Knight with Spiked Chain. Broken?

[RigaMortus2]

If you really want to build to hinder your enemies, build a Knight X/Peerless archer 10, who threatens all points he has line of effect to and therefore causes an entire battlefield to be difficult terrain for his enemies.

That's not correct. The Peerless Archer does not threaten the entire battlefield, only 10 feet out (like any normal reach weapon). The Peerless Archer at 8th level gets the Threaten ability which specifically states Her bow functions as a reach weapon, threatening anything 10 feet away but not immediately adjacent to her. Also, the Peerless Archer is 3.0 material (if that matters).

 

[ThirdWizard]

I need someone to explain to me how, if entering a square that is treated as difficult terrain, the reach has anything to do with this.

 

[Merkuri]

I need someone to explain to me how, if entering a square that is treated as difficult terrain, the reach has anything to do with this.

The knight has an ability to make enemies treat all squares the knight threatens as difficult terrain. His reach determines the squares that are affected by this ability.

 

[takasi]

The knight has an ability to make enemies treat all squares the knight threatens as difficult terrain. His reach determines the squares that are affected by this ability.

Yes, but the broken ability has nothing to do with reach. Reach is only a factor when you fighting other creatures with reach.

The 'broken' complaint seems to stem from the fact that you cannot 5' step in difficult terrain. If the knight (and allies) can 5' step away and their opponent can't then you get a huge melee advantage at higher levels (again, assuming the creatures have the same reach, are only using melee weapons, have no other means of movements, etc).

 

[ThirdWizard]

The knight has an ability to make enemies treat all squares the knight threatens as difficult terrain. His reach determines the squares that are affected by this ability.

Okay... so take a knight with 5' reach and you get the exact same scenario of disallowing enemies full attacks. Right?

 

[DreadArchon]

Okay... so take a knight with 5' reach and you get the exact same scenario of disallowing enemies full attacks. Right?

No, because he has to threaten a space 10' away from him for it to work. His threat area only counts as difficult if you start in it.

The spiked chain scenario still isn't that great, though. It's too hard to do and way too easy to get past. ("I move-action forward then Grapple.")

 

[ThirdWizard]

No, because he has to threaten a space 10' away from him for it to work. His threat area only counts as difficult if you start in it.

Ah, okay that's what I was looking for!

 

[Bagpuss]

Can you give a rules quote for this? It's certainly not how I would (or have) rule(d).

People have already given quotes but the illustration on page 148 of the PHB makes it clearer that you only pay movement penalties for entering a square. Otherwise Regdar's final step (8 squares) would have actually cost 3 squares rather than one bringing his total to 10 squares.

The alternative is you suffer terrain penalties on leaving, which would have meant no penalty for Regdar's first step onto the difficult terrain (so it would have cost 1 square and not 2 as illustrated), so that can't be the case. It would certainly be unfair to pay the penalties both on entering and leaving he difficult terrain.

I think it has also been covered in the FAQ.... ah here we are.

If my character moves from a square within the area of a grease spell to an adjacent square outside the spell’s area, does he have to make a Balance check?

No. As a general rule, terrain effects apply only to characters entering a square with the terrain effect, not to those leaving such a square. A creature leaving a greased square need not succeed on a Balance check to do so (of course, he must have succeeded on a Reflex save to remain standing).

 

[BASHMAN]

The spiked chain scenario still isn't that great, though. It's too hard to do and way too easy to get past. ("I move-action forward then Grapple.")

Both of which Incur AOOs btw (one for moving from a threatened square, the second for grappling, assuming you don't have improved grapple).

 

[Kurotowa]

It is an effective combo, in certain circumstances. But there are enough downsides that it's far from abusive. Just off the top of my head:

1. Loss of benefit from the Shield Block class feature.

2. Test of Mettle is greatly weakened. Opponents can ignore the effect if they would provoke AoO from doing so, and since engaging you in melee will always provoke AoO it effectively becomes useless against melee opponents.

3. A tactic based on eternally retreating is very limited. It loses effectiveness against large creatures with reach, in tight quarters without room to maneuver, and when the Knight is trying to hold a defensive line to protect the squishier PC behind them.

So yeah, you could make a build out of it. But I wouldn't call it even close to broken.