D&D 4E Tripping, Disarm, and other maneuvers in 4e

[Saeviomagy]

I'd lower damage to 1d4+6 and subtract 2 from his attack rolls, but that doesn't mean the fight's over.

Soo.... you've got an at-will that applies a -2 attack and damage penalty for the entire rest of the encounter, and you think that's somehow balanced? Riiiiight...

As for trip not being unbalanced: it's less imbalanced than 3e, but it's still pretty bad. The at-will polearm trippers are already causing DMs problems. For many melee NPCs (and with the right tactics from players), being tripped is crippling. The hand of bane for instance will be unable to use flail of tyranny unless his foes choose to end their turns next to him, and he will be unable to attack if his foes are smart enough to end their turns one square away. And it's the smart players you have to balance against.

As for why not make it "balanced"? Because the benefits are so good that they would have to almost never work. And powers that almost never work are not fun (see "god call" above).

 

[LostSoul]

Soo.... you've got an at-will that applies a -2 attack and damage penalty for the entire rest of the encounter, and you think that's somehow balanced? Riiiiight...

"entire rest of the encounter"? Why can't he get his flail back?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"entire rest of the encounter"? Why can't he get his flail back?

becuse it has been pickedup/kicked/stepedon/something else...


and were did you find the rule on useing a sheild as a weapon ???

 

[Stalker0]

Here's the general conundrum with tactics:

1) If the tactic is better than a regular attack it will be used all the time. If its not, it won't be used.

2) If the tactic requires a feat, magic item, etc etc to become useful, no one will use it unless someone acquires the feat, etc....and then its used all the time.

There are a few fixes to this situation:

1) Make the tactic conditional on how often it can be used. This is what 4e did with powers. There are powers that disarm or trip, but they are very rare and infrequent in how often they can be used.

2) Make the tactic conditional on when it can be used. This would mean you can't trip an opponent unless you had CA or some other condition applied. This allows the at-will nature of the tactic but prevents the spamming problem. The trick is to create a condition that gives you the right balance. If it was just CA for example, its probably still too frequent.

 

[Nail]

And it's the smart players you have to balance against.

This is something often missed in houserules...and occasionally missed by game designers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

how about a paragon encounter power


Target: One bloodied enemy
Str-2 Vs Ac

hit: disarm

 

[LostSoul]

I'm not convinced my disarm is balanced, but let me make my case:

1. I'm not convinced it's totally unbalanced. You're trading giving him a penalty and nullifying one of his powers for damage and any other effect you might be able to do, and you need to succeed at two attacks to do it (the disarm and moving him off his square).

You also need a free hand which isn't always available.

2. There's a trade-off for balance: the inability to try anything you can think of. I think this is an important quality in a RPG.

becuse it has been pickedup/kicked/stepedon/something else...

Still need to move him! Which is easy, but it requires teamwork. If it's kicked or someone's stepping on it, it's possible for one of his allies to pick it up and give it back to him.

and were did you find the rule on useing a sheild as a weapon ???

Common sense and the Improvised Weapon stats. You can use your fist/knees/elbows/feet/head for 1d4+Str mod damage, why not a shield?

It might be better to lower his damage based on one of the damage expressions in the DMG, moving it down one category. Instead of 1d4+6, 1d6+6 is probably better. He's a killer for Bane, he knows how to fight. You could even leave his attack bonus as it is.

Monsters don't need to follow the same rules as PCs after all.

 

[ppaladin123]

Well, thanks to the monk playtest we now have a sense of what an at-will trip power would/could look like.

vs. Fortitude, knocks the enemy prone.

Since we don't want to steal the monk's thunder we wouldn't want to let other classes do the same damage as the monk during the trip or get the nice movement bonus.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm not convinced my disarm is balanced, but let me make my case:

1. I'm not convinced it's totally unbalanced. You're trading giving him a penalty and nullifying one of his powers for damage and any other effect you might be able to do, and you need to succeed at two attacks to do it (the disarm and moving him off his square).

You also need a free hand which isn't always available.

If the power is there, then there WILL be a free hand. And moving a foe from his square borders on trivial.

2. There's a trade-off for balance: the inability to try anything you can think of. I think this is an important quality in a RPG.

Try away - it just doesn't work until he's out of hitpoints. Cinematically, once someone is disarmed, the fight is over. In D&D, the fight is over once you're out of hitpoints. And, conveniently, the bad guy never lets go of their weapon until they've suffered a beatdown.

Well, thanks to the monk playtest we now have a sense of what an at-will trip power would/could look like.

vs. Fortitude, knocks the enemy prone.

Crap, there goes the game.

 

[LostSoul]

Try away - it just doesn't work until he's out of hitpoints. Cinematically, once someone is disarmed, the fight is over. In D&D, the fight is over once you're out of hitpoints. And, conveniently, the bad guy never lets go of their weapon until they've suffered a beatdown.

So - you are saying the best way to model a disarm is with a normal attack?

I can get behind that. I don't think it makes for as interesting a game, but there ya go.

Why only disarms, though? Should being on your back end the fight? How about when you're unconcious? Unable to do anything but stand there and drool? etc.