Knock-Down Feat [3.5]

[Valluman]

Hello all. I am designing an anti-party for my hero party of PCs, and one of the members happens to be a knight who I desire to have crowd control. I came across the Knock-Down feat in Deities and Demigods, and I noticed the prerequisites were, in lame-man's terms, easy to obtain. I am wondering if that feat is obtainable by mortals; I know there was a feat in 3.0 similar to this one and that players could get it.

In addition, if it is obtainable, can it synergize with improved trip?

[Eldariel]

By RAW it might work with Imp. Trip but the original printing in Sword & Fist was errata'd for that to not work. It's not necessary, the feat is very useful anyways (since it allows any weapon to trip and you get to roll To Hit first so damage is the primary effect).

And yeah, it's not a [Divine] feat, it's just General feat listed in the Divine Feats-section of the SRD. So it's just fine for mortals too.

[Valluman]

That's what I thought. I may just go for this then. As a Knight, he won't be able to capitalize on a downed target, but if I want him for CC, that's plenty for level 3 (as a human).

[Curmudgeon]

The most recent version of Knock-Down isn't in the 3.0 Deities and Demigods or even its 3.5 update, but rather in the 3.5 SRD. You can see the updated feat here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown), and there's no longer any deity reference.

[Auramis]

The most recent version of Knock-Down isn't in the 3.0 Deities and Demigods or even its 3.5 update, but rather in the 3.5 SRD. You can see the updated feat here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown), and there's no longer any deity reference.

Except under the big black "Feats" line where it says:


Deities can obtain the feats described here, in addition to any standard feats.

The book says the same thing on page 49:


In addition to the feats in the Player's Handbook, deities can also obtain the feats described here, all of which were published originally in other D&D game products.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a glaring "no" on non-deities getting them.

[Curmudgeon]

As far as I'm concerned, that's a glaring "no" on non-deities getting them.
I don't understand your reasoning. If a deity could have a cheeseburger, that would mean no non-deity could have one? There isn't a rule like that.

However, there is a rule that's applicable here, from page 87 of Player's Handbook:
TYPES OF FEATS Some feats are general, meaning that no special rules govern them as a group. You'll note the feat type:
Knock-Down [General]
There's also this rule, if you're trying to decide whether the Player's Handbook or some other source holds sway:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

[Auramis]

I don't understand your reasoning. If a deity could have a cheeseburger, that would mean no non-deity could have one? There isn't a rule like that.

The only place in 3.5 books in which that feat appears (multiple other feats in the same book reappear, sometimes changed, in the Complete books) is the Deities & Demigods, and it states in the text prior to listing the feats that deities have access to those feats, in addition to those found in the Player's Handbook. I'd be more willing to accept a player could obtain that feat if they actually recycled the feat into a book players do have access, like the Complete Warrior, but it's only there.

The cheeseburger comparison doesn't make sense, either way. It's not a matter of me saying General Feats as a whole aren't available to players, either way, it's a matter of Deity specific ones being available. You're right that a deity having a cheeseburger doesn't mean other can't have them, but only deities get ambrosia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosia).

[Karnith]

The only place in 3.5 books in which that feat appears (multiple other feats in the same book reappear, sometimes changed, in the Complete books) is the Deities & Demigods.
While you are technically correct that Knock-Down doesn't appear in any 3.5 book, you do realize that Knock-Down appeared as a general, non-deity feat in Sword & Fist (as mentioned earlier in the thread), right? And that the two books came out at roughly the same time, and that the feat descriptions are identical?

RAI is certainly that player characters can select Knock-Down, and Curmudgeon has already provided RAW support for it.

[Auramis]

While you are technically correct that Knock-Down doesn't appear in any 3.5 book, you do realize that Knock-Down appeared as a general, non-deity feat in Sword & Fist (as mentioned earlier in the thread), right? And that the two books came out at roughly the same time, and that the feat descriptions are identical?

RAI is certainly that player characters can select Knock-Down, and Curmudgeon has already provided RAW support for it.

It just doesn't settle well with me. The Deities and Demigods book is clearly outdated by other books that take feats from it, and S&F is a 3.0 book which, again, has stuff taken and updated in Complete books. There's also a personal bias I have where I generally don't like using 3.0 material.

That, and the prospect of free trips every single time you land more than 10 damage sounds staggeringly over-tuned.

[Curmudgeon]

That, and the prospect of free trips every single time you land more than 10 damage sounds staggeringly over-tuned.
Compared to your average Wizard, Cleric, or Druid shenanigans, this is *very* mild stuff.

[Auramis]

Compared to your average Wizard, Cleric, or Druid shenanigans, this is *very* mild stuff.

Comparing much of anything to wizards, clerics, and druids makes anything seem mild. Doesn't mean it's properly tuned just because it sounds sane compared to the world breakers.

[Eldariel]

Comparing much of anything to wizards, clerics, and druids makes anything seem mild. Doesn't mean it's properly tuned just because it sounds sane compared to the world breakers.

Honestly? The biggest advantage Knock-Down has over Improved Trip is that Knock-Down can be used with any weapon. The advantages are extremely minor if you're using, say, Spiked Chain since you could Trip -> Attack with every attack anyways. This way you just Attack -> Trip instead.

[Curmudgeon]

Comparing much of anything to wizards, clerics, and druids makes anything seem mild. Doesn't mean it's properly tuned just because it sounds sane compared to the world breakers.
OK, then, compared to any übercharger cranking up those Power Attack multipliers.

[Auramis]

Honestly? The biggest advantage Knock-Down has over Improved Trip is that Knock-Down can be used with any weapon. The advantages are extremely minor if you're using, say, Spiked Chain since you could Trip -> Attack with every attack anyways. This way you just Attack -> Trip instead.

I just get this image of a knight surrounded by enemies and being able to knock down several of them with his free trip action, assuming he passes the strength check against them. He could effectively lock down a small party all by himself at higher levels. I much prefer the idea that tripping should be limited to a standard action.

I will concede I may be worrying too much, though. Looking at it from the perspective of someone who normally tanks, this sounds like my worst nightmare, whether it means it knocks my allies prone and leaves them helpless or I get knocked prone and can't move to protect my allies. I place a high value of being able to move about, despite being a role where my movement is generally hampered.

[Eldariel]

I just get this image of a knight surrounded by enemies and being able to knock down several of them with his free trip action, assuming he passes the strength check against them. He could effectively lock down a small party all by himself at higher levels. I much prefer the idea that tripping should be limited to a standard action.

Even by default, tripping is an attack action, Knock-Down or not. You can full attack and trip with every attack if you use a weapon that can be used to trip. This is the baseline for one of the two big melee builds in 3.5 (AoO Tripper vs. Charger).

[Auramis]

Even by default, tripping is an attack action, Knock-Down or not. You can full attack and trip with every attack if you use a weapon that can be used to trip. This is the baseline for one of the two big melee builds in 3.5 (AoO Tripper vs. Charger).

Wait, then what's the point of the Knock-down feat in the first place? Simply removing the weapon restriction?

If that's the case, I have no idea what I've been so worked up about. It seems I've just been ignorant to the mechanics of tripping... Don't I look silly, now? xD

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I... don't understand why this feat is in any way powerful...

I mean, look at Spiked Chain + Improved Trip. First, you knock the opponent prone with a touch attack (meaning practically guaranteed hit), then you get your free shot. Of course, since your opponent is now Prone, you get a +4 on that attack. In other words, Improved Trip is actually superior because it is easier to land (touch attack vs needing to make a regular attack), and gives you a +4 to your attack on the actual damage output (where you might actually have more than a 5% chance of missing, on occasion).

Knock Down just removes the 5% chance of rolling a Natural 1 on your touch attack to trip. That's all.

[eggynack]

Honestly? The biggest advantage Knock-Down has over Improved Trip is that Knock-Down can be used with any weapon. The advantages are extremely minor if you're using, say, Spiked Chain since you could Trip -> Attack with every attack anyways. This way you just Attack -> Trip instead.
Can't you just do both things? Anyways, the effectiveness of either is dependent on a number of things, like whether you're prioritizing damage or tripping, whether you're more likely to trip or to get a hit for ten damage, and the fact that a character who uses improved trip will have a higher to-hit because of the prone opponent. Still, as you say, they're pretty similar.

Edit:

I... don't understand why this feat is in any way powerful...

I mean, look at Spiked Chain + Improved Trip. First, you knock the opponent prone with a touch attack (meaning practically guaranteed hit), then you get your free shot. Of course, since your opponent is now Prone, you get a +4 on that attack. In other words, Improved Trip is actually superior because it is easier to land (touch attack vs needing to make a regular attack), and gives you a +4 to your attack on the actual damage output (where you might actually have more than a 5% chance of missing, on occasion).

Knock Down just removes the 5% chance of rolling a Natural 1 on your touch attack to trip. That's all.
This is a rather inaccurate view of the comparison, because it ignores the strength check that is necessary to successfully trip an opponent. That, and not the touch attack, is the thing that's more likely to fail. Thus, knock-down is superior against, say, a large opponent, because in that case a trip is more likely to fail, so you're better off using an ordinary attack, and getting a bonus trip.

[Auramis]

So, if I'm understanding this right, tripping is an attack action and uses one of your attacks for a round normally. With Knock-down, it's a free action instead that allows you to roll damage and still get the trip. If that's the case, this feat sounds much less ridiculous now in my mind now. It just allows damage to follow through, regardless of success, failure, or draw on the trip. According to the S&F FAQ, it's not as if Knock-down can be used to generate an extra attack anyway... I'm not so sure why I was so worried. I suppose it's because I had somehow thought tripping was a standard action and this feat was just bumping it to free instead.

I'll chalk this up to me being ignorant of certain rules. Up until I started browsing these forums a couple months ago, I'd been ignorant to a lot of rules because we were really lax with them in our house and just winged it half the time for laughs. No one we've played with's ever even considered anything such as a "trip build" before (it sounds like a really cheese build to me anyway). I didn't even know they existed.

Either way, this feat sounds like a tank's nightmare to me.

[nedz]

Surely the sequence should be


Attack
If you do more than 10 points of damage, make a trip attempt.
If you trip them then Imp Trip gives you an extra attack whilst they are prone
Profit


Seems like a pretty good feat to me, though not even close to being OP

Ed:
if you look at the rest of the feats on the list you will see that they are just ordinary feats.

[Auramis]

Surely the sequence should be


Attack
If you do more than 10 points of damage, make a trip attempt.
If you trip them then Imp Trip gives you an extra attack whilst they are prone
Profit


Seems like a pretty good feat to me, though not even close to being OP

Ed:
if you look at the rest of the feats on the list you will see that they are just ordinary feats.

You actually don't get an extra attack from knock-down with improved trip.


Q. If I use the Knock-Down feat to trip an opponent, can I get a free attack from my Improved Trip feat?

A. Nope. You have to use an attack to trip an opponent and then get an attack. You get a free action to trip your opponent with this feat (ie - you haven't given up an attack to trip them, you have already taken it, so you do not get another one).

Source. (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-archive/threads/872811)

With Improved Trip, you're basically gambling an attack. If it works, you get one. If not, you fail. With Knockdown, you always get your attack with a trip attempt.

[eggynack]

You actually don't get an extra attack from knock-down with improved trip.



Source. (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-archive/threads/872811)
Yes, but that is for Sword and Fist, which is not the most recent source. Thus, you are in fact capable of getting an extra attack from the combination. You can play with rules that are not the current rules, if you like, but that does not make nedz's claim inaccurate.

[Auramis]

Yes, but that is for Sword and Fist, which is not the most recent source. Thus, you are in fact capable of getting an extra attack from the combination. You can play with rules that are not the current rules, if you like, but that does not make nedz's claim inaccurate.

My mistake, then. I assumed the 3.5 version followed the same rules. They're both written the same, in terms of function and requirements, so it's not outlandish I came to that conclusion.

[Zergrusheddie]

This is a rather inaccurate view of the comparison, because it ignores the strength check that is necessary to successfully trip an opponent. That, and not the touch attack, is the thing that's more likely to fail. Thus, knock-down is superior against, say, a large opponent, because in that case a trip is more likely to fail, so you're better off using an ordinary attack, and getting a bonus trip.

Of course, trying to Trip a bigger opponent will likely end in you being on the ground/dropped weapon and crying big tears of sadness. It works out almost same with a big opponent:
Without Knock-Down: "I try to Trip. I hit touch AC. Wait, it has +15 against Trip?! Guess I ain't doing that again!"
With Knock-Down: "I attack. I hit. I attempt Trip. Wait, it has a +15 against Trip?! Guess I ain't doing that again!"
So in the case where the fact that you are surprised that you can't trip something, Knock-Down means that you at least get to do damage with that swing before deciding never to trip those things again. In the event of a large stable opponent (Dragons, things that are too tough to trip), a Tripper without KD has two 'wasted' feats instead of three.

In the cases where you fail a trip attempt against something that you normally would trip fine (say you roll poorly/DM rolls well), it just means that you get to do damage rather than waste a hit. So it is a little bit of insurance. However, Trip is incredibly dangerous and feat intensive that being able to spend an extra feat so that you are not completely ineffectual in the event of a botched roll does not constitute a power imbalance, at least in my opinion.

The only legitimate concern I can see in Knock-Down is if you rule that it causes a Free Attack once the enemy is Tripped because of Improved Trip. I have had DM's go the two different ways with this feat: "You Tripped someone and you have Improved Trip, so you get a free swing" or "Improved Trip states that you get to attack as if you hadn't used your attack for the Trip Attempt, so it was meant to replace your non-swing rather than give you a free lunch." The first ruling makes it like a more dangerous Flurry and the other makes the feat a "don't get screwed over by missing a Touch AC."

On a side note; isn't the concept of 3.0 to 3.5 "it is all the same unless it was replaced"? In that case, why wouldn't specific statements like "Knock-Down was not meant to work this way" be applicable for Sword and Fist but not the 3.5 version? Even if not strictly 100% RAW, it is certainly RAI.

Cheers.
-Eddie

[ShneekeyTheLost]

This is a rather inaccurate view of the comparison, because it ignores the strength check that is necessary to successfully trip an opponent. That, and not the touch attack, is the thing that's more likely to fail. Thus, knock-down is superior against, say, a large opponent, because in that case a trip is more likely to fail, so you're better off using an ordinary attack, and getting a bonus trip.

If you are failing the attempt regularly, then you probably shouldn't be trying to trip it in the first place. However, tripping is generally not a difficult task to complete. Heck, the Improved Trip feat gives you a +4, which negates the 'stable' bonus for a four-footer, and as the 'beatstick' you should be just as strong as anything you run across.

[Spuddles]

Successful Knock-Downs RAW trigger Cleave. A psi-gish chain tripper can turn whole battlefields to paste with great cleave and 50ft of reach.

[Auramis]

Successful Knock-Downs RAW trigger Cleave. A psi-gish chain tripper can turn whole battlefields to paste with great cleave and 50ft of reach.

RAW doesn't match up with RAI, according to the Q&A.

[eggynack]

If you are failing the attempt regularly, then you probably shouldn't be trying to trip it in the first place. However, tripping is generally not a difficult task to complete. Heck, the Improved Trip feat gives you a +4, which negates the 'stable' bonus for a four-footer, and as the 'beatstick' you should be just as strong as anything you run across.
Perhaps you are just as strong as this beat stick you're running across, but you're not easily hitting on every attack the same way you might on a touch attack. Between enemies with a trip mod that you overcome on any roll, and enemies with a mod high enough that you won't even make the attempt, there's a world of mods where you'll make the attempt and have a decent chance at success. That's why the strength check, and not the touch attack, is the primary limiting factor to be considered.

[Valluman]

The main reason I am going with Knock-Down instead of a spiked chain is mostly for flavor. A knight wielding a chain seems unruly, and he can't wield a shield with a spiked chain (unless he picks up some other feat I am unaware of, so that's two for the one). They both require a feat either way, so the biggest difference I see is range and less feats for the 5-ft reach... Unless there's a one handed flail with a longer chain out there I am unaware of.

[Gavinfoxx]

Sure he can; it's called an animated shield! And Shields are only useful, generally, at low levels. And even then, it might be more useful to have a reach / trip weapon...

And the 1 handed spiked chain is the kusari-gama in the DMG.

[Valluman]

Sure he can; it's called an animated shield! And Shields are only useful, generally, at low levels. And even then, it might be more useful to have a reach / trip weapon...

And the 1 handed spiked chain is the kusari-gama in the DMG.

I may give him an animated shield later, but for the time being, he is level one, so that shield will be useful. The Kusari-gama also requires an exotic weapon feat as well, just as the spiked chain does; it may be something to look in to later!

[eggynack]

The main reason I am going with Knock-Down instead of a spiked chain is mostly for flavor. A knight wielding a chain seems unruly, and he can't wield a shield with a spiked chain (unless he picks up some other feat I am unaware of, so that's two for the one). They both require a feat either way, so the biggest difference I see is range and less feats for the 5-ft reach... Unless there's a one handed flail with a longer chain out there I am unaware of.
Why not just pick up a guisarme? A pole-arm isn't too far out of the way for a knight, and the loss of adjacent squares isn't a huge one. It's still two handed fighting, but sword and board is a pretty pointless style of fighting anyway, even at low levels.

[Gavinfoxx]

Second the Guisarme + Armor Spikes.

[Valluman]

Why not just pick up a guisarme? A pole-arm isn't too far out of the way for a knight, and the loss of adjacent squares isn't a huge one. It's still two handed fighting, but sword and board is a pretty pointless style of fighting anyway, even at low levels.

Mostly for flavor and because the flail also can be used to disarm a target with a +2 bonus; that with a locked gauntlet can all but garuntee he can disarm a target then knock them down when they go to pick up their weapon. He's meant to be tanky and have CC, the guisarme would lessen his durability for increase range on his CC, which again, may be something to look in to at higher levels.

And spiked armor armor comes later as well. :smallwink:

[Gavinfoxx]

You know that wielding a two-handed weapon is better than wielding a one handed weapon for disarming, even if that one handed weapon has the 'disarm' special, right? +4 vs +2? And you also know that most of the things you fight in D&D don't use manufactured weapons that can be disarmed?

Also, check the reach of a character at level 1 with a Guisarme and Armor Spikes under the effect of a 50 gp Enlarge Person potion, or an Enlarge Person from a friendly Wizard... the image is in the back of the DMG, I believe...

Consider this character:

www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=55074

[Valluman]

I am aware of the benefits and negatives of each one, but again, I did say part of it was for flavor. Increasing his armor means ensuring that the disarm is less likely to be interrupted. I'm not trying to min-max the dude to the letter; he's supposed to be the Black Knight of the campaign.

[Gavinfoxx]

You want to give him Improved Disarm why again?

[Valluman]

You want to give him Improved Disarm why again?

I wasn't giving him improved disarm? I am giving him improved trip. Disarming and then tripping when the target goes for their weapon is just a tactic. I never planned on giving him improved disarm.

[Gavinfoxx]

"Increasing his armor before he has improved disarm" is what confused me, is all.

And I know you want to do some stuff for flavor, but the fact of the matter is that:

1.) Mundane melee needs all the help it can get
2.) Some fighting styles for mundane melee are just plain better than others.
3.) Two handing your weapon is SO much better in 3.5e than not doing so.
4.) Reach in 3.5e is a HUGE deal.

[eggynack]

There's also an extra bonus minor thing. Getting a free trip out of knock-down requires dealing ten damage with one of your hits. Usually, that's basically trivial. On a two handed weapon, with a +4 strength mod, you're already looking at a base bonus damage of +6, and that's atop at least two weapon damage from a guisarme. You could power attack for one on top of that, and get a free trip literally every time you hit. That's great stuff.

Using a flail is not like that. Your strength mod only gives you a base damage of +4, and the flail's average damage is 4.5. You're not going to take power attack, because it's a one handed weapon. Your average attack fails to get an extra trip, and it's tricky to make that not be true. You can go with water orc, which is great, but even then you're still not tripping on every successful hit. It changes the comparison between improved trip and knock-down, is what I'm saying.

[Valluman]

Ah, sorry for the wording; I edited that to make the language more clear.

Anyway, I did say later he may go for the reach, several times in fact. At lower levels, especially level one, 2 armor from a shield is very valuable. He can't attack adjacent foes with the reach weapon either, which, if he is forced adjacent to a foe, is a disadvantage. Upon having difficult terrain around him (and knock-down feat), I will agree; a two handed weapon would be FAR more beneficial.

[Gavinfoxx]

He can't attack adjacent foes with the reach weapon either, which, if he is forced adjacent to a foe, is a disadvantage

Unless you have armor spikes, a gauntlet (which like every armor gets anyway), a spiked gauntlet, knee blades, razored armor, etc. etc. etc.

[eggynack]

What're the stats on armor spikes anyways? I don't think I've ever actually seen the damage on those for some reason. My guess would be dagger style stats or something.

[Gavinfoxx]

"Spiked Armor"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

In the PHB.

[Valluman]

What're the stats on armor spikes anyways? I don't think I've ever actually seen the damage on those for some reason. My guess would be dagger style stats or something.

Spiked armor special 1d4 1d6 ×2 — special Piercing <-- PH Table 7-5

Anyway, going spikes and guisarme means he gets no shield, which is a class feature of the knight. If so many are adamant about ditching the shield, I may as well just make him a fighter (since they'll get bonus feats anyway) or something else melee friendly like crusader and then dip into knight later, which ISN'T the idea of the character in mind.

[eggynack]

"Spiked Armor"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

In the PHB.
It is an odd thing that I never made the connection between spiked armor and armor spikes.

[Gavinfoxx]

Also, why are you going the Knight class, rather than -- say -- Warblade?

[Valluman]

Also, why are you going the Knight class, rather than -- say -- Warblade?

This may sound outlandish, but because I want to. Yes, I'm aware of their place on the tier system. Yes, I am aware of their drawbacks. I want it for the flavor and for the style of the class. I'm not going to keep repeating it though; it doesn't appear to be getting through that the character is supposed to be a character rather than a minmaxed machine.

[eggynack]

This may sound outlandish, but because I want to. Yes, I'm aware of their place on the tier system. Yes, I am aware of their drawbacks. I want it for the flavor and for the style of the class. I'm not going to keep repeating it though; it doesn't appear to be getting through that the character is supposed to be a character rather than a minmaxed machine.
It's just a name, really. A fighter can be a knight, or a warblade, or maybe a crusader. What is your goal with this character? What's he known for being capable of doing? My idea of a knight is that he's capable of protecting people, by body, and by sword. If you want to be able to do that, I've gotta figure that you should make your character able to do that, instead of fitting in with the game's assertion about what a "knight" is. It's like saying, "I want to play a samurai, so I need to use two weapon fighting, because that's what the class pushes you towards." Start with an idea, and a set of things you want to do, and make your character do that. What's in a name? That which we call a knight by any other name would be as sweet to play.

[Gavinfoxx]

Why not two hand the shield?

Use a Heavy Steel Shield with Shield Spikes as your main two handed weapon, that might work.

[OldTrees1]

When giving constructive criticism, be careful not to suggest removing the core idea that the OP wants to keep!

When the OP says something like "I'm not going to keep repeating it though" then it might be a good idea to step back and evaluate what you are doing.

[Valluman]

When giving constructive criticism, be careful not to suggest removing the core idea that the OP wants to keep!

When the OP says something like "I'm not going to keep repeating it though; it doesn't appear to be getting through that the character is supposed to be a character rather than a minmaxed machine." then it might be a good idea to step back and evaluate what you are doing.

Thank you.

[Inuzuka]

This may sound like a dumb question, but is your Knight mounted?

[Ghustor]

Wait, then what's the point of the Knock-down feat in the first place? Simply removing the weapon restriction?

NO, AT ALL!!

The problem with Knock-down is the Trip in AoO

If the oponent dosent have some way to stand up without provoke AoO, you just lock him down.

Hold the Line + 15 ft. Reach Weapon (Large Spiked Chain) = untouchable against any melee

+Combat Expertise = untouchable against a melee party

[AlltheBooks]

in lame-man's terms, easy to obtain.

Sorry lol didn't even make it through the post. It's layman's. Sorry just funny never seen that version before.

[Xintas]

At this point, we have two separate discussions: S+B vs. 2H and what the OP actually wants to talk about.

Also, this is the NPC bad guy. He doesn't have to worry that monsters can't be disarmed; he only fights the PC's. He can spec for the PC's and do what he wants because he doesn't need to worry about whether or not Cranky McWizardpants is gonna send him into a dungeon or on top of a cliff for his next bag of gold.

That being said, I don't know how optimized your campaign is, but this runs the risk of turning your players off to melee entirely. Its quite good, not 100% optimized as everyone is pointing out, but it essentially neuters melee damage dealers, who are already hurting for viability. I would look into what you plan to do with him down the line once the fighter is no longer the threat, but the wizard is threatening to blow your entire encounter in 2 rounds.

[nedz]

Thread Necromancy

[Greenish]

The problem with Knock-down is the Trip in AoO

If the oponent dosent have some way to stand up without provoke AoO, you just lock him down.If I follow you, you're basically saying that since the trip from Knock-Down happens after the AoO, you can trip the person who provoked the AoO by standing up.

…That's really iffy interpretation.

Hold the Line + 15 ft. Reach Weapon (Large Spiked Chain) = untouchable against any meleeWielding a larger reach weapon does not increase your reach. If you are Large with a reach weapon, your reach would be 20 ft.


+Combat Expertise = untouchable against a melee partyWhat.

[OldTrees1]

If I follow you, you're basically saying that since the trip from Knock-Down happens after the AoO, you can trip the person who provoked the AoO by standing up.

…That's really iffy interpretation.

Agreed.

AoOs interrupt the provoking action. Only when the AoO is fully resolved does the provoking action resume. The AoO is not fully resolved until the Trip from Knock-Down is resolved.

So it goes
Attempt to stand up:
Provoke AoO
Enemy AoO deals 10 damage to trigger Knock-Down
Enemy Knock-Down has no effect on the still prone target
Stand Up