How to fix the 5ft step

[Invader]

I'm looking for ways to nix the 5ft step. I feel like our combat is focused around people tactically making 5ft steps and personally I feel like it's a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.

I thought about removing it all together which I know would hurt certain classes but I also think it would force players to be a little more tactical with their movements when they know they don't have a get out of jail free card.

I'm kicking around some other ideas but figured I'd see what other people might suggest.

[IronFist]

Use difficult terrain.

[Deophaun]

Terrain, reach, tripping, flanking, tanglefoot bags... what needs to be fixed?

[CRtwenty]

I thought about removing it all together which I know would hurt certain classes but I also think it would force players to be a little more tactical with their movements when they know they don't have a get out of jail free card.

How exactly is the 5ft step a "get out of jail free card"? It allows you to step five feet on your turn so long as you take no other form of movement that round. Hardly overpowering. And this is another one of those houserules that screws over melee types for absolutely no reason, while leaving the casters unharmed.

[Sylthia]

What specific problems is the 5 foot step causing in your games?

[ksbsnowowl]

What specific problems is the 5 foot step causing in your games?

My guess is his caster PC's are 5-foot stepping to avoid AoO's while casting.

[Rubik]

My guess is his caster PC's are 5-foot stepping to avoid AoO's while casting.They can do that through defensive casting just fine, once they're a few levels in.

[Fates]

How exactly is the 5ft step a "get out of jail free card"? It allows you to step five feet on your turn so long as you take no other form of movement that round. Hardly overpowering. And this is another one of those houserules that screws over melee types for absolutely no reason, while leaving the casters unharmed.

I agree with this for the most part, but most casters would suffer from this too. Not being able to get out of melee range as a 5ft step forces a caster to cast defensively or suffer an AoO, which can be a real problem at low levels, unless you're a wizard with Abrupt Jaunt or something.

Besides, the 5ft step makes sense as a "go to" anyway. Generally, in both medieval and modern combat, one moves around as one fights to avoid blows/get a better angle of attack. I've never found it a problem with realism of ease of play in any way.

[Invader]

I just don't like the mechanic because it feels clumsy. All it does is gives players a way to avoid an AoO every time they'd cause one. It just feels unnecessary.

[ZamielVanWeber]

How exactly is the 5ft step a "get out of jail free card"? It allows you to step five feet on your turn so long as you take no other form of movement that round. Hardly overpowering. And this is another one of those houserules that screws over melee types for absolutely no reason, while leaving the casters unharmed.

If a caster gets someone on him the rule becomes a "bigger" (assuming they don't want to risk casting defensively or have a quickened dimension door/teleport prepared) since they are now having their spells threatened. Melee dudes barely care. Ranged non-magical people are the one who get utterly hosed here.

[eggynack]

It just doesn't feel like there's much there to fix. It's a movement mode that appears to be relatively balanced against other movement modes, given that it removes your ability to move further. There's just so little information there that if you don't like it, a "fix" would probably involve just removing it. I don't see the point, but there ya go.

[Invader]

Again it's not so much it's not balanced I just get tired of seeing my players tactically fight a battle where they're so worried about provoking AoO's all they do is make sure the 5ft step is always an option.

[IronFist]

Again it's not so much it's not balanced I just get tired of seeing my players tactically fight a battle where they're so worried about provoking AoO's all they do is make sure the 5ft step is always an option.

That's called tactics, in my book.
Experiment with difficult terrain and multiple opponents with reach. That should make 5-ft steps less common.

[Agincourt]

I wish my players would fight more tactically.

[Sylthia]

It seems they are being tactically smart by using the 5 ft step. It's not always possible to just 5 ft step away, due to difficult terrain, small enclosed spaces, enemies with reach, etc. I wouldn't take it away, entirely, but add more of the above if you want to add more difficulty without making it seem like you are being unfair.

[ksbsnowowl]

So you're mad that your players are engaged, and play the game "too well."

Gotcha. Don't know how to help you with that.

[eggynack]

Again it's not so much it's not balanced I just get tired of seeing my players tactically fight a battle where they're so worried about provoking AoO's all they do is make sure the 5ft step is always an option.
Well, that's basically the whole thing. The five foot step is a defensive option, but it keeps them in range of the enemy. I just don't see how it's realistically possible to change it without just omitting the rule altogether. I mean, there probably is some way, but the whole point of the five foot step is a defensive form of movement, so I don't see why you'd want that in piece meal. I'd advise against getting rid of it, because it's just another layer of tactics for combat, but it's not the sort of the thing you take half measures on.

[Invader]

So you're mad that your players are engaged, and play the game "too well."

Gotcha. Don't know how to help you with that.

That's not what I said and the snarky tone isn't appreciated.

[Invader]

Well, that's basically the whole thing. The five foot step is a defensin e option, but it keeps them in range of the enemy. I just don't see how it's realistically possible to change it without just omitting the rule altogether. I mean, there probably is some way, but the whole point of the five foot step is a defensive form of movement, so I don't see why you'd want that in piece meal. I'd advise against getting rid of it, because it's just another layer of tactics for combat, but it's not the sort of the thing you take half measures on.

I guess it just seems to me that they put in a deterrent to certain actions (AoO) and then put in a means to bypass it 85 percent of the time. The way it works just feels unnecessary to me.

[ryu]

That my friend is a factor of melee being weaksauce to begin with. If your only method of preventing a caster from doing something is walking up to him and hoping he doesn't use any of several applicable immediate action spells or five foot stepping you're playing a low op npc of the most classic order.

[eggynack]

I guess it just seems to me that they put in a deterrent to certain actions (AoO) and then put in a means to bypass it 85 percent of the time. The way it works just feels unnecessary to me.
The way I figure it, five foot steps don't actually bypass AoO's, because you're paying a non-HP cost to make one. I mean, if you're trying to keep your opponents away from the party wizard (or the party away from the enemy wizard), and your opponent takes a five foot step to get away from your AoO's, your tactics have succeeded in their goal.

[IronFist]

Have them fight Large Knights with the Mage Slayer feat wielding reach weapons.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Pathfinder has a feat called step-up which basically lets you counter a five-foot step with your own. I had a fighter/occult slayer who was given permission to take that feet along with mage slayer... very nasty.

[Invader]

It's not hard to combat or counter the 5ft step and I don't think it's over powered in any way, just unnecessary.

[IronFist]

It's not hard to combat or counter the 5ft step and I don't think it's over powered in any way, just unnecessary.

Well, you could try doing away with it, then. AD&D works just fine that way.

[Lord Vukodlak]

It's not hard to combat or counter the 5ft step and I don't think it's over powered in any way, just unnecessary.

Given that your party is basing tactics on the use of 5ft steps I don't think they'd agree with you.

[Lightlawbliss]

IMO opinion, removing it makes 0 sense. Personally, I'm tempted (note, have not made it required in any game) to REQUIRE a 5 ft step as part of a full attack. IRL, you don't stay inside 5 ft and swing at each other, that would be stupid and suicidal. You always keep moving, shifting, sliding, making a small charge, making a small retreat, moving to make an opening, moving to deny an opening. I am trained to fight and frankly, I can't do those little "stand here and whack each other" games some people love. I subconsciously just walk off.

[navar100]

I just don't like the mechanic because it feels clumsy. All it does is gives players a way to avoid an AoO every time they'd cause one. It just feels unnecessary.

Why is it such an atrocity for players to avoid an attack of opportunity? Why do you want to punish players for using tactics?

[TuggyNE]

I just don't like the mechanic because it feels clumsy. All it does is gives players a way to avoid an AoO every time they'd cause one. It just feels unnecessary.

Every time? There's a lot of cases where 5' steps aren't useful to avoid AoOs: for example, if someone has to move past an enemy.


I guess it just seems to me that they put in a deterrent to certain actions (AoO) and then put in a means to bypass it 85 percent of the time. The way it works just feels unnecessary to me.

No, for two primary reasons. First off, AoOs are not intended to make sure you never perform those actions, and they are not something that players "deserve" to be hit by — they are a consequence of poor tactical choices, designed to make decisions more complex. (Much like arcane spell failure: no arcane caster will voluntarily take on any amount of spell failure, because 5% is too much, so in effect the mechanism merely indicates how much effort you need to go to to negate the spell failure so it's usable.) Second, 5' steps are not free: you can only perform one every round, an enemy with inclusive reach may still be able to hit you even if you 5' step out of the way, they restrict your other actions, and there are a few cases where you simply can't use them at all.

[Big Fau]

Why is it such an atrocity for players to avoid an attack of opportunity? Why do you want to punish players for using tactics?

Apparently it just annoys the OP, and bogs down the game a little.

@OP: The 5ft step was designed to prevent the "Instant Death Radius" trope, as some enemies in this game are absolutely deadly in melee and have a massive reach to back it up. Punishing your players for using tactics by arbitrarily denying them a vital feature of the game is not a good thing to do as DM.

Also, there are many other ways to invoke AoOs other than movement (an enemy with a Spiked Chain and Spring Attack, for example, can ruin their tactical "advantage"). Finally, not every monster needs to use their AoOs every rounds, every encounter, every time.

[eggynack]

Alternatively, if your party is relying on five foot steps too much, toss a crusader with thicket of blades at them. That could get pretty amusing.

[Lycar]

The problem with the 5-foot-step-of-impunity is not that it allows tactical movement within a threatened area. That is just basic dancing around on the battlefield.

The problem is that it effortlessly allows people to disengage from melee.

Solution: Moving inside a threatened area remains unchanged. Leaving a threatened area however requires the Withdraw action.

What's the big deal? Boosting your Concentrate check is trivial. And don't casters have blanket immunity from melee threats anyway? :smallannoyed:

Archers take care: You don't want people to get right into your face. Now more so then ever.

This actually makes things even more tactical because now eating up an AoO from a caster's meat shield may be worth it to make pointy hat guy make a tough choice. :smallamused:

[Chronos]

Five-foot steps fix a number of fundamental problems with melee, and removing them would reintroduce those problems. As another example that nobody's mentioned yet, without 5-footers, a fighter-type can easily run out of enemies before running out of attacks in a full-attack routine.

At the same time, though, they also introduce a problem with casters, in that they provide yet another way to avoid getting your spell disrupted. Spell disruption was always intended as a counterbalance on the power of casters, and it's a counterbalance that's desperately needed.

One way to fix it for casters while still leaving it intact for melee is to allow the use of an immediate 5-foot step to follow someone using one themself. I wouldn't even make this require a feat like in Pathfinder; I'd just make it a built-in part of the mechanic.

[Deophaun]

At the same time, though, they also introduce a problem with casters, in that they provide yet another way to avoid getting your spell disrupted. Spell disruption was always intended as a counterbalance on the power of casters, and it's a counterbalance that's desperately needed.
And the correct way to disrupt casters is with readied actions, rather than relying on them to make a tactical mistake/fumble a roll so that you get your AoO.

And considering how much damage melee users can do, as well as the effectiveness of trip builds, removing 5-ft. steps just means the wizard's meat shield is all the more effective at preventing people from getting to him. So yeah, without a 5-foot step, mages in melee are slightly weaker. Of course, without the 5-foot step, mages in melee are rarer.

[GreenETC]

Alternatively, if your party is relying on five foot steps too much, toss a crusader with thicket of blades at them. That could get pretty amusing.
This was my first thought. You don't want to just blanket remove their tactical ability to move without provoking AoO.

I'd recommend introducing some difficult terrain, Crusaders with Thicket of Blades, creatures with reach, normal people with reach, something with Spring Attack, and using your enemies in such a way where THEY are the ones making the 5ft steps. You want to subvert their reliance and use it against them, making the encounters more dynamic.

[Lycar]

And the correct way to disrupt casters is with readied actions, rather than relying on them to make a tactical mistake/fumble a roll so that you get your AoO.
Oh really, is that so? So you allow the readied action to be 'As soon as spell-boy does anything but surrender I whack him.'?

Because anything more specific then that screws over melee. Or rather, screws them over even more because 'Readied Action' = 'Bye bye Full Attack'. :smallmad:

Although I assume, in your favour, that you do not require the warrior types to succeed on a spellcraft check in order to 'realize that a spell is being cast'.

To be fair, however, a caster who did invest into Still Spell etc. should be allowed to reap the rewards and cast unmolested.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Funny trick: use either the Deformity (Tall) feat or the Aberration Blooded feat that gives reach. Give them Quick Draw and both a melee and a reach weapon (the melee will threaten 5-10, the reach 10-15). The enemy will start with the melee weapon and use it until the player takes a 5 foot step back. Then the enemy switches weapons and ALSO takes a 5 foot step back. The enemy is not free to smack around the player while the player is forced to provoke an AoO to close to melee. If he decides to disengages have that enemy switch weapons back and base the caster, holding action to smack him when he casts. Throw a wizard/high int character directing them in some language none of the PCs happen to know.

[CRtwenty]

Oh really, is that so? So you allow the readied action to be 'As soon as spell-boy does anything but surrender I whack him.'?

Because anything more specific then that screws over melee. Or rather, screws them over even more because 'Readied Action' = 'Bye bye Full Attack'. :smallmad:

Although I assume, in your favour, that you do not require the warrior types to succeed on a spellcraft check in order to 'realize that a spell is being cast'.

To be fair, however, a caster who did invest into Still Spell etc. should be allowed to reap the rewards and cast unmolested.

That's pretty much the whole point of a readied action, you give up your action to do something on somebody elses turn. Whether that's "I peg that robed guy with an arrow the second he starts his finger wagging" or "When that armored dude goes into his attack mode I'm gonna trip him"

Honestly this thread just seems to be a bunch of people complaining about rules working the way they were intended.

[Psyren]

The proper solution has been mentioned a couple of times so I'll repeat it here - experiment with difficult terrain/foes with reach, see how your players handle it. If things get more difficult for them but still manageable, you know you have a winner. If they roflstomp the combat anyway, you know that being able to 5-foot was never anything to worry about. And if they wipe, GJ!

[Seerow]

That's pretty much the whole point of a readied action, you give up your action to do something on somebody elses turn. Whether that's "I peg that robed guy with an arrow the second he starts his finger wagging" or "When that armored dude goes into his attack mode I'm gonna trip him"

Honestly this thread just seems to be a bunch of people complaining about rules working the way they were intended.

The rules "working as intended" are pretty well geared to hose melee.

So yes, anyone who thinks archtypes other than casters should have fun generally have problems with the rules in one area or another.

[Deophaun]

Oh really, is that so?
Well, if you think patiently waiting during a game of rocket tag for someone with an Int of genius to screw up is a good approach...

So you allow the readied action to be 'As soon as spell-boy does anything but surrender I whack him.'?
Valid, but stupid, as it is painfully easy to spoil an action so readied.

Because anything more specific then that screws over melee. Or rather, screws them over even more because 'Readied Action' = 'Bye bye Full Attack'. :smallmad:
Generally, if you can full attack a wizard, the wizard is dead. The choice is not between full attack and ready. It's between charge and ready.

But the full-attacker is not being screwed over by this. In terms of action economy, he comes out ahead. He gets an attack, and the spellcaster gets a wasted action.

Although I assume, in your favour, that you do not require the warrior types to succeed on a spellcraft check in order to 'realize that a spell is being cast'.
Spellcraft is only required to identify a spell being cast, not to notice that a spell is being cast (or are we also requiring Spellcraft checks to make the AoO?). But, if a group does require spellcraft checks, talking is a free action that can be done during an opponent's turn. Dwell on it.

[Lycar]

Honestly this thread just seems to be a bunch of people complaining about rules working the way they were intended.
So the rules are intended to hamstring melee and give casters a free pass at laughing at melee threats even without using a shred of magic? :smallconfused:

Did you ever play 2nd Ed.? In that incarnation, casting a spell actually cost time. For example, your initiative comes up on 16 and you cast a spell with, say, a casting time of 8, the spell would be completed and take effect on initiative count 8. In the meantime, enemies could disrupt your casting by inflicting a single point of damage. Saving throw: None.

Now that casters can bitch-slap reality in zero time, the only mechanic to disrupt a casting is to explicitly ready an action to do so. Which, depending on how asinine the DM is about interpreting the readied action rules, is either hobbling (lose full attacks) or outright neutering melee ('You specified 'casts a spell. He drinks a potion/readies a scroll/points and laughs at you instead.').

So answer me: How do you handle readied actions?

[Deophaun]

Did you ever play 2nd Ed.?
That was the edition with a lot of convoluted rules (like the initiative system) that my groups never used, right?

[Psyren]

The rules "working as intended" are pretty well geared to hose melee.

So yes, anyone who thinks archtypes other than casters should have fun generally have problems with the rules in one area or another.

Conversely, anyone who expects to succeed in a high-magic system without using magic themselves should be in for disappointment.

At high levels, just about every class is a "caster," even if they rely solely on items to use their magic.

[nyjastul69]

Well, if you think patiently waiting during a game of rocket tag for someone with an Int of genius to screw up is a good approach...

Valid, but stupid, as it is painfully easy to spoil an action so readied.

Generally, if you can full attack a wizard, the wizard is dead. The choice is not between full attack and ready. It's between charge and ready.

But the full-attacker is not being screwed over by this. In terms of action economy, he comes out ahead. He gets an attack, and the spellcaster gets a wasted action.

Spellcraft is only required to identify a spell being cast, not to notice that a spell is being cast (or are we also requiring Spellcraft checks to make the AoO?). But, if a group does require spellcraft checks, talking is a free action that can be done during an opponent's turn. Dwell on it.

2nd Ed rules didn't usually result in a caster being disrupted. Typical Magic-User spells have a casting time equal to their level. Typical Priest spells have a casting time equal to 3+level. Many weapons have speed factors in the 5-8 range. It was pretty rare in our games for a spellcaster to be disrupted. In 2nd ed. a short sword has the same combat speed as fireball. A longsword has the same combat speed as cloudkill.

[Psyren]

2nd Ed rules didn't usually result in a caster being disrupted. Typical Magic-User spells have a casting time equal to their level. Typical Priest spells have a casting time equal to 3+level. Many weapons had a speed factor in the 5-8 range. It was pretty rare in our games for a spellcaster to be disrupted. In 2nd ed. a short sword has the same combat speed as fireball. A longsword has the same combat speed as cloudkill.

Oh 2e, you so cray.

[CRtwenty]

So answer me: How do you handle readied actions?

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here. Yes Casters are overpowered in 3rd ed, but that has little to do with the existence of the 5-foot step or the readied action command. The 5-foot step gives you a little bit of tactical movement in combat to avoid AoOs, Readied Actions allow you to set up coordinated attacks with your allies, or allows you to counterattack something you expect to happen. Neither of those have much to do with why Casters are powerful. And a Caster will simply cast a spell using Defensive Casting in most cases, no need to take a 5-foot step to begin with.

As for how I handle readied actions. I just let my PCs Ready Actions. If they specify they're going to act when something happens and it does, then they act. It's a pretty simple process. If they ready an attack against a charging opponent or something and he doesn't charge, their action is wasted. But that's the danger of readied actions, and you can usually count on more general things like an obvious caster using magic to get a readied action off or two.

[Chronos]

If you're readying actions, you've already lost. It doesn't make the enemy give up actions, it just makes you do so. If you ready an action to attack when the wizard casts a spell, then the wizard can just thwack you with his stick. Yeah, yeah, that means that the wizard is making a very inefficient use of his action, but in return, he's making you get no use out of your action at all. Enough uncontested thwacks from a stick by a weakling wizard, and even a high-level barbarian will fall eventually.

[PersonMan]

If you hardcore metagame, yes. Otherwise, how do you know what the trigger for the readied action is?

[KillianHawkeye]

If you really want to change the 5-foot step, take a page from 4E and make it a Move Action.

[Psyren]

If you really want to change the 5-foot step, take a page from 4E and make it a Move Action.

That just screws melee without affecting casters at all.

[Deophaun]

If you ready an action to attack when the wizard casts a spell, then the wizard can just thwack you with his stick. Yeah, yeah, that means that the wizard is making a very inefficient use of his action, but in return, he's making you get no use out of your action at all. Enough uncontested thwacks from a stick by a weakling wizard, and even a high-level barbarian will fall eventually.
I don't know about you, but I don't play a lot of 1 player D&D.

[ryu]

That and the wizard spending time attacking you with a stick is ceding defeat if he hasn't prepared defenses for your attacks because next turn you can full attack. It's assumed you spent the same turn with the readied attack moving into position. If the wizard has defenses against your full attack he probably didn't care about anything the fighter could do to begin with.

[Alienist]

Punishing your players for using tactics by arbitrarily denying them a vital feature of the game is not a good thing to do as DM.


At risk of casting animate dead on an expired equine and then coup-de-gracing it, the OP is not suggesting this to "punish" his players.

He's asking the question: is the 5 foot step really necessary? To which the obvious answers are:

(1) remove it and see
(2) no (e.g. it didn't exist in previous versions of D&D)
(3) have a look at D&D next and see if they still have it

Does leaving it in make combat stale and boring? Possibly. Is taking it out going to make combat a little bit more interesting? Probably not.

I think there might be a short term benefit by forcing the players to chose different tactics, however it seems likely that they will then settle down into a new set of most favoured tactics.

----

Prime example of what I'm talking about:

played with one guy who wanted to tumble his scout/thief everywhere. Every turn he'd tumble.

Did it add variety to the game? No.
Did it slow the game down? Oh hell yes. Every target requires a roll. Every additional target (that could have had an AoO) recalculates the DC.

I think that the OP's players will just start dumping skill points into Tumble. It won't be hard to make the rolls nearly automatically with investment of skill points and maybe even some magic items.

Imagine a party where everyone has level +3 tumble and five ranks of jump, including the wizards and clerics.

[lord_khaine]

Imagine a party where everyone has level +3 tumble and five ranks of jump, including the wizards and clerics.

Any smart wizard should have tumble anyway, there are so many screwy situations it can save you from.

[Chronos]

I don't know about you, but I don't play a lot of 1 player D&D.
I don't know about you, but my DM usually doesn't, either. Trading actions might be OK when you're ganging up 4 on 1, but it's terrible when you're, say, 4 on 6.

And hitting someone with a stick doesn't necessarily mean you're setting yourself up for a full attack, either. What if the wizard just hits you once with their stick, and then moves away?

Or, even if we posit that readying an action to disrupt an enemy wizard's spell is worthwhile, to get back to the topic of the thread, the 5' step means that usually doesn't actually work, either.

[Agincourt]

And hitting someone with a stick doesn't necessarily mean you're setting yourself up for a full attack, either. What if the wizard just hits you once with their stick, and then moves away?


If a character uses their standard action to attack, and their move action to move away, they provoke an attack of opportunity. That was what the wizard (presumably) was trying to avoid by refusing to cast a spell.

[prufock]

Idea 1
1. Remove 5' step.
2. Remove attacks of opportunity.
3. Remove grid and minatures from table.

You are now playing a cinematic-style battle where speed doesn't really mean anything, combat movement is variable, and micromanaging tactics are minimized. There are pitfalls to note - without a solid idea of where you are on the battlefield, area effects are vague in if they can hit you, flanking may be nerfed, etc.

Idea 2
Make 5' step an encounter-based power that everyone has. Say as a base you get 2 per encounter or something (actual # may vary depending on how much you want to nerf its effectiveness). Everyone gets 2 poker chips at the beginning of the encounter and puts one in the middle of the table when they use a 5' step. Should be some way to regain them, like spend a full-round action or something. This may require some testing.

Idea 3
Let 5' steps work as normal but require a check to do it. If using Pathfinder, maybe use CMB. If not, perhaps a simple opposed dex check or something.

[Deophaun]

I don't know about you, but my DM usually doesn't, either. Trading actions might be OK when you're ganging up 4 on 1, but it's terrible when you're, say, 4 on 6.
It depends on the trade. Trading a pawn for a queen is a win.

Wizards are force multipliers. You may be 4 on 6, but the wizard might make it more like 1 on 6 or 4 on 12. Trading an action to make it 3 on 5 is a win.

And hitting someone with a stick doesn't necessarily mean you're setting yourself up for a full attack, either. What if the wizard just hits you once with their stick, and then moves away?
AoO, move and ready. Rinse, repeat. A high AC, high BAB class is going to dominate at that game.

Or, even if we posit that readying an action to disrupt an enemy wizard's spell is worthwhile, to get back to the topic of the thread, the 5' step means that usually doesn't actually work, either.
Well, we have to ask why the melee character has such a low Int that he has opted to wait to disrupt casting when the mage has easy escape, instead of, say, being proactive and grappling the caster.

Disruption is mainly going to be the job of archers. Melee have better options unless they build otherwise (such as using a spiked-chain, thicket of blades with a trip build, etc.). A melee character designed for exploiting AoO won't have much of a problem with the five-foot step.

[TuggyNE]

If you're readying actions, you've already lost. It doesn't make the enemy give up actions, it just makes you do so.

For what it's worth, I would argue (like Deophaun) that one of the main roles of archers in D&D combat might well be to make efficient readied-action disruptions. After all, (Greater) Manyshot means never having to say you're sorry losing damage per round. (It's especially awesome with a skirmisher, who can pretty reliably get Improved Skirmish damage every round by readying.)


If you ready an action to attack when the wizard casts a spell, then the wizard can just thwack you with his stick.

So have one guy ready against spellcasting and everyone else just attack. Trading actions 1:1 with spellcasters is usually a winning game, since most casters, if they're allowed free rein, are much more efficient.

Also, it's not always at all obvious when someone is readying an action, so responding in that way might be metagaming, especially in the first round of an encounter.

Edit:
He's asking the question: is the 5 foot step really necessary? To which the obvious answers are:

(1) remove it and see
(2) no (e.g. it didn't exist in previous versions of D&D)
(3) have a look at D&D next and see if they still have it

If they don't, it was probably essential, and you should leave it in.

[Spuddles]

Use opponents with reach. Many large creatures come with it. There's also difficult terrain (from rubble to blinding smoke to a grease spell), using multiple opponents, obstacles, restricted combat space, environmental hazards, and of course, stuff like the Knight class, Mageslayer feat, Thicket of Blades stance, and a whole mess of lock down spells and conditions like grappled, entangled, or prone.

[Lycar]

Perhaps a little clarification is in order. I personally do not mind the 5-foot-step allowing tactical movement within melee. I am, however, strictly against the 5-foot-step allowing to disengage from a melee.

The 2 main reasons are those:

1) There already is a mechanic in place to allow a caster to cast without provoking an AoO. It is called 'casting defensively'. The DC is trivial as is anyway but apparently we can't have casters be forced to waste skill points on something that isn't directly contributing to killing things and taking their stuff.

2) There already is an action that allows disengaging from melee without provoking. It is called 'withdrawing'. It is also a full-round action. But it seems we can't have mere mortals inconvenience our caster demi-goods merely by brandishing deadly weapons mere inches from their faces.

As it stands, allowing anyone to simply step out of harm's way with blanket immunity totally neuters those two mechanics.

Answer me this: Given the plethora (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plethora) of ways caster types have to protect themselves from harm, neutering melee even further really is more about adding insult and a kick to the face to the grievous bodily harm that melee is already suffering.

About readied actions: If it is so terribly easy to avoid triggering them, how on earth can you claim with a straight face that they are a viable tactical tool in any way, shape or form? :smallannoyed:

[eggynack]

1) There already is a mechanic in place to allow a caster to cast without provoking an AoO. It is called 'casting defensively'. The DC is trivial as is anyway but apparently we can't have casters be forced to waste skill points on something that isn't directly contributing to killing things and taking their stuff.
I don't even really understand this argument. Pretty much every wizard I've seen puts maximum points into concentration, pushes their constitution as high as it will go without hindering intelligence, and then wears nifty items to boost their constitution even further. I wouldn't be surprised if some wizards even boost their concentration directly with items. Casting defensively being easy removes a lot of the logic from your argument. If wizards are already casting without incurring AoO's, and doing so easily, taking five foot steps to get out of AoO range can't be that big of a deal.

[ryu]

Silly man fighters don't use deadly weapons. They use harmless chunks of metal with deadly magic put on them by the competent people in the world. The fact that melee people live to fight past level ten or so at all is a testament to the fact that the wizards are already doing everything they can to support the brutes.

[TuggyNE]

2) There already is an action that allows disengaging from melee without provoking. It is called 'withdrawing'. It is also a full-round action. But it seems we can't have mere mortals inconvenience our caster demi-goods merely by brandishing deadly weapons mere inches from their faces.

As it stands, allowing anyone to simply step out of harm's way with blanket immunity totally neuters those two mechanics.

Totally? Not even close. Thicket of Blades alone is enough to prevent someone from using 5' steps, and simply using an inclusive reach weapon (or a normal weapon and a reach weapon, such as armor spikes and a guisarme) and approaching to adjacent is enough to make a mere 5' step useless in avoiding AoOs.

In other words, there is no blanket immunity, and a bit of extra investment in one of several methods is enough to prove this.


About readied actions: If it is so terribly easy to avoid triggering them, how on earth can you claim with a straight face that they are a viable tactical tool in any way, shape or form? :smallannoyed:

It isn't that easy. An archer with a readied action is a) not especially obvious and b) extremely difficult* for a caster to avoid even if their intent is known. All that is possible then is either triggering a contingency or similar, giving up the chance to cast by doing some other relatively meaningless action**, or eating the readied action and almost certainly losing the spell and a fair chunk of HP.

A meleer has bit of a tougher time, but since you can 5' step with your readied action, it's not so bad: just step up when they move away and hit them.

*Basically, wind wall, friendly fire, or wall of force are about the only things that will help. But if you don't let them cast, those will be hard to pull off, so there's still a certain amount of leeway.
**Unless they're a gish, in which case they won't be casting in combat much anyway, and you have other problems. Problems like sword to the face.

1
I should probably note that I'm not defending 5' steps here out of a love for casters particularly, but because the system as a whole needs them, I think; even meleers occasionally wish to avoid AoOs, and often wish to move a bit and still get in a full attack, while archers need 5' steps even more than casters do. Please, won't someone think of the archers?

[rexx1888]

uhh i may be wrong, but im pretty sure my dm just rules five foot stepping out of range of an enemy as withdrawing. Just that, no question. i think, its never really come up. if your complaint is that casters are able to use the five foot step to not worry about casting defensively, then your melee isnt doing its job all that well.

still, that little thing about withdrawing has never been a problem for us, an combat is more than fine.. I do however want to throw my weight behind not removing the step. thats arbitrary an kinda silly. The five foot step provides a bit of flavour to combat, and more options for both players and DM's. If you really want to get rid of it, then i suggest playing something that doesnt need a grid, because you are kind of missing the charm of combat in 3.5 :\

[eggynack]

uhh i may be wrong, but im pretty sure my dm just rules five foot stepping out of range of an enemy as withdrawing. Just that, no question. i think, its never really come up. if your complaint is that casters are able to use the five foot step to not worry about casting defensively, then your melee isnt doing its job all that well.

Five foot steps and withdrawing are very different things. There's really no situation in which one action is the other action, because they're different actions. You may not be wrong about how your DM rules things; I can't be sure without knowing the DM, but you are wrong about the actual RAW of the situation.

[ahenobarbi]

It isn't that easy. An archer with a readied action is a) not especially obvious and b) extremely difficult*

(...)

*Basically, wind wall, friendly fire, or wall of force are about the only things that will help. But if you don't let them cast, those will be hard to pull off, so there's still a certain amount of leeway.

Or Unseen Servant with a blanket to grant you full cover as a move free action.

[Thurbane]

Is a blanket cover or concealment?

[Lycar]

I don't even really understand this argument.Allow me to elaborate then. Getting a sufficiently high Concentrate check to make the checks on a natural is already insultingly easy. Do we really need to remove even the last vestiges of any chance that a non-caster has to impede a caster from casting?

At the very least, Pathfinder changed the check from a skill check to a caster level check. This is a roll even a high level caster actually can fail. He has the ability to not make that check. But it is his saving throw vs. being disrupted by a melee type.

What is the point of having an ability, any ability really, if there isn't a chance of failure? If a caster can simply step out of harm's way, the entire mechanic is left pointless.

When we add Pathfinder to the equation however, the Step Up feat then suddenly reverses the situation: Now the caster/archer outright can not avoid the melee threat with a simple 5-foot-step any more. But that basically makes Step Up a feat tax for pretty much all melee characters.

No, if casting defensively is already easy, then there is no need to also remove the need for casting defensively in the first place!


Totally? Not even close. Thicket of Blades alone is enough to prevent someone from using 5' steps,Requiring either multiclassing or investing two feats into something that may not even be available because there are tables that do not play with ToB.


simply using an inclusive reach weapon
Ah, the infamous spiked chain. How many other inclusive reach weapons are out there? The Duom comes to mind but anything else? :smallconfused:


(or a normal weapon and a reach weapon, such as armor spikes and a guisarme) and approaching to adjacent is enough to make a mere 5' step useless in avoiding AoOs.
Rendering both sword & board and two weapon fighting impotent. Sorry, even more impotent compared to two-handed wielding. :smallfrown:


In other words, there is no blanket immunity, and a bit of extra investment in one of several methods is enough to prove this.Multiclassing, sacrificing two feats and tow entire combat styles are not 'a bit' of extra investment. It is making melee jump through loops to get to be able to do things that should be part and parcel of every fighting profession.

If anything the onus ought to be on the defender to invest resources into being able to mitigate melee threats. Like for example shoring up your defensive casting.

Let's not even mention things like Abrupt Jaunt that make the whole thing moot anyway. But at least the caster in question had to make a certain choice and didn't get the whole thing handed on a silver platter along with his 'can cast spells' class feature.



It isn't that easy. An archer with a readied action is a) not especially obvious and b) extremely difficult* for a caster to avoid even if their intent is known.

*Basically, wind wall, friendly fire, or wall of force are about the only things that will help. But if you don't let them cast, those will be hard to pull off, so there's still a certain amount of leeway.
... casting one spell to render an entire fighting style useless is actually that easy. That is part of the problem. At least leaving melee threats useless requires a few more spells. Or only one Fly spell, if the opposing arcanist is of the kind that thinks casting buffs on other people is gimping himself.


All that is possible then is either triggering a contingency or similar, giving up the chance to cast by doing some other relatively meaningless action**, or eating the readied action and almost certainly losing the spell and a fair chunk of HP.



A meleer has bit of a tougher time, but since you can 5' step with your readied action, it's not so bad: just step up when they move away and hit them.
If you worded your readied action correctly and the trigger is actually allowed to be the target not doing something. Otherwise you are even more screwed.



1
I should probably note that I'm not defending 5' steps here out of a love for casters particularly, but because the system as a whole needs them, I think; even meleers occasionally wish to avoid AoOs, and often wish to move a bit and still get in a full attack, while archers need 5' steps even more than casters do. Please, won't someone think of the archers?
Archers can get class features that allow them to shoot from a threatened area without provoking. As I said, let the defender do the jumping through loops.

[LordBlades]

Because anything more specific then that screws over melee. Or rather, screws them over even more because 'Readied Action' = 'Bye bye Full Attack'. :smallmad:


Relying on full attacks means you're screwing yourself over anyway(or rather the rules screw you over), doubly so for monsters, that tend to get more weaker attacks compared to humanoids with weapons (think a CR 1 human fighter with a greatsword that gets 1 attack for 2d6+1.5xstr vs. a CR 1 lizardfolk that gets 2 claws for 1d4+str and bite for 1d6+0.5 str).

Pretty much everything else but traditional melee (casters, martial adepts, chargers, pouncers, warlocks, DFA etc)can do their shtick without needing to stand still the whole round. This means more often than not it's more advantageous to eat up 1 AOO, move away while still doing your attack as a standard action and then next round eat up at most 1 attack (depending on battlefield layout and relative speeds you might actually get out of opponent's move action range and deny him a line of charge) rather than stay there, not eat up the AOO but eat up a ton of attacks next round.

From my experience, vs. at least moderately tactical savvy opponents, you will get to full attack in 2 situations:

a)when the opponent believes it's advantageous for him to allow you to do so (either he's a full attacker himself, or tries to tank you so you don't go for other, more squishy targets)
b)when the opponent is somehow prevented from moving away.

[eggynack]

Allow me to elaborate then. Getting a sufficiently high Concentrate check to make the checks on a natural is already insultingly easy. Do we really need to remove even the last vestiges of any chance that a non-caster has to impede a caster from casting?

See, the thing of it is, that argument makes absolutely no sense at all. If casters are perfectly capable of casting right next to fighters without five foot steps, five foot steps must logically be not that important for casters. Your argument is that five foot steps are so good for casters that they shouldn't be allowed in the game, but defensive casting makes a big hole in that argument. If five foot steps don't help wizards that much, they're approximately equally useful for fighters, so they're a balanced component of the game. I actually think that this is an accurate claim, given that melee guys are far more likely to be within the threat range of an enemy than a caster is. Casters have a ton of ways to make AoO's pretty irrelevant, while fighters do not, and this means that you are pretty much wrong.

[Lanson]

See, the thing of it is, that argument makes absolutely no sense at all. If casters are perfectly capable of casting right next to fighters without five foot steps, five foot steps must logically be not that important for casters. Your argument is that five foot steps are so good for casters that they shouldn't be allowed in the game, but defensive casting makes a big hole in that argument. If five foot steps don't help wizards that much, they're approximately equally useful for fighters, so they're a balanced component of the game. I actually think that this is an accurate claim, given that melee guys are far more likely to be within the threat range of an enemy than a caster is. Casters have a ton of ways to make AoO's pretty irrelevant, while fighters do not, and this means that you are pretty much wrong.

^ This.

I mean, you're claiming that a caster can easily shut down an archers readied actions by... casting the spells he will attempt to interrupt while readied? I mean, pre-buffing IS a thing, but buffing to negate everything a player does is usually looked on as bad form, unless you're playing with a High OP group who will ALWAYS find a way around that.

And specifically changing the wizards actions to "Not cast" after someone readies an action to interrupt him is terrible. It's some pretty huge metagaming, and it robs the players of an actually useful ability against casters. By the same logic, another wizard readying an action to counterspell must be pointless! (Moreso than usual, since many higher level duels are just contingencies going off till someone dies or teleports) AoO are normally incurred by melee more than anyone from my experiences, drinking potions while under threat of a reach weapon, charging into reach/crowds/generally being inefficient, and generally not having any way to get around in combat that's not "I walk up to it, hope it doesn't hit me."

[Abaddona]

And one more thing - sword and board or two weapon fighthing being useless when trying to provoke AoO simply may mean that those styles are not meant to be used in AoO builds. Screwdriver is horrible tool when you want to hammer some nails, but this simply means that you should also keep a hammer in your toolbox. To be honest it's not even hard - gauntlet (or armor spikes) let's you use other weapons, so you can simply adjust your fighthing style to your opponents (bow + sword&board + reach weapon + greatsword all of which with quickdraw feat and now you can quickly adapt to your enemies).

[Boci]

Archers can get class features that allow them to shoot from a threatened area without provoking. As I said, let the defender do the jumping through loops.

So the style of martial character already under supported, already spread thin from using a system that favours melee over them, now has to spend even more resources on being functional because you don't like 5ft steps?

[lord_khaine]

And specifically changing the wizards actions to "Not cast" after someone readies an action to interrupt him is terrible. It's some pretty huge metagaming, and it robs the players of an actually useful ability against casters.

What part is the metagaming when you change your current course of action, after the big brute in front of you suddenly stops what he is doing, and instead begins to stare intensely at you, spiked club raised above his head and ready to strike?

[Deophaun]

What part is the metagaming when you change your current course of action, after the big brute in front of you suddenly stops what he is doing, and instead begins to stare intensely at you, spiked club raised above his head and ready to strike?
I'd also think the archer with his bow notched and pulled back, arrow tips leveled directly at you, holding fire could also be a clue.

And honestly, when I do choose to disrupt, I'm fine with the enemy knowing that. There's always a chance my PC could miss, so if they want to just let me auto-succeed on denying the casting, I'll take it.

[TexAvery]

What's your real goal? Because you complain about 5-ft steps, but it sounds like you'd really like to make AoOs unavoidable. If your issue is really with the 5-ft step, you could remove AoOs and greatly reduce the 5-ft step frequency.

[Abaddona]

lord_Khaine -> actually that part that all actions are actually happening in the same 6 seconds time interval, so this brute is not "suddenly stoping" but rather "delaying his attack by one second to hit you more precisely".

[CRtwenty]

lord_Khaine -> actually that part that all actions are actually happening in the same 6 seconds time interval, so this brute is not "suddenly stoping" but rather "delaying his attack by one second to hit you more precisely".

Yeah, but I'd like to see the PC or DM who actually bases their actions on that bit of fluff.

Regardless, if an Archer or Melee causes a spellcaster to delay casting their spell or take another action on their turn other than spellcasting I'd say mission accomplished.

[Lightlawbliss]

archer or melle looses turn to make caster not cast spells... cast not cast spells...worth it.

[Lycar]

See, the thing of it is, that argument makes absolutely no sense at all.
I'll try again then:

Making a Concentrate check, or any skill check ever for that matter, trivial, is no big deal in a RAW discussion because by RAW, there is a ton of ways to boost said skill check into the stratosphere.

Whether an actual DM would actually allow any player to actually do this is another matter.

But your argument is: Hey, this whole casting defensively thing, that's, like, a total non issue. Let us not have casters waste precious skill points on something they can effectively ignore at level X anyway. How about it?

Just because the whole casting defensively (and 3.x tumbling for that matter) is a textbook example for bad game design doesn't mean that a DM should not step in and demand that casters actually pay for the privilege. And maybe, just maybe, make it so that there still is a chance for casters to actually fail that concentrate check so that there is still an incentive, however small, to actually care about not having a melee type in your face.

My argument is: Even if casting defensively can theoretically be done effortlessly this is NOT a valid reason to go and allow casters to circumvent the whole thing entirely without any effort on their part whatsoever.

By the same line of argument one could say that since Mindblank is a thing, why bother having anyone have to make Will saves in the first place? Just let them auto-succeed already and let's move on with the game. :smallconfused:

Oh and another thing: From the perspective of the PC party, casting a Fly spell on the beatstick, so he can actually go do his job of beating things up, may actually become worthwhile. You know, the whole 'party' thing. Cooperation and that. Because RPGs are kinda supposed to be about that. :smallmad:


... gauntlet (or armor spikes) let's you use other weapons, so you can simply adjust your fighthing style to your opponents (bow + sword&board + reach weapon + greatsword all of which with quickdraw feat and now you can quickly adapt to your enemies).
And that is something I would really, really want to agree with, but unfortunately 3.X doesn't work that way. :smallfrown:

1) Feats tied to specific weapons, 2) Christmas Tree effect.


So the style of martial character already under supported, already spread thin from using a system that favours melee over them, now has to spend even more resources on being functional because you don't like 5ft steps?
A) Ranged combat being horribly under supported isn't melee's fault. That is a problem of its own.

B) You misunderstand. I like 5-foot steps. As long as they pertain to jockeying for advantageous positions on the battlefield. Like getting some foe sandwiched between your resident backstabber and some ally. Or even moving out of the ogre's reach by hiding behind his hobgoblin buddy.*

What I absolutely detest is the use of the 5-foot-step to get out of an entire fight scot-free without so much as a single skill point or feat invested.

Because this unfairly favours everything but melee. That ranged combat needs some love of its own is an entirely different issue.

* Clarification: Yes, this means leaving a foe's threatened area. But since you are still in the hobbo's threatened area, you are still engaged. Risking the hobgblin's spear rather then the ogre's club is a tactical decision that should be both possible to do and having it's own reward. But being able to just leave both enemies' threat range effortlessly... NO! :smallmad:

[Boci]

A) Ranged combat being horribly under supported isn't melee's fault. That is a problem of its own.

That's true, but you are still consciously choosing to make ranged combat weaker (and arguably melee as well in certain situations, since they now cannot take a 5ft step back to quaff a potion or something, but that might be a niche case).


B) You misunderstand.

Not really. You can't say you don't mind 5ft steps, as long as they aren't used for their most useful purpose. At that point you do not like 5ft steps (because the ones you are proposing would be a different rule).


Because this unfairly favours everything but melee. That ranged combat needs some love of its own is an entirely different issue.

Not entirely different, because you are making ranged combat weaker in the process.

How is that logic any different than someone saying "its not casters fault martial is weaker" in response to an attempt to curb their power.


Regardless, if an Archer or Melee causes a spellcaster to delay casting their spell or take another action on their turn other than spellcasting I'd say mission accomplished.

It would work though I don't think. I know my caster when faced with a melee character who had readied an action against me would move back, accepting the AoO but then being able to cast a spell without risking it being disrupted.

[Lanson]

What part is the metagaming when you change your current course of action, after the big brute in front of you suddenly stops what he is doing, and instead begins to stare intensely at you, spiked club raised above his head and ready to strike?


I'd also think the archer with his bow notched and pulled back, arrow tips leveled directly at you, holding fire could also be a clue.

And honestly, when I do choose to disrupt, I'm fine with the enemy knowing that. There's always a chance my PC could miss, so if they want to just let me auto-succeed on denying the casting, I'll take it.

Each round of combat takes 6 seconds roughly by the games own standards. Your character doesn't think as though everything happens in turn-based order, so in either case you wouldn't logically know that he's waiting for you to cast a spell, or just getting ready to strike anyways, and you ALSO wouldn't know that if you decide to not cast, they'll just sit there and do nothing. That is how it is metagaming.

It is true that they stopped the spellcasting, however, but most casters can't take more than a couple hits from a dedicated damage dealer, and it is still wasted action economy.

[Boci]

Each round of combat takes 6 seconds roughly by the games own standards. Your character doesn't think as though everything happens in turn-based order, so in either case you wouldn't logically know that he's waiting for you to cast a spell, or just getting ready to strike anyways, and you ALSO wouldn't know that if you decide to not cast, they'll just sit there and do nothing. That is how it is metagaming.

But combat is metagaming. The harshest house rule I've seen is everyone gets 30 second to dictate their action, which is still 5 times as much as the actual character has. You cannot bring up something impossible to simulate to selectively nerf only certain tactics you dislike.

[Lanson]

But combat is metagaming. The harshest house rule I've seen is everyone gets 30 second to dictate their action, which is still 5 times as much as the actual character has. You cannot bring up something impossible to simulate to selectively nerf only certain tactics you dislike.

See, I don't dislike it, I believe that you should totally take a 5' step and get the heck away from the melee that's moving in on you. I definitely believe that if an archer is aiming at you, you should break line of sight/effect before casting. But when people reference that they are going to just not cast a spell and waste the readied actions of their foes, THAT is where it gets to be metagaming by the standard most people refer to it, otherwise it is just your character responding accordingly to stimuli.

Edit: In summary: it's metagaming when the caster KNOWS that they are waiting for him to cast a spell, and knows that if he decides to not cast, they won't attack him at all.

[Boci]

See, I don't dislike it, I believe that you should totally take a 5' step and get the heck away from the melee that's moving in on you. I definitely believe that if an archer is aiming at you, you should break line of sight/effect before casting. But when people reference that they are going to just not cast a spell and waste the readied actions of their foes, THAT is where it gets to be metagaming by the standard most people refer to it, otherwise it is just your character responding accordingly to stimuli.

Edit: In summary: it's metagaming when the caster KNOWS that they are waiting for him to cast a spell, and knows that if he decides to not cast, they won't attack him at all.

But there is clearly some indication that an action has been readied, the attack isn't going to appear out of thin air. As for the "wasting an action", won't always work. Most DMs will allow a readied action to attack to be taken even if the caster doesn't cast a spell.

[Lightlawbliss]

But there is clearly some indication that an action has been readied, the attack isn't going to appear out of thin air.

readied actions and delayed actions are just shifting WHEN stuff happens in a matter of seconds.


As for the "wasting an action", won't always work. Most DMs will allow a readied action to attack to be taken even if the caster doesn't cast a spell.

it would depend on the wording of the redied action. personally, none of my dms would allow a readied action to go off when the requirement was never met.

[Boci]

readied actions and delayed actions are just shifting WHEN stuff happens in a matter of seconds.

"Matter of seconds" isn't that impressive when you realize a round is 6 seconds.


it would depend on the wording of the redied action. personally, none of my dms would allow a readied action to go off when the requirement was never met.

I don't see why that's necessary, and it requires a strict but not too strict reading of raw which is hard to justify, especially when the result of allowing a more lenient trigger is not overpowered and generally beneficial to the game by making the tactic more applicable.

[dascarletm]

I think there is some line to be drawn between player knowledge vs character knowledge, even in combat.

It gets sticky with situations like these.

I mean, I know that my friend rolled a 1 for initiative, and I rolled a 20. Thus I know that the enemy will most likely go between us. I as a player would probably use that knowledge to my advantage. However, if my character is first to act, do I know who will be quicker on the draw between the enemy and my allies? I think it depends on how you like to play. Some people like to play with full player knowledge, some don't. There isn't anything inherently wrong with meta-gaming, but doing some of these things are.

As for the readying an action, you could just use an opposed bluff/sense motive roll to solve that if you so desired.

[cerin616]

I also dont like to sink the party boat here, but even if you get rid of the 5 foot step, all you need as a character is a move action and some points in tumble. possibly a touch of dexterity.

I have a character that can move through 3 threatened squares in normal terrain, not provoke an AoO, and not even roll a die.

Oh you put your meat shield in front of you? well, Ill just do a barrel roll, move 15 feet, and then do what i want.

[eggynack]

I'll try again then:

Making a Concentrate check, or any skill check ever for that matter, trivial, is no big deal in a RAW discussion because by RAW, there is a ton of ways to boost said skill check into the stratosphere.

Whether an actual DM would actually allow any player to actually do this is another matter.

But your argument is: Hey, this whole casting defensively thing, that's, like, a total non issue. Let us not have casters waste precious skill points on something they can effectively ignore at level X anyway. How about it?

Just because the whole casting defensively (and 3.x tumbling for that matter) is a textbook example for bad game design doesn't mean that a DM should not step in and demand that casters actually pay for the privilege. And maybe, just maybe, make it so that there still is a chance for casters to actually fail that concentrate check so that there is still an incentive, however small, to actually care about not having a melee type in your face.

My argument is: Even if casting defensively can theoretically be done effortlessly this is NOT a valid reason to go and allow casters to circumvent the whole thing entirely without any effort on their part whatsoever.

By the same line of argument one could say that since Mindblank is a thing, why bother having anyone have to make Will saves in the first place? Just let them auto-succeed already and let's move on with the game. :smallconfused:

Oh and another thing: From the perspective of the PC party, casting a Fly spell on the beatstick, so he can actually go do his job of beating things up, may actually become worthwhile. You know, the whole 'party' thing. Cooperation and that. Because RPGs are kinda supposed to be about that. :smallmad:
Actually, my argument is that if the abilities of five foot steps can be replicated on a caster without them, five foot steps aren't that great for casters. You're claiming that five foot steps are better for casters than they are for melee. Why? If you construct a theoretical situation where casting defensively is infinitely easy, which probably isn't hard to hit, five foot steps lose nearly all of their utility for casters in terms of AoO's. The relationship between how easy casting defensively is, and how important five foot steps are for casters, is an inverse relationship. It seems like you're ignoring any positive impact that five foot steps have on melee characters, and saying that anything that grants any benefit to wizards has a negative impact on balance, even if everyone else gets an even bigger benefit.

[Tvtyrant]

I just took AoOs out of the game. That effectively removes the 5 ft. step, and speeds up combat a lot. (I made sure none of my players wanted to play lockdown characters first of course.)

The problem with removing the 5 ft. step is that you remove a lot of the mobility left in the game. Now everyone has to invest in short range SLA or SU teleports to avoid AoOs or just sit there and take a ton of extra damage each turn. I would do the former myself, Abrupt Jaunt or Flicker on every character I made.

[Boci]

I just took AoOs out of the game. That effectively removes the 5 ft. step, and speeds up combat a lot. (I made sure none of my players wanted to play lockdown characters first of course.)

The problem with removing the 5 ft. step is that you remove a lot of the mobility left in the game. Now everyone has to invest in short range SLA or SU teleports to avoid AoOs or just sit there and take a ton of extra damage each turn. I would do the former myself, Abrupt Jaunt or Flicker on every character I made.

Okay, but then how is a body guard meant to function an assassin can, without any skill or special ability, run right around him and stab his target?

[Tvtyrant]

Okay, but then how is a body guard meant to function an assassin can, without any skill or special ability, run right around him and stab his target?

Readies an action each turn to move in the way. Readying an action is a standard action, so they can move and do it. You could play an AoO lockdown build without normal AoOs in the game, you would just need to ready the actions to do so. My group calls it "Overwatch," which is what they call it in Fallout Tactics.

AoO never made any sense to me to begin with, as making one should by logic provoke one. So if I am threatened by person A, and attack person B, then person C threatening person A should make an AoO on person A as they make one on me, because all of us are open while we make the attacks.

Edit: In fact I think the Readying action works better for a bodyguard than AoOs do, as it prevents the opponent from tumbling past them.

[Boci]

Readies an action each turn to move in the way.

So then a move around your new position. Unless I am charging I'm free to move as I want.


AoO never made any sense to me to begin with, as making one should by logic provoke one.

If we are swinging baseball bats at each other and you run away heedlessly (being careful would involve tumbling or withdrawing), reach for an bottle from your belt and chug it or suddenly concentrate on something else, I'm getting a free swing in their.


So if I am threatened by person A, and attack person B, then person C threatening person A should make an AoO on person A as they make one on me, because all of us are open while we make the attacks.

More understandable, but that's just the limitations of the game. Just because AoOs aren't perfect doesn't mean they don't make sense.


Edit: In fact I think the Readying action works better for a bodyguard than AoOs do, as it prevents the opponent from tumbling past them.

I disagree (see above), but even if I missed something you've still made a body guard's job harder, because they could already use readied actions.

[cerin616]

But combat is metagaming. The harshest house rule I've seen is everyone gets 30 second to dictate their action, which is still 5 times as much as the actual character has. You cannot bring up something impossible to simulate to selectively nerf only certain tactics you dislike.

I mean, to be fair, we sit and take 30 seconds to figure out what exactly we are going to do because we haven't spent our entire lives killing people and taking their stuff.

Similar to being an experienced computer repair guy looking at an issue and knowing in five seconds what the problem is vs the new guy taking 5 hours to diagnose it.


As for 5 foot steps, as a frequent melee player, I dont feel like casters are that overpowered with them. I have a ton of options on how to stop it.
I can use an exclusive reach weapon and a feat that allows me to use it inclusively. I can take a level in crusader for thicket of blades. I can push them against a wall, I can move past him and force him toward my allies.
I can use an inclusive reach weapon. I can trip him.

So many options.

The real, issue is that the caster can: cast defensivly, use mgaic to get more actions, use magic to teleport... use magic... magic.

[Tvtyrant]

So then a move around your new position. Unless I am charging I'm free to move as I want.



If we are swinging baseball bats at each other and you run away heedlessly (being careful would involve tumbling or withdrawing), reach for an item in your belt or suddenly concentrate on something else, I'm getting a free swing in their.



More understandable, but that's just the limitations of the game. Just because AoOs aren't perfect doesn't mean they don't make sense.

Umm, that is not my experience with it at all. If you are in a dungeon there is nowhere to move to, and most of the time you aren't going to be walking through open meadows. Besides which, you can ready a trip attempt as easily as anything else. Again, I did say that if someone had wanted to use AoOs I would have kept them in, but I don't feel like slowing down my game enormously so that I can use a borked mechanic.

Because baseball bats model swordfighting so well :P I did SCA Whalebone fighting for a long time, and AoO pattern almost nothing from a melee. If I move past you and we are not fighting directly you are going to be far too busy with whoever else you are fighting to throw in a free attack, and as I said if you tried you would be the one who got hit. The only way it would make sense is if it were the two of us exclusively trading blows and I tried to ignore you and walk away instead of backing off while blocking. That particular scenario, where both people are un-threatened and one of them moves tangentially without bothering to block, would only really be modeled by AoOs if the one moving was to use the Run or Hustle actions by another character. Normal movement patterns running while blocking and dodging pretty well IMO.

Actually, that is exactly how it is. They slow down the game and add an unrealistic mechanic. I have been in several hundred person melees and never once watched someone disengage from the person they are directly fighting to take a potshot at me without eating one themselves. Once again, if someone had wanted to use them as a central player mechanic I would have left them in, but they don't otherwise add much to the game.

[Silvanoshei]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ksbsnowowl View Post
So you're mad that your players are engaged, and play the game "too well."

Gotcha. Don't know how to help you with that.
That's not what I said and the snarky tone isn't appreciated.


I feel like our combat is focused around people tactically making 5ft steps

No, that's exactly what you said Invader, you hate your players having a "get out of jail free card" tactical advantage using this 5 foot step. Stop trolling on a mechanic that works just fine. Using 5 foot step does not allow you to get out of combat, just makes you give up your move for a slight combat adjustment.

Suggestions? Look into DM'ing better imho. Use reach weapons, long range weapons, put them in a 5 foot tunnel, have an aerial battle, there are literally hundreds of ways for you to lower them "abusing 5 foot step" than just getting rid of it. You cannot get rid of it by the way, because of the dependence of full attacks from melee.

[Boci]

Umm, that is not my experience with it at all. If you are in a dungeon there is nowhere to move to

Fair enough if that's how your games play out, but I tend to play in cities and open wilderness as much as dungeons. Plus I like verisimilitude, so I need to apply the rules to wider city streets and squares.


Because baseball bats model swordfighting so well :P I did SCA Whalebone fighting for a long time, and AoO pattern almost nothing from a melee. If I move past you and we are not fighting directly you are going to be far too busy with whoever else you are fighting to throw in a free attack, and as I said if you tried you would be the one who got hit.

That (and the points you raise below) seem more an issue with the lack of facing rules (that you are assumed to be looking in all direction at once) than with the AoO rules.

[cerin616]

Umm, that is not my experience with it at all. If you are in a dungeon there is nowhere to move to, and most of the time you aren't going to be walking through open meadows. Besides which, you can ready a trip attempt as easily as anything else. Again, I did say that if someone had wanted to use AoOs I would have kept them in, but I don't feel like slowing down my game enormously so that I can use a borked mechanic.

Because baseball bats model swordfighting so well :P I did SCA Whalebone fighting for a long time, and AoO pattern almost nothing from a melee. If I move past you and we are not fighting directly you are going to be far too busy with whoever else you are fighting to throw in a free attack, and as I said if you tried you would be the one who got hit. The only way it would make sense is if it were the two of us exclusively trading blows and I tried to ignore you and walk away instead of backing off while blocking. That particular scenario, where both people are un-threatened and one of them moves tangentially without bothering to block, would only really be modeled by AoOs if the one moving was to use the Run or Hustle actions by another character. Normal movement patterns running while blocking and dodging pretty well IMO.

Actually, that is exactly how it is. They slow down the game and add an unrealistic mechanic. I have been in several hundred person melees and never once watched someone disengage from the person they are directly fighting to take a potshot at me without eating one themselves. Once again, if someone had wanted to use them as a central player mechanic I would have left them in, but they don't otherwise add much to the game.

you can say that your experience means you understand better how an AoO would work in real life, but you need to consider the fact that your character is probably better than you, in every way, at fighting. You probably have an average of 10 in your stats, 11 if you are good.

Your character has invested his life to killing people, not practicing with a weapon as a sport. And he is still better than any combatant that has ever existed in any era.

Your character is a super hero, plain and simple. He perform extraordinary feats of strength and skill as if they were mundane things like walking down the street.

[Abaddona]

About going meta during combat - i would say there is slight difference between slightly changing your actions (for example foe moved away from me so i will follow him with charge rather than go full attack), changing your action due to strong stimuli (ally down and in negatives so i cast cure on him) and changing your action due to almost non-existest stimuli (opponent taking better aim rather/shifting slightlyh his grip on weapon etc.).

As for Lycar argument about how DnD works.

1. Most weapon-tied feats (focus, specialization etc.) are garbage and are taken only by new players, by players who want specific PrC and are willing to pay it's feat tax or by players who taken all good options. Even if you taken such weapon-tied feat and even if it's great etc. temporarily losing it's benefits in exchange for ruining enemy's day is good exchange for me (for example - even if you are absolutely horrible at archery but you spotted enemy from far away you can try to make him more vulnerable - using for example poisoned arrows - just before you stomp him in the ground with your ubercharge. You don't lose anything in this scenario and have a chance - even if slim one - to make him weaker). To put it simply - if you are not great at doing something this doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if it feels appropriate.
As a side note - you're proposing houserule to get rid of 5ft foot step - you can as easily propose different house rule to make weapon focus and other feats not tied to one weapon type (and I dare to say that this would be better change).

2. Christmas tree effect - and why is it a problem to carry few weaker spare weapons? Hmmm, if you actually don't carry one then your DM probably is nice one (or didn't bothered to read disarm/sunder rules for some reason).

As for casters and concentration skill - did you see any caster who didn't put ranks in this skill? Because you know - if not, then you definetely should play with weather some more. After few hurricans (those crazy druids) he probably will change his opinion on that skill.

And one more thing - even if you get rid of 5ft speed experienced players will start making conjuration focused specialist (if they don't make it already) or will boost their concentration checks in upper heavens - so you will only make life harder for mundanes (poor archers) and those casters who didn't really cause problems.

[Tvtyrant]

you can say that your experience means you understand better how an AoO would work in real life, but you need to consider the fact that your character is probably better than you, in every way, at fighting. You probably have an average of 10 in your stats, 11 if you are good.

Your character has invested his life to killing people, not practicing with a weapon as a sport. And he is still better than any combatant that has ever existed in any era.

Your character is a super hero, plain and simple. He perform extraordinary feats of strength and skill as if they were mundane things like walking down the street.

And so are all of the people he is fighting. What of it? Can you explain to me how being a better fighter fighting better fighters changes the way that melee combat works?

And yeah, the character is a super hero. Making him stand exactly still in place taking 5 ft. steps every round to avoid getting torn to shreds by hordes of mundanes does the opposite of feeling like a super hero. Running from foe to foe cleaving your way through the enemy is much more heroic IMO.

@Boci: I agree that the facing rules also suck. I'm not going to homebrew even more complicated rules that slow down combat even more to fix a rule that already slows down combat immensely. Even if that were somewhat more realistic, the movement from seconds each turn to minutes each turn to decide facing, deal with AoOs, tumble checks, etc. are not worth it to me. Especially for a corner case that other quicker rules already deal with. Do I lose some realism? Maybe. I don't feel that way, but even if it does I think quicker combat is worth it.

Edit: I do see your point and am not trying to disparage it. I'm not even trying to claim more knowledge of medieval combat. I am saying that AoOs do not match up with either my experiences in recreational sword fighting or my desired play style in D&D. My party has expressed approval of the removal of that rule as well. Other people's experiences/desired play styles will of course vary.

[Thurbane]

My experience with PF is a little limited, but I think they made some steps (pardon the pun) in the right direction in these areas:

Concentration checks are a little harder (with it not being a skill any more).
Tumble checks are harder, and scale with the CMB of the attacker.
There is a feat (step up?) that specifically allows you to follow someone who 5-foot steps.

[Boci]

Especially for a corner case that other quicker rules already deal with. Do I lose some realism? Maybe. I don't feel that way, but even if it does I think quicker combat is worth it.

My main problem with this is fights become so slippery. I mean anyone can turn and run at any moment, and you need special training to be able to do anything about it. Howe are you meant to stop people from retreating?

[Tvtyrant]

My main problem with this is fights become so slippery. I mean anyone can turn and run at any moment, and you need special training to be able to do anything about it. Howe are you meant to stop people from retreating?

Well in RL you didn't. You had your horsemen mop up the retreating army; Charles Martel expressed his irritation at the lack of cavalry amongst the Frankish army after Tours because there was no way to chase the enemy down.

On a personal basis, if the enemy bolts you have a few seconds delay before you can chase them. They also have the advantage that they are running generally away while you have to specifically chase, so they can get more advantage out of the ground than you. Unless you are faster than they are (higher run speed in D&D) they will probably get away. Throwing weapons/archers/horsemen are the solutions to this, or being in better shape/having a faster movement speed.

edit: Again though, it is an RPG game. Different strokes is pretty applicable. Different swordstrokes that is :P

[cerin616]

Edit: I do see your point and am not trying to disparage it. I'm not even trying to claim more knowledge of medieval combat. I am saying that AoOs do not match up with either my experiences in recreational sword fighting or my desired play style in D&D. My party has expressed approval of the removal of that rule as well. Other people's experiences/desired play styles will of course vary.

And im not criticizing your removal of it, if it makes play more enjoyable to remove it then power to you.

I'm just a critic of using personal experience to say one thing is more or less realistic simply because my life isn't dedicated to killing and I'm not a superhero. I see it as perfectly acceptable that when you take two people that are trained that well then i have no idea how anything works anymore.

[Boci]

edit: Again though, it is an RPG game. Different strokes is pretty applicable. Different swordstrokes that is :P

Fair enough. I'd have to consider playing in a group that had such a house rule, but if it works for yours...

[Tvtyrant]

Fair enough. I'd have to consider playing in a group that had such a house rule, but if it works for yours...

Why? I'm curious why AoO removal is a deal breaker compared to the myriad already existing problems in the game. And as I said in my first post, if anyone had said anything/wanted to use them I would have left them in. Pretty much all of my house rules are optional ones that met the groups vote of approval.

[Boci]

Why? I'm curious why AoO removal is a deal breaker compared to the myriad already existing problems in the game.

Because I feel certain acts should be penalized when attempted in the fray of combat (chugging a potion, casting a spell), I like the need for tactics it produces (tactical movement instead of just running halfway around the ogre with your move action) and the bodyguard concept I first mentioned.

[Eldariel]

I restrict it to full attack. It's a part of a full attack action and only towards the opponent you're attacking - that is, 5' step without AoO to any square that's closer to your target than your location before the full attack (the original reason it was added was so that when a large creature gets the alpha strike on you you aren't forced to eat an AoO to attack it; this retains that while removing all the associated nonsense).

5' steps are relatively unnecessary. Everyone survives without them while melee threat becomes slightly more important. Sure, defensive casting and tumble are still too easy but that's a most simple thing to fix; make them harder too or remove them entirely. If you want to remove Defensive Casting, touch range spells are a problem with defensive casting removed so the two most rational options are to either make touch range spells an exempt on the rule and restrict defensive casting to them or make offensive touch range spells allow no AoO [either from nobody or from the person the spell is used against]. If you just want to make them harder, PF did that pretty well so you could just rip that. They're still doable but significantly more difficult, and it's very hard to escape really fast/strong, skilled creatures.


EDIT: Primary problem I find with 5' steps is that they make different weapons completely imbalanced with each other for medium/small creatures. 10' reach can threaten adjacent and reach and thus 5' steps are useless vs. it and you always get your AoO while melee range weapons can never reliably threaten anyone and thus are useless when it comes to stopping someone from casting/using bow/whatever.

It removes the whole concept of melee threat for creatures of that size. Of course, it does nothing for Large/bigger bipeds and Huge/bigger quadropeds so overall, it's just a ****ty rule.

[Tvtyrant]

Because I feel certain acts should be penalized when attempted in the fray of combat (chugging a potion, casting a spell), I like the need for tactics it produces (tactical movement instead of just running halfway around the ogre with your move action) and the bodyguard concept I first mentioned.

Fair enough. I think we have derailed the thread for a while now, but I see your point.

[Talakeal]

I run it so that when making a 5 foot step the character must choose to:

a: Provoke an AoO as normal for movement.
or b: End the characters turn immediately afterwards.

[cerin616]

5' steps are relatively unnecessary. Everyone survives without them while melee threat becomes slightly more important. Sure, defensive casting and tumble are still too easy but that's a most simple thing to fix; make them harder too or remove them entirely. If you want to remove Defensive Casting, touch range spells are a problem with defensive casting removed so the two most rational options are to either make touch range spells an exempt on the rule and restrict defensive casting to them or make offensive touch range spells allow no AoO [either from nobody or from the person the spell is used against]. If you just want to make them harder, PF did that pretty well so you could just rip that. They're still doable but significantly more difficult, and it's very hard to escape really fast/strong, skilled creatures.
.

But I feel like the situations where a 5 foot step become useful, they become hugely useful. Like killing a drown with a spike chain. like trading AoO's for more of them, like trading them for 10' steps with a tumble check.

[dascarletm]

you can say that your experience means you understand better how an AoO would work in real life, but you need to consider the fact that your character is probably better than you, in every way, at fighting. You probably have an average of 10 in your stats, 11 if you are good.


I highly doubt that. As poor as representing RL as the d20 system is, if people have only 10's or 11's in stats that means every arm wrestling competition known to man is completely random. Any competition that is primarily based off of Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha every person has an equal % to win. Even "the most naturally strongest" man vs "the most naturally mundane" man (18 and 10) only translates to a 20% advantage to the strong in an arm wrestling competition. That being said, even if using d20 as a base I don't see why he'd have an 11 if he was good.

[Eldariel]

But I feel like the situations where a 5 foot step become useful, they become hugely useful. Like killing a drown with a spike chain. like trading AoO's for more of them, like trading them for 10' steps with a tumble check.

Approaching Spiked Chain/Troll/Whatever is something I can certainly see and the original intent of the ability. That's why I allow a 5' step towards the enemy as a part of a full attack. Should probably be scaled for size tho; otherwise it only works for Medium and Small characters while the larger size categories still eat AoOs for equal-sized creatures with reach weapons who have already attacked them. This is an understandable oversight tho since the rules were mostly written for Medium creatures.

However, trading them for 10' steps? 10' step is just the same problem, except worse. Sure, it has some fringe uses with Skirmish and stuff but I don't find that necessary nor desirable. I don't think this needs to exist to start with; Tumble is plenty useful already and even more-so if you actually make it a scaling check as opposed to flat.

Trading them for AoOs, well, removing 5' steps as such doesn't need to affect the related feats (mostly just Sidestep and Evasive Reflexes). It's simple enough to just allow the feat as is without allowing the default 5' steps. I'm not sure the existence of the feats is really desirable though. They basically only applicable in melee vs. melee scenario and the only thing they really enable is building AoO characters that no melee type can ever actually attack. Far as I'm concerned, melee doesn't need yet another thing hosing them; things are bad enough for melee characters and monsters alike as it stands (even if a melee can OHKO anything they still aren't even really worth PC or high threat monster status in high optimization games).

[cerin616]

I highly doubt that. As poor as representing RL as the d20 system is, if people have only 10's or 11's in stats that means every arm wrestling competition known to man is completely random. Any competition that is primarily based off of Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha every person has an equal % to win. Even "the most naturally strongest" man vs "the most naturally mundane" man (18 and 10) only translates to a 20% advantage to the strong in an arm wrestling competition. That being said, even if using d20 as a base I don't see why he'd have an 11 if he was good.

Because no matter how you spin it, we are all commoners. so maybe he can have a 12 or a 13 if he is extremely good, or "above average". But thats still the average Hero. We can't quite compete with people with strength in the 18-20 region in the feats they can accomplish.

And by the d20 system, the chance of wining an arm wrestling competition is indeed random. because the strongest guy at the table can roll a 1 and the weakest can roll a 20.

I state that he would have a strength of 11 because he is a commoner, you are a commoner, i am a commoner, and until one of us manages to fight off a group of orcs, I won't consider otherwise.

[cerin616]

Approaching Spiked Chain/Troll/Whatever is something I can certainly see and the original intent of the ability.

Thats my point though, to kill a drown with a spiked chain, you hit it and step away, it shambles forward, you hit it and step away.

If you decide against that, you hit it and eventually fail a save and start to drown.

[Eldariel]

I state that he would have a strength of 11 because he is a commoner, you are a commoner, i am a commoner, and until one of us manages to fight off a group of orcs, I won't consider otherwise.

Level 1 Fighter, Barbarian or whatever dies to Orcs. It's about level, not class. Obviously people with 18s in each score exist; those are the intellectual elite, the top athletes, etc. Levels are a different matter but if you model reality with D&D, you're not restricted to Commoners (indeed, Commoner is a pretty bad class to model people with as many Knowledges as any educated human; we should almost all be Experts instead).


Thats my point though, to kill a drown with a spiked chain, you hit it and step away, it shambles forward, you hit it and step away.

If you decide against that, you hit it and eventually fail a save and start to drown.

Ah. I thought you were talking about drow. My bad. My second guess would be Drowned but 5' steps don't really help at all against it since it's a 30' Aura and it'll just full attack and follow you with 5' steps anyways (5' step doesn't take you out from Spiked Chain reach) so I'm going to have to ask you to cite the source for whatever you're talking about.

[dascarletm]

EDIT: This is probably too far off topic...

Because no matter how you spin it, we are all commoners. so maybe he can have a 12 or a 13 if he is extremely good, or "above average". But thats still the average Hero. We can't quite compete with people with strength in the 18-20 region in the feats they can accomplish.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that if we take real life, and convert the real people of the world to DnD, they are commoners? Everyone. No one in real life has scores above 12-13?

So, with my arm wrestling competition example, in real life you think that the winner is truly random? Also for that sake, that everyone in real life has the same chance to accomplish similar feats of strength. The Olympic world record for clean and jerk (or lifting weight over your head) is 263kg or roughly 580 lbs. According to d20 rules the requisite str score for that is 22 (we are almost to 23 at 600lbs but not quite). I know I couldn't do that, and in DnD it doesn't even require a roll.


And by the d20 system, the chance of wining an arm wrestling competition is indeed random. because the strongest guy at the table can roll a 1 and the weakest can roll a 20.

So every real life competition that has to do with ability scores in real life is random? How incredibly naive, I assure you this is not the case.

I said that the system doesn't come close to modeling real life. Random factors are very small in RL competitions, and are based on what the competition is for that matter.


I state that he would have a strength of 11 because he is a commoner, you are a commoner, i am a commoner, and until one of us manages to fight off a group of orcs, I won't consider otherwise.

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

I just don't even know how to respond. Real life is full of examples against your ideology that everyone is so similarly gifted. Arm wrestle someone the world champ, and see if you beat him any times (given full out attempts on both parts).

If the only way you can be convinced that your model for real life people is wrong requires someone to kill some imaginary make believe beings, you really are probably the most closed minded person I've ever met.:smallfrown:

[cerin616]

Level 1 Fighter, Barbarian or whatever dies to Orcs. It's about level, not class. Obviously people with 18s in each score exist; those are the intellectual elite, the top athletes, etc. Levels are a different matter but if you model reality with D&D, you're not restricted to Commoners (indeed, Commoner is a pretty bad class to model people with as many Knowledges as any educated human; we should almost all be Experts instead).



Ah. I thought you were talking about drow. My bad. My second guess would be Drowned but 5' steps don't really help at all against it since it's a 30' Aura and it'll just full attack and follow you with 5' steps anyways (5' step doesn't take you out from Spiked Chain reach) so I'm going to have to ask you to cite the source for whatever you're talking about.

I meant to use the class levels as a metaphor, but its whatever. The point is, there are feats you can accomplish in dnd that are hopelessly impossible to achieve in the real world. That is part of the fun.
And i was indeed talking about your average stat out. Chances are, you are average, and when you add all your stats and divide by 6, you are gonna get 10, 11 if you are good.

As for the drowned, a large character with enlarge person, or any other size increase, and a spiked chain has a 30 foot reach.

use any combination of lunging strike (feat) +5 unnamed bonus, greatreach bracers +10 unnamed, Shadowstrike (weapon enhancment +5 unnamed,

and you now have a high enough range that you can trip it and call it a day.

[cerin616]

EDIT: This is probably too far off topic...


Let me get this straight. You are saying that if we take real life, and convert the real people of the world to DnD, they are commoners? Everyone. No one in real life has scores above 12-13?

So, with my arm wrestling competition example, in real life you think that the winner is truly random? Also for that sake, that everyone in real life has the same chance to accomplish similar feats of strength. The Olympic world record for clean and jerk (or lifting weight over your head) is 263kg or roughly 580 lbs. According to d20 rules the requisite str score for that is 22 (we are almost to 23 at 600lbs but not quite). I know I couldn't do that, and in DnD it doesn't even require a roll.


So every real life competition that has to do with ability scores in real life is random? How incredibly naive, I assure you this is not the case.

I said that the system doesn't come close to modeling real life. Random factors are very small in RL competitions, and are based on what the competition is for that matter.


:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

I just don't even know how to respond. Real life is full of examples against your ideology that everyone is so similarly gifted. Arm wrestle someone the world champ, and see if you beat him any times (given full out attempts on both parts).

If the only way you can be convinced that your model for real life people is wrong requires someone to kill some imaginary make believe beings, you really are probably the most closed minded person I've ever met.:smallfrown:

Show me someone break through a 3 inch iron wall, unarmed, and i will believe anyone in reality can be as strong as a dnd character. Heck, show me one that can break through a 6 in wooden wall in 6 seconds. Mind you this is quality wood, since the break DC is about the same as a strong wooden door.

Your analogy of an arm wrestling competition is moot. Realistically, we are all between 10 and 13 in an arm wrestling competition. our differences in strength are decimals compared to the strength of a dnd character.

The fact that you think im delusional is silly. Its a turd of a model to compare.

and just the fact that THAT alone is true, means you cant argue reality against a game.

And the only reason I ever mentioned killing things is because you can practice all you want with a weapon, you still won't have the experience to know how you can react when you know people are trying the hardest to kill you.


EDIT: But yes, way off topic, so if you disagree ill have to default to "agree to disagree" and we can be gentlemen and allow the train to get back on its course.

[Tvtyrant]

Show me someone break through a 3 inch iron wall, unarmed, and i will believe anyone in reality can be as strong as a dnd character. Heck, show me one that can break through a 6 in wooden wall in 6 seconds. Mind you this is quality wood, since the break DC is about the same as a strong wooden door.

Your analogy of an arm wrestling competition is moot. Realistically, we are all between 10 and 13 in an arm wrestling competition. our differences in strength are decimals compared to the strength of a dnd character.

The fact that you think im delusional is silly. Its a turd of a model to compare.

and just the fact that THAT alone is true, means you cant argue reality against a game.

And the only reason I ever mentioned killing things is because you can practice all you want with a weapon, you still won't have the experience to know how you can react when you know people are trying the hardest to kill you.


EDIT: But yes, way off topic, so if you disagree ill have to default to "agree to disagree" and we can be gentlemen and allow the train to get back on its course.
Take a look at the Carrying Capacity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm)rules and where they put strength scores. A strength score of 10 would have me using a light load of 38 pounds. A light load for me is closer to 60 pounds, which is what my hiking backpack is. According to the carrying capacity chart that gives me a strength score of 14, which along with my squat score of 450 pounds makes sense to me. I'm not even near the edge of human strength and I am by RAW at least 3 points over your idea of where I would be.

In fact I am willing to bet you are over where you put the normal scores of human beings.

As an aside, if we wanted a truly accurate human metric I would use a 5d4 rolling mechanic for stats. It makes really high scores extremely improbable but possible, and centers the scores better than 3d6 or 4d6 drop one does.

[Asteron]

Show me someone break through a 3 inch iron wall, unarmed, and i will believe anyone in reality can be as strong as a dnd character. Heck, show me one that can break through a 6 in wooden wall in 6 seconds. Mind you this is quality wood, since the break DC is about the same as a strong wooden door.

Your analogy of an arm wrestling competition is moot. Realistically, we are all between 10 and 13 in an arm wrestling competition. our differences in strength are decimals compared to the strength of a dnd character.

The fact that you think im delusional is silly. Its a turd of a model to compare.

and just the fact that THAT alone is true, means you cant argue reality against a game.


Watch any World's Strongest Man competition and you will see that it's not impossible for humans in RL to hit the 18-22 range in strength. Someone in another thread demonstrated that an 18 INT equals about a 140 IQ.

Also, what character is breaking through a 3 inch Iron wall unarmed? A 2 inch Iron door has a break DC of 28, which means that a character with a 26 strength is only getting through 5% of the time. Add another inch and that becomes impossible.

A better statement is that we are all below level 6. That is where D&D characters start doing things that are beyond our capabilities.

[Eldariel]

I meant to use the class levels as a metaphor, but its whatever. The point is, there are feats you can accomplish in dnd that are hopelessly impossible to achieve in the real world. That is part of the fun.
And i was indeed talking about your average stat out. Chances are, you are average, and when you add all your stats and divide by 6, you are gonna get 10, 11 if you are good.

The spread is different for everyone tho. 10/11 split describes almost nobody; basically every human has weaknesses and/or strengths where they're above the global average.


As for the drowned, a large character with enlarge person, or any other size increase, and a spiked chain has a 30 foot reach.

use any combination of lunging strike (feat) +5 unnamed bonus, greatreach bracers +10 unnamed, Shadowstrike (weapon enhancment +5 unnamed,

and you now have a high enough range that you can trip it and call it a day.

If you go through all that trouble, you could just get extra 5' through any source and not need 5' steps. Or just charge it out. I don't see how this matters at all.

[dascarletm]

EDIT: But yes, way off topic, so if you disagree ill have to default to "agree to disagree" and we can be gentlemen and allow the train to get back on its course.

Fair enough, but I don't think that just because a few mechanics don't make sense irl, it is justifiable to attribute that to RL people being at a 10-12, even if a bunch of other examples prove the opposite. Believe what you want though. In your example someone unarmed (even trained) has 1d3+str damage unarmed. With 18str you still can't bypass the hardness of iron. So actually it still works IRL in your scenario. for 6inches of wood (Hardness 5, 60hp, a dnd character in your scenario can't break that with unarmed attacks either. For using the break DC, have you seen a police officer on COPS breakdown a door? That's a break DC.

[cerin616]

Im going to agree to disagree simply because certain mechanics work and certain dont

[Asteron]

Im going to agree to disagree simply because certain mechanics work and certain dont

That's quite the cop out considering you haven't given a single solid example and have been shown to be wrong in several ways by several people...

[TuggyNE]

Rendering both sword & board and two weapon fighting impotent. Sorry, even more impotent compared to two-handed wielding. :smallfrown:

If you can get one of the few one-handed reach weapons as well as Improved Shield Bash, S&B works out OK. TWF is not built for battlefield control, and could probably use some system tweaks of its own.


Multiclassing, sacrificing two feats and tow entire combat styles are not 'a bit' of extra investment. It is making melee jump through loops to get to be able to do things that should be part and parcel of every fighting profession.

If anything the onus ought to be on the defender to invest resources into being able to mitigate melee threats. Like for example shoring up your defensive casting.

You're citing those as if you need to invest all of that to be able to manage it, but it's actually "any one of at least four different possibilities". I'm not a big fan of long Fighter feat chains, but this is not as bad as it could be.

I should probably also note that there's a feat chain to deny defensive casting, period, no save.


Let's not even mention things like Abrupt Jaunt that make the whole thing moot anyway. But at least the caster in question had to make a certain choice and didn't get the whole thing handed on a silver platter along with his 'can cast spells' class feature.

Abrupt Jaunt is overpowered, yes. It can be banned or modified much more easily than 5' steps.


... casting one spell to render an entire fighting style useless is actually that easy. That is part of the problem.

Wind wall specifically is arguably overpowered; it shouldn't give 100% miss chance. That said, it's not a perfect defense, since it's immobile, can't be pre-cast, and can be passed through to attack once more. (Or dispelled.)


If you worded your readied action correctly and the trigger is actually allowed to be the target not doing something. Otherwise you are even more screwed.

Hmm? No, it's "if so-and-so is about to finish casting a spell"; if they do nothing at all, in most cases, that's an action economy advantage, and if they attack with a crossbow or quarterstaff or something, that's probably still an action economy advantage, even if the archer can't do anything. A guaranteed "the spellcaster, whose abilities are defined solely by casting horrifically-overpowered spells, is unable to cast a spell this round, and has to waste it on some random filler action or eat half their max hit points in arrows" is actually pretty nice.


Archers can get class features that allow them to shoot from a threatened area without provoking. As I said, let the defender do the jumping through loops.

From, what, one single otherwise-unremarkable prestige class in the whole of 3.x, or an epic feat? Yaaaay.


What part is the metagaming when you change your current course of action, after the big brute in front of you suddenly stops what he is doing, and instead begins to stare intensely at you, spiked club raised above his head and ready to strike?


I'd also think the archer with his bow notched and pulled back, arrow tips leveled directly at you, holding fire could also be a clue.

I can certainly imagine that it's possible to determine that someone's readying against you, but a) it's not always practical to tell who they're readying against, b) it's not always practical to tell what they're readying for, and c) it's not always practical to notice it at all. If you felt like formalizing this, a Spot check opposed by (very roughly) their BAB + Dexterity might not be unreasonable. Or just make it a free-action feint usage, resolved with the same rules.

Just automatically knowing whenever anyone readies an action against you is a little silly.


But your argument is: Hey, this whole casting defensively thing, that's, like, a total non issue. Let us not have casters waste precious skill points on something they can effectively ignore at level X anyway. How about it?

No, no it is not. No one is suggesting casters should be free to skip Concentration investment; even with all the features casters have in high-op games, Concentration is still very valuable.


By the same line of argument one could say that since Mindblank is a thing, why bother having anyone have to make Will saves in the first place? Just let them auto-succeed already and let's move on with the game. :smallconfused:

You could, except that no one is using that line of argument anyway.


A) Ranged combat being horribly under supported isn't melee's fault. That is a problem of its own.

Law of Unintended Consequences. Try to avoid making changes that cause nearly as many problems as they solve, even if you also plan to make other changes to fix those additional problems, unless it's patently clear that those changes as a whole are the only sensible way to arrange things, and will ultimately simplify everything for the better.


Readies an action each turn to move in the way. Readying an action is a standard action, so they can move and do it. You could play an AoO lockdown build without normal AoOs in the game, you would just need to ready the actions to do so. My group calls it "Overwatch," which is what they call it in Fallout Tactics.
[…]
Edit: In fact I think the Readying action works better for a bodyguard than AoOs do, as it prevents the opponent from tumbling past them.

The problem is that it's only at all effective against a single opponent, while AoOs can, with one feat and a decent investment in Dex, become effective against half a dozen or more, and that without sacrificing normal damage output.

[Invader]

No, that's exactly what you said Invader, you hate your players having a "get out of jail free card" tactical advantage using this 5 foot step. Stop trolling on a mechanic that works just fine. Using 5 foot step does not allow you to get out of combat, just makes you give up your move for a slight combat adjustment.

Suggestions? Look into DM'ing better imho. Use reach weapons, long range weapons, put them in a 5 foot tunnel, have an aerial battle, there are literally hundreds of ways for you to lower them "abusing 5 foot step" than just getting rid of it. You cannot get rid of it by the way, because of the dependence of full attacks from melee.

Let me start off by saying that I'm not trolling, I don't like the mechanic and just because you disagree doesn't mean its perfect and above reproach. Second, you have no idea what kind of DM I am so insulating that I'm a bad one is rude and insulting.

I also said that I have no problem countering the 5ft step and I don't think its overpowered. I alluded that I don't like that our combat often revolves around people nitpicking about their movements in order to make sure they always that advantage.

I'll also add add that if changing the mechanic or getting rid of it also requires changing AoO mechanics removing those as well that's. I was never looking for a way to screw over my players. I'm the DM I can do that pretty much any way I like with far less work that trying to figure out a better way to use the combat rules.

[CRtwenty]

I also said that I have no problem countering the 5ft step and I don't think its overpowered. I alluded that I don't like that our combat often revolves around people nitpicking about their movements in order to make sure they always that advantage.

You're upset that your players are thinking tactically and trying to make the most out of their actions in combat? :smallconfused:

[nyjastul69]

My guess would be that if you remove the 5' step the players will find the next best thing and maximize that in a similar manner. Whether it's tumbling or withdraw or whatever, it seems it's more a player than rules issue.

[ksbsnowowl]

You're upset that your players are thinking tactically and trying to make the most out of their actions in combat? :smallconfused:

Watch out. I got flamed for pointing out the exact same thing on the first page...

[Invader]

You're upset that your players top re thinking tactically and trying to make the most out of their actions in combat? :smallconfused:

As I said before it's just to the point where it drags out combat when every player, animal companion, and summoned creature jockey for position so they all have the option to take a 5ft step to avoid any kind of trouble. At some point it quits being tactical and simply turns into a crutch.

I was simply looking for a way to get rid of the 5ft step to make combat flow a little smoother. It has nothing to do with being mad at my players, I just see it as unneeded in a lot of situations and that might just mean AoO's are more prevalent than they need to be as well.

[eggynack]

As I said before it's just to the point where it drags out combat when every player, animal companion, and summoned creature jockey for position so they all have the option to take a 5ft step to avoid any kind of trouble. At some point it quits being tactical and simply turns into a crutch.

I was simply looking for a way to get rid of the 5ft step to make combat flow a little smoother. It has nothing to do with being mad at my players, I just see it as unneeded in a lot of situations and that might just mean AoO's are more prevalent than they need to be as well.
See, you said this before, and I'm honestly unsure about how five foot steps cause combat to be dragged out. Don't they basically just take the five foot step in the desired direction, and then do whatever else they're planning on doing? It seems like getting rid of the five foot step would actually make combat take significantly longer. Like, if you can't rely on five foot steps to get you out of AoO's, you need to plan out ways to avoid AoO's for even longer, and in a crowded area, AoO's that do happen take forever to resolve. I might be wrong, but it seems like five foot steps taking forever for your group is just a symptom of things taking a long time for your group in general. If that's true, getting rid of five foot steps wouldn't solve anything. Maybe I'm missing some crazy time sink that five foot steps add to the game, but I can't see it.

[TuggyNE]

As I said before it's just to the point where it drags out combat when every player, animal companion, and summoned creature jockey for position so they all have the option to take a 5ft step to avoid any kind of trouble. At some point it quits being tactical and simply turns into a crutch.

That sounds like the problem might be less 5' steps and more minions gone wild. Turns go a lot faster without any pets or summons or controlled undead or dominated thralls.

But I don't know for sure if that's actually the issue here, it just sounds like a common problem.

[CRtwenty]

Maybe I'm missing some crazy time sink that five foot steps add to the game, but I can't see it.

I've never seen 5-foot steps delay the game either. And my PCs use them constantly. It takes no more time than normal movement would, less actually since they can only move one square instead of six or more.

[cerin616]

That's quite the cop out considering you haven't given a single solid example and have been shown to be wrong in several ways by several people...

Call it a copout if you want, i don't mind. Maybe it even is. Either way i feel like we have derailed the thread too far. We even got far off track of what point I was making anyway.

One level of fighter makes someone capable of doing things that are flat out impossible. 2 levels of warblade does the same.

My point is, I dont think we can say "I have personal experience in X, and so dnd should work like this"

[Silvanoshei]

{Scrubbed}

[ZamielVanWeber]

As I said before it's just to the point where it drags out combat when every player, animal companion, and summoned creature jockey for position so they all have the option to take a 5ft step to avoid any kind of trouble. At some point it quits being tactical and simply turns into a crutch.

If it is disrupting the flow of the game then try this solution: once a person's turn in the initiative order comes up, they have 15 seconds to make their move. If that have not finished by 15 seconds their character choked and is skipped. (Also try talking to your players about this and ask them to keep combat a bit more lively before enacting any solutions.)

[JonU]

From what you just said I think it's more a problem with all the companions. Unless the animal has been specifically trained to assist with flanking, I don't see how the companions would be smart enough to always take a 5 foot adjust to be in an optimal position. IMO they would attack the nearest enemy until commanded to do something differently which requires a handle animal check. The only combatants that should be making 5 foot adjustments each round are the sentient creatures. Only time I would allow companions the 5 foot adjust is if it's to follow an enemy that has also taken a 5 foot adjustment. Players taking a 5' adjustment to avoid AoO is just being smart. Avoiding extra attacks beyond which they receive for each round is smart in any setting. I say don't let them micro manage the companions. If they want the companion to adjust they should have to use handle animal and hope it understands exactly what it is the pc is telling it to do.

[cerin616]

A lot of animal companions get an int boost that makes them sentient. Our druids wolf has an int of (4 i think), and so is as smart as some of the dumbest adventurers. If they can flank, so can the wolf.

But I agree, taking a mechanic away that all your players use a lot is not a sound solution. All it does is irritate the players.

[JonU]

A lot of animal companions get an int boost that makes them sentient. Our druids wolf has an int of (4 i think), and so is as smart as some of the dumbest adventurers. If they can flank, so can the wolf.

But I agree, taking a mechanic away that all your players use a lot is not a sound solution. All it does is irritate the players.

While an intellect of 4 would make it much smarter than the average wolf, it won't be sentient. I've been doing a lot of research on this lately and the only true ways to get a sentient animal is to either cast awaken on said animal or to apply one of the templates that grant sentience. Otherwise all the extra 2 points of intellect allows for is 6 extra tricks. Again, I would suggest that the animals act like animals and if the players want them to do something outside the ordinary for an animal it should require a handle animal check.

[cerin616]

While an intellect of 4 would make it much smarter than the average wolf, it won't be sentient. I've been doing a lot of research on this lately and the only true ways to get a sentient animal is to either cast awaken on said animal or to apply one of the templates that grant sentience. Otherwise all the extra 2 points of intellect allows for is 6 extra tricks. Again, I would suggest that the animals act like animals and if the players want them to do something outside the ordinary for an animal it should require a handle animal check.

I might argue that the fact that "anything with an intelligence of 3 or more has humanlike intelligence" counts as sentience.

[JonU]

I would say that for them to truly be sentient that they would have to be able to speak. Imo an animal with 4 intellect maybe able to understand everything you say but you would have to train it on how to answer in a way that you can understand. I.e. shaking the head for yes and no. Maybe if said animals have a 3 or higher use a diplo check? Even the smartest animals in the world have to be trained to get the desired behavior. If a wolf has lived most his life at an an intellect of 2 and then suddenly is able to understand common due to his increase of intellect to 3 or higher, he won't suddenly be more adept at anything unless you specifically take the time to train him. He would continue to fight the same way he always has, unless as I said he is trained differently. Also once the animal is smart enough to think for himself, who's to say that he wants to continue being an animal companion for whomever? I dunno, I just think that unless he has specifically been given sentience that the animal would just be considered an extremely smart example of the species.

so in the case of the 4 intellect wolf, how is it controlled? Is it still considered an animal companion or is it considered more of a cohort? If it's sentient I would say that it falls more along the lines of a cohort. If that's the case would the druid be able to get a new companion with a base score of 2 intellect?

[Barstro]

I just don't like the mechanic because it feels clumsy. All it does is gives players a way to avoid an AoO every time they'd cause one. It just feels unnecessary.

A five-foot-step is basically shifting your feet in combat while still keeping your attention on the enemy.

The rule could easily have been written "You get an attack of opportunity when someone in melee range is distracted. 'Distracted' can be caused by moving more than five feet" That would cause 5ft to seem less like a loophole, and more like the status quo, with AoO being the rarity; despite the fact that the rules are the same.

I'll just second what others have said (and what I tell lawmakers), If you have a way to fix the problem with something that already exists (difficult terrain, etc.), use it; don't just create new rules. Besides, if you use the rules that already exist, your players have less to complain about when you make the 5ft useless to them.

[cerin616]

Also, I didn't notice this, but anything with an intelligence of 3 or higher no longer qualifies for the animal type. So the wolf companion isn't even an animal anymore.

And so, im getting close to off topic again.

[JonU]

Also, I didn't notice this, but anything with an intelligence of 3 or higher no longer qualifies for the animal type. So the wolf companion isn't even an animal anymore.

And so, im getting close to off topic again.

It's all good. I think that discussions like these are great. You get to see how everyone interprets the rules (even if not the rule originally in question).

On topic though I think most of us agree that the 5 foot adjust is simply a tactic of the game that these particular players make sure to use to the best of their ability.

The dm has options at hand to counter this as others have said already, without eliminating the feature. It's ultimately up to him and I think that a decision that could make a drastic change (I.e. eliminating it) should be discussed with the players. Who knows maybe you can make an agreement that makes both sides happy.

[Eldariel]

Getting rid of AoO or 5 ft. step IS NOT THE PROBLEM, and should not be taken out.

This is actually a false equivalency; there's no causal link that suggests 5' step should not be removed even if they're not the problem here. Whatever problems there might or might not be in DMing does not automatically validate 5' step as a mechanic nor make it desirable.

Indeed, in a game as modal and built for individual group customization as D&D, all participants should pay attention to all the aspects of the game and gauge whether they add more desirable content to the game than they detract from it. Accepting stuff WotC printed because it's in the RAW does not lead to the most enjoyable game experience, and indeed, in any environment that's not constricted by such rules (basically, most playgroups; convention play and official play has to be exempted) I strongly suggest to making healthy use of Rule Zero and modifying the game to match what you want to play. If you find 5' step is more harmful than beneficial, it's a minor task to remove it and rework the few related rules to function without it.

[Barstro]

Unless the animal has been specifically trained to assist with flanking, I don't see how the companions would be smart enough to always take a 5 foot adjust to be in an optimal position.

My two cats disagree with you. They each spend a good deal of time waiting for the other to be distracted before attacking. Also, they are usually on opposite sides of whatever stuffed terror they manage to attack together instead of each other.

[Drachasor]

Never thought I'd see someone say D&D combat should have less movement.

[Mechanize]

Not sure why most of you defend D&D as if it is the end all be all of games. Everything has flaws. What Invader mentions is actually one of my big gripes with D&D3.5. It has turned into a strategy board game. Last time I checked people stick D&D in the RPG genre yet they spend 5 minutes per turn making sure every step avoids an AoO and that the rules are exploited as much as possible.

Though, honestly, its not the 5ft step that slows the game down, its the AoO's. If anything the immunity given to a player taking a 5ft step speeds things up because they don't have to think about it. But then it gives casters and ranged attackers that already mentioned "get out of jail free" card, which is lame.

There is a lot of flaming going on here... Pretty sure none of you have played in Invader's game so no one can pass judgment. I am actually part of his campaign and he is a good DM. He's not trying to remove options, or kill us. He is trying to speed up the game and make it smoother. Combat takes ten times longer than it should because we, by habit, and by way of rules and just the way the game is set up, spend more time thinking of the best possible way to maximize our situation rather than just playing and having fun. Board game vs RPG... I'll take RPG any day.

[Lightlawbliss]

My two cats disagree with you. They each spend a good deal of time waiting for the other to be distracted before attacking. Also, they are usually on opposite sides of whatever stuffed terror they manage to attack together instead of each other.

to me, this sounds more like trying to stay away from each other without sacrificing ground.

also, to be fair we are talking about a game where most people can't make the knowledge check to know the names of their parents or even their own name.

[CRtwenty]

Not sure why most of you defend D&D as if it is the end all be all of games. Everything has flaws. What Invader mentions is actually one of my big gripes with D&D3.5. It has turned into a strategy board game. Last time I checked people stick D&D in the RPG genre yet they spend 5 minutes per turn making sure every step avoids an AoO and that the rules are exploited as much as possible.

D&D has always been a tactical combat game. In fact one could say that it's become less so over the editions, rather than more so. I'm not sure how taking advantage of simple combat rules is exploiting them either. Exploiting is the kind of stuff that you see in the Tippyverse. Using the basic rules of combat is not.

[Deophaun]

I don't see how the companions would be smart enough to always take a 5 foot adjust to be in an optimal position. IMO they would attack the nearest enemy until commanded to do something differently which requires a handle animal check.
Even birds know to take 5 ft. steps and flank. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbBlYfTbA44)

[Drachasor]

Not sure why most of you defend D&D as if it is the end all be all of games. Everything has flaws. What Invader mentions is actually one of my big gripes with D&D3.5. It has turned into a strategy board game. Last time I checked people stick D&D in the RPG genre yet they spend 5 minutes per turn making sure every step avoids an AoO and that the rules are exploited as much as possible.

Though, honestly, its not the 5ft step that slows the game down, its the AoO's. If anything the immunity given to a player taking a 5ft step speeds things up because they don't have to think about it. But then it gives casters and ranged attackers that already mentioned "get out of jail free" card, which is lame.

There is a lot of flaming going on here... Pretty sure none of you have played in Invader's game so no one can pass judgment. I am actually part of his campaign and he is a good DM. He's not trying to remove options, or kill us. He is trying to speed up the game and make it smoother. Combat takes ten times longer than it should because we, by habit, and by way of rules and just the way the game is set up, spend more time thinking of the best possible way to maximize our situation rather than just playing and having fun. Board game vs RPG... I'll take RPG any day.

I think calling a 5' step a "get out of jail free card" is a completely inappropriate characterization. Might as well call tumbling the same thing, or call AoOs "freebie attacks" or some such. The 5' step was put in with AoOs to help limit how often they'd come up. It is a necessary counter-balance to the game mechanics.

And like you said, combat would be even longer and probably more tedious without the 5' step. So I think it is fair to say your DM is going about speeding up combat the exact wrong way. Because there's no way the 5' step is really slowing things down. Using them is extremely simple.

But if he wants to speed things up, then he could just use a 30 second timer on each player's turn. And they have to make up their minds within 30 seconds. That's a far more sensible route.

That said, 3.X games definitely have a huge tactical combat element to them. It's almost impossible to ignore without using a lot of house rules to modify how you handle combat. Personally I don't think this harms roleplaying at all.

The other big mistake I see going on is that idea that the players doing something that's effective or makes good use of the rules is "cheating" or "exploitation." This is silly in general, but especially so with the 5' step. In real life people who deal with combat sure as heck "cheat" and "exploit" how reality works as much as possible. "Gaming" the system is probably one of the most realistic things about D&D combat -- and frankly the bad guys should generally do it too. Leveraging how "reality" works is just being sane.

[Invader]

The other big mistake I see going on is that idea that the players doing something that's effective or makes good use of the rules is "cheating" or "exploitation." This is silly in general, but especially so with the 5' step.

I can say this is unequivocally wrong in regards to my post. I specifically said I don't think the 5ft step is over powered in any way nor do I have a problem combating it.

[IronFist]

to me, this sounds more like trying to stay away from each other without sacrificing ground.

also, to be fair we are talking about a game where most people can't make the knowledge check to know the names of their parents or even their own name.

I don't think that's how Knowledge checks work. You're not supposed to make checks about things you obviously know. It's like saying an adventurer can't know a white dragon is vulnerable to fire when someone says "hey, it's vulnerable to fire!" because he failed the check. When someone tells you something, you don't need a check to know it. That's the situation with your name and your parents' names, someone (probably your parents) told you all of those names.

[Drachasor]

I can say this is unequivocally wrong in regards to my post. I specifically said I don't think the 5ft step is over powered in any way nor do I have a problem combating it.

I don't think you've been entirely coherent in your position. You've said that you think it is too good (e.g. "get out of jail free"). Saying it is too good but not overpowered doesn't make a lot of sense.

And frankly I don't see how 5' steps can be a significant factor in turn length. Using them is easy and quick. You're not going to hurt casters much by removing them. You will hurt non-casters who try to use a potion or something. You will slow the game down by increasing the number of AoOs -- which will become much more powerful since it is harder to avoid them.

It will also make combat far, far more static. People won't be able to move at all without provoking unless they can tumble or make a Withdrawal action. Think about what a combat like that means and how it just doesn't make sense -- you literally can't slowly back up while engaged in combat.

I just don't see how something like this is going to make combat more interesting or better. Heck, completely getting rid of AoOs would have more positives than getting rid of 5' steps.

[ZamielVanWeber]

And frankly I don't see how 5' steps can be a significant factor in turn length. Using them is easy and quick. You're not going to hurt casters much by removing them. You will hurt non-casters who try to use a potion or something. You will slow the game down by increasing the number of AoOs -- which will become much more powerful since it is harder to avoid them.

His players are taking a long time jockeying for optimal positioning using 5 foot steps. I still say do what chess does: avoid the problem by limiting the amount of time they have to take their turn (20 seconds should be enough).

Also eliminating AoOs is such a retarded buff to casters and a kick in the melee that playing a non-caster is no longer viable.

[Drachasor]

His players are taking a long time jockeying for optimal positioning using 5 foot steps. I still say do what chess does: avoid the problem by limiting the amount of time they have to take their turn (20 seconds should be enough).

Also eliminating AoOs is such a retarded buff to casters and a kick in the melee that playing a non-caster is no longer viable.

Again, how can they possibly be taking a long time jockying for position? Everyone moves on their own turn. At most you have 8 places to go with a 5' step, and the useful ones are far smaller in number. So usually it is maybe 3 options that really matter. Even one of the players said picking the 5' step is a tiny amount of time and the AoOs themselves unsurprisingly take up more time.

I can see how turns could be quite long. I just don't see how the 5' step is a significant factor in turn length. As for a timer, that's a sound idea, though I'd favor 30 seconds. Edit: That's to come to a decision on what to do, since actually doing it can take longer.

Casting Defensively is pretty easy, so it really doesn't buff casters much. What it does do is let melees move around a LOT easier. Everyone can pull items out of a pouch to use easier. So I don't think the situation is remotely a straight caster buff. Anyhow, I wasn't advising to get rid of AoOs. I was just saying that getting rid of them would have more positive impact on gameplay then getting rid of the 5' step. I'd recommend against getting rid of either -- edit2: probably. Getting rid of AoOs would require some more combat tweaking to work well. I'm not sure what could be done to make getting rid of the 5' step positive though.

[Deophaun]

His players are taking a long time jockeying for optimal positioning using 5 foot steps.
How is this even possible? You can only take a single 5 ft step a round, and then you can't otherwise move. How does attack->5ft. step take longer than attack->move?

I still say do what chess does: avoid the problem by limiting the amount of time they have to take their turn (20 seconds should be enough).
You've never played with someone who can make 8 natural attacks in a round, have you?

Also eliminating AoOs is such a retarded buff to casters and a kick in the melee that playing a non-caster is no longer viable.
At this point, I'm not even sure if we're discussing the same game.

[Talderas]

Ah, the infamous spiked chain. How many other inclusive reach weapons are out there? The Duom comes to mind but anything else? :smallconfused:

Spiked Gauntlet + Any reach weapon. The reach weapon threatens at 10ft and the spiked gauntlet threatens at 5ft. You can hold a two handed weapon in one hand but you cannot attack with it. So if a target moves from 10ft (the reach weapon's attack radius) to 5th (the spiked gauntlet's attack radius) you hold the reach weapon in your non-gauntlet hand and attack with the gauntlet. Otherwise you attack with the reach weapon.


My argument is: Even if casting defensively can theoretically be done effortlessly this is NOT a valid reason to go and allow casters to circumvent the whole thing entirely without any effort on their part whatsoever.

Casting defensively works as long as you can make the check. 5ft steps only work if there is a square to move into from which you cannot provoke an attack of opportunity. It only takes two characters at most to force this to happen in an open environment and in an enclosed environment a single character can corner the wizard.


Primary problem I find with 5' steps is that they make different weapons completely imbalanced with each other for medium/small creatures. 10' reach can threaten adjacent and reach and thus 5' steps are useless vs. it and you always get your AoO while melee range weapons can never reliably threaten anyone and thus are useless when it comes to stopping someone from casting/using bow/whatever.

Unless otherwise noted by the weapon (such as spike chain), a reach weapon cannot be used to attack in adjacent squares which means it does not threaten adjacent squares.


From, what, one single otherwise-unremarkable prestige class in the whole of 3.x, or an epic feat? Yaaaay.

Arrow Mind
1st level Ranger/Wizard/Sorcerer spell. It's an immediate action to cast and lasts 1 minute per caster level.
For the duration you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when wielding a projectile weapon that fires arrows as well as threaten with the bow within your natural reach.


As I said before it's just to the point where it drags out combat when every player, animal companion, and summoned creature jockey for position so they all have the option to take a 5ft step to avoid any kind of trouble. At some point it quits being tactical and simply turns into a crutch.

I was simply looking for a way to get rid of the 5ft step to make combat flow a little smoother. It has nothing to do with being mad at my players, I just see it as unneeded in a lot of situations and that might just mean AoO's are more prevalent than they need to be as well.

The problem with combat flow being rough is either a large volume of rolls or the time taken to come to the decision on what to do. A 5ft step only makes the former worse by permitting more full attack actions. It does nothing to make the latter worse and in fact makes the latter less of a problem. The 5ft step simplifies tactical movement to a significant effect. You either 5ft step towards a target (for a full attack) or you are 5ft stepping away from the target (to avoid an AoO). It's generally quick to assess which squares can be moved into so that an action will not provoke an attack of opportunity.

If you want combat to run smoother, in general the best advice that I can give is that your players should know their next action at the end of their current turn. They then pay attention to the battlefield as all the pieces move and adjust their planned action as that happens. The end result is that the player should already know what he is going to do when his turn comes up.

I would guess that what I describe above is exactly what your players aren't doing. They're chatting away, ignoring the game board, doing whatever else they feel like, and then when it's their turn they assess the board ask questions because they weren't paying attention and that is what is driving your turn time upwards.


That sounds like the problem might be less 5' steps and more minions gone wild. Turns go a lot faster without any pets or summons or controlled undead or dominated thralls.

But I don't know for sure if that's actually the issue here, it just sounds like a common problem.

Even minions can go quickly if the player is actually paying attention. I generally prefer the houserule that minions operate on their master's turn rather than their own initiative. The method I previously described plays a lot nicer with that houserule.

[GreenETC]

Combat takes ten times longer than it should because we, by habit, and by way of rules and just the way the game is set up, spend more time thinking of the best possible way to maximize our situation rather than just playing and having fun. Board game vs RPG... I'll take RPG any day.
I agree with you that it's not Invader being a bad DM; I honestly believe that he sounds like a pretty good DM, and people need to stop being so harsh in their judgement.

However, I feel like the problem is that all of you are currently looking at D&D as a strategy board game, and you need to sit back and stop taking so much time to plan out everything so much. Start planning your actions while your friends are attacking, think quicker, and act like you're playing speed chess. You need to stop bogging the game down by over-analyzing every situation so that you can have the greatest tactical advantage. I'm sure you can get a general idea of the best place to 5ft step just by looking, without having to judge every possible option.

No takesies backsies either. Make an action and stick to it. If you guys are so good at tactics, maybe you should step up your game and try going faster. (Though this may be a byproduct of my choice to start playing a caster, forcing me to analyze every situation quickly and pick the best spell for any given situation off of my list while not taking more time than the guys who just swing hammers or swords.)

[dascarletm]

I agree with you that it's not Invader being a bad DM; I honestly believe that he sounds like a pretty good DM, and people need to stop being so harsh in their judgement.

However, I feel like the problem is that all of you are currently looking at D&D as a strategy board game, and you need to sit back and stop taking so much time to plan out everything so much. Start planning your actions while your friends are attacking, think quicker, and act like you're playing speed chess. You need to stop bogging the game down by over-analyzing every situation so that you can have the greatest tactical advantage. I'm sure you can get a general idea of the best place to 5ft step just by looking, without having to judge every possible option.

No takesies backsies either. Make an action and stick to it. If you guys are so good at tactics, maybe you should step up your game and try going faster. (Though this may be a byproduct of my choice to start playing a caster, forcing me to analyze every situation quickly and pick the best spell for any given situation off of my list while not taking more time than the guys who just swing hammers or swords.)

I got kicked out of a group once for not making the most optimal choices. My samurai (who had just lost everyone he knew and cared about) charged heedless into battle without breaking off even though the forces outmatched us. Everyone called me stupid and untactical.:smallfrown:

Some groups don't like RP in their combat strategy game.

[GreenETC]

I got kicked out of a group once for not making the most optimal choices. My samurai (who had just lost everyone he knew and cared about) charged heedless into battle without breaking off even though the forces outmatched us. Everyone called me stupid and untactical.:smallfrown:

Some groups don't like RP in their combat strategy game.
Yeah, it's a shame too. Though it also depends on level.

At level 6, my friend tried to grapple a Hydra and hilariously failed, but I didn't care. If someone did something incredibly un-tactical in our current level 20 Savage Tide game, I would probably be very disappointed, since one mistake can cost the entire group their lives. Like trying to face a Balor with Dominate Monster as an At-Will SLA without Mind Blank.

I'm not saying go totally un-tactical, but at least try to move and think faster.

[Drachasor]

I agree with you that it's not Invader being a bad DM; I honestly believe that he sounds like a pretty good DM, and people need to stop being so harsh in their judgement.

I do not mean to say Invader is a bad DM either. I honestly don't know.

I think his idea to get rid of 5' steps is quite ill-conceived. Happens to the best of us.

[Eldariel]

Unless otherwise noted by the weapon (such as spike chain), a reach weapon cannot be used to attack in adjacent squares which means it does not threaten adjacent squares.

Good thing the game has non-handed weapons that grant you the ability to attack adjacent while holding a two-hander, eh? Armor Spikes and Unarmed Strikes are generally the best; Gauntlets are questionable since you need to hold your weapon in two hands to threaten reach, while you need free Gauntlet-hand to threaten adjacent and switching grip, while free action, can't be taken out of turn order by RAW.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Again, how can they possibly be taking a long time jockying for position? Everyone moves on their own turn. At most you have 8 places to go with a 5' step, and the useful ones are far smaller in number. So usually it is maybe 3 options that really matter. Even one of the players said picking the 5' step is a tiny amount of time and the AoOs themselves unsurprisingly take up more time.

But watching AoOs happen is a dynamic and exciting part of combat. Will it land? How much will it do? Waiting an extra 20 seconds for someone to decide the optimal 5 foot movement is static and boring. I think "slowing it down" is less a problem then "keeping everyone engaged."


I can see how turns could be quite long. I just don't see how the 5' step is a significant factor in turn length. As for a timer, that's a sound idea, though I'd favor 30 seconds. Edit: That's to come to a decision on what to do, since actually doing it can take longer.

Because that position can have so many consequences depending on the combat (particularly big ones) that people stop to consider what it will do this AND next turn AND the turn after that. I slows down the everything as they try to predict what their team mates, or for heaven's sake discuss with some of them, and try to guess what the DM is doing. I have seen it takes over a minute to decide where they will ultimately step to.

[eggynack]

But watching AoOs happen is a dynamic and exciting part of combat. Will it land? How much will it do? Waiting an extra 20 seconds for someone to decide the optimal 5 foot movement is static and boring. I think "slowing it down" is less a problem then "keeping everyone engaged."

This seems the opposite of true to me. AoO's, unless there is the potential for a whole pile of them, is a static and tactic-less part of combat. A guy moves out of your area, and you hit them, and there isn't much choice involved. Five foot steps have some real decision making involved. Are you going to trade most of your movement for not being hit? Is it actually more defensive to get as much distance between you and the enemy as possible? More importantly, even if it's not an intrinsically tactical game object, it makes combat more dynamic. Without them, there's a good shot that combat will consist of a bunch of guys standing in the same place all day. Five foot steps keep the game state constantly shifting, because if there's a nearby position that's tactically better, you can move to it. AoO's aren't nearly as big a decision for the guy with the spiked chain as it is for the guy being hit by it, which is the dynamic part of that mechanic, but a big part of the dynamics of AoO's is five foot steps.

[Drachasor]

But watching AoOs happen is a dynamic and exciting part of combat. Will it land? How much will it do? Waiting an extra 20 seconds for someone to decide the optimal 5 foot movement is static and boring. I think "slowing it down" is less a problem then "keeping everyone engaged."

It is impossible for 5' steps to take 20 seconds to decide and implement without everything else in combat taking much, much, much longer to decide and implement.

Biggest Reasons to do a 5' step: Get out of threat to use an AoO-provoking action. Move to attack. Move to help flank. Even considered together, these do not take much planning. If they do, then all the other possible actions will take even more planning because obviously the players are a bit tactically slow.

Further, getting rid of the 5' step will result in players taking even more time deciding on movement, since combat will become far more sticky. It is quite possible it would make the problem worse.

And frankly, an AoO takes more time to resolve than a 5' step. You overstate how interesting they are -- but you do touch on the fact they can change combat results. Having more AoOs will change combat balance in ways that will not be immediately apparent. Some monster will effectively have a higher CR. Martial characters will do less damage. There are a host of potential problems that will have to be addressed. All this for no real gain in speed.

And again, remember one of the players said that 5' steps were not actually a major factor in turn length!


Because that position can have so many consequences depending on the combat (particularly big ones) that people stop to consider what it will do this AND next turn AND the turn after that. I slows down the everything as they try to predict what their team mates, or for heaven's sake discuss with some of them, and try to guess what the DM is doing. I have seen it takes over a minute to decide where they will ultimately step to.

Well, like we've both suggested, but a time cap on decision-making for each person's turn. That cuts things down a lot and encourages people to think about what they'll do before their turn comes up.

And in your scenario you've sketched out 5' steps are not a major factor. It is the fact players are trying to sketch out a detailed combat tree for the next few rounds that's the problem. That is computationally intensive if they are really doing that, but 5' steps are a tiny part of that.

Again, if a player takes a minute on a 5' step, he's going to be extremely slow with all combat decisions of tactical import. The only way to speed things up is with a timer. Removing the 5' step is not going to change things for the better.

[Segev]

As a potentially radical suggestion, perhaps a total rethinking of how the turn order goes would help your group?

I have never had a chance to play-test this, so take it with an enormous grain of salt.

Start of combat, everybody rolls initiative as normal. They now have those as "initiative points" (IP).
Have each character write on a separate index card each action they want to take during the round. "Move," "Standard Action: Attack," "Standard Action: Spell," "Swift Action: [whatever]," "Full Attack, attack #1," "Full Round Action: Charge," "Full round Action: Charge and Pounce attack #1," "Pounce attack #2," "Free Action [1]," "Free Action: [2]," "Readying a Standard to [x] when [y] happens," etc.
Order the index cards from first to last; this is the order in which each character will execute his actions.
Reveal the first action everybody's taking. Barring special circumstances, free actions resolve simultaneously with each other, but before Swift actions. Swift actions resolve simultaneously with each other, but before Move actions. Same down the line to Standards and Full Rounds.
Individual attacks in multi-attack actions such as full attack/iterative/TWF or charging with a pounce or the like are resolved as individual actions, and resolve along with standard actions on any given action "slot."
It is worth noting that this means Full Round Actions tend to resolve last in the first set of actions per round, but before the "next" actions, unless the player takes swift or free actions.
If anybody wants their action to go before the others, they may spend an IP to gain priority. If multiple want to go "first," they can bid IP until they're out or they're unwilling to spend more. Actions resolve in order from highest bid to lowest, with ties resolving as above.
Move on to the next action in the stack, resolving as above.
The round ends when everybody's done resolving every action in their stack.
Next round, repeat from writing down all intended actions on index cards and ordering them.
Special: The "refocus" rule normally allows you to take an entire round to set your initiative score to the highest you can possibly have it (or to any lesser score). In this resolution system, it is a full round action to roll a d20 and add your init mod, gaining that many IP to spend on future rounds.
Immediate actions, and resolution of readied actions, interrupt as normal.
A "held" action is basically a player deciding he doesn't know what he wants to do, and, when he does decide, writing it down and adding it to the stack as an action for the NEXT set of actions to be resolved this round.

This procedure is intended not so much to speed things up (though for all I know, it might), but to shorten the time between each player's active participation in the combat. It is meant to keep players as engaged as possible, allowing minimal numbers of rolls before moving on to the next player's actions. It also lets players feel more like they're reacting in the intense mean-time of the fight, rather than sitting around "waiting their turn" quite so much.

I expect that rounds will take as long or longer as before, but that the "sub-rounds" made up of character actions resolving semi-simultaneously will rotate more quickly, and will give players reason to pay attention. Perhaps they'll want, after all, to bid for priority in order to have their action resolve first.

[Segev]

Upon further consideration, it's probably best if you just make people choose their "next" action, and let them reshuffle without penalty right up to the poitn where the DM asks for everybody to reveal.

After that, if an action no longer makes sense by the time it would resolve, "aborting" the action means you don't take it, but can reshuffle it with your others (or make a new decision) for the next set of actions.

Worst case scenario would have you abort so many times that you resolve your entire turn after everybody else is done. No different than going last in the initiative as it currently stands.

[Silvanoshei]

Being too harsh on the OP and his DMing???? Let's review again shall we?


but I also think it would force players to be a little more tactical with their movements when they know they don't have a get out of jail free card.


All it does is gives players a way to avoid an AoO every time they'd cause one. It just feels unnecessary.

Invader, actually thinks getting rid of 5 foot step would make the game MORE tactical, no... just no. He also thinks it just "fixes" the problem of AoO, and makes it so people can avoid it all together. This is what he himself said, not just our speculation on the matter.

He needs to DM better, that's all there is to it. The information he's given us is more enough to say he's inexperienced in combat with D&D. Combat has also been a main factor in D&D, not following the rule book and playing D&D? Fine, perfectly fine, no problem or worries, play how you like.

You come on to GITPG and talk smack about how clumsy the 5 ft. step is, prepared to get critiqued on your DM'ing methodology, because the mechanic is perfectly fine.

[Drachasor]

Being too harsh on the OP and his DMing???? Let's review again shall we?

<snip>

Invader, actually thinks getting rid of 5 foot step would make the game MORE tactical, no... just no. He also thinks it just "fixes" the problem of AoO, and makes it so people can avoid it all together. This is what he himself said, not just our speculation on the matter.

He needs to DM better, that's all there is to it. The information he's given us is more enough to say he's inexperienced in combat with D&D. Combat has also been a main factor in D&D, not following the rule book and playing D&D? Fine, perfectly fine, no problem or worries, play how you like.

You come on to GITPG and talk smack about how clumsy the 5 ft. step is, prepared to get critiqued on your DM'ing methodology, because the mechanic is perfectly fine.

Let's give the benefit of the doubt. I agree the OP is very, very wrong in this particular instance. However, no DM is perfect. All DMs have there flaws here and there. Occasionally they'll make a post that highlights a flaw in their thinking. Let's not judge them as a DM based just on one relatively narrow point of view they hold.

Bear in mind his view is relatively nuanced, and not just "my players are being effective, I want to stop them!"

[Mechanize]

because the mechanic is perfectly fine.

:smallbiggrin:


o·pin·ion
[uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA

noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

Ok, now that we have that out of the way, I'll just say that the simple mechanic in and of itself is fine. However, the relationship between AoO's, 5ft step, and all of the elements of the game is far from perfect. This statement, though it may be my opinion, is widely supported by all of the house rules and tweaks I see players trying to make to 3.5. Why? Because it is far from a perfect system.

Many of you call it a "combat tactics" game in which players spend minutes trying to optimize their turn based on unrealistic rules of combat. Yes, unrealistic rules... Rules that allow a player to know the future of his actions (this action and that action lead to AoO) and then avoid making mistakes. If only real life were so easy. "Lets just freeze time here while I move around in such a precise way that will help me avoid these already predetermined attacks of opportunity and... ah hah! perfect... unfreeze time and lets attack free of consequence." lol...

I am in the process of writing my own PnP game and one thing I am attempting to adhere to, as much as possible, is to minimize rules. I want players to move as they would if it were a real fight... not have to think "well, if I move here he hits me with an AoO, if I do this then that enemy gets an AoO" The consequences will be unknown to the player and determined after the move has already taken place.

Much of D&D IS exactly what I listed above. The players who huddle together and form a defensive line might not know about the creeper casting a fireball spell in the bushes, totally ruining their strategy because the caster was unknown of. However, AoO's and the many rules that come with them, or the ways to beat them are NOT unknown. They remove the role playing factor. They slow down the game and turn it into a "how can I optimize my turn" situation rather than a "lets go kick some ass" situation.

[Drachasor]

Ok, now that we have that out of the way, I'll just say that the simple mechanic in and of itself is fine. However, the relationship between AoO's, 5ft step, and all of the elements of the game is far from perfect. This statement, though it may be my opinion, is widely supported by all of the house rules and tweaks I see players trying to make to 3.5. Why? Because it is far from a perfect system.

No one both sane and knowledgeable will honestly say 3.5 is a perfect system. I do not recall seeing any house rules for AoOs and the 5' step, however. That aspect of the system seems to be generally viewed as pretty solid. Granted, just because it seems everyone is in favor of something doesn't make it. However, it does seem to work and encourage tactical thinking.


Many of you call it a "combat tactics" game in which players spend minutes trying to optimize their turn based on unrealistic rules of combat. Yes, unrealistic rules... Rules that allow a player to know the future of his actions (this action and that action lead to AoO) and then avoid making mistakes. If only real life were so easy. "Lets just freeze time here while I move around in such a precise way that will help me avoid these already predetermined attacks of opportunity and... ah hah! perfect... unfreeze time and lets attack free of consequence." lol...

Let's consider what an AoO IS. It means you see a big, huge opening that just screams "hit me!" so you do. In the game this means the opponent basically does something that requires he completely drop his guard. I don't see how it is remotely unreasonable for someone to be aware of when they are doing something that's so distracting they can't focus on combat. This isn't just something that lowers AC a little bit (being flat-footed does not grant an AoO), remember, but a more fundamental distraction.

Not being aware of what would cause an AoO would be like not knowing that texting while you drive reduces your driving proficiency. Nobody sane thinks that. The game generally assumes the players ARE sane, and they'll have to purposefully RP insanity or gross incompetence if that's what they want. AoO is supposed to be a gross dropping of your guard above and beyond any normal error. Characters being aware of what causes it makes sense.

And it isn't like backing up a carefully so you can't be hit by a sword requires some sort of tactical genius. One must be careful to remember that just because a tactic is effective, it doesn't mean it requires a genius to use it. Nor does it mean that it requires predicting the future or metagaming.


I am in the process of writing my own PnP game and one thing I am attempting to adhere to, as much as possible, is to minimize rules. I want players to move as they would if it were a real fight... not have to think "well, if I move here he hits me with an AoO, if I do this then that enemy gets an AoO" The consequences will be unknown to the player and determined after the move has already taken place.

You will probably find this results in a game where one of the following happens.

1. Players write down what causes AoO, and they'll memorize it. Hiding the rules does not mean rules do not exist...it just means you are pretending the characters do not understand how that aspect of reality works. They'll still learn.

2. What causes AoO is random and unpredictable, which players will feel is not realistic. Rightly, imho. After all, shouldn't their battle-hardened characters know something about combat and what makes them drop their guard and expose themselves?


Much of D&D IS exactly what I listed above. The players who huddle together and form a defensive line might not know about the creeper casting a fireball spell in the bushes, totally ruining their strategy because the caster was unknown of. However, AoO's and the many rules that come with them, or the ways to beat them are NOT unknown. They remove the role playing factor. They slow down the game and turn it into a "how can I optimize my turn" situation rather than a "lets go kick some ass" situation.

I don't see how they remove the role-playing factor. Do your players typically play characters that are NOT trying to be effective in combat? Because there are a lot of basics that are going to be common regardless of your background story.

When people complain about stuff like this, I do somewhat feel like they'd be unhappy in a WW1 game when the characters hunker down in the trenches. As if it somehow was unrealistic for even the semi-foolhardy character to not try charging the enemy line without a plan, covering fire, and anything like that. It takes an exceptional idiot to be that stupid.

Sometimes "smart tactics" is actually just basic competence.

[Eldariel]

No one both sane and knowledgeable will honestly say 3.5 is a perfect system. I do not recall seeing any house rules for AoOs and the 5' step, however. That aspect of the system seems to be generally viewed as pretty solid. Granted, just because it seems everyone is in favor of something doesn't make it. However, it does seem to work and encourage tactical thinking.

Honestly, 5' steps are **** as written. However, unless you fix full melee attacks (basically, if you can't move and full melee attack, touching 5' steps is gonna make melee even less mobile), Tumble (DC 15 is just too low to ignore AoOs from everyone except people with Thicket of Blades) & Defensive Casting (I don't think the whole system is necessary; you can survive AoOs just fine so being forced to provoke isn't that big of a deal - but even if you keep the system as is, the DC needs to at least not be an autosuccess with no optimization), changing them won't accomplish much.

Also, the problems they create are mostly negated by using Spiked Chain or Guisarme/Armor Spikes combo, so the only effect it really has is it makes 95% of the melee weapons in the game largely suboptimal for medium/small characters, and also makes two-handed fighting stand head and shoulders above TWF or sword&board (due to easy access to reach weapons). 5' steps also plain don't work in Large vs. Large or bigger biped fights since you can't clear the threatened area with a 5' step.

[eggynack]

Also, the problems they create are mostly negated by using Spiked Chain or Guisarme/Armor Spikes combo, so the only effect it really has is it makes 95% of the melee weapons in the game largely suboptimal for medium/small characters, and also makes two-handed fighting stand head and shoulders above TWF or sword&board (due to easy access to reach weapons). 5' steps also plain don't work in Large vs. Large or bigger biped fights since you can't clear the threatened area with a 5' step.
Well, 95% of the weapons in the game are largely sub-optimal anyway, and two handed fighting already stands head and shoulders above TWF and sword and board. This would be furthering weapon balance issues that already exist, which might be a bad thing, if you like the suboptimal weapon styles, or it might be something that doesn't affect you, if you were going to take the best weapons in the game anyway. I suppose that anything that further imbalances the game is a bad thing, but it's not as big a deal as furthering class imbalance or something of that kind.

[Eldariel]

Well, 95% of the weapons in the game are largely sub-optimal anyway, and two handed fighting already stands head and shoulders above TWF and sword and board. This would be furthering weapon balance issues that already exist, which might be a bad thing, if you like the suboptimal weapon styles, or it might be something that doesn't affect you, if you were going to take the best weapons in the game anyway. I suppose that anything that further imbalances the game is a bad thing, but it's not as big a deal as furthering class imbalance or something of that kind.

This is a big part of why those problems exist tho (not the only one, granted). Then again, it's not the only thing. Still, 5' step mechanic is essentially least useful for the already worst group of characters in the game (melee warriors) so far as balance goes, it certainly doesn't help.

Only melee warriors really threaten relevant AoOs and only melee warriors have a primary attack that does not provoke when taken in threatened area, so anything that makes AoOs less powerful or prevalent is automatically net negative for melee warriors (and melee monsters too, of course, who are about equally poorly off as melee warriors). Yeah, approaching a threatened area is annoying for a melee warrior but realistically, once size categories get above Medium (which they usually do for most melee warriors due to the benefits of Enlarge-type effects) and the simple methods of negating AoOs are countered, 5' step isn't going to be enough to counteract the enemy AoO anyways if enemy has the reach advantage. So even for that, 5' step only works up until certain point because of the design flaw of it not accounting for size.


Especially high tier games certainly work the same regardless of what you do with 5' steps but if you begin the ambitious process of trying to make melee threat more important (the threat, not just the raw damage it can produce) and thus balance combat styles on a conceptual level á la AD&D, or if you just strive to increase the internal balance in melee, 5' steps are certainly something you'll have to adjust.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Insulting other posters based on playstyle preferences (or anything really) is not permitted here. Thread locked.