Knock Down

[Max Caysey]

Hey guys....

Something just hit me.


It says that when you damage mere than 10, you can meke a free trip attack... If its the initial blow that makes you enemy fall, surely they have meant a trip attemt right? I mean its silly that you have to hit the enemy twise, when its the fist hit that makes him stumble!

Cound anyone elaborate on this please!?

[Zombulian]

Hey guys....

Something just hit me.


It says that when you damage mere than 10, you can meke a free trip attack... If its the initial blow that makes you enemy fall, surely they have meant a trip attemt right? I mean its silly that you have to hit the enemy twise, when its the fist hit that makes him stumble!

Cound anyone elaborate on this please!?

If I could understand what you just wrote maybe I'd be able to.

[eggynack]

No, it's just a trip attack, cause that's what the feat does. I think that the attack is opening up the opportunity for the trip attack, rather than it all being part of the same big swing.

[Flickerdart]

Hey guys....

Something just hit me.


It says that when you damage mere than 10, you can meke a free trip attack... If its the initial blow that makes you enemy fall, surely they have meant a trip attemt right? I mean its silly that you have to hit the enemy twise, when its the fist hit that makes him stumble!

Cound anyone elaborate on this please!?
By the way the feat is written, this is exactly how it works - after your initial attack, you have to make a trip attack and not just the trip attempt.

[Zombulian]

No, it's just a trip attack, cause that's what the feat does. I think that the attack is opening up the opportunity for the trip attack, rather than it all being part of the same big swing.

You'd think it'd be one big swing from the name of the feat though :/

[eggynack]

You'd think it'd be one big swing from the name of the feat though :/
Not necessarily. I mean, no matter how it works, the end result is that you're knocking the enemy down. I kinda like the idea of hitting an enemy hard enough that they're stumbling, and then using that as an opportunity to make your move.

[Zombulian]

Not necessarily. I mean, no matter how it works, the end result is that you're knocking the enemy down. I kinda like the idea of hitting an enemy hard enough that they're stumbling, and then using that as an opportunity to make your move.

It makes more sense logically, yes. But the feat is called Knock Down, not Knock Off Balance.

[Max Caysey]

Not necessarily. I mean, no matter how it works, the end result is that you're knocking the enemy down. I kinda like the idea of hitting an enemy hard enough that they're stumbling, and then using that as an opportunity to make your move.

First of all, sorry if my wording was sloppy.

If you look at the fluff text, it would seem that it should have been a trip attemt. The fact that you have to make contact twice = hit, deal damage and the hit again make no sense. You already made contact with your weapon and it should be that "contact" or strike that had a chance to knock someone over not another strike but the initial strike.

[eggynack]

It's maybe slightly off, but it's not really the biggest deal. The feat is pretty powerful as is, so I don't think it needs the boost in power. Anyways, you can fluff the trip attack however you want, so long as the mechanics stay the same. Maybe the trip attack represents another part of a single blow. Doesn't really change much.

[aeauseth]

The mechanics are not well defined for Knock-Down (http://dndtools.eu/feats/deities-and-demigods--39/knock-down--1725/). It is actually a 3.0 only feat, which may present some issues.

The visual is excellent for this feat. You hit your foe so hard that you have a chance to knock him down (prone).

The trigger mechanism is a bit too powerful (in my opinion). Consider a level 20 fighter using this feat. He will always do at least 10 points of damage, thus a free trip attempt on each successful hit. This is likely why it wasn't republished as a 3.5 feat.

The actual trip mechanic is vague. A standard trip attempt provokes an AOO, Knock-Down obviously doesn't. If you lose the trip check during a standard trip attempt, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you. It is unclear if this holds true for Knock-Down. The excellent visual would suggest no. Game balance likely requires a yes. Not sure how what the visual would be for a failed Knock-Down attempt.

For reference I think the Dire Wolf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direWolf.htm) Trip ability is interesting:


Trip (Ex)
A dire wolf that hits with a bite attack can attempt to trip its opponent (+11 check modifier) as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the opponent cannot react to trip the dire wolf.

I find it unfortunate that the Knock-Down feat doesn't provide the same detail.

[Flickerdart]

It is actually a 3.0 only feat, which may present some issues... This is likely why it wasn't republished as a 3.5 feat.
D&DG has an official update booklet that makes it 3.5-compatible. No changes are made to Knock-down. It is as much a 3.5 feat as anything.

[Darrin]

D&DG has an official update booklet that makes it 3.5-compatible. No changes are made to Knock-down. It is as much a 3.5 feat as anything.

It was also published online as a [General] feat in the Divine section of the SRD, with a slightly more generic wording ("you" instead of "deity"). I wasn't able to nail down the exact publishing date, but it was after the release of 3.5 core books, so that also counts as 3.5 material.

The odd part of all this is the SRD version was posted without the errata from Sword & Fist. It's not clear if the designers deliberately left the errata out or just weren't aware of it. By strict RAW, the SRD version takes precedence over the errata.

Many DMs don't allow the Attack -> Free Trip -> Free Attack combo to work, but that gets into the whole "Melee Can't Have Nice Things" syndrome.

[aeauseth]

It was also published online as a [General] feat in the Divine section of the SRD, with a slightly more generic wording ("you" instead of "deity"). I wasn't able to nail down the exact publishing date, but it was after the release of 3.5 core books, so that also counts as 3.5 material.

The odd part of all this is the SRD version was posted without the errata from Sword & Fist. It's not clear if the designers deliberately left the errata out or just weren't aware of it. By strict RAW, the SRD version takes precedence over the errata.

I can't find the SRD reference you are referring to. The online line SRD is at http://www.d20srd.org/. Would you mind replying back with a link to the Knock Down feat listed in the SRD?

[eggynack]

I can't find the SRD reference you are referring to. The online line SRD is at http://www.d20srd.org/. Would you mind replying back with a link to the Knock Down feat listed in the SRD?
It's over here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown). It's also probably here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), under divine abilities and feats.

[aeauseth]

It's over here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown). It's also probably here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), under divine abilities and feats.

This was helpful. I finally found the direct link here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown). It seems to suggest that only a deity can take the Knock-Down feat. But upon closer inspection there is no obvious prerequisite.

[Max Caysey]

I ound something interesting actually:

From the one we love to hate... the sage!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070726a

Check it out!

[shadow_archmagi]

Yes, the Trip Attack feat is silly because in combination with Improved Trip it allows you to triple the number of attack rolls you make each turn; hurray rapid-fire!

[Max Caysey]

Yes, the Trip Attack feat is silly because in combination with Improved Trip it allows you to triple the number of attack rolls you make each turn; hurray rapid-fire!

When you say "trip feat" you mean Knock Down... right?

I have also checked FAQ and well it was the exact same wording. That would mean that knock down does indeed allow for an extra attack... if only the Sword and Fist FAQ didn't just say know?

[OldTrees1]

More attack rolls allows melee to do more interesting things per turn.

This is why I favor the Attack, Melee Touch, Trip, Attack interpretation.

[aeauseth]

I found someone who claims a WoTC sage response to this at http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Living_Greyhawk/conversations/topics/53905. In summary:


A failed knockdown does not provoke a countertrip attack.
While knockdown uses the trip mechanic, it is not properly an unbalancing "trip", but rather a knockdown from sheer force.
It would have been better to place "knockdown" in the power attack chain, but...
Since knockdown is not an actual trip, you do not benefit from the +4 to tripping that the improved trip prerequisite gives when you attempt a knockdown... it will still be a straight opposed strength check (modified by size for all those enlarged fighters who will be running around in 3.5).
Also note that a successful knockdown does NOT trigger a cleave action, as being knocked prone does NOT constitute "dropping" a foe; that only occurs when HP are reduced below zero.


Most of this makes sense. It is up to you to decide if you believe the poster got this from a WoTC sage (and if you believe the sage's advice).

It doesn't address everything. For example: Do you have to use a tripping weapon? It would seem to follow that a weapon with STR behind it must be used, possibly a throwing axe or a greataxe. Probably can't use a bow or Weapon Finesse.

[eggynack]

I have also checked FAQ and well it was the exact same wording. That would mean that knock down does indeed allow for an extra attack... if only the Sword and Fist FAQ didn't just say know?
It does allow for an extra attack. Whatever says it doesn't applies to the old feat, which was updated to 3.5, and left its old knock-down/improved trip nonbo baggage behind.

[Max Caysey]

I personally think it makes more sense that you make one attack, and if that damage is above 10 then you go straight to the opposed trip attempt. I might be the only one that thinks that, though!


Very interesting link... I have not thought about it like that...

[eggynack]

I personally think it makes more sense that you make one attack, and if that damage is above 10 then you go straight to the opposed trip attempt. I might be the only one that thinks that, though!
Where're you getting this thing about one attack from? There doesn't seem to be anything indicating that knock-down is some kinda special attack action.

[shadow_archmagi]

Where're you getting this thing about one attack from? There doesn't seem to be anything indicating that knock-down is some kinda special attack action.

He doesn't mean *one* attack total (as per, say, a ToB manuever) but simply that rolling to-hit for the Trip chance seems counter-intuitive- the feat is clearly meant to model things like giants knocking people down with a single blow from their club, rather than the current system, which is that the giant hits you with his club, you remain completely upright, and then he swings it a second time in an attempt to knock you over without dealing damage.

While you *could* fluff it as him knocking you over with the same attack that dealt damage, the fact that the trip attack can "miss" implies that we're modelling two separate attacks.


When you say "trip feat" you mean Knock Down... right?

I have also checked FAQ and well it was the exact same wording. That would mean that knock down does indeed allow for an extra attack... if only the Sword and Fist FAQ didn't just say know?

Yes. I meant knock-down. Whoops. I must be more tired than I thought. Alternatively, Knock Down has become such a quintessential part of all my trip builds that I just think of it as *the* trip feat.

[Max Caysey]

Where're you getting this thing about one attack from? There doesn't seem to be anything indicating that knock-down is some kinda special attack action.

It says that if you deal 10 or more damage, you make a trip attack, that woudl indicate that you would need to make another attack roll. This time agains the targets touch AC and then, if that one hits, make the opposed strength check.

[Melcar]

He doesn't mean *one* attack total (as per, say, a ToB manuever) but simply that rolling to-hit for the Trip chance seems counter-intuitive- the feat is clearly meant to model things like giants knocking people down with a single blow from their club, rather than the current system, which is that the giant hits you with his club, you remain completely upright, and then he swings it a second time in an attempt to knock you over without dealing damage.

While you *could* fluff it as him knocking you over with the same attack that dealt damage, the fact that the trip attack can "miss" implies that we're modelling two separate attacks.



Yes. I meant knock-down. Whoops. I must be more tired than I thought. Alternatively, Knock Down has become such a quintessential part of all my trip builds that I just think of it as *the* trip feat.


A very good explanation... I like it!

[Waddacku]

He doesn't mean *one* attack total (as per, say, a ToB manuever) but simply that rolling to-hit for the Trip chance seems counter-intuitive- the feat is clearly meant to model things like giants knocking people down with a single blow from their club, rather than the current system, which is that the giant hits you with his club, you remain completely upright, and then he swings it a second time in an attempt to knock you over without dealing damage.

While you *could* fluff it as him knocking you over with the same attack that dealt damage, the fact that the trip attack can "miss" implies that we're modelling two separate attacks.


Nah, just think of it as one roll to see if you dealt damage, and if you did another roll to check whether that strike hit in such a way as to be able to knock them down.

[Gwendol]

Still, an extra roll that appears unnecessary. Just roll opposed strength checks to see if the tripping is successful, and go from there.

[OldTrees1]

Still, an extra roll that appears unnecessary. Just roll opposed strength checks to see if the tripping is successful, and go from there.

It is a melee touch attack after all. If you have any hope of succeeding on the trip attempt, you will succeed a melee touch attack 80+% of the time.

However I would recommend not eliminating the benefit of the melee touch attack roll (aka qualifying for the Improved Trip feat).

[Max Caysey]

Indeed... even though it to me makes no sense.

Btw... Have anyone found a way to make someone stay down when prone. Like when standing up from prone, provokes an aoo. ANyway of forcing someone to stay down?

[OldTrees1]

Indeed... even though it to me makes no sense.

Btw... Have anyone found a way to make someone stay down when prone. Like when standing up from prone, provokes an aoo. ANyway of forcing someone to stay down?

Well, unlike Readied actions, Attacks of Opportunity happen after the provocation. So a fool can be tripped from the Attack of Opportunity they provoke while standing.

[Darrin]

Still, an extra roll that appears unnecessary. Just roll opposed strength checks to see if the tripping is successful, and go from there.

I prefer to think of it as, 10+ damage means you knocked your foe off-balance, giving you the opportunity to trip. Then you roll the touch attack to establish your hip throw or leg sweep or whatever. Str check to knock them over. Then you get the free attack to add more injury to insult. Yeah, it's a lot of rolling, but... rolling more d20's is still fun, yes?


Btw... Have anyone found a way to make someone stay down when prone. Like when standing up from prone, provokes an aoo. ANyway of forcing someone to stay down?

Well... reducing their HP below zero works pretty well.

More seriously, try dropping some marbles (A&EG) in their square. Or grease. Or ice slick (Frostburn). Or impeding stones (Cityscape). Hmm. Maybe get some kind of demoralize or fear effect in there to make them cower?

[shadow_archmagi]

Well, unlike Readied actions, Attacks of Opportunity happen after the provocation. So a fool can be tripped from the Attack of Opportunity they provoke while standing.

I can't, with a quick glance at the SRD, establish that this is incorrect, but my interpretation was always that they happened before. Spellcasting can be interrupted with an AoO, after all; if the AoO happened after the action that would not be the case because the spell would be complete before the attack happened.

[OldTrees1]

I can't, with a quick glance at the SRD, establish that this is incorrect, but my interpretation was always that they happened before. Spellcasting can be interrupted with an AoO, after all; if the AoO happened after the action that would not be the case because the spell would be complete before the attack happened.


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).


You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.


When a foe's movement would otherwise grant you an attack of opportunity, you may give up that attack and instead attack your foe prior to your foe's actual movement.

While both AoOs and Readied actions interrupt the turn, an AoO is followed by the next character's turn while a Readied action precedes the triggering action.

To further cement this difference, there was a feat in 3.0 that allowed you to situationally sacrifice an AoO to turn it into a Readied attack.

However I can see your confusion since the concentration skill has this to say:

Damaged during the action.2

2. Such as during the casting of a spell with a casting time of 1 round or more, or the execution of an activity that takes more than a single full-round action (such as Disable Device). Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 standard action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action).

However this section can be read as AoOs or Readied actions (in the case of casting times of 1 round or more) or Readied actions (in the case of casting times of 1 standard action).

So casting a non quickened spell does provoke an AoO but standard action spells require a readied action to disrupt.


However I do not dispute that the concentration quote has 2 interpretations.

[shadow_archmagi]

Doesn't that mean that movement doesn't *really* provoke attacks of opportunity, since leaving a threatened square would provoke, but also, since the attack happens after you've left, you're safely out of harm's way? (Unless you're moving out of a threatened square into a threatened square)

[Max Caysey]

Common Misconception #3: Attacks of opportunity happen after the actions that trigger them.

Resolve an attack of opportunity before you resolve the action that triggered it, not after. Sometimes, the attack of opportunity will prevent the triggering action (such as when the attack of opportunity proves lethal to a moving character). If someone tries something that provokes an attack of opportunity, the attack of opportunity happens first. Attacks of opportunity you make in response to a foe's spellcasting or use of a spell-like ability are an exception (see the Making an Attack of Opportunity section), as is moving into a space another creature occupies.


This if from Sage Advice: Rules of the Game....


So that would mean that the AoO happen before he gets up, or at least while, not after. Hence the impossibility to trip someone. Because they are still prone while you hit them!


Here is I nice little link! http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rg_diagram1_72dpi_600.jpg

[OldTrees1]

Thanks for the correction!