| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM. ;)
Technically i'd like to point out that there is nothing in the rules about the zombies being unable to take a 5' step.
"Take 5-Foot Step
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.
You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed."
A 5-foot step is a "No Action" action. It is technically faster even than an "Immediate Action". Zombies can 5-foot step and make a Standard Action as normal. Your GM was correct, though it was not technically a "Charge" as you understand it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charge says 10', straight up RAW.
They CAN however, 5' step and just hit per normal.
They don't need to charge in order to slam.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow ninja'd... the irony!
This is the right forum. The player was partially correct. The zombies can not charge, but they can still 5 foot steps and attack.
Nothing in the staggered condition prevents 5-foot steps. The restriction only takes away move or standard actions.
Staggered: A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.
lol. irony indeed!
So where is the bit about a 5' charge?
Zombies are allowed to 5' step and attack if that is the question. Also, it is a pretty common tactic to kite zombies. Even in the movies.
"However our GM is telling us that Zombies can still make their slam attacks by making a 5 foot step and performing their attacks without the bonus to attack rolls".
There was no charge.
The title is "So our GM says zombies can make 5 foot charges..."
...thus the question.
A "5' charge without the to hit bonus" is the same as a 5' step and standard action attack. While the specific maneuver was wrongly referred the actual game mechanic played out correctly. So no. and yes. ;)
5f step and an attack is ok but keep in mind that zombies can charge too.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
your GM is completly right: "exploiting an encounter like this by making them unable to make attacks is obviously not what they meant to happen"
also what the others have mentioned, free 5foot step or charge is possible. but not charge within 5 feet. Even if that weren't legal, exploiting an encounter like that should be stopped by any GM, no matter what the rules say. Rule 0, your GM is always right.
The GM is not always right, at least not until he makes a houserule anyway. He was right this time however.
|
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
There's a few GMs out there who will let anyone use this mechanic, to make what is often termed a 'half-charge', with a readied standard action, or in the surprise (half) round.
It really resolves the problem of 'My bodyguard can't actually, you know...guard....his friend'.
Whether it's the RAI is up for debate, but given that it's a problem which has been used for years to prove the pointlessness of martial classes, all through 3.0/3.5/PF playesting, it's one I don't see going away.
I'm not sure I agree that the GM was right about anything here. The weaknesses of enemies are made to be exploited. Of course your going to try to outrun and ranged down slow enemies. That is their weakness and it is a pretty obvious one at that.
And I definitely do not agree that the GM is always right. I am currently GMing and I have always thought that is a stupid rule. Pathfinder and RPGs are at their core a social game based on rules that are in a book. It is a shared experience. The point of the game is to have fun and it is the GM's job to make sure that is happening while following those rules. House rules should only exist to enrich the game for everyone involved, not simply to fiat away something a GM thinks is "unfair".
Umm - don't understand your point here... The GM was correct by RAW, and (at least in my opinion which may not count for a lot!!) by RAI as well... Zombies can make a 5' step and attack; If they have more space, they can make a move/attack combination (i.e. charge)- just not very fast, and they tend to block themselves (check the rules on pre-requisites to charging)
You stand next to a bad guy. You move 5' from him. Bad guys moves up and hits you. From my mind, no problem.
Thematically, I always view zombies ("Brains!!!") as slow moving bad guys, not a "rules package encounter" that says "aha! if we do this, then we can expose a what I think is a rules loophole and win without challenge!". I take your point about it being a social game, and it most definitely is, but I think that part of the social contract in my games is that the players will be challenged to find in-game strategies that work, not rules ones (if I am making any sense here). As a GM, I have no problem of changing an encounter where the rules don't make sense (and yes - I am very very old-school in some ways. Rules are a guideline, not a straight-jacket)
My tuppence worth...
Aiddar
This is the part I had a problem with:
He is saying this is as intended because "exploiting an encounter like this by making them unable to make attacks is obviously not what they meant to happen"
To me it sounded like the GM was saying that it isn't ok to simply stay far enough away from the zombies that you can safely attack them but that they can not move and attack you (either with a 5' + attack or a partial 30' charge). It sounded like it was the GM's opinion that doing so was somehow exploiting an encounter. Well... it is exploiting the weakness of an enemy. But that is what adventurers excel at. Why close with a stinking rotting carcass that could potentially cause you serious bodily injury when they can be safely dispatched at range?
If terrain permits it I don't understand why anyone would face that sort of encounter any other way. That is how you safely take care of zombies. Zombies ARE slow by design. That IS how encounters with zombies are meant to happen. It should typically be a fairly one sided encounter unless terrain prevents you from effectively fighting in this fashion.
Actually it started when the 'experienced player' went down the path of trying to exploit a weakness, but a weakness which actually didn't exist. Seems that player was under a false impression that Zombies couldn't 5' step... which would have meant the party could have easily trashed the Zombies with no risk by simply attacking and 5' stepping the Zombies to death.
It seems at some point the party has objected to the 5' steps of the Zombies and tried to pin the GM to only having a Move OR Standard action and no 5' step, and on that basis he would be right in saying its clearly not the intention.
Taking advantage of a weakness is one thing (and some good ideas have been mentioned), this is all quite another.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm not sure I agree that the GM was right about anything here. The weaknesses of enemies are made to be exploited. Of course your going to try to outrun and ranged down slow enemies. That is their weakness and it is a pretty obvious one at that.
There is no five foot step 'weakness' to exploit. The GM wasn't precisely right about the details, but his call was closer to the truth than the player's attempt at hacking the rules was. The encounter worked the way it should which is the most important bit.
This is the part I had a problem with:
He is saying this is as intended because "exploiting an encounter like this by making them unable to make attacks is obviously not what they meant to happen"To me it sounded like the GM was saying that it isn't ok to simply stay far enough away from the zombies that you can safely attack them but that they can not move and attack you (either with a 5' + attack or a partial 30' charge). It sounded like it was the GM's opinion that doing so was somehow exploiting an encounter. Well... it is exploiting the weakness of an enemy. But that is what adventurers excel at. Why close with a stinking rotting carcass that could potentially cause you serious bodily injury when they can be safely dispatched at range?
If terrain permits it I don't understand why anyone would face that sort of encounter any other way. That is how you safely take care of zombies. Zombies ARE slow by design. That IS how encounters with zombies are meant to happen. It should typically be a fairly one sided encounter unless terrain prevents you from effectively fighting in this fashion.
GM here. The only issue was the players claiming zombies cannot take five foot steps, which they can. They figured if they melee attacked a zombie and five foot stepped away the zombie could not attack, because a charge requires 10 feet of movement.
Running away or kiting was not an issue, and absolutely intended. In this situation the players ended up running away from the zombies and everyone survived.
This is the part I had a problem with:
He is saying this is as intended because "exploiting an encounter like this by making them unable to make attacks is obviously not what they meant to happen"To me it sounded like the GM was saying that it isn't ok to simply stay far enough away from the zombies that you can safely attack them but that they can not move and attack you (either with a 5' + attack or a partial 30' charge). It sounded like it was the GM's opinion that doing so was somehow exploiting an encounter. Well... it is exploiting the weakness of an enemy. But that is what adventurers excel at. Why close with a stinking rotting carcass that could potentially cause you serious bodily injury when they can be safely dispatched at range?
If terrain permits it I don't understand why anyone would face that sort of encounter any other way. That is how you safely take care of zombies. Zombies ARE slow by design. That IS how encounters with zombies are meant to happen. It should typically be a fairly one sided encounter unless terrain prevents you from effectively fighting in this fashion.
OK - so if we agree that the GM was right by the rules (i.e. he did what the rules say the bad guys can do), is your point more that in general (rather than this specific item), you do not like the idea of the GM interpreting what the bad guys should be able to do? ie. - though he may have done the right thing here, the way he got to the solution was wrong?
If so - I can take your point and the reason you feel that way, but I think it comes down to a given GM's style, and that of the group they play with. If the players play well and keep more than 35' away from the zombies and pepper them with missile fire, all good. If they use terrain to hide behind so the zombies can't charge at them, alos good. I guess it I feel less happy at the players using a "rules solution" rather than an "encounter solution". Even if the rules do not allow it, I reserve the right as GM to amend encounters to be Encounter As Intended ("EAI" ;-))), as part of the job of making sure that players are challneged. If they have a masterful strategy ("OK - I am climbing the wall and dropping pots of oil on them") where the rules are tricky to interpret (ok - what is the mod for climbing while carrying a pot of oil in your mouth and one hand holding a lit fuse....?) I simply apply the "rule of cool" - it sounds good, so lets go with it - climb at -10.
If the solution is rules-driven and not in character, if I feel it breaks an element of the encounter, I can (and have) amend(ed) things - sometimes in the player's favour, sometimes not.
Cheers
Aiddar
There is no five foot step 'weakness' to exploit.
GM here. The only issue was the players claiming zombies cannot take five foot steps, which they can.
I know. I said that already. I said that in my very first post, "Zombies are allowed to 5' step and attack if that is the question." I am not questioning the 5' step at all.
Aratrok cleared it up. I had thought he took issue with the kiting of zombies all together with the comment of "exploiting an encounter like this by making them unable to make attacks is obviously not what they meant to happen". This is not the case, as Aratrok just said. My problem was with that as a blanket statement. Because exploiting an encounter by making your enemies unable to make attacks is definitely a viable (and intended) strategy.
exploit the weakness of the monsters, not the weakness of the rules!!!
the good news is in the surprise round, pc can also charge half distance and attack
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
charge If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
I guess the trick is to stay 40ft away from a zombie, then shoot and move or reach weapon and move??
So as an example if the rule is that the zombie monster can not both move and take a standard action and you exploit this weakness by staying far enough away from their movement distance ... is that exploiting the monster or the rule? Isn't it both?
I'm actually having a hard time coming up with a time when I would find that distinction to be present much less important.
|
|
If the PCs actually stay far enough away from the zombies; ie with at least a 35' head start, then they can kite away to their hearts content (though it may be a long, drawn out encounter, due to DR).
No-one has disputed that, so doing that isn't an exploit of the monster, the environment, or the rules.
That's viewing the situation through the eyes of your PC, and coming up with a solution that makes sense.
It makes sense in-game ("Hey, they're slow. We can stay ahead of them and pelt them with arrows and rocks!"), and out of game ("Hey, the rules show they can't get us if we stay at least 40' away!").
But there's a big difference between a person maintaining 40' of distance, and one maintaining a mere 10' of distance. The former is actually keeping his distance, the latter is getting right in the zombies face before making a token step back.
|
|
And I definitely do not agree that the GM is always right. I am currently GMing and I have always thought that is a stupid rule. Pathfinder and RPGs are at their core a social game based on rules that are in a book. It is a shared experience. The point of the game is to have fun and it is the GM's job to make sure that is happening while following those rules. House rules should only exist to enrich the game for everyone involved, not simply to fiat away something a GM thinks is "unfair".
Most proponents of Rule Zero are not heavy-handed dictators; they see it as a necessary tool that may sometimes be needed to resolve situations that the rules either don't cover at all, or don't cover well.
It has been established that zombies can take a 5' step just like everybody else. That's not in dispute.
But imagine for a moment, that either the movement rules were different ("Only characters with a full round's actions can take 5' steps."), or the players/GM were to interpret the flavor text of the zombie more harshly ("Well, it says they're slow, so...I guess it doesn't actually say that they do get a 5' step...so I guess they don't?)
Then you would end up with an absurd situation.
Under that interpretation, you would have a situation in which a zombie could either;
a) move up to 30',
b) stand still and attack, or
c) charge up to 30', and attack.
The 'exploit' comes if a player reminds the GM that all charges have to have a minimum of 10' run-up. And goes on from there, to declare that because of this minimum 10' run-up, anyone within the five-foot to ten-foot band is automatically safe from attack, for ever and ever, amen.
To reiterate:
"If I'm seven squares away, I can be attacked.
If I'm six squares away, I can be attacked.
If I'm five squares away, I can be attacked.
If I'm four squares away, I can be attacked.
If I'm three squares away, I can be attacked.
If I'm one square away, I can be attacked.
But if I'm two squares away, I can't be attacked.
So, if I move 20' in my armor, and I disturb a zombie 15' from me, then shooting while walking back could get me killed.
The safest thing for me to do, is shoot, then walk to the zombie, so it can't get me."
That is such a stupid situation, that it would ruin the immersion for me, whether as a GM or player. It would drag me out of the game. If the GM and other players simply shrugged, and said "Well, yeah, it's stooopid, but them's the rules. We have to use them.", and if it then went on to become standard MO, in a game heavy with zombie opposition....maybe it's time to find another game.
That is when a good GM steps in, and uses the authority of Rule Zero, to alter rules for the good of The Game.
("I don't care if it explicitly says zombies don't get 5 foot steps, or if we've just jumped to that conclusion, but it's quite blatantly wrong, if it means you're safer walking toward them...")
Correct the obvious typo, veto the obvious cut'n'paste mistake, errata the option that was clearly not play-tested,...Do whatever should have been done, to make the printed rules actually say what the designers actually intended them to mean. Improve the play experience for everyone.
Care should still be taken not to spring Rule Zero on the players.
Even when the RAW gives results that are absolutely ludicrous, the player could have been relying on that for their master plan, so you should attempt to give advance notice, and maybe let them take back their proposed action.
"Bob, I see what you're saying, and I agree the rules seem to agree with you, however, if you follow that to the letter, to its logical conclusion, you get crazy outcomes such as [xxxx], so I am going to have to say that from now on it's going to be different. Now, do you want to rethink that last action?"
There is no Rule Zero in Pathfinder. They changed it for the better:
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
And that pretty much spells out my thoughts on the topic as well.
|
One of our more experienced players told us we could simply kite the encounter by attacking then making a 5 foot step back.
He is saying this is as intended because "exploiting an encounter like this by making them unable to make attacks is obviously not what they meant to happen"
So who is in the right?
Unless the character made some knowledge rolls that weren't mentioned in the OP, the player was metagaming. The GM is right for the various rulesy reason mentioned above, but also for keeping within the spirit of the rules/encounter.
-Skeld
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
There's a few GMs out there who will let anyone use this mechanic, to make what is often termed a 'half-charge', with a readied standard action, or in the surprise (half) round.
It really resolves the problem of 'My bodyguard can't actually, you know...guard....his friend'.
Whether it's the RAI is up for debate, but given that it's a problem which has been used for years to prove the pointlessness of martial classes, all through 3.0/3.5/PF playesting, it's one I don't see going away.
(This is a bit late but) I think that is RAI. It's always seemed like a surprise round is the most likely time to make use of that rule. I don't think too many staggered PCs are going to want to charge.