Size Matters

[Krensky]

I still say keep it simple.   Allow Dodge bonuses to the Defender vs. these maneuvers and decrease the size bonus from +4 to +2.

That sounds pretty good to me, along with allowing a melee attack roll as a defense, particularly in light of how untrained skill checks work. A mage's +5 BAB is probably not going to do much, but heck, maybe he'll roll well, and maybe an Action Die will help.

Too complex. Simpler solution:

If your players don't invest in Athletics or Acrobatics, don't have the NPCs make heavy use of Grapple or Trip.

If one or more players build abusive levels in those skills and spam Grapple or Trip, add appropriate signature skills to your advesaries to keep them challenged.

If the players are grappling and tripping each other, you have problems no amount of house rules or mechnical changes will fix.

[pawsplay]

I still say keep it simple.   Allow Dodge bonuses to the Defender vs. these maneuvers and decrease the size bonus from +4 to +2.

That sounds pretty good to me, along with allowing a melee attack roll as a defense, particularly in light of how untrained skill checks work. A mage's +5 BAB is probably not going to do much, but heck, maybe he'll roll well, and maybe an Action Die will help.

Too complex. Simpler solution:

If your players don't invest in Athletics or Acrobatics, don't have the NPCs make heavy use of Grapple or Trip.

If one or more players build abusive levels in those skills and spam Grapple or Trip, add appropriate signature skills to your advesaries to keep them challenged.

If the players are grappling and tripping each other, you have problems no amount of house rules or mechnical changes will fix.

Designing every encounter around those skills is simpler?

[Krensky]

By far.

Exceptions and floors and alternate bonuses are complex.

Not being a dick GM is easy.

Knowing your players neglected Athletics and sending them against a NPC optimised with 50 XP in grapplinng stuff is a dick move. A few grapples here and there, but sending a NPC with a +30 to grapple (or, well, anything) is a dick move. Sending him against the sickly bookish mage is a double dick move.

Similarly, if your players all build optimized grapplers, let them grapple and give every NPC some ranks Signture Skill Athletics. It's no different then any other character ability.

Put another way:

If your players aren't interested in grappling, don't force it down their throats. If they're in to grappling, make sure their advesaries are up to letting them show off and still be a challenge. If this is an issuje because one player is using his character's grappling ability to bully the other PC's, it isn't a rules problem.

[Goodlun]

By far.

Exceptions and floors and alternate bonuses are complex.

Not being a dick GM is easy.

Knowing your players neglected Athletics and sending them against a NPC optimised with 50 XP in grapplinng stuff is a dick move. A few grapples here and there, but sending a NPC with a +30 to grapple (or, well, anything) is a dick move. Sending him against the sickly bookish mage is a double dick move.

Similarly, if your players all build optimized grapplers, let them grapple and give every NPC some ranks Signture Skill Athletics. It's no different then any other character ability.

Put another way:

If your players aren't interested in grappling, don't force it down their throats. If they're in to grappling, make sure their advesaries are up to letting them show off and still be a challenge. If this is an issuje because one player is using his character's grappling ability to bully the other PC's, it isn't a rules problem.

Oh hey what a concept design encounters to be fun for the everyone. 

[Azza]

I dont thing the size thing is an issue an if I was to house rule an alternative defense against grapples, and trips for that matter, I would let the character substitute their defensive bonus( you know the pluses and minuses added to 10 for your defense) instead of the appropriate skill bonus and add that to the d20 roll.  This would take into account any dodge bonuses, armour penalties the difficulty in catching small opponents etc and certainly wouldn't be as good as having the skill at a good rank for your level.

Having said that Krensky is right.  if you dont use grapple and trips attacks against those that arent equipped to deal with them then it is a non issue.

[MilitiaJim]

Oh hey what a concept design encounters to be fun for the everyone.

Down that road lies madness!!

[pawsplay]

I think it would be more fun if most characters, or at least most combat-oriented characters at least, had some basic level of defense against grapples and trips. PCs who lack an appropriate skill are stuck with untrained skill checks as a defense. It's obviously not a problem for some, but I see it as a potential obstacle to including opponents who use a wide variety of maneuvers. After a perusal of the rulebook, I could only find Disarm as a special maneuver that did not use skill checks.

In the case of trip specifically, it seems a little too easy to execute against a large, powerful opponent. At least NPCs get their Competence grade. With PCs, by the mid levels, I think most dedicated fighters are going to want to consider Prodigal Skill or Well-Rounded if they do not already have a few ranks of Acrobatics.

[Morgenstern]

And to come full circle (wow, 7 pages later already?), characters that should reasonably expect to be well-rounded as combatants have a lot of weapon proficiencies at their disposal, making tricks a grand candidate for rules add-on to let heroes shine above and beyond the baseline the system creates. But 'well-rounded' should have some sort of cost, because GM-exploitable gaps are the point of the combat system. Want to be more grappling/trip/every-other-skill-based-opportunity resistant? Pay for it.

The discussion has given me some interesting ideas for feats though .

[pawsplay]

6th level character with 9 ranks in Acrobatics and Dex 14: +11 on check. Grizzly bear: Dex 8, size L, +3 on check. Character tries to trip bear. Feature or bug?

[drnuncheon]

6th level character with 9 ranks in Acrobatics and Dex 14: +11 on check. Grizzly bear: Dex 8, size L, +3 on check. Character tries to trip bear. Feature or bug?

Do quadrupeds still get a +4 vs such actions or was that not held over from 3e?

[aegis]

Characters with the stability ability or NPC option, yes, which generally includes quadru(and more)peds.

[pawsplay]

Bears do not have improved stability. You can't trip an elephant, because improved stability causes them to be treated as Huge.

[Daedalus]

6th level character with 9 ranks in Acrobatics and Dex 14: +11 on check. Grizzly bear: Dex 8, size L, +3 on check. Character tries to trip bear. Feature or bug?

Do quadrupeds still get a +4 vs such actions or was that not held over from 3e?

Like Aegis said, many true quadrapeds would have it through improved stability.  You'll see examples of this under the Horses bestiary entry (p. 270) but since it's not a guarantee, you can build outside of the box and have tall, spindly monsters or animals that are surprisingly susceptible to trip, or Horrors that have such awkward limb positions that it confers no benefit.

[blackheart]

Giraffes, anyone?

[Doublebond]

Giraffes, anyone?

I don't know. I mean, how're you a voice of authority, here? Have you ever tried to wrestle a Giraffe into submission?