|
Since we're still getting people saying "X isn't intelligent enough to do Y", let me reiterate:
Sean K Reynolds (Designer): "Nothing in the rules say that 5FS and other actions in the Combat chapter require a minimum Intelligence score to use them."
Not that I disagree with that at all, but I don't think that animal companions should be allowed to take 5-ft. steps to provide flanking unless they have the Flank trick. Otherwise it completely negates any reason to take that trick.
I rarely play characters with animal companions, but I do GM a lot and there are many BBEGs with animal companions. I don't let them have their companions 5-ft. step for flanking either. (Unless, of course, they have that trick).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Not that I disagree with that at all, but I don't think that animal companions should be allowed to take 5-ft. steps to provide flanking unless they have the Flank trick. Otherwise it completely negates any reason to take that trick.Since we're still getting people saying "X isn't intelligent enough to do Y", let me reiterate:
Sean K Reynolds (Designer): "Nothing in the rules say that 5FS and other actions in the Combat chapter require a minimum Intelligence score to use them."
I wasn't responding to that, I was responding to things like "creature X isn't intelligent enough to 5ft step" or "...fighters who dump INT to 7 and think they can still take 5ft steps" or whatever.
nothing about taking 5 foot steps to flank requires any level of intelligence.
wolves and lions do it, and they have an intelligence of 2, zombies do it and they are freaking mindless.
You know you have a point. I guess it doesn't have to do with intelligence, but the mannerisms for a creature.
I disagree that undead flank. I think any GM ruling this is incorrectly playing the undeads behavior (at least mindless undead).
Undead walk straight and attack the nearest thing, like mindless swarms.
Wolves are pack animals that hunt together, so it makes sense that they would.
Crocs however are not pack animals, and it would not make sense for that animal to have "flanking" in its behavior.
Crocs may not be pack animals, but i doubt they would ignore the chance to exploit a distracted foe. same with Zombies, i don't think even the most mindless of creatures would ignore a distracted foe. Flanking is a form of distraction. and both would logically target "blind spots." it is merely an instinctual function of the animalistic mind.
Not that I disagree with that at all, but I don't think that animal companions should be allowed to take 5-ft. steps to provide flanking unless they have the Flank trick. Otherwise it completely negates any reason to take that trick.
I rarely play characters with animal companions, but I do GM a lot and there are many BBEGs with animal companions. I don't let them have their companions 5-ft. step for flanking either. (Unless, of course, they have that trick).
Flank shouldn't even be a trick tax. in fact, the trick system shouldn't exist
|
nothing about taking 5 foot steps to flank requires any level of intelligence.
wolves and lions do it, and they have an intelligence of 2, zombies do it and they are freaking mindless.
You know you have a point. I guess it doesn't have to do with intelligence, but the mannerisms for a creature.
I disagree that undead flank. I think any GM ruling this is incorrectly playing the undeads behavior (at least mindless undead).
Undead walk straight and attack the nearest thing, like mindless swarms.
Wolves are pack animals that hunt together, so it makes sense that they would.
Crocs however are not pack animals, and it would not make sense for that animal to have "flanking" in its behavior.
Ah, but mindless undead do flank...they surround you, flanking by simply trying to get at you.
They could also withdraw on their next turn as a standard action.
The only thing that should EVER make a zombie withdraw, baring magic/magic ability, is a chain saw.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has been quite the explosive topic... and I wanted to add some real world context. awp832 and a few other posters have already provided it, so this is more 'elaborating on a source.'
Simply put, while animals are Int 1 or Int 2... you'd be surprised how capable they are in combat. They know how to fight and fight well. They have to; they die if they don't (well, excepting non-combatant animals like many small birds and such; let's leave them aside for now)! They know footwork, timing, attacking from favorable angles, and so on.
It's possible they may not understand target priority quite as well as people do, but you only need to watch a few nature documentaries to see animals know about things in combat that we would parse as "5' steps", "flanking", and so on in Pathfinder.
Animals showing basic combat tactics is not a bad, unexpected, or unrealistic thing in Pathfinder. It even works both ways; a PC's summoned animals will show competent maneuvering in battle as well!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea DM your right just stand away from everything and take it one step at a time. Tactics need to be changed and no its 5 foot end turn, 5 foot end turn, 5 foot end turn till they got close enough.
Get every one a missile weapon, and when they start 5 foot stepping towards you each turn, shoot them and step 5 foot back. They will never reach you, and eventually die.
|
|
Actually the last line is the rules violation. In PFS games the GM can't ban PFS legalstuff.
Not strictly true. This has been discussed on the PFS boards, although I don't recall if it was during the current administration. The decision was that it could be done, but was discouraged, particularly in advertised games. The topic was initially prompted by synthesist and gunslinger hate. Effectively, you get a bit of a stand-off when a GM declines to run for some builds, although it can result in real-life consequences, such as a GM not being welcomed by organizers at conventions due to unreliability. Further discussion of this probably should go to the PFS forums if desired.
It also isn't very clear from OP's posts whether the detail is accurate. PFS does limit characters to a single combat pet per character, and it's possible that this is what he is referring to with a bit of hyperbole.
Outside of PFS, I've had circumstances with a new player who was unfamiliar with the rules where I've limited summoning to one creature at a time. This was a learning tool; the player insisted on playing a druid and was overwhelmed by his character and AC, not to mention summons. 15 minutes for a character to figure out his turn isn't fun for 5 others sitting around. My intent was to ramp him up as he learned the game, but after months of weekly games he still didn't understand the basics of the game and the game folded due to me relocating.
|
|
Actually the last line is the rules violation. In PFS games the GM can't ban PFS legalstuff.Not strictly true. This has been discussed on the PFS boards, although I don't recall if it was during the current administration. The decision was that it could be done, but was discouraged, particularly in advertised games. The topic was initially prompted by synthesist and gunslinger hate. Effectively, you get a bit of a stand-off when a GM declines to run for some builds, although it can result in real-life consequences, such as a GM not being welcomed by organizers at conventions due to unreliability. Further discussion of this probably should go to the PFS forums if desired.
Correcting myself after reviewing the threads that took place on this. It can be done in private games. It can't be done elsewhere. This was per the current administration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea the croc was moving 5-foot away from us and the Trogs would charge stop 30feet from us throw javelins and then 5 foot towards us till they got within range of attacks
The only problem here is how incredibly boring your combats must be.
If you don't want to watch his monsters slowly march into combat, start taking 5 foot steps back, letting the ranger shoot the monsters in the face.
Either your GM will get the point and just charge, taking the one whole AoO from your reach weapons, or you can take 4 hours to arrow a few trogs to death.
Or you could, y'know, just move in and attack them.
I really don't understand why the party didn't simply close the distance into melee themselves instead of allowing the "5-ft, throw javelin" from the opponents every turn. The DM used the rules properly; if the PCs didn't like the tactics they should have taken action to prevent it.
Also, every PC should have a bow of some sort :)
|
nothing about taking 5 foot steps to flank requires any level of intelligence.
wolves and lions do it, and they have an intelligence of 2, zombies do it and they are freaking mindless.
My favorite is the Yellow Musk Creeper.
Mindless with a move speed of 5': the only time its not taking a free 5' step is when it double moves.
|
I at least assumed it was more like:
1) advance, throw javelin.
2) 5-foot step, throw javelin(s). Quick-Draw would make this pretty cool.
3) 5-foot step, throw javelin(s).
4) 5-foot step, draw and full attack.
If the bad guys are very slowly advancing, have you tried very slowly retreating? All you need is one guy with a longspear and a readied action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I at least assumed it was more like:
1) advance, throw javelin.
2) 5-foot step, throw javelin(s). Quick-Draw would make this pretty cool.
3) 5-foot step, throw javelin(s).
4) 5-foot step, draw and full attack.If the bad guys are very slowly advancing, have you tried very slowly retreating? All you need is one guy with a longspear and a readied action.
<Everburning torch appears above my head>
Oh, THAT's what the GM was doing! 5 foot step, MOVE ACTION TO DRAW new javelin, throw javelin! He wasn't abusing the 5 foot step: he was adhering to the "move action to draw a new weapon" restriction. The trogs were closing but maximizing their ranged attacks as long as they had ammunition. So yeah, the correct tactic here is close the distance. (Actually, that's my preferred tactic anytime the other guy has range and I don't.)
Thanks for making that make sense!
One correction though. Without Quick Draw, they couldn't do #4: Draw and full attack. The "free draw" at BAB 1 has to be done as part of a movement, and 5 foot step doesn't count for that purpose.
@Gwen: Yes, the full attack was factoring in Quick Draw. On the other hand, if they're trogs, they don't need a weapon to full attack.
Right. Of course, if they had Quick Draw, I'd have them more a lot more than 5 feet a round. They'd maneuver around the room into "5 feet from flanking" positions and then step in the last 5 feet all at once. (And the first ones would ready an attack for "as soon as my buddy is in position"...)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do see one GM related issue: style mismatch.
Forcing a tactical style on players who don't enjoy it (and aren't statted for it) is bad form.
Particularly if your players have communicated that they aren't having fun.
Might want to drop the 'GM vs Players' mentality and move to the next scene.
The monsters should play stupid because the don't want to think?
What is the next step? They should have 1 hit point because having to hit them more than once is boring?
|
The monsters should play stupid because the don't want to think?
What is the next step? They should have 1 hit point because having to hit them more than once is boring?
So do you fail to grasp the difference between de-emphasizing combat and "all monsters are stupid and have 1 hp"? Not every PF session needs make a wargamer proud. You can play entire sessions without even needing to roll the dice.
Likewise you can allow pointless mooks less than the maximum amount of time it would take to kill them.
It's all about meeting expectations, just like a lot of other human interactions.
The players used tactics too, namely the tactic of standing and waiting in the hopes of the enemy closing in so the twf-ranger could get a full attack. The enemy tactics would have been extremely easy to prevent (simply move the ranger up close), but the PCs seemingly didn't want to lose their opportunity to full attack.
I don't see what is "wargames-tactical" or "GM vs players mentality" about attacking from range while you have the ammunition for it, before switching to melee once you run out. Would you expect a bow-wielding opponent to always close into melee while they still have arrows remaining?
|
|
The monsters should play stupid because the don't want to think?
What is the next step? They should have 1 hit point because having to hit them more than once is boring?So do you fail to grasp the difference between de-emphasizing combat and "all monsters are stupid and have 1 hp"? Not every PF session needs make a wargamer proud. You can play entire sessions without even needing to roll the dice.
Likewise you can allow pointless mooks less than the maximum amount of time it would take to kill them.
It's all about meeting expectations, just like a lot of other human interactions.
Or, you could assume that the players aren't idiots, and can actually learn very basic tactics.
If I played chess against someone who simply removed their queen, rooks, and bishops, I wouldn't have more fun, I'd be damn insulted.
|
|
I am not in any way criticizing the tactical style of play. Especially not on a pro-3e site. So lets not get carried away.
What I am saying is that if your players don't like 'thing', enough to come to a forum and complain about 'thing', you should consider being flexible about it.
Fair enough?
"The thing" is basic tactics. Exactly how much basic tactics do I need to dump? When a 5' step and throw is the basic tactics we're looking at, I don't know how much simpler it can get. Shall we assume everything simply moves up and presents itself for death?
One thing I didn't see anybody else emphasize - you can't 5' step onto difficult terrain. OTOH, I don't know that this would help you - if the enemies don't even do the 5' step it doesn't really help you. ;)
|
They could also withdraw on their next turn as a standard action.The only thing that should EVER make a zombie withdraw, baring magic/magic ability, is a chain saw.
I was not clear, I was commenting on the troglodyte topic.
Anyway command undead and control undead can make a zombie do almost anything.
|
|
"The thing" is basic tactics. Exactly how much basic tactics do I need to dump? When a 5' step and throw is the basic tactics we're looking at, I don't know how much simpler it can get. Shall we assume everything simply moves up and presents itself for death?
Don't ask me, ask your players. Each table has its own culture. Explore what works and what doesn't.
If you guys are all mini Sun Tzu's and each combat takes an entire session, and you love it, then you are doing it right.
Just understand that some people are going to view crocodiles as cannon fodder and will be disappointed spending a lot of valuable game time on their tactics.
In fact, take that above sentiment and apply lots of other RPG facets, like backstory:
"Before you can fight these crocs, I will first tell you their amazing history. You see they were hatched..."
One more time, for clarity, different tables like different things to different degrees.
|
|
"The thing" is basic tactics. Exactly how much basic tactics do I need to dump? When a 5' step and throw is the basic tactics we're looking at, I don't know how much simpler it can get. Shall we assume everything simply moves up and presents itself for death?
Don't ask me, ask your players. Each table has its own culture. Explore what works and what doesn't.
If you guys are all mini Sun Tzu's and each combat takes an entire session, and you love it, then you are doing it right.
Just understand that some people are going to view crocodiles as cannon fodder and will be disappointed spending a lot of valuable game time on their tactics.
In fact, take that above sentiment and apply lots of other RPG facets, like backstory:
"Before you can fight these crocs, I will first tell you their amazing history. You see they were hatched..."
One more time, for clarity, different tables like different things to different degrees.
I could ALMOST agree with you if this was a home game. In home games, yeah you can house rule things to suit your group (even if I consider removal of BASIC tactic as a step too far). This however is a PFS game. So no, you CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE RULES.
|
|
I could ALMOST agree with you if this was a home game. In home games, yeah you can house rule things to suit your group (even if I consider removal of BASIC tactic as a step too far). This however is a PFS game. So no, you CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE RULES.
Help me understand. On what page of which book is this rule?
And by that I mean the 'all NPCs must always be played to maximum effect' rule. Because again I am in no way suggesting that the five foot step be modified or anything of the sort.
From what I gather, the croc 5 ft. step is a legit move. Abuse or misuse of the 5 ft. rule is the Trog's MOVE, ATTACK (specifically stated via ranged weapons) then 5 ft. step to end the turn. This is an abuse of the rule to gain extra movement in a round than would be normally allowed. All games I have played, the 5 ft. step was only allowed if no other movement was made during the same round. Full-attack + 5 ft. step is beneficial and tactically sound. 5 ft. step + move action would grant the "mover" the opportunity to separate from melee and retreat/withdraw without fear of an AoO's. Clearly not how the rule designed.
|
|
From what I gather, the croc 5 ft. step is a legit move. Abuse or misuse of the 5 ft. rule is the Trog's MOVE, ATTACK (specifically stated via ranged weapons) then 5 ft. step to end the turn. This is an abuse of the rule to gain extra movement in a round than would be normally allowed. All games I have played, the 5 ft. step was only allowed if no other movement was made during the same round. Full-attack + 5 ft. step is beneficial and tactically sound. 5 ft. step + move action would grant the "mover" the opportunity to separate from melee and retreat/withdraw without fear of an AoO's. Clearly not how the rule designed.
The rule for 5 ft step is that you can take one if you have not done any MOVEMENT (not a move action) in the turn. So you can draw (move action), attack (standard action) and 5 ft step. You can not move 30 ft, attack and then 5 ft step however.
|
|
From what I gather, the croc 5 ft. step is a legit move. Abuse or misuse of the 5 ft. rule is the Trog's MOVE, ATTACK (specifically stated via ranged weapons) then 5 ft. step to end the turn. This is an abuse of the rule to gain extra movement in a round than would be normally allowed. All games I have played, the 5 ft. step was only allowed if no other movement was made during the same round. Full-attack + 5 ft. step is beneficial and tactically sound. 5 ft. step + move action would grant the "mover" the opportunity to separate from melee and retreat/withdraw without fear of an AoO's. Clearly not how the rule designed.
And where you have read that the Trogs did move, attack and then take a 5' step?
What they did is Move action to draw a weapon, then throw the javelin, then 5' step. And that respect all the rules.
Agreed on MOVEMENT. I misworded my intentions. Also, read charged, threw javelins, then 5 ft. stepped. I re-read the original statement are perceive that you are correct. No violation done, but argue if anyone with a - to INT would be smart enough to utilize such tactic. I can easily see, move -> throw javelin, next round(s) draw melee, charge and attack. Also, player complaint, if they are stopping 30 ft. to perform such a lack-luster tactic, why isn't the Melee Tank of the Party charging and slaughtering the daft fools.
Never said suicidal. Tribal, primary melee monsters, tend to one round ranged, then charge for melee. They generally only retreat when their numbers fall below a certain percentage. The other tactic is more of a well thought out tactic. It would require at least 1 of them to have an INT of 10+ to orchestrate such. If they are to be ranged combatants, they would develop better ranged weapons.