What about using the 7BS on someone who's already flat-footed in conjunction with Greater Trip? Would you say it would or wouldn't provoke and, if it wouldn't, what makes it impossible to snag the clothes of a person and drag them off-balance in a way that makes them vulnerable to AoO just because they weren't really "on balance" to begin with?
If the roll overcame the CMD then the trip attempt would be successful. The target would remain flat-footed since there isn't a "flatter footed" status. And AOOs would be generated if the Greater Trip feat is present.
"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.
Eh, it kind of is, though. My position is that "successful trip" means the same thing as "successfully tripped your opponent".
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.
This has been a repeated analogy, but ultimately it's unhelpful because it's a false analogy. Going to the store is not a cause of buying milk and eggs. Buying milk and eggs is not an effect of going to the store.
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.
Neither the fluff text nor the rules language clarify whether the attack occurs before, during (metaphorically), or after your opponents are knocked down.
And where does the PRD define a "successful trip" as one that knocks the target prone? This is particularly curious considering you earlier stated, "'Successful Trip' is not being debated. ... It is the Roll beating the AC/CMD/DC."
No, it's not crazy to think that Greater Trip might actually need your opponent to be knocked prone before triggering the AoO. I honestly don't think anybody has ever said that the position you're espousing is ridiculous. But, I also do not think it is crazy or ridiculous to think that the phrases "successful trip" and "successfully trip" are, essentially, the same thing. I do no think it is crazy that the AoO from Greater Trip might be triggered by the process of falling prone, not being prone itself.
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.
Not really. For 1, the AoO occurs in the middle of the action. The target is still the subject of a successful trip. So, absent some other intervening ability, the target is still in the process of falling down. It's just that the AoO would resolve before the target is actually prone.
For 2, creatures immune to Fear effects can't have Fear effects applied to them. So, much like with trying to trip a snake, it doesn't matter how well you roll on your Demoralize check.
For 3, similarly if a creature is immune to poison, it is simply immune to poison. You cannot succeed at something which is defined to have automatic failure, Kobayashi Maru notwithstanding.
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
I would not say that I "failed to successfully trip the target". Aside from the redundancy, I'd just say the target didn't get knocked prone. I may say I failed to trip the target, as shorthand. It really depends on the context. To each his or her own. *shrug*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I've asked this a couple of times. I see no reason why both of them shouldn't trigger. Just because the target wasn't knocked prone doesn't mean you didn't successfully trip them. Both require trip checks. Both apply a status if the check succeeds. Just because the target isn't knock prone per usual does not mean the trip attempt was not successful.
Greater Trip provides an AoO whenever you "successfully trip" your opponent, not whenever you "successfully knock your opponent prone".
|
What about using the 7BS on someone who's already flat-footed in conjunction with Greater Trip? Would you say it would or wouldn't provoke and, if it wouldn't, what makes it impossible to snag the clothes of a person and drag them off-balance in a way that makes them vulnerable to AoO just because they weren't really "on balance" to begin with?
Again it comes down to wheather someone can be made 'more flat-footed' or 'more prone' by 're-applying' a condition tht is already in effect. For some conditions this would be yes, but I dont believe it works for conditions like prone or flat-footed.
Apologies for these long-ish posts. I'm never a big fan of reading them or posting them. Meh.
where does the PRD define a "successful trip" as one that knocks the target prone?
Page 201 in my book (4th printing).
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.
There is no mention of a successful trip attempt. It doesn't say anything about "...your trip attempt is a success and..." It merely states that if the attack roll beats the CMD, then the target is knocked prone. This is the definition of a successful trip. It then goes on to explain a failed trip. It coincides with the Fluff. It is the purpose of attempting a Trip attack 90% of the time. It is the reason you can't chain-trip a target as it stands up.
I DO concede that the PF language is confusing. But most of it is easy enough to sort out.
Ki Throw is referring to the Roll by referencing "successful unarmed trip attack"
Meteor Hammer is referring to the Roll by referencing "If you succeed at a trip attempt"
Vicious Stomp is referring to the Effect. "Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you"
Greater Overrun is referring to the Effect. "Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone"
For 1, the AoO occurs in the middle of the action. The target is still the subject of a successful trip. So, absent some other intervening ability, the target is still in the process of falling down. It's just that the AoO would resolve before the target is actually prone.
For 2, creatures immune to Fear effects can't have Fear effects applied to them. So, much like with trying to trip a snake, it doesn't matter how well you roll on your Demoralize check.
For 3, similarly if a creature is immune to poison, it is simply immune to poison. You cannot succeed at something which is defined to have automatic failure, Kobayashi Maru notwithstanding.
1, the second bold suggests you are in Camp #2. The first and third bold shows you keep insisting this idea that the AoO must interrupt something. Why? Where in Greater Trip does it say that the AoO must come in the middle of the target falling? We've already established that AoOs normally interrupt actions. But you cannot interrupt your own action with an AoO. YOU are not provoking an AoO. And it is impossible for you to provoke an AoO while performing a Trip as that is the very rule of Improved Trip. The target is not performing any action to be interrupted. Being knocked over is not an action.
I'm not sure where you get this from, but it is an imagined step. Greater Trip belongs in the same category as Greater Overrun and Vicious Stomp. They are not looking for the target doing anything. They are looking for something that has been done to the target. In each case the target is Prone. Tripped, Bowled over from a run-through, or any reason at all as long as it's adjacent. Don't believe me? Keep reading.
If you insist that something must be interrupted, then why do you not have any trouble with Vicious Stomp or Greater Overrun? Neither of them have their AoOs interrupting anything. Why is it ok for them but not for GT?
2, if you don't know the target is immune to Fear, nothing stops you from making the Roll. Nothing stops that Roll from beating the DC of the check. This is even how a trip attempt works when used as the AoO against a standing target. You can make the Roll and Succeed. The Roll is Successful. But what happens? Nothing. Nothing happens. The action fails. It was not successfully accomplished even though the Roll was Successful.
3, again with the Roll. Camps #1 and #2 have been arguing that only the Roll matters. Beat the AC or the CMD or the DC and you've succeeded. So if we take this argument and apply it to say we can claim to successfully poison something that proves to be immune to poison, why does it not matter now?
Or are you arguing that the Effect "must be able to be applied"? Because if you're saying the poison immune creature can't be successfully poisoned because it is immune...that sounds a lot like you're saying the Roll isn't the tell-all and that the Effect matters...which is basically what I'm arguing. ;) The only difference is, you're saying the Effect must be able to be applied...but isn't applied quite yet...which has no context that I can find.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. You say that "Successful Trip" = "knocked prone". However, in the previous post I was responding to, you said otherwise. You said "Successful Trip" = "beating the CMD". This is why I'm getting a bit confused. You're saying two different things. Does "Successful Trip" mean simply beating the CMD or actually knocking the target prone?
2. Regarding the interruption, I've mentioned this before as well. The "interrupt" language does not refer to one singular action. It refers to the "normal flow of actions". A singular action need not necessarily be interrupted. And nowhere in the rules does it say that AoO cannot interrupt your own actions. As for being knocked over not being an action, we've been through this innumerable times. Being moved is also not an action, yet you're not complaining about Greater Bull Rush allowing AoO from causing the target to be moved.
So let's be clear, I don't have an issue with AoO not interrupting a specific, defined action. I'm not the one claiming that a distinct, defined action must be interrupted. As I recall it, you and others were the ones asking what specific action is being interrupted prior to the target actually being prone.
3. How is inflicting poison relevant to combat maneuver checks? What I'm saying is it functions, if you want an analogy, just like concealment does. You succeed at the role, the concealment overrides that. You can succeed at the roll, but the immunity to [whatever effect] overrides that. But if there is an ability that depends upon successfully injecting poison, rather than the target actually being poisoned, then yes, succeeding on the attack to poison would trigger the ability, even if the target was immune to the poison. However, so far as I'm aware, any such ability is triggered off of actually poisoning the target (analogous to actually causing damage vs. successfully hitting).
The effect is relevant. The effect is what occurs if your check is successful, barring any other intervening factor. I've not ever said anything different.
And please stop pretending like I'm saying there's another mythical state of being between standing and being prone. "In the process of falling down" is a way to conceptualize when the attack might occur. This is the whole point of the FAQ regarding standing up. There is no in-between. Since there's no in-between and AoO interrupt whatever is going on, the AoO must "occur" prior to whatever is going on that caused the provocation.
Also, I'm still waiting for anyone to give me a distinct definition of what "success" means in regards to combat maneuvers if it's not simply renaming what exceeding your target's CMD is but is also something distinct from applying the effect to your target.
Finally, why is the language in Greater Trip not "when you use the trip maneuver and knock your opponent prone" or something similar? That certainly would make things clear.
Finally, why is the language in Greater Trip not "when you use the trip maneuver and knock your opponent prone" or something similar? That certainly would make things clear
I'm not going to even suggest that I know enough to comment on the rest, but this piece is probably not included (if that's the way it's supposed to be ruled) because it's too long.
The Devs are usually short on space and try to fit as much as they can in as little as they can.
That's 1 reason anyway. (although it sure appears that if it is the case, this whole thing is unclear now).
1. This is what I mean by the text changing the words around and mixing them. First they say a successful hit is the roll. Then they suggest otherwise. But my last post was rushed, unfortunately, and does not help. Let me see if I can find better words.
We know by book definition, "Successful Hit" and "Successful Effect" are what happen when the Roll beats the CMD.
We know by the same book that Trip's definition is that the target is knocked prone when the Trip Roll beats the CMD.
Oddly there is no mention of "Successful Hit" in Trip's definition. It appears to be inferred. Meaning Hitting and Knocking Prone are the same thing.
But then this is where it gets confusing because according to text elsewhere a "Successful Hit" is being referred to only as the Roll...such as Meteor Hammer or Ki Throw. Those are specifically talking about the Successful Hit...and then getting to the Effect of dragging or knocking prone later.
So no wonder we get confused about this as we dissect it. I'm not sure it's really written to survive such scrutiny.
2. I don't have a problem with the AoO from Greater Bull Rush interrupting the move, because it specifically states that the movement is what is provoking. So I treat it like any other provoking movement to the limit of what Greater Bull Rush gives me. For Greater Trip the target is considered to be provoking. But he's not moving. He's provoking for having been tripped. And as mentioned above being tripped means being knocked prone.
3. My intention is not to put words in your mouth regarding any state between Standing and Prone. It was used as a point of reference to make a point. Apologies if you feel I was implying you were claiming it.
As to the Poison, this is an important point. Why do I fail to poison an immune creature? It is not because the Roll wasn't good enough. It is because the Effect cannot be applied. Why can an Ooze not be tripped? A fair enough character can beat the CMD just fine. But the Effect of the Trip cannot be applied. It doesn't matter how good the Roll is and whether it is successful or not, the action fails outright. This is the argument of Camp #3. A target that cannot be rendered prone, cannot be tripped. Or restated, if the target has not been rendered prone, it has not been successfully tripped.
I believe this to be the point of the Trip FAQ. I am free to make a Trip attempt as my AoO from his standing. I can make the roll and beat his CMD. But I cannot re-trip him. He is prone already at the moment the AoO lands. Depending on how you look at it, either my reapplication of the Prone condition adds nothing and the target then resolves his action to stand up or my reapplication of the Prone condition is invalid and cannot apply and the target still stands up. In either case, the target cannot be tripped again (knocked prone) until he stands...regardless of what the Roll was for the attempt. Was the attempt successful? If I beat his CMD, then yes. Did I successfully trip him? It doesn't look like it.
I agree if the language for GT was as you put, it wouldn't be ambiguous as it is proving to be now.
As to a CM success. This is difficult for the reasons I mentioned above. But let me see what I can do with it.
We declare an action to Trip our target. We then need to confirm whether our attempt will work or not. The first step in this is making the CM check. If it falls below the CMD, then we're done. If it meets/beats the CMD, then we take the 2nd step. We can declare that the hit was successful. My halberd snagged his leg and pulled his feet out from under him. Simultaneously the target is falling over. As there are no stages between standing and prone, the target is now considered prone. I can now state that not only was my attempt successful (meaning the Roll), but I have successfully tripped him. AoO fires.
Back up to where the hit was successful. I snagged his legs and pulled them out from under him. But instead of falling over, he sits there floating in the air. The guy had a fly effect on him that I was unaware of. Now I can still say my attempt was successful (in that the Roll was good) because I yanked his legs out from him, but I have not successfully tripped him, as he is not the definition of Tripped...i.e. knocked prone. AoO does not fire.
Back up again and this time I have a Meteor Hammer instead of a Halberd. I made contact (the roll was good), but instead of sweeping his legs, I've struck his hip or arm and pull him closer to me. I can say my attempt was successful (Roll), but what I ended up performing was sort of a Drag...although I did it through the Trip Maneuver...which is really an odd way of doing it if you ask me. I can only assume Drag was not an official CM when this hammer came out and they weren't sure how else to describe the mechanics of it. If it was, then I have no idea what they were intending although this form of Drag and the Drag CM differ. Whether AoO fires here or not is up for debate. I would surmise no as GT is looking for the target to be knocked prone.
Not sure if that helps or hurts anything. Rather longish...again. <shrug>
|
|
Why? Why do you need to be made "more flat-footed"? You can have flat-footed or prone applied twice as neither state makes you immune to the condition. The penalties won't stack, mind you, so a Prone character taking -4 to AC for being prone doesn't go to -8 for being tripped again; they stay at -4. Being snagged doesn't make you "more flat-footed", but you are snagged with a pronged sword and, given the wielder's skill with it, he has snagged you and pulled you off-balance in such a way that it opens you up for an opportunistic sucker-punch. Should it matter that you were already flat-footed from some other source? The standing argument seems to be that you can't trip someone that's prone because you can't trip someone that's already on the ground. It's a very "fluffy" definition revolving around an inability to imagine tripping someone who isn't standing up. But if that were valid, it would mean you are incapable of successfully snagging the clothes of someone who hasn't yet had their turn, or is suffering from Shattered Defenses, or has had their shield tipped off balance, or is flat-footed from some other source. So that position leads, inexorably, to flat-footed rendering one immune to having their clothes snagged.What about using the 7BS on someone who's already flat-footed in conjunction with Greater Trip? Would you say it would or wouldn't provoke and, if it wouldn't, what makes it impossible to snag the clothes of a person and drag them off-balance in a way that makes them vulnerable to AoO just because they weren't really "on balance" to begin with?Again it comes down to wheather someone can be made 'more flat-footed' or 'more prone' by 're-applying' a condition tht is already in effect. For some conditions this would be yes, but I dont believe it works for conditions like prone or flat-footed.
If your flat-footed or prone, and maybe a few other condition, you ARE those conditions. Attempting to apply them again has no effect. Using greater trip on a prone target has no effect, you dont get an AoO from trying to trip a prone person. One Paizo staff member has already said this. thats just the way the game works. Nothing says you cant house rule it differently if you wish.
Now I'll admit that the Dev could say different but I dont believe they will. I could be wrong though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Elaborate please.
On which of the following:
Overthinking?Kicking a friend?
A friend attacking you?
1. This is what I mean by the text changing the words around and mixing them. First they say a successful hit is the roll. Then they suggest otherwise. But my last post was rushed, unfortunately, and does not help. Let me see if I can find better words.
We know by book definition, "Successful Hit" and "Successful Effect" are what happen when the Roll beats the CMD.
We know by the same book that Trip's definition is that the target is knocked prone when the Trip Roll beats the CMD.
Oddly there is no mention of "Successful Hit" in Trip's definition. It appears to be inferred. Meaning Hitting and Knocking Prone are the same thing.
I'm analogizing Combat Maneuver Checks and Attack Rolls. The structures of the entries is precisely the same. It's the same point I've been making since here.
If your attack roll beats AC, you hit and deal damage.
If your combat maneuver check exceeds CMD, your maneuver is a success and the effect applies.
In one case, you're treating the entry like there are two effects (success of the maneuver and the effect). In the other, you're agreeing that "hit" is simply another name for a successful attack roll. Knocking Prone isn't analogous to "Hit", it's analogous to "deal damage". They're both the effect of the attack roll. They're both the intended overall goal.
2. I don't have a problem with the AoO from Greater Bull Rush interrupting the move, because it specifically states that the movement is what is provoking. So I treat it like any other provoking movement to the limit of what Greater Bull Rush gives me. For Greater Trip the target is considered to be provoking. But he's not moving. He's provoking for having been tripped. And as mentioned above being tripped means being knocked prone.
But why would you treat it like any other provoking movement? Being moved never provokes, unless you're told otherwise. Just like dropping or being dropped to prone never provokes, unless you're told otherwise.
And again, one of the discussions is what it means "to be tripped". Is that "successful trip (hit)" or is it application of the ultimate effect? That question has yet to be answered and can't be without Developer commentary. Two valid interpretations from the same language. It's ambiguous. There's nothing else to it.
3. As to the Poison, this is an important point. Why do I fail to poison an immune creature? It is not because the Roll wasn't good enough. It is because the Effect cannot be applied. Why can an Ooze not be tripped? A fair enough character can beat the CMD just fine. But the Effect of the Trip cannot be applied. It doesn't matter how good the Roll is and whether it is successful or not, the action fails outright. This is the argument of Camp #3. A target that cannot be rendered prone, cannot be tripped. Or restated, if the target has not been rendered prone, it has not been successfully tripped.
I believe this to be the point of the Trip FAQ. I am free to make a Trip attempt as my AoO from his standing. I can make the roll and beat his CMD. But I cannot re-trip him. He is prone already at the moment the AoO lands. Depending on how you look at it, either my reapplication of the Prone condition adds nothing and the target then resolves his action to stand up or my reapplication of the Prone condition is invalid and cannot apply and the target still stands up. In either case, the target cannot be tripped again (knocked prone) until he stands...regardless of what the Roll was for the attempt. Was the attempt successful? If I beat his CMD, then yes. Did I successfully trip him? It doesn't look like it.
There's not much ground to be gained by us continuing this point. I disagree with your interpretation of the FAQ. But again, I recognize that yours is a valid interpretation. So again, two valid interpretations which can't be resolved without Developer commentary.
I've said my piece about the Meteor Hammer and the like, so I don't think it would help to belabor the point any more.
|
|
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.Elaborate please.On which of the following:
Overthinking?
Kicking a friend?
A friend attacking you?
All 3 actually. If you dont mind.
All these posts and only 3 people marked FAQ :s
Not sure if that means a majority of people think it is obvious or they don't want to read 7 pages.
|
Casting a spell with a ranged touch attack provokes two AoO, even though the casting of the spell and the ranged touch attack are a singular action. You can make an AoO for the casting of the spell, which occurs prior to the actual ranged touch attack portion of the spell casting.
The Greater Trip feat works exactly the same way: the successful CM attempt and the effect of falling prone (or whatever effect might actually occur depending on feats, equipment, etc) are a singular action. The AoO for making the successful CM attempt occurs prior to the application of the effect of the successful CM attempt.
I'm sure there are a number of other examples that further acknowledge the underlying theory of how the rules work in this situation.
All these posts and only 3 people marked FAQ :s
Not sure if that means a majority of people think it is obvious or they don't want to read 7 pages.
There is another post (Greater Trip this?) that tries to sum up the various arguments here into what I was hoping to be a FAQ worthy question. You can go there to mark it for FAQ. I will bump it momentarily as it's slipped down a bit.
I'm of the mind that they don't want to read 7 pages. heh
If your attack roll beats AC, you hit and deal damage.
If your combat maneuver check exceeds CMD, your maneuver is a success and the effect applies.In one case, you're treating the entry like there are two effects (success of the maneuver and the effect). In the other, you're agreeing that "hit" is simply another name for a successful attack roll. Knocking Prone isn't analogous to "Hit", it's analogous to "deal damage". They're both the effect of the attack roll. They're both the intended overall goal.
I agree with the definitions you have posted. Perhaps I was too loose with wording as I have appeared to have confused some terms. Let me see if this helps. "Hit" and "Roll" are not the same. I may have confused the two as doing so is easy to do. But "Successful Roll" implies "Successful Hit AND Successful Effect" as stated in the rules you provided. Hit and Effect happen together. Hit is not another name for the Attack Roll. It is 1 of 2 results of the Attack Roll. Effect is the other result. Maybe this is where the misunderstanding is.
"Roll then Hit and Effect". The Roll is good so I have made contact and knocked my target prone.
"Roll then Effect (Hit assumed)". The Roll is good so I have knocked my target prone (contact obvious).
"Roll then Hit and Effect". The Roll is good so I have made contact but I have not knocked my target prone.
"Roll then Hit and Effect". The Roll is good but concealment or something keeps the Hit from actually landing.
The first 2 are examples of the Action succeeding. You have successfully tripped your opponent by the definition of what a trip is and now the AoO triggers. The last 2 are examples of the Action failing. The Roll was successful in each case, but either the Hit didn't land or the Effect didn't apply...meaning the "success" of the Roll was stolen away...like having a "successful attack" against someone with Concealment and the dice then steal away the "success" because the Hit never really lands.
So what is the meaning of "Whenever you successfully trip..."?
If all of us are competent human beings and cannot reach consensus, then either someone is misunderstanding something or the text truly is ambiguous. Either way it has proven more than a simple matter of "Well I figured it was X, but now that you point it out, it DOES seem to be Y after all."
Regarding Greater Bull Rush; If I move through your threatened space on my turn normally, my movement provokes an AoO from you. If your ally Greater Bull Rushes me through your threatened space on his turn, my movement provokes an AoO from you. They are treated the same. AoO interrupts the movement. Simple enough.
Regarding Poison; This is an important point. Camps #1 and #2 argue that success can be achieved without the Effect. Roll success is what triggers Greater Trip's AoO...and then Effect applies. This is how they come to "Roll/AoO/Effect". But if this is true, then when faced with a scenario where the Effect cannot be applied (Roll/AoO/No Effect), we run into the issue of having to say "I have successfully done X, even though X isn't possible."
"I have successfully tripped a target that cannot be knocked prone" (i.e. Trip's definition).
"I have successfully demoralized something that cannot be feared."
"I have successfully poisoned something that cannot be poisoned."
If the argument, however, is that success is not possible if the target is immune, then that argument is saying the application of Effect matters.
"I cannot successfully trip a target that cannot be knocked prone."
"I cannot successfully demoralize something that is immune to fear."
"I cannot successfully poison something that cannot be poisoned."
This argument is Camp #3's position. In order for a target to be "successfully tripped", the Roll must be a success, the Hit must land, and the Effect must apply. If any of those fail, the trip fails.
But if someone doesn't see it this way, hop over to the other Thread and hit FAQ so this can be resolved.
I successfully hit the undead that is immune to critical hits to allow my Flaming Burst weapon to proc.
Elbedor, I disagree with your position, but I appreciate you understanding mine/ours. That is what makes a good debate.
If your character has 2 feet and off hand on the ground (1 handed push up) and a weapon in the main hand ready to strike, another character can hook a foot around your off hand and pull it out from under you. You will most likely hit your chin on the ground. That is going from prone to prone.
In mechanical terms, there is "GENERALLY" no reason to do this as there is no benefit to the attacker. People have shown 3 "SPECIFIC" reasons why it would matter.
Specific trumps general, right?
I believe it is situations like this as to why they (Paizo) backed off the stance that you can't trip a prone person.
As to the poison question, the Free dictionary definition is "to put poison into or upon; saturate with poison." & "to administer poison to (a person or animal)" Both can successfully be done to a target that is immune to the substance. The target's immunity to poison does not mean that the poison is not on the target.
Glad you appreciate my understanding. I appreciate yours. Love fest all around! :P
Your Flaming Burst weapon example is an excellent one that talks about the Hit portion of the equation. It is "On Hit"...or more specifically "On Critical Hit". It is not dependent on the Effect.
I agree with your poison reference in that you still technically introduced it even if the target is immune. But if we poisoned something that wasn't immune, doing so successfully requires the Effect to take place, not just the Hit as Flaming Burst above. If the damage of your attack (the Effect) was reduced to 0, then the Poison doesn't get delivered. The same would be true with a Monk's stun that is reduced to 0 damage.
So 3 good examples...one requiring "On Hit" and two requiring "On Effect" to work. The debated question is which one is Greater Trip? ;)
I think I see the difference in how we're looking at this. Consider for a moment:
What has to happen to successfully Monk Stun your target?
You need to successfully hit your target AND you need to successfully damage your target.
If you don't do both of these, then you cannot successfully Stun your target. You've hit, but the Stun doesn't fire.
Or replace Stun with Injury Poison. You get the same thing. Both the Hit AND the Damage need to happen in order for the poisoning to be considered successfully done.
Now what if you had an ability that said "Whenever you successfully poison an opponent, you get X." What does it mean to "successfully poison"? It depends. If it's a contact poison it means you have to hit. If it's an injury poison it means you have to hit AND do damage. If you only hit, then you did not poison him.
People in Camp #1 such as yourself are seeing "Successfully Trip" as an "On Hit" ability....like a stored spell, extra elemental weapon damage, or contact poison. People in Camp #3 are seeing it as an "On Effect" ability...like injury poison, monk stunning, or some diseases.
When your Roll beats the CMD, two things are happening.
#1 The Maneuver is a Success
#2 The Effect is applied
Camp #1 sees "success" as meaning "successfully trip". Camp #3 sees "success" as meaning the "attempt" or the "Hit", but before "successfully trip" happens, #2 has to take place.
If the Maneuver was a Disarm, the attempt was a success and an object has now left the target's hand.
If it was a Sunder, the attempt was a success and the item suffers damage.
If it was a Trip, the attempt was a success and the target is knocked prone.
If you beat the CMD but for some reason the object doesn't leave the target's hand, can you say you have "successfully disarmed your opponent"? I believe you can say you succeeded at the attempt as the Dice show, but ultimately you did not disarm him.
If you beat the CMD but for some reason the target isn't knocked prone, can you say you have "successfully tripped your opponent"? Again I believe you can say you succeeded at the attempt as the Dice show, but you ultimately did not trip him.
You may agree or disagree, but do you at least see the difference between the Camps?
People in Camp #1 such as yourself are seeing "Successfully Trip" as an "On Hit" ability....like a stored spell, extra elemental weapon damage, or contact poison. People in Camp #3 are seeing it as an "On Effect" ability...like injury poison, monk stunning, or some diseases.
This is a correct description of the two positions.
When your Roll beats the CMD, two things are happening.
#1 The Maneuver is a Success
#2 The Effect is appliedCamp #1 sees "success" as meaning "successfully trip". Camp #3 sees "success" as meaning the "attempt" or the "Hit", but before "successfully trip" happens, #2 has to take place.
This is where we disagree. I don't agree that two separate things are happening. It's my position that "The Maneuver is a Success" is simply the definition of what your Roll beating the CMD means. I do not view "Maneuver is a Success" as an effect of the roll beating the CMD; I view it as being the exact same thing. That is why I equate "Success" with "Successfully Trip", because it's analogous to "Successfully Hit" being nothing more complex than your attack roll beating the target's AC.
If you beat the CMD but for some reason the object doesn't leave the target's hand, can you say you have "successfully disarmed your opponent"? I believe you can say you succeeded at the attempt as the Dice show, but ultimately you did not disarm him.
It depends on why the object never left the target's hand. If the object means the target is functionally immune to being disarmed, then it is no different than attempting to trip a creature that is immune to being tripped. For the purposes of the relevant combat maneuver, the target's CMD is effectively infinitely high. It doesn't matter how high you roll, the target's defense to the maneuver cannot be overcome.
Ultimately, what it boils down to is that one group thinks that for game rules purposes a "successful trip" is encompassed entirely within just the action itself. The game definition of trip is the mechanic of the action and nothing else. The other group thinks that "successful trip" encompasses not just the mechanical action, but also includes the results of that action. Neither one is inherently incorrect - they speak to different philosophies on game rules.
I doubt there's going to be any resolution of that difference of opinion without clear direction by the Developers. Either option could be adopted by the Developers because there's legitimate justification to choose either one.
stunning fist is a poor example.
You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally. A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next turn). A stunned character drops everything held, can’t take actions, loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a –2 penalty to AC. You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned.
it specifically requires damage not just a hit.
|
|
stunning fist is a poor example.
You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally. A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next turn). A stunned character drops everything held, can’t take actions, loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a –2 penalty to AC. You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned.it specifically requires damage not just a hit.
Elbedor acknowledged that. Everything is kosher.
fair enough, but why is it still his example then?
Would there be a situation where the target is damaged by an Unarmed Strike, but not hit by it? He's sort of using inelegant words to say that Stunning Fist needs to damage the target and not just hit it as his exemplar for the situation where the target must be "appreciably affected by a trip maneuver" in order for Greater Trip to work and not just "successfully tripped". Well, guess what. There's already a way to say that the target is appreciably affected by a trip maneuver. They use it in Vicious Stomp. But even then, being prone doesn't render you immune from being re-proned. All you're immune to is the stacking of penalties.
A more relevant situation would be one in which a target is hit but not damaged. The reason Stunning Fist requires damage is because the feat itself specifically calls for it. If it didn't there would be no need to apply the "effect" of the hit to get the stun. If an ability says "on a successful hit" or "when you successfully attack" then whether or not you deal damage is irrelevant. Stunning fist is a poor example because it doesn't have a similar clause like the weapon and other feat in question.
|
|
If something is prone, it can't be tripped, because it's already prone. For the same reason, things that don't have legs can't be tripped, and things that are not walking on the ground (because they're swimming or flying or whatever) can't be tripped either.In your opinion.
If you have the greater trip feat and you attack a prone creature with a trip attack and the numbers you roll say you succeded on said trip attack, do you trigger the greater trip AoO feature for a successful trip attack even if the creature is already prone?
Thanks for your opinion.
Paizo staff member from a week ago.
fair enough, but why is it still his example then?
It was my example to spell out that we have two different things going on. We have some things triggering "On Hit" and other things triggering "On Effect".
Camp #1 believes that "successfully trip" is the result of "On Hit".
Camp #3 believes that "successfully trip" is the result of "On Effect".
The general formula for determining your success in attempting a Combat Maneuver requires your Roll to beat the CMD of the target so that...
...your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
Meanwhile the specific formula for determining your success in attempting a trip requires your Roll to beat the CMD of the target so that...
...the target is knocked prone.
Trip does not mention "your maneuver is a success". Why? Keep in mind the general formula is just that; a general overview of how the mechanics work. When talking specifically about Trip we look at the specific mechanics. The general mechanics are the overview, but the specific ones are referring specifically about Trip.
Why is there no mention of "your maneuver is a success"? Could be spacing issues. Could be the general understanding was there. If you have a quote from one of the writers, we could climb inside his/her head and find out. But until then we are left to infer. So it could be success is inferred. Obviously if you knocked the guy prone you've succeeded. But what I get curious about is when looking at this explanation of how successful tripping is determined, we are only given "the target is knocked prone" to be the meaning of a high enough Roll.
So what does it mean to "successfully trip an opponent"?
;)
Now we can throw Meteor Hammer in there. That specifically says you don't have to knock the target over. It says you can swap out the "Knock over" for a "Drag closer". So maybe that's introducing a new rule into the mix. Which is perfectly fine as long as it serves to give us more options rather than muddy the rule mechanics. But I'm specifically curious about how the phrasing of Greater Trip should be interpreted in the light of what was given us in the CRB. Because at that time, that was all we had. If something has been Errata'ed to change it, then it certainly deserves our attention. But until then, we only have the CRB's definition of what a Trip is and how this translates "Whenever you successfully trip..." for us.
Reposting because it seems to have been overlooked, but it is critical for understanding.You can't trip someone who is prone. Just like you can't put a sleeping person to sleep, kill someone who's dead, or so on. This is a case where, I would hope, common sense would remove the need to write things down.Reposting because it seems to have been overlooked, but it is critical for understanding.
Did you read the rest of the thread?
Later, in the same thread, when asked about using Ki Throw (Trip) on someone that was prone he says this:
I was never talking about Ki throws. I was talking about trip. Ki throw is a different topic entirely.
Then even when asked this:
Would you say you can Ki Throw someone who was already prone then with a successful trip?
He says this:
I would, yes, because the image of someone picking up someone else and throwing them in the context of a kung-fu fight is cool and logical and (in the context of said fantasy kung-fu fight) believable.
I'm just not a fan of overly pedantic rules arguments, is all, so if I seem curt or brusk... that's what's going on.In the end, it's your GM that gets to make the call anyway.
And Jason Bulmahn says:
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Paizo Publishing
How is that not set and match?
How is what not set and match? The fact that JB said tripping a prone target has no effect? I'd call the effect from Greater Trip pretty significant. But if JB is saying the trip has no effect, in that nothing happens from it, then that would seem to argue against your point.
Yes you can waste your AoO as a Trip attack against a target trying to stand. But it does nothing. This would lead to infer that you can use any Trip attack against any prone target. But the result is the same.
No Effect.
Thank you for pointing that out. :)
You mean the part where he states that
Meaning 1 = valid option that can be done but is basically pointless because there is no net gain.
And you get from that:
Meaning 2 = valid option that can be done but cannot succeed as there is no net gain.
How does that reading even REMOTELY work out the Lead Designer feeling that it is SO important that he jumps into the middle of a thread and tries to make a distinct ruling that it IS a valid option?
The difference is that in the first interpretation, additional feats, skills, spells, weapons etc. that work off of Trip are valid against prone targets.
???
How exactly do you get from what I said that I'm somehow saying Meaning 2? Why are you stuck on this idea that "success" is only about the Effect of being knocked prone to me? Are you reading what I write at all? You continue to confuse "Success" and "Successfully".
BOTH interpretations allow for things working off the Trip mechanics. Who said you can't Ki Throw a prone target? Who said you can't Meteor Hammer drag a prone target? Being prone doesn't stop someone from trying to use the Trip mechanics against you. And being prone doesn't stop special rules from performing the way they describe. Anyone can always make a roll if they want. If the target is prone and the roll succeeds then they can ki throw them or hammer drag them or any number of special moves that specific rules allow. But what they can't do (unless a special rule intercedes) is knock a target prone that is already prone.
I get the impression maybe you really don't understand Camp #3's interpretation at all.
I should take a step back here. I was irritated last night at other things and broke my own rule by responding instead of walking away and coming back later. I am sorry for the curt and snappish response.
The difference between the Camps as I see it:
#1 sees "Successful Maneuver" and equates that to satisfying the requirement of Greater Trip. It is then reinforced with how they see other things such as Ki Throw and Meteor Hammer. It falls in line with how they envision the game appearing at the table. "I hit and then I do damage." So it makes sense that the AoO from Greater Trip inserts itself between the "I do x" and the "and then I do y".
I believe I understand this position. I can see the step by step thought process that leads through the sequence of events. I just do not agree that it is correct. There is a step in that process that is faulty to me. If the Devs say it is RAW, then the rule is poorly written as something that was not intended to open the doors to abuse that it does, and something in need of Errata.
This step is equating "Successful Maneuver" with "Successfully Maneuvered". It makes the assumption that what I just attempted has already worked before it has actually worked. And in the event that it ends up not working because of some special interruption, we are then left with the paradox of "It worked when it didn't." It is like assigning the Stun condition from a successful monk attack that failed to deliver damage. Or rather it is like having an ability that says "Whenever you successfully stun a target..." and then assuming that just because your attack succeeded that you have met the requirement of the ability before you have confirmed that your target is stunned (suffered more than 0 damage and failed the save).
#3 sees "Successful Maneuver" as only part of the equation. They believe this part is enough to satisfy the requirements of things such as Ki Throw or Meteor Hammer that specifically want a successful maneuver, so I can flip a prone target into a new square or drag him closer. But they also believe that it does not equate to meeting Greater Trip's requirement because to get to the "I have successfully tripped my target" I must first apply the 2nd part of the equation (the knocking prone) and actually trip the target; i.e. do what trip says and knock him prone.
So it is vey possible to "succeed" at a trip attempt by rolling dice (and thereby qualifying for things such as Ki Throw and Meteor Hammer) and yet end up failing to "successfully trip" your target. This line of reasoning still fits comfortably into how everything else works. And it avoids the paradox that the other interpretation can generate. It also shuts the door on any rule abuses such as gattling-gun AoOing a prone target.
Again if anyone doesn't agree, at least I hope this helps to show the difference in thought process between the Camps. And if anyone thinks I've misinterpreted either camp, they are free to let me know. In the meantime, we wait and hope they FAQ it and get this cleared up.
"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.Eh, it kind of is, though. My position is that "successful trip" means the same thing as "successfully tripped your opponent".
Then you are wrong.
No, it's not crazy to think that Greater Trip might actually need your opponent to be knocked prone before triggering the AoO. I honestly don't think anybody has ever said that the position you're espousing is ridiculous. But, I also do not think it is crazy or ridiculous to think that the phrases "successful trip" and "successfully trip" are, essentially, the same thing. I do no think it is crazy that the AoO from Greater Trip might be triggered by the process of falling prone, not being prone itself.
It isn't crazy to be mistaken. It is a little ridiculous though.
"I think blue and red are the same color, and no one can prove to me otherwise!" ~The colorblind man
Just because you cannot see it, because you cannot understand it... doesn't mean that "successful trip" and "successfully trip an opponent" mean the same thing. They don't.
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?
I've asked this a couple of times. I see no reason why both of them shouldn't trigger. Just because the target wasn't knocked prone doesn't mean you didn't successfully trip them. Both require trip checks. Both apply a status if the check succeeds. Just because the target isn't knock prone per usual does not mean the trip attempt was not successful.
Greater Trip provides an AoO whenever you "successfully trip" your opponent, not whenever you "successfully knock your opponent prone".
Unless the target is actually tripped, Greater Trip doesn't cause them to provoke attacks of opportunity, absent actually being tripped, they do not provoke. Since the options available to those weapons don't actually trip the target, they wouldn't cause the target to provoke.
The target not being knocked prone does in fact mean that you didn't trip them.
And please stop pretending like I'm saying there's another mythical state of being between standing and being prone. "In the process of falling down" is a way to conceptualize when the attack might occur. This is the whole point of the FAQ regarding standing up. There is no in-between. Since there's no in-between and AoO interrupt whatever is going on, the AoO must "occur" prior to whatever is going on that caused the provocation.
Also, I'm still waiting for anyone to give me a distinct definition of what "success" means in regards to combat maneuvers if it's not simply renaming what exceeding your target's CMD is but is also something distinct from applying the effect to your target.
Finally, why is the language in Greater Trip not "when you use the trip maneuver and knock your opponent prone" or something similar? That certainly would make things clear.
Okay, so your argument is that the AoO you get because you successfully trip an opponent happens before the successful trip of said opponent that caused you to get it.
Just being sure that is what you are saying.
I've provided definitions already. Success: To achieve a goal. The goal of a roll/check/attempt is to roll higher than or equal to a target number. The goal of an action is to cause the effects of the action. The go of a trip check is to roll higher than or equal to your target CMD number, if you do, the trip attempt roll is successful. If you actually cause the target to become prone because of your trip attempt, then the trip action itself is successful.
Re:Finally - Greater trip does use language very, very, very similar to what you just wrote. It says "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent".
1. You say that "Successful Trip" = "knocked prone". However, in the previous post I was responding to, you said otherwise. You said "Successful Trip" = "beating the CMD". This is why I'm getting a bit confused. You're saying two different things. Does "Successful Trip" mean simply beating the CMD or actually knocking the target prone?
Both need to have happened for you to successfully trip an opponent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The divide is over "Is 'successful' the same as 'successfully'?"
I believe it cannot be.
"Successful" is an adjective that describes the nouns "Attempt", "Attack", or "Maneuver". It means being favorable. "I performed a successful trip maneuver against my opponent." This implies that the noun 'Attempt' is positive. The attack is good.
"Successfully" is an adverb that describes the verb "to trip". It means performing an action favorably or having the action result fruitfully. "I have successfully tripped my opponent." This implies that the verb 'Trip' as taken place in a positive manner. The trip (target knocked prone) happened as intended.
These are two separate meanings.
By the game mechanics it is possible to have a "successful maneuver" and still "fail to successfully trip".
Today we are going to have a lesson in grammar rules, and in how to derive meanings from words.
Our Example today will be “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent”!
Before we resort to defining these words again, let’s take a quick look at what kinds of words they are instead.
We have the conjunction “Whenever”
Our subject is “You”.
Our predicate is “successfully trip an opponent” of which “an opponent” is the direct object.
Hopefully we all know what that means! Because we will now take a closer look at a few of these words.
Successfully – Adverb. This is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs. So in our example phrase “successfully” is describing the verb “trip”. As an adverb, it describes the nature of the action.
Trip – Verb. This is a verb. Specifically, it a verb with a direct object “an opponent”. The verb acts upon the direct object.
An Opponent – Noun. This is a noun, and in this phrase it is our direct object. The direct object is subjected to the action of the verb. It isn’t doing the thing that is done, the thing that is done is done to the object.
This is why we know that “to successfully trip an opponent” means to achieve the goal of our intended action of tripping an opponent. Because the trip action is a successful trip action, we know it has achieved the goal of the action. And since the direct object of “an opponent” is that which the action was done to, we know that the opponent has been tripped.
Hopefully this helps clear up how to read the phrase “Whenever you successfully trip an opponent”!
Cheeky Topper. :P
Today we are going to have a lesson in grammar rules, and in how to derive meanings from words.
Our Example today will be “Whenever you successfully hit an opponent”!
Before we resort to defining these words again, let’s take a quick look at what kinds of words they are instead.
We have the conjunction “Whenever”
Our subject is “You”.
Our predicate is “successfully hit an opponent” of which “an opponent” is the direct object.
Hopefully we all know what that means! Because we will now take a closer look at a few of these words.
Successfully – Adverb. This is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs. So in our example phrase “successfully” is describing the verb “hit”. As an adverb, it describes the nature of the action.
Hit – Verb. This is a verb. Specifically, it a verb with a direct object “an opponent”. The verb acts upon the direct object.
An Opponent – Noun. This is a noun, and in this phrase it is our direct object. The direct object is subjected to the action of the verb. It isn’t doing the thing that is done, the thing that is done is done to the object.
This is why we know that “to successfully hit an opponent” means to achieve the goal of our intended action of damaging an opponent. Because the attack action is a successful attack action, we know it has achieved the goal of the action. And since the direct object of “an opponent” is that which the action was done to, we know that the opponent has been damaged.
Hopefully this helps clear up how to read the phrase “Whenever you successfully hit an opponent”! Clearly then, in order to have "successfully hit an opponent", you must have done damage! Even though everybody knows that this isn't actually true! Because you can "successfully hit an opponent" and not actually do damage!
Today we are going to have a lesson in grammar rules, and in how to derive meanings from words.
Our Example today will be “Whenever you successfully hit an opponent”!Before we resort to defining these words again, let’s take a quick look at what kinds of words they are instead.
We have the conjunction “Whenever”
Our subject is “You”.
Our predicate is “successfully hit an opponent” of which “an opponent” is the direct object.Hopefully we all know what that means! Because we will now take a closer look at a few of these words.
Successfully – Adverb. This is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs. So in our example phrase “successfully” is describing the verb “hit”. As an adverb, it describes the nature of the action.
Hit – Verb. This is a verb. Specifically, it a verb with a direct object “an opponent”. The verb acts upon the direct object.
An Opponent – Noun. This is a noun, and in this phrase it is our direct object. The direct object is subjected to the action of the verb. It isn’t doing the thing that is done, the thing that is done is done to the object.
This is why we know that “to successfully hit an opponent” means to achieve the goal of our intended action of hitting an opponent. Because the attack action is a successful attack action, we know it has achieved the goal of the action. And since the direct object of “an opponent” is that which the action was done to, we know that the opponent has been hit.
Hopefully this helps clear up how to read the phrase “Whenever you successfully hit an opponent”! Clearly then, in order to have "successfully hit an opponent", you must have hit them! Even though everybody knows that this is actually true! Because you can't "successfully hit an opponent" and not actually hit!
Fix'd that for ya mate. ^.^
Fix'd that for ya mate. ^.^
Today we are going to have a lesson in grammar rules, and in how to derive meanings from words.
Our Example today will be “Whenever you successfully hit an opponent”!Before we resort to defining these words again, let’s take a quick look at what kinds of words they are instead.
We have the conjunction “Whenever”
Our subject is “You”.
Our predicate is “successfully hit an opponent” of which “an opponent” is the direct object.Hopefully we all know what that means! Because we will now take a closer look at a few of these words.
Successfully – Adverb. This is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs. So in our example phrase “successfully” is describing the verb “hit”. As an adverb, it describes the nature of the action.
Hit – Verb. This is a verb. Specifically, it a verb with a direct object “an opponent”. The verb acts upon the direct object.
An Opponent – Noun. This is a noun, and in this phrase it is our direct object. The direct object is subjected to the action of the verb. It isn’t doing the thing that is done, the thing that is done is done to the object.
This is why we know that “to successfully hit an opponent” means to achieve the goal of our intended action of hitting an opponent. Because the attack action is a successful attack action, we know it has achieved the goal of the action. And since the direct object of “an opponent” is that which the action was done to, we know that the opponent has been hit.
Hopefully this helps clear up how to read the phrase “Whenever you successfully hit an opponent”! Clearly then, in order to have "successfully hit an opponent", you must have hit them! Even though everybody knows that this is actually true! Because you can't "successfully hit an opponent" and not actually hit!
No, not really. If you think changing "damage" to "hit" fixed it, you apparently don't understand your own example. "Trip" is the action and the word for the effect. Your argument amounts to saying you did not successfully hit if you did not also do damage. Good try, though.
Then you are wrong."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.Eh, it kind of is, though. My position is that "successful trip" means the same thing as "successfully tripped your opponent".
I'm sure you think so.
It isn't crazy to be mistaken. It is a little ridiculous though.
"I think blue and red are the same color, and no one can prove to me otherwise!" ~The colorblind man
Just because you cannot see it, because you cannot understand it... doesn't mean that "successful trip" and "successfully trip an opponent" mean the same thing. They don't.
*shrug*
Just because you cannot see it, because you cannot understand it ... don't mean that "successfully trip an opponent" has any effectively different meaning than "successful trip".
See? I can do it, too!
And any time you feel knocking off this silly notion that I'm not intelligent enough to understand your position would be just swell. Me disagreeing with you does not mean I don't understand your argument. Remember when I told you the condescension was tiresome? Yeah, still the case.
Both need to have happened for you to successfully trip an opponent.1. You say that "Successful Trip" = "knocked prone". However, in the previous post I was responding to, you said otherwise. You said "Successful Trip" = "beating the CMD". This is why I'm getting a bit confused. You're saying two different things. Does "Successful Trip" mean simply beating the CMD or actually knocking the target prone?
Only if "successfully trip an opponent" is defined as "having knocked the opponent prone from a successful trip". If it is defined as "having exceeded the target's CMD on a trip maneuver check" (making it analogous to "successfully hit an opponent"), then you do not need both.
You're begging the question again. The discussion in pretty much all of these trip threads is about whether "Successfully trip" refers to the action or the outcome.
Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain what distinct effect "success" is on a combat maneuver check.