Trip is an Encounter Power now

[Moochava]

Point the first: They don't happen at your table. You never have to adjucate the result of a cat or catlike creature (possibly a wildshaped halfing druid) facing off against a commoner (because you choose to wave it away).

No, it's because "fight commoners with cats" isn't interesting enough to occupy my time. Maybe one day I'll have a sixteen-event cat-vs-commoner elimination tourney in one of my games and OH NO the verisimilitude will be destroyed because the cats do better than the commoners, but I doubt it.

But more to the point, a person should be able to walk up and try to knock another person over. They might get a sword in the gut for their troubles, and they might not have a terribly good chance of success if they haven't practiced, but it's something that I think is important enough to have rules for.

Would you like to point to the page in the 4E PHB where it say that characters can't do this? Because my copy of 4E is in the other room and I really don't want to stand up to get it.

You know, I'm just going to go ahead and name it the Kamikaze Midget fallacy, since he's explained it so many times.

Please don't burden Mr. Midget with your strawmen. My point is that the per-encounter powers in 4E are no more "poor" than the hit point mechanics in 3E. I'm fine with both.

The 4E trip mechanic was broken by spiked chains and Improved Trip offering free attacks; remove these two problem elements (heck, even remove one of them) and you limit the problem.

Previous attempts on this thread to "limit the problem" with various mechanical contrivances have been shot full of holes; I won't repeat them here.

Plus, if you have the level of mechanical optimization that leads to a gatling-tripper build, then you should be thankful that the player isn't playing a primary caster (or a druid).

So, just because something is poorly done for casters...

Abilities that cause unexplained narrative editing are poor communicative tools to allow the characters to understand the universe.

Hit points are not a tool for understanding the universe. They're a tool for 1) providing mechanical drama and 2) providing plot-immunity. Their interaction with the universe is tertiary at best, and always involves some hand-waving.

Now, you obviously really hate hit points since your objections to per-encounter powers apply to hit points as well, but I'm happy to use them because they make my game run smoother. If you're so opposed to hit points, may I recommend Greg Stolze's excellent Reign, which does not have clumsy mechanics like hit points that cause the unexplained narrative editing that you so strongly dislike?

Even though it shows my ignorance of the problem due to never having had one of those in one of my games...but what's the big problem about the combination of Spiked Chain and Improved Trip?

Cast enlarge person; trip incoming targets; trigger attacks of opportunity all around; step back; when enemies close, trip incoming targets; trigger...

It got silly. And the thing is, there are ways for the DM to work around it, but as Bagpuss points out, "working around the problem" means, basically, the DM taking full control of how effective the chain-tripper will be in any given combat. The solution is as unsubtle as an antimagic field or are room where you can't teleport due to "magical radiation." I don't like builds whose only defense is a brute-force annulling of their effectiveness.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I agree that they worded it badly.

However, I think that constant tripping is more damaging to SoD than a limited use trip attack. Have you ever thought about the connotations of trying to trip someone with a sharp, pointy object that they are trying frantically to stick into every part of your body, while dodging and feinting and trying actively to prevent you from doing the same? It becomes even more fun when your hands are full, too.

The once-per-encounter trip ability works for me because it represents to my mind the one time when the warrior manages to set his opponent up for the attempt. He's skillfully maneuvered his foe into a position where tripping is possible under the circumstances. He can't do it constantly, because it's all about grasping a fleeting opportunity.

And as for mages not being able to trip, for example? Well, if a bookworm tries to trip an ogre, I'd expect that the next result would be the bookworm lying on the ground screaming, missing a leg. Melee combat is fast and deadly. I'm fairly muscular because I split all my own firewood after dragging it back from the forest, but I know that I don't have "combat reflexes." I would require quite a bit of training before I could even hope to trip someone proficient in fighting (say even a mid-level karate student). In other words, I would have to multiclass into fighter before I'd have a realistic chance of tripping someone who was trained to fight. If my penalty was anything like realistic at the moment, it would be -30, not -4.

So, the rule works for me. There's a lot of difference between "trying a trip" and "trying a trip against someone who is armed, agile, and trying desperately to kill you, and actually having a fair chance of tripping them."

 

[howandwhy99]

The whole at will, per encounter, and per day power argument is already old. It isn't what everyone likes, but hopefully it will not be too difficult to extract. Wizards had to have known their 2006-07 books with novel powers weren't universally popular enough to go over well as the core of a new edition. I think the changes may solve certain other game problems in the game in enough ways so the changes justify the loss of other virtues in their view. Or maybe they're just not seeing the losses? Personally, I think the new strive for transparency of rules for all DMs could easily be coupled with an ease of altering the system to personal taste - especially those which have been around over 30 years. But I haven't seen the whole system or the DMG, so I can't speak on that.

 

[delericho]

However, I think that constant tripping is more damaging to SoD than a limited use trip attack. Have you ever thought about the connotations of trying to trip someone with a sharp, pointy object that they are trying frantically to stick into every part of your body, while dodging and feinting and trying actively to prevent you from doing the same? It becomes even more fun when your hands are full, too.

When I'm wielding a ten-foot (sorry, 2 square) length of chain, and am standing beyond their reach? Seems eminently doable.

(And, indeed, in Kill Bill Vol 1, Gogo Yubari wields a spiked chain against the Bride's katana. During the course of the fight, she twice trips the Bride (or, at least, knocks her prone - might be knockdowns), twice disarms the Bride, and sunders several items of furniture, including one table being used as a shield.)

And as for mages not being able to trip, for example? Well, if a bookworm tries to trip an ogre, I'd expect that the next result would be the bookworm lying on the ground screaming, missing a leg.

What about a Paladin trying to trip a Wizard? Because that feels like something that should be possible, but doesn't appear to be.

 

[MichaelK]

Why I dislike this rule:

I play a lot of games with people who are new to the system or to gaming in general.

Usually, rather than teach them the whole system before we start I just help them make a character and we start playing, with me teaching them the rules as we go. There's nothing I hate more than the player saying something like,

"I run up to the orc and try and knock it to the ground."

and me trying to explain why something that seems possible isn't allowed by the system.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why I dislike this rule:

I play a lot of games with people who are new to the system or to gaming in general.

Usually, rather than teach them the whole system before we start I just help them make a character and we start playing, with me teaching them the rules as we go. There's nothing I hate more than the player saying something like,

"I run up to the orc and try and knock it to the ground."

and me trying to explain why something that seems possible isn't allowed by the system.

We don't know if it is totally impossible. In fact, we know that the DMG has guidelines to cover this stuff. I am not guaranteeing that it's easy to do, and I think the encounter power will be vastly better, but there will be a guideline for it.

But I see an easy solution: "Roll a Strength check against their Reflex Defense", target grants Combat Advantage until the start of its next action. Unlike as with the power, you don't get any other bonuses (like dealing damage), which makes a significant difference. And you might have to say more to the DM then just "I trip him".

 

[SteveC]

I think that a lot of the problems with this new system is that people are thinking of the at will/encounter/daily powers from a character perspective rather than a narrative one.

If you have a character who is based on grappling and throwing targets around, one presumes that you're trying to grapple and throw your targets all the time. The time when you trigger the trip power is when this actually works for you, and this is something you get to choose.

There is this flash based online game I play where you can get a number of special items that cause effects like stunning your target, slowing them or even healing yourself. The game handles this by giving you a very small percentage chance to do this every time you use the weapon. Think of 4E in the same light: every time you attack someone you're trying one of your special moves, you just get to pick the cases when they actually work.

Is that better than some system where if you roll over a target number you get to pick one of your moves? Well, if you did things that way you could end up doing them repeatedly, and would be more likely to do them against weaker targets, but it would still be random. Is it better than just letting you do them all the time? I would say so, because then that would be the only thing you'd end up doing (see spiked chain in 3x).

In the end, I think that the system they have (especially if there is some provision to recharge the abilities in combat) will work better, it's just all in how you think about it.

--Steve

 

[Thyrwyn]

Personally, I am OK with the per time slot mechanic in general, and I am a big fan of it in this particular instance. Yes, there are several cinematic examples of multiple trip/disarm/sunder attempts. There have also been several testimonies to the effect that in actual fights, it is a rare thing. Even in UFC - how many times does one fighter succeed in "tripping" his opponent while the attacker remains on his feeet? The D&D definition of Trip is not a take-down, it is a put-down.

Several things we do not know:
1) who says it is limited to fighters? Why can't each class have ways of putting their opponent on the ground within the scope of their schtick? Why should a Wizard have to resort to bashing some clod in the knees to get him to fall down - use your wizardry to Grease the floor or Push his legs out from under him.
2) Who says it can't be a special attached to certain weapons? Weapons like Spiked Chains and Whips give you 1/encounter Trip power. That seems reasonable to me.

Until we se the full rules, speculation is fun - but it is just speculation.

Why am I OK with the 1/time rule?
1) I think this should be an incredibly difficult stunt. Knocking someone else over while remaining on your feet is not easy to do with your hands empty, much less when they are holding something else. Yes, trained Martial Artists (real or cinematic) can do it - accordingly I have no problem only allowing trained (as in "I took the feat/exploit/spell") Fighters (or other) to do it.
2) While it may seem perfectly reasonable to be able to attempt to knock someone off their feet, actually succeeding is not. The (apparent) 4e solution keeps the narrative of the game flowing - rather than either the player or the GM having to keep track of and add up all sorts of situational modifiers, the player can decide when the circumstances are right for a reasonable attempt. Same outcome, less work, and the player has a greater sense of control over their character's fate. When it works it will mean more - and I feel that it should.

...or what SteveC said.

 

[D.Shaffer]

To me the entire argument seems to be a conflict between two play styles, one power based and one narrative based. 4th ed seems to be slipping into a more narrative based mode of play.

Previously, if something was listed as a power used only 3 times a day, it was because it was ONLY possible to use it three times a day. Since it was a hard limit, this applies mostly to magic effects where you can easilly explain away stuff like magical charges and the like. For the same reason, since you couldnt 'realistically' apply a hard limit to how often a particular skill based maneuver could be attempted, more skill based abilities just allowed you to try it whenever, usually with some sort of penalty to keep you from 'spamming it'.

In 4th, they look to be switching to a more narrative based system. If a power can only be used 3 times a day, it's not because of any hard limit. Now, it's because the events that allow said power to be used only show up roughly 3 times a day. The person controlling the narrative is allowed to decide when that chance may be.

In a way, it reminds me of the arguments between people who like to describe what they're doing and have the DM give bonuses/penalties based on the description, and people who want to roll first and them RP based around the result.

EDIT: ...Which is exactly what SteveC said above me, for the most part. *sigh* Stupid slow connection.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

EDIT: ...Which is exactly what SteveC said above me, for the most part. *sigh* Stupid slow connection.

Except that you didn't put a "better/worse" quality judgement on the difference.

As an aside, does anybody know what the pressing reasons were for the design team to slap the "provokes AoO" label on the Standing up from Prone action in 3.5? Maybe got a link, or a quote, or something else enlightening.