Reports from the Battle Front. Improved X feats and tactical feats.

[Hypersmurf]

The third maneuver of Combat Brute (tactical feat from Complete Warrior) has you getting x1.5 (one-handed) or x3 (two-handed) on a power attack, if you meet certain requirements.

How does that stack with Frenzied Berserker?

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).

Please note that under AoOs it specifically states you can interrupt their action. It then states that an attack of opportunity can be "provoked in the midst of a character's turn". Not before or after their turn (or action), but in the midst of it.

 

[James McMurray]

How does that stack with Frenzied Berserker?

-Hyp.

I would assume that it works the same way all other multipliers work: add 'em up. Don't have frezied berserker in fornt of me, but if the FB can power attack at 1 for 3 with a 2-handed weapon, a combat brute FB would power attack at 1 for 5.

I'd have to read the feat to be sure though. They might both be simple changes, and thus only the highest one works.

Luckily, once you've been hit by a combat brute with x3 power attack, you can usually avoid it happening again. In order to get the boosted PA, a CB has to charge and then attack on the next round. IIRC it may require a full attack on the following round.

Yet another reason why Elusive target is a very useful feat.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You're correct that the core rules don't state that you can't trip a prone creature. However, they do say that the consequence of being tripped is that you become prone. If you are already prone, then tripping you doesn't change anything and therefore it does no good.

My own version of the argument hinges on the rules not saying anything about the move action "stand from prone" being interrupted by a successful AoO.
Premise 1: When you provoke the AoO for standing, you have not finished the action and are therefore still prone (granting the opponent +4 to the AoO).
Premise 2: If successful, a trip attack on the prone person renders them prone. (Changing nothing).
Premise 3: The rules don't specify that any interruption can prevent the "stand from prone" action from having its effect (namely that you are no longer prone).

Therefore, if you provoke an AoO by standing from prone, you will be hit (and possibly tripped) while you are still prone. Then, whether or not you were tripped since tripping you changed nothing, you become standing when you finish your "stand up from prone" move action.

As far as I see this, it's a pedantic argument that is probably logically correct according to a strict interpretation of the rules, but, much more importantly, is necessary for the sake of game balance. Considering that the likelihood of a well constructed tripping character succeeding in the trip check approaches 80% in a lot of typical situations, and that it's impossible to even live with being tripped and attack a tripping character from the ground if he has more reach than you do (thanks to a reach weapon+enlarge person or just one or the other of those if you're an ordinary mortal), something is necessary to prevent Improved Trip from simply becoming an "I win" card that lets Mary full attack Joe at +4 every round without Joe being able to do anything.

It would have been much easier and better (and wouldn't have required technically correct but somewhat silly arguments) if they'd stuck with 3.0's ruling that standing up from prone does NOT provoke an AoO.

And more to the point, the core rules don't state you can't trip a prone creature. (to my knowledge).

In my view, Joe blew his move-equivalent action attempting to stand up; Mary tripped him back down. Joe lost the action. Now Joe can try again, provking another AOO from Mary if Mary has Combat Reflexes; if not, he stands up. If Mary has CR, he might get tripped down again.

 

[Tatsukun]

In my game we just house ruled it that a Tumble check 20 will let you stand up without an AtoOp, or a tumble 20 will let you take a 5' crawl as though it were a 5' step.

It seems to be working.

As for feats, I am a fan of sunder / disarm but only in Urban games. They are also good if you are the good-guy type and don't want to kill everyone.

-T

 

[two]

You're correct that the core rules don't state that you can't trip a prone creature. However, they do say that the consequence of being tripped is that you become prone. If you are already prone, then tripping you doesn't change anything and therefore it does no good.

My own version of the argument hinges on the rules not saying anything about the move action "stand from prone" being interrupted by a successful AoO.
Premise 1: When you provoke the AoO for standing, you have not finished the action and are therefore still prone (granting the opponent +4 to the AoO).
Premise 2: If successful, a trip attack on the prone person renders them prone. (Changing nothing).
Premise 3: The rules don't specify that any interruption can prevent the "stand from prone" action from having its effect (namely that you are no longer prone).

Therefore, if you provoke an AoO by standing from prone, you will be hit (and possibly tripped) while you are still prone. Then, whether or not you were tripped since tripping you changed nothing, you become standing when you finish your "stand up from prone" move action.

As far as I see this, it's a pedantic argument that is probably logically correct according to a strict interpretation of the rules, but, much more importantly, is necessary for the sake of game balance. Considering that the likelihood of a well constructed tripping character succeeding in the trip check approaches 80% in a lot of typical situations, and that it's impossible to even live with being tripped and attack a tripping character from the ground if he has more reach than you do (thanks to a reach weapon+enlarge person or just one or the other of those if you're an ordinary mortal), something is necessary to prevent Improved Trip from simply becoming an "I win" card that lets Mary full attack Joe at +4 every round without Joe being able to do anything.

It would have been much easier and better (and wouldn't have required technically correct but somewhat silly arguments) if they'd stuck with 3.0's ruling that standing up from prone does NOT provoke an AoO.

I disagree with premise 1.

Premise 1 states that since the "standing up" action is not complete, the PC involved is still prone. This is absurd. Standing up is not binary; once seond you are prone, and the next standing up fully. It is, rather, a continuous act. You know. Standing up. Like, when you fall down drunk and then must grab the next beer. Stand up. It's a continuous action, like drinking a potion. You are prone, standing, or in the process of standing. Not either/or. The fact that a readied action "interrupts" something proves the point. If you are still prone, you are not getting up, and nothing is interrupted. You have not started getting up yet. If, however, you have started getting up, and your getting up is interrupted, you are not prone (because you left the prone condition, which in itself cannot be interrupted, to do something, which can be interrupted, i.e. be not-prone).

Premise 2 is fine but irrelevant.

Premise 3 is true; it's never stated that standing up "effect" can be interrupted (like a potion quaffing can be) by damage. But it's not necessary to do so. Once a person has blown a standard action attempting to get up, and this attempt is interrupted (not with damage, but by a change of condition, i.e. being put prone again that interferes with the completino of the action) that action is finished.

Unless you want to allow somebody that is 99% stood up, who got tripped prone again during an AOO, and then pops up again after the tripping? Hey, that's 199% stood up, all for one MOA, pretty cool!

 

[Saeviomagy]

People keep saying this, apparantly with confidence, despite it being unsupported by both the core rules and commen sense.

And people keep saying that it's possible despite it being a really, really stupid way of playing which makes improved trip all-but godlike in it's abilities.

Scenario 1: Using the rule "prone foes who are tripped while standing still finish their action standing"

Monk: "I trip the fighter! (ignoring his armour, and engaging in a contest where I get a +4 to the roll)"

Fighter: "Ooof"

Monk: "I take my freebie attack on the fighter (with a +4 to the roll)!"

Fighter: "Ooof! I stand up"

Monk: "I take my attack of opportunity on the fighter (again with a +4 to the roll)"

Fighter:"Ow. I finally get my go. I attack the monk"

Monk: "Ooof!"

Scenario 2: Using the rule "prone foes who are tripped while standing up fall over again, wasting a move equivalent action"

Monk: "I trip the fighter"

Fighter: "Ooof!"

Monk: "I attack the fighter"

Fighter: "Ooof! I stand up"

Monk: "I trip the fighter"

Fighter: "Ooof!"

Monk: "I attack the fighter"

Fighter: "Ooof! I try to stand up with my second move"

Monk: "I trip the fighter"

Fighter: "Get bent. This game blows chunks. I may as well just lie on the ground doing nothing - at least I wouldn't get hit then. I'm leaving"

Do you see the difference? In one variant, the people who don't have improved trip don't get fed turdburgers. In the other, someone fighting against an improved tripper may as well just quit.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I had elusive target used against me. It was devastating because we had no clue he had the feat. So the rogue goes to flank him and sneak attacks the barbarian/ranger almost killing him. We could never tell who he was dodging so we ended up moving OUT of flank just so we couldn't get screwed by elusive target.

Does anyone else think that it's incredibly stupid that a way of gaining extra damage on an attack that requires so much precision that it cannot be done when the lighting is a little bad, any part of the target is covered by something, the target knows you are there, or in short is extremely difficult to do can be done by accident on the wrong target?

I'd be really annoyed if my DM told me that I'd just accidentally sneak attacked someone.

 

[two]

I'm not saying tripping is fun

-- or balanced --
-- or makes good game play --
-- or anything like that --

Personally, it bores me.

However, I think the rules make it very strong indeed. And, by the way, you don't need to stand up to attack, you just take a penalty. "Just."

I know.

I don't have a problem with house rules at all, but I don't think the core rules should be twisted to fix a problem that looks unbalanced (and claim it's core). It's not core. House rules are probably a good idea. Tripping does seem a bit strong, particularly with some low-grade (much less high grade!) min/maxxing.

Does Freedom of Movement stop trips? Sure stops grapples; is it a stretch to say it stops trips too (which do impair movement, much as grapples impair movement)?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd be really annoyed if my DM told me that I'd just accidentally sneak attacked someone.

It can happen with a ranged attack into a grapple, too.

There's a chance you'll hit your ally who's grappling the BBEG. And since he's grappling, he's denied his Dex bonus...

-Hyp.