I had an idea for an awesome bodyguard fighter archetype that I thought would do an awesome job at protecting the party squishies.
The ideas was to use the following feats with a reach weapon: Bodyguard, Combat Patrol, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, In Harm’s Way, Mobility, Stand Still
Combined with an enlarge person from the spellcaster he is protecting, he would make for an AMAZING road block.
Until I read Stand Still. What the heck is going on with this feat? Why does it only work on adjacent targets? That makes it useless!
Why shouldn't I just take Improved Trip Instead? That would knock them prone (stopping their movement), cost them more actions, AND open me up for greater trip so I can deal damage to them as well!
Stand still is so poorly designed as to be laughable. Please tell me that it is a mistake and at the very least it was intended to be used with reach weapons as well.
I had an idea for an awesome bodyguard fighter archetype that I thought would do an awesome job at protecting the party squishies.
The ideas was to use the following feats with a reach weapon: Bodyguard, Combat Patrol, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, In Harm’s Way, Mobility, Stand Still
Combined with an enlarge person from the spellcaster he is protecting, he would make for an AMAZING road block.
Until I read Stand Still. What the heck is going on with this feat? Why does it only work on adjacent targets? That makes it useless!
Why shouldn't I just take Improved Trip Instead?
If your DM allows it take the stand still from the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It is in the SRD online if you dont have the book. I don't like the pathfinder one that much because you can't use it with reach weapons. The one from EPH might be a little OP though for the DM.
A compromise might be to just allow the Pathfinder version to allow Reach. I think Trip has a size restriction. Realistically I think Stand Still should also, but that kind of nerfs melees. Sorry for the tangent. Anyway the bolded area is my suggestion. If that does not work I guess trip might have to do.
Try mixing it up with combat patrol. It has a heavy feat tax but Fighters can easily afford it.
I did. Didn't you notice?
Could I combine Combat Patrol and Stand Still with a reach weapon and a non-reach weapon perhaps?
Take a 10th-level fighter, for example:
After being enlarged, I activate combat patrol on my turn with my reach weapon. I now take up a 10x10 area and now threaten 30 feet in all directions (my spear's reach plus that from combat patrol).
An enemy tries to move through my net to get at the wizard behind me, thereby provoking. I move up to him and whack him, not with my longspear (since stand still only effects adjacent targets), but with my armor spikes or spiked gauntlets.
Would that work?
Standstill only works on adjacent squares, but that can be just exactly what you need sometimes.
Obviously, Reach Trip Weapons can affect a larger threat area, besides allowing Greater Trip damage,
but Standstill has the benefits of working vs. Flyers and other creatures with Immunity to Trip, and CMD bonuses like Stability and Imp/Grt Trip don`t apply vs. Standstill.
Sure, if you want to `lockdown` a huge area beyond your natural (or Enlarged) Reach, don`t take Standstill for that, Trip or an in-place-of-melee-attack Bullrush (like Barbarian Knockback) can play that game better. But it probably stays alot more relevant later in the game since it isn`t subject to the same Immunities/CMD Bonuses that Trip is (thus I see Retraining OUT of Trip and INTO Standstill being decently popular for Fighters at high level). So each have their pros and cons... Surprise, surprise.
They have posted before that this is not a typo. It does indeed only work on adjacent targets and not with reach weapons, and that was intentional. I also don't like it, as everyone I know who has read stand still immediately thought it was designed to be used with a reach weapon. And yes, armor spikes would let you use it, which makes me sad.
They have posted before that this is not a typo. It does indeed only work on adjacent targets and not with reach weapons, and that was intentional. I also don't like it, as everyone I know who has read stand still immediately thought it was designed to be used with a reach weapon. And yes, armor spikes would let you use it, which makes me sad.
What is Paizo's beef with intuitive feat combos?
Stand Still does NOT work with reach weapons like most everyone initially thinks.
Vital Strike does NOT work with Spring Attack like most everyone initially thinks.
What else? Poor, poor, gimped fighters.
I noticed the adjacent squares bit of Stand Still during the Beta playtest, and it was clearly intended to work that way... I.e. increasing your personal blocking radius by 5´, not leveraging whatever Reach you have. As it turns out, Reach Weapon wielders already have options like Trip that even apply a status condition in addition to stopping movement. How or why anybody as RAW-focused as Ravingdork ONLY JUST NOW noticed this is beyond me... (no offence, I`m really just surprised since the Feat is very up-front about this limitation)
Spring Attack was up until recently very vaguely worded, and Vital Strike working with it was not excluded by RAW. I would never be confused on first reading of the new Errata/new print-run version of it. But hey, maybe I`m special...?
I have seen in my game sessions Stand Still used to great effect on multiple occasions. Our Eldritch Knight has used it many times to keep wounded melee combatants from escaping him, or trying to flank him.
The way I have always read Stand Still was that it was intended for an offensive type meleer, not a defensive one. The idea is you have a melee specialist who gets up close to fight a target; the target then cannot get away or maneuver easily meaning it's easier for the melee tank to hack the dude to death where he stands. It's especially useful for melee-oriented Rogues to keep enemies from trying to squeeze out of being flanked---and come to think of it, it is good defensively in that it prevents rogues from being able to move around to flank you.
The "weakness" of the feat I perceive is it does not prevent engaged combatants from making a Withdraw move (since that does not provoke an attack of opportunity). OTOH, since ALL a combatant can do during a Withdraw is move once, they may still well be within the line of fire for attacks from your party members, so that's probably fair.
In my opinion, the magic combo with Stand Still is Step Up--basically if you want to stay in melee with someone, you will (again, except for the Withdraw move).
The problem with allowing it to be your "threatened area" rather than "your adjacent square" is not just the amount of cheese a player could do with enough shapechanging magic---it's the amount of cheese a GM could do. Imagine every Large or larger creature (including dragons, giants, demons, etc.) with a version of Stand Still that applies to their entire threatened area. My dear Ravingdork, this is a very strong case of "be careful what you wish for."
First they nerf Spiked Chain. And now this. I guess Lockdown is just not as good of a role as before...but I guess that means it's harder for enemies to lock you down as well.
First they nerf Spiked Chain. And now this. I guess Lockdown is just not as good of a role as before...but I guess that means it's harder for enemies to lock you down as well.
Spiked chain is totally nuts (in a bad way), especially with the new meteor hammer being hands down the best exotic melee weapon you could hope for:
1d10/19-20 base damage
reach
two-handed
can grant a +1 shield bonus
can be treated as a non-reach double weapon (which means light penalties)
|
At level 5 you can make a pretty nasty pole arm fighter that will threaten enemies 15 feet out, use stand still AND use his combat reflexes to trip opponents that keep a distance.
You don't have to choose between either or, you can have both and as early as level 5.
BRICK CR 4
Male Human Fighter (Polearm Master) 5
NG Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +1; Senses Perception +1
--------------------
DEFENSE
--------------------
AC 22, touch 13, flat-footed 19 (+9 armor, +2 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 38 (5d10+5)
Fort +5, Ref +3, Will +1
--------------------
OFFENSE
--------------------
Spd 20 ft.
Melee Masterwork Guisarme +12 (2d4+8/20/x3)
Special Attacks Pole Fighting -4, Steadfast Pike +1
--------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------
Str 20, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 7
Base Atk +5; CMB +10 (+12 Tripping); CMD 22 (24 vs. Disarm 24 vs. Sunder 24 vs. Trip)
Feats Combat Expertise +/-2, Combat Patrol (+5'), Combat Reflexes (2 AoO/round), Dodge, Improved Trip, Mobility, Stand Still
Traits Armor Expert, Sacred Touch
Skills Acrobatics -1, Climb +9, Escape Artist -1, Fly -1, Handle Animal +5, Intimidate +6, Perception +1, Ride +7, Stealth -1, Survival +7, Swim +3
Combat Gear Masterwork Guisarme, Mithral Full Plate;
That being said, letting stand still work on all foes you threaten would cause massive combat gridlock in any combat involved with a PC or NPC that has it. It is simply WAY too powerful to let affect more than just adjacent squares, just think about getting into melee with a couple of these baddies and trying to get to a better spot strategically only to be stopped at EVERY chance simply because they have longer arms.
My group has been and will continue treating Stand Still as usable against any opponent you threaten. Only adjacent opponents is just dumb (they'll just walk 5ft past you, either around, above, or below, making it a moot point).
I don't understand why Paizo improves the warrior classes only to then stealth-nerf them on other fronts. The change to the spiked chain was just stupid and uncalled for. Spiked chains were one of the only exotic weapons worth spending a feat for; and nerfing it to now be a weaker version of a heavy flail and requiring a feat for it is just bad game design. Really bad. It's even worse when you combine it with the statement that went something like this: Just because it's an exotic weapon (so you have to spend a feat on it) doesn't mean it should be better than normal weapons.
Well yeah Designers, it does. It means exactly that.
The spiked chain was one of the only weapons worth spending a feat on, and even then a warrior could just wield a guisarme and either a spiked gauntlet or shield spikes and get almost all the benefits without a feat. Bastard Swords and Waraxes surely aren't worth a feat. Double-weapons could be worth a feat to the right warrior, but a quarterstaff is only an average of 1 damage lower and takes no feat, so most people aren't going to spend a feat for a double-weapon either.
Step-up is a cool idea for a feat, but also rather gimpy. It requires you to be ground-zero with your opponent. It should be no harder to 5ft-step in reaction to someone next to you as it is to keep someone in reach of your pointy stick.
Can we get some designer feedback on these things? Perhaps if they explained the reasoning behind these mechanics we'd be able to understand them better; 'cause right now it just looks bad.
Can we get some designer feedback on these things? Perhaps if they explained the reasoning behind these mechanics we'd be able to understand them better; 'cause right now it just looks bad.
I always assumed it was a reflexive response to the serious run on spiked chain fighters in the early years of Living Greyhawk.
Granted, most of the ones I ran across either sucked (not inherent to the build exactly, although most of your standard angles were pretty MAD) or were cheating, but, there it is.
Spiked chain in 3.X was a lot like the monk/barbarian combo in the other thread; it's not something that was actually overpowered, but it is exactly the kind of thing that incompetent min-maxers gravitated towards like moths to a flame, giving it the seeming of being imbalanced when it may not be.
First they nerf Spiked Chain. And now this. I guess Lockdown is just not as good of a role as before...but I guess that means it's harder for enemies to lock you down as well.Spiked chain is totally nuts (in a bad way), especially with the new meteor hammer being hands down the best exotic melee weapon you could hope for:
1d10/19-20 base damage
reach
two-handed
can grant a +1 shield bonus
can be treated as a non-reach double weapon (which means light penalties)
Even with the errata, it's still good. Can you trip with it?
Can we get some designer feedback on these things? Perhaps if they explained the reasoning behind these mechanics we'd be able to understand them better; 'cause right now it just looks bad.I always assumed it was a reflexive response to the serious run on spiked chain fighters in the early years of Living Greyhawk.
Granted, most of the ones I ran across either sucked (not inherent to the build exactly, although most of your standard angles were pretty MAD) or were cheating, but, there it is.
Spiked chain in 3.X was a lot like the monk/barbarian combo in the other thread; it's not something that was actually overpowered, but it is exactly the kind of thing that incompetent min-maxers gravitated towards like moths to a flame, giving it the seeming of being imbalanced when it may not be.
That is a very good answer Mongoose, and I appreciate it. Very insightful I think and could explain a lot. I wasn't aware of the tournament play that was going on.
I would note to the Pathfinder designers to avoid knee-jerk reactions. That's the stuff in the realm of poor GMs, not professional game designers. Whether that was the reason or not, it's important to know if there really is a problem there.
Sadly, in 3.5, there were only a few builds that were semi-viable at both low and high levels, and lockdown options were one of them, while the silly uberchargers were another.
Spiked chains were favored by fighters because it was a good versatile weapon, and it was a two hander (which meant even more in 3.5 since it granted a +4 vs Disarm and a combined +6 to disarm counting the +2 bonus), so while it wasn't as damaging as most other weapons it provided a solid damage output with the option to trip and disarm fairly efficiently (but both tripping and disarming work differently in Pathfinder, and not in the chain's favor in the least).
Stand Still was one of the few viable ways for characters to keep enemies off your friends. Due to the nature of RPG combat, simply walking around your opponent to get at the squishy members is easy enough. If the warrior is fighting with a close-range weapon like a longsword, then merely staying 5ft out of his reach makes you immune to his reprisal while you jump on his sorcerer or healer. Stand still basically said "Ok, look, no damage but I can stop you..." and targeted reflex saves.
Now Stand Still targets only adjacent targets, and also is more difficult to use against front-liners (the guys you don't want on your squishy members) since it targets CMD and doesn't have ways to up the CMB by +2 or so; so it's just a flat CMB (but buffs can help you, so it's ok I guess) vs CMD. The problem is now Stand Still isn't any good for what it was supposed to do, prevent people from moving past you.
I love Paizo, and I love PF, but I will be honest and forward with my criticisms of what I don't think work. I would want nothing more than the same if the situation were reversed.
PS - Also yes, monk/barbarian isn't impressive at all. The most impressive thing you get from the combination is speed/jumping, but you keep that even with the stupid ex-barbarian stuff. Rage on a monk is hardly overpowered.
That is a very good answer Mongoose, and I appreciate it. Very insightful I think and could explain a lot. I wasn't aware of the tournament play that was going on.
To be clear, I in no way speak for Paizo or anyone who works there, but given that the big man himself spent most of the 3.X years helping run LG, it seemed like a logical conclusion to me that his ideas of what needed to be fixed would be somewhat informed by the trends in that campaign.
It's more than possible that I am wrong.
Shrug.
I'd love to put this in a table, but hey.
Improved Trip requires Combat Expertise and Int 13. Stand Still only requires Combat Reflexes. Improved Trip requires a tripping weapon. Stand Still only requires a weapon that threatens adjacent squares. Improved Trip gives you a +2 to CMB and CMD for that maneuver but only lets you trip. Stand Still doesn't give you a bonus but stops all further movement for the round so something like a rogue crawl doesn't work. Tripping only works on creatures that are standing and creatures with more than two legs get bonuses to CMD. Stand Still works on any creature that provokes an AoO for movement, including flying creatures and there is no defense bonus for any additional legs. With a trip, you can be tripped back, risking either becoming prone or dropping your weapon. With Stand Still, there is no counter-maneuver. With Improved Trip, anyone else with the feat has a bonus against you. With Stand Still, nobody has any bonus against you.
It can also be argued that "cannot move" means exactly that. No teleportation, no being dragged away, no movement.
You know what. These two work differently and for different purposes. Working on flying creatures alone makes this an interesting feat. Sure, it doesn't work well with a bunch of other feat chains to become super powerful. But when the mighty dragon tries to slither past Ungor The Meatshield and eat his brother Festor the Arcanal Retentive and Stand Still gets invoked... SURPRISE!
You know what. These two work differently and for different purposes. Working on flying creatures alone makes this an interesting feat. Sure, it doesn't work well with a bunch of other feat chains to become super powerful. But when the mighty dragon tries to slither past Ungor The Meatshield and eat his brother Festor the Arcanal Retentive and Stand Still gets invoked... SURPRISE!
And the surprise is that the mighty dragon's combat maneuver defense laughs at you. You got nothing to help alleviate the size modifier (like improved trip does with it's +2), and the dragon has both a huge BAB and huge strength, as well as at least a +1 or +2 bonus due to size. For this reason the original standstill requiring a Reflex save was kinda nice.
There's also the fact the dragon could just walk around you, or fly. If he's flying more than 5ft over you, you got diddly against him, so brother Fester is dragon kibble.
Dragons are now unstoppable in terms of CMB and CMD. So disgusting. Well, they were back in 3.5 as well, but...
And the surprise is that the mighty dragon's combat maneuver defense laughs at you. You got nothing to help alleviate the size modifier (like improved trip does with it's +2), and the dragon has both a huge BAB and huge strength, as well as at least a +1 or +2 bonus due to size. For this reason the original standstill requiring a Reflex save was kinda nice.
Surprise. Tripping is still a worse choice. Dragons have more than two legs and get a bonus there, negating your Improved Trip bonus.
In Pathfinder it's obvious that maneuvers of all types are simply intended to not work most of the time. The numbers are designed that way so unless you're half-orc monk vs. halfling sorcerer you're going to fail most of the time. Stand Still follows the same design goal: make sure people don't take these options.
There's also the fact the dragon could just walk around you, or fly. If he's flying more than 5ft over you, you got diddly against him, so brother Fester is dragon kibble.
Sure, I grant that. I was providing a vivid image.
Interestingly enough, you can use Stand Still if you're also flying.
Bottom line though is that if you look at it, the two feats are pretty reasonably balanced relative to one another.
*snip*
Notice I never advocating tripping, grappling, overruning, or anything similar against a dragon. I'm very much aware of the drawbacks of tripping, but against a more or less equal foe you have a better chance. In 3.5, Stand Still functioned as a Reflex save, so it could pin more enemies down regardless of size.
However, against non-dragons, PF Stand Still is still virtually useless. Flying creatures? They still gotta be within 5ft of you, so it's a moot point. Given the way aerial maneuvering works (such as a wyvern making a dive attack, or a flyby attack), even if your buddy is right next to you, it's likely the wyvern won't ever give you the chance to stop him.
Against most enemies, you're trading damage for a fairly risky check.
PF Stand Still is just horrible. This is one of the few instances I think the 3.5 version is better (though I would consider adjusting the 3.5 version's DC to 10 + 1/2 your BAB + strength modifier, and take the Ability Focus feat).
That's bad data. The chart on the first printing of the Adventurers armory had numerous mistakes. There was an errata on it in short order after printed. Its a 1d8 with a crit rating of 20/x2. Still not bad, but not totally superior to everything else.First they nerf Spiked Chain. And now this. I guess Lockdown is just not as good of a role as before...but I guess that means it's harder for enemies to lock you down as well. Spiked chain is totally nuts (in a bad way), especially with the new meteor hammer being hands down the best exotic melee weapon you could hope for:
1d10/19-20 base damage
reach
two-handed
can grant a +1 shield bonus
can be treated as a non-reach double weapon (which means light penalties)
You sure about that? I got it from the Archives of Nethys, which is known for keeping up with errata (it even said it was up to date under the meteor hammer entry).
Even with the errata, it's still good. Can you trip with it?
I believe so, yes.
*snip*Notice I never advocating tripping, grappling, overruning, or anything similar against a dragon. I'm very much aware of the drawbacks of tripping, but against a more or less equal foe you have a better chance. In 3.5, Stand Still functioned as a Reflex save, so it could pin more enemies down regardless of size.
However, against non-dragons, PF Stand Still is still virtually useless. Flying creatures? They still gotta be within 5ft of you, so it's a moot point. Given the way aerial maneuvering works (such as a wyvern making a dive attack, or a flyby attack), even if your buddy is right next to you, it's likely the wyvern won't ever give you the chance to stop him.
Against most enemies, you're trading damage for a fairly risky check.
PF Stand Still is just horrible. This is one of the few instances I think the 3.5 version is better (though I would consider adjusting the 3.5 version's DC to 10 + 1/2 your BAB + strength modifier, and take the Ability Focus feat).
I guess my Cavalier will be dropping Stand Still for Leadership then.
I guess my Cavalier will be dropping Stand Still for Leadership then.*snip*Notice I never advocating tripping, grappling, overruning, or anything similar against a dragon. I'm very much aware of the drawbacks of tripping, but against a more or less equal foe you have a better chance. In 3.5, Stand Still functioned as a Reflex save, so it could pin more enemies down regardless of size.
However, against non-dragons, PF Stand Still is still virtually useless. Flying creatures? They still gotta be within 5ft of you, so it's a moot point. Given the way aerial maneuvering works (such as a wyvern making a dive attack, or a flyby attack), even if your buddy is right next to you, it's likely the wyvern won't ever give you the chance to stop him.
Against most enemies, you're trading damage for a fairly risky check.
PF Stand Still is just horrible. This is one of the few instances I think the 3.5 version is better (though I would consider adjusting the 3.5 version's DC to 10 + 1/2 your BAB + strength modifier, and take the Ability Focus feat).
Heheh. You can't go wrong with leadership (but it can require some extra bookkeeping). Tossing around ideas in my head led to some consideration to a possible revision of the 3.5 version. As noted above the 10 + 1/2 BAB + strength modifier would work; alternatively make it a saving throw against DC 10 + your combat manuever bonus (which would cap out somewhere around DC 35-40 in most cases).
Huh. And here I thought you could use manoeuvres on AoOs normally.
Huh. And here I thought you could use manoeuvres on AoOs normally.
AFAIK you can...
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Basically if the maneuver says, "In place of a melee attack..." (i.e., disarm, sunder, and trip) you can do it as an AOO.
The only thing different about Stand Still is that, essentially, blocking someone from moving is its own separate combat maneuver. So for example, a creature that had extra defenses versus trip (any 4 or more legged creature) or grapple, etc. they would not have that defense against Stand Still.
Again I will say, just because I like spitting in the wind, is that Stand Still is intended to be offensive, to keep people from moving away from you so they're forced to stand there and be shredded to death by you. The way to make Stand Still effective is to actively engage an adjacent opponent. You don't wait for someone to attack you, you attack them and then keep them from escaping.
I agree for people with defensive/battle control builds, that Improved Trip with a reach weapon would be the way to go.
Yeah come to think of it having Stand Still for my Cavalier was a bad idea anyways because I want to be able to Charge. So in effect I peusdo-tank/control by enemies NOT wanting to run away from me.
That's not a bad idea actually. In WoW terms, that's tanking by threat. Instead of using abilities to hold opponents off enemies, you make it so they don't dare ignore you. In WoW it works differently (the damaging guys are still actually more of a threat than you, but abilities have threat built in), but the concept is the same.
Leadership on the other hand can get you a buddy to help you run interference. Two guys under the effects of Enlarge Person and wielding reach weapons offer everyone behind them some measure of cover against enemy attacks, while also making a very, very tricky situation for getting past them (you have your girth, impressive reach, and impressive damage on your size). Doubly so if you have Combat Reflexes.
It would make a great Master/Apprentice kind of teamwork. :D
I plan on having my cohort be my Squire. Carry my stuff. Help me put on armor. And of course fight.
What's everyone's assessment of the Halting Blow defensive power from the Stalwart Defender PrC? I'm putting together a fighter/stalwart defender and had initially planned on taking Stand Still and skipping Halting Blow until I came across this thread. Now I'm wondering if I would be better off with both abilities. Thoughts?