Pathfinder 1E Is Spring Attack overpowered?

[sheadunne]

The comments on the message boards are not official, they are how the designers "house rule" the official rules. Here's the official rules

(Errata 8/20/10) The spring attack feat has been changed in the 8/20/2010 Errata to be a Full-Round action. This prevents one from using Spring Attack and vital strike together.

Just because a developer chooses to house rule their own rules, doesn't make it official. According the official errata, you cannot use them both together. That said, feel free to house rule it any way you like. I do.

 

[sheadunne]

The character in question is a halfling bard/barbarian/rogue, so base movement is 30 then Expeditious Retreat for a total of 60. Next level (7th) I'll be looking at Expeditious Retreat -> Rage -> Spring Attack -> Flank -> Backstab -> scoot back behind the tank.

I don't have plans to get HiPS. Instead, I'm going to pick up Vanish from the APG next bard level.

Interestingly, this wasn't originally an attempt to build the Pathfinder equivalent of a Romulan Warbird. When we started at first level, I just assumed the character would be a straight rogue, but she evolved this way for story reasons. It's been interesting.

So . . .

Round 1 - Expeditious Retreat/Rage
Round 2 - Spring Attack
Round 3 - Vanish?
Round 4 - Spring Attack?

That's a long combat . . . Usually there isn't much left by round 4, in my experience that is. Of course, every game is different. We used to have a multiclassed rogue/wizard in our party that would spend 2 rounds casting defensive spells before he moved into combat. There wasn't ever much left for him to do by round 3 when he was finally ready to enter combat.

That said, it looks like a fun character to play. I would just want to find a way to get my movement up higher without having to spend a turn casting ER. Vanish is a good spell, but you won't need it if you're already getting flanking. Still it's good defensively as a get-out-of-jail-free -card.

 

[Systole]

Not quite....

If I'm being targeted by ranged or there is a juicy-looking caster behind some meat shields:
1. Vanish
2. Expeditious Retreat + move toward squishy targets
3. Rage (free action) + Spring Attack, attack, withdraw
4. Maintain Rage, repeat Spring attack with flank
5. If living_enemy > 0 then goto 4 else End;

If the enemies are all meat shields with no support:
1. Expeditious Retreat
2. Rage (free action) + Spring Attack, attack, withdraw
3. Maintain Rage, repeat Spring attack with flank
4. If living_enemy > 0 then goto 3 else End;


Our GM likes big combats, so we hit a 6-10 rounder at least once a session, and generally there is at least a round of positioning. Vanish is there for moving past melee and towards squishies, for avoiding ranged fire, and for tactical retreats.

 

[Icyshadowlord]

Considering how I see the two pre-requisite feats that LEAD to Spring Attack as being relatively weak, my longer answer for this question would be that it depends on your willingness to take two "inferior" feats for the sake of one rather strong one. Basically that means that Spring Attack is NOT overpowered, because the strength of the actual feat is gravely diminished by the feats that are required for taking Spring Attack.

Short answer (and plainly just an opinion instead of an actual analysis): NO.

 

[Steel_Wind]

The comments on the message boards are not official, they are how the designers "house rule" the official rules. Here's the official rules

(Errata 8/20/10) The spring attack feat has been changed in the 8/20/2010 Errata to be a Full-Round action. This prevents one from using Spring Attack and vital strike together.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say that ANYWHERE within the errata. That's your interpretation of the effect of the rule, but I think your interpretation is clearly wrong.

Here are the text of the feats, after errata [which appears in square brackets]:

Spring Attack (Combat)
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.

Now, that doesn't mean that a spring attack itself is a full round action (in and of itself). It means that you can Move - make a single melee attack - and move again. That's the full-round-action at issue. so the question is, is a vital strike a "single melee attack"?

Gee. Let's look at the text of Vital Strike:

Vital Strike (Combat)
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6. Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. [Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as f laming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.]

There is nothing in Vital Strike that says that it is a "standard" action which is special and more expansive than what it states. It states it is a single melee attack. It makes reference to the "attack action", A single melee attack is what you are supposed to be able to do with Spring Attack. It's in yellow and clear as a bell. When you make a single melee attack - yes that's a standard action. But that is not, in and of itself, excluded by the text of Spring Attack.

Just because a developer chooses to house rule their own rules, doesn't make it official. According the official errata, you cannot use them both together. That said, feel free to house rule it any way you like. I do.

So after you misinterpret the effect of a rule, you then dismiss what one of the two main developers says about your interpretation and call their interpretation a "house rule?" Suggesting your own, less nuanced approach, is more authoritative?

o_0

If you want to pretend the comments from two main rules guys for Paizo aren't "official" and are instead just "house rules"? Uhm... I think you need to step back a little and reconsider whose view might be more authoritative on this subject. Because as between your view and James Jacobs? He's got the credentials and you don't.

Alternatively, you might just reconsider your position on this and admit the possibility that your interpretation is plainly and simply flat-out wrong.

 

[Icyshadowlord]

Is it somehow wrong to ignore official word and instead go with house rules?

My two answers, short and long. The short answer is "No.", and the long answer is "Noooooooooooooooooooo.".

 

[pawsplay]

Usually, the comments of James Jacobs and Jason Bulmahn on the Paizo Message Boards ARE official and are meant to be. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, but that doesn't change Pathfinder into hermetically sealed packets of official errata.

If you want to pretend the comments from two main rules guys for Paizo aren't "official" and are instead just "house rules"? Okay.

Vital Strike would have worked fine with 3.5 Spring Attack. Spring Attack was purposefully changed not to allow it, which is about as official as you can get.

James Jacobs specifically said he would allow it in his campaign, not that he was errata'ing the ability. You are also welcome to use whatever house rules you feel like using. But it is very clear what is "official" in this case; Spring Attack works exactly as written, which does not allow a Vital Strike.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If you want to pretend the comments from two main rules guys for Paizo aren't "official" and are instead just "house rules"? Okay.

Except he's indicating what his house rule is ... I mean, it's apparently a pretty well-functioning house rule, but what he's saying doesn't appear to be an official pronouncement on the actual rules.

 

[sheadunne]

I'm just saying the thread you quoted was a year older than the errata. Official decisions are made. The only actual rules of the game are those printed in the rulebook and the errata, the rest is just house rules and there's nothing wrong with that. The designers are posting how they house rule the rules in their own games, hence his statement "I'd certainly LET my players do that in games I run." Nowhere does he say that those are the official pathfinder rules, in fact, by saying "let" implies that they aren't official rules, otherwise there wouldn't be a question of letting someone do anything, they could just do it. Those comments that are official are added either to the errata or the FAQ, neither of which support using spring attack and vital attack together.

But if you can tell me how a Full Round Action (spring attack) and a Standard action (vital strike) can be used in the same turn, I'd be happy to agree with you. I find nothing to contract this in any of the designers posts.

What is interesting is that you can use Vital Strike and Flyby Attack, since Flyby Attack is a Standard Action and not a Full-Round Action.

Anyway, like I said, it doesn't much matter, since myself and other often do allow it in our own games. It's not broken or overpowered. It's only a little more damage and not nearly as much as would be produced making a full-attack (assuming appropriate level to make additional attack).

 

[pawsplay]

Just in because this is relevant later, I feel the need to point out that Vital Strike is not a standard action; however, it only activates when when you take the attack action, which is a standard action.