Trip and Stay down

[Zack2216]

( you can not get an AoO mor then once on any one person, per round.... ) your standing...

He has a point here. Under combat reflexes in the 3.5 SRD, it says you can't get more than 1 attack of oppurtunity on the same person in a round.

Anyway, I think you guys are confusing yourselves, and putting to much thought into this. The stand action provokes AOO's right? You can use a trip attack instead of a normal attack when making AOO's, right? Therefore your 'state' shouldn't matter. You do the action, he hits you for it, or he could trip you. If he successfully trips, you are on the ground again. If tripped guy tries to stand again, however, he gets to stand without fear of an AOO.

What would suck though, would be to trippers double teaming a single guy (say a monk, and a rogue just for kicks). Instead of having the rogue have improved trip, give him levels in psi war so he could use stand still to just stop him from moving period (I am using this combo as a boss encounter soon. I hope they enjoy the challenge).

 

[Waldo]

He has a point here. Under combat reflexes in the 3.5 SRD, it says you can't get more than 1 attack of oppurtunity on the same person in a round.

Check again?

COMBAT REFLEXES [GENERAL]
Benefit: You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus.
With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Normal: A character without this feat can make only one attack of opportunity per round and can’t make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Special: The Combat Reflexes feat does not allow a rogue to use her opportunist ability more than once per round.
A fighter may select Combat Reflexes as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A monk may select Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat at 2nd level.

And under the combat chapter:

If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. 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.

Sorry, but 3.5 is not the same as 3.0 in this regard.

 

[Snipehunt]

Greybar, I think you were right on.

 

[Camarath]

Originally posted by Caliban
If you are moving and I trip you, your movement is ended.

If you are spellcasting and I hit your, your spellcasting might be ended (pending concentration check).

If you are standing up and I trip you, you standing action might be ended (pending trip attack resolution).

It seems pretty simple to me, and in the spirit of the rules, given the existing precedents.

In case one your movement options change eliminating the possiblity of completing your action thus ending it (i.e. your actions end not because you were tripped but because you are prone). I do not believe being tripped wile casting would end your action. Since I can't find change in state or any governing rules that would prevent the completion of the stand up action, I don't think it should be ended be a trip. I do not believe that a trip was meant to end any action. I believe it only ends those action that would be made unavailable by being prone.

Originally posted by Caliban And I do think that by the rules, you can indeed interrupt someones action and end the action, whether it's spell casting, moving, or standing up.

I if you could post a rule reference for this it would be greatly appreciated by me. A lot of people seem to be under this same impression. But I can not find anything that says all actions are interrupted and ended (that is what you meant right) by an AoO. The only actions that apear to be ended by an AoO either have rules for that situation or are prevented by a change in your state (i.e. movement stopped by a trip or an attack sequence stopped by loss of a weapon). Also "An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round" that is it interrupts the flow of actions not the action that provoked it. If you could post the rules, that I have missed, that say all action are ended by AoO that would be nice.

 

[Camarath]

Anyway, I think you guys are confusing yourselves, and putting to much thought into this. The stand action provokes AOO's right? You can use a trip attack instead of a normal attack when making AOO's, right? Therefore your 'state' shouldn't matter. You do the action, he hits you for it, or he could trip you. If he successfully trips, you are on the ground again.

The traget's state matters because if the traget is prone he would not be "on the ground again" after a trip he would still be prone i.e. he had not regained his feet yet. How would making a prone character prone change anything? If nothing changes to prevent the completion of the action why would the action be ended? ON the other hand if he is not considered prone then he has IMO gained the benefits of completing the action before he actually completed the action.

 

[Caliban]

The traget's state matters because if the traget is prone he would not be "on the ground again" after a trip he would still be prone i.e. he had not regained his feet yet. How would making a prone character prone change anything? If nothing changes to prevent the completion of the action why would the action be ended? ON the other hand if he is not considered prone then he has IMO gained the benefits of completing the action before he actually completed the action.

And I think you are thinking to hard about the rules. It's a simulation, not reality. If you examine any simulation under a microscope, it breaks down.

 

[Camarath]

And I think you are thinking to hard about the rules. It's a simulation, not reality. If you examine any simulation under a microscope, it breaks down.

It is a simulation and if you abrogate the rules of the simulation based on a perception of realism it will inevitably break down as well.

 

[Caliban]

It is a simulation and if you abrogate the rules of the simulation based on a perception of realism it will inevitably break down as well.

I'll try to give a more coherent response later, I really don't have time right now.