Another thing a character can do to follow someone when they 5-foot step is to ready an action to follow them. This works for anyone who doesn't have the step up feat.
Without the readied action, picture a fighter going after a wizard with his sword. At some point, he commits enough of his momentum into the swing of his sword that he can't react instantly and the wizard takes advantage of that moment to shift back a bit, gaining enough space to cast a spell before the fighter can fully recover his balance.
Now with the readied action, the fighter is playing a bit of a cagier game, staying light on the balls of his feet so he can react to the zigs and zags of the wizard, but giving up some damage potential because he never fully commits to an all-out sequence of swings with his sword.
Even if you say it is just sliding around, and not really leaving combat, if the effect of it is that the wizard gets to cast his spell without suffering an AoO, it is just as bad.
If you want to nail him down and stop him moving back enough to cast his spell, or allow an archer to step back and nail you at point blank, then by the appropriate Feat to prevent it - OR grapple them.
A lot of people here wan't a free ride.
Well, as I say, be a better warrior and buy the right Feats to stop it.
OR
Grapple the guy to prevent it.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/step-up-combat---final
Worse than just asking for everyone to be given this feat free, you are asking for people to actually be locked in place - how? because you are such an awesome fighter they are paralysed in place?
I've been playing D&D for a long time. Back in the day, wizards didn't get things like concentration checks or 5' steps and no one thought they were unfair.
I well remember 1st and 2nd Ed days, but that was before the game turned into a tactical mini's game. Now they are necessary.
I also remember when a round was a full minute.
Why SHOULDN'T it be allowed?
You are doing NOTHING to lock the guy down. If you were a more skilled fighter then you could ride with him and keep him locked in place, which you can represent by buying the correct Feat. If you don't, then its a hole on your tactical skillset.
Your fighter gets a ton of feats to buy skills like this for a good reason, spend accordingly.
Isn't there a feat to counter the 5' step? Step up I believe? (or something like it) that lets you, as an immediate action, step up after that 5' step, keeping the wizard from stepping away from you?
You shouldn't have to buy feats to perform actions that are a regular part of fighting. Step up is about as bad as "look up" - a feat designed to attack characters above you.
Fighters may have the feats to buy it, but rogues don't, even though they are just as entitled to the ability.
Thats the point of being a Fighter, you can actually do what the name suggests and 'do combat' better than others. In 'real combat' people move about, and yeah they can 'make breaks for it' or shift out of range... they dont fight with their feet nailed in place. They move, then you follow.
Go youtube some fights and you will see what I mean.
No point raising theird party Feats either, they aren't in PF so they don't come into the conversation.
I'm going to bed. I'm not going to reply to any further posts from you until you get it that I'm not denying the ability to move- I'm granting the ability to follow.
I get it all too well.
What you aren't getting is 'not everyone is good enough to do so'. If they buy the right Feat, then yes they are.
If you want the ability to be able to hound people around the battlefield and deny them the capacity to get away from you, then play the appropriate tactics. If you don't want to do so, then don't get cranky when they can move.
I'm probably going to make the rule:
5' steps require a CMB roll against a DC equal to the highest CMD of the enemies that have a clear path to step up to you, +2 to the DC for each additional creature.
Any enemy that is being threatened by an ally is unable to step after you, nor does he contribute to raising the DC when escaping from someone else.
Why would I make a 5 ft step when I can tumble and move farther away under your rules?
I don't see the 5' step so much about retreat as about tactical positioning. It allows me to move to flank, or step out of a flank, to step to block a doorway, to get adjacent to an ally for aid another, to block a potential charge on an ally, etc. As a retreat, it's mostly silly. As a tactical maneuver, it is not.
I know, but I don't lose any sleep over screwing spell casters. If they aren't hiding behind a spearman, invisible, or flying already, they deserve to take it from the barbarian.
Adding extra things to it wouldn't make it more fun, it'd just add unnecessary complications onto it and screw over spell casters more then any other characters as they tend to need that 5' step much more often then a fighter or thief.
None of these things helps at higher levels when monster can teleport and see invisible creatures.
-1 to all suggestions. Anything that encourages people to just stand like a lump and hit things is just plain bad. I want MORE moving around on the map, not LESS.
-The Gneech, hater of iterative attacks
How does that make the gamer better unless you are an archer or wizard who does not want to close to any enemies anyway, and can make bad things happen even if you do move most of the time?
If you and I are fighting, I can take a 5' step back from you because you can run forward faster than I can run backwards.
At the very least, I think taking a 5' step back should require a combat maneuver check.
As someone pointed out earlier, there's no facing in Pathfinder. How fast you can run forward or backward is irrelevant, because there is no 'forward' or 'backward', just shifting one square in some direction or another. You can describe both combatants side-stepping or twirling round and round during their 5' step, it doesn't matter.
Is an ooze moving "backward" when it makes a 5' step away from a combatant? How do you know? Does it have to make a CMB check? What about xorn? Ettins?
+1
I don't think it's silly at all... for the reasons stated above.
Additionally, a lot of real life fighters (MMA, Boxers, Fencers, etc) are defensive and they are skilled at moving both forwards and backwards, left and right. You see it in boxing matches all the time. There is an exchange of blows then one of the fighters steps back. The other doesn't simply charge forward because tactically that is often a horrible idea. Shifting your momentum forward in a charge or run just adds to the speed and weight of any attack that your opponent has waiting.
Regardless of tactics I've seen people back peddle in fights often faster than their pursuers. I know when I fenced in college I could move backwards faster than most people could backwards.
I am seriously doubting this one. They likely did not move forward at full speed to not step into a trap, but unless you are a world class athlete, and the opponent is very slow I don't see you outrunning them that way. Even before I got older I doubt I could run a sub -5 second 40 yard dash backwards, and not even that Usain Bolt guy is going to beat me running backwards if I am running forward.
Cranewings:
Why not just make the Step Up feat a general rule of combat? That's how I've always felt it should be anyway. I'm not sure why it was ever introduced as a feat.
Then why even have a 5-ft step?
I can step back pretty quickly if I have too, and you(most people) won't be able to do much about it except step forward. You definitely won't have time to swing a weapon at me. 5 ft steps represent the ability to move a short distance quickly which is not all that hard.
+2, the number of times I've had to pull house rules out of people asking for advice online, where those house rules ended up completely changing the game. And one got pissy with me for offering bad advice, LOL. She liked her 3rd party uber-fey book and made it RAW in her mind.I've got about 7 pages of house rules, and each one makes the game better than RAW.Players/GMs always think their houserules make the game better than Raw. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother to make houserules.
-Skeld
Edit: My point is that you guys should play the game the way you want and the way you enjoy. Whether anyone here or on any other board agrees with you is immaterial.
+3, but if your houserule is not up for debate why bother asking people's opinions. I have houserules, and there are times I ask about my creations online, but if I know I won't be swayed then the information just stays with my group.
PS:The above statement is not necessarily for CW, but it irks for anyone who has ever done it, and I do realize sometimes people don't realize their mind is already made up.
Even if you say it is just sliding around, and not really leaving combat, if the effect of it is that the wizard gets to cast his spell without suffering an AoO, it is just as bad.If you want to nail him down and stop him moving back enough to cast his spell, or allow an archer to step back and nail you at point blank, then by the appropriate Feat to prevent it - OR grapple them.
A lot of people here wan't a free ride.
I've been playing D&D for a long time. Back in the day, wizards didn't get things like concentration checks or 5' steps and no one thought they were unfair. Now, everyone thinks that wizards are too good.
Crapping on wizards to make the game more fair, emulative, and fun for the other classes is a great way to go about it. The power of full casters is like a currency you spend to fix the game to your liking, taxing them to buy up better features for other classes.
Step Up is a stupid feat they put on the list to sort of fix something that should have been fixed by changing the actual rules.
The game not simulating things to your taste does not make it silly, and not everyone thinks wizards are too good. I think it is a matter of casters(all full casters) getting to much, and non casters not getting enough, but the same people will stop fighters from doing extraordinary things because "it's not realistic".
The game plays fairly well until about 17th level for most people though.
my only problem with 5 ft steps is that a monk with 90 movement, can still only take a 5ft step...really?? Same as that halfling in heavy armor with a 15ft move?
my only problem with 5 ft steps is that a monk with 90 movement, can still only take a 5ft step...really?? Same as that halfling in heavy armor with a 15ft move?
I think larger monsters should be allowed larger steps, but not fasters. A five foot step is not speed based. It takes about 1 second, and in such a short amount of time you won't get too far even if you are fast.
Maybe limit the 5 foot to be made at the end of the round only, as long as you are threatened.
A wizard could cast defensively get his spell off and then 5 foot step away, the warrior has the option to follow and attack unless one of the wizards companions steps in to keep him from doing that before he attacks.
Ofcourse the step up feat should still allow him to follow and make a full attack his next turn, so it is far from a useless feat.
As far as I can tell this actually seems a smooth way of handling it.
Another thing a character can do to follow someone when they 5-foot step is to ready an action to follow them. This works for anyone who doesn't have the step up feat.
Without the readied action, picture a fighter going after a wizard with his sword. At some point, he commits enough of his momentum into the swing of his sword that he can't react instantly and the wizard takes advantage of that moment to shift back a bit, gaining enough space to cast a spell before the fighter can fully recover his balance.
Now with the readied action, the fighter is playing a bit of a cagier game, staying light on the balls of his feet so he can react to the zigs and zags of the wizard, but giving up some damage potential because he never fully commits to an all-out sequence of swings with his sword.
Train this threw me for a loop for a second, and I had to actually go back and look at the RAW to figure out how this would work. Readying an action is a standard, which means the fighter (more than likely, because, of course, we're dealing in the purely hypothetical here) uses his move action to close distance on the wizard, and then uses his standard action to ready an interrupt attack should the wizard try to five foot step to avoid an AOO for casting? Am I interpreting that right, or did I miss something? If that's the case the fighter is actually sacrificing a standard action attack, so that he can make sure the wizard doesn't avoid the AOO, and then more than likely would use a full attack the next round. At least the way I see it.
Every good tactical game I have played had rules for movement, then action with everything being resolved simultaneously. I could play pathfinder as a tactical game but that would require to many modified rules. :)
I have no problem with 5' step as long as they do not enter a threatened area or withdraw from combat. If they do then the opponent deserves an attack of opportunity. Or they could stand there accept the attack of opportunity and cast there spell or whatever.
Train this threw me for a loop for a second, and I had to actually go back and look at the RAW to figure out how this would work. Readying an action is a standard, which means the fighter (more than likely, because, of course, we're dealing in the purely hypothetical here) uses his move action to close distance on the wizard, and then uses his standard action to ready an interrupt attack should the wizard try to five foot step to avoid an AOO for casting? Am I interpreting that right, or did I miss something? If that's the case the fighter is actually sacrificing a standard action attack, so that he can make sure the wizard doesn't avoid the AOO, and then more than likely would use a full attack the next round. At least the way I see it.Another thing a character can do to follow someone when they 5-foot step is to ready an action to follow them. This works for anyone who doesn't have the step up feat.
Without the readied action, picture a fighter going after a wizard with his sword. At some point, he commits enough of his momentum into the swing of his sword that he can't react instantly and the wizard takes advantage of that moment to shift back a bit, gaining enough space to cast a spell before the fighter can fully recover his balance.
Now with the readied action, the fighter is playing a bit of a cagier game, staying light on the balls of his feet so he can react to the zigs and zags of the wizard, but giving up some damage potential because he never fully commits to an all-out sequence of swings with his sword.
step up fixes that.
Fighter moves up and attacks, wizard takes 5 foot step to cast spell, fighter uses step up (which burns his 5 foot step from next round) and then AoO interupts the attack if the wizard casts his spell.
if he tries to cast defensively, there is always disruptive.
I would argue there is no way the wizard would know the fighter can 'step up' like he did, and would five foot step assuming he can cast his spell, looking up oh crud there is the fighter! and not get the chance to cast defensively, but that's me.
Next round of course, he'd know about it, but the wizard still cant get away, and always has to cast defensively and always has to make rolls. Plus now he has a fighter in his face making full attacks.
|
You might also try looking at the game differently. Instead of looking at real-world combat versus game combat as "reality versus abstracted simulation," throw out the idea of real-world combat altogether and adopt the abstracted combat system in the game as your reality at the table.
The combat rules are reality to the characters in the game because they should have no frame of reference for anything from the real world (that's the definition of metagaming). When the words and phrases like "in the real world" or "realistically" get brought up at the table (by you or your players), stop, take a breath and remember that the rules are reality for the characters and they have to learn to function within that reality.
Or whatever reality you decide to create with houserules. But remember that the more houserules you create, the less your game will jive with the game everyone else here is playing, such that the advice of others will be less and less meaningful.
-Skeld
|
|
Skeld, I'd agree with you for games full of players that love to read rules and game the system, but the big thick book of counter intuition is terrible for casual gamers.
Really? Reading the rules and understanding them is kind of a requirement to playing a game. Otherwise, you're just playing "make it up as you go," which is completely fine, but that also means you aren't playing the same game as the rest of us.
I mean, you don't have to spend hours a week combing through the book to be able to use it to its fullest advantage, but a working knowledge of the available actions, how to use them, and what the consequences are is helpful if you want to at least understand what's going on at the table.
Most of the combat rules are counter-intuitive, but that's because it's not meant to simulate reality. Instead it abstracts (which is counter-intuitive because it's, well, an abstraction) combat and breaks it up into manageable, discrete chunks that can be digested one bite at a time. It has to do all that without giving undue advantage to one class/ability/set of actions/etc. and while covering most of things you might like to try during combat.
-Skeld
No offense to anyone be we are in the house rules section of the messageboards. He was looking for opinions and options on how to make the game better for his players and his game.
It is a game with well thoughout arbitrary rules that sometimes have fixes built into the game (Step-up)for issues that may arise.
That being said on to Power Attack and why can't everyone do it. It is nothing more then a wild swing. The feat gives you control. Without the feat whatever penalty you took on the attack would also be a penalty on your AC as you are off balance. Discuss and derail. :)
Looking further into the APG, I havent built a fighter like this but:
Step up, Combat reflexes, Following step, Step up and strike, pretty nasty mobile fighter, mix it with distruptive and maybe fleet a few times and you are going to have a fighter that is all over spell casters.
Take a level of barbarian just to be a munchkin and youve got a fighter with a 45 move and all this stepping all over the place and moving away from him, not only allows him to follow, but give him an extra 5 feet to maybe flank you too and provokes an attack of opportunity, of which he has multiples.
So move away from me? here I come, plus you get beat, plus I wail on you for casting a spell, plus I get my full attack.
Ouch.
Now I want to build one.
But Basically In game rules have already accomplished what the OP wants with house rules, he just wants to give people the ability to do it without feats, but then everyone would do it, and we'd be back to they way 1e worked and wizards would get owned on the battlefield and require bodyguards just to cast spells (not an entirely bad thing if you ask me)
eh, I don't like the extra roll. It also basically gives fighters free feats to tool on wizards with no adjacent allies, which basically bloats the fighters power and effectiveness without costing him those feats.
eh, I don't like the extra roll. It also basically gives fighters free feats to tool on wizards with no adjacent allies, which basically bloats the fighters power and effectiveness without costing him those feats.So?
I've been following these boards for a while. Fighters are concidered baggage for wizards by the majority of optimizers on this board. Just do a search for threads on fighter vs. wizard. I don't see the harm in making fighters better.
Overall effectiveness in lengthy campaigns maybe, but certainly not one on one effectiveness versus each other in close quarters melee combat.
I have never liked feats being localized rule adjustments.
They should give specialized abilities and bonuses not plug holes in exploitable rules.
Cranewings I like the wild swing option.