3.5 Rules for Tripping

[Tylith]

So my party is caster heavy and was specifically looking for a chain fighter to provide cover. The first big fight where I have the prerequisite feats for the build (Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip) my DM was constantly fighting me on the specifics of the rules, so I decided to to type them all out and highlight the relevant areas of discussion.

Primary issues to be addressed are:
When a trip attack can be used, specifically regarding attacks of opportunity.
When the follow up attack granted by the Improved Trip feat can be used.
The range of a spiked chain, specifically when going from medium to large using Enlarge Person.
What being prone affects.

Rather than trying to reformat everything, here is a link to the google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/12bzryu44hLxMN3qngTnazrUfWspeTH5YBgTswPeMb0g/edit?usp=sharing) (If that's okay.)

Are there any rules I am neglecting to mention?

[HunterOfJello]

Rules of the Game: All About Trip Attacks (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060307a)
Rules of the Game: All About Trip Attacks (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a)


Hopefully one of those two online explanations will help you out a bit.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

As far as how long your reach is with a reach weapon and Large+ size, it is clearly addressed:


Reach Weapons

Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

However, a Spiked Chain explicitly bypasses the minimum reach, meaning with a spiked chain you can hit anything 5' to 20' away.

Oh, don't forget Spiked Chains are two-handed weapons. Which means Power Attack/Improved Bull Rush/Shock Trooper/Leap Attack works just fine with it.

[eggynack]

Lesse if I can hit all of these. You can indeed use a trip attack on an AoO, however you can't trip an enemy on the AoO you get for an enemy standing from prone. The extra attack for improved trip occurs immediately after a successful trip. It looks like the threat range for a spiked chain on a large creature would be five and fifteen feet away, and wouldn't include ten feet away. Prone does this stuff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone). That one's pretty basic. For bonus points, you might want to look into the feat knock-down (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown). It's a great feat for a dedicated tripping build.

Edit: @shneeky: Does ten feat away count as adjacent for a large creature? It might, but I'm not entirely clear on that one. If it does, that'd revise my answer to that question to your answer.

Double edit: Actually, that quote makes it look like I'm right. It makes a distinction between ten feet away and adjacent, so ten feet away would not be adjacent. Thus, the spiked chain would only hit enemies that a creature would normally hit, plus enemies five feet away.

[Tylith]

It looks like the threat range for a spiked chain on a large creature would be five and fifteen feet away, and wouldn't include ten feet away.

I'm fairly certain spiked chain specifically removes the minimum range on reach weapons, and as bolded in my write-up should double my new natural reach (since I am using an appropriately sized weapon) to a maximum of 20 ft.

@HunterOfJello I actually cited portions of this guide in my write-up, I agree it's a great clarifying resource

@ShneekeyTheLost In my last campaign I was under the assumption it was a double weapon so this is a good clarification

[eggynack]

I'm fairly certain spiked chain specifically removes the minimum range on reach weapons, and as bolded in my write-up should double my new natural reach (since I am using an appropriately sized weapon) to a maximum of 20 ft.

The spiked chain specifically "Can be used against an adjacent foe." It doesn't seem to give any benefit to attacking non-adjacent foes which you wouldn't otherwise be able to attack.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The spiked chain specifically "Can be used against an adjacent foe." It doesn't seem to give any benefit to attacking non-adjacent foes which you wouldn't otherwise be able to attack.

A Large creature's reach is 5' to 10' normally. I'd go out on a limb here and call that reach 'adjacent'.

[eggynack]

A Large creature's reach is 5' to 10' normally. I'd go out on a limb here and call that reach 'adjacent'.
I don't think this is necessarily accurate. The glossary defines "adjacent" as, "In a square that shares a border or a corner with a designated square. Each square is adjacent to eight other squares on the board." A large creature certainly doesn't share a border or corner with a creature ten feet away, so those squares don't appear to be adjacent. There might be some argument where you punch out to that distance, and then your fist is adjacent, and you can chain the guy, but it seems kinda finicky, especially because you're probably never defined as occupying the squares your fist is in.

[Tylith]

I don't think this is necessarily accurate. The glossary defines "adjacent" as, "In a square that shares a border or a corner with a designated square. Each square is adjacent to eight other squares on the board." A large creature certainly doesn't share a border or corner with a creature ten feet away, so those squares don't appear to be adjacent. There might be some argument where you punch out to that distance, and then your fist is adjacent, and you can chain the guy, but it seems kinda finicky, especially because you're probably never defined as occupying the squares your fist is in.

So you are saying I could hit at 5, 15, and 20 ft away, but not at 10?

[eggynack]

So you are saying I could hit at 5, 15, and 20 ft away, but not at 10?
Yeah, I guess. You take the total squares you could ordinarily hit with a reach weapon, and add all adjacent squares. It's a little on the illogical and counter-intuitive side, I admit, but spiked chains explicitly seem to merely add adjacent squares to your normal hitting capacity, instead of just removing empty regions of threat range wholesale.

[Deophaun]

Keep in mind, the PHB is written with the assumption that the character is medium size. If you look at the description for reach weapons, they also say that they cannot be used against "adjacent" foes. "Adjacent" in that context is then further defined as normal reach when you move to larger creatures. It would make sense for that definition of "adjacent" to apply to the description of the spiked chain, as it's the same context.

[eggynack]

Keep in mind, the PHB is written with the assumption that the character is medium size. If you look at the description for reach weapons, they also say that they cannot be used against "adjacent" foes. "Adjacent" in that context is then further defined as normal reach when you move to larger creatures. It would make sense for that definition of "adjacent" to apply to the description of the spiked chain, as it's the same context.
Where's adjacent defined specifically in terms of a creature's reach? That'd be pretty definitive in favor of spiked chains just hitting everything.

[Deophaun]

Where's adjacent defined specifically in terms of a creature's reach? That'd be pretty definitive in favor of spiked chains just hitting everything.
It's an implication, not explicit. Glaives, guisarmes, lances, long spears, and ranseurs all state "you can’t use it against an adjacent foe." It's then when you get to rules for larger creatures that it becomes "can’t strike at their natural reach or less." The implication is that "adjacent" means "natural reach or less" when dealing with reach weapons.

[eggynack]

It's an implication, not explicit. Glaives, guisarmes, lances, long spears, and ranseurs all state "you can’t use it against an adjacent foe." It's then when you get to rules for larger creatures that it becomes "can’t strike at their natural reach or less." The implication is that "adjacent" means "natural reach or less" when dealing with reach weapons.
Well, there's certainly some logic to the argument, but it's a bit on the RAI/ambiguous side of things. I'd probably just hand the spiked chain its perfect inclusive threatening power, because it's always best to err on the side of giving melee nice things. Still, as per the RAW, it looks like my argument is an accurate one, or at least it is in the absence of other corroborating information on the side of perfect attack range.

[Tylith]

So, with the literal interpretation of the text my threatened area should look like

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/Tylith/threat_zps0e27d9dd.jpg
Keeping "Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.) In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more; see Big and Little Creatures in Combat, page 149." in mind

[Deophaun]

Still, as per the RAW, it looks like my argument is an accurate one, or at least it is in the absence of other corroborating information on the side of perfect attack range.
Your interpretation is accurate. But so is mine. RAW is funny that way.

[eggynack]

So, with the literal interpretation of the text my threatened area should look like

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/Tylith/threat_zps0e27d9dd.jpg
Yeah, that looks about right.

Your interpretation is accurate. But so is mine. RAW is funny that way.
Well, unless there's some actual RAW text providing equivalency between natural reach and adjacency, your interpretation probably can't be properly classed as RAW. I don't think there's anything in the books that says, "For a large+ creature, adjacent is defined as any square within the creature's natural reach."

Edit: I did a quick check of the Rules Compendium, and it seems to support my analysis. Specifically, the line, " A creature that has more than 5 feet of natural reach threatens squares adjacent to it and all others within its reach," indicates that squares that are further than five feet away, that are within natural reach, aren't considered adjacent.

[Deophaun]

I did a quick check of the Rules Compendium, and it seems to support my analysis. Specifically, the line, " A creature that has more than 5 feet of natural reach threatens squares adjacent to it and all others within its reach," indicates that squares that are further than five feet away, that are within natural reach, aren't considered adjacent.
Of course, if adjacent is defined as all squares in reach, the statement is still true.

[eggynack]

Of course, if adjacent is defined as all squares in reach, the statement is still true.
Well, how about this one then: "Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if those targets aren’t in adjacent squares."
If adjacent squares are defined as anything within natural reach, it would be physically impossible to reach targets that aren't in adjacent squares, at least without a reach weapon. It just seems like every single definition of adjacent that I can find supports my reading of the spiked chain. I'd be more than happy for this to not be the case, because I'm a fan of happy melee guys with merry tripping rampages, but it seems to be the case.

[Tylith]

Well, how about this one then: "Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if those targets aren’t in adjacent squares."
If adjacent squares are defined as anything within natural reach, it would be physically impossible to reach targets that aren't in adjacent squares, at least without a reach weapon. It just seems like every single definition of adjacent that I can find supports my reading of the spiked chain. I'd be more than happy for this to not be the case, because I'm a fan of happy melee guys with merry tripping rampages, but it seems to be the case.

I don't like it, but I have to agree from what I've read that your interpretation seems most accurate. It may also get my DM less annoyed by my range and still not really affect my ability to "lock down" an area by that much, seeing as I still get my AoOs when they move through my outer range, still protects my inner range, and everything can be quickly adusted with a 5 foot step

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Then just pick up Armor Spikes and knee anyone at 10'.

As far as reach, here's the relevant passages:


Reach Weapons

Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.


Chain, Spiked

A spiked chain has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, it can be used against an adjacent foe.

You can make trip attacks with the chain. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the chain to avoid being tripped.

When using a spiked chain, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a spiked chain sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you.

Personally, I'd say that Spiked Chain permits you to hit opponents 5'-20'. But if you want to give them a 'gap' at the 10' range, it's probably better to just use a regular polearm and armor spikes

[Diarmuid]

So, with the literal interpretation of the text my threatened area should look like

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/Tylith/threat_zps0e27d9dd.jpg


While mostly accurate, I think the outer 3 squares in each corner would not be in included in your reach as they are technically 25' away using the diagonal rules.

[Gwendol]

The blocked out squares at 10' make no sense whatsoever. Just give the chain a reach of 5-20'. This is on level with the balance rules (DC's set with no regard to the size of the creature doing the balancing).

[Barsoom]

While mostly accurate, I think the outer 3 squares in each corner would not be in included in your reach as they are technically 25' away using the diagonal rules.

Actually the outer five squares in each corner. Assuming chess-like notation and calling the bottom-left corner a1, the following squares are more than 20' away: a1, b1, c1, a2, a3. Repeat symmetrically for the other corners.

[eggynack]

While mostly accurate, I think the outer 3 squares in each corner would not be in included in your reach as they are technically 25' away using the diagonal rules.
Nah, that part's correct in the diagram. Threatened squares ignore the usual rules for diagonal distance. In particular, " Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)"

The blocked out squares at 10' make no sense whatsoever. Just give the chain a reach of 5-20'. This is on level with the balance rules (DC's set with no regard to the size of the creature doing the balancing).
Yeah, it's a bit on the illogical side. From a RAW perspective, I'm in support of the gap, but from a RAI/RACSD/basic logic/giving melee nice things perspective, I think that they should just get all the squares. I mean, the RAW definitely supports my argument, because it spiked chains don't say that they give you all the squares, but changing things a little isn't going to break anything.

Edit: Heh. Technically the rules don't say anything about about large or larger creature's threat range. Well, as far as I've seen, anyways. This one is way dumber than the adjacent squares thing, and I don't even know if I support it from a RAW perspective, but it's there if you want it to be.

[Barsoom]

Nah, that part's correct in the diagram. Threatened squares ignore the usual rules for diagonal distance. In particular, " Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)" By RAW [and RAW is a harsh mistress] the exception was specifically made for Small and Medium creatures only. Large creatures do not benefit from this.

EDIT: actually, I see a valid reason for this, so it may not be a disfunction. The exception given to small/medium creatures was done so that an enemy could not just approach them from the diagonal, without provoking an AoO along the way. No matter from which direction you're trying to approach, you always have to go through a threatened square.

Large creatures weren't given this exception because they don't need it. They threaten enough squares so it's impossible to approach them without provoking an AoO anyway.

[eggynack]

By RAW [and RAW is a harsh mistress] the exception was specifically made for Small and Medium creatures only. Large creatures do not benefit from this.

EDIT: actually, I see a valid reason for this, so it may not be a disfunction. The exception given to small/medium creatures was done so that an enemy could not just approach them from the diagonal, without provoking an AoO along the way. No matter from which direction you're trying to approach, you always have to go through a threatened square.

Large creatures weren't given this exception because they don't need it. They threaten enough squares so it's impossible to approach them without provoking an AoO anyway.
Yeah, I pointed that out in my edit. That section is oddly explicit in its wording, and I guess that it might lead to the diagonals not being included. I guess there's some kinda justification for it, but it's a bit on the dumb side of things.

[Flickerdart]

Don't forget Knockdown - hit, trip, hit again (from Improved Trip) is a neat trick. If you're more interested in keeping people away, then Knockback might be more your speed (free bull rushes after hitting people, I love putting this on huge guys with reach so they can send would-be uberchargers packing).