Trip ... Prone ... Getting Up

[Dregan Varokin]

Ok People, Time to throw in my 2 cents.

As I understand Things:
1st)Triping an opponent gives the "Tripper" an immediater attack against the "Triped".
2nd)The "Tripped" can get up from Prone, inso doing he provokes an AoO, Because he is getting up in the Threatened area of the one who tripped him. There is no AoO if the Area they are getting up in is not threatened.
3rd) The action of Standing up from Prone is not interupted, unless the AoO taken is a Trip Action.
4th)The "Tripped" can make a DC 15 Tumble Check and Stand up WITHOUT provoking the AoO. - 3.0 PHB Under the Tumble Skill.

Alternatly)If they "Tripper" also has the Feat "Knockdown" out of S&F everytime he hits for 10 points of damage, he can make a Trip attempt as a free action against that character.

So,
Fred attacks George and does 13 points of Damage. Because it was over 10 Fred gets gets a free trip action.
The Trip suceeds. George is Prone. Fred attacks George again as a free action because the trip suceeded.

George gets up from prone.
Fred Makes an attack, as his AoO - hits(does over 10) -Trips(suceeds) - attcks(hits) - Then makes if full attack action. - Repeat
George gets the crap kicked out of him. unless George makes a dc 15 Tumble chk to get up, in so doing NOT provoking the AoO, Which gives him the chance to regroup and come up with a better plan.

In Summation:
Allowing the Tripped to get up without provoking the AoO (as a Standard) is unbalancing, because the CORE RULES have given you a way of getting up, you just have to use it. The Ramdomness of the Dice will do the rest.

As well if your players abuse the tactic, find a fun(evil) way of turning it around. I mean it is hard to trip someone who can fly or levitate.

That is just my take on things.

Dregan Varokin

 

[mhd]

So,
Fred attacks George and does 13 points of Damage. Because it was over 10 Fred gets gets a free trip action.
The Trip suceeds. George is Prone. Fred attacks George again as a free action because the trip suceeded.

Nope. Just remember that S&F is one of the most heavily errata-ed source books this side of the Rio Grande:

Use of this feat cannot be combined with Improved Trip to generate an extra attack, and successful use of this feat does not grant an extra attack through the Cleave or Great Cleave feats. Insert may into "you may make a trip attack as a free action". After "whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee" insert: with a single attack

 

[Liquidsabre]

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.

The nature, personality, and the beliefs of the player's PC is of course entirely up to them and is not within the purview of the DM, and should not be dictated by the DM. This is heavy-handed DMing IMO. Why should tripping be underhanded? Why can't it be a perfectly honorable/reasonable tactic from a certain point of view? As a DM I try never to let my personal beliefs dictate the nature of the game world or the nature of the PCs, but tis your perogative.

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.

Oh I agree that ideally the personality of a PC tends to determine their choice in tactics, ideally one should be reflective of the other. You do get great roleplay though when suddenly an unusualy or different tactic is used out of desperation that is out of character. Perhaps, suddenly the PC feels different about themselves because of their actions, a moral dilemma even. I try to play on this, enhance the drama of it, if possible.

 

[Celtavian]

The nature, personality, and the beliefs of the player's PC is of course entirely up to them and is not within the purview of the DM, and should not be dictated by the DM. This is heavy-handed DMing IMO. Why should tripping be underhanded? Why can't it be a perfectly honorable/reasonable tactic from a certain point of view? As a DM I try never to let my personal beliefs dictate the nature of the game world or the nature of the PCs, but tis your perogative.

I do use a heavy hand sometimes and get in arguments with my players. I would rather argue the situation out to the point where I see their point of view or they see mind. They might have a good reason why they feel their tactic is a valid one, but it definitely can't be rules related if they dont' want to suffer the alignment and xp penalty for poor roleplaying.

Oh I agree that ideally the personality of a PC tends to determine their choice in tactics, ideally one should be reflective of the other. You do get great roleplay though when suddenly an unusualy or different tactic is used out of desperation that is out of character. Perhaps, suddenly the PC feels different about themselves because of their actions, a moral dilemma even. I try to play on this, enhance the drama of it, if possible.

I definitely like it when a player tries a new tactic out of desperation as well. Makes for a great night of gaming if it ties in well with the story. When my fighter/cleric grappled the monk that was tripping us, I was definitely happy I spent a feat on Improved Grapple. It paid off big.

 

[0-hr]

My take is that you can't trip someone who is prone (or if you do, it has no effect). The AoO is resolved before they stand up, so they are prone for the AoO. Therefore you get a +4 to hit, but you cannot trip them.