Balance to resist Trip attempts?

[Coredump]

Harry, I hope you realize that we agree on this....

I am always amazed that people believe knights would willingly go to war in armour that they can't stand up in. And I love the 'drown in a puddle' bit

 

[HarryFlashman]

Coredump, yeah,i was just backing you up.

 

[Plane Sailing]

IMC I allow a DC25 Balance check to negate a trip attempt and a DC30 Balance check to negate a bull rush attempt.

Balance is such a marginal skill that I'm completely happy with rewarding the character who chooses to sink skill points into it.

Cheers

 

[MarauderX]

I like the idea. And instead of using ability checks make it a skill check. I know a few rogues that would agree with this after getting repeatedly swept by a ranger then thumped. And it adds usefulness to a skill catagory that not many sink any points into.

Game mechanic idea...
Balance check vs. DC of trip attempt +10 might be an easy rule. The tripper rolls a d20, adds in Str, size, etc. The tripped needs to beat that roll and modifiers +10 to avoid being tripped. At lower levels the tripped would often fail, but if they sink more skill points into Balance they can roll to avoid the attempt. Will there be a break point in no one being able to trip the character? Sure, it would be similar to Tumble IMO, where anyone with 15 ranks can beat a DC 15.
But you have to get those ranks first, and it wouldn't be as easy. A fighter trips another fighter and has +8 for is trip check. He rolls a d20 and gets a 19. Added together it's a 27, then add another 10: DC = 37. Ouch. OTOH, a rogue trips another rogue with a +4, and rolls a 2, +10: DC=16. Not too bad at all if the target rogue has some Dex and ranks in Balance.

Players would have a whole new motivation to sink ranks into the skill. But it would add some complication to the opposed roll, perhaps slowing down your game a bit more. Eh, it's worth it IMO.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Sure, it would be similar to Tumble IMO, where anyone with 15 ranks can beat a DC 15.

It turns out that you need a lot less than 15 ranks... what with +2 synergy from jump and +4 from Dex I see 4th level rogues (7 ranks) regularly making the DC15 tumble checks...

 

[jessemock]

OT: I hope you are not refering to tripping knights so that they could not get back up, and might drown in a puddle....

That is pure hollywood hogwash. Knights in full armor could run and jump and had no problem getting up or getting on their horses.

Apparently, you've never heard of the Battle of Agincourt?

No; I'm not entirely serious about the 'drown in a puddle' thing, but it's indisputable that a guy in armor is simply not as mobile as a guy not in armour. That's why stories about people who displayed exceptional mobility in armor were, well, exceptional.

The AC Penalty that would apply to a skill check made to resist a trip makes sense.

 

[MarauderX]

It turns out that you need a lot less than 15 ranks... what with +2 synergy from jump and +4 from Dex I see 4th level rogues (7 ranks) regularly making the DC15 tumble checks...

Right. The point was that once you reach the 'break point' it would be impossible to defeat the Balance check. With the DC mechanic above, the DC would change and be higher than the typical tumble check, requiring PCs to keep investing ranks in the skill if they want to ensure success. Even 20 ranks in the skill would not guarentee success if you incorporate the above, which is why I like it.

 

[HarryFlashman]

Jessemock, in my above post i said this;

While armour might have reduced your mobility and reflexes it was only a relative limit rather than an absolute one.

You are right, Armour does reduce speed and mobility and is well reflected in D&D but it is a relative reduction. The Armoured Knight is slower than the Cloaked bandit but the Knight is not "slow" by any means nor is he unecessarily clumsy, just slower and clumsier than the unarmoured bandit.
part of the trip attenpt should be about weight of the target, training of the target and ability of the assailant. If the armoured opponet chose to try to maintain his blance rather than regularly resist the trip attempt then yes, Armour penalties should come into play, otherwise I would leave them out.

 

[jessemock]

If the armoured opponet chose to try to maintain his blance rather than regularly resist the trip attempt then yes, Armour penalties should come into play, otherwise I would leave them out.

In accord. Related question: does an opposed str. check make sense to you, anyhow?