(PF) The Stand Still Feat.

[CardCaptor]

I love the stand still feat in 3.5, and a lot of my builds make us of it, but now I'm switching over to Pathfinder, and I'm honestly not sure if the feat, and concept of keeping enemies on the spot, is worth it. I've heard more than one horror stories involving CMDs in PF, and since there's no feat to improve the CMB bonus to this action, is it still worth taking?

[Segev]

There aren't such feats in 3.5, either, so I'm not sure what your concern is. You do explicitly apply any bonus to your attack roll that would apply to the weapon you're using in a normal attack to the CMB. The easiest ways to bump the CMB up for this maneuver, then, are to bolster your Str and do get bonuses to hit with your weapon. Weapon Focus, Greater Magic Weapon, etc. will help.

Enlarge Person will also help, getting you at least a +1 to the roll.

[CardCaptor]

There aren't such feats in 3.5, either, so I'm not sure what your concern is. You do explicitly apply any bonus to your attack roll that would apply to the weapon you're using in a normal attack to the CMB. The easiest ways to bump the CMB up for this maneuver, then, are to bolster your Str and do get bonuses to hit with your weapon. Weapon Focus, Greater Magic Weapon, etc. will help.

Enlarge Person will also help, getting you at least a +1 to the roll.

The stand still feat works quite differently in 3.5 than in PF, though.


Benefit
When a foe’s movement out of a square you threaten grants you an attack of opportunity, you can give up that attack and instead attempt to stop your foe in his tracks. Make your attack of opportunity normally. If you hit your foe, he must succeed on a Reflex save against a DC of 10 + your damage roll (the opponent does not actually take damage), or immediately halt as if he had used up his move actions for the round.

Since you use the Stand Still feat in place of your attack of opportunity, you can do so only a number of times per round equal to the number of times per round you could make an attack of opportunity (normally just one).

versus the PF version


Benefit: When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an attack of opportunity.

This works quite differently, mechanically speaking, which is why I ask the question.

[supermonkeyjoe]

Relevant CMB rules:


When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

So anything that gives you a bonus to hit with your current weapon applies to the CMB and therefore the stand still attempt, weapon focus, enlarge person, weapon enchantments etc. all add to the CMB making it very possible to perform.

[Keneth]

You shouldn't believe all those horror stories.

[Segev]

Okay.

So the differences are, if I'm reading this correctly:

PF's version doesn't let you do damage; 3.5's does
PF's version works if you "hit;" 3.5's version requires you to hit and then use the damage dealt to set a Ref DC
PF's version's "attack roll" uses combat maneuver rules; 3.5's uses a normal basic attack
PF's version only works if your foe is moving through or out of an adjacent square; 3.5's version worked if they were doing so with a threatened square

So, now, with this feat, you're giving up damage if you choose to use it, and you're going against his CMD rather than his AC. It just plain works, if you hit, rather than requiring that you do enough damage to make the Ref DC too high for the target to beat. But it only works on adjacent squares.

Honestly, with the exception that Combat Reflexes is a better prerequisite feat for this particular setup than is Combat Expertise...I think you're better off with Improved Trip.

Improved Trip will give you a +2 bonus to your CMB and can be used on any AoO you like, not just those provoked in squares adjacent to you. And once prone, he can't get up without a move action, so he's still stopped.

[Karnith]

PF's version doesn't let you do damage; 3.5's does
Actually, neither lets you deal damage. Per the 3.5 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill):
When a foe’s movement out of a square you threaten grants you an attack of opportunity, you can give up that attack and instead attempt to stop your foe in his tracks. Make your attack of opportunity normally. If you hit your foe, he must succeed on a Reflex save against a DC of 10 + your damage roll (the opponent does not actually take damage), or immediately halt as if he had used up his move actions for the round.(Emphasis mine)

[Segev]

Eesh. In that case, yeah, Improved Trip is better in both systems (and significantly better in 3.5, where Improved Trip nets you a bonus attack that can do damage).

[Greenish]

Eesh. In that case, yeah, Improved Trip is better in both systems (and significantly better in 3.5, where Improved Trip nets you a bonus attack that can do damage).The benefit of 3.5's Stand Still is that tripping monsters gets pretty difficult when said monsters are larger and stronger than you, whilst the damage of your attack tends to scale faster than the Ref save of such monsters.

[Gwendol]

Yup. Tripping something really big and strong can be quite the challenge, while the ref save DC will typically still be hard for the monster to pass no matter what. Stand Still FTW!

[Person_Man]

I could go into a really long comparison of 3.5 math vs. Pathfinder math given various scenarios, and I've done so in the past. But here is the short version on the difference between 3.5 Special Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm) and Pathfinder Combat Maneuvers (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_combat-maneuvers):

1) 3.5 Special Attacks typically have 2 rolls (assuming that you're not subject to the attack of opportunity from your target). A touch attack, and then an opposed check. The touch attack is generally easy (unless you're trying to attack someone with very high Dex, certain magical or psionic protections, etc). The probability of success for the opposed check can vary widely. If you optimized your effective size (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7081777) and the specific type of Special Attack that you want to succeed in, then it's also generally easy. But if you don't optimize it, then it can be quite hard to succeed, which makes Special Attacks an "all or nothing" proposition in most cases.

2) Pathfinder Combat Maneuvers typically have 1 roll. The terminology and poor description tends to obscure the fact that the math is mostly just a normal melee attack roll, which is opposed more or less by your enemy's average attack roll outcome (instead of rolling, he adds 10 to his normal attack roll modifiers). In addition, Grapple is a Standard Action,

The big differences are that Size is much less important in Pathfinder (+1 as opposed to +4 per size category) and that it's harder to optimize any specific roll so that you have a huge modifier, for a variety of reasons. Which is not to say that the math is terrible in Pathfinder. It's just not the mostly automatic success that it was in 3.5.

Pathfinder also has a harder time "triggering" some Combat Maneuvers, as there isn't an equivalent of Knock-Down, Knockback, or Scorpion's Grasp in the game. Though you're supposed to be able to import 3.5 material into PF, so it can be a moot issue. And Grapple is a Standard Action, which means that you're usually only getting one Grapple per turn (and not one per attack action, as in 3.5), which makes it a trap option unless you have Scorpion's Grasp or some other triggering mechanism.


Since Standstill is a Combat Maneuver in Pathfinder, I would just skip it. The benefit of Stand Still in 3.5 was that it was dirt simple to trigger and almost always succeeded against all enemies. In PF, it's no more likely to succeed then a Trip attempt. So there's no reason to take it.

[Frosty]

Since you probably Stand Still against Mages, who usually have piss poor CMD, it's not that hard to succeed against usually.

[Prime32]

Since Standstill is a Combat Maneuver in Pathfinder, I would just skip it. The benefit of Stand Still in 3.5 was that it was dirt simple to trigger and almost always succeeded against all enemies. In PF, it's no more likely to succeed then a Trip attempt. So there's no reason to take it.IIRC Pathfinder takes the word "Trip" more literally, only allowing it against enemies who have legs and are using them to support themselves (and bonuses for multiple legs stack). I.e. You can never trip flying creatures or snakes, and tripping spiders is insanely difficult.

[Person_Man]

IIRC Pathfinder takes the word "Trip" more literally, only allowing it against enemies who have legs and are using them to support themselves (and bonuses for multiple legs stack). I.e. You can never trip flying creatures or snakes, and tripping spiders is insanely difficult.

That's true. So I guess there is some small subset of enemies that you can use Stand Still against that you can't Trip. But against 80%ish of enemies, Trip would be far more effective, since they have to stand up, and you have the possibility of a follow up attack with Greater Trip.

[Jormengand]

against 80%ish of enemies

You mean, there are wizards who aren't constantly flying by about 7-8th level?

[Gwendol]

IIRC Pathfinder takes the word "Trip" more literally, only allowing it against enemies who have legs and are using them to support themselves (and bonuses for multiple legs stack). I.e. You can never trip flying creatures or snakes, and tripping spiders is insanely difficult.

Can you trip a snake in 3.5? I thought the same limitations were in play.

There's a skip williams article on the wizards webpage about tripping. Part 2 discusses what kind of creatures can be tripped.

[Greenish]

Can you trip a snake in 3.5? I thought the same limitations were in play.Nothing suggests you couldn't, though they probably fall under "otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid".

I imagine you'd flip the snake upside down to render it "prone".

[StreamOfTheSky]

PF stand still is horrible, and a cruel mockery of 3E's feat.

The important changes are that:
1) monster reflex save vs. your damage dealt has MUCH better (for you) odds than your CMB vs. enemy CMD
2) PF's version doesn't work with reach weapons or even long natural reach! It's adjacent only! The whole BUILDING BLOCK of a lockdown build is to actually have a sizeable area to lockdown!

Unfortunately, tripping is a poor substitute in either system. Many monsters simply cannot be tripped, especially in PF, which keeps 3E's unfortunate "max one size larger" rule and adds an even dumber one that auto-exempts ANY creature with flight from being tripped at all and removes the 3E cap of +4 bonus for extra legs.

[navar100]

You mean, there are wizards who aren't constantly flying by about 7-8th level?

Flabbergasted as you must be, not every wizard everywhere has Fly every time all the time.