I have a question about changes made to Improved Trip in Pathfinder Alpha 3. Why were these changes, especially b), made?
a) Combat Expertise was dropped as a prerequisite,
b) Improved Trip no longer grants the free attack when the maneuver succeeds.
I'm curious as to the motivation of these changes.
b) The same reason that Combat Expertise and Power Attack got nerfed: because fighters aren't supposed to have nice things. ;-)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I have a question about changes made to Improved Trip in Pathfinder Alpha 3. Why were these changes, especially b), made?
a) Combat Expertise was dropped as a prerequisite,
b) Improved Trip no longer grants the free attack when the maneuver succeeds.
I'm curious as to the motivation of these changes.
I'm pretty happy with (b), since it once of the main things that makes trip monkey builds attractive. Being prone gives more than enough penalties for it to be all that results from an improved trip attack, the extra free attack (with high odds of happening) basically makes spamming tripping a no-brainer against many large and almost all smaller opponents.
Pesonally as a DM I don't mind, but it makes it more difficult to sell PFRPG to one of my groups who are currently thinking about converting, and one of whom is a spiked chain trip monkey.
|
I don't see a problem with spamming trip at all.
I have an axe and I spam axe swings all the time. No one seems to complain when I spam axe hits.
I don't complain when the cleric spams heals, and I don't complain when the sorcerer spams fireballs (well except that once... but he paid for it with blood)
So why would any one complain about spamming trips?
|
So why would any one complain about spamming trips?
Imp. Trip was by far one of the most powerful feats in 3.5, and certainly more powerful than its cousins.
Someone with Imp. Trip allowed someone to attack with just needing a touch attack, then an opposed roll - which was usually stacked in the tripping persons favor (thanks to the +4 from feat, and wizards with usual enlarge person spells granting a +5, and strength enhancements from any number of sources). Then the person got a free attack at a +4 to hit since target was prone. Then on the targets turn when he stood up, he'd lose the option of taking a full attack, AND the tripper got ANOTHER attack at +4 to hit for the attack of opportunity. And of course the biggest offender of these were spiked chain wielders who were allowed to do it at 10' away. (15' w/ Enlarge Person).
Now the feat is in line with its cousins. The prereq was removed because Trip is no longer as powerful as it was, and Combat Expertise is no longer as powerful as it was, thus removing the need of the prereq to really make the feat balanced.
It's the right move for fair and balance that Paizo made. Trip monkeys were popular for a reason - it was too easy to do, and too powerful when done. Thats why the RPGA had so many people doing it.
Robert
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
So why would any one complain about spamming trips?
Because none of those other abilities put the prone condition on you, and being prone is one of the worst things that can happen to you in 3.5E. Taking out the AoO for standing up would help, if they did that I'd support putting the free attack back in.
Let me summarize the changes:
a) The Prerequsites have been changed a bit.
- Combat expertise (which has a Int prereq of 13) has been removed.
- Improved trip still has the Int 13 prereq.
- Combat expertise has been nerved (a bit to much imho).
Net: One feat gain.
But I don`t get the reason, why Trip should have Intelligence as requisite. When I practised some Martial arts some days(ehm, years) ago, I found that trying to trip somebody needs technique (dexterity/feat) and Strength (CMB), but no Intelligence.
b) The range of possible results has been narrowed from -19 to +19 (possible 39 results, Gauß-distribution) to 20 results, equal distribution. So they changed the altering factors accordingly, which seems to be logical (on the first look). On the second look however you get this effect:
- On DnD3.5 a +4 modifier changes the probability of an successful trip (after having been successful with the touch attack) of equal strength characters by a bit less than 20 % (Exactly it would be 5%+4.75%+4.5%+4.25% = 18.5%) from 50% to nearly 70%. If the base probability is higher, the net gain is reduced accordingly. So a small risk is given even with high positive modifiers.
- In Pathfinder, a +2 modifier changes the probability plainly by 10%.
This can give you (against mooks and goons) a 100% success chance while against boss fights, trip is a wasted feat.
Net: In addition that the modifiers are nerved, the basic probability has been changed by flat -25%, too. That is too much, if you take both into account (lesser effect of modifiers and lesser base chance)
c) Effects of being tripped against other combat maneuvers, which doe similar effects. (Grapple and Bull-rush are taken out of scope, as they are different in use and intention)
Being tripped by the DnD3.5 maneuver allows the tripper to do an extra attack. Thats quite strong, as you already have a -4 to AC due to being prone. Getting up provokes an AoO and costs a move action. There are some tricks and feats, which lets you stand up without provoking an AoO. Some even as free action.
Let me compare it with successful results of other maneuvers:
- Disarm: A disarmed fighter looses its weapon, which drops to the filed, where he is standing. Picking it up costs the disarmed one a move action and provokes an AoO. This cannot be avoided. So it is a bit more powerful as trip. In addition, if you are being disarmed by an unarmed fighter, he has you weapon.
Alternatively the fighter can draw a new weapon (also move action, but without AoO), if he has one . OK, here quickdraw eases life somewhat.
- Sunder: Nearly same as Disarm, with following alterations:
1) Weapon is destroyed: You have to draw a new one. If you don`t have one spare weapon, your bad.
2) Weapon is damaged: Weapon gets the broken condition. This hampers your fighting abilites not only for this encounter, but for longer.
Net:
In Pathfinder you loose the extra attack with trip. This seems to be OK, as the other maneuvers don`t give you an extra attack if the stunt was successful.
Putting all pieces together:
As all meneuvers are done via the CMB, it is OK, if the all meneuvers do the same net effects (in impact). So Trip is now back in line with other maneuvers.
but the base probability has been toned down so much, that it is useless to try a maneuver to an opponent (with say 30% success chance), if you can normally hit him with a 70% chance.
Actually maneuvers are inappropiate choices for fighter characters, especially when they have the rare event of having an AoO.
So my opinion is:
- Increase the base probability by reducing the CMB from 15 to 10 or 12.
- Increase the Feat Modifier from +2 to +3
- Reduce the effects of the Defensive Maneuvers feat from +4 to +2
- Reduce the effects of the Stability-racial ability of the dwarf from +4 to +2
- Alter the effects of Size category from exponential to linear. (A Gargantuan fighter has a -4 to CMB against a Colossal one, while a small fighter has only a -2 to a large one. The relative Mass relations are: Garagatuan to colossal: 8. Small to Large: 27-64. Please fix it.
- reduce the effects of having more than 2 feet from +2 to +1
- Allow additional feats like Greater tip/disarm etc, which gives you additional +2 on the CMB.
Comments welcome.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Let me summarize the changes:
But I don`t get the reason, why Trip should have Intelligence as requisite. When I practised some Martial arts some days(ehm, years) ago, I found that trying to trip somebody needs technique (dexterity/feat) and Strength (CMB), but no Intelligence.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. In my 7 years in Ju-jitsu (admittedly, also a long time ago), "tripping" someone effectively required tricking/bluffing them to get them off balance and then taking them down was pretty easy. Against a wary opponent who knew how to keep a good stance and was on the lookout against being tripped, it was almost impossible, being strong or quick wasn't the issue, it was all about finding a good opening, feinting, etc. to get them off balance, or use a technique that they were unfamiliar with (and thuse couldn't defend against).
|
|
Well the problem there was you were using ju-jitsu :) just teasing
I can live without the extra attack if the chance of success were better. As already pointed out, all of the maneuvers have been nerfed so much that it will be a very rare occurance that they are ever used. Which seems to be the point.
PfRPG seems to be going the exact opposite of 4E. Rather than promoting thought and variety in combat they seem to be encouraging less options. In an effort to streamline combat times the flavor of combat is suffering.
Let me put it this way... when was the last time you saw a really good fight scene and the only thing they did was hack away at each other with swords and shields?
I don't remember one. I want to see kicking and biting and tripping and two handed wielders against two weapon wielders against sword and board wielders against bare handed fighters. I want variety and excitement and action!
Instead I get action from the D&D movies... BORING!
lol
So why would any one complain about spamming trips?Because none of those other abilities put the prone condition on you, and being prone is one of the worst things that can happen to you in 3.5E. Taking out the AoO for standing up would help, if they did that I'd support putting the free attack back in.there was a feat called kip up or free stand i belive that allowed you to stand up from prone as a free action.
people are forgetting that performing the trip is now a lot harder.
the Giant with a strength of 24 (+7) and a base attack of oh lets say about +10 has a BMB of +17 oh and i forot his size of Huge gives him another + 8 is it? thats a 25. add the base DC of 15 means your DC to trip this brute is a 40!!!!
In Pathfinder, size Huge gives only a +2.
So you are on DC 34.Nevertheless, you need to have a +14 on your CMB to have a 5% chanche and you need a +23 on the CMB for a 50% chanche.
Lets try to get a +23:
BAB +12 as a fighter 12.
Strength 24 (=+7). Beginning with 17, 3 Attribute raises and a +4 Stat booster.
Improved Trip = +2
Sum = 21.
So you need an enlarge Person (+1 Site, +1 Strength) to reach the 23.
On the other side You will have a normal attack bonus of
BAB 12, Strength +8, Focus +1, Melee-Mastery +2, Magic Weapon +2, Size -1, Greater Focus +1, Training +2 = +27 !
It is way more efficient to make a normal attack (even with power-attack) than to waste an mattack with a maneuver with 50% chanche of success.