# Karmic Strike: Undefeatable.......?



## Bloodweaver1 (Apr 25, 2005)

“Karmic Strike: You can make an AoO against an opponent that hits you in melee. On your action, you choose to take a -4 penalty to your AC in exchange for the ability to make an AoO against any creature that makes a successful melee attack or melee touch attack against you….”



            OK... I have done some serious research and as far as I can tell this particular feat is IMHO the best feat in the entire D&D setting, hands down. There is no feat (at least none that I can find) that directly prevents this feat from happening. The only thing that I can think of is a creature that has a nature reach or a reach weapon. 

            This feat in combination with Combat Reflexes makes any melee character 10x better. Especially a Monk!!! (Don’t even get me started how this breaks that class). I mean seriously… with this feat not only am I going to smack you up but when its your turn to hit me I am going to smack you again. Now if you take some feats out of the Oriental Campaign, such as one that lets you make a free trip attack if an opponent misses you (I forget the name) and the Knock Down. Both feats which have yet to receive a 3.5 updated (as there is almost no need of it). 

You have now have made a melee character that no matter what the opponent does, they are going to have resist a trip attempt or take damage. Is there any way to stop this monster besides just not fighting it or have it surrounded by archers and pike-men?


----------



## Bryan898 (Apr 25, 2005)

Karmic strike is pretty powerful, but I'm pretty sure a frenzied beserker or hulking hurler would wipe the floor with em.  Anything with a rather high AC could put up a good fight against a monk built in said fashion.  A high level cleric or druid, or even wizard would also put up a good fight.  Every build/ class has a weakness, 3.5 does a very good job of that IMO.


----------



## Darkness (Apr 25, 2005)

Bloodweaver1 said:
			
		

> Both feats which have yet to receive a 3.5 updated (as there is almost no need of it).



 Though the way AoOs work in 3.5, Karmic Strike is now better than ever. If you have Combat Reflexes, of course.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 25, 2005)

Welcome to the boards, Bloodweaver1.

If the character does not have Improved Unarmed Strike, disarm or sunder can quickly reduce his effectiveness.

Otherwise, grappling is one way to ensure that the character can't take AOOs.

Furthermore, AOOs are only effective if they hit and deal damage. High AC or high DR can negate most of the power of this feat.

In addition, heavy hitters may come out ahead by simply trading blows.

Finally, why should anybody feel the need to take on this character, on his own terms, in melee combat? Someone wants to lower his AC by 4, I've got plenty of ranged attacks and ranged touch spells to show him the error of his ways.


----------



## Felon (Apr 25, 2005)

Bloodweaver1 said:
			
		

> You have now have made a melee character that no matter what the opponent does, they are going to have resist a trip attempt or take damage. Is there any way to stop this monster besides just not fighting it or have it surrounded by archers and pike-men?




Well, one could just try having a good armor class. You're making sound like every counterattack hits automatically. I'm not sure what sort of "way to stop" this you think there should be. It's a melee attack. You'd stop it like you'd stop any melee attack.

Sounds to me like the character using Karmic Strike has to take a pounding himself, and with the AC penalty makes it easy for the opponent to make use of Power Attack or fighting defensively.

Also, what is so unfeasible or uncommon about using reach, ranged weapons, spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities against a character?


----------



## Hawken (Apr 25, 2005)

Grapple prevents it, or it should depending on your DM's interpretation of the rule. Grappling is not an attack as such, it is just grabbing on to the person. The grapple check is not an attack roll but a grapple check using the same mechanic as a melee touch attack. Even if the DM decides that the grapple attempt qualifies as an actual melee touch attack, the grapple still gets resolved first. So, while grappling, you pin the subject and once pinned, he is immobile and thus unable to make the AoO. 

There are some downsides to this as well. Taken by Monks, Rogues or other "lightweight" fighters, they are going to lose while standing there trading blows with the power attacking fighter or barbarian, or even if its a sneak attacking rogue or whatever. The feat is a good idea in theory, and in a one-on-one duel, its fine, but in a battle with multiple enemies, the person with that feat isn't going to want to take the penalty to AC just to trade blows when multiple enemies may be attacking him--he'll go down fast while inflicting minimal damage to several targets. 

Also, for the grapple, even if he gets one AoO on the guy grappling him, once the grapple is made, his feat is useless. Establishing a pin right off negates the feat by immobilizing him, leaving you free to use the rest of your attacks to automatically damage him without retaliation. Get that boy grappled and pinned by someone with armor spikes and that's D6 + Str + whatever else damage per attack automatically, no attack roll needed. Then when his turn comes around he has to spend his attacks trying to break the grapple instead of attacking you. And if he keeps the feat "on", it doesn't help since once you've got him grappled, you can automatically inflict damage without having to make an attack roll.

And the Improved Grapple feat negates this feat anyway. Very first sentence in the description, "You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you make an attack roll to start a grapple." So, the Karmic Strike may work on a regular grapple attack, but if you have Improved Grapple, he won't get to pop you when you grab him. Improved Trip and Improved Bull Rush work the same way. 

The feat you mention with the free trip on the missed attack is Defensive Throw. You have to have Dex 13+, Improved Unarmed STrike, Dodge, Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes. And it is only useful against the focus of your Dodge feat. So, against one opponent, fine; but against two or more, it's not going to help you. 

And like you mentioned, reach weapons, ranged attacks and spells overcome that feat no problem. So, it is a potent feat, but its a far sight from being the best feat.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Apr 25, 2005)

It's good, but it's not _that_ good.

Now, combine it with Deft Opportunist and that one feat that lets you take a five-foot step every time you make an AoO, and _that_ strikes me as potent.  Getting a chance to do damage to your opponent every time they damage you in melee is good, but stepping away every time they hit you so that they can never get a full attack off on you is probably very very good.


----------



## Kelleris (Apr 25, 2005)

Huh.  If Karmic Strike had no prerequisites, it would be very good.  As it is, it's merely a solid choice.

Why?  It (IIRC) requires Dodge.  Dodge is a terrible feat, but more than that, it's counterproductive.  With Karmic Strike you _want_ to get hit, or the feat's useless, and Dodge works against that.  Even worse, the Mobility-Spring Attack chain (the only other reason to take Dodge) requires a combat style that's directly antithetical to one that utilizes Karmic Strike.


----------



## Bront (Apr 25, 2005)

Well to fully capitolize on it, you need at least 2 feats, (It, and Combat Reflexes), supposedly it requires Dodge too, so you need at least 3 feats, AND a high dex, and, idealy, the ability to take a lot of punishment.

The AoOs don't cancel the attack against you, so you only get them if you survive.  Plus, you don't get them vs ranged combat or ranged targeted spells, so good archers with Precice shot or mages with ray spells will eat up the PC.  Also, this eats up your AoO's so you can't use them for other things like attacking monsters charging through the lines.

Is it cool? yes.  Can you have fun with it? yes.  Is it overpowered?  Not teribly.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 25, 2005)

Enlarge - hard to trip
Stoneskin - hard to damage
Fireshield - you sure you want to hit me more often?

I fail to see how this feat is nastier than, say, Power Attack in the right hands. Or Improved Sunder. You build a char with that feat and I'll take yours on with an identical one with Improved Sunder instead.

Sure, if you have multiple feats you could get all of those AND Karmic Strike, but by then you run into caster enemies with the above spells.



			
				Bloodweaver1 said:
			
		

> You have now have made a melee character that no matter what the opponent does, they are going to have resist a trip attempt or take damage. Is there any way to stop this monster besides just not fighting it or have it surrounded by archers and pike-men?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 25, 2005)

It'd be really cool to have a rogue/fighter that combined Karmic Strike with Flick of the Wrist.


----------



## Bill Muench (Apr 25, 2005)

Hmm, I just had an interesting idea. Combine Karmic Strike and Elusive Target's Cause Overreach ability. When you leave a threatened square:

If they miss, you get a trip attempt
If they hit, you get an AoO (which can be used for a trip and follow-up attack if you have Improved Trip)
As a guy with a Dervish with mad AC and a good trip check who qualifies for the feat, I may have to think about taking it...


----------



## Evilhalfling (Apr 25, 2005)

So you take 3 feats for the privlage of multiple counterstikes - since you actually have to get hit for this to work it seems fair.  It would be very effective vs other non-grappling monks (lots of small damage attacks) or some animals, but there high strength may mince you even as you kill them.  
Now a Psiwarrior with biofeedback - or other types of DR this could be great.


----------



## Arravis (Apr 25, 2005)

I thought Deft Opportunist only gave you a +4 to hit on AoO's and that's it. From Complete Adventurer, right?


----------



## Shin Okada (Apr 25, 2005)

Slightly off-topic, but I wonder why people think trip to be that much powerful tactics. Sure, now a prone creature provoke AoA when standing up. But trip is an opposed ability roll with special size modifier. Even with some bonuses from feats and such, high leveled characters are not sure if he can trip usual soldiers at practical accessibility. Dwarfs, one of the most common Melee PC race, has +4 bonus to resist it. And PCs often fight against something big and strong, something with 3+ legs, or something has no legs at all (you can't trip an animated iron ball). And relatively cheap item, Steadfast Boots from AEG, can negate it.


----------



## Bryan898 (Apr 25, 2005)

> I thought Deft Opportunist only gave you a +4 to hit on AoO's and that's it. From Complete Adventurer, right?




Deft Strike from CA gives you +4 to your AoO's.  Deft Opportunist allows you a 5' step after an AoO.

You might be able to make a fairly powerful monk character with the right feats, but nothing game breaking.  Bonus- Improved Unarmed, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip; Normal- Dodge, Mobility, Elusive Target, Karmic Strike, Deft Opportunist, Close-Quarters Fighting, Hold the Line. This would grant you: AoO's when charged, AoO when being grappled with the damage you deal added in to your grapple, the target of your Dodge feat cannot use the Power Attack ability on you, AoO's whenever hit in melee combat, and the ability to move 5' after an AoO.  You'd need an extremely high Dex to make all those AoO's.  You also wouldn't shine in mass combats, though you would potentially be a one-on-one monster.  Nothing game breaking, or even truly munchkined.


----------



## Bryan898 (Apr 25, 2005)

> Slightly off-topic, but I wonder why people think trip to be that much powerful tactics. Sure, now a prone creature provoke AoA when standing up. But trip is an opposed ability roll with special size modifier. Even with some bonuses from feats and such, high leveled characters are not sure if he can trip usual soldiers at practical accessibility. Dwarfs, one of the most common Melee PC race, has +4 bonus to resist it. And PCs often fight against something big and strong, something with 3+ legs, or something has no legs at all (you can't trip an animated iron ball). And relatively cheap item, Steadfast Boots from AEG, can negate it.




I agree.  While its a fairly strong ability against some opponents, most the creatures my PCs face would have a hard time tripping.  Besides those ways to get out of trip, there's also a high Tumble check (I had a paladin once who could make the DC in mithral full plate), and the Prone Attack feat from CW (which allows you to attack from prone with no penalty and stand if you hit).


----------



## Arravis (Apr 25, 2005)

So which book does your Deft Opportunist come from?

P.S.: Just checked Complete Adventurer, the +4 to AoO's is called Deft Opportunist. Deft Strike is another feat altogether (also in CA) which involves a spot check to find a weakness in someone's AC.


----------



## Felon (Apr 25, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> Grapple prevents it, or it should depending on your DM's interpretation of the rule. Grappling is not an attack as such, it is just grabbing on to the person. The grapple check is not an attack roll but a grapple check using the same mechanic as a melee touch attack. Even if the DM decides that the grapple attempt qualifies as an actual melee touch attack, the grapple still gets resolved first.




Incorrect on a number of points. Before the actual grapple check, you must make a successful melee touch attack roll. That is indeed a genuine attack roll, and even without Karmic Strike, it does provoke an AoO. And if that AoO succeeds, the entire grapple attempt automatically fails. 

If that touch attack succeeds Karmic Strike would then entitle the defending character to an AoO as well. However, the rules state that even a character with Combat Reflexes can only receive one attack per opportunity, so Karmic Strike is simply moot because, all other things being equal, the character is better off taking the AoO before the touch attack.



> And the Improved Grapple feat negates this feat anyway. Very first sentence in the description, "You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you make an attack roll to start a grapple." So, the Karmic Strike may work on a regular grapple attack, but if you have Improved Grapple, he won't get to pop you when you grab him. Improved Trip and Improved Bull Rush work the same way.




That's pretty argumentative. It is pretty obvious that the "Improved" line of feats you mention were intended to negate the AoO that the attacks normally provoke, so it'd be a DM's call as to whether they also negate AoO's granted through non-standard means. Feat A says you don't get an AoO, Feat B says you do. It's pretty much a toss-up as to which feat's wording trumps the other. 



			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> Also, for the grapple, even if he gets one AoO on the guy grappling him, once the grapple is made, his feat is useless. Establishing a pin right off negates the feat by immobilizing him, leaving you free to use the rest of your attacks to automatically damage him without retaliation. Get that boy grappled and pinned by someone with armor spikes and that's D6 + Str + whatever else damage per attack automatically, no attack roll needed. Then when his turn comes around he has to spend his attacks trying to break the grapple instead of attacking you. And if he keeps the feat "on", it doesn't help since once you've got him grappled, you can automatically inflict damage without having to make an attack roll.




Whoa. Major errors there. Attacks do not _automatically_ damage either a grappled or pinned opponent. You are required to make normal attack rolls, against which the opponent receive full AC. And in fact, the rules actually state (and this is pretty dumb IMO) that while you have an opponent pinned, you actually don't have the option of attacking him with any sort of weapon unless the opponent is actually holding it for you.


----------



## Felon (Apr 25, 2005)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> So you take 3 feats for the privlage of multiple counterstikes - since you actually have to get hit for this to work it seems fair.




Note that technically we're talking four feats--Dodge & Combat Expertise are the prereqs for KS. Combat Reflexes makes it especially powerful. Big investment. Of course, a human monk could have all of those by third level....


----------



## Felon (Apr 25, 2005)

Bryan898 said:
			
		

> Deft Strike from CA gives you +4 to your AoO's.  Deft Opportunist allows you a 5' step after an AoO.




Nope. He was right. Deft Opportunist gives you the +4. Deft Strike ignores armor. Sidestep allows a 5 foot step after an AoO.


----------



## Arravis (Apr 25, 2005)

Ok... so where does Sidestep come from?
I'm just tying to find out where the feat that lets you take a 5' step after an AoO comes from.


----------



## Felon (Apr 25, 2005)

Sidestep is from the Miniature Handbook, and Deft Opportunist was in both the MH and CV.


----------



## Arravis (Apr 25, 2005)

Ahh... yet another of many reasons never to buy the Miniatures Handbook. Seems everytime I hear of some overpowered spell or ability, it's from there.


----------



## Felon (Apr 25, 2005)

Dunno where you got that from. The Miniatures Handbook had great stuff in it, and other than the admittedly OTT War Hulk, nothing terribly powerful springs to mind. Certainly nothing we've discussed here.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 25, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Ahh... yet another of many reasons never to buy the Miniatures Handbook. Seems everytime I hear of some overpowered spell or ability, it's from there.




As opposed to from the FR books?


----------



## noeuphoria (Apr 26, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> As opposed to from the FR books?




One class I remember from FR was the runescarred berserker.  One of my players was going to play one, until I found out it was basically a barbarian that could scribe one-shot heals and antimagic auras onto himself.  But then, I always hear that FR adventures are hardcore, so the PC classes and feats (like practiced spellcaster) tended to be a little more uber.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Apr 26, 2005)

noeuphoria said:
			
		

> so the PC classes and feats (like practiced spellcaster) tended to be a little more uber.




...you mean "Spellcasting Prodigy"?


----------



## moritheil (Apr 26, 2005)

Amy Kou'ai said:
			
		

> ...you mean "Spellcasting Prodigy"?




I think so. I have a Sun Elf Wizard with Spellcasting Prodigy IMC.  Effective 22 starting Int. That is because we are indeed hardcore.


----------



## Felon (Apr 26, 2005)

Note that the Player's Guide to Faerun revised this feat for 3.5e, and toned it down.


----------



## Hawken (Apr 26, 2005)

> Slightly off-topic, but I wonder why people think trip to be that much powerful tactics.



Trip isn't _that_ powerful a tactic, but it is very useful. As for difficulty, like anything else, it just requires a potent combination of effects to be more effective. A barbarian with 18 str, improved trip, a sweeping weapon, and in a rage (+4 str), gets +14 to his trip roll. That tips the odds high in his favor against many opponents. And while it may not work all the time, when it does, the Improved Trip feat lets you immediately make an attack at that BAB against a now prone target (AC -4). Also, unless the target has the prone fighting feat, they are -4 to making any attacks and their AC is still penalized for the AoO they draw if they try to rise. 



> That's pretty argumentative. It is pretty obvious that the "Improved" line of feats you mention were intended to negate the AoO that the attacks normally provoke, so it'd be a DM's call as to whether they also negate AoO's granted through non-standard means. Feat A says you don't get an AoO, Feat B says you do. It's pretty much a toss-up as to which feat's wording trumps the other.



No it's not argumentative at all. Its actually rather straightforward. Those Improved feats, as written in the PHB, specifically state that the attacker making those moves does not provoke an AoO for doing those actions. Karmic Strike may allow AoO for doing them normally, but if you have the Improved feats, then Karmic Strike doesn't work. Period. There is nothing in Karmic Strike that states it trumps Improved feats and the wording of the Improved feats explicitly negate the benefits of Karmic Strike. As for your line of reasoning being obvious, that is your interpretation and you're welcome to it, but my statement was based on the rules as written in both books. And going by the letter, and most likely the intention behind them, the Improved feats in question negate KS. There's no toss-up or anything in question. 



> Whoa. Major errors there. Attacks do not automatically damage either a grappled or pinned opponent. You are required to make normal attack rolls, against which the opponent receive full AC. And in fact, the rules actually state (and this is pretty dumb IMO) that while you have an opponent pinned, you actually don't have the option of attacking him with any sort of weapon unless the opponent is actually holding it for you.



Not any major errors, maybe a slip in use of automatic. But read PHB, pg 156, under the section "damage your opponent", in place of an attack, all you have to do is make a grapple check and you inflict your unarmed damage--or damage from the spikes if you're wearing spiked armor. So, in my example, with the pinned (immobile) opponent, you just need to make a grapple check (melee touch) against a target with no dex bonuses to AC, and you get your base unarmed damage + armor spikes + str + whatever. So, while automatic may have been a bad word, my point still stands that grappling (with Improved Grapple) is one of the quickest, easiest ways to overcome the KS feat.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 26, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> So, in my example, with the pinned (immobile) opponent, you just need to make a grapple check (melee touch) against a target with no dex bonuses to AC, and you get your base unarmed damage + armor spikes + str + whatever.




Hmm?  If he's pinned, you make a grapple check against his grapple check.  'Melee touch' and AC don't come into it.

As far as Improved Grapple vs Karmic Strike, there's certainly room for argument.  For example, from the text of Improved Unarmed Strike: "You do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed."

Does that mean that if I attack someone who's using Karmic Strike while I'm unarmed, he doesn't get any AoOs?  Or does it mean that the feat removes the normal AoO provoked _due to making an unarmed attack_, without affecting AoOs for things like Power Lunge or Karmic Strike?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hawken (Apr 26, 2005)

> Hmm? If he's pinned, you make a grapple check against his grapple check. 'Melee touch' and AC don't come into it.



Heh! You're right. So much for being able to focus on a topic with my 2 yr. old daughter coming in and testing how far my ears will stretch!   

You've got a point with the IUS feat, which is why I didn't specifically mention it. That feat states though that it prevents AoO which you would normally get for making an unarmed attack vs. an armed foe. But against Karmic Strike, it wouldn't matter. An unarmed strike or an armed one equally draw AoOs against that feat. IUS simply treats unarmed strikes as if they were armed; either condition allows retaliation via Karmic Strike. 

With Improved Grapple, it specifically states that you do not provoke an AoO when you make a touch attack to start a grapple. So, it negates the condition (a melee attack or touch attack roll) that triggers the Karmic Strike feat. Same with Improved Bull Rush, Disarm and Trip. Improved Sunder is questionable though, since the DM must decide if attacking an object held or carried counts as an attack against the person--thus allowing Karmic Strike to come into play if it would.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 26, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> With Improved Grapple, it specifically states that you do not provoke an AoO when you make a touch attack to start a grapple.




I quoted IUS above - it states that you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack unarmed.

Those are the words it uses.

How is that different from your Improved Grapple argument?

Normally, attacking unarmed provokes an AoO.  IUS prevents that.

Normally, initiating a grapple provokes an AoO.  Improved Grapple prevents that.

Karmic Strike allows an AoO any time you are hit with a melee attack.  Either this is prevented by both IUS _and_ Improved Grapple, or by neither.

-Hyp.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Apr 26, 2005)

Man this feat is a real mind-knotter, get whacked easily & gain the chance to whack back. I guess the key to using this is to have a decisive advantage in hit probability/damage output, ready healing, or some form of DR.

A 7th level monk would likely be making a mistake using this on a (power attacking) CR7 Hill Giant, but then that is the exception to the norm. 

Question? Does Karmic Strike apply to one or all hits in a round?


----------



## Bloodweaver1 (Apr 26, 2005)

Understood that if you are fighting multiple opponents and/or an opponent that can deal at least double the amount of damage that you can deal in one round then this feat may not be high on the priority list. However, taking this feat combined with Knock Down, Combat Reflexes and their pre-requisites (Which a level 6 Monk can do.. I think) can greatly help in lowering the difficulty of fighting multiple opponents and even help when fighting that CR 8 Hulking Warrior. And on a side note, I seriously doubt the sanity of the character if they decide to take on a creature that can dish 2x the damage that it can.





			
				FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> A 7th level monk would likely be making a mistake using this on a (power attacking) CR7 Hill Giant, but then that is the exception to the norm.







Taking a minus four to AC I think works in this feats favor. The character wants to get hit or its pointless to have this feat. Plus Power Attack (unless combined w/ other feats) would only give the opponent an extra four points of damage. In my eyes they can have it, as the character is going to get their full attack damage in return which will be more than a mere four points…. 



And if the character wants to be more challenging against magic casters simply take Mage Slayer feat out of the Complete Arcane. Not a total fix but it does help when the caster can’t cast on the defensive.  





			
				Hawken said:
			
		

> The feat you mention with the free trip on the missed attack is Defensive Throw. You have to have Dex 13+, Improved Unarmed STrike, Dodge, Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes. And it is only useful against the focus of your Dodge feat.







Defensive Throw at that point is just an added bonus (Thanks Hawken) and more of a visually stimulating complement to this feat.






			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Also, what is so unfeasible or uncommon about using reach, ranged weapons, spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities against a character?






None… I was merely speaking strikly from a melee point of view. But you do have a very valid point. 



***



I’ve learned, and I think most of the experienced players here will agree, that no one feat in the D&D setting can make or break a character but rather it takes a series of feats that takes a character from “eeh…” to “Holy Mary Mother of God!!!” With that and to maybe clarify my original post, I feel this feat has the greatest feat chaining capability a melee class character can get. Especially since there is no feat published yet that directly prevents this from happening. 






			
				Felon said:
			
		

> That's pretty argumentative. It is pretty obvious that the "Improved" line of feats you mention were intended to negate the AoO that the attacks normally provoke, so it'd be a DM's call as to whether they also negate AoO's granted through non-standard means. Feat A says you don't get an AoO, Feat B says you do. It's pretty much a toss-up as to which feat's wording trumps the other.






I’m going to side with the fact that KS trumps the Improved **** attacks, as KS specifically says that you gain an AoO against any successful melee or touch attack. Period. For example if you were to have KS and go up against an opponent w/o Improved Grapple and they try to grapple you, would you get two AoO? No you would not, as dictated in the PHB you would only receive one. However conceptually you would get two AoO. And continuing with my conceptual thought process the Improved **** would only eliminate one of those two AoO. Hence KS would still work. 



That is how I see it anyway….  Did I loose anyone…? 



 Action Result

Grapple                           AoO

Improved Grapple           Negates AoO

Karmic Strike                  Regains the AoO


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Apr 26, 2005)

Umm I don't think a Monk wants to trade hits with any heavy bruiser-type, that's their greatest Archilles heel.

I won't go through the math but a dimwitted Hill Giant will soon figure he wants to powerattack and that -4 becomes a +8 for his iterative attacks. Your 'typical' monk is risking death in this situation, especially if a *3 greatclub critical rears it's head.


----------



## Bront (Apr 26, 2005)

The Improved XXXX feats negate the AoO for that particular action (Attacking unarmed, attempting a grapple/trip/disarm), but KS would still allow an AoO if the opponent hits.

Question.  Is a successfull Trip a true Hit?  How about a Disarm or Sunder?  Grapple is, because you deal damage and are directly attacking the opponent.  The others are not quite as clear.

Personaly, I don't think a trip is an actual hit, and a disarm or sunder is definately not (You're not attacking the character directly), so they wouldn't grant an AoO from KS.


----------



## darkelfo (Apr 26, 2005)

Great thread. Lots of cool ideas. One thing that sucks about AoO based Feats is they depend on the GMs playstyle. Some GMs play the least intelligent mobs as some of the most astute tacticians for AoO purposes. Somewhat mitigated if you have a spiked chain since the area is so wide.


----------



## Felon (Apr 27, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> Not any major errors, maybe a slip in use of automatic. But read PHB, pg 156, under the section "damage your opponent", in place of an attack, all you have to do is make a grapple check and you inflict your unarmed damage--or damage from the spikes if you're wearing spiked armor. So, in my example, with the pinned (immobile) opponent, you just need to make a grapple check (melee touch) against a target with no dex bonuses to AC, and you get your base unarmed damage + armor spikes + str + whatever.




Hmm. You made a couple more mistakes while disagreeing with me.  

Hype already pointed out one. The other is that you retain your Dex bonus to AC against someone you're grappling. I guess this mistake may be why you felt comfortable using the word "automatic"?



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Karmic Strike allows an AoO any time you are hit with a melee attack.  Either this is prevented by both IUS _and_ Improved Grapple, or by neither.




Yep.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 27, 2005)

Bloodweaver1 said:
			
		

> And on a side note, I seriously doubt the sanity of the character if they decide to take on a creature that can dish 2x the damage that it can.




Most effective combat monks act as though they're of doubtful sanity anyway, since they regularly and deliberately separate themselves from the group they're fighting with.


----------



## Wilphe (Apr 27, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Note that technically we're talking four feats--Dodge & Combat Expertise are the prereqs for KS. Combat Reflexes makes it especially powerful. Big investment. Of course, a human monk could have all of those by third level....




A human monk that needs a 13 INT and hence 5 good stats rather than 4...


----------



## Hawken (Apr 27, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Felon
> Note that technically we're talking four feats--Dodge & Combat Expertise are the prereqs for KS. Combat Reflexes makes it especially powerful. Big investment. Of course, a human monk could have all of those by third level....



Incorrect. Dex 13+ and Dodge are the only requirements for KS. Combat Expertise doesn't factor into it at all. However you could use it to offset some or all of the AC penalty of KS--at the expense of reducing your chances of hitting with your AOOs. Combat Reflexes makes the feat truly useful, but not powerful by any means since KS is so easily bypassed by alternate attacks. A 1st level human monk (with a 13+ Dex) could take Dodge and KS at 1st level, and at the 2nd monk level get Combat Reflexes as part of the class. A fighter could do the same and a human fighter could get all 3 at 1st level! Not a "big investment" at all!


----------



## Hawken (Apr 27, 2005)

> I quoted IUS above - it states that you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack unarmed.
> 
> Those are the words it uses.
> 
> How is that different from your Improved Grapple argument?



In my post right before yours, I pointed out, that while IUS negates the AOO for attacking an armed opponent while armed, it would not stop the AOO by KS because KS allows the person an AOO whether the attacking opponent is armed or unarmed. IUS considers an unarmed person armed so they no longer draw AOO for making unarmed attacks. KS grants AOOs for armed or unarmed melee attack rolls, so IUS wouldn't negate it. 

With IG, it specifically states that it negates AOOs for starting a grapple. IG specifically prevents AOOs drawn by making grapple attempts. So IG bypasses KS. KS does not prevent both because those two feats do different things. IG prevents KS because it specifically allows grapple attempts without drawing AOO. IUS does not prevent KS because it only treats unarmed attacks as armed attacks (which has the effects of eliminating AOO when attacking an armed foe unarmed), it does not specifically prevent AOOs for making an unarmed attack. 



> I’m going to side with the fact that KS trumps the Improved **** attacks



That is not a fact. That is your opinion. KS states it grants an AOO for successful melee attacks. IG states that it prevents AOOs for grapple attempts. So, IG would prevent the AOO. You can have it your way in your game, but that would be disregarding the rules of the IG feat as they are written.



> For example if you were to have KS and go up against an opponent w/o Improved Grapple and they try to grapple you, would you get two AoO? No you would not, as dictated in the PHB you would only receive one. However conceptually you would get two AoO. And continuing with my conceptual thought process the Improved **** would only eliminate one of those two AoO. Hence KS would still work.



No, you wouldn't get 2 AOO, conceptually or otherwise. In that situation, there maybe two conditions for an AOO, but it would be only one AOO as the two conditions are exclusive and independent of each other. IG negates both of those conditions, as long as a grapple attempt is being made. If you had IG and didn't try to grapple, then, yes, AOO as normal. But IG specifically removes the condition of drawing an AOO while attempting a grapple. 



> The Improved XXXX feats negate the AoO for that particular action (Attacking unarmed, attempting a grapple/trip/disarm), but KS would still allow an AoO if the opponent hits.



You have it right except for the grapple. See above for reasons why. IG negates AOOs for grapple attempts, period; whether the attempt succeeds or fails. 



> Question. Is a successfull Trip a true Hit? How about a Disarm or Sunder? Grapple is, because you deal damage and are directly attacking the opponent. The others are not quite as clear.



This depends on your definition of a "hit". Since with Trip, Disarm, Sunder and Grapple, you are not inflicting damage. Grapple is not a hit because it does not, in and of itself, inflict damage. 



> Hmm. You made a couple more mistakes while disagreeing with me.
> 
> Hype already pointed out one. The other is that you retain your Dex bonus to AC against someone you're grappling.



In the example I stated, it was about a pinned opponent. A pinned opponent is immobilized and, being unable to move, does not get Dexterity bonuses to AC. In fact, an immobile character would have a Dex of 0, so he would have a -5 penalty to AC, and thus be easier to hit. No mistake on my part. However, you can feel free to disagree with me about the penalty to AC since that is not explicitly stated as a consequence of being pinned. However, unless I am mistaken, there are parts of the PHB and/or DMG that state that immobile things have an effective Dex of 0.



> Originally Posted by Hypersmurf
> Karmic Strike allows an AoO any time you are hit with a melee attack. Either this is prevented by both IUS and Improved Grapple, or by neither.
> 
> Yep.



Nope. That is Hypersmurf's own opinion and your agreement with him. Nothing more. To understand why IUS fails against KS and IG doesn't read at the top of this post.


----------



## Legildur (Apr 27, 2005)

Ever since I first laid my eyes on the Karmic Strike feat I've always wondered how it would fit with a Barbarian?

I don't know about your games, but in my live games we ALWAYS have at least one half-orc Barbarian wielding a two-handed weapon (greatsword or greataxe) with Power Attack and Cleave feats as a minimum.  With ability scores focussed on Strength and Constitution (and hence not much focus on Dexterity), restricted to medium armor, typically not using a shield, and taking a -2 penalty to AC when raging, we find that sure, they dish out the damage by the spade full, but also take it pretty hard themselves with a crappy armor class.

Rarely do the opponents miss the Barbarian, so why not capitalise on that and take Karmic Strike, and really dish out some damage?  Hell, if you are going to get hit anyway, might as well make some mileage from it.

And if the feat chain is so good, why doesn't everyone take it?  Because, like so many other 'cool' feat chains, it is situational.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 27, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> With IG, it specifically states that it negates AOOs for starting a grapple.




But Karmic Strike doesn't provide an AoO for starting a grapple.  It provides an AoO for hitting with a melee attack.

IG negates an AoO for starting a grapple.  It doesn't negate an AoO for hitting with a melee attack, which is what Karmic Strike is triggering from.

Just like IUS negates "attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack unarmed", but doesn't negate AoOs for hitting with a melee attack.

Karmic Strike triggers off a hit from a melee attack, _whether that attack is initiating a grapple or not_.  Improved Grapple only negates an AoO from initiating a grapple.  It's exactly the same situation as the unarmed strike - the negation is focused to narrowly to include Karmic Strike.

-Hyp.


----------



## youspoonybard (Apr 27, 2005)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Ever since I first laid my eyes on the Karmic Strike feat I've always wondered how it would fit with a Barbarian?




My thoughts as well.  You want to be hit, but take little damage.

Damage Reduction, anyone?  Sure, the Barbarian doesn't get THAT much reduction, but it's better than nothing...


----------



## Felon (Apr 27, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> In the example I stated, it was about a pinned opponent. A pinned opponent is immobilized and, being unable to move, does not get Dexterity bonuses to AC. In fact, an immobile character would have a Dex of 0, so he would have a -5 penalty to AC, and thus be easier to hit. No mistake on my part. However, you can feel free to disagree with me about the penalty to AC since that is not explicitly stated as a consequence of being pinned. However, unless I am mistaken, there are parts of the PHB and/or DMG that state that immobile things have an effective Dex of 0.




Interesting point. True, there are situations where an immobile character is reduced to 0 Dexterity, but upon checking the glossary of special conditions, there is no condition for "immobile" that defines across-the-board what the effects are of immobilization in game terms. A character has to actually be helpless to be at 0 Dexterity, but he might conceivably lose his Dexterity bonus against his fellow grapplers. However, it's not specifically mentioned. The pinned character does take a -4 penalty to AC against other opponents, in addition to losing his Dex against them, but it looks like he would retain full AC against his pinner.


----------



## Felon (Apr 27, 2005)

youspoonybard said:
			
		

> My thoughts as well.  You want to be hit, but take little damage.
> 
> Damage Reduction, anyone?  Sure, the Barbarian doesn't get THAT much reduction, but it's better than nothing...




Sure, not bad. Only problem is, Combat Expertise is a prereq, so he'd lose access to the feat while raging.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 27, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Sure, not bad. Only problem is, Combat Expertise is a prereq, so he'd lose access to the feat while raging.




No, he still has Combat Expertise, he just can't use it.  Therefore he still has access to feats that have Combat Expertise as a prerequisite.

A human rogue might have Power Attack and Cleave at 1st level.  He can't use Power Attack - his BAB is +0 - but he can still Cleave.

-Hyp.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 27, 2005)

Bloodweaver1 said:
			
		

> No you would not, as dictated in the PHB you would only receive one.






			
				Bloodweaver1 said:
			
		

> However conceptually you would get two AoO. And continuing with my conceptual thought process




If my players were to argue that the pink elephants told them they should get another AOO this round, I would not seriously consider the argument. Nor do I think it merits serious consideration here. Any "thought process" in a discussion here must be based on the rules. For you to mention that you are in flagrant violation of the PHB and then continue blithely with your "thought process" indicates that you are no longer discussing the rules, and that this should be moved to House Rules.

I just want to caution you about turning your back on the rules and marching in the opposite direction - that way leads potential madness.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 27, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> A character has to actually be helpless to be at 0 Dexterity, but he might conceivably lose his Dexterity bonus against his fellow grapplers. However, it's not specifically mentioned. The pinned character does take a -4 penalty to AC against other opponents, in addition to losing his Dex against them, but it looks like he would retain full AC against his pinner.




Check footnote 4 on the Table of Armor Class modifiers.

If you're grappling, you lose your Dex bonus against everyone except the person you're grappling.

If you're pinned, you take a -4 on your AC against melee attacks (except from the person pinning you), _and_ your Dex is treated as 0 (-5 modifier) against everyone.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 27, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> If my players were to argue that the pink elephants told them they should get another AOO this round, I would not seriously consider the argument.




He's phrasing it the wrong way, but it's a valid point he's trying to make.

Instead of "You provoke two AoO", what he means is "You provoke one AoO, for two reasons".

If you have one hit die, and 5 hit points, and a wight hits you with a Slam attack for 15 points of damage and one negative level, you're dead.  One death, but for two reasons - you have negative levels equal to or greater than your hit dice, and your hit points are at -10.  If you have a Scarab of Protection, you don't take the negative level, so you're not dead _because of the negative level_.  But you're still dead.

If you attempt to Disarm me with your bare hands, you provoke one AoO, but for two reasons - you're making an unarmed attack, and you are attempting to disarm.  If you have the Improved Disarm feat, "You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to disarm an opponent".  By a literal reading, this means that you don't suffer any AoO at all for this action.  But we can understand the wording to mean "You do not provoke an attack of opportunity _by reason of attempting a disarm_ when you attempt to disarm an opponent".  The feat negates one of the reasons you are provoking an AoO, but you still provoke because you are making an unarmed attack.

Likewise, the text in Improved Grapple, "You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you make a touch attack to start a grapple", can be understood to mean "You do not provoke an attack of opportunity _by reason of making a touch attack to start a grapple_ when you make a touch attack to start a grapple".  But this doesn't negate other reasons you might provoke an AoO, like "hitting someone who's using Karmic Strike".

-Hyp.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 27, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> He's phrasing it the wrong way, but it's a valid point he's trying to make.
> 
> Instead of "You provoke two AoO", what he means is "You provoke one AoO, for two reasons".
> 
> -Hyp.




That is, semantically at least, a very different statement.  And it is a valid concern.


----------



## Hawken (Apr 27, 2005)

> But Karmic Strike doesn't provide an AoO for starting a grapple. It provides an AoO for hitting with a melee attack.



Hence why KS doesn't work against IG. Grappling is not a melee attack. It does not inflict damage. You simply make a melee touch attack to grab hold of someone, not inflict damage.



> IG negates an AoO for starting a grapple. It doesn't negate an AoO for hitting with a melee attack, which is what Karmic Strike is triggering from.
> 
> Just like IUS negates "attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack unarmed", but doesn't negate AoOs for hitting with a melee attack.



Starting a grapple is not "hitting" with a melee attack. Successfully starting a grapple does not inflict any damage whatsoever. And IUS does not negate KS because it is still an attack that you must hit with. Starting a grapple is not "hitting" someone and doesn't inflict damage. You can hit someone with your fist or foot, but you don't hit with a grapple, you just grapple.



> Karmic Strike triggers off a hit from a melee attack, whether that attack is initiating a grapple or not. Improved Grapple only negates an AoO from initiating a grapple. It's exactly the same situation as the unarmed strike - the negation is focused to narrowly to include Karmic Strike.



KS does not state it is triggered whether from a grapple or not. Those are your words, there is nothing like that in the feat description. And the IG AOO negation is not focused at all, it is directed at anyone that a grapple attempt is being made on. It does defeat KS because starting a grapple is not "hitting" someone. 

If you read the description of KS it mentions, "If you hit with your attack of opportunity both you and your opponent deal and take damage simultaneously". This implies that the feat triggers only on melee attacks that inflict damage. Grappling doesn't do that. 



> Sure, not bad. Only problem is, Combat Expertise is a prereq, so he'd lose access to the feat while raging.



What book are you reading that says Combat Expertise is a prerequisite for KS? It isn't. Dex 13+ and Dodge are the only requirements for KS.  



> Likewise, the text in Improved Grapple, "You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you make a touch attack to start a grapple", can be understood to mean "You do not provoke an attack of opportunity by reason of making a touch attack to start a grapple when you make a touch attack to start a grapple". But this doesn't negate other reasons you might provoke an AoO, like "hitting someone who's using Karmic Strike".



Wrong again, Hyp. Starting a grapple, with IG, against someone with KS, is not hitting them. Hitting something causes damage. Its grabbing them. Grabbing doesn't cause damage. And when you say things like "can be understood to mean...," you're getting away from the rules as they are written and straying into your own idea of what those rules mean.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 27, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> Wrong again, Hyp. Starting a grapple, with IG, against someone with KS, is not hitting them. Hitting something causes damage. Its grabbing them. Grabbing doesn't cause damage. And when you say things like "can be understood to mean...," you're getting away from the rules as they are written and straying into your own idea of what those rules mean.




Oooh!  Showdown!  An open challenge to Hyp!

*grapples a bowl of popcorn*


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 27, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> If you read the description of KS it mentions, "If you hit with your attack of opportunity both you and your opponent deal and take damage simultaneously". This implies that the feat triggers only on melee attacks that inflict damage. Grappling doesn't do that.




If you read the description of Karmic Strike?

"... the ability to make an attack of opportunity against any creature that makes a successful melee attack or melee touch attack against you."

_*Starting a Grapple*
To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target. *Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll.* If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses).

*Step 1: Attack of Opportunity.* You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If the attack of opportunity deals damage, the grapple attempt fails. (Certain monsters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the Improved Grapple feat.) If the attack of opportunity misses or fails to deal damage, proceed to Step 2.

*Step 2: Grab. You make a melee touch attack to grab the target.* If you fail to hit the target, the grapple attempt fails. *If you succeed*, proceed to Step 3._

Notice: the grab requires a melee touch attack, that succeeds.

If you do this, you've made a successful melee touch attack.

"_... the ability to make an attack of opportunity against any creature that makes a *successful melee attack or melee touch attack* against you._"

Step 2 of Starting a Grapple, if successful, provokes an AoO from Karmic Strike.

Notice also that the AoO for initiating a grapple occurs in Step 1.  The AoO from Karmic Strike doesn't occur until Step 2 is resolved (was the touch attack successful?)  They are, in fact, separate opportunities... and someone with Combat Reflexes and Karmic Strike could take both, though if the first deals damage, the second opportunity never occurs.

1. Character A attempts to initiate a grapple.  In step 1, character B gets an AoO.  If he deals damage, the grapple is thwarted.  If not, we move onto step 2.

2. Character A makes a melee touch attack.  If he's successful, Karmic Strike triggers, and character B gets an AoO (though dealing damage will not automatically thwart the grapple), and we move on to step 3.  If he fails, Karmic Strike doesn't trigger, but the grapple is unsuccessful.



> What book are you reading that says Combat Expertise is a prerequisite for KS? It isn't. Dex 13+ and Dodge are the only requirements for KS.




Um, unless stated otherwise, we assume 3.5.  Try the 3.5 version of Karmic Strike in the Complete Warrior.

Of course the 3E version of Karmic Strike doesn't require Combat Expertise.  It wasn't called Combat Expertise in 3E.

In 3.5, Combat Expertise is a prerequisite.

-Hyp.


----------



## gabrion (Apr 27, 2005)

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, but the wrathful healing special ability on a weapon makes Karmic Strike+Combat Reflexes really powerful.  

If you aren't familiar, Wrathful Healing is in Enemies and Allies and every time the wielder hit someone, he heals half the damage he does.  In a Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist build, where you will be doing about 50 dmg per hit, this makes it possible to "trade blows."


----------



## Bloodweaver1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> That is not a fact. That is your opinion. KS states it grants an AOO for successful melee attacks. IG states that it prevents AOOs for grapple attempts.




I apologize for the confusion. What I meant to say was that “I’m going to side with KS trumping the Improved ****”. I no way was I trying to make my opinion fact. 






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> He's phrasing it the wrong way, but it's a valid point he's trying to make.






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Instead of "You provoke two AoO", what he means is "You provoke one AoO, for two reasons"





Thanks Hyp! That is exactly what I was attempting to say but was failing to put it into words.  






			
				gabrion said:
			
		

> If you aren't familiar, Wrathful Healing is in Enemies and Allies and every time the wielder hit someone, he heals half the damage he does. In a Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist build, where you will be doing about 50 dmg per hit, this makes it possible to "trade blows."





hmmm…. Very interesting… I was not aware of the magical enchantment… {Writes note to add that ability to his characters’ weapon enhancement list} Thanx!


----------



## billd91 (Apr 27, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> If you read the description of KS it mentions, "If you hit with your attack of opportunity both you and your opponent deal and take damage simultaneously". This implies that the feat triggers only on melee attacks that inflict damage. Grappling doesn't do that.




I think Hypersmurf's posts clearly point out the way the rules are intended to work. But I have to ask for a clarification of your position here. If the character with KS had damage reduction of some sort, do you believe that he wouldn't get to use it if his attacker hit his AC but failed to do more damage than his DR? 

Being hit and successfully doing damage are two different things. It's possible to do one, but not the other. KS is only concerned with getting hit, not actually suffering damage (though that is the most common effect of being hit).


----------



## Felon (Apr 27, 2005)

Hawken said:
			
		

> Hence why KS doesn't work against IG. Grappling is not a melee attack. It does not inflict damage. You simply make a melee touch attack to grab hold of someone, not inflict damage.
> 
> Starting a grapple is not "hitting" with a melee attack. Successfully starting a grapple does not inflict any damage whatsoever. And IUS does not negate KS because it is still an attack that you must hit with. Starting a grapple is not "hitting" someone and doesn't inflict damage. You can hit someone with your fist or foot, but you don't hit with a grapple, you just grapple.




Come come now. In no way, shape, or form, either through connotation or denotation, does "hitting" mean damage must be dealt. You can get "hit" with a spitball or a nerf bat. 



> If you read the description of KS it mentions, "If you hit with your attack of opportunity both you and your opponent deal and take damage simultaneously". This implies that the feat triggers only on melee attacks that inflict damage. Grappling doesn't do that.




There is no such text in the revised feat description (in _Complete Warrior_), but for arguement's sake, are you suggesting that we should infer just from that text that any attack doesn't inflict damage won't provoke an AoO? Like a sword that doesn't get through an opponent's damage reduction?



> Wrong again, Hyp.




Challenging Hype? You're a gutsy kid. I'll miss you.


----------



## duhtroll (May 10, 2005)

This definitely ranks up there in the useful category.

Whoever said you have to use KS all the time?    

All I know is my LG monk6/tattooed monk 3 took this feat chain with defensive throw and is having all sorts of fun.  Take the chameleon and crab tattoos and you have DR for every hit and NA bonus in order to not get hit.  If you get missed and the opponent is your dodge buddy you get the trip/free attack combo.

Get that DR up to 6 or 8 later and this wiry little monk girl will stand in with any bruiser type.  She'll take sidestep at 12th.

If this were FR she could use the blackscale lizardfolk form for alter self and get large monkey damage, too.  Gotta love it.

It is not the most broken combo out there, but it's a he|| of a lot of fun!

-A


----------



## moritheil (May 10, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I think Hypersmurf's posts clearly point out the way the rules are intended to work. But I have to ask for a clarification of your position here. If the character with KS had damage reduction of some sort, do you believe that he wouldn't get to use it if his attacker hit his AC but failed to do more damage than his DR?
> 
> Being hit and successfully doing damage are two different things. It's possible to do one, but not the other. KS is only concerned with getting hit, not actually suffering damage (though that is the most common effect of being hit).




Whoa there.  If you rule it that way, a spellcaster with stoneskin up still has to make concentration checks from "being hit" despite not taking any damage due to the DR.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 10, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Whoa there.  If you rule it that way, a spellcaster with stoneskin up still has to make concentration checks from "being hit" despite not taking any damage due to the DR.




Er... why?  The rules don't say hitting a spellcaster forces a concentration check; they say damaging the spellcaster does.

-Hyp.


----------



## moritheil (May 10, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Er... why? The rules don't say hitting a spellcaster forces a concentration check; they say damaging the spellcaster does.
> 
> -Hyp.




Hmm, I suppose it's worded thus in 3.5 to get around that.  Personally, my quick search only turned up:



> You must concentrate to cast a spell. If you can’t concentrate you can’t cast a spell. If you start casting a spell but something interferes with your concentration you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell.




But Hyp, surely you can find something similarly wacky that the rules suggest comes about as a result of that interpretation.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 10, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Hmm, I suppose it's worded thus in 3.5 to get around that.




From the SRD:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Concentration DC/1      Distraction*
> 10 + damage dealt       *Damaged during the action./2*
> 
> 1 If you are trying to cast, concentrate on, or direct a spell when the distraction occurs, add the level of the spell to the indicated DC.
> ...




If you aren't damaged during the action, you don't need to make the concentration check.


----------

