breaking away from the one trick pony

[irbaboon]

Currently playing a fighter level 3 at the moment in a gladiator campaign.
feats he has already: combat expertise / imp. trip / ewp chain /combat reflexes / knock down. his stats look something like this

str 18
dex 18
con 14
int 14
wis 10
cha 14.

as of the end of my last session i gained 2 levels so i'm working on makeing him level 5. my initial goal was to work towards karmic strike for some interesting combos but i think the dm may be getting aggravated with the i hit it then trip it then hit it again tactic im sure he'll love the it hits me so i hit it then trip it then hit it again tactic lol. any thoughts.

some extra points of note: do to a wicked cool background i was awarded powerful build as a human. also goes without saying I plan on sticking my 4th level stat point in str.

[00dlez]

maybe something like spring attack?

Move in (maybe a charge attack even if you have them at reach range) then intentionally provoke an AoO when you finish your movement granting you the trip and additional attack.

Had a party mate who delt 1d6 fire damage to anyone who attacked him do this all the time, he would move in and intentionally provoke AoOs, not only doing damage, but also using up enemy AoOs to all for more flexibility on the party's part now that there was no AoO threat

[Metahuman1]

A dip into Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian for pounce, then the feat Evasive reflexes form Tome of Battle.

You charge, hit it, and then when it moves toward you you hit it, and then if and when it get's a swing in at you you five foot step away.

Then dip Binder and take the guy who let's you attack everyone you move in reach of when you move for binding.

For added giggles, juice up your tumble check to avoid the AOO's of this strategy and to allow you to take a ten foot step instead of just a fiver with Evasive Reflexes.

[Medic!]

It probably wouldn't help your situation much, but you could go for the Consumate Showman - do anything and everything except for a standard attack! He trips, he grapples, he disarms and sunders, but he never just whacks things in the face! It's all about the crowd baby, put on a good show!

If Tome of Battle's on the table, a few Warblade levels would give you something to fall back on and synergize pretty well with what you have going as well.

[irbaboon]

here is an odd question. an AoO happens before the effect that prevokes it. with karmic strike there attack on you provokes the AoO. if you successfully trip the attacker do you still take damage? i know with robilar's gambit the AoO is resolved after the attack that provokes it, but it also reads that way in the feat description.

[irbaboon]

It probably wouldn't help your situation much, but you could go for the Consumate Showman - do anything and everything except for a standard attack! He trips, he grapples, he disarms and sunders, but he never just whacks things in the face! It's all about the crowd baby, put on a good show!

If Tome of Battle's on the table, a few Warblade levels would give you something to fall back on and synergize pretty well with what you have going as well.

that sounds pretty nice. i'll look into it. sounds like its got some realy nice RP features to it as well.

[irbaboon]

i may end up rolling level 4 fighter anyway just for the extra feat. seems like good stopping point for fighter progression.

[Medic!]

Yeah if you're going to take any Warblade levels you'd want to do it after an even number of levels of anything else anyway. Ftr4 would get you a desperately needed feat to pull it off, and it stacks really well with Warblade. On top of that, when the DM finally gets sick of your spiked chain you can just pick up whatever weapon he leaves behind and BAM ho-ho-ho feat investment still valid! (<3 dem Warblades!)

[Snowbluff]

Yeah if you're going to take any Warblade levels you'd want to do it after an even number of levels of anything else anyway. Ftr4 would get you a desperately needed feat to pull it off, and it stacks really well with Warblade. On top of that, when the DM finally gets sick of your spiked chain you can just pick up whatever weapon he leaves behind and BAM ho-ho-ho feat investment still valid! (<3 dem Warblades!)

Which is kinda dumb. Feats like weapon focus shouldn't be weapon specific.

[irbaboon]

well, after having a discussion with my dm. i now have a level 2 fighter level 3 warblade.

[Dairuga]

here is an odd question. an AoO happens before the effect that prevokes it. with karmic strike there attack on you provokes the AoO. if you successfully trip the attacker do you still take damage? i know with robilar's gambit the AoO is resolved after the attack that provokes it, but it also reads that way in the feat description.


Here, an excerpt from Karmic Strike:

You can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent that hits you in melee. On you action you choose to take a -4 penalty to your Armor Class in exchange for the ability to make an attack of opportunity against any creature that makes a successful melee attack, or melee touch attack against you.

The creature has to -hit- you, and successfully at that; meaning you have to take the effects of the attack, in order to activate Karmic Strike. Thus, yes, you have to take the damage, and the karmic strike happens -after- the enemy's attack, naturally. You cannot activate Karmic strike if the attack was unsuccessful, or if you dodged it in any way. Robilar's gambit has the advantage that you can make an attack of opportunity in retort to any attempted attack, but in return; Robilar's gambit makes you take 4 more damage every time you are hit, and you are required to have a BAB of 12 in order to take it, making it very much a higher-level feat.

So the real weighting balance here is that Karmic strike requires you to take the attack before you can retaliate, wheras Robilar's Gambit lets you strike back even if you dodged the attack. Wheras the aforementioned tactics of evasive reflexes and such works well with RG, it does not work with Karmic Strike.

[irbaboon]

Here, an excerpt from Karmic Strike:

The creature has to -hit- you, and successfully at that; meaning you have to take the effects of the attack, in order to activate Karmic Strike. Thus, yes, you have to take the damage, and the karmic strike happens -after- the enemy's attack, naturally. You cannot activate Karmic strike if the attack was unsuccessful, or if you dodged it in any way. Robilar's gambit has the advantage that you can make an attack of opportunity in retort to any attempted attack, but in return; Robilar's gambit makes you take 4 more damage every time you are hit, and you are required to have a BAB of 12 in order to take it, making it very much a higher-level feat.

So the real weighting balance here is that Karmic strike requires you to take the attack before you can retaliate, where as Robilar's Gambit lets you strike back even if you dodged the attack. Wheras the aforementioned tactics of evasive reflexes and such works well with RG, it does not work with Karmic Strike.

robilar's gambit specifically states the AoO is resolved after the attack so you must take the damage should the attack hit. on the upside you receive the AoO regardless if their att hits or misses. the key to the feat combo is if you have karmic strike and robilars gambit active you gain 2 AoO from one attack against you or in conjunction with other feats such as evasive reflexes to provide an opportunity to move and break the attackers chance of a full attack option plus drop an att on your target which you pointed out earlier and was an awesome observation. i didn't realize that robilars gambit activated regardless of a hit or miss till i read your post and went back to the book. i would think the fact that you getting your AoO regardless of a hit or miss and using it to evade after the first strike is what makes robilar's gambit a much more versatile feat.

karmic strike on the other hand activates the AoO after a successful hit from your attacker but says nothing about when that AoO is resolved so i can only assume it resolves the same way as any other AoO which is before the act that provoked it. if i use the AoO to make a standard att then he hits but if i trip then he doesn't and the attack is negated. similar to leaving a threatened square outside of a retreat action or a 5 foot step. the move activates it same as the successful att. the trip negates the move action so the cha didn't move but still activated the AoO meaning the successful att provoked the AoO but the the trip negated the att because the AoO happens before the action that provoked it.

the RAW for an AoO state that they always happen before the action that provokes it unless otherwise stated. Robilar's gambit states it resolves after the Att that provoked it. karmic strike does not.

[Dairuga]

karmic strike on the other hand activates the AoO after a successful hit from your attacker but says nothing about when that AoO is resolved so i can only assume it resolves the same way as any other AoO which is before the act that provoked it. if i use the AoO to make a standard att then he hits but if i trip then he doesn't and the attack is negated. similar to leaving a threatened square outside of a retreat action or a 5 foot step. the move activates it same as the successful att. the trip negates the move action so the cha didn't move but still activated the AoO meaning the successful att provoked the AoO but the the trip negated the att because the AoO happens before the action that provoked it.


Yes, the Feat itself does not state directly that the AoO triggers -after- the attack is declared, but as your opponent needs to get in a successful hit; Successful being that it hits, then the attack has already hit, and there is no chance for your AoO to come before that attack, as the attack is already over and done with.

What you seem to be implying is that you might have the chance to get your AoO in before damage is rolled, but by your own coin, if that were to be true, and you would AoO them with a trip attack and cause their attack to fail, then you would no longer be eligible for the AoO you just performed, because their attack failed on you, and you are entering into the eternal loop of whether or not you have an AoO to use.



the RAW for an AoO state that they always happen before the action that provokes it unless otherwise stated. Robilar's gambit states it resolves after the Att that provoked it. karmic strike does not.



Indeed, Karmic Strike has not written that the action happens -after- the attack is resolved, because it is not needed. With Robilar's gambit, it is explicitly stated because Robilar's gambit lets you counterattack no matter if the enemy attack hits or misses. In Robilar's Gambit, then your earlier statement would have worked, if Robilar's gambit had not had that clause. THey would have performed an attack, you would immediately gain an AoO and would perhaps be able to trip the enemy, causing their attack to fail. This is, again, because Robilar's Gambit does not care if the attack fails or not, only that it has been attempted.

Karmic strike, on the other hand, requires the enemy to successfully strike you, Damage and all. If an enemy rolls a hit to their attack roll, they are already considered to have hit you, and you are, well, hit. This is when Karmic strike activates, giving you an AoO... and since the enemy's attack have already hit, there is no contesting on whether the AoO comes before or after anything, since there is nothing else that tries to come before or after it. If the enemy does not hit you, the Karmic strike does not activate, badabing, badaboom, you either don't get Karmic strike to activate, or you activate it after you have been hit. Due to this, there is no need to have the clause that the effect activates after the attack aimed at you, because that is a part of its trigger condition.

[irbaboon]

says nothing about damage. just that the attack roll is successful. read up on resolving AoO. you may learn something. and yes that is the joy of a trip build.

[Ashtagon]

Which is kinda dumb. Feats like weapon focus shouldn't be weapon specific.

Yes. Weapon Focus should let you be a specialist in everything at once.

[Medic!]

Not to side-track the thread too much, but I agree with Snowbluff on Weapon Focus. It should be a little bit more broad in the range of weapons. Not quite as broad as say Weapon Mastery, but like Weapon Focus (Swords) or Weapon Focus (Axes) etc.

[irbaboon]

woot medic. how ya doing?

[irbaboon]

i agree with both of you on weapon focus.

[Snowbluff]

Yes. Weapon Focus should let you be a specialist in everything at once.

Yes, because it would be a balance issue, and that would be a problem with melee. Them being over powered


Not to side-track the thread too much, but I agree with Snowbluff on Weapon Focus. It should be a little bit more broad in the range of weapons. Not quite as broad as say Weapon Mastery, but like Weapon Focus (Swords) or Weapon Focus (Axes) etc.


i agree with both of you on weapon focus.

Well, normally I would be all like "Meh, ignore", but it become particularly egregious when you notice how:

1) How often it is used as a feat tax. At least Iron Will has a handy hole you can willingly throw yourself into.
a) The Eternal Blade. They have it, and probably can swap, but still have to stick to one kind of weapon
b) Complete Warrior weapon style feats. Some of these have two versions of Weapon Focus as costs. W. T. Frak.

2) Compared to their contemporaries (read barbarians), while they cannot rage, Fighters have these feats. On the other hand, they only work with one weapon.

[irbaboon]

one more way to hold the fighter back. lol a mage can point his finger and say die, and its done. yet a figher has to burn a feat for an unflexable +1 bonus to attack.

[eggs]

Weapon Focus serves two purposes. One I agree could be generalized without anything bad happening; one I think should definitely remain weapon specific.

The first is a boring +numbers feat line specifically available to the Fighter. In that respect, there's no real reason that blowing a feat on +attack should only be specific to one kind of attack, and the existing system's weapon-specificity does add some marginal item-reliance, which can be obnoxious to play or DM.

The other is providing a game construct to represent specialization in a specific weapon. This absolutely should be weapon-specific; if a character's supposed to have dedicated time, training and resources to master one weapon in particular, it's weird that they've become equally adept at something different, like Bow use. The problem in this case is more that Weapon Focus does a poor job representing the specialization or focus that a character's supposed to have put toward that one weapon.

In things like style feats, it makes sense that a character must specifically dedicate resources to mastering each weapon specifically before mastering two different weapons at once. There's a problem that Weapon Focus is a bad feat (especially when taken twice), but I do think things like style feat prereqs should work the way they do.

I think the ideal situation would be:

Replacing Weapon Focus's mechanics with something more interesting (along the lines of style feats, the PHB2 weapon-type feats or mini-tactical feats) and maintaining these as requirements for weapon-specific prerequisites or effects relating to a particular weapon like Exotic Weapons Master, Occult Slayer or High Sword Low Axe.
Adding a generic "Small +Attack" feat that can be used for weapon-general prereqs like Eternal Blade and Knight of the Sacred Seal.
Maintaining the specific Weapon Focuses' position in weapon-specific prerequisites and specific-weapon-bound effects like Bladesinger, Exotic Weapons Master, Occult Slayer or High Sword Low Axe.
Replacing Weapon Focus with the generic "Small +Attack" feat for situations where weapon focus is just being used as a feat tax or a way of representing generic combat investment, like Eternal Blade or Knight of the Sacred Seal.

Or just Fantasycraft.

[irbaboon]

Weapon Focus serves two purposes. One I agree could be generalized without anything bad happening; one I think should definitely remain weapon specific.

The first is a boring +numbers feat line specifically available to the Fighter. In that respect, there's no real reason that blowing a feat on +attack should only be specific to one kind of attack, and the existing system's weapon-specificity does add some marginal item-reliance, which can be obnoxious to play or DM.

The other is providing a game construct to represent specialization in a specific weapon. This absolutely should be weapon-specific; if a character's supposed to have dedicated time, training and resources to master one weapon in particular, it's weird that they've become equally adept at something different, like Bow use. The problem in this case is more that Weapon Focus does a poor job representing the specialization or focus that a character's supposed to have put toward that one weapon.

In things like style feats, it makes sense that a character must specifically dedicate resources to mastering each weapon specifically before mastering two different weapons at once. There's a problem that Weapon Focus is a bad feat (especially when taken twice), but I do think things like style feat prereqs should work the way they do.

I think the ideal situation would be:

Replacing Weapon Focus's mechanics with something more interesting (along the lines of style feats, the PHB2 weapon-type feats or mini-tactical feats) and maintaining these as requirements for weapon-specific prerequisites or effects relating to a particular weapon like Exotic Weapons Master, Occult Slayer or High Sword Low Axe.
Adding a generic "Small +Attack" feat that can be used for weapon-general prereqs like Eternal Blade and Knight of the Sacred Seal.
Maintaining the specific Weapon Focuses' position in weapon-specific prerequisites and specific-weapon-bound effects like Bladesinger, Exotic Weapons Master, Occult Slayer or High Sword Low Axe.
Replacing Weapon Focus with the generic "Small +Attack" feat for situations where weapon focus is just being used as a feat tax or a way of representing generic combat investment, like Eternal Blade or Knight of the Sacred Seal.

Or just Fantasycraft.


well said.

[Dairuga]

says nothing about damage. just that the attack roll is successful. read up on resolving AoO. you may learn something.

The Feat says nothing about an attack roll either. It says that the attack needs to be successful. If you dodge the attack, or avoid it, the attack cannot be considered to be successful, as it did not hit, after all. Again, you are invoking a loop, or a paradox, if you want.

And I have read up on Attacks of opportunity several times, mind you, and from the looks of it, I might know more about the topic than you do; but let us not resort to personal attacks now. I am mainly telling you how I perceive the feat, and am arguing about how it works. Calling someone out about having a lack of knowledge and that they might learn something from reading about it does not constitute to common courtesy, and is downright rude. But very well, if that is how you wish to keep your tone.

Nothing there, in the section of Attacks of opportunity goes against what I have said. If you keep shouting "Attacks of opportunity resolves before the action that triggered them except when specifically stated", and not bothering to think that there is no action to go before, then there is not much else that can be said. The feat requires one specific action to happen (A successful attack), and then it gives you an attack of opportunity. If the enemy does not get in a successful attack, you do not get your Attack of Opportunity. The question, therefore, becomes "What constitutes a Successful attack?".

From common sense, a "Successful Attack" means 'An attack that hits', or 'An attack that does what it was intended to do', hence making the attack Successful. By the same sense, if the attack is dodged, evaded, or the opponent is stopped before the attack can be performed, the attack is not successful.

Now, let us look at the fluff text from the feat, shall we?


You have learned to strike when your opponent is most vulnerable - the same instant your opponent strikes you.


As the Fluff of the feat says. "You have learned to strike when your opponent is most vulnerable. The same instant he strikes you." This does not say that you reach in to strike your enemy as he is about to strike you, but rather, that you strike each other at the same time. This, again, alludes to the feat letting your opponent strike you successfully, as you strike him in return. And put into this scenario, if you went for his legs to trip him (in an entirely metaphorical sense, of course, as I do not know how you intend to trip), it could constitute to you managing to trip him as he lands his blow on you, essentially giving him the attack on you, and then you manage to trip him in return. Fluffwise, it happens on the same time, crunch-wise, he gets his attack first, and you retort immediately with an AoO.

If normal attacks would invoke Attacks of Opportunity, then yes, I would declare that your Attack of Opportunity would happen before your enemy's attack would land, unless stated otherwise. But in this case, normal attacks do not trigger attack of opportunities, Successful attacks does. And since that is clarified, it indicates that you are granted an Attack of opportunity once an attack 'hits you', or 'the attack does what it was intended to do'. Which would mean that after an enemy hits you, you get a hit on him. If you were to hit him after he successfully struck you, nullifying his damage and hitting him before he got in his successful attack, would require you to go back in time.

With the way you are resolving it, to put up a metaphorical scenario, if the enemy rolls a 3 on his Attack roll, you are unable to use Karmic strike because he fumbled his strike, rolled too low, and didn't manage to hit, but if he rolls a 17, a far better number, he suddenly fails because he tried to attack with an attack that had a far higher chance to hit, and you got in a hit before he could attack you.



and yes that is the joy of a trip build.


I fail to see the point of this statement. I have neither discredited or claimed that a trip build is not fun, useful nor have I mentioned the trip build in its specifics. A trip build is good, yes, but saying that a trip build is fun does not let one use feats in a way they are possibly not legal to be used.

Now, let us look back a little, shall we?


if i use the AoO to make a standard att then he hits but if i trip then he doesn't and the attack is negated.



Here, you are wrong. Tripping someone does not negate the attack, it merely makes them fall prone. Falling prone does not prevent anyone from attacking, they merely take a -4 penalty from the attack. But I digress, let us move on.



similar to leaving a threatened square outside of a retreat action or a 5 foot step. the move activates it same as the successful att.


Here, I can only assume that you mean that the character falls down during the trip, and are comparing it to leaving a threatened square, or a 5 foot step. Again, you are wrong. Falling prone does not constitute a move action, and you do not get an Attack of Opportunity against someone that falls Prone. You do however, get an attack of opportunity against someone that tries to stand up from Prone, but that is entirely irrelevant right now. Also, as an additional note, in case it was not caught, taking a 5-foot step does not let you makean AoO against someone. Your natural 1 on craft(Forum post) makes it rather hard to understand your intention.



the trip negates the move action so the cha didn't move but still activated the AoO meaning the successful att provoked the AoO but the the trip negated the att because the AoO happens before the action that provoked it.


Again, you are Wrong. Trip does not negate the move action, because there was no move action happening. Furthermore, the trip did, in fact, not negate the attack; merely giving it a -4 penalty to hit (And since karmic strike reduces your AC by 4, you do not even gain a bonus).

Perhaps you should read up on the rules regarding Tripping and being knocked down Prone before you start talking like this? Who knows, you might actually get to learn something.

With the way you are using the feat, this feat becomes -better- than Robilar's Gambit, wheras Robilar's gambit have a higher and steeper requirement; requiring you to at least be level 12, wheras this only requires two low-end feats, however bad they are. That in itself should possibly tell you that you might be using it the wrong way. If you have even bothered to read this far down, and are still adamant about me not knowing about the topic or needing to read up on it more carefully (Not that I know where you got -that- notion from, as I perfectly know what point you are alluding to and are trying to invoke), perhaps you need to make a separate thread for this issue, titled that you need help resolving it? Perhaps it may convince you if several others throw in their verdict on the topic.

[irbaboon]

lmao k boss sure thing. not gonna argue with ya about how you distort attacks of opportunity at your table, the phb says they happen before the action that provokes them and thats enough for me. so argue with the phb boss. You can tell Garry Gygex or Wizards of the Coast that They are wrong. cause i'm done listening to ya rant on and on about some things you obbviously know nothing about.

was nice meeting you though.

[Dairuga]

lmao k boss sure thing. not gonna argue with ya about how you distort attacks of opportunity at your table, the phb says they happen before the action that provokes them and thats enough for me. so argue with the phb boss. You can tell Garry Gygex or Wizards of the Coast that They are wrong. cause i'm done listening to ya rant on and on about some things you obbviously know nothing about.

was nice meeting you though.

And again, you show the Playground just how mature some of their players are. And if you will refrain from that, I will refrain from arguing about how you distort time without having the appropriate feats or spells for it.

Also, Linked for relevancy.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qji0p/

Thank you for reading all of my post, which you quite obviously did. And thank you, for proving my point.
Have a nice day!
It was a pleasure, meeting you too~

[irbaboon]

{{scrubbed}}

[Fasuhn]

@irbaboon:
Maybe you should make sure that you have a proper understanding of the rules, yourself, before accusing others of needing to learn, since you're the one who's clearly in need of some clarification here. If I was your DM and you came to me with this line of thought regarding the feat, I'd reject it so fast that I'd penalize your character's intelligence score just for suggesting the very notion.

If you want to get technical, let's entertain the possibility that you would somehow be able to initiate your attack of opportunity before the successful hit (i.e. before you actually get hit, even though getting hit is a prerequisite) because "Garry Gygex" said so. Even if you did that, it still wouldn't change the fact that the hit will succeed, meaning you still take the attack, and the associated damage. You can't warp time and undo the attack. This feat would only let you attack if hit, but lets you negate the attack in the process, if it was the way you're saying (which it isn't). The way you're interpreting this feat would be borderline game-breaking at your level. That should be a really big hint that you're wrong.

And can you please stop harping on about the AoO wording technicality for half a second and think about the feat? Read the fluff text. Read the title. Karmic Strike. You know, karma? Let me roll the linguistics check in your stead, since it's wise to let characters with more ranks in something do the rolling:
Karma (informal) : the force created by a person's actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person
The essence of the feat is that when an enemy successfully attacks you(and, logically, damages you, since everyone knows successful hits do damage, sans damage reduction and the like), "karma" allows you to attempt to return the favor. Yeah, I get that we're here to discuss rules, not semantics, but come on, think about the fundamental idea behind it.

[irbaboon]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041026a all about attacks of opportunity also look at the phb page 137.

[irbaboon]

already posted my retort. not even gonna argue with you to. i told the guy he was right. but only because you can att while prone. no need for you to get all in an uproar about it to. go to the link i posted. read the phb.

when i'm wrong about something i'll admit it. as a mater of a fact i already have. i only wish that you do the same.

for the record: karmic strike will not allow you to dodge the damage by a successful strike unless for some weird reason you knock the attacker unconscious with your AoO. enough said about karmic strike lets move on.

[Dairuga]

{{scrubbed}}

[irbaboon]

did you even go to the site or turn to the page in the phb. really go check it out.

[Fasuhn]

Did you read at all? Curmdungeon himself said that the feat is an exception to the normal rules of AoO. It doesn't matter what that page says. It has nothing to do with the ruling on this feat. -No one- said that that's not how AoOs usually work, but this is not a usual case.

[irbaboon]

no harm no foul. i'm sure you guys are cool so i'll drop it. sorry if i offended anyone. the other person was correct in regards to the feat karmic strike. i was wrong and i stand to apologize to you and him for any harsh reaction on my part. in my defense i think all 3 of us could have handled the entire conversation differently. there was no need for the immediate attack at me and there was no need for my harsh retort. shame some of what i said was taken out of context, but that's the bane of being new in the forums and i'd rather not step on any toes.


..... but what do you expect from
a guy named irbaboon

lol we'll end that with some humor lol