The problem isn't with the distance, the problem in the case you just presented is the 'rounds' (I don't want to derail this into "Do Rounds Detract from Immersion"). Anyway, if you think about it, your arm is less then a yard(3') so 5' is too far for unarmed strikes and daggers.
Not, it's not. If you're five feet away from me, and I can still potentially punch you or stab you with a foot-long blade. One's reach isn't limited to length of one's arms alone, unless you jab or stab while standing at attention.
Question: how would you suggest making battle grid set up faster?1) You can't plan ahead for everything. You just can't. It's the nature of tabletop games that the PCs could literally go anywhere, and barring infinite time to prepare, sometimes they're going to go to a not-fully-detailed place on your world or dungeon map. So when the PCs take a turn you weren't expecting or remotely anticipating, it's okay to say, "Guys, I need about a ten minute break here to get this set up. Go in the other room, make a coffee run, whatever, just be back at 7 p.m." And then use that time to plan and sketch.
You're right, and I HAVE done this sometimes. It's still a good reminder.
And it is better to call a formal break than just make them wait.
2) But if you have time outside the game to plan maps and stuff, have some backup maps drawn. On something storable, like Gaming Paper. Which you can buy on Paizo.comYou know, it may be a cool thing to put together a community project where people share their GP-sized maps and encounters so people can have more drop-in material for game emergencies.
That is an incredibly cool idea.
I would say to have both battle grid-sized material and smaller maps just for simple viewing reference on a screen.
Now if only I could get Campaign Cartographer to work properly on my new computer...
|
But after years of gaming I see miniatures as the mark of amatuers and inexperienced gm's and players.
After years of playing with bare-faced cheats, people with an unhealthy investment in their PCs, people with inflated delusions about their PC's actual abilities, paranoids who take any decision against their PC as a personal attack, and people with the memory of a dope-fuelled goldfish;...*
*Members of my current group excepted.
I can truthfully say that I see the ability to provide a clear, objective, consistent, detailed, fair, and shared representation/description of the action to be one hallmark of a well-prepared GM, who takes his responsibilities seriously, and carries them out in a professional manner.
As opposed to a GM who forces the players to flail around blindly in a game of '20(to the power of)20 Questions', banging their shins on furniture, stepping into campfires, cracking their heads on signs, throwing themselves down stairs, walking past the captured prisoners, ignoring the chest of treasure, unaware of enemies who are close enough to count their nostril hairs.
GMs who consider the players as dirt on the soles of their shoes, who don't deserve the right to know where they are, and with whom.
GMs who reserve the right to be arbitary, to be inconsistent, to pull things out of their rear, to base their decisions on 'who gets to do cool actions', not on such tedious criteria as who was nearest, but on such high-minded aspirations as which player's pants they want to get into.
GMs who drown out the lamentations of the players, as they slip off into a hazy dreamworld of their own making, away from the inconvenient players, and their terrible 'goal-centred' PCs,....
You see?
We can all play that game. Only thing is, I come from the land of Swift. Not only am I better at it, I'm also so much funnier. And spell better.
And we're still waiting for your apologies to Jess. One for insulting her, and the second for being a hypocrite about it.
*...everything Jandrem was thinking...*
They got to you too, eh? Preach on, preach on.
At that range at very least a huge penalty to hit should be in place. Bows were not the weapon of choice in melée.Keep in mind the whole combat round is happening all at once, with some people reacting faster then others. It's not that everyone moves for six seconds then politely waits for everyone else to do their turn.
The guy with the bow ducks out of the swordguy's reach and unloads on him while swordguy is still trying to catch up. Easy peasy.
Neither were dire flails yet those still exist in game.
D&D ain't realistic. Never has been, never will be.
|
The problem isn't with the distance, the problem in the case you just presented is the 'rounds' (I don't want to derail this into "Do Rounds Detract from Immersion"). Anyway, if you think about it, your arm is less then a yard(3') so 5' is too far for unarmed strikes and daggers.Not, it's not. If you're five feet away from me, and I can still potentially punch you or stab you with a foot-long blade. One's reach isn't limited to length of one's arms alone, unless you jab or stab while standing at attention.
I agree, but then again, of course I would. That aside, problem of the bows/xbows in melée can be solved by having a minimum distance or as done in Boot Hill 3rd edition have a penalty to hit. I'm not sure if the 5'-foot step was intended to make all weapons effective (including) spells in melée or if this outcome is just collateral damage. So I do not have an issue with the 5'-step as a repositioning move just it's side effect of giving almost complete immunity to carry out actions that do detract from my sense of immersion.
S.
|
|
At that range at very least a huge penalty to hit should be in place. Bows were not the weapon of choice in melée.Keep in mind the whole combat round is happening all at once, with some people reacting faster then others. It's not that everyone moves for six seconds then politely waits for everyone else to do their turn.
The guy with the bow ducks out of the swordguy's reach and unloads on him while swordguy is still trying to catch up. Easy peasy.
Neither were dire flails yet those still exist in game.
D&D ain't realistic. Never has been, never will be.
I was trying to avoid this obvious tact. Let's just say the more "common sense" the more immersion? If I have a player say using a flaming torch attempt to set fire to some dry straw and I say nope doesn't burn I've hurt their immersion, assuming flame proof straw isn't part of the story. D&D isn't realism but a lot of the D&D game involve 'normal' and allows us to connect to the game.
S.
Some of the rules in the game are there to make the share experience easier and more efficient. I played Basic, Expert, 1e, and 2e, and I remember when the game used to punish you if you moved, and punish you if you ran away.I played all of those, too, and I don't remember there being punishment attached to movement or running away. It wasn't until 3.0+, with the introduction of AoO, that the punishment began.
Am I getting so old I just don't remember things clearly?
63, "Avoiding": It is never possible to flee from an encounter where the opponent party is in striking range. (See Breaking Off From Melee, below.) A party can always flee an encounter if it gains the first initiative.
66, "Close to Striking Range" (a phase of combat): This merely indicates that the party concerned is moving at base speed to engage the opponent.... Play goes to the next round after this, as melee is not possible, although other activity can, of course, take place such as that detailed above."
70, "Breaking Off From Melee": "At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance."
70, "Rear Attacks": Opponents attacking from the rear gain a +2 to hit, negate any consideration for shield, and also negate and consideration for dexterity.
70, "Stunned, Prone or Motionless Opponents": Treat all such opponents as if being attacked from the rear, but in this case the "to hit" bonus is +4 rather than +2.
70, "Who Attacks Whom": As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simple use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent." "If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat."
So, 1E rules, character punished for moving during melee: unclear.
So, 1E rules, character punished for fleeing melee: definitely so, and harshly.
This is something to note. Years from now when Paizo is ready to create the next version of the game, they should strive to make it less dependent on mat and minis.
I don't think that came would really be a 3.0/3.5 variant anymore -- if you tried to boil down the essence of what makes 3.0/3.5 different from 2.0 and previous, I think the added focus on tactical combat and the implications of positioning/reach/etc. would easily be one of the biggest points.
I also don't think anyone I have played D&D with in the last decade would be interested in that game.
Just my $0.02 USD.
|
So, 1E rules, character punished for fleeing melee: definitely so, and harshly.
As it should.
This is also assuming you are just turning tail (no shield) and running away and not really a tactical retreat (which didn't exist in 1st).Also this was if you were facing an opponent and not just running around in a fight getting AoO'd to death as you pass threat zones of targets already engaged.
Thanks, Sean. I remember those rules now. Gosh, it's been a looong time. I feel so old.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
At that range at very least a huge penalty to hit should be in place. Bows were not the weapon of choice in melée.Keep in mind the whole combat round is happening all at once, with some people reacting faster then others. It's not that everyone moves for six seconds then politely waits for everyone else to do their turn.
The guy with the bow ducks out of the swordguy's reach and unloads on him while swordguy is still trying to catch up. Easy peasy.
Neither were dire flails yet those still exist in game.
D&D ain't realistic. Never has been, never will be.
I was trying to avoid this obvious tact. Let's just say the more "common sense" the more immersion? If I have a player say using a flaming torch attempt to set fire to some dry straw and I say nope doesn't burn I've hurt their immersion, assuming flame proof straw isn't part of the story. D&D isn't realism but a lot of the D&D game involve 'normal' and allows us to connect to the game.
S.
If shooting someone with a bow breaks your immersion, then the problem isn't with the rules.
And there is a penalty to shooting someone in melee. -4 without a feat, in fact. Now, if you take the five foot step and unload in a guy who's not in melee any longer because there isn't anyone around him anymore, why would there be a penalty? Remember, one round happens all at once, turns are just used to simplify and abstract the combat to a manageable level. Like I said before, the guy ducks away, steps back, and unloads into him. I really can't see how this breaks your immersion. Like at all.
And there is a penalty to shooting someone in melee. -4 without a feat, in fact. Now, if you take the five foot step and unload in a guy who's not in melee any longer because there isn't anyone around him anymore, why would there be a penalty? Remember, one round happens all at once, turns are just used to simplify and abstract the combat to a manageable level. Like I said before, the guy ducks away, steps back, and unloads into him. I really can't see how this breaks your immersion. Like at all.At that range at very least a huge penalty to hit should be in place. Bows were not the weapon of choice in melée.Keep in mind the whole combat round is happening all at once, with some people reacting faster then others. It's not that everyone moves for six seconds then politely waits for everyone else to do their turn.
The guy with the bow ducks out of the swordguy's reach and unloads on him while swordguy is still trying to catch up. Easy peasy.
Neither were dire flails yet those still exist in game.
D&D ain't realistic. Never has been, never will be.
I was trying to avoid this obvious tact. Let's just say the more "common sense" the more immersion? If I have a player say using a flaming torch attempt to set fire to some dry straw and I say nope doesn't burn I've hurt their immersion, assuming flame proof straw isn't part of the story. D&D isn't realism but a lot of the D&D game involve 'normal' and allows us to connect to the game.
S.
Yeah, I am thinking of all the scenes in LotR where Legolas drills arrows into minions at point blank range.
If shooting someone with a bow breaks your immersion, then the problem isn't with the rules.
Cartigan is right. Just for a frame of reference, people are about five and a half feet tall on average (males being closer to 6') so if you imagine two people lying down on the floor between you and your target, you realize how much room 10' is.Depends. Is the Archer drawing an arrow, drawing back on the bow, and aiming in the chaos of battle while he's got a target who is not just standing there waiting to be shot, but is aggressively closing to attack?
Then, in the real world, 10 feet is probably way too close.
I presume you are an accomplished archer who is an expert at tactical movement and point-blank combat?
I think most of us (not all of us) are saying that mat and minis detract from immersion; however, DnD has a lot of tactical combat as opposed to role playing combat influence and, as such, many feel that mat and minis are required.
This is something to note. Years from now when Paizo is ready to create the next version of the game, they should strive to make it less dependent on mat and minis.
Lord LilithsThrall hath spoken. The majority of people shall hateth minis and Paizo shell escheweth minis and mats. On penalty of death.
|
|
If shooting someone with a bow breaks your immersion, then the problem isn't with the rules.
Not what I said now was it. I said while engaged in melee that the use of a 5'-step to effectively take you out of combat and allow you to get an arrow from your quiver, nock, draw, aim, and loose an arrow without ANY interfrence from a sword wielder about 5' in front of you DOES effect my belief/immersion in the suituation.
After having a bit of a think I believe that a simple solution would be;
If enaged 1 on 1 with an opponent and you take a 5'-step that the opponent can take a free follow-up 5'-step. This must be to maintain melee engagement.
This effectivly stops the bow/xbow/'ranged spell' being so 'unrealistic'. You can still fire your bow or cut loose with your spell BUT you will be subject to a AoO. Which seems fair enough to me.
S.
PS: I believe a similar rule was in 1e, I don't have my books on hand but I believe it was something about fighting withdraws and that opponent could follow up if desired. If someone doesn't check before hand I'll have a look this evening (NZ time).
|
|
Lord LilithsThrall hath spoken. The majority of people shall hateth minis and Paizo shell escheweth minis and mats. On penalty of death.I think most of us (not all of us) are saying that mat and minis detract from immersion; however, DnD has a lot of tactical combat as opposed to role playing combat influence and, as such, many feel that mat and minis are required.
This is something to note. Years from now when Paizo is ready to create the next version of the game, they should strive to make it less dependent on mat and minis.
Joking aside, I think guidelines on how to handle some of the feats and combat manoeuvres when not using a mat would be nice.
S.
point-blank combat?I think what we are saying in the bows aren't melee weapons camp, is that bows aren't melee weapons :)
Point-blank combat is a good deal of range.
True, my question is, is 5' a good deal of range (if already engaged in melee)?Point-blank combat is a good deal of range.point-blank combat?I think what we are saying in the bows aren't melee weapons camp, is that bows aren't melee weapons :)
No, I already said it isn't. But 8-10' is.
|
I said while engaged in melee that the use of a 5'-step to effectively take you out of combat and allow you to get an arrow from your quiver, nock, draw, aim, and loose an arrow without ANY interfrence from a sword wielder about 5' in front of you DOES effect my belief/immersion in the suituation.
I think what people have been saying that you may not be catching is that there IS interference from the melee character.
If the melee character is a touch faster off the mark than the archer, the melee character can attack the archer in the round before he gets a chance to step back.
If the melee character is a littler slower than the archer, the melee character steps back up to the archer (hell, he walks up to the archer and doe-see-does around his back since he can't take AoOs, if the meleer doesn't want to take iterative attacks) and smacks him.
Ducking back for a second while the meleer is either recovering from their attack or preparing their stance for another to shoot without provoking and easy to perform and thus unplanned swing seems easy enough for me to justify to myself without frothing rage or even annoyance.
The problem with the "this is all happening simultaneously" paradigm is that it isn't really - there's a disconnect between the world as it is and the representation in the game. This makes for oddities as strange as the concept of Hit points and what each player considers them to actually be.
Sometimes the game gets a little rough around the corners where the analog nature of reality bumps up against the artificially introduced "cuts" in time that rounds create. Where people are annoyed by those rough edges are as individual as anything else between sentient beings. And where you draw the lines in your own game and houserule to plug "unacceptable" holes will differ from others'.
I would generally sacrifice complications in the rules and adherence to a full simulation of reality to the interests of streamlined gameplay and balance between classes/weapon choices/spells of similar power/armor/game structure of your choice. Hence my sometimes inadequate but easy to remember and implement houserule for the Detect Magic cantrip (it's a spell with range touch).
|
|
I think what people have been saying that you may not be catching is that there IS interference from the melee character.
Oh I'm catching it. Just I dont' see that penalty for attempting to use a range weapon in an engaged melee situation? Most sources I have seen/read have a bow wielding hero fire the bow until melee was entered and then with a parting shot draw their sword for mortal combat - this is cinematic to me. Even Peter Jacksons Legolas used two short swords rather than only using the bow. This is not the situation I see playing out in game. There was an excellent article by Roger Moore (please correct me if I'm wrong) in Dragon Mag giving 'tactical advice' which boiled down said said fire bow, throw hand-axe, then melee for a fighter type class. Now we have fire bow, fire bow, and keep firing bow. Perhaps this is something that is caused by character optimisation meaning that the Bow Specialist is so disproportionately different in hit/dam with a bow compared to a sword (say). The advantage and reason for the development of the missile weapon was to be as far away from the enemy as possible an still hurt them. Along comes new D&D and says history got it wrong, nah, missile weapons have no downside once the battle is joined. There are some yeomen archers who would have been pleased a few hundred years ago if this were the case.
The 5'-step rules while allowing positioning during combat, and I think are quite suited to this purpose, should ONLY apply to melee class weapons. Some other games have the concept of Engaged, 1e did, DragonQuest did and they allowed melee weapons and missile weapons to behave as expected. Now it seems you just sort of stroll around a combat drinking potions, looking for clean socks in your backpack and the like.
D&D has become more and more Heroic with each edition, same thing has happened with Warhammer RPG. In all likelihood the "new" game doesn't suit me as I didn't grow up with it. As Sean quoted from the 1e DMG, in my D&D world turning your back on an enemy is stupid and the consequences were harsh.
I hope those even who disagree with my stance can understand and respect my point. I understand fully both from a action archers character and a 'gamist' view that the 5'-step allows missile experts and spell casters to not suck once 'trapped' in melee. For me however, these two types should not be able to shine compared to a melee expert in, well, melee.
S.
The 5'-step rules while allowing positioning during combat, and I think are quite suited to this purpose, should ONLY apply to melee class weapons.
Sorry, I only read "wahhhh"
For me however, these two types should not be able to shine compared to a melee expert in, well, melee.
You find me melee combat that happens at 10-15' and I will show you a melee that doesn't "real"ly happen.
|
|
When I'm not playing Pathfinder, I'm running the Amber Diceless RPG, so believe me when I say that I love games that are low on mechanics, miniatures, and other fiddly bits. Amber is full-on immersion and storytelling (which requires a heavy dose of GM/PC trust).
In Pathfinder (or D&D), I think miniatures are vital to player immersion. A big part of the game is tactics, strategy, and how a character's abilities function in combat. Miniatures help to keep things clear in a tactical sense, thereby freeing the imagination to spend less effort trying to recall who is "fifteen feet away from the hill giant" and more on how deadly a swinging falcata looks or on the fearsome visage of a snarling lizardman.
Cool about the Amber game, I'm envious.
Your second paragraph is a consequence of the way the rules developed to micro-management rather than a necessity in my opinion. Given the current rules however, I agree completely. Most of the anti-mat people are 'raging against the machine' and "Waaahhhhh" as some eloquently put my my esteemed colleague earlier. We will lose, PF will continue to promote and refine rules that work best with a combat-mat. I play 4e, which is impossible really without a mat, and really enjoy it. Go figure?
S.
|
|
You find me melee combat that happens at 10-15' and I will show you a melee that doesn't "real"ly happen.
Agreed, but in the world of not standing still, maintainng the 10-15' gap would be a full time undertaking during a melee. Trying to keep the gap while loading and firing a bow or I guess looking for spell components and invoking arcane stuff seems much less credible. So much so my immersion is lessened.
I'm really wondering if I'm just not being very clear.
Simple fact: Swords were commenly used in melee's, Bows were not. There are very obvious reasons for this and the outcome of any such Sword vs Bow melee situation greatly favours the Sword barring luck, given both are experts with their choosen weapon. I'm not talking about in a 'round' I'm talking about the overall likely outcome of the conflict. The 5'-step allows this outcome to be far more balanced, for want of a another term, this is against common sense. Things against common sense or common experience must by being outside of 'expected' reduce immersion, i.e. a sense of 'real', unless there is a story related reason for it. In this case the 'unexpected' becomes a focal point for the players to ask 'why?'
S.
So, 1E rules, character punished for fleeing melee: definitely so, and harshly.As it should.
This is also assuming you are just turning tail (no shield) and running away and not really a tactical retreat (which didn't exist in 1st).
Also this was if you were facing an opponent and not just running around in a fight getting AoO'd to death as you pass threat zones of targets already engaged.
I don't know if your comment is about 1E or 3E/PFRPG.
|
|
I don't know if your comment is about 1E or 3E/PFRPG.So, 1E rules, character punished for fleeing melee: definitely so, and harshly.As it should.
This is also assuming you are just turning tail (no shield) and running away and not really a tactical retreat (which didn't exist in 1st).
Also this was if you were facing an opponent and not just running around in a fight getting AoO'd to death as you pass threat zones of targets already engaged.
Sean, as a developer, do you think that combat rules are as good as they need be?
People on the thread all of course defend their ideas, but it's people such as yourself that will shape the games to come.
Cheers,
S.
You find me melee combat that happens at 10-15' and I will show you a melee that doesn't "real"ly happen.Agreed, but in the world of not standing still, maintainng the 10-15' gap would be a full time undertaking during a melee. Trying to keep the gap while loading and firing a bow or I guess looking for spell components and invoking arcane stuff seems much less credible. So much so my immersion is lessened.
And how familiar are you with archery? Casting spells that are made up solely for this game?
|
|
You find me melee combat that happens at 10-15' and I will show you a melee that doesn't "real"ly happen.Agreed, but in the world of not standing still, maintainng the 10-15' gap would be a full time undertaking during a melee. Trying to keep the gap while loading and firing a bow or I guess looking for spell components and invoking arcane stuff seems much less credible. So much so my immersion is lessened.And how familiar are you with archery? Casting spells that are made up solely for this game?
Archery and fencing are hobbies of mine. Given my level (local competitions, nothing national) I know I could stab myself with my foil long before I could shot myself with my bow if I was only 10' away from myself...
As for Casting, not disagreeing, just saying that the requirements 'made up' for spell casting have changed dramatically from 1e/2e to 3e+. For me 1e/2e is the reference point so 3e+ casting in combat seems out of place, again reducing immersion. Like-wise Twilight vampires make me want to vomit as a grew up on Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing Hammer Horror movies.
Fair enough?
Archery and fencing are hobbies of mine. Given my level (local competitions, nothing national) I know I could stab myself with my foil long before I could shot myself with my bow if I was only 10' away from myself...
And what exactly do you shoot in what style?
As for Casting, not disagreeing, just saying that the requirements 'made up' for spell casting have changed dramatically from 1e/2e to 3e+. For me 1e/2e is the reference point
Then you are doing it wrong.
|
|
Archery and fencing are hobbies of mine. Given my level (local competitions, nothing national) I know I could stab myself with my foil long before I could shot myself with my bow if I was only 10' away from myself...And what exactly do you shoot in what style?
As for Casting, not disagreeing, just saying that the requirements 'made up' for spell casting have changed dramatically from 1e/2e to 3e+. For me 1e/2e is the reference pointThen you are doing it wrong.
Archery range target shooting and hunting target shooting, nothing living. Not so keen on killing animals for sport. Anyway, we do do speed shooting on the range only. Based on this, and even seeing the best at our club, I am very confident that I could make shooting at me with an arrow very difficult if I was 10' away and had my foil. 10' is an easy lunge and a person distracted by preparing a bow for a shot would make them not a hard target to connect with.
Define 'wrong'.
Oh, and I have a 45lb recurve bow, nothing fancy and my foil has a traditional grip, not a pistol grip - if that matters.
And that's why you should protect your casters. A party that leaves their caster alone in the middle of battle either has a combat oriented caster (such as an eldrict knight), a caster that can teleport themself, or they are doing it wrong.
Sean, as a developer, do you think that combat rules are as good as they need be?
People on the thread all of course defend their ideas, but it's people such as yourself that will shape the games to come.
I think they are pretty satisfactory at running cinematic-yet-realistic combats. I'm a bit more of a minimalist myself and tend to be a bit looser in terms of what people can get away with (I'm looking forward to simplifying combat if we do an introductory game), but I think the framework of the current combat system is fair to all types of characters.
As for Casting, not disagreeing, just saying that the requirements 'made up' for spell casting have changed dramatically from 1e/2e to 3e+. For me 1e/2e is the reference point so 3e+ casting in combat seems out of place, again reducing immersion.
Well, that's your personal preference. 1e/2e combat was heavily skewed against casters. 1e DMG says you can't cast S spells when crouching or lying down. In 1e/2e, getting hit while casting automatically disrupts the spell. No option to cast defensively. And so on. 3e combat actually lets casters *use* their spells in combat. It's a different paradigm: "We want all characters to have fun by having a reasonable chance to use their class abilities on a regular basis."
|
|
I'm looking forward to simplifying combat if we do an introductory game.
Well, that's your personal preference. 1e/2e combat was heavily skewed against casters. 1e DMG says you can't cast S spells when crouching or lying down. In 1e/2e, getting hit while casting automatically disrupts the spell. No option to cast defensively. And so on. 3e combat actually lets casters *use* their spells in combat.
Firstly, I'm a simple kind of guy, so expect to get my money if you make a rules-lite, meaing ditch the battle-mat, PF-RPG.
Correct, prefrence due to growing up with that system. I loved playing Mages, it was challenging. I think just back then you understood the bad situation you were in as a Mage in melee, not combat per se. By the time your were throwing 5th level spells around then it was on - of course carelessnes and overconfidence did result in 'roll 4d6, choose best 3' still. Casting defensively didn't make much sense in terms of how spell casting was portrayed. You stood here, no amrour, no dex, and no hope. But that's why you tended to take a party along with you!
Thanks for the reply,
S.
PS: Sorry about this but it strikes me as funny...
1e/2e Summoning an evil powerful Demon => careful study for hours of your spell book, expensive rare spell components, invocation of dire spirits where one wrong word will destroy the spell.
3e+ Summoning an evil powerful Demon => 15 mins and a "hey you"
|
|
I don't know if your comment is about 1E or 3E/PFRPG.So, 1E rules, character punished for fleeing melee: definitely so, and harshly.As it should.
This is also assuming you are just turning tail (no shield) and running away and not really a tactical retreat (which didn't exist in 1st).
Also this was if you were facing an opponent and not just running around in a fight getting AoO'd to death as you pass threat zones of targets already engaged.
Both. The first part - getting hammered hard in 1st ed for retreating makes sense.
In 3.0+ you can run around a battlefield an trigger several AoO, even if all the other combatants are already engaged with another foe.
I just prefer the former to the latter.
I also agree with Mr. Hill - firing a bow while actually engaged (getting hit) in Melee is lame. Should at least be on par with a concentration check unless you can avoid actually getting hit or if you can recover on a round if the attacker misses the archer. A little more leeway for the X-bow, easier for one shot if its already loaded otherwise draw your dagger and fight - sort of what archers actually did in medieval warfare.
Edit: also back to the OP. I've invested thousands of dollars in Dwarven Forge terrain, more than that on minis and other terrain related gaming material. Do I think it detracts from immersion. I depends - If I am running a straight crawl, or after all the talking RP game play they party needs to do some "work" then a dungeon layout as they move along is a great tool. It can take forever to setup, and depending on your play environment setting up and taking down dungeon layouts can be a pain and cause a distraction/pre-occupation for the DM - and that destroys immersion.
I don't think it needs to be used 80% of the time, even for small combats you can just draw on a erase mat and not use mini's. I think they do help as long as they are not a distraction for the DM and as long as the DMs imagination does not become "locked" by the very limited physical tools he has to work with.
BTW - looks like Df is finally putting out double doors. I for one am happy, and it's about damn time!
Martial classes should be more realistic.
*watches a wizard cash Wish, literally alter the entire game setting, makes no complaint*
Just once I'd like to see "I want this to be realistic" and not be so easily able to replace it with "I want to nerf non-casters"
|
|
Martial classes should be more realistic.
*watches a wizard cash Wish, literally alter the entire game setting, makes no complaint*
Just once I'd like to see "I want this to be realistic" and not be so easily able to replace it with "I want to nerf non-casters"
I know you can't help it with your canned knee jerk response every time this issue comes up, but I have on several occasions said that ALL casters, i.e. spells, need to be nerfed. Also during the beta I advocated
-Fighters get the ability to overcome magic effects after already being affected by a spell or SLA + give them spell disrupting attacks. Repel or send back summoned creatures, also some hindering attacks against spellcasters
-Rangers getting ranged disruption, and the ability to gimp and drop flyers with their ranged attacks. Also being highly resistant to aberrant type magic schools (trans, necro). The ability to dismiss or reduce the effect of unnatural creatures, the ability to strip away spells cast on a spellcaster (unnatural).
-That barbarian rages should let them actually destroy force effects if you get them mad enough. The classic caged savage who just rages to the dismay of the evil wizard and just smashed his forcecage and lunged his bastard sword into the caster with one blow. What he can't finesse he just obliterates, magic or not.
I also brought up the point that all the martial classes (sans the Pally) were created in a vacuum. As if they have trained an lived in a world without demons, evil priests and wizards and did not have the tools to deal with the threats of the world they lived in.
More HP, more AC more and to hit doesn't cut it to what the casters got in the upswing in power from 2nd ed to 3.0+
I presented all of these things and they fell on deaf ears, so please Cirno, spare me the sermon on nerfing martial classes.
You didn't even get the gist of the 200ft fall argument I put up in the other thread assuming it was an intent to destroy "heroism".
Sigh
I disagree that 1e was skewed against casters. It's certainly true that when they got hit, their spell was disrupted, but their spells were a lot more powerful. So they made up for it when they were able to get spells cast. Also, movement was much harder in 1e. The base move was 12' as opposed to 30'. A well played magic user could give somebody a seriously bad day before they could close in melée.
Wasn't the base move in first edition 12" which would have been 120'. Of course a round was a minute so that actually puts the movement pretty close.
"Now look, I once stood exposed to the Dragon's Breath so that a man could lie one night with a woman. It took me nine moons to recover. And all for this lunacy called, "love, " this mad distemper that strikes down both beggar and king. Never again. Never." - Merlin, Excalibur.
Once we agree things like wishes should cost casters this degree of discomfort in the game, then maybe we can make some progress on the fighter / realism debate.