When you can show me a picture of someone flat on their backs being knocked down I will agree with tripping a prone person. No, I am not being snarky--->Do the rules specifically state a prone person can not be tripped, no, but the dead condition(once again), which does state quiet a number of things, does not specifically state you can't take actions or continue playing with the same character, so by the logic of "the rules must state it" there is nothing stopping you from continuing to play with your dead character. By RAW, but not RAI it is a viable option.You are assuming the attack of opportunity occurs the instant the action starts - i.e., when the provoking character is still entirely prone.
By this logic, a readied action (which also occurs mid-action) to attack a character who enters through a door that you threaten would fail automatically, as you would take the readied attack the instant the action starts (with the interrupted character benefiting from total cover, still on the other side of the door).
I can see the logic in your argument, but I can also see the logic in the counter-argument. Also, it makes sense to me that a character might be able to keep another character down, kicking him and sweeping at his arms and legs as he tries to get prone. You see this in movies a lot, especially in scenes where one or more characters gang up on another character, keeping him prone or scrambling to stand or flee.
the issue has been clarified i think by James Jacobs. as the RAW states the AOO is resolved before the action that provoked it so as the 2nd poster wrote it u could trip someone who is already prone but you would gain nothing from it(the condition dosent stake), and the target provoking the attack would still be able to complete his action and stand up. the only way to acomplish what you want is to ready an action to trip someone when they have completet the move.
RAW aside i agree that in movies you often see thist trick, but the obvious reason it dosen work in game is to balace the manuver.
I think that's pretty accurate. I mean the player isn't trip locked normally, they can still crawl away THEN get up.Only to have the tripper move up to them and trip them again, forcing them into the exact same situation?
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.So he crawls 5ft., provoking AoO, and stands. Tripper 5ft steps and full attacks, with the first attack being a trip. Tripper now gets a full attack on prone target, and target can do nothing but lay there and attack back at a -4.
Frankly there's nothing stopping anyone from tripping on subsequent turns anyway, so I'm not seeing how this is any different then the normal rules... the trip-ee 5 foot crawls, then stands. The tripper follows and trips again, which can be done according to standard rules anyway, right?
Trip locking is still completely valid, you just need a second tripper to ready actions. It's still a completely functional tactic.
One way or the other the prone fellow is taking an attack of opportunity, this way he moves away then gets up.
|
Frankly there's nothing stopping anyone from tripping on subsequent turns anyway, so I'm not seeing how this is any different then the normal rules... the trip-ee 5 foot crawls, then stands. The tripper follows and trips again, which can be done according to standard rules anyway, right?Trip locking is still completely valid, you just need a second tripper to ready actions. It's still a completely functional tactic.
One way or the other the prone fellow is taking an attack of opportunity, this way he moves away then gets up.
The difference is that if the trip-ee can stand up in his own square without being tripped again, he can make a standard action attack. If he has to crawl 5ft as a move action, then stand up as another move action, he gets no attacks. Thus, against a tripstar, he can only attack from the prone. This seems rather unfair to the trip-ee. How would a PC feel if the monster did this to him? Especially against monsters that get a free trip along with their regular attack?
How would a PC feel if the monster did this to him?
I keep asking this, but I am not getting any takers.
The difference is that if the trip-ee can stand up in his own square without being tripped again, he can make a standard action attack. If he has to crawl 5ft as a move action, then stand up as another move action, he gets no attacks. Thus, against a tripstar, he can only attack from the prone. This seems rather unfair to the trip-ee. How would a PC feel if the monster did this to him?
Frankly there's nothing stopping anyone from tripping on subsequent turns anyway, so I'm not seeing how this is any different then the normal rules... the trip-ee 5 foot crawls, then stands. The tripper follows and trips again, which can be done according to standard rules anyway, right?Trip locking is still completely valid, you just need a second tripper to ready actions. It's still a completely functional tactic.
One way or the other the prone fellow is taking an attack of opportunity, this way he moves away then gets up.
I think he'd be glad he had other party members to distract the bid bad, rather then letting it pursue him and keep him on the ground. Frankly this can still be done by two attackers, so the idea that its somehow unfair is kind of a weak point.
You can be effectively trip locked still by two creatures working together, as that's established then the rules support doing it, just not as a reactive AoO.
The thing about this that bothers me is the precedence of it... the other point that I made in my post about timing and how this implies that the rules are more concerned with your status BEFORE the action you take rather then the action you're taking. Concentration checks to maintain spells after taking damage then makes no sense because your status as of the attack of opportunity is NOT casting a spell (because the AoO resolves prior to the action happening).
|
|
I guess the real question is, do you want your characters to have the options:
A. Stand up, take AoO, and get one attack
B. Stay prone and take a -4 to all attacks and AC
or
A. Move 5ft, take AoO, and stand up.
B. Stay prone and take a -4 to all attacks and AC
Obviously I prefer the first one
I think he'd be glad he had other party members to distract the bid bad, rather then letting it pursue him and keep him on the ground. Frankly this can still be done by two attackers, so the idea that its somehow unfair is kind of a weak point.
You can be effectively trip locked still by two creatures working together, as that's established then the rules support doing it, just not as a reactive AoO.
Well, I just don't want it being done by one person. What if you have a party of tripstars doing 1-to-1 coverage? TPK. At least with two people required, it's already an unfair fight, so of course you're in trouble.
How would a PC feel if the monster did this to him?I keep asking this, but I am not getting any takers.
Frankly I try not to entertain these kinds of points, there are FAR more damaging effects in the game then this available to ANY high level mage. This feels like a bit of a diversionary counterpoint.
I've never asked a character how he feels about DR or Fast Healing so they must be unfair, too?
So you never ask 'is it fun to be subjected to this?'
No, of course not. If you have to ask you're doing it very, very wrong. In fact I normally shy away from anything that makes the players feel victimized in any way, but its not a valid enough part of the discussion to really warrant any attention, I was just trying to point out that there are a host of things in the RAW that will piss off players (Finger of Death/ ANY save or suck effect, which renders a character useless for the whole fight anyway).
I just don't see it as part of the discussion, and was trying to avoid getting into that one as its fairly subjective.
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Eh... Not in my game.
I really don't like treating D&D rules like they're Magic: The Gathering and worrying about in which microsecond what triggers what. Far as I'm concerned, realism trumps, and if someone insists on keeping standing up in front of an attacker, they can keep getting kicked back down if their CMD isn't up to the task. In most cases they can use another move action, crawl away and get up, attack anyway, etc. "Binary conditions" are limitations of CRPGs, not a benefit to be aped in a real tabletop RPG.
This thread has annoyed me for two days, largely because we're all approaching it from different angles. Although some disagree whether a rule limiting "trip-locking" is needed for purposes of balance, I don't see the primary disagreement as a rules issue.
Some of the contention seems to actually revolve around different definitions we have for being "prone".
Some assume that a character is prone until it's standing on its feet. The AoO comes before the action of rising is completed, therefore tripping a rising character does little to keep them from finishing their movement.
Others describe the rising character as not truly prone when the AoO hits them. They see the AoO tripping someone rising from a crouch, causing them to fall again.
We could argue about this until the end of time, but as long as we start from different assumptions, others' views won't make much sense to us.
I do tend to agree that trip-locking isn't allowed. Other attacks of opportunity against moving characters occur in the space the character is trying to leave, rather than their destination.
|
Eh... Not in my game.I really don't like treating D&D rules like they're Magic: The Gathering and worrying about in which microsecond what triggers what. Far as I'm concerned, realism trumps, and if someone insists on keeping standing up in front of an attacker, they can keep getting kicked back down if their CMD isn't up to the task. In most cases they can use another move action, crawl away and get up, attack anyway, etc. "Binary conditions" are limitations of CRPGs, not a benefit to be aped in a real tabletop RPG.
So in your game a character who takes a 2 feat chain with appropriate dex should be able to prevent up to 3 characters he is in melee range from ever getting up or taking actions?
I point back a few pages to the agruement towards fun. Being able to chain trip somebody or even worse BEING chain tripped is no fun, and should not be possible without SIGNIFICANT effort from the person doing it.
So in your game a character who takes a 2 feat chain with appropriate dex should be able to prevent up to 3 characters he is in melee range from ever getting up or taking actions?I point back a few pages to the agruement towards fun. Being able to chain trip somebody or even worse BEING chain tripped is no fun, and should not be possible without SIGNIFICANT effort from the person doing it.
Those why rely on finicky rules details to maintain "fun" in their games get what they deserve, I reckon.
And the tripped person can take plenty of actions... They just are subject to attacks and opposed CMB/CMD rolls that in effect trade damage for a -4 penalty.
Any number of other tactics do this, from Bestow Curse to grappling... There are any number of crappy things that can happen to you in D&D combat - getting feared, held, charmed, entangled, cursed, tripped, grappled, etc. C'est la vie. As a good DM I don't overdo any one (or multiple) of those and throw the PCs into the City of Trippy Trippertons. I don't have to make rules to enforce balance over realism to maintain fun.
The rules don't enforce balance at the sake of realism. They're perfectly realistic. You can't really trip someone who's on all fours or on his knees, after all. They have to be on their feet in order to be tripped, and they aren't on their feet until the "stand up from prone" action is completed.
How would a PC feel if the monster did this to him?I keep asking this, but I am not getting any takers.Frankly I try not to entertain these kinds of points, there are FAR more damaging effects in the game then this available to ANY high level mage. This feels like a bit of a diversionary counterpoint.
I've never asked a character how he feels about DR or Fast Healing so they must be unfair, too?
DR and fast healing dont TPK parties so that is a bad comparison.
In most cases they can use another move action, crawl away and get up, attack anyway, etc.No, they can't, as my posts above pointed out.
We both pointed it out, and my post about being ninja'd really means it was pointed out 3 times. Do I have an "ignore me" script written into my profile somewhere. Maybe everyone on the board can see it except me, kind of like the "kick me" sign that gets taped to people's back.
So in your game a character who takes a 2 feat chain with appropriate dex should be able to prevent up to 3 characters he is in melee range from ever getting up or taking actions?I point back a few pages to the agruement towards fun. Being able to chain trip somebody or even worse BEING chain tripped is no fun, and should not be possible without SIGNIFICANT effort from the person doing it.
Those why rely on finicky rules details to maintain "fun" in their games get what they deserve, I reckon.
And the tripped person can take plenty of actions... They just are subject to attacks and opposed CMB/CMD rolls that in effect trade damage for a -4 penalty.
Any number of other tactics do this, from Bestow Curse to grappling... There are any number of crappy things that can happen to you in D&D combat - getting feared, held, charmed, entangled, cursed, tripped, grappled, etc. C'est la vie. As a good DM I don't overdo any one (or multiple) of those and throw the PCs into the City of Trippy Trippertons. I don't have to make rules to enforce balance over realism to maintain fun.
Trip-locking is harder to get away from than anything you mentioned.
I don't have to make rules to enforce balance over realism to maintain fun.We aren't making rules, we are telling you what the rules ARE.
Maybe he is just ignoring all the previous post.
Did anyone else hear something?
Darn it, it's true.
|
He was giving the RAW interpretation. RAI, trip was never intended to keep people down. It is not fair to DM or players. I am sure a bunch of trip based giants could wipe a party easily if that trip-lock worked, then players would be complaining, and rightfully so. It is just better to avoid the situation altogether and play the rule as intended.2) In my opinion it is just a matter of not being able to trip someone that is prone already and thus I say Jason is wrong(well a bit) in his explanation, just dont trip a prone creature period, smack it on the head instead so that it stays down.
Do not overcomplicate it by saying you can trip a creature that is prone but it simply has no effect, smacking a prone creature prone is not a trip it is simple smacking.
Since when does a fight always have to be "fair"? And realistically, imho, if you are fighting a bunch of giants at once in a group and they start tripping you, I think you are doing something VERY wrong.
|
|
Not really. What people want is to be able to trip someone when they stand, making them prone again and wasting the move action the guy used to stand. Thus, the tripped person cannot stand up while threatened unless the tripper misses his trip attempt. At no action cost to the tripper, because they use their AoO and not their turn of actions.
If I have misrepresented the people in favor of tripping prone opponents, one of you please correct me.
This is exactly right, and its not "unfair". There are feats and means of defense to prevent being trip locked, and with the expenditure of multiple feats to achieve any success in keeping an opponent down on the ground, it seems a reasonable ability to have for the cost.
Or I could take the 3 feats and do things like extra damage (crits, vital strike) and such, but this is now not a viable build and those feats are pointless.
Since when does a fight always have to be "fair"? And realistically, imho, if you are fighting a bunch of giants at once in a group and they start tripping you, I think you are doing something VERY wrong.He was giving the RAW interpretation. RAI, trip was never intended to keep people down. It is not fair to DM or players. I am sure a bunch of trip based giants could wipe a party easily if that trip-lock worked, then players would be complaining, and rightfully so. It is just better to avoid the situation altogether and play the rule as intended.2) In my opinion it is just a matter of not being able to trip someone that is prone already and thus I say Jason is wrong(well a bit) in his explanation, just dont trip a prone creature period, smack it on the head instead so that it stays down.
Do not overcomplicate it by saying you can trip a creature that is prone but it simply has no effect, smacking a prone creature prone is not a trip it is simple smacking.
In real life no fight has to be fair, but in a game, since the purpose is to have fun, fairness does matter. Once you throw fairness out the window you can allow for level 1 parties to fight CR 15 monsters. I don't think you will have to many people at you table with that going on.
Why do you have to be doing something wrong? Giant's main attacks are melee. It is assumed the DM can find a way to get them close to you. Other than hill giants and ogres, I would not expect them to be dumb enough to just charge the party. Giants are not stupid. If the DM who controls the entire game world can't get the giants into melee he is doing something wrong, IMHO.
Not really. What people want is to be able to trip someone when they stand, making them prone again and wasting the move action the guy used to stand. Thus, the tripped person cannot stand up while threatened unless the tripper misses his trip attempt. At no action cost to the tripper, because they use their AoO and not their turn of actions.
If I have misrepresented the people in favor of tripping prone opponents, one of you please correct me.
This is exactly right, and its not "unfair". There are feats and means of defense to prevent being trip locked, and with the expenditure of multiple feats to achieve any success in keeping an opponent down on the ground, it seems a reasonable ability to have for the cost.
Or I could take the 3 feats and do things like extra damage (crits, vital strike) and such, but this is now not a viable build and those feats are pointless.
Tell me how each class can prevent being triplocked at any level. Triplock works at any level, by they way. No amount of feats should allow a broken build, and that is what triplock would be. By your logic PunPun would be ok.
|
|
How would a PC feel if the monster did this to him?I keep asking this, but I am not getting any takers.
I would hope that the rest of my party is able to do something to the monster, and/or drag me the heck out of there once I am unconscious or wounded.
I would maybe "bluff" my way into pretending to be knocked unconscious.
I would try to attack from prone to kill the monster.
I would cast a spell from prone (if a caster).
I would distract the monster with a spell/diversion/ability.
I might even (gasp!) die. If I am resurrected, I would try to fix my CMD (which everyone has, btw). If my character wasn't rezed, I would roll a new character and knowing my GM might use this tactic against me, I might choose different footing/ground/tactics/terrain to fight on. I would increase my CMD. I might take the improved trip feat to gain the bonus against trips. I might do a variety of things to avoid this.
Not EVERY monster you face from this point on would be a trip-lock. Not every build will be one. Not every NPC can do this.
Lastly, I would like to point out again that NOT every fight will go in the party's favor. Sometimes NPC's win. Not every win by an NPC/monster will result in death either.
The "WHARGBARGLE!!" approach to attacking monsters is silly, and the trip lock build for a monster is a nice way for the DM to show the lunatic rampaging PC that sometimes he can get pwned hardcore.
|
|
The rules don't enforce balance at the sake of realism. They're perfectly realistic. You can't really trip someone who's on all fours or on his knees, after all. They have to be on their feet in order to be tripped, and they aren't on their feet until the "stand up from prone" action is completed.
This is wrong. Get on your hands and knees in front of me, I'm willing to bet that I can knock you square on your back or stomach each and every time you get back to starting position.
|
|
Tell me how each class can prevent being triplocked at any level. Triplock works at any level, by they way. No amount of feats should allow a broken build, and that is what triplock would be. By your logic PunPun would be ok.Not really. What people want is to be able to trip someone when they stand, making them prone again and wasting the move action the guy used to stand. Thus, the tripped person cannot stand up while threatened unless the tripper misses his trip attempt. At no action cost to the tripper, because they use their AoO and not their turn of actions.
If I have misrepresented the people in favor of tripping prone opponents, one of you please correct me.
This is exactly right, and its not "unfair". There are feats and means of defense to prevent being trip locked, and with the expenditure of multiple feats to achieve any success in keeping an opponent down on the ground, it seems a reasonable ability to have for the cost.
Or I could take the 3 feats and do things like extra damage (crits, vital strike) and such, but this is now not a viable build and those feats are pointless.
Each player/npc has a CMD. There are tons of ways to increase your CMD. You are all forgetting one simple fact: The trip has to succeed in the first place for the trip to work. With a high enough CMD, you ain't tripping squat.
Just for example, I have a lvl 10 bard build which specializes in tripping. Max effect right now is +17. Against a CR11 demon, most of which have CMD of 30+, this means I still have to roll above a 13+ to make the trip work.
Thats less than 50%.
Hardly "game breaking".
I would hope that the rest of my party is able to do something to the monster, and/or drag me the heck out of there once I am unconscious or wounded.
If hope is your only option ......
I would maybe "bluff" my way into pretending to be knocked unconscious.
Trips dont do hit point damage. It looks like you are back to that hope option, and if the rest of the party is trip-locked you just get coup de graced to make sure you are dead.
I would try to attack from prone to kill the monster.
Fighting a melee based monster from prone, really?
I would cast a spell from prone (if a caster).
The most power class(Casters) might be able to get out. If that is what it takes, and even that is not a good guarantee depending on the intelligence of the monster then that just shows how broken it is. It does not take much wisdom to ready an action against spell casting.
I would distract the monster with a spell/diversion/ability.
You might have to explain this one to me.
I might even (gasp!) die. If I am resurrected, I would try to fix my CMD (which everyone has, btw). If my character wasn't rezed, I would roll a new character and knowing my GM might use this tactic against me, I might choose different footing/ground/tactics/terrain to fight on. I would increase my CMD. I might take the improved trip feat to gain the bonus against trips. I might do a variety of things to avoid this.
Monsters win the CMB battle, especially at higher levels. The only thing to do is try to stay out of range, but once again the DM controls the world. If he wants you in range then you will be in range.
Not EVERY monster you face from this point on would be a trip-lock. Not every build will be one. Not every NPC can do this.
Every monster does not have too. You only need to lose one battle to die.
Lastly, I would like to point out again that NOT every fight will go in the party's favor. Sometimes NPC's win. Not every win by an NPC/monster will result in death either.
I know PC's die, but they should not be put in an autolose situation. Even grapple can be negated with freedom of movement or acrobatics. The chances to escape are not in your favor but the chance is there, and it is a lot better than with trip lock. This is really no better than using an ability with a DC so high the PC's need a nat 20 to avoid dying.
The "WHARGBARGLE!!" approach to attacking monsters is silly, and the trip lock build for a monster is a nice way for the DM to show the lunatic rampaging PC that sometimes he can get pwned hardcore.
I dont know what "WHARGBARGLE" is, and basic tactics can put a PC in his place. Broken builds need not apply.
Tell me how each class can prevent being triplocked at any level. Triplock works at any level, by they way. No amount of feats should allow a broken build, and that is what triplock would be. By your logic PunPun would be ok.Not really. What people want is to be able to trip someone when they stand, making them prone again and wasting the move action the guy used to stand. Thus, the tripped person cannot stand up while threatened unless the tripper misses his trip attempt. At no action cost to the tripper, because they use their AoO and not their turn of actions.
If I have misrepresented the people in favor of tripping prone opponents, one of you please correct me.
This is exactly right, and its not "unfair". There are feats and means of defense to prevent being trip locked, and with the expenditure of multiple feats to achieve any success in keeping an opponent down on the ground, it seems a reasonable ability to have for the cost.
Or I could take the 3 feats and do things like extra damage (crits, vital strike) and such, but this is now not a viable build and those feats are pointless.
Each player/npc has a CMD. There are tons of ways to increase your CMD. You are all forgetting one simple fact: The trip has to succeed in the first place for the trip to work. With a high enough CMD, you ain't tripping squat.
Just for example, I have a lvl 10 bard build which specializes in tripping. Max effect right now is +17. Against a CR11 demon, most of which have CMD of 30+, this means I still have to roll above a 13+ to make the trip work.
Thats less than 50%.
Hardly "game breaking".
Monster are usually CMB/CMD masters. You are also using a bard. Comparing a bard to an outsider is a weak comparison. A sorcerer or wizard could probably escape trip lock depending on how tactical the DM was, but looking at their power level that does not mean it is ok to do.
|
|
Agree to disagree then.
I don't see a trip locking character which requires multiple feats to do all that game breaking. Nor do I see a potential fight where the party has to fight a trip monkey monster as all that game breaking.
You do.
Game designer has had his say, so in organized play he trumps my opinion.
My table, my rules.
|
|
Tell me how each class can prevent being triplocked at any level. Triplock works at any level, by they way. No amount of feats should allow a broken build, and that is what triplock would be. By your logic PunPun would be ok.Not really. What people want is to be able to trip someone when they stand, making them prone again and wasting the move action the guy used to stand. Thus, the tripped person cannot stand up while threatened unless the tripper misses his trip attempt. At no action cost to the tripper, because they use their AoO and not their turn of actions.
If I have misrepresented the people in favor of tripping prone opponents, one of you please correct me.
This is exactly right, and its not "unfair". There are feats and means of defense to prevent being trip locked, and with the expenditure of multiple feats to achieve any success in keeping an opponent down on the ground, it seems a reasonable ability to have for the cost.
Or I could take the 3 feats and do things like extra damage (crits, vital strike) and such, but this is now not a viable build and those feats are pointless.
Each player/npc has a CMD. There are tons of ways to increase your CMD. You are all forgetting one simple fact: The trip has to succeed in the first place for the trip to work. With a high enough CMD, you ain't tripping squat.
Just for example, I have a lvl 10 bard build which specializes in tripping. Max effect right now is +17. Against a CR11 demon, most of which have CMD of 30+, this means I still have to roll above a 13+ to make the trip work.
Thats less than 50%.
Hardly "game breaking".
Umm...and what happens when the monster pulls it on YOU? Your average CR 11 melee monsters gonna have a CMB of 25+...so that means your CMD has to be higher then 26 or you autolose. So for a mid BAB character, we're looking at 10+7bab+6(variety of stats)+2(for various bonus) and MAYBE +2 for feat. That's still an autolose. Full BAB may do better and not be screwed 10-20% of the time is they have the proper feat. Yeah the players pull it in one encounter and think that great, they found a loophole...then the monsters do it and it TPKs. A system that allows that is broken. Screw realism, D&D combat ain't realistic anyways. I'll take a working system over a broken fake realistic system anyday.
I realize there are other issues floating around in here, but let me go on and state one point clearly...
You can use your AoO to trip a creature that is standing up from prone, but it has no effect, since the AoO is resolved before the action is completed, meaning that the creature is still prone. Once the AoO resolves, the creature would stand up normally.
As for the rest.. I'll let it shake out a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingThis is giving me a headache.
I'm a firm believer in Cause preceding Effect, and this appears to be more of an exercise is quantum theory then rational thought.
I'm having a difficult time understanding the ruling. I get the mechanical explanation... someone has the condition "prone" which isn't removed until they stand up (completing their action) the AoO occurs as a result of their action, interrupting it, but occurring before the action has any results whatsoever.
So in order of action/precedence
A is prone (In real life prone means laying FLAT on the ground)
A goes to get up (no longer laying flat on the ground) and gets hit for being in a risky situation. The attacker chooses to trip them.
Trip attack is successful, but because the target isn't standing the trip can't effect them.
B stands up.I understand it mechanically, but how in the world do you DESCRIBE that happening?
Clearly I'm in the "house rule it out" camp here, but if you can use a trip attack as part of an AoO then why not in this particular instance?
So if the condition of the person using an action that provokes is so important, how is this mechanically any different from a concentration check?
If A casts a spell, and Be hits him with an attack, but A isn't technically casting a spell until after the AoO then why do we EVER need to make a concentration check?
This seems like a poor ruling to me. (not that I'm anyone that matters, lol)
You do realize that tripping someone that is down instead of bashing his head in while he is vulnerable is in itself a mechanical choice, rather than one born from rational thought ?
The rules don't enforce balance at the sake of realism. They're perfectly realistic. You can't really trip someone who's on all fours or on his knees, after all. They have to be on their feet in order to be tripped, and they aren't on their feet until the "stand up from prone" action is completed.This is wrong. Get on your hands and knees in front of me, I'm willing to bet that I can knock you square on your back or stomach each and every time you get back to starting position.
I bet you can bash his skull in with one good swing too..
Agree to disagree then.
I don't see a trip locking character which requires multiple feats to do all that game breaking.
It depends on who the tripper and the trippee are. I have several examples of tpks upthread. If you don't mind tpks then you just have a different mindset than most of the other posters here.
Also the prone condition does not mean lying flat on your back in PRPG, prone creatures can be down on all fours tripping them again mechanically doesnt change that.
Umm...and what happens when the monster pulls it on YOU?
His answer as I understood it to that was that PC's die, and that makes it ok. He then went on to make wild assumptions as to how that is ok. Being resurrected(assumes the party is at that level where it is possible, and the rest of the party is still alive), among other things. He also assumes he can even things outs with feats, and other things, which he failed to list. I think he knows he is wrong, but just does not want to admit it.
Umm...and what happens when the monster pulls it on YOU? Your average CR 11 melee monsters gonna have a CMB of 25+...so that means your CMD has to be higher then 26 or you autolose. So for a mid BAB character, we're looking at 10+7bab+6(variety of stats)+2(for various bonus) and MAYBE +2 for feat. That's still an autolose. Full BAB may do better and not be screwed 10-20% of the time is they have the proper feat. Yeah the players pull it in one encounter and think that great, they found a loophole...then the monsters do it and it TPKs. A system that allows that is broken. Screw realism, D&D combat ain't realistic anyways. I'll take a working system over a broken fake realistic system anyday.
Don't worry about a triplock being realistic. It's not. It's an attempt to game the system. Except by RAW it doesn't work. Making the system more "realistic" than if it did work. Don't get me wrong, the combat system in D&D is far from realistic, but a "trip-lock" would just make it more unrealistic. My 2cp.
Umm...and what happens when the monster pulls it on YOU? Your average CR 11 melee monsters gonna have a CMB of 25+...so that means your CMD has to be higher then 26 or you autolose. So for a mid BAB character, we're looking at 10+7bab+6(variety of stats)+2(for various bonus) and MAYBE +2 for feat. That's still an autolose. Full BAB may do better and not be screwed 10-20% of the time is they have the proper feat. Yeah the players pull it in one encounter and think that great, they found a loophole...then the monsters do it and it TPKs. A system that allows that is broken. Screw realism, D&D combat ain't realistic anyways. I'll take a working system over a broken fake realistic system anyday.
Don't worry about a triplock being realistic. It's not. It's an attempt to game the system. Except by RAW it doesn't work. Making the system more "realistic" than if it did work. Don't get me wrong, the combat system in D&D is far from realistic, but a "trip-lock" would just make it more unrealistic. My 2cp.
agreed, game the system means munchkin right... can we say munchkin, please ? ^^
|
|
Also the prone condition does not mean lying flat on your back in PRPG, prone creatures can be down on all fours tripping them again mechanically doesnt change that.
The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Actually, its pretty well spelled out.
|
|
agreed, game the system means munchkin right... can we say munchkin, please ? ^^
Umm...and what happens when the monster pulls it on YOU? Your average CR 11 melee monsters gonna have a CMB of 25+...so that means your CMD has to be higher then 26 or you autolose. So for a mid BAB character, we're looking at 10+7bab+6(variety of stats)+2(for various bonus) and MAYBE +2 for feat. That's still an autolose. Full BAB may do better and not be screwed 10-20% of the time is they have the proper feat. Yeah the players pull it in one encounter and think that great, they found a loophole...then the monsters do it and it TPKs. A system that allows that is broken. Screw realism, D&D combat ain't realistic anyways. I'll take a working system over a broken fake realistic system anyday.
Don't worry about a triplock being realistic. It's not. It's an attempt to game the system. Except by RAW it doesn't work. Making the system more "realistic" than if it did work. Don't get me wrong, the combat system in D&D is far from realistic, but a "trip-lock" would just make it more unrealistic. My 2cp.
Name calling and passing judgments aside, you do know what they say about opinions and sphincters, right?
|
|
Umm...and what happens when the monster pulls it on YOU?His answer as I understood it to that was that PC's die, and that makes it ok. He then went on to make wild assumptions as to how that is ok. Being resurrected(assumes the party is at that level where it is possible, and the rest of the party is still alive), among other things. He also assumes he can even things outs with feats, and other things, which he failed to list. I think he knows he is wrong, but just does not want to admit it.
Where did I ever say that the entire party dies?
Where did I ever say that its certain death? You even quoted me saying that not every defeat the party has results in death.
Where did I say the party always resurrects the fallen comrade?
Where did I say that you can even things out with feats to the point of equality?
You have your opinion, I have mine, let it rest for the love of jeebus.
|
|
I bet you can bash his skull in with one good swing too..The rules don't enforce balance at the sake of realism. They're perfectly realistic. You can't really trip someone who's on all fours or on his knees, after all. They have to be on their feet in order to be tripped, and they aren't on their feet until the "stand up from prone" action is completed.This is wrong. Get on your hands and knees in front of me, I'm willing to bet that I can knock you square on your back or stomach each and every time you get back to starting position.
This is true, but if I have a big melee type dude that can benefit from the +4 to bash skulls in from the target being prone, and I am not an uber martial character, then this mechanic gives the non-skull bashing party members something else to do, at the cost of 2-3 feats. Pretty hefty investment, IMHO, assuming it works.
Even Wraith-strike agrees that mid to high lvl CR monsters won't have this tactic work on them. SO then it becomes a moot point after a while, and the character has invested those 2-3 feat slots to have it. Great for mooks, terrible for the BBEG.
Again, hardly game breaking.
Umm...and what happens when the monster pulls it on YOU?His answer as I understood it to that was that PC's die, and that makes it ok. He then went on to make wild assumptions as to how that is ok. Being resurrected(assumes the party is at that level where it is possible, and the rest of the party is still alive), among other things. He also assumes he can even things outs with feats, and other things, which he failed to list. I think he knows he is wrong, but just does not want to admit it.Where did I ever say that the entire party dies?
Where did I ever say that its certain death? You even quoted me saying that not every defeat the party has results in death.
Where did I say the party always resurrects the fallen comrade?
Where did I say that you can even things out with feats to the point of equality?
You have your opinion, I have mine, let it rest for the love of jeebus.
I never said that you said the entire party dies. I was saying, and probably not coherently, that you are assuming they will live.
It seems you misunderstood everything I said.In a nutshell you said it is ok for PC's to die, which I agree with. Our disagreement is the nature of their death. Getting locked into an almost unwinnable position is never a good thing with such a simple tactics as standing over someone.
Again, hardly game breaking.
I wish I could DM this tactic against your group for one session. Actually I think you should do it. It does not even have to be an entire session. Just 2 or 3 fights or just playtest it.
|
|
and I see it thus:
If the monster (BBEG/whatever) is standing overtop a big AC guy with massive HP (your average meatshield) focusing solely on keeping him tripped, he is NOT pummeling the bejeezus out of the rest of the party, he is not inflicting damage on the meatshield, he is not breathing fire or casting spells, he is keeping the meatshield down.
At that point, the party cleric is casting/healing/channeling, the rogue is sneak attacking/flanking/doing-roguey-things, the arcane caster is shooting for magic missiles/lightning bolts/waving wands/whatever, and...wait for it....NOONE is getting smited by the BBEG. The meatshield on the ground is also probably a full BAB guy, and he can afford the -4 to hit, so he can still attack from the ground.
If the BBEG/Monster is instead triplocking a weaker HP character, that leaves it open to attacks from the big fighter guy, the ranged bow guy, the caster guy, and the cleric even.
I hardly call this game breaking and certain TPK.
|
|
I wish I could DM this tactic against your group for one session. Actually I think you should do it. It does not even have to be an entire session. Just 2 or 3 fights or just playtest it.
Again, hardly game breaking.
and again, not EVERY encounter is going to be this type. If it is, the DM whoever it is sucks, and the players should leave.
Also, reading various other threads, it seems that by lvl 10 or so most people expect their characters to be able to fly/levitate/hover or something...so by midway through level progression, most people wouldn't be able to be triplocked in the first place.