New Trip Mechanic

[jonrog1]

Hey, kids, I think although we may all snipe about degrees, from "completely broken" to "good enough", I don't think anybody is deliriously happy with the trip mechanic. I think I have something here, and I'm looking for feedback.

Now, as a guy who's gotten elbow-deep in the mechanics of a bunch of d20 systems trying to make his Dark*Matter homebrew work, I've got a few rules for tweaking any mechanic.

1.)It can be no more, and hopefully much less complicated than the existing mechanic.
2.)The tweak should impact as few other game techniques as possible.
3.) It should strive for cinematic elegance. By this I mean it should conceptually cover as many situational bases as possible so that you can imagine the moment passing in a movie and it just seems cool as it goes by, and makes intuitive sense. Weird, I know, but it's the writer in me. Clunky is the enemy.

Many threads have cited specific problems with the trip mechanic. From "Why can't I trip with a quarterstaff" to "Why does improved trip make me just as likely to be tripped back?", etc. But the cardinal sin, to me, is the logic bump that's floating subconsciously under all the problems:

Why can't a nimble guy trip a big clutz?

Jackie Chan felling a huge opponent. A quick drop-spin-kick and our lithe monk stands over his vastly larger enemy. A moment gone by in a million movies, a moment that MAKES SENSE. The dextrous guy's advantage is his dexterity.

Why is a skill, whose improving feat is on the Expertise Chain, still so dependent on strength? It's just counterintuitive.

Let me pitch out the new mechanic, then we'll run it through some examples -- not NUMBER-CRUNCHING examples, but situational examples where I think we'll find the adventure moment results more satisfying.

the new TRIP:

1.) To trip an opponent, make a melee touch attack. In this attack, if you desire you may use weapons designed for tripping, or any weapon ONE-SIZE OR MORE LARGER than your opponent.

2.) If the touch attack succeeds, it is now the DC for your opponent's REFLEX SAVE.

3.) If your opponent fails the save, he is tripped. If he succeeds, he may now make a free trip attempt on you -- i.e the melee touch attack, forcing a REFLEX SAVE on your part.

This is the basic mechanic. Now, I would suggest -- although it is not necessary -- that the trip feats be divided into"

IMPROVED TRIP: You may make trip attacks and your opponent may not attempt to trip you in return. (So it's now structured like every other "Improved" feat ...)

FOLLOW-UP: When you make a successful trip attack, you may then make an attack at the same base attack ... (etc. etc., what is right now the "Improved Trip" feat in Core Rulebook I.)

To keep the posts reasonable length, we'll examine this in the next message.

 

[RogueJK]

Might I suggest the House Rules forum...? It's much more suited for this sort of thing.

http://test.cyberstreet.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=45

 

[jonrog1]

Okay, now:

1.) Is it as simple as or more simple than the existing mechanic?

I think so. I make a roll, you beat it. Then you make a roll, and I beat it. One roll accomplishes two things -- checks for the validity of the attack and sets the difficulty of the response.

2.) Does the tweak break other mechanics?

Nope. Any other attacks depending on Trip -- Overrun for example -- still function the same. You can integrate this version of the Trip melee attack into anyplace you can do an attack. End of a charge, for example. All the size bonuses, etc. still apply.

3.) Does it just seem to make more sense situationally?

I think so. Let's run through some game moments, see if the results make sense.

A.) A big lummox tries to trip our nimble thief Alexander. The lummox connects with his attack, sticking out a leg or shoving Alex -- after all, Lummox is a professional bone breaker (fighter class). Alex makes his Reflex save, twisting out of the way, and tries to trip Lummox back ...

Now here is where some of you may be thinking "Hey, Alex has an unfair advantage, we can't have little weenies tripping our fighters left and right." But classes with high Reflex saves have LOW attack bonuses. So odds are, unless Alex is attacking with a weapon specifically made to trip, he won't make his melee touch attack, and he won't make a hard enough contact with Lummox to trip him. And even if he does get lucky, he GOT LUCKY.

If some fighter has high Dex and high Reflex Saves, then this is a specialized character who's followed this specialized attack path, and is about to be rewarded for his efforts.

B.) Alex decides to try to trip Bob the Unusually Light on His Feet. Bob is so nicknamed by the other fighters because of his high Dex and the level of rogue he took. Alex somehow makes his melee touch attack. (He can't take advantage of his own high Dex, really, as most weapons you can take Weapon Finess with aren't big enough to be used in the attack. Got to be larger than the opponent to be used.) Unlike Lummox, Bob is rewarded for taking a few ballet lessons with the Rogue's Guild, and by virtue of his higher Reflex Save is not brought down. When he kicks back at Alex, Bob connects (he is a fighter), but Alex is more likely not to be brought down by his attempt.

C.) Jack the Druid wields his quarterstaff. He starts whacking Alex's shins with it in melee (making his touch attack), and because the thing's so cumbersome (large size), Alex has to consciously avoid falling over it.

This is just where I am now. There are some variations to consider -- what I need to know is, which one makes the most sense to you in D&D?

Variations:

a.) Trip mechanic as is, but make sure the counter-trip involves another melee touch attack (Spycraft rules). This alone makes a huge amount of sense, and I'll use it as the base for all future variations of "as is."

b.) Trip mechanic as is, just add the "Larger than opponents" weapon size tweak.

c.) Trip check like grapple check. AoO, melee touch, opposed checks of (BASE ATTACK + STRENGTH OR DEX + SIZE), then countertrip mechanism basically the same without the AoO. That is, you basically opened yourself up with your own attack.

d.)Use the Melee Attack/Trip DC mechanic, but your opponent trips you if he beats the save by more than 5 or 10. This could also work with the "Opposed Trip Check" variation. Might bring about the same feelign I get now, though -- odds are, if I fail the trip check, than no matter what feat I took, I'm goinbg down on the countertrip.

e.)Just add an AoO to any of the above.

f.) Leave the mechanism "as is", but fix the feats.

Phew. All right, let the crunchy game goodness begin!

 

[jonrog1]

House Rules? Should have thought of that, sorry. Just stumbled across every "Trip" discussion in this forum, so this is where I brought it. I'll move it over right now.

Thanks.

 

[Darklone]

Bad chance to make a reflex save against a melee touch attack. That's nearly impossible at higher levels.

 

[0-hr]

So a halfling can trip a brontosaurus more easily than he can trip an orc? Maybe you should put in some sort of size modifier...

 

[Corwin]

I think your efforts have merit. However...

I know you see the major limitation inherent in your new system. Most fighter types are very easy to hit with a touch attack. Many, even at higher levels, are in the AC 12-14 ballpark. That's the problem with being a tank.

So now the rogue or monk can easily tag the tank and push him over. Nearly guaranteed every time. Not good.

That's a huge game balance problem. The big, tough fighter shouldn't have to spend every round getting up from the ground simply because he wears armor.

IMO, a simpler fix would be to require opposed attack rolls allowing the mechanic to include BAB (instead of just strength). Something akin to the grapple check. That way, the first level half-orc fighter can't just run around tripping the 15th level elven monk all day long just because he's much stronger.

You could even fuse the two ideas and allow the "save" you suggest to be a Grapple-esque attack roll rather than a Reflex save. The DC set by the initial touch attack.

[editted for clarity]

 

[jonrog1]

So a halfling can trip a brontosaurus more easily than he can trip an orc? Maybe you should put in some sort of size modifier...

Ah, sorry, should have made that clear. As per the first rule of tweaking, all the standard modifiers -- size, stability, etc. apply to this mechanic. You can only trip opponets up to one size larger than you, I believe. Or that's what it should be.

The High level BAB-as-save problem is one I should have spotted -- I was busy mucking about with low-level guys. But as Corwin mentions, the mechanic AS IS in the PHB lets a 1st level orc go shoving 15th level Elves about with impunity.

For my version, I'm locking in on "Any weapon built for tripping, or any weapon one-size or larger than the opponent's size category." It makes sense that I can trip you with a quarterstaff, but not a Giant. Suggestions?

And I'm liking Corwin's mutant grapple check. Now, how do we make it as close to the grapple check mechanic as possible for system elegance?

How about:

1.) Melee touch attack (AoO or no AoO, let's let that sit for a moment)

2.) "Trip Check" -- BAB + (STR or DEX, your choice) + WEAPON MODS + SIZE MOD, applying all penalties.

3.) If you win, then you trip your opponent. If you lose, he stays up and gets to trip you back. How?

Three options come to mind --

3a) He has to cycle through the touch attack/trip check again.

3b.)He just makes the opposed trip check with no touch attack -- you"opened yourself up" when you went for the trip.

3c.) He gets to make the trip check if he beat the first one by 5 or more (or 10 or more, you get the idea.) The concept here is that you only put yourself off balance if you REALLY blew your trip attempt, or tried to trip someone WAY out of your class.

Comments, criticisms?

 

[Corwin]

OK, here is the way I think we may try it today in our game (This will probably end up screwing me at some point, since I'm the one who uses trips so much with my monk)...

1) Make a melee touch attack that does not provoke an AoO (as normal).

2) If successful, opposed checks.
A) Attacker rolls: BAB + STR + Size + possible stability bonus (+4).
B) Defender: BAB + STR or DEX + Size + possible stability bonus (+4).

3) If attacker successful, defender prone.

4) If defender successful, reverse trip possible.

Basically it's a modified grapple.

Am I missing anything?


BTW, a few quick notes:

- No more size limit. If you want to try and trip a great wyrm dragon, go for it. And good luck to you, man.

- You can still use trip weapons as normal to avoid the counter trip.

- Basically all I did was add BAB.

 

[Happiest_Sadist]

I think you should just use you attack roll with the weapon, the defender uses only BAB+DEX/STR+size+stability or the defender may make a balance check instead. (It would be harder to trip someone who is good at not falling over, and it makes balance more worthwhile.)

This means that the attacker can become better at tripping with feats, and magic weapons are better for tripping than normal weapons. This seems right to me. The defender can become better at not being tripped too.