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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

When using the Trip combat maneuver with the Greater Trip feat, does the Attack of Opportunity occur before the prone condition is applied to the target or after?

While correlated to this FAQ request, it is a wholly separate and unique question. It is derived from discussions from this thread, and this thread, as well as every other "Trip" thread that has occurred over the past month.


This, I believe is the main question being debated. Not the other one you posted.

Oddly though, didn't you say you flagged me for some rule violation and here you are putting "FAQ Request" right in the Headline? I know the posting guide spoke against that directly. :P

But if you wanted to make the question shorter, you could just go with:

"Do the AoOs from Greater Trip happen before or after the target falls prone?"

Not sayin'...but ya'know....just sayin'. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:
Oddly though, didn't you say you flagged me for some rule violation and here you are putting "FAQ Request" right in the Headline? I know the posting guide spoke against that directly. :P

See, it's contained within quotation marks, so it's different. ;-)

Elbedor wrote:

But if you wanted to make the question shorter, you could just go with:

"Do the AoOs from Greater Trip happen before or after the target falls prone?"

Not sayin'...but ya'know....just sayin'. ;)

Technically, my goal wasn't to have a shorter question, but to have a clearer question. This would have been just as sufficient...you should have asked this one in the first place! ;-)


Is THAT what I did wrong? Next time I'll just "bump" it instead of *bump* it. Thanks. :P

People post questions on here that have very straight-forward answers. Other people post questions and things go round and round about a topic that might be silly or might not. But then you have some that are ambiguous but important to solve, as their answer touches on several other things.

Greater Trip is one of those, I believe. Where the AoO falls in the sequence opens or closes doors to other tactics, ideas, abuses, or what have you. So I'm of the opinion that the answer to this deserves more than a few words. It's important to understand the mechanics.

For example, if the AoO comes before prone, then how do we avoid the gattling-gun trip method that could technically be pulled because of these established mechanics? Sure a GM can shut it down fast. I would. But I'm sure there are some GMs out there that will stick with a Dev ruling no matter where it takes them. And if such a thing started happening in PFS "because it's RAW",...well they have enough trouble on their plates already.

The point though is not just to have a Yes or No, but maybe a few sentences explaining the mechanics behind the answer.

But in the meantime, you're welcome to join my tables. Just know that if you happen to Greater Trip someone, you're getting the +4 with your AoO because I'm calling them already prone. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:
For example, if the AoO comes before prone, then how do we avoid the gattling-gun trip method that could technically be pulled because of these established mechanics? Sure a GM can shut it down fast. I would. But I'm sure there are some GMs out there that will stick with a Dev ruling no matter where it takes them. And if such a thing started happening in PFS "because it's RAW",...well they have enough trouble on their plates already.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "gattling-gun trip method".

Regarding the AoO occuring before the prone condition, I posted this in one of the other threads, but it has since fallen down the page, and probably didn't get seen:

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.


I do agree that this is a frequently asked question.


HangarFlying wrote:
When using the Trip combat maneuver with the Greater Trip feat, does the Attack of Opportunity occur before the prone condition is applied to the target or after?
Greater Trip wrote:
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

"Whenever you succesfully trip an opponent..." is not the same as "When you succeed at a trip combat maneuver..." The answer is that there is no attack of opportunity since you did not "successfully trip an opponent". You did "succeed at a trip combat maneuver" against an opponent, but the opponent cannot be tripped and your condition to make an attack of opportunity was therefore not met.

This may be a frequently asked question, but if so, it is a poor one. The wording is quite clear that you must actually "successfully trip an opponent".


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.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Thread renamed.

The The Rules FAQ and How to Use It specifically says to not name your threads like this.


@Mech_E: If were as clear, cut-and-dried as implied, it would not be a frequently-asked question.

To offer an example I posted in another thread: Look at the Elemental Fist feat. It states you deliver elemental damage on a "successful hit". Now, the 'outcome' of an attack with a weapon is to deal damage, but even if the target's DR completely absorbs the damage from the weapon, the Elemental Fist damage would still trigger. All that EF requires is for the attack roll to have exceeded the target's AC.

Why is trip treated differently? And just to point out, my opinion is that a "successful trip" is one where you knock the target prone, so I agree with your stance - but similar areas in the rules do not use the logic that a "successful" something means that you succeed at the roll and that the attempted 'something' do whatever it was supposed to do.


And so the debate begins again... ;)

HangarFlying wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "gattling-gun trip method".

Something I stumbled upon in an earlier thread called Greater Trip Question which led me to post Can I "trip" him? But in a nutshell:

Let us assume the AoO lands between Roll and Prone. 3 PCs surround their target. All 3 have Greater Trip and loads of AoOs available per Round.

PC1 trips the target and all PCs get AoOs.
PC2 uses his AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is not prone yet, he is trip-able. The PCs get more AoOs.
PC3 uses this new AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is STILL not prone yet, he is technically trip-able. The PCs yet again get more AoOs.
PC1 uses his AoO to "trip" the target....

And so on until they run out of AoOs.

Basically a gattling gun of AoOs visited upon the target because he's not yet prone and therefore susceptible to being tripped in a way that triggers AoOs. In essence he is pounded somewhere around a dozen times before he even hits the ground. All perfectly legal under RAW IF the AoO lands before the Effect.

However if we assume the AoO lands after both the Roll and Effect, then this is not possible. Once PC1 trips him, he is prone and no PC can 're-trip' him until he is standing again.

Is this proof that RAW is Roll/Prone/AoO? No. But I think it sounds a lot less abusive than the other way. ;)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Thread renamed.

The The Rules FAQ and How to Use It specifically says to not name your threads like this.

Thank you Sean. :)


I think our goal should be to have every thread on the front page be trip-related. :P </joking>

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Thread renamed.

The The Rules FAQ and How to Use It specifically says to not name your threads like this.

Thank you Sean. :)

+1


Xaratherus wrote:
I think our goal should be to have every thread on the front page be trip-related. :P </joking>

I think people might catch on when it ends up being just 3 or 4 of us posting with things like "Well my kids ate their broccoli without fussing today", just to bump a thread. :P

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:

Something I stumbled upon in an earlier thread called Greater Trip Question which led me to post Can I "trip" him? But in a nutshell:

Let us assume the AoO lands between Roll and Prone. 3 PCs surround their target. All 3 have Greater Trip and loads of AoOs available per Round.

PC1 trips the target and all PCs get AoOs.
PC2 uses his AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is not prone yet, he is trip-able. The PCs get more AoOs.
PC3 uses this new AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is STILL not prone yet, he is technically trip-able. The PCs yet again get more AoOs.
PC1 uses his AoO to "trip" the target....

And so on until they run out of AoOs.

So what? If the PCs all waste their AoO making trip attempts, what is the end result: the target is still prone in the end and the PCs have wasted all of their AoO doing no damage to the target. Woopty Doo. And you're afraid that this is going to break the game? Bring it on, intelligent bad guys would love it if the PCs tried this tactic.

Liberty's Edge

Elbedor wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
I think our goal should be to have every thread on the front page be trip-related. :P </joking>
I think people might catch on when it ends up being just 3 or 4 of us posting with things like "Well my kids ate their broccoli without fussing today", just to bump a thread. :P

Ugh...broccoli...really? *yack*


Xaratherus wrote:

@Mech_E: If were as clear, cut-and-dried as implied, it would not be a frequently-asked question.

To offer an example I posted in another thread: Look at the Elemental Fist feat. It states you deliver elemental damage on a "successful hit". Now, the 'outcome' of an attack with a weapon is to deal damage, but even if the target's DR completely absorbs the damage from the weapon, the Elemental Fist damage would still trigger. All that EF requires is for the attack roll to have exceeded the target's AC.

Why is trip treated differently? And just to point out, my opinion is that a "successful trip" is one where you knock the target prone, so I agree with your stance - but similar areas in the rules do not use the logic that a "successful" something means that you succeed at the roll and that the attempted 'something' do whatever it was supposed to do.

"Successful hit" is not the same as "deal damage". Elemental Fist works perfectly - you hit, the elemental damage goes off, just as it should - regardless of whether you managed to pierce the creatures damage reduction, you still managed to land a blow and transfer the energy to them.

I just cannot help but see this as an attempt at "creative rules interpretation", likely for mechanical benefits. A prone enemy cannot be tripped again anymore than a dead (not undead) enemy can be killed a second time (without the intervention of magic). In both cases you can try a second time, but succeeding at the rolls do not actually accomplish the task because the target was already in the "desired" or final state.


MechE_ wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
When using the Trip combat maneuver with the Greater Trip feat, does the Attack of Opportunity occur before the prone condition is applied to the target or after?
Greater Trip wrote:
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

"Whenever you succesfully trip an opponent..." is not the same as "When you succeed at a trip combat maneuver..." The answer is that there is no attack of opportunity since you did not "successfully trip an opponent". You did "succeed at a trip combat maneuver" against an opponent, but the opponent cannot be tripped and your condition to make an attack of opportunity was therefore not met.

This may be a frequently asked question, but if so, it is a poor one. The wording is quite clear that you must actually "successfully trip an opponent".

There's been a long debate about whether "successful trip" and "successfully trip" mean the same thing. You argue that they are not. I (and others) argue that they are.

The question is what does "successfully trip an opponent" mean. How do we know it's supposed to mean something different than "succeed at your trip attempt"?


Elbedor wrote:

And so the debate begins again... ;)

HangarFlying wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "gattling-gun trip method".

Something I stumbled upon in an earlier thread called Greater Trip Question which led me to post Can I "trip" him? But in a nutshell:

Let us assume the AoO lands between Roll and Prone. 3 PCs surround their target. All 3 have Greater Trip and loads of AoOs available per Round.

PC1 trips the target and all PCs get AoOs.
PC2 uses his AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is not prone yet, he is trip-able. The PCs get more AoOs.
PC3 uses this new AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is STILL not prone yet, he is technically trip-able. The PCs yet again get more AoOs.
PC1 uses his AoO to "trip" the target....

And so on until they run out of AoOs.

Basically a gattling gun of AoOs visited upon the target because he's not yet prone and therefore susceptible to being tripped in a way that triggers AoOs. In essence he is pounded somewhere around a dozen times before he even hits the ground. All perfectly legal under RAW IF the AoO lands before the Effect.

However if we assume the AoO lands after both the Roll and Effect, then this is not possible. Once PC1 trips him, he is prone and no PC can 're-trip' him until he is standing again.

Is this proof that RAW is Roll/Prone/AoO? No. But I think it sounds a lot less abusive than the other way. ;)

Here is the more likely situation:

• PC1 uses greater trip against a prone enemy, giving himself, PC2, and PC3 attacks of opportunity against the prone enemy. All three of them stab him with a sword.
• PC2 uses greater trip against the same prone enemy, giving himself, PC1, and PC3 the chance to make an attack of opportunity against the prone enemy again. Since all three PCs have combat reflexes (and dex scores of 14 or greater), all three PCS stab the enemy with a sword.
• PC3 uses greater trip against the same prone enemy, and the prone enemy takes the 7th through 9th attacks in the same turn from only 3 PCs who would normally not be able to make so many attacks against him.


MechE_ wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

@Mech_E: If were as clear, cut-and-dried as implied, it would not be a frequently-asked question.

To offer an example I posted in another thread: Look at the Elemental Fist feat. It states you deliver elemental damage on a "successful hit". Now, the 'outcome' of an attack with a weapon is to deal damage, but even if the target's DR completely absorbs the damage from the weapon, the Elemental Fist damage would still trigger. All that EF requires is for the attack roll to have exceeded the target's AC.

Why is trip treated differently? And just to point out, my opinion is that a "successful trip" is one where you knock the target prone, so I agree with your stance - but similar areas in the rules do not use the logic that a "successful" something means that you succeed at the roll and that the attempted 'something' do whatever it was supposed to do.

"Successful hit" is not the same as "deal damage". Elemental Fist works perfectly - you hit, the elemental damage goes off, just as it should - regardless of whether you managed to pierce the creatures damage reduction, you still managed to land a blow and transfer the energy to them.

I just cannot help but see this as an attempt at "creative rules interpretation", likely for mechanical benefits. A prone enemy cannot be tripped again anymore than a dead (not undead) enemy can be killed a second time (without the intervention of magic). In both cases you can try a second time, but succeeding at the rolls do not actually accomplish the task because the target was already in the "desired" or final state.

I'd get into it, but I don't have the patience or desire to debate the same thing across three (four? five?) separate threads.

You're right that "successful hit" is not the same as "deal damage". Analogizing hitting and tripping based on the constructions of their entries means that "successful trip" is the same as "successful hit" and "knock prone" is the same as "deal damage". So ultimately, it turns on whether "successfully trip" is meant as a reference to "successful trip" (as in, analogous to "hit") or "knock prone" (as in, analogous to "deal damage").

I don't think it's quite as obvious as you're claiming.


fretgod99 wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
When using the Trip combat maneuver with the Greater Trip feat, does the Attack of Opportunity occur before the prone condition is applied to the target or after?
Greater Trip wrote:
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

"Whenever you succesfully trip an opponent..." is not the same as "When you succeed at a trip combat maneuver..." The answer is that there is no attack of opportunity since you did not "successfully trip an opponent". You did "succeed at a trip combat maneuver" against an opponent, but the opponent cannot be tripped and your condition to make an attack of opportunity was therefore not met.

This may be a frequently asked question, but if so, it is a poor one. The wording is quite clear that you must actually "successfully trip an opponent".

There's been a long debate about whether "successful trip" and "successfully trip" mean the same thing. You argue that they are not. I (and others) argue that they are.

The question is what does "successfully trip an opponent" mean. How do we know it's supposed to mean something different than "succeed at your trip attempt"?

Because the wording is different. There are plenty of examples of abilities (the Betrayer feat, for example) worded as "succeed at a blah blah check." This is an ability that is not worded that way. As such, it requires the successful application of the condition.

"Whenever you succesfully trip an opponent" is not the same as "succeeding at a [combat maneuver] check". If it was the same, it would have used that wording.


HangarFlying wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

Something I stumbled upon in an earlier thread called Greater Trip Question which led me to post Can I "trip" him? But in a nutshell:

Let us assume the AoO lands between Roll and Prone. 3 PCs surround their target. All 3 have Greater Trip and loads of AoOs available per Round.

PC1 trips the target and all PCs get AoOs.
PC2 uses his AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is not prone yet, he is trip-able. The PCs get more AoOs.
PC3 uses this new AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is STILL not prone yet, he is technically trip-able. The PCs yet again get more AoOs.
PC1 uses his AoO to "trip" the target....

And so on until they run out of AoOs.

So what? If the PCs all waste their AoO making trip attempts, what is the end result: the target is still prone in the end and the PCs have wasted all of their AoO doing no damage to the target. Woopty Doo. And you're afraid that this is going to break the game? Bring it on, intelligent bad guys would love it if the PCs tried this tactic.

His point is more like this:

PC1 trips the target and all PCs get AoOs.
PC3 uses his AoO to do a damage attack.
PC2 uses his AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is not prone yet, he is trip-able. The PCs get more AoOs.
PC1 uses his AoO to do a damage attack.
PC3 uses this new AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is STILL not prone yet, he is technically trip-able. The PCs yet again get more AoOs.
PC2 uses his AoO to do a damage attack.
PC1 uses his AoO to "trip" the target....

So you're getting 2 AoOs with each trip, one of which deals damage, and the other triggers the sequence again.

Liberty's Edge

MechE_ wrote:

Here is the more likely situation:
• PC1 uses greater trip against a prone enemy, giving himself, PC2, and PC3 attacks of opportunity against the prone enemy. All three of them stab him with a sword.
• PC2 uses greater trip against the same prone enemy, giving himself, PC1, and PC3 the chance to make an attack of opportunity against the prone enemy again. Since all three PCs have combat reflexes (and dex scores of 14 or greater), all three PCS stab the enemy with a sword.
• PC3 uses greater trip against the same prone enemy, and the prone enemy takes the 7th through 9th attacks in the same turn from only 3 PCs who would normally not be able to make so many attacks against him.

This is an excellent visualization, but it would be better suited in The "Can You Trip a Prone Target" thread to Rule Them All! thread.


MechE_ wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
When using the Trip combat maneuver with the Greater Trip feat, does the Attack of Opportunity occur before the prone condition is applied to the target or after?
Greater Trip wrote:
Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

"Whenever you succesfully trip an opponent..." is not the same as "When you succeed at a trip combat maneuver..." The answer is that there is no attack of opportunity since you did not "successfully trip an opponent". You did "succeed at a trip combat maneuver" against an opponent, but the opponent cannot be tripped and your condition to make an attack of opportunity was therefore not met.

This may be a frequently asked question, but if so, it is a poor one. The wording is quite clear that you must actually "successfully trip an opponent".

There's been a long debate about whether "successful trip" and "successfully trip" mean the same thing. You argue that they are not. I (and others) argue that they are.

The question is what does "successfully trip an opponent" mean. How do we know it's supposed to mean something different than "succeed at your trip attempt"?

Because the wording is different. There are plenty of examples of abilities (the Betrayer feat, for example) worded as "succeed at a blah blah check." This is an ability that is not worded that way. As such, it requires the successful application of the condition.

"Whenever you succesfully trip an opponent" is not the same as "succeeding at a [combat maneuver] check". If it was the same, it would have used that wording.

I'm aware of the existence of abilities which are triggered off of checks. I've referenced a number of them in other posts in this ongoing debate.

I fail to see how "successfully trip an opponent" is unambiguously different in meaning than "successfully hit an opponent". In one, the claim is that the wording references the effect of the action. In the other, it's universally recognized that we're referencing only the action taken, not the effect.

So how are we to unambiguously know that "successfully trip an opponent" is analogous to "deal damage" rather than "hit"?


HangarFlying wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

Something I stumbled upon in an earlier thread called Greater Trip Question which led me to post Can I "trip" him? But in a nutshell:

Let us assume the AoO lands between Roll and Prone. 3 PCs surround their target. All 3 have Greater Trip and loads of AoOs available per Round.

PC1 trips the target and all PCs get AoOs.
PC2 uses his AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is not prone yet, he is trip-able. The PCs get more AoOs.
PC3 uses this new AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is STILL not prone yet, he is technically trip-able. The PCs yet again get more AoOs.
PC1 uses his AoO to "trip" the target....

And so on until they run out of AoOs.

So what? If the PCs all waste their AoO making trip attempts, what is the end result: the target is still prone in the end and the PCs have wasted all of their AoO doing no damage to the target. Woopty Doo. And you're afraid that this is going to break the game? Bring it on, intelligent bad guys would love it if the PCs tried this tactic.

You missed my point. I didn't say they used all their attacks to perform trips.

PC1 Trip, PC1 AoO attack, PC2 AoO Trip, PC3 AoO attack. This generates 2 attacks from 1 Trip.

Now since PC2 tripped, everyone gets another round of AoOs.
PC1 AoO attack, PC2 AoO attack, PC3 AoO Trip. This generates 2 more attacks for a total of 4 from 1 Trip.

Now since PC3 tripped, everyone get still more AoOs.
PC1 AoO Trip, PC2 AoO attack, PC3 AoO attack. 2 more attacks for a total of 6 form 1 Trip.

If we stop here, target NOW falls prone. He has suffered 6 damaging attacks instead of 3 from PC1's initial Trip.

If you continue, it becomes 8, then 10, then 12 and so on until they run out.

That is gattling gun.

Or...as Cid said. :)


MechE_ wrote:
"Successful hit" is not the same as "deal damage". Elemental Fist works perfectly - you hit, the elemental damage goes off, just as it should - regardless of whether you managed to pierce the creatures damage reduction, you still managed to land a blow and transfer the energy to them.

In other words, a "successful hit" does not require that your attack (which by game definition is an attempt to not only strike, but to also deal damage to, a target) complete all of its intended goals. It just means (in a general sense) that you make an attack roll that exceeds the target's AC so that you make contact with them.

Greater Trip uses roughly the same terminology, and so does the meteor sword. They state that you must "successfully trip" or make a "successful trip attempt". Yet the logic being applied here is that a "successful trip" is not only one in which you exceed the target's CMD, but that you also knock them prone - or in other words, your maneuver achieves all of its intended goals.

That's a difference in logic; neither of them refer to "make a successful check" (so that's a red herring), yet you're determining the outcome in two different fashions.

To me, it stems from the idea that what's actually provoking is the target falling prone from the trip, but the fact is that the Greater Trip feat doesn't actually say that's what is provoking.


Cid Ayrbourne wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

Something I stumbled upon in an earlier thread called Greater Trip Question which led me to post Can I "trip" him? But in a nutshell:

Let us assume the AoO lands between Roll and Prone. 3 PCs surround their target. All 3 have Greater Trip and loads of AoOs available per Round.

PC1 trips the target and all PCs get AoOs.
PC2 uses his AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is not prone yet, he is trip-able. The PCs get more AoOs.
PC3 uses this new AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is STILL not prone yet, he is technically trip-able. The PCs yet again get more AoOs.
PC1 uses his AoO to "trip" the target....

And so on until they run out of AoOs.

So what? If the PCs all waste their AoO making trip attempts, what is the end result: the target is still prone in the end and the PCs have wasted all of their AoO doing no damage to the target. Woopty Doo. And you're afraid that this is going to break the game? Bring it on, intelligent bad guys would love it if the PCs tried this tactic.

His point is more like this:

PC1 trips the target and all PCs get AoOs.
PC3 uses his AoO to do a damage attack.
PC2 uses his AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is not prone yet, he is trip-able. The PCs get more AoOs.
PC1 uses his AoO to do a damage attack.
PC3 uses this new AoO to "trip" the target. As the target is STILL not prone yet, he is technically trip-able. The PCs yet again get more AoOs.
PC2 uses his AoO to do a damage attack.
PC1 uses his AoO to "trip" the target....

So you're getting 2 AoOs with each trip, one of which deals damage, and the other triggers the sequence again.

the person doing the trip with greater trip also gets an AoO, so its two damage dealing AoO'S AND another trip every Time the target is tripped. So in theory, the original PC who makes a trip can just keep using his AoO's to make more trip attempts and this two friends don't even need greater trip, just combat reflexes to deal damage.


MechE_

As stated in other threads:

CRB p. 195 wrote:
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.

The listed effect does not determine success, the listed effect is applied AFTER success is determined.

That is how those in my camp see it anyway.

Disclaimer: I am not saying this "MAKES SENSE" or is the best thing in the world. I am saying this is how I interrupt RAW.


Komoda wrote:

MechE_

As stated in other threads:

CRB p. 195 wrote:
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.

The listed effect does not determine success, the listed effect is applied AFTER success is determined.

That is how those in my camp see it anyway.

If that were exclusively true, then nothing would be stopping you from tripping an already prone target...just saying...


Xaratherus wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
"Successful hit" is not the same as "deal damage". Elemental Fist works perfectly - you hit, the elemental damage goes off, just as it should - regardless of whether you managed to pierce the creatures damage reduction, you still managed to land a blow and transfer the energy to them.

In other words, a "successful hit" does not require that your attack (which by game definition is an attempt to not only strike, but to also deal damage to, a target) complete all of its intended goals. It just means (in a general sense) that you make an attack roll that exceeds the target's AC so that you make contact with them.

Greater Trip uses roughly the same terminology, and so does the meteor sword. They state that you must "successfully trip" or make a "successful trip attempt". Yet the logic being applied here is that a "successful trip" is not only one in which you exceed the target's CMD, but that you also knock them prone - or in other words, your maneuver achieves all of its intended goals.

That's a difference in logic; neither of them refer to "make a successful check" (so that's a red herring), yet you're determining the outcome in two different fashions.

To me, it stems from the idea that what's actually provoking is the target falling prone from the trip, but the fact is that the Greater Trip feat doesn't actually say that's what is provoking.

There is a difference between a Hit and an Effect. One specifically is talking about making contact with the weapon or maneuver or whatever. The other is applying the damage or whatever the Effect of the maneuver is.

When something is talking about "a successful attack" this is referring to the Attack Roll. It was pointed out in other threads that the definition of an Attack Roll is that when you beat the AC/CMD of the target you then "hit and do damage". So the Hit and Effect, although different things, were happening together.

Go to the definition of Trip and this changes slightly. What you get there is when you beat the CMD of the target you "knock the target prone". There is no mention of a Hit....although I'm gathering that it's inferred.

There are abilities that trigger "On Hit" such as elemental weapon enhancements. You only need to succeed at Hitting the target. The Effect doesn't matter. But there are also abilities that trigger "On Effect" such as Poison or a Monk's Stun attack. You must deal the Effect of the attack before these abilities can happen.

The debate is over whether Greater Trip is referring to an AoO that triggers "On Hit" or "On Effect". In essence, what does it mean to "Successfully trip your opponent"? The successful Roll? Or knocking him prone? I haven't taken the effort to try and count how many answer each way, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's pretty close to even.


Komoda wrote:

MechE_

As stated in other threads:

CRB p. 195 wrote:
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.

The listed effect does not determine success, the listed effect is applied AFTER success is determined.

That is how those in my camp see it anyway.

Disclaimer: I am not saying this "MAKES SENSE" or is the best thing in the world. I am saying this is how I interrupt RAW.

Actually I highlighted an important part. Take a look at your quote again. It sounds more like the Successful maneuver and the listed Effect are happening at the same time. Not in sequence.

Just food for thought, though. Take it as you will. :)


Shimesen, nothing is stopping you from tripping a prone target. That is the point.

We have shown that the Devs backed off of that position. We also clarified that the FAQ says you can't trip lock because [b]AFTER[/] the effect is applied, the person standing up can still stand up, not because you can't actually use trip on a prone person.

Shadow Lodge

Komoda wrote:

Shimesen, nothing is stopping you from tripping a prone target. That is the point.

We have shown that the Devs backed off of that position. We also clarified that the FAQ says you can't trip lock because [b]AFTER[/] the effect is applied, the person standing up can still stand up, not because you can't actually use trip on a prone person.

Show this backing off again.... I must have missed it.


Shimesen wrote:
Komoda wrote:

MechE_

As stated in other threads:

CRB p. 195 wrote:
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.

The listed effect does not determine success, the listed effect is applied AFTER success is determined.

That is how those in my camp see it anyway.

If that were exclusively true, then nothing would be stopping you from tripping an already prone target...just saying...

Well, that is something that is currently being debated, so ...


Elbedor wrote:
Komoda wrote:

MechE_

As stated in other threads:

CRB p. 195 wrote:
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.

The listed effect does not determine success, the listed effect is applied AFTER success is determined.

That is how those in my camp see it anyway.

Disclaimer: I am not saying this "MAKES SENSE" or is the best thing in the world. I am saying this is how I interrupt RAW.

Actually I highlighted an important part. Take a look at your quote again. It sounds more like the Successful maneuver and the listed Effect are happening at the same time. Not in sequence.

Just food for thought, though. Take it as you will. :)

I was going to "inb4" his response with this exact point, but figured you'd show up soon enough anyway. ;)

But still, you're going to have to explain to me what distinctly separate function "success" has under this interpretation if it's not the effect and it's not the roll.


Elbedor,

This: If this(1), then this(2) and this(3).

Not: If this(4) and this(5), then this(6).

Examples:

This: If I go to the store(1), I can buy milk(2) and eggs(3).

Not: If I go to the store(4) and I buy milk(5), I can buy eggs(6).

I don't have to buy milk to buy eggs.


Komoda wrote:

Elbedor,

This: If this(1), then this(2) and this(3).

Not: If this(4) and this(5), then this(6).

Examples:

This: If I go to the store(1), I can buy milk(2) and eggs(3).

Not: If I go to the store(4) and I buy milk(5), I can buy eggs(6).

I don't have to buy milk to buy eggs.

using your exact formula:

Not: If i surpass CMD with my roll(1), The target is knocked prone(2), And everyone gets AoO's.
This: If i surpass CMD with my roll(1), and i knock the target prone(2), Then everyone gets AoO's.


That isn't even close to the same logic. You have added things that are not there, just things you assume or infer. Nowhere in determining success of CMs or Greater Trip does it say the effect MUST take place.

See HERE for a chart.

You are adding or changing (often switching) the parts in red text which change the outcome.

Shadow Lodge

Still not seeing prove of a Dev backing off of the position at a prone person cant be tripped.


Komoda wrote:

That isn't even close to the same logic. You have added things that are not there, just things you assume or infer. Nowhere in determining success of CMs or Greater Trip does it say the effect MUST take place.

See HERE for a chart.

You are adding or changing (often switching) the parts in red text which change the outcome.

im not assuming or inferring anything...

PRD wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
PRD wrote:

You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.

in order to even get the AoO from greater trip you MUST knock the target prone. PERIOD. if you fail, IN ANY WAY to do this (weather because its immune, or because its already prone, or however) then you have not tripped the target. you have made a SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT, but not a SUCCESSFUL MANEUVER.

your entire argument is based on being able to do two independent things so long as you "succeed" at what is require. my argument is that in your store example, you cant get the eggs without the milk because honestly, it should be worded like this:

if i go to the store with a coupon(1){coupon being the feat Greater Trip}, i can buy milk(2), and get eggs for free because of the coupon(3).

in my example, you HAVE to buy the milk, the eggs are a bonus you dont get unless you get the milk. THIS WAS THE INTENT OF THE FEAT, clear and cut. anyone who says otherwise has an agenda. its that simple.

don't get we wrong, i'm all about abusing the rules to my own benefit, but i do so knowing full well that i'm doing so. i don't have any illusions as to what was MEANT when it was written.


Here is what people were talking about, Jacob. Read from the linked post down to James's next comment; he goes from a flat "no" to a "then it's a GM call".


Xaratherus wrote:
Here is what people were talking about, Jacob. Read from the linked post down to James's next comment; he goes from a flat "no" to a "then it's a GM call".

There's also this.

Of course, how you interpret that depends upon if you think his use of "effect" was colloquial or game term specific. I lean towards colloquial, but that's surely informed by my position on this already.


Xaratherus wrote:
Here is what people were talking about, Jacob. Read from the linked post down to James's next comment; he goes from a flat "no" to a "then it's a GM call".

James Jacobs isn't a developer - he's the creative director. And for that, he has a whole lot of respect from me - I love Golarion - but his comments are not rules binding. He very clearly stated how he would rule it and in his first post called it common sense that you can't trip an already prone creature, kill a dead creature again, etc. He backed off the continued argument because he is not a developer and doesn't make the rules - not because he believe his stance is incorrect.

I will admit that the RAW here is not nearly as clear as it should be. I don't, however, believe that it was ever an intention (RAI) to allow tripping an already prone target. The wording for the Greater Trip ability does require that "you successfully trip an opponent" while many other abilities are worded differently to allow for their function when "you succeed at a blah blah check". Again, the wording difference is pretty distinct.

Sure, the RAW may not be 100% on par, but I agree with James Jacob's sentiments...

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."


*ponders going to rez the Triplock thread* :P

And yes, I know James isn't a designer (although my understanding is that Sean and the others do respect his input on the rules). I think it's fair to provide his take on the topic, as a Paizo employee and someone who has nearly three decades of game and setting development experience. James has been gaming since I was 8 years old, heh. o.0'

Shadow Lodge

Xaratherus wrote:
Here is what people were talking about, Jacob. Read from the linked post down to James's next comment; he goes from a flat "no" to a "then it's a GM call".

To me JJ's 'its a GM call' was in response to several other things in the 6 posts between his 2 posts. Also after he says 'its a GM call' he still says his opinion is you cant trip a prone person. Personally I wouldnt call that 'backing off' of his position.

Also this was 4 yrs ago, so this has been going no for a few, though they never go very many flags.

Shadow Lodge

On page 858 of the 'ask James Jacobs' thread I asked JJ about tripping a prone opponent and he said the same thing he said 4 yrs ago. No you cant. I'd link it but I'm on my tablet and have issues trying to link or copy or etc.. : (


fretgod99 wrote:

I was going to "inb4" his response with this exact point, but figured you'd show up soon enough anyway. ;)

But still, you're going to have to explain to me what distinctly separate function "success" has under this interpretation if it's not the effect and it's not the roll.

I've been here from the start, my dear arch-nemesis friend. :P

Concerning "Determining Success" it would appear that if you have "Roll Success" (CMD is beaten), then you have Maneuver Success and Effect Success. So with regard to Trip, your Trip Maneuver (or 'attack' or 'attempt' or whatever word you'd like to use) it appears to be a success. Elsewhere we are told what the anatomy of a Trip looks like.

PRD wrote:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead.

So if you fail, nothing happens. If you fail by 10+ then you fall over. But if you succeed, then the target falls over. Something like:

If Roll Success (roll beat CMD), then Trip Success (target knocked prone) and Effect Success (target knocked prone).

Of course the target doesn't get knocked prone twice. I think that is just redundancy in the system. Bringing it more in line with the rule for Attack Roll you could also look at it as:

If Roll Success (roll beat CMD), then Trip Success (contact made) and Effect Success (target knocked prone).

This takes away the redundancy and equates Trip Success to a Hit. Not sure if that's any better, but basically I see the Roll as the determination portion and the Hit/Effect as the resolution. If you make contact just fine but something interferes with your ability to knock the target prone, then you may have made contact, but you didn't knock him over. That's what I define as "not successfully tripping an opponent".

Just my 2 cents anyway.


Elbedor wrote:

Concerning "Determining Success" it would appear that if you have "Roll Success" (CMD is beaten), then you have Maneuver Success and Effect Success. So with regard to Trip, your Trip Maneuver (or 'attack' or 'attempt' or whatever word you'd like to use) it appears to be a success. Elsewhere we are told what the anatomy of a Trip looks like.

PRD wrote:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead.

So if you fail, nothing happens. If you fail by 10+ then you fall over. But if you succeed, then the target falls over. Something like:

If Roll Success (roll beat CMD), then Trip Success (target knocked prone) and Effect Success (target knocked prone).

Of course the target doesn't get knocked prone twice. I think that is just redundancy in the system. Bringing it more in line with the rule for Attack Roll you could also look at it as:

If Roll Success (roll beat CMD), then Trip Success (contact made) and Effect Success (target knocked prone).

This takes away the redundancy and equates Trip Success to a Hit. Not sure if that's any better, but basically I see the Roll as the determination portion and the Hit/Effect as the resolution. If you make contact just fine but something interferes with your ability to knock the target prone, then you may have made contact, but you didn't knock him over. That's what I define as "not successfully tripping an opponent".

Just my 2 cents anyway.

I think you've said one of two things here. Either 1. you've said that "Success" is equivalent to "Hit" in the Attack section, meaning it's not an effect but the label we give to what happens when your roll exceeds the target, or 2. you've said that "Success" is equivalent to the effect being applied by whatever attack it is you're making.

Your position (and particularly Remy's) has been that two separate and distinct things happen when you make an attack roll if that roll exceeds the target number. 1. Success. 2. Effect.

They are separate and distinct. If you say that Success now also equals the Effect, we no longer have two separate and distinct things. Now, I suppose that's a fine position to have. Except the reason it was being argued so forcefully is because the language in the CRB is "your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect". My contention has been that "maneuver is a success" is simply a relabeling or naming of what happens when your attack roll meets or exceeds the target number. But because of the use of the word "and", you've argued that it is not simply a label or name but one of two distinct effects. If you're now arguing that Success is equivalent to Effect, your argument that "Success cannot be the name for the attack exceeding the target number because there are two effects" has no merit. So, either there are two separate and distinct effects caused by your attack roll exceeding the target number or there is just one effect.

If there is just one effect, then "Success" has to either be equivalent to "Effect" or it has to be equivalent to your attack roll meeting or exceeding the target number. So we can bring it in line with the definition of Attack, which makes sense because a combat maneuver check is simply a specific kind of attack roll. Plus, the rules language uses syntactically identical structures for each entry.

If you're comfortable with identifying "Success" with "Hit" from the attack language, you're simply stating that "Success" is the name we give to what happens when your attack roll exceeds its target number. That's what "Hit" and "Successful Hit" and "Successfully Hit" all mean, which is something we've agreed on. So long as your attack roll exceeds your target's AC, you've "Hit" your target (even if you don't ultimately deal any damage for whatever reason). Things like Concealment actually negate a successful hit. Things like DR do not. So even if you don't do damage, you've still successfully hit because all it means to successfully hit is that your attack roll exceeded the target's AC and nothing else canceled it out.

Thus, if you're equating "Success" and "Hit" (which is what I've been arguing in favor of), then there is no second "effect" because Success is simply the name we give to your Combat Maneuver Check exceeding the target's CMD. If there is no second effect and Success has no other distinct meaning, then "Successfully Trip" means the same thing that "Successfully Hit" does. That, in turn, means that "Successfully Trip" is determined independently of when the effect is actually applied. The Effect (being knocked prone) is actually an effect of Success (a successful attack roll) and they're not simultaneous and distinct effects.

Liberty's Edge

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.

1 to 50 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.