Is mobility weak compared to other feats?

[Epametheus]

It's weak, but it's okay for some feats to be weak. Especially since this is a pre-req feat for one of the stronger ones.

Mobility never seems to come up in the games I'e been in. Most characters with Mobility already seem to have Tumble, anyways.

 

[rowport]

My DM and I have a deal - the first person to attack me in a given fight gets my Dodge bonus unless I say otherwise. It helps immensely.

My GM uses a variation with my Wererat Monk: whoever I am attacking gets my Dodge bonus unless I say otherwise.

 

[jgsugden]

My GM uses a variation with my Wererat Monk: whoever I am attacking gets my Dodge bonus unless I say otherwise.

The temple of Elemental Evil video game uses the 'first to attack you suffers from your increased AC' rule. It works very well.

 

[Felix]

Without the benefit of moving up to Spring Attack, Mobility is weaker than other feats. Problem is, the folks who are the most mobile on the battlefield rogues and monks (I purposefully left out barbs since they would rather full attack than flit in and out of combat) have Tumble as a class skill. By itself it helps barbarians charge to the rear echelons, meleers in HP trouble extracate themselves, and rogues who don't have enough movement left over to tumble. I don't think this merits a prereq.

Oh, and the rogue with Tumble who usually gets it for Spring Attack doesn't really need it that much - he has Tumble!

 

[jgsugden]

Without the benefit of moving up to Spring Attack, Mobility is weaker than other feats. Problem is, the folks who are the most mobile on the battlefield rogues and monks (I purposefully left out barbs since they would rather full attack than flit in and out of combat) have Tumble as a class skill. By itself it helps barbarians charge to the rear echelons, meleers in HP trouble extracate themselves, and rogues who don't have enough movement left over to tumble. I don't think this merits a prereq.

Oh, and the rogue with Tumble who usually gets it for Spring Attack doesn't really need it that much - he has Tumble!

Mobility is not useless for medium and low level rogues. If you keep track of the number of failed tumble rolls where the rogue gets attacked, it might surprise you how useful the feat could be. Rogues have the best alternative to mobility, but that alternative does fail and mobility does pick up the slack when tumble fails. Rogues also tend to be the PC class with the greatest need to move through threatened areas ... and their AC is often not the best in the party.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Oh, and the rogue with Tumble who usually gets it for Spring Attack doesn't really need it that much - he has Tumble!

It's quite useful actually.

The tumble skill in 3.5 is more restrictive than in 3.0 (more than I remember anyway).

DC 15 - Tumble at one-half speed as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so. Failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie).
Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC.

The way I understand it, a human rogue can only move a total of 15 feet in a move action where he uses tumble. Halfling rogue are actually limited to 10 feet. That's a little short in many situations.

You can move at full speed if you take a -10 to the check. You take a -2 for each additional enemies. And if your DM remember about it, you take -2 to -5 on most uneven floors such as caves and most forest.

What I'm getting at is that your DC for tumble could effectively be 29 and 27 if trying to "speed" tumble for 30 feet in a moderately dense forest between to opponents in order to flank a Owlbear, for example. Which means it'll be a while before you automatically succeed every tumble check and therefore having +4 to AC for those instance where you roll poorly is quite useful.

 

[Felix]

As for how much more restrictive tumble is in 3.5, that can be debated. Specially since the squares you tumble through don't have to be continuous. So the halfling rogue could probably figure out a way to move more than 20 feet with 2 MEA's.

And yes, everyone likes a +4 to AC. But I think the situation where it applies is relatively easily avoided. I play a mobile barbarianish character, and I incur few AoO's because I'm careful about which squares I move into or out of. YMMV. But, for instance, if it was +4 to AC on AoO and readied actions caused by your movement, then the feat would be the bee's knees. You can't affect if someone readies an action triggered by your movement, so it's harder to avoid, so it's more valuable.

jgsugden...
Oh, it has its uses for all classes, low to medium level rangers included. But I would say that they would be better served by different feats. Other feats would help them more than having a "+4 to AC on AoOs when moving through a threatened space" will help them.

 

[dark2112]

It's quite useful actually.

The tumble skill in 3.5 is more restrictive than in 3.0 (more than I remember anyway).

IIRC, 3.0 tumble limited you to 20 feet of movement as part of a tumble. Thus, you couldn't actually tumble for 30' or more, as you can in 3.5 with larger than normal movement, or by taking a penalty to your tumble check. Sounds better, in a way.

 

[Gaiden]

Consider this:

I forget the changes to combat in 3.5 with regards to special attacks and AoO's. However, in 3.0, mobility could take the place of improved disarm, improved bull rush, sunder, etc. With all of those attacks provoking AoO's, if you purposely provoke an AoO with movement and then perform the maneuver, unless the foe has CR, this was a poor man's way of gaining the use of those feats. I am not sure how applicable that tactic is now (and those feats are alot more useful with the +4 bonus to the opposed rolls). Nevertheless, the increased control over opponents A(s)oO is a good thing.

 

[silentspace]

Personally, I would never take mobility. No matter what class. Unless I needed it to qualify for a PrC.