Jeremy said:
The sage clarification I read said exactly that. No improved trip extra attack, no regular trip counter trip, no weapon restrictions, in all cases it's not a trip attack, it's a special attack that uses the trip mechanics.
Or am I spouting smoke here?
Smoke, sorry.
The feat Knockdown does not mention a special exception to the requirement that the weapon be *capable* of making a Trip attack (perhaps it should, but it does not). The feat Knockdown makes no mention of a special exclusion to the penalties of a failed Trip Attack (perhaps it should, but it does not).
Therefor, as written, in both pre-errata and Errata'd forms, the Knockdown feat can only be used with weapons that themselves allow a trip attack, and, poses the same risks of failure as with any trip attack. It's just a way to get a FREE trip attack, if you hit and score sufficient damage.
originally posted by Ridley's Cohort:
You are only reiteratering a downside already part of Improved Trip. Hypothetically speaking, you have already paid this cost. To my mind, Knockdown is a significant improvement to Improved Trip. Whether you were foolish to get Improved Trip in the first place is not something I can easily answer.
Irrelevant. The risk of Improved Trip is part of the entire Trip-related chain, just as the need to actually "drop" (reduce to 0 or less hp) a foe in order to trigger the benefits of the Cleave-related chain. The cost is part ofthe
chain in both cases.
Cleave lets you attack again, for free (against
any foe within reach of your weapon), if any one of yoru attacks (per round) drops an enemy to 0 or fewer hp. Great cleave takes that, and
adds the ability to do this with each and every attack youhave, not just one per round.
Improved trip lets you attack (only the
same) foe again, if you succeed at a (risky) Trip Attack, for free. Knockdown, to follow the pattern of a feat chain, shold add to or
significantly improve the abilities of Improveds Trip.
Now, if Knockdown specified it could be used with any weapon, and it specified your trip attack was without any risk to yourself -- thatw ould be fine, and disallowing another follow-up via Improved Trip would be okay. However, it does not. In fact, it sets up yet ANOTEHR requirement; not only do you have to HIT with the first attack of the two-attackcombination it specifies, but you have to cross a certain damage threshhold, too!
Knockdown isnot an enhanced version of improved trip, read that way; it's simply an
alternate form.
... unless it leads to the Improved Trip's bonus attack, too.
As written in Sword and Fist, it is an improvement over
Improved Trip alone. As nerfed by hte Errata, I don't see any reason for it to be the third step in a feat chain, at all.
Any character with Improved Trip is likely to have an appropriate spare weapon that can be discarded. You could pick up Prone Attack. You could use good judgement on who to trip. There are a lot of ways around this problem.
Spare weapons cost money, and if the spare is enchanted, that's yet more money ... therefor that cuts into the characters allowed wealth (table 53-3, if I recall correctly) for his or her character level. And for knockdown, the weappns WILL need to be enchanted at
least to the "Sure Striking +1" level, to enable DR-bypass.
Extra feats: any time, IMO, when you have to take another feat, just tomake the firstone WORK ... the first one needs to be fixed, even if only slightly.
Originally posted by Jeremy:
As KD pointed out, there are a couple of powerful abilities that knockdown has been ruled to have that you have missed.
1) You don't need a trip weapon to use knockdown. If you have one good, but a great club will work just as well as an unarmed strike to deck someone. 10 points of damage is the only prerequisite.
Hmm,
which part of the errata'd Feat mentions this, exactly?
Where in the errata is this stated, again ... ?
I'm simply not seeing it, and until it makes it's way into the errata, something in the FAQ isn't a rule or ruling, it's a suggested interpretation, IMO.
2) As it is not a trip so much as knocking someone down with damage (decided by using the trip mechanic) not only do you not get the improved trip follow up attack (as clarified in errata) but you also do not provide a counter trip attempt if you fail. There was no tug of war with the legs to allow it. It was a single blow to the right place (maybe the crook of a hip or the side or back of a knee) that had the chance to send the foe sprawling. No counter trips.
All well and good as a house rule for your campaign, however, the rules don't state that. The Feat only states, you get a free "trip attack" ... which then refers you to the PHB rules on trips, which is where the counter-trip is detailed. Ergo ... see my questions above, this time in regards where in the errata the lack of vulnerability to counter-trip is located.
And as I pointed out in my monk example above, it is still a powerful and useful feat even when used with the proper errata. Without it, you may acquire some dirty looks from your gaming fellows. Especially when one of them looks up the errata and founds you have been doing it wrong.
No such thing as "doing it wrong" until and unless the DM or a player brings the errata to the table, and the group decides to accept said errata in that campaign -- at least, in cses where the purchased, written rule version has been followed to the letter.
[/b]Might want to go check out the Official D&D FAQ.[/b]
FAQ != Errata; it's nice enough, but I don't see anythign in the *rules*, errata'd or not, that supports the conclusion that Knockdown is without the normal risk for a Trip, and without the normal requirement that the weapon be
capable of making a trip attack. If their intentions were such, they shoudl have put wording to that effect intot he errata'd version of th feat, and been done with it.
And IMO, printed rules trump FAQs, be the rules pre- or post- Errata.
Originally posted by KarinsDad:
The issue here is the ease in which Knockdown can be done.
How hard is it to roll 10 points of damage? Typically it‘s fairly easy, in fact, it is often automatic at mid to high level for a straight combatant type character. For example, if your +2 Longsword and 18 Strength and Weapon Specialization could manage a 9, you could easily have the Cleric buff you up with Bulls Strength, or you could put one point in via Power Attack, etc. It is a piece of cake to automatically get a minimum of 10 points of damage for most combatant types at mid to high level.
Presupposes magic items, high strength, weapon specialisation, and Power Attack. Not every fighter will have every one of those elements for
every encounter. And not every character will be a fighter, who might want to make use of the Knockdown feat.
How hard is it to roll a touch attack on the trip attempt? Typically you have a 95% chance by the time a character acquires this feat and will only fail on a one.
How hard is it to make the opposed check to trip? Typically, you only do this when your opponent appears less capable, hence, your chance is typically better than 50%.
AH! Excuse me, but you're misrepresentign slightly. Consider a % of ALL ATTACKS YOU MAKE, not all attempts you make, whenmeasuring how often a Knockdown-enhanced attack will be
useful. If, much of the time, you won't even dare make the Trip attempt, then, the feat's utility becomes much less, doesn't it?
As for making touch attacks that fail only on a one ... that entirely depends on what you are facing. For a fighter(6) or higher with an 18 strength or higher, yes, you're right, most opponents, even with mild DEX and/or magical bonusses to touch attacks will only be missed on a 1, when facign apropriate-CR foes.
For, say, a Rogue-10 in similarly apropriate circumstances, that's not so assured, now is it?
As for the opposed check; poor rolls can still screw you up. 50/50 odds of getting tripped yourself ... SUCK. I should know; been there, done that, with a Half-Orc Fighter-8 using that exact feat selection above (adjusted to reflect both higher level and lackof Human racial feat, of course). I kept rolling low all evening, and the willowy elf I was trying to trip kept rolling 19's and 20's. Same die shared between us, mind, rolled completely openly.
...
The real question WRT your analysis of the odds of successfully tripping someone (omitted for length) is: HOW OFTEN is your chance 50% or better?
Finally, the argument that only certain weapons can trip is specious. First off, the type of character who takes Improved Trip and Knockdown is often likely going to take a weapon that can trip. Just like a character who takes Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting will most likely take weapons that allow him to use those feats.
And when the PC's are in a tavern, with their gear stowed safely in their rooms upstairs?
Or if local city ordinances specify peace-bonding any weapon over the size of a dagger, and perhaps branding and exile are among the LEAST harsh punishments for breaking the peace-bond?
OR any number of
other classic means by which DMs have and will continue to seperate PC's from their favorite weaponry. What then?
Plus, you do not NEED a trip weapon in order to trip. I can attack with a longsword with Knockdown, do the 10 points of damage, and then attempt to trip you with my leg. Nothing in S&F says that I have to use the same weapon to attempt to trip you. It just says that I have to do it against the same target. Ditto for Improved Trip, or any trip for that matter.
Not according to the feat as it is printed, nor according to the feat after applying Errata. IF you use your leg, then, that's essentially fighting with two weapons (sword and leg), same as a non-monk hitting once with each fist -- take the penalties, including to the ORIGINAL attack, or you cannot do so.
Otherwise, the rules do not support use of Knockdwon, without a weapon capable fo
making the follow-up attack (taking two-weapon penalties in order to use one's leg would be a creative sidestep, if forced to use non-favorite weapons; at least unarmed attacks are always "light" weapons, limiting the penalties, but you DO still suffer the penalties, across the board).
And furthermore ... I, at least, do not worship the WOTC imprint as though anything it is put upon, is to be treated as the unvarnished One True Word of God, to be taken literally, exactly, and unchangably, on penalty of Eternal Torment. 
