Please rate Knock-Down

[KarinsDad]

My take on each issue:

1) The Sage is just another DM input. By the way he sometimes comes out from left field, it's difficult to tell if he even opens the book when responding to an Email. I take everything he writes with a grain of salt. He sometimes appears to take the most shallow of positions (i.e. the ones which would at first glance be the obvious interpretation, but not necessarily the ones which further review of additional rules support).

2) The errata and the FAQ are official sources of information. The reason for this with respect to the FAQ is that the information placed into it is actually reviewed by a committee, not just the Sage. Plus, this is information in one location that everyone can look to.

3) Knockdown is too powerful if you allow an extra Improved Trip attack.

4) Knockdown is too powerful if you do not allow a countertrip. Otherwise, it matters not if you face the most powerful of creatures one size larger, the same size, or smaller. You will always make the attempt. Every round. Every situation. No other feat gives you this level of power every single round to lower the AC of your opponents and to take full round actions away from them. And, if you combine it with things like Polymorph Other, even very old Dragons would not be immune to trips.

I think 10 points of damage, even in a good location, should not mean jack to most devils and demons the vast majority of the time. But, without a countertrip, they are just cannon fodder, waiting for some Fighter to come along and minimize their number of attacks per round and forcing them to rely on spells.

5) This concept of using part of the rules and not using them all is bogus. For consistency, the rules should stay the same, regardless of the situation they are applied to. I think it is bogus to remove the extra Improved Trip attack, however, I understand the rationale for doing so. Otherwise, a powerful feat becomes unbalanced. However, I think they should have come up with a different way (i.e. come up with some other limiting factor) than to make an exception to the Improved Trip rules. The Sage removing the counter trip rules just exacerbates the situation. Now, it is a trip that does not follow all of the trip rules. Bogus. IMO.

 

[Jeremy]

Makes sense.

Solution in your campaign?

 

[Pax]

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.

The purpose of a FAQ is to answer questions in an interpretive way -- not to add additional factors. One should not *HAVE* to refer to a FAQ to have access to all the details and rules pertinent to a given situation; one should only need to refer to the FAQ when a rule exists, and you've read it, but don't understand the meaning of what is written. The moment a FAQ attempts to add a new rule, it invalidates itself; it is no longer merely answering questions about the rules, it is adding to the rules, and thatis not what a FAQ is supposed to be for.

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.

If the Sage's answers ewere meant to become an official body of rules-interpretive or rules-additive information, then a careful and precise log of those rulings wouldhave been kept by WOTC. Sicne no such log has been kept, the logical conclusion is, his rulings are in fact not meant to become Official Rules ina nd of themselves, solely and exclusively because "The Sage" says them. The Sage isn't God; get over it already.

The fAQ is the authority on interpreting the rules as they are published and/or errata'd ... but it is not the proper venue for introducing wholly new and heretofore nonexistant rules. Not even close.

So ... nice try, but no cigar for you, thank you for playing.

Oh, and Jeremy: quoting people out of context is very naughty:

originally posted by Jeremy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pax
... 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.

When, actually, I said:

However, where the FAQ interprets in items or assumptions that aren't there in the FIRST place ... the FAQ isn't worth as much as what I wipe my backside with after making use of the porcelain throne.

Gee whillickers, lookit that! CONTEXT changes everything! My statement,which you grossly misquoted by taking only HALF of a statement and therefor robbingit of it's proper context, was a conditional statement and not the absolute you would misrepresent it as having been!

FAQs can be very, very useful tools for increasing understanding of existing rules. But they're not worth the paper they'renot even printed on, if and when they purport to add NEW rules.

Perhaps you are going about this the wrong way.

Perhaps people shoudl stop worshipping the WOTC imprint, and The Sage, as though every thing said by that personage, and/or bearing that imprint, was the One True Word of God -- and think for themselves ... what a novel concept, eh?

Originally posted by KarinsDad:
2) The errata and the FAQ are official sources of information. The reason for this with respect to the FAQ is that the information placed into it is actually reviewed by a committee, not just the Sage. Plus, this is information in one location that everyone can look to.

Agreed, BUT: the FAQ is not a proper venue for new additions to the rules, ergo, "new rules" added via the FAQ are of extremely dubious value, at the absolute, very best. In fact I would hazard to say they are completely and utterly worthless, until and unless the Errata is updated to include those "new rules" ... otherwise they're suggested House Rules, nothing more ... and IMO often far, far less.

Regardless such "new rules" are irrelevant to discussionsof the official state of the rules.

FAQs are interpretive, not additive, not corrective. For additive documents, turn to supplements and the Errata. For corrective documents, turn solely to the Errata (though partsof this are often included, as apparent courtesy, in some supplements).

Therefor, additive elements of a document labeled "FAQ" are, in fact, bankrupt WRT bearing the seal of officialdom as actual Rules.

 

[smetzger]

1. I do not know what the purpose of the FAQ is anymore. The Sage has included some things in it which really should go in errate. It may be that the Sage has knowledge of things which should be in errata but has not been put into errata yet. And since he is unable to personally influence the time table for posting errata he has included these things in Sage advice. But thats all pure conjecture on my part.

2. I have always thought that a trip action could be done with any weapon.

3. Without the Errata this feat is way to powerful.

4. Pax, if you want to discuss your own House Rules, the House Rule forum would be a more appropriate place.

Ok, so after 46 votes we have an average of 6.72. So, its one of the better feats. I think it would combine quite well with Spring Attack. But thats allot of Feats and Great Cleave would probably be better with Spring Attack.

10. None
9. None
8. None
7. Expert Tactician
6. Superior Expertise, Improved Sunder, Knock-Down
5. Close Quarters Fighting, Hold The LIne
4. Blindsight 5-foot radius, Fists of Iron, Death Blow
3. Feign Weakness, Extra Stunning Attacks, Dual Strike, Circle Kick, Eyes in the Back of Your Head
2. Eagle Claw Attack, Improved Overrun, Dirty Fighting
1. None

 

[Jeremy]

Gee whillickers, lookit that! CONTEXT changes everything! My statement,which you grossly misquoted by taking only HALF of a statement and therefor robbingit of it's proper context, was a conditional statement and not the absolute you would misrepresent it as having been!

But you missed the point again. The point wasn't that your points are inflamatory and disuade many from giving your points credence, it's that your tone and chosen words, such as the ones I quoted are.

As I said, perhaps you are going about this in the wrong way.

I didn't quote the whole paragraph because it was only that part of it which was a good example of your ...lack of courtesy? In any case, that was the point. So perhaps you might wish to reconsider.

 

[Mistwell]

The purpose of a FAQ is to answer questions in an interpretive way -- not to add additional factors.

Where exactly did you get this idea from? The purpose of the FAQ is to answer questions about the rules. There is nothing in the stated purpose of a FAQ that limits its jurisdiction to interpretive answers. Having looked "FAQ" up in every online dictionary I could find, none of them limited the content of a "FAQ" to interpretive answers. All of them simply said "answers". And the definition of "answer" included " a solution of a problem". So yes, a list of answers to frequent questions can include a solution to a problem, and that solution need not be interpretive in nature. It can just as easily include "additional factors".

One should not *HAVE* to refer to a FAQ to have access to all the details and rules pertinent to a given situation; one should only need to refer to the FAQ when a rule exists, and you've read it, but don't understand the meaning of what is written. The moment a FAQ attempts to add a new rule, it invalidates itself; it is no longer merely answering questions about the rules, it is adding to the rules, and that is not what a FAQ is supposed to be for.

Again, where are you getting this? Where does it say that an answer cannot add to the rules? Why can't you refer to a FAQ when the rules don't seem to be working well (not that you don't understand them) and you are seeking an answer to a problem with the rules? And where are you getting the "that is not what a FAQ is supposed to be for"? Who said? Dictionaries don't seem to agree with your view on the purpose of a FAQ.

If the Sage's answers were meant to become an official body of rules-interpretive or rules-additive information, then a careful and precise log of those rulings would have been kept by WOTC. Since no such log has been kept, the logical conclusion is, his rulings are in fact not meant to become Official Rules in and of themselves, solely and exclusively because "The Sage" says them. The Sage isn't God; get over it already.

I partially agree, and partially disagree. My view is that sage answers published in Dragon magazine are official, and those not published there are unofficial. Those that go into Dragon magazine pass through an editorial process, are preserved for all time in print, and kept by WOTC (probably for later reprinting, as they did with the CD Rom of Dragon Magazines).

The FAQ is the authority on interpreting the rules as they are published and/or errata'd ... but it is not the proper venue for introducing wholly new and heretofore nonexistent rules. Not even close.

Again, you repeat the same contention, and again you do not back up that contention with anything more than your opinion. And that opinion is contrary to the dictionary definition of a FAQ and "answers", and with the view of WOTC concerning their FAQ (since they obvious feel it is a proper venue for rules changes). Right now, it appears that WOTC is using the FAQ to answer all problems with the rules, either with clarifications or additions, subtractions, changes, and other modifications to the rules. Eventually they will hopefully get around to adding rules changes to errata. But since they have not been able to keep up with publishing errata (there is still no official errata document for many of the splat books), they are using the FAQ for now. And that is perfectly legitimate. It is easier for WOTC to change and republish one document (the FAQ) when there is a rules change or rules interpretation, than it is to change two documents (the errata for rules changes, and the FAQ for rules interpretations). It saves them time, and their web publisher time. Hopefully eventually they will organize it better (and the ease of finding data would be the only benefit of splitting rules changes from interpretations).

Snarky portion cut

I'd just like to say that, in my opinion, the context of the quote was proper, since the point was your snarkiness, not the debate over the FAQ's venue. I also think, Pax, that you have gone from defensive to outright ornery. But that's fine, I get that way sometimes too, particularly when I feel like the entire board is ganging up on me.

Perhaps people should stop worshipping the WOTC imprint, and The Sage, as though every thing said by that personage, and/or bearing that imprint, was the One True Word of God -- and think for themselves ... what a novel concept, eh?

People are thinking for themselves. They just disagree with you. They think, as do I, that the FAQ is one proper venue for rules changes. They think, as do I, that the Sage rulings can be useful (not the word of God, just useful).

Agreed, BUT: the FAQ is not a proper venue for new additions to the rules, ergo, "new rules" added via the FAQ are of extremely dubious value, at the absolute, very best. In fact I would hazard to say they are completely and utterly worthless, until and unless the Errata is updated to include those "new rules" ... otherwise they're suggested House Rules, nothing more ... and IMO often far, far less.

Regardless such "new rules" are irrelevant to discussions of the official state of the rules.

FAQs are interpretive, not additive, not corrective. For additive documents, turn to supplements and the Errata. For corrective documents, turn solely to the Errata (though parts of this are often included, as apparent courtesy, in some supplements).

Therefore, additive elements of a document labeled "FAQ" are, in fact, bankrupt WRT bearing the seal of officialdom as actual Rules.

Again you restate your position, though it is not based on anything other than your opinion, contrary to the dictionary definition of "FAQ, and "answers" and WOTC view of the purpose of their FAQ. FAQs can be an additive, corrective document. FAQs can and do add new rules. FAQs are one proper venue for such things.

 

[KarinsDad]

I partially agree, and partially disagree. My view is that sage answers published in Dragon magazine are official, and those not published there are unofficial. Those that go into Dragon magazine pass through an editorial process, are preserved for all time in print, and kept by WOTC (probably for later reprinting, as they did with the CD Rom of Dragon Magazines).

And if they ever put them on CD Rom, then I might actually use them.

But, as is, they are too difficult to reference as paper text has no search capability and Dragon Magazine has no index to rules or rulings (like the core books). Hence, they are merely in my mind, a not very useful set of references and have little to do with official rules (until a softcopy of them is made in order to search for a giving ruling).

 

[Crothian]

If the Sage's answers ewere meant to become an official body of rules-interpretive or rules-additive information, then a careful and precise log of those rulings wouldhave been kept by WOTC. Sicne no such log has been kept, the logical conclusion is, his rulings are in fact not meant to become Official Rules ina nd of themselves, solely and exclusively because "The Sage" says them. The Sage isn't God; get over it already.

Wow. Talk about getting over one's self. Who ever said the sage was god? And just because Wizards doesn't keep a log doesn't mean anything. Your making assumptions on what the puposes of Sage and FAQ really are. Your drawing conclusions from incomplete facts. You are also seeming to take my meanings for something they are not.

The Sage advice and FAQ are tools to help people play the game. Since official errata is not always fast in appeareance they are the next best things we have. Both still rank higher then your opinion on these message boards.

 

[Pax]

Where exactly did you get this idea from?

The english language. Any listing of corrections to errors in a printed work is an "errata" ... that's the word that is to be used.

The purpose of the FAQ is to answer questions about the rules. There is nothing in the stated purpose of a FAQ that limits its jurisdiction to interpretive answers.

Ecept for the fact that FAQs by their very nature provide interpretive answers, you'd be right. The word used for a document that corrects errors in a previously-published document is "errata" ... that's the way the language works. Omissions of entire passages of rules would, in fact, be errors in need of correction. If this omission was due to editting, or due to oversight int eh crafting of certain passages and a lackof realisation the "omitted" passages were needed ... it's still a correction, and belongs in the Errata.

Until it gets there, it is not, by definition, and official correction to the rules. THOSE only come in the form of the Errata.

Having looked "FAQ" up in every online dictionary I could find, none of them limited the content of a "FAQ" to interpretive answers. All of them simply said "answers". And the definition of "answer" included " a solution of a problem". So yes, a list of answers to frequent questions can include a solution to a problem, and that solution need not be interpretive in nature. It can just as easily include "additional factors".

Except, including wholly new material in a FAQ, and then declaring it a *correction* ... violates the definition of "errata" -- that's where corrections belong.

And I say again: I should not have tohunt through a FAQ, line by line, in order to be sure I have every rule to the game.

The Errata maybe.

The FAQ ... definitely not. After going through the Errata, unless I don't understand something, I should not have any questions. It's that simple.

Again, where are you getting this? Where does it say that an answer cannot add to the rules? Why can't you refer to a FAQ when the rules don't seem to be working well (not that you don't understand them) and you are seeking an answer to a problem with the rules? And where are you getting the "that is not what a FAQ is supposed to be for"? Who said? Dictionaries don't seem to agree with your view on the purpose of a FAQ.

By definition, ANY seperate document which purports to correct a previously published work is an errata; correction of omission, wetehr realised at the time of publication or not, is still correction. Ergo, adding new rules is correcting an unrealised omission, so, such belongs in the Errata.

If the FAQ wants to list these ideas, fine. If it wants to discuss them as IF they were rules, fine.

But until they are in an actual errata, they do NOT correct the previously published work.

It's just that simple -- a matter of definition wihtin the english language. Lists of corrections are errata, not FAQs.

I partially agree, and partially disagree. My view is that sage answers published in Dragon magazine are official, and those not published there are unofficial. Those that go into Dragon magazine pass through an editorial process, are preserved for all time in print, and kept by WOTC (probably for later reprinting, as they did with the CD Rom of Dragon Magazines).

You do realise, if I write a lengthy article on the house rules I,personally use, and Dragon decides to accept it (for whateve reason), my house rules go through the same editorial process. What about this editorial process is so special? No, don't trouble yourself, I'll answer it for you: nothing.

Dragon magazine's editors are editing for spelling and typographical errors, PERHAPS for aesthetics WRT ease of reading it. They're not there to vet new rules.

The sage's answers are nothing more than the advice of the presumably-most-experienced-with-the-rules GM. Be they in Dragon, or scrawled on a lavatory wall ... neither place gives more or less weight to his answers.

Again, you repeat the same contention, and again you do not back up that contention with anything more than your opinion. And that opinion is contrary to the dictionary definition of a FAQ and "answers", and with the view of WOTC concerning their FAQ (since they obvious feel it is a proper venue for rules changes).

Then they and you need remedial lessons in the English language. Look up "errata" while you're at the dictionary thing.

Right now, it appears that WOTC is using the FAQ to answer all problems with the rules, either with clarifications or additions, subtractions, changes, and other modifications to the rules. Eventually they will hopefully get around to adding rules changes to errata.

And until they do, it's not an official change to the rules. PERHAPS, a heads-up as to what they PLAN to do later, but, it's not anofficial change to the ruels.

The rules are, ONLY, previously published works and subsequently published errata. Period.

But since they have not been able to keep up with publishing errata (there is still no official errata document for many of the splat books), they are using the FAQ for now. And that is perfectly legitimate. It is easier for WOTC to change and republish one document (the FAQ) when there is a rules change or rules interpretation, than it is to change two documents (the errata for rules changes, and the FAQ for rules interpretations). It saves them time, and their web publisher time. Hopefully eventually they will organize it better (and the ease of finding data would be the only benefit of splitting rules changes from interpretations).

Haven't been able to keep up? Well they've writtenit into the FAQ now haven't they? That means they had time to put it into the Errata as well.

I'd just like to say that, in my opinion, the context of the quote was proper, since the point was your snarkiness, not the debate over the FAQ's venue. I also think, Pax, that you have gone from defensive to outright ornery. But that's fine, I get that way sometimes too, particularly when I feel like the entire board is ganging up on me.

Teh context of the quote was entirely missing, as that context was entirely provided by the first half of THAT SAME SENTENCE.

And yes, I've gone to ornery; I simply cannot believe the WOTC-worshippng silliness I'm beign faced with, time and again.

The FAQ is not an errata, only an errta corrects a previously published document, end of story.

 

[jonrog1]

If you want to skip some bemused snarkiness and just go on to Knockdown discussion, skip on down.

I knew we were in trouble as soon as somebody said a feat had been "nerfed." EverCrack powergamer, anyone?

BUT: the FAQ is not a proper venue for new additions to the rules, ergo, "new rules" added via the FAQ are of extremely dubious value, at the absolute, very best. In fact I would hazard to say they are completely and utterly worthless, until and unless the Errata is updated to include those "new rules" ... otherwise they're suggested House Rules, nothing more ... and IMO often far, far less.

Regardless such "new rules" are irrelevant to discussionsof the official state of the rules.

FAQs are interpretive, not additive, not corrective. For additive documents, turn to supplements and the Errata. For corrective documents, turn solely to the Errata (though partsof this are often included, as apparent courtesy, in some supplements).

Therefor, additive elements of a document labeled "FAQ" are, in fact, bankrupt WRT bearing the seal of officialdom as actual Rules.

Man, even Jesuits aren't this canonical. Even the Pope uses this technique; he issues encyclicals -- FAQ's for the Catholic Church, additive to Canon Law, not just interpretive. And he's frikkin' infallible. Or at least he has been since the mid 1800's. No, really, go look it up, it's weird...

(On a side note: Sure, the FAQ isn't official errata ... in the very strictest, almost Talmudic interpretation of how rules should get changed. If WOTC suddenly renamed the FAQ "ADDITIONAL ERRATA", would it abruptly become an acceptable basis for discussion?)

All I'm saying is, people can be forgiven for either a.) innocently confusing the FAQ with errata, in which case there's no need to get snarky with the "read a dictionary" cr@p or b.)choosing to add the FAQ rules to the discussion, in which case a reasoned reply that this was not relevant may have been in order, rather than attacking the FAQ and any who brought it up.

I think that people are reacting to the fact that when they first brought up the FAQ, you basically smacked them down as idiots for not understanding the difference between FAQ's and erratas, said how FAQ rules interpretations were worthless at the same time you (correctly) argued your right to interpret the rules.

It's not that all these people want to defend the FAQ -- it's that you immediately assumed they were chimps for even bringing it up. You didn't get to ornery, you started at ornery.

And accusing people of "WOTC-worshipping" at the same time you insist that no discussion is valid unless based on the official, errata'd rules ... by WOTC ... is a little weirdly circular.

I disagree with one person's statement that both the Sage and the FAQ have a higher relvance than Pax's opinions on these boards -- that's not what the Open d20 System is about. Everyone's rules interpretations vis-a-vis their own games are the most valid.

Sadly, I think this attempted philosophical underpinning may be doomed, because of the number of role-players who need an "official" framework to use to confirm their "win" and validate themselves; that win being over "monsters" in D&D or other players in the "rules-lawyer" game.

Now ...

KNOCKDOWN DISCUSSION: Let me use the errata'd, official version for now and answer Smetzger's question ...

I've seen it used quite often, and when used properly it's not too powerful and yet tons of game fun.

A quick clarification: You do NOT need a weapon designed for tripping to make your Trip attempt. "Weapons designed for trip attacks" allow you to use those weapons in the melee attack/touch attack starting the trip, give you bonuses in said attacks and allow you to drop them to avoid the conter-trip.

Nowhere in the PHB or SRD says that trip attacks are verboten without such weapons -- there is no "you may ONLY make trip attacks using these weapons, or unarmed".

You just can't use your weapon if it's not designed for tripping, so that "melee attack" is a standard unarmed touch attack using your base BAB+STR. (i.e. tangling up a leg, giving a shove, yada yada).

Just to recap, I understand the CLEAVE/GREAT CLEAVE errata -- people were interpreting "drop" in the Cleave/Great Cleave feats as the colloquial "drop" as in "they fall", when in reality it means "reduce to 0 hit points or less." Agreed all?

Taking away the ability to use IMPROVED TRIP from your successful trip also makes sense. You already get two results from one attack -- possibly getting FOUR (first attack/trip/free attack/ at +4 bonus) is a bit excessive.

When you take into account the relative ease with which a combat PC can score on the average 10 HP of damage, never mind a minimum of 10 HP, this sucker does need to be reigned in a bit. Game balance seems fine.

So, yes, it is third on a feat chain, but what it gives you is flexibility, not extra power. An extra gameplay option -- I can hurt you and then trip you, or trip you and then hurt you.

So in answer to Smez's question way back when -- KNOCKDOWN is of moderate usefullness, very useful and reasonably balanced if the player is tactics-oriented.

Now, to "interpretations":

The "no counter-trip" interpretation may not be part of the SRD, but it makes sense. Even with the counter-trip allowed, Knockdown isn't bad, you just have to choose your opponents more smartly.

If you really need to rules-lawyer it (and in the process engender the hatred of your fellow players and all right-thinking people), saying that the trip attack is a free action makes it different from a straight trip attack (a standard action) allowing a countertrip may make a difference here. Of course, all this hair-splitting is very 2E, what I call the "buzzkill edition."

Part of this confusion comes from : a.) The Trip mechanic ain't particularly well-designed or well-written, and b.) Improved Trip is an oddly designed feat, especially if it's to be the beginning of a feat chain.

There are a few reasonable House Rules on tweaking the Trip Mechanic and the Trip Feat, just to make them clearer and more logical, not necessarily more powerful. I contributed to that thread and IMHO we found a process that was more a "buff and tweak" than a different mechanic. Search the HOUSE RULES forum for "Trip Mechanic" and it'll pop right up.

Have fun all,

Jonrog1