Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1393227" data-attributes="member: 3146">Nice try. If you trip at reach (due to Enlarge Person--not that any trip monsters would get that cast on them--or a guisarme--not that any trip monsters use those) greater than your opponent, he can't reach you from the ground and therefore cannot attack--even at a penalty.And, as for twisting the core rules, you're actually twisting them into pretzels just by attempting to trip someone in the action of standing up. For all that you claim (based upon common sense) that prone and standing are not binary conditions, they are in the rules. You either get the +4 bonus for striking a prone target or you don't. If you do, he's prone, if you don't he's not, and there's no in between state. Your "interpretation" requires you both to invent a new state between prone and standing and to add standing up to the list of actions that are interrupted by AoOs. I don't think that interpretation has any kind of rules legs to stand on. And, given the choice between an interpretation of the rules which is balanced, accurate to the letter of the rules, and doesn't get silly unless someone is trying something really cheesy and game-breaking (in which case, the game has stopped making sense anyway) and an interpretation which is imbalanced and false to the text of the rules, but makes sense when explaining why someone's silly, cheesy strategy is dramatically more effective than it ought to be, I'll take the first one every time.The constant tripping machine is just as silly as saying you can't be tripped while standing. Since we're even on silliness, give me balance.</blockquote>

Verification