Elusive Target Feat - Questions

[Mistwell]

Text of the feat copied below.

Questions:

1) If you have uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge, it usually prevents flanking. Can you still use Diverting Defense? Text of IUD from barbarian (and similar text from rogue) says: "At 5th level and higher, a barbarian can no longer be flanked. This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target has barbarian levels."

2) If you wield a weapon that does not ordinarily allow trip attacks (like, say, a longspear), can you use the trip attack in Cause Overreach?

Text of feat:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20070608a

Elusive Target (from Complete Warrior ): The Elusive Target feat enables the use of three tactical maneuvers.

Negate Power Attack: To use this maneuver, you must designate a specific foe to be affected by your Dodge feat. If that foe uses the Power Attack feat against you, the foe gains no bonus on the damage roll but still takes the corresponding penalty on the attack roll.

Diverting Defense: To use this maneuver, you must be flanked and you must designate one of the flanking attackers to be affected by your Dodge feat. The first attack of the round from the designated attacker automatically misses you and may strike the other flanking foe instead; the attacking creature makes an attack roll normally, and its ally is considered flat-footed. If the designated attacker is making a full attack against you, its second and subsequent attacks function normally.

Cause Overreach: To use this maneuver, you must provoke an attack of opportunity from a foe by moving out of a threatened square. If the foe misses you, you can make a free trip attempt against this foe, and the foe does not get a chance to trip you if your attempt fails.

 

[atomn]

I think:

1) Diverting Defense would still work as long as the attackers are in flanking positions and you affect one with your Dodge feat, even if they don't get a bonus to attack due to flanking.

2) You could make a trip with an unarmed attack from Cause Overreach but only tripable weapons can trip with it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There was debate in 3E about the Knockdown feat; did the attempt to trip the opponent granted by the feat mean "Make an opposed Str vs Str/Dex check", or did it mean "Make a melee touch attack, provoking an AoO; make an opposed Str vs Str/Dex check; if you fail, your opponent gets to trip you in return"? In other words, did it refer to the mechanics of resolving whether or not someone who is tripped falls prone, or did it mean you should follow all the normal steps involved in tripping someone as if you had taken the Trip action?

I think this is a similar issue - is the idea that by being an Elusive Target, you cause your opponent to lose his balance and fall, or is it that you take advantage of an opening to hook his leg from under him?

If the first, your weapon should be irrelevant - indeed, no touch attack should be necessary.

If the second, all the normal rules for a Trip - including provoking an AoO for the unarmed touch attack, if you don't have a trip weapon - should apply, with the exception of the countertrip as noted in the feat text.

1) If you have uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge, it usually prevents flanking. Can you still use Diverting Defense?

This is similar to the Dervish with Power Attack. Once he gains the ability that states scimitars are treated as light weapons for all purposes, he's no longer eligible to Power Attack with them - a light weapon cannot gain a damage bonus from Power Attack.

If a DM would rule that a Dervish may use Power Attack with his scimitar, he should also rule that Improved Uncanny Dodge doesn't preclude Diverting Defence. If he rules the Dervish may not, then IUD should prevent Diverting Defence being useful, since it only applied when he is flanked, and IUD states he cannot be flanked.

-Hyp.

 

[blargney the second]

We've used cause overreach so far as working without a touch attack. I don't think it's been overly powerful, and avoiding an extra roll per opponent can be a time saver.

 

[Mistwell]

If the second, all the normal rules for a Trip - including provoking an AoO for the unarmed touch attack, if you don't have a trip weapon - should apply, with the exception of the countertrip as noted in the feat text.

Assume you are flanked by two creatures with reach. Both are 10 feet away from you. You have a reach weapon yourself. Under the second interpretation, can you trip one of them (since you cannot physically hit them with an unarmed touch attack, but you can with your weapon)?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Assume you are flanked by two creatures with reach. Both are 10 feet away from you. You have a reach weapon yourself. Under the second interpretation, can you trip one of them (since you cannot physically hit them with an unarmed touch attack, but you can with your weapon)?

Under the second, where Cause Overreach effectively grants you a free melee attack which may only be used to trip? No - because no melee attack used to trip that you could make can reach the opponent. (Assuming it's not a guisarme, spiked chain, or whip that you're using - that is, a reach weapon that may be used to trip.)

Under the first, where the Trip mechanic is used not to represent an actual trip attack, but just to determine whether the opponent loses his balance? I'd say yes, because the weapon doesn't actually have anything to do with the resolution of the opposed check.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

The interpretation in my area has been that the Cause Overreach ability gives you a free trip attempt, not a free trip attack (like the wolf's free trip attempt after they succesfully attack someone - which is the only place in the Core Rulebooks we've seen the term "trip attempt"). No attack rolls or weapons involved.

 

[Caliban]

Text of the feat copied below.

Questions:

1) If you have uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge, it usually prevents flanking. Can you still use Diverting Defense? Text of IUD from barbarian (and similar text from rogue) says: "At 5th level and higher, a barbarian can no longer be flanked. This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target has barbarian levels."

If your DM is anal about the RAW? Yes, uncanny dodge makes that aspect of the feat useless. I've only ever seen it enforced by DM's who dislike the feat in the first place.

It's one of the many areas where overly strict RAW interpretations can make the game less fun.

 

[blargney the second]

But aren't IUDs supposed to prevent someone else from getting knocked?
-blarg

 

[Mistwell]

But aren't IUDs supposed to prevent someone else from getting knocked?
-blarg

knocked up