Dervish Dance and Spring Attack

[Artoomis]

Not in this case. Normally to trip someone you first have to make an attack roll to touch them. That is the "unarmed melee attack" it's referring to. With Elusive Target, you don't make that attack roll, you just get the trip attempt that would normally follow such an attack.

You are not making a trip attack, you just get a trip attempt.

Similar to how attack is not an action by itself, but something you can use the Attack Action to do (otherwise you couldn't make an AoO).



Where is your attack roll if it's a melee attack?

Does "Cause Overreach" actually state:

1. That no "touch attack" roll is required - only the opposed roll? (I don't think it does)
2. That no counter-trip is allowed if the opposed roll fails? (Yes, it does state that)

Normally, for a trip attempt you:

1. Make a touch attack - provoking an AoO (unless done with a tripping weapon or with Improved Trip).
2. Make an opposed roll STR vs STR or DEX (defender's choice)
3. If you win, defender is tripped (prone, if yoyu lose defender may then make an opposed roll against you to trip you.

If the feat SPECIFICALLY states you get to skip the touch attack, then you do, otherwise you have to start with that because that is part and parcel of a trip attempt.

Note, as an aside, that since this is a "free" trip attempt there is no extra attack from Improved Trip because you get to to attack "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt."

 

[Moon-Lancer]

werk, im not sure I fully understand what you mean by a cold build, but i will discribe how i see it. Its a character i will be playing from level 1 in ravenloft. So becuse it has fighter levels inbetween, its quite possible to to role play a transition from lawfull to natural. If it was fighter-monk-barb or monk-barb-fighter, i would say it would be alot harder, but because it has 2 levels of fighter, its leaves a nice transistion from the spirituality of a monk to hot blooded rage of a barbarian. builds dont stop charicters from being characters.



I’m still confused on how whirlwind can work with dervish dance... if you whirlwind while in a dervish dance, your taking more attacks then is permitted (1 per 5 feet). Im just not seeing the jump from attack to full attack action. I know dervish can move and take a full attack action. But that full attack action is broken up with 5 feet inbetween each attack. How can you break up a whirlwind attack?

 

[Artoomis]

...

I’m still confused on how whirlwind can work with dervish dance... if you whirlwind while in a dervish dance, your taking more attacks then is permitted (1 per 5 feet). Im just not seeing the jump from attack to full attack action. I know dervish can move and take a full attack action. But that full attack action is broken up with 5 feet inbetween each attack. How can you break up a whirlwind attack?

Well the rules say:

You can make a Full Round Attack with slashing melee weapon(s) and still move up to your movement. Between each attack, you must move at least 5'...

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

With the Dervish ability are you getting any bonus or extra attack that would prevent the two from working together? No. Are you using the Full Attack Action? Yes. Thus they work together.

So let's look at whether this is an abuse, even if technically allowed.

You can use a 5-foot step in the middle of a Full Attack Action. When you do so, can you now make the rest of your attacks at whoever is NOW within reach using Whirlwind Attack? If so (and I think all agree you can), then the Dervish move is only an extension of that.

Do you now see how they work together?

Note the Whirlwind Attack is NOT a Full Attack Action. Maybe this is over-technical, but Whirlwind Attack is something you can do only while taking the Full Attack Action and is not a Full Attack Action in and of itself.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You are not making a trip attack, you just get a trip attempt.

So your position is that the phrase "trip attempt" is synonymous with the paragraph "... make a Strength check opposed by..." in the rules under "Trip"?

Is that supported?

Contrast with, say, the wolf or hyena, which states "can attempt to trip the opponent without making a touch attack". Cause Overreach has no such qualifier.

-Hyp.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

thanks Artoomis. I see now the full argument. I dident read the part about whirlwind being one attack. I just wanted to know why people were saying what they were saying. You have explained it to me.

 

[Muddman]

Not the way you describe it. When in the dance, you have to move at least 5 feet between each attack. So a dervice with 3 attacks can start a dance, move in, attack, move 5 feet, attack again, move 5 feet, attack a 3rd time, and then use any remaining movement as he see's fit.

And don't forget that tumbling cuts your movement in half unless you take a -10 on the tumble check.

Good idea on the barbarian rage back up and a VERY good idea for the bonus speed.

And thats how I use the guy and I use one scimitar, just with the combat focus feats so I have major bonuses to my will save, grapple, disarm, trip and fast healing of 4 Awesome skill set, I highly recommend it

 

[Caliban]

Does "Cause Overreach" actually state:

1. That no "touch attack" roll is required - only the opposed roll? (I don't think it does)

It states you get a free trip attempt. Not that you make a trip attack against them, but that you get to make the trip attempt (just like when you fail to trip somone on a normal trip attack and they get a free trip attempt on you, or a wolf gets a free trip attempt after a normal melee attack). There is no attack roll involved on your part. If there was, it would open the door for heavy abuse of the Improved Trip feat (in spite of your belief to the contrary). This reading is much less abusive. And I've never seen anyone in the Living Greyhawk Campaign play it the way you are suggesting.

Normally, for a trip attempt you:

What you quoted are the rules for a full trip attack, not a trip attempt. But thanks for quoting the entire trip mechanic to me as if I haven't been playing 3e for over 5 years, it really makes your arguement seem so much more authoritative when you talk to me like I'm stupid.

Have fun "debating" this without me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It states you get a free trip attempt. Not that you make a trip attack against them, but that you get to make the trip attempt (just like when you fail to trip somone on a normal trip attack and they get a free trip attempt on you, or a wolf gets a free trip attempt after a normal melee attack).

When you fail to trip someone, they may make a Strength check to try to trip you. The phrase "trip attempt" is not used.

When a wolf makes a successful melee attack, it can attempt to trip the opponent, with a qualifying note that it need not make a touch attack.

You haven't shown that the phrase "trip attempt" means "opposed Strength check", rather than "opposed Strength check following a successful touch attack". The wolf example, in fact, implies otherwise, since it specifically exempts the wolf from the touch attack, while Cause Overreach has no similar language.

If there was, it would open the door for heavy abuse of the Improved Trip feat (in spite of your belief to the contrary).

I can't see that the wording of Improved Trip supports abuse. If you don't use an attack that can only be used to trip to trip, you can't do a lot else with it...

What you quoted are the rules for a full trip attack, not a trip attempt.

Have you any rules for a trip attempt, by any chance?

Where is your attack roll if it's an unarmed melee attack?

Why, between "you can make a free trip attempt" and "If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check", I would imagine.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...
What you quoted are the rules for a full trip attack, not a trip attempt. But thanks for quoting the entire trip mechanic to me as if I haven't been playing 3e for over 5 years, it really makes your arguement seem so much more authoritative when you talk to me like I'm stupid.

Have fun "debating" this without me.

Sorry you feel that way. I always enjoy your point of view and usually even agree with it. I try to ALWAYS go back and quote the actual rules, as I find that:

1. The arguments tend to be better focused that way.
2. Other folks who are reading get to see the actual rules, which helps them chime in better.
and
3. Often something is overlooked in a rules debate that can be cleared up by quoting in full applicable rule(s).

I fail to understand:

1. Where is "trip attempt" a defined term? As opposed to simply meaning an attempt to trip, which is a touch attack followed by an opposed roll (unless it's the counter-trip, of course, in which case it is an attacker's touch attack followed by an attacker's failed opposed roll followed by the defender's opposed roll).

2. How would this approach (using the touch attack roll first) lead to abuse from Improved Trip. I don't even begin to understand that. Am I missing something? I don't see how it would make any difference at all one way or the other.

Finally, note that when the touch attack is specifically not required is when there already is contact between the two parties, which is not the case here. For example:

Wolf: A successful attack happens first, establishing contact between the combatants.
Counter-trip (when the attacker's opposed roll fails)" The first touch attack from the attacker established contact between the combatants.

I see nothing in the case before us that is in any way a good indicator that the touch attack gets skipped.