Trip ... Prone ... Getting Up

[Elder-Basilisk]

What? I'm getting confused over what has never seemed like a complicated issue to me.

Fred's action: Fred trips George
George's action: George gets up. Fred takes AoO and trips George. George has finished first action and is prone. If George wants, he can get up NOW (using their second move action), provoking another AoO if Fred has one.

I'd like to know the sense behind asserting that a successful trip attack does not prevent someone from standing. I mean, game balance statements aside, it seems to me that the rules are obvious on this one -- if you're tripped, you fall down. You become prone.

It's already been stated. (There are actually at least two justifications).

1. The rules don't explicitly say that a successful AoO can disrupt the "stand up" action. If the rules don't explicitly say that an action can be interrupted, it can't be. Therefore, an AoO provoked for standing up can not disrupt the stand up action.

2. An AoO occurs before the action provoking it is completed. In D&D, standing up is a binary action--you're either standing or prone. (There is also kneeling but there is no suggestion that characters move to kneeling in the process of standing up). Therefore the provoking character is prone when the AoO occurs. If the resulting AoO trips him, it does not change his state (he simply continues to be prone). At the end of the action (after provoking the AoO) the character ceases to be prone (which he was whether or not he was tripped on the AoO) and becomes standing.

Most arguments for being able to trip standing characters rely upon "common sense" reading an intermediate state into the equation where the character provokes the AoO.

I mean, if somebody starts 10 feet from you and moves 30 feet past you, and you make an AoO against them and trip them, they don't fall down 20 feet away. Their action has been interrupted at the point where you made the trip. It doesn't say that anywhere in the rules because it's obvious.

Actually that is easily inferred from the rule that you provoke an AoO when leaving a threatened square. Your condition at the time the AoO is provoked determines the consequences of the AoO. Unlike the standing up example, the game provides examples of many transitionary steps between being 10 feet from you and 30 feet past you--at least two (moving into the square and moving out of it) for each square that the foe moves through. The rules provide no similar transitional states between prone and standing.

Likewise, if you make an AoO and attempt to trip someone standing up, you've just tripped them again. They are now prone and can take their next action, if they have one.

This seems like the only sensible option.

As explained above, there are other logically consistent positions. Common sense may agree more with your position. I (and others) maintain that the opposite position is important to game balance.

And it's not a killer move because you're not doing any damage to them.

You clearly don't deal with tripping characters very often. A character with the improved trip feat gets to do damage in addition to tripping his foes since he gets a free attack after a successful trip. A wolf or other creature with the trip ability deals damage to its foe and then makes the opposed trip check. And, at most levels, the damage gained from +4 to hit (either through extra hits or though power attack) the prone opponent will equal the damage lost on a single AoO on the tripped foe.

You can keep them prone for ten rounds and at one point miss your trip attempt and they're just as tough as they were ten rounds ago (only now kind of pissed off). Trust me, I had a character whose compatriot was convinced that he could trip his enemies into submission.

Only one of us survived. Doing damage to your enemy is almost always better than discommoding them in other ways.

One example from the peculiar experience of your home game does not make conclusive evidence. There are plenty of anecdotes from other games where tripping has been very useful. I could list several anecdotes where my fighter survived because he was able to trip his foes.

 

[Azure Trance]

Thanks for your more clarifying replies again. I enjoy understanding the reason behind the madness, even if the changes aren't earth shattering.

 

[Celtavian]

re

In the wolf example, it seems that the game designers gave wolves the trip ability because when a pack of wolves kills prey, they usually keep the prey on the ground and tear at it. If a wolf couldn't trip prey trying to stand, then a PC could just delay his action waiting for all the wolves to attack, then stand up. That doesn't seem to jibe very well with how I would see this encounter going down. A person mauled by a pack of wolves most likely wouldn't be able to stand up. He would constantly be thrown to ground. Allowing AOO's to continue to trip seems more "realistic" because of situations like this.

As far as game balance, I recently had a character go up against a monk with the improved trip feat. She knocked both myself and the fighter to the ground. She kept knocking us down as we tried to get up using her AOO's. After the second try, I just said screw it and grappled her from the prone position, then continued to bear hug her while my allies beat her within an inch of her life. No AOO's if grappled. I don't think it is a game balance issue. You can fight from the prone position, and having to do so on occasion only makes things more interesting. Heck, if you get jumped by a pack of wolves alone, then you deserve to be torn apart or you have to fight them from a prone position and hope for the best.

Making someone fight from a prone position only makes the combat more interesting and challenging if the DM hasn't severely overpowered the enemy. I had alot of fun fighting the monk that kept tripping us, and it was very satisfying when we finally took her down.

The only time it might become a game balance issue is you have abusive players who trip everything they can, then have the monk or whoever has improved trip hover over the enemy while the other PC's beat on the enemy. I certainly won't run my games in a certain manner because certain players choose to abuse the rules. I always encourage my players to think about the way their character fights rather than focus too much on the mechanics of the fight. Mechanics are important, but verisimilitude is even more important. The DM and players should work together to maintain the highest level of verisimilitude the game allows mechanically and intuitively.

 

[Liquidsabre]

The only time it might become a game balance issue is you have abusive players who trip everything they can, then have the monk or whoever has improved trip hover over the enemy while the other PC's beat on the enemy. I certainly won't run my games in a certain manner because certain players choose to abuse the rules.

Limiting the abilities that a player has selected for their PC seems a tad overboard don't you think? If it's what they are good at, why not let them do it as often as they like? It's a valid tactic and should not be more of an abuse than the fighter power attacking or the wizard casting enchantments on low will creatures. This is why it's really a game-balance issue, not a PC-doing-what-they-were-designed-to-do-and-it's-an-abuse issue.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Limiting the abilities that a player has selected for their PC seems a tad overboard don't you think? If it's what they are good at, why not let them do it as often as they like? It's a valid tactic and should not be more of an abuse than the fighter power attacking or the wizard casting enchantments on low will creatures. This is why it's really a game-balance issue, not a PC-doing-what-they-were-designed-to-do-and-it's-an-abuse issue.

You might view it this way, but I would see it the following way:

A Lawful Neutral monk trains to fight. He is proud of his skill and loves to test it. It is not a test of his skill to continue trip an opponent while his allies beat on that opponent simply to gain an unfair disadvantage. He is most invariably acting out of character and the characters in question are dishonorable curs. I will make this reputation stick, and if need be, people will used underhand, cheap tactics on them.

It is abuse of mechanics without regard for how this would look in a real fight in terms of honor and challenge. If a monk is mano y mano with another warrior, then I would consider it a useful tactic on the monks part. Leg sweep, stomp kick while on ground. Man tries to stand up, kicks him down again and stomps again. Man better think of better way to beat monk.

If the party is using a cheesy tactic every encounter, you can be sure I'll start using some seriously cheesy tactics on them. Fortunately, this has only come up a few times like when one of my players was spring attacking and then running behind a wall. If his character had been some ratty rogue, I wouldn't have cared. This character was an honorable, good-aligned barbarian rogue. I told him he was fighting in a very dishonorable and deceitful manner not in line with what would be a respectable way to fight as member of his tribe.

We argued it out, but I wasn't going to give in when the tactic was utterly cheese ridden. I don't want to have to write house rules when the situation can be handled by a player better visualizing how he looks fighting. Visualization is a very important skill to develop for roleplaying to maximize enjoyment. I strongly encourage using the imagination to visualize the situations and environment when I run my games.

Also, if you're going to use cheesy tactics, you better make the personality fit the tactics. Otherwise, I am going to dock you big points for not properly roleplaying your character.

 

[Particle_Man]

I think you might cause your players to select chaotic neutral as their PC's alignment, to avoid the penalties you place on honourable and good characters.

 

[Stormrunner]

Well, in real life the tactic works pretty well. I can attest to it, having been the target of such assaults several times in high school. This is why many of the more "street-fighting" oriented martial arts either teach attack/defense techniques from a prone position, or "kip-up"/"roll away" moves to either pop up to standing quickly or tumble out of the opponent's reach before standing.
Again, from a realistic standpoint, you're better off grappling/tripping the opponent from your prone position than trying repeatedly to get up. I suspect from a game-rules standpoint this may be true as well.

 

[Shallown]

I have used the you can re-trip them and keep someone prone route for my game. It makes some common sense (though not perfect) and some cinamatic sense (meaning its kind of cool) and as far as play balance goes. It works both ways for and against players. If they started abusing it then so do the bad guys. More or less if it is the best tactics then the bad guys use them as well. I had that problem with grappling all the time since it is a good tactic but then the Monsters realized it (Since the gm knew but wasn't being abusive till the players were) and started and like trip lots of monsters have a much better chance due to higher strength and size. Its a pandoras box. If a character is built for that fine but if every character and summoned monster they call starts doing it it becomes an issue.

later

 

[UltimaGabe]

In my group, we play that getting up from prone doesn't incur attacks of opportunity. Why? Well, first off, I understand that it's illogical, as you pretty much have to drop your guard in order to get up off the ground. However, the game can be far too unbalanced the way it is. Imagine a Fighter, putting all of his abilities and magic into Strength, and he decides to wield a Spiked Chain. Not only that, he gets Expertise and Improved Trip. Then he makes his Spiked Chain a Tripping weapon (A&EG, CW). After all of this, he's got around a +15 or so to all trip attempts. In battle, unless he never fights anything but large+ creatures, or monsters with several legs, everything he attacks is going to be tripped and attacked (thanks to the extra attack granted by Improved Trip). Once its turn comes around, it tries to get up, so he trips it again and attacks it again, and its action is wasted. It uses its standard action to get up again, no longer incurring any attacks of opportunity (since you can only get 1 attack of opportunity against a single target in a round, regardless of feats). So that monster's turn is over. Once the Fighter's turn comes back, he trips it again, gaining an extra attack. When it tries to get up again, he trips it and attacks it again.

Therefore, unless the Fighter rolls really low, and the monster rolls really high, the Fighter is going to be able to take out any one opponent (or more, if he has iterative attacks and/or Combat Reflexes) without taking even a single attack. Being tripped is bad enough- but giving the person who tripped you a free attack (and being tripped again, if they have Improved Trip) just makes it even worse. It may be illogical not to allow it, but it makes Fighters with Improved Trip FAR too powerful.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

In my group, we play that getting up from prone doesn't incur attacks of opportunity.

Neither do we, but we're still playing 3.0, where they actually specifically say that getting up from a prone position does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Weird that they changed that in 3.5. Assuming they did in fact change it, that is...but then, what are the odds that a thread would have gone on this long without someone looking at the tables of actions in the book to see what they say?

--
oh crap, i should've put some money on that
ryan