Trip is an Encounter Power now

[Li Shenron]

But that's not true. If the rules are all written from the point of view of "believable" then you get an unwieldy set of options written up in the book.

I don't think so. 3e rules are almost always believable, with some failures (example: provoking AoO explained as "lowering your defenses", but then you don't provoke AoO when you have no defenses at all, like when you're helpless, paralyzed or unconscious). But they don't have an "unwieldy set of options" (it becomes unwieldy only if you stack supplements).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't think so. 3e rules are almost always believable, with some failures (example: provoking AoO explained as "lowering your defenses", but then you don't provoke AoO when you have no defenses at all, like when you're helpless, paralyzed or unconscious). But they don't have an "unwieldy set of options" (it becomes unwieldy only if you stack supplements).

And I disagree. 3.5e is giving me a headache running. When running a game with my players it almost always sounds like this:

Me: "It's your turn paladin."
Paladin: "Alright. I could charge the enemy..."
Me: "No, you can't, there is no straight line to it."
Paladin: "Ok, well, I can reach it in a single move if I just move...this way.."
Me: "No, you can't do a diagonal move around a corner, and you took 2 diagonal moves at any rate, the second one is 10 feet remember?"
Paladin: "Oh, right...well, I can move THIS way and get to him in a single move."
Me: "Yes you can, but you'll provoke from this guy here as you move."
Paladin: "Oh, yeah...I forgot about that. Well, maybe I'll pull out my bow and attack from here. I get 2 attacks..."
Wizard: "Don't forget, you get one more for haste."
Paladin: "Right! THREE attacks..."
Me: "That would be correct, however you drew you bow as a move action so you only get one attack."
Paladin: "But I still get an extra for haste, right?"
Me: "No, haste only applies when you take the full attack action."
Paladin: "Well, that sucks...it's not worth it...I might as well just provoke the AOO and get into melee with it."
Me: "Well, the AOO misses. He needed a natural 20 to hit you."
Paladin: "Ok, I grapple him."
Me: "That provokes if you don't have Improved Grapple."
Paladin: "I don't care."
Me: "Ok, he hits for 4 damage. Your grapple fails."
Paladin: "What? I haven't even rolled yet."
Me: "If you get hit with the AOO from trying to grapple, it automatically stops the attempt."
Paladin: "Well, I didn't know that. I wouldn't have tried to grapple if I knew that."
Me: "Fine, what are you doing instead of grappling then?"
Paladin: "I smite him."
Me: "He isn't Evil, so don't apply the bonuses."

That against the equivalent in 4e:
Paladin: "I spend a move action to move in range and I use my standard action to Punishing Smite(names made up)."
Me: "That provokes an OA from moving past this one."
Paladin: "I don't have any good ranged attacks and I need to be up in melee to encourage the enemy to attack me, so I'll take it."
Me: "It hits AC 19 for 8 damage."
Paladin: "Ok. I roll 19 against will on my attack."
Me: "That hits."
Paladin: "I do 13 damage and he's stunned until the end of my next turn."

 

[Gort]

It must suck to play with players who've never played 3rd ed before every time you play.

 

[Cactot]

Problem is, I can show you plenty of simple martial artists in real life that can trip each other alot more often than once every 5 minutes, but apparently D&D heroes, with their heroic martial exploits, can only trip once per battle. :\ When a heroic fighter in a fantasy game can't do what even any simple karate student in RL can, I have a problem. If they're going to make it a power, fine. But at least make it an at-will power.

Probably been said 100 times but: Tripping an unarmed and mostly inexperienced combatant is a MILLION times different than tripping a heavily armed/armored humanoid or a monster (say a tiger or bear). Good luck to your karate students trying to trip a grizzly bear. Heck i can recall on one hand the amount of "trips" (not including throws or takedowns) i have seen in all the MMA fights (K1, UFC, Pride, etc) i have ever seen. Those guys are EXPERT combatants fighting against other unarmed guys, you couldnt prime the situation too much better for tripping. About the only exception that i can see is if you are using weapons that are specifically designed for tripping (certian polearms, bolas, etc) which make all the difference in the world, and should in those situations, allow for increased frequency and ease of tripping.

 

[Ahglock]

Probably been said 100 times but: Tripping an unarmed and mostly inexperienced combatant is a MILLION times different than tripping a heavily armed/armored humanoid or a monster (say a tiger or bear). Good luck to your karate students trying to trip a grizzly bear. Heck i can recall on one hand the amount of "trips" (not including throws or takedowns) i have seen in all the MMA fights (K1, UFC, Pride, etc) i have ever seen. Those guys are EXPERT combatants fighting against other unarmed guys, you couldnt prime the situation too much better for tripping. About the only exception that i can see is if you are using weapons that are specifically designed for tripping (certian polearms, bolas, etc) which make all the difference in the world, and should in those situations, allow for increased frequency and ease of tripping.

Yeah and that is why a Grizzly has a high strength is on 4 legs and is a large creature which gives it bunch of bonuses to defend against a trip. At least in 3e, but you know that is too hard to remember so probably no mods for a grizzly just beat his reflex defense. But when you are fighting goblins guess what it shouldn't be that hard for a highly trained trip expert. Also by the way trip is supposed to represent throws as well, so don't take them out of UFC etc. Add in the UFC and it's competitors is really ultimate wrastlin showdown where everyone is explicitly defending primarily against throws and takedowns and it becomes more scewed.

 

[Ahglock]

And I disagree. 3.5e is giving me a headache running. When running a game with my players it almost always sounds like this:

I apologize. I was trying to imply I thought there was some hyperbole in that post, and I was trying to be funny. I just came across as an ass. I'll bow out of this thread as the Mod has said, I hope the edit is ok.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Hm, it occurs to me to wonder .... is the fact that trip is one of the very few tactical options available to 3rd edition fighters other than "I hit, I miss, I hit, I miss," part of the reason for many posters' fanatical attachment to it?

When you have several different interesting maneuvers to pick from, I doubt that you're going to miss having Trip as an at-will power quite as much as you're worried you're going to.

 

[Bishmon]

Wow if that 3e example is even remotely accurate I suspect 4e will leave you just as disappointed.

I'd suggest rock, paper, scissors but you know, there are 3 options to choose from so that might be overwhelming for your players.

Really? Was insulting his players necessary? Come on, man.

 

[lutecius]

Hm, it occurs to me to wonder .... is the fact that trip is one of the very few tactical options available to 3rd edition fighters other than "I hit, I miss, I hit, I miss," part of the reason for many posters' fanatical attachment to it?

When you have several different interesting maneuvers to pick from, I doubt that you're going to miss having Trip as an at-will power quite as much as you're worried you're going to.

WHAT? ...And I thought those 8 pages were a debate on whether it was realistic that only one class could even try to trip an opponent, exactly once per encounter.

 

[Corinth]

There is a better option. First, make Trip At-Will. Second, require that your target provide you Combat Advantage in order to use Trip. This solves both the problem of availability through superior representational abstraction because successfully tripping an opponent is something that doesn't magically fade away once successfully executed, and it solves the exploit problem because it requires the exploitation of an opening left by that opponent, something that is not under your control and thus makes it so that you have to actually watch for that opening instead of just doing it whenever you like.