spring attack hate


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

i dont really get the amount of hate this feat gets...
for a full BAB it aint much, i agree.
but a rogue can almost get sure sneak attack
a druid can attack anf fly / earth glide
a cleric (trade or travel domain) can attack and move out really well.

don't forget - spring attack allow to attack from (but not stop) a square of an ally. so a cleric stay in the back, safe - buff and attack in and out.or in narrow places.

is it maximize ? no, ofc not. haste is better.
is it a tactical edge that also offer "safe mode" ? yes it is.

cleric can 1 attack a strong attack : even at base str of 14.
take lvl 9 :
base to hit: 6 (bab)+2(str)+2(flank)+4(quick div favor)-2 (power att)+2weapon = +14 (can add more buff, heroism aura, bardss etc. this is base).

dmg: 2d6(7)+3(str)+4(d.favor)+6(power att)+2(weapon) = 22 without real buff / bard etc,
with the right domain / smite he can reach 50-60 damage per hit. but even the 22 is nice.

so - why such hate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because it's almost always a sub-par option.

That 22 damage is basically nothing at level 9. You may as well have saved your action, and your Feats.

The idea of using it to pop in, hit a guy with a buff, and move back out is swell and all, but it's actually not possible. Spring Attack lets you move and make a melee attack. Not take a Standard.

If it worked like Fly-By attack, maybe it'd be worth the 3 Feat tax. As-is, it taking, in your example, 3/4 of your Feats to end up with a sub-par tactic is hilariously bad.


I think there's two main reasons for it:

1. If you're Spring Attacking, you aren't Full Attacking, which is chopping your damage output considerably.

2. It's the third feat in a feat chain, and the two feats needed to get it (Dodge and Mobility) are meh at best.

For me, it's the second reason that's the biggest one. If it was a single feat, or the Prerequisites were good too, I'd consider picking it up now and again.

Sovereign Court

It has its uses; you don't provoke during it, so it can be used for maneuvers you lack the feats for. But I mainly see it used on monsters against PCs, in which case it's really annoying. Stupid quicklings.


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?


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.

That is not true at all, and I am speaking from experience. Now, you won't hit as much as someone who uses full BAB, but you can still hit on the 2nd attack. As for the buffs you can get them, you just wont have them for every fight, but you wont need them for every fight either.

As for the grappling situation dust form(a spell) can handle that or you can summon a monster and have it scout for you. There is no reason to waste 3 feats on spring attack in my experience if you are speaking from a point of optimization. You will also have other party members. Having a high perception also helps.

There is also more than one way to play a cleric. Yes, they are better at casting, but they are still decent in combat. As for running low on spells, after 7th level that is not likely to happen unless you are wasting spells are dungeon crawling for that part of the game. Of course this assumes the rest of your party is well built and well played.

Sovereign Court

The only time I could see spring attack being very good is for a monk (or brawler now I suppose - perhaps better for them) with both greater trip and vicious stomp. In that case you're not losing out on attacks - because assuming that your trip works, you're still getting the trip plus two swings.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And it's not "hate" most of us just think it is rarely useful and definitely not worth 2 prereq feats that are not all that good themselves.


I miss the old feats from players handbook 2 that allowed you to move and get your 2nd attack, then move and take your 3rd attack.


It's a nice option to get into flank position without provoking from the guy you're getting behind. If you have Power Attack and a good CMB, Improved Overrun might be a better choice for that situation.

I take a very simple view on most feats: if you find yourself wishing you had it, it's a good choice for you. If not, it's not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One thing it is really good for, is attacking from the back of the line. For example, say you are in a 5-foot wide hallway with the monster on the far end with your party between you and it. You can actually use this feat to spring past your party, smack the monster in the face without provoking, and then dash back to the back where you started.

You can also use it to attack from a position of total cover, such as from around a corner, or from behind a pillar.

Like Vital Strike, it's not really meant to help with your damage output (which these forums are obsessed with). It's meant to help expand the number of options available to you. In all of the above examples, if you didn't have the Spring Attack feat you would either end up placing yourself in a detrimental position to get full attacked by the enemy (giving them the immediate advantage) or you wouldn't be able to make any effective attacks at all.


Ascalaphus wrote:
It has its uses; you don't provoke during it, so it can be used for maneuvers you lack the feats for. But I mainly see it used on monsters against PCs, in which case it's really annoying. Stupid quicklings.

Trip-like maneuvers not grapple or Dirty trick. First time I not that Sping attack protect you agasint every AoO, always thought it was only for AoO for moving out threatened squares.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
It has its uses; you don't provoke during it, so it can be used for maneuvers you lack the feats for. But I mainly see it used on monsters against PCs, in which case it's really annoying. Stupid quicklings.
Trip-like maneuvers not grapple or Dirty trick. First time I not that Sping attack protect you agasint every AoO, always thought it was only for AoO for moving out threatened squares.

I really don't believe for a moment that, that was the intent. 'Spose I'll make another FAQ thread.


Ravingdork wrote:

One thing it is really good for, is attacking from the back of the line. For example, say you are in a 5-foot wide hallway with the monster on the far end with your party between you and it. You can actually use this feat to spring past your party, smack the monster in the face without provoking, and then dash back to the back where you started.

You can also use it to attack from a position of total cover, such as from around a corner, or from behind a pillar.

Like Vital Strike, it's not really meant to help with your damage output (which these forums are obsessed with). It's meant to help expand the number of options available to you. In all of the above examples, if you didn't have the Spring Attack feat you would either end up placing yourself in a detrimental position to get full attacked by the enemy (giving them the immediate advantage) or you wouldn't be able to make any effective attacks at all.

That is a very niche benefit for something which costs three feats to get and forces you to pick two very subpar options.


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

I've seen those so-called "subpar options" save characters' lives time and time again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, it seems pretty blatantly to be the intent RD. It says full round action to move and make a single melee attack, then move again. Grapple is a standard action, just like vital strike. Can't be used with spring attack unless you have the grab ability (in which case you're not really using the grapple option so much as it comes with the attack)


Ravingdork wrote:

One thing it is really good for, is attacking from the back of the line. For example, say you are in a 5-foot wide hallway with the monster on the far end with your party between you and it. You can actually use this feat to spring past your party, smack the monster in the face without provoking, and then dash back to the back where you started.

You can also use it to attack from a position of total cover, such as from around a corner, or from behind a pillar.

Like Vital Strike, it's not really meant to help with your damage output (which these forums are obsessed with). It's meant to help expand the number of options available to you. In all of the above examples, if you didn't have the Spring Attack feat you would either end up placing yourself in a detrimental position to get full attacked by the enemy (giving them the immediate advantage) or you wouldn't be able to make any effective attacks at all.

See, the thing is though, it DOESN'T increase your options. It gives you that option which would otherwise be unavailable, but it reduces your overall options. Because in this game, Feats are options. And you just burned 3 of them.

Ravingdork wrote:
I've seen those so-called "subpar options" save characters' lives time and time again.

Which is confirmation bias against all the vast majority of times they either didn't use it (good use of 3 Feats there, eh?) or used it to fart around and barely contribute.

But hey, at least they're alive, like the Wizard who sits flying and invisible and never casts a spell.


Ravingdork wrote:
I've seen those so-called "subpar options" save characters' lives time and time again.

Even subpar choices are good sometimes. The reason they are subpar is because they are rarely the better choice you could have made. Combat expertise is another one I never touch with a 10 foot pole, but I have seen it put to good use.

Of course someone will ask why I am still down on it.

Well, looking at how many games I have run and the number of times it has helped someone survive vs other things I can't recommend it. Many times if the player had made a better choice(other character creation option) they would likely not have been in that situation in the first place.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
It has its uses; you don't provoke during it, so it can be used for maneuvers you lack the feats for. But I mainly see it used on monsters against PCs, in which case it's really annoying. Stupid quicklings.

You make a very good point. So let's say you wanted to make a general support character that could sneak in and do a little melee to defeat boredom. For the cost of 3 feats (all of which still help you, just not as much as other feats could) you get a number of options that don't provoke.

move, attack, move
move, disarm, move
move, sunder, move
move, trip, move

Now, to get those options otherwise, you need several feats already. One Pre-req plus each specific improved combat maneuver. Now granted, both chains are probably not worth it, but most of us play less than perfectly optimized characters that are looking for extra things to do in combat. And this would be one way to do that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If the feat didn't have two others as prerequisites, would you still see it as subpar?


Gwen Smith wrote:
I take a very simple view on most feats: if you find yourself wishing you had it, it's a good choice for you. If not, it's not.

I'm of the opposite point of view, if its a feat you wish you had (or would probably take everytime you create a character) its too strong and should be nerfed or banned. Although feats are not equal in power, they should be (just would be impossible to accomplish).

@Thomas Long 175 - those feats in 3x that allowed you additional strikes during attack were banned right away in our games. To me, the fix for spring attack was not to make it more powerful, rather to drop one of the 2 prerequisite feats so it only has a single prerequisite feat. Going the other way to make spring attack overpowered by allowing more than one attack is breaking it further, not fixing the problem.


Ravingdork wrote:
If the feat didn't have two others as prerequisites, would you still see it as subpar?

Possibly, it would certainly make it far more competitive than it is at the minute.

I did try making it work once a while ago while trying to make a viable strength scout rogue using it to gain sneak attack damage on single large power attack hits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think it's good enough to simply change the attack from Spring Attack to 'attack action' or standard action opening it up for melee casters and Vital Strike.


i look at spring attack, and feat in general as a clustered of feats.
so, yes, the dodge and mobility are so so at best - but the 3 together aint bad .
it add options for tactical combat - lets compare to other 3 feat options at that level? what other "better" combinations you think ? (other than augment summon - who i love but cant get to spare spell slots for a full round casting spells.)


wraithstrike 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.

That is not true at all, and I am speaking from experience. Now, you won't hit as much as someone who uses full BAB, but you can still hit on the 2nd attack. As for the buffs you can get them, you just wont have them for every fight, but you wont need them for every fight either.

As for the grappling situation dust form(a spell) can handle that or you can summon a monster and have it scout for you. There is no reason to waste 3 feats on spring attack in my experience if you are speaking from a point of optimization. You will also have other party members. Having a high perception also helps.

There is also more than one way to play a cleric. Yes, they are better at casting, but they are still decent in combat. As for running low on spells, after 7th level that is not likely to happen unless you are wasting spells are dungeon crawling for that part of the game. Of course this assumes the rest of your party is well built and well played.

as magical items cant be bought, i run out of spells, as 30% go for cures, 30% go for buffs and the last 30% go for combat spells (save\suck or even chain of prediction).

the thing i love about clerics and druids, they can be full casters, and keep str of 14-16 and run in when combat starts. using feats to better combat and spells to better everything else.
i also took the trade-heroism combo for super cha-based skills, at level 9, i got diplomacy of 27 7 times a day...


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
The only time I could see spring attack being very good is for a monk (or brawler now I suppose - perhaps better for them) with both greater trip and vicious stomp. In that case you're not losing out on attacks - because assuming that your trip works, you're still getting the trip plus two swings.

there it is great... i doubt i can learn to master a maneuver as well, especially as trips are getting rare at highter levels.

but trip feats DO add to toppling spell nicely.


Ravingdork wrote:

One thing it is really good for, is attacking from the back of the line. For example, say you are in a 5-foot wide hallway with the monster on the far end with your party between you and it. You can actually use this feat to spring past your party, smack the monster in the face without provoking, and then dash back to the back where you started.

You can also use it to attack from a position of total cover, such as from around a corner, or from behind a pillar.

Like Vital Strike, it's not really meant to help with your damage output (which these forums are obsessed with). It's meant to help expand the number of options available to you. In all of the above examples, if you didn't have the Spring Attack feat you would either end up placing yourself in a detrimental position to get full attacked by the enemy (giving them the immediate advantage) or you wouldn't be able to make any effective attacks at all.

nice tactics...

with overland flight it add many movement tactics.


666bender wrote:
as magical items cant be bought, i run out of spells, as 30% go for cures, 30% go for buffs and the last 30% go for combat spells (save\suck or even chain of prediction)

That may be your preferred cleric line up of spells, but nothing suggests that this is default. I have played clerics that never cast a healing spell ever in his career and only used spells for combat. (I've done it the other way around as well, as clerics are versatile) There is no one true way to run a cleric.


666bender wrote:


nice tactics...
with overland flight it add many movement tactics.

Overland Flight is a personal spell generally only available to arcane casters and a small subset of clerics and oracles, I don't see many of them setting fire to 3 of their limited feats to do this, especially clerics and oracles who get so few in the first place.

Sovereign Court

Frankly - spring attack wouldn't be bad in a theoretical duel, especially combined with a reach weapon. (assuming your opponent doesn't have pounce - you'd get 2x their attacks - more if englarged)

But Pathfinder doesn't work that way. Fights are nearly always in groups.


andreww wrote:
666bender wrote:


nice tactics...
with overland flight it add many movement tactics.
Overland Flight is a personal spell generally only available to arcane casters and a small subset of clerics and oracles, I don't see many of them setting fire to 3 of their limited feats to do this, especially clerics and oracles who get so few in the first place.

trade domain gets it


Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Frankly - spring attack wouldn't be bad in a theoretical duel, especially combined with a reach weapon. (assuming your opponent doesn't have pounce - you'd get 2x their attacks - more if englarged)

But Pathfinder doesn't work that way. Fights are nearly always in groups.

You cannot use spring attack against a foe who is adjacent to you at the start of your turn, you would have to keep withdrawing.


666bender wrote:
andreww wrote:
666bender wrote:


nice tactics...
with overland flight it add many movement tactics.
Overland Flight is a personal spell generally only available to arcane casters and a small subset of clerics and oracles, I don't see many of them setting fire to 3 of their limited feats to do this, especially clerics and oracles who get so few in the first place.
trade domain gets it

It does but as a Cleric are you really going to spend 3 feats on Spring Attack when you get a total of 10 in your entire career and probably more like 6 by the time most games finish.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Flyby Attack would be more useful to a spellcaster I'd think. It provokes unlike Spring Attack, but allows for standard actions rather than an attack. You probably shouldn't be in meleee anyways, provoking or not. Being able to hurl your spells from behind total cover is pretty nice.

Sovereign Court

andreww wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Frankly - spring attack wouldn't be bad in a theoretical duel, especially combined with a reach weapon. (assuming your opponent doesn't have pounce - you'd get 2x their attacks - more if englarged)

But Pathfinder doesn't work that way. Fights are nearly always in groups.

You cannot use spring attack against a foe who is adjacent to you at the start of your turn, you would have to keep withdrawing.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. (I was in my head :P) In hindsight I explained my thought horribly. I was thinking how you could combo a reach weapon with a trip build. If you trip someone with an AOO from your reach weapon, you could then use spring attack on them to make them come to you again and get another AOO. (since they were tripped, they never get adjacent to you.)


Ravingdork wrote:
Flyby Attack would be more useful to a spellcaster I'd think. It provokes unlike Spring Attack, but allows for standard actions rather than an attack. You probably shouldn't be in meleee anyways, provoking or not. Being able to hurl your spells from behind total cover is pretty nice.

true - but monster feats arent allowed in our games.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pity.


It requires two feats extra to do something incredibly niche in combat. If it at least allowed a standard action instead of a melee attack attack, it'd be much better. That way, Spring Attack wouldn't have two bastard kids roaming around: Shot on the Run and Wand Dancer. Their requirements and function are almost identical. But no, errata to improved existing options that aren't about magic isn't allowed. Errata that demolishes existing non-magic options, on the other hand, is just fine.


So, would the game break if Spring Attack called for a standard action instead of an attack? I was thinking a bit harder about this and I see no real problem.


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


Ascalaphus wrote:
It has its uses; you don't provoke during it, so it can be used for maneuvers you lack the feats for. But I mainly see it used on monsters against PCs, in which case it's really annoying. Stupid quicklings.

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.


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.


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.


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 ?

Spell Focus Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Superior Summoning.

Quick Channel, Selective Channel, and one "effect" feat dependent on deity: Fateful Channel and Beacon of Hope in particular come to mind.

Blessed Hammer.

Divine Protection if he has 14+ Charisma.

Improved Initiative, great for any spellcaster.

Divine Interference. Even if you only sacrifice a 1st level spell, you can still make an enemy reroll his critical threat.


Ascalaphus wrote:
It has its uses; you don't provoke during it, so it can be used for maneuvers you lack the feats for. But I mainly see it used on monsters against PCs, in which case it's really annoying. Stupid quicklings.

I'm pretty sure the maneuver still provokes.


To me, it's useless because the only class with potentially enough speed to really take advantage of the hit and run tactics is monk, and they're better served with flurrying and not moving. Every other class has a measly 30-40 foot move, which, frankly, is pretty sucky when you break it into move-hit-move. I mean, at best that's move 20' in, hit, move 20' out. That puts you, oh, wow, a lousy 20' from the enemy....for most classes only 15', though.


Spring Attack itself is meh, but what really kills it is the two crappy prerequisites.

If it had no prerequisites, it might have been a okay choice for a few builds. It's simply not worth 1 crappy prerequisite, much less 2.


Malwing wrote:
So, would the game break if Spring Attack called for a standard action instead of an attack? I was thinking a bit harder about this and I see no real problem.

I think it would still be bleh on martials but become a choice worth considering on full arcane casters that want to focus on touch spells. Magus too.


Ravingdork wrote:
If the feat didn't have two others as prerequisites, would you still see it as subpar?

I would see t as an ok feat and at l least think about it. Otherwise if the two feats leading up to it were better but neither is the case right now.


Most melee-martials are in full slow-me-down armor, need to take a position and hold it (to block for all the ranged dudes, healers, buffers, etc.), and really want them their Full-attack action.

How Spring Attack Can Work: Agile fighter with a speed boost (which is hard to get in PF) who doesn't need to watch anyone's ass but her own. She ducks in and out of threat, dealing damage, because she's the only target the enemy lumbers forward, only gets one attack at a time, and suffers for it. This doesn't matter if: Enemy has pounce, enemy has better targets, enemy can corner her, enemy doesn't NEED (or even have) Multiple attacks, enemy has ranged attack(s).

Like the evocation boom-spell wizard or the lithe and agile duelist, it's a beautiful dream and a delightful character archetype hobbled for life by unfriendly mechanics.

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?

1 to 50 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.