|
I am currently running a pathfinder game, although this applies to all 3.x games.
I have an archer that just takes a 5' step and then fires his bow. Perfectly fine in the rules but makes no sense at all. I'm willing to accept a single shot loosed (although I do think a too short range penalty should be applied - except x-bow pistol) but taking a full round action and getting multiple shots?
I was thinking to impliment a rule that means that for a full attack with bows/x-bows you can't even take a 5' step. In fact I'm thinking of canning the 5' step full stop to avoid caveats popping up everywhere. Just means that spell casters and missile firers don't a get to avoid attacks of opportunity with the 5'-step. I would also go so far as to ban missile firing if you are in melee (i.e. threatened squares). Not 100% how it will overly effect the running of a combat, any thoughts?
S.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You might take a page from 4e and use the shift concept. It's like the 5' move, but uses a move action instead of being free. That would deny the archers a full round attack. I don't think I'd deny the use of all ranged weapons while threatened though - that seems to weaken ranged attacks a little too much to me (and removes some of the drama from making the choice of whether to use a ranged weapon while threatened).
I do not think I would go so far as to say it "makes no sense at all". I am willing to accept it breaks your sense of immersion.
How about a penalty for "not aiming"? I agree with Sebastian that disallowing missile fire completely is a bit extreme.
Can you elaborate on what is bringing you to this measure? I have never seen this be a problem before and I am curious how it is disrupting your game.
Step Up...
I've thrown javelins and daggers while in melee range before... I've also shifted my position without losing my aim or my normal attack routine either... must say I generally didn't get hit while doing any of those things before. Even done it with a bow, hit my target (who was also in melee on the opposite end of the field), ran like all get out afterwards too.
Might point out that when I did a few Larps I was even able to "cast" a spell (heal specifically) while defending myself and the person I was casting on (in the specific larp as long as you touched the target and didn't move your feet or mess up the 'invocation' -- small rhyme, you could cast while doing other stuff... including fighting).
However if your problem is "believability" maybe D&D isn't so great and you should try actually doing this stuff on a Larp field or simulation combat group? Most of it isn't as hard as D&D seems to want to make it.
|
|
I guess this comes about because of the use of a "battle mat", the slight shifts in position in the non-miniature combat was handled in the "to hit roll" - never stated as such just assumed. My problem is that what happens in 3.xe combat is;
(a) shoot
(b) creature attacks
(c) 5' step, shoot
repeat.
Perhaps you would have time to get off "an" arrow before the opponent was too close but a full attack of what 5 arrows maybe? That "makes no sense at all". Melee range is for melee weapons, range is for ranged weapons - somehow ranged weapons are just as effective in melee as melee weapons thanks to the 5' step. I know it's a fantasy game, but really. Mind you I have same issue with spell casters and the 5' step also. Once engaged in melee ranged missile weapons should either be much less effective or in the extreme almost useless (i.e. better to stab the dude with the arrow rather than attempt to shoot the sword wielding maniac standing before you).
I think the slight shift in combat is fine and if it wasn't also a game mechanic "out" for casters and ranged characters I wouldn't have issue with the rule.
I'll look into the way 4e handles it, seems more like sense to me.
Thanks,
S.
I actually never really saw people getting off as many arrows as what you can do in D&D. I did see them throwing javelins at around that rate, and throwing daggers or throwing stars, while moving, but not arrows.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
You could always say a full attack uses one arrow and is against one target. That avoids the machinegun idea, and just gives the higher level characters more chance of doing damage.
Of course, if the first is killed and he wants a new target you'll have to chose whether it's a ricochet or another shot or use 4E hitpoints-as-morale and have him be a less effective combatant (less hitpoints) due to the hideous maiming of his friend he's just witnessed.
I'm DM-ing a bunch of number-crunching battlemat players and am slowly getting them not to read specific conditions into my flamboyant descriptions.
Me: Your first blow drives him to his knees and he barely picks himself up again to fend off the second.
PC: Standing up from prone! Attack of Opportunity!
Me: <sigh>
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think the recommended way to handle this is to have the melee guy hold an action to move and attack when the archer takes a 5' step. Given that you can't move and take a 5' step, it will trap the archer and subject him to multiple attacks of opportunity if he makes a full attack anyway.
You might also give a bonus on those attacks of opportunity, or maybe say that if the AoO hits, the archer takes a penalty to hit (or, fails the shot altogether). That would rebalance the risks and make the archer thing twice before doing something like that.
You'll probably also want to increase the DCs for casting on the defensive as well.
One last comment - I'd recommend talking this through with your players if you haven't already. It can be tough if you've built an archer based on the core rules and the DM puts in a house rule that changes the basic way that build works.
|
|
It can be tough if you've built an archer based on the core rules and the DM puts in a house rule that changes the basic way that build works.
It is true it's a dread character "build" min/max'd up the whazoo. I guess it has brought to my DM intention that 3.xe handles ranged combat badly in that it makes to far too easy to be a melee-ranged weapon user. May be that was the intention, but it seems to be like if you are going to let ranged characters have a free ride in melee combat shouldn't we allow the melee characters to throw their 2H sword 200 yards? I've seen it in movies after all?
S.
Have you considered other possible solutions? An occasional Wind Wall (or bad storm), tower shields on occasion, or insto-erecting barriers? Possibly some Entropic shields, or deflecting weapons/armor?
There are a lot of ways to neutralize archery in D&D already without necessarily including a rules change.
|
|
There are a lot of ways to neutralize archery in D&D already without necessarily including a rules change.
I in NO way want to neutralize the character. What I want to have a line between melee and ranged. They are different words and they mean completely different things, yet the line is blurred to non-existent in 3.xe for ranged characters but not for melee characters alone.
It should be the role of the melee characters to make sure the ranged characters are well out of harms way doing their role (i.e. shooting from range...).
S.
...
I in NO way want to neutralize the character. What I want to have a line between melee and ranged...
Then have the opponent do something realistic and attack the bow!Sundering it will be easy it's thin wood (hardness 5, 5hp) and the user isn't threatening so no attack of opportunity. The bow might not get destroyed in one shot but I garanty your archer will think again about doing the archer-two-step again.
Also, I feel the term 5'step gives the impression of something overly simple. Such movements should be more like rolls and jump-dodges, etc. No effect on game mechanics but it feels better when you tell it this way.
And for Abraham, I've seen a report on a current riding archer in russia who managedto recreate the pony-riding archer technique of the mongols and he can get off 6 arrows precisly (diner plate size taget at 10m)in 10 seconds on a galloping pony, it was incredible!
I would believe it, I just personally hadn't seen it. I've seen people do some amazing stuff with guns too, so it's all possible, if not a normal thing.
Something else, in the old 1st and 2nd ed books they pointed out that 95% of the world never gets above level 3, and that PC's by definition are an anomaly and that such should be remembered. The PC's generally are better than most the rest the world, and are going to do things other people would consider crazy because of that. So when the argument is "normal people can't do that" it should be remembered that PC's aren't normal people.
The biggest problem I see with a "Line" between melee and ranged combat is there isn't such a thing. People shoot people up close, they stick them with polearms from 15 feet away and throw daggers while locking swords (normally without the other guy having a chance to get an "AOO").
Another thought for reminding the archer that being up close and personal is a bad thing: Two weapon fighting with a Kukri and a Small Glaive. You'll be -4 with the glaive and -2 with the kukri, but if he backs up he's still in range for an AoO.
|
|
Then have the opponent do something realistic and attack the bow!Sundering it will be easy it's thin wood (hardness 5, 5hp) and the user isn't threatening so no attack of opportunity. The bow might not get destroyed in one shot but I garanty your archer will think again about doing the archer-two-step again.
I think probably the best option without fiddling about too much with the rules.
Thanks for the suggestion,
S.
PS: Anyone want to buy half a bow... :)
Then have the opponent do something realistic and attack the bow!Sundering it will be easy it's thin wood (hardness 5, 5hp) and the user isn't threatening so no attack of opportunity. The bow might not get destroyed in one shot but I garanty your archer will think again about doing the archer-two-step again.I think probably the best option without fiddling about too much with the rules.
Thanks for the suggestion,
S.PS: Anyone want to buy half a bow... :)
Sure I'll either use it as a parrying stick or to strap young children that are misbehaving.
Legolas could do it.
Some would consider that an immediate mark against it. ;)
The sundering idea is a creative solution by gamist standards, but 5' steps are still problematic by believability standards. When a swordsman charges an archer, the archer has the advantage until the swordsman gets in swinging range. Then the archer is likely disemboweled twice before he can say "Five foo..." *gurgle* 'Realistically,' the AoO should trigger just from being in melee reach rather than from firing while in melee reach. Effectively, the swordsman should get an extra attack just for attacking the git holding a stick-and-string.
Legolas could do it.Some would consider that an immediate mark against it. ;)
The sundering idea is a creative solution by gamist standards, but 5' steps are still problematic by believability standards. When a swordsman charges an archer, the archer has the advantage until the swordsman gets in swinging range. Then the archer is likely disemboweled twice before he can say "Five foo..." *gurgle* 'Realistically,' the AoO should trigger just from being in melee reach rather than from firing while in melee reach. Effectively, the swordsman should get an extra attack just for attacking the git holding a stick-and-string.
"Believability" would state that the swordsman will be dead many times over as he runs with a sword in hand up to an archer filling said swordsman full of arrows...
It would also be believable that as the swordsman charges in the archer would fire on him then draw a sword to meet the advancing aggressor.
"Those that live by the sword... get shot by those that don't."
Because archers need to be gimped more.
Another thought for reminding the archer that being up close and personal is a bad thing: Two weapon fighting with a Kukri and a Small Glaive. You'll be -4 with the glaive and -2 with the kukri, but if he backs up he's still in range for an AoO.
According to the 3.5 FAQ, you don't get reach if you use an undersized reach weapon. But you could use a kusari-gama or something similar.
According to the 3.5 FAQ, you don't get reach if you use an undersized reach weapon. But you could use a kusari-gama or something similar.
Another thought for reminding the archer that being up close and personal is a bad thing: Two weapon fighting with a Kukri and a Small Glaive. You'll be -4 with the glaive and -2 with the kukri, but if he backs up he's still in range for an AoO.
Glaive and spiked armor.
"Believability" would state that the swordsman will be dead many times over as he runs with a sword in hand up to an archer filling said swordsman full of arrows...
Unless he's standing on a wall or behind a friend, the archer has one good shot [or maybe two if he's got mad skillz] before the swordsman closes. So yeah, he might get a lucky shot in but just as likely he misses the bobbing runner or hits a non-vital area.
It would also be believable that as the swordsman charges in the archer would fire on him then draw a sword to meet the advancing aggressor.
Exactly.
|
|
It would also be believable that as the swordsman charges in the archer would fire on him then draw a sword to meet the advancing aggressor.
Exactly what I would love to see. The archer at the last moment drops the bow and whips out the sword <sounds of steel ringing on steel>. Bit more dramatic than the 5'-step waltz around the room <and step, shoot, step, and step...>.
Do we really need the 5' step? If I invoke the D&D of old I would have no 5' step and spell casters not being able to move at all if they want to cast a spell. Actually not such a silly idea come to think about it. The spell casters don't get the run'n'boom, the archers can't play "shall we dance", and the both the melee classes and the melee critters need to get into position for the full attack the round before.
OK, someone point out the obvious flaw in this cunning plan of mine.
S.
Probably the best tactic for the average dude meleeing that archer is to ready an action to make a 5 foot step up and sunder the bow if the archer takes a five foot step, then use AoOs to finish off the bow (a body can sunder as an AoO), then start chopping up the archer.
I had exactly the same issue with this. You can't trap stop an archer (or spellcaster) in melee with the 5' step rule.
The best way I came up with handling it was to re-work the 5' step rule just a little bit to:
A 5' step that leaves all threatened squares results in an attack of opportunity.
It has to be "leave all threatened squares" or else it impedes tactical movement by the fighters. But this way, the archer has to take a withdraw action to get out of combat without being attacked (also means casting defensively comes up a lot more for the mages).
The result has been the the party archer has had to be a lot more tactical in ensuring the enemy doesn't have a clear path to him - which is just what I was aiming for, though he still has the option of firing if he wants to absorb the attack.
|
It can be tough if you've built an archer based on the core rules and the DM puts in a house rule that changes the basic way that build works.It is true it's a dread character "build" min/max'd up the whazoo. I guess it has brought to my DM intention that 3.xe handles ranged combat badly in that it makes to far too easy to be a melee-ranged weapon user. May be that was the intention, but it seems to be like if you are going to let ranged characters have a free ride in melee combat shouldn't we allow the melee characters to throw their 2H sword 200 yards? I've seen it in movies after all?
S.
Well, honestly I don't see anything far fetched at all. Walking while aiming is a sort of automatic bodily action. The mind doesn't actually put much attention to it. I can't verify the ease of aiming with a bow, but I can aim an AR-15 100 yards away, move to a better position and keep on target with no problem.
Now, I have never seen anyone fire a bow 4-6 times in 6 seconds, but then, I only hang out with gamers and weekend hunters. English longbowmen were known for their amazing speed with the bow. So, I have no doubt at all that someone actually TRAINED could fire that quickly, move a few feet and keep on target.
In fact, someone trained in combat shooting can shoot into melee. Yes, you have a chance of hitting the wrong target. But someone trained has a much better chance of hitting the RIGHT target.
Remember, just because you and I can't do it, doesn't mean someone trained can't do it.
Besides, if you are worried about reality, maybe you shouldn't be playing D&D. I swear, no matter how hard I try, I can't fire a Magic Missile or a Fireball. For veracity maybe magic should be eliminated from the game...
|
|
Probably the best tactic for the average dude meleeing that archer is to ready an action to make a 5 foot step up and sunder the bow if the archer takes a five foot step, then use AoOs to finish off the bow (a body can sunder as an AoO), then start chopping up the archer.
And in Pathfinder there is the feat Step Up. Archer takes 5' step, melee guy follows right on his heels.
And before anyone says that is unrealistic, fencing uses that maneuver a LOT.
|
Oh, goodness... I'm reading through this thread after a fine evening of playing OSRIC 2.0. and frankly, I really do understand why all this makes folks uptight. From my perspective the 5' step is an abstraction, like so many other things in the mechanics of the game that accounts for a shift in the position of the PC at-some-point during the round. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking linearly with third edition and Pathfinder, however, it is important, and quite reassuring actually, to try to remember these are abstractions. The 5' step before, during, or after the action, is an abstraction that places the choice up to the play, while allthewhile still representing that at-some-point in the round the PC shifted in physical space about five feet in that direction.
I welcome disagreement. I also understand that the simulationist aspect does indeed, make one think of LARPing or reality or somesuch, and because of some of the literal translations (bow in reality to bow in fantasy) one can easily forget the game accounts for representative mechanics in-game.
Just my thoughts.
Please don't shoot-5' step-shoot me for it:)
Pax
|
|
(1)but I can aim an AR-15 100 yards away, move to a better position and keep on target with no problem.(2) Remember, just because you and I can't do it, doesn't mean someone trained can't do it.
(3) Besides, if you are worried about reality, maybe you shouldn't be playing D&D. I swear, no matter how hard I try, I can't fire a Magic Missile or a Fireball. For veracity maybe magic should be eliminated from the game...
(1) That would be a lot easier (100 yards I mean) due to (a) parallax and (b) not having 3'-6' of sharpened steel heading towards you...
(2) Trained arches were cut down usually if they didn't run like the wind after foot (or worse horse) got too close - historical speaking.
(3) True we don't have a real world analogue of the fireball (incendiary grenade may be?), but I can picture it. My argument isn't about fact verses fiction its about the game feeling right. The 5' step - shoot, repeat is silly, looks silly on the table and feels silly. Fantasy role-playing means suspension of disbelief not absence of common sense.
S.
|
I think the rules in 3.5 are fine. Fighter who use reach weapons use the 5' step to be able to attack as well.
The only cost I place on characters is that they can not do any move action, including actions that are or cost a move action.
Archers are fairly hammered in the games I run, and without the 5 step rule no one would play them.
Hmmm... what to say that has not already been said? ;-)
Well, I'm all good and fine with the 5' step, just remember that it works for the melee guy as well, so when he closes with the archer and said archer backs away, the melee guy can close again and still have his full-attack lined up for the archer... So heck! It works both ways... Just hope my dm doesn't read this to get any fancy ideas to whoop my ranger's bow.. :D
|
|
I'm not sure how parallax plays into making it easier to hit a distant target, when factors like wind, gravity, air resistance and so many others come into play.
There was no talk of hitting, just "staying on target". The further your target is away the easier it is to "stay on target" because it moves far less relative to you, hitting however I agree is harder. Having said that you trade off dodging and weaving at "in your face range" with time to actually aim.
I generally have no issue with the mechanics of the 5'-step, just I think ranged characters should excel at range - does that seem that strange?
You also need to realize archers have to take precise shot, and still account for cover(another -4). If you can get within 5 that should mean you have the fight in hand. Most archers don't have a high con(low hit points) because they don't expect to be on the front line. I would just charge him. His AC probably is not to high which means you can power attack. Most archers already are out-damaged by melee builds. If the melee guy and the archer are doing the same damage then someone needs help building characters or the other person(archer) may have a broken build, but without the build here for viewing I can't really comment on that.
If someone is right in your face it should be easier to stay on target. I was watching that show history greatest warriors and some guy "quickly" shot a guy between the eyes twice. Now the "guy" was a prop(not a real person), and was not charging, so two shots may not have gotten off but I think if you can make one called shot to the eye that is good reason not to charge someone.
There are archers that aim the bows high and litter an area with arrow(cant recall the name), and there are archers that shoot for individual targets.
The other thing is that archers(individual shooters) did better at shorter ranges. Those long distances in the PHB are not realistic.
|
|
Another possible solution by the rules is to have the melee guy use the archer's tactics to herd him into a vulnerable position - taking a diagonal 5' step if necessary.
Get the archer backed up against difficult terrain (can't 5' step into difficult terrain) or better yet a wall. Also remember you can't 5' step diagonally round a corner.
Another option if you are playing 3.5 in Eberron (rather than Pathfinder) is the Pursue Feat (pre-requsite Combat Reflexes) that allows you to spend an Action point to move into a square vacated by an opponent.
I think the AP cost is too much, but even doing this once against an archer could mean you get a round where the archer can't attack without provoking an AoO, and you still getting your iterative melee attacks.
And in Pathfinder there is the feat Step Up. Archer takes 5' step, melee guy follows right on his heels.Can you provide a reference for this, it sounds cool and unlike Pursue I am assuming doesn't cost an Action Point. Can it be used more than once per encounter?
Here's the "bonus" feats that may have ended up in the printed version (I think they have)... step up
Enjoy!
And in Pathfinder there is the feat Step Up. Archer takes 5' step, melee guy follows right on his heels.Can you provide a reference for this, it sounds cool and unlike Pursue I am assuming doesn't cost an Action Point. Can it be used more than once per encounter?
2) Readying an action to step with and attack before them, disrupting their shot and gaining AoO;
This one is tricky.
You had to take a 5' step or a move action to get beside them. At that point you can ready an action to hit them when they step back but you can't ready an action to follow them because you used your 5' step already.
You could however ready an action to use a move action to follow them if they moved. That way if they 5' step back you stay beside them and beat them with AoOs if they try and use their bow. That should shut the bowman down.
This does have a weak point however. You break the chain (i.e. can't follow) if you take a full round action. That means your reliant on AoOs to hurt him. Its possible that the Bowman, using a full round action, might just be better then the swordsman in this circumstance simply because the swordsman gets only one AoO unless he has a specific feat and good dex.
And in Pathfinder there is the feat Step Up. Archer takes 5' step, melee guy follows right on his heels.Can you provide a reference for this, it sounds cool and unlike Pursue I am assuming doesn't cost an Action Point. Can it be used more than once per encounter?
It is true it's a dread character "build" min/max'd up the whazoo.
Are you sure this is not the real issue? Or another symptom yet closer to the real issue?
Fantasy role-playing means suspension of disbelief not absence of common sense.
Like armor absorbing damage and individuals not being typecast into predefined roles.
It can be tough if you've built an archer based on the core rules and the DM puts in a house rule that changes the basic way that build works.It is true it's a dread character "build" min/max'd up the whazoo. I guess it has brought to my DM intention that 3.xe handles ranged combat badly in that it makes to far too easy to be a melee-ranged weapon user. May be that was the intention, but it seems to be like if you are going to let ranged characters have a free ride in melee combat shouldn't we allow the melee characters to throw their 2H sword 200 yards? I've seen it in movies after all?
S.
Well, I don't know about 200 yards, but you can throw a melee weapon. -4 penalty for using it non-proficiently, -2 penalty for each 10 ft increment, five 10 ft increments max.
Just remember that each character's turn in the initiative represents all their actions for the full 6 seconds of the round. It's an abstraction you have to use to keep combat from being tedious and overcomplicated using 1-second round increments. So the archer that's face-to-face with the fighter isn't merely taking a couple of steps and shooting continuously for 6 seconds at the melee fighter who's just standing there.
In the past, I've houseruled that if you take your 5' step and do anything that provokes an attack of opportunity in your starting square, you still provoke an AoO.
In the future, I might take a page from 4E and say that to shift (5' safe move) needs a movement action to perform. I'm not sure yet, I'll have to playtest it.
|
|
Just remember that each character's turn in the initiative represents all their actions for the full 6 seconds of the round. It's an abstraction you have to use to keep combat from being tedious and overcomplicated using 1-second round increments. So the archer that's face-to-face with the fighter isn't merely taking a couple of steps and shooting continuously for 6 seconds at the melee fighter who's just standing there.
Are you arguing for or against there being more AoO vs archers and casters?
Because if you're against, I'm confused, as the above is actually a major point in the argument for melee-types carving up any opponents who refuse to draw a melee weapon and defend themselves properly.
If the actions are taking place at all points during the round, then the archer/caster, although assumed to be ducking and weaving, is still only moving away at a net speed of less than 1'/second, meaning that some of those multiple shots, or somatic gesticulations, or the fumbling in a pouch for foci and materials, are actually happening right next to the enemy, and herefore should incur AoO.
And that's before considering the implications that all these actions are overlapping and being performed virtually simultaneously, mere microseconds apart. And therefore, any warrior whose speed is similar to the archer/caster, should be able to keep pace, meaning they are never more than 5 feet apart...