Elusive Target + Improved Trip

[Caliban]

I've got a relatively similar character in LG (Balkunish Half-Orc Dervish) who uses the same tactic and I'd say 90% of the time the DM doesn't have a problem with it. I always ask before the game starts and go with whatever they decide. Afterall, it isn't like it's the only thing the character can do. It also works nicely with Diverting Defense - provoke while leaving a flank, your dodge buddy misses you and hits his ally, then you trip your dodge buddy and follow up with the improved trip attack. It works even better if you have the Opportunist ability.

Bill

Oddly enough, this character is a Backlunish half-orc Dervish in LG.

He's a Brb1/Ftr4/Drv2 at the moment. He did worship Al-Akbar at first, but converted to the worship of Kelanen. As a barbarian with a mean streak, he was a rather poor worshiper of the LG baklunish god.

 

[Legildur]

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....

LOL! Probably true. Although I would like to think that there would be less variation when people considered RAW only (disregarding intent etc).

 

[Aloïsius]

I would say no AoO against AoO, and the free attack gained with improved trip is very AoO-like. Allowing someone to have TWO free attack action vs an AoO is against the spirit of the rules IMO and irrealistic. Add high dex combat reflex and boots of springing, and a low-mid level character would be able to trip + attack 6 or 7 ennemy, plus move, plus a normal attack at the end of his move. (a round is 6 second, remember...And this character is not hasted)

 

[ARandomGod]

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

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....

Quoted for Truth.
Intent... Well, I'm not really convinced about intent either way, to be honest. I mean, I'm convinced that Improved Trip wasn't written to encompass this situation, but then it didn't exist when the feat was written. The other feat, however.... well, since the feat specifically meantioned tripping, they would have had to be utter morons NOT to have read the improved trip feat. It's not like there are a lot of other 'trip' feats out there, and Improved Trip is core. They almost certainly saw this combination. Whether they pointed it out or even will admit to it, that's debateable.

Balance... I've never seen it, and so I won't comment on it's balance. I have seen Trip builds, mind you. And they're good from around levels 5-12. But for all the hyper-reaction I've seen some people do they haven't been really over the top. I'd want to see this in play before I'd make a balance call. I do agree that it's something that might push a well built tripper PC over the top, but I can't say that it will. After all, I originally thought that the MT was gonna be pretty powerful! (Once again with that, though, I refrained from nixing it until I'd seen it in play).

Here's a good for instance of differing interpretation of intent and balance:

I would say no AoO against AoO, and the free attack gained with improved trip is very AoO-like. Allowing someone to have TWO free attack action vs an AoO is against the spirit of the rules IMO and irrealistic.

The feat improved trip already, alone, allows you to get "two attacks", or you could interpret the Improved Trip feat as saying you have a potential of also doing damage on your trip, but you have to make two rolls on this one attack... And Aloïsius says that he doesn't like an AoO against an AoO, but the Elusive Target feat grants just that, an AoO against an AoO. So he would say no because he doesn't like the Elusive Target feat at all, and being able to do a better than normal attack (through a feat), is therefore also bad... of course, that's very similiar to the sentiment of saying he wouldn't allow weapon focus on this AoO from an AoO... and really just saying he doesn't like the feat in the first place.

 

[ForceUser]

I don't see why not.

First, you need an Attack of Opportunity
THEN, they need to miss it.
THEN you need to trip them
THEN you need to hit them.

It's not exactly a solid lock chain of events, for the cost of two feats.

I agree with domino. You're burning two feats on it. I'd allow it.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

You asked a question and then gave your own version of the answer. I was stating that your answer was poor logic, not the question.

Your answer boiled down:

If it is an eratta, it doesn't matter.

If it is a clarification, it doesn't matter.

You basically said that no matter what WotC stated and where they stated it, a ruling on Improved Trip for Knockdown does not matter because it is not the same rule.

I am not claiming it is the same rule. I am claiming that this rule supports the rule as written within Improved Trip (i.e. the "as if" clause that you are totally ignoring).

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.

It was the Sword and Fist eratta.


"Knockdown
Insert to end of Benefit:

Use of this feat cannot be combined with Improved Trip to generate an extra attack."


The only thing that Knockdown illustrates is that the "as if" clause is interpreted this way for Knockdown. If it is interpreted that way for Knockdown, it should be interpreted the exact same way for every other combinations of feats, actions, and abilities.

Ignoring the "as if" clause is changing the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree with domino. You're burning two feats on it. I'd allow it.

It's not as if you are not gaining anything with those two feats as is.

Giving them extra power, especially when you are discussing Trip, is questionable with regard to balance.

3.5 Trip is already a fairly devastating action without giving it even more power.

A tripped character has no mobility and he is either effectively at -4 to hit and AC, or he has to give up his ability to do a full round attack and he gets AoOed standing up. This is real potent to begin with.

Throw Combat Reflexes into this mix and a character waltzing through a group of enemies can not only trip most or all of them, but he can get an attack on each one of them while they are down if you rule this way.

That's REAL potent in combat. Moving, plus the equivalent of multi-opponent Trip, plus the equivalent of a multi-opponent attack. Sure, you might not trip them all and one or two of them might hit you in return, but this is huge.

 

[ARandomGod]

You asked a question and then gave your own version of the answer. I was stating that your answer was poor logic, not the question.

Your answer boiled down:

If it is an eratta, it doesn't matter.

If it is a clarification, it doesn't matter.

Ah, well, if that's what you read into my response that's clearly a point of miscommunication, as that's not what I was attempting to say. Just the opposite, in fact. Of course, in the main I was asking more specifically what had been said, but if there's an errata or a clarification it DOES matter.

Now, I do admit that I was saying that if there was an errata on Knockdown, and Knockdown used similiar language pre-errata, then that lends support to my opinion that Elusive target would 'need' an errata too, if we were to disallow making an attack after the trip attempt (per Improved Trip) that Elusive Target granted.

You basically said that no matter what WotC stated and where they stated it, a ruling on Improved Trip for Knockdown does not matter because it is not the same rule.

Well, OK, I will own that partially. Although I didn't state that it does not matter so much as I expressed the opinion that an errata on Knockdown disallowing an attack after the trip actually strengthens the opinion that Elusive Target would grant the attack after the trip.

I am not claiming it is the same rule. I am claiming that this rule supports the rule as written within Improved Trip (i.e. the "as if" clause that you are totally ignoring).



It was the Sword and Fist eratta.


"Knockdown
Insert to end of Benefit:

Use of this feat cannot be combined with Improved Trip to generate an extra attack."


The only thing that Knockdown illustrates is that the "as if" clause is interpreted this way for Knockdown. If it is interpreted that way for Knockdown, it should be interpreted the exact same way for every other combinations of feats, actions, and abilities.

Ignoring the "as if" clause is changing the rules.

I do state that ignoring the "as if" clause does not change the rules, because the clause itself is a clarification that it does grant the attack ANYWAY... and indeed that "as if" something is would be very similiar to something actually BEING< and the Imp Trip stated as if they hadn't used an attack to trip, whereas Elusive Target actually IS not having used a trip attempt....

Ahem.

Onwards. This errata of Knockdown. Now, Knockdown basically switches Improved Trip around. Using Knockdown you:
1) Make an attack
2) If the attack fails, stop
3) If the attack is successful, and deals at least X (10HP?) damage, proceed
4) Make a trip attempt free.

Whereas Improved Trip is the opposite
1) Make a trip attempt
2) If trip attempt fails, stop
3) If trip attempt succeeds, proceed
4) Make an attack.

Since the Knockdown Feat requires Improved Trip in the first place (I'm going by memory here, I could be wrong about this part ... I'm pretty sure I'm not, but I should be IMO, after all, it seems to me to be actually less powerful than Improved Trip), and it does not generate any extra attacks... it instead modifies Improved Trip, it makes sense (to me) that it would not allow a follow-up atteck to be made.

The fact that they made this errate for Knockdown means they felt the wording of Knockdown supported a belief that Knockdown, as it was worded, did indeed allow a follow up attack after the trip that was given for free by the attack. Which leads to the belief that the similiar wording of Elusive Target also allows a follow up attack after the trip.

However, Elusive Target only grants a 1)Trip ..... which with Improved Trip would follow up with a generated 2) Attack.

So this combo yields a 1) Trip attempt 2) Attack if successful.... with TWO feats.

Knockdown without the errata would have yielded with ONE feat a 1)Trip attempt after a normal attack 2) follow up attack after the first attack.

So the errata on Knockdown was to stop people from getting in two attacks from a trip. The Elusive Target combined with Improved Trip only generates ONE attack from a trip.

 

[ARandomGod]

A tripped character has no mobility and he is either effectively at -4 to hit and AC, or he has to give up his ability to do a full round attack and he gets AoOed standing up. This is real potent to begin with.

Throw Combat Reflexes into this mix and a character waltzing through a group of enemies can not only trip most or all of them, but he can get an attack on each one of them while they are down if you rule this way.

Oh yea, it very well might be quite over the top. Don't forget to add in having a large PC (either as a base or through the enlarge spell) and use a spiked chain, so you've got a 20 foot radius in which you can make your attack in addition to all the attacks generated by AoO's.


You'd quickly learn not to take any AoO's that THIS person generated through movement unless you were certan that you'd hit.

Hrmm... But wait, that's a very valid balance point. To utterly negate this feat all you have to do is either 1) Allow him to move through combat without taking AoO's 2) or NOT MISS any AoO's that you did take that were generated from movement.

That's not all that much added on at all really. It's more the tripping in the first place that is a problem. After all, I've already played a number of PC's that can walk through combat without provoking an AoO... well, ususally "tumble" through combat... but they can do it even better, they can sometimes go right through an opponent's square.

Now, for fun, add in the feat "Karmic Strike", where you can generatean AoO from ANY attack that hits you...