Okay, so I understand that you provoke Attacks of Opportunity when trying to stand up.
My question is: do you incur the -4 AC penalty vs. melee attacks while defending yourself against all the AoOs? Does the AoO occur while you're still prone and suffering the AC penalty?
It just seems to me that the person is... a bit screwed. You can't 5-foot step your way out because crawling 5 feet incurs AoOs while you're prone, too. And if there are 2 enemies standing above you, one can hit you and the other can trip you, knocking you back to the ground again.
And a wolf can do a free Trip maneuver if its bite connects. So couldn't a single wolf, once it knocks you down to the ground, also "whack" you down every time you try to stand up by biting you (inflicting damage) and getting a free Trip maneuver and knock you down again? And then it gets another attack on its own turn. So it can bite you twice every round, all while you have a -4 penalty to AC?
Am I reading the rules right?
|
The AOO happens BEFORE you actually stand up. This means yes you take the -4 to AC but you can NOT be tripped, since you are already prone.
So on your round, you "stand up" which provokes, stopping time if you will, just before you begin to stand. The Attack is resolved, then you continue with your action, which was to stand up. You suffer the AOO then stand up.
A creature who can make multiple AOO's could attempt to trip you again IF you provoke another AOO but can not trip you for standing up.
Edit: Had some problems with cut and paste, fixed.
To explain further, attacks of opportunity interrupt the normal flow of combat and happens before/during whatever triggers them happens - before the character actually has stood up, regardless, so the character still has the prone condition.
The wolf can attempt (and succeed) at the trip maneouver, but since the trip maneouver only gives the condition "prone", which you already have, nothing happens. After that, you're action to stand up is finished.
You guys have basically answered my question (and concern). So the person DOES stand up, albeit bruised.
Thanks!
This is why a "trip lock" build does not work.
Well, trip-locking can work decently through readying actions and combining the trip with other maneuvers/effects that debuff the target. If you ready an action to trip the target as soon as it's on two feet, you can use the AoO for a Dirty Trick maneuver to make the target entangled/blinded so it's easier to succeed on the trip.
It's not as easy as grabbing a trip feat and winning, but it can certainly be a useful tactic in certain situations.
The reason (single-purposed) trip builds don't work well in the long run is because many, many enemies are hard to trip/immune to trip. But it depends on the campaign.
|
|
The Trip Lock mechanic may not work as a "Win" button, but it is still an effective tactic. The old spiked chain (err scorpion whip) trip them all and then we can whack at them when they stand up can still be devastating, it just isn't the only tactic that makes sense. There are numerous fun builds out there.
If you ready an action to trip the target as soon as it's on two feet, you can use the AoO for a Dirty Trick maneuver to make the target entangled/blinded so it's easier to succeed on the trip.
Except Readied Actions also are resolved before the triggering situation occurs. So if you ready a trip action to occur "when the enemy is standing", you'll get your action before he's standing.
If you ready an action to trip the target as soon as it's on two feet, you can use the AoO for a Dirty Trick maneuver to make the target entangled/blinded so it's easier to succeed on the trip.Except Readied Actions also are resolved before the triggering situation occurs. So if you ready a trip action to occur "when the enemy is standing", you'll get your action before he's standing.
Kinda. It's debatable, and at most it's just a matter of semantics. If the trigger is instead "as soon as the target does anything at all while standing" it would no doubt work, so you'd have to be a pretty harsh DM not to allow it.
"Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character."
It can be argued that the bolded part only applies if the triggering condition is an action (otherwise a lot of things would get weird, for example in your example if the target was already standing you'd travel back in time to act before by that reading of the RAW) - and being standing is not an action.
Also, IIRC, devs have themselves said that you can trip-lock by readying actions.
No, the "Trip Lock" does not work.
The enemy can always 5ft step, or withdraw.
You cannot 5 ft step while prone, you can only crawl, which provokes an attack of opportunity (that can be used to, for example, reposition).
Trip-lock isn't an unbreakable lock, but you can be effective at getting something down and getting it to stay down.
|
|
Kinda. It's debatable, and at most it's just a matter of semantics. If the trigger is instead "as soon as the target does anything at all while standing" it would no doubt work, so you'd have to be a pretty harsh DM not to allow it.
Work both ways stringburka, if you define your readied action that way then you can't use it if the target do something slightly different.
And trying to blame the GM for your narrow choice is pretty low.A readied action isn't meant to be a Delay action with a bonus tot he initiative.
If you want to act after someone has committed himself to a course of action you use the delay action, not the readied action.
Kinda. It's debatable, and at most it's just a matter of semantics. If the trigger is instead "as soon as the target does anything at all while standing" it would no doubt work, so you'd have to be a pretty harsh DM not to allow it.
Work both ways stringburka, if you define your readied action that way then you can't use it if the target do something slightly different.
And trying to blame the GM for your narrow choice is pretty low.A readied action isn't meant to be a Delay action with a bonus tot he initiative.
If you want to act after someone has committed himself to a course of action you use the delay action, not the readied action.
What? Do something slightly different? The condition was "as soon as target X does anything at all while standing". This includes breathing, attacking, blinking or whatever.
I'm not blaming the DM, I'm saying that if a DM disallows something based on that it (the condition) should have been worded in an even more specific way despite being completely obvious what you are trying to do, when that is completely possible, is being harsh as a DM.
And no, ready and delay are different things. And still, it's very debatable if it's raw that a readied action happens prior to a condition being fulfilled unless the condition is an action being taken.
Basically, by RAW, if you say "I move back as ze attacks me" you're going to move before the attack is resolved. If you say "I move back as soon as ze turns to a sickly green" you'll move after the other person turns to a sickly green, unless it's an action to do so (since the quote I bolded above specifically said before the triggering _action_).
Neither can you use ready action with an archer to interrupt a caster as the attack will resolve before the casting begins.
Also, if the guard readies an action to trip anyone who comes into reach you can safely run past, because when you come into reach the condition is met and the guard attacks but before you move at all - and since you're possibly 20 ft. away the guard can't resolve the attack and it fails, after which the actual movement happens and you just have to deal with an AoO.
Clearly, that is not how the rules are _supposed_ to work - especially since both devs have commented that you can "trip-lock" with readied action and since there are published paizo scenarios which would break the ready rules.
Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character."
May I ask, in general why is this sentence in the rules? What if a player wants to take an action AFTER something happens? And can't that just be the condition the player names?
I can see the logic of interrupting a spellcaster. But then the condition can just be "when the spellcaster starts casting a spell." This still enables the player to prevent the spell from being cast. So I don't see the reason for this sentence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character."May I ask, in general why is this sentence in the rules? What if a player wants to take an action AFTER something happens? And can't that just be the condition the player names?
Depending on the circumstances, that would be a delay or a ready action. The rules a bit fuzzy though - you can't use the rules letter for letter 'cause that'll give weird results (as named above). Rather you want to look at how the rules are used by developers, in published products and their history.
Note that by RAW it does not state that you need to observe the conditions being full-filled. So, if you want to be COMPLETELY raw, it could be used as a very effective divination effect. Constantly ready an action to shout "it has happened!" if someone plots to kill the king. Then you have an effective plot detector.
|
|
Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character."May I ask, in general why is this sentence in the rules? What if a player wants to take an action AFTER something happens? And can't that just be the condition the player names?
I can see the logic of interrupting a spellcaster. But then the condition can just be "when the spellcaster starts casting a spell." This still enables the player to prevent the spell from being cast. So I don't see the reason for this sentence.
Because if you want to act after the action you use the delay action.
String is playing with the Ready action saying that he can use a trigger as large as he wish, but that is contrary to the RAI of the rules and,a s I read it to the RAW of it.
You should state the conditions under which your action trigger, but you can't state any and all action he will take and you can state "the action after doing something", especially if the "action" is not an action in game sense, like in string example, breathing or blinking.
Diego Rossi: Are we discussing RAW or RAI? Because I think that RAI there's a fairly heavy argument for being able to use it to trip-lock, or to interrupt spellcasting, or to interrupt someone who's trying to move past you, or to heal a friend if it gets injured, or any other number of circumstances - and that is that it's been common practice since 3.0, has been mentioned thousands of times on these boards, many in threads where the devs have been, it's been used in published scenarios, and it's severely implied in the core rules and not once has a dev stepped in and said "no, that's not how it works". And at least in 3.x, the devs explicitly said "you can ready an action to trip someone who's standing up to keep them down".
For example, the given trigger to "distract a spellcaster" is "if she starts casting a spell". Now, if we look at concentration, it says "if you take damage while casting a spell". Thus, it only applies to damage taken WHILE casting. By your reading of the rules, the readied attack would go of before the caster starts casting a spell, and thus, no concentration check would be needed, and the whole "distract a spellcaster" section in the rules is a waste of space. I agree that this is a possible reading of the RAWyest RAW, but it CERTAINLY is not the intended rules!
The same can be said about the section on "readying a weapon against a charge" and weapons that deal extra damage to charging enemies but have no reach - because if you have no reach, there is no way to attack a charging enemy if you can't ready an action against it (and if it takes place before the charge action, they are out of reach and can't be attacked).
But I agree that it's possible to read it as impossible by RAW. On the other hand, by the same RAWy RAWiness, it never says you have to be able to see the condition to do it. It's a useful way of communications, as soon as you can hire 29 commoners you can effectively communicate with anyone at any distance.
|
|
But according to stringburka you would be a bad GM for doing that.
Metagaming to counter his metagaming isn't a great solution, it is better to avoid the metagaming from the start.
String, the problem is that you aren't setting a condition or a restricted range of conditions, you are playing with setting a dictionary worth of conditions and that is against the spirit of the rule.
"I ready against anything he do" is not a valid choice.
If someone were to ready an action to hit me "after I finished standing up" then I would consider that enough metagaming to counter with some of my own: I'd just attack them from the ground, completely wasting their action. :)
What? How is that metagaming? That's not metagaming, that's tactics! Metagaming is a character using knowledge that the character doesn't have but the player has to gain an advantage. Assuming that an enemy that is prone on the ground is going to try to get up is NOT reliant on the player knowing anything, it's just a very logical assumtion!
A prone character attacking from prone isn't metagaming either, but doing it because the other character has readied an action that you know nothing about is.
If you're a player, you won't even know what the DM sets as condition to attack.
If you're a DM and do this to a player, that is bad DMing. Like, the definition of bad DMing.
Readying an action is the way the rules work to let you try to keep someone you've tripped on the ground. In real life, you can very well keep someone prone on the ground if you put a bit of work into it, and the ready action is the game's way of allowing that (barring the discussion on silly RAWy-RAWiness)
It's metagaming because you are saying that your character doesn't try to knock him back down if he tries to get up; rather, you are saying that your character waits until he is standing up and then, if he does anything else at all - even breathing, you will then attempt to knock him down.
That's just a way to get the game mechanic to work if your DM is so harsh they don't accept "I try to trip him when he tries to get up".
The thing is, you CAN interpret RAW as causing any try to trip the victim when he's trying to get up as impossible. However, it is very possible to trip him as soon as he's gotten up by including some arbitrary language.
It's just a counter-intuitive way to do something that should be possible, and is possible, just not in the intuitive way.
It's kind of like when you want to lay on hands and wield a light shield and a mace - you can't lay on hands with the shield hand, but you can switch hands on the mace as a free action, lay on hands, and then switch back. Overly complicated, and many, many DM's would simply say "you can lay on hands with your shield hand" as it's the same effect just less hassle.
In that way those are similar.
And characters DO know those "goofy quirks" because they live in the world that's governed by those rules. Just like they know some people can turn b!!!*#& into flames they know (if you're in a world where you go by the RAWiest of RAW) that it is impossible to keep someone down that is trying to stand up, but that you can once they have risen. It might be attributed to heavenly intervention, or just be considered as natural a law as gravity, but regardless, anyone with combat training will know about it.
Now, on to another little tidbit: If you used your Standard Action last round to knock the guy down, then it's his turn... when exactly did you have another Standard Action to set up the Ready condition in the first place? In short, acting by yourself, there is no way to keep someone constantly tripped like that, because you can't trip him and then Ready to trip him again before he acts.
The original trip could have been an attack of opportunity or another readied action (like "when he enters my reach", though by RAWy RAW you cannot effectively condition an attack like that but rather "as soon as he does anything at all while within my reach"). Or you could be several people.
Interesting stuff. Our group has been struggling with the same order of operations issue.
How does this work with charging? If you suffer an AoO while charging do you suffer the -2 to AC mid charge or after it has been completed?
Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character."May I ask, in general why is this sentence in the rules? What if a player wants to take an action AFTER something happens? And can't that just be the condition the player names?
I can see the logic of interrupting a spellcaster. But then the condition can just be "when the spellcaster starts casting a spell." This still enables the player to prevent the spell from being cast. So I don't see the reason for this sentence.
Because if you want to act after the action you use the delay action.
That's not how delay works.
Delay changes you initiative to a lower count. If you want to go in the same initiative count as another character, then you would go after that character completed its turn. You cannot use delay to interrupt another character's turn with a delayed action.
If you want to attack a character while it's doing something else, like casting or charging, you have to use a readied action. If you want to act after a certain action, but still during another character's turn (like casting a spell after a character moves into range), that's also a readied action.
An exceptionally obtuse reading of the RAW would prevent one from using a readied action in this manner, but then, being exceptionally obtuse can prevent one from doing a great many things.
The Dev's have come out and said you can't trip lock someone. Trying to get around that by some clever wording and getting banhammered by the DM doesn't make him harsh. It makes him willing to stop an abusing maneuver that *needed* to be stopped. It made Trip too powerful.
If your DM is houseruling and allows it, then thats his business- but lets quit being down on DM's who try to follow the rules as they've been presented.
So yeah,trying to find some clever way around the rule saying you can't trip-lock would just as cleverly not work. Absent some new feat or rule to the contrary, thats pretty much the stance maintained by the rules in RAW and RAI and.. well, thats the rule
-S
The Dev's have come out and said you can't trip lock someone. Trying to get around that by some clever wording and getting banhammered by the DM doesn't make him harsh. It makes him willing to stop an abusing maneuver that *needed* to be stopped. It made Trip too powerful.
If your DM is houseruling and allows it, then thats his business- but lets quit being down on DM's who try to follow the rules as they've been presented.
So yeah,trying to find some clever way around the rule saying you can't trip-lock would just as cleverly not work. Absent some new feat or rule to the contrary, thats pretty much the stance maintained by the rules in RAW and RAI and.. well, thats the rule
-S
What exactly do you mean by "Trip-Lock"? If you mean repeatedly tripping a foe so they are unable to take any action, then BBT is correct, the rules simply do not allow you to do that, even if you use readied actions, (which is perfectly allowed by RAW).
A Tripper can only ready a single action, but the opponent gets two move actions with which to stand up. Once he's standing, the tripper can't ready an action to trip them again as they stand up, since they're already standing.
And being prone doesn't stop a character from attacking, casting, using items, or pretty much anything else, at which point a readied action will have been wasted, not a very good tactic.
I'll admit that I'm a bit confused by some of the discussion above. I'll just say how I think it should work now...
AoOs resolve BEFORE an action begins. In the case of the prone character trying to stand up, a wolf gets an AoO while the character suffers the AC penalty, and, if the bite connects, the wolf does NOT get a free trip attack because the character is still prone.
However, a wolf that is intelligent enough (not likely -- let's just assume it for sake of example) can forego its standard action and stand there, ready to knock down the character if he or she decides to stand up. I still see no point in requiring that a Readied action must happen BEFORE the action that prompts it -- so the super-intelligent wolf can wait for the character to stand up. It gets the advantage of tripping the character a 2nd time, but the character is now standing and so does NOT suffer the -4 penalty to AC.
Interesting stuff. Our group has been struggling with the same order of operations issue.
How does this work with charging? If you suffer an AoO while charging do you suffer the -2 to AC mid charge or after it has been completed?
The rule states: "Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn."
Because of the construction of the paragraph, I think it is implied that you receive the -2 penalty to AC as a result of your "attacking on a charge." It's the tradeoff for having your +2 attack bonus.
Had the intention been otherwise, the AC penalty would have been included in the previous section titled "Movement during a charge."
It seems open to either interpretation though. I would justify my interpretation by saying it simulates being disoriented after your charge-and-swing and you need time to regain your balance.
The Dev's have come out and said you can't trip lock someone.
Do you have a quotation? While I don't have one at hand, I got the impression they've said you cannot use an _attack of opportunity_ to trip an already tripped person, but that you can still ready an action for when they try to get up (which still doesn't keep them down permanently, but makes it harder for them).
I've often wondered if Mobility gives a bonus, effectively negating the prone penalty, for the standing up AoO.
Glutton: It is not movement out of or within a threatened area and thus does not help.
You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area.
- Gauss
Is there some other action you can use to "beat" somebody back down? Would a Bull Rush work for instance?
Glutton: It is not movement out of or within a threatened area and thus does not help.
You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area.- Gauss
Standing up seems like moving to me, and you are inside a threatened area. Vague and nebulous perhaps, but these things drift through the dystopian jelly that is my brain.
|
Glutton: It is not movement out of or within a threatened area and thus does not help.
You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area.- Gauss
That's not what James Jacobs says.
The question was asked here and answered four entries later (although for some reason the direct link to that message goes to the wrong place).
According to James Jacobs, Mobility does give you a +4 to AC against an AoO triggered by standing up from prone.
JohnF: He specifically said no.
harmor wrote:
Can you stand up from prone and then take a 5-foot step?Does the Mobility feat apply when standing up from prone?
Yes. No.
To put question with response:
harmor: Can you stand up from prone and then take a 5-foot step?James: Yes.
harmor: Does the Mobility feat apply when standing up from prone?
James: No.
- Gauss
|
|
JohnF: He specifically said no.
harmor wrote:
Can you stand up from prone and then take a 5-foot step?Does the Mobility feat apply when standing up from prone?
Yes. No.
To put question with response:
harmor: Can you stand up from prone and then take a 5-foot step?
James: Yes.harmor: Does the Mobility feat apply when standing up from prone?
James: No.- Gauss
That's a valid way of reading the answer, I guess.
I'd parsed it as 'Yes' to 'Can you stand up from prone?', and 'No' to 'Can you then take a 5' step?, which would be the case if standing up was a real move action, and not merely a move-equivalent action.I suspect your reading may be the intended one
This is why numbering is important. I always number my questions to James Jacobs. He does not have the time to do separate quotes.
The post in question should take the questions and answers in order. The first answer belongs to the first question. The second answer belongs to the second question.
Of course, you could be reading things backwards, but the result would still be the same. ;)
- Gauss
|
|
Trip Lock doesn't work (with only one attacker) because of the limit on actions.
EXAMPLE : Target is prone for ANY reason, and you've readied an action to trip him "as soon as he's on his feet". He stands up, you make your AoO, he stands, then your readied action fires and you trip him. He now uses his second move action to stand up again. You can't stop him, but you get another AoO (if you have Combat Reflexes). The target has now used two move actions and his turn is done with him standing. On your turn you can trip him, but now you can't ready any actions. So, on his turn he simply stands up and either moves away from you after your AoO, or he takes away the weapon allowing you to trip him.
There's nothing in the rules that prevents you from readying an action to trip him as soon as he's standing, unless, as it's been pointed out, your GM is using the RAWiest interpretation of the rules. However, unless you have some way to trip him as a free action, he can simply escape the round after you re-trip him the first time.
With a second attacker, though, all bets are off as you can just both take turns tripping and re-tripping.
|
|
Is there some other action you can use to "beat" somebody back down? Would a Bull Rush work for instance?
Overrun will allow you to knock someone prone if you beat their CMD by 5+. It doesn't help with a trip-lock, because using overrun is a standard action...but you can definitely use it to knock someone prone.
|
|
I am with you, this seems rather poorly designed. So if I ready an action to shot someone as soon as they turn a corner, I actually shoot at them right before they turn the corner? I am not seeing how that works exactly.Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character."May I ask, in general why is this sentence in the rules? What if a player wants to take an action AFTER something happens? And can't that just be the condition the player names?
I can see the logic of interrupting a spellcaster. But then the condition can just be "when the spellcaster starts casting a spell." This still enables the player to prevent the spell from being cast. So I don't see the reason for this sentence.
The intention of the "...just before..." wording is to allow you to prevent someone from doing something. If you said, "I ready an action to attack the first person who makes an attack" and that wording didn't exist, the GM could rule that the triggering attack happens first. So, that "first attack" could be directed at you, and it could possibly drop you unconscious before you took your readied action.
If you read it THAT literally in every situation, the GM is well within his rights to basically eliminate readied actions.
GM, "Oh, you readied an action to shoot the first person to enter the room. Well, according to the rules, your readied action happens just before the trigger, so you shoot the door just before it opens. Now the angry orc enters the room to kill you."
GM, "Oh, you readied an action to heal the first ally who drops. Well, since that readied action happens just before the fighter dropped, and he was at full hp, you heal him for 0 hp and he drops to -3."
GM, "Oh, you readied an action to counterspell. Well, since that readied action happens just before the enemy wizard casts Finger of Death, there's no arcane energy to counter when you counterspell, so FoD goes off without a hitch."
If that's the intention, there's no reason to allow readied actions. Common sense dictates that the readied action takes place at the most logical point in the provoking character's turn, but BEFORE they are able to COMPLETE the provoking action.
It may be better if that sentence were edited to read, "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it IS COMPLETED". Just a thought...
Darth_gator: Problem with the edit you just made is that it could be misread to automatically allow the action since it is 'in progress' regardless of how the readied action proceeded. However, I agree with you that readied actions need some examples or something so that overzealous GMs do not go overboard.
- Gauss
|
|
If you ready an action to trip the target as soon as it's on two feet, you can use the AoO for a Dirty Trick maneuver to make the target entangled/blinded so it's easier to succeed on the trip.Except Readied Actions also are resolved before the triggering situation occurs. So if you ready a trip action to occur "when the enemy is standing", you'll get your action before he's standing.
So going by that line of thinking...if a PC readies an action to attack an enemy that moves adjacent to him, the PC attacks before the enemy is adjacent and the attack fails. Or if a PC readies to shoot an arrow at the first enemy he sees then he somehow mystically attacks before he sees the enemy (which is presumably not in line of sight and the attack fails again).
Nope...that really doesn't make any sense to me and makes readied actions not particularly useful in most situations.
Also, look at how counterspells are designed. You need to first ready an action. Then you need to make a spellcraft roll to identify the spell to be countered. If that readied action is supposed to go off before the triggering spell how can you make a spellcraft roll to identify it before it is even being cast?
I'm just not seeing the logic here. You shouldn't have to ponder how to carefully word a readied action like you are making wishes from a genie.
Edit: Darth_gator beat me to the punch. Also, readying an action to trip someone who is standing up is not really all that effective anyway. You give up your full round attack and a savvy enemy will just stay prone and waste your action. Plus, many enemies are immune/difficult to trip as well. Why not let the pony have his one trick?
Something really seems to be . . . missing . . . here.
It is a standard tactic in many real-world martial arts to keep opponents from getting back on their feet by sweeping their arms or legs.
How can we express that in game terms?
Ahhhh but this is not the real-world. D&D/PF is quite far from real world mechanics. Game balance trumps real-world mechanics and triplock is poor game balance. :)
- Gauss
Ahhhh but this is not the real-world. D&D/PF is quite far from real world mechanics. Game balance trumps real-world mechanics and triplock is poor game balance. :)
- Gauss
But a good story trumps game balance.
It's so iconic to see the good guy down on the ground. He struggles to get up, only to have the bad guy kick him down again. Yet still he tries to rise over and over again.
Or the good guy has finally knocked the BBEG down. The hero begs him to surrender. But the bad guy is to driven by hate to do so. He begins to get up, only to have the good kung-fu guy sweep his arms to knock him down.
Darth_borehd: I agree that those are iconic images. However, what you are missing is that these guys are staggered (I am interpreting struggles to get up = staggered).
Come up with an ability to stagger someone (there are plenty to choose from) and then use the Hero Point system and you have your iconic image.
In case you don't understand what Im reffering to:
Staggered limits acti6ons to one move OR standard per round (rather than one move and standard).
Hero Points allow you to take an extra standard action.
Assuming the target is staggered:
I trip the target, then spend a hero point to get a new standard action. I ready a trip attack for when they complete standing up.
They stand up, my readied action goes off. I trip them. My initiative is now ahead of thiers.
Next round: I ready an action for the same thing.
repeat until they stay down.
- Gauss
A series of greater dirty blows on the AoO's combined with trips can effectively keep someone quite immobile. Staggering critical also helps.