Does performing Trip attempts every round ruin Suspension of Disbelief?

[Quantarum]

double post

 

[Quantarum]

We had a "disarm monkey" in my currently ending campaign, using sai he had very little chance of failing to disarm foes even eight-ten levels above him. He even sent giant's weapons flying a good bit of the time. What might seem cool, or even logical in theory can easily turn out tiresome and dull in practice. Even the player said the game should be called "Disarms & Trips". I'm not going to miss it one bit.

-Q.

 

[hong]

Right, so that once a day power can only be used on one enemy. No? Not to mention the enemies that aren't BBEG's and aren't minions either. Right?

Yes, there is indeed a gradient of weak to strong opponents. Just as there is a gradient of class powers to match, from at-will to daily. This is the third time I am explaining this to you.

In a simulation I'd be able to attempt to trip, with a chance for success, more than once in a whole day. So this argument makes no sense.

In a simulation of a STEVEN SEAGAL MOVIE, which is the context that YOU brought up, tripping multiple opponents is handled by minions. If you fail to have fun in the context that YOU brought up, that's your problem.

So again, you're problem is with 3e's mechanics fo tripping...not the fact that a character based around doing this often in fights breaks verisimilitude or is objectively annoying. Ok but we aren't discussing 3e's rules for tripping were discussing the act itself within a game context.

Tripping is sure as heck annoying. Even in 4E where it's less annoying it makes you lose a move action, grants combat advantage, and effectively roots you to the spot if you want to use a special power.

Anyway I'm through hong, we won't see eye to eye so we don't really need to discuss it anymore.

See you tomorrow, then?

 

[BraveSirRobin]

Actually I brought up the Steven Segal example as a cinematic one...however when someone claims it's not realistic, well then I will also bring up realistic one's as well.

Again, is it realistic to have continous weapon locks and throws against armored opponents?

 

[Imaro]

Again, is it realistic to have continous weapon locks and throws against armored opponents?

I think it is realistic to allow people to attempt it. Unrealistic is setting a finite number of times something can be attempted within a day without any chance of success whatsoever beyond that, regardless of skill, talent or training.

 

[Greg K]

Now I personally find tripping every round to be stupid. The guy keeps falling for the same thing? I would think after say the 2nd or 3rd time he's put two and two together and stop. If I was running a 3.5 game again I would start applying a running bonus to the oppnent's roll based on the number of trip attempts the player's done. +1 on the 2nd time, +2 on 3rd, +3 on 4th, etc going up. Eventually your not going to pull that anymore.

Watch San Shou fighter Cuong Le fight. His opponents know that he uses a lot of sweeps, leg scissor takedowns, and slams. Yet, he successfully utilizes these maneuvers multiple times a round let alone a match.

 

[Cadfan]

Since there aren't really, well, any unarmed combat rules whatsoever, isn't saying "You can trip a lot with martial arts" sort've pointless? There's no martial arts in the ruleset. Yet.

Yep. I've been trying to figure out how to say, "Isn't all of this just a fancy way of saying that the rules don't support the Monk yet?" But I couldn't figure out how to do it.

Unless people really are defending the spiked chain machine gun tripper. I'm pretty sure they aren't though.

At the moment, I can create an Iron Vanguard Fighter, who can push people at will, push them in fancy ways a few times per encounter, trip with two encounter abilities (technically could be three, but I'm assuming the level 1 trip gets replaced with a better one at higher levels), and trip with two daily abilities. This is a viable (even optimized) character. He knocks his foes around like pinballs.

So... lets try to keep this grounded in reality. 4e lets you trip your opponents and knock them about pretty frequently, even including only the core rules powers. This is not a debate between "once per fight" and "whenever my style justifies it," this is a debate between "a couple of times per fight, plus you get some other stuff to round out your style," and "over and over and over and over because 'my style' really means my only combo attack."

For a guy in heavy armor fighting with a weapon, what we have seems a plausible amount of tripping.

And honestly, there's nothing wrong with describing the last attack versus an enemy as knocking him to the floor and finishing him off. I was doing that in 3e, for crying out loud. I can do it in 4.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

I think it is realistic to allow people to attempt it. Unrealistic is setting a finite number of times something can be attempted within a day without any chance of success whatsoever beyond that, regardless of skill, talent or training.

So we traded a system that gave us an unrealistic result for a system that has an unrealistic mechanic?

 

[Doug McCrae]

My disbelief is permanently suspended so I don't have a problem with the spiked chain uber-tripper on that basis. My objection to the build is far stronger - it's boring. One trick ponies always are.

 

[Imaro]

My disbelief is permanently suspended so I don't have a problem with the spiked chain uber-tripper on that basis. My objection to the build is far stronger - it's boring. One trick ponies always are.

This I can agree with.