Please rate Knock-Down

[Kershek]

To each their own. I personally would rather go by suggestions from the designer than anyone else. It makes it a lot easier to follow one interpretation of the rules when you're the same group of people playing in multiple concurrent games. Of course, everyone's situation is different.

 

[Mistwell]

Pax, I think it might be time to end this debate. You are convinced you are correct. Unless any of us can magically change the actual text of the feat itself (since both the errata, the FAQ, the Sage rulings, and our analysis are insufficient evidence to persuade you that your interpretation is a house rule, and not an official rule), you will stand fastly by your position.

On a different note, does anyone know if "errata" for a particular book has ever been changed, long after it was initially issued? I always thought WOTC issued one fixed errata, and then if there were subsequent changes to be made, it was put in the official FAQ (since that is a changing document).

 

[Zaruthustran]

Did we ever resolved the failed-trip-attack-from-knockdown-feat-invites-counter-trip-attack question?

By the letter of the rule, it seems like a knockdown simply allows a trip attack, and the rules for a trip attack require a counter-trip if the trip fails.

But that makes no sense. For example: I smash you so hard with my club that you are in danger of getting knocked down. Oops! I'm knocked down instead.

Wha?

 

[Crothian]

Did we ever resolved the failed-trip-attack-from-knockdown-feat-invites-counter-trip-attack question?

The Sage said there is no counter trip atempt fora failed knockdown attempt.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Did we ever resolved the failed-trip-attack-from-knockdown-feat-invites-counter-trip-attack question?

By the letter of the rule, it seems like a knockdown simply allows a trip attack, and the rules for a trip attack require a counter-trip if the trip fails.

But that makes no sense. For example: I smash you so hard with my club that you are in danger of getting knocked down. Oops! I'm knocked down instead.

Wha?

It would make sense that if you are hit hard enough you might be off balance for a split second such that I could make a free followup trip attempt in one smooth, coordinated attack motion. In spirit, it is the same idea as taking an AoO (though not the same in mechanical detail).

Tripping is a messy action where your own weapon (or legs) can get tangled up. I think the mechanics are fairly reasonable there.

As a practical matter, Improved Trip/Knockdown has good synergy with Combat Reflexes + reach weapons, Prone Attack, and Quickdraw. It is not difficult to find means of alleviating the downside by using a little foresight.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The Sage said there is no counter trip atempt fora failed knockdown attempt.

Reasonable. But that is not obvious from the rules. I was thinking the opposite.

 

[Pax]

Pax, I think it might be time to end this debate. You are convinced you are correct. Unless any of us can magically change the actual text of the feat itself (since both the errata, the FAQ, the Sage rulings, and our analysis are insufficient evidence to persuade you that your interpretation is a house rule, and not an official rule), you will stand fastly by your position.

The thingis, people are holding up the FAQ and the off-the-cuff rulign sof The Sage as being The One True Rule .. only hte published core rules and the errata make that.

I don't argue that the errata'd Knockdown Feat disallows stacking with Improved Trip.

I DO argue that it should never have been reworded to do so. Whole different matter.

On a different note, does anyone know if "errata" for a particular book has ever been changed, long after it was initially issued? I always thought WOTC issued one fixed errata, and then if there were subsequent changes to be made, it was put in the official FAQ (since that is a changing document).

The PHB errata, at least in the early days, was updated more than once. Errata, by it's definition, SHOULD be updated when and as more errors are discovered.

A good example of how to handle errata woudl be how SJGames does it for GURPS (www.sjgames.com). The document is, if needed, subject to periodic updates, and you can get the whoel file or, IIRC, the most-recent partial listing, of only changes between the prior and now-current Errata.

IOW, they errata the errata, where needed.

I still say, a FAQ is an explanative document meant to clarify the rules, not a corrective document meant to update the rules. A FAQ that adds previously-nonexisting items to teh rules, is going about things VERY BADLY, because it is reasonably arguable that such additions are not official rules, but onlysuggested ways to handle non-covered elements of the games.

And of course, suggestions != rules.

Originally posted by Crothian:
The Sage said there is no counter trip atempt fora failed knockdown attempt.

And like I said, until it gets into the errata, it's not a rule, and in fact is contradictory to the official RULES of the game.

 

[Crothian]

And like I said, until it gets into the errata, it's not a rule, and in fact is contradictory to the official RULES of the game.

The FAQ and the the Sage are there to make clarifications on the rules. I think on the knockdown issue they did a fine job of clarify a poorly written feat. Many of use use the Sage and the FAQ becasue they do clarify and answer the tough questions. They are not always right, but here I think they are.

And yes, technically speaking the sage and the FAQ are not there to change the rules. However, being from the same company that wrote these feats, they have a greater ability of setting the record straight as it was meant to be.

 

[kreynolds]

And like I said, until it gets into the errata, it's not a rule, and in fact is contradictory to the official RULES of the game.

Then have fun with them. Debating whether or not a ruling makes sense based upon the mere fact that the Sage is involved is pointless.

My personal opinion, which I developed after seeing this feat in action for well over a solid year, is that the Knock Down feat would be far less useful, if at all, if it allowed a follow-up trip attempt on a failed knock down. YMMV.

 

[Jeremy]

Until and unless they label it "errata" ... and not a nanosecond before.

Then perhaps you shouldn't state things like this, no?

So the problem is you don't think the feat should have been errata'ed? Sheez, if it were that simple.. Ok, so don't errata it. Play it however you like. But making statements like

... the FAQ isn't worth as much as what I wipe my backside with after making use of the porcelain throne.

And then giving us your interpretation of the rules that no one but you seems to agree with is not likely to make us agree with your take of the feat or the FAQ.

Perhaps you are going about this the wrong way.