The "Greater Trip feat and Attacks of Opportunity" thread to Rule Them All!


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Heh. Maybe I'm not as articulate as I'd like to think. Or maybe I'm not being as sensitive with wording as others. Let me keep it very basic.

We know what the anatomy of an Attack Roll looks like. Beat the AC and you Hit and do Damage. There are some abilities that trigger on the "Hit" (extra damage or held touch spells for example). There are other abilities that trigger on the "Damage" (injury poisons or a Monk's Stun attack).

We know what the anatomy of a Combat Maneuver looks like. Beat the CMD of the target and the maneuver is successful and has the listed effect. This is very similar to the Attack Roll. But it is also a general description of the various Combat Maneuvers. For better detail we look at each maneuver separately (for instance to determine which can be used as an attack and which requires a Standard Action).

Specifically we know what the anatomy of a Trip Attempt looks like. Beat the CMD and you knock the target prone. There is no mention of "the maneuver is successful". This is assumed to be true when you have knocked the target prone. I believe it is worded this way because having a "successful maneuver" means knocking him prone. If you do not manage to knock your target prone, then you have not had a "successful maneuver".

Is this different than the general Combat Maneuver anatomy? Maybe. Depends on how you read it. But even if it is, I'd say the specifics of Trip outweigh the general description of Maneuvers.

Liberty's Edge

Except that just because you trip someone, circumstances may be that you don't necessarily knock them prone, but you've still successfully tripped them.


Saying you have successfully tripped someone that you have not knocked prone is in violation of the very definition of "Trip" that the CRB gives us.

But what do I know? :P


HangarFlying wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:


The casting of a ranged touch spell consists of two "parts" that make up the singular event of casting the spell: the casting of the spell, and the ranged touch attack. Each "part" provokes an attack of opportunity, thus if you cast a ranged touch spell, you provoke twice. The AoO for the casting of the spell occurs prior to making the ranged touch attack, even though the ranged touch attack is a part of the casting of the spell.

This is the same theory that applies to the AoO from Greater Trip: even though the success of the trip attempt and the application of the effect of the trip attempt happens simultaneously, the AoO still occurs prior to the effect is applied.

Reposting because it seems to have been overlooked, but it is critical for understanding.
MechE_ wrote:
James Jacobs, Creative Director wrote:
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.


MechE_ wrote:

Example Time - here is a feat which specifically states that you get one benefit if you succeed at the check against the standard DC and a second benefit if the check is actually successful against your target.

Betrayer Feat wrote:

You can charm people into lowering their defenses, allowing you to ambush them more effectively.

Prerequisites: Quick Draw, Persuasive, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: When you succeed at a Diplomacy check to change a creature's attitude, you can draw a weapon and make a single melee attack against that creature as an immediate action. If you changed your target's attitude to friendly or better, your target is considered flat-footed against this attack. If the target survives, it takes a –2 penalty on its initiative check for this combat. Once you attack a creature, its attitude becomes hostile. Emphasis, mine.

Since the greater trip feat does not contain similar wording about "succeeding at a [combat maneuver] check" but rather says "whenever you succesfully trip an opponent", there is no attack of opportunity.

Now, if you're arguing that the wording is incorrect, then I think you're asking for errata. Again, this may be a frequently asked question, but if it is, it's a poor one. The wording is not unclear or ambiguous.

Devil's advocate: If the target of the Diplomacy check starts out as hostile or unfriendly, you can improve their attitude without changing it to friendly or better. That's the point of the extra text. Making a hostile creature indifferent would be a successful Diplomacy check.

I'm in the no-AoO camp, but the Betrayer comparison is not valid.


Zahmahkibo wrote:
MechE_ wrote:

Example Time - here is a feat which specifically states that you get one benefit if you succeed at the check against the standard DC and a second benefit if the check is actually successful against your target.

Betrayer Feat wrote:

You can charm people into lowering their defenses, allowing you to ambush them more effectively.

Prerequisites: Quick Draw, Persuasive, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: When you succeed at a Diplomacy check to change a creature's attitude, you can draw a weapon and make a single melee attack against that creature as an immediate action. If you changed your target's attitude to friendly or better, your target is considered flat-footed against this attack. If the target survives, it takes a –2 penalty on its initiative check for this combat. Once you attack a creature, its attitude becomes hostile. Emphasis, mine.

Since the greater trip feat does not contain similar wording about "succeeding at a [combat maneuver] check" but rather says "whenever you succesfully trip an opponent", there is no attack of opportunity.

Now, if you're arguing that the wording is incorrect, then I think you're asking for errata. Again, this may be a frequently asked question, but if it is, it's a poor one. The wording is not unclear or ambiguous.

Devil's advocate: If the target of the Diplomacy check starts out as hostile or unfriendly, you can improve their attitude without changing it to friendly or better. That's the point of the extra text. Making a hostile creature indifferent would be a successful Diplomacy check.

I'm in the no-AoO camp, but the Betrayer comparison is not valid.

Ahh, I didn't think of it that way - good point.

Shadow Lodge

Here how about this post? Its from March 4, 2014 not from 4 yrs ago.

James Jacobs wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

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.

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.

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:

Saying you have successfully tripped someone that you have not knocked prone is in violation of the very definition of "Trip" that the CRB gives us.

But what do I know? :P

So the Meteor Hammer doesn't use the trip combat maneuver, even though the weapon description says so? Yes, it is possible to trip someone and have an effect other than prone be the result.


Of course the Meteor Hammer uses the Trip Combat Maneuver mechanics. Is that a strawman question to make a point? Because I've never suggested otherwise.

Meteor Hammer give us a new specific rule where we can swap out the "Knock Prone" for a "Drag Closer" type of effect.

I'm talking the CRB definition of Trip. When Greater Trip was given to us, the definition of a Trip was given to us in the same book. And at that time this was the only book around. Other things came later. But before they did, what did we have to translate "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent..."? We had the definition of what a "successful trip" was in the CRB. Other materials came along later and changed things with their specific rules. That's fine. That's what specific rules do.

But the core of Trip remains the same unless there is errata about it somewhere that I'm not aware of. If there is, please share as I like to stay current with some of this. :)


MechE_ wrote:
Reposting because it seems to have been overlooked, but it is critical for understanding.
James Jacobs, Creative Director wrote:
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:

James Jacobs wrote:
I was never talking about Ki throws. I was talking about trip. Ki throw is a different topic entirely.

Then even when asked this:

Quote:
Would you say you can Ki Throw someone who was already prone then with a successful trip?

He says this:

Quote:

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.

Link

And Jason Bulmahn says:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Link

How is that not set and match?


Not going to repeat my response as your post is the same in that other thread and I answered there. Check 'Can you "trip" him?' if you care to read it.


Someone just pointed out an FAQ that I had overlooked that may have some bearing on this matter:

Vicious Stomp: How does this interact with Greater Trip? Do you get two AOOs or just one? wrote:


Using these feats together provokes two AOOs, because the two AOO-triggering acts are similar, but different.

Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe. Vicious Stomp gives you an AOO [that] occurs when a foe falls prone.

This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.

It's not decisive, but to me upon reading it, what it indicates is that it's not the act of falling prone that triggers the AoO from Greater Trip; if it was, then the two feats would have the same 'trigger', and so you'd only get one attack. But something is obviously happening as part of Greater Trip that causes the AoO, and the only other real component to it is the trip itself, which (for practical purposes) is the combat maneuver check.

Shadow Lodge

That only covers a few points under contention. To me the biggest contention is wheather a prone person can be 'tripped'.


I suppose you could ready an action to trip them after they stand up to repeat queue the combo you're going for. Then you'd have one extra attack of opportunity to work with per round. From my understanding attacks of opportunity occur before said action. Thus, since they are standing up from prone, the attack would occur while they're still prone, and I don't think you can trip someone who's prone.

Readying an action works differently as it will allow you to specify criteria and still be allowed to go before that enemy in the initiative order.


Xaratherus wrote:

Someone just pointed out an FAQ that I had overlooked that may have some bearing on this matter:

Vicious Stomp: How does this interact with Greater Trip? Do you get two AOOs or just one? wrote:


Using these feats together provokes two AOOs, because the two AOO-triggering acts are similar, but different.

Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe. Vicious Stomp gives you an AOO [that] occurs when a foe falls prone.

This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.

It's not decisive, but to me upon reading it, what it indicates is that it's not the act of falling prone that triggers the AoO from Greater Trip; if it was, then the two feats would have the same 'trigger', and so you'd only get one attack. But something is obviously happening as part of Greater Trip that causes the AoO, and the only other real component to it is the trip itself, which (for practical purposes) is the combat maneuver check.

The way I read it, the two events we have here are:

Vicious Stomp just wants a target to fall prone adjacent to you. It doesn't care if he drops there himself, gets knocked there by a trip, or ends up there from an Overrun or any number of reasons. Once he falls there, it triggers.

Greater Trip wants him prone from your trip. It won't trigger if the guy puts himself prone or if you knock him down from an Overrun.

Same event, but two different reasons. Sort of like casting a ranged touch spell. Same casting, 2 reasons to trigger off AoOs. You trip the target prone adjacent to you and both Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp trigger.


Elbedor wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Someone just pointed out an FAQ that I had overlooked that may have some bearing on this matter:

Vicious Stomp: How does this interact with Greater Trip? Do you get two AOOs or just one? wrote:


Using these feats together provokes two AOOs, because the two AOO-triggering acts are similar, but different.

Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe. Vicious Stomp gives you an AOO [that] occurs when a foe falls prone.

This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.

It's not decisive, but to me upon reading it, what it indicates is that it's not the act of falling prone that triggers the AoO from Greater Trip; if it was, then the two feats would have the same 'trigger', and so you'd only get one attack. But something is obviously happening as part of Greater Trip that causes the AoO, and the only other real component to it is the trip itself, which (for practical purposes) is the combat maneuver check.

The way I read it, the two events we have here are:

Vicious Stomp just wants a target to fall prone adjacent to you. It doesn't care if he drops there himself, gets knocked there by a trip, or ends up there from an Overrun or any number of reasons. Once he falls there, it triggers.

Greater Trip wants him prone from your trip. It won't trigger if the guy puts himself prone or if you knock him down from an Overrun.

Same event, but two different reasons. Sort of like casting a ranged touch spell. Same casting, 2 reasons to trigger off AoOs. You trip the target prone adjacent to you and both Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp trigger.

To me, that's begging the question. When the FAQ mentions 'trip' it does not say anything about knocking the target prone; it simply says the AoO triggers off the trip, and that it's Vicious Stomp that triggers off the target falling prone.

I can see your logic, but the fact that you have to insert the word 'prone' in there presumes that you can't trip without knocking the target prone - which, at least according to the example given in the FAQ regarding an AoO trip triggering off a target standing up from prone, does not seem correct.

For me it's that AoO trip FAQ that really throws this into a gray area. If that FAQ said something like, "You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it automatically fails," then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I suppose that wording bars you from discharging a touch spell through a trip attempt versus a prone target, but then again at that point why not just touch them?

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:

Of course the Meteor Hammer uses the Trip Combat Maneuver mechanics. Is that a strawman question to make a point? Because I've never suggested otherwise.

Meteor Hammer give us a new specific rule where we can swap out the "Knock Prone" for a "Drag Closer" type of effect.

I'm talking the CRB definition of Trip. When Greater Trip was given to us, the definition of a Trip was given to us in the same book. And at that time this was the only book around. Other things came later. But before they did, what did we have to translate "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent..."? We had the definition of what a "successful trip" was in the CRB. Other materials came along later and changed things with their specific rules. That's fine. That's what specific rules do.

But the core of Trip remains the same unless there is errata about it somewhere that I'm not aware of. If there is, please share as I like to stay current with some of this. :)

I bring it up because you're pedantically stuck upon prone being the definition of trip. If being prone is the definition of trip, then how can a meteor hammer use the trip combat maneuver when the target doesn't become prone?

Prone is not the definition of trip, prone is an effect applied after one has been tripped (i.e. successfully beat the CMD).

Interesting aside about the Trip mechanic:
Looking at the Determine Success section under the general description of Combat Maneuvers, it says "if your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target...". Looking at the description under Trip, it says "if your attack exceeds the target's CMD..."

Is this an accidental oversight, or is it a deliberate exception to the general rule in that you have to actually beat the CMD rather than just equal it to be successful at a trip?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread doesn't even cover the most important question.

When you trip a Paladin, do they fall?

Liberty's Edge

Matt Thomason wrote:

This thread doesn't even cover the most important question.

When you trip a Paladin, do they fall?

If they do, and it's in the woods, can you hear them fall?

Shadow Lodge

HangarFlying wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

Of course the Meteor Hammer uses the Trip Combat Maneuver mechanics. Is that a strawman question to make a point? Because I've never suggested otherwise.

Meteor Hammer give us a new specific rule where we can swap out the "Knock Prone" for a "Drag Closer" type of effect.

I'm talking the CRB definition of Trip. When Greater Trip was given to us, the definition of a Trip was given to us in the same book. And at that time this was the only book around. Other things came later. But before they did, what did we have to translate "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent..."? We had the definition of what a "successful trip" was in the CRB. Other materials came along later and changed things with their specific rules. That's fine. That's what specific rules do.

But the core of Trip remains the same unless there is errata about it somewhere that I'm not aware of. If there is, please share as I like to stay current with some of this. :)

I bring it up because you're pedantically stuck upon prone being the definition of trip. If being prone is the definition of trip, then how can a meteor hammer use the trip combat maneuver when the target doesn't become prone?

Prone is not the definition of trip, prone is an effect applied after one has been tripped (i.e. successfully beat the CMD).

** spoiler omitted **

Meteor Hammer is a special case, nothing more.

To trip someone is to knock them prone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pedantically stuck upon Prone being the definition of Trip, because that is exactly what the CRB SAYS is the definition. Does no one turn to the Trip section and read it? heh

Forget the "general" explanation of Combat Maneuvers. Look specifically at Trip. What does it say?

"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."

Beating the CMD on a Trip attempt means you did what? Knocked the target prone.

So how does "I have successfully Tripped my target" NOT mean Prone? The very definition of succeeding at a trip attempt is that you knock the target prone. Seems pretty straight forward. If Roll, then Prone.

I guess I have to wonder, why are you NOT pedantically stuck upon Prone being the definition of Trip? If anything I think you are stuck on confusing "Successful" with "Successfully". This seems to be a big part of the disagreement. These two key words are two different things. You can be successful in your trip attempt and then not successfully trip your target. Such a thing is possible....such as if you pulled the legs out from under a man who just hovers there because he has a Fly spell in effect. You got his legs out from under him. Had he been subject to the regular law of gravity like everyone else, he'd have fallen down. So your attempt was successful. But he didn't fall over. You cannot claim to have successfully tripped him. Difference between an Adjective and an Adverb.

Hitting a prone target with a Trip attack is another perfect example. I can succeed at the attempt. The Roll can beat the CMD and then I can do things like Drag him with a Meteor Hammer or flip him into another square with a Ki Throw. But what I can't do is knock him down (since he already is) any more than a standing man can stand up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elbedor wrote:

I'm pedantically stuck upon Prone being the definition of Trip, because that is exactly what the CRB SAYS is the definition. Does no one turn to the Trip section and read it? heh

Forget the "general" explanation of Combat Maneuvers. Look specifically at Trip. What does it say?

"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."

Beating the CMD on a Trip attempt means you did what? Knocked the target prone.

So how does "I have successfully Tripped my target" NOT mean Prone? The very definition of succeeding at a trip attempt is that you knock the target prone. Seems pretty straight forward. If Roll, then Prone.

I guess I have to wonder, why are you NOT pedantically stuck upon Prone being the definition of Trip? If anything I think you are stuck on confusing "Successful" with "Successfully". This seems to be a big part of the disagreement. These two key words are two different things. You can be successful in your trip attempt and then not successfully trip your target. Such a thing is possible....such as if you pulled the legs out from under a man who just hovers there because he has a Fly spell in effect. You got his legs out from under him. Had he been subject to the regular law of gravity like everyone else, he'd have fallen down. So your attempt was successful. But he didn't fall over. You cannot claim to have successfully tripped him. Difference between an Adjective and an Adverb.

Hitting a prone target with a Trip attack is another perfect example. I can succeed at the attempt. The Roll can beat the CMD and then I can do things like Drag him with a Meteor Hammer or flip him into another square with a Ki Throw. But what I can't do is knock him down (since he already is) any more than a standing man can stand up.

I'm aware of the definition. I'm also aware of the definition of "attack":

Attack Roll wrote:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

So by the same pedantry, a successful attack is one that hits and deals damage. Yet we have things that trigger on an attack roll that exceeds AC without dealing damage. The existence of such abilities says that sometimes you can be successful on a check in a way that does not completely deliver all the conditions that normally apply on a successful check.

Now, that doesn't mean I want the designers to rule that in order to deliver a touch spell, you have to exceed the target's AC and deal damage with the weapon. I wouldn't mind something official, though, that corrects this apparent disconnect in logic across similar cases; as I said earlier (in one of the threads, not sure which) simply adding that a prone target is immune to trip, or that trip attempts against a prone target automatically fail, would be sufficient.


Xaratherus wrote:
Attack Roll wrote:

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

...

So by the same pedantry, a successful attack is one that hits and deals damage. Yet we have things that trigger on an attack roll that exceeds AC without dealing damage. The existence of such abilities says that sometimes you can be successful on a check in a way that does not completely deliver all the conditions that normally apply on a successful check.

Now, that doesn't mean I want the designers to rule that in order to deliver a touch spell, you have to exceed the target's AC and deal damage with the weapon. I wouldn't mind something official, though, that corrects this apparent disconnect in logic across similar cases; as I said earlier (in one of the threads, not sure which) simply adding that a prone target is immune to trip, or that trip attempts against a prone target automatically fail, would be sufficient.

Well. Normally, when your attack roll equals or exceeds your target's AC you do hit and do damage.

Of course things can alter that, and very often do. But... normally, in the most basic of cases Ie. default conditions... you hit and do damage.

Not sure why that is an issue. There isn't a disconnect of logic here at all.

1. Declare attack 2.Roll 3.Resolve roll 4.Attempt to apply hit 5.Resolve hit 6.Roll damage 7.Attempt to apply damage 8.Resolve damage

1 then 2. 3. If 3 then 4. 5. If 5 then 6 then 7. 8.

or, in short form... If 3 then 5 and 8.

Which translates back out to "If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class(3), you hit(5) and deal damage(8)."

The other steps are just where stuff might go wrong in the process or prevent it from being effective for one reason or another. Well, and step 6, the extra dice roll that attacks have that maneuvers don't.


Remy Balster wrote:

Well. Normally, when your attack roll equals or exceeds your target's AC you do hit and do damage.

Of course things can alter that, and very often do. But... normally, in the most basic of cases Ie. default conditions... you hit and do damage.

Not sure why that is an issue. There isn't a disconnect of logic here at all.

1. Declare attack 2.Roll 3.Resolve roll 4.Attempt to apply hit 5.Resolve hit 6.Roll damage 7.Attempt to apply damage 8.Resolve damage

1 then 2. 3. If 3 then 4. 5. If 5 then 6 then 7. 8.

or, in short form... If 3 then 5 and 8.

Which translates back out to "If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class(3), you hit(5) and deal damage(8)."

The other steps are just where stuff might go wrong in the process or prevent it from being effective for one reason or another. Well, and step 6, the extra dice roll that attacks have that maneuvers don't.

So what you're saying then is that success of the attack roll actually causes the effect, in this case damage.

If you don't get to a successful hit, you never cause damage. It stands to reason that the successful hit, then, is what causes the damage.

In the same way that a successful combat maneuver would then cause the listed effect.


I'm wondering if the "Is it a Hit or a Roll" talk is getting us off track. The question of threads like this is "What does it mean to 'successfully trip' an opponent"?

Ki Throw, Meteor Hammer, Concealment, Deflect Arrow, and other rules all refer to "The Attempt". "If your trip attempt is successful..." Sometimes they supplant 'Attempt' with 'Attack' or 'Maneuver', but basically it's all the same thing. They are talking about a Noun. Or if you'd rather, they are talking about the Roll or the Hit or whatever you want to call it.

What is being missed though, is that Greater Trip isn't talking about a Noun. It's not talking about the Attempt or the Roll or the Hit or any of that.

#1 "Whenever your trip attack is successful..."
#2 "Whenever you successfully trip..."

I think people see the word "Trip" in both of these and are reading it the same way. But they're not the same. #1 is a Noun that is being decided by a roll of the dice. Was the attempt successful? Yes or no. But #2 is a Verb that is happening or has happened. It is not the Roll or the Hit. It is the Effect being applied. It is the difference between "the trip" and "to trip".

I have 'tripped' my target.
I have 'knocked prone' my target.
I have 'applied the prone condition to' my target.
I have 'applied an Effect to' my target.

Greater Trip is talking about the Verb. Whenever you verb the target. The other examples above are talking about the Noun. Whenever your Noun is successful.

They are different applications of similar sounding but distinct things.


Xaratherus wrote:
I'm aware of the definition.

Yes, my post was in response to Hangarflying. Obviously some people are quite aware of what the Trip section says. :)

And the normal application is that when a Roll exceeds AC, both Hit and Damage happen. Of course there are rules that can interrupt Roll and Hit or Hit and Damage. I don't believe that is being argued.


Elbedor wrote:
I'm wondering if the "Is it a Hit or a Roll" talk is getting us off track. The question of threads like this is "What does it mean to 'successfully trip' an opponent"?

Ultimately, the difference between the verb phrasing and the noun phrasing only matters if you think "I performed a successful trip on my opponent" and "I successfully tripped my opponent" mean different things. They certainly could, but I think it's a less reasonable interpretation.

Also, the discussion goes back to Remy defining "Success" of the combat maneuver as something that is caused by the die roll exceeding CMD, rather than "Success" merely being defined as the die roll exceeding CMD. It is an argument designed to undercut the idea that "successfully trip an opponent" means "when one performs a successful trip on an opponent" (which if the idea were true, it implies that the AoO from Greater Trip occurs prior to Prone being applied, the original point of contention).

If "Success" is simply defined as the positive outcome of the die roll, then it's the thing that causes the Prone condition. If "Success" is triggered by the die roll, then it is an effect of the die roll and, at most, a simultaneous but distinct effect to the Prone condition. There has also been implication that "Success" isn't determined until you have the Prone condition, meaning "Success" is actually caused by the Prone condition. If the latter is the argument, then we're talking about a different context for success - we've gone from game term to standard English, so we're code-switching. Again, not entirely unreasonable given the inherent ambiguity of language. But I don't think it's unequivocally the most obvious or appropriate reading.

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:

I'm pedantically stuck upon Prone being the definition of Trip, because that is exactly what the CRB SAYS is the definition. Does no one turn to the Trip section and read it? heh

Forget the "general" explanation of Combat Maneuvers. Look specifically at Trip. What does it say?

"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."

Beating the CMD on a Trip attempt means you did what? Knocked the target prone.

So how does "I have successfully Tripped my target" NOT mean Prone? The very definition of succeeding at a trip attempt is that you knock the target prone. Seems pretty straight forward. If Roll, then Prone.

I guess I have to wonder, why are you NOT pedantically stuck upon Prone being the definition of Trip? If anything I think you are stuck on confusing "Successful" with "Successfully". This seems to be a big part of the disagreement. These two key words are two different things. You can be successful in your trip attempt and then not successfully trip your target. Such a thing is possible....such as if you pulled the legs out from under a man who just hovers there because he has a Fly spell in effect. You got his legs out from under him. Had he been subject to the regular law of gravity like everyone else, he'd have fallen down. So your attempt was successful. But he didn't fall over. You cannot claim to have successfully tripped him. Difference between an Adjective and an Adverb.

Hitting a prone target with a Trip attack is another perfect example. I can succeed at the attempt. The Roll can beat the CMD and then I can do things like Drag him with a Meteor Hammer or flip him into another square with a Ki Throw. But what I can't do is knock him down (since he already is) any more than a standing man can stand up.

No, sorry. Prone is not the definition of Trip. Prone is the effect applied to a successful trip. When you successfully do something, you apply an effect–this is pretty much exactly what the rules say. The effect does not define what it is you are attempting to do, the effect defines the results of a successful attempt.

If you attempt to trip someone, you attempt to knock them off balance or stumble. If you have successfully knocked them off balance, the game rules tell you that the prone condition is applied. Yes, the ultimate result of being tripped is to fall prone. That does not mean, in any language that I am aware of, that prone is the definition of trip.


HangarFlying wrote:
If you attempt to trip someone, you attempt to knock them off balance or stumble.

Would you then say that the problem then is an unclear definition of trip in the rules? I ask because your definition is quite arbitrary. What I mean by that is that is only a single definition of what it means to trip in a plethora of other definitions.

Now I can see how you might say that the effect is not the definition, but if you are not using that as the definition, we're left in a state where anyone's definition of trip can be used. Sadly all we have is trip being talked about in regards to its effect in the CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sticking with just the book definition of Trip. I'm not implying any RL assumptions to it such as stumbling or being off balance. The only definition given to us by the CRB is that to trip someone, you roll the dice and if the results beat the CMD, you knock the target prone. Short of any specific rule to change this, tripped targets are not off balance. They are Prone. Prone is the Effect applied by a successful trip (noun). Successfully tripping someone (verb) means to knock them prone.

I believe it really is that simple.

Greater Trip wants a verb to happen. That is the wording we are given. We can argue over maybe it should say something else or could have been worded differently. But it wasn't. It is worded the way it is.

Whenever you successfully trip...
Whenever you successfully knock prone...
Whenever you successfully apply the prone condition to...
Whenever you successfully apply the effect to...

They mean the same thing. What I can't say is:

Whenever you successfully the attempt...
Whenever you successfully at the attempt...
Whenever you successfully at the trip attack...

This makes no grammatical sense. Successfully what the attempt? Successfully Roll the attempt? Successfully Make the attempt? Those would be valid...if that was the wording given to us. It's not though. It's not looking for us to do anything with an attempt, because it's not looking at the attempt. It wants the action "to trip" to happened; which does what? It applies an Effect (that of knocking prone). Once the Effect is applied and the action is considered successfully accomplished, then Greater Trip's AoO triggers.

Camp #1's interpretation of the feat is implying meaning that isn't there. It is inferred; which is a realization I slowly came to when I started out in Camp #1 when these kinds of threads came to my attention. And in hearing the arguments for and against, I found I had to move to Camp #3, because that offered the better reading. It is not inferring any extra meaning into the words. It is saying only what is there.

Liberty's Edge

Sub_Zero wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
If you attempt to trip someone, you attempt to knock them off balance or stumble.

Would you then say that the problem then is an unclear definition of trip in the rules? I ask because your definition is quite arbitrary. What I mean by that is that is only a single definition of what it means to trip in a plethora of other definitions.

Now I can see how you might say that the effect is not the definition, but if you are not using that as the definition, we're left in a state where anyone's definition of trip can be used. Sadly all we have is trip being talked about in regards to its effect in the CRB.

Of all the various definitions of the word trip found on www.m-w.com, I think it's safe to say that "to make a journey" or "to become operative" aren't the definitions being used when referencing the Trip Combat Maneuver.


Elbedor wrote:

Greater Trip wants a verb to happen. That is the wording we are given. We can argue over maybe it should say something else or could have been worded differently. But it wasn't. It is worded the way it is.

Whenever you successfully trip...
Whenever you successfully knock prone...
Whenever you successfully apply the prone condition to...
Whenever you successfully apply the effect to...

They mean the same thing. What I can't say is:

Whenever you successfully the attempt...
Whenever you successfully at the attempt...
Whenever you successfully at the trip attack...

This makes no grammatical sense. Successfully what the attempt? Successfully Roll the attempt? Successfully Make the attempt? Those would be valid...if that was the wording given to us. It's not though. It's not looking for us to do anything with an attempt, because it's not looking at the attempt. It wants the action "to trip" to happened; which does what? It applies an Effect (that of knocking prone). Once the Effect is applied and the action is considered successfully accomplished, then Greater Trip's AoO triggers.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think this is a disingenuous substitution. "Whenever you successfully perform a trip attack on an opponent" is a perfectly legitimate and understandable phrasing, but is far wordier.

I understand that you do not disagree with that being the meaning, but I do not think you can legitimately say at this point that this unequivocally was not the intended meaning. Ultimately, the argument is "Trip" is a game term referring to the trip combat maneuver. So it stands to reason that "Successfully trip" could mean "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver", meaning "Successfully tripped" means "Successfully performed the trip combat maneuver". This isn't inferring meaning into words, it's simply sticking with the game term definition of the word instead of switching to a standard English definition of the word.

Both interpretations are reasonable.


HangarFlying wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
If you attempt to trip someone, you attempt to knock them off balance or stumble.

Would you then say that the problem then is an unclear definition of trip in the rules? I ask because your definition is quite arbitrary. What I mean by that is that is only a single definition of what it means to trip in a plethora of other definitions.

Now I can see how you might say that the effect is not the definition, but if you are not using that as the definition, we're left in a state where anyone's definition of trip can be used. Sadly all we have is trip being talked about in regards to its effect in the CRB.

Of all the various definitions of the word trip found on www.m-w.com, I think it's safe to say that "to make a journey" or "to become operative" aren't the definitions being used when referencing the Trip Combat Maneuver.

Fairly certain that the Urban Dictionary definition of "to experience hallucinations due to drug use, especially the use of LSD", doesn't apply either.

Although I probably would give someone attacks of opportunity against someone fried on acid...

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:

I'm sticking with just the book definition of Trip. I'm not implying any RL assumptions to it such as stumbling or being off balance. The only definition given to us by the CRB is that to trip someone, you roll the dice and if the results beat the CMD, you knock the target prone. Short of any specific rule to change this, tripped targets are not off balance. They are Prone. Prone is the Effect applied by a successful trip (noun). Successfully tripping someone (verb) means to knock them prone.

I believe it really is that simple.

Greater Trip wants a verb to happen. That is the wording we are given. We can argue over maybe it should say something else or could have been worded differently. But it wasn't. It is worded the way it is.

Whenever you successfully trip...
Whenever you successfully knock prone...
Whenever you successfully apply the prone condition to...
Whenever you successfully apply the effect to...

They mean the same thing. What I can't say is:

Whenever you successfully the attempt...
Whenever you successfully at the attempt...
Whenever you successfully at the trip attack...

This makes no grammatical sense. Successfully what the attempt? Successfully Roll the attempt? Successfully Make the attempt? Those would be valid...if that was the wording given to us. It's not though. It's not looking for us to do anything with an attempt, because it's not looking at the attempt. It wants the action "to trip" to happened; which does what? It applies an Effect (that of knocking prone). Once the Effect is applied and the action is considered successfully accomplished, then Greater Trip's AoO triggers.

Camp #1's interpretation of the feat is implying meaning that isn't there. It is inferred; which is a realization I slowly came to when I started out in Camp #1 when these kinds of threads came to my attention. And in hearing the arguments for and against, I found I had to move to Camp #3, because that offered the better reading. It is not inferring any extra meaning...

[Noun] is the name for the activity in which you [transitive verb] someone. The effect from being [transitive verbed] doesn't actually define what [transitive verb] is, it just tells you what happens to you after you have been [transitive verbed].

Liberty's Edge

Xaratherus wrote:

Fairly certain that the Urban Dictionary definition of "to experience hallucinations due to drug use, especially the use of LSD", doesn't apply either.

Although I probably would give someone attacks of opportunity against someone fried on acid...

Challenge accepted!


fretgod99 wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

Greater Trip wants a verb to happen. That is the wording we are given. We can argue over maybe it should say something else or could have been worded differently. But it wasn't. It is worded the way it is.

Whenever you successfully trip...
Whenever you successfully knock prone...
Whenever you successfully apply the prone condition to...
Whenever you successfully apply the effect to...

They mean the same thing. What I can't say is:

Whenever you successfully the attempt...
Whenever you successfully at the attempt...
Whenever you successfully at the trip attack...

This makes no grammatical sense. Successfully what the attempt? Successfully Roll the attempt? Successfully Make the attempt? Those would be valid...if that was the wording given to us. It's not though. It's not looking for us to do anything with an attempt, because it's not looking at the attempt. It wants the action "to trip" to happened; which does what? It applies an Effect (that of knocking prone). Once the Effect is applied and the action is considered successfully accomplished, then Greater Trip's AoO triggers.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think this is a disingenuous substitution. "Whenever you successfully perform a trip attack on an opponent" is a perfectly legitimate and understandable phrasing, but is far wordier.

I understand that you do not disagree with that being the meaning, but I do not think you can legitimately say at this point that this unequivocally was not the intended meaning. Ultimately, the argument is "Trip" is a game term referring to the trip combat maneuver. So it stands to reason that "Successfully trip" could mean "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver", meaning "Successfully tripped" means "Successfully performed the trip combat maneuver". This isn't inferring meaning into words, it's simply sticking with the game term definition of the word instead of switching to a standard English definition of the word.

Both interpretations are...

If both are reasonable, then it is ambiguous. Hence no agreement can be reached. We'll just need a FAQ to show your butt is dead wrong which interpretation is correct. :P


HangarFlying wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
If you attempt to trip someone, you attempt to knock them off balance or stumble.

Would you then say that the problem then is an unclear definition of trip in the rules? I ask because your definition is quite arbitrary. What I mean by that is that is only a single definition of what it means to trip in a plethora of other definitions.

Now I can see how you might say that the effect is not the definition, but if you are not using that as the definition, we're left in a state where anyone's definition of trip can be used. Sadly all we have is trip being talked about in regards to its effect in the CRB.

Of all the various definitions of the word trip found on www.m-w.com, I think it's safe to say that "to make a journey" or "to become operative" aren't the definitions being used when referencing the Trip Combat Maneuver.

The thing is, you're proving my point. To arrive at this conclusion you picked your favorite definition of the word and are going with it. What if your definition doesn't match someone else's? Are you going to argue over the "correct" definition? How do you come to a conclusion?

This is what I meant when I said that there should be an objective definition of it in the CRB. Now I think that this is what Elbedor is assuming when he reads the trip section (it's the way I read it as well), but I can see how you might see it as "the effect" and not the "definition". If this is the case, though were in a messy messy, situation.


There IS an objective definition of Trip in the CRB. Plus I'm sure most people would probably agree that if I announce I'm using a Trip attack on a target, odds are I'm attempting to knock him prone.

This changes if we're talking something special like a 7Bsword, but I'm referring to generally.


The trip combat maneuver is a mechanical rule designed to express how to MECHANICALLY (from a game point of view) force a target to have the prone condition against their will. Its a rule on exactly how to give something this condition. A trip IS prone. Its that simple. Prone could have been, when pathfinder was first developed, a poison, or a spell, or anything else. But instead it was mechanically built using the combat maneuver rules. This doesn't change the fact that a trip is making a target prone.

Now, a 7BSword or meteor hammer might use this same mechanic (instead of just creating its own entirely new and ironically identical set of rules) but it didn't simply because the rule was already expressed exactly how they wanted it to be, but with a different maneuver, so it was deemed easier to just say "use this rule we already made to do this instead". A trip is to knock a target prone. If you are not using a trip maneuver to do this, you are not making a trip attempt, you are instead doing something else, but with the mechanics or trip. Without the 7BSword or meteor hammer you cannot make a trip attempt without the intention to knock the target prone, can you?

Can I say, "I want to make a trip attempt to knock the targets helmet off?" No, I can't. The only thing I can do with a trip is knock him prone unless I have something that has a special rule that allows me to do something else. In which case its a matter of special over general.


Elbedor wrote:

There IS an objective definition of Trip in the CRB. Plus I'm sure most people would probably agree that if I announce I'm using a Trip attack on a target, odds are I'm attempting to knock him prone.

This changes if we're talking something special like a 7Bsword, but I'm referring to generally.

I agree, but Hangar, is saying that it is not a definition, and instead is just the effect. He is then using a dictionary definition to arrive at his point.

I'm merely pointing out that if you take this view, you open yourself up to a muddled mess.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I asked this thread question to my group last night. They all said you cant trip a prone target because to trip someone is to make them prone so if they are already prone you cant trip them. So trying to use a trip maneuver to get a greater trip AoO on a prone target was a NO.

I'm glad that I have a group that thinks the same way I do on this.

Liberty's Edge

Sub_Zero wrote:


The thing is, you're proving my point. To arrive at this conclusion you picked your favorite definition of the word and are going with it. What if your definition doesn't match someone else's? Are you going to argue over the "correct" definition? How do you come to a conclusion?

This is what I meant when I said that there should be an objective definition of it in the CRB. Now I think that this is what Elbedor is assuming when he reads the trip section (it's the way I read it as well), but I can see how you might see it as "the effect" and not the "definition". If this is the case, though were in a messy messy, situation.

Ah, since death is not clearly defined within the rules, my character shall continue to attack after aquiring the dead condition.

Move isn't defined either. I guess my character can't change positions.

Cast isn't clearly defined, I guess that leaves spells out.

Attack isn't actually clearly defined, either, just that in order to attack you must roll a d20. But what does attack mean? Are our characters manipulating a disembodied hand to roll a d20 towards their enemies?

Air isn't objectively defined, so I guess all of our characters asphyxiate and die, but that's ok because there is no objective definition of death.

Food and water aren't objectively defined either, so all that stuff that requires food or water is right out.

See, the writers don't provide objective, concrete definitions for these things because because the developers know we aren't stupid and expect us to bring some fundamental knowledge with us when we sit down to play the game.

So look up the word trip in the dictionary and use some common sense.

Shadow Lodge

So whose common sense should we use? Yours? Mine? Elbedors? Sub_Zeros?
Shimesens? Xaratherus's? fretgod99s? etcs?

See my common sense doesnt agree with your interpretation of trip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

I asked this thread question to my group last night. They all said you cant trip a prone target because to trip someone is to make them prone so if they are already prone you cant trip them. So trying to use a trip maneuver to get a greater trip AoO on a prone target was a NO.

I'm glad that I have a group that thinks the same way I do on this.

But Ki Throw is a trip and it prones and moves them. Can we not Ki Throw them a prone dude or dudette??


HangarFlying wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:


The thing is, you're proving my point. To arrive at this conclusion you picked your favorite definition of the word and are going with it. What if your definition doesn't match someone else's? Are you going to argue over the "correct" definition? How do you come to a conclusion?

This is what I meant when I said that there should be an objective definition of it in the CRB. Now I think that this is what Elbedor is assuming when he reads the trip section (it's the way I read it as well), but I can see how you might see it as "the effect" and not the "definition". If this is the case, though were in a messy messy, situation.

Ah, since death is not clearly defined within the rules, my character shall continue to attack after aquiring the dead condition.

Move isn't defined either. I guess my character can't change positions.

Cast isn't clearly defined, I guess that leaves spells out.

Attack isn't actually clearly defined, either, just that in order to attack you must roll a d20. But what does attack mean? Are our characters manipulating a disembodied hand to roll a d20 towards their enemies?

Air isn't objectively defined, so I guess all of our characters asphyxiate and die, but that's ok because there is no objective definition of death.

Food and water aren't objectively defined either, so all that stuff that requires food or water is right out.

See, the writers don't provide objective, concrete definitions for these things because because the developers know we aren't stupid and expect us to bring some fundamental knowledge with us when we sit down to play the game.

So look up the word trip in the dictionary and use some common sense.

... not sure if you missed the point, or are being purposefully obtuse.

Shadow Lodge

Starbuck_II wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

I asked this thread question to my group last night. They all said you cant trip a prone target because to trip someone is to make them prone so if they are already prone you cant trip them. So trying to use a trip maneuver to get a greater trip AoO on a prone target was a NO.

I'm glad that I have a group that thinks the same way I do on this.

But Ki Throw is a trip and it prones and moves them. Can we not Ki Throw them a prone dude or dudette??

I believe it comes down to wheather you think its ok to trip a prone person.

The way I see ki throw, just like meteor hammer and seven branched sword, is that first your target needs to be a tripable target.

If you believe that you can make a trip attack against a prone target then you can ki throw, meteor hammer drag or 7bs flat-foot, a prone target.

My self, I believe you can't trip a target that is already prone since to trip someone is to knock them prone.

But that just the way I see it.....my common sense.

Edit: ki throw allows you redirect your target so that he falls prone in another square not the one started out in. Your still tripping and making your target prone though, just into a different square.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sub_Zero wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:


The thing is, you're proving my point. To arrive at this conclusion you picked your favorite definition of the word and are going with it. What if your definition doesn't match someone else's? Are you going to argue over the "correct" definition? How do you come to a conclusion?

This is what I meant when I said that there should be an objective definition of it in the CRB. Now I think that this is what Elbedor is assuming when he reads the trip section (it's the way I read it as well), but I can see how you might see it as "the effect" and not the "definition". If this is the case, though were in a messy messy, situation.

Ah, since death is not clearly defined within the rules, my character shall continue to attack after aquiring the dead condition.

Move isn't defined either. I guess my character can't change positions.

Cast isn't clearly defined, I guess that leaves spells out.

Attack isn't actually clearly defined, either, just that in order to attack you must roll a d20. But what does attack mean? Are our characters manipulating a disembodied hand to roll a d20 towards their enemies?

Air isn't objectively defined, so I guess all of our characters asphyxiate and die, but that's ok because there is no objective definition of death.

Food and water aren't objectively defined either, so all that stuff that requires food or water is right out.

See, the writers don't provide objective, concrete definitions for these things because because the developers know we aren't stupid and expect us to bring some fundamental knowledge with us when we sit down to play the game.

So look up the word trip in the dictionary and use some common sense.

... not sure if you missed the point, or are being purposefully obtuse.

No, my point apparently went over your head.


fretgod99 wrote:
Elbedor wrote:
I'm wondering if the "Is it a Hit or a Roll" talk is getting us off track. The question of threads like this is "What does it mean to 'successfully trip' an opponent"?

Ultimately, the difference between the verb phrasing and the noun phrasing only matters if you think "I performed a successful trip on my opponent" and "I successfully tripped my opponent" mean different things. They certainly could, but I think it's a less reasonable interpretation.

Also, the discussion goes back to Remy defining "Success" of the combat maneuver as something that is caused by the die roll exceeding CMD, rather than "Success" merely being defined as the die roll exceeding CMD. It is an argument designed to undercut the idea that "successfully trip an opponent" means "when one performs a successful trip on an opponent" (which if the idea were true, it implies that the AoO from Greater Trip occurs prior to Prone being applied, the original point of contention).

If "Success" is simply defined as the positive outcome of the die roll, then it's the thing that causes the Prone condition. If "Success" is triggered by the die roll, then it is an effect of the die roll and, at most, a simultaneous but distinct effect to the Prone condition. There has also been implication that "Success" isn't determined until you have the Prone condition, meaning "Success" is actually caused by the Prone condition. If the latter is the argument, then we're talking about a different context for success - we've gone from game term to standard English, so we're code-switching. Again, not entirely unreasonable given the inherent ambiguity of language. But I don't think it's unequivocally the most obvious or appropriate reading.

Success is not limited to a die roll. Success is a condition of achieving a goal. I’ve used success in reference to many, many different things over the course of this conversation. While that seems confusing, there is a very good reason for that. Anything with a goal can be successful.

What are you looking for to be successful? Are you looking for a successful roll? Step 3. Are you looking for a successful hit? Step 5. Are you looking for the successful application of damage? Step 8.

Success is a state of accomplishing a goal. Nothing more or less than that.

In "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent" The success we are looking for is of the act "trip an opponent". To be sure, this is a verb, and this verb is the action of tripping. We are looking for the success of the action of the trip. Ie. If the trip action achieved the goal of knocking an opponent prone.

Can we look for success of the maneuver attempt? Sure, we can.But Greater Trip isn't looking for the maneuver being a successful maneuver; it is looking for the action of tripping to be successful.

Can you successfully trip an opponent that is already prone? No, you cannot. You cannot knock someone prone who is prone. Prone is either On or Off. Yes or No. One or Zero. You cannot make something become what it already is. This is tautologically true.

For a thing that is Blue to become Blue… it would have to first become Not-Blue and then become Blue again. If something is On… it cannot become On until it has first become Off. The same follows for Prone. If you are prone, you must become not-prone before you can become prone again.

Since we cannot make an opponent who already is prone become prone, the goal of the trip, the trip action cannot be said to succeed against an already prone opponent. Thus we cannot successfully trip an opponent who is already prone.

Can we attempt to trip them? Yes, sure. Can we succeed on the d20 roll? Yeah sure. Can we succeed at knocking them prone? Nope. Thus the whole action failed, even though the roll succeeded.

But the thing you really need to open yourself up to is the fact that many different aspects of this game can 'succeed' or fail. It isn't only the die roll. Success can be a quality of anything with a goal and an outcome. Anything.


fretgod99 wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but I think this is a disingenuous substitution. "Whenever you successfully perform a trip attack on an opponent" is a perfectly legitimate and understandable phrasing, but is far wordier.

I understand that you do not disagree with that being the meaning, but I do not think you can legitimately say at this point that this unequivocally was not the intended meaning. Ultimately, the argument is "Trip" is a game term referring to the trip combat maneuver. So it stands to reason that "Successfully trip" could mean "successfully perform the trip combat maneuver", meaning "Successfully tripped" means "Successfully performed the trip combat maneuver". This isn't inferring meaning into words, it's simply sticking with the game term definition of the word instead of switching to a standard English definition of the word.

Both interpretations are reasonable.

Subject - You

Action - Perform

Object - Trip attack

What does it mean to successfully perform? I thought that was a skill check. And it has nothing to do with the trip combat maneuver.

Are we singing people into the prone condition now?? Or is this a dance move? Yeah, guess Perform: Dance is the most appropriate for "successfully performing a trip attack". Good thing we cleared that up!!!

Ha. That doesn't sound reasonable does it? That sounds silly huh?

That is because it is silly. You have to add new words into the substitution to force it to make any sense. But guess what? Those new words change the meaning. You feel the substitution is wordy? That means you didn't substitute... you added extra meaning. You changed it.

In your case, you added in making skill checks for the perform skill for some reason. Not sure why you think performance has anything to do with this conversation... but hey, you add new words in and you are going to get unexpected results.

His substitutions were direct substitutions. He didn't change anything. It didn't make any sense though did it? That is because the position you propose doesn't follow. It is wrong. You have made an error.

The trigger from Greater Trip simply isn't what you want it to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:


The thing is, you're proving my point. To arrive at this conclusion you picked your favorite definition of the word and are going with it. What if your definition doesn't match someone else's? Are you going to argue over the "correct" definition? How do you come to a conclusion?

This is what I meant when I said that there should be an objective definition of it in the CRB. Now I think that this is what Elbedor is assuming when he reads the trip section (it's the way I read it as well), but I can see how you might see it as "the effect" and not the "definition". If this is the case, though were in a messy messy, situation.

Ah, since death is not clearly defined within the rules, my character shall continue to attack after aquiring the dead condition.

Move isn't defined either. I guess my character can't change positions.

Cast isn't clearly defined, I guess that leaves spells out.

Attack isn't actually clearly defined, either, just that in order to attack you must roll a d20. But what does attack mean? Are our characters manipulating a disembodied hand to roll a d20 towards their enemies?

Air isn't objectively defined, so I guess all of our characters asphyxiate and die, but that's ok because there is no objective definition of death.

Food and water aren't objectively defined either, so all that stuff that requires food or water is right out.

See, the writers don't provide objective, concrete definitions for these things because because the developers know we aren't stupid and expect us to bring some fundamental knowledge with us when we sit down to play the game.

So look up the word trip in the dictionary and use some common sense.

... not sure if you missed the point, or are being purposefully obtuse.
No, my point apparently went over your head.

ok, missed the point you did. That's ok I'll clarify for you then.

I agree that fundamental knowledge of basic words is assumed when you walk into the game.

However, when were talking about a specific action we should have a clear definition in case we run into the problem of different definitions tripping us up (pun intended :P )

So there is a section within the CRB that is titled Trip. You can interpret it as either a definition, or as the effect of trip.

If you interpret it as the definition, than it is easy to see that to trip someone is to knock them prone. It's simple, well defined and were done.

However if you interpret it as the effect and not the definition then you're in a muddled mess. Trip can be defined as to stumble, it can be defined as to be knocked over, it can be defined as to fall, and so on. With this being the case, there is no objective way to move forward. Were stuck relying on each individuals definition of trip.

So you say that to trip is to stumble. So what? The next person can say it's to fall. Who is right in this case? Are you going to bust out dictionaries until one person is right?

All of this disappears if you assume that the subsection on trip is what trip is defined as in this system.

Now you can continue to act like this isn't the case, but it is the world you're stuck in if "trip" in pathfinder is just what you define it to be in the dictionary.

51 to 100 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / The "Greater Trip feat and Attacks of Opportunity" thread to Rule Them All! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.