For reference, here is what James Jacobs had to say about tripping a prone target three years ago:
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.
For reference, here is what James Jacobs had to say about the same thing 39 minutes later, after he was questioned about some of the consequences of that statement:
It's a GM call, then. Like so much else in the game.
I prefer to call it as "You can't trip someone who's already on the ground, because he's already there."
The effects of trip are to make someone prone. If they're already prone, why would you even bother? Makes no sense.
Not exactly the resounding no that it first appears to be.
Very true he did seem to back off from a resounding 'NO'. That didn't mean his opinion changed any. ;)
For reference, here is what James Jacobs had to say about tripping a prone target three years ago:
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.For reference, here is what James Jacobs had to say about the same thing 39 minutes later, after he was questioned about some of the consequences of that statement:
Not exactly the resounding no that it first appears to be.It's a GM call, then. Like so much else in the game.
I prefer to call it as "You can't trip someone who's already on the ground, because he's already there."
The effects of trip are to make someone prone. If they're already prone, why would you even bother? Makes no sense.
No doubt. He went from "You can't do it" to "It's a GM call, but I wouldn't allow it".
Regardless, neither side is going to be satisfied without a FAQ response or something similar.
Also, don't forget he left open options like Ki Throw, Spinning Throw, and Meteor Hammer, because those are arguably different than a standard trip.
Well, at least he deleted the text made from slamming his head on the keyboard repeatedly.
Would that be due to having to deal with us or....? ;)
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?
I was never talking about Ki throws. I was talking about trip. Ki throw is a different topic entirely.Two topics in one thread issue then huh?
Would you say you can Ki Throw someone who was already prone then with a successful trip?
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.
Then there's this.
Same thing - Ask your GM.
But in the end, how resounding of a no can it be if he'd allow Ki Throw, which requires the target to be tripped which in turn (according to others) requires the target to be not prone?
At the same time, how resounding of a yes could the Ki Throw thing be if he'd disallow tripping an already prone character.
So again, not a definitive answer. And I'm certainly not trying to be critical of Mr. Jacobs here. He was chiming in to help out on a question and answered how he would adjudicate the situation. There's nothing wrong with that. But neither side here can trumpet that around as a definitive answer to the issue.
Agreed, but Jason Bulmahn seems to be pretty clear. Even goes so far as to explain how the trip lock is stopped without stopping the trip.
Komoda, it's not set and match because when presented with that statement from Buhlman before, they've attached game-relevant meaning to the "no effect", meaning your can make a trip attempt but it will have no effect. They take this to mean that the prone condition cannot be reapplied. Since they define "Successfully tripping" as necessarily requiring the effect to be applied, it is to them evidence that you cannot successfully trip.
I think he's speaking colloquially there, as in "Sure you can trip the prone guy and make him prone again, but what does that give you?" probably not thinking about the Greater Trip AoO and other possible effects of allowing one to trip a prone character.
But frankly there's nothing to definitively prove which meaning was actually intended. It leaves us in pretty much the same place.
LOL, seriously? He even says he is trying to be completely clear! He explicitly states what "No Effect" is, IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
That is true. It has no effect. So waste the attack on tripping a prone guy if you want, but nothing comes from it. <shrug>
That is true. It has no effect. So waste the attack on tripping a prone guy if you want, but nothing comes from it. <shrug>
GM: OK, you successfully tripped your target with your first attack, now what?
Player: I make a second trip attempt with my 2nd BAB to try to drag with my meteor hammer. *rolls dice and overcomes CMD*
Gm: aaaand...nothing happens...
Player: why not? I made the roll...why didn't I move him?
I have an issue with this...it completely gimps the meteor hammer and seven branched swords alternate effects. For all purposes I think you should ALWAYS be able to make a trip attempt, but if you are trying to give something a condition it already has, THAT is when "nothing happens" should come into play.
This all goes back to my original argument in the first thread: a condition cannot be reapplied. It has nothing to do with the action you are taking, but the effect you are trying to apply.
|
That is true. It has no effect. So waste the attack on tripping a prone guy if you want, but nothing comes from it. <shrug>GM: OK, you successfully tripped your target with your first attack, now what?
Player: I make a second trip attempt with my 2nd BAB to try to drag with my meteor hammer. *rolls dice and overcomes CMD*
Gm: aaaand...nothing happens...
Player: why not? I made the roll...why didn't I move him?
I have an issue with this...it completely gimps the meteor hammer and seven branched swords alternate effects. For all purposes I think you should ALWAYS be able to make a trip attempt, but if you are trying to give something a condition it already has, THAT is when "nothing happens" should come into play.
This all goes back to my original argument in the first thread: a condition cannot be reapplied. It has nothing to do with the action you are taking, but the effect you are trying to apply.
So you would allow the 2 weapons with alternate effects be used against something that cant be tripped? You know like a snake/etc? If you allow this then way wouldnt you allow the AoO from greater trip triggered on these creatures.
|
|
If you can't picture it being done, and said action is not found in the rules, then it wasn't intended to be done.
Can you picture using a meteor hammer against a prone target?
"This weapon consists of one or two spherical weights attached by a 10-foot chain. You whirl the weights and wrap them around an opponent's body. If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone." How exactly do you plan to wrap your weapon around a prone target?
Meteor Hammer enchanted with brilliant energy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You really see that as a snide comment that says:
"You can waste your AoO because there is no way it can succeed. But go ahead and do it anyway, you silly gamer."
You don't read that and see:
"You can trip, but it does not affect the target's ability to stand up from prone because that happens AFTER the trip attack resolves. And since target was prone before the trip attack, and after the trip attack, there is no net gain."
So you think JB stopped to post, to make absolutely clear, in some round about way, that it can be done, but there is no way to succeed?
He absolutely states that a prone target is a valid target for trip.
He explains WHY there is "no effect", in the same sentence. It just so happens that a few other feats/weapons/abilities etc. came along and made it possible to affect a prone target with a trip as the end goal of those abilities IS NOT TO MAKE THE TARGET PRONE.
In my opinion, most of your other positions had validity. This one, I do not believe does. This, IMHO, is a very poor reading of JB's post.
But I am sure you feel the same way about my interpretation as well.
As silly as it sounds, I wouldn't allow a snake or flying creature to be trip/dragged with a Meteor Hammer or trip/flat-footed with a Seven Branch Sword because those creatures are specifically immune to being tripped, regardless of the ultimate desired effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is true. It has no effect. So waste the attack on tripping a prone guy if you want, but nothing comes from it. <shrug>GM: OK, you successfully tripped your target with your first attack, now what?
Player: I make a second trip attempt with my 2nd BAB to try to drag with my meteor hammer. *rolls dice and overcomes CMD*
Gm: aaaand...nothing happens...
Player: why not? I made the roll...why didn't I move him?
I have an issue with this...it completely gimps the meteor hammer and seven branched swords alternate effects. For all purposes I think you should ALWAYS be able to make a trip attempt, but if you are trying to give something a condition it already has, THAT is when "nothing happens" should come into play.
This all goes back to my original argument in the first thread: a condition cannot be reapplied. It has nothing to do with the action you are taking, but the effect you are trying to apply.
So you would allow the 2 weapons with alternate effects be used against something that cant be tripped? You know like a snake/etc? If you allow this then way wouldnt you allow the AoO from greater trip triggered on these creatures.
Because I distinguish between a successful trip attempt and successfully tripping. Successfully tripping means you made a non prone target prone. The attempt is surpassing CMD with a roll.
IMHO there is nothing stopping you from trying to trip a prone target (or even an immune one), but no matter the roll, it will always fail, even if the attempt is successful. But if you are using trip rules to do something that is not a trip, then you arnt tripping.
If something is immune to slashing damage, does that mean you can't use an attack with a slash weapon to deal piercing damage?(assuming you have an ability that allows this) of course not. You are just using the rules for one mechanic of the game to do something else.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cast hideous laughter on a mindless undead lich. It fails, the lich doesn't even need to roll.
I trip a prone target. It fails, I don't even get to roll a trip attempt.
In effect, yes, there is a counter to trip maneuvers (and meteor hammer and the seven branched sword): deciding to stay prone. Isn't there enough of penalty to being prone to warrant being immune to a few things?
Not if the prone individual has Monkey Style.
You people are funny.
I think they proved their point that since you can't 'disarm' a person who has no weapon in their hands; you can't 'trip' a person who is already prone; you can't bull rush a target who is standing in the corner of a room; you can't sunder and item on a naked person.
AoO happens BEFORE the action that initiates the AoO. Thus, until that person pulls out a weapon, stands up, gets out of the corner, or puts on an item/weapon.. you can't 'succeed' at an attempt that the person doesn't qualify for. You can do other actions that they qualify for, such as a grapple, or just hit them, include them in a cleave if you want.
You people are funny.
I think they proved their point that since you can't 'disarm' a person who has no weapon in their hands; you can't 'trip' a person who is already prone; you can't bull rush a target who is standing in the corner of a room; you can't sunder and item on a naked person.
AoO happens BEFORE the action that initiates the AoO. Thus, until that person pulls out a weapon, stands up, gets out of the corner, or puts on an item/weapon.. you can't 'succeed' at an attempt that the person doesn't qualify for. You can do other actions that they qualify for, such as a grapple, or just hit them, include them in a cleave if you want.
the AoO in question is the one granted by the greater trip feat. If he's already prone, you might fail to trip him again, but the argument is that you succeeded the roll so you are still granted this particular AoO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have learned in my many years that "common sense" is usually wrong. It is usually the least common denominator of information taken at face value rather than any sort of critical thinking applied to the situation at hand.
As I stated before, the question is much more basic than trip. It really is:
"What constitutes a successful hit/attack/maneuver? Is it the successful attack roll, or the successful application of the effect?"
That's an interesting way to put it. However, I'd have to go with successful application of the effect because of the feat Deflect Arrows. An attacker can make a "successful" ranged attack at a monk, but then he can deflect it. It specifically says that you treat the roll as not being successful, and thus does not trigger any kind of magical effect the ranged ammunition might have had.
So, rolling successfully was negated by not having a successful application of that successful roll.
I have learned in my many years that "common sense" is usually wrong. It is usually the least common denominator of information taken at face value rather than any sort of critical thinking applied to the situation at hand.
As I stated before, the question is much more basic than trip. It really is:
"What constitutes a successful hit/attack/maneuver? Is it the successful attack roll, or the successful application of the effect?"
That's an interesting way to put it. However, I'd have to go with successful application of the effect because of the feat Deflect Arrows. An attacker can make a "successful" ranged attack at a monk, but then he can deflect it. It specifically says that you treat the roll as not being successful, and thus does not trigger any kind of magical effect the ranged ammunition might have had.
So, rolling successfully was negated by not having a successful application of that successful roll.
A separate special ability is deflecting the successful hit. It's essentially the same as concealment negating a hit. Mounted Combat works the same way. Each time, an intervening ability retroactively negates the hit.
That's a different mechanic than determining when you have success on a combat maneuver, or even an attack, frankly. There are a number of abilities which function when an attack hits as opposed to when an attack does damage. The easiest example is a weapon which does energy damage. The ability is triggered by a successful hit, not by a successful application of damage. So even if all damage is negated (by DR for instance), the energy damage still applies because a successful hit is defined by the attack roll, not the application of weapon damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have learned in my many years that "common sense" is usually wrong. It is usually the least common denominator of information taken at face value rather than any sort of critical thinking applied to the situation at hand.
As I stated before, the question is much more basic than trip. It really is:
"What constitutes a successful hit/attack/maneuver? Is it the successful attack roll, or the successful application of the effect?"
That's an interesting way to put it. However, I'd have to go with successful application of the effect because of the feat Deflect Arrows. An attacker can make a "successful" ranged attack at a monk, but then he can deflect it. It specifically says that you treat the roll as not being successful, and thus does not trigger any kind of magical effect the ranged ammunition might have had.
So, rolling successfully was negated by not having a successful application of that successful roll.
A separate special ability is deflecting the successful hit. It's essentially the same as concealment negating a hit. Mounted Combat works the same way. Each time, an intervening ability retroactively negates the hit.
That's a different mechanic than determining when you have success on a combat maneuver, or even an attack, frankly. There are a number of abilities which function when an attack hits as opposed to when an attack does damage. The easiest example is a weapon which does energy damage. The ability is triggered by a successful hit, not by a successful application of damage. So even if all damage is negated (by DR for instance), the energy damage still applies because a successful hit is defined by the attack roll, not the application of weapon damage.
Actually I believe it is a very similar mechanic. It is very possible to have a "successful maneuver" and yet still fail to "successfully trip" your target. The "successful maneuver" is similar to the "Hit" of an attack. A "successful hit" can be negated by something that comes after to keep the Hit of applying its Effect.
If I pull the legs out from a man who somehow manages to just float there, my maneuver of pulling his legs out with a trip attempt has succeeded, but I did not successfully trip him.
If a monk succeeds at hitting the same guy, but the man's DR drains away all the damage, that monk's attack was successful, but he did not "successfully stun" the target.
But as you've stated you believe the AoO from Greater Trip is triggered by the "Hit". In essence you see it as an "On Hit" effect. I disagree. As others have stated I can see a clear difference between "Successful" and "Successfully". I believe the AoO from Greater Trip is "On Effect" just like a Monk's Stun.
But if I'm at your table, I'll play it the way you want if you agree to play it the way I want when at my table. ;)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can you use the Trip combat maneuver against prone opponents in order to gain additional effects that require the use of the Trip combat maneuver (such as an AoO from Greater Trip, or a drag from a Meteor Hammer)?
Derived from the various other trip threads that have been posted, though I felt that none have asked the question in a clear and thorough manner. I believe that this question is the core of what this thread, and this thread are trying to ask.
No.
You must "successfully trip an opponent" to gain the AoO of greater trip, and since they are already prone they cannot become prone because of yor trip. Your trip cannot be a successful trip, thus you cannot "successfully trip an opponent".
The answer is obvious is you read the feats in question.
But if I'm at your table, I'll play it the way you want if you agree to play it the way I want when at my table. ;)
Undoubtedly I would. I'd have a good time, too.
Can you use the Trip combat maneuver against prone opponents in order to gain additional effects that require the use of the Trip combat maneuver (such as an AoO from Greater Trip, or a drag from a Meteor Hammer)?
Derived from the various other trip threads that have been posted, though I felt that none have asked the question in a clear and thorough manner. I believe that this question is the core of what this thread, and this thread are trying to ask.
No.
You must "successfully trip an opponent" to gain the AoO of greater trip, and since they are already prone they cannot become prone because of yor trip. Your trip cannot be a successful trip, thus you cannot "successfully trip an opponent".
The answer is obvious is you read the feats in question.
I believe the question is addressing two situations. There are those that require you to perform a "successful trip attempt" and those that require you to "successfully trip". They are similar but very different situations. This repeats what I said elsewhere, but for the sake of argument;
"Successful trip attempt" is an Adjective describing a Noun. Meteor Hammer and Ki Throw fall under this category. They only care about the Roll being good. So you could walk up to a prone target, succeed at a trip attempt and drag him closer to you with the hammer or flip him into another square with a Ki Throw.
"Successfully tripping" is an Adverb describing a Verb. Greater Trip falls under this category. It only cares about the action of tripping (being knocked prone) being good. As you cannot knock prone something that is already prone, you cannot trigger Greater Trip this way until the target stands up.
Curious to know if there is a way to force a target to Stand from Prone... Then you could technically force him up and knock him down again. Ki Throw wouldn't qualify for this as that's more grabbing a prone target and flipping him prone elsewhere...it doesn't undo the Prone condition.
|
No.
You must "successfully trip an opponent" to gain the AoO of greater trip, and since they are already prone they cannot become prone because of yor trip. Your trip cannot be a successful trip, thus you cannot "successfully trip an opponent".
The answer is obvious is you read the feats in question.
That is an acceptable interpretation, though it doesn't fully address the question I asked, nor is it as clear as you want it to be. In your mind, to trip=prone. In my mind, to trip=to knock off balance. A meteor hammer does not cause a target to fall prone. If the target is already prone, can you still trip him to gain the effect of the meteor hammer? It's a perfectly legitimate question considering the prone condition as an effect of being tripped doesn't enter into the equation.
|
|
I believe the question is addressing two situations. There are those that require you to perform a "successful trip attempt" and those that require you to "successfully trip". They are similar but very different situations. This repeats what I said elsewhere, but for the sake of argument;"Successful trip attempt" is an Adjective describing a Noun. Meteor Hammer and Ki Throw fall under this category. They only care about the Roll being good. So you could walk up to a prone target, succeed at a trip attempt and drag him closer to you with the hammer or flip him into another square with a Ki Throw.
"Successfully tripping" is an Adverb describing a Verb. Greater Trip falls under this category. It only cares about the action of tripping (being knocked prone) being good. As you cannot knock prone something that is already prone, you cannot trigger Greater Trip this way until the target stands up.
That is certainly one possible interpretation. The other being that "successfully trip" literally means what it means: that is, when you successfully trip someone, you've knocked them off balance, and having done so, you apply the appropriate effect (drag, prone, flat-footed, whatever). So, I find it perfectly acceptable that once you've successfully tripped someone (knocked them off balance), you're able to get the AoO before the effect is applied to the target.
Much in the same way that if you cast a ranged touch spell, you're able to provoke an AoO for the casting of the spell before you make the ranged touch attack, even though it is a simultaneous event.
|
|
Getting a Faq response may take awhile. Theres a thread on regenerationa and troll vs death effects thats 5 months old with 30-ish flags still waiting. Theres also the thread on Greater Feint thats 4 months old also with 30-ish flags.
So an answer could take awhile.
We shouldn't assume that there will be a rapid conclusion to our pet argument; the PDT is quite busy with other things that take precedence over answering FAQs.
|
|
That is an acceptable interpretation, though it doesn't fully address the question I asked, nor is it as clear as you want it to be. In your mind, to trip=prone. In my mind, to trip=to knock off balance. A meteor hammer does not cause a target to fall prone. If the target is already prone, can you still trip him to gain the effect of the meteor hammer? It's a perfectly legitimate question considering the prone condition as an effect of being tripped doesn't enter into the equation.No.
You must "successfully trip an opponent" to gain the AoO of greater trip, and since they are already prone they cannot become prone because of yor trip. Your trip cannot be a successful trip, thus you cannot "successfully trip an opponent".
The answer is obvious is you read the feats in question.
Meteor Hammer gives you the ability to choose wheather to knock someone prone OR drag them. In my mind that says the target has to be a legitmate trip-able target to even make the attempt.
It still comes down to wheather a prone target can be 'tripped'. If a prone creature is not a trip-able target ALOT of examples given are no longer viable. At least thats how I see it.
That is certainly one possible interpretation. The other being that "successfully trip" literally means what it means: that is, when you successfully trip someone, you've knocked them off balance, and having done so, you apply the appropriate effect (drag, prone, flat-footed, whatever).
I'm not sure if that's "literal", but I think this would be a reasonable interpretation and I can certainly see it happening in RL as I might trip over my dog but not end up prone. I more like stumble about. The only issue though is according to the CRB, if my trip attack beats the CMD of the target, he's knocked prone. That's the only definition we're given to work with. So if we're sticking with RAW for the purpose of discussion on this thread, I'm not sure if being knocked off balance is enough as the rules want the target prone.
Now the nice thing about the Meteor Hammer as Jacob Saltband pointed out is that it gives you a choice. You can knock the target prone like a normal trip or you can drag him. I'm of the mind that even if he's prone, he's still susceptible to being dragged. So you can make the roll to see if you can beat his CMD. And if you do, you drag him. You just can't knock him prone since he already is.
In a nutshell I equate knocking a prone target prone to a standing man declaring that he's going to stand up. A standing man can't stand up any more than a prone man can fall down.
With Ki Throw you could flip a prone man into another square, but you can't make him un-prone and then prone again. He's just prone all the time.
Have I used the word "prone" enough in this post? :P
As silly as it sounds, I wouldn't allow a snake or flying creature to be trip/dragged with a Meteor Hammer or trip/flat-footed with a Seven Branch Sword because those creatures are specifically immune to being tripped, regardless of the ultimate desired effect.
This is why 3.5 was awesome. You could trip snakes and flying critters.
In the case of Flying creatures it stalled them (which meant unless they had hover ability/feat) they fell.
|
|
So... whats at stake here?
Being able to trip the same opponent multiple times per round for multiple AoO's? (This sounds very munchkiny to be honest, one of the main reasons why I've been against)
Being able to drag someone with the trip maneuver with a meteor hammer (some reasonable things to defend here, you avoid having to get a feat to prevent an AoO, and you still keep your +4 from trip maneuver feats)
Being able to make an opponent flat footed with a seven branch sword while they are prone (I honestly don't see this one being very applicable, since I always figured that the point was to make them lose their balance. Though the Seven Branch sword never saw combat, it was a ceremonial sword gift between Japan and some Korean Countries, so how it would work in real life is... well... all theory).
Being able to ki throw a prone target. This seems to be the most plausible to me, and is the only reason why I would consider allowing these to work on prone targets. But to be honest, I don't know of any throws in martial arts that throws a prone person. However, we are talking about a fantasy world with really buff people and magic...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that about sums it up. If we assume that some abilities trigger when the Trip attempt roll beats the CMD and we assume that other abilities trigger when you knock the target over (or just pull him off balance in 7B sword's case), then we get to just about what you're finding as reasonable in a fantasy world:
No Greater Trip AoOs from a prone target.
Yes to a Meteor Hammer Drag.
No to a 7B sword stumble.
Yes to a Ki Throw.
|
|
I think that about sums it up. If we assume that some abilities trigger when the Trip attempt roll beats the CMD and we assume that other abilities trigger when you knock the target over (or just pull him off balance in 7B sword's case), then we get to just about what you're finding as reasonable in a fantasy world:
No Greater Trip AoOs from a prone target.
Yes to a Meteor Hammer Drag.
No to a 7B sword stumble.
Yes to a Ki Throw.
I disagree about the meteor hammer drag using a trip maneuver on a prone person. But I have no problem with a meteor hammer drag using drag maneuver on a prone person.
Not sure about ki throw.
But thats just me.
I think that about sums it up. If we assume that some abilities trigger when the Trip attempt roll beats the CMD and we assume that other abilities trigger when you knock the target over (or just pull him off balance in 7B sword's case), then we get to just about what you're finding as reasonable in a fantasy world:
No Greater Trip AoOs from a prone target.
Yes to a Meteor Hammer Drag.
No to a 7B sword stumble.
Yes to a Ki Throw.I disagree about the meteor hammer drag using a trip maneuver on a prone person. But I have no problem with a meteor hammer drag using drag maneuver on a prone person.
Not sure about ki throw.
But thats just me.
Agree on Greater.
Meteor Hammer yes, it works.7B sword is a funky one. I'd say no. Because it calls out stumble.
Ki Throw is worded oddly too... So… maybe.
But in any home games I'd rule all of these options as non-valid anyway. They are not in the spirit of the abilities in my opinion. I'd rule zero them in a heartbeat, citing common sense as my reason.
The Meteor Hammer uses a trip-like motion to wrap the target which then enables you to yank them closer to you. Not even remotely feasible if they're face down on the asphalt.
The 7B sword is similar, in that you'd use a sweeping hook motion to stag them and yank them off balance... not possible if they're on the floor.
Ki Throw uses the momentum of the fall and redirects it into a new location. No momentum if they're already down.
Sarcasm aside, I think the reason this comes up is because there are some people who feel you CAN trip a prone target in order to trigger the AoO from Greater Trip.
I'm of the belief that by RAW and by Rule 0 that you cannot. You can't knock down a prone target any more than a standing man can Stand Up. If I'm standing next to an enemy and announce I'm Standing Up, do I provoke? Of course not. I think the two ideas are equally ridiculous.
But not everyone agrees.
I'm more interested in where the AoO from Greater Trip lands in the sequence. If it lands after prone is applied, then it shuts down nonsense like above....assuming you aren't of the camp that thinks you are free to reapply non-stacking/worsening/lengthening conditions. i.e. blind a blind man, kill a dead man, trip a prone man, etc.
By the way, I'd say you're certainly free to ready an attack against a creature the GM hasn't invented yet. You might be standing there a while though. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to note that the Prone condition in Pathfinder doesn't necessarily mean you're actually prone. Prone in Pathfinder covers all aspects of lying on the ground, even doing so in a defensive position where one's limbs might be subject to getting wrapped and dragged.
We get it, MattR1986 - you think the question is stupid. Move on - or feel free to keep posting, because the forum mods love it when people break the forum guidelines.
I'm of the belief that by ... Rule 0 that you cannot.
I find this a very peculiar statement to make.
By rule 0 you can do anything. Or you can't do anything. All based on the GM's whim. Rule 0 isn't really a RAW rule. It's a, "If you don't like something feel free to make a house rule for it." So invoking it in support of a certain viewpoint on a RAW topic has no weight.
Your other half of the argument, that by RAW you cannot trip a prone person, is simply unsupported, as evidenced by the multitude of threads on this subject, and the length of them - and supported by the fact that it isn't one person who is disagreeing with everyone else - but looks to be more of a 50/50 split. Though the FAQ on trip locking lends more support to the idea you can trip a prone person than any other argument for or against the idea.
Now RAI, that is another matter altogether. RAI (according to me) is, No, you cannot trip a already prone person, and cannot trigger the AoO's as a result. But I'd also have no problem with a trip maneuver being used successfully to produce any other result from throwing to dragging.
Can you cast sleep on someone who's asleep? Yeah, why not? The effect from the Sleep spell is different than simply being asleep. And there's no reason to think you can't target someone who was the subject of a separate Sleep spell with Sleep again. Sleep can't be used on unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead. It says nothing about creatures who are already asleep or otherwise helpless.
Is there are particular benefit or function to be gained by "re-killing" the horse that's already dead? What purpose would be served by grappling a dead body? Why not just grab it?
So, snark aside, you didn't even provide particularly good examples.
I'd just like to note that the Prone condition in Pathfinder doesn't necessarily mean you're actually prone. Prone in Pathfinder covers all aspects of lying on the ground, even doing so in a defensive position where one's limbs might be subject to getting wrapped and dragged.
I agree with this. That is why I believe it is possible to drag someone with a Meteor Hammer...or even flip them to another square with a Ki Throw.
I'd just like to note that the Prone condition in Pathfinder doesn't necessarily mean you're actually prone. Prone in Pathfinder covers all aspects of lying on the ground, even doing so in a defensive position where one's limbs might be subject to getting wrapped and dragged.I agree with this. That is why I believe it is possible to drag someone with a Meteor Hammer...or even flip them to another square with a Ki Throw.
Wait, we agree on something? I didn't think we were allowed to do that ...
;)