|
I was thinking of introducing a house-rule that ANY 'ranged 'attack that takes place in 'melee' (includes being within a 5'-step range) must pass a concentration check first (no modifiers).
More and more as DM the idea of a bowman or caster dancing 5' out of the way of someone potentially with a 6' long sword and doing whatever they like is silly and far too "mechanic" for me.
In terms of a bowman is represents the need for steel-nerves to draw and arrow from a quiver while some loon hacks at you with a sword. In the case of casters I'm assuming that spells with range 'touch' are designed to be cast in combat, whereas, ranged spells take a little more concentration as it's assumed you are at range.
What do people think? From a 'it makes sense' I don't find a problem as I have always thought that a bowman vs swordsman in melee should almost be an auto-win for the dude with the sharpened steel object (given equal skill). Of course at range the bowman is almost an auto-win vs the swordsman. Seems fair enough to me.
S.
With the Step Up line of feats, this isn't as much of a problem as it was in 3.5. Also, on to your houserule, how are you going to determine the "spell level" of a bow? Casting defensively or making a concentration check after taking damage are dependent on spell level.
Also, are you going to rule (like spells) that missing your "defensive firing" check means you miss entirely with the shot, wasting the ammo? That seems somewhat reasonable to me, but to miss every shot (regardless of the target's AC) might be a bit excessive.
If you want to boost melee vs. ranged, then I'd say give Step Up as a free feat to all characters. The ranged characters can't use it to escape a fighter Step Up'ing on them.
Seems fair enough to me.
S.
I can think of few things I would disagree with more. On the contrary, a guy coming after me with a sword would convert me into a highly motivated individual who could utilize rapid shot without actually having the feat.
From a 'it makes sense' I don't find a problem as I have always thought that a bowman vs swordsman in melee should almost be an auto-win for the dude with the sharpened steel object (given equal skill).
It already is. Even if the bowman 5-foot steps every round, the swordsman can 5-foot step after him to make his own full attacks. The swordsman also probably has a higher AC, and can make more damaging attacks.
I see no reason to hit the bowman with an additional penalty.
I was thinking of introducing a house-rule that ANY 'ranged 'attack that takes place in 'melee' (includes being within a 5'-step range) must pass a concentration check first (no modifiers).
More and more as DM the idea of a bowman or caster dancing 5' out of the way of someone potentially with a 6' long sword and doing whatever they like is silly and far too "mechanic" for me.
In terms of a bowman is represents the need for steel-nerves to draw and arrow from a quiver while some loon hacks at you with a sword. In the case of casters I'm assuming that spells with range 'touch' are designed to be cast in combat, whereas, ranged spells take a little more concentration as it's assumed you are at range.
What do people think? From a 'it makes sense' I don't find a problem as I have always thought that a bowman vs swordsman in melee should almost be an auto-win for the dude with the sharpened steel object (given equal skill). Of course at range the bowman is almost an auto-win vs the swordsman. Seems fair enough to me.
Well, making a ranged attack (by bow, spear or spell) while threatened already provokes an Attack of Opportunity already. Are you suggesting that archers should have the ability to 'Shoot on the Defensive' like casters can?
Your assumption about touch spells is mostly incorrect. Casting them with a badguy right next to you will provoke, just like any other spell, unless you succeed on a Concentration check to cast on the defensive. The only advantage you have is that once they're cast, you count as 'armed', and thus don't provoke for attempting to touch the target.
Concentration is also no longer an actual skill in PF, so you don't put ranks into it. Casters apply their casting attribute (INT for Wizards, for instance), plus their caster level, plus a d20 and that's about it. Usual DC is 15+double the spell level, or 10+damage received. How do you propose this works for ranged attacks? I would think Dex plus BAB would be most appropriate. How do you set the DC though?
I honestly don't think this is required. Archers risk taking AoO's already if they fire while threatened. Their weapons also tend to be relatively easy to Sunder, which can be done as an AoO. If they really want to be able to fire while in reach like that, there are options to allow that in some of the new archetypes in the APG, as I recall.
Oh, and longswords aren't 6' long. Greatswords aren't even that big.
|
|
Thanks for the food for thought.
(1) DC for firing 'in melee' could be Level of attacker (not 2 x as spell)?
(2)I guess you would roll the check for each shot, failure = wasted ammo?
(3)Free Step-Up is an interesting idea.
Looking at the responses, and I don't know why this did occur to me sooner, what if a just drop the 5'-step from the game? Everyone is in the same boat, monsters included. Or have the threaten area equal 10' around someone?
My bugbear is the 5'-step makes a mockery of the distinction between a range attack and a melee attack. What we are trying to achieve is that when melee starts it makes far more sense to drop the ranged weapon and pick up a melee weapon. The rules as is are a little too heroic in this regards. Overall we really like PF, this is just one area where a little 'grit' would improve the immersion of our game.
S.
What we are trying to achieve is that when melee starts it makes far more sense to drop the ranged weapon and pick up a melee weapon.
What I don't understand is why characters in your game aren't already doing this. Do they have infinite space behind them to 5' step away? Does no one tumble behind or around for flanking, or at the very least to deny a safe space to 5' step to? Do they have immunity to AoO's?
|
|
What we are trying to achieve is that when melee starts it makes far more sense to drop the ranged weapon and pick up a melee weapon.What I don't understand is why characters in your game aren't already doing this. Do they have infinite space behind them to 5' step away? Does no one tumble behind or around for flanking, or at the very least to deny a safe space to 5' step to? Do they have immunity to AoO's?
Given a room of 30'+ feet then the 5'-dance seems common place. I find it grates to have to 'play the mechanics' and purposely attempt to trap the 5'-dancer. Yes after a few rounds you can back the character into a corner, again. An area which I feel the rules are weak, and perhaps are there as not to 'nerf' the archer/mage. Ranged attacks seem too easy to carry out in melee situations. What we liked in say games such as DragonQuest was the concept of 'engaged' and we are trying to see how we could implement the concept into the PF rules, which again on the whole we like a lot. One player, no prizes for guessing the 2H-fighter, suggested that once 'engaged' bow/crossbow/sling' firing becomes impossible. The rest, including myself, believe in a little bit of 'heroic', and as such think that the 'bow/crossbow/sling' firer should be at a disadvantage (no iterative attacks?) but not completely buggered in melee. Spell casters I think we have decided will always make a caster check in any round they are 'engaged' at the worse odds, meaning taking into account readied actions / AoO damage if such exists.
Hope this explains what we are trying to add to our game,
S.
(1) DC for firing 'in melee' could be Level of attacker (not 2 x as spell)?
Whoa. If you don't see what's wrong with this question, then you should really not be modifying the game so much as learning it. Learn first, mod later.
|
|
(1) DC for firing 'in melee' could be Level of attacker (not 2 x as spell)?Whoa. If you don't see what's wrong with this question, then you should really not be modifying the game so much as learning it. Learn first, mod later.
I was in a hurry, it would be DC = 10 + melee attackers level of course. 2x level would scale too quickly and not have the natural top out of a spell.
The first response of a person carrying a bow/crossbow when faced with imminent melee should be to fire any readied arrow/bolt and then drop the bow in favor of a melee weapon. At least in MY groups the bow specialist seems unhindered more times than not even when in the thick of a melee.
S.
Hmm. DC 10 + level still seems wonky. How do you handle creatures? For example, a 20 HD skeleton is only CR 8, but it would be a DC 30 check to be able to shoot, for example. Perhaps DC 10 + BAB, or maybe the CMD of the target (akin to making acrobatics checks to move through spaces), if you absolutely had to do this.
However, I think it's overkill either way. It's already pretty easy to lock down a ranged fighter, especially if you're using a weapon like a longspear or a glaive and a spiked gauntlet. You can close in on them and then trap them. If they 5ft step, they're in your reach. If they don't, they're in your reach. Either way, they're getting hosed.
I'm not certain I'd play in a game like this, even if I wasn't playing an archer, because I cannot help but to question the motivations behind this change. It doesn't seem like a change that makes anything better, and it just seems to be for the heck of it; or because you don't like the visuals or idea that someone could leap back five feet and fire another arrow before the guy with the sword thwacks him.
Not a fan of Lord of the Rings films, I'd imagine? Legolas does a lot of that junk in the movies, and Legolas as portrayed is pretty much D&D ranger incarnated (heck, he can even be seen using pass without trace in the scene when they're on the mountain with the snow).
This just seems like a weird thing to be trying to enforce realism on. I mean, if you're going to go for realistic combat, you should probably start by making things better options, instead of making things that aren't broken worse options.
For example, SLINGS could really use some attention if you're wanting to force your idea of realism on ranged types, since their range, reload time, and other factors are wildly out of sync with reality. Slings actually had a pretty good rate of fire, and their range rivaled bows, etc.
I was thinking of introducing a house-rule that ANY 'ranged 'attack that takes place in 'melee' (includes being within a 5'-step range) must pass a concentration check first (no modifiers).
More and more as DM the idea of a bowman or caster dancing 5' out of the way of someone potentially with a 6' long sword and doing whatever they like is silly and far too "mechanic" for me.
In terms of a bowman is represents the need for steel-nerves to draw and arrow from a quiver while some loon hacks at you with a sword. In the case of casters I'm assuming that spells with range 'touch' are designed to be cast in combat, whereas, ranged spells take a little more concentration as it's assumed you are at range.
What do people think? From a 'it makes sense' I don't find a problem as I have always thought that a bowman vs swordsman in melee should almost be an auto-win for the dude with the sharpened steel object (given equal skill). Of course at range the bowman is almost an auto-win vs the swordsman. Seems fair enough to me.
S.
What makes sense in real life, and what works in the game does not often work so well.
If I were an archer I would not be taking 5-ft steps anyway. I would move back, at least 30 feet or more if I had access to haste. Shot on the Run Will be popular in your game though. Shoot melee guy and run around the corner so he can't charge you.
Slings, in game, should probably be more powerful. I mean, a half pound of lead being thrown at you by hand? Yeah, 1d4 all day long! Put it into something that allows it to be thrown with even more force? I think maybe a higher damage dice is in order. At the very least, the crit should be x3.
Simple
Crossbow, hand - 1d6, 19+, Move to reload
Crossbow, light - 1d8, 19+, Move to reload
Crossbow, heavy - 1d12, 19+, Full to reload
Crossbow, strongman - 1d12+2, 19+, Full to reload, two full unless str 14+
Martial
Shortbow - 1d6, x3, Swift to reload
Comp. Shortbow - 1d6+Str, x3, Swift to reload
Sling - 1d4+Str, x3, Swift to reload
Exotic
Longbow - 1d8, x3, Swift to reload
Comp. Longbow - 1d8+Str, x3, Swift to reload
Rapid Reload lowers reload step by to free for bows, hand and light crossbows, and slings, move for heavy crossbow, and move/full for strongman crossbow.
Slings get a +4 bonus to sleight of hand checks to hide the weapon and can be retrieved or drawn as a swift action if having one rank in sleight of hand.
Range, weight, cost and so on are unchanged.
|
|
because you don't like the visuals or idea that someone could leap back five feet and fire another arrow before the guy with the sword thwacks him.
Not a fan of Lord of the Rings films, I'd imagine?
(a) correct, this wouldn't just be bows, sorry if it seemed that way, ALL missile weapons have a far more complicated reload method when compared to swinging a sword/mace/broom handle etc. All your suggestions are playing mechanics off against mechanics. I can't really have every creature the party comes across will now own a long spear and have the step-up feat just to make the point that missile weapons in melee aren't the smartest idea.
And for the record when the Urak's got too close Legolas stabbed one in the throat with an arrow. Even he didn't have time to reload in midst of melee.
(b) Having been in the LotR movie, I'm a big fan. But you are right in assuming I don't want my D&D to be like the portrayal of archers as shown in a movie. I don't play D&D to recreate Peter Jackson's ideas of what Legolas was like in battle based on his reading of LotR.
If your happy with rules is written regarding missile weapons in a melee situation then all good. But what I was asking originally was for suggestions how to implement changes to reflect the difficulty of such a thing. If your comments were to find out more about my motivation so you can make sensible suggestions I welcome your comments. If however your comments are just to say "your want is silly", then please feel free to exit this thread.
Thanks,
S.
If however your comments are just to say "your want is silly", then please feel free to exit this thread.
Thanks,
S.
Man this site needs emoticons because that section I quoted could be taken in a number of ways.
Sometimes telling someone their idea is silly is what needs to be said.
I am not saying your is, just making a point.
Back on topic: Does your group agree with these changes because at the end of the day they are the ones who will decide if you are making a good decision by nerfing ranged weapons.
What you need to do is sit down and do some math with the concentration checks at various levels, using different levels of optimization. Archers already have it hard at lower levels due to having penalties for soft cover and shooting into melee. Just like casters their job is to survive until they hit the sweet spot. With your rules in place they may not survive or feel so useless they drop the idea.
I would come up with a goal for a chance of success at every level and try to reverse engineer the concentration formula from that.
|
|
If however your comments are just to say "your want is silly", then please feel free to exit this thread.
Thanks,
S.Sometimes telling someone their idea is silly is what needs to be said.
I am not saying your is, just making a point.Back on topic: Does your group agree with these changes because at the end of the day they are the ones who will decide if you are making a good decision by nerfing ranged weapons.
What you need to do is sit down and do some math with the concentration checks at various levels, using different levels of optimization. Archers already have it hard at lower levels due to having penalties for soft cover and shooting into melee. Just like casters their job is to survive until they hit the sweet spot. With your rules in place they may not survive or feel so useless they drop the idea.
I would come up with a goal for a chance of success at every level and try to reverse engineer the concentration formula from that.
Thanks for the advice. See we (collectively) don't see it as nerfing, nerfing would be removing the ability to do damage at range, as injecting a little common sense. We believe that magic should be magic and all else should resemble what we would envision given that swords and bows (etc) do exist in the real world and we have a understanding of what would take place in a confrontation based on range (+luck). We are mature enough (meaning old b-stards) that this concept to balance doesn't really matter. So one person does 15 hp damage and the other 3 on average - so? It's not player vs player with the person who dealt the most damage winning the game. If the 3 hp is the archer then at range the fighter say (the one doing 15 hp) does 0 hp /round - should the fighter be allowed to throw his sword 120' for game balance sake?
I really don't want this to devolve into people for and against. If people have something to say to help me come up with a fair set of house-rules I really look forward to what you have to say. All others, please be considerate and just ignore the thread.
S.