|
Yes. Pathfinder tripping has been quadruply-nerfed:
1. More difficult base (DC 15 + CMB);
2. Half the bonus from Improved Trip (+2 vs. +4);
3. Follow-up attack now costs an extra feat (Greater Trip);
4. Follow-up attack now costs an attack of opportunity, instead of being "immediate" (and presumably non-action-consuming).Tripping in 3.5 was one of the few battlefield-control methods for melee characters that was viable in the long run. Yes, hamstringing it will make people less likely to do it preferentially, but its popularity derived in large part from the fact that most other melee strategies at higher levels were nigh-useless. Personally, I'd much rather they pulled the rest of melee up to par, rather than just making tripping useless... but that obviously wasn't my decision to make.
I hear you: I've never really seen the use of overrunning or bull rushing. Tripping and disarming are both useful melee tactics, IMO, but bull rushing and overrunning? not so methinks. This gives an advantage to dex fighters, as improved trip/disarm are under the combat expertise tree, and bullrush/overrun under the power attack tree.
Although overrunning can now be done as part of a charge, and specifically does not waste an attack if the enemy decides to avoid you... which may make this feat slightly more interesting now.
(this response is directed directly at PDK whom I game with)
If Tobin or Drax would just stand behind Galnorag's target you would see him do a knockback (Barbarian Rage Power) with his Greater Bullrush feat you to sneak attackers would get a free strike...
By far the best feat there and most elgant also.
Step up.
So many a warrior has come undone by the humble five foot step.
Love it.
By far the best feat there and most elgant also.
Step up.
So many a warrior has come undone by the humble five foot step.
Love it.
Maybe.
I definitely love the tactical applications, especially against archers and spellcasters. No more "I take a 5-step and then I magic missile this guy who was just in my face."
This feat forces people to cast defensively. I haven't checked yet if Pathfinder has the feat that lets people use ranged combat without provoking an AoO, but I'm sure 3.5 had such a feat somewhere, and maybe Pathfinder does too, in which case Step Up might be the feat that forces archers (et. al.) to take that other feat.
What I don't like is the parenthetical inclusion right at the end of this feat (I bolded it for reference below):
Step Up (Combat)
You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn and you count as if you had take a 5-foot step on that turn (preventing any other movement).
This creates weird situatinos. Imagine a fighter next to a demon. The demon takes a 5' step, fighter uses Step Up to follow it, so the demon uses teleport to move 30' feet away. Now the fighter's turn comes up, and all he can do is stand there and call the demon names, since he is now not able to move in his turn.
Too weird.
Too gamist.
Here is what the book has to say about 5' moves:
Take 5-Foot Step You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance. You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
Now reading that, it's clear that if you take a 5-step in your round you cannot move in any other way. But I read that to mean "in your round".
Step Up lets you take a 5' move in someone else's round. Not yours.
I understand the gamist reasons to limit the movement of the combatants. I see the gamist reason to not allow someone with the Step Up action to take a 5-move on his enemy's round then take aother one on his own round.
But I don't see any value to rooting that guy in place, unable to move, charge, withdraw, or take any other move action on his own round, all because he used the Step Up feat during his opponent's round.
Without that last little bit, this is a good feat. With it, the feat becomes mediocre.
I guess we need some mediocre feats. They can't all be good.
Unfortunately, with so many good feats, it's hard for a gamer, and hard for a flesh and blood D&D character (in an imaginary world where D&D characters exist and are flesh and blood) to choose mediocrity when supriority is just as readily available.
I plan to houserule this feat to replace that parenthetical inclusion with this one: "(but you can still move normally on your turn)".
IMO, it's enough that you've used your one and only immediate/swift action for the round (no Smite Evil for the paladins, no Ki powers for the monks, no designating Dodge for anyone, etc.), and you've surrendered your one and only 5' move for the round, it's unnecessary to also surrender all movement for the round.
By far the best feat there and most elgant also. Step up. So many a warrior has come undone by the humble five foot step. Love it.
If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn and you count as if you had take a 5-foot step on that turn (preventing any other movement).
Any feat that trades 2 full rounds' worth of movement is something that better give you a lot of bang for your buck; that's a huge trade-off. So let's look at some possibilities:
The only possible use I can think of is this one:
The question is, given the ease with which casting defensively can be done, what good is Step Up really doing you? OK, so you force a Spellcraft check, which your opponent makes except on a "1." So the feat is really only useful in this one particular instance, and even then it fails 19 out of 20 times. And robs you of an entire round worth of movement in the bargain.
So, what am I missing here? What use does Step Up have that would make anyone willingly spend a feat on it? Obviously there's something staring me in the face that I'm just not seeing.
Any feat that trades 2 full rounds' worth of movement is something that better give you a lot of bang for your buck; that's a huge trade-off. So let's look at some possibilities:
I agree with your assessment, this feat is mediocre at best. But there are a few flaws in your examples:
Opponent has initiative; attacks and then takes a 5-ft. step away. With feat, you make an immediate 5-ft. step as well, then full attack and maybe step back (in which case opponent follows next round, so he can still counterattack). Without feat, you make a 5-ft. step on your turn, then make a full attack. Advantage of feat: none.
With the feat, you make the 5' step on opponent's turn then do nothing until your turn, then you can make a full round action. Without the feat, you do the same thing but make your 5' step on your turn. That's what you meant, right?
Opponent has initiative; takes 5-ft. step and then a full move. With feat: You make immediate 5-ft. step, then lose opponent as he takes his move. Without feat: on your turn, simply charge the opponent. Advantage of feat: none.
Opponent cannot take a 5-move and any other movement in his turn, so this example is impossible by the RAW.
However, change this to opponent takes 5' move and then teleports 30' away, and your point about not being able to charge the opponent is valid. However, in this case, I would say "Advantage of feat: disadvantage since you lose the opportunity to charge."
The only possible use I can think of is this one:
Opponent takes 5-ft. step to get out of threat range and then casts a spell.
The question is, given the ease with which casting defensively can be done, what good is Step Up really doing you? OK, so you force a Spellcraft check, which your opponent makes except on a "1." So the feat is really only useful in this one particular instance, and even then it fails 19 out of 20 times. And robs you of an entire round worth of movement in the bargain.
You forgot archery. Step Up might work well against archers (and others who rely on ranged combat). They provoke AoOs if they fire their ranged attack within their enemies' threatened reach, so they often 5' move to get somewhere safe then fire point blank. Step Up lets you follow them. Advantage: Step Up.
So, what am I missing here? What use does Step Up have that would make anyone willingly spend a feat on it?
Well, maybe the archery thing. Or forcing those spellcraft checks. It might help.
Remember, if you Step Up, your enemy has already used a 5' move and therefore cannot use any other move actions in his round, so he is forced to deal with you one way or another. At least you have that advantage, although you're rooted in place for a round because of it.
|
You forgot archery. Step Up might work well against archers (and others who rely on ranged combat). They provoke AoOs if they fire their ranged attack within their enemies' threatened reach, so they often 5' move to get somewhere safe then fire point blank. Step Up lets you follow them. Advantage: Step Up.
Big missed opportunity, though. Being able to AoO archers isn't as good as being about to AoO casters, except they'd still have to fix the rules on casting in combat to make it harder to do.
I think the feat is useful if you ready an attack vs the spell being cast. This way you react twice to your opponent's actions: first with an immediate action, then with a (readied) standard action. So you force the spellcraft check with increased DC, if you hit.
Blake, thanks for the clarifications of my somewhat foggy descriptions, and for the additional situation (one which I had not, in fact, considered). Of course, even with that, I'm still left with the distasteful realization that (1) the feat is only useful if you find yourself threatening an archer or spellcaster, and that (2) you're still facing a net loss in your overall movement capability by using the feat. On the flip side, I could pick up Toughness and gain up to 23 extra hp with no corresponding disadvantage...
I think the feat is useful if you ready an attack vs the spell being cast. This way you react twice to your opponent's actions: first with an immediate action, then with a (readied) standard action. So you force the spellcraft check with increased DC, if you hit.
You don't need this feat to do that - with a readied attack/standard action you can *take* a five foot step, no problem.
I don't quite get why the utility of "Step Up" isn't seen. It won't lose you "2 full rounds of movement". Essentially, all it does is make a 5' step into an immediate action - you can take it when its not your turn, but it counts as your 5' step the next turn.
With this you can follow a caster or archer. If a caster continues to move, you get an attack of opportunity, though that won't stop a spell. If an archer continues to move they will only get a single shot instead of a full round.
Basically any time someone is 5' away to prevent an AOO (say coup de grace'ing your ally), you can stop them from getting away free. If they go to further lengths to prevent it, they could have done that anyway. But you've annulled their step's value, in exchange for your own. Most of the time you'll get your full-round attack on them the next round, and then be free to do whatever after that. You just can't move the next round really.
Depending on how a DM rules it (on changing actions), if someone takes a 5' step, and you follow, and they turn that into a withdraw action, you'd get an attack of opportunity as you threaten the *second* space they leave.
Kirth - I don't get all your discussion of the rounds - so forgive me if I'm missing a point of yours.
To me it seems this feat isn't so much about getting an advantage, as it is taking away an enemies advantage/use of the 5' step. People use those for lots of reasons - maybe to pick something up, drink a potion, etc.
Edit: Didn't see your second post Kirth.. that's what I get for taking so long to post.
I think the feat is useful if you ready an attack vs the spell being cast. This way you react twice to your opponent's actions: first with an immediate action, then with a (readied) standard action. So you force the spellcraft check with increased DC, if you hit.
Step up doesn't let you actually attack your foe, it just lets you move with him when he takes a 5' step, leaving you in range for AoOs if he provokes.
Since readying an action allows taking a 5' step anyway, if you have previously readied an action against your foe, and he 5' moves, you can move with him and attack with just using your readied action.
In which case, you would never dream of using Step Up when you already have a readied action, because the readied action won't use up your swift action the way Step Up would.
To be fair a Demon is a unique baddy it's not as if everyone has that ability and this is designed to use against spell casters first and for most.
Ofcorse theres going to be situations where it is less than ideal.
Thats why it give the charater the option to do this not the charater must do this.
Against demons the average fighter would say ok let him have his five foot i will just five foot in next turn he doesn't get to attack me.
Your looking at it to much as what it can't do you for than what it can.
Had to edit cause i couldn't read other peoples comments at the same time.
I can think of plenty of uses for this.
Chain fighters the machine gun trip people try and five foot out so that you no long have control of the situation build says no.
Low level baddys I have my arrows and go pew pew, five foot step and, your still right next to us....
I have yet to bring this to the table and set five creative minds to the task, you want something broken give it to some players.
As one of my players says D&D combat is all about where you are on the field.
|
|
IMO, the final wording of the feat should allow a character to step-up when someone is doing something nasty to you (i.e. right now, after stepping up, a caster can change his mind and keep moving; I'd make it so the caster takes his 5foot, and as he fires his spell, the step-upper then lunges to strike at him, therefore forcing a concentration check or the spell fizzles...)
(i.e. right now, after stepping up, a caster can change his mind and keep moving; )
I'd say that is open to DM interpretation right now. Changing your action based on a readied action, and in particular changing a 5' step into a move action, are things not all DM's would allow. Even changing it would still provokes by the way.
|
By far the best feat there and most elgant also.
Step up.
So many a warrior has come undone by the humble five foot step.
Love it.Maybe.
I definitely love the tactical applications, especially against archers and spellcasters. No more "I take a 5-step and then I magic missile this guy who was just in my face."
This feat forces people to cast defensively. I haven't checked yet if Pathfinder has the feat that lets people use ranged combat without provoking an AoO, but I'm sure 3.5 had such a feat somewhere, and maybe Pathfinder does too, in which case Step Up might be the feat that forces archers (et. al.) to take that other feat.
What I don't like is the parenthetical inclusion right at the end of this feat (I bolded it for reference below):
Step Up (Combat)
You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn and you count as if you had take a 5-foot step on that turn (preventing any other movement).This creates weird situatinos. Imagine a fighter next to a demon. The demon takes a 5' step, fighter uses Step Up to follow it, so the demon uses teleport to move 30' feet away. Now the fighter's turn comes up, and all he can do is stand there and call the demon names, since he is now not able to move in his turn.
Too weird.
Too gamist.
Here is what the book has to say about 5' moves:
Take 5-Foot Step You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance. You can take...If someone uses Step Up to move back from a melee adversary, then makes a spell or ranged attack, and the opponent has Lunge, do their Attacks of Opportunity have a 10' reach, and thus, can they get an AoOp vs. the Stepper...?
Sorry about not editing out irrelevant info from the previous poster's posts..I'm on Pain meds for a trashed Knee, and a little Loopy right now.
-Uriel
IMO, the final wording of the feat should allow a character to step-up when someone is doing something nasty to you (i.e. right now, after stepping up, a caster can change his mind and keep moving; I'd make it so the caster takes his 5foot, and as he fires his spell, the step-upper then lunges to strike at him, therefore forcing a concentration check or the spell fizzles...)
I'm not sure the rules allow this.
If you take a 5' move, you cannot move any more that round.
So if the caster in your example takes a 5'-ove, triggering you to Step Up, he cannot simply keep moving.
Even if you allow him to say "oh, well, never mind then, I'm really making a standard move, so I still have 25' of movement left" then if he moves any farter he will provoke an AoO for moving out of your threatened area.
Now, if he says "Oh, well, never mind then, I'm really withdrawing instead" then you get no AoO, but he uses his full round to do nothing but withdraw. Next round you are basically screwed by this feat because you stepped up and now you cannot move on your round, so the caster will get a free shot at you, plus be able to move farther away so he's out of your charge range the following round.
In which case, allowing someone to say "I take a 5'move" to trigger their opponent to Step Up, then say "nevermind, I'll withdraw" will allow them to totally break this feat, and I don't believe the RAW allows this conversion from 5'-move to standard move or withdraw.
If someone uses Step Up to move back from a melee adversary, then makes a spell or ranged attack, and the opponent has Lunge, do their Attacks of Opportunity have a 10' reach, and thus, can they get an AoOp vs. the Stepper...?
Sorry about not editing out irrelevant info from the previous poster's posts..I'm on Pain meds for a trashed Knee, and a little Loopy right now.
-Uriel
The first part of your question doesn't make sense. Step Up is used to follow someone else who is moving away from you. You would not "use Step Up to move back from a melee adversary."
I think what you meant to ask is:
If someone uses a 5' move to move back from a melee adversary, then makes a spell or ranged attack, and the opponent has Lunge, do their Attacks of Opportunity have a 10' reach, and thus, can they get an AoO vs. the 5'-Stepper...?
The answer to this question is yes, it seems that they do.
There is nothing in the Beta version of Lunge that says it requires a standard attack, or full round attack. It only says that Lunge applies to 'attacks'. And there is nothing in the text about Attacks of Opportunity that says you only threaten squares you can normally reach without using feats that extend your reach.
Given that, it seems Lunge is the golden child of opportunity attackers, guaranteeing that your caster/archer opponents will never attack you unpunished (once you close to melee distance the first time) because they can't 5'-step to safety, and if they move/attack, you get the AoO on the move, and if they withdraw, well, at least they didn't attack this round at all.
I smell a nerf bat coming this way, with "Lungh" written all over it...
Now, if he says "Oh, well, never mind then, I'm really withdrawing instead" then you get no AoO, but he uses his full round to do nothing but withdraw. Next round you are basically screwed by this feat because you stepped up and now you cannot move on your round, so the caster will get a free shot at you, plus be able to move farther away so he's out of your charge range the following round.
Great summary - but I wanted to point out that even withdrawing would provoke an AoO. Only the first square you leave when withdrawing is considered not threatened, so after taking that first 5' step, they provoke leaving the second.
Now, if he says "Oh, well, never mind then, I'm really withdrawing instead" then you get no AoO, but he uses his full round to do nothing but withdraw. Next round you are basically screwed by this feat because you stepped up and now you cannot move on your round, so the caster will get a free shot at you, plus be able to move farther away so he's out of your charge range the following round.Great summary - but I wanted to point out that even withdrawing would provoke an AoO. Only the first square you leave when withdrawing is considered not threatened, so after taking that first 5' step, they provoke leaving the second.
Good catch.
I don't think I've ever played Withdraw quite right. I've always played it as if it said "You can disengage from melee combat and move away from adjacent foes without provoking AoOs". I've never considered it to only protect you from the square you start in.
In fact, it's a bit of an eye opener to actually look it up and see how limited the Withdraw action really is.
It reinforces one of my major issues with D&D combat: There is no good way to run away. Earth's history is full of skirmishes, battles, wars, for thousands of years of recorded history in which millions upon millions of soldiers in the losing side of a conflict run away and survive.
Not in D&D. You can't. Even with Withdraw, you can only just move far enough that your opponent can move/charge and hit you. Then you withdraw again, and your opponent move/charges again and hits you. This goes on until you die or until you stand and fight - either way, you failed to run away.
The only chance a D&D character has to run away is if they are faster than their enemy. Compared to Earth, in which humans fight humans, then transpose that into D&D, and no human can ever run from another human unless the runner is wearing lighter armor, or is a barbarian or monk.
None of which is relevant to this thread, but I had to get that off of my chest.
It reinforces one of my major issues with D&D combat: There is no good way to run away. Earth's history is full of skirmishes, battles, wars, for thousands of years of recorded history in which millions upon millions of soldiers in the losing side of a conflict run away and survive.
Even less on the subject... I have to comment that in traditional wars most of the casualties actually incurred after on side had broken rank and startet to retreat. I don't quite remember they precise numbers but I think it was around 90% of the casualties.
If they nerf it, I'll play it as written anyhow, I think.
In the final rules, Power Attack and Combat Expertise are both capped at +1. And wizards receive another HD boost (to d8's, to make them equal with clerics, who are, after all, also full spellcasters).
Fighters drop from d10's to d4's and lose their bonus feats.
If they nerf it, I'll play it as written anyhow, I think.In the final rules, Power Attack and Combat Expertise are both capped at +1. And wizards receive another HD boost (to d8's, to make them equal with clerics, who are, after all, also full spellcasters).
Fighters drop from d10's to d4's and lose their bonus feats.
Ooooh, I love these psychotic forebodings. Or psychic foretellings. Or whatever.
I'm glad to hear they're nerfing fighters; those guys were overpowered. When are they adding the class feature that all fighters are neurotic and paranoid and consequently suffer -4 to all will saves? Will that be in the final rules?
My prediction: They will finally go all the way and remove shapeshifting from druids entirely. Instead, at every odd level, druids will get to make or purchase one animal constume of their choice so they can masquerade around in various animal forms, but really, they'll just be druids in foam-rubber animal costumes.
If they nerf it, I'll play it as written anyhow, I think.In the final rules, Power Attack and Combat Expertise are both capped at +1. And wizards receive another HD boost (to d8's, to make them equal with clerics, who are, after all, also full spellcasters).
Fighters drop from d10's to d4's and lose their bonus feats.
Ooooh, I love these psychotic forebodings. Or psychic foretellings. Or whatever.
I'm glad to hear they're nerfing fighters; those guys were overpowered. When are they adding the class feature that all fighters are neurotic and paranoid and consequently suffer -4 to all will saves? Will that be in the final rules?
My prediction: They will finally go all the way and remove shapeshifting from druids entirely. Instead, at every odd level, druids will get to make or purchase one animal constume of their choice so they can masquerade around in various animal forms, but really, they'll just be druids in foam-rubber animal costumes.
This seems plausible since the final rules is more focused on backwards compatibility with Second Life than DnD.
Jason,
After these feats have been playtested to your liking, in what book will they make their appearence?
Can you tell us or is it to early at this time?
Thanks!
Ditto! Love to see them make an appearance, though I'm always going to use my house-ruled Fleet.
(It gives Small characters +10ft the first time they take it. Goblins get it free, which is why they have spd 30ft.)
My prediction: They will finally go all the way and remove shapeshifting from druids entirely. Instead, at every odd level, druids will get to make or purchase one animal constume of their choice so they can masquerade around in various animal forms, but really, they'll just be druids in foam-rubber animal costumes.
Nice one! And don't forget, each costume will have a different new spell named after it.