Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 332896" data-attributes="member: 6875">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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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?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?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).</blockquote>

Verification