Robilar's Gambit vs. Karmic Strike

[Segev]

Is it just me, or does the former cost more and have a bigger downside for the same benefit as the latter?

Is it ever worth taking Robilar's Gambit over Karmic Strike, if you are choosing one or the other?

Is it worthwhile to take both (for a -8 to your AC and +4 on damage done to you by enemies) just to get 2 AoOs per attack they make against you?

Or does the fact that Robliar's trigger on a "swing" rather than on a "hit" mean your AoO interrupts the incoming hit and have the possibility of cancelling it?

[eggynack]

I think you must've meant the opposite. Robilar's gambit effectively has no feat tax, while karmic strike has one or two depending on build, and robilar's gambit applies whenever they swing, instead of whenever they hit with that swing. Apart from the required high level, and minor damage boost to enemies, robilar's gambit is pretty much strictly better. Picking up double attacks on every one of your opponent's attacks is pretty nice though, especially if you trip them, thus knocking away one of those +4's to hit against you. Taking both also helps you get hit, which lets karmic strike work more.

[Segev]

Valid points. I knew I was probably misreading or mis-thinking about them. Thanks!

[Rebel7284]

Also, something like Robilar's Gambit + Knockback can be fun. Good luck finishing that attack when you've suddenly been knocked away across the battlefield for trying.

[Segev]

Interestingly, Channel the Storm (the first option under Stormguard Warrior) would let you get away with choosing not to take any AoOs, and adding +4 to hit and damage for each you don't take...even if the number provoked greatly exceeded your number of allowed AoOs. It says you "choose to refrain from making" an AoO to which you're entitled. If you refrain from making an AoO, you don't make one (by definition), and if you don't make one, you don't expend one.

The question is, do you have to have an unexpended one, or is being out but having one provoked "choosing to refrain?"

[DarkSonic1337]

I would rule the former, since in the latter case you don't have an AoO available and thus are not "choosing" to refrain because there's no choice to be made, you simply CAN'T take an attack of opportunity.

But having one unexpended AoO is enough to "choose to refrain" from infinite attack of opporunities.

[Techwarrior]

Robilar's Gambit has easier prerequisites, and is easier to trigger.

Karmic Strike does not give bonus damage to your opponenent, is quicker to obtain, and triggers simultaneously with an attack, not after. Depending on DM ruling this could mean you can inflict penalties that make it harder for the opponent to deal damage or hit you, potentially negating damage or effects.

Those are the differences between the two feats.

[Shinken]

Robilar's Gambit has easier prerequisites, and is easier to trigger.

Karmic Strike does not give bonus damage to your opponenent, is quicker to obtain, and triggers simultaneously with an attack, not after. Depending on DM ruling this could mean you can inflict penalties that make it harder for the opponent to deal damage or hit you, potentially negating damage or effects.

Those are the differences between the two feats.

Yeah, even though Karmic Strike triggers on a hit, the effect is simulataneous. If you disarm/knockback/daze/stun the target, you won't get hit. If you stagger the attacker with your Karmic Strike, he is all out of actions.
I like Karmic Strike better since you can get it earlier, when defense optimization actually matters and you can take the few extra hits. When you get to take Robilar's Gambit, it's pretty much a death sentence.

[Segev]

I'm not parsing something correctly, I fear. Can you spell out how Robliar's says "after" and Karmic says "simultaneous/interrupt?"

edit: Never mind; I'm just blind. I see it right there in the last sentence in Robliar's.