was wondering what ppl thought of a new feat i just thought of.
The 2-step (or Practiced Step)
prereq:BAB 10
this feat allows a character to shift 10 feet instead of 5 and still make a full round attack action. this can be used over difficult terrain.
the 3 step (or greater practiced step)
prereq:BAB 15
this feat functions just as Practiced step accept that it allows u to move 15 ft and still make a full round attack.
difficult terrain can be really devastating when it comes AoO from moving, i would like a way to avoid this. i think the BAB requirement allows a more balanced solution. casters can move full speed and cast a spell usually, which makes melee be at a great disadvantage. this helps bridge that gap
Can I take a "10 foot step" and then do another full round action, or is the only full round action allowed a full attack?
I think I would make two changes, to make it fit in better with the rules.
As I just wrote, this feat is strictly better than Nimble Moves, because it effectively grants the benefits of Nimble Moves and the ability to make a 10 foot step. It does have higher prereqs (BAB 10 instead of Dex 13), but it's probably still too strong.
You could argue that Nimble Moves is underpowered and this is a reasonable power up for it. You could also add Nimble Moves as a prerequisite. Fleet is also a reasonable pre-req feat.
If you are just looking to solve the problem of difficult terrain, Nimble Moves is an existing solution.
The more that I think about it, the less I like the 10 foot step. It negates Step Up, since your 10 foot step still puts out of range, even after the opponent takes his five foot step. It makes it easier to close with an opponent that has reach without provoking an AoO. It even allows you to fall back behind the ally who was behind you without risk. It feels like it is too much to me.
Being able to take 10' steps and still take Full attack actions is a bad idea. Combine with reach and it is pretty broken.
1. Fighter charges giant takes an AoO, and gets one attack
2. Giant takes a 10' step back, does a full round attack on fighter.
3. Fighter charges in takes another AoO, and gets a single attack.
4. Go to step 2.
So the giant is getting a full attack plus an attack of opportunity every round, and meanwhile the fighter is getting a single attack per round and can never make full attacks.
Being able to take 10' steps and still take Full attack actions is a bad idea. Combine with reach and it is pretty broken.
1. Fighter charges giant takes an AoO, and gets one attack
2. Giant takes a 10' step back, does a full round attack on fighter.
3. Fighter charges in takes another AoO, and gets a single attack.
4. Go to step 2.So the giant is getting a full attack plus an attack of opportunity every round, and meanwhile the fighter is getting a single attack per round and can never make full attacks.
well, i believe the fighter should take that feat too. and as for the the giant, i don't believe i read that in the Beastiary...
well, i believe the fighter should take that feat too. and as for the the giant, i don't believe i read that in the Beastiary...Being able to take 10' steps and still take Full attack actions is a bad idea. Combine with reach and it is pretty broken.
1. Fighter charges giant takes an AoO, and gets one attack
2. Giant takes a 10' step back, does a full round attack on fighter.
3. Fighter charges in takes another AoO, and gets a single attack.
4. Go to step 2.So the giant is getting a full attack plus an attack of opportunity every round, and meanwhile the fighter is getting a single attack per round and can never make full attacks.
Just because its not listed as having it in the Bestiary doesn't stop it from taking it should it be available to them.
Regarding the feat, I'll echo what others have said about it possibly being a bad idea.
That aside, I used to play with a player who used the Tactical Fighter from the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook. It had an ability that allowed it two 5-foot steps in a round, and it was actually very enjoyable to the player. Granted, he was far from capable of abusing the system yet, so it played out just fine. In your position, I would daresay to go for it and damn the torpedos; when and if it becomes apparently flawed, then change it. I'm all for self-testing. But from a designing point of view, this isn't something that I would add.
I miss those old days of innocence...