Please rate Knock-Down

[KarinsDad]

The "no counter-trip" interpretation may not be part of the SRD, but it makes sense.

From a knockdown perspective (i.e. not tripping, but knocking someone to the ground), or from a balance perspective?

 

[Jeremy]

Both in my experience, but you weren't asking me.

 

[Mistwell]

jonrog1 that's gotta be the most heavily edited revision of a post I have seen in a long time.

Don't you think, if you are going to add a page of text to your post, that a new post (rather than editing an old one three posts ago) would have been better?

 

[KarinsDad]

Both in my experience, but you weren't asking me.

Well, I see it potentially from a knockdown perspective, but even there, I could see that the character might be off balanced and setting himself up for being knocked down himself.

From a balance perspective, I do not see it.

Improved Trip allows an entire extra attack if successful. This is balanced by a slim chance for countertrip.

I see the same balance at the Knockdown level with the countertrip rule used.

 

[Pax]

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?

I missed this part before, but I'll say this: you seem to have an unhealthy assumption that anyone who protests reducing the perceived power what they feel is a balanced feat, must inherently be a video-game-twitchy powergaming munchkin?

Bah.

Matter of fact, I tried EQ briefly. That "game" holds the distinction of having seen the shortest span of time installed on my HD, of any program I have ever willingly put ONTO the HD (HD = Hard Drive; just inc ase). My goal had been to open and manage a Tavern within the EQ world ... something wholl different from most RP experiences (sitting around a table, concocting new business schemes primarily centered around recipes, a wine list, and a menu, without real conflict, isn't often seen as "fun" by entire gaming groups).

So; does that make me a, how did you put it, "EverCrack powergamer" ... ?

Does a difference in perceived power relegate those who differ with you to the ranks of the munchkins?

feh.

Regardless, I have a simple solution to such derogatory comments as you seem wont to make ... I'll just endeavour to ignore your presence in the future.

 

[Jeremy]

If it is your choice to ignore people who return well organized, supported opinions that differ with yours in a tone slightly less aggrieviated than the post it was in response to, then it looks like you'll have to ignore a lot of people on these boards.

But that's just my opinion, I could be reading this wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

I missed this part before, but I'll say this: you seem to have an unhealthy assumption that anyone who protests reducing the perceived power what they feel is a balanced feat, must inherently be a video-game-twitchy powergaming munchkin?

Well, it sounds that way to a lot of us. It appears that you are not even considering making a balanced comparison here.


First off, the errata version of Knockdown does more average damage than Improved Trip. Hence, it is already more powerful.

For example, say you have a 70% chance to hit a given AC and a 50% chance to make the opposed check.

With Knockdown (per errata), you do 0.7 (X + 0.5 trip) = 0.7X damage and 0.35 trip chance.

With Improved Trip, you do 0.5 ( 0.9X + trip) = 0.45X damage and 0.5 trip chance. You have to trip before you can get the higher increased chance (i.e. +4 prone) to do damage.

So, Improved Trip gives a slightly better chance to trip, Knockdown does more damage. I’ll leave it to someone else to show the math that this applies to full round attacks as well as single attacks.


But, I think you are ignoring a basic tenet of most feats:

Weapon Focus does +1 to hit (pro). Every hit with one weapon (slight con).

Weapon Specialization does +2 to damage (pro). Every damage with one weapon (slight con). Only Fighters 4th or higher can get it (con).

Power Attack gives up to +X damage (pro) where X <= BAB. But, there is a downside. -X to hit for all attacks that round, even additional attacks due to high BAB at -5, -10, etc. (con).

Pros and Cons.

You gain something, but you typically either lose something, or you gain something in limited circumstances, or you gain a very small something without a con.

Iron Will +2 to will saves (pro). There is no con here, but it is only +2. Compare that to the +4 for attacking while prone once knocked down.


Knockdown your interpretation: Pros

1) Knockdown which requires move equivalent to get up next round.

2) All future attacks by self and allies against this target until next round at +4.

3) If you get countertripped, at least you did damage this round (i.e. more average damage).

4) Addition Improved Trip attack at +4.

5) Drop DEX bonus.


Knockdown your interpretation: Neither Pros nor Cons

1) You need to do 10 points of damage which is usually automatic or nearly there by the time you get this feat. Not a significant con.

2) You need to make a touch attack which is typically a 95% chance by the time you get this feat. Not a significant con.


Knockdown your interpretation: Cons

1) You need to make the opposed roll which is typically better than 50%.

2) You can be countertripped.


You have two cons.

But, you have five significant pros, most of which could be a feat by themselves. For example, you could have a feat which prevents a DEX bonus on an opponent and lower his AC by 2 or 4 or 6 or whatever. In and of itself, that is a worthwhile feat.

And yes, I know you can pull out the response: but it is the third feat in a feat chain. My response: so? Does that mean you should munchkin the feat?

Whirlwind is the 5th feat in a chain and you can only use it once in a while.

Great Cleave is the 3rd feat in a chain and you can only use it once in a great while. Cleave actually might happen a few times per combat, but Great Cleave averages a lot less then once per combat unless you are fighting blind kobolds.

I think the real problem here is that Improved Trip is a very potent feat to begin with, so you think that any feat above it in the chain should be much more potent than Improve Trip as opposed to slightly more potent.

And, that does happen with higher feats with an exception that you are forgetting about (or ignoring). Great Cleave IS more potent than Cleave. But, the con is that although you might get to do Cleave a few times per battle, the frequency of Great Cleave is significantly less. You might get to Great Cleave one battle in four or five.

So, there is a significant con that Cleave does not have, even though Great Cleave is one feat higher on the list.

Pros and Cons. Even though the higher feat is more potent, it also has a significant disadvantage as well.

With your interpretation of Knockdown, not only is it more potent than Improved Trip, it does not have any additional cons either.

You gave it three significant pros over Improved Trip (more average damage, no DEX bonus, and an additional attack, i.e. a trip and 2 attacks as opposed to a trip and 1 attack), but you gave it no cons. You "munchkined" it IMO.


In the interpretation which drops pros #4 and #5 above, it is balanced. Why? Because you only gain one pro, but you do not gain any cons. What you do gain over Improved Trip is the choice to attack and trip as opposed to trip and attack. Tactically, this is a significant choice since it allows you to constantly attack and even if you fail the counter trip, at least you've done damage on a successful attack which also averages more damage.


So yes, bottom line, I think you at not good at judging feat balance. And, as a further support of my opinion on your judgment, there has not been one person supporting your point of view. Most people who have a unique opinion tend to at least get a few supporters. This should tell you something as well.