The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[BryonD]

And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this: How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf? How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?

The difference is, you are equating external players choices with internal rules boundaries.

As has already been pointed out, your personal experience is not indicative of the boundaries of 3E experience. I readily agree that 3E *can* be played in a "trip-limiting" manner. But the relevant point is that it need not be.

 

[Stormonu]

And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this: How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf? How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?

Both games have very hard and fast mechanical limitations on trip. The only real difference in my mind is that 3e puts them at the front and 4e puts them in during play.

Actually, in the 3e game, I would use an "untrained trip or disarm" on occassion at low levels (up to about 3rd level). Above 3rd, it was much more likely that the "untrained" attacker couldn't pull it off without being struck in the process.

And I think this was deliberately built into the system - at low levels "anyone" can benfit from wild/unusual attacks, but as both attacker and defender become more trained, you're better off sticking to what you know, and the system encourages you to pick up "specialization" - or pay - for special attack types. At higher levels, 3E rewards you for "training" in these attacks, definately attempting to show value in the improved line of feats. 4E takes this one step further by replacing the "improved" feats with powers available to certain builds.

 

[Hussar]

I notice that despite protestations about how people's character's might have used the trip mechanics without the feat, no one bothered mentioning how often opponents actually did it.

Also, as per your point in the previous paragraph, the mechanics dictate what's going to happen. With no trip mechanics, tripping an opponent is only going to come up in unusual circumstances; but once mechanics for it get introduced then tripping as a tactic becomes way more frequent - just because of the mechanic's existence. All this accomplishes is to add another layer to the combat rules, an extra headache for something that has already been proven (by play in prior editions) to be unimportant.

Is it that it was unimportant so no one did it, or is it that there was no mechanical support, so no one did it? I'm not sure you can claim one or the other really. Prior editions had only very rudimentary social interaction rules, but, I think most players do want them. Prior editions had very rudimentary skill systems, but, again, considering that nearly all RPG's now come with skill systems of some sort, I would say that skill systems are now considered to be pretty important.

The difference is, you are equating external players choices with internal rules boundaries.

How can you separate them though? One is going to have massive effects on the other.

Take another example - magical item creation. Magic item creation in AD&D was more or less free form. There were some basic guidelines, but, largely it was left to the individual group to figure things out. 2e flat out said that you couldn't buy magic items for any price and creating magic items was again the province of very, very high level campaigns.

Move on to 3e. 3e made magic item creation rules very concrete. To make Item X, you needed this feat, this spell and this amount of money and xp. You know, absolutely, how much it costs and how difficult it is, to make any magic item in 3e D&D.

This had to have a big effect on play. The proliferation of wands for one thing dramatically changes how the game plays out. Add in a wand of cure light wounds and suddenly the party has virtually unlimited healing outside of combat. It's a trivial cost after about 4th level for every character to carry one.

That, right there, can completely change the pacing of the game.

I really don't think it's possible to separate player decisions from internal rules boundaries. Player decisions are always going to be influenced by those rules.

 

[pawsplay]

I notice that despite protestations about how people's character's might have used the trip mechanics without the feat, no one bothered mentioning how often opponents actually did it.

For my part, I thought it went without saying. Reminds me of a battle with a hydra...

 

[Lanefan]

Is it that it was unimportant so no one did it, or is it that there was no mechanical support, so no one did it? I'm not sure you can claim one or the other really. Prior editions had only very rudimentary social interaction rules, but, I think most players do want them.

I'd disagree with this, for the most part; IME social interaction is the province of free-form roleplaying.

Prior editions had very rudimentary skill systems, but, again, considering that nearly all RPG's now come with skill systems of some sort, I would say that skill systems are now considered to be pretty important.

To some extent I'll agree with this.

Take another example - magical item creation. Magic item creation in AD&D was more or less free form. There were some basic guidelines, but, largely it was left to the individual group to figure things out. 2e flat out said that you couldn't buy magic items for any price and creating magic items was again the province of very, very high level campaigns.

Which meant that such things could be happily ignored by the game, as the game is centered on in-the-field adventuring characters rather than stay-at-home artificers.

Move on to 3e. 3e made magic item creation rules very concrete. To make Item X, you needed this feat, this spell and this amount of money and xp. You know, absolutely, how much it costs and how difficult it is, to make any magic item in 3e D&D.

This had to have a big effect on play. The proliferation of wands for one thing dramatically changes how the game plays out. Add in a wand of cure light wounds and suddenly the party has virtually unlimited healing outside of combat. It's a trivial cost after about 4th level for every character to carry one.

And by making magic item creation both available to low-level characters and relatively quick and easy for PCs to do between adventures the designers to a large extent broke their own system.

I don't mind them codifying the item creation rules. The mistake was placing item creation so squarely in the purview of field adventurers instead of keeping it way - way - in the background where neither players nor DMs have to worry aboutit much if at all. But the way it came out, of course players are going to jump all over it. Of course it's going to affect the game.

Just not in a good way.

Lan-"would you like a potion with your wand today?"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

The mistake was placing item creation so squarely in the purview of field adventurers instead of keeping it way - way - in the background where neither players nor DMs have to worry aboutit much if at all. But the way it came out, of course players are going to jump all over it. Of course it's going to affect the game.

Just not in a good way.

So, so true.

 

[BryonD]

How can you separate them though? One is going to have massive effects on the other.

They are completely separate. Yes, they have effects on each other. Calling them "massive" is arbitrary. I think "massive" is more accurate to describe the distinction between rules which limit behavior and tendencies which actual game play can and does completely ignore.

Take another example - magical item creation.

Very good and interesting topic. But you have moved from talking about the effect of rules limitations to the effect of rules putting specific power in the player's hands. And, more specifically, it is not really a topic of "the PC's now have the power", but whether the access and costs to these powers are fitting to the rest of the game system.

It has some superficial similarities, but in substance is not very relevant to the prior conversation.

Though it truly is a very good conversation in its own right.

 

[BryonD]

For my part, I thought it went without saying. Reminds me of a battle with a hydra...

VERY apt analogy.

 

[Abraxas]

I notice that despite protestations about how people's character's might have used the trip mechanics without the feat, no one bothered mentioning how often opponents actually did it.

Given that I said tripping came up often I didn't think I had to specifically say the NPCs tried to trip the PCs often enough - so - Opponents did it as often, if not more, than the PCs did - in fact it was incredibly useful for mooks to effectively give the big fighter types a -4 to attack or give their mook allies a bunch of free attacks at a bonus when the fighter tried to stand.
In the games I had played in all the special combat tactics were used - they were useful. Sure they may have been situational, but when those situations came up - they were great - and IIRC those situations came up often enough.

 

[Lalato]

[MENTION=1266]Abraxas[/MENTION]... I'm confused on this because I don't see how your experience invalidates Hussar's claim that because trip was explicitly in the rules, that it was used more often. I should note, however, that your experience varies wildly from my 3.x experience where only those with Improved Trip actually used it with any regularity... even at low levels. So I'm also wondering if your experience where trip was being used all over the place is more of an outlier. Or is it that my experience is more of an outlier.