Remove the five foot step


Advice

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So, I recently came across a GM saying that in his (admittedly limited) experience it is virtually impossible to disengage in combat once engaged and as there are already rules for casting in melee, he sees no need for the 5' step rule.

Now I have played for some time with the 5'step rule in place and was a bit flabbergasted when I saw this proposal. I'm really not sure what to make of it, so I thought I'd throw it open to the wider community. Is this ruling true to life? is it a good idea? what difference would it make if implemented?

The main reason I ask is that I was considering asking to join his group (he's local, and theres not a lot else going on around here) and I'm wondering if I should try to change his mind, avoid him or live with it?

Scarab Sages

If it's a home game, the GM can use or modify rules as he wants. If it's PFS then he should play it RAW.

Scarab Sages

8 people marked this as a favorite.

i wouldn't put much stock in your ability to change his mind. But if you want to try go ahead. Id personally avoid him, as anyone who wants to change some basic combat rules based on limited 'experience' is probably not going to stop with the 5ft step rule.


Its a big change, sort of. It makes it harder for casters, and archers to survive in melee; basically giving everyone the Step-Up feat.

It makes reach weapons borderline useless.


Gavmania wrote:
So, I recently came across a GM saying that in his (admittedly limited) experience it is virtually impossible to disengage in combat once engaged

Withdraw combat action says hi.

Gavmania wrote:
... there are already rules for casting in melee ...

There are. You have to Cast on the Defensive, which involves a chance to lose your spell, or else you provoke an AoO and risk losing the spell if hit. With a 5' step, you will usually* have 100% chance to cast the spell, without risking an AoO.

Gavmania wrote:
he sees no need for the 5' step rule.

It's a fairly significant part of the tactical combat in Pathfinder. It's often used for things like moving out of a flanked position, or moving into flanking, even for melee. As Knight Magenta pointed out, it especially affects casters, archers, and reach weapon users.

Gavmania wrote:
The main reason I ask is that I was considering asking to join his group (he's local, and theres not a lot else going on around here) and I'm wondering if I should try to change his mind, avoid him or live with it?

My guess is this is one of many houserules he runs with (many of which he may not be aware of). I'd personally try to find out what they are, then give it a shot for a few sessions. If you're not having fun, politely drop the group.

*assuming you


HavokReigns wrote:
If it's a home game, the GM can use or modify rules as he wants. If it's PFS then he should play it RAW.

Its not PFS. He specifically states that he had just discovered the rule and couldn't see the need for it, so he was going to discard it. Personally, when I am trying out a new system I would think twice about discarding a rule I had just discovered and I certainly I would look online to see if there is any advice about the rule, asking questions if need be. It speaks volumes that he does not appear to do this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd avoid him like the plague. Anyone that has limited experience, but still makes significant changes is not a good sign for the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone with a sneak attack is going to hate this. At our table, you'll see the rogue and another character work together to setup the sneak attack with simple 5' moves. Without those, getting a full attack sneak attack in will be basically impossible and it's hard enough as it is.


5ft Steps are an important part of the tactical aspect of combat. It will devalue basically every combat style that isn't non-reach melee weapons.

Why?

Reach weapon user vs non-reach melee -> Non-reach melee moves to target and tanks 1 hit. Now the reach weapon user can't attack with their (probably) main weapon. Normally they'd 5ft step away and make a full attack. With his change they would have to move 5ft as a move action, preventing them from a full attack, and then be able to make only 1 attack.

The single biggest effect would be that melee of all kinds can no longer 5ft step and full attack.

The trend is basically the same for everyone else, except while reach weapon users and will sit and trade attacks 1 for 1 against the aggressor everyone else will just start double moving and running away to avoid being full attacked. You'll have longer drawn out battles. Archers wont get to full attack (unless mounted) because firing in melee provokes, as would moving trying to get out of melee.

Spell casters probably have it the easiest as they will invest in mirror image, blur, etc and worse case tank a single AoO and move away and cast their spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group uses 5ft steps all the time. One of the most used rules, along with Perception checks and attack rolls.

And I sadly have to +1 all the recommendations to avoid him. Since he's making house-rules with knee-jerk reactions... That's not a good sign. I've played with DMs like that and I can say that I'd rather not play at all than doing that again.


Maybe I am misreading what the poster says, but I think in that first sentence the GM is saying, in his limited experience in real world combat it is virtually impossible to disengage once in melee.

If that is true, I can see his point. Once your engaged, its pretty difficult to get back out of melee, Hollywood swashbuckling to the contrary. If the GM is going for a more real world approach, I can see this rule being dropped. A lone pikeman or archer that gets into weapons range of a swordsman/axeman is fairly screwed.

But in a world of giant sized opponents with reach its going to make it tough for the players. Might be a challenging but fun game if he is a good GM.

On a personal note, I absolutely loath the point blank master feat and the one that allows them to threaten and threaten within 10 feet. Aren't archer powerful enough already being able to get up to 2 additional attacks (rapid shot+multishot), increase the damage per shot (deadly aim), and stack the damage on the shot to minimize the effects of DR (clustered shot) usually at 110 feet being short range while being able to add their strength adjustment? Provoking an attack of opportunity if you are forced to fire while in melee is one of the few weaknesses of archers. Being able to gain attacks of opportunity makes the builds even more broken. And those bracers of falcon's aim just make it worse.

Scarab Sages

Joey Cote wrote:

Maybe I am misreading what the poster says, but I think in that first sentence the GM is saying, in his limited experience in real world combat it is virtually impossible to disengage once in melee.

If that is true, I can see his point. Once your engaged, its pretty difficult to get back out of melee, Hollywood swashbuckling to the contrary. If the GM is going for a more real world approach, I can see this rule being dropped. A lone pikeman or archer that gets into weapons range of a swordsman/axeman is fairly screwed.

Actually, It's ludicrously easy to disengage in real-world melee combat. Just back away two steps and you're out of reach. You just need to keep your attention on your opponent so you can still block/avoid any attacks they might make as you withdraw.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Joey Cote wrote:

Maybe I am misreading what the poster says, but I think in that first sentence the GM is saying, in his limited experience in real world combat it is virtually impossible to disengage once in melee.

If that is true, I can see his point. Once your engaged, its pretty difficult to get back out of melee, Hollywood swashbuckling to the contrary. If the GM is going for a more real world approach, I can see this rule being dropped. A lone pikeman or archer that gets into weapons range of a swordsman/axeman is fairly screwed.

Actually, It's ludicrously easy to disengage in real-world melee combat. Just back away two steps and you're out of reach. You just need to keep your attention on your opponent so you can still block/avoid any attacks they might make as you withdraw.

Right. In a real fight sometimes 4 inches is enough to be in a safe zone slightly outside their reach. a 5 foot step is like a shuffle or a stepping pattern done to disengage, re-establish distance, or change the direction/line.

I'd avoid a Noob GM who has very little experience and wants to change basic rules cause of what he thinks. I'd hate to see him come across stuff later and bring out a ban hammer out of inexperience. This is why the community is plagued with people who think basic things like a 2 handed weapon+ power attack is Over powered.

Avoid this DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, Rogues are so strong that they need the nerf to make it even harder to get into flanking position for Sneak Attacks....


The 5-foot step can be interpreted as footwork during combat. You can pay full attention to your foe, trade blows and still move a bit, into a more favorable position - nothing unrealistic about that.

On the other hand, to some extent it can be replaced by moving with Acrobatics. Yes, it needs a move action (no full attacks, but still normal spells) and a good check result (more rolling, slowing down the game), but at least you can move further with it.

Overall, I'd absolutely stick with it.

Grand Lodge

Have you watched boxing? Slowly circling each other? That's all they're doing is "taking a 5' step".


The 5' step is a fundamental mechanic baked deeply into the 3.x combat system. Taking it out has profound consequences that will undermine a lot of assumptions about 3.x/PF tactical combat.

-It is the only reliable way to prevent AoOs
-It allows for movement before/in the middle of/after full attack actions
-It allows for positioning without using a move action which is key for rogues, those trying to corral opponents, or for multiple other tactical scenarios
-Casters become very vulnerable without it. The rules you refer to (casting defensively) are there for a reason but if engaged casters have no other options, their power is significantly reduced.

With the limited info at hand, it seems to me that the mechanic your friend has a problem with is the Attack of Opportunity, not the 5' step.

Furthermore I wholly reject the notion that "it is virtually impossible to disengage in combat once engaged." That is simply untrue. There is an action called "withdraw" to avoid the AoO for moving away.

D&D 5e has a much more simplified "Opportunity Attack" mechanic. Maybe your friend should try out 5e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

2nd comment -

I see a lot of folks above saying to "avoid" him or to stop playing with him.

I don't know the guy so I can only speculate, but that seems a little harsh considering he's basically a noob. He (admittedly, foolishly) made a rash call by throwing out a core mechanic of Pathfinder. This can be chalked up to his inexperience, which isn't necessarily an indication that his judgment is forever tainted.

Explain his error in judgment. Talk him through how you can't just remove one of the pistons from the engine and expect the car to run smoothly. If he obtusely refuses to listen to reason, then yeah, don't play with the guy anymore.

Vigilant Seal

Sounds like someone was playing 5e or modified 4e D&D.

the 5ft step is pivotal to combat in melee. most if not all of the grid combat was build around this concept, so any changes to it would be hard to gauge.

basically going to echo everyone else and just tell you that this person has no idea what they are talking about and should be avoided.

Vigilant Seal

Zedth wrote:

2nd comment -

I see a lot of folks above saying to "avoid" him or to stop playing with him.

I don't know the guy so I can only speculate, but that seems a little harsh considering he's basically a noob. He (admittedly, foolishly) made a rash call by throwing out a core mechanic of Pathfinder. This can be chalked up to his inexperience, which isn't necessarily an indication that his judgment is forever tainted.

Explain his error in judgment. Talk him through how you can't just remove one of the pistons from the engine and expect the car to run smoothly. If he obtusely refuses to listen to reason, then yeah, don't play with the guy anymore.

Sorry for double post, but I both agree and disagree with your statement about the guy. understandably he is a noob and would make some pretty poor decisions, however I would still advise on avoiding the guy because if you're willing to axe a core fundamental part of the system because you don't agree with it, what are you willing to do later? I see the 5ft step as a really basic mechanic to play the game, let alone run one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The 5" is a significant part of the combat system, and I certainly would not even consider removing it myself.

That said, I hardly think it is a reason to avoid trying gaming with this person. I have played in a ton of poorly designed game systems (I'm looking at you Palladium) and with weird house rules and even some bizarre home grown systems and never has the system or house rules been the primary thing that determined whether the experience was good.

Having a decent system is nice, and certainly I do prefer that, but the first thing is enjoying the company of the people you are with, and the second thing is probably a GM that will provide a fun story. Mechanics are way lower on that list.

So if I was you I would express to the guy your reservations about changing the rules, and that you think it will make the game worse not better, and that he should at least try the system as published before making changes, but whatever he answers, as long as you think he and his group are worth spending time with approach the game with an open mind.

Obviously if you don't enjoy yourself, you can always decline to game with them in the future.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Do not engage. Look elsewhere, until something better comes up.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you're willing, you could build a character around exploiting his house rule. Normally I wouldn't recommend this, but if he remains unconvinced after your arguments I say embrace the insanity. Build a reach user with armor spikes(or Improved Unarmed Strike) and Combat Reflexes and go to town on NPCs who can't escape your sucking vortex of death. If the GM dares to complain about your build simply explain that that's what 5 foot steps are for.

Sovereign Court

My guess is that this GM has never played in a campaign that went up to level 6-8 or so. By the time most people start getting iterative attacks, the 5ft step becomes even more important. From your description, it sounds like he just hasn't seen what it actually does.

You can advise that it's a fundamental part of the combat and that it would be wiser to not change it until he's actually got more experience. If he listens to that, you may be fine. A GM that's willing to listen to a polite and reasoned argument is worth nurturing.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

5 foot steps are a key part of the combat system of Pathfinder.

For an example of a similar game that has eliminated that feature, look no further than D&D 5e. Note that that game changes a lot of other features as well (such as totally redefining which actions do and do not provoke opportunity attacks).

This is not the sort of rule you want to change without thinking through its effects on the game's entire combat system.


ryric wrote:
If you're willing, you could build a character around exploiting his house rule. Normally I wouldn't recommend this, but if he remains unconvinced after your arguments I say embrace the insanity. Build a reach user with armor spikes(or Improved Unarmed Strike) and Combat Reflexes and go to town on NPCs who can't escape your sucking vortex of death. If the GM dares to complain about your build simply explain that that's what 5 foot steps are for.

Yeah, I am sorely tempted to do that, except I have the sneaking suspicion that he might then rule that "multiple attacks per round are unrealistic, so we should ban attacks of opportunity." One wonders where it will end.

Ah, well. The search for a decent local game goes on.


There is no harm to trying. Maybe it works out well. Tell us more once you join a session.


If this is a rule he truly just discovered, then it's hard to believe he plays the game by knowing and following all or almost all of the other rules to the letter. So, imagining the game as it stands, but just taking out 5' step is probably not worth worrying about.

Try the game. If you don't like it, then stop. You could stumble on a group you really like.


This would be a minor inconvenience for casters (concentration checks are EASY), a major nerf to most martial classes and a death sentence to any archer who got in melee.

I'd talk to the GM. It's the kind of rule change that would make me decide to either leave the game or exploit it 'til he sees the error of his ways.

Dark Archive

Gavmania wrote:
So, I recently came across a GM saying that in his (admittedly limited) experience it is virtually impossible to disengage in combat once engaged and as there are already rules for casting in melee, he sees no need for the 5' step rule...

It seems that he doesn't understand the uses of the 5' step, and how it can lend depth and options to combat. He shouldn't be so willing to let his inability to "see a need for [something]" limit the game play of others...especially when it is a pretty basic part of the rules. The DM however can do as he wishes...but that requires finding people who are willing to play the game stripped of the things he doesn't feel are necessary.

The best solution would be for him to experience a game session that uses the 5' step, with people who know how to use the 5' step.


Typically, there will be more AOOs in a game without 5-foot steps, so Combat Reflexes becomes more valuable.

It isn't the end of the world to soak up an AOO anyways. You can do a bit of tumbling to avoid many in a lot of character builds. And taking one for the team means everyone else typically can move unfettered.

Example: An archer doesn't typically take many attacks, so just soak up an AOO and unload at point blank without fear of some other combatant 5 foot stepping to full attack you as often. An archer can have a pretty good AC with DEX as a primary stat. That frees the casters to move around that foe without Combat Reflexes.

The hard part is to still get a full attack as often without them. As such, build for that (Lunge, Quick Draw reach weapons, swift action growth, thrown weapons attacker, etc.) or build for an exceptional one attack action strike (Vital Strike build, magus casting Shocking Grasp and then moving to strike, etc.) or avoid needing to full attack at all (casting, etc.)

I would not avoid the game simply because of one house rule. There may be more reasons, but this one change shouldn't be sufficient.


Shifts and 5 foot steps are one of the most critical parts of strategic combat. It will feel like a 1920's american boxing match without them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
This would be a minor inconvenience for casters (concentration checks are EASY), a major nerf to most martial classes and a death sentence to any archer who got in melee.

Well, any archer that didn't have Point Blank Master or something similar. My wife's Fighter (Archer) doesn't provoke and wears heavy armor.


I would avoid the DM if he won't change his mind. 5 foot steps are a big part of tactical combat and aren't just for disengaging. As others have noted, they can also be used for things like setting up flanks. Without 5 foot steps (or at least some replacement rule), combat could easily devolve into a slugfest.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
This would be a minor inconvenience for casters (concentration checks are EASY), a major nerf to most martial classes and a death sentence to any archer who got in melee.
Well, any archer that didn't have Point Blank Master or something similar. My wife's Fighter (Archer) doesn't provoke and wears heavy armor.

Doesn't Point-Blank Master come somewhat late, though?

And only 4 class have access to it, IIRC... Fighter, Ranger, Slayer and Zen Archer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my admittedly limited experience it's virtually impossible to summon balls of fire out of nothing so I'm banning all magic from my games. I've also never seen a dragon, orc, goblin, etc. in real life so I'm banning all monsters.


Lemmy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
This would be a minor inconvenience for casters (concentration checks are EASY), a major nerf to most martial classes and a death sentence to any archer who got in melee.
Well, any archer that didn't have Point Blank Master or something similar. My wife's Fighter (Archer) doesn't provoke and wears heavy armor.

Doesn't Point-Blank Master come somewhat late, though?

And only 4 class have access to it, IIRC... Fighter, Ranger, Slayer and Zen Archer.

And Warpriest. Don't forget warpriest, they get fighter feats as their bonus feats.

And there is an Inquisitor archetype (Sancitified Slayer) that gets slayer talents.

And probably some other things I'm not familiar with.

But basically you have to be a fighter or a ranger or steal class features from those classes to get Point Blank Master (which is what Slayer, Warpriest, and Inquisitor do).

Also, it doesn't come particularly late. It requires Weapon Spec which would mean 5th level for fighters (assuming the pick up Weapon Spec at 4) and level 6 for rangers assuming they pick it up with their second combat style bonus feat instead of Improved Precise Shot (which is a better choice in my opinion, but mostly because you should have a mount and both you and your mount should pick up the teamwork feat Escape Route).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
And only 4 class have access to it, IIRC... Fighter, Ranger, Slayer and Zen Archer.

People make archers that aren't one of those?


Gavmania:

I just wanted to post the text on the 5-foot step for my own brain:

Take 5-Foot Step:
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.

You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.

Simply because there are rules on casting in melee does not invalidate the existence of other PC-options in combat. I'm trying to understand his line of thinking. He makes it sound as if casting in melee is the only instance in which the 5-foot step is utilized (does he think it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for casters?). Also, how is it impossible to disengage once in combat (Withdraw)?

Does your DM see the 5' step as too good of an option? Or is it a merely superfluous rule to him? I'm rather perplexed that your DM would see that particular mechanic and decide there's no need for it. There's a lot of other crazy, wonky shenanigans going on in the rule system that should draw the focus of his editing.

I recommend possibly directing your DM (if you do decide to join their group) to read this thread and see if it might change his mind towards the 5-foot step mechanic. He may not understand how fundamental it is to the combat system in Pathfinder.

I don't mean to sound hostile or facetious - I'm simply perplexed is all. Cheers, Mate!


I don't understand how he could "just discover the 5-foot step"
And then on top of it - toss it aside so effortlessly. it is impossible for it to have been a well thought out decision.

And - If he is willing to change rules so flippantly - then don't expect the game to operate like the pathfinder game you are experienced with. that is not to say you cannot have fun - just go in assuming "this is a different system"

That said - if you are going to design a character for a game he runs - it is reasonable for you to know how he plans on actually running things.

I think you should present the GM with a list of those things that are affected by the 5 foot step, and ask him if his intention really is to hamper each and every one of those things.

i'm too lazy to compile the list myself - but i am sure based on what this thread has generated - it would likely just be a bunch of copy/pasting. Off the top of my head, i recall:

Archery
Reach Weapons
Casting
Full Attacks
Withdrawal
Flanking
Rogues
Casters
Large or Larger creatures with Reach


Maybe it's too much to basically learn a new combat system all over again, but maybe a compromise for him would be the Unchained Action Economy. It lowers the value of the 5' step, but keeps most combat styles relevant.


My only real world fighting talent is fencing, but that is different from a monster trying to kill you because it's a sport with rules. My feeling is that in RL you can disengage if an opportunity presents itself, such as when the enemy looses balance for a second or the enemy lets you go so it can catch its breath. Not any time you feel like it though. However, when someone is really, really gunning for you then you might not be able to escape without lowering your defenses. A superior combatant would be able to back away more easily though. Maybe disengage should be a combat maneuver. As far as a keeping the game fun though, I'm very happy with 5-ft step.


He's basically saying that if you step back, the other guy may choose to step up to keep pace with you (though he accepts that if it's dangerous territory, they may choose not to). It's the equivalent of the step up feat for everybody, although theoretically something could be done with, say, spring loaded caltrops or marbles to make terrain difficult and discourage them following up on you.

It would increase the value of Feather Step slippers (or it would if he used the bad terrain rules, but somehow I think he would ignore those too).

I understand the desire to create a facsimile of reality, but there are so many ways in which the combat system falls short of reality that it would take a complete overhaul to get anywhere. Besides, reality is boring; I want heroic actions and spells. Neither of those have a place in reality.

The system is fine as it is, a somewhat abstracted version of reality that accommodates all the fantasy elements quite happily and is a tool for the narrative.


Gavmania wrote:

So, I recently came across a GM saying that in his (admittedly limited) experience it is virtually impossible to disengage in combat once engaged and as there are already rules for casting in melee, he sees no need for the 5' step rule.

Now I have played for some time with the 5'step rule in place and was a bit flabbergasted when I saw this proposal. I'm really not sure what to make of it, so I thought I'd throw it open to the wider community. Is this ruling true to life? is it a good idea? what difference would it make if implemented?

The main reason I ask is that I was considering asking to join his group (he's local, and theres not a lot else going on around here) and I'm wondering if I should try to change his mind, avoid him or live with it?

I would simply counter that if the 5-ft step is not changing the game why is he bothering to change his game by removing it?

Honestly I think he is lying to himself. It makes no sense to say I will make a rule that does nothing. Archers also benefit from a fight 5-ft step, and casters such as rangers and paladins are less likely to make the concentration check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
My only real world fighting talent is fencing, but that is different from a monster trying to kill you because it's a sport with rules. My feeling is that in RL you can disengage if an opportunity presents itself, such as when the enemy looses balance for a second or the enemy lets you go so it can catch its breath.

Actually (in my real-world fighting experience, which is mostly in the martial arts arena), I don't think disengaging is that difficult. You simply have to check the opponent's forward motion for a few seconds, which is very easy to do, for example, by feinting with a jab to the face (or its equivalent if you're using a weapon). The instinct to avoid that particular blow by pulling back out of its reach is pretty powerful, which gives you the time you need to adjust your own footing.

Part of the problem is the combat abstraction itself. Two people 5' apart are not in combat, they're in insult-hurling range. Two people 4' apart are not really in combat either; they're typically just throwing half-hearted kicks at at each other and making perfunctory blocks, but still mostly looking for openings. Most martial arts theorists are pretty explicit about there being a whole bunch of different (micro)ranges, starting at the point where you can touch your opponent with your toe (which you STILL can't do at 4' unless you've got legs like a giraffe), and ending at the point where you're pressing your chest against the bad guy's and using your forehead to break his nose. The winner is usually the one who manages to pick and hold the microrange that's best for him.

It would great -- and by "great" I mean unplayably awful -- if PF could handle that kind of detail. But since it can't, the PF combat abstraction is pretty good. You have the opportunity to make a single small adjustment to the range on your turn; as does your opponent. A larger adjustment requires resource expenditure (a move action). Given that these range adjustments happen all the f----g time and are a critical part of fight tactics, it seems odd to disallow them.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gavmania wrote:
He's basically saying that if you step back, the other guy may choose to step up to keep pace with you (though he accepts that if it's dangerous territory, they may choose not to). It's the equivalent of the step up feat for everybody,

So he's really talking about two changes? This now sounds like, "I don't see the point of the 5-foot step since I'm giving everyone Step Up for free."

This doesn't sound very fun. It's one thing to go into a game where you don't know any rules ready to learn something new. It's quite another to play a game where you think you know the rules, only to find that all your choices were wrong because the ruleset is in flux.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
And only 4 class have access to it, IIRC... Fighter, Ranger, Slayer and Zen Archer.
People make archers that aren't one of those?

Paladins, barbarians, cavaliers... In fact all of those classes have archery-suitable archetypes.


Does he want to nerf spellcasting? Because removal of 5-ft step will terribly nerf full attack martials and martials that rely on exact positioning around the enemy to benefit from flanking or just making space for a second martial to charge than casters who should keep their distance in the first place.

Lantern Lodge

I bet it would make combat different.

Keep in mind, your opponent isn't making 5-foot steps either. Fights would be more mobile. The arguments that it "nerfs flanking" is false. You can still flank- -you might have to eat an attack (or learn to tumble) to get it, is all.

Full attacks would be harder to pull off- -unless you leave yourself open to full attack first.

For spellcasters, concentration would be tantamount- -without the ability to step away, you'd have to make defensive checks. (Honestly, not a death sentence to something that is touted to be the end-all be-all of powergamaing in the system).

For archers, you'd be a bit vulnerable until the inevitable Point-Blank Master shows up. Better put some points into CON instead of selling it for more DEX...

Not better or worse. Different.

Now, I want to try it out. See exactly how it'd go instead of just theorycrafting consequences.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
And only 4 class have access to it, IIRC... Fighter, Ranger, Slayer and Zen Archer.
People make archers that aren't one of those?
Paladins, barbarians, cavaliers... In fact all of those classes have archery-suitable archetypes.

None of which are what I would consider at risk of being murdered in melee. :)

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Remove the five foot step All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.