Small creatures and tripping - is it fair?

[RangerWickett]

I know that physics makes it such that a small thing has a hard time moving a big thing, but from a balance perspective, it's not fair to give small creatures a -4 penalty in trip attempts. They only suffer a penalty, and have nothing that balances this out. What do you think?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think that looking at trip in isolation is a reasonable way to evaluate the balance of small races.

Being small gives a bonus to AC and a bonus to hit, restricts the character's weapon choices, gives a bonus to escape artist checks, a penalty to grapple checks, and a penalty to trip checks. It makes a character unsuitable to ride a horse but able to ride wardogs and warponies--and thereby use mounted combat in dungeon environments. Small creatures generally have less movement than medium creatures. Small creatures are easier to disarm than larger creatures. It also generally results in a strength penalty from race.

On the whole, being small is almost always a bad thing for people who are involved in up front melee combat (though theoretically 3.5e two handed weapon users could power attack for their small attack bonus and more than make up the damage difference) where their disadvantages often outweigh the advantages but is often good for spellcasters for whom the advantages are mostly in the areas that matter and the disadvantages in the areas that don't.

So, I don't think that small characters are unfairly disadvantaged by the system. That said, if you reduced the penalty to trip checks to -2, you probably wouldn't break too much. (Unless this is about the whip user you mentioned in the other thread. If you've decided to fix the mess you created by allowing him to use his dex instead of strength for the trip check, I'd try out the normal rules for a while before creating another mess that will let start trying to trip six foes/round again. You might also want to check the rules for whips while you're at it--they can't be used to take AoOs in either 3.0 or 3.5 without the lasher prestige class).

 

[AuraSeer]

Every character choice has tradeoffs. The small races have advantages that work well for other character types, and their +1 to AC and attack rolls is useful to everyone. Lowered melee effectiveness is their major tradeoff.

If you want to use social skills, you don't play a dwarf; if you want to cast arcane spells, you don't play a half-orc. And if you want to trip people in combat, you don't play a gnome or halfling.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You might also want to check the rules for whips while you're at it--they can't be used to take AoOs in either 3.0 or 3.5 without the lasher prestige class).

And even then, only within 5'.

A Storm Giant Lasher with Righteous Might and Monkey Grip might be able to attack with his whip in about a seven thousand foot radius (or something like that)... but he only threatens within 5'.

-Hyp.

 

[rkanodia]

While we're (sort of) on the topic, does anyone else think the current disarm rules are somewhat braindead? I don't exactly understand the size bonus. Or rather, I don't see why it isn't always in favor of the defender, rather than being in favor of the larger character. Same goes for the light weapon/two hander weapon thing.

No, I don't think that a rapier should have an easy time disarming a greatsword... but then, how does a greatsword wielder disarm a fencer? No, I don't think that a halfling should have an easy time disarming a cloud giant... but then, how does a cloud giant manage to connect with a three-inch dagger?

To me, it seems like it would make the most sense for discrepancies in weapon types and combatant sizes should always work out in favor of the defender. Awkwardness in the situation supports him - all he is trying to do by 'winning' the opposed roll is to have nothing happen.

 

[Urbannen]

I agree that the disarm rules aren't great. I guess they are simple?

I think the +/- 4 size modifiers on combat maneuvers are bit much. Grapple, trip, and disarm are Strength based. According to the MM, the larger a creature gets, the stronger it is. A Large creature doesn't really have a +4 advantage to disarm, grapple, and trip, it has a +6 advantage.

Ideally, as a house rule I would implement a rule changing the combat maneuver modifier to "size AC/to hit modifier x (-2)", not (-4). In other words, Small creatures would get -2 to trip, disarm, and grapple checks while Large creatures would only get +2 (-1 x -2). Right now smaller creatures are severely disadvantaged when confronted with these special maneuvers, and I'm not sure how justifiable it is. (I doubt this change would get through committee, even when I start GMing again in a few months.)