|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Seeking a rules clarification, or an explanation.
Recently I have built a character for Pathfinder Society. The basic idea is simple, a human fighter with a reach weapon whose role is to control terrain and protect his allies. At first level he takes 3 feats: Dodge, Mobility and Combat Reflexes.
My problem comes when I try to build from here. There a several feats that seem ideal for his role and motivation, yet they are specifically worded to be unusable by a fighter with a reach weapon.
Specifically the feats Stand Still and Step Up are both worded to only function against an adjacent opponent, effectively making them worthless for the reach fighter. It is unfortunate, as both of these feats would be ideal choices for a character whose whole raison d'être is to protect his comrades.
This wording is clearly intentional, but I don’t understand why. I have read the other threads, but I guess what I am hoping for is a definitive explanation of the thinking behind preventing these from being used by reach weapons.
I am house ruling it so you can attack any area you threaten, but if you have a reach weapon you don't threaten adjacent squares. The best thing to do is get a non-reach weapon and get enlarged, in my next game.
|
Specifically the feats Stand Still and Step Up are both worded to only function against an adjacent opponent, effectively making them worthless for the reach fighter. It is unfortunate, as both of these feats would be ideal choices for a character whose whole raison d'être is to protect his comrades.
This wording is clearly intentional, but I don’t understand why. I have read the other threads, but I guess what I am hoping for is a definitive explanation of the thinking behind preventing these from being used by reach weapons.
You are going to have to search deep in the archives. I pointed this exact issue during the Beta, from what I recall Jason felt having these feats work with reach weapons was too powerful. It was a good call, if the feat worked the way you want it to, it would be too easy to create a character that is nearly impossible to approach or pass. Add enlarge person and you can control traffic in pretty massive areas and make it so you are impossible to approach.
How about adding armor spikes to your reach fighter and taking those feats anyway?
|
|
I get the balance issue, and realize that the build allows a great deal of terrain control... that is the whole point of the build after all. I do think taking away these feats makes this character ridiculously vulnerable. Take a look at the following situation:
Reach Fighter hits caster. Caster 5 foot steps in and casts Touch of some kind of badness on fighter. At this point one of two things can occur:
1) Fighter drops reach weapon (free action) and takes his AoO with cestus. This is fair enough.
2) GM rules that holding a reach weapon means adjacent square is not threatened. Based on this the GM disallows the free action and allows the caster to hit the fighter with impunity.
Situation #2 would probably be my ruling as a GM and i think it is the correct one, but it makes life really difficult for the fighter, who just wanted to protect his allies.
How would you rule?
I get the balance issue, and realize that the build allows a great deal of terrain control... that is the whole point of the build after all.
Try this:
Combat Patrol[/url]]You range across the battlefield, dealing with threats wherever they arise.
Prerequisites: Combat reflexes, Mobility, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you may set up a combat patrol, increasing your threatened area by 5 feet for every 5 points of your base attack bonus. Until the beginning of your next turn, you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity. You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed. Any movement you make provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.
Reach Fighter hits caster. Caster 5 foot steps in and casts Touch of some kind of badness on fighter. At this point one of two things can occur:
1) Fighter drops reach weapon (free action) and takes his AoO with cestus. This is fair enough.
2) GM rules that holding a reach weapon means adjacent square is not threatened. Based on this the GM disallows the free action and allows the caster to hit the fighter with impunity.
Situation #2 would probably be my ruling as a GM and i think it is the correct one, but it makes life really difficult for the fighter, who just wanted to protect his allies.
How would you rule?
You can't take free actions when it's not your turn. #2 is correct. However, if the fighter had armor spikes or possibly improved unarmed strike, he could maintain his grip on the reach weapon and still threaten adjacent squares.
And consider - if the fighter's being hit, he's protecting his allies. Whether or not he can counterattack the things beating on him has no effect on his ability to keep his friends from being beaten on.
|
Technically the Polearm Master archetype from the APG (page 106) does what you want with the Step Aside feature... only you don't get it until level 17...
Before that the Polearm Master can use the Pole Fighting feature to change a reach weapon to a non-reach weapon (with an initial -4 penalty to hit) as an immediate action at 2nd level, if it helps any...
Developer
|
Yeah, in society play, anything non-adjacent will not allow the use of these feats. You could still use them with armor spikes, but only against adjacent opponents.
This could work for stand still, but I don't see it helping your step-up polearm fighter, as keeping them adjacent means you can't hit them with your big stick. The Improved Trip line can let you do a psuedo-stand-still and still keep your foe a proper distance. If they fall, they stop moving, after all.
There's really no step up equivalent though. You're just going to have to choose a different feat line if you really want to polearm away at stuff, or a shorter weapon if you want to be all steppy-up.
Take toothy to still threaten adjacent with a natural attack.
|
|
I get the balance issue, and realize that the build allows a great deal of terrain control... that is the whole point of the build after all. I do think taking away these feats makes this character ridiculously vulnerable. Take a look at the following situation:
Reach weapons have advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is you threaten a much bigger area and creatures cannot approach you without provoking an attack of opportunity. You can also attack creatures with reach without provoking yourself. Lots of good stuff there.
The one disadvantage is you can't attack adjacent creatures... that's the breaks. You can mitigate it with armor spikes, Improved Unarmed Strike, or a several other ways.
As for your example. Compare your example to a non-reach character. If the wizard is 30' away, he can cast, walk up and make his touch attack. Without reach the fighter gets no attacks of opportunity, your reach fighter does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly the whole balance argument seems silly to me.
Seriously, what's the difference between an enlarged, reach wielding fighter with combat reflexes that trips anyone that comes within 15 feet of him, and one that merely stops their movement?
Now you may say that tripping has some disadvantageous (namely that it doesn't work on many foes), but Stand Still has quite a few disadvantages of it's own.
1. It's easier to improve your trip CMB (via feats and the like) than it is to improve your Stand Still CMB.
2. Tripping can be used on your turn, and not just as an AoO. Stand Still can't.
3. You can make trip attempts without taking a feat (and without danger if you have reach on someone). Stand Still requires two feats and a decent Dex.
4. Stand Still merely ends someone's movement. Tripping someone ends their movement AND puts them prone.
On top of that, AoO combat maneuvers have trouble with big enemies (high CMD), small enemies (good acrobatics), and enemies with reach and/or range.
In my mind, Stand Still makes most sense thematically with a polearm. But in Pathfinder, Stand Still can't be used at all with a (reach) polearm. However, if you were using a knife or even something like a cestus it is completely possible. Lame.
And from a balance perspective, it is in no way more powerful to be able to make some melee enemies stop movement at the cost of a few feats then it is to make some melee enemies stop movement and fall prone at the cost of no feats.
|
Lets look at the real world for just a sec.
Can you use a polearm of any kind to stop movement? Other then triping them. No thats how you defeat a polearm is to close in with the wealder and attack. Thats why you don't ever use one polearm there used in ranks not by single solders. And befor you say you can lock there shield or armor in place. Thats how pikeman lose pikes by leaven there weapon where the end can be cut off.
Can you use your body or shield to stop movement? Yes there are meny teachings in both the east and west that refear to stoping some. By using sholder, chest, or shield you can easly stop some one with little effort if you know what your doing.
I wold not alow stand still to work with a polearm even if the RAW sayed you could.
Following some ones movement is posible with alot of traning. I don't see why this could not be use with a polearm. The RAW prevent it I wold probly alow it to work in my games. However I don't think there going to change the wording on it.
However your character is for PFS. You hade the rules for a long befor you started this character. From my point of view you started this character with a concept but with no planing. Thats the start of a failed character most of the time.
Concept
plan
play
adjust as needed
|
This is because of balance purposes, iconicly and logically it makes perfect sense but it just turns out that letting characters become a 4x4 wall on the battlefield with a reach weapon is just a little bit over the top, even for a fighter.
Heh heh heh. If you think Step Up is bad, imagine an Enlarged polearm fighter with Pushing Assault and multiple AoOs per turn -- he's a 10x10 "Zone of Bloody Repulsion".
|
|
the Polearm Master can use the Pole Fighting feature to change a reach weapon to a non-reach weapon (with an initial -4 penalty to hit) as an immediate action at 2nd level
This is exactly the solution i was looking for - solves my problem quite handily - Thank you ProfPotts. I have been so busy building an alchemist and exploring lots of the other goodness in the book that i hadn't even looked at the fighter stuff yet. WOW, the APG is just packed with goodness, easily my favorite RPG book since Path BETA!!!!
|
|
the Polearm Master can use the Pole Fighting feature to change a reach weapon to a non-reach weapon (with an initial -4 penalty to hit) as an immediate action at 2nd level
You could just hit him with the haft at -4 (and this will actually always work, whereas your DM will overrule grip-changing in certain situations, such as when you're in a corner).
Honestly the whole balance argument seems silly to me.
Seriously, what's the difference between an enlarged, reach wielding fighter with combat reflexes that trips anyone that comes within 15 feet of him, and one that merely stops their movement?
I was wondering the same thing.
Not to uh... rain on anyone's parade, but you don't use a weapon *at all* when using Stand Still, its just a CMB check.
And why not make a Polearm Barbarian guy that has these feats and armor spikes and No Escape.
Let's see that wand jockey get away now!
PS - I love polearms but you always have to have more options (weapons wise) you never know what the clever GM will toss at you. But nothing is as satisfying as stabbing someone in the face that tries to charge at you with reckless abandon.
Not to uh... rain on anyone's parade, but you don't use a weapon *at all* when using Stand Still, its just a CMB check.
The point is that Stand Still can't be used unless an enemy provokes an AoO solely moving through an adjacent space. If you just have a reach weapon, then you don't threaten adjacent squares, so you can't use reach polearms by themselves with Stand Still. On the flip side, you do threaten adjacent squares with a simple dagger, so you can make Stand Still attempts.
So while it is true that Stand Still is just a straight CMB check, the fact remains that you can't make that check if you have just a reach polearm, but you can with just a dagger. That's where the whole weapon argument comes into play.
Not to uh... rain on anyone's parade, but you don't use a weapon *at all* when using Stand Still, its just a CMB check.
The point is that Stand Still can't be used unless an enemy provokes an AoO solely moving through an adjacent space. If you just have a reach weapon, then you don't threaten adjacent squares, so you can't use reach polearms by themselves with Stand Still. On the flip side, you do threaten adjacent squares with a simple dagger, so you can make Stand Still attempts.
So while it is true that Stand Still is just a straight CMB check, the fact remains that you can't make that check if you have just a reach polearm, but you can with just a dagger. That's where the whole weapon argument comes into play.
This.
And the fact that is a "pure" CMB check is WORSE! weapon focus or enhancements don't count.
:(
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
People are getting confused over what a ´pure´ CMB check means.
It doesn´t mean you aren´t using a weapon to deliver it. When it says you ´make a CMB check´, it´s just invoking the CMB rules without being a Trip, Disarm, or any other specific CMB maneuver (in other words, it´s a unique type of maneuver, as defined in the feat itself).
Note the Feat says you make this CMB check ´as your attack of opportunity´... The AoO only is delivered by weapon you threaten with, so this phrase is basically the equivalent of ´in place of melee attack´ in other Manuever descriptions (trip, disarm, sunder), though in this case it isn´t ANY melee attack, just AoO vs. movement in adjacent squares. I´d agree, it IS more confusing when the rules don´t replicate the same specific langauge for people to hone in on.
Imagine if Stand Still DIDN´T have the adjacent-square limitation, and you are wielding a Polearm.
If somebody provokes in your furthest out squares, the ONLY way you can make an attack (which a CMB check is) is by using the Polearm, thus any bonuses would apply.
With the real (adjacent squar) Stand Still, you still need to threaten to use it,
if you are threatening because you are holding a dagger, you will use that dagger (or any other weapon you currently are wielding and are threatening with) to deliver the attack (again, which a CMB is).
If Stand Still was delivered by a unique mechanism, or ´it´s own weapon´ ala Grapple, it wouldn´t necessarily depend on other weapons to threaten but in that case the ability should say you always threaten adjacent squares via Stand Still itself (which isn´t the case).
Grapple isn´t clear on this aspect, I suspect, because it´s Pre-Req - Improved Unarmed Strike - itself means you always threaten adjacent squares, even though IUS isn´t used to deliver Grapples (Weapon Focus says ´You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple´ as the selected weapon, i.e. IUS doesn´t deliver Grapple). Grapple is also wierd, because it´s nowhere listed as a weapon besides Wpn Focus, and even though it relies on your natural reach and being able to threaten (by assumption, this isn´t stated anywhere), you can´t make AoOs with (standard) Grapple (since it requires a Standard action).
This is based on the current RAW. You can look at SKR´s FAQ for Trip, and see he introduces new things like any weapon can Trip, but only Trip Quality Weapons apply weapon-specific enhancements. Nothing remotely like that is suggested by the RAW, though I presume their next Errata will introduce such wording. I don´t know if it will be on a general basis, or Trip specifically will exlude weapon-specific enhancements unless you have the Trip Quality weapon (or Trip ability per Bestiary, hopefully)
* what is confusing is if you have something like Grab in play: Grapple definitely IS being delivered by some other weapon (e.g. Bite) in that case, so WF:Bite would seem to apply. But what if you have BOTH WF:Bite AND WF:Grapple? Wpn Focus is untyped, so it would appear to stack...? Not really a balance issue here, just wierdness in how the rules work, and they´re not totally clear in all areas.
EDIT: Since I assume Trip is getting some Errata love, please FAQ this post since there´s other related issues I mentioned that could be cleared up simultaneously.
They should remove the "adjacent" part and call it a day..
And, Quandary, explain this:
Stem the Tide (Ex)At 8th level, the cavalier receives Stand Still as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. Instead of making a combat maneuver check to stop the creature from moving, a cavalier with this ability can elect to make a normal attack instead. If the attack hits and deals damage, the target must stop moving, just as if the cavalier had made a successful combat maneuver check.
Yeah, that was discussed during Playtest, it was a specific balance decision... aka get over it ;-)
Yeah, that was discussed during Playtest, it was a specific balance decision... aka get over it ;-)
So works as intended? Hilarious.
The more I discover these things, the more I want to drop the ball and go home.
I think I wait UC, then I start to houserule heavily, as I never did before :/
IMO stand still should provide its own threatened area because the intent is to have you deliver a CMB check as an AoO due to movement. I do not think that reach weapons or the threatening area of weapons come into this *at all* since it works the same way for a large/huge creature as it does for a small one.
Theoretically it should be written as something like this (i'm not a rules architect):
Stand Still (v2.0):
If a foe leaves a square adjacent to you through a means of movement that would normally provoke an Attack of Opportunity, you may make a Combat Maneuver Check as your Attack of Opportunity - even if you do not threaten this area normally. If the check is 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 prevents the odd situation where a player with a Polearm and armor spikes can enact Stand Still, but a player with just a Polearm cannot.
Personally, I have a no problem with standstill being adjacent only and then having a feat like "improved stand still" that allows it to be used 10 feet out.
the Polearm Master can use the Pole Fighting feature to change a reach weapon to a non-reach weapon (with an initial -4 penalty to hit) as an immediate action at 2nd levelYou could just hit him with the haft at -4 (and this will actually always work, whereas your DM will overrule grip-changing in certain situations, such as when you're in a corner).
Or if you take catch off gaurd you do not take a penalty to hit.
Personally, I have a no problem with standstill being adjacent only and then having a feat like "improved stand still" that allows it to be used 10 feet out.
Yes 'n
how many featsshould a fighter take
before you call him a tank?
the Polearm Master can use the Pole Fighting feature to change a reach weapon to a non-reach weapon (with an initial -4 penalty to hit) as an immediate action at 2nd levelYou could just hit him with the haft at -4 (and this will actually always work, whereas your DM will overrule grip-changing in certain situations, such as when you're in a corner).
Any GM who would allow you to use the haft as an improvised weapon but not allow you to use a class ability to do basically the same thing is not a GM I'd ever want to play under.
Yes 'n
how many feats
should a fighter take
before you call him a tank?
Seeing as how PF gives quite a few more feats than D&D ever did and that fighters get a feat at 1,2,4,6,8, etc meaning you get a feat EVERY level, I think that it is not unreasonable to ask for two feats for this ability since it can alter the battlefield entirely.
The "improved" version should probably be fighter only as well to give them a little more candy.
But, to each their own.
|
|
Or if you take catch off gaurd you do not take a penalty to hit.
Thinking about it, it doesn't quite work. Basically, you can't suddenly choose to wield a weapon as an Improvised Weapon when it's not your turn - the ability to (essentially) do that is what the Pole Fighter feature of the Polearm Master archetype is all about. Catch Off Guard doesn't allow you to pick up or otherwise 're-grip' an object or weapon to use it as an Improvised Weapon as an immediate action.
Yes 'n
how many feats
should a fighter take
before you call him a tank?Seeing as how PF gives quite a few more feats than D&D ever did and that fighters get a feat at 1,2,4,6,8, etc meaning you get a feat EVERY level, I think that it is not unreasonable to ask for two feats for this ability since it can alter the battlefield entirely.
The "improved" version should probably be fighter only as well to give them a little more candy.
But, to each their own.
Fighters get a lot of feats. "Warriors" in general (Rangers, Paladin, Barbarian) get more compared to 3.5.
Nevertheless, they need ALL of them. And feat chains risk to make your PC mono-dimensional.
Even more annoying if the first feat of the chain is not functional. Fix it, don't add useless and consuming chains.