Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
Quote Originally Posted by RMS Oceanic
I've said before it makes sense to revisit our assumptions, so what do you guys think: Should we now assume the disarmee/tripee/graplee not making an AoO means the disarmer/triper/grapler has the Improved [action] feat, or should we continue needing other proof of it?
We should continue needing other evidence.
The absence of an AoO, to which Roy would otherwise have been entitled, is perfectly straightforward evidence of the feat, imo. There was absolutely no reason for Roy to forego his AoO for this round, since Tarquin's the only enemy he's fighting, and a clear and present danger to the party.

The AoO rules are very much not the sort of thing Rich is scrupulously precise about.
This last comic is itself a clear indication that Rich, indeed, pays attention to the AoO mechanic. And we can't know what feats he actually assigned to the characters, apart from the rare cases when they're openly named in the comic: even with overwhelming evidence, we can only infer.

Even if Rich didn't plan for Tarquin to have Improved Trip, the way he wrote the comic, Tarquin has Improved Trip. And since Rich wrote Tarquin actually tripping Roy as an attack, I'd say he at least looked up what tripping involves in D&D.

BTW, this is totally in line with Tarquin's "intelligent Fighter" concept: remember how he strategically uses Bull Rush and Bluffed Feint coupled with Disarm on previous occasions. The last one is also good evidence of Tarquin having Improved Feint due to him making a bluff check and an attack in the same turn.