Close courter fighting - fair?

[lhilas]

This feat basically negates grappling altogether, can anyone explain to me how is it fair? :/
Sure grappling huge monsters can get annoying but still, an easy to take feat that basically gives you +10-30 on checks to resist grapple?! Not to mention the free aoo against anyone(even with improved grab etc)...

[Grod_The_Giant]

First, you only get one AoO, and a lot of things with Improved Grab have multiple attacks it'll work with. Secondly, grapple-monsters tend to have really high checks. Look at a Brown Bear. That's a CR 4 monster with a +16 to grapple checks. A level 4 melee type probably has more like a +8. A Purple Worm has +40 to grapple; I wouldn't be surprised if a level 12 character loses that check with a nat 20. Getting +10-20 on the check to resist will often only bring you close to parity.

(Plus, you invested a feat in resisting a somewhat situational offense; damn right it should be effective)

[Blue Jay]

This feat basically negates grappling altogether, can anyone explain to me how is it fair? :/
Sure grappling huge monsters can get annoying but still, an easy to take feat that basically gives you +10-30 on checks to resist grapple?! Not to mention the free aoo against anyone(even with improved grab etc)...

Immunities are one of the more annoying parts of the game, but sometimes they're necessary to reign in the runaway cheese, like diplomancy and unbeatable grapple stacking.

I played a half-dragon (red) salamander pyrokineticist once, and my DM made me face a one-on-one fight with a guy who was immune to fire damage. How was that fair? I mean, I still won the fight, because the DM was good at his job and took the immunity into account when he assigned the CR, but still...

Sometimes, it gets weird when one person is immune to someone else's immunity (like Close-Quarters Fighting), but I don't think it's problematic at all. I haven't done a lot of grapple builds: is this feat in any way useful for an actual grapple build? Or is it just good for DM's who are annoyed at uber-grappler PCs?

[lord_khaine]

As such the feat is not only fair, its almost mandatory for a melee char in a world with large grapplers. Size and strenght bonus stack so swiftly that without the feat a fighter would not stand a chance against a big monster in a grapple contest. And once your losing a grapple your options are extremely limited. Its either get insanely lucky, or else die unless you got some sort of magic trick.

[Elder_Basilisk]

It's as fair as a ring of freedom of movement. Or the freedom of movement spell.

Though I do remember being very proud when my halfling paladin monk mutt with cqf managed to beat a gargantuan fiendish shark on its improved grab. close quarters fighting made that a fair fight.

[Fizban]

Ever since I really took note of Close-Quarters Fighting, I've always found it funny when people complain about melee dying instantly to grapple. It turns out there's a feat for that- and in fact, there are feats to diminish a lot of otherwise scary monster attacks. Turns out when all you can think of is aggro, you don't have any defenses. You can't quite fit all the solid defensive feats onto one fighter build, but it only takes a few to put in dent in things.

[Rebel7284]

My preferred approach if I want to avoid monster grapples is to play a Half-Minotaur Goliath Psychic Warrior 7. Augmented expansion to grapple as a colossal creature. :P

[Eldariel]

Ever since I really took note of Close-Quarters Fighting, I've always found it funny when people complain about melee dying instantly to grapple. It turns out there's a feat for that- and in fact, there are feats to diminish a lot of otherwise scary monster attacks. Turns out when all you can think of is aggro, you don't have any defenses. You can't quite fit all the solid defensive feats onto one fighter build, but it only takes a few to put in dent in things.

The real question is why bother when you can just get swift action teleportation items. And you want freedom of movement for millions of reasons anyways and it incidentally fixes this too.

You have too few feats to invest in overtly specific defenses unless you expect to fight a lot of grapplers AND have an AoO build anyways AND can reasonably expect to hit them already. And even in that case you can generally solve the problem through other means. Surgical defense is much worse than surgical offense since offense places the burden of happening to have the right defense on your enemy while defense depends on enemy happening to use the attack you have a defense for.

Basically, the feat does its job reasonably (though a Purple Worm can still win the check and if it does, the feat does you little good) but taking it carries a very high opportunity cost. Most feats work against the whole "martial" class of enemies while this works vs. a small subset and thus comes into play much later. Thus it might never matter in a game.

[Fizban]

The real question is why bother when you can just get swift action teleportation items.
Because they're a broken self-fullfilling prophecy. If you consider swift action teleportation to be fair and reasonable for everyone to have, then tune your game so it's required to survive, it will indeed be required to survive and nothing that's less effective will ever be worth it. Because you made it that way. It's hilarious how one stupid item apparently holds the entire game hostage (and yes, I know there's technically two stupid items and a stupid ACF, like that actually matters).

And you want freedom of movement for millions of reasons anyways and it incidentally fixes this too.
And Close-Quarters Fighting can't be dispelled or suppressed, has no daily usage limits, the effectiveness improves as you improve, it deals damage while defending yourself, and is just generally more interesting than "lol i haz magic item."

You have too few feats to invest in overtly specific defenses unless you expect to fight a lot of grapplers AND have an AoO build anyways AND can reasonably expect to hit them already. And even in that case you can generally solve the problem through other means. Surgical defense is much worse than surgical offense since offense places the burden of happening to have the right defense on your enemy while defense depends on enemy happening to use the attack you have a defense for.
Right, if you're so focused on aggro that you consider spending a feat on defense a massive opportunity cost, then you have too few feats. Or possibly you're too focused on aggro. If your game doesn't require phrases like "surgical offense," the opportunity cost is probably not so high.

Most feats work against the whole "martial" class of enemies while this works vs. a small subset and thus comes into play much later. Thus it might never matter in a game.
The "it might never come up" defense.

[Eldariel]

Because they're a broken self-fullfilling prophecy. If you consider swift action teleportation to be fair and reasonable for everyone to have, then tune your game so it's required to survive, it will indeed be required to survive and nothing that's less effective will ever be worth it. Because you made it that way. It's hilarious how one stupid item apparently holds the entire game hostage (and yes, I know there's technically two stupid items and a stupid ACF, like that actually matters).

"I don't like them" is a poor argument.


And Close-Quarters Fighting can't be dispelled or suppressed, has no daily usage limits, the effectiveness improves as you improve, it deals damage while defending yourself, and is just generally more interesting than "lol i haz magic item."

How common is it that the thing that wants to grapple you also bothers to dispel your ****? And even if they do, they can probably do about a 100 other things than grapple so having Close-Quarter Fighting is likely to do jack **** anyways. And the dispelling itself is unreliable and of course doesn't permanently remove the item; and even the buff can just be recast. Dispels fail about or over 50% of the time while buffs succeed 100% of the time so continuous dispelling vs. single spell effects is a losing battle anyways - especially since defensive/non-combat CL scales much faster than combat CL due to short duration buffs. None of this really makes the feat any less of a poor investment. Even if you don't have Anklets or Chronocharm or whatever, there are plenty of low level spells that accomplish the same. It's a situational problem so you don't want to invest in a constantly active, unlimited use defense when that'll matter like once in a hundred sessions. It's a waste of resources when you could instead invest your permanent resources in stuff that helps you pretty much constantly or almost constantly instead and then go with consumable/duration based defenses for the rest of your problems.

The best way to solve situational problems is to have situational answers (Scrolls, low level irrelevant spells, etc.) that cost you as few character building resources as possible and burning a full feat on avoiding grapple while still being cold to any other combat maneuver is pretty silly. It's just poor decision-making in character creation. You should invest in broad defenses; Sidestep/Evasive Reflexes/Shifting Defense setups are fine since they're broadly applicable vs. martial and even some magical types, as is e.g. Roots of the Mountain due to the relatively low opportunity cost but Close-Quarter Fighting? Only in a very low level game.


Right, if you're so focused on aggro that you consider spending a feat on defense a massive opportunity cost, then you have too few feats. Or possibly you're too focused on aggro. If your game doesn't require phrases like "surgical offense," the opportunity cost is probably not so high.

Ah yes, the classic "if this doesn't apply to your game, you're playing wrong". It's doubly hilarious when in fact the fundamental concept applies to every single game ever except that one game where all your enemies are giant grappling monsters and magic items don't exist - so if you play d20 Kaiju, do invest in Close-Quarter Fighting. Opportunity cost matters in every single game - that's the very metric that determines the value of all the options. "You have too few bonus feats" is not an argument nor an excuse since any way of acquiring feats is an opportunity cost that loses you something else. Every class level used to grab feats is a class level not granting you class features (except Cleric dip) so the feats have to be enough better than the class features you gave up to be worth it. Thus you can't wiggle out of it; there's no way to pick highly specific defensive feats without giving up your prowess and utility vs. everything but the enemies it applies against. Feats that work vs. all martial types are generally fine; you'll face enough martial enemies to make them worth it but feats that apply against a small subset of martial enemies? Yeah, no.

Btw, the reason building sufficient offense is more important than focusing on your defense is that offense applies vs. almost every opponent. And if your offense as a martial type is insufficient against a particular opponent, you're basically useless. Defense always takes a backseat because there's a myriad of forms of offense in the game (attacks, touch attacks, area effects, will saves, fort saves, ref saves, combat maneuvers, movement restrictions, area restrictions, HD checks, HP checks, mind-affecting checks, you name it) and your defenses only apply a part of the time. Thus you get more mileage out of the offense bonuses and indeed, if enemy is dead they can't use their Nasty Attack You Can't Defend Against anyways - murder is the best defense. After you have sufficiently efficient and varied offense to be useful in most of the foreseeable circumstances, you invest in the broadest defenses in the most efficient manner possible. Close-Quarter Fighting is pretty deep down the list.

Its value goes further down in a party, even if you're playing a mook that can't do anything on its own, you probably have caster allies who can just Benign Transposition, Grease, Protective Interposition, or Whatever 1st Level Spell your way out of it. And if you yourself can prevent the enemy from closing in to biting range in the first place (e.g. Enlarge + Trip setup is pretty efficient), you don't often have to worry about grapple; and the few times you do, you probably have something in your bag of tricks.

[Fizban]

Ah yes, the classic "if this doesn't apply to your game, you're playing wrong".
Yes, it's hilarious how taking Close-Quarters fighting is wrong because it doesn't apply to how you play your game. For something you admitted "does it's job reasonably," you're putting in a lot of effort trying to prove anything else is better.

Btw, . . .
Lemme just stop you there. You seem to be operating under the impression I don't already know literally everything you're going to say. I do- I've heard every argument there is under the sun for why hyper-op is always perfect and right and good, and eventually I realized it's mostly bunk. Yeah, going first and winning in one turn is the "best" strategy in literally every game ever, tell me something I don't know. Do I go around telling people that they're wrong for playing anything that's not a stealth sniper in Fallout: New Vegas? No, I don't. I would point out that stealth sniping isn't very challenging and gets pretty samey after a while, and really you can beat the game with just about anything- so go ahead and take whatever perks you want.

After you have sufficiently efficient and varied offense to be useful in most of the foreseeable circumstances
That's the sticking point really, as always. How many resources does it take to have a sufficient offense? The real answer is: not that much. The much-vaunted ubercharger only takes three feats to reach more than sufficiently useful. The only reason you would need more offense than that, is because your group has decided to elevate the power level of the game. That's the self-fulfilling prophecy.


Even if you don't have Anklets or Chronocharm or whatever, there are plenty of low level spells that accomplish the same. It's a situational problem so you don't want to invest in a constantly active, unlimited use defense when that'll matter like once in a hundred sessions.
Considering many if not most games don't even reach 100 sessions, you are essentially saying that grapple monsters are never used. We could look at percentage of monsters, but you'd need entire monster manuals without grappling monsters, and I'm fairly certain each monster manual has several grappling monsters. There aren't any low level spells, or indeed any spells that give you back your AoO when a monster uses Improved Grab, so you can't match that, nor will they give the same bonus to resist.

But let's go back to costs. So your anti-grapple plan goes: use magic item, or have someone else cast a spell. CQF is bad because it doesn't work on everything all the time, but those do. What you're ignoring, as per usual, are the limits of those magic items and spells. If your Anklets of Translocation are the perfect solution to so many problems, why do you assume you'll always have charges when you need them? That's a pretty hot resource, sounds like something you should conserve. I thought casters were the perfect offense and their spells and actions were important, but I guess they don't have daily limits or priorities either.

Every time CQF triggers and keeps you out of a grapple, that's an anklet charge, spell, and/or action that you just gained, along with the attack. Now consider, here's a feat you can take that situationally gives you more of these relatively rare resources. That's a pretty good for only one feat at BAB +3, before most of the greedy feat lines start ramming into each other. You say it's only viable at very low levels, but I'm actually seeing it as getting better the higher level you are: if you want monsters with both improved grab and dispelling, that's where they'll show up, stress on your charged items increases, and having finished your feat combos your feats get more open.

The only question left is how often that situation will come up. And hey, the DMG even has something to say about this: "If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this." (DMG 48). There are three possibilities: tailored encounters only, a mix of both, or status quo only. In the first two, your situational abilities will matter, and in the third, it is the DM's fault if he doesn't tell you that your situational abilities may turn out useless.

"It might never come up" is not and has never been a valid complaint about any ability. But seriously, constantly getting pulled into the same fight over and over again is why I keep wandering off the forums, so let's wrap this up.

[Anthrowhale]

In an e6 campaign Close-Quarters Fighting seems like it might meet the opportunity-cost measurement. Freedom of Movement is off the table, magic item availability could easily vary with the campaign, and feats are relatively plentiful. It also might meet the opportunity-cost measurement for an AMF-based fighter in a high level / high magic campaign.

W.r.t. the OP, CQF seems mild compared to FoM. In compensation, it's at least available 4 levels earlier.

W.r.t. expending charges, if 4 encounters/day is typical, encountering < 1 grappling / 2 encounters makes the Anklets of Translocation fine. On a random encounters basis it seems plausible this is the norm although campaigns will vary.

[lord_khaine]

Another important point to considder is that there are countless useful things to use anklets of translocation for. And if you reserves it solely for getting out of a grapple then you risk spending days at a time not having any use from your moderatly pricy magical item.

But if you use it for all the great utility it can provide, then you risk being out of charges when something begins to grapple you in the 4rth or 5th encounter of the day.

[Deophaun]

I've wanted to use CQF, but by the time it makes sense to get I've generally found a better solution. However, if I took greater advantage of the retraining rules and grabbed CQF early instead of a pre-req, there could be a three-level window where it would be fine to have. Obviously it would have greater utility in an E6 game.

Another important point to considder is that there are countless useful things to use anklets of translocation for. And if you reserves it solely for getting out of a grapple then you risk spending days at a time not having any use from your moderatly pricy magical item.
AoT aren't moderately pricey. They're practically disposable. Buy two or three and swap them out as needed. Heck, you can even use the rules for magic item stacking to omit the need to change. You can possibly even just use the custom magic item guidelines to avoid the 50% upcharge.

Yeah, at low levels you can only afford one. But at the same time low level adventures do not require teleportation. Forgoing convenience now in favor of surviving something that may or may not happen is a more than fair trade.

[Eldariel]

Yes, it's hilarious how taking Close-Quarters fighting is wrong because it doesn't apply to how you play your game. For something you admitted "does it's job reasonably," you're putting in a lot of effort trying to prove anything else is better.

Just because it does a job reasonably doesn't mean it's a job you should be trying to do.


Lemme just stop you there. You seem to be operating under the impression I don't already know literally everything you're going to say. I do- I've heard every argument there is under the sun for why hyper-op is always perfect and right and good, and eventually I realized it's mostly bunk. Yeah, going first and winning in one turn is the "best" strategy in literally every game ever, tell me something I don't know. Do I go around telling people that they're wrong for playing anything that's not a stealth sniper in Fallout: New Vegas? No, I don't. I would point out that stealth sniping isn't very challenging and gets pretty samey after a while, and really you can beat the game with just about anything- so go ahead and take whatever perks you want.

Yeah, you think you know what I'm saying and refuse to understand the point. It's not about right or wrong, it's about opportunity costs.


That's the sticking point really, as always. How many resources does it take to have a sufficient offense? The real answer is: not that much. The much-vaunted ubercharger only takes three feats to reach more than sufficiently useful. The only reason you would need more offense than that, is because your group has decided to elevate the power level of the game. That's the self-fulfilling prophecy.

And what else can you do with those feats is the question. Ubercharger is a specific build pouring all its resources to improving damage (superimpractical) - what you're referring to is a plain "charger". Charger with just the feats is pretty weak all things considered; provokes AoOs, needs to get a hit in to damage an enemy, has to have a straight line to the enemy, doesn't cope with difficult terrain, has to be at least 10' away from the target, etc. You can use more feats to begin fixing those issues but again, that's going to drain more resources.


Considering many if not most games don't even reach 100 sessions, you are essentially saying that grapple monsters are never used. We could look at percentage of monsters, but you'd need entire monster manuals without grappling monsters, and I'm fairly certain each monster manual has several grappling monsters. There aren't any low level spells, or indeed any spells that give you back your AoO when a monster uses Improved Grab, so you can't match that, nor will they give the same bonus to resist.

But let's go back to costs. So your anti-grapple plan goes: use magic item, or have someone else cast a spell. CQF is bad because it doesn't work on everything all the time, but those do. What you're ignoring, as per usual, are the limits of those magic items and spells. If your Anklets of Translocation are the perfect solution to so many problems, why do you assume you'll always have charges when you need them? That's a pretty hot resource, sounds like something you should conserve. I thought casters were the perfect offense and their spells and actions were important, but I guess they don't have daily limits or priorities either.

Every time CQF triggers and keeps you out of a grapple, that's an anklet charge, spell, and/or action that you just gained, along with the attack. Now consider, here's a feat you can take that situationally gives you more of these relatively rare resources. That's a pretty good for only one feat at BAB +3, before most of the greedy feat lines start ramming into each other. You say it's only viable at very low levels, but I'm actually seeing it as getting better the higher level you are: if you want monsters with both improved grab and dispelling, that's where they'll show up, stress on your charged items increases, and having finished your feat combos your feats get more open.

Yes, and then you add up all those times and uses and how much you could've done with those instead, see if it's worth a feat and realise it's not.


The only question left is how often that situation will come up. And hey, the DMG even has something to say about this: "If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this." (DMG 48). There are three possibilities: tailored encounters only, a mix of both, or status quo only. In the first two, your situational abilities will matter, and in the third, it is the DM's fault if he doesn't tell you that your situational abilities may turn out useless.

"It might never come up" is not and has never been a valid complaint about any ability. But seriously, constantly getting pulled into the same fight over and over again is why I keep wandering off the forums, so let's wrap this up.

This is you just hating the DM. And it's the whole sticking point. The DM is a player just as much as the others and he shouldn't have to bend over backwards to cater to every feat you take. He should also be allowed to have fun and I don't know about you but designing the game around a player's whims. Imagine you took only situational feats; suddenly DM would have to be designing every encounter with you in mind. That's going to restrict the DM's ability to cater to the story and indeed, to the rest of the party.

The DM is already the guy working the hardest and she has more than enough to deal with without players placing extra requirements for him. Players and the DM should work together to make the game work, keep everyone around the same power level, make sure everyone is relevant and that the game is generally enjoyable to all participants. If the DM tells you the campaign will feature a lot of grapple monsters, sure, knock yourself out. But the DM is under no obligation to start including those or to add those to the game when you take a feat that's geared against them.

[Psyren]

Generally you don't have to worry about dispels and grappling from the same enemy in this game, so I'd say the ring should be fine.

Don't get me wrong, (like Fizban) I do like this feat - the problem is that it falls into what I consider "excessive feats" - feats that let you do something that should just be baseline to the system. The rule that if you damage something trying to grapple you, they take a penalty on their check, should not be gated behind a feat. This is after all how lots of animals (like porcupines and hedgehogs) work, and they don't need this feat.

The feat should simply let you get an AoO every time something tries to grab you, even if they have Improved Grapple. I think that function alone would be worth a feat. But if you don't have it, you should still be able to keep something from grappling you with enough pain provided you can damage them some other way. For example, if you ready an action or have a reactive spell like Fire Shield on, those should both let you penalize their grapple check whether you have this feat or not.

Yeah, punching someone in the jaw to avoid a grapple is more interesting than simply slipping out of it via magic, but there are just too many other feats in this game that would take precedence over this one.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Don't get me wrong, (like Fizban) I do like this feat - the problem is that it falls into what I consider "excessive feats" - feats that let you do something that should just be baseline to the system....
Yeah, punching someone in the jaw to avoid a grapple is more interesting than simply slipping out of it via magic, but there are just too many other feats in this game that would take precedence over this one.
This, basically. It's a solid way to avoid a situational form of attack, but the opportunity cost of taking it is reasonably high (no one ever has enough feats in this damn game), and there are cheaper alternatives. If you DM really likes grapple monsters, it gets better. If they don't, it gets worse.

[Elder_Basilisk]

So, optimization wise, why take close quarters fighting rather than rely on spells and anklets, etc.

1. Item slot competition. Anklets compete with boots of speed and skirmisher's boots which are probably the best footwear in the game for martials who want to focus on what they do best.

2. Possible inadequacy. Most monsters with improved grab have it on multiple attacks per round. The anklet gets you out of grapple free once. If they grapple you next round you are SOL and the 12 other anklets in your backpack won't help you.

Ditto if you used the anklet to bypass some undead and get to the necromancer last encounter. Below level 9 or so, multiple anklets are still a significant opportunity cost. (and when the cost of multiple anklets ceases to be significant, boots of speed are in the mix as noteworthy competition).

3. Freedom of movement is a limited resource. The cleric probably only packs one and in many scenarios it will either not be pre-cast, will have been cast on someone else, or will have been dispelled in previous encounter. Even at mid-high levels, rings of freedom of movement are expensive and some characters might prefer to take their weapon from +2 to +5 instead.

Anklets as anti-grapple solutions are really best for spell casters who don't have competition from boots of speed and who are probably only in range of the grapple monster due to an accident or tactical mistake and can afford to stay out of range once their get out of grapple free card is expended. Close quarters fighting is not mandatory for fighter types, but it is a solid choice that mitigates a very common risk.

(How common, you ask? My Red Hand of Doom game is Pathfinder and has a little bit of adaptation, but regular repeated grapple checks probably feature in about 40% of the encounters so far and all told it will probably be at least 25%. (Chapter 1 lots of random encounters had it, chapter 2, several encounters had it, chapter 3, nearly everything had it. Its going to calm down a bit in chapter 4 and 5 but there are still several encounters where it is going to come up).

[Eldariel]

So, optimization wise, why take close quarters fighting rather than rely on spells and anklets, etc.

1. Item slot competition. Anklets compete with boots of speed and skirmisher's boots which are probably the best footwear in the game for martials who want to focus on what they do best.

There are the DMG rules for combining magic items though; getting Boots of Speed with Anklets tacked on is pretty cheap.


2. Possible inadequacy. Most monsters with improved grab have it on multiple attacks per round. The anklet gets you out of grapple free once. If they grapple you next round you are SOL and the 12 other anklets in your backpack won't help you.

Multiple attacks per round actually screws over Close-Quarter Fighting unless you have enough AoOs for all of them. But be that as it may, yeah, it's possible that you get grappled multiple times and run out of charges but generally once you get out you should be able to plan for it and take actions that make it less likely. Like disabling the opponent (SoX, trip, etc.) or killing it or trading the tank.


Ditto if you used the anklet to bypass some undead and get to the necromancer last encounter. Below level 9 or so, multiple anklets are still a significant opportunity cost. (and when the cost of multiple anklets ceases to be significant, boots of speed are in the mix as noteworthy competition).

True - generally you can use one for general utility and save one for emergency and if you happen to need it for a third time early on, then you can chalk it up to luck and hope your teammates bail you out. Still, it's not like the feat you took instead is doing nothing (hopefully) - optimally it should come in more often than CQF.


3. Freedom of movement is a limited resource. The cleric probably only packs one and in many scenarios it will either not be pre-cast, will have been cast on someone else, or will have been dispelled in previous encounter. Even at mid-high levels, rings of freedom of movement are expensive and some characters might prefer to take their weapon from +2 to +5 instead.

Anklets as anti-grapple solutions are really best for spell casters who don't have competition from boots of speed and who are probably only in range of the grapple monster due to an accident or tactical mistake and can afford to stay out of range once their get out of grapple free card is expended. Close quarters fighting is not mandatory for fighter types, but it is a solid choice that mitigates a very common risk.

I mean, Ring of FoM is expensive but definitely worth it for other reasons too (though yes, there's competition - but sweeping immunities are "Yes, please"-level far as utility goes). And while the Cleric only has so many, arcanists have their own in Heart of Water and Travel domain grants the power for a usually sufficient number of rounds per day too and there are other, short duration means to come by it when need be (few listed here for instance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items)). But yeah, it's limited but certainly worth it and it incidentally solving grapple makes grapple that much less a problem on those levels.

[Elder_Basilisk]

There are the DMG rules for combining magic items though; getting Boots of Speed with Anklets tacked on is pretty cheap.

A lot of people don't use custom items at all , but while custom boot +anklets would be great for lots of reasons (and far more manly than wearing anklets for adventurers who care about such things), it does exacerbate the charge problem. Once they're combined with boots of speed, you can't have five more in your backpack.


Multiple attacks per round actually screws over Close-Quarter Fighting unless you have enough AoOs for all of them. But be that as it may, yeah, it's possible that you get grappled multiple times and run out of charges but generally once you get out you should be able to plan for it and take actions that make it less likely. Like disabling the opponent (SoX, trip, etc.) or killing it or trading the tank.

Well, multiple attacks per round is a weakness of caffeine without combat reflexes, but multiple attacks per round is not necessarily what I'm talking about. It's more continuous attacks through a combat which can be expected from a lot of monsters from raiments, to brown bears, shambling mounds, assassin vines, tendriculos, bonedrinkers, lions, crocodiles, t-rexes, monks, spiked devils, bar lgura, and most anything with monk levels. Now some of those have multiple attacks too which limits cqf without combat reflexes (though the opportunity attack does go a long way toward applying the dead dire bears don't grapple until animated condition) but in all cases, once you escape the grapple they're probably going to try again next round... Unless you have cqf in which case, they may decide that it hurts too much and not try again.



True - generally you can use one for general utility and save one for emergency and if you happen to need it for a third time early on, then you can chalk it up to luck and hope your teammates bail you out. Still, it's not like the feat you took instead is doing nothing (hopefully) - optimally it should come in more often than CQF.

That's why it's not a standard feat but it is still good and does have a place. Really, while everyone has room for more feats, there are not so many good feats that there is always something better. Unless you are chaining four style feats together, you probably have room somewhere if you want it.


I mean, Ring of FoM is expensive but definitely worth it for other reasons too (though yes, there's competition - but sweeping immunities are "Yes, please"-level far as utility goes). And while the Cleric only has so many, arcanists have their own in Heart of Water and Travel domain grants the power for a usually sufficient number of rounds per day too and there are other, short duration means to come by it when need be (few listed here for instance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items)). But yeah, it's limited but certainly worth it and it incidentally solving grapple makes grapple that much less a problem on those levels.

Don't get me wrong, FoM is standard equipment for high level play but there are serious opportunity costs before level 15 or so. Level 3 to 15 is a lot of space for CQF to have its place. And even after that it still has some place because everyone has the ring and targeted chain dispels and antimagic are likely to be in play if any creature is making a serious play at using grappling against you.

[Deophaun]

A lot of people don't use custom items at all
We aren't talking about custom items. We're talking about combining items. The first is informed by guidelines on pages 282-283 of the DMG. The second are rules on page 288 of the DMG, updated on pages 233-234 of the MIC. You only need custom item guidelines if you want to add more charges to the anklets, as opposed to putting multiple anklets on top of each other. The outcome of both is the same, but one is much cheaper if you strictly abide by the chart in the DMG.

[Elder_Basilisk]

We aren't talking about custom items. We're talking about combining items. The first is informed by guidelines on pages 282-283 of the DMG. The second are rules on page 288 of the DMG, updated on pages 233-234 of the MIC. You only need custom item guidelines if you want to add more charges to the anklets, as opposed to putting multiple anklets on top of each other. The outcome of both is the same, but one is much cheaper if you strictly abide by the chart in the DMG.

Sure. But again, a lit of DMs don't allow combining items either. Heck, a lot of DMs don't allow the backpack full of once or twice per day magic item compendium items either (using attunement rules or something similar). There are a lot of campaigns that simply don't allow such things and we're not talking core only or "these three books" campaigns either. There's a very wide range of rule availability in campaigns and player designed custom (or combined) items of any kind are at the far anything goes side of the spectrum. Just allowing close quarters fighting is obviously not on the core only far restrictive side of the spectrum but it's much more likely to be an option.

[Deophaun]

Sure. But again, a lit of DMs don't allow combining items either.
This is why I only play with DMs that are burned out.

[Big Fau]

Sure. But again, a lit of DMs don't allow combining items either. Heck, a lot of DMs don't allow the backpack full of once or twice per day magic item compendium items either (using attunement rules or something similar). There are a lot of campaigns that simply don't allow such things and we're not talking core only or "these three books" campaigns either. There's a very wide range of rule availability in campaigns and player designed custom (or combined) items of any kind are at the far anything goes side of the spectrum. Just allowing close quarters fighting is obviously not on the core only far restrictive side of the spectrum but it's much more likely to be an option.

And a lot of DMs don't use grappling rules because the rules for it are seriously more complicated than they need to be.


It doesn't need to be a custom or even a combined item. A Wand Chamber (Dungeonscape) can be attached to any weapon, and allows you to store one of several Teleportation effects (Dimension Door, Dimension Hop, etc) in a gauntlet. There are practical methods to escaping a grapple that don't involve burning a feat slot.

Eldariel's main point, from what I've gathered, is that the opportunity cost of a feat is significantly steeper than the cost of a magic item. When building a character it's important to view feat slots, skill points, etc as an opportunity cost. For example, GP is cheaper than level dips is cheaper than Feats.

[Psyren]

IIRC, combining items requires GM approval just like custom items do. Basically, if there isn't an entry for it in a book somewhere, you have to ask if making it is possible. The guidelines given are just that, guidelines, and there are cases where combining two items can create a whole that is greater (and should be priced higher) than the sum of its parts would indicate.

Note that I'm not personally against the specific idea of merging anklets and boots, but a GM who is, isn't necessarily a capricious tyrant either.

[Anthrowhale]

IIRC, combining items requires GM approval just like custom items do. Basically, if there isn't an entry for it in a book somewhere, you have to ask if making it is possible. The guidelines given are just that, guidelines, and there are cases where combining two items can create a whole that is greater (and should be priced higher) than the sum of its parts would indicate.

Note that I'm not personally against the specific idea of merging anklets and boots, but a GM who is, isn't necessarily a capricious tyrant either.

The rules for adding new abilities to items are here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities). These are explicitly rules, not guidelines:
A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. I'm sure some DMs ignore the rules, but that's just common all over.

[Psyren]

The rules for adding new abilities to items are here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities). These are explicitly rules, not guidelines: I'm sure some DMs ignore the rules, but that's just common all over.

If you're going to quote, quote the whole thing:


The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword.

You need to know the cost of the final product to make it. If the final product doesn't have a listed cost, it's up to your GM to make one. This is covered here:


Magic Item Gold Piece Values

Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item that is already priced that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Price Values.

Now, show me the page reference containing the cost for "Anklet Boots of Speedy Translocation." I'll wait.

[Deophaun]

If you're going to quote, quote the whole thing:
That's good advice:

A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.