Trip is an Encounter Power now

[I'm A Banana]

"Per Encounter" mechanics are an abstraction. If you want, you can "fluff" every single of your ordinary attacks with a trip attempt and imagine your foe falling down and immediately jumping back. But they don't create the specific game mechanic effect. Only if you use the power, the trip attempt has more effect then merely dealing some damage.

Well, without a specific mechanic effect, it's lame.

And "Per Encounter" isn't actually an abstraction. It's very concrete. It means "Between the time swords are drawn to the time they are sheathed, and for 5 minutes after, I can do this once."

Knocking someone prone doesn't fit into that mold very nicely. It shouldn't be something that concrete.

That is because D&D isn't trying to simulate reality, it is simulating the heroic fantasy genre. In heroic fantasy film and fiction, you don't see the hero trying to trip his opponent every few seconds or even every couple of minutes. He does it perhaps once or twice in the whole book, or film, and when he does it has a significant effect to the outcome of the battle.

Right, but he doesn't loose the ability to do it when he does it once.

That's a crucial disconnect. He is ABLE to attempt it more than a D&D character is ABLE to attempt it. Jackie Chan doesn't loose the ability to trip someone until the next battle just because he did it once already. Maybe he doesn't do it more than once, but he's capable of it. Presumably, if he had to fight one-legged men with inner-ear problems, he could do it more than once. But a D&D character couldn't.

If you want trip to reflect the effect it has in fiction and film, then the outcome of tripping someone has to be significant, and to reflect the genre you have to have a reasonable chance of it being successful. You don't see the hero trying and failing to trip the villain 5 times before he succeeds.

The disconnect here is between potential and actual use. In the movies, this is scripted, so only actual uses matter. In D&D, it's not, so potential uses matter just as much, if not more. Presumably, they CAN trip more than once, they just choose not to for a variety of reasons. D&D should reflect this: a character should be ABLE to trip more than once, but perhaps it is only a useful tactic in specific circumstances.

That would be accurately simulating genre conventions.

But in a game if you make it easy and powerful, then someone will do it all the time.... (like square, square, square in your favourite beat 'em up) and that doesn't realistically simulate the genre either. So you have to limit the number of occasions they can actually do it to be real reflection of heroic fantasy fiction and film.

The thing is that D&D is a game where your potential matters as much as your actual ability, if not even more. So in simulating the heroic action, the game should allow for many potential uses, while encouraging uses that are actually in line with how heroic action is presented. Thus, rather than arbitrarily limit the amount of times you can trip, it should specifically make trip a good option only in a limited number of circumstances.

Loosing the capacity for an ability that I can't really logically loose the capacity for doesn't gel with my suspension of disbelief very well.

I don't mean to be snarky, but you're acting like the designers have made a rule saying that in 4E, one plus one now equals three, and you've got an easy fix to make that rule work like it obviously should. But there isn't an easy fix for this problem.

There's a better solution for me than the one they chose, of that I am confident.

The 4E designers have given us something that is easily torn apart theoretically, but works very well practically, with the assumption that a DM or player will be willing to embrace that practicality and work it into the narrative in a way that makes sense.

That's a pretty horrible assumption to make, I think.

If you've got a better solution, then let's hear it. If their design is so tremendously flawed, let's hear your proposed way to make it less so, and let's see if people can come up with crazy examples showing why your solution doesn't stick to the exact nature of the real-world mechanic.

I'll tell you in June. Or you can give me $5,000 and I'll tell you sooner!

So trained fighters can now attempt a trip not based on any skill of their own, but because of unseen random factors?

Actually, both. Which reflects the idea of looking for an opportunity to use the tactic. Essentially, once the character uses the ability, the enemies are going to be watching for that trick again, but the chaos of combat doesn't let anyone keep anything straight, and, sooner or later, the fighter is going to see another opening (when it is recharged).

Perhaps Improved Trip makes it recharge on 3-6, making it more likely that the fighter can see an opening.

I'm still not totally happy with it being fighter-exclusive...though I suppose maybe a "Fighter Training" feat or something will let someone get it, so maybe it's not a big deal.

Imagine the defender standing one very particular way, so the fighter attempts to trip him. The defender gets back up, the two get back into that very particular position, and now the fighter can't attempt another trip if a certain die roll hasn't happened?

Die roll represents how long it takes the enemies to drop their guard enough to get into that position again. Since the fighter rolls it on the beginning of their turn, it's easy to fluff as: "You see the bandit making that mis-step again, and you can try to trip them again."

You see, it's easy to distort every proposed mechanic if you're unwilling to work it into a good narrative, which seems to be your primary complaint with the 4E trip mechanic.

No, my primary complaint would be perhaps most accurately phrased like I did above:

There's a problem with me loosing the capacity to do something I logically wouldn't loose the capacity to do. That doesn't make sense. Throw in a probably-unnecessary silo, and I don't see how the world is made a better place by this rule.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I'm only too happy to have trip be limited in availability and prevalence as a combat action. Constant tripping instead of attacking is lame IMO.

 

[Bishmon]

As for the whole trip as an encounter power, I see both sides. The thing about modern fighting is that modern fighters know how to trip and to defend against it. If you watch the first few UFCs, you'll see that this is a modern thing, and that unarmed fighters until very recently didn't know how to fight on the ground unless they specifically trained for it. This is why Royce Gracie kicked so much ass early on. I think DnD is closer to early UFC fights than modern ones.

I'd very much disagree with this. The idea behind mixed martial arts is to take away the particular limitations of most martial arts. For example, judokas don't strike, wrestlers don't strike, boxers don't kick or grapple. All of these were limitations hardwired into that martial art's rules. Mixed martial arts is to take away most of those limitations, and just let guys fight with what skills they have.

Early on, the problems people had is they mostly fought in styles tailored to fights with particular rules. That's why we saw Gracie submit everyone, because if a guy trained in a style other than jiu-jitsu, he didn't have any submission defense.

As guys realized how to fight without the particular restrictions of certain martial arts, they realized that to be a mixed martial artist, they had to expand their repetoire of skills. That's why more modern mixed martial artists are true mixed martial artists. They don't artificially confine their available skills to a particular style that wasn't designed for such an open fight.

That's why I think modern guys would be more comparable to actual fighters that would have used their fighting for life and death. Those sorts of fighters wouldn't have had the luxury of confining their skills to particular styles that didn't encompass every possibility of an open fight. They would have needed to be extremely well-rounded in order to deal with whatever came their way in an open fight, the same way modern mixed martial artists have learned they need to be extremely well-rounded in order to deal with whatever comes at them in an open fight.

 

[Bishmon]

Kamikaze, I think we've both made our points to each other, so it's probably pointless to continue saying the same stuff in different ways. We'll just agree to disagree.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Comparisons of D&D to MMA competitions is pointless.

1. D&D is not trying to simulate reality, its trying to create a balanced combat system.

2. An MMA competition and an actual to-the-death fight are two very different situations. Acceptable tactics and techniques in one are completely different from the other.

3. MMA competitions are fought barehanded. Not between armed and armored opponents. If you tried to shoot for the legs of a D&D style fighter, you would likely find yourself spitted on the end of his sword. . . or at the very least have your skull crushed when he brings the pommel down on the back of your head.

. . . on a side note, 'shooting' is not tripping as it works in D&D. In that manuever, both combatants wind up wrestling on the ground, as opposed to the D&D model of tripping where the attacker is still standing. If you want to "shoot" in D&D, that's what the grapple rules are for. We've already seen what happens when you try to overbuild that system. . . let's just leave it nice and simple like it is!

 

[Ciaran]

I think it's easy to grok that the trip is a challenging move. The PC's are heroes, though, and they should be able to do challenging moves. It's harder to grok that you can only do it once every 5 minutes. You're surrounded by one-legged fat men with inner ear problems, but, nope, you can only knock one down unless you rest for 5 minutes, and then you can knock down another.

Sure, you can knock those one-legged fat men down as quick as you like. That's because it's not an encounter. Your example is of the same order as demanding a Climb check for every step when ascending a flight of stairs. If there's no challenge involved, don't bother rolling.

And as others have stated, the same logic can be applied to stabbing an opponent through the heart and killing them. To rephrase your own complaint:

"I think it's easy to grok that stabbing an opponent through the heart is a challenging move. The PC's are heroes, though, and they should be able to do challenging moves. It's harder to grok that you can only do it once your opponent runs out of hit points. You're surrounded by one-legged fat men with inner ear problems, but, nope, you can only stab one through the heart once he runs out of hit points, and then you can stab another through the heart."

 

[heirodule]

Perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly, but I seem to remember Massawyrm,in his recent review of 4E, referring to a character (the developer if I remember correctly) sliding under a table and kicking it out from under the archers who were on top of it. This had the effect of a trip, in that those on top of the table were now prone, but it wasn't necessary to have it either as a maneuver or a power.

That's a special terrain ability of TABLES

 

[Bagpuss]

Right, but he doesn't loose the ability to do it when he does it once.

That's a crucial disconnect. He is ABLE to attempt it more than a D&D character is ABLE to attempt it. Jackie Chan doesn't loose the ability to trip someone until the next battle just because he did it once already.

Right and neither does your 4th Ed Hero, he is still capable of tripping a guy (just not right now as the rules don't let), same with Jackie Chan he still could trip the guy, he just can't right now because it would be boring and repetitive, because any half decent fight choreographer won't let him, maybe in the next battle more likely in the next film.

The disconnect here is between potential and actual use. In the movies, this is scripted, so only actual uses matter. In D&D, it's not, so potential uses matter just as much, if not more. Presumably, they CAN trip more than once, they just choose not to for a variety of reasons. D&D should reflect this: a character should be ABLE to trip more than once, but perhaps it is only a useful tactic in specific circumstances.

Those reasons are arbitrary and unrealistic, they are the fight choreographer deciding what is interesting, and repeating the same move isn't. Similarly in 4E the character CAN trip more than once, they just don't because the rules limit them for a variety of reasons (it's boring and unbalanced). There is no disconnect D&D is reflecting the genre, so it should reflect the fact using the same tactic isn't permitted because it's boring and would not occur in the genre.

That would be accurately simulating genre conventions.

So Jackie Chan can't trip people and Legolas can't Split the tree, every shot of the film (even though in reality he could) because it would be boring and repetitive, so an arbitrary and unrealistic limit is imposed by the director/fight choreographer to once a film.

Your 4E fighter can't trip people and your 4E Ranger can't Split the tree, every round in the combat (even though potentially he could) because it would be unbalanced and repetitive, so an arbitrary and unrealistic limit is imposed by the per encounter/daily limit to once a fight/day.

Seems like a very accurate simulation of genre conventions to me.

The thing is that D&D is a game where your potential matters as much as your actual ability, if not even more.

Not seeing a difference between the two myself.

So in simulating the heroic action, the game should allow for many potential uses, while encouraging uses that are actually in line with how heroic action is presented.

Which is what the per encounter and daily mechanic achieve. You have the potential to us an ability once per fight or one per film (as it were) at a key moment decided by the player.

You as the player gain the role of fight choreographer (or at least your role in it), you can decide when your signature move best suits the action. You know you can't use it all the time, because it would be boring and unbalanced. Nobody wants to see Legolas shoot every orc through the eye at a 1000 paces, even if he can, it wouldn't be interesting.

Thus, rather than arbitrarily limit the amount of times you can trip, it should specifically make trip a good option only in a limited number of circumstances.

But you can't do that, and still reflect the genre, 3rd Ed pretty much proved as much.

- If you make it good in a limited number of circumstances then it becomes a rule you have to look up on those rare occasions. BAD.
- Control of those circumstances is either in the hands of the player, which gets you Spiked Chain, Combat Reflex, Improved Trip builds to exploit. BAD.
- Or in the hands of the DM in which case the player resents the fact the DM hasn't given him an opportunity in the last three sessions. BAD.
- It might be possibly to some how have this circumstances complete random (I don't know how, without seeming arbitrary again), but then you'll get games where it randomly always comes up and your trip monkey walks every fight. BAD. Or it never comes up, and your trip monkey resent his character investment in tripping. BAD.

Loosing the capacity for an ability that I can't really logically loose the capacity for doesn't gel with my suspension of disbelief very well.

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.

 

[Eldorian]

Comparisons of D&D to MMA competitions is pointless.

Not entirely pointless, but of limited value, I will agree. DnD is for simulating (cinematicilating?) armed combat, not unarmed.

And you'd be surprised in regards to how acurately the sport of MMA replicates actual unarmed combat. The moves that are barred are usually bared not because of effectiveness, but because of permanent damage. Only trachea attacks and eye gouges come to mind as being effective AND permanent damage. I might be missing a few tho.

 

[Imp]

A few thoughts:

A lot of this depends on how specifically 4e interprets "trip." 3e used it for all kinds of knockdown effects, from a leg-sweeping monk to a wolf pulling down its prey to a polearm dismounting a rider. 4e may just be using "trip" to mean trip in this instance.

It strikes me that one of the neat things about the nebulous idea of "combat advantage" is that it could be used to expose the target to things like tripping.

WRT realism and combat, there's perhaps too much focus on unarmed combat (or maybe I'm just trying to get things away from a dual fantasy combat geek argument and RL martial arts geek argument, which I find nightmarish) – many pole weapons were used to knock people down before finishing them, and then there's using the shield aggressively in combat, which should probably result in a lot of knockdowns. But maybe 4e can allow knockdown to work differently – trip is vs. Reflex and knockdown is vs. Fort, let's suppose.