..trip has to exceed the cmd of the target?


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
PRD, Combat, Combat Maneuvers 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.
PRD, Combat, Combat Maneuvers, Trip wrote:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.

Trip specifically says "if your attack exceeds.." whereas the rest of the combat maneuvers just say "if your attack is successful." So is trip simply an exception where if the target's CMD is 23 and my trip check is a 23 I fail? It would make sense because specific overrides general, but it seems very odd that this specific combat maneuver specifically requires you to "exceed the DC" while none of the others do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say this is a mistake, since there is no reason for trip to be an exception to the rule. However, it does appear to be written as such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its equals or exceeds. I know it doesn't actually say that, but that is how it works. Just like every imp combat maneuver feat is +2 and negates the AoO. They are all the same for a reason - so you don't have to remember fiddly details like imp trip gives +3 while imp grapple gives +2, and imp sunder only gives +1, etc.

For reference see this old post from SKR when he worked for Paizo.


The universal rule is that meeting the DC of a task means succes sof a task. The DC for hitting something is meeting the appropriate target AC.

CMD sets the DC for combat maneuvers. text that indicates otherwise is probably a mistake as seen here.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Typo, it's equal or exceed to trip.


I'd say that the RAW is wrong here and should be ignored - even for PFS


Devilkiller wrote:
I'd say that the RAW is wrong here and should be ignored - even for PFS

And it generally is for PFS. DC for a task is always the target number, not target number plus one.

Grand Lodge

bbangerter wrote:

Its equals or exceeds. I know it doesn't actually say that, but that is how it works. Just like every imp combat maneuver feat is +2 and negates the AoO. They are all the same for a reason - so you don't have to remember fiddly details like imp trip gives +3 while imp grapple gives +2, and imp sunder only gives +1, etc.

For reference see this old post from SKR when he worked for Paizo.

I've seen that post many times and it doesn't relate here at all. That's talking about two things that are the same. Here we have a case of "this is the general rule" and "this other rule defies the pattern for no apparent reason and creates it's own specific rule for this specific subset." This isn't a case of ambiguity. This is a case of specificity where none was needed.


claudekennilol wrote:
bbangerter wrote:

Its equals or exceeds. I know it doesn't actually say that, but that is how it works. Just like every imp combat maneuver feat is +2 and negates the AoO. They are all the same for a reason - so you don't have to remember fiddly details like imp trip gives +3 while imp grapple gives +2, and imp sunder only gives +1, etc.

For reference see this old post from SKR when he worked for Paizo.

I've seen that post many times and it doesn't relate here at all. That's talking about two things that are the same. Here we have a case of "this is the general rule" and "this other rule defies the pattern for no apparent reason and creates it's own specific rule for this specific subset." This isn't a case of ambiguity. This is a case of specificity where none was needed.

All of the other combat maneuvers are the "same thing" as the trip maneuver. In many ways all of these are also the same as attack vs AC rolls. They are all variations on the same thing. Given SKR actually uses improved maneuvers feats as part of his example as to why things that are the same, are indeed the same, I'd say the example is near perfectly apt. (Now you can quibble over this being a specific rule that breaks the pattern for literally ever other d20 roll in the game... but why? There is no genuine case to be made that trip is indeed a unique thing in the rules).

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Could of simply been an issue of of page fitting or language glossed over. There is no additional complexity here that was intended - equal or exceed is the rule to follow for all d20 rolls in the game for determining success and while some d20 rolls have exceptional success or exceptional failure (Disable Device has both for trap disabling), no d20 roll is supposed to be the exception to equal or exceed.

The Core Rulebook makes this very clear.

See "Difficulty Class" on pg 12.
See "Combat Maneuver Defense" on pg 11 which uses the words "difficulty class" in its paragraph. This language can also be seen on pg 199 at the bottom paragraph of the 1st column (determining success).

All other defenses such as AC (pg 178) and SR (pg 13,217) have equal or exceed or use DC or difficulty class in it's language as well.

The same language can be found for skill checks on pg 86.

Grand Lodge

bbangerter wrote:
There is no genuine case to be made that trip is indeed a unique thing in the rules.

Minus the fact that it says it is..


claudekennilol wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
There is no genuine case to be made that trip is indeed a unique thing in the rules.
Minus the fact that it says it is..

It has been stated repeatedly that this is more than likely an error. I am not sure where you are getting at with claiming 'specific over general' outside of the spirit of that rule.

So what would you rather? A completely arbitrary rule that you need to remember specifically for Trip, or just accepting that this is an error and that all combat maneuvers and attacks share the same rules for simplicity's sake. This is not worthy of being errata'd nor is it something that is going to be accepted at any table where someone, DM or player, wasn't trying to get an edge, even a small one. An effective -1 on a single maneuver is silly.

Grand Lodge

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
There is no genuine case to be made that trip is indeed a unique thing in the rules.
Minus the fact that it says it is..

It has been stated repeatedly that this is more than likely an error. I am not sure where you are getting at with claiming 'specific over general' outside of the spirit of that rule.

So what would you rather? A completely arbitrary rule that you need to remember specifically for Trip, or just accepting that this is an error and that all combat maneuvers and attacks share the same rules for simplicity's sake. This is not worthy of being errata'd nor is it something that is going to be accepted at any table where someone, DM or player, wasn't trying to get an edge, even a small one. An effective -1 on a single maneuver is silly.

I'd rather follow the rules as they're printed, even if I think they're in error.

The Exchange

claudekennilol wrote:
PRD, Combat, Combat Maneuvers 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.
PRD, Combat, Combat Maneuvers, Trip wrote:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone.

This is not specific overruling general, this is specific recapping part of general, as it doesn't say that if your attack roll equals the CMD of your target, the target is not knocked prone.


claudekennilol wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
There is no genuine case to be made that trip is indeed a unique thing in the rules.
Minus the fact that it says it is..
blah blah cutting down my post
I'd rather follow the rules as they're printed, even if I think they're in error.

There is merit to following the rules, but then there foolishness. If you are DM'ing, I'd intensely recommend you just use common sense on this one. Any player who is tripping won't appreciate this, and you as a DM are just going to get flustered tracking individual rules, particularly since combat maneuvers are already so fiddly. If you are the player...well, don't expect anyone to agree with you but I'm sure your DM will accommodate your decision in relation to your trip attempts. If you convince your DM that this is how the rules work, I would consider going into politics with that silver tongue of yours.


part of preforming a combat maneuver says...

Quote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

I agree with those who say it is either a misprint or poor wording. Exceeding at something can also be read as being successful or "beating" something. =)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
There is no genuine case to be made that trip is indeed a unique thing in the rules.
Minus the fact that it says it is..

It has been stated repeatedly that this is more than likely an error. I am not sure where you are getting at with claiming 'specific over general' outside of the spirit of that rule.

So what would you rather? A completely arbitrary rule that you need to remember specifically for Trip, or just accepting that this is an error and that all combat maneuvers and attacks share the same rules for simplicity's sake. This is not worthy of being errata'd nor is it something that is going to be accepted at any table where someone, DM or player, wasn't trying to get an edge, even a small one. An effective -1 on a single maneuver is silly.

I'd rather follow the rules as they're printed, even if I think they're in error.

I'd rather they actually just fix the error... which printing are we on after how many years?

Grand Lodge

CraziFuzzy wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
I'd rather follow the rules as they're printed, even if I think they're in error.
I'd rather they actually just fix the error... which printing are we on after how many years?

Which was the point of this thread. Thank you for getting it. Obviously it's an error and not actually intended. But until it is someone that has a very low level of system mastery will look at it and say "well, your roll matched their CMD so you didn't trip them." And at that point, what logical argument can I come up with because that's what's printed. "...Um, well, yeah, but it's obviously not intended" is not a sufficient argument.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / ..trip has to exceed the cmd of the target? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.