Why does the "safe place to stand in" clause exist? Why would you do something with a twohanded weapon to an enemy combatant if you cared about their safety?
Why does the "safe place to stand in" clause exist? Why would you do something with a twohanded weapon to an enemy combatant if you cared about their safety?
Game Balance >> Common Sense.
Why does the "safe place to stand in" clause exist? Why would you do something with a twohanded weapon to an enemy combatant if you cared about their safety?Game Balance >> Common Sense.
Is it really all that unbalanced?
Some would argue Create Pit is overpowered by itself. To be able to push someone into it while doing weapon damage to them, without provoking an AoO when making the attempt, and for just 2 feat cost and only a +1 BAB, would be overpowered. For comparison:
When compared to the other ways to move a target, and the feat/BAB/Time costs to take them, everything is balanced as written.
Some would argue Create Pit is overpowered by itself. To be able to push someone into it while doing weapon damage to them, without provoking an AoO when making the attempt, and for just 2 feat cost and only a +1 BAB, would be overpowered. For comparison:
When compared to the other ways to move a target, and the feat/BAB/Time costs to take them, everything is balanced as written.
I would disagree about it being balanced as written because no one uses forced movement options because of how terrible they are. Removing the clause from the feat would just give a way to move enemies that is not a waste of time... I'd still consider it worse than Shield Slam.
What CraziFuzzy said. Compare to the Reposition combat maneuver. Takes a standard action and you can't put your target into a dangerous place either, unless you cough up another feat for Tactical Reposition.
Think of it that way: Pushing Assault means your blows are so strong that the enemy is forced to stagger a few steps backwards to maintain his balance, but if there is a wall behind him, he can brace against that.
If there is a ravine behind him, well, he'll just tough up and take the hit... meaning that you should opt to take the extra damage from power attack since you can't trade it away to push him further.
I still think using Reposition as a power baseline for anything is just a bit absurd. It's like measuring using the Rogue as the measuring stick for the standard power of options.
I'm not saying that reposition and bull rush are the standard by which all power should be measured, but allowing Pushing Assault to make many of those maneuvers and their feat improvements even more insignificant is not the fix, or even close to appropriate.
And the reason no-one uses forced movement actions isn't just because they aren't very powerful and have a high feat cost to be useful. It's every bit as much because in most cases, relative positioning means very little, and any minor advantage gained by moving the enemy can be just as easily gained by moving yourself instead.
I'm not saying that reposition and bull rush are the standard by which all power should be measured, but allowing Pushing Assault to make many of those maneuvers and their feat improvements even more insignificant is not the fix, or even close to appropriate.
I know why no one uses forced movement maneuvers. My point is that sometimes things are so worthless that they are not worth trying to salvage, but by remaining determined to not "obsolete" them you are dooming all things in that category to suck forever. As long as you look at Reposition and Bullrush and say "well these are the core forced movement abilities so everything new has to be balanced around these," you upholding the status quo of forced movement having to be a trap option.
So fix the core options or obsolete them, but don't drag everything else related down to suck with them. This is not unprecedented in Pathfinder. Look at the Rogue.
I would disagree about it being balanced as written because no one uses forced movement options because of how terrible they are. Removing the clause from the feat would just give a way to move enemies that is not a waste of time... I'd still consider it worse than Shield Slam.Some would argue Create Pit is overpowered by itself. To be able to push someone into it while doing weapon damage to them, without provoking an AoO when making the attempt, and for just 2 feat cost and only a +1 BAB, would be overpowered. For comparison:
When compared to the other ways to move a target, and the feat/BAB/Time costs to take them, everything is balanced as written.
I still use bull rush, but that's because we tend to play a lot near cliffs and bull rush actually works. I don't use any of the others--because they don't work that way. I don't really get why bull rush is okay but none of the other stronger options are.
Outside of RAW, as far as I'm concerned, the bottom of a cliff is a safe place the target could theoretically stand in. So is a raging bonfire--I mean, maybe the poor schmuck is an efreeti? : D Basically, I don't hold to any of that jazz.
The way I explain it, is this. Bull Rush is using strength to push the opponent away from you (evident by the feat chain requiring 13 STR). You are overpowering him, so if he doesn't resist well enough, there's not much you can do. Reposition, however, is coercing/persuading/manipulating an opponent to moving a certain direction. Its feat chain is INT based. It's harder to 'persuade' someone over a cliff than it is to push them over.
Unnecessarily complicated question:
What if there's an illusion of normal floor over the pit and the opponent doesn't realize it's an illusion? It's not a safe square, but the creature doesn't know that.
Not unnecessarily complicated, but really should be asked to your GM, not here. The rules don't clarify it one way or the other.