What ramifications would this have on the game?
For one thing, melee combatants would become a serious threat to archers and casters, even if they couldn't surround them. Archers would be much more likely to keep back-up melee weapons on hand (and/or to take Mobility); spellcasters might try to get away with tumble before casting, or they might use the various SU abilities that they get in 3.P more often. Casting defensively would become more important. All in all they would be much more reliant on front-liners to keep enemies away from them to begin with. This is the tactical landscape which I expected when I came into D&D, and I actually had to DM a few sessions before I realized how easy it was for these characters to just step away, and how much that simple move changed things.
Other stuff:
A polearm wielder would provoke when he stepped back to attack a swordsmen, but then the swordsmen would provoke when he moved forward again to attack the halberdier. Thrown weapons would become more powerful for their versatility (a knife-thrower can make melee attacks without drawing a different weapon). Characters could still 5-foot step into melee (you provoke for leaving threatened spaces, not entering them), but it would then be harder to disengage. "Step up" would become superfluous, and for full-attackers combat in general would be more static.
This is a very good idea, and I'm considering using it.
"Step up" would become superfluous
Not necessarily. In fact I think it would become even better in some ways... a wizard or archer still might want to 5-foot back, because taking one AoO from movement is better than potentially taking one per arrow fired on a full-round attack, or taking one while casting your spell and potentially being disrupted. Step Up takes that tactical option away: you still risk the AoO, but for no reward when the fighter's still adjacent afterwards.
On a related note, I had almost forgotten that this was a house rule because everyone local has adopted it... the Withdraw action has no reason to eat a full round. I allow it as a standard action (but it only grants a single move), so the move action can be used for something else if you'd like. With the loss of non-provoking 5-foot steps, I think this change is almost essential to preserve a few reasonable tactical options.
|
The Step Up feat was created specifically for that purpose. The 5 foot step represents a cautious small movement that does not lower defense. The Step Up feat represents a bit of martial training designed to defeat that cautious move.
+1. And it doe not force you to re-learn the system. Just to be more cautious, just in case.
In fact, I love the new movement feats : Step, Up, Lounge .... I wish there were more of them.
I seriously disagree that Step Up "solves" this problem. From the GM's perspective, you either treat Step Up as a feat tax , or it's a total dick move .
Changing the base mechanics is fair all around, and this particular change is not the sort that's hard to remember.
@tejon: What was your players' problems with the change to Casting highest level spells?
Were they distinguishing between Full Round ACTION and how 1-round spells (i.e. Summons) work?
Did they have experience with earlier editions like 2nd Edition?
Would they have been more sympathetic to making Full Attack a Standard Action?
/threadjack
On topic,
it would also take away a serious advantage to the Barbarian Rage Power: Unexpected Strike,
which allows AoO's on Threat ENTRY, INCLUDING 5' Steps.
I don't understand. Isnt the answer just "Nobody would ever use them, since they can move much further than that for no cost."
|
I don't understand. Isnt the answer just "Nobody would ever use them, since they can move much further than that for no cost."
No, the only people who would use them would be fighters, since they may want to take a 5-foot step in between the attacks of a full attack action. Thus provoking an attack of opportunity to do their most basic attack routine. In other words, it hurts melee characters more than archers and casters.
Better to just eliminate the 5-foot step and allow full iterative attacks as a standard action.
No, the only people who would use them would be fighters, since they may want to take a 5-foot step in between the attacks of a full attack action. Thus provoking an attack of opportunity to do their most basic attack routine. In other words, it hurts melee characters more than archers and casters.
Oh yeah - I forgot about that. Other than that though, there'd be no more 5 foot steps, right?
|
|
No, the only people who would use them would be fighters, since they may want to take a 5-foot step in between the attacks of a full attack action. Thus provoking an attack of opportunity to do their most basic attack routine. In other words, it hurts melee characters more than archers and casters.Oh yeah - I forgot about that. Other than that though, there'd be no more 5 foot steps, right?
I guess in the rare case that an archer is tripped, has to use a move action to stand, and then takes a 5ft to not provoke with the bow. Really, it's so limited in application if you bring AoO into the mix.
In what situation would you take a 5-foot step in the middle of a full attack?
The main thing I can see would be "I just killed this guy so I'm taking a 5-foot step so I'm in range of this other guy", in which case you're not provoking an AoO anyway.
The primary group I see this hurting is people with reach weapons.
I guess in the rare case that an archer is tripped, has to use a move action to stand, and then takes a 5ft to not provoke with the bow. Really, it's so limited in application if you bring AoO into the mix.No, the only people who would use them would be fighters, since they may want to take a 5-foot step in between the attacks of a full attack action. Thus provoking an attack of opportunity to do their most basic attack routine. In other words, it hurts melee characters more than archers and casters.Oh yeah - I forgot about that. Other than that though, there'd be no more 5 foot steps, right?
But under the proposed scheme won't the archer stand, then move their full speed away (since five foot stepping no longer provides any protection)?
It just seems to me that removing the "does not provoke an attack of opportunity" part of five foot stepping basically removes its reason for existing in the first place (other than the example you give of a fighter dropping someone and pressing on).
Would also raise the value of the Tumble skill...
Would also raise the value of the Acrobatics skill...
Fixed.
The primary group I see this hurting is people with reach weapons.
Can you explain how this hurts them more than it helps them?
Yes, they provoke if they want to step back into their sweet-spot, but then once they're in that sweet spot their enemies are in exactly the same position they just were. They're going to keep provoking from each other every round, provided they want to keep making full-attacks.
Not only that, but this way, the reach guy will always get the first AoO, even if he charges (normally, if the reach guy engages first, the guy he just attacked can 5-foot step inside his reach and he never gets an AoO).
It just seems to me that removing the "does not provoke an attack of opportunity" part of five foot stepping basically removes its reason for existing in the first place (other than the example you give of a fighter dropping someone and pressing on).
It will still see use, just not ever round. Remember the way AoOs work; you can still use a 5-foot step to enter melee, you just can't use it to leave it. You can also use it to step away from someone whom you're not quite in melee yet (edging away from that orc and forcing him to take an actual move action to get to you). And it's often worth moving even if you do provoke (the swordsman-vs-polearm example above; they both want to keep making full attacks. Though you might see a tumble-and-attack instead/as well depending on the characters).
Basically it's treated like any other move, except that it's a free action and can be combined with another full-round action or with a misc. move action. I still expect to see it used a lot more commonly than some other miscellaneous actions, just (hopefully) not every single round.
I guess in the rare case that an archer is tripped, has to use a move action to stand, and then takes a 5ft to not provoke with the bow. Really, it's so limited in application if you bring AoO into the mix.
The archer can't take a 5 ft. step after getting up. A character can only take a 5 foot step (movement that does not provoke an AoO) if his move action does not involve movement. If a character gets up, his move action, then moves any amount (5 feet, 30 feet, does not matter) it is a double move, not a 5 foot step.
Go watch The Princess Bride, specifically the duel between The Spaniard and The Man In Black. They both 5-foot step every single round. Why wouldn't you want people to 5-foot step? D&D is too small-scale to simulate a battle with a front line, which seems to be your aim. It's entirely too easy to simply walk past the "front line" fighter and get up in the mage's or cleric's face and thus prevent them from ever doing anything for the remainder of the battle. The 5-foot step is the only thing keeping casters (especially in Pathfinder, with the extremely difficult Concentration checks) from being useless in combat.
It just seems to me that removing the "does not provoke an attack of opportunity" part of five foot stepping basically removes its reason for existing in the first place (other than the example you give of a fighter dropping someone and pressing on).It will still see use, just not ever round. Remember the way AoOs work; you can still use a 5-foot step to enter melee, you just can't use it to leave it. You can also use it to step away from someone whom you're not quite in melee yet (edging away from that orc and forcing him to take an actual move action to get to you). And it's often worth moving even if you do provoke (the swordsman-vs-polearm example above; they both want to keep making full attacks. Though you might see a tumble-and-attack instead/as well depending on the characters).
Basically it's treated like any other move, except that it's a free action and can be combined with another full-round action or with a misc. move action. I still expect to see it used a lot more commonly than some other miscellaneous actions, just (hopefully) not every single round.
Cheers - I'm a little slow sometimes. :)
@tejon: What was your players' problems with the change to Casting highest level spells?
Mentioned it in the other thread, I think... it was two players, who had two arguments. For one, the problem was that he wanted to play an Arcane Trickster who was already melee-shy, and unless you can beat the -20 sniping penalty, there would be no option to attack and hide from range. For the other, the primary argument was that Color Spray (and other cone spells, but really, it was about Color Spray) becomes useless, because you can't cast the spell until the round after you move into position, and your nice cone of enemies will very likely have shifted.
Both of these arguments completely miss the point, but it was a reasonable declaration of "how I want to play," and while IMO Color Spray needs the nerf, the other idea wasn't terrible.
Were they distinguishing between Full Round ACTION and how 1-round spells (i.e. Summons) work?
Yes, that was clear.
Did they have experience with earlier editions like 2nd Edition?
One had some (the Color Spray advocate), and his position was "they changed that for a reason." (Note however that my older player, who's been playing since the 70s, rather liked the idea. He was a little dubious about level 1 viability until I pointed out that I wouldn't be applying this rule to the abilities granted by schools/domains/bloodlines.)
Would they have been more sympathetic to making Full Attack a Standard Action?
Absolutely not... in fact, citations were raised of prior campaigns in which the melee had been dominant.
Frankly this just wasn't true. The campaign, like most, wound down soon after levels hit double digits; but I'd already had to house rule that you couldn't activate Daern's Instant Fortress unless it was on solid ground which would support its weight, because it was being used for air strikes. "That's item based!" Well... yeah. So was the fighter/barbarian's damage output. Furthermore, all those items had been acquired by means of the wizard's brilliantly planned use of a Magic Jar scroll I'd rolled up randomly and forgotten about months previous. But I was getting tired of the argument by that point.
On topic,
...oh yeah, this thread... :D
it would also take away a serious advantage to the Barbarian Rage Power: Unexpected Strike,
which allows AoO's on Threat ENTRY, INCLUDING 5' Steps.
Not really. No threat entry normally provokes, and that wouldn't change; you'll gain the benefit of Unexpected Strike in all the exact same situations.
Also, today I chatted briefly about with the player who provided the majority of the above arguments, and brought up the idea of 5-foot steps provoking. He didn't have any immediate ammo to shoot it down with, and seemed genuinely curious about how it would change the combat dynamics (there was even a comment about Mobility being more than just a prereq to Spring Attack), so I think we're going to try it out.
For the other, the primary argument was that Color Spray (and other cone spells, but really, it was about Color Spray) becomes useless, because you can't cast the spell until the round after you move into position, and your nice cone of enemies will very likely have shifted.
This is the kind of tactical nuance which turn-based systems usually lose out on, and which I personally would welcome back into the game. If they see the caster getting into position, those enemies should have a chance to scatter.
Fixed that for you Hydro.
This is the kind of tactical nuance which turn-based systems usually lose out on, and which I personally would welcome back into the game. If they see the caster getting into position, those enemies should have a chance to MURDER(him).
Fixed that for you boss...
I have house ruled since the early days of 3.0 that 5-foot step doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity if it is made for melee combat purposes only.
No more archers who take a 5-foot step to make a full attack with their bows, no more spellcasters who cast their more powerful spells without a chance to being disrupted.
With this, a feat like combat casting becomes really useful for spellcasters who now need to cast defensively more often, and archers need to use melee weapons once they're in melee. Once a fighter catch you in melee, you can't get away so easily, by just taking a 5-foot step.
Also, if an archer provokes an attack of opportunity, I almost always (depending of the intelligence of the opponent) make a sunder attack aimed at his bow. Archers have always since reconsidered their combat options and choices.
I tried to make the players to be more cautious and to be prepared for different situations. A melee type character needs a ranged weapon for fighting some opponents (flying or out of reach), and ranged type character needs some melee weapon once he's engaged in melee.
Also the whole point of "I take a 5-foot step and you can't get me" has always distracted my volontary disbelief suspension.
But by the same token, for starters, archers should be able to try to disrupt him at range, and archers shouldn't automatically be dead meat at melee range and have to draw a melee weapon.
I really don't know about that, personally. Even in crazy-ass high-octane fantasy you don't see people with bows actually going toe-to-toe with guys with swords. Even Legolas had to whip out a knife, stab dudes with arrows (not something I think mook archers should be doing), or shoot them down an instant before they got close enough to attack.
going by the "Gandalf was a 5th level magic user" concept...
I believe the contention there is that the other 10 levels were fighter levels. He did kill a balrog, and balrogs are serious business.
When I think of Legolas's bow-fu I really think of the Point-Blank Shot expanded masteries from Iron Heroes. My fantasy sensibilities do support an archer ducking and weaving and going toe-to-toe in melee, as ridiculous as it may sound, but it's definitely not what I want by default.
Well... you and I have slightly different stances on that my friend. I agree about the spellcasters, there's no way a caster should be able to get off one of his best spells 5 feet away without a melee-ist coming to get him.
But by the same token, for starters, archers should be able to try to disrupt him at range, and archers shouldn't automatically be dead meat at melee range and have to draw a melee weapon.Hence why in my games I houserule in a non-epic feat that allows you to fire a bow in melee without provoking an attack of opportunity.
For a character to be unable to learn to fire shots and duck and weave while doing so such as not to leave himself more open than normal distracts my desired fantasy sensations. (Heck you see the same thing in gun-fight movies...
Sure, that's the point of a message board, express different stances. ;)
Well, archers can still ready an action to disrupt a spellcaster at range, as written in the rules. But I don't know other ways to handle that. I'm open to read some suggestions to that.But Legolas also use his blades, and I don't remember him shoting in melee while dodging a blow.... And for the elephant riding, this is something that has completely distracted my volontary disbelief suspension. But it is very subjective.
I understand your point of view, but in mine, using a bow is impossible, and since one of my players who used to practice archery totally agree with me, I've decided to house rule that way.
That said, it is an house rule of mine, and if other people don't like it, they can play it in a totally different way.
The Pathfinder beta is a perfect exemple of how we can't all agree on everything. ;)
And for the elephant riding, this is something that has completely distracted my volontary disbelief suspension. But it is very subjective.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235
I know. I just can't "beleive" it. It's not about game balance, it's not a rule problem, it's just I can't play this kind of things in a "normal" heroic fantasy game. It would be ok in a Marvel hero game, not in D&D or PRPG. That's not the kind of stories I have read in books I like.
Rules are made to allow some possibilities for telling some kind of stories. That's just not the ones I want to tell.If these are the ones you want to tell and experience, go ahead ! Play them the way you like it.
And it's for these reasons I have followed Paizo and PRPG and I didn't go to WotC's way of D&D4.
I don't care if the rules of D&D4 are better or not than Pathfinder's ones. They just don't allow me the kind of stories I want to play. And this is completely subjective.
The 5' step in melee is also used to sidle around an enemy to get into flanking position & to back towards a door or up a corridor while still being in combat---these should remain.
I fear that if it did provoke an attack of opportunity it would be used to grapple spellcasters. I dislike this grapple 'solution' to spellcasters more I dislike the 5' step & cast effect.
The 5' step in melee is also used to sidle around an enemy to get into flanking position & to back towards a door or up a corridor while still being in combat---these should remain.
This is something I still allow. As I said, I house ruled that 5-foot step doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity for melee combat purposes only. If you're doing something other than fighting with a melee weapon.
Mobility is a also more interesting as the withdraw action.
Go watch The Princess Bride, specifically the duel between The Spaniard and The Man In Black. They both 5-foot step every single round. Why wouldn't you want people to 5-foot step? D&D is too small-scale to simulate a battle with a front line, which seems to be your aim. It's entirely too easy to simply walk past the "front line" fighter and get up in the mage's or cleric's face and thus prevent them from ever doing anything for the remainder of the battle. The 5-foot step is the only thing keeping casters (especially in Pathfinder, with the extremely difficult Concentration checks) from being useless in combat.
Actually I have used these both home rules (5-foot step and difficult concentration cheks) for 8 years now, and spellcasters have always been efficient in combat. The difference is that sometimes they lose a spell because concentration checks can be failed, somthing that was impossible to happen with the normal rules (except at low levels).
And more, for every use of spell level in a skill check I add 2*spell level to the DC. Why ? Because spell level scale one for every two levels and skill ranks one for every level.I had made some stats for concentration. With this rule, from level 1 to 17 for clerics/druids/wizards, that means you need to roll 13 on D20 without adjustment for Con or Combat Casting. With say Combat Casting and Con 14, you will have a +6 more, and so you will need only a 7 to cast your most powerful spells. For a spell one level lower, you will need only a 5, for a spell two levels lower, you need a 3, and for three levels lower, you need a 1, so no chance to lose the spell.
Now with the concentration skill gone and replace with caster level, you lose 3 points on concentration check, but you use your spellcaster ability modifier which will certainly be higher than your Con one.
So it will be better at some levels.
I was thinking about suggesting that a 5-foot step provokes AoO only from foes you don't threaten, and that handles archers very well, but a wizard can just draw a dagger.
How about: you don't provoke an AoO from anyone you threaten and made an attack against this round.
I was thinking about suggesting that a 5-foot step provokes AoO only from foes you don't threaten, and that handles archers very well, but a wizard can just draw a dagger.
How about: you don't provoke an AoO from anyone you threaten and made an attack against this round.
Yes, it could be interesting, but I fear that archers will be wearing a spiked gauntlet to counter this....
Yes, that could be an interesting way to handle that, it is even more severe than what I'm ruling.
In fact, I only allow the 5-foot step to not provoke attacks of opportunity when it is made at the end of the turn, so a character can use it to cast a spell or fire his bow without any risk.
But your idea is interesting.
|
|
But under the proposed scheme won't the archer stand, then move their full speed away (since five foot stepping no longer provides any protection)?It just seems to me that removing the "does not provoke an attack of opportunity" part of five foot stepping basically removes its reason for existing in the first place (other than the example you give of a fighter dropping someone and pressing on).
No, because standing is a move action and they therefore could not move unless they were also allowed a 5-foot step.
|
|
I guess in the rare case that an archer is tripped, has to use a move action to stand, and then takes a 5ft to not provoke with the bow. Really, it's so limited in application if you bring AoO into the mix.The archer can't take a 5 ft. step after getting up. A character can only take a 5 foot step (movement that does not provoke an AoO) if his move action does not involve movement. If a character gets up, his move action, then moves any amount (5 feet, 30 feet, does not matter) it is a double move, not a 5 foot step.
I disagree. Movement is a game term that specifically means three-dimensional travel over a distance and is not equivalent to a move action. Since standing does not entail moving out of a square, there is no movement. It is a move action, but the rules specifically say a character may take a move action and 5-foot step as long as their is no movement.
I guess in the rare case that an archer is tripped, has to use a move action to stand, and then takes a 5ft to not provoke with the bow. Really, it's so limited in application if you bring AoO into the mix.The archer can't take a 5 ft. step after getting up. A character can only take a 5 foot step (movement that does not provoke an AoO) if his move action does not involve movement. If a character gets up, his move action, then moves any amount (5 feet, 30 feet, does not matter) it is a double move, not a 5 foot step.
Are you sure about that? Can you back it up with an official ruling somewhere?
By your argument, every action might be "movement". Drawing a sword involves moving your arm. Talking involves moving your jaw and tongue. Etc.
I don't think the rules intend to define "moving" quite so specifically.
Instead, I think their general intent for the rule you qoute involves moving to a new square. Movement within your square, like drawing a weapon, talking, waving your arms in a spell incantation, and even standing up, is not considered "movement" as regarding your ability to use or not use a 5'-step based on whether you have already moved this round.
Further, the intent of this rule (no 5'-step in the same round that you take a movement action) was to prevent people with a speed of 30 from being able to move 35 (else why not simply list their speed as 35 - well, then they'd move 40...).
I have never seen anything official to prove otherwise.
Now for the rule:
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.
That first sentence is not actually the rule. It's more like the headline: "You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement." It explains the basic gist of the rule; the rest of the paragraph clarifies this first sentence with actual rules.
Note the last sentence (well, clause really): "and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance." Especially note the part about "any distance".
Sure, you could argue that a man standing up in his own space has moved his head about 5' higher than it was when he was prone, so at least his head has moved some distance. But I don't think anyone really believes that's what this means.
The prone individual occupies a square. Staying in the sqaure means you do not move any distance, leaving the square means you are moving some distance, and that's when you can't take your 5'-step: when you leave your square.
All other movement stuff you do in your square doesn't prevent you from taking a 5'-step.
As a final, final note: Standing Up is considered a "Move" action. It says so in the book. But if you look closely, the 5'-step rule doesn't say "you cannot take a 5-foot step in the same round that you take a 'move' action." I would think that, had they intended for all "move" actions to prohibit a 5'-step, they would have worded it using their own action terminonlogy.
Yep, I agree with DM_Blake here. Move actions are not (necessarily) movement. If they were, a bard wouldn't be able to 5 foot step after using a bardic performance (assuming they use the "fastest" activation, which there's little reason not to do) between the levels of 7 and 12, but could 1-6 and 13+. That's just silly.
I'm definitely going to try 5-foot steps provoking, with an exception for creatures you've attacked this turn. I'm trying to figure out exactly what to make that exception, and hesitating on two points. Anyone want to pitch in some commentary? Here are my options, in order of how restrictive they are:
When taking a 5-foot step, you provoke attacks of opportunity for moving out of a threatened square unless...
1. you have attacked the threatening creature this turn.
2. you threaten the threatening creature, and have attacked it this turn.
3. you have made a melee attack against the threatening creature this turn.
4. you threaten the threatening creature, and have made a melee attack against it this turn.
Subtle differences. :) Note that I'm thinking about applying this rule to the first square of any move: smack 'em and you can back away safely. (I already house-rule Withdraw to a single move on a standard action.)
The first option allows a ranged attack against an adjacent opponent (which would also provoke) to prevent provocation on the move. There aren't many situations where this is a good option with a 5-foot step, but if I do apply this rule to all movement it could be useful, e.g. if you go around a corner so you wouldn't be able to attack afterwards.
The second option allows all of the above, but requires some sort of melee weapon be ready during movement. A point-blank arrow or javelin or scorching ray is definitely a distraction; the question is whether it's enough of one to prevent a lunge or riposte if the attacker clearly can't do anything more and is retreating. This could increase the value of Improved Unarmed Strike and/or Quick Draw.
The third option outright disallows ranged weapons. I'm really not certain whether I prefer this or not.
The fourth option primarily rules out whips and discharged touch attacks.
Of course there's another possible degree of complication: should I change it to an attack which hits and deals damage?
|
|
DM_Blake:
Just to expand on your post, which points out evidence to support mine, I think the reason the third sentence reiterates "move any distance" is to prevent you from taking a 5-foot step and then casting dimension door or similar abilities. It not only defines movement as in moving your speed, but also hedges in movement produced through other means.
Well, our DM gives the Step Up feat for free to everyone. Which sucks ofcourse, since I'm a wizard and with free step ups every meleer can always follow me forcing me heavy concentration rolls.
How so? Spellcraft has nothing to do with concentration rolls. Concentration is straight up caster level + casting stat.