Does performing Trip attempts every round ruin Suspension of Disbelief?

That's fair. For 4e, my fix would probably be to have a basic Trip and a whole bunch of powers that knock people prone. Another solution would be to develop a whole bunch of power SFX you can stack with a power by spending something or by taking a voluntary penalty. In fact, that's not a bad idea at all . . .

Maybe another "fix" would be to say that standing from prone is just a minor action. Or is a "ends at the start of the creatures next turn" condition, so it's only a maneuver to grant your allies combat advantage. (but note that this makes bullrush very weak in many scenarios)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's fair. For 4e, my fix would probably be to have a basic Trip and a whole bunch of powers that knock people prone. Another solution would be to develop a whole bunch of power SFX you can stack with a power by spending something or by taking a voluntary penalty. In fact, that's not a bad idea at all . . .
There was someone on the gleemax forums that came up with the idea of tactical feats that you can use once per encounter to add some variety to an at-will power. I created trip, disarm, and sunder as at-will powers anyone can use, but I'm thinking of changing them to encounter powers that have a chance to refresh.
 



Mechanically speaking, what do you want as a result from a Trip attack, anyway? With HP = physical damage having left for parts unknown without a forwarding address, doe sit matter why a particular character has been impaired for that combat (as represented by loss of HP?) You can still grapple (somewhat ineffectively I'll admit). Some hits may knock the opponent prone, but by the time it's their turn, they have gotten up again. Every so often, it takes them a bit of effort (a Move action) to do so - they were subject to the prone condition in the meantime, because the attacker used a power that left them prone. Note that it does NOT provoke an opportunity attack to stand back up again - so you can explain a "basic attack" as including a knockdown effect and the target gets back up immediately without having the attacker wonder what happened to his OA.

Take this (off-the-cuff) example:
"OK - you slam your shield into his and hook his leg out from under him with your own. He falls back, and a you raise your sword to finish him off, he rolls to his knees, deflects your blow, and launches himself off the ground at you, forcing you a step back as you parry his counterattack."

Mechanically, you make a basic attack that hit, and on his action he returns an attack, which missed.

If you're looking for MECHANICAL advantage for something, you have to use a power. That's a core rule of 4th Ed combat. Depending on the mechanical advantage, the power is usable less often. That's mechanics.

In description, though - he can use it all round every round and twice on opportunity attacks. It's just that the situation is such that the target can get back up before the attacker/allies can take advantage of the situation, etc.
 

Mechanically speaking, what do you want as a result from a Trip attack, anyway?
In real life, tripping an opponent makes him extremely vulnerable to getting kicked and trampled (by just about anyone nearby) or stabbed (by anyone with spear), while making it almost impossible for him to attack (except to kick near his feet) until he gets up.

A spectacular trip can actually be a high-amplitude throw, knocking the wind out him, breaking bones, knocking him out, or even killing him. The amount of damage is highly random, but a hard surface helps.

A takedown resembles a trip, but the attacker follows his opponent to the ground, gaining control, from which he can "ride" and wear down his opponent, go for a choke or joint lock, or stab through a chink in his opponent's armor with a dagger (misericorde). This leaves the attacker vulnerable to his opponents' allies though.

Then there's the larger point that a trip or takedown doesn't just succeed or fail; defense typically means a sprawl or a clinch, often with plenty of shifting.

And an attempt to move an opponent, like a bull rush, can easily knock him down.
 


In real life, tripping an opponent makes him extremely vulnerable to getting kicked and trampled (by just about anyone nearby) or stabbed (by anyone with spear), while making it almost impossible for him to attack (except to kick near his feet) until he gets up.

A spectacular trip can actually be a high-amplitude throw, knocking the wind out him, breaking bones, knocking him out, or even killing him. The amount of damage is highly random, but a hard surface helps.

A takedown resembles a trip, but the attacker follows his opponent to the ground, gaining control, from which he can "ride" and wear down his opponent, go for a choke or joint lock, or stab through a chink in his opponent's armor with a dagger (misericorde). This leaves the attacker vulnerable to his opponents' allies though.

Then there's the larger point that a trip or takedown doesn't just succeed or fail; defense typically means a sprawl or a clinch, often with plenty of shifting.

And an attempt to move an opponent, like a bull rush, can easily knock him down.

Uh, yeah. I competed in wrestling in high school; you don't need to sell me on the advantages of knocking your opponent down or grappling with him.

So you are looking for a mechanical advantage - which is where the use of powers comes in. If you get a mechanical advantage out of it, it's a power. The amount of times per day you get a mechanical advantage out of use of a power is proportional to how powerful that mechanical advantage is.

Like I said in my previous post, you can trip, knockdown, etc your opponent until the cows come home if you like. But only under certain circumstances can you or your allies then take advantage of having done so before your opponent can recover from the disadvantaged position. Since getting up does not provoke an attack (barring a power's specificity overriding the generality of Standing Up does not Provoke an OA), it doesn't break the Disbelief Suspenders that a basic attack described as a knock-down followed by the target springing back up doesn't provoke.

You're asking that a trip attack generate a mechanical advantage each time it's performed, and that this be a Basic Attack. That just doesn't work in the 4E philosophy. Basic Attacks are just that, basic. And for game balance, a power that grants the mechanical advantage of applying the Prone condition to an opponent for a round is apparently considered overpowering by game design for an at-will power (I can't find another at-will power that grants all allies Combat Advantage against an enemy on a quick read-through, at any rate).

Some attacks described as tripping could be push, pull, or slides mechanically as well - opening up more powers to be used as trips.

I am seeing that if you insist on a 1:1 correspondence between mechanics and description in 4E combat, you will be disappointed. It's not built that way. Description of actions may or may not tell you what rule was used to generate it (a charging shield bash could be the description of about a half-a-dozen powers or even a basic attack) or what the mechanical effect will be (depending on the power used, the target could be pushed, slid, damaged, or have a condition applied). So a player saying "Gobsmack the brawler attempts to knock down his opponent" has no mechanical meaning. Is he using a basic attack, Tide of Iron, Covering Attack, Spinning Sweep, Steel Serpent Strike, Dance of Steel, Dizzying Blow, Griffon's Wrath, Shift the Battlefield, Thicket of Blades, Talon of the Roc, Warrior's Challenge, or a non-fighter power.

Tide of Iron is a very good one for this, actually - it's an at-will power that attempts to knock your opponent around. In some circumstances (where the opponent can't retreat to maintain his footing), you can actually make your opponent Prone till his next action. That's mechanics. Descriptively, you might have pushed him back hard enough to make him stumble, or even go to a knee or do a somersault, but he's not down for the roughly 6 seconds a round takes.

Spinning Sweep is an Encounter power, true, but all that means is that when you attempt the move, you may not have knocked the opponent down for long enough for it to matter. Sure, you tripped him or what-have-you, but he rolled with the blow and sprung right back up before you could follow up.

In short, anyone can trip at any time, but if circumstances don't favor it, the opponent can recover before he is mechanically disadvantaged. The trip attack did HP damage (as almost all attacks do), indicating that it used up some of the target's short-term burst endurance (and may have done some minor physical damage), but the target scrambled back to their feet/rolled with the blow/etc. Some people have extensive training in keeping the opponent down, and can lay them out for a couple of seconds before they recover their equilibrium.
 

I competed in wrestling in high school; you don't need to sell me on the advantages of knocking your opponent down or grappling with him.
I'm not trying to "sell" you on grappling; I'm enumerating the advantages and disadvantages of various grappling tactics.

And, to be clear, those are the things the character is thinking about, so I'd like them to be the things the player is thinking about too. I don't mind a little bit of meta-game sugar to help the medicine go down, but I don't want to play an RPG that is almost purely a meta-game.

As I said earlier, it's not a problem if a trip attack doesn't always work. In real life, not all take-down attempts work flawlessly. It's also not a problem that the wrestler sometimes shifts his opponent rather than taking him down. In fact, that's quite realistic.

The problem is that the player is making a decision about which of these happens, and he has limited numbers of each outcome to choose from.

It's all handled in a very meta-game fashion, which some people obviously don't mind, but others mind quite a bit.
 

No. I agree with Pawsplay -- a fighter with a specialized attack in real life is most likely to use it over and over as long as it's working. It's up to the opponent to actively come up with a counter, if any.

Admittedly if you're doing comic-book or movie-style fighting, then you're likely to see a special attack only 1-3 times within a given story. But that isn't a "suspension of disbelief" issue, that's an "I like my fights cinematic" issue, if you so prefer. Personally I do prefer my D&D games without this particular added barrier to suspension of disbelief.
If that fighter has a specialized attack and the opponent doesn't have a counter, the opponent is toast. If the opponent has a counter, the first fighter has to have a counter or is toast. This goes on for the 5-10 seconds a duel with swords took on average. If you do the same thing once without killing, you better don't do the same thing again since your opponent is in the mindset to counter it.

The above is true for swords. Martial arts are different since you most often can take a punch and remain standing. OTOH, there are many maneuvers you see maybe once or twice per fight and you defenitly don't see them repeated time after time. After one roundhouse you can't do another, the opponent is too prepared for that.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top