Universal Spring Attack: Has anyone tried this?

[Nebulous]

I would allow a character to spring attack, moving both before and after their attack (not exceeding the movement allowed by a single move action), but they would provoke all attacks of opportunity as normal and take a -4 penalty to the attack roll. The Improved Spring Attack feat (replacing the current non-Improved feat) would negate the -4 penalty as well as negating the attack of opportunity for the target of your attack.

Now THAT might work. Using the existing (and simple) rules to do it. I might run a few play tests to see how this pans out.

Well, I only have two questions. 1) Can I play in your campaign? 2) You do still allow Tumble right?

1) you could play, yes
2) i use Tumble, but it is Monte Cook's alternate. BAB + d20 sets the DC.

 

[ARandomGod]

2) i use Tumble, but it is Monte Cook's alternate. BAB + d20 sets the DC.

Ahh... so you DON'T actually use tumble. As BAB + D20 leaves the tumbling rouge wasting skill points on the ability in order to remain no better at tumbling against the fighter than he was at level one, while the fighter doesn't have to do ANYthing to gain this benifit.

Seriously, it's less cruel to ban the skill outright. At least it's more honest, anyhow.

 

[Thaniel]

Ahh... so you DON'T actually use tumble. As BAB + D20 leaves the tumbling rouge wasting skill points on the ability in order to remain no better at tumbling against the fighter than he was at level one, while the fighter doesn't have to do ANYthing to gain this benifit.

Seriously, it's less cruel to ban the skill outright. At least it's more honest, anyhow.

If you're a rogue worth your salt and don't have a Tumble check modifier higher than a comparably-leveled fighter's BAB, you need to rethink something, I think. All this does it remove the absoluteness of it, which IMHO is a good thing.

 

[Nebulous]

If you're a rogue worth your salt and don't have a Tumble check modifier higher than a comparably-leveled fighter's BAB, you need to rethink something, I think. All this does it remove the absoluteness of it, which IMHO is a good thing.

It is a good thing, i love that rule.

 

[ARandomGod]

If you're a rogue worth your salt and don't have a Tumble check modifier higher than a comparably-leveled fighter's BAB, you need to rethink something, I think. All this does it remove the absoluteness of it, which IMHO is a good thing.

Well, BAB + D20 as a DC modifier.

Rogues Tumble score would be Dex mod + (level + 3) + d20.

d20's cancel out. Level's cancel out. So the rogue would have a tumble ability of Dex Mod + 3 for any given level. Assume a dex mod of +4 for a rogue that's really concentrating on dex over intelligence (a bad rogue move in my opinion), or has spent some cash on dex improving items (a good move, of course) and it's a 35% chance of success, randomized by opposing d20 rolls.

So for the inordinately high cost of losing one skill point every level (four at first level), you have a static +35% chance of avoiding an AoO? That's extremely cost intensive, compared to the fighters cost, absolutely nothing.

Now, make it opposed tumble rolls, that I could see. Or the rule that adds a tumble result to AC*, that's a good compromise to remove absoluteness. But giving the fighter his BAB? For no investment whatsoever? That's just unfair IMO.


*Of course, this could also result in something nearly as unfair, in that the fighter is still getting as much better at hitting any given AC every level as the rogue is at tumbling. Potentially moreso as the fighter in that case isn't just getting BAB, but strength (or dex) mod added as well.

 

[Infiniti2000]

People sometimes rant about this being such a serious game-breaker, but remember you cannot double move and attack with Spring Attack. If you have 40' of movement, are 10 feet from an enemy and use Spring Attack to close and then withdraw, you can attack then move to 40' away. That's far enough that with only 30' of movement they can only attack you with a reach weapon, but what if they just charge? You would have to have a movement speed much higher than your opponent in order to Spring Attack and then withdraw outside of the range in which they can charge.

I'm not understanding this example. Can you break down how you can move forward and backwards and still end up 40ft away, with a Speed of 40?

 

[genshou]

I'm not understanding this example. Can you break down how you can move forward and backwards and still end up 40ft away, with a Speed of 40?

All right. You are 10 feet from the opponent, a distance of 2 squares. That means there is 1 empty square in between you and your target. You are within the range of a Medium-size reach weapon, or a creature with a 10' reach. You step forward 5 feet to be adjacent to your target, then 5 feet back to where you started, placing you at a distance of 10' once more. Using the remaining 30' of your movement, you increase that distance to 40'.

 

[smetzger]

I'm thinking about letting everyone, Pc's and monsters alike, have spring attack from the get-go. Move, attack, move again. How would this impact the game? AoO would still be used, so all that movement could get hairy. Fights would be much more fluid. Lots of movement on the board, minis would be pretty much mandatory (which is fine, i love minis). Has anyone else tried this and found it worked? Or not?

I think an Ogre with a longspear just got a whole lot dealier.

 

[genshou]

I think an Ogre with a longspear just got a whole lot dealier.

True, this would impact both natural and weapon-increased reach, as the attack of opportunity would be negated.

 

[iwatt]

Well, BAB + D20 as a DC modifier.

Rogues Tumble score would be Dex mod + (level + 3) + d20.

d20's cancel out. Level's cancel out. So the rogue would have a tumble ability of Dex Mod + 3 for any given level. Assume a dex mod of +4 for a rogue that's really concentrating on dex over intelligence (a bad rogue move in my opinion), or has spent some cash on dex improving items (a good move, of course) and it's a 35% chance of success, randomized by opposing d20 rolls.

So for the inordinately high cost of losing one skill point every level (four at first level), you have a static +35% chance of avoiding an AoO? That's extremely cost intensive, compared to the fighters cost, absolutely nothing.

Now, make it opposed tumble rolls, that I could see. Or the rule that adds a tumble result to AC*, that's a good compromise to remove absoluteness. But giving the fighter his BAB? For no investment whatsoever? That's just unfair IMO.


*Of course, this could also result in something nearly as unfair, in that the fighter is still getting as much better at hitting any given AC every level as the rogue is at tumbling. Potentially moreso as the fighter in that case isn't just getting BAB, but strength (or dex) mod added as well.

Actually, it isn't as simple as saying the d20 cancel out. Opposed roll mechanics produce a non-uniform probability distribution. The chance of succes depends on the differnce between the relevant modifiers.

If we base the example on a 16 dex rogue, he's oyutrstipping the fighter's check by 6 points.
He'll succees 77.25% of the time (since his higher modifier means he will win ties).

The chance of winning an opposed role is:

P(X)=100-.125*(20-X)*(19-X)

were X is the difference between relevant modifiers. The formula works as long as X>0

In actuality a rogue will have a 20 Dex at some point (+8). That will have him succeed 83.5% of the time.
against a fig