James McMurray
First Post
That's one viable interpretation. The other viable one is that you don't prevent it. In the absence of clear cut rules which describe how things work, we're stuck with Rule 0.
Can you trip someone standing up?
- Thread starter 0-hr
- Start date
borc killer
First Post
Yea this caused a nasty ‘discussion’ in our group. Being able to trip someone while they are standing up is just way too good. After basically refusing to DM until we fixed it they finally figured out how broken it was. It would not have been that bad if it happened in one combat here or their but it was every single round in ever single combat for several sessions as they were in a city fighting a thieves’ guild I could not throw large monsters at them to equal it out.
We finally decided to just ban all ‘special attacks’ as AoOs. So no trips, no cleaves, no grapples, nothing but your base attack. It has been a wonderful thing and has really cleaned up our combats a lot.
Anyway just house rule it… just get the input of everyone and make it clear before it comes up again how you are going to handle it.
Borc Killer
We finally decided to just ban all ‘special attacks’ as AoOs. So no trips, no cleaves, no grapples, nothing but your base attack. It has been a wonderful thing and has really cleaned up our combats a lot.
Anyway just house rule it… just get the input of everyone and make it clear before it comes up again how you are going to handle it.
Borc Killer
MerakSpielman
First Post
It hasn't come up yet in my group. Well, they've done trip attacks as AoOs, but not when somebody is standing.
You could allow people to move 5' per round while prone, and still stand up afterwards. Maybe that would help.
You could allow people to move 5' per round while prone, and still stand up afterwards. Maybe that would help.
Korak
First Post
For the people who are terribly concerned about this being over powered, please consider the following:
1. Magic boots in Arms & Equipment Guide that make you immune to tripping for a mere 12k iirc.
2. Feat that allows you to stand from prone as a free action after a sucessful melee strike (various sources).
3. Feat that allows you to fight while prone without the -4 to hit penalty (various sources).
4. Class ability in some prestige classes that allows you to stand up as a free action with a tumble check (Kip Up, Theif Acrobat... probably others too).
In fact, my DM has instituded a standard tumble check, DC25 to stand as a free action. This is a house rule, but I think it is a good one, and serves to moderate tripping without crushing it.
Standing from prone as a free action should prevent AOOs in the same way that quickened spells do not provoke AOOs. The action happens too quickly for an opening.
None of these mechanics are straight core books, but most are from WoTC sources. I think they provide excellent alternatives to just denying a viable tactic. I was very happy to see that WoTC made trippling, grappling, overrunning, and sunderring more useful in this edition. It gives melees, and particularly pure fighters, much more variety in tactics than simply max damage, or max AC.
1. Magic boots in Arms & Equipment Guide that make you immune to tripping for a mere 12k iirc.
2. Feat that allows you to stand from prone as a free action after a sucessful melee strike (various sources).
3. Feat that allows you to fight while prone without the -4 to hit penalty (various sources).
4. Class ability in some prestige classes that allows you to stand up as a free action with a tumble check (Kip Up, Theif Acrobat... probably others too).
In fact, my DM has instituded a standard tumble check, DC25 to stand as a free action. This is a house rule, but I think it is a good one, and serves to moderate tripping without crushing it.
Standing from prone as a free action should prevent AOOs in the same way that quickened spells do not provoke AOOs. The action happens too quickly for an opening.
None of these mechanics are straight core books, but most are from WoTC sources. I think they provide excellent alternatives to just denying a viable tactic. I was very happy to see that WoTC made trippling, grappling, overrunning, and sunderring more useful in this edition. It gives melees, and particularly pure fighters, much more variety in tactics than simply max damage, or max AC.
Murrdox
First Post
Sure, you can trip them, because the rule doesn't specify that you can't trip someone who is already prone... but the trip has no effect.
Instead of the potion example, think of the movement effects of a trip attack against a moving opponent.
If someone is inside your threat radius, and moves out, he provokes an AoO from you. You use that AoO as a trip attempt, succeed, and he falls.
So which square does he fall in? The square inside your threat radius, or the square he was trying to get to?
The answer, of course, is the square inside your threat radius. Thus, your attack happens before he finishes his move. Thus, if you trip someone who is trying to stand, you trip them "before" they stand. However, they still count as prone.
SO. If you trip someone who is already prone... you simply make them prone... still. They haven't stood up yet. Your trip basically has no effect whatsoever on them, because before your attack they were prone, and after your attack they are still prone. After you resolve the "trip", they can stand up normally.
And "disarming" someone drinking a potion doesn't "interrupt" the action. It simply makes the action impossible since I no longer have the potion in my hand.
Instead of the potion example, think of the movement effects of a trip attack against a moving opponent.
If someone is inside your threat radius, and moves out, he provokes an AoO from you. You use that AoO as a trip attempt, succeed, and he falls.
So which square does he fall in? The square inside your threat radius, or the square he was trying to get to?
The answer, of course, is the square inside your threat radius. Thus, your attack happens before he finishes his move. Thus, if you trip someone who is trying to stand, you trip them "before" they stand. However, they still count as prone.
SO. If you trip someone who is already prone... you simply make them prone... still. They haven't stood up yet. Your trip basically has no effect whatsoever on them, because before your attack they were prone, and after your attack they are still prone. After you resolve the "trip", they can stand up normally.
And "disarming" someone drinking a potion doesn't "interrupt" the action. It simply makes the action impossible since I no longer have the potion in my hand.
RigaMortus
Explorer
Bauglir said:My reference is the very passage you quoted.
"Immediately resolve the AoO, then continue with the character's turn.."
ie AoO gets resolved, THEN the triggering action takes place.
I'm sorry, but you actually misquoted him here. It says:
"If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the NEXT character’s turn..."
Emphasis on NEXT character's turn. Not the current character's turn who you just tried to trip. Now obviously it wouldn't be fair to the person who you just interrupted to just skip over their turn (unless of course your AoO completely nullified the rest of their turn), so if you continue to read it says:
"(or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn)."
It was provoked in the midst of their turn, so we will complete that character's current turn... and assuming the trip was successful, that makes him fall back down. So he just expended his action to get up and can not do it again this turn.
Korak
First Post
Well, first let me say that I believe the rules on this subject need to be more clearly specified. I think my interpretation is correct and in line with designer intent. However, I acknowledge that the language hardly precludes a different reading.
That said. I think those of you who say the trip has no effect or that the trip happens before the standing, are looking at the AOO mechanic and the actions that happen as discrete states with no transition. I think the choice of the word "interrupt" in the description of how AOOs work is key to my reading of the rule. Interrupt is an entirely separate word from words like; preclude, precede, preempt, forestall. Interruption suggests that some action is already going on before being paused in the sense of game mechanics so that another action can resolve. This is quite different from the AOO anticipating the action that triggers it and happening wholly before the trigger action. The very fact that something can be interrupted indicates that it is not an instantaneous change from one state to another, i.e. prone to standing. That is why damage from an AOO forces a concentration check for spell casting. The damage didn't happen before the casters began casting, it happened while the caster was casting. When the stand from prone action is interrupted by an AOO, and then defeated by the trip, the tripped opponent must try again to stand up. The trip check on the AOO is very similar to the concentration check from damage taken in an AOO. If the caster fails his check, he loses his spell and must try again. The next attempt is another, totally separate standard action. Likewise, the opponent who fails his opposed trip check and falls prone while trying to stand, has failed to stand, and his next attempt to stand constitutes a new, totally separate move action.
I hate that the rule was written as it is. When I first read the rule, I didn't immediately go through all of this language parsing. I just saw that standing up provokes AOOs and said, "Yeah, that makes sense, it would be really hard to stand back up without lowering my defenses. Sure, it would be pretty easy for someone to knock me back down as I was trying to get up. Then, it would require me to try again to stand up(extra move action)." However, all this common sense is for naught when the wording of the rule is loose enough for other interpretations are not precluded.
Yes, tripping is a powerful mechanic. But, it is limited to a certain size of enemies, it requires a 13 int for melee characters, a two feat chain, and an opposed roll. It is also counterable in some of the ways I listed in my previous post.
That said. I think those of you who say the trip has no effect or that the trip happens before the standing, are looking at the AOO mechanic and the actions that happen as discrete states with no transition. I think the choice of the word "interrupt" in the description of how AOOs work is key to my reading of the rule. Interrupt is an entirely separate word from words like; preclude, precede, preempt, forestall. Interruption suggests that some action is already going on before being paused in the sense of game mechanics so that another action can resolve. This is quite different from the AOO anticipating the action that triggers it and happening wholly before the trigger action. The very fact that something can be interrupted indicates that it is not an instantaneous change from one state to another, i.e. prone to standing. That is why damage from an AOO forces a concentration check for spell casting. The damage didn't happen before the casters began casting, it happened while the caster was casting. When the stand from prone action is interrupted by an AOO, and then defeated by the trip, the tripped opponent must try again to stand up. The trip check on the AOO is very similar to the concentration check from damage taken in an AOO. If the caster fails his check, he loses his spell and must try again. The next attempt is another, totally separate standard action. Likewise, the opponent who fails his opposed trip check and falls prone while trying to stand, has failed to stand, and his next attempt to stand constitutes a new, totally separate move action.
I hate that the rule was written as it is. When I first read the rule, I didn't immediately go through all of this language parsing. I just saw that standing up provokes AOOs and said, "Yeah, that makes sense, it would be really hard to stand back up without lowering my defenses. Sure, it would be pretty easy for someone to knock me back down as I was trying to get up. Then, it would require me to try again to stand up(extra move action)." However, all this common sense is for naught when the wording of the rule is loose enough for other interpretations are not precluded.
Yes, tripping is a powerful mechanic. But, it is limited to a certain size of enemies, it requires a 13 int for melee characters, a two feat chain, and an opposed roll. It is also counterable in some of the ways I listed in my previous post.
James McMurray
First Post
Your "counters" are (IMO) crap.
Should the DM give every humanoid opponent the party faces some magic item or feat that allows them to avoid a rules loophole just so they don't have to spend the entire battle on their butts? Of course not. Just fix the hole and move on.
Should the DM give every humanoid opponent the party faces some magic item or feat that allows them to avoid a rules loophole just so they don't have to spend the entire battle on their butts? Of course not. Just fix the hole and move on.
RigaMortus said:
I would just like to say that I agree with Murrdox. Everyone is trying to strictly use the rules, but most people insert an additional state between prone and standing. There is no "crouching" or anything inbetween in D&D. If you are not standing, you are prone. Therefore, tripping on an AoO means you are tripping them before they are standing. So they are still prone. The result of a trip attack only says that they are prone when you succeed. It doesn't say that they are "sitting", "on their back", "on their face" or any other probable result of a trip. Who's to say that the trip didn't make them prone on one knee or in more of a crouching position? (you are still prone because you can't walk normally).
If you just use the rules where there is the state of "prone" and the state of "standing", then you cannot prevent someone from standing with an AoO.
That is true if you think about real life... but if you go by the rules, it doesn't speak of how a person is actually situated while prone... only that it is not standing and that it requires a move action of "standing up" to regain "standing" status. I could argue that moving past people who attacked you with normal AoO's would also interrupt the muscular action used to complete the maneuver. However, if the PC is still standing, he can continue his move after the AoO. The same holds true for standing up. If the person used a trip attempt, at the end of the trip attempt, the person would still be prone, which is the only requirement to use the "stand up" move action. so he could continue and be standing at the end of his move action.Korak said:
