retaliation feats: Riposte, Robilar's Gambit, & Karmic Strike

[aboyd]

I am having a difficult time with these feats. First, here are the descriptions:

You can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent that hits you in melee. On your action, you choose to take a -4 penalty to your AC in exchange for this ability ... this feat does not grant you more attacks of opportunity than you are normally allowed in a round.

Anyone who strikes at you gains a +4 bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against you. In return, they provoke attacks of opportunity from you each time they swing.

So with Karmic Strike, take a -4 to AC and get to hit back anyone who hits you first. Or with Robilar's Gambit, basically the same disadvantage for hit rolls, but also the enemy gets to do extra damage on you... in exchange, you get to strike back on every swing whether they hit or miss.

OK so far, but they don't seem balanced in relation to each other. One seems far worse. Of course, one specifically mentions "does not grant you more attacks of opportunity than you are normally allowed" so that might balance things if the other feat does allow many AOO. It doesn't have the same disclaimer about not allowing extra AOO, so in fact it might allow extra AOO. It may be that their use of the AOO phrase was incidental and not intentional.

What do you think of that? Also, what is your thinking on these feats in general? Do you find one or the other to be much more advantageous? Have you tried them in game? How effective were they?

Finally, let's add in the Riposte feat from Net Book of Feats. They gave it a rating of 4 -- pretty balanced. However, my impression is that it is not balanced in comparison to the other 2 feats I just listed. Here it is:

When unencumbered, in light armor or less, and using a weapon with Weapon Finesse, you may make an attack of opportunity against an opponent who tries to attack you in melee and misses.

So you take no penalties except having to be a light fighting type, and in exchange you strike back against any miss. Have I read that right?

What do you all think of that?

In all of these feats, if you are a fighter wading in, allowing yourself to be surrounded, you could conceivably get off many many extra strikes in a single round. True?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The Robilar's Gambit/Karmic Strike comparison always struck me as strange. Beyond the differences already mentioned, they have very different prerqs; RG has a high BAB but nothing else, while KS requires a couple of other feats but can be taken much, much earlier. As the 1 AoO/round is a hard rule, I read both feats as obeying that limit (making Combat Reflexes a wise choice); the one that specifies this is just being thorough, but neither feat overrides the core rules on AoOs.

Is it better to get an AoO whether they miss but risk the extra pain? Complicated question. Depends on how hittable you are and how many AoOs you have. Overall, I'd have so say Karmic Strike is the more powerful feat simply on the basis of earlier availability.

I've given these feats to NPCs but they never seemed to get much use; PCs saw a big monster and took it out with ranged spells or something like that. It's hard to see either of them as being game-breaking, unless you have a fighter with RG who is so powerful enemies can't hit him, he can hit them, and he has mutiple AoOs. To me the cost and risk is so high for most characters they're kind of niche feats; I've never seen a PC try for them.

By comparison, Riposte is clearly more powerful. The light fighting isn't much of a drawback, since this is best for characters with high Dex (for Combat Ref) anyway. What Weapon Finesse fighter wouldn't take that feat? Sounds overpowered to me.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Karmic Strike only goes into effect when they hit you - they provoke an AoO. Robilar's Gambit is every time they swing, they provoke an AoO. Robliar's will happen whether or not they hit, I believe.

 

[Runestar]

IIRC, robilar's gambit already requires you to have combat reflexes as a prereq anyways. It is a little specialized in that it does require your character to be built around the use of said feat(s) to maximize their use. For instance, it clearly benefits a 2-handed weapon fighter more than a dual-wielder. Your character should ideally also have a high dex to be able to make as many AoOs as possible, and a means of triggering them (so you can consistently make multiple AoOs every round).

IMO, these feats can be very useful, because they grant the user a very useful resource - extra actions. Anytime your party can get extra actions, or deny the opponents theirs, or both, you get a very powerful advantage. Sustain this benefit, and victory is almost assuredly yours.

This is why battlefield control spells are so powerful, or why improved trip is one of the best feats a fighter can take. In theory at least, for robilar's gambit/karmic strike, while they do make you more vulnerable, you attack more often and deal more damage, so you should be able to take down your foes faster. And the faster they die, the less damage they do by virtue of making fewer attacks overall.

There is also a point when your AC gets so low that it makes no difference whether your AC is 0 or -100. I know I once saw a build somewhere which involved a barb stacking abilities which degraded his AC (combining punishing stance, shock trooper, charging, rage/frenzy, robilar's gambit together with abilities that keyed off hits like masochism, relying solely on his hp and miss chances like displacement/wall of blades for protection).

So if you know your foe is going to hit you on a 1 anyways, might as well just take another penalty.

Granted, your Dm can work around this by staying away from your fighter and sticking to ranged attacks...

 

[NewJeffCT]

This is why battlefield control spells are so powerful, or why improved trip is one of the best feats a fighter can take. In theory at least, for robilar's gambit/karmic strike, while they do make you more vulnerable, you attack more often and deal more damage, so you should be able to take down your foes faster. And the faster they die, the less damage they do by virtue of making fewer attacks overall.

There is also a point when your AC gets so low that it makes no difference whether your AC is 0 or -100. I know I once saw a build somewhere which involved a barb stacking abilities which degraded his AC (combining punishing stance, shock trooper, charging, rage/frenzy, robilar's gambit together with abilities that keyed off hits like masochism, relying solely on his hp and miss chances like displacement/wall of blades for protection).

Is it even legal to drop your AC so much that your AC goes below 0? I ask because I have a barbarian/frenzied berserker type with little armor, Shock Trooper & Karmic Strike and figured I couldn't have his AC dropped below zero with Shock Trooper?

But, tripping can also be very effective - especially against some melee tank types.

 

[aboyd]

Thank you all for your replies. They have been helpful!

My thought on AC below zero is that it's fine, but I have no idea what the RAW says.

I have another problem with these feats. I would love more feedback.

The Robilar's Gambit feat takes pains to say that the AOO comes after the strike, because normally an AOO interrupts the order and comes beforehand. The writers obviously wanted to prevent someone using this strike during a killing blow. If you're hit and go unconscious, you shouldn't somehow sit up and get in one last shot. So in such a case, you'd go unconscious, you'd ask the DM to use your feat, and he'd say, "Sorry, your AOO goes after, and you're unconscious now. You can't use it."

Good so far?

OK. Karmic Strike has none of that text. So you get hit and it may be a killing blow but without the special text changing the AOO to go after the condition that triggers it, you'll get your retaliatory strike in before the killing strike, and thus may prevent the killing strike by killing the enemy first, which thus prevents your feat from qualifying, which thus means you couldn't possibly have dealt that blow, which causes a paradox and the whole universe implodes in circular dependencies.

What do you all think?

 

[Herzog]

there's nothing wrong with imploding universes

I think the text of the Karmic Strike makes it an exception to the rule that the attack of oppertunity happens before the action that triggers it.

You get the attack of oppertunity because you are hit , not because somebody swings at you.

However, you could say your AoO is resolved before applying damage.

That way, the following scenario unfolds:

1. you are hit.
2. you strike back.
3. you apply damage to the opponent.
4. the opponent applies damage to you.

endresult: you may both end up dead.... paradox resolved!

 

[NewJeffCT]

I had always assumed that Karmic Strike would be at the exact same time, and both "victims" could suffer the consequences, even if they both end up dead. Sort of like Rocky & Apollo at the end of Rocky II.