Trip is an Encounter Power now

[Li Shenron]

Come up with an In-character reason to explain the meta-reason.

It looks all too clear to me that the majority of the current D&D gamers base is not interested in this, or at least they don't consider this essential anymore to the game. 4e clearly prefers meta-reasons over in-character reasons as design devices; when they can get both they certainly do, but it is evident which of the two is considered primary.

In this regard, I guess I have certainly become a grognard. I can't play a game that gives me a hard time finding in-character explanations. I can do that sometimes, and could even be fun, but not as a basis. I want rules that can support our in-character ideas, so that I first have the idea and then I find a rule that matches, and not the other way around. And I want to feel like it's me there in place of my wizard, so I expect I can act in the game pretty much like I could act in life, except that I'm on steroids and shooting spells.

I suppose that must be the core reason why Kamikaze and I can't agree with the others?

 

[Imp]

So they've gone to a more practical, playable approach in 4E. Sure, they're expecting you to provide a sensible narrative, but I think that's better than trying to derive narrative from clunky mechanics that are either ignored or abused, like 3E trip.

If you've got a better mechanic, I'd love to see it. The 4E mechanic isn't my baby, so I'm not opposed to abandoning it for something better. But so far none of the few proposed solutions have really done anything to mitigate the problems of 3E trip in a believable way.

Fair enough – the 3E mechanic isn't my baby either and I stated earlier that I don't particularly hate the 4E approach. Shake?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I can think of a few two man katas I've seen where it happens even more frequently than that.

Let's keep it the 3E way, where a guy can trip a trained opponent every six seconds. If you've ever seen a real fight, or have any understanding of fighting, there's no way you can 'grok' that; it's wildly unrealistic.

 

[The Little Raven]

I can think of a few two man katas I've seen where it happens even more frequently than that.

Real fights aren't choreographed, like katas are.

 

[Li Shenron]

Good breakdown!

There is three major issues all in conflict here:

1.) Tripping is a valid combat tactic anyone should be able to try.
2.) Tripping should be powerful enough to make it a valid combat tactic.
3.) Tripping should be difficult enough to use so that its not prone to abuse.

3e did 1 and 2 well, and failed 3 poorly. Ask anyone who has seen a imp trip/spiked chain/OA trip-monkey about that. If you disagree with this point (trip is easily broken) your out of the discussion, please move on.

Now, what can we do to fix this?

Me, I'd like to "fix" it by removing 2. as a design target. The concept of a warrior who is better at tripping than he is at bashing or just generally, the "tripper archetype" is not so strong in my own fantasy that I absolutely need it in the game... Instead, I prefer to keep 1., because I'd have trip as a poor fighter's tactic rather than a possible fighter's specialization. Matter of taste.

As for "fixing" it without dropping any of those 3, the only way I can think about is to make 2. more costly, by reducing the cost of each improvement you take (something similar that was done to Spell Focus and increasing spells DC).

This way, the basic use of tripping is marginally useful, to make it valid costs something, to make it very good costs significantly, and to make it so good you'd only want to trip should either cost outrageously or just not be possible.

Really, all the problem I see is that the Improved Trip feat is too generous as a feat (I don't remember, has it even been empowered by 3.5?).

Just tone Imp Trip down or split it into 2-3 separate feats, and consider these two as well:

a) forbid tripping as an AoO (why does it have to be allowed? AoO is already a non-realism-based artifact anyway)

b) don't make standing up provoke an AoO, like in 3.0 (neither more than less realistic than the opposite)

 

[Falling Icicle]

It's not that it would be too difficult to remember, its how do you balance it. Either you make it really hard to do, or give very little advantage, in which case it will rarely get done so when someone does decide to do it, it's time to break out the rulebook (like grapple in 3rd Ed). Or you make it straight forward or with a significant advantage, in which case at least one player will do it every round to keep the opponent on the floor or getting up and suffering penalties (like the folks that exploited trip in 3rd Ed).

The optimal situation is that the pros are strong enugh to make it worth the action spent doing it, but that its cons discourage repeated use. This is not impossible. If it was, we wouldn't have rules for things like bull rush and grapple. Why don't people grapple every turn? Because it's not always appropriate or advantagous to do so. Combat options are just that - options. The problem in 3e was that for a fighter with improved trip, it was almost always a better option to trip than to make a regular attack. As for tripping being done excessively, it was only ever people with that feat that attempted trips on a regular basis, in my experience.

I think requiring you to have combat advantage against the creature would make sense and be a well-balanced way to approach it. It would also fit with what the martial artists in the thread have been saying. Combat advantage is exactly the kind of "opening" they're talking about. Either having trip require combat advantage and/or provoking an opportunity attack are certainly, in my opinion, adequate discouragement from using them continuously. Just because tripping was arguably an overpowered and cheesy in 3e doesn't mean that it can't be a balanced attack option in 4e.

Or you try and reflect the genre of fantasy film and fiction, straight forward, gives a significant advantage, but still only occurs rarely. You don't see everyone tripping all the time in the fantasy genre, hence it needs to be a per encounter power, not a at-will one.

No, it doesn't. The two biggest problems about it being a per-encounter fighter power are that it's only available to fighters and that it puts an artificial constraint on it. What if it's strategically sound to trip more than once in a fight? Why shouldn't one be able to try?

Also, having it as a power means that fighters that have it will actually be strongly encouraged to use it in every single encounter, otherwise they will feel as though their choice of encounter power went to waste. You may actually see tripping used more often this way than otherwise, simply because the fighter will figure that since he has this encounter power, he might as well put it to use.

Improved Trip was only part of the problem it's not that tripping gave the character a free attack, it's that every other PC standing near the critter got an AoO as it stood up. So it was much more than one free attack.

So then don't make standing up from prone provoke an opportunity attack. Treat it as a variant of "shifting." That, or allow people to shift via rolling on the ground, so that they can get to safety before getting up. That said, depending upon how hard it is to trip someone, the AoO for getting back up may not be a problem anymore.

 

[Bagpuss]

My possible solution, using 4e-speak:
#1: Tripping is a standard action melee attack vs. Reflex. A successful attempt knocks the victim prone. A failed attempt gives them combat advantage against you on their next turn.

The penalty for failure is a bad idea. It means people that aren't good at tripping will never try it, except in unusual circumstances leading to the problem of having to refer the rule book (for all the additional rules you've added below) on those odd occasions. But others with max out there attack vs Reflex so they can always do it successfully and the penalty becomes an none issue. This repeats the problems of 3rd Ed.

The usual common sense rules apply to tripping, like, you can't trip something that is flying, and you can't trip a slug. If it's a corner case, use the Great Equalizer of a -4 penalty on the attack role (grapple, disarm, sunder, etc. all would basically follow this mechanic).

What about things with more than two legs, size modifiers, etc?

#2: While prone, you give those who threaten you combat advantage. You can fight from prone; the Great Equalizer (-4 penalty) applies to your attack rolls.
#3: You can stand up from prone as a full-round action to avoid provoking opportunity attacks from those who threaten you. You can also "roll away" by shifting. Or get up as a move action and take an OA, you maniac.

So if you've been tripped you can roll away, but if you are crawling you suffer an OA for all movement, making it an advantage to be tripped?

#4: Those proficient in tripping weapons add their proficiency bonus to a trip attempt. Improved Trip negates the combat advantage if you fail. Reach works like it does in 4e.

Again allows people to specialise in tripping.

#5: THE RULE OF DIMINISHING RETURNS: Any time you repeat an attack on a target you've already tried to hit with that attack, they gain a +2 bonus to resist it. This is cumulative: if you attack someone 5 times with an attack you've hit them with once, they gain a +10 bonus to resist it. This applies to all attacks everywhere at all times. The reason? Fool me once, shame on me, fool me...you can't get fooled again. (again, all attacks would follow this mechanic). It goes away at the end of the encounter.

So eventually no one can hit anyone because they have seen your standard attack so many times before? If it only applies to certain special attacks then this becomes a new rule to look up when you use those attacks, and another thing to keep track off.

I've use Trip once against opponent A so he's at +2, twice against opponent B so he's at plus +4, I've used my normal attack twice on A so he's +4 for that, and I tried to sunder B once so he's +2 for that. A has tried to grapple me once so I'm +2 for that but has attacked me three times so my AC is +6 against his normal attacks, B has tried to grapple me once and sunder me once so +2 against those....

Nightmare.

#6: THE RULE OF MULTIPLE OA's: Whenever you provoke OA's from multiple creatures for the same action all at once, they get to choose one person to make the OA. Generally, this will be the one that can bone you the hardest.

This confuses me, we should I suddenly lose my my ability to make OA's because my friend can make one? I thought you were against arbitrary lose of ability.

 

[delericho]

Real fights aren't choreographed, like katas are.

Cinematic fights, like 4e is trying to model, most certainly are.

 

[Simon Marks]

Cinematic fights, like 4e is trying to model, most certainly are.

Then realism is irrelevant and the argument "Tripping multiple times in a combat will get dull" is perfectly valid.

 

[delericho]

You manage to suspend disbelief when Legolas uses a stops Spliting the Tree after Fellowship of the Ring, even though it would be really handy at Helms Deep. It's a convention of the genre that killer moves only occur once a fight (encounter) or film (daily). You manage to suspend disbelief in the movies.

Legolas was obviously operating under a superlative and cinematic stunt system, where a character gains access to various stunt components based on their skill and feat selection (so that Legolas has access to the vision, movement, balance, climbing and archery stunt components), where a stunt is allowed if the character has the right stunt components available, and where a stunt gains a huge bonus on the roll only on the first time it is used.

So, if Legolas wants to balance on the back of the Cave Troll, and drill it with two arrows, then he must have the balance and archery stunt components (which he does). He must then make the Stunt roll (probably a balance check vs a suitably high DC; he gets a bonus for a unique stunt). If succesful, he then makes an attack roll for double damage (and probably an auto-crit).

Of course, if he tries it a second time then he certainly can... but he doesn't get the 'unique stunt' bonus.

Adopting such a system into D&D would have the down-side of requiring greater DM flexibility than is currently assumed in 3e (and probably will in 4e) - it's more suited to advanced players in the same way that Iron Heroes is.

However, doing so also deals with the three components of the 'trip problem':

1) Characters can try (whatever) as often as they like.
2) (Whatever) can be powerful enough to make it a valid choice.
3) (Whatever) can be difficult enough to prevent abuse - sure, your trip monkey can try to trip as often as he likes, but unless he can build new and unique stunts to go with it, he's probably going to fail.