|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was recently re-reading the Spring Attack feat, considering options for my PFS Barbarian/Martial Artist Monk, and suddenly wondered how the rules interact in this case.
I tried to do a search on this topic, but didn't come up with anything.
First, the relevant texts:
You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: 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. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.
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. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
(I've bolded and italicized some parts of the feat and combat maneuvers for clarity).
Obviously, you can combine any combat maneuver than can replace an attack with Spring Attack (say, Trip/Disarm/Sunder), but what isn't clear to me is whether those types of maneuvers provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt.
So, my question: if you use Spring Attack, replace the attack with a Trip/Disarm/Sunder combat maneuver, does that provoke an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver if you do not possess the Improved Trip/Improved Disarm/Improved Sunder feat?
I'm on the fence about whether it does or not. If it doesn't, suddenly Spring Attack is starting to look like a feat I may want to take for my Barbarian/Monk...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wouldn't provoke for moving in and out, or making an attack, with Spring Attack. However, you would still provoke as normal for trying a maneuver that you do not have the appropriate feat for...
|
|
Normally, I'd agree with you Sniggevert. Mainly because I remember that the D&D 3.5 Spring Attack specifically said that you do not provoke for movement. But then, that version of the feat also prohibited you from using it with Heavy Armor. The PF version of it doesn't say anything about that either.
However, the feat specifically says you do not provoke from the target of your attack at all, and not just for movement. So it seems like the rules are telling me that during that attack, I do not provoke at all.
Of course, this could indeed be against the spirit of the rule. Hence why I'm not sure, since it is already differently worded than the 3.5 version of the same feat. *shrug*
As far as I can tell, RAW: You do not provoke. RAI: ?
An armed melee attack does not provoke, by RAW. (see table in Combat chapter)
So, by that reasoning, as long as you use a weapon any combat maneuver you can use in place of a melee attack would not provoke, because making a melee attack does not provoke by RAW.
You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react.Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: 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. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.
Spring Attack allows you to do 2 things that normally can not do. One, move before and after your attack. And Two, moving without provoking attacks of opportunity where it normally would.
Run it how you see fit, but personally, I think it's stretching awful hard to make it fit.
|
|
An armed melee attack does not provoke, by RAW. (see table in Combat chapter)
So, by that reasoning, as long as you use a weapon any combat maneuver you can use in place of a melee attack would not provoke, because making a melee attack does not provoke by RAW.
Hmm, you do make a good point. That certainly casts some doubt in my mind now.
And now, I am not so sure.
Perhaps I'll get lucky, and Sean, Jason, or another developer can pop on in and clarify it ;) (I know, they're all busy folks, so probably not).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
An armed melee attack does not provoke, by RAW. (see table in Combat chapter)
So, by that reasoning, as long as you use a weapon any combat maneuver you can use in place of a melee attack would not provoke, because making a melee attack does not provoke by RAW.
Also, think about the fact that until you're changing things up by subbing in maneuvers, an intelligent reader is not looking at the text of Spring Attack and thinking "Oh look, my already-not-provoking attack now doubly doesn't provoke!"
No.
Under normal circumstances, melee attacks don't provoke. Feats are written assuming normal circumstances. Ergo, the "without provoking" is only talking about the thing that would normally provoke without the feat: the movement.
I am going to go on record as saying you provoke for not having the improved feat, but not the movement. Just seems to be RAI if not RAW.
|
|
The full round action of making a Spring Attack doesnt provoke AoO from the target. The text doesnt differentiate between the movement or the attack when negating AoOs.
If you can substitute a trip/sunder/disarm when making an attack than you can do so here. Much like you can do when you charge. When you charge you get +2 to attack that transfers to CMB. Normally when you move and attack you dont get +2 to attack but the full round action of Charge changes the rules. Just like the full round action of Spring Attack changes the rules and neither movement nor attack provokes AoO.
Even the fluff suggests no AoO for a Combat Maneuver. "You can deftly move up to a foe, strike, and withdraw before he can react." If the bad guy makes an AoO against you Combat Maneuver he's reacting to you presence.
Don't look back to 3.5 when assessing this one. It has been rewritten though it kept the same concept.
_1.
It says Strike, not Trip, Disarm or Sunder.
It is only designed to prevent the movement from causing an AoO, not the non-standard attack action of a combat maneuver.
Otherwise, ETV.
|
|
The non-provocation part of Spring Attack dates back to 3.0; before the current way of handling maneuvers.
I think they wrote it intending that you don't provoke by moving up to someone, hitting them, and then moving back (the "spring"). Because otherwise that's going to provoke an attack every time.
Look at the prerequisites: Mobility. Mobility protects against that AoO, but Spring Attack builds on that and improves it. (Mobility is still useful against AoOs you trigger from other people by moving past them during your SA.)
I think the writer thought he was obvious, and didn't anticipate people trying to "excuse" other AoOs as well, otherwise he'd have tightened the language more.
|
What does speed have to do with it? The feat allows you move at your speed. It doesn't say anything about increasing your striking speed. You're writing that in yourself.
If you had haste and expeditious retreat does your triple speed allow you to avoid AoOs? Does punching while hasted if you don't have IUS avoid AoOs?
i have to agree with one of the above posters who quoted the flavor text of AoO. if an AoO is meant to take advantage of your piss poor fighting ability, or sheer lack of proper form while fighting, then even if you are gifted as jumping in and out of a fight (via spring attack), your still throwing your punch (umarmed strike without IUS) like a fool who doesnt know what their doing, and that alone exposes an opening i can take advantage of. - you might be floating like a butterfly, but you're stinging like a grapefruit instead of a bee...
that being said, the same could be said about the flavor text for spring attack in that you get in and get out before they know what happened. if i sucker punch you while your not looking, even if i hit like a girl, im still gonna get away before you can respond.
im honestly on the fence about this, on the one hand, its a gross abuse of the rules. on the other hand, its very clear by RAW that it works, even if that was not the intent of the writer.
Casting a ray spell defensively does not prevent the AoO for the ranged touch attack part of using a ray spell, only the casting part of it. Spring attack is no different, but is related to the AoO normally generated from movement.
Fluff is not rules. Don't quote it as such. It is usually useful in determining RAI, but I wouldn't have ever read spring attacks fluff intended RAI as meaning you are completely immune to AoO's from your target for any and all actions you took for the round.
For example, your target has crane riposte and deflects your attack. Is he prevented from taking his AoO in that scenario?
Given that in the standard situation the only thing that would normally provoke would be the movement part of spring attack, that is the only AoO being referenced here. Granted, that's my opinion on the subject, but does anyone really believe the RAI of it is to allow the skipping of IUS, Imp Trip, Imp Sunder, and Imp Disarm? Does anyone really believe the RAI is that one feat should give you the benefits of four feats? (With some nerfing, e.g, you still wouldn't threaten while unarmed, and you wouldn't get +2 to your CMB's for those maneuvers).
|
It's not the fluff that I am looking at:
Benefit: 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.
I read spring attack's crunch as indicating you move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attack of opportunity from the target of your attack. I agree there is some overlap with the imroved feats that needs some work, but spring attack is awfully clear in what it does.
Kazaan was using the fluff of spring attack to indicate why he thought the lack of provocation was from the rapidity of movement and attack.
Casting a ray spell defensively does not prevent the AoO for the ranged touch attack part of using a ray spell, only the casting part of it. Spring attack is no different, but is related to the AoO normally generated from movement.
Fluff is not rules. Don't quote it as such. It is usually useful in determining RAI, but I wouldn't have ever read spring attacks fluff intended RAI as meaning you are completely immune to AoO's from your target for any and all actions you took for the round.
For example, your target has crane riposte and deflects your attack. Is he prevented from taking his AoO in that scenario?
Given that in the standard situation the only thing that would normally provoke would be the movement part of spring attack, that is the only AoO being referenced here. Granted, that's my opinion on the subject, but does anyone really believe the RAI of it is to allow the skipping of IUS, Imp Trip, Imp Sunder, and Imp Disarm? Does anyone really believe the RAI is that one feat should give you the benefits of four feats? (With some nerfing, e.g, you still wouldn't threaten while unarmed, and you wouldn't get +2 to your CMB's for those maneuvers).
no one is arguing about the RAW. exactly as written, spring attack DOES grant you improved disarm, sunder, trip, and unarmed strike while using it. thats black and white. we're debating as to weather that was the INTENT of the feat or not.
and just and FYI, spring attack is not one feat that grants you 4 feats...take a look at the prereqs for spring attack...you could either take that chain, or all the improved feats and end up doing the same thing. so its actually quite balanced given that spring attack alone isn't all that great without its chain feats.
|
|
I'm starting to wonder at the AoO thing as well.
I really think it's likely that they meant the AoO caused by movement, because the classic use of SA is to move in, strike, and move out. And moving out risks an AoO. Add to that Mobility as a prerequisite and I find it quite likely that was the intent, maybe worded poorly.
However, the strict wording does protect you from all AoOs. That's an unusual power. Because of the possibility that only move-AoO was meant, it would've been better if it said in no uncertain terms that all AoOs, not just moves are covered.
With this in mind, if you take the generous interpretation, suddenly SA is a much better feat because it enables some other untrained maneuvers and such. At that point it may be worth the prerequisites.
The before it can react part convinced me enought to doubt. I like the idea.
IMO, because you still don't have most of the bonus from the feats, it just gives you enough flexibility to use some tactics you normally wouldn't use. I really like it.
Keep in mind that you wouldn't provoke anyway if the target already took his one AoO beforehand and didn't have combat reflexes, so being smart about trying to use a combat maneuver with spring attack would net you the same thing.