Knockdown feat

[Iku Rex]

As written/described/clarified by the Sage, the "free trip attack" was actually the result of the impact of the swing. Hence, you didn't have to drop your weapon, or use a trip-appropriate weapon, and hence, no counter-trip.

Knock-Down [General]

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +2, Improved Trip, Str 15.

Benefit: Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee with a single attack, you may make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.

So: "Make a trip attack". What's a trip attack?

Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.

If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender's Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a -4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid. If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you.

The bolded text describes part of a "trip attack", and is not removed by the feat. Based on the RAW, the Sage was wrong. (Do you have the original Sage ruling? IIRC it was from some informal venue, not the FAQ.)

That's why it was called "Knockdown." Now, if someone wanted to create a fit that granted a free normal trip attack with each attack, that might be possible to balance, though I'm not sure I can see the logistics behind it.

I'm not sure if I can see why a feat that lets you use all your special modifiers on Strength checks to trip wouldn't use the usual trip mechanic. If the trip is truly just the result of the "impact of the swing" then every high-damage attack should be a trip attack, and the DC to remain standing should depend on the damage dealt.

Determine the in-game effects based on the game mechanics.

Edit: Oh, and regarding intent: Why would they make point out of adding the word "may" to the feat if making the trip attack carries no risk?

 

[Murrdox]

When we played with "Knockdown" we allowed the fact that if you failed the trip, the defender could indeed attempt to trip you.

We also did not allow the use of weapons that don't allow for trip attacks to be used in combination with Knockdown.

Without these two restrictions, Knockdown simply becomes too powerful, even if it doesn't give you the extra attack from "Improved Trip", which it does not.

What we took this to mean is that when the feat says you "May" may a trip attack as a free action, you are intentionally using tactics to trip your opponent as part of the attack. Thus, just like a normal trip, your opponent has the ability to attempt to counter-trip you.

Of course, this doesn't make PERFECT sense, because worded like this, one should have to DECLARE a "knockdown" attempt before an attack is even made, much like combat expertise or power attack. However, this was how we adjusted what we thought was an over-powered feat.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I played a monk with this feat, sandals of tiger leaping (from s&f as well), and another feat that let me add double my str bonus on charge attacks made by jumping and kicking the target. Basically, first round of combat, it would go: fly kick-->stun-->trip-->rest of flurry on prone, stunned target-->rest of party gangs prone, stunned target.
The first attack thanks to the items and feats did about 50 or so base damage. And from there, the enemy was just done. The ONLY things that kept it from being a joke were the limitations on tripping based on size and the fact that jumping into a group of enemies was bad for my health. All in all, the feat seemed to range from over-powered to mind-bendingly broken depending on the situation.

 

[melkorspawn]

I was reading the thread, and when I got to StreamOfTheSky's post, I got very confused for a milisecond. "How did I already respond?"

 

[Hypersmurf]

One of my players found it in the 3.5 SRD, so I assume it has, but we're not sure which book it came out in.

Like the Epic section of the SRD, the Divine section of the SRD is based on a 3E rulebook, so the content is actually 3E. Notice how the Domains section includes Symbol, Emotion, Random Action - spells that don't exist in 3.5.

It's been tweaked in places to look more 3.5ish - 'Combat Expertise' instead of 'Expertise', Persistent Spell being a +6-level metamagic feat, etc - but it's 3E content. Most of it (including Knockdown) has never been published in a WotC 3.5 book.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Like the Epic section of the SRD, the Divine section of the SRD is based on a 3E rulebook, so the content is actually 3E. Notice how the Domains section includes Symbol, Emotion, Random Action - spells that don't exist in 3.5. <snip>

So Hyp, in your opinion, by being included in the 3.5e SRD, does that make it Core Rules for 3.5e? (ignoring the obvious 3.0e heritage of the material) Or does it need to be 'published' to attain that distinction?

Seems like a lazy approach on the behalf of WotC, particularly when they failed to include the Sword and Fist errata for the Knockdown feat.

Also, you made the point that the 3.5e SRD includes both the Epic and Divine sections. How did Knockdown get included in the SRD then? I recall it being published in Sword & Fist. Was it published elsewhere? (my book collection isn't that extensive).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, you made the point that the 3.5e SRD includes both the Epic and Divine sections. How did Knockdown get included in the SRD then? I recall it being published in Sword & Fist. Was it published elsewhere? (my book collection isn't that extensive).

I believe it was reprinted in 3E Deities and Demigods, since it was used by a creature or deity in the book... but I don't have the book, so I'm not sure.

And no, the SRD is not the 3.5 D&D Core Rules.

-Hyp.

 

[shilsen]

Like the Epic section of the SRD, the Divine section of the SRD is based on a 3E rulebook, so the content is actually 3E. Notice how the Domains section includes Symbol, Emotion, Random Action - spells that don't exist in 3.5.

It's been tweaked in places to look more 3.5ish - 'Combat Expertise' instead of 'Expertise', Persistent Spell being a +6-level metamagic feat, etc - but it's 3E content. Most of it (including Knockdown) has never been published in a WotC 3.5 book.

-Hyp.

Thanks. I never use the SRD, so I hadn't checked.

And no, the SRD is not the 3.5 D&D Core Rules.

True. There are so many little snippets of information missing from the SRD that relying on it completely often leads to errors that wouldn't happen if one were using the published rules.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I was reading the thread, and when I got to StreamOfTheSky's post, I got very confused for a milisecond. "How did I already respond?"

Sorry, I just picked this avatar because I had nothing better. I'll change it if I can find a Suikoden-related picture that fits.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

This is one of those feats that I've assumed was left out of 3.5 for a reason. Whenever a player "discovers" it (and it becomes a no-brainer for them to take), I have to explain why I believe it's unbalanced and was left out of 3.5. If it was fine or could be fixed, it would have been reprinted by now.