Elusive Target + Improved Trip

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm with the advanced Basilisk, there.

Improved Trip gives you a free trip attempt, as if you hadn't used your attack to trip.

With Cause Overreach, there's no attack.

Similarly, with the Trip special ability of wolves and wardogs, there was no attack made for Improved Trip to trigger off of.

 

[ARandomGod]

That could be one reason, but there is another.

If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.

This phrase is also used in the Knockdown discussions.

...

So no, this would not work.

Ah, good point. I'm glad it was pointed out. However, while it's certainly a decent interpretation of intent, I'd say from a Lawful point of RAW view, this looks like a valid 'loophole'. Thereby placing this interpretation into a defacto 'house-rule'.

...
Improved Trip gives you a free trip attempt, as if you hadn't used your attack to trip.

With Cause Overreach, there's no attack.
...

Having used no attack is very much as if you didn't use an attack. In fact, it's not only as if, it's exactly. Of course, I can see that this implies that the author thought that there had to BE an attack used to make a trip attempt, the feat clearly doesn't state that as a requirement. And when you throw in a separate feat that allows you to make a trip attempt via a means that does not use an attack, the way this feat is worded will allow you to then make a follow up attempt.

You meantion KnockDown discussions, was this the deciding factor there? Or is there more to add?

 

[KarinsDad]

Ah, good point. I'm glad it was pointed out. However, while it's certainly a decent interpretation of intent, I'd say from a Lawful point of RAW view, this looks like a valid 'loophole'. Thereby placing this interpretation into a defacto 'house-rule'.

It's not a loophole, it's the rule as written. You only get the extra attack if you gave up an attack to get the trip. If that phrase were not in the book, then you could get the extra attack.

Not only that, but WotC clarified Knockdown to work this was as well, hence, it is not just intent, it is the rules for Knockdown.

So, not only is that phrase in the Improved Trip feat, but WotC interpreted a similar trip situation to explicitly not allow the extra attack.

 

[ARandomGod]

It's not a loophole, it's the rule as written. You only get the extra attack if you gave up an attack to get the trip. If that phrase were not in the book, then you could get the extra attack.

I have to disagree. I don't see the rules as written saying that you have to give up an attack first. If I'm missing some phrase, please point it out. But the phase that's there (...as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.) doesn't qualify as saying you have to give up an attack in a trip attempt as prerequisite to making the attack the feat grants.

It does say "If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent " which means that with the feat, if you trip an opponent in melee combat*, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent. ... the following "as if..." phrase meantioned above simply clarifies that you do get this attack even IF you used one on the trip attempt, it does not say that you HAVE to have used one.


Now, of course, if the AoO granted from Elusive Target doesn't count as melee combat, there's a RAW justification why this combo wouldn't work.

Not only that, but WotC clarified Knockdown to work this was as well, hence, it is not just intent, it is the rules for Knockdown.

Now I get to ask, where did they 'clarify' this? Was it in a rules errata, or just in an article interpreting the rules? And what was the clarification on, exactly? (And who did the clarification, for that matter) Because an errata on the Knockdown feat wouldn't effect the Improved Trip feat nor the Elusive Target feat... indeed the existence of such an errata would be proof that without the errata for either of those two feat they DO combine. For that matter, the existance of someone, anyone, making a 'clarification' demonstrates that the rule As Written allows these two feats to combine.

So, not only is that phrase in the Improved Trip feat, but WotC interpreted a similar trip situation to explicitly not allow the extra attack.

Of course, that does confirm my suspicion that the original feat (improved trip) assumed that you'd have to be giving up an attack, and therefore didn't see the need to make it a requirement that you do so. And also possibly that the writers of the Elusive Target didn't see this potential (or won't admit to it, or hoped noone would meantion it). However, without errata to re-word the rule, as it is currently written it would allow you to follow up your successful trip attempt with an attack, no matter how you got the trip attempt.


Note: I am, at this point, speaking from a highly Lawful "Rules As Written" viewpoint and not a more reasonable "rules as intended", or even "rules as balanced" viewpoint. In general I play more in the second (and third) catagory, and not in RAW mode.

But to fully understand and control Chaos (creativity) you have to fully understand Law, in all it's forms. For Law is a creation of chaos, and really simply a temporary manifestation within chaos.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have to disagree. I don't see the rules as written saying that you have to give up an attack first. If I'm missing some phrase, please point it out. But the phase that's there (...as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.) doesn't qualify as saying you have to give up an attack in a trip attempt as prerequisite to making the attack the feat grants.

It does say "If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent " which means that with the feat, if you trip an opponent in melee combat*, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent. ... the following "as if..." phrase meantioned above simply clarifies that you do get this attack even IF you used one on the trip attempt, it does not say that you HAVE to have used one.

If you kiss your wife, you immediately get to pinch her butt as if you hadn’t used your pinch action for the kiss attempt.

This doesn't say that everytime you kiss your wife, you get to pinch her butt (maybe your hands are busy doing something else). It says that you only get to do it if you used the kiss action in place of your pinch action (where your hands were available to pinch).

You cannot just drop the "as if" portion of the sentence off "as if" (pun intended) it didn't exist.

Now I get to ask, where did they 'clarify' this? Was it in a rules errata, or just in an article interpreting the rules? And what was the clarification on, exactly? (And who did the clarification, for that matter) Because an errata on the Knockdown feat wouldn't effect the Improved Trip feat nor the Elusive Target feat... indeed the existence of such an errata would be proof that without the errata for either of those two feat they DO combine. For that matter, the existance of someone, anyone, making a 'clarification' demonstrates that the rule As Written allows these two feats to combine.

This is extremely poor logic. Just because WotC makes a clarification on a rule does not mean that the rule means something other than what it states. It just means that the rule is not crystal clear without careful examination, hence, WotC clarifies it.

 

[ARandomGod]

If you kiss your wife, you immediately get to pinch her butt as if you hadn’t used your pinch action for the kiss attempt.

This doesn't say that everytime you kiss your wife, you get to pinch her butt (maybe your hands are busy doing something else). It says that you only get to do it if you used the kiss action in place of your pinch action (where your hands were available to pinch).

You cannot just drop the "as if" portion of the sentence off "as if" (pun intended) it didn't exist.

However, the above states that if I kiss my wife, I immediately get to pinch her butt. We're assuming that I'm abandoning my pinch action to take the kiss action, but if I got the kiss action from something else, perhaps byt provoking a tickle of opportunity, well, I'd still get that pinch from the kiss.

This is extremely poor logic. Just because WotC makes a clarification on a rule does not mean that the rule means something other than what it states. It just means that the rule is not crystal clear without careful examination, hence, WotC clarifies it.

I ... don't understand your point. I mean, I understand that you're attempting to say I'm using poor logic without supporting your point, yes.

My point above wasn't logic, it was a question. I'm not sure why you thought my question used poor logic. But even a poorly thought out question is a question.

However, I'll attempt some sort of response, based on

"Just because WotC makes a clarification on a rule does not mean that the rule means something other than what it states."

I was not, in fact, attempting to say that WoTC making a rules clarification would make the rule mean something else. However I did ask where and how, because if it wasn't an errata, then it's not actually a rules clarification, it's some guy's interpretation... and therefore no more valid than yours, or mine. I also asked what exactly the clarification was, since they could be "clarifying" something in Knockdown that doesn't directly bear, or only bears tangentially, on Improved Trip - elusive target.


I did attempt to say that if an errata (or rules clarification) on a DIFFERENT rule that has similiar wording were needed, then a similiar errata on this rule would also be needed. Therefore the presence of an errata on rule B does not imply a similiar errata on rule A, however it very well might indicate that one "should" be made.

 

[ARandomGod]

Further:

It just means that the rule is not crystal clear without careful examination, hence, WotC clarifies it.

I agree. If a rule (We'll call it rule B) needs clarification, and it is clarified, that is good. But that doesn't give clarification to ALL rules, only to that rule. If there is a similiar rule, and someone espouses that this similiar rule was unclear (call it rule A), and they further believed that it was unclear in the same manner rule B was unclear... that does indicate that rule A is, in their opinion, needing of clarification. Perhaps identical clarification to that given to rule B. However it does not prove that Rule A is as they think, as it certainly doesn't mean that by RAW rule A is identical to rule B in this way. It cannot mean that RAW-fully without an errate to rule A to make it so. That is the meaning of RAW.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hold on a minute. I can see how clarification might be helpful if you want to stick to the RAW all the time and have no ambiguity in it. However, if you believe that the rule is ambiguous but intent and game balance are both clear, why belabour the point about the RAW? Why not just let intent and balance make the choice between two otherwise ambiguous possibilities clear?

 

[Legildur]

Hold on a minute. I can see how clarification might be helpful if you want to stick to the RAW all the time and have no ambiguity in it. However, if you believe that the rule is ambiguous but intent and game balance are both clear, why belabour the point about the RAW? Why not just let intent and balance make the choice between two otherwise ambiguous possibilities clear?

Because, invariably, Your Mileage WILL Vary and agreement on intent and balance may not be reached.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Evidently, your milage will also vary on the meaning of the RAW. That's one of the things that makes people say it's vague....

Because, invariably, Your Mileage WILL Vary and agreement on intent and balance may not be reached.