|
The first red flag that went up while reading PF-RPG was the new Combat feats, that some can not be used unless a different related feat was used the previous round. Nothing illustrates why this does not work for me like Spring Attack.
Spring Attack allows a character to move both before and after a single attack. It can only be used the round after Mobility is used. Mobility allows a character to move without provoking attacks of opportunity. Mobility can only be used the round after Dodge is used. Dodge grants a character +1 to AC until their next turn.
First problem: interpretation of the rules. If a character uses Dodge in Round 1, can he declare any movement he makes the following round as his Mobility move? If his movement would not provoke an attack of opportunity to begin with, should he be allowed to use a feat that allows him to move without provoking attacks of opportunity?
Second problem: Using Mobility for Spring Attack's sake.
Three round progression A:
Round 1: Fighter with Spring Attack tree is engaged in melee with a monster. He declares he is applying his Dodge feat AC bonus this round. Makes a full attack.
Round 2: Fighter leaves combat, avoiding attacks of opportunity because of Mobility. A confused DM asks "Why?" The player replies "So I can use Spring Attack next round". Because Spring Attack only allows a character to move his movement rate, the fighter would have to retreat his movement -10 to make full use of his Spring Attack.
Round 3 scenario 1: The fighter did not back up far enough and he gets charged by the monster.
Round 3 scenario 2: The fighter did move far enough and can now move, hit, and move away.
Total number of attacks against the monster: Fighter's Full Attack +1.
Progression B:
Round 1-3: The same Fighter makes a full attack.
Total Number of attacks again the monster: Fighter's Full Attack x3.
Here's another sticky situation. What is preventing the player from declaring every odd non-combat round as a round he is applying his Dodge bonus, and every even non-combat round as a round he is using Mobility? That way, depending on whether it is an even or an odd numbered round, the Fighter gets to use Spring Attack in the first or second round of combat.
The joy of the Spring Attack feat was the ability to fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee. The elusive combatant whizzing around the battlefield, never in the same place twice, always avoiding danger. Now all it's usefulness has been drained and I can not conceive of a situation where there is any combat-effective use for this feat.
I think Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack would work a lot better if the bonus/effect that each of them provides is effective against a single target, eg.
Dodge: You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC until your next turn against a single target in line of sight.
Mobility: You do not provoke any attacks of opportunity from the target of the Dodge feat due to movement this round
Spring Attack: You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack against the target of the Mobility feat without provoking any attacks of opportunity due to your movement.
|
My problem with taking Dodge and Mobility is that I cannot gain the benefit of both at the same time.
I am dodging to avoid attacks of opportunity totally but until my next go my AC is worse by 1. If I am getting more skilled in combat surely I can have both.
Or am I that dumb that I reach my final square and stop dodging?
Okay, playtest feedback right here. My players hated the combat-form chains, especially dodge/mobility/spring attack. I said, we're going to try out all the conversions until something starts slowing down gameplay or annoying me as DM. I argued total neutrality on this rule in particular and expected it would either not come up because players didn't want to spend three rounds on a single maneuver, or if it did, it would be only once. Sure enough, it came up only once.
I have one player with the three feats and here's how it worked. The group was fighting an Elder Black Pudding and combat was basically the wizard, rogue and cleric using ranged spells to try and whiddle it down before it managed to hit the insane AC on the cleric's mount. I could have rolled randomly to go after someone else, but it was an unintelligent killing machine that would likely have killed one player a round if I didn't have it go after the biggest snack--the cleric's cave ankylosaurus mount. With barding and the cleric's buff spells, the Pudding had a decent but not fantastic chance to hit the mount, and out of all the warm bodies in the cave, I was okay with losing the animal.
Three rounds in, my wife's scout character, the only one with spring attack, zipped all the way in with her +30 ft of movement from the wizard's haste and whacked the ooze with the blunt end of her spell-storing guisarme, unleashing the stored 11th level scorching ray the wizard puts in there for her once a day. 12d6 of fire damage and some blunt damage, and then she moved back out of the pudding's 20 foot reach. She could have gone back again in round 6, but without the +12d6 of damage, she didn't see it as having merit with the -4 nonproficiency and the meager damage of the blunt end of the guisarme. But she could have.
So, my feeling on the spring attack remains solidly neutral, with a slight leaning towards the positive. I need to see more combats where it happens, but I didn't feel like requiring a chain of actions was such a bad thing. It made it really easy for her to know what to do each round. One of my other players hates it with a passion and wouldn't see it the way I do--which is that taking two rounds to set up a maneuver is no different than a wizard having to cast two spells in succession to make a third one pay off. I hate to say it, but the feat chaining isn't so bad. If combat is short, sure, it leaves a player feeling like they've spent 2/3 of their time being less effective than the fighter who charges in and stands there stabbing the bad guy for 6 rounds. But in the right kind of combat, this sort of thing encourages a player to use smarter tactics and plan ahead, rather than waiting for their turn to choose an action. Her spring attack was the highlight of the combat for me because she zipped in, got closer to the ooze than anyone else and did a nasty amount of damage. Every other round, zap, zap, zap, and the ooze misses. It was predictable, and the only suspense was in whether the ooze would miss again and start engulfing everyone with lower AC.
So, there's my playtest feedback on this one rule. I don't know what the stated aim of feat chaining was, but if she could have done that any time without building up to it, she would have done it first and been useless for the rest of combat (in her eyes). This way, she got to do something cool in the middle of combat and seemed satisfied by her contribution. If the group was better prepared and carried splash weapons, she could have been napalming the thing at range the rest of the time, but that's another story.
I've said this elsewhere, but I feel that Spring Attack shouldn't be involved in a feat chain. I'm all for making it a Combat Feat on it's own. If it was needed, I'd split it into two feats. Spring Attack would allow you to move up to half your speed with the attack, Improved Spring Attack would allow you to move full speed with the attack.
Just my two copper.
|
I think Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack would work a lot better if the bonus/effect that each of them provides is effective against a single target, eg.
Dodge: You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC until your next turn against a single target in line of sight.
Mobility: You do not provoke any attacks of opportunity from the target of the Dodge feat due to movement this round
Spring Attack: You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack against the target of the Mobility feat without provoking any attacks of opportunity due to your movement.
I think the bonus from Dodge should be against everyone, because it's a feat, after all. I've always hated those "+X to AC against a single opponent of your choice" type of feats or class features. And, it's simpler that way.
Maybe Dodge could even grant you an Acrobatics check or REF save that would replace your AC for that round? Just a thought...
I vote that the whole spring attack chain stays as is in 3.5. Bar that Dodge is a flat +1 bonus to AC, but maybe bump up the requirments, i.e Acrobatics as a class skill.
|
|
Star Wars Saga fixed Spring Attack by eliminating it altogether,and replacing in with Running Attack. It works regardless of attack type (Melee, Ranged or even Spell). We still made Dodge a prerequisite, as well as a Dexterity of 15, while testing it in gameplay. It did make shocking grasp a little more deadly, especially with a Rogue/Sorcerer and Sneak Attack!
Running Attack [General]
You can move as you attack.
Prerequisite: Dexterity 15+, Dodge
Benefit: When making an attack with a melee attack, ranged attack or spell attack, you can move both before and after your attack, provided that your total distance moved does not exceed your speed.
First problem: interpretation of the rules. If a character uses Dodge in Round 1, can he declare any movement he makes the following round as his Mobility move? If his movement would not provoke an attack of opportunity to begin with, should he be allowed to use a feat that allows him to move without provoking attacks of opportunity?Second problem: Using Mobility for Spring Attack's sake.
Your first problem and second problem seem to be the same thing "Should you be able to use mobility even though there is nothing to provoke attacks of opportunity from, just so that you can use spring attack?"
I say sure, why not? For one, since you are using mobility, you can't use any other combat feat that round. And two, there may be opponents that you are not yet aware of who are capable of making attacks of opportunity. It's all in how you move. Just because your not trying to avoid anyone in particular doesn't mean you can't try and avoid anyone for no particular reason.
Three round progression A:
Round 1: Fighter with Spring Attack tree is engaged in melee with a monster. He declares he is applying his Dodge feat AC bonus this round. Makes a full attack.
Round 2: Fighter leaves combat, avoiding attacks of opportunity because of Mobility. A confused DM asks "Why?" The player replies "So I can use Spring Attack next round". Because Spring Attack only allows a character to move his movement rate, the fighter would have to retreat his movement -10 to make full use of his Spring Attack.
Round 3 scenario 1: The fighter did not back up far enough and he gets charged by the monster.
Round 3 scenario 2: The fighter did move far enough and can now move, hit, and move away.
Total number of attacks against the monster: Fighter's Full Attack +1.
Progression B:
Round 1-3: The same Fighter makes a full attack.Total Number of attacks again the monster: Fighter's Full Attack x3.
I have a minor issue with the strategy you present here. In round 2 "the fighter leaves combat". Why is he not making a standard attack before leaving the Melee?
After being charged by the monster in round three scenario 1, it's true that he can not execute a spring attack against that same monster. I wouldn't mind seeing the prerequisite of "can not spring attack an opponent that you are adjacent to at the beginning of your turn" completely disappear. This would be a good opportunity to move around the monster (possibly into flanking position), strike, then continue moving.
But even without this, you can still spring attack a different monster, assuming there is one, and you wouldn't provoke AoO from the first monster, unlike with the 3.5 spring attack.
In this rules set, Dodge, mobility, and spring attack all work better. The fact the you must follow a sequence, to me, seems a small price to pay.
As for your other sticky situation, the rules state on page 34 that combat feats "represent various maneuvers and tricks that characters can attempt to perform in combat. Although these feats can be utilized any number of times per day,you cannot utilize more than one combat feat in any given round."
ie, you can only use them in combat. No cheese weaseling your dodge and mobility feats while not in combat. As a DM, I might allow exceptions to this (using arcane strike, conduit spell etc., to break down a door) but, again, exception not rule.
My biggest thing is the length, and if some can carry over. For example Dodge and Precise shot... this seems not an overly big deal to have these effects active since you spent a feat on them.
+1 to AC that doesn't stack with other dodge bonuses and +1 to hit with a ranged weapon within 30 feet doesn't seem so devastating that it could not be a constant effect.
This would also lessen the buildup for things like rapid and manyshot/mobility and spring attack. I don't think the buildup should be more than a single round unless the effect is truthfully unusual or devastating in combat.
Another example... overhand chop seems strong, but when you realize that you are using a full attack for one single attack, this becomes a boost against really high AC and a neat attack at mid-level if it's taken giving up a secondary attack that might still be too low to be effective in some combat situations....personally I think it should have a +6 BaB requirement and should be automatic and make the backhand +8 and do only x1 strength bonus to all attacks instead of 1.5 for all and .5 for one.
Maybe a BaB requirement of +4/+6 instead of +6/+8. This would give a warrior a killer attack at 4th level and a full round attack earlier, which once again gives him interesting options at lower levels.
Basically I think these ideas have some real merit to make the fighters more interesting, but in many cases I feel the buildup is too long, some of the effect could be changed to add variance in the case of Backhand that would actually improve options, and the lesser effects could be changed to constant effects both shortening the chain of effects and adding a small constant boost or option for committing to the feat.
Perhaps this might change what they can do a bit, but I'm excited about the possibilites
This gives a combatant a change of tactic in both cases having use for all three, but doesn't make the buildup require three rounds in the process. Basically it requires him to make a full attack before making his killer "devastating blow" attack which seems to work in my mind.