Revising Core Feats: What to do with Mobility?

[Mok]

I've finally decided to go in and houserule the heck out of Pathfinder to get the game to fit what I want out of it. One thing I'm not satisfied with are a lot of the core feats. So I'm going through to see what can be done to make every feat an exciting and tantalizing choice to made and feel like a real power upgrade for the character. Every time a feat is written down on that character sheet it should feel like the moment when an Immortal in Highlander cuts another Immortal's head off.

Mobility is one of the more egregious feat taxes in the game. You want to get to the cool spring attack feat, but along the way you need to take mobility.

While +4 AC versus AoO for movement is pretty nice when you first hear it, the big problem is that once you pick up Spring Attack you realize that you aren't really using the Mobility feat anymore. Why? Because you get immunity from AoO with Spring Attack at your target.

Now, sure, you might provoke from other enemies. If you had a situation where you wanted to zoom through several mooks to get at the BBEG using spring attack then this would help... but that's highly situational, and when it comes to revising these feats, I want to avoid hanging feat utility on highly situational circumstances.

The other problem is that Acrobatics already gives you an option to be able to avoid AoO, so if you had the highly situational circumstance above, you could just tumble past the mooks to do the spring attack.

But! Someone would counter, with tumbling you can only go at half movement, which might make the whole spring attack sequence not work because you couldn't get back and forth from the target unless you had a really high base speed.

So that is where I think the solution lies with Mobility. Instead of giving a last ditch bonus for when you either fail a tumble check, or just brazenly run past mooks, instead let mobility be the real stepping stone to spring attack, which is to be able to move at full speed while tumbling.

That way, spring attack becomes the key element that it is trying to be, which is to move attack and move. Mobility is the stepping stone that makes the key exception of being able to tumble at full speed.

The added benefit is that mobility then becomes useful outside of Spring Attack. You can run around the battle, being "mobile" and avoiding with acrobatics the AoO.

[Helic]

Mok wrote:

Mobility is one of the more egregious feat taxes in the game. You want to get to the cool spring attack feat, but along the way you need to take mobility.

The other problem is that Acrobatics already gives you an option to be able to avoid AoO, so if you had the highly situational circumstance above, you could just tumble past the mooks to do the spring attack.

Don't forget about the high-AC fighter concept. Heavy armor, shield, and any feat that increases AC, including Dodge...and possibly Mobility. This guy won't have Acrobatics (due to all those armor check penalties), but Mobility puts him 'over the top' vs AoO, letting him move the battlefield pretty much with impunity.

I can see how you'd view Mobility as a useless feat tax to get Spring Attack - you're largely correct, but your change would pretty much require players to be Acrobatics dependent. As it currently stands, you can use Acrobatics to avoid AoO, use Mobility to become harder to hit with AoO, or use both together. If you change Mobility as you describe, then your only option is...use acrobatics to avoid AoO.

So Mobility as it stands is a fair choice for players that want battlefield 'mobility' but can't afford to invest heavily in Acrobatics.

[Mok]

Helic wrote:

So Mobility as it stands is a fair choice for players that want battlefield 'mobility' but can't afford to invest heavily in Acrobatics.

Hmm... interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a build that took mobility unless it was either for spring attack or whirlwind attack.

I could see the issue of acrobatics dependency being a bigger issue with 3.5 where tumbling required training in the skill, but with Pathfinder anyone can tumble now. If you match that up with the fact that you still need a decent dex for Mobility means that you are already invested in Acrobatics to some extent.

The other factor is that this change would also be happening with the changes I want to make to the skill feats. Those changes can allow acrobatics to be really buffed up even without being trained in it.

[Helic]

Mok wrote:

Helic wrote:

So Mobility as it stands is a fair choice for players that want battlefield 'mobility' but can't afford to invest heavily in Acrobatics.

Hmm... interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a build that took mobility unless it was either for spring attack or whirlwind attack.

Granted, but I've seen AC builds that take Dodge, and Mobility isn't a huge step to take for an extra +4 AC when you move around a lot.

Quote:

I could see the issue of acrobatics dependency being a bigger issue with 3.5 where tumbling required training in the skill, but with Pathfinder anyone can tumble now. If you match that up with the fact that you still need a decent dex for Mobility means that you are already invested in Acrobatics to some extent.

DEX 13 isn't much. Almost any fighter type will take 14 DEX just for the extra AC and Reflex saves. That said, the two likeliest AC types (Fighters and Paladins) both have 2 skill ranks a level and don't have Acrobatics as class skills. I think it makes more sense for a Fighter to spend one feat (I'll ignore the Dodge requirement b/c it's not a bad feat to take) to move around than to invest heavily in it (keeping mind he probably has ACP to deal with too).

[Dabbler]

Also bear in mind that Acrobatics targets are based on CMD now, not a flat DC. At higher level Acrobatics is not automatic success.

[badbak]

Quote:

I could see the issue of acrobatics dependency being a bigger issue with 3.5 where tumbling required training in the skill, but with Pathfinder anyone can tumble now. If you match that up with the fact that you still need a decent dex for Mobility means that you are already invested in Acrobatics to some extent.

Poor logic. Just because you have a decent DEX does not mean you have invested in acrobatics. As an earlier post stated, fighters and paladins only get two skill pts/level (plus relevant racial and or Int bonuses). I would say it isn't likely acrobatics is invested in, especially considering the acrobatics penalties for heavy armor. Also as someone else said earlier, tumbling isn't automatic anymore.

[MisterSlanky]

Mok wrote:

Hmm... interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a build that took mobility unless it was either for spring attack or whirlwind attack.

Playtest the vampire cleric encounter from the CoT AP and you'll see how utterly nasty mobility can be. Attached to the right character, even when not used in conjunction with spring attack, that extra +4 to AC can make a character that relies on being correctly placed downright nasty.

[Mok]

Thinking about it...

So I can see that armored dudes can't get much use out of it... but when you read the acrobatics skill, it's a mute point, because they can't tumble if wearing medium or heavy armor anyway.

So... have mobility toss out that restriction also. Not only can you move at full speed, you can also tumble while in heavy armor.

True, the tank character is going to still suck at acrobatics unless they dip into another class or take some other feats to boost it up, but this unlocks them to be able to be "mobile."

[Mok]

MisterSlanky wrote:

Playtest the vampire cleric encounter from the CoT AP and you'll see how utterly nasty mobility can be. Attached to the right character, even when not used in conjunction with spring attack, that extra +4 to AC can make a character that relies on being correctly placed downright nasty.

I can see how in very specific circumstances a build can make really good use out of a feat, even one that generally isn't all that great.

I'm just trying to figure out a way for this to be more useful on a more frequent basis.

[MisterSlanky]

Mok wrote:

MisterSlanky wrote:

Playtest the vampire cleric encounter from the CoT AP and you'll see how utterly nasty mobility can be. Attached to the right character, even when not used in conjunction with spring attack, that extra +4 to AC can make a character that relies on being correctly placed downright nasty.

I can see how in very specific circumstances a build can make really good use out of a feat, even one that generally isn't all that great.

I'm just trying to figure out a way for this to be more useful on a more frequent basis.

That's just it. It wasn't any kind of "specific circumstances". The key here were iterative attacks. The cleric merely moved and cast a spell every round, nothing more. He always was able to move out of melee range with virtually no risk of a PC hitting him (going from a 21 AC to a 25 AC is huge) and get off a spell without needing a concentration check. Then, the players would always have to re-enter melee combat, which neutered their iterative attacks. When faced against overwhelming opposition with multiple attacks, mobility can be huge.

We have a fighter/rogue in our local PFS group too who plays a mobility build. There are times he doesn't want to take the 50% movement penalty for tumbling, so he just takes it with mobility and combat expertise, which lets himself into position for attacks perfectly. To each their own. You don't like mobility and find it weak, but I've seen at least two instances of characters which have been made downright nasty with their ability to move around the battlefield unhindered.

[Bwang]

Having done a Bodyguard, S&B Fighter who bulled about in the highest armor possible to draw AoOs and get in the face of whichever BBEG who needed a serious combatant in their face, I can attest to the difficulty in trying to Tumble or Acrobatics your way through. I found myself the key to granting the Rogues' their Flanking positions and getting in between the Wizard and her pursuers. Restricting the skill point starved Fighter from the feat based path would render my build much more difficult.