Knock-Down + Improved Trip

[Tajerio]

I have a first-time player who's rolled up a warblade, starting at level 3. He's done some research, and knows his way around finding tasty rules combos from wargaming. The one he's gone for here is taking Knock-Down and Improved Trip, on the theory that he'll do 10 damage in a hit more than half the time (1d12+4), and then he can get Attack-Free Trip-Attack if he succeeds on the trip roll. I initially recoiled from this since Knock-Down was never clearly updated to work with 3.5, but now I'm reconsidering. His character doesn't have high enough Dex to get the most out of Combat Reflexes, so it's not like there's going to be a lockdown tripper there. And it's not like that would be gamebreaking anyway, particularly not since the other player has rolled up a druid.

So what does the Playground think? Should I just go ahead and let melee have a nice thing here?

[FearlessGnome]

Unless he is now overshadowing the rest of the party and making everyone feel useless I'd just let him have it. It's a nice, reliable combo, but it's not very uncommon, and martial characters tend to fall behind pretty hard at higher levels, so it's not like he couldn't use a boost.

Now Shock Trooper is a feat he will want to take as soon as feats allow which you may want to weigh in on. I would wait and see how combat plays out for a few levels, since it's not relevant yet, but that's a big one that can really pile on the damage. Which works fine in some games, and not so fine in others. You'll have to decide which one yours is.

[Kayblis]

He came to the table with the basic start of any tripping build. There are full casters in the group. Let him have his simple build.

If he starts overshadowing everyone, you can talk to him. At that point though, it's not really his fault, as there's at least one other person that could outmatch him in the team and isn't doing it for some reason. He isn't running a broken build, a special race or a bs item, he's just not playing a braindead full-attack-only melee character. That shouldn't be reason for concern.

[Saintheart]

I'd say let him have it. If he starts to knock down everything in sight, start looking at the conditions under which Trip operates: he gets a +4 to his STR check from Improved Trip, but if the defender has a combination of Large and two legs, e.g. low-CR quadrupeds, bears, etc provides a +8 against the trip check. And that's before you consider putting up high STR or high DEX types to oppose his (doubtless high) STR modifier.

[liquidformat]

Tell him to start with two levels of barbarian taking lion spirit totem for pounce and wolf totem to get improved trip as a bonus feat; also take wolf berserker as his level 1 feat and knock-down as his level 3 feat. With that he should be reasonably competent.

But seriously this all depends on the level of your table, monks are generally considered to be trash and yet that hasn't stopped them from dominating tables to the point of being band for being 'too powerful' because you have one player at the table that actually knows what they are doing. At a moderately powerful table he as a warblade trip will probably be just fine, and a low power table he will probably dominate everything, and at a low power table he will probably find himself to be useless by level 10.

[Crake]

Knockdown-trip-free attack from improved trip doesn't actually work. Improve trip states that "if you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt." So getting a free trip attempt from knockdown (or anything else really) doesn't allow you to get a free melee attack.

[Elves]

FWIW, the Sword and Fist version (the one that doesn't assume you're a deity) was also errata'd not to work with Improved Trip:


Use of this feat cannot be combined with Improved Trip to generate an extra attack, and successful use of this feat does not grant an extra attack through the Cleave or Great Cleave feats.

[liquidformat]

Knockdown-trip-free attack from improved trip doesn't actually work. Improve trip states that "if you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt." So getting a free trip attempt from knockdown (or anything else really) doesn't allow you to get a free melee attack.

Not sure if I agree with you there, after all there is the first half of that sentence too 'if you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent'. Also it doesn't seem to break a RAW reading of the feat as long as the trip attempt was part of the attack... Anyways you still do get the standard AOO's for the enemy being on the ground...


FWIW, the Sword and Fist version (the one that doesn't assume you're a deity) was also errata'd not to work with Improved Trip:

When was it errata'd I wasn't aware of that? The srd version at the very least doesn't have this change so I am hesitant to accept it as 3.5 rules legal...

[Crake]

Not sure if I agree with you there, after all there is the first half of that sentence too 'if you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent'. Also it doesn't seem to break a RAW reading of the feat as long as the trip attempt was part of the attack... Anyways you still do get the standard AOO's for the enemy being on the ground...

The AoO from the enemy being on the ground only applies when/if they attempt to stand, and remember, they attack occurs while the opponent is still on the ground, so you cannot use the opportunity to trip them again.

[Elves]

The attack occurs while the opponent is still on the ground, so you cannot use the opportunity to trip them again.

Is this your inference or is it said somewhere?

[Crake]

Is this your inference or is it said somewhere?

The attack of opportunity rule state that the attack occurs before the triggering offence, and since the triggering offence is standing up, the attack occurs before the target stands up.

[liquidformat]

The attack of opportunity rule state that the attack occurs before the triggering offence, and since the triggering offence is standing up, the attack occurs before the target stands up.

Hmm I thought it said somewhere that you couldn't standup if the AOO succeeds but I don't see that, maybe it was a house rule unless I am not looking in the right place...

[Tajerio]

Thanks for the input all! I'm not any more sure of what I'm going to do than I was earlier, but at least I'm better informed now.

[Kayblis]

The attack of opportunity rule state that the attack occurs before the triggering offence, and since the triggering offence is standing up, the attack occurs before the target stands up.

Crake's right here, and just to add to it, as your attack happens before your enemy stands up, he still is considered prone and you gain the +4 to-hit against prone targets when he tries to stand up. This also means any special ability or counter can't take place unless it can be done prone, so AoO builds like Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit don't trigger because the enemy doesn't threaten any spaces while prone.

[Elves]

Re: Crake and co. Do you still like tripping as a style for martials despite the Knock-Down combo not functioning RAW?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If it were me, I'd be dipping into dungeon crasher fighter and taking Knockback, as well.

Playing ping-pong with enemies is fun.

[Crake]

Re: Crake and co. Do you still like tripping as a style for martials despite the Knock-Down combo not functioning RAW?

I mean, tripping someone with knockdown in the first place is pretty decent, as it, at the very least, gives the -4 to hit, assuming they don't want to get up, or ruins their full attack and provokes if they DO try to get up. It pairs rather well with knockback if you can qualify for it, being able to both knock someone back AND trip them in one move, which basically completely ruins their next turn, as they have to get up and then move back in, is a rather solid combo.

The only issue is that there are some enemies that this will be entirely ineffective against. Strong, large, and many legged creatures specifically, of which there are a multitude. I would be sure to diversify if it were me, I don't like being a one-trick-pony.

[bean illus]

I like the Ordained Champion tripper. You have less hp, less feats, and slightly less oomph as a tripper,

... but you get spontaneous divine power and flame strike, an unaligned strike, lots to do with your swift actions and TU, self buffs/healing, wisdom for att and dam, and other fun stuff.

And at 10th your not entirely useless.

[Elves]

The only issue is that there are some enemies that this will be entirely ineffective against. Strong, large, and many legged creatures specifically, of which there are a multitude.

Broken Fist Mastery + Large size + Enlarge Person lets you trip up to Colossal.

[Luckmann]

Let him have it?

I'd merge the feats for him.

[Crake]

Broken Fist Mastery + Large size + Enlarge Person lets you trip up to Colossal.

It was more a point that those kinds of creatures would have absurdly large bonuses on their checks to the point where such attacks would be largely pointless.

[Elves]

The Tarrasque and a great wyrm red both have +37 to oppose (+17 str, +16 size, +4 stable). That's not impossible. Your Improved Trip bonus cancels out their stable bonus, to start with. Sweeping weapon and armbands of might for another +4. Then take factotum 3 for int to str checks and you should be equal to or slightly above them. Add torc of the titans for +5 to the check 3/day and drink battlewine for +2, putting you well ahead. Bbn 1 for rage could give you another +2. And this is just assuming you don't have a way of becoming colossal yourself.

[Crake]

The Tarrasque and a great wyrm red both have +37 to oppose (+17 str, +16 size, +4 stable). That's not impossible. Your Improved Trip bonus cancels out their stable bonus, to start with. Sweeping weapon and armbands of might for another +4. Then take factotum 3 for int to str checks and you should be equal to or slightly above them. Add torc of the titans for +5 to the check 3/day and drink battlewine for +2, putting you well ahead. Bbn 1 for rage could give you another +2. And this is just assuming you don't have a way of becoming colossal yourself.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's becoming prohibitively expensive in terms of character building resources. Is tripping the tarrasque REALLY that high on your list of priorities?

[Elves]

Yes, marshal 1 is arguable but by the time you're considering factotum 3 for this you're definitely a specialty build.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Knockdown-trip-free attack from improved trip doesn't actually work. Improve trip states that "if you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt." So getting a free trip attempt from knockdown (or anything else really) doesn't allow you to get a free melee attack.I'll debate this.

Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target.If the conditions are met, you get an extra free-action trip attack. Improved Trip combines with this separate attack.

As an aside, if someone wants to port over S&F errata, that's an entirely reasonable house rule, many of which should be expected at a table. Though if you're going to spring it on someone mid-game you should let them re-pick the feat at least. Knock-Down varies from situational to great based on the local table ruling.

[Crake]

I'll debate this.
If the conditions are met, you get an extra free-action trip attack. Improved Trip combines with this separate attack.

Ok, so knockdown gives you an extra free action trip attack. You trip the person, and then get to attack as if you hadn't used your attack on the trip attempt..... So you don't get to attack, because that free action trip attempt could not have been replaced with a normal attack.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Interesting. I think the difference in reading stems from whether the "as if" clause contains a prerequisite to use the ability or is just a (quite helpful) description of how the attack resolves. By my reading, the true prerequisites are stated prior to the benefit, then there is the main description of the benefit ("you immediately get a melee attack..."), then there are clarifying details about the attack that resolve who you're attacking ("against that opponent"), what weapon you're using, what attack bonus you have, what modifiers apply, and so on ("as if...").

In your reading there is a direct contradiction in the text that roughly states "you immediately get a melee attack ... as if you are in a situation where you can't get a melee attack." That doesn't point to a well-defined interaction but rather a hole in the rules where a GM must figure out which of those clauses is more specific to the ability at hand and hence trumps the other clause. We're getting down to subjective readings here, but in my opinion "you immediately get a melee attack" is more specific than the "as if" clause. In normal circumstances you can't convert a free trip attempt into a melee attack, but in this case Improved Trip is adding the ability to do so. But again that's pure GM ruling territory; ultimately I'd rather just stick to my original reading.

[Elves]

Where is d20SRD getting the version of the feat from which the odd "deities" wording is omitted? I don't see it in the Wizards SRD pub.

[Zombulian]

Where is d20SRD getting the version of the feat from which the odd "deities" wording is omitted? I don't see it in the Wizards SRD pub.

I don’t think the SRD omits the Deity wording, but it is in the general feat section.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

When was it errata'd I wasn't aware of that? The srd version at the very least doesn't have this change so I am hesitant to accept it as 3.5 rules legal...

Sword and Fist was errata'd, but then the feat was re-released in Deities and Demigods in its original form (this is the version that appears in the SRD). As far as I'm concerned, that means the errata is no longer canon, but I can see the argument for "that's just Wizards screwing up".

[Crake]

In your reading there is a direct contradiction in the text that roughly states "you immediately get a melee attack ... as if you are in a situation where you can't get a melee attack." That doesn't point to a well-defined interaction but rather a hole in the rules where a GM must figure out which of those clauses is more specific to the ability at hand and hence trumps the other clause. We're getting down to subjective readings here, but in my opinion "you immediately get a melee attack" is more specific than the "as if" clause. In normal circumstances you can't convert a free trip attempt into a melee attack, but in this case Improved Trip is adding the ability to do so. But again that's pure GM ruling territory; ultimately I'd rather just stick to my original reading.

There's no contradiction, it's quite simple: If the trip attack was made using an action that could have been resolved as a regular melee attack (part of a full attack routine, part of an attack of opportunity, etc), then improved trip allows you to get a free attack after tripping, but if you use an action that is exclusively for a trip attempt (knockdown, the free trip attempt from high sword low axe, shapeshifting into a wolf and getting it's trip Ex special attack), then you do not get an extra attack, because the action in question would not have allowed for a regular attack in it's place.

You're making it out like it's more complicated than it is.

[Zombulian]

For what it’s worth, the High Sword Low Axe feat explicitly says that the extra attack you get from tripping after using the feat is from Improved Trip. Doesn’t necessarily apply to Knock Down I suppose, but it sets a precedent.