Question on mechanics of Trip

[azhrei_fje]

The description for Trip says,

The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid.

What do you, as a GM, consider the "more stable" phrase to mean?

I had a situation recently in which a player tried to trip a large creature with a huge weight advantage. We're talking a 5,000 lb giant vs. a 250 lb Medium-sized human. Would that qualify as "more stable"?

I'm thinking that each doubling of the defender's weight over and above the attacking creature's heavy load rating should add +2 to the defender's opposed roll. For example, if a 250 lb fighter has a heavy load of 500 lb (for arguments sake), then a 1,000 lb defender should get a +2 bonus. If the defender is 2,000 lb the bonus goes up again. And at 4,000 lbs, the defender would have a +6 bonus.

What do you think?

 

[Animal]

imho "more stable" here refers to "stability" as in dwarves' racial feature.

 

[blargney the second]

That's what the +4 from going up a size category is supposed to represent.

 

[jaelis]

Yes, a Huge giant could only possibly be tripped by a Large creature, and even then would get a +4 bonus for his size. The other +4 bonus is for more that two legs, the dwarf racial feature, or any other racial quality a DM might decide is appropriate. (For instance, I would probably grant the extra bonus to a treant.)

 

[moritheil]

What do you, as a GM, consider the "more stable" phrase to mean?

As jaelis points out, creatures like centaurs and bauriars have more than two legs and qualify as "more stable." This is stated in the bauriar entry.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I had a situation recently in which a player tried to trip a large creature with a huge weight advantage. We're talking a 5,000 lb giant vs. a 250 lb Medium-sized human. Would that qualify as "more stable"?

No. Weight is not very relevant to being trip-resistant. It's a little relevant perhaps, thus the simple modifier for size, but not enough to implement in D&D.

Regardless, should you desire to continue in your modification, you should use the pull/push limit, not heavy load. You are certainly not trying to lift anyone, just push/pull them over. So, someone with a max load of 500 pounds would not have a penalty against any opponent of 2500 pounds or less. In your rule, the 5000 pound giant would only get a +2 bonus.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Regardless, should you desire to continue in your modification, you should use the pull/push limit, not heavy load. You are certainly not trying to lift anyone, just push/pull them over. So, someone with a max load of 500 pounds would not have a penalty against any opponent of 2500 pounds or less. In your rule, the 5000 pound giant would only get a +2 bonus.

Excellent idea -- I'd forgotten about the "push/pull" numbers and only remembered the "load" numbers. And as the push/pull numbers more accurately reflect what a trip is trying to accomplish, that works great.

Thanks.

 

[Elethiomel]

Excellent idea -- I'd forgotten about the "push/pull" numbers and only remembered the "load" numbers. And as the push/pull numbers more accurately reflect what a trip is trying to accomplish, that works great.

Thanks.

I disagree. Weight helps the tripper just as much as it hinders the tripper - gravity works to the tripper's advantage, inertia to the tripper's disadvantage. It balances out.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I disagree. Weight helps the tripper just as much as it hinders the tripper - gravity works to the tripper's advantage, inertia to the tripper's disadvantage. It balances out.

How does it balance out when the force you are applying to overcome inertia is not in the same direction as the force of gravity? If you say it "balances out" are you actually suggesting that the amount of force you apply to topple something over is equivalent to the amount of force required to lift it?

 

[Gloombunny]

How does it balance out when the force you are applying to overcome inertia is not in the same direction as the force of gravity? If you say it "balances out" are you actually suggesting that the amount of force you apply to topple something over is equivalent to the amount of force required to lift it?

He's pretty much saying the exact opposite of what you seem to think he's saying.