|
Shall Not Pass only works in adjacent squares. This means (by design) that it won't work with the new Lunge feat but also that it won't work for people using pole arms.
Firstly, I'd like it to work with Lunge. The two together would make the meleer much harder to ignore (as the detour to avoid a 10' threatened radius is significantly longer) and given that it's two feats (one of which gives you a -4 to AC that you'd have to take for the round on the off-chance that someone's going to try to go past you) I don't see what the problem is. Indeed, the two together (ie, Lunge + Shall Not Pass with 'adjacent' rewritten to 'threatened') are a pretty sweet fix for one of the problems with 3.5 combat, which is to say that the 'caster protector' role doesn't work properly; you can just breeze by the 'protector', take a single AoO, then try to rearrange the caster. Meleers just shouldn't be ignorable or easily avoidable. Lunge helps, but it still only means one single attack's worth of damage; combined with Shall Not Pass, though (if SNP were reworded) it'd make 'protector' into a more viable role even against monsters that played smart.
Secondly, what did Pole Arm wielders do to deserve this? Why on earth can't they use SNP, i.e., what is it about a Pole Arm that makes this stopping AoO impossible for them? Doesn't seem logical to me and also doesn't seem 'fair' in terms of game balance.
Yes, the problem here is Spiked Chain. Does anyone like Spiked Chain? It makes fighters in 3.5 viable as Spiked Chain Improved Trippers, but surely we'd like to see other viable fighter builds and lose the Mighty Fromage weapon? Unlike most cheese, Spiked Chain doesn't even taste good. Ditch Spiked Chain and make SNP apply to threatened squares (of if you really think that would be too much, have an Improved Shall Not Pass that extends to threatened squares), I say.
Yes, the problem here is Spiked Chain. Does anyone like Spiked Chain? It makes fighters in 3.5 viable as Spiked Chain Improved Trippers, but surely we'd like to see other viable fighter builds and lose the Mighty Fromage weapon? Unlike most cheese, Spiked Chain doesn't even taste good. Ditch Spiked Chain and make SNP apply to threatened squares (of if you really think that would be too much, have an Improved Shall Not Pass that extends to threatened squares), I say.
I like EWP Spiked Chain, but feel that the core rules should acknowledge that polearms are both quarterstaffs and whatever else they have attached to the head, and have houseruled this for as long as I have run d20. 1d6 blunt with 1.5* strength is not too much to allow at 5'. This still makes EWP: Spiked Chain good, since it doesn't have to deal with the two effective weapon problems of a pseudo-double weapon, is finessable, and is a ranseur and guisarme in one.
With regard to your other proposals, absolutely. DNP should be converted to threatened, with the proviso that you must have an AoO available for the benefit to apply.
|
|
The issue, I guess, with the EWP:Spiked Chain (or another EWP with the same range + adjacent property) is that it would be giving you the Lunge part of the Lunge+SNP combo without the -4 to AC as a straight featswap.
However, maybe Lunge needs something to sweeten it, in that case, because the argument applies even if you didn't change SNP, ie, Lunge only mirrors EWP:Spiked Chain modulo weapon damage (as Lunge works with all weapons) and that wouldn't be an issue if you were still pursuing tripper (although that does now require one more feat than before since the Improved Trip nerf). So it's somewhat aside from the threatened squares argument anyhow (ie, I'm OK with EWP:Spiked Chain staying as it is in addition to my preferred change in SNP, because I still prefer what we gain to what we lose, plus if EWP Spiked Chain is taken as part of a tripper build the Shall Not Pass effect is implicit in Manoeuvre success anyhow and I don't want Spiked Chain Trippers to be the only people to be able to stop opponents dead over a 5 and 10' threatened range).
|
With one fell swoop you would rebuild the uber chain fighter of doom. Imagine if you will. I have built a chain fighter, I then add the feets Shall Not Pass and Lunge. I now threaten 10' and 15' (you do realize how big an area that is right?) That is assuming I have not been Enlarge Personed...(10', 15', 20', 25' anyone?) Now yes I take a -4 to my AC but I now can control a swath of the board.
I like the lunge feat but it scares me as a DM. Not because I don't think a sword shouldn't be able to strike out an extra 5' for a hefty ac penalty. It scares me because it is a precedent that opens the door.
Trip isn't what it once was, thank the gods, but it is still pretty impressive, especially when you stack the whirlwinding lunging enlarged chain fighter on it. Come to think of it, next time you DM may I come over? I have a fighter I haven't been able to play in a while...
I like the lunge feat but it scares me as a DM. Not because I don't think a sword shouldn't be able to strike out an extra 5' for a hefty ac penalty. It scares me because it is a precedent that opens the door.
Trip isn't what it once was, thank the gods, but it is still pretty impressive, especially when you stack the whirlwinding lunging enlarged chain fighter on it. Come to think of it, next time you DM may I come over? I have a fighter I haven't been able to play in a while...
As I GM, I welcome it.
Allowing the fighter to become a intercepting force is probably the best change I have seen thus far.
I agree that Shall Not Pass should be based on threatened area
(as written it applies to Polearm-bearers' adjacent squares which they DON'T threaten - !?!?)
|
|
With one fell swoop you would rebuild the uber chain fighter of doom. Imagine if you will. I have built a chain fighter, I then add the feets Shall Not Pass and Lunge. I now threaten 10' and 15' (you do realize how big an area that is right?) That is assuming I have not been Enlarge Personed...(10', 15', 20', 25' anyone?) Now yes I take a -4 to my AC but I now can control a swath of the board.
Well, as I say, I'm OK if Spiked Chain disappears. However, there is no 'uber chain fighter of doom', it was just almost the only way in core of producing a meleer that stayed viable at higher levels. In fact, it was a good thing because it showed us what meleers ought to able to do without covering themselves in spiked chain cheese and relying on trip, wheras they ought to be able to do it with damage. Unless you're actually contending that somehow this is going to make the meleer king, in PFRPG where wizards and other casters get more goodies than before (albeit with, at last, some spells nerfed including the always-broken polymorph, thank Christ)? If meleers are going to be relevant at the levels where they were screwed before, they're just going to have to get more powerful unless there's going to be some sort of caster-smashing changes, which just doesn't seem likely. Power creep, sort of, but it's the good sort that brings things into line.
I like the lunge feat but it scares me as a DM. Not because I don't think a sword shouldn't be able to strike out an extra 5' for a hefty ac penalty. It scares me because it is a precedent that opens the door.
Trip isn't what it once was, thank the gods, but it is still pretty impressive, especially when you stack the whirlwinding lunging enlarged chain fighter on it. Come to think of it, next time you DM may I come over? I have a fighter I haven't been able to play in a while...
I think that Lunge is good except that maybe it's not good enough in a game with EWP:Spiked Chain, so either the AC penalty needs reducing or else Spiked Chain needs to go. Also, Trip is pretty much what it was, you just need an extra feat now (but then, you get more feats now). If SNP is changed as I would like, though, you don't need to be tripping to achieve good effect in terms of 'protector' builds, you can do it with damage, the way you ought to.
Lunge is great. If SNP gets changed the way I would like (as per OP), the two of them together would be the single best change to 3.5 that Jason has made, for me.
Also, SNP stops movement so there ought to be something making it even easier to disrupt spellcasting (but then, the new mechanic for casting in combat has yet to be announced). The current 'disruption' thing is fighter-only, which I don't like. Anyhow, this is a caster nerf I think that we can all get behind, whatever it turns out to be.
|
|
I agree that Shall Not Pass should be based on threatened area
(as written it applies to Polearm-bearers' adjacent squares which they DON'T threaten - !?!?)
it wouldn't apply to them at all, because as currently written the opponent has to provoke an attack of opportunity moving through adjacent squares, which they don't do for pole arms because they don't threaten those squares. So it's even lamer than that for them!
|
|
I want the Fighter to be able to do more, I want them to be the king of Melee combat. I want lots of different styles of fighters to be able to do really cool things, including crowd control. I don't think you need the chain fighter to be able to control the whole board however. Leave lunge to the 5' threateners, in fact give the folks who don't threaten 10' more options of ways to defend their allies. Then you'll see the Chain fighter be what he should be, an option.
Director of Games
|
Shall not pass was written the way it was, specifically to limit it. Think about giving this feat to a creature or PC with 15 foot reach. In such a situation, as long as you hit them with an AoO, you could effectively shut down a creature that relies on melee without reach. (Hit them when they move toward you from 15 ft to 10 ft., they stop and cannot attack because they cannot reach you. On your turn, you full attack them and move five feet back, repeating the cycle).
I like what Shall Not Pass can do for a melee character, but I do not like the ability to completely stop a PC or monster from taking its actions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I like what Shall Not Pass can do for a melee character, but I do not like the ability to completely stop a PC or monster from taking its actions.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I like Shall Not Pass for this reason also. I think in the right hands it is a powerful option that I can support. I would love to see the Sword and Board fighter take it in my current playtest group. But I dont' want to see it affect areas it threatens because the Chain fighter isn't the only one who can abuse it and cause headaches for everyone. Just think about a pair of Ogre Fighters with Shall Not Pass. Now, give them a reach weapon (not even Spiked Chain) Hmm, Lunge...Sounds to cool to not try doesn't it?
|
|
I see you point, Jason, but I'd rather then have a Shall Not Pass that affects threatened squares whilst giving the opponent a chance to avoid the effect, than a Shall Not Pass that stops them with any hit but only works in adjacent squares. The cases you talk about would indeed be a pretty big deal (but then, maybe they should be, if you make a character that size...) but the standard Medium character is still relatively easy to ignore unless in a constricted space.
Although don't get me wrong, I think that this is a lot better than it used to be. However, Spiked Chain Tripper still works (you just need an extra Trip feat, but then, you get more feats now) and does have that 5' and 10' threatened zone and doesn't just stop the opponent but puts the opponent down with a success as well as giving you an AoO on them (plus they then have to get up, provoking an AoO...), so it seems to me that SNP isn't good enough compared to that (although if the CMB numbers stay the same, there'll have to be more focus on getting the numbers up, if possible). The Spiked Chain Tripper can also take lunge...
Jason's point is good, since Monsters have access to these, and they get more Feats now also.
I just wish there were a way it could be more immediately obvious that players using Reach Weapons
CAN'T USE THIS FEAT AT ALL, since they don't threaten their adjacent square.
(Perhaps if they have Imp. Unarmed, they can "Kick" as 2WF (or Punch if Reach Weapon is 1H) & still use SNP?)
|
|
Well there is already precedent for a feat (Stand Still) that allows stopping movement and that extends to all threatened squares. And while it is not automatic at moderate to high levels the save DC will generally be to high for any but the most optimized save build to make.
Stand Still is also in the SRD (which I didn't realise, albeit it's a Psionic Feat, weirdly given that it has a Str requirement). So I think I prefer Stand Still (chance of stopping them on AoO caused by movement) to Shall Not Pass (autostop on AoO hit caused by movement but only in adjacent squares).
Well there is already precedent for a feat (Stand Still) that allows stopping movement and that extends to all threatened squares. And while it is not automatic at moderate to high levels the save DC will generally be to high for any but the most optimized save build to make.Stand Still is also in the SRD (which I didn't realise, albeit it's a Psionic Feat, weirdly given that it has a Str requirement). So I think I prefer Stand Still (chance of stopping them on AoO caused by movement) to Shall Not Pass (autostop on AoO hit caused by movement but only in adjacent squares).
Stand Still is a general feat, not a psionic one, despite being in the psionic srd. It doesn't require any psionic ability to be able to take it.
I like what Shall Not Pass can do for a melee character, but I do not like the ability to completely stop a PC or monster from taking its actions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Why not? An arcane caster can do it to Humanoids AT-WILL with a Cantrip... "DAZE".
It's just the matter of WILL SAVE or TO HIT/CMB. *shrug*
Is there any possible way that it could be written so that a creature could move, but not move past you? It is after all "Shall Not Pass", not "Shall Not Move". I imagine it could function sort of like a "mini-mundane wall of force", if you will...
Why not? An arcane caster can do it to Humanoids AT-WILL with a Cantrip... "DAZE". It's just the matter of WILL SAVE or TO HIT/CMB. *shrug*I like what Shall Not Pass can do for a melee character, but I do not like the ability to completely stop a PC or monster from taking its actions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Exactly. If fighter feats are all to be "balanced" as being worse than 0-level spells, just delete the martial classes and be done with it.
And I agree with Bagpuss completely. Spiked chain is cheesy. Let the martial classes do the same thing with any weapon, using a different feat. Everyone will thank you for it.
|
|
Stand Still is a general feat, not a psionic one, despite being in the psionic srd. It doesn't require any psionic ability to be able to take it.
Aha, I had wondered about that but the preamble in the SRD site I was at required psionics for the psionics feats listed below (including Stand Still).
Stand Still then, in practice, is the feat to take to combine with Lunge, I guess, instead of Shall Not Pass. Sure, SNP is an auto-stop if you hit, but it's easily circumventable because the 'adjacent squares' area around typical characters is too small to be problematic unless space is really constrained (and if it is, doesn't Jason's concern about large parts of the battlefield being seized up just come back as 'large fractions of the battlefield'? I am happy with it in either circumstance, but it seems to me that if it's so terrible in the former situation then the latter situation has a lot of the same issues...). Stand Still and Lunge is pretty cool and Stand Still only has s Str 13 prerequisite, although in a game with Spiked Chain and the trip feat chain one wonders whether Spiked Chain Tripper is still better as you take no AC hit that you have to declare at the beginning of your round that lasts until your next turn.
|
|
Additionally, Jason, is there a chance of Stand Still being officially incorporated into Pathfinder given that it's in the SRD? It seems to me that even with the fact that there's a save, it fills in a gap that Shall Not Pass doesn't, even if both of them together might feel a bit odd (if I had to pick one to include, I think that Stand Still might be it, personally).
|
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
Couple of notes to add to this discussion...
1. Stand Still will not be entering the game in its current form. I took a look at the feat when designing Shall Not Pass, but decided against it because DCs based off damage rolls is a very poor metric that has little to do with a combatants skill (10 + CMB would work better, but I still think that is a little off, since BAB progresses faster than saves).
2. SNP serves a valuable function that I think folks are missing. Not only does it prevent guys from moving right past you, it also can hold the guy that you are engaging, meaning that if the fighter goes first, he can lock down an opponent and prevent him from getting to the "softer" parts of the party.
I would love to hear some playtest feedback on this particular feat.... anybody got some?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I'd also be OK with a Stand Still that has a more agreeable DC...
The 'keep combatant there' thing is a good point (that would work for SNP or Stand Still, although with SNP it's an autosuccess if you hit, of course), so long as you are engaging the opponent in adjacent squares (so again, no love for reach weapons...).
I was just thinking about this in chat and I'd pretty much like to see SNP and a version of Stand Still (although I'm not committed to exactly how the DC is calculated). The other fact is that Spiked Chain Tripper is still there as the metric that shows us what meleers can do and in my opinion should be able to do, but I just don't like the taste of it. I'd love for there to be a way to extend reach as with Spiked Chain (but not lose threat on adjacent squares either) and stop an enemy with an AoO, but not have to use a Spiked Chain and trip to do it, but to do it with damage or at least with normal attack practices...
I'd like to see playtest feedback too. I'd like to generate some of my own, but at present I have a two-week old son who selfishly puts himself before rpg. I'll get my revenge when he brings girls round in years to come.
Aha, I had wondered about that but the preamble in the SRD site I was at required psionics for the psionics feats listed below (including Stand Still).
Stand Still is a general feat, not a psionic one, despite being in the psionic srd. It doesn't require any psionic ability to be able to take it.
I am almost completely sure that is a reference to the feats that have the [Psionic] tag following them, since if that were applied to all of the feats then no would would be able to take feats like Chaotic Mind since psionic creatures are unable to take it.
|
|
I am almost completely sure that is a reference to the feats that have the [Psionic] tag following them, since if that were applied to all of the feats then no would would be able to take feats like Chaotic Mind since psionic creatures are unable to take it.
What you say makes sense. Which I'm pretty happy about, given that I want Stand Still, or something like it, that will stack with Lunge, even if I have to add it myself.
'Haft attack' could be a feat, otherwise?
Possibly, but since Polearms (incl. Spear/ Long Spear) are basically all "Quarterstaff PLUS (sharp stuff on the end)",
it seems they SHOULD be usable in the same capacities as their simpler version, the Quarterstaff, WITHOUT a Feat.(and they generally require a higher level of proficiency (martial) to use than QStaff)
I suppose if it WERE deemed necessary to make it a Feat, it should work such that you basically have the benefits of 2WF using a Double Weapon FOR POLEARMS, so that it doesn't require TWO SEPARATE Feats in order to pull off. If someone has both (Haft+2WF), there should probably be an extra bonus (+0/+0 instead of -2/-2?). But personally, I think that's just making things way to complicated, so I prefer just treating them all like Quarterstaves for the Haft attack.
I think it's reasonable for Reach Fighters to have the SAME functionality with SNP (vs. adjacent squares),
as long as it doesn't cause the problems Jason mentioned with Reach & SNP.
(Reach Monsters threaten adjacent, so they already work the same)
|
OK, I just must be dumb or blind or just plain stupid because I cannot find Shall Not Pass, nor Stand Still nor a few others you guys are talking about.
And these are the kind of feats I have been looking for for the Fighter, a way to make a tank, to control the movement of Monsters.
Where are they?????
OK, I just must be dumb or blind or just plain stupid because I cannot find Shall Not Pass, nor Stand Still nor a few others you guys are talking about.
And these are the kind of feats I have been looking for for the Fighter, a way to make a tank, to control the movement of Monsters.
Where are they?????
They are under Announcements, under the thread, Announcement: New Feats For Playtesing.
|
|
Well, Shall Not Pass is. Stand Still is in the SRD, in the Psionics section (it is a general feat, however).
|
|
They are under Announcements, under the thread, Announcement: New Feats For Playtesing.OK, I just must be dumb or blind or just plain stupid because I cannot find Shall Not Pass, nor Stand Still nor a few others you guys are talking about.
And these are the kind of feats I have been looking for for the Fighter, a way to make a tank, to control the movement of Monsters.
Where are they?????
HOLY CRAP I MISSED THAT!
*Hangs head in shame*
Crap now I need to remake my fighter.
Some of these is exactly what I want.
Just looked at them... I CAN MAKE A TANK! for the first time in 3.x history I can make a tank.
BTW about Shall not Pass sounding video gamey ummmm huge fireballs erupting everywhere is also video gamey... so what, it's fun and allows Fighters to fulfill a new and maybe a better role for them!
Ruemere's post does make me wonder whether this should work more in-line with Maneuver mechanics...?
Though I suppose when Maneuvers are dealt with in the Combat chapter, this Feat can be updated to that, or not, at that time.
|
|
Regarding balance aspect:
- change to CM somewhat nerfs the feat but makes it more believable...
I'd take it in exchange for the change to Threatened Squares a la Stand Still (indeed, the feat as you write it is a fairly agreeable cross between SNP and Stand Still, modulo maybe some arguing over numbers and maybe a chance to the generic CMB DC or, as you say, a feat to improve CMB chances).
I'd like to see playtest feedback too. I'd like to generate some of my own, but at present I have a two-week old son who selfishly puts himself before rpg. I'll get my revenge when he brings girls round in years to come.
Congratulations! I have the same "problem" with my 7 week old daughter. But I'm confident she'll be a little role-player in a few years. :)
Shall Not Pass... it sounds like a special rule out of a Warhammer Fantasy army book.
anyway...
I'd like to see Shall Not Pass not as a feat, but as a new Combat Maneuver. Open it up to everyone. Trying to move past an opponent through squares the opponent threatens should be a CMB attempt that provokes an AoO. The standard formula of DC=15+ the target's CMB is a good place to start. The Combat Maneuver could be called Shall Not Pass as normal, and a feat called Improved Shall Not Pass could then be made in the fashion of the other Improved Combat Maneuver feats.
I also notice that you can essentially accomplish the same thing as Shall Not Pass, by taking Improved Trip, except that Tripping can be used offensively as well. Making Shall Not Pass a combat maneuver might be a nice alternative for those who don't or can't (because of prerequisites) take the tripping option.
As it is written...
I've tried the feat as written out on a grid with models. It is extremely limited in its use on an open battlefield. If at least 2 characters have the feat, then you can start to get good use in the open. It can be put to good effect on battlefields with choke points, lots of terrain, large doorways, and such.
A problem I see with combining Shall Not Pass with Lunge, and making Shall Not Pass = threatened area, is that you can prevent a foe from doing anything on it's own turn, like the tripping fighter. I'm ok with not being able to do anything on your turn because of actions taken by foes in a previous turn, but I'm definitely not a fan of being rendered useless by a foe when it's YOUR TURN. (It's why the spiked chain is broken IMO, and also why I don't like the Immediate spells in the PHB II). At least with adjacent squares only, a foe could at least attack you, if not the target it was actually trying to get to.
Other things to consider:
1) How does it interact with tumble... I mean Acrobatics
2) How about Overrun?
3) I assume Bull Rushing someone with Shall Not Pass would work as normal, right?
4) I can stop an ogre as easily as a halfling as they both have an AC of 16 (halfling MM p.149, ogre MM p.199).
5) Should it be harder to stop Larger opponents than smaller ones?
That's my 2 cents.
After reading Stand Still, I like this version better than Shall Not Pass. I like the fact that you have a choice: AoO to do damage (as normal), or AoO to stop your foe from moving (using Stand Still).
I think the board ate my post, so quick recap.
Having played a character using a Guisarme as a primary weapon, I have used Stand Still. Based on that experience and use of Improved Trip I'm now seeing three feats for the same purpose.
1. Improved Trip (Used with Guisarme not Spiked Chain)
Pros: Stops movement 2 turns (recovery from prone), chance to do damage (melee attack on successful trip), works with reach
Cons: Does not work well on larger or multi-legged foes, chance of counter trip on miss.
2. Stand Still
Pros: Works on most foes, works with reach
Cons: No damage
3. Shall not Pass
Pass: Better chance of stopping foe, Damage and Stop on hit, works on most foes
Cons: Does not work with reach, not usefully for non-lethal actions.
Improved Trip is/was the most unstable method for stopping foes, especially larger monsters. However it's pay offs are much greater. Stand Still is a more reliable and less risky alternative, which makes it competitive. Shall not Pass is a nice 3rd option, bringing some of befits of Trip with the reliability of Stand Still, at the cost of reach.
I would not like Stand Still to be a CMB check, at least not without a major advantage to the person doing the Stopping. Stand Still needs better reliability then Improved Trip for it to be a solid alternative.
If I had my choice, assuming I had to pick between a slightly revised Stand Still or Shall not Pass for book space, I'd go with Stand Still. It offers more options in weapons and combat situations it can be used in.
*Edit*
Why not add a "if it can't be tripped it, Shall not Pass doesn't work on it" line in the special. That would bring its stopping ability in line with Trip, same could go with Stand Still.
|
|
An additional con of using any reach weapon other than spiked chain is that you don't threaten adjacent squares, right?
Of those three, two are in PFRPG at present and Stand Still isn't... I'd dearly like to see Stand Still added to PFRPG in some version (although of course as it's SRD we can add it individually, it has the best flavour, for my money).
I would not like Stand Still to be a CMB check, at least not without a major advantage to the person doing the Stopping. Stand Still needs better reliability then Improved Trip for it to be a solid alternative.
I think if it goes to a CMB check, who has to make the check? The creature trying to move through or the creature trying to prevent movement? Personally, I like the idea of a CMB check as it takes into account the size of creatures as well as their combat ability.
My point is that Stand Still needs to work more often then Trip in the same situation, otherwise there is very little point to the feat.
I'm was kind of ignoring the Spiked Chain, as it is the exception (that everyone seems to use) not the rule. I always grabbed armor spikes and/or a spiked gauntlet when using a polearm anyways.
|
|
I wouldn't mind there being 3 feats that provide a way to stop movement, as long as all three are different thematically and mechanically. Trip, Shall not pass, and Stand Still look good (though I have not read Stand still). I don't want to get rid of Shall not Pass, i just want to make sure that it works as it is intended. Honestly I want there to be so many ways to build your fighter types that I can play the game a long time before I see the same fighter again. To reach that goal we need several ways to stop opponents from moving. I think these three are good starts down those paths.
2. SNP serves a valuable function that I think folks are missing. Not only does it prevent guys from moving right past you, it also can hold the guy that you are engaging, meaning that if the fighter goes first, he can lock down an opponent and prevent him from getting to the "softer" parts of the party.
A few play tests with Shall Not Pass and a 10th level fighter. The setup involved a Fighter trying to prevent 1 BBG from getting to the protected target.
1) BBG is a medium sized melee with 5' reach (Acrobatics: 4)
1a) Fighter going 1st allowed him to close and lock down the BBG, as BBG could not pass DC 25 Acrobatics check. BBG resorted to moving free 5' steps towards the target, but Target simply moved away
1b) BBG going first allowed him to move around Fighter with a double move and now was in melee range of Target. Target moved away with free 5' step, Fighter moved in and was able to lock down BBG again.
2) BBG is a high Dex char with Focus Feat (Acrobatics: 19)
2a) Fighter going 1st allowed him to close with BBG, however DC 25 Acrobatics check was easy to make (85%), so BBG tumbled past Fighter and killed target.
2b) BBG going first tumbled past fighter and killed target
3) BBG is med melee w/ 5' reach w/ maxed CC Acrobatics: 12
-- Same as 2a/b but now only has a 45% chance to Tumble past Fighter
4) BBG has 40' or higher move
4a) same as above
4b) BBG moves around Fighter and kills target
I would say that Shall Not Pass is a situational feat that can be quite effective. A skilled Tumbler negates the feat all together, as do magic transports (DD, Teleport, Flying, etc) or high movement, but that is to be expected.