You walk in to sit down at a new pathfinder game. You pull out your sheet, to create your character.
The DM says, "3d6, straight down the line. Oh, and by the way, I don't allow the 5' step as an option in combat."
What changes when you remove the ability of characters to take a 5' step?
Sounds like an -old school- DM who doesn't want to admit he's not running AD&D.
No 5' step? Yikes. Does he still use AoOs?
AoO's and casting be the most effected I think. Combat casting will be an almost must
You walk in to sit down at a new pathfinder game. You pull out your sheet, to create your character.
The DM says, "3d6, straight down the line. Oh, and by the way, I don't allow the 5' step as an option in combat."
What changes when you remove the ability of characters to take a 5' step?
Characters will become even more rooted in place during combat than they already are and full attacks will be slightly harder to pull off. Spellcasters will have a more difficult time casting because they are going to draw AoOs for moving or be forced to make a defense casting check.
The limit on movement is bad for melee people, but worse for casters (and archers). I'm all for changing the power structure and making melee types better, but I don't like limiting movement in combat as a way of accomplishing it.
It shouldn't change your game drastically, but if I played a melee type I'd definitely want to either get Spring Attack or max out my acrobatics skill to try and avoid AoO's for moving.
|
Sounds like the kind of game where the DM likes to run a lot of monsters with pounce, ride by attack, fly by attack and other abilities that allow the monsters to gain the upper hand attackwise on now less mobile characters. Or, like someone said earlier, he is still playing old school, in which case, there are likely to be other things that are different in the game. It could be that he just is annoyed by the fact that casters can take a 5' step back and cast without being threatened, in which case you should point out the feat Step Up to him, as the solution to his issue.
My suggestion if you played a melee in this game would be take a reach weapon, lunge, and either short haft if 3.5 stuff is allowed or the spike gauntlet option, because otherwise you likely aren't going to be able to reach your opponents half the time and full attack.
Sounds like an -old school- DM who doesn't want to admit he's not running AD&D.
No 5' step? Yikes. Does he still use AoOs?
Yes, AoO are still being used. When you ask him he says,
"Since we aren't simulating the round structure, you kinda have to use them to model things like interrupting wizards spells, don't you?"
Sounds like the kind of game where the DM likes to run a lot of monsters with pounce, ride by attack, fly by attack and other abilities that allow the monsters to gain the upper hand attackwise on now less mobile characters.
My suggestion if you played a melee in this game would be take a reach weapon, lunge, and either short haft if 3.5 stuff is allowed or the spike gauntlet option, because otherwise you likely aren't going to be able to reach your opponents half the time and full attack.
He says in response to this,
"I'm the DM, I don't have to change the rules to get the upper hand"
My main concern is just kind of trying to understand what all this change will actually do, instead of trying to find a way to 'take advantage of it' mechanically.
|
|
It plays havoc with the ability of melee to gain a full attack on a more mobile monster, and will cause casters to have to cast defensively a whole lot more. Also, it will provoke more AoO as you can't take the safety (non-AoO provoking) of a 5' step if in melee. Have you asked him why he disallowed a fundamental part of the combat movement for the game?
It plays havoc with the ability of melee to gain a full attack on a more mobile monster, and will cause casters to have to cast defensively a whole lot more. Also, it will provoke more AoO as you can't take the safety (non-AoO provoking) of a 5' step if in melee. Have you asked him why he disallowed a fundamental part of the combat movement for the game?
Well, I just asked him, and he's like;
"Hasn't [the poster] every heard of a house rule before? or does he play strict RAW?"
So, I dunno. Don't we all play with house rules? I'm not upset about it, I'm just wondering how it will change the pace of the game.
Could you explain what you mean by "Not simulating the round structure"?
Yes, the 3e round is not divided into 10 combat segments. You do not adjust your initiative roll for weapon speed and casting time of spells. Therefore there is not a three or four segment window in which the magic-user is casting in which he can be disrupted if he is struck by weapons.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Could you explain what you mean by "Not simulating the round structure"?Yes, the 3e round is not divided into 10 combat segments. You do not adjust your initiative roll for weapon speed and casting time of spells. Therefore there is not a three or four segment window in which the magic-user is casting in which he can be disrupted if he is struck by weapons.
He's definitely running old school AD&D-style. Sounds like the reason for the house rule is to make it easier to disrupt spellcasters, in which case (should you be intending to play a caster) Combat Casting is absolutely a must. Dodge and Mobility would probably be helpful, too, as you can still take a single move action to leave a threatened square, then cast your standard action spell from relative safety after letting the baddie take his AoO. If you are NOT playing a caster, then it will have relatively little impact on you (save the fact that you won't be able to make full attack actions very often unless you're an archer). Even still, Dodge and Mobility will be your friends here too.
Okay... I get where your GM is coming from, now. Yes, he's definitely an old-school hard-core AD&D wonk... and I'm not saying that in a derogatory tone, there were a lot of good things in that system which have gotten lost. But he needs to be careful, because as others have pointed out, enough has changed that just "changing things back" can cause major havoc in unexpected places. So if he doesn't mind comparing notes a little, could you bring up the following concerns just to make sure they're addressed? (He may very well have already covered the bases, but best to double-check.)
For starters, barring phenomenal luck, your attributes are simply not going to cut it, and I'm not just talking about being weak against CR-appropriate enemies; that bit's easily fixed by just treating you as one or two levels lower. The main issue is that while the old prerequisite system is gone, there's a new one for spellcasters that's significantly nastier: you need a key ability score of 10 + spell level to successfully cast. Being the old-school sort, I doubt he's going to have a magic mart or hand out +ability items like candy; so while a 1st Ed. wizard could get by on as little as the 9 Int required to enter the class, in 3.x you want 15 as a bare minimum to guarantee access to all your spells at the right levels. Since you don't even get to assign at will, there's a significant chance of a party with nobody qualified for spellcasting of any sort... and that's probably not good. Several 3.x design expectations are based around average rolls from 4d6-drop.
As for the 5' step: I'm totally with him on the "wizards need to fear disruption" reasoning, but as others have pointed out, removing it has even worse implications for melee due to the full-round attack system. I kept it, but it provokes an AoO like any other movement. This has worked very well so far: the wizard can choose to take the damage in exchange for a free cast, which is a risky tactical decision instead of a give-away. Also, spears are a lot better.
|
|
Yes, the 3e round is not divided into 10 combat segments. You do not adjust your initiative roll for weapon speed and casting time of spells. Therefore there is not a three or four segment window in which the magic-user is casting in which he can be disrupted if he is struck by weapons.
None of this stuff has even been in the game to my knowledge since 2nd edition. AFAIK, weapons speed, casting windows, unless its a full round spell, are things of the past, using defensive casting and casting in a threatened square to simulate the same effect. Sounds like there are more differences than just a moratorium on 5' steps between this game and a standard 3.5 or PF game. I have been playing since 1st ed myself, and while I love that flavor of the game, the two combat/movement systems are VERY different.
None of this stuff has even been in the game to my knowledge since 2nd edition. AFAIK, weapons speed, casting windows, unless its a full round spell, are things of the past, using defensive casting and casting in a threatened square to simulate the same effect.
Yes, that's the point. He's not adding segments. He's removing 5' steps because they frequently mean a wizard doesn't have to cast defensively at all, which makes disruption a non-threat.
|
|
I guess I am thinking about my 8 player group. If the melee did not have the capacity to take a safe 5' step, the monsters and NPCs would flay them alive with AoO. If you have a large playing group, taking away their 5' step so they could maneuver around each other and the monsters successfully is far more devastating to the melee than the casters. If I want to disrupt their casting, I just assign Step Up to the monsters I want to be tougher against casters and call it a day. Much less work than removing a fundamental part of a balanced combat/movement system that has been extensively playtested. Plus, rogues are going to have a lot harder time establishing a flank with a melee class if they can't take that safe step.
If you have a large playing group, taking away their 5' step so they could maneuver around each other and the monsters successfully is far more devastating to the melee than the casters.
Yep. Even in a small group, once full-round attacks are meaningful. See my post above for a slightly less drastic solution. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Fate, I like your posts a lot, but I think you're off base on this one. Despite the DM's efforts to disrupt casting (which readied and delayed actions already do just fine, but he seems to not understand) I still feel that the rule (IMHO a bad one) has greater impact on Rogues than on casters.
Rez, you're absolutely right. It does have a VERY severe impact on melee fighters, especially rogues and "defensive" fighters. As for why the wizard can't just stand back? Well, beyond about 5th or 6th level, any monster with an Intelligence score above 6 is going to single out the mage as the #1 threat on the battlefield and take great pains to get in his face and ruin his day. Also, without 5' steps, clerics become less capable melee combatants because they can't "step out of combat" for a round and toss around some healing (some might say this is a good thing, as clerics are often thought to be overpowered anyway, but I disagree).
Once the wizard has been charged and is forced into melee with the bad guy(s), without a 5' step, he's in serious trouble with his d6 hit die and probably sub-par AC (until level 13+ when he becomes nigh-unstoppable).
Oh, and for the record, I think it's a bad rule too, but that's not the subject here.
It could be that he just is annoyed by the fact that casters can take a 5' step back and cast without being threatened, in which case you should point out the feat Step Up to him, as the solution to his issue.
Or just have the enemies Ready an Action. It even says it in the PHB (and probably PRPG) to simply Ready an Action to 5 ft. step and make an attack on a caster pulling that maneuver (since you're allowed a 5 ft. step with a Readied Action as long as you didn't move during your turn).
Oh, and let's not forget the deadliness of enemies with Natural Reach. A 5 ft. step won't always save you from them if you're trying to leave a threatened spaces that span out to 2-4 squares!
1) I fail to see why everyone thinks casters spend so much of their time in threatened squares and need 5' steps;
Because a wizard's enemies, if they have an Intelligence score of at least the high single digits, very much want to threaten those squares. Barbarian identifies wizard as major threat. Tumbles past the lumbering dwarf, lays down one massive smack. Wizard is two-thirds dead.
Wizard takes five-foot step, dominates barbarian. Sorry Mr. Barbarian! No chance at all to make an AoO, wizard is 100% safe from anything you could possibly do. Doesn't even have to roll a concentration check. Wizard's teammates don't have to do anything to help him. He's the golden boy!
2) I fail to see why; A) casters can't stand beside archers and be perfectly safe; or, B) Why archers aren't at as much of a disadvantage as are casters;
Archers are affected, as rightly they should be. An archer without a backup melee weapon is a fool. But generally, an archer can actually use a melee weapon effectively. They also tend to have significantly more hit points than a caster. So threatening them reduces their effectiveness, but doesn't outright shut them down.
3) I fail to see why Rogues and other flanking-fighters who need the 5' step to maximize their melee effectiveness by constantly shifting their position to maintain flanking and sneak attacks suffer "relatively little impact" by this.
Mobility and a high tumble modifier are unlikely for a wizard. Dirt common for a rogue.
Despite the DM's efforts to disrupt casting (which readied and delayed actions already do just fine, but he seems to not understand)
A readied action lets you disrupt a wizard very effectively, yes. Unfortunately it prevents you from doing anything else remotely useful, and the wizard can just not cast and laugh at you for wasting an action. It's a free daze with no saving throw or HD cap, and he didn't have to spend any resources on it. And now his friends are killing you, and you don't get to act until your original initiative comes back around. D'oh! Really, that subsystem has some issues.
A delayed action doesn't waste your turn completely, but it also doesn't let you interrupt, making it useless for the purpose.
Really, I suppose this all comes down to a difference in schools of thought. The reasoning of the OP's GM (which is represented and/or reinforced by AD&D) is that spellcasting is a time-consuming and easily disrupted process; wizards are squishy and vulnerable, this is important because it's the only check on their power, and the rules should support the notion that if you're not 100% certain you can get the spell off with no interruption, it's a good idea to run or cower instead.
I would be more hung up on the "3d6 down the line" than the eradication of the 5 foot step. The DM does realize that everyone else should have fun right? If you're railroaded into playing something that you don't want to (or something you do want to that is severely disadvantaged) because of how the dice land, how much fun is that?
Not so much for fighters, and you're taking away their full attack, which absolutely murders their damage.
If you completely eliminate the 5', yes... and I argued against that, above. My version is to just have it provoke.
If you're railroaded into playing something that you don't want to (or something you do want to that is severely disadvantaged) because of how the dice land, how much fun is that?
Some people have far more fun working with limited options. Not having "something you don't want to play" is a bonus, there.
You walk in to sit down at a new pathfinder game. You pull out your sheet, to create your character.
The DM says, "3d6, straight down the line. Oh, and by the way, I don't allow the 5' step as an option in combat."
What changes when you remove the ability of characters to take a 5' step?
Before I join any game I ask for the house rules. I have never had been in a game where I agree with all the houserules, but I have only left one game due to a disagreement. I would try to convince him before the game of why I don't think the rule is correct, and make my decision to stay or leave from there.
As far as the 5 ft step thing, I would just take ranks in acrobatics if I had too.
As far as the 3d6 down the line I am assuming that means you put the stats down in the order you roll them. In that case I would let the stats choose my class. If I only get one good score I would go with a caster. If I do very well I would do my best to fill in the blank spot.
Some people have far more fun working with limited options. Not having "something you don't want to play" is a bonus, there.
Something like a point buy doesn't limit you from playing a less-than optimal character if you want to for whatever reason, be it for the challenge or the rp value. 3d6 down the line imposes potentially undesirable circumstances, and I can only speak for myself but that would limit my fun along with my choices.
3d6 down the line imposes potentially undesirable circumstances, and I can only speak for myself but that would limit my fun along with my choices.
3d6 imposes potentially unplayable circumstances if the GM doesn't do a lot of work to compensate, but that's a matter of the expected range of results; I suggested upping that to 4d6-drop myself, earlier. Your previous comment seemed more concerned with the "down the line" bit, and that's the thing I'm saying can be fun if you don't go into it with a preconceived character concept. Let the dice tell you who you are, and play that role. Be an actor, not an author.
No 5' step is my favorite house rule.
The game is quicker without the time spent making 5' steps. AoOs become more powerful. Fighters have an easier time of defending the squishies. The game plays like Games Workshop's Blood Bowl. And that's great IMHO.Bring a bigger game board. Combat is more mobile when characters lose the option to shuffle in place.
Consider spells, feats and items that slow your foes or push them around. Archers can snipe from afar or stand close enough to tempt the monsters to go on a wild goose chase.
It takes like half a second to move one inch over, and how do they(fighter types) get to monsters that have reach? You can't tumble if the armor reduces your movement speed(this normally means medium and heavy armor).
I would try to convince him on using AD&D, it's so awesome.
I would try to convince him on using AD&D, it's so awesome.
Heh. We do that on Wednesdays.
First, the issue isn't 3d6, that just leads to Darwinist play. (i.e. how long can you survive with this particular character) The issue with how it affects melee fighters was notable, because that wasn't the intent.
So he came back with this. In addition to removing the 5' step, if you are within a reach threatened area, you can attack the person threatening you with a melee weapon. (Assuming exceptions are made for things like 'polearms')
Also: you can have all of your iterative attacks with a melee weapon using a standard action.
It's not just wizards he's concerned about, it's the domination of ranged 'always get full attack' versus melee 'can never get next to a dude and wail on it due to reach'.
Comments?
I would try to convince him on using AD&D, it's so awesome.Heh. We do that on Wednesdays.
First, the issue isn't 3d6, that just leads to Darwinist play. (i.e. how long can you survive with this particular character) The issue with how it affects melee fighters was notable, because that wasn't the intent.
So he came back with this. In addition to removing the 5' step, if you are within a reach threatened area, you can attack the person threatening you with a melee weapon. (Assuming exceptions are made for things like 'polearms')
Also: you can have all of your iterative attacks with a melee weapon using a standard action.
It's not just wizards he's concerned about, it's the domination of ranged 'always get full attack' versus melee 'can never get next to a dude and wail on it due to reach'.
Comments?
Yes. Play 2 times a week the same game you play Wednesdays. It's so Awesome! ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
In addition to removing the 5' step, if you are within a reach threatened area, you can attack the person threatening you with a melee weapon. (Assuming exceptions are made for things like 'polearms')
Please clarify this. Do you mean to say that, as long as I'm in a square the monster threatens, I can still attack it normally even if I don't have a reach weapon? That kinda defeats the whole purpose of reach.
Also: you can have all of your iterative attacks with a melee weapon using a standard action.
Whoa. Whoa. That... is a terrifying thought. Is your DM really upset about the fact that mages dominate the late game and wants to make melee combatants SUBSTANTIALLY more powerful? Bear in mind that this rule also means that the MONSTERS can do the same trick. No one wants to be on the receiving end of a dragon's full attack action EVERY SINGLE ROUND. Your party will just die.
In addition to removing the 5' step, if you are within a reach threatened area, you can attack the person threatening you with a melee weapon. (Assuming exceptions are made for things like 'polearms')Please clarify this. Do you mean to say that, as long as I'm in a square the monster threatens, I can still attack it normally even if I don't have a reach weapon? That kinda defeats the whole purpose of reach.
Also: you can have all of your iterative attacks with a melee weapon using a standard action.Whoa. Whoa. That... is a terrifying thought. Is your DM really upset about the fact that mages dominate the late game and wants to make melee combatants SUBSTANTIALLY more powerful? Bear in mind that this rule also means that the MONSTERS can do the same trick. No one wants to be on the receiving end of a dragon's full attack action EVERY SINGLE ROUND. Your party will just die.
He is an AD&D Junkie, it was like this before, and still magic was so much more powerful, funny eh?
Yeah, this is the general idea. I mean, Dragons are dangerous, right?
No, seriously, your points in order.
In addition to removing the 5' step, if you are within a reach threatened area, you can attack the person threatening you with a melee weapon. (Assuming exceptions are made for things like 'polearms')Please clarify this. Do you mean to say that, as long as I'm in a square the monster threatens, I can still attack it normally even if I don't have a reach weapon? That kinda defeats the whole purpose of reach.
Yes, as long as the reach is due to natural weapons (and not something like a pole-arm.)
It does not defeat the point of reach for 2 reasons. Reach monsters have a much larger selections of targets. And they can move up freely against creatures without reach, and since there is no more 5' step away, they can force opponents to take AoO if they wish to flee.
Also: you can have all of your iterative attacks with a melee weapon using a standard action.Whoa. Whoa. That... is a terrifying thought. Is your DM really upset about the fact that mages dominate the late game and wants to make melee combatants SUBSTANTIALLY more powerful? Bear in mind that this rule also means that the MONSTERS can do the same trick. No one wants to be on the receiving end of a dragon's full attack action EVERY SINGLE ROUND. Your party will just die.
Yes, but if it goes for everyone, it will be *less* deadly than our 1e game, because hit point totals are astronomical in 3e.
-Campbell|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Yes, but if it goes for everyone, it will be *less* deadly than our 1e game, because hit point totals are astronomical in 3e.
-Campbell
So are damage totals. A barbarian with Power Attack and a greataxe could dish out up to 20 damage in a single hit at 1st level (up to 60 on a crit!). I don't think you'll see that kind of output in 1e.
So are damage totals. A barbarian with Power Attack and a greataxe could dish out up to 20 damage in a single hit at 1st level (up to 60 on a crit!). I don't think you'll see that kind of output in 1e.Yes, but if it goes for everyone, it will be *less* deadly than our 1e game, because hit point totals are astronomical in 3e.
-Campbell
Why is that?
I only ask, because the level 7 fighter in our 1e group does about 50-70 points of damage a round against a single target.
At 1st Level he would hit for on *average* 16 points of damage. 32 points against the same target if he got to hit it a second round.
Now Attack routine of 5/2
Broad sword +3, one handed, +9 to hit +12 on damage, he hits armor class 0 on a 2 or better. damage is 2d4 against man sized opponents, and we use exploding dice. Even if you don't, average damage is 32 the first round he's attacking something and 51 the second. Since we *do* use exploding dice it tends to be higher. Also the sword has what is essentially an 'icy burst' enchantment, giving a bonus on the critical table.
That sounds in line with the barbarian.
|
|
These changes...not so good.
The rolls might be fun once in a while, but no way does the players learn to love it. He should at least allow 3d6 fill as you like.
The 5' sounds like a good idea, but it's not going to be. It weakens everybody, but it really hurts melee. If he wants to cut combat time down, he should get rid of AoOs, not 5'. Or if he wants them to feel disruption, have only weak combat classes (the d6 ones) not be able to take 5' steps due to "lack of good combat movement training" or some other fluff/excuse.
He sounds like he's defensive about the changes. Depending on your like or dislike of the game, you might have to talk to him in private about it, or find a new group.
These changes...not so good.
The rolls might be fun once in a while, but no way does the players learn to love it. He should at least allow 3d6 fill as you like.
I find it interesting that you can tell what we enjoy over here. That's pretty amazing.
It can be fun to take what you get and see how far you can go - where survival really is victory. You don't have to like it, but it isn't an issue over here.
The 5' sounds like a good idea, but it's not going to be. It weakens everybody, but it really hurts melee. If he wants to cut combat time down, he should get rid of AoOs, not 5'. Or if he wants them to feel disruption, have only weak combat classes (the d6 ones) not be able to take 5' steps due to "lack of good combat movement training" or some other fluff/excuse.
This would be ok, but there's an *awful* lot of d8 casters. It's not combat *time* that's the issue. The issue is casters having too easy a time avoiding disruption, and archery dominating melee because they always get their full attacks.
He sounds like he's defensive about the changes. Depending on your like or dislike of the game, you might have to talk to him in private about it, or find a new group.
Not really, he did prompt me to post here just so he could maybe use the wisdom of the masses to catch a change perhaps he missed.
-Campbell
If I was trying to simulate this, I think I'd allow the 5' step, but just make it provoke like any other movement (for casters and non-casters alike).
So a wizard *could* step back and cast safely, but he will get swatted for it. Or he can stay where he is and cast defensively. Then add Step Up for the killer "I swat you for moving, then follow you anyways."
I get up from the table and go find a DM that wants to run 3.5/Pathfinder not AD&D/Pathfinder.
1) The loss of the 5' step has been well-described by others. I second the notion of pointing out the Step Up feat. I also find it occasionally useful if I'm using rays on people, but normal movement can help with that.
2) 3d6 for stats, in order
This will cause quite a few problems. The presence or absence of a class will become effectively random. You'll have a cleric if and only if (IFF) someone rolls up stats with a decent Wisdom score. And wizards will be as common as clerics here. There are specific guidelines regarding how much the stat bonuses should be vs. what you generated that are there to prevent you from having characters too weak to survive. While I didn't see that verbiage in my Core Rulebook for Pathfinder (and this method of character creation is still there), it is likely to create characters who are now quite a bit weaker than the monsters they fight. A standard orc is now tougher than the 1st level barbarian because he has the barbarian class abilities on a better chassis than the PC. Can a party of 4 PCs handle him? Maybe, maybe not; strategy and tactics will come into play as always.
I understand the fun of a survival-type mentality, but if even one person isn't onboard, he's (that player) is going to have problems as character after character dies, not always due to his own fault, but because his PC just wasn't tough enough.
3) Reach
This idea does tend to negate the advantage of reach for monsters while permitting weapon-using PCs some advantage. Combined with the lack of 5' steps, I could more or less make a fighter with a halberd and call him 'Magebane'. I am curious as to the desired goal here. Is there a tactical reason, or just the GM applying logic in the sense that 'well, it's arms/tentacles are hitting you, so they have to be close enough for you to hit the arms/tentacles'?
4) Iterative attacks as a standard action
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Archery just became a bucket of fun. What, the fighter is getting close? Move away and shoot him repeatedly. Can also be abused by harpies or other creatures that fly, are humanoid, and use weapons. If I can play a rogue, this could become a fun game too. Move in tandem with the fighter. Fighter moves up, hits enemy a bunch. Rogue moves up, flanks, then sneak attacks enemy into oblivion. Wash, rinse, repeat.
So far, 3 of these 4 rules changes are throwbacks to OD&D or AD&D 1E. The idea of iterative attacks as a standard action appeals to me somewhat (to improve melee types), but without understanding the GM's concerns (is it for the weakness of melee, problems with ranged attackers, or is it spellcasters), these rule changes together seem to say 'melee needs to be more of a stand-still hackfest', at least to me. If they're all made to weaken spellcasters, well, any spellcaster can negate these problems through judicious use of invisibility, fly, dimension door, etc. Presuming a spellcaster lives long enough to get those spells; low-level spellcasters often have problems surviving without help from friends, and the low stat-generation method won't help either.