Why modify (house rule) Spring Attack?

C

Clint

Journeyman Linguist

• May 10, 2002

• #1

Hi everyone.

I noticed in one of the recent chat logs that in Monte Cook's home game, he modified Spring Attack to force a 10' move both before and after the attack. Morrus concurred that he uses a similar modification.

I'm running a game where one of the PCs just obtained the feat, and it will be the first time any character will use it in the game. What is there about Spring Attack as written that could make people feel that modifying it is necessary? On the surface, it seems fairly balanced. I'd just like to be as prepared as I can for what's coming up.

Thanks!

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Crothian

First Post

• May 10, 2002

• #2

I haven't had any problem with it as written. So, I don't know what specific use of the feat they have this house rule to negate.

 

Liminal Syzygy

Community Supporter

• May 10, 2002

• #3

I read somewhere it was just because they didn't like people using all of their move before the attack, or all of the move after the attack, and calling it a "spring attack". Probably more a "spirit of the rules" change rather than something done for balance's sake.

 

D

Darkness8Me

First Post

• May 10, 2002

• #4

Cordo said:

I read somewhere it was just because they didn't like people using all of their move before the attack, or all of the move after the attack, and calling it a "spring attack". Probably more a "spirit of the rules" change rather than something done for balance's sake.

Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I feel using the feat as written is fairly balanced and well within the "spirit of the rules". You spring in to attack and back out of range, or you attack and spring away (without provoking an AoO).

The only problem that I can see some people having with the feat is the protection from AoOs. The way it's written you're able to run circles around your opponent and not provoke.

 

Last edited: May 10, 2002