This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Author Topic: [D&D]House rule I'm considering  (Read 1316 times)

Dacke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 311
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« on: April 05, 2006, 05:57:36 AM »
So, after seeing all my encounters devolve into "guy with guisarme trips opponent, all other PCs dogpile the guy and kill him with AoOs when he tries to get up," I'm getting kind of tired of the AoO for standing up from prone that was added in 3.5. So I'm considering removing that, returning a small part of 3.0 to my game.

The way I see it, even without the AoO tripping someone is a pretty OK proposition:
  • Your other attacks for the rest of the round get a +4 bonus.
  • Your allies who go between you and your opponent also get that +4 bonus.
  • Your opponent can't make a full attack next round, because he has to spend a move action getting up.
  • If you have Improved Trip, you don't even really waste an attack doing it, since you get a free attack if you succeed (at +4!).
Adding AoOs on top of all those advantages changes trip from a decent option to a super one, at least against creatures likely to be susceptible to a trip (e.g it will be hard against huge quadruped creatures...).

So, anyone like to try to talk me out of it?
 

Bagpuss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 552
    • http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.maple/
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2006, 06:29:01 AM »
Not me and I'm thinking of playing a spiked chain, wielding trip specialist next character. I think it seems a much better rule than the one in 3.5
 

Sigmund

  • a Toxic Sociopath
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2006, 08:06:31 AM »
Although, an alternative would be just adding a maneuver called something like "defensive stand from prone" where the tripped character could take a full round action to remain on the defensive while standing that would negate AoO. That way if the character were in a hurry to stand, enemies could take their shots (IMO AoO make sense any time a target doesn't bother to remain alert), or the character could stand without provoking AoO but lose the ability to move far or attack (or anything else) for that round.
- Chris Sigmund

Old Loser

"I'd rather be a killer than a victim."

Quote from: John Morrow;418271
I role-play for the ride, not the destination.

Bagpuss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 552
    • http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.maple/
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2006, 08:17:07 AM »
That wouldn't really fix anything as then the person has the option of standing up and getting lots of AoO and having half an action. Or standing up and getting everyones Full-attack action against them next round, including being tripped all over again. Either way you are totally screwed.
 

Sigmund

  • a Toxic Sociopath
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2006, 08:39:03 AM »
Well, he can get up and move and still suffer AoO just for moving, then still get at least everyone's basic attack against him as well when they all move up and hit him. This way, at least he's not stuck with the choice of either staying prone, incurring the penalties that brings, or standing and getting bitch-slapped immediately. Yet it would still preserve the value, for the most part, of tripping enemies (and the danger of dropping/falling prone in combat). I guess I happen to like that standing and moving provokes AoO...it makes sense to me. It also keeps the Kip-up ability of Thief-Acrobats a very valuable ability.

Once up, the character would also have the options of fighting defensively or going on full defense as well...at least until help arrives to take some of the pressure off.                        IMO trip should be a powerful manuever, and specialists in it should become a group's priority target.
- Chris Sigmund

Old Loser

"I'd rather be a killer than a victim."

Quote from: John Morrow;418271
I role-play for the ride, not the destination.

el-remmen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • e
  • Posts: 264
    • http://www.aquerra.com/rbdmc/index.php
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2006, 08:57:44 AM »
I don't play with an AoO for stadning at all - but that is because we use "knockdown rules" (converted from 2E combat & tactics) and it would just be too deadly to use both rules - and I prefer the cinematic nature of the weight of a blow driving someone to the ground more than the free attack on someone getting up.
Check out the "Out of the Frying Pan" D&D Aquerra Story Hour (Now with Session by Session DM Commentary!)

"Just because you're buff, don't play tough, 'cause I'll reverse the Earth and turn your flesh back to dust. . ."

Cyclotron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • C
  • Posts: 279
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2006, 09:05:12 AM »
House Rule: "A DC 15 Tumble check allows your character to stand up from prone without incurring an Attack of Opportunity."
Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace,
 NFPA 70E, Article 330.4 (F):
"Laser beams shall not be aimed at employees."

Sigmund

  • a Toxic Sociopath
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2006, 09:13:23 AM »
Quote from: Cyclotron
House Rule: "A DC 15 Tumble check allows your character to stand up from prone without incurring an Attack of Opportunity."


That's great too...and makes perfect sense to me...and gets even more use out of the tumble skill.
- Chris Sigmund

Old Loser

"I'd rather be a killer than a victim."

Quote from: John Morrow;418271
I role-play for the ride, not the destination.

Dacke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 311
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2006, 09:24:42 AM »
Quote from: Sigmund
IMO trip should be a powerful manuever, and specialists in it should become a group's priority target.
Well, as I said in the original post, tripping is a pretty powerful maneuver even without the AoO, especially if you have friends there ganging up to take advantage of the +4 attack bonus (I think it's technically -4 to AC, but that's the same thing).
 

Dacke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 311
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2006, 09:27:39 AM »
Quote from: Cyclotron
House Rule: "A DC 15 Tumble check allows your character to stand up from prone without incurring an Attack of Opportunity."
The problem with that is that very few monsters have Tumble as a skill, and few classes have it as a class skill (notably, most primary combatants don't). Also, Tumble is already a pretty powerful skill, allowing you to move around the battlefield without getting smacked around. I'm a bit leery about adding even more utility to it.

I could see allowing Tumble to be used to get up as a free action, with a failure (or possibly a failure by 5+) meaning you provoke an AoO.
 

Sigmund

  • a Toxic Sociopath
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2006, 09:40:13 AM »
I never mind letting tumble have all the utility it can get because the characters that most often use it are rarely the toughest, so any time they can avoid getting hit is a good thing...I know when my rogue did get hit, it really hurt :(
I understand about the monster thing. I just remember in 3.0 when it seemed no PCs ever wanted to even use, let alone specialize in, the trip maneuver because it seemed to bring very little return for the feat investment. This is probably why I won't remove the AoO from standing up in combat in my game. I do think I'll use my earlier suggestion myself though. I haven't seen the dogpiling that you are seeing yet, but I can understand how it could be frustrating.
- Chris Sigmund

Old Loser

"I'd rather be a killer than a victim."

Quote from: John Morrow;418271
I role-play for the ride, not the destination.

Cyclotron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • C
  • Posts: 279
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2006, 11:17:23 AM »
Quote from: Dacke
The problem with that is that very few monsters have Tumble as a skill, and few classes have it as a class skill (notably, most primary combatants don't). Also, Tumble is already a pretty powerful skill, allowing you to move around the battlefield without getting smacked around. I'm a bit leery about adding even more utility to it.

But that's the whole point.

Why not use a rule mechanic that already does almost exactly what you want?

Tumble lets you move avoid Attacks of Opportunities for moving through threatened spaces with a skill check of modest DC.  Why not just use the same thing for standing up from prone?  A DC 15 check will be a challenging untrained check for most monsters, but is by no means out of reach.

Like Sigmund said...  Most players, except for perhaps Rogues and Monks, won't have many ranks in Tumble either.  No one else has the class skill or the skill points to make it worthwhile.
Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace,
 NFPA 70E, Article 330.4 (F):
"Laser beams shall not be aimed at employees."

Sobek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • S
  • Posts: 184
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2006, 11:49:07 AM »
I don't see a problem with the 3.5 rule.  Sticking your spear in the face of someone who is flat on his back should inspire him to want to stay put, not stand up.
 
That said, 3.0 worked fine without it.  I prefer tripping to be uber-screwed, but that's mainly flavor.
 

Yamo

  • Spelling Nazi Dumb Ass
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Y
  • Posts: 431
    • http://www.yamoslair.com
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2006, 12:24:37 PM »
*deleted post*

Somehow this ended-up in the wrong thread...
In order to qualify as a roleplaying game, a game design must feature:

1. A traditional player/GM relationship.
2. No set story or plot.
3. No live action aspect.
4. No win conditions.

Don't like it? Too bad.

Click here to visit the Intenet's only dedicated forum for Fudge and Fate fans!

mearls

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • m
  • Posts: 160
    • http://www.wizards.com
[D&D]House rule I'm considering
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2006, 01:05:18 PM »
You could also allow the target of a trip attack to make a Balance check in place of the standard Strength or Dexterity check.
Mike Mearls
Professional Geek