My opinion has been against 5ft rule for long. It has probably something to do with my passion to play melee types who like to harass casters *grins*
On campaign that I have been playing for close to 2 years and 20ish sessions, we started with no 5ft rule. It worked well, many people seem to forget that same rule goes for opponents as well: if ye get enemy on flanking position, it must decide if to move and do single attack (possible risk AoO) or stay and go for full attack (and be flanked). Effectively, melee characters are allowed to defend their threatened area better. Honestly, I have liked the system.
Still, session or two ago, DM came up and brought back 5ft step that provokes AoO. It has worked even better, as we have Shugenja as a healer and 5ft step really helps his play. I suspect that I ll use this ruling if I DM campaign of my own one day.
Another additional houserule could be awarding all players (and NPC:s)free Step Up feat.
Limiting free 5 ft step action promotes:
-Iniative; character acting first and positioning is actually worth more than enemy taking 5ft away
-Group play and tactics; getting to adjacent position & flanking, keeping bad guys away from squishies
-Skills & Feats; acrobatics, Dodge-feat chain etc.
-Defencive casting and caster positioning
|
I like the idea of removing the 5-foot step. That means that when you're level 1 and facing down a CR4-6 monster with a Claw/Claw/Bite Full Attack, you get to roll new characters and worship the GM for his brilliant use of Rule 0. Truly this benefits everyone, and does, in fact quite literally, speed the combat up.
In other news... a threadjack is incoming.
I'm generally a proponent of not fixing what isn't broken; I see little reason to play AD&D on Wednesday, Pathfinder on whatever other day, and then endeavor to houserule Pathfinder into AD&D.
|
I just wanted to add a story from my own experience when I first started DMing 3.5 as it relates to this topic.
I had two big beefs when I first DMed 3.5. I came from years and years of 1st and 2nd ed play, and didnt get into 3.5 until 3.5 was on its downswing (4.0 was imminent). My problems were: the save DCs for spells did not factor in the casters level and tumbling. It bugged me to no end that a green 1st level wizard with a high int could cast just as effective a 1st level spell as a veteran wizard with a similar int. That bothered my sense of balance coming from 1st/2nd ed play for years. I tinkered with adding caster level into the equation somehow, and worked with my players (who were sort of freaking out at such a noticeable change) to address all the issues this might cause. What started out as one house rule, ended up becoming like 6 house rules to get it somewhat balanced. After much back and forth debate and entertaining all the peripheral issues (ripples to other areas of the game) caused by this one "small" change, I opted to abandon the whole idea and use the RAW. If a particular situation really bothered me, I would add in a small +1 or +2 to the DC of the NPC to balance it out.
The same thing happened with tumbling. It would irk me that it took the same roll for a tumbler (usually a rogue or monk) to move past both a kobold and a 20th level warlord without provoking an AoO. That just makes absolutely no sense that it was a static non-scaling number. Same situation as above took place, where I tried to work in all sorts of adjustments and balances to make a new system work, but in the end, it ended up being a fairly complex mechanic. Once again, in the end I left it alone.
Suprisingly, at least to me, leaving them alone really didn't cause the end of the world. No horrid imbalance or unfairness, nothing drastic took place. Whereas, if I had instituted my new mechanics, or even worse just part of them, things would have either been more complicated or more unbalanced.
As another example, look at how much work, playtesting, and changing went into the few significant changes that took place in Pathfinder RPG over 3.5. Those had to be balanced and all sorts of consideration made gamesystem wide to be sure that chaos would not ensue.
The simple fact of the matter is that many of the core mechanics (AoO, Save DCs, movement rules, combat maneuvers, etc) have all been pretty thoroughly playtested over the years. I think its important to realize that you are drastically altering the balance that has been put into the game when you tinker with one, and that its rather like killing off a species of dominant predator in one area of an ecosystem. Yes you got rid of the foxes eating your chickens, but don't be suprised when you are overrun with rabbits devouring all your crops in a few years.
Another additional houserule could be awarding all players (and NPC:s)free Step Up feat.
I thought of this. However, it really messes up reach weapons. Once an enemy moves adjacent, you won't be able to use a reach weapon.
The only problem I have with the 5' step rules, is that it allows any action that would normally draw an AoO, before the 5' step is made, to essentially be made "in the midst of a melee". This really detracts from the concept of "close combat" for me. A total move of 5' isn't really getting yourself out of "melee combat" in my opinion.
With a mere move of 5' from your opponent, you could often avoid retribution from their melee attacks, and taunting them while you:
- Cast a spell
- drink a potion/apply an oil
- light a torch
- READ A SCROLL!
- tend to a dying friends wounds (stabilize)
- load a crossbow
- move a heavy object
- pick up an item off the ground
- retrieve a stored item
- touch up to 6 of your buddies
- prepare a grenade-like weapon
- and other things not listed on p. 183 of the rulebook, like full-attacking with a projectile weapon
I just can't see someone determining to just stand there and let actions like this take place a mere 5' away, especially when they were previously engaged with the offender.
I'm contemplating adding to the 5' step rules (p.189):
Taking a 5' step does not provoke an attack of opportunity, unless an action you take that round provokes an attack of opportunity.
That would make Step Up a killer.
The simple fact of the matter is that many of the core mechanics (AoO, Save DCs, movement rules, combat maneuvers, etc) have all been pretty thoroughly playtested over the years. I think its important to realize that you are drastically altering the balance that has been put into the game when you tinker with one, and that its rather like killing off a species of dominant predator in one area of an ecosystem. Yes you got rid of the foxes eating your chickens, but don't be suprised when you are overrun with rabbits devouring all your crops in a few years.
I'm confused by your point here, is it we should be *afraid* to change things in a game?
We've played ever edition of D&D for over 20 years now. In first edition no one ever said fighters were underpowered, archers didn't overshadow melee combat, there were no traps when leveling up, etc.
All in all, it lacks *many* of our biggest problems with 3.5/p.
We were talking about options that restore some semblance of that to 1st edition (instead of having to be a physics major to work out how to get your full attack as a melee fighter).
Your statement above won't prevent us from using house rules. I don't why you would share in a thread asking for how this will effect the game the message of "PLAY IT THE WAY THE CREATORS INTENDED IT". We *are* in fact playing pathfinder RAW right now, so it's not like I don't know how the game works.
We'd like to make changes, is that ok with you on the internet? You have anything you'd like to tell me about that gives insight into how this change will affect things? Or do you just want to fearmonger?
P.S. longstanding house rule in our (previous) game(s) (We're playing pathfinder RAW as I said), the DC of the tumble is increased by the BAB of the opponent. Didn't kill any ecosystems there.
Another additional houserule could be awarding all players (and NPC:s)free Step Up feat.I'm contemplating adding to the 5' step rules (p.189):
Taking a 5' step does not provoke an attack of opportunity, unless an action you take that round provokes an attack of opportunity.
That would make Step Up a killer.
Also, this is even better than "5' steps still provoke".
Seems a nice compromise between adjustment through threatened areas for melee fighters and people taking advantage of it to spell/archer.
Your list of concerns very closely matches our discussion of the rule. Thanks.
[Lots of good points, plus:]
2) 3d6 for stats, in orderThis 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...
See, this is actually one of the *huge* benefits of 3rd edition. You can easily start a cleric or wizard with only a 12 or 13 ability score. DC are low, few bonus spells, but it can be done. The sorcerer in my Second Darkness game actually did start with a 13 Charisma (*after* +2 from Human) - worked just fine.
You might get a whole group with 10 or lower Wis and/or Int though, it's true - in 1st you could take those classes with a score of 9 - but it won't be that common.
For other classes, again, a 12-13 Strength is fine - a 12 Strength in 3rd edition = 17 Str in 1st/2nd (+1 to hit and damage).
It's funny to me that 3rd edition works better with "3d6 straight down" than 1st did.
First, the issue isn't 3d6, that just leads to Darwinist play. (i.e. how long can you survive with this particular character)
Right then... no further comment there. I enjoy that once in a while myself. :)
Taking a 5' step does not provoke an attack of opportunity, unless an action you take that round provokes an attack of opportunity.Also, this is even better than "5' steps still provoke".
To be honest, I disagree. I originally had similar exceptions built in, but I scrapped them for a few reasons. Granted, simple expedience was one; but generally, any class shifting for melee advantage is likely to have a higher AC and way more hit points than a wizard.
Step Up is still a brutal-good feat either way. And I like that it's now a feat you might take even if you're not building a wizard-killer. (From the GM's perspective, I previously saw it as something I either had to give to absolutely every enemy warrior, or to none because it would have been the ultimate GM Dick Move.)
See, this is actually one of the *huge* benefits of 3rd edition. You can easily start a cleric or wizard with only a 12 or 13 ability score. DC are low, few bonus spells, but it can be done. The sorcerer in my Second Darkness game actually did start with a 13 Charisma (*after* +2 from Human) - worked just fine.You might get a whole group with 10 or lower Wis and/or Int though, it's true - in 1st you could take those classes with a score of 9 - but it won't be that common.
For other classes, again, a 12-13 Strength is fine - a 12 Strength in 3rd edition = 17 Str in 1st/2nd (+1 to hit and damage).
It's funny to me that 3rd edition works better with "3d6 straight down" than 1st did.
I agree that you can do this. I'm looking at a straight average roll here though. If you get an average roll on 3d6, you start with a 10 or 11 in a stat. I think at low levels the melee types might be OK, but hitting even an AC of 15 or 16 will become a bit harder, and that's a foe with a heavy shield, no Dex, and a chain shirt. Nothing spectacular there.
Spellcasters, though, now have more stringent requirements to use spells than in previous editions: 10 + spell level. Yes, you can build functional spellcasters with a 12 in their casting stat to start. Let's say you do. But at 4th, they will need to put their ability boost in that stat just so they can be ready to cast 3rd level spells next level. They'll be in trouble if they don't have a stat booster soon after, as they'll get spell slots but be unable to use higher-level spells beginning at 7th for clerics, druids, and wizards. The sorcerer and bard will be OK for a little while, but then when 5th-level spells appear, the problem reappears. I'm also operating under the assumption that magic items will be whatever is randomly determined, as well as the assumption that item creation will be limited (no place to buy things, PCs might not be able to craft stuff, etc.). If I'm wrong about these, so be it, life gets a bit easier to deal with. If the party makes it to higher levels, the spellcaster that tries to throw spells directly at opponents (i.e., spells with saving throws) will be in trouble, forcing more use of spells without saves (either because the caster is buffing or because he's using things that are nasty and don't allow saves, like wall spells). Of course, if the PCs are all dead at low levels, this doesn't matter as much. I'm also worried that there won't be a functional caster from that formula of roll 3d6: you need someone to get that 12 or 13 in Int, Wis, or Cha for it to happen.
I agree that you can do this. I'm looking at a straight average roll here though. If you get an average roll on 3d6, you start with a 10 or 11 in a stat. I think at low levels the melee types might be OK, but hitting even an AC of 15 or 16 will become a bit harder, and that's a foe with a heavy shield, no Dex, and a chain shirt. Nothing spectacular there.
Hey Lathiira, just chiming in. You are right on that. But I've found that Aid Another becomes much more utilized to compensate at low level, as I use a similar, but not quite as restrictive system for rolling scores. It works fine as long as the GM restricts access to half and full plate until about 3rd-4th level.
Spellcasters, though, now have more stringent requirements to use spells than in previous editions: 10 + spell level. Yes, you can build functional spellcasters with a 12 in their casting stat to start. Let's say you do. But at 4th, they will need to put their ability boost in that stat just so they can be ready to cast 3rd level spells next level. They'll be in trouble if they don't have a stat booster soon after, as they'll get spell slots but be unable to use higher-level spells beginning at 7th for clerics, druids, and wizards. The sorcerer and bard will be OK for a little while, but then when 5th-level spells appear, the problem reappears. I'm also operating under the assumption that magic items will be whatever is randomly determined, as well as the assumption that item creation will be limited (no place to buy things, PCs might not be able to craft stuff, etc.). If I'm wrong about these, so be it, life gets a bit easier to deal...
Now here, the 10 + spell level thing while understandable and a good rule, in practice, it doesn't have much bite, as it is extremely easy to meet the requirements based on character creation guidelines. 3d6 does indeed put a strain on spell users if they don't roll a good score, but I for one like that aspect. Regardless, my players still frequently manage to roll adequate scores (13+) for their primary attributes. Nothing wrong with turning back down the overall power level of the game. It seems to get turned up a notch with every new edition, like inflation.
Now here, the 10 + spell level thing while understandable and a good rule, in practice, it doesn't have much bite, as it is extremely easy to meet the requirements based on character creation guidelines. 3d6 does indeed put a strain on spell users if they don't roll a good score, but I for one like that aspect. Regardless, my players still frequently manage to...
Nothing wrong with turning the power dial up or down, as long as everyone's aware of the way the game will be played. But before one should say the power level in each edition has been turned up or down, take a look at everything. Dragon hp has done nothing but gone up, as has the damage they can do in melee. But look at meteor swarm and then look at the hp of fighters from 1E to Pathfinder. Direct damage has been turned down a bit. But yes, there's been some power creep over editions.
I'm concerned that the party could easily be generated that has no cleric, no wizard, no sorcerer, etc. At higher levels, magic dominates many games, it's true, but it's also, I hesitate to say RAW, necessary. If your cleric can't cure wounds and neutralize nasty status ailments that come up-things the cleric is naturally good at-then it can make for a great game. Or a frustrating one. If the wizard or sorcerer can't seem to hurt an enemy (and I mean hurt not just as HP damage but use of battlefield control magic, save-or-suck, and all other offensive magic direct and indirect) because the enemy manages to consistently make their saves, it can be frustrating. And again, if the group doesn't make it that far 'cause they're all dead at 3rd level, it won't matter, the group can roll up new PCs.
One other concern occurs to me: meeting feat prerequisites could be a royal pain under this method.
I think, being honest with myself, that over time I (and the groups I've gamed in) have gotten away from this particular character generation method due to the randomness of the character you generate. I have a concept in mind from the get-go that I want to play when it's time to generate a character, and this method could very well derail a concept entirely, e.g. it's hard to be a cleric in 3.5 or Pathfinder with a 9 Wisdom.
This rule doesn't "make casters cast on the defensively"
it makes them "die at low levels and reroll as melee".
It becomes an unwinnable tactical situation since tumble lets you escape the melee and move straight to the casters who now have absolutely no way to get away.
Sure, they can withdraw.. until you charge next round and finish them off.
Or they can cast at you..b ut unless they *take you out* in that one spell then you, the melee, take them out on the next.
Combat becomes tumble-tag. Whoever charges the casters first wins. Casters cease to exist.
If you make the perfectly logical assumption that most creatures with intelligence can spot the cloth wearing guy in back and that they can figure he's probably a spell caster then it becomes the default combat model for intelligent foes to kill them first. And since melee can't stop the tumblers then the wizards simply die.
Houseruling is something the DM and PC's come to agreements on. I'm afraid this isn't one I could agree to- not as a melee and not as a caster. Its just a tool for the DM to use to keep caster PC's eating dirt. Its much, much simpler to just ask them not to play caster PC's.
-S
|
This rule doesn't "make casters cast on the defensively"
it makes them "die at low levels and reroll as melee".It becomes an unwinnable tactical situation since tumble lets you escape the melee and move straight to the casters who now have absolutely no way to get away.
Sure, they can withdraw.. until you charge next round and finish them off.
Or they can cast at you..b ut unless they *take you out* in that one spell then you, the melee, take them out on the next.Combat becomes tumble-tag. Whoever charges the casters first wins. Casters cease to exist.
If you make the perfectly logical assumption that most creatures with intelligence can spot the cloth wearing guy in back and that they can figure he's probably a spell caster then it becomes the default combat model for intelligent foes to kill them first. And since melee can't stop the tumblers then the wizards simply die.
Houseruling is something the DM and PC's come to agreements on. I'm afraid this isn't one I could agree to- not as a melee and not as a caster. Its just a tool for the DM to use to keep caster PC's eating dirt. Its much, much simpler to just ask them not to play caster PC's.
-S
How is that different from AD&D then? Back then, people still played casters, with lower HP no less. And mages progressed more slowly due to different XP tables. If it survived back then, it'll survive this house rule.
That being said, I don't think the rule will work out as they intended however.
AD&D didn't have tumble, so the wizard could actually hide behind someone.
Mind you I haven't looked at it in forever so maybe there's some mechanic I'm forgetting that let melee just bypass melee completely and attack someone else with no consequence.
-S
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?
If you're considering melee, spring attack and stand still with a long spear suddenly become very very appealing.
AD&D didn't have tumble, so the wizard could actually hide behind someone.
Mind you I haven't looked at it in forever so maybe there's some mechanic I'm forgetting that let melee just bypass melee completely and attack someone else with no consequence.
-S
Bear in mind that it's been a loooong time, but since AD&D didn't have AoO's, I think you could just walk past the fighters....
Bear in mind that it's been a loooong time, but since AD&D didn't have AoO's, I think you could just walk past the fighters....I honestly don't remember how 1e actually worked. Looking at a 2e DMG I have laying around, combat was abstracted to "engaged at melee" and "not engaged in melee", so you were pretty much stuck in melee forever if you got into melee and nobody came to cover your retreat. If you tried to bypass someone or leave melee, they could just stay with you, getting a free attack if you moved more than 1/3 speed (the equivalent of 2/3 speed in 3e).
Those editions were before the advent of the little moneymaking statues we know and love. Once you actually had those guys running around on the table it was impossible not to raise the question, "um, if he was just going to stand there and cast right next to me I'd smack him around wouldn't I? Or at least poke him in the eye." DM: "hrrmmm.. ok.. what's your THAC0? Oh, right.. nevermind."
Oh, we noted it before then. In 1st edition a round was a minute long.
"So, he's casting a spell."
"Yeah."
"Right in front of me?"
"Yeah."
"I push him."
"You can't."
"Why not?"
"You already attacked this round."
"But I don't want to attack. I just want to break his concentration."
"You can't."
"Why not?"
"Because that's the rule."
"He has to stand there for a minute?"
"Yes."
"And he can't defend himself."
"No."
"I push him."
"You can't"
"Why not?"
"BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULES!!!"
"That's stupid."
"Yes, it---ARRGHHH!"
Flinging of dice begins.
Those editions were before the advent of the little moneymaking statues we know and love.Nonsense...
Remember, D&D grew out of a miniatures wargame.
This. D&D has always been a game based around miniatures combat. Hell, Chainmail (where D&D came from) uses very similar combat resolution mechanics to AD&D 2nd edition. Original D&D actually recommended the use of Chainmail rules for large-scale fights. Gygax converted all kinds of figures into fantasy miniatures (a stegosaur into a dragon, a 70mm viking into a giant, etc) for use in Chainmail and later D&D.
BTW, this is totally unrelated, but you want to know the reason why we use d4s, d8s, d12s, and d20s in D&D? It's not for variety. It's because Gygax and Arneson were able to strike a deal with a mathematics supply wholesaler for dice; they couldn't get just 6-siders at a decent price because the wholesaler only had them in sets with the other types (they were generally used for Statistics classes before D&D came along). They pretty much had to invent uses for each of the odd dice, which is probably why the d12 is so poor and neglected. That's the story as Dave Arneson told it, anyway.
Casters survived before for several reasons. Sleep had no save, Grease worked like a charm, Haste (Oh how I miss you cause now you suck), Stoneskin saved everyone's asses. To sum up, the spells were MUCH more powerful.
And on top of that, even if he was right there on your face, you could only disrupt him if your attack was beetween his initiative roll and his modifier, otherwise you would have to eat that spell with no save.
One hint from an old player to another, it's something like the butterfly effect, changing one rule can in fact change the whole game and probably not for the best, so you have to at least be thorough, VERY thorough.
Despite that fact I can tell you another thing from experience, don't change 3.5 or PF to AD&D if you want to change so much of how combat works. Do it the otherway around, and believe me, it works like a charm.
I play a AD&D campaign for 10 years now, many house rules were introduced, and it is easier cause rules are less set in stone, have TONS of options from other books and the impact is much less noticeable. There are various feats in the game, bought with CP, combat maneuvers and the like. And it is pretty easy for me and the others to grasp it, cause most of the people on that game (and I'm assuming on your table is the same) Know the mechanics from AD&D much better than they know PF, so it is easier to change it. Give it a shot, you won't regret it, I assure you.
I get up from the table and go find a DM that wants to run 3.5/Pathfinder not AD&D/Pathfinder.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I GM both oldschool and Pathfinder and there are different approaches to take as there are different mindsets involved in the way the games are played.
In AD&D/OSRIC/LL+AEC, etc, the game is more fluid and less complicated. In these games you start out as an ordinary person and work up.
This doesn't make it better, just simpler.
In Pathfinder, skills, feats and other game options add detail and really open up the game for customization. In this game you start out ahead of the average bear.
This doesn't make it better either, just more detailed.
Either way, I would never say 3d6 down the line as I agree that you need an edge. I usually allow for 4d6, drop the lowest and place where you want the score. There is a big difference between working with challenges and a Wizard with a 7 Int.
In any of these games mutual fun is the ultimate goal, restrictive rules that hobble characters is a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. A flexible GM leads to a fun game, as long as that GM is fair to everyone equally.
Oh, we noted it before then. In 1st edition a round was a minute long.
My response was a little tongue-in-cheek:) I was referring mainly to the move from AD&D 2nd edition to the d20 system. I just pulled out my Player's Handbook for 2nd Edition. In the section about what you need to play the game they mention the books, character sheet, pencil, eraser, dice,graph paper, and you can bring some miniatures if you'd like because they can sometimes help remember where everyone is.
Rounds were a minute long and you could move 10 times your move rate in a full round. You could move half your move rate if you were entering melee combat and still get an attack in that round. Or you could move at half rate and get half your rate of fire with a missile weapon. You can Withdraw at 1/3 your movement speed from melee, or you can turn tail and run although an opponent gets the equivalent of an attack of opportunity.
That's the extent of movement in combat. There's not a single mention of miniatures that I can see other than that first section saying that they might be helpful in some situations so you know where you were.
Despite the game having roots in miniature wargaming, specific miniature combat tactics were not part of the core D&D rules until the unit price on minis hit a certain threshold to where WotC decided it could require people to buy them to play the game.
And once they were on the table, we started creating bigass forum threads about the intricacies of a 5 foot step :)
In thumbing through my old 2nd edition PHB I'm getting kind of nostalgic over how that game thrived so much more on storytelling than it did details; it was a time of "hell yeah give that a try" instead of "there's 40 pages on why you can't do that"
All that said, I love Pathfinder's solutions to keeping the pendulum from continuing to swing towards the "no you can't".
All that said, I love Pathfinder's solutions to keeping the pendulum from continuing to swing towards the "no you can't"....
I'd really be interested in seeing what you meant by this.
Well, as I see it, 3.75 was a sliding stop at the edge of a cliff, over which would have been a pit of playing a tabletop video game. I didn't sleep last night so even now in my clarification I'm probably not making much sense lol
I think the summary you're looking for is, "Hooray, not 4th Edition."
Well, as I see it, 3.75 was a sliding stop at the edge of a cliff, over which would have been a pit of playing a tabletop video game. I didn't sleep last night so even now in my clarification I'm probably not making much sense lolNo, you're not. PF introduced a bunch of blatant "No, you can't"s in the form of the inexplicably weird Wall of Iron nerf, the even-less-functional Stealth rules, making combat maneuvers even less useful to non-specialists, stripping out the monster PC rules, removing Power Attack from touch attacks, removing Sneak Attack from flask attacks, and probably others I'm not aware of.
PF is lousy with "No, that just doesn't work, for no stated reason" game-logic-driven changes from 3.5, many of which are bad (or arguably bad) for the game. It's not an exemplar in this case.
I agree. AD&D allowed for more "yes" why not because it did lack some details that needed to be filled in and a DM felt free to go with what sounded fun at the time. 3.X tended to fill in those uncovered situations with "logical" reasons why you could or couldn't do something. Pathfinder continues that theme in a way, though the "logic" to me seems far less sound.
As to the OP though, it seems clear you and your group enjoy the 3d6 method, and that is totally cool and valid. No point in trying to debate whether it's good for everyone or not, but if it works for your group then that is perfectly fine.
The 5' step thing, well I removed it and at low levels it has little effect on melee but can hurt casters some. The combat casting of Pathfinder makes it even harder to combat cast at low levels then previously so I would certainly add a feat that allows low level casters to do something more to help them. A low level caster in a 3.5 game could use both combat casting and skill focus to be able to cast defensively but that no longer is an option. Add in improved combat casting for your pathfinder game that does the same as skill focus and it should work out fine. Mid level the melee will start to feel it some more but the casters will feel it less, eventually in a high level game it will be melee who is hurt most by this. So unless you think melee needs some trimming I might advice against such a change. But try it, if the effect becomes too painful well you can always add that 5' step back in.
Less so, under Pathfinder rules, with the Vital Strike chain.
Not so much for fighters, and you're taking away their full attack, which absolutely murders their damage.
Vital Strike is not very good.
But I don't quite understand the "taking away the fighter's full attack" statement. Suppose in Round 1 of combat, the fighter runs up and hits a monster once; that's the same regardless of whether 5' steps exist or not.
So what does the monster do on its turn that (a) prevents a full attack and (b) wouldn't prevent a full attack if the fighter could make a 5' step?
I suppose it's possible for a monster to die in the middle of a full attack and for a fighter to step over to another monster and finish his attack. Is that what's being referred to?
Personally, I don't see why non-rogue melee will feel it that much, other than losing some flanking bonuses unless you set it up right. But then again, you set up those flanking bonuses and you will keep them. I find melee charges in and hits, then just 5 fts to stay in melee. Taking a defensive postion will be stronger I think, unless the opponent has reach on you.
Casters and archers now start provoking a lot more AoO, which I think is the intent. They can no longer take that 5ft back. Personally, I really like this nerf, but agree its why they made step up.
The best 5 ft nerf I have seen was 5ft does not provoke, but further actions provoke AoO from both squares you were standing in. It worked really well in a d20 SW game where Rifles were a huge problem, getting 3 3d8 attacks a round at lvl 1.
|
Less so, under Pathfinder rules, with the Vital Strike chain.
Not so much for fighters, and you're taking away their full attack, which absolutely murders their damage.
Vital Strike is not very good.
But I don't quite understand the "taking away the fighter's full attack" statement. Suppose in Round 1 of combat, the fighter runs up and hits a monster once; that's the same regardless of whether 5' steps exist or not.
So what does the monster do on its turn that (a) prevents a full attack and (b) wouldn't prevent a full attack if the fighter could make a 5' step?
I suppose it's possible for a monster to die in the middle of a full attack and for a fighter to step over to another monster and finish his attack. Is that what's being referred to?
Monsters and baddies would all just attack and step away(more than 5' probably), or step away and use a spell-like, taking an AoO in doing so to avoid the fighter's full attack. Why would a baddie take 3+ attacks from a fighter when they could take an AoO and then the fighter needs to step closer next round? Not allowing 5' steps just kills the fighter's main ability to attack multiple times and do lots of damage.
Monsters and baddies would all just attack and step away (more than 5' probably), or step away and use a spell-like, taking an AoO in doing so to avoid the fighter's full attack. Why would a baddie take 3+ attacks from a fighter when they could take an AoO and then the fighter needs to step closer next round?
But I don't quite understand the "taking away the fighter's full attack" statement. Suppose in Round 1 of combat, the fighter runs up and hits a monster once; that's the same regardless of whether 5' steps exist or not.
So what does the monster do on its turn that (a) prevents a full attack and (b) wouldn't prevent a full attack if the fighter could make a 5' step?
I suppose it's possible for a monster to die in the middle of a full attack and for a fighter to step over to another monster and finish his attack. Is that what's being referred to?
Nothing in the scenario you just posited has anything to do with 5' steps; monsters (and PCs, for that matter) can already do exactly what you suggested in 3.5/PFRPG. So you answered (a) but not (b) in my question above.
Monsters and baddies would all just attack and step away, or step away and use a spell-like, taking an AoO in doing so to avoid the fighter's full attack. Why would a baddie take 3+ attacks from a fighter when they could take an AoO and then the fighter needs to step closer next round? Not allowing 5' steps just kills the fighter's main ability to attack multiple times and do lots of damage.Less so, under Pathfinder rules, with the Vital Strike chain.
Not so much for fighters, and you're taking away their full attack, which absolutely murders their damage.
Vital Strike is not very good.
But I don't quite understand the "taking away the fighter's full attack" statement. Suppose in Round 1 of combat, the fighter runs up and hits a monster once; that's the same regardless of whether 5' steps exist or not.
So what does the monster do on its turn that (a) prevents a full attack and (b) wouldn't prevent a full attack if the fighter could make a 5' step?
I suppose it's possible for a monster to die in the middle of a full attack and for a fighter to step over to another monster and finish his attack. Is that what's being referred to?
A. not until he gets 3 attacks, because he gets and AoO and 1 for closing.
B. would you rather have 2 attacks at full or 3 itterative attacks at 11-6-1?
I find the later attacks are fairly useless after the second, so I would much rather get an AoO that hits than I would later attacks that miss. And if your that concerned, get Vital Strike.
|
|
The problem with saying "yes, you can do that" is you HAVE to immediately follow up with how to do that. In order to create a fair and balanced system, the number of potential variables needs to be controlled.
Paizo can't just slam their heads into a keyboard, hit print, and magically have 10 pages of perfectly balanced rules. They are a relatively small company with limited resources. They cannot legally use much of the rules produced for 3.5, and what they can use needs to be processed with a fine tooth comb in order to keep balance IN and the splat book arms race OUT.
Give them time.
BTW, this is totally unrelated, but you want to know the reason why we use d4s, d8s, d12s, and d20s in D&D? It's not for variety. It's because Gygax and Arneson were able to strike a deal with a mathematics supply wholesaler for dice; they couldn't get just 6-siders at a decent price because the wholesaler only had them in sets with the other types (they were generally used for Statistics classes before D&D came along). They pretty much had to invent uses for each of the odd dice, which is probably why the d12 is so poor and neglected. That's the story as Dave Arneson told it, anyway.
Thanks for the anecdote, Zurai. :)
I didn't know that...
The problem with saying "yes, you can do that" is you HAVE to immediately follow up with how to do that. In order to create a fair and balanced system, the number of potential variables needs to be controlled.
Paizo can't just slam their heads into a keyboard, hit print, and magically have 10 pages of perfectly balanced rules. They are a relatively small company with limited resources. They cannot legally use much of the rules produced for 3.5, and what they can use needs to be processed with a fine tooth comb in order to keep balance IN and the splat book arms race OUT.
Give them time.
Earlier editions left a lot of it up to the GMs. The real difference now is organized play. They are designing the system so that different GMs will rule it the same way, so they need to explicitly state it in the rules.
Its really easy to design fair and ballanced systems that will allow for just about anything. I have seen a number of homebrew ones. The problem is these systems tend to not like structured combat very much, which is one of the biggest draws to d&d.