Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4091756" data-attributes="member: 2067">Well, without a specific mechanic effect, it's lame. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.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.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.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.There's a better solution for me than the one they chose, of that I am confident.That's a pretty horrible assumption to make, I think.I'll tell you in June. Or you can give me $5,000 and I'll tell you sooner! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> 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.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."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.</blockquote>

Verification