spring attack hate


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

boring7 wrote:
Question: if Spring Attack acted like Mythic Spring Attack and made you Flat Immune to all movement-provoked AoOs would it be worth it? Would it be too good?

Like many, many martial feats, the Mythic version is A) What the feat should have been in the first place, and B) Still too situational and restricted to be worth all the prerequisites.

Slightly off topic, I had a chuckle when I thought of an Elf darting in with Spring Attack to poke some Orc with his rapier for minor damage, then leaping back 15'. Then he gets flattened by a Pummeling Charge.


Its for secondary combatants who don't have the defenses or HP to stick around and get full-attacked by an enemy.


It's never used in my games.

Then again I use move + full attack as my standard. :P


It's useful in the very very niche situation of being in a duel with a single enemy who has no other target than yourself and you can outrun who's significantly deadlier than you in melee but still easy enough for you to hit.

I remember someone waving that scenario around like it proved that spring attack was awesome... but yeah, if you find that scenario happening frequently it might be worthwhile for you.


You don't have to be faster, just fast enough to force it to move every round because its full attack is freakin' scary. And to be fair, I run into that fairly often. Dragons, LoF brass golems, and a high-level Shaitan fighter (barbarian?) in the last 3 game sessions.

But the front-liner couldn't afford to duck and weave because that would leave all the squishies exposed, so it still wouldn't have helped, so you're still right.


That scenario doesn't really favor the Spring Attacker much, if at all. They're either moving into melee with you and you're just trading standard actions slowly, they're readying an action to smack you down (or trip/grapple you and full attack you on their next turn) on their action, or attacking the party members that are being significantly more threatening.


I would love it if it was "standard action" or "any attack action" (meaning offensive move; a hit, vital strike, etc)

As it stands, The main use I ever have for it is Scout rogue maybe with a reach weapon. scout rogue + assassin makes a decent run and SOD guy if you can get the DC to be usuable I guess.. it's pretty NPC kinda character though. since that is like lv 9 character for the DC of 10+1+int.

Sap+sneak attack damage is pretty amusing though for spring attacks

It would be great if it would become standard action or any attack action though.. especially if it would be allowed with touch attacks for squishy caster tactics.


My dm agreed the lack of AOO is vs all types of attacks .
So, it's , would you agree it's somewhat better ?
3 feats offer the following package :
1) skirmish - attack from the back / cover and return.
2) attack from flanks ( +2 to hits ) many times
3) stay out of harm in return to less damage
4) options for attack/ trip/ sunder / disarm - no AOO

Sovereign Court

Okay, so the discussion on how good this feat is, is incomplete if we don't agree on the provocation issue.

feat text wrote:
As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

The way I read this, you just don't provoke attacks, period. If it was only meant to stop move-provocation it would read like this:

As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

Or perhaps like this:

As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack, and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

However, in the actual version of the feat the no-provoke clause is clearly also attached to the attack. And that makes this feat a lot better. Basically, you dash in, do your thing, and dash out, before the enemy can react. Because you're just that fast.

Dodge and Mobility are still useful prerequisites, because while you're moving at least 10ft, you might just provoke attacks from someone else.


Ascalaphus wrote:

Okay, so the discussion on how good this feat is, is incomplete if we don't agree on the provocation issue.

feat text wrote:
As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

The way I read this, you just don't provoke attacks, period. If it was only meant to stop move-provocation it would read like this:

As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

Or perhaps like this:

As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack, and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

However, in the actual version of the feat the no-provoke clause is clearly also attached to the attack. And that makes this feat a lot better. Basically, you dash in, do your thing, and dash out, before the enemy can react....

Sometimes the rules are just not written well. It won't be the last time a rule said "A" but meant "B".

Sovereign Court

Well, as it stands that rule just says that you don't provoke, not that only your movement doesn't provoke. You might think that's not what the writer could have intended, but it's clearly how it works right now.

Considering the investment, I don't think it's unfair or OP either.

There have been threads about it before, as I recall the outcome was usually that it really doesn't provoke.


Ascalaphus wrote:

Well, as it stands that rule just says that you don't provoke, not that only your movement doesn't provoke. You might think that's not what the writer could have intended, but it's clearly how it works right now.

Considering the investment, I don't think it's unfair or OP either.

There have been threads about it before, as I recall the outcome was usually that it really doesn't provoke.

I understand what the RAW is. I was just stating RAW does not always match RAI, and some feats such as whirlwind are not worth all that much to most players.

Sovereign Court

I'm not entirely sure what the RAI is, but I guess the flavour text line on the feat is a good source;

Quote:
"You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react."

Based on that, the target isn't getting any AoOs because you're suddenly coming in from nowhere. You cover at least 10ft, but you do so really really fast.

RAI is ambiguous but could certainly be to let you maneuver with impunity. RAW lets you do that.

Sovereign Court

And based on the RAW that lets you maneuver with impunity, I'm thinking about a Lorewarden -> Shadowdancer with Spring Attack, since those feat chains are quite close to each other. Could be fun if you manage to move back into hiding after a hit, although you'd need a high movement rate to pull that off.


I thought I was in Ravingdork's thread that he posted on this. I guess I should read titles before I post. :)


Ascalaphus wrote:
Well, as it stands that rule just says that you don't provoke, not that only your movement doesn't provoke. You might think that's not what the writer could have intended, but it's clearly how it works right now.

Now that I see the wording, you are right. Was the wording the same in 3.5?

How about...

Spring Attack (Combat)
You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Before you take any actions on your turn, you can declare that you are making a spring attack and choose one creature that is not adjacent to you. During this turn you can use a standard action in the middle of a move action without ending it, as long as you move at least 10 feet before the standard action. The creature you chose cannot make attacks of opportunity against you this turn.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.


Ascalaphus wrote:
And based on the RAW that lets you maneuver with impunity, I'm thinking about a Lorewarden -> Shadowdancer with Spring Attack, since those feat chains are quite close to each other. Could be fun if you manage to move back into hiding after a hit, although you'd need a high movement rate to pull that off.

a lorewarden SD is indeed a scary being.

a build i like is :
lore warden 3
thug (rogue) 3
SD 3
lore warden the rest.
move in, attack once and vanish.
shadow companion attack for str drain and vanish as well.
opponent is sicken, shaken (enforcer + thug ability)+ tripped + AOO from trip while you are far away.
nice killer...and the shaken\sicken will work on most opponents.
it will de buff opponent until he cries.
--------
my cleric will use the spring attack, wisdom in a flesh and hellcat stealth to do the same trick. with heroism aura, divine favor, guided weapon and a bard his CMB will be ok. no greater feats, but versatile with the spells he carry.

Sovereign Court

No, the wording was actually quite different in 3.5.

---

If I'm not mistaken, you can combine Lorewarden and Martial Master fighter archetypes, and it syncs up to Shadowdancer pretty neatly. At level 5 you get Martial Versatility, at level 6 you take a 3-level dip into Shadowdancer until you get your Shadow, and then back to fighter.

I'm just kinda in doubt on whether to also try to make it a whip fighter build, or if that would be stretching my feat supply beyond reason.


In our games we houseruled Spring Attack to give a standard action and its prerquisite feats are also better.


666bender wrote:

well.... full attacking as a cleric is a myth. a cleric is caster > melee . (casting and fighting when it's easy fights / spells run low / need load of healing used...)

other than haste / blessing of fervor times = you will never hit at attack #2 and up.

it also prevent you from entering a risky place where a simple grapple shut you down. with trade domain (i got trade and heroism) - i fly in (overland flight...) - attack - fly out of harm's way. (in theory - not tested yet).

also, add "wisdom in a flesh" for stealth + hellcat stealth + armor of shadow >>>> and you are a skirmish that can hardly be found.

let's examine what can 3 feats offer in exchange:
(we don't allow "nature's ally feat" )

scribe scrolls for utility + reach spell + more traits ?
more traits (to add meta magic free) + empower + reach ?
combat exertise + imp trip + greater trip (with d.favor the CMB aint bad ). ?
augument summoning + superior summon. ?

i think a cleric is first a caster than a melee. so my str is 14 -16 tops.
summoning is great power! but with so many amazing spells, and the rotten fact it take a whole round to waste casting - summoning in reality is almost impossible (opponents seem to target you when you cast a full round spell...)
so - any cleric need "plan B" when spells are low / used for healing - to still be effective in combats (not #1, just effective).

so - other ideas?

Someone never heard of CoDzilla...


Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what the RAI is, but I guess the flavour text line on the feat is a good source;

Quote:
"You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react."

Based on that, the target isn't getting any AoOs because you're suddenly coming in from nowhere. You cover at least 10ft, but you do so really really fast.

RAI is ambiguous but could certainly be to let you maneuver with impunity. RAW lets you do that.

You've shown precisely why you shouldn't be going by the loose and incorrect RAW wording right there. If it says strike, then it should be a strike, aka a melee attack. Under your interpretation of the rules, someone could run to the enemy with Spring Attack, cast a spell in their face without casting defensively, not provoke an AoO, and then back away again. There's a reason some common sense RAI reading of the material is necessary here and there and it's so that obviously erroneous interpretations that tread all over other feats and mechanics do not become the norm in a PF game.


Cerberus Seven wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what the RAI is, but I guess the flavour text line on the feat is a good source;

Quote:
"You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react."

Based on that, the target isn't getting any AoOs because you're suddenly coming in from nowhere. You cover at least 10ft, but you do so really really fast.

RAI is ambiguous but could certainly be to let you maneuver with impunity. RAW lets you do that.

You've shown precisely why you shouldn't be going by the loose and incorrect RAW wording right there. If it says strike, then it should be a strike, aka a melee attack. Under your interpretation of the rules, someone could run to the enemy with Spring Attack, cast a spell in their face without casting defensively, not provoke an AoO, and then back away again. There's a reason some common sense RAI reading of the material is necessary here and there and it's so that obviously erroneous interpretations that tread all over other feats and mechanics do not become the norm in a PF game.

Wrong. WIth or without his intepretation Spring attack do not let you move-cast-move.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

Well, as it stands that rule just says that you don't provoke, not that only your movement doesn't provoke. You might think that's not what the writer could have intended, but it's clearly how it works right now.

Considering the investment, I don't think it's unfair or OP either.

There have been threads about it before, as I recall the outcome was usually that it really doesn't provoke.

It wouldn't work that way at my table, but I agree it's hardly OP under either interpretation.

Just another tiny tweak from 3.5. *shrug*

Sovereign Court

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what the RAI is, but I guess the flavour text line on the feat is a good source;

Quote:
"You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react."

Based on that, the target isn't getting any AoOs because you're suddenly coming in from nowhere. You cover at least 10ft, but you do so really really fast.

RAI is ambiguous but could certainly be to let you maneuver with impunity. RAW lets you do that.

You've shown precisely why you shouldn't be going by the loose and incorrect RAW wording right there. If it says strike, then it should be a strike, aka a melee attack. Under your interpretation of the rules, someone could run to the enemy with Spring Attack, cast a spell in their face without casting defensively, not provoke an AoO, and then back away again. There's a reason some common sense RAI reading of the material is necessary here and there and it's so that obviously erroneous interpretations that tread all over other feats and mechanics do not become the norm in a PF game.

So you're saying the RAW is incorrect?

The wording changed almost completely from 3.5, while most CRB feats stayed relatively the same. I think we should give the writer some credit and assume that he really meant what he wrote. Especially since it's still there in the sixth printing.

Shadow Lodge

Ascalaphus wrote:
I think we should give the writer some credit and assume that he really meant what he wrote.

I assume nothing without clarification, especially after the number of instances of writers stating that what they wrote was changed in development, after they were finished with it.

Sovereign Court

Okay, how about this? This part of Spring Attack stayed the same for six printings. It got errata to clarify that it was a full-round action, but they left the no-provoke clause like it was. So the feat did get another round of close developer attention and it still doesn't provoke.

At some point you have to start trusting the writing, otherwise how are we to know for certain that Chapter 2 was really meant to be Chapter 2?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
At some point you have to start trusting the writing, otherwise how are we to know for certain that Chapter 2 was really meant to be Chapter 2?

We don't. :P

I deny that the entire feat got that attention. Paizo addresses the specific questions, and if the 'no provoke' question wasn't raised, it probably wasn't addressed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Okay, how about this? This part of Spring Attack stayed the same for six printings. It got errata to clarify that it was a full-round action, but they left the no-provoke clause like it was. So the feat did get another round of close developer attention and it still doesn't provoke.

At some point you have to start trusting the writing, otherwise how are we to know for certain that Chapter 2 was really meant to be Chapter 2?

Witches have had some of their hexes go without key details being specified for years. It took a unified effort to badger the designers enough to get them to release details on how just ONE of those hexes actually worked.

So, no, we do not have to assume that RAW is RAI with Paizo. In fact, when in doubt, it's safer to go with the hypothesis that they goofed and left off a detail / missed a loophole than anything else.

Sovereign Court

You can take that kind of skepticism only so far. I mean, it's nice for home games, but in organized play Spring Attack just works the way it's written. And it doesn't seem to be causing any trouble, so I don't think it's gonna change either.

Now in 3.5, Spring Attack was clearly only intended for movement, since back then it read like this:

3.5 wrote:

When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack, though it might provoke attacks of opportunity from other creatures, if appropriate. You can’t use this feat if you are wearing heavy armor.

You must move at least 5 feet both before and after you make your attack in order to utilize the benefits of Spring Attack.

If Paizo wanted it to only protect against move-provocation, all they had to do was leave that line alone. But they didn't.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
If Paizo wanted it to only protect against move-provocation, all they had to do was leave that line alone. But they didn't.

Possibly due to word count and layout. Possibly because they wanted Spring Attackers to be able to make combat maneuvers without provoking. I don't know, and I'm not going to assume either.


Ascalaphus interpretation is a perfectly valid reading of the text and in no way is OP. The contrary interpretation can not just be assumed to be based on RAI since the RAI is not known.


PIXIE DUST wrote:
666bender wrote:

well.... full attacking as a cleric is a myth. a cleric is caster > melee . (casting and fighting when it's easy fights / spells run low / need load of healing used...)

other than haste / blessing of fervor times = you will never hit at attack #2 and up.

it also prevent you from entering a risky place where a simple grapple shut you down. with trade domain (i got trade and heroism) - i fly in (overland flight...) - attack - fly out of harm's way. (in theory - not tested yet).

also, add "wisdom in a flesh" for stealth + hellcat stealth + armor of shadow >>>> and you are a skirmish that can hardly be found.

let's examine what can 3 feats offer in exchange:
(we don't allow "nature's ally feat" )

scribe scrolls for utility + reach spell + more traits ?
more traits (to add meta magic free) + empower + reach ?
combat exertise + imp trip + greater trip (with d.favor the CMB aint bad ). ?
augument summoning + superior summon. ?

i think a cleric is first a caster than a melee. so my str is 14 -16 tops.
summoning is great power! but with so many amazing spells, and the rotten fact it take a whole round to waste casting - summoning in reality is almost impossible (opponents seem to target you when you cast a full round spell...)
so - any cleric need "plan B" when spells are low / used for healing - to still be effective in combats (not #1, just effective).

so - other ideas?

Someone never heard of CoDzilla...

i have..... but in pathfinder its a lot harder.


besides, it offer some options, but hardly OP.
CMD get really high, really fast.
trip get really hard or impossible as many fly.
high level monsters rarely use weapons to disarm, and sunder is only used by barbarian (and never on weapons :) right? )
it is just a nice bonus for an expensive feat chain.
you pay 3 feats to buy the neat option for things you cant otherwise try.
will they be more efficient than power attack on a charging smite? no.
will it offer a more round game? yes.
and it will also keep you alive a few rounds more.


666bender wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
666bender wrote:

well.... full attacking as a cleric is a myth. a cleric is caster > melee . (casting and fighting when it's easy fights / spells run low / need load of healing used...)

other than haste / blessing of fervor times = you will never hit at attack #2 and up.

it also prevent you from entering a risky place where a simple grapple shut you down. with trade domain (i got trade and heroism) - i fly in (overland flight...) - attack - fly out of harm's way. (in theory - not tested yet).

also, add "wisdom in a flesh" for stealth + hellcat stealth + armor of shadow >>>> and you are a skirmish that can hardly be found.

let's examine what can 3 feats offer in exchange:
(we don't allow "nature's ally feat" )

scribe scrolls for utility + reach spell + more traits ?
more traits (to add meta magic free) + empower + reach ?
combat exertise + imp trip + greater trip (with d.favor the CMB aint bad ). ?
augument summoning + superior summon. ?

i think a cleric is first a caster than a melee. so my str is 14 -16 tops.
summoning is great power! but with so many amazing spells, and the rotten fact it take a whole round to waste casting - summoning in reality is almost impossible (opponents seem to target you when you cast a full round spell...)
so - any cleric need "plan B" when spells are low / used for healing - to still be effective in combats (not #1, just effective).

so - other ideas?

Someone never heard of CoDzilla...

i have..... but in pathfinder its a lot harder.

Ghaleena the Conquoror Ooze

There is also the monktopus...

Oh and cleric is one of the best self buff martials in the game... people complain that it makes the warpriest look bad (which was supposed to be designed for martial combat)... Its not that hard to do. Hell Clerics have a spell to pretty much turn themselves into mini paladins...


PIXIE DUST wrote:
666bender wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
666bender wrote:

well.... full attacking as a cleric is a myth. a cleric is caster > melee . (casting and fighting when it's easy fights / spells run low / need load of healing used...)

other than haste / blessing of fervor times = you will never hit at attack #2 and up.

it also prevent you from entering a risky place where a simple grapple shut you down. with trade domain (i got trade and heroism) - i fly in (overland flight...) - attack - fly out of harm's way. (in theory - not tested yet).

also, add "wisdom in a flesh" for stealth + hellcat stealth + armor of shadow >>>> and you are a skirmish that can hardly be found.

let's examine what can 3 feats offer in exchange:
(we don't allow "nature's ally feat" )

scribe scrolls for utility + reach spell + more traits ?
more traits (to add meta magic free) + empower + reach ?
combat exertise + imp trip + greater trip (with d.favor the CMB aint bad ). ?
augument summoning + superior summon. ?

i think a cleric is first a caster than a melee. so my str is 14 -16 tops.
summoning is great power! but with so many amazing spells, and the rotten fact it take a whole round to waste casting - summoning in reality is almost impossible (opponents seem to target you when you cast a full round spell...)
so - any cleric need "plan B" when spells are low / used for healing - to still be effective in combats (not #1, just effective).

so - other ideas?

Someone never heard of CoDzilla...

i have..... but in pathfinder its a lot harder.

Ghaleena the Conquoror Ooze

There is also the monktopus...

Oh and cleric is one of the best self buff martials in the game... people complain that it makes the warpriest look bad (which was supposed to be designed for martial combat)... Its not that hard to do. Hell Clerics have a spell to pretty much...

the links above are both druids. they are indeed one of the best DPR class in the game. i always die as a druid cause it's doing SO MUCH damage - DM must bring above pay check CR's.

druids are the best fast self long lasting buff and damage class with full spells. they do lack the utility my cleric offer.

but clerics? in a lab, a fully buff cleric that tank wisdom is great.
in reality - it is indeed useful in combats, but hardly in the first ranks.
most combats end really fast - and no 1 minute per level last more than a fight in our games. so - with a single round to buff a cleric can add: quicken divine favor (+3-+4) & righteous might for example.
with a start str of 14-16, i do well, but far behind the magus \ fighter.
a smiting, battle cleric of rage and ferocity, can indeed to well, but for 6-8 strikes a day. it end fast...


Well CoDzilla stands for Druid OR Cleric XD


i know.
but in pathfinder its more druidzila


Bring back Divine Metamagic. Clerics can only fill most of the roles in a party. They need all the help they can get.

Dark Archive

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Spring Attack only prevents attacks of opportunity based on movement. Maneuvers you do not possess the requisite "Improved <maneuver>" feat for would still provoke from the target. I understand your reading but it would not fly at any PFS table or a game in which the GM knew what they were doing.

... Or in games where GM's disagreed with your statement and that spring attack ignores all AOO's from the designated target.

And PFS it would be illegal for them to ignore it.

That is the most inane interpretation I've heard of a feat in ages. Look at the prereqs, one of them is mobility, which works only on movement. Was this GM drunk at the time?

Try it at a PFS table, let me know how it goes. I'm genuinely curious to see whether they are that shackled to a mindless, word-by-word interpretation. If so, I'm not sure anything from an 'adventure path' like the Advanced Class Guide would be allowed.

Eh it's worse then that. It only protects you from AoO's from the target of the spring attack. Everyone else still gets their free whack at you if you provoke.


I think it's kind of hilarious that people who openly admit the feat isn't very good then turn around and want to nerf it further by taking an odd interpretation of the text.


swoosh wrote:
I think it's kind of hilarious that people who openly admit the feat isn't very good then turn around and want to nerf it further by taking an odd interpretation of the text.

...Actually, that's exactly what you'd expect from people arguing that the feat sucks. Which it does. They're pointing out that it's even more awful than someone might think it is if they didn't read it carefully.


Athaleon wrote:
swoosh wrote:
I think it's kind of hilarious that people who openly admit the feat isn't very good then turn around and want to nerf it further by taking an odd interpretation of the text.
...Actually, that's exactly what you'd expect from people arguing that the feat sucks. Which it does. They're pointing out that it's even more awful than someone might think it is if they didn't read it carefully.

Except the situation is nto as clear cut as presented.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

666bender wrote:
What 3 feats a cleric can get that people think will add more tools to the cleric that want to cast and fight ?

Channel Smite, Guided Hand, Craft Wondrous Item


Ssalarn wrote:
666bender wrote:
What 3 feats a cleric can get that people think will add more tools to the cleric that want to cast and fight ?
Channel Smite, Guided Hand, Craft Wondrous Item

Craft Wondrous Item >>> is amazing feat. banned in our game like all other craft items.

Guided Hand >>> amazing indeed. but a guided weapon isnt very hard to get.

Channel Smite >>> is crap. channeling positive is a lot better than negative, as is also mean one cant cure his allies and must "waste" slot of memorize spells instead of using what ever is left at the end of the day.
yes, one CAN also take versatile channel - but that is 2 feats for extra damage that opponent probably win the save AND come on the same slot as curing your friends which lead to MORE heal spells you need to cast...
i think channeling need to be a simple off combat healing kit OR a tool Vs load of undeads.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Channel Smite is necessary for Guided Hand. Guided is a 3.5 weapon property never released for Pathfinder. I'm a little surprised your group bans crafting but allows 3.5 materials. Makes it hard to have a discussion when you're dismissing things based on your heavily house-ruled game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are treating a Cleric as a primary caster then I would strongly value the spell penetration and spell focus feats as well as improved initiative and some metamagic (mostly persistent, dazing and quicken) over anything to do with spring attack.

Clerics have almost no offensive SR: No spells outside of the summon monster spells so generally have few options against high SR enemies that avoid that SR. If you are employing much control magic then you definitely want to boost your saves. Enchantment (Forbid Action, Command, Greater versions thereof, Hold Person, Debilitating Portent), Evocation (dazing spells, Burst of Radiance, Holy Smite, Holy Word) and Necromancy (Blindness, Bestow Curse, Wall of Blindness) are all strong options. Conjuration is a decent pick as well if you plan to summon and will also help offensive uses of spells like Plane Shift and Wall of Stone.


Ssalarn wrote:
Channel Smite is necessary for Guided Hand. Guided is a 3.5 weapon property never released for Pathfinder. I'm a little surprised your group bans crafting but allows 3.5 materials. Makes it hard to have a discussion when you're dismissing things based on your heavily house-ruled game.

oh! you are right! we totally missed that one... mmm...


andreww wrote:

If you are treating a Cleric as a primary caster then I would strongly value the spell penetration and spell focus feats as well as improved initiative and some metamagic (mostly persistent, dazing and quicken) over anything to do with spring attack.

Clerics have almost no offensive SR: No spells outside of the summon monster spells so generally have few options against high SR enemies that avoid that SR. If you are employing much control magic then you definitely want to boost your saves. Enchantment (Forbid Action, Command, Greater versions thereof, Hold Person, Debilitating Portent), Evocation (dazing spells, Burst of Radiance, Holy Smite, Holy Word) and Necromancy (Blindness, Bestow Curse, Wall of Blindness) are all strong options. Conjuration is a decent pick as well if you plan to summon and will also help offensive uses of spells like Plane Shift and Wall of Stone.

a cleric, in my eyes, is primary a caster that can (and will) run into the fray whenever it is needed.

a fun cleric (for me ofc), is a cleric that start the day focusing on spells and buffs - but can, to better his group, decide to start healing mania and focus more on attacks...
so - a valid plan B tactics is great. (hence - spring attack + power attack.).
the other suggestions you made above also seem amazing, making a hard dc hard casting cleric - that CAN always go in and power attack...

all, and all, i think plan B need be either :

spring attack + power attack (attacking safely).
OR
augument summon, conjuration summon, power attack and quicken for divine favor instant buff.

A option will offer more maneuvers, more mobility and safe keeping the cleric.
B option will be the strongest combo - and offer the ability to bring in lower level summons - while still able to run in and kill.


Ssalarn wrote:
666bender wrote:
What 3 feats a cleric can get that people think will add more tools to the cleric that want to cast and fight ?
Channel Smite, Guided Hand, Craft Wondrous Item

if only channel smite allowed smites for a positive cleric!

than it would be totally worth it.
or, if a cleric could channel negative and spontaneous cast cures...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The best contenders for spring attack are incorporeal creatures like spectres. Makes it danged hard to hit them when they spend most of the turn in solid rock, except on their initiative count.

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / spring attack hate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.