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

[Saeviomagy]

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.

But does sneak attack work on him?

The flavour text says
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rules text says
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

 

[James McMurray]

I would neve force a sneak attack on someone. A sneak attack has to be declared, and I highly doubt the rogues in question are saying "I'll sneak attack the duelist, or my friend if he moves out of the way."

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Nice try. If you trip at reach (due to Enlarge Person--not that any trip monsters would get that cast on them--or a guisarme--not that any trip monsters use those) greater than your opponent, he can't reach you from the ground and therefore cannot attack--even at a penalty.

And, as for twisting the core rules, you're actually twisting them into pretzels just by attempting to trip someone in the action of standing up. For all that you claim (based upon common sense) that prone and standing are not binary conditions, they are in the rules. You either get the +4 bonus for striking a prone target or you don't. If you do, he's prone, if you don't he's not, and there's no in between state. Your "interpretation" requires you both to invent a new state between prone and standing and to add standing up to the list of actions that are interrupted by AoOs. I don't think that interpretation has any kind of rules legs to stand on. And, given the choice between an interpretation of the rules which is balanced, accurate to the letter of the rules, and doesn't get silly unless someone is trying something really cheesy and game-breaking (in which case, the game has stopped making sense anyway) and an interpretation which is imbalanced and false to the text of the rules, but makes sense when explaining why someone's silly, cheesy strategy is dramatically more effective than it ought to be, I'll take the first one every time.

The constant tripping machine is just as silly as saying you can't be tripped while standing. Since we're even on silliness, give me balance.

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)?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would neve force a sneak attack on someone. A sneak attack has to be declared, and I highly doubt the rogues in question are saying "I'll sneak attack the duelist, or my friend if he moves out of the way."

I would apply the same common sense ruling to ranged attacks against grapplers, in case you hit your Dex-less ally.

 

[Darklone]

Ahhh, once again our good old trip discussion (do we have next month yet?). It has been said, but I repeat it: It's not properly spelled out whether you can trip a prone foe or whether that trip actually interrupts his standing up. Most DMs I know rule that way cause it's more balanced. Anyone is free to rule otherwise.

OTOH, it's not spelled out properly that you can't run while you're prone, right ? The running description only states bad terrain as impediment... So just run away while you're still prone Where is it spelled out that getting tripped stops your movement? Nowhere, they only say you're prone. Prone only says "Standing up is a ME action". Nowhere is crawling mentioned. Nowhere is running mentioned, you can crawl while prone, why shouldn't you run while prone ?

Silliness in the morning, yee gotta love it.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Ahhh, once again our good old trip discussion (do we have next month yet?). It has been said, but I repeat it: It's not properly spelled out whether you can trip a prone foe or whether that trip actually interrupts his standing up. Most DMs I know rule that way cause it's more balanced. Anyone is free to rule otherwise.

It's not just more balanced. It creates problems if you rule the other way. If you rule that the AoO occurs AFTER the action occurs (thus allowing one to trip again), you also have to consistently apply it. So a warrior with a polearm gets the attack of opportunity AFTER the charging enemy has left the threatened square, keeping said warrior from actually making the attack since the warrior actually cannot attack said enemy in an adjacent square.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Yeah, uh, anyway, I don't give a $^&#~! about Improved Trip.

What do people think of the weapon style paths in Complete Warrior? Aside from the annoyance that almost all of them are geared towards two-weapon fighting, are any of them any good? It seem like most of the save DCs are going to be low - generally 10 + (one-half level) + (ability mod). So say you're 10th level fighter with Str 18, that's a save DC of only 19. And by that time most people have way more than +9 to their best save. Or am I underestimating things?

 

[James McMurray]

A 10th level fighter will probably have a strength closer to 22, but that's not much of a difference. It isn't whether the saves are easy to make or not (and they won't be if you hit someone's weak save) its the fact that they are just there, waiting for your foe to roll low. You don't lose anything by using your lightning maces feat (or whatever its called), so if you're already going to fight with two maces, you may as well force same saving throws every now and then.

I personally love the feats. Many of them give a reason to use two different weapons instead of two of the same light weapon and weapon focus / finesse.

 

[Darklone]

I do like these weaponstyle feats, but they are silly. No Rapier/Main-gauche feat? Silly. And they are not balanced vs each other... that feat that gives an additional attack (I think light maces) rocks too much.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Agreed that they are not balanced. "Let's see, I can daze someone, or I can nauseate him, or I can knock him prone. Yeah, those are all equivalent conditions."

I'm also really bummed that the Knockdown feat didn't make it into Complete Warrior. But maybe that's because I played too many MUDs as a youth, and I want to be able to bash things without using a shield.