What's with the PF spiked chain?

[gomipile]

A recent thread mentioned that the spiked chain was nerfed in Pathfinder, so I went and checked it out. It turns out that the PF spiked chain is now strictly worse than a heavy flail for most purposes.

WTF? I thought Pathfinder was more balanced than 3.5, but tripper builds were one of the few things outside of TOB that could make melee feel useful. This nerf seems to go against the essence of what I thought Pathfinder was.

[Boci]

The spiked chain had the problem of being a very flavourful weapon with great mechanical power, thus resulting in complaints from many people that it was chosen for the later whilst the former was ignored, as well as the whole "Screw physics!" aspect of wielding the weapon. Plus PF probably wanted to nerf trippers so that other melee build became more viable.

[MeeposFire]

If you are looking at PF like you are what you will find is that balance really isn't much better on a grand scale. The big problems still exist (spells are still much better than melee, full attacks still can't be made on the move, etc). However PF did fix a lot of small things that annoyed some people which then these people use to say it is better balanced. Its not, what really happened is that it made some old stuff not so good but then there is now other stuff that is better.

Some classic small things that were fixed were the fighter and monk classes. Both got more and better class features. Unfortunately neither really fixes the real problems of the class (fighter lack skill points, full attacks still require you to mostly not move, monks class features still do not really synergize since flurry still cannot be used on the move, etc).

The spiked chain was probably one of the little fixes because they heard how good the spiked chain was compared to the other weapon and wanted to bring it more in line. Since you really could not make the other weapons up to the spiked chain (without some sort of big change) they toned down the spiked chain. Since the spiked chain is not a fundamental weapon archetype this was probably seen as a good thing (spiked chains are only well known because of how good it was in 3e in relation to the other weapons without which most people would never have touched the weapon).

[gomipile]

But making it worse than a martial weapon? That's just silly and unnecessary.

[FMArthur]

It really is. To begin with it really should have been a wierd specialist's weapon though, not a generic tripper necessity.

Anyway, a lot of the intentions of Pathfinder's balance fixes seem to be focused on balancing the options for each category of character - spells against spells of the same level, melee options against other melee options. Knocking people on their asses or doing massive physical damage is apparently too good. From a 3.5 player perspective it looks like taking away the only things that type of character ever had, but it's probably not that simple.

[Fitz10019]

IIRC, PF also tone down size category advantages, so a Large creature gets +1, instead of 3.5e +4, when resolving the opposed roles. With this, PF helped trippers a lot*, even if the spiked chain "suffered."

* [Well, not low-level trippers benefitting from Enlarge Person, but higher-level trippers dealing with huge+ creatures.]

[Eldariel]

IIRC, PF also tone down size category advantages, so a Large creature gets +1, instead of 3.5e +4, when resolving the opposed roles. With this, PF helped trippers a lot*, even if the spiked chain "suffered."

Doesn't, really, as the size limitation of "only one size larger than you max" is still in place. It merely nerfs monster trippers. At best, it's +3 for PC trippers which compared to the whoppin' Improved Trip (CMD bonus of base 15 instead of 10 and all that good jazz) got is nothing. Oh, and big creatures still tend to have ridiculous HD and thus ridiculous BAB which now counts towards Tripping.

The thing is, Paizo wanted Exotic Weapons to be not better, just different options. Ones that require a feat tax for no adequately explained reason. Basically, the idea is that if you want to do something cool you better be prepared to make your character worse for it. Or be a caster, but that's a whole other can of worms entirely.

[lesser_minion]

IIRC, PF also tone down size category advantages, so a Large creature gets +1, instead of 3.5e +4, when resolving the opposed roles. With this, PF helped trippers a lot*, even if the spiked chain "suffered."

There is no opposed roll any more -- you just have a different attack bonus and AC for trips, disarms, sunders, and grapples. IIRC, Improved Trip is now two feats (although the second feat has been improved).

Otherwise, I think it's reasonable to concentrate on internal balance -- if a wizard ends up strictly more powerful than a fighter, then while it's irritating, it can still be worked around in play, and if the relationship is at least sensible, you will be able to find a lot of players who simply don't care.

On the other hand, failing at internal balance is a lot harder to work around, and it's more apparent and more visible to players.

Furthermore, internal balance is at least reasonably objective -- class balance is harder to work with, and at least somewhat dependent on personal taste.

[mikau013]

There is no opposed roll any more -- you just have a different attack bonus and AC for trips, disarms, sunders, and grapples. IIRC, Improved Trip is now two feats (although the second feat has been improved).

Otherwise, I think it's reasonable to concentrate on internal balance -- if a wizard ends up strictly more powerful than a fighter, then while it's irritating, it can still be worked around in play, and if the relationship is at least sensible, you will be able to find a lot of players who simply don't care.

On the other hand, failing at internal balance is a lot harder to work around, and it's more apparent and more visible to players.

Furthermore, internal balance is at least reasonably objective -- class balance is harder to work with, and at least somewhat dependent on personal taste.

Thing is, it would have been better to buff other fighter options than just to nerf them and I actually think the 2nd feat of the imp trip split is actually a nerf too, a sidegrade at best.

Then again the entire book is filled with, buffing on one hand and taking it away with the other, and well just making lots of meaningless changes just to confuse people thinking it is so much better

[Prime32]

There is no opposed roll any more -- you just have a different attack bonus and AC for trips, disarms, sunders, and grapples. IIRC, Improved Trip is now two feats (although the second feat has been improved).Nah.

3.5

Improved Trip [General]
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.
If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.
Normal: Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed.
Special: At 6th level, a monk may select Improved Trip as a bonus feat, even if she does not have the prerequisites. A fighter may select Improved Trip as one of his fighter bonus feats.

PF

Improved Trip (Combat)
You are skilled at sending your opponents to the ground.
Prerequisite: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to trip you.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver.

Greater Trip (Combat)
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.


In PF you are a little more resistant to trip attempts, but you can only make the extra attack once per round. And you're down a feat.

[gourdcaptain]

True, but there is one PF feat to mention here: Fury's Fall

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/fury-s-fall-combat

Prerequisites: Improved Trip.

Benefit: When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB.

If you're a heavy Dexterity secondary, or are using the Agile Manuvers feat to use Dex for CMB, this can help.

Also - can't you take the extra attacks multiple times per round if you have Combat Reflexes? It's an AoO.

EDIT: Also - in the weird tripping category with Spiked Chains, Cornugon Trip

Prerequisites: Dex 15, Improved Trip, Weapon Focus (spiked chain).

Benefit: You may throw your spiked chain (as if it were a thrown weapon with a range increment of 10 feet) and can make trip attacks when throwing it. Failing at this attack does not knock you prone.

[lesser_minion]

In PF you are a little more resistant to trip attempts, but you can only make the extra attack once per round. And you're down a feat.

You were up a feat already because you're playing Pathfinder, and you had Combat Reflexes anyway.

The only real change is that you can't lock down as many people, which seems at least somewhat reasonable.

[Iceforge]

So it cost the tripper an attack of opportunity to attack in PF with the 2 feats vs. the 1 feat in 3.5, but in PF, his allies get to attack the one being tripped too, if they are within threat range, so I think that balances out pretty neatly.

I'll rather have to use an AoO on it and let my allies attack as well than just get an extra free attack, once you got combat reflexes, you rarely get to use all your attacks of opportunity anyway

[FMArthur]

Doesn't that mean getting tripped in melee by someone who takes the trip feats (ie anyone who would be tripping in combat) is kind of a death sentence?

[mikau013]

So it cost the tripper an attack of opportunity to attack in PF with the 2 feats vs. the 1 feat in 3.5, but in PF, his allies get to attack the one being tripped too, if they are within threat range, so I think that balances out pretty neatly.

I'll rather have to use an AoO on it and let my allies attack as well than just get an extra free attack, once you got combat reflexes, you rarely get to use all your attacks of opportunity anyway

Keep in mind that for it to be better you actually need allies who can take an aoo around the target and they can also take one if the tripped char stands up or crawls. Thus basically for it to be an advantage all your allies need combat expertise too. And of course in pf a lot of higher mobs suddenly are immune to being tripped.

[gourdcaptain]

Also, stuff like Bull Rush now provokes AoO's from allies (but not you) as well with the Greater Bull Rush feat. Still not as good as tripping, but it seems to be how the system works now. That DOES have the advantage that your allies can be somewhere else and you bull rush the guy past them for them to strike.

[Prime32]

Keep in mind that for it to be better you actually need allies who can take an aoo around the target and they can also take one if the tripped char stands up or crawls. Thus basically for it to be an advantage all your allies need combat expertise too. And of course in pf a lot of higher mobs suddenly are immune to being tripped.Also, it's hard to do this unless your allies are closer to the enemy than you are, in which case the enemy will probably just attack them instead.

Your allies need to wield reach weapons as well for this to work. Which helps phalanxes I suppose.