[Pathfinder] Has the change to trip made it suck more?

[juton]

Surprisingly I don't think so. In the Beta version of Pathfinder you had to get your Strength + BAB + d20 hit your opponents Strength + BAB + 15, which increasingly became untenable. The essential change in the final version of Pathfinder is:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
(emphasis added)

So now anything that you can add to your attack roll with your weapon you get to trip you opponent.

How does this stack up to 3.5? Lets say we have two fighters at level 10, both with 30 str and weapons that give +2 to trip. The Pathfinder fighter also has +2 from weapon training, the second trip feat and +3 from weapon enhancements. Both are Goliaths with powerful build.

The Maths:
[spoiler]
Versus the ever popular Fire Giant, the 3.5 fighter makes a check of +18 vs the Giants +14. The Fighter has a 66% chance of putting the giant on his ass. The Pathfinder Fighter has +30 to get the the Giants 31 CMB, an 95% success rate.

Against something with a higher CR say a Cloud Giant:
3.5 Fighter : +20 vs +20, 47.5% chance of success.
Pathfinder Fighter : + 32 vs 35 CMD, 90% chance of success.
Young adult Red Dragon:
3.5 Fighter : +20 vs +22, 38.25% chance of success.
Pathfinder Fighter : + 32 vs 45 CMD, 40% chance of success.

Against things that should be easier, CR 10 Dex based monk:
3.5 Fighter, touch attack vs AC ~27 (75%), +20 vs +2, 99% chance after that, total probability 74%.
Pathfinder Fighter, +32 vs 39 CMD, 70% chance of success.
CR 10 commoner:
3.5 Fighter, +20 vs +2, 95% chance of success. (Capped at 95% do to attack roll)
Pathfinder fighter, +32 vs ~20, 95% chance of success.
[/spoiler]

So a Pathfinder fighter should be able to get an opponent tripped easier than a 3.5 fighter in most circumstances. It's true that a 3.5 Fighter gets a free attack on a tripped opponent, a Pathfinder Fighter needs to spend an extra feat (which he gets) to do the same thing. Pathfinder nerfed the spiked chain (it no longer provides reach), but have given a feat which allows you to attack with reach with any weapon.  

So all in all it seams a Pathfinder Fighter comes out ahead when it comes to tripping. If I got the calculations wrong (or skipped an important feat/class feature/magic item) for 3.5 tripping please tell me and I'll change my calculations.

Edit: Changed values for 3.5 Fighter for the proper value of improved trip, powerful build class feature. Changed value of PF Fighter for powerful build and greater trip feat.

[Amadi]

Strength 30 (+10)
Improved Trip (+4)
+14 > +12

[Anklebite]

don't forget +4 for large/powerful build/item of enlarge person

[juton]

Updating the Math section, the 3.5 Fighter improves a lot (thanks Amadi & Anklebite). I gave the PF fighter the 'greater trip' feat so he functions more similarly to a 3.5 fighter.

[PhaedrusXY]

Even if the PF fighter trips successfully at least as often, he still invests more resources (feats) for less benefit (no free attack after tripping). So yeah, it sucks more.

[woodenbandman]

So... they changed it from a risky tactic to a near auto-succeed?

Neither one is particularly balanced.

[juton]

Even if the PF fighter trips successfully at least as often, he still invests more resources (feats) for less benefit (no free attack after tripping). So yeah, it sucks more.

He will have to invest a second feat which lets him attack someone he just tripped, but a Pathfinder fighter gets more feats. A PF tripper will suck harder at lower levels (1-5) though because he can't get that second feat until level 6.

So... they changed it from a risky tactic to a near auto-succeed?

Neither one is particularly balanced.

I'm not sure what the success rate for a trip should be. A caster could probably put a Save or Die on an equal CR creature around 50% of the time. Tripping is no where near as good as just killing what you're fighting, so how often should it succeed? It does help the Fighter win the action economy.

[PhaedrusXY]

Even if the PF fighter trips successfully at least as often, he still invests more resources (feats) for less benefit (no free attack after tripping). So yeah, it sucks more.

He will have to invest a second feat which lets him attack someone he just tripped, but a Pathfinder fighter gets more feats. A PF tripper will suck harder at lower levels (1-5) though because he can't get that second feat until level 6.

Ah, ok. I haven't even looked at the PF rules. I thought you couldn't even get the free attack at all.

So... they changed it from a risky tactic to a near auto-succeed?

Neither one is particularly balanced.

I'm not sure what the success rate for a trip should be. A caster could probably put a Save or Die on an equal CR creature around 50% of the time. Tripping is no where near as good as just killing what you're fighting, so how often should it succeed? It does help the Fighter win the action economy.

Meh, being prone sure isn't a good thing, but it's not the end of the world, either. It certainly isn't as hazardous to your health as failing a save vs. a "save or die".

The build he posted is optimized for tripping (goliath, etc). In that case, I think it should be nearly a sure thing. For a more "typical" combatant (i.e. not trip specialized), it's probably hardly ever worth using. So nothing has changed from that perspective.

[phoenix6e]

edit

[Doriando]

I'd say in general against equal opponents, trip should have a 65-70% success rate or so? You give up your full attack to drop an opponent an deny him his full attack next round (he has to get up and be open to AoO).

[telehax]

For those comparing Save or Dies to Trips, here's another consideration:

It is ridiculously easy to be immune to trip:
1. Be flying. - 80% of high level encounters.
2. Be amorphous/gelatinous cube.

[juton]

All things considered, being tripped isn't the worst thing in the world. If you're playing in pure Pathfinder there's no analogue to Mage Slayer, so if the Wizard gets tripped he can still cast defensively while on the ground. Even if you're playing full 3.5 if, somehow, through divine intervention you end up prone next to a fighter you're either going to have a contingency, or some maneuver that will flash vaporize the impudent whelp.

[Akalsaris]

Some more considerations:

1. The free attack after tripping is now considered an AoO, so without combat reflexes it won't be as useful because you won't be able to use an AoO when the opponent stands up.  However, all of your allies who threaten the opponent also get an AoO when you trip him, so with a little party coordination you can get more attacks off of the trip than before.
2. The 2 feats also give you +4 against being tripped.

I'd say overall it's a stronger option for a fighter who consistently has allies nearby and who isn't already large-sized, and a weaker option for something like a psychic warrior whose massive size bonuses are now much less compelling (+8 from huge becomes +2).  It's certainly better for an AOO-focused build, though those are rare, and it's a better option against larger opponents than it used to be, because of the lower size bonuses.

The Disruptive and Spellbreaker feats can both help make being tripped more painful for a spellcaster - Disruptive makes the concentration check much more difficult, while Spellbreaker punishes the spellcaster for failing the attempt.

[bearsarebrown]

I'd say in general against equal opponents, trip should have a 65-70% success rate or so? You give up your full attack to drop an opponent an deny him his full attack next round (he has to get up and be open to AoO).

Trip is an attack option. You give up one of your 4+ attacks.

[winter_soldier]

Plus, Spiked Chains have been heavily nerfed in Pathfinder, and that was arguably THE tripping weapon to most people.

[juton]

It's funny how they over-nerfed spiked chain. It's still an exotic, it does 2d4 damage and can still disarm or trip, but no longer has reach. So it does less damage then a heavy flail, and a spiked chain does piercing, a flail, bludgeoning.

Edit: The flail has a better crit range and is cheaper too. LOL

[CountArioch]

For those comparing Save or Dies to Trips, here's another consideration:

It is ridiculously easy to be immune to trip:
1. Be flying. - 80% of high level encounters.
2. Be amorphous/gelatinous cube.

Has Pathfinder made fliers immune to trip attacks?  Because they weren't immune in 3.5 as far as I know.

[Agita]

For those comparing Save or Dies to Trips, here's another consideration:

It is ridiculously easy to be immune to trip:
1. Be flying. - 80% of high level encounters.
2. Be amorphous/gelatinous cube.

Has Pathfinder made fliers immune to trip attacks?  Because they weren't immune in 3.5 as far as I know.

Depends on their maneuverability. IIRC, fliers with (perfect) maneuverability were immune, others fell if you tripped them. But more likely, he's talking about simply flying out of reach since you trip in melee, not at range.

[Akalsaris]

The spiked chain might be nerfed, but the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book has some replacements for it that fit the PF setting flavor a little more.  

All are exotic weapons:
Flying talon: 15 gp 1d4 x2, 10ft reach light weapon, +2 disarm/trip (can't hit adjacent foes, looks like a claw on a chain)
Scarf, bladed:martial martial