Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harmor 10-15-03, 11:32 PM	Seems my players are abusing Improved Trip feat+Combat Reflexes and in one case Improved Trip+Combat Reflexes+Whirlwind attack. I've ruled that standing no longer gives an AoO if the defender has a weapon that can threaten you.
Gingerbread Guy 10-15-03, 11:49 PM	Hiho, Okay, I don't understand how they're abusing it. Are they just using their Attacks of Opportunity to trip someone, and then trip them again when they try to get up? Because thats not abuse, thats just dirty tactics. Listen, these characters have worked hard to earn these feats. They're supposed to be good, they're high level. Its perfectly within the rules, and I don't think it needs a house rule. Let them fight dirty, if thats their style. Bear in mind that there are going to be creatures that they can't trip. Its not a fool-proof plan. Good luck tripping a dragon or an archer who's two hundred feet away. ~Ginger
Salla 10-16-03, 07:00 AM	Actually, there's an easier way to handle the 'Trip, use AoO from foe standing up to re-Trip' thing ... It doesn't work. The AoO will go off as the person starts their action, before it is completed. Therefore, they are still prone when the window for the AoO is open, and since they're already down, they cannot be tripped. After they stand up, the window for the AoO is closed, and the Attack cannot be taken. No house rules necessary because it simply can't happen.:D
Neonsamurai 10-16-03, 08:43 AM	I think it is debateable Salla. Has there been any official ruling on this ? Personally i don't really mind about this problem, because there are enough NPCs and monsters that can't be easily tripped.
Salla 10-16-03, 08:44 AM	Depends on how one defines 'official' ... CustServ says 'yes', but I, personally, would require the answer to come from The Sage to consider it 'official', and even then I'm probably going to keep my own interpretation of things. :)
Mr.Waesel 10-16-03, 09:05 AM	you can only make one attack of opportunity against a monster per round. That's probably what's causing the abuse.
Dave99 10-16-03, 09:11 AM	Come on Salla. How can your AOO trigger off of something that you say hasn't happened yet. That is the most flawed statement I have ever seen. It is obvious (well when logic is applied) that the AOO against a character standing up happens during the character attemp to stand. Look the trip, re trip on AOO thing is powerful, but not the end all be all of tatics. Use larger creatures, 4 legged creatures, use trip on them. Use the fight from the ground feat. Use multiple attackers, use archers, use spell casters, increase the strenght and cr of the encounters.
Salla 10-16-03, 09:49 AM	Actually, Dave99, it's completely consistent with the way AoOs against spellcasters work. Caster begins casting his spell. Initiating the casting triggers the AoO. AoO is attempted, and if it hits, the caster may lose the spell. If you couldn't take the AoO until AFTER he cast the spell, there would be no chance of disrupting the spell. Same thing applies here. You can't wait until the action (standing up) is complete before starting the AoO, and if the person hasn't yet stood up, he can't be tripped.
Murrdox 10-16-03, 10:00 AM	Salla is 100% correct here. Everyone seems to think Improved Trip is so disgusting now because you can just keep tripping and re-tripping whenever they stand. That's just not true. If you trip me, and I attempt to stand, you get a +4 to attack me (assuming you're right next to me) because I'm prone. You don't get to trip me again, because I haven't stood up yet. AoO are taken BEFORE the action which provokes them. When you leave a threatened square, you provoke at AoO BEFORE you leave the square, not afterwards. If you provoked the attack afterwards, you wouldn't be able to attack, because the enemy would no longer be in your threatened area! IF you wanted to say that you can trip me as I attempt to stand, that would mean that the "Stand from Prone" action is COMPLETELY different from ALL other actions that provoke AoO, because you would be standing already when the attack occurred, and the opponent would not get the +4 to hit because you're no longer prone. Face it. You cannot trip someone as they attempt to stand. They're not standing yet. You can take your normal attack, sure. You can attempt to Disarm, if you like. But you can't trip. I'm still prone. OR, the prone person could use some brains, and either just fight from a prone position, or crawl away 5' at no penalty and not provoking an AoO, and THEN stand. When knocked prone, you can also DISARM your opponent, and THEN stand, and they can't get an AoO on you. The disarm action doesn't suffer too badly from any penalties doing it from a prone position, so this is a very viable tactic. Of course, this action doesn't help if you've been tripped by a Dire Wolf or a Monk. BTW Salla, I wouldn't trust the Sage, he's been wrong many a time. I'd wait for it to be put into the FAQ.
Dave99 10-16-03, 12:14 PM	Originally posted by Salla Actually, Dave99, it's completely consistent with the way AoOs against spellcasters work. Caster begins casting his spell. Initiating the casting triggers the AoO. AoO is attempted, and if it hits, the caster may lose the spell. If you couldn't take the AoO until AFTER he cast the spell, there would be no chance of disrupting the spell. Same thing applies here. You can't wait until the action (standing up) is complete before starting the AoO, and if the person hasn't yet stood up, he can't be tripped. You example is flawed. Since the caster has started casting the spell he has to make a concentration check of 10+damage dealt or lose the spell HE WAS CASTING. Which means he is in the process of casting the spell..... Just like your in the process of getting up, AOO goes off, your triped. By the way, at which time I wouldn't count you as prone so no +4 to the attacker. Triping some one who is gettin up, which would really be knocking them back down is about as real life as it gets. AOO are NOT taken BEFORE the action, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. AOO are taken in response to that action. How can I reaction to something that hasn't happened?
Murrdox 10-16-03, 12:27 PM	Dave99, answer a question for me. If you move out of my threatened area, provoking an AoO from me, and I use it to trip you, which square do you end up prone in? My threatened square, or the square that you were moving to? You end up in MY square. Meaning that I took my AoO BEFORE you moved out of my threatened area. Just like: You have to make a concentration check because you take an AoO BEFORE you finish casting a spell. You have to make a concentration check to drink a potion BEFORE drinking the potion. When someone grapples you, you get an AoO BEFORE the opponent may start the grapple. When someone (without the improved trip feat) is using a weapon to try and trip you, you may use your AoO to disarm them BEFORE they can trip you. If you fire an arrow point blank at someone, they get to make an AoO BEFORE you fire the arrow. Are you getting the trend here?? In exactly the same way, when you provoke an AoO by attempting to stand, you suffer the AoO BEFORE you actually stand up.
chris7476 10-16-03, 12:48 PM	you can only make one attack of opportunity against a monster per round. That's probably what's causing the abuse. In 3.5 you can.
Dave99 10-16-03, 12:48 PM	Murrdox, Yes and each is a perfect example of what I'm trying to say. In every example you stated, the Action causing an AOO WAS STARTED and the AOO interupts you, which may or may not allow your action to continue. It can't be any other way, there is no way I can take an action against something that hasn't happened. You start the action that causes the AOO, the AOO is in response to you starting that action and may or may not cancel the completion of your action.
Dave99 10-16-03, 12:52 PM	you can only make one attack of opportunity against a monster per round. That's probably what's causing the abuse. In 3.5 you can. You can get multiple AOO against the same creature (combat reflexes) if it does different things that cause AOO. If the npc moves in your threated area, you get an AOO. If he then drinks a potion (and you have combat reflexes) you can AOO him again.
quaiven 10-16-03, 12:57 PM	I have to go against you here dave, the AoO happens just prior to the act which caused it, unrealistic I know but so is the whole idea of AoO in the first place. Check out disarm feat or sunder feat for examples, if you damage someone on an AoO while they are trying to disarm/sunder you their attempt automatically fails. The AoO must be resolved before the attempt. So the AoO technically happens before the act that causes it. BTW to the original poster, don't nullify feats that the players have earned, that's like letting a wizard learn fireball and then always having him fight monsters that are immune to fire. If their feats are bothering you that much, ask them to exchange the feat for another one. Don't just nullify a feat that they have worked to get.
Dave99 10-16-03, 01:08 PM	Originally posted by quaiven I have to go against you here dave, the AoO happens just prior to the act which caused it, unrealistic I know but so is the whole idea of AoO in the first place. Check out disarm feat or sunder feat for examples, if you damage someone on an AoO while they are trying to disarm/sunder you their attempt automatically fails. The AoO must be resolved before the attempt. So the AoO technically happens before the act that causes it. HUH. So do you give the guy sundering / disarming back his action? I didn't say the AOO isn't resolved before the action, please re-read my post. It clearly says that an AOO can only happen after you start your action, which is what your example also does, and in fact cancels your disarm/sunder.
Murrdox 10-16-03, 01:22 PM	The AoO does not happen BEFORE the action. Let me specify. It DOES however, happen BEFORE the action is COMPLETED, as in just after it is started. However, since you HAVE NOT COMPLETED the action of "Standing from Prone" when the AoO is made, you are STILL considered PRONE. Just like when you move out of my threatened square, I make my attack while you are STILL in my square. Since you can't trip a prone target, you can't use your AoO on a standing opponent to "trip" him again. He's trying to stand up, but he hasn't stood up yet. If he counted as "standing" when you made your AoO, that would then mean that he COMPLETED his action before your AoO, and that goes against all the conventions of AoO. Just because he's in the PROCESS of standing, doesn't mean he's standing. Just because someone is in the PROCESS of moving out of your threatened square doesn't mean that they have done so yet. Just because someone is in the PROCESS of casting a spell doesn't mean that the spell is completed. So he's in the process of standing, but as far as the game is concerned, until that action is completed, he still counts as prone. Since your AoO happens before the action is completed, (but technically after it starts) he is still prone when the AoO happens.
Kalidor 10-16-03, 01:27 PM	I disagree with what Salla is stating, and here's why -- You must see an AoO of occuring before the target COMPLETES his action, not before he STARTS it. He BEGINS to move, so you can trip him and he falls prone. He BEGINS to cast a spell, so you can hit him and cause him to lose the spell as he is casting it. He BEGINS to stand up, so you can trip him before he can rise fully to his feet. AoO's act as an "interrupt" to an action that is occuring. Don't use the MTG definition of "interrupt" in this case because it doesn't apply. If he's *doing it* then the AoO occurs before he finishes, not before he STARTS, otherwise, he's done nothing to trigger the AoO in the first place.
Dave99 10-16-03, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by Murrdox The AoO does not happen BEFORE the action. Let me specify. It DOES however, happen BEFORE the action is COMPLETED, as in just after it is started. This is what I've been stating all along. However, since you HAVE NOT COMPLETED the action of "Standing from Prone" when the AoO is made, you are STILL considered PRONE. Just like when you move out of my threatened square, I make my attack while you are STILL in my square. In the process of standing would indicate that you are not prone. The prone/not prone is an either way point that won't be settled and needs to be ruled by individual DM's. My personal ruling is your in the process of standing, your not prone and your opponent doesn't gain the +4 attack bonus Just because someone is in the PROCESS of moving out of your threatened square doesn't mean that they have done so yet. Just because someone is in the PROCESS of casting a spell doesn't mean that the spell is completed. Again I never said the actions completed, in fact I stated that interupted actions could be canceled by the AOO. The action is still used so it was attemped. You don't get the mover or the spell back, so it was in process. So he's in the process of standing, but as far as the game is concerned, until that action is completed, he still counts as prone. Since your AoO happens before the action is completed, (but technically after it starts) he is still prone when the AoO happens. As above I don't count him as prone, his move equivilent action has begun, you interupt it with an AOO and knock him back down.
Dave99 10-16-03, 01:37 PM	Originally posted by Kalidor I disagree with what Salla is stating, and here's why -- You must see an AoO of occuring before the target COMPLETES his action, not before he STARTS it. He BEGINS to move, so you can trip him and he falls prone. He BEGINS to cast a spell, so you can hit him and cause him to lose the spell as he is casting it. He BEGINS to stand up, so you can trip him before he can rise fully to his feet. AoO's act as an "interrupt" to an action that is occuring. Don't use the MTG definition of "interrupt" in this case because it doesn't apply. If he's *doing it* then the AoO occurs before he finishes, not before he STARTS, otherwise, he's done nothing to trigger the AoO in the first place. Exactly what I'm saying. I was wondering if the MTG interupt rules (old) were messing things up, just didn't want to say it. ;) Which is why interupts are no longer in MTG.
quaiven 10-16-03, 01:42 PM	This whole thread has only proven to me that the whole theory of AoO is flawed. Why should someone get a free attack on someone for any reason? It makes no sense to me that you get a free attack at someone when the move/disarm/sunder/cast a spell. This is supposed to be turn based combat, why are people allowed to act out of turn. Ugh!!!!!!!:censored: :hoppingma :headexplo :tantrum:
Dave99 10-16-03, 01:47 PM	Its not turn based combat, the players take turns because thats the only way we can play it. A combat round is 6 seconds with everthing happening at once, your one or whatever number of attacks really represents many swings and parries and you getting in a good shot. AOO are really necessary. Spell caster would be unstoppable without them. The AOO represents you doing something that opens up your defense giving someone else (within the above 6 second round) an extra shot at you. Its not a free action, you left yourself open.
Whaledawg 10-16-03, 02:12 PM	This whole thread illistates why the original house rule is the best way to go. Simple, elegant and non-game breaking. The players still get the benifits of their feats, they just can't stop a BBEG from doing anything with them. And by anthing I mean anything at all for the entire combat
Josh Wilhoyte 10-16-03, 02:29 PM	First off, in 3.5 crawling 5 feet in a Move Equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Now, they can crawl the five away (eating the AoO), then stand as another ME action without being retripped. Beyond that, I agree with the people who say that you can Trip a person who is standing up. The person has started to stand up, as they are doing so you take your AoO to trip them, and thus they fail to stand all the way up.
PhaedrusXY 10-16-03, 02:29 PM	Originally posted by Harmor Seems my players are abusing Improved Trip feat+Combat Reflexes and in one case Improved Trip+Combat Reflexes+Whirlwind attack. I've ruled that standing no longer gives an AoO if the defender has a weapon that can threaten you. As was recently pointed out to me by chonjurer in another thread, if you fail in your trip attempt, then the person you were trying to trip then immediately gets to try and trip you. Improved Trip does not negate this. If you were tripping with a weapon, you can drop the weapon instead of being tripped yourself. However, if you do, then you've effectively given up one of your attacks to disarm yourself. Even with the most min/maxed characters, tripping is still going to fail some of the time, especially against non-humanoid and/or exceptionally stable or strong opponents. Just make sure you enforce the rule that allows the person being tripped to try and turn it around and trip their tripper. We've been doing this wrong in our groups, because I think we all thought that Improved Trip also denied the defender the chance to try and trip the attacker on a failed trip attempt. It doesn't. Just applying this rule cuts down on the power of the combo you've listed.
Murrdox 10-16-03, 02:29 PM	Okay, if I start standing up, I don't count as standing, that's just stupid. It doesn't jive with any of the other types of attacks of opportunity. If I start casting a spell, I don't count as having completed the spell. If I start moving to another square, I don't count as already being in that square. If I start drinking a potion, I don't count as already having drank it. If I start firing my bow, I don't count as already having fired it. If I start to sheathe my weapon, I don't count as already having sheathed it. If I start rummaging in my backpack for an item, I don't count as already having the item I'm looking for in my hand. BUT, you want to say that starting to stand up is the same thing as being fully stood up? You're NOT being consistant. I know what you WANT to say. You want to say that I'm getting to my feet. Thus, I'm not really lying on the ground anymore when you get your attack of opportunity. I'm trying to stand. Thus, you should be able to trip me again. That's all fine and good, but that's not how the game works. You're either standing, or you're not standing. If I'm already standing when you get your AoO, that means that I've completed standing up. It also meanst that if you take an AoO on me for casting a spell, I've already finished casting the spell, and you get a Magic Missle in your face before you can take your attack. It is a GAME MECHANIC. Game Mechanics must be consistant for the rules to work correctly. There is no such status in D&D as "Standing". You won't find "Standing" in the SRD. Standing - The status of a character in the process of a move action to stand. When "Standing" a character gets a +2 AC vs ranged attacks, and melee attacks against him get a +1 to hit. Nope. Sorry. I'm only PRONE, or I'm STOOD UP. And as far as the game is concerned, until I finish my "Stand up from Prone" action, I'm still prone. If D&D were logical, it wouldn't have Hit Points.
Dave99 10-16-03, 02:40 PM	Originally posted by Murrdox I'm only PRONE, or I'm STOOD UP. And as far as the game is concerned, until I finish my "Stand up from Prone" action, I'm still prone. If D&D were logical, it wouldn't have Hit Points. Can't argue about the hit points. Why can't there be other things beside up or down. Just because it doesn't have a modifier doesn't mean there isn't a standing condition. This game has to many things to be just black and white, and the book would be 1000 pages if they listed every condidtion you could move equivalent, crawing, standing, squating, stand on one leg, etc. etc... We really don't need a full listing of conditions for the human body and to hit modifiers. Prone has a listing, thats good enough, but that doesn't mean that you can only be either prone or standing. Prone seem to the the only thing that really isn't working (for some people) with AOO. House rule it out, thats fine, but don't say standing up doesn't provoke the AOO, because according to the rules it does.
Murrdox 10-16-03, 02:47 PM	Oh, I agree with you there. Standing up very very much does provoke an AoO, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm just saying that as far as the game is concerned, until you finish standing up, you're still counted as Prone, thus, you can't use that AoO for another trip attempt. If you want a mechanic to prevent someone from standing up, a better method would be to require a concentration check. Afterall, Concentration isn't just used for spell casting. You also make concentration checks to successfully drink a potion in spite of an attack of opportunity, and for other actions as well. House-ruling a concentration check to successfully stand up while suffering an AoO would be the best method of going about preventing someone from standing. Assign a DC of something like 10 + Damage. Either that, or you can house-rule that you can trip someone while standing. You house rule it either way... but Concentration is a bit more "open-ended". The PHB doesn't spell out all the possible ways you could make concentration checks, so it's feasable to require one in this situation.
Finarin Panjoro 10-16-03, 03:12 PM	I have to agree that you could not trip someone on the AoO provoked by standing up. They would still be prone and therefore untrippable since the action has not been completed yet. It may not be realistic, but it is totally consistent with the game mechanic which is the higher priority IMO since it prevents a potential abuse. For those of you who feel it is unrealistic then consider it this way, perhaps the prone person provokes the AoO when he places his hands on the floor to rise. He is still prone and now has multiple pts of contact on the ground, he is untrippable, but he is also vulnerable with no hands to defend himself. Or perhaps when he arches his back to kip up, or rolls over to raise to a knee. Any of these could be the openings which allow the AoO, but all still occur while he is prone. Just my two cp
Otto the Bugbear 10-16-03, 05:57 PM	Without getting into the middle of the arguement... The concentration check is a good idea, except 10 + damage is a bit harsh. AoO strike for 21 damage, make a concentration check of 31 to stand up. Who besides casters will have a remote chance of making this. If this method strikes your fancy, my vote would be for DC = damage taken. Another I've heard of is that standing provokes an AoO unless you use a full round action to do so. Simple, easy to use, easy to remember. Or, just rule that you can't use a trip attempt for the AoO when the opponent is standing, but you can use a grapple check, with a bonus, to keep the person down. Just drop your weapon, a free action, and make a grapple check. Not sure now well any of these will work. I figure I'll use the second one and third one if it becomes an issue, which it probably won't with my group. Oh, and don't just negate their feats out of hand. Allow them to use that tactic when its available. There are plenty of things that should be near impossible/impossible to trip. Use those instead. Cheers Otto :)
ManTimeForgot 10-16-03, 06:23 PM	Interrupting an action before it starts is not how attacks of opportunity work. In standing up from prone the person will reach the equivalent of the kneeling (squatting) state before standing up completely. The kneeling state does not prevent trip attempts. Those of you who argue that a person is still prone when the attack of opportunity is made against them should further argue that an attack of opportunity made against a spell caster for casting a spell is made before they cast the spell. An attack of opportunity is made during the action which provokes it. The AoO for spell casting is made while the spell is being cast. The AoO for standing up is made while the person is standing. Therefore, you can trip a person as they stand up, just before they have completely stood up. House ruling it not to work is fine, but that seems to be an over kill attempt at dealing with the situation. Just throw a giant at them. Let them try and trip the giant only to find out he is a fire giant monk. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
split infinitude 10-16-03, 06:25 PM	Originally posted by Murrdox However, since you HAVE NOT COMPLETED the action of "Standing from Prone" when the AoO is made, you are STILL considered PRONE. There is no rule for what you are as you stand from prone. You can be considered prone, or you can be considered standing. The mechanics don't ever really address transitive states. There's no answer to whether you can trip somebody as part of the AoO for standing from prone. It's been argued since the rule first came up in the 3.5 previews, and there's no way to settle it under the rules. There just isn't. Pick a rule and stick with it. Call it a houserule, or the way the rule is supposed to work. It doesn't matter.
Kalidor 10-16-03, 10:00 PM	BUT, you want to say that starting to stand up is the same thing as being fully stood up? You're NOT being consistant. I know what you WANT to say. You want to say that I'm getting to my feet. Thus, I'm not really lying on the ground anymore when you get your attack of opportunity. I'm trying to stand. Thus, you should be able to trip me again. That's all fine and good, but that's not how the game works. You're either standing, or you're not standing. If I'm already standing when you get your AoO, that means that I've completed standing up. It also meanst that if you take an AoO on me for casting a spell, I've already finished casting the spell, and you get a Magic Missle in your face before you can take your attack. You're wrong! You want to argue game mechanics, okay.. you said it yourself -- there IS NO "standing" state of being in the game. No where does it say that a trip attack must be targeted on a STANDING foe, it doesn't exist. What it does say, that if you succeed, then your opponent is prone. Why do you think someone has to be standing fully erect to suffer from the consequences of having their feet, legs or even arms (if they are getting up) knocked out from under them? Why is it okay for me to butt them in the back of the head with my mace*as they are getting up and provoking and AoO*but not okay for me to knock them off balance (with a bonus to my touch attack even) and put them back on the floor? Your rant did a lot of contradicting of itself, but in essence you proved your own point wrong so I can't possible see how you can still believe its impossible to trip someone *as they are getting up* I'm not trying to insult you, but it really didn't make a lot of sense.
Murrdox 10-17-03, 10:48 AM	Okay, for all of you who KEEP trying to argue it, there is no "standing" state. There is nothing in the "stand from prone" action that specifies that you're on your knees, halfway stood, or anything to that effect whatsoever. Kalidor, technically, you are correct, merely from the standpoint that the Trip action does not specify that you can't trip a prone opponent. However, this is obviously contradictory. You could make the same argument in order to "Disarm" a monk. Think about it.
Kalidor 10-17-03, 11:06 AM	Okay, for all of you who KEEP trying to argue it, there is no "standing" state. There is nothing in the "stand from prone" action that specifies that you're on your knees, halfway stood, or anything to that effect whatsoever. You just contradicted yourself... You said it yourself-- there is no standing state, therefore a trip would be legal at any point during the 'stand from prone' action. There is certainly nothing written to indicate that you are considered 'prone' until the completion of your action, and even if there were, there's nothing written at all which states that an opponent can't be triped while prone. As a stand alone action, its a bad tactic, since you run the risk of being tripped yourself. As an attack of opporotunity, it will ensure that the opponent loses his move action to stand because you've interrupted it by tripping him (While still running the risk of being tripped yourself). However, this is obviously contradictory. You could make the same argument in order to "Disarm" a monk. Think about it. If a monk is using a melee weapon and not one of his natural weapons he can be disarmed. That analogy makes no sense. I realize the game mechanics don't always reflect a real life situation, but to go out of your way to make sure that they don't is kind of silly. Time doesn't freeze while the person is standing up, nor are the teleporting from a prone state to a standing state. You really do need to take those facts into account when ruling what can be done to them as the perform their action, yet before their action is complete.
Finarin Panjoro 10-17-03, 12:01 PM	It doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not. It is not mechanically feasible within the rules for a prone person to be tripped because there are no consequences for such an event. The stand from prone is, in effect, teleporting to standing since there are no transitive states in D&D. You are either prone or standing. AoO always occur before the action is completed so a person standing from prone is considered prone. If you trip the person on their AoO they are still prone and will then continue their stand up action since the state they are attempting to change has been unaffected by your successful trip. I'm prone, I attempt to stand from prone, provoking an AoO which you use to trip me, I'm still prone, no change in my state as a result of the trip, so I finish my stand from prone action, I'm now standing. The only affect of a trip is to make someone prone since the person is already prone when they begin to stand you can trip them, but it won't stop them from standing up because you haven't changed their state at the time you made the AoO. In other words tripping a person on the AoO from attempting to stand may be possible, but it would not "disrupt" their standing attempt because no change will have been imparted to their state even by a successful trip.
Kalidor 10-17-03, 12:12 PM	And once again, you state the obvious while still arguing AGAINST the point. AoO always occur before the action is completed Before it is completed, not before its started. To go by your method of 'no transitive states' then the wizard would never be "casting" a spell because he uses his action to "cast" it. Its not cast, then he declares his action and its suddenly "cast" But it doesn't work that way. Because an AoO can *interrupt* the casting *as it is taking place*. Not *before* he has started castind and not *after*, but DURING. By doing so, the nature of your attack has a direct influence as to whether he completes his action (thus the spell is cast) or fails to complete his action (the spell is lost). The same can be said of tripping someone as they are standing up from prone. If you fail, then his action completes and he is standing. If you succeed, then his action does not complete and he is left prone. It seems like everytime someone tries to counter this logic, they post more things in favor of it yet still argue against it. I'm prone, I attempt to stand from prone, provoking an AoO which you use to trip me, I'm still prone, no change in my state as a result of the trip, so I finish my stand from prone action, I'm now standing. That statement defies common sense. Its an attack of opprotunity. Not an attack of 'lay there until I hit you then start your action'. The opprotunity comes from the fact that you ARE getting up and can therefore be tripped again. Look, if you want to house rule that getting up from prone means you can't be tripped again, more power to you. I'm not here to tell you you can't.
Murrdox 10-17-03, 01:36 PM	Kalidor, YOU are the one trying to house-rule that you can trip an opponent who is already prone... to make him prone. Finarin Panjoro phrased how the RULES work perfectly. You are correct though. You CAN interupt a person from casting a spell, and you can interupt certain other actions by use of AoO. Shouldn't you be able to interupt a stand-from-prone action? Possibly. Personally, I don't think you should be ABLE to. Certain things like the 5' step rule, Hit Points, and Armor Class are in the game as game mechanics, not because they are logical. Being able to perpetually keep an opponent prone without much effort seems like an unbalancing factor to me, and thus, I think this is a good game mechanic. However, if you DO want a RULE to keep someone prone, the appropriate thing to do would be to house-rule a Concentration check DC for what happens if you are damaged while trying to stand. Whenever any action has the potential to be disrupted, such as casting a spell, drinking a potion, or using a skill, Concentration or the Skill in question are used to see whether or not you complete the action. You can't Trip an opponent who still counts as prone. As Finarin Panjoro explained, he's prone anyways, so your trip attempt has no effect on him and can stand anyways. If you want to "disrupt" the stand action, use the correct mechanic for what happens when you potentially disrupt an action in progress. It isn't another Trip attempt. It's Concentration.
Finarin Panjoro 10-17-03, 02:11 PM	Murrdox, Thanks for the support. Kalidor, I just don't see it the way you do. If we define trip as an attack which, if successful, renders the defender prone then making a trip on a prone target (the one provoking the AoO) simply makes no difference. You haven't interrupted an action because he's still in the condition which your attack creates. Yes, AoOs can frequently be used to interrupt/stop certain actions. Spell casting is one example, using an AoO to sunder a bow will stop a missle attack as will tripping or disarming the archer. But this isn't one of those specific cases. You simply can't make a prone person more prone by tripping them while they are prone. If I'm in the act of getting up there is nothing IN THE RULES which states that you can prevent that with an AoO used to trip me. Once I've completed standing up you can certainly trip me again. The advantage to using/reading the rules strictly on this is that it is a better game mechanic than the other way around. If you can trip a prone target then tripping becomes the ultimate combat manuever and Improved Trip one of the best feats in the game. My way (and the way the rules currently support) still leaves tripping a very effective technique. The target must spend a move action and take an AoO to rise again. You can then trip him again. If you have improved trip you get to trip him, hit him after the fall at +4, and AoO when he starts to rise at +4, plus he can't take a full attack action which you can. This is very effective. Your way, the combatant can never rise again because its easier to "trip" a prone target with the +4 attack bonus gained from his condition than it was to trip him in the first place. An archer is completely defeated at this point as are most melee combatants. The fight then simply becomes a matter of whoever trips first wins. At the very least you should be willing to grant the tripped person a +4 stability bonus for the fact that his center of gravity is near the ground and he likely has at least his feet, a knee, and a hand in contact with the ground during the AoO. My thinking is that the AoO comes when he prepares to stand. He does have a hand on the ground, his guard is down, but he's too stable to be tripped and he's already prone anyway so tripping him would have no impact on him. I extend to you the same courteousy that you did to me. Play it however you want, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you. I just don't see where you're getting that your interpretation is supported by the rules. Logic is a fine tool for DMing, but it should not get in the way of good game mechanics or game balance. Cleave is a perfect example, it doesn't always make logical sense, but it's a great game mechanic. Further my interpretation is not illogical, and thus should not harm any players suspension of disbelief. Any player that says that it is illogical will simply have to accept that you can not make a prone person more prone by tripping them while they're down. EDIT: Also I would have to say that if you do want a way to keep someone prone than Murrdox has got the right idea. Concentration is the standard for defeating an interruption of an event. I still think it is a bad idea though because it makes tripping an unbalanced and overpowered combat technique.
ManTimeForgot 10-17-03, 04:14 PM	Over power is fine guys but Kalidor isn't the one making up rules. A person can be tripped again as they are standing up. Standing up provokes an attack of opportunity and there is a state in between standing and prone. It's called kneeling, which is the same as squatting for purposes of the D&D rules. Since kneeling doesn't protect you from tripping you are done. There is a state in between standing and prone. And to argue there are no transitive states is ridiculous, the standing from prone action is the transitive state. As soon as you make the action to stand up from prone you are no longer prone. You cease to be prone as soon as you begin your move equivalent action. This is like arguing with the DM that moving shouldn't trigger an AoO because I haven't actually started moving yet. Well unfortunately AoO happens during the event. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Kalidor 10-17-03, 06:24 PM	Clearly there is no "clear" answer here, and ultimately until the errata comes out we would both be correct to use either method in our campaign, at our own discretion. I was not intending to be snippy. I still believe my way is valid, but it does make for a good debate. I ran several Scenarios with a 6th level dex fighter wererat with a spiked chain vs a 9th level warrior who uses the power attack tree and brute strength. After several battles of simulated combat, there was no clear advantage or disadvantage either way -- it all came down the rolls.
Finarin Panjoro 10-19-03, 12:25 PM	Kalidor, Fair enough. ManTimeForgot, I'm also not trying to be snippy, but you've just invented the rule that the person standing from prone is considered kneeling for the attack of opportunity that they provoke. No where in the books does it state that you pass through kneeling between standing and prone. As soon as you make the action to stand up from prone you are no longer prone. You cease to be prone as soon as you begin your move equivalent action. This statement is contrary to the way AoOs work in every other case. By this ruling if I provoked an AoO by exiting a threatened square then I would have to be out of the threatened square before they could take the AoO (in most cases meaning that they could not then take the AoO.) Also this would mean the AoO only gains a +2 on the attack, rather than a +4, because they are no longer prone. AoOs don't work that way. It may not be perfectly realistic, but that's the way it is. You do not get any benefit from the action that provoked until after the AoO is resolved. No spell is cast, no arrow is fired, no move is resolved, until after the AoO. If that action is prevented then it is as if it never happened at all. The spell is lost, the arrow is not fired, and the move is not completed. Your ruling has standing up partially completed before the AoO occurs. Why should we treat standing from prone differently from all other AoOs? The fact remains that whether it is realistic or not a person is still considered prone for the AoO they provoke by standing and cannot therefore be made MORE prone then they already are. A trip attack made during the AoO would not change their state at the time it happens so it would have no effect at all. The action of standing cannot be disrupted in this fashion. Also kneeling is not necessarily a transitive state of prone and standing. I can stand up faster without using my knees by doing a partial push-up than I can by going to a knee first. Others stand by kipping up, again no kneeling involved. Again I'm not trying to be snippy, I just think you're wrong.
ManTimeForgot 10-19-03, 04:56 PM	I wasn't suggesting that kneeling was a transitive state. But you did say no state exists between the prone and standing position. That is false. The kneeling position is physically between the standing and prone position. You don't get +4 to hit on your AoO, when attacking a standing person; they are no longer prone. No they wouldn't be considered in the other square. They would be considered moving and attempting to leave the square. You're argumentation would have it that someone who attempts to leave a square isn't technically moving yet and therefore shouldn't subject to an AoO at the time it is triggered, which is wrong. And sure for those trained in getting up from prone a kip-up is faster, but the D&D character's aren't assumed to know that. They will get up which would place them in the squatting position. Squatting is considered kneeling in D&D. But I don't mean to suggest this is a transitive state, but merely that it could be. Also if someone wishes to avoid the AoO, they can simply rise to kneeling from prone, then stand, or they can tumble out of there. No big deal either way. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Farland 10-19-03, 05:50 PM	Just let the enemy do it too. Problem solved. I've found that elimination of any AoO is bad.
Aknelyt 10-19-03, 06:55 PM	So, another way to ask this question is whether you get a +4 to attack on your AoO against an opponent who is standing up from being prone. If you do, then the opponent is prone, and if you trip him or her, then he or she is still prone, and then he or she stands up from being prone (just like someone moving through a threatened square then continues on to the next square). If you do not, then the opponent is not prone, that is, has already finished standing up from being prone, and if you trip him or her, then he or she will fall back down and be prone again. I think I agree with Salla and Murrdox (and others) that the enemy is still prone when the AoO goes off. As much as I want to say that there is a transitive state in which the enemy is pushing him- or herself up, there isn't. Similarly, there is no transitive state when one is firing a bow; the fire a bow atcion begins, an adjacent foe takes an AoO, and then the fire a bow action resolves. Alternatively, the stand up from prone action is put on the stack. In response, the AoO action is put on the stack. The AoO action resolves, then the stand up from prone action resolves. Every game has a stack!
Pongolyn 10-19-03, 07:32 PM	If you can trip a prone target then tripping becomes the ultimate combat manuever and Improved Trip one of the best feats in the game. I beg to differ. One of my players built his current character's entire combat style around Improved Trip and a spiked chain (and he's a considerably competent min/maxer with very generous ability scores). I allow him to play IT as written: standing up from prone provokes an AoO, and Trip is an acceptable action to perform as an AoO. I don't even give the prone player a +4 stability bonus. He hasn't broken the game, he's not overpowered and I don't have to give all my monsters spiked chains or Improved Trip to beat up on him. What I did have to do was spend a little more time thinking about intelligent ways to attack him. And that's something all DMs should do before assuming something's overpowered, IMHO. About the most terrible thing Improved Trip can do is keep *one* opponent prone indefinitely, if the tripper spends all his actions and AoOs keeping him down. The prone creature can still attack, cast spells, threaten an area, et cetera. I'd hardly call that overpowered. Ray of Enfeeblement is comparatively worse IMHO, and it's a first level spell. I personally think that those DMs who are finding Improved Trip too powerful are wasting their energy throwing Medium-sized bipedal weaklings at the trippers...which is what they're best at fighting, so we shouldn't be surprised when they fall like dominoes. Why not try some larger creatures, or some spells for heaven's sake? You guys don't *have* to serve your monsters up on a silver platter for the slaughter, you know. Pongo
Finarin Panjoro 10-20-03, 10:59 AM	ManTimeForgot, Okay, where do you get the idea that you do not get a +4 bonus to attack a person who is taking the stand from prone action? This goes against every precedent for AoOs. When you provoke an AoO by moving from a threatened square you are still in the threatened square when the attack occurs. When you provoke an AoO by firing a ranged weapon you do not fire until after the AoO is completed. When you cast a spell it does not take effect until after the AoO is resolved. So how can you say that when the AoO for standing from prone is provoked the person has completed their action and is no longer prone? Where is the exception to the rule stated in the PHB? A person standing from prone IS PRONE and the attacker recieves a +4 bonus on the AoO. Because they ARE PRONE they cannot effectively be tripped again. You're argumentation would have it that someone who attempts to leave a square isn't technically moving yet and therefore shouldn't subject to an AoO at the time it is triggered, which is wrong. I don't know how you got this impression from my argumentation, but it is contrary to everything that I've said. Akneylt, I think we see this the same way. Thanks for posting. Pongolyn, I'm glad its not a problem in your game, but in mine humanoids are the primary opponents and they aren't weak ones. They have levels and most have multiple attacks. A single PC with a spiked chain, high dex, combat reflexes, and improved trip would be devastating, which is fine and as it should be. But allowing him to trip them all when they stand up again would be too much IMO and is not supported by the rules in any event. It doesn't matter if you can make a trip attack on an AoO, I'm not saying that you can't. What I'm saying is the following: -I'm prone. -I choose the stand from prone action. -I provoke an AoO. -My opponent elects to trip me with the AoO. -I haven't completed my action so I am still prone (the same as with EVERY other AoO in the game). My opponent recieves a +4 on his attack. -He successfully trips me with his AoO. -The only effect of the trip is to make me prone which I already am since I haven't stood up yet. Therefore the successful trip has imparted no change in my condition. -Since nothing has changed for me as a result of the trip attack, I resolve my stand from prone action normally and I'm now standing. This IS how the rules read. IF it isn't then someone please show me some quotes from the PHB or the SRD which contradict what I've said above. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit it. I have done so before in similar discussions. Fortunately, I'm not wrong.:D
Dave99 10-20-03, 12:27 PM	Finarin Panjoro said: " Okay, where do you get the idea that you do not get a +4 bonus to attack a person who is taking the stand from prone action? This goes against every precedent for AoOs." Well, as I've been saying (imo) the AOO occures because your getting up from prone, hench no longer prone and therefore no +4 bonus. Just like your in the middle of casting your spell when the AOO is invoked. Just like your in the middle of you move that invoked the AOO.
Finarin Panjoro 10-20-03, 01:43 PM	Dave99, I see what you're saying and I'm not trying to be rude, but as far as the rules are concerned what you're describing NEVER happens. In the case of a move, I start to move from a threatened square, but the AoO is resolved before I make ANY movement. In other words it is as if I had NOT MOVED AT ALL. In the case of spell, I start the spell, but no effect OF ANY KIND is gained from the spell if the AoO disrupts it. I don't turn partially invisible because the spell was half completed. In the case of an archer firing multiple arrows, the AoO is resolved before ANY ARROW IS FIRED. I can't think of a single example of an AoO that is resolved AFTER the action is completed. You are arguing that standing from prone is THE ONLY CASE where the action is resolved either partially or completely BEFORE the AoO is resolved. This would require a specific rules exception to be the case and I haven't found any such exception in the books yet. From the SRD: An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn). As this quote clearly states the normal flow of actions is interrupted and the AoO is immediately resolved. So the standing from prone character CANNOT have stood up. He therefore MUST still be prone. Since the only effect of a trip is to make someone prone, a trip at this point does not change his condition. Since nothing has changed, he then completes the current turn, which results in him successfully standing up.
Finarin Panjoro 10-20-03, 01:59 PM	It seems to me that people are missing that an AoO trip provoked by someone standing up is exactly the same, as far as the rules are concerned, as a trip made against a prone target who is not trying to stand up. I think we can all agree that If I use my normal attack to trip a prone person I have in effect done nothing to him. Even if my attack is successful I have simply made him prone again. Since he was already prone I have wasted this attack. Since an AoO interrupts the flow of actions and is immediately resolved BEFORE I have stood up it is exactly the same as the above example. The attacker is better off to use the attack to damage me, disarm me, or sunder my weapon. The trip attack is still possible, it just won't stop me from standing up and therefore is a waste of an attack.
Dave99 10-20-03, 02:44 PM	Originally posted by Finarin Panjoro Dave99, I see what you're saying and I'm not trying to be rude, but as far as the rules are concerned what you're describing NEVER happens. As this quote clearly states the normal flow of actions is interrupted and the AoO is immediately resolved. So the standing from prone character CANNOT have stood up. He therefore MUST still be prone. Since the only effect of a trip is to make someone prone, a trip at this point does not change his condition. Since nothing has changed, he then completes the current turn, which results in him successfully standing up. No problem, no insult taken. From the SRD: An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn). Seems our problem is that we read things differently. I take "interrupts" as meaning: 1 : to stop or hinder by breaking in 2 : to break the uniformity or continuity of Which to me seem to indicate that you have to start your action be fore I can interrupt you with a AOO. If you action is to stand up, and I interrupt you, while I can't say your standing (due to me interrupting your action to stand) I can't in good common sense say your still prone. It doesn't matter that we don't have a condition for the in-between of prone and standing, so without a "wizards" ruling this is how I read the rules. In order for an AOO to "Interrupt" you have to start your action, which can be cancelled or negated by the AOO.
Dave99 10-20-03, 02:51 PM	Originally posted by Finarin Panjoro In the case of an archer firing multiple arrows, the AoO is resolved before ANY ARROW IS FIRED. Yes but not before he draws back to fire, starting his attack which your AOO could be to disarm him. So the quesion is.... If succeful do you give the archer his full round or having started his attack is it or just his standard action used?
Finarin Panjoro 10-20-03, 03:01 PM	Oh, that is a good question. I tend to think only the standard action would be used unless he had gotten a second attack. Say if he fires a first arrow but I don't take the AoO, he fires a second arrow and I sunder his bow. He now can't claim the attack as a standard action. If I sundered his bow on the first shot he could claim it as a standard action and then move or draw a melee weapon etc. Back on the original thing, I get you. It just seems to me that what you're describing is not supported by the mechanics of the system and in this case I prefer the strict mechanical interpretation because I believe its better balanced than the perpetual tripping loop that can result otherwise.
Dave99 10-20-03, 03:08 PM	Actually... Since the Actions in Combat table reads. Trip an opponent sub(7) And sub(7) reads (7) These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. The game mechanics support me in saying that you can trip as an AOO.
Finarin Panjoro 10-20-03, 03:19 PM	Nice try Dave99, But check my previous posts. I never said you couldn't trip as an attack of opportunity only that it would not prevent me from standing if that AoO was provoked by my stand from prone action. I'm saying that I'm still prone when the trip occurs, since a trip makes me prone, nothing has changed, so when the "interrupted action" of the AoO continues, I would successfully rise to my feet. At which point if I cast a spell at you, provoking an AoO, you could use that to trip me because I'm now standing upright. My contention is that tripping a prone person has no effect on them and that a person standing from prone is still prone during the AoO that they provoke by standing. If someone with improved trip tripped someone on an AoO while standing I would still allow them their free attack at a +4 bonus for attacking a prone target. But once that attack was resolved the person would be standing up again.
Finarin Panjoro 10-20-03, 03:29 PM	As a side note, I think I'd be willing to let some one raise from prone to kneeling as a free action and from kneeling to standing as a free action, but not in the same round. So if you're prone and don't want to provoke an AoO by standing and are willing to spend a round kneeling (-2 to your melee AC) then I'd let you stand without provoking an AoO at all. I'd also let you be tripped while kneeling. Kneeling isn't being prone so you can be dropped prone by a succesful trip attack. I'd probably give you the +4 bonus for stability to resist it though.
TheWhaleShark 10-20-03, 03:48 PM	The original post mentioned Improved Trip in conjunction with Whirlwind Attack... Note that 3.5 WA cannot be used in conjuction with any feat or spell that would grant you additional attacks. Thus, you can't Whirlwind trip and get bonus attacks from Improved Trip. You CAN put a bunch of people on the ground, but you won't be able to attack them. Also, for the rest of you, remember that you can only make one AoO against an opponent per type of provocation. All of your movement through someone's threatened area only provokes one AoO. If you try to stand up twice, they'll only get one AoO.
Finarin Panjoro 10-20-03, 04:28 PM	TheWhaleShark, Good catch on the whirlwind attack/improved trip thing. Exactly right. However... remember that you can only make one AoO against an opponent per type of provocation. I don't think this is quite right. You only get one AoO against an opponent per opportunity. You are correct that all of their movement only provokes one AoO. But if you fire 3 arrows while threatened by someone with combat reflexes they get three AoOs on you.
TheWhaleShark 10-20-03, 07:37 PM	Originally posted by Finarin Panjoro TheWhaleShark, Good catch on the whirlwind attack/improved trip thing. Exactly right. However... I don't think this is quite right. You only get one AoO against an opponent per opportunity. You are correct that all of their movement only provokes one AoO. But if you fire 3 arrows while threatened by someone with combat reflexes they get three AoOs on you. First, thanks. Second, your example isn't technically correct. If I take the full attack action with a bow whilst in melee with somebody, the get one attack of opportunity against me, regardless of the fact that I may be firing multiple arrows. However, the rules aren't exactly clear. If all of my movement provokes one attack, even if I enter and leave your threatened area repeatedly while moving, it would stand to reason that any action repeated in a round only draws an AoO once. This is never expressly stated, of course, but the conclusion can be drawn. At least, that's how *I* read it, to prevent unnecessary IP cheese. My other tactic is my preferred: I'm the DM, thus I can out-chesse the players any day. :D
Voran 10-20-03, 09:23 PM	Originally posted by Farland Just let the enemy do it too. Problem solved. I've found that elimination of any AoO is bad. That would tend to be my approach as well. Its kinda a DM'ly duty to nudge things back into line and away from silliness from time to time. My general rule is "Show me variety, or get burned the same way"
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-20-03, 10:23 PM	Some time ago, I posed a question as to how you keep someone on the ground from getting up. Its not that hard a tactic and there should be a way to do it. the point of contention is exactly whats going on here. In DnD land, once you've got someone on the ground and are standing over him, do you: A: Stare at him like an idiot for 6 seconds as he stands up, brushes himself off and readies his sword B: Kick him as he tries to stand, preventing him from standing, and thus keeping him on the ground until he tries again, like a normal person could do. C: Take a nap and eat a cheesecake, hoping it all works out in the end. IMO, if you fall down in combat, You are soooo boned. A vicious beating followed by a good old fashioned stomping is in order. Basically, don't fall down. that's why wolves are such worthy opponents.
ManTimeForgot 10-20-03, 10:56 PM	And with all due respect Panjoro your argument is faulty simply because you argue that a person who suffers an Attack of Opportunity as a result of movement hasn't moved at all. The very nature of attacks of opportunity prohibits this. The person who suffers an attack of opportunity as a result of movement is moving, but just has not left the square yet. Your argument that a person who suffers an AoO as a result of movement, but has not moved at all prohibits the ability of attacks of opportunity which are triggered by spellcasting from forcing a concentration check. If the caster of the spell suffers the attack of opportunity before they have started casting the spell, then no concentration check is necessary. The reality is a person casting a spell begins casting the spell before suffering the AoO. The reality is a person moving (including standing from prone) suffers the AoO after beginning to move. The person is no longer prone, and does not suffer a penalty of 4 to AC. It's not overpowered because someone can talk a full-round action to avoid the attack of opportunity if they wish, and if they wish to suffer an attack of opportunity and possibly use the remaining partial action after receiving the attack of opportunity to attack their subject. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Finarin Panjoro 10-21-03, 10:37 AM	ManTimeForgot, You mis-understand me. I'm not saying that by reason and logic the person isn't moving when the AoO occurs only that as far as the game mechanics are concerned the AoO is resolved before his move is resolved. In the case of spell-casting the ability to disrupt the spell is a specifically addressed exception to how AoOs are resolved. The rules specifically tell you that an AoO can disrupt a spell-caster. There is no such exception spelled out for an AoO on a person standing from prone so we must assume that it functions as all other AoOs do and is therefore resolved BEFORE the completion of the action. So in the case of a movement triggered AoO, yes I've started moving within my square, but if I'm dropped or tripped I fall in that square. I have as far as the game is concerned been attacked, and stopped, before I made a move. In the case of an archer, if my bow is sundered by an AoO provoked by me firing an arrow, I do not get to make an attack because the AoO is resolved before I fire. Likewise with standing from prone, I've begun to rise, but I'm still prone when the AoO occurs. So I effectively can't be tripped since all that would do is leave me still prone. The AoO trip is resolved before my action and I therefore stand up. A specific exception is made for spells as something which can be disrupted by an AoO. Standing from prone has no such explicit exception. TheWhaleShark, From the SRD on combat relfexes and additional attacks of opportunity: This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus. It seems to me that firing two arrows would provoke two separate attacks of opportunity based on this paragraph. The same as if he moved from a threatened square and also fired an arrow within a threatened square. I'm not saying you have to do it this way, just that I think this is how the rules are meant to be understood.
SilenceHC 10-21-03, 01:40 PM	>If the caster of the spell suffers the attack of opportunity before >they have started casting the spell, then no concentration check >is necessary. The reality is a person casting a spell begins >casting the spell before suffering the AoO. The reality is a >person moving (including standing from prone) suffers the AoO >after beginning to move. The person is no longer prone, and >does not suffer a penalty of 4 to AC. I disagree completely. The state changes occur after the action is completed, not at the instant they have started. I do agree with you that the action must be 'started', the only contention seems to be on what that means. I contend that you do not change the state or trigger the effect of an action until it is completed. This is consistent with all other effects. Casting a spell when completed casts the spell. Firing a bow when completed fires the arrow. Moving out of a threatened square when completed moves you those 5 feet. Standing from prone when completed changes your state from prone to standing. Any changes you make to the state (either no longer prone or standing) when the action 'starts' is inconsistent with the other mechanics. If you want to do it, go for it, but it is not consistent. And don't try to bring the real world into this, big mistake when you are talking about DnD. To summarize: 1) Begin Standing 2) AoO can be taken here 3) Standing completed and state changed from prone to standing.
Whaledawg 10-21-03, 01:57 PM	IMO, if you fall down in combat, You are soooo boned. A vicious beating followed by a good old fashioned stomping is in order. Basically, don't fall down. that's why wolves are such worthy opponents. If your going to play that way, you have to make it more difficult to trip someone. Try to trip someone in real life and you'll see, if they have a weapon you have to be very fast and good to trip them. Therein lies the problem with trying to apply real-life to game mechanics, how far must one go? If you only apply it to the second half, the game basicaly becomes who can trip who first.
TheWhaleShark 10-21-03, 02:16 PM	Panjoro: Again, you are not correct. Taking the full attack action while using a ranged weapon provokes an attack of opportunity. You don't provoke one attack for every arrow you fire, because firing the multiple arrows is part of the same full attack action.
airwalkrr 10-21-03, 02:20 PM	Originally posted by Murrdox OR, the prone person could use some brains, and either just fight from a prone position, or crawl away 5' at no penalty and not provoking an AoO, and THEN stand. PHB pg. 142: "Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point in your crawl."
Finarin Panjoro 10-21-03, 04:08 PM	SilenceHC, That's exactly what I've been trying to say. Bravo! Whaledawg, I share the concern that if allowed to trip on the AoO from standing up, then fights would simply devolve to who trips who first. Fortunately the rules don't support being able to do this (see all of my previous posts). TheWhaleShark, Okay, I checked the SRD and I think you may be on to something, but I'll have to check the PHB later to be sure. My confusion stems from the fact that a ranged attack as a standard action clearly does provoke an AoO, but a full attack does not provoke an AoO. So the question is: Does a full attack used to make multiple ranged attacks provoke an AoO? One AoO or one AoO per ranged attack? You could actually argue that an archer who uses the full attack action to fire arrows doesn't provoke an AoO at all, since a full attack does not provoke an AoO. I'll have to read up on this, but you might be right. And by the way, what do you mean "Again", when was I wrong before?;)
Pongolyn 10-21-03, 04:17 PM	This IS how the rules read. IF it isn't then someone please show me some quotes from the PHB or the SRD which contradict what I've said above. Incorrect. This is how you *interpret* the rules, which do not say *anything* directly regarding tripping a prone opponent attempting to stand up. You interpret it to the perfectly logical conclusion that you can't trip a person that is already prone. I interpret it as merely exercising Trip as an acceptable AoO against a prone opponent attempting to stand. Our interpretations of the rules lead to mutually exclusive states, which is why this issue is so hotly debated. However, there is nothing in the SRD or the core rulebooks that says either one of us is wrong. My post was merely pointing out that contrary to popular belief, interpreting the rules to allow tripping as an AoO to a prone opponent attempting to stand *does not* imbalance the game or make IT the most powerful feat in existence; far from it. There's room in D&D for both interpretations, however, the core rulebooks are silent on this specific issue, so they're on no one's side. The issue, then, boils down to a matter of personal DM preference. So live and let live, shall we? Pongo
SilenceHC 10-21-03, 04:41 PM	>Incorrect. This is how you *interpret* the rules, which do not >say *anything* directly regarding tripping a prone opponent >attempting to stand up. You interpret it to the perfectly logical >conclusion that you can't trip a person that is already prone. I >interpret it as merely exercising Trip as an acceptable AoO >against a prone opponent attempting to stand. If the rulebooks went into this much detail they would be novels. However, from what is there we should be able to reasonably and logically infer the best fitting interpretation of the rules. It seems to boil down fairly simply to me. 1) Can you trip a prone opponent? 2) During the AoO caused by attempting to get up, what state is the target in; prone or standing? Since there are no intermediate states listed or rules governing them I maintain that we should constrain ourselves to the rules and states provided instead of making up rules for an in-between state of 'getting up'. 1) I actually don't know if it specifically states you can't trip a prone, but I don't think too many people would argue that one. 2) I state that it is more consistent with the other rules if we say the target is prone until standing up has been completed ( look at my post above ). I feel like I'm writing a proof... Therfore it is my assessment that you cannot use a trip attack durinng an AoO against an opponent standing up. Yes, this is my interpretation of the rules but I've tried to give a logical backing for this interpretation, so if you disagree please point out where in the logic or assumptions I have gone wrong.
Finarin Panjoro 10-21-03, 05:07 PM	Pongolyn, No offense was intended, nor was I intending to tell you how to play your game. My apologies if it came off that way. However that IS how the rules read. Look back at my post and you'll see the order of occurence I posted for a trip on an AoO. I can provide a quote for each step which supports my contention, except for this: -Since nothing has changed for me as a result of the trip attack, I resolve my stand from prone action normally and I'm now standing. For this I can only sight precedence of how every other AoO in the game works. All other AoOs take place before the triggering event is resolved. I'm very confident that this is as accurate as you can get. You contention, while fine for your game, just doesn't fit the same logic structure. Your method contradicts the precedent for resolving AoOs before the triggering action is complete. You are in effect saying that standing from prone is the only action which is resolved before the AoO that it provokes. That would be fine if the rules actually spelled out this exception, but they don't. As I say, I'm not trying to change your mind or get you to change your game. Just trying to get you to see that I might have a valid point. SilenceHC, I feel like I'm writing a proof... Welcome to my world.:D Seriously, I couldn't agree with you more.
split infinitude 10-21-03, 05:19 PM	The problem is, the rules do not say what happens if somebody is tripped while standing up from prone. One interpretation of the rules is that the AoO trip re-trips the person, as the person is in the process of standing up, and is thwarted. The other interpretation is that the AoO trip doesn't re-trip the person, b/c the person hasn't finished standing up. There's no answer under the rules. One interpretation is as good as the other. Both are reasonable interpretations of the few vague, contradictory, and unhelpful references to the effects of AoO in the rules. Although IMO the rules imply that you can trip a person standing up from prone, there simply is no objective language anyone can point to that settles this question. This has been debated since the 3.5 previews first were posted to the web, without any resolution. The only thing to do is pick a way to play, and go with it.
ManTimeForgot 10-21-03, 05:25 PM	Attacks of opportunity resolve before the action is completed, not before the action that triggers it starts to occur. Otherwise you run into this situation. You are 30ft away from an Orc with a spear readied against charge. The orc attempts to charge 30ft, which would trigger an AoO for moving through your threatened area. The pre-requisite 10 feet to move before charging is done by the orc, and then since the beginning of the action (the charge action) is what triggers the AoO your man with the spear must now take his attack of opportunity with the Orc 15 feet away before he enters your threatened area. Attacks of opportunity occur after the event that triggers it. The person standing up from prone has begun to move. Thus they are no longer prone. The only recourse on your part is to tacitly assume that you are prone until you are standing. That is patently false otherwise kneeling would be considered prone. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Finarin Panjoro 10-21-03, 05:26 PM	Split Infinitude, Obviously I cannot argue with you about what the rules explicitly say on this issue. You are correct that it is not specifically addressed. But we can say that one of the two ways violates the system used for all other AoOs and one does not. Tripping a prone opponent to stop the from rising DOES violate this system. It would be the only AoO triggering action that is resolved before the AoO that it triggers. Movement AoOs, spell AoOs, ranged attack AoOs, are all resolved before the action that triggers them. That IS the system. So we have two methods of interpreting it. But one of them violates an established known system and the other does not. In the face of missing errata and no sage ruling I go the way that does not violate existing rules.
ManTimeForgot 10-21-03, 05:33 PM	That is not what is being argued panjoro. You guys are arguing an opponent is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs. That is wrong. Which is why the person can be tripped. If I get off my hands and knees, then I am kneeling, or squatting (and squatting counts as kneeling). In either case I am no longer prone. I don't care how you decide to stand up, either way you are no longer prone when you decide to stand up. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
SilenceHC 10-21-03, 05:42 PM	> Attacks of opportunity resolve before the action is completed, not before the action that triggers it starts to occur. I think we are all in agreement on this point. > Otherwise you run into this situation. You are 30ft away from an Orc with a spear readied against charge. The orc attempts to charge 30ft, which would trigger an AoO for moving through your threatened area. Your example is flawed however. The movement CAN be broken down into 5' segments, it is not the entire charge that is triggering the AoO it is the movement from 10' to 5'. The movment from 10' to 5' is considered having 'started', but it is not complete and thus the state has not changed and you are making the attack against the target at 10'. After the attack the target will be at 5'. FOLLOWING THE EXACT SAME LOGIC, standing from prone is considered having 'started', but it is not complete and thus the state has not changed and you are making the attack against the target in the prone position, after the attack the target will be standing. If you wish to state that once started the player is in an intermediate state (not prone, not standing), then you can but it is not consistent with any other rules. The target is not considered to be at 7.5' when the AoO is made, he is at 10'. > The pre-requisite 10 feet to move before charging is done by the orc, and then since the beginning of the action (the charge action) is what triggers the AoO your man with the spear must now take his attack of opportunity with the Orc 20 feet away. I disagree, it's not the charge. It is moving from 10' to 5'. > Attacks of opportunity occur after the event that triggers it. The person standing up from prone has begun to move. Thus they are no longer prone. BZZZZZZZ wrong. If this were true you would resolve the ranged attack or spell effect or move the character forward before applying the attacks of opportunity. You do not. The action has started but finished and thus not 'occured' until after the AoO. > The only recourse on your part is to tacitly assume that you are prone until you are standing. That is patently false otherwise kneeling would be considered prone. You are at 10' until you are at 5'. Does this make sense in the real world? No, but trying to get DnD to match the real world is a bit silly now isn't it? Adding in kneeling as an intermediate state or some other non-standing/non-prone state would not be consistent with the other rules. It would be akin to saying that the target is at 7.5' or 8' or 6' when the AoO occurs, sure you can do it and it may make some sense in the real world, but it isn't consistent with the rest of the game mechanics. Consistency goooooood.
Finarin Panjoro 10-21-03, 05:45 PM	ManTimeForgot, I'm sorry, but I could not understand your example there. What is happening? Is the orc readied to recieve a charge or is he charging? I'm I threatening him before his charge? I'm sorry I honestly couldn't make out your scenario. Also there is no assumption on my part regarding whether or not you are prone during the AoO triggered by standing from prone. It is acknowledging the precedent for all AoOs which is that the action is not completed until after the AoO is resolved. There is no middle state between prone and standing acknowledged by the rules, just as there is no middle state between drawing back the bow string and firing the arrow. You do not go through kneeling to become standing or this would be spelled out in the rules. They would actually have to explictly say "you are considered kneeling for the Attack of Opportunity provoked by standing from prone". But they don't say that. So we must treat it like we do every other AoO in the game. An arrow is fired after the AoO it triggers is resolved. You do not leave the threatened square until after the AoO your departure triggers is resolved. A spell does not take effect until after the AoO it triggers is resolved. Since you are not standing until you have completed standing up, and there is no rules exception creating a middle state, then you must be prone during your AoO for standing. Since you are prone, tripping you has no impact on your condition. This is not an interpretation it is a fact of the rules structure. -Tripping someone has only one effect: to make them prone. -If you are already prone a trip does not change your condition in any way. Now if you want to violate the precedent for all other AoOs and say that it is complete or partially complete before the AoO is resolved fine, go ahead. Enjoy your game. But you are not taking the most consistent, available, interpretation of the rules. You are house ruling it the way you want it to be. Again, no offense intended. I just think I have a very good case and I'm not going to just let it go without someone coming up with something better.
SilenceHC 10-21-03, 05:52 PM	>You guys are arguing an opponent is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs. Let's look at this compared to a different event AoO Standing up = going from prone to standing Moving between two thretened squares (as an example going from 10' to 5') Your statement then is : "You guys are arguing an opponent is still at 10' when the attack of opportunity occurs." "That is wrong... " Real world examples follow. Massive mistake #1: Do not attempt to make DnD rules fit the real world. They do not, they should not. They are a game system. Please try to work within that system, otherwise we are just making junk up according to our interpretation of how we think the real world should be modeled. While that may be fun, it is not constructive and will lead nowhere. Please do feel free to play it how you want, that's your perogative. What I'm trying to show is simply that this is the most consistent interpretation following the rules as they are presented.
SilenceHC 10-21-03, 05:55 PM	Nice double team Fin. :D I doubt they will be swayed by reason but you never know...
Pongolyn 10-21-03, 06:34 PM	1) I actually don't know if it specifically states you can't trip a prone, but I don't think too many people would argue that one. Take a look at any of the other dozen threads on precisely this and I think you'll find that plenty of people argue that point (which isn't "is it logically possible to trip someone who is lying on their back" so much as "if you are trying to get up prone, which provokes an AoO according to the rules, can a player use Trip as a valid AoO in that situation?" ). It isn't just me, I promise! *grin* Panjoro--I wasn't offended, nor am I. I'm just trying to point out that although it's perfectly clear in your mind, there is at the very least some room for disagreement, as it's perfectly clear in the minds of dozens of others as well--and while their logic is just as sound (albeit different), not everyone agrees with you. We can argue until our faces turn blue and until we each have five different custserv techs on our side, but we probably won't have a definite resolution until it's addressed by Sage, or included in an errata or later version. Pongo :angel:
ManTimeForgot 10-21-03, 06:54 PM	You all are either arguing something which is akin to: I declare my action to fire the bow. My opponent gets an attack of opportunity before I draw back the bow string (attacks of opportunity take zero time to occur and resolve before action even begins). Or you are arguing that a person is still prone while standing because no transitive state exists according to the rules. Now if you all want a complete fantasy realm where someone doesn't move by the time an infinitely fast attack occurs on them; just so you can remove a maneuver which isn't powerful at all, then by all means do so. In my worlds people actually move when they say that they are moving. Attacks of opportunity happen before the action completes not before it starts. (you cannot sunder as an attack of opportunity anyway, so the bow example is flawed). You can tumble away from the person as a move equivalent action, then take a move equivalent action to stand up. No attack of opportunity. You can go from prone to kneeling (no AoO) then go from kneeling to standing (no AoO). Either way if you spend a full round action you can stand up from prone without suffering an attack of opportunity. You are right. Technically there are no transitive states when standing. In the real world you would reach the state called kneeling as a result of moving to stand up, but you argue correctly that the rules do not support this. You all, however, argue that the opponent is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs, and this is still wrong. The attack of opportunity does not happen at the same time it is triggered. Which is what my example above is meant to illustrate. I made a mistake above though. Give the person above hold the line. Upon entering your threat range the person with the spear said person will get an attack of opportunity from hold the line. You all would have us believe that the attack of opportunity occurs while the person is 15 feet away because that is when the action to enter the square happens. The person does actually enter the square until after the completion of the move action. So an attack of opportunity happens after the even which triggers it (entering the square) but before the action completes (leaving the threatened square). In standing up the opponent has left the prone position, but has not reached the standing position. Just because there are no transitive states does not mean that according to the rules the opponent is still prone when the AoO occurs. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-21-03, 06:58 PM	Query: If you implement this houserule, or rule in a way similar to it... how do you keep someone from standing up?
SilenceHC 10-21-03, 07:58 PM	> Take a look at any of the other dozen threads on precisely this and I think you'll find that plenty of people argue that point (which isn't "is it logically possible to trip someone who is lying on their back" so much as "if you are trying to get up prone, which provokes an AoO according to the rules, can a player use Trip as a valid AoO in that situation?" ). It isn't just me, I promise! *grin* Sigh. Do not change my question please. In order to decide "if you are trying to get up prone, which provokes an AoO according to the rules, can a player use Trip as a valid AoO in that situation?" you must first answer "is it logically possible to trip someone who is lying on their back". If it is possible to trip someone who is lying on their back then it is definately true that 'when you are trying to get up prone, which provokes an AoO according to the rules, can a player use Trip as a valid AoO in that situation'. My statement was that I do not believe anyone would argue that it is logically possible to trip someone who is lying on their back, therfore we can move on and try to answer the second issue. Please, please try to read the post and apply a little logic before you reply. Thanks.
SilenceHC 10-21-03, 08:10 PM	> You all are either arguing something which is akin to: I declare my action to fire the bow. My opponent gets an attack of opportunity before I draw back the bow string (attacks of opportunity take zero time to occur and resolve before action even begins). No I am saying that there are ZERO rules about weather the string in drawn back or not. It is not relevent in the system. There are 2 states. I have not yet fired, and I have fired. There are rules governing these states. If you wish to both make up an in-between state of 'I have drawn the sting back' ( why not I'm reaching back for an arrow, or I've just notcked the arrow, or I'm bringing the bow up, or I've pulled the sting back and aimed ) and make your own rules governing this state you are free to do so, but THEY ARE NOT A PART OF THE CORE RULES. They are something you have made up. > Or you are arguing that a person is still prone while standing because no transitive state exists according to the rules. Ding ding ding! We have a winner! > Now if you all want a complete fantasy realm where someone doesn't move by the time an infinitely fast attack occurs on them; just so you can remove a maneuver which isn't powerful at all, then by all means do so. It has nothing to do with the desire to remove a rule, I'm not saying do it this way because it's the way I want it to be. I'm saying do it this way because it is CONSISTENT with the rules as written. Actually I'm not even saying that... do it however the heck you and your players want to, all I'm saying is that the way to resolve this in the manner most consistent with the governing rules as written is you are prone until you have completed standing up. I also give no merit to anything on 'yeah but in the real world...'. In the real world do people go in initive order? Does it make sense to have one person get off three swings with his sword then move on to the next? In the real world does wearing armor make you harder to hit? In the real world should a person have a much health (hps) as an elephant just because he's managed to kill some stuff? Get the whole real world thing out of your head and we'll all be much happier.
SilenceHC 10-21-03, 11:47 PM	Thing a bit more about the "In the real world" statements brought me to a similar situation in chess... "What do you mean? In the real world a bishop could never take a knight. What's he gonna do bless me to death?"
ManTimeForgot 10-22-03, 12:01 AM	I do not have to answer "if it is logically possible to trip someone who is lying on their back." You do. I am not the one who wishes to disregard realism in its entirety. I would say no you couldn't really trip someone who is lying on their back, but then again someone who is prone isn't lying on their back. A person who is crawling is considered prone, which is on their hands and knees. To go from prone to kneeling is a move equivalent action, and all that is involved is lifting my elbows off the ground. So surely there are no transitive states in D&D, but Can you honestly tell me that in standing up from a prone position you will not reach a condition equal to the kneeling position? So you ask me if its possible to trip someone who is lying on the ground. I ask you how it is possible to get up from prone without getting to kneeling first. Fair questions, both of which the rules does not cover. So I admit there is some leeway here. The rules aren't very clear on this topic. If you go only with what is in the rules then yes there is no danger from using a trip attempt against a standing person. But anyone who uses a modicum of logic in their interpretation of what entails from standing up could use a trip attempt against a standing person. You ask well how could a bishop kill a knight? I ask you how do people move in D&D? It's not specifically stated in the rules that the main form of locomotion in D&D is walking. It simply says movement rate. What part of the D&D rules explicitly prevents my human character from walking through walls? I don't see anywhere in the rules that says my human can't walk through walls. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-22-03, 12:27 AM	Really, you have to have done something to provoke that AoO. Its not that some mystical force tells you to hit them before they get up. You have to see them starting to get up.
Pongolyn 10-22-03, 12:58 AM	Get the whole real world thing out of your head and we'll all be much happier. Then why are you so concerned with: In order to decide "if you are trying to get up prone, which provokes an AoO according to the rules, can a player use Trip as a valid AoO in that situation?" you must first answer "is it logically possible to trip someone who is lying on their back". Maybe *you* do, but in a game where logical impossibilities are commonplace (not just flying dragons either; look at some of the arguments over animal companions for some real doozeys) I'm more concerned with discovering if it upsets game balance. Seems like the people who are arguing this with you aren't very concerned about tripping opponents who are prone anyway: according to them, when the AoO happens, the target isn't prone. Ding ding, no logical incongruity there! You really don't need to resort to splitting hairs over this (no, really! You don't!), but given the number of people who are still in disagreement, I don't think you can safely say that your way is the One True Way, or that it's "supported" by the core rules any more than the ways other DMs have seen fit to resolve it. You're houseruling too, but chin up--it doesn't make you a bad person or anything. Please, please try to read the post and apply a little logic before you reply. Thanks. Please, please don't assume I haven't, just because I don't agree with you. It's rude. KTHX Pongo
Finarin Panjoro 10-22-03, 11:09 AM	Wow this is starting to get a bit heated. Everybody relax, as long as we all come away with playing methods we're happy with then nobody loses. But just because nobody loses doesn't mean that Silence HC and I didn't win!!!;) Just kidding, anyway... Pongo, I respect your position and your determination. By all means proceed as best fits your enjoyment of the game. ManTimeForgot, Or you are arguing that a person is still prone while standing because no transitive state exists according to the rules. You are correct this is exactly what we're saying. In standing up the opponent has left the prone position, but has not reached the standing position. Just because there are no transitive states does not mean that according to the rules the opponent is still prone when the AoO occurs. Actually yes it does mean exactly that. By your ruling standing from prone would be the ONLY action which is resolved before the AoO it provokes OR the only action which confers a benefit before the AoO is resolved. In EVERY SINGLE OTHER CASE it does not work this way. If you allow the person to be kneeling then they are only suffering a -2 AC penalty not a -4 AC penalty for being prone. You have confered a benefit to the standing PC before the AoO which it has provoked. No other core rules AoO mechanic works this way, you are therefore house ruling it. I'm not familiar with the hold the line feat so I can't comment on that. You're right you can't sunder a bow on an AoO, it's a standard action, so use disarm instead or just say that the AoO dropped him to below 0 hp. Still a valid example. I have to agree with Silence HC that using real life to argue about a rules system is irrelevant. The rules do not operate like real-life and all of D&D is based on the fact that combat is abstracted. It says it right in the PHB an attack roll does not represent a single swing of the sword but the net effect of all your jabs, feints, parrys, etc. So I'll try the proof method again: the best direct example to compare the trip to is a movement provoked AoO. Both involve moving from one position to another. So I'll do that. -I'm in a threatened square which I chose to exit, provoking an AoO. The AoO is successful and drops me to -1 hp. What square do I fall into? I fall into the one I started in. I don't fall on the line between the squares. I drop right where I started. So as far as the game is concerned, I never moved at all. Does anyone disagree that this is how it works in the game? So by that precedent, I'm prone in a threatened square and I choose to stand, provoking an AoO. The AoO occurs while I am prone because I have not stood up yet. Exactly as I have not moved out of the square in the previous example. As far as the game rules are concerned, I haven't risen at all yet. Perhaps for you real-world types, the AoO is provoked by me simply putting my hands on the ground to start to rise, but I"m still flat on my back/stomach/side whatever. So I am still prone during the AoO. There is no game acknowledged middle state and my stand can't be resolved until after the AoO according to how all AoOs work. .From the SRD: If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn). So there it is: I'm prone when I provoke by starting to stand, we immediately resolve the AoO, so by the rules, I MUST still be prone. We then continue with my turn. Okay, so my attacker decides to trip me on the AoO. Okay for the sake of argument lets say he's successful. What is the effect of being tripped? From the SRD: Being Tripped (Prone): A tripped character is prone. Standing up is a move action. So the only effect of being tripped is to be prone. But I'm already prone. So how did being tripped change anything at all as far as my condition is concerned? Answer: It didn't. If my condition was not changed then why can't I finish standing up? Vaalingrade Ashland, Really, you have to have done something to provoke that AoO. Its not that some mystical force tells you to hit them before they get up. You have to see them starting to get up. I'm not saying that you didn't do something, I'm just saying that as with every other AoO in the game, you don't resolve what you did until after the AoO that you provoked. It's just like not falling on the line between squares if you're dropped by the movement AoO. The game just doesn't recognize the in-between state that you're describing. How do you keep someone down once they're tripped you ask? Honestly the only way I can think of is to drop them to less than 0 hp. But there's nothing to stop you from tripping them again. It's definitely fine for you guys to use it however you want too, but don't tell me that your position is just as well supported by the rules when it clearly isn't. I can definitely point to where you are making an exception to the rules in your argument, but you cannot do so in mine. Leave the real world out of it, show me the mechanics of the rules system. But by all means play however suits your game the best. The goal is to have fun after all.
Whaledawg 10-22-03, 11:13 AM	The important thing to remember here is that we keep arguing retarded semantics. No one say anything simple like "If its a problem in your campaign, outlaw it. Otherwise let your players trip someone getting up from the prone" Alright? We all on board here?
Dave99 10-22-03, 01:38 PM	Originally posted by Finarin Panjoro AoOs do and is therefore resolved BEFORE the completion of the action. Why do you keep saying BEFORE. Where do you get that AOO's happen before the action invoking them. The SRD says interrupts the normal flow of actions. And in fact doesn't use the word 'before' in the entire discription. So we are back to an intrupratation of what 'interrupts' means in the context of standing from prone. It seems to me that if i interrupt you from standing you can not be concidered prone. The SRD says: Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to. An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round. An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-22-03, 01:54 PM	Fine, following the (IMO) strange line of reasoning that AoOs are clairvoyant, lets say this: the AoO doesn't have to be a trip, it just has to be a hit. The hit interrupts the stand from prone action, causing it to be wasted with no effect. Happy?
Finarin Panjoro 10-22-03, 01:58 PM	Dave99, Fair question. I get the word before because that is how it works in every case. The PHB and the SRD don't come right out and say that but that is how it works. If you provoke by firing an arrow the AoO is resolved before the arrow attack is resolved. If you provoke by moving out of a square the AoO is resolved in that square before you move to the next square. If you provoke by casting a spell the spell is not cast until after the AoO is resolved (or is not cast at all if the AoO disrupts it, which is a specifically detailed exception to the normal way AoOs work). If you provoke by attempting a disarm, grapple, or sunder the AoO is resolved before your disarm, grapple, or sunder. In every case in the rules the AoO is resolved BEFORE the action which provokes it is resolved. So saying that the standing from prone AoO is NOT resolved before the stand from prone action is resolved is a contradiction of how every other AoO in the game works. Even saying that the stand from prone action is partially resolved (in other words they are now kneeling) is an exception to the way the rules work because it is now the only provoking action which confers a benefit (they are harder to hit kneeling than prone) on the player before the AoO it provoked is resolved. So that is why I keep using the word before. I take 'immediately' and 'complete the current turn' to indicate that as soon as they begin to rise (but haven't risen) they are attacked. When the attack is over they then resolve their stand from prone action, which leaves them standing upright. Whether they were tripped or not is completely irrelevant at that point because prone is prone. If you're prone and you're tripped, you're still prone. Nothing has changed. So your stand from prone action is not prevented. Vaalingrade, That's a house rule, but if it works for you go for it. Are you going to give them a concentration check to avoid having their action disrupted? Keep in mind I'm not demanding that anyone play this way. I'm only saying that the rules work this way.
SilenceHC 10-22-03, 01:59 PM	> If you go only with what is in the rules then yes there is no danger from using a trip attempt against a standing person. Thanks. That's all I was looking for. > But anyone who uses a modicum of logic in their interpretation of what entails from standing up could use a trip attempt against a standing person. If you make assumptions and create your own intermediate state and rules governing them then sure. The only point you prove from the above statement is that you assume your version how reality should be interpreted in the rules for this situation is the only logical interpretation. Quite pompus and incorrect of you, but I'm not going to discuss that because I neither care about which 'interpretation of reality' is more accurate, nor that you assume you view is the only logical view. You seem to have it in your head that I'm telling you what to do. Truth is I don't care what you do. I was just trying to get you to admit > If you go only with what is in the rules then yes there is no danger from using a trip attempt against a standing person. You have. I'm done.
Dave99 10-22-03, 02:39 PM	Originally posted by Finarin Panjoro Dave99, Fair question. I get the word before because that is how it works in every case. The PHB and the SRD don't come right out and say that but that is how it works. Well, isn't that just how you say it works? See I take interrupt to mean interrupt, not to mean before. Interrupt as in some part of your action has to come first, which in all you examples still works. That archers raises his bow, pulls back that arrow - AOO That guy moves 2-3 feet - AOO (yes he will still drop in that same square). That spell caster starts to cast a spell - AOO That guy begins standing - AOO Its the same as any other AOO, to me its your choice of using the word 'before' that make it seem wrong.
Whaledawg 10-22-03, 02:53 PM	Good job all :rolleyes:
SilenceHC 10-22-03, 03:03 PM	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pongolyn [B]Then why are you so concerned with: You really don't need to resort to splitting hairs over this but given the number of people who are still in disagreement, I don't think you can safely say that your way is the One True Way, or that it's "supported" by the core rules any more than the ways other DMs have seen fit to resolve it. You're houseruling too, but chin up--it doesn't make you a bad person or anything. I have given a logical explination of how I think the rules apply to this (a hypothesis), with examples of other cases and how they are known to be resolved. Even MANTIMEFORGOT who seems the strongest opponent in this thread has stated now "If you go only with what is in the rules then yes there is no danger from using a trip attempt against a standing person.". You have neither attempted to disprove my interpretation of the rules logically, given counter examples using the rules, nor really added anything constructive to this post. > Please, please don't assume I haven't, just because I don't agree with you. It's rude. KTHX This is pretty funny. You are trying to get on me for making assumptions and at the exact same time assuming it is because I don't agree with you that I said what I did. Both ironic and sad. I made one more assumption that may or may not be true, that you can read and think logically on what you have read. In my early post that started this I stated that we must look at 2 things in particular to solve this problem. 1) Can you trip a prone opponent? 2) During the AoO caused by attempting to get up is the target prone or standing ( or something else )? I then stated that I believe that 1) No you cannot trip a prone opponent, and that few would argue this point. (Note no reference at this point to attempting to stand.. that comes in step 2). You then failed completely to understand what I was saying and turned it into: 1) I believe no one would argue you could trip someone trying to get up. I do not know how or why you lost touch with what I was saying, so I am left to assume that either 1) You did not fully read what I wrote- 2) You did not take the time to think about and understand what I wrote 3) You lack the ability to logically process what was written 4) You don't really care and are just changing stuff to suit your needs. I assumed 1 or 2 because there's really nothing to be done if it's 3 or 4 and I don't really care to have a logical discussion with someone either incapable or unwilling to do so in return. After reading more I am now leaning my assumption more towards one of those however, or maybe it's another one entirely. Reguardless I don't think you are going to contribute in a useful manner to this discussion, so I'm done replying to or reading your posts.
SilenceHC 10-22-03, 03:15 PM	Originally posted by Dave99 Well, isn't that just how you say it works? See I take interrupt to mean interrupt, not to mean before. Interrupt as in some part of your action has to come first, which in all you examples still works. That archers raises his bow, pulls back that arrow - AOO That guy moves 2-3 feet - AOO (yes he will still drop in that same square). That spell caster starts to cast a spell - AOO That guy begins standing - AOO Its the same as any other AOO, to me its your choice of using the word 'before' that make it seem wrong. I would agree with you here actually Dave. I don't think that before is necessarily correct, you could just as easily say during. However, it is not after and in all of these cases the effect does not occur until after. I have no problem with The attack of opportunity occurs during the process of moving 5', however nothing changes until after the movement is done at which point you move the guy 5'. Feel free to argue all day long about exactly at what point during the action the AoO occurs (when he just starts, after taking one step, when he's moved 0.5', when he's moved 4.5') and what you think reality dictates should be occuring then. I will not join you because once you start doing that... there is no real point in arguing as there are no rules governing either at what point during it occurs or what state things are in at that point. You are making stuff up according to what you think, which as a DM is your perogative. However, as far as the rules are concearned the effect of the event does not occur until it is finished and the AoO occurs before that. So if you go strictly by the rules without adding your interpretation of 'at what point during' and 'what state things are in at that time' then the guy is prone until he is finished standing which is AFTER the AoO.
Finarin Panjoro 10-22-03, 04:45 PM	Dave99, Well, isn't that just how you say it works? No Dave, that IS actually how it works, not just how I say it works. If you haven't gotten that by now nothing that I say is going to convince you. The game does not recognize a 2-3 foot step, a drawn arrow, partially cast spell, or a person who is semi-prone. All of these things only take effect after the attack of opportunity is resolved. Or one could say the AoO is resolved BEFORE the action which triggered it. The two sentences mean the exact same thing. If I move out of a square and am dropped by an AoO I fall in that square. The movement which I started has had NO MEASURABLE EFFECT OF ANY KIND (other than the AoO it provoked). The game does not have me put my minature on the line between squares because I was "moving". If the AoO stops the action then it is as if the action never happened. In the case of tripping someone who is prone the action is resolved and has no effect. All I'm doing is repeating myself at this point, so if anyone has anything new I'll be happy to post, but otherwise I think I've had my say. I'm still going to look into that ranged attack provokes, but full attack doesn't provoke, so does a full attack consisting only of ranged attacks provoke and if so once or for each ranged attack issue that TheWhaleShark raised back on page 2 or 3. If I come to any earth shattering conclusions I'll post them here. It's been fun.
Kaynaus 10-22-03, 05:42 PM	Here's my house rule on the whole thing. AOO are only attacks with whatever weapon you are holding. No trips, no disarms, no grapples (unless you have a special feat or attack that allows you to make one of these checks after a successful hit with your weapon/natural attack). EDIT: My reasoning behind this is that it keeps PCs from dominating certain monsters (and it keeps the monsters from dominating certain PCs). What fun is combat when all you do is keep tripping your opponent until he dies, and he can't do anything for the whole combat? Sure you will most likely win, but do you really feel that you accomplished something besides gaining XP and ph4t l3wt?
Nick Soapdish 10-22-03, 06:22 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Fine, following the (IMO) strange line of reasoning that AoOs are clairvoyant, lets say this: the AoO doesn't have to be a trip, it just has to be a hit. The hit interrupts the stand from prone action, causing it to be wasted with no effect. Happy? Just like a hit on an archer interrupts him from shooting the bow (provided that the hit wasn't a sunder)? Or a hit on a wizard casting a spell (that makes his concentration check) interrupts the spell?
SilenceHC 10-22-03, 06:31 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Just like a hit on an archer interrupts him from shooting the bow (provided that the hit wasn't a sunder)? Or a hit on a wizard casting a spell (that makes his concentration check) interrupts the spell? You forgot or stops the guy from moving when moving between 2 threatened squares.
ManTimeForgot 10-22-03, 11:01 PM	Sure I admit that if you go by only what is in the book, then you technically can't trip someone who is getting up from prone. But technically my character can walk through walls going by what is in the book only. A person with a modicum of logic will not allow humans to walk through walls. Why? Because in real life that can't be done. A person with a modicum of logic will note that in getting up from prone, unless you kip up (which requires a feat), you are rising to your knees in someway first. So go strictly by what is in the book, and forbid tripping those who get up from prone, but then be prepared for humans, elves, and dwarves who can walk through walls. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Finarin Panjoro 10-23-03, 10:16 AM	I may regret asking this but: how can people walk through walls according to the rules?
SilenceHC 10-23-03, 12:26 PM	[QUOTE]Originally posted by ManTimeForgot [B]Sure I admit that if you go by only what is in the book, then you technically can't trip someone who is getting up from prone. > But technically my character can walk through walls going by what is in the book only. I understand the point you are trying to make, and as I said I have no problem with a DM making up rules as you see fit to match your view of reality. Just realize that is what you are doing, and that at that point it becomes fairly silly to argue about it because different people will have different interpretations of reality and only a narrow-minded egoist ( or someone fairly immature ) expects that their view of reality is the only correct view. You unfortunately seem to fit into this category. > A person with a modicum of logic will not allow humans to walk through walls. Why? Because in real life that can't be done. Well, actually people in DnD walk through walls all the time (with a little spell help). And moreover even if the rules do not specifically say you cannot walk through walls there are spells (such as meld into stone) which grant you the ability to do so from which you can infer that normally you are not expected to be able to (otherwise the spell is pretty pointless). But you know what, if it's really not stated in the rules and a DM decided he wanted to let his players walk though walls... I'm not going to argue with him that he's wrong. It's his perogative as far as I'm concerned. (I think you would have a strong case that it can be infered however since there are spells that grant you that power thus players should not have that power by default). > A person with a modicum of logic will note that in getting up from prone, unless you kip up (which requires a feat), you are rising to your knees in someway first. Again I have no particular desire to argue how your view of reality should be interpreted into the rules, but I would hope you would realize just how many assumptions you are making and how egotistical it is to try to tell others that your view is the only correct view. As an example... Let's say a DM decides that in his view of how to apply reality he decides that whenever a guy is tripped he lands on his back. From this position he can dodge and roll to the side and so on and so there are no attacks of opportuntity. But when he tries to get up first he has to roll over onto his stomache and it's at this precise moment when he can't see the attackers that the AoO is provoked. He's still prone, he's started to get up but hasn't finished yet and so this is the spot this DM feels is the most likely point for the AoO and since he's prone he can't be tripped. And that's just one view. I'm sure there are many others different people will have that will either lead to tripping is possible or tripping is not. I don't really care which you use and I'm not going to argue which is 'correct' because none of them are according to the rules but at the same time any of them are valid because it's your interpretation. Do you begin to see? Mature a bit and realize that your perspective isn't the only 'correct' perspective. > So go strictly by what is in the book, and forbid tripping those who get up from prone, but then be prepared for humans, elves, and dwarves who can walk through walls. Geez dude, it's DnD. I'm completely prepared for humans, elves, dwarves, xorns, dragons, undead and an animated kitchen sink to all walk through the walls. That's what makes the game so spiffy.
Sildatorak 10-27-03, 05:38 PM	Back in 3rd grade, I took a severe beating from bullies who used the tactic of tripping me whenever I would try to get up. This is definitely dirty fighting, but it is much more realistic and is far from game breaking. Plus, it is a tactic that your BBEG is probably more than happy to hit your party with, particularly if it is his lackies doing it while he just wails on the prone party members.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-27-03, 05:45 PM	Originally posted by SilenceHC [QUOTE]Originally posted by ManTimeForgot [B]As an example... Let's say a DM decides that in his view of how to apply reality he decides that whenever a guy is tripped he lands on his back. From this position he can dodge and roll to the side and so on and so there are no attacks of opportuntity. But when he tries to get up first he has to roll over onto his stomache and it's at this precise moment when he can't see the attackers that the AoO is provoked. He's still prone, he's started to get up but hasn't finished yet and so this is the spot this DM feels is the most likely point for the AoO and since he's prone he can't be tripped. you don't have to roll onto your stomache to stand from a prone position. More often you would sit up, get your legs under you and then rise. It is the moment of unbalance in the act of standing that provokes, thus, your legs can be removed from under you, i.e., tripping you. Otherwise, your Pcs would have to stand on the guy to keep him from getting up -- but no, two characters can't occupy the same square :rolleyes:
danielinthewolvesden 10-27-03, 06:47 PM	Well, to get out of this, if you are a rogue or similar- why not simply tumble 15' out of the threatened area- then stand up?:confused:
SilenceHC 10-27-03, 06:51 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland you don't have to roll onto your stomache to stand from a prone position. More often you would sit up, get your legs under you and then rise. It is the moment of unbalance in the act of standing that provokes, thus, your legs can be removed from under you, i.e., tripping you. Damn I thought this thread was finally dead, oh well. Geez Vallingrade, way to miss a point. Read my posts and you'll notice that I have no desire to argue who's view of 'the most likely way a person in the real world would get up and how to properly model that as rules in DnD' is correct, it's asinine to do so. There are no rules covering at exactly what instant the AoO occurs nor what state the characters are at at that point. You're just making stuff up at which point whatever interpretation you as a DM chose to use is valid. Or are you also of the mindset that your view of reality is the only correct view, and any other interpretation is wrong? Sad for you if so. Otherwise, your Pcs would have to stand on the guy to keep him from getting up -- but no, two characters can't occupy the same square :rolleyes: Yes! If you go strictly by the rules you cannot prevent a guy from standing by attempting to trip them. The action of standing from prone does not have any rules about any intermediate state where he's not yet standing but can be tripped. He's prone until the action is complete at which time he's standing. If YOU dislike this, then feel free to houserule it according to your view all you like. In my view of the world the proper solution for a player wanting to keep a guy down with trip attacks would be to ready a trip attack for right after the guy stands up.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-27-03, 06:55 PM	The rules also don't say you cannot b e tripped while prone. Literalism leads to all sorts of problems in this context.
SilenceHC 10-27-03, 07:09 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland The rules also don't say you cannot b e tripped while prone. Literalism leads to all sorts of problems in this context. I don't have my book with me. If it actually no where says that you can't trip a prone person and you decide you want to allow it, I'm all for it.
split infinitude 10-27-03, 09:03 PM	Originally posted by Finarin Panjoro Split Infinitude, Obviously I cannot argue with you about what the rules explicitly say on this issue. You are correct that it is not specifically addressed. But we can say that one of the two ways violates the system used for all other AoOs and one does not. Tripping a prone opponent to stop the from rising DOES violate this system. It would be the only AoO triggering action that is resolved before the AoO that it triggers. Movement AoOs, spell AoOs, ranged attack AoOs, are all resolved before the action that triggers them. That IS the system. So we have two methods of interpreting it. But one of them violates an established known system and the other does not. In the face of missing errata and no sage ruling I go the way that does not violate existing rules. Per the SRD: An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn). Where does it say that whatever effect an AoO has occurs before the act that provoked it? It "interrupts" the flow. Thus, there is a "flow" which is interrupted, which implies that there is continuous action that is being interfered with. If the AoO really occurred before the provoking action, there would be no "normal flow" to interrupt. This means simultaneous, to me. I understand mechanically when the AoO roll is made. But that says nothing about the effect of the attack. For example, the "mechanics" of movement AoO are: Opponent moves; INTERRUPTION - AoO! You kill the guy. But at this point, there's nothing triggering the AoO. The guy's dead - and now can't move, and can't have moved - and so, strictly by the mechanics, you're in an endless loop of stupidity. That's because the mechanics answer certain questions, but not others. The mechanics of the AoO do not dictate what actually is going on - the dead guy was moving. Maybe not enough to get out of a square, but moving nonetheless. Mechanically, the AoO happens first, but the actions are simultaneous. So, although the mechanics of D&D combat require that the AoO roll be made before the triggering act, that says nothing about whene the AoO and the triggering act actually occur. And, of course, the rules for spells are exactly the opposite of the result you want for the trip AoO. Based on this, IMO it's pretty clear that a trip AoO can trip somebody standing from prone. But it can only be IMO. We're all drawing inferences from vague phrases, ambiguous results of other rules, and so on. This is a grey area. Draw your conclusions, but no one can prove it one way or the other any more than you can prove that dinosaurs were green or brown. There is a lack of evidence, of language in the rules, to come to a convincing conclusion, for anyone except those who already agree with you.
SilenceHC 10-28-03, 11:27 AM	Originally posted by split infinitude Per the SRD: Where does it say that whatever effect an AoO has occurs [b]before the act that provoked it? It "interrupts" the flow. Thus, there is a "flow" which is interrupted, which implies that there is continuous action that is being interfered with. If the AoO really occurred before the provoking action, there would be no "normal flow" to interrupt. This means simultaneous, to me. If you want to discuss the rules and not just your interpretation of them, I'm all for that. I'll start by answering your first question... I found a reference to it on my very first search, there are probably a ton more. In the Main 3.5 FAQ In the combat section talking about Coup De Gras is the line "Since attacks of opportunity are resolved before the action that triggers them, they can prevent a coup de gras if they drop the attacker." The effect of the AoO 'killing the attacker' happens before the effect that triggered the AoO 'the coup de gras' because the AoO is resolved before the action that triggers it. Reguardless of what you think 'normal flow' means, the way it is handled in the rules is given to you plan and simple. I understand mechanically when the AoO roll is made. But that says nothing about the effect of the attack. For example, the "mechanics" of movement AoO are: Opponent moves; INTERRUPTION - AoO! You kill the guy. But at this point, there's nothing triggering the AoO. The guy's dead - and now can't move, and can't have moved - and so, strictly by the mechanics, you're in an endless loop of stupidity. The FAQ says everything needed about the attack. The rest of your logic doesn't really make any sense. Here's the actual way it works- Opponent declairs his move, and begins to move. AoO occurs and is resolved. If still possible, move is resolved. Note that nothing actually changes until an action is resolved and there is no inconsistency. Declairing the move provokes the attack which is then resolved first. It's not really that hard to follow unless you are being purposfully dense. That's because the mechanics answer certain questions, but not others. The mechanics of the AoO do not dictate what actually is going on - the dead guy was moving. Maybe not enough to get out of a square, but moving nonetheless. Mechanically, the AoO happens first, but the actions are simultaneous. So, although the mechanics of D&D combat require that the AoO roll be made before the triggering act, that says nothing about whene the AoO and the triggering act actually occur. It says when they are RESOLVED, that is all that matters in the rules. And, of course, the rules for spells are exactly the opposite of the result you want for the trip AoO. No they are exactly the same. He declairs the intent to cast and begins casting. The AoO is resolved. The casting is resolved and at this point specific rules state the need to make a concentration check if damage was incurred during the AoO. Based on this, IMO it's pretty clear that a trip AoO can trip somebody standing from prone. But it can only be IMO. Based on what? Your view or desire? I'm sorry but the rules do not support you. Player declares he's going to stand from prone. AoO is resolved first (at which point the player is still prone). Stand from prone is declared and there are no special rules requiring a concentration check or stating any other requirement to get up from prone (except of course he must still be alive). We're all drawing inferences from vague phrases, ambiguous results of other rules, and so on. No, the rules are clear and unambiguous and follow a specific state of events in all cases where this occurs.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-28-03, 03:48 PM	I'm not getting the timespace theories that are allowing someone to react to something that hasn't happened. The opponent starts to stand, you trip him. Simple. its not: You hit your opponent, then he starts to stand. You're interrupting something. And by the very nature of the word interrupt, that means that there is some transition which you can interrupt. If you opponent goes prone -> standing, there's nothing to interrupt. The order is: prone -> getting up (AoO) -> standing. They didn't write that because there was an inference of basic understanding of time and space.
SilenceHC 10-28-03, 05:05 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland I'm not getting the timespace theories that are allowing someone to react to something that hasn't happened. The opponent starts to stand, you trip him. Simple. its not: You hit your opponent, then he starts to stand. You're interrupting something. And by the very nature of the word interrupt, that means that there is some transition which you can interrupt. If you opponent goes prone -> standing, there's nothing to interrupt. The order is: prone -> getting up (AoO) -> standing. They didn't write that because there was an inference of basic understanding of time and space. You completely miss the point. You seem to be arguing against someone else who told you the AoO happens before what caused it even starts. I never said that. Events are 1) Cause starts (he's beginning to stand from prone) 2) AoO resolves (-> the attack happens here <-) 3) The Cause now resolves (he goes from prone to standing). The effect of actions do not occur until the actions RESOLVE. Yes he/she has started to stand up, but according to the rules that doesn't mean anything except it's now time to resolve an AoO. The effect (Standing) does not happen until after the AoO at the point that the cause RESOLVES. This is consistent with A) Moving out of a threatened square. 1) Target beings moving out of the square (which means nothing in the rules except it's time for the AoO ). 2) AoO resolves 3) Movement resolves assuming target is still alive. B) Firing a projectile 1) Target begins to fire. (Doesn't mean diddly) 2) AoO resolves 3) Firing resolves if still alive C) Casting a spell 1) Casting begins ( Matters only due to specific concetration rule ) 2) AoO resolves 3) Casting resolves (special rules state that if damage was taken while casting a concentration check must be made) So I ask, do you wish to argue the rules or do you wish to instead try to argue about exactly when during 'getting up' the AoO occurs what you think the rules should be for this. If the former then please show me my logic error in how the rules are written and applied, if the latter please don't post a 'this is my interpretation of reality and if you use a modicum of logic then it must be yours too'. It's not in the rules. You're making sh**t up. Your houserule is just as valid as annyone else's, but doesn't have anything to do with the actual rules... neither does your interpretation of how to properly model reality in DnD. Thankyou.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-28-03, 05:17 PM	What I'm saying is that nothing says you are prone when the AoO is trigggered.
Finarin Panjoro 10-28-03, 05:35 PM	Vaalingrade, Yes there is (as we've pointed out about a zillion times already in this thread). There is the rules system which states that until your action (stand from prone) is resolved it does not take effect just like EVERY OTHER ACTION in the game. There is no middle ground of partial effect in any case except spell-casting disruption which is a specified exception. Since you cannot be standing until you have completed your stand from prone action you absolutely are prone during the AoO that you provoke. There is no other interpretation that is consistent with the way AoOs are resolved. It may not match your idea of how it works in the real world, or make sense to you in a real world context, but that IS how it works in the game.
split infinitude 10-28-03, 07:29 PM	Originally posted by SilenceHC If you want to discuss the rules and not just your interpretation of them, I'm all for that. I'll start by answering your first question... I found a reference to it on my very first search, there are probably a ton more. In the Main 3.5 FAQ In the combat section talking about Coup De Gras is the line "Since attacks of opportunity are resolved before the action that triggers them, they can prevent a coup de gras if they drop the attacker." The effect of the AoO 'killing the attacker' happens before the effect that triggered the AoO 'the coup de gras' because the AoO is resolved before the action that triggers it. Reguardless of what you think 'normal flow' means, the way it is handled in the rules is given to you plan and simple. The FAQ says everything needed about the attack. The rest of your logic doesn't really make any sense. Here's the actual way it works- Opponent declairs his move, and begins to move. AoO occurs and is resolved. If still possible, move is resolved. Note that nothing actually changes until an action is resolved and there is no inconsistency. Declairing the move provokes the attack which is then resolved first. It's not really that hard to follow unless you are being purposfully dense. It says when they are RESOLVED, that is all that matters in the rules. No they are exactly the same. He declairs the intent to cast and begins casting. The AoO is resolved. The casting is resolved and at this point specific rules state the need to make a concentration check if damage was incurred during the AoO. Based on what? Your view or desire? I'm sorry but the rules do not support you. Player declares he's going to stand from prone. AoO is resolved first (at which point the player is still prone). Stand from prone is declared and there are no special rules requiring a concentration check or stating any other requirement to get up from prone (except of course he must still be alive). No, the rules are clear and unambiguous and follow a specific state of events in all cases where this occurs. :rolleyes: How exactly do you follow "a state of events?" Anyhoo . . . You miss my point. Whether the mechanics require that the results of an AoO be determined before another action is irrelevant to whether the AoO actually occurs in game terms before the other action. You find examples where it is, I find examples where it is not. If all AoO's cause effects that occur only before the triggering action, how do they interrupt spellcasting? There are specific rules for some specific AoO's. There is not for standing up from prone. The general rules are not helpful, as they only address situations where it doesn't matter and are ambiguous. It is ambiguous. I hope they clear it up. Until then, I'd recommend using this houserule. Or, feel free to interpret the rules is disallowing it to begin with. I don't care. I really don't. I just don't see these rules as clear and unambiguous.
mercurial67 10-28-03, 08:57 PM	Just so everyone will know, I'm in the camp "you can trip someone standing up". An AoO interupts any action which provokes it. The AoO occurs after the action starts (since it has to start to provoke) but before the action finishes. This is how it interupts. Personally, I don't see how it is interpreted any other way. Being prone does not provoke an AoO. The move action (not move equivalent) stand from prone is what provokes an AoO, so you must "stand from prone" before an AoO occurs. At the point the AoO occurs, you are prone "standing from prone" since you have started that move. If they trip you while "standing from prone" you become prone again. This is where all the confusion kicks in. You are still prone, but you no longer have the move action "stand from prone" occuring since you were made prone again. You can not trip someone who is already prone, but you can trip someone who is executing the "stand from prone" move action. The move action itself is the inbetween state. On another track, it doesn't matter unless they have a trip weapon or improved unarmed strike. If they perform trips by making unarmed attacks, an unarmed attack does not threaten an AoO unless the individual has IUS. Since it does not threaten, it can not be used for an AoO.
Otto the Bugbear 10-28-03, 09:34 PM	Since this seems to have devolved into an arguement of... "This way makes sense, so I think that's the way it should be." vs. "There is nothing in the rules to support either method.", why hasn't someone just asked custserv or the sage? Here's what they have to say: The person getting the attack of opportunity can make a trip attack against a prone opponent, thus preventing his opponent from regaining his feet. **Please quote this e-mail in any reply.** **************************************** ************************** Darrin Wizards of the Coast - Customer Service Website: http://www.wizards.com Game Support Phone: 1-800-324-6496 Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 7 PM PST Corporate Phone: (425) 226-6500 **************************************** ************************** -----Original Message----- From: Otto the Bugbear Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:13 PM To: Wizards Customer Service Subject: D&D v3.5 rules question Hello, One rules question for D&D v3.5. PC-A is prone. There is an enemy in an adjacent square. When PC-A stands up, he provokes an attack of opportunity. Can the enemy use a trip attack to prevent PC-A from standing (assuming the trip attack is successful)? Or is he still considered prone when the AoO is triggered? If the trip attack is successful, can PC-A still attempt to stand up in the same round (perhaps standard action)? Thanks for you help on this matter. I know, I know, "they're unreliable", "they don't know what they're talking about", "those guys contradict themselves on every odd day", "my finger smells like butt"... oh, wait. Ignore that last one. Seriously though, the service is provided to clarify situations like this. Why should it take 100+ posts of argueing in circles for someone to ask? And then it's someone that's not really participating in the thread anyway. So there ya go. :D For what it's worth. Cheers Otto :)
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-28-03, 10:00 PM	If things can't be solved by arguing in circles, what purpose would the boards serve? ;) I mean the rules are broke sometimes -- I tried yelling on them, I tries spitting on them, but nothing seems to work :) Thanks, Otto.
Otto the Bugbear 10-28-03, 10:15 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland If things can't be solved by arguing in circles, what purpose would the boards serve? ;) heh! Oh yeah, I forgot. Cheers Otto :D
SilenceHC 10-29-03, 12:19 PM	Good job Otto. Guess they have spoken and it's the judgement that you can trip em. Wish they would give a bit more info on their reasoning instead of just here it is... oh well.
Finarin Panjoro 10-29-03, 05:12 PM	Never once have I won an argument by having customer service resolve the issue (and they usually agree with me). For one thing, a customer service reply is not "official" in the sense that it would not overrule what is written in the books. If it ain't in the FAQ or atleast from the Sage it don't mean nothin'.
Timewilltell 10-30-03, 02:15 AM	I was reading the front of this topic, so I have no clue if this issue has been resolved. Anyway, I thought I might give my two cents. Using combat reflexes and trip is impossible. Heres why: Under the letter of the law, the rules for AoO allow for "A single melee attack." The trip rule allows you to make "Melee touch attacks." If one looks in the glossary, they see that there are inputs for "melee attack" and "Melee touch attack." If there are two different entries, they are two different things, which means you cannot substitute one for the other. Therefore, when the enemy stands up and provkes a Melee attack, you cannot substitute a melee touch attack.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-30-03, 03:29 AM	uh, a melee touch attack is a subtype of melee attack. Same principle as Point Blank Shot effecting ranged touch attacks. 'touch' is a special designation that means the attack doesn't have to 'penetrate'* to count as hitting. Penetration being symbolized by armor, deflection, etc bonuses to AC.
Timewilltell 10-30-03, 09:53 AM	Yeah, thats what I was thinking. But, it was worth a shot. :ayyyy!:
Raist27m 10-30-03, 10:07 AM	Originally posted by Harmor Seems my players are abusing Improved Trip feat+Combat Reflexes and in one case Improved Trip+Combat Reflexes+Whirlwind attack. I've ruled that standing no longer gives an AoO if the defender has a weapon that can threaten you. Rather than slamming their "dirty tactics" as someone put it, come up with some of your own. Have people fighting them with reach weapons, and tripping them right back.
Emirikol 11-02-03, 11:43 AM	<font size="1"><b><u><i>Originally posted by Kalidor</i></u></b></font> <div style="float: left"> <font size="1"><b><u><i>I disagree with what Salla is stating, and here's why -- You must see an AoO of occuring before the target COMPLETES his action, not before he STARTS it. AoO's act as an "interrupt" to an action that is occuring. Don't use the MTG definition of "interrupt" in this case because it doesn't apply. If he's *doing it* then the AoO occurs before he finishes, not before he STARTS, otherwise, he's done nothing to trigger the AoO in the first place. </i></u></b></font> </div> Kalidor is correct: YES, a TRIP can be used on a person attempting to "stand up from prone," causing them to go back to "prone." You're not trying to trip a guy who is prone already. You're trying to trip a guy who is trying to stand up (Move action p. 143), trying to stand up is not "prone." It is a different category. Since the victim only used up a "move action" they can attempt a 2nd move action to get up again if tripped the first time. Attempting to stand up again, provokes a 2nd attack of opportunity only if the tripper has COMBAT REFLEXES. The prone person provokes a 2nd attack because he has not left the square yet (p.138). A person who is TRIPPED can also CRAWL 5' away and then attempt to stand up again. He incurs an AOO while crawling, but this doesn't stop him from moving 5' and then using his 2nd move action to stand up. The real question is what modifier do you use for AC? kneeling or prone jh ..
Murrdox 11-02-03, 08:03 PM	Geez you people. It's not that freaking complex. Look at how attacks of opportunities work in ALL other situations, and apply it to this situation. You'll see that it FULLY makes the case that you cannot trip an opponent who is already prone. And there is no such thing, as far as the PHB or DMG is concerned, about the "kneeling" state, so don't mention it unless you reference me a page number. Let's examine the following scenario: A wizard is standing next to a table with a fighter in front of him. If the wizard moves behind the table, he gets a +4 AC bonus for attacks from the fighter. Let's assume that the wizard has already taken his move action this turn, and thus he can't 5' step behind the table. So, his movement away from the fighter provokes an AoO. No problem there. Now, what cover bonus does the wizard receive? He's in the process of moving from one square to another. Well, he gets NONE. Until the attack of opportunity is RESOLVED, the wizard is still considered to be in the square he started in. He doesn't get a +2 cover bonus for being halfway behind the table, or anything like that. Let's look at another example. A rogue is a bit down on hitpoints, with a fighter right in front of him. He pulls a CLW potion out of his Masterwork potion belt, which doesnt' provoke an AoO. Then, he drinks the potion - which does provoke. The fighter takes his AoO, and chooses to attack the object in the rogue's hand - ie the potion. He does so, succeeds, and the potion shatters. Now, has the rogue drank any of the potion yet? No, he hasn't. He was starting to drink it, but he hasn't completed that yet. Until he completes that action, the potion counts as un-drunk, and still in his hand. Now, let's apply both these examples to standing up from prone, and why you are STILL considered to be prone until you COMPLETE the standing action. When the fighter attacks the wizard, the wizard gets no cover bonus. He's either in one square, or the other square. There is no "transitive" square where he gets a half-cover bonus to his AC because he's partially behind the table. As far as the game is concerned, the wizard declares his move, which provokes an AoO. Before that move is complete, the AoO happens, before any results from that move take effect. after the AoO, the move resolves, and the wizard can move behind the table, assuming he wasn't tripped, or had his movement otherwise impeded by the AoO. When the fighter shatters the potion in the rogue's hand, the rogue isn't in a "drinking" state while the potion is shattered. He doesn't get half the benefit of the CLW potion because he drank all of it. He's treated as having started the action, but not yet completed it. UNTIL he completes it, the potion is considered undrunk and still in his hand. This same action applies to someone attempting to stand. Until they finish standing, they're considered prone. You can disrupt someone from casting a spell by forcing them to make a concentration check by damaging them. You can disrupt someone from trying to use a skill by damaging them. This forces usually another skill check, or a concentration check. You can disrupt someone from drinking a potion by damaging them, and forcing a concentration check. If I say, "I go into my bag of holding, and root out my longsword" can I use the AoO to disarm you? NO I can't. The sword isn't considered in your hand until you've finished that action. It's not considered "partially" in your hand or anything of that SORT at all. I can't disarm you yet, because you're not armed. The same argument holds true for tripping a prone opponent. You can DO it, sure. There's nothing in the rules that say you can't trip an opponent who is already prone. However, that doesn't affect their standing action whatsoever if you were going to do it. Until they finish standing, they're still considered prone. Just like when a wizard moves, he still counts as in the square he started in, and just like when a rogue drinks a potion, he still counts as having not drank it yet, and just when somone roots around in his or her pack for an item, they don't count as having it in his or her hand yet.
Potion Smuggler 11-02-03, 09:26 PM	I'm in the "Attacks of Opportunity Bog Down The Game And Suck Mightily" camp. 1) There are too many conditions under which they happen, which are nigh-impossible to memorize. Looking at Page 141 of the 3.5E PHB, I find it hard to deny this in any fashion. It's just ridiculous. There are no less than 65 listed actions, with answers ranging from Yes, No, to the amazingly decisive Maybe. These come complete with 8 footnotes. Ridiculous. 2) It's turn-based combat. The characters should *generally* only be able to act during their turns. Pretty much the only time I allow AOO is when creatures/characters enter threatened spaces, and when they do something that completely denies them of the ability to defend themselves, such as climbing up a rope with your back turned to a monster in melee range, or casting spells when they are surrounded by multiple foes (not just one). Granted, this puts a major damper on the usefulness of Concentration on my game, as well as more than a few feats. . . But guess what, my rules apply to everybody, not just characters, but monsters too. . . Making the game remain just as fair and even-handed as before. On top of this, I admittedly also have a group that is not real big on rules lawyering. . . In fact, 2/3rds of them are perpetually unfamiliar with the exact nuances of combat. Even if they were the types that were that interested in knowing all the rules, I would never wish page 141 on even my worst enemy, as far as learning a new system goes (although the Heroes 5th Edition system remains the worst combat system in the history of mankind, as far as I can tell).
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-03, 10:07 PM	This is bloody trying. If I kill you on an AoO for moving into my threat range, you die in that square. You don't die out side of my threat range. If I stab a spellcaster as he casts and he fails his concentration check -- guess what? He looses the slot. Why? Because he was in the process of casting. You provoke an AoO in the process of standing. Not while prone.
Murrdox 11-02-03, 10:22 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland This is bloody trying. If I kill you on an AoO for moving into my threat range, you die in that square. You don't die out side of my threat range. Don't be an idiot. Know the rules before you post. You don't GET an attack of opportunity when someone ENTERS your threat area. Only when they LEAVE your threat area. You can't take an AoO against someone who is not in your threatened space.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-03, 10:46 PM	was there a reason for the verbal abuse? I meant to say with a reach weapon (ie, they come into your adjacent square) but forgot. And I get spat at. Cool your jets.
Murrdox 11-02-03, 11:00 PM	Sorry, I should have left out the personal attack. I apologize. It's been a bit of a frustrating day for me (non D&D related). ;) Anyways, in terms of a fighter with a reach weapon - if someone moves next to you, you get your attack of opportunity after he leaves your outermost threatened square. Not when he enters your threat area. U=You X=Threatened Spaces O=Opponent UXXO = Opponent outside threat range (no AoO) UXO = Opponent moves inside threat range (no AoO) UOX = Opponent leaves first threatened square and further into threat range. AoO occurs before opponent leaves outermost square. If your AoO tripped or killed your opponent when he tried this, then the setup would look like UXO, or before the opponent had moved within 5' of you.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-03, 11:07 PM	Originally posted by Murrdox U=You X=Threatened Spaces O=Opponent UXXO = Opponent outside threat range (no AoO) UXO = Opponent moves inside threat range (no AoO) UOX = Opponent leaves first threatened square and further into threat range. AoO occurs before opponent leaves outermost square. If your AoO tripped or killed your opponent when he tried this, then the setup would look like UXO, or before the opponent had moved within 5' of you. Is okay. BUT: When the opponent goes from UOX to UXO, he leaves the threatened area, provoking an AoO as he is leaving. He takes a brutal stabbing and he falls in the UXO position. Why? Because he had to leave the threatened square to provoke the AoO.
Murrdox 11-03-03, 10:26 AM	No, he falls to the ground in the UOX position, not the UXO position. He provokes the AoO before he leaves the threatened square. He declares that he is leaving that square, and then the DM interupts that action, saying it provokes an AoO, and grants the AoO to the other player. After the AoO is resolved, the player can continue moving his character away. Otherwise, if you DIDN'T have a reach weapon in this example, somehow the body of the foe would reside outside your threat range after you killed him.
mcook 11-06-03, 01:16 AM	Been following this thread with interest. The way I see it is that even if the AoO was used to trip the person standing from prone, there is nothing in the rules that says he can't complete his action, after the AoO has been resolved, and end up standing. A readied action IMO would be required to trip the opponent to a prone position again.
Hierarch Leviticus 11-06-03, 11:29 AM	Rather than bicker about it, why not just pick an option for your own game: 1. It doesn't work. 2. It does work. The DM can change any rule. I am a DM. I will take this thread as a warning to make a ruling in my game concerning whether or not it works, since I don't want to hear all this blather on the floor at a game I'm running. But that's all. Unless, of course, this has nothing to do with trying to achieve clarity, and has everything to do with wanting to win an argument against people you don't know and can't see. If that's the case, carry on.
Naeron 11-06-03, 01:14 PM	Originally posted by SilenceHC Yes! If you go strictly by the rules you cannot prevent a guy from standing by attempting to trip them. The action of standing from prone does not have any rules about any intermediate state where he's not yet standing but can be tripped. He's prone until the action is complete at which time he's standing. If YOU dislike this, then feel free to houserule it according to your view all you like. In my view of the world the proper solution for a player wanting to keep a guy down with trip attacks would be to ready a trip attack for right after the guy stands up. Yes you can prevent a person from standing by tripping them, see the bottom of this post. Having been initially doubtful I have come to agree completely that the AoO from standing from prone does not stop you standing if a trip is performed. AoO's are adjudicated at the very start of the event that triggers them, thus against a opponent standing up they definitely do apply the +4 vs a prone target. Sorry any other argument relies on a completely subjective judgement on exactly what the target MAY be doing and how far they have goth through their action before the AoO happens and is not in line with the concept of immediately resolving the AoO once the triggering action starts and that is the way the rules are written. You CAN trip someone who is standing up but they are prone when you start the trip and if successful they are prone when you finish it. The adjudication of the rest of their action is that they go from prone to standing. In essence this means that yes you can trip someone who is standing and yes you do get the extra attack if you have improved trip and you always get the +4 for them being prone, what you do not do is stop them standing up. If you want to stop them from standing up you need to ready an action to trip them once they have stood up. This gives you an AoO as they start to stand PLUS a trip attempt when they finish standing.