The new Spring Attack

[Kae'Yoss]

Well, it does make sense. Anyway, my Bladesinger's Spring Attack doesn't work at all in 3.5e.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well, it does make sense. Anyway, my Bladesinger's Spring Attack doesn't work at all in 3.5e.

What makes sense? The change in the feat? Someone's comment?

And why won't your bladesinger's Spring Attack work anymore?

 

[Tellerve]

Lord-

I think you are just holding onto the old spring attack mental images. It shouldn't take too long to imagine a quick dodge to the side of the enemy to pull their attention a strike, and then your quick retreat as being the spring attack of being up close. The new one, well, you move in strike and before he can get a good beed on you, you dodge 5' to the side. Seems fine and dandy to me.

Tellerve

 

[sithramir]

I had just assumed that this was to prevent higher levels from making full attacks on the guy and being able to move without AoO's?

I attack 3 times and "spring away". Kind of powerful in that reguards. It doesn't make a huge change at lower levels other than having to move both ways which I thought it should be anyways. I just think now you can't get cheesy extra attacks. If you want to do your full attack bonus either take an AoO or be prepared for their damage back assuming you don't smite em first!

 

[drnuncheon]

I had just assumed that this was to prevent higher levels from making full attacks on the guy and being able to move without AoO's?

I attack 3 times and "spring away". Kind of powerful in that reguards.

If you full attack, then the only way you can move is by taking a 5' step, and 5' steps don't provoke AoOs. You don't even need the Spring Attack feat to do that.

J

 

[Iku Rex]

I never found this to be so. "Can" doesn't suggest "must" at all to me.

Certainly not. Unfortunately "moving in this way" (both before and after the attack) is what keeps you from suffering an AoO.

(And yes, I know the official 3.0 ruling was different. Looks like some of us have been vindicated in the old "that's not what the feat says!" debate(s). Unles they decided to "change" the feat, yet for some reason kept the relevant original wording unchanged, that is...)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What makes sense? The change in the feat? Someone's comment?

And why won't your bladesinger's Spring Attack work anymore?

The change in the feat makes sense IMO. It's like the changes to hide: some stuff that is critical for the way which a thing works, but before it was only flavour text, and tended to be ignored. Now they made it an actual ruling.

To my Bladesinger's Spring Attack (tm): I used that a couple of times with my bladesinger character (the campaign ended a couple of months ago in a glorious end fight and on level 30. It was my first 3e Character and was immensely fun, but 30th level is enough. But I digress..). It consisted of:

• Using a partial action (from haste) to move up to the enemy, using tumble to avoid AoOs.
• Using the normal allotment of actions to perform a full attack, to devastating effect (with song of fury and power attack)
• Using the free spell bladesingers get when making a full attack to cast a dimension door.

It was like a spring attack - move to the enemy without AoO (with tumble), attack, attack him, and move away without AoO (with the effectively quickened spell, with the bladesinger's ability to take 10 when casting defensively) - but it allowed a full attack.

But alas, haste doesn't grant extra actions any more (which is good IMO).

Anyway, now there's the Epic Eldritch Knight Spring Attack (tm):
Use a quickened teleport (or greater teleport, if you have spell slots that high or Automatic Quicken Spell often enough), make your full attack, and use a quickened dimension door (thanks to multispell). AFAIK the "real" teleport spells allow you to act after the teleportation, unlike Dimension Door.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think you are just holding onto the old spring attack mental images. It shouldn't take too long to imagine a quick dodge to the side of the enemy to pull their attention a strike, and then your quick retreat as being the spring attack of being up close. The new one, well, you move in strike and before he can get a good beed on you, you dodge 5' to the side. Seems fine and dandy to me.

You may be right. In fact, you're probably right. As I said, I'm not up in arms about the change. But at least for now, it seems unnecessary, and despite what some are saying here, never seemed like it was a "necessary part" of the maneuver.

And on top of that, now people who thought it was that way before feel somehow that they were proven right by the change, which I don't think is the case at all.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But alas, haste doesn't grant extra actions any more (which is good IMO).

That's another one I'm not sure about. The new Haste is practically worthless, IMO. But that's a different thread.

 

[Tellerve]

*smiles* yet another thing I think you've gotten too comfortable with Lord

In all honesty the first time you saw some 3.0 stuff you had to think to yourself, Wow, this is too good, and just smiled to yourself and hoped no one noticed your gleeful rubbing of your hands together as you planned your combats out. Of course everyone knew what was up, everyone was flying around battlefields hasted with tons of all day buffs on. And for those that still like that sure, keep playing. But I think the only reason I keep doing it was over several years of getting used to it. Getting 3.5 and seeing things toned down seems like a huge massive evil thing, but really it just peaked really high in 3.0 IMO.