PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Climbing Aboard Queries


Tr0users
2017-02-20, 08:26 PM
I have a question or two concerning the Giantbane feat Climb Aboard maneuver. Here's the Climb Aboard text:

"To use this maneuver, you must move adjacent to a foe at least two size categories larger than you. In the following round, you may make a DC 10 Climb check as a free action to clamber onto the creature's back or limbs (you move into one of the squares the creature occupies). The creature you're standing on takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls against you, because it can strike at you only awkwardly. If the creature moves during its action, you move along with it. The creature can try to shake you off by making a grapple check opposed by your Climb check. If the creature succeeds, you wind up in a random adjacent square."

My question concerns the initiation of the maneuver. It says you must move adjacent to your opponent (Turn 1), wait a round, and then you get the opportunity to make a climb check as a free action to climb aboard (Turn 2). The question is do I still need to be adjacent to my opponent at the beginning of Turn 2 in order to get my free climb action? Is the maneuver rendered useless if my foe keeps taking 5-foot steps away from me after I've initially moved adjacent to it, or can I use Turn 2 to move adjacent to it again and then use my climb action? The latter looks to me to be the case from the wording, but I want to make sure.
OldTrees1
2017-02-20, 08:36 PM
The latter is accurate. Nothing is specifying the beginning of a turn.
RocksInMyDryer
2017-02-20, 09:46 PM
It seems by RAW, you can climb your opponent as long as you ended your last turn adjacent to it, regardless of how far it's moved since then.

I would imagine that by RAI, you're supposed to simply be adjacent to your opponent at the start of your turn. If a GM rules that you need to begin your turn adjacent to the opponent, I would recommend buying an Anklet of Translocation and seeing if your GM will allow you to use your Swift action to get adjacent again.
Tr0users
2017-02-21, 04:12 AM
It seems by RAW, you can climb your opponent as long as you ended your last turn adjacent to it, regardless of how far it's moved since then.

I would imagine that by RAI, you're supposed to simply be adjacent to your opponent at the start of your turn. If a GM rules that you need to begin your turn adjacent to the opponent, I would recommend buying an Anklet of Translocation and seeing if your GM will allow you to use your Swift action to get adjacent again.

It seems possible to me that the writer didn't really have any particular intention as such, and the maneuver was published without consideration for the possibility that an enemy may move away from you between turns. The rule that you need to end your first turn adjacent to your opponent, but your relative positions have become irrelevant by the beginning of your second turn seems odd; but, having said that, the maneuver can be rendered prohibitively difficult to use if you rule that you have to remain adjacent throughout the round. You'd need something like Earth Devotion to create difficult terrain so that your opponent couldn't 5-foot step, and you'd need a build that can reliably trip a creature two size categories larger than it (or the Stand Still feat, I guess)... I can't believe that was the intention, either. Frankly, I think this is one of those 3.5 rules that somebody wrote whilst extremely tired.

But yes, I'll just cross my fingers that the GM is willing to be reasonable about it, otherwise I may just have to ditch the feat.
Mr Adventurer
2017-02-21, 04:33 AM
Does the feat also protect against thr AoO for leaving a threatened square? Something else to check.
Tr0users
2017-02-21, 08:50 AM
Does the feat also protect against thr AoO for leaving a threatened square? Something else to check.

It does not. Another oversight, possibly. It's not one that I'm so concerned about, personally, because I'm playing with a tank build with AC to burn, who positively encourages opponents to waste their AoO trying to hit him. But yes, potentially a problem. I guess you use tumble, or something.
Mr Adventurer
2017-02-21, 01:40 PM
It does not. Another oversight, possibly. It's not one that I'm so concerned about, personally, because I'm playing with a tank build with AC to burn, who positively encourages opponents to waste their AoO trying to hit him. But yes, potentially a problem. I guess you use tumble, or something.

Ideally, Elusive Target and Cause Overreach, but that's feat-intensive.