For those of you just joining this conversation, here is my original question.
Original Step up with a reach weapon thread
So here's another can o' worms. Stand still with a reach weapon...
PHB p 134 "when a foe provokes an AoO due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a CM check as your AoO. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an AoO."
RAW doesn't allow reach weapons to use this feat? Another accidental injustice against reach weapons? Or does once again a simple house ruling solve the spirit of the rule?
The way we play it is treat reach weapon as threatening 2 squares out but NOT adjacent sooo..... from 2 sqaures out you would stop him in his tracks on a successfull aoo. But if you have an adjacent foe move past you would need to hit him with non reach ( like spiked gauntlet). May not be the official way but its how we play it and both players and DM are happy with it.
The way we play it is treat reach weapon as threatening 2 squares out but NOT adjacent sooo..... from 2 sqaures out you would stop him in his tracks on a successfull aoo. But if you have an adjacent foe move past you would need to hit him with non reach ( like spiked gauntlet). May not be the official way but its how we play it and both players and DM are happy with it.
This does provoke some thought because the feat clearly states "adjacent squares" and not "threatened squares" which would imply that reach weapons are unable to take advantage of this feature.
I like your interpretation, but I don't know if that's what was intended. It would be quite powerful for larger characters/NPC enemies. Remember that these can be used by the enemy as well.
He's saying that you don't threaten adjacent squares with a GRW thus you can not use Stand Still with such a weapon. You would need another weapon such as (armor spikes, improved unarmed strike or gauntlets) that would afford you an AoO against adjacent enemies.
Further, when you take the AoO from Stand Still you aren't using a weapon since it is just a generic CM check listed in the stand still feat. (No weapon has the "Stand Still" property, but some weapons do have the "Trip" property for example).
As I have said before these reach weapon shortcomings are by design and it becomes apparent when you start to account for Large or larger monsters in a campaign. They could really ruin your day using these small reach tweaks. Imagine a natural 20' reach creature with a reach weapon using Stand Still... let alone three of them.
Armor Spikes is a tricky question, there have been many debates about them. Some will say they threaten, others are against them altogether.
RAW doesn't allow any weapon to use this feat. So no weapon based enhancement bonus to your attempt regardless of what you wield.I am not sure what you mean, could you please elaborate?
Unless I miss my guess, I think he was suggesting that weapons are not usually allowed to use feats since they don't have the intelligence to learn how to use a feat (and those that do don't have rules for learning/using feats built into the intelligent magic weapon system).
As for the rest of the thread, this is another case of a feat that has application with short puny weapons but not with big powerful reach weapons, which is somewhat counter-intuitive to me - I think you're more likely to ring someone's bell and stop him in his tracks with big old gnarly weapons than you are with a little old (e.g.) dagger.
However, unlike the Step Up feat, which I believe is no better for a reach weapon than it is for a non-reach weapon (my explanation is in that other thread), in this case, I think this feat would actually be somewhat overpowered with reach weapons.
Defending a bridge, blocking a street, holding a line on a battlefield, or just protecting squishy mages in the back, this feat is a great way for front-line types to shut down a 3x3 section of the battlefield. Enemies have to around this little island, or risk being stopped in their tracks.
But allow reach weapons, and suddenly that 3x3 area becomes a roughly 5x5 area. Sure, it has a hole in the center, but enemies who are outside that area and want to move through it, past the front line, and get to the juicy stuff behind the defender, now they have to around a much larger island of control. And if we're talking a narrow bridge or street or room or whatever, it's far more likely that this larger island of control might be a tad more powerful than a single feat should offer.
Unless I miss my guess, I think he was suggesting that weapons are not usually allowed to use feats since they don't have the intelligence to learn how to use a feat (and those that do don't have rules for learning/using feats built into the intelligent magic weapon system).
Hello again.. uh.. I don't think that's what Maezer was talking about at all. I would submit he is saying a character doesn't use weapon enhancement to the CM check, because this check is not made with a weapon.
But, I agree with your assessment about the power creep with this feat.