The aggravating five foot move.

[Cullain]

The biggest problem i have with this is that the archer has no penalty for not having a melee weapon. If the barbarian fights another melee combatant, it's assumed that the other melee combatant is parrying blows with his weapon. If the barbarian faces an archer, obviously the archer will not be parrying blows with his bow. But the barbarian is as likely to hit the melee combatant as the archer.

Which I see as a problem, but not as a problem with the 5ft step,

Cullain

 

[Xarlen]

Y'know, you Don't need a weapon to not get hit.

Being hit and being missed don't *require* weapons. Look at incorperal beings, and using magical weapons.

If your problem is with having trouble imaging the barbarian Missing the archer, well, the archer would Dodge. Jump back, duck, weave, this way, that.

If you have trouble imagining the barbarian hitting him and not creaming him because he doesn't have a weapon to 'cushion the blow', ergo making all that damage as minor bruises and whatnot, then why can't the archer just dodge, but not all the way successfully? A glancing blow, etc.

 

[Cullain]

If your problem is with having trouble imaging the barbarian Missing the archer, well, the archer would Dodge. Jump back, duck, weave, this way, that.

sorry, i didn't make myself clear. I have no problem imagining that the archer could get out of the way. dodging,ducking, weaving,etc.

i just have a hard time believing that the archer would have the same chance of not getting hit as the guy with the melee weapon, and i just think this should be reflected in the AC of the guy with the melee weapon, the same way a character using a shield gets a boost to his AC, compared to someone not using a shield.

just a minor gripe.

Cullain

 

[Xarlen]

I.. don't see that.

I mean, weapons Don't give bonuses to AC. You can Parry, but... THink of it like a shield. If you attack with a shield, then you don't get the AC bonus of that shield (Unless you have a feat).

By the rules, the only way to do what You're saying is Expertise, where they penalize their to hit, for bonuses to their AC.

And, if it's otherwise hard for you, then give archers Spiked Gauntlets. That way they can also make AoO's.

 

[Negative Zero]

i believe that Cullain knows that weapons don't give bonuses to AC but believes that either they should, or not having one should apply some kind of penalty in melee combat.

~NegZ

 

[Uller]

i believe that Cullain knows that weapons don't give bonuses to AC but believes that either they should, or not having one should apply some kind of penalty in melee combat.

~NegZ

I've always thought that too. I often play "Star Wars" with my 4-year-old son: basically he tries to whack me with his toy lightsaber. I use a lightsaber to block his attacks. Believe me, if I didn't have something to parry with, he could hit me with absolute impunity!

I've never thought of a good house rule for it that wouldn't throw the game out of balance or make it overly complex, though, so I've never bothered(I never introduce a house rule unless I think it is necessary to keep the game fun).

Like Cullain said: It is a "minor" gripe...

 

[Henry]

i just have a hard time believing that the archer would have the same chance of not getting hit as the guy with the melee weapon, and i just think this should be reflected in the AC of the guy with the melee weapon, the same way a character using a shield gets a boost to his AC, compared to someone not using a shield.

Only one problem with this - most swords are not designed to be parrying weapons. Any parrying they do is incidental, and parrying in some cases will mean damage to or the destruction of your weapon. A fighter who parries a greatsword with a shortsword will have a damaged shortsword (albeit a few extra seconds of life as well).

I understand your point completely, cinematically speaking, but I can't agree with it. To me, adding a rule for it would add more trouble than fun.

 

[Duncan Haldane]

I've always thought that too. I often play "Star Wars" with my 4-year-old son: basically he tries to whack me with his toy lightsaber. I use a lightsaber to block his attacks. Believe me, if I didn't have something to parry with, he could hit me with absolute impunity!

I've never thought of a good house rule for it that wouldn't throw the game out of balance or make it overly complex, though, so I've never bothered(I never introduce a house rule unless I think it is necessary to keep the game fun).

Like Cullain said: It is a "minor" gripe...

Well, first of all, not all melee weapons are fencing weapons. A saber is, and a lightsaber is named after a saber for a reason.

I can't imagine someone swinging a battleaxe around parrying a saber. Sure, I can see an axe blocking a couple of blows, but not nearly as many as one could with another fencing weapon.

For me the Expertise feat shows a good way to demonstrate parrying. Unfortunately it is rarely used. Most people work with the "the best defense is attack" philosophy, and want to swing as hard as they can. Instead it would be nice to see more combats where the melee characters size each other up for a few rounds, putting as much into defense as possible.

This rarely works in multi-player games though, as there are too many actions which can interrupt the melee.

But basically I think the rules do handle it, just that players rarely use them.

I can think of one encounter involving lycanthropes where only one person could get past the DR. The others went on the defensive, trying to distract the were-creature while not getting hit themselves. IIRC there was also some manuevering to get the right weapon to the strongest hand-to-hand figher. But this was in a game which involved some very good tactical players, so I didn't expect anything less.

Duncan

 

[Uller]

Well, first of all, not all melee weapons are fencing weapons. A saber is, and a lightsaber is named after a saber for a reason.

I can't imagine someone swinging a battleaxe around parrying a saber. Sure, I can see an axe blocking a couple of blows, but not nearly as many as one could with another fencing weapon.

All the more reason that've never worries about it. Some weapons provide a certain AC bonus against some other types of weapons. Others may provide a penalty...etc, etc....I'm not all that interested in realism in a game. So just having the weapon not count for most defense is fine by me.

Most people work with the "the best defense is attack" philosophy, and want to swing as hard as they can. Instead it would be nice to see more combats where the melee characters size each other up for a few rounds, putting as much into defense as possible.

True. Especially since in real life, combat often doesn't make it past the "sizing up" phase(or even get as far as the hand-to-hand phase at all). Most of the time, one combatant(or group of combatants) will realize they are outmatched and flee or find another way. But what would be the fun in that?

 

[Negative Zero]

Well, first of all, not all melee weapons are fencing weapons. A saber is, and a lightsaber is named after a saber for a reason.

i don't mean to change the focus of htis discussion or anything but, i always thought it was called a lightsaber coz it sounded cool. looks to me that it's used more like a long or broadsword than a sabre. but then again, i don't know all that much about weapons anyway.

~NegZ