- There are lots of abilities which hurt people when they hit you
- There are lots of things which give you a benefit with an AC penalty as a drawback (e.g. Karmic Strike, Punishing Stance)
- Retributive damage scales with the number of foes. The more they hit you, the more damage you deal, without you even needing to take an actions (so you could be making full-attacks or casting spells or healing with ease)
After all, Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit are already pretty popular; if you expected to be hit anyway, I can see amping up the damage you do.
Of course you'd risk taking a lot of damage so you'd probably need a lot of DR, self-healing, and maybe stuff like Evasive Reflexes (PA is going to crush you). You'd also need a way to make sure foes do hit you, and not just go after your squishy team-mates making you feel like a spare part, but there are plenty of these (Goad, Iron Guard's Glare, Defensive Rebuke, Mindless Rage, etc).
Overall, it's probably not worth the effort, but it's something I'd like to try (read: request for "theme build" within these parameters - don't tell me it's a bad idea without at least trying as that's not what I was asking, and it's about as helpful as a chocolate teapot). So, any suggestions? I'm thinking some kind of gish will do best (Defensive Rebuke etc are not a threat otherwise, you probably want Crusader, but you also need access to those spells).
Be advised that Robilar's and Karmic don't "stack" - you don't get two hits to one (Caelic's legendary Jack B Quick build was just bumped, and it's not actually Six Hits To One as a result of this - it's more three hits to one (sword/axe/trip/sword).).
You could take the troll blooded feat (Dragon 319, p61) for regeneration 1, overcome by acid and fire. The taint-blooded template (Bestiary of Krynn) gives acid immunity for +1 LA. The Imix-blooded template (Monster Manual V) gives immunity to fire for +1 LA. Those templates are both deliberately added via rituals, so this combination is only as improbable as someone born with the troll blooded feat seeking out ways to protect himself from acid and fire. If you're starting at a level where you can afford it, the mantle of the fiery spirit spell (Sandstorm) is a better choice than Imix-blooded.
While under the effects of stone body (Spell Compendium) a transmute mud to rock spell heals you back to full, no matter how hurt you were.
What you still need however is to get the "Taunt" type ability either by taking Goad or Martial Study/Stance and somehow still have enough feats left over to improve your PP sustainability via something like the Psycarnum Warrior trick. Although possibly something like Persistant Power might just sort out the PP issue by covering one of your buffs all day, it really limits your options otherwise.
There are some nice options to improve it now, but here'sthe classic.
Tempest: Yes they do. They are two separate abilities.
They absolutely should, and there wasn't errata on this (like a lot of latter 3.5 mechanics), but this was one area on which CustServ was entirely consistent. It showed up here in the Jack thread; you'll note Caelic accepted it. (There is a logic to the ruling (unlike some custserv rulings which are complete ass pulls), although I don't think it's got a solid foundation in the rules.)
Really, I want to try and use something more like Fire Shield. Karmic and Robilar's are great and would fit just right but there are oodles of "don't hit me" spells which nobody ever seems to use. There are a few items which do similar stuff, though many of them are underwhelming on their own.
Crusader also seems perfect because it has a lot to encourage attack and to heal, and Steely Resolve helps keep you alive even if you do suffer a HP overload.
One that I thought about was Dread Necro. I think you get Death Armour as well as DR, and the ability to heal yourself infinitely with Tomb-Tainted Soul. Maybe something like DN 4/Crusader 1 at lower levels, but it doesn't amaze me.
Maybe...
Dwarf, Crusader 1/Incarnate 4/Ironsoul Forgemaster 10/Deepstone Sentinel 5
Mantle of Flame on the Shoulders chakra means you're dealing 1d6 +1d6/essentia for everyone that strikes you. If you're evil or you took Necrocarnum Acolyte, you can also take something like Necrocarnum Vestments to also auto-damage anyone who is adjacent to you at the end of your turn (although the latter is kind of meh for what it gives you).
You'll have a ton of defensive options - incarnates can be surprisingly beefy with a ton of immunities and ways to boost defenses, crusader gives you things like Martial Spirit for healing, ironsoul forgemaster gives you scaling DR and energy resistance on demand, and deepstone sentinel of course has several nice defensive perks. You'll be making terrain arround you difficult all the time, so go ahead and combine that with some lockdown tactics, so that enemies don't just start ignoring you and attacking your allies. When they DO attack you, they'll take retributive damage from your Mantle of Flame, plus whatever weapons you happen to feel like whacking them with.
I'd probably go NE, because honestly the necrocarnum soulmelds are pretty decent, and there really aren't any good-only soulmelds you'll miss. Necrocarnum Circlet is one of the best low-level options available, giving you a very nice free necrocarnum zombie. The Necrocarnum Vestments bound to the heart chakra gives you bonus HP and immunity to stunning and death attacks, making them a pretty competitive choice with the Strongheart Vest. Otherwise, LN is probably your best choice (and more traditionally dwarfy).
Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike are two separate effects that occur at different times. So, while you're technically correct in that they don't "stack," you still wind up with two AoO per attack, four with Double Hit
Even though the responses allowed by the feats are different in timing, because they're both triggered by the same opportunity (the opponent's attack), you can only make one or the other.
The limit on multiple attacks of opportunity is based on the opportunities presented by your opponent, rather than on how or when you're able to respond to them.
I do like Incarnate, though. At lower levels particularly, the Astral Vambraces are great for keeping you alive, and Mantle of Flame probably works better than a lot of things (shame it's Fire though... could use that Cold Fire spell or whatever it's called).
Even though the responses allowed by the feats are different in timing, because they're both triggered by the same opportunity (the opponent's attack), you can only make one or the other.
Wrong. That's akin to claiming you cannot attack the same person twice for provoking twice in movement.
You can't attack the same person twice for provoking twice in movement, at least not if it's in the same movement. It's even specifically called out in the PHB (on page 138):
"Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
Attack and damage are two separate triggers on two separate things. That means a hit results in two attacks.
Where does either feat specify being triggered by damage? One feat requires that the attack triggering your attack of opportunity is successful, but neither one requires your opponent to deal any damage.
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
From the SRD This is something I myself had assumed was incorrect until very recently, but it's pretty clear when you read it.
Also, that paragraph includes the basis for the anti-Robilar's/Karma argument: the incoming attack is the same opportunity for both feats. Karmic waits until it hits, and Robilar delays the AoO until after it hits or misses - both give the same opportunity to respond. One just only works if the attack is successful. (And, as noted, both respond to the attack - neither look at the damage roll. You can Karmic against a Stand Still attack or a touch attack.)
Now, as mentioned, I think if you pay for both feats (in prereqs and in penalty) they should stack (one riposte on a miss, two on a hit), but at least I can see where the no stacking logic comes from. And let's be honest: Robilar is so much better (and Karmic has an extra prereq) that the only reason to use Karmic is at a low level game (before BAB 12). With retraining there isn't much of a problem here.
Given I'm thinking gish here, getting a +12 BAB isn't like to happen until after L12, which means your L15 feat at best (unless you only lose a point or two, and dip Fighter or similar), which is a pretty high level. Thus, it's more likely to be Karmic or nothing, with Robilar's only for high-level play.
The most obvious thing to me seems to be a plain old Wizard-based gish. Reach weapon, Combat Reflexes and Karmic, and you just buff with things like Fire Shield, Death Armour, Mestil's Acid Sheath, etc. You have plenty of ways to deal damage, and Heart of Stone and the like for DR to keep you alive.
A more interesting twist might be to use something like Evard's Menacing Tentacles (can the tentacles take AoOs via Karmic, in addition to your own?) with Extend Tentacles for more reach and maybe touch spells rather than weapon damage. You probably want Persistant abuse for that, though.
I'm not sure that's necessarily the best thing, though. You really want to dip Crusader to keep people attacking you, or rely on Mindless Rage, which I suppose is OK.
By that ruling no one should ever take karmic strike and it should be erased as a feat and it's existence forgotten.
The advantage of Karmic Strike is that, even though the opponent's attack must technically be successful, mechnically you still interrupt it to deliver your own attack first (potentially stopping their "successful" attack entirely, depending on what you do). Of course, if your attack doesn't stop your opponent, their attack will land successfully, since that's already determined.
I do agree that Karmic Strike's prerequisite feats kind of suck, especially compared to Robilar's Gambit.
By that ruling no one should ever take karmic strike and it should be erased as a feat and it's existence forgotten. If you gonna use custserv rulings, use all of them. Don't just ignore some. You can't just pick and choose which rulings you want to abide by. Use all or none.
Karmic is available much sooner (6th 1st instead of 12th) and interrupts enemy attacks (Robilar's is unique among AoOs in that it delays until after the provoking action), although Karmic did imply it "partially" delayed as well (i.e. if you're hit and you use the AoO to kill your attacker, does he roll damage? What if you use it on Evasive Reflexes and step out of his reach, so the attack couldn't have hit in the first place?).
Robilar's is better - both mechanically and in terms of its design - and it's on a better prerequisite track. If you do end up taking Karmic you will certainly retrain it later.
(EDITED: For some reason I remembered Karmic as having a BAB+6 requirement instead of just two defensive and non-AoO related feats.)
Robilar's is better - both mechanically and in terms of its design - and it's on a better prerequisite track. If you do end up taking Karmic you will certainly retrain it later.
I have mixed feelings about which is better in terms of design; Karmic Strike fits its benefit and penalties together quite beautifully, since the penalty actually helps the benefit to trigger (because it requires a separate attack), unlike Robilar's Gambit, where the penalty is just a tax for using the ability. It's a nice design, regardless of its overall worth.
In terms of mechanical benefits, Robilar's Gambit has the advantage of not needing your opponent to make a successful hit, but the significant disadvantage of not getting to attack before your opponent (so they have the chance to take you out first), while Karmic Strike reverses that.
The choice of which one is better (prerequisites aside) depends on how able you are to survive an opponent's attack and to disable them in return. If you're generally confident that you can thwart your opponent with your attack of opportunity, Karmic Strike is better, since the opponent doesn't even get a chance when you do that (it also means the penalty you took to AC doesn't matter against that opponent). But a lot of specifics come into play; if you're healing yourself with attacks, Robilar's Gambit triggering later becomes a boon.
For the purposes of doing damage on-hit, you kind of want to be hit anyway, so Karmic works just fine.
I'd actually call that a count against Karmic Strike, since one of its advantages is the potential of interrupting an otherwise successful hit.
Seems pretty clear you can't get multiple AoOs from the same opportunity, regardless if the trigger is movement or anything else. Karmic and Robilar both provide AoOs from being attacked.
Karmic Strike's origin is from Lo5R...the thematic idea is that both blows resolve in the same instant, the duel is a tie, and both participants die.
But, yeah, same opportunity, they don't stack. It's akin to hitting them when they leave their first square or their second...it's all still from movement, even if the timing is different.
==Aelryinth
Seems pretty clear you can't get multiple AoOs from the same opportunity, regardless if the trigger is movement or anything else. Karmic and Robilar both provide AoOs from being attacked.
It seems I wasn't clear enough and wrote something that could be interpreted in two ways (I was writing from my phone).
I meant the bolded bit in the sense that they both provide the same opportunity. Combat Reflexes (the source for every AoO past the first) is rather clear: If two different things allow an attack from the same (nonstandard) opportunity, you don't get to take two attacks - it's the same opportunity (namely, responding to an incoming attack roll after success is determined; Karmic just makes that opportunity contingent upon the result.).
Again, I think they should stack. I'm simply saying there is a logic to this particular ruling, unlike so many of the other bizarre ones out there.
Technically, both feats (Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit) are being triggered by the one opportunity, but since abilities that grant multiple attacks of opportunity in a round (like Combat Reflexes) limit you to one attack per opportunity, you aren't able to use both.
There's no "maybe" about it; both the core rules and the Rules Compendium are clear that you can only make one attack of opportunity per opportunity.
Even moving beyond that, though, they're two separate triggers that occur at two similar but separate times.
The opportunity that triggers both is the attack made by your opponent and they don't perform any separate action. How are there two triggering opportunities?
I accept that Hold the Line is certainly a possibility that might give more than one attack of opportunity as currently written. There's a separate line of argument about actions, but I'm not going to get into that if we don't need to do so.
So, when you noted that my statement was akin to saying you don't provoke twice for the same movement, you meant that the statement was generally correct under normal circumstances, but could be incorrect in a couple of specific circumstances? The text of Karmic Strike defines the triggering occurence as a successful attack: "On your action, you choose to take a -4 penalty to your Armour Class in exchange for the ability to make an attack of opportunity against any creature that makes a successful melee attack or melee touch attack against you."
It's clearly describing the attack as the triggering occurence. The word "hits" is only used as a general description of that occurence after this definition is given: "The opponent that hits you must be in your threatened area, and this feat does not grant you more attacks of opportunity than you are normally allowed in a round. "
Robilar's Gambit describes the triggering occurence in this manner: "In return, they provoke attacks of opportunity from you each time they swing. Resolve your attack of opportunity after your foe’s attack."
As noted above, while Karmic Strike does talk about "The opponent that hits you" needing to be in your threatened area, the circumstance to which it attaches the triggering opportunity is a successful "attack".
The attack does need to be determined as successful, so you do obviously need to compare the potential provoker's attack roll to the AC of the target with Karmic Strike, even if the performance of that successful attack is actually interrupted and potentially foiled by the use of the feat.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Tempest: Yes they do. They are two separate abilities.
From a mechanical point of view, they don't. They both trigger off the same action (an attack roll). One feat is unconditional, and applies regardless of the result. The other applies only if the attack roll is successful. This isn't MTG. There aren't various stops and priorities from a mechanics standpoint. There are only actions and effects. And by RAW in 3.5 only actions can trigger Attacks of Opportunity. There is nothing in the rules that implies that effects can trigger AOO. Everything in the rules about AOO refers exclusively to actions triggering:
"An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
"Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity..."
"Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule."
"An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round."
www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOppor...
(Emphasis mine, obviously.)
The only way you can argue otherwise is if you claim that an attack is one action and a hit is a different action from a rules standpoint. You can make that argument from a narrative standpoint but arguing rules from a narrative standpoint is pretty pointless. There is no support for those two concepts being different actions anywhere in 3.5. In fact, the word "action" is clearly defined by the rules as well:
www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInComba...
Frankly, both rules are poorly written and their conditions are written in such a way as to obfusticate the foundational rules of Attacks of Opportunity. If rules in 3.5 had any sort of standardization or organization, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But that's neither here nor there.
tempest's example is more along the lines of : Fred attacks Joe, who has Robilar's, and attempts a disarm. Joe gets an AoO from Robilar's, and gets another AoO because Fred doesn't have improved Disarm. Those are different opportunities: One from attacking, the other for attempting a disarm without the feat to stop an AoO.
Hold the Line qualifies as another opportunity, because it triggers on ENTERING a square. Normal move AoO's trigger on attempting to LEAVE one. Regardless, you'd still only get one per incidence of movement...entering two squares one after another isn't going to provoke two HTL AoO's.
==Aelryinth
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
==Aelryinth
I probably said that wrong. You can't get two Hold the Line AoO's out of someone entering two squares that you threaten. You can get an AoO for him entering and leaving a square you threaten in the same movement, however.
==Aelryinth
I'm not quite sure how you'd trigger Hold the Line's AoO at the exact same time you could provoke a "leaving a threated square" although it may be possible. I guess if you're looking at something with a significant reach that starts inside your reach BUT far enough way that it can still charge you it will provoke the "leaving threatened square" as it starts Charging you while Hold the Line's AoO triggers enters an area you threaten; the real question here may be if Hold the Line ever actually gets triggered as the creature does NOT "enter" an area you threaten as it is already in an area you threaten.
Now even in this situation one AoO happens when trying to move out of the threatened space and the HtL AoO would trigger when entering then next space.
I probably said that wrong. You can't get two Hold the Line AoO's out of someone entering two squares that you threaten. You can get an AoO for him entering and leaving a square you threaten in the same movement, however.
==Aelryinth
Ok, so if the same movement (entering and leaving a threatened square during the same movement) provokes two attacks then an attack and a successful hit in the same action should provoke two attacks as well.
I probably said that wrong. You can't get two Hold the Line AoO's out of someone entering two squares that you threaten. You can get an AoO for him entering and leaving a square you threaten in the same movement, however.
==Aelryinth
Ok, so if the same movement (entering and leaving a threatened square during the same movement) provokes two attacks then an attack and a successful hit in the same action should provoke two attacks as well.
The thing is that it is not 'the same' movement and in any even it is hard to pull off and requires that Hold the Line is still valid if someone charges at you while within your reach. Hold the Line sets up an AoO situation that is completely different from normal movement based Provocation.
I'm not quite sure how you'd trigger Hold the Line's AoO at the exact same time you could provoke a "leaving a threated square" although it may be possible.
When you're leaving one square, aren't you inherently entering another one? All you'd need is the ability to threaten both squares, though you've still got the issue of whether they're really separate provoking acts.
A lot comes down to the DM's decision of what counts as a separate provoking act, since it's each provoking act that represents a new opportunity. The question you'd have here is whether leaving one threatened square and entering another threatened square are actually different acts, or if they're just consequences of the same act (moving from one square into the next).
Likewise if your opponent charging you is a single provoking act, then you'll only ever get one attack for that opportunity, even if you have Hold the Line and your opponent leaves and enters multiple squares while charging.
Example: You and someone charging you have 10' reach. Ubercharger is going at you. If you can hit him, he can hit you.
With Hold the Line, as he enters the square you threaten, you hit him..before you are inside his reach. Stand Still, his charge now stops at 15' away...out of his reach, his charge spoiled.
Now, if he only had 5' reach, you could choose to just take a swing at him as he enters the square at 10', hopefully set for double damage. He's now 10' away, and now he LEAVES that square, provoking another AoO as he tries to get to 5' reach, as normal.
He then 'technically' triggers another Hold the Line AoO because he's entering another square you threaten, but you already took that AoO for this movement, so you can't do it again. You're better off making him Stand Still at 10', and stopping his charge before he can hit you.
===Aelryinth
You could choose to use either feat in response to the provoking act of the attack, and could either use Hold the Line (entering a square) or the regular leaving of a square as your time to take advantage of the opportunity, but not both in either case. You gain flexibility in the exact timing of your response, but no extra attacks of opportunity.
It does change some previous views I would have had about attacks of opportunity, but it certainly makes more sense that you don't have cases where you attack someone twice in the time they make one attack, and don't hit them twice when they're simultaneously leaving one square and entering another (both of which are absurd when you think about them).
1) Hold the Line states that the AoO occurs immediately before the Charge attack. It also says "an" AoO which is ambiguous - it doesn't say you get an AoO for each area they threaten, and it wouldn't make sense if the AoOs all happened at the end of the Charge. I would even argue that despite the normal rules on AoOs, the attack happens after they enter your square, because it has to in order to be immediately before the Charge attack. It gets messy if the foe is charging someone outside your threatened area, but passing through it, though.
2) Who gives a damn about Hold the Line? Go argue about rules elsewhere please.
I'd thought about something like Dread Necro 4/Crusader 1 which gives you 1d4+2 damage via Death Armour, DR 2 and Steely Resolve, but even then, you're likely to be taking as much damage as you deal (with Pitspawned armour that's 5.5 avg, with DR 2, meaning they only need to deal 7.5 avg, or, say, 1d8+3) and have poor health and AB - though I guess you could stand there healing yourself with Tomb-Tainted Soul. Plus you could get Karmic Strike (perhaps use flaws). The big problem though is that Death Armour is 1r/l.
I like Incarnate far better because you can use Mantle of Flame + Astral Vambraces, and take very little damage (if any) from anyone without magic weapons whilst dealing 3d6+1 damage (11.5 avg) a hit even without Improved Soulmeld Capacity. The problem there is that it's all fire damage. A weird option, Incarnate 3/Druid 1 offers Raging Flame (+1 damage per die) and Cold Fire (flames deal cold damage), if they're allowed to work with Mantle of Flame. Or you could just use Mage's Specs and wands.