My group has been having a discussion on rule semantics about tripping for a while now, and I hope someone can give us some feedback.
The base question is, can you trip a prone creature?
The requirements stated for trip are, "You have at least one hand free. Your target can’t be more than one size larger than you." Given this, it's being argued that the requirements for trip do not state that the target has to be standing, so you should be able to trip a creature who is already prone.
This is only relevant in the case that a player strides, uses knockdown, crits on the melee attack, uses the critical specialization of their weapon to knock the creature prone, and then they want to roll for the trip action to try and get a critical success to inflict an additional 1d6 damage.
So, since the requirements for the trip action doesn't say that you can't- can you trip a prone creature?
Thank you all!
You meet the requirements, there do not appear to be any exceptions in your way and to be honest the result is far from game breaking. Another d6 but only if you get a crit? And you are exposing yourself to a drawback on a fumble? It might be a little silly but the risk reward and action economy are fair. With some imagination, a leg sweep could still bother someone already on the ground. The trip and fall verbiage feels out of place though, no argument there. Overall, seems valid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first sentence of Trip says "You try to knock a creature to the ground," with the intent of the skill trying to cause the creature to forcibly go Prone (AKA inflict the Prone condition).
Logic dictates that, if a creature is on the ground (i.e. Prone in this case, not just simply in a standing position), it can't be Tripped because it's already Prone.
I would allow it. I don't see any balance problems with attempting a trip in the hopes of getting a critical result. Making a Strike would almost certainly do more damage, so...
And the rules don't forbid it. The first sentence - the intent line - does indicate knocking someone to the ground, but that intent line doesn't cover all cases and it doesn't use game terms.
Successfully tripping someone who is already prone would only apply the prone condition again - which wouldn't stack with the prone condition that they already have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would allow it. I don't see any balance problems with attempting a trip in the hopes of getting a critical result. Making a Strike would almost certainly do more damage, so...
And the rules don't forbid it. The first sentence - the intent line - does indicate knocking someone to the ground, but that intent line doesn't cover all cases and it doesn't use game terms.
Successfully tripping someone who is already prone would only apply the prone condition again - which wouldn't stack with the prone condition that they already have.
Of course there aren't balance problems with allowing someone to waste actions for the sake of a silly amount of damage compared to just Striking with Flat-Footed benefits. But it's not about balance problems, it's about logical consistency. If somebody is Prone (especially because they've already been Tripped), then Trip isn't a feasible action to take because the enemy is already Prone. How can you Trip a Prone enemy?
Rules not expressly forbidding actions doesn't mean that they should automatically be usable in situations where it makes no sense for them to be usable. This is like saying you want to Disarm somebody that makes Unarmed attacks, and saying it should be allowed simply because you can achieve a Success result and give the enemy a -2 to hit with certain attacks; the intent of Disarm is to remove weaponry from an enemy. You can't remove an Unarmed attack, so Disarm shouldn't be a feasible action to use.
The first sentence of Trip says "You try to knock a creature to the ground," with the intent of the skill trying to cause the creature to forcibly go Prone (AKA inflict the Prone condition).
Logic dictates that, if a creature is on the ground (i.e. Prone in this case, not just simply in a standing position), it can't be Tripped because it's already Prone.
Problem is that in this 2e the first sentence is always flavor text, which means it has no value in terms of mechanics ( although it may help pointing out what was the real intent from the creators).
So, apart from the doubt "can I trip a prone target? " , what really matters is "when does the critical specialozation effect occurs if a charactwr crits a knockdown? "
The best solution would see this sequence:
1) character uses knockdown and crits
2) character attempts an athletics check to trip.3) depends the result, the target may end up prone or prone with extra damage.
4) the character decides whether to apply or not their critical specialization( without worrying to invalidate the extra damage from trip).
If the weapon critical specialization were to ( I think it's the correct interpretation) occur after the strike, and before the athletics check, the target would be already prone, and probably won't suffers the effects from being smashed onto the ground.
The best would probably be trying to get a different weapon, or keeping the hammer/flail just for AoO and not knockdown attack purposes, or wait for the improved knockdown feat.
I am aware of the flavor text, but the mechanics of the Trip action are to inflict the Prone condition, with a bit of extra damage on a Critical Success, as the intent is that the knockdown was so effective that it basically added a bit of damage via gravity.
In your sequence, the character that crits on the Knockdown strike must decide to not use their Critical Specialization immediately before the second step (because once you decide to move on to the Trip part of the feat, the steps for resolving attacks from the Critical have already concluded), so you can risk not Tripping them and getting the additional 1D6 damage by simply Succeeding, Failing, or even Critically Failing, the Trip check.
With Improved Knockdown, you can crit, ignore the Specialization, and get an automatic Critical Success with the feat, and boost the D6 to D12. Having seen this in actual play, I am aware of the sequence and how it's supposed to work, and with Improved Knockdown, you can basically skip having a Hammer/Flail-based weapon, since critting on an Improved Knockdown gives an even better, stacking "specialization" than Hammer/Flail could even dream of, so you can go with things like Sword, Spear, or even Pick.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would allow it. I don't see any balance problems with attempting a trip in the hopes of getting a critical result. Making a Strike would almost certainly do more damage, so...
And the rules don't forbid it. The first sentence - the intent line - does indicate knocking someone to the ground, but that intent line doesn't cover all cases and it doesn't use game terms.
Successfully tripping someone who is already prone would only apply the prone condition again - which wouldn't stack with the prone condition that they already have.
Assurance (Athletics) + The Harder They Fall + Tail Spin = Free sneak attack damage with no roll, which can be done twice if you crit a normal Trip attempt on the first action of the round.
It's obvious that the intent is that you can't knock someone prone if they're already on the ground. Just because the rules "don't forbid" something doesn't mean it should be allowed. As the CRB says "Take the rules that help you make the game you want, change those that don’t do quite what you need them to, and leave the ones that aren’t helping."
Being able to trip someone who's prone doesn't help anyone.
How can you Trip a Prone enemy?
Are you asking for narrative description of it?
Just because someone has the Prone condition doesn't mean that they are flat on the ground planking.
Kick them off the arm that they are propping themselves up on.
Reach down and shove their head into the ground.
Grab them, pick them up, and body slam them back down.
Assurance (Athletics) + The Harder They Fall + Tail Spin = Free sneak attack damage with no roll, which can be done twice if you crit a normal Trip attempt on the first action of the round.
Are you seriously trying to say that Assurance trip is going to result in a critical success on any enemy worth mentioning?
|
|
Are you seriously trying to say that Assurance trip is going to result in a critical success on any enemy worth mentioning?
Please see what Tail Spin does.
Are you seriously trying to say that Assurance trip is going to result in a critical success on any enemy worth mentioning?Please see what Tail Spin does.
That is conditional on whether Assurance is considered a 'rolled' result or not.
Even if it is considered rolled and the result upgrade of Tail Spin is allowed, Assurance often has a result of failure when used for combat maneuvers against significant foes.
How can you Trip a Prone enemy?Are you asking for narrative description of it?
Just because someone has the Prone condition doesn't mean that they are flat on the ground planking.
Kick them off the arm that they are propping themselves up on.
Reach down and shove their head into the ground.
Grab them, pick them up, and body slam them back down.Assurance (Athletics) + The Harder They Fall + Tail Spin = Free sneak attack damage with no roll, which can be done twice if you crit a normal Trip attempt on the first action of the round.Are you seriously trying to say that Assurance trip is going to result in a critical success on any enemy worth mentioning?
No, I'm saying that Trip inflicts the Prone condition, and using an activity that inflicts a condition that requires you to not have it in order to have it (it's a binary condition, not something that has a separate tracking or value, such as Enfeebled or Drained) is non-sensible, and that because it's not broken to allow it that it should automatically be allowed.
Even your examples make no sense. The Prone condition is abstract enough that you aren't (always) propped up on your arms (since that would imply that you're attempting to Stand, which would be the Stand action), so example 1 isn't adequate, or even universal. Example 2 has nothing to do with being Prone any more than it has to do with being Blinded by a skill check or using a Fist strike against them. And Example 3 would require a Grapple with an ad-hoc activity, neither of which would represent Tripping whatsoever. So again, I ask you: How are you Tripping this Prone enemy?
Assurance (Athletics) + The Harder They Fall + Tail Spin = Free sneak attack damage with no roll, which can be done twice if you crit a normal Trip attempt on the first action of the round.I would allow it. I don't see any balance problems with attempting a trip in the hopes of getting a critical result. Making a Strike would almost certainly do more damage, so...
And the rules don't forbid it. The first sentence - the intent line - does indicate knocking someone to the ground, but that intent line doesn't cover all cases and it doesn't use game terms.
Successfully tripping someone who is already prone would only apply the prone condition again - which wouldn't stack with the prone condition that they already have.
You can't use Assurance as a means to trigger Tail Spin because Tail Spin requires that you roll the checks to get its benefit, and Assurance forgoes the roll entirely. It doesn't even say that it counts as a roll, and we have abilities and effects that were changed specifically to alter what the roll result is, and not what the check result is, so saying that it's a "roll substitute" makes no sense either.
That being said, Assurance would still work with The Harder They Fall, simply because this feat only requires that you meet the check result, not the roll result. Of course, the odds of this being effective against at-level enemies is quite slim, and is really only useful against lower level enemies when you're already at -5/-10 penalties to attack rolls.
No, I'm saying that Trip inflicts the Prone condition, and using an activity that inflicts a condition that requires you to not have it in order to have it ... is non-sensible
Assurance (Athletics) + The Harder They Fall + Tail Spin = Free sneak attack damage with no roll, which can be done twice if you crit a normal Trip attempt on the first action of the round.Are you seriously trying to say that Assurance trip is going to result in a critical success on any enemy worth mentioning?
First, that statement about being serious wasn't addressed to you, so don't take offense at it.
Two, your logic doesn't hold up. There is no rule saying that you can't apply a condition to someone that already has that condition - just that the two conditions won't stack. You can apply Frightened 1 to a creature that is already Frightened 2. You can apply Stunned for 1 minute to a creature that is already Stunned for 1 round. You can apply the Dazzled condition to someone that is already Dazzled.
And you can certainly use actions that would apply redundant conditions - especially if those actions also happen to have other possible effects. Unless you are going to argue that someone couldn't use Scare To Death on an enemy that was Demoralized by an ally - since there might be the possibility of applying a redundant condition.
I'd allow it, but I wouldn't allow damage on a crit success. Crit Success says: The target falls, lands prone, and takes 1d6 damage.
I see that as meaning the 1d6 damage is caused by the fall.
So, if the person is already on the ground, there is no fall, hence, to me, no damage.
The Prone condition would be applied, but it was already applied, so that would not matter, and on a Crit Fail, the PC is on the ground, too.
If a PC really wanted to just waste an action to do nothing, I'd let them. I'd advise against it, but if they persisted, sure.
Now, if they wanted to keep the foe down, I'd advise grappling, or nonlethal damage, manacles, or something like that.
No, I'm saying that Trip inflicts the Prone condition, and using an activity that inflicts a condition that requires you to not have it in order to have it ... is non-sensible
Assurance (Athletics) + The Harder They Fall + Tail Spin = Free sneak attack damage with no roll, which can be done twice if you crit a normal Trip attempt on the first action of the round.Are you seriously trying to say that Assurance trip is going to result in a critical success on any enemy worth mentioning?First, that statement about being serious wasn't addressed to you, so don't take offense at it.
Two, your logic doesn't hold up. There is no rule saying that you can't apply a condition to someone that already has that condition - just that the two conditions won't stack. You can apply Frightened 1 to a creature that is already Frightened 2. You can apply Stunned for 1 minute to a creature that is already Stunned for 1 round. You can apply the Dazzled condition to someone that is already Dazzled.
And you can certainly use actions that would apply redundant conditions - especially if those actions also happen to have other possible effects. Unless you are going to argue that someone couldn't use Scare To Death on an enemy that was Demoralized by an ally - since there might be the possibility of applying a redundant condition.
Tripping an already Prone creature is about as sensisble as trying to Disarm an Unarmed enemy. If you're saying you'd allow someone to Disarm an Unarmed enemy because they want them to suffer a -2 penalty to hit, then we won't reach a consensus, because to me, these are the same dichotomy; you can't Disarm an Unarmed enemy in the same way you can't Trip a Prone enemy.
Using actions that apply redundant conditions isn't the problem. The problem is that you're attempting a check to inflict a condition that would presumably require the enemy to not have that condition to begin with, otherwise being able to do so makes no sense. It's not like Frightened where you can have a better conditional effect if you Critically succeed (and no, dealing 1D6 damage doesn't count as a conditional effect), and just because it lacks "your target isn't Prone" as a Requirement entry doesn't mean that it's sensible to allow as a GM.
Tripping an already Prone creature is about as sensisble as trying to Disarm an Unarmed enemy. If you're saying you'd allow someone to Disarm an Unarmed enemy because they want them to suffer a -2 penalty to hit, then we won't reach a consensus, because to me, these are the same dichotomy; you can't Disarm an Unarmed enemy in the same way you can't Trip a Prone enemy.
Then we are not going to reach consensus on this.
No the -2 penalty wouldn't apply because that specifically mentions that it applies to actions with items being held. If the target isn't holding anything then the penalty wouldn't apply.
But if the player wants to use Disarm on them anyway - they can. There is nothing stopping them.
Perhaps there is some benefit. An ability that does 1d6 damage on a critical success at disarm. Or gaining Panache on a success.
Or perhaps they simply didn't realize that the target wasn't actually armed. An Eidolon with an unarmed attack shaped like a weapon. Or someone with a spell effect that looks like a weapon.
But for whatever reason, if the player wants to use the action - they can. Being unarmed doesn't mean that someone can't use Disarm on them. And being Prone doesn't mean that someone can't use Trip on them.
What I really want to know is "can you trip a Mounted Creature" and, if so, what happens?
- Jee
Oh, that is interesting. Tentative yes? Flat footed while still in the saddle until you spend an action to settle yourself? Or full on de-horsing and separating rider from mount? I see room for degrees of mountedness here. I see one problem. The only move action a mounted character can perform is Mount, which can be used to dismount. This disallows Stand. As there is no way to recover from being knocked prone, it seems unlikely it was intended for a mounted character to be tripped. Similarly, a prone character can only Crawl or Stand, allowing no possibility to dismount first. Sounds like Trip (or Shove for that matter) equals forced dismount. Most likely with a difficulty modifier and some fall damage.
What I really want to know is "can you trip a Mounted Creature" and, if so, what happens?
- Jee
RAW, only the Mount receives the Prone condition, because the Rider is a separate creature and doesn't have any rules that dictate what happens if the Mount becomes Prone, only that they occupy the same squares as the Mount does, and that they get a lesser cover bonus from enemies whom are not likewise Mounted (or are up in the air 5 feet or more). They don't get dismounted, they don't suffer any drawbacks from being Prone, etc. If they were flying, then only the Mount would take the fall damage simply because the Mount hits the ground, not the Rider; worst part is, the Mount can't utilize the Arrest a Fall reaction because Companions do not get to have reaction abilities or be able to take reactions.
RAI, the Mount should be Prone, and the Rider should likewise be dismounted, maybe also Prone as well, at least if we are talking a typical mount like a Horse. If we're talking a Mount with flying, both would take the relevant fall damage, simply because that's how gravity in a simulationism environment should work.
Tripping an already Prone creature is about as sensisble as trying to Disarm an Unarmed enemy. If you're saying you'd allow someone to Disarm an Unarmed enemy because they want them to suffer a -2 penalty to hit, then we won't reach a consensus, because to me, these are the same dichotomy; you can't Disarm an Unarmed enemy in the same way you can't Trip a Prone enemy.Then we are not going to reach consensus on this.
No the -2 penalty wouldn't apply because that specifically mentions that it applies to actions with items being held. If the target isn't holding anything then the penalty wouldn't apply.
But if the player wants to use Disarm on them anyway - they can. There is nothing stopping them.
Perhaps there is some benefit. An ability that does 1d6 damage on a critical success at disarm. Or gaining Panache on a success.
Or perhaps they simply didn't realize that the target wasn't actually armed. An Eidolon with an unarmed attack shaped like a weapon. Or someone with a spell effect that looks like a weapon.
But for whatever reason, if the player wants to use the action - they can. Being unarmed doesn't mean that someone can't use Disarm on them. And being Prone doesn't mean that someone can't use Trip on them.
I doubt it as well, but let me give you an in-game example so I can more accurately pinpoint your precise stance on this:
There are three guards walking around town on patrol, and they spot the PCs acting suspicious near a door to a house. Naturally, the guards will come up and ask what the PCs are doing. The PCs will try to lie about fixing a door, but the guards are going to see three armed PCs standing around with one knelt by a door, and realize that they don't need four people to fix a door, much less one late at night, and suspect they are trying to break and enter into a citizen's home (whom is actually someone secretly trying to poison the town's water supply, of which the guards are unaware of). As such, the guards will say they are under arrest, and go to draw their weapons to apprehend the PCs; this starts Initiative, and at this point, the Guards do not have their weapons drawn.
The Swashbuckler PC standing guard goes first, and decides that he wants to Stride up to the Guard, Strike him, and then use Assurance to Disarm him of his weapon that he is planning to draw out. His Stride goes without issue, and his Strike is a success. But he knows that trying to use Disarm with a penalty means he lacks the ability to guarantee a Critical to deny the guard his weapon, and so he banks on using Assurance via Athletics to pull it off, in the event the Guard is weak enough that this will happen, and so he can make the most of his MAP.
Now, what do you think should happen in this scenario? Should the Swashbuckler be able to Disarm the Guard? Should this Disarm do anything to the Guard, either immediately or on his turn? Should this Disarm be enough of anything to warrant giving Panache, since there is no reward for doing so?
You can inflict the same condition on a creature twice (example : Frightened 1). I do not see why Prone would be a specific exception.
Frightened is different because 1. It comes from a value that can accumulate, and 2. It makes logical and narrative sense for it to stack. You might be a little scared that one guy is threatening you, but probably more scared if both him and another, bigger guy starts threatening you. Most effects that have a Value make sense that you can attempt again for either a better result or to maintain/extend the duration of an existing effect, and that's fine.
Prone doesn't have this sort of thing, though. There are no "degrees" or "values" of Prone, and it can be solved the same way no matter what "degree" or "value" it might be. Standing up removes the Prone condition. In order to "maintain" the Prone condition, a Target has to be Grabbed or otherwise denied the ability to take an action with the Move trait, it's not a matter of whether time passes or values tick down. There's no "Super Prone" or "Prone 3" or "Prone for 1 minute." It's a binary condition, not unlike Flat-Footed (though honestly, Flat-Footed is far more circumstantial than Prone is, so I can give a bit more credit to being able to apply Flat-Footed to a target that's already Flat-Footed by another target, such as by being Flanked).
Now, what do you think should happen in this scenario? Should the Swashbuckler be able to Disarm the Guard?
Yes. They can use the action if they feel the desire.
Should this Disarm do anything to the Guard, either immediately or on his turn?
No, and no.
Should this Disarm be enough of anything to warrant giving Panache, since there is no reward for doing so?
Currently there isn't a Swashbuckler style that gives Panache for Disarm, but there is the 'GM discretion for other daring actions' clause.
And considering that there is a note in Battledancer that they get Panache for succeeding at the Performance skill check even if it has no effect on the enemy - then yes, if the GM is giving Panache for Disarm actions, then the Swashbuckler should get Panache for the successful Disarm action even if there is no weapon to disarm.
I think the question was more "what if you trip a creature that's riding another creature?" than "what if you trip a creature being ridden?"What I really want to know is "can you trip a Mounted Creature" and, if so, what happens?
- Jee
RAW, only the Mount receives the Prone condition, because the Rider is a separate creature and doesn't have any rules that dictate what happens if the Mount becomes Prone, only that they occupy the same squares as the Mount does, and that they get a lesser cover bonus from enemies whom are not likewise Mounted (or are up in the air 5 feet or more). They don't get dismounted, they don't suffer any drawbacks from being Prone, etc. If they were flying, then only the Mount would take the fall damage simply because the Mount hits the ground, not the Rider; worst part is, the Mount can't utilize the Arrest a Fall reaction because Companions do not get to have reaction abilities or be able to take reactions.
RAI, the Mount should be Prone, and the Rider should likewise be dismounted, maybe also Prone as well, at least if we are talking a typical mount like a Horse. If we're talking a Mount with flying, both would take the relevant fall damage, simply because that's how gravity in a simulationism environment should work.
Well, the only things that would change from my RAW response would be that you substitute the Mount and Rider terms in the statement, remove the part about lesser cover, and remove the Arrest a Fall comment, because by RAW, being Prone doesn't mean you can't be mounted, and there you go.
The only thing that would change from RAI would be that the Rider would be dismounted and Prone (or falling to Prone if they're in the air and lack a fly speed themselves), but that's largely because RAW doesn't outright say this happens to someone that's mounted, and there is this little bit here in the Mounted Combat section:
Because you can’t move your body as freely while you’re riding a mount, you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves while mounted. Additionally, the only move action you can use is the Mount action to dismount.
So, hypothetical example would be that a Rider that is targeted by a successful Trip suffers the Prone condition, which means that in order to remove it, they would have to spend an action to Dismount, which leaves the Prone condition, then spend an action to Stand to remove the Prone condition, then spend another action to Mount if they wish to immediately become mounted again.
Next thing you know people are going to start claiming that a swashbuckler can't take the Tumble Through action without an enemy nearby.
So, hypothetical example would be that a Rider that is targeted by a successful Trip suffers the Prone condition, which means that in order to remove it, they would have to spend an action to Dismount, which leaves the Prone condition, then spend an action to Stand to remove the Prone condition, then spend another action to Mount if they wish to immediately become mounted again.
Please review:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 478 4.0
When you’re mounted, attackers can target either you or your mount. Anything that affects multiple creatures (such as an area) affects both of you as long as you’re both in the area. You are in an attacker’s reach or range if any square of your mount is within reach or range. Because your mount is larger than you and you share its space, you have lesser cover against attacks targeting you when you’re mounted if the mount would be in the way.Because you can’t move your body as freely while you’re riding a mount, you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves while mounted. Additionally, the only move action you can use is the Mount action to dismount.
And:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 621 4.0
You're lying on the ground. You are flat-footed and take a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls. The only move actions you can use while you're prone are Crawl and Stand. Standing up ends the prone condition. You can Take Cover while prone to hunker down and gain greater cover against ranged attacks, even if you don't have an object to get behind, gaining a +4 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks (but you remain flat-footed).If you would be knocked prone while you're Climbing or Flying, you fall (see Falling for the rules on falling). You can't be knocked prone when Swimming.
It looks like a character cannot be prone and mounted simultaneously. Prone even opens with "You're lying on the ground". Trip (and probably Shove) dismount a mounted target.
It looks like a character cannot be prone and mounted simultaneously. Prone even opens with "You're lying on the ground". Trip (and probably Shove) dismount a mounted target.
We know that Shove does, because if you've moved off the Mount you can't be mounted anymore. But the resolution of Mounted vs. Prone (as the result of Trip) doesn't necessarily require a dismount; it could just as easily be "You cannot Trip a Mounted character".
- Jee
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the alternative you can be knocked prone without being dismounted, and since you can't use the Mount action while prone and can't Stand or Crawl while mounted you're just stuck there forever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the alternative you can be knocked prone without being dismounted, and since you can't use the Mount action while prone and can't Stand or Crawl while mounted you're just stuck there forever.
I like this one a lot. Imprison or Trap Soul now have a non-spellcaster equivalent. 2e really empowers the martial classes.
So, hypothetical example would be that a Rider that is targeted by a successful Trip suffers the Prone condition, which means that in order to remove it, they would have to spend an action to Dismount, which leaves the Prone condition, then spend an action to Stand to remove the Prone condition, then spend another action to Mount if they wish to immediately become mounted again.Please review:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 478 4.0
When you’re mounted, attackers can target either you or your mount. Anything that affects multiple creatures (such as an area) affects both of you as long as you’re both in the area. You are in an attacker’s reach or range if any square of your mount is within reach or range. Because your mount is larger than you and you share its space, you have lesser cover against attacks targeting you when you’re mounted if the mount would be in the way.Because you can’t move your body as freely while you’re riding a mount, you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves while mounted. Additionally, the only move action you can use is the Mount action to dismount.
And:
It looks like a character cannot be prone and mounted simultaneously. Prone even opens with "You're lying on the ground". Trip (and probably Shove) dismount a mounted target.Source Core Rulebook pg. 621 4.0
You're lying on the ground. You are flat-footed and take a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls. The only move actions you can use while you're prone are Crawl and Stand. Standing up ends the prone condition. You can Take Cover while prone to hunker down and gain greater cover against ranged attacks, even if you don't have an object to get behind, gaining a +4 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks (but you remain flat-footed).If you would be knocked prone while you're Climbing or Flying, you fall (see Falling for the rules on falling). You can't be knocked prone when Swimming.
Technically, they can. Nothing in the Prone condition states that you cease to remain mounted (lying on the ground doesn't count if you're still holding onto the saddle of the mount whom is also on the ground, for example), and nothing about the mount rules states that you are dismounted if you receive the Prone condition, meaning these circumstances can indeed coexist.
Though, I have said before that obviously the intent should be that mounted characters can't reasonably have the Prone condition and still remain mounted, though it's good to know that they have actually applied double consistency between the Prone condition having a separate subset of limited Move actions to take, and being mounted likewise having only the Move activity to dismount, and as Squiggit states, it creates an obviously unintended rules interaction if these interact as they currently stand.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you would be knocked prone while you're Climbing or Flying, you fall (see Falling for the rules on falling).
When you fall more than 5 feet, you take bludgeoning damage equal to half the distance you fell when you land. Treat falls longer than 1,500 feet as though they were 1,500 feet (750 damage). If you take any damage from a fall, you land prone.
So, if you successfully trip a creature who is Climbing, they do not become prone, but instead fall. And if they were 5 feet off the ground (or whatever distance they can fall without taking damage due to a feat or special ability, they won’t land prone.
It seems to me that, as a table call, you could reasonably treat Mounted the same as Climbing and Flying if it were to come up.