PDA

View Full Version : Stupid Spiked Chain Question



AtwasAwamps
2009-12-11, 01:35 PM
...Okay, this is a terribly dumb question.

How does the standard spiked-chain tripper/fighter work? I have a player in my game who is building one but I realized that nobody in my group really knows how, so I want to make sure she doesn't do silly things like pick up weapon specialization (which someone suggested to her).

I am assuming she needs to take Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, and..then what? I'd like to make sure she doesn't end up screwing herself over or making bad choices early on. Thoughts and suggestions?

Duke of URL
2009-12-11, 01:36 PM
Stand Still is a classic (check the "Divine feats" section of the SRD)

Tavar
2009-12-11, 01:37 PM
Actually, you need combat expertise to get improved trip. After that, power attack is a solid choice. That's about it in core, though.

Edit: Stand still is in the psionic feat section of the srd. You're probably thinking of knockdown.

Keshay
2009-12-11, 01:57 PM
Suggestions on how to be a more effective tripper? Have ways to get Stronger and get bigger. Best power for this: Expansion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/expansion.htm).

Be a Dwarf, that way you get the snazzy bonus to avoid being tripped if you fail your trip

There's a weapon enhancement (forget its name) that grants +2 to the Trip check, get that.

Its hard to go wrong as a tripper. Going up against multi-legged craetures or those that are several size categories larger will pose a challenge, but against humaniods, you're golden.

AtwasAwamps
2009-12-11, 02:01 PM
Hrmm...I think I will check and see if she's been applying things correctly. She's a level 2 fighter, which gives her 3 feats to work with (2 fighter, 1 character) and I don't think she has ANY of those...1 is, of course, EWP: Spiked Chain, but that leaves her two feats and that should let her get here build underway...right? Feh. I'll check next time we play.

Thanks for the help!

Sir.Swindle
2009-12-11, 02:07 PM
Best power for this: Expansion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/expansion.htm).

Be a Dwarf, that way you get the snazzy bonus to avoid being tripped if you fail your trip

You could be a psionic drugar and combine the 2

Ormagoden
2009-12-11, 02:17 PM
Other suggestions I would add are

Improved Trip (Get up? that's an AOO)
Improved Disarm (Pick up your weapon? that's an AOO)
Lunging strike (15ft reach? Yes please!)
TWF
Imp TWF
Dual strike
TW Rend
Jotunbrod(spelling?)

Possibly dodge, mobility, spring attack (but I hate that feat line)

Eldariel
2009-12-11, 02:22 PM
In Core, you only have the following:
EWP: Spiked Chain
Combat Reflexes
Combat Expertise > Improved Trip
Power Attack

After that, you mite as well start picking up Weapon Focuses or Quick Draws or Improved Initiatives or Blind-Fights or whatever; no feats you pick are going to focus on the core of the build anymore.

That's why Core versions are like Saph's Horizon Tripper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80415); feats don't provide you with any advantage so you instead pick classes with actual class features like Horizon Walker (Dimension Door at will among others), Ranger and Barbarian.

AtwasAwamps
2009-12-11, 03:11 PM
Huh. Random point:

I didn't specify core. I've opened up pretty much anything with a special request to not try and mess me up with sneaky optimizing (though I don't think anyone in the group could/would...the guy playing the cleric is a healbot cleric...). It's just that nobody in my group has ever played the archetype, so really, any options would be great!

Myrmex
2009-12-11, 03:20 PM
LoM has a feat and then another feat that lets you improve your reach by 5'.

I would go fighter 2/psychic warrior2 for the first 4 levels, for 4 bonus feats, and two character feats. Two character feats get aberrant heritage (prereq) and the one that gives you freakish reach.

The four fighter feats get you EWP: chain, combat expertise, improved trip, and whatever else takes your fancy. Practiced Manifester could be useful.

Keld Denar
2009-12-11, 03:25 PM
If you want to get kinda freaky, check out Magic of Incarnum. There are a few soulmelds in there that give you decent bonuses on Str Checks. Sphinx Claws do, I'm pretty sure, and there are probably a couple others. Being an Azurin (Incarnum Human) gives you 1 free Essentia along with your human bonus feat, which can pretty much give you a +1 on all Str checks. Probably not worth it unless you find yourself swimming in feats.

Aesh whatever Illumians get a +2 bonus on all Str skill and ability checks. That would give you a bonus on offensive trips.

If you consider having a decent Cha, a 1-2 level dip in Marshall could be fun. Motivate Str would allow you to add your Cha to all Str based skill and ability checks. The Major Aura that gives all allies a +1 on all attacks kinda makes up for the BAB loss at Marshall1.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-12-11, 03:38 PM
In Core, you only have the following:
EWP: Spiked Chain
Combat Reflexes
Combat Expertise > Improved Trip
Power Attack

After that, you mite as well start picking up Weapon Focuses or Quick Draws or Improved Initiatives or Blind-Fights or whatever; no feats you pick are going to focus on the core of the build anymore.

That's why Core versions are like Saph's Horizon Tripper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80415); feats don't provide you with any advantage so you instead pick classes with actual class features like Horizon Walker (Dimension Door at will among others), Ranger and Barbarian.

Alot of people continue down the road of AoO's and what not.

stand still , roblars gambit karmic strike etc...

herrhauptmann
2009-12-11, 03:45 PM
Other suggestions I would add are
Lunging strike (15ft reach? Yes please!)
TWF
Imp TWF
Dual strike
TW Rend
Jotunbrod(spelling?)
Possibly dodge, mobility, spring attack (but I hate that feat line)

Doesn't lunging strike have some heavy prereqs?
Why TWF? The regular spiked chain is not a double weapon. The Kusari gama I think is, but don't quote me on that. Ditto dual strike, two weapon rend.
Jotunbrud is awesome, in Faerun you have to be a human from Damara or Illusk to take it though. Also, it IS NOT powerful build. It DOES NOT affect weapon damage.

If you're expecting to encounter a lot of enemies that are otherwise immune to trip/disarm, take Vexing and Adaptable flanker. They relegate the tripper to a secondary role in combat, namely aiding their allies rather than doing damage, but still useful. (PHB2)
Complete Scoundrel has a few skill tricks that allow you to stand from prone without provoking an AOO. Ideal, now you can lock your weapon to your gauntlet, and if you fail your trip attempt, and the enemy succeeds on his returning trip, you can just fall over and stand right back up, no need to drop your weapon.
There's alsoa few feats that give boosts to your AOOs, vital for a tripper with combat reflexes, that's where much of your damage will come from.
Standstill, knockdown, hold the line, and Martial Study: Thicket of Blades (for later levels).
Also, drow of the underdark: Vae school of combat. Requires a form of skirmish or sneak attack.

Person_Man
2009-12-11, 04:28 PM
Melee Combo Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127026)

Standard Trip build is Combat Reflexes + Combat Exp + Improved Trip + Knock-Down (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Knock-Down) + any method of getting really big (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7081777). However, due to the popularity of Trip builds, there are a million variations on this theme. For example, I would argue that there's no need to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

Also, if you want to be a pure Fighter (and not a Fighter/Prestige Class) here is my stock Fighter advice:

Fighter is actually quite a respectable choice up to ECL 12ish if you know what you're doing. The keys are alternate class features (forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-906113.html) and careful feat selection (see combos above).

At level 1, Fighters get the Tower Shield for free. This in itself is useful. Races of Stone also lets you trade it away for Exotic Shield Proficiency, which has several uses (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6848292). I suggest using it for a Gnome Battle Cloak, which is essentially a shield you wear on your back, which is essentially a free Animated shield. Or you can take the Extreme Shield if you want +3 AC without a To-Hit penalty (but don't care about making shield bash attacks). If you want a mounted build (which is one of your best core-ish options) then I suggest a Riding Shield.

At levels 2 and 6, Dungonscape lets you trade away feats for the Dungeoncrasher ability, which gives you massive damage when you Bull Rush an enemy into a wall or solid object. As others have opined, the easiest way to abuse this is through the Knockback feat. Check out Flaming Homer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4108954&postcount=22) and the King of Pong (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107248). If you want to be less abusive and/or don't want to be a Goliath, then I suggest you be a Raptorian or Dragonborn (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060105b&page=1) for free flight (though it doesn't kick in until ECL 12). This lets you move above enemies, so that you can Bull Rush them into the floor. You can also get free Bull Rush attempts from the Shield of the Severed Hand (Complete Divine pg 102 or MIC) and/or Brutal Surge weapons (MIC). It's also worth mentioning that Dungeoncrasher damage is so high that even a single mundane Bull Rush per turn can kill most enemies.

At 2nd level or higher you can give up a Fighter bonus feat to gain the Resolute ability (Complete Champion). It allows you to immediately shift 1/2 your BAB to your Will Save. Hugely useful at mid to high levels, as Will Saves are often Save or Lose. Once you get to level 10 or higher I would definitely pick this one up, unless you can find some other form of mental protection.

A nifty web ad on (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060327a) gives you various buffs to your ability to Demoralize. The most important kicks in at 11th level, which lets you Demoralize as a Swift Action. This can be a powerful tool (http://boards-test-dev.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-911167), especially when combined with the Imperious Command feat (Drow of the Underdark) which makes Demoralized enemies Cower (www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Cowering).

Put that together, and you get respectable defense, strong offense, and two forms of battlefield control (Bull Rush and Fear). Pretty solid for any low to mid level melee build.

Eldariel
2009-12-11, 04:33 PM
Alot of people continue down the road of AoO's and what not.

stand still , roblars gambit karmic strike etc...

Those feats don't exist in Core, hence why I said how it works out in Core (it's possible OP is playing in a Coreish environment; we lack clear data on that - that's why I find it worthwhile to explore both continuities). Out-of-Core, stuff like Mage Slayer, Martial Study+Stance: Thicket of Blades, Stand Still, Knock-Down, Robilar's Gambit, Defensive Sweep, Overpowering Attack [ACF], Karmic Strike, Deft Opportunist, et co. ensure that you can sink a practically infinite amount of feats into AoOisms (let alone Dragon material like Improved + Greater Combat Reflexes...) so it's a moot point.

DragoonWraith
2009-12-11, 04:50 PM
Eldariel, this has already been discussed:

Huh. Random point:

I didn't specify core. I've opened up pretty much anything with a special request to not try and mess me up with sneaky optimizing (though I don't think anyone in the group could/would...the guy playing the cleric is a healbot cleric...). It's just that nobody in my group has ever played the archetype, so really, any options would be great!

We're not talking Core-only.

Eldariel
2009-12-11, 04:52 PM
We're not talking Core-only.

That was after my post; I was merely explaining why I saw fit to explore the possibility of this being Core-only.

Zen Master
2009-12-11, 04:54 PM
Its hard to go wrong as a tripper. Going up against multi-legged craetures or those that are several size categories larger will pose a challenge, but against humaniods, you're golden.

Of course some bastard might snap your chain. Personally, I find chain-trippers annoying and stupid, and it seems obvious to me that anyone would quickly see through the trick and either disarm or sunder the chain.

Even if that isn't exactly easy. But your burly, halberd-wielding city guard has at least a shot at it.

sonofzeal
2009-12-11, 05:16 PM
Of course some bastard might snap your chain. Personally, I find chain-trippers annoying and stupid, and it seems obvious to me that anyone would quickly see through the trick and either disarm or sunder the chain.

Even if that isn't exactly easy. But your burly, halberd-wielding city guard has at least a shot at it.
In before "omg why can't melee have nice things".


Seriously, what you said goes for just about every possible melee character who uses weapons. If he's good at whatever he's doing (tripping, disarming, feinting, or just plain stabbing), then enemies could try to break his weapon as a viable combat tactic. This is no more true for Trip as it is for anything else, as 90% of melee builds suffer if you smash their primary weapon.

On the other hand, the DM has to be some kind of jerk to do this more than once. If he smashes the weapon of any melee character who's effective in combat, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to play under him, for obvious reasons. Does he also steal the spellbook of any Wizard who casts good spells? Does he shatter holy symbols of Clerics who buff themselves up? Does he design traps that eat the Rogue's lockpicks? Or is it just melee he hates?

Sunder can be an interesting tactic, but should be used sparingly, and always with an eye towards restoring WBL balance afterward.

Lycanthromancer
2009-12-11, 05:27 PM
I'd suggest a half-ogre or half-minotaur (LA +1) psychic warrior using expansion and Combat Expertise and Improved Trip. You're Large size in your normal form, and Huge when under the effects of expansion. With a glaive and a spiked gauntlet, you get most of the goodies of the spiked chain, except for a +2 here and there (but those are made up for by the expansion power and your natural size).

Your stats should be Wis > Con > Str > Dex > Int (or 13, for Combat Expertise) > Cha, most likely. If your Dex is high enough, go for Combat Reflexes, then Power Attack. After that, you can either go for Improved Disarm and more tripping feats, or you can diversify with feats in other areas (Psicrystal Affinity, Expanded Knowledge, Darkstalker, etc - these partially depend on what powers you have, and what powers you want). Really, psychic warriors are better than fighters for nearly everything.

Stephen_E
2009-12-11, 05:46 PM
1 lev of Barb for Rage 1/day is good.
Half Orc for the Str or Human (for the feat) are the best races.

Feats -
Exotic Weapon prof - Spiked Chain
Combat Expertise (for prereq)
Improved Trip
KnockDown
Weapon Focus - Spiked Chain (prereq for Exotic weaponmaster)
QuickDraw (you are going to be forced to drop your weapon to avoid been tripped reasonably often)

Take 2 lev of WeaponMaster (CompWarrior)
- Trip Attack (+2 to trip)
- Flurry of Strikes (1 additional attack)

Additional feat possibilities. -
Stand Still
Extra Rage
Elusive Target (prereqs - Dodge, Mobility)

At high level Ring of Spell Storing for Righteous Might is good.

That pretty much covers it.

sonofzeal
2009-12-11, 05:49 PM
I should mention that Factotum 3 gets you +Int to all your Trip attempts. Pretty powerful combo, depending on your character!



Also, full-Orc with goggles is better for this than half-Orc. I'll take +2 str -2 wis on a trip build any day.

Zen Master
2009-12-12, 02:51 AM
In before "omg why can't melee have nice things".


Seriously, what you said goes for just about every possible melee character who uses weapons. If he's good at whatever he's doing (tripping, disarming, feinting, or just plain stabbing), then enemies could try to break his weapon as a viable combat tactic. This is no more true for Trip as it is for anything else, as 90% of melee builds suffer if you smash their primary weapon.

On the other hand, the DM has to be some kind of jerk to do this more than once. If he smashes the weapon of any melee character who's effective in combat, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to play under him, for obvious reasons. Does he also steal the spellbook of any Wizard who casts good spells? Does he shatter holy symbols of Clerics who buff themselves up? Does he design traps that eat the Rogue's lockpicks? Or is it just melee he hates?

Sunder can be an interesting tactic, but should be used sparingly, and always with an eye towards restoring WBL balance afterward.

Basically, I dislike the trip mechanic. I hardly ever play anything except melee builds myself, and melee can have all the nice things in the world as far as I'm concerned.

Tell me: If a DM can only sunder weapons once - does this apply do dispel magic also? Would you refuse to play with a DM who put you up against counterspellers?

See - in my book, the DM is entitled to use effective tactics. But hey - that's just me. It propable makes me some kind of jerk, eh?

olentu
2009-12-12, 02:54 AM
Basically, I dislike the trip mechanic. I hardly ever play anything except melee builds myself, and melee can have all the nice things in the world as far as I'm concerned.

Tell me: If a DM can only sunder weapons once - does this apply do dispel magic also? Would you refuse to play with a DM who put you up against counterspellers?

See - in my book, the DM is entitled to use effective tactics. But hey - that's just me. It propable makes me some kind of jerk, eh?

Well sundering an item is somewhat more permanently damaging then just countering a spell if one does not provide for replacement of the item after..

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-12, 02:54 AM
Basically, I dislike the trip mechanic. I hardly ever play anything except melee builds myself, and melee can have all the nice things in the world as far as I'm concerned.

Tell me: If a DM can only sunder weapons once - does this apply do dispel magic also? Would you refuse to play with a DM who put you up against counterspellers?

See - in my book, the DM is entitled to use effective tactics. But hey - that's just me. It propable makes me some kind of jerk, eh?Not the same. Dispel eliminates either a single action or all your buffs. Sunder eliminates 20K-200K worth of character power. You just don't do it.

Coidzor
2009-12-12, 03:01 AM
Tell me: If a DM can only sunder weapons once - does this apply do dispel magic also? Would you refuse to play with a DM who put you up against counterspellers?

See - in my book, the DM is entitled to use effective tactics. But hey - that's just me. It propable makes me some kind of jerk, eh?

Counterspelling eats up a renewable resource temporarily. Sunder permanently destroys either A. valuable party loot or B. valuable party equipment. Destroying a fighter's primary weapon after they've invested themselves into it is a serious blow to that character and his ability to respond to different situations.

It's not that it should be done only once, but that if it's successful with any regularity, it basically requires one to be ToB in order to be an effective melee character, and even those characters are negatively effected unless one basically makes enchantments and magic weapons cheap.

Sendal
2009-12-12, 03:22 AM
though the threat of sundering does make a +5 weapon alot more attractive.

Sometimes I think its too easy to get a +1 flaming keen as-whooping blade of >insert special power<

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-12, 03:23 AM
though the threat of sundering does make a +5 weapon alot more attractive.

Sometimes I think its too easy to get a +1 flaming keen as-whooping blade of >insert special power<That's what GMW is for.

Sendal
2009-12-12, 03:30 AM
sure, if you have someone around to cast it for you. This is all besides the point though.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-12, 03:32 AM
sure, if you have someone around to cast it for you. This is all besides the point though.Party. I assume that you either have a Wizard or a Cleric. If not, then you have bigger problems.

Zen Master
2009-12-12, 03:38 AM
Counterspelling eats up a renewable resource temporarily. Sunder permanently destroys either A. valuable party loot or B. valuable party equipment. Destroying a fighter's primary weapon after they've invested themselves into it is a serious blow to that character and his ability to respond to different situations.

It's not that it should be done only once, but that if it's successful with any regularity, it basically requires one to be ToB in order to be an effective melee character, and even those characters are negatively effected unless one basically makes enchantments and magic weapons cheap.

You may have missed this. But the guy who may take character wealth away is also the guy who provides it. See how that works?

My point of view is very, very simple. If you think a certain tactic is annoying and stupid if used against you - odds are you should continually use it against npc's. Because **** like that goes around.

I'm not against the occasional use of trip, sunder or whatever. But do it every fight, and I will put an end to it.

You know why? Because it makes combat boring and repetitive. One-trick ponies tend to do really poorly in my games.

olentu
2009-12-12, 03:57 AM
What is the fighter to do then so that said fighter is not doing something similar in every fight.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-12, 03:57 AM
You may have missed this. But the guy who may take character wealth away is also the guy who provides it. See how that works?That can quickly strain verisimilitude, however. If you destroy a weapon and the PC finds a replacement in the next room, that's questionable. If they don't, then you've basically said, "Yes, you can take EWP, but I'm never going to let you use it, bet you didn't expect that!" Either is bad.

I'm not against the occasional use of trip, sunder or whatever. But do it every fight, and I will put an end to it.

You know why? Because it makes combat boring and repetitive. One-trick ponies tend to do really poorly in my games.So yes, melee can't have nice things. A Fighter, optimized, has 2 things he can do well. Doesn't matter what they are, he has 2 ways of influencing the battle. That's not the fault of the player, it's the fault of whoever was in charge of 3.5's design.

Kantolin
2009-12-12, 03:59 AM
Or a barbarian or warlock, whos options generally boil down to "I smack it", and there's extremely little they can do to get outside of that.

Or do you mean you want to hear, 'I power attack for less'?

Keld Denar
2009-12-12, 05:34 AM
You know why? Because it makes combat boring and repetitive. One-trick ponies tend to do really poorly in my games.

Insert ToB plug for melee diversity!

Triaxx
2009-12-12, 07:25 AM
On tripping: Just about everything has already been said.

On Sundering: Seriously, if you're playing melee and don't expect your weapon to get destroyed now and again, you shouldn't be playing melee. I play characters who always keep two or three of the same melee weapon, and a couple of back ups, just in case the DM turns out to be one that likes to sunder. And then I don't enchant them all the same. One might be flaming, one might be frosting and so on. That way if they aren't sunder happy, I'm still prepared for most of the monsters they throw at me.

I sunder every chance I get, and I'm always running the numbers in my head to see if I can get away with it. Because a sundered target is out of the fight as effectively as if he were hit with a Save-or-Suck.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-12, 07:34 AM
On tripping: Just about everything has already been said.

On Sundering: Seriously, if you're playing melee and don't expect your weapon to get destroyed now and again, you shouldn't be playing melee. I play characters who always keep two or three of the same melee weapon, and a couple of back ups, just in case the DM turns out to be one that likes to sunder. And then I don't enchant them all the same. One might be flaming, one might be frosting and so on. That way if they aren't sunder happy, I'm still prepared for most of the monsters they throw at me.

I sunder every chance I get, and I'm always running the numbers in my head to see if I can get away with it. Because a sundered target is out of the fight as effectively as if he were hit with a Save-or-Suck.

The problem with sundering an opponent's weapon is that after you beat the foe, you don't get that weapon. (from a player perspective) When that weapon is worth, oh, say, 25,000gp, that's a pretty hefty chunk of change you just smashed away.

Disarming is far superior, when possible.

As for sundering by DM's? It is the DM's responsibility, barring deliberate misuse of wealth by the party, to balance Player wealth. If he sunders often, he better have a way to replace player wealth.

Magic Weapons represent a minimum of 2000gp, and usually more in the 50,000gp range, at high levels.

That means it represents a significant part of player wealth. up to 10%, sometimes more. That means that sunders significantly impact the player's wealth, and thus, effectiveness.

As a DM? I had a sunder happy player once. Once, about 15 sessions in, he kept complaining that I never left any decent weapons for him.

My response? "Not my fault. You keep breaking them all when I place them."

Stephen_E
2009-12-12, 07:52 AM
Not the same. Dispel eliminates either a single action or all your buffs. Sunder eliminates 20K-200K worth of character power. You just don't do it.

It's also extremely silly because a chain is harder to sunder in reality, not easier.
If you hit it the chainbends around your weapon so you can't deliver a solid blow against it.

Stephen E

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-12, 08:15 AM
It's also extremely silly because a chain is harder to sunder in reality, not easier.
If you hit it the chainbends around your weapon so you can't deliver a solid blow against it.

Stephen E

That really depends on what you're using to sunder it. A club probably wouldn't do much but if you had, say, bolt cutters...

Zen Master
2009-12-12, 08:54 AM
That can quickly strain verisimilitude, however. If you destroy a weapon and the PC finds a replacement in the next room, that's questionable. If they don't, then you've basically said, "Yes, you can take EWP, but I'm never going to let you use it, bet you didn't expect that!" Either is bad.

Yea - wrong.


So yes, melee can't have nice things. A Fighter, optimized, has 2 things he can do well. Doesn't matter what they are, he has 2 ways of influencing the battle. That's not the fault of the player, it's the fault of whoever was in charge of 3.5's design.

And - wrong.

First of all: Anything any pc can do, he should expect to be the target of as well. I don't care if it's a trip attempt, or a 400 damage charge combo, or something else entirely - npc's are as entitled to tactics and intelligence as the players are.

I find it truly hard to fathom you disagree with me on that.

Second: Oh yea - melee can have lots of nice things. Melee generally does very well in my games - actually, in most cases very well indeed. And they usually have a lot more than 2 ways of 'influencing battle' too.

This btw holds true, whether I'm the DM - or I'm the guy playing the melee character.

My current character is a barbarian/warmind. He has rather wonderful mobility, both from fast movement and excessive jump, climb and balance checks - he has more than adequate stealth - he can do very impressive damage compared to the rest of the group - he has intimidate, which is both a combat and a social skill - furthermore, expansion lets him have reach, and he has access to all the trips, sunders and bull rushes he wants, at the price of an attack of opportunity.

Naturally, I'd never trip anything I could one-shot. So I don't use that very much.

More than 2 ways. I do hope you can see that.

Stephen_E
2009-12-12, 10:44 AM
That really depends on what you're using to sunder it. A club probably wouldn't do much but if you had, say, bolt cutters...

If you tried to sunder a chain weapon with bolt cutters, unless you were phenomally lucky, you would fail abyssmally.
The Sunder spedial attack involves attacking the weapom of someone you are fighting. If you think you can apply a pair of bo;ycutters to a moving chain with any reasonable expectatioon of sucess I can only suspose you have mever actually used boltcutters.


Stephen E

JKTrickster
2009-12-12, 12:23 PM
First of all: Anything any pc can do, he should expect to be the target of as well. I don't care if it's a trip attempt, or a 400 damage charge combo, or something else entirely - npc's are as entitled to tactics and intelligence as the players are.


So just wondering, I assume you do the same for your players that play magic characters right?

Also, what if it wouldn't make sense for the NPCs to prepare for that? I've played many games where I as the PC was on ambushing/infiltrating/etc. missions, and it wouldn't have made sense for the NPCs to know much (if anything) about what the party was made up of...

EDIT: Also, I agree that NPCs should have extremely smart tactics. In fact, I would hate my DM if combat was just consistent rolls and "I attack again" between the both of us. But shouldn't the point of the tactics be presenting a challenge for your players to overcome? I mean, I would rather you tell me right up front "Spiked Chains are dumb, so I'm not letting you have them" so I don't waste my time, than rather sending various things at me in the game that are bent on sundering me, and only me, because of the type of character I chose to make.







My current character is a barbarian/warmind. He has rather wonderful mobility, both from fast movement and excessive jump, climb and balance checks - he has more than adequate stealth - he can do very impressive damage compared to the rest of the group - he has intimidate, which is both a combat and a social skill - furthermore, expansion lets him have reach, and he has access to all the trips, sunders and bull rushes he wants, at the price of an attack of opportunity.

Naturally, I'd never trip anything I could one-shot. So I don't use that very much.

More than 2 ways. I do hope you can see that.

But that isn't a fighter. The way a fighter has to be built to be effective past 12th level, it normally is maximizing damage, or using the spiked chain. As much as I agree that one trick ponies can be boring, its has more to do with the lack of verstaile feats that a fighter can meaningfully take after a while. Your example of the barbarian/warmind? The barbarian is considered a higher tier than the fighter and the warmind has psionic abilities to compliment your play style. But the fighter lacks those choices when choosing feats, so he/she must choose to specialize instead.

@OP: If your character is planning on making a spike chain build Snow Savant came up with an extremely impressive one on the CharOp boards over at the Wizards Community boards. Try searching for it. It uses the Blunt Chain instead of the Spiked Chain for more versatility (it's hard to explain exactly how, but just look over the build. Snow Savant could explain it much better than I could).

In general though, a Spiked Chain character only needs to pump Str (first) and Dex (second). There is no other stat you need (yes, not even Con for that matter...)

Depending on whether you want a more trip intensive build or not, you might also want Combat Expertise -> Improved Trip. Combat Reflexes is a must in most builds.

If homebrew is also allowed, look at the feats Diarming Expert and Touch right here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tAIsESE3xc7MFFjrPPQ.html) that Rich Burlew made himself. They allow you to make disarming all the more better (which I've found made a fun substitue when tripping might not be too viable...)

Triaxx
2009-12-12, 03:37 PM
It could in theory be done, but you'd have to be superhumanly fast, and superhumanly strong.

Kantolin
2009-12-12, 04:02 PM
First of all: Anything any pc can do, he should expect to be the target of as well. I don't care if it's a trip attempt, or a 400 damage charge combo, or something else entirely - npc's are as entitled to tactics and intelligence as the players are.

That's fine. It's cool to run into enemies who themselves trip.

It's also fine to run into enemies who are prepared to deal with tripping themselves, or who cannot be tripped.

There are two general problems. One, it sounds for all the world like you're having that happen /all the time/ when someone starts tripping. As in, the moment they spend several battles in a row tripping, all of a sudden tripping is a poor idea for the remainder of the game (or at least the majority of the time).

This means your average fighter-type goes from 'Hm, do I want to smack it, or do I try to trip it?' to 'Well I guess I smack it'.

It's like if you have superman, and then drown the world in kryptonite to the point where superman, never (or hardly ever), has any powers at all. This can be comedic, but it sure isn't very fun for the person playing superman.

Especially because doing it the way it sounds like you're doing it is actually ignoring superman and making a world where the guy playing /robin/ cannot function, but superman is still flying around. Stated as wizard-types tend to be more powerful than fighter-types.

The second problem is your statement of 'sunder'. A fighter who has had his weapon broken is in the worst position in the world. There aren't really tactics you can do involving this, a fighter kind of relies on his weapon to do things.

So if your response to tripping is 'a lot of people who sunder', then... just say 'no tripping my game' and bypass that. Otherwise, the fighter starts ranging from 'I flail ineffectively' to 'I stand there'. It's also comparable to erasing what could be like 50,000gp from the target's sheet.

If you do this a lot, expect to see more wizards. Or if this does also extend to random losses of spellbook, sorcerors, druids, and psions. And judicious use of the cleric's 'summon holy symbol' spell.

Third, your character has psionics to help him have more variety and make him less reliant on his feats. Now, even with that, combat-wise, your character can:

- Intimidate
- Trip
- Sunder
- Bull Rush

Intimidating and Bull Rushing are almost always terrible ideas in combat. Sundering is a poor idea for reasons listed above. That leaves tripping, or apparantly one-shotting the enemy. Plus if you do most of those things and get hit doing them, you stop them - little is more lame than the expansion'd half-orc bull rushing a reduced kobold, being pinpricked, and stopping - this makes it functionally not an option for me.

If you ask /me/, I'd much rather enemies get a -4 to hit and AC than die instantly. More interesting combats that way, rewards the tactical thinking, makes something beyond 'I hit it! I hit it! I charge it!' that ubercharger builds tend to have.

Besides, you can beat tripping in a mild plethora of ways. Be ranged, tumble, manage to get in range and just accept the -4 to hit and AC, have more people than he has AOOs, be pretty strong yourself, have more than four legs, be a dwarf, teleport, have a decent rather than miserable touch AC, dispel any improvements to size. Whatever. Be a (greater) invisible flying wizard and trap the fighter in solid fog then throw fireballs into it. Don't make the knee-jerk response be to erase the fighter's lifeblood.

herrhauptmann
2009-12-12, 04:17 PM
You say your barbarian carries multiple weapons? That's fine. Most melee characters do. But it's rare for a high level character to have his backup weapon be as awesome as his primary.
Especially when starting at high levels, the fighter tends to have to put a third or more wealth into his primary weapon, after armor, wondrous items, and other essentials, a character's not going to have much money to pump into a backup weapon.
So yes, sundering a fighters main weapon, whether he's got a backup or not, is debilitating even in low level games. And in high level games, as stated, you've just wiped out a lot of his resources.

Zen Master
2009-12-13, 04:49 AM
- Intimidate
- Trip
- Sunder
- Bull Rush



And I do all of those ... very occasionally. That's the whole point - it is encouraged in my group to build versatile characters, so you can react to different situations with different responses.

I play a melee character. I know it's very borderline gishy, but it has a total sum of 3 powers. So ... it's primarily a melee character.

But the whole point is that one-trick ponies are discouraged. For many reasons, but mainly because they make the game boring, and because there is so very, very much they cannot take part in.

And ... I can tell you straight: A guy who does nothing but wait for the next combat so he can do his one thing, does not get to play at my table.

Luckily that's never been a concern. But it could, and would, have been.

olentu
2009-12-13, 06:54 AM
So since you only use these maneuvers very occasionally, then in battle most of the time you are doing what.

JKTrickster
2009-12-13, 11:19 AM
But the whole point is that one-trick ponies are discouraged. For many reasons, but mainly because they make the game boring, and because there is so very, very much they cannot take part in.

And ... I can tell you straight: A guy who does nothing but wait for the next combat so he can do his one thing, does not get to play at my table.

Yeah, I totally agree. But it shouldn't be more of a knee-jerk response; just say so nicely and tell him to consider something else. That's why I pointed out the build Snow Savat built; it has a lot of extra versatility (TWF, good vs. those who try to full attack you, etc.) that most trip builds lack. Personally trip builds seem borderline TO to me; you simply fail so much against so many different types of opponents (those who fly, those who teleport, those who are bigger than you, those who have more than four feet, those who use ranged attacks, etc.) that you can't realistically play him out in every single combat and be useful, unless the DM is specifically doing so.

Melamoto
2009-12-13, 02:53 PM
@Acromos
I mostly agree with what you say, but your logic is flawed in one respect: Sundering a Tripper is not giving him a taste of his own medicine. Disarming, Tripping, or Bull Rushing a Tripper would be a use of clever tactics. Sundering is not encouraged because it can completely devastate a character. You just disarm him and keep attacking him while he helplessly tries to retrieve the weapon. Just like sundering except without the tears and horror.

ghashxx
2009-12-13, 04:23 PM
I personally hate one trick ponies. Whether you're a fighter, wizard, or rogue, it just gets boring. Rogues should have several methods to get a sneak attack, all the way from feinting (goodness gracious I wish that worked better), to tumbling, effective use of flanking, etc. A wizard shouldn't do the same thing over and over either. Using spells to give you a full night's rest in a single standard action? Yeah, that's gonna get old real fast with the DM.

The fighter isn't any different. Tripping is great, but it won't solve everything. Tossing it up with disarming of spell pouches or cloaks / other pieces of equipment is great. Toss in some AoO stuff (combat reflexes, improved combat reflexes [two uses of available AoOs with each provocation and attack roll at -5 for 2nd attack, Dragon magazine] deft opportunist for an extra +4 to hit w/ AoOs, and Robilars gambit) is so much fun to be had. So you've got plenty of AoOs, reasonable chance of hitting with them, and you've got options on tripping and disarming. Using the spiked chain gives you the reach you need for mage slayer to be effective too.

Zen Master
2009-12-13, 05:13 PM
@Acromos
I mostly agree with what you say, but your logic is flawed in one respect: Sundering a Tripper is not giving him a taste of his own medicine. Disarming, Tripping, or Bull Rushing a Tripper would be a use of clever tactics. Sundering is not encouraged because it can completely devastate a character. You just disarm him and keep attacking him while he helplessly tries to retrieve the weapon. Just like sundering except without the tears and horror.

Well - yes. Why does everyone assume I'm set in stone on destroying my players gear? It was just an example. And really - sunder attempts work, even if the weapon doesn't break. Tell the guy 'Ooo - just barely. Your weapon takes X damage, so it very nearly breaks - but doesn't.' Lesson learned!

Also, did anyone even notice I used a city guard in my example? Someone with a large two-handed weapon and some muscle on him - but still someone who will be hard pressed to actually succeed on his roll against a PC with better stats, and likely a size advantage. Come on ... I'm ... firm, but not a tyrant (which are the words of all tyrants since Nero :smallsmile:)

Honestly tho - I do like the tears and the horror. Also, I doubt anyone in any game I've ever played had a weapon worth more than say ... 10-12k gold.

Curmudgeon
2009-12-13, 05:57 PM
The thing about one-trick ponies is that there are multiple counters to that one technique. Sundering and disarming have already been mentioned. Here are a couple more:

Attack INT. Below 13 the whole Combat Expertise line (Improved Trip, Improved Disarm) is unavailable.
Send in a Rogue. Rogues can Tumble to avoid AoOs for movement, and if they max out Balance ranks they can likely withstand any other trip attack. (See the rules to resist trip via Balance in Complete Adventurer.) One use of Acrobatic Backstab (skill trick; see Complete Scoundrel) and your tripper is having a really bad day.

Zen Master
2009-12-13, 06:31 PM
The thing about one-trick ponies is that there are multiple counters to that one technique. Sundering and disarming have already been mentioned. Here are a couple more:

Attack INT. Below 13 the whole Combat Expertise line (Improved Trip, Improved Disarm) is unavailable.
Send in a Rogue. Rogues can Tumble to avoid AoOs for movement, and if they max out Balance ranks they can likely withstand any other trip attack. (See the rules to resist trip via Balance in Complete Adventurer.) One use of Acrobatic Backstab (skill trick; see Complete Scoundrel) and your tripper is having a really bad day.


Exactly. It's fine to have a specialty - but when that fails, you'd better have something else to fall back on. And then something else again to fall back on, when that fails too. And then, ideally, you will also have something to do in social encounters besides sharpen your axe and stare menacingly.

Even if the aforementioned barbarian/warmind has only intimidate (and RP) for social encounters.

sonofzeal
2009-12-13, 08:13 PM
Exactly. It's fine to have a specialty - but when that fails, you'd better have something else to fall back on. And then something else again to fall back on, when that fails too. And then, ideally, you will also have something to do in social encounters besides sharpen your axe and stare menacingly.

Even if the aforementioned barbarian/warmind has only intimidate (and RP) for social encounters.
Oh, agreed. A one-trick-pony is limited by the strength and scope of his particular trick. A Spirited Charger can do unbelievable damage with ease, as long as he's mounted and there's tones of room, but often he'll lack one or both of those things. The solution to a Spirited Charger is not to kill his mount, it's to account for his trick and give more situations that challenge him. Use more terrain, breach charge lanes, work underground or indoors, or have enough enemies spread out that he can splatter one a turn without it being really significant. Killing his mount is analogous to sundering the Wizard's spell component pouch and spoiling his bat guano so he can't cast the Twin Empowered Fireball he prepared; it's an aggravation to the player, it can feel like a childish and petty nerf, and there's really nothing he could possibly do about it.



Here's the rule of thumb I use.

PCs are trying to kill monsters, monsters are trying to kill PCs. PCs are generally assumed to win, which means the tricks they're trying work, and the tricks the monsters are trying don't. Enemies should threaten, should do some damage, but inevitably (from the DM's perspective) fail in their ploys and shouldn't inflict a serious devastating blow to the PCs in the normal course of things. The exception is when the PCs leave themselves vulnerable in some way.

Example: There's bandits in the woods, and the PCs know this. If the PCs assign watches, then in all likelihood at least one of the watchers is going to have horrid spot/listen that the bandits can probably beat. The bandits could probably rob them blind, and there's nothing the PCs could have done about it. This would be bad. It can be an aggravation to the players, it can feel like a childish and petty nerf, and there's really nothing they could possibly do about it. Now, if the PCs decide not to keep watch, or someone shirks their duty, then you're within the bounds of fair play to steal some stuff and it's unlikely to cause IRL resentment from your players.

Same goes for sundering weapons or spellbooks. You can always do it, just like the bandits can always sneak in anyway, but as a general rule a good DM shouldn't unless the players leave themselves especially vulnerable for that. One way to do this would be to tell the Tripmonkey that the guy is pulling out a special weapon called a "Swordbreaker (http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s216/phyreblade_blog/All%20Things%20Medieval/SwordBreaker-1.jpg)". If he keeps attacking that guy, then yeah, sunder away. But getting him to make a mistake before nerfing him is part of the fine art of DMing.

Besides, as has already been mentioned, there's plenty of other situations you can throw at him where that one trick isn't the right one. Be flexible, be adaptive, let players shine within their specialty, and make them work for their successes outside of it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-14, 12:01 AM
Exactly. It's fine to have a specialty - but when that fails, you'd better have something else to fall back on. And then something else again to fall back on, when that fails too. And then, ideally, you will also have something to do in social encounters besides sharpen your axe and stare menacingly.

Even if the aforementioned barbarian/warmind has only intimidate (and RP) for social encounters.The issue is that most non-ToB melee only has 2 tricks. Anything more than that and your trick starts failing. If you don't heavily invest in lockdown, then you're screwed by spellcasters and tumbling Rogues. If you don't heavily invest in Charge, you're useless against dragons. If you don't invest heavily in trip, Hydras make you cry. You can get several abilities, but if most of them fail, you're worse than a 1-trick pony, which at least succeeds some of the time. Meanwhile, the Druid is 2 animals at once, summoning more animals, and each of them has the right trick for the job, and is better at it than you.


Honestly tho - I do like the tears and the horror. Also, I doubt anyone in any game I've ever played had a weapon worth more than say ... 10-12k gold.Probably because you sunder so much, which means you're nerfing melee further. Or you play only low levels. By level 10, 18K+weapon crystal is what I'd expect from a primary meleer. Much below that, and they're far less effective than they need to be.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 05:23 AM
The issue is that most non-ToB melee only has 2 tricks. Anything more than that and your trick starts failing. If you don't heavily invest in lockdown, then you're screwed by spellcasters and tumbling Rogues. If you don't heavily invest in Charge, you're useless against dragons. If you don't invest heavily in trip, Hydras make you cry. You can get several abilities, but if most of them fail, you're worse than a 1-trick pony, which at least succeeds some of the time. Meanwhile, the Druid is 2 animals at once, summoning more animals, and each of them has the right trick for the job, and is better at it than you.

Probably because you sunder so much, which means you're nerfing melee further. Or you play only low levels. By level 10, 18K+weapon crystal is what I'd expect from a primary meleer. Much below that, and they're far less effective than they need to be.

The character I described - the barbarian/warmind - is SRD. Right? Not quite core, but nothing outside the SRD. He does more damage than anyone in the group, has better movement than anyone, has jump and climb checks that are through the roof, more than adequate stealth, a social skill with a very decent modifier (even if intimidate is slightly limited in its application) ... he's hardly what I'd call a one-trick pony.

I could even have built him more powerful - but I didn't. I went for something that would fit the group. I *am* the damage dealer, so doing the most damage is fine. And the character has obvious weaknesses too, for the DM to exploit as and when he pleases - and also to show my group I don't outshine them.

And ... this is obviously hard for you to fathom. But I do not nerf melee. In fact, I very much cater to it. That I don't do that in the way you would does nothing to change that fact.

It's a question of defining the game. Every sheaf of 20 arrows you buy comes with a free Flightbreaker arrow, which automatically breaks fly spells and sends people plunging to earth. As a free extra service, it also prevents the casting of feather fall for one round. One reason for this is that it frees melee characters of the need for flight items. Another is that I simply cannot be arsed working with altitude (oh, you can't reach that guy - see, his mini is stacked on 5 dice, yours is only stacked on 3).

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-14, 05:36 AM
The character I described - the barbarian/warmind - is SRD. Right? Not quite core, but nothing outside the SRD. He does more damage than anyone in the group, has better movement than anyone, has jump and climb checks that are through the roof, more than adequate stealth, a social skill with a very decent modifier (even if intimidate is slightly limited in its application) ... he's hardly what I'd call a one-trick pony.


I can build a commoner that does more damage than "anyone in my group". Comparing a character to "my group" doesn't say anything, other than one of the following:

1) Your group may not optimize well.
2) Your DM may play characters that favor your character over others (undead, for example, if others sneak attack, etc)
3) Your wizard is playing properly, and not wasting his time with damage.

Here's the problem with your "not-one-trick-pony".

Sunder removes party wealth.
Trip/Grapple have mechanics that are highly similar, and benefit enemies more than allies.
Damage is the only viable option, and you've been careful not to provide anyone with any context about your actual typical bonuses to hit, damage, or the like.

In other words, you expect us to take your word on a lot of unknowns.

And in essence, all this says is that your character is more optimized than 3 other characters we know nothing about.

Which doesn't say a lot.


And ... this is obviously hard for you to fathom. But I do not nerf melee. In fact, I very much cater to it. That I don't do that in the way you would does nothing to change that fact.

It's a question of defining the game. Every sheaf of 20 arrows you buy comes with a free Flightbreaker arrow, which automatically breaks fly spells and sends people plunging to earth. As a free extra service, it also prevents the casting of feather fall for one round. One reason for this is that it frees melee characters of the need for flight items. Another is that I simply cannot be arsed working with altitude (oh, you can't reach that guy - see, his mini is stacked on 5 dice, yours is only stacked on 3).

Gotcha. When you bend and break rules to support a specific type of character, up to and including custom free magic items that disallow saves?

That does show that fighter is underpowered. Why? Because if it wasn't, the rules of the game would not need to be changed to "cater to them".

Killer Angel
2009-12-14, 05:59 AM
I'm not against the occasional use of trip, sunder or whatever. But do it every fight, and I will put an end to it.
You know why? Because it makes combat boring and repetitive. One-trick ponies tend to do really poorly in my games.

This (bolded mine), is very different from:


It's fine to have a specialty - but when that fails, you'd better have something else to fall back on. And then something else again to fall back on, when that fails too. And then, ideally, you will also have something to do in social encounters besides sharpen your axe and stare menacingly.


In the first case, you deliberately nerf a character, in the second case, it's clear that a mono-specialized character is auto-limited.
I can see your reasoning, but a one-pony trick is nerfed by himself: every time he faces a challenge where he cannot apply his trick, he's out of game.
There's no need to "punish" a player for specializing in tripping... especially growing up in levels, a good 50-60% of the encounters, are against things that cannot be tripped, so it's clear that the tripper will use his ability every few damn time he can.
If your straight fighter cannot do anything at all outside combat, the player will be bored, and he will do better next time.
The same can be said for combat manoveurs: the player will try to have more choices, but almost every choice other than his primary or secondary tactic, will be very poor: there's a reason for the fighter is a low level tier: he has no versatility.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 07:19 AM
I can build a commoner that does more damage than "anyone in my group". Comparing a character to "my group" doesn't say anything, other than one of the following:

1) Your group may not optimize well.
2) Your DM may play characters that favor your character over others (undead, for example, if others sneak attack, etc)
3) Your wizard is playing properly, and not wasting his time with damage.

Here's the problem with your "not-one-trick-pony".

Sunder removes party wealth.
Trip/Grapple have mechanics that are highly similar, and benefit enemies more than allies.
Damage is the only viable option, and you've been careful not to provide anyone with any context about your actual typical bonuses to hit, damage, or the like.

In other words, you expect us to take your word on a lot of unknowns.

And in essence, all this says is that your character is more optimized than 3 other characters we know nothing about.

Which doesn't say a lot.



Gotcha. When you bend and break rules to support a specific type of character, up to and including custom free magic items that disallow saves?

That does show that fighter is underpowered. Why? Because if it wasn't, the rules of the game would not need to be changed to "cater to them".

Comparing my character to my group is the only thing that makes sense. Everything else is relative - but the groups performance as ... I dunno, a 'team' is absolute. That you have only my word for it is irrelevant. To me.

My group optimizes quite well - but doesn't. I imagine that's tricky for you to wrap your mind around. We have an agreed-upon powerlevel.

Sunder may reduce party wealth, but only if it succeds. The fear of a succesful sunder usually suffices to remind people not to play like retards. But really, me having to defend it makes it sound like it's a problem in my group - and it isn't. Basically, even from character creation, one-trick ponies are discouraged, and therefore the pc's have lots of strings to play on, which again means trip/disarm/sunder seldom comes up.

Now ... in the greatest possible honesty. I simply don't give a damn if you believe me. If you don't, you really are wasting your time arguing. But I wonder why you even bring that up - is it so incredible to you that you have to question the veracity of what I say?

My character isn't more optimized than the others. I deal damage, someone else heals and does crowd control, yet another one sneaks and uses skills, and the last guy ... makes a mess of most things and roleplays a lot. He's a damage dealer too tho - but he simply doesn't care about the rules of the game. He's sort of a wildcard. But a lot of fun.

So - everyone has a role to play, and in actual combat everyone can do comparable damage, but since I'm the pure, straight damage dealer - I do the most. To me, that's as it should be. And someone somewhere must think the same way, because MMO's are designed this way. Just as an example, I'm not saying RP's should be like MMO's.

Now .... other topic.

I neither bend nor break any rules. And further more, I certainly do not do so to support any character. I do so - and that really should be blatantly obvious from my post - to enforce a certain style of combat. If I wanted arial battles, I'd be playing Crimson Skies or some such.

Also, did I say fighters weren't underpowered? Could you ... quote that for me please? Other than being totally beside the point, you're still not getting it.

Whatever I do, I do to promote a game that is fun for everyone.

See? I'ma repeat that so's maybe you notice.

Whatever I do, I do to promote a game that is fun for everyone.

That's what allllll this is about. All of it. Even the flightbreaker arrows, and the sunders, all of it.

I wonder. Is there any point to arguing with you? Here's what - if you post something that somehow shows that you understand and reflect upon what I say, then I'll answer you. Otherwise, I really am at work and should be busy doing other things.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 07:21 AM
There's no need to "punish" a player for specializing in tripping.

Yes, there is. Because having every combat be resolved in the same way is boring.

DragoonWraith
2009-12-14, 07:30 AM
The general consensus is that if a non-ToB/non-gish melee character is not a one-trick pony, he'll simply fail at everything he does. At least, at higher levels, a fighter must specialize (to the extreme), or simply not be able to do even one thing. If you refuse to allow them to be especially good at one thing, then there's simply no reason to even try to play one. Might as well just be a caster and be done with it.

And thus, "melee can't have nice things".

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 07:43 AM
The general consensus is that if a non-ToB/non-gish melee character is not a one-trick pony, he'll simply fail at everything he does. At least, at higher levels, a fighter must specialize (to the extreme), or simply not be able to do even one thing. If you refuse to allow them to be especially good at one thing, then there's simply no reason to even try to play one. Might as well just be a caster and be done with it.

And thus, "melee can't have nice things".

I've never played a campaign, neither as DM or player, that went past levels 12-14 or so. Thus, we never reach the levels where the game degrades into stupidity. Regardless, the character I refer to is currently level 8, and could be called a 'micro-gish', with his arsenal of Expansion, Camouflage and ... hm, right now I cannot remember the last one. Burst, maybe? Maybe he has only two?

Anyways, yea - he's 'gishy'. Having access to psionic feats, a few powers, rage, decent amount of skillpoints and so on makes him far preferable to a straight fighter, yes. But then, I've never claimed any differently. I mean ... I built him that way for a reason.

Stephen_E
2009-12-14, 07:56 AM
Yes, there is. Because having every combat be resolved in the same way is boring.

Been a Tripper doesn't mean every combat is resolved in the same way.
Tripping affects combats, it doesn't resolve them.
And there's an awful lot of combats where it's not going to be applicable unless the GM plays a fairly limited opponent mix.
And it can reasonably often result in the tripper disarming themself, which again creates an alternate combat resolution.

Frankly as far as I can see your complaints about trip builds don't match the facts, which leaves me thinking you simply don't like trip, and are looking for an excuse to nerf people using it. Given I have run into several people with this view on the topic in person, it does seem the most likely answer.


Stephen E

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-14, 08:38 AM
Comparing my character to my group is the only thing that makes sense. Everything else is relative - but the groups performance as ... I dunno, a 'team' is absolute. That you have only my word for it is irrelevant. To me. Ah, that makes things simple. You have no interest in crafting arguments to be sensible to others. It's all about you. If you were trying to convince yourself, you could have just come out and said so.

I rather take offense to the rest of your post including

My group optimizes quite well - but doesn't. I imagine that's tricky for you to wrap your mind around. We have an agreed-upon powerlevel. Insults to my intelligence...


Sunder may reduce party wealth, but only if it succeds. The fear of a succesful sunder usually suffices to remind people not to play like retards.
Insinuations that without the constant threat of sunders, people will play like retards.


But really, me having to defend it makes it sound like it's a problem in my group - and it isn't. Basically, even from character creation, one-trick ponies are discouraged, and therefore the pc's have lots of strings to play on, which again means trip/disarm/sunder seldom comes up.Aaand, back to the "it's all about you" philosophy...


Now ... in the greatest possible honesty. I simply don't give a damn if you believe me. If you don't, you really are wasting your time arguing. But I wonder why you even bring that up - is it so incredible to you that you have to question the veracity of what I say?All about you, continued.

If what you have works for you, then bully for you.

It doesn't seem to work for anyone else here... So why are you questioning THEIR group dynamic?


My character isn't more optimized than the others. I deal damage, someone else heals and does crowd control, yet another one sneaks and uses skills, and the last guy ... makes a mess of most things and roleplays a lot. He's a damage dealer too tho - but he simply doesn't care about the rules of the game. He's sort of a wildcard. But a lot of fun.So, you optimize, but limit yourselves, and yet you optimize more than them. Sounds like the "agreed upon power level" isn't 100% agreed upon.


So - everyone has a role to play, and in actual combat everyone can do comparable damage, but since I'm the pure, straight damage dealer - I do the most. To me, that's as it should be. And someone somewhere must think the same way, because MMO's are designed this way. Just as an example, I'm not saying RP's should be like MMO's.Wait... Pure straight damage dealer? That sounds suspiciously like a "one trick pony".


I neither bend nor break any rules. And further more, I certainly do not do so to support any character.Denying bending/breaking rules.

I do so - and that really should be blatantly obvious from my postAdmitting to bending/breaking rules, and saying it's obvious (it is)

- to enforce a certain style of combat. If I wanted arial battles, I'd be playing Crimson Skies or some such.
Reason: Enforcing the style of combat you prefer, and the style your character is built to. Though you just said you don't support your character with it.

I don't need to contradict you here. You do a good enough job on your own.


Whatever I do, I do to promote a game that is fun for everyone.Except for fighters who, to use your terminology "play like retards" or don't like the style of combat you "enforce" with your self-admitted bending/breaking of the rules.


See? I'ma repeat that so's maybe you notice.I'd like to take this opportunity to courteously link you to the forum rules. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1)


I wonder. Is there any point to arguing with you? Here's what - if you post something that somehow shows that you understand and reflect upon what I say, then I'll answer you. Otherwise, I really am at work and should be busy doing other things.
Please stop inferring that I don't understand you. I do. I really, really do. I just think that you're wrong. Really, really wrong.

Now, the part I don't understand is the self contradicting you're doing. If you'd care to elaborate on that between your work assignments, I'm all ears, sir.

Killer Angel
2009-12-14, 08:40 AM
Yes, there is. Because having every combat be resolved in the same way is boring.

:smallmad: oh, please...

Because you fight only medium humanoid-non-dwarven bipedal, right?
Absolutely no chance to fight flying enemies, swarms, multilegged ones, large or huge ones, very strong ones, etc etc... The tripper totally ruins the combat!
Sorry for the sarcasm, but specially at low levels, the fighter MUST be a one-pony trick (other than "hit hard"), and trip is just one of the tricks available. Growing up in levels and gaining feats, he can take different combat styles.

If your concern is that every combat can be resolved in the same way by the same combat manoveur, I'm sorry but the boring things are the combat themselves, because they're all equals.

Beelzebub1111
2009-12-14, 08:42 AM
I prefer disarming with spiked chain, you get way more bonuses since it is a two handed weapon. you can actually get somewhere like +16 or something like that.

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-14, 08:47 AM
I prefer disarming with spiked chain, you get way more bonuses since it is a two handed weapon. you can actually get somewhere like +16 or something like that.

Improved disarm is in the tier of combat expertise, like improved trip.

Just talking about one-tricks, you can use the +4 from IT tro trip a flying target with a glot. A good feat combinatoin mkes you quite versatile (even if yes, is better FOCUS on few things, and wide your options playing them smartly).

Tripping is not OP or always available. And its situational effectiveness is a good thing. Other combat styles need more tweak, trip is good because in the normal power level of the game you can be decent with SRD only (expecially mixing with CR feats in SRD). Just my opinion, of course.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 09:02 AM
Been a Tripper doesn't mean every combat is resolved in the same way.
Tripping affects combats, it doesn't resolve them.
And there's an awful lot of combats where it's not going to be applicable unless the GM plays a fairly limited opponent mix.
And it can reasonably often result in the tripper disarming themself, which again creates an alternate combat resolution.

Frankly as far as I can see your complaints about trip builds don't match the facts, which leaves me thinking you simply don't like trip, and are looking for an excuse to nerf people using it. Given I have run into several people with this view on the topic in person, it does seem the most likely answer.


Stephen E

Frankly as far as I can see your complaints don't match the facts, which leaves me thinking you simply like trip, and are looking for excuses to justify using it.

So um ... yea.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-14, 09:09 AM
Frankly as far as I can see your complaints don't match the facts, which leaves me thinking you simply like trip, and are looking for excuses to justify using it.

So um ... yea.

The facts?

Enemies that fly aren't impacted by trip, easily. Enemies with no legs, like oozes. Enemies that are incorporeal. Enemies that are colossal and multi-legged, with high strength scores.

In all of these fights, a tripper must think outside of the box. Even if the opponent is tripped, the fight isn't over. The creature has the option of casting defensively, getting up, using an SL or SU ability, and more. The fight's not over, because each of those situations still must be dealt with.

Thus, trip is a means, not an end. It influences fights, in much the same way as a Solid Fog does.

nekomata2
2009-12-14, 09:27 AM
Enemies that fly aren't impacted by trip, easily. Enemies with no legs, like oozes. Enemies that are incorporeal. Enemies that are colossal and multi-legged, with high strength scores.


Enemies that fly using a physical body part, like wings, can be tripped. I believe it was one of the Rules of the Game articles that stated it.

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-14, 09:28 AM
Enemies that fly using a physical body part, like wings, can be tripped. I believe it was one of the Rules of the Game articles that stated it.

True -see what I said with glot. But a lot of times is a matter of reach.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 09:30 AM
Ah, that makes things simple. You have no interest in crafting arguments to be sensible to others. It's all about you. If you were trying to convince yourself, you could have just come out and said so.

I rather take offense to the rest of your post including
Insults to my intelligence...
Insinuations that without the constant threat of sunders, people will play like retards.
Aaand, back to the "it's all about you" philosophy...
All about you, continued.

If what you have works for you, then bully for you.

It doesn't seem to work for anyone else here... So why are you questioning THEIR group dynamic?
So, you optimize, but limit yourselves, and yet you optimize more than them. Sounds like the "agreed upon power level" isn't 100% agreed upon.
Wait... Pure straight damage dealer? That sounds suspiciously like a "one trick pony".
Denying bending/breaking rules.
Admitting to bending/breaking rules, and saying it's obvious (it is)

Reason: Enforcing the style of combat you prefer, and the style your character is built to. Though you just said you don't support your character with it.

I don't need to contradict you here. You do a good enough job on your own.
Except for fighters who, to use your terminology "play like retards" or don't like the style of combat you "enforce" with your self-admitted bending/breaking of the rules.
I'd like to take this opportunity to courteously link you to the forum rules. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1)

Please stop inferring that I don't understand you. I do. I really, really do. I just think that you're wrong. Really, really wrong.

Now, the part I don't understand is the self contradicting you're doing. If you'd care to elaborate on that between your work assignments, I'm all ears, sir.

I by no means want to insult your intelligence. Not at all, I rather consider you to be quite clever. However, I've tried on very many occasions to bridge the gap between how I play the game, and how you and others on this board do. And it's futile, which is what I meant by the things in my post that obviously offend you.

Sorry bout that - I really mean no offense.

Now: It's not all about me. Still - I cannot be arsed to move into a proof/counter-proof discussion with you. If that is what you crave - sorry, you will not get it from me. What you could do is try to see the point I'm trying to make. You seek to contradict or refute (by what you likely consider evidence) - which in itself is fine, I just don't wanna play that game.

When I speak of a certain style of play as retarded, or about the game devolving into stupidity, that is because it gets repetitive and dull. Naturally, that is my personal view - I know others enjoy that kind of thing, but why isn't apparent to me. Again, my style of expressing myself likely comes across as insulting. That is unfortunate - I'm not talking about anyone, but about a way of playing the game that seems stupid. To me.

As to 'enforcing' a style of play. We as a group have agreed on any number of minor limitations - for instance, no one can have more than one 'pet' of any kind at a time, including summons. There is no teleportation (or rather, we've introduced a simple way of blocking teleportation). Flight is dangerous thanks to the aforementioned arrows. Now, the thing is: That's not me - that's the group agreeing.

Regarding my character, it's a pure damage dealer in the sense that this is what it does best. Like I stated repeatedly, it can do any number of other things. You might take into consideration, that since I'm playing - I'm not currently DM. So the other DM in my group supports the same style of play - in fact, he invented the Flightbreaker Arrow.

About that: The flightbreaker arrow is a magic item. Are you saying magic items are breaking the rules? I'm sure you're not, but then I really don't see your point - well except if you think they are on sale too cheaply? Which they are, but I consider that fluff, and fluff is legal. This is a world where people invented a cheap method of countering flying mages. It is Eberron btw, so cheap or otherwise unusual magic items aren't exactly new.

I optimize a bit more than the other characters in the game. This has a number of reasons. For one, this charater stands in for the guy currently DM'ing - so he gets to play for maybe 4-5 sessions. Then I'll be back in the chair. Hence, he has less starting equipment than the others, and also, he is designed specifically to fill a gap left by another character. He needs to deal damage, and tank - this, he is designed to do well, without outshining the rest of the group.

Now - I asked rather insistently that try to reflect upon what I say, because otherwise we can just gainsay each other all day, and I'm not going down that road. You obviously are unwilling to do so, so that's that.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-14, 09:30 AM
Enemies that fly using a physical body part, like wings, can be tripped. I believe it was one of the Rules of the Game articles that stated it.

Indeed. I stated "easily". As in, hit the dragon flying at 80 feet up shooting down 100 foot lines of XXX breath weapon with that chain.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 09:34 AM
Because you fight only medium humanoid-non-dwarven bipedal, right?

No, not only - but truly, humanoids feature in our games far more regularly than monsters. I don't think I've faced a dragon since I was a teenager. Oh - there was one dracolich. So ... one in 18 years. No, we play mostly in cities, with political intrigue being a lot more regular than monster bashing.

Mind you - I'm not saying monster bashing isn't good and fun. It's just a bit rare in our group.

Killer Angel
2009-12-14, 09:48 AM
No, not only - but truly, humanoids feature in our games far more regularly than monsters. I don't think I've faced a dragon since I was a teenager. Oh - there was one dracolich. So ... one in 18 years. No, we play mostly in cities, with political intrigue being a lot more regular than monster bashing.

Mind you - I'm not saying monster bashing isn't good and fun. It's just a bit rare in our group.

Ah, I see...
I like that kind of things for a single adventure, not so much for a campaign.
I wouldn't probably play in such a setting (personal tastes), but now makes more sense, and I can see that some (usually standard) things are not good for balance or fun.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 10:10 AM
Ah, I see...
I like that kind of things for a single adventure, not so much for a campaign.
I wouldn't probably play in such a setting (personal tastes), but now makes more sense, and I can see that some (usually standard) things are not good for balance or fun.

Naturally, personal preference plays a major role. My point from the onset has been that the group I play in encourages have more aces up your sleeve - so trip or sunder is certainly a part of the arsenal. But if a character is built to be a tripper - that really will become repetitive and dull ... again, in my personal experience.

The sort of thinking I'm promoting here can be rather disastrous in certain cases. Once upon a time, we played Shadowrun. But we decided the magic system was deeply flawed - in so far as no one except mages had any real defence against magic - and dumped it. We also dumped the matrix rules, because they were cumbersome and just ... weird. This left us with a game where everyone was in one way or another a ranged damage dealer. We still managed to have lots of fun, but that really was too limited.

Another thing: My friends campaign has a group of monks as the main antagonist. So far he has provided a lot of really interesting combat, using among other things the rules in ECS - something I think would have been impossible with a more optimized group. It has added a lot of flavor, which I like.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-14, 10:29 AM
Naturally, personal preference plays a major role. My point from the onset has been that the group I play in encourages have more aces up your sleeve - so trip or sunder is certainly a part of the arsenal. But if a character is built to be a tripper - that really will become repetitive and dull ... again, in my personal experience.
Let's look at what "building to be a tripper" means.

What improves tripping?

1) Reach. The farther you can hit, the more you can trip.
2) Movement. To a lesser extent above, it's getting where you need to be to trip.
3) Size. Increasing it increases modifiers, as well as reach.
4) Strength.
5) Two handed Weaponry
6) The Improved Trip feat (and Expertise).

Of these, all but (6) are elements that support a wide range of attacks. In fact, they're pretty much useful to any melee damage dealer.

It seems like "building to be a tripper" doesn't limit you that much, after all. It's just as easy to add power attack, and be an effective damage dealer... or some psionic feats and gain further flexibility... Or many other things.

In other words, a dedicated tripper has all the elements to effectively utilize other tactics too... At least, as well as any other melee can be.

Heck, out of core, Brutal throw even opens up ranged combat.

In other words, if a tripper is boring, dull, or repetitive, it's because you choose not to use them any other way. Not because it's limited.

Stephen_E
2009-12-14, 10:31 AM
Regarding my character, it's a pure damage dealer in the sense that this is what it does best. Like I stated repeatedly, it can do any number of other things. You might take into consideration, that since I'm playing - I'm not currently DM. So the other DM in my group supports the same style of play - in fact, he invented the Flightbreaker Arrow.


Ok. Your Character is a pure damagedealer, in the sense that's what it does best, but it can do a number of different things but not as good. And you tell us that is good.

A Trip build can do one thing very good, Trip. It can do a number of different things, but not as good. And you tell us that is bad.

So we have 2 examples that are essentailly identical. One which you say is good, and the other bad. Can you please explain what difference in the examples makes one "bad" and the other "good".

Ste[hen E

Zovc
2009-12-14, 10:46 AM
...don't want fighters to be too powerful.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 12:01 PM
Let's look at what "building to be a tripper" means.

What improves tripping?

1) Reach. The farther you can hit, the more you can trip.
2) Movement. To a lesser extent above, it's getting where you need to be to trip.
3) Size. Increasing it increases modifiers, as well as reach.
4) Strength.
5) Two handed Weaponry
6) The Improved Trip feat (and Expertise).

Of these, all but (6) are elements that support a wide range of attacks. In fact, they're pretty much useful to any melee damage dealer.

It seems like "building to be a tripper" doesn't limit you that much, after all. It's just as easy to add power attack, and be an effective damage dealer... or some psionic feats and gain further flexibility... Or many other things.

In other words, a dedicated tripper has all the elements to effectively utilize other tactics too... At least, as well as any other melee can be.

Heck, out of core, Brutal throw even opens up ranged combat.

In other words, if a tripper is boring, dull, or repetitive, it's because you choose not to use them any other way. Not because it's limited.

Building a tripper could be summed up as 'a melee build that includes one or more of the following: Large size or greater, Imp. Trip, Combat Expertise and/or Combat Reflexes' - yea, sure, that's entirely correct. However, building a tripper very much also puts emphasis on 'wanting to trip'.

My character can trip very well indeed - he doesn't have the Imp. Trip feat, and he's not a dwarf, but he's very strong, large and wields a 2-hander. The real point may be that I don't trip - unless other tricks fail me. For that reason, I don't have the feat for it.

I don't chose to use trippers in any way what so ever. I think I've made two trip attempts in my life. Well - excluding the number of times I've used wolves.

Honestly, I consider jumping onto ledges, swinging from chandeliers, pushing people into burning magma, leaping across difficult terrain or whatever to be a lot more interesting than tripping.

Anything that forces combat into a given pattern is boring. Trip does that.

Of course, it has it's uses. But it's ver y important - to me at least - to create circumstances where it is rarely useful. Because as I said - it gets boring real fast.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 12:02 PM
So we have 2 examples that are essentailly identical. One which you say is good, and the other bad. Ste[hen E

Sure: One is built for versatility - the other is built for quite the opposite.

Killer Angel
2009-12-14, 12:27 PM
Sure: One is built for versatility - the other is built for quite the opposite.

At least, I hope that you consider Saph's Horizon Tripper, a tripper builded for versatility. Because that's exactly his goal.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-14, 12:28 PM
Building a tripper could be summed up as 'a melee build that includes one or more of the following: Large size or greater, Imp. Trip, Combat Expertise and/or Combat Reflexes' - yea, sure, that's entirely correct. However, building a tripper very much also puts emphasis on 'wanting to trip'.

My character can trip very well indeed - he doesn't have the Imp. Trip feat, and he's not a dwarf, but he's very strong, large and wields a 2-hander. The real point may be that I don't trip - unless other tricks fail me. For that reason, I don't have the feat for it.

I don't chose to use trippers in any way what so ever. I think I've made two trip attempts in my life. Well - excluding the number of times I've used wolves.You can't trip. At least, you can't trip anything other than humanoids. A Trip build at level 8 needs to be able to trip basically anything smaller than a hydra, do so without provoking an AoO, and accomplish a tactical purpose with it. A Spiked Chain Tripper does that, by using Imp Trip, Thicket of Blades, and Combat Reflexes to keep enemies from moving anywhere in a 20' radius circle, with a bonus high enough to catch the majority of potential opponents. You can trip humanoids, if they miss the AoO and roll poorly. Which is probably why you never roll trip checks.

Honestly, I consider jumping onto ledges, swinging from chandeliers, pushing people into burning magma, leaping across difficult terrain or whatever to be a lot more interesting than tripping.

Anything that forces combat into a given pattern is boring. Trip does that.

Of course, it has it's uses. But it's very important - to me at least - to create circumstances where it is rarely useful. Because as I said - it gets boring real fast.So you make circumstances where Bull Rush applies, where rule of cool is more important than the RAW(the others would in most cases be worse than simply walking somewhere), and where trip is useless, then complain that trip is boring and argue that other tactics are more effective with less investment?

If you heavily houserule melee to be viable with less investment, and don't use opponents like Ogres that are better at the fighters job than the fighter, then Trip builds that can beat ogres are going to look overspecialized. In standard 3.x, however, anything less than a 1-trick pony isn't going to work on a Fighter base. That's a fault of the D&D rules, not the build.

Also, damage is not versatility. Damage is one thing. Tripping is one thing. Intimidate, disarm, mageslaying, all are secondary abilities of a tripper. How is your character more versatile than a tripper?

Note: For the purposes of this discussion, assume that the opponent whose check you need to beat at ECL 8 is a Stone Giant, for a standard melee opponent at that level.

Mongoose87
2009-12-14, 01:30 PM
Sure: One is built for versatility - the other is built for quite the opposite.

What versatility? Show it to us, please, because, and this might just be me, all that appears to be there is a damage-dealing fighter who can try to do other things, but won't be particularly good at them, whereas the tripper...

... can trip, damage deal, slay/harry mages, and is one feat away from Improved Disarm. And, it can actually do those things well.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 05:30 PM
What versatility? Show it to us, please, because, and this might just be me, all that appears to be there is a damage-dealing fighter who can try to do other things, but won't be particularly good at them, whereas the tripper...

... can trip, damage deal, slay/harry mages, and is one feat away from Improved Disarm. And, it can actually do those things well.

I grow so very bored of this. I'm sorry, it's nothing to do with you, but bored I am.

I will try to clarify.

I have a hide modifier of 21. On the barbarian/warmind.

To you, that information is completely useless - because you cannot compare the modifier to the spot checks I'm likely to have to beat. You simple have no clue.

So ... I can tell you I can hide. And I do it well. And you can trust me on this - or not. It doesn't matter. But by telling you my character is versatile and can do any number of stunts, and do them well, I'm giving you more information than if I fed you my character sheet.

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 05:38 PM
You can't trip.

Well - yes and no. I don't have Imp. Trip. Still, when I trip things, they tend to fall down. (actually, as you may have gathered, I don't trip much - but I do use stuff with similar rules, like disarm and sunder. And that pretty much works for me.)


... where rule of cool is more important than the RAW ...

Yea. Rule of cool supersedes all other rules. We play for fun, remember?


... better at the fighters job than the fighter ...

What is it with the fighters? Have I uttered one single word about fighters? Is my character a fighter?


Also, damage is not versatility. Damage is one thing. Tripping is one thing. Intimidate, disarm, mageslaying, all are secondary abilities of a tripper. How is your character more versatile than a tripper?

By having more tricks up his sleeve? By basically not having Imp. Trip, so I will never have to resort to that? By being able to fulfill multiple roles in the group, to be more exact. But really, you're saying this: The Tripper has many ways to be effective in combat. I'm saying this: My character is effective in combat - and out of combat.


For the purposes of this discussion, assume that the opponent whose check you need to beat at ECL 8 is a Stone Giant

Oh hells no. Look at my previous post, if you want to know why.

On a side note - we play pretty much core or SRD. All those wonderful abilities you mention - don't exist. Unless they are from core of SRD, that is.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-14, 05:40 PM
Sure: One is built for versatility - the other is built for quite the opposite.

Quite the opposite. Size, speed, and Strength don't make a fighter less versatile. And, in situations where it's useful, yes, tripping will be done. In situations where it's not, he's got good range charges, good jump checks (str + high movement), good bull rush checks (str + movement +size).

So jumping across ledges? Bull rushing into terrain hazards? Grappling? Damage dealing?

It can do all, and well. So, it can do any of the listed examples you gave as well as anything else. Yes, it may want to trip. However, if that fails, it has any number of options to fall back on.

Just as your character can do other things, and falls back on tripping.

The only difference is: What's the first attempted action?

Zen Master
2009-12-14, 05:41 PM
At least, I hope that you consider Saph's Horizon Tripper, a tripper builded for versatility. Because that's exactly his goal.

I don't. I really do dislike tripping, I'd much rather have fun than trip things. I would trip someone who was trying to run away - or a friend who was about to make an ass of himself in a social encounter - or in combat, maybe if I was fighting a foe on a tightrope. But in a straight fight? Blergh, it's just so unimaginative and dull. Sorry :)

Mongoose87
2009-12-14, 05:59 PM
What is it with the fighters? Have I uttered one single word about fighters? Is my character a fighter?


The whole point of this argument is fighters. The fighter has very little going his way without tripping. That is why we are in favor of it - it's one of the few "nice things" a fighter gets. We're not saying "ALL CHARACTERS WILL BE CHAIN TRIPPERS OR WIZARDS." We're saying that the most effective fighters are. Fighters.

Stephen_E
2009-12-14, 08:21 PM
I don't. I really do dislike tripping, I'd much rather have fun than trip things. I would trip someone who was trying to run away - or a friend who was about to make an ass of himself in a social encounter - or in combat, maybe if I was fighting a foe on a tightrope. But in a straight fight? Blergh, it's just so unimaginative and dull. Sorry :)

Right and now you finally admit the truth, despite trying to pretend otherwise when I pointed out this earlier.

You really dislike tripping, and don't think people should do it

End of story. Nothing more to say.
I don't know why you even came to this thread. It's a bit like going to a thread on how to build a Wizard with the precept "I don't like Wizards and nobody should play a Wizard".

Stephen E

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-14, 09:15 PM
Right and now you finally admit the truth, despite trying to pretend otherwise when I pointed out this earlier.

You really dislike tripping, and don't think people should do it

End of story. Nothing more to say.
I don't know why you even came to this thread. It's a bit like going to a thread on how to build a Wizard with the precept "I don't like Wizards and nobody should play a Wizard".

Stephen E

It's closer to coming to a batman thread stating that he doesn't like Save or Lose effects.

It's ok to not like tripping. But many people do. Just as many people like crowd control.

I get a great deal of enjoyment from RP. I also get a great deal of enjoyment from tactical combat. I see tripping as a useful tool in an arsenal. So I use it. It's fun.

If Acromos doesn't find it fun, that's fine. But Acromos? Please don't begrudge those of us that DO. Trippers can be every bit as versatile as damage dealers (often more versatile than uberchargers). The only real argument that you've made that actually makes sense is that you don't like it.

That's fine. We do. Difference in prefences, and that's fine.

ghashxx
2009-12-14, 11:25 PM
Heck, I personally love tripping, until someone does nothing but trip everyone all the time and then brag about how good he is at it. This turns into a problem with the player, but it's still a character problem too. When all you can do is trip, and so that's all you do, it comes to the point where the DM either runs his campaign like normal and makes your technique obsolete, or caters to you so you're still useful. Either one of these options are bad, with in my opinion the catering being the worst.

But making someone obsolete because you don't make certain they can always trip someone in every battle makes it frustrating for that player. Should they have branched out more and not expected for you to cater to their whims? Yeah, they really should have. But it makes the game not so much fun, either way, when someone one-trick-ponies something. So optimizing is great, but don't ever have just the one trick.

I don't think you should actively punish someone for only having one trick, but don't go out of your way to make them feel useful either. If the situations naturally make them feel less than super awesome then guide them through branching out a little. like maybe rework some feats, or figure out other feats to take in the future.

Zaydos
2009-12-15, 12:27 AM
A friend of mine decided to have me create a duskblade for them. I made them a tripper (using a chain flail right now). They didn't let trip be their only form of attack, but they did use it against humanoid foes. I won't claim in the least that they are an optimizer, but they are one of the three better players I know (game mechanically speaking, rp-wise one of the top two and I won't figure out which, the better two being a power gamer bordering on munchkin and a role-player heading towards optimizer [he's learning]). She used trip 3 times (once rolling a nat 1) and only used it against a hobgoblin which she could have one hit and the druid (PC) which started to attack her. It was a one shot but even so trip did not dominate her tactics it just added a second option other than "I deal damage."

ghashxx
2009-12-15, 12:58 AM
It was a one shot but even so trip did not dominate her tactics it just added a second option other than "I deal damage."

In my opinion that's the way any character should be played. Rely on only one tactic and there's going to be issues with other people getting frustrated. Spice it up and everyone's happy, battles are much more interesting, and you'll never feel useless because you're already practiced in using different tactics. I remember one time with a cleric on the ground and I using a TWF fighter, instead of smashing them in the face repeatedly I used a tanglefoot bag to keep them there. Ended up rolling a nat 20 which the DM Role played to be a "that sucker is stuck to the ground like no belief, can't move at all". Suffice to say he died shortly after. We lived in fear of the same thing happening to us, but it was fun!

herrhauptmann
2009-12-15, 01:47 AM
I've played one spiked chain tripping character.
The DM had warned us experienced players not to optimize too heavily or he'd start doing the same with our fights. Part of it was because it was a large party, and the newer/unskilled players outnumbered the experienced guys like 2 to 1.

I did end up optimizing pretty heavily towards tripping, but built the character so his 'second trick' was actually to aid his allies. Everytime we came to an untrippable opponent (pretty often with our random encounters), I swapped tactics to giving flanking and using 'aid another'.
At level 4, I had something like a +12 to trip(18str), so if something was trippable, I was bringing it down. Granting flanking and aid another were good tactics for some of our fights and the other melee guys loved it (rogue, neanderthal barb, goliath paladin), but it wasn't fun for me. If the DM had gone out of his way to nerf tripping on me "Because I was a one trick pony" and "Too good at tripping", I would've quit the game.

Killer Angel
2009-12-15, 02:41 AM
Right and now you finally admit the truth, despite trying to pretend otherwise when I pointed out this earlier.

You really dislike tripping, and don't think people should do it


...and the Horizon Tripper is so versatile, that his mere theorical presence acted as a Zone of Truth! :smallbiggrin:

Zen Master
2009-12-15, 03:05 AM
You really dislike tripping, and don't think people should do it


That does in no way, shape or form sum up all I've said in this thread. Can you seriously convince yourself that it does? Go back there and read what I've said.

Jesus.

But sure - given all the things I've said about trip, naturally I don'ty like it. I thought that would have been obvious.

Dracomorph
2009-12-15, 03:49 AM
That does in no way, shape or form sum up all I've said in this thread. Can you seriously convince yourself that it does? Go back there and read what I've said.

Jesus.

But sure - given all the things I've said about trip, naturally I don'ty like it. I thought that would have been obvious.

All right, two things. First, it makes no sense to say both "it's obvious I don't like tripping," and "that doesn't sum up my sentiment." It's a summary, not a point-by-point refutation. If you wanted that, you shouldn't have asked not to get one earlier. As well, your tendency to discard opposing points offhand works against you. When you address points, you seem to prefer to avoid what they are talking about rather than confront the idea that you may be (gasp) mistaken.

Second, you're missing a very real point that any sort of comparison here is going to be on a numbers basis, in as much of a neutral setting as you can calculate, using as few houserules as possible. That means that a lot of your personal base assumptions need to be modified, because they don't apply in a setting so different from the one you play in, and it also means that if you want to prove something, you should start with some numbers, or at least less vague examples.

As for tripping specifically, others have pointed out to you that the components of a tripping build also happen to be useful for other things, such as dealing damage, bullrushing, or sundering.

Because the components you are using for your primary trick are useful outside of it, you are more versatile. Just because you build to trip does not, oddly enough, mean that you are terrible at everything else, nor does it mean that tripping is all you can do, even in a single fight.

In effect, being trip focused does not mean you are unable to do anything else. You may be less good at it than you are at tripping, but that is not the same as being incapable.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-15, 03:51 AM
That does in no way, shape or form sum up all I've said in this thread. Can you seriously convince yourself that it does? Go back there and read what I've said.

Jesus.

But sure - given all the things I've said about trip, naturally I don'ty like it. I thought that would have been obvious.

But the lack of evidence about your points indicates that likely you're reversing the chicken and the egg here. It almost sounds like you've had a bad experience, and use that to justify your views.

In fact, trip-based characters don't need to invest heavily to be good at it. They've got tons of wiggle room for versatility and creativity.

I mean, really. You talk about tripping like you're an expert, and admit you've rarely (by your count, twice) used the mechanic. This does not speak of practical familiarity with the subject.

I point out that the things that make tripping good add a lot to versatility, and you respond with, more or less, "uh, but trippers only want to trip and will never ever ever do anything else, even if they're good at it".

That may be true of some players, but not all. It's possible to focus on a signature move (a hallmark of many epic stories, both in traditional fantasy (RA Salvatore features this heavily), and eastern fantasy (notably, Bleach, DBZ, and the like) and still be a well-rounded, quality fighter.

In short, you've yet to provide one convincing statement showing that gaining tripping abilities requires a sacrifice in versatility...

Other than "it's boring", "I don't like it", and insinuating that it's "playing like retards". And if you don't like it, again, that's all you.

But if you want to convince anyone else that it's bad, your personal feelings on the subject matter aren't nearly as convincing as facts.

1) reach benefits trippers. It also benefits many other fight styles.
2) size benefits trippers. It also benefits many other fight styles.
3) mobility benefits trippers. It also benefits many other fight styles.
4) The Prereq for improved trip (expertise) benefits defensive fighters in other ways.
5) Strength benefits trippers. It also benefits most other fight styles.

These are facts. No matter how many personal anecdotes you wish to share, they will be there still. After you've disagreed until you're blue in the face, they will be there still. Because they are true.

If you choose to only try to trip when fleeing, that's your choice. But the ability has many other uses.

If you feel that tripping is boring or unimaginative, that's your opinion. I view it as a great way to control your opponent's movement, much like bull rushing someone into magma.

If you feel that building a character around tripping makes you an unimaginative boring player, that's your right too. I'd personally appreciate it if you kept the opinions on the style rather than the player, but hey, opinions are opinions. Everyone's got one.

But when opinions are disproven by fact, they are false. And the idea that trippers are inflexible, non-versatile characters is false.

Zen Master
2009-12-15, 04:17 AM
But the lack of evidence about your points indicates that likely you're reversing the chicken and the egg here. It almost sounds like you've had a bad experience, and use that to justify your views.

In fact, trip-based characters don't need to invest heavily to be good at it. They've got tons of wiggle room for versatility and creativity.

I mean, really. You talk about tripping like you're an expert, and admit you've rarely (by your count, twice) used the mechanic. This does not speak of practical familiarity with the subject.

I point out that the things that make tripping good add a lot to versatility, and you respond with, more or less, "uh, but trippers only want to trip and will never ever ever do anything else, even if they're good at it".

That may be true of some players, but not all. It's possible to focus on a signature move (a hallmark of many epic stories, both in traditional fantasy (RA Salvatore features this heavily), and eastern fantasy (notably, Bleach, DBZ, and the like) and still be a well-rounded, quality fighter.

In short, you've yet to provide one convincing statement showing that gaining tripping abilities requires a sacrifice in versatility...

Other than "it's boring", "I don't like it", and insinuating that it's "playing like retards". And if you don't like it, again, that's all you.

But if you want to convince anyone else that it's bad, your personal feelings on the subject matter aren't nearly as convincing as facts.

1) reach benefits trippers. It also benefits many other fight styles.
2) size benefits trippers. It also benefits many other fight styles.
3) mobility benefits trippers. It also benefits many other fight styles.
4) The Prereq for improved trip (expertise) benefits defensive fighters in other ways.
5) Strength benefits trippers. It also benefits most other fight styles.

These are facts. No matter how many personal anecdotes you wish to share, they will be there still. After you've disagreed until you're blue in the face, they will be there still. Because they are true.

If you choose to only try to trip when fleeing, that's your choice. But the ability has many other uses.

If you feel that tripping is boring or unimaginative, that's your opinion. I view it as a great way to control your opponent's movement, much like bull rushing someone into magma.

If you feel that building a character around tripping makes you an unimaginative boring player, that's your right too. I'd personally appreciate it if you kept the opinions on the style rather than the player, but hey, opinions are opinions. Everyone's got one.

But when opinions are disproven by fact, they are false. And the idea that trippers are inflexible, non-versatile characters is false.

I have done you the courtesy of listening to what you say, and responding to that.

You have done nothing of the kind - except to moan over perceived insults (even if I can see where that perception comes from - I express myself carelessly at times.).

We're not arguing the same thing here. You are so bogged down in mathematical mechanics that you simply do not understand what I'm saying - because I'm not where you are.

Hence, this is pointless. You can answer stuff I've actually said - or you can keep going on about stuff I've not even mentioned. But otherwise, I'll put this down to a failure of communication, and do more interesting stuff with my time.

Mongoose87
2009-12-15, 04:28 AM
I have done you the courtesy of listening to what you say, and responding to that.

You have done nothing of the kind - except to moan over perceived insults (even if I can see where that perception comes from - I express myself carelessly at times.).

We're not arguing the same thing here. You are so bogged down in mathematical mechanics that you simply do not understand what I'm saying - because I'm not where you are.

Hence, this is pointless. You can answer stuff I've actually said - or you can keep going on about stuff I've not even mentioned. But otherwise, I'll put this down to a failure of communication, and do more interesting stuff with my time.
Since your argument, apparently, has nothing to do with mechanics, please, in three simple sentences, outline what it is, since we, apparently, are grasping everything but it.

Zen Master
2009-12-15, 05:04 AM
Since your argument, apparently, has nothing to do with mechanics, please, in three simple sentences, outline what it is, since we, apparently, are grasping everything but it.

Ok - let me point out that I'm not in disagreement with anyone about the actual mechanics involved. Even if the tripper PhoenixRivers suggested in one post is impossible in my group, mainly due to lack of access to the relevant books.

1. You wouldn't build a 'tripper' unless you intended to trip - a lot.
2. For me, tripping is very situational - I've explained previously when I'd consider using it, but overall and generally, I almost never do.
3. Having a 'one tactic fits all combats' build doesn't limit the possibilities for versatility - but it does imply that since I'm really fantastic at this one thing, I'm going to do that, any time I can get away with it, which is where it gets dull.

My character has every possibility to become a great tripper - only it never will. That doesn't prove much beside that I dislike trip - but I like the fact that he can trip whenever he wants to, at the cost of an AoO. I've not reduced his versatility by expending feats on making him a better tripper.

Now - this discussion has been choked with pointless crap. Like the claim that I must be able to trip a hydra. What sort of damned arbitrary idea is that? If I do trip, I must have a modifier high enough to give me a chance of succes against the target in case - but low enough that succes isn't assured (because there is no challenge - and again, no fun).

My point from the onset has been that I consider the trip mechanic unfun - and I want games to be fun. It could be expanded somewhat to 'I consider mechanics that 'flatten' combat to be unfun - meaning all mechanics that make PC's unable to act.'

Now - anything the PC's can do, the NPC's can also do. Naturally, it's ok for NPC's to lose their actions - they are there to be defeated after putting up a relevant struggle.

But if the above (about tripping being used a lot, simply because it's the characters most effective weapon) holds true - and in my experience it does - then to supply that relevant struggle, my hand is forced as DM. Minions can be readily dispatched - but those combats become boring, unless I specifically build the minions to be hard to trip, or use sunders. Which still means my hand is forced.

The presence of a 'Will Trip Anything' character in the party reduces all combats to planning exercises on how to circumvent that (or deciding not to). And that's boring. For the guy playing the tripper, for the party, and for me.

Now of course none of this is cast in iron. I'm trying to describe a tendency, not a constant.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-15, 05:56 AM
Ok - let me point out that I'm not in disagreement with anyone about the actual mechanics involved.If you're still maintaining that trippers are less versatile, then yes, you are. Combat Versatility is the breadth of combat options you have, and how effective they are across different types of situations. That is a mechanical concept.

Even if the tripper PhoenixRivers suggested in one post is impossible in my group, mainly due to lack of access to the relevant books.The only things I've suggested are:
Size - Enlarge Person (or the potion), Polymorph
Speed - Haste, Boots of Speed, Winged Boots
Reach - Spiked Chain
Strength - High starting Strength, Enlarge person, Bull's Strength, Belt of Giant Strength.
Expertise and Improved Trip.

So... You don't have access to the Player's Handbook and DMG?


1. You wouldn't build a 'tripper' unless you intended to trip - a lot.Incorrect. A tripper is a character that is designed to be able to trip. You wouldn't build one unless you wanted the option to trip effectively.

So, this is an opinion, and a false one at that.

2. For me, tripping is very situational - I've explained previously when I'd consider using it, but overall and generally, I almost never do.Personal opinion. You're welcome to it, but if it's all the same to you, I'd much prefer something substantiated by fact.

So this, also, is an opinion.

3. Having a 'one tactic fits all combats' build doesn't limit the possibilities for versatility - but it does imply that since I'm really fantastic at this one thing, I'm going to do that, any time I can get away with it, which is where it gets dull.Assumption, not based on factual evidence. Your character does physical damage best, and is versatile. Does that mean that every chance you get, you attempt to do physical damage? If so, is that not dull?

In other words, opinion, double standard, AND not based on supporting evidence.


My character has every possibility to become a great tripper - only it never will. That doesn't prove much beside that I dislike trip - but I like the fact that he can trip whenever he wants to, at the cost of an AoO. I've not reduced his versatility by expending feats on making him a better tripper.Yes, you have. There are situations where it is not wise or feasible to provoke an AoO. Your character, in those situations, is indeed, less versatile. And gotten into a disagreement over mechanics, which you stated you weren't doing.

So, opinion, false, not based on supporting evidence, and contradiction.


Now - this discussion has been choked with pointless crap. Like the claim that I must be able to trip a hydra. What sort of damned arbitrary idea is that? If I do trip, I must have a modifier high enough to give me a chance of succes against the target in case - but low enough that succes isn't assured (because there is no challenge - and again, no fun).
Opinion, conjecture, not based on evidence.


My point from the onset has been that I consider the trip mechanic unfun - and I want games to be fun. It could be expanded somewhat to 'I consider mechanics that 'flatten' combat to be unfun - meaning all mechanics that make PC's unable to act.' And our point is that we do.

The problem is that you are trying to justify your opinion of "unfun" by stating such characters are less competent and effective. You have not, to date, provided so much as a shred of evidence to support this.


Now - anything the PC's can do, the NPC's can also do. Naturally, it's ok for NPC's to lose their actions - they are there to be defeated after putting up a relevant struggle. Trivializing NPC's? Personally, I consider this "unfun". After all, shopkeepers are NPC's. King's. Random travellers. The problem with viewing NPC's as Experience Packets, only there for a challenging encounter, is that it removes much of the interactivity that seperates D&D from computer games.

But I don't try to argue that your view is mechanically weaker or inferior. Just that I don't ascribe to it.


But if the above (about tripping being used a lot, simply because it's the characters most effective weapon) holds true - and in my experience it does - then to supply that relevant struggle, my hand is forced as DM. Minions can be readily dispatched - but those combats become boring, unless I specifically build the minions to be hard to trip, or use sunders. Which still means my hand is forced.Then I'd suggest encouraging your players to not always choose their best weapon, if you want variety. But don't state that tripping is mechanically inferior, and then, right afterwards, state that, as a DM, it forces your hand, requiring you to design encounters specifically to thwart it.

That is a contradiction. That is also opinion, not based on evidence, fact, or any of those other things that are useful if you actually want someone to see your point or agree with you.


The presence of a 'Will Trip Anything' character in the party reduces all combats to planning exercises on how to circumvent that (or deciding not to). And that's boring. For the guy playing the tripper, for the party, and for me."Trippers" aren't always "will trip anything". Most of mine aren't. As a matter of fact, most of my trippers will trip, grapple, charge, or disarm, as the situation dictates. They will use terrain to their advantage, synergize with party members, and in general, provide for varied combats.

Why? Because using the same trick too often leads to an ineveitable counter. Having multiple options that are effective makes you hard to counter.


Now of course none of this is cast in iron. I'm trying to describe a tendency, not a constant.
Yes. You are using situational anecdotes, unsupported, to try and make blanket generalizations.

I've read everything you wrote. I understand your posts. I understood them the first time, and I understand them now, the third or fourth time you've seen fit to post them.

I disagree with them. Why? Because there's no EVIDENCE, or even a consensus of educated experience. Just your experience with four of your friends.

And the experience of 5 people in Anytown, Anyplace doesn't hold much weight, compared to fact, evidence, and truth.

No matter how much you want to pretend like it does. Because that's what most of us care about.

If you want to tell me you don't like tripping? Fine. I agree. You don't.

If you want to tell me you don't think it's fun? Fine. I agree. You don't think that.

If you want to tell me that it's mechanically inferior? Back it up. Because you don't have a scrap of ANYTHING to support that.

Killer Angel
2009-12-15, 06:32 AM
1. You wouldn't build a 'tripper' unless you intended to trip - a lot.
2. For me, tripping is very situational - I've explained previously when I'd consider using it, but overall and generally, I almost never do.
3. Having a 'one tactic fits all combats' build doesn't limit the possibilities for versatility - but it does imply that since I'm really fantastic at this one thing, I'm going to do that, any time I can get away with it, which is where it gets dull.


1. not exactly. A tripper will trip only if he can (with a lot of enemies you can't, but at least you tell us that in your campaign this can be a problem) and even in this case, he will trip if he don't have better options available.
2. Of course trip is situational. It exactly the reason you can't trip always, but only sometime, even if you're a tripper.
3. Even the same tactic can be variable: Trip can be used in a lot of useful ways: You're not condemned to trip an adversary and stay there to kill beat him while he's down. For example, you can trip him, then proceed with you move to threat the other targets behind the first line (casters, archers, etc), leaving the tripper alone with the group's rogue...



My character has every possibility to become a great tripper - only it never will. That doesn't prove much beside that I dislike trip - but I like the fact that he can trip whenever he wants to, at the cost of an AoO. I've not reduced his versatility by expending feats on making him a better tripper.


Your character will usually find hard to trip, even if he wants. For the simple fact that he don't have a bonus on tripping, so, unless is a lot stronger than the target, his chances are not good.
And my old point remains: Horizon Tripper "sacrifices" very little of his feats to be a "tripper", but is incredibly versatile, even outside combat: he's a damn good ranger, with high skills in hide, move silently, listen and spot, a lot of knowledges, survival in various terrain, tumble, etc.
Not counting the planar terrain abilities.
He's the versatility made flesh.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-15, 06:36 AM
And my old point remains: Horizon Tripper "sacrifices" very little of his feats to be a "tripper", but is incredibly versatile, even outside combat: he's a damn good ranger, with high skills in hide, move silently, listen and spot, a lot of knowledges, survival in various terrain, tumble, etc.
Not counting the planar terrain abilities.
He's the versatility made flesh.

And... is core.

ghashxx
2009-12-15, 09:06 AM
{Scrubbed}

I totally get what Acromos is saying as I've been in a campaign where someone tripped, constantly, sinking up to half his feats into being a tripper, and it got really annoying really fast. That's not to say that all trippers are bad, because they can be used in other ways, like just one more feat gives them sunder or disarm or feint tactics. There's all kinds of ways you can branch out.

So while it can become a very versatile build, it's also very easy to get trapped into a tripping oriented mentality. After all, since that's what you're best at then might as well take full advantage of it, like if you're a mage who specializes in illusion and has sunk feats into it. Eventually the DM will throw illusion immune stuff at you, if only by pure chance. If you're stuck in the rut of illusion only then you're screwed.

So long as you keep your options open and use more than one tactic, then tripping is fine. Tripping a few enemies then rushing off to deal with someone beating up on the rogue is great tactically speaking.

So yes, it's possible to use trip in conjunction with other things to be an effective combatant. It's also possible to go overboard on the tripping side and get carried away with how awesome you can do it.

Zen Master
2009-12-15, 10:14 AM
If you're still maintaining that trippers are less versatile, then yes, you are. situations.

...........

If you want to tell me that it's mechanically inferior? Back it up. Because you don't have a scrap of ANYTHING to support that.

This is like ... a compulsion with you.

If you refuse to answer in the spirit of what I say, I cannot communicate with you. You completely fail to listen - and focus singlemindedly on what you consider refuting everything I say.

Sorry. I did my best - I really did. But I am unable to speak a language you seem to understand. That's not meant as any sort of attack or insult. I just can't get my point across to you - it's an observation of an insurmountable barrier.

sofawall
2009-12-15, 03:46 PM
From what I can tell, Acromos does not like tripping because people who trip often tend to only trip.

Am I wrong?

herrhauptmann
2009-12-15, 09:45 PM
From what I can tell, Acromos does not like tripping because people who trip often tend to only trip.


Well yeah, they build the character to trip, so he trips well, so of course it becomes a valid and effective tactic for them.

You wouldn't expect the frenzied berserker ubercharger to spend his actions doing something like disarming? NO! He's going to attack and deal lots and LOTS of damage whenever he can.

Oh wait, does that make him a 1 trick pony?

ghashxx
2009-12-15, 10:14 PM
So in a game which Acromos plays or is the DM, serious tripping isn't allowed. This is because those games with that group have a heavy concentration of creatures which are incredibly weak against trip, and therefore allowing the mechanic to be used to its full advantage would make the game far too easy. So in his world of D&D, trip is really really powerful.

In the world of apparently everyone else's D&D where we face a multitude of creature types, tripping is not all too powerful, and therefore not subject to making every battle a trip marathon. So what I'm really confused about, why are we even talking about this anymore? Acromos games have almost no corollary to how it seems almost everyone else plays games, so it's impossible to actually reach a consensus. It would be like trying to have a conversation with someone about psionics and why they don't allow them in a game when all they have in the game for adversaries are beings that are supernaturally weak to psionics. Of course they wouldn't like psionics. If they did allow psionics then the game would have to change instead of being the same exact enemies and tactics every gaming session.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-15, 11:08 PM
This is like ... a compulsion with you.

If you refuse to answer in the spirit of what I say, I cannot communicate with you. You completely fail to listen - and focus singlemindedly on what you consider refuting everything I say.

Sorry. I did my best - I really did. But I am unable to speak a language you seem to understand. That's not meant as any sort of attack or insult. I just can't get my point across to you - it's an observation of an insurmountable barrier.

It's not a compulsion, so much as a desire to show you the double standards, contradictions, situational support, and unfounded opinion that is core to your argument.

You can't honestly expect anyone to buy what you're sellin' without a good pitch. And your pitch is lacking right now.

herrhauptmann
2009-12-16, 02:41 AM
So in a game which Acromos plays or is the DM, serious tripping isn't allowed. This is because those games with that group have a heavy concentration of creatures which are incredibly weak against trip, and therefore allowing the mechanic to be used to its full advantage would make the game far too easy. So in his world of D&D, trip is really really powerful.

In the world of apparently everyone else's D&D where we face a multitude of creature types, tripping is not all too powerful, and therefore not subject to making every battle a trip marathon. So what I'm really confused about, why are we even talking about this anymore? Acromos games have almost no corollary to how it seems almost everyone else plays games, so it's impossible to actually reach a consensus. It would be like trying to have a conversation with someone about psionics and why they don't allow them in a game when all they have in the game for adversaries are beings that are supernaturally weak to psionics. Of course they wouldn't like psionics. If they did allow psionics then the game would have to change instead of being the same exact enemies and tactics every gaming session.


You're right, I just figured most people were having fun arguing.

Zen Master
2009-12-16, 03:12 AM
It's not a compulsion, so much as a desire to show you the double standards, contradictions, situational support, and unfounded opinion that is core to your argument.

You can't honestly expect anyone to buy what you're sellin' without a good pitch. And your pitch is lacking right now.

A number of others seem to understand what I'm saying. So as I said - I cannot present my argument in a language you can understand. Maybe if you read their posts instead of mine?

I don't know. There is no reason to continue this.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-16, 05:54 AM
A number of others seem to understand what I'm saying.
I for one understand completely what you are saying.

I also think that you are incorrect.

Zen Master
2009-12-16, 09:17 AM
I for one understand completely what you are saying.

I also think that you are incorrect.

Hm - in a very basic way, I cannot be incorrect. At least for parts of what I'm saying. For instance - I think chain trippers are boring. That is correct. It is possible for you to think they are fun - and also being correct.

Anyways, like I've said it's situational. If you happen to use lots of ancient dragons, titans and other enormous enemies, chain tripping is not a concern. If you happen to use a lot of humans, it may or may not be.

I'll try something new. An example of play I've seen. One guy, a large size chain tripper with high dex and combat reflexes, wielding a spiked chain. (sidenote: Chain tripping to me means constantly tripping - the actual chain is optional). Now, this was somewhat terrain dependant, but he singlehandedly kept a larger force of enemies on the group - from the start of the fight until they were all dead.

Now there were no rogues, no one with tumble. He won initiative, which meant the first guy to fall was the enemy caster. But once those things were in place, he was simply unstoppable.

In my experience, this is the situation you aim for with that sort of build. Which is why I avoid it. Because in my experience it becomes an exercise in making the next combat like the last one - funnel the enemy into some space where the tripper can control everyone. Or create those conditions with magic. Or something along those lines.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all games everywhere are always like this if there's a tripper present. But I'm saying they can be, that I've seen that pattern many times (though as I've said, rarely in my own games). And that I find it dull.

But really, it feels like everyone is convinced I'm trying to prove something. I'm not. I'm voicing an opinion. Trying to disprove it is fairly pointless.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-16, 09:48 AM
Hm - in a very basic way, I cannot be incorrect. At least for parts of what I'm saying. For instance - I think chain trippers are boring. That is correct. It is possible for you to think they are fun - and also being correct.

Anyways, like I've said it's situational. If you happen to use lots of ancient dragons, titans and other enormous enemies, chain tripping is not a concern. If you happen to use a lot of humans, it may or may not be.

I'll try something new. An example of play I've seen. One guy, a large size chain tripper with high dex and combat reflexes, wielding a spiked chain. (sidenote: Chain tripping to me means constantly tripping - the actual chain is optional). Now, this was somewhat terrain dependant, but he singlehandedly kept a larger force of enemies on the group - from the start of the fight until they were all dead.Sounds like the caster didn't know he could (A) cast on the defensive, and (B) cast while prone.


Now there were no rogues, no one with tumble. He won initiative, which meant the first guy to fall was the enemy caster. But once those things were in place, he was simply unstoppable.

In my experience, this is the situation you aim for with that sort of build. Which is why I avoid it. Because in my experience it becomes an exercise in making the next combat like the last one - funnel the enemy into some space where the tripper can control everyone. Or create those conditions with magic. Or something along those lines.Odd, considering that is a very common military strategy, ever since the advent of the machine gun. It's used because it's effective.

Again, as I said, if you think it's boring, that's fine. I support that. Just don't tell me that trippers are badwrong or not mechanically versatile. If you do that, I'm going to ask you back it up with more than feelings or opinions.


But really, it feels like everyone is convinced I'm trying to prove something. I'm not. I'm voicing an opinion. Trying to disprove it is fairly pointless.
Because you're presenting it as a fact when you state that trippers are non-versatile, and that's not an opinion. That's a statement, based on mechanics, that is proveable. Thus, I asked you to.

I have no issue with your feelings and opinions. Those are yours, and you have every right to them. I disagree with them, but that's perfectly fine too.

The only issue I have is with your fallacious claims on trippers being any more a one-trick-pony than any other fighter-type.

Stephen_E
2009-12-16, 09:49 AM
Hm - in a very basic way, I cannot be incorrect. At least for parts of what I'm saying. For instance - I think chain trippers are boring. That is correct. It is possible for you to think they are fun - and also being correct.

Anyways, like I've said it's situational. If you happen to use lots of ancient dragons, titans and other enormous enemies, chain tripping is not a concern. If you happen to use a lot of humans, it may or may not be.

I'll try something new. An example of play I've seen. One guy, a large size chain tripper with high dex and combat reflexes, wielding a spiked chain. (sidenote: Chain tripping to me means constantly tripping - the actual chain is optional). Now, this was somewhat terrain dependant, but he singlehandedly kept a larger force of enemies on the group - from the start of the fight until they were all dead.

Now there were no rogues, no one with tumble. He won initiative, which meant the first guy to fall was the enemy caster. But once those things were in place, he was simply unstoppable.

In my experience, this is the situation you aim for with that sort of build. Which is why I avoid it. Because in my experience it becomes an exercise in making the next combat like the last one - funnel the enemy into some space where the tripper can control everyone. Or create those conditions with magic. Or something along those lines.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all games everywhere are always like this if there's a tripper present. But I'm saying they can be, that I've seen that pattern many times (though as I've said, rarely in my own games). And that I find it dull.

But really, it feels like everyone is convinced I'm trying to prove something. I'm not. I'm voicing an opinion. Trying to disprove it is fairly pointless.

I'm fairly certain the game that u were mentioning was getting the rules wrong, That or his dice rolling was phenominal.
My experiance in discussion with people complaining about tripping often involve 1 or 2 incidents or players which when you go through, turn out to involve people getting the rules wrong.

Stephen E

Person_Man
2009-12-16, 12:11 PM
As others have opined, you need not have specialized feats to use Special Attacks well. Getting really big (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7081777), Marshal, Factotum, a variety of soulmelds, maneuvers, stances, anything that increases Strength, etc. If your melee build is a one trick pony, it's because you built it that way, not because that's the only option available to melee builds.

Zen Master
2009-12-16, 12:50 PM
Sounds like the caster didn't know he could (A) cast on the defensive, and (B) cast while prone.
Odd, considering that is a very common military strategy, ever since the advent of the machine gun. It's used because it's effective.

Again, as I said, if you think it's boring, that's fine. I support that. Just don't tell me that trippers are badwrong or not mechanically versatile. If you do that, I'm going to ask you back it up with more than feelings or opinions.

Because you're presenting it as a fact when you state that trippers are non-versatile, and that's not an opinion. That's a statement, based on mechanics, that is proveable. Thus, I asked you to.

I have no issue with your feelings and opinions. Those are yours, and you have every right to them. I disagree with them, but that's perfectly fine too.

The only issue I have is with your fallacious claims on trippers being any more a one-trick-pony than any other fighter-type.

I simply cannot get through to you. And you will not listen. You refuse to comment one anything I say at any point what so ever - except to spew your counterproofs, when I'm not trying to prove anything, or to demand proof for claims I've never made.

I will try yet another tactic. A parallel. I urge you, once more, to try and understand the point - and comment on that - rather than trying to willfully disregard what I'm getting at, and focusing instead on refuting my statement as if I was trying to make a mathematical proof.

Flying. (this is the parallel). It is possible for a flying character to be all but immune to any opponent who is not also flying. Hence, at a given point, everyone flies or fails. Except at my table, no one flies - at least not in combat. Because of the introduction of a simple magic item that does away with the advantage.

Now - if something is HUGELY advantageous, you will do that in favor of something else that isn't. Like flying - you you can, you will, as opposed to staying on the ground.

And like tripping. You are large, have reach, are enormously strong - and unless everyone else is the same, they will be tripped. Until you run out of attacks. So - since I use mainly humanoids, and I refuse to have every fight resolved between large trippers with reach, I discourage it's use. Mind you - my character is the large, strong guy with reach. I'm limiting my own character in this case.

I suppose there are different ways of making combat interesting. You seem to favor one dictated by the rules. I say *seem*. I favor one dictated by imagination, by movie-like stunts, and by the rule-of-cool.

So - let it rip. I can't wait to see you once more not respond to anything I actually say, but instead rip my post up to little shreds you can refute one by one.

AtwasAwamps
2009-12-16, 01:22 PM
...Wow. I started something fun, huh?

I don't think there's a problem with Acromos position. He is trying to state that in his game world, tripping is a tactic that is excessively powerful and would reduce the combats he designs for his players into boring, easily resolved situations. Rather than choose to adapt to his players, he has decided to create a situation where they are forced to adapt to him. They are okay with it, as they are clearly okay with flight being rendered ultimately useless by another DMs decision.

Personally, I disagree with this style of DMing, but I understand where it comes from. Not everyone is willing to take the time to provide a wide variety of encounter/enemy types in a story, because sometimes it simply doesn't fit. I prefer to come up with creative ways to challenge what my PCs can do rather than limit what they can do when they are solid, "logical" strategies in DND (AKA tripping and flight), but you cannot account for different styles and tastes.

The problem here really stems from Acromos' tendency to define his opinions as absolutes. Acromos, I put to you the following questions:

1) Will you be willing to admit that a well built tripping fighter is a mechanically viable fighter-type character that does possess more than one option in combat, even though it may play to its particular strength?

2) Would you be willing to say that not everyone who chooses to play a tripper fighter is some kind of powergaming munchkin for choosing a viable and powerful build for their particular archetype?

3) Would you be willing to admit that hot dogs are delicious?

Sinfire Titan
2009-12-16, 01:46 PM
3) Would you be willing to admit that hot dogs are delicious?

Do you know what those are made out of?

Lycanthromancer
2009-12-16, 02:19 PM
Do you know what those are made out of?I do. There's a reason I don't eat them (aside from a few very specific brands, which use the parts of animals I'd actually eat).

Dracomorph
2009-12-16, 02:22 PM
Do you know what those are made out of?

Anything they want to be.


I simply cannot get through to you. And you will not listen. You refuse to comment one anything I say at any point what so ever - except to spew your counterproofs, when I'm not trying to prove anything, or to demand proof for claims I've never made.

Well, if you can't get through to him, maybe you're the one who is being unclear? And if you aren't trying to prove your own point, what exactly are you trying to say? Maybe he's misinterpreting your point, but that doesn't mean you're not trying to prove it.

Skipping a bit to the next quote.


...Flying. (this is the parallel). It is possible for a flying character to be all but immune to any opponent who is not also flying. Hence, at a given point, everyone flies or fails. Except at my table, no one flies - at least not in combat. Because of the introduction of a simple magic item that does away with the advantage.

Now - if something is HUGELY advantageous, you will do that in favor of something else that isn't. Like flying - you you can, you will, as opposed to staying on the ground.


Alternative solutions to this problem abound, by the way. Taking it off the table is one, sure. So is bringing the party inside for an adventure, so that their increased mobility is less problematic. You could also set them up against ranged opponents, or even other fliers.

Personally, I'd just make sure that any group that knew they would likely fight the PCs had at least one harrying flier, to make it inconvenient for the whole party to be in the air. If you're willing to bring party tactics back to bear on the party, the whole playing field just changed for EVERYONE, bringing some nice tactical depth to the game. How do you defend the wizard from attacks on all sides? Et cetera.

So, although it's possible to let flight set some new rules, it doesn't have to. And you don't have to resort to "flight breaker arrows" or other DM fiat to do it; just assume that the party's foes are smart. Tons of enemies with bows would love to make a pincushion of the newly mobile wizard, and if he finds workarounds to that, then hey, he's expended some extra spells to do so, and earned it.

If you think tripping is a be-all end-all, then flight is the wrong comparison to make.



And like tripping. You are large, have reach, are enormously strong - and unless everyone else is the same, they will be tripped. Until you run out of attacks. So - since I use mainly humanoids, and I refuse to have every fight resolved between large trippers with reach, I discourage it's use. Mind you - my character is the large, strong guy with reach. I'm limiting my own character in this case.

All right, this is another point where you diverge from what has been my experience. Because in the groups I've played with, big strong hard-to-trip enemies come up all the time. Because all brute damage monsters tend to have big sizes and high strength scores.

I mean, that's not every fight by any stretch. But all things considered, I've never once seen a tripper be the most dangerous character in the party. A tripped enemy isn't dead, isn't out of the fight, and isn't useless. He's just less mobile, and open to another attack if he decides to stand up. If you have to approach, he can still gut you like a fish, it's just a little harder.

And honestly, it sounds like you'd have a problem with good reach tactics too, for similar reasons. You can hit the other guy, and he can't hit back, (OMG)! And when he approaches, he takes another hit (Golly)! Even if you take tripping out of the equation, reach is still pretty powerful.


I suppose there are different ways of making combat interesting. You seem to favor one dictated by the rules. I say *seem*. I favor one dictated by imagination, by movie-like stunts, and by the rule-of-cool.

Movie stunts, such as, say, wire-work? Oh wait, no flight at your table. Shucks. Hey, let's also forget about the dramatic tension formed when you stand over the body of your prone but still alive foe, stare into his eyes, and whisper, "See you in hell." That's totally not good enough for you. [/sarcasm]


So - let it rip. I can't wait to see you once more not respond to anything I actually say, but instead rip my post up to little shreds you can refute one by one.

Look, that just means that everyone is using good forum etiquette. It's considered polite to show which points your addressing.

Mongoose87
2009-12-16, 03:12 PM
Acromos, when you had a chain-tripper dominate an entire fight, why didn't you start putting wizards and non-melee'ers against him? Even with the reach of a large chain-tripper, you can have a wizard stand outside and throw grease/web/glitterdust/all kinds of Save or suck at him. Also, though not particularly optimal, a few well-spaced archers could do a pretty good number on him.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-16, 03:45 PM
I simply cannot get through to you. And you will not listen. You refuse to comment one anything I say at any point what so ever - except to spew your counterproofs, when I'm not trying to prove anything, or to demand proof for claims I've never made.Again. I understand what you're saying. I do. I really, really do. Honest. I pinky swear it.

I will try yet another tactic. A parallel. I urge you, once more, to try and understand the point - and comment on that - rather than trying to willfully disregard what I'm getting at, and focusing instead on refuting my statement as if I was trying to make a mathematical proof.I urge you, once more, to cease the patronizing dialogue.

Flying. (this is the parallel). It is possible for a flying character to be all but immune to any opponent who is not also flying. Hence, at a given point, everyone flies or fails. Except at my table, no one flies - at least not in combat. Because of the introduction of a simple magic item that does away with the advantage.And I understand this. At your table, you've chosen to give out free magic items like candy, to remove the tactical option of magical flight, with no rolls, resistances, or ability to stop it.

Next?


Now - if something is HUGELY advantageous, you will do that in favor of something else that isn't. Like flying - you you can, you will, as opposed to staying on the ground.Generally, I do what's effective. However, flying is a short duration spell. I'm just as apt to haste the party, or use some sort of CC to seperate enemies.


And like tripping. You are large, have reach, are enormously strong - and unless everyone else is the same, they will be tripped. Until you run out of attacks. So - since I use mainly humanoids, and I refuse to have every fight resolved between large trippers with reach, I discourage it's use. Mind you - my character is the large, strong guy with reach. I'm limiting my own character in this case.Or, as a strong large, long reach combatant, I may grapple the greatest threat (if it's flying), or full attack it, or bull rush it to give allies AoO's.

In other words, I don't much appreciate you telling me what I will do. Because frankly, you have no idea. If you assume tactics is: Always use the most strong brute force ability you have...

Then you have no idea what tactics are.


I suppose there are different ways of making combat interesting. You seem to favor one dictated by the rules. I say *seem*. I favor one dictated by imagination, by movie-like stunts, and by the rule-of-cool. Yes, I do favor using rules to develop a consistent experience where my players know what to expect. I do use Rule of Cool at times, but a game governed by Rule-of-Cool, is, in my opinion, no different than a bunch of kids playing cowboy and indians. Rules and Structure define the differences between D&D, and playing pretend.


So - let it rip. I can't wait to see you once more not respond to anything I actually say, but instead rip my post up to little shreds you can refute one by one.
Because each of your points that delve into mechanics is refutable. So long as you stay out of mechanics, and stay out of trying to tell me how I will play (hint: You have no clue), you're fine.

When you try to tell me how I play my trippers? Frankly, I consider myself more of an expert on the subject than you, thank you very much.

And I've been responding to what you say the whole time. Each point has been addressed. If you don't like the answers, that's not my fault.

Your arguments are built on many small points, most of which are entirely your opinion, or surmise the actions of others, who you cannot speak for. I have simply taken each of these points, and disregarded anything that is opinion (for determining facts), disregarded anything that surmises information you don't have (because it's not accurate), and I'm left with nothing.

You want me to say you have opinions? Fine, you do.

You want me to say your opinions are valid? Fine, they are.

You want me to say they work? Well, if they work for you, then fine.

You want me to claim they're more sensible than mine, or more valid? Sorry, you haven't said a dang thing I agree with... Other than they're all opinions, and you're not proving anything.

That, I'm 100% on board with. All your opinions prove nothing.

herrhauptmann
2009-12-16, 05:34 PM
I simply cannot get through to you. And you will not listen. You refuse to comment one anything I say at any point what so ever - except to spew your counterproofs, when I'm not trying to prove anything, or to demand proof for claims I've never made.

I will try yet another tactic. A parallel. I urge you, once more, to try and understand the point - and comment on that - rather than trying to willfully disregard what I'm getting at, and focusing instead on refuting my statement as if I was trying to make a mathematical proof.

Flying. (this is the parallel). It is possible for a flying character to be all but immune to any opponent who is not also flying. Hence, at a given point, everyone flies or fails. Except at my table, no one flies - at least not in combat. Because of the introduction of a simple magic item that does away with the advantage.

Now - if something is HUGELY advantageous, you will do that in favor of something else that isn't. Like flying - you you can, you will, as opposed to staying on the ground.

And like tripping. You are large, have reach, are enormously strong - and unless everyone else is the same, they will be tripped. Until you run out of attacks. So - since I use mainly humanoids, and I refuse to have every fight resolved between large trippers with reach, I discourage it's use. Mind you - my character is the large, strong guy with reach. I'm limiting my own character in this case.

I suppose there are different ways of making combat interesting. You seem to favor one dictated by the rules. I say *seem*. I favor one dictated by imagination, by movie-like stunts, and by the rule-of-cool.

So - let it rip. I can't wait to see you once more not respond to anything I actually say, but instead rip my post up to little shreds you can refute one by one.


-Dude, we don't care how old you are or how many college degrees you've earned, don't be condescending. We'll just do the same to you, and it's something like 9 to 1, so you'll only end up more upset than the rest of us.

-Trip is extra powerful in your games because of the kind enemies you throw at your players. Fine. A city based campaign with a lot of political intrigue isn't like to have many encounters with a creature that is resistant to tripping, unless the DM gets very creative.
-But if the BBEG KNEW that the party was coming at them with a big tripper (or whatever else), then he's stupid to not get some guards who can fight against their dominant tactic. If you're not doing that for your players, you're being unimaginative as a DM.
-My big beef with your tactics, is that you punish players who create a character who is exceptionally good at something by sundering their equipment. (Sundering is almost as bad a method to nerf the typical fighter as disjunction or a rust monster. Your games don't get up to 16-17th level so I doubt you've seen disjunction in use, but aside from the issues of it slowing down gameplay by rolling a few dozen saves, it will hurt any character that doesn't rely on spells)
-Apparently sundering a 12th level fighters weapon is less of an issue in your games than in most, what did you say, 12k for the fighters primary weapon? If you're giving them loot using the random treasure generation tables, they should be getting more expensive weapons than that by 12th level. Even if you tailormade each NPC and their equipment using the tables in the DMG, the NPCs should be using more expensive weapons than 12k.

-A question regarding your example about flight. What do you do if someone has a chosen a race with a large LA, and one of the big reasons for that LA is their fly speed? Or a major class feature is flight? You've stated that you negate flight with a simple magic item, do you give anything to these people that gave up a lot to get flight to balance the nerfing?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-16, 05:48 PM
I simply cannot get through to you. And you will not listen. You refuse to comment one anything I say at any point what so ever - except to spew your counterproofs, when I'm not trying to prove anything, or to demand proof for claims I've never made.

I will try yet another tactic. A parallel. I urge you, once more, to try and understand the point - and comment on that - rather than trying to willfully disregard what I'm getting at, and focusing instead on refuting my statement as if I was trying to make a mathematical proof.

Flying. (this is the parallel). It is possible for a flying character to be all but immune to any opponent who is not also flying. Hence, at a given point, everyone flies or fails. Except at my table, no one flies - at least not in combat. Because of the introduction of a simple magic item that does away with the advantage.And yet, that doesn't happen. Why? Because often, Flying is only viable for a small subset of the party, so they are forced to stay close to the ground to help the non-fliers. And since flight is usually resource-intensive, fliers are generally weaker than ground-based builds against other fliers that lack ranged abilities, or in situations(such as being indoors) where flight is impossible. In fact, the most recent build I did was a flier that specialized in slamming others into the ground really hard. This meant that anyone, either in my party or among the enemy, that specialized in flight was wasting resources because I could make surre that all fights happened at ground level, with me being the only one who can take to the air safely.

The tactics you hate aren't 'win buttons', there a tactical dimension that has to be taken into account. There are defenses that can avoid any of these, not all of which involve duplicating them. Check out the ToS sometime. There aren't a lot of Hide builds, skirmish fliers, or trippers there. Why? Because those builds require lots of investment, while beating them requires fairly little. The easiest win button is simply being a smart humanoid full-caster, which is why many of the players no longer use them.

I suppose there are different ways of making combat interesting. You seem to favor one dictated by the rules. I say *seem*. I favor one dictated by imagination, by movie-like stunts, and by the rule-of-cool. Chain-tripper(Swordsage 2/Crusader X, build and backstory used before in a real game), how I'd describe it as a player: My character is a knight of Heironeous, who wears a spike-covered rope wrapped around his waist as a penance for his past crimes. He has a scar on his chest shaped like the Holy Symbol of Heironeous, put there during a prison fight because he had found Good and was preaching to the other prisoners. During combat, he uses that same rope to inflict on criminals and evildooers the punishment they, like he, deserve for their crimes. He gives them every chance to surrender, wrapping it around their legs to immobilize them and attempting at all costs to keep them from his friends, even if that means standing in their midst to allow his friends to remain safe, but he can and will kill them if he has no choice(he just doesn't like it). Tell me how that's less cool than a swashbuckler jumping around the room.

Zen Master
2009-12-16, 06:04 PM
Well, if you can't get through to him, maybe you're the one who is being unclear?

Or maybe not?

Zen Master
2009-12-16, 06:05 PM
The tactics you hate aren't 'win buttons', there a tactical dimension that has to be taken into account.

No - you got it exactly right. They are win buttons.

Except, they aren't, because one by one, as they reared their ugly heads in play, we have rooted them out. As a group, I'm slightly unsure anyone knows that - everything I've said is decided by my group as a whole. Nevermind.

Zen Master
2009-12-16, 06:10 PM
We'll just do the same to you, and it's something like 9 to 1, so you'll only end up more upset than the rest of us.

I'm not being condecending. I'm really sorry if it comes across that way - I'm trying to get one guy, in particular, to respond to what I say.

He, for his part, is singlemindedly pursuing a 'I MUST WIN THIS!!' approach that isn't going anywhere. Because we truly are not talking the same language. We are not talking about the same game. And unless we can somehow find some form of communication that works, this entire exercise is completely bollocks, and a massive waste of time for both of us - and everyone else reading this.

Oh - and ... I'm not upset. Tired, yes.

Also - 9 to 1? And? You think that makes you more right?

Dracomorph
2009-12-16, 06:13 PM
No - you got it exactly right. They are win buttons.

Explain, please. How does my ability to fly lead inevitably to my victory? Same question for tripping.

I honestly don't see that as true, and I'd like to see how you do. Without, if it's alright, a general statement such as, "I've been explaining that this whole time." I obviously haven't seen it if you have, and I'd like to be clear on it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-16, 06:18 PM
Except, they aren't, because one by one, as they reared their ugly heads in play, we have rooted them out. As a group, I'm slightly unsure anyone knows that - everything I've said is decided by my group as a whole. Nevermind.Then you aren't thinking hard enough.
Flight isn't a Win button-if you're in range, so is the enemy. And things like low ceilings make optimizing flight often a waste of resources. Builds that can eliminate flight are often easier than builds that have it, through things like a simple EWP:harpoon, or just having a potion of Fly for the occasional situation where it comes up.
Trip isn't a Win button-it beats some meleers and all Rogues, but arcane casters can cast from the ground, or be flying(can't be tripped while magically flying), or Polymorph into a Hydra, while Divine casters often have a higher bonus than the Tripper!
Optimizing one of these builds focuses on eliminating these situations, but then you're weaker against the opponents you didn't defend against, many of which can't be avoided(low ceilings, magical flights, my Raptoran Dungeoncrasher). Defenses are cheaper than offenses.

sofawall
2009-12-16, 06:21 PM
No - you got it exactly right. They are win buttons.


I had a warlock that could both fly and turn invisible both at will. This is a common thing for warlocks to be able to do.

He wasn't even close to dominating, as there were things that couldn't see him, or reach him, or both. Against those particular enemies, yes, it was a bit of an I Win button. However, once, say, a Dragon came along, something that could both see me and get to me, oh man, I was getting kicked three way from Friday.

D&D is not based around every enemy being a humanoid with class levels. You can play that way, but you will notice some imbalances that need to be addressed. you evidently noticed some. remember that with large multi-legged creature, or fliers, it may not be an I Win button. Just because nobody ever uses a counter does not mean it doesn't exist.



Except, they aren't, because one by one, as they reared their ugly heads in play, we have rooted them out. As a group, I'm slightly unsure anyone knows that - everything I've said is decided by my group as a whole. Nevermind.

Ok, please answer this point. Please respond, and I don't much care if you don't like responding to things point-by-point, please address this.

What you say is true in your games. What you say is not true in the games of Pheonix, or myself, or any others. That is the main point I want to make. The rest of this post expands on that.

The difference is, you play against a lot of humanoids. We play against the full gamut of the Monster Manuals. Sometimes I like facing a bunch of class-level NPCs. It is not a wrong playstyle. Sometimes I like facing an Assassin Vine or Water Elemental. It is not a wrong playstyle either. We play different games. As such, what may be true in your game is not true in the games of others.

As such, when you say "Flight is an I Win button", what you mean to say is "In the games I tend to play, flight is an I Win button". If you had written that, we would have all agreed, saying "Yes, in your games flight is an I Win button. In my game it is not. Good to know"

herrhauptmann
2009-12-16, 06:21 PM
Also - 9 to 1? And? You think that makes you more right?

No, this is a GAME, the only right/wrong is in following the rules. Preferences have nothing to do with it, no matter how much people disagree with them.

The 9 to 1 means that you're going to be defending yourself against 9 people arguing with you. That leads to the feeling you're being ganged up on. That leads to hurt feelings eventually (seen it before, can guarantee I WILL see it again in the next 2 weeks). And yes, I probably exaggerated with the 9 to 1, forgive me but I like a little hyperbole.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-17, 08:03 AM
No - you got it exactly right. They are win buttons.

Except, they aren't, because one by one, as they reared their ugly heads in play, we have rooted them out. As a group, I'm slightly unsure anyone knows that - everything I've said is decided by my group as a whole. Nevermind.

Let me elaborate.

You aren't grasping what I am saying. How do I know this? Because this post is in direct opposition to it.

The reason you assume that people who can trip, will trip? Is because you see it as an "I Win" button.

I see it as a "Tactic". This tactic beats some, and is beaten by others.

But rather than play with "tactics", every situation you come across that is hard to deal with for you?

You ban. Or Fiat. Or some other way to remove it from play, rather than dealing with it.

That's not encouraging a variety of actions. That's actually LIMITING them, which results in less variety.

Eventually, when all the "I win" buttons are gone, what's left? Variations on "I move", "I attack", or both.

You can't fully understand the concept of tactics, if, rather than learning, you erase the challenge. That's where the disconnect is. You can't imagine a tripper doing anything but tripping, because you aren't imagining the many ways to mitigate trippers.

Such as cover. You can't perform an AoO if your target has cover relative to you.

Concealment. Darkness, fog, smoke, low visibility. And before you say it's far fetched, 12 out of every 24 hours have darkness. Another 2 are commonly foggy.

Heck, a few ranks in tumble. Ranged attacks. Spells. Large foes. All defeat it.

But those are tactics. And those are something you are prohibiting, in favor of a banhammer.

If that's what you like, then fine. More power to you, and I honestly mean that.

But it's not what I like. I prefer a greater element of strategy in my game.

I understand you find it boring, unfun, not variety enough. My counter is that you're likely not using the objects at your disposal thoroughly enough.

There's a reason most of my casters use Obscuring Mist, Fog Cloud, and the like. Limited Visibility destroys a lot of things, including effective tripping, effective ranged attacks, and targeted spellcasting.

One spell, level 1 or 2, and all of it is neutered.

That's tactics. That's being prepared.

Zen Master
2009-12-17, 09:29 AM
You ban. Or Fiat. Or some other way to remove it from play, rather than dealing with it.

There. That's pretty much what I've been waiting for, and why I've stayed in this discussion so long. Because I know this is what you think - and that's just blatantly wrong.

We are 5 people in the group. Everyone can come with suggestions for handling issues that come up. Everyone does. When we have discussed an issue, we come to a decision. And test if it works. If it doesn't, we change it. Any grievance that anyone brings up will be considered fairly. We're even two DM's. And the reason we're not three, is because one guy has small children.

That's how we arrived at the flightbreaker arrows. That's how come we don't use anything except Core, Psionics Handbook and the Eberron Campaign Setting. That's why items are bought at slightly over their DMG price, unless you have the skill to haggle them down, and that's why items are sold at roughtly 20-25% of their DMG value, depending, again, on skill.

You think I'm some sort of megalomanic DM dictator. When in fact I'm pretty much as democratic as can humanly be.

Now, you list a number of counters for flight and tripping. That's fine - I know all those. It doesn't fit the style of play we use. Just as an example, spellcasters in our campaign aren't run of the mill - in most encounters, there won't be one. Another example, large opponents - often, there wont be one.

Now, I know that in many ways this can be seen as limiting. It's a question of what it adds - compared to what it takes away. Which - to me - hinges on the campaign world. Officially, it's Eberron - but really, it's as much home-brew, and in the world I present to players lots of mages and lots of large opponents doesn't make sense. I believe the word is verismilitude?

Also: 2 hours of fog a day? Not around here. But in Eberron, it rains all the time. Not enough for a miss chance tho. In my mind.

Zen Master
2009-12-17, 09:30 AM
The 9 to 1 means that you're going to be defending yourself against 9 people arguing with you. That leads to the feeling you're being ganged up on. That leads to hurt feelings eventually (seen it before, can guarantee I WILL see it again in the next 2 weeks). And yes, I probably exaggerated with the 9 to 1, forgive me but I like a little hyperbole.

Fear leads to suffering. Suffering leads to hatred. :)

Anyways - being ganged up on I can handle. No worries.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-17, 09:42 AM
There. That's pretty much what I've been waiting for, and why I've stayed in this discussion so long. Because I know this is what you think - and that's just blatantly wrong.

We are 5 people in the group. Everyone can come with suggestions for handling issues that come up. Everyone does. When we have discussed an issue, we come to a decision. And test if it works. If it doesn't, we change it. Any grievance that anyone brings up will be considered fairly. We're even two DM's. And the reason we're not three, is because one guy has small children.

That's how we arrived at the flightbreaker arrows. That's how come we don't use anything except Core, Psionics Handbook and the Eberron Campaign Setting. That's why items are bought at slightly over their DMG price, unless you have the skill to haggle them down, and that's why items are sold at roughtly 20-25% of their DMG value, depending, again, on skill. So, it's better because five people collectively decide to ban or fiat rather than innovate?

As I said, there's nothing wrong with limiting. DM's do it all the time when they restrict books. Heck, at least you have a reason for it. But when material isn't allowed, it's a ban. Whether that's one man's decision, or the informed agreement of the majority of the table, agreed upon by compromise and friendship, it is what it is.

When a quick handwave item is introduced to counter a specific tactic, ignoring the magic item cost and creation rules, that's fiat. Again, no matter how many are involved in the decision, it is what it is.

That you arrived at your decisions via consensus is commendable. Not everyone is so compromising with their group.

But that does not change the fact that it's a table ban and a fiat.


You think I'm some sort of megalomanic DM dictator. When in fact I'm pretty much as democratic as can humanly be.No, I don't. You've painted a picture of yourself as a pretty decent guy at the gaming table. However, decency does not change a ban into something other than a ban. It does not make a fiat into anything else.


Now, you list a number of counters for flight and tripping. That's fine - I know all those. It doesn't fit the style of play we use. Just as an example, spellcasters in our campaign aren't run of the mill - in most encounters, there won't be one. Another example, large opponents - often, there wont be one. And terrain? In most encounters, is there no terrain?

Ranged combatants? Are there no archers to use those free flightbreaker arrows?


Now, I know that in many ways this can be seen as limiting. It's a question of what it adds - compared to what it takes away. Which - to me - hinges on the campaign world. Officially, it's Eberron - but really, it's as much home-brew, and in the world I present to players lots of mages and lots of large opponents doesn't make sense. I believe the word is verismilitude?
Except that Eberron is built, at its fundamental core, along the lines that magic is so commonplace that they've domesticated it. To rip out the basic core of the campaign, and just keep the names of some countries? That's not Eberron. That's Acromoson, the Eberron derivative.


Also: 2 hours of fog a day? Not around here. But in Eberron, it rains all the time. Not enough for a miss chance tho. In my mind.
It's not foggy for two hours a day, every day. But fog is most likely in the hour before sunset and the hour after dawn. That's a two hour span where fog is likely enough to be reasonably included without breaking... I believe the word is verisimilitude?

Zen Master
2009-12-17, 10:04 AM
Ok, please answer this point. Please respond, and I don't much care if you don't like responding to things point-by-point, please address this.

What you say is true in your games. What you say is not true in the games of Pheonix, or myself, or any others. That is the main point I want to make. The rest of this post expands on that.

The difference is, you play against a lot of humanoids. We play against the full gamut of the Monster Manuals. Sometimes I like facing a bunch of class-level NPCs. It is not a wrong playstyle. Sometimes I like facing an Assassin Vine or Water Elemental. It is not a wrong playstyle either. We play different games. As such, what may be true in your game is not true in the games of others.

As such, when you say "Flight is an I Win button", what you mean to say is "In the games I tend to play, flight is an I Win button". If you had written that, we would have all agreed, saying "Yes, in your games flight is an I Win button. In my game it is not. Good to know"

Yes. I think - but will not swear off-hand - that I've pointed out at intervals during this discussion that all I say is of course my personal views of how my own games function.

But you are absolutely right. Your style of play is every bit as good as mine - and vice versa. I'm not trying to convince anyone that what I do is right - merely that certain abilities work to ruin certain styles of play.

We play at a certain - fairly lowish - powerlevel. In fact, a much higher powerlevel than once we did, but there you have it. I suppose we find that challenging. I don't feel we have house-ruled much at all - but then again, I don't think I've ever seen a character with more than a class and a prestige class.

Zen Master
2009-12-17, 11:58 AM
So, it's better because five people collectively decide to ban or fiat rather than innovate?

When a quick handwave item is introduced to counter a specific tactic, ignoring the magic item cost and creation rules, that's fiat. Again, no matter how many are involved in the decision, it is what it is.

Ranged combatants? Are there no archers to use those free flightbreaker arrows?

Except that Eberron is built, at its fundamental core, along the lines that magic is so commonplace that they've domesticated it. To rip out the basic core of the campaign, and just keep the names of some countries? That's not Eberron. That's Acromoson, the Eberron derivative.

I believe the word is verisimilitude?

I believe it's felt by most of our players that the commanding urge to fly limits combat more than it opens for tactical innovation. Also - determining range with opponents at different altitudes is just slow and boring.

You use the word fiat differently than I would. DM fiat I understand - that's the DM handwaving something, with the implication that 'this is the way it is - cause I say so'. I don't understand the word when used to describe group concensus.

There are lots of archers. However, that usually doesn't make any real difference. Maybe partly because for archers to be truly a threat, they need builds we don't usually use. Or ... poison. That's happened tho.

Eberron has domesticated Low-level magic. That doesn't automatically mean that every citizen is so used to it they have but the merest shrug of the shoulders or raising of the eyebrow of surprise when a fireball goes off in town. To my mind, most Eberron citizens have never seen an offensive spell cast.

Except perhaps for the thousands who fought in the last war.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-17, 12:02 PM
Eberron has domesticated Low-level magic. That doesn't automatically mean that every citizen is so used to it they have but the merest shrug of the shoulders or raising of the eyebrow of surprise when a fireball goes off in town. To my mind, most Eberron citizens have never seen an offensive spell cast.

Except perhaps for the thousands who fought in the last war.

This is the setting that brought us Eternal Wands, mass produced for low level spellcaster use.

Mass Produced.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-17, 12:09 PM
So you admit that you guys ignore the builds and tactics that would enable you competing with a tripper or a flier, then claim that those are win buttons? That explains...quite a bit, actually.

For the record, I've been following the ToS. It's combat between severely optimized builds. The only tripper I've seen recently just got ganked in round 1. Trip and Fly are good tactics, but they're not always applicable, nor are they insta-gibs, and in my opinion, eliminating them is eliminating elements that are far too valuable to a tactical mindset.

Zen Master
2009-12-17, 12:23 PM
So you admit that you guys ignore the builds and tactics that would enable you competing with a tripper or a flier, then claim that those are win buttons? That explains...quite a bit, actually.

For the record, I've been following the ToS. It's combat between severely optimized builds. The only tripper I've seen recently just got ganked in round 1. Trip and Fly are good tactics, but they're not always applicable, nor are they insta-gibs, and in my opinion, eliminating them is eliminating elements that are far too valuable to a tactical mindset.

We ignore those builds and tactics - because they are win buttons. Well, and because they lead to a style of combat we enjoy less than what we have.

I too follow ToS. It's combat between characters and enemies far more optimized than what is seen at our table. You know ... I play with two guys who to the best of my knowledge never open the books? They have quite decent characters - but the way it works is, they come up with a concept, and one of us helps with the rules.

So somehow I also need to strike a balance between knowing how to optimize to a certain degree - and working with guys who just don't even know or care to find out what optimizing is.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-17, 12:27 PM
We ignore those builds and tactics - because they are win buttons. Well, and because they lead to a style of combat we enjoy less than what we have.How is wielding a Harpoon a win button? Or having max ranks in Tumble? There are ways of beating a Tripper or a flier. Ignore those ways if you want, but don't then claim that Tripping is OP.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-17, 12:28 PM
We ignore those builds and tactics - because they are win buttons. Well, and because they lead to a style of combat we enjoy less than what we have.

I too follow ToS. It's combat between characters and enemies far more optimized than what is seen at our table. You know ... I play with two guys who to the best of my knowledge never open the books? They have quite decent characters - but the way it works is, they come up with a concept, and one of us helps with the rules.

So somehow I also need to strike a balance between knowing how to optimize to a certain degree - and working with guys who just don't even know or care to find out what optimizing is.

If you left it at that? I'd have no problems with this...

Other than the fact that 3 pages ago, you touted your friends as fantastic optimizers that tone it down.

Zen Master
2009-12-17, 04:30 PM
If you left it at that? I'd have no problems with this...

Other than the fact that 3 pages ago, you touted your friends as fantastic optimizers that tone it down.

And some of them are. You know - the other two.

Look - I really don't consider myself obligated in any way, shape or form to account fully and accurately for my group composition in order to have this discussion with you.

That I didn't mention that disparity within the group initially proves ****, and means even less. Both are true - exactly as with all the other little factoids you've pounced on so far. I simply cannot be arsed to explain everything to you - you'll have to come to the relevant conclusions yourself. It's not hard.

Which is why, naturally, I don't answer most of those things. This one got an answer, simply and only because you said nothing else in the same post.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-17, 05:13 PM
What, exactly, are you arguing Acromos? Is it that tripping is OP? That tripping will be done in every combat where it's the best option? Or that trippers aren't versatile? Because I'm honestly not sure anymore.

Dracomorph
2009-12-17, 05:57 PM
You use the word fiat differently than I would. DM fiat I understand - that's the DM handwaving something, with the implication that 'this is the way it is - cause I say so'. I don't understand the word when used to describe group concensus.

DM Fiat means a departure from the rules as presented, at the behest of the DM, whose job it is to decide such things. It isn't necessarily bad, but it is necessarily different by group, which makes it hard-to-impossible to account for in a general rules discussion.

Your DM let you have a vote about it. Which is great, actually, and something I'd encourage in my group if something became disruptive. But it's still changed from the base rules, not by some new epic spell or other in-game explanation, but because you all said so. Maybe it's not exactly DM Fiat, but it's a very close cousin, a house rule. And apparently not a common one.

AtwasAwamps
2009-12-17, 09:51 PM
Do you know what those are made out of?


Utter perfect deliciousness and pig hooves.

arguskos
2009-12-17, 10:09 PM
Utter perfect deliciousness and pig hooves.
Atwas, I'd like to thank you. I just read this page, full of debate about tripping and god only knows what between Acromos and the entire known universe, and came to the quoted text, and I swear to all the gods above, I nearly hurt myself laughing.

Thank you, sir, thank you, for your absurdity in the face of insanity. It renews my faith in this forum. Also, tripping is op lol. /jk

herrhauptmann
2009-12-18, 12:50 AM
What, exactly, are you arguing Acromos? Is it that tripping is OP? That tripping will be done in every combat where it's the best option? Or that trippers aren't versatile? Because I'm honestly not sure anymore.

I've sort of stopped wondering that. Right now I'm just looking for an answer to my question regarding Level Adjustment and flying.

If a big part of someone's LA is flight (or major class feature), and flight has now been nerfed by a cheap magical item, what happens to their character? Does LA get reduced? Or do they get a bonus to account for the loss in power resulting from losing a major class feature?

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 12:58 AM
I've sort of stopped wondering that. Right now I'm just looking for an answer to my question regarding Level Adjustment and flying.

If a big part of someone's LA is flight (or major class feature), and flight has now been nerfed by a cheap magical item, what happens to their character? Does LA get reduced? Or do they get a bonus to account for the loss in power resulting from losing a major class feature?

The flightbreaker arrow only dispels magical flight (by his description). Most creatures with flight as a racial ability have is as a Natural mode of movement, and would be unaffected, per his item's description.

Coidzor
2009-12-18, 02:07 AM
I've sort of stopped wondering that. Right now I'm just looking for an answer to my question regarding Level Adjustment and flying.

If a big part of someone's LA is flight (or major class feature), and flight has now been nerfed by a cheap magical item, what happens to their character? Does LA get reduced? Or do they get a bonus to account for the loss in power resulting from losing a major class feature?

And you only take abilities or items that grant personal flight if you're an idiot or ignorant of his arrows. Debatable whether one would be able to get away with a party flying carpet, or even just casting overland flight, or if that'd be inviting him to try to TPK you with some random guy shooting flight breaker arrows and nat 20ing from 1000 feet below 'em.

So basically, no one in their right mind would take such a thing.

sofawall
2009-12-18, 02:10 AM
Hmm, I just noticed something odd about Flightbreaker arrows. They make flight (as long as it is non-magical) even more of an I Win button.

Coidzor
2009-12-18, 02:21 AM
Hmm, I just noticed something odd about Flightbreaker arrows. They make flight (as long as it is non-magical) even more of an I Win button.

Raptorans love it! Hell, they probably invented it to keep people from being able to melee them.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 02:25 AM
Raptorans love it! Hell, they probably invented it to keep people from being able to melee them.

Now, to give my dragons bows.

Coidzor
2009-12-18, 02:28 AM
Now, to give my dragons bows.

Maybe modified foot bows?

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 02:38 AM
Maybe modified foot bows?

No, you misunderstand. Dragons don't fire bows. They have them to supply the kobolds.

sofawall
2009-12-18, 02:40 AM
No, you misunderstand. Dragons don't fire bows. They have them to supply the kobolds.

I don't quote people in my sig, but that is sig-worthy.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 03:30 AM
I don't quote people in my sig, but that is sig-worthy.

*Cheers* Yay! I finally said something that didn't suck!

Zen Master
2009-12-18, 03:35 AM
What, exactly, are you arguing Acromos? Is it that tripping is OP? That tripping will be done in every combat where it's the best option? Or that trippers aren't versatile? Because I'm honestly not sure anymore.

Well - my initial statement, as far as memory serves, was that tripping is dull and uninteresting. It has moved somewhat beyond that.

Zen Master
2009-12-18, 03:39 AM
Now, to give my dragons bows.

That is indeed a design weakness. Luckily we hardly ever use dragons - they've been done to death in our youth, I'm afraid.

My first really high-level (as in level 14) barbarian collected dragon horns, and managed to get great wyrm horns from every chromatic dragonkind except ... the blue one, I think.

Yea, we kinda wore that one out. But archers who happened to also be natural fliers would be ... very hard to beat. Lets hope no one else notices that.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 03:40 AM
Well - my initial statement, as far as memory serves, was that tripping is dull and uninteresting. It has moved somewhat beyond that.

Duly noted. In your opinion, tripping is dull and uninteresting.

In mine, tripping is a mechanic, no more, no less. It's up to each player's creativity and action choice to make things interesting.

Moving on? I'm quite happy with another line of thought, rather than naysaying the OP, who seems interested in such a character.


That is indeed a design weakness. Luckily we hardly ever use dragons - they've been done to death in our youth, I'm afraid.Actually, you can use ground-bound archers, such as kobolds, to ensure that the dragon has air superiority.


My first really high-level (as in level 14) barbarian collected dragon horns, and managed to get great wyrm horns from every chromatic dragonkind except ... the blue one, I think. If that's the case, I hope you came across the Red when he was already dead. Otherwise a level 14 party shouldn't have a ghost of a chance against a great wyrm red.

Stephen_E
2009-12-18, 03:53 AM
If that's the case, I hope you came across the Red when he was already dead. Otherwise a level 14 party shouldn't have a ghost of a chance against a great wyrm red.

Back in 1st/2nd ed Dragons were seriously underpowered.

Stephen E

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-18, 03:59 PM
Well - my initial statement, as far as memory serves, was that tripping is dull and uninteresting. It has moved somewhat beyond that.That, IMHO, is no worse than any other non-ToB melee mechanic. They all function the same, you need to focus on only 1 or 2 the remain effective at them, and then you use basically the same mechanic each time. At least Tripping is useful in a good chunk of situation, unlike, say, Disarm, Bullrush, and similar.

AtwasAwamps
2009-12-18, 04:46 PM
Can we get back to the point here?!

1) Do you enjoy mustard on your pig-hoof deliciousness?

2) Chili + Bacon on a Hot Dog: Overkill, or ingenius?

3) Should I make my players eat hot dogs next game? I kind of want to.

Zen Master
2009-12-18, 05:26 PM
Back in 1st/2nd ed Dragons were seriously underpowered.

Stephen E

Yup - it was a second edition barbarian, buffed with rules from the original UA, d12 hp plus double con bonus, double dex bonus, and a sword that would cast heal on my once a day.

You bet I could collect dragon horns. I mean, with a dragon armor that made me immune to the breath weapon, it was hardly even a real contest.

Oh those were the days - that's why we shy away from powerplay today.

arguskos
2009-12-18, 05:35 PM
1) Do you enjoy mustard on your pig-hoof deliciousness?
Damn right.


2) Chili + Bacon on a Hot Dog: Overkill, or ingenius?
Lovely. I approve of this theory. :smallamused:


3) Should I make my players eat hot dogs next game? I kind of want to.
Depends. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I'd say if your players like a good dog, let 'em bring some.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-18, 06:27 PM
Yup - it was a second edition barbarian, buffed with rules from the original UA, d12 hp plus double con bonus, double dex bonus, and a sword that would cast heal on my once a day.

You bet I could collect dragon horns. I mean, with a dragon armor that made me immune to the breath weapon, it was hardly even a real contest.

Oh those were the days - that's why we shy away from powerplay today.

My advice? Give dragons another shot. Introduce one. Get advice from the forums on how they run, how feats are selected, all that. Trust me, do it right, and it will be a fair and memorable match... and a good change of pace from your standard fare.

Variety is the spice, and all.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-18, 06:29 PM
My advice? Give dragons another shot. Introduce one. Get advice from the forums on how they run, how feats are selected, all that. Trust me, do it right, and it will be a fair and memorable match... and a good change of pace from your standard fare.

Variety is the spice, and all.My party, ECL 11, just took out a CR 15 and a pair of CR 12s with fairly little difficulty. We're definitely not underpowered. We also just ran from a CR 15 dragon. Well-built, dragons are killer.

arguskos
2009-12-18, 06:36 PM
My party, ECL 11, just took out a CR 15 and a pair of CR 12s with fairly little difficulty. We're definitely not underpowered. We also just ran from a CR 15 dragon. Well-built, dragons are killer.
That's just because that dragon was freakin' MEAN. Dire Charge+Shock Trooper+Combat Brute=everything dies. The tank only lived by like 50 hp. From full, which is almost 200.

Also, that combat was made possible by your Air Elementals. :smalltongue:

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-18, 06:42 PM
That's just because that dragon was freakin' MEAN. Dire Charge+Shock Trooper+Combat Brute=everything dies. The tank only lived by like 50 hp. From full, which is almost 200.

Also, that combat was made possible by your Air Elementals. :smalltongue:Like I said, our party is good, but Dragons are tough. d12 HD, full BAB, 6 skill points, all good saves, massive, several natural attacks, great stats, partial spellcasting, and between 1.5 and 2x CR HD. Dragons just ain't right.

And yes, a single 6th level spell being able to take out multiple CR 12s is very nice, thank you. :smallbiggrin:

arguskos
2009-12-18, 06:44 PM
Like I said, our party is good, but Dragons are tough. d12 HD, full BAB, 6 skill points, all good saves, massive, several natural attacks, great stats, partial spellcasting, and between 1.5 and 2x CR HD. Dragons just ain't right.

And yes, a single 6th level spell being able to take out multiple CR 12s is very nice, thank you. :smallbiggrin:
The CR 12's sucked and were simple combat brutes. The Holocaust Disciple was the real challenge there, as he showed with some fairly brutal attack spells. Also, yes, that dragon was... yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

ghashxx
2009-12-19, 04:11 PM
Can we get back to the point here?!

1) Do you enjoy mustard on your pig-hoof deliciousness?

2) Chili + Bacon on a Hot Dog: Overkill, or ingenius?

3) Should I make my players eat hot dogs next game? I kind of want to.

Chili bacon hotdog goodness yes. And now I'm really hungry.

Coidzor
2009-12-19, 07:05 PM
Can we get back to the point here?!

1) Do you enjoy mustard on your pig-hoof deliciousness?

2) Chili + Bacon on a Hot Dog: Overkill, or ingenius?

3) Should I make my players eat hot dogs next game? I kind of want to.

1) Yes, but only with ketchup along with it, and maybe some relish.

2) Overkill unless you're using cut up pieces of bacon or laying the bacon strips underneath/beside the hot dog. Both on top just increases the mess factor more than the deliciousness factor is worth.

3) Yes. Yes. Yes, for the love of Pelor, yes.

term1nally s1ck
2009-12-19, 08:32 PM
Hold on, I've just read Improved Trip and Knockdown.

If I do 10+ damage, I get a free trip attempt.
If I trip succesfully, I get a free attack.

.....Even assuming that I do not continue tripping and attacking after the first pairing...this lets me double my attacks. Is that actually how it works?

Stephen_E
2009-12-19, 10:36 PM
Hold on, I've just read Improved Trip and Knockdown.

If I do 10+ damage, I get a free trip attempt.
If I trip succesfully, I get a free attack.

.....Even assuming that I do not continue tripping and attacking after the first pairing...this lets me double my attacks. Is that actually how it works?

Yes, this is how it works.
You can't continue after the 1st pair because the target is now on the ground and can't be tripped again.

Note the doubling of attacks is theorectical due to Tripping been an opposed roll and thus always inherently failable, resulting in you disarming yourself.

Stephen E

OldTrees
2009-12-20, 03:24 AM
Well - my initial statement, as far as memory serves, was that tripping is dull and uninteresting. It has moved somewhat beyond that.

I think I understand your viewpoints for your two arguments.
Is this accurate?

Arg 1 Specialized Tripper builds are boring for you.

Premise 1: You like to use various tactics at near "very roughly" equal percentages.

Premise 2: If someone is specializing in a Tripper build they are buffing some other tactics at the same time but since they are not a Tripper/Bull Rusher build they are going to be better at Tripping than Bull Rushing given neutral circumstances. (one feat buffed Trip/AoOs + one that buffed Trip/Bull Rush = 2 buffs to Trip and only one buff to the other two tactics.)

Premise 3: A rational tactically minded character will use their best tactic given the circumstance. The discrepancy will vary proportionally to the discrepancy of power in neutral circumstances.

Inference 1: A Tripper Build is going to use tripping more often than any other tactic.

Conclusion: You find this type of Build boring. As the disparity between the power of the prime tactic and the secondary tactics (given neutral circumstances) grows other people (who share something akin to premise 1) will agree with you.




Arg 2 Win Buttons

1) Your campaign setting and players.

2) Your campaign uses (for reasons specific to the campaign) medium humanoids with few spellcasters but domesticated low magic.

3) Your campaign setting favors pc that have flight or are large with reach because the NPCs have few means to deal with them that are compatible with your campaign

4) In this circumstance Flight and Tripping are too tempting for optimizers yet do not suit the prefered style of play for the group.

5) Thus your group added in flightbreaker arrows and have a gentlmens agreement on large reach trippers.

I assume this was to point out how Win buttons are specialists with extreme disparities between the usefulness of their first and second tactics given the neutral circumstances (in this case the campaign). And from that show why you dislike builds with too great of a disparity.