Karmic Strike: Undefeatable.......?

[moritheil]

And on a side note, I seriously doubt the sanity of the character if they decide to take on a creature that can dish 2x the damage that it can.

Most effective combat monks act as though they're of doubtful sanity anyway, since they regularly and deliberately separate themselves from the group they're fighting with.

 

[Wilphe]

Note that technically we're talking four feats--Dodge & Combat Expertise are the prereqs for KS. Combat Reflexes makes it especially powerful. Big investment. Of course, a human monk could have all of those by third level....

A human monk that needs a 13 INT and hence 5 good stats rather than 4...

 

[Hawken]

Originally Posted by Felon
Note that technically we're talking four feats--Dodge & Combat Expertise are the prereqs for KS. Combat Reflexes makes it especially powerful. Big investment. Of course, a human monk could have all of those by third level....

Incorrect. Dex 13+ and Dodge are the only requirements for KS. Combat Expertise doesn't factor into it at all. However you could use it to offset some or all of the AC penalty of KS--at the expense of reducing your chances of hitting with your AOOs. Combat Reflexes makes the feat truly useful, but not powerful by any means since KS is so easily bypassed by alternate attacks. A 1st level human monk (with a 13+ Dex) could take Dodge and KS at 1st level, and at the 2nd monk level get Combat Reflexes as part of the class. A fighter could do the same and a human fighter could get all 3 at 1st level! Not a "big investment" at all!

 

[Hawken]

I quoted IUS above - it states that you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack unarmed.

Those are the words it uses.

How is that different from your Improved Grapple argument?

In my post right before yours, I pointed out, that while IUS negates the AOO for attacking an armed opponent while armed, it would not stop the AOO by KS because KS allows the person an AOO whether the attacking opponent is armed or unarmed. IUS considers an unarmed person armed so they no longer draw AOO for making unarmed attacks. KS grants AOOs for armed or unarmed melee attack rolls, so IUS wouldn't negate it.

With IG, it specifically states that it negates AOOs for starting a grapple. IG specifically prevents AOOs drawn by making grapple attempts. So IG bypasses KS. KS does not prevent both because those two feats do different things. IG prevents KS because it specifically allows grapple attempts without drawing AOO. IUS does not prevent KS because it only treats unarmed attacks as armed attacks (which has the effects of eliminating AOO when attacking an armed foe unarmed), it does not specifically prevent AOOs for making an unarmed attack.

I’m going to side with the fact that KS trumps the Improved **** attacks

That is not a fact. That is your opinion. KS states it grants an AOO for successful melee attacks. IG states that it prevents AOOs for grapple attempts. So, IG would prevent the AOO. You can have it your way in your game, but that would be disregarding the rules of the IG feat as they are written.

For example if you were to have KS and go up against an opponent w/o Improved Grapple and they try to grapple you, would you get two AoO? No you would not, as dictated in the PHB you would only receive one. However conceptually you would get two AoO. And continuing with my conceptual thought process the Improved **** would only eliminate one of those two AoO. Hence KS would still work.

No, you wouldn't get 2 AOO, conceptually or otherwise. In that situation, there maybe two conditions for an AOO, but it would be only one AOO as the two conditions are exclusive and independent of each other. IG negates both of those conditions, as long as a grapple attempt is being made. If you had IG and didn't try to grapple, then, yes, AOO as normal. But IG specifically removes the condition of drawing an AOO while attempting a grapple.

The Improved XXXX feats negate the AoO for that particular action (Attacking unarmed, attempting a grapple/trip/disarm), but KS would still allow an AoO if the opponent hits.

You have it right except for the grapple. See above for reasons why. IG negates AOOs for grapple attempts, period; whether the attempt succeeds or fails.

Question. Is a successfull Trip a true Hit? How about a Disarm or Sunder? Grapple is, because you deal damage and are directly attacking the opponent. The others are not quite as clear.

This depends on your definition of a "hit". Since with Trip, Disarm, Sunder and Grapple, you are not inflicting damage. Grapple is not a hit because it does not, in and of itself, inflict damage.

Hmm. You made a couple more mistakes while disagreeing with me.

Hype already pointed out one. The other is that you retain your Dex bonus to AC against someone you're grappling.

In the example I stated, it was about a pinned opponent. A pinned opponent is immobilized and, being unable to move, does not get Dexterity bonuses to AC. In fact, an immobile character would have a Dex of 0, so he would have a -5 penalty to AC, and thus be easier to hit. No mistake on my part. However, you can feel free to disagree with me about the penalty to AC since that is not explicitly stated as a consequence of being pinned. However, unless I am mistaken, there are parts of the PHB and/or DMG that state that immobile things have an effective Dex of 0.

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf
Karmic Strike allows an AoO any time you are hit with a melee attack. Either this is prevented by both IUS and Improved Grapple, or by neither.

Yep.

Nope. That is Hypersmurf's own opinion and your agreement with him. Nothing more. To understand why IUS fails against KS and IG doesn't read at the top of this post.

 

[Legildur]

Ever since I first laid my eyes on the Karmic Strike feat I've always wondered how it would fit with a Barbarian?

I don't know about your games, but in my live games we ALWAYS have at least one half-orc Barbarian wielding a two-handed weapon (greatsword or greataxe) with Power Attack and Cleave feats as a minimum. With ability scores focussed on Strength and Constitution (and hence not much focus on Dexterity), restricted to medium armor, typically not using a shield, and taking a -2 penalty to AC when raging, we find that sure, they dish out the damage by the spade full, but also take it pretty hard themselves with a crappy armor class.

Rarely do the opponents miss the Barbarian, so why not capitalise on that and take Karmic Strike, and really dish out some damage? Hell, if you are going to get hit anyway, might as well make some mileage from it.

And if the feat chain is so good, why doesn't everyone take it? Because, like so many other 'cool' feat chains, it is situational.

 

[Hypersmurf]

With IG, it specifically states that it negates AOOs for starting a grapple.

But Karmic Strike doesn't provide an AoO for starting a grapple. It provides an AoO for hitting with a melee attack.

IG negates an AoO for starting a grapple. It doesn't negate an AoO for hitting with a melee attack, which is what Karmic Strike is triggering from.

Just like IUS negates "attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack unarmed", but doesn't negate AoOs for hitting with a melee attack.

Karmic Strike triggers off a hit from a melee attack, whether that attack is initiating a grapple or not. Improved Grapple only negates an AoO from initiating a grapple. It's exactly the same situation as the unarmed strike - the negation is focused to narrowly to include Karmic Strike.

-Hyp.

 

[youspoonybard]

Ever since I first laid my eyes on the Karmic Strike feat I've always wondered how it would fit with a Barbarian?

My thoughts as well. You want to be hit, but take little damage.

Damage Reduction, anyone? Sure, the Barbarian doesn't get THAT much reduction, but it's better than nothing...

 

[Felon]

In the example I stated, it was about a pinned opponent. A pinned opponent is immobilized and, being unable to move, does not get Dexterity bonuses to AC. In fact, an immobile character would have a Dex of 0, so he would have a -5 penalty to AC, and thus be easier to hit. No mistake on my part. However, you can feel free to disagree with me about the penalty to AC since that is not explicitly stated as a consequence of being pinned. However, unless I am mistaken, there are parts of the PHB and/or DMG that state that immobile things have an effective Dex of 0.

Interesting point. True, there are situations where an immobile character is reduced to 0 Dexterity, but upon checking the glossary of special conditions, there is no condition for "immobile" that defines across-the-board what the effects are of immobilization in game terms. A character has to actually be helpless to be at 0 Dexterity, but he might conceivably lose his Dexterity bonus against his fellow grapplers. However, it's not specifically mentioned. The pinned character does take a -4 penalty to AC against other opponents, in addition to losing his Dex against them, but it looks like he would retain full AC against his pinner.

 

[Felon]

My thoughts as well. You want to be hit, but take little damage.

Damage Reduction, anyone? Sure, the Barbarian doesn't get THAT much reduction, but it's better than nothing...

Sure, not bad. Only problem is, Combat Expertise is a prereq, so he'd lose access to the feat while raging.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure, not bad. Only problem is, Combat Expertise is a prereq, so he'd lose access to the feat while raging.

No, he still has Combat Expertise, he just can't use it. Therefore he still has access to feats that have Combat Expertise as a prerequisite.

A human rogue might have Power Attack and Cleave at 1st level. He can't use Power Attack - his BAB is +0 - but he can still Cleave.

-Hyp.