30' is the length in Pathfinder at which:
- All medium humanoids seem to move.
- Rogues can do a ranged sneak attack.
- Point-Blank Shot is effective.
- Multiple targets can be affected by numerous friendly or offensive spells.
- Many domain powers and witch hexes can reach.
- A colossal creature's face size maxes out.
I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but this is what comes to mind immediately. I'm also aware that, when it's not specifically 30', it's usually a multiple of that number. So, why 30 feet? Is it something Paizo simply adopted from 3.5 as mandatory holy writ, or is there a real-world reason behind the omnipresence of this distance? Anyone know?
I think it's for balance reasons. For how far away you can do things before someone can reach you.
This.
That, and it's a legacy of the evolution of D&D. My 1st edition AD&D books are packed away right now, so I can't consult them, but I'm guessing it was 30' there, as well.
Obviously, in real life you can just instantly kill someone at hundreds or even thousands of yards away (snipers, head shots) - and there ARE games which support this level of lethality (like Shadowrun) - but in general grid-based games try to contain lethality to a multi-round process, excepting certain strategically challenging obstacles (like being within 30').
The only d20 system I can think of off hand which included very-far-range sneak attacks was Star Wars d20, which had a sniper class which could coup de grace at range (if a target was unaware). Fun to use as a PC, less fun to be subjected too!
Of course, take UMD and invest in a wand of greater invisibility, and this 30' limitation becomes less tactically problematic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's right in the range where a knife vs gun fight is uncertain in RL.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more convenient if many game features use the same distance, than if you have to remember different distances for each of them.
30ft is the kind of distance where you can usually move to and attack an enemy in one round.
If arranged in a line (including ACs), a typical party will take up roughly 30ft (+/-5), meaning the ones in the back can still use "30" abilities on whatever the front is facing.
A fight taking place over a distance bigger than 30ft is starting to look a lot like two fights happening near each other.
|
And what @DavidHaller said. Anyone have the 1E books handy?
Don't have them in front of me, but now that you mention it that is correct. Movements in AD&D were in 3" increments (where 1" = 10 ft indoors and 10 yds outdoors).
Unarmored movement was 12"
Leather was 9"
Chain was 6"
Plate was 3"
At least that's what I think I remember. The increments might have been 12"/9"/6", with leather the same speed as unarmored.
And what @DavidHaller said. Anyone have the 1E books handy?
2nd edition had 2 movement rates: one for inside, and one for outside. Outside, you could move your movement rate in 10s of yards per minute. Inside, in 10s of feet per minute. Human speed was 12, so 120 yards (360 feet) per minute outside, 120 feet per minute inside. That works out to 36 feet per 6 seconds outside, 12 feet per 6 seconds inside.
I'm pretty sure 1st edition was the same.
Also take a look at how this limit interacts with itself. You use a domain power on someone and it takes. The fighter then can move up to the target and attack, because he was beside you and thus within 30' of the target. Your wizard throws a useful spell on the entire party because even though some of the party already moved and acted, everyone is within 30'. It's a subtle way to reward tactical gaming and teamwork.
So then, with 10' range increments, throwing a dagger (e.g.) would be at what penalty at 40' away? Or was it just not allowed?
I'll bet @David Haller is right, that this 30' Sneak Attack max range comes from somewhere in RPG history. Grandfathered in from 1E, which got it from table-top wargames?
Nope. 1st edition Sneak Attack was called Back Stabbing. It could only be done with a club, dagger, or sword attack delivered to the opponents back. Not ranged weapons.
The wording on the ability in 2nd edition implies only melee weapons can be used to backstab.
As far as I can tell, the 30' limit was first added in 3rd edition.
I think from a mechanical point of view, it makes combat easier for melee characters (a lot of important combat effects only work within one move action for a medium humanoid). And I think from a grid or playset point of view, it makes mapping a grid more manageable.
It is also JUST out of reach if there is someone in big armor with a greatsword standing in your way. IE- if someone is standing in your way, you have to go around, and thus might not make it to the caster/archer in this turn (plus you might get your face smashed in by an AoO, as well as the big guy's full attack).
Of course, there are plenty of creatures with enough move to change that situation (although reach weapons can keep them second guessing), but that ability to move so much is, in itself, one that makes it more powerful than 'normal', and increases its threat (I wouldn't say it ever affects CR too significantly, but I am sure it is at least a factor, especially in early levels where full attacks aren't a 'thing')
Nope. 1st edition Sneak Attack was called Back Stabbing. It could only be done with a club, dagger, or sword attack delivered to the opponents back. Not ranged weapons.
The wording on the ability in 2nd edition implies only melee weapons can be used to backstab.
As far as I can tell, the 30' limit was first added in 3rd edition.
Yeah, backstab... the memories!
Reflecting back, in 1st Ed days, people really didn't use battle mats; you used hex grids to map wilderness, and graph paper (usually) to map dungeons, but combat was more "narrative".
Still a 3/3.5 legacy, as Jeraa has pointed out (and that may be a borrow from pre-existing war games... I don't know enough about the history of 3rd edition development to comment); 3/3.5 also got rid of "facing", which was the end of the "back stab" (since there were no longer "backs".)