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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jonrog1" data-source="post: 334867" data-attributes="member: 189">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?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</blockquote>

Verification