|
Since this is a repeated gripe of one of my players (even though it happened months ago), I felt I should double check to make sure my ruling was correct.
The Scenario.
Rogue charges enlarged pole-arm equipped barbarian. Barbarian in this case has combat reflexes, improved trip, and greater trip.
* Barbarian utilizes his AoO to initiate a trip action.
* His CMB roll beats the Rogue's CMD.
* Rogue is tripped. Falls prone.
* Barbarian uses AoO ensuing from Greater Trip to whallop poor little prone rogue.
* On Barbarian's turn, full attacks poor prone rogue necessitating his rescue.
Now its a jerk move on the part of the DM (me), but did I make an error with the AoOs here?
I don't see it as a jerk move, and you ran it right by RAW.
Poor little rogue was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It appears that you ran everything correctly.
There is also a line of thinking that says that every foe who threatens the rogue would get an attack of opportunity so the barbarian's allies might also get to join in on the fun.
That comes from the line in Greater Trip that says "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity." Others say it is just the person doing the Trip that gets it because of the fluff line at the top that says "You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down."
Either way, it is a great feat to have!
Sounds legit.
Sounds like a rogue needed to learn tac-tics. Perhaps their constant complaining about it taught them to use some.
Your player used very poor tactics. You're adjudicated correctly as far as the rules are conerned.
Hopefully your player has learned a lesson about charging headlong against opponents wielding reach weapons.
What is the rogues complaint exactly?
Edit: what does he feel you did wrong?
|
As Mucronis pointed out, the AoO from Greater Trip happens because the target was tripped, not because they were prone, so you arttack his normal charging AC, not his prone charging AC.
As a matter of fact, with a reach weapon in that scenario, even if he didn't have the feat, I would have followed up the trip with a disarm.
Less damage, but if the thief manages to make it to his turn, he is now prone and, probably, weaponless....
Then again, take that with a grain of salt, one of my PC builds is a high-Dex fighter (Polearm Master archetype) using a polearm with Agile Maneuvers with Greater Trip and Greater Disarm.
|
|
What is the rogues complaint exactly?
Edit: what does he feel you did wrong?
His initial concern was that the feats didn't work that way. So I wanted to make sure.
Generally he felt that the build was unfair as well since he's utilizing the archetype for rogue that involves having to charge his opponent to get sneak attack. He felt it unfairly shut down his class.
He saw the barbarian, assumed he was easy pickings since he hadn't acted yet (IE: Flatfooted) and charged and then discovered he was a polearm trip build. It probably wouldn't have been as bad for him if not for the barbarian having the turn right after his, resulting in him charging, getting tripped and whalloped (thereby 'wasting' his turn), and then eating a full attack of whallops from an enlarged raging barbarian (with an enlarged glaive) that almost knocked him into negatives.
As a side thought as this popped into my head during this discussion. How does the AoO from Greater Trip work with Spring Attack?
Wait a moment! Did the rogue have Spring Attack and was the barbarian the target of his attack? If so then there are no attacks of opportunity and no trip attacks, etc.
It was said that the rogue charged - ergo no spring attack.
|
|
Nope, he didn't have spring attack at the time (he does now).
It was a scout's charge situation. He was charging the guy because his logic was 'he hasn't acted yet, he is ergo flatfooted and cannot take AoOs, and even if he could, I have mobility so my AC is...' and then he got whalloped.
His aim, ironically enough was to hit him with a sneak attack so as to take away his ability to AoO so his barbarian and paladin could step up to put the hurt on the guy unmolested. Would've been a good plan/gamble if the opponent wasn't a barbarian.
Mind, he didn't know the guy was a barbarian, just he was huge, angry, holding a pole-arm and had a lot of weird fiendish auras and junk around him.
I was asking about the AoO on Spring Attack beause I was considering a greater tripping spring attacking rogue or martial guy with a reach weapon to irritate my players with soon.
It was a scout's charge situation. He was charging the guy because his logic was 'he hasn't acted yet, he is ergo flatfooted and cannot take AoOs, and even if he could, I have mobility so my AC is...' and then he got whalloped.
Well then he assumed too much and deserved to get "whalloped." Combat Reflexes and Uncanny Dodge have been the downfall of many a prideful character.
Uncanny Dodge isn't needed, just Combat Reflexes.
|
|
Uncanny Dodge isn't needed, just Combat Reflexes.
I think the uncanny dodge thing made it even more irksome for the rogue because when the party sussed out their baddie was a barbarian he realized, even if he had made it through the AoO and the trip, he still wouldn't have done sneak attack damage (no denying AoOs and no +1/2 his level to AC against that guy) thanks to uncanny dodge.
Uncanny Dodge isn't needed, just Combat Reflexes.
I realize that but my point was more of an "and/or" comment.
Wait a moment! Did the rogue have Spring Attack and was the barbarian the target of his attack? If so then there are no attacks of opportunity and no trip attacks, etc.
Doubtful, since OP said the rogue was charging and attempting to use Scout's Charge. Though this was technically unnecessary since the barbarian was "flat-footed". Except, barbarians have Uncanny Dodge (which says you're never flat-footed) and Improved Uncanny Dodge. Making them effectively immune to rogues unless the rogue is 4 levels higher. So....you're player just caught a really tough break. His sneak attack was never going to work on the barbarian.
You're player needs to treat this as a learning lesson. The fact that he feels marginalized by the barbarian actions means he doesn't understand the abilities the barbarian has or basic tactics involved in the game.
Being enlarged, with a reach weapon, and the trip feats is a pretty basic standard build. Look up things like "Reach Cleric" or "martial area control". Enlarged reach builds are the bread and butter of martials exercising control over an area. It's not a tactic built to counter him specifically, it's just a good tactic.
Also, you're player should get of here with that garbage about how it negates his archetypes advantage. He gets to charge and make a sneak attack if he does, but it's not the only method he can get sneak attack. He is still allowed to flank, or use another method that denies an enemy their dexterity. Except against barbarians or other classes with Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge. Those are Rogue bane. You're player made some stupid mistakes and needs to learn from them.
I don't think it was a jerk move and I don't see any errors on your part. The rogue assumed that the Barbarian was flat footed and that he could thus safely attack the Barbarian since you can't make AOO while you are flat footed. But the Barbarian probably had Uncanny Dodge in this case which means he wasn't actually flat footed.
The only thing I'd wonder is if you could see if somebody is flat footed or not. If you can then you could advise the rogue player to ask you, if a target is flat footed, the next time he decides to charge somebody who hasn't acted yet and whom has a reach weapon.
Ah, instead of high risk high reward the rogue felt cheated because it was high risk low reward.
Best way I can think of would to be to allow a knowledge local check or something - "That looks like Barbarian Bob, renowned for his reflexes on the battlefield!".
Still, one shouldn't know the strengths and weaknesses for every enemy immediately.
As other's have said upthread, if you wanted to make it slightly less deadly you could have performed a disarm rather than a damaging attack on the AOO from Greater Trip, and again I'd like to reinforce that the +4 to the rolls don't apply on the Greater Trip AOO.
|
|
I did apply a -2 to the rogue's CMD during the check since he was charging (not that it would have made a difference) since he was charging, and my inferance has always been that such actions as charge, power attack, combat expertise, etc that affects your BAB or AC also likewise effects your CMB and CMD respectively.
Sounds like you did everything right then :)
I did apply a -2 to the rogue's CMD during the check since he was charging (not that it would have made a difference) since he was charging, and my inferance has always been that such actions as charge, power attack, combat expertise, etc that affects your BAB or AC also likewise effects your CMB and CMD respectively.
Yep. One question, did you also add in his bonus from Mobility? It'd apply to his CMD as well.
Yep. One question, did you also add in his bonus from Mobility? It'd apply to his CMD as well.I did apply a -2 to the rogue's CMD during the check since he was charging (not that it would have made a difference) since he was charging, and my inferance has always been that such actions as charge, power attack, combat expertise, etc that affects your BAB or AC also likewise effects your CMB and CMD respectively.
That would be the players job honestly. When the player tells the GM his AC/CMD against Attacks of Opportunity he should tell his bonuses that apply. It is not the GM's job to remember every detail about your character, he has too many others to worry about.
|
|
That would be the players job honestly. When the player tells the GM his AC/CMD against Attacks of Opportunity he should tell his bonuses that apply. It is not the GM's job to remember every detail about your character, he has too many others to worry about.Yep. One question, did you also add in his bonus from Mobility? It'd apply to his CMD as well.I did apply a -2 to the rogue's CMD during the check since he was charging (not that it would have made a difference) since he was charging, and my inferance has always been that such actions as charge, power attack, combat expertise, etc that affects your BAB or AC also likewise effects your CMB and CMD respectively.
For the record, yes, mobility was worked in.
Raging (+), large(-) huge strength bonuses(+), and trip focus feats (+) though gave the guy a pretty beefy CMB. There was still a chance of course I could have failed against the rogue's CMD, but in this case a high roll + a high CMB won through.
That would be the players job honestly. When the player tells the GM his AC/CMD against Attacks of Opportunity he should tell his bonuses that apply. It is not the GM's job to remember every detail about your character, he has too many others to worry about.Yep. One question, did you also add in his bonus from Mobility? It'd apply to his CMD as well.I did apply a -2 to the rogue's CMD during the check since he was charging (not that it would have made a difference) since he was charging, and my inferance has always been that such actions as charge, power attack, combat expertise, etc that affects your BAB or AC also likewise effects your CMB and CMD respectively.
For the record, yes, mobility was worked in.
Raging (+), large(-) huge strength bonuses(+), and trip focus feats (+) though gave the guy a pretty beefy CMB. There was still a chance of course I could have failed against the rogue's CMD, but in this case a high roll + a high CMB won through.
I assumed as much. You seemed to be on top of it from every other angle. A big barbarian with a reach weapon is can be a scary thing =p.
|
|
I play a Whip Master and do tricks like this all the time, Depending on what they are holding I will either Trip/Disarm or Trip/Strike with my Holy whip. With my 5 Attacks of opportunity a round most groups of enemies don't stand a chance of reaching the party in a surprise round. If I know there are more then 3 likely to run in I skip the follow-up AoO to save for tripping more of them.
I also like to enlarge myself during a big fight giving me better reach and threat range with the whip.
(On this character I have Greater Trip, Improved Whip Mastery and Combat Reflexes with an 18 dex.)