get past him.
I Sunder an item to cause damage to it.
I Trip a target to knock him prone.
Rolling against and beating the CMD is not the goal. It is the vehicle by which I achieve my goal.
Beating the CMD only means you have succeeded in hitting with a trip attempt. Greater Trip isn't concerned with this. It wants to know whenever you have successfully achieved your goal of tripping...which is to knock the target prone. It is concerned with "On Effect", not "On Hit".
"On Hit" is fine for many things; extra fire damage, Ki Throw, and Meteor Hammer among them. Greater Trip is in the "On Effect" category along with Vicious Stomp, Poisoned Weapons, and Greater Overrun. If it wasn't, then the text would indicate so as it does with those areas that are "On Hit".
If you think the text does indicate so, then either this is the point around which we debate or we are at an impasse and the text is too ambiguous to come to an agreement short of FAQ.
I'm not familiar with jiu-jitsu terminology, but in Pathfinder that's a grapple-move, not a trip.
|
|
This is an example of a trip when someone is already prone. It starts with a trip to get them prone, then follows up with a trip that turns them from face-up to face-down. So, for all those naysayers who think it's impossible to trip someone who's already on the ground, watch yourself some jujitsu.
The problem with this is that PF doesnt have prone (face up), prone (face down), prone (on side), etc.. PF has 'prone'
Also what I see is: Trip, Grapple, Pin.
Or maybe Grapple, Taken Down, Pin.
Stop over-thinking this. If you're incapable of imagining something this simple, have a friend lay down and kick him around until it sinks in. Or until he takes an AOO on you.
I have to agree that PF doesn't recognize various stages of Prone. Either you are or you aren't. In fact PF doesn't recognize any stages between Standing and Prone. You're either one or the other with nothing in between. For example a target standing up and hit with an AoO isn't partially Prone or partially Standing. He is just Prone.
The Trip FAQ regarding this clearly allows you to make your AoO in the form of another Trip attempt. You can make the Roll and even succeed in the attempt. But as the effect cannot apply, the effort ultimately fails. You cannot successfully trip such a target, regardless of what the Roll says.
|
|
No one is saying there are "different kinds of prone" mechanically in the game. What I presented was evidence that you can take a person already on the ground and "trip" them and successfully knock them into a prone position. The fact of the matter is that absolutely nothing about being prone renders you immune to being tripped. Also, Prone very much is a digital condition; you either are prone or you aren't prone. But that doesn't mean that the application of the Prone condition is indivisibly a part of the Combat Maneuver roll.
If this generates the unintended outcome of being able to trip a prone opponent and burn the whole party's AoOs on a gattling-gun slam-fest, it means that Greater Trip needs some kind of amendment such as specifying it doesn't apply if the target was already prone before the maneuver or that it only provokes an AoO from the one who performs the trip or you can only benefit once per turn on any given opponent or something along those lines.
I believe we all agree on this, thats why Elbedor started the other thread to get Faq flags. So far we only have 24.
No one is saying there are "different kinds of prone" mechanically in the game. What I presented was evidence that you can take a person already on the ground and "trip" them and successfully knock them into a prone position. The fact of the matter is that absolutely nothing about being prone renders you immune to being tripped. Also, Prone very much is a digital condition; you either are prone or you aren't prone. But that doesn't mean that the application of the Prone condition is indivisibly a part of the Combat Maneuver roll.
If this generates the unintended outcome of being able to trip a prone opponent and burn the whole party's AoOs on a gattling-gun slam-fest, it means that Greater Trip needs some kind of amendment such as specifying it doesn't apply if the target was already prone before the maneuver or that it only provokes an AoO from the one who performs the trip or you can only benefit once per turn on any given opponent or something along those lines.
I bolded the two concepts you put forward that contradict each other.
If prone is a digital on/off condition, which I think everyone agrees to... then you cannot make someone become prone if they are already prone.
You cannot turn on a light that is on. You can only turn in off. Once off, you can turn it on again... but you cannot turn it on while it is on.
That is the nature of on/off.
You cannot make someone become prone if they are prone.
Since you cannot make them become prone by your action to trip, then your trip action cannot possibly succeed.
You cannot successfully turn on a light that is already on. (Unless you turn it off first).
So to knock someone prone who is already prone... you must either wait until they stop being prone, or force them out of being prone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this generates the unintended outcome of being able to trip a prone opponent and burn the whole party's AoOs on a gattling-gun slam-fest, it means that Greater Trip needs some kind of amendment such as specifying it doesn't apply if the target was already prone before the maneuver or that it only provokes an AoO from the one who performs the trip or you can only benefit once per turn on any given opponent or something along those lines.
Or it means that you are interpreting the Feat incorrectly. There are no such issues with the way I read it. No need for a fix. For it or anything else really.
You call a "successful trip" when the target ends up prone because you're defining the goal as the target ending up prone. I'm saying the goal is to beat the target's CMD, which brings about the desired result (typically) of the target ending up prone.But the goal of tripping is not to beat the target's CMD. The goal is to beat the target's CMD so that he is knocked prone.
1) The goal of a weapon attack is to do HP damage. But a successful attack can still result in no HP damage being done. Not reaching a desired goal doesn't change the action itself.
2) The goal of a tripping attack might NOT be to knock someone prone - but rather to allow AOOs that proc on a trip attempt. All that is required for this is to beat the CMD.
You call a "successful trip" when the target ends up prone because you're defining the goal as the target ending up prone. I'm saying the goal is to beat the target's CMD, which brings about the desired result (typically) of the target ending up prone.But the goal of tripping is not to beat the target's CMD. The goal is to beat the target's CMD so that he is knocked prone.
1) The goal of a weapon attack is to do HP damage. But a successful attack can still result in no HP damage being done. Not reaching a desired goal doesn't change the action itself.
2) The goal of a tripping attack might NOT be to knock someone prone - but rather to allow AOOs that proc on a trip attempt. All that is required for this is to beat the CMD.
1) No.
2) No.
The goal of the attack is to hit. That is what you are rolling to find out. If your attack roll is high enough you get to hit. Hitting is the goal of the attack. The goal of the hit is to do damage.
The goal of tripping is indeed causing your opponent to become prone. That is what you are rolling to check if it happens. The roll lets you know if you did well enough to cause your opponent to become prone or not.
You call a "successful trip" when the target ends up prone because you're defining the goal as the target ending up prone. I'm saying the goal is to beat the target's CMD, which brings about the desired result (typically) of the target ending up prone.But the goal of tripping is not to beat the target's CMD. The goal is to beat the target's CMD so that he is knocked prone.
1) The goal of a weapon attack is to do HP damage. But a successful attack can still result in no HP damage being done. Not reaching a desired goal doesn't change the action itself.
2) The goal of a tripping attack might NOT be to knock someone prone - but rather to allow AOOs that proc on a trip attempt. All that is required for this is to beat the CMD.
1) No.
2) No.
The goal of the attack is to hit. That is what you are rolling to find out. If your attack roll is high enough you get to hit. Hitting is the goal of the attack. The goal of the hit is to do damage.
The goal is determined by the user. There are times when my goal in an attack isn't to hit. You are projecting your personal goals onto a rule set which has no such predisposition.
The goal of tripping is indeed causing your opponent to become prone.
No. That is a possible result of tripping. It is not necessarily the goal. There is a difference.
You call a "successful trip" when the target ends up prone because you're defining the goal as the target ending up prone. I'm saying the goal is to beat the target's CMD, which brings about the desired result (typically) of the target ending up prone.But the goal of tripping is not to beat the target's CMD. The goal is to beat the target's CMD so that he is knocked prone.
1) The goal of a weapon attack is to do HP damage. But a successful attack can still result in no HP damage being done. Not reaching a desired goal doesn't change the action itself.
2) The goal of a tripping attack might NOT be to knock someone prone - but rather to allow AOOs that proc on a trip attempt. All that is required for this is to beat the CMD.
1) No.
2) No.
The goal of the attack is to hit. That is what you are rolling to find out. If your attack roll is high enough you get to hit. Hitting is the goal of the attack. The goal of the hit is to do damage.
The goal is determined by the user. There are times when my goal in an attack isn't to hit. You are projecting your personal goals onto a rule set which has no such predisposition.
The goal of tripping is indeed causing your opponent to become prone.No. That is a possible result of tripping. It is not necessarily the goal. There is a difference.
False.
If your goal isn't to trip... then you don't use the trip action. Instead you do whatever other action you are trying to do.
You have to really twist language to even remotely defend your position here, and even then it still isn't true. Just some obfuscation…
You call a "successful trip" when the target ends up prone because you're defining the goal as the target ending up prone. I'm saying the goal is to beat the target's CMD, which brings about the desired result (typically) of the target ending up prone.But the goal of tripping is not to beat the target's CMD. The goal is to beat the target's CMD so that he is knocked prone.
1) The goal of a weapon attack is to do HP damage. But a successful attack can still result in no HP damage being done. Not reaching a desired goal doesn't change the action itself.
2) The goal of a tripping attack might NOT be to knock someone prone - but rather to allow AOOs that proc on a trip attempt. All that is required for this is to beat the CMD.
1) No.
2) No.
The goal of the attack is to hit. That is what you are rolling to find out. If your attack roll is high enough you get to hit. Hitting is the goal of the attack. The goal of the hit is to do damage.
The goal is determined by the user. There are times when my goal in an attack isn't to hit. You are projecting your personal goals onto a rule set which has no such predisposition.
The goal of tripping is indeed causing your opponent to become prone.No. That is a possible result of tripping. It is not necessarily the goal. There is a difference.
False.
If your goal isn't to trip... then you don't use the trip action. Instead you do whatever other action you are trying to do.
Unless the trip action causes other desired things to happen regardless of the target's prone condition. Which can be the case.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think there is still some confusion over words like "Hit", "Attack", "Attempt" and such. I keep getting the feeling that some in Camp #1 are trying to argue that an Attack or a Hit are decided by the Roll...as if Camp #3 didn't understand that already. As far as I can tell, no one is arguing otherwise. But that is where some from Camp #1 keep putting the focus.
We are not talking about Hits or Attacks or Attempts. The point of the discussion (here anyway) is to talk about succeeding at tripping a target. What does it mean to successfully trip your target?
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
What is this saying? Is this saying you can't make the Roll? The part in parenthesis would suggest that you can in fact make a Trip Roll if you like...and at the +4 bonus also. But what is happening? The Trip CM doesn't prevent the target's action. So even if your Roll is successful, you have failed to trip the target. The final result is that you did NOT successfully trip your target, even if the Roll may have indicated a successful hit/attack/maneuver. So what does this mean?
It means that in order to meet the requirements of Greater Trip you must successfully trip your target. Such an action is not dependent on the Roll only. If the target is immune to being rendered prone (perhaps because he already is) then he cannot be tripped. Trying to do so does not interrupt his action of standing. The trip failed....because the Effect failed to apply, not because the Roll failed.
All this basically means that it is very possible to have a successful Trip Roll AND still fail to successfully trip your target. Greater Trip wants the latter. It doesn't care specifically about the Roll.
Unless the trip action causes other desired things to happen regardless of the target's prone condition. Which can be the case.
Yes, this may or may not be true in some cases such as Meteor Hammer where you want to drag the target closer in place of knocking prone. Whether you can or not is still a question.
But for Greater Trip, you must successfully trip your target...the purpose being to knock him prone as that is the direct result of a successful Roll, unless a specific rule intercedes.
I think there is still some confusion over words like "Hit", "Attack", "Attempt" and such. I keep getting the feeling that some in Camp #1 are trying to argue that an Attack or a Hit are decided by the Roll...as if Camp #3 didn't understand that already. As far as I can tell, no one is arguing otherwise. But that is where some from Camp #1 keep putting the focus.
We are not talking about Hits or Attacks or Attempts. The point of the discussion (here anyway) is to talk about succeeding at tripping a target. What does it mean to successfully trip your target?
What is this saying? Is this saying you can't make the Roll? The part in parenthesis would suggest that you can in fact make a Trip Roll if you like...and at the +4 bonus also. But what is happening? The Trip CM doesn't prevent the target's action. So even if your Roll is successful, you have failed to trip the target.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
You have succeeded in tripping the opponent. But the opponent then gets up.
Unless the trip action causes other desired things to happen regardless of the target's prone condition. Which can be the case.Yes, this may or may not be true in some cases such as Meteor Hammer where you want to drag the target closer in place of knocking prone. Whether you can or not is still a question.
But for Greater Trip, you must successfully trip your target...the purpose being to knock him prone as that is the direct result of a successful Roll, unless a specific rule intercedes.
Ultimately, as has been stated numerous times, this is why we need Developer input at this point. We're at the Circle of Arguments impasse. Everything being brought up can be directly linked to other stalemate points already brought up.
For instance, your argument here assumes that using a Meteor Hammer to drag an opponent via the Trip combat maneuver does not count as a "successful trip" for the purposes of Greater Trip. But that is a point in contention, so you're begging the question. The only way your argument makes sense is if a successful trip necessarily requires the target to fall prone at the end of it, which is a descendant of the argument of "Is your trip deemed successful after the roll or after the effect". This itself was the larger question spawned from the discussion about whether your AoO from Greater Trip benefits from your opponent being prone or not.
These are all things left unresolved at this point. Much of the rest of this can and will be resolved by the "What is success" question. The only thing left to resolve after that is whether you can successfully trip (whatever that means) someone who is already prone as that's really the only moderately distinct question.
"Successful Trip" is not being debated. It never was. We all know what a Successful attempt/attack/check/maneuver looks like. It is the Roll beating the AC/CMD/DC.
But that is all it is. Success on the Roll does not mean you have successfully achieved your goal. Arguing that is giving too much power to what a Roll is. I will go to the store to buy milk and eggs. I can succeed at going to the store. It is required in order for me to buy the milk and eggs. But just showing up at the store doesn't mean I've automatically bought the milk and eggs. If I get there and find they are out of milk and eggs, then what I have set out to do has failed.
Greater Trip wants to know when you have successfully tripped your target. Fluff is only fluff, but I think it does a very good job of putting things in perspective. "You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down." This is only fluff and not mechanics. But it's not nothing either, because it lines up nicely with what the book definition of a trip is; to knock the target prone. Please stop ignoring this fact. The PRD defines a successful trip as one that knocks the target prone. A failed trip does nothing. A trip that fails bad enough knocks you prone. It isn't that crazy of a step to say Greater Trip wants to know when you have successfully knocked your target prone. This isn't reading into anything. This isn't inventing anything.
Now for special abilities or equipment that want a successful trip attempt in order to do something other than knock the target prone, those are special rules overruling the general rules.
However if you argue that "successfully trip" is only about the Roll, then you end up with this:
I have successfully tripped my target even though he's standing right in front of me.
I have successfully Demoralized the Paladin even though he's immune to being Shaken.
I have successfully Poisoned the creature even though he's immune to poison.
If I made those claims at my table, everyone would stare at me as if I was delusional. Add some common sense here please.
Now what I think would be reasonable is that you could say:
I succeeded on my trip attempt, but the target didn't fall down.
I succeeded on my Intimidation check, but the paladin is immune.
I succeeded in injecting the poison into the creature, but there is no effect.
My trip attack can succeed AND I can fail to successfully trip the target. Both are possible. (And my table-mates wouldn't be worrying about my mental health). :P
Our of curiosity, what would people say regarding Greater Trip and a Seven-branched sword making the target flat-footed. Does GT trigger?
Same question regarding Meteor Hammer if Drag is chosen over Knock Prone.
I'm guessing Camp #1 and #3 might give different answers on this, but one of the complicating factors is that GT was written before that sword and hammer were around.
Anyone happen to know for a fact how they treat these in PFS? Or if there's even a consensus?
|
|
Our of curiosity, what would people say regarding Greater Trip and a Seven-branched sword making the target flat-footed. Does GT trigger?
Same question regarding Meteor Hammer if Drag is chosen over Knock Prone.
I'm guessing Camp #1 and #3 might give different answers on this, but one of the complicating factors is that GT was written before that sword and hammer were around.
Anyone happen to know for a fact how they treat these in PFS? Or if there's even a consensus?
This is what I think for the 2 weapons.
Meteor Hammer:
Benefit: If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you {b]rather than knocking her prone.[/b]
Because it say 'rather than' I think the target must be able to be knocked prone in the first place before you an use the alternate function.
Seven Branched Sword:
Benefit: The shorter blades can be used to snag opponents’ clothing or armor, or can target weapons in order to disarm them. To snag armor or clothing, the attacker makes a trip attempt. If successful, the victim doesn’t fall prone, but instead is snagged and stumbles forward, leaving the victim flat-footed for the remainder of the round.
Even though it say 'attempt' it does on to say 'doesnt fall prone' again your target must be able to be knocked prone to be able to use the alternate function.
Also I'm in the camp that once prone you can be re-proned until you are no longer prone.
Not sure about PFS.
Our of curiosity, what would people say regarding Greater Trip and a Seven-branched sword making the target flat-footed. Does GT trigger?
I'd say yes. Since the rules for the weapon require the trip attempt to be successful.
the attacker makes a trip attempt. If successful...
Same question regarding Meteor Hammer if Drag is chosen over Knock Prone.
I'd say yes again.
If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can...
Anyone happen to know for a fact how they treat these in PFS? Or if there's even a consensus?
If there was a ruling on any of these it would shed light on the RAI.