On a side note, one rule I've always wanted to change was the concentration check rule. I'm fond of the days when wizards automatically lost their spell when they got hit. That one would be more of a hard sell on the group, and I understand, because no one likes losing their turn.Why are you fond of those days? I'm not joking. Why? I think it would be a hard sell because it would make the game less fun to play. Incidentally concentration is usually used to prevent attacks.
One time I tried out a new game, but I started making houserules to make it like the old game, then I realized why not just play the old game.
I don't know how much of the old rules you missed, and that was not a dig at you CW. It really is what I did. If you like the new game which in this case is PF then that is cool.If you go to the boards and say my houserule is ______ then you have actually envoked PEACH.
It is easy to do in real life because all the people in all the situation in all the examples given are taking the five foot step back while either providing a credible defense or continuing to retreat. What they aren't doing is taking a five foot step back to answer a call, get a canteen out and take a drink, perform sign language while speaking different words, or anything else.You describe it as if the caster takes a step back, stops, and then casts a spell. In "reality" a character only comes to a complete stop if he goes an entire round without moving at all. So when the caster takes a 5 foot step he is in fact "continuing to retreat" as you said.True enough. My issue is that I don't think they should be able to avoid "casting defensively" by taking the 5' step. I've seen the numbers on Concentration, how easy it is, and I don't have that big of a problem with it. My issue is strictly with the idea that you can disengage automatically during a 6 second round long enough to take complicated non-combat actions without fear.
I know the system provides a lot of other options.
Something else I've been thinking about is an alternate grappling like condition i would call "Harried."
Harried
By making a standard action, a fighter can harry his opponent. The attacker makes a combat maneuver check against his opponents CMD. If successful, the defender gains the Harried condition.
Each round, the attacker must make a roll to maintain the condition, though he gains a +5 bonus to do so, blah blah blah, just like grappling.
Condition - Harried
A harried character's opponent automatically moves with him, so long as he has enough movement to do so. They are always considered adjacent.Harried characters receive a -4 penalty to their concentration checks. This penalty stacks with any other penalties.
I don't know, something along those lines. You could make up feats to go with it and apply some kind of grappling like penalties to both...
I don't know if you saw my earlier post on a caster's CMB and CMD against a Full BAB character's CMB and CMD, but it is almost an autowin, for the melee guy. I have never seen a caster beat a monk's CMD as an example. I know harried works the other way, but most casters wont have a decent CMD so it goes back to an almost autowin.
The harried condition can also be used to break the game by giving free movement. You harry your own team mate, and have him move towards the BBEG. He wont lose any spells if he just uses cantrips. Then on the fighter's go he gets to slam the BBEG in the face.
If you really don't like casters that much, just drive the Fiat the whole way to the store and bar them off. What you suggest is pretty punitive, and I reckon it would be an easier sell to just state 'this is a melee centric game' and casters are NPC sages etc.
It might stop some angry players later if they realise where you are coming from.
Wraith Strike, side note -
Yeah I saw the post about it being basically an autowin - I know, and I like that. The rules here would be interesting when played out between equals, but wizards should just be hammered by them.
How are low level wizards going to survive? They don't have the HP to take such beatings, but a low level melee guy can still put out pretty good damage?
Well clerics and druids are a little better off, but the wizard and his cousin(sorcerer) are in big trouble.
No, it isn't that, I just misspoke earlier because I'm tired. I know how it works.
That's understandable.
I dislike the idea that anyone can easily avoid AoOs during the fight by taking a 5' step.
Attacks of opportunity by there very nature are suppose to be avoidable.
An opponent only gets them if you provoke, if you provide the needed stimulus for the attack. Taking a step back does not provide your opponent with enough stimulus to get an attack.
If your trying to Nerf wizards this seems like a petty way to do it.
Wraith Strike, side note -
Yeah I saw the post about it being basically an autowin - I know, and I like that. The rules here would be interesting when played out between equals, but wizards should just be hammered by them.
How are low level wizards going to survive? They don't have the HP to take such beatings, but a low level melee guy can still put out pretty good damage?
Well clerics and druids are a little better off, but the wizard and his cousin(sorcerer) are in big trouble.
They survive with teamwork and good tactics. A cr 1 creature is basically unable to tpk a level 1 party, and anything more powerful they should be thinking through.
Don't forget, with my original rule about 5' steps, you can still take them if you have an ally to cover. A wizard on his own should be scared.
What good teamwork and tactics? Most casters are at the back where the danger is not. That gets rid of the team mate to cover for him. If he is away from the fight then he is doing the right thing. When most people DM if you come up front with low AC bad things happen, so how is being up front a good idea?
The low level monster does not need to kill the party to kill the wizard so a TPK is not even needed. I wasn't just talking about level 1.Why should the wizard be afraid?
It could be 3 level 2's against a level 4 party which is only APL+1.
Well I guess you can just give the step up feat and the disruptive feats for free, maybe consider giving casters a minor boon in the form of heighten spell as a bonus feat.
Well, having the wizard way back behind the party is the tradition from pathfinder because of how the movement systems works. It doesn't have really anything to do with the actual way one person protects another.
Having the wizard stay away from melee combat has nothing to do with a horrible movement system.
Wizards stay out of melee combat range because they're squishy.
The wizard should be right behind the fighter is he wants protection. "Stay close to me." That way, if the fighter is going to spend his carrier body guarding a stupid wizard on his permanent walk in the woods, he can take advantage of all the feats that lets him protect another person.
Wizards should be far enough away from melee combat that it would take a combatant at least a full round action to get to him.
If a wizard is right behind a fighter then the wizard is completely killable.
Wizards have low hit die.
Most wizards probably have a low will save.
If a wizards Familiar or bonded object is destroyed it hurts the wizard greatly
Wizards can't wear armor.
Wizards are no good in melee anyway.
long reply chainJust thinking about it, when you backed off someone in fencing, that was just you making your CMB roll. If you were a wizard with a wand trying to back off a fencer with a rapier, you would have been stabbed, but sense you were a fencer yourself, you knew how to do it.
I sympathize with your aim. I have a love-hate with 5' steps myself, generally I quite like the way they work when you're having a team of meleers work their way into flanking positions or simulating a slow fighting withdrawal by one combatant while the other presses, and I hate the way they work when an archer hasn't been careful and has got into melee - but doesn't really take any drawback for being a bringing a bow to a swordfight, because he just 5' steps and unloads a whole round of attacks uninterrupted.
However I don't know if straight CMB vs CMD is best. If nothing else, because two trained opponents will then rarely be able to disengage. My 13th level fighter, for example, has CMB +20 and CMD 37. Which means in a fight with his evil opposite he'd have little chance of maneuvering successfully, even in a highly limited manner. I suspect the most tactically sound option would be to hammer on each other without either moving at all, which offends my aesthetics more than the current 5' stepping does.
Ideally there would be a fairly easy check to make for two meleers facing each other, a harder thing to make for a bowman caught in melee, and a very hard thing to make for a geezer wizard caught in melee. But I'm somewhat at a loss for a check that would make all those things true.
Honestly, the conversation is over at this point. No one on here managed to give me a solid reason for why I shouldn't make the change other than the boogieman of potential side effects.
Try doing some sword fighting. The fact of the matter is that it is easy for a normal person to get some distance between them and an attacker for a moment or two unless the attacker is specifically trained to keep the distance close. Being able to take a 5 foot step out of melee is simply more realistic.
That is a bold statement. Nerds always think it is they who know how to sword fight.Honestly, the conversation is over at this point. No one on here managed to give me a solid reason for why I shouldn't make the change other than the boogieman of potential side effects.Try doing some sword fighting. The fact of the matter is that it is easy for a normal person to get some distance between them and an attacker for a moment or two unless the attacker is specifically trained to keep the distance close. Being able to take a 5 foot step out of melee is simply more realistic.
Particularly those who actually have.
Wraith Strike, side note -
Yeah I saw the post about it being basically an autowin - I know, and I like that. The rules here would be interesting when played out between equals, but wizards should just be hammered by them.
How are low level wizards going to survive? They don't have the HP to take such beatings, but a low level melee guy can still put out pretty good damage?
Well clerics and druids are a little better off, but the wizard and his cousin(sorcerer) are in big trouble.
They survive with teamwork and good tactics. A cr 1 creature is basically unable to tpk a level 1 party, and anything more powerful they should be thinking through.
Don't forget, with my original rule about 5' steps, you can still take them if you have an ally to cover. A wizard on his own should be scared.
What good teamwork and tactics? Most casters are at the back where the danger is not. That gets rid of the team mate to cover for him. If he is away from the fight then he is doing the right thing. When most people DM if you come up front with low AC bad things happen, so how is being up front a good idea?
The low level monster does not need to kill the party to kill the wizard so a TPK is not even needed. I wasn't just talking about level 1.
Why should the wizard be afraid?It could be 3 level 2's against a level 4 party which is only APL+1.
Well, having the wizard way back behind the party is the tradition from pathfinder because of how the movement systems works. It doesn't have really anything to do with the actual way one person protects another.
The wizard should be right behind the fighter is he wants protection. "Stay close to me." That way, if the fighter is going to spend his carrier body guarding a stupid wizard on his permanent walk in the woods, he can take advantage of all the feats that lets him protect another person.
So when the monster with reach decides to ignore the fighter, or you have one with acrobatics? At least in the back the wizard has to worry about the monster getting past the fighter then traveling another 20 + feet or so, hopefully. What abilities does a fighter have to stop the caster from being whacked if he decided to stand behind the fighter? You may needs to add some interception type abilities to the fighter class if you expect the cater to live.
I am sure other people can think of other ideas.PS:I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am just trying to iron the wrinkles out before the game.
lol yeah right. If you had any pride about it you wouldn't be bragging to me about you skill, and how that makes you more qualified to interpret game rules.Particularly those who actually have.That is a bold statement. Nerds always think it is they who know how to sword fight.Honestly, the conversation is over at this point. No one on here managed to give me a solid reason for why I shouldn't make the change other than the boogieman of potential side effects.Try doing some sword fighting. The fact of the matter is that it is easy for a normal person to get some distance between them and an attacker for a moment or two unless the attacker is specifically trained to keep the distance close. Being able to take a 5 foot step out of melee is simply more realistic.
I am not bragging about my skill. I am an amateur. Drills to practice maintaining and closing distance are very very common. I am also not stating that it makes me more qualified to interpret game rules. I am dismissing your notion that being able to 5 foot step out of melee is silly with experience. By the way, I do think that prideful people would brag.
Honestly, the conversation is over at this point. No one on here managed to give me a solid reason for why I shouldn't make the change other than the boogieman of potential side effects.Try doing some sword fighting. The fact of the matter is that it is easy for a normal person to get some distance between them and an attacker for a moment or two unless the attacker is specifically trained to keep the distance close. Being able to take a 5 foot step out of melee is simply more realistic.
The problem isn't about taking the 5 foot step back and your opponent not immediately following. The problem is about taking a 5 foot step back and perform an action as if you where not engaged in melee anymore (because according to RaW, you are indeed not in melee). The core argument here isn't really the "step back" part, but the "disengaging" part of the 5 ft step.
In all fairness, the rules are a bit off here. On one hand, withdrawing from melee is a Full-Round action, while a (effectively free) 5 foot step allows you do pretty much the same but saving the whole round. Talk about economy of action!
I have done some sword fighting too. I am certain you can get your distances from me rather easily. But I am also pretty sure that you couldn't easily step back, sheath your sword, take a sip of coffee without me being able to hinder you in any ways.
Again, I'm sure that you could pull that stunt once in a while. You'd be waiting for the perfect moment. You'd use the fact that I might have been thrown off balanced for a fraction of a second. You'd be leaving in a direction opposing my center of gravity etc. But if we translate that in RPG, I would argue that this would be an active maneuver; not a free and casual 5 foot step...
'findel
Honestly, the conversation is over at this point. No one on here managed to give me a solid reason for why I shouldn't make the change other than the boogieman of potential side effects.Try doing some sword fighting. The fact of the matter is that it is easy for a normal person to get some distance between them and an attacker for a moment or two unless the attacker is specifically trained to keep the distance close. Being able to take a 5 foot step out of melee is simply more realistic.The problem isn't about taking the 5 foot step back and your opponent not immediately following. The problem is about taking a 5 foot step back and perform an action as if you where not engaged in melee anymore.
I have done some sword fighting too. I am certain you can get your distances from me rather easily. But I am also pretty sure that you couldn't easily step back, sheath your sword, take a sip of coffee without me being able to hinder you in any ways.
Again, I'm sure that you could pull that stunt once in a while. You'd be waiting for the perfect moment. You'd use the fact that I might have been thrown off balanced for a fraction of a second. You'd be leaving in a direction opposing my center of gravity etc. But if we translate that in RPG, I would argue that this would be an active maneuver; not a free and casual 5 foot step...
'findel
Sheathing is a move action, pulling out cup of coffee is a move action (potion retrieving), drinking the coffee is also a standard so that's more than 1 round of actions, thus explaining why I couldn't do all of that. In seriousness though, the factor that makes this difficult is the mover not obviously threatening; which I conceded in a post on the first page. Now if you change your proposal to stepping back, pulling out a drink from my belt, and taking a quick gulp (step, move, standard respectively) with my weapon still out; it becomes very to imagine because I'm obviously threatening the area that you would be moving into while doing this. We just don't see Vaarsuvius threatening the fighter either before the step or after so it seems that the fighter should be able to easily move in. One must keep in mind that our intuition developed in a world where Vaarsuvius doesn't exist however, so whether a mage is threatening or not is speculative.
lol yeah right. If you had any pride about it you wouldn't be bragging to me about you skill, and how that makes you more qualified to interpret game rules.
Using information that you have to help someone else understand something isn't bragging. It not nice to insult someone who is trying to help you.
The problem isn't about taking the 5 foot step back and your opponent not immediately following. The problem is about taking a 5 foot step back and perform an action as if you where not engaged in melee anymore (because according to RaW, you are indeed not in melee). The core argument here isn't really the "step back" part, but the "disengaging" part of the 5 ft step.
This has been rationalized several times in this thread and I have yet to see a valid response:
A character that takes a 5-foot step has not disengaged from melee. He is still very much in danger of being attacked. The 5-foot step represents a focused effort to move just out of his opponent's immediate reach.
Unless that opponent has a reach weapon, in which case the defender takes an AoO anyway and this entire discussion is rendered moot.
The opponent can and probably will close the gap on his next turn, which in game time occurs literally moments later.
Once you realize that battles in the game world are not turn-based, but rather swirling melees in which characters are constantly moving and shifting position (even if they remain in a single square), then the 5-foot step makes sense.
The problem isn't about taking the 5 foot step back and your opponent not immediately following. The problem is about taking a 5 foot step back and perform an action as if you where not engaged in melee anymore (because according to RaW, you are indeed not in melee). The core argument here isn't really the "step back" part, but the "disengaging" part of the 5 ft step.This has been rationalized several times in this thread and I have yet to see a valid response:
A character that takes a 5-foot step has not disengaged from melee. He is still very much in danger of being attacked. The 5-foot step represents a focused effort to move just out of his opponent's immediate reach.
Yes... and no.
Unless his opponent has reach, a character 5 ft away from his opponent is mechanically in the same condition as a character 25 ft away. Perhaps not quite since that character will have to deal with an opponent capable of performing a full attack on him the following round. But for one round, all a character needs in order to be able to perform an action with no fear of interference is 5ft.
[edit]
Now I am aware that Pathfinder has partially solve this issue with the Step-Up feat. This is good, and it opens-up avenues of options based on an "official ruling" for meddlesome DMs and gaming groups who enjoy houserules.
[/edit]
The fact that you are usually better off to take a 5ft step rather than take the Withdraw Action in order to perform an action that would otherwise provoke an AoO leads me to believe that there is something slightly off with the 5 foot step as written. If as you said a character taking a 5 foot step was indeed "much in danger of being attacked" you wouldn't be able to reload a heavy crossbow without incurring an AoO.
Now I can see plenty of reasons as to why you should allow 5ft step to do just what it does in this current iteration of the rules, but I find it a bit too "game-y" for my own taste. I admit that this is a personal opinion and I am not in some kind of crusade to show the world how "right" I am. Only, I do not think that my opinion is without founding.
'findel
One must keep in mind that our intuition developed in a world where Vaarsuvius doesn't exist however, so whether a mage is threatening or not is speculative.
I give you that much.
I also lay part of the blame on the fact that actions are either categorize as "threatening" or "not threatening", therefore incurring an AoO or not. This may be a bit too much simplistic, as I'm sure there is a world between taking a sip of coffee and reloading a catapult.
I understand why the game shouldn't worry to much about that but again, it this world of make-believe, this "make" stretches my "believe" a bit too far for my own taste.
'findel
Unless his opponent has reach, a character 5 ft away from his opponent is mechanically in the same condition as a character 25 ft away. Perhaps not quite since that character will have to deal with an opponent capable of performing a full attack on him the following round.
You've addressed your own point. A character that takes a 5 foot step has opened himself up to a full attack action on his opponent's next turn. Again I'd like to stress that in game time these two events will occur within moments of each other.
The withdraw action is very useful. What if you are low on hit points and faced with an opponent that will kill you if he is allowed to make a full attack? Taking a 5 foot step instead of withdrawing behind a friendly square could get you killed if the spell is ineffective. It's an interesting tactical choice, but most players never consider it because of the stand or die mentality that dominates play in this game.
Wraith Strike, I appreciate the help. I started another thread regarding simultaneous movement.
Side note, I got some level one guys with leather armor and tower shields up to AC 24 while in formation. I don't think it is impossible for a fighter to well defend someone at his back.
I'm not sure on the new rule because it hasn't come up, but can't fighters add their BAB to Sense Motive rolls? I'd be inclined to allow it against acrobatics honestly.
Now I'm getting into all that annoying math.
At this point, I might not change it until I have enough time to sit down and really think it through.
Oh bother.
I am assuming the adding BAB question is with regard to feints.
Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher.
I am pretty notorious for trying to get past the PC to get to squishes(normally PC casters or low con rogues), and that I can not tell you how happy my bad guys would be if the squishy just came up front where I can reach them more easily. I would be more than willing to accept your rules if I was trying to kill the squishy which probably means you just made my job a lot easier. I understand you are trying to make it easier to an extent, but low level squishes can't take a lot of damage.
lol yeah right. If you had any pride about it you wouldn't be bragging to me about you skill, and how that makes you more qualified to interpret game rules.Particularly those who actually have.That is a bold statement. Nerds always think it is they who know how to sword fight.Honestly, the conversation is over at this point. No one on here managed to give me a solid reason for why I shouldn't make the change other than the boogieman of potential side effects.Try doing some sword fighting. The fact of the matter is that it is easy for a normal person to get some distance between them and an attacker for a moment or two unless the attacker is specifically trained to keep the distance close. Being able to take a 5 foot step out of melee is simply more realistic.
I did not see it as bragging.
example
You=This is a great idea
Other Person=Nope and here is why.
You=You don't have real experience
Other Person=Actually I do.
You dismissed them the first time on the grounds of no experience, now you are saying their experience does not matter. If real life is a valid point then their experience does not matter. If real life is not a valid point then it should be left out of the discussion.
So, these are the house rules I'll be submitting to my players for approval.
Body Guard
A warrior can choose to guard another character. The decision to do so must be declared at the start of the round. When an enemy moves to attack the warrior's charge, he can move to intercept automatically. This movement counts as the warriors move action for the round.
The warrior's movement must seem reasonable. He either must have a clear path to his opponents projected course or be closer to his charge than the attacker.
To buy pass the body guard, the attacker must make a successful combat maneuver roll against his CMD. Failure means he is stopped in his tracks, ending his movement adjacent to the fighter.
Of course, the body guard ability doesn't allow the warrior to stop multiple opponents. To do that, he would need additional tactics such as Combat Reflexes, Combat Patrol, Stand Still, and Improved Trip.
I don't know if you play to high levels or not, but many monsters have CMB high enough to bypass a fighter's CMD without much trouble. There is still the issue with Incorporeal monsters since you can't really do anything to stop them. It does not solve the reach issue either. A bull rush could knock the fighter out of the way and let the monster end up next to the squishy. This sets the squishy up to be full attacked next round, and the caster has no hope to get away if the monster can handle the fighter's CMD. Well he can withdraw, but a monster might have reach which means there is still an AoO, that the monster can use to trip the squishy instead of doing HP damage. That means the squishy is still in range to get killed next round.
PS:The bull rush tactic can probably be done at lower levels.
Five Foot StepsA character that performs a 5' step in order to create space between himself and an attacker must make a CM roll. Failure indicates that attacker is able to choose to take an automatic 5' step forward to counter.
An attacker that is being threatened by a nearby ally is not allowed to take advantage of a failed CM roll when taking the 5' step.
How is the monster being stopped from moving from an immersion(fluff) point of view? This seems more arbitrary than the 5 ft step, especially if the monster is at least 2 sizes larger than whoever is trying to stop it?
CW's acrobatics rule[/b]]
AcrobaticsThe DC to move through both threatened squares and occupied squares is 5 + CMD, adding +2 for each additional person avoided.
That is already a rule.
Move through an enemy's space 5 + opponent's Combat Maneuver DefenseThis DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement. This DC increases by 2 for each additional opponent avoided in 1 round
Step Up
The Step Up feat allows fighter to counter any five foot step, even if the retreating target is being covered by an ally.
What do you mean by counter? Do you mean get an attack anyway?
Mobility
Warriors gain a +4 to their CMD when using the body guard action to stop an opponent from moving past if they have this feat.
Likewise, attackers gain a +4 to their CMB when attempting to move past an enemy when using this feat.
If everyone takes the feat, and in such a game world I would they most melee threats would then they cancel each other out and it is basically a wash.
What about acrobatics to step back? are you saying that if i succeed in acrobatics for 5 five foot step it shouldn't be allowed????? or escape artist??? two things specifically designed to counter CM or Aoo???
wizards with max ranks in both get no benefit??????
if your going to nerf fine... but at least be practical about it
There is no way to use acrobatics with a 5 ft step by the rules because by the rules it is not needed. You would have to combine acrobatics with a move action, and you might as well move more than 5 feet if you are taking a move action.
acrobatics can be used to negate an AOO... hence why isn't it account for?? couldnt you use acrobatics to get ur 5 feet?
and escape artist is directly used to break out of a grapple... again couldn't that be reason that you could 'escape" being so close to another char?
the point is you are adding things to the game to keep players from making 5 ft steps... whenever there is an OFFENSIVE in the game there is ALWAYS a counter offensive..
My point is that by the rules a 5 ft step does not provoke so in regular game the two are not combined. If you tumble you have to move(move action). It would take another house rule to be able to tumble as a part of a 5 ft step, but since the OP wants to pin casters down I don't know if he will make the rule or not.
Casters can be pretty annoying as a DM, but I think a DM should adapt before going to houserules.
acrobatics can be used to negate an AOO... hence why isn't it account for?? couldnt you use acrobatics to get ur 5 feet?
and escape artist is directly used to break out of a grapple... again couldn't that be reason that you could 'escape" being so close to another char?
the point is you are adding things to the game to keep players from making 5 ft steps... whenever there is an OFFENSIVE in the game there is ALWAYS a counter offensive..
My point is that by the rules a 5 ft step does not provoke so in regular game the two are not combined. If you tumble you have to move(move action). It would take another house rule to be able to tumble as a part of a 5 ft step, but since the OP wants to pin casters down I don't know if he will make the rule or not.
Casters can be pretty annoying as a DM, but I think a DM should adapt before going to houserules.
I think it would be silly to disallow an acrobatics check, ofcourse you usually only move half your movement, so to be allowed a 5 foot step would take a -10 penalty, maybe just allow for an unmodified check for a 5 foot step ? (since well it wasnt even needed to begin with)
acrobatics can be used to negate an AOO... hence why isn't it account for?? couldnt you use acrobatics to get ur 5 feet?
and escape artist is directly used to break out of a grapple... again couldn't that be reason that you could 'escape" being so close to another char?
the point is you are adding things to the game to keep players from making 5 ft steps... whenever there is an OFFENSIVE in the game there is ALWAYS a counter offensive..
My point is that by the rules a 5 ft step does not provoke so in regular game the two are not combined. If you tumble you have to move(move action). It would take another house rule to be able to tumble as a part of a 5 ft step, but since the OP wants to pin casters down I don't know if he will make the rule or not.
Casters can be pretty annoying as a DM, but I think a DM should adapt before going to houserules.
I think it would be silly to disallow an acrobatics check, ofcourse you usually only move half your movement, so to be allowed a 5 foot step would take a -10 penalty, maybe just allow for an unmodified check for a 5 foot step ? (since well it wasnt even needed to begin with)
That would put the wizard back on easy street most likely, as far as CW is concerned. It would definitely allow a way to bypass most of his house rules, and a -10 penalty is big enough that it is an autofail against any real melee threat.
If he wants to nerf casters I think it would be better to just say all spells require a full round action. That way he has a nerf that stays relevant instead of one that mostly hurts low level casters, and higher level ones don't have to worry about as much. It would also affect all casters equally. Druid and clerics can be just as annoying as arcane casters, but they can have a good enough AC to deal with being up front.
well, I think I am done with this threat, it is a houserule, the OP is not really looking for advise or anything.. and if I want to play a low-magic campaign I can think of rules that suit me better :)
See you guys in another thread !
BTW. have you guys ever seen a sword fight??? like honest?...
you end up everywhere... that is what the 5 ft step represents one withdrawals one advances... it is VERY constant ( usually in a circular motion) and to be honest for "flanking" it is not hard to slide to side to side... honest..
Absolutely true. Combat in R-L is A LOT more mobile than on the tactical map. That being said, neither combatant can completely ignore its opponent that easily, if only for a short 6 sec period.
In these R-L combat, you don't see one fighter moving out and rummage trough his or her backpack without the other trying to interfere. When one gets the "leisure" to do so, that is usually the result of a feint or taking advantage of your opponent's usually temporary weakness.
I guess one could argue that these are common and easy enough to perform/exploit for a character to do so on every round and without a check, but personally, I disagree. But I agree, those should be usable in close combat but since we are effectively two editions away from D&D 2E and its speed factor, the argument needs some updating.
also as far as "wizards backing up and casting spells"... oh yes those pesky wizards....
ever think about what a 'verbal component" is? ..
well just to give you an idea.. in 2nd edition... spells had the fastest 'speed"... yup... 2nd edition had 'speed ratings" that dictated how fast you could swing a sword.....guess what...
99% of wizard spells were speed 1... 99% of swords were speed 4 or higher.
Looking at my 2E PHB, there isn't that many spells with a casting time of 1 other than 1st level spells and the rightfully feared Power Words. Unless you're talking about spells that have ONLY a verbal component, which there aren't that many either.
The 5 ft step is a nice gamist element of the game, its just not a good simulationist rule as written. As you said in your opening statement, combat is mobile and elastic, but my argument is that very few swordsmen are skillful enough to ignore its opponent for 6 sec as a free action.
I'm not sure that real life comparisons are really apt. D&D was built to resemble heroic fiction, not real life combat, in all versions. Pathfinder is no exception.
I'm not sure that real life comparisons are really apt.
They rarely are. However, real-life is the reference that most (all?) RPGs try to emulate via a system of more or less abstracted rules. To complicate things, our perception of what R-L is isn't always accurate; sometimes it is even deliberately altered.
Therefore, some rules (and by extension some systems) will get closer to a faithful simulation of R-L while other favour ease of play. Most game systems aim for somewhere in between, with a good measure of what we'd like R-L to be (even though we know that's not how it really is).
So while comparisons to "how it works in R-L" are rarely apt, comments that say "this is too far from my experience of R-L for me to fully enjoy the game" are valid IMHO.
'findel
Wraith Strike, you might be right about high level play. Sense I started gaming back in 96, I've never had a D&D character over 9th level and I never run beyond 8th, rarely beyond 6th, so if the game breaks down in more ways than I know beyond that point, I wouldn't be surprised.
As far as body guard, sure, there are things that can get past a fighter even with this, but the wizard can still be invisible or flying or something, and as pointed out earlier in this thread, even if the wizard can't make his five foot step, if he tries to build a good concentration check it is almost automatic.
If the wizard is flying then he is not near the fighter, which you said is something you want to be a viable strategy in your games, and most DM's counter flying with enemy flyers or ranged attacks. I am not saying they do it all the time, but if it becomes a constant means of escape, expect to see something done about it. Invisibility severely limits what spells you can cast, and it does not silence you so it is far from foolproof. I don't know if you more monsters or humanoids, but fly, and invisibility are low level tactics, and are defeatable by low level tactics. They can buy you a round or 2 which is not a bad thing, but they are not a solution. They also mean the caster is taking a round self-buffing instead of helping the party.
As for Acrobatics, the DC to go through a threatened square is just CMD -- I'm adding +5 to it, so it is just as hard to go through an occupied square.
So you can't even tumble through an ally's square is what you are trying to say?
As far as the fluff for a 5' step, this is how I see it.The person taking the step back, while finding difficult on his own to get away from a skilled warrior long enough to fish around in his bag, can do it with a little help. For the step up to work, it has to be instant. When the wizard or princess or whatever steps back, the enemy can't step forward because the character threatening it will stab it fatally. When a creature takes a step on its own timing, it can mitigate some of the danger, only taking an AoO, but stepping up on someone else's timing is suicide.
If someone can step back defensively, why can't another step up defensively. It seems to go against the logic of stepping back being dangerous unless you are saying that is just how your game world works.