Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Korak" data-source="post: 1340919" data-attributes="member: 9781">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.</blockquote>

Verification