I don't know if I got a bad copy of the download or something but Improved Trip doesn't give a attack at the end and only gives a +2 bonus.
Okay now, I've talked to about 12 people Irl and about 15 on various boards I'm on and what I think is that Improved Trip is ruined.
Triping is one of the things that actually worked for fighters in 3.5 the "Sticky Knight" was the basis of many builds and I'd like to see it return. Please change this back. I mean I could just ignore it but who wants to have to house rule somthing from the jump.
At first I was ardent about the system and this is a minor hiccup but it really interferes with the idea of backwards compatability for some of us because of the high rate of "Trip" oriented fighters that people specialize in.
Basically it destroys an acrhtype.
Did I miss something? Whats the reasoning behind this change...
Concerned.
M.
I never liked the way Improved Trip worked in 3.5. It was too good compared to all of the other combat manuevers. I especially didn't like the free attack after tripping. However I agree that PFRPG has hit it with too powerful a nerf-bat.
My feeling is that all of the Combat Maneuver feats should give you a +4 bonus on the CMB check. That way if you were fighting yourself you'd have a nearly 50% chance of succeeding with your combat maneuver. The +4 almost cancels out the DC being 15+CMB.
Wow... I'm amazed. No really, I've never heard that before.
Everyone else I've ever talked to has gone the opposite direction.
That the other combat manuevers were too weak and that bullrush should have given an attack at the end or dealt damage. In my actual gaming experience that prevneted people from ever taking that feat unless they were 6th level fighters getting 2 feats to get shock trooper.
Because you can make a feat suck like this and people will simply choose a feat that doesn't suck. Basically making the combat "manuevers" worthless.
Improved trip was the only one that worked except for grappling which suffered a nerf under this system as well and I'll accept that easier even thought I feel it needs a clarification more than a nerfing.
Damn. I had such high hopes for this system. I can only hope that this is reconsidered and changed before the final version.
Basically I feel you may as well do a way with combat manuevers as opposed to making them suck. Sadly I look around these boards and it seems rather sloped towards weakening things that don't even need tampering with like sneak attack and Trip.
*sigh* this system is soooo close...
Broken? It really doesnt' compare to like I don't know grease or entangle. That feat was good, not even too good it was one of the few phb feats people used in fighter builds.
You definition of broken is different from mine which always is the case with that word.
Under the current system the feat is about as useful as toughness. No one is going to take is because it isnt' worth a feat.
|
It's not a case of a feat sucking, it's a case of a feat being overpowered, to the point where taking it is such a no-brainer over other maneuvers.
In the case of Improved Trip, I'm allowing a free follow up attack if the Combat Maneuver wins by 10+. That seems to be a fine balance. But 3.5 Improved Trip was waaaaaaay nasty.
I also agree that improved trip is too good in 3.5 for reasons already stated. And I would also like to see combat maneuver feats give a +4 bonus instead of +2. Seeing how difficult combat maneuvers are to pull off, +2 doesn't add much... a +1 to AC or to hit, though lower is more beneficial in the long run as it applies to more dice rolls overall. Players don't use combat maneuvers very often. But when they do, it would be nice to have a favorable chance to pull one off... especially if you trained (i.e. invested a feat in it) for it.
It's not a case of a feat sucking, it's a case of a feat being overpowered, to the point where taking it is such a no-brainer over other maneuvers.
In the case of Improved Trip, I'm allowing a free follow up attack if the Combat Maneuver wins by 10+. That seems to be a fine balance. But 3.5 Improved Trip was waaaaaaay nasty.
I agree with Midnight. 3.5 Improved Trip is a nice feat, but not overpowered in my book. I'd like to see if left as is.
|
I also agree that improved trip is too good in 3.5 for reasons already stated. And I would also like to see combat maneuver feats give a +4 bonus instead of +2. Seeing how difficult combat maneuvers are to pull off, +2 doesn't add much... a +1 to AC or to hit, though lower is more beneficial in the long run as it applies to more dice rolls overall. Players don't use combat maneuvers very often. But when they do, it would be nice to have a favorable chance to pull one off... especially if you trained (i.e. invested a feat in it) for it.
I'm for keeping the combat feats at +2. Instead I would change the DC for success to 10 + CMB (as in my platesting 15 seems like it is too high). Remember that these feats don't just add a +2 - but also remove the attack of opportunity from the equation. Another change that needs to happen is that large sized creatures are only at +1 to their CMB - used to be +4; that too was too nerfed. It should be +2 for large sized creatures.
As for Imp. Trip in 3.5; the attack afterwards was a bit over the top; and here's why - it isn't so much that you could hit the poor dude after you've tripped him: but you were able to first make a Touch attack (very easy to make) make the opposed trip that you have a good chance of winning (the +4 from the feat ensures that - not to mention most aren't going to try it when the chances aren't stacked in his favor for success i.e. receiving enlarge person, bull strength, raging etc all aid this check) Then you get to attack the guy with a +4 bonus since he's prone - THEN the guy has to get up - provoking another attack with a +4 bonus - and then once he stood up, survived all of that - only gets to make a single attack action since his move action was used to stand up.
THAT is why it was so over-used and abused in 3.5
That all being said - PF seems to have overly nerfed it - but it did need revising.
Robert
It depends on the level, really.
At level one I could have 6 maybe 7 depending on various circumstances.
How many combats are prescribed to fight a day?
4 right?
Further, in the case of the aformentioned spells. . . you don't have to do anything. . . you dont' have to roll a die it forces the monster to roll "ONLY" thats significant in a way. More importantly they can do it at a range, so those things matter because there's no risk of retaliation.
Futher seriously I can only hope we all know why trip was so good, thanks for the trip primer anyway I guess.
I don't know what your definition of abuse is in this usage but I respectfully disagree with your analysis the reason that trip was so "popular" was because melee pcs had so few opitions and overall failed at thier jobs fairly consitently. People start throwing around the "B" work all haphazardly when someone actually made a melee-ist who could actually contribute to the party somewhat in level appropriate encounters anytime past level five but as early as level 1 if your caster new what they were doing. Most people don't, relying on the ignorance of your in spell caster is not a good measuring stick for balance, nor is a comparison to feat rarely used by comparison becuase they didn't work. Trip also had its drawbacks. but I digress for now... On another note.
People don't really know what "broken" is... "broken" makes the games stop working like candles of invocation and polymorph... Pun-pun.
To say trip is broken is a gross misnomer, improved bull rush never got used until like the last 8 months of D&D with the dungeon crasher sub level. No... there was shock trooper but that was never about bull rush. Let me rephrase bullrush never got used by itself as a manuever nor did Imp BR get chosen except as a prerequiste because it didn't really DO anything.
If you make this change you invalidate the tripfighter a popular 3.5 archtype, maybe that was the intent but you may as well save that ink. Its the = of 3.5 toughness.
Speaking of which, Jason, if you're reading this... your toughness fix is simple and brilliant, Thanks.
|
|
It depends on the level, really.
At level one I could have 6 maybe 7 depending on various circumstances.
How many combats are prescribed to fight a day?
4 right?
Okay, I'll bite. You have six grease spells prepared at first level - to the tune that you have nothing else to offer. Most dungeons I've seen require more than just 4 encounters before it's safe enough to rest - but lets use your conservative response. Each combat should last 5-7 rounds. So thats about 25 rounds of combat for that day. So in about 1/4 of the combat for the day your spells were used up. Meanwhile the unlimited trip machine can do it every round - and at higher level - multiple times per round.
Remember I said that over-balanced aspect of it wasn't necessarily just the attack after the trip - its the additional issues that a tripped foe now has to endure after being tripped and being attack (more easily to boot). He's still on the ground - his adversaries get a +4 to hit him, and now he has to stand - provoke AoO from everyone who threatens him (again at +4 to hit) and now he can make only one attack at best.
Futher seriously I can only hope we all know why trip was so good, thanks for the trip primer anyway I guess.
I don't know what your definition of abuse is in this usage but I respectfully disagree with your analysis the reason that trip was so "popular" was because melee pcs had so few opitions and overall failed at thier jobs fairly consitently.
Not true. Look through the combat section of the PHB; its one of the largest chapters. Theres a whold slough of options in there. What you are seeing as "so few of options" is more than likely "so few of options that are as powerful as trip" So if Trip is the one that is more powerful than everything else - its easier to declare Trip is the culprit of being unbalanced - than to say everything else is.
On another note.
People don't really know what "broken" is... "broken" makes the games stop working like candles of invocation and polymorph... Pun-pun.
To say trip is broken is a gross misnomer,
I didn't say broken. For the record, i said "over-powered" which per my illustrations it is indeed more powerful than the other options; by your own testimony that there are "few other options" shows that most can't see past the gratification and combat-changing ramifications of a trip manuever.
improved bull rush never got used until like the last 8 months of D&D with the dungeon crasher sub level. No... there was shock trooper but that was never about bull rush. Let me rephrase bullrush never got used by itself as a manuever nor did Imp BR get chosen except as a prerequiste because it didn't really DO anything.
I see Bull Rush and other options like Overrun get used frequently. They are viable options in many situations. Bullrushing someone off a ledge, into a spell effect (say a cloud of Stinking Cloud or Web spell, a grease, a Cloudkill etc), bullrushing someone allows all those standing around the person being bullrushed to make immediate attacks of opportunity on him. Bullrusing someone blocking a doorway to get inside the room to get to the wizard/leader/etc being protected by the meatshield. Overrun for this same purpose - Giants use this on the front line fighters all the time to get to the PC wizards in the back thinking they are safe from harm behind their fighter meatshields. Again this falls back on the issue that many times these options are overlooked because since Trip is so much more lucrative in its consequences, that it is easy to get tunnel vision and lock on to that ability.
If you make this change you invalidate the tripfighter a popular 3.5 archtype, maybe that was the intent but you may as well save that ink. Its the = of 3.5 toughness.
Fair enough - I have agreed with you that I think the feat got too nerfed by PF - and invalidation may be a result of it - but it did need to be reeled in and tweaked to make it more in line with alot of other options to start with - options that may be even more viable to you once trip isn't far and away a better more powerful choice. Hopefully it can be tweaked a bit more to make it not as nerfed as is is now, but not as powerful as it was either.
Robert
|
|
I'm for keeping the combat feats at +2. Instead I would change the DC for success to 10 + CMB (as in my platesting 15 seems like it is too high).
RobertJust curious. What level are you testing out. I have found that all of the CMB maneuvers are while difficult ... or at least unreliable at low levels, but absurdly easy at mid to high levels (8+). To the point where its impossible to fail (for a full or near full BAB progression.)
Granted giving up an attack (or a standard action) costs a lot more the higher level you are so maybe that is planned.
So far, 1, 3, 5, and last game was 7.
They fought an ogre at level 7; (ogre/barbarian lvl 4) Str 22 - 26 when raging. The human fighter had an 18 str and a +7 BAB. The fighter had a CMB of 15+7+4 = 26. The Ogre added 8 for STR, 1 for size, and 7 for BAB. = 16. The ogre had a 50/50 chance of failing against some who was signifantly weaker and smaller.
Maybe I'll see a difference in the higher levels.
Robert
Well... okay well we then we'll just agree to disagree then. Robert.
You and I are in firmly different camps about this.
I feel that trip worked you feel like it hogged the spotlight...
I say unto this that bullrush did eventually get used but not until the dungeon crasher variant.
I was not really interested in a full scale analysis of fighter vs wizard. Which a wizard doesn't need 6 entangles aday but in answer to your question 6-7spell though honestly I thought you were being facetious, 6-7 thats just fact. They don't all have to be grease and you still failed to specify a level for reference.
At heart however we simply fail to agree, sadly, I do not find your points valid really
Especially "Most dungeons I've seen..." which I personally have no point of reference for I only know that the original designers made the game to have 4 encounters in a 24 hour period, but you and I need an arbitrary and resonable amount of combats established for you to really get your point across other wise it's just one-up manship.
If I stand on your rubrick of "to the tune of having nothing else to do" at first level you then fall back on ranged weaponry. Even if it means falling back on javalines darts or crossbows... Many wizard build actually have high Dexterity because later in the game if I as a wizard go first, I win. Not to mention as you so astutely pointed out the ease of touch attacks.
So a caster with lots of grease still is slicker than the fighter with improved trip at level 1. By level 2 I have much more grease and I don't know vials of alchemist fire to throw. Things get much better for my position after that.
See... the real problem with you side of the argument is you're aguing things that I'm not even discussing I'm talking about trip being balance as "was" and now joining the ranks of rarely (if ever)used abilities. Now for you to list giants and overrun I say how many PC giants do you actually Dm? That many, eh? Are you a fan of the Savage speicies book? I mean if you are really, thats fine but you prove my point in a way. PLAYERS don't USE overrun typically it should perhaps be in the mosterous feats of the MM. As far as your bullrushing people into spells, thats actually lending towards my argument of the other manuevers being worhless compared to spells (ignoring grapple of course.) there are not enough deep wells in most game modules (published by Paizo) to have a "THIS IS SPARTA" moment in everygame or even in every campaign and really the odds of you actually shoving something you really need to get rid of when you need to get rid of it by shoving an... ogre, bullet, Raging dwarf... is just unlikely to happen.
For a feat you need to provide things that "work" not things that may occasionally work on a per campaign basis especially if you job is actually "Fighter" and you kill monsters for a living.
Bascially, no one instead of making the other abilities like overrun for instance more viable trip was made worthless. When really it worked okay the way it was.
I suppose thats the grand argument concerning fighters and rogues it looks like on these boards. Power up the weak to meet the strong or power down all the weak to an equal level of weak so that they're balanced amongst themselves
By the way though I wansn't refering to you when I referenced broken. Someone said it a few posts up. "Trip is broken". is up there somwhere.
Post 4 I think.
I will hinge my purchase of paizo product based on how this is resolved by the final date. I know its a miniscule change in the grandscheme of a system, but I belive it show intent.
Level up to balance
or level down to balance. . .
|
|
Well... okay well we then we'll just agree to disagree then. Robert.
You and I are in firmly different camps about this.
Agreed.
I feel that trip worked you feel like it hogged the spotlight...
No I dont think it hogged the spotlight. Over powered yes.
I say unto this that bullrush did eventually get used but not until the dungeon crasher variant.
I dont even know what dungeon crasher is. I used bullrush and the like without any variant character classes.
Especially "Most dungeons I've seen..." which I personally have no point of reference for I only know that the original designers made the game to have 4 encounters in a 24 hour period, but you and I need an arbitrary and resonable amount of combats established for you to really get your point across other wise it's just one-up manship.
Also true - which I did - I agreed with your 4 encounters being the target benchmark; times 6 rounds = 24 rounds of combat. Which trip can be used in all 24 rounds, and never use up resources.
If I stand on your rubrick of "to the tune of having nothing else to do" at first level you then fall back on ranged weaponry. Even if it means falling back on javalines darts or crossbows...
Which makes my arguement for me - as javelins and darts from a wizard are in no league comparison to a trip-specialist fighter.
See... the real problem with you side of the argument is you're aguing things that I'm not even discussing I'm talking about trip being balance as "was" and now joining the ranks of rarely (if ever)used abilities. Now for you to list giants and overrun I say how many PC giants do you actually Dm? That many, eh? Are you a fan of the Savage speicies book? I mean if you are really, thats fine...
I never made mention of the giants as PCs. Giants are critters PCs face - and like PCs they can have feats - such as Imp Overrun and Bullrush - which work quite nicely to get through the fighter meatshields to get to the squishies hiding behind them. Thats exactly what I said.
For the record, no - I am not a fan of Savage Species. I've never used it and would never allow a giant PC. I dont use any classes or races outside of the PHB.
Robert
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Bullrush gets plenty of use especially with the Knockback Feat, Rampaging Bullrush, and Shock Trooper. The Dungeoncrasher fighter substitution levels from Dungeonscape are a little over the top IMO. Awesome Blow only gives a 1d6 damage. 2d6 and 4d6 for the two subst. levels is more appropriate than 4d6 and 8d6!!!
Imp. Trip is a more powerful feat than the other Imp combat maneuvers because Prone is such a detrimental condition. Trust me I play a tripper and it's my most powerful option! It's not completely broken though as big monsters, strong monsters, monsters with multiple limbs, or a combo of those makes Trip less effective.
Losing the attack at the end is a little disappointing but we should playtest it to really determine that.
|
|
Bullrush gets plenty of use especially with the Knockback Feat, Rampaging Bullrush, and Shock Trooper. The Dungeoncrasher fighter substitution levels from Dungeonscape are a little over the top IMO. Awesome Blow only gives a 1d6 damage. 2d6 and 4d6 for the two subst. levels is more appropriate than 4d6 and 8d6!!!
As i said I dont use things outside the PHB - so I didn't have an idea what that is. Furthermore Knockback Rampaging Bullrush adn Shock Trooper are not familiar to me either.
Imp. Trip is a more powerful feat than the other Imp combat maneuvers because Prone is such a detrimental condition.
That was my point - the feat in and of itself is not 'broken' - being prone just causes all sorts of issues - allowing the imp trip to make the attack after being tripped and still leaving the foe prone all summed up is over-balanced.
If the feat allowed the trip attack, and the iterative attack on the foe - but then the foe doesnt remain prone after that attack, would go a long way towards making it on par with others i think - but that is hard to suspend disbelief on how to make it believeable.
However, the rewrite removing the iterative attack is fair IMO in that the other similar type feats: overrun, sunder, disarm, bullrush - do not allow an extra attack immediately following the maneuver.. Furthermore, the foe still remains prone, if you have haste or a high BAB you can still make additional attacks once he's on the ground, AND you still get the Attack of Opp when the guy tries to stand.
On the other hand, since its merely a touch attack to do it - the best course of action if you have multiple attacks is to use you last of your iterative attacks in the round to make the trip attaempt since its only a touch attack and you have a good chance of making that hit still even with the lower BAB attack.
Trust me I play a tripper and it's my most powerful option! It's not completely broken though as big monsters, strong monsters, monsters with multiple limbs, or a combo of those makes Trip less effective.
true its not useable against all foes - but even against large foes a fighter with a 22 STR (by the level you're fighting giants this isn't out of the question), a +4 for the feat, and your wizard buddy slapping on an Enlarge Person (very popular tactic that provides a +5 to your trip attmpts - 4 for being large and 1 for the increase in strength), you do have a respectable +15 to your trip attempts. Compare that to a challenge rating 10 Fire Giant has +10 for str and +4 for size - only a +14 to resist. Favor still goes to the trip-specialist.
EDIT: using 3.5 mechanics
Losing the attack at the end is a little disappointing but we should playtest it to really determine that.
It does IMO bring it back in line with the other combat manuever feats. And since Large sized only gives a +1 bonus to resist - the feat still provides a bigger bonus than the size modifier does. And like I said - target is still prone, iterative attacks can still be made in conjunction with the trip attack, and everyone else who attacks prone target gets a +4 bonus to hit - and he now has to stand, get AoOs (all at +4) and then only make one attack since he spent his move standing. (so its like being "slowed" too.)
EDIT: now with PF Alpha rules applied.
Robert
|
|
I'm for keeping the combat feats at +2. Instead I would change the DC for success to 10 + CMB (as in my platesting 15 seems like it is too high).
RobertJust curious. What level are you testing out. I have found that all of the CMB maneuvers are while difficult ... or at least unreliable at low levels, but absurdly easy at mid to high levels (8+). To the point where its impossible to fail (for a full or near full BAB progression.)
Granted giving up an attack (or a standard action) costs a lot more the higher level you are so maybe that is planned.
So far, 1, 3, 5, and last game was 7.
They fought an ogre at level 7; (ogre/barbarian lvl 4) Str 22 - 26 when raging. The human fighter had an 18 str and a +7 BAB. The fighter had a CMB of 15+7+4 = 26. The Ogre added 8 for STR, 1 for size, and 7 for BAB. = 16. The ogre had a 50/50 chance of failing against some who was signifantly weaker and smaller.
Maybe I'll see a difference in the higher levels.
Robert
Oh - something I meant to add to this aspect of the discussion; when the role was reversed the human fighter had a DC of 31 that he had attain in order to try and overrun the ogre. With the fighters CMB of +9, that meant he needed to roll a 22 on the D20.
So the fighter had 0% chance of affecting a creature that had a 50% of affecting him. Now if we lower the DC by 5 to DC 10 + CMB (as was my idea and suggestion), the ogre being much bigger and stronger would need a 5 (certainly within reason; and if the fighter was a dwarf or had the Defensive Combat Training Feat would need a 9 - or a 13 if it was a dwarf with that feat), and the fighter would need a 17! A slight chance but at least a chance.
Now compared to 3.5 mechanics:
The ogre would have +8 from Str, and +4 for size giving a +12. The fighter would have +4 from Str. On opposed 20s so long as the fighter beat the roll by 9 on a D20, he can affectively overrun the Ogre. Not a given, but certainly not a 0 percent chance either.
This encounter, and other similar results from encounters is what prompted me to want a lower DC.
Robert
|
|
My problem with trip, is not that it was powerful, it was that the abuse that was put to couldn't be countered by anything not specifically built to oppose it. In 3.5 I had a 2nd level fighter using a whip and improved trip keep a 15th level fighter on the ground because of the +4 to opposed str rolls. In the end the guy rolled over to the 2nd level character (an action not supported in the rules) and took him down with 1 blow from the ground, but that was after 5 rounds of the same. So do I think that it needed fixing, yes. But the CMB taking into account BAB should be that, I also agree that with a DC of 15+CMB a +2 is pissing in the wind, they either need to make it 10+CMB and +2 feats or they need to make it 15+CMB and +4 feats. I don't however like the free attack with trip because of the fact that it lead to an enemy that could do litterally nothing at = level because they would miss if they attacked from the ground so they had to try and stand which provoked and caused more damage. It was an annoyingly dull and repetative cycle that couldn't be avoided.
|
|
I'm with people on the idea of improved trip giving the extra attack being over powered. Tripping can be a great action on its own, you bring an opponent down, lower his AC and force him to take AoOs to stand up again.
I'm ok with improved trip giving the bonus to trip and making it so you can't be tripped in return, that seems to make it a great feat. But adding the extra attack in there is just far too much. Someone above mentioned a whip fighter doing this, but that causes almost no damage. I've seen the same done with a spiked chain fighter and combat reflexes, just keeping people pinned to the floor(He used to like to get enlarged and expand his reach. Then he would trip someone and hit them, hit them when they stood up, and when they started to step towards him he would trip and hit them again.)
-Tarlane
|
|
I've seen the same done with a spiked chain fighter and combat reflexes, just keeping people pinned to the floor(He used to like to get enlarged and expand his reach. Then he would trip someone and hit them, hit them when they stood up, and when they started to step towards him he would trip and hit them again.)
-Tarlane
Trust me - that player is not alone in his 'build'. The RPGA is full of those. By far one of THE most over-used character builds in 3.5.
Robert
Broken? It really doesnt' compare to like I don't know grease or entangle.How many of those can you use in a day? How many trips can you use?
Robert
Effectively infinite, with a cheap level 1 wand; 0 against most non-medium-sized-humanoid opponents in most cases, respectively.
Trip is one of those tactics that's very powerful against a very small subset of opponents. It works wonders against medium or smaller creatures with two legs, medium BAB, and low strength. It doesn't work at all against anything that doesn't come in range of you, against anything Huge or bigger, or anything that's got 4+ or 0 legs, or anything that's fairly large and very strong. Basically, it only works well against mooks. Against giants, dragons, constructs, oozes, vermin, ranged attackers, etc etc etc, it falls flat on its face and the character built to use it is nigh-useless.
Nerfing Improved Trip doesn't change that a bit.
Damn! THANK YOU Zurai! I was really like wondering what world these people were in for a second there.
Robert actually did say he only plays core or something to that effect so his and my experiences will be admittedly different.
I must content though that the reason that the tripper is such a Popular archtype is beacuse the other combat manuevers didn't actually do any thing, or get any support within the PHB. For most fighters it had to be that because fighters get so little. Combat reflexes, trip was one of the few things that saved fighters from dying the Sneak attack of doom fate and sometimes even that didn't work because of tumble.
Although I had to re-read the pathfinder rules to realized +4 for size doesn't exist, I don't think I agree with that either, basically imho there's a change there that didn't need to be made. Or ... maybe it did if you reduce the size bonus and make improved tip +2 it might not be as bad ... if it gets the extra attack.
However, some of you aren't really debating the same thing as me as far as I can tell. Anyone who personally feels like "I"m glad that the attack is gone because that archtype is ... dumb!" are unlikely to be able to swayed by anything anyone has to say about it.
I think a big problem is the paradigm that the Warriors(ftr,brb,pal,rang..etc) should not be being compared vs other warrior and thier abilities but vs what the rogues and spellcasters are doing at each level. Mainly, becasue fighting in D&D is sub-par compared to spellcasting and really the rogue wins at non-magical combat.
Thats how it is so far. Now you can kill the Archtype of the tripper and really it is dead as it stands and I can tell that some of you are happy with that. . .
However, that same player who was using the spiked chain or whip will then figure out how to use backswing overhand chop and power attack and then you'll be saying "Omg thats broken... again" and really it isn't it's not even overpowered when we start talking vs sneak attack or spells (except most people who roll up a caster use it far shy of its potential which is the same mental block that keeps people not wanting to play a 3.5 cleric because "I don't wanna be a heal bot" even if its secretly part of C.O.D.zilla) nor is it even overpowerd vs the monsters (using the srd 3.5 as a reference for the direction that should be taken and for you personal knoledge) who around 20-30 percent just CAN'T be tripped by a medium creature at all(!) and of the remainder over half have grand deterents to being tripped.
Large size (the +4 original)
Multiple limbs(or stability in the case of sleepy,grumpy,and the likes )
Magical Flight
(also in the can't be tripped thing is anything underwater.)
The only thing that gets tripped and pummeled is mainly NPC's (which often Dm's hate seeing thier 15th level fighter tripped down and made an fool of there was a DMPC thread that got that conversation banned over on gleemax) but Npc's are actually "SUPPOSED" to lose and take a back seat to the Pc heroes we're Dm'ing who are "supposed" to shine!
I can't argue efectively against hatred of the archtype "Tripping is stinky-Poo!" which is not in this case pedantic but a general summation of my interpretation of the underlying idea of a few of the above posts...
I tell you basically new trip is unplayable because of the loss of the attack just as bullrush was. It maybe off-set somewhat by the sheer number of feats you get that you can just trow them away like that but a +2 bonus... period isn't really worth a feat.
Unless you're already doing something broke...typically.
|
|
I tell you basically new trip is unplayable because of the loss of the attack just as bullrush was. It maybe off-set somewhat by the sheer number of feats you get that you can just trow them away like that but a +2 bonus... period isn't really worth a feat.
Unless you're already doing something broke...typically.
It also prevents the Attack of Opportunity usually associated with that manuever.
I never argued it was "stinky-poo" or that I dont like the arch-type. I said that it was over-powered; more powerful than all of the other similar feats - even by your own testimony due to the fact that "all of the other feats seem useless"
Its cause and effect....
The feat was overpowered (with the inclusion of the free attacks)
Therefore the other feats dont seem as lucrative
Therefore this feat was the one that gets chosen and thus the "arch-type"
Therefore people are tired of seeing said arch-type.
Not because it's stinky-poo or we just dont like people who can trip - but because it's too powerful, people know it's too powerful, and the proof of this is in how many people take it.
And now by your own admission - its 'just as useless as Bull Rush' means there was a level of difference in effectiveness between the feats. The problem is Imp Trip was above ALL of those feats.
Sure - theres encounters and situation where trip isn't dominant; but theres situation and encounters where every tactic is not only not dominant, but also useless. A melee fighter cant hit a flying target. There are many opponents rogues cannot sneak attack. A wizards fireballs are useless against most outsiders, a disarming specialist is useless against natural weapon attacks - so is a sunderer etc etc. This conversation was never about what tactic has the most universal and omnipresent use. No tactic is useful all the time. So given when tactics are able to be used, Tripping is one of more beneficial tactics. Improved trip affording that tactic along with an extra attack is stacked too high. And that is stinky-poo.
EDIT: and apparently - enough people agree with this; and unfortunately for you I suppose enough people on the design team agree with it, too.
Robert
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Effectively infinite, with a cheap level 1 wand; 0 against most non-medium-sized-humanoid opponents in most cases, respectively.
Trip is one of those tactics that's very powerful against a very small subset of opponents. It works wonders against medium or smaller creatures with two legs, medium BAB, and low strength. It doesn't work at all against anything that doesn't come in range of you, against anything Huge or bigger, or anything that's got 4+ or 0 legs, or anything that's fairly large and very strong. Basically, it only works well against mooks. Against giants, dragons, constructs, oozes, vermin, ranged attackers, etc etc etc, it falls flat on its face and the character built to use it is nigh-useless.
Nerfing Improved Trip doesn't change that a bit.
My Psychic Warrior tripper quickly learned that putting humanoids on their back was fun but bigger monsters and freaking dire animals were a pain. But even against big monsters it's not impossible cause at 4th level I tripped a young adult Blue Dragon out of the sky! As it stands now Trip is still useful, just not as dominant as it was. With the extra feats gained by all classes having Trip as one of many weapons is not a bad thing.
I also never thought Imp. Bull Rush was useless, just situational. If your DM never put battlefield hazards in your encounters then Bull Rushing an enemy was only good to set up AoO's. But if you include bridges, cliffs, rivers of lava, pools of acid, or spiked pits, etc then Bull Rush was fantastic!
Something that people may not understand here... Trip has been IMPROVED with Pathfinder.
It rolls off of CMB (Combat Maneuver Bonus). Size bonus for that is no longer +4 per size category, it's +1 Large, +2 Huge.
A Giant defending against a Trip from the Fighter only has 15 + BAB + 1 or 2 depending on size + strength.
A Fighter worth his salt can decently approach a Giant's strength score, and with the feat, gain that +2 bonus and negate size differential.
.
It's no longer an ability to never use against larger/stronger creatures because of the massive difference in opposed checks.
This means Trip can be used in a much wider range of creatures/situations. If you keep the attack off the trip, then it becomes the only Combat Maneuver that has this, and becomes the only maneuver people will choose again.
.
I might be for an additional feat, Fighter only, that allows ANY Combat Maneuver to have an extra attack after a success. This will do two things: give Fighter something going for him, and make it so that Trip isn't the only logically powerful choice since all maneuvers will allow it.
This is something I could get behind, as the Fighter is needing something. Imagine being able to add an attack along with your Bullrush or Overrun, or Disarm! The fighter not having to give up doing damage while doing combat things is classic fighter.
This means Trip can be used in a much wider range of creatures/situations. If you keep the attack off the trip, then it becomes the only Combat Maneuver that has this, and becomes the only maneuver people will choose again.
Not really, no. It's still limited to a max of +1 size category from the tripper. That means an ever-increasing majority of opponents past level 6 or 7 are flat-out immune. Heck, the size bonus nerf barely even exceeds the Improved Trip nerf when you compare a medium tripper and a larger tripee (like your giant). Here's an example:
Level 10 Fighter vs Stone Giant
Pathfinder: Fighter-dude has 22 strength, Improved Trip, and a +10 BAB for a +18 CMB. Stone Giant has 27 strength, +1 size, and a +10 BAB for a +19 CMB and a trip DC of 34. Fighter-dude has a 25% chance to trip.
3.5: Fighter-dude has 22 strength, Improved Trip, and a +10 BAB for a +20 trip attempt. Stone Giant has 27 strength, +4 size, and a +10 BAB for a +22 trip roll. Fighter-dude has a 40% chance to trip.
Note that Fighter-dude actually has a 15% higher chance to succeed in the 3.5 system.