Had a chat with the player of the monk in the playtest i ran about the tactics for dealing with BBEG Channeling negative energy
one of the things he highlighted was that the new mobility rule ("You do not provoke attacks of opportunity due to movement") means that unless a BBEG / Spellcaster is completely surrounded without even a 5' gap then they are always vulnerable to attack from anyone with mobility regardless of how many allies were surrounding him
He was talking about a 14th level monk who could move 80'/round and so could get to and distract any enemy spellcaster but we then worked out you only needed Dex 13, Dodge and Mobility to break though any situation - ie any human at first level, any fighter at first level, or by 3rd level any race / class combo with dex 13 could effectively run through enemy formations at will.
Now i've had experience of this before with tumbling rogues IMC, but the impact they can have by breaking the line is mitigated by the fact they normally have light armour (or the skill check penalty is too high) and so can't survive on their own for too long, so the sequence normally went
Rogue tumbles in and hits BBEG
Mooks pile onto Rogue
Rogue looks at HP and how close Fighter is to hacking through to support and either attacks with fingers crossed or tumbles away
BBEG tends to survive until mooks dead
with mobility the sequence changes
Fighter/Barbarian runs through crowd of mooks with mobility and stabs BBEG
Mooks hit fighter, BBEG has to withdraw losing action, provoke AoO by moving and acting, or moves 5' and gets full attacked the following round
Fighter ignores the allies attacks and continues to attack BBEG who dies or at least can't spell cast effectively due to damage taken.
Nooks mill around and get mopped up by party
now I don't have a fundamental problem with a fighter breaking through the crowd and taking the BBEG guy head on, but without the AoO's for movement the crowd of minions might as well not be there and that effectively changes a lot of combat scenarios if it becomes near impossible to protect the spell casters from frontal assault. or you end up with the situation where the spellcaster is surrounded by a solid ring of allies to just block all routes in - which may be effective but gets a little strange if every necromancer drills his zombies to fight like roman legionnaires :-)
is this serious? well look at it from the parties perspective and consider the scenario of an equivalent level NPC Barbarian who charges the party and takes down the PC spellcaster with his first or second attack. If the enemy came out of nowhere then the party might accept it, however if they'd spotted him coming, fighter had gone to intercept, spellcaster had moved to the back of the group and he still ran through them and hacked the wizard you'd be more than a little annoyed.
Anyhow, the proposed fix
Option 1 - with mobility you should be able to ignore ONE AoO caused by movement per round. Improved mobility (pre-req mobility) would allow you to ignore one additional AoO
One AoO may not sound much, and certainly wouldn't enable you to run around a single enemy let alone a crowd, but it would allow you to move away and act (eg move back 30' and fire arrow/cast spell)without worrying about the AoO)
Option 2 - ignore all AoO's from a nominated opponent caused by movement. Improved mobility would allow you to ignore AoO's from a second nominated opponent. you nominate opponents as you move for that round only.
the advantage of this option is that you can ignore a single opponent, or with the improved version run between two enemies, but this also means that you could totally ignore a tentacle type monster as you ran in to stab him which may be a little too powerful as it pretty much nerf's a complete creature type.
Variant - In addition to the ignore, i'd suggest you can also grant +4 to AC against AoO's that aren't ignored (as per 3,5) so it would allow you to attempt more dangerous options but without the complete invulnerability.
comments? am i over-reacting or have others seen this as an issue in their playtests?
|
When I read the change, that jumped out at me immediately too. Bursting through an enemy line should be a weighed option, not a foregone conclusion thanks to ubertumble or complete disregard for the enemy. This is why I would rather tumble be opposed/scalable DC rather than static DC.
But then, you also have the problem with high HP monsters with enough intelligence to know the fighters attacks can't seriously harm it as it moves past to get to the wizard that is dropping serious hurt.
Personally, I've never had trouble with the way Mobility worked before. It was always a nice extra defense if a Tumble check failed. I think before you go powering up Mobility, something should be done to let frontliners actually hold a line, like the ToB stance that makes all threatened areas difficult terrain for enemies. I could see taking it one step further and saying no one without Mobility could move more than a 5ft step next to an enemy, but that could get very complex and confusing, not to mention game-slowing.
unless a BBEG / Spellcaster is completely surrounded without even a 5' gap then they are always vulnerable to attack from anyone with mobility regardless of how many allies were surrounding him
it becomes near impossible to protect the spell casters from frontal assault. or you end up with the situation where the spellcaster is surrounded by a solid ring of allies to just block all routes in - which may be effective but gets a little strange if every necromancer drills his zombies to fight like roman legionnaires
Just to point out, for any character that DOESN'T have massive movement (like your 80' move Monk example), a 360' cordon isn't necessary to defend against a 'frontal assault' since just moving around them would likely use up too much movement, especially since a charge needs to be in a straight line.
If a group is facing attacks from all sides, a 360' cordon defense SHOULD make sense, otherwise when would such a formation EVER be used? () Also, any objects that block movement (even difficult terrain -- hell, standing against a WALL blocks off half of the approaches) are just as effective for setting up a defensive position.
In your example with the Mobility Fighter charging in on the BBEG,
Sure, assuming he has sufficient movement and an approach, he can get a hit in on the BBEG. But on the Mooks' turn, if the BBEG is taking a 5' step back, it should almost be assumed that the Mooks will reconfigure their position, filling that gap, now making an effective shield. And then they all get to take their attacks/ actions.
I'm not at all denying that this new Mobility IS really effective, but I don't see how that is such a problem. The entire Fighter class is predicated on Feats actually being effective, after all... Obviously, combining Mobility with Reach weapons/ Enlargement (less so Enlargement, since you need wider gaps to move thru) and the subsequent Feats in the Mobility tree, etc., make it even more effective, and obviously this is a great build for a Monk or any character with enhanced Move Speed (but what else do Monks have going for them? Slow Fall?) The thing is, I'd guess that the majority of Fighters will still take other Feats before taking this one.
Anyhow, here's some easy counters:
Reach weapons/ Large size combatants: 3x (at least) the 'defended' area per combatant
Grease, Stone Spikes, conjured barriers, caltrops, etc...
(besides simple terrain exploitation as I already mentioned)
And it HAS been known for high-level BBEGs to have nasty Contingency spells to mess with the first idiot who DARES attacking them.
Bursting through an enemy line should be a weighed option, not a foregone conclusion thanks to ubertumble or complete disregard for the enemy. This is why I would rather tumble be opposed/scalable DC rather than static DC.
Tumble DC DOES scale, +2 per additional opponent who threatens the area you're moving thru, and I also per additional squares you Tumble thru. I think additional AoOs from Combat Reflexes should increase the DC, but it DOES scale. And if you fail your Tumble check, even with Mobility, you've given up your movement (unless you give up your attack instead) which is a pretty substantial penalty.
Just to point out, for any character that DOESN'T have massive movement (like your 80' move Monk example), a 360' cordon isn't necessary to defend against a 'frontal assault' since just moving around them would likely use up too much movement, especially since a charge needs to be in a straight line.
..................
charge does require a straight line, but double movement can be done over any terrain, and although the 20' move of a tank makes it a little limited, 40' for a barbarian would get it a long way in towards the BBEG
but then with no AoO you can just move maximum move every turn until you're close enough to hit
If a group is facing attacks from all sides, a 360' cordon defense SHOULD make sense, otherwise when would such a formation EVER be used? (And you seriously don't like the image of a cordon formation of zombies, Michael Jackson Thriller style? Why even have zombies, then? :-)) Also, any objects that block movement (even difficult terrain -- hell, standing against a WALL blocks off half of the approaches) are just as effective for setting up a defensive position.............
I don't see a problem with a full ring of defenders (especially if they're undead with an negative energy channeller BBEG) but it becomes a little stale if it has to be used every time, it makes the bad guys cluster suitable for fireball or cone effect spells, and more to the point it makes the whole concept of a defensive line slightly obsolete unless its an overlapping shield wall (and even then you just need to punch one hole...)
Anyhow, here's some easy counters:Reach weapons/ Large size combatants: 3x (at least) the 'defended' area per combatant
Grease, Stone Spikes, conjured barriers, caltrops, etc...
(besides simple terrain exploitation as I already mentioned)And it HAS been known for high-level BBEGs to have nasty Contingency spells to mess with the first idiot who DARES attacking them.
Reach weapons have no effect if you don't have an AoO to prevent movement, large defenders will block more squares off but you only need one gap and the terrain mods will also hinder the defenders, especially preventing 5' moves in the area
nasty contingency spells are ok, but thats a higher level defense, not suitable for lower level encounters
The thing is, I'd guess that the majority of Fighters will still take other Feats before taking this one.
not so sure, with the downgrade to power attack / combat expertise the dodge mobility combination improves your AC and manoueverability especially at low levels and unless you really are playing a tank, it becomes a bit of a must have for Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues and Fighters. Its also very useful for spell casters as it means they can always retreat and spell cast rather than having to withdraw. Finally it can negate the effects of terrain. (though i suppose it also could be used by the BBEG to retreat)
Especially as it gives the most benefit at low levels, but never becomes obsolete
I just think that the ability to ignore AoO's is pretty powerful, and this feat seems to give it away far too cheaply
(after all its a DC15 tumble, so thats a lot of Skill points that this feat replicates ...... )
Consider Roger the rogue, whose investment in tumble means he tucks and rolls through the combat until despite his +10 bonus he fails a roll and takes a hit
next up is Freya the fighter who despite no acrobatic skill and wearing plate just walks past all the enemies, steps over the prone roger and whacks the BBEG with a great-axe
Just saying its a very powerful feat !
Sure thing!, and if I was Freya, I'd be taking Mobility as soon as I could, too!
Since it IS a more 'expensive' Feat, requiring Dodge, ther's alot more 'lost opportunity' for non-Fighters who want to take it. Obviously for Monks, Barbarians, and Rogues, it's still great, but Casters don't have so many Feats, and have so much better things to spend them on.
I just don't want to see it nerfed too much because the Pathfinder rules have pretty well buffed casters (in my opinion), so I feel there definetely needs to be some 'dangerous' Feats for the Fighter to take.
And if I recall from when I was playing 2nd Edition, we didn't even play with AoO's at all, though whether that was the rules, or just our 'interpretation'/ignorance of them... :-)
Edit: And hey, cutting out/ minimizing AoO's certainly fulfills the goal of 'speeding up play' :-)
Just to point out, for any character that DOESN'T have massive movement (like your 80' move Monk example), a 360' cordon isn't necessary to defend against a 'frontal assault' since just moving around them would likely use up too much movement
Actually, once Haste hits the table, 60' movement is most common. Also, once the melee types get themselves airborne, attacks of opportunity become a lot more rare. Then add on reach weapons, auto-Tumble, and teleportation magic, and it's nearly impossible to prevent the melees from attacking who they want.
Mobility is a special case. It's underpowered in 3.5, largely due to auto-Tumble, only taken as a prerequisite for Spring Attack and Elusive Target (CW). The Alpha3 version is way over the top, as it basically gives you infinite ranks in Tumble. It sounds like the intention was to give it a cost, though, that cost being the inability to use any other combat feats in the same round. With that cost being removed, I say just remove Mobility and be done with it. It's not necessary.
-Matt
I could see taking it one step further and saying no one without Mobility could move more than a 5ft step next to an enemy, but that could get very complex and confusing, not to mention game-slowing.
Actually, it's not.
Spycraft does things the same way, as an effect the system was able to remove AoOs entirely, which would be an excellent goal for Pathfinder to shoot for.
So in the end, handling movement that way really speeds things up!
-Matt
Keep in mind that in 3.5 you cannot move through a opponent's space without tumbling. You can move diagonally past an opponent if there is room to do so. So, by itself, Mobility will not allow a character to run through a CLOSED line of opponents. If there are gaps in the line, then yes.
This can create an interesting situation where the BBEG uses a narrow room as a battleground. A tight formation of trained defenders hold of attackers while he attacks at range with spells or missle fire.
Keep in mind that in 3.5 you cannot move through a opponent's space without tumbling. You can move diagonally past an opponent if there is room to do so. So, by itself, Mobility will not allow a character to run through a CLOSED line of opponents. If there are gaps in the line, then yes.
This can create an interesting situation where the BBEG uses a narrow room as a battleground. A tight formation of trained defenders hold of attackers while he attacks at range with spells or missle fire.
in dungeon / enclosed spaces, forming a defensive line with no gaps is fairly easy - that physically prevents the players from closing.
in open areas, such as cities or the wilderness the issue is more difficult. tight defensive perimeters are vulnerable to spells, and have to use more resources to cover more approaches even with clever use of the terrain.
in 3,5e you get around this by spacing and ranks. allow 10' between individuals in the front rank, and then 10' diagonally back have another rank (preferably with reach weapons) and you will tend to provoke 4 AoO's (or have to make several difficult tumble rolls) to get past (plus taking one individual down only reduces the attacks by 1, and if you run into the gap you can get flanked very easily by the survivors). now this doesn't require a huge number of mooks or (more to the point) a huge amount of training and organisation so it can be used by any race with a modicum of intelligence / big guy with whip behind them.
the new mobility rules completely defeat this idea of a skirmish line and can 'force' you into dense infantry formations regardless of context.
Its not that I don't like the idea of mobility for fighters in some form - I just think its more powerful than the cost (2 feats, and dodge is not exactly a wasted feat) especially given PF has increased the availability of feats.....
my take would be to tie it to the same mechanic as combat reflexes, allow the character to, as a swift action, evade a number of AoO's equal to their dex modifier for 1 round.
Simple fix in line with existing mechanics. What say you all?
my take would be to tie it to the same mechanic as combat reflexes, allow the character to, as a swift action, evade a number of AoO's equal to their dex modifier for 1 round.
Simple fix in line with existing mechanics. What say you all?
+1 for this suggestion.
Doug
Keep in mind that in 3.5 you cannot move through a opponent's space without tumbling. You can move diagonally past an opponent if there is room to do so. So, by itself, Mobility will not allow a character to run through a CLOSED line of opponents. If there are gaps in the line, then yes.
Thank you for pointing this out - there's no "bursting the line". To get *through* a line would take a DC 25 Tumble check + 2 per opponent after the first. Without that you'd have to run around any solid line, which due to movement restraints tends to push it back towards a Monk feature.
in 3,5e you get around this by spacing and ranks. allow 10' between individuals in the front rank, and then 10' diagonally back have another rank (preferably with reach weapons) ...the new mobility rules completely defeat this idea of a skirmish line and can 'force' you into dense infantry formations regardless of context.
You have a point here, though the Tumble checks to get through that aren't really that difficult (23 max?) compared to going through even one opponent (25 min). Also, at least the ducking back and forth necessary would slightly slow movement, and prevent a charge.
my take would be to tie it to the same mechanic as combat reflexes, allow the character to, as a swift action, evade a number of AoO's equal to their dex modifier for 1 round.
Simple fix in line with existing mechanics. What say you all?
simple gets my vote every time
(assume you mean AoO's from movement rather than any AoO?)
You have a point here, though the Tumble checks to get through that aren't really that difficult (23 max?) compared to going through even one opponent (25 min). Also, at least the ducking back and forth necessary would slightly slow movement, and prevent a charge.
in 3,5e you get around this by spacing and ranks. allow 10' between individuals in the front rank, and then 10' diagonally back have another rank (preferably with reach weapons) ...the new mobility rules completely defeat this idea of a skirmish line and can 'force' you into dense infantry formations regardless of context.
Tumble at that level is limited to lightweight rogue types, who I don't have a problem with as they don't have the AC / Hp's to survive in the middle of a dogpile.
though point taken that even without AoO's you can still prevent straight line charge with a skirmish line. With careful positioning...
my take would be to tie it to the same mechanic as combat reflexes, allow the character to, as a swift action, evade a number of AoO's equal to their dex modifier for 1 round.
Simple fix in line with existing mechanics. What say you all?
simple gets my vote every time
(assume you mean AoO's from movement rather than any AoO?)
Your assumption would be correct :)
The only remaining bit of errata would concern whether the number of attacks relate to the same creature (i.e. a gargantuan creature threatening several squares that must be moved through) or simply "attacks provoked" which is the direction I am leaning.
Short example being monk charging gargantuan red dragon (threatens 20ft IIRC) with a 17 dex (cruddy example to make point). The first three squares are free, but the last one earns a free bite attack, and likely, a quick demise.
Otherwise you have an insane parody as the monk literally runs circles around the dragon with impunity without the DM ever having a chance to put him in his place.
As an aside, the mechanics for Large and in charge may need some help, as this feat will be useless against most characters who favor movement on the battlefield.
one of the things he highlighted was that the new mobility rule ("You do not provoke attacks of opportunity due to movement")
You can only use mobility in lieu of any other combat feat. So when he does run up to the mage, he gets one attack, maybe. Probably more like a double move to get over there and wait.
Then the mage's guards (the ones you placed all around him, but leaving one open space) take say ten swings on the monk before his next turn.
then the mage casts defensively.
THEN the monk can use the new stunning fist, which is what the mage should be afraid of.
Meh, overall I think that you're nitpicking. For instance, if the enemies are worried about it, they can simply hold attacks until the monk is within range of them. This isn't an AOO and thus mobility doesn't protect against it.
Smart DMing: Your Anti-Complaint.
one of the things he highlighted was that the new mobility rule ("You do not provoke attacks of opportunity due to movement")You can only use mobility in lieu of any other combat feat. So when he does run up to the mage, he gets one attack, maybe. Probably more like a double move to get over there and wait.
Then the mage's guards (the ones you placed all around him, but leaving one open space) take say ten swings on the monk before his next turn.
then the mage casts defensively.
THEN the monk can use the new stunning fist, which is what the mage should be afraid of.
Meh, overall I think that you're nitpicking. For instance, if the enemies are worried about it, they can simply hold attacks until the monk is within range of them. This isn't an AOO and thus mobility doesn't protect against it.
Smart DMing: Your Anti-Complaint.
all true, and defintely lessens the effect/potential abuse. I hadn't considered the defense of readied actions which would be a normal response for a skirmish line as much as a shield wall. (though I always assumed that the readied action + the AoO's was what made defensive lines so effective)
But my concern was less the monk / rogue running up (as they do that now with tumble) but more a tanked fighter / barbarian (especially hasted or booted) running in with a charge / double move and enough ac / hp to take the bodyguards hit and stay in the BBEG face.
even if the tank fights defensively and just sticks to the BBEG forcing AoO's or defensive casting its still an effective tactic as the rest of the party have pretty free rein to either mook bash or artillery the BBEG with limited chance for the BBEG to respond effectively.
I'd be happy with the idea of ignoring multiple AoO's as per donovans suggestion above, i just think ignoring ALL AoO's is open to abuse in those situations where (normally for dramatic impact) you want the BBEG to have a chance to laugh maniacally from behind his minions for the first few rounds :-)
|
|
Tumble DC DOES scale, +2 per additional opponent who threatens the area you're moving thru, and I also per additional squares you Tumble thru. I think additional AoOs from Combat Reflexes should increase the DC, but it DOES scale. And if you fail your Tumble check, even with Mobility, you've given up your movement (unless you give up your attack instead) which is a pretty substantial penalty.
I was aware, but my point is that even with four enemies, if you've buffed your Tumble mod like I and my gamemates do, you'll still autosucceed. It's the same complaint I have with casting defensively DCs and such. It should be harder to evade a 20th Fighter than a CR 1 orc. But that's an entirely different argument.
I could see taking it one step further and saying no one without Mobility could move more than a 5ft step next to an enemy, but that could get very complex and confusing, not to mention game-slowing.Actually, it's not.
Spycraft does things the same way, as an effect the system was able to remove AoOs entirely, which would be an excellent goal for Pathfinder to shoot for.
So in the end, handling movement that way really speeds things up!
-Matt
Thank you for the information. I can see it making larger battles more interesting, as the enemy frontline keeps the party off the BBEG throwing the spells from safety, and vice versa. My concern was for the rules being simple enough to know when a person could move and when he couldn't to cut down on table arguments.
my take would be to tie it to the same mechanic as combat reflexes, allow the character to, as a swift action, evade a number of AoO's equal to their dex modifier for 1 round.
Simple fix in line with existing mechanics. What say you all?
simple gets my vote every time
(assume you mean AoO's from movement rather than any AoO?)
Your assumption would be correct :)
The only remaining bit of errata would concern whether the number of attacks relate to the same creature (i.e. a gargantuan creature threatening several squares that must be moved through) or simply "attacks provoked" which is the direction I am leaning.
Short example being monk charging gargantuan red dragon (threatens 20ft IIRC) with a 17 dex (cruddy example to make point). The first three squares are free, but the last one earns a free bite attack, and likely, a quick demise.
Otherwise you have an insane parody as the monk literally runs circles around the dragon with impunity without the DM ever having a chance to put him in his place.
As an aside, the mechanics for Large and in charge may need some help, as this feat will be useless against most characters who favor movement on the battlefield.
Attacks provoked would be my assumption as well, so if we assume its one AoO / dex bonus would mean
Dex 13 = 1 AoO - could ignore reach weapon or 10' reach when closing, step away from enemy without reach
Dex14-15 = 2AoO - could ignore 15' reach, or move partially around a single opponent, or partially between 2 opponents
dex 16-17 = 3 AoO - could run directly past a single individual, ignore 20' reach, move partially between multiple opponents
dex 18-19 = 4 AoO - could move between & past 2 individuals(if starting next to one
all useful but not overpowering. I would be tempted to say that the AoO is an auto-miss which would mean that enemies without combat reflexes & high dex wouldn't get the AoO if its the 3rd / 4th provoke
eg your monk with dex 17 moves between 2 mooks with spears. he ignores the first 3 provokes, but unless either of the mooks has combat reflexes they've used up their AoO's and so he can keep going through the squares without them getting any more attacks (however the 3rd mook with reach he comes across gets an AoO as the mobility immunity is used up)
that seemed a lot simpler in my head but I hope you get what I mean...
...snip......
My concern was for the rules being simple enough to know when a person could move and when he couldn't to cut down on table arguments.
That is the one advantage to the Alpha3 rules which we should be mindful of when proposing alternatives ......
though its also an argument against AoO's in general which is a whole other discussion and way beyond the interesting chat we're having here.
Perhapes combat reflexes could be used to counter this feat? Or a number of AoO negated based on the character's DEX modifier?
Remember that you only get one AoO for moving around a person, regardless of the threatened spaces you move through. So with only the 13 Dex to avoid 1 AoO, you could move right up to a giant despite his 15ft of threatened space.
of course reading the rules does help. D'oh! (thanks T.O.Z)
[quote-"from the d20 SRD"]Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
Bold is my emphasis
so effectively the amendment to 'ignore a number of AoO's = to your dexterity bonus' is the same as 'ignore a number of opponents = to your dexterity bonus'
that to me is a much easier rule to implement, allows mobility to be a useful feat even for dex 13 characters, but limits the ability to run through crowds without high dex / tumble (and so allows the mobility + tumble character to keep his edge)
Good heavens yes. Let's not break open that can of worms. Even if my stance is AoOs are good for the game. :P
(for what its worth, i'm generally pro AoO's as well)
<prods can gingerly>
nope, still intact. move along folks, nothing to see here.....
|
|
It's no problem, my group had the same mistake happen. I'm sure any number of people have crossed that ground before us and many will for years to come. One of my more favorite characters was a polearm-wielding monk. Lots of AoO opportunity there.
As simple as letting you avoid 1 AoO per point of Dex bonus is, I can't really get behind it. I like there being that chance of failure instead of certain success. Much as I like the opposed rolls for grappling and such. I like the slimmest chance that someone can escape from someone much stronger, thanks to his good roll and the others poor one. Flat DCs don't give that feel.
my take would be to tie it to the same mechanic as combat reflexes, allow the character to, as a swift action, evade a number of AoO's equal to their dex modifier for 1 round.
Simple fix in line with existing mechanics. What say you all?
simple gets my vote every time
(assume you mean AoO's from movement rather than any AoO?)
Your assumption would be correct :)
The only remaining bit of errata would concern whether the number of attacks relate to the same creature (i.e. a gargantuan creature threatening several squares that must be moved through) or simply "attacks provoked" which is the direction I am leaning.
Short example being monk charging gargantuan red dragon (threatens 20ft IIRC) with a 17 dex (cruddy example to make point). The first three squares are free, but the last one earns a free bite attack, and likely, a quick demise.
Otherwise you have an insane parody as the monk literally runs circles around the dragon with impunity without the DM ever having a chance to put him in his place.
As an aside, the mechanics for Large and in charge may need some help, as this feat will be useless against most characters who favor movement on the battlefield.
Attacks provoked would be my assumption as well, so if we assume its one AoO / dex bonus would mean
Dex 13 = 1 AoO - could ignore reach weapon or 10' reach when closing, step away from enemy without reach
Dex14-15 = 2AoO - could ignore 15' reach, or move partially around a single opponent, or partially between 2 opponents
dex 16-17 = 3 AoO - could run directly past a single individual, ignore 20' reach, move partially between multiple opponents
dex 18-19 = 4 AoO - could move between & past 2 individuals(if starting next to one
all useful but not overpowering. I would be tempted to say that the AoO is an auto-miss which would mean that enemies without combat reflexes & high dex wouldn't get the AoO if its the 3rd / 4th provoke...
We are on the exact same page :) It is always refreshing when that happens.
The AoO non trigger vs. automiss is a big deal. One - to be perfectly honest - I hadnt even thought about. I would tend more towards them just not happening, as auto misses would be a HUGE mechanical shift. i.e. the dex 24 monk sprints along/through the enemy lines causing all the bad guys to expend, possibly their only AoO for the round, as the rest of the party crashes through them like a sack of bowling balls.
I'll have to pondere this a wee bit...
But my concern was less the monk / rogue running up (as they do that now with tumble) but more a tanked fighter / barbarian (especially hasted or booted) running in with a charge / double move and enough ac / hp to take the bodyguards hit and stay in the BBEG face.
If the mooks don't seriously threaten the fighters this has always been possible, just take the AoOs which generally miss or do low enough damage the fighter can take it. If there is a straight corridor the barbarian could just charge down it. The thing is it just takes one guy with a readied action willing to step into the charge to disrupt it. Then the dogpile starts.
Also, our group doesn't encounter a lot of flat battle scenes the way you describe, between terrain features and mooks it's usually pretty challenging getting to the BBEG. This is by design. Considering the enemy caster is by far the biggest threat on the battlefield taking a few AoOs to get him has always been worth the cost.
It's no problem, my group had the same mistake happen. I'm sure any number of people have crossed that ground before us and many will for years to come. One of my more favorite characters was a polearm-wielding monk. Lots of AoO opportunity there.
As simple as letting you avoid 1 AoO per point of Dex bonus is, I can't really get behind it. I like there being that chance of failure instead of certain success. Much as I like the opposed rolls for grappling and such. I like the slimmest chance that someone can escape from someone much stronger, thanks to his good roll and the others poor one. Flat DCs don't give that feel.
I think we both agree that new mobility as written with the flat no AoO's is a bit OTT,
My take on the change to ignore [dex bonus] opponents is that its a good compromise as it allows you a certain useful benefit, but it is limited and if you take on too much then the normal AoO's come into play. It does feel like it will play simple as well, though thats just my DM-tealeaf reading skill...
If you don't like the idea of ignoring AoO's at all, then thats a case of reverting back to SRD Mobility and always an option / valid opinion.
would the compromise that each square moved through use up the ignore feel better from your perspective (ie make my mistaken interpretation of the rules on how the AoO's work)? it is a little more complex (which makes me a little doubtful that its the perfect solution) but would make running between two enemies difficult without high dex / tumble and the corresponding 'slim' chance of failure.
But my concern was less the monk / rogue running up (as they do that now with tumble) but more a tanked fighter / barbarian (especially hasted or booted) running in with a charge / double move and enough ac / hp to take the bodyguards hit and stay in the BBEG face.If the mooks don't seriously threaten the fighters this has always been possible, just take the AoOs which generally miss or do low enough damage the fighter can take it. If there is a straight corridor the barbarian could just charge down it. The thing is it just takes one guy with a readied action willing to step into the charge to disrupt it. Then the dogpile starts.
Also, our group doesn't encounter a lot of flat battle scenes the way you describe, between terrain features and mooks it's usually pretty challenging getting to the BBEG. This is by design. Considering the enemy caster is by far the biggest threat on the battlefield taking a few AoOs to get him has always been worth the cost.
All true, and does make me feel slightly happier with the changed rule.
I do tend to see flat battle scenes IMC(s) as we all tend to use flip charts or a dry wipe battle map and so for any non-critical combat the terrain detail tends to be sketchy (i did have ~ 10 detailed sheets for random encounters but time/familiarity and overuse has meant they're knackered and so i'm back to drawing as i go)
I guess i don't want the critical point of the battle to hinge on wether i remember to draw a rock / bush / rough terrain in the right place or positioned my mooks most effectively which was why the blanket immunity to AoO's still makes me think it can be a bit of an encounter killer.
|
|
My opinion is that this isn't broken, so don't fix it. I've always found Mobility to be a decent feat. It may not be a must-have, but it's a nice prereq for Spring Attack. It hurts non-fighters without a lot of feats to spend, but Pathfinder is alleviating that slightly. And I can always go Book of Experimental Might route and give PCs a feat at every level. ^_^
What do you guys think about this?
Mobility [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge.
Benefit: When you select an opponent that you are dodging with your Dodge feat in a round, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity from that designated opponent when you move out of or within the opponent’s threatened square. Note: You must still select an opponent to use this feat even if you have the Improved Dodge feat.
Special: A fighter may select Mobility as one of his fighter bonus feats.
What do you guys think about this?
Mobility [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge.
Benefit: When you select an opponent that you are dodging with your Dodge feat in a round, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity from that designated opponent when you move out of or within the opponent’s threatened square. Note: You must still select an opponent to use this feat even if you have the Improved Dodge feat.
Special: A fighter may select Mobility as one of his fighter bonus feats.
in alpha 3 the dodge feat does not require you to select an opponent, its just a flat +1AC. minor point but it means you could simplify the text to read
"select one opponent during your round, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity from that designated opponent when you move out of or within the opponent’s threatened square. You may chose a different opponent on your next round"
If you go this route i'd also have an 'improved mobility' that allows you to ignote any AoO's caused by movement (like the current PF Mobility)
alternatively i'd allow {dex bonus} opponents to be ignored for the base feat and leave it at that
The way the Dodge feat is written in Alpha 3 needs to be changed. It does not make sense.
"You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC until your next turn."
It should say just say " You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC." Then again is that what Improved Dodge does?
With Mobility, the way it is written in Alpha 3 is way too powerful and to me that means broken IMHO. It totally eliminates the use of tumbling through an opponent or through threatened squares since you never provokes AoO (FROM ANYONE) caused by movement. Elimiating the use of skill checks in battle is a bad thing.
If you leave Dodge as is in the 3.5 SRD and change Mobility to something like I wrote, it makes the new Mobility alot more viable and yet does not totally eliminate the use of tumbling. DM's can overlap threatened sqaures giving the PC a challenge to by pass two opponents using skills.
On top of it all, you can change the way tumbling works instead of having a flat DC, make it scale to DC 15 + oppenents BaB. It makes it challenging at every level. Though I'm sure someone has come up with that idea for Pathfinder, at least thats how I have it in my player's handbook (Tome of the Lost Realms Player's Handbook). Sorry for the plug, but I do what it to be compatible with Pathfinder.
The way the Dodge feat is written in Alpha 3 needs to be changed. It does not make sense.
"You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC until your next turn."
This is an artifact from Alpha 2 when combat feats worked differently. Should be fixed in the Beta, they are rewriting the feats section.
With Mobility, the way it is written in Alpha 3 is way too powerful and to me that means broken IMHO. It totally eliminates the use of tumbling through an opponent or through threatened squares since you never provokes AoO (FROM ANYONE) caused by movement. Elimiating the use of skill checks in battle is a bad thing.
Why is it a bad thing? Why is it way too powerful? Because it eliminates AoOs?
Incidentally you still have to tumble to get through an opponents squares. There are 2 ways to get through an enemies square, either by overrunning them or via tumble. This doesn't change that, a tumble check is still required.
If you leave Dodge as is in the 3.5 SRD and change Mobility to something like I wrote, it makes the new Mobility alot more viable and yet does not totally eliminate the use of tumbling. DM's can overlap threatened sqaures giving the PC a challenge to by pass two opponents using skills.
Dodge under 3.5 stunk worse than the forked end of a diarhetic elephant. It was situational and players and DMs always forgot about it, it was less than worthless.
I like the change in mobility, it's very nice but it's not crazy powerful. Beyond that the only comment I have is that it suffers from some of the issues that dodge did previously. That said it wouldn't be nearly as bad as dodge because it's more active than dodge is.
On top of it all, you can change the way tumbling works instead of having a flat DC, make it scale to DC 15 + oppenents BaB.
The alpha currently has the DC set to 15+BAB for tumbling through threatened squares and 20+BAB for tumbling through an opponents square.
I'm not sure what you want changed about that.
So Dodge feat would read " You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC." I figure thats what there going to in Beta.
Improved Dodge would be "You gain an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC."
Mobility would be in my version which I hope it takes flight in Pathfinder: "When you selected a designated opponent in a round you no longer provoke attacks of opportunity caused by when moving out of or within that opponent's threatened area."
So Dodge feat would read " You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC." I figure thats what there going to in Beta.
Improved Dodge would be "You gain an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC."
Mobility would be in my version which I hope it takes flight in Pathfinder: "When you selected a designated opponent in a round you no longer provoke attacks of opportunity caused by when moving out of or within that opponent's threatened area."
I'm not sure there will be an improved dodge feat. Jason has mentioned that if you have 10 ranks in acrobatics the dodge feat will grant a +2 to AC instead of the normal +1. I'm a big fan of the idea.
Jason has mentioned that if you have 10 ranks in acrobatics the dodge feat will grant a +2 to AC instead of the normal +1. I'm a big fan of the idea.
Me too. However it strikes me odd that monks have Acrobatics as a class skill, get Dodge as a bonus feat, and have Ki Pool (Su) ability that grants them dodge bonus. That seems kind of redundant. The class best suited for dodging has overlapping abilities that don't stack. I might remove the whole dodge bonus ability from Ki Pool.
The class best suited for dodging has overlapping abilities that don't stack. I might remove the whole dodge bonus ability from Ki Pool.
As far as I remember different dodge bonuses stack in contrast to most other bonus types.
I'm not sure there will be an improved dodge feat. Jason has mentioned that if you have 10 ranks in acrobatics the dodge feat will grant a +2 to AC instead of the normal +1. I'm a big fan of the idea.
I like this as well - it removes one of my concerns that no-one will bother getting acrobatics (tumble) anymore as the alpha3 mobility will make it redundant...
I know Paizo don't want to give the beta away completely, but would be nice if someone let us know if the beta changed or didn't change mobility.....
As far as I remember different dodge bonuses stack in contrast to most other bonus types.
You are correct. It's dodge and circumstance bonuses that stack. I remembered it was deflection. My bad, I should've checked.