Dealing with Improved Trip.

[hong]

Wow. Improved trip isn't that hard to deal with if you just think of it while planning your adventures.

Why "deal" with it, when you can remove the problem at the source?

I've been running with a Psion who actually uses a spiked chain/improved trip combo for...levels 3-14 now. Our DM had it figured out by level 5 and started blessing him with the "you can't trip this" jank. Now he just uses dominate or something fun.

Exactly. You end up in exactly the same situation as if you'd just removed tripping in the first place. And if you remove tripping in the first place, you don't face problems with pulling a player's schtick out from under him, in the middle of play.

 

[kamosa]

All of the special attacks (tripping, disarming, sundering, grappling) are dubious, because they're really variations on called shots. As such, they become hard to deal with unless you specifically tailor a build to take them into account. Tripping, however, is probably the most annoying.

What I'd do is tell the guy that his schtick is spoiling the game for everyone else, and to come up with an alternative. To be fair, also let him swap Improved Trip for another feat.

I agree Hong. I think in the next game I will ban the improved versions of all these attacks or even outright ban them. I never feel like the game is improved by a character using these tactics and more often then naught I end up having to crash on them as a GM to keep them from using these tactics.

 

[Amal Shukup]

I agree Hong. I think in the next game I will ban the improved versions of all these attacks or even outright ban them. I never feel like the game is improved by a character using these tactics and more often then naught I end up having to crash on them as a GM to keep them from using these tactics.

!

As a player and a as a DM, I LOVE that combat has all of these options. SO much better than "I swing, I miss. I swing, I hit... Yawn..." etcetera, ad infinitum...

Sure, hyper-specialized PCS tend to have extreme advantages in certain situations, but that specialization comes at a cost - so simply make them pay up. Players have lots of options in the core rules. DMs have all of those options too plus tons more besides. Artificially stripping Players of those options strikes me as a poor solution.

IMHO

A'Mal

 

[Scion]

We have a dedicated marshal tripper in our party, it is hardly imbalancing at all.

First, the touch attack may miss. Sure it isnt likely, but it has happened. Plus, rolling a critical on that attack just doesnt do much for you.

Then you have to make an opposed str check. It is possible to fail this as well, sometimes things are easier, other times harder.

After that, if the creature was tripped, then you get a bonus attack which can also miss. Sure the creature is now on the ground, but there are options from that angle as well. Sometimes it is even preferable position as ranged attacks get a penalty.

Of course, we have simply removed the +4 that the feat grants. So maybe that is the overall simplest solution. There have been no problems so far.

 

[RCanning]

I don't want to get rid of the combat options, because I like them. However, they get really annoying when used over and over and over and over....

The problem here I think is players who spend hours working out the best combinations, and then using those almost exclusively. It removes all flair from the game. I liked feats because they added options so that no two fighters were identical, but it seems that as time is passing, they are becoming more identical again as the best combos are worked out.

It is always easy to come up with an "in character" reason to use the combo; of which this Improved Trip is just an example. The same can be said for Disarm and Sunder. The problem is there is no easy way of dealing with this. The rules have a wonderful method for allowing this, but sometimes I think there should be a skill or something for defending against them; though I can see problems with this as well.

The way I am going to try today is to give all the bad guys a +1 stackable circumstance bonus to their defending rolls against trip or disarm for each of their companions that has already failed the roll. Basically, as they see it happen to more of their friends, they start paying attention to this. I might have to take something off their attack rolls to of-set this, but I will see how it goes.

Richard Canning

 

[kamosa]

!

As a player and a as a DM, I LOVE that combat has all of these options. SO much better than "I swing, I miss. I swing, I hit... Yawn..." etcetera, ad infinitum...

Sure, hyper-specialized PCS tend to have extreme advantages in certain situations, but that specialization comes at a cost - so simply make them pay up. Players have lots of options in the core rules. DMs have all of those options too plus tons more besides. Artificially stripping Players of those options strikes me as a poor solution.

IMHO

A'Mal

Normally I agree with your statements. But, I find I trip, it works, I trip it works as a poor substitution for I swing I miss, I swing I miss. Both are yawn city. I wouldn't consider having improved trip as a highly specialized fighter that paid a hight price either. With all the bonus feats this is one of the really easy paths to take a fighter, so I don't consider it a hard road worth protecting.

I don't have much of a problem with the normal versions of these, but the improved stuff just gets old when a player takes it. I hate to slant all the monsters to having high touch attack numbers and high strength, just to pick on one tactic. That seems unfair to the rest of the party that is using touch attacks and have low numbers of hitpoints (High strength = high damage bonus and short work of low hitpoint characters).

 

[Dimwhit]

You playing 3.0 or 3.5? It makes a difference. You think Improved Trip is nasty (I love it by the way), but the geniuses at WotC decided in 3.5 to make standing up from prove an action that provokes an AoO. So not only is that guy tripping a lot and getting that attack while the opponent is prone, but as soon as the guy tries to stand up, there's another attack.

I think Improved Trip is perfectly reasonable, though 3.5 made it a TON tougher. And, as mentioned, the Halberd isn't a reach weapon. I'd just go with it. He has a good combo going. And a pretty basic one at that.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Ugh. I wouldn't touch Improved Trip with a 10' pole in a game with that house rule. The +4 to the trip check is what made the feat worth it--otherwise, it's a feat that let's you try something you're going to fail more than 50% of the time unless you've got a really maximized strength.

Without the +4 it's pointless against barbarians (who are raging and usually have a higher strength than your fighter), about 50/50 against fighters (who usually have a similar strength to your fighter--or maybe slightly lower. It's pointless against rogues who have high touch ACs and can oppose with their dex (which is probably higher than your strength). And, it's not very good against clerics who usually have a decent strength if they're in melee and may well have Divine Power or Righteous Might to make them impractical to trip.

A much better way of nerfing the feat if you think it needs nerfing in the rules rather than in the encounter balance would be to remove the AoO for standing up from prone.

Of course, we have simply removed the +4 that the feat grants. So maybe that is the overall simplest solution. There have been no problems so far.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Normally I agree with your statements. But, I find I trip, it works, I trip it works as a poor substitution for I swing I miss, I swing I miss. Both are yawn city. I wouldn't consider having improved trip as a highly specialized fighter that paid a hight price either. With all the bonus feats this is one of the really easy paths to take a fighter, so I don't consider it a hard road worth protecting.

Here's the thing though. Combat generally isn't a series of "I trip, it works, I trip, it works." Even with +15 on the trip roll, it's still quite possible to fail. Get a day when the player's dice are cold and he's up against competent foes (in this case, I think they were +8), and it can easily be "I trip, it doesn't work, I trip, it doesn't work, I lose my weapon, I trip it doesn't work, I fall prone. Screw this, I just hit him." (I know that happened to my character in more than one game). And that's against the kind of foes who are practical to trip. There are a lot of foes who aren't. (If everything in D&D were balanced against the assumption that all your foes would be humanoids of medium size or smaller, it would be a very different game).

I don't have much of a problem with the normal versions of these, but the improved stuff just gets old when a player takes it. I hate to slant all the monsters to having high touch attack numbers and high strength, just to pick on one tactic. That seems unfair to the rest of the party that is using touch attacks and have low numbers of hitpoints (High strength = high damage bonus and short work of low hitpoint characters).

Well, high dex foes would work too since they can resist with their dex as well as their strength. And low hit point monsters work well too since they are actually easier to kill by the dozens with power attack and great cleave than they are to destroy with trip attacks.

But don't avoid high strength, high damage monsters either. The fighter's job is to deal with such monsters so if there is one in the mix of bad guys Mr. Tripper is the one who's supposed to take it on. (If the rest of the party is using touch attacks, I'm guessing he's with a bunch of wizards or something).

 

[Scion]

Ugh. I wouldn't touch Improved Trip with a 10' pole in a game with that house rule.

Ahh.. so you really disliked the 3.0 version then I take it. We are playing 3.0 with some good things taken from 3.5, so it is still mostly 3.0 thankfully. No aoo's from standing, and the tripmasters tripping is powerful, but not overpowered in the least.

Not that it would matter a lot, with the aoo from standing you cant be retripped. So that gets rid of most of the abuse there, gaining the extra attack is a bit much at times though. Good thing I dont have to worry about it

Like I said, it works perfectly in my current game. If others are having problems with the 3.5 version, and the one I am useing is perfect, then there must be something going for the way I am doing it