Rogue Scout Archetype + Spring attack (+ Vital strike) = BIG PROBLEM

[Darkorin]

Hi everyone!

I'm currently building a Rogue with the Scout archetype and after doing some research about Spring attack and Vital Strike, I discovered a problem:

• 1)It seems now that everyone agrees that Spring Attack and Vital Strike CAN'T be combined(if you go by the book). Even if everyone agrees that it is a lot better to play as if you could

• 2)Everyone agrees that you CAN combine Skirmish (8th lvl scout power) and Spring Attack.

The reason why people say you can't combine spring attack and Vital strike is because of the wording:

Quote:

Spring Attack: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.

Quote:

Vital Strike: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.

Now, people have agreed that an attack action is a kind of Standard Action, thus the "single melee attack" that spring attack gives you does not allow you to use vital strike since it's not a standard action.

The BIG PROBLEM, I'm trying to point out now is this one:

Quote:

Skirmish: At 8th level, whenever a scout moves more than 10 feet in a round and makes an attack action, the attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was flat-footed.

So, if we apply the logic of the "vital strike + Spring Attack" solution everyone seemed to agree on, Skirmish CANNOT be used with Spring attack! Which seems to be kind of a deal breaker...

Now, what does everyone feel about that?

ps:If someone already said such a thing, i'm sorry, i really tried to search the forum for it but could not find anything...

[Talonhawke]

Offically i would say yeah it sucks.

As a GM i would say go for it (of course i treat vital strike as usable under the same circumstances.)

[TriOmegaZero]

Yes, under the rules you cannot Skirmish and Spring Attack at the same time. You make the choice of either avoiding an AoO or getting extra damage. That's the trade off.

[Steve Geddes]

First let me acknowledge that I'm no rules expert, however I have had some experience interpreting actual legislation and can provide perhaps a justification for what you see as an inconsistency. I think you've bolded the wrong words:

Vital Strike refers to "the attack action.
Skirmish refers to "an attack action.

If these words were chosen deliberately, I can't see any reason other than to distinguish between the standard 'attack' action described on pages 182-184 of the core rules and any other action which includes the ability to make an attack roll.

If this interpretation is correct, Spring Attack is a generic attack action but is not the specific attack action. Hence, Vital Strike cannot be used in conjunction with it and yet Skirmish can.

I dont pretend to have any clue as to whether the differing word choice was intentional - however I can't see any other reason for the diffence, given that it was deliberate.

[Nemitri]

Seriously, Paizo needs to fix the wording on the vital strike chain feats, I guess the intent of the feat is to encourage something other than a guy standing in front of an enemy just rolling dice until one of them dies, they just need to fix it to say "whenever you make a single attack in a round"

Question: as it stands now, do you get the extra damage when doing attacks of opportunity?

[leo1925]

Nemitri wrote:

Question: as it stands now, do you get the extra damage when doing attacks of opportunity?

I think not.

To the OP:
Yes i think that you are correct, but where is the problem?

[Darkorin]

leo1925 wrote:

To the OP:
Yes i think that you are correct, but where is the problem?

The problem is that there is a lot of inconsistency here on the forum, since everyone seemed to agreed that vital strike + spring attack can't be used together, but it was universally accepted that spring attack + skirmish can be used together.

And it's the fact that a lot of players here are using spring attack + skirmish, which should not be allowed by the logic we applied from vital strike + spring attack.

The Scout Archetype just lost a lot of attractiveness, since the melee application is now almost inexistant, while a range rogue can take full capacity of the scout archetype.

My whole post, was more like a flash report for everyone who did not realize (since everyone agreed that you could use spring attack and skirmish!), ans that a lot of wording could be clarified

[Steve Geddes]

Darkorin wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

To the OP:
Yes i think that you are correct, but where is the problem?

The problem is that there is a lot of inconsistency here on the forum, since everyone seemed to agreed that vital strike + spring attack can't be used together, but it was universally accepted that spring attack + skirmish can be used together.

And it's the fact that a lot of players here are using spring attack + skirmish, which should not be allowed by the logic we applied from vital strike + spring attack.

The Scout Archetype just lost a lot of attractiveness, since the melee application is now almost inexistant, while a range rogue can take full capacity of the scout archetype.

My whole post, was more like a flash report for everyone who did not realize (since everyone agreed that you could use spring attack and skirmish!), ans that a lot of wording could be clarified

The different treatment is consistent with the actual wording. Vital strike is limited to the specific "attack action". Skirmish is not so limited.

If the two were to be treated identically, why use different wording?

[submit2me]

Regardless of what the book states/intends, to me "attack action" sounds like it's whenever you are attacking. Period. I would let Skirmish + Spring Attack + Vital Strike work together. What's the worst that could happen? Your character gains some mobility/survivability in exchange for one really powerful attack? You're already investing a good chunk of feats into it, and you need to be a least 8th level to do it all, so why not?

[Skerek]

something just occurred to me, does being mounted and the mount moving at least 10 feet count for making the sneak attack? because if it does i suddenly want to make a rouge scout who just buys mounts and shoots bows at people as he kites them all over the place... damn that's a big problem... for the NPCs you're facing

[Raymond Lambert]

i think the reason paizo has agreed it does not work with spring attack as a full round action is to keep the door closed from it being used with as a full rond action of full attacks or even just the first swing of a full attack.

[Shifty]

I would concur that Spring Attack and Skirmish cannot work together fopr the reason you have already given.

Spring Attack is a special Full Round Action that has an attack attached to it. It is not a full round attack action; it is not a Standard Action attack.

[Raymond Lambert]

i was talking about spring attack & vital strike not working together in my above post.

[leo1925]

Darkorin wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

To the OP:
Yes i think that you are correct, but where is the problem?

The problem is that there is a lot of inconsistency here on the forum, since everyone seemed to agreed that vital strike + spring attack can't be used together, but it was universally accepted that spring attack + skirmish can be used together.

And it's the fact that a lot of players here are using spring attack + skirmish, which should not be allowed by the logic we applied from vital strike + spring attack.

The Scout Archetype just lost a lot of attractiveness, since the melee application is now almost inexistant, while a range rogue can take full capacity of the scout archetype.

My whole post, was more like a flash report for everyone who did not realize (since everyone agreed that you could use spring attack and skirmish!), ans that a lot of wording could be clarified

Or you could use the scout archetype differently than you have thought.

Use it as a way to get sneak attack whenever possible.

[Quandary]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Vital Strike refers to "the attack action.

Skirmish refers to "an attack action.

If these words were chosen deliberately, I can't see any reason other than to distinguish between the standard 'attack' action described on pages 182-184 of the core rules and any other action which includes the ability to make an attack roll.

If this interpretation is correct, Spring Attack is a generic attack action but is not the specific attack action. Hence, Vital Strike cannot be used in conjunction with it and yet Skirmish can.

The sentences are functionally identical.

One sentence is phrased with `use`, and the other sentence is phrased with `make`,
the difference being using a `generic` tool (something must already abstractly exist to be available to use),
and an a specific expression of that usage, which uses the singular tense because you are making 1 expression of it.

Your explanation doesn`t seem to match with the clear fact that they referenced attack action, and not `attack` period (which is the interpretation you seem to be getting out of it). A generic attack action is the action as it exists in the rules. A specific usage of it, is when you use the generic action to stab Bill. You are mixing the concept of a generic attack (which may not be an action at all, e.g. AoO) when that doesn`t distinguish either ability from each other... both use the attack action.

It`s pretty clear both abilities don`t work per with SPring Attack per RAW.
I agree that it is equally sucky for Skirmish as it is for Vital Strike, and would house-rule otherwise.
But I don`t see why anybody would expect any different treatment for Skirmish here.
Plenty of people AREN`T aware that you can`t Spring Attack and Vital Strike,
so I`m not surprised people thought you can use Skirmish with Vital Strike...

Steve Geddes wrote:

something just occurred to me, does being mounted and the mount moving at least 10 feet count for making the sneak attack?

It`s talking about the Rogue moving, not the Rogue being moved, or anything else. The flavor of the ability is clearly about your own movement, not getting big damage because you were Bullrushed 20` feet before your turn. So I don`t think your idea works.

[InsaneFox]

Somebody pointed this out earlier but I wish to elaborate on it.

Skirmisher says 'an attack action'. Which is not specifically binding to either "attack actions" and "full attack actions". Furthermore, it continues to say 'If the scout makes more than one attack this turn, this ability only applies to the first attack." Implying that, a skirmisher can do this with a full attack. (Which seems kind of weird since it'd be hard for a skirmisher to move and make a full attack.)

Anyway, there is some definite confusion here as to whether or not 'AN attack action' is specific to just 'attack actions' or to both types of attack actions.

[Roaming Shadow]

leo1925 wrote:

Or you could use the scout archetype differently than you have thought.
Use it as a way to get sneak attack whenever possible.

I personally like using skirmish combined with ranged attacks, and I think can work quite well with a gun toting rogue.

To answer the question, it's a matter of wording. Vital Strike specifies when you use "the action action" to make a single attack. Because of the wording, it is my belief that they are specifically refering to Attack listed in the types of Standard actions. Skirmish is worded similarly, making reference to attack action. However, this is where there is some grey area in interpretation; at what point in wording do you differenctiate "make an attack" and "make an attack action"? Both Skirmish and Vital Strike reference "attack action", where feats like Spring Attack, Lunge, and Power Attack simply say "attack" (allowing all of them to be used together if one wished to). As ironic as it sounds, by the wording, I believe that Skirmisher, in fact, cannot be used with Spring Attack.

[Steve Geddes]

Quandary wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Vital Strike refers to "the attack action.

Skirmish refers to "an attack action.

If these words were chosen deliberately, I can't see any reason other than to distinguish between the standard 'attack' action described on pages 182-184 of the core rules and any other action which includes the ability to make an attack roll.

If this interpretation is correct, Spring Attack is a generic attack action but is not the specific attack action. Hence, Vital Strike cannot be used in conjunction with it and yet Skirmish can.

The sentences are functionally identical.

One sentence is phrased with `use`, and the other sentence is phrased with `make`,
the difference being using a `generic` tool (something must already abstractly exist to be available to use),
and an a specific expression of that usage, which uses the singular tense because you are making 1 expression of it.

Your explanation doesn`t seem to match with the clear fact that they referenced attack action, and not `attack` period (which is the interpretation you seem to be getting out of it). A generic attack action is the action as it exists in the rules. A specific usage of it, is when you use the generic action to stab Bill. You are mixing the concept of a generic attack (which may not be an action at all, e.g. AoO) when that doesn`t distinguish either ability from each other... both use the attack action.

I accept that this would be another reason for a differing choice of words ('an' vs 'the') and concede that you have indeed provided an alternate explanation of the differing word choice. However, I dispute this:

Quote:

It`s pretty clear both abilities don`t work per with SPring Attack per RAW.

Since I don't accept that the existence of an alternate explanation implies that mine is incorrect.

As I mentioned, I have no clue how the rules work nor any idea as to what was intended. Nonetheless, I can see an argument that it was intended that Vital Strike would only apply to the attack action whereas Skirmish was intended to apply to any action which granted an attack. I was taking the OP at face value when he said that the consensus was that the two feats were treated differently - if that's indeed how the rules gurus of the board have resolved to proceed, I think there is reasonable grounds to suspect my exegesis is correct and that this is the basis (if somewhat flimsy) for ruling such. It would, of course, be helpful for a designer to step in and clarify explicitly whether the two feats are intended to be treated identically as the chosen language is not helpful in resolving the dispute (in my opinion, anyhow).

I don't think one should regard the meaning as settled or 'pretty clear' based on solely on such nuances of grammar (irrespective of whether my quibble or yours turns out to capture the authors' intent). Presumably, if the consensus is indeed that Skirmish is in fact supposed to have a wider scope, there are further arguments to support my interpretation. I wouldnt pretend to know what they are though - in fact, I suspect I wouldnt understand them..

[Darkorin]

Some things to add to the discussion:

Why does the Skirmish ability exist if not to be used with Spring attack (here talking about a melee rogue)?

You can NEVER finish a move action after making an attack action, except with Spring attack!

And why would you use the skirmish ability for melee since you have the Scout's charge ability at 4th level...

I mean, you can move at least ten feet and make an attack, or make a charge (at least 10 feet movement before attack) and make an attack with a +2 bonus to attack rolls!

So in my opinion, the scout charge's ability is a lot better than the skirmish ability for a melee rogue, except for some rare occasion where you can't make a charge...

Oh Yes, and to add to the debate, a RANGE rogue can move 10 feet, then spend an attack action to vital strike+sneak attack an enemy without any problem, and you do invest a lot less of feats for doing that since you have no need for shot on the run to become viable and make 1 sneak attack/round

[Roaming Shadow]

Darkorin wrote:

Some things to add to the discussion:

Why does the Skirmish ability exist if not to be used with Spring attack (here talking about a melee rogue)?

You can NEVER finish a move action after making an attack action, except with Spring attack!

And why would you use the skirmish ability for melee since you have the Scout's charge ability at 4th level...

I mean, you can move at least ten feet and make an attack, or make a charge (at least 10 feet movement before attack) and make an attack with a +2 bonus to attack rolls!

So in my opinion, the scout charge's ability is a lot better than the skirmish ability for a melee rogue, except for some rare occasion where you can't make a charge...

Oh Yes, and to add to the debate, a RANGE rogue can move 10 feet, then spend an attack action to vital strike+sneak attack an enemy without any problem, and you do invest a lot less of feats for doing that since you have no need for shot on the run to become viable and make 1 sneak attack/round

1. Why do you talk like the scout archetype was made based of the Spring Attack feat? The designers didn't sit down and say, "let's make a rogue archetype based off Spring Attack".

2. Then you're just going to end you're turn next to your opponet like many rogues have before you. Is this something new, or has every rogue you've ever seen always possessed Spring Attack? Move 10ft, get sneak attack; it doesn't get much easier than that to get sneak attack damage without magic being involved.

3. Skirmisher is an improvement on Scout's Charge, just like Improved Uncanny Dodge is an improvement on Uncanny Dodge (the class abilities they respectively replace). Once you're adjacent to someone, how are you going to charge them again? You can't, and charging another target will provoke from the guy you moving away from. With skirmisher, you can simply continuously tumble around the same target, easily moving 10ft each turn, and getting sneak attack without flank, stealth, or bluff.

4. Again, how many rogues are going to be charging every single turn? If you're tumbling during a charge (which I'm not sure you can do), that drastically reduces how far you can move without jacking up the difficulty, so you'd want the enemeies clustered, and how many rouges want to be surrounded by enemies with no concealment?

5. I think you are vastly overestimating how often a rogue can charge.

6. A rogue that doesn't use Srping Attack can move 10ft and get sneak attack + Vital Strike too, in the exact same way the ranged person can. The ranged attacker can't move, shoot, move either, so I don't see what you're argueing here. Niether type can get the move, attack, move and vital strike.

To be blunt at this point, I'm not sure what you're obsession with Spring Attack is.

[Ettin]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I have no clue how the rules work

Who does?

[Ice Titan]

They should work together because honestly seriously they are entirely compatible concept-wise.

[Stynkk]

Perhaps the two abilities should work together (opinion of some), but they do not under the current rules.

Just to throw this out there: Many things don't work with spring attack, not all rogues have spring attack and Charges are pretty rare.

[Tom S 820]

Yet one more reason stop wasting time on dumm pathfinder training wheel box and fix the loop whole you made going form 3.5 to pathfinder.

[gregg carrier]

I'd say the spring attack and skrimish stack to deal the sneak attack damage on the initial strike. Then the they could do a follow up swipe, but it would take that fraction of a second to allow an AOO. So the spring is lightning fast and the follow up vital strike is a normal add on....

At least that'd be my guess.

[Grick]

gregg carrier wrote:

I'd say the spring attack and skrimish stack to deal the sneak attack damage on the initial strike. Then the they could do a follow up swipe, but it would take that fraction of a second to allow an AOO. So the spring is lightning fast and the follow up vital strike is a normal add on....

At least that'd be my guess.

You're allowing multiple attacks, as part of an attack action, in the middle of a spring attack, and one of them provokes? That's like, 4 rules you've changed.

Anyway, I suspect that Skirmisher is simply poorly worded, and whoever wrote it was not fully aware of the attack action and what it means. (Perhaps this is why instructions for 3rd-party content writers include things like "be careful what you call an 'attack action' ... If it's not really an action, don't call it an action, call it an attack.")

[Darkorin]

Roaming Shadow wrote:

1. Why do you talk like the scout archetype was made based of the Spring Attack feat? The designers didn't sit down and say, "let's make a rogue archetype based off Spring Attack".

2. Then you're just going to end you're turn next to your opponet like many rogues have before you. Is this something new, or has every rogue you've ever seen always possessed Spring Attack? Move 10ft, get sneak attack; it doesn't get much easier than that to get sneak attack damage without magic being involved.

3. Skirmisher is an improvement on Scout's Charge, just like Improved Uncanny Dodge is an improvement on Uncanny Dodge (the class abilities they respectively replace). Once you're adjacent to someone, how are you going to charge them again? You can't, and charging another target will provoke from the guy you moving away from. With skirmisher, you can simply continuously tumble around the same target, easily moving 10ft each turn, and getting sneak attack without flank, stealth, or bluff.

Well Let's see, I can have a non-scout rogue with Combat Expertise and Improve feint (so you got those for lvl3), yes you use your move action to feint, but you have no risk to get an AoO, and you deny your ennemy it's dex bonus (so it's a lot easier to sneak attack him). Oh yes, and if you feel like it you can take Greater feint, so your ennemy looses it's Dex Bonus for the whole round. And let's not forget, i have uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge, so I can keep my dex AC easily.

So Why tumbling around an opponent and loosing your Uncanny dodge abilities to risk provoking an AO, and having a harder time to sneak attack your ennemies since they still have their Dex Bonus to AC? The trad off would be quite bad honestly. And Yes, maybe you need Bluff, but in your case you need Acrobatics :/

And do not forget that Skirmish does not work if your opponent has uncanny dodge, but feinting works even against opponent with improved uncanny dodge!

Then, about the charge and everything... you could sneak attack with scout's charge every 2 rounds, so really, if your build is around charge, believe me, you will charge a lot more often!

And the difference between a range scout and a melee scout is that, a melee scout does not have Uncanny Dodge, so you don't really want to stay right next to an ennemy, since it will be a lot easier for your ennemies to flank you if you finish your turn next to one of them... Thus Spring attack makes it possible to be less vulnerable, by moving away after attacking, while a range scout has no use to get away after sniping, since he's already at range!

[voska66]

I don't agree that spring attack can't be used with Vital Strike. From the way I read it clearly can be used. Now there has been some dev input saying it can't but until the rules say it can't be I'm sticking with it allowed on spring attack.

So basically this is an ask your GM thing.

[Roaming Shadow]

The trick with fienting is that you are now both starting and ending your turn next to the enemy in order to even get the ball rolling. And remember, fient doesn't work against everything. For the most part, you can only fient against intelligent enemies; there are many monsters and such that fienting would be extremely difficult or impossible against. There are a lot more enemies that you can't feint than enemies that possess Uncanny Dodge. Therefore, feinting is overall more limited than Skirmish. Even if you're good at fienting, that -8 vs animal intelligence still makes things notably more difficult; there is no such penalty for tumbling unless there are a lot of enemies or you decide to do more than a base tumble. Zombies? You can forget fienting, but skirmish still works. Plants? Negative on fient. Giant insects? Sorry. And so on.

You can tumble skirmish virtually anything and stay on the move, forcing enemies to move to regain flanking if they had it, making it difficuly to, say, full attack while flanking. And again, enemies with Uncanny Dodge are definately a minority, since that (I believe) requires them to have class levels, and then that's the GM putting him there to give you the occasional obstable.

And why would you want to limit yourself to attacking only every other round? That sounds like a lot of potential damage you're not getting in. With skirmish, it's not that hard to attack every round with sneak attack. Are you going to keep a tactic of charge, retreat, charge? Why not just attack and get sneak attack every turn, once a turn? Taking all that extra time to avoid taking AoO (which will likely involve the rogue tumbling in order to get more than 5 feet away) seems rather inefficient.

For a ranged scout, unless he's using sniper goggles (which are 20,000g), he can still only sneak attack within 30ft, one move action for most enemies, so he's not precisely in the clear either.

[Grick]

voska66 wrote:

I don't agree that spring attack can't be used with Vital Strike. From the way I read it clearly can be used.

Spring Attack: "As a full-round action..."

Vital Strike: "When you use the attack action..."

The attack action is a standard action.

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action.

So, because you cannot take both a standard action and a full-round action, you cannot use Spring Attack and Vital Strike together.

However, you are welcome (and by many, encouraged) to house rule it. Barring things like gargantuan t-rex monks, Vital Strike isn't a very powerful feat.

[Roaming Shadow]

Grick wrote:

Barring things like gargantuan t-rex monks, Vital Strike isn't a very powerful feat.

T-Rex monk? Now there's an idea. Now, how to make a T-Rex intelligent and Lawful (or take the martail artist archetype), or what Huge humanoids can I give the lycanthrope template to. Ah, the good old days of the were-T-rex ogre ranger. Increasing the size of the T-Rex makes it more difficult to make a lycanthrope base.

Too bad it's natural attacks wouldn't get boosted by the monks unarmed attacks, and Feral Combat Training still doesn't allow you to flurry with nat weapons. A martial artist master of many styles t-rex monk could be interesting though...

[submit2me]

Grick wrote:

voska66 wrote:

I don't agree that spring attack can't be used with Vital Strike. From the way I read it clearly can be used.

Spring Attack: "As a full-round action..."

Vital Strike: "When you use the attack action..."

The attack action is a standard action.

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action.

So, because you cannot take both a standard action and a full-round action, you cannot use Spring Attack and Vital Strike together.

However, you are welcome (and by many, encouraged) to house rule it. Barring things like gargantuan t-rex monks, Vital Strike isn't a very powerful feat.

It must've been errata'd because, in my copy of the core book, Spring Attack makes no mention whatsoever about it being a full-round action. Maybe it's implied, but it still doesn't say so (for all of those RAW people). It just says you must move at least 10ft. before your attack, and that it is a single attack at your highest bab. And that single attack is a standard action. Based on what it says in my copies, the Scout + Spring Attack + Vital Strike combo seems to work just fine as long as you can move 10ft. before you do it.

[Maxximilius]

It's been errata'd, and erratas by definition supercede the book's text. The text in the link is the latest official version available.
Feel free to houserule it if you don't like it though.

[submit2me]

Maxximilius wrote:

It's been errata'd, and erratas by definition supercede the book's text. The text in the link is the latest official version available.

Feel free to houserule it if you don't like it though.

And since errata doesn't magically print itself into old books, it doesn't supercede anything if you don't know about it. Officially houseruled to me, anyway.

[Maxximilius]

submit2me wrote:

Maxximilius wrote:

It's been errata'd, and erratas by definition supercede the book's text. The text in the link is the latest official version available.

Feel free to houserule it if you don't like it though.

And since errata doesn't magically print itself into old books, it doesn't supercede anything if you don't know about it. Officially houseruled to me, anyway.

Just about the RAW topic :

Because the books don't magically print themselves with the erratas when they come out doesn't mean the errata isn't officially the new RAW. What a part of the book could say after it has been errata'd doesn't mean much.

[Stynkk]

Maxximilius wrote:

Just about the RAW topic :
Because the books don't magically print themselves with the erratas when they come out doesn't mean the errata isn't officially the new RAW. What a part of the book could say after it has been errata'd doesn't mean much.

+1 Maxximilus

+1 Grick

Pathfinder is a living entity that is updated by the creators to refine and even change facets of the game, choosing to ignore this is your choice, but even the creators of the game are aware that certain things might need revision.

I strongly suggest testing anything before you decide to houserule it into permanency. Make a rogue type character with spring attack, vs, and skirmishing. use it against the PC's and see how excited they are that you are doing a full move + 2x weapon damage + 4d6 sneak attack, without an AoO - every round, heck, give it a level of shadowdancer for even more fun.

[Ravingdork]

So many things stack for other combat styles, but mobility? Nope. Game developers hate mobility builds and cripple them wherever possible (even though they were never optimal to begin with). As such mobility options never stack or have any synergy.

Look at Vital Strike.
Look at Spring Attack.
Look at Scout Rogues.
Look at Monk class abilities.

There's plenty of evidence out there.

Even if you could stack all of those things, you would only be comparable to a two-hander in contributor effectiveness (maybe not even then).

[Quandary]

Barbs can now move-(any standard action attack)-move (as can anybody with fly-by attack), both just don`t include the AoO avoidance that Spring Attack does. Fly-By Attack seems a good one for Fighter-types at high level, assuming you have regular access to Flying magic to allow it, and it`s only 1 Feat.